Suicide vs. Competition

In Auster vs. Sailer Dennis Mangan and guests discuss Sailer's view that "WhiterPeople" compete for status and Auster's criticism of that idea.

Auster writes (my emphasis):

The West's suicide process could not have happened as a result of just one "bad" element in our society, say, the liberal elites. No, all the leading elements of our society, all the significant factions of the West, including elements normally thought of as very conservative, such as the Catholic Church and evangelicals, have signed on to an idea, the belief in non-discrimination, that spells the doom of the West, since it leads people to support, or to refuse to oppose, policies leading to the Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West.

In today's Britain, as I realized to my shock after the July 2005 bombing, tolerance--unconditioned tolerance--is the guiding principle of society, the touchstone that is constantly appealed to on every issue. It was tolerance that led the British to allow millions of Third-World people including Muslims into Britain, and it was tolerance that has led the Brits to allow the Muslims including terror supporters free rein of their Island, and it's tolerance that keeps the British from reacting against the enemies in their midst. The main reason for the surrender of Britain to Islamization is tolerance.

I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I've argued at length why I think that's incorrect. Namely, anti-Semitism is such a damning word that I don't think a person should be called that unless he has specifically expressed bigotry toward the Jewish people as the Jewish people. For example, though I've condemned Patrick Buchanan for his bigotry against Israel. I've never called him an anti-Semite, for the simple reason that in my view he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Now I think it's entirely possible that in his inner thoughts Buchanan really is driven by an animus against Jews as Jews. But the fact is that he has never expressed such an animus outwardly. He has never attacked Jews as Jews. Never. And I insist that when it comes to such a damning word as anti-Semitism, there must be an actual expression, not a merely likelihood about what a person may be thinking.

Auster often characterizes challenges to his ideas as attacks, so his hairsplitting about what he thinks does or doesn't constitute anti-jewish racism or what precisely he has said about Buchanan or Sailer is pathetic. The important point is that Auster attacked these men for what he perceives to be their attacks on jewish interests. He uses "anti-semite" and phrases like "bigot against israel" for the same reason that so many of his supposedly non-discriminatory "liberal elites" do. Because they can and do discriminate jews as jews, as they do in unabashedly placing jews as jews on a pedestal above everyone else.

In discussing his idea that non-discrimination spells the doom of the West Auster is willing to discriminate Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims as Whites, Christians, third worlders, and muslims - and even to attack them. He is not interested in delving into where the multi-culti politically correct "liberalism" pushing "non-discrimination" comes from, how this ideology came to dominate in the West, or whose interests it serves. Good thing. It involves lots of jews.

The "non-discrimination" and "unconditioned tolerance" Auster claims to see is the opposite of reality. Non-discrimination is the sales pitch. It serves to mislead many good-hearted fair-minded people into misunderstanding what is happening. Even in Mangan's thread everyone seems to accept it as the explanation. But as Auster well knows, "liberal" "non-discrimination" never ends up that way. For many liberals, and especially the non-Whites, anti-White and pro-non-White discrimination is what it's all about.

The West's media, academy, and laws are discriminatory. It is easy enough to see. What has changed in the last 150 years and especially over the last 60 is that the discrimination has been inverted. A healthy and normal preference for everything White and Christian has been transformed into a preference for everything non-White and non-Christian. This is so abnormal and unhealthy that in a single human lifetime Whites are being reduced from the dominant majority to a despised minority in every country we previously controlled. The kicker is, according to Auster, that it's all our fault. We're "suiciding" because conservatives "support, or refuse to oppose" their enemies.

Unlike Auster I do not characterize the inversion of discrimination as "suicide". Nor do I pillory those who "refuse to oppose". Nobody wants to lose their job, be shunned by their community, or be sent to prison, but this is what is in store for anyone who opposes anti-White discrimination in any substantial way. Men like Henry Cabot Lodge, Madison Grant, Henry Ford, William Dudley Pelley, Charles Lindbergh, Francis Parker Yockey, Gerald L.K. Smith, and Carleton Putnam (to name just a few) saw where things were heading. They described and opposed this future more clearly than the media permits to be said out loud now that we are here and living with it.

The inversion began in earnest with the emancipation of jews in the wake of the French revolution. This is when the idea that White Christian Europeans shouldn't discriminate themselves from jews took root and when dissent from this position came to be pathologized as "anti-semitism". Thereafter the attack against healthy and normal European racial discrimination was generalized into a pathologization of "racism" and eventually mutated into a variety of "anti-discrimination" movements opposing "sexism", "xenophobism", "homophobism", and "islamophobism". What began as an ostensibly well-intentioned assertion of equality always ended as naked aggression against what Auster euphemizes as "the majority" (White, male, heterosexual Christians) coupled with the defense and celebration of all that is alien and deviant. This phenomena, this racial-culture war, has been fueled financially and intellectually by a preposterous disproportion of jews, to achieve goals that have been in their collective self-interest and against the interests of "the majority".

The reality, contrary to Auster, is that the "unconditioned tolerance" of the "leading elements of our society" defines thoughts like mine as "hate" which is not tolerated at all. Yes, the rationale is claimed to be "non-discrimination". No, that is not the real motivation. This is trivially demonstrated by the behavior of both Auster and "leading elements of our society" in discriminating jews as jews, distinguishing them and exempting them from criticism while at the same time discriminating, criticizing, and even subordinating Whites as Whites in myriad ways.

It seems to me that Auster opposes liberalism because he sees it is driving Whites to extinction, and he judges the continued existence of a generally pro-jew White majority to be in the interest of jews. This explains his race-realist, tribe-denying obtuseness as well as his hypocrisy, smearing, and thought-criminalizing whenever he's challenged on it. In pursuing his interests he feels free to reason about anything, including calling on others to ignore or stifle their own interests, and discriminates anyone he pleases, as demonstrated by his blog full of musings about "the majority" as "the majority", black savages as black savages, and muslims as muslims. He opposes the "Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West". He wants "the majority" to do this and do that, but especially to save ourselves so we can continue to protect jews from blacks and muslims. He calls for pro-Whites like myself who discriminate our interests from those of jews, criticize jews, and oppose the judaization of the West to be shunned and silenced. He does not call for such treatment for even the most anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western "liberals".

Even if there is a discussion of a legitimate topic, the low-lifes and anti-Semites will show up and ruin it.

Besides imagining himself as the arbiter of legitimacy Auster sounds just like Ian "Urge to Purge" Jobling. Again my reality differs. Just about every news item or blog thread I read is incomplete or dishonest, written and guarded by pro-jews whose goal in life seems to be suppressing any mention of jewish influence, even when that influence is plain to see and the bullying pro-jew bouncers only make it plainer.

The notion that I go around calling people racists is an off-the-wall lie.

An off the wall lie? He did this in the very thread in which he denies it. Of course it wouldn't suit Auster's interests to admit that in common "liberal" usage, including his own, "anti-semite" is just a more specific form of the "racist" smear. Thinking about that special phrase and the special damning power Auster is well aware it carries only calls attention to how perfectly acceptable it is to discriminate jews as jews in placing their concerns above everyone else's. Contrasting this with the ineffectiveness and even negative reaction to "anti-White" ("you racist!") is also telling. The prevailing regime is definitely not "non-discrimination", and Auster definitely does not hesitate to smear.

Recognizing that jews and Whites have separate interests and speaking openly about it drives Auster to distraction more than any other subject. It puts the lie to his "non-discrimination" and "suicide" rhetoric and contradicts his pro-"white", pro-Christian, pro-West pose. It reveals him for the pro-jew pro-israel ruthless commissar he is. He cannot tolerate any recognition of the White-jewish fault line, and a discussion of "WhiterPeople" status competition comes dangerously close. Such talk might lead more Whites to recognize the race-based jewish aggression against us. So instead Auster tries to distract and deflect, selling a combination of guilt-tripping, lies, and threats: "Bad majority, so stupid you're suiciding yourself by not discriminating and remaining silent - oh and the low-lifes who discriminate jews and say they have something to do with this must be silenced".

I see through Auster's nonsense, but some of the semi-aware people at Mangan's seem willing to buy it. This includes Mangan himself, who closed his comments with effusive praise for Auster, and Hesperado, who made many incisive points before attributing Auster's belligerence, obfuscation, and logical inconsistencies to his being thick-skulled and thin-skinned. He sure is. The path to suicide-competition enlightenment is to try and understand why.

Original image.

UPDATE 21 Nov 2008: Today in Why I fight (other conservatives) Auster reiterates his belief that "non-discrimination is the crux of liberalism and its destructiveness, and thus opposing non-discrimination is the only effective way to oppose liberalism." He quotes a reader quoting himself getting "right down into the marrow of the problem" (my emphasis):

But WHY do they want to destroy it? What is BAD about reality that makes them want to destroy it? For my answer I return to the traditionalist analysis that I have advanced in various formulations: the rejection of God, the transcendent, the higher, the notion of an inherent structure in existence. Once the higher or the sense of being part of a larger whole is rejected, then the world is reduced to selves and their desires, with nothing above them, no "holarchy" (to use Arthur Koestler's term) of which they are a part. Therefore all selves and their respective desires are equal, therefore any distinction between selves is a horrible attack on the worth of the "less equal" or excluded self and must be banned.

However, as I'm thinking about this, I don't know that the non-discrimination and the destruction can be separated. Since the structure of the world consists of distinct things, each of which has its internal order or structure (even an alternative hair salon has its internal order), to ban discrimination is to destroy each individual thing and its order. Non-discrimination is destruction, perhaps the most efficient and thorough-going destruction ever known to man.

This to the applause of a fastidiously manicured peanut gallery who just love his clarity and directness.

I realize I repeat myself, but doesn't it get more to the crux and marrow of the WHY of "liberalism" to acknowledge that when Europeans first began to reject God during the Enlightenment that jews were the particular minority group who really got them thinking along the lines that eventually became "anti-racism" and "non-discrimination", that jews themselves are openly proud to have since done so much in this regard to help other groups benefit as they themselves have, and that jews also happen to be the only particular group that even anti-"liberals" like Auster dictate we absolutely must not discriminate from ourselves?

Doesn't that question, however distasteful jews and philo-semitic gentiles might find it, get closer to the WHY Auster will only dance around? For a more clear and direct view of "liberalism" I suggest Whites consult Kevin MacDonald. Why We Write would be a good place to start.

The Election is Over

I haven't the time or energy for a cohesive post-election essay, but I do have a collection of links and some comments to share.

First, the title. The Obama shills are inordinately fond of this refrain. I think we can expect it to morph into many new and snottier forms even as the election itself recedes from memory. The Obamen seem to believe that they and their man are now beyond all criticism.

Back in September Obaman Jack Cafferty wrote:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Cafferty then cites Michael Grunwald, speaking in code about the evils of speaking in code. Decoded, this is what Cafferty and Grunwald are saying: hordes of unthinking, racist Whites stand between them and Utopia.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia's primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Ooooo scary. Except we can see clearly now in retrospect that this was all alot of guilt-tripping nonsense.

Nobody was talking about race? Lots of people were talking about race, even in the mainstream media. What was most notable was that most of them were trying to lay the same race-based guilt-trip on Whites as McCafferty and Grunwald. Harold Meyerson and Ron Rosenbaum are two particularly ham-handed examples I've cited previously. It's easy to find others.

In the wake of the election we're hearing a new variation: yes Whites are racist, but not enough to make a difference. John Judis writes that "many white Americans still harbor degrees of conscious or unconscious resentment against blacks" but "it didn't matter enough to decide the election". In Judis' opinion Obama should have done better than Kerry did in 2004, but since he didn't (in some places) Whites therefore deserve to be taken to task in yet another guilt-tripping editorial.

The fact is that race really did matter to many voters, in fact we can see now looking back that it mattered much more to non-white voters than it did to Whites. Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

	Obama	McCain	Other
White (75%)	43%	55%	2%
African-American (13%)	96%	4%	N/A
Latino (8%)	67%	31%	2%
Asian (2%)	63%	33%	4%
Other (3%)	66%	31%	3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat's stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain's 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

This narrative that you have to worry about Barack Obama just didn't fly when they saw Barack Obama up close and they saw his relations with the Jewish community," he said, pointing to the extensive Jewish outreach campaign in states like this key swing state, where Jews make up a statistically significant slice of the electorate.

He noted that it was the first time a campaign had Jewish vote coordinators in all of the key battleground states, with Florida particularly notable for the size of the outreach, surrogate events and third-party efforts.

"There are nagging doubts in the Jewish community about Barack Obama and where he stands on important issues," he asserted.

Green, though, assessed that such concerns were outweighed by those on the Republican ticket, namely regarding the vice presidential nominee.

"There was contrary tendency," he said. "There were Jews who expressed skepticism about Obama but even more about Sarah Palin."

Note that what is called "nagging doubts" in jews is called "racism" in Whites.

What kind of guilt-tripping would Whites get if we voted in a bloc of 96%, 78%, 67%, or 63%? Our vote is objectively the least attributable to racial bias, and yet we get all the critcism for being biased. The most reasonable explanation for this is that our critics simply hate us.

As an aside, the JPost article also contains a handy "almost-complete list of the new Jewish congressional caucus: An all-time record of Jewish reps in Congress." The senate is 13% jewish, the house about 7.3% (32/435).

Jews may have had their doubts about Obama, but that was washed away by their fear and loathing for Sarah Palin and the unconsciously White Christian voters who flocked to support her. I'm not aware of anyone in the mainstream press making an attempt to guilt-trip jews about this. Quite the opposite. Here's Jacques Berlinerblau, associate professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics". He thinks Palin just needs to try harder:

The Palin Effect: Two of the speakers observed that John McCain's selection of a running mate may have turned away Jewish voters who were once supportive of him. On Wednesday, I pointed out that this apparent "Palin Effect" has occurred despite the fact that the Governor of Alaska has made no egregious errors in her dealings with the Jewish community and has, in many cases, said the right things and cultivated the right relationships.

In short, 2008 has demonstrated the strategic importance of having skilled advisers and operatives in the domain of faith-based politicking. Accordingly, nothing precludes Palin from someday reversing negative perceptions among Jewish voters. And while she's at it she might find a receptive audience because . . .

Jews are going Republican?: Speaker Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council pointed out that rumors about Jews defecting from the Democrats to head over to the GOP have been around since the time of McGovern. He views this as a "man bites dog story," of great interest to the media if only because it is so counter-intuitive. The truth of the matter is that Jews are solid, true-blue Democrats who have given the party more than 75% of their ballot in the last 4 elections.

That's right. The truth, which negates Berlinerblau's blame-Palin argument, is that most jews just won't support someone Whites find appealing even if only unconsciously for racial reasons. It doesn't matter if that hapless White pol promises to nuke iran and send Whites to die to protect israel. That's not good enough now that jews have Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, and McCains who will do all that and more.

Berlinerblau concludes with a little disinformation:

Is the Jewish vote really that important?: Professor Yossi Shain of Georgetown's Government department made the provocative argument that polling data on Jewish voters is highly problematic and misleading. Drawing a distinction between Jewish citizens of the United States and eligible Jewish voters, Professor Shain cited the number of 2.8 million in the latter category--a number that decreases their already minor electoral significance.

Shain's observation corresponds with one that I have been making here: we should study and contemplate American Jewish voting behavior in all of its glory. But we should not overestimate its electoral import. At less than 2% of the American population (and only 3.6% of the population of Florida) Jewish-Americans do not stand to dramatically affect the outcome on November 4th.

Tsk tsk. They're neglecting the effect of money and media on modern campaigns. Now why would they do that? They must know that Jewish campaign contributions and media influence have an impact far larger than a measly 2% of the votes. Every politician knows this, which is why they all have special outreach programs for jews, make promises to AIPAC, and make pilgrimages to israel.

JPost: "Sarah Palin may be hurting McCain among Jewish voters":

"Palin is totally out of step with public opinion in the Jewish community" on domestic issues and has "zero foreign policy experience," the organization wrote in a fund-raising letter sent out last week. It also started an on-line petition asking: "McCain: What were you thinking when you selected Palin?"

Earth to Berlinerblau. For some strange reason plenty of jews expect politicians to think of jews first and not the far more numerous Whites.

In the days before the election I gathered many links that revealed a race-based hatred directed towards Sarah Palin. Whether or not Whites supported or opposed her on principle it was obvious by contrast that the animosity of "the left", and especially jews, came from a fear and loathing not so much for anything Palin herself had said or done, but for the White Christians instinctively drawn to her. Palin was treated like a blank sheet of paper on which non-whites (and self-loathing Whites) could finger paint whatever dim visions they pleased. Then they hated her for being whatever boogeyman they imagined her to represent.

Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks':

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Black Florida congressman apologizes for Palin comments:

"The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews," he said in his statement.

The point I will make, and continue to make, it that the current regime, before and after this election, is anathema to Whites. I can quote example after example of pro-black, pro-jew, pro-latino, pro-anything-non-white government officials and media pundits bashing Whites and suffering no substantial consequences. Whites on the other hand mustn't say they care for themselves or are fearful of or distrust other groups, in spite of self-interested members of those groups telling us repeatedly how much they fear and distrust us.

Comic's Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful:

The reason Obama may yet still get 60% of the Jewish vote and at least one reason why Florida is so close now is because the Jews like Biden and are scared by Palin.

Jewish voters may be wary of Palin:

“There is almost always an inverse proportion between a candidate's popularity among conservative Christians and secular Jews,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Republican lobbyist long active in Jewish politics who supports McCain.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Secular jews plus jews hostile to Jews for Jesus equals a pretty broad range of jews.

“I find her offensive”:

“I was leaning towards McCain,” growled Marvin Weinstein, 74, as he strode to an appointment in a doctor’s office. “But I think his choice of her has turned me off.”

“What I hear is she’s an awful anti-Semite,” George Friedberg said as he sat curbside in his Escalade. “She won’t be getting my vote.” Friedberg’s wife, Florence, appeared at the passenger-side door, shopping bags in hand. “I was leaning towards McCain, but after he selected her I’ve ruled him out completely. I find her offensive.”

Koch: Obama is my guy — Palin is scary:

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

Note that defending America comes after Koch's concern for israel. Though to be fair he may see them as the same thing.

Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge:

Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin of Alaska as his running mate, which was hailed in some quarters and met with skepticism in others, is sparking intense reactions from some New Yorkers, who report being driven to fits of rage and even all-consuming panic.

"All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows," an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president."

"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."

Ms. Grose was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.

Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views. "The women thing is a ruse. ... She was chosen because of the evangelical thing," the writer said. "It's weirdly stealthy that she's not talking about it."

It's not weird at all that these White-haters so unselfconsciously project their dishonesty onto us and so freely express their homicidal rage. They only struggle to explain how exactly it's all our fault that they hate us so.

In What Hollywood Jews think of white Americans James Edwards quotes Larry David:

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a f**king liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you c**ksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen. If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.”

OK. That was directed at McCain, not Palin. But Larry David obviously hates McCain, our little Juan McCain, because he imagines that McCain represents White interests. And he thinks of us as disgusting, reprehensible turds. Keep this in mind now - the regime not only lets this guy make nationally broadcast primetime TV shows, they pay him to do so.

Pissed about Palin
McCain's running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it's time to get furious.
By Cintra Wilson

Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she's anti-life. She is the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.

Notice how the nazi bugaboo has a way of popping up whenever jews don't like a White. Even when it's absurd because the person they're talking about isn't saying or doing anything remotely nazi-like. That's because to them "nazi" essentially means "anti-jew", thus it is only natural that it has become a jewish code word for White.

Here's another example. Heather Mallick, a liberal Canadian editorialist, wrote a couple of somewhat infamous fulsome little turgid screeds concerning Palin.

The Alaskan who went 'outside':

Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.

One hundred thousand Canadians visit Alaska every year, and we like to pass by in cruise ships. But it never goes further than that. Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.

CBC’s Mallick: ‘White Trash’ Palin Has ‘Porn Actress Look,’ ‘Smart People’ Flee Small Towns refers to an especially fulsome screed. The original document got flushed down the memory hole, but fortunately some leftist was particularly fond of it and saved a copy.

In the face of reader outrage Mallick did what any White basher normally does. She wrapped herself in philo-semitism and bashed the evil racists who criticized her. After all, she reasoned, only an evil racist White could object to her bashing Whites.

Canadian columnist's diatribe against Palin stokes anger in the U.S.:

The Toronto-based Mallick admits she's been shaken by the violence suggested in hundreds of e-mails similar in tone to Jones's, but adds the messages have simply served to underscore her point about the bigotry and small-mindedness of some Republican supporters.

"The violent and obscene threats against me were one thing — it's easy to filter those — but the anti-Semitic hate mail was very troubling. I am not Jewish but I am honoured to be taken for one. I consider it a great compliment."

What a hero. Curious, I reached back into Mallick's past columns to get a grasp on her pro-jewish sentiments. Here's an interesting column where she rails against racism. The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?:

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada's best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from "a variety of backgrounds," for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: "The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women." Despite Blatchford's comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

I didn't read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I'm sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Whether or not Mallick is jewish she sure sees the world as if she were. My old foil Larry Auster certainly does and so do his "conservative" jewish buddies. Hymowitz on Red State hysteria

I'm less and less alone. Here is yet another Palin-critical conservative. Kay Hymowitz ... casts a cold eye on the conservatives who have lost their minds over Sarah

Conservatives lost their minds? If anybody lost their minds over Palin surely I hope it's clear from all of the above it was jews. And by the way, I don't believe Auster, in all his many words on Palin, wrote anything at all about that.

If all of the above wasn't clear enough then it's a good thing I saved the worst for last.

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan

You really should go read for yourself the vile hatred Bernhard expressed. The stunning thing about her invective is that it came not in some one-off drunken outburst, ala Mel Gibson, but instead was professionally produced and performed repeatedly in a mainstream jewish theater as entertainment for profit.

Ari Roth artistic director of Theater J was unsympathetic and unapologetic:

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a Fucked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting. The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a “disgusting show.” there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting.” I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge.Finally you ask, “where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration?” They were all there on opening night, one night before you came. We partied together after. There were three members of Theater J staff at the show last night, and there’ll be more of us this weekend when we present three shows — soon to be all sold out. I was teaching a political theater class last night, but I’ll be back for everything this weekend.We’re proud of our producing - proud of Sandra’s sense of timing - taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

About Theater J:

Hailed by The New York Times as “The Premier Theater for Premieres,” Theater J has emerged as one of the most distinctive, progressive and respected Jewish theaters on the national and international scene. A program of the Washington DC Jewish Community Center, Theater J works in collaboration with the four other components of the Washington DCJCC’s Morris Cafritz Center for the Arts, which include the Washington Jewish Film Festival and Screening Room, the Ann Loeb Bronfman Gallery, the Program in Literature, Music and Dance, and Nextbook.

Theater J produces thought-provoking, publicly engaged, personal, passionate and entertaining plays and musicals that celebrate the distinctive urban voice and social vision that are part of the Jewish cultural legacy.

Isn't that special?

AoT on VoR

Earlier this evening I joined Dietrich and Mishko on their weekly Voice of Reason internet broadcast. Dietrich likes my essays and wanted to know what drives me.

In three years of writing I've never discussed what my thinking was when I started blogging or how that thinking changed. Tonight I enjoyed having the opportunity to explain.

Thanks to Dietrich and Mishko. Despite the shameful confessions it was a pleasure speaking with them.