Translate

Feb 3, 2010

A Black Journalist On The Haiti Earthquake

 


A Black Journalist On The Haiti Earthquake 
What A Disappointment Black Leaders Are...

By Jan Lamprecht
Jan. 29, 2010

Excerpt:

Like all places populated by black people, Haiti is poor. As I watched the television images, I felt very sorry for that forsaken place. Then I was hit by a thunderbolt.
 
I wondered what if there were no white people. You see, when the earthquake hit Haiti somebody had to come to its assistance. There had to be a rescue effort. The Haitians who survived of course did their fair bit by digging out their families from the collapsed ramshackle buildings. 
 
But such was the scale of the devastation and the loss of human life that a bigger effort was needed. For that sort of work, you need heavy lifting gear and other sophisticated rescue equipment. I have been following the story of the earthquake keenly. I can attest to the fact that the first people to arrive with sniffer dogs were white crews from all over the world. 
 
The aero planes that set off carrying water and food were from white countries. Not only that, the teams of volunteer doctors that I saw on television comprised white people from across the world. As the sniffer dogs went into action, the organized rescue teams that carried the stretchers were made up of white people. 
 
It was announced that a mobile hospital was on the way. It was coming from a white country. For all intents and purposes in the aftermath of the earthquake, Haiti was literally swarming with white people. They had all arrived to save the poor blacks. And the locals were so happy to see them. Granted there were teams from the Orient such as the Chinese and Japanese. They too had quickly left their homes and families to go and assist the stricken people of Haiti.

It is obvious to everyone that this was a devastating earthquake and the work to repair Haiti and return it to a modicum of normalcy will take many years. Somebody had to commit funds to this effort. Most of the countries that have committed funds to aid the recovery are white. In fact, it would seem the whites are running the show in Haiti. 
 
What is my point? 
 
My point is that ever since Haiti was hit by the earthquake I have not seen any of my folks from Africa. Unless the television cameras deliberately ignored them, I never saw a rescue team from my motherland. Nor did I see any sniffer dogs from down here.
 
Heck, I never saw a single traditional doctor busy divining where to find people buried under the rubble. 
 
Haiti is a land of black people. I would have expected the place to be swarming with black people helping their own. They were nowhere to be seen. I never saw any ships from black countries pulling into the harbour. 
 
As the air traffic circled above the small airport, none of the planes was reported as coming from Africa. The blacks were nowhere to be found. They issued tepid statements of condolence to the people of Haiti and a few of the African countries donated small amounts of cash. 
 
Granted that was better than nothing. But I must say I was disappointed. I was sad because the blacks did not behave as I had expected. You see, for far too long black countries have been insolent to the point of being abusive. They have a tendency of insulting the white man and telling him to keep out of their countries. In fact, black people have the temerity to tell white people they can perfectly survive on their own.
 
So I had expected the black countries to be consistent and behave true to form. Why didn't black countries tell white countries to stay away from Haiti because we were quite capable of leading the rescue effort? We should have insulted them as we often do at international forums.
 
There, our countries insult white countries and accuse them of imperialism and neo colonialism. I was extremely disappointed when our countries failed to accuse white people of practicing imperialism and neo colonialism by coming to rescue the blacks of Haiti. 
 
We should have told them we have better sniffer dogs that have been taught only to rescue black people. We should have told their ships to stay away and their planes not to overfly Haiti because we were up to the job with our own ships and aeroplanes. 
 
We should have brought in our traditional food instead of the strange rations the Haitians are not accustomed to. 
 
I am so disappointed by the black leaders that I hope never to hear them again bleating about how bad white people are. The earthquake in Haiti was the most opportune time to show the whites, once and for all, that we don't need them. 
 
From now onwards, I want black leaders to shut up and never accuse, ever, white people of being bad. I am sick and tired of big words such as imperialism and neo colonialism which are unable to rescue victims of the earthquake.
 
+++

An Ethnie without a sense of peoplehood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies.  -- Michael Santomauro 


A Sense of Peoplehood is not a Pathology

It is not racist for a professor such as Alan Dershowitz or for a professor like Kevin MacDonald to advocate for their ethnic group interests.

The words for bigotry, that are often used, such as: ant-Semitic, anti-white, anti-black, anti-Arab, anti-feminist, anti-gay and hundreds of other labels, are for the most part overstated. Instead, it should be seen as pro-white, or pro-Jewish or pro-women or pro-traditional family and not be ashamed of it.

These "pro" sensibilities are part of the human condition, not to be pathologized into an "anti."

It is about group interests.

A race or an ethnie without a sense of peoplehood or ethnichood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies. (Yes, ethnie, not ethnic).

The feelings or thoughts for peoplehood is not a pathology. A European-American will have White ethnic interests and it is not racist to have them. Just as Hispanics, Asians, Jews and Blacks have their own ethnic interests, it should not be a pathology for Whites to have ethnic interests. –Michael Santomauro


Become a member:




Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
New release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton_,_

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Goyland: Where the Wild Things Are

 

Goyland: Where the Wild Things Are

Edmund Connelly 

January 10, 2010

"Living so long in exile and so often in danger, we have cultivated a defensive and apologetic account, a censored story, of Jewish religion and culture."

Michael Walzer, quoted in Kevin MacDonald. Separation and Its Discontents, p. 217 


Excerpt:

Jewish historian Peter Novick describes the "the fortress-like mentality" of many American Jews, where the institutional imperative was to promote "a wary suspicion of gentiles." Consider three examples he provides from three "otherwise apparently sensible American Jews" to show how they had internalized these Jewish "collective memories — memories that suffuse group consciousness." First, a university teacher writes, "When I move to a new town, I give great thought to whom, among my gentile friends, I might entrust my children, should that ever become necessary." Next, a prominent Jewish feminist shares this thought: "Every conscious Jew longs to ask her or his non-Jewish friends, 'Would you hide me?' — and suppresses the question for fear of hearing sounds of silence." Finally, a professor of psychology reports: 

Many Jews report that the unspoken question they ask themselves when interacting with a non-Jew is, "Would she or he have saved me from the Nazis?" I have asked myself this question innumerable times: sometimes I surprise myself by answering, "I don't know," when asking this question of a non-Jewish friend I had otherwise assumed was close to me. The answer is the ultimate standard by which to measure trust in a non-Jewish person. 

Honestly, do you want to live with such irrationally suspicious people? Worse, do you want to live under such "fellow" Americans now that so many of them dominate the controlling heights of this country?           

Take Harvard, for instance. A leading law professorship there is a powerful position. And that's precisely what Orthodox Jew Alan Dershowitz has held for years. Never mind that this fourth-generation America can write: "It was at Yale that I met and befriended my first Wasps, blacks, and even non-Orthodox Jews." Are we really living in the same universe? 

Dershowitz admits he is so highly invested in the "Holocaust mentality" that the world in which he sometimes lives borders on the horrifically imaginary. Witness his feelings as he sat watching the accused concentration camp guard Ivan Demjanjuk on trial in Israel: 

I kept looking at Demjanjuk for another reason. I imagined him as mykiller. At the time he was murdering babies, I was five years old. . . . I could have been one of the thousands of nameless and faceless babies he grabbed out of the hands of screaming mothers and shoved into gas chambers. I imagine him laughing with sadistic joy as he killed entire families, ending their seed forever, after taunting and torturing them gratuitously. 

This vicarious sense of suffering is intense for Dershowitz and haunts not only his future but the future of Jewish children: "Every time I attend a gathering of Jewish children — at a family event, at a Bar Mitzvah, at Simchath Torah — I imagine SS guards lining up these children for the gas chambers." Isn't this evidence enough that Dershowitz needs, at a minimum, counseling? 

How might such a mentality be constructed in a place where daily life never offers the chance to experience real persecution? Try this: Jewish American journalist Marjorie Miller relates a childhood story regarding her religious school. In addition to learning the Hebrew alphabet, she also learned about the Holocaust. One Sunday her teacher, "in a scared voice," called the students to attention and told them to listen carefully: "Had we heard the radio? The government was telling the Jews that we had to convert or leave the country." This, the teacher explained, "was the first step . . . maybe the beginning of another Holocaust." Not surprisingly, "Many children in the class began to cry." 

This mentality is reminiscent of interviews done in the 1970s with noted Jewish men, where the question "Do you think it could happen here?" never needed "it" defined.  Nearly unanimously, the reply was the same: "If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will," or "It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when" [quoted in MacDonald,  The Culture of Critique, p.245]. 

Reader, think about it: If you're an average American, you quietly pay your federal taxes, likely knowing that some goes to aid Israel. (On top of that, many of you Christian Zionists support Israel further through donations and political support.) Further, it's highly improbable that you've ever committed a crime against a Jew, let alone actually harmed one. The thought has probably never even crossed your mind. 

Yet a good percentage of American-born Jews still consider you a lethal threat simply because you are not a Jew. At this stage in history, is there any excuse for that? Worse, such Jews are often able to translate their fantasy-based fears about goyim into cultural products such as films and TV shows—and books like Where the Wild Things Are. Through the activism of groups like the ADL, they are also able to affect legislation such as the new Hate Crimes Law that may well target people like you for potentially thinking the wrong thing. This is not good. 

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the film has been adapted from Sendak's book. My guess is that the live action animation will not have a theme about dangerous non-Jews, but I should wait until I see it before saying more. Still, it's got the typical Jewish background of a Hollywood production. For instance, Spike Jonze, born Adam Spiegel in 1969, is the film's director, replacing earlier director Eric Goldberg. Let's just hope Jonze is not one of those paranoid Jewish Americans always wondering if "it" could happen here.


+++

An Ethnie without a sense of peoplehood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies.  -- Michael Santomauro 



Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
New release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton_,_

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Controlling Historical Memory

 

Kevin MacDonald: Controlling Historical Memory

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Dovid Katz's article in The Guardian"Halting Holocaust Obfuscation" is yet another example of Jewish intellectual activists with access to the media attempting to control historical memory in a way that highlights Jewish suffering and presents Jewish behavior as nothing more than innocent victimhood. Katz is determined to disallow any equivalence between the horrors inflicted on the populations of Eastern Europe by the Germans and by the Soviets. He condemns Polish MEP Michal Kaminski, linking to this article, for bringing up Jewish behavior in the Jedwabne incident in which Jews were murdered during the German occupation of Poland during WWII:

One of the participants in the 2001 meeting, Maria Mazurczyk, told us: "I think that Mr Kaminski, like us, wanted everything to be revealed: the times before the war when things were good – and the time of the Soviet occupation when the Jews didn't respect their Polish neighbours – and later the effect of all this."

At the time Kaminski condemned Poles who'd killed Jews – though he suggested the massacre was principally carried out by Germans. But it appears his principal concern was with alleged Jewish guilt. Anna Bikont of the liberal Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, who spent much time in Jedwabne in 2001 while researching a book, says: "Mr Kaminski came to the place where an incredible crime was committed – and he told not about the women, children, old people who died in this horrible manner, but he told about Jews who collaborated with Soviets and who killed Poles."

Would a British politician who'd behaved in a similar way survive in the mainstream of British politics?  

Probably not. But that's only because mentioning Jewish behavior as contributing in even the slightest way to anti-Jewish attitudes is off limits, even if they collaborated with the Soviets against the Poles or against the Baltic peoples. The following is from areview of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn'200 Years Together (italicized quotes are translations of Solzhenitsyn):

"Everyone was listening intently to determine if the Germans were already on the way."

In June and July of 1941 those living in the regions of eastern Poland occupied by the Red Army – Polish farmers, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, ex-soldiers, and intellectuals – all awaited the invasion of German troops. This quote is from the Polish Jewish historian J. Gross, author of the book Neighbors: The Murder of the Jews of Jedwabne.Solzhenitsyn explains why Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Belorussians, Bukowina-, and Moldava-Romanians could hardly wait for the Germans to invade.

Pursuant to his central thesis, Solzhenitsyn writes that without the high Jewish presence among the leaders and executioners of the Bolshevik dictatorship, Lenin's newly born Soviet state would have been at an end, at the latest, by the time of the Kronstadt Sailors Rebellion in 1921. Solzhenitsyn examines specific decisive questions, as for example: Why, in the period 1939-41, did such a large percentage of Jewry in eastern Poland, Galicia, and in the Baltic States collaborate with the Red Army, Stalin's secret police, and Bolshevism in general? And why did the pogroms in these regions take place under the slogan "Revenge for the Soviet Occupation"? Solzhenitsyn:

"In eastern Poland, which had been incorporated in the Soviet Union in September 1939, the Jews, especially the younger generation, welcomed the invading Red Army with frenetic jubilation. Whether in Poland, Bessarabia, Lithuania, or Bukowina, the Jews were the main support of Soviet power. The newspapers report that the Jews are enthusiastically supporting the establishment of Communist rule." (p. 329)

In that fateful year a Polish Jew who had emigrated to France prophesized that the non-Jews who had been subjugated to Bolshevism would one day exact a fearful war of vengeance. In 1939 Stanislav Ivanowich, a left socialist sympathetic to the Soviet Union, warned:

"Should the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks end one day, the collapse will be accompanied by the atavistic, barbaric passions of Jew hate and violence. The collapse of Soviet power would be a terrible catastrophe for Jewry; today Soviet rule equates to Judeophilia." (p. 310)

See here for a comment on the distortions of Jan Gross's Neighbors which attempts to blame the massacre solely on the irrational anti-Semitism of Poles. This compilation notes, among other things, that "There was significant collaboration on the part of some Jedwabne Jews with the Soviet invaders from 1939 to June 1941; the victims were primarily the town's Polish population, several hundred of whom were deported to the Gulag." 

When a significant percentage of people from an alien ethnic group support an invader and collaborate in the deportation of people from one's own ethnic group, it is not at all surprising that there would be reprisals when there is a shift of power; nor would be be surprising if the reprisals were directed all Jews, not just the ones known to collaborate or sympathize. That's how our evolved psychology of ethnic competition works.

I notice in my notes that Checinski (1982, 9) writes that "even then [in 1943] there was an attempt to rationalize this blind hatred [of Jews] by recalling the 'improper' attitude of the Jewish population in eastern Poland towards the Bolsheviks in September 1939 when the Soviet army, in connivance with the Nazis, occupied their territories." Checinski also notes that immediately after WWII Jews welcomed the Soviet army and the new regime "with favor if not with outright enthusiasm" and that "the small Jewish community was seen by friends and foes alike as one of the mainstays of the Soviet sponsored regime. This only further alienated it from the great majority of the Polish population" (p. 8). This comment  is highly compatible with Jaff Schatz's (1991) treatment which I discuss extensively in Ch. 3 of Culture of Critique. It is interesting that American Jewish representatives visiting Poland after the war presented the new Polish regime as "a paragon of liberalism and tolerance, unequaled in Eastern Europe" (Checinski, p. 11). 

To conclude, anti-Jewish attitudes in Eastern Europe had a basis in the real behavior of Jews. No doubt the events of 1939 and thereafter were influenced by traditional grievances between Poles and Jews, but actual Jewish behavior during this period is also relevant. Jews were correctly perceived as more welcoming to the Soviets after the 1939 invasion and as more loyal to the Communist regime and as willing executioners of the remnants of Polish nationalism after 1945. (As I and others have noted, the common denominator of the behavior of Diaspora Jews in European countries has been to oppose nationalist movements; further, during this period, Jews throughout Europe and in America saw communism as good for the Jews at least partly because Jews had become an elite in the USSR and the USSR had outlawed anti-Semitism.)

The situation was exacerbated by the fact that Jews were also highly placed in the government and in the security forces. Under these circumstances, social identity theory predicts that Poles would develop the well-attested stereotype of "zydokomuna" (Judeo-Communism) and exaggerate the differences between themselves and all Jews in Poland. It simply reflects typical ethnic conflict that has gone on throughout the ages — nothing more than a reflection of our evolved psychology. 

In the West, Jewish activists have had a relatively easy time erecting the image of innocent Jews and evil Nazis as a complete explanation of the events of World War II. This message is much more difficult in Eastern Europe where there is a collective memory of collaboration of Jews with the horrors of communism and in the extermination of nationalist elements of the non-Jewish population.

Kevin MacDonald: Jews and immigration policy — Again

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: A friend sent along Steve Sailer's review of historian Otis L. Graham's  Immigration Reform and America's Unchosen FutureMisleading title. American immigration policy was chosen. It just wasn't chosen by the vast majority of the American people, and this is Graham's point. As I have tried to show, it was chosen by the organized Jewish community and put into action as a result of Jewish political pressure and financial wherewithal. Graham notes that the successful immigration restriction of 1924 was seen by historians as one of the reforms of the Progressive Era's campaign against the excesses of capitalism, since immigration lowered wages.  

It's fair to say, however, that Jews never saw it that way and there's at least a fair amount of truth in the idea that the 1924 law was enacted to achieve an ethnic status quo that Jews saw as unfair to them. (Jewish immigrants were correctly seen by restrictionists as disproportionately involved in political radicalism, and it was generally a period ofethnic defense of White America.)

As Sailer's review shows, Jews have not ceased seeing the 1924 law as exclusion of Jews. Graham points out that Jews live in the past when it comes to thinking about immigration: "the "filiopietistic" urge ("of or relating to an often excessive veneration of ancestors …") is particularly strong among Jewish media figures. Italian-Americans, in contrast, tend to approach the immigration policy question by thinking about the future rather than by obsessing over the past. This anti-rational emotional reflex about immigration contributes to the kitschy quality of MSM discourse on the topic."

In other words, Jews see the 1924 immigration law as part of their lachrymose history among Europeans, It's just another example of irrational anti-Semitism — an example that warrants the evil nature of  the people and culture who created it. Since, as Sailer notes, Jews constitute half of the most influential media figures, and since the other half are rigorously vetted to exclude anyone who opposes what amounts to the Jewish consensus on immigration, there really isn't much real debate in the above-ground media.

Of course, there is a lot of self-censorship. Graham recounts the example of Theodore White, then the most influential journalist in America (and a Jew), refusing to publish his views on immigration. "'My New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right [on immigration], but I can't go public on this.' " Sailer quotes Graham:

Hearing White's agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo[against immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public with his worriesabout the state of immigration. …

I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons. They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public policy in America.

In a nutshell, that's the problem with Jews: They get what they want and what they want is not necessarily what others want (leading to conflicts of interest) or what is good for the country as a whole. It really wouldn't matter if the only group that wanted open borders was African Americans. But it matters greatly that Jews do.

Incidentally, Otis Graham's brother Hugh Davis Graham, agrees with me on the forces behind the 1965 law. He wrote in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.


--

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
New Release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Watch the movie “Defamation”

 

Here's where to get it:

Defamation

I don't have time to comment on it at the moment, but there are many excellent live quotes by Jews themselves that will surely be played on "This Week in Disorganized America" and other radio shows for years to come.

One great preview — Golda Foxman says, "We need to play on that guilt."

He interviews some Jews in Russia who scoff at the very idea of "anti-semitism."

Also, the psychological abuse of Israeli children in Poland, at "holocaust sacred sites." The Israeli kids say, "Well, it makes us feel less compassion for Palestinians, since this happened to us."

Amazing stuff. Another brick chipped off the Berlin Wall of Organized Jewry.

At 1 hour, 17 minutes, Norman Finkelstein does a stiff arm salute to refer to Abe Foxman and says, "Some people laugh." The movie maker says, "you comparing Foxman to Hitler, it's . . . kind of . . . " then Finkelstein says with a sigh, "It's an insult to Hitler. At least Hitler didn't do it for the money."

Wow.


+++

An Ethnie without a sense of peoplehood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies.  -- Michael Santomauro 



Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
New release: Debating The Holocaust by Thomas Dalton_,_

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___