Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Friday, April 05, 2013

Two Lessons in Privilege

There were two substantial tremblers along the White/jew faultline this week. In both cases a jewess published a public comment concerning higher education which triggered a viral outpouring of fear and loathing, the brunt of which has been directed at Whites.

The first was caused by Susan Patton's OPINION: Letter to the Editor, at The Daily Princetonian, 29 March 2013. The most controversial part:

When I was an undergraduate in the mid-seventies, the 200 pioneer women in my class would talk about navigating the virile plains of Princeton as a precursor to professional success. Never being one to shy away from expressing an unpopular opinion, I said that I wanted to get married and have children. It was seen as heresy.

For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

An Alumna’s Advice for the Young Women of Princeton: Marry My Son, by Eveline Chao, The Daily Beast, 30 Mar 2013:

In a letter published in The Daily Princetonian on Friday, Susan A. Patton, the president of the class of ’77, offered her “advice for the young women of Princeton.”

One of the more-quoted lines that immediately began zinging across social media read, “Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.”

Patton continued: “As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market ... You will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

There was also:

“I am the mother of two sons who are both Princetonians. My older son had the good judgment and great fortune to marry a classmate of his, but he could have married anyone. My younger son is a junior and the universe of women he can marry is limitless.”

The image conjured for most was of a rich, ‘50s housewife who dabbles in eugenics. Unsurprisingly, the blogosphere went nuts.

Patton was also called a “WASP,” “offensive,” and “sheltered.” One person said, “Thank god you didn’t have daughters.” On Twitter, @DesiderioAArnaz tweeted, “Feminism just died at Princeton.” Another user named @dylanmatt appended the link with, “A stirring call for the genetically gifted to band together and form a master race.” I myself am a Princeton alum, and when former classmates posted the link on Facebook, some speculated that it was an April Fools’ joke.

A phone call Friday with Patton confirmed that it was not.

“I’m mortified,” she said of the online comments. But when asked if she would like to clarify or change anything she’d said, she replied, “Not really.”

She also revealed a few details that might not reconcile her with feminists, but which do counter the impression given by her letter.

First, she isn’t a WASP. (“It was intended as advice from a nice Jewish mother. That’s all it was.”)

Second, she isn’t exclusively a homemaker. Patton has run her own HR consulting and executive coaching business in New York City for 20 years. She didn’t work the first five years after her first son, now class of 2010, was born, but has ever since.

And third, she isn’t married to a Princeton grad. In fact, she’s just out of what she calls a “horrible” divorce, after 27 years of marriage. “My husband’s academic background was not as luxurious as mine, and that was a source of some stress,” said Patton. “I think he felt a certain level of resentment.”

What Patton recommends seems to be common sense. An admonition to mate only with someone of the same race would make it even better. The main thing that makes any such advice controversial is jewish influence - whether in favor of womb-shrivelling feminism or anti-White anti-"racism", in both academia and media. Naturally this consideration goes unmentioned, at least by jews and especially in the mainstream media.

By several accounts the strongest rebuke came the same day Patton's letter was published. Maureen O'Connor's Princeton Mom to All Female Students: ‘Find a Husband’ is full of snark and describes Patton as a luddite with a depressing worldview. Five hours later came a sheepish update, Q&A: Princeton Mom Wishes She Married a Princeton Man, in which O'Connor suddenly appears very understanding and even sympathetic. A day before Chao wrote her piece for the Daily Beast, O'Connor had the same conversation, and cited the same "clarifications" for her sudden change in attitude:

Patton spoke by phone from her home in the Upper East Side, where she runs her own business as a human resources consultant and executive coach. She was in the midst of reading responses to her letter when I called. "I'm astounded by the extreme reaction. Honestly, I just thought this was some good advice from a Jewish mother," she laughed.

The understanding is that being a jewish mother is completely different from being a White mother. Later observers incorporate the jewish mother card into their story from the get go.

Susan A. Patton wrote to Princeton student newspaper urging female students to snag man, Mail Online:

Susan A. Patton, a proud Princeton University alumna and the living affirmation of the meddling Jewish mother stereotype, raised some eyebrows this week

A WASP could expect the recriminations and condemnations to eventually be accompanied by tangible sanctions. A jewess raises eyebrows and inspires some ambiguous finger-wagging about jewish stereotypes.

James Taranto didn't do either. Instead, he quickly rode to Patton's defense. Why? Well, Susan Patton Told the Truth. Oh, and:

It took some bravery for the young Miss Patton to go to Princeton, for she was not a legacy and was anything but a daughter of privilege. As she explained in a 2006 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, her mother was a survivor of Auschwitz, a German death camp in Poland; her father, of Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp in Germany.

The irony here is in Taranto insisting Patton isn't privileged just before explaining how she is. He plays the camp survivor card right up front, presumably because he regards it as relevant to his point, which is that Patton is a righteous hero so these stupid/crazy/evil critics should back off.

Alyssa Rosenberg took a different tack, explaining The Real Problem With Susan Patton's s ur-Jewish Mother letter to the editor is the Daily Princetonian:

Patton’s letter is exactly the kind of thing that is tremendously clicky, to the extent that it was probably worth it financially to the Daily Princetonian to publish it even if the site ended up offline because of the massive influx of readers.
All in all, it’s a very successful, cynical execution of a well-established strategy.

Rosenberg's argument makes little sense except perhaps as a projection of her own obsession with clicks, money and cynical strategy.

Miraculously, Patton got some time to explain herself on television. When Megyn Kelly asked Patton to respond to the crux of the controversy, which is "elitist snobby Ivy League people [who] think they're better than we are", Patton did not play the jewish mother card. Instead she lied, claiming, "I'm not suggesting that anybody's better than anybody".

Except she did. In two different ways. The controversy concerns her letter where she used the term "worthy of you", and explicitly acknowledged, "Yes, I went there." She was talking about intelligence, not even race, but it was considered as such, at least at first. That changed as soon as she quickly played the jewish mother card, which is the second way she suggested somebody is more worthy.

At the heart of the "jewish mother" trope is the quite conscious concern that:

The only option in life for her children is college and (for the girls) marrying a nice Jewish boy (often parsed even more with "A nice Ashkenazic boy" or "A nice Ashkenazic doctor" or "A nice Ashkenazic doctor with an apartment in New York and plenty of frequent flier miles to visit your mother whom you never cawl anymore"). Likewise, a Jewish son is expected to bring home a nice Jewish girl. No matter how nice, however, this girl will not be good enough. Heaven forbid he marries a Shiksa Goddess.

As long as critics considered her White Patton's suggestion of intellectual superiority was regarded as beyond the pale. That changed as soon as she played the jewish mother card. Being a "good jewish mother" implies group superiority. Though for a White mother this would only be regarded as more damning, for jews it miraculously serves to blunt the attack, and shifts the focus elsewhere.

It's interesting to consider how this story might have unfolded differently if Susan Patton were White. Would she have written such a letter? Would it have been published? Would James Taranto have lept to her defense? Would feminists now be organizing a boycott of her business?

On the same day that Susan Patton's letter was published, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from Suzy Lee Weiss, To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me:

If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.
For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.
To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.

As with Patton, controversy ensued. Suzy Lee Weiss: 'Entitled' high school senior sparks firestorm after writing biting open letter to the Ivy League schools that rejected her, Mail Online, 4 April 2013:

The article outraged many, who accused her of being entitled, self-indulgent and even racist.

'Entitled little brat,' one Twitter user said, as another said: 'Choking on the petulant privilege of Suzy Lee Weiss & hoping she matures out of her ignorance rather than being bolstered by a book deal.'

Another directed a message to Weiss, saying: 'Your letter reveals your republican homophobic leanings and hatred of others not exactly like you. Grow up.'

Despite the criticism Weiss, like Patton, was given television time to explain herself. On Today she claimed it was a joke, satire, that she was poking fun at political correctness. This contradicted her story that before writing she cried to her mother about it and then her sister. Weiss added that diversity is "a wonderful thing" and admitted that her letter led to job offers.

If you're wondering how a whiny high schooler got their letter printed by the Wall Street Journal in the first place, it helps to know that her sister Bari Weiss, is a former Wall Street Journal editor. Bari is also now a senior editor at Tablet Magazine. Like Susan Patton, Suzy Lee Weiss is visibly jewish. Unlike Susan Patton, who played the jewish mother card early, the only mention I've found of Suzy Lee Weiss' jewish identity is an article at Tablet, Suzy Lee Weiss Fires Back on the Today Show:

A story we’ve been following closely–how could we not? she’s mishpucha

Because they can't yet have the internet and ban us from using it too, Whites who are curious about bits of tribal code can still read things like The Yiddish Handbook, which suggests 40 Words You Should Know:

mishpocheh

Or mishpokhe or mishpucha. It means “family,” as in “Relax, you’re mishpocheh. I’ll sell it to you at wholesale.”

That strikes quite a different tone than Weiss' deprecatory reference to herself as a "saltine cracker".

Commentary Magazine, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, provided two supportive editorials. After decades of non-stop jewish propaganda downplaying race, in particular by reducing it to skin color, in When Will Universities Understand Real Diversity? Michael Rubin complains:

The sad fact is that universities—both private and public—are essentially racist: They will gladly boil down diversity to the color of skin.

It’s Not Only the Colleges that Weren’t Honest with Suzy Weiss, by Seth Mandel comments on the Today interview mentioned above:

Guthrie then looks at Weiss and says: “I mean, for one thing, some people read this and they say you are being very cavalier about the importance of diversity.” Weiss dismisses the attempted shaming by saying the piece was satire. But here Weiss isn’t giving herself enough credit. The problem with the section of Weiss’s op-ed about diversity was that it wasn’t an exaggeration: had Weiss followed her joking suggestions, she very well might have been accepted by any number of universities whose admissions officers probably cringed at the op-ed because Weiss was describing actual applicants they happily accepted over Weiss.

Guthrie may have seen Weiss’s words as cartoonish, but here’s the point: they accurately describe the attitudes of the deans at America’s top universities. Weiss didn’t lampoon them so much as expose them to a wider audience.

Weiss can shrug it off because she knows she has a network of unflinching support. Diversity doesn't change that. And anyway, jews understand "diversity" is code for less White. The problem, and the reason for all the beating around the bush at Commentary, is that jews, especially "conservative" jews, want to be seen as "white" by Whites, but they also want to be seen as "diverse", or at least exempt from any cost of "diversity".

The conflation of Whites and jews as "white" is deliberate. Julie Gerstein, writing at The Frisky, provides one example. In Entitled High School Senior Suzy Lee Weiss Makes Me Sad For The Future Gerstein writes about Weiss' "screed" and "failure":

Maybe the lesson for Ms. Weiss isn’t that she’d have gotten into college if only she’d “worn a headdress to school,” but that colleges are no different than the general population: They don’t like assholes. And they, like the rest of us, don’t appreciate deep-seated resentment, mild racism and selfishness in potential friends, mates and students.

Maybe, Ms. Weiss, you were rejected because your piss-poor attitude of entitlement and privilege seeped out of every word you wrote on your college application. No one “lied to you” about what colleges want. They want you to “be yourself,” as long as the “you” in question isn’t a smug jerk who believes you’re entitled to get everything you want just because you want it. And that, Ms. Weiss, is where you went wrong.

Entitled, "To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me," the piece is a good old fashioned spiteful rant, flinging glasses of white whine into the eyes, not only of every college that denied her admission, but also every person who has ever been accepted into a college, ever.

It's possible that Gerstein doesn't recognize Weiss as a jew, but not likely. What she's definitely doing is aiming a spiteful rant at "whites" that would not likely have been written, much less published at The Frisky, if it had been about jews.

Suzy's mistake, it seems, was interpreting the advice "Just be yourself" literally. Like perhaps someone told her, "Applying to colleges? Ah, just be yourself," and she accepted this as an instruction to pursue no activities other than being herself.

Being yourself is not a talent.

Unless of course you're a jewish mother. Being jewish worked for Weiss and she didn't even have to play that card herself. With a little help from the WSJ and Today she's enjoying the privilege of being a jewish-looking girl with a jewish-sounding name that a jewish media outlet or two regard as family. Whether she was whining about her jokes or joking about her whining it all worked out well enough. At least for her. Meanwhile, Gerstein and others are busy slagging "whites" over it.

Kirsten West Savali, writing at Clutch Magazine, which is explicitly targeted at black women, provides an example of the desired effect. For Middle-Class White Girls When Being Privileged Isn't Enough:

Suzy did what any self-respecting privileged, young, white woman would do — she used her familial connections with the WSJ to pave the way for her brilliant od-ed, which otherwise may have languished in darkness, never to be seen by human eyes. This literary phenomenon, which places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those pesky black and brown people who don’t deserve to go to college because, well, they’re black and brown, has exposed the world’s best-kept secret: “If it ain’t white, it ain’t right.”

See how that works? A jewess complains. She gets press and benefits. Whites get the blame. Savali, in her budding wisdom, at least gets a bit of the crying/joke:

Weiss, in her budding wisdom, exposed the mantle of white privilege for what it should be: Proud, unapologetic and unconcerned with anyone not blessed to posses it. She offered herself up as the scape-goat to be ridiculed. Though she did receive job and internship offers for her take-down of reverse racial discrimination, that was never the point.

The point was to reveal the face of the forthcoming post-racial state of America. A place where white students are rewarded for mocking the tenuous foundation of equality on which this country is built and education remains a coveted club to which only middle-class white students are entitled.

Equality is a delusion which mainly afflicts Whites. The point is that today jews and jewish interests rule academia and media, among other things. The fact that Whites get the blame for what jews do is evidence of jewish privilege, not "white" privilege, and certainly not White privilege.

Labels: , ,

white

32 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first comment about finding a husband while at Princeton maybe ought to be viewed in the context of the Ivy league discriminating against white men but not white girls and the over-arching jewish strategy of breeding white people out of existence.

4/06/2013 12:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Just hit the ashvitz line and my gag reflex tried to kick in.

Too, late.

4/06/2013 01:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

On the good news front, Mark Richardson got interviewed.

You go Grrl!

4/06/2013 01:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an incredibly insightful and entertaining blog!

If you are OK with having half-white Muslim followers, I think Ill stick around.

4/06/2013 07:56:00 AM  
Blogger Porter said...

Equality is a delusion which mainly afflicts Whites

It was never anything but expedient flattery to foolish rhetoric.

For whites, equality is a greasepaint smile on the mouth of a shark.

4/06/2013 08:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Richard Williams said...

Excellent piece. One suggestion. It is apparent to observers of WEJ remarks & activities that the central core of their concerns is the WEJ concept of tikkun olam. Which is to say, almost all WEJ remarks are not about what they seem to be about.

Most WEJ remarks, initiatives, and
policy analyses are simply to advance an agenda to change the world to accommodate their tribal needs most fully.

That is, none of the WEJ remarks quoted above are really about the text...WEJ remarks are designed to demean non-WEJ peoples and to enhance some goal or value that will re-make the world to suit the WEJ people. [Something like Manifest Destiny and Indians. We're the Indians now.]

It's tough explaining how such hypocrisies and lies advance the WEJ goal of a new America, one that suits them to a "T" as opposed to one that welcomes them as fair-minded competitors, disinterested individuals, or trust-worthy commentators.

Every white American has a tremendous obligation to see where this overall campaign is heading.

Good on Tanstaafl.

PS: If they call us WASP, do we not have the right to call them WEJ?

4/06/2013 09:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good pattern-finding, Tan.

Similar case: Trayvon Martin cartoon by Stephanie Eisner.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17hy53unuga3ajpg/xlarge.jpg

4/06/2013 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Lara said...

I'm glad she clarified that she is not a WASP.

4/06/2013 10:53:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

If they call us WASP, do we not have the right to call them WEJ?

WEJ (White European Jew) obscures the nature of jewish identity, playing into the misunderstanding of it as "white" with a different religion.

The distinction between Whites and jews is important. I prefer language that shines a bright, clarifying light on the distinction.

4/06/2013 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous DJF said...

Jews are JJJ.

Jew race, Jew ethnicity, Jew religion.

4/06/2013 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Contrast the Suzy Weiss' controversy with Ron Unz' "The Myth of American Meritocracy" which shows that jews are admitted into the Ivy League at far higher rates than Whites with the same credentials. How absurd.

4/07/2013 01:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the great work, Tanstaafl.

You're proof that WN websites can give professional output without constantly demanding reader donations and support.

It always seemed strange how sites like Counter-Currents find it necessary to raise tens of thousands of dollars to post movie reviews of Batman. Ditto Stormfront - demands thousands of dollars to operate a webforum. Seems... Jewy.

Meanwhile, old Tan hammers out quality work for free. Good job.

4/07/2013 09:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Carolyn Yeager said...

"It always seemed strange how sites like Counter-Currents find it necessary to raise tens of thousands of dollars to post movie reviews of Batman. Ditto Stormfront - demands thousands of dollars to operate a webforum. Seems... Jewy."

That is because the editors of C-C (johnson & polignano) and the owner of Stormfront (don black) expect to live off of their website. And hope to pay a few other people too, if possible. Even alex linder lives off his forum; he has said so. Course, linder lives in a small town in Missouri while johnson and polignano live in San Francisco.

Tan doesn't want to live off anything he does on the Internet, and neither do I. It keeps you more honest that way.

4/07/2013 03:10:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

At the beginning of the Race and Organ Transplants – Part 1 podcast I called for support, including donations, to tWn a few weeks ago. Our desire, for the moment, is only to cover our expenses.

I don't think less of those who try to earn a living doing this kind of work, even if it means asking for donations for that purpose. I've given it some thought. I think it's more difficult than it appears.

4/07/2013 08:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This "not seeking donations therefore good" is a slippery field. It is surely commendable if there are people who work for a cause without seeking anything and for free. However, if those who are beneficiaries of the cause expect to get quality out-put for free, they are playing into (Jewy hands) the hands of their adversaries.

Wanting to get something for free also seems inconsistent with 'tanstaafl' (No free Lunch rule).

Whether authors like Tan seek funds or not, it is an important must that Whites as a group remain willing to contribute for those who are working for their cause. Also, suppose Tan's work-load increases and he needs to build a team etc. (for the White cause) and thus if he someday intends to doing this full time, and therefore seeks contributions; should we conclude that he will lower his quality or standards?

Whites who are so "generous" that they donate billions for "charity" in Africa, for AIDS, and such things, must also be willing to donate at least some fraction of it for their survivalist causes, especially at the present precarious times. For example note that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donated billions of dollars for "global charity" causes. Have they donated even peanuts for White Survival?

And if only "non-seekers of donation are good" is believed in, the resource supply into any particular White-Cause (say Tan's site + radio or whatever) will become restricted into personal or small group contributions. With such restrictions, it will be difficult for the group-action to grow.

A somewhat more reasonable way to collaborate will be that those who can give time give time and those who can give money give money.

4/08/2013 02:38:00 AM  
Anonymous WC-14 said...

JEWS have been whining for Millennia.They will never STFU no matter how good they have it.

4/08/2013 11:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Carolyn Yeager said...

Anonymous said...

>> This "not seeking donations therefore good" is a slippery field. It is surely commendable if there are people who work for a cause without seeking anything and for free. However, if those who are beneficiaries of the cause expect to get quality out-put for free, they are playing into (Jewy hands) the hands of their adversaries.<<


I did not say, "not seeking donations" but "not seeking to live off donations", which requires a lot of donations. Fifteen-twenty thousand bi-annually is just a beginning. So the more you get, the better you can live, right? It gets a little sticky. But there are those who do it, and it seems to me the more money they get, the less work they do, and the lower the quality. That might be counter-intuitive, but it does seem accurate. Most people don't recognize quality, but mostly familiarity.

I don't think making money a priority is a good idea at all. I don't think anyone ever quit doing worthwhile work for lack of money.

4/08/2013 06:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Caroline_Yeager

>> I did not say, "not seeking donations" but "not seeking to live off donations", which requires a lot of donations. Fifteen-twenty thousand bi-annually is just a beginning. So the more you get, the better you can live, right? It gets a little sticky. But there are those who do it, and it seems to me the more money they get, the less work they do, and the lower the quality. That might be counter-intuitive, but it does seem accurate. Most people don't recognize quality, but mostly familiarity. <<

I am sorry, I did not mean to put any words into your mouth. I agree with your point that the money must be "properly" utilized. And your point isn't counter-intuitive at all! Rather, as you have said, it indeed is often observed. But isn't that more a matter of transparency, rather than how much money they get as donation? If a group clearly displays its accounts (both how much they got and how much they spent, and how they spent it) to its donors then the donors can make their own choice. Also, once we perceive that at least some aspects of quality could be subjective, then it is up to the donor to judge if the utilization is proper or not, and then decide about donation.

>>I don't think making money a priority is a good idea at all. I don't think anyone ever quit doing worthwhile work for lack of money.<<

My point is less about "making money a priority" and rather about avoiding "not seeking any money" to be a major constraint. Your latter point about no one quitting may be true, but in my opinion, it puts enormous restriction on a prospective activist. If a person puts in eight hours (or some number of hours) of effort into a cause, I see no reason why he should not (seek to) make a living out of it (even if we resent his living off it). May be we are saying the same thing?

My larger point (and the main point) is that if a society is unwilling to invest money in its preservation efforts by donating money to groups (despite the risk that about X-Y% of such groups might be living off it), it is being imprudent about its security. Now whether 50-60% is a better balance or a 10-20% is a better balance can surely be debated. But idealism must be tempered with some pragmatism, especially when the work is large and many persons are necessary to accomplish the task.

4/09/2013 02:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Cameron said...

Breaking ALT-RIGHT News: Jews are mendacious!

4/09/2013 08:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Brandon said...

You don't get paid for doing your duty. Doing your duty is the pay.

4/11/2013 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger Porter said...

Pat made an excellent point in one of those deleted comments. That is our need to offer something beyond exasperated lectures…something beyond “live, goddamn you fucking zombies!*”

When first encountering this movement online I was taken aback at the cold contemptuousness of the internecine skirmishes. “Damn, I thought these people were on the same team,” I mused. Though being coldly contemptuous myself, the acclimation period was brief. But clearly our marketing department requires a reimagining. We need to speak to the soul. We need our people to feel the mystic chords of fellowship within the heart, not around the neck. We need to offer what this fallen, fractured, anti-white society cannot: a home.

*A line I have deployed in inebriated pique—to little positive effect.

4/11/2013 10:34:00 PM  
Blogger Franklin Ryckaert said...

Tan, please take a look at the article "To all colleges that rejected Suzy Weiss" in American Renaissance of April 11,2013 for a wholly distorted view on this case, entirely to be expected from an organization that treats Jews as "Whites" and pretends that Jews are not harmful in any way to white ethnic interests.

4/13/2013 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

The AmRen post excerpts To All the Colleges That Rejected Suzy Weiss, by Hans A. von Spakovsky at National Review Online.

Apparently AmRen permits probing of the White/jew fault line now. It was visible in their recent Auster post too. How long has this been going on?

Spakovsky concludes:

Perhaps we should not be surprised that Ivy League and other top-notch schools practice such ugly discrimination. After all, they had similar practices in the 1920s to ensure their schools did not have “too many” Jewish students. Today, they just want to make sure they don’t have “too many” Caucasians or Asians on campus. All they have done is change the groups targeted for discrimination.

Suzy Weiss and many other high-school seniors across the United States are being discriminated against because of their skin color or because they have an epicanthic fold in their eyes. Such racial and ethnic discrimination is morally wrong, and neither “diversity” nor anything else can justify it.


Academia is anti-White, not anti-Caucasian. It's because there are too many jews on campus. Spakovsky's view of Weiss as a victim of discrimination doesn't comport with reality. Weiss said she loves diversity. And why shouldn't she? The Wall Street Journal and Today gave her a soapbox to complain about being a "saltine cracker". Then she got rewarded for it.

As with the Commentary articles cited above the cognitive dissonance springs from jewish double-think. It's worth repeating myself:

After decades of non-stop jewish propaganda downplaying race, in particular by reducing it to skin color

. . .

"conservative" jews, want to be seen as "white" by Whites, but they also want to be seen as "diverse", or at least exempt from any cost of "diversity".


The minute Susan Patton felt "discrimination" she played the jew card and like magic the controversy changed into a conversation. Suzy Lee Weiss never experienced any "discrimination" - for her it has been a dramatic joke all along.

4/13/2013 04:41:00 PM  
Anonymous kirk said...

We need to speak to the soul. We need our people to feel the mystic chords of fellowship within the heart, not around the neck. We need to offer what this fallen, fractured, anti-white society cannot: a home.

In other words, we need a white religion.

4/14/2013 06:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary said...

We need to speak to the soul. We need our people to feel the mystic chords of fellowship within the heart, not around the neck. We need to offer what this fallen, fractured, anti-white society cannot: a home.

Beautifully said, as always Porter.

4/15/2013 08:38:00 PM  
Anonymous VA said...

"...our marketing department requires a reimagining. We need to speak to the soul. We need our people to feel the mystic chords of fellowship within the heart, not around the neck. We need to offer what this fallen, fractured, anti-white society cannot: a home.''
From Porter's comment above.

Fellowship, home -- those were themes I addressed on my (erstwhile) blog but there seemed to be a limited audience for it. People -- pro-Whites, WNs, seem to prefer the more hardcore approach, judging by the hundreds of comments such blogs and forums attract.

Ultimately it proved discouraging for me.
I hope someone else picks up the themes and does so with more success than I managed to do.
-VA

4/16/2013 01:17:00 AM  
Blogger Porter said...

Thanks Mary. I think women like you have an important role in cultivating that home.

4/16/2013 03:05:00 PM  
Blogger SAVANT said...

The ultimate chutzpah of course is that Jews claim the moral high ground while making their relentless attacks on white privelege by taking the 'shucks, I'm white too so I ought to know'.

Chutzpah.

4/18/2013 01:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Svigor said...

PS: If they call us WASP, do we not have the right to call them WEJ?

We already have the right to call them WTF we want, but no, they're not equivalent. ALL Anglo-Saxons are white, and protestantism is their default religion. Both extraneous terms are deliberate redundancies intended to bring the acronym around to the name of a pest. Contrariwise, many Jews are not white; in fact, depending on how you define white, only a minority of Jews are white ("Caucausoid" is probably the stupidest definition of white, since it includes not only half-European groups like Ashkenazis, but also Arabs, Persians, and Hindus; it's absurd, really.)

I like "SAPs" for Jews; Semitic Ashkenazi Pseudoreligionists.

4/18/2013 07:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Temblors', not 'tremblers'.

5/02/2013 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

'Or' not 'not'.

5/02/2013 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

No, sorry. You're right. Temblors is the meaning I intended.

5/02/2013 02:50:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home