Age of Treason

A Jew-Firster Spat About Israel-Firsters

2012-01-24T22:27:00.000-08:00

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in Is the Term 'Israel-Firster' Anti-Semitic?, at The Atlantic, on 19 Jan 2012:

There's been a controversy raging over the past month or so that I've avoided writing about mainly because it has a Groundhog Day quality to it. It began with this very interesting Ben Smith piece, but lately it has become tiresome. Apparently, it is not tiresome to other pepole, because it just keeps going. The seemingly most urgent question to emerge from this controversy is whether or not the term "Israel-firster" is anti-Semitic. The term is used by Media Matters, the left-wing advocacy group, to describe American Jews with whom it disagrees on American Middle East policy, and it was also used by staffers of the Center for American Progress, the important liberal think tank, to describe same. CAP has disavowed the language, and apologized on behalf of the staffer who used the term; Media Matters doesn't seem to care.

So, is "Israel-firster" anti-Semitic? Its origins are certainly anti-Semitic, and the idea that Jews are incapable of being loyal to the country of their citizenship and are only loyal to world Jewry, or the Jewish state, is an age-old anti-Semitic trope.

For non-jews the "controversy" has been tiresome all along - it's just the latest episode of jews debating jews about what's best for jews. The obsession with arguing about whether this or that is "anti-semitic" is symptomatic of a jew-first attitude. The trope here is the jewish conceit that they may freely exhibit such attitudes while everyone else must act as if they're incapable of noticing.

The next day Goldberg had more to say. A Question From Glenn Greenwald, 20 Jan 2012:

I don't think CAP is anti-Semitic (it's pretty hostile to Israel, but it's not as if it has called for the Jewish state's destruction), but the term "Israel-Firster" is originally a neo-Nazi term (Willis Carto's fascist Liberty Lobby was a big proponent of its use, as is David Duke), and it is meant to raise questions about a Jewish person's willingness to be loyal to America (this is merely the local variant of an ancient anti-Semitic trope). CAP, to its credit, acknowledged the anti-Semitic nature of the term, and apologized. (I wrote about the controversy here.)

Obviously, use of the term "Israel-Firster" to describe someone with whom you disagree is not meant to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize your opponent. When Jews use it, as Joe Klein does, it is particularly unfortunate, because it is a term specifically designed to marginalize Jews in the American political discourse, and people like Joe Klein will eventually reap the whirlwind, in one form or another. The mainstreaming of hostility toward any group of Jews leads inevitably to the mainstreaming of hostility to Jews generally. And of course it's probably a sound idea for Jews to avoid using neo-Nazi-derived slurs to describe other Jews.

This is why I'm taking the time to write about this latest tiresome episode of jew-firstiness. Did you catch what Goldberg did right there? Did you notice how he used the terms "neo-Nazi", "fascist", and "anti-semitic" to describe someone with whom he disagrees? How he indirectly explained that he doesn't mean for it to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize his opponent?

Words are not the problem, it's facing what they mean that Goldberg can't handle. "Israel-firster" is literally more descriptive than any of the terms he uses to demonize his opponents. To the extent "neo-Nazi", "fascist", and "anti-semitic" mean anything it amounts to "anti-jew" - which is exactly the kind of thing a jew-firster would be concerned about. Jefferey Goldberg is both a jew-firster and an Israel-firster. Israel and jews literally come first in his mind.

A few days later Goldberg was happy to quote someone else regurgitating his jew-first views. A Straight Line From Lindbergh to 'Israel-Firster', 23 Jan 2012:

[C]urious minds want to know whether the Gingrich campaign will continue to reap the largesse of Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who seems an unlikely Gingrichian. To explain it, some critics have taken to calling Adelson an "Israel-firster." That ugly term has been applied, not just to Adelson, but to other supporters of current U.S. policies regarding Israel, as Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg describes.

Bashing Jews for their supposed disloyalty to their nation is a crude maneuver that has been employed long before Israel existed. It has been a tactic of both the far-left and far-right, almost as though haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon.

Demonizing people in this way is always a nasty form of argumentation, but in our country it is particularly disquieting when this kind of discourse seeps into the mainstream of our major political parties. Lately, that seems to have happened within certain Democratic circles, as Ben Smith reported in Politico. In Charles Lindberg's time, the intolerance on display by the "America-First" crowd was mostly (but not exclusively) Republican.

Yes, it is a crude maneuver to demonize people in this way, for example, as "haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon".

The difference is that the America First "crowd", including Charles Lindbergh, openly identified themselves and their interests, whereas jew- and Israel-firsters pretend they aren't and intolerantly demonize anyone who calls them on their pretense.

Fjordman Fallout

2012-01-22T09:03:00.000-08:00

Chechar calls my attention to Unser Abschied von Fjordman (Our Departure from Fjordman) at As der Schwerter (Ace of Swords).

Mein Deutsch ist schlecht, and the Google Translate version is not much better, but the gist I get is that the efforts Chechar and I have made to engage Fjordman, part of a more general challenge to counter-jihadists to face the facts of jewish influence, has borne fruit in Germany.

The bloggers at Ace of Swords - Deep Roots, Osimandia, and Kairos (Cairo) - recently moved their blog from fjordman.wordpress.com to schwertasblog.wordpress.com, in part because visitors were sometimes confused about whether they were Fjordman, and in part because Fjordman requested it, apparently because he didn't like that they had indeed chosen to face the facts about the jews.

While all three of these bloggers credit Fjordman with helping to awaken them, they all specifically cite the incident discussed in White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad for causing them to reevalute their opinion of the counter-jihad. They have actually made the move I was hoping Fjordman would. They have rejected the deracinated counter-jihad and embraced ethno-racial nationalism.

Their Departure from Fjordman post concludes with an unequivocal White nationalist sentiment:

Europe belongs to Europeans. Not the Jews, not Muslims, the Europeans. (And, by the way, Germany is the Germans. Not the French, not the Americans, the Germans.)

For some reason the Google Translate version of the whole page reverts to German right at the point where the comments get interesting. Translating comments piecemeal we find signs that the AoS bloggers have come very quickly up to speed. Here are some samples.

Comment 19, by Osimandia:

It is very important to recognize that it is not "the Englishman" and "French" and "Americans" are driving the adverse developments. Instead, there are Judaised British, French and Americans. And I can not even make a whole lot Judaised German, commonly referred to as "poilitisch correct".

Among the species of this sort of people are stubborn and deluded "serious critic of Islam," the hufescharrend wait to finally be recognized as a subspecies accepted - which in my soon to be the case.

Comment 20, by Pit:

Yep:
politically correct = Semitic correctly.

I've even made it clear that "politically correct" means serving certain interests, promoting. Namely: Jewish interests.

Always in our understanding, Jews are an ethnic competitors. This competitor has defined its Jewish ethnic interests to general interests: so it is now: politically correct. Indeed, but it must read: correctly Semitic. So the whole agenda that we all have equal rights, whether orignial people relative or any intruder ... all the same, no matter if the people belonging to or not, is this view of Jewish ethnicity, because they want to live in other peoples as a minority, but just how much influence and rights to their ancestral people (which is possible only if the incumbent People's delegitimized and his identity is dissolved in).

We speak of: ETHNIC CORRECT. And since there was just one: Germanic correctly.
And we should all, the entire public life, align it, what is GERMANISCH-CORRECT! For these are OUR interests.

Comment 26, by Pit:

McDonald's position is immediately obvious to me: Jews are a rival ethnic group. They live in our white Gesellschften, but work only for their own benefit (to § 130s: "Is it good for the Jews" is the default position). From this approach follows pretty much everything else.

Comment 58, by Deep Roots:

Judaism is indeed the main enemy in this struggle for the survival of the white peoples, and to the realize this, one need only imagine what would happen if tomorrow would start all the white peoples, the Jews from their positions of power in the West remove and expel them from their countries.

Fjordman, Baron Bodissey and other long-time semitically-correct true believers may indeed be a lost cause. But here we have a reminder that there are other people - good and honest people - who are initially attracted to the counter-jihad by natural, patriotic instincts. Many are simply lurking and listening, more or less literally misguided. With help, if necessary, some of them can and will come to see the counter-jihad for what it is - a crypto-jewish movement, concerned mainly with serving jewish interests. Seeing this frees them to take the next logical and emotional step: directing their concerns toward serving the interests of their own kind rather than others.

An Interview with Robert Stark

2012-01-20T00:36:00.000-08:00

I spoke with Robert Stark on The Stark Truth Wednesday and Thursday evening this week. The first segment should stream on Voice of Reason Broadcast Network at 8PM ET Friday. The second segment will stream sometime next week. I'll link the program archive pages here when they appear, which is usually a few days after a show streams.

The topics Robert and I touched on included A Personal Disclosure, Iowa's Critics, Roth and Weiss on What's Best for The Jews, and Gamer Excuses "The Jews", Blames "Whitey".

Robert was curious about the suicide meme but as I began to describe it we ran out of time. Robert invited me back to wrap up and we ended up spending another hour discussing the suicide meme and the counter-jihad (see White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad and Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree).

The last time I did an interview was in November 2008 with Dietrich and Mishko. Back then Voice of Reason was just those two pioneers and their two-hour show once a week. Since then VoR has grown to nearly a dozen hosts and programs - all focused on history, politics, culture, and current events from a pro-White point of view. What they produce is a breath of fresh air compared to the degenerate, relentlessly anti-White propaganda issued by the thoroughly judaized "mainstream" media.

My thanks to Robert Stark for inviting me on, and to Mike Conner, who toils hard behind to scenes to make VoR work.

UPDATE, 23 Jan 2012: The Stark Truth: Interview with Tanstaafl, Part 1 (mp3).

Path to National Suicide Discussion at Mangan's

2012-01-19T11:53:00.000-08:00

Path to National Suicide

A long discussion was triggered when Mangan contrasted GOI's immigration and naturalization policy with USG's. That discussion recently bumped into a Blogger limit, so consider this one place to comment on or continue that discussion.

Iowa's Critics

2012-01-09T21:28:00.000-08:00

On the 1 Jan 2012 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News Andrea Mitchell said: "The rap on Iowa: it doesn't represent the rest of the country -- too White, too evangelical, too rural."

The next day an NBC spokeswoman explained: "she was referencing critics who argue that the state shouldn't carry so much weight because it doesn't proportionally represent the rest of the country".

Who are these critics?

On 18 December 2011, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wrote about Iowa in the New York Times. A.G. is the son of publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Their extended family owns a controlling stake in the paper.

Tucked inside Sulzberger's article is a version of Mitchell's complaint:

As the first state to take part in the Republican nominating contest, Iowa has long been criticized as too much of an outlier to be permanently endowed such an outsize influence in shaping the presidential field. Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.

Who are these critics?

On 9 December 2011, The Atlantic published a lengthly hit piece on Iowa by Stephen Bloom, Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life.

While this may not be the source of Mitchell and Sulzberger's complaint, it appears to be the most recent, most complete expression of it. It is in fact a very thorough deconstruction of Iowans and their culture.

Bloom introduces himself as an expert Iowanologist:

For almost 20 years I've lived in Iowa, where as a professor at the University of Iowa I've taught thousands of university students. I've written a couple of books on rural Iowa, traveling to all 99 counties, and have spent much of my time when not teaching, visiting with and interviewing Iowans from across the state.

The article is long and well-padded with local trivia. This might create an impression Bloom not only knows Iowa but perhaps even sympathizes with Iowans. It would be a false impression.

At one point Bloom offers this blunt evaluation, clearly intended as a put-down:

I've lived in many places, lots of them foreign countries, but none has been more foreign to me than Iowa.

In subsequent paragraphs Bloom cites an overabundance of Germanic surnames and Christian beliefs as a particular source of irritation.

The article is larded from beginning to end with evidence of Bloom's distaste, which makes it a consistently unsympathetic, negative, and in places even gratuitously derogatory portrayal of White Iowans.

As it turns out, Bloom strongly identifies as a jew. This is clearly the main source of his alienation.

Here's how Bloom sums up his gripe:

Whether a schizophrenic, economically-depressed, and some say, culturally-challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn't at issue. It's been this way since 1972, and there are no signs that it's going to change. In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa's not representative of much. There are few minorities, no sizable cities, and the state's about to lose one of its five seats in the U.S. House because its population is shifting; any growth is negligible. Still, thanks to a host of nonsensical political precedents, whoever wins the Iowa Caucuses in January will very likely have a 50 percent chance of being elected president 11 months later. Go figure.

Bloom's description of the mores of what he calls "insular Iowa" a few paragraphs earlier actually fit most of White America. Bloom's perfect world, however, is more like the one tribemates Sulzberger and Mitchell live in: More cities, less Whites.

The "rap" that White Iowans aren't representative is a rationalization offered by people who simply don't like Whites. They don't lay proportion guilt-trips on anyone but Whites. In fact they would rage hysterically in condemnation of anyone who aimed such a critique at their own kind.

This is our problem. To solve it we need our own pundits, our own media, our own politics, and ultimately our own countries. What we don't need is these critics. They're not representative of us.

Roth and Weiss on What's Best for The Jews

2011-12-29T03:11:00.000-08:00

Two years ago I wrote about jewish influence on Christmas music. Sometime later I ran across a passage from Philip Roth's Operation Shylock praising Irving Berlin for de-Christing Christmas (and Easter). What I didn't realize until today was that Roth's book frames jewish hostility toward Christmas in a much broader context of jewish hostility toward Christianity, Christians, and Whites in general.

Roth, like Berlin, is not some marginal, inconsequential jew. Roth is considered "one of the most honored authors of his generation":

His fiction, set frequently in Newark, New Jersey, is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its "supple, ingenious style," and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and American identity.

Actually, it's more accurate to describe Roth's work and it's fans as reflecting an all-consuming obsession with jewish identity. Roth is concerned about what it means to be a jew and how that contrasts with being Christian, American, or European. In Operation Shylock Roth weighs the differences between zionism and diasporism, two complementary jewish identities.

The portion excerpted here was not easy to find. In the end I transcribed it from Moshe Waldoks' The Best American Humor 1994. Though Roth's book is in Google Books, and precise searches will display snippets, I have not been able to find a link to freely viewable content.

Without further ado, here is Philip Roth, speaking through a character he named Philip Roth:

I heard myself next praising the greatest Diasporist of all, the father of the new Diasporist movement, Irving Berlin. "People ask where I got the idea. Well, I got it listening to the radio. The radio was playing 'Easter Parade' and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin 'Easter Parade' and 'White Christmas.' The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus. People always tell me Jesus is Jewish. I never believe them. It’s like when people used to tell me Cary Grant was Jewish. Bullshit. Jews don’t want to hear about Jesus. And can you blame them? So—Bing Crosby replaces Jesus as the beloved Son of God, and the Jews, the Jews, go around whistling about Easter! And is that so disgraceful a means of defusing the enmity of centuries? Is anyone really dishonored by this? If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Do you see my point?" I took more pride, I told them, in "Easter Parade" then in the victory of the Six Day War, found more security in "White Christmas" than in the Israeli nuclear reactor. I told them that if the Israelis ever reached a point where they believed their survival depended not merely on breaking hands but on dropping a nuclear bomb, that would be the end of Judaism, even if the state of Israel should survive. "Jews as Jews will simply disappear. A generation after Jews use nuclear weapons to save themselves from their enemies, there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews. The Israelis will have saved their state by destroying their people. They will never survive morally after that; and if they don't, why survive as Jews at all? They barely have the wherewithal to survive morally now. To put all these Jews in this tiny place, surrounded on all sides by tremendous hostility—how can you survive morally? Better to be marginal neurotics, anxious assimilationists, and everything else that the Zionists despise, better to lose the state than to lose your moral being by unleashing a nuclear war. Better Irving Berlin than the Wailing Wall. Better Irving Berlin than Holy Jerusalem! What does owning Jerusalem, of all places, have to do with being Jews in 1988? Jerusalem is by now the worst thing that could possibly have happened to us. Last year in Jerusalem! Next year in Warsaw! Next year in Bucharest! Next year in Vilna and Cracow! Look, I know people call Diasporism a revolutionary idea, but it's not a revolution that I'm proposing, it's a retroversion, a turning back, the very thing Zionism itself once was. You go back to the crossing point and cross back the other way. Zionism went back too far, that's what went wrong with Zionism. Zionism went back to the crossing point of the dispersion—Diasporism goes back to the crossing point of Zionism."

Roth's argument isn't complicated. First, he takes as a given that jews are a group, his group, distinct from everyone else. Second, he's advocating in favor of that group's best interests, regardless of what it means for anyone else. Roth subtitled his book A Confession. It is a jewish confession though, which means it's more of an arrogant celebration of jewish victimology and supremacy than an expression of humility or contrition. Roth revels in his enmity toward "the goyim" even as he projects his hate into their minds. That the Other are so clueless, even about their supposed hatred for jews, serves as just another excuse for jews to hate them.

Talking directly to his own people, Roth first reminds them how easily and completely the goyim can and have been manipulated by jews. Then he shames them with the notion that jewish nationalism isn't good enough for the jews. Why constrain yourself to live in one small country when you can thrive everywhere by manipulating the goyim? Then, finally, as a sort of trump card, Roth invokes morality. As with confession, morality means something different to jews than Christians. Christian morality is universalist - it refers to principles that apply equally to everyone, even their enemies. Jewish morality is particularist - "Is it good for the jews?" Working with this definition of morality Roth doesn't see anything wrong with jews manipulating the goyim to further jewish interests. If it's good for the jews then it's good. When Roth describes zionist jews nuking their enemies as immoral, it's not because of the harm it might cause those enemies. It's because he thinks it would cause "the end of Judaism", which to him means "there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews".

Scrolling back to the top of the page in the book where the quote above begins we find Roth elaborating on who the enemy is, and what he wants from them:

... call on Europe to purge itself of a thousand years of anti-Semitism and to make room in its midst for a vital Jewish presence to multiply and flourish there and, in anticipation of the third millenium of Christianity, to declare by proclamation in all its parliaments the right of the Jewish uprooted to resettle in their European homeland and to live as Jews there, free, secure, and welcome. But I have my doubts.

This is the jewish version of history, together with the jewish solution to their European problem. Roth makes it plain enough, and not nicely at all, that Europeans must be subordinated to jews so that jews can multiply and flourish. Roth wants Europeans (by which he means Whites everywhere) to admit collective guilt and abandon any collective identity or interests of our own. Meanwhile jews enjoy the opposite.

Roth is sometimes absurdly described as a "self-hating jew" because he clearly favors diasporism over zionism, rather than both. This "self-hating jew" bit also serves as a kind of cover - shoo away now goyim, this is private jew business being discussed here. The fact is that he's simply one particularly prominent example of the typical White-blaming, White-hating what's-good-for-the-jews jew. The less the goyim know about that the better for the jews.

The belief that zionism is somehow bad for the jews is not uncommon on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum - which is to say amongst the majority of jews outside Israel. Philip Weiss expressed a similar belief earlier this month in Israel isn't good for the Jews. Weiss, aiming non-fiction at a (slightly) more mixed audience than Roth, writes:

A feeling has taken root deep in the American Jewish community that Israel is hurting us, hurting our standing in the world and our future. The restrictions on democracy, the curbs on women, the intransigence vis-a-vis the Palestinians when Obama has demanded movement, the indifference to the Arab Spring-- Israel is a society we no longer recognize as Jewish like we're Jewish, and worst of all, its militarism is exposing American Jews to the accusation that we are dually loyal. And we don't like that: We're Americans.

The straw that broke the camel's back was clearly the oafish ad campaign that targeted Christmas and intermarriage-- the ad campaign that Netanyahu cancelled. Even rightwing Israel lobbyists were stunned by how clueless the ad campaign was. But it was an expression of genuine Israeli attitudes. And that is what's so scary: American Jews are waking up to the fact that Israeli society is nothing like ours. Hillary Clinton could only launch her criticism of religious restrictions on women in Israel because she knows that American Jews feel this way. Ambassador Howard Gutman was speaking for many sensible American Jews when he said that Israeli policies are hurting Jews by fostering anti-Semitism.

We are integrators. We live in America because we want to be Jews in a diverse society. That is the spirit of American Jewish life by and large. And now these Zionists--separatists whom we never completely trusted when we were arguing with them in Eastern Europe--are quietly understood to have hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place.

In conclusion Weiss writes:

Because more and more of us who care about Jewish life, as an integral part of western society, need to separate ourselves from an ethos of separation.

It's refreshing to hear a jew admit that powerful non-jews like Hillary Clinton are actually beholden to jewish will - able to do what they do only so long as jews approve. Howard Gutman is also only nominally a representative of American interests. What Gutman said was delivered at a conference of organized jewry that deserves a detailed examination and critique of its own. Suffice it here to say that Gutman drew a distinction between Whites and muslims vis-a-vis jews. Whites, he said, simply hate others, like jews, largely for the sake of hating, whereas muslims at least hate jews for somewhat more sensible reasons, namely jews in Israel acting like Whites. This was controversial to jews and non-jews seeking to serve them. They complained Gutman wasn't being fair to the jews.

Weiss, like Gutman, describes concerns that are clearly pinned to what he thinks best serves the interests of jews, or at least jews who live in the US. Not Americans. Not Palestinians. That's what the word integration means to him. He's so eager to defend his jews from exposure to (valid) accusations and yet so intellectually bankrupt that all he can do is spew blatant contradictions. We're jews AND we're Americans! That's NOT dual loyalty! We're integrators AND we continue separately as jews! We're not at all like those DARK, UGLY separatists over there! Oh, and by the way, THEY'RE NOT JEWS!

The bottom line is that Weiss, like Roth, thinks jewish interests are best served within subservient Western societies. Whereas Roth sees the jews in diaspora as living among hostile aliens and writes more or less frankly about defusing Christians, Weiss is more interested in playing the anti-"racist" liberal, defusing separatists and nationalists. Like Roth, Weiss seems confident that jews can and will continue to thrive, at least in diaspora. The problem, as Roth sees it, is that zionism is immoral. Weiss claims the problem is that "oafish" "clueless" zionists are making a mockery of his (jewish) moralizing.

Weiss says he's scared that jews are waking up and they're upset that zionists have "hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place". I couldn't care less, but I think what scares jews more, zionist and diasporist alike, is the fear that Whites will see through their double-talk. That enough of us will wake up and be upset to realize that jews, as a group, are only worried about the interests of jews. That we'll understand that they have always seen us as the Other, the enemy, regardless of how we regard them. That we'll see how diaspora jews, through calculated, coordinated, collective effort, have hijacked Western societies and taken us to a dark ugly place, turning our homelands into amusement parks in the interests of "minorities", first and foremost themselves. That we'll put together the various pieces of truth, left and right, and see how militarism (and corporatism and globalism) really figures into all this. How the lives and vitality of our people have been squandered stomping around, on ourselves as well as others, to keep the world safe for jews, diasporists AND zionists, while they take turns demonizing and exploiting us.

[The Philip Weiss image comes from Gilad Atzmon's Jews & Their Self Interest-An Interview with Philip Weiss.]

An Unamusing Mischling Meltdown

2011-12-20T00:10:00.000-08:00

(Unamused's first comment on this blog was made back in July:

Warning: Unamused is a sneaky half-Jew and does not believe in conspiracy theories, Jew-related or otherwise. He thinks the problem is liberal Jews, and liberals in general; not liberal Jews, and Jews in general. He does however prefer Nazi neighbors to black neighbors.

In September he came up again in the comments at Svigor's.)

Svigor's Half Sigma: Female Jewish race-realist, Jewish Supremacy prompts Unamused to protest:

"Ashkenazis are born to Jewish Supremacy."

I'm half Ashkenazi, and therefore a "Jew" according to the WN types. I didn't know I was until I was a teenager, and I've never cared since. Was I born to Jewish supremacy or not?

"Ashkenazis aren't overrepresented among pro-White movements or organizations — they're totally absent."

This is, and always has been, nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter what a "Jew" does, as soon as the supposedly pro-White types find out about his "Jew blood," they reject him. Then they point to the lack of "Jews" as evidence of how bad the "Jews" are. The other "Jews" keep their mouths shut and so they, too, are not counted.

Again, my ban from Stormfront provides a clear example. When they were judging me by what I do and what I write, the Stormfronters believed I was thoroughly pro-White and therefore not a "Jew," joking that my flyer on race differences in intelligence could not have been written by a "Jew." Somehow my work magically become Jew propaganda when they found out I'm a "Jew."

That is not race realism, or realism of any other kind. It is irrational hatred of all "Jews," no matter what they do. That is why "Jew"-hating WNs are not taken seriously. It doesn't matter how much of Kevin MacDonald's research they cite; the unbiased observer notes that their hatred of "Jews" is actually independent of what "Jews" may or may not do.

Responding to Porter, Unamused continues:

"... your 'irrational hatred' of blacks..."

I harbor no irrational hatreds. I hate the people who deserve to be hated, and blacks are over-represented among them. This is quite different from hating every single black person. Do you see the difference? That's why I'm a race realist, and you're just a Jew-hater.

"Whites are suspect of jews as time immemorial has proven they are well advised to be. This is hardly irrational."

No, actually, it is irrational.

Go ahead, cite your God, Kevin MacDonald.

"Odd behavior for such irrational actors whose hatred exists independent of what jews actually say or do. Don’t you think?"

I've learned to expect odd behavior from Jew-haters.

"... both white and jewish interests..."

The fact that you have detected any "Jewish interests" on my part indicates, yet again, that you are indulging in irrational thinking. Basically, I'm an evil Jew with Jew interests because... I fail to be sufficiently genocidally anti-Semitic.

So Unamused's point is that he isn't a jew. If he hates you it's only because you're an indulgent, irrational hater of jews. His bugaboo about "jew"-hate has nothing to do with him. It's all your fault.

Two days later Unamused was still kvetching about the rejection and other indignities he and the jews he supposedly doesn't care about have suffered at the hands of "the WN types", "the supposedly pro-White types", "the Stormfronters" and that god of irrationality, Kevin MacDonald. Oh woe. Why? (A question for the reader):

Why would I keep doing this? What exactly is my motivation?

As context he cites a list of quotes he describes as "anti-jewish racism".

The first commenter makes a rather obvious observation:

Most Internet comments are pretty juvenile. Unamused, you do have something of a sardonic writing style that would come off as rather mean-spirited and hateful to those not in agreement with your world-view, so it would seem rather petty to complain about others being insensitive towards the Jews.

Sardonic Unamused goes hyperbolic where jewish interests are concerned:

“Insensitive towards the Jews,” in this case, means genocidal anti-Semitism.

Not being a frequent reader of his I would appreciate it if someone who is could point out where Unamused has expressed such concern about genocidal anti-Whitism. Or perhaps where he explains that it's actually suicidal.

Jewish conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish racism (basically, any time you make a claim about all Jews) are no longer permitted on Unamusement Park. An upcoming post will clarify our position.

This seems to have caught at least a few regular consumers of Unamused's black "conspiracy theories" and anti-black "racism" by surprise. Others are delighted. The bashing of Whites Unamused hates will continue unabated.

Svigor made a good point about the comments Unamused cited:

Personally, I consider arguing with your worst your opponents can offer, and ignoring the best, is a form of the straw man argument. It’s doubly bad when you pretend that’s what your best opponents are saying, as you do.

Unamused's response was more of his unamusing schtick:

Oh, don't think I'm arguing with the Jew-haters. I'm merely demonstrating how diseased are their minds.

The ideas I quoted can be dismissed out of hand. They do not qualify as race realism; they are in fact simply racism. You know anti-white racism? Well... see above for some anti-Jewish racism.

Someone who wants to exterminate the Jews, won't let any Jew "redeem" himself by participating in pro-white activities, or believes the Nazi genocide of Jews never happened, has disqualified himself from any serious, or even sane, discussion. I'm not interested in "the best" someone has to offer, when he's so obviously fucked in the head.

Responding to another comment from someone who pointed out that he had claimed he wasn't a "racist" at Svigor's, Unamused writes:

Don't make a fool of yourself by forgetting that just because liberals misuse the term, that doesn't mean actual racism doesn't exist. Have you not noticed my many posts addressing anti-white racism? Now, I am not a racist, as will be made clear in my next post. But attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews is racism.

This is all very Austeresque. The ambiguous jewish identity. The hostility to anyone put off by that ambiguity. The inability to accept Whites as distinct from jews even while taking for granted that jews are distinct from Whites. The self-righteous "white" advocacy. Hinging that advocacy on unfettered criticism of blacks while condemning Whites for criticizing jews. The histrionics. The hypocrisy. The projection. The rationalizations. The talmudic hairsplitting. The acceptance of jews and subordination of non-jewish interests as a moral litmus test. The irrational hatred of Kevin MacDonald. The dishonest "liberal" rhetoric. The control-freak need to edit and censor other people's comments. I could go on.

Having already picked through this kind of jew-first dissembling and dissimulation with Lawrence Auster (and to a similar but less thorough extent with Ian Jobling, Guy White, Fjordman, and several others) I see hardly anything new here. Yet I'm fascinated by the situation and dismayed by how Unamused faces it. On the surface I see a conflicted man I'm inclined at first blush to feel some sympathy for - a part-jew/part-White who wants to "redeem" his jewish half and prove himself pro-White. Unfortunately I can't help noticing his deception and duplicity. How he goes about trying to achieve his goal by attacking Whites. How he's not simply trying to redeem himself, or half-jews, but all jews because they are jews.

Attacking and excluding "racists" for "attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews" is in fact the quintessential jewish conceit. It is the epitome of jewish privilege and supremacy that jews as a group feel free to attack or exclude whomever they wish, which just makes them good jews, and at the same time painting Whites who attack or exclude jews, or by "liberal" extension any other "minority", as the most stupid/crazy/evil people ever.

Svigor critiqued Unamused's post in Because it's good for the Whites. His conclusion:

No amount of arguing about tactics or "respectability" is going to convince me that Ashkenazis should have a right to ethno-states, and Whites should not. And this is the status quo we're facing. Ashkenazi Supremacy. "White Advocates" who are okay with this are wrong-headed. "White Advocates" who put this problem on the back burner are wrong-headed.

One final note, about the less-capable ANTI-SEMITES!!! Sure, they're a burden in the sense that the average person isn't bright enough to separate the wheat from the chaff and forgo the guilt by association fallacy, given enough reason (nobody seems to apply these standards to leftoid values like blank-slatism and equalitarianism; mouth-breathers supporting these things abound). But there are plenty of idiots who criticize Blacks. I don't see any HBD-ers, Race Realists, or White Advocates bemoaning the burden they create.

I'd rather share a foxhole with a mouth-breathing ANTI-SEMITE!!! than a philo-Semitic "White Advocate" any day. At least I know whose side he's on.

Well said. I agree.

In the comments Svigor referred indirectly to my A Personal Disclosure:

E.g., I love TAN and think the world of him, but I don't think he "came clean" for anyone's sake but his own; he felt like he'd be deceiving people if he didn't come out with it. The rest of us didn't give a damn either way.

He is correct. I disclosed it because it pained me not to. I realized that it was important and that it would only reflect more negatively on my character and motives the longer I put it off.

The relevance here is twofold. For one thing I have at least a second-hand appreciation for Unamused's situation. I understand that jewishness, like Whiteness, is part inborn and part mindset. The personality traits are more inborn, while the hostility toward Whites comes more from indoctrination - being taught that to be a jew is to be a victim, primarily of the supposedly senseless hate and oppression of Whites. Second, I recognize that Unamused exaggerates his case, and that he consistently does so in favor of his jewish half and at the expense of his White half. He's obsessed with putting down Whites who in his own estimation have no real power or importance. He makes a self-righteous stink about "racist" Whites rejecting him, while the jews who reject him, or would if he tried to pass himself off as an advocate for jews, get a pass. The jews who hate him for being a "racist" also get a pass. You see, he's not really a "racist", he's a "race realist", and they're not really jews, they're "liberals". Finally, I think what Unamused sees as genocidal jew-hate pales in comparison to the harsh, unrelenting criticism aimed at Whites because they are White. That Whites are born stupid/crazy/evil "racists" is a foregone conclusion broadcast by the MSM, taught in the schools, and codified in the law. The last thing Whites need are faux-"whites" who spout the same poisonous message.

By the way, a recent German translation of my personal disclosure post can be found at As der Schwerter - Tanstaafl: Eine persönliche Enthüllung (Google Translate). I'm sorry to have caused my comrades there, and here, any concern over my long break from writing.

Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree

2011-11-08T15:59:00.000-08:00

Farha Khaled's Caroline Glick Cited As One of Israeli American Tipsters By Gates of Vienna Where Fjordman Appears To Be Back surveys and connects a good portion of counterjihadist dots, linking names with pseudonyms, blogs and photos.

Khaled describes herself as:

Freelance writer. Columnist for the Saudi based Arab News. My op eds focus on exposing Islamophobia.

Khaled begins her article by asserting that Gates of Vienna is a "white supremacist blog which published 'Fjordman'", "regularly publishing essays promoting white supremacism". The bulk of the article goes on to associate various counterjihadist ideologues with GoV.

Here is one of the more meaty, lucid portions (links preserved):

Far right Islamophobic activists have forged alliances of convenience with radical Zionists and regard Israel as an ally, not least because they see Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a role model for how Muslims should be treated. Hard line Zionists see it as an opportunity to lessen the growing Muslim influence in the USA or Europe which they see as detrimental to a greater Israel. Stooges like Geert Wilders are funded in the hope they can halt Muslim immigration and influence. Marginalised as they are, some European nationalist groups are willing to shed their traditional Jew hatred in an attempt to find allies, but as often happens in marriages of convenience, it doesn't take much for cracks to appear.

Pamela Geller's association with the EDL caused waves when Roberta Moore claimed they had Jew hating members and were not sufficiently pro Israel. In Europe, German newspaper Der Spiegel probed this alliance in 'The Likud Connection' showing how some marginalized right wing populists are going the Geert Wilders way. This bizarre coupling has split the far right movement in Europe which has traditionally been anti-semitic.

The counterjihadist network Khaled analyzes is a jewish movement. It is dressed up as Westerners concerned with a defense of the West, but it is in fact dominated by jews and others whose first and foremost concerns are for the best interests of Israel and jews. There are no prominent counterjihadists who defend the best interests of Whites as a people, separate and apart from jews. While they readily distinguish jews and muslims for special consideration, positive and negative, they regard other distinctions between people as wrong, especially if race or "white" is involved. They regard any distinction of Whites from jews as roughly comparable to the threat to jews they see coming from islamization - unthinkably evil.

Khaled engages in similar doublethink, but to a different end. She blithely conflates counterjihadist bigotry in favor of jews with "white supremacism". She carries on about "islamophobia" as if fearing or resenting being colonized and ruled by aliens is a mental disorder. Khaled has adopted and adapted characteristically jewish rhetoric. She paints her muslim Us as the helpless, blameless victims of a "hate"-filled Them, ascribing bizarre, pathological motives to Them, smearing Them collectively using guilt-by-association.

This rhetoric is fundamentally dishonest as well as bigoted. Counterjihadists see Us and Them as jews and their enemies, while Khaled sees the Us/Them divide being between muslims and their enemies. Both agree that Whites are not entitled to an identity of our own, much less to decide for ourselves who our enemies are.

Just as jews living amongst Europeans have done for centuries now, muslim intellectuals today excuse and direct attention away from their own group's transgressions by finding fault instead in someone else. As with the apologists for jews, apologists for muslims zealously defend their own group identity and interests while moralizing against "hate" and "racism", trying to guilt-trip Whites for expressing any kind of identity that excludes them.

Khaled finds it scandalous that Anders Breivik commented at Gates of Vienna. As it happens, Breivik took issue with Diana West's "anti-sharia" strategy and more generally with the unwillingness of counterjihadists to face the demographic threat posed by immigration:

Why havent you or any of the other current authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe (Fjordman, Spencer, Ye`or, Bostom etc.) brought up the “D” word? I assume because it is considered a fascist method in nature, which would undermine your/their work? Why would it undermine their efforts when it is the only rational conclusion, based on the above argument? As far as I know, it’s not illegal in Europe to suggest deportation as a future method when discussing future hypothetical World Orders (correct me if im wrong though, Im not 100% sure, lol)!?

The answer, as unwilling as Breivik was to face it himself, is that counterjihadism is about serving the best interests of jews. Thus the concern to not appear "fascist", meaning "nazi", meaning anti-jew, takes priority over the identification with or concern for the best interests of Europeans as a people. Should Europe be lost, oh well, the struggle against islamic jihad (in defense of jews) will continue elsewhere.

When Baron Bodissey republished Breivik's comments he also linked Daniel Pipe's apologia, Norway's Terrorism in Context. To distinguish his position from Breivik's Pipes quotes a similar statement from Breivik's book:

The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe — Fjordman, Spencer, [Bat] Ye'or, Bostom etc. aren't actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). . . . If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.

The portion omitted by Pipes is telling:

This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe.

Indeed. Like the other leading lights of counterjihadism, Pipes doesn't care as much about the devastating effect on Europeans as he does about what's best for jews.

(Thanks to Flanders for the link.)

Trashtalking the Boss

2011-11-08T15:09:00.000-08:00

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu 'liar' - Israel News, Ynetnews:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not "stand" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier "is a liar."

. . .

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

Buchanan on the Passing of the White Race

2011-10-22T02:35:00.000-07:00

Plugging his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Pat Buchanan concludes his 17 October column, A.D. 2041 – end of white America?, with this:

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind – slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide – may welcome its departure from history. Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.

Buchanan clearly sees the malevolent, external forces at work here - the "replacement by Third World immigrants" and "those who hold the White race responsible for the mortals sins of mankind". He may as well drop the rhetorical tone and detached posture and clearly identify it as genocide. What we need are advocates, not mourners.

Of course he would be mocked and hated all the more for crying foul play. But that's exactly the point. If it were suicide there wouldn't be such venom and force directed against those who speak in favor of Whites. The hostility comes from those who discount our concerns or see them conflicting with their own. Many imagine their anti-"racism" only harms stupid/crazy/evil White "racists", not themselves.

Joan Walsh's review of Buchanan's book provides a good example. Walsh ridicules Buchanan's thesis as "silly, a crazy mashup of stereotypes and paranoia", "he sees anti-white racism everywhere". She makes it quite clear she doesn't share his concerns:

The book mourns the decline not only of white Christian America, but of Europe, since we share a common white European heritage. But then he runs down the history of European wars and ethnic nationalism, which makes me wonder what constitutes a “European” heritage or identity, other than (some comparative shade of) white skin — and why it matters anyway, if Europeans fight so much.

Walsh claims to identify with Buchanan as a fellow political pundit, especially because they are fellow Irish Catholics, though she married out. Even in her criticism of Buchanan she clearly expresses a more sober concern for the well-being of jews than Whites:

In Buchanan’s dim view of civilization, it’s not only white Christian countries, or cultures, that are on the decline. “American Jews seem to be an endangered species,” he declares (a little comically, since he’s never been a particular friend of American Jews). In fact, the U.S. Jewish population is declining, in part because of intermarriage, and each younger generation getting progressively less observant in our overall less tribalist society. But Buchanan doesn’t mention any of that: he blames birth control and abortion, which is a form of karmic payback in his telling, since Jews tend to support reproductive rights. “How many of the 50 million abortions since 1973 were performed on Jewish girls or women?” Buchanan asks. “How many Jewish children were never conceived because of birth control?” It would be funny if it weren’t so creepy.

No, not funny at all. Walsh criticizes Buchanan for having and defending a European identity that she could share but does not value, and she does it while defending a jewish identity that she cannot share despite her own creepy "intermarriage". Walsh isn't suicidal. She just fancies herself on the other team.

O'Meara: The Anti-Semites Are Our Misfortune

2011-10-06T21:53:00.000-07:00

Michael O'Meara sums up his latest essay, White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism, with this telling comment:

The anti-Semites, though, are totally out of control and need a wake-up call; I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism. Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.

William Buckley, Lawrence Auster, Peder Jensen (Fjordman), Guy White, and Ian Jobling have made similar calls in similar terms.

O'Meara projects his own ignorance, reductionism, and resentment onto the objects of his frustration. And who wouldn't be frustrated with the low, hateful group of losers he imagines; so obscure and crazy that he cannot name even one, and yet so critically important that he feels compelled to confront and vanquish them.

For my part I try to stay focused on real people who wield real power. If so many of them were eskimos or serving eskimo interests then naturally their regime (and O'Meara) would be scapegoating eskimo-obsessed crackpots. C'est la guerre.

Rick Perry's Jewish Problem

2011-10-01T20:03:00.000-07:00

Gov Perry Dancing with Orthodox Jews

What a humiliating performance.

Our Jewish Problem

2011-09-23T23:16:00.000-07:00

Here's a mainstream media article that makes no bones about the jewish hegemony over US politics. The central point of debate is whether jews think Obama is good or bad for the jews. That they have the power to decide his fortune, one way or the other, is taken for granted.

The tone for this exposition of particularist jewish concerns is set right in the title. Tsuris is yiddish slang meaning "trouble or woe; aggravation". The masters of finance, politics and media are displeased, and they intend for us to know it.

The Tsuris - Why Barack Obama Is the Best Thing Israel Has Going for It Right Now, John Heilemann, New York Magazine, 18 Sept 2011:

Barack Obama is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand?

How, exactly, did Obama come to be portrayed, and perceived by many American Jews, as the most ardently anti-Israel president since Jimmy Carter?

This meme, of course, has been gathering steam for some time, peddled mainly by right-wing Likudophiles here and in the Holy Land. But last week, it took center stage in the special election in New York’s Ninth Congressional District, maybe the most Jewish district in the nation and one held by Democrats since 1923. When the smoke cleared, the Republican had won—and Matt Drudge was up with a headline blaring REVENGE OF THE JEWS.

Obama’s people deny up and down that the loss of a seat last occupied by Anthony Weiner portends, well, pretty much anything for 2012. But the truth is that they are worried, and worried they should be, for the signs of Obama’s slippage among Jewish voters are unmistakable. Last week, a new Gallup poll found that his approval rating in that cohort had fallen to 55 percent—a whopping 28-point drop since his inauguration. And among the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine last time around, stories of dismay and disaffection are legion. “There’s no question,” says one of the president’s most prolific fund-raisers. “We have a big-time Jewish problem.”

Obama’s team has made its share of errors in the conduct of its diplomacy and in allowing misperceptions to take hold: that its tough-love approach to Israel has been all the former and none of the latter; that its demands on the Palestinians have been either negligible or nonexistent. And many Jewish voters, like those Wall Street financiers (and, to be sure, the overlap between those groups isn’t trivial) who flocked to Obama and were then chagrined when he called them out as “fat cats,” have all too often focused more on the president’s words than his deeds—and come away with the impression that he doesn’t seem to “feel Israel” in his bones.

For Obama, such assessments would be funny if they weren’t so frustrating and absurd; and for the Jews who know him best, they are simply mystifying. In the last days of the 2008 campaign, the former federal judge, White House counsel, and Obama mentor Abner Mikva quipped, “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” And while that prediction has so far proved to be wildly over-optimistic, there is more truth in it than meets the eye.

The suspicions regarding the bone-deepness of Obama’s bond with Israel were present from the start, and always rooted in a reading of his background that was as superficial as it was misguided. Yes, he was black. Yes, his middle name was Hussein. And yes, in his time in Hyde Park, his friends included Palestinian scholars and activists, notably the historian Rashid Khalidi. But far more crucial to Obama’s makeup and rise to prominence were his ties to Chicago’s Jewish milieu, whose players, from real-estate powerhouse Penny Pritzker to billionaire investor Lester Crown, were among his chief supporters and financial patrons. In 2008—after herculean efforts by his campaign to reassure the Jewish Establishment that he was, er, kosher and stamp out the sub-rosa proliferation of the lie that he is a Muslim—he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote, four points higher than John Kerry’s total four years earlier.

This background meant that, although Obama was hardly an old hand on Israel when he became president, he was well attuned to the Jewish community and its views. “With the kind of exposure he had to Jewish backers, Jewish thinkers, in Illinois,” says deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes, “he came into office with a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and Jewish thought than, I would argue, any president in recent memory.”

The American push for a settlement freeze would be the first flash point in Obama’s relations with Israel and also a turning point in his standing with Jewish voters at home. With Netanyahu having just reassumed the prime-ministership in a coalition government that included several ultraconservative parties, he resisted Obama’s call for a freeze. American Jews, meanwhile, saw the administration as aggressively pressuring Israel but treading softly on the Palestinians. In combination with its policy of engagement with Iran, this fostered the impression that Obama’s stance amounted to punishing America’s truest friend in the region while rewarding its—and Israel’s—most lethal foe.

And then there was Netanyahu’s surpassingly volatile governing coalition, which was held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements (cf. Avigdor Lieberman).

Omitted: paragraphs detailing yet another Netanyahu snub.

But Netanyahu knew he could get away with it—so staunch and absolute is the bipartisan support he commands in the U.S. Garishly illuminating the point, on the night before his speech to Congress, the prime minister attended the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, where he was the headline speaker at the event’s gala banquet. Before he took the stage, three announcers, amid flashing spotlights and in the style of the introductions at an NBA All-Star game, read the names of every prominent person in the room, including 67 senators, 286 House members, and dozens of administration and Israeli officials, foreign dignitaries, and student leaders. (The roll call took half an hour.) When Harry Reid spoke, he obliquely but unambiguously chastised Obama for endorsing the use of the 1967 lines as the basis for a peace deal: “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else.” The ensuing ovation was deafening—but a mere whisper compared with the thunderous waves of applause that poured over Netanyahu.

The next day came his speech to Congress, in which he spelled out demands that were maximal by any measure: recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations, a refusal to talk if Hamas is part of the Palestinian side, an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and absolutely no right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Exactly one month after his Oval Office awkwardfest with Netanyahu, Obama made the mile-and-a-half trip from the White House to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel to have dinner with several dozen wealthy Jews. His appearance had twin objectives: to rake in more than $1 million and to calm their jangled nerves. Unlike many conservative Jews, the big-ticket Democrats in the room, who had paid $25,000 to $35,800 a head to be there, didn’t believe that Obama was hostile to Israel. Yet it’s fair to say they had their share of qualms and a ton of questions.

In addition to deploying Axelrod and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his campaign has hired an official outreach director to try to fix its Jewish problem: Ira Forman, the former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Forman is known for an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish politics and a history in waging trench warfare against Republican Jewish groups. But none of that will prepare him for the job he is taking on. “A lot of what he’ll be doing is coaxing and persuading,” says a Jewish Obama megabundler. “A lot of people who raised a ton of money for the president last time are very short on enthusiasm for doing it again.”

The hiring of Forman is a tacit acknowledgment that the White House has badly handled the continual care and feeding required to keep major donors sweet—and all the more so in this case. The first White House liaison to the community was Susan Sher, who at the time was chief of staff to Michelle Obama. “Lovely woman, but she knew nothing about Israel,” says an Obama bundler, who some time ago attended a dinner with Sher and a clutch of A-list tribesmen: Mort Zuckerman, HBO co-chief Richard Plepler, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. “It was kind of insulting to have this woman talking to these people who know this issue backward and forwards. And then there was no follow-up. Nothing.”

Both the nature and scale of Obama’s Jewish problem—at least where donors are concerned—are tough to pin down. A recent poll by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates found that among Jewish donors who gave to Obama in 2008, just 64 percent have already donated or plan to donate to him this time. Complicating the picture is the fact that Jewish buckrakers cite a variety of complaints with Obama: Some object to his rhetoric on Wall Street, some to his economic policies, and some to his handling of Israel.

Omitted: paragraphs explaining why the jewish vote in NY-9 (Anthony Weiner's vacacted seat) doesn't matter.

On the other hand, thanks in large part to the indefatigable Ed Koch, who endorsed Obama in 2008 but has now become one of his loudest (and loopiest) critics on Israel, the NY-9 election was framed to an unusual extent as a referendum not just on Obama but on his supposed betrayal of the chosen people. All over TV and the web was Koch, doing a squawky imitation of Romney, saying that the “Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Muslim nations.”

Even in the face of the most pessimistic (for Obama) reading of NY-9, Democrats will comfort themselves with two facts. The first is that, for all the outsize attention they command—and the earsplitting volume of the collective megaphone they wield—Jews make up about 2 percent of the national electorate. Too small a proportion, that is to say, to matter much to the overall popular vote.

The second ostensibly comforting fact for Democrats has to do with the trend lines of recent presidential-election history: Obama’s 78 percent of the Jewish vote, Kerry’s 74 percent, Al Gore’s 79 percent, Clinton’s 78 and 80 percent in 1996 and 1992, respectively. The implication here is that, in the end, the Jews will come home to Obama—mainly because they are overwhelmingly liberal and have nowhere else to go.

The trouble for Republicans is that, in the extant crop of candidates, there is no one who bears even a passing resemblance to Dutch. Though Rick Perry is as avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive—“If you’re our friend, we are with you,” he says. “I’m talking about Israel. Come hell or high water, we will be standing with you!”—his positions on almost every other issue are anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor. And Perry’s theocratish tendencies have been criticized even by some who are pretty far right; the Christian rally he held in Houston not long before jumping into the race, “The Response,” was derided by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League as a “conscious disregard of law and authority” because of the way it traversed the spheres of church and state.

Mitt Romney is an entirely different case. Within the Republican donor class, Romney is the strong favorite. He has actively courted the AIPAC crowd, staking out hawkish positions on Iran and pillorying Obama on Israel. The day before he opened his Florida headquarters earlier this month, Romney dropped in on a local AIPAC meeting in Tampa and was greeted with a standing O. But when it comes to winning over independent Jews or queasy Democratic ones, Romney may have done too effective a job in transforming himself from a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights moderate into a more conventionally conservative candidate. “He’s a phony,” a cheeky Democratic operative notes. “But for a lot of Jews, he may turn out to be just a little too convincing.”

The premise of Obama’s approach to Israel all along has been straightforward. Given the demographic realities it faces—the growth of the Palestinian population in the territories and also of the Arab population in Israel itself—our ally confronts a fundamental and fateful choice: It can remain democratic and lose its Jewish character; it can retain its Jewish character but become an apartheid state; or it can remain both Jewish and democratic, satisfy Palestinian national aspirations, facilitate efforts to contain Iran, alleviate the international opprobrium directed at it, and reap the enormous security and economic benefits of ending the conflict by taking up the task of the creation of a viable Palestinian state—one based, yes, on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

The irony is that Obama—along with countless Israelis, members of the Jewish diaspora, and friends of Israel around the world—seems to grasp these realities and this choice more readily than Netanyahu does. “The first Jewish president?” Maybe not. But certainly a president every bit as pro-Israel as the country’s own prime minister—and, if you look from the proper angle, maybe even more so.

Heilemann proceeds from an explicit recognition that jewish financial power ("the non-trivial overlap between jewish voters and Wall Street financiers") and jewish political contributions ("the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine") drive US politics. Clearly this drive extends beyond their current focus on Obama and Israel.

Heilemann idolizes jews and their ethnocentrism. Whether as "the Jewish vote", "the Jewish Establishment", "the Jewish community", "the Jewish diaspora" or just plain old "the Jews", jews and jewish interests are presented in a purely positive light. This is in stark contrast to the cynical, sinister regard for Whites and White political interests found in most of the mainstream media. Jews are not pathologized for having a group identity, nor are they portrayed negatively for openly arguing about and pursuing their own group interests, independent of the rest of us.

Heilemann and US media pundits and politicians in general treat jewish nationalism with the utmost deference and respect. Though Israel is a jewish ethnostate, ruled by a coalition "held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements", it enjoys the obsequious fealty of Obama and other top US politicians. This may cause consternation for some jews who don't think it is good for the jews, but their grumbling pales in comparison to the pitiless condemnation and vilification routinely aimed at any form of White nationalism.

Heilemann confides that even the most powerful non-jewish politicians in the US are expected to "feel Israel in their bones". This is really just one facet of the more general requirement to placate jews, doing whatever they deem best for themselves. But the jews often can't agree on what they think is best, and so what results is a humiliating, circus-like environment in which US presidents and their challengers regularly profess their love for the jews, only to get kicked in the teeth by one subset of jews or another who don't find the performance pleasing enough.

Here Heilemann describes Rick Perry as "avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive" and yet "anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor". In other words, anathema to virtually every jew. Heilemann's point is that Obama and every contender for his job each have their own jewish problems, though different in degree. As Heilemann relates the dances these clowns perform to please the jews, what comes through loud and clear is the presumption that the rest of us are immaterial. How this impacts our lives if of no concern. In this way Heilemann indirectly informs us that we all have a jewish problem.

The Jew Cries Out in Pain as He Strikes You

2011-09-22T18:50:00.000-07:00

Canada Gets Tough on Anti-Semitsim, Avi Benlolo, President and CEO, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, Canada, Huffington Post, 21 Sept 2011:

The government of Canada took an historic step yesterday by signing the Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism. By doing so, it recognized anti-Semitism as a pernicious evil and a global threat against the Jewish people, the State of Israel and free, democratic countries everywhere. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has noted, "Those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people would ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as well."

The protocol is a declaration that hatred of this nature will not be tolerated in this country. It sets out an action plan for supporting initiatives that combat anti-Semitism and provides a framework for other nations to follow.

It also sets out a vibrant definition of anti-Semitism which, for the first time in history, links anti-Semitism to the denial of the right Jewish people have to their ancestral home land -- the State of Israel. This, in fact, is what sets post-World War Two anti-Semitism apart from its historic roots. Today's anti-Semitism is all about denial: denial of the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish movement to reclaim the land of Israel; denial of a Jewish history in connection to the holy land and, in particular, the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people; denial of the Holocaust (while at the same time accusing Jews of Nazism); and denial of Jews to live free of anti-Semitism, hate and intolerance.

Unquestionably, the Government of Canada's stance on Israel is based on the principle of standing by your friends -- especially when they are democracies and advocates for human rights. Most Jewish leaders would agree that Israel is indeed Canada's greatest ally in the fight against hate and intolerance.

But the fight against hatred and anti-Semitism must be won here in Canada as well. The Ottawa Protocol is mostly the result of a report published this summer by a Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism which was comprised of leading Canadian politicians who volunteered their time to probe the increasing and alarming tide of anti-Semitism in Canada.

The Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism is a template for every Canadian to consider. But it is especially a document of significance for universities that have allowed themselves to become vehicles of hatred and complicit in its promotion. As my friend, Professor Irwin Cotler said last night at the Ottawa signing ceremony, anti-Semitism is not only the longest known form of hatred in the history of humanity -- it is the only form of hatred that is truly global.

Every person of conscience should take note of the Ottawa Protocols and never forget the lessons of the Holocaust when the world was silent.

The full text of the Ottawa Protocol:

We remain alarmed by ongoing state-sanctioned genocidal antisemitism and related extremist ideologies. If antisemitism is the most enduring of hatreds, and genocide is the most horrific of crimes, then the convergence of the genocidal intent embodied in antisemitic ideology is the most toxic of combinations.

We are appalled by the resurgence of the classic anti-Jewish libels, including:

+ The Blood Libel (that Jews use the blood of children for ritual sacrifice)
+ The Jews as "Poisoners of the Wells" - responsible for all evils in the world
+ The myth of the "new Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - the tsarist forgery that proclaimed an international Jewish conspiracy bent on world domination - and accuses the Jews of controlling government, the economy, media and public institutions.
+ The double entendre of denying the Holocaust - accusing the Jews of fabricating the Holocaust as a hoax - and the nazification of the Jew and the Jewish people.

Jewish Revolutionaries: Good for Anyone Other Than the Jews?

2011-09-18T21:39:00.000-07:00

From the Bastille to the boulevard: The long history of Jewish revolt, by Shuki Sadeh, Ido Efrati, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, 2 Sept 2011:

One hot day in the summer of 1967, a young, frizzy-haired guy named Abbie Hoffman tried to go into the visitors' entrance of the building in which the New York Stock Exchange is located. When the guard stopped him, Hoffman said: "We are Jews and you are an anti-Semite who is not letting us in." The disconcerted guard let Hoffman and his hippie-friends go up to the visitors' gallery.

Jews have traditionally taken a particular interest in the successes of their people in every generation and in every field of endeavor. This Jewish "bookkeeping" is mostly tendentious and usually ignores the circumstantial and environmental conditions that made these success stories possible. Indeed, for the most part, it prefers to attribute these achievements to the genetic makeup of the Chosen People.

"The list of Jews who have been involved in leading revolutions [since the middle of the 19th century] is very long," explains Prof. Moshe Zimmermann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's history department. "When a social group is not satisfied with its situation and feels it cannot change it - it will support a revolution. The Jews were not satisfied because they did not have privileges granted to other sectors and therefore the idea of revolution - whether communist or liberal - was attractive to them.

According to Prof. Moshe Zuckermann, a historian at Tel Aviv University, revolution was not the only option for Jews. They had least two other options.

"One was assimilation," he explains, "as happened in Germany in the 19th century, and the other was going in the Zionist direction, a possibility that arose at the end of that century. If a Jew did not choose one of those two directions, his remaining alternative was to change the society at large - and therefore became a revolutionary."

Trotsky was surrounded by quite a number of Jews, among whom his brother-in-law, Lev Kamenev, and Grigory Zinoviev stood out. "It is said jokingly," comments Miron, "that when Lenin would leave the room, Trotsky was able to organize a minyan [prayer quorum]."

In Hungary, in another example, Bela Kun, a young man in his 30s, was among the founders of the Soviet Republic in Hungary in 1919. When it collapsed after 133 days, Kun went into exile in Russia, and was killed in one of Stalin's purges at the end of the '30s.

"Kun operated within a reality in ferment: Nearly half of the Hungarian journalists were Jewish, as well as the lawyers and doctors - even though they constituted only 5 percent of the population," Silber explains. "At the end of World War I, Kun seized power in Hungary. He headed a government of 35 commissars, nearly all of them Jewish, and the impression was that a Jewish government really had been created. This led to a wave of anti-Semitism and terror against Jews."

"In Germany there were various revolutionary 'focal points' dominated by Jews," says Miron. "Kurt Eisner led the 'Bavarian Soviet Republic,' which briefly ruled in Bavaria. In Munich, there were three attempts at a revolution, all of them were led by Jews and all of them failed."

Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish-born Jewess, was one of the founders of the Communist Party in Germany.

"Jewish revolutionaries for the most part live on the margins of Jewish society and sometimes cut off ties with the community," notes Prof. Avi Saguy, head of the program for hermeneutics and a lecturer in philosophy at Bar-Ilan University. According to him, tikkun olam (repairing the world ) is a profound Jewish ethos - but a conservative rather than a revolutionary one.

"To say that in the Jewish genes there is a revolutionary element is utter nonsense," says Prof. Zimmermann. "The Jews, by virtue of being a minority and because they were a religious group, adopted various types of behavior - which also explains the support for revolutions. The origin of the demand for social justice is indeed rooted in Jewish tradition, but in modern conditions, it can be said that it lies in revolutionary tendencies."

Zuckermann, too, says there is no connection between the revolutionaries' Jewishness and their political choices: "The discourse did not revolve around ultra-Orthodox religious Judaism, but rather around the Judaism that emerged in the period of the Enlightenment. From the moment the Jews integrated into the civil society of the 19th century - which, although it declared that they were emancipated, in fact did not accept them - they had a collective interest in changing society. Bourgeois civil society perceived the Jews in a new light: not only in a religious context, but also in socioeconomic one."

Emanicipation of society

The most significant expression of the separation between the Jew's social status and his tradition is found in the writings of Karl Marx, whose philosophy had a crucial influence on the revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in Germany in 1818, Marx came from a family of rabbis but his father converted and became a Lutheran.

In his 1844 essay "On the Jewish Question," one of his early writings, Marx related to the secular status of the Jews in society and characterized them as a people identified with commerce and the accumulation of wealth.

"Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion," he wrote, "but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society ...

"We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development - to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed - has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism." There are those who saw in Marx's sharp words an expression of anti-Semitism and a denial of his Jewish past. However, in general he is perceived as a serious social theoretician, who called for the elimination of religious separatism of any kind and for abolishing economic commerce, on the way to creating an egalitarian, classless civil society.

"Most of the great revolutionaries," says Zuckermann, "did not relate to their Judaism. People like Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg did not talk about emancipating the Jews from their Judaism, but rather about human emancipation, whereby people need to liberate themselves from social structures that create the oppression of various groups in the society, among them the Jews."

Jews, jews, jews. Jews are so obsessed with themselves that they write stories bragging even about the mass murder and mayhem their tribemates have caused, turning European society upside down, spinning it as good and righteous. Then, perhaps realizing that this story may not fly, they hedge somewhat by lamely claiming it wasn't really jews as jews.

But of course the story is about jews as jews. That's what 9/10ths of it is about and that's why it was published by Haaretz.

Scheuer On Israel

2011-09-09T21:32:00.000-07:00

The Israeli inflluence on the US (7-Sept-11)(GLOBAL FOCUS series - US)

Former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano questions former CIA operative and Bin Laden hunter Michael Scheuer on Fox News.

Napolitano: First thing, should we be surprised that the American government, whether it's the intelligence agencies or the FBI, is spying on our allies here in the United States of America or is this something that has been going on for years and we just didn't know about it until recently?

Scheuer: Well if it was a real ally like Canada or Britain or Australia we would be surprised, but it's a pleasant surprise to me to find out that the FBI is spying on the Israelis. The Israelis are certainly an immensely malign influence in the United States. They steal our technology, they suborn government employees to spy for them and transfer documents, and certainly their influence through citizen groups like AIPAC on the Congress is politically corrupting. So I think they're perfectly correct to be spying on the Israelis.

Napolitano: Well what does Benjamin Netanyahu say to president Obama the next time they meet? "Why are your people listening to my phone calls? That was me talking to the ambassador while some agent of yours was listening!"

Scheuer: Well Netanyahu will just tell the president what to do and what not to do. That's what Israeli prime ministers do to US presidents. And what will happen in the congress is the congressmen and women who are owned or at least bribed by AIPAC and other US citizen organizations that support Israel will threaten the FBI with budget cuts or manpower cuts if they don't stop watching the Israelis.

Napolitano: Got it.

From Scheuer's past statements, critical of USG's relationship with GOI, I get the distinct impression he is a true American patriot, but I have never seen such a heretical view broadcast on mainstream television before. And yet there is, so far, no visible uproar. Glenn Beck was derailed by paranoid and jew-obsessed jews who thought he was becoming the next Father Coughlin. How and when will Scheuer and Napolitano be taken out?

Via http://4chon.net/new/.

Game Targets Whites

2011-09-07T22:05:00.000-07:00

TEA PARTY ZOMBIES MUST DIE! (TPZMD can be accessed for free using any Flash-enabled browser.)

In online video game, Tea Partiers make "zombie" targets, CBS News:

A new online video game company has come up with a controversial new twist on the traditional zombie-killing gaming concept: The zombies targeted for kill are prominent figures in the Tea Party movement.

The game, "Tea Party Zombies Must Die," features a handful of Tea Party members - including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and a blood-spattered, bra-clad Michele Bachmann - who the gamer is instructed to kill with either a "melee weapon" (in the first level, at least, it's a crowbar) or a gun.

Other featured Tea Party targets include: "Generic pissed off old white guy zombie," "Pissed off stupid white trash redneck birther zombie," "Factory made blonde Fox News Barbie who has never had a problem in her life zombie," and "Glenn Beck Zombie (Back from the dead!)."

Upon the player's death, one is told, "You got Teabagged! P.S. You didn't have health insurance, so you died. P.P.S. There's no such thing as God, so you died for eternity."

Video Game Targets 'Tea Party Zombies,' Fox News Personalities, Fox News:

Notable politicians depicted in the game include current and previous presidential hopefuls like Palin, Bachmann, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Several Fox News personalities are also featured, including Huckabee, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Brit Hume.

Lesser-known targets include "factory made blonde Fox News Barbie who has never had a problem in her life zombie" or the "Koch industries Koch Whore lobbyist pig zombie." Fox News logos and a recreation of its studios can be seen in blood-spattered screengrabs posted on the company's website.

Attention to the game's release has heightened after violent rhetoric from Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, who in a speech over the weekend told President Obama that his supporters would "take out the son-of-a-bitches" in the Tea Party who were waging "war" against unions.

"The liberal media have been preaching for years that conservatives are the ones who invoke violent imagery and rhetoric. Yet in the space of two days, the radical, pro-Obama left calls us 'son-of-a-bitches' and says they want to 'take us out.' And they follow that with a hideously violent game where they do just that -- depicting ways of shooting prominent conservatives, presidential candidates and journalists," said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center. "The news media would be in an uproar if violence had been incited against liberals. Their silence disgusts me."

To describe TPZMD as targeting "prominent figures in the Tea Party movement" is to miss the point. All the targets are White. White media figures, White politicians, and most tellingly, poor, powerless, ordinary Whites. Indeed, the Tea Party haters feel righteous about venting their fear and loathing exactly because they see the Tea Party as White. Beside that, their animus is not at all confined to the Tea Party or to prominent media or political figures.

Here's how TPZMD characterizes who it targets for death:

GENERIC PISSED OFF OLD WHITE GUY ZOMBIE
PISSED OFF STUPID WHITE TRASH REDNECK BIRTHER ZOMBIE
EXPRESSES RACIST VIEWS ANONYMOUSLY ON THE INTERNET MODERN KLAN ZOMBIE
SARAH PALIN ZOMBIE MICHELE BACHMANN ZOMBIE
FACTORY MADE BLONDE FOX NEWS BARBIE WHO HAS NEVER HAD A PROBLEM IN HER LIFE ZOMBIE
FOX NEWS ZOMBIES I - MIKE HUCKABEE, NEWT GINGRICH, RICK SANTORUM
FOX NEWS ZOMBIES II - BRIT HUME, BILL O'REILLY, SEAN HANNITY
GLENN BECK ZOMBIE (BACK FROM THE DEAD!)
THE "WE TRICKED THE GOD PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING IN TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH" EXECUTIVE ZOMBIE
KOCH INDUSTRIES "KOCH WHORE" LOBBYIST PIG ZOMBIE
KOCH BROTHERS ZOMBIE

These are the bugbears of the contemporary anti-White narrative. These are the people the anti-White elite delights in slurring, scapegoating and demonizing. These are the hard-working tax-paying law-abiding citizens they regularly malign as stupid and evil. TPZMD is just one product of their relentless dehumanizing anti-White propaganda.

To describe their propaganda in terms of partisan politics, as media reports do, or as class warfare, as their narrative does, is to be willfully blind to the key point these anti-Whites themselves continually hammer on: The nature of the conflict, as well as their animus, is racial. They distrust and dislike Whites, rich or poor. To top it off they're dishonest about it. They justify their animus by offering a variety of lame excuses that they wouldn't consider valid reasons to hate anyone but Whites. They imagine that painting Whites as stupid, religious, or duped makes it OK not only to hate us, but to fantasize about bludgeoning, hacking, and shooting us dead.

Nature is Naturally Nativist

2011-09-06T10:24:00.001-07:00

Alien worm invasion 'threat to forests', BBC News:

Invasive earthworms can alter the carbon and nitrogen cycles in woodland, as well as undermining native plant species, a study has said.

US researchers found that the presence of non-native worms also accelerated the breakdown of forest litter, increasing the risk of soil erosion.

Do tell. The original journal article, linked by BBC News, makes it clear that the negative impact on humans is the real concern.

Human Dimensions of Earthworm Invasion in the Adirondack State Park, Human Ecology:

A study in Webb, NY—a town located within the Adirondack State Park, one of the most celebrated cultural and ecological regions in the US—exposes the human dimensions of earthworm invasion. Environmental history research, interviews with residents and bait sellers, and a mail survey of town residents show that positive attitudes towards earthworms and their ecological effects lead to casual disposal or use of them. Earthworm use is a strong cultural practice and the risk of their continued introduction in the Adirondacks is high.

Perhaps someone could take the time and spend the money to study the human dimensions of the alien human invasion.

Wikileaks Cablegate Full Dataset

2011-09-02T09:41:00.000-07:00

Full, unencrypted, Cablegate2 archive
Cable Viewer

I suspect the 60GB dataset contains even more evidence of USG serving GOI and general jewish interests worldwide, long-term. I'm considering acquiring and analyzing this data, but it would require a substantial investment in time and effort. Loud assertions that Wikileaks is CIA/Mossad disinformation only makes such analysis seem more interesting and necessary to me.

Via Zero Hedge.

Free Speech's Jewish Problem

2011-08-20T07:26:00.000-07:00

Facebook’s Holocaust-Denial Hate-Speech Problem, Lloyd Grove, The Daily Beast, 18 Aug 2011 (my emphasis):

Is Facebook in denial about Holocaust denial?

For years, international organizations opposing anti-Semitism have been urging the planet’s preeminent social-networking platform to delete any content that asserts the Nazi-orchestrated extermination of 6 million Jews never took place.

And for years, officials of Facebook, boasting more than 750 million active users, have refused, insisting that mere denial of the Holocaust, however “repugnant and ignorant,” doesn’t constitute “hate speech” as defined by Facebook’s Terms of Service policy prohibiting “content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” (Which gave a huge opening to TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, who noted that while Facebook was meticulously removing photos of breast-feeding women, it was allowing the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages. His mordant headline: “Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating.”)

Facebook’s critics—including such groups as the Anti-Defamation League and the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, which describes itself as an Israeli-led “alliance of statesmen, parliamentarians, diplomats, journalists, legal experts, NGOs and scholars”—argue that Holocaust denial is, by definition, an expression of hatred for the Jewish people.

“Holocaust denial is basically a form of classic anti-Semitism,” said Deborah Lauter, ADL’s director of civil rights and its cyber-hate response team. “It’s anti-Semitism per se because it serves as a powerful conspiracy theory that basically says the Jews have manipulated history to advance their own worldview, whether to create sympathy or world domination. In other words, we have fabricated this monstrous event in history in order to further our own hidden agenda.”

Facebook spokesman Simon Axten doesn’t see it that way.

“We find Holocaust denial to be repugnant and ignorant, just as we object to many of the other ideas expressed on Facebook,” Axten told me via email this week. “We’ve come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the Holocaust is not a violation of our policies. We recognize people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.”

The controversy surrounding Facebook’s free-speech position isn’t especially new. It has been a matter of anxiety among Jewish groups at least since November 2008, when blogger and attorney Brian Cuban—the less-famous brother of Dallas Mavericks owner and Dancing With the Stars contestant Mark Cuban—sounded the alarm and prompted a spate of media attention.

But the issue bubbled up anew last month when a group of survivors of the Nazi death camps wrote to Facebook asking that the company’s broad-minded policy be reversed. It came up again on Tuesday, when Australian computer scientist Andre Oboler and Canadian lawyer David Matas, co-chairmen of the Global Forum’s Online Anti-Semitism Working Group, released a letter they sent to Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg after they attended what Oboler calls a “frustrating” video conference with an executive of Facebook’s European operations. The Facebook exec politely listened to the group’s concerns, Oboler told me from Melbourne, then reiterated the company line.

“We call on Facebook to abandon its insistence on treating Holocaust denial in a context-free manner, in which it is considered nothing more than the rejection of a historical event,” Oboler and Matas wrote to Zuckerberg. “The context makes it clear that there is no meaningful distinction between Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred against Jews … We ask that Facebook recognize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, issue a statement to this effect, and do its utmost to remove Holocaust denial from the Facebook platform.”

In his email, Facebook’s Axten stated that “in practice, we end up removing the vast majority of Holocaust denial content that’s reported to us because it’s explicitly hateful or threatening. Most instances of Holocaust denial on Facebook (or anywhere else) are accompanied by threats or clearly anti-Jewish statements, which run afoul of our policies. We remove these as quickly as possible when they’re reported to us, and the result is that there is actually very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

ADL’s Lauter gives Facebook, and especially Axten, credit for “seriously engaging” on the issue, and supports his claim that the company has been responsive to reports of hate speech. She notes that she has led several workshops in Palo Alto, Calif., with key Facebook employees to alert them to the nuances of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and related concerns. But she disputes Axten’s assertion that there is "very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

“We’re talking probably hundreds of thousands [of Facebook-hosted pages and postings] as a general problem,” she told me. “The metrics are hard to do. We would love it if, as part of their internal operations, Facebook would help with a system for coming up with those metrics, so we could see benchmarks—is it getting worse or better? How do you quantify the incidence of anti-Semitism? The whole flood of the Internet shows that, and you can’t even document the number of people expressing their hate thoughts.”

Oboler pointed out that Holocaust denial is codified as hate speech and thus against the law in 13 European countries, including Germany and Austria, and that Facebook manages not to violate local ordinances by blocking the various denial pages in the relevant jurisdictions. He said his colleagues, “who have been approaching Facebook with an open mind and in a spirit of cooperation to solve this problem, are becoming increasingly frustrated with Facebook’s irrational stubbornness on this issue and their attempts to blur the issue.”

The irony, of course, is that Zuckerberg and many of his employees are Jewish, and Oboler speculated that “maybe, as a result, they are bending too far in the other direction to let everybody know that they support free speech.”

Facebook’s Axten acknowledged in his email: “Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents or grandparents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook’s mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is the best way to combat ignorance and deception, though we recognize that others may disagree.”

The irony here is not in the good-jew/bad-jew theatrics. Despite their phony concerns about free speech the article makes clear that the "vast majority" of the content any self-righteous jew regards as repugnant, ignorant, or hateful is removed as quickly as possible. The hyperventilating and special pleading here is about removing what remains. Their jew-centric debate is about just how special the special protection for jewish sensibilities should be.

If there's any irony here it's in so many hyper-sensitive, hyper-critical jews portraying themselves as a group as the victims while they argue amongst themselves about just how far to push the victimization of those who vex them.

(Examples of the consequences of jewish hostility and the kind of criticism they don't want to hear can be found in UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA.)

In a World Brimming with Non-White Hostility and Violence, Obama is Especially Concerned About White Resistance to the Anti-White Regime

2011-08-18T09:17:00.000-07:00

Obama: 'Lone wolf' terror attack biggest concern, CBS News, 16 Aug 2011:

"The risk that we're especially concerned over right now is the lone wolf terrorist, somebody with a single weapon being able to carry out wide-scale massacres of the sort that we saw in Norway recently," he said. "You know, when you've got one person who is deranged or driven by a hateful ideology, they can do a lot of damage, and it's a lot harder to trace those lone wolf operators."

The term "lone wolf terrorist" is a codeword for disaffected Whites. The meaning is sometimes broadened to include non-Whites, but that's not who President Don't Jump to Conclusions is talking about. He's focused on Whites, like Breivik, "driven by a hateful ideology" - by which he means those of us who oppose the anti-White regime.

How many more Whites will be killed as a result of the regime's hostile, hateful anti-White ideology?

Enoch Powell Was Right, Multicultists Enraged

2011-08-13T13:33:00.001-07:00

David Starkey On Newsnight (Whites Have Become Blacks)

Perhaps Starkey thought he was safe in finding fault with Enoch Powell and sneering at Whites. Everyone else realized right away was that what Starkey said reflected even worse on blacks, black culture, and the multicult in general.

Starkey's matter-of-factly delivered turd in the punchbowl elicited an immediate, hostile reaction from the multicult's defenders with him in the studio. It only got worse as they began to realize what his line of reasoning implied.

Here's how one multicultist spelled out the thoughtcrime. David Starkey’s Career Ending Rant Was Mad, Bad And Dangerous To Show, Tom Ayling, Sabotage Times:

After barely searching into this issue, I found a clip on the BBC News website. I was stunned. I was sure it was the alcohol teasing out these words from his mouth, but no, he actually found it in his dark labyrinth of a human heart to say the words that he said. It was so discriminatory that it was not even laughable; it was an outrage and a disgrace, and for all of it to happen on our beloved Beeb – a tragedy.

If you haven’t already heard, the line that’ll be quoted in all the papers is “The whites have become black”, said as if they had contracted some incurable disease, as if something apocalyptic had happened, as if it was wrong. I had thought that with the civil rights campaigns that occurred even before I was born, such lunacy wouldn’t even be pondered, let alone spewed out on our TV screens.

But the heinous claims didn’t stop. The withered, backward, lonely, cruel and twisted old man had more to say, as he went on to describe all black people as “destructive” and “nihilistic”, just like those black Nobel Peace Prize winners, say Bunche, or Luthuli, or Dr King, or El Sadat, or Archbishop Tutu, or Mandela, or Annan, or Maathai, or Obama – how destructive they all were. And he still sits there, singing the praises of the prophetic racist Enoch Powell, please, I mean is he even for real.

"Slay the heretic!", Ayling sputters, acting as if something apocalyptic has happened. As if it is wrong that Whites prefer not to become blacks.

The BBC News version of the video is at England riots: 'The whites have become black' says David Starkey.

UPDATE 13 Aug 2011: Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968:

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

Some Parts of London Aren't Burning

2011-08-09T16:56:00.000-07:00

Vigilante groups aim to combat riots - Crime, UK - The Independent, 9 August 2011:

Pictures beamed around the world throughout Monday night's rioting more often than not showed police and locals conceding the streets to baying mobs who trashed shops and set fire to cars or buildings with near impunity.

Yet there were instances where locals physically resisted the looters. In Dalston, a corner of north east London with a large Turkish community, men hit the streets armed with baseball bats and sticks, fighting running battles with masked youths. In Whitechapel youths chased away rioters and in one restaurant in Notting Hill kitchen staff armed themselves with knives to protect diners from rampaging muggers.

They also have a secret weapon.

"What the Turkish community did was brilliant, they made the area a safer place," said Tonya Cavanagh, a 39-year-old shopkeeper who runs a neighbourhood watch system in the area. "Everybody is really thankful. I think more people will go and help out the Turkish people too now. It makes you want to stick together."

In Whitechapel, home to Britain's largest Bangladeshi community, locals described how a gang of 70 masked rioters were chased out of the neighbourhood by Bengali youths who had gathered for evening prayers outside East London Mosque.

"There's a real sense of community here, especially during Ramadan when people are supposed to look out for each other," said Abdul Jalil, the manager of the Deshi Fish grocery store opposite the mosque. "The shutters will come down this evening but I'm definitely going to stick around in case the rioters come into the area again."

In other words, minimizing diversity is a good way to defend yourself and your community from the depredations of marauding "diversity".

Of course, don't expect to hear that from anyone in the anti-White regime. What they'll say instead is, "YOU SEE, YOU SEE, WHAT WE NEED IS MORE TURK AND BANGLADESHI DIVERSITY!"

Tea Party Upgraded

2011-08-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

At first they ignored the Tea Party. Then they mocked it. Now they characterize it as an existential threat.

Democrats seek to pin credit downgrade on tea party, Washington Times, 7 August 2011.

It is a measure of the arrogance and desperation of this bankrupt system's defenders that they think they can pin the blame for unsustainable debt on the one political group that's actually opposed to it.

(Cartoon via US News and World Report.)

Genocide Excused, Opposition Blamed, Fjordman Out

2011-08-05T09:22:00.000-07:00

A series of three articles from Views and News from Norway concerning Breivik, Fjordman, and the larger, longer-running, lopsided debate they're on the politically incorrect side of.

‘Fear of foreigners’ breeds extremists, 3 August 2011:

Anders Behring Breivik is by no means Norway’s first home-grown right-wing extremist. Concerns are rising that the country, with its relatively small population, has produced what some experts call a disproportionate amount of internationally known extremists, and some link it to a history of fremmedfrykt (fear of foreigners).

While Norwegian society generally has grown more tolerant and internationally oriented in recent decades, there’s long been a tradition of wariness among Norwegians regarding people they don’t know. While Norway has produced record numbers of its own emigrants, many haven’t been particularly welcoming towards immigrants who’ve arrived in Norway during the past few decades.

That’s given rise to criticism of asylum and immigration laws that some view as too liberal, and in turn a rise in some hateful rhetoric against foreigners in online debates. Fear of being branded a racist for criticizing immigration policies, however, has shut some out of the debate, leading to frustration when they can’t have their say.

Rational debaters withdraw

Author and journalist Øyvind Strømmen has followed the types of websites where Breivik, who has confessed to terrorist attacks that left 77 persons dead, was active in online debate. The extreme and hateful rhetoric found on many of the sites, Strømmen told newspaper Aftenposten this week, “is so uncomfortable that those wanting a factual and rational debate pull out. That leaves the debate to more and more extremists on the left and the right.”

Never mind the completely rational fear of social and even criminal sanction. Ironically, Fjordman has used the same disingenuous argument as Strømmen - anyone whose opinion he doesn't like is irrational, or just plain stupid. The fact remains that it's only one side that has to find the courage, or foolhardiness, to debate. There is no lack of fearless, rational people on the other side, arguing in favor of genocidal immigration and multiculturalism. They're just intelligent enough to pretend it isn't genocide. Instead of saying directly that they think indigenous Whites have a duty to abide and even accomodate their legal and demographic subordination, most characterize their position instead as favoring "tolerance" and "diversity". Instead of saying directly that they favor repression of indigenous White resistance to subordination, most simply pathologize and demonize it, painting it as something bad or even evil.

The debate is so lopsided that all the pro-genocide side has to do is sprinkle a few special words into their argument - "nazi", "racist", "xenophobe", "extremist" - to end any debate. Arguing against such rhetoric is taken as an affirmation that you are what they say you are.

Strømmen stressed to Aftenposten that he has no theory as to what’s really created the right-wing extremists in Norway like Vikernes, Breivik and Fjordman, while Anders Jupskås at the University of Oslo thinks the issue should be researched. Strømmen does think Fjordman spreads a dangerous ideology, though, because he indirectly inspires violence by indicating that armed resistance is the only alternative against Islam, and that western leaders have betrayed their people.

These intellects don't have a theory because the most rational theory - that foreigners are what breeds fear of foreigners, that genocide is what inspires anti-genocidal rhetoric and even violence - is unthinkable to them. At least where Whites are the victims, rather than the perpetrators. These are not the high-minded, neutral researchers they pretend to be, but partisans that either firmly believe that there is no such thing as Whites, never mind indigenous Whites, or that Whites have no legitimate cause to resist a regime - their government, media and academia - deliberately inflicting conditions that are bringing about their physical destruction.

Breivik police question ‘Fjordman’, 4 August 2011:

The anonymous blogger “Fjordman,” who is repeatedly referenced in the manifesto of Oslo and Utøya terrorist attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik, was being questioned by Norwegian police on Thursday afternoon after authorities found out his real identity. The international links between Breivik and other far right groups have also continued to be revealed, as well as the suspect’s financial details and a number of other new facts about the case.

Spokesperson Pål-Fredrik Hjort Kraby told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) that “Fjordman” was seen as an “especially central” witness for the case given the influence he appears to have had on the suspect.

“Fjordman” had finished his own blog in 2005 but made a public statement on the Gates of Vienna website after the Oslo and Utøya attacks to reject claims that he was Breivik. The blogger said that he “extremely disliked” being mentioned in Breivik’s writings, claiming that he has “never” met the terror suspect. He had continued to contribute to such foreign far right websites after ending his own blog.

Fjordman's statement on Breivik is here: Thoughts on the Recent Atrocities.

‘Fjordman’ reveals identity, 5 August 2011:

36 year-old Peder Jensen has given an interview to Norwegian newspaper VG where he reveals that he is the man behind the “Fjordman” blog referenced repeatedly in the online manifesto of Oslo and Utøya attacks suspect Anders Behring Breivik.

After being identified by the police and subsequently questioned on Thursday afternoon, Jensen met reporters from VG at an Oslo café. He chose to use his real name after receiving advice from a lawyer, and has asked the media to leave him and his family alone. He also confirmed that he would never again use the pseudonym “Fjordman” because he does not “wish to be associated with Breivik and his horrible actions.”

Exchanged emails with Breivik

Jensen told VG that he had “warned” his family in advance about shedding his anonymity, adding that “because of my own safety, I’m now going into hiding.” He had felt it was his “duty” to cooperate with the police investigation and decided to be interviewed under his real name because it “eventually would have emerged anyway, resulting in a media frenzy.” Jensen commented, “it is also a way for me to clear my name.”

The blogger disclosed that he had exchanged a number of emails with Breivik in 2009 and 2010. Breivik told Jensen that he was writing a book and asked if they could meet. Jensen turned down the offer “not because of his extreme views, but because he didn’t seem very interesting – like a vacuum cleaner salesman.” “‘Pie in the sky,’ I thought to myself when I re-read the emails,” Jensen added. He confirmed investigators had confiscated his computer, stressing that “they won’t find anything on my computer regarding any criminal matters or Breivik.” VG suggests that Jensen “feels that the police are looking to implicate him.”

In further excerpts of the interview reported by news agency NTB, Jensen said, “I recognize that people need a scapegoat, and now that Breivik is behind bars, I can become a handy scapegoat, especially because I am the only Norwegian he referenced.” He added that he understood that he could be regarded as “a hate object.”

In terms of Jensen’s background, VG reports that he originally comes from the town of Ålesund on the west coast of Norway. He claims that while he has long voted for the Labour Party and voted for the Progress Party more recently, he has never been a part of a Norwegian political party, and has only handled a gun during military service, where he describes himself as “no good soldier.” He holds a masters degree in culture and technology from the University of Oslo, where he completed a dissertation on “censorship and blogging in Iran.” He also studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo and the University of Bergen.

Despite the significance of the issue, these articles make no mention of Breivik or Fjordman's professed love of jews and hatred of nazis. As Jensen himself has found it convenient to scapegoat "nazis", he speaks with authority on that subject.

At any rate, the sanction the media heaps upon simple writers like Fjordman, to which the government may eventually add, illustrates the point I made above. The idea that the responsibility for the crimes and violence committed by alien interlopers lies with them never comes up for debate, much less the indirect responsibility that belongs to their enablers and apologists. What gets the media spotlight instead is even more indirect - those bad, evil people who supposedly cause anti-immigrant crimes and violence with their "extremist" ideas and rhetoric against crime, violence and the supporters of genocidal immigration and multiculturalism who enable and defend it.

(Views and News from Norway link via a comment by Rollory on Kay on Breivik on "The Jew".)

Kay on Breivik on "The Jew"

2011-07-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

The mainstream reporting on Breivik's thinking has so far neglected to dig into his opinions on "the jews". Perhaps that's because it would be difficult to describe that thinking faithfully without either embarassing or infuriating "the jews". Jonathan Kay at the National Post seems to think he has found a way.

Kay has skimmed Breivik's book, 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, and sees similarities with the William Pierce's 1978 book, The Turner Diaries. Kay sums up the former as a "rambling and disjointed manifesto" whose "bigoted and paranoid worldview" seems to have originated with the latter, which he describes as "badly written and tedious". Never fear, you needn't read either work yourself. Kay is an expert in such things and he's very eager to explain how it's all about "the jew":

In a general sense, Breivik can be seen as a Norwegian, Islamophobic version of Pierce, McVeigh and the other right-wing hatemongers that populated the fringes of American life until the Clinton administration cleaned up the Midwest’s various White Supremecist quasi-Christian militia sects in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. But there is also something very new in Breivik’s attack.

For one thing, he represents the first mass-casualty post-9/11 terrorist attack purportedly committed in the name of stopping radical Islam. In this sense, it is Europe’s equivalent to the 1995 slaying of Yitzhak Rabin, whose perpetrator, extremist Orthodox Jew Yigal Amir, also imagined that he could protect his nation from Islamic encroachments by staging a murderous terrorist attack on his own government.

Breivik’s sick mythology also shows another new post-9/11 element: the changing role of the Jew in the narrative of the West’s right-wing extremists.

The Jew traditionally has been the primary target of such extremists because it was imagined that his evil hand lay behind those forces — capitalism, Marxism, globalization, financial speculation — once deemed to be most threatening to the traditional Western order that Breivik says he wants to defend. The creation of Israel in 1948 added a new excuse for anti-Semitism: The Turner Diaries are full of references to American foreign policy being controlled by Israel (an accusation that, of course, has now been taken up by the left).

With 9/11, that changed: The greatest cultural and military threat now is seen to be militant Islam, with the Jew — and Israel — now instantly cast as a defender of the established Western order. To quote something I wrote in my recently published book, Among The Truthers: “The Jew [is now seen as] the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability in the war on terrorism was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. For the first time in the history of Western civilization, the Jew’s ‘foreignness’ and mixed loyalties-to the United States, Israel, world Jewry- became a source of respect and trust rather than suspicion.”

Thus, in Section 2.93 of Breivik’s manifesto, we get the sort of words that, pre-9/11, no one could ever have dreamed would be typed by a right-wing hatemonger: “We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issues, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence [and] partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund.”

In any other context, a reduction in right-wing anti-Semitism would be an unreservedly welcome development. But as we mourn the innocent victims of Breivik’s attacks, we understand that evil minds inevitably will channel their hate somewhere — if not toward innocent Jews, then toward innocent Muslims, or members of the political party that represents them.

The senselessness and tragedy of that hatred: this hasn’t changed, and never will — for all time to come.

The passage Kay quotes from Breivik's book wasn't written by Breivik. Here it is in full context:

There have been hundreds of attempts to forward and distribute demands (on behalf of the indigenous peoples of Europe) to Western European governments, political parties and media organisations since 1955. As with all attempts for dialogue, every single one of them has been rejected, ignored or ridiculed. One of these pleas was written by Fjordman in March 2007:
A European Declaration of Independence

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Malta and Ireland demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don't as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.

We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for "Euro-Mediterranean cooperation" between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye'or's work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilisation - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.

We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel's defence, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide.

We demand that the ideology of multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture's eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations.

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been re-established in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of "racism." Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history.

We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of "racism and xenophobia" by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonisation (see demographic warfare) by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamisation and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonisation and desire self-determination then Europeans have that right, as well. And we intend to exercise it.

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn't dismantled, multiculturalism isn't rejected and Muslim immigration isn't stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.
The above declaration was forwarded to many political parties of the so called “Multiculturalist Alliance” (MA100 political parties) and many “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist media organisations in 2007. As expected, no one ever bothered to comment on the demands as it was categorised as “right wing nonsense” and categorically ignored.

By the by, hate is one of Kay's specialties. In his Oct 2010 article, A hate reaching back 1,400 years, Kay reviewed the many reasons, stretching back centuries, justifying "the jew"'s hatred for muslims. And but of course, he hasn't forgotten European crimes against "the jew" either:

It goes without saying that Muslim civilization has no monopoly on violent and systematic anti-Semitism: Spasms of murderous Jew-hatred were common all across Christendom during the 14 centuries of Islam’s existence.

Anti-European Experts Driving Media Narrative on Breivik

2011-07-25T07:44:00.000-07:00

Norway massacre exposes incendiary immigration issue, Reuters, 25 July 2011 (my emphasis):

Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik said he killed 93 people to spark a "revolution" against the multiculturalism he believed was sapping Europe's heritage, and experts say a frank debate about immigration may be the best way to prevent similar explosions of violence.

In some Nordic countries, and elsewhere in Europe, political parties have fed on rising public concern over immigration as economic conditions worsen and a drip-feed of Islamist attacks stokes fear and suspicion of new arrivals.

But experts argue overly aggressive political rhetoric and scare tactics have inflamed passions rather than address the many complex, underlying problems.

A crack in the anti-White regime! The "experts" are finally ready to listen to the rising public concern over immigration! Or are they?

"If the twin attacks in Norway fail to trigger an honest discussion of the issue, exposing often scare-mongering arguments used by the extreme right, this may marginalise the radical groups and worsen the situation, which in turn could bring more similar attacks in the future," said Lilit Gevorgyan, Europe analyst at the IHS Global Insight think-tank.

"This is not just an issue in Norway. Across Scandinavia and also in Western and Eastern Europe, you have a lot of people who are very frustrated by the lack of open debate," she added.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed, in speeches that were otherwise careful to highlight the contribution of immigrants.

But critics say such statements at best do little to offer solutions to tackle the economic and societal pressures that stem from increasing immigration and globalisation, and do even less to harness the benefits of a multi-ethnic society.

At worst, they say such comments risk victimising often vulnerable immigrant communities and souring race relations.

Oh. This is no debate. The "experts" are "critics". They blame the radicalization multiculturalism is creating on "the extreme right", not on multiculturalism.

Anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic parties have gained traction in Nordic and Scandinavian countries in recent years, tapping public anxiety over the relatively recent phenomenon of mass migration, particularly of Muslims, to their region.

The anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats were last year elected to the Swedish parliament for the first time, despite the party having roots in neo-Nazi movements of the 1980s and 1990s. The party has criticised Muslims and Islam as being un-Swedish.

Swedish anti-fascism magazine Expo, where the late best-selling novelist Steig Larsson was highly active, says while there may be no direct link between violence and comments by politicians, the rhetoric creates a fertile environment for ethnically motivated attacks.

"It is very aggressive ideology that the Swedish Democrats are pushing towards Muslims ... it has become a more and more accepted way to speak about Muslims this way," said Expo reporter Johannes Jakobsson.

"Of course if you are in the Swedish parliament and point fingers at Muslims and say these people are dangerous, of course this is going to influence people to become more hostile towards them," he added.

Oh. The "expert" "critics" include pro-immigration Expo, who have for years been pointing fingers at indigenous nationalists, saying these people are dangerous. As it turns out, Breivik's book, 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, has something to say about Expo:

The Swedish organisation Expo has demonstrated a willingness to “share information” with radical groups of “anti-Fascists” in Antifascistisk Action (AFA). The thugs of AFA in the spring of 2008 destroyed[11] the car of an elderly woman and wrote “nasse“ (Nazi) on top of it. As it turned out, they picked the wrong car. Yet years of such attacks against private citizens have not prompted the authorities to crack down on their activities.

Leading newspaper Aftonbladet has close ideological ties to the Social Democrats, the country’s dominant party for most of the past century. Helle Klein, its political editor-in-chief from 2001 to 2007, during a demonstration organised by Islamic and anti-racist organisations in December 2006 stood in front of a banner which read “A Sweden for all - Stop the Nazi violence“ and held a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organisation Hamas[12] in her editorials while warning against the threat posed to world peace by Israeli aggression and the Christian Right in the USA[13]. Hamas is a Fascist organisation openly calling for mass murder of Jews. Violent attacks against Jews in Europe in 2008 are to an overwhelming degree caused by Muslim immigration, which is encouraged by the EU and the national political elites. The irony of warning against “Nazi violence” while showing sympathy for an organisation that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently doesn’t strike Ms. Klein.

One of Klein’s fellow columnists at Aftonbladet, the long-time Communist Robert Aschberg, is the publisher of Expo magazine. Leading Expo member Charles Westin in October 2007 published the book Brunt! (“brown,” as in “Fascist”), where he let members of AFA contribute some of their intelligence regarding “right-wing extremists,” among them people associated with the legal party the Sweden Democrats. In addition to Mr. Westin, the book was co-authored by Mats Deland, who is a journalist in Aftonbladet. Why is it considered OK that a representative of one of Scandinavia’s largest newspapers, with ties to the country’s largest political party, thus associates himself openly with an organisation known for physically assaulting members of a legal opposition party, even in their private homes?

Before the elections in 2006, the established parties cooperated in boycotting the Sweden Democrats and other “xenophobic” parties. In one of many similar incidents, which extreme Leftists bragged about on the Internet, around 30 members of the SD were attacked during a peaceful, private party outside the town of Växjö. The brave “anti-Fascists” threw tear gas into the building, forcing people outside where they were beaten with iron bars and axes. Open, aggressive and sometimes violent harassment of critics of the country’s immigration policies has been going on for years while the authorities have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. Seemingly encouraged by the silence from the establishment to political violence, extreme Leftists have stepped up their attacks to include mainstream parties. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. Expo, which is backed by the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Daniel Poohl from the unelected organisation Expo states[14] that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence.

According to Jonathan Friedman, an American Jew working in Sweden for years, “no debate about immigration policies is possible, the subject is simply avoided. Sweden has such a close connection between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. The political class is closed, isolated.” The elites are worried to see their power slip away and therefore want to silence critics, for instance the Sweden Democrats, a small party opposed to immigration: “It is a completely legal party, they just aren’t allowed to speak.…In reality, the basis of democracy has been completely turned on its head. It is said: ‘Democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy.’ It is grotesque and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, more like a kind of moral dictatorship.”

Breivik copied these passages from a Fjordman essay posted by Pamela Geller, Fjordman At Atlas: Swedish Hypocrisy Regarding Israel and Muslims.

Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world, by Thomas Hylland Eriksen, guardian.co.uk, 25 July 2011:

Anders Behring Breivik's world view seems to have been shaped by online fantasy games and the anti-Islamist blogosphere – a recipe for national fragmentation.

Every country needs some degree of cohesion. Just how much is a legitimate matter of dispute. Some believe that cultural pluralism is a recipe for fragmentation and the loss of trust. This may be the case, but not necessarily. So long as common institutions function impartially – education, housing, work etc – a society can live well with considerable diversity. However, the moment we cease to speak to each other, something serious is under way. This is exactly what happened with Breivik and many of his co-believers: they developed a parallel reality on the internet.

Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Breivik's book also has something to say about Eriksen:

Europe is heading towards cultural and demographical suicide due to the absence of nationalistic doctrines. Nationalism is the anti-thesis of multiculturalism/internationalism. In order for nationalism to succeed, multiculturalism must be deconstructed and vice versa. The cultural Marxists/humanists/globalists will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent nationalists from succeeding as we have witnessed now for several decades.

Campaigns of psychological warfare (anti-nationalism) have been integrated into the school curriculums and all intellectual public frameworks. Europeans have been psychologically conditioned into a state of denial and self contempt. A majority of Europeans are therefore in a permanent state of psychological trauma, some nationalities more than others.

The most severely affected are of course the Germans and the Nordic countries; Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark. The justification for demonising their forefathers is a mixture of portraying the evil crusaders, the evil colonisers/enslavers and of course Nazi Germany’s policies of nordicism. The clear message from our cultural elites is that we are by definition evil and unworthy of life. And that we will do the world a big favor by contributing to our own extermination through third world colonisation. The self loathing runs deep through most aspects of society. To quote one of the most influential professors in Norway, Thomas Hylland Eriksen[1]:

“Our (the Marxist elites of Europe) most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again”.

Later quote

“This will contribute to understanding and liberation”

The problem in our societies isn’t primarily that individuals like Eriksen exists (and believe me, every country has their share of these highly influential anti-nationalist intellectuals) but rather that they are allowed unrestricted access to broadcasting networks, state channels, the main stream media in general to spread their hate-speech. They are allowed this access because 80% of politicians and 98% of journalists (category A and B traitors) are aiding and abetting them in the ongoing genocide. This while people like myself, who are trying to warn people of this extremist hate speech, are systematically ignored and demonised as, guess what; racist, fascist extremists… It is nothing less than insane and it borders to an advanced level of psychopathic absurdity. A majority of Europeans are still susceptible to this brainwashing although this is gradually changing.

Breivik appears to have written the passages above. He cites Håper på fem nye Culcom-år - Universitetet i Oslo. Google Translate can't handle the https URL.

Norway Attacks - Anders Behring Breivik

2011-07-23T00:45:00.000-07:00

Police dismiss initial fears Norwegian terror attacks were work of Islamist organisations:

The massacre in Norway was the work of a man with extreme right wing views who hated Muslims, police said this morning.

Officers found a series of raving internet posts by 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, who was arrested for gunning down children on the island of Utoya yesterday.

National police chief Sveinung Sponheim told public broadcaster NRK that the suspected gunman's Internet postings 'suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but if that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen'.

Six foot tall and blond Breivik is reported to have arrived on the island of Utoya and opened fire after beckoning several young people over in his native Norwegian tongue.

Reports suggest he was also seen loitering around the site of the bomb blast in Oslo two hours before the island incident.

Pictured: The blond Norwegian, 32, arrested over 'holiday island massacre' and linked to Oslo car bomb blasts:

Authorities now claim 91 people were killed - in Oslo and on Utoya Island, 50 miles north of the capital, it was claimed.

Norwegian police said at least 84 were killed at Utoya alone and described the killings as of 'catastrophic dimensions' and 'the work of a madman'.

Teenagers on the Norwegian holiday island of Utoya had to 'swim for their lives' and hide in trees when the gunman fired indiscriminately at them.

Around 700 had gathered on the island for a meeting of the youth wing of the ruling Labour party.

Apparently Breivik targeted Norway's treasonous elite and their children rather than muslim aliens.

2011 Norway attacks at Wikipedia:

Public broadcaster NRK and several other Norwegian media identified the suspected attacker as a blond and blue-eyed Norwegian who expressed right-wing and anti-Muslim views on the Internet.

National police chief Sveinung Sponheim told public broadcaster NRK that the gunman's Internet postings "suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen.

He is reported to have written posts on the anti-Islamic[41] website document.no (all his apparent and unconfirmed writings listed; available on this site only in Norwegian).

Via Google Translate:

2009-12-03 01:21:04

Hlund, Fjordman, Hårstad, Rust

I'm NOK much later in the game than him when I have only been politically active for 13 years. I førstegenerasjonsdhimmi (Generation Y). I was active Oslo FrP / FpU in the first 6-7 years (in the cultural conservatives + laissez faire capitalist / liberal camp) and contributed to the Progress Party's success before I stopped. I felt the time was more important to help develop / promote the political doctrines abroad especially British, German, French, American). I ran the business a few years while I studied and earned a few million so I could finance a inntektsløs politically active life. I now use these funds to be able to work full time to further develop / promote the Vienna Academy (Vienna school of thought) that Fjordman, Bat Yeor, Spencer + many others have already contributed so much till. The last three years I worked full time with a cultural conservative works that will help to further develop / promote these political doctrines further.

Anyway, I consider the future consolidation of the cultural conservative forces on all seven fronts as the most important in Norway and in all Western European countries. It is essential that we work to ensure that all these 7 fronts using the Vienna school of thought, or at least parts of the grunlag for 20-70 year-struggle that lies in front of us.

The book is called, by the way 2083 and is in English, 1100 pages).

To sums up the Vienna school of thought:

- Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)
- Against Islamization
- Anti-racist
- Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)
- Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries
- Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity
- To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)
- Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists

Frankfurt School (kulturmarxisme) is a very ambitious unofficial ideology (and quite unknown to most) and they have succeeded in most areas (except to smash capitalism, European Christianity and European identity, traditions, culture). Vienna school is more a defense against this where we often use the Marxist 'own creations against them (sexual liberation, feminism, liberalism, anti-racism, anti-autoriære arguments).

Vienna school of thought is far from a complete ideology but consists of principles and ideas that are constantly under development. It is unofficial and does not necessarily ever to be recognized.

"Vienna school of thought" is Breivik's term for the milieu centered about Gates of Vienna.

Thanks to Chechar for calling attention to Breivik's comments here.

From For the Record, at Gates of Vienna:

I know Fjordman personally, I know exactly what he looks like, and he does not resemble the alleged murderer in the slightest.

Furthermore, I was in conversation with Fjordman all day today, starting before the shootings, during the slaughter, and afterwards. If he was shooting up Utøya, he was doing an amazing job of communicating with his friends the whole time, even after he was thrown in a jail cell.

Anti-White Rationalizations at Reddit

2011-07-19T12:39:00.000-07:00

Reddit is shitstorming over a comic which satirizes multiculturalism: http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/itmdq/now_let_me_be_clear_i_dont_hate_white_people/

Ctrl+F 'skeptix', that guy's a load of fun.

Via 4chon.net/new/ (4chon is shitstorming too, links there disappear quickly).

A Monomaniacal Concern for Jewish Interests and the Infiltrating, Hijacking and Marginalizing it Inspires

2011-07-18T23:52:00.000-07:00

Read about it in the comments at Mangan's.

Who Writes This Crap

2011-07-17T19:30:00.000-07:00

The Wire - The Most Dangerous Thing in America

The Heretic:

Much of [David] Simon’s work focuses on the troubles of low-income African Americans, be they heroin dealers or trombone players. It’s a preoccupation he shares with a long line of American Jewish social activists and cultural figures, from early abolitionists to the Jews who helped found the NAACP to the Jewish Freedom Riders murdered in the early 1960s. When I bring that up, though, Simon brushes aside the comparison. “The Freedom Riders and NAACP founders were doing something far more substantive, and in the case of the Freedom Riders, risking far, far more,” he says. “I wouldn’t put myself in that category under any circumstances.”

Nonetheless, he’s very conscious of that history.

Some Slurs Are More Equal Than Others

2011-07-07T00:44:00.000-07:00

This evening my kids came running to tell me about this public service announcement they had just seen on TV.

Not Acceptable R-word PSA

Nigger: It's not acceptable to call me a nigger.

Spic: It's not acceptable to call me a spic.

Chink: To call me a chink.

Fag: To call me a fag.

Kike: It's not acceptable to call me a kike.

Retard: And it's not acceptable to call me a retard, or call yourself or your friends retarded when they do something foolish.

The Retard's Friend: The R-word is the same as every minority slur - treat it that way and don't use it.

Not all slurs are created equal. What's missing from this litany of unacceptability is a particular class of popular, contemporary slurs. Redneck, hillbilly, anglo, cracker, pinky, goober, teabagger, wingnut, rethuglican, racist, anti-semite, nazi - the type of slurs that holier-than-thou minority supremacists regularly aim at Whites.

The intent of such slurs is to promote the exclusion and rejection of an exceptional type of "retard", people whose supposed intellectual and developmental disabilities (stupid, lazy, greedy, crazy, evil) qualify them for attack rather than defense. Politically active and racially aware Whites are pathologized and demonized most enthusiastically, but even unconscious, in-born "White privilege" is regarded as excuse enough to vilify Whites.

The description attached to the video:

"Not Acceptable" is a powerful and compelling 30 second television PSA which gives voice to a variety of diverse communities each of whom expresses that it is not acceptable to call them by what were once common words, but are now recognized as offensive slurs. It culminates in actress and self-advocate Lauren Potter from "Glee" stating that it is not acceptable to use the word 'retard' and she and "Glee" co-star Jane Lynch make a call to action to stop using the word and to promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and to make their pledge online at http://r-word.org

The PSA was launched by the Spread the Word to End the Word campaign, an on-going initiative from Special Olympics and Best Buddies to eradicate the derogatory use of the word "retard(ed)" from everyday use and promote the inclusion and acceptance of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

"Not Acceptable" was executive produced by Jim Serpico and Tom Sellitti of New York based Apostle, and shot, produced and edited by Spot On Productions from City Island, NY.

The PSA is supported by several national advocacy organization including the Anti-Defamation League, Special Olympics, Best Buddies, GLAAD, The Hispanic Federation, National Puerto Rican Coalition, The Asian-American Foundation, AbilityPath.org and the NAACP.

*Comments are, as they are in all our videos, moderated for appropriateness. We welcome conversation and dissent, but will not allow comments that do not help move the conversation forward in a productive manner.

The Anti-White Regime in Action in Wisconsin

2011-07-01T13:03:00.000-07:00

Feds sue New Berlin for racism, Beloit Daily News, 24 June 2011:

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The U.S. government has filed a lawsuit alleging New Berlin city officials caved to pressure from their largely white community by deciding not to build low-income housing that could attract more black families.

The government is deliberately attempting to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of a White community in Wisconsin.

The very first reader comment on the story offers forthright support for that community:

Kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2011 9:27 AM:

" Its Their lives, their town, their 'pursuit of happiness'. The government has not right to tell these people who they should think, how they should live. I hope they stand up and resist this invasion. "

The very next reader comment is a weasel-worded anti-White response:

Red Rock wrote on Jun 27, 2011 1:24 AM:

" That's right Kevin! You go! For example, if the town has designs on only blue-eyed and blond haired residents that are Protestants, then that is their riight! Oh, wait. Wasn't that tried in the 1940's in Germany? Nevermind. On second thought Kevin, you're all wrong on this one. "

Red Rock thinks it's OK to destroy a White community in Wisconsin today because, when you get down to what's really important, they remind him how much he hates blond-haired blue-eyed people no matter when or where they are.

For more details and another anti-White view see Racism's Ugly Face in Wisconsin, Courthouse News Service, by Lisa Buchmeier, 23 June 2011:

MILWAUKEE (CN) - Housing developers say the mayor of New Berlin buckled to racist pressure and shut down an affordable housing project. To "save his political career," the builders say, the mayor, who is not racist himself, truckled to community fears that affordable housing would draw minorities to the city, which is 93.3 percent white.

At one meeting, a member of the public commented, "If being against low-income housing makes me a racist and a bigot, then I guess I am a racist and a bigot," according to the complaint.

The developers say the bigotry stems from "the perceived lower socio-economic status of many minority group members and because of the demographic disparity between Waukesha County ... and neighboring Milwaukee County."

Four days later Buchmeier followed up with Feds Take on Racism in Wisconsin:

After changing his vote, Chiovatero wrote an open letter to all residents: "In 2010, when the Section 42 Workforce housing came to public attention, it was clear that the nearby residents did not want this project to go forward. In support of the residents, I have since researched a means to halt the project. I am committed to focusing on what suitable options are available. The City Staff and I have found justification for discontinuing the project and will now be focusing on alternatives."

But the plaintiff United States of America says that New Berlin's "application of its zoning and land use laws have the intent and effect of discriminating against prospective black tenants and residents of New Berlin."

The clear intent and effect of the government subsidizing and ultimately imposing the construction of "affordable housing" - a dishonest code-word everyone knows means disproportionately non-White housing - in a majority White community is to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of that community, in whole or in part. This destruction is being imposed over the explicit, earnest objections of community members who have expressed legitimate, reasonable fears. The government is aided and abetted by media reports blithely pathologizing and demonizing those who oppose this destruction.

Here's another report. U.S. accuses New Berlin of racial bias in housing decision, Journal Sentinel, 23 June 2011:

From the start, some objectors expressed concern that prospective tenants would be African-Americans or other minorities and used racially derogatory terms to refer to them, or implied racial bias as the reason for objecting to the development, according to the complaint.

The complaint cites correspondence that mentioned "white flight," crime, drugs, slums, gangs, families with 10 or 15 kids, needing "to get a gun," not wanting New Berlin to turn into Milwaukee, moving to New Berlin "to get away from the poor people," not wanting to provide housing to people "who work but do not live here." Some writers also used racially derogatory terms for African-Americans.
New Berlin, a city of about 39,000, is 95% white, according to the lawsuit.

Finally, here's an article that sheds some light on the government's history of imposing non-White housing in White neighborhoods in the Milwaukee area. South Milwaukee, developer settle apartment bias issue, Journal Sentinel, 27 June 2011:

In 1992, developers bought land at what is now 3344 Marina Road with the intent of building the apartments, some of which would serve lower income and disabled residents.

The following year, after citizen opposition mounted, the city imposed a moratorium on building permits for Lake Bluff and then rezoned the land from multifamily to single-family housing.

In 1994, a Milwaukee County circuit judge ordered the city to issue building permits for Lake Bluff. By 1995, construction was complete and residents had moved in.

But in November 1995, the state Supreme Court ruled in the city's favor, saying the judge's order on the building permits should not have been issued.

Nearly five years later, in June 2000, the city won another court ruling, ordering the developer to tear down the two Lake Bluff buildings.

Earlier in the same article we find the sad precendent and likely outcome for New Berlin:

The long-running South Milwaukee dispute once saw the city attempting to raze the Lake Bluff Apartments complex, which includes affordable housing. About one-third of the complex's residents have been minorities. The city's population was 1% black by the 2000 census.

In July 2009, a federal jury found that razing the property would have a disproportionate effect on minority and disabled residents and would be in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

South Milwaukee officials had said they sought to raze the buildings because it violated the city's zoning, and not with the purpose of discriminating. The parties have been negotiating for more than a year, with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman mediating.

Provisions of the settlement, according to lawyers, include:

The two buildings of Lake Bluff, at 3344 Marina Road, will not be torn down, and the complex will continue its mix of 25 affordable-housing units and 31 market-rate units until 2025.

In the predominant narrative of the anti-White regime non-Whites are presented as innocent victims who are just looking for a better life for themselves. Whites who could just as easily be seen in such a positive light are instead regularly depicted as greedy, selfish, ignorant and evil. De facto segregation is presented as a problem, with compulsory government-imposed integration as the solution. The anti-White nature of the regime is confirmed by the casual sinister, cynical regard aimed specifically at Whites and which is dominant among the perpetrators and apologists in positions of power and authority in government, law and media.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone who hates Whites moralizing about White "bigotry" and "racism": no matter how many people oppose it, segregation isn't genocide, and no matter how many people support it, compulsory integration is.

(The image is taken from New Berlin City Council meets for first since federal gov. filed lawsuit, Gamut News, 29 June 2011. Embedded on that page is a video of local Fox News affliate coverage.)

Michele Bachmann Serves the Interests of Everybody Except Whites

2011-06-20T21:42:00.000-07:00

Bachmann: America ‘cursed’ by God ‘if we reject Israel’ | Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media., 8 February 2010:

I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States . . . [W]e have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play. And my husband and I are both Christians, and we believe very strongly the verse from Genesis [Genesis 12:3], we believe very strongly that nations also receive blessings as they bless Israel. It is a strong and beautiful principle.

Bachmann: Obama ‘Has Failed the African American Community’ and Hispanic Community | CNSnews.com, 20 June 2011:

“Mr. President, the status quo is not working for Americans,” said Bachmann. “The status quo certainly isn't working for the African-American community, with 16 percent unemployment, or the Hispanic community, with nearly 12 percent unemployment. It's even worse for the youth: For Hispanic youth right now, 26 percent unemployment; for African-American youth, 40 percent unemployment.

“This president has failed the Hispanic community,” said Bachmann. “He has failed the African-American community. He has failed us all when it comes to jobs.

“As president of the United States, my goal will be job creation in the Hispanic community, job creation in the African-American community, job creation for all Americans, and turning this economy around,” said Bachmann. “And we will.”

Nothing to see here says our special jewish fifth columnist "friend" Lawrence Auster, Is Bachmann making a special appeal to minorities?:

As can be seen from the full context of the statement, Bachmann was not making any particular appeal to blacks and Hispanics.

Says the guy who lives on planet Israel. Here's pro-Israel, pro-non-White Bachmann, in full context, in her own words: Michele Bachmann Explains President Obama's Jobless Report Quote.

Bachmann supports everybody except the people who actually make up the Tea Party.

Image care of Russian jews who hate Bachmann more than Whites ever could.

Auster's Personal Announcement

2011-06-20T08:54:00.000-07:00

A personal announcement:

Last June, just under a year ago, I was diagnosed with metastasized pancreatic cancer.

Thankfully, I have had enough energy to continue blogging, though not enough to write full length articles or engage in real debates. On occasion I've let an issue go because mustering the evidence and arguments to respond to an opposing position was beyond my capacity. This is not because my brain is not sharp, but simply because I have lacked the energy to do the intellectual work that is needed for certain kinds of writing.

Another way the illness and treatment have affected me is that I avoid things that are very stressful or upsetting. For example, I didn't write about the Ground Zero mosque issue for months last year because I found it too stressful, though I did start writing about it in August, partly because I was feeling better and could handle it. Similarly, I avoided writing about the movie Machete last year. I just didn't want to deal with something that evil.

Also, as a result of my condition and inability to handle stress, I have become more intolerant than before of correspondents and online commenters who, instead of dealing with the issue at hand, make negative comments about my personality or ad hominem statements of any kind. I have zero tolerance for that now and I simply stop communicating with people who do that.

It's a bit premature, but here's my epitaph for him: Here lies Lawrence Auster, a full-blooded jewish convert to Christianity, a jewish fifth columnist who never forgot who "his people" were, who on a weekly if not daily basis tossed off sweeping, grandiose, negative, zero-tolerance comments about Whites, blacks, muslims, Christians, liberals, conservatives, Europeans, the French, the British, the Germans, the majority, and last but certainly not least, the "anti-semites", all self-righteously counterposed with a talmudic, hair-splitting, eggshell-walking, anally-retentively-qualified, infinitely-tolerant circumspection concerning the jews and Israel.

White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad

2011-06-11T11:30:00.000-07:00

Fjordman's latest essay at Gates of Vienna, When Treason Becomes The Norm: Why The Proposition Nation, Not Islam, Is Our Primary Enemy seems to be a move in the right direction. He's talking about treason now, eviscerating the suicide meme he previously flirted with, though without directly disavowing it.

Fjordman intertwines one sour note with an otherwise sensible conclusion. The sensible portions were highlighted in a comment by Eileen O'Connor:

As Sam Francis reminded us, 'every real nation is a country of a common blood. The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are — come to think of it — totalitarian states. The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France. When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state.'

Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis. After the Second World War, any talk of genetic differences, of being related by blood or of ties to the soil you live on became associated with Nazism and therefore seen as evil. Out of the many things the Nazis destroyed, this was one of the most damaging, but perhaps least appreciated today. I would be tempted to declare the Nazis the most anti-white movement that ever existed, considering the incalculable damage they did to Europeans and people of European origins.

The main reason why we are threatened by outside forces today is because of the notion that our countries should be glorified shopping centers where anybody should be free to enter as they desire. As long as this situation continues, we will never be able to defeat our enemies.

Our primary enemy is the Proposition Nation, not Islam. The only way to restore sanity to our countries is to restore the concept that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage.

Chechar had already responded with a spot-on comment probing Fjordman's most glaring blind spot:

@ “If we make a list of groups or institutions that are promoting the dispossession and destruction of Europeans it would look something like this, starting from the top down: [six culprits]

Why did you left out an important culprit Fjordman, the Jewish involvement in shaping American immigration policy?

As to immigration in Europe, see this video where a Jewess Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement:

Quote:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”

/end quote

I think this blind spot cannot long endure the trajectory Fjordman is on. Here, for the first time I believe, he crosses a line, stepping away from deracinated counter-jihad and toward ethno-racial nationalism. I thought I might help him, and others in a similar quandry, with the portion of his thinking he finds "unfortunate". I left the following comment:

Fjordman,

I like this essay, especially the portions Eileen O'Connor highlighted in her 6/10/2011 10:06 PM comment. Well done. I hope you continue along these lines.

"Unfortunately, this latter line of thinking was discredited by the Nazis."

But you do not believe this line of thinking is wrong. It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that you're having trouble reconciling this with your belief that "the nazis" are evil. The two beliefs cannot co-exist for long.

I hope you realize sooner rather than later that whatever "the nazis" did does not negate the truth or righteousness of nationalism - including the idea "that a country is the homeland of a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage". It means Germany for Germans, Norway for Norwegians, Europe for Europeans. When you can finally say this in full throat you will be denounced as a "nazi". But by then you will understand who does this and why.

This morning I returned to the thread and found the following comment from Fjordman:

Chechar and Tanstaafl are hostile, dishonest debaters. In fact, I wouldn’t call them debaters at all, but rather spammers. They essentially post the same comment over and over again, and it’s not even an interesting or intelligent comment. Tanstaafl: We have nothing in common and I will NEVER join your “team.” You should have realized that by now. You have your own blog and there are plenty of others where you can write about this as much as you want to. You have no right to hijack this website where good people invest their time with little or no pay to create important debates.

I will request that GoV deletes Tanstaafl’s latest comment about the Nazis. Some people have mental faculties that require us to protect them from themselves. Tanstaafl clearly falls under that category. Mr. T: Your presence undermines the very purpose of this website. You have no business being here. I don’t spend countless hours of my free time reading or thinking about interesting subjects to write about for you to come here and destroy everything. Take a hike. And that goes for Chechar, too.

I’m sure Chechar will whine and complain about “censorship,” and he’s free to do so….somewhere else, for instance at his own, not terribly interesting blog which he keeps hijacking our posts here by linking to. I’m also sure he will say that I have “no right” to censor him and that doing so is “cowardice.” He’s wrong on both accounts. Yes, I do. I have every right to tell him that his presence is not wanted on my posts, just like a person has the right to decide who he wants to let into his private home. If I try to keep a tidy house and unwanted people intrude and make a mess of it, I have every right to ask them to leave. It’s not “cowardice” to ask bullies to leave, and that’s what Chechar is: a bully. He’s extremely rude and intrudes where he knows perfectly well that he is not wanted, just like the low-IQ Third World thugs he himself despises.

Discrimination is proper and necessary. Our civilization needs more of it in order to survive and prosper. I choose to discriminate against Chechar based on his rudeness, his lack of logic and his general lack of manners. I also choose to discriminate against Tanstaafl based on his lack of a moral compass and above all his lack of intelligence. There should be an IQ limit to posting here, and Tanstaafl does not qualify. He barely has an IQ much higher than that of your average Muhammedan from the Yemen, and he shares much the same obsession with looking for Jews under his bed.

Bye.

My comment was gone.

As with the puffed-up opprobrium Fjordman heaps upon "the nazis" in his essay, I see in the blind bile in this comment the anger of a man terrified with the implications of his own thoughts. We do indeed have something in common. I passed through counter-jihadism on the way to where I am now. This is why I can see so clearly why his current line of thinking, in favor of nationalism, is colliding with a long-ingrained belief in the diabolical nature of "the nazis". The counter-jihad is a movement focused on what's good for "the jews". I believe Fjordman has claimed to be 100% Norwegian. Whether he considers "the jews" White or Norwegian or not, as long as he stands against the Proposition Nation, especially in preference to "a nation of closely related people with a shared heritage", he will find himself opposed and pilloried by "the jews", not "the nazis".

"The jews" are their own people with their own shared heritage. They have demonstrated time and again that they cannot abide the same in anyone else. Their ancient competitors - the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, and a gaggle of latter day caliphs, kings, queens, czars, and führers - are gone, "the jews" remain.

When Fjordman strikes out at "the nazis" he strikes at an easy target. He telegraphs that he is not an enemy of "the jews". From his previous writings, we know Fjordman thinks highly of "the jews". Whether he holds to this position, it will not fool them. If he is sincere in his move toward a more pro-White/pro-European stand he will realize this eventually. If in the meantime it makes him feel better to imagine himself as a heroic Luke Skywalker rejecting the dirty, rotten, evil, lying Darth Vader, that's fine by me.

Then again it could very well be that Fjordman is insincere - that for whatever reason he still really places the interests of "the jews" above everyone else, but because he has already been criticized for this he is trying to conceal it rather than reconsider it and reorder his priorities. I find this less likely, but time will tell.

- - -

Before I commented on Fjordman's essay, Takuan Seiyo, who I've crossed paths with before, had already made a comment condemning Chechar. Seiyo is of a different, more fundamentally jew-first counter-jihad stripe than Fjordman. He claims to be half-Slav/half-jew, though the latter half dominates both the style and substance of his arguments. As with Lawrence Auster, Seiyo makes the occasional strong statement in favor of native Europeans and critical of "the jews". Then he spends the balance of his efforts making it clear that this is only because he sympathizes with and excuses "the jews". The real problem, in his mind, comes from the evil "anti-semites", "nazis", and other people who criticize "the jews" from a point of view less sympathetic than his own.

With this understanding I made a second comment at GoV:

Takuan Seiyo writes:

"The reason people like Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna, myself and others cannot write more about the Jewish contribution to our destruction is precisely because of those who do, like the comrade above. Their lying about Hitler, Holocaust denial, hobnobbing with Ustashniks and Neo-nazis, obscurantism about the horrors of the Romanovs’ rule that engendered the Bolshevik Revolution (and Jewish participation therein), puts anyone who writes critically about their grand idee-fixe -- Der Juden – in a radioactive chamber, and anyone who cares about truth in the camp of untruth.

The antisemites sabotage the task of saving and boosting the Peoples of Europe (and her diaspora) in two more ways. First, by misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Jews’ motivation in their dysfunctional behavior, they muddle the issue and make it far more difficult to mount effective countermeasures. To be brief, the most accurate – and most bitingly damaging -- statement about the Jewish dysfunction was made not by Duke or MacDonald, but rather by a Jewish comedienne, Julia Gorin, and in direct negation of their and Hitler’s spurious theorizing."

I'll believe Seiyo speaks for Fjordman, the Baron and Dymphna when they say he does.

"The antisemites" are Seiyo's grand idee-fixe, his "Der Juden". If they would just be silent, even here on the margins of the internet, then he could finally save us all.

For those who would like to hear what actual White nationalists have to say for themselves, I recommend the following podcasts:

The Nationalist Report: Interview with David Duke, Oct 2010.

Kevin MacDonald's speech at the first National Conference of the American Third Position Party, June 2010.

What these men say should appeal to any White person Fjordman's essay appeals to.

This comment has also been removed. Just below where it appeared, before the response made by Fjordman quoted above, was this comment from Seiyo:

It's either you or me. This blog will have to choose. I feel soiled by being on the same page with you. Unless you are bounced from here, I take a hike. Your response, if any, will get no response from me.

Probably without intending it, Seiyo echoes and confirms the point I was trying to get across to Fjordman. You can pick European nationalism or "the jews". Those who choose their own kind, their nation, over "the jews" will be forced to face the fact, sooner or later, that their enemies, those who demonize and attack them most vehemently, are those who put "the jews" first.

- - -

Hesperado is another commenter on the Fjordman essay that I've previously crossed paths with. The comments in that post touch on Seiyo, Fjordman, and the counter-jihad as well.

Chechar has also discussed Fjordman at his blog.

Weinergate: Jewish Values on Display

2011-06-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

It began with the usual judeo-liberal media attempts to ignore or at least downplay the scandal as it was first starting to swirl around one of their rising stars. When it was clear the controversy could not be snuffed out with silence Weiner himself went on the attack, calling an interviewer's implication that he had done anything inappropriate outrageous. As we know now Weiner was bluffing, but at the time he seemed to think customary jewish tactics of argument - playing the victim with bombastic bluster while he berates his interlocutor - could serve more broadly as a long-term strategy.

Of course the fact that Anthony Weiner is a jew, or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz might put it, a proud pro-Israel jewish member of Congress, has gone mostly unremarked upon in mainstream coverage. As with the DSK affair, a powerful political figure can be a proud jew, a representative of their very distinct community, right up until they do something embarassing or criminal, at which point, oh yeah, they just happen to be jewish, no different than anybody else, and anyway, so what?

A fleeting glimpse of the significance of Weiner's jewishness came to light in a Radar Online article titled Weiner Used Jewish Sexual Stereotype To Facebook Sexting Partner, by Dylan Howard, 6 June 2011. Oh my. Howard says Weiner's "reference to a stereotype of Jewish women’s aversion to the sex act is sure to create more heat under a scandal that is already red hot." Actually, it was the opposite of aversion:

“You give good head?” the embattled and married New York congressman asked the woman on March 16, this year.

She responded: “I’ve been told really good...and i love doing it.”

At that point, 46-year-old Weiner declared: “wow a jewish girl who sucks (bleep)! this thing is ready to do damage.”

So the problem, according to Howard, isn't Weiner's lying, or infidelity, or obsession with sex. The problem is that Weiner thinks negative thoughts about jewish women. In private.

This is an absurd excuse for a more direct and plausible understanding of the exchange, which is that Weiner is not only happy to have found an eager virtual sex partner, but that he is delighted that she is jewish - that he finds her jewishness especially exciting. Such an understanding is bound to create cognitive dissonance in the minds of deracinated Whites, lectured relentlessly for decades now, most especially by jews, that any preference for our own kind is peculiar and wrong. So better to invert reality and pretend that Weiner holds a dim view of jewish women.

There's more on this stereotyping excuse below, but first let's take a brief detour. The Radar Online article contained a link to a May/June 2011 Moment Magazine article which provides some background on Weiner and specifically his jewish bona fides. Live from New York, It's Anthony Weiner, by Daphna Berman:

A Master Of Political Theater, Congressman Anthony Weiner Has Leveraged His Strong Liberal Opinions, New York Attitude And Willingness To Go Head-To-Head With Republicans On Cable TV To Fill A Void In The Democratic Party.

Weiner, whose ninth district includes parts of Queens and Brooklyn, represents what is arguably the most Jewish congressional district in the U.S. Raised in Park Slope, Brooklyn, in a middle-class Jewish family, he now lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and is—as he likes to remind people—a true New Yorker. His parents are divorced: His father, Morton, is a lawyer, and his mother, Frances, a retired public school teacher. He had two brothers, Jason and Seth (who was killed in a 2000 hit-and-run accident). Weiner and his mother are close, and she has accompanied him on campaigns—though he refused to have his mother answer questions directly. “She’s completely out of control,” he tells me. “You have no idea what she’s going to say.”

Weiner attended New York public schools, from Brooklyn Technical High School to SUNY Plattsburgh, where he graduated in 1985 with a degree in political science. He went to work for then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and became something of a protégé; he reportedly said to his boss, “I’m going to take your job some day.” He learned quite a bit from his mentor—also Jewish, and now the senior senator from New York—and, most notably, has absorbed much of the media acumen for which Schumer is known. “As a staff member to Schumer, he learned how to take advantage of the electronic media and how to get on television,” says Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Former Republican Senator Bob Dole once said the most dangerous place in Washington was the space between Schumer and a camera, and critics could say the same of Weiner.

[Congressman Jason] Chaffetz [(R-Utah)], who has worked with Weiner on other bipartisan issues, concedes that Weiner can be “over-the-top,” adding that “his style offends a lot of people and he sometimes makes issues a little too personal. He’s aggressive, which works for some people. When we’re on the same side, it can be helpful.”

Jousting with conservatives can sometimes come across as a sport for Weiner, although he insists otherwise. “It’s a necessary thing to do,” he says. “I have a choice: I can shout at my television or shout at the host directly. I’m not afraid of having a debate about these issues. And some of these programs are so deep in lies and demagoguery that someone needs to be there to correct the record.” Then, with a smile, he adds: “It allows me to burn off bile.”

One of his colleagues is Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, who serves with him on the Judiciary Committee and is a personal friend. “Anthony is one of the most quick-witted legislators there is, and once he gets hold of an issue, there’s no letting go,” she says. “He’s very well-spoken and knows how to get a point across succinctly and effectively. He’s an excellent debater, and when a back and forth is necessary, he’s someone you can call on to be the standard-bearer.”

Weiner has always been assertive about his Jewishness. In his own words, he’s spent “more time at melaveh malkahs [post-Shabbat gatherings], a lot more time at shul, at sisterhood breakfasts, and at bond breakfasts than probably just about anybody else.” He doesn’t belong to a synagogue or consider himself close to a single rabbi—except to say, consummate politician that he is, “all the shuls in my district are my home shuls.” Says Warren Hecht, president of the Queens Jewish Community Council: “He’s a Jewish official who hasn’t forgotten” his roots or his district.

Weiner, whose middle name is David, had his bar mitzvah at Union Temple in Park Slope, Brooklyn. As part of a promise to his Twitter followers, he recently released a photo of himself on his big day as an awkward-looking 13-year-old boy, complete with a self-described 1970s Jewfro. “We weren’t a very religious household, but we had a very strong sense of our Judaism,” Weiner says of his upbringing.

He came by his solid Zionist inclinations early on. “Support for Israel was always a very big focus in my household growing up,” says Weiner, who has been to the Jewish state more than a half-dozen times. He remembers wearing a homemade pin to Sunday school that read, “I am a Zionist.”

As a congressman, he has consistently pushed pro-Israel legislation, and Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), counts him among the “top 10 congressmen” in terms of Israel issues.

From the outside, Weiner’s hawkish Israel views appear to have collided with his personal life. His wife, Huma Abedin, was born in Michigan to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, and raised in Saudi Arabia. Her late father, an Islamic scholar, established an institute there that aimed to deepen religious tolerance, while her mother, who is a sociology professor in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helped create one of the first women’s colleges in the country.

The pair dated for two years before announcing their engagement, and Weiner was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about their courtship. In a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board in 2008, Weiner dodged a number of personal questions but was adamant when asked if his relationship posed a potential risk to his political ambitions. “I’m certain that the relationship was not the product of a political calculation,” he said. Later, he also refused to answer what his Jewish mom thought of his girlfriend. “It’s not something I want to talk about.”

The July 2010 wedding was covered widely. The reports were gushing, accompanied by photos of the couple with the beautiful bride in a white Oscar de la Renta gown. Response in the Jewish community was tepid: “Christian President Marries Jewish Congressman to Moslem Political Aide on Shabbos,” read the headline on The Yeshiva World News after the Saturday nuptials.

The ZOA’s Klein is more direct: “People I’ve spoken to in his district said they wouldn’t support him because he intermarried.” In fact, before Weiner came to the ZOA dinner in December, Klein warned him that his marriage to a Muslim might elicit jeers from the crowd.

Whoops. More cognitive dissonance, this time for jews. How to reconcile Weiner's assertive jewish identity with his choice of a non-jewish spouse? Hmmm. As Moment is written by jews, for jews, at least the readers who are unhappy about "intermarriage" (wink, wink, it's about "religion") aren't subjected to any insinuations that they're ignorant xenophobic bigots.

The article also discusses Weiner's aspirations to become mayor of New York City:

It’s unclear what Weiner’s chances may be. At the 2011 Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner, noting the absence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Weiner, one of the event’s headliners, said: “Who knew that what it takes to be mayor of a big city is to be a hot-tempered, arrogant, loud Jew with nine and a half fingers. Who knew? And in other news, I’ve taken a job as a meat cutter at Arby’s.”

But changing demographics, as well as a shifting political reality, may present something of a challenge to what until now has been a meteoric rise. Political strategist Hank Sheinkopf says, “New York is less white than ever and less Jewish than ever, and traditional social class lines don’t hold.” Weiner’s only chance, he says, “is to position himself as a non-billionaire from the outer boroughs. He can do it, but it will be difficult.”

The article's conclusion contains a bit of unintended prophesy:

“He’s passionate—people respect that and respond to that,” says Queens Jewish Community Council President Hecht. “If he was a phony, people would see right through him.

Tablet Magazine (by jews, for jews) expanded on Radar Online's quick bit of damage control. Understanding Weinergate, by Marc Tracy, 7 June 2011:

How social media felled a rising star, and how his Jewishness was involved

That about sums it up. Half of Tracy's article is spent floating the implausible notion that Weiner doesn't understand the internet. He's an idiot savant. No mention of the more plausible notion that Weiner's incredible arrogance and lust had something to do with his assertive self-image as a "rising star", an unassailable zionist soldier for judeo-liberal interests.

Expanding on the Radar Online article quoted above, the second half of Tracy's excuse-making consists of a deeper examination of jewish identity, group-pity, and navel-gazing about stereotypes:

There is one more thing to discuss, though if my mom wanted to stop reading this post now, I wouldn’t mind. A Nevada woman Weiner flirted with on Facebook told him that she understood herself to be good at giving oral sex and added, “i love doing it.” To which the congressman from Queens responded: “Wow a jewish girl who sucks []! this thing is ready to do damage.”

I’ll pause for your laughter. But this is also, believe it or not, yet another manifestation of a generation gap! Weiner is old enough to be of the generation that, brought up on Portnoy’s Complaint and its spawn, generalizes Jewish women as sexually cold, and specifically unwilling to perform blow jobs and inept at them when they can be reluctantly coaxed. But a younger generation has almost the exact opposite conception of Jewish women: They (again generalizing) see Jewish women as more willing than the average woman to give blow jobs and as especially skilled at the task. Contributing editor Rachel Shukert has written the definitive article about this (she discusses it here); the new stereotype became especially pronounced in the public consciousness, she argues, thanks to Monica Lewinsky. When that scandal broke, Weiner was almost 30.

Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that the single journalist most responsible for forcing this scandal into the open—who briefly hijacked Weiner’s press conference yesterday demanding an apology—is the conservative impresario Andrew Breitbart, who, yeah. Can you imagine if they had had Twitter in the shtetls?

When jewish stereotypes are discussed in scandal rags like Radar Online, intended for consumption by the hoi polloi, there is a pretense that jews are scandalized by such things. Amongst jews themselves such things inspire laughter. Listening in on their conversation what one actually finds is a seemingly inexhaustible capacity to argue about how they perceive themselves and how they are perceived by others, coupled with strong desires and active efforts to shape those perceptions.

If Weiner's private lewd flirtations make you queasy, you don't want to click the "here" link in the text above. It takes you to Interview with Rachel Shukert on Jewish girls and blowjobs at Best Sex Writing 2008. Here's the most relevant portion of this irrelevant sideshow:

Why do you think the stereotypes about Jewish women and sex are so pervasive? What do you make of the contrast between the older stereotype of the frigid Jewish woman vs. the newer one of the oversexed one?

Well, I think it’s important to stress that most of the factors in the culture that have made Jewish women seem unattractive–whether it’s being frigid, or physically unappealing, demanding, spoiled, etc.–have been created by Jewish men. Now, I love Jewish men. The men I love most in the world–my husband, my father, my grandfather–are Jewish men. But it’s not Gentiles who invented the “shikse goddess” or wrote all the JAP jokes. Who knows why? Frustration, mostly, I think. All that self-loathing and insecurity.

I’m going to speak in incredible generalizations here for a minute, so just bear with me. I think that Jewish men in the past 30 or 40 years have been extremely invested in making themselves sexy and attractive to the culture-at-large–and they are, they seem smart, sensitive, generous, etc. But with it comes this sense of fear, this kind of atavistic fear, I think, that at any moment they’ll be found out. And if anyone can call a Jewish man on his bullshit, it’s a Jewish woman. So they rationalize why they shouldn’t be involved with Jewish girls–all of these reasons. Jewish women are left open to constant criticism. And since Jews have been such an intrinsic part of popular culture, all this stuff disseminates and becomes conventional wisdom.

Now, I think this is changing, hugely. I think Jews have become more and more of an accepted part of mainstream culture, and this generation of Jewish men are more comfortable with themselves than ever before, and no longer feel like they’re straddling two worlds and trying to leave one of them behind. They can look on their Jewishness as something comforting instead of something constricting. But in the meantime, I think Jewish women have been like, “You know what? We’re sick of waiting for you,” and started on their own project of who they are, which is extremely interesting. And that’s what’s ascendant right now, I believe, which is very exciting for me. So that’s the split, I think, that the old Jewish stereotypes were disseminated by men, and the new ones by women. And the mainstream picking up on it.

Judeo-centric views like this were discussed in Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame. I find it refreshing to read such criticisms of jewish media influence, cited approvingly by jews without the usual denials and personal attacks in response. It's refreshing because critiques from any point of view sympathetic to "shiksas" or their men is painted as "hate" and greeted with howls of real hate from jews.

The nonchalant "yeah" link in the Tablet article above tugs on another interesting jewish thread. You may have noticed how the judeo-liberal media makes judeo-conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart out to be the devil incarnate. Breitbart broke the Weiner story and wouldn't let it die. Maybe you wonder why. Tablet relates the jewish view in Being Andrew Breitbart, by Allison Hoffman, 21 May 2010:

But who is Breitbart? The New Yorker sent Rebecca Mead to find out, and it turns out that Breitbart, who was adopted, is a Jewish boy from L.A.’s Westside, specifically in Brentwood. There he attended the exclusive Brentwood School, which is the kind of place that turns out the people who run Hollywood’s machinery—the Ari Golds and the producers and the lawyers and the managers. But Breitbart tells Mead he was, even as a high-schooler, turned off by “the industry” and instead fascinated by the theatrics of Washington, D.C. His politics, he reports, emerged from his exasperation with the “deconstructive semiotic bullshit” first introduced to the American cultural scene by emigré members of the Frankfurt School—radicals, almost all of them Jews, exiled by the Nazis in the 1930s.

The article Hoffman links provides more insight into Breitbart's background and motives. Rage Machine - Andrew Breitbart’s empire of bluster, by Rebecca Mead, 24 May 2010:

Breitbart is the founder of Breitbart.com, which, since 2005, has aggregated news from the Associated Press, Reuters, and other wire services. He is also the proprietor of several newer Web sites—Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism—that provide right-leaning commentary and original reporting. Their content is largely supplied by unpaid bloggers, who are given a more prominent platform than they might otherwise attain. The Big sites are dedicated to countering what Breitbart believes is the leftist bias of American cultural and media institutions.

Breitbart, who is Jewish, grew up in Brentwood, an affluent part of Los Angeles. He seems a familiar bicoastal type until he starts explaining his conviction that President Barack Obama’s election was the culmination of a plot, set in place in the nineteen-thirties by émigré members of the Frankfurt School, to take over Hollywood, the media, the academy, and the government, with the aim of imposing socialism.

Breitbart is tall and burly, with eyes the color of Windex, silver hair that he sometimes forgets is no longer blond, and jowls that he wobbles for emphasis when he wishes to express outrage. He is fond of saying that he has two modes of discourse: righteous indignation and puerile jocularity. “I like to call someone a raving cunt every now and then, when it’s appropriate, for effect,” he informed me. “ ‘You cocksucker.’ I love that kind of language.”

Breitbart considers himself an accidental cultural warrior. “I am not as partisan as people think I am,” he told me, calling himself eighty-five per cent conservative and fifteen per cent libertarian. His conservatism fails him on issues such as the legalization of prostitution, and he sometimes tilts toward favoring gay marriage. “But, when the entire media is structured to attack conservatives and Republicans, there is a huge business model to come in and counterbalance that,” he said.

He does not pretend to be an expert in policy, or to be particularly interested in it. “Just because I am paying attention to politics and culture doesn’t mean that I should be talking about the health-care bill, talking about the minutiae,” he told me. Instead, Breitbart is obsessed with wresting control of the political narrative from the established media organizations. If the wire services that Breitbart aggregates, and the bloggers he recruits, serve as his content providers, then Breitbart might be called a malcontent provider—giving seething, sneering voice to what he characterizes as a silenced majority.

Breitbart frequently decries racism, and likes to point out that he was adopted, as was his younger sister, who is of Mexican descent. “I hold in great disregard the idea that somehow her blood and my blood separate us,” he told me. “I grew up resenting people who would look at us at the table and would go, ‘Why are those people together?’ ” He likes to say that he is “pro-miscegenation.” As a result, Breitbart says, he is outraged when charges of racism are cynically made. Last year, he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” and sounded this theme: “There’s nothing in this country that is a worse accusation—in America, if you accuse somebody of racism, that person has to disprove that.”

"I just feel like I am one of these Idaho guys saying, ‘You’re not taking my land’—with a gun, on my porch,” Breitbart told me one evening. He was sitting in the bar of the Bowery Hotel, in Manhattan, drinking white wine from a glass that was being refilled by a slim waitress in a black wrap dress. His companions were similarly urbane.

Breitbart’s image of himself as a Western survivalist, he was explaining, referred to the sense of siege he felt in Los Angeles, which, he contends, has become egregiously radical since September 11, 2001. “There are people there that are aggressors,” he said. As the evening progressed, it emerged that the closest Breitbart had ever come to the real Idaho was on the Internet. He’d been looking online at properties in Coeur d’Alene, a resort town, while fantasizing about life elsewhere. “I saw the golf course there, and it had a really cool island,” Breitbart said.

Breitbart’s parents were quietly conservative. His father was a restaurateur and, later, a lobbyist for the food-service industry; his mother was a bank executive. But their son, who attended the prestigious Brentwood School, was reflexively liberal. “It was like the water I was in,” he told me. Gary Hewson, a classmate, who is now a real-estate developer, recalls Breitbart as “a bit of a class clown, a rabble-rouser.” Breitbart says, “That was my only discernible skill.”

For college, Breitbart went to Tulane University, in New Orleans, a period that he now regards with a mixture of shame and nostalgia. “It was four hideous years of debauchery of a level that was incomprehensible to me,” he told me. “I remember rationalizing my misbehavior. I remember giving my dad a book on the chemical structure of MDMA”—Ecstasy—“and I was, like, ‘Dad, what do you think of this?’ ”

“I was so excruciatingly bored after college—it was like going home to Pittsburgh to get into the steel industry, then realizing that you hate steel,” he says. “I hated Hollywood. I hated being at parties and hearing people say, ‘I work at “Mad About You,” I work in the clothing room.’ ”

Breitbart also began to reconsider the education that he had received in Tulane’s American Studies department, where, in his off-hours from partying, he had been exposed to critical theory. “I wanted to read Mark Twain and Emerson and Thoreau,” he says. “And I remember moments in class where I thought my head was going to explode, going, What the fuck are these people talking about? I don’t understand what this deconstructive semiotic bullshit is. Who the fuck is Michel Foucault?” He came across the work of Camille Paglia, and was captivated by her analysis of the takeover of academia by the left.

“A lot of these guys I was reading about in my American Studies class were German and Italian social scientists from the University of Frankfurt,” he says. “Once you see what their plan was, you realize that it was implemented. It was taking over the cultural institutions. The left is smart enough to understand that the way to change a political system is through its cultural systems. So you look at the conservative movement—working the levers of power, creating think tanks, and trying to get people elected in different places—while the left is taking over Hollywood, the music industry, the churches. They did it through academia; they did it with K-12. You look back at the last forty years, and people didn’t put up a fight.”

But of course many people put up a fight, and still do. The inconvient truth for judeo-conservatives like Breitbart is that most of those people are demonized as "racists" and "anti-semites" - shoved down the memory hole as if they never existed, never resisted. Judeo-conservatives join judeo-liberals in doing this. They are two faces of a jewish hegemony over politics, media and culture. Breitbart may feel some small measure of compassion for the Whites who never resisted, especially because he knows just how much judeo-liberals detest us anyway, but it's only relative. Judeo-conservatives find White conservatives (which is to say most Whites) useful, for the moment at least. For them the judeo-liberal takeover doesn't represent a tragedy, much less a crime. But it does present a "huge business model" selling a white-washed view of the ongoing jewish aggression and hegemony. Judeo-conservatives are just as fond of vulgarity and deviance as their judeo-liberal comrades. Sure, they disagree about some things, vehemently some times. What they agree on is that Whites must defend or at least defer to jewish interests, while the idea of Whites defending White interests fills them all - from Weiner to Breitbart - with fear and loathing.

A Disagreement About Who is Firstest

2011-06-02T13:52:00.000-07:00

The video above is part of a CNSNews article, DNC Chair: Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime', 31 May 2011. It quotes Wasserman Schultz spouting the usual apologia in favor of genocidal levels of immigration into the US:

“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity," she said. "And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

12 million? The backbone of our economy? The Republican solution is arresting them all? Political views don't get much more detached from reality than this. And this is not some random US congresswoman. Wasserman Schultz leads one of the two major political parties.

The second half of the video starts with a question about a disagreement at a meeting which took place a few days earlier. Note that this question triggers a far more impassioned response:

Question: The Republican Jewish Coalition head was reported in the New York Times - Matt Brooks is saying that you were proposing a gag order on this subject.

Wasserman Schultz: Ha ha, yeah, well, uh, you know I take... one of the most tremendous sources of pride for me is that I am the first jewish woman to represent the state of Florida in Congress. And, ah, another tremendous source of pride for me is that I am a pro-Israel jewish member of Congress and I proudly support a president that is pro-Israel. Um. What I think is unfortunate and what I suggested, along with others, including members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that are not the executive director of that organization, um, is that we need to make sure, like AIPAC pushes for, like Jewish Federation pushes for, like ADL and every major jewish organization pushes for in this country, we need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue. And that's what we talked about in that meeting.

The meeting was a bipartisan jewish affair regarding jewish interests. Jewish GOP official blasts DWS, Politico, 24 May 2011:

The top official at a Republican Jewish group blasted Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for an “unprecedented and inappropriate” effort to quell partisan debate over Israel in a private meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday at which both were present.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks clashed with Wasserman Schultz, as I reported yesterday, after Wasserman Schultz called for partisan unity on matters of Israel policy and Brooks – whose group had criticized her for speaking before the liberal group J Street – responded that he reserved the right to attack Democrats who stray from a hawkish pro-Israel line.

Another take on the interview and the disagreement - DNC chair argues Obama isn't losing support of Jewish voters, Los Angeles Times, 26 May 2011:

The South Florida Democrat laughed at charges leveled by the head of a Republican Jewish group that she wanted to squelch partisan criticism over Israel. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, accused Wasserman Schultz of proposing a “gag order” on criticism about Israeli policy when they and others met privately with Netanyahu this week.

“We need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue, and that’s what we talked about in that meeting,” Wasserman Schultz said. She quoted Netanyahu as saying, at the end of the meeting, that when it comes to Israel, “we need to erase the aisle” between Democrats and Republicans.

“Everyone that calls themselves legitimately pro-Israel believes that we should not make Israel a partisan issue. Unfortunately, I think there are organizations that claim to be pro-Israel that are partisan first and pro-Israel second. And I think unfortunately the way the Republican Jewish Coalition has conducted itself is they put their Republicanism in front of their pro-Israel stance. And I think that’s unfortunate. And I think it’s why the Israeli Embassy said that Israel should not be a partisan issue.”

Here are a couple of previous media reports concerning Wasserman Schultz's background.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked as Democratic National Committee chair, POLITICO, 5 Apr 2011:

The congresswoman is beloved by the Democratic rank and file for her aggressive, outspoken advocacy for liberal points of view. She’s frequently deployed as a surrogate, particularly to groups of women and Jewish voters.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Picked to Chair D.N.C., NYTimes, 5 Apr 2011:

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race.

Some background on Matthew Brooks:

Matthew Brooks serves as Executive Director of both the Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization dedicated to enhancing ties between the Jewish community and the Republican Party, and the Jewish Policy Center, a think-tank that examines public policy from a Jewish perspective.

Matt began his political career as State Chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans while still an undergraduate at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. Matt managed the Jack Kemp for President campaign in Massachusetts, as well as directed projects in New Hampshire and New England. Matt became the Political Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in 1988. Taking a leave of absence from the RJC, Matt served as the National Field Director for Victory ‘88 Jewish Campaign Committee, designing and implementing campaign strategy on behalf of the Bush-Quayle ‘88 campaign. Matt was appointed Executive Director of the RJC in 1990.

Matt was twice selected (in 2006 and 2008) by the Jewish Forward as one of the 50 most influential Jews in America.

In addition to his duties leading the RJC, Matt also serves as the organization’s principal spokesman. In this role Matt has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and has been quoted extensively in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers.

One of the many consequences of jewish influence in media and academia is that the perfectly descriptive term Zionist Occupation Government is painted as "an antisemitic conspiracy theory". Yet, the jewish conspiracy is right out in the open. Erase the aisle. Israel first, party second. This is the state of US politics today.

What we see here is a disagreement between hyper-ethnocentric jews who hold positions of great power and have strong influence over the US government. What they care about most is what's best for the jewish ethnostate of Israel. They all agree that in US politics the interests of Israel should always come first, across the board, for everyone, not just jews. The big question for them is whether to continue imposing this the usual stealthy judeo-liberal way, or the usual in-your-face judeo-conservative way.

The Miami Sound, Diversity Hitting the Fan

2011-05-30T11:11:00.000-07:00

Caught On Tape: Miami Beach Shooting - Memorial Day Weekend 2011

Police, gunmen open fire on South Beach; two officers injured - MiamiHerald.com expands on what's happening in this video.

We could say that diversity, i.e. less White people, isn't "our" strength, it's their strength. But that would be "racist". When the diverse question how much diversity is good for themselves, that's another story.

Gay activist Herb Sosa: South Beach a 'war zone;' demands end to Urban Weekend:

It shows our city as nothing short of a warzone - Filthy streets, a drive by shooting, multiple cars crashed in the process, and total chaos on the streets. This is unacceptable and must be controlled before we totally lose our city, tourism & residents. It is not limited to Ocean Drive or Collins - there isn't a residential street in South Beach not affected by tons of garbage, crime to our vehicles, excessive noise 24 hours a day, and simply a lack of respect for our community, citizens & property. THIS is the image the world see of our "American Riviera".

When did perceived political or social correctness override the safety & well-being of a community? This is not a race, economic or ethnic issue, it is an issue of visitors who have a total lack of respect for our community, its property & citizens. I know hotel rooms are filled, but at what price and for how long?

If Whites were involved in violence of this sort in any significant way the media would no doubt be filled with outraged non-White voices directing fear and loathing at the ugly, stupid, greedy, lazy people involved. Heck, that's how they talk about the Tea Party, even when there is no criminality or violence they can point at.

But in this case, if you hadn't already guessed, the criminality and violence associated with Miami's Urban Weekend is ineffably black. So very circumspect odecay-eakspay is the rule.

Miami Beach Memorial Day parties still polarizing - MiamiHerald.com:

A decade after Internet buzz, radio DJs and word of mouth spawned the first Urban Beach Week — turning a typically busy but low-key holiday weekend into a hip-hop fueled street party that drew an estimated 250,000 people — the annual, unofficial bash still draws mixed reviews.

Hoteliers rejoice at booked rooms, while some restaurateurs and retailers lament that the often-rowdy crowds drive off locals.

Fans and performers say the parties have evolved, attracting older fans and even families. Yet some neighbors gripe about young people drinking and dancing in front of their homes. And then there’s the cost of policing the event, expected to reach roughly $1 million this weekend.

While the event draws a largely black crowd, David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel & Restaurant Association, says friction over the holiday weekend has been less about race than the conflict between the young party crowd and the luxury tourist clientele Miami Beach actively courts.

“There’s still a gulf between the crowd we’re attracting and the crowd we really want to attract and need for future business,” Kelsey said.

Between the fact that the crowd is overwhelmingly black and its behavior is being criticized, you might think it's a slam dunk to paint "racism" as the problem.

As we've been told for decades now, "racism" is a White thing, and there just aren't many Whites involved here, except in running away. The people being imposed upon by diversity are diverse. Thus the story gets the "it's really really complicated" treatment. Like Miami's black/hispanic political squabble, this isn't about race - definitely not - it's about, well, stay tuned they're feverishly working on the narrative that ties it all to "racism".

Carlene Sawyer, former president of the Greater Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has seen more mature visitors recently.

“You hear all this rhetoric,” said Sawyer, who as in other years will be on South Beach to monitor the city’s policing of the crowds. “But the people who are coming are buying plane tickets and hotel rooms. And they’re not 18 anymore. They’re 25, 30 and 35 years old.”

Hip hop artists like Ludacris and Busta Rhymes have helped draw crowds typically estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 each year — rivaling even Super Bowl throngs.

“This is the best time of year for us,” said Monika Olimpiew, general manager of SoBe Live, a club that this weekend is featuring acts like rap group Travis Porter and R&B singer Keri Hilson.

People on scooters weave around the Lamborghinis and bass-thumping Cadillacs that crawl down Ocean Drive — which will be closed to traffic this year. The street scene has been good to Prestige Luxury Auto Rentals in Miami, which had rented out 80 percent of its stock by Tuesday, including all its $2,000-a-day Lamborghinis and even pricier Ferraris.

So much for the disingenuous suggestion in the quote above that the conflict is between "the young party crowd" and "the luxury tourist clientele". On Urban Beach Week these groups are one and the same.

Perception of crime and violence has been one of Urban Beach Week’s biggest issues.

Miami Beach Commissioner Ed Tobin said last year he rode with police to see what officers deal with, including gun confiscations — 24 last year, down from a peak of 73 in 2006.

“I would not want anyone that I know, a friend or visitor, to be outside on South Beach after 11 p.m. on this weekend because it is dangerous despite what seemed like thousands of police officers at every corner,” he said.

Perceptions are only taken seriously when they come from non-Whites. Perceptions are only taken as problematic when they reflect badly on non-Whites. In Miami we see both, and therein lies the media's conundrum in covering (literally) what's happening during Urban Beach Week.

For Police Chief Carlos Noriega, dealing with the crowds has been tricky. On one hand, his department has been criticized as being too lax. On the other, they were accused of racial profiling by the ACLU and NAACP in 2006 after arresting more than 1,000 people.

Now, police typically meet with ACLU representatives and the U.S. Department of Justice to go over enforcement plans. Noriega said police now overlook minor offenses and focus more on major crimes and crowd control.

“This is something we’ve become accustomed to,” he said.

Don't worry, the ACLU and NAACP are in control.

We long ago became accustomed to seeing violence in our cities. The same pattern of violent behavior repeats itself whenever and wherever a critical mass of non-Whites collect. Today a related pattern is associated with the critical mass of non-Whites in media and non-White activist organizations. They make excuses and redirect blame to protect the fragile egos of non-Whites. What's good for non-Whites is regarded as an important and interesting debate. The question of what's good for Whites is regarded as a sign of insane evil. In Miami, where so few Whites remain (82.4% diverse and quickly approaching perfection), the question doesn't even come up.

UPDATE 1 Jun 2011: The original video was withdrawn. Replaced it with another version.

Let's Blame the Jew-Haters

2011-05-27T21:52:00.000-07:00

Let's blame the Jews, via Pat Condell on Israel, Jew-Hatred, and Islam at Gates of Vienna.

Pat Condell is a counter-jihadist favorite. He's a proud (if unconvincing) anti-"racist". He mercilessly bashes muslims. He gleefully ridicules Christians. And for some strange reason he just loves "the jews".

Condell starts off mocking the strawman that jews "control the world" because their numbers are so small. By the end he is so overcome with enthusiasm for his (adopted?) tribe that he forgets about the numbers and waxes orgasmic about what a substantial force for good they are. He wishes the world really was ruled by "the jews". It's the most creepy display of jew-worship I have seen since, ohhh how many days has it been since Netanyahu got all those standing ovations from Congress?

Condell makes a point about muslims being taught from childhood to hate jews. So what should we make of jews teaching their children and everyone else that their tribe's time amongst Europeans has been one long string of anti-jew oppression and violence? According to the jewish version of history every conflict jews have ever had with Europeans is entirely to blame on evil Europeans blinded by spontaneous jew-hate. It's fair to say that by teaching this kind of one-sided view of history jews are teaching everyone to hate Whites. Maybe Condell's next video will be about this. It could start with a review of the flash mob of journalists, pundits and politicians who suddenly turned into jewish history experts and explained their seething hate to Sarah Palin a few months ago.

I won't be holding my breath. From the way Condell sneers at Europeans it's clear he's already absorbed those lectures and thinks Whites suck. He's concerned about Europe being overrun by muslims because it's bad for jews. I wonder if this is the only motive behind all his anti-islam and anti-Christian tirades. I've never heard him speak so emotionally or favorably about Britons. Is he not capable of loving his own kind? Or is that what he's doing when he gushes in favor of jews?

There are two final points to make about Condell's "control the world" bluster. First, since he likes to go on and on about Islam it would be trivial to mock him in the same terms. What do earnest counter-jihadists think when somebody paints them as morons who say muslims control the world? Second, Condell titles his diatribe "Let's blame the jews", which he means to be taken ironically. He blames the jew-haters. What he's saying, to use his own dishonest way of characterizing such things, is that the jew-haters control the world. What an idiot.

The Demonization of Marine Le Pen

2011-05-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

France's National Front: Le Pen, mightier than the sword?, The Economist, 5 May 2011:

UP CLOSE, the most unnerving thing about Marine Le Pen is not her obsession with Islam, her populism or her divisive politics—but the way she oozes charm. With a ready laugh and unaffected manner, this steely politician deflects awkward questions with an easy grace that makes her a rarity in French politics. The newish leader of the far-right National Front is an intriguing study in how to make extremist politics marketable—and in doing so, perhaps to reshape French party politics.

In the short run, Ms Le Pen wants to decontaminate the National Front, stripping it of the skin-headed image it had under her father, Jean-Marie. At the party’s annual May 1st rally, she surrounded herself with fresh-faced young women in jeans and T-shirts. Her father, a former paratrooper, perfected a line in anti-Semitic and xenophobic outrage. She shares much of his programme, such as support for the death penalty and job preference for French nationals. But she has junked the anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi sidekicks in favour of a subtler tone. “When I talk about the immigration problem, I don’t talk out of hate, or xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or fear,” she insists, but pragmatism. “We cannot afford to let everybody in.”

Across Europe, traditional divisions between left and right have blurred, Ms Le Pen argues, giving way to a new fracture between those who believe in globalisation, international governance and open borders, and those who believe in the primacy of the nation. In her eyes President Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF and a likely Socialist candidate, are “interchangeable”: standard-bearers for a globalised world view. By contrast, she wants a return to national sovereignty, a withdrawal from the euro (“before it collapses”) and NATO (“submission to America”), the return of border controls and an unapologetic protectionist policy to “re-industrialise France”.

For under scrutiny, many of Ms Le Pen’s ideas, when not toxic, are deeply flawed. France cannot compete with China on cost, she says, so better to put up borders, go for a competitive devaluation and start building factories at home again. She dismisses worries about the colossal cost of protectionism or of debt-servicing with a devalued currency as scaremongering. For now, such details have yet to spoil the seductive simplicity of her message. And this will keep her a highly disruptive figure in the run-up to 2012 and beyond.

Unlike DSK, Marine Le Pen has never been accused of committing a crime, violent or otherwise. However, as made clear by the defamatory, accusatory opinion quoted above - fairly typical of the limited coverage Le Pen receives in English-language media - Le Pen is regarded with a poisonous cynicism, a combination of fear and loathing that would elicit outraged cries and condemnations of "hate" if it were directed at any representative of immigrants or jews. Le Pen, like all European nationalists, is treated to a different standard, worse than any accused rapist. She's undeniably popular with the native French, who for perfectly normal reasons would like to be led by someone, anyone who actually favors them over aliens. Naturally this frightens and disgusts anyone who loves aliens and hates the French.

The double standard was clearly visible amid the empassioned cacaphony following the arrest of DSK. The realization that the scandal would likely improve Le Pen's prospects frightened certain pundits so much that they couldn't help but couple their open-minded reminders that DSK is innocent until proven guilty with cognitive-dissonance-inducing paranoia and hang-wringing over Le Pen. The most egregious examples I've found are Doug Schoen and Anne Applebaum. I don't think it's any coincidence that while neither one is French, both are jews.

UPDATE 20 May 2011: Marine Le Pen becomes Front National leader: A pivotal moment for French politics? - Telegraph, by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, 16 Jan 2011:

It's a measure of the inroads Marine Le Pen has already made in the French political debate that she now splits opinion among the rarefied world of Parisian intellectuals.

On the one hand, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy still thinks she reeks of sulphur: according to him, the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, 82, the longstanding Front National leader, is "even more dangerous than her father".

Yet on the other Elisabeth Lévy, the shrewd editor of Causeur magazine, the French answer to The Spectator, considers not only that Marine Le Pen "says nothing scandalous or morally unacceptable", but also that she might well "be truly breaking away from the old French extreme-Right, to create something new."

It's a measure of just how un-French "French" political debate is that Moutet cites two jews as representative, even though they are members of a powerful, exclusive ethnic group who comprise less than 1% of the overall population.

[Marine's father, Jean-Marie] Le Pen, an orphaned Breton fisherman's son, tried to join the Résistance in 1944, and later fought in Algeria and in the Suez expedition.

But he made his indelible mark in French politics by obsessively picking at the scabs of the country's dark past. He boasted of using torture in Algeria to combat terrorism; called the gas chambers "a point of detail" of the Second World War; used time-and-motion calculations to dispute the number of Auschwitz victims; and described France's German occupiers as "very civilised".

He was several times condemned under French incitement laws - all of which he used to paint himself as a larger-than-life pariah in the too-tame, self-referential world of French politics.

Le Pen is being painted as a pariah here for having the audacity to try to represent his people. Let's be honest. Is there anyone who picks more obsessively at scabs from the past (like Auschwitz) than jews do? Argue with them, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and you're painted as dangerous. Don't argue, like Marine Le Pen, and you're painted as worse.

At 42, a handsome, single working mother of three, she presents herself as the young, modern face of the Front National, in sharp contrast to her defeated opponent in the Party leadership contest, the 60-year-old academic Bruno Gollnisch, under whose banner the Party's residual hardliners had sought an increasingly exiguous shelter.

In the Gollnisch camp gather the "tradis", the traditionalist Catholics who are horrified by Marine's support of gay rights - short of gay marriage - and refusal to support abolition of the 1975 law permitting abortion. (She says she only wants all provisions of the law strictly applied, so that women are first offered "alternatives" such as pre-natal adoption.)

No-one in France will admit to anti-Semitism, which is actionable by law, but campaign rumours from the Gollnisch camp included descriptions of Marine's entourage as "full of Jews, queers and Arabs".

Actionable by law is an innocuous way of saying that in France you can be persecuted for making elementary observations like the ones I just have. Meanwhile no special laws prevent jews living in France from saying whatever they wish about the French.

It is interesting that two personalities she quoted positively during a half-hour conversation were two Jews: Simone Veil, the former health minister and European Parliament president, who first introduced the abortion bill, and Elisabeth Badinter, the left-wing feminist author.

It is interesting how jews keep coming up in Moutet's piece. Is she jewish? At any rate, the impression Moutet creates is that what's most important about Le Pen is what jews think about her, not what she thinks about anything. And never mind what the French think either.

Top International Banker Arrested

2011-05-15T00:15:00.000-07:00

But not for fraud or corruption.

I.M.F. Head Is Arrested and Accused of Sexual Attack - NYTimes.com:

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was taken off an Air France plane at Kennedy International Airport minutes before it was to take off for Paris on Saturday and arrested in connection with the sexual attack of a maid at a Midtown Manhattan hotel, the authorities said.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who was widely expected to become the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, was apprehended by detectives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the first-class section of the jetliner, and immediately turned over to detectives from the Midtown South Precinct, officials said.

The New York Police Department took Mr. Strauss-Kahn into custody, where he was “being questioned in connection with the sexual assault of a hotel chambermaid earlier this afternoon,” Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said Saturday night. “He is being arrested for a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.”

The link in the text above is to an article from February 18 which provides some background on Strauss-Kahn, painting him as a victim of French nationalists. Strauss-Kahn Has France Talking About a Presidential Run - NYTimes.com:

He has been called a member of “the caviar left,” out of touch with his own more left-leaning party. Some wonder if he might lose in party primaries despite his high poll numbers, which they say are based partly on name recognition and unhappiness with the current choices.

But there have been other, uglier notes in the right’s reaction, circling around the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Christian Jacob, a legislator and farmer, described him as an urban intellectual — a “bobo,” short for “bourgeois-bohemian.” Mr. Jacob said that Mr. Strauss-Kahn did not represent “the image of France, the image of rural France, the image of the France of terroirs and territories.” This notion of rootless cosmopolitanism, of being out of touch with the soil and the mystery of “la France profonde,” is an old trope for foreign and Jewish influence.

Even the president of France’s main Jewish organization, the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France, called Mr. Jacob’s comments “a very great clumsiness.” The group’s leader, Richard Prasquier, said that as a farmer, Mr. Jacob may have “a particular feeling for the soil,” but that it was not “an essential criterion for leading the nation.” He added that he hoped “the political debate will become more elevated.”

Pierre Moscovici, an ally of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, was blunter. “The attack resembles a little the rhetoric of the far right between the two world wars,” Mr. Moscovici said. “There is something unhealthy here,” he said, and while Mr. Jacob “is not a bad guy, I ask him to pull back his statement and change his song.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Jacob denied any anti-Semitic feeling, saying that “as a farmer, I can’t recognize myself or identify with him.”

“He doesn’t incarnate the rural world, that’s all,” he continued. “I reacted with my peasant core, as a farmer.”

Of course Mr. Sarkozy is also seen as an urban figure, a lawyer with no roots in rural France, and, although Roman Catholic, of Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side.

The right’s reaction was perceived as a shot across the bow of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who has also had a reputation for womanizing, and had to admit to an affair with an economist at the fund, who later left. He was cleared of harassment or abuse of power, but was criticized by the board in 2008 for “a serious error of judgment.”

More sordid details of Strauss-Kahn's present predicament can be found in Top French politician, International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn held investigation of sodomy charge - NYPOST.com:

The married Strauss-Kahn was in his bathroom, said sources. He emerged naked, grabbed her and "he jumps her," a source said.

Then, Strauss-Kahn allegedly threw the housekeeper on the room’s bed and forced her to perform oral sex on him, said the sources.

The maid managed to break free and ran to a hotel worker to tell what happened, said a source. Soon afterward, Strauss-Kahn got dressed and headed off to Kennedy Airport for his flight to Paris.

When he was approached on the plane by Port Authority cops, he said, "What is this about?" sources said. He was then taken off without handcuffs.

Two law enforcement sources said Strauss-Kahn was trying to flee the US. Police said he left his cellphone and other personal items in the room.

A high-profile jew accused of a sex crime tries to flee to France? I've seen this movie before.

Based on the outrageous defense of Roman Polanski we can expect to see some familiar patterns emerge as this controversy develops:

- The mainstream media and blogosphere will quickly offer a number of op-eds in defense of Strauss-Kahn.

- A few pundits, especially jews, will make the most outrageous arguments, twisting facts and logic to excuse Strauss-Kahn and blame others.

- Strauss-Kahn's jewishness will be part of the defense, insinuations will be made that he is persecuted because he's jewish.

- Few mainstream pundits will openly condemn Strauss-Kahn, but reader responses to the defenders will lean against him, based on the expectation that he be prosecuted like anyone else would.

- As this public opinion becomes obvious and a direct defense of Strauss-Kahn becomes more obviously at odds with it narratives will be offerred which shift blame elsewhere - to the victim, "Puritans", "Americans", or some other scapegoat.

Like Polanski, Strauss-Kahn is rich and famous. Unlike Polanski, Strauss-Kahn wields substantial political power. His friends won't need to petition the government for his release. His friends are the government. Thus he could very well be cleared and released more quickly and with less media fanfare than Polanski was. On the other hand Strauss-Kahn doesn't need to be extradicted. The crime he's accused of is fresh, not decades old. His accuser has not recanted. Yet.

Can he claim diplomatic immunity?

As a last resort, if the accuser can't be discredited or bought off and the government won't just spring him, Strauss-Kahn might indulge the public and the court, get convicted, and then escape justice by absconding to France.

Jewish Politics in Post-White America

2011-05-14T14:39:00.000-07:00

"Stick Together"

‘Mensch’ Dan Adler targets minorities with stereotype-laden ad, by Rachel Rose Hartman:

What's the best way to reach out to Asian voters? Tell them you're Jewish so you can relate. Right?

That's the route Democratic candidate Dan Adler took in his most recent ad for California's 36th District special election. In a heavily staged discussion among constituents at a set suggestive of a Korean-owned dry cleaner, the former Disney executive tells a woman behind the counter--who speaks with a heavy Asian accent--that he can relate to her concerns because "my wife is Korean."

"You're Jewish," she replies.

"My family is Jewish."

"We minorities should stick together," she replies. Adler laughs as a young Asian couple looks on--the man's shirt opens to reveal his Chinese script tattoos.

"Dan Adler. Send a mensch to Congress!" a multi-racial crowd shouts at the end, noting the Yiddish word for a person of high character. "What's a mensch?" the woman from the dry cleaner asks the camera.

Adler's faux pas here, according to Hartman, is the use of stereotypes in his explicitly pro-minority, implicitly anti-White campaign commercial. Something tells me this will not upset either Adler's jew or Asian funders and voters, and if any Whites complain they can look forward to being branded and brushed off as "racists".

Adler's message assumes it is right and good that:

1) "minorities" see themselves as natural allies against non-"minorities", ie. Whites.

2) jews identify as "minority", not White.

Your deracinated White friends will not appreciate the use of this video as a teachable moment, but rub their noses in it anyway.

Who's To Blame for Anti-White Governance

2011-05-11T18:52:00.000-07:00

Last week a Hamburg judge filed a criminal complaint against German Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Self-described jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster responded to this report by blaming Germans for all of Europe's ills:

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn't changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill's famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

I am not being extreme or "anti-German" when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That's why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

Then in Debate on Germany Auster expressed regret that his sweeping condemnation of "the Germans" was not more comprehensive:

My strongly worded entry last week about German hyper-liberalism has set off something of a debate in the blogosphere. At Gates of Vienna, a German writer, Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, replies to me. I haven't yet read his article. But for the moment I want to repeat once again the qualifications I made last week. My statements about Germany were not intended as a comprehensive criticism of Germany and Germans, and if I gave that impression I regret it. My argument related to one, narrowly framed, core issue: that just as the German hyper-nationalism of the past sought to crush the nations of Europe, German hyper-liberalism, which arose as an all-consuming reaction against German hyper-nationalism, also poses a danger to the nations of the West, and therefore it is not desirable for Germany, in its present, hyper-liberal state, to dominate Europe.

Auster's "narrowly framed" problem isn't just with nationalist or anti-nationalist Germans but with "the Germans" in general. He identifies Germans as a biological group having personality traits such as "humorless fanatical thoroughness" and "hyper-liberalism". He sees them posing a danger not only to Europe but "the nations of the West". Thus they must be "kept at our [sic] feet".

In The Real Problem is “Global Governance” Manfred Kleine-Hartlage responds to Auster's outrageous slander, specifically calling attention to Auster's claim that "the Germans" agree with him:

Many Germans say this, because they were told to speak and think such things. They were taught to consider thousand years of German history just as a pre-history of Hitler. They were taught to regard their history as merely a history of crimes. They were taught that they are a danger to others. They were taught that patriotism and “nationalism” are the same thing, and that the latter is the root of all evils in the world. They were taught to hate themselves.

It started with the re-education after 1945, and this re-education is still going on. To poison an entire nation with self-hatred turned out to be a working concept, and this concept, once successfully applied, was generalized to the Western world as a whole, and as the concept of “white guilt” is now undermining our civilization. This is nothing you should blame the Germans for. They were just the guinea pigs.

The million-dollar-question is: Why is this done, and who does so?

Excellent question.

Having dealt with Auster, Kleine-Hartlage follows up by going where Auster never does. He points to the connection between the never-ending Global War on Terror and the never-ending drive for genocidal levels of immigration into all White countries - our hostile international elite:

Yes, Bin Laden was our enemy, but on the list of our enemies he was not number one, and not even number ten. Islam is marching forward in Europe not by terrorism, but by immigration and ethnic struggle, with strong support from the international political elites. It makes no sense to assert a difference between American and European elites, because they all belong to a transatlantic network centered in, but not confined to, America. Within this network, strategies are made compatible with each other, so that there is no such thing as a strictly national policy. There are disagreements on minor questions, but the general direction is towards establishing a global uniform civilization. The EU is part of this process, and an analyst blaming just Germany for that, as Mr. Auster does,
The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.
proves that his hatred of a particular country is stronger than his analytical capabilities.

Why is the leading power in the “war on terror” at the same time urging France to open herself to Islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltration, as we know by Wikileaks (and there is no reason to assume that the same strategy is not applied to other European countries)? Why is the European power most passionately joining this war — Great Britain — at the same time and with the same passion engaging in self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?

So instead of "the Germans" Kleine-Hartlage blames "the Anglo-Saxon powers" - the US and Britain. From his afterword:

Mr. Auster’s polemics have shown the gap between Anglo-Saxon and German conservatism. To bridge the gap a little bit, I have started a new blog, German Views, in order to make important articles from the conservative German blogosphere available in English.

The essay is reposted at his new blog, From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster, minus the afterword, but Kleine-Hartlage reiterates his point in a comment:

The problem – and the reason why I started this blog – is the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon narrative on Germany.

Kleine-Hartlage seems unaware that Lawrence Auster is no Anglo-Saxon, that his grandparents were all jewish immigrants to the US. Auster refers to Britain as "the Dead Island", just as he refers to Germany as "that dead land". His affections are for Israel. It may also surprise Kleine-Hartlage to know that the US Ambassador to France, Charles H. Rivkin, whose Wikileaked embassy report he linked, also has Russian jewish roots.

If we wish to talk honestly about who dominates not only the narrative on Germany but who dominates political, social, cultural and historical narratives in general, who is relentlessly encouraging Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and Whites in general to hate ourselves and feel guilty, then we must not neglect to mention the jewish elephant in the room. It is possible to honestly debate how significant jewish influence is. It is not honest to neglect to address that influence entirely.

I presume Kleine-Hartlage knows better than I do how German speech regarding jews is proscribed by law. Perhaps this is why he pins the blame on Anglo-Saxons.

Kleine-Hartlage might be interested to know that Auster's recent ranting about the threat of German "hyper-liberalism" and German "anti-nationalism" is consistent with his usual schtick. He blames "the majority" (Whites) for "liberalism" (anti-Whiteness). He explicitly excuses "the jews".

Just a few years ago Auster was discussing anti-nationalist sentiment in the US. Jews’ idiotic anti-nationalism:

Asked by the General Social Survey if immigration improves America, 52 percent of Protestants, 61 percent of Catholics, and 90 percent of Jews said yes. Matthew Yglesias, a Jew who works for The American Prospect, explains why Jews support immigration so much more than other groups, and Steve Sailer offers effective replies.

One of Yglesias’s points is: “Second, as a historical matter, nationalism has been Bad For The Jews.”

Yglesias is certainly correct that this is the Jewish view of the matter. But how truly idiotic and despicable a view it is. Jews have always lauded America for defeating Hitler. Would America have been able to defeat Hitler if it hadn’t existed as a nation and been a strong nation? Would it have been better for the Jews if Britain had had a weak sense of nationality and compromised with Hitler, instead of, as was the actual case under Churchill, a strong sense of nationality and stood up to him? Would Ann Frank’s family have had to hide in an attic for two years and then been arrested and sent to concentration camps where they died horrible deaths, if the Netherlands, instead of being a weak nation that was easily overrun by the Germans, had been a strong nation that was able to prevent the Germans from conquering the Netherlands and capturing all its Jews?

Also, most Jews are thankful for the fact that America, the strongest nation on earth, stands almost alone against the world-wide movement to destroy Israel. Will a weak and divided America be able to perform that function?

Don't worry, Auster eventually excuses "the jews". Note also that he doesn't argue that jewish anti-nationalism is despicable because it's bad for Whites (American, Briton, or Dutch). He thinks it's despicable because it's bad for "the jews".

The usual judeo-liberal anti-nationalist hate/guilt narrative is that Whites must subordinate our interests to the interests of "minorities", because if we worry about what's best for us then we're guilty of hate. Auster regularly calls attention to this narrative, at least as it pertains to blacks or muslims, but he wishes to preserve the special privileges of "minority" status for "the jews". If we worry about what's best for Whites, and that conflicts with what Auster thinks is best for "the jews", then according to him we're guilty of hate.

I'll conclude here by quoting two jews who, though separated geographically and linguistically, sound remarkably alike. In fact if Lawrence Auster were transported back to 1944 it's not unreasonable to imagine him expressing his thoughts in very similar terms.

Ilya Ehrenburg:

The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.

Theodore Kaufman (in his book, Germany Must Perish!):

Today's war is not a war against Adolf Hitler.

Nor is it a war against the Nazis.

It is a war of peoples against peoples; of civilized peoples envisioning Light, against uncivilized barbarians who cherish Darkness.

Of the peoples of those nations who would surge forward hopefully into a new and better phase of life, pitted against the peoples of a nation who would travel backward enthusiastically into the dark ages. It is a struggle between the German nation and humanity.

Hitler is no more to be blamed for this German war than was the Kaiser for the last one. Nor Bismarck before the Kaiser. These men did not originate or wage Germany's wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the German nation for conquest and mass murder.

This war is being waged by the German People. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war. otherwise, there will always be a German war against the world. And with such a sword forever hanging overhead the civilized nations of the world, no matter how great their hopes, how strenuous their efforts, will never succeed in creating that firm and solid foundation of permanent peace which they must first establish if ever they intend to start the building of a better world.

For not only must their be no more German wars in fact; there must not even remain the slightest possibility of one ever again occurring. A final halt to German aggression, not a temporary cessation, must be the goal of the present struggle.

This does not mean an armed mastery over Germany, or a peace with political or territorial adjustments, or a hope based on a defeated and repentant nation. Such settlements are not sufficiently conclusive guarantees of no more German aggressions.

This time Germany has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever!

In fact -- not in fancy!

Germans are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats.

Though these men try to conflate their narrow concerns for jews with the interests of others, let us not pretend that what we see and hear are Whites spouting self-hatred.

The Anti-White Standards of Flight

2011-05-09T08:49:00.000-07:00

When non-Whites flee it's regarded as normal and natural, to "look for a better life". When Whites flee it's regarded as a pathological condition, either "racism", paranoia, or cowardice.

As an example of the latter, see the book by Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism.

A Guide to "Racist" Guilt-Tripping

2011-04-22T15:27:00.000-07:00

Primate in Chief: A Guide to Racist Obama Monkey Photoshops by Abe Sauer, 19 April 2011:

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

Anyone who has been on the real Internet knows that the Obama-as-ape Photoshop actually predates the mainstream talk about his birth certificate. How prevalent is it? Very. Here's a collection of artwork depicting the nation's first-ever African American president as a primate, which builds on a long history of various racist Obama caricatures.

Sauer's samples of "outrageous" Obama-ape images omitted.

"Chimpout" is a notorious white supremacist site with a robust collection of images like the two above, which happen to be more reserved compared to others. Of course, the "Obamas as primates" theme and the fundamental (and admitted) racism of the site is a coincidence.

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

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

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

We do of course have our jokes and photo-shops but they are just for amusement. We really think much too highly of apes than to seriously compare them to blacks.
So there you go.

(I think this answers Incogman's question: Is CHIMPOUT.com Jew-Infested?)

Omitting more of his cornucopia of "outrageous" Obama-ape images, Sauer continues:

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

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

And then... no, wait, that's the whole argument.

This is Sauer's small, sarcastic contribution to the hundreds of years jews have spent guilt-tripping Whites. To Sauer "racist" is both weapon and shield - a magic word that serves to protect blacks while bashing Whites. Point and sputter at the stupid, evil "conservatives", "Tea Partiers", "birthers", "racists" - that's Sauer's whole argument.

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

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

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

Meet Donald Trump's Jewish Handler

2011-04-16T20:14:00.000-07:00

Donald Trump's Political 'Pit Bull': Meet Michael Cohen:

The man behind Donald Trump's possible 2012 presidential campaign is a registered Democrat who voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Not only that, but Michael Cohen, an executive at the Trump Organization who doubles as Trump's chief political adviser, once volunteered for 1988 presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and worked for a Democratic member of Congress.

A lawyer by training, Cohen is Trump's special counsel and a juggler of people and projects. One minute he's on the phone with a reporter, the next he's giving orders to an assistant, and a moment later he's finalizing a deal on another line -- and frequently, he's doing all three at once.

"I think the world of him," Cohen said of the billionaire real estate and reality television mogul who has said he will decide sometime before June whether to run for president. "I respect him as a businessman, and I respect him as a boss."

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

Cohen, whose position allows him to play at any of Trump's courses around the world, describes himself as a "decent" golfer and an avid tennis player. Much like Trump's, his circle of acquaintances include political leaders, actors and "super high net worth people," as Cohen calls them.

Cohen grew up on Long Island. His mother was a nurse and his father was a surgeon who escaped a Nazi concentration camp with his family during World War II.

Doublethink as a Group Strategy

2011-04-13T19:34:00.000-07:00

To beat anti-Semitism, ‘we must pull together’, New Jersey Jewish News, 13 Dec 2010:

NJJN: Are there ways the Jewish community can address the problem that it has not been doing?

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

Secondly, having the ability to pool our resources is another way of fighting the problem. We are a small community, and we have many different points of view. Sometimes there are competing organizations. It is important to pull together. Thirdly, it is important to maintain our identity as citizens in the larger world in which we live and work for the betterment of the broader community. We can’t be isolated, we can’t be insular, we can’t think about it as ‘what’s good for the Jews?’ That is not what needs to guide us.

Translation: The jewish community needs to have a sense about who they are, what their interests are, how to preserve and protect them, pooling its resources to fight problems. But it would look better to use the broader community to advance and protect jewish interests than to so self-consciously keep blurting out "what's good for the jews?"

Gamer Excuses "The Jews", Blames "Whitey"

2011-04-07T11:13:00.000-07:00

Mangan's Ferd Throws Whites Under the Bus provides the link and some context on Ferdinand Bardamu's Whites Are Their Own Worst Enemies, posted at his anti-feminist/manosphere/gamer blog called In Mala Fide. Bardamu writes:

The reason why the beauty of the white Aryan woman may perish from the earth before this century is up is not because of the Jews, or the blacks, but because of white people themselves. It was whites who let third-worlders swarm into their lands, forever altering the demographic makeup of their nations. It was whites who gutted protections for workers and transformed the economy into a scam designed to bleed the middle-class dry and make the richer even richer. It was whites who conjured up feminism, driving a wedge between men and women, driving down the birth rate and leaving immigrants and illegals to pick up the slack. Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted.

The small subset of race conscious, jew-saavy Whites vex him especially:

“But but but it was the Joooooooos! The Jews are the ones who’ve destroyed the white race, and everyone knows the Jews aren’t white! Durrrrrr…”

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

The logic here is so twisted I find it difficult to take seriously. Bardamu mocks it himself. Just take his thesis at face value. He's one of "you folk" who doesn't consider jews to be White. He thinks the Whiiiiiiites are the cause of all our woes. But whining about Whitey doesn't get him off the hook.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Durrrrrr."

- - -

About In Mala Fide:

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

Malafide:

with or in bad faith.

Napoleon, the House of Rothchild, and Jewish Emancipation

2011-04-07T08:28:00.000-07:00

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty, by Paul Vallely, The Independent, 16 April 2004 (my emphasis):

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

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

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

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

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

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

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today's terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.

Napoleon and the Jews, Wikipedia:

Napoleon's indirect influence on the fate of the Jews was even more powerful than any of the decrees recorded in his name. By breaking up the feudal trammels of mid-Europe and introducing the equality of the French Revolution he effected more for Jewish emancipation than had been accomplished during the three preceding centuries. The consistory of Westphalia became a model for other German provinces until after the fall of Napoleon, and the condition of the Jews in the Rhine provinces was permanently improved as a consequence of their subjection to Napoleon or his representatives. Heine and Börne both record their sense of obligation to the liberality of Napoleon's principles of action, and the German Jews in particular have always regarded Napoleon as one of the chief forerunners of emancipation in Germany.

(Image from Jews and French Grand Opera.)

Criticism of The Culture of Critique

2011-04-05T14:18:00.000-07:00

Below are some excerpts from a review by PLEASUREMAN, The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career (original emphasis):

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

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

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

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

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

As Henry Ford remarked about Charles Lindbergh, "When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews." Get ready to talk about the Jews.

MacDonald next mentions Stephen Jay Gould, whose long record of intellectual prevarication on the subject of genetic differences (and human biodiversity in particular) speaks for itself. Gould has been an incredibly important figure in the demonization of psychometrics and his book The Mismeasure of Man is virtually a bible for what one might term the anti-intelligence clergy (intelligence doesn't exist, cannot be measured, is not variable, etc). According to MacDonald, Gould's views were influenced by his Jewish-Leftist identity and fear of anti-Semitism.

Gould made exaggerated and provably false claims about the congressional debates of the period. The immigration debate was largely about preserving America's Nordic-derived identity and culture, and IQ testing did not play a significant role in any part of it. Gould's response to such criticism was to ignore it, a response that has become a tradition among Gould's worshipful and ill-informed followers. (Similarly, Gould ignored all modern IQ research on the ludicrous grounds that it was "ephemeral".) A revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man essentially ignored all critical response to Gould's book.

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

The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career - Page 2:

A response to The Culture of Critique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question of what to do is far too complicated to explore briefly, but a return to assimilationism and a renewal of Western values must be the only plausible course. All of our politics should be subordinate to this issue.

The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career - Page 3:

It's sometimes used as an excuse that Jews even criticize themselves, without acknowledging that Jewish self-criticism is aimed at increasing cohesion by punishing deviation (such as intermarriage), while Jewish criticism of other cultures is aimed at undermining cohesion. It is silly to equate the two.

Kevin MacDonald:

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

Referring to an interview with Kevin MacDonald by Alex Kurtagic:

http://www.wermodand...0220110000.html

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

What Laura Wood Thinks

2011-03-24T17:10:00.000-07:00

Two sensible questions may come to mind as you contemplate wading through the following text: Who is Laura Wood and why should I care what she thinks?

Beyond the blog posts linked below I don't know who Laura Wood is or why she thinks what she thinks. I understand that Wood and Lawrence Auster regard each other highly. I suspect that, as with Auster, Wood's readers include more than a few Whites who are more or less displeased with the anti-White regime but have yet to understand it in such terms.

Like Auster, Wood is a social critic who strikes a faux-White pose. Like Auster, Wood hosts earnest-sounding, carefully managed discussions of "liberalism". Jews are mentioned in these discussions, but only to ultimately minimize their role and excuse them. The most serious condemnations are directed at Whites.

A few days ago Wood made a series of blog posts along these lines. She began the first post, titled Rejecting the "White Nationalist" Label, by quoting Lawrence Auster:

White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.

Auster regards his most hated enemies as automata controlled by a spontaneous hate for jews and projects his own materialist, racialist, reductionist thinking onto them. He started off by commenting on the "asians in the library" controversy, quickly shifted into a critique of White nationalism, and then broadened the bashing to Whites in general, blaming us for imposing genocidal open borders and diversity on ourselves (his emphasis):

Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That's one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself.

Auster's analysis conveniently overlooks jewish culpability in opening the borders, changing the identity of the country, and making White identity something wicked and disgusting. Auster is aware of this jewish culpability. Roughly two years ago he wrote in response to a correspondent Boris S. in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island:

You write:

"On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false..."

But there's much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America's white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.

In his current critique Auster also neglects to mention the jewish origins of the "diversity" template "minorities" use - loudly pathologizing and demonizing the White enemy for being insensitive to non-White interests. Auster attributes this template to "liberalism", and for it he blames Whites alone:

This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal "script" I've often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either "included" by the good, liberal white or "excluded" by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it's between the "good," non-discriminatory white and the "evil," discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.

As is often the case Auster's critique of "liberalism" sheds much light on his own motives and methods. In this case he starts by declaring White nationalists bad because they wish to exclude the jewish Other, and then later in the same conversation reveals that some part of his brain understands this behavior of his is a "script" which "liberal whites" act out.

In a comment at Laura Wood's blog Auster makes the jewish terms of his "liberal white script" objection to White nationalists more plain:

While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites.

Setting aside the initial strawman portion, Wood emphatically agrees with Auster about the portion putting jewish interests first:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

When it comes down to choosing, Auster and Wood choose to oppose the rest of us who want a choice.

Like Auster, Wood laboriously selects and publishes only the comments she wishes to appear. After she truncated and mischaracterized my first comment at her blog (see the comments here) we had a brief exchange via email in which she confided that: "the reason why I dropped your comment was that we do not have enough in common". Fair enough. It's also fair then to say that the remarks Wood does publish do have enough in common with her thinking.

Wood continues her moderated discussion in The Problem with White Nationalism, cont., beginning with a lengthy comment from Boris S. (who may very well be the same person Auster responded to on his own blog two years ago):

The essential difference between the so-called "white nationalist" tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the "white nationalists" seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The "white nationalists," on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted--that is, never saw itself as--a single nation, people, or tribe. "Whites" are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the "Jewish people."

Furthermore, no matter how much "white nationalists" deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to the soi-disant "white nationalists" who claim to "defend Western civilization." One would like to know what that oft-invoked "Western civilization" means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, "white nationalists" would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not "racially homogenous" according to the understanding of the "white nationalists" themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of "racial aliens" who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many "white nationalists" deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the "prestigious" mantle of "true conservatism" or "reaction."

These are some of the nasty consequences of the "white nationalist" program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or "zoological") view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called "anti-racism" or "reverse racism," an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as "white" any right to defense against "non-white" invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved "racial purity" of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the "white nationalist" ideology: what today we would call "ethnic mixing" has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat "the white race" as an objectively fixed entity.

The only good thing that can be said of "white nationalism" is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement "white nationalism" in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be "useful" (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the "free market"), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and "secular humanism" (a sort of cheap tribalism from which "white nationalism" differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of "white nationalism" on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.

As with Auster and Wood, Boris' argument is based on a personal conviction that White nationalism is bad for jews. As I tried to point out in the comment Wood truncated, this argument is beside the point. Whites are distinct from jews. White nationalism is premised on what is good for Whites, not what is good for jews. Auster and Wood both dodge this argument by treating jews and Whites as one inseparable "white", and do so even as they distinguish jews for special treatment.

Unlike Auster and Wood Boris doesn't pretend to sympathize with Whites. He doesn't pretend Whites and jews are one inseparable "white". He belittles White attempts to organize politically to debate and pursue our interests, and does so specifically in contrast with jews.

Wood published Boris's boorish comment and followed it with another:

Robert Gray writes:

It's ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a "Jewish fifth columnist" when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I've tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don't think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.

Auster describes himself a jewish fifth columnist, and Gray's demonizing of "jew-mongers" "afflicted with jew-mania" echoes Auster's "liberal white script". It is a blunt attempt to pathologize Whites who identify jewish sources of anti-White hostility. Gray's 17-point position statement, offered as advocacy of ostensibly "white ethnic interests", comprises four points distinguishing and advocating anti-"nazi"/jewish ethnic interests:

12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were "pro-white" is utterly absurd.

13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world.

14. White ethno-states should be democratic and libertarian. They should not be fascist or totalitarian states as, for example, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

15. Jews are not the root of all evil. Jews do not force white people to act against their own self-interests. Whites undermine their ethnic interests of their own free will. In general, we should avoid talking about Jews and Jewish influence. Ultimately, it is counter-productive. And in any case, we should not advocate for the harm of Jews or the destruction of Israel.

Later in the exchange Wood permits Van Wijk to play down the danger posed by jews to Whites while playing up the danger posed by Whites who don't:

It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Wood's campaign against Whites who distinguish ourselves from jews continues in The Jew-Hater’s Radar, where she takes special note of Van Wijk's comment and permits Auster to perfect the last sentence:

Since in the minds of the Jew-haters the Jews are the ultimate cause of all the evils facing society, and since, therefore, none of those evils can be solved or even dealt with while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage the Jew-haters is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Auster, Wood, Boris, Van Wijk, Gray and others who think and speak as they do, like Mark Richardson, make sweeping negative pronouncements about Whites just as easily as they do about "jew-haters". Behind their double-talk about "whites" and "liberalism" is an underlying hyper-awareness of jewish interests and a primal, uncompromising drive to defend them.

Amidst the other posts linked above Wood also wrote A Recommendation Retracted:

EARLIER THIS week, I recommended a new website Faith and Heritage. I regret my hasty enthusiasm for a new venture. Disappointingly, Faith and Heritage is beset with the same viral tendency that afflicts many sites that defend white heritage: anti-Semitism.

The passage Wood objected to was contained in a review of The Social Network from a Christian point of view:

Lacking the Christian sense of fair play and good sportsmanship (that even nominal, cultural Christians like the Winklevoss still largely possess, and reinforced through athletics), nursing resentments against our culture and people, the temptation to cheat is almost impossible for them to overcome. The lesson for Christians is simple: avoid dealings with Jews, for they are too risky.

Wood demonstrates here her willingness to condemn even a nominally White spiritual defense as pathological. Her "script", as Auster so helpfully described it, is that Whites (in this case Christians) who exclude the jewish Other are "bad".

Goodbye "Model Minority", Hello Angry Horde

2011-03-17T08:35:00.000-07:00

Asians are angry about alexandra's anti-asian video about "manners". Referring to Asians in the Library - UCLA Student's Racist Rant, Angry Asian Man writes:

This is so incredibly ignorant, it's almost hard to believe that she's for real. I've re-watched it several times now, and I actually find myself laughing at the sheer stupidity. For those who want the literary version, here's the full transcript of her rant. It's equally hilarious and infuriating.

He links a few responses from UCLA administration and various asian groups condemning the video, and Alexandra Wallace grovelling for forgiveness. AAM's blog post currently concludes with the following:

UPDATE: The UCLA Asian American Studies Center has also released a statement on "Asians in the Library." An excerpt:
"Asians in the Library" is a travesty on many levels, representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university with deep ties to communities and institutions in Asia and other parts of the world. It entails a "new racism" by foregrounding students who speak Asian languages and have different family traditions, as it insidiously groups and attacks UCLA's American-born as well as our international students of Asian ancestry. As the only University of California campus without a diversity requirement, UCLA surely needs to implement a diversity requirement that will expose every student to the task of living civilly with people of different origins, backgrounds, orientations, and beliefs, whether they are born here or come from abroad.
A diversity requirement might not be such a bad idea.

Two UCLA Professors Seek Campus Diversity Requirement:

In the aftermath of a racially offensive Internet video, two University of California, Los Angeles professors are urging the administration to require diversity training for students in hopes of discouraging such incidents.

Dr. David Yoo, director of the Asian American Studies Center, and Dr. Lane Hirabayashi, department chairman of Asian American studies, issued a joint statement this week observing that, “We still have much work to do before we can claim to live in a ‘post-racial’ society.”

The phrase “ching chong” is considered an ethnic slur that historically mocked Chinese speaking patterns but sometimes has been aimed at other Asians. Asian Americans comprise the largest racial group among 26,000 UCLA undergraduates at 37 percent; Whites make up 32 percent.

Both UCLA scholars called on the administration “to respond institutionally since the video addresses larger issues of campus climate and culture.” They called the video rant “a travesty representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university. This type of prejudice and use of derogatory words cannot be tolerated.” They urged the administration to implement a diversity requirement for students.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block released a statement on Monday afternoon saying he was “appalled” by Wallace’s comments and that her opinions do not reflect nor represent UCLA.

“I recoil when someone invokes the right of free expression to demean other individuals or groups. Speech that expresses intolerance is indefensible,” Block said.

Colleges around the country have steadily added academic courses with a diversity component or global cultures aspect, requiring undergraduates to complete a certain number of credit hours as a graduation prerequisite.

The problem is indeed ignorance - an ignorance deliberately created by an orwellian twisting of words which pathologizes Whites for being "intolerant" of "diversity". The unspoken premise is that White displacement and dispossession is right and good, therefore Whites are mentally or morally defective for objecting in the slightest way. Even the confused rant of a lone, exasperated, powerless White against "ching chonging" "asians in the library" is an intolerable, indefensible crime. Wallace will be punished for her insolent outburst, and the already widespread indoctrination of Whites as to our proper subordinate and silenced place will be further broadened and accelerated.

Those who lie about their motives and methods have no real standing to blame others for being ignorant of them. Dishonesty engenders ignorance. But let's not pretend these anti-White "anti-racist" liars are decrying our lack of understanding. They mock us for it. When they call Whites ignorant it is to abuse and intimidate us. Their orwellian use of the term is nothing but a pretentious, exceptionally intolerant way of trying to shut someone up by calling them stupid.

As with most Whites, Wallace has been misguided and probably used to imagine that the goal of her university and the overarching regime is to educate people, to create a fair, tolerant society where all people are treated equally. Condemned by powerful, race-conscious, self-interested asian organizations and insulted and threatened with violence by faceless hordes of angry asians, Wallace is now finally getting a real education.

Andrew Johnson, White Nationalist

2011-03-09T23:08:00.000-08:00

Jamie Kelso's March 1st podcast brought to my attention the article "Andrew Johnson Reconsidered", which was published in the March 1998 issue of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration.

Though Johnson's oratory was noted for its style, the substance was equally impressive. An outspoken man, to put it mildly, today he would be consigned to the ranks of the insensitive at best or the bigoted at worst. Some of his most amusing outbursts were downright racist. In terms of bombast, he could have given any black preacher a run for his money. Of a pro-black voting rights bill, he said:
It would place every splay-footed, bandy-shanked, hump-backed, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, woolly headed, ebon-colored Negro in the country upon an equality with the poor white man.
His racial philosophy left little room for interpretation:
This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men .... This whole vast continent is destined to fall under the control of the Anglo-Saxon race-the governing and self-governing race.
His reasons for feeling as he did are well-documented:
[The] black race of Africa were inferior to the white man in point of intellect-better calculated in physical structure to undergo drudgery and hardship-standing, as they do, many degrees lower in the scale of gradation that expressed, the relative relation between God and all that he had created than the white man.
The following statement, made in 1866, cannot be easily dismissed today, 135 years after Negro emancipation:
The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have seldom been combined. It is the glory of white men to know that they have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all similar experiments have failed. But if any thing can be proved by known facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be acknowledged that in the progress of nations Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race or people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.
Johnson didn't mince words about the Negro problem. Even though there wasn't much of a Jewish problem in the U.S. in those days, he was not loath to speak up whenever a Hebrew was in need of a dressing-down. Florida's David Levy Yulee, the first Jew to serve in the U.S. Senate, was berated as a "contemptible little Jew." Of Louisiana Senator Judah Benjamin (later to become Attorney General, Secretary of War and ultimately Secretary of State in the Confederacy), Johnson said, "There's another Jew --that miserable Benjamin! He looks on a country and a government as he would on a suit of old clothes. He sold out the old one; and he would sell out the new if he could in so doing make two or three million." Benjamin was further lambasted as being of "that tribe that parted the garments of our Savior and for his vesture cast lots." In pre-ADL days, however, such bold comments were not career killers. Of course, if we had speeches like that in Congress today, C-Span would be a real ratings puller.

As a baseborn white, Johnson instinctively distrusted the Southern planter class, which wielded so much power in western and central Tennessee. Johnson represented the mountainous, eastern part of the state, where the residents tended towards yeomanry. He found that no matter how high he rose in politics, no matter how prosperous he was in his private life, he was never accepted by his "betters." His particular brand of populism may have been inspired as much by his own experience as by his reverence for the Constitution:
The aristocracy in this district know that I am for the people....They know that I love and desire the approbation of the freemen of this State....The fact of a farmer or mechanic stepping out of the field or shop into an office of distinction and profit, is particularly offensive to an up start, swelled headed, iron heeled, bobtailed aristocracy, who infest all of our little towns and villages, who are too lazy and proud to work for a livlihood [sic], and are afraid to steal.
Though easier said than done, his recommendations for a robust republic still resonate:
I want no rabble here on one hand, and I want no aristocracy on the other. Lop off the aristocracy at one end, and the rabble at the other, and all will be well with the republic.
His antipathy to the plantation aristocracy was not just class envy. Johnson blamed it for fanning the flames of secession for its own benefit-certainly not for the benefit of the poor whites who formed the core of his constituency and had to bear the brunt of battle after secession.
I am for a government based on and ruled by industrious, free white citizens, and conducted in conformity with their wants, and not a slave aristocracy. I am for this government above all earthly possessions, and if it perish I do not want to survive it. I am for it though slavery be struck from existence and Africa be swept from the balance of the world ... .If you persist in forcing this issue of slavery against the government, I say, in the face of heaven, give me my government and let the Negro go!
In other words, the welfare of the country is more important than the status of the Negro, be he slave or free man. In Johnson's time, as in our own, too many people of influence and power have these priorities reversed.

It isn't clear from the article which of Johnson's quotes came before, during, or after his term as president in the wake of America's most fratricidal, uncivil war. At the very least readers today can see that 90-odd years after Thomas Jefferson asserted the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal" there were still White leaders at the very top who believed Whites could and should govern Whites "to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". You know, the kind of thing recent US presidents believe about jews.