Age of Treason

Peekaboo, Another Jew

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 16 May 2013 23:02:00 +0000

A reminder from Venezuela regarding the cryptic, biological nature of jewish identity.

Venezuela's 'anti-Semitic' leader admits Jewish ancestry, The Times of Israel, 13 May 2013:

In an interesting twist, [Nicolás] Maduro, the political successor of the late president Hugo Chávez, told the press last week that he himself was descended from Sephardic Jewish ancestors.

“My grandparents were Jewish, from a [Sephardic] Moorish background, and converted to Catholicism in Venezuela… The mother of [Minister of Communication and Information] Ernesto Villegas also comes from a similar background,” Maduro said last week

Yet, he said, “if there is a people that has a rich socialist tradition, it’s the Jewish people… We respect their history.”
He said the people who hated and killed Jews during the Holocaust were members of the far-right who built on the ideas of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and not supporters of the ideals advocated by the Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin.
“Karl Marx was a Jew,” he noted.

In casting left/right attitudes as pro-jew/anti-jew Maduro argues not only that jews matter, but that he identifies with them as a people, both biologically and ideologically, seeing himself on their side not only by heritage but in his view of history and politics as well.

The article is vague on this point but Maduro's grandparents, like others of "similar background", would most likely be descended from jews who last openly practiced judaism at least 500 years ago. After "converting" such crypto-jews somehow miraculously managed to identify a mate and raise a family with "similar background" through 25 or so generations.

The History of the Crypto-Jews/Hispanic Sephardi conveys the usual jewish explanation for this remarkable phenomenon:

The experience of the Crypto Jews in the Western Hemisphere was a litany of suffering, continual fear, social, political, professional, and religious suppression and murder. As late as the 1850s the Inquisition was finally officially ended in Mexico, and elsewhere a little sooner; however, overt discrimination and random incidents of lynching and murder continued until well into the 1950s in what we now call "Latin America".
The final result of approximately one thousand years of persecution and murder of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (minus the three hundred years of the "Golden Age") caused many families who immigrated to the New World to become Crypto Jewish, while living their public lives as Catholics. In the Americas, some of the Crypto Jews reverted back to being openly Jewish, only to find a few years later that the Inquisition had followed them to their new homes, and they were forced to go back into hiding again. All of these people, the "Conversos" or "New Christians", were forced to submit to Catholicism, thus in Hebrew they are referred to as the "Anusim" or "those who were forced."
It has been approximately fifteen-hundred years since the emergence of Crypto Jews in the Iberian Peninsula, and five-hundred years since Crypto Judaism moved to the Americas. Today we find a large Crypto Jewish presence throughout the Western Hemisphere. No one knows for sure how many there really are, however in Brazil alone an estimated 10 to 25% of the total population are Crypto Jews, which translates to 15 to 40 million people.
While not all people of Crypto Jewish lineage are prepared at this time to accept the challenge to return to living a fully Jewish life, there are thousands, if not millions who are hungry to learn and to reconnect with G-d as Jews.

Three things to note here.

Jewishness has more to do with genetic lineage and an awareness of oneself, furtively or not, as a jew. Religion ranks somewhere below both.

The jewish version of history is a one-sided "litany of suffering, continual fear, social, political, professional, and religious suppression and murder" of jews. According to jews, whatever mischief jews get up to the Other gets the blame for it all, including even for jews disguising themselves.

The period jews regard as their "Golden Age" occurred during the Moorish/muslim occupation of Spain. From the perspective of jews, however bad muslims have been, European Christians have always been worse.

Talking with Tom Metzger

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Mon, 13 May 2013 20:50:00 +0000

Tonight, Monday night at 9PM ET, Carolyn Yeager and I will speak with Tom Metzger, who describes himself as:

working-class white racist separatist
anti-capitalist anti-communist leftist white non-Jew socialist
antiwar anti-corporatist
pro-environmentalist
anti-political parties
anti-US government

Please join us at the White network.

UPDATE: Interview with Tom Metzger, Lone Wolf Advocate (mp3)

Segan and O'Hehir's Big Damning White Problems

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 09 May 2013 01:14:00 +0000

Google Glass's White Male Problem, PCMag.com, by Sascha Segan, 1 May 2013:

Does anyone who isn't a white man have Google Glass?
This is starting to get disturbing. Since Google Glass demo units started appearing a few weeks ago, proud Google Glass users have been spewing selfies all over the Internet. And except for the hired help in Google's demo videos, every single Google Glass owner I've heard a word from appears to be a middle-aged white male, usually with some receding hairline action going on there. There's even a Tumblr devoted to the phenomenon.
This is a big problem.
I say this as a middle-aged white man with extremely little hair. Google Glass is just breaking out of the dream stage, and our society is grappling with these wearable items: what they do, how to use them, and how we shouldn't use them. People who aren't white, middle-aged males need to be part of that conversation, but I don't see that happening right now with Glass.
People from non-Western-European-descended, non-male gender and ethnic groups have different perspectives on technology and society that could help shape Google Glass and how it's used.

For Segan Whites are "disturbing", a "big problem". Why? Because he sees Whites as distinct and different from non-Whites - a fact which Segan and PC Magazine willingly acknowledge, at least so long as it serves an argument in favor of non-Whites.

One of the reasons I so love reporting on mobile technology is that it's tremendously egalitarian, and it crosses all gender, ethnic, and class lines. My peer group of mobile tech writers is whiter and maler than America as a whole, but it isn't the complete white-out we're seeing with Google Glass early adopters.

So Segan likes pretending everyone is equal and dislikes when reality confounds his fantasy. His "peer group", however White, either shares his White-abnegating attitude or is unwilling to challenge it.

Google Glass, and wearables in general can change our society. That includes everyone. Being the vanguard of a major new product category, with so many possible societal ripples, makes Glass more important than a typical game or website whose usage naturally skews to one ethnic or gender group.
If the direction of this societal change is being determined entirely by a socially homogenous group of guys (no matter how hard they try), it's going to be a less useful technology for that.

Who is "us"? Who comprises this society of "ours" that Segan thinks "we" should be so worried about? Who is this homogenous group determining the direction of societal change?

The prevailing wisdom of the current anti-White regime is that race is "entirely a social and political construct". Yet somehow Segan is able to judge who is "white" just by looking at faces.

Based on his face - as well as his name and his anti-White attitude - I think Sascha Segan is a jew. I think a large fraction of the men in the Tumblr he links look like jews. I say this as a White man who recognizes that jews are different from Whites.

Even setting aside biological differences, Segan's own line of argument suffices to make the point. Jews have a completely different perspective than Whites do. On the one hand, jews see jews as distinct from Whites, with jews as victims and Whites as their oppressors. On the other hand, Whites see jews as victims and also mistake them for "white". It's no mystery why so many Whites make this mistake. Jews constantly espouse these jewish perspectives at the same time they pathologize and demonize Whites for expressing any kind of White perspective.

In this case the difference between Whites and jews is even more glaring than usual. Segan is specifically blaming "whites" for a phenomena that is in fact even more markedly jewish. Would Segan have written an article about the disturbing big problem that too many Google Glass wearers are jews? Would PC Magazine have published it?

On Tuesday I talked about another example of this White problem meme I had recently run across. The Oscars’ old, white, male problem, Salon.com, by Andrew O'Hehir, 21 Feb 2012:

On one hand, the evidence dredged up by an extensive Los Angeles Times investigation into the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is damning: The Oscars are being decided by 5,765 voting members (itself a smaller number than usually reported) who are 94 percent white.

O'Hehir is another jewish-looking, jewish-sounding anti-White critic. To him an organization being 94 percent White is not only a "problem", it's "damning". Unlike Segan, O'Hehir doesn't even try to explain why. An anti-White attitude is simply taken for granted at Salon.

Now, it’s also true that my reaction to all this diligent legwork by a team of at least seven Times reporters can be summarized with a colloquial phrase that begins with “No” and ends with “Sherlock.” No one who has paid attention to the Oscars or the Academy — or the American film industry at large — harbors any illusions about who’s running the show, or believes that Oscar voters have much in common with Americans or moviegoers at large. Indeed, the borderline-cruel caricature of a typical Oscar voter, often bandied about in private by journalists and publicists, is of a 70-something retired actor, certainly white and probably Jewish, who wears sky-blue slacks and white patent leather shoes and lives in Brentwood or Beverly Hills. That seems to be almost exactly what the Times investigation has revealed.

My emphasis.

Whereas Segan ignored jews while he was blaming Whites, O'Hehir actually calls attention to what he's doing. He conflates Whites and jews, while in the same paragraph he acknowledges that he and anyone else who's paying attention can see there's a clear distinction.

For O'Hehir, like Segan, the problem is a certain concentration of "white" faces. How many have to identify positively as White to be a problem? It doesn't matter. The problem is "white".

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Times pointedly did not inquire into the religious or ethnic affiliations of the Academy’s white members. I can’t deny being curious about the question of how Jewish the Academy is these days, and you might be able to construct a non-offensive argument for why that’s relevant information. But it’s information that ugly people would use for ugly reasons, and you can’t blame the reporters and editors involved for not jabbing a stick into that particular hornets’ nest.

It's worth noting that O'Hehir explictly describes how different jews are from Whites. Counting and calling "whites" a problem is relevant and non-offensive. It's something O'Hehir does and Salon enables. Counting jews, on the other hand, is offensive, irrelevant and ugly. These are two totally different kinds of problem. If they look "white", "white" is the problem. Noticing jews makes them swarm and cause you problems.

One response is to say “so what,” as some people do in the Times piece. The Academy is a private membership organization, which is devoted to burnishing the image of the film industry and has never claimed to represent the public at large. It can give out awards however it wants, and people aren’t required to watch.

Once again, this only highlights the difference between jews and Whites. When someone in the jewsmedia calls out a so-called White problem they don't lose their job. Instead Whites are expected to get busy increasing diversity, which means in effect to make whatever is being criticized less White. Even a passive "so what" is regarded as confirmation of the supposed problem. It's a moot point because there isn't a White left in the jewsmedia who would even dare say "so what", never mind point out that jews aren't White.

In contrast, "so what" is a typically jewish response to a criticism like this, and it is deployed in a decidedly aggressive manner. Regarding Hollywood, for example, Ben Stein and Michael Medved expressed this attitude. Both made the same basic argument: Yes, jews run Hollywood, and if you think that's a problem then you're the problem.

Jews take this hostile attitude toward criticism specifically because they are acutely aware of and attached to their jewishness. They voice their hostility toward Whites specifically because they don't identify as White. This is a problem for Whites.

The Sirota Cries Out in Pain

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:56:00 +0000

Twitter / davidsirota: Out of all the hate mail I ...:

Out of all the hate mail I get, none is more depressing than the stuff that includes holocaust denialism. That's some f'd up repugnant shit.

The jew cries out in pain as you reject his tribe's one-sided extortive sobstories.

The jew cries out in pain as he explains how "White privilege" is to blame.

Battleground: WWII Anti-"Racist" Propaganda

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:16:00 +0000

Battleground (1949), IMDb:

A squad of the 101st Airborne Division copes with being trapped in the besieged city of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

The moral of the story - a justification for the war in Europe - is delivered by a preacher. It is a brief scene whose tone and tenor stands conspicuously apart from the rest. In fact the bulk of the film, the action and interpersonal drama, can be seen as a mere delivery mechanism for this poisonous payload:

Was this trip necessary? Well, let's look at the facts.
Nobody wanted this war but the nazis. A great many people tried to deal with them and alot of em are dead. Millions have died for no other reason except that the nazis wanted em dead. So in the final showdown there was nothing left to do except fight.
There's a great lesson in this, and those of us who have learned it the hard way aren't gonna forget it. We must never again let any force dedicated to a super race, or super idea, or super anything become strong enough to impose itself upon a free world. We must be smart enough and tough enough in the beginning, to put out the fire before it starts spreading.
So my answer to the sixty-four dollar question is: yes, this trip was necessary. As the years go by alot of people are gonna forget, but you won't. And don't ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker to fight in the war against fascism.

"Let's look at the facts." The authoritative voice in The Brotherhood of Man (discussed here) used the same lie to introduce his anti-"racist" fraud.

The fraud here is, "Let's you and him fight. And don't ever let anybody tell you you were a sucker, sucker."

The fact is that the White race - the people of European descent in every country on this planet - lost that war. The jews won.

The film was written by Robert Pirosh:

His most notable success was garnering the Academy Award for his screenplay of Battleground (1949), a motion picture based on the Second World War Battle of the Bulge in which he had himself participated as a Master Sergeant with the 35th Division.

His name is in the list of Jewish Recipients of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.

Pressure Cooker Sympathies

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:33:00 +0000

Why do the Sirotas sympathize with the Tsarnaevs but fear and loath the McVeighs?

From Hollywoodism (one facet of jewsmediaism):

The Hollywood movie moguls and their parents came from a place which was like a colossal pressure cooker. The Pale of Settlement in the Russian empire was the only place where jews could live legally under the czar. They had a very marginal existence, lived in poor villages. There was a tremendousry? of over-population. People were constantly migrating around. This area really was the equivalent of a sort of huge indian reservation. Not only were people poor but there were very few things they could do to earn a livelyhood. Their neighbors were often violent. There were tremendous constraints on jewish life and also a real sense of vulnerability.

The oppression narrative in Western political discourse (based on the glorification of the dark-skinned alien and vilification of Whites) is an outgrowth and generalization of the jewish narrative, at the heart of which is antipathy and contempt for Europeans.

P.S. Sirota:

is a Slavic last name. In Russian, "сирота" means "orphan".

Avoiding The Real Question

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:52:00 +0000

David Sirota's latest attempt to spin the Boston bombing, The huge, unanswered questions post-Boston:

1. Why did so many conservatives seem to want the suspects to be a foreign-born Muslim?

2. Will the Boston response finally change America’s posture toward public employees?

3. Does 24-7 news and technology make us more safe or less safe?

The inveterate dishonesty of the jewsmedia is a reflection of jewish nature and the illegitimacy of jewish rule.

1. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it doesn't understand the jewsmedia?

2. Why does the jewsmedia pretend it cares about "America" or "public employees"?

3. Why is the jewsmedia afraid of questions, discussion, debate and opinion forming outside the jewsmedia?

These are rhetorical questions - facets of the larger Jewish Question.

White Like Sirota

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:06:00 +0000

FBI — Photos.

Where will the jewsmedia take the "dark-skinned" "WHITE MALE" discussion now?

Paul Kevin Curtis' Missing Pieces

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:28:00 +0000

Alleged ricin mailer Paul Kevin Curtis has a curious side interest:

Let the record show that on this date, March 05, 2008, I, Paul Kevin Curtis, being of sound mind, am attempting once again to expose various parties within the government, FBI, police departments, legal & healthcare systems, etc. that a conspiracy to ruin my reputation in the community as well as an ongoing effort to break down the foundation I worked more than 20 years to build in the country music scene, began on the day I accidentally discovered a refrigerator full of dismembered body parts & organs wrapped in plastic in the morgue of the largest non-metropolitan healthcare organization in the United States of America, AKA
North Mississippi Medical Center where I was employed from 1998 until March of 2000.
The purpose of this online documentary of photos, police reports, as well as my 1st & only online petition, publications & events surrounding my life & the actions of what I believe to be that of a secret shadow government in which I feel have been put into place by higher powers to be in order to hide the truth behind the illegal organ harvesting market which I began investigating in 2000 after being "banned" for life for simply questioning the hospital administration on what they did with so many dismembered body parts?

It's not clear if Curtis was aware of it or not, but as detailed in my most recent podcasts (Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 2 and Part 3) international organ trade/trafficking/theft is a long-standing jewish/Israeli enterprise. See, for example, Israeli Organ Trafficking and Theft: From Moldova to Palestine.

The jewsmedia, being the jewsmedia, has so far kept a lid on this dirty jewish secret. Their reports on Curtis will likely treat his special interest as nothing more than a sign of insanity. David Sirota and Tim Wise will not be calling any attention to it, even under the guise of "White privilege". Search terms like "white privilege organ trade" turn up next to nothing. Though the accounts that do exist usually deplore the exploitation of poor "people of color" by rich "whites", the fact that jews are up to their eyeballs in it all - as doctors, brokers and recipients - serves not only to ward off the jewsmedia, but law enforcement authorities as well.

Sirota and Wise Define The New Normal - "White Privilege" as a Jewish Construct

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:21:00 +0000

David Sirota writes Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American:

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.

Tim Wise writes Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness:

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.
White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for whites to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening, or threatened with deportation.
White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh

among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.
And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

In short, white privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.
It is the source of our unearned innocence and the cause of others’ unjustified oppression.
That is all. And it matters.

David Sirota is a jew. Tim Wise is a jew. It matters.

The narrative of oppression is, after all, the jewish narrative. This is a narrative in which Whites and jews are polar opposites - where jews and other people of non-Whiteness are innocent victims of unjustified oppression by Whites.

Wise and Sirota, as hypersensitive as they are about race and identity, are well aware of this. The hypocrisy of their anti-"racist" screeds against Whites and the dishonesty of their "White like me" anti-White guilt-trip schtick can only spring from an unfathomable hatred for Whites.

To describe what's going on in their own terms, it is jewish privilege is that allows them to vent venom against Whites based on nothing more than literal fantasy - "if the bomber turns out to be White" or even "hoping the bomber turns out to be White". Their shrill denunciations of illusory "White privilege", echoed ever more often and loudly across the media, are an indication of just how deeply dishonest and malevolent jewish rule is.

Boston Bombing

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:04:00 +0000

It's not clear yet who planted the bombs or why. As usual I'm more fascinated with the jewsmedia spin.

In Boston Bomb Attack No Excuse for Media Speculation Jeffrey Goldberg stikes a pose as the voice of reason:

In an era in which none of us like to leave anything unsaid, and in which technology offers us the opportunity to say things fast, we often succumb to the urge to speculate. Shortly after the 2011 shootings in Norway, I asked publicly whether a Mumbai-type attack had visited Europe, the implication being that Muslim terrorists were behind the atrocity. It was perfectly plausible to suggest that Muslim terrorists were to blame -- except that they weren’t. I learned my lesson.

The lesson was: "Hey guys, let's not rush to judgment. This could be another Breivik!"

Terrorism Expert: Boston Blast a McVeigh-Like Attack:

“It’s interesting the timing of this event,’’ Dr. Harvey Kushner told Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show.
“It’s Patriot’s Day, Tax Day. It’s a holiday in Boston and we’re coming up on what was the Oklahoma City bombing April 19th, and also the Battle of Lexington, which started the American Revolution.
“A lot of domestic terrorist organizations used to key in on that date, April 19. And Boston … is the center of this patriot movement and patriot feeling.’’
Kushner, author of “Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States’’ and “The Encyclopedia of Terrorism’’ said the marathon’s prominence appears to be a factor in it being targeted.
“You have cameras there you have news coverage, so a big statement has been made by this,’’ he said.
“Whether it’s at the hand of a domestic terrorist, or an internationally sponsored group or a wannabe, this is not good for this country because it just shows the vulnerability of this nation.
“This is not flying planes into buildings, but it’s certainly hitting America on an important day and it just shows our vulnerability.’’
He said he believed the explosions could be the work of “a McVeigh type, if I could be so bold.’’

The "experts" aren't sure which jewish boogeyman to blame yet.

Two Lessons in Privilege

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:58:00 +0000

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.

Lawrence Auster is Finally Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:15:00 +0000

I shared my thoughts about Auster's legacy in Auster's Personal Announcement, when he first announced his illness in August 2011, and then again two weeks ago in Assessing Auster. Today one of Auster's "vile sycophants", Laura Wood, announced his death.

LAWRENCE AUSTER: JANUARY 26, 1949 - MARCH 29, 2013:

But the blogging career that stands out on the Internet and in the history of American letters as a tour de force of philosophical and cultural insight is over. Mr. Auster entered a state of sedated and sometimes pained sleep the next day, after a night of agony. He spoke no more than a few words during the next two days and died peacefully this morning after about ten hours of unusually quiet and mostly undisturbed rest.
Only extreme incapacitation could have brought that career to a close. For many of us, it was a marvel, a form of essential daily food. No man gave more to his readers. No writer responded more energetically to the people who took in his words and either approved or rejected them. No thinker, except perhaps Plato, jousted more ably with his students or left such an elegant and finished record of philosophical conflict and resolution. He was philosopher, journalist, guru and cultural psychoanalyst in one. And no writer on culture and politics had sounder judgment about the world around us, or more brilliant observations.
The relationship between Mr. Auster and the hundreds of often-anonymous correspondents who wrote to him over the years was like that between a boxing coach and his fighters. He trained his followers in the art of intellectual combat — and the price was a staggering workload as he edited the debates that have appeared here over the years. He paid tireless tribute to the fight for truth. But, as he insisted, he wasn’t a hero. He was just doing what came naturally. He was doing what he had to do.
Sadly, as of today, View from the Right, except for an entry about his funeral and possibly more on his death, will become inactive. He wanted it that way. VFR could not continue beyond Mr. Auster’s death because it is the creation of an utterly unique personality and mind.
The site will, however, remain online permanently, as long as the Internet exists. There are also plans to collect his writings, both those found here and those unpublished, in book form. At the time of his final siege of illness, he was working hard to make that happen.
His work will continue to be read and appreciated. The number of “vile sycophants” will grow. Falsehoods will for many years more be overturned by those who have come in contact, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Auster. I am certain of that.

It means all the more for a friend and supporter like Wood to so clearly note Auster's guru-like, psychoanalyst-like traits, as well as the sycophancy he attracted and cultivated. These are recurring patterns in jewish intellectual movements which Auster's nemesis Kevin MacDonald has identified and discussed.

The "movement" around Auster will dissolve without its Energizer Bunny guru. True to his jewish heritage, Auster was a totalitarian bolshevist control freak. This was evident in the meticulous editing and pasting required to fit each individual comment from private email into the public, micromanaged "debate" on his blog. It was also evident in the way he would regularly inform other bloggers which commenters or topics were anathema.

The essence of Auster's project, his "View from the Right", was to inform others how to see the world, the "right" way to think about it. His two most frequent themes were "anti-semitism" and "liberalism" - with the underlying connection between these, and most of his other topics, being his and his sycophants' overriding concern for the best interests of the jews.

Auster attempted, in a way, to do to White racialism what Norman Podhoretz and his Trotskyite "liberal" jew inner circle did to American conservativism - replacing White priorities with jewish priorities. Auster wanted "whites" to think about race to the extent it entailed criticism of or even separation from muslims, blacks, or mestizos. But at the prospect of Whites regarding jews likewise Auster's usual pretense at principle and reason and decorum suddenly reverted to the unhinged pathologization and demonization so perfectly typical of his tribe.

Today the White race lost a self-professed jewish fifth columnist. Hallelujah!

Arizona Bans Non-Jews Teaching Resentment and Hate

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:42:00 +0000

Arizona Allowed to Ban Hispanic Studies, 18 Mar 2013:

Arizona state officials have won a significant legal battle in a long-running saga over a controversial Tucson schools ethnic-studies program, with a federal judge ruling that a law designed to ban it is constitutional. Authorities instrumental in the law's passage said Monday that they feel vindicated in their efforts to ban what they deemed to be racially divisive courses in public schools.

HOUSE BILL 2281 - Arizona State Legislature (PDF):

15-111. Declaration of policy
THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

The centerpiece of jewish anti-White resentment and hatred is specifically exempted:

15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement

F. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE HOLOCAUST, ANY OTHER INSTANCE OF GENOCIDE, OR THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, OR CLASS.

Assessing Auster

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:13:00 +0000

Kevin MacDonald's assessment of Auster, Lawrence Auster on the Role of Jews in Disestablishing White, Christian America, in a nutshell:

Despite his awareness of the forces that have dispossessed White America, Auster is very concerned to deflect anti-Semitism, even though he understands that anti-Jewish attitudes are completely expectable.

This is true, but too charitable. Auster often writes about "whites", seemingly sympathetically. His overriding concern, however, is for the jews. Auster has called out jews, but only to deliver a proverbial slap on the wrist. He ultimately excuses jews of any real wrong-doing vis-a-vis Whites. He faults jews mainly for not doing what's he thinks best for themselves. He accompanies most of these critiques with far more venomous words aimed at White "anti-semites".

Auster frequently distinguishes jews from Whites, and invariably puts jewish interests first. At the same time he condemns Whites who distinguish Whites from jews, even those who only unconsciously or inadvertently put other interests ahead of those of jews. Auster's critiques of jews are innoculative. He offers strong-sounding but fundamentally weak arguments that could be made more forcefully, especially if made from the point of view of Whites. His efforts are preemptive and proscriptive, the effect if not intent being to discount and discredit a truly pro-White position. He has regularly incited "the majority" to "assert itself". Meanwhile he attacks even the most mild-mannered White opposition in which he detects a whiff of "anti-semitism".

As Auster says about neocon Norman Podhoretz, he “does not regard non-Jewish Americans as his people. In effect, he sees America as ‘one nation, many peoples’—which is, of course, the multiculturalist view of America.”

Auster's analysis of others can often be mapped onto himself or jews in general. For example, Auster does not regard Whites as his people. In effect, he sees only "whites", deliberately conflating jews and Whites, similarly to how he says Podhoretz sees "America". Jewish rhetoric is often aimed at a broader collective, at least until they feel the specific needs of jews are better served by speaking more directly in terms of jews.

As I noted in Auster's Personal Announcement, he has never forgotten who his people are. The First Law of Jewish Influence demonstrates how shallow his big ideas are and how transparent his dissembling is.

MacDonald contrasts Auster with Alan Dershowitz, noting:

Jews like Dershowitz are completely unable to see the situation from the perspective of those he condemns. Unfortunately, Dershowitz is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion and activism among American Jews and certainly within the organized Jewish community in America.

The key difference is that jews like Auster are able to see the situation from the perspecitve of those they condemn. They may wander farther afield, but they remain part of the jewish whole and play their own part in its fight against "anti-semitism". Whereas mainstream jews like Dershowitz openly identify themselves as jewish warriors, jews like Auster insinuate themselves among us, dissembling and dissimulating, posturing in ways that fool some Whites, at least for a while.

I'll be appearing with Kevin MacDonald on Carolyn Yeager's Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn Yeager tomorrow at 2PM ET to discuss Auster. Join us then.

UPDATE 16 Mar 2013: the White network - MacDonald and Tanstaafl on Auster and Jewish Influence (mp3)

Of Popes and Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:33:00 +0000

Dennis Mangan asks, Is the Pope Catholic?, and notes:

Some conservatives and Catholics seem to believe that non-Catholics shouldn't criticize the Pope and his opinions.

I made several comments there before realizing it was more appropriate to recast them, and some further comments, into a post here.

The trick is to frame your critique in moral terms, taking for granted that the sensibilities and interests of your group trump all others. It also helps if the media is in your pocket and takes your side.
Revised Catholic prayer troubles some rabbis, Sun Journal, Feb 2008.
Pope under fire for Yad Vashem speech, Jerusalem Post, May 2009.
US Jewish leaders denounce Catholic sermon, The Guardian, Apr 2010.
Jews Worried By Vatican Gesture To Traditionalists, Huffington Post, Sep 2011.
Anti-Semite is among papal candidates, MiamiHerald.com, Feb 2013.
Why the new pope matters to Jews, Fox News, March 2013.
Jews will be even less of a priority for the next Pope, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, March 2013.
You should never be put off from criticizing another group just because you don't belong. But remember you can always join a more universalist group to pursue your more particularist agenda from within.
The role of Jewish converts to Catholicism in changing traditional Catholic teachings on Jews, The Occidental Observer.

I have spoken before about the important distinction between universalism versus particularism (Morals, Morality and Moralizing and Universalism and Particularism).

One particularly popular jewish trope is that the jews have no pope. Like most jewish tropes about jews, this is a distortion of reality. The relationship between jews and popes is fascinating, and telling, specifically because the pope supposedly isn't a jew, because of the pretense that jewishness is entirely about religion (ideology) not peoplehood (biology), and because the usual jewish rhetoric about mutual respect and tolerance is, in practice, entirely one-sided.

First of all, the fact that the Catholic pope isn't a jew does not keep jews, big or small, from criticizing him, or other religious leaders for that matter. The underlying presumption is that even non-jews can and should be doing more to serve the best interests of jews. Second, there is organized jewry, a vast collective network that is in many ways more powerful, and more likely to use that power to promote particularist ends, than organized Christianity is. More broadly, there are thousands of jews who act, with and without the consent of organized jewry, as if they were superpopes, in the sense that they advocate more tirelessly and vociferously for the best interests of their group than any recent pope does for his.

Consider, for example, Alan Dershowitz, the author of the letter to the editor in the Miami Herald linked above. Dershowitz is usually described as a lawyer or professor and claims he isn't particularly religious. Yet his passion and efforts in favor of his own people (as a people, not as a religion) is so strong that, like thousands of other jews, he feels morally capable, entitled even, to publicly pass judgment on Christians and their leaders. In the minds of jews like Dershowitz, no Christian or pope comes before, or even equates, to them or their group.

New pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, has Jewish connections, JTA Jewish & Israel News.
A good pope, from the shamelessly particularist point of view of jews, should have "a personal connection to the Jewish people".

Note that JTA, aiming at a jewish audience, didn't pretend it was about a spiritual connection to the jewish faith.

This is just one jewish answer to the question, implicit in this case, "Will this new pope be good for the jews?" Right now many other jews are undoubtedly asking and answering this same question more or less explicitly. Two jews, three opinions about what the pope could do to better "connect with the jewish people".

Society of Jesus, Wikipedia:
Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuit conversos (Catholic-convert Jews),[50] an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus.[51] The 16th-century Decree de genere remained in exclusive force until the 20th century, when it was repealed in 1946.[52]
The Jesuits, Jew or Not Jew:
The Jesuits, a Catholic order that was established in 1534, emphasized education, and tried to draw the brightest academics. (You know what that means: Jews!) They welcomed conversos with open arms, and, as a result, many prominent early Jesuits had Jewish heritage. The list includes Juan Alfonso de Polanco, the secretary and ghostwriter of the order's founder, as well as the second Superior General, Diego Lainez.

"Conversion" didn't used to fool Christians into thinking that jews stopped being jews. It still doesn't fool the editors at Jew or Not Jew.

I think it's safe to say that the influence of crypto-jews/conversos/marranos, whether on Jesuits or Christianity as a whole, has been greater than most contemporary Christians are aware of. The Occidental Observer article linked above makes a good case that the relatively recent shift in popular perception of morality, specifically in favor of jews, is both evidence of and a product of jewish influence.

The image source is GreenKeit hits the Vatican?, Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog. Paranoia disguised as mockery, or vice versa, this is yet another perfectly typical example of jewish attitudes regarding popes and Christians. HaShem is a reminder how distinct the jewish and Catholic conceptions of god are.

The Root of "Hate"

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 20:32:00 +0000

A post by Steve Sailer, Michelle Malkin (Oberlin '92) on Hate Hoaxes and Hate Hysteria, prompted the following anonymous comment:

If it's a 'hate crime' to falsely accuse Jews of abducting Christian boys and using them for ritual slaughter, it's a 'hate crime' to accuse whites of committing all sorts of horrors they haven't.

"Hate" is a jewish construct. They've weaponized it.

It is possible the comment above is a troll, made by someone with a keen sense of irony. More likely it came from a mind, and made it past a moderator's mind, wholly unconscious of the double-think it represents.

According to jews, all accusations against jews are false accusations. The jewish "blood libel" narrative is a perfect example. The presumption is that every accusation of abduction and murder ever made against jews is false. Furthermore, they regard any rejection of this or any other part of their narrative as a "hate crime". There is no "if" about this.

Yet the jewish tales about "blood libel" are incredibly one-sided. They are a libel against Whites. A hoax. A deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. Likewise with their "holocaust".

Here are some recent examples of jewish "hate" hoaxing I've run across. A more deliberate and thorough search would undoubtedly produce a much longer list.

Manalapan, N.J. Overrun With Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Other Messages Of Hate « CBS New York, Sep 2012.

Zach Tennen, Michigan State University Student, Not Attacked Because Of Religion, Police Say, Aug 2012.

Why would Jews vandalize a Holocaust memorial?, Jun 2012.

Jewish man gets caught red handed spraying anti-Jewish hate messages in New York, Dec 2011.

Lawyer suspended for falsely claiming cop called him anti-Semitic slur, Dec 2011.

Jewish student caught painting Swastikas on her own door then claiming Anti-Semitic Attack, July 2010.

Jews aren't just going along with the "hate" hoax hysteria. They created the whole "hate" paradigm. They've been using it to milk Whites longest and hardest. In comparison everyone else are copy-cats, and pikers at it to boot.

The double-think in the comment quoted above is typical not only at Sailer's blog, but also in the similarly blinkered punditry he cites - Michelle Malkin, Gucci Little Piggy and Nicholas Stix. The common theme in these forums and elsewhere in the "race realist" sphere is that blacks are the main perpetrators and "white liberals" are their evil genius co-conspirators/enablers. Stix actually claims "[t]he role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous" and that Tim Wise is White.

They deplore "hate" but don't confront it's source. Why?

Well, Stix is a jew, Malkin is married to one, and Sailer believes he's part-jew. How many of the "white liberals" they finger are similarly compromised? I'm uncertain about GLC, but I know the rest of them pretend jews are "white". It seems to me that nothing enables the "hate" hoaxing as much as this delusion does.

And it is a delusion. The jews themselves are very clear on the most salient fact about "hate": jews are the victims and Whites are their oppressors. In other words, jews are the exact opposite of White. The premise that Whites "hate" non-Whites, and never the reverse, is only a generalization of the premise that Whites "hate" jews, and never the reverse.

P.S. Someone left a link to Oberlin Microaggressions — I'm the "white, Jewish professor" at GLP. Read it. It's a good window into how the "white jew" game is played:

I’m sorry if you read this post as anti-Semitic. That was never the intent. You were identified as “white” because it contextualizes your use of the word in question. You were identified as “Jewish” because it was used in your justification of the educational merit and personal sensitivity that you had in the situation. I do not want this to turn into an attack but rather a way to further dialogue and be able to have productive conversations.
From one white Jew to another, I can only assume that you, being Jewish and a professor of higher learning, have background knowledge about systems of oppression and that you have some understanding about allyship and understand the importance of listening to oppressed and targeted groups.

Stephen Steinlight on Jewish Power and Interests

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:36:00 +0000

Stephen Steinlight writes about the interests of jews vis-a-vis Americans, Whites, and non-jews in general in Bridging America Project, AJC: Global Jewish Advocacy, October 2001.

Preface: Challenging A Crumbling Consensus

In a rare experiment in candid public discourse about America's changing demography, American Jewry needs to toss reticence and evasion to the winds, stop censoring ourselves for fear of offending the entirely imaginary arbiters of civic virtue, and bluntly and publicly pose the same questions we anxiously ponder in private.

But we should ask the hard questions no matter what, recognizing that only straight talk will get us anywhere. We cannot consider the inevitable consequences of current trends � not least among them diminished Jewish political power � with detachment. Our present privilege, success, and power do not inure us from the effect of historical processes, and history has not come to an end, even in America.

Abandoning the Field to Nativism and Xenophobia
Not far down the list of awful consequences, our unspoken acquiescence leaves the anti-determinist camp, with some notable exceptions (such as the thoughtful and moderate Center for Immigration Studies), largely in the hands of classic anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and racist nativist forces. The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration (Europeans being defined as Nordic or Anglo-Saxon), a position re-asserted by Peter Brimelow, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change.

Posing the Sphinx Questions
What are some of those large vexing questions we would prefer not to speak aloud? Let's throw out a few and see how many sleepers we can awaken. The big one for starters: is the emerging new multicultural American nation good for the Jews? Will a country in which enormous demographic and cultural change, fueled by unceasing large-scale non-European immigration, remain one in which Jewish life will continue to flourish as nowhere else in the history of the Diaspora? In an America in which people of color form the plurality, as has already happened in California, most with little or no historical experience with or knowledge of Jews, will Jewish sensitivities continue to enjoy extraordinarily high levels of deference and will Jewish interests continue to receive special protection? Does it matter that the majority non-European immigrants have no historical experience of the Holocaust or knowledge of the persecution of Jews over the ages and see Jews only as the most privileged and powerful of white Americans?

Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.

It is also true that Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry, theoretically a boon in terms of the formation of favorable public images of Jews and sensitizing the American people to issues of concern to Jews.

Supporting Immigration by Reducing Its Scale

It is also, frankly, in our own best interest to continue to support generous immigration. The day may come when the forces of anti-Semitic persecution will arise once more in the lands of the former Soviet Union or in countries of Eastern Europe and Jews will once again need a safe haven in the United States. The Jewish community requires this fail-safe. We will always be in support of immigration; the question is whether it should be open-ended or not? The question is what constitutes the smartest approach to supporting immigration?

Immigration Policy and Identity Politics
Our current policies encourage the balkanization that results from identity politics and the politics of grievance.

Jews and Identity Politics
We Jews need to be especially sensitive to the multinational model this crowd (many of them Jewish) is promoting. Why? Because one person's "celebration" of his own diversity, foreign ties, and the maintenance of cultural and religious traditions that set him apart is another's balkanizing identity politics. We are not immune from the reality of multiple identities or the charge of divided loyalties, a classic staple of anti-Semitism, and we must recognize that our own patterns are easily assailed, and we need to find ways of defending them more effectively as the debate goes on.

For Jews, it is at best hypocritical, and, worse, an example of an utter lack of self-awareness, not to recognize that we are up to our necks in this problem. This has been especially true once we were sufficiently accepted in the United States to feel confident enough to go public with our own identity politics. But this newfound confidence carries its own costs; people are observing us closely, and what they see in our behavior is not always distinct from what we loudly decry in others. One has to be amused, even amazed, when colleagues in the organized Jewish world wring their hands about black nationalism, Afrocentrism, or with cultural separatism in general � without considering Jewish behavioral parallels. Where has our vaunted Jewish self-awareness flown?
I'll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught that the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.
I am of course simplifying a complex process of ethnic and religious identity formation; there was also a powerful counterbalancing universalistic moral component that inculcated a belief in social justice for all people and a special identification with the struggle for Negro civil rights. And it is no exaggeration to add that in some respects, of course, a substantial subset of secular Jews were historically Europe's cosmopolitans par excellence, particularly during the high noon of bourgeois culture in Central Europe. That sense of commitment to universalistic values and egalitarian ideals was and remains so strong that in reliable survey research conducted over the years, Jews regularly identify "belief in social justice" as the second most important factor in their Jewish identity; it is trumped only by a "sense of peoplehood." It also explains the long Jewish involvement in and flirtation with Marxism. But it is fair to say that Jewish universalistic tendencies and tribalism have always existed in an uneasy dialectic. We are at once the most open of peoples and one second to none in intensity of national feeling. Having made this important distinction, it must be admitted that the essence of the process of my nationalist training was to inculcate the belief that the primary division in the world was between "us" and "them."

I say all this merely to remind us that we cannot pretend we are only part of the solution when we are also part of the problem; we have no less difficult a balancing act between group loyalty and a wider sense of belonging to America. That America has largely tolerated this dual loyalty � we get a free pass, I suspect, largely over Christian guilt about the Holocaust � makes it no less a reality.
At the very least, as the debate over multinational identity rises, I hope the Jewish community will have the good sense not to argue in favor of dual citizenship and other such arrangements. I would also advocate that those who possess dual citizenship to relinquish it in order not to cloud the issue and to serve the best interests of the American Jewish community and of American national unity. The recent case of the Israeli teenager who committed a murder in suburban Maryland (his victim was a young Latino) and fled to Israel, where he was permitted to remain despite attempts at extradition by U.S. prosecutors, with considerable congressional support, must never be repeated. That incident inflicted serious damage on Israel's good name, and it shapes the public's perception of Jews as people in a special category with additional rights who have a safe haven where they can escape the reach of American justice.

Dr. Stephen Steinlight was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. For the past two and a half years he has been a Senior Fellow at AJC.

It is a long piece and there is much more, but that is enough for the following analysis.

Steinlight acknowledges that jews have enormous power. He is both a representative and spokesman of that power, which he wants jews to retain and even increase. To accomplish this he believes jews should advocate more openly and loudly, be more self-aware and self-concerned, strengthen their identity and engage more actively in identity politics, and continue to create and maintain "safe havens" for themselves. He says this even as he pathologizes and demonizes others, especially Whites, for thinking or doing anything similar, or for that matter objecting in any fashion to jews doing any of this.

Steinlight's critique is a call to action for his fellow jews, who in his mind aren't working smart or hard enough in pursuit of their own collective best interests. His thoughts, on the surface riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy, only appear that way to those who will not see how they are rooted in the ruthless pursuit of answers to a single burning question: What is best for the jews?

Furthermore, and more to the point for those of us who aren't jews, Steinlight sees the best interests of others as, at best, in conflict with, and at worse, as a threat to the interests of jews. Us and our interests are trifles, of no consequence whatsoever except to the extent we can be co-opted, manipulated or otherwise exploited as he and his tribe see fit.

The Hagelcaust: Confirmed

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:00:00 +0000

Hagel and anti-Semitism, JTA - Jewish & Israel News, February 26, 2013:

To the Editor:
Previous letters have correctly noted and decried ex-Senator Hagel's anti-Semitism but have focused on secondary concerns rather than the core of his mindset. To seize on this or that hostile comment regarding Israel or Israeli policy is besides the point, regardless of how off base they may be.
Hagel's ugly characterizations will find supporters, certainly among anti-Israel Jewish leftists posing as supporters of Israel.
The essence of Hagel's anti-Semitism is the sort expressed by such classics of paranoid anti-Semitica as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or the works of Henry Ford. Like them, Hagel believes a sinister pro-Israel/Jewish cabal acts like a puppeteer pulling the strings of members of an "intimidated Congress" and has turned the State Department (hardly noted for its philo-Semitism or support for Israel) into an "adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry."
The campaign against Hagel's nomination failed precisely because no one -- none of the Jewish organizations that attacked him or his adversaries on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- had the moral courage to call Hagel what he is: a political anti-Semite. Lindsey Graham came closest, but was loath to pull the trigger.
That Senators Blumenthal, Levin and Schumer remained silent -- indeed Schumer played the smarmy role of his Jewish enabler -- is contemptible in the extreme.
Dr. Stephen Steinlight
New York, N.Y.

I'm wondering if this is Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies? The name, residence, and hyper-jewish identities match. What doesn't quite fit is that CIS-Steinlight has claimed:

I am an American. My first identity is as an American. My primary identity is as an American. My first concern is the well being of my fellow citizens.

Then again, he also said:

Jews are disproportionately involved in every kind of insanity.

I've emailed CIS-Steinlight to ask if he is JTA-Steinlight. Though it would be an interesting revelation, it's tangential to the main point here.

A brief news item from the same source on the same day had this to say about a portion of the very real jewish cabal and a few of its star puppets. Senate confirms Hagel, JTA - Jewish & Israel News, February 26, 2013:

Among the Republicans voting to push the nomination were a trio of Hagel's toughest pro-Israel critics, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). All three voted against his actual confirmation, which needed only a simple majority to pass.
A number of centrist Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, had expressed concerns about past Hagel comments, particularly his claim in 2006 that a "Jewish lobby intimidates" Congress, as well as his skepticism of sanctions and military moves that would keep Iran from advancing its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Jewish domination of US policy and political discourse has been increasing, and increasingly obvious, for decades. The jewish debate over Hagel, which raged for years and only broke into the mainstream last December, has all along been based on conflicting opinions about what's best for Israel. Hagel had to seek and win the endorsement of various senate jews and heavyweights in organized jewry before the puppets on the senate subcommittee even got their chance to give him any grief. When they did it was all about Israel.

Jews have enormous power. Though they argue incessantly about their best interests, ultimately enough of them decided that Hagel may just serve those interests well enough. Of course there are still many jews, like Steinlight, even this level of jewish domination fails to please, and who instead imagine America is dominated by sinister anti-jews.

If Steinlight's ravings alienate and disgust you then it's time to show some moral courage and face the facts about jewish power. You could start by tuning in to “The International Jew” Study Hour to hear what Ford and his writers had to say, supplemented by the insightful contemporary commentary of Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott.

How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:49:00 +0000

The flip side of sweeping explanations that overlook the jews are the ones that are all about them. Where the jew-blind explanations are primarily for the non-jews, to keep us busy thinking about anything but jewish influence and power, the jew-centric explanations, which we'll examine here, reflect how jews see the world and explain it to each other.

These jew-centric explanations of the world present a surreal, uncompromisingly one-sided view in favor of jews - how they've continually been wronged by others, most especially Europeans. This sick anti-White narrative is today the prevailing narrative in media, academia and politics. It comes from the jews.

New History: How Anti-Judaism Is at the Heart of Western Culture, by Adam Kirsh, Tablet Magazine, 13 Feb 2013:

The title of David Nirenberg’s new book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, uses a term pointedly different from the one we are used to. The hatred and oppression of Jews has been known since the late 19th century as anti-Semitism—a label, it is worth remembering, originally worn with pride by German Jew-haters. What is the difference, then, between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism? The answer, as it unfolds in Nirenberg’s scholarly tour de force, could be summarized this way: Anti-Semitism needs actual Jews to persecute; anti-Judaism can flourish perfectly well without them, since its target is not a group of people but an idea.
Nirenberg’s thesis is that this idea of Judaism, which bears only a passing resemblance to Judaism as practiced and lived by Jews, has been at the very center of Western civilization since the beginning. From Ptolemaic Egypt to early Christianity, from the Catholic Middle Ages to the Protestant Reformation, from the Enlightenment to fascism, whenever the West has wanted to define everything it is not—when it wants to put a name to its deepest fears and aversions—Judaism has been the name that came most easily to hand. “Anti-Judaism,” Nirenberg summarizes, “should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought. It was rather one of the basic tools with which that edifice was constructed.”
This is a pretty depressing conclusion, especially for Jews destined to live inside that edifice; but the intellectual journey Nirenberg takes to get there is exhilarating. Each chapter of “Anti-Judaism” is devoted to an era in Western history and the particular kinds of anti-Judaism it fostered. Few if any of these moments are new discoveries; indeed, Nirenberg’s whole argument is that certain types of anti-Judaism are so central to Western culture that we take them for granted. What Nirenberg has done is to connect these varieties of anti-Judaism into a convincing narrative, working with original sources to draw out the full implications of seminal anti-Jewish writings.
The main reason why Judaism, and therefore anti-Judaism, have been so central to Western culture is, of course, Christianity. But Nirenberg’s first chapter shows that some persistent anti-Jewish tropes predate Jesus by hundreds of years. The Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, writing around 320 BCE, recorded an Egyptian tradition that inverts the familiar Exodus story. In this version, the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element, “strangers dwelling in their midst and practicing different rites.” These exiles settled in Judea under the leadership of Moses, who instituted for them “an unsocial and intolerant mode of life.” Already, Nirenberg observes, we can detect “what would become a fundamental concept of anti-Judaism—Jewish misanthropy.” This element was emphasized by a somewhat later writer, an Egyptian priest named Manetho, who described the Exodus as the revolt of an impious group of “lepers and other unclean people.”
As he will do throughout the book, Nirenberg describes these anti-Jewish texts not in a spirit of outrage or condemnation, but rather of inquiry. The question they raise is not whether the ancient Israelites were “really” lepers, but rather, why later Egyptian writers claimed they were. What sort of intellectual work did anti-Judaism perform in this particular culture? To answer the question, Nirenberg examines the deep history of Egypt, showing how ruptures caused by foreign invasion and religious innovation came to be associated with the Jews. Then he discusses the politics of Hellenistic Egypt, in which a large Jewish population was sandwiched uneasily between the Greek elite and the Egyptian masses. In a pattern that would be often repeated, this middle position left the Jews open to hostility from both sides, which would erupt into frequent riots and massacres. In the long term, Nirenberg writes, “the characteristics of misanthropy, impiety, lawlessness, and universal enmity that ancient Egypt assigned to Moses and his people would remain available to later millennia: a tradition made venerable by antiquity, to be forgotten, rediscovered, and put to new uses by later generations of apologists and historians.”

This "exhilirating intellectual journey", presented as a "new history", is really just the same old tired promotion of the same old jew-excusing apologia, replete with persistent jewish tropes:

That the defining feature of non-jews, and specifically "the West", i.e. Whites, is "anti-jewism".
That jews are powerless, innocent victims.
That non-jews try to invert and otherwise manipulate history.

These are actually just variations on the most common jewish trope of all: The problem is not the jews, it's anyone and everyone else!

Jews are not unaware that there are other points of view. They simply do not compare to their own. Rather than denying the idea that, "the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element", they invert and thereby co-opt it. Taken together with the hundreds of conflicts and expulsions since, the moral of the jewish narrative is that everyone else is the undesirable element, the "lepers".

With the rise of Catholic polities in the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism took on a less theological, more material cast. In countries like England, France, and Germany, the Jews held a unique legal status as the king’s “servants” or “slaves,” which put them outside the usual chain of feudal relationships. This allowed Jews to play a much-needed but widely loathed role in finance and taxation, while also demonstrating the unique power of the monarch. The claim of the Capet dynasty to be kings of France, Nirenberg shows, rested in part on their claim to control the status of the Jews, a royal prerogative and a lucrative one: King after king plundered “his” Jews when in need of cash. At the same time, being the public face of royal power left the Jews exposed to the hatred of the people at large. Riots against Jews and ritual murder accusations became popular ways of demonstrating dissatisfaction with the government. When medieval subjects wanted to protest against their rulers, they would often accuse the king of being in league with the Jews, or even a Jew himself.
The common thread in Anti-Judaism is that such accusations of Jewishness have little to do with actual Jews. They are a product of a Gentile discourse, in which Christians argue with other Christians by accusing them of Judaism. The same principle holds true in Nirenberg’s fascinating later chapters. When Martin Luther rebelled against Catholicism, he attacked the church’s “legalistic understanding of God’s justice” as Jewish: “In this sense the Roman church had become more ‘Jewish’ than the Jews.” When the Puritan revolutionaries in the English Civil War thought about the ideal constitution for the state, they looked to the ancient Israelite commonwealth as described in Judges and Kings.
Surprisingly, Nirenberg shows, the decline of religion in Europe and the rise of the Enlightenment did little to change the rhetoric of anti-Judaism. Voltaire, Kant, and Hegel all used Judaism as a figure for what they wanted to overcome—superstition, legalistic morality, the dead past. Finally, in a brief concluding chapter on the 19th century and after, Nirenberg shows how Marx recapitulated ancient anti-Jewish tropes when he conceived of communist revolution as “the emancipation of mankind from Judaism”—that is, from money and commerce and social alienation.

Religion, no religion, kings, no kings - the common thread is jews somehow managing to get special status and privileges. The jewish narrative explains this by imagining ubiquitous "anti-jews" who only imagine jews exist. Unsurprisingly, the "exhilirating intellectual journey" concludes by imagining Marx not as part and parcel of a quintessentially jewish revolutionary tradition but as an "anti-jew".

Not until the very end of Anti-Judaism does he touch, obliquely, on the question of what this ancient intellectual tradition means for Jews today. But as he suggests, the genealogy that connects contemporary anti-Zionism with traditional anti-Judaism is clear: “We live in an age in which millions of people are exposed daily to some variant of the argument that the challenges of the world they live in are best explained in terms of ‘Israel.’ ” For all the progress the world has made since the Holocaust in thinking rationally about Jews and Judaism, the story Nirenberg has to tell is not over. Anyone who wants to understand the challenges of thinking and living as a Jew in a non-Jewish culture should read Anti-Judaism.

More important, let's touch on what this all means for Whites today. We live in an age in which millions of Whites are exposed to, and to a terrifying extent, have accepted the jewish narrative - a viewpoint utterly hostile to themselves.

Whoever did whatever to whom in the past, today it is jews who police the mainstream media and public political discourse and fill it with terms like "anti-semitism", "Israel" and "Holocaust". These terms reflect their obsession with themselves and their best interests, which includes imposing their way of seeing the world, their self-obsessions, onto everyone else.

Reinforcing this point, a "related content" link on the article above takes the reader to an older article from October 2011, Ron Rosenbaum Confronts 'The End of the Holocaust':

Alvin Rosenfeld is a brave man, and his new work is courageous. The book is called The End of the Holocaust, and it is not reluctant to take on the unexamined pieties that have grown up around the slaughter, and the sentimentalization that threatens to smother it in meretricious uplift.
The real “end of the Holocaust,” he argues, is the transformation of it into a lesson about the “triumph of the human spirit” or some such affirmation. Rosenfeld, the founder and former director of the Jewish studies program at Indiana University, which has made itself a major center of Jewish publishing and learning, is a mainstream scholar who has seen the flaw in mainstream Holocaust discourse. He has made it his mission to rescue the Holocaust from the Faustian bargain Jews have made with history and memory, the Faustian bargain that results when we trade the specifics of memory, the Jewishness of the Holocaust, and the Jew-hatred that gave it its rationale and identity, for the weepy universalism of such phrases as “the long record of man’s inhumanity to man.”
The impulse to find the silver lining is relentless, though. Suffering and grief must be transformed into affirmation, and the bleak irrecoverable fate of the victims must be given a redemptive aspect for those of us alive. In fact it’s an insult to the dead to rob their graves to make ourselves feel better. One recent manifestation Rosenfeld has shrewdly noticed is the way there has been a subtle shift in the popular representation of the Holocaust—a shift in the attention once given to the murdered victims to comparatively uplifting stories of survivors, of the “righteous gentiles,” of the scarce “rescuers,” and the even scarcer “avengers,” e.g., Quentin Tarantino’s fake-glorious fictional crew.
Rosenfeld is not afraid to contend with the fact that, as he writes, “with new atrocities filling the news each day and only so much sympathy to go around, there are people who simply do not want to hear any more about the Jews and their sorrows. There are other dead to be buried, they say.” The sad, deplorable, but, he says, “unavoidable” consequence of what may be the necessary limits of human sympathy is that “the more successfully [the Holocaust] enters the cultural mainstream, the more commonplace it becomes. A less taxing version of a tragic history begins to emerge, still full of suffering, to be sure, but a suffering relieved of many of its weightiest moral and intellectual demands and, consequently easier to be … normalized.”
Normalized? The Holocaust as one more instance in the long chronicle of “man’s inhumanity to man”? Rosenfeld’s book offers a welcome contrarian take on the trend. Yes, we’ve had enough, as Rosenfeld points out, of museums that cumulatively obscure memory in a fog of well-meaning but misleading inspirational brotherhood-of-man rhetoric.

Here, stripped of the usual misleading brotherhood-of-man rhetoric, is an even more specific and virulent example of jewish self-obsession. Rosenbaum and Rosenfeld see sympathy, everyone's sympathy, as something the jews alone deserve.

What we haven’t had enough of is a careful consideration of the implications of the Holocaust for the nature of human nature. As George Steiner told me (for my book, Explaining Hitler), “the Holocaust removed the re-insurance from human hope”—the psychic safety net we imagine marked the absolute depth of human nature. The Holocaust tore through that net heading for hell. Human nature could be—at the promptings of a charismatic and evil demagogue, religious hate, and so-called “scientific racism”—even worse than we imagined. No one wants to hear that. We want to hear uplifting stories about that nice Mr. Schindler. We want affirmations!
And the fact that it was not just one man but an entire continent that enthusiastically pitched in or stood by while 6 million were murdered: Doesn’t that call for us to spend a little time re-thinking what we still reverently speak of as “European civilization”? Or to investigate the roots of that European hatred? How much weight do the Holocaust museums give to the two millennia of Christian Jew-hatred, murderous pogroms, blood libels, and other degradations? Or do they prefer to focus on “righteous gentiles” in order to avoid offending their gentile hosts?
And for all their “reaching out” and “teachable moments,” how much do the Holocaust museums and Holocaust curricula connect the hatred of the recent past with contemporary exterminationist Jew-hatred, the vast numbers of people who deny the first, but hunger for a second, Holocaust? It’s a threat some fear even to contemplate—the potential destruction of the 5 million Jews of Israel with a single well-placed nuclear blast—a nightmarish but not unforseeable possibility to which Rosenfeld is unafraid to devote the final section of his book.

Rosenbaum, a perpetually offended professional jew, thinks the problem with jews is that they aren't self-obsessed and offensive enough. The threat, as he sees it, is "human nature", which is just another way of saying everyone and anyone else.

Rosenbaum goes on and on in this vein, expressing his contempt for "the non-jewish majority" because, in his opinion, they don't care enough about the jews.

Consider the Faustian bargain that Holocaust museums in America have so often made with the non-Jewish majority: The survivors and eyewitnesses of the Holocaust are dying, and the only way to get Americans to care about the destruction of the Jews, the only way we will get a (nearly) front row seat on the National Mall in Washington for our Holocaust museum, is by convincing Americans that the Holocaust can be a “teachable moment” in America’s uplifting struggle against intolerance. Rosenfeld calls this bargain “the Americanization of the Holocaust,” and even though he’s on the executive committee of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum he’s not happy about the tendency.
In discussing, for instance, the Los Angeles-based Museum of Tolerance (the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Holocaust museum), he says that “by situating the Holocaust within a historical framework that includes such quintessentially American experiences as the Los Angeles riots and the struggle for black civil rights, both of which are prominently illustrated, the Museum of Tolerance relativizes the catastrophe brought on by Naziism in a radical way. America’s social problems, for all their gravity, are not genocidal in character and simply do not resemble the persecution and systematic slaughter of European Jews during World War II.” It’s a critique I first saw articulated by Jonathan Rosen in a 1993 New York Times op-ed called “The Misguided Holocaust Museum” back when the museum on the Mall was first opening. At first I was surprised, but then I was persuaded, at least to a certain extent, by Rosen’s impassioned dissent from the conventional wisdom.
And of course there is the difficult question of how one compares such tragedies. Why not a Cambodian genocide museum? In what ways are the Cambodian, the Armenian, and the Rwandan genocides similar and different from the Nazi genocide? If the Rodney King riots do not deserve being placed on the same plane shouldn’t the casualties of slavery in America, an institution that killed the bodies and murdered the souls of those who survived, count just as much?
There’s an argument that it’s a politically savvy heuristic strategy to unite with other sufferers against the murderous haters rather than set our suffering apart. And Jews have a strong record of concern for the sufferings of others. Solidarity! But Rosenfeld is on a mission not to allow the differences of the identity of the Jewish victims to disappear, and he is both a moral thinker and an astute cultural critic.

Rosenbaum's argument: Hey jews, you're letting everyone forget that it's all about the jews.

John McCain: They Care for Our Babies

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:09:00 +0000

McCain faces angry crowd town hall [VIDEO], UPI.com, 20 Feb 2013:

Again, sir, you're not telling these people the truth. They, they wash our... They mow our lawns, they care for our babies, they, they uh, they, they well... They clean, they wash, those where those people do, sir.

McCain projects his own problem with telling the truth. It's evident from his stammering that he knows it too.

It's what I've been doing for 30 years.

McCain cares more for any alien than he cares for any citizen in that town hall meeting.

McCain argues that they serve our interests, that they care for our babies! The truth is exactly the opposite.

Everyone understands that aliens come to the US seeking a better life for themselves. They know that the US government, guided by the same treasonous mindset expressed by McCain, is on their side - it won't keep the aliens out and won't send them home. They know US citizens are forced to care for alien babies - to pay for their birthing, their education, their food, their health care, their safety.

That's why polls show a Majority of U.S. citizens say illegal immigrants should be deported.

What more Whites should understand is that it isn't about money. It is good and right for us to seek a better life for ourselves. To care for our own babies. A good and right government would help its citizens, not undermine them. But the US government has, over the course of decades, gradually been usurped by jews and jew-firsters. Thus US politicians have become increasingly obsessed with defending Israel as a jewish state at the same time they advocate genocidal anti-White policies in the US and every other country founded by Whites. John McCain embodies this reality, slavishly serving the interests of rich jews and poor mestizos, while betraying Whites, rich, poor and in-between.

Sweeping Explanations and the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 05:12:00 +0000

In Peter Turchin on the Big Picture, Steve Sailer writes:

Peter Turchin is a professor at the U. of Connecticut who started out in zoology and ecology and has moved over time into human history from a quantitative standpoint, searching for general patterns. He was born in Russia (his father was prominent dissident Valentin Turchin). His historical theorizing benefits from his knowing much about Russia, which few Americans do.

Ah, I thought, maybe Turchin has something to say from a quantitative standpoint about the general pattern of jew oligarchs in Russia, which Sailer has previously discussed. In The Unbearable Innocence of Economists, for example, Sailer quotes Bryan Caplan:

The oligarchs are disproportionately Jewish. 90% of Russian Jews have left the country over the last 30 years, but 6 out of the 7 leading oligarchs have Jewish ancestry. This would be hard to explain if their success were primarily due to political connections - but expected if their success largely reflected entrepreneurial ability.

Sailer, projecting his own style, describes Caplan as "astonishingly naive". In this case Sailer indicates that he actually understands what's going on and who's responsible:

What happened in Russia in the 1990s was one of the great economic crimes in all history. And it happened largely with the approval of the American economists who were employed in large numbers, typically at American taxpayer expense, to advise the Yeltsin regime. Indeed, one of America's top economists, Harvard's Andrei Shleifer (Larry Summers' best friend), was in on the corruption himself. Yet, the economics profession has done nothing to chastise Shleifer for his crookedness that ended up being penalized $28 million by a U.S. federal judge.

Then he retreats into sarcasm.

"Russian" oligarchs. "American" economists. In most forums this is as deep as the discussion gets. To his credit, Sailer does occasionally broach the subject of jewish disproportions, and mocks explanations like Caplan's. His commentariat often digs even deeper, but it's also chock full of Caplans, ever ready and willing to provide more explanations. The problem with Sailer is, when it comes to jews, he so often acts as if he has forgotten things he previously demonstrated he understands.

Reading farther into his post about Turchin, it becomes clear that Turchin doesn't have any insights about jews, in Russia or anywhere else. Near the end Sailer quotes Turchin's Return of the Oppressed, concerning US immigration restriction in the 1920s:

It almost goes without saying that there was a racist and xenophobic underside to all this. The co-operating group was mainly native-born white Protestants. African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and foreigners were excluded or heavily discriminated against.

This is the jewish version of history, though Sailer lets it go without saying, once again retreating into sarcasm. At any rate he doesn't let it diminish his favorable opinion of Turchin, who he thinks is "on to something". Much of Sailer's commentariat responds by gushing about how fasinating and interesting Turchin's sweeping theories are, and many pitch in with their own. Ben Tillman took issue with one of the more egregious bits of goofiness:

My thesis is that the elites made a deal with the white working class with the New Deal. This lasted until the early 60's, when the affluence of the white working class started to worry the elite and they brought in blacks to cut them down to size, along with renewed immigration. The condition of the white working class has steadily deteriorated since then. The elite has acquired so much power through the media and law that they can't be challenged and the white working class has no representation anyway.
You left out the part where the one elite was replaced by another in the early/mid-60's, with the results you noted.

Indeed. This seems to be the point of such exercises. On the one hand there are lots of people, intelligent people, who are curious, interested and fascinated. They want explanations. On the other hand there are lots of other people, intelligent people, who literally make it their business to provide explanations. Explanations which conspicously avoid mentioning the jews, except perhaps to present them as hapless victims.

That's the overall impression I get of Turchin's work. As his Wikipedia page describes:

Peter Turchin has made contributions to population ecology and historical dynamics. According to ISIHighlyCited.com, Turchin is one of the top cited authors in the field of Ecology/Environment. He is one of the founders of cliodynamics, the new scientific discipline located at the intersection of historical macrosociology, cliometrics, and mathematical modeling of social processes. Turchin developed an original theory explaining how large historical empires evolve by the mechanism of multilevel selection.[1] His research on secular cycles[2] has contributed to our understanding of the collapse of complex societies as has his re-interpretation of Ibn Khaldun's asabiyya notion as "collective solidarity".[3][4]
Of special importance is his study of the hypothesis that population pressure causes increased warfare.

As far as I can see most of this theorizing goes on without any critique of the outsized and deleterious influence of jews, whether in finance, media, law, politics or the academy, where so much of this jew-blind theorizing goes on. The problem isn't that there's any unwillingness to generalize about and criticize whole groups of people. Theorizing about Whites, Russians, Americans, elites, economists, etc. abounds.

As I've discussed on Age of Treason Radio, warfare, racial warfare, is how I interpret what's going on. Jews, for their part, wage war steathily, disguising it with copious hasbara, explaining that it isn't about jews, that "racism" and "xenophobia" are the real problems. In forums where race and borders are regarded as normal they argue instead that the real problem is White nationalism, neo-nazism or "anti-semitism". Whites, for our part, are largely unwilling to accept the nature or extent of this warfare. The most intelligent Whites, most capable of actually figuring out what's going on, are also the ones most terrified of being painted as stupid/crazy/evil. Ironically, they are eager to signal their intellect by entertaining sweeping theories, the more elaborate the better to compensate for astonishing naivete regarding the jews.

The Humiliation of Jewish Rule

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:27:00 +0000

Saturday Night Live Dress Rehearsal C-Span Chuck Hagel Hearings

Subservience breeds contempt.

Ed Koch and Liberalism

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 05:36:00 +0000

Koch’s headstone: ‘My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.’

The New York Daily News says Koch wanted his identity as a jew to be a central and lasting part of his legacy, citing Koch's HuffPo article from Jan 2011, What's on My Tombstone, and Why:

The United States, France and Israel ought to form a special unit devoted to running each of [Daniel Pearl's] terrorist murders down and target them for execution. The Israeli Mossad did exactly that with the Munich murderers of the Israeli Olympic team killed in Munich in 1972.
On my tombstone, which awaits me at the Trinity Church nondenominational cemetery at 155th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, I had inscribed the last words of Daniel Pearl -- uttered at his publicly viewed murder -- which were, "My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish." I believe those words should be part of the annual services on the Jewish High Holiday of Yom Kippur, and should be repeated by the congregants.

Koch was not only speaking for or about himself. He was speaking to fellow jews, for their benefit.

Though Koch came to fame as the mayor of New York between 1978 and 1989, in recent years he made it increasingly obvious that he was most obsessed with the narrow interests of jews. When he expressed his opinion in public, it was often plainly in this context.

On at least two occasions (see here and here) Koch identified others as bigots. As is typical of jewish bigotry, in both cases it was more a reflection of his own hyper-sensitive ethnocentrism. As is also typical, nobody of any stature in media or politics dared criticize "liberal" Koch for his increasingly blatant illiberalism.

While many of the obituaries and editorials I have surveyed remarked with some circumspect on Koch's queer brand of "liberalism", only a few noted Koch's jew-first priority, and none put the two together in critical terms. John Podhoretz, a jew more often identified as "conservative", opined glowingly at the New York Post that Ed Koch was a liberal who defied left on ‘nuts’ ideas. Though Podhoretz shares the same very jewish concerns which animated Koch, he made no mention of it. Instead Podhoretz focused entirely on an earlier era, casting Koch's legacy in partisan political terms which make even less sense today than they did at the time. What Koch's career best demonstrates is how jewish identity transcends silly partisan affliations.

Contrast this with Robert Byrd, who even before death was regularly condemned as a "racist". When Byrd died it wasn't hard to find "conservatives" complaining, for example, that Byrd's KKK History Shows Partisan Double Standard.

Of course, the most glaring double standard isn't partisan, it's jewish - it clearly distinguishes jews from Whites. The idea is that nobody, and especially not tolerant "liberals", should tolerate White bigotry. If you are now or ever have been a member of a special unit devoted to serving White interests, like the KKK, that's considered inexcusable grounds for exclusion, censure, condemnation, etc. On the other hand, as we see with how the former so-called "King of New York" is treated, openly advocating for the best interests of jews, even to the point of calling for murder squads to hunt down and execute your enemies - well, jews will be jews. Nothing special. Not even for "liberals".

The Preoccupations of Takuan Seiyo

noreply@blogger.com (Tanstaafl) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:56:00 +0000

Last week Gates of Vienna administrator Baron Bodissey introduced Here We Go Again like so:

Certain posts at Gates of Vienna, among them those by Takuan Seiyo, tend to attract the attention and comments of people who are preoccupied with the Jews. They frequently refer to “Holohoax” in World War Two, often supplementing their scornful references with obscenities or derogatory epithets.
I generally delete such comments without publishing them. One of them came in this morning, the second or third such screed submitted on Takuan Seiyo’s latest post. Before I deleted it, I sent it to Takuan, just to show him what was coming in. He suggested that I go ahead and post it, followed by his response.

Takuan Seiyo claims to be 50% Pole and behaves as if he's 150% jew. His hostility towards Whites naturally provokes a hostile reaction from Whites. Bodissey invites this reaction. He has draped his site with European imagery and presents its mission as a defense of "Christian Europe". Then he publishes articles, especially by Seiyo, and comments, especially from self-righteous jews, advocating in favor of jews even when their concerns conflict with the best interests of Whites.

In this particular article, Seiyo wrote:

I will deal in a later chapter with the issue of White Nats’ desperate massaging of Holocaust history as an attempt to wrest Western history from what, to them, should have been the losers, in order to place the skein of narrative back in the hands of what ought to have been the winners, that is, “white people.” They don’t quite get that WW2 is a story of the ultimate triumph of Western Civilization and of Whites, and that there is no need at all to lie or fall prey to wishful delusions. The losers who wrested the skein of history are not “the Jews” or “the coloreds” but white Marxists-Socialist professors in the 1960s.

In The Bee and the Lamb, Part 9 (Continued), posted earlier the same day, Seiyo wrote:

For over 60 years, White mea-culpists have had a firm grip in all fields of cultural mind imprinting: education high and low; paper media, then electronic, then digital media; all forms of entertainment, the plastic arts and music high and low, and religious instruction and worship too. Their main endeavor has been to enforce their compulsory (e.g. K-12) and discretionary (e.g. television) self-flaying on account of long-ago Slavery, Colonialism, Imperialism, Male Supremacism, Racism, Antisemitism, and so on.

These are perfectly typical examples of Seiyo's preoccupation with blaming Whites while excusing jews. He has been doing it for some time. In July 2010 The Brussels Journal published From Meccania To Atlantis - Part 17: Shotgun Marriage In Europe. In it Seiyo explained how his overriding concern for jews keeps him from caring much about Whites:

It may go on for another 20, 30 , 50 years, until a magic orator appears who will galvanize a cold, reserved and quietly unhappy people the way Hitler did the Germans. After all, what Eurabia has pushed itself into is nothing if not Hitler’s revenge anyway. The whole landmass kowtows to Jew-hating Muslims because of what it once did to the Jews. It’s one of those ironies that Jews have been destined to bear since the dawn of their history (5).
Some contest the Hitler revenge theory by pointing out that Sweden -- perhaps the most self-disemboweling country in Europe -- had no part in the Holocaust. But they forget that Jews were not allowed to live in Sweden before 1782, their emancipation did not arrive until 1870, widespread antisemitic sentiments were common well into mid-20th century, with the remarkable actions of Wallenberg and Bernadotte acting as a counterfoil to a popular sentiment that until the end of 1942 had closed off Sweden to Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution, produced antisemitic student protests, and gave rise to the Swedish Anti-Jewish Action League (Sveriges Antijudiska Kampförbund) founded by Einar Åberg. It’s germane that the law prohibiting "incitement against an ethnic group" under which the Swedish state prosecutes its anti-Islamization dissidents was enacted due to Åberg’s widespread antisemitic activities in the late 1940s and 1950s.

Out of one side of his mouth Seiyo paints Whites as "self-flaying" and "self-disemboweling", denying jews play any part. Out of the other side, he paints jews as blameless victims of White persecution. Either way he doesn't sympathize with Whites, and when confronted by anyone who does he makes his contempt and distaste plain.

Similar attitudes have long prevailed at Gates of Vienna. On 12 Jan 2013, Bodissey posted Confronting the New Fascism in Sweden, which presents a Seiyo-like view of "self-flaying" Swedes being to blame for the anti-Swedish politics and media in Sweden:

Never has the power of projection been more evident than in the political culture of Sweden. From an outsider’s perspective, Sweden displays all the attributes of a fascist state: only one political point of view is considered acceptable, and any dissent against it is vigorously punished, by both official and unofficial means. Those who oppose the reigning ideology may lose their jobs or be prosecuted. They are vilified and scapegoated in the (largely state-owned) media to the point where compliant Swedish drones are made to understand that all dissidents are fair game, and deserve anything bad that happens to them.
Now, that sounds like fascism to me. But the Swedish media reserve the term for Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats, SD), the only significant political party that opposes mass immigration and challenges the reigning Multicultural ideology.

Bodissey's "outsider's perspective", with "fascism" as the key, is facilitated by a Seiyo-like blindness to the jews in Swedish media and the who, how and why behind "the reigning Multicultural ideology".

Though Bodissey averts his eyes, in this case it's hard to ignore the jews. The article he criticizes is also Seiyo-like, in that it's all about the threat "fascist" Whites pose to jews.

A commenter tries to square the circle, Gates of Vienna style, by unselfconsciously explaining:

The repeated invocation of Jews, Nazis and the Holocaust in his attempt to hammer home his contention that the Swedish Democrats are wicked evil people with an inhumane agenda. Time and time again the primary school teacher appropriates the tragedy of mid C20th Jewish experience for polemic gain. The disgusting reality of course is that the Swedish Left, as with the Left of the entire Western world, is the driving force of hysterical and venomous anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and, they can deny it 'til they're blue in the face (but no sensible adult would accept such denials), anti-Jewish rhetoric.

In other words, Whites are correct to see sob stories about the jews as anti-White. These are hysterical, venomous attempts to hammer home the contention that Whites are wicked evil people with an inhumane agenda. That's certainly a fitting interpretation of Seiyo's efforts. Bodissey, by giving Seiyo and like-minded commenters a platform while squelching their pro-White critics, aids and abets it.