Fifty Years of Nightmarish Fraud

Many people know that Martin Luther King was not the virtuous saint the jewsmedia propaganda portrays him as. This is only the most blatant aspect of the fraud that has been perpetrated for the past fifty years. The more subtle yet far more significant apsect of this fraud has been the promotion and celebration of a short string of ambiguous words - a promise of hope and change disingenuously offered and naively accepted.

Here is just one perfectly typical example of the jewsmedia aiding and abetting the ongoing fraud, describing two starkly different perceptions of this string of words and attributing that difference to political partisanship rather than race.

King 'content of character' quote inspires debate, by Jesse Washington, AP, 20 Jan 2012:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This sentence spoken by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has been quoted countless times as expressing one of America's bedrock values, its language almost sounding like a constitutional amendment on equality.

Yet today, 50 years after King shared this vision during his most famous speech, there is considerable disagreement over what it means.

For at least two of King's children, the future envisioned by the father has yet to arrive.

"I don't think we can ignore race," says Martin Luther King III.

"What my father is asking is to create the climate where every American can realize his or her dreams," he says. "Now what does that mean when you have 50 million people living in poverty?"

Bernice King doubts her father would seek to ignore differences.

"When he talked about the beloved community, he talked about everyone bringing their gifts, their talents, their cultural experiences," she says. "We live in a society where we may have differences, of course, but we learn to celebrate these differences."

For many conservatives, the modern meaning of King's quote is clear: Special consideration for one racial or ethnic group is a violation of the dream.

The quote is like the Declaration of Independence, says Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank that studies race and ethnicity. In years past, he says, America may have needed to grow into the words, but today they must be obeyed to the letter.

"The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal," Clegg says. "Nobody thinks it doesn't really mean what it says because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. King gave a brilliant and moving quotation, and I think it says we should not be treating people differently on the basis of skin color."

Last week, the RightWingNews.com blog included "The idea that everyone should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin" in a list of "25 People, Places and Things Liberals Love to Hate."

"Conservatives feel they have embraced that quote completely. They are the embodiment of that quote but get no credit for doing it," says the author of the article, John Hawkins. "Liberals like the idea of the quote because it's the most famous thing Martin Luther King said, but they left the principles behind the quote behind a long time ago."

"To ignore color is to ignore reality," says Lewis Baldwin, an Alabama native who marched in the civil rights movement and now teaches courses on King at Vanderbilt University.

"Dr. King understood that we all see we are different. You accept color differences, affirm them, celebrate them, but don't allow them to become a barrier to human community," said Baldwin, author of a new King book, "In A Single Garment of Destiny: A Global Vision of Justice."

To reduce race to skin color, to the point of equating the two, is to willfully distort reality. Long before King's speech this distortion and others were promoted by Franz Boas, whose followers included it in anti-"racism" propaganda they produced in the 1940s.

Fraud works to the extent that the lie it is based on appears plausible on the surface. In this case the thinking goes like this: Race is just skin color, and color is unimportant, therefore race is unimportant. The article excerpted above depicts "liberals", i.e. blacks enabled and led by jews, as pimping this lie that they themselves don't believe. "Conservatives", i.e. Whites, are depicted as the only ones who have really taken King's demagoguery to heart, misunderstanding its true meaning and intent.

Skin color is only the most obvious racial difference. The lie is that it is the only significant difference, which disguises the fact that the content of character is too. In this light, what King actually said is revealed as tautological nonsense:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation (amongst those of common heritage, race) where they will not be judged by their race but by their race.

For fifty years "conservatives" have sought to judge people by their character and "liberals" have been telling Whites that non-Whites shouldn't be judged, period. Thus IQ statistics are "racist", violent crime statistics are "racist", stereotypes are "racist". Anything that reflects negatively on the content of non-White character is "racist". And in a sense it is.

Taking King at his word is "racist". The stark differences in understanding and reaction to what King said is itself a reflection of racial differences in character. Whites buy the lie. Non-Whites don't. Whites have deliberately shared and conceded power, setting aside their racial identity and group interests. Blacks, in contrast, have followed the lead of white-skinned jews. They shamelessly promote their own identities and group interests. The fraud comes through clearly in the rhetoric. The supposed ideal is equality, which can supposedly only be attained by celebrating differences, with the most important difference being that Whites must continue to defer to the moral authority and superiority of non-Whites.

The differences are as much in each groups' thoughts as in their genes.

It's high time for Whites to recognize the fraud, to assess the terrible cost of the false belief that race is just skin color and doesn't matter, to take heed of what non-Whites actually mean and do rather than blindly trusting what they say. Wake up. End the nightmare.

Tonight on the Heretics' Hour

Join Carolyn Yeager, Hadding Scott and I for another quarterly discussion at the White network, live Monday at 9PM ET.

UPDATE: Carolyn, Tan and Hadding confab on “The White Question” (mp3)

Much Ado About Who Betrayed Whom

A new book is sparking controversy amongst judeo-cons. Laura Wood calls it The War over “American Betrayal”. Baron Bodissey describes it as Cordon Sanitaire: FAIL.

Jewess Diana West's book, American Betrayal, is subtitled "The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character". The synopsis at Amazon begins:

In The Death of the Grown-Up, Diana West diagnosed the demise of Western civilization by looking at its chief symptom: our inability to become adults who render judgments of right and wrong. In American Betrayal, West digs deeper to discover the root of this malaise and uncovers a body of lies that Americans have been led to regard as the near-sacred history of World War II and its Cold War aftermath.

The argument began when a fellow "conservative" jew, Ron Radosh, wrote McCarthy On Steroids, criticizing West's book. The thrust of it was to accuse West of conspiracy theorizing, to compare her to judeo-communist bugbears Senator Joseph McCarthy and the John Birch Society, and to pick nits about whether this or that individual was actually a Soviet spy. All very jewish in character.

Radosh's primary concern comes through in his description of West's thesis:

She argues that during the New Deal the United States was an occupied power, its government controlled by Kremlin agents who had infiltrated the Roosevelt administration and subverted it. Like McCarthy, whom West believes got everything correct, she believes a conspiracy was at work that effectively enabled the Soviets to be the sole victors in World War II and shape American policies in the postwar world.

Writing sixty years later, she claims that the evidence that has come to light in the interim not only vindicates McCarthy’s claims but goes well beyond anything he imagined. Throughout American Betrayal, West uses the terms “occupied” and “controlled” to describe the influence the Soviet Union exerted over U.S. policy through its agents and spies. She believes she has exposed “the Communist-agent-occupation of the U.S. government” during the Roosevelt and Truman eras, and that her discoveries add up to a Soviet-controlled American government that conspired to strengthen Russia throughout World War II at the expense of American interests, marginalize anti-Communist Germans, and deliver the crucial material for the Atomic Bomb to Stalin and his henchmen. It also conspired to cover up the betrayal. In West’s summation: “The Roosevelt administration [was] penetrated, fooled, subverted, in effect hijacked by Soviet agents… and engaged in a “‘sell-out’ to Stalin” that “conspirators of silence on the Left…would bury for as long as possible, desperately throwing mud over it and anyone who wanted the sun to shine in.” According to West, it was only because Washington was “Communist-occupied” that the United States aligned itself with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany.

Radosh worries:

West has evidently seduced conservatives who are justifiably appalled by the left’s rewriting of history, its denials that Communists ever posed a threat, and its claim that Communist infiltration was a destructive myth created by witch-hunters intent on suppressing dissent. For these readers, West’s credibility derives from her aggressive counter vision.

In her effort to paint the Roosevelt administration as a puppet of Soviet intelligence, she argues that towards the end of the war, the American government turned down the opportunity to arm German soldiers willing to form a new army to go to war against the USSR. American leaders were so pro-Soviet, in other words, that they missed one final opportunity to halt the Red Army’s advance into Eastern Europe, thereby delivering these countries to Stalin’s tender mercies and precipitating the Cold War.

West tries to explain the Anglo-American war-time alliance with the Soviets and subsequent setbacks and concessions during the Cold War as a result of infiltration, occupation and betrayal by communists. McCarthy made a similar argument in America's Retreat From Victory, published in 1951. He decried a series of apparently deliberate missteps, from the point of view of an anti-communist patriot at least, and pinned most of the blame on George Marshall.

Radosh, spooked by this image of Western leaders as puppets, quotes Laurence Rees in defense of the no-betrayal-required explanation he prefers:

If the Western allies had fought alongside the Germans and then reached some kind of uneasy peace with the Soviets — who would, of course, have felt betrayed by the West, probably fueling a future conflict — who would then have disarmed the German army? Germany would have been unoccupied by the Western Allies and still immensely powerful. So, thankfully, Roosevelt filed Earle’s plan in the bin.

This is the consensus of every historian of the war. The decision not to consider an entente with Hitler’s army against Stalin was a clear-headed affirmation of U.S. interests, not a betrayal, as West virtually screams.

West is trying to "diagnose the demise of the West", to explain the "assault" Western rulers have been making on their "own nations" since the war. West's thesis is that the enemy then was communists and traitors, and furthermore, that the enemy today remains "leftist" traitors. Radosh show little sign that any of this concerns him. His fear is that West puts too much emphasis on betrayal. He doesn't like where this line of thinking leads.

Where it leads is to an examination of interests and who/whom. It invites one to wonder who constitutes "our nation", who has been harming us, and why.

It helps to know that in the decades before the war the jewish role in the bolshevist revolution and consequent bloodbath was openly acknowledged and discussed. Powerful White Americans regarded jewish infiltration and betrayal a threat to US interests. I doubt West mentions any of this. She'd likely join Radosh in demonizing and pathologizing anyone who cites this history, as I do here, as evidence that the larger threat was jews and judaization.

Yet the jewish infiltration and occupation of European societies and governments did in fact proceed, in fits and starts, in various places, at various times, with the aid of a variety of traitors. Communism was but one vehicle. Today the jewish dominance of finance, media and academia amounts to hegemony over "the West". It is the tremendous harm their rule has caused, "the demise of the West", which compels these "conservative" jews to argue. They're arguing about how to explain it in a way that doesn't implicate their tribe.

Whereas West thinks it's safe enough to finger communists and leftists, Radosh thinks the evil "nazi" consensus suffices. The irony is that even a contemporary leftist traitor speaks more clearly to the consequences of jewish power and influence.

Thinking About How to Excuse the Jews

Or, How Lawrence Auster's Vile Sycophants Carry On His Poisonous Legacy.

(Start reading here if that makes no sense to you.)

The Thinking Housewife, Laura Wood, recommends to her readers an explanation Why Jews and Blacks Are Not the Enemy:

I’M sure many of you have begun to enjoy the incisive and pithy observations of Robert S. Oculus III in The White Book. Do you feel as if you’ve read this book before? That’s the way good books are. They draw forth and organize half-formed thoughts. They are mental cleaning services (the ultimate housewifely compliment), dusting, clearing away cobwebs, mopping floors, and putting everything back in order, maybe in a way they were never in order before.

Wood is actually praising Oculus' book's most obvious flaw. True to Auster style, what she calls clarity and order is to my mind muddled and contradictory.

The most important thing to understand about this book is that it only takes on a semblance of favoring Whites. The portion quoted here actually comes across as more of an indictment and restraining order against Whites. Except to dismiss them, it has little to do with blacks. In contrast, Oculous spends the first 26 pages describing how "The War on White People" relates to several subsets of jews, most of whom he sees as "at worst neutral" or even potential allies. On page 14, in a section titled "THE REAL ENEMY", he describes the people in control - the media, political, corporate and financial elite - as "lily white". He admits a few jews are involved, but only "in spite of their jewishness".

The excerpt Wood has selected begins:

Do you ever get sick of hearing Jews on TV blaming you for anti-Semitism? Do you ever get tired of seeing some black guy on TV blaming you for his people’s problems? You do?

Physician, heal thyself. If you blame the problems of the white race on “the blacks” or “the Jews”, you are doing the same thing they do: avoiding responsibility for your own problems. Just as the Jews and the blacks and every other racial group are responsible for their peoples’ failings, we must step up and take responsibility for our own.

What I'm sick of hearing, especially on the few forums which even permit somewhat open discussion of race or the jews, is how Whites are to blame. It's the same refrain that can already be heard on every other forum. The idea that Whites are to blame isn't new. It's ubiquitous. And pointing at other people, even if you claim you're White and are you're pointing at other Whites, is not taking responsibility.

What's somewhat novel is Oculus's more or less direct admission that jews aren't White and that blacks and jews have more in common with each other than they do with Whites.

His book captures the spirit of the forum Auster used to provide, and which Wood continues to provide. Their discussions of race, blacks, muslims, mestizos, "white guilt" and "liberalism", and even occasionally the jews make them appear on the surface to be sympathetic to Whites. In the end, however, they excuse everyone else and assign all the blame to Whites. In this regard they're no different than the "liberals" they're always complaining about. What they provide here is yet another example.

Oculus continues:

The Jews are not the enemy. Jews don’t make us watch filthy movies or moronic TV shows. Jews don’t make us divorce our spouses or abort our children or contracept our future into non-existence. Jews don’t take the money out of our pockets and make us buy crap we don’t need. No, we do all those things with our own little powder-white paws – and then when it all blows up in our faces we point the finger at the Jews. As if we don’t have free will! As if our Lord and His every saint haven’t warned us of the wages of sin!

Friends, when I say we have to See the truth in order to survive I don’t just mean seeing the motes in the eyes of the dead-hearted schmucks that run this country. I don’t just mean seeing the truth about black and Jewish and liberal group behavior. I mean taking a hard, honest look in the mirror and admitting to what we See.

White, Christian America is rotten – and we let it rot. We let our standards slide. We abandoned our race, our culture, our creed, and our collective conscience. All the blacks and Jews in the world couldn’t have done this to us. We did it to ourselves.

His emphasis.

"The jews are not the enemy", "we did it to ourselves". This is the suicide meme. It's all about blaming Whites, specifically to excuse the jews. It's doubly sickening because it comes from dissimulators posing as brave truth-tellers who claim they're advocating in favor of Whites.

It's one thing to encourage your people to buck up and look within themselves for strength - especially in the face of some natural, inanimate adversity. It's quite another to point directly at another group of people, competitors who are harming your people, and telling your people that those other people aren't the enemy, that your people are harming themselves. The former advice is sound and constructive. The latter advice is deluded and destructive.

Faux-White poseurs like Auster and Wood speak in favor of "whites", but only so long or far as it serves the interests of jews. When it comes to defending one or the other, they side with the jews. Oculus is more willing to plainly admit that jews and Whites are distinct. But he too sides with the jews over Whites. Ironically, this is clearest in the half-formed doublethink we're looking at right here. First Oculus says the jews make Whites sick by wrongly blaming us for "anti-semitism". Then he says "White, Christian America" is rotten, because Whites are to blame even for what the jews do.

Any White who accepts and imbibes this kind of demoralizing self-recrimination will certainly become sick and rotten if they aren't already.

Oculus continues:

And that’s why hatred isn’t the way to go. If we hate the Other we hate the wrong people. If we hate ourselves we have no future.

And that’s why becoming a skinhead, a Klansman, or a Nazi hurts instead of helps. Ordinary, next-door-neighbor-type white people cannot relate to, and will not associate with, hateful people. Everyday white people can detect the sour smell of burning crosses and jackboot polish a mile away, and if they smell it on you any chance you might have had to open their eyes will disappear. How does that help white people? If you go the Jew-hating route, the black-hating route, your days of being taken seriously by other white people are at an end – and with them any good you might do for the cause of White survival.

I repeat: Hatred is not the answer. Hatred is negative and cannot serve as the basis for the revival of the white and Christian civilization we want. Only love, love of our own kind, can be a firm foundation for our cause.

We must learn to love ourselves as a people before we can make any progress. When Jewish poet Leonard Cohen says “Love’s the only engine of survival” he’s not just making the words rhyme. Hatred solves nothing, builds nothing, grows nothing good. Only love can create, construct, and grow. Only by instilling love of our own kind, rather than hatred of others, are we going to win this war.

If we are to win the War on White People, we have to awaken the everyday white person to the truth and convince them to make common cause with other whites. We have to teach them to love white people.

The solution to the black question, the Jewish question, is not hatred, and it most certainly is not persecution or violence. We will examine the answers to these questions later in this book.

Though I have never met him, I believe I have more than enough reason to hate Oculus.

The notion that "hate" is wrong and counter-productive is the very essense of "liberalism". What he has to say about love and hate is worse than worthless. It is perfectly normal and healthy to hate anything that harms what you love. His previous admonition that Whites should blame ourselves conflicts with this new admonition to love ourselves. He doesn't describe what the jewish question is before declaring what the answer to it isn't.

He implies there is something wrong with certain Whites who love Whites - who put the interests of Whites like themselves first. He says other Whites don't and shouldn't want to associate with them. In this he expresses his own failure to identify with Whites, confessing that he instead identifies more with "liberal" jews like Leonard Cohen.

When Oculus says Whites who blame jews won't be taken seriously by other Whites he's only repeating a mantra long propounded by jews. Jews have ruthlessly sought and acquired power over media and academia, and they have ruthlessly used that power to propagandize ideas like this to their advantage. The consequences for Whites have been disastrous. Someone who truly loves Whites would be more concerned to address things like this than to blather about love and hate.

"Never mind the jews Whitey. You're the real problem Whitey." Why should Whites take this seriously? In effect he's arguing against Whites, in defense of the jews, and he's doing so in the same duplicitous ways that the jews usually argue.

Even if he weren't doing this, I wouldn't be able to take him seriously because of this:

But if “the Jews” and “the blacks” aren’t the Enemy, then who is?

It’s easier to define them by what they are not. The real Enemy is not the blacks, the Jews, the communists, the bankers, the Rockefeller family, the Ford Foundation, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Gray Aliens, or any of those other false targets set up to distract us. Members of the groups can be found among the ranks of the Enemy, true, but you must never forget that the real enemy is the power elite behind the black radicals, behind those Jews who hate and fear whites and Christians, behind the communists, behind the bankers, the Rockefeller family, the Ford Foundation, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, and – for all we know — behind the Gray Aliens.

The real Enemy in the War on White People is the Devil himself, and the cabal of atheistic, materialist cultural Marxists given power by him to manipulate the global economy, the political systems of the world, and the news and entertainment media in order to bend reality to fit his infernal will.

His emphasis.

If Oculus were interested in telling the truth he would have titled his book "It's the Debil", which in this case is just another way of saying, "It's Not the Jews, It's Anybody but the Jews".

I've only taken my critique this far to demonstrate the lengths some people will go to excuse the jews. I see no value in any further analysis of this drivel.

Yes We Can

Why can’t we talk about IQ?, by Jason Richwine, 9 August 2013:

The American Psychological Association (APA) tried to set the record straight in 1996 with a report written by a committee of experts. Among the specific conclusions drawn by the APA were that IQ tests reliably measure a real human trait, that ethnic differences in average IQ exist, that good tests of IQ are not culturally biased against minority groups, and that IQ is a product of both genetic inheritance and early childhood environment. Another report signed by 52 experts, entitled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” stated similar facts and was printed in the Wall Street Journal.

“These may be harbingers of a shift in the media’s treatment of intelligence,” an optimistic Charles Murray wrote at the time. “There is now a real chance that the press will begin to discover that it has been missing the story.”

He was wrong.

For too many people confronted with IQ issues, emotion trumps reason. Some are even angry that I never apologized for my work. I find that sentiment baffling. Apologize for stating empirical facts relevant to public policy? I could never be so craven. And apologize to whom — people who don’t like those facts? The demands for an apology illustrate the emotionalism that often governs our political discourse.

What causes so many in the media to react emotionally when it comes to IQ? Snyderman and Rothman believe it is a naturally uncomfortable topic in modern liberal democracies. The possibility of intractable differences among people does not fit easily into the worldview of journalists and other members of the intellectual class who have an aversion to inequality. The unfortunate — but all too human — reaction is to avoid seriously grappling with inconvenient truths. And I suspect the people who lash out in anger are the ones who are most internally conflicted.

But I see little value in speculating further about causes. Change is what’s needed. And the first thing for reporters, commentators, and non-experts to do is to stop demonizing public discussion of IQ differences. Stop calling names. Stop trying to get people fired. Most of all, stop making pronouncements about research without first reading the literature or consulting people who have.

This is not just about academic freedom or any one scholar’s reputation. Cognitive differences can inform our understanding of a number of policy issues — everything from education, to military recruitment, to employment discrimination to, yes, immigration. Start treating the science of mental ability seriously, and both political discourse and public policy will be better for it.

The schism runs deeper than IQ. IQ denial springs from group difference denial, i.e. race denial, which springs from jew denial. The political discourse is profoundly shaped by the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the current regime, an expression of jewish power.

Anyone who wants to do so can talk about IQ, or race, or even the jews. It depends on who they praise or attack. For decades the regime has promulgated a narrative in which race and the jews matter more than anything else. It's a narrative in which jews are good and Whites are evil. The regime's orwellian term for this narrative is "white privilege".

Only those who oppose or in some way threaten the regime or it's narrative are subject to sanction. The regime, more than anything else, is a mindset - a mindset created and driven by jews, for the benefit of jews.

Richwine must know all this. His mentor Charles Murray knows. As other former participants have put it, in order to participate you must know, even while you pretend you don't.

While Whites have for the most part abandoned the debate on race, some are still intent on debating immigration. Trying to avoid race they focus on money or IQ instead. It's not working. Now the debate is focused on whether Richwine is a "nazi". When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When jews have power, every dissident looks like a "nazi".

Jewish power is rooted in denial. Denial that jews have power. Denial that jews are anti-White. Can Whites stop this denial? Yes we can.