Who Hates the Tea Party and Why

For more than a year media pundits and celebrities and an army of lesser-known left-leaning editorialists and bloggers have ridiculed and dehumanized Tea Party protesters as "teabaggers" and "racists". With the recent surge in anti-White sentiment openly expressed in the "liberal" media it must be dawning on more and more Tea Partiers that the problems with their country go beyond taxes, healthcare, or socialism.

In Teabaggers Vs. Immigration Rally: A Tale of Two Americas - huffingtonpost.com, Miguel Guadalupe writes:

At the immigration rally, you saw a wide spectrum of races and ethnicities. Those attending were mostly Latino, but the rally also welcomed the participation of Whites, Asians, and Blacks who support a path to citizenship, reuniting families, and providing opportunities to students and veterans.

At the Teabagger rally, the monochromatic masses were spitting and yelling racial and homophobic slurs at Black, Latino, and openly gay congressional reps.

At the immigrations rally, the participants were expressing hope - hope that reform would reunite them with their families. Hope that they would be given the opportunity to fully contribute to society, and the hope that their sacrifices, including the sacrifices of those who have served in the military or have lost their lives defending this country, will not be in vain.

At the Teabagger rally, the participants were expressing fear - fear of a socialist nation, fear of some type of take over of individual rights, fear of some conspiracy involving the democratically elected President and a democratically elected representative majority. They punctuated their expression of fear with threats of violence.

I highlight these opposing images because soon enough, these two groups will collide. The national debate on immigration reform will come soon, and if the Teabaggers act as they have against health care reform, we can expect more vitriol, fear mongering, harassment and acts of violence. These so-called "Americans" will feel even less restrained against people they consider to be "foreign" or "illegal," deserving even less respect than they gave to our elected officials.

In Whose Country Is It? - NYTimes.com, Charles Blow writes:

The far-right extremists have gone into conniptions.

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated ... than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite, less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com, Frank Rich writes:

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

In Too much tea party racism - Salon.com, Joan Walsh writes:

The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.

These views well reflect the increasingly obvious race-based double standard propounded in the media for more than a decade now: non-White aliens good, White natives evil.

The psychological device they're using in the battle over healthcare is the same one that's been used against anyone opposed to immigration. They call Whites "racist" for objecting to anything we don't believe is in our best interests, trying to guilt-trip us and implying that we're somehow morally or mentally defective. As we can see from the full-throated anti-White reaction to even the largely deracinated Tea Partiers, whether we think or speak in explicitly racial terms is irrelevant. Our "anti-racist" antagonists are hyper-sensitive to race and any conflict with their own racial interests, or as in the case of Joan Walsh, act as a self-righteous proxy for such interests. White leaders perversely reject and profess distaste for our group interests even as we see an increasing number of non-White leaders who openly and unabashedly advocate in favor of theirs.

White fears are justified. We had a country of our own and still want one, organized to our tastes and run for our benefit. What sane group of people does not? In 1965 we were told that the changes to the immigration laws would not alter the ethnic makeup of our country. Anyone who foresaw that it would was smeared as an insane "racist". Today it's clear that immigration has in fact radically changed the ethnic makeup of the country. Now we're told it's irrepressible, irrevocable, and the country is no longer ours. Anyone angered by this situation or the duplicity used to produce it is smeared as an insane "racist".

We are being displaced and dispossessed by genocidal levels of immigration and concomitant inter-racial transfers of wealth and power. This is foisted on us by liars and hypocrites whose deceptions, self-interests, and disdain for us becomes more transparent every day. They control all the major channels of education and discourse, and thus shape the terms of debate, defining and denigrating practically anything we have to say about any of this as "hate". Their moralizing invokes injustices decades or centuries past, while they disregard and even celebrate the injustices being done to Whites right here, right now. They project onto us and decry their own malign motives and guilty deeds, shamelessly broadcasting a never-ending stream of race-based vitriol and fear mongering from myriad well-funded, high-profile sources, attacking us for peaceably expressing legitimate political interests. We have accommodated and appeased them for too long. For decades we have demonstrated our good faith, which they have taken advantage of and not reciprocated. The harder they try now to scapegoat us and the louder they insinuate that our calls for self-determination portend violence, the more they reveal their malevolent intent.

(Snide image discourtesy of the New York Times.)

Violence and Politics

Steny Hoyer: Members are at risk - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the majority whip, said Democrats and Republicans should continue to speak out on these threats. “Silence gives consent,” Clyburn said.

But Minority Leader John Boehner already has condemned threats of violence — and sought to explain why people are so angry.

“I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change. Call your congressman, go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, make your voice heard — but let's do it the right way."

Whites are angry exactly because we have already tried "the right way". We called congress, wrote letters, went to town hall meetings, organized and attended Tea Party protests - and all of it got us nowhere. We know we're getting screwed - whether by immigration, bailouts, or healthcare. We know the politicians know we object. We have been misled into believing that the politicians are driven by votes. It's beginning to dawn on us that the leadership of both parties dance to a different tune.

Why shouldn't we be angry? We can see that when blacks and browns speak out and march the media and politicians behave differently. The anger and threats of non-Whites are invariably regarded as a righteousness response to injustice. They are seen as good, hard-working people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Rather than condemning non-Whites the media actively calls on politicians to serve them. And the politicians fall over themselves to respond.

Meanwhile we law-abiding, tax-paying, White citizens can see that media and politicians regard us as lazy, greedy, and evil. Our concerns aren't treated as legitimate political interests but are instead derided and dismissed as "racism" motivated by "hate". They not only don't care about our lives or families, they don't think we should either.

"Silence gives consent" works both ways. The media and politicians don't condemn the violent threats that have shut down speeches by Minutemen, Tom Tancredo, or Ann Coulter. They didn't even notice the American Renaissance conference being suppressed by death threats, right there in Washington.

"Silence gives consent" applies just as well to the displacement, dispossession, and discrimination against the native White population. Active participation in our genocide is worse than silence.

The truth is that political power springs from violence. This is clear even in US history - from Lexington and Concord right through to the military offensives in Afghanistan. Politics are driven by those who are willing to commit and condone violence to get what they want. Those who shy away get dominated and crushed. Most of our White leaders are craven traitors. Our non-White enemies are liars and hypocrites. Our condemnation is best aimed at them, not at those of us who oppose them. That's the American way.

(Image source.)

Sidebar Link Update

White
White News Now, added.
American Third Position, added.
American Nationalist Union, added.
ANU News, added.
East Coast White Unity, added.
Keystone United, added.
American Dissident Voices Internet Radio, added.
SUPERHUMAN, added.
ourgazetteer.org, added.
Dixie Republic, added.
Midwest Free Press, added.
Metapedia, added.
Diversity is Chaos, added.
Fjordman, moved from Nuggets.
Vanishing American, inactive.
Why LA Sucks, inactive.
Rusty Mason, offline.
Bedlam Nation, offline.
White Warrior Women, offline.

Europe
Front National » Le site officiel du Front National, added.
Paul Weston, added.
Shield Wall, added.
The Home of the Green Arrow and Friends, link updated.
Hibernia Girl, offline.

Australia (new)
M4 Monologue, added.
Jessica's Conservative Australia, added.
The Australian Protectionist Party, added.

Africa
My South Africa Sucks!, added.
South Africa Sucks, offline.
SouthAfricaTheTruth, offline.

Media
Mediaite, added.

Right
Joe Sobran, added.
Alternative Right, added.

Jewish Influence
Antisemitica, added.
Jew or Not Jew, added.

Immigration
MigrationWatchUK, added.

Jihad
Documenting the Global Jihad — jihadica, added.
All Things Counter Terrorism, added.

Economics
Washington's Blog, added.
Frédéric Bastiat, added.
HousingPANIC, inactive.

Nuggets of Something
Global Guerrillas, added.

Monitoring Genocidal Immigration and Anti-White Discrimination

2010 U.S. Census Sample Form:

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

* No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

9. What is Person 1’s race? Mark one or more boxes.

* White
* Black, African Am., or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoan
* Other Pacific Islander - Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.
* Other Asian - Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race - Print race.

Explanations provided by census.gov:

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

What is Person 1's race?

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

Celebratory media reporting on the predicted demise of the White majority - Minority births on track to outnumber white births  | ajc.com:

Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation's 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

Multiracial no longer boxed in by the Census - USATODAY.com:

When Barack Obama was elected the nation's first black president in 2008, some academics and political analysts suggested the watershed event could represent the dawning of a post-racial era in a land that has struggled over race relations for four centuries.

At the same time, growing ethnic and racial diversity fueled by record immigration and rates of interracial marriages have made the USA's demographics far more complex. By 2050, there will be no racial or ethnic majority as the share of non-Hispanic whites slips below 50%, according to Census projections.

"It's showing that tomorrow's children and their children will in fact be multiracial, leading to a potential post-racial society," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.

"The issue isn't just multirace," says Census historian Margo Anderson, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "It's the blurring of the very traditional black vs. white. Categories that held until about 1980 are shifting in large numbers. … The clarity is breaking down."

The image above comes from Rise in Minorities Is Led by Children, Census Finds - New York Times.

Disparate Impact provides the legal justification to "monitor compliance", "assess fairness", and "monitor racial disparities", discriminating in favor of "protected classes":

Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII's protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a "business necessity."

This legal theory has the effect of excluding Whites.

The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:

What is genocide?

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide (article 2) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…” including:

1. (a) Killing members of the group;
2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All such acts are violations of human rights, and may also be crimes against humanity or war crimes, depending on the context in which they were committed. The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). Because it is a part of international customary law the Convention is considered applicable in all countries, irrespective of whether they have signed or ratified it.

The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Mass immigration and anti-White legal theories of "protected classes" are genocidal. Whether the intent was initially anti-discrimination or not is irrelevant. The result, made plain by census monitoring, is the physical destruction of the native White population.

Sailer on Sherman

In "Depression v. Nervous Breakdown", Sailer writes:

I noticed this when I was reading up on the Civil War and got to the formidable Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's psychological collapse in late 1861, in-between his strong performances at the battles of First Bull Run in 1861 and Shiloh in 1862. While organizing behind the lines for the next year's campaigns, he had to be relieved of command so he could recuperate at home. Sherman later joked, "Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

The Wikipedia page on Sherman uses the old-fashioned term "nervous breakdown" and blames "the concerns of command." In contrast, James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom sometimes uses the more modern term "depression," and at one point suggests that Sherman was depressed by his vision of the logic of Total War.

Or was he suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder over Bull Run?

Maybe Sherman was depressed because he realized Total War would someday result in the rise to power of pushy, hostile jews and the subsequent colonization of the entire White world by unarmed Amerindian, African, and Asian peasants. Then again, it isn't likely Sherman would have ever recovered and continued to kill his cousins if he realized that.

General Grant's Infamy:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the "Department of the Tennessee," an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Genocidal Immigration and Anti-Nativism in Britain

Gates of Vienna: Ethnically Cleansing the English, by Paul Weston:

To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.

These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardian reported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.

Fjordman said...

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here: What is happening with the native white population throughout Western Europe is a purposeful, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that's unique about Britain is that key members of the ruling party openly admit this, in writing. What Andrew Neather probably didn't realize when he said this was that he inadvertently laid the basis for a new Nuremberg process where Multiculturalism is listed as an ideology with the stated intention of the physical destruction of whites everywhere. As such it constitutes an organized crime against humanity.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for "ethnic cleansing," thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleaning of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately destroying the native population of their country. So why isn't that happening? Could it be because similar anti-white policies are followed in all white majority Western nations without exception?

It's time we realize that the humiliation, dispossession and gradual destruction of whites, from Canada to Sweden, is not the accidental result of a failed policy but the deliberate result of an evil policy, the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in recorded world history. An this is happening in the "free and democratic West." If "democracy" means the genocide of your people then what the hell is it good for?

Fuchur said...

Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here

I cannot take someone serious who uses the words "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" in that context. Just look at the word "genocide": "Killing" is part of the word. Now when, say, a black woman immigrates to GB and then gives birth to a child there - how is that in ANY way related to KILLING somebody??? I can only shake my head in disbelief at the vile twisted minds that could come up with such a warped comparison. Even Orwell would be baffled at that crazy attempt at Doublespeak: giving birth = killing. Ingenious.

This is racism, in it's purest and simplest form. Period. Now, you could maybe try and make the point that racism isn't all that bad and so on... but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that this isn't racisim. Really. It's just too ridiculous...

Paul Weston said...

@Fuchur

Curious name, curious morals.

You read an article pointing out the territorial and cultural displacement of a race of people, and your response is to make the accusation of racism.

You must hate the white race with a passion!

The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.

I imagine you have an extremely short attention span, so will repeat the UN definition of genocide for you, and the UN rights of indigenous peoples.

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

“Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;”

You see, no mention of the word killing...

Perhaps a simple yes or no question might be in order.

Do you think the UN declarations above should be applied to the indigenous English?

Yes or no.

Failure to respond might well lead people to think you a rather silly fuchur.

The genocidal regime in Britain, and indeed in all White countries, agrees with Fuchur.

BNP 'whites-only' membership rules outlawed | Politics | guardian.co.uk:

Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party's rewritten criteria for joining are still racist

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP's membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the "continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence" of an indigenous British race and action towards "stemming and reversing" migration.

Our enemies see concern for the interests of indigenous Whites as "racist", and not being "racist" against alien interlopers takes precedence over the desire of native Whites to ensure our very existence. That they have the power to legalize their crimes does not absolve them of responsibility.

Shaming the Shameless

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I'm glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He's notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer's line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, "Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you're a nasty jew-hater."

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don't think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He's wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else's.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don't. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as "insiders"? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I've always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.


. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn't fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society's problems are due to "the majority" simply abdicating.

The reality is that America's jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless "anti-semites". It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce's Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the "Sons of Ellis Island", see Kevin MacDonald's Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the "Diversity Recession" and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil's examination of Diversity in income and education.

Austarded

Prompted by the links discussed in Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time, Auster writes My November 2007 response to Tanstaafl about the First Law and the Jews.

He begins by rephrasing his "First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society" for the Nth time:

The First Law refers to a liberal majority's concealment of the negative truths about minorities who are visibly dysfunctional, alien, or threatening: the more dysfunctional or dangerous they are, the more their negative qualities are denied and are blamed on the majority.

He goes on to deny that jews are dysfunctional. One of his commenters gets him to dissemble about their alien nature. He doesn't address "threatening" or "dangerous". His own reaction to the idea that his law applies to jews provides a vivid example of the law in action. He admits he was thinking of blacks and muslims and didn't consider jews when he formulated this version for John Savage (his emphasis):

As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

The new, shorter version is missing the reference to "racism". How convenient. Most of the rest of Auster's comments are an attack on Chechar and myself for "anti-semitism", that extra special form of "racism" most noted for its use in covering up the crimes, misbehavior, and dysfunctions of an extra special "minority".

Auster could have called his law "The Law That Covers Everbody Except Jews". Too late, it's The First Law of Jewish Influence now.

Diversity is Divisive

Commenter Flippityflopitty sends this link via email. Let's Get Real About Racism: Lee Mun Wah:

Before we can truly become a multicultural nation, we must have relationships based on respect and understanding, reflection and compassion; where our differences and our similarities are embraced, valued, useful and integrated into the very fabric of our workplaces, communities, schools and governmental institutions. I come from the belief that awareness and holidays are just the beginning. What is required is an ongoing dialogue and relationship with each other, one that allows for conflict and differences, questions and curiosity. To me, that is what a healthy and intimate relationship possesses. I hope that you will join me in making this not only a better world for our children, but for ourselves – not by starting tomorrow, but beginning today.

Let’s Get Real: What People of Color Can’t Say & Whites Won’t Ask

For People of Color:

1. What’s hard telling whites the truth about racism?
2. What’s the price of telling the truth about race relations in the U.S.?
3. Why do you think it’s so hard for whites to hear the truth about racism?
4. What would you say to whites if you could tell them the truth about racism?
5. In what ways do whites keep people of color from telling the truth about race/racism?
6. How have you learned to “play the game” to appease white folks?
7. What would it take for you to feel safe enough to tell the truth about race/racism to white folks?
8. What is the difference between talking about race and racism?
9. What is the illusion about race relations in the United States?
10. Are race relations getting wors e or better in the U.S? Why or why not?
11. Can you ever envision a world without racism? Why or why not?
12. What was your most profound experience with racism? How old were you? How did it affect you and how does it affect you today?
13. What do you think it will take for whites to truly embrace diversity?
14. In order to unlearn racism, what do you need or want from white folks?
15. What can’t you say about racism? Why or why not?
16. What does assimilation mean to you? Why?
17. When you have told the truth about racism, what has been some of your experiences? How have those outcomes affected you?
18. When talking about racism, what opens you up and what close you down?
19. What do you say to folks that feel that racism is no longer an issue now that we have a black president?
20. Do you think that your children will experience racism when they grow up? Why or why not?
21. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color?

For Whites:

1. What’s good and what’s hard talking about racism?
2. How does guilt keep you from dealing with racism?
3. How do you think you benefit from racism?
4. What opens you up and what closes you down to talk about racism? Why?
5. What are some of your fears to bring up the issue of racism with people of color? With other white folks?
6. What do you need from people of color to feel safe to talk about racism?
7. What do you need from other whites to feel safe to talk about racism?
8. If you could say three things to people of color about racism, what would you say?
9. What do you think it will take for people of color and whites to trust each other?
10. Do you believe that racism is a learned behavior and attitude? If yes, why? If not, why not?
11. Where did most of your stereotypes about people of color come from? How did those stereotypes affect your perceptions and attitudes toward them?
12. What part do you think you play in perpetuating racism?
13. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color? Why?
14. What do you think it will take to unlearn racism for white folks?
15. What are some of the things that you are afraid to say to people of color?
16. What would be some questions you would like to ask people of color?
17. Why do you think many white folks don’t identify as a group?
18. When did you first experience racism? What happened and how did it affect you?
19. What percentage is your life is impacted by racism? Why or why not?
20. In what ways have you been able to avoid talking or dealing with racism?
21. Are there two Americas? Why or why not?
22. What does assimilation mean to you?
23. What does diversity or multicuturalism mean to you?
24. What do you think keeps people of color and whites apart?
25. What do you think it will take for the United States to heal from racism?

1. Why does anyone mistake this anti-White bigotry for "anti-racism"?
2. Why should Whites respect, embrace, or have any dialogue or relationship with people who blame us for all their problems?
3. How can we make them leave us alone?
4. Where can we go to get away from them?
5. If we somehow succeed in saving ourselves, how do we keep this from happening again?