Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Friday, April 22, 2011

A Guide to "Racist" Guilt-Tripping

Primate in Chief: A Guide to Racist Obama Monkey Photoshops by Abe Sauer, 19 April 2011:
People are outraged—outraged!—that a senior GOP official from Orange County, CA sent an email about Barack Obama that questioned his place of birth. But we've all become so numb to the "birther" conspiracies that the outrage wasn't at all about the absurdity of a party official confronting the president of the United States about some conspiracy theory. The outrage was about an attached photo, depicting Obama as an ape.

Anyone who has been on the real Internet knows that the Obama-as-ape Photoshop actually predates the mainstream talk about his birth certificate. How prevalent is it? Very. Here's a collection of artwork depicting the nation's first-ever African American president as a primate, which builds on a long history of various racist Obama caricatures.
Sauer's samples of "outrageous" Obama-ape images omitted.
"Chimpout" is a notorious white supremacist site with a robust collection of images like the two above, which happen to be more reserved compared to others. Of course, the "Obamas as primates" theme and the fundamental (and admitted) racism of the site is a coincidence.

Update: Chimpout wanted to let people know more about their site. It is...
not a white supremacist website. We accept membership from Asians, Hispanics, Anglo, Indians, Arabs, Jews etc... We have a diverse membership and even our administration multi-racial. The purpose of is to expose the huge disproportionate amount of black crime including rape and murder in relation to the percentage of population.

We do not allow violent rhetoric, Nazi propaganda or other white nationalist garbage on our site.

We exist only to report the huge numbers of black crimes that get swept under the carpet by the mainstream media.

We do of course have our jokes and photo-shops but they are just for amusement. We really think much too highly of apes than to seriously compare them to blacks.
So there you go.
(I think this answers Incogman's question: Is Jew-Infested?)

Omitting more of his cornucopia of "outrageous" Obama-ape images, Sauer continues:
When confronted, the Orange County GOP official insisted the image was not at all racist. There exists a rich vein on the Internet of conservative blog posts that don't seem to understand at all why comparing Barack Obama to a primate is racist, while comparing George Bush to one is not racist. This is a conversation that is still going on.

See, when Bush was president, apparently some upset person or people created a wealth of George W. Bush monkey Photoshops. The argument from many on the right here is that because of this, a hundred years of racist sentiment comparing Africans and African Americans to primates is negated.

And then... no, wait, that's the whole argument.
This is Sauer's small, sarcastic contribution to the hundreds of years jews have spent guilt-tripping Whites. To Sauer "racist" is both weapon and shield - a magic word that serves to protect blacks while bashing Whites. Point and sputter at the stupid, evil "conservatives", "Tea Partiers", "birthers", "racists" - that's Sauer's whole argument.

Back in March Sauer got his snarky New York jew panties all in a bunch about the crime of calling someone a "Coastie", which he oh-so-soberly described as "cultural intolerance and antisemitism".

Sauer typifies the jewish "liberal" vein of thought: hypersensitive to and offended by all insulting stereotypes or labels, except those they delight in directing at Whites. As I intimated in Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders, which Sauer linked but otherwise ignored, their ideal is a caustic, irreverent, unflinching, uncompromising culture of critique from which jews and select proxies are exempt and protected.

The image above is supplied by The Yeshiva World, representing the jewish schwarze/ vein of thought in which the deification of Obama and blacks in general does not serve jewish interests.

Labels: , ,


Saturday, April 16, 2011

Meet Donald Trump's Jewish Handler

Donald Trump's Political 'Pit Bull': Meet Michael Cohen:
The man behind Donald Trump's possible 2012 presidential campaign is a registered Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Not only that, but Michael Cohen, an executive at the Trump Organization who doubles as Trump's chief political adviser, once volunteered for 1988 presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and worked for a Democratic member of Congress.
A lawyer by training, Cohen is Trump's special counsel and a juggler of people and projects. One minute he's on the phone with a reporter, the next he's giving orders to an assistant, and a moment later he's finalizing a deal on another line -- and frequently, he's doing all three at once.
"I think the world of him," Cohen said of the billionaire real estate and reality television mogul who has said he will decide sometime before June whether to run for president. "I respect him as a businessman, and I respect him as a boss."

The two talk regularly -- "I speak to him even more than I did before," Cohen said -- and he has spearheaded a variety of projects for Trump, including sealing a business partnership in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, running a mixed martial arts promotion company called Affliction Entertainment and a firm that turns landfills into golf courses.

Cohen, whose position allows him to play at any of Trump's courses around the world, describes himself as a "decent" golfer and an avid tennis player. Much like Trump's, his circle of acquaintances include political leaders, actors and "super high net worth people," as Cohen calls them.
Cohen grew up on Long Island. His mother was a nurse and his father was a surgeon who escaped a Nazi concentration camp with his family during World War II.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Doublethink as a Group Strategy

To beat anti-Semitism, ‘we must pull together’, New Jersey Jewish News, 13 Dec 2010:
NJJN: Are there ways the Jewish community can address the problem that it has not been doing?

[Director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Eastern Pennsylvania-Delaware region, Barry] Morrison: The Jewish community has been pretty good about addressing it, to its credit. It needs to do more of the same. It needs to have a sense about what the community is, what its interests are, and how to preserve and protect them. It is not as simple at it once might have been. Jews’ identity has been changing with the generation that was raised on the birth of Israel and the Holocaust. Young people today don’t identify in the same way older folks do, and we’ve seen many Jews in the forefront of the other side regarding Israel.

Secondly, having the ability to pool our resources is another way of fighting the problem. We are a small community, and we have many different points of view. Sometimes there are competing organizations. It is important to pull together. Thirdly, it is important to maintain our identity as citizens in the larger world in which we live and work for the betterment of the broader community. We can’t be isolated, we can’t be insular, we can’t think about it as ‘what’s good for the Jews?’ That is not what needs to guide us.
Translation: The jewish community needs to have a sense about who they are, what their interests are, how to preserve and protect them, pooling its resources to fight problems. But it would look better to use the broader community to advance and protect jewish interests than to so self-consciously keep blurting out "what's good for the jews?"

Labels: ,


Thursday, April 07, 2011

Gamer Excuses "The Jews", Blames "Whitey"

Mangan's Ferd Throws Whites Under the Bus provides the link and some context on Ferdinand Bardamu's Whites Are Their Own Worst Enemies, posted at his anti-feminist/manosphere/gamer blog called In Mala Fide. Bardamu writes:
The reason why the beauty of the white Aryan woman may perish from the earth before this century is up is not because of the Jews, or the blacks, but because of white people themselves. It was whites who let third-worlders swarm into their lands, forever altering the demographic makeup of their nations. It was whites who gutted protections for workers and transformed the economy into a scam designed to bleed the middle-class dry and make the richer even richer. It was whites who conjured up feminism, driving a wedge between men and women, driving down the birth rate and leaving immigrants and illegals to pick up the slack. Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted.
The small subset of race conscious, jew-saavy Whites vex him especially:
“But but but it was the Joooooooos! The Jews are the ones who’ve destroyed the white race, and everyone knows the Jews aren’t white! Durrrrrr…”

First off, the only people who claim Jews aren’t white are you folks, but let’s take your thesis at face value – the Jews are the cause of all our woes. But guess what? Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault! Why? Because last I checked, the Jooooooos didn’t forcibly send armies to capture our cities, destroy our governments and enslave us. Whites were the ones who LET Jews settle in their countries and gave them equal rights, allowing them to ascend to the highest rungs of politics, education and finance. Ever wonder why Jews were few and far between in European history prior to the 19th century? It’s because they had zero rights and were forcibly segregated from gentile society, like the Gypsies. When revolutionary France emanicipated its Jews in 1791, that opened the floodgates. So whining about the Joooooos doesn’t let you off the hook, whitey.
The logic here is so twisted I find it difficult to take seriously. Bardamu mocks it himself. Just take his thesis at face value. He's one of "you folk" who doesn't consider jews to be White. He thinks the Whiiiiiiites are the cause of all our woes. But whining about Whitey doesn't get him off the hook.

Bardamu deserves praise for providing, unwittingly or not, the clearest, most extreme example of the suicide meme I've yet run across. Usually it occurs in a less complete, less direct form. Briefly stated, the suicide meme is the slanderous suggestion that Whites are destroying ourselves. It is an expression of the "politically correct" zeitgeist and the judaized, anti-White regime which promulgates it. It is the final touch in the epitaph our despisers wish to carve in our headstone: "Here lies the stupid, evil White race. They stole our land, enslaved us, gassed us, and then they killed themselves."

Calling what's happening suicide is a way of preempting a more accurate diagnosis, namely genocide, as part of a stealthy, long-term ethnic war perpetrated by a hostile overclass, "a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home" and "are increasingly a nation unto themselves". Calling it suicide implicitly excuses this overclass by not mentioning them, never mind "the jews" who are in it up to their eyeballs. At worst "the jews" get lumped in with the imaginary "we" who are supposedly doing this to "ourselves".

Bardamu is apparently familiar with the argument but wanted to change it up. In the process he lost the plot, clumsily and spectacularly highlighting "the jews".

Though the title and a large chunk of Bardamu's point are classic suicide slander ("Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted") he offers this only as a corollary, after setting "the jews" apart from Whites and excusing them right up front ("not because of the Jews"). He cites three problems - immigration, finance, feminism - which jews are deeply complicit in. He acknowledges that jews are in "the highest rungs of politics, education and finance". He even traces the cause back as far as the emancipation of jews - tarring "France" and "Whitey" for the unpopular actions of a Rothchild-backed Napoleon.

Bardamu helpfully offers all this and more in support of his unshakable premise that jews are not to blame, perfectly encapsulated in this little gem: "Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault!"

Bardamu doth protest too much. His logic is tautology, his argument unintentional self-parody.

"This has nothing to do with the joooooos. To demonstrate I'll explain all about the jews."


- - -

About In Mala Fide:
an online magazine dedicated to publishing heretical and unpopular ideas. Ideas that polite society considers “racist,” “misogynistic,” “homophobic,” “bigoted” or other slurs used to shut down critical thinking and maintain the web of delusions that keep our world broken and dying. We’re here to put their myths to rest
with or in bad faith.

Labels: , ,


Napoleon, the House of Rothchild, and Jewish Emancipation

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty, by Paul Vallely, The Independent, 16 April 2004 (my emphasis):
More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded - at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government - and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply," Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: "Take a chair." His caller, affronted, said: "You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis." To which Rothschild replied: "Take two chairs." At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan's great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of "the slow murder of 600,000 people" on the continent "we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time." And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today's terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.
Napoleon and the Jews, Wikipedia:
Napoleon's indirect influence on the fate of the Jews was even more powerful than any of the decrees recorded in his name. By breaking up the feudal trammels of mid-Europe and introducing the equality of the French Revolution he effected more for Jewish emancipation than had been accomplished during the three preceding centuries. The consistory of Westphalia became a model for other German provinces until after the fall of Napoleon, and the condition of the Jews in the Rhine provinces was permanently improved as a consequence of their subjection to Napoleon or his representatives. Heine and Börne both record their sense of obligation to the liberality of Napoleon's principles of action, and the German Jews in particular have always regarded Napoleon as one of the chief forerunners of emancipation in Germany.
(Image from Jews and French Grand Opera.)

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Criticism of The Culture of Critique

Below are some excerpts from a review by PLEASUREMAN, The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career (original emphasis):
When I started reading Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique, I didn't quite know what I was getting into. John Derbyshire was warned about people who get "the Jew thing", and as I mentioned in Who's Afraid of Kevin MacDonald? his own review of MacDonald's work more or less pretends that the last 40 years of major Jewish influence on conservative politics never happened. It's one thing to find this influence an overall positive thing, but to forget to mention that it happened strikes one as careless, especially when reviewing a work that discusses just this influence.

If conservatives are not introspective it follows that they are not closely focused on the permutations of conservatism that go beyond policy debate, including the permutations that lead to conservatism's dark side. This dark side includes a tendency towards authoritarianism, close-mindedness, and paranoia. Liberalism has its extremism, conservatism has its dark side. It would be naive to fail to acknowledge this dark side when approaching controversial work like MacDonald's. Unlike Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, The Culture of Critique is not anchored in decades of irrefutable science, it is a more at a theory that attempts to explain Jewish dominance in Western academia, politics, and business. Moreover it is a theory tied to an already controversial idea, that ethnic groups can have an unconscious or subconscious group evolutionary strategy which benefits not merely the individual but the group itself. This goes beyond the normal attachment one feels for one's nationality or ethnicity, and suggests that genetics and culture can interact in such a way that the result is justifiably called an evolutionary strategy.

But more than that, MacDonald's scholarship is in what contemporary culture defines as forbidden territory. It must stand in the shadow of a malevolent lunatic fringe that has always followed conservative thought--a fringe that finds Jewish (and other) conspiracies everywhere, lives in fear of sinister forces, and rages impotently about everything it sees as a potential threat. There is no way to approach the question of Jewish influence without both conjuring this fringe and finding oneself accused of sympathy with it.

In my view, MacDonald's incisive work is worth reading whether you are prepared to believe in a group evolutionary strategy or not, whether you believe Jewish influence has been pronounced or not. Even if MacDonald is completely wrong, his approach to groups deserves attention, particularly with regard to the ongoing transformation of American political life from a culture formed and guided by Northern Europeans to one that is approaching complete ethnic pluralism. I think it is likely that Jewish culture, as it has been shaped over the millenia, has worked to reinforce a set of behaviors, beliefs, and strategies with regard to other groups (and particularly with the universalist-minded West), and whether it is driven by evolutionary forces is beside the point--it nevertheless is, and has been strikingly influential upon the events of the 20th century. Indeed, it has changed the course of American history.

My initial goal here is to summarize MacDonald's arguments and evidence, by chapter. This post is an introduction, and subsequent posts will take the chapters in sequence.

As Henry Ford remarked about Charles Lindbergh, "When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews." Get ready to talk about the Jews.
MacDonald next mentions Stephen Jay Gould, whose long record of intellectual prevarication on the subject of genetic differences (and human biodiversity in particular) speaks for itself. Gould has been an incredibly important figure in the demonization of psychometrics and his book The Mismeasure of Man is virtually a bible for what one might term the anti-intelligence clergy (intelligence doesn't exist, cannot be measured, is not variable, etc). According to MacDonald, Gould's views were influenced by his Jewish-Leftist identity and fear of anti-Semitism.
Gould made exaggerated and provably false claims about the congressional debates of the period. The immigration debate was largely about preserving America's Nordic-derived identity and culture, and IQ testing did not play a significant role in any part of it. Gould's response to such criticism was to ignore it, a response that has become a tradition among Gould's worshipful and ill-informed followers. (Similarly, Gould ignored all modern IQ research on the ludicrous grounds that it was "ephemeral".) A revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man essentially ignored all critical response to Gould's book.

Gould further claimed that the 1924 immigration law was in some sense responsible for the deaths of Jews unable to emigrate from German-held territories before World War II, a hyperbolic and frankly hysterical conclusion that has become typical of Jewish anti-intellectualism. This rhetorical behavior is readily found in much Jewish political output, and MacDonald catalogues the varieties of it found in Gould's work, including use of denigrating labels, oversimplified straw men, gilded writing, and perhaps the most popular technique, claiming moral superiority over one's debate opponents. Nevertheless, Gould maintains a high level of posthumous prestige.
The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career - Page 2:
A response to The Culture of Critique

I was going to canvass some of the responses to MacDonald's book, but why not just quote from the SLPC's considered, measured review:

Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, MacDonald, who also is a board member of the white supremacist Charles Martel Society, published a trilogy that supposedly "proves" that Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies. MacDonald also argues that anti-Semitism, far from being an irrational hatred for Jews, is a logical reaction to Jewish success in societies controlled by other ethnic or racial groups. After the publication of a 2007 Intelligence Report exposé detailing MacDonald's anti-Semitism, his teaching duties were reduced and many of his colleagues publicly condemned his racist research.
This is, as you have seen in my summary of MacDonald's book, wholly malicious, tendentious, and dishonest. But we expect nothing less from the SPLC, a Jewish dominated organization that carefully manages its Wikipedia page to remove any hint of criticism. The SPLC is fixated on white supremacist groups but has of late broadened its scope to include any right-wing rhetoric that is more arousing than David Brooks after a bong hit. It doesn't have any serious charter to pursue hatred as such, or else it would have to monitor itself for its flamboyant belligerance and crude bullying and coercion.

It may as well be said that this type of aggressive, moralistic posturing is a signature of Jewish rhetoric. It has such a long tradition that it must be recognized by everyone today as the sort of thing Jews often do--it is a hallmark, for example, of arguments in favor of Israel's right to do everything, and was used extensively by neocons to justify the Iraq War.

This manner of argument is in keeping with Judaism's aggressive competitive tendencies, high Jewish IQ, and legalistic morality. I add the last item because legalistic moral systems must of necessity be rigid. They are based on the idea that goodness is not arrived at by communal judgement (favored in altruistic societies), but by command of authority--and here the difference with Christianity could not be more striking. As I have noted in another context, much of the behavior we see today is premised on the notion that what is legally permissable is morally permissable--a statement very pregnant with meaning, and very much an inheritance from Jewish thinking, whether we realize it or not.

And what about The Culture of Critique? MacDonald chose his title well--Jewish culture is very tied up in the idea that argument, even tendentious argument, is good. I am not sure I follow him in his belief that Jewish behavior is an evolutionary adaptation--but let me qualify this. The idea of group evolutionary behavior remains controversial. There is some question as to how it operates through natural selection; I am not expert enough to present either side of this question. But then I suspect that the interaction between culture and natural selection is rather murky and difficult to quantify, much as most mixed nature-nurture traits are.

It is quite possible that characteristic Jewish culture was formed by happenstance--that is, it was shaped by the unique series of events and struggles it found itself in due to its place and time of origin and adjacent cultures. As a firm believer in the role that randomness plays in all life, I am not convinced that an explanation of cultural thinking must be any less arbitrary than this.

This remains an academic question because we can never develop a rigorous and falsifiable theory--we are left to believe what we will. But however it came to be, Jewish culture as it is today is a compelling force that has dramatically changed Western culture.

Perhaps a more interesting line of argument is that Jewish culture is a byproduct of high IQ. The pursuit of pluralism, for example, can be seen as Jewish defensiveness given its competitive nature--but it is also the mark of high IQ novelty seekers. Similarly, many of the ideological movements that MacDonald surveys had little trouble attracting gentiles of a certain type, however dominated their upper ranks may have been by Jews. And by "certain type" I am referring to the cognitive elite--the class of person who is readily won over to abstract theories and is disdainful of traditional practices. That Jews dominate may have less to do with Jewish culture and more to do with Jewish IQ. One omission MacDonald makes is in comparing Jewish achievement and wealth without controlling for IQ.

However this book is an impressive survey of Jewish involvement in the great changes of the 20th century. Wherever one comes down on this subject, it deserves better than the SPLC's malicious and disingenuous treatment, or the cool oblviousness of most of the rest of Western society. It opens the door to many fascinating questions, not only to Jewish culture but to the whole nature of Western civlization and its potential downfall, to the study of group interaction, to the contrast between impermeable and assimilationist societies. It is a serious and manifestly well-intentioned academic work.

And for that reason, the reception of MacDonald's work should be considered scandalous. We do not live in a freely thinking society if this careful and conscientious exploration of group behavior is beyond the pale. But then, looking around, one can readily see that we in fact live in a society governed by frivolity, snark, and clownishness--clownishness much like the SPLC's ridiculous summary of MacDonald's study of Jewish culture. Such is our intellectual world.

I do not agree with MacDonald that ethnic separatism offers European-derived culture anything more than devolution. I think ethnic separatism within a diverse nation will alter what we think of as Western culture and turn it into something no better than the self-interested ethnic enclaves that have exploited it. Universalism is simply a hallmark of the West; if it loses this trait, it loses itself.

The question of what to do is far too complicated to explore briefly, but a return to assimilationism and a renewal of Western values must be the only plausible course. All of our politics should be subordinate to this issue.
The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career - Page 3:
It's sometimes used as an excuse that Jews even criticize themselves, without acknowledging that Jewish self-criticism is aimed at increasing cohesion by punishing deviation (such as intermarriage), while Jewish criticism of other cultures is aimed at undermining cohesion. It is silly to equate the two.
Kevin MacDonald:

I do think that the social tensions resulting from this assault on our people and culture will eventually get to the point that there will perforce be an audience for my work. It may seem odd to phrase it this way, but in a real sense all of us writing from a pro-White, pro-European perspective should be desperately trying to break through into the wider culture — to become famous and respected. If it doesn't happen for any of us, then we have surely lost.
Referring to an interview with Kevin MacDonald by Alex Kurtagic:

The treatment of MacDonald shows the ugliest side of Jewish culture, particularly because the venue is academia. For me it is a reason I can never feel sympathetic toward Jewish concerns or Jewish claims of injustice; their culture is very hospitable to injustice and quite glibly so.

Labels: ,