Biden on Jewish Influence

Forty years ago President Nixon and Billy Graham discussed jewish media control in private, afraid to speak openly against it. Since then the jews have only become more powerful.

Speaking on Tuesday night at a Jewish American Heritage Month reception hosted by the Democratic National Committee, Vice President Joe Biden claimed that jews, as a group:

• have "outsized influence", that this "influence is immense", but that jews "vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation"
• "make up 11 percent of the seats in the United States Congress"
• have used media to alter public opinion
• have promoted immigration, civil rights, feminism and gay marriage

Hyper-jew Jonathan Chait immediately expressed his concern that such open and accurate acknowledgement of jewish power is not good for the jews. Biden Praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidentally Thrills Anti-Semites:

Biden indeed offered fulsome, heartfelt praise in his remarks, before wandering into highly uncomfortable terrain and delivering a speech that is likely to be quoted by anti-Semites for years and decades to come. (It’s already the subject of excited discussion among the white supremacist community.)

Biden’s remarks were not anti-Semitic. They were very, very philo-Semitic.

As the jews say, a "philo-semite" is just an "anti-semite" who doesn't know it yet.

It’s obviously true that Jews have flourished in the United States and, as Biden says, have achieved massively disproportionate representation in fields like science, culture, politics, academia, and so on.

Jews regard this fact with a mixture of pride and neurosis. The neurosis is a fear that our success will be seen as a kind of invidious control, that the broader society will at some point say, no, you have too much.

Like Biden, Chait omits finance, academia and law, in effect downplaying the extent as well as the disproportion of jewish influence.

Jews don't fear success. Jews fear being treated the way jews treat Whites.

It’s also true that, while Jewish opinions run the ideological gamut, they have clustered heavily on the left end of the political spectrum. When you combine that fact with the fact of disproportionate Jewish representation in politics and culture, you have a weirdly shared belief among philo-Semites and anti-Semites.

Chait dismisses these facts by first acknowledging they are true, then implying that believing them is weird.

Biden’s intentions here are obviously as friendly as can be, but the execution is awkward. The civil rights movement today is so widely sanctified that mentioning the disproportionate Jewish role in it is in the same category as mentioning Einstein, Jonas Salk, and so on — look at all these wonderful things the Jews have helped bring us.

Awkward for jews. The hallmark of jewish power is the pretense that it doesn't exist. The jews rule, but without public acknowledgement, much less consent. Jews know this and fear what will happen if it becomes more broadly known.

The main problem here is that gay rights, unlike black civil rights, are politically controversial at the moment. Biden may find it “all to the good” that Jews have used their influence over popular culture to change societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but lots of people don’t find it good at all.

The main problem here depends entirely upon your point of view. What the jews find good for themselves is not necessarily good for anyone else. For Whites, for example, the main problem here is the relentless animus jews have for Whites.

Peekaboo, Another Jew

A reminder from Venezuela regarding the cryptic, biological nature of jewish identity.

Venezuela's 'anti-Semitic' leader admits Jewish ancestry, The Times of Israel, 13 May 2013:

In an interesting twist, [Nicolás] Maduro, the political successor of the late president Hugo Chávez, told the press last week that he himself was descended from Sephardic Jewish ancestors.

“My grandparents were Jewish, from a [Sephardic] Moorish background, and converted to Catholicism in Venezuela… The mother of [Minister of Communication and Information] Ernesto Villegas also comes from a similar background,” Maduro said last week

Yet, he said, “if there is a people that has a rich socialist tradition, it’s the Jewish people… We respect their history.”

He said the people who hated and killed Jews during the Holocaust were members of the far-right who built on the ideas of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and not supporters of the ideals advocated by the Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin.

“Karl Marx was a Jew,” he noted.

In casting left/right attitudes as pro-jew/anti-jew Maduro argues not only that jews matter, but that he identifies with them as a people, both biologically and ideologically, seeing himself on their side not only by heritage but in his view of history and politics as well.

The article is vague on this point but Maduro's grandparents, like others of "similar background", would most likely be descended from jews who last openly practiced judaism at least 500 years ago. After "converting" such crypto-jews somehow miraculously managed to identify a mate and raise a family with "similar background" through 25 or so generations.

The History of the Crypto-Jews/Hispanic Sephardi conveys the usual jewish explanation for this remarkable phenomenon:

The experience of the Crypto Jews in the Western Hemisphere was a litany of suffering, continual fear, social, political, professional, and religious suppression and murder. As late as the 1850s the Inquisition was finally officially ended in Mexico, and elsewhere a little sooner; however, overt discrimination and random incidents of lynching and murder continued until well into the 1950s in what we now call "Latin America".

The final result of approximately one thousand years of persecution and murder of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (minus the three hundred years of the "Golden Age") caused many families who immigrated to the New World to become Crypto Jewish, while living their public lives as Catholics. In the Americas, some of the Crypto Jews reverted back to being openly Jewish, only to find a few years later that the Inquisition had followed them to their new homes, and they were forced to go back into hiding again. All of these people, the "Conversos" or "New Christians", were forced to submit to Catholicism, thus in Hebrew they are referred to as the "Anusim" or "those who were forced."

It has been approximately fifteen-hundred years since the emergence of Crypto Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, and five-hundred years since Crypto Judaism moved to the Americas. Today we find a large Crypto Jewish presence throughout the Western Hemisphere. No one knows for sure how many there really are, however in Brazil alone an estimated 10 to 25% of the total population are Crypto Jews, which translates to 15 to 40 million people.

While not all people of Crypto Jewish lineage are prepared at this time to accept the challenge to return to living a fully Jewish life, there are thousands, if not millions who are hungry to learn and to reconnect with G-d as Jews.

Three things to note here.

Jewishness has more to do with genetic lineage and an awareness of oneself, furtively or not, as a jew. Religion ranks somewhere below both.

The jewish version of history is a one-sided "litany of suffering, continual fear, social, political, professional, and religious suppression and murder" of jews. According to jews, whatever mischief jews get up to the Other gets the blame for it all, including even for jews disguising themselves.

The period jews regard as their "Golden Age" occurred during the Moorish/muslim occupation of Spain. From the perspective of jews, however bad muslims have been, European Christians have always been worse.

Talking with Tom Metzger

Tonight, Monday night at 9PM ET, Carolyn Yeager and I will speak with Tom Metzger, who describes himself as:

working-class white racist separatist
anti-capitalist anti-communist leftist white non-Jew socialist
antiwar anti-corporatist
pro-environmentalist
anti-political parties
anti-US government

Please join us at the White network.

UPDATE: Interview with Tom Metzger, Lone Wolf Advocate (mp3)

Segan and O'Hehir's Big Damning White Problems

Google Glass's White Male Problem, PCMag.com, by Sascha Segan, 1 May 2013:

Does anyone who isn't a white man have Google Glass?

This is starting to get disturbing. Since Google Glass demo units started appearing a few weeks ago, proud Google Glass users have been spewing selfies all over the Internet. And except for the hired help in Google's demo videos, every single Google Glass owner I've heard a word from appears to be a middle-aged white male, usually with some receding hairline action going on there. There's even a Tumblr devoted to the phenomenon.

This is a big problem.

I say this as a middle-aged white man with extremely little hair. Google Glass is just breaking out of the dream stage, and our society is grappling with these wearable items: what they do, how to use them, and how we shouldn't use them. People who aren't white, middle-aged males need to be part of that conversation, but I don't see that happening right now with Glass.

People from non-Western-European-descended, non-male gender and ethnic groups have different perspectives on technology and society that could help shape Google Glass and how it's used.

For Segan Whites are "disturbing", a "big problem". Why? Because he sees Whites as distinct and different from non-Whites - a fact which Segan and PC Magazine willingly acknowledge, at least so long as it serves an argument in favor of non-Whites.

One of the reasons I so love reporting on mobile technology is that it's tremendously egalitarian, and it crosses all gender, ethnic, and class lines. My peer group of mobile tech writers is whiter and maler than America as a whole, but it isn't the complete white-out we're seeing with Google Glass early adopters.

So Segan likes pretending everyone is equal and dislikes when reality confounds his fantasy. His "peer group", however White, either shares his White-abnegating attitude or is unwilling to challenge it.

Google Glass, and wearables in general can change our society. That includes everyone. Being the vanguard of a major new product category, with so many possible societal ripples, makes Glass more important than a typical game or website whose usage naturally skews to one ethnic or gender group.

If the direction of this societal change is being determined entirely by a socially homogenous group of guys (no matter how hard they try), it's going to be a less useful technology for that.

Who is "us"? Who comprises this society of "ours" that Segan thinks "we" should be so worried about? Who is this homogenous group determining the direction of societal change?

The prevailing wisdom of the current anti-White regime is that race is "entirely a social and political construct". Yet somehow Segan is able to judge who is "white" just by looking at faces.

Based on his face - as well as his name and his anti-White attitude - I think Sascha Segan is a jew. I think a large fraction of the men in the Tumblr he links look like jews. I say this as a White man who recognizes that jews are different from Whites.

Even setting aside biological differences, Segan's own line of argument suffices to make the point. Jews have a completely different perspective than Whites do. On the one hand, jews see jews as distinct from Whites, with jews as victims and Whites as their oppressors. On the other hand, Whites see jews as victims and also mistake them for "white". It's no mystery why so many Whites make this mistake. Jews constantly espouse these jewish perspectives at the same time they pathologize and demonize Whites for expressing any kind of White perspective.

In this case the difference between Whites and jews is even more glaring than usual. Segan is specifically blaming "whites" for a phenomena that is in fact even more markedly jewish. Would Segan have written an article about the disturbing big problem that too many Google Glass wearers are jews? Would PC Magazine have published it?

On Tuesday I talked about another example of this White problem meme I had recently run across. The Oscars’ old, white, male problem, Salon.com, by Andrew O'Hehir, 21 Feb 2012:

On one hand, the evidence dredged up by an extensive Los Angeles Times investigation into the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is damning: The Oscars are being decided by 5,765 voting members (itself a smaller number than usually reported) who are 94 percent white.

O'Hehir is another jewish-looking, jewish-sounding anti-White critic. To him an organization being 94 percent White is not only a "problem", it's "damning". Unlike Segan, O'Hehir doesn't even try to explain why. An anti-White attitude is simply taken for granted at Salon.

Now, it’s also true that my reaction to all this diligent legwork by a team of at least seven Times reporters can be summarized with a colloquial phrase that begins with “No” and ends with “Sherlock.” No one who has paid attention to the Oscars or the Academy — or the American film industry at large — harbors any illusions about who’s running the show, or believes that Oscar voters have much in common with Americans or moviegoers at large. Indeed, the borderline-cruel caricature of a typical Oscar voter, often bandied about in private by journalists and publicists, is of a 70-something retired actor, certainly white and probably Jewish, who wears sky-blue slacks and white patent leather shoes and lives in Brentwood or Beverly Hills. That seems to be almost exactly what the Times investigation has revealed.

My emphasis.

Whereas Segan ignored jews while he was blaming Whites, O'Hehir actually calls attention to what he's doing. He conflates Whites and jews, while in the same paragraph he acknowledges that he and anyone else who's paying attention can see there's a clear distinction.

For O'Hehir, like Segan, the problem is a certain concentration of "white" faces. How many have to identify positively as White to be a problem? It doesn't matter. The problem is "white".

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Times pointedly did not inquire into the religious or ethnic affiliations of the Academy’s white members. I can’t deny being curious about the question of how Jewish the Academy is these days, and you might be able to construct a non-offensive argument for why that’s relevant information. But it’s information that ugly people would use for ugly reasons, and you can’t blame the reporters and editors involved for not jabbing a stick into that particular hornets’ nest.

It's worth noting that O'Hehir explictly describes how different jews are from Whites. Counting and calling "whites" a problem is relevant and non-offensive. It's something O'Hehir does and Salon enables. Counting jews, on the other hand, is offensive, irrelevant and ugly. These are two totally different kinds of problem. If they look "white", "white" is the problem. Noticing jews makes them swarm and cause you problems.

One response is to say “so what,” as some people do in the Times piece. The Academy is a private membership organization, which is devoted to burnishing the image of the film industry and has never claimed to represent the public at large. It can give out awards however it wants, and people aren’t required to watch.

Once again, this only highlights the difference between jews and Whites. When someone in the jewsmedia calls out a so-called White problem they don't lose their job. Instead Whites are expected to get busy increasing diversity, which means in effect to make whatever is being criticized less White. Even a passive "so what" is regarded as confirmation of the supposed problem. It's a moot point because there isn't a White left in the jewsmedia who would even dare say "so what", never mind point out that jews aren't White.

In contrast, "so what" is a typically jewish response to a criticism like this, and it is deployed in a decidedly aggressive manner. Regarding Hollywood, for example, Ben Stein and Michael Medved expressed this attitude. Both made the same basic argument: Yes, jews run Hollywood, and if you think that's a problem then you're the problem.

Jews take this hostile attitude toward criticism specifically because they are acutely aware of and attached to their jewishness. They voice their hostility toward Whites specifically because they don't identify as White. This is a problem for Whites.

The Sirota Cries Out in Pain

Twitter / davidsirota: Out of all the hate mail I ...:

Out of all the hate mail I get, none is more depressing than the stuff that includes holocaust denialism. That's some f'd up repugnant shit.

The jew cries out in pain as you reject his tribe's one-sided extortive sobstories.

The jew cries out in pain as he explains how "White privilege" is to blame.

Battleground: WWII Anti-"Racist" Propaganda

Battleground (1949), IMDb:

A squad of the 101st Airborne Division copes with being trapped in the besieged city of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

The moral of the story - a justification for the war in Europe - is delivered by a preacher. It is a brief scene whose tone and tenor stands conspicuously apart from the rest. In fact the bulk of the film, the action and interpersonal drama, can be seen as a mere delivery mechanism for this poisonous payload:

Was this trip necessary? Well, let's look at the facts.

Nobody wanted this war but the nazis. A great many people tried to deal with them and alot of em are dead. Millions have died for no other reason except that the nazis wanted em dead. So in the final showdown there was nothing left to do except fight.

There's a great lesson in this, and those of us who have learned it the hard way aren't gonna forget it. We must never again let any force dedicated to a super race, or super idea, or super anything become strong enough to impose itself upon a free world. We must be smart enough and tough enough in the beginning, to put out the fire before it starts spreading.

So my answer to the sixty-four dollar question is: yes, this trip was necessary. As the years go by alot of people are gonna forget, but you won't. And don't ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker to fight in the war against fascism.

"Let's look at the facts." The authoritative voice in The Brotherhood of Man (discussed here) used the same lie to introduce his anti-"racist" fraud.

The fraud here is, "Let's you and him fight. And don't ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker, sucker."

The fact is that the White race - the people of European descent in every country on this planet - lost that war. The jews won.

The film was written by Robert Pirosh:

His most notable success was garnering the Academy Award for his screenplay of Battleground (1949), a motion picture based on the Second World War Battle of the Bulge in which he had himself participated as a Master Sergeant with the 35th Division.

His name is in the list of Jewish Recipients of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.

Pressure Cooker Sympathies

Why do the Sirotas sympathize with the Tsarnaevs but fear and loath the McVeighs?

From Hollywoodism (one facet of jewsmediaism):

The Hollywood movie moguls and their parents came from a place which was like a colossal pressure cooker. The Pale of Settlement in the Russian empire was the only place where jews could live legally under the czar. They had a very marginal existence, lived in poor villages. There was a tremendousry? of over-population. People were constantly migrating around. This area really was the equivalent of a sort of huge indian reservation. Not only were people poor but there were very few things they could do to earn a livelyhood. Their neighbors were often violent. There were tremendous constraints on jewish life and also a real sense of vulnerability.

The oppression narrative in Western political discourse (based on the glorification of the dark-skinned alien and vilification of Whites) is an outgrowth and generalization of the jewish narrative, at the heart of which is antipathy and contempt for Europeans.

P.S. Sirota:

is a Slavic last name. In Russian, "сирота" means "orphan".

Avoiding The Real Question

David Sirota's latest attempt to spin the Boston bombing, The huge, unanswered questions post-Boston:

1. Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be a foreign-born Muslim?

2. Will the Boston response finally change America’s posture toward public employees?

3. Does 24-7 news and technology make us more safe or less safe?

The inveterate dishonesty of the jewsmedia is a reflection of jewish nature and the illegitimacy of jewish rule.

1. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it doesn't understand the jewsmedia?

2. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it cares about "America" or "public employees"?

3. Why is the jewsmedia afraid of questions, discussion, debate and opinion forming outside the jewsmedia?

These are rhetorical questions - facets of the larger Jewish Question.

White Like Sirota

FBI — Photos.

Where will the jewsmedia take the "dark-skinned" "WHITE MALE" discussion now?

Paul Kevin Curtis' Missing Pieces

Alleged ricin mailer Paul Kevin Curtis has a curious side interest:

Let the record show that on this date, March 05, 2008, I, Paul Kevin Curtis, being of sound mind, am attempting once again to expose various parties within the government, FBI, police departments, legal & healthcare systems, etc. that a conspiracy to ruin my reputation in the community as well as an ongoing effort to break down the foundation I worked more than 20 years to build in the country music scene, began on the day I accidentally discovered a refrigerator full of dismembered body parts & organs wrapped in plastic in the morgue of the largest non-metropolitan healthcare organization in the United States of America, AKA

North Mississippi Medical Center where I was employed from 1998 until March of 2000.

The purpose of this online documentary of photos, police reports, as well as my 1st & only online petition, publications & events surrounding my life & the actions of what I believe to be that of a secret shadow government in which I feel have been put into place by higher powers to be in order to hide the truth behind the illegal organ harvesting market which I began investigating in 2000 after being "banned" for life for simply questioning the hospital administration on what they did with so many dismembered body parts?

It's not clear if Curtis was aware of it or not, but as detailed in my most recent podcasts (Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 2 and Part 3) international organ trade/trafficking/theft is a long-standing jewish/Israeli enterprise. See, for example, Israeli Organ Trafficking and Theft: From Moldova to Palestine.

The jewsmedia, being the jewsmedia, has so far kept a lid on this dirty jewish secret. Their reports on Curtis will likely treat his special interest as nothing more than a sign of insanity. David Sirota and Tim Wise will not be calling any attention to it, even under the guise of "White privilege". Search terms like "white privilege organ trade" turn up next to nothing. Though the accounts that do exist usually deplore the exploitation of poor "people of color" by rich "whites", the fact that jews are up to their eyeballs in it all - as doctors, brokers and recipients - serves not only to ward off the jewsmedia, but law enforcement authorities as well.

Sirota and Wise Define The New Normal - "White Privilege" as a Jewish Construct

David Sirota writes Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American:

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.

Tim Wise writes Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness:

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for whites to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening, or threatened with deportation.

White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh

among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.

And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

In short, white privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.

It is the source of our unearned innocence and the cause of others’ unjustified oppression.

That is all. And it matters.

David Sirota is a jew. Tim Wise is a jew. It matters.

The narrative of oppression is, after all, the jewish narrative. This is a narrative in which Whites and jews are polar opposites - where jews and other people of non-Whiteness are innocent victims of unjustified oppression by Whites.

Wise and Sirota, as hypersensitive as they are about race and identity, are well aware of this. The hypocrisy of their anti-"racist" screeds against Whites and the dishonesty of their "White like me" anti-White guilt-trip schtick can only spring from an unfathomable hatred for Whites.

To describe what's going on in their own terms, it is jewish privilege is that allows them to vent venom against Whites based on nothing more than literal fantasy - "if the bomber turns out to be White" or even "hoping the bomber turns out to be White". Their shrill denunciations of illusory "White privilege", echoed ever more often and loudly across the media, are an indication of just how deeply dishonest and malevolent jewish rule is.

Boston Bombing

It's not clear yet who planted the bombs or why. As usual I'm more fascinated with the jewsmedia spin.

In Boston Bomb Attack No Excuse for Media Speculation Jeffrey Goldberg stikes a pose as the voice of reason:

In an era in which none of us like to leave anything unsaid, and in which technology offers us the opportunity to say things fast, we often succumb to the urge to speculate. Shortly after the 2011 shootings in Norway, I asked publicly whether a Mumbai-type attack had visited Europe, the implication being that Muslim terrorists were behind the atrocity. It was perfectly plausible to suggest that Muslim terrorists were to blame -- except that they weren’t. I learned my lesson.

The lesson was: "Hey guys, let's not rush to judgment. This could be another Breivik!"

Terrorism Expert: Boston Blast a McVeigh-Like Attack:

“It’s interesting the timing of this event,’’ Dr. Harvey Kushner told Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show.

“It’s Patriot’s Day, Tax Day. It’s a holiday in Boston and we’re coming up on what was the Oklahoma City bombing April 19th, and also the Battle of Lexington, which started the American Revolution.

“A lot of domestic terrorist organizations used to key in on that date, April 19. And Boston … is the center of this patriot movement and patriot feeling.’’

Kushner, author of “Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States’’ and “The Encyclopedia of Terrorism’’ said the marathon’s prominence appears to be a factor in it being targeted.

“You have cameras there you have news coverage, so a big statement has been made by this,’’ he said.

“Whether it’s at the hand of a domestic terrorist, or an internationally sponsored group or a wannabe, this is not good for this country because it just shows the vulnerability of this nation.

“This is not flying planes into buildings, but it’s certainly hitting America on an important day and it just shows our vulnerability.’’

He said he believed the explosions could be the work of “a McVeigh type, if I could be so bold.’’

The "experts" aren't sure which jewish boogeyman to blame yet.

Two Lessons in Privilege

There were two substantial tremblers along the White/jew faultline this week. In both cases a jewess published a public comment concerning higher education which triggered a viral outpouring of fear and loathing, the brunt of which has been directed at Whites.

The first was caused by Susan Patton's OPINION: Letter to the Editor, at The Daily Princetonian, 29 March 2013. The most controversial part:

When I was an undergraduate in the mid-seventies, the 200 pioneer women in my class would talk about navigating the virile plains of Princeton as a precursor to professional success. Never being one to shy away from expressing an unpopular opinion, I said that I wanted to get married and have children. It was seen as heresy.

For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

An Alumna’s Advice for the Young Women of Princeton: Marry My Son, by Eveline Chao, The Daily Beast, 30 Mar 2013:

In a letter published in The Daily Princetonian on Friday, Susan A. Patton, the president of the class of ’77, offered her “advice for the young women of Princeton.”

One of the more-quoted lines that immediately began zinging across social media read, “Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.”

Patton continued: “As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market ... You will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

There was also:

“I am the mother of two sons who are both Princetonians. My older son had the good judgment and great fortune to marry a classmate of his, but he could have married anyone. My younger son is a junior and the universe of women he can marry is limitless.”

The image conjured for most was of a rich, ‘50s housewife who dabbles in eugenics. Unsurprisingly, the blogosphere went nuts.

Patton was also called a “WASP,” “offensive,” and “sheltered.” One person said, “Thank god you didn’t have daughters.” On Twitter, @DesiderioAArnaz tweeted, “Feminism just died at Princeton.” Another user named @dylanmatt appended the link with, “A stirring call for the genetically gifted to band together and form a master race.” I myself am a Princeton alum, and when former classmates posted the link on Facebook, some speculated that it was an April Fools’ joke.

A phone call Friday with Patton confirmed that it was not.

“I’m mortified,” she said of the online comments. But when asked if she would like to clarify or change anything she’d said, she replied, “Not really.”

She also revealed a few details that might not reconcile her with feminists, but which do counter the impression given by her letter.

First, she isn’t a WASP. (“It was intended as advice from a nice Jewish mother. That’s all it was.”)

Second, she isn’t exclusively a homemaker. Patton has run her own HR consulting and executive coaching business in New York City for 20 years. She didn’t work the first five years after her first son, now class of 2010, was born, but has ever since.

And third, she isn’t married to a Princeton grad. In fact, she’s just out of what she calls a “horrible” divorce, after 27 years of marriage. “My husband’s academic background was not as luxurious as mine, and that was a source of some stress,” said Patton. “I think he felt a certain level of resentment.”

What Patton recommends seems to be common sense. An admonition to mate only with someone of the same race would make it even better. The main thing that makes any such advice controversial is jewish influence - whether in favor of womb-shrivelling feminism or anti-White anti-"racism", in both academia and media. Naturally this consideration goes unmentioned, at least by jews and especially in the mainstream media.

By several accounts the strongest rebuke came the same day Patton's letter was published. Maureen O'Connor's Princeton Mom to All Female Students: ‘Find a Husband’ is full of snark and describes Patton as a luddite with a depressing worldview. Five hours later came a sheepish update, Q&A: Princeton Mom Wishes She Married a Princeton Man, in which O'Connor suddenly appears very understanding and even sympathetic. A day before Chao wrote her piece for the Daily Beast, O'Connor had the same conversation, and cited the same "clarifications" for her sudden change in attitude:

Patton spoke by phone from her home in the Upper East Side, where she runs her own business as a human resources consultant and executive coach. She was in the midst of reading responses to her letter when I called. "I'm astounded by the extreme reaction. Honestly, I just thought this was some good advice from a Jewish mother," she laughed.

The understanding is that being a jewish mother is completely different from being a White mother. Later observers incorporate the jewish mother card into their story from the get go.

Susan A. Patton wrote to Princeton student newspaper urging female students to snag man, Mail Online:

Susan A. Patton, a proud Princeton University alumna and the living affirmation of the meddling Jewish mother stereotype, raised some eyebrows this week

A WASP could expect the recriminations and condemnations to eventually be accompanied by tangible sanctions. A jewess raises eyebrows and inspires some ambiguous finger-wagging about jewish stereotypes.

James Taranto didn't do either. Instead, he quickly rode to Patton's defense. Why? Well, Susan Patton Told the Truth. Oh, and:

It took some bravery for the young Miss Patton to go to Princeton, for she was not a legacy and was anything but a daughter of privilege. As she explained in a 2006 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, her mother was a survivor of Auschwitz, a German death camp in Poland; her father, of Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp in Germany.

The irony here is in Taranto insisting Patton isn't privileged just before explaining how she is. He plays the camp survivor card right up front, presumably because he regards it as relevant to his point, which is that Patton is a righteous hero so these stupid/crazy/evil critics should back off.

Alyssa Rosenberg took a different tack, explaining The Real Problem With Susan Patton's s ur-Jewish Mother letter to the editor is the Daily Princetonian:

Patton’s letter is exactly the kind of thing that is tremendously clicky, to the extent that it was probably worth it financially to the Daily Princetonian to publish it even if the site ended up offline because of the massive influx of readers.

All in all, it’s a very successful, cynical execution of a well-established strategy.

Rosenberg's argument makes little sense except perhaps as a projection of her own obsession with clicks, money and cynical strategy.

Miraculously, Patton got some time to explain herself on television. When Megyn Kelly asked Patton to respond to the crux of the controversy, which is "elitist snobby Ivy League people [who] think they're better than we are", Patton did not play the jewish mother card. Instead she lied, claiming, "I'm not suggesting that anybody's better than anybody".

Except she did. In two different ways. The controversy concerns her letter where she used the term "worthy of you", and explicitly acknowledged, "Yes, I went there." She was talking about intelligence, not even race, but it was considered as such, at least at first. That changed as soon as she quickly played the jewish mother card, which is the second way she suggested somebody is more worthy.

At the heart of the "jewish mother" trope is the quite conscious concern that:

The only option in life for her children is college and (for the girls) marrying a nice Jewish boy (often parsed even more with "A nice Ashkenazic boy" or "A nice Ashkenazic doctor" or "A nice Ashkenazic doctor with an apartment in New York and plenty of frequent flier miles to visit your mother whom you never cawl anymore"). Likewise, a Jewish son is expected to bring home a nice Jewish girl. No matter how nice, however, this girl will not be good enough. Heaven forbid he marries a Shiksa Goddess.

As long as critics considered her White Patton's suggestion of intellectual superiority was regarded as beyond the pale. That changed as soon as she played the jewish mother card. Being a "good jewish mother" implies group superiority. Though for a White mother this would only be regarded as more damning, for jews it miraculously serves to blunt the attack, and shifts the focus elsewhere.

It's interesting to consider how this story might have unfolded differently if Susan Patton were White. Would she have written such a letter? Would it have been published? Would James Taranto have lept to her defense? Would feminists now be organizing a boycott of her business?

On the same day that Susan Patton's letter was published, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from Suzy Lee Weiss, To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me:

If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.

As with Patton, controversy ensued. Suzy Lee Weiss: 'Entitled' high school senior sparks firestorm after writing biting open letter to the Ivy League schools that rejected her, Mail Online, 4 April 2013:

The article outraged many, who accused her of being entitled, self-indulgent and even racist.

'Entitled little brat,' one Twitter user said, as another said: 'Choking on the petulant privilege of Suzy Lee Weiss & hoping she matures out of her ignorance rather than being bolstered by a book deal.'

Another directed a message to Weiss, saying: 'Your letter reveals your republican homophobic leanings and hatred of others not exactly like you. Grow up.'

Despite the criticism Weiss, like Patton, was given television time to explain herself. On Today she claimed it was a joke, satire, that she was poking fun at political correctness. This contradicted her story that before writing she cried to her mother about it and then her sister. Weiss added that diversity is "a wonderful thing" and admitted that her letter led to job offers.

If you're wondering how a whiny high schooler got their letter printed by the Wall Street Journal in the first place, it helps to know that her sister Bari Weiss, is a former Wall Street Journal editor. Bari is also now a senior editor at Tablet Magazine. Like Susan Patton, Suzy Lee Weiss is visibly jewish. Unlike Susan Patton, who played the jewish mother card early, the only mention I've found of Suzy Lee Weiss' jewish identity is an article at Tablet, Suzy Lee Weiss Fires Back on the Today Show:

A story we’ve been following closely–how could we not? she’s mishpucha

Because they can't yet have the internet and ban us from using it too, Whites who are curious about bits of tribal code can still read things like The Yiddish Handbook, which suggests 40 Words You Should Know:

mishpocheh

Or mishpokhe or mishpucha. It means “family,” as in “Relax, you’re mishpocheh. I’ll sell it to you at wholesale.”

That strikes quite a different tone than Weiss' deprecatory reference to herself as a "saltine cracker".

Commentary Magazine, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, provided two supportive editorials. After decades of non-stop jewish propaganda downplaying race, in particular by reducing it to skin color, in When Will Universities Understand Real Diversity? Michael Rubin complains:

The sad fact is that universities—both private and public—are essentially racist: They will gladly boil down diversity to the color of skin.

It’s Not Only the Colleges that Weren’t Honest with Suzy Weiss, by Seth Mandel comments on the Today interview mentioned above:

Guthrie then looks at Weiss and says: “I mean, for one thing, some people read this and they say you are being very cavalier about the importance of diversity.” Weiss dismisses the attempted shaming by saying the piece was satire. But here Weiss isn’t giving herself enough credit. The problem with the section of Weiss’s op-ed about diversity was that it wasn’t an exaggeration: had Weiss followed her joking suggestions, she very well might have been accepted by any number of universities whose admissions officers probably cringed at the op-ed because Weiss was describing actual applicants they happily accepted over Weiss.

Guthrie may have seen Weiss’s words as cartoonish, but here’s the point: they accurately describe the attitudes of the deans at America’s top universities. Weiss didn’t lampoon them so much as expose them to a wider audience.

Weiss can shrug it off because she knows she has a network of unflinching support. Diversity doesn't change that. And anyway, jews understand "diversity" is code for less White. The problem, and the reason for all the beating around the bush at Commentary, is that jews, especially "conservative" jews, want to be seen as "white" by Whites, but they also want to be seen as "diverse", or at least exempt from any cost of "diversity".

The conflation of Whites and jews as "white" is deliberate. Julie Gerstein, writing at The Frisky, provides one example. In Entitled High School Senior Suzy Lee Weiss Makes Me Sad For The Future Gerstein writes about Weiss' "screed" and "failure":

Maybe the lesson for Ms. Weiss isn’t that she’d have gotten into college if only she’d “worn a headdress to school,” but that colleges are no different than the general population: They don’t like assholes. And they, like the rest of us, don’t appreciate deep-seated resentment, mild racism and selfishness in potential friends, mates and students.

Maybe, Ms. Weiss, you were rejected because your piss-poor attitude of entitlement and privilege seeped out of every word you wrote on your college application. No one “lied to you” about what colleges want. They want you to “be yourself,” as long as the “you” in question isn’t a smug jerk who believes you’re entitled to get everything you want just because you want it. And that, Ms. Weiss, is where you went wrong.

Entitled, "To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me," the piece is a good old fashioned spiteful rant, flinging glasses of white whine into the eyes, not only of every college that denied her admission, but also every person who has ever been accepted into a college, ever.

It's possible that Gerstein doesn't recognize Weiss as a jew, but not likely. What she's definitely doing is aiming a spiteful rant at "whites" that would not likely have been written, much less published at The Frisky, if it had been about jews.

Suzy's mistake, it seems, was interpreting the advice "Just be yourself" literally. Like perhaps someone told her, "Applying to colleges? Ah, just be yourself," and she accepted this as an instruction to pursue no activities other than being herself.

Being yourself is not a talent.

Unless of course you're a jewish mother. Being jewish worked for Weiss and she didn't even have to play that card herself. With a little help from the WSJ and Today she's enjoying the privilege of being a jewish-looking girl with a jewish-sounding name that a jewish media outlet or two regard as family. Whether she was whining about her jokes or joking about her whining it all worked out well enough. At least for her. Meanwhile, Gerstein and others are busy slagging "whites" over it.

Kirsten West Savali, writing at Clutch Magazine, which is explicitly targeted at black women, provides an example of the desired effect. For Middle-Class White Girls When Being Privileged Isn't Enough:

Suzy did what any self-respecting privileged, young, white woman would do — she used her familial connections with the WSJ to pave the way for her brilliant od-ed, which otherwise may have languished in darkness, never to be seen by human eyes. This literary phenomenon, which places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those pesky black and brown people who don’t deserve to go to college because, well, they’re black and brown, has exposed the world’s best-kept secret: “If it ain’t white, it ain’t right.”

See how that works? A jewess complains. She gets press and benefits. Whites get the blame. Savali, in her budding wisdom, at least gets a bit of the crying/joke:

Weiss, in her budding wisdom, exposed the mantle of white privilege for what it should be: Proud, unapologetic and unconcerned with anyone not blessed to posses it. She offered herself up as the scape-goat to be ridiculed. Though she did receive job and internship offers for her take-down of reverse racial discrimination, that was never the point.

The point was to reveal the face of the forthcoming post-racial state of America. A place where white students are rewarded for mocking the tenuous foundation of equality on which this country is built and education remains a coveted club to which only middle-class white students are entitled.

Equality is a delusion which mainly afflicts Whites. The point is that today jews and jewish interests rule academia and media, among other things. The fact that Whites get the blame for what jews do is evidence of jewish privilege, not "white" privilege, and certainly not White privilege.

Lawrence Auster is Finally Dead

I shared my thoughts about Auster's legacy in Auster's Personal Announcement, when he first announced his illness in August 2011, and then again two weeks ago in Assessing Auster. Today one of Auster's "vile sycophants", Laura Wood, announced his death.

LAWRENCE AUSTER: JANUARY 26, 1949 - MARCH 29, 2013:

But the blogging career that stands out on the Internet and in the history of American letters as a tour de force of philosophical and cultural insight is over. Mr. Auster entered a state of sedated and sometimes pained sleep the next day, after a night of agony. He spoke no more than a few words during the next two days and died peacefully this morning after about ten hours of unusually quiet and mostly undisturbed rest.

Only extreme incapacitation could have brought that career to a close. For many of us, it was a marvel, a form of essential daily food. No man gave more to his readers. No writer responded more energetically to the people who took in his words and either approved or rejected them. No thinker, except perhaps Plato, jousted more ably with his students or left such an elegant and finished record of philosophical conflict and resolution. He was philosopher, journalist, guru and cultural psychoanalyst in one. And no writer on culture and politics had sounder judgment about the world around us, or more brilliant observations.

The relationship between Mr. Auster and the hundreds of often-anonymous correspondents who wrote to him over the years was like that between a boxing coach and his fighters. He trained his followers in the art of intellectual combat — and the price was a staggering workload as he edited the debates that have appeared here over the years. He paid tireless tribute to the fight for truth. But, as he insisted, he wasn’t a hero. He was just doing what came naturally. He was doing what he had to do.

Sadly, as of today, View from the Right, except for an entry about his funeral and possibly more on his death, will become inactive. He wanted it that way. VFR could not continue beyond Mr. Auster’s death because it is the creation of an utterly unique personality and mind.

The site will, however, remain online permanently, as long as the Internet exists. There are also plans to collect his writings, both those found here and those unpublished, in book form. At the time of his final siege of illness, he was working hard to make that happen.

His work will continue to be read and appreciated. The number of “vile sycophants” will grow. Falsehoods will for many years more be overturned by those who have come in contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Auster. I am certain of that.

It means all the more for a friend and supporter like Wood to so clearly note Auster's guru-like, psychoanalyst-like traits, as well as the sycophancy he attracted and cultivated. These are recurring patterns in jewish intellectual movements which Auster's nemesis Kevin MacDonald has identified and discussed.

The "movement" around Auster will dissolve without its Energizer Bunny guru. True to his jewish heritage, Auster was a totalitarian bolshevist control freak. This was evident in the meticulous editing and pasting required to fit each individual comment from private email into the public, micromanaged "debate" on his blog. It was also evident in the way he would regularly inform other bloggers which commenters or topics were anathema.

The essence of Auster's project, his "View from the Right", was to inform others how to see the world, the "right" way to think about it. His two most frequent themes were "anti-semitism" and "liberalism" - with the underlying connection between these, and most of his other topics, being his and his sycophants' overriding concern for the best interests of the jews.

Auster attempted, in a way, to do to White racialism what Norman Podhoretz and his Trotskyite "liberal" jew inner circle did to American conservativism - replacing White priorities with jewish priorities. Auster wanted "whites" to think about race to the extent it entailed criticism of or even separation from muslims, blacks, or mestizos. But at the prospect of Whites regarding jews likewise Auster's usual pretense at principle and reason and decorum suddenly reverted to the unhinged pathologization and demonization so perfectly typical of his tribe.

Today the White race lost a self-professed jewish fifth columnist. Hallelujah!