Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Glenn Beck, the Weather Underground, and SDS

Today Glenn Beck was talking about the "socialist" agenda of the Weather Underground and SDS. He didn't point out anybody's jewishness, of course, but he did make a subtle analogy. I'll paraphrase:
Suppose you're sitting on the couch, watching TV, and you say to your wife, "Hey, I think I smell smoke. Do you smell smoke?" And she answers, "Why do you always have to HATE people?!?"
He went on to say how weird it would be if you tried to get up to see if there was a fire and your wife actually obstructed your investigation. You'd begin to suspect maybe she had something to do with setting the fire.

It's a good metaphor for how a literally "anti-racist" White with a clear conscience feels when they finally come face-to-face with the "racist"/"anti-semite"/"hate" zeitgeist. You go to a Tea Party because you're disturbed by what's happening in your country. You're confused about why. Then the black, brown, and jewish organizations, voices full of venom, faces twisted with hatred, yell "racist", as if you're doing something wrong. The media paints them as moral giants, paragons of virtue, and paint you as a paranoid "hater".

You start thinking race just might have something to do with this.

Beck is an entertainer. At best he's cashing in on some timely pandering tuned to the instincts of the huge number of kosher "conservative" Whites still foolishly watching TV. At worst he's souring and demeaning those instincts by conflating and confounding them with the clownish schtick he so often indulges in. Today, however, there were shades of Saul Rodgers, the subversive preacher character from William Pierce's Hunter.

- - -

The following excerpts are taken from Mark Rudd's Why were there so many Jews in SDS? (or, The Ordeal of Civility).
The author Paul Berman, himself a Jewish veteran of Columbia SDS, in his excellent book, “A Tale of Two Utopias,” gives the following data from reliable sources: two-thirds of the white Freedom Riders who traveled to Mississippi were Jewish; a majority of the steering committee of the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement were Jewish; the SDS chapters at Columbia and the University of Michigan were more than half Jewish; at Kent State in Ohio, where only 5 percent of the student body was Jewish, Jews constituted 19 percent of the chapter. I might add a strange statistic which I became aware of in the course of two trips to Kent State to commemorate the events of May, 1970: three of the four students shot by the National Guard at Kent State were Jewish. This, of course, defies all odds.
Indeed. The "tiny minority" excuse doesn't fly when that minority is vastly overrepresented where it matters.
I invoke [writer Philip] Roth to let you in on the insularity of the world I grew up in. My family carried the Jewish ghettos of Newark and Elizabeth with them to the suburbs. We may have lived in integrated neighborhoods, that is integrated with goyim (there were only a few blacks in the town) and we may have gone to integrated schools, (of course there were no blacks in my elementary school) but we were far from assimilated, if that means replacing a Jewish identity with an American one. At about the age of nine or ten I remember eating lunch at the house of a non-Jewish friend and reporting back that the hamburgers had onion and parsley in them. “Oh, that’s goyish hamburger,” my mother said. I lived a Philip Roth existence in which the distinction between Jews and gentiles was present in all things: having dogs and cats was goyish, for example, as was a church-sponsored hay-ride which I was invited to by the cute red-haired girl who sat in front of me in my seventh grade home-room. My parents didn’t allow me to go, and, since repression breeds resistance, that was probably a signal event in my career of fascination with shiksas and things goyish, a career which paralleled that of young Alexander Portnoy in “Portnoy’s Complaint.”
Steve Sailer sheds some light on Roth's significance to jews:
In other words, in the classic example of Jewish guilt, Portnoy's Complaint, Jewish guilt is the opposite of white guilt: Portnoy's feelings of Jewish guilt stem not from his ancestors being too ethnocentric (as in "white guilt") but from himself not being ethnocentric enough to please his ancestors. His parents make him feel guilty because he's individualistically ignoring his racial duty to settle down and propagate the Jewish race.
Back to Rudd:
As a teenager, Congregation Beth El seemed to me just another aspect of the suburban scene: materialist and hypocritical. This was the time of the civil rights movement, but the lily-white suburbs existed in order to escape the “schvartzes.” Jews in my parents’ and grandparents’ milieu used this derogatory term in exactly the same way southerners used “nigger.” “The schvartze is coming to clean the house.” “The schvartzes robbed my hardware store in Newark.” “I had to sell the apartments on Clinton Avenue because schvartzes moved next door.” There was no phony liberalism about the race war in Newark and Maplewood, at least not that I could see.
Race consciousness coming through loud and clear.
The Harlan County miners’ “Which Side Are You On?” was not the music of the Jewish suburbs.
Indifference to working class Whites.
I got to Columbia University as a freshman, age 18, in September, 1965, a few months after the United States attacked Vietnam with main force troops. There I found a small but vibrant anti-war movement. In my first semester I was recruited by David Gilbert, a senior who had written a pamphlet on imperialism for national SDS, Students for a Democratic Society. David was one of the founders of the Columbia SDS chapter, along with John Fuerst, the chapter Chairman. Both were Jewish, of course, as were my mentors and friends, Michael Josefowicz, Harvey Blume, Michael Neumann, and John Jacobs. Ted Kaptchuk and Ted Gold were Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Columbia SDS the year before I was elected Chairman, along with my Vice-Chairman, Nick Freudenberg. All of us were Jewish. It’s hard to remember the names of non-Jewish Columbia SDS’ers; it was as much a Jewish fraternity as Sammie. There were probably a greater proportion of gentile women than guys in SDS, and of course I got to know them.
Here "gentile women" means useful idiot revolutionary shiksas.
Identifying with the oppressed seemed to me at Columbia and since a natural Jewish value, though one we never spoke of as being Jewish.
Stay home and identify with the oppressed schvartzes in Newark? LOL!
But World War II and the holocaust were our fixed reference points. This was only twenty years after the end of the war. We often talked about the moral imperative to not be Good Germans. Many of my older comrades had mobilized for the civil rights movement; we were all anti-racists. We saw American racism as akin to German racism toward the Jews. As we learned more about the war, we discovered that killing Vietnamese en masse was of no moral consequence to American war planners. So we started describing the war as racist genocide, reflecting the genocide of the holocaust. American imperialist goals around the world were to us little different from the Nazi goal of global conquest. If you really didn’t like somebody—and we loathed President Lyndon B. Johnson—you might call him a fascist.
I'm sure it's "fascist" to note that this rationale, which starts from the premise, "what's good for jews?", is the driving force behind genocidal immigration and "people of color" supremacism. The Tea Party should disband and Arizona should surrender because anything else is a violation of the jewish moral imperative to "not be Good Germans".
Certainly I reveled in my role of head barbarian within the gates.
A shameless crypto-warrior for his race.
More than twenty years ago I read a book called, “The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity.” The author, an Irish-American sociologist named John Murray Cuddihy, advances a fascinating theory on the origins of Marxism and Freudianism. Jews were newly emancipated, that is, given legal and political rights, in Western Europe in the mid to late nineteenth century. But even bourgeois Jews were still excluded from civil society by customs and especially by manners. As Jewish (or formerly Jewish) outsiders ostensibly allowed in, but not really, Marx and Freud brought critical eyes to European bourgeois society. Marx said, in effect, “You think you’ve got yourself a fine little democracy here, well let me tell you about the class exploitation and misery that’s underlying it.” Similarly, Freud exposed the seamy, sexuality-driven motives, the up-raised penises controlling the unconscious minds of civilized, well-mannered bourgeois society.

We Jews at Columbia—and I would guess at colleges throughout the country—brought the same outsider view to the campuses we had been allowed into.
Kevin MacDonald offers an insider view on Rudd and friends.
Only a few of us came to Columbia from red-diaper backgrounds, children of communists. We were good Jewish kids, the cream of the crop, who had accepted the myths of America—democracy, opportunity for all, good intentions toward the world—and of the university—free and open inquiry toward the truth. We were betrayed by our country and the university when we learned, in a relative instant, that the reality wasn’t even close to these myths. We third generation American Jews suddenly woke up and realized this country may have been a blessing for us, but not for so many others who couldn’t pass for white.
Like al Qaeda - good muslim kids, the cream of the crop. Note that Rudd doesn't consider jews White.
From my own experience I’m forced to disagree with the theory that there’s something special and inherent in our religion which leads us to social activism, altruism, and the left. My former rabbi, Lynn Gottlieb, was fond of telling us that the Torah enjoins us to “honor the stranger because we were strangers in Egypt” forty-six or one hundred and seventeen times. Whatever the number, it was probably one of those laws that needed to be reiterated continually because nobody was observing it.

Dr. Israel Shahak, recently deceased, was a Hebrew University Chemistry Professor, President of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, and a holocaust survivor. For many years he occupied a place in Israeli politics roughly the same as Noam Chomsky in this country. In a book entitled, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” he argues that as a reaction to being the victims of racism throughout the centuries, we developed a religion which itself enshrined racism toward the other. This is especially true of the rabbinical commentaries developed in Eastern Europe over the almost one thousand years in which we occupied a middle position between the landlords, whom we served, and the peasants who despised us and whom we in turn despised. How could it have been otherwise? In my family, if you wanted to say somebody was stupid you said they had a “goyishe kup,” a goyish head.
This is not "racist". A White noticing the hypocrisy here is "racist".
I am so obviously Jewish that no matter how much carne adovada or fry bread I eat, I’m instantly recognizable as a Jew. I proudly acknowledge the drive for education in Jewish culture which made me want to read about the world and to understand it and to become a teacher. I also recognize that in my social activism I am one of thousands working in the grand tradition of Jewish leftists, the Trotskys and the Emma Goldmans and the Goodmans and Schwerners of the twentieth century. I honor this lineage. As Jews our advantage in the past, though, was that we were outsiders critically looking in; today Jews sit at the right hand of the goy in the White House advising him whom to bomb next in order to advance the Empire.

To be outsiders in a nation or an empire is not such a terrible thing. Keeping critical and alert has allowed the Jewish people to survive all sorts of imperial disasters over the millennia—the Greeks, the Romans, Islam in Spain (which went from Golden Age to Inquisition in a few centuries), the Crusades, Reformation Europe, the Russian Czars, Nazism. This particular empire is neither the first nor the last to attempt to seduce us to join up. But we’d better not: it’s our job to be critical outsiders, both for our own survival and for that of the planet.

As a child I never fell for the seduction of patriotism. It seemed so arbitrary, who’s an American and who’s not. If my relatives hadn’t emigrated, who would I be? Since I was also at core an idealist and a utopian—another Jewish tradition?—I wanted to skip all that obviously stupid and dangerous stuff that gave rise to wars and racism. In 1965 I began to identify myself as a socialist and an internationalist. I still am an internationalist since old religions die hard.
Again, Rudd is not a "racist". "Anti-racism" is anti-White.

Here Rudd shrugs off the "racism" of the jewish ethnostate.
I am heartbroken over the moral and spiritual costs of the Jewish State to the Jewish People. I challenge anyone who thinks of me as a traitor to my people or a self-hating Jew, both of which I’ve been called, to visit Palestinians in the West Bank or East Jerusalem for as little as one-half day. Every Jew needs to see the misery and humiliation which our Jewish nationalism and racism have wrought. These are not Jewish values, or at least my Jewish values.

Nor does the Jewish state guarantee Jewish safety and survival. My father was a military man and as such was always pessimistic about the long-term survival of Israel. He easily perceived Israel’s strategic weaknesses in both geography and demographics. The only way Israel has survived so far has been to ally with the sole remaining imperial power in the world. But all empires fall, as Jewish history so clearly tells us. Maybe they should have allied with China.

This year I visited Israel with my family for the first time. I learned that far from being culturally retro, which is the way I used to think of it—a small, socialist, anti-materialist nation—Israel is really an avatar, way ahead even of California. Israel is America’s future: militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding. If we don’t organize to stop the current direction in this country, thirty years from now we will be Israel.
Rudd is heartbroken about Israel having a government that defends the interests of its people using deadly force. So naturally he wants to make sure that never happens here. What's that? He should make aliyah and be a revolutionary in Israel? What are you, some kind of "racist"?

Mark Rudd - Wikipedia:
Mark William Rudd (born June 2, 1947) is a political organizer, mathematics instructor, and anti-war activist, most well known for his involvement with the Weather Underground. Rudd became a member of the Columbia University chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1963. By 1968, he had emerged as a leader for Columbia's SDS chapter. During the 1968 Columbia Student Revolt, he served as spokesperson for dissident students protesting a variety of issues, most notably the Vietnam War. As the war escalated, Mark Rudd worked with other youth movement leaders to take SDS in a more militant direction. When the general membership of SDS refused to go in a more violent and pro-Communist direction, Rudd together with some other prominent SDS members formed a radical, violence-oriented organization, referring to themselves collectively as "Weatherman" after the lyrics from a famous Bob Dylan song.
After seven years as a fugitive, Rudd turned himself in.
He received a small fine and ultimately spent less than one year in jail for all his crimes.

Labels: , , , ,


How to Create Grotesque, Toxic Stereotypes

Oliver Stone Controversy - Media Decoder Blog -
In an interview with The Times to promote his documentary “South of the Border,” which is about South American politics, Mr. Stone defended Hitler. “Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein,” he said. “German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.”

Mr. Stone then proceeded to discuss what he called “the Jewish domination of the media,” adding with an expletive that Israel had messed up “United States foreign policy for years.” Bloggers quickly picked up on the comments, and the American Jewish Committee issued a news release condemning him. “By invoking this grotesque, toxic stereotype, Oliver Stone has outed himself as an anti-Semite,” the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in the release.
In January the director told a gathering of television critics that “Hitler is an easy scapegoat” while discussing his Showtime nonfiction mini-series, “Secret History of America.” At that time the Simon Wiesenthal Center harshly rebuked him for the remarks.

On Monday afternoon, Mr. Stone released this statement:
“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”
Turns out Stone is as easy to scapegoat as Hitler. The poor guy was just trying to say that the Germans (and Americans and British) are worse than Hitler. No big deal. Now that he's apologized for implying that jewish influence was hindering that work he can get back to it.

Billionaire Haim Saban crusades against Oliver Stone | Hollywood Jew | Jewish Journal:
The Israeli-American billionaire is reportedly campaigning among Hollywood’s higher-ups to have Stone—and his upcoming 10-part series, “A Secret History of America,” blacklisted. According to, Saban called CBS chief Les Moonves to urge him to cancel the Showtime series, becoming the first industry figurehead to criticize the director’s controversial remarks from earlier this week.

“This guy should be helped in joining Mel Gibson into the land of retirement, where he can preach his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the wilderness where he belongs,” Saban told TheWrap.
Saban, who is a huge supporter of Israel and a major donor to the Democratic party, told The by email that he had also called William Morris Endeavor chairman Ari Emanuel to help pressure CBS.
That Saban is launching a crusade against Stone isn’t surprising: In a New Yorker profile of Saban published last May, Saban said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”
Whoops. Turns out the "conservative" side of the "grotesque, toxic stereotype" won't forgive so easily. I see a film hugely supporting Israel in Stone's movie-making future - if he has one.

Labels: , , , ,


Sunday, July 25, 2010

Javerting Attention

Mangan's The One-Man NAACP of the Right links Pat Hannagan's Purging the Faux White Right. Mangan and Hannagan dismantle Lawrence Auster's latest attempt to pathologize "the anti-semites" who see jewish ethnocentrism in the defense of Polanski and attack on Gibson.

What makes Auster notable is that he's the tip of a little jewish iceberg of Polanski defenders, sticking out more than others due to his usual pose as an traditionalist anti-"liberal" convert to Christianity. The clear jewish pattern emerges from the long list of people quoted in my series of posts concerning Polanski. In a nutshell, Polanski is a jewish OJ. His plight neatly polarized jews, who tend to view him as a victim, wronged and hunted by a cruel, puritanical system, and everybody else, including Whites, who tend to see him as a celebrity pervert who has long escaped justice.

When Polanski was first arrested, the immediate, morally outraged reaction from a number of jews with various social and political orientations was generally sympathetic to Polanski, and in some cases, like Auster's, they went so far as to condemn broad swathes of people misperceived as Polanski's "persecutors". From the comments their own reader's considered this behavior shocking - probably because they generally did not see the ethnocentric connection. It is fair to presume that the early defenders did not coordinate their arguments, though they nonetheless shared a number of transparently bogus excuses, and conveniently overlooked or minimized the most damning facts. More than a few made an issue of Polanski's status as a special kind of jew - a "holocaust survivor". Applebaum called it a "mitigating circumstance". Many used language indicating a deeply emotional state of mind - even those, like Auster, who claimed to have never met Polanski. Patrick Goldstein was as eagerly defensive as Applebaum and Auster, and also alluded to Javert. Bruce Crumley, at Time, went beyond Javert, invoking Dreyfus, the poster child of jewish persecution. See my original posts for many more examples.

After the nature of this initial defense and the reader backlash started to gel, many jews either shut up, moderated their defense, said something vaguely disapproving about Polanski, or tried to divert attention and blame elsewhere - to the Swiss, the French, the British, Puritanism (a swipe at "WASPs"), America, Hollywood, "liberals", "the Glenn Becks" (a swipe at Tea Party Whites). First and last come "the anti-semites" - the eternal scapegoats for jewish misbehavior. Evidently, broadly bad-mouthing these groups of people is ok in the "Javert Nation".

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, gets drunk, is alleged to beat his mistress, and says a few politically incorrect things about jews and niggers. For that Gibson must be shunned and his career must be over, because, after all, the blacks who run Hollywood say so.

What explains this behavior if not jewish ethnocentrism? From their terms and themes it's perfectly reasonable, obvious really, that what the Polanski apologists and obscurantists share is a view of jews, collectively and individually, as blameless victims. Even the ones who happen to be absconding pedophile rapists, like Roman Polanski. Recognizing this fact is "anti-semitic", just like the Tea Party is "racist", and wanting a government that isn't biased against Whites and doesn't impose genocidal levels of immigration is "hate". These are terms of abuse. The purpose is to pathologize, intimidate, and manipulate. They are fighting words used by arrogant and dishonest enemies whose chutzpah knows no bounds.

Labels: , , , , ,


Thursday, July 22, 2010

Obama's "Post-Racial" Anti-White Regime

The former black community organizer of ambiguous origin, touted by a sycophantic, anti-White media as the "post-racial" president, is anti-White. Is anybody other than deracinated Whites surprised?

In Obama team's panic over losing whites, Pat Buchanan writes:
Panic. The White House fears it is losing white America because of a false perception that it harbors a bias against white America.

Outrageous, rail those journalists who celebrated the NAACP's accusation that the tea party is harboring racists and is too cowardly to confront them.

Yet, as things perceived as real are real in their consequences, if the White House does not eradicate this perception, its lease may not be renewed. Whence comes that perception? Several incidents.

First was the startling accusation by Attorney General Eric Holder, days after Barack Obama was inaugurated in a gusher of good feeling, that we are all "a nation of cowards" when it comes to facing issues of race.

A real icebreaker for a national conversation.

Second was the instantaneous verdict of the president, when asked about the arrest of Harvard's Henry Louis Gates by Cambridge cop Sgt. James Crowley. With no knowledge of what happened, Obama blurted out that the cops had "acted stupidly."

It took a White House beer summit to detoxify that one.

A third was the revelation that Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the "wise Latina" herself, had gone to extremes to see that the case of Frank Ricci and the New Haven, Conn., firefighters never got to the Supreme Court. Ricci and co-defendants had been denied promotions they had won in competitive exams solely because they were white and no black firemen had done as well.

The fourth was the Justice Department's dropping of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party, whose intimidation of voters in Philadelphia had been captured on tape.

When a department official resigned in protest and went to the Civil Rights Commission to accuse officials at Justice of ordering staff attorneys not to pursue such cases, that explosive charge, too, was ignored by Justice.

Came then the NAACP smear that the tea party was harboring racists, which Joe Biden explicitly rejected on national television on Sunday, before the Monday firestorm over Sherrod.
The anti-White bias of Obama, his handlers, his media cheerleaders, and his administration is crystal clear. Buchanan neglected to cite a few other major incidents in support of this perception.

Obama's disdainful remarks about working-class voters in former industrial towns devastated by job losses, i.e. Whites: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." An unabashed Obama then explained this is something "everybody knows is true", i.e everyone in his social and political circles disdains Whites.

Obama's long-term friendship and association with anti-White Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Media accusations that as a group White voters in the democratic primary and Obama's subsequent election were "racist", despite having the least skewed voting patterns of any major racial/ethnic group.

The Obama adminstration's DHS report directing fear and loathing at disaffected White citizens.

Obama's drive to reform healthcare despite widespread, predominantly White protests. The reform represents a massive transfer of wealth from disproportionally White payers of taxes and insurance premiums to disproportionally non-White free-riders.

Obama's personal appeal to "make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos and women, who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again."

Obama and his administration's hostile reaction to Arizona's stand against illegal immigration and his clear preference to promote the interests of non-White aliens.

All of these incidents were given fairly prominent exposure - at least in the conservative media Whites gravitate toward.

Another incident, which conservatives have been unwilling to openly criticize, is Obama's more recent nominee for SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, who has been strongly criticized by "people of color" for hiring too many "white" men. The Obama White House response was to crow about Kagan's efforts to "increase faculty diversity". Their document provides some idea who these "diverse" "whites" were:
Kagan’s hires were not just conservatives; most were liberal professors, including leading liberal academics like Jody Freeman (environmental law), Sanford Levinson (constitutional law), Mark Tushnet (constitutional law and civil rights), Noah Feldman (church-state), Michael Klarman (civil rights), and Cass Sunstein.
Even conservatives who recognize that the regime is anti-White will not question it's equally obvious favor for jews.

Labels: , ,


Monday, July 12, 2010

Gibson vis-a-vis Polanski

On 9 July 2010, Steven Zeitchik writes Mel Gibson's mainstream Hollywood career is over -- for real, this time: sad as it is that someone with all this experience could walk the world in his own bubble of hate, it's perhaps sadder that it took so many of us this long to realize what should have been clear all along.
On 12 July 2010, he writes Latest Roman Polanski chapter puts the saga back where it started:
Those who are fans of his films -- regardless of their opinions of his character -- might be heartened to know he could soon be working again.
Jewish morals on display. A mouthy White gets blackballed. An absconding child-raping jew gets well wishes.

See also James Edwards' The Crucifixion of Mel Gibson.

UPDATE 12 July 2010: Same day, same paper, same double standards.

On 12 July 2010, Patrick Goldstein writes Has Mel Gibson become a pariah in Hollywood? Or just for the time being?:
There are plenty of tough jobs in the movie business, but right now it's hard to find any applicants for the job of defending Mel Gibson.
On 12 July 2010, he writes Roman Polanski is a free man. You got a problem with that?:
When it comes to Polanski, history will be the only judge.
Regarding Gibson, Goldstein writes:
Once the extent of Gibson's racist tirade became clear, it was pretty obvious that there was no way WME could possibly keep Washington if it made any effort to keep Gibson as well. So Gibson was a goner. And as I've discovered from talking to the heads of other agencies in town, not to mention the heads of several studios, Gibson is a true Hollywood pariah right now. Every talent agency has a cadre of important African American clients who would be outraged--and rightfully so--if their agency made a play for Gibson as a client.
Since none of the high-level agency executives would speak on the record, I'll paraphrase their explication of their thought process: Based on what's happened, you have to assume that Mel is a total jerk, so why would you want to be in business with him, since it's not only bad for your soul--and probably makes you look sleazy--but if he's a total jerk to his ex-girlfriend and people around him, then why wouldn't he be that way to you too? You have to figure that working with him would be both financially and emotionally unrewarding. If it were just one or the other, maybe you could do it, but if it's both, you just say--Yuck!

In other words, to use a favorite Hollywood maxim: Life is too short.
These heads of agencies, heads of studios, and the media pundits (like Zeitchik and Goldstein) making a stink about Gibson aren't black. They're jewish. So in other words, what Goldstein is describing is an essentially jewish boycott of Gibson that they'd like everyone to instead attribute to blacks.

Regarding Polanski, Goldstein regurgitates much of the same apologia he and other jews spun when when Polanski was first arrested. Rather than being a sleazy jerk you wouldn't want to do business with, Polanski is instead a victim of Glenn Beck and Puritanism, and all the hubbub is a but a clash between European and American values. As with Gibson, the jewish angle is obfuscated, attention is redirected elsewhere.

On 12 July 2010, Steven Zeitchik also writes The Hollywood wagons circle Mel Gibson to complain that rank-and-file Hollywood non-jews haven't yet joined the pariah parade jews are organizing against Gibson. Zeitchik notes Whoopie Goldberg has actually defended Gibson, and that Danny Glover has so far refused to comment. If more Hollywood blacks don't start stomping their feet soon jews will be left to take credit for blackballing Gibson themselves. Goldstein intimates that most of the Hollywood jews are afraid to do this because they're greedy and might want to make money with Gibson some day. More likely they just want someone, anyone else to take the blame. If blacks won't serve then we can expect to see the "sexism" angle amplified in a bid to recruit women to the pariah parade. That, of course, will only heighten the contrast with Polanski and the pass he has gotten from jewish "feminists".

Labels: , , , , ,


Saint Lincoln Said

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit.
Abraham Lincoln
January 12, 1848.

Via Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Labels: ,


Saturday, July 10, 2010

Up on the Blue Ridge Mountains


Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Obama's Jewish Vision of America

Transcript of Obama’s Immigration Speech.

In this treasonous speech, delivered on 1 July 2010, Barack Hussein Obama, president of the United States, advocates in favor of alien interlopers, claiming that "being an American is not a matter of blood or birth". This is not surprising coming from someone with a cloud over their own blood and birth. His view is:
It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
In other words, potentially every person on earth is an American.

What are these shared values "we" all hold so dear? Obama takes a while to get to that, finding it necessary to first disparage the founders and their posterity who for most of this country's history haven't shared his values. Eventually he comes to what he thinks "our" values are:
Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship — not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.
We have laws, see? Any alien who wants to be an American must admit they broke the law, see? Oh, and you'll have to register, pay taxes and a fine, and learn English too. The punishment for not doing so? Well, you'll probably still get your "legal status". You just might not get to be a citizen. Maybe. But no big deal. A citizen is just an American whose fundamental responsibility is to create a pathway for "legal status" for any alien who wants it.

Obama didn't mention his relative, Zeituni Onyango, who was recently granted "legal status" by immigration judge Leonard Shapiro even though she never admitted breaking any laws. Obama did however conclude his speech by mentioning that prototypical "nation of immigrants" whose interests so often seem to be more interesting than everyone else's:
One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground. The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic. Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.
Unfortunately for Americans, Lazarus and her subversive tribemates weren't long ago forced to flee America. Their golem Obama faithfully represents their twisted genocidal idea that, for their good, America's highest value should be to displace and dispossess Americans.

Labels: , ,