Murdoch, Phillips, and Auster on What's Best for "The Jews"

The Aim Is to Make Israel a Pariah:

Recently, Rupert Murdoch gave an extraordinary speech at an Anti-Defamation League dinner in which he revealed, yet again, that he is a true and selfless friend of the Jewish people and of Israel.

We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Well before the Berlin Wall came down, that approach had clearly failed.

Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.

Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere: the media … multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.

Tonight I’d like to speak about two things that worry me most. First is the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society – especially in Europe. Second is how violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally distancing herself from the Jewish state.

When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.

Today it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.

Right now we have war. There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas. Some are pursuing nuclear arms. Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel. All these people are watching the U.S.-Israeli relationship closely.

In this regard, I was pleased to hear the State Department’s spokesman clarify America’s position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes “the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people.” This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation.

Ladies and gentlemen, back in 1937, a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky urged Britain to open up an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe. Only a Jewish homeland, he said, could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. In prophetic words, he described the problem this way: “It is not the anti-Semitism of men,” he said. “It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different. But these threats are real. These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.

Is Rupert Murdoch jewish? Does it matter? As we see here, he's most concerned about the best interests of "the jews". He's pleased that the US government defends the "special nature" of Israelis, never mind that it attacks Whites for wanting anything similar. He sees Israelis and diaspora jews as one cosmic "the jews", and he vividly imagines they need defending from "the inherent xenophobia" of Europeans and a nuclear Iran. He implies that Europeans and Iranians are of a single mind - hell-bent on Israel's destruction.

As an aside, Jabotinsky was a jewish ethno-nationalist. He advocated jewish interests without pretending that they didn't conflict with European interests. The ADL's role has been to convince Americans and Europeans to think of jewish ethno-nationalism as wholesome and normal, while White ethno-nationalism is pathological and evil.

In language that is familiar to anyone who has been exposed in any way to contemporary mainstream Western media, academia, or politics, Murdoch paints jews as the eternally innocent victims of moral and mental defectives "warring" on them. His description of "threats ... soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II" calls up decades of guilt-tripping and brain-washing. Despite the loud and constant self-pity of wealthy, powerful jews and their wealthy, powerful friends their self-serving manipulations only highlight the anti-White/pro-jewish regime which reigns across the Eurosphere today. Pity for supposedly oppressed "minorities", jews first and foremost, has been used to justify anti-White "civil rights", massive transfers of wealth, and genocidal levels of immigration by hyper-fecund non-Whites. If Whites lend a hand to protect anybody, it should be to protect ourselves.

Zionist jewess Melanie Phillips makes her living lecturing others, primarily via British media, about what they should consider wrong, bad, immoral and insane. Very often her lectures revolve around the interests of "the jews". Phillips referred to Murdoch's speech in an op-ed grandiosely titled The war for civilisation:

Well at least one man gets it.

Rupert Murdoch has made a direct, to-the-point, ambiguity-free speech about the anti-Israel, anti-Jew frenzy now consuming the west.

It is a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time.

Phillips is accustomed to rebuking the world. As an example of "our" time, Phillips cites Adrian Hamilton's Israel has no future as a purely Jewish state criticizing a new Israeli "loyalty oath". Right after telling us how special and important "the jews" and Israel are Phillips insists this oath is really no different than "Britain is British, France French and so on".

Hamilton says nothing about Israel that hasn't been aimed at Whites and our countries a million times before, often by jews, and usually in more strident terms. Ideas like "Britain is British, France French" are viciously attacked, from within, and in such cases the voices of naive literal anti-"racists", like Hamilton, who mistakenly regard jews as equals, are dwarfed and drowned out by the anti-White bigotry flowing from chauvinist jews and jewish organizations who operate under no delusions of equality. There is, to use the terminology of Murdoch and Phillips, a war on Britons. "The jews" are on the other side. Melanie Phillips is with them. When she writes negatively about muslims it's because she thinks they're doing something bad for "the jews". When she denounces those who want Britain to remain British she does so for the same reason.

Just as Murdoch does, Phillips only mentions muslim/arab hostility toward jews in passing. It is plain to see that they both consider the real enemy, the people they are most concerned about waging "war" on "the jews", to be White/European. This is why Murdoch and Phillips both completely ignore anti-White bigotry. To acknowledge it would require an examination of jewish culpability. In their minds "the jews" are above reproach, special people in one special country who are treated especially bad, especially by Whites. As Phillips writes:

Within the west, it is also the ever-more brazenly explicit reason for the campaign of delegitimisation being waged against Israel. Israel is the one and only country in the world whose right to exist is being questioned. And that of course is the point of Hamilton's little tirade.

To make his case that Europeans are waging an ongoing "war" against "the jews" Murdoch cited Karel De Gucht, an EU bureaucrat. Phillips makes her case by citing Hamilton, an opinion shaper like herself, reading his mind and putting words in his mouth to write a little tirade of her own:

So what Hamilton wants is for Israel no longer to be.

Phillips concludes by abruptly broadening her fears and smears, naming the crime and the criminals:

Thus the ‘progressive’ western intelligentsia make themselves potential accomplices to genocide.

Self-styled jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster likes to write scolding letters. He addressed one to Melanie Phillips about her remarks on Murdoch, taking the judeo-centrism to an even more bizarre level. Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews? (Auster's emphasis):

Below is an e-mail I sent today to Melanie Phillips, followed by her reply. You will see from her reply why I felt at liberty to post the exchange, which I had no thought of doing when I wrote to her.

I'm sorry to bother you. I know you don't want to hear my thoughts. But I must say this to you and I hope you will give the 90 seconds it will take you to read this e-mail.

When you say of Rupert Murdoch's speech on anti-Semitism that it is "a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time," you are making a big mistake. Is the threat to the Jews a bigger problem than the Islamization of the entire West? When you call anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism the "most important and defining issue of our time," you are coming across like a typically Judeo-centric Jew who thinks that the Jews are the most important thing in the world. Instead of being concerned first and foremost about the West, you are concerned first and foremost about the Jews. And this supports the anti-Semitic view of Jews, that Jews are not at bottom loyal to the West, but only loyal to the Jews.

I have spent a significant part of my time battling against the anti-Semites on the American paleoconservative and white nationalist right. The fuel that drives the anti-Semites is their belief that Jews are not on the side of the West, that Jews are using the West to advance and protect Jewish interests. You seem to have no idea of how the inordinate Judeo-centrism of your statement would make you appear to others.

I respectfully ask you to ask yourself if it's really true that anti-Semitism is the "single most important and defining issue of our time," and whether you are being helpful to the Jews, helpful to Israel, and helpful to the West [Tanstaafl: note the order], when you make the protection of the Jews and Israel the supreme issue of the world.

Lawrence Auster

Melanie Phillips replied:

The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the west's repudiation of its own culture (b) the animus against the Jews lies at the core of the Islamic threat against the west and (c) if Israel goes down, the west goes down. Your message is typically as ignorant as it is offensive.

Melanie

What Auster is saying here is, "Hey, it would better advance and protect jewish interests if you would just pretend you cared about the goyim." "No", Phillips responds, "Can't do that." Their disagreement concerns the significance of "the war against 'the jews'", or rather, the significance it should be accorded in public discussions. The "war" itself is taken for granted.

"The war against 'the jews'" and what Auster calls the effort "to advance and protect jewish interests" are of course two sides of the same coin. The latter can be seen as "the war against those 'the jews' accuse of warring against 'the jews'", or more simply, "the war to advance and protect jewish interests".

We're reminded again that muslims play only a supporting role in this "war". Phillips' typically judeo-centric view is that "the Islamic threat against the west" is just one aspect of "animus against 'the jews'". Auster's typically judeo-centric view is that Phillips' public assertion that "the Islamization of the entire West" is most important because it is bad for "the jews" is itself bad for "the jews".

Auster brags of his efforts to war on Whites who refuse jewish dominance and he accuses Phillips of making his self-appointed job harder. In doing so Auster concedes more clearly than ever before a point he has long danced around. He does indeed spend a significant part of his time battling White conservatives and nationalists, and clearly he does so because he favors jews and jewish interests more than anything else. See Lawrence Auster, Champion of "The Jews" for more on this point.

Auster takes for granted, de Gucht-style, that ethnocentrism is typical of jews, though he argues it should be masked to best advance their interests. Auster sees Phillips' approach as too brazen, not wrong. Both cloak their pursuit of what's good for jews inside a putative defense of the West, or as Auster puts it, "using the West to advance and protect jewish interests". Auster differs from Phillips largely in his willingness to cultivate his pose as a champion of the West by grappling with the symptoms of the anti-White regime. He even discusses the jewish role in it, though not to worry, it's only because he thinks it's bad for "the jews".

After Auster shares their private email exchange, a critique of Phillips ensues. Much of it applies just as well to Auster:

Jeff in England writes:

Subject: THE BIG BANG(er)

I had to laugh at your latest attempt to get Melanie to become a serious thinker on the primacy of the Islamic threat (vs. the Jewish persecution issue), let alone any issue.

Melanie is NOT a thinker as such, rather she is a "banger." She simply bangs on (as they say here) with extremely focused robotic-like wordage her limited set of views where Jewish persecution is the permanent never changing number one on her list. The possibility that any issue can threaten the number one status of the Jewish (and Israeli) persecution issue is well beyond her limited intellectual scope.

LA replies:

Jeff's view of Melanie is very like my own. Before I received his e-mail, I had it in my head to write a comment saying that Melanie has a sharp intelligence, but it is one-dimensional. She focuses only on the things she is attacking, and never reflects on her own positions and thought processes. Anything that lies outside her limited world view is simply wrong and therefore ignorant.

However, Jeff's rougher way of putting the same idea makes the point better: she's not a thinker, she's a banger.

You can't help but wonder, how does someone get to her late fifties, a successful writer, and still be so primitive and unthinking in her dealings with people?

LA replies:

However, these reflections on Melanie Phillips's stunning limitations--she's not called "Mad Mel" for nothing--also make her less useful as an example of some typical Jewish attitude. She's too extreme a personality to be typical.

Here begins a repeat of a well-worn Auster pattern. A dollop of heresy about "the jews", in this case their over-the-top judeo-centrism, followed by some talmudic hair-splitting about the meaning of it all, followed inevitably by a shift in focus to some vaguely defined non-jewish scapegoat - "the liberals", "the anti-semites", "the majority", ... Here the pattern unfolds once again when Auster confides his thoughts about "the war against 'the jews'" and who, ultimately, he, Phillips, and Murdoch hold accountable:

LA replies:

. . .

I would say that the war against the Jews is a very grave problem and a threat not only to Jews but to our civilization., But to say that it is at the fulcrum of the West's repudiation of its own culture is going too far. The West's repudiation of its own culture has many motivations and components that have nothing to do with the Jews, and it would be happening even if there were no Jews.

That last sentence is an absurd assertion, and Auster knows it, pointing as he does to an older article where he attacks Pat Buchanan and writes: "If the West abandons Israel to a Second Holocaust at the hands of Islamic extremists, that will be an act of collective moral suicide--the true Death of the West." In other words, "our" "suicide" hinges on "the jews". To make the point Auster invokes the very same decades of jew-favoring guilt-tripping and brain-washing Murdoch invokes, which is exactly what's fueling the "suicide". Hiding in plain sight. "Go ahead", the jewish warrior says, "point out that it isn't suicide, jew-hater."

To drive home that "the jews" are blameless two days later Auster posted a related entry, An interesting view of the Jewish problem:

John Gay writes from Canada:

With respect, it seems to me that both you and Melanie Phillips are missing the point in your aborted exchange about the Jews.

You ask, "Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews?" Many Jews certainly don't like being the focus of the inordinate historical attention focused on their small nation, and many have been murdered for it. But this is the fate of being a Jew, a carrier, or sign, of a revelation of great historical significance. A "Jew" is not simply whatever he is, as an actual person in daily life. And if one day the enemies of the Jews succeed in killing off all the Jews, they will still have a need for "Jews" and they will find them under one name or another, within one resentful conspiracy theory or another, because their identities depend, at their very core, on having "Jews" to resent.

In other words, what Melanie P. is talking about, it seems to me, is the anthropological and historical significance of anti-Semitism, something that transcends the actual lives of Jews, their DNA, and mundane or selfish interests. The "cosmic" significance of the Jew is the anthropological revelation that a loving God who wishes to allow humanity to discover the creative, nation-defining, "republican," self-ruling possibilities of covenant must offer the choice first to one particular nation, and not to all humanity at once. Someone has to go first; a universal truth can only be revealed from a particular historical vantage point. But it is just this reality that the anti-Semite resents--that he is second, or third, to "discover" some profound existential truth, such as that one and all are in relationship with the one God of monotheism. The anti-Semite resents the creativity, the "firstness," on which all productive nation building depends (which is not to say that such creativity is necessarily closed to him, but his resentment will often become trapped in a desire for conformity to some already-established relationship to what we signify as sacred or divine, such as the supposedly eternal, and uncreated, cosmically original, Koran).

So, leaving aside the personal animus, I read Melanie's response to you thus:

"The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the West's repudiation of its own culture."

- Yes, even if all Jews are killed, the war may continue as long as some Western nation takes up the mantle of "Israel." But when no one plays "Israel," the war is truly lost. Again, the war against the Jews is not so much against actual persons, though it certainly threatens first and foremost actual Jews, who are the most obvious "Jews," as it is against what Israel represents in the Western tradition as the first and exemplary nation.

So let's review.

Plutocrat media mogul Rupert Murdoch pays obsequious homage to "the jews" while accepting an award from a very real, very powerful jewish organization dedicated to defending and promoting specifically jewish interests. In doing so Murdoch makes the extraordinary implication that Europeans are waging a "war" against "the jews". Professional jewish bigot Melanie Phillips applauds, clarifies, and extends this idea, asserting that the "war" is essentially the European rejection of the validity of "the jews" as the center, the crux, the "most important" part of "our" culture. Jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster adds White American conservatives and nationalists to the enemies list, but insists that "the jews" have nothing to do with it. The "war" against "the jews" is all about Whites killing ourselves. Whites are so crazy with suicidal "the jew"-hate that we'd mistake eskimos for "the jews" if there weren't any "actual" cosmic "the jews" to pick on.

One thing that's clear from all this double-talk is that the very people most obsessed with the interests of "the jews" will not acknowledge that anyone else has any interests. In their minds "the jews" are most important. They aren't shy about letting everyone know this, or lecturing everyone that we too must at least behave as if we accept it. They fret and exaggerate and generalize. They feel free to babble on about a "war" against "the jews" waged by Whites, and when they really work themselves into a froth it's the whole world against "the jews". It's a dishonest way of excusing the arrogance and aggression directed in the opposite direction. To listen to "the jews" it's all about what's good for "us" and "our" interests, at least until the mask comes off and all that nonsense gets overridden by whatever they think is good for "the jews". Any concern for interests explicitly or even implicitly distinct from "the jews" causes an allergic reaction in "the jews". The reaction is so universal, so strong, that it grips even those who usually present themselves as defenders of abstract White collectives, whether it's Britain, America, the West, or "our civilization". With their own judeo-centric moralizing however these poseurs consistently demonstrate that their very highest loyalty is to the collective they call "the jews".

For more about Auster on "the jews" see Two "Conservative" Jews, Same "Liberal" Dissembling, The First Law of Jewish Influence, Triangulating From the Right, and Suicide vs. Competition.

Professional Bigots Harangue Tea Party

NAACP releases report accusing tea party groups of links to bigots:

The new report describes what it calls links between tea party factions and white supremacist groups, anti-immigrant organizations and militias, according to a news release issued by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, which wrote the document.

Not only have tea parties given platforms to extremists, the news release said, the movement is a recruiting ground for hard-core white nationalists who are “hoping to push these (white) protesters toward a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy.”

The "report" is available at Tea Party Nationalism, which is chock full of anti-White fear-mongering. Tea Parties - Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Militia Impulse is one comprehensive example.

big·ot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Today's news is that professional black and jewish bigots are denouncing Whites. They want everyone to know that they can't tolerate even the deracinated political views of Tea Partiers. "Supremacist", "extremist", "hard-core" they label us. Look how they frantically push those buttons, trying to pathologize and criminalize. They don't trust Whites. They don't like Whites. They are frightened of us, alienated by us. Our most naive attempts to appease them with color-blind politics simply don't well enough serve the interests of their groups. They already have a regime which favors them. They defend it, shamelessly, even as they grasp for more.

Their worst nightmares involve Whites becoming more self-conscious of our own interests and behaving as they do. Why shouldn't we meet them on a level field, as aware and organized as they are? Because it wouldn't be good for them? They don't care what's good for us. Because they might attack even more viciously? Yes. Exactly.

Jeet Heer, Afraid of Nazis

In my recent post about Sobran I linked Jeet Heer's Joseph Sobran: Far Worse than a Holocaust Skeptic. I left a few critical comments there which were greeted by Heer and his peanut gallery with the usual dehumanizing and intolerant attitude jews and their sympathizers so typically project onto others.

To Heer's credit, he let my comments stand. Last night I made a lengthy response to another comment and it got stuck in the moderation queue. Six hours later Heer announced that he was tired of letting "nazis" say "nazi" things and therefore, ACHTUNG!, he was closing the comments. I don't expect Heer will let my last remark through, so I'm posting it here instead. For context I encourage you to first read Heer's attack on Sobran and the thread of responses that followed.

PuffsPlus writes:

For those of you who don’t know, Tanstaafl is a blogger who wants a white-only ethnostate that excludes anyone with Jewish DNA. That would include his kids, because his wife’s father was a Jewish convert, IIRC. So Tanstaafl’s unreasonable hatred of Jews extends to the point of dreaming of a white-only country that would exclude his own children. Chew on that for a moment.

I realize I'm among enemies here, but I'm still chagrined to find such intellects overlooking the link in my name, and now acting like they've unmasked a stealthy boogeyman. Those who want something more than gossip and innuendo can chew on what I've actually written and decide for themselves if it's unreasonable:

Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites

A Personal Disclosure

It pleasures me to point out to my own kind (passing by or lurking here) the dishonesty of jewish partisans when facing non-jewish partisans. Regarding exclusion, my kids and I are excluded from Israel. Jewish hypocrisy rankles, but the exclusion from Israel not at all. You'd think those alienated by Whites would, of their own volition, not want to live among us. But no, the truth is they panic at the thought of being removed from their host. Claws and fangs come out because they much prefer to neutralize our partisans in order to lord over the rest. It reflects the jewish tendency toward totalitarianism which fully bloomed most recently and catastrophically as bolshevism. More recently it manifests as orwellian language, political correctness, and the criminalization of "hate", all while they project their own control-freak nature onto "nazis". As Chomsky put it, 98% control just isn't enough.

I see the norm here is to make grade school cases that rest on, for example, Sobran being "a fellow traveller to Nazism" and a "white nationalist defense of Sobran is far more damning". Never mind that Sobran's "nazism" is no more than the allergic reaction he causes jews, or the chauvinist jewish premise, unspoken and undefended, that Whites must not have what jews have (White nationalism) because it's bad for jews. The attack on Sobran and response to my counterpoints amounts to the presumption that anyone who will not accept that jewish interests outweigh their own is a heretic. Yes, such heresy is literally unthinkable for most jews, and most would make it unspeakable as well. No so the rest of us. So I ask again Heer, are you a jew, or a useful idiot?

The sad fact is that jew-firsters will have to keep repressing the rest of us, or get far away from us. I think the main reason more diaspora jews don't opt for the latter (beside not wanting to live among their own kind) is because they suspect when the lid comes off the precedents set by the Nuremberg trials and the later worldwide manhunts may repeat. As David Sachs worries, he and every jew he knows would all be forced (by "anti-semites" of course) to leap to every other jew's defense. The one thing that is virtually certain, evident in a millenia-long pattern, is that jews will continue to blame whatever goes wrong entirely on everybody else, especially those who reject their authority.

I went to Heer's latest post, Coren and Conservative Revisionism (wherein he denounces "conservative revisionism" as a defense of "nazism" and "fascism") and left another comment:

A comment of mine on the Sobran thread has been stuck in the moderation queue since six hours before you declared it closed.

Speaking of fascism, I'm wondering if you're going to let it through, or delete it.

I then read his post and watched the Michael Coren Show video he linked, to which I made the following comment:

Regarding the video you linked, the earnest disagreement about Vietnam-era US military demographics was interesting. Apparently, in cases like this, it's acceptable and important to argue about who was overrepresented, even though the whole enterprise is long past. What makes this part of the discussion so interesting is how it is interwoven with a non-debate of jewish overrepresentation in media today. Discussion of that disparity ended almost before it began, caricaturized and dismissed by Gordon as a "standard anti-semitic myth" that's "boring", and ultimately transformed by Coren into a red herring about how two jews can be counted on to have three opinions.

The point is that in the current mainstream media environment jews are free to argue out loud and at length about what's good for jews. Meanwhile, anyone who complains about this, or who tries to discuss what's good for their group (especially Whites), is pathologized and excluded with terminology such as "kook", "nazi", "fascist", "racist", "nativist", "xenophobe", "anti-semite", "denier", "minimizer", "revisionist", etc.

Whether this situation arises as a consequence of jewish disparities in ownership, control, employment, or just naive goyim favoritism for jews is really beside the point. The point is that there is a clear double-standard in how Whites and jews are treated - jews and their concerns strongly favored, Whites and our concerns strongly disfavored. This is no myth. Nor is it boring. But it is perfectly understandable why jews and their supporters try to deny or minimize it.

Upon posting this I noticed that my previous comment had been deleted. A few minutes later this last comment disappeared as well.

It's telling that reasoned and on-topic comments are deleted by someone who so hates "nazism" and "fascism". It's not pigeon-holing enemies or squelching dissent that disturbs Heer. He's a comic fanboy and culture critic. In those very jewish worlds dehumanization and censorship are only crimes when it happens to the nazi-fighting good-guys. Naturally I wonder if Heer is some kind of desi-jew. If not, then I wonder if he's ever wondered just how steeped in jewish thought he is.

Curiously, Heer has been critical of zionism and neocons, writing things like Israel's creation: Ethnic cleansing by any other name, The Jewish state and its enablers, and Operation Anglosphere. Perhaps he's trying to compensate for this by pathologizing other people's criticism of jews.

In Heer's Anglosphere piece he attaches significance to where someone is born. Why then his hostility to the notion that an identity conveyed by genes and upbringing can have significance? Is it only jewish identity which is exempt, or exempt from critique? He's not squeamish about attaching significance to "anti-semitism" and "nazism". What's that? Where does it come from? He doesn't seem to care. He uses the words as if they're magic.

Maybe he'll drop by and clear up some of these questions. Based on his lame response to challenges at his own blog, I doubt it.

Consider This

Reconsider Columbus Day appeared on YouTube last year. Links to it are circulating again this year.

October 12 is Columbus Day A day that "our" government has deemed worthy of rememberance But with all due respect With all due respect With all due respect There's an ugly truth that has been overlooked For waaay too long Columbus committed heinous crimes Against the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean And millions of natives throughout the Americas And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the New World So please Please reconsider if this is a man you want to honor Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus It's not your fault It happened a long time ago But remaining neutral And pretending like it didn't happen Or that it doesn't still impact us today So please Take the day to learn the whole story Celebrate the people who were here first Petition for a nationally-recognized indigenous holiday So please Reconsider how you plan to spend October 12th Reconsider the story of Columbus Visit www.reconsidercolumbusday.org

Yes, let's stop pretending. Let's reconsider multiculturalism, reconsider multiracialism, and reconsider anti-racism. The people pushing these ideas are disingenuous. They don't oppose discrimination, oppression, or genocide. They're animated by hate and anger. They blame Whites for all the world's ills. In their mind it's payback time. Scapegoating Columbus is just the tip of an anti-White iceberg.

The purpose of the Reconsider Columbus Day campaign isn't to hold Columbus accountable for his "crimes". That was 500 years ago. The purpose isn't to celebrate "the people who were here first" either. "Our" government has already dedicated 30 days to celebrating them.

This campaign is aimed at White people. It's about guilt-tripping, criminalizing, and pathologizing us. It's telling us to stop enjoying a Eurocentric view of history, to stop having a sense of pride in our European heritage, and to instead feel ashamed and be more concerned about everyone else's point of view. The purpose is to convince us to celebrate and put the interests of other people above our own. It isn't an argument for non-discrimination or race-blindness. The people driving this campaign despise us and our point of view.

Instead of going along with the browbeating of people who hate us, or even simply ignoring them, I'm inclined to do just the opposite of what they want. Therefore I encourage Whites to reconsider the mestizo holiday Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates the killing of Europeans and swimming the Rio Grande (not necessarily in that order). And the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, commemorating "racists" not acting quickly enough to help black looters. And the mother of all anti-White guilt-tripping, The Holocaust ^TM - which academia and media and politicians commemorate day in and day out.

The common theme here is: Whites suck. Why should we go along with that? Reconsider who does or doesn't care about you. Reconsider what they tell you to care about. Reconsider whether it's all about doing what's "right" or "moral" or whether they just want you to better serve them. Respond accordingly.

Columbus: Continuation of a Genocidal Legacy is a Mexica Movement video connecting the dots from Columbus, to Cortez, to Custer, to Hitler. It presents a thoroughly one-sided view of the brutal facts of past conquest and war. Unlike the original blood-thirsty, slave-trading indigenous people, White newcomers kept relatively detailed records. But why dwell on the past? Do the job the anti-White moralizers in the media won't do. Compile in your mind a video of current events - the robbery, rape, and murder "people of color" perpetrate against Whites no matter when or where we have the misfortune of living together.

Reconsider the never-ending lectures we're fed about defamation, discrimination, stereotypes, blood libels. Think about these lectures the next time somebody quickly and blithely ticks off the usual politically correct litany of White "crimes". Think about what they will rationalize as right and just once they gain the upper hand completely. If you need a hand, that Mexica video graphically depicts what they have in mind.

Happy Columbus Day.

The Most Important Thing To Know About Joe Sobran

Jews hated him.

Sailer's "Joe Sobran, RIP" links Coulter's Not your average joe.

A Sailer commenter links Michael Tomasky's Rick Sanchez and Joe Sobran, which links Jeet Heer's Joseph Sobran: Far Worse than a Holocaust Skeptic.

Sobran once wrote that "anti-semite" used to mean a man who hated jews. Now it means a man who is hated by jews.

In Hard-line commentator, at the Washington Post, Matt Schudel writes:

Over the years, Mr. Sobran's views veered ever more wildly to the right, beyond the ken of National Review and anything resembling the mainstream. He praised an unabashedly racist publications called Instauration, which, in Mr. Sobran's own words, was "openly and almost unremittingly hostile to blacks, Jews, and Mexican and Oriental immigrants."

An archive of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration Magazine is online. Go see what the fuss is about.

How I Was Fired By Bill Buckley is Sobran's account of his ejection from the mainstream for violating what Buckley called "the structure of prevailing taboos".

UPDATE 19 Oct 2010: A few links provided by Jim Jones in the comments, from which I've extracted samples of Sobran's thoughts about jews.

Sobran's --- The Jewish Faction, May 2004:

In truth, the charge of “Christ-killing” is hard to find anywhere, outside of schoolyard taunts. Yet the Tribe “remembers” it, just as innumerable baseball fans used to “remember” seeing Babe Ruth’s legendary (and apocryphal) “called shot” in the 1932 World Series, the most famous home run never hit. Such non-happenings are a regular feature of Tribal memory, as witness the many testimonies of “Holocaust survivors” that have turned out to be delusions or outright forgeries. A large proportion of the Tribe is still absolutely convinced that Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope,” despite mountainous, and mounting, evidence to the contrary. (Hitler’s media called Pius “the Jews’ mouthpiece.”)

Sobran's --- The Jewish Establishment, September 1995:

Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as “anti-Semitism.” But there isn’t even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don’t censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason — liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America.

It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish Establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others — you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.

When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn’t make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his “loose” charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

The opposite applies to charges of “anti-Semitism.” The word has no precise definition. An “anti-Semite” may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn’t defined.

A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of “anti-Semitism,” everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined — even if the charge was baseless.

Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out.

“Anti- Semitism” is therefore less a charge than a curse, an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically.

Sobran's --- "For Fear of the Jews", September 2002:

It was once considered “anti-Semitic” to impute “dual loyalty” to Jews — that is, to assert that most American Jews divide their loyalty between the United States and Israel. This is now passé. Today most politicians assume, as a matter of course, that Israel commands the primary loyalty of Jewish voters. Are they accused of “anti-Semitism” for doing so? Does this assumption cost them Jewish votes? Not at all! Dual loyalty nothing! Dual loyalty would be an improvement!

Once again, it’s a practical necessity to know what it would be professional suicide to say. No politician in his right mind would accuse Jews of giving their primary loyalty to Israel; but most politicians act as if this were the case. And they succeed.

You can read Jewish publications like Commentary for years, and you’ll read interminable discussions about what’s good for Israel, but you’ll never encounter the slightest suggestion that what’s good for Israel might not be good for America. The possibility simply never comes up. The only discernible duty of Jews, it seems, is to look out for Israel. They never have to choose between Israel and the United States. So much for the “canard” of dual loyalty.