John Robb's Global Guerrillas

Via John Robb on Tribalism at The Occidental Quarterly I followed a link to Robb's blog Global Guerrillas where he focuses on:

Networked tribes, systems disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. Resilient Communities, decentralized platforms, and self-organizing futures.

Here's his About page.

I'm not sure what to make of Robb, but here's what I think so far. His analysis of globalism is broad, incisive, and critical, and comes from a technologically informed point of view outside the false dichotomy of partisan politics. He provides interesting opinions and links, though his writing is larded with jargon. Only cryptically, by reading between the lines, can he be understood to recognize the tribal jewish influence that so dominates the West's politics, finance, and media. He seems a typical deracinated White, for whom even a keen interest in tribalism and communities and opposition to globalism appears not at all motivated by an overt awareness of or sympathy for his own tribe.

His essay Containing Chaos (unfortunately no longer freely visible in it's entirety) begins:

We are now engaged in a conflict that will dictate whether we succeed or fail in the 21st century. Our adversary in this conflict is, in short, the threat posed by globalization.

and concludes (my emphasis):

Disruptions that result in societal and economic chaos occur most readily in societies where the health and vigor of a society has decayed. In other words, the social and economic system that the nation-state administers must be seen as fair and just, and it must deliver tangible results to the greatest number of people possible. Anything less than this and societal breakdown becomes extremely likely should disruption occur, since the allure of participation in oppositional groups, from black-market crime to guerrilla/terrorist groups, will outweigh outcomes available through participation in the status quo. In short, the nation-state will lose its legitimacy with large subsets of its population.

Here's an example of not delivering results: The incomes of the bottom four-fifths of Americans have fallen 10 percent, adjusted for inflation, over the last three decades, despite massive improvements in worker productivity. For an example of not being just and fair, we need not go far: Self-dealing financial elites defrauded markets and the government of trillions of dollars realized during the 2008 financial panic, and not one of them went to jail.

In order to retain legitimacy at a level that allows some freedom of action, the government must endeavor to deliver real economic progress to its constituents. That means that every policy should be slaved to increasing incomes in line with increases in worker productivity, and improving the long-term financial wealth of the greatest number. (The best way to measure the success of government efforts in this regard are increases in the median incomes of individuals.) One method of achieving this, already mentioned above, is to remove barriers to community resilience. Community resilience has the potential to substantially improve the incomes and quality of life for the greatest number by reducing end-user costs, creating jobs, and spurring massive leaps in innovation.

The greatest threat to achieving this outcome lies in the potential for parasitic interests to gain control of government function, since one of the quickest routes to illegitimacy is through the appearance of corruption. This unfortunate outcome was evident in the 2008 financial meltdown, as special interests proved capable of snaring trillions in subsidies from the public treasure for no apparent improvement in the lives of most citizens.

Robb's analysis is clouded by his conflation of both pro-globalist "self-dealing financial elite" tribalists and anti-globalist al-qaeda-like tribalists (mentioned earlier in his essay) as "parasitic interests". While Robb sees the jihadi threat clearly enough he seems unwilling or unable to confront the implications of his own analysis regarding the "parasitic interests" who control finance and drive globalism. That their fraud going unpunished implies not the potential to gain control of government function, but that they have already gained it. That this control goes unheralded and uncriticized in the mainstream media implies that the "parasitic interests" also effectively control media function.

The "parasitic interests" who illegitimately control the Eurosphere's government, finance, and media have made it clear that their most feared and detested enemies are White tribalists. For us repression and punishment are considered normal and deserved, especially in response to opposition to the "parasitic interests" whose genocidal immigration policies are swamping our homelands with hostile non-White tribalists.

UPDATE 16 July 2009: A bit more of Robb's essay Containing Chaos is available at The Occidental Quarterly Online, including this paragraph:

News in the age of the global supernetwork is often startling. It features an endless procession of crushing financial panics, unexpected food shortages, sharp commodity price spikes, brazen terrorist attacks that have shut down major cities from New York to Sao Paulo to Mumbai, and much more. These extreme events form a pattern of behavior that should serve as an alarm. They are an indication that the system we have come to rely upon, the global supernetwork that connects us to each other and all manner of goods and services is entering a period of extreme turbulence, where we careen from crisis to crisis at an increasing rate and incremental severity. At worst, it may even be an indication of a looming catastrophic failure of indeterminable duration.

Green Shoots and Goldman Sachs

Media moguls rediscover scepticism:

Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp, said the business outlook for the next three to five years was “unanimously bearish”.

Deal talk, once the sport of choice, was nowhere to be found among the gathered media moguls at the conference, which is sponsored by Allen & Co. It was replaced by hand-wringing and cynicism over social media, an interesting but revenue-challenged section of the business.

“A lot of people are doing very well making very little money,” quipped Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, speaking of social media. “It’s not a club I want to join.”

Twitter, the extremely popular online service that allows users to broadcast short text messages, was forecast to be the belle of the ball.

But any chatter about the micro-blogging service, which played a pivotal role in the dissemination of news in the recent Iran elections, soon turned to how it was unlikely to make money in the near future.

“Everyone is talking about it. I don’t know if it is monetisable,” said John Malone, chairman of Liberty Media. His sentiment was echoed by a panel of media executives that included Barry Diller, chief executive of IAC, the internet group.

Evan Williams, chief executive of Twitter, sat quietly as executives puzzled over the financial future of his company, and shied away from reporters for most of the week.

When Mr Murdoch, the consummate dealmaker whose 2005 purchase of MySpace helped burnish his image among the digerati, was asked whether he would be interested in Twitter, he had a one-word answer.

He said: “No.”

It would be bad enough if one group of influential people saw economic prospects are bleak and will be for some time, while another saw "green shoots" everywhere. Here we can see that many of the former employ or lend a megaphone to many of the latter. Something to keep in mind the next time a talking head tells you that now is a great time to buy.

The poor media moguls must be pickled with envy when they look at the financial moguls at Goldman Sachs. In the middle of the "failure" of the financial "industry" that got "fixed" by a bum rush bailout that put taxpayers on the hook for multiple trillions of dollars, Goldman Sachs partners somehow ended up swimming in money from selling stock (at bargain prices, because they, like their media mogul cousins, don't swallow the "green shoots" swill) and awarding themselves record bonuses (because otherwise they'd be tempted to leave and use their big brains to wreak havoc in another "industry").

So what's keeping the media moguls, especially in their current desperation, from succumbing to the temptation to exploit the "monetisable" popular resentment that even the finance moguls recognize?

Why Labor Leaders Favor Genocidal Immigration

It's jewish "social justice".

New Labor Leaders Take a Page From History, from The Jewish Daily Forward:

Washington — If you want to see the movers and shakers behind the tumult in today’s labor movement, the place to be is Stephen Lerner and Marilyn Sneiderman’s modest home in Washington after sunset concludes Judaism’s holiest day of the year.

Last year’s dinner had an air of momentous imminence, coming, as it did, on the eve of Barack Obama’s election as president, amid a world economic crisis that recalled the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930s. The labor movement itself was approaching the end of a year in which it would record an uptick in union membership for the second time in a row after decades of decline. Lerner began the evening by telling his guests, “The months and years ahead are our chance, our moment to be part of making history.”

Lerner and the other Break Fast attendees are at the core of a resurgence of Jewish involvement in the labor movement. Like the legendary Jewish labor leaders of the ’30s, the folks at Lerner’s house by no means represent a majority of union leaders. But like those earlier leaders, they are exerting an outsized influence, working at the front end of some of the most innovative, and occasionally divisive, union campaigns of today.

“When you are there, you physically experience the number of Jews in Washington who are in the labor movement — but also the larger passion for social justice that is driving that,” Lerner told the Forward.

There is, of course, a firm precedent for this quiet, mostly unacknowledged trend. Before World War II, an explicitly Jewish labor movement was an engine of change for the broader American society. Morris Hillquit helped found the United Hebrew Trades labor federation in 1888, and in the ’30s this body morphed into the Jewish Labor Committee, which was one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America. At that time, the heads of the heavily Jewish garment unions — men like David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman — helped pass the legislation that created America’s social safety net and labor protections. These were Eastern European immigrants who had risen from the factory floors and moved easily among the labor community, the Jewish community and the leftist political world.

The current moment shares many similarities with the ’30s, due to the election of a president friendly to labor, the plunge in the stock market, and the resulting openness to new economic models and social reforms. The Employee Free Choice Act, which is currently moving slowly through Congress, is said to be the most significant labor legislation since the ’30s.

But the labor leaders of today are a very different breed from those of the ’30s. Jewish union leaders such as Stern of the SEIU and Booth of AFSCME — along with Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America; Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Bruce Raynor, general president of Unite-Here — did not rise up from the working class. They have college degrees and are part of a new, sophisticated leadership that has come to the fore over the past decade and devised innovative tactics to battle the labor movement’s long decline.

“You really have the leaders of some of the largest unions — certainly some of the most progressive unions — being Jews,” said Simon Greer, a former labor activist and the current president of the Jewish Funds for Justice. “That comes out of history — and it ties back to the history.”

Unlike in the ’30s, many of the Jews involved in the labor movement today have little affiliation with the organized Jewish community — and the presence of Jews in the labor movement can be an uncomfortable topic at times, because of the relative paucity of Jews in the rank and file of union membership. But for many inside the labor movement, the Jewish presence — not just in leadership roles, but also throughout the professional staff — occasionally becomes so obvious that it cannot be ignored.

“One night last Passover, I was here trying to finish something just before Seder, and people were like, why are you here?” said Jessica Champagne, a young researcher at the SEIU. “There are just those moments where you realize that whether or not people are observant, there are a lot of Jewish folks who have found their way here.”

- - -

Despite some continuity between the earlier generation of Jewish labor leaders and the current one, the two are not connected by a simple unbroken line.

While the Jewish garment unions were national players before World War II, their political clout afterward began to fade. Then, it was industrial unions, like the steel workers, autoworkers and teamsters, that became the face of the union movement. These tended to have few Jewish members. Because many of these unions had a policy of taking leaders from the rank and file, there ended up being few big Jewish labor leaders.

“Labor was not particularly welcoming” back then, recalled Marshall Ganz, the son of a rabbi who got involved in social movements in the 1960s.

When he left the Cesar Chavez-run United Farm Workers — a progressive and open labor group — Ganz said: “For me to go work for a [conventional] union would have been a strange thing. The unions had to be reopened to a certain extent.”

This was the situation when one of the most prominent labor leaders of today, Stern, became involved. Stern joined his union of government social workers in 1972 after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school. Sitting recently at the SEIU’s sleek new headquarters in Washington, Stern told the Forward that back then, “my vision of unions was Teamster white guys and construction workers.”

Stern himself had become a social activist through his involvement in protests against the Vietnam War. But under AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a staunch anti-communist, the big unions had lined up in support of the war.

“The first thing I learned about unions was not a very good one,” said Stern. “In 1968 or 9, I was watching construction workers beat up anti-war protesters.”

But then, after Stern was elected to lead his local union, he attended the meetings of the local labor council in Philadelphia. There, he ran into a number of holdouts from the Jewish garment unions, and other Jewish union activists who “had a kind of ethical, cultural set of values that I understood better than people who had grown up in a more working-class — in many cases, Catholic — background.”

“I had never thought of the union movement as a place of Jewish activism in my growing up,” Stern said. His father had been a lawyer for small businesses in suburban New Jersey. But, Stern said, he saw at the Philadelphia labor council that “there was really a disproportionate number of labor leaders who were Jewish in major positions — and a lot of them were ones that were more involved in, I would say, the more progressive side of the labor movement.”

This was not true in many other parts of the country — and in many parts of the labor movement at that time. Stern said he sometimes thinks back on the serendipity of where he got his start.

“I always think, what would have happened if I had started my union career in, say, Ohio?” Stern said. “I don’t know what would have happened if there hadn’t been a lot of Jewish leaders. It just didn’t seem odd where I was to be a labor leader and be Jewish.”

- - -

The progressive tradition that Stern noticed was legendary in an earlier era. Tony Michels, a professor of Jewish and labor history at the University of Wisconsin, said that in the ’30s, labeling a union as Jewish was often a shorthand way of describing its socialist politics. A number were further to the left, which is to say, communist.

The two most powerful Jewish unions were the ones for workers in the men’s and women’s garment industries in New York City — the largest unions in the city at that time. It was no coincidence that both unions had close ties to the nation’s largest Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Daily Forward, with executives moving frequently between the publishing offices and the union halls. The head of the women’s garment union, Dubinsky, and the head of the men’s garment union, Hillman, were both immigrants from Eastern Europe who spoke with Yiddish accents. Together they helped found the socialist American Labor Party. Their socialist politics also shaped the unique structure and aims of the garment unions.

“The view of the Jewish socialists was that unions should be a vehicle for social change — not just a defense of narrow interests like wages and hours,” said Michels, who wrote the book “A Fire in Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York.” “They were involved in cooperative housing, and educational programming and culture. Other unions just weren’t doing that.”

The Jewish labor movement itself was divided internally for decades by a bitter feud between socialists and communists. The socialists originally coalesced between 1897 and 1900 around the Socialist Party founded by Hillquit and Eugene V. Debs. The Forward, founded in 1897, was established originally as an organ for their more moderate views. The communists, who split off from the Socialist Party after the 1917 Russian Revolution, favored a more militant, confrontational approach in the workplace and in politics. The two groups battled for decades over control of union locals, newspapers and even Yiddish schools, until communists were expelled en masse from the major unions in 1948.

Historians and labor activists have given a number of explanations for the distinctive character of the Jewish garment unions. Ray Scannell, a labor researcher and historian, said that unlike many other immigrant groups, Jewish immigrants had already been isolated minorities in the places from which they had migrated. As a result, they were well practiced in banding together to protect their own rights.

“When you go back, one of the interesting things about the history of the Jewish labor movement is that they have these common organizational roots,” said Scannell, who has taught a class on Jewish labor history at the Washington, D.C. Jewish Community Center. “Whether it’s in Vilna or Warsaw, or the Lower East Side, the poor and the oppressed in the community know how to organize themselves to protect themselves.”

Scannell, director of research at the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union, has watched these dynamics play out in his own life. He is from an Irish Catholic family in New York, but his wife and children are Jewish, and he has been fascinated to see the lingering influences of history in families like his own.

“It’s such an interesting story, because as Jews in America become more assimilated, nonetheless they continue this idea, that is frankly not as well rooted in the white Protestant community, of community self-help and organization,” Scannell said. “Even as they moved out to the suburbs and married the non-Jews, there was a continuation of these ideals of social justice that connected them back with community traditions that they might not have been entirely aware of.”

- - -

By the 1980s, as Stern was beginning to rise through the SEIU, the progressive spirit in the labor movement had all but disappeared. Union membership was in a tailspin. Federal law had made it more difficult to organize workers, and most of the big unions were committing few resources to organizing new members.

In order to combat the decline, a few peripheral unions began looking to new, more sophisticated strategies to win new members and stop the decline. Both the hotel workers and the SEIU led the charge in hiring college graduates to serve in research departments that had the task of developing elaborate organizing campaigns. Stern and Lerner were both brought into the SEIU leadership during this period by Sweeney, an Irish Catholic labor leader who had gotten his own start in the New York garment unions before becoming the SEIU chief.

A major turning point came when the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of national unions, decided to open up the Organizing Institute, which was designed to provide college graduates a direct entry point into unions so that they would not have to first pass through the rank and file. The institute was founded in 1989 by a young Jew from Kentucky, Richard Bensinger, who had been recruited into the union movement by Richard Rothstein, a Jewish labor organizer and activist at one of the garment unions.

Bensinger, who is a labor consultant today, remembers when his team began looking over applications from college students who wanted to attend the institute.

“It used to be almost a joke. They would all say, ‘I’m interested because my grandmother or my grandfather was in one of the garment unions,’” Bensinger told the Forward. “It was incredible how many people who came to the institute came out of families that were involved with that union. It was application after application.”

Amy Dean, who was the head of the labor council in California’s Silicon Valley during the 1990s, said that in the years after the Organizing Institute was founded, when Sweeney won the presidency of the AFL-CIO, she saw the first steps of a process that brought a “huge influx of Jews coming to the table and wanting to be a part of the labor movement.”

“It was exciting to be in there,” said Dean, who is currently finishing a book on the modern labor movement. “We were looking outward for the first time in many years.”

Dean herself had decided to join the labor movement rather than attend graduate school at the University of Chicago. A number of the other major labor leaders of today came into their unions after law school. This sort of influx has not happened at every union; many unions have maintained old policies of promoting leaders and organizers from the rank and file only. But it has been unions that took people from the outside, such as the SEIU and the hotel workers union, that have experienced the fastest growth. The SEIU, for example, has grown to more than 2 million today under Stern, from 625,000 members in 1980, when Sweeny took its reins.

But there is a potential downside: Stern and others in the new generation of union leadership have been criticized by more traditional union leaders for giving union jobs to people who did not get their start in the working class. The generation of college-educated leaders have also been involved in a number of recent fights that have divided the labor movement (see sidebar). Paul Buhle, a labor historian at Brown University, said that in the current era, when unions are largely trying to organize black and Latino populations, the presence of so many educated Jewish leaders can be an “embarrassing detail.”

“Not to be the rank and file is embarrassing — because Jews are giving orders even in progressive unions,” Buhle said. “It comes back to a conspiratorial view of Jews in American life.”

- - -

The labor movement is, of course, not the only progressive movement that has drawn well-educated Jews, but many progressive Jewish activists say that the labor movement has a different character to it.

On a practical level, the labor movement is one of the few progressive causes offering young people both steady work and a reliable institutional structure — in short, a career. Michael Perry, who works for the AFSCME in Illinois, observed: “These are kids like me, who grew up in middle-class life. They won’t go back and work minimum wage. They want to do justice. But I still have a middle-class job here — with decent wages and benefits.”

But Perry and others also point to the unique historical connection.

“The labor connection is more than 100 years old,” Greer noted. “This puts it in another category than other progressive causes.”

Even with the history, though, the current demographic gap between union membership and leadership has, at times, required some negotiating.

Lerner’s first job was in North Carolina, organizing workers for the garment union. During that campaign, Lerner said, one of the local newspapers wrote an article implying that the organizers were a bunch of “northern Jews and rabble rousers.” Lerner recalled what happened when the organizers next met: “After we all got indignant, we looked around the room, and there really were so many Jews in the room.”

It is no coincidence that the two most prominent films about unions in recent times have both been about the cultural exchanges that happened when a Jewish organizer pushed to organize non-Jewish workers. In the 1979 movie “Norma Rae,” the Northerner is Reuben Warshowsky, who is said to be a composite of a number of Jewish organizers who worked for the textile unions. The more recent movie, “Bread and Roses,” is based on a Jewish organizer, Jono Schaffer, who worked on Lerner’s Justice for Janitors campaign.

While the current generation of Jewish labor leaders has risen up in a largely non-Jewish labor movement, their work has nevertheless helped some of them find their Jewish roots.

Greer got his start at a campaign that was being run by Cohen, who is now the head of the Communication Workers of America. Greer said that at the campaign, known as Jobs With Justice, “I really came into my Jewish identity in noticing that among all these people I was working with, there was a disproportionate number of Jews.”

Greer said it made him want to explore “what led me in my background and what led them in their backgrounds to want to be in this kind of work.”

Outside of organizations like Greer’s, though, the connection is seldom made so explicitly and with such pride. Many Jewish labor leaders see few reasons to connect their labor work and their ethnic heritage, at least as they have experienced the latter. Most Jewish organizations today have not made labor a central theme in their political platforms. The Jewish Labor Committee, which has served as a meeting point between organized Jewish community and organized labor, is a fraction of the size it was when Dubinsky and Hillman founded it in the ’30s.

There are efforts underway to change that. Stuart Applebaum, president of the Jewish Labor Committee, says he sees a greater willingness among labor leaders to identify with the Jewish community.

“There is a renewal now,” Applebaum told the Forward. “You find that the Jewish leaders have not run away from their Jewishness as they once did.”

Sneiderman, a longtime official at the AFL-CIO and wife of Lerner, said that the idea of the couple’s Yom Kippur Break Fast event is part of a “conscious effort to try to make the link for people who work in the labor movement and are Jewish, so that they see that it’s not by accident that they are doing this work — and that is tied to their roots and values.”

“We’ve lost a lot of our history,” said Sneiderman, who recently left the labor world to take a job at the Jewish youth group BBYO as chief field officer.

For his part, Stern said that he recently looked back through a family scrapbook to try to recover some of his own history.

“You do wonder how you get here — you know, what were my parents teaching me?” Stern said. Stern had a Jewish education; he became a bar mitzvah at a Reform synagogue in northern New Jersey. But at the dinner table, labor was never a subject for discussion. In his scrapbook, though, Stern found the project he had done for his synagogue confirmation. It was an ethical will that went into depth “about being ethical, and trying to use your life to help other people.”

“Clearly, the values that had been instilled in me by my parents had been much more of service than of success in a traditional sense,” Stern said, looking back.

“Underneath kind of a very normal middle-class, New Jersey life, they did actually teach me some things,” he said.

After a pause, he added, with a laugh, “I’m praying it’s true for my son.”

Via a comment by Lucius Vorenus on Sailer's "Amnesty: Our betters are back at it".

SEIU - Service Employees International Union home page. SEIU on immigration.

Anti-Ant Absolute Genetic Determinism

Ant mega-colony takes over world, reported by the BBC:

In short, they acted as if they all belonged to the same colony, despite living on different continents separated by vast oceans.

The most plausible explanation is that ants from these three super-colonies are indeed family, and are all genetically related, say the researchers.

They're just doing what's good for the super-colony.

Iran So Far Away

The recent turmoil in Iran and our regime's reaction to it are of interest even to those of us who aren't much concerned which hostile alien runs a country full of hostile aliens on the other side of the planet.

For example, contrast the media's intense interest in iran with it's interest in the ongoing violence right next door. The Los Angeles Times has written about Mexico's Drug War, as have others. From their own occasional reports the situation is so out of control they can hardly ignore it. "Mexico Under Siege - The drug war at our doorstep", "It's a war. - Mexican President Felipe Calderon", writes the LAT. Yet despite the occasional splash of recognition nothing much else happens.

When will the regime show some sustained concern, and when will someone in the media ask Obama "what took you so long" to address the war next door, across a border you don't want to defend?

The answer is never. Or at least not until the regime is toppled.

Violent immigrant aliens, economic crisis, and an outbreak of disease all cause the regime to leap to the defense of the aliens. Meanwhile they officially recognize native Whites as their most feared enemy, even acknowledging that we're displeased by and reacting to their own behavior. What's lacking is a broader recognition of the strength and nature of this assault on Whites.

Much of the attention the media has directed toward iran has the curious effect of revealing their double standards on political rights and censorship. In iran we're told the "cracking down" on people trying to express themselves is a hallmark of totalitarianism and thuggery. Meanwhile at home in the West the same media plays an instrumental role in demonizing "racism" and "hate".

Attempted Iran media clampdown meets Internet age contains a typical example of the media's attitude toward iran:

CNN turned in part to the social-networking sites, broadcasting images posted on Facebook and Twitter, and explaining on-air that it was using "creativity" to cover a big event under government restrictions.

"We cannot verify readily some of this material that we're going to show you," correspondent David Mattingly warned viewers. Much of the material on Twitter is posted anonymously.

CNN spokeswoman Bridget Leininger said that adding context and explaining issues was necessary when reporting with such online sources. "We are committed to making the most information available in a tough news environment, while being totally transparent with the audience," she said.

Yes indeed they are committed to using "creativity" to get the word out about the events in an alien country. At home however they demonstrate a decided lack of interest in the squashing of White political free expression. The case of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle for instance. The Mail's Race-hate Britons return to UK for sentencing is fairly typical of the sparse, unsympathetic coverage:

Two Britons who fled to the United States after they were accused of waging a campaign of hate against Jews and other minority groups appeared in front of a British court today after they were returned to the UK.

Simon Sheppard, 52, and Stephen Whittle, 42, were convicted of a number of race-hate crimes at Leeds Crown Court following two lengthy trials, the last of which finished in January.

The investigation into the men began when a complaint about a leaflet called 'Tales of the Holohoax' was reported to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a Synagogue in Blackpool.

Here we see evidence, and only after the outcome of the case has been locked down tight, of the single standard behind what only seems to be a double standard. They sing the praises of free expression so that someone, anyone, replaces Mr. Wipe Israel Off the Map, while mostly burying their own disgust with the free expression of Sheppard and Whittle. Whether with iran or the persecution of our own free speaking heretics, the regime is concerned primarily about what's best for jews. It's a rhetorical question, but Whose Country Is This Anyway?

Here's another example of the government and its media being on the same page:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

Iranian aliens are able to ask questions of the US president. Iranian aliens are "courageous" to communicate online.

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

The media, the government, and jewish activists (specifically the SPLC) have most assuredly coordinated their own anti-White activities here at home.

Bonnie Erbe, a media heavyweight who just happens to be jewish, responded to an attack in which a single non-jew was killed by calling for the government to Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks:

If yesterday's Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don't know what is. Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen appeared on CNN yesterday right after the shooting, as she wrote a play that was supposed to have been debuted at the Holocaust Museum last night. Her play is about Emmett Till, whose lynching helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, and Ann Frank, whose diary told the story of Holocaust victims in hiding in the Netherlands during World War II.

She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree.

The regime wants the internet open to iranian aliens (at least for now), and closed to "hate speakers". In fact silencing "hate" isn't enough. They want to "Round Up Hate-Promoters Now". Erbe's hysterical attitude reveals her own hate. The dishonest and hypocritical language of "hate" provides a politically correct way for jews to openly do themselves, from positions of power, what they constantly accuse powerless "haters" of wanting to do to them. They project their own thoughts onto others and then cry "hate!" It's disgusting as well as hateful.

A Moron Amused by a Fool Helping an Idiot

A good (and true) joke, according to Lawrence Auster:

From a discussion at the blog Half Sigma, where the topic is the irrationality of the Jew-hating and Israel-hating white nationalists. A commenter says:

As I said on the von Brunn thread, the bigger mystery is why they hate the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics. It is a purely economic issue. But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Auster apparently didn't find the pseudonym of the commenter or the rest of his comment funny. Neither did I, but here it is:

Yes, most Fed board members - including Bernanke and Greenspan - are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 12, 2009 at 02:41 PM

The Undiscovered Jew's "joke" was made in response to a brief post made by Half Sigma titled Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?:

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

All of this - from Half Sigma's indignant confusion, to Undiscovered Jew's sack dance over a strawman, to Auster's shallow smirking - comes across as puerile, not funny. I don't presume to speak for James von Brunn or "the Stormfronters" or anyone else who "hates" the Federal Reserve, but it's easy to demonstrate how self-servingly clueless these three jews are.

Let's work backwards toward the source, in the order I've just introduced Larry and his cousins Moe and Curly.

- - -

Auster frequently provides grist for my mill. Some say too much. His part in this post is small. See Fruitloopable Presumption for more about him.

In the past few months Auster has spent a great deal of effort attacking and denouncing Darwinism. I'm not going to bother picking apart his "logic", he's cleary doing it for the same reason he does anything else. He thinks Darwinism is bad for jews, thought it isn't really Darwinism per se that he dislikes, it's the use of evolution and genetics in understanding the world and how jews stand in it that Auster can't stand. This he labels "jew-hate", and there's nothing he hates more than "jew-haters". Except maybe "israel-haters".

Auster's passionate hatred for hate runs so deep that it wraps around and he actually gets a chuckle from the jokes one jewish Darwinist tells another about those jew-hating israel-haters, AKA "the Stormfronters". This fills him with such mirth that he left the name and punchline of The Undiscovered Jew undiscovered.

The Undiscovered Jew's name actually is a bit of a joke - an ironic reference to the jewish tendency to keep their jewish identity and interests from being discovered, except when they find it more convenient to proclaim the significance of their jewishness, which very often coincides with them ridiculing any non-jew who thinks jewishness has significance or is worth discovering.

The contradiction U-Jew sees in "Stormfronter" logic reflects his own witlessness.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics.

He finds this misunderstanding of "Stormfronter" understanding so critical that he reiterates it:

It is a purely economic issue.

Except it isn't.

But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Non sequitur. It is curious however that so many of those who think any negative proclamation about "the jews" is ipso facto "irrational" "hate", but have no problem making truly irrational statements (as Half Sigma and U-Jew do) about the mythically monolithicness of "the Stormfronters", which for Half Sigma and his commenters is nothing but a euphemism for pro-Whites they deliberately misconstrue instead as "jew-haters" (which they do because they are pro-jew).

Yes, most Fed board members - including Bernanke and Greenspan - are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

So here we see that right after denying it U-Jew actually does see "the Stormfronter" point; but what he's really trying to do is distort it. Better than anyone else jews are acutely aware that they don't control everything. Many wish they did. The ones most obsessed with control are exactly the ones who are so quick to tick off the various vexing ways jews don't "control ***Everything***". Jewish media influence? "Ted Turner isn't jewish!"

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Here's a better question. One that isn't based on a false premise. If "the Stormfronters" are powerless why should they be such a focus of hatred from "anti-liberal" "race-realists" like Auster and Half Sigma? Don't they have bigger fish to fry?

If U-Jew is in the slightest bit curious what causes anybody to "hate" the Federal Reserve he could begin by watching The Money Masters. This 215 minute documentary-style video reviews financial history, describing in deracinated jew-blind layman's terms how the modern Western banking system evolved over the last several hundred years, largely through war and intrigue. The distinct impression it leaves is that the banking system is essentially fraudulent, based on the creation of wealth by trickery (AKA fractional reserve banking) and the subversion and subordination of citizens and their governments to plutocrats and their agents (eg. the "international bankers" who own and operate the Fed). All you have to do is add even a dim "race realist" recognition of disproportionate jewish involvement in finance such as U-Jew exhibits and you have the solution to U-Jew's own very disingenous, very jewish reasoning.

Now on to Half Sigma and his rhetorical question: Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Once again it's not possible to ignore the simplistic and unjustified implication that all White nationalists (i.e. Whites who would prefer to live in a White country that defends and pursues White interests) oppose jewish nationalism. The fact is that jewish nationalists have a country they can go to, where jewish interests are openly pursued and non-jews are second class citizens. This is only one of the many inconsistencies that irritate White nationalists. Another fact is that many jews, whether they support jewish nationalism or not, are rabid opponents of Whites pursuing their own interests, never mind nationalism. Any White who begins to experience even the dimmest racial consciousness can't ignore that jews are their most rabid opponents. Some jews who like the societies Whites build and desperately wish to be seen as "white" (as Half Sigma and Auster do) react to the undeniable reality of jewish aggression against Whites by desperately spinning excuses and rationalizations, in the end absurdly laying all the blame on "the Stormfronters" or "the jew-haters".

There are myriad organizations dedicated to the defense and pursuit of jewish interests, many of them excluding non-jews, even if only implicitly. If only in response then it is reasonable that Whites, nationalist or otherwise, organize for our own interests and exclude jews. We have and would be more successful at it were it not for the constant, venomous attacks on us by jewish organizations.

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

Yes, no doubt if israel collapses it will all be blamed on "the anti-semites". And yes, jews are already preparing to evacuate to the US. See for example The Kvetcher's Jewish Immigration Policy as Worst Case Scenario Appears Ever More Likely, especially the outrageously arrogant comments of blode0322, who in contrast to Half Sigma's suggested terminology I'd describe as a white non-Gentile nationalist.

Half Sigma concludes:

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

Race-realist Half Sigma's question was rhetorical, and the answer oddly based on the same "hate" rationale that race-denying "liberals" use, because he doesn't want to face the real answer, which is that jews aren't White. Unfortunately for Sigma the real answer explains not only the general antipathy self-conscious Whites have for the jewish state of israel, but also for the obvious fear and loathing jews express toward anything White - whether it's spelling White with a capital W, White nationalism, or even a Whites-only political party that doesn't exclude them.

Half Sigma, recognizing this threat to his convenient and comfortable hatred of "jew-hate", followed up later the same day with a lame assertion. In Jews are white he writes:

Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race, even black. If you think that Spaniards are white, then you would also conclude that Sephardic Jews from Spain are white.

Only white nationalists and Stormfront types insist that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t white, and that’s because they hate Jews but love whites, so they need some sort of rationalization for the inconsistency.

A year ago, Steve Sailer posted a 3-D chart showing how Ashkenazi Jews cluster genetically when compared to other ethnicities, and it’s clear from the chart that Jews are similar to Russians and Western Europeans, and quite dissimilar from Middle Eastern ethnicities such as Druze, Samaritans, and Yemenites.

You shouldn’t even need the chart to figure out that Jews are white, because common sense should inform you that you can’t tell the difference between Jews and other Europeans. It’s true that some Jews have a Jewish look about them, but Italians have an Italian look about them, Irish have an Irish look about them, and Poles have a Polish look about them, but those European ethnicities are rarely accused of not being white. No one is better at identifying other Jews than Jews themselves, and Jews usually can’t tell whether or not someone looks Jewish. I remember an organization in the Phoenix area which threw parties for Jewish singles, and they would always ask at the door, “are you Jewish?” The reason they had to ask the question is because they can’t tell by looking. It’s hard to imagine a black organization asking at the door, “are you black?”

I don’t know of any Ashkenazi Jews who consider themselves anything other than white. There are many Jews who, when asked their ethnicity, say that they’re Jewish, but I don’t say that. I tell people I’m half Russian and half Polish. I would encourage more Jews to identify themselves that way.

Jewish political groups aren’t doing anything to defend against the anti-Semitic meme that Jews aren’t white because Jewish groups tend to be very liberal, and liberals think that defending against the accusation that one isn’t white would be admitting that you believe that there’s something wrong with not being white, and it would be racist to think there’s something wrong with not being white. But in my opinion, it’s not racist to point out that some white nationalists are saying stuff about Jews which isn’t true.

Coming from a popular, supposedly intelligent, "race-realist" blogger this confused babble would be perplexing, except that it makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent once we realize that it's coming from a jew. Why should Whites not consider jewishness significant? Why should we look the other way while jewish apologists peddle such incoherent nonsense as a cover for jewish attacks on us? What Half Sigma is writing is in fact just another more insidious form of attack. "You can't call yourself White! You should call yourself "white gentile", because I as a jew consider myself "white" and I get to order you around because you hate jews!"

Immediately Half Sigma's own pro-jewish commenters tried to point out his foolishness. Unlike Auster, Half Sigma runs a somewhat open forum, but like Auster he shows the same discomfort with criticism, meticulously inserting his rebuttals right into the first few dissenting commenters comments. Later on The Kvetcher responded with Overreaching on Jewish Whiteness:

Half Sigma starts out with a half-truth, noting, “Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race…” This is, in and of itself, true, of course. Judaism is not based or limited to any race. In fact, there is no explicit term for race in the Torah.

But Jews are, to a large degree, a specific people sharing similar genetic code. The reference to The Jews in our liturgy is filled with the mention of “am Yisroel,” or, “the nation of Israel.” Who comprises “the nation” of Israel? The twelve tribes. The convert is a “stranger.” Not the illegal immigrant — the convert.

Kvetcher points out a graph that better illustrates jewish genetic distinctiveness at Gene Expression: SNPs don't lie. Another graph is attached to Criticizing Auster. It indicates ashenazi jews are genetically more distinct from Poles than Poles are from Italians or Greeks. I'm a Darwinist in the sense that I think the sociopolitcal distinctions I've already made between jews and Whites spring largely from personality differences which spring largely from genetics.

- - -

So what explains jewish "race realist" Half Sigma's behavior? How can he be so acutely aware of his jewish heritage and yet unaware of its significance? What drives him to caricaturize and hate and wish to exclude "the Stormfronters" in the same way he mistakenly assumes "all" of "them" wish to do to jews? Why does he so desparately argue jews are "white", while he, like so many other jews, shows such a deep disrespect and disdain for Whites who disagree?

I think the cause is his jewishness. And I think this kind of thing isn't said more openly and more frequently because the West, or the White Gentile West to put it in terms Half Sigma might better understand, has become thoroughly judaized. After generations of effort by jewish-led intellectual and political movements, and more recently flipping into overdrive with the rise of mass media, and the aid of jewish influence in that media, any criticism of jews, even when they say the most hypocritical and self-serving things, is considered an egregious crime. To even say "you're only saying this crap because you're jewish" is considered "irrational" "jew-hate".

For this reason many jews have become accustomed to facing little or no opposition, which leads them to overreach, becoming more and more overbearing and openly hostile and resentful of Whites, revealing in their continuous and brazen arrogance and hypocrisy that they are not motivated by any principle or reason higher than "what's good for jews?"

- - -

I'll conclude with a few miscellaneous related items.

In Just Another Day (Part 2) Prozium points to Half Sigma's posts as just a small part of another typical day of jewish attacks on Whites. He also links to Ben Cohen at the Huffington Post who, big surprise, dictates MSNBC, Pull the Plug on Pat Buchanan. What is truly amazing is his reason why. It hinges on exactly the kind of pernicious race-based libels against Whites that jews are always so quick to see and denounce in any criticism of themselves:

When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there's not much the Jews couldn't take from Germany to make things right.

White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.

White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960's, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.

Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.

Here's a rhetorical question for Half Sigma. Does Ben Cohen consider himself "white"? As I noted in Not the Last Brainwashing it certainly isn't uncommon for jews to peddle "blood libels" against Whites in the mainstream media. They're not even aiming at "the Stormfronters". They hate ordinary unsuspecting just-acting-natural White people.

Attacks like this on Whites by "liberal" jews are commonplace. What causes me to believe the source is more jewish than "liberal" is that even "anti-liberal" jews like Lawrence Auster, pro-West half-jews like Takuan Seiyo, pro-"white" philo-semites like Ian Jobling, and half honest jewish-but-I-wanna-be-white race-realists like Half Sigma won't face a very simple fact:

The government and the mainstream media are staunchly anti-White, not anti-jewish. In fact an ever growing body of laws explicitly puts jews on a pedestal, whether they attend a synagogue or not. Laws and censorship curtailing "hate speech" are perpetrated and rationalized largely by jews whose first and foremost concern is to protect jews from criticism.

What these "race realist" faux-White dissemblers listed above have in common is their holier-than-thou insistence that they have every right to generalize about and criticize muslims, blacks, "the Stormfronters", or anybody else they wish, but consider it unacceptable to treat jews in the same way. Rather than openly proclaiming their pro-jewish sentiments, acknowledging and defending their double standards, and/or moving to israel to be with the people they love so much, they instead spend a great deal of effort doing exactly what "liberals" do, pretending to be "white" while directing hate toward anyone who acts White.

The Surreality of Anti-BNP Propaganda

Just in advance of election day in Britain both the political and media wings of the anti-White regime have pulled out all the stops in their reality-inverting propaganda. Discarding their masks as sober statesmen and unbiased journalists, as well as their usual lip-service in support of democracy, they are shamelessly, hypocritically resorting to the most extreme and prejudicial language to gin up fear and loathing against those they accuse and condemn for doing the same.

They're projecting their own guilty minds of course. The difference between the BNP and the anti-White bastards in control is that the BNP don't currently control anything. It is the anti-White anti-BNP forces who have made all the failing policies and who control and censor all the established megaphones with iron fist.

The thrust of the anti-BNP propaganda campaign is that voters should fear what the BNP might be and might do, even though much of the scare-mongering is fabricated from whole cloth. Repeated often enough they hope their snide smears will make White voters forget what they can see with their own eyes: the imported anti-White hate and violence wreaking havoc all around them, and the traitorous leaders who brought it, rejoice in it, and have themselves attacked native Britons in order to defend it.

If any part of what I'm writing seems like an exaggeration, review for yourself the media's own product.

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate, The Guardian, 2 June 2009:

We love Britain precisely because of its tolerance and diversity. The British National party and its allies are a threat to everything that makes us proud of this country we love. The BNP is working hard to conceal its extremism because it knows that people in Britain totally reject the politics of racism and hatred.

This statement, signed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, amounts to: "We love aliens more than we love native Britons, it is the aliens who make Britain great." With native leaders like this, who needs alien enemies?

Voters urged not to support BNP in poll, Alex Forsyth, Portsmouth Today, 2 June 2009:

Fears have been raised that the far-right party could win seats on Hampshire and West Sussex county councils because voters have lost faith in mainstream parties.

Fears are being raised alright. By the media. Only in far-wacko minds is the simple act of voting your interests considered "far-right".

Europe braces for extremist gains in elections, Paisley Dodds, The Associated Press, 2 June 2009:

In some of Manchester's bleakest neighborhoods where unemployment is rife and anxiety about an immigration influx is palpable, one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's worst fears is unfolding before Thursday's European Union elections.

The British National Party, which doesn't allow nonwhites as members and is against membership in the European Union, is gaining ground in former Labour Party strongholds that once threw their support behind Brown and his predecessor, Tony Blair.

More rhetoric of fear.

Most anti-BNP articles won't even admit that reaction to the regime's support for genocidal immigration is a well-spring of support for the BNP. This article does but inverts reality, painting opposition to genocide as "extremist". The suggestion is that the BNP incites racial hatred, though the reality is that mass immigration bringing in other races is the more proximate cause.

Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband, James Kirkup, Telegraph, 3 June 2009:

Mr Miliband, whose Jewish father fled Belgium before the Nazi invasion, added: "This is the country that flew the flag of freedom against fascism in the 1940s.

"It will be a day of shame if we send fascists to the European Parliament."

David Miliband has no ground on which to stand. He should be ashamed for trying to shame native Britons for voting their own interests in their own homeland. He should bugger off to Belgium, or better, to israel, if he doesn't like that the British people today still wish to defend their homeland from being overrun by outsiders as their forefathers did. That was, after all what the Battle of Britain and the larger carnage of World War II was about, wasn't it? Or was it all, then and now, really about doing what's best for jews? Miliband's idea of shame assumes the latter.

Why you should not vote for the BNP, Kevin Maguire, mirror.co.uk, 3 June 2009:

The extremist BNP are thick, as well as nasty, thugs.

Please don't be conned into voting for this vile, racist, incompetent mob tomorrow.

This is a prime specimen of the kind of pure hypocrisy published by major media outlets. Though it is an opinion/editorial rather than "journalism", it's easy to see how the one colors the other. No major media outlet would publish a similarly worded piece about any other political party, never mind anything like the continuous stream of vile, nasty, thuggish "opinion" aimed at smearing the BNP.

BNP bigots are racist AND sexist, Fiona Phillips, mirror.co.uk, 2 June 2009:

As a Briton, enjoying our rich and diverse country. As a mother, wondering what future my children will grow up in.

And as a woman, because the BNP isn't just a racist, homophobic, xenophobic party, it's a sexist party too. Whatever they pretend, they just aren't a normal party.

And don't forget, they beat their spouses, molest children, lay about, and drink blood too! The media really knows no bounds when it comes to smearing anyone who stands up for White interests.

Even if any of the trash talk is true, the BNP's saving grace is that they aren't guilty of genocide. They don't want Britain flooded with surly hostile aliens. They're against that. So if it's really all about your children then stopping the genocide should be your first priority. If you favor the aliens, well then be honest, for you it's really all about their children, isn't it?

Racist campaigning for BNP, Chris Osuh, Manchester Evening News, 2 June 2009:

A CONVICTED racist is boasting about his leading role in the British National Party's campaign to win votes in this week's European elections.

Roy West, from Dukinfield, pleaded guilty to racial harassment at Tameside Magistrates' Court in February after telling his German next-door neighbour to 'go back to Krautland and kill some more Jews.'

Astounding. The media normally (see Miliband's comment above) see self-righteous speech that puts jews on a pedestal as virtuous, but here they've managed here to turn it into racist hate. It's amazing to see the kind of contradictions created when all pretense at being consistent is discarded, except the rock solid consistent hatred for Whites standing up for their interests.

How BNP tries to hide its racist core, Harry Underwood, The First Post, 2 June 2009:

The BNP claims to have modernised, but its championing of British jobs for British people cannot hide its insistence that its members are white

Hide? The BNP is quite open about who they represent. You'll find it in their Mission Statement:

The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.

We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe.

It's the first thing anyone who's at all curious about the BNP find out. Logically a party so organized would restrict membership to the very people it purports to represent. It is not morally or ethically wrong, nor is it hidden.

Accusations otherwise are the projections of people who hide their hatred for Whites behind a false love of aliens.

Denial is opening the door to the extremists, Alice Miles, Times Online, 3 June 2009:

These were not skinhead thugs that I met on Monday. We should not stand, fingers in ears, pretending that such views do not exist on some of the ordinary housing estates of Britain.

Some anti-BNP articles are more subtle, being aimed at the regime's thought-leaders rather than voters. This one admits the "hate" rhetoric isn't working, arguing against pretense that it is, while pretending that the regime has simply not been listening. The reality is that the regime has been actively squelching and pathologizing any and all dissent to their genocidal policies on immigration and "diversity".

The regime is far more likely to continue its denial, to the point of denying legitimacy to the BNP by outlawing opposition to immigration. To accept opposition to immigration would be a dangerous step toward admitting past wrong-doing. To do that, when the wrong-doing is genocide, would be suicidal, and the regime knows it. Those at the top are not in any way noble enough to stand down now.

BNP eyes 'seismic' breakthrough, BBC News, 2 June 2009:

The BNP was on course to win a seat in the North West, [Spokesman Simon Darby] said, and attract up to 12% of the vote in some regions.

Mr Darby said BNP candidates attracted unparalleled hostility from the media, campaigners, celebrities and other political parties - who accuse it of being racist and divisive - but said the election of a BNP MEP would "change the rules of the game".

Native Britons on the fence should clearly see who their enemy is by comparing the hysterical anti-BNP smears and slander passed off by the media as news and opinon with the language used and positions taken by The British National Party itself.

Here are the anti-BNP headlines above gathered together to better illustrate the poison the media is trying to place in every readers' mind:

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate
Voters urged not to support BNP in poll
Europe braces for extremist gains in elections
Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband
Why you should not vote for the BNP
BNP bigots are racist AND sexist
Racist campaigning for BNP
How BNP tries to hide its racist core
Denial is opening the door to the extremists

Obama Nominates Anti-White Latina for SCOTUS

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

Steve Sailer wrote about Ricci in Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci.

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record from the New York Times, 14 May 2009:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor

Note that if the ethnies were reversed and this came from a White mouth anti-Whites wouldn't hesitate to identify such an opinion as "racist" "anti-latino" "White supremacism". They would not only exclude such a White from consideration for SCOTUS, they would agitate to terminate whatever current employment the White enjoyed.

The penalty for Sotomayor? Nothing. It might even be a reason she got nominated. But the NYT thinks it "could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing".

How -- and why -- Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court at politico.com, today:

An Obama aide said the president, who interviewed her for an hour in the Oval Office, “was blown away by her — her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge.”

As the most arguably liberal of the four finalists, Sotomayor provides the most fodder for conservative groups, which have vowed to spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Leaders hope a court brawl will help rebuild their movement.

Via Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier comes The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen, 4 May 2009:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

UPDATE 26 May 2009: In Sotomayor hates white people and Sotomayor hates white people, pt. 2 James Edwards covers the same subject. He concludes:

Get ready, white folks. Obama is making it as clear as he can that it’s payback time for honkies. You know how he said he wants judges who have “empathy” to be on the Supreme Court? Well, “empathy” means hatred for white people, just like “equality” and “diversity” do.

Anti-Whites call euphemisms like these "dog whistles" - though as the Wiki page describes, they think this cynical label only applies to phenomena that confirm their own one-sided view of "racism".

There is no moral equivalence between the appeal to the popular, instinctive desires of White voters that these anti-White anti-racists so detest, and the dishonest euphemisms they themselves so cherish and pretend are popular due to repetition ad nauseum by a like-minded anti-White press. But the comparison does support Edwards' blunt observation. If the "dog whistle" people think popular sympathies for state's rights or against immigration reflect White "racism", then by their own reasoning it's safe for us to conclude that their orwellian celebration of "empathy", "equality" and "diversity" means "I hate Whites".

UPDATE 27 May 2009: From the WSJ, dated 28 (sic) May 2009, Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up:

Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."

White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn't put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn't inevitable.

"We're all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.

"We wanted to make sure we showed the broad support she has in the community," said Mr. Wilkes [executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens], whose group has 115,000 members.

Ms. Sotomayor's critics are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges, because Democrats control the Senate.

Heat? Scandal? Where? She's anti-White and that's "extremely pleasing". The nomination is "right on course".

What in the world could sink her? A quip about pubic hair? Plagiarism? Unpaid taxes? Not paying an undocumented migrant ladeeenyo employee's social security? Starring on Celebrity Apprentice, killing a less wise White competitor with less rich experiences and eating his still beating heart, in prime time? Please. Can anybody imagine anything that might cause Obama or Schumer or Sotomayor herself to withdraw this "historic" nomination?

Shocking Old News

In addition to reporting and opining on the latest developments in the ATCGs of human differences, n/a at race/history/evolution notes has a gift for finding and exposing historical evidence of the long struggle between race-realists and race-deniers.

Quoting Jonathan P. Spiro in Grant vs. Boas:

These students of Boas set about devising the intellectual weapons and amassing the ethnographic data they would need to combat the disciples of Grant. And while on a theoretical level the debate between the Grantians and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity and biological determinism against the proponents of environment and the primacy of culture, it was difficult not to notice that it was at heart a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the Zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.

Quoting Gelya Frank in Boasianism as a cult:

THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN a lively, if sometimes hushed, in-house discourse about American anthropology's Jewish origins and their meaning. The preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations have been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.

There has also been a whitewashing of Jewish ethnicity, reflecting fears of anti-Semitic reactions that could discredit the disci- pline of anthropology and individual anthropologists

Now I'm shocked, shocked to discover that jews, especially supposed professionals dedicated foremost to the study of man's tribalism, could so whitewash the full extent of their own tribe's dominance of that field until so long after the fact. Doubly shocking is the excuse, which is of course that "the anti-semites" made them do it.

Actually I'm well beyond shock, as the more I've examined the subject the more commonplace and even banal such revelations have become. Today, looking back at what transpired in the hundred years or so since the Grant/Boas struggle, I'm compelled to make two points:

1) The Boasians, prevailing as they did, have produced as a consequence a social and academic environment which is anti-racist only in name. The regime is in fact as race-based as ever, the discrimination has only been reversed. Today it is perfectly acceptable to be anti-White, and horribly taboo if not illegal to be "anti-semitic".

2) Those who opposed the Boasians, to the extent they saw and objected to the self-serving jewish agenda and feared for the future of their posterity, were correct. And if it's proper to label them and those of us who continue to struggle "anti-semites", then it's only fair to recognize that our opponents were and still are anti-White. It conforms to their own name-calling standards and, more important, accurately reflects the empirical results of their words and actions.

The image above is from Race: Reality and Denial by Richard McCulloch.

Symptoms of Hostility

In "Greenspan to testify on immigration" Steve Sailer wrote:

The Open Boarders (sic) crowd isn't even trying to make sense these days, are they?

My comment got lost/filtered:

In identifying them, "Genocidal Immigrationists" comes closer to the truth. For example, with that understanding of their intent, their nonsense makes perfect sense.

When something doesn't make sense it's often because you're view is distorted or incomplete. But sometimes it's willful. Sailer himself likes to call attention to and ridicule this kind of willful ignorance, categorizing his observations under "political correctness makes you stupid".

Recognizing that many of the wealthy, intelligent, educated, and well-informed progressivist globalist administrators of the world actively perpetrate genocide and many more acquiesce to and abet it is apparently something Sailer finds too dangerous to permit his commentariat to try and deride or dispute.

Then again, maybe Blogger just dropped my comment.

- - -

There has been no substantial criticism of Genocidal Immigrationists, though the accusation is quite explicit. Beside the relatively light volume of visitors here I attribute this mainly to the accusation's validity. At best the most ardent supporters of mass immigration simply don't care who suffers the consequences, and at worst they intend them. Their justification usually hinges on claims that immigration is profitable overall. When they respond to those who object it is only to smear us as losers, haters, or some combination of the two - another sign of their bad faith and ill will.

I learned only recently from a post at Majority Rights titled ‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat that there's an old name for the mendacity I had long noticed genocidal immigrationists indulging in, particularly those of the economist persuasion. It's called the Broken Window Fallacy, which is the idea that any economic activity whatsoever is more desirable than none. For example, when our genocidalist administrators permit thousands of aliens to flood into our countries to the point that they overload our schools, hospitals, courts, prisons, housing, utilities and roads we shouldn't see that as bad. No, it's a wonderful boon. We're so very lucky because it means lots of jobs and increases the globalist economist's holiest of holies, the Gross Domestic Product. Never mind that the lives and efforts of some of our finest men and women end up flowing down a rat hole or into aiding those who hate us.

Globalism is in essence a world-scale pyramid scheme. It can only exist because the kind of economic wisdom contained in Bastiat's essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen has for too long not been seen.

- - -

In their initial responses to the Swine Flu various globalist mouthpieces again reveal their genocidal motivations, falling over themselves as they have not to calm the public, or to announce measures that would slow or blunt the impact of the outbreak. No. Instead their first reactions have been to announce loudly and clearly that closing borders and restricting travel would most definitely NOT happen - and that only xenophobes and nativist loser-haters who would think such measures might help. Of course if your main concern is continuing to flood the West with third worlders, then an outbreak of infectious disease isn't important to you except as a threat to trade and travel.

Here's one typical example from Monday:

Swine Flu Border Closures are Political, WHO Says

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

“By definition, pandemic influenza will move around the world,” Chan said in the call today. “Does that mean we are going to close every country? Does that mean we are going to bring the world’s economy to a standstill?

“We know from past experience that transmission of influenza or the spread of new influenza disease would not be stopped by closing borders and would not be stopped by restricting movement of people or goods,” Chan said.

Note the numerous hysterical exaggerations. "Impossible to contain", "every country", "bring the world’s economy to a standstill". Note also the inversion in the headline. It is WHO who is driven by politics more than science. The fact is that the rate and extent of the spread of an epidemic is directly related to the frequency and intimacy of contact among people. Reducing interaction slows the rate of infection, stretching it over time, reducing the severity of the impact (so all the cops, firefighters, doctors, and nurses aren't sick at once) and making it more likely medicine can be produced and distributed.

I don't think a world-class executive like Chan or her advisors fail to understand this. Instead it seems they are motivated by different priorities that override any such understanding.

Travel to Asia plunged during in the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory disease, or SARS.

SARS, which killed 770 people, reduced passenger air traffic 19 percent in Asia and 8.2 percent worldwide. Malaysia shut its borders to travelers from China and Hong Kong, and other countries instituted health checks at airports and borders. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discouraged travel to some affected countries and said it might screen travelers in a bird flu epidemic.

“When we talk about travel advisories, we cannot think of the old days when we were dealing with SARS,” Chan said today. “It’s a totally different ballgame now.”

Calling 2002-2003 "the old days" and claiming the SARS outbreak is "totally different" is a transparently lame attempt to deny that closing borders and reducing travel might help. "Who cares how many people die", seems to be the thinking.

- - -

Contrast the current reaction with the reaction of the US government in 1976 to a single death from Swine Flu. Advisors feared a pandemic because "[t]he virus isolated at Fort Dix is antigenically related to the influenza virus which has been implicated as the cause of the 1918-1919 pandemic which killed 450,000—more than 400 out of every 100,000 Americans":

Then President Ford, on the same March 24, 1976, only one day after his surprise loss to Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, announced on national television his recommendation to the American public for a crash nation-wide influenza vaccination program to include “every man, woman and child.” Congress responded promptly to the president’s call for funds (appropriations were voted by the Senate April 9, by the House April 12, and signed into law April 15, 1976). Vaccine was produced, field tested, and evaluated in April, May and June. There were problems with producing the vaccine. Nevertheless, between October 1 and December 16, 1976, the U.S. Public Health Service, through state and local public health department “public sector providers,” rapidly spread out among the citizenry to successfully vaccinate 85% of 40 million voluntary vaccinees in 10 weeks (the other 15% of the 40 million voluntary vaccinees received their vaccinations from “private sector providers”).

It seems we're heading for something closer to a repeat of 1918 than 1976.

- - -

This morning I was listening to NPR and was quite surprised to hear the commentator declare that the common thread in the outbreak so far was a connection to Mexico.

A minute later they mentioned that the israeli health minister found the word swine offensive to jews and muslims and suggested calling it mexican flu instead, which offended mexicans. That made me laugh quite a bit, though I sobered up when I realized it's only a matter of time before the selfless advocates for all "people of color" decide to call it White flu and blame blue-eyed people for engineering it. Nobody will care if that causes us any offense.

- - -

In "Swine flu" Sailer writes:

Some people are puzzled as to how human, pig, and bird strains of the flu have mixed together, but if you have spent any time in rural Mexico the answer is obvious: these creatures all live together in close quarters.

Commenter El Caudillo quotes this and suggests a more accurate term would be mestizo flu. I didn't bother testing if Sailer would permit a comment suggesting genocidal globalist flu is even more accurate. Ben Tillman said as much in a subtle way:

It's the evolution of virulence through horizontal transmission. Immigration policy is designed to foster such increased virulence.

Indeed, that's the science of it. Obviously the politics are instead driven by what is financially and biologically profitable for the mendacious few at the tip of the pyramid. The rest of us be damned.

DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites

Are you feeling marginalized, cheated, or otherwise oppressed? Disturbed by abortion? Angry about the current economic and political climate? Upset about millions of illegal immigrants our government won't arrest or deport? If you said yes to any of these questions and you're White then be advised that the Department of Homeland Security considers you a potential enemy of the state.

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (via Washington Times):

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

Note that "rightwing extremists" are being accused of reacting to actual facts and events, while the writers of this report are the ones "playing on fears". This report is a perfect example of propaganda. It not only demonizes an opposing cause, it does so by inverting reality.

* Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

This is the footnote many media reports have focused on.

Note that the hate rhetoric is another inversion. The effect of this report, if not its desired purpose, is to fuel ill will towards Whites who are reacting to what we perceive as aggression and dispossession.
The "rightwing extremist" and "white supremacist" smears used to describe the disparate and well-intentioned people who favor state or local authority or oppose abortion or immigration reveals the report writers' hypocritical hatred of even the weakest and most disjoint expressions of racial/religious self-interest from a particular racial/religious group: White Christians.

The report specifically targets and deliberately pathologizes Whites who are disturbed by anything we consider harmful to our interests.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

The founders of our country clearly trusted in and recognized the value of a well-armed citizenry and unambiguously expressed these beliefs in the 2nd amendment. Those who propose the imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans without amending the constitution are the extremists.

A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

Note that this report is not only specifically antagonistic toward Whites acting in our own defense, it is also specifically sympathetic to jews.

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

The chain of causation is reversed. The very real foreclosures and loss of jobs fuels the perceived disastrous costs of the globalist, materialist, consumerist pyramid scheme euphemistically referred to as "the economy".

The writers of this report are so keen to protect "financial elites" (and specifically jews) who have perpetrated fraud that they use the very accusatory tactics they decry to direct blame and hate instead onto what they imagine is deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of admittedly powerless "rightwing extremist groups".

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Once again the word "perceived" marks an inversion.

Whites were the most evenly split racial group in the presidential election. The more lopsided votes of every other group are justifiably understood to reflect antagonism toward Whites because the new presidential administration's support for immigration is in fact reducing Whites to a minority. The new presidential administration has and continues to capitalize on related racial and political prejudices against Whites - this report being a prime example.

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

Here's how "longstanding exploitation" works.

Some Whites recognize and complain about the unrelenting assault on our social and political interests and try to defend them. In this defense we constantly face smooth-talking dishonest aggressors just like the people who wrote this DHS report. This fills some Whites with frustration and despair, and they react violently. Then we're all smeared as "extremists" and the violent reactions are exploited, even decades later, to justify and continue the assault against us. This report again provides a prime example. In seven pages of text Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing are mentioned three times.

Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement.

Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

The constitution describes the political structure of a government. The fear that this structure has been subverted and illegitimately replaced with what amounts to a new kind of government is based on the very real evidence (the report we're examining here for example) that the current government and its defense is based primarily on economics. In addition, the writers of this report are clearly antipathetic to the constitutional principles codified in the 1st and 2nd amendments. Their strident fervor is directed specifically against Whites who would defend and uphold the constitution.

Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s.

The report writers seem to resent that theories with predictive value are naturally magnified. They present no evidence to substantiate their paranoid theories concerning "rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes". The bulk of their report makes the case that "rightwing extremists" are most concerned about the domestic regime.

— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

Note that the biggest threat they perceive to the deliberately organized and government-supported demonization, disarming, and dispossession of Whites is the disorganized resistance of individual Whites acting independently. The moral: native Whites who conclude that our current government is acting against our interests are by this very act justifying the government to work that much harder against us. Regardless of what they might think or do however, immigrants and financial elites can rest assured that the government is actively defending their interests.

A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

The "prominent civil rights organization" is not specified, but the source of the quote indicates that it is actually an anti-White-rights group.

Racist Extremists Active in U.S. Military - SPLC urges Rumsfeld to adopt zero-tolerance policy:

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding racist extremism among members of the U.S. military.

"Because hate group membership and extremist activity are antithetical to the values and mission of our armed forces, we urge you to adopt a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to white supremacy in the military and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the policy is rigorously enforced," Cohen wrote in a letter to Rumsfeld.

Military extremists present an elevated threat both to their fellow soldiers and the general public. Today's white supremacists become tomorrow's domestic terrorists.

Zero tolerance for Whites pretty much sums up the hate-oriented nature of the domestic terrorists who have insinuated themselves and their anti-White ideas into the very highest levels of our government.

Fruitloopable Presumption

Lawrence Auster's latest fruitloopery - the "rebuttable presumption", a term he introduces in the course of smearing Pat Buchanan:

The obvious explanation is animus against Jews. Let's call it a rebuttable presumption. If Buchanan and others want to rebut it, let them do so.

Let's call it a new name for a very old, very jewish tactic. The mechanics are simple. They cry "hate", and you waste your time protesting that it's not true. Or not. Either way the subject has been changed, you've been smeared, and anyone who might come to your defense knows they will be treated likewise.

A few days later an acolyte troubled The Fruitloopy One with an impertinent question. Must my analysis of Buchanan be applied to the Jews?

Is it a rebuttable presumption that any organized Jewish attacks on conservative Christian politicians in the West (America, Western Europe) are motivated by an animus against gentiles? I was under the impression that you attributed Jewish animus towards conservative America as being motivated by their utopian liberalism.

Note how the power of fruitloopery so effortlessly transforms "organized Jewish attacks on conservative Christian politicians in the West" into "The Jews".

"No, no, no", protests The Fruity One. "The Jews are compleeeeeetely different. It's not at all valid to take a standard or line of reasoning I've concocted for The Someone Elses and apply it to someone else I wasn't thinking of. I used "rebuttable presumption" to defend The Jews. You can't take it and use it against The Jews. That's just not right. But it sure does remind me of the time another person tried to apply my logic about The Blacks and The Muslims to The Jews."

That would be Auster's First Law of Majority/Minority Relations in Liberal Society, whereby The Loopster freely generalizes about groups qua groups:

The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group's bad behavior.

Does this not fit Whites whom have noticed and drawn rational conclusions about the jewish group's bad behavior? "Not fair", scolds His Loopiness, "I only intended My Law (it's mine, you can't use it) to apply to the under-achievement and dysfunction of The Blacks and The Muslims, not the border-opening, financial-fraud-creating, minority-under-achievement-and-dysfunction-celebrating, free-speech-snuffing over-achievements of The Jews!"

- - -

In Explaining the anti-Semites' psychology Fructus Maximus Loopus tries to gyrate his way out of answering for his serial intellectual gyrations. He actually places special emphasis on stating, without rebutting, a "rebuttable presumption" he sees aimed at himself:

by the very fact of speaking in defense of white people and white society, what I am really doing is advancing the false and pernicious belief that Jews are on the side of whites. What I am really up to is helping Jews get accepted by whites as part of the white race

He has pondered this before. If he wants to rebut it, let him do so.

It is Mr. F. Loop's preoccupation with israel and "anti-semites" that reveals what he is really up to. That and his "defense of white people" which includes blaming us for suiciding ourselves, and admonishing us to fix all of the West's problems by reasserting ourselves. * In pursuing their own interests jews have led the pathologization of White racialism for more than a hundred years. They proudly led the long march of the cultural marxists through our institutions, inverting and/or obliterating our societal norms to soothe their undying alienation. But we don't need Abe Foxman or Morris Dees to "defend" us from such truths. Ever-ready friends like the Fruitinator will gladly do it for them. That's how much he cares about us "white people".

Of course, like so many of the other famous white people defenders throughout history - selfless, censorious men like Ian Jobling - Rooty Tooty Fresh n'Fruity permits himself to distinguish between jewish and non-jewish whites. He is first and foremost pro-jew. In his defense of white people however he will not tolerate anyone who would distinguish between jew and non-jew who is first and foremost non-jew.

- - -

So here's another "rebuttable presumption" for Loopenstein. He wrote in The cause of the white race will not go away:

when I consider today's systematic campaign, organized and backed by all the ruling powers of society, to put down, demonize, disempower, and marginalize the white race, I think it is shaping up as the greatest crime in the history of mankind

I don't belive he actually believes this. Fruitby Doo, if you believe this, then when will you call for the arrest and prosecution of the criminals who are responsible? Not "The Jews" Loopadoop - but those jews responsible for this crime you say you've noticed, along with everyone else who is responsible. No, of course you won't. Your "defense of white people" ends where jewish culpability begins.

* Here's the usual Toucan Sam "defense of white people":

But never forget: blacks keep indulging in such appalling behavior, decade after decade, because white America keeps giving them the moral sanction to do so--because in the 1960s whites out of a misplaced sense of racial guilt gave up their moral legitimacy and their moral leadership in this country. From which it follows that a decent social and racial order can be only restored in America if whites resume their position of leadership.

"Never forget - Whites are to blame for black behavior." What would we do without such inspired defense? How would we ever set aside our misplaced sense of racial guilt without Austard's guilt-tripping us into it?

The Wages of Tantrum

In The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald Auster takes offense at MacDonald's statement:

the racial Zionist movement that dominates the politics of Israel today

Auster is so angered by this that he attacks MacDonald personally. The problem, beyond this childish tantrum, is that MacDonald, in terms of Western norms, is entirely correct. Read for example Weston's analysis in The Israeli Election. Auster, who willfully ignores the disparity between what is considered "racism" in the West and normal in israel, can't help but list "well-known facts" that indicate only one thing: that racial zionism (Jabotinskyism) does not dominate israel as completely as he would like.

In throwing his tantrum Auster at least brings attention to some excellent writing of MacDonald's, including his recent post at VDare Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left, and his December 2008 TOO essay Ben Stein's Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust? where he provides some idea how far today's racial zionism goes beyond what is considered acceptable for today's White Westerners.

Auster here demonstrates two common tactics of pro-jewish argument: 1) throw nasty, personal insults at someone who says something you don't like, and 2) answer a complaint about some jewish disparity by claiming jews aren't powerful enough.

Tactic 2 is related to a tactic even more frequently used in similar circumstances: 3) answer a complaint about some jewish disparity by claiming that the complainer is insanely suggesting jewish power is absolute. In both cases examples are usually offered to demonstrate that jews aren't doing everything they could to further their own interests, or are doing something that harms themselves.

What these tactics seek to avoid is any acknowledgement that the disparity in question is real, and that that in itself is harm and injustice enough to those of us who aren't jews.

For other recent examples of these tactics see Melanie Phillips' Obama prepares to throw Israel to the Wolves, or the comments made by Anonymous to Whose Country is This Anyway?

What makes this phenomena especially annoying is that jews are, as a group, incredibly sensitive to disparities everywhere around them concerning the rights, wealth, and power of everyone, including themselves, at least when they feel victimized. However, when asked to face disparities that reflect negatively on themselves they abruptly become deaf, dumb, blind, and exhibit ZERO intellectual honesty. What's more, they treat anyone who presses a complaint against them as a mortal enemy. It seems to me a good example of projection.

At this point some philo-semite inevitably shows up to say, "yeah, but that's perfectly understandable because <insert sob story here>, and after all we're allies!" To which I say, no. The intellectually and morally bankrupt tactics described above are not only alien and inscrutable to White Western minds. They are indefensible. Two wrongs don't make a right. These tactics don't reflect the attitude of an ally. They reflect at best a self-aware and self-absorbed Other, and at worst a mortal enemy. In either case we are not obligated, intellectually or morally, to tolerate these tactics or the people using them.

Cabal Theories

In JournoList: Inside the echo chamber, at Politico, Michael Calderone writes (my emphasis):

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?

Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.

“I’m very lazy about writing when I’m not getting paid,” Alterman said. “So if I take the trouble to write something in any detail on the list, I tend to cannibalize it. It doesn’t surprise me when I see things on the list on people’s blogs.”

Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.

But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.

POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList’s off-the-record rule “makes it seems secretive.” But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to “ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.”

One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.

A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, a nonmember, may be the only professional writer to have referred to it “in print” more than once — albeit dismissively, as the “Klein Klub.”

While members may talk freely about JList at, say, a Columbia Heights house party, there’s a “Fight Club”-style code of silence when it comes to discussing it for publication.

But a handful of JList members agreed to talk for this story — if only to push back against the perception that the group is some sort of secret, left-wing cabal.

Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.

“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin.

Toobin joined JList about a year ago, and he said that he had to get a new e-mail address just for JList in order to keep up with the sheer volume of commentary that appears there every day. The frequent disputes among members, he said, are “what’s most entertaining on the list.”

John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.

“There is probably general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP,” he said. “But beyond that, I would say there is wide disagreement on trade, Israel, how exactly we got into this recession/depression and how to get out of it, the brilliance of various punk bands that I have never heard of, and on whether, at any given moment, the Obama administration is doing the right thing.”

But aren’t there enough forums for arguing about domestic and foreign policy — or even for partaking in the more idiosyncratic JList debates about the merits of Bruce Springsteen and whether The New Republic is liberal enough? And do those debates really have to happen behind a veil of secrecy?

“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”

Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts.

Yglesias, who writes an eponymous blog hosted by the Center for American Progress, noted that “the combined membership has tentacles of knowledge that reach everywhere,” adding that “you can toss out a question about Japan or whatever and get some different points of view.”

Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.

“For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up-to-the-minute political minutia,” he said. “This list allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important.”

POLITICO’s Mike Allen, Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer are on the list. “The roster includes some of the savviest authorities on everything from behavioral economics to Ben’s Chili Bowl,” Allen said. “It’s a window into a world of passionate experts — an hourly graduate education.”

Said another JLister: “I don’t know any other place where working journalists, policy wonks and academics who write about current politics and political history routinely communicate with one another.”

But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?

That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.

Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.

Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.

“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”

Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”

“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.

But Time’s Joe Klein, who acknowledged being on JList and several other listservs, said in an e-mail that “they’re valuable in the way that candid conversations with colleagues and experts always are.” Defending the off-the-record rule, Klein said that “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.”

And then Klein — speaking like the JLister he is — said there wasn’t “anything more that I can or want to say about the subject.”

Nearly every name in this article is jewish, even the outsiders, Kaus and Goldfarb. A preponderance of the signers of the aforementioned open letter to ABC are jewish as well.

Are the JournoList "liberals" embarassed with the lack of diversity in their cabal? Are they concerned how their ethnic networking appears to "liberal" anti-racists?

Not likely. Diversity is a weapon of ethnic warfare intended for use solely against Whites. Likewise anti-racism. If these jewish journalists were White, "liberals" would viciously attack their cabal as a form of racist "white privilege". Jews however are treated to a different standard.

Keep in mind now, the existence of this cabal in no way substantiates crazy conspiracy theories and old canards about jewish media influence. It is nothing special. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of cabals just like this one, all full of influential jews who disagree widely about what's best for jews, how to defend israel, whether Bernie Madoff deserves life in prison or death, who to pin the financial meltdown on, which holocaust movie deserves the Oscar, etc.