Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics

Today I have some lengthy comments about a disturbing phenomena in the reality-based community:

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community," was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

In my previous post I noted a particularly egregious example of naked anti-Whitism that occurred in prime time on national cable television. I looked for and easily found several "reality-based" web sites that also considered this event notable. They also saw it as an opportunity to vent some anti-White hate. In the days afterward I went over to comment.

The title of the Drum post was David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote. Karoli, the blogger there, is a woman who is convinced of three things: racism is bad, Whites whose vote is affected by race are racists, and non-whites who behave likewise are not. This is anti-Whitism, of course, and several visitors besides myself tried to talk some sense into her. Throughout the exchange she was civil but unmoved. In the end she acknowledged that she didn't have a problem with black votes being based on race, and cited historic White oppression of blacks as the reason. She then closed the thread.

I have two points I would have posted in response. First, I reject this race-based guilt. What happened in generations past between other people is not my fault nor my responsibility to set right. I care more about injustices taking place in the here and now. Second, it is absurd to expect that any people should not speak or vote or act in what they perceive to be their best interests, nor that they band together by whatever criteria they choose, whether genetic (eg. by race) or memetic (eg. by ideology).

Since coming to this understanding of race and politics I do not begrudge non-whites for planning and acting cohesively to further the interests of their groups, and thereby themselves. I consider the fact that they do so perfectly normal human behavior with a precedent that stretches back to the beginnings of history and probably beyond.

What is indefensible from this racial-political point of view is that a particular group, my group, should be singled out and held to a different standard. This is exactly what the "frame" known as anti-racism does to Whites.

Anti-racism is based on the idea that "racism" is bad. "Racism", however, means different things to different people. Here's what Sam Francis had to say about the origins of the word racism.

I believe these roots of the word racism are unknown to most. It is also generally not considered polite to point out that prior to the 1930s the notion that the human species was divided along racial lines was not controversial. Throughout history races most often lived separately (which is how they developed in the first place) and this was considered a good thing because often when races came together there was strife. I believe people back then recognized significant differences between the races, and they attributed the strife to these differences.

Today the thinking has changed radically. It is now generally considered wrong and hateful to speak of race in such terms. If you do so then you are considered to be the cause of racial strife. We must disown or bury any such things great men of the past may have said. See here how the text of the Immigration Act of 1790 is piled under pages of superfluous information about Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus, and a summary of the entire history of immigration. All the way at the end is the actual text, which begins:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof. . .

Such thoughts, even in historic documents, even when expressed without malice, are today considered "racism". Someone who thinks such thoughts is called a "racist" - a stereotype that implies they are psychologically infirm, intellectually deficient, intolerantly bigoted, and prone to violence. The word racist is almost always intended and taken as a slur, and it is very often used deliberately, to put it in the terms of the reality-based community, as a means of dehumanizing anyone so smeared.

As destructive as they know the label is, some apply it with great abandon. Anti-racists who wouldn't dream of calling someone lazy or weak or a whore (that might hurt their self-esteem!) will, just like that, call someone a racist. Nobody wants to be called a racist. We all realize how poorly racists are treated. And yet so many anti-racists are on hair trigger, ready to use the word on anyone they think is saying or thinking incorrectly.

It would be bad enough if this pathologizing of speech and thought were codified and applied equally to all who spoke in certain ways about race. But it isn't. Whites and non-whites are subject to different sets of constantly changing unwritten rules. Over time it is becoming ever more acceptable for non-whites to criticize Whites, and ever less acceptable for Whites to criticize non-whites. Many anti-racists today unabashedly defend the idea that only Whites can be racists. In fact the anti-racism "frame" now includes the view that Whites are inherently racist. That's why when racial friction or differences arise Whites are the ones who so often get the blame.

The anti-racist frame-builders give their White blame mechanisms different names. One of them is called institutional racism:

Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) refers to a form of racism which occurs specifically in institutions such as public bodies, corporations, and universities. The term was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael.

It seems anti-racists do not think pan-Africanism or black nationalism are racist. Yet these ideologies are overtly concerned with the benefit of a particular race, certainly more overtly than any public body, corporation, or university I'm aware of. Except maybe Howard University and McDonalds. Can an anti-racist please point me to a "white university", or special corporate websites celebrating Whites?

Another such mechanism is called symbolic racism:

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular. . .

So? CNN pundits and liberal bloggers think White poverty and other problems are largely the result of ignorance. They think Whites, or "rednecks" according to David Gergen, don't vote for Obama because they're "under-educated". Alan Abramowitz says White voters are "symbolic racists" because they think more highly of blacks than media pundits like himself think of Whites. After all, the polls show Whites blame black problems on lack of ambition and effort. Ignorance was probably considered too rude to either provide in the poll or select. Could Abramowitz supply the results of black polling? I'm curious what blacks believe causes White success. Do they think it's racism? Given the constant White = racist barrage from the media doesn't everybody think that?

I'd like to take the opportunity here to point out how odd it is that mainstream writers like Abramowitz make a point of capitalizing words like Latino, Asian, Jew, or African American, but never white. After all, it's just a skin color, right? Perhaps you noticed I do the opposite. Now you know why.

This survey of anti-racist anti-Whitism could go on for quite a while, but I'll stop here with White privilege:

White privilege is a sociological concept which describes advantages enjoyed by white persons beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people in those same social spaces (nation, community, workplace, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice in that a person benefiting from white privilege does not necessarily hold racist beliefs or prejudices themselves. Often, the person benefiting is unaware of his or her privilege.

Here we see some naked "framing" - the deliberate construction of a concept that makes no effort to hide the anti-White agenda. The idea here is that even Whites who do nothing overt that might conceivably be called racism are still racists if they socialize primarily with Whites. If this is a priviledge then it is a common privilege easily found amongst any race. To single out and demonize Whites for such behaviour is not "fighting racism". It is a racially motivated attack against Whites.

At a blog called WhitePrivilege, whose slogan is "Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity", there is a five-year-old exchange between the blogger and a pro-White using the pseudonym Rurik. Rurik does a wonderful job trying to reason with the anti-White blogger, who for his part appears willfully blind to his anti-Whitism. The exchange contains many of the classic arguments on both sides. At the end a self-righteous jew appears, but not to say "hey, as a jew, I know a bit about defamation, and what this White fellow says is right, you are defaming Whites, it's dangerous and you should stop it". Instead he says:

To “Rurik” (who refrains from using his name for fear of being spotted by anyone as a racist and anti-Semite),

The more I read the back-and-forth banter between you and Mr. Clark, the more horrified I am with the idea of people like you exist in my country, doing frightening things such as voting or breeding.

In other words this proud jew favors race-based disenfranchisement and sterilization - for Whites! Following this, presumably to justify his anti-White sentiments (just like Karoli) follow dozens of lines of kvetching about past persecution of jews and blacks.

If race is a social construct as the anti-racists say, then how is it that my Whiteness, and that alone, makes me responsible for enslaving blacks, genociding indians, and gassing jews? If we take anti-racists at their word then clearly they are constructing these responsibilities.

Hopefully I've made a convincing case that many anti-racists are not at all concerned about stopping injustices that one race may inflict on another. More than anything else they seem intent on race-based payback against Whites. The common premise behind all of their poisonous ideas is that Whites are the source of all problems, past and present. Their intent is quite literally genocidal.

If on the other hand after reading all this what you think really motivates me is a secret desire to genocide all non-whites, or even some of them, then I want you to know, that I know, that it is because you are anti-White. You are a racist, and you should promptly go and do to yourself what you so often and openly wish upon racists.

I've rambled on far too long already, but I did want to say some things about Pandagon.

The CNN-related post I originally cited, Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, was already stale by the time I went over to comment and I ended up picking a fight in another post.

The Kentucky post contained some real anti-racist gems that are worth commenting on in light of what I've said above. Citing another liberal blogger's idea that he calls the Race Chasm:

It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign’s coded messages and tactics.

The black vote is not presumed to be racially motivated, but the White vote is. White candidates communicate in coded messages (the reality-based community calls them "dog whistles"), but black candidates presumably do not.

The blogger, a black woman, then writes:

I wonder if an intelligent discussion can now be had about the reality of prejudice versus affinity voting. When the MSM continually frames this chasm as a problem for Obama — it is a problem for all of us as a society. To have a whole demo of voters so poisoned by their own racism to vote for someone white simply to avoid casting a ballot for a person of color is sad. To then be willing to stay home in November or worse, vote for John McCain, who clearly doesn’t represent working class interests, is tragic.

Needless to say that’s the polar opposite of what I’ve called affinity voting — blacks voting for Obama in large numbers. Many are voting for him because he represents ideals and policies they agree with; that he’s the first credible, positive black candidate for president is a huge historical bonus.

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who says my race voting 70-30 is "prejudice" and her race voting 90-10 is "affinity"? What would we talk about, reparations for slavery?

Here again is the anti-White premise of anti-racists laid bare. I have an alternate explanation for the CNN pundits and Pandagon. I say Whites are affinity voting and blacks are prejudiced. Working class Whites are especially wise and discerning compared to fat and lazy wealthy Whites, at least when it comes to voting their best interests. The working class was obviously paying close attention to Rev. Wright and the "bitter" flaps. They know that Black Liberation Theology is not good for Whites. Blacks, on the other hand, generally don't care what a White candidate says or does if there's a black candidate to vote for. Obama should reject those racist votes.

There. How's that? Can I get a seat on CNN?

I wish I had commented on that post at the time but as it happened I found a more recent post, an equally fat target titled Defending science: What works and what’s already working. The exchange was lively.

The blogger, Amanda Marcotte, proposed that the "avid defenders of the importance of accepting reality" in the "reality-based community" should reject "the right wing frame" and defend science from the "lies trotted out about "Intelligent Design"" and "that Stephen Jay Gould is the model for how to do this". She concluded by saying ""Intelligent Design" is an attack on science". (Her emphasis.)

I began by ridiculing this combination of ideas. I pointed out the incompatibility between framing and reality, that Gould was a human genetic difference denier, that E.O. Wilson or James Watson are better model defenders of science, that ID was not useless or even harmful but instead spurs scientists to do more science where there are gaps. I also asserted that the perception of the ID challenge as an attack is an natural case of projection by cultural marxists. Scientists, and intellects in general, consider defending their ideas routine.

The response was slow in coming. Seventeen posts later Ellid finally piped up to tell me he didn't like E.O. Wilson because "his sociobiology theories are little more than a convenient excuse to justify sexism and racism on the grounds of genetic determinism". Never mind all that world's leading authority on ant stuff. Ellid also didn't like Watson because he "denigrated and belittled the work of Rosalyn Yalow". It was the only halfway-intelligent response I got.

Soon after that the goon squad, who I quickly recognized as "the resident Goulds", started telling me: you don't know what you're talking about, you're a white nationalist, a racist wingnut, etc. Rather than addressing my points, which though irreverently posed were directly on topic, these troglodytes made some of the dumbest leaps of logic I've ever seen. The tactics I have seen, many times, and they have nothing to do with how ideas are defended. The exchange really doesn't classify as an argument or even two-way communication. It was more like a constant stream of verbal abuse, most of it directed at me.

I recognized several recurring themes. One was:

It’s not that I don’t like white people in general, it’s that I don’t like white people like you. I realize that you’re way too self-absorbed to understand the difference, but there you go.

Most of the goons made sure to emphasize how "white" they were before saying similarly nasty things. I think I understand this all very well. When you say things like this it means you like deracinated white people, and you hate race-conscious Whites. It is anti-White anti-racism. A jew who hates jews is called a self-hating jew. A white who hates Whites is called an anti-racist.

Another theme was typified by:

Tanstaafl, one small criticism. You’re racism isn’t quite blatant enough. In the future, you should just go ahead an advocate killing everyone not just like you. You know, like your German friends did.

The ironic thing about this, and it was echoed more than once in various forms, is that the assumption seems to be that me, an anonymous small time blogger, might be construed as advocating genocide, and that this threat was considered serious enough to treat me as if they thought I should be killed because I wasn't just like them.

One especially tolerant liberal hinted at this desire by quoting Frank Zappa:

If your children ever find out how lame you really are, they’ll murder you in your sleep.

I made the case above, and I have said it before on this blog, that what drives me to write and think as I do is my concern that Whites are threatened with extermination. This threat comes in large part from the virulent anti-White rhetoric of anti-racists. They are the ones whose poisonous ideas are taught in universities, printed in books and newspapers, and tossed off without a thought on the pages of popular liberal blogs that pretend to be moral authorities.

I'll end here with a quote from Science and ideology by Edward O. Wilson. I tried posting this at Pandagon several times but it never went through. Too bad. I suspect none of those gibbering Gould-lovers will come here to see how a real scientist defends science.

The future, if we are to have one, is increasingly to be in the hands of the scientifically literate, those who at least know what it is all about. There can be no multicultural solution to the genetics of cystic fibrosis; the ozone hole cannot be deconstructed; there is nothing whatsoever relativistic or culturally contextual about the dopamine transporter molecules whose blockage by cocaine gives a rush of euphoria, the kind that leads the constructivist to doubt the objectivity of science.

. . .

Which brings me to anti-science. I know less about postmodernism than most of you here, but let me give you my impression of how it relates to science. Postmodernist critics present a Disney World representation of science, a fantasy of what science is, and how scientists work, and why they work, a distortion embellished variously by obsolete theories of psychoanalysis and the battle cries of political ideology. Within the academy, it seems to me that postmodernism and the divisive forms of multiculturalism are substantially a revolt of the proletariat, wherein second-rate scholarship is parlayed into tenured professorships and book contracts--not by quality, not by originality, but by claims of entitlement of race, gender, and moralistic ideologies. But as I will show in a moment, some of it runs deeper, to turn the minds of even a few otherwise respected scientists.

. . .

The sociobiology episode was one of the most conspicuous in the history of political correctness in academic life in the dark time before the expression, p.c., was coined and before the National Association of Scholars or any other form of organized resistance arose to blunt its excesses.

. . .

The radical activists, however, went ballistic on this issue. Shortly after the publication of Sociobiology, Richard Lewontin organized fifteen scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area as the Sociobiology Study Group, which then affiliated with Science for the People. The latter, larger aggregate of radical activists was begun in the 1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists, including especially thinking considered to be politically dangerous. It was and remains nation wide, although greatly attenuated in its tone and influence.

What was correct political thinking? That has been made clear by Lewontin during the debate and afterward. "There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao," he wrote with his fellow Marxist Richard Levins, "that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world." True science, in other words, must be defined intrinsically to be forever separate from political thought. Ideology can then be constructed as a mental process insulated from science.

In formulating sociobiology, I wanted to move evolutionary biology into every potentially congenial subject, including human behavior and even political behavior, roughshod if need be and as quickly as possible. Lewontin obviously did not.

. . .

Now I can come to the essence of the radical science movement. As loopy as it all may seem today, and especially after the collapse of world socialism, the argument has to be taken seriously, since it has been accepted to varying degrees by a few influential scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levins, and Ruth Hubbard, who are highly regarded in the public eye as scientists, even as they continue to promote a Marxian view.

Here then is the argument in its raw form: only an anti-reductionist, non-bourgeois science can help humanity attain the highest goal, which is a socialist world. In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:

We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just--a socialist--society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today's science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief--in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science--is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.

Read the whole thing. Wilson's plain English and guilelessness is a refreshing contrast to the turd-flingers that rule the roost at Pandagon.

Lewontin, Gould, and their marxist fellow travelers were more interested in promoting their "frame" than in promoting science. Their agenda, just as it is for the "reality-based community", is not based on the non-existence or non-importance of class, gender, and race - it is based on a hyper-awareness and presumed hyper-importance of these "social constructs". Moreover, they call for explicit attack on what they perceive to be the "dominant" class, gender, or race.

The reality is that "reality-based community" are today's budding totalitarians and the "dominant" Anglo-Saxon, male, Whites are their neo-jews. Why? Because they hate us. (For hating them, for hating them, ... as Owl said before his head exploded.)

That last paragraph refers to the retribution mindset most anti-racists seem locked in. They have trouble imagining a world where people simply live and let live. In fact Owl, one of the "resident Goulds", thought he had reached a deep truth when he wrote:

In this view, anti-racism really is anti-Whitism, because they think racism is right.

Actually, in my view anti-racism is really anti-Whitism because it is. I've provided argument and evidence to support this assertion, and it matters not one bit who or what I am.

(The image is taken from an ad banner at Pandagon. It reflects their nihilism perfectly.)

CNN's Anti-White Election Commentary

From the transcript of Tuesday's CNN primary coverage:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we have been looking at some of the exit polls from Kentucky, in particular the issue of race. Voters who said that race was important in making their decision or is the factor in making their decision.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is more disquieting news I think for Barack Obama as he looks for the general election.

COOPER: One in five I think.

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

COOPER: And that is people that would admit it to a complete strangers taking these exit polls theoretically it would be even larger those who would not admit it.

GERGEN: And from her point of view, over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision. And it really means -- I mean, she's been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.

You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn't say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he's black, I don't want your vote. I don't want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.

COOPER: Do you see her saying that?

GERGEN: Well, she has been a champion -- she's been a champion of civil rights for a long, long time. She and her husband both have I think well-earned reputations in the civil rights front. She's never had redneck votes before in her life.

I see no reason why she couldn't take the high road here in the closing days of his campaign and try to take this on and take on the Reverend Wright issue to say, "Look, I campaigned with this fellow for 15 months. I know a lot of you people don't think he shares your values that somehow Barack thinks like Reverend Wright. Not true. I know him. I have been with him. And race should come out of this."

I think she could do a lot by taking a high road.

COOPER: Reverend Wright also showed up in these exit polls.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the state of Kentucky, 54 percent of the voters said Barack Obama shares the views of Reverend Wright. That's something we saw also in West Virginia.

And does Barack Obama share your values? 53 percent of the voters in Kentucky said, "No, he doesn't." This is some of the repair work that he's got to do in terms of the voters that Hillary Clinton is getting.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hillary Clinton ought to keep in mind, I think, the long view here. She's got many more years in public life ahead of her. Taking the high road at this point, saying I don't want racists to vote for me, saying that this is about something bigger than just strategizing the last few races. I think that would stand her in very good stead.

BORGER: Very late for that. What in Montana and South Dakota?

TOOBIN: I mean, she might as well say it, because I think it would make a difference. This race has been so polarized along the issues of race and, frankly, I think most people blame her for that than they blame Obama. And to leave, if she's in fact leaving on the high road, would do a world of good.

GERGEN: She could do it on Reverend Wright. She could still take that on before she leaves this race.

Here's video.

For a while now the pundits have been expressing concerns that the White vote is going 60-40 or even 70-30 for Clinton. They generally don't think the black vote going 80-20 or 90-10 for Obama is more noteworthy, and it certainly isn't ever something they criticize. If anything they tell us this is perfectly understandable.

As the primary wears on the Clinton camp is getting desperate. The Obama camp is getting frustrated. Both view Whites, especially "working class" Whites, with distaste.

On Tuesday all was good and right in Oregon, where the "more highty-educated" Whites voted in large numbers for Obama. There was however a problem in Kentucky. There poor, under-educated, "working class" Whites had failed to act as the pundits desired:

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin translated this into a call for Clinton to disown the "redneck" vote, to distance herself from "racists".

Note the conclusion they're juming to: if race is a factor for you, and you are White, and you vote for Clinton, then you are a racist.

This vicious anti-White meme has been hailed and echoed in the liberal blogosphere. See for example Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, or David Gergen Speaks Truth - Denounce Racist Vote, or Visionary moments in punditry: David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin call on Hillary Clinton to stop courting racists.

Anti-racists pride themselves on being hyper-sensitive to and hyper-critical of any whiff of demonization or hate. But in this case they seem more than willing to set those concerns aside. They seem not at all skeptical or objective or sympathetic when nasty things are said about Whites. In fact they seem absolutely gleeful and eager to add their own bile.

Pandagon, for instance, thought this was worth highlighting:

Kentucky has one of the country’s highest proportions of people who are not college graduates.

If you read the CNN transcript you can see this echoes what the "more-educated" Blitzer and King were talking about just before Gergen burbled out his hate. The assumption is that "smart" people vote for Obama. Because like, duh, anything else is just racist.

Momocrat thought this nasty slander was worth repeating:

On our chat last night, a Kentucky voter joined in during the last hour to say that in rural parts of her state, people are literally being told that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. And people believe it! And the MSM pundits wonder why Obama didn't spend much time in West Virginia and Kentucky?

Hmmmm. Or maybe Obama didn't do well because he didn't spend much time there. Maybe?

Bang the Drum says stop the world:

Please blog this, tweet this, and digg this. Let’s get some legs under what really was an historic moment in TV.

Time to crap on Whites! Get some legs under this! It's historic!

Or is it just mind-numbingly normal?

All sarcasm aside, there's a far more substantial problem here. What the anti-racists are doing is demonstrating their own hypocritical hate. They do so not only by being willfully blind to reasonable explanations Whites have to poll and vote as they did, but also by so thoroughly misinterpreting the statistics. They are eager to see only the "racism" they want to see.

I realize I have to explain this in more detail. This is because the media, our schools, and the liberal anti-racists who run them have done a very thorough job of brainwashing everyone that White = racist, and racist = bad. Please be patient and read on. I'll spell it out as clearly as I can, especially for the benefit of the outraged anti-racist liberals who may drop by.

- - -

My first thought on hearing so many Whites had told pollsters that race was a factor for them was, gee, that's awfully honest. Whites don't expect applause for speaking frankly about race. In fact, they expect exactly the opposite. The topic is a minefield. Consider for example how the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been greeted.

My second thought was, well of course race is a factor for White voters. There were those revelations about Obama spending 20 years associating with Reverend Wright, a man who has spouted all sorts of black-centric and anti-White rhetoric, which many blacks have said they do not find objectionable or even out of the ordinary. Then there was Obama's "bitter, clinging" statement. That certainly made it seem as though he didn't understand or sympathize with working class Whites. Then there was his "typical White person" characterization of his grandmother. Do you think Whites without a college degree may have heard that blacks are voting 90-10 for Obama? Perhaps they think what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last of all, probably because the media has gone to lengths to keep it buried, there is Michelle Obama's thesis, which revolves around her blackness and her concern for the black community. In fact it's all about race!

Can an honest person sum up all these things as having to do with race? Which of them is not a legitimate concern? Can an honest White get credit for being honest? Why are Whites the only group whose voting patterns are not only scrutinized but criticized?

Everyone in the CNN studio Tuesday night was well aware of Wright. The exit polls reflected his impact. Were the pundits not listening? Apparently not. A few months ago David Gergen defended Obama by downplaying the importance of these race-related issues. He thinks anyone who can't set aside Wright and overlook Obama's gaffes must be irrational and is therefore a racist.

Other pundits seem equally blind and/or biased. They find it easier to accuse Whites of being stupid and ethnocentric than to admit that Obama and the people he associates with are more overtly ethnocentric. They can't face the possibility that Whites are justified in not liking or trusting Obama. They'd sooner slur and defame Whites than accept the possibility that Whites are right.

My third thought was, wow, 9 out of 10 voters who said race was a factor voted for Clinton. But that means the other 10% voted for Obama. So how many blacks voted? How many voted for Obama? How many of them said race was a factor?

For some strange reason the answers to these questions are not easy to find. It's surprising because CNN, and especially the AP story cited by Pandagon, reported plenty of statistics about Whites. They could have provided the black numbers for comparison, but they didn't. Wouldn't it have helped illustrate how Whites differed? Wouldn't it just be fair and informative to provide those numbers?

The AP writer says:

Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college.

No black statistics. I'd like to have the raw data CNN and AP used, but they don't offer it, and I can't find it.

WaPo, however, did provide some important numbers:

In Kentucky, Obama won by better than 9 to 1 among black voters, but they made up just 9 percent of the electorate.

So more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Wow. CNN and AP didn't mention that.

What's more intriguing is that 8-9% of Obama's voters were black and 10% of the voters who said race matters voted for Obama. What was the overlap between these groups? Might it have been larger than the 19% of Clinton's White voters who said race matters? In other words, could a deeper examination of these statistics reveal that race was just as much or more of a factor for Obama's black voters than it was for Clinton's White voters?

Did David Gergen or Jeffery Toobin or anyone else in the CNN studio that night think such thoughts? Why did Gergen use the epithet "redneck" in explaining the thoughts he did have? Why didn't anyone there object to that epithet or the hateful anti-White conclusions he and Toobin were jumping to?

Gergen and Toobin and the anti-racist bloggers who consider them heroes think a large fraction of Whites saying race affects their vote is wrong, something to be concerned about, something to renounce. But it seems likely Obama's black voters are equally human. If White voters who say race is a factor are racist, then aren't blacks who say it racist too?

Will CNN or AP share their raw data? Will Gergen and Toobin or any other media pundit go on prime time cable to apologize to Whites? Or will they call on Obama to reject the votes of black racists? Are there any liberal anti-racist bloggers who will admit they made a mistake and renounce their own anti-White hate?

I doubt it.

Ted Kennedy's Legacy

Sen. Edward Kennedy has malignant brain tumor:

A cancerous brain tumor caused the seizure Sen. Edward M. Kennedy suffered over the weekend, doctors said Tuesday in a grim diagnosis for one of American politics' most enduring figures.

It appears we will not have to endure him much longer. To those of us who recognize that "diversity" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing and "immigration" is a euphemism for invasion Kennedy is no hero. He is an evil-doer. A traitor to his country. We can expect however that in response to his demise the media will produce a series of fawning retrospectives of his life. He is their hero.

I write in the interest that Kennedy's legacy not be entirely whitewashed, that he not be delivered from the infamy he so richly deserves. Here is the short version. What follows is a more detailed indictment.

- - -

Concerning the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:

During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think ... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.) The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.

Kevin MacDonald explains what happened more forthrightly:

And in the end, the only reason the 1965 law passed was because it was advertized as nothing more than a moral gesture that would have no long-term impact on the ethnic balance of the U.S. In other words, the WASPS did not actively pursue their own destruction, as supposed by Gottfried; they were deceived into supposing that the immigration law would have no real effect but that its passage would absolve them of the incessant (and false) charges that the North-Western European bias of the older U.S. policy implied a theory of Nordic racial superiority.

Kennedy was instrumental in the deception. As time went on it became obvious that immigration was not only changing the ethnic makeup of the US, radically, it was also causing the bulk of US population growth. Ted, if he himself had been deceived in 1965, showed no outward sign of resenting it. Instead he became a champion for the government policies that by the late 1970s were permitting more than a million immigrants to enter the US annually, a large fraction of them illegally. The lawlessness since 1965 is unprecedented in US immigration history and is justifiably described as an invasion.

By 1986 this lawlessness was widely recognized. Our government, unwisely, settled on amnesty as a solution. Once again Kennedy's special talents were on display:

Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this." The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.

Two decades after his first promises on immigration were revealed as lies Kennedy, miraculously, was still in power. By this time he was openly advocating the interests of aliens over those of citizens. The wealth, power, and prestige of existing citizens were diminished by this amnesty, and in granting the priviledges of citizenship to invaders respect for both citizenship and the law was greatly undermined.

Once again Kennedy downplayed the impact of the legislation. Once again the promises that legitimizing illegitimacy would make it disappear were revealed as folly if not downright dishonesty. After 1986 little effort was dedicated to enforcement of immigration laws and the invasion went on unabated.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice...WTF?!?

Four years later The Immigration Act of 1990 was - surprise, surprise - sponsored by Ted Kennedy.

The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the overall ceiling on family-based immigration to 480,000 from 216,000 and, for the first time, included the spouses, minor children and parents of citizens under that ceiling. However, because admissions of spouses, minor children and parents of citizens remained unlimited under the 1990 Act, the act required that a minimum of 226,000 visas be reserved for the family-preference categories. This meant that the ceiling of 480,000 would be breached as soon as admissions of spouses, minor children and parents of citizens surpassed 254,000, which happened in 1993.

So after saying in 1965 that there wouldn't be an invasion, and then in 1986 saying that "just this once" we should forgive the invaders, Kennedy came back yet again, and this third time he said we must invite the invader's relatives before they too invade.

Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s the US government continued to expand legal immigration and legitimize illegal invasion in smaller, lower profile acts. The business of legitimizing the invasion went into hyperdrive, and was deliberately flying under the radar. Kennedy sponsored or supported dozens of acts favoring aliens. Most of us never heard about them.

Despite the stealthy attempts to vent and cover up by 2007 the scale and effects of the invasion could no longer be disguised. Examining SchoolDigger data anyone can see that toward the end of the 1990s latino and to a lesser extent asian numbers began to increase dramatically, and that these aliens were appearing in parts of the US they had no previous history of living. It is also clear from school data that White and to a lesser extent black numbers generally decrease wherever the alien numbers increase. Whether or not this reaction or noticing this reaction is called racist it is so widespread that it must by definition be considered normal.

To address the growing problems Kennedy, along with Senator and Republican nominee for president Juan McCain, sponsored the mother of all immigration bills, the so-called CIR, or Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. It was so sneakily crafted, so falsely advertised, so beneficial for aliens and awful for citizens that across the country voices rose in disbelief and outrage.

Major pundits and media outlets did their best not to hear. They avoided reporting on the bill debate, continued presenting aliens in the most favorable light possible, and disingenuously called for public debate while they worked hard to smother it. They smeared anyone who opposed immigration as nativists, xenophobes, and racists. They directed hate toward those they could only accuse and only imagine being motivated by hate.

To say that the media is biased on immigration is true, but not the whole truth. The real issue that they never report is the tremendous gap between what the country's citizens and its leadership want. The media and politicians are in complete agreement. They favor the invasion. They are also well aware that the citizens do not. Thus they resort to lies.

After the CIR was defeated Kennedy was incensed. When he said the following he was shouting these lies:

We know what they're against, we don't know what they're for. Time and time again they tell us "We don't like this provision, we don't like that provision, we don't want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.

What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That's their alternative?

In 1986 even Kennedy called the invaders illegal immigrants. Today he favors the euphemism "undocumented". It reflects his view that everyone in the world is an American that just may not have their papers yet.

Kennedy, the media, and the alien, alien-loving leadership of this country know what their opposition wants. We want what is normal and just. It is in the Constitution they swear an oath to uphold. What any citizen anywhere wants is for his government, even if it fails in everything else, to perform its single most basic function: to protect its territory and its citizens. When our representatives openly abrogate that responsibility and instead act to serve the interests of alien invaders rather than the citizens, then they have demonstrated their illegitimacy. The citizenry has every right to dissolve that illegitimate government and form another.

Goodbye Ted Kennedy. I hope you rot in hell for what you and immigration have done to my country.

UPDATE 21 May 2008: Have a bucket handy. This kind of blubbering is just the beginning. Watch toward the end when Byrd suddenly stops sobbing and whispers to his assistant, "Now do I do this?" Then, flick, right back to the sob-voice.

Overcoming Our Blooming Idiocy

Luke Ford's A Chat With Stephen Bloom, Author Of Postville, from 2003 (via Steve Sailer) is frank and revealing. You may find this Postville context useful.

Stephen: "I've spoken in a lot of public places. It's rare when I'm in a metropolitan venue and someone doesn't stand up and scream something like, 'Shame, shame, shame. For a Jew to say this about other Jews, shame on you.' I'm not going to surrender my role as a journalist based on erroneous inferences that some may draw that this is a story about Jews in general.

"I spoke in Chicago to the American Jewish Congress. I was introduced as a culinary Jew, as a lox and bagels kind of Jew. That did not sit well with me. It made me think that there is some kind of pecking order. That there are certain Jews who are less Jewish than other Jews. That if you keep kosher, you are a better Jew than others. If you go to synagogue every week, somehow you are a better Jew. It was a rating game. I didn't like being relegated to the bottom of that rating card. I think that fractures the collective nature of what it is to be a Jew."

Luke: "I know you emotionally didn't like it but didn't you intellectually realize that there was something to it, in that only the people who observe Jewish Law are going to perpetuate Judaism and the Jewish people?"

Steve: "No. If you and I were together, I'd probably be grabbing your shoulders right now and shaking you. Absolutely not. It's not in an intellectual way, it's in a visceral way that I found that offensive. My son Michael, his Hebrew name is Moishe, was just Bar Mitzvahed two weeks ago. To say that because I like lox and bagels that I'm not going to carry on the tradition of Judaism, shame on you. Shame on anyone. That's like the Orthodox saying, 'The Conservatives are the goyim.' That's like the Conservatives to the Reform, 'They don't know anything.' No, that's a bunch of bulls---. My kid is just as Jewish as any of those kids in Postville. And my kid read his parsha [Torah section] without mistake. My son wore a tallit and was able to carry a Torah around a synagogue. And to say that somehow because I don't keep kosher, I'm less committed to carrying on a Jewish tradition. No, that's the height of hypocrisy."

It appears Ford understands the nature of judaism better than Bloom does. It is not liberalism. Modern liberalism, or neo-liberalism, is anti-racialism, an ideological solvent whose core tenet, and primary effect, is to dissolve racial consciousness. That's all.

Bloom is confused. One moment he's noting how his jewish critics cry shame, then he does it to Ford. He decries the internal pecking order of jews, then he explains how he, vicariously, claims a place in it. After Bloom ticks off a list of exclusive metrics by which he separates himself as a jew from non-jews Ford fingers the core contradiction facing every liberal who simultaneously professes themselves jew:

Luke: "Do you think it is wrong of Lubavitchers to ignore non-Jews?"

Steve: "They can do what they want. The way I carry on my life, I want to include people. There are too many bountiful things in this world for me to put blinders on so I can't allow myself to say hello to somebody on a Saturday morning in the middle of Iowa because his mother isn't Jewish. No, that's what you call racism. It's based on blood. Lubavitchers don't even see the guy on the sidewalk because to acknowledge him would be the beginning of assimilation. Then his children will play with my children and that's the end of our faith. I don't think it is the end of my son's faith if he plays stickball with Hispanic kids. I want him to do that."

Luke: "How would you feel if he married a non-Jew?"

Steve: "That's his decision. Isn't it presumptuous for me to tell my son to marry somebody based on solely on who somebody's mother is?"

Luke: "I don't think so, but I affiliate Orthodox. We're talking about the clash of Orthodox Judaism with modernity."

Bloom is in denial. He denies race. He denies that he is not a good jew. He denies the one contradicts the other. Most jews resolve the contradiction by understanding liberalism as anti-racism, specifically anti-Whitism. Bloom adheres to anti-racialism. He tries lamely to hold jews to the same standard of racial disarmament he expects of Whites. And he fails. Good jews will not have it.

What interests me is not orthodoxy or modernity. It is the clash between jews and Whites. What distresses me is the deleterious effect that clash is having on my people. Whites. The problem is that anti-racialism, anti-racism, and philo-semitism have come to dominate White thought. Generally speaking our leaders deny race, dislike Whites, and love jews. Just like jews.

This is good for jews, but bad for Whites. Bloom can see it. My anti-anti-semite foil Larry Auster can see it. Most jews can see it. Or they could if they ever turned their self-obsessed thoughts about what's good for them outward and recognized that Whites might think the same way about themselves. The problem is: they won't and we don't. We cannot expect jews to change. The majority perceive that as bad for themselves. Get it? It's up to Whites to set aside the anti-racialist crack pipe. Recognize that we are White. Recognize that anti-racism is anti-Whitism. And think, as Whites: What is good for Whites?

Not Yoshor

Feds: Drugs made at kosher meat plant:

Federal authorities charged that a methamphetamine laboratory was operating at the nation's largest kosher slaughterhouse and that employees carried weapons to work.

In a 60-page application for a search warrant, federal agents revealed details of their six-month probe of Agriprocessors. The investigation involved 12 federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the departments of labor and agriculture.

According to the application, a former plant supervisor told investigators that some 80 percent of the workforce was illegal. They included rabbis responsible for kosher supervision, who the source believed entered the United States from Canada without proper immigration documents. The source did not provide evidence for his suspicion about the rabbis.

The Des Moines Register has written many reports that provide details not found elsewhere. In who and what they quote many of the reports are as biased in favor of the invaders as any other mainstream source. See their Related Stories links. They're not all bad. I'll highlight just a few things I think stand out.

Claims of ID fraud lead to largest raid in state history:

Father Nils Hernandez of the Immaculate Conception Parish in Cedar Rapids came to Waterloo after he heard about the raid.

"This is inhumane," he said.

The article implies the padre was speaking about the raid, which by other accounts was perfectly civilized. A large number of invaders with children were immediately released. Contrast this treatment with the persecution and injustice the Feds have recently inflicted on FLDS families.

In Postville the inhumane people are the criminal alien employers greedily exploiting mostly latino alien invaders and lording their wealth and power over the natives:

Another plant worker told federal officials that undocumented workers were paid $5 an hour for their first few months before receiving a pay increase to $6 per hour. The minimum wage in Iowa is $7.25 an hour.

Company officials could not be reached for comment. The plant, which produces kosher and nonkosher meats, opened in 1987 when butcher Aaron Rubashkin and about 200 Hasidic Jews from New York took over a defunct meatpacking plant. Hasidic Jews follow strict laws. It is a branch of Orthodox Judaism.

The Jews' arrival turned Postville, a community of 2,273 people on the Allamakee-Clayton county border in northeast Iowa, into one of Iowa's most ethnically diverse.

Emphasis mine. See my SchoolDigger-related comments below.

The governor said federal officials reassured his staff that those arrested and detained will have their rights protected. He also emphasized the importance of enforcing immigration laws.

"I have said before that I believe it is important that we crack down on illegal immigration," Culver said. "Illegal means illegal, not just those that are crossing the border illegally, but also those who are responsible for helping to make it happen."

Say governor, besides "illegal means illegal", would it also be fair to say that "20 years of illegal means corruption"? Should not those in government responsible for letting this go on so long also pay?

Critics, including former Gov. Tom Vilsack, accused federal officials of violating the workers' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Federal agents also were criticized for separating parents from their children.

In Postville, ICE spokesman Harold Ort said that the children of anyone detained would be cared for, and that "their caregiver situation will be addressed.

"They were asked multiple times if they have any sole-caregiver issues or any child-care issues," he said.

Forty Agriprocessors workers were later released, with supervision, "on humanitarian grounds," said Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney.

"They assured us the kids were going to be taken care of," said Postville Mayor Robert Penrod.

Penrod said a majority of townspeople understand the plant's role in the Postville economy, while a small number would cheer the raid.

"There's people who hate the Hispanics, and there's people who don't like the Jews and would like to run them out of town," he said.

This moralizing, like most of the "arguments" made against this and other raids, is ridiculously skewed. It considers the alien interests superior to those of the natives.

First, anyone who really cares about the Constitution should recognize that by not protecting our country from invasion federal officials at the very highest levels have, for a long time now, failed to uphold their oaths to protect the Constitution and their country's citizens. They are actively committing treason. Appeals to the Fourth Amendment are specious.

Second, anyone who really cares about the welfare of the invaders should focus their resentment on the employers who exploit them. Nobody is forcing the employers to pay subpar wages and provide substandard working conditions. They do it because they are greedy, and in doing so flout immigration, employment, safety, and tax laws. The poor undocumented migrant sob stories would never happen if the Feds enforced our laws. Government officials are guilty of not keeping the invaders out. They are guilty of waiting 20 years to crack down on Agriprocessors. That is their crime.

Third, native families and children are human beings. They pay taxes. They obey the laws. They work hard. Equalitarians and egalitarians belie their professed beliefs and demonstrate their disregard for natives when they so lopsidedly devote their concern and sympathy to invaders and aliens.

When we natives see our representatives, the people we pay taxes to, who are supposed to enforce our laws, instead give priority to the interests of aliens, we are naturally outraged. It makes us wonder why we pay taxes and obey the law. At the same time, the aliens who break our laws suffer little consequence and are thereby emboldened to ever more lawless and anti-social behavior, further harming and incensing the natives.

Immigration raid: biggest kosher meatpacker started by Jews in 1987:

Shutting down production at the plant will have a significant impact on the kosher meat sales, said Menachem Lubinsky, chief executive of Luicom Marketing and editor of KosherToday.

“They are a major supplier to retail establishments all over the world,” Lubinsky said.

The company processes and packages kosher meat and poultry products under the brand Aaron’s Best that it supplies to small grocery stores and meat markets across the United States. The company also processes non-kosher meat products including Iowa Best Beef.

Agriprocessors also operates a meatpacking plant in Gordon, Neb., called Local Pride LLC, which the Rubashkins opened in 2005.

The Rubashkins, Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn, N.Y., came to Postville in the late 1980s and created Agriprocessors, a kosher meatpacking plant run by observant Jews.

The Rubashkins have been in the kosher meat business since Aaron Rubashkin immigrated to the United States in 1952. Rubashkin and his sons, Sholom and Heshy, relocated their business to Iowa to be closer to livestock supplies. The company bought the former HyGrade meat processing plant in Postville in 1987.

Agriprocessors, Aaron's Best, Iowa Best Beef, Local Pride. Check. If you buy these brands you're aiding and abetting the exploitation of poor undocumented migrants. Stop it.

Lubinsky is (or was as late as 2005, see below) Agri's paid PR guy. Honest, professional reporters should investigate and mention things like that, right?

- - -

Whenever I'm curious about the "diversity" of a community I find SchoolDigger very useful. Schooldigger, unlike census data, is finer-grained in time and space, and less prone to undercounting invaders, at least the asian and latino ones. SchoolDigger also offers graphs that reveal trends over the last 20 years, and make it crystal clear what "diversity" really means. From what I've seen "diversity" often means "pure latino, coming soon". It almost always means "less White". Therefore when the Des Moines Register writer and so many other invasion supporters celebrate diversity they're celebrating one race getting pushed out and replaced with another. They seem so eager to perpetrate this "diversity" that they don't care if it involves massive violation of laws. They are celebrating ethnic cleansing.

See Alain Leroy Locke Senior High for example, where latinos and blacks recently brawled. A glimpse at the SchoolDigger graph conveys a better understanding of what's going on in that school's neighborhood than any politically correct newspaper article.

The people writing these PC articles, like Alan Abramowitz, think so poorly of Whites that even when there are no overt signs of racism they consider it perfectly acceptable to conceive poisonous imaginary crimes like symbolic racism. Thus they can continue to demonize and scapegoat us until we are completely gone. They never express any concern about the very concrete anti-White racism that, for example, transforms peaceful White towns like Postville into alien-dominated scofflaw enclaves. That transformation, and the racist "diversity" mentality driving it and protecting it, is something to celebrate.

Look again at the Alain Leroy Locke graph. Look at the graph for Postville's Cora B Darling school to the right. Look up the schools in places you care about. These graphs don't reflect the imaginary or "symbolic" ravings of a paranoid anti-White journalist. They reflect very real ethnic cleansing. A displacement of people that is as real and tangible as racism gets.

The apologia, the disinformation, the disregard for corruption, and the outright denial of the illegitimate nature of this demographic shift - all of it coming from invasion supporters - makes the accusation of genocide both reasonable and justifiable.

- - -

Another report from the Des Moines Register. Worker describes scene at plant:

When she’s deported, she said she would rather be taken to Mexico, where it will be easier to reenter America.

She was put in a building with other women, she said, but could not identify the building. There were cots set up inside, and the group she was with was told to go to sleep.

Hours later, she told nurses she wasn’t feeling well. They checked her and instructed agents to return her to Postville. She was driven by a male and female agent in a white van back to town, but when they asked where she lived, she said she told them to take her to St. Bridget’s Catholic Church.

She said she was afraid of leading ICE agents to her house.

She rang the doorbell at the church again and again. Father Paul Ouderkirk thought a fellow pastor had locked himself out of the house.

Now, the woman said she’s worried for her children in Guatemala. The raid means she won’t make money this week, and can’t send any back, she said.

Ouderkirk said he toured the plant in 2002, one of seven he’s toured nationwide.

“It was one of the dirtiest plants I’ve been in,” Ouderkirk said.

Ouderkirk said he toured all sections of the plant, but was denied access when a new section was built.

“The pace was fast,” Ouderkirk said. “They had no place where people could sit down and eat, only a room about the size of (a 15 ft. by 15 ft. area) where they crowded in.”

Many of the immigrants detained in Postville on Monday came from small, rural towns in Mexico or Guatemala, Ouderkirk said, arriving in small groups with relatives or friends.

“It’s like any grapevine,” he said. “They hear it and they come.”

DHS and or the FBI should shut down St. Bridget's as well as Agri's plant. Aiding and abetting known criminals is a crime.

Do they have slaughterhouses, children, or laws in Guatemala? How would the reporter, Ouderkirk, or this Guatemalan lady feel if gueros were moving to Guatemala, disrupting Guatamalan communities, displacing Guatemalans from their jobs, ruining their schools, and then cried about fear? They would laugh. They would call the invaders invaders. Racist invaders. They would say, "yanqui go home".

Lady, go back where you came from. Take your children with you.

- - -

The problems in Postville are not new. What's happening there reflects what's happening all over America, and why. Criminal aliens and their allies think of America as a "nation of immigrants" - a "proposition nation" where the proposition is "how fast can you make money, no matter what effect it has on the natives". Natives who are harmed are just so many subhuman obstacles to be insulted and abused before being shoved aside.

Another recent story from the Register. Immigration raid: Proliferation of undocumented workers began in early '80s:

Workers in the country illegally have likely been at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville for almost 20 years, said author Stephen Bloom, a journalism professor at the University of Iowa.

“This is the worst-kept secret in Iowa,” said Bloom, who in 2000 published a book chronicling how Agriprocessors’ Hasidic culture affected Postville, a town in northeast Iowa.

The only “thing you need to work at the plant was a strong back and a strong stomach” and a Social Security number, whether it was valid or not, he said.

“Iowans don’t want to do this kind of work for minimum wage and few or no benefits,” he said.

The proliferation of undocumented workers at meatpacking plants can be traced to the early 1980s, said Dave Swenson, an Iowa State University economist.

"Jobs Americans won't do" is one of the more deeply dishonest ways of describing what's going on. The invasion is not about Americans not wanting to do jobs. Iowans did the jobs in Postville for a long time before any aliens came to town. Many continued afterward. The real problem, there and elsewhere, starts with the employers who are too greedy to pay a wage citizens will accept, and too unscrupulous to obey the laws and pay their taxes. The other problem, as I've already mentioned, is a federal government that has failed in its primary responsibility: to defend our territory from invasion.

The greed and crime in Postville went on for 20 years. Why? Was the government forced to act after the crimes became so egregious they could no longer be ignored? Or are the government's apparently haphazard raids deliberately calculated to drum up political and financial support for the invasion?

Lonewacko's report, Agriprocessors meat packing raid, Postville, Iowa (kosher, UFCW), contains an interesting breakdown:

Of those arrested, 290 are Guatemalan, 93 are Mexican, four are Ukrainian and three are Israeli.

He also linked this summary of events leading up to the raid: Postville - A Sleepy Iowa Town Is Transformed Into A Multicultural Sewer, which in turn links to a page containing even more detail.

It turns out the same Steve Bloom quoted by the Register above wrote an interesting, relevant book concerning the culture clash in Postville. Published in 2000, it generated plenty of discussion:

Manuel came from a religious family in Guatemala, but he rarely has time for observance. AgriProcessors does not slow down for Sundays or for any Christian holidays, except Christmas. A more practical problem, however, arises on Jewish holidays, when the plant closes and the workers are not paid.

Pay is a recurring complaint from AgriProcessors' workers. Manuel makes $7.25 an hour, having moved up from $6.25. But Manuel and many other workers said that their weekly paychecks come up three or four hours short regularly, a claim that the union organizers reported hearing frequently. When supervisors are alerted, they promise to correct things but rarely do, workers and union officials said.

How Agriprocessor came to town has already been described farther above. In hindsight, if we can find any fault with the people living in Postville in 1987 it would be that they foolishly put their desire for wealth and jobs above their sense of community. But then it's not like they could have told the jewish aliens not to come to town. It may have taken the Feds 20 years to lift a finger against Agriprocessor's flagrant immigration, tax, drug, and safety violations. But we can be sure that those same Feds would fly in instantly, anywhere, and armed for war if they heard even so much as a rumor that some alien's civil rights were being violated.

Nevertheless, 10 years later, the locals aren't exactly happy with their marriage of necessity. "The Jews," as they're called, drive like maniacs, never mow their lawns, build without permits, bargain furiously (which the locals feel implies the price is unfair), and wait months, if ever, to pay their bills. Disregarding the fundamental rule of Iowa coexistence, the Hasidim won't even make eye contact on the street. One of Bloom's local informants asks: "Hadn't their mothers taught them any manners?"

Bloom does his best to be fair to the Hasidim as he explores their hermetically sealed world. He notes his relief at the familiar speech rhythms, the questions upon questions. He accepts an invitation for a Shabbat stay with a Hasidic family, revels in the food, and prays with his hosts on command. But finally, Bloom is a liberal, not a fundamentalist: He's repelled by their intolerance, their insularity, their open delight in cheating "the goyim," and their manipulative arguments. He quotes one Hasid as saying proudly: "I am a racist... . Why haven't the Jews been extinguished after scores of attempts throughout history? That we are still here defies logic. There is only one answer. We are better and smarter. That's why!" Bloom's heart is with the Postville local who says: "It's not such a great religion if they don't want to be a part of the community, is it?"

Knowing this, isn't it difficult to blame "the goyim" for not liking the jews? The dislike appears mutual. Mayor Penrod, quoted above, surely knows this and should have mentioned it. Instead he chose to smear the natives as irrational haters.

The jews, as they're called, is a label they often use themselves. Bloom probably knows that. As a journalist who seems to sympathize with Iowans he should also recognize that it's a more neutral than "the nativists", "the racists", "the rednecks", and all the other not-so-subtle insults journalists, especially the jewish ones, prefer to "the Whites".

Intolerance, insularity, cheating "the goyim" (a disrespectful label we do not attach to ourselves), and manipulative arguments are indeed fundamental, long-held characteristically jewish values. Certainly in comparison to those of European stock. The cheating and manipulation are especially alien and objectionable. From his thoughts Bloom seems a rare breed. Liberals like him usually have no problem cheating or making manipulative arguments. He enjoys his muted jewishness while disapproving, openly in a book, of others who feel their bigotry more strongly. That's rare. And finally, jews usually get their panties in a bunch only when they sense intolerance, insularity, and fundamentalism in White Christians. Whoops, wait a minute...

Bloom, a largely secular Jew who frequently frames his relationship to his faith in terms of Jewish food, came to Iowa from San Francisco to teach journalism at the state university. At first, Bloom, his wife and their young son loved their new home.

But by their third year there, the blush had begun to fade.

"We were lonely. We didn't fit into the local social order. . . . We missed people like us."

Soon Bloom begins to see "them" everywhere. Two female American Gothic types stare at the Bloom family in a restaurant, and as the Blooms leave ask "in an Almira Gulch tone, 'You're not from around here.' " Bloom took this to mean "what they were driving at wasn't where we were from, but who we were, what we were: city folks, Jews. . . ."

Here is some insight into the mind of a self-righteous alien. Self-righteous because who else could move to a place and expect the people there, who by his own choice of words ("people like us", "American Gothic types", "Almira Gulch tone") he obviously considers alien, not notice that he is in fact just as much an alien to them? If stares and getting called "city folk" is the worst story Bloom has then it's no wonder rude, unscrupulous aliens are flocking to America's heartland.

The Hasidim had some supporters, too, though many of them seem to be people who directly benefited from their arrival.

But the crux of the problem seemed to revolve around three major issues. The Hasidim were very aloof. They treated the locals as though they were diseased. "If they mix with us they think we'll contaminate them," someone told Bloom.

More disturbing to Bloom was that the Lubavitchers were dishonorable in their business dealings. They'd buy something and not pay for it or pay or withhold payment for a long time.

"I get bills and throw them away," one bragged to him. "The more bills I get, the faster I throw them away. If they want to get paid that badly, they'll send me another notice and then another. When I'm ready to pay them, I pay them."

I'm very curious to see how people react to this story and how it plays out over time. Will anyone in Agri's management go to jail? Will they be driven out of Iowa? Out of business? Will the jewish community, acutely aware of this case because it affects their supply of holy meat, rise up and shout, "Exploitation and lawbreaking! Not in my name!" Or will it be, "Oh my G-d! Stop the persecution, stop the anti-semitism!"

There is a precedent, from 2005, that would seem to favor expecting the latter response. The following blog post outlines a coldly calculated plan based on manipulative arguments. What a surprise.

PETA doesn't play Kosher:

Now, how does a group of orthodox rabbis, the different groups that ordain food as Kosher, and, well, Agriprocessors take on an organization that is a well-oiled PR and grass roots machine? Well, the rabbis and the kashrut organizations hired Lubicom Marketing Consulting, a firm that has a long history of working with kosher companies and causes.

Quoted below is Lubicom's founder, Menachem Lubinsky, who was quoted by the Register above as if he were a disinterested kosher pundit.

Lastly, the venom they have spewed and the degree of how they continue to go after a major supplier of glatt kosher meat in this country can only be construed as anti-Semitism, especially when stunned animals and practices at non-kosher plants certainly are nowhere as humane as the practices at Agri.

The comment section of a Yeshiva World News report on the Agri raid is also interesting. There you can see a battle being waged. The fair-minded people appear outnumbered. This window into alien "frum/yidden" thinking is more discomforting and more difficult to comprehend than anything Bloom has to say.

Quote “lets blame the unions, lets blame peta, lets blame the anti-semites…but god forbid we should blame rubashkin….sorry people, but rubashkin and others dont pass the savings at using illegal labor onto their customers…i for one hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law… ”

Comment by bacci40 — May 12, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

Is “bacci” short for bacon? since when do Yidden hope to see other Frum jews prosecuted to the full extent of the law, especially as you haven’t even heard his side.

Do you hire illegal immigrants to clean your house?

Comment by isi98 — May 12, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

The Rubashkins are AMAZING balei chesed and balei tzedaka……Please visit their store on 13th avenue and see all the homeless they feed daily (for free). For all those who are hoping they get punished and for those that claim they are not passing on their savings etc. Before you judge and make your comments please realize they have helped countless yisoimim - almanos - and continue to do so. I pray for them - I pray they should continue with their business and go from strength to strength.. Closing them down will only hurt hundreds and maybe thousands of people. Please don’t be so quick to chanmpion for another’s downfall. After all we are all one .. their goodness benefits all of us.

Comment by frumma — May 12, 2008 @ 9:54 pm

Yidden, frum, balei, chesed, tzedakah? We are all one? And who is this "us" to whom frumma refers? In trying to understand alien thoughts like these I'm getting the distinct impression I'm meant to misunderstand that the friendly-sounding translations apply to jew and non-jew alike. I suspect, however, they were originally intended to define how jews should treat each other, and that plenty of them still see it that way. Just as many muslims consider infidels inferior, and lie to us about it and other things they think.

But that's probably just my "symbolic racism" peeking through.

- - -

The title of this post comes from what I understand to be the respected words of a respected jew:

In one of his most famous essays - entitled Glatt Kosher - Glatt Yoshor - [Rav Breuer] wrote:

'Kosher is intimately related to yoshor. G-d's Torah not only demands the observance of kashruth and the sanctification of our physical enjoyment, it also insists on the sanctification of our social relationships. This requires the strict application of the tenets of justice and righteousness which avoid even the slightest trace of dishonesty in our business dealings and personal life.'

"Yoshor", to put it in my terms and not to diminish the concept, seems comparable to Superman's "truth, justice, and the American way". I understand and respect that value. It's why I feel compelled to leave the shithole this decidedly non-yoshor immigration invasion is turning California into, and to find a new home amongst natives who share my values. It's why I write about it. Unlike Bloom when those "American Gothic types" notice I look different or act different I understand it to mean that I've accidentally brought some "city" with me. I accept it as my duty to assimilate, and my responsibility for failure, not theirs.

From their prior words and acts it seems the Rubashkins and their friends either have no regard for yoshor or think it only applies to their dealings with other jews. The latter view would explain why they have such a bad reputation as employers and yet a good one as yidden. What this raid and the subsequent revelations of their dishonest business dealings will do is provide other jews an opportunity to demonstrate what they think yoshor means.

The Value of Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I am prompted to write in response to this question from whodareswings:

I'm wondering why you have a link to Hersi Ali. Isn't she at the American Enterprise Institute working for them now? And isn't AEI a neocon outfit? And aren't neocons the enemies of White nationalists? Why have you given this Somali feminist "change agent" a pass?

I listen to many people. In spite of the fact that many have worldviews that conflict with each other or with my own they often expose me to opinions I consider valuable. What I value most is truth. What I value about Hirsi Ali is the truth she speaks.

I have not read everything Hirsi Ali has ever said, but I am not aware of any lies. She does not pretend to be what she is not. Lawrence Auster, in contrast, is no friend of neocons. He often speaks truth, but like neocons he pretends to care about the West when what concerns him most is what is good for jews.

From an interview Hirsi Ali did with Reason in November 2007, titled The Trouble Is the West:

Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?

Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.

Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?

Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.

Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?

Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.

Reason: Militarily?

Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.

Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, “Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,” he’s wrong?

Hirsi Ali: He’s wrong. Sorry about that.

Hirsi Ali is a clear and articulate anti-islam iconoclast - one of the few of an extremely rare breed. What she says about islam is not only the unvarnished truth, without any PC dithering, it is far beyond what the vast majority of neocons (or White nationalists for that matter) have the courage to say.

From her review of Lee Harris' book Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History:

The second fanaticism that [Lee] Harris identifies is one he views as infecting Western societies; he calls it a “fanaticism of reason.” Reason, he says, contains within itself a potential fatality because it blinds Western leaders to the true nature of Islamic-influenced cultures. Westerners see these cultures merely as different versions of the world they know, with dominant values similar to those espoused in their own culture. But this, Harris argues, is a fatal mistake. It implies that the West fails to appreciate both its history and the true nature of its opposition.

Nor, he points out, is the failure linked to a particular political outlook. Liberals and conservatives alike share this misperception. Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz agreed, Harris writes, “that you couldn’t really blame the terrorists, since they were merely the victims of an evil system — for Chomsky, American imperialism, for Wolfowitz, the corrupt and despotic regimes of the Middle East.” That is to say, while left and right may disagree on the causes and the remedies, they both overlook the fanaticism inherent in Islam itself. Driven by their blind faith in reason, they interpret the problem in a way that is familiar to them, in order to find a solution that fits within their doctrine of reason. The same is true for such prominent intellectuals as Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama.

Harris does not regard Islamic fanaticism as a deviancy or a madness that affects a few Muslims and terrifies many. Instead he argues that fanaticism is the basic principle in Islam. “The Muslims are, from an early age, indoctrinated into a shaming code that demands a fanatical rejection of anything that threatens to subvert the supremacy of Islam,” he writes. During the years that this shaming code is instilled into children, the collective is emphasized above the individual and his freedoms. A good Muslim must forsake all: his property, family, children, even life for the sake of Islam. Boys in particular are taught to be dominating and merciless, which has the effect of creating a society of holy warriors.

By contrast, the West has cultivated an ethos of individualism, reason and tolerance, and an elaborate system in which every actor, from the individual to the nation-state, seeks to resolve conflict through words. The entire system is built on the idea of self-interest. This ethos rejects fanaticism. The alpha male is pacified and groomed to study hard, find a good job and plan prudently for retirement: “While we in America are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin,” Harris writes, “the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive and ruthless.”

The West has variously tried to convert, to assimilate and to seduce Muslims into modernity, but, Harris says, none of these approaches have succeeded. Meanwhile, our worship of reason is making us easy prey for a ruthless, unscrupulous and extremely aggressive predator and may be contributing to a slow cultural “suicide.”

Hirsi Ali's critiques of islam and the West are, in my opinion, accurate. Once again, contrast her with a charlatan like Chomsky.

Whether Hirsi Ali is a feminist, an african, or an immigrant is beside the point. She is not a charlatan. At some point she will realize, as I did, that the progressivist globalists, the West's leftist-plutocrat alliance, don't see any fundamental incompatibility between themselves and islam. That they're helping subvert the West and establish a worldwide caliphate. That pundits like Pipes, Chomsky, and Wolfowitz are gatekeepers. That they help channel public opinion and define the bounds of legitimate discussion primarily in the best interests of jews, not the West, and certainly not Europeans or somalis.

If she comes to this realization before she dies I think she'll have the courage to say it out loud. After facing muslims and their bloody knives I can't believe she would fear politically correct liberals and their bloody lies. They'll defund her, they'll call her crazy, they'll threaten her with hate crimes. Then we'll know she has really put her finger on what troubles the West.