Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis?


Anytime the goyim are talking among themselves, grave danger is afoot. We must know every word that every one of them is saying, and everything that every one of them is doing, without restriction or limit.

* Cass Sunstein —- a Jewish-American who held a senior regulatory position in the Obama administration, who has advocated coercive measures against and “cognitive infiltration” of “conspiracy theories,” and who is the husband of prominent US diplomat Samantha Powers – has made a similar argument.

In an article entitled “Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis?,” he argues that civil society organizations such as “sports clubs, religious groups and parent-teacher associations” allowed Nazi and antisemitic ideology to quickly spread throughout Germany without attracting official scrutiny.

Sunstein goes on to warn that these activities and “dense social networks also increase people’s vulnerability to extremism. A great deal of work suggests that terrorism itself can arise not because people are isolated, poor or badly educated, but because they are part of tightly knit networks in which hateful ideas travel quickly.” Because any social network or civil society organization is a potential source of “extremism,” or “terrorism,” all such groups are potentially suspect.

Purportedly “liberal” publications such as Slate soon began touting this argument.

It is only a matter of time until the American ruling class begins to argue that any insufficiently-diverse gathering of three or more Whites (or White males) needs an official “minder” to prevent “hate” and “non-inclusion.”

Cass Sunstein wrote in 2013:

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Germany had an exceptionally vibrant civil society that included clubs involved in hiking, animal breeding, shooting, gymnastics, bowling, firefighting and singing. The authors’ principal finding is that in cities with dense networks of clubs and associations, Germans were far more likely to join the Nazi Party. In their words, “a dense fabric of civic associations went hand-in-hand with a more rapid rise of Nazi party membership.”

It could be suggested that some independent factor, such as socioeconomic status or religion, accounts both for associational activity and for willingness to join the Nazi Party. But that suggestion is inconsistent with the evidence. Even if we control for these and other variables, a dense network of civic associations is correlated with significantly higher rates of entry into the Nazi Party.

This finding undermines the view, held by some, that the Nazi Party succeeded by appealing to people who were socially isolated and that Hitler was able to draw support largely from the lonely and the rootless.

But the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Nazism spread in part as a result of face-to-face interactions by people who were in frequent contact with one another.

Consider the chilling remarks of a Nazi Party member who recalled his growing acquaintance “with a colleague of my own age with whom I had frequent conversations. He was a calm, quiet person whom I esteemed very highly. When I found out that he was one of the local leaders of the National Socialist party, my opinion of it as a group of criminals changed completely.”

Comments posted on Bloomberg:

* Sooo you are scared that men will become tribal again? Does this threaten your little utopian plans?

* Cass forgot the most evil, the most pervasive, voluntary associations around: the nuclear family, the extended family and the tribe. Operating in secret, meeting and sharing in secret, even eating in secret, they pass on the most pernicious beliefs imaginable. The tribe keeps all others out during their special rituals and celebrations in which they pass on their pernicious extremist beliefs. Until we can ban meetings of the tribe and the family, democracy will never be safe.

* Somehow, Cass Sunstein overlooked a current example: Israel, with its Jews-only, illegal settlements in the occupied territories, ethnically cleanses the indigenous Palestinian people as well as fails to allow them their legal right of return.

* The looney left never fails to surprise. Apparently there are some Tim McVeighs prowling around the “liberal” ranks.

This writer is simply insane. Why Bloomberg would be a mouthpiece for this idiocy is beyond me.

* So is this a not so subtle recommendation for the government to monitor and control private meetings……is that it? This on the heels of the article discussing the fact that the Whitehouse is now forming groups within the government to “Nudge” people into making the “right” decisions! You know, so they can help the people achieve their goals…….Their goals? What???!! Good God! The forces of darkness really are at the doorstep.

* Sunstein, dershowitz et all will not be satisfied until there are no more caucasians in europe and america. destroy the family, promote open borders and 3d world immigration, instigate racial hatred, etc etc. makes me wanna puke.

* Yes, when people belong to healthy recreational, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual associations, they are more likely to create health political associations, such as the magnificent NSDAP.

* Why didn’t Sunstein title the article “Could GLAAD and Breed Nazis?” Sunstein is a leftist bottom feeder who continually tries to smear ordinary Americans with his vile innuendos.The irony is that his politics, his propaganda, and his policy of demonizing anyone who disagrees with him are almost identical to the Nazis’.

* “Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis?”


But but we know that control freaks like Sunstein with their Harvard pedigrees closely hew to the NAZI paradigm of rule by an elite clique of self proclaimed experts.

Don’t we Cass?

Sunstein breaks a record(or at least ties one) by falsely associating normal people who believe in the direct opposite of total government as NAZI’s in an a vile Orwelliian inversion of language and thus confirming Godwin’s law from the get go.

Sunstein is dangerously dishonest in his arguments and depends on the historical illiteracy of his audience to pass this drivel off as enlightened reasoning.

* Has Cass ever gone bowling?
My brother is an avid bowler. His bowling league included teams composed of gay men and lesbians, handicapped individuals, and most of the teams were multi-racial. Perhaps if Cass mingled with regular people more frequently and less with his self-selected, elitist types, he might find that he’s the one who’s got the Nazi tendencies, rather than the other way around.

* Any movement that becomes viable does so because there is widespread discontent. Social activities only serve to connect those who are discontent. To suggest social activities bring about extreme movements is absurd. We are heading in that direction now because our government has created a climate of distrust and fear.

* I guess the lesson to be learned, then, is that when disadvantaged populations start to accumulate social capital, it’s best to destroy that capital, lest it threaten the interests of the entrenched elite, of which Professor Sunstein is a part.

* Scumbag-Jew-Sunstein KNOWS what has been done to Americans and BY WHOM.
Thats why he is so paranoid.
He has good reason to be.

Look at what he is describing – basically, people interacting and talking with each other led to an awakening as to where the problem comes from – to him thats a problem.
To ANYONE else, it is a solution.
Sunstein is a vampire who fears the light of day.
again, with good reason.

google daat emet gentiles halacha
israeli site showing just a taste of what they teach about you

google netanyahu america is a thing that can be moved
google walt & mearsheimer

google joel stein hollywood cmon
google times israel jews media control
it will be the very first results listed, mainstream, from jews.
Here is the last bit of the Joel Stein article;”But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”

* WE WANT OUR NATIONS BACK AND WE WILL HAVE THEM NO MATTER HOW MANY JEWS OR OTHER INVADERS MUST DIE! (because we know you usurpers will never leave peacefully)

* Perhaps the lesson is that social capital is neither good nor bad, but that the goodness or badness depends on how that capital is invested. After all, no one ever accused organized crime of having bad business sense.

* Well, bowling is about throwing a ball down a lane to violently knock down a set of completely innocent pins who have done nothing to offend the bowler. The more pins one knocks down, the higher the score and the more acclaim a person receives.

I could see how bowling alleys could be a good recruiting ground for a violent ideology — especially with the early 1930’s collapse of the German economy during the Depression.

* The economist Hayek noted National Socialism (Nazism) appeared to attract people with social (networking) agendas. For example: the medical profession in Germany were early and very enthusiastic National Socialists. Probably no society in history was more health conscious than Nazi Germany. They had ubiquitous anti-smoking campaigns, were very conscious of health risks (asbestos e.g.) in the workplace. Sports clubs and University clubs were very pro Nazi. In fact Lillian Hellman, when she visited Germany in 1928 was impressed by the community consciousness of German pro-Nazi students until she realized they were Jew-haters too. That opened her eyes.

In any case National Socialist Germany was not a society that promoted American style “turn a buck-me first” individualism. In fact Hayek noted that Hitler’s system could not be understood by the Brits or Americans (and he was alarmed by that) unless it was grasped that Nazism was a collectivist “genuine socialism.” It did attract whole networks of people.

I think people such as Sunstein mean well. However, the problem with all socialism (depending on the degree to which it is implemented in society) is that it will to some degree or other cripple individual liberty. People such as Hayek (or Milton Friedman for that matter) believed that society does have common good issues (health, education, caring for the poor, unemployment protections etc.) but advised that some form of vouchers replace any state machinery (bureaucracies) because the bureaucracies will eventually bring tyranny lite or 100 proof tyranny via “state mandates.” (If I remember correctly Milton Friedman wanted Welfare replaced by a negative income tax-some form of direct payment that eliminated (as much as possible) any welfare bureaucracy.)

As for National Socialism, Hayek was very alarmed at the myth that was taking root in Britain and the USA in the 30s that National Socialism (Nazism) was a kind of Free Market Capitalism on steroids. He said to understand National Socialism a person had to see clearly that it is a “genuine socialism” (a kind of socialism for “Aryans only” )and that for that reason Nazism was an enemy to the Free market, free trade, individual liberty-things Brits and Americans take as G-d given Rights.

Slate: “We need also consider the type of social capital our society is creating and how it’s being deployed. Germany’s social capital might have been mobilized to improve the world; Hitler instead exploited it to his own insidious ends. It is also crucial to think about whether, in Putnam’s words, social capital will serve as a “bridge” to bring those with disparate beliefs together—think of the Democrat and Republican who meet in the comfortable environment of a PTA meeting—or whether it will serve to “bond” its participants, by strengthening existing ties, encouraging those with similar beliefs to grow closer still.”



Posted in America, Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis?

Hineni: Here I am for immigration reform

It’s important to know who’s destroying our country.

By Abby Levine in 2013:

When I was 21, I was an undergraduate at Yale University, living a typical college life. When my grandfather Irving was 21, he left his Lithuanian home to come to a new country where he didn’t know the language or the culture, and had only one brother to help him. I often wonder what that experience must have been like for him. How much faith and hope he must have had in the United States of America.

For my grandfather, and for so many others like him, his risk was rewarded. He became a successful small businessman in Detroit and built a life for himself, his wife and three children. It’s because of him that I believe we should fix our broken immigration system and create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million. I have directly benefited from American immigration laws, and I don’t believe we should shut the door behind us for those coming afterwards.

Inspired by the Jewish history of immigration, the Jewish Social Justice Roundtable produced an online video, Hineni: Here I Am. The Roundtable, a network of Jewish organizations working to elevate social justice to the center of Jewish life, featured a speech to the Union for Reform Judaism in this video. In this speech, President Obama holds up a mirror to the Jewish community, praising us for our leadership in making America a more just society:

“Here, Jews finally found a place where no matter who you were or where you came from, you could make it if you tried. Your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, they remember what it was like to be a stranger. And as a result, treated strangers with compassion.”

As the video went viral, its images and words stirred emotions of tens of thousands of viewers. As one person wrote: “This speech gave me chills.” And another: “I got all vaklempted (sorry about the spelling).”

The American Jewish community, united in its support of comprehensive immigration reform, is answering the Hineni call. Some 1,300 rabbis signed a letter to Congress, saying: “We write during this High Holy Day season as Jewish clergy of all streams to add our voices to the call for the swift passage of comprehensive immigration reform.” Jewish leaders from San Francisco to Memphis to South Florida and everywhere in between, are talking to their senators and representatives about immigrant rights.

This Saturday, during a national day of action for immigration reform, hundreds of Jews will participate in events nationwide, including in synagogues. To those who are taking action on immigration reform, thank you.

To those who haven’t yet, join us! The next few months represent a precious and unique opportunity to make our immigration laws more fair and compassionate. Go to, watch the video and share it with your networks. As one person wrote: “All I can say about this is “Wow!” Drink it in, folks! It is inspiring. It is challenging. It calls to respond.”

Abby Levine is the director of the Jewish Social Justice Roundtable. She will be honored, along with her parents and sisters, with an Abraham Joshua Heschel award by Jews United for Justice on Oct. 27.



Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Hineni: Here I am for immigration reform

Does Ndamukong Suh hate White people?

From 2013:

Ndamukong Suh fined $100K by NFL for illegal block, 09/11/13

All of Suh’s five fines have been for attacks on White players!

Vikings Center John Sullivan – illegal hit to the knees.
Packers Guard Evan Dietrich-Smith – multiple head stomps.
Texans QP Matt Schaub – kick to the groin.
Bengals QB Andy Dalton – unnecessary roughness.
Browns QB Jale Delhomme – unnecessary roughness.



Posted in Blacks, Football | Comments Off on Does Ndamukong Suh hate White people?

Dallas Cowboys Receiver Dez Bryant

Every time I look, Dez Bryant is showing himself to be a bad teammate and a general risk to society.

Today Skip Bayless tweets: “Again so disappointed in Dez, jawing with Norman when might have hustled back and saved a touchdown. I thought he’d become a team leader.”

Ten days ago, on the last play of the game against Tampa Bay, Dez didn’t make a play on a catchable ball in the end zone that would have won the game for his team. Instead he broke off his route to begin arguing with the referees, an argument he didn’t win.

In last year’s division playoff game against Green Bay, Dez dropped the key fourth down pass that cost the Cowboys the game.

He seems to have an IQ a tad above retarded (70).

From Wikipedia:

Bryant had a troubled upbringing, born to a 15-year-old mother who was arrested for dealing crack cocaine when he was age eight. He went on to live in eight different homes while at Lufkin High School.[35] Bryant has two sons, Zayne, seven, and Dez, Jr., four.[36]

Bryant was sued in March 2011 for $861,350 for legal fees and the cost of jewelry, which he acquired on credit while a student athlete. The case was settled before court proceedings for between $400,000 and $500,000.[37][38]

On July 16, 2012, Bryant was arrested on a class A misdemeanor domestic violence charge for allegedly striking his biological mother, Angela Bryant.[35][39] In March 2013, Bryant spoke at an event for Dallas Men Against Abuse.[40] At the event, he stated, “I’m done with domestic abuse.”



Posted in Blacks, Dallas | Comments Off on Dallas Cowboys Receiver Dez Bryant

Jews & The NSA

Ricky Vaughn tweets: “The NSA is a crucial chokepoint. Do the jews control it yet?”

Mothman responds: “Control it? They conceived and built it. An Israeli company designed, built and installed all the communications software and hardware for Langley, Pentagon, etc.”

James Bamford writes April 4, 2012 for

Shady Companies With Ties to Israel Wiretap the U.S. for the NSA

At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are powered by software and hardware from Narus, now owned by Boeing, a discovery made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004. Narus did not return a call seeking comment.

What is especially troubling is that both companies have had extensive ties to Israel, as well as links to that country’s intelligence service, a country with a long and aggressive history of spying on the U.S.

In fact, according to Binney, the advanced analytical and data mining software the NSA had developed for both its worldwide and international eavesdropping operations was secretly passed to Israel by a mid-level employee, apparently with close connections to the country. The employee, a technical director in the Operations Directorate, “who was a very strong supporter of Israel,” said Binney, “gave, unbeknownst to us, he gave the software that we had, doing these fast rates, to the Israelis.”

Because of his position, it was something Binney should have been alerted to, but wasn’t.

“In addition to being the technical director,” he said, “I was the chair of the TAP, it’s the Technical Advisory Panel, the foreign relations council. We’re supposed to know what all these foreign countries, technically what they’re doing…. They didn’t do this that way, it was under the table.” After discovering the secret transfer of the technology, Binney argued that the agency simply pass it to them officially, and in that way get something in return, such as access to communications terminals. “So we gave it to them for switches,” he said. “For access.”

But Binney now suspects that Israeli intelligence in turn passed the technology on to Israeli companies who operate in countries around the world, including the U.S. In return, the companies could act as extensions of Israeli intelligence and pass critical military, economic and diplomatic information back to them. “And then five years later, four or five years later, you see a Narus device,” he said. “I think there’s a connection there, we don’t know for sure.”

Narus was formed in Israel in November 1997 by six Israelis with much of its money coming from Walden Israel, an Israeli venture capital company. Its founder and former chairman, Ori Cohen, once told Israel’s Fortune Magazine that his partners have done technology work for Israeli intelligence. And among the five founders was Stanislav Khirman, a husky, bearded Russian who had previously worked for Elta Systems, Inc. A division of Israel Aerospace Industries, Ltd., Elta specializes in developing advanced eavesdropping systems for Israeli defense and intelligence organizations. At Narus, Khirman became the chief technology officer.

A few years ago, Narus boasted that it is “known for its ability to capture and collect data from the largest networks around the world.” The company says its equipment is capable of “providing unparalleled monitoring and intercept capabilities to service providers and government organizations around the world” and that “Anything that comes through [an Internet protocol network], we can record. We can reconstruct all of their e-mails, along with attachments, see what Web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their [Voice over Internet Protocol] calls.”

Like Narus, Verint was founded by in Israel by Israelis, including Jacob “Kobi” Alexander, a former Israeli intelligence officer. Some 800 employees work for Verint, including 350 who are based in Israel, primarily working in research and development and operations, according to the Jerusalem Post. Among its products is STAR-GATE, which according to the company’s sales literature, lets “service providers … access communications on virtually any type of network, retain communication data for as long as required, and query and deliver content and data …” and was “[d]esigned to manage vast numbers of targets, concurrent sessions, call data records, and communications.”

In a rare and candid admission to Forbes, Retired Brig. Gen. Hanan Gefen, a former commander of the highly secret Unit 8200, Israel’s NSA, noted his former organization’s influence on Comverse, which owns Verint, as well as other Israeli companies that dominate the U.S. eavesdropping and surveillance market. “Take NICE, Comverse and Check Point for example, three of the largest high-tech companies, which were all directly influenced by 8200 technology,” said Gefen. “Check Point was founded by Unit alumni. Comverse’s main product, the Logger, is based on the Unit’s technology.”

According to a former chief of Unit 8200, both the veterans of the group and much of the high-tech intelligence equipment they developed are now employed in high-tech firms around the world. “Cautious estimates indicate that in the past few years,” he told a reporter for the Israeli newspaper Ha’artez in 2000, “Unit 8200 veterans have set up some 30 to 40 high-tech companies, including 5 to 10 that were floated on Wall Street.” Referred to only as “Brigadier General B,” he added, “This correlation between serving in the intelligence Unit 8200 and starting successful high-tech companies is not coincidental: Many of the technologies in use around the world and developed in Israel were originally military technologies and were developed and improved by Unit veterans.”

Equally troubling is the issue of corruption. Kobi Alexander, the founder and former chairman of Verint, is now a fugitive, wanted by the FBI on nearly three dozen charges of fraud, theft, lying, bribery, money laundering and other crimes. And two of his top associates at Comverse, Chief Financial Officer David Kreinberg and former General Counsel William F. Sorin, were also indicted in the scheme and later pleaded guilty, with both serving time in prison and paying millions of dollars in fines and penalties.

When asked about these contractors, the NSA declined to “verify the allegations made.”

But the NSA did “eagerly offer” that it “ensures deliberate and appropriate measures are taken to thoroughly investigate and resolve any legitimate complaints or allegations of misconduct or illegal activity” and “takes seriously its obligation to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and comply with the U.S. laws and regulations that govern our activities.”

The NSA also added that “we are proud of the work we do to protect the nation, and allegations implying that there is inappropriate monitoring of American communications are a disservice to the American public and to the NSA civilian and military personnel who are dedicated to serving their country.”

However, that statement elides the voluminous reporting by the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wired on the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program. Also not reflected is that in the only anti-warrantless wiretapping lawsuit to survive the government’s use of the “state secrets” privilege to throw them out, a federal judge ruled that two American lawyers had been spied on illegally by the government and were entitled to compensation.

According to Wikipedia:

Jacob “Kobi” Alexander (born May 4, 1952) is an Israeli-American businessman. He is the founder and the former CEO of New York-based Comverse Technology. In 2006, he was charged with multiple counts of fraud and related offenses pertaining to irregularities in trading of Comverse stock; he subsequently fled to Namibia, a nation which has no extradition treaty with the US.

Alexander founded Comverse Technology (NASDAQ: CMVT) in 1982 and built it up from a 3-person Israeli startup to employing over 5,000, becoming the leading provider of software and systems for telecommunication companies worldwide…

Comverse Technology, Inc., which owns 100% of Comverse, also owns majority equity in several other companies, including Verint and Ulticom.

From The Electronic Intifada, Nov. 2, 2008:

After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States government launched a massive program to spy on millions of its own citizens. Through the top secret National Security Agency (NSA), it has pursued “access to billions of private hard-line, cell, and wireless telephone conversations; text, e-mail and instant Internet messages; Web-page histories, faxes, and computer hard drives.” In his new book, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America author James Bamford casts light on this effort, including a detailed account of how spying on American citizens has been outsourced to several companies closely linked to Israel’s intelligence services.

It is well-known that the two largest American telecom companies AT&T and Verizon collaborated with the US government to allow illegal eavesdropping on their customers. The known uses to which information obtained this way has been put include building the government’s massive secret “watch lists,” and “no-fly lists” and even, Bamford suggests, to deny Small Business Administration loans to citizens or reject their children’s applications to military colleges.

What is less well-known is that AT&T and Verizon handed “the bugging of their entire networks — carrying billions of American communications every day” to two companies founded in Israel. Verint and Narus, as they are called, are “superintrusive — conducting mass surveillance on both international and domestic communications 24/7,” and sifting traffic at “key Internet gateways” around the US.

Virtually all US voice and data communications and much from the rest of the world can be remotely accessed by these companies in Israel, which Bamford describes as “the eavesdropping capital of the world.” Although there is no way to prove cooperation, Bamford writes that “the greatest potential beneficiaries of this marriage between the Israeli eavesdroppers and America’s increasingly centralized telecom grid are Israel’s intelligence agencies.”

Israel’s spy agencies have long had a revolving-door relationship with Verint and Narus and other Israeli military-security firms. The relationship is particularly close between the firms and Israel’s own version of the NSA, called “Unit 8200.” After the 11 September attacks, Israeli companies seeking a share of massively expanded US intelligence budgets formed similarly incestuous relationships with some in the American intelligence establishment: Ken Minihan, a former director of the NSA, served on Verint’s “security committee” and the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) official responsible for liaison with the telecom industry became head of the Verint unit that sold eavesdropping equipment to the FBI and NSA.

Bamford writes that “concern over the cozy relationship between the [FBI] and Verint greatly increased following disclosure of the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping operations. At the same time that the tappers and the agents have grown uncomfortably close, the previous checks and balances, such as the need for a FISA warrant, have been eliminated.”

FISA — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 — required the government to seek court warrants for wiretaps where at least one target was in the US. In 2005, it was revealed that the Bush administration had been flagrantly violating this law. Last July, Congress passed a bill legalizing this activity and giving retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that had assisted.

Although there has never been any congressional oversight of the Israeli intelligence-linked firms operating in the heart of the US security establishment, American lawmakers and officials are not always so relaxed when it comes to foreign intrusion in the “national security” sphere. In early 2006, there was a national uproar when Dubai Ports World, a global company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), attempted to buy the business that manages six major American seaports.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers united against the Bush administration’s approval of the sale, claiming it would harm national security. Senator Barack Obama echoed many in both parties when he said at the time, “Over four years after the worst terrorist attack in our history, not only are we failing to inspect 95 percent of the cargo that arrives at US ports, but now we’re allowing our port security to be outsourced to foreign governments.”

A New York Times editorial justified such alarmism on grounds that “money to finance the 9/11 attacks flowed through” the UAE, although there was never an allegation that the country’s government or Dubai Ports World were involved in that. The newspaper also cited claims that “Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist, sent equipment to Libya and Iran through Dubai,” even though it also acknowledged that “port managers have little if anything to do with inspecting cargo or checking manifests” (“Reaping What You Sow,” Editorial, 24 February 2006).

Unlike the UAE, however, Israel has a well-established record of compromising American national security. The most notorious case was that of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. Although the full details of his crimes are still secret, he is thought to have passed critical information about US intelligence-gathering methods to Israel, which then traded those secrets to US adversaries. In 2005, Larry Franklin, a Defense Department analyst, pleaded guilty to spying for Israel. Most recently, Ben-Ami Kadish, a retired US army engineer, was indicted in April for allegedly passing classified documents about US nuclear weapons to Israel from 1979 to 1985. Two former officials of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, are still awaiting trial on charges that they passed classified information between Franklin and the Israeli government.

Nor have particular Israeli firms established a record of trustworthiness that would justify such complacency. Jacob “Kobi” Alexander, the former Israeli intelligence officer who founded Verint, fled the US to Israel in 2006 just before he and other top executives of a subsidiary were indicted for fraud that allegedly cost US taxpayers and company shareholders $138 million. Alexander eventually adopted a fake identity and hid in the southern African country of Namibia where he is now fighting extradition. In only once case did US officials block an Israeli high-tech firm from taking over an American company for security concerns.

Israeli companies do not assist the US only to spy on its own citizens, of course. Another Israeli firm, Natural Speech Communication (NSC), among whose directors is former Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit, makes software that the US uses to electronically analyze and key-word search recorded conversations in “Levantine Arabic,” the dialects “spoken by Israeli Arabs, Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians.” Mexico and Australia are among other countries known to use Israeli technologies and firms to eavesdrop on their citizens.

Not surprisingly, some of Bamford’s claims have been criticized by pro-Israel activists for lacking evidence. Writing about a subject shrouded in secrecy is inherently difficult. But even what is solidly known ought to make Americans demand that Israeli intelligence activities (not less than their own government’s) be sharply curtailed. In his 2001 book Body of Secrets, Bamford contended that Israel’s attack on the US Navy signals ship USS Liberty during the June 1967 war was deliberately intended to prevent the Americans from learning about Israeli massacres of Egyptian prisoners of war. Thirty-four sailors were killed in the attack on the ship off the Sinai coast. Despite decades of demands by USS Liberty survivors, the US has never reopened the investigation.

From The Intercept, Nov. 20, 2014:


U.S. and Israeli companies have been selling surveillance systems to Central Asian countries with records of political repression and human rights abuse, according to a new report by Privacy International. The U.K.-based watchdog charges that the American firms Verint and Netronome enable surveillance in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Verint’s Israeli arm provides those countries with monitoring centers “capable of mass interception of telephone, mobile, and IP networks,” the report says, as does the Israeli company NICE systems. Verint also enlisted California-based Netronome to give Uzbek agents the ability to intercept encrypted communications, Privacy International says, though it’s not clear whether the program was carried out successfully.

The report provides a broad picture of surveillance in a region that is marked by repression. Kazakhstan has been condemned for laws restricting free speech and assembly, flawed trials, and torture. As for Uzbekistan, Human Rights Watch bluntly characterizes the country’s human rights record as “atrocious.” Privacy International includes testimony from lawyers, journalists, and bloggers in Uzbekistan who had transcripts of private Skype calls used against them in trial, or had interactions with intelligence officers that made it clear the authorities had access to their private communications.

Privacy International relies on contract documents and confidential sources to finger the companies involved. Verint’s website claims that its monitoring centers are used in 75 countries (journalist James Bamford has reported that Verint tapped lines at Verizon for the NSA.) In a written statement, Netronome said it had “no information” on the Privacy International report, but that the company complies with the laws in the countries in which it operates and that “Netronome does not condone any violation of human rights or personal privacy.” Verint did not respond to a request for comment. NICE told the Washington Post that it would not “comment on its relationships with actual or possible customers.” Privacy International also singled out the German firm Trovicor for dealings with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and noted that Russian companies likely also have a foothold in the region.

As The Intercept has reported, the sophistication of computer-monitoring software has increased just as its cost has decreased; commercial products made by companies like Hacking Team or FinFisher give smaller and mid-size police and intelligence services spying capabilities they would likely never develop themselves. There is evidence that Hacking Team is used in Uzbekistan, and FinFisher in Turkmenistan. Privacy International says that documents it reviewed show Trovicor marketing FinFisher products in Tajikistan.

Despite the spread of these products, there are only limited proscriptions on their sale, multiplying the threats faced by journalists, activists, and opposition political figures around the world.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2013:

From The Guardian:

NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans’ data with Israel
• Secret deal places no legal limits on use of data by Israelis
• Only official US government communications protected
• Agency insists it complies with rules governing privacy

One of the smart things Glenn Greenwald did in managing the drip-drip-drip of Edward Snowden revelations was to push revelations about Israel way back in his queue. I pointed out 3 months ago that reporters like Carl Cameron and James Bamford had long ago revealed some of how Israel spies on Americans, but that’s not what Americans, especially the American press, are interested in hearing. For example, Cameron’s multipart 2001 series on Israeli spying on Americans was deleted from Fox’s website almost immediately. 

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Now, Steve, don’t be a conspiracy theorist. What possible bad thing could come of giving a foreign country complete access to every American’s personal communications, including whom they talk with and when and what they say? What possible downside could there be to this?

* Isn’t the subtext Syria? The Israel lobby is pushing for war with Syria. Now they have to do damage control about Israeli spying, thus complicating their lobbying for war.

* So, someone somewhere authorized it. Which is a basically a treason. Will there be investigation with names named and someone going to prison? Rhetorical question, of course.

* Anytime the goyim are talking among themselves, grave danger is afoot. We must know every word that every one of them is saying, and everything that every one of them is doing, without restriction or limit.

* Cass Sunstein —- a Jewish-American who held a senior regulatory position in the Obama administration, who has advocated coercive measures against and “cognitive infiltration” of “conspiracy theories,” and who is the husband of prominent US diplomat Samantha Powers – has made a similar argument.

In an article entitled “Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis?,” he argues that civil society organizations such as “sports clubs, religious groups and parent-teacher associations” allowed Nazi and antisemitic ideology to quickly spread throughout Germany without attracting official scrutiny.

Sunstein goes on to warn that these activities and “dense social networks also increase people’s vulnerability to extremism. A great deal of work suggests that terrorism itself can arise not because people are isolated, poor or badly educated, but because they are part of tightly knit networks in which hateful ideas travel quickly.” Because any social network or civil society organization is a potential source of “extremism,” or “terrorism,” all such groups are potentially suspect.

Purportedly “liberal” publications such as Slate soon began touting this argument.

It is only a matter of time until the American ruling class begins to argue that any insufficiently-diverse gathering of three or more Whites (or White males) needs an official “minder” to prevent “hate” and “non-inclusion.”

* I went to Bloomberg to read the Sunstein article, and I noticed the authors of the other Bloomberg stories being flogged there: Matloff, Kopel, Abramowitz, Levine, Pesek, and Weil. Even the only one listed that could be construed as goyim, Megan McArdle, is married to a guy named Suderman!

* Weeks ago I reminded colleagues that the NSA has long evaded domestic spying restrictions by simply trading intercepts and analyses with foreign spy agencies, allowing politicians on both sides to deny spying on their citizens. They just don’t explain that they’ve outsourced such work.

* 1/ Greenwald (and Steve?) is showing his age.

People who have had their entire lives recorded, literally from birth, are not going to react much to ‘news’ that, well, they’re being spied on.

You’ll notice the lack of big demos against NSA spying since the initial non-revelations came out.

2/ So let’s say the Mossad knows all about Steve Sailer. Can Steve Sailer point to a single way this has affected his life?

* Steve, asking the wrong question. WHY Israel not the other four five eyes?

Aka Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK?

Answer: this is aimed at Arabic speaking jihadis inside the US, a way to spy but not spy on jihadi threats internally with a legal cut out. US lacks enough Arabic speakers of loyalty which Israel has.

Probably similar deal with India re Pakistanis here and Turkey re Iranians.

Typical modern world pc garbage. Outsource spying to third countries bc third worlders a massive threat.

* The Jerusalem Post ran an article worrying that the NSA’s spying on American citizens at the direction and for the benefit of Israel endangers the privacy rights of American Jews living in Israel. The author goes on to predict that the privacy rights of Jewish-Americans living in Israel will be scrupulously protected during surveillance operations that pass other Americans’ data to Israel. Jewish-Americans living abroad, in other words, will not be monitored and have their information shared to the same extent as that of goyim-Americans living abroad. The idea that the goyim might not want their personal lives perused by Israelis never seems to occur to the author.

* “US sees Israel, tight Mideast ally, as spy threat

“Such meddling underscores what is widely known but rarely discussed outside intelligence circles: Despite inarguable ties between the U.S. and its closest ally in the Middle East and despite statements from U.S. politicians trumpeting the friendship, U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be, at times, a frustrating ally and a genuine counterintelligence threat.

In addition to what the former U.S. officials described as intrusions in homes in the past decade, Israel has been implicated in U.S. criminal espionage cases and disciplinary proceedings against CIA officers and blamed in the presumed death of an important spy in Syria for the CIA during the administration of President George W. Bush.

The CIA considers Israel its No. 1 counterintelligence threat in the agency’s Near East Division, the group that oversees spying across the Middle East, according to current and former officials. Counterintelligence is the art of protecting national secrets from spies. This means the CIA believes that U.S. national secrets are safer from other Middle Eastern governments than from Israel.”

* “America’s national interests suffered grievous damage when Snowdon gave the Russians these secrets.”

No, it is in the “national interest”, i.e. the interest of actual US citizens living in America, to NOT be spied upon by their own government. What the government and its various organs means by the term “national interest” is “in the interest of a permanent hostile elite”. Snowden did me a great service.

* Leaked documents show the existence of a program of handing over massive amounts of information from spying on our own citizens to a foreign intelligence service, alongside a set of promises we asked them to make about only use it in ways we approve of. It may be that you could find some child of eight years old somewhere who would believe that a foreign intelligence service would keep such promises, but you’d want to look for a really sheltered eight year old child.

This is a demonstration of a broad pattern, in which sigint agencies in particular and folks at the top of governments in general conspire with one another against the interests and well-being of the people they allegedly work for. If we reward this by continuing to support politicians too cowardly or beholden to the spies to push back on it, we will get more of it.

* EU countries regularly share data regarding their own citizens, who are members of Islamic radical organizations, with the US. So what? Is anyone here surprised or offended by that? The CIA kidnapped an Italian off the streets of Italy – do you not think the Italian secret services gave us any information about this “Italian”? The Brits regularly give us information about “British” citizens who are prone to set off bombs in our aircraft. Are you really shocked the British would give us information about their “citizens”? I am sure we do the same with Israel. And I am glad of it. Do you think a nation of 7 million is really interested in anything but the Arabs or muslims or that they would even have the power to process any other information? They are interested in Islamic terrorists who may be “American” citizens and I have no doubt we share this information — as it is shared with us. GOOD! The left wing Greenwald is an idiot.

Steve Sailer wrote in 2013:

Edward Snowden’s leaks about the spying capabilities of the US government and Silicon Valley have ignited speculation about what the emerging “surveillance society” portends. Still, we’ve long endured many varieties of spying and tracking, and some lessons can be learned from the past.

The news last week that the US government had collected Verizon’s “metadata” on who had called whom when and from where was widely seen as a stunning revelation. Timothy B. Lee of the Washington Post warned:

For example, having the calling records of every member of Congress would likely reveal which members kept mistresses, which could be used to blackmail members of Congress into supporting a future president’s agenda. Calling records could also provide valuable political intelligence, such as how frequently members of Congress were talking to various interest groups.

Likewise, Jane Mayer reported for The New Yorker:

…in the world of business, a pattern of phone calls from key executives can reveal impending corporate takeovers.

And yet informed observers have assumed for most of this century that American telephone metadata may well already be available to a foreign military-intelligence complex via hypothesized “backdoors” coded into complex commercial software.

In December 2001, Fox News’ chief political correspondent Carl Cameron delivered a four-part series on Israel’s surveillance of American targets. For unexplained reasons, Fox disappeared Cameron’s series down the memory hole later that month, although copies of the episodes survive on the Internet.

“It apparently hasn’t hurt Israel that so many Washington and Wall Street insiders assume that Israel knows their secrets.”

Cameron drew attention to Israel’s strategic initiative to dominate communications software. For example, Amdocs is “the market leader in Telecommunication Billing Services.” This firm is publicly traded and registered in the tax haven of Guernsey.

It sounds dull, yet the CEO from 2002 to 2010 was Dov Baharav. In 2011, Israel’s formidable defense minister Ehud Barak appointed Baharav the new chairman of Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd., the government-owned arsenal that builds fighter jets. In other words, the boring-sounding billing guy may be connected.

Cameron reported for Fox back in 2001:

Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.…But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the super secret National Security Agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what’s called a Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmentalized Information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands – in Israel, in particular. Investigators don’t believe calls are being listened to, but the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself.

Cameron assured viewers:

US intelligence does not believe the Israeli government is involved in a misuse of information, and Amdocs insists that its data is secure.

But that was false for American tech companies. Why should we assume that Israeli-run firms would be less cooperative with their own nation’s intelligence community? Indeed, Israel’s booming high-tech sector appears to be intimately related to its spy works, just as Silicon Valley emerged out of America’s Cold War efforts.

In 2012, James Bamford reported in Wired:

According to a former Verizon employee briefed on the program, Verint, owned by Comverse Technology, taps the communication lines at Verizon, which I first reported in my book The Shadow Factory in 2008.…At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are powered by software and hardware from Narus, now owned by Boeing, a discovery made by A&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004.

What is especially troubling is that both companies have had extensive ties to Israel, as well as links to that country’s intelligence service, a country with a long and aggressive history of spying on the U.S.

Forbes reported in 2007 that many Israeli high-tech firms are founded by alumni of Unit 8200:

Unit 8200 is the technology intel unit of the Israeli Defense Forces’ Intelligence Corps. And one thing about it is clear to all—Israel’s high-tech world is “flooded” with Unit alumni, as entrepreneurs and company founders or junior and senior executives.

American whistle-blower William Binney, who resigned from the National Security Administration to protest its Orwellian trajectory, told Bamford:

In fact, according to Binney, the advanced analytical and data mining software the NSA had developed for both its worldwide and international eavesdropping operations was secretly passed to Israel by a mid-level employee, apparently with close connections to the country….

But what goes around comes around:

But Binney now suspects that Israeli intelligence in turn passed the technology on to Israeli companies who operate in countries around the world, including the U.S. In return, the companies could act as extensions of Israeli intelligence and pass critical military, economic and diplomatic information back to them.

What could you do if you knew who was calling whom?

The Efficient-Market Hypothesis taught at every MBA program says that you can’t beat the market consistently without trading on inside information, which is illegal. Economic theory thus implies that Wall Street should have become a low-margin commodity business, much like being a wheat farmer in South Dakota. A glance at the Forbes 400, though, suggests this hasn’t quite happened yet.



Posted in America, Israel, Terror | Comments Off on Jews & The NSA

The Foundations of Culture in Australia: An Essay Towards National Self-Respect (1936)

By P.R. Stephensen:

Australia is a unique country. All countries are unique, but this one is particularly so. Visitors, such as D. H. Lawrence, have discerned a spiritual quality of ancient loveliness in our land itself. The flora and fauna are primitive, and for the most part harmless to man, but to the visitor there is another element, of terror, in the Spirit of the Place. The blossoming of the waratah, the song of the lyrebird, typify the spirit of primitive loveliness in our continent; but the wail of the dingo, the gauntness of our tall trees by silent moonlight, can provide a shiver of terror to a newcomer. Against a background of strangeness, of strange beasts and birds and plants, in a human emptiness of three million square miles, our six million white people, of immigrant stock, mainly from Europe, are becoming acclimatised in this environment new to them but geologically so old that Time seems to have stood still here for a million years.

A new nation, a new human type, is being formed in Australia.

For the first hundred and fifty years of colonising, the immigrants have merely raped the land, or “settled” it, as we say, with unconscious irony in our choice of a word to describe the process of destroying its primitiveness. Now there are cities, half the people live in cities, huddled there, it may be, for mutual protection against the loneliness of the bush. Ships come and go, from Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. Ideas and people also come and go—we Australians ourselves come and go. All is in flux, a nation is being formed. Can it be a cultured nation?

Australia, throughout its brief whiteman’s history, has been primarily a colony of Britain, as Britain was once a colony of Rome, a place to be exploited commercially. For a hundred and fifty years all our vast production of gold, most of our wheat, wool, meat, and butter, have been sent “home” to Britain. In trade exchange we have received manufactured goods, and many loans. Britain, it may be, has had the best of the deal financially. We have sent our troops, too, to fight in British wars. We accept British exploitation of Australia as a natural fact, and scarcely protest. The price has been worth it, for has not Britain sent us, as makeweight and compensation for economic exploitation, the great heritage of her laws, her customs, her language and literature and philosophy, her culture?

Culture in Australia, if it ever develops indigenously, begins not from the Aborigines, who have been suppressed and exterminated, but from British culture, brought hither by Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotsmen throughout the Nineteenth Century. In a new and quite different environment from that of those damp British Islands we are here developing the culture which evolved there. We spring fully armed from the head of Jove, or fully cultured from the head of John Bull. Australian culture begins with a general background of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Herrick, Byron, Charles Dickens; and more specifically with a background of Samuel Smiles, Mr. Gladstone, and Queen Victoria. We inherit all that Britain has inherited, and from that point we go on—to what?

As the culture of every nation is an intellectual and emotional expression of the genius loci, our Australian culture will diverge from the purely local colour of the British Islands to the precise extent that our environment differs from that of Britain. A hemisphere separates us from “home”—we are Antipodeans; a gumtree is not a branch of an oak; our Australian culture will evolve distinctively.

§ 2 We are not Americans

There is a parallel, but not a close similarity, between Australia and America. In both countries a continental wilderness, sparsely populated with Aborigines, has been subdued and colonised, within recent historical times, by invaders from overseas. Here the parallel ends. Both countries have been “pioneered,” but Australia is quite dissimilar from America in social and historical construction. Australia has no large minorities—of Negroes, Jews, Italians, mixed Europeans—no historical Spanish, French, or Puritan influences: all mighty facts in America. We are in extraction solidly and stolidly pure British of the nineteenth century, homogeneously British, ninety per cent British. The ten per cent minority comprises Germans and Danes, who become assimilated immediately, with a sprinkling of Latins and “sundries,” who become assimilated in one generation. The only big minority is our twenty-five per cent Irish, who (whether they admit it or not) come from one of the two major British Islands.

We have none of America’s historical background of Elizabethan piracy and buccaneering, Spanish conquistadores, black slavery, French revolutionary ferment and Rights of Man philosophy; no Pilgrim Fathers or Mormon sects or Civil War traditions of “liberty” and emancipation—no “history” of the obvious or picturesque kind. America, the great melting pot, is often as incomprehensible to us as it is to any other homogeneous people observing it from afar. It is nonsense to say that Australia is becoming “Americanised,” as despondent English people often do say, observing our departures from the parent type. Australia is merely becoming Australianised.

Our background, such as it is, is operating upon us subtly to produce a new variety of the human species.

§ 3 Race and Place

What is a national culture? Is it not the expression, in thought-form or art-form, of the spirit of a Race and of a Place? The Ancient Greeks were few in number, not more all told than the number of people who nowadays live in North Sydney, but the Greeks evolved, from their environment and historical background, a culture which has remained for 2,000 years after they themselves became subjugated and dispersed. The political, economic, and social forms of a nation are temporary forms, expressions of the Zeitgeist, which changes with every decade, with every vagary of invention, epidemics, wars, migrations. Each decade of history is “modern” to itself, and every modernism passes with the inexorable march of time. Nothing is permanent in a nation except its culture—its ideas of permanence, which are expressed in art, literature, religion, philosophy; ideas which transcend modernism and ephemerality, ideas which survive political, social, and economic changes.

Race and Place are the two permanent elements in a culture, and Place, I think, is even more important than Race in giving that culture its direction. When Races migrate, taking their culture with them, to a new Place, the culture becomes modified. It is the spirit of a Place which ultimately gives any human culture its distinctiveness.

Consider the differences between Indian Art, Chinese Art, Persian Art, Egyptian Art, Dutch Art, Easter Island Art—expressions of places rather than of epochs. The main art tendency remained in each Place while peoples and epochs changed.

Consider, too, how literature expresses the spirit of Place and Race, and forms the concept of a nation. A simple example is the poetry of Robert Burns, which created Scotland or was created by Scotland—which? For present purposes it is enough to establish that the poetry of Burns is linked with the idea of Scotland. When Scotsmen emigrate to another Place, they take with them the Scots Place-poetry of Robert Burns. Literature, even more than graphic art, is profoundly national. As an idea, what would England be without the poetic concept recorded by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Herrick, Dickens, and all the English writers from Beowulf to Rudyard Kipling? England lives as an idea, not mainly through the activities of her merchants and moneylenders and politicians and soldiers, though these also have played their part, but through the writings of her poets and men of letters!

So France, the idea of France, lives in Montaigne, Rabelais, Racine, Voltaire, Rousseau, Victor Hugo, Balzac, de Maupassant, and Baudelaire; and Germany lives in Goethe, Heine, Kant, Hegel and Richard Wagner; Russia lives in Dostoievsky, Tolstoi, Chekhov, Maxim Gorki, et al., Scandinavia in Ibsen, Knut Hamsun . . . need I continue the examples? I do not wish to flog the obvious fact that a nation, or the idea of a nation, is inseparable from its literature. A nation, in fact, without a literature, is incomplete. Australia without a literature remains a colony, no nation.

A deeper question arises, perplexities confront me, when I attempt the next step in this logic. If art and literature are nationally created, and linked to a vicinity or a Place of Origin, can there be such a thing as universal art or universal literature?

The question is answered by making a distinction between Creation and Appreciation. Art and literature are at first nationally created, but become internationally appreciated. Culture spreads from nation to nation. Each nation contributes ideas to the culture of every other nation. Shakespeare, Balzac, and Dostoievsky each began to do their work as national writers, but now in appreciation they are universal, and belong to all nations.

Throughout all human history, cultures have developed in vicinities because there was not much communication between the isolated parts of the world. Since the invention of printing and the development of transport and means of communication, national cultures are overlapping, influencing one another, local distinctiveness is disappearing. The whole world is becoming one cultural unit, and tends to become one international economic unit. In the twentieth century nationalism is receding, the world is becoming one Place. What then becomes of any theory of nationalism in culture?

I hold to the thesis that cultures are created locally, and that every contribution to world culture (even in a future world-political-and-economic unit) must be distinct with the colour of its place of origin.

Ideas, like men and women, are formed locally, no matter how much they may travel. There is a universal concept of humanity and world culture, but it does not destroy individuality, either of persons or places or nations. Soviet Russia, urged by dreams of world-unification, has energetically encouraged and even revived the various nationalities and languages of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. Why? Because the Soviet philosophers realise that the very idea of internationalism implies many separate nationalities—combined for economic and political purposes into economic and political unity, but remaining distinct in local customs, and cultures.

Thus, no matter how transport and communications may improve, local cultures must always remain. Art and literature will continue to be created locally, or nationally, even in the internationalised world. The charm of writing is to write of what one knows; the charm of reading is to read of what one does not know. For this reason cultures must remain local in creation and universal in appreciation.



Posted in Australia, Nationalism | Comments Off on The Foundations of Culture in Australia: An Essay Towards National Self-Respect (1936)

The Australia First Manifesto (1941)

Australia had a White Australia policy until 1972. At that time, about 98% of the country was white.

The following platform, with some modification, would be compatible with all forms of nationalism, including Jewish nationalism.

The more I study different forms of nationalism, the more I see that they have in common.

By P.R. Stephenson:

POPULATION: Point 14, “for higher birth-rate; against immigration,” implies a complete reorientation of existing Australian public opinion on the population-problem. Confronted with a steep decline in the birth-rate, presaging a fall in the population, most Australians look to immigration from abroad to make up the deficiency. This attitude of mind evades the real issue, i.e., that conditions which do not attract babies will not attract immigrants. In fact, “babies are the best immigrants”; and there are already enough women of child-bearing age in Australia to enable the continent to be populated to its optimum with Australian-born citizens. If Australian women, however, refuse to bear sufficient children to maintain and increase the population, the community will inevitably decline. It is mere “wishful thinking” to expect further large-scale immigration to Australia from the British Isles, where the decline of the birth-rate has gone even further than in Australia. Future immigration from European Continental countries is hypothetical, except in the case of alien Jews, who would form segregated alien racial minorities within Australia, contrary to the National policy of homogeneity. The biological problem, of maintaining and increasing Australia’s population from at-present-existing resources, is the biggest problem confronting Australian statesmanship. Unless all national energies are concentrated urgently on the solution of this problem, the Australian community, as at present constituted, is threatened with extinction, within a measurable period of time.

WHITE AUSTRALIA: Point 15, “for White Australia; against heterogeneity,” affirms the established Australian biological aim of creating in Australia a permanent home for persons of European racial derivation, avoiding problems of racial minorities, discrimination, and miscegenation. This principle of racial homogeneity could be maintained only by a constant increase of “white” population up to the optimum necessary for defence. Australia was the first country in the world to make racial homogeneity a basic socio-political principle; but such a policy cannot be maintained if the fecundity of the “white” population within Australia is allowed to diminish.

ARYAN AUSTRALIA: Point 16, “for Aryanism; against Semitism,” is an attempt to make even more precise the principle of racial homogeneity implied in the “White Australia” doctrine; for, although Semitic writers have endeavoured to demonstrate that there is no such thing as an Aryan Race, such writers make no attempt to prove the non-existence of a distinct Semitic race. The term “Aryan” is here used, as it has been used by scientific and historical writers for more than seventy years, to describe those inhabitants of present-day Europe whose ancestors migrated, in the dawn of history, from India, Persia, and the Caucasus regions westwards into the European regions, where they settled, became acclimatised, and established European civilisation and the present-day European nations, derived from a common racial stock, and possessing racial characteristics which in fact are different from the racial characteristics of the Semitic, Negro, Mongol and other races of mankind. The effect of the “White Australia” policy has been to establish a population here which is approximately 98 percent Aryan. Any large-scale immigration of non-absorbable Semitic or other non-Aryan elements here now would inevitably create biological disease and disorder in the Aryan Australian community. This problem may become very urgent as a sequel to the present war in Europe, from which there may be a Semitic “exodus” towards Australia as a “Promised Land.”

…MONARCHISM: Point 18, “for monarchism; against republicanism,” affirms the existing principle of government in Australia, where all processes of law are conducted in the name of an hereditary Crowned Monarch, as superior to the republican principle of electing the Head of the State by popular suffrage…

NATIONAL UNITY: Point 26, “for national unity; against sectional disunity,” expresses the idea of the Body Politic, Corporative State, or Social Organism: a political idea as old as humanity: a biological fact as old as organic life. It was not until the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 that the idea of community Oneness was replaced in practice by “democratic” sectionalism and the surface-claim of “equality,” enunciated particularly as a doctrine by J.-J. Rousseau. As this egalitarian political idea came to the fore about the same time as power-industrialism, it has been credited with most of the benefits conferred upon mankind by power-industry: a complete non-sequitur. In fact, “democratic” egalitarian sectionalism has permitted and encouraged the abuses of the power-industrial economic system, by giving scope to “financial” manipulation of political parties in equipoise. By such manipulation, “financial” interests have found it easy to gain control of communities which are weakened and disunited under the political system of “democratic” sectionalism. In Australia, government by Parliamentary Democracy, so-called, has disunited the community and has made it vulnerable to manipulation by minority financial interests mainly domiciled overseas. The remedy now is to establish the Australian Nation as an Organic Unity, or Corporative Community, or Body Politic, or Social Organism, autonomous in its own nutritional area, and functioning as an integrated Whole. This does not imply de-differentiation of classes on “communistic” lines, but it implies the ending of political sectionalism, and the subordination of sectional influences to the dominant interest of the community, integrated as a Whole. National Unity, thus conceived, certainly means much more than a parliamentary Cabinet-coalition of sectional parties for temporary expediency. It implies the dissolution of all existing sectional political parties, their eradication root and branch, and the creation of a new political structure to represent true National Unity and Australian Community Oneness: and if this reconstruction is not politically practicable, then the sectionalised Australian community will inevitably disintegrate and decline, and perish.

MUTUALITY: Point 27, “for mutuality; against individualism,” indicates the political principle that individuals are combined in a community for mutual benefit; consequently, any individual who wars against the community, by endeavouring to benefit himself at the expense of the community, or without giving commensurate service to the community for the benefits he receives from it, must expect to be restrained, or even punished by the community for his anti-social conduct: in extreme cases, extermination of such anti-social individuals is the only remedy…

FREE SPEECH: Point 32, “for legitimate speech; against free speech,” rebuts the false claim, so frequently made, that, under the present political dispensation, individuals have a statutory right to speak, or to write, in public whatever they please. The laws against libel, sedition, indecency, and blasphemy, even in normal times of peace, restrict “free” speech in fact; while in war time there are many additional restrictions in the interests of National Security. This is as it should be; and the facts sufficiently rebut the false claims of those who perversely maintain that Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are integral aspects of our current political system. In practice, “Free Speech” and “Freedom of the Press” are cant terms to describe the opportunities of sectional propaganda possessed by plutocrats and bureaucrats who control wireless broadcasting stations and newspapers. There is an obligation upon the Government to control and regulate such sectional propaganda whenever it operates in a manner detrimental to national interest.

JOURNALISM: Point 33, “for responsible journalism; against Freedom of the Press,” draws attention to the contemporary degeneration of the newspaper profession into an instrument of humbugging, rather than an instrument of enlightening, the public. Excessive advertising stimulates luxury-purchasing which the community cannot afford; and the press also encourages the addiction of the public to cinema-dope, spectator-sport, and superstitions such as “astrology.” In these and other directions, the newspapers, pandering to the weaknesses of the community, are nullifying the effects of the public education system, corroding taste, degrading national culture, caricaturing politics, diminishing the community’s dignity, fostering sensationalism and wishful thinking, and, in general, accelerating the community’s decline. Press-control thus becomes an essential pre-requisite of National Resurgence. Under the New Order in Australia, journalists will be compelled to act with a sense of public responsibility, instead of evading and degrading that responsibility, as almost all of them do at present: and this reform will once again make journalism an honoured profession, instead of being, as it is at present, a dirty and dishonourable trade…

WOMEN: Point 35, “for women in the home; against women in industry,” has annoyed masculinistic women who call themselves feministic; but the fact remains that the “emancipation” of women from domestic duties to commercial wage-earning careers has resulted in a decline of the birthrate, and consequently in a decline of the respect in which women were formerly held. Moreover, women in industry have accepted wages far below customary or statutory male wages, and thereby have provided a type of “coolie” labour, contributing to unemployment among males. A Nation cannot prosper or increase unless its women bear, on an average, three children each; and, although women can do “men’s work” in some industrial occupations, men cannot do women’s work of bearing children. The division of labour, as between the sexes, is biologically prescribed; and the attempt to ignore physiological differentiation of the sexes, for the sake of a socio-political theory of “equality,” is just another example in the modern world of Rousseauistic egalitarian unrealism.

BABIES: Point 36, “for babies; against birth restriction,” is an appeal to Australian women to make themselves happy, whenever practicable, by fulfilling the function for which they are biologically specialised. “Economic” arguments against child-bearing are an expression of National Defeatism, the sacrificing of the Nation’s Future for an empty pursuit of present-day comfort or pleasure: a refusal of individuals to hand on the gift of life which they themselves received at birth. Vanity in the Australian female, weakness in the Australian male, a lack of confidence by both in Australia’s future, have resulted in a fall in the birth-rate, presaging population-decline, and ultimately National Suicide, the end of the Australian Experiment: unless a change of mental attitude towards this vital biological problem occurs…

DISCIPLINE: Point 38, “for discipline; against casualness,” debunks the bad Australian tradition that casualness is an Australian virtue. It is in fact the worst Australian trait: a slackness of mind and manners tending to peonage, and characteristic of a people who live by borrowing in preference to work. The slackening of military training, during the Decadent Decades, 1919-39, contributed to community indiscipline and slackness: but the casualness goes deeper; it is a phenomenon of Colonial Torpor: the lack-lustreness of a people who do not control their own destiny, and are devoid of ambition. Military rule, the imposition of authority “from above,” may yet, under harsh necessity, prove the only practicable method of eliminating Australian slackness and casualness of mind and manners.

* LOYALTY: Point 39, “for loyalty; against subversiveness,” counteracts the propaganda of those decadent elements within the community which seek to undermine the community’s life while enjoying the advantages conferred by community-organisation. These are the sneaking disloyalists, the white-ants, working in the dark, boring from within, believing themselves “clever” when they can use a respectable mask for a disreputable purpose. They are rats, who lurk in holes, scurry out a little in the dark, gnawing the national fabric. Among them, disloyalty and falseface are instinctive: they lack honour, and do not understand it. The relative decline of religious belief in part explains the growth of disloyalty in the community: secular education has failed to inculcate a rationalised Code of Civil Behaviour in lieu of the traditional theological codes. Only the deliberate inculcation of National Patriotism could create a public sentiment which would make disloyalty seem despicable; but scarcely anyone in Australia is really loyal to Australia. The habit of putting self or section before the community’s welfare is the origin of all other disloyalties.



Posted in Australia, Censorship, Nationalism | Comments Off on The Australia First Manifesto (1941)

Mohammed Ali On Immigration Policy

Mohammed Ali: “If 10,000 rattlesnakes were coming down that aisle now, and I had a door I could shut, and in that 10,000, 1,000 meant right, they didn’t want to bite me, I knew they were good, should I let those 10,000 come down hoping that the 1,000 get together and form a shield? Or should I just close the door and stay safe?”

Muhammad Ali On Racism In America.

Muhammad Ali Never held his tongue when it came to racism. The people's Champ

Posted by Reggie Hood on Thursday, November 5, 2015



Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on Mohammed Ali On Immigration Policy

P.R. Stephensen’s ‘Reasoned Case Against Semitism’

As a Jewish nationalist, I have an inherent sympathy for all nationalisms. It would be wrong to want something for my people that I would not simultaneously wish for all people. At the same time, I recognize that Gentile nationalisms are usually bad for Jews.

If Jews have a strong sense of their group interest while they live in an individualist Gentile country, Jews are going to have a big advantage in the struggle for scarce resources.

White Protestant countries have been the most hospitable places for Jews because Protestantism (particularly white Protestantism) is individualistic. It’s all about individual salvation and the individual’s relationship with God. Jews are more collective (Jewish prayers are all in the plural, we pray for the well-being of our people) and so they can out-compete individualist strategies for power.

As a product of white Australia with sturdy Anglo-Saxon genes who nonetheless converted to Orthodox Judaism in California, I find myself fascinated by P.R. Stephensen’s following essay from 1940.

To the extent that Australia and other countries restricted during immigration during the 1930s, that many more Jews would die in the Holocaust.

So do his arguments have any merit? Do white interests contradict Jewish interests? Do Australian interests contradict Jewish interests?

There’s nothing here about Jews being inherently bad or inferior. It’s just a fair dinkum laying out of inherent group conflicts between Jews and Gentiles.

I’m struck by the fair-minded tone of Stephensen’s arguments. They can hardly be called irrational or bigoted. They seem commonsensical. They don’t read like the product of unhinged hatred. That’s what makes them so uncomfortable for me. I don’t have any good argument against them.

P.R. Stephensen wrote:

It is often arbitrarily assumed, by persons who are themselves irrationally prejudiced in favor of Semitism, that Antisemitism is based on irrational prejudices. Probably very few political students appreciate the fact that Politics is an art rather than a science, and that prejudice enters into political judgments, just as it enters into aesthetic judgments. When I say that I like Gruner’s paintings, and that I do not like Epstein’s sculptures, I give verbal expression to value-judgments which cannot be proved wrong, by any process of logic. Such value-judgments are peculiar to individuals, and their validity is conditioned by that fact. If your opinions differ from mine, we may avoid further disputation by seeking solace in ancient saws, such as quot homines, tot sententiae, or even de gustibus non disputandum—thereby proving incidentally that the matter of prejudice-judgments has been reflected upon by human beings prior to our present epoch.

When Politics is regarded as an art rather than as a science, its value-judgments also become recognized as prejudices, rather than as irrefutable axioms bearing “objective” validity. The greatest confusion in the modern world has arisen from the attempts of Hegel, Karl Marx, and their successors to rationalize human history too rigidly in terms of an abstraction named “Man,” without making sufficient allowances for the undescribable factor which differentiates man from man, and men from men. This is the factor which emerges suddenly—and, to the Marxians, disconcertingly—as it did in Italy, for example, with Mussolini’s counter to the Communist émeute. Similarly, in Germany, the emergence of consciously-stated “blood and race” doctrines, among Gentiles, was something quite unprovided-for in the Marxian schematic. These modern instances should suffice to warn those who would approach Politics as an abstract science of idealization that there is, in human behavior, an unpredictable factor—of instinct, emotion, or prejudice—which is likely to operate, in times of crisis, in disregard of the hypothesizing usual in academic text-books. Any one in Australia to-day who, being a student of politics, refuses to take cognizance of the fact that there is a rising feeling of Antisemitism, of comparatively recent origin and growth, in our community, is overlooking one of the signs of that “unknown factor x” which so often brings academically-reasoned politics to futility. It is not a question whether Antisemitism should, or should not, exist. The fact is that it does exist; and it exists, precisely, as a prejudice, or a set of prejudices, against Jews. In approaching the subject, we must bear in mind that prejudices—even when recognized as such, are irrational, and therefore irrefutable. The value-judgment, “I like Jews,” is merely antithetic to its opposite value-judgment, “I don’t like Jews”; and disputation almost necessarily ends on “an agreement to differ”—or, in extreme cases, in an appeal ad baculam, the age-old recourse of irreconcilables. The middle way of thought, “I don’t like Jews, but I tolerate them,” is a hazy compromise which, though common enough among non-Jews, merely shirks the issue, or leaves it in abeyance.

It is not my intention here to malign Jews, and still less to appeal for their “persecution.” My concern is solely to exhibit the phenomenon of Antisemitism, considering this as a socio-political tendency which actually exists in many countries, including Australia. I seek not to justify it, so much as to explain it; and the most I shall claim for it is that it has a conditional validity, considered as a form of political activity. Semitism and Antisemitism, as counteracting forces within the body politic, are like toxin and antitoxin: their presence is abnormal, and indicates a pathological condition. To put this in another way, the twin topics of Semitism and Antisemitism are political aberrations: they cannot be made to conform to the ordinary rules of political discourse. Essentially, Jews are a minority, self-differentiated as such, a Race Apart not only from the rest of mankind, speaking generally, but also from any particular community in the midst of which they may reside. This fact makes the usual postulates of political discussion—namely, universal humanitarianism, or, alternately, the welfare of a National Unit, considered as a Whole—inapplicable to the Jewish Question. It is absurd for Jews to preach (as many of them do) that men are all of one Kind, while this preachment is belied by the fact that the Jews themselves, by their own Choice, remain a different Kind from all other kinds of men. Similarly it would be absurd for Jews to preach the welfare and advancement of any one nation as a paramount political consideration, while holding themselves racially apart from the majority in that nation. It can never be true that “all men are brothers,” either within one nation or in the world at large, while Jews continue to practice an extreme form of biological differentiation through rigid selective breeding.

Jews cannot “have it both ways.” They cannot expect to be listened-to with respect when they preach to Gentiles the Universal Oneness of Mankind, while at the same time they, as Jews, remain a Race Apart. It is when this discrepancy between their words and their actions is recognized, that Jews become disliked by non-Jews. Nobody likes to be humbugged, either by financial confidence-tricks, or by metaphysical and political verbal play. In brief, if Jews are going to persist in keeping themselves racially apart from the rest of mankind or from a particular nation, then they should also keep themselves politically apart. The Antisemite brings this point of view to the fore. He starts from the same premise as the Jews themselves—namely that the Jews, by their deliberate practice of Racialism, are differentiated from non-Jews. But, as soon as this differentiation is accepted as an unalterable fact, and is brought to the full consciousness of non-Jews, a prejudice is created against Jews, in the minds of non-Jews, which makes a further dispassionate or detached discussion of the entire topic virtually impossible. The implication of the Jewish practice of Racialism is unmistakably Themselves First—Themselves versus the Rest. Once understood, that constitutes a challenge to the Rest of Us which cannot conscientiously be disregarded.

The discussion, then, comes down to prejudice versus prejudice, the result of a clash of interests which cannot be resolved by any form of words. Carried further, this means propaganda versus propaganda—a process termed, by both sides, “enlightenment.” The most honest thing to do is to avow the prejudice, and stand on it. As a non-Jew, I avow that my prejudices are non-Jewish; and this means that, in any conflict of interests between Jews, on the one hand, and non-Jews on the other, my instincts place me naturally in the non-Jewish camp. When I see an organized minority of Jews, actuated by their self-interest, engaging in operations for their own sectional self-aggrandizement as against the interests of the community-as-a-whole or of the non-Jewish majority in it, then, as a non-Jew, I claim the same right to organize non-Jews as the Jews have claimed and obtained to organize themselves. The political validity of Antisemitism is thus on a plane no higher, or no lower, than that of Antisemitism; for, if there were no Semitism, there would be no need of Antisemitism to counteract it. While organized Semitism operates as a political activity in Australia, there can surely be no logical objection, among “Liberal” political thinkers, to the existence of the counteracting, or counter-balancing, activity of Antisemitism—provided always that the antidote is merely of sufficient strength to neutralize the irritant, and does not in itself become toxic.

In other words, Antisemitism claims validity as a measure of defense, among non-Jews, against a Jewish aggression. To examine the matter concretely: it is estimated that there are 35,000 Jews at most in Australia, comprising approximately one-half of one percent of the community. Normally, it could not seriously be suggested that one-half of one percent of a population could menace the remaining 99½ percent; but present-day circumstances are peculiar. Hitler’s boast that “if the Jews succeed in creating a European War against Germany, then the sequel will be the removal of the Jewish Race from Europe” contains at least an implied threat to Australians that some of the Jews removed from Europe will be sent, or will come, here, if Hitler’s prognostication proves correct. Moreover, they would be welcomed here, if we are to judge by resolutions passed at meetings of influential public bodies, including Churches and Labor Organizations, and by continuous propaganda in the press, reminding us of our falling birthrate, our vast open spaces, and the necessity for the immigration of cultured Jews—who, we are told, would make excellent farm-laborers. The exodus from Europe, towards Australia as a promised land, has indeed already commenced, and shows no sign of diminishing. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the percentage of Jews in the Australian community will very soon be considerably increased. Even so, they would not be likely to swamp us by weight of numbers—but the problem they present is not solely statistical and quantitative. The Jews themselves have a legend of David and Goliath which illustrates the fact that the small may bring down the great by using suitable weapons. The overwhelming preponderance of non-Jews, as compared with Jews, in Australia, as everywhere else, is an indication of the fact that the Jewish Question, or Jewish Problem, as it is called, is not one of numbers, but of something else. Why is there a Jewish Problem? For whom is it a Problem—Jews or Gentiles? Are Jews a Problem to themselves, or only to non-Jews?

To state it succinctly: Antisemitism arises in any community when the influence of the Jewish minority becomes so grossly disproportionate to the percentage of Jews in that community as to give rise to an anomaly. Being an organized minority, the Jews in all countries exercise an influence disproportionate to their numbers, as compared with the (in some vital respects) unorganized majority of non-Jews. It is a commonplace of political experience that a minority which knows what it wants, and can organize to get it, has an immense advantage over a purposeless, lulled, or apathetic mob. This is the technique, thoroughly learned by experience, which has enabled the Jewish Race to maintain itself, and to flourish, as an alien minority in the midst and at the expense of many non-Jewish communities, in many lands, for many centuries. Like Gypsies and other nomadic peoples, they have acquired an instinct as a minority which guarantees their survival and prosperity wherever they go, among settled peoples. Incidentally, the Jewish minority technique has undoubtedly supplied the inspiration and the model for Communist Party organization, in all countries, including Russia and Australia. We are all familiar with Communist “cells,” in Trade Unions, in political and cultural associations, and even in religious organizations, who get grandiose “Resolutions” passed in support of this or that strategy of Communism for the time being, while the inert majority of the membership concerned have only the haziest idea of what these “Resolutions” mean. That is by the way, but it is a parallel to the technique of the Jews, who, in every community where they are established, wield an influence disproportionate to their numbers, precisely because they know how to act as a cohesive minority. The trouble comes for them, as, analogously, for the Communists, when the inert majority, whose name has been taken in vain, suddenly “wakes up” to what has been going on, and finds itself committed, by minority maneuver, to doing something which it never wanted to do, and never had any intention of doing. Then comes the shock for the minority manuverers, and things cease going accordingly to the text-book plan! It is only while the influence of the Jews in any community remains relatively unobtrusive that the non-Jews tend to ignore it, or tolerate it—and consequently the phenomenon of Antisemitism does not acutely arise; but when the Jews (obtaining usually also the aid of “philanthropic” or sentimental Gentiles) raise the Jewish Question in an acute or exaggerated or disproportionate way, then Antisemitism automatically arises, to redress the balance, and restore the right proportion.

In Australia, prior to, say, 1937, there was very little Antisemitism, for the sufficient reason that there was very little Semitism propagated or practiced here. The Jewish community, small in numbers, had been rooted in Australia for more than a hundred years, under conditions of complete toleration. That community, seemingly law-abiding, and, in its way, industrious, did not unduly assert itself, and so was quite “taken for granted.” In the pre-War years, however—say, from 1933 to 1939—as the resentment of Jews throughout the world against Hitler’s attitude towards their co-racialists in Germany came to a climax, Australia, like other non-German countries, was flooded with Prosemitic propaganda, amounting in essence to a loud appeal for help, couched in urgent and dramatic terms—with exaggerated vilification of Hitler and equally-exaggerated eulogy of Jewry. A propaganda of this character necessarily became tendentious. The issue in Germany was between Germans and Jews—not between Vice and Virtue, as the propagandists had a tendency absurdly to present it. Nor was the Jewish Question the most urgent in European politics. That position was occupied by the German Question, an infinitely more important one. Yet, so dramatic was the Prosemitic propaganda, and so exaggerated was its emphasis, that many Australians did not realize until after the War actually started that Britain had to fight Germany for a British reason, rather than for a “Czechoslovak,” or Polish, or Jewish reason. The zealotic Prosemitic propaganda, which deluged Australia from 1933 to 1939, came not only from Central Europe, but also from the United States of America. Its impact upon Australia raised the Jewish Question here quite gratuitously, and as a thoroughly false issue, confusing the minds of Australians not only as to the real issues of European politics, but also as to the real issues in Australian politics.

There could be no serious suggestion that Australia is in any way responsible for the age-old Sorrows of Israel, as recrudescent in the modern epoch. Let the blame rest where it belongs! Those who say now that the emergence of Antisemitism in Australia raises a false issue should have raised their voices in the first place against the protracted propaganda of Prosemitism during the past six years, for it was at least equally a false issue, and dangerously so. It tended to place the inevitable armed conflict between Britain and Germany, for the mastery of Europe, on a thoroughly false and unrealistic ideological basis: and that false approach was damaging, in the ultimate, to Britain’s cause, and to Britain’s efficiency. There can be no real enthusiasm, among Britons, for a Jewish cause, or for any other cause alien to British self-interest. The entire propaganda-approach to the war was too much in Jewish, and not sufficiently in British, hands. To present the War as one of ideological “isms,” including altruism, instead of as a vital and direct clash of candidly-avowed national interests, was to put Britons on the wrong track, or at best on a side track. I suggest that Jewish Metaphysics was at the bottom of it. The Jews made their age-old mistake of thinking too abstractly about concrete political affairs. Perhaps they evolved this technique of abstract idealism in the Ghettos of the centuries long gone by, when they were denied an active share in the management of Gentile States. Be that as it may, the entire abstract approach to political problems remains idealistic, or ideologic, and hence unrealistic in the sphere of practical politics.

The too-zealous propagandists of the Jewish Cause, in recent times, and specifically in Australia, will be found in the long run to have done themselves and their Cause no good service by drawing attention to the fact that there is a Jewish Problem; for that Problem is created by the Jews themselves, and there is no solution of it while Jews remain Jews. The arguments in support of Semitism, when candidly presented to non-Jews, must necessarily be unconvincing; for there is no form of words by which a non-Jew could become a Jew. Wise Jews are they who never raise the Jewish Question for disputation—who let it slumber, as it has slumbered in Australia for a century. Foolish Jews, over-eager or over-reaching Jews, are they who raise that Question, naively disregarding the warning of history that by raising it they are provoking the age-old Answer of non-Jewish nations to it, whenever it has been raised too aggressively or obtrusively. That Answer is militant Antisemitism, the only possible answer to Semitism militant.

It comes, then, to this; that the Jewish Question has been raised in Australia, in the first instance, not by Antisemitic agitators, but by over-zealous Prosemitic agitators; and it has been raised, not because of any Australian condition, but because of something which has happened in Europe. The falsity of the issue itself, and the exaggerated manner of its presentation, has caused the propaganda of Prosemitism to be regarded by many Australians as repugnant to common sense; and from this aversion, a tendency to Antisemitism has developed here. The fact that 15,000 or more Jewish “refugees,” from Germany and other European countries, have been admitted in a sudden flood, has given an additional impetus to the sentiment of repugnance aroused by the tendentious propaganda which preceded their arrival. Wherever Jews wander, and for whatever immediate causes, they take not only Semitism, but also Antisemitism with them. This must necessarily be so. As has been said elsewhere, “they chose to be Chosen, and must take the consequences.”

Many “Liberal” thinkers profess to be horrified at the thought of organised Antisemitism, because they profess to believe that this must lead to massacres of Jews, or other ill-treatment of them, as so often previously in human history. What, then! Are we to assume that the Jewish Problem is insoluble in any other way than by force? To claim that a mere discussion of Semitism might lead to pogroms, and therefore to taboo such a discussion, is surely tantamount to an admission that Semitism has a case that is logically weak, when presented for approval to non-Semites. The taboo, to be fully effective, should be applied also to arguments in favor of Semitism. Do “Liberals” also advocate this?

Again, there are many who shrink from discussion of the subject because it has a “religious” flavor. It is objected that Semitism (or, more properly, Judaism, since Arabs and Syrians are also “Semitic”) is not a proselytizing religion; and that therefore there is no need for a counteracting propaganda to it. This is a nice point; but the real opposition to Judaic-Semitism, by the most convinced Antisemites, is not on religious, but on socio-political grounds, and on those grounds only. Admittedly there is a religious obfuscation in the claim, made by Jews themselves, to be the “God-Chosen Race”; but into the validity or otherwise of that claim there is no need for the secular-political thinker to enquire. Beyond noting it as an extraordinary manifestation of Jewish Exclusiveness, as claimed by Jews for themselves, we need not attempt either to refute or endorse it. In the present argument, the entire theological approach is eschewed, and the religious claims of Jewry are considered as of concern only to the Jews themselves. The fact that Jews do not proselytise their religion rules it out as a valid subject of discussion, except among themselves.

From the secular-political point of view of a non-Jew, the Jewish religion appears as the most obvious method by which the Jewish Race has preserved its identity. The synagogue is not only a meeting-place for Jews; it is the focal-point of their Racial preservation. Their marriage-laws, which make it a religious offense for a Jew to marry a non-Jew, have, in practice, preserved the Jewish Race as a distinct Race throughout the centuries; and it is upon this aspect of their organization, considered secularly and socio-politically, that Australian attention will necessarily become focused, as more and more Jewish immigrants enter our territories. While there is a natural reluctance to discuss religion, when religion is solely a matter of individual conscience, it is only fair to point out that no other church in Australia, and possibly in the world, makes Racial origin a condition of membership. Even this would not matter, if it had no socio-political repercussions.

The basic bio-political principle of Australian national organization is enshrined in our Immigration Acts, and made effective by the famous Dictation Test. It is clear that the intention of our Legislative Forefathers was to base Australian life on what may be described as Fused-European Homogeneity. In effect, those laws claimed Australia for the “European” (or “white”) races exclusively—the term “Aryan” not being as frequently used fifty years ago as it is now. Pursuing that basic policy, we have not only excluded—and deported—Asiatics and Kanakas, but we have extended the principle to the indigenous Natives of the country, segregating them in Concentration Camps (otherwise known as “Aboriginal Reserves”) with the effect, if not the avowed intention, of reducing their numbers by gentle extermination. The unmistakable implication of our national policy is that Australia’s future citizens will be bred from a free intermixing of the various imported European strains—avoiding in particular the social problems which would result from Eurasian miscegenation, or alternatively from segregation of alien racial minorities within the general community. Australia was thus the first nation in the modern world to “go nap” on Racialism. Within our definition of the term, we antedated Hitler’s “Racial Theories” by fifty years. When Jews come to Australia, therefore, they should remember that they are coming to a country which has already made up its mind to be a Homogeneity, not a hodge-podge: a country which is acutely race-conscious and intolerant of any tendency to form separate communities within the larger entity.

In Australia, as in all other countries, the segregation which the Jews practice in order to preserve their racial purity from an admixture with non-Jews, is entirely voluntary on their part. For note: if Jews freely intermarried with non-Jews, then the Jewish Race, as such, would cease to exist; and, with its disappearance, the Jewish Problem would disappear. It is solely because the Jews insist on preserving their racial identity—refuse to become absorbed into, or assimilated with, the “Gentiles”—that they are a Problem in every country in which they settle.

Here, then, we are faced with a defiance, by Jews, of the fundamental biological principle of Fused-European Homogeneity which it is the basic aim of Australian national policy to establish and maintain. They claim the right, not only to settle here, but to maintain themselves, in perpetuity, as a self-segregated minority, of different and distinct racial stock from the rest of the Australian community. Their exclusiveness gives them many advantages. Being all of one Tribe (or, in a large sense, of one “family”), they are naturally disposed to help one another, and to further the interests of their own limited community—even at the expense of the general Community, in the midst of which they live, but from which they deliberately hold themselves, in perpetuity, apart. That this self-segregation is advantageous to Jews is obvious from the fact that, by practicing it, their Race has survived—and flourished—for thousands of years, though scattered among many communities and nations larger than their own. Yet their exclusiveness, with all its advantages, also has disadvantages, as is only right and proper, under the inexorable law of compensation.

The answer to Semitism is Antisemitism; and when Jews gain too many advantages for themselves, by their practice of self-segregation, they invariably find (and surely, should expect to find!) that the majority of non-Jews will resent, and eventually will curb, the privileges which the Jews have won for themselves by concerted sectional action. This is what will inevitably occur in Australia, sooner or later, if a large colony of self-segregating Jews is allowed now to establish itself in our community. Our hearts may be temporarily moved with pity for the plight of people who have been forced to flee from parts of Europe in which they had become disliked and unwanted; but there can be no guarantee that they will not become similarly disliked and unwanted here. They know the remedy; it is simple: let them cease to be Jews, intermarry freely with Gentiles, abandon their claim to be “The Chosen Race,” abandon their exclusiveness, mix with the common stock of the community which gives them refuge! If they did that—if they ceased to be Jews—there would be no Jewish Problem.

But they will not do it. They will not become absorbed into the general stream of Australian life. They will follow their instinct, and remain Apart. They insist that we should accept them on their own terms, not on ours. Our principle is homogeneity; theirs is segregation. Between the two points of view a clash is inevitable—if not in this generation, then in the next, or the next after, when our descendants would have no longer a motive of pity for “refugees,” but would be faced with the fait accompli of an Alien Minority established permanently in their midst.

The request for a Ghetto-State, to be created in the barren northwest of Australia, is merely a shelving of the difficulty. It would amount to geographical as well as ethnographical segregation; but it would amount also, in essence, to a request for cession of some part of our territory to another sovereignty—a successful alien invasion, without a war. Alternately, if the proposed Jewish Colony is to be planted under the Australian Constitution, then its implied basis of Racial Segregation and particular privilege is contrary to the fundamentals of Australian bio-political and socio-political organization; and as such, will never be tolerated by Australians.

So the issue will be joined, and no amount of Prosemitic plausibility will conceal the fact that the fundamental antagonism, between Jews and non-Jews, here as everywhere else, is created by Jewish Exclusiveness—the refusal to be absorbed. This goes to the heart of the matter, and, compared with it, all other trends of Antisemitic argument are merely superficial. It is well-known that there are many Jews who are good citizens, honest and cultured, despite the reputation of the generality of their Kind of being financially “tricky,” unscrupulous, and parasitical. That there are intellectual and sensitive Jews is also as well-known as that there are many “Flash Yids” who degrade and debase public culture. No case can be made against Jews generally, except the one I have outlined, namely that their insistence upon Racial self-segregation is anti-social, considered from the point of view of the community-as-a-whole. We cannot concede to them in Australia a right which, if conceded in perpetuity to other types of immigrants, such as Italians, Germans, Danes, Irish, Scots, would lead to the sectionalizing of the community and its disunification.

Permissive heterogeneity in Australia would lead ultimately to the dissolution of the nation. If every other type of immigrant forgoes the sectional advantages of minority segregation (at least, in practice, after a couple of generations of Caledonianism, Hibernianism, Mafia, and the like), then there can be no valid reason why the Jews should not do the same—and, if they are not prepared to do so, they should not be allowed to land.

While the Jews deliberately, and in perpetuity, set themselves apart from the rest of the citizens in the nation, they cannot expect ever to be cordially welcomed here. Let them take their stand on Racial Purity, and exult in it! But, “they cannot have it both ways.” Life is not like that. The resentment against them may be passive, or merely smoldering, for long periods while the Jews themselves are relatively quiescent; but, when they erupt in an active propaganda of Semitism, as they have done in Australia during the past six years, and when their numbers are suddenly increased by a wave of unassimilable immigration, then they themselves must know that the slumbering spirit of Antisemitism will arise: and they must know that there is only one remedy for it.

That remedy is that the Jewish Race should abolish itself, by becoming absorbed in the common stream of mankind. If this is impracticable—as must seem likely after 5,000 years of their aloofness—then we others, who are so strictly excluded from the Jewish community, have at least a reciprocal right to exclude them from ours.



Posted in Anti-Semitism, Australia, Nationalism | Comments Off on P.R. Stephensen’s ‘Reasoned Case Against Semitism’

Ben Elton urges Australia to dump the monarchy and appoint an Aboriginal head of state

Can you imagine my shock when I found out that Ben Elton’s father is Jewish?

Miriam: “The children of intermarriage strike again.”

From the Telegraph:

Ben Elton, the British-Australian comedian and writer, says Australia should become a republic with an Aboriginal head of state to address “the shame of our past.”

Ben Elton, the British comedian and writer who now lives in Australia, has called for Australia to become a republic with an assigned place for an Aboriginal person as head of state.
Mr Elton, a dual British-Australian citizen, made his appeal as his home state of Western Australia prepared to host Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall for an official visit.
Admitting his views on a republic are “not so clear-cut”, he said he supported retaining the monarchy in Britain, but believed Australia should have its own head of state who would be a symbol of “all our history, not just part of it”.
Such a move, he said, would allow Australia to acknowledge the “shame of our past” and serve as a beacon to the world.

“An indigenous head of state would be a huge step forward. For us all,” he wrote in The Australian newspaper.
“In one brilliant constitutional coup we would exchange a distant, somewhat divisive figurehead for a vibrant, living embodiment of the beating heart of the Australian journey”.
Mr Elton said the head of state should be an Aboriginal elder or leader appointed by a committee or by consensus who would serve for a fixed term or “perhaps for life as popes do”.
“The British monarchy is certainly ancient and venerable, and provides 1,000 years of continuity to one hugely significant part of our national tapestry,” he said.
“But it is a newborn babe compared with the ancient continuity of the first Australians.”

Brenton Sanderson writes:

Jewish anti-White activism and Australia’s Aborigines

As in the United States, Australian Jews have formed strategic partnerships with various the non-White “victim” groups, who, like them, have been the alleged victims of White oppression and injustice. Prominent among these non-White groups is Australia’s indigenous people. One Jewish source describes Jews and Aborigines as “two peoples with histories of dispossession and humiliation and killing who recognise each other, who find points of intersection and of parallel.”

Seeing a parallel between the “Holocaust” and the White Australia’s treatment of Australia’s Aborigines, the Jewish Australian Professor Robert Manne has written that: “Although there was never a time when I was tempted by the thought that the Holocaust and the dispossession [of Australia’s Aborigines] were morally equivalent horrors – the British settlers did not intend to wipe out the Aborigines and would have been content if the Aborigines had uncomplainingly abandoned their way of life and their land – I have no doubt that in part I was drawn to this chapter of Australian history because of the role the Holocaust played in my thought.”[i] Thus, while careful not to detract from the metaphysical preeminence of the “Holocaust,” Manne has been particularly keen to make the plight of Australia’s Aborigines an important part of the anti-White narrative.

Disgraced former judge and prominent Jewish activist Marcus Einfeld has likewise noted parallels between the plight of Australia’s Aborigines and the “Holocaust,” claiming that “Just as Aboriginal dispossession and discrimination in Australia, often brutally carried out and enforced, have helped to fashion a new consciousness and pride in Aboriginality, the unique history of the Jewish people, and most recently the Holocaust experience, has played a pivotal role in the formation of the collective Jewish identity.”[ii] Australian Jewish leader and activist Mark Leibler claims to “have developed a deeper understanding of the connections between Indigenous and Jewish people and the underlying affinity we share. … We must listen to and respect the hard stories. Stories that are repeated all over Australia – stories of injustice, oppression and horror. Defiant stories of the proud survival of identifiable people. Stories resonating with familiar themes for each and every Jew.”[iii] Speaking on behalf of Australian Jews, Leibler claims that: “We’ve suffered 2,000 years of persecution and we understand what it is to be the underdog and to suffer from disadvantage.”


Mark Leibler with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Aboriginal activist Patrick Dodson

Academic and non-academic activist Jews have been leading proponents of the view that European settlement of Australia, and later government policies like allowing the removal of half-caste Aboriginal children from their families (generally to save the child from abusive or otherwise appalling conditions) amounted to acts of genocide. The late Jewish lawyer Ron Castan, who led the 1992 High Court challenge that resulted in the recognition of Aboriginal land rights, saw direct parallels between the supposed historical plight of Jews, and that of Australia’s indigenous people. He claimed that reading the work of left-wing “revisionist” historians like Professor Henry Reynolds had “opened my eyes, my mind and my heart to Australia’s own version of genocide.” Castan backed calls for the

appropriate recognition and representation at the Australian War Memorial of those heroes of Aboriginal Australia who died fighting for their lands. And just as there are Holocaust museums in Israel and Australia, so this country desperately needs its museum to the Stolen and Dispossessed – and proper memorials and remembrance ceremonies at every massacre site across the land. The refusal to apologise for dispossession, for massacres, and for the theft of children, is the Australian equivalent of the Holocaust deniers – those who say it never really happened.[iv]

Invoking the “full-court press” employed by Jewish activist organizations worldwide, Castan proposed that: “The answer to the Holocaust deniers and to those who use terms like ‘black armband’ is to write more books, give more talks, fight more native title cases in the courts, tell more stories of the stolen generation, teach more courses in schools and universities and build more monuments and statues of indigenous freedom fighters so that the cult of disremembering can never take hold again.”[v]

The attempt by Jewish activists to pin all of the blame for the social pathologies of Australia’s Aborigines on the evil legacy of European colonialism and “White racism” is anti-White hate propaganda pure and simple. Nobody disputes that the traditional hunter gatherer lifestyle of the Australian Aborigines was severely disrupted by the arrival of Europeans. There were around 300,000 Aborigines in Australia at the time of European colonization in 1788. Their numbers declined considerably in the decades that followed – mainly as a result of diseases contracted from Europeans for which they had no immunity. Aborigines were also killed by Whites in violent clashes on the frontier; however, such behavior was never sanctioned by the governing authorities, and White settlers were charged with murder and executed for killing Aborigines. The 1961 census reported that the Aboriginal population of Australia at around 106,000. This had increased to 171,000 by 1981, and (incredibly) to over 500,000 in the 2011 census. This figure has been inflated by those with tiny amounts of Aboriginal ancestry (or none) claiming to be Aboriginal to take advantage of a raft of generous indigenous welfare programs and career opportunities.

There’s much to be gained by being “Aboriginal" in today’s Australia

The real cause of the social pathology of Australia’s Aborigines

Notwithstanding the fact that European colonization had a range of very negative effects on Australia’s indigenous people, the real (though never acknowledged) source of the ongoing social dysfunctional of Aboriginal people is their extraordinarily low average intelligence. In his 1997 book Guns, Germs and Steel the Jewish anthropologist Jared Diamond, currently a professor of geography at UCLA, declared that the idea that there are genetic factors which cause Europeans to be more intelligent (on average) than Australian Aborigines is morally loathsome. In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Diamond observed that

most laypeople would describe as the most salient feature of native Australian societies their seeming “backwardness.” Australia is the sole continent where, in modern times, all native peoples still lived without any of the hallmarks of so-called civilization – without farming, herding, metal, bows and arrows, substantial buildings, settled villages, writing, chiefdoms, or states. Instead, Australian Aborigines were nomadic or seminomadic hunter-gatherers, organized into bands, living in temporary shelters or huts, and still dependent on stone tools. During the last 13,000 years less cultural change has accumulated in Australia than in any other continent. The prevalent European view of Native Australians was already typified by the words of an early French explorer, who wrote, “They are the most miserable people in the world, and the human beings who approach closest to brute beasts.”

… When asked to account for the cultural “backwardness” of Aboriginal Australian society, many white Australians have a simple answer: supposed deficiencies in the Aborigines themselves. In facial structure and skin color, Aborigines certainly look different from Europeans, leading some late-19th century authors to consider them the missing link between apes and humans. How else can one account for the fact that white English colonists created a literate, food-producing, industrial democracy, within a few decades of colonizing a continent whose inhabitants after more than 40,000 years were still nonliterate hunter-gatherers. It is especially striking that Australia has some of the world’s richest reserves of copper, tin, lead, and zinc. Why, then, were Native Australians still ignorant of metal tools and living in the Stone Age? It seems like a perfectly controlled experiment in the evolution of human societies. The continent was the same; only the people were different. Ergo the explanation for the differences between Native Australian and European-Australian societies must lie in the different people composing them. The logic behind this racist conclusion appears compelling. We shall see, however, that it contains a simple error.[vi]

According to Diamond, this simple error consists in failing to take into account the differing environments of Aborigines and Europeans, and how these differing environments determined the divergent historical development of these groups. Totally ignoring the numerous studies showing very large differences in average IQ between Europeans and Aborigines, Diamond posits that Europeans only developed a more technologically advanced society than Aborigines because they were fortunate enough to be situated in a band of “lucky latitudes” running across Eurasia from the Mediterranean to the Yellow Sea that made the agricultural revolution possible. They were also fortunate to have many plants and animals suitable for domestication. The comparative backwardness of Aborigines in 1788 was entirely due the corresponding lack of these geographic factors. This, he claims, made it more difficult for them to develop agriculture, which, in turn, delayed their development of science and technology. According to Diamond, geography, not race, determined the contrasting fates of Europeans and Australia’s Aborigines.

Professor Jared Diamond

The failure of Australia’s Aborigines to domesticate plants and animals is attributed by Diamond to “the lack of domesticable animals, the poverty of domesticable plants, and the difficult soils and climate.”[vii] Yet Diamond confirms that yams, taro, and arrowroot grow wild in northern Australia and could have been cultivated along with two native grasses which could have been bred to produce cereals. Richard Lynn notes that Diamond fails to acknowledge that Australia’s climate is very varied and that “apart from the deserts of the central region is potentially suitable for the agriculture that was developed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Europeans.”[viii]

The real reason why the Aborigines continued to live as hunter-gatherers right up to the time of European contact (and after) is most likely that the evolution of sufficiently high intelligence was an essential preliminary for the independent invention of agriculture, with an average IQ of about 80 necessary for this to occur. Lynn notes that the transition to agricultural societies was not possible until people evolved sufficient intelligence to take advantage of wild grasses, and that it was only after the last glaciation that they were cognitively fit to do this. Evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton points out that: “Lynn’s view provides an explanation for why these advances were never made by Negroids or those southeast Asian populations who escaped the rigors of the last glaciation.”[ix] Michael Hart makes the points that “The idea of planting crops, protecting them, and eventually harvesting them is not obvious or trivial, and it requires a considerable degree of intelligence to conceive of that notion. No apes ever conceived of that idea, nor did Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, nor even archaic Homo sapiens. It seems unlikely that such a notion could be originated by a group of humans with an IQ of about 70.”[x]

According to psychologist Richard Lynn, the first attempt to estimate the intelligence of the Australian Aborigines was made by Francis Galton in 1869. On the basis of descriptions of their accomplishments, he estimated that their intelligence was approximately three “grades” below that of the English. Lynn explains that “In Galton’s metric, a grade was equivalent to 10.4 IQ points. Hence in terms of the IQ scale, he estimated the Australian Aborigine IQ at 68.8. Seventeen studies of the intelligence of Australian Aborigines assessed by intelligence tests have shown that this was a fairly accurate assessment. … The median IQ of the seventeen studies is 62 and represents the best estimate of the average intelligence of Australia’s Aborigines”[xi] In 1929 the eminent Australian anthropologist A.P. Elkin had observed that “some races possess certain powers in greater degree … than do others. Thus the Australian Aborigines and the African Negroes are human and have powers but they are not necessarily equal to the white or yellow races.”[xii]

The findings from studies into Aboriginal IQ have been corroborated by a study showing Aborigines have slower reaction times (reaction time being significantly correlated with IQ), and seven studies showing that the average brain size of Aborigines is significantly smaller that Europeans (brain size being correlated with IQ at approximately 0.4). The most authoritative study of Aboriginal brain size is that of Smith and Beals (1990) which gave a brain size difference between Aboriginal and Whites of 144cc. or about 10 per cent. Four studies put the average IQ of Aboriginal-European hybrids at 78 — about midway between the IQs of Aborigines and Europeans. The low intelligence of the Aborigines is also corroborated by their very low levels of educational attainment. Lynn notes that “Aborigines do poorly in education, consistently with their low intelligence, showing that their low cognitive abilities are not confined to their performance on intelligence tests.”[xiii] As of 1976 no Aborigine had ever obtained a Ph.D. Citing psychological studies showing that Aboriginal Australians had a much stronger self-concept (self-esteem) than Europeans, Lynn makes the point that “These are remarkable results considering the low levels of achievement of Aborigines in school and employment. Similar results however have been found for African-Americans in the United States, and Africans in Britain.”[xiv]

A 2010 report on Aboriginal school performance found that indigenous students in year 9 achieved similar scores last year to non-indigenous students in year 3. … Of the indigenous students who sat the tests , 40 per cent – 60,000 students – failed to meet national minimum standards, a proportion mirroring the 40 per cent of indigenous families who were welfare-dependent. [Substantial percentages [18-30%, in different states] do not take the test and may be presumed to be likely to not meet minimum standards.) ”Every state and territory has a problem, in every year, in every subject,” the report said. (Indigenous students are six years behind in literacy and numeracy, report says)

Australian Aborigines have much higher rates of crime than Europeans. Studies show that they are 10 times more likely to commit homicide than Europeans, and are 10 to 15 times more likely to commit a serious assault. Aborigines are, consequently, vastly overrepresented in Australia’s prison population. It is common to blame White Australia for this dismal state of affairs. Lynn cites an Australian sociologist who argues that “the key general cause of the perceived criminalisation of Aborigines is universally perceived to be socioeconomic deprivation and consequential exclusion” and that “the underlying issues of unemployment, poverty, ill-health, dispossession, and disenfranchisement are the causes of the over-involvement of Aborigines in prison,” and these are themselves “the product of indirect discrimination.” Lynn notes wryly that “Thus it is the Europeans who are responsible for the high crime rates of the Aborigines.”[xv]

The reality is that a population with a mean IQ of only 62 is congenitally incapable of functioning effectively in a modern technological society like Australia. The observations of the German sociologist Hans Schneider, who studied Aboriginal communities in 1986, retain their relevance today. While the Europeans had built houses for the Aborigines,

the Aborigines do not accept these houses with the result that they are usually unoccupied. Many of them have been deserted, vandalized, or even destroyed. In order to prevent Aborigines destroying their houses, these are now prefabricated out of steel-plated units. Most of the inhabitants live in self-constructed shacks made from branches or sheets of corrugated iron, erected outside of and around the settlement. They have not accustomed themselves to garbage disposal with the result that the surrounding bush land is littered with old cans, bottles, tires, transistor radios, and batteries. Rusty car bodies and unauthorized garbage dumps can be seen everywhere. … The health, education and living standards are well below the Australian average. Almost all the inhabitants are unemployed and fully dependent on social security. They just sit around in a state of boredom and hopelessness. They do not send their children to school. The Aborigines have no problem operating machines or driving cars and tractors, but they have not learned how to service and repair them. Faulty machinery is simply left where it breaks down and transistor radios are thrown away when the batteries are flat. Under the supervision of whites they are able to establish a plantation or cattle station and will work there, but as soon as this supervision and instruction is withdrawn the project collapses.[xvi]

Aboriginal housing in Alice Springs

One Australian demographer has observed that “In every conceivable comparison the Aborigines stand in stark contrast to the general Australian population. They have the highest growth rate, the highest birth rate, the highest death rate, the worst health and housing, and the lowest educational, occupational, economic, social, and legal status of any identifiable section of the Australian population.”[xvii] To ascribe this situation exclusively to the legacy of European colonization and the evils of “White racism” in Australia is nonsense. Non-White migrants like the Chinese have somehow managed to overcome this supposedly intractable racism to outperform White Australians in a range of social indicators. Lynn points out that

the Australian Aborigines are a racial underclass with the same characteristics of the black underclass of the United States, Britain, and Brazil, but they are an even more serious social problem. They have much lower intelligence with an average IQ of 62, as compared with approximately 85 for Blacks in the United States and Britain, and they have worse rates of educational attainment, unemployment, crime, teenage motherhood, welfare dependency, alcoholism, and the other social pathologies of the underclass. In addition they have high fertility that is about double that of Europeans, and although this is to some degree offset by their high mortality, their numbers are growing to the extent that they are approximately doubling every generation.

There can be little doubt that the syndrome of social pathologies of the Australian Aborigines has a genetic basis. Their shorter gestation times and typically small brain size that underlies their low intelligence, poor educational attainment, and low socioeconomic status cannot be explained by environmental deprivation or European racism. None of this is recognized or at least articulated by any of the Australian social scientists. … None of them even make any mention of the contribution of low intelligence and high psychopathic personality to the social pathology of the Australian underclass.[xviii]

Telling “noble lies” for the anti-White cause

Jewish activists and their ideological allies in Australian academia are content to disregard these inconvenient facts which totally undermine the anti-White narrative they have assiduously constructed. They let the truth be damned and instead seek to propagate “noble lies” intended to make Aborigines feel good by making their culture appear equal or superior to that of Europeans. This tactic is motivated by the Marxist-Leninist principle that the end justifies the means. As the goal of ending the White racial and cultural domination in Australia is held to be worthy, presenting false accounts as authentic history, anthropology, or sociology is believed to be justified. Consistent with the postmodernist argument that truth is only true when it benefits non-White minority groups, false accounts are not false if they contribute to the anti-White narrative and nurture White guilt. The scale of the White guilt, shame and pathological altruism this brand of anti-White activism has successfully engendered is reflected in the exponential growth in indigenous welfare schemes of every description. Decades of these programs have, however, done practically nothing to alleviate the social pathology of Australia’s Aborigines.

The social pathology of Australia’s Aborigines persists despite decades of expensive government programs

At the forefront of those propagating “noble lies” has been the leading “revisionist” historian Professor Henry Reynolds. In his book Why Weren’t We Told? Reynolds recounts his encounter with an “old ethnographer” in the 1960s who had told him “There could never be racial equality because Aborigines had much smaller brains than did Europeans. They were biologically incapable of emulating the white race.” Another man had told him that “although Africans had a brain cavity which was 15 cubic centimetres smaller than the average white man’s, they were intellectually ‘far above the Australian full-blood Aboriginal,’ who was quite unable to cope in competition to the white man and never could become an equal citizen of the country.”[xix] According to Reynolds, these were “men of their time. They had grown up when few people had questioned the primacy of race. What was disturbing was that many younger people agreed with their views.”

They had been brought up to believe that race was a fixed biological category, that Europeans and Aborigines were separated by unchangeable physical and cultural characteristics and that Aborigines were Stone Age people who had not advanced as Europeans had along the ascending path of cultural and social progress. Such ideas had pervaded Australian life until the 1940s and 1950s and many people continued to cling to them through their life and would no doubt take them to the grave. While views of this kind could easily be labelled racist, that categorisation did not on its own provide an understanding of the problem. They did not necessarily lead people to act or speak with hostility towards indigenous people. Indeed, they often coexisted with sympathetic interest and a desire to lend a helping hand.[xx]

So what specific evidence does Reynolds present to refute the assertions of these supposedly wrongheaded “racists”? He offers none. Like other historians and commentators of his political ilk, Reynolds seems to think that solemn expressions of disapproval at these statements are sufficient to establish their falsity. Reynolds acknowledges the real, totally unscientific, Jewish ethno-political origins of his belief in biological racial equality when he writes that “My students often ask me how it was that people in the past held such objectionable views. They have no understanding of just how pervasive racial thought was a generation or two ago, how the Second World War and the Holocaust marked an intellectual watershed after which nothing would be the same again.”[xxi]

It is now commonplace to portray pre-European Australia as having been a virtual Garden of Eden until the evil White man came from Europe and ruined it all. Aboriginal culture is now regarded as “sacred” and off-limits to criticism in the public square. Aboriginal people and culture are never to be criticized no matter how dysfunctional or barbaric some of their practices might be or have been. Mention of the incessant tribal warfare, cannibalism, infanticide, and endemic sexual violence against women and children have been effaced from contemporary accounts of Aboriginal society and culture. These have been replaced with flattering (but utterly false) notions of how “sophisticated” Aboriginal society and culture really was (and still is) if only the insensitive and racist Whites had the gumption to recognize it. These lies are reminiscent of the “noble lies” that Plato talked about in The Republic which were intended to persuade kings and the populace to achieve worthy objectives; and in the minds of activist Jews and their allies in Australia, nothing is worthier than destroying White Australia and its detested cultural legacy.


Castan, M. (2006) ‘Memory and Mabo: Advancing Aboriginal Justice,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 325-333.

Curthoys, A. (2008) ‘Indigenous Subjects,’ In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 78-102.

Diamond, J. (1997) Guns, Germs and Steel, Random House, New York.

Einfeld, M. (2006) ‘We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 305-315.

Elkin, A.P. (1929) ‘The practical value of anthropology,’ Morpeth Review, Vol. 9.

Hart, M.H. (2007) Understanding Human History: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

Leibler, M. (2006) ‘Crossing the Wilderness: Jews and Reconciliation,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 316-324.

Lynn, R. (2008) The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

Manne, R. (2006) ‘The Holocaust and Political Identity: A Personal Account,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 46-55.

Reynolds, H. (2000) Why Weren’t We Told? – A personal search for the truth about our history, Penguin, Melbourne.

Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, Charles Darwin Research Institute, Port Huron, MI.



Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Ben Elton urges Australia to dump the monarchy and appoint an Aboriginal head of state