California Scheming

Send California inmates to Mexico, says Schwarzenegger - Yahoo! News, Jan 25:

"I think that we can do so much better in the prison system alone if we can go and take, inmates for instance, the 20,000 inmates that are illegal immigrants that are here and get them to Mexico," Schwarzenegger said.

"Think about it -- if California gives Mexico the money. Not 'Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens'. No. Not at all.

"We pay them to build the prison down in Mexico. And then we have those undocumented immigrants down there in prison. It would half the costs to build the prison and run the prison. We could save a billion dollars right there that could go into higher education."

California has some of the most overcrowded prisons in the United States, with an estimated 170,000 inmates housed in facilities designed for 100,000 people, according to 2007 figures.

Yes, think about it. The cost of the alien invasion never came up during the budget crisis just a few months ago, and here we're getting just a small glimpse of it.

What Schwarzenegger admits is that about 12% of the prisoners in California are known to be illegal alien mexicans who cost the state some $2B per year. This does not account for the cost of criminal aliens who aren't here illegally or aren't mexican. It also doesn't account for the cost to apprehend and prosecute these aliens, nor the costs to their many victims in human and financial terms.

California has been overrun by non-White aliens. Now it's bankrupt. And the other most populated, most invaded states - Texas, Florida, New York - are following California's lead. There is no clearer example than this that our government is corrupt and illegitimate. In any other time or place a governor worthy of the title would indeed say, "Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens", and he would have said it while sending them home, before they had a chance to do us any harm.

Celebrating Insane Alienated Anti-Heroes

Catcher In The Rye author shaped the popular culture he came to shun - Times Online:

For a man who spent half his life as a recluse, J. D. Salinger left an extraordinary, indelible imprint on popular culture. His influence transcended his literary fame and shaped future directions in film, television, music, and theatre as well as popularising the term “to screw up”.

Salinger’s classic is frequently cited as proof that culture cannot be held responsible for acts perpetrated by the people who consume it.

Really? That's not at all what they say about The Turner Diaries or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

J. D. Salinger: Author of The Catcher in the Rye | Times Online Obituary:

J. D. Salinger shot to worldwide fame with his novel The Catcher in the Rye, which appeared in 1951. With its disenchanted adolescent anti-hero, perpetually at war with adulthood, especially as embodied in his own parents, it seemed to encapsulate the mood of an entire generation. Perhaps more remarkably it simultaneously exercised a considerable effect on that generation’s behaviour.

Its protagonist Holden Caulfield instantly became the symbol of teenage alienation in America and his influence spread rapidly across the Atlantic. Not merely, as is so often the case, for his own generation, but for those that followed, the character of Caulfield continued to stand for the seeming impossibility for the younger generation of communicating in any meaningful way not only with their parents but also with the friends and associates of those parents. When the Sixties opened, with teenage rebellion in Western society taking on a different hue and, under the influence of rock’n’roll, sexual emancipation and drugs, having apparently a different set of preoccupations, the gospel of Catcher in the Rye remained as potent as ever.

Jerome David Salinger was born in New York in 1919, the son of a kosher cheese salesman of Polish ancestry, and his wife, who was a convert to Judaism.

Here is an example why distrust of even partial jews is justified. Their racial confusion can express itself in highly destructive forms. Yet Salinger's refusal to bask in the media's adulation seems to confound and bemuse them, though they seem to know more then they let on about why. Perhaps what drove Salinger to become a recluse was shame and disgust at the negative impact of his novel, and perhaps that sprang from his non-jewish side.

Why did J D Salinger spend the last 60 years hiding in a shed writing love notes to teenage girls? | Mail Online:

Born in New York on January 1, 1919, J.D. (Jerome David) Salinger's early life gave little hint of what he would become, although there were several factors that affected him deeply.

One was the shock of believing he was Jewish and then discovering that he was only half-Jewish - his mother was, in fact, a Catholic.

More scarring still, however, were his experiences in World War II, in which he saw numerous comrades killed around him.

He landed on Utah Beach on D-Day and fought all the way to Paris. There, he met Ernest Hemingway who encouraged his writing.

Still in Europe when the war ended, he was sent to Germany to interrogate Nazis.

There, he fell in love with a girl called Sylvie - later believed to be a former Nazi official - whom he married and, after eight months, divorced.

He later described her as 'an evil woman who bewitched me'.

Salinger went back to his life of seclusion in the hidden cabin, around which he now owned 450 acres. Dressed in a blue boiler suit, he wrote every day, although not for publication - a possible treasure trove of up to ten novels are believed to lie in his locked safe.

I get the distinct impression these later writings would be hated by the same people who love Catcher. Ironically, in today's anything-goes, sexually-liberated environment smears of a sexual nature are a typical treatment for heretics. "Nothing to see here! Don't pay any attention to what this pervert has to say!" Tellingly, Salinger didn't hole up in Manhattan, Palm Beach, or the Hollywood hills where he could have much more freely slaked his supposed tastes sheltered alongside other celebrated perverts.

How alienating it is to witness the media today looking back and celebrating the impact of Salinger's novel, even as they ridicule the author and his own reaction. But then they celebrate everything destructive about the White/jewish "culture war". Caulfield's alienation makes sense to them, it's laudable even, while the alienation engendered by themselves they paint as malevolent "ignorance" and "hate".

It is for good reasons that Francis Parker Yockey described jews as Culture-distorters and the bearers of Culture-disease. In a culture free of jewish influence novels such as Catcher in the Rye would be disparaged, not celebrated.

The Importance of Growth to an Increasingly Jewish Plutocracy

I ran into an interesting statement in the February issue of Wired that neatly captures the essence of the plutocracy's current dilemma. The statement came from Peter Thiel - "billionaire", "staunch libertarian", and "VC philanthropist" - in Utopian Pessimist Calls on Radical Tech to Save Economy:

Wired: What happens if we don’t get the growth everyone expects?

Thiel: If it doesn’t happen, people will go bankrupt in retirement. There are systemic consequences, too. If we don’t have enough growth, we will see a powerful shift away from capitalism. There are good things and bad things about capitalism, but inequality becomes completely intolerable to society when everything’s static.

"The economy", such as it is today, is essentially a pyramid scheme. Its "health" hinges entirely on growth. More people, more consumption, more loans, more interest, and more profits, especially for those on top. The plutocrats fear that if the growth ever stops, or even pauses for any length of time, the jig is up.

Is Thiel, like so many other "philanthropist" plutocrats, jewish?

He's hated for supporting NumbersUSA and has written a book criticizing multiculturalism, two things rather untypical of jews.

With friends like these ... Tom Hodgkinson on the politics of the people behind Facebook, 14 January 2008:

But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the "multiculture" led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review - motto: Fiat Lux ("Let there be light"). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself "way libertarian".

Thiel says that PayPal was motivated by this belief: that you can find value not in real manufactured objects, but in the relations between human beings. PayPal was a way of moving money around the world with no restriction. Bloomberg Markets puts it like this: "For Thiel, PayPal was all about freedom: it would enable people to skirt currency controls and move money around the globe."

Thiel is #377 on the 2009 Forbes 400, but he isn't counted as jewish ("either personally or in their giving") by Jacob Berkman in Jewish Philanthropy Navigates The Economy’s Rough Seas.

The authors of Jews On The Internet and The Jewish hand behind Internet come from polar opposite views on jewish influence, but they both agree Thiel is a jew.

George Soros, another plutocrat who definitely is a jew, was quoted in the news today offering his underling in the White House some public advice.

Davos Soros: Obama reform plan not tough enough - Times Online:

Mr Soros told delegates: "To tax the banks when they are doing everything they can to get out of a hole is the exact opposite of the policy you are trying to pursue...This development came too soon because the banks are not out of the woods.”

Mr Soros also said governments around the world needed to continue spending, even if they had sizeable budget deficits, to avoid the risk of a double dip recession.

What Soros is saying is: tax and indebt the masses, not the plutocrats.

Other bankers expressed concern over "stifling growth".

As Hunter Wallace put it:

Democracy: the theory that you have as much power and influence as George Soros.

You could say the same about any plutocrat. But the power and influence of Thiel, Soros, David Gelbaum, and other jewish plutocrats is compounded by its tribally-networked nature. What comes through clearly in the Berkman article is the "supremacism" with which jews view their collective power, and the unapologetically "racist" way in which they direct so much of their "philanthropy" to fellow jews. What should make this situation troubling for any White, rich or poor, is that jews do it under the aegis of a regime which favors and defends jews and jewish interests even as it directs fear and hatred toward Whites.

Where are the mainstream media's fierce critics, the speakers of truth to power? Like the figureheads in our illegitimate government they'll bash powerless White "teabaggers" with glee, but they're afraid to question their jewish overlords.

Antisemitica

Hunter Wallace, whose blog Occidental Dissent I regularly visit and comment at, recently created a new blog called Antisemitica whose byline is "Reasoned Analysis of the Jewish Question". Visitors who sympathize with the topics and attitudes discussed at this blog can find a much greater and steadier source at either of these blogs.

At Antisemitica Hunter has been especially successful at eliciting responses from prominent opinion-shaping jews. I enjoyed the recent critique of James Howard Kunstler, who I recently wrote about in Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why. Hunter wrote Kunstler and Whites, then he answered Kunstler's dismissive response in Kunstler on Antisemitica. I left comments on both posts.

Beyond this, HW's new blog regularly provides brilliant insights into exactly the kind of White/jew faultlines that have drawn my attention for the past two years. HW offers pro-White views and explanations that have been excluded from mainstream discourse even as unapologetically pro-jew views and explanations have become more common. I'll excerpt and comment on a few points I found of particular interest.

The Jews and Obamacare:

In a racially homogeneous country, an Iceland or Finland, I think such a system could work. In America, it will become just another mechanism for wealth redistribution from Whites to non-Whites. The “47 million uninsured” are disproportionately blacks and Hispanics. I don’t want to see scarce resources drained away from the White community and wasted on people who nurse racial and ethnic grievances against us. I oppose the bill for that reason.

With that in mind, I wasn’t surprised at all to learn this morning that “Jewish groups have been at the forefront of lobbying the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for health care reform, framing their support within the Talmudic mandate of Tikkun Olam, repairing the world.” In other words, Jews as Jews are lobbying the government for wealth redistribution from Whites to non-Whites. The Jewish community is the vanguard of the interests pushing for this destructive piece of legislation.

I haven’t heard a peep of this from conservatives, libertarians, or race realists.

The only peep I think we're likely to hear is the unthinking accusation that the whole problem is unthinking "jew-hate".

Why Jews Hate Palin:

Ultimately, Jews hate Sarah Palin for the same reason White conservatives adore her. They hate her for the same reason John McCain picked her as his running mate. She is the goddess of implicit Whiteness. Palin appeals to the demographic that American Jews have alway considered their traditional enemy: rural and suburban White Christians from the Southern and Western states.

She is one of them. If Palin was ever elected president, she could unite this demographic and represent their small town values at the highest level of the American government. Jews would feel threatened by “hope and change” of this sort. Dire warnings about the “new anti-Semitism” would be issued by Jewish organizations. Emigration to Israel would be contemplated. Jews would feel even more alienated from America than they already do now.

Fear and loathing of White Americans, “leukophobia” or “anti-Whitism,” is normal, acceptable, and mainstream in the Jewish community. It is a form of racial prejudice like any other. It is also a driving force behind Jewish support for Barack Obama. What better way to drive a stake through the heart of White America than to elect a mulatto as President of the United States?

I noted this jewish fear and loathing in The Election is Over, written directly in the wake of the 2008 election. Only now, more than a year later, are famously hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical, and hyper-opinionated jews frankly discussing the issue. Of course a major portion of that discussion consists of denial that the issue is real, or that it's worth discussing.

Swastikas and Hate Crimes:

Trivial property crimes against Jews routinely get national press coverage. Violent crimes against Whites are buried in local newspapers. This is one the small daily reminders of Jewish privilege.

In the comments to If Hasan Were White I noted how while everyone in the media and government was telling everyone not to jump to conclusions about Hasan's motives a shooting near an LA synagogue inspired an instant and publically announced assumption that the cause was "anti-semitism". Nobody in media or government criticizes jews for words or actions that go beyond what is pathologized as "hate" or "racism" in Whites. To even call attention to these White/jew double standards is considered "anti-semitism".

Israel and Jewish Privilege:

Jewish privilege is real. White privilege is non-existent. Just recently, Switzerland was widely condemned around the world for its ban on the construction of minarets. The rejection of this bill in Israel [that would force the Israeli Lands Administration to allocate land equally between Arabs and Jews] (and dozens like it over the years) hasn’t set off a similar backlash in the United States. It is understood that Israel has a right to remain a Jewish state whereas the right of Switzerland to remain a White Christian nation is highly controversial.

White/jew double standards are palpable. See my related posts Whose Country Is This Anyway? and Switzerland Minus Minarets.

Neocons are Anti-Semites:

This is a great example of what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish self deception. The charge happens to be true. Jews look at Sarah Palin and they see the most white bread conservative leader since Pat Buchanan. They see the implicit whiteness in the metastasizing Tea Party crowds.

Their cultural antennae has a visceral negative emotional reaction. It goes far beyond public policy disagreements. Their gut instinct tells them crowds of angry White people are “bad for the Jews.”

When White Americans respond to negro and Hispanic chauvinists in this way, Jews decry it as “racism.” In a sense, they are right. It is racial prejudice at work; an emotional short cut that bypasses reason.

I think this view of the Tea Party phenomena is correct. There's much, much more to be said about it. It strikes me as similar not only to the prismatic polarization Palin has provided, but Polanski as well. The pattern is this: White/jewish visceral disgust, followed by jewish/White instinctual reaction to that disgust, followed by largely jewish opinion-shaping aimed at obscuring the White/jew divide, often mixed with one-way blame on supposedly irrational "jew-hate" emanating from Whites.

I've read brief allusions to this supposed jewish self-deception, but I haven't read MacDonald's original argument. Can someone point out in which book it is made? Perhaps I misunderstand the idea.

Ironically, the idea that jews don't know what they're doing or why seems to me an unconscious attempt to downplay the significance of the obvious sterotypical jewish lack of scruples and utter contempt for the notion that lying or hypocrisy is something to be avoided or to be ashamed of, at least when it comes to serving their own personal or wider jewish interests. I see true self-deception in Whites, especially those who won't judge jews, or judge them by softer standards than jews themselves see fit to judge non-jews by. We don't have to make excuses for the harm jews cause us any more than jews feel the need to excuse what they deem to be harm caused by Whites. You never see them excusing "racists", "haters", "tea baggers", "rethuglicans", "neo-nazis" - which are all codewords for Whites - as self-deceivers. In jewish eyes any White who acts White is simply a threat. The enemy. For example, when accused of being anti-White Kunstler answered:

I'm not against white people... I'm just against white people who are against other people....

It's one of the same responses I got from the anti-White "reality-based community". Only those who see Whites as some kind of lesser beings have a problem with us saying "I'm not against non-White people... I'm just against non-White people who harm White people..." Jews don't like that, and it's not because they're unaware or lie to themselves about their own outrageous, self-serving hypocrisy. They don't like it because they are hyper-aware of their own group's interests and don't give a shit what anybody else thinks about that. It reflects a fundamental difference in mental function, not some innocent oversight.

On Antisemitica's Kunstler thread I responded similarly to "David F" (David Frum?), who seemed eager to explain away Kunstler's behavior as unconscious. "David F" dissembled, claiming Kunstler is "just writing about the underclass the way everyone in his social circles does", without noting that it's very visible, very outspoken jews like Kunstler, Frum, Horowitz, Brooks, etc. shaping and pruning and leading the way - pathologizing and excommunicating Whites who question the pro-jew/anti-White social circle norms.

Another illustration of what I'm getting at is faux-White jew Lawrence Auster, who strikes an explicitly pro-"white" pose and urges "the majority" to reassert our interests. Simultaneously he considers Whites who criticize jews to be worse than an evil enemy. To him we're subhuman. He's not lying to himself, he's lying to everyone else. Auster is an extremely self- and group-aware pro-jewish chauvanist who simply lacks the honesty to plainly state his priorities, which are clear from his frequent and energetic attacks on "the anti-semites". He absurdly maintains that the recognition of this fact itself represents irrational "jew-hate". This has been pointed out to him and he has read the critiques, repeatedly, and he continues to maintain his position (see for example, Is Majority Rights cleaning up its act?, Anti-Semitism and the Jews--a collection, What the anti-Semites believe, An apostate anti-Semite, and The Darwinian anti-Semites' self-contradiction). To paraphrase his co-tribalist Kunstler, Auster isn't against "white" people... He's just against White people who resent jewish interests being misrepresented as identical to "white" interests. Both men have stated their positions clearly and openly in response to being challenged.

Paul Gottfried on Neocons:

Gottfried bluntly says that Jews control the American Right. From their throne in Manhattan, Jewish neocons enjoy the privilege of being able to manipulate the status system (using their own ethnic interests as a litmus test) to determine who is “mainstream” and “respectable” and thus who can be granted entry into the national political conversation.

In the end, Gottfried sounds more like an apologist than a truth teller.

Gottfried is yet another faux-White, pale-conning jewish critic of "liberal" jews. In the end he blames Whites and his strongest vitriol is reserved "the anti-semites". Neither he nor his friend Auster actually hold jews responsible for anything. In their minds the fault for all White/jew conflict lies entirely with Whites, whom they blame under cover of euphemisisms such as "the majority", "WASPs", "gentile whites", etc. much like Kunstler blames "yeast people" and "cornpone nazis". Pro-Whites can use whatever euphemisms or qualifiers we want in expressing negative opinions about jews, however precise, and for all their hair-splitting these brainy critics will unanimously identify and denounce that as "anti-semitism". The exception is when the criticism comes from themselves, because that's motivated by what they believe are the best interests of jews.

The Jews and NBC:

In the Jewish Journal, a recent article explicitly discusses Jewish control of NBC. White Nationalists have claimed for years that “Jews control the media” and use it to brainwash the White masses in anti-racist mores.

An excellent example of how jewish media influence allows jews to have their cake and eat it too, discussing the jewish power brokers behind the scenes at NBC amongst themselves while the mainstream discussion focuses almost exclusively on the roles and personalities of the pampered hired help who work out front. Jewish media influence is usually painted, both by jews and those currying favor with jews, as a ridiculous "canard" motivated by "jew-hate". One typical and true canard they respond with is that "[insert non-jew here] isn't jewish!" Another is that jews argue all the time. Of course as the Jewish Journal admits in its reportage intended for fellow jews, at NBC it's a "whole bunch of jews" doing the arguing. And of course it's jewish influence that keeps such frank discussions of jewish influence from being printed on the front page of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

A Personal Disclosure

I have generally avoided discussing details of my personal life on this blog. I don't wish to change that, but there is something I feel obligated to divulge.

My wife's father was an ashkenazi jew. He died when she was young but was by all accounts a loving, intelligent, and productive man who was not involved in stereotypically jewish politics or activism. My wife was not raised as a jew, though she is of course genetically 1/2 ashkenazi, and thus our children are, on average, genetically 1/4 ashkenazi.

I have not previously written of this for several reasons.

When I first started blogging in 2005 it seemed no more relevant to what I was thinking and writing than any other detail of my personal life. At that time I had no explicit racial awareness. I knew little about jews and considered them "white". People who thought otherwise seemed insane to me.

In 2007, with a deepening understanding of globalization and immigration, and especially neo-conservative hypocrisy (Sailer's "invade the world, invite the world"), I began to violate PC in earnest. I became racially aware. I realized then that my wife and children's jewish heritage was relevant, though at that time I saw it only as a potential shield from smears of "anti-semitism". I did not use it then for the same reason I have never resorted to "some of my best friends are..." defenses. Such tactics are a distraction, ultimately a waste of time and energy.

Since 2007 I have come to appreciate the biological and psychological differences between Whites and jews, as well as the history of jewish aggression and malfeasance against Whites. What I had seen as a shield turned into an achilles heel. I cared less about offending jews and more about offending fellow Whites. My self-regard shifted from confidence to unease.

I love my family. What I want stands. I can't roll back time and make this revelation sooner, but I can at least be forthright about it from here on.

A Christmas Story

On 16 December 2009 Garrison Keillor wrote a brief editorial titled Nonbelievers, please leave Christmas alone, the thrust of which was "Christmas is a Christian holiday - if you're not in the club, then buzz off". What really caused a stir was:

Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that's their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite "Silent Night." If you don't believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn "Silent Night" and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write "Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we'll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah"? No, we didn't.

Oh my. "Dreck", for those who don't know, is yiddish slang for shit.

The reaction from self-identified jews was unhinged. It follows a template including some or all of the following elements: denying Keillor's claim, condemning him for it, acknowledging its truth, and saying nastier things about Christians. I'll cite a few good examples. Here for instance is a response attached to the original editorial:

I am astounded Mr. Keillor that It has taken you most of your life to realize the depravity of the non-believers. Where I live in Silicon Valley, every ethnicity can be found on my block. Probably half are not Christian, yet most have Christmas trees. Lets send these non-believers to Auschwitz where they and the Jews can learn the true meaning of Christ. The Jews. Oh the Jews . They have contaminated Christmas by writing music and making movies about it. They have ruined it by inventing running a toy train under the Christmas tree and hosting a parade in New York. They have dared to stand up to the WASP tradition of segregation and hate.They actually claim that Jesus was one of them. Mr. Keillor enjoy your Christmas, Jew-less with Mel Gibson. You may be the last true Christians.

This self-righteous fellow equates criticizing shitty Christmas songs written by jews to putting them in a concentration camp. He gets so lost in his sarcasm that he reveals an acceptance of a broadened version of Keillor's beef - that "the jews" righteously ruined Christmas, their hostility justified by "the WASP tradition of segregation and hate".

More reader comments were published as separate items. For example, Keillor has wrong villain for Chrismas' ills:

Yesterday, perhaps at roughly the same moment you were putting the finishing touches on "Non-believers, please leave Christmas alone" (Dec. 16), I was swallowing back bile while watching the Christmas songs for which you and I share equal antipathy being etched into the psyche my 2-year-old Jewish daughter. The frustration and sorrow that you feel about the trite-making of Christmas is, to borrow a phrase from your (likewise appropriated) Yiddish-Minnesota phrasebook, bubkes compared with a Jew's sufferance of the Santa Claus tube-feeding to which we are subjected each year. You see, we have a little history that colors our feelings. I'll leave it there.

That you included even the mere mention of Jews in your diatribe, you might imagine upon further reflection, is beyond infuriating. As an outsider to your traditions and holidays, I frankly agree with many of your conclusions, but you missed the point: the hijacking of Christmas is purely the result of capitalism and the free market economy. The fact that a bunch of Jews wrote your Christmas songs is solely a function thereof. I needn't lecture you on the confluence of commerce and artisanship, but suffice it to say, it is a two-way street. In other words, y'all bought the songs that we sold. You buy it, you break it.

The long reach of your words is based upon the popularity you enjoy among the intellectual elite. Just take another look at the numbers at the listenership of the public radio stations that carry your program, then re-read the opinion piece in question. If self-sabotage is your aim, my compliments. If not, you may consider apologies to: Jews, pinch-faced drones (those who strive to understand and forward the human condition), Harvard alumni and the sorry suckers who work too hard to make Christmas perfect. Admittedly a mixed bag -- your targets are either too elite for you or not elite enough.

I think it's fair to summarize the sentiment here as: "No lowly Christian is fit to compare their sufferance to that of a jew. Yes, we wrote (and profit from) these shitty songs, but even mere disapproval of this infuriates us. Blame economics. Purely. Repent sinner, or feel our retribution."

Another response is notable for its superbly compact hypocrisy and falsehood. Jews aren't the ones who secularized Christmas:

We can barely get our children excused from school on the Jewish High Holidays, and Mr. Keillor whines about Jews who wrote songs inspired by Christmas.

The author inverts reality, claiming her imagined concerns are concrete and Keillor's concrete concerns are imagined.

Lots of people have noted how and why jews have helped secularize Christmas. I'll provide some examples of that in a moment. What I'd like to see is some evidence of jews anywhere in the US not being excused from school on their high holidays. In the midst of the greatest ripoff in history, which absolutely, positively had to be dealt with immediately, or else, congress somehow found the time to observe a jewish high holiday. Beyond that, the full force and weight of the US government stands ready to defend jews and their jewish children against any discrimination, whether by race or religion. The media isn't at all shy about reporting anti-jewish "hate" within minutes of the mere hint of it being detected. Call it whining, but Christians, despite the supposed protection offered to religion, are treated to a different, lower standard than jews, and not only in schools. The assault goes on 24/7/365. Here's a small sample I've gathered over the past few months.

• Christian Privilege: Breaking a Sacred Taboo "presents a new theoretical perspective focusing on religious privilege and includes a list of privileges that are enjoyed by members of the dominant religious group (i.e., Christians) in the United States", linking the religious war against Christians to the racial war against Whites.
• Out of the Overflow of the Heart–Jesus and Mary as Vulgar Comedy In The Holy Land. How the dominant religious group in israel acts.
• Hollywood secularists asleep at the wheel? NCIS bravely confronts Christian honor killing and Christian suicide bombing.
• 'Curb Your Enthusiasm': Larry David Urinates on Picture of Jesus. The title says it all.
• Posthumous baptism is a terrible insult to Jews. No matter what you do Christians, it's wrong.
• Chattanooga Times Free Press | Cheerleaders’ religious signs draw fire. Separation of races, in any way, is wrong, but separation of church and state, in every way, is right. That's why congress celebrates Rosh Hashanah.
• New Rule: Catholics Must Get Up Out of the Pew and Walk Out of the Church Forever. Bill Maher, doing what he does best.
• A God with Whom I am not Familiar. Tim Wise, doing what he does best.
• Sandra Bernhard in Without You I'm Nothing. Without Christians to bash for the amusement and adulation of jews, she's nothing.
• Bonnie Erbe Urges GOP to Abort Alliance with Religious Conservatives. "The GOP's main problem is it is stuck in the 1950s as long as it is controlled by the Religious Right." Bonnie Erbe is jewish and she's scandalized by milder objections to jewish political control.
• Bonnie Erbe: Even 'The Da Vinci Code' under attack by theocrats. Erbe supports genocide. She'd like to see "Americans intermarry across racial lines so thoroughly as to erase all genetic differences". I don't believe her hate for "theocrats" would be erased even if she accepted Jesus.

Even if it were restricted to the words and deeds of Larry David, Bill Maher, Tim Wise, or Bonnie Erbe alone this list could be much longer. Garrison Keillor is a weak and lonely voice in a media brimming with jews whose fame and fortune aren't at all threatened by their nasty attacks on Christians. For his crime Keillor will likely apologize and/or lose his soapbox. No such punishment awaits David, Maher, Wise, Erbe, or the hundreds of overs guilty of saying far more hostile things than, say, shitty Christian music has ruined jewish holidays.

The point is that Keillor has a point. If anything, his complaint was too narrow. Similar defenses of Christianity - made by prominent voices in mainstream media - are increasingly timid and rare. The problem with Keillor's complaint is not that it is inaccurate or attacks "the jews" - it's that he implied one aspect of a tiny subset of jewish influence is bad. For that, under our thoroughly judaized regime, any man will be villified. This is especially true for anyone with a prominent voice.

In Garrison Keillor: 'Lousy Holiday Songs By Jews Trash Up Malls', Noel Sheppard describes the Keillor paragraph I quoted at the top as "rabid anti-Semitism", provided a long list of well-known Christmas songs written by jews, and then called Keillor an "anti-Semitic (expletive deleted)". There is no dispute about the contribution of jews. Keillor's use of the words "trash" and "dreck" to describe that contribution is what triggers the typically hyperbolic reaction.

Andy Lewis, writing in the LA Times, titled his article published on 24 December 2009, Bob Dylan joins long list of Jewish musicians performing Christmas music. Apparently unaware that the idea is controversial he also provided a window into the jewish rationale for secularizing Christmas:

Diamond closed the album with a raucous performance of comedian Adam Sandler's "The Chanukah Song," which name-checks Jewish entertainers, including Kirk Douglas, Dinah Shore and "Star Trek's" William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

"I thought I'd throw one in there for my people too, because we always feel a little left out around this time of year," Diamond told the Telegraph in London recently. "Christmas music is amazingly evocative to people of all religions and cultures."

Others also cite the universal aspects of the holiday season -- and the role of music in it -- as their justification for taking on the subject of Christmas.

"I feel the Christmas holidays and the music are basically, for me, not religious," Neil Sedaka, one of the most prolific and successful songwriters of the '60s and '70s, said from his home in L.A. recently. "I'm proud to be Jewish, but I don't practice it. To me the holidays are about bringing friends and family together. I can remember vividly years ago listening to Bing Crosby's 'White Christmas' and thinking that Christmas music should be played throughout the year because it's so joyous."

Sedaka's 2008 double album, "Miracle of Christmas," brought together one disc of original songs he'd written, with a second disc of traditional songs and carols that he'd put together for the QVC cable channel.

"I started out as a concert pianist at the Juilliard School," Sedaka said, "and I'm a very studied musician. I think of the music first, and what it brings to the people emotionally."

Barry Manilow too says that the power of music, more than the scriptural messages, has spurred him to record three collections of Christmas music over the years.

In An All-American Christmas, published on 22 December 2005, Harold Meyerson claims:

Irving Berlin invented the separation of church and song with “White Christmas.”

"White Christmas" was one of a dozen numbers that Berlin wrote for "Holiday Inn," each song commemorating a specific holiday. One hesitates to impute anything so vulgar as a message to a Crosby-Fred Astaire musical, but the message of this musical is that we are all Americans and these are our holidays. Easter belongs to all of us, even if it is about little more than strolling down Fifth Avenue. Christmas belongs to all of us. The religious content of those holidays was fine for Christian believers, but the composer of "God Bless America" preferred to celebrate a common national identity, complete with common holidays that had nonsectarian meanings.

Berlin kept Christmas in the public square and, more than anyone before or since, sent it out over the public airwaves. But it was an American, not a Christian, Christmas. And by the crass index of number of recordings sold, and the not-so-crass index of number of spirits touched, Berlin's nonsectarian holiday has been the predominant version of Christmas in this country for the past 60 years.

Now the Fox News demagogues want to impose a more sectarian Christmas on us, supplanting the distinctly American holiday we have celebrated lo these threescore years with a holiday that divides us along religious lines. Bill O'Reilly can blaspheme all he wants, but like millions of my countrymen, I take attacks on Irving Berlin's America personally. If O'Reilly doesn't like it here, why doesn't he go back to where he came from?

Like Bonnie Erbe, Harold Meyerson has a powerful media amplifier he uses to vent his hostility towards Christians, especially White Christians. Here he lauds the recent imposition of a secularized Christmas while heaping fear and loathing on the original, secular Christmas. In Economy? What Economy?, published on 3 Sept 2008, Meyerson echoes Erbe:

this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem

Jews are constantly complaining about the problems they have with Christains and Whites in terms far more broad, far more hateful, and far more common than what Garrison Keillor wrote. As Edmund Connelly's essay Daniel Jonah Goldhagen: Peddler of Hate makes clear, the problems extend far beyond shitty Christmas songs.

(The image above is from a pro-jewish rant at Garrison Keillor: 'Lousy Holiday Songs By Jews Trash Up Malls' at Thee Rant.)

Lyndon LaRouche: Bad for "The Jews"

By way of preface I'll admit that like other deracinated, mainstream White Americans, most everything I have ever read or heard about Lyndon LaRouche has come from people, mainly via TV or in print news, who don't like him and take for granted that everyone should think LaRouche and the people who agree with him are insane clowns, fools, morons, losers, etc. I don't remember any specific reasons being offered to justify this attitude, but not wanting to waste time understanding something marginal and not wanting to be considered insane was enough reason for me, until recently, to simply ignore him.

Relatively late in life however I've come to understand that, at least some of the time, certain people get heaped with opprobrium not because what they're saying is wrong or insane, but because they pose a threat to people who have power. Incorrect, insane things can be said, even things that pose a threat, as long as they're said about powerless people.

I only recently stumbled on this book about LaRouche. Once again the view is hostile, in fact extremely hostile, but unlike the vague smears I've encountered in the past this author explicitly details just what it is about LaRouche that he sees as a threat.

Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, by William Dennis King, published in 1989. The excerpts below are taken from the Revised online HTML edition, 2007. OCR errors have been left intact. Emphasis added.

The archive.org introduction notes:

Taken off Kings website, this is the most substantial mainstream book on the LaRouche movement. Has a definite anti-Larouche bias

From the beginning King makes it clear that he considers LaRouche not a "kook" to be dismissed but a serious threat, and refers frankly to the mechanisms by which such threats are usually contained.

Why did society's containment system miss this "problem-case"? How did LaRouche break out of quarantine? Did powerful people know all along who and what he was, deciding simply to use him for their own purposes? Why did he remain invulnerable to prosecution for so many years? How did he inspire so much fear in those who should have led an early fight to drive him back into quarantine?

LaRouche apparently opposes "the oligarchy", but that's not who he really threatens.

The lynchpin of LaRouchism, as of more primitive systems of paranoia, is the fear and hatred of an evil and secretive force. Although LaRouche calls this force the oligarchy, he really means the Jews. Given the total paranoia of the system, the fear and hatred veers into neo-Nazism.

The latter is not an acceptable ideology in today's America and so must remain partially disguised to evade the "donkey censor." LaRouche's conspiracy theory therefore becomes a double system: First, it extends the NCLC's paranoia and hatred into every aspect of thought; second, it attacks the supposed forces of evil in a euphemistic manner. This dual nature of the theory should be kept in mind as we step by step "decode" the bizarre formulations in which it is couched.

If LaRouche had been a traditional anti-Semite, he might have based his conspiracy theory on the Protocols of the Elders ofZion, the infamous forgery that purports to document a nineteenth-century conspiracy to establish a Jewish world government through various diabolical intrigues. But the Protocols is too narrow in scope for the purposes of total paranoia and also is too thoroughly discredited by scholars for practical use among most educated people. LaRouche hesitated, however, to reject out of hand one of the most effective Big Lies of the first half of the twentieth century. So he compromised: The Protocols, he said, has a "hard kernel of truth" but is only of limited significance-it represents only a small piece of the real conspiracy of the "oligarchy."

LaRouche's oligarchy makes the Elders of Zion seem mild. It supposedly has dominated the world for tens of thousands of years with unremittingly evil motives. Indeed, LaRouche accuses it of periodically killing off a large portion of the human race through famines and plagues. Today it is supposedly plotting a New Dark Ages, which will include nuclear holocaust, the massive spread of AIDS, Zero Growth, and total bestial heteronomy.

"The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" is LaRouche's most thorough account of his version of world history. Apart from his schema of oligarchs versus humanists, this work and other NCLC pseudo-historical treatises appear to borrow heavily from the anti-Semitic "classics": Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth Century {^ 899), Oswald Spengler's Decline of the l/Vesf (1918-22), Hitler's Mein Kampf {^ 925-26), Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century {^930), and Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium (1948), as well as assorted British and American Nazi tracts from the interwar years.

LaRouche's attacks on the evil "Babylonians," for instance, strongly resemble theories found in Chamberlain, who claimed that the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity rose to great influence over their captors, and that Babylon rather than Jerusalem was the real headquarters of the ancient Jews. Chamberlain even remarked on the "Rothschilds" of Babylon. This theory is popularized for American white supremacists in pamphlets sold by the Louisiana-based Sons of Liberty~for instance. The l\/lerchants of Babylon by Rev. Bertrand L. Comparet, which features a photograph of four bearded rabbis on the cover. When LaRouche denounces the "Whore of Babylon," the Ku Klux Klan knows exactly what he means.

King sure knows exactly what he means.

It can be said that LaRouche's version of history not only begins with Nazi and proto-Nazi ideas (the Atlanteans from the North) but ends with them. His theory of the contemporary struggle between parasitic bankers and productive factory owners is suspiciously similar to the views of Hitler's early economics adviser, Gottfried Feder. The latter likewise urged the crushing and expropriation of speculative capital on behalf of industrial capital. Oswald Spengler, in a somewhat different version, hailed the "mighty contest between the two handfuls of steel-hard men of race and of immense intellect-which the simple citizen neither observes nor comprehends." Like LaRouche, SpengJer claimed that the "battle of mere interests" between capitalists and workers is insignificant in comparison.

With all the above, it is still a long step to the conclusion that LaRouche's historical writings are genuine neo-Nazism. He does discuss the "British" as the racial enemy of humanity that must be crushed, destroyed, eliminated. But is he clearly referring to the Jews when he uses the word "British"?

Who's calling who paranoid here?

When LaRouche says the Queen of England pushes drugs or that Britain is the chief enemy of the United States, he is not merely indulging in eccentricity or a Freudian dislike of female authority figures. These statements have a serious meaning to anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in West Germany and the United States. They are eccentric only to those who have not studied the history of modern anti- Semitism, in which the theme of Jewish-British race mixing and Jewish domination of the British Empire looms large.

The original Nazis popularized this theory. In Mein Kampf, Hitler complained that the Jews in England exert an "almost unlimited dictatorship" through their manipulation of public opinion. Heinrich Himmler speculated in his unpublished notebooks on the "Jewish blood" of the English and Scots. Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Cen^L/ry discussed the alleged identity of the policies of "Jewish high finance" with those of Great Britain and claimed that the British government had "handed over control of all financial transactions to Jewish bankers such as Rothschild, Montague, Cassell, Lazard, etc." Expressing a theory that the LaRouchians later would repeat in Dope, Inc., Rosenberg said that England had "allowed the opium trade to fall increasingly into Jewish hands."

Once Nazi Germany and Britain were at war, the Nazis developed a more exaggerated version. World-Battle, an official propaganda organ, depicted "English high finance" as Judaism incarnate. England's aggression against innocent Germany, it said, was the result of the Jews buying Churchill with piles of gold. Meanwhile Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, came to regard the Jews and the British upper classes as virtually one racial entity. He wrote in his diary in 1 942: "Rothschild. ..took the floor [of the British House of Commons] and delivered a tearjerker bemoaning the fate of the Polish Jews....AII members of Parliament rose from their seats as a silent tribute to Jewry. That was quite appropriate for the British House of Commons, which is really a sort of Jewish exchange. The English, anyway, are the Jews among the Aryans. The perfumed British Foreign Minister, Eden, cuts a good figure among these characters from the synagogue. His whole education and his entire bearing can be characterized as thoroughly Jewish."

King concludes:

Those who would project a political role onto law enforcement, hoping it will do what political leaders are unable or unwilling to do, only prove that the moral flabbiness on which demagogues thrive is still with us. Given this fact, the lessons of LaRouche's rise and apparent fall are important. If we study them seriously and act on them, it may turn out that the LaRouche phenomenon was a blessing in disguise — a dry run, under relatively safe conditions, that revealed our hitherto unsuspected weaknesses without our having to pay a heavy price for this knowledge. One thing seems certain: America is too violent and diverse — and too vulnerable to economic crisis — to avoid forever a major internal challenge from some form of totalitarian demagoguery. When that test comes, the story of Lyndon LaRouche may provide the key to an effective and timely response.

King's bio, from his blog:

William Dennis King was born (1941) in Durham, N.C. and raised in Chapel Hill, N.C. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1965. He has lived in New York City for over 40 years.

King is the author of two books, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Doubleday, 1989) and Get the Facts on Anyone (Third Edition, Macmillan Reference USA, 1999) (the latter book is widely used as a manual by investigative journalists). He has written scores of articles for local and national newspapers and magazines, the majority relating to the LaRouche network and other political cults and anti-Semitic groups.

I'm reminded by this subject matter of Henry Ford's THE INTERNATIONAL JEW - THE WORLD'S FOREMOST PROBLEM, published in the 1920s, one of history's more prominent threats to "the oligarchs" and "parasitic bankers", which as per King, everybody ought to know really means "the jews".

Quick Links, 10 Dec 2009

‘White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression.’ by Hugh Murray, 1999, discusses how:

Liberals seek to camouflage the overrepresentation of Jews by pointing the finger at alleged “white male privilege.”

Via Invisible Victims: White Males and Affirmative Action.

- - -

Another piece from fellist's excellent Songlight for Dawn, ‘Why Work?’ by Dorothy L. Sayers, circa 1940:

Do you realize how we have had to alter our whole scale of values, now that we are no longer being urged to consume but to conserve?

- - -

Elizabeth Warren: America Without a Middle Class:

Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you can, would it still be America as we know it?

- - -

Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers. A window into blackness.

"Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him," Johnson Cooper said.

Contrast with the media's regard for Whites holding comparable views on race-mixing. Via Occidental Dissent.

- - -

El Centro holds position for highest jobless rate

El Centro, Calif., held its position of having the highest unemployment rate among the nation's metropolitan areas, with the jobless rate at 30%, according to government figures released Wednesday.

While the figure fell from a revised 32.2% in September, it climbed from 26.8% a year ago and it is staggering even against the nation's 10.2% unemployment rate, which is at a 26-year high.

But the jobless picture has always been inferior in southern California's Imperial Valley.

Look at the ethnic makeup of the Schools in El Centro, CA. Don't avert your eyes. This is where "diversity" leads. As Felipe Calderon put it: Where there are mexicans there is mexico.

- - -

The "cool jew" trend causes jews to complain about jews complaining about jews complaining about jews. Seriously.

Robert Jay Mathews

Robert Jay Mathews was killed by US government agents 25 years ago yesterday. Here's why:

The stronger my love for my people grew, the deeper became my hatred for those who would destroy my race, my heritage, and darken the future of my children.

By the time my son had arrived, I realized that White America, indeed my entire race, was headed for oblivion unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son the more I realized that unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age, he would be a stranger in his own land, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, blacks and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day.

I came to learn that this was not by accident, that there is a small, cohesive alien group within this nation working day and night to make this happen. I learned that these culture distorters have an iron grip on both major political parties, on Congress, on the media, on the publishing houses, and on most of the major Christian denominations in this nation, even though these aliens subscribe to a religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

These are the same people who Ex-Senator William J. Fulbright and the late General Brown tried to warn us about. Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg tried vainly to warn us also. Had we been more vigilant, my son's future would not be so dark and dismal.

Thus I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle. A secret war has been developing for the last year between the regime in Washington and an ever growing number of White people who are determined to regain what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built and died for.

The FBI has been able to keep this war secret only because up until now we have been doing nothing more than growing and preparing. The government, however, seems determined to force the issue, so we have no choice left but to stand and fight back. Hail Victory!

In A Call to Arms - Part 1, recorded in 1991, William Pierce recounts his memories of Mathews in the introduction to a talk given by Mathews in 1981. Links to parts 1-13 are here at the bottom of the page.

Switzerland Minus Minarets

Power to the Swiss people and the Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP). The image caption reads, "Swiss quality, the middle class' party".

Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques - NYTimes.com:

The government must now draft a supporting law on the ban, a process that could take at least a year and could put Switzerland in breach of international conventions on human rights.

Apparently even the mildest, most indirect attempts to resist genocidal levels of immigration can put Whites in breach of "international conventions on human rights".

Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland.

Nothing to see here. Only 5 percent of Switzerland's population is muslim, close to 100 percent of them cultural and genetic aliens.

“Most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote,” said Farhad Afshar, who runs the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland. “Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.”

The kosovars, turks, and other muslims can go home, feel accepted, and build as many minarets as they like. Most painful for the Swiss is that if "international human rights" prevail it's only a matter of time before the Swiss will be entirely dispossessed of their one and only homeland.

To the consternation of anti-White internationalists resistance is beginning to come not just from the "nativist", "xenophobic", "racist", "nazi" SVP - but also from leftist feminists.

Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets - Times Online:

A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.

A “stop the minarets” campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.

This resistance is "right-wing" with "an unlikely boost" only if seen from an anti-White internationalist cheerleading point of view. Media bias isn't "liberal", it's anti-White.

Socialist politicians have been furious to see icons of the left joining what is regarded as an anti-immigrant campaign by the populist Swiss People’s party, the biggest group in parliament.

One of them, Julia Onken, warned that failure to ban minarets would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women”. She has sent out 4,000 emails attacking Muslims who condone forced marriage, honour killings and beating women.

Normal, healthy people don't like being replaced by aliens who look, think, and act alien, obliterating their precious homeland and traditions before their very eyes, forever. Apparently, neither do radical feminists.

Swiss business is horrified. There are fears of a reaction against Swiss products similar to the one suffered by Denmark over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in 2005.

“The brand ‘Swiss’ must continue to represent values such as openness, pluralism and freedom of religion,” said Hanspeter Rentsch, a member of the board of Swatch, the watchmaker.

It's more horrorifying that Swiss businessmen feel free to favor "brand 'Swiss'" over people Swiss. The irony is that openness and pluralism will eventually destroy the Swiss and all their "brands", and the freedom to build minarets will ultimately be very, very bad for business.

Can you guess who else thinks openness, pluralism and freedom of religion are more important than Swiss self-determination?

Push to ban minarets in Switzerland a 'threat':

Switzerland's biggest Jewish groups said Wednesday that a far-right push to ban the construction of minarets here was a "threat" to religious harmony and hindered the integration of Muslims.

- The referendum infringes religious freedom, a concept enshrined in the constitution - said the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities and the Platform of Liberal Jews in Switzerland in a statement.

It - also poses a threat to peaceful relations between the religions and inhibits the integration endeavours of Muslims in Switzerland - they added.

This is pure double-talk. Immigration brings the threat to harmony. The Swiss citizenry, who to the extent they've been informed and consulted have expressed their disfavor for immigration, muslim or otherwise, and should not be forced to suffer it, whether the immigrants wish to "integrate" with them or not. It is their very existence which is being infringed. What gives "jewish communities", who have not integrated after more than two millenia among Europeans, any standing to lecture anyone about immigration or integration? They consider themselves jews first, not Swiss, so they can STFU or move to israel and lecture their own tribe about immigration and integration.

The two Jewish groups said they - take seriously the fears of the population that extremist ideas could be disseminated in Switzerland. -

- But banning minarets is no solution -- it only creates in Muslims in Switzerland a sense of alienation and discrimination - they said.

If creating a sense of alienation is the concern then surely the alienation the native Swiss feel at the sight of minarets in their homeland trumps the senses of migrant muslims and jews, who after all are only guests. What the Swiss and all other Whites should take seriously is how jews and muslims do not hesitate to "discriminate", i.e. identify with and advocate in favor of their own groups, even as they pathologize Whites for any attempt to do so.

It's true that banning minarets is no solution. Deporting aliens would be better, but even that wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is "international human rights". What horrifies Swiss business is the precedent for internationalist punishment that has already been set by organized jewry. See The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933.

Why would any normal, healthy people want to see the dysfunctional middle east recreated inside their country's borders? In part because we're constantly told, as we're reminded here in this case, that it harms peaceful relations, harmony, and integration to see it this way. And in part because if we set that concern aside and persist then we're threatened - all the double-talk about peaceful relations, harmony, and integration aside - with open war.

Some pundits characterize what's happening to every White country, and only White countries, as "suicide", or "self-destruction" caused by "liberalism". This story of resistance from Switzerland, among others, puts the lie to that poisonous, blame-shifting meme.

UPDATE 2 Dec 2009: In a comment on Interview: Arthur Kemp, Hunter Wallace writes:

Banning minarets is treating symptoms, not the disease.

I disagree.

The disease is the idea, which produced its most fateful results during the Enlightenment in the service of emancipating jews, that Whites, and only Whites, must not "discriminate" against "minorities". Since this meme took root it has been fed and twisted to genocidal proportions. Whites everywhere now live under a regime which subsidizes, supports, and even directly imposes "discrimination" against Whites, defending the interests of interloping aliens over the interests of the native-born citizenry.

The banning of minarets by popular vote strikes only obliquely at this idea, but it is a blow against the disease itself. Organized jewry roundly condemns it for exactly this reason. "Liberal" feminists played a prominent part in the minaret ban, putting the lie to the corollary meme, pimped constantly by faux-White pro-jews and others, that "suicidal" White "liberalism" is to blame for all that ills us. Even "liberals", it turns out, resist when their "suicide" becomes too blatant. The genocide is inflicted in the name of "liberal" "non-discrimination" in name but not in fact, and it is inflicted by "the international community" - which means the plutocrats, their media, their jet-setting cosmopolitan courtiers, jewish groups, muslim groups, and the treaonous costume clowns who serve their interests in their governments.

"Treating symptoms" is more fairly applied to much of what conservatives do here in the US - for example, to their focus on the transfer of wealth via taxes or healthcare, never identifying who the wealth is transferred from or to; or to the "culture war", never identifying who's at war with whom.

Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders

Google apologizes for results of 'Michelle Obama' image search - CNN.com:

For most of the past week, when someone typed "Michelle Obama" in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey.

On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for "Michelle Obama."

Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Google faced a firestorm of criticism over the episode. First, it banned the Web site that posted the photo, saying it could spread a malware virus. Then, when the image appeared on another Web site, Google let the photo stand. When a Google image search brought up the photo, an apologetic Google ad occasionally appeared above it.

The Michelle Obama ape photo can be found at FlyStyleLife » WTF IS THIS? MICHELLE OBAMA AS AN APE HUH?

Google: An explanation of our search results:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you've had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

Insincerely, actually. In truth, hit rank for almost every search engine, and certainly for google, is based almost entirely on the popularity of the hit, which in most cases reflects its popularity with the general public. Google is lying to the public even while apologizing to the hypersensitive people offended by popular opinion.

Google returns lots of insulting, defamatory search results. See for example (with SafeSearch off):

george bush
laura bush
bush twins
michele bachmann
ann coulter
glenn beck

Why does google protect Michelle Obama from ridicule? Who else does it protect? Hypersensitive people offended by impious use of the word jew, of course.

Quick Links, 22 Nov 2009

In the Battle Between Facebook and MySpace, A Digital 'White Flight' | The New York Observer - Berkeley grad student examines online social networks and sees metaphorical "White Flight", which is something bad people do, because integration is what every good person should want.

ADL Special Reports: Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies - The Influence of the Mainstream Media - organized jewry can't stomach even buffoonish deracinated zionist Whites like Glenn Beck. They don't like the philo-semitic Oath Keepers either. It's enraging.

Bashing Palin and the horse she rides in on. Too many Whites scares Chris Matthews - "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, White vs. other people."

Semitic tribal aspects at Princeton. The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West - "This is how it works: Defy Islamic supremacism and be demonized as a supremacist." Substitute "jewish" for "islamic" and you get... Choosing the chosen people - The Daily Princetonian - a student body that's 13% jewish isn't good enough, it should be 25% jewish like Harvard, Brown, Columbia and Penn. Commenters clash.

A cartoon croons, Not My Waterpark. Tragic comedy, not at all funny.

Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why

Jewish "social critic" James Howard Kunstler has specialized in ridiculing suburbia while paying relatively little attention to the non-White immigration, non-White sociopathy, and forced integration motivating Whites to flock there. The disproportionately jewish race-hustlers, developers, and financiers enriching themselves in the process also get a pass. Kunstler's made a living hyping a variety of threats, like Y2K and depleted uranium, and warning most recently that "peak oil" will cause a "long emergency". The effect, if not intent, has been to direct attention away from the more immediate and more substantial problems for more Americans, especially White Americans - the displacement and dispossession caused by genocidal levels of immigration and systemic financial fraud, each fueling the other.

Lately Kunstler has been keeping a nervous eye on a particular facet of the fraud. In Thinking the Unthinkable he writes:

How bad is the situation 'out there' really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I'm not promoting a coup d'etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The 'corn-pone Hitler' scenario is still another possibility - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want 'to keep gubmint out of Medicare!' - but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what's more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today's US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale.

I do believe it might pain Kunstler to watch israel dissolve. It certainly doesn't pain him to watch and snark at "the morons" while it happens to America. Does he think what Goldman Sachs and friends have been doing is unethical, unfair, unjust, immoral, illegal, indefensible, or just plain slimy? Maybe. But for sure he's concerned how the rubes will react when they find out. He's afraid it might be bad for jews. And he thinks that's unthinkable.

This isn't the first time Kunstler has expressed such fears. Hunter Wallace (formerly Prozium) wrote about Kunstler in Cornpone Nazism toward the end of July, linking to a Kunstler essay titled Evil Syndicated. I'll excerpt a few bits to illustrate how Kunstler recognizes Goldman is creating a problem, but that the real problem is the potential backlash.

By now, everyone in that fraction of the world that pays attention to something other than American Idol and their platter of TGI Friday's loaded potato skins knows that Goldman Sachs has been caught at another racket in the stock market: front-running trades. What a clever gambit, done with the help of the markets themselves - the Nasdaq in particular - in which information on trades is held back a fraction of a second from public view, while the data is shoveled to the computers of privileged subscribers who can execute zillions of programmed micro-trades before the rest of the herd makes a move. This allows them to vacuum up hundreds of millions of dollars by doing absolutely nothing of value.

Don't mistake Kunstler's accurate description here for disapproval. If anything he sees it as a "clever" way to shear "the herd".

In any sensible society - i.e. a society with an instinct for self-preservation - it would be against the law and the people doing it would be sent to prison.

Maybe the larger question is: since when did we become a society lacking the instinct for self-preservation - that is, a society bent on suicide?

Yes, a sensible society would have stopped Madoff and Hasan too. Whites have an instinct for self-preservation. We express it all the time, even though doing so has long been pathologized and is becoming increasingly criminalized. Since when? It's been getting worse ever since jewish emancipation. The proper word for what's happening, by the way, is genocide, not suicide. It's done over our objections. Jews like Kunstler aid and abet the crime by hyping symptoms rather than causes, and misdirecting blame. They see "anti-semitism" everywhere because they're not suicidal.

I think the larger question for Kunstler is: what's best for jews? The larger question for me is: when will Whites take note of this jewish obsession with themselves and their own interests? And when will we see through the dissembling of jewish "social critics" who ridicule and pathologize everything we do to resist what they misrepresent as "suicide"?

As we turn the corner toward autumn, President Obama looks increasingly like a dupe, a tool, or a co-conspirator of Goldman Sachs.

What bothers me is that, sooner or later, the conduct of Goldman Sachs will lead the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless into the hands of a savage right wing seeking mindless vengeance, for instance, against "the Jews," (as represented by Goldman Sachs), or brown-skinned people (as embodied by a vilified president).

"It's that brown-skinned guy's fault! Blame him!"

What bothers me is that Kunstler is saying that blaming the group who is responsible is "mindless", because he's acutely mindful that it might be bad for "the jews" and "brown-skinned people". Note however that even as Kunstler does this he feels perfectly free casting aspersions on Whites (as represented by "the savage right wing"), and white-skinned people (as embodied by the "evil syndicated"/"cornpone nazis"). What we have here is a conflict of group interests. Rather than addressing it honestly Kunstler tries to obscure and caricaturize it, advising those who already have their hands on "the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless" how to best manipulate them.

Readers of this blog know I'm allergic to conspiracy theories. But surveying the scene out there, it is hard to not conclude that Goldman Sachs has become the "front-runner" of a criminal syndicate defrauding US taxpayers.

Kunstler knows it's hard because he's tried. Now he's trying something more familiar and easier: scapegoating Whites.

In the meantime, the US economy gives the illusion of recovery - but to what? Back to a "consumer" credit card shopping orgy? Another house-buying fiesta?

There you go. One last kick in the nuts for the evil morons. Pay no mind to the hedge fund managers who might be called to account for ripping off the evil morons, if only in Kunstler's nightmares.

Kunstler's not the only "social critic" who's thinks it's important to suppress/redirect the backlash.

Oy! Noam Chomsky Compares Right-Wing Media To “Nazis”:

The memory that comes to my mind — I don’t want to press the analogy too hard, but I think it’s worth thinking about — is late Weimar Germany. There were people with real grievances, and the Nazis gave them an answer. ‘It’s the fault of the Jews and the Bolsheviks and we’ve got to protect ourselves from them, and that will take care of them.’ And you know what happened…

[...]Germany in the 1920s was at the peak of Western civilization. A decade later, it was at the pits of human history.

Chomsky's characterization of those two decades is from a jewish point of view, which is likely the opposite of how a contemporary native German would have described them.

Unless an answer can be given to these people, unless they can be led to understand what’s really happening to them, we could be in for trouble.

"We" could be in for trouble? Me and mine are already in trouble. We are ruled by a corrupt and illegitimate regime whose highest priority is to drown us in "people of color", each and every one of which is afforded special rights over Whites. To even question this is considered a crime. Why should we care about the trouble the fraudsters and the "social critics" spinning excuses for them might suffer? They don't care about our troubles.

If Hasan Were White

Contrast this...

Obama: Hasan May Have ‘Cracked’ From ‘Stress’ | The FOX Nation

On Fort Hood shooting, Obama says: Do not jump to conclusions | Jerusalem Post

with this...

Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks - CBS News, by Bonnie Erbe.

The Big Hate - NYTimes.com, by Paul Krugman.

- - -

If Major Nidal Malik Hasan were White these people wouldn't hesitate to recognize and denounce his motives. Likewise if James von Brunn had been a palestinian muslim. The one constant is that when jews perceive a threat to jewish interests, the conclusions they jump to get aired, no matter how insane, illiberal, or insensitive, and usually without any challenge or retraction. When there is no direct threat to jewish interests, as with the Fort Hood attack, then defending against indirect threats to minority privilege (the presumption that non-Whites, including jews, are disadvantaged) and dual loyalty (it's ok to be a jew or muslim first) is paramount.

There is no need to jump to conclusions about the anti-White regime. Pay attention to its reaction to any particular clash of White and non-White interests and the conclusions jump out all by themselves.