Anti-White is Not Code for Anti-Jew

Embedded in Gawker's snarky White Man March Happens, Nobody Cares I found this twit:

#WhiteManMarchProtestSigns pic.twitter.com/GMQybcseHm

— Brian Stuart (@red3blog) March 15, 2014

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, but this one, which captures one of the major themes of the hostile reaction to the White Man March, reduces to just two - anti-White whine. However, with just a little work I thought it could help prove a point:

@red3blog oy vey pic.twitter.com/sCSjsCbNjr

— Tan Staafl (@TanstaaflAoT) March 20, 2014

Sure enough, I touched a nerve:

Seriously, Report as Spam this worthless bigot asshole: @TanstaaflAoT

— Brian Stuart (@red3blog) March 20, 2014

Hate mongering fuckery like this, tho, I mind. #ReportasSpam https://t.co/J0ZZxvmGdg

— Brian Stuart (@red3blog) March 20, 2014

Brian Stuart describes itself as a dangerous fat activist, humorless feminist and pedantic liberal. He has produced a series of similar cartoons, all crying out for noses.

If anything illustrates the jewish origin of the anti-White zeitgeist, it's right here. As anyone can see, all it takes to turn humor into hate is to mistake jews for Whites.

Anti-White Animus on Parade

Whatever else was accomplished, the White Man March succeeded in flushing out some hostile anti-White reactions, helping put the lie to the "White privilege" meme. The same media and academia which demonstrates a practically infinite capacity to somberly and soberly indulge the slightest, most deluded concerns expressed by jews and other "people of color" have a completely different attitude about concerns expressed by Whites.

For years this media and academia have pathologized and demonized the deracinated supporters of the Republican party and Tea party for their Whiteness. Naturally, a handful of Whites speaking more directly in favor of our race can only be regarded as all the more insufferable.

One of the longer and more clearly articulated anti-White reactions has come from SUNY-Oneonta professor Mike King, in The White Victim Charade on Parade, published at CounterPunch on 17 March 2014:

The use of racialized scapegoats to explain American decline, and its effects on white Americans, has clearly been successful. Reading reports and studies of white public opinion, alongside the White Man March’s call to unity – a clear and thick overlap is present. It is a story of white victimhood, a baseless but widespread belief that there is systematic societal and governmental discrimination against whites – a growing belief steeped in anger, fear and ignorance.

The Postmodern White Man Wants “His Colonialism (um, I mean) Country Back”

In the existing ahistorical, astructural political culture, white people, especially white men, have increasingly claimed “reverse racism” – a concept that is only intelligible when we have erased history, social structure and power. In an imagined nation that has no history, and a postmodern society that has no structural forces, everyone has “identity politics” and everyone can position themselves as a victim. In this milieu, claims of “reverse racism” in relation to affirmative action have been somewhat successful because the cultural and political terrain is now defined by a total absence of an analysis that looks at the legacies of white supremacy and their contemporary structures. It is on this ahistorical and astructural landscape that declining white wages and a cornucopia of scapegoats have produced this emerging racial formation of aggrieved whiteness – a politicized white identity politics. This stretches beyond pronouncements of a “post-racial” society, to one where the language of discrimination, racism, and oppression is not erased, but politically inverted. What has been produced is a policial subject that is materially and historically absurd in-itself, yet nonethless a current historical agent-for-itself – the “racialized white victim.” This current political manifestion of white supremacy does not deviate from previous incarnations – lacking a legitimate grounding in reason and fact, while still producing very real social consequences.

The Tea Party, Glenn Beck (who has repeatdly called for a “White Civil Rights Movement”) and the White Man March all articulate their politics in the language, imagery and myth of the founding fathers. The articulation of reclaiming “my” country in a racially coded discourse, and appeals to the founding fathers and original Constitution, are instructive. The origins of the nation, the country they want to return to, was one dominated by landholding, adult, white men (who were not keen on paying taxes). Women were not allowed to vote or hold property and people of color were either annihilated, robbed or enslaved.

Eric Foner argues that the course of American history has largely been a conflict over who “We the People” refers to. Suffragettes, Civil Rights marchers, and myriad others have steadily broadened the exclusionary vision of the founders, while hitting barriers when trying to expand beyond formal and partial equality under the law. The White Man March, the Tea Party, and the aggrieved whiteness project more broadly, are clearly pushing for a narrower definition and a reclamation of ground they feel they have lost over prior decades and generations of struggles for social justice. The fact that discussion as to whether we want to go back to this past is not only on the table, but now on the top of many agendas, should be more than cause for concern. We need to begin to more forcefully highlight historical injustices that manifest in contemporary inequalities, in a way that avoids simple, liberal victimhood, and invokes history and social facts in order to challenge the “good old days” trope of the Right, while also grounding a structural analysis of today’s white supremacy, why it is emerging as it is, and what needs to be done about it.

Abolition-Democracy or Barbarism

“Today there is still the white problem – its expectations, its power, its solidarity, its imagination. Even after the civil rights movement, whiteness stands at the path to a more democratic society like a troll at the bridge. The political task, I have argued, is to chase the troll away, not ignore it or invite it to the multicultural table.”

- Joel Olson The Abolition of White Democracy

“The fascists are the vanguard of the white race; however, the big problem right now is not the white vanguard but the white mainstream.”

- Noel Ignatiev

It is clear that the White Man March politics are not fringe at all. Racist, anti-democratic, backwards, intellectually baseless…? Surely. But, fringe? Unfortunately not. What does this mean? Should we be content that the skinheads can’t turn out as many New Yorkers as Occupy? Should we conclude that the white working class are just modern Archie Bunkers and hopeless simps? I don’t see how any person who believes in creating a just society can say “yes.” How to fix this is a lot more complicated, and needs to be a strategy pulled together by the variety of people and groups challenging white supremacy on a daily basis. Instead of being outraged about the expression of such anti-democratic and hateful extremist politics in public, we should take a closer look at how these politics have already been mainstreamed, and figure out a way to effectively counter this situation.

It is clear that if the social order were to somehow be destabilized today, the fascists are not only better prepared militarily, but have been steadily winning hearts and minds for some time. If we are clear about what needs to be done and vigilant about tendencies that would hold us back, we can start to build a different world up out of this mess. Barbarism is a lot closer than we think.

King's anti-White narrative is an extension and variation of the jewish narrative - the hallmark being the inversion of reality, most tellingly by describing Whites (rather than jews) as having power and solidarity and a self-image based on victimhood.

In the jewish narrative Whites serve as the "racialized scapegoat", the people who present a "big problem" and need to be "abolished" to create a "just society". King is aware that Whites have grievances - he simply dismisses them as imaginary. King does not deny the significance of race or racial conflict - he sympathizes with non-Whites in direct opposition to Whites.

There are hundreds of professors like King, paid by universities and corporations to literally profess the same sort of anti-White narrative he does. However much this narrative already predominates, in King's mind it isn't enough. His proposed solution to the "White problem" is ever more anti-White propaganda and indoctrination.

In this respect, I agree. I think the more loudly and openly anti-Whites profess their beliefs, the more plain they make their racial animus and power. The more plain their charade, the closer its end.

(picture source)

Anti-Whiteness is Trending

In White proverbs the BBC notes that anti-Whiteness is trending, though they try to spin it as something fun and innovative. Don't hold your breath waiting for anti-"racist" groups to sue Twitter over this. They defend jews, not Whites.

The fact is that the Twitter hashtag #WhiteProverbs is just another manifestation of a peculiar form of complaining which has taken several other names in the past few years - "First World Problems", "White Problems", "White Whine", and "Microaggressions". The consistent mislabeling of these trendy expressions reflects their dishonest nature. Names like "#AntiWhiteProverbs", "Anti-White Problems", "Anti-White Whine", or "Micropassiveaggressions" would more accurately convey what's really going on.

The attached screenshot and 21 Racial Microaggressions You Hear On A Daily Basis capture the core themes. The grievances come entirely from non-Whites ostensibly incensed by a naive, deracinated White unconsciously trampling on some aspect of their fragile non-White self-image. More than half of the whining boils down to self-criticism couched as an insult. The non-Whites seem most unhappy and insecure about their hair, their looks in general, their alien name/food/customs, or their language troubles. And they blame it all on Whites.

In their minds the worst offense of all is when Whites say that race doesn't matter. As the execrable Bill Maher puts it, denying "racism" is the new "racism". It's not that any of these anti-White assholes want Whites to wake up and have our own racial consciousness. What they want is for us to learn and cater to all the little nuances of their identities.

Whites thinking that race doesn't matter definitely is a big problem - for Whites. Instead of doing what non-Whites want, Whites should be thinking about what's best for Whites.

How Enemies Treat Enemies

Germany embarks on fresh attempt to ban NPD

The charge most often levelled against White nationalists is that they're "supremacists" who seek to exclude, ban, imprison or otherwise impinge upon others. Many Whites make the mistake of thinking this charge stems from the violation of some general principle against exclusion, banning, or imprisoning people on the basis of their race or beliefs.

But at times the mask slips, and it's clear that the current ruling judaized globalist regime regards banning and so forth to be a perfectly proper and acceptable way to treat their enemies. The real charge against White nationalists, as evident in the report above, is that any subset of Whites organizing politically to do what's best for themselves, separate and apart from others, is bad because it is "anti-semitic"/"racist", i.e. bad for jews and other non-Whites. By citing "anti-semitism" in addition to and distinct from "racism" the ruling regime is just making it crystal clear that for them the overriding principle is that the best interests of the jews come before anyone or anything else.

Angry Asians Moralizing to Whites about Race and Religion

Christians arrrooksame - too White, too "racist".

Evangelical Racism Is Not a Growth Strategy, W. Anne Jah, NYTimes.com - Room for Debate, 27 Oct 2013:

A recent open letter to the Christian evangelical church, signed by a wide array of Asian-American scholars and Christian practitioners, complained of numerous racially offensive incidents in evangelical circles. In yet another sign of callousness, Asian-Americans were initially told, in effect, to “get over it.” Instead, it is U.S. white Christians who must “get over” their whiteness and their failure to see the already changed face of Christian faith.

If U.S. evangelical Protestant churches – now 81 percent white, according to 2012 Pew research – hope to become a more diverse representation of all the people of God, they must respond more positively to constructive criticism like that in the recent open letter.

But persistent use of derogatory racial stereotypes by many white evangelical churches continues to surface in a variety of ways, among leaders, at religious events, in church practices and, painfully often, in church curricula.

It is the conceit of religious white racism to presume that one’s evangelicalism transcends racial and cultural identities, making such “worldly” labels no longer important. The letter reminds church leaders that those identities still matter. White evangelical Christians must stop clinging to an alibi of color-blindness and recognize that vibrant growth within “their” churches has much to do with nonwhite members’ views of them.

"Let us angelic asians into your churches and tell you how to run them, you lying, evil Whites!"

Many Whites, and especially Christians, fancy themselves blind to race. It isn't fooling asians, who are instead following the jewish example, proclaiming how different they are from Whites, whining loudly about how offended they are at not being treated to a different, better standard by "racists".

A Reminder to HBDers and Race Realists

A comment to Steve Sailer's Smith student in trouble for liking boys:

Michael said...

People telling Jews they can relax now since we've "won" remind me how easy it is for victory to lead to relaxation and then defeat. Yes, Jews are now the establishment, and it's tempting to feel we can relax now, but that's especially when we have to be most on our guard. Historically, victory is usually followed by softening and defeat. It's only Jewish paranoia - one of the healthiest, strongest, and most positive of Jewish instincts. The lack of understanding gentiles have for this powerful instinct betrays a fatal weakness in their character and sheds some light on why they ultimately didn't have what it takes to retain power - and an exceptionally tough and enduring will to victory that has a chance of sparing Jews from this historical pattern.

Comments on this site never fail to remind me of how dangerous the temptation to relax really is. I have no doubt if Jews did relax, guys like the hideous and creepy "agnostic" would immediately crawl out of the woodworks with their festering resentments and Jews would once again be banned from country clubs and similar places.

Fact of the matter is, we are dealing with whites, Aryans if you prefer, who have historically been the most virulently racist genetic group in history. All groups are racist, but none as virulently as European whites. It's probably a genetic character trait but if you compare historical racist attitudes it is clear as day that no other race or civilization equals white Europeans. Even modern day white Western self-hatred, which although helped along by the Jews is an essentially white European construct, is a kind of racism in reverse! It's the same need to demonize and hate an entire people that seems genetically white, just this time directed inward! Even the white attempt to get away from racism ends up being just racism in reverse, its surreal! It would be comic if it wasn't so sad. Orwell said that Western Communism was just nationalism attached to another group, and its the same with Western anti-racism - it's just racism attached to one's own group.

The Muslims noted the Crusaders inability to treat any other race as equals. We are not dealing with a mildly racist people like the Chinese or the Arabs, with whom perhaps Jews might be able, over time and in the right cultural climate such as exists in the secular West today, to relax their guard.

9/19/13, 11:07 AM

This is a good example of how jews argue. Whites are condemned first for not being "racist" enough, for not having the instincts of jews. Then also for being too "racist", for supposedly exceeding the jews at demonization and hate. The hypocrisy and contradictions are beside the point. The point is to condemn Whites, as a race, in direct contrast to jews.

This is a reminder that jews are 1) acutely aware of the reality and importance of race, and 2) see themselves as racially distinct from and at odds with Whites.

White Privilege and Jewish Power

For more than a year the jewsmedia has been trying to turn the shooting of a black nobody by a mestizo nobody into an indictment of White "racism" and "privilege". Meanwhile the top two candidates to replace Ben Shalom Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve are Larry Summers and Janet Yellen. All three are jews, but you won't hear anything critical of that in the jewsmedia.

The jewish paper of record provides a typical example of how the jewsmedia goes about ignoring the jewish elephant in the room. The Battle for the Fed and In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones spin the struggle for power between two jew-dominated factions into a story about men versus women. Though "diversity" usually means less White, in this case it means less male.

Knowing how often jews are conflated and confused with Whites, I searched out commentary on Janet Yellen white privilege. Remarkably, I found only one article that put these four words together on the same page. Progressive Reading List at Winning Progressive calls Yellen "the best candidate to chair the Federal Reserve", and in a separate item links The Privilege of Whiteness, describing it as:

an essay on the privilege that we place on whiteness in our society by treating white people as individuals while people of other races are racially profiled far too often.

The anti-White essay is by Paul Waldman. Another jew. These days just about anything serves as a pretext for anyone in the jewsmedia to decry White "racism" and "privilege" - it has become the new normal. The same critics don't have anything to say about White "privilege", much less jewish dominance, at a prominent and preeminent seat of financial and political power.

Empirically, jews are regarded as distinct from Whites. Jews like David Sirota, Tim Wise and Paul Waldman may pretend they are "white" because it helps enable their White bashing, and too many Whites are willing to go along with the charade. But the fact is that in the jew-dominated mainstream media and academia it is Whites who are most consistently criticized as a group. To the extent Whiteness is a "default setting", as jews like Waldman argue, it is as the target for blame. Beside Sirota, Wise and Waldman, the most vile and blatant examples of anti-White invective come from jews like Susan Sontag ("the White race is the cancer of history") and Noel Ignatiev ("the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race"). Why? Because jews as a group regard themselves not only as distinct from the White race, but at odds with it. Those who speak most stridently against Whites are not "self-hating" Whites, or even White-hating Whites - they are jews doing what they think is best for jews.

Constant complaints about White "racism" and "privilege" serve to distract attention away from jewish power. There are no complaints about White "privilege" at the Fed because it would call attention to jewish power. Those who hold power in the anti-White regime are either jews, in bed (literally or figuratively) with the jews, and/or are afraid of what will happen to them if they oppose the jews. They may complain about Whites. They may even pretend jews are "white". But they will not abide complaints about jews. This is an indication not only of the power jews have, but the duplicitous and toxic nature of that power.

You White People

White People: "Check Your Privilege"

This brief screech makes the anti-White drive behind anti-"racism" plain. It's not about creating a fair or equal or post-racial society - it's about guilt-tripping Whites into funding our attackers, funding our own genocide.

I'd like to know more about this speaker, her identity and other activism, but from her appearance, tone and message here I think it's likely she's a jew. It's an interesting point, but the rest of what I'll say here doesn't hinge on it.

I found this video at Moonbattery, where Dave Blount notes:

It is beyond obvious that the government/media axis converted the Trayvon Martin shooting into a race issue and then hyped it through the ceiling in order to exacerbate racial tensions. The only question is: why would they do this, positioning themselves firmly on the side of blacks, when blacks make up only 12% of the population? This pro-Trayvon protester provides the answer

. . .

When it comes time to make Whitey into lampshades, there will be no shortage of white volunteers to man the guard towers at the concentration camps. It will be whites who oversee the whole operation. Liberalism works by manipulating the weak-minded through self-hatred.

I think Blount is right in spirit, in that he's recognizing and expressing his opposition to something he sees as wrong, even if only in terms of the moral standards endorsed by "liberals", i.e. according to the holocaust narrative.

"[W]hy would they [the government/media axis, the screecher] do this" is an excellent question. But the answer is lacking. This call for Whites to not only acquiesce but collaborate with our own destruction merely shines a light on the tactics, the mechanics, the HOW. It does not explain the reason, the motive, the WHY. Blount does not examine the WHO closely enough, either denying the reality and significance of race, or at least seeing it only in coarse black and white terms.

The more incisive question to consider is, WHO is doing what to WHOM and WHY?

Blaming "liberalism" is an evasion. Likewise for misidentifying the problem as "self-hate" rather than White-hate. The jewish-looking, jewish-sounding woman in the video doesn't seem to hate herself. She's lecturing "YOU White people", whom she clearly doesn't identify with in any positive sense. Even if you want to imagine she's WhiteWhiteWhite, what she's doing is encouraging Whites to hate Whiteness, to hate other Whites who don't. In what sense is this "self-hate"? In what sense is this "liberalism"? And even if you define "liberalism" as such - WHO makes it so and WHY?

It turns out the who and why are right in the forefront of Blount's mind, right there in his rhetoric about lampshades. Jews see themselves as distinct from Whites. They resent Whites. It is a racial disctinction. It is a racial animus. When jews blame Whites for this state of affairs and its consequences, entirely, they confirm both the distinction and their animus.

This is why jews, at least, side with blacks against Whites. Jews see it as righteous exactly because they see jews as disctinct from Whites, racially, and deem such actions as being good for the jews. This is in direct contrast to the Whites who side with blacks, who are moved to act against their own race and told to feel righteous about it exactly because it is good for everybody but Whites. The motives couldn't be more different.

To put it bluntly, the driving force against Whites springs from jews. To the extent "liberalism" plays a part it is to encourage Whites to idealize equality and tolerance, to fantasize that race doesn't or shouldn't matter. Among other ill effects this blinds and desensensitizes Whites to the anti-White hostility of jews. Indeed, the idea that the problem is "liberalism" or "self-hate" is just more of the same poison. If you think White-hate is bad, and wish to oppose it, then you're already a "racist". You might as well open your eyes, set aside the excuses, and face the rest of the ugly reality.

Tolerance (the Berkeley-Popper Mix)

How Not To Defend Atheism - Crazy gay, jewish Atheist goes postal at street preacher:

I'd be alot freer if people like you were put in prison... as retaliation for the COLLECTIVE CRIME OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM, MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA!

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy are louder and plainer than usual, but the animating force is the same narrative broadcast by the media, taught in schools and, ironically, preached in mainline Christian churches.

The point of the jewish narrative isn't that intolerance is bad or wrong as a general principle, the point is that jewish intolerance of "the dirty goyim" is good and right because "the dirty goyim" are intolerant of jews, and that's what's bad and wrong.

As I noted in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2, philosopher jew Karl Popper put it this way:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Jewish rhetoric about tolerance is best understood as an effort to promote the best interests of jews. From the screaming queer nobody to the world-renowned philosopher, jews don't have any qualms about dictating to everyone else what "we" should do to best serve them. "The dirty goyim" should recognize this double-talk for what it is: dishonest, destructive, criminal, intolerable.

Foxman and Sacks Explain "Anti-Semitism"

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, on Why Anti-Semitism Endures.

What is "anti-semitism"? Foxman says it's jealousy, scapegoating, a "disease of the Christian world". Take your pick. As a shyster performing the same schtick for decades, his explanation is remarkably incoherent. He doesn't address why "anti-semitism" endures, nor why it follows the jews wherever they go.

Here's Foxman again, on The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism.

Foxman estimates just how many Americans are "seriously infected with anti-semitism"; notes various aggressive measures jews use to promote their interests (litigatation, legislation, education); argues that "the greatest challenge is the internet", "the dark underbelly", "superhighway for bigotry"; claims the ADL "broke the back" of the KKK by promoting anti-mask laws in Georgia in the 1950s.

A transcript of the interview is at Big Think Interview With Abraham Foxman.

Though Foxman is the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in the US, and perhaps the world, he doesn't come across as exceptionally intelligent or well-spoken. This is especially evident when he is contrasted with the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in Britain, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.

In The "Fourth Mutation of Anti-Semitism" Sacks, like Foxman, paints "anti-semitism" in pathological/psychological/biological terms. Sacks provides a typical example of the jewish narrative - a one-sided version of European history, entirely sympathetic to jews and antipathetic to Europeans.

Sacks doesn't just invert the jewish problem, he abridges it. He begins with the Greeks by excusing them, along with the Romans. He says "anti-semitism" stage one "got personal with the birth of Christianity" and characterizes it as "a hatred of jews, not of people in general".

Stage two starts around 1096, having to do "with the massacre of jewish communities in Northern Europe during the First Crusade". This is "when jews became a demonic force", "the infidels, the anti-Christ". He cites "the blood libel" as "demonic anti-judaism".

As an aside, Sacks use of the term demonic is similar to Foxman's use of the term bigot. In both cases it is blatantly hypocritical - professional bigot Foxman accusing jewry's enemies of bigotry against jewry, and professional rabbi Sacks demonizing jewry's enemies for supposedly demonizing jewry. "The blood libel", to which both of these two professional jews refer, is in fact a defamation of Europeans.

Sacks dates "mutation three" to the coining of the term "anti-semitism" in 1879, which was "not religious hostility to judaism, but racial hostility to jews". He claims with this understanding of jews, "all you could do was work for the extermination of the jews" and that "the holocaust was already implicit in that word itself".

Jews regard anyone who recognizes jews as a potential threat, and ultimately as exterminationist. It is projection - a window into their own parasitic minds. Jews see themselves as separate even while they sniff out and pathologize any sign of awareness in their host. Such aggressive inversion confuses fair-minded people who, in the end, find it easier to swallow the mealy-mouthed platitudes jews offer than comprehend the relentlessly dishonest jew-centricity of jewish minds.

Sacks describes the "fourth mutation" as "demonic anti-zionism", "focused not on jews as individuals but jews as a nation in their own sovereign state", "poisoning the world peace", "responsible for every kind of distress in the universe".

A stereotypical jewish strawman argument. Jews are responsible for having their own sovereign state, of by and for themselves. They are also responsible for self-righteously organizing and lobbying to have every other sovereign state serve jewish interests as well. Jews, including Foxman and Sacks, do this and brag about it, as if it's good and right. Objecting to it is what they characterize as "anti-semitism".

Sacks asserts that "jews must never fight 'anti-semitism' alone", that "the fight against 'anti-semitism' is led by non-jews" and is in fact "a government-led activity". He cites "international conferences of parlimentarians" actively discussing ways to promote the best interests of jews.

The sad fact is that jews are effective in getting others to serve them, even to fight and die for them. The concern of jews like Sacks, however, is Why the Jewish Voice Isn't More Self-Confident.

Sacks says it's because jews are paranoid and define themselves as "the people who dwell alone", "nature's victims", who everyone hates. Sacks says he disagrees with this self-image, though as mentioned above it is the same image reflected in the jewish narrative he recites.

"Why has being a jew become a burden?" Sacks explains, "that is the residue of "anti-semitism". He defines judaism as "the voice of hope in the conversation of humankind". His final assertion:

There's nothing threatening about judaism because we don't try to convert anyone. We say look, guys, this is how we see things. If it makes sense to you please have it, and if it doesn't, that's okay.

The reality is that jews argue and organize in order to tell others how to see things - what is right and wrong, what can or can't be said or done. If this doesn't make sense to you, and you argue or organize for your own benefit, then you will find that the jews have governments on their side.

Here is the Big Think page for the Sacks interview. The whole interview, including the two bits linked above, runs 14:35.

Some highlights: Sacks expresses his pride in building day schools for jews in Britain, says jews "have an influence out of all proportion to our numbers", and sees "no model" for a Chief Rabbi in the US overlooking the pontiff-like, moralizing role played by Foxman.

Segan and O'Hehir's Big Damning White Problems

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

Does anyone who isn't a white man have Google Glass?

This is starting to get disturbing. Since Google Glass demo units started appearing a few weeks ago, proud Google Glass users have been spewing selfies all over the Internet. And except for the hired help in Google's demo videos, every single Google Glass owner I've heard a word from appears to be a middle-aged white male, usually with some receding hairline action going on there. There's even a Tumblr devoted to the phenomenon.

This is a big problem.

I say this as a middle-aged white man with extremely little hair. Google Glass is just breaking out of the dream stage, and our society is grappling with these wearable items: what they do, how to use them, and how we shouldn't use them. People who aren't white, middle-aged males need to be part of that conversation, but I don't see that happening right now with Glass.

People from non-Western-European-descended, non-male gender and ethnic groups have different perspectives on technology and society that could help shape Google Glass and how it's used.

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

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

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

Google Glass, and wearables in general can change our society. That includes everyone. Being the vanguard of a major new product category, with so many possible societal ripples, makes Glass more important than a typical game or website whose usage naturally skews to one ethnic or gender group.

If the direction of this societal change is being determined entirely by a socially homogenous group of guys (no matter how hard they try), it's going to be a less useful technology for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My emphasis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

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

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

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for whites to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening, or threatened with deportation.

White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh

among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.

And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

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

It is the source of our unearned innocence and the cause of others’ unjustified oppression.

That is all. And it matters.

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

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

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

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

Two Lessons in Privilege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patton’s letter is exactly the kind of thing that is tremendously clicky, to the extent that it was probably worth it financially to the Daily Princetonian to publish it even if the site ended up offline because of the massive influx of readers.

All in all, it’s a very successful, cynical execution of a well-established strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mishpocheh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being yourself is not a talent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Root of "Hate"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sorry if you read this post as anti-Semitic. That was never the intent. You were identified as “white” because it contextualizes your use of the word in question. You were identified as “Jewish” because it was used in your justification of the educational merit and personal sensitivity that you had in the situation. I do not want this to turn into an attack but rather a way to further dialogue and be able to have productive conversations.

From one white Jew to another, I can only assume that you, being Jewish and a professor of higher learning, have background knowledge about systems of oppression and that you have some understanding about allyship and understand the importance of listening to oppressed and targeted groups.

How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity

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

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

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

The title of David Nirenberg’s new book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, uses a term pointedly different from the one we are used to. The hatred and oppression of Jews has been known since the late 19th century as anti-Semitism—a label, it is worth remembering, originally worn with pride by German Jew-haters. What is the difference, then, between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism? The answer, as it unfolds in Nirenberg’s scholarly tour de force, could be summarized this way: Anti-Semitism needs actual Jews to persecute; anti-Judaism can flourish perfectly well without them, since its target is not a group of people but an idea.

Nirenberg’s thesis is that this idea of Judaism, which bears only a passing resemblance to Judaism as practiced and lived by Jews, has been at the very center of Western civilization since the beginning. From Ptolemaic Egypt to early Christianity, from the Catholic Middle Ages to the Protestant Reformation, from the Enlightenment to fascism, whenever the West has wanted to define everything it is not—when it wants to put a name to its deepest fears and aversions—Judaism has been the name that came most easily to hand. “Anti-Judaism,” Nirenberg summarizes, “should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought. It was rather one of the basic tools with which that edifice was constructed.”

This is a pretty depressing conclusion, especially for Jews destined to live inside that edifice; but the intellectual journey Nirenberg takes to get there is exhilarating. Each chapter of “Anti-Judaism” is devoted to an era in Western history and the particular kinds of anti-Judaism it fostered. Few if any of these moments are new discoveries; indeed, Nirenberg’s whole argument is that certain types of anti-Judaism are so central to Western culture that we take them for granted. What Nirenberg has done is to connect these varieties of anti-Judaism into a convincing narrative, working with original sources to draw out the full implications of seminal anti-Jewish writings.

The main reason why Judaism, and therefore anti-Judaism, have been so central to Western culture is, of course, Christianity. But Nirenberg’s first chapter shows that some persistent anti-Jewish tropes predate Jesus by hundreds of years. The Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, writing around 320 BCE, recorded an Egyptian tradition that inverts the familiar Exodus story. In this version, the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element, “strangers dwelling in their midst and practicing different rites.” These exiles settled in Judea under the leadership of Moses, who instituted for them “an unsocial and intolerant mode of life.” Already, Nirenberg observes, we can detect “what would become a fundamental concept of anti-Judaism—Jewish misanthropy.” This element was emphasized by a somewhat later writer, an Egyptian priest named Manetho, who described the Exodus as the revolt of an impious group of “lepers and other unclean people.”

As he will do throughout the book, Nirenberg describes these anti-Jewish texts not in a spirit of outrage or condemnation, but rather of inquiry. The question they raise is not whether the ancient Israelites were “really” lepers, but rather, why later Egyptian writers claimed they were. What sort of intellectual work did anti-Judaism perform in this particular culture? To answer the question, Nirenberg examines the deep history of Egypt, showing how ruptures caused by foreign invasion and religious innovation came to be associated with the Jews. Then he discusses the politics of Hellenistic Egypt, in which a large Jewish population was sandwiched uneasily between the Greek elite and the Egyptian masses. In a pattern that would be often repeated, this middle position left the Jews open to hostility from both sides, which would erupt into frequent riots and massacres. In the long term, Nirenberg writes, “the characteristics of misanthropy, impiety, lawlessness, and universal enmity that ancient Egypt assigned to Moses and his people would remain available to later millennia: a tradition made venerable by antiquity, to be forgotten, rediscovered, and put to new uses by later generations of apologists and historians.”

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

• That the defining feature of non-jews, and specifically "the West", i.e. Whites, is "anti-jewism".

• That jews are powerless, innocent victims.

• That non-jews try to invert and otherwise manipulate history.

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

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

With the rise of Catholic polities in the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism took on a less theological, more material cast. In countries like England, France, and Germany, the Jews held a unique legal status as the king’s “servants” or “slaves,” which put them outside the usual chain of feudal relationships. This allowed Jews to play a much-needed but widely loathed role in finance and taxation, while also demonstrating the unique power of the monarch. The claim of the Capet dynasty to be kings of France, Nirenberg shows, rested in part on their claim to control the status of the Jews, a royal prerogative and a lucrative one: King after king plundered “his” Jews when in need of cash. At the same time, being the public face of royal power left the Jews exposed to the hatred of the people at large. Riots against Jews and ritual murder accusations became popular ways of demonstrating dissatisfaction with the government. When medieval subjects wanted to protest against their rulers, they would often accuse the king of being in league with the Jews, or even a Jew himself.

The common thread in Anti-Judaism is that such accusations of Jewishness have little to do with actual Jews. They are a product of a Gentile discourse, in which Christians argue with other Christians by accusing them of Judaism. The same principle holds true in Nirenberg’s fascinating later chapters. When Martin Luther rebelled against Catholicism, he attacked the church’s “legalistic understanding of God’s justice” as Jewish: “In this sense the Roman church had become more ‘Jewish’ than the Jews.” When the Puritan revolutionaries in the English Civil War thought about the ideal constitution for the state, they looked to the ancient Israelite commonwealth as described in Judges and Kings.

Surprisingly, Nirenberg shows, the decline of religion in Europe and the rise of the Enlightenment did little to change the rhetoric of anti-Judaism. Voltaire, Kant, and Hegel all used Judaism as a figure for what they wanted to overcome—superstition, legalistic morality, the dead past. Finally, in a brief concluding chapter on the 19th century and after, Nirenberg shows how Marx recapitulated ancient anti-Jewish tropes when he conceived of communist revolution as “the emancipation of mankind from Judaism”—that is, from money and commerce and social alienation.

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

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

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

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

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

Alvin Rosenfeld is a brave man, and his new work is courageous. The book is called The End of the Holocaust, and it is not reluctant to take on the unexamined pieties that have grown up around the slaughter, and the sentimentalization that threatens to smother it in meretricious uplift.

The real “end of the Holocaust,” he argues, is the transformation of it into a lesson about the “triumph of the human spirit” or some such affirmation. Rosenfeld, the founder and former director of the Jewish studies program at Indiana University, which has made itself a major center of Jewish publishing and learning, is a mainstream scholar who has seen the flaw in mainstream Holocaust discourse. He has made it his mission to rescue the Holocaust from the Faustian bargain Jews have made with history and memory, the Faustian bargain that results when we trade the specifics of memory, the Jewishness of the Holocaust, and the Jew-hatred that gave it its rationale and identity, for the weepy universalism of such phrases as “the long record of man’s inhumanity to man.”

The impulse to find the silver lining is relentless, though. Suffering and grief must be transformed into affirmation, and the bleak irrecoverable fate of the victims must be given a redemptive aspect for those of us alive. In fact it’s an insult to the dead to rob their graves to make ourselves feel better. One recent manifestation Rosenfeld has shrewdly noticed is the way there has been a subtle shift in the popular representation of the Holocaust—a shift in the attention once given to the murdered victims to comparatively uplifting stories of survivors, of the “righteous gentiles,” of the scarce “rescuers,” and the even scarcer “avengers,” e.g., Quentin Tarantino’s fake-glorious fictional crew.

Rosenfeld is not afraid to contend with the fact that, as he writes, “with new atrocities filling the news each day and only so much sympathy to go around, there are people who simply do not want to hear any more about the Jews and their sorrows. There are other dead to be buried, they say.” The sad, deplorable, but, he says, “unavoidable” consequence of what may be the necessary limits of human sympathy is that “the more successfully [the Holocaust] enters the cultural mainstream, the more commonplace it becomes. A less taxing version of a tragic history begins to emerge, still full of suffering, to be sure, but a suffering relieved of many of its weightiest moral and intellectual demands and, consequently easier to be … normalized.”

Normalized? The Holocaust as one more instance in the long chronicle of “man’s inhumanity to man”? Rosenfeld’s book offers a welcome contrarian take on the trend. Yes, we’ve had enough, as Rosenfeld points out, of museums that cumulatively obscure memory in a fog of well-meaning but misleading inspirational brotherhood-of-man rhetoric.

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

What we haven’t had enough of is a careful consideration of the implications of the Holocaust for the nature of human nature. As George Steiner told me (for my book, Explaining Hitler), “the Holocaust removed the re-insurance from human hope”—the psychic safety net we imagine marked the absolute depth of human nature. The Holocaust tore through that net heading for hell. Human nature could be—at the promptings of a charismatic and evil demagogue, religious hate, and so-called “scientific racism”—even worse than we imagined. No one wants to hear that. We want to hear uplifting stories about that nice Mr. Schindler. We want affirmations!

And the fact that it was not just one man but an entire continent that enthusiastically pitched in or stood by while 6 million were murdered: Doesn’t that call for us to spend a little time re-thinking what we still reverently speak of as “European civilization”? Or to investigate the roots of that European hatred? How much weight do the Holocaust museums give to the two millennia of Christian Jew-hatred, murderous pogroms, blood libels, and other degradations? Or do they prefer to focus on “righteous gentiles” in order to avoid offending their gentile hosts?

And for all their “reaching out” and “teachable moments,” how much do the Holocaust museums and Holocaust curricula connect the hatred of the recent past with contemporary exterminationist Jew-hatred, the vast numbers of people who deny the first, but hunger for a second, Holocaust? It’s a threat some fear even to contemplate—the potential destruction of the 5 million Jews of Israel with a single well-placed nuclear blast—a nightmarish but not unforseeable possibility to which Rosenfeld is unafraid to devote the final section of his book.

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

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

Consider the Faustian bargain that Holocaust museums in America have so often made with the non-Jewish majority: The survivors and eyewitnesses of the Holocaust are dying, and the only way to get Americans to care about the destruction of the Jews, the only way we will get a (nearly) front row seat on the National Mall in Washington for our Holocaust museum, is by convincing Americans that the Holocaust can be a “teachable moment” in America’s uplifting struggle against intolerance. Rosenfeld calls this bargain “the Americanization of the Holocaust,” and even though he’s on the executive committee of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum he’s not happy about the tendency.

In discussing, for instance, the Los Angeles-based Museum of Tolerance (the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Holocaust museum), he says that “by situating the Holocaust within a historical framework that includes such quintessentially American experiences as the Los Angeles riots and the struggle for black civil rights, both of which are prominently illustrated, the Museum of Tolerance relativizes the catastrophe brought on by Naziism in a radical way. America’s social problems, for all their gravity, are not genocidal in character and simply do not resemble the persecution and systematic slaughter of European Jews during World War II.” It’s a critique I first saw articulated by Jonathan Rosen in a 1993 New York Times op-ed called “The Misguided Holocaust Museum” back when the museum on the Mall was first opening. At first I was surprised, but then I was persuaded, at least to a certain extent, by Rosen’s impassioned dissent from the conventional wisdom.

And of course there is the difficult question of how one compares such tragedies. Why not a Cambodian genocide museum? In what ways are the Cambodian, the Armenian, and the Rwandan genocides similar and different from the Nazi genocide? If the Rodney King riots do not deserve being placed on the same plane shouldn’t the casualties of slavery in America, an institution that killed the bodies and murdered the souls of those who survived, count just as much?

There’s an argument that it’s a politically savvy heuristic strategy to unite with other sufferers against the murderous haters rather than set our suffering apart. And Jews have a strong record of concern for the sufferings of others. Solidarity! But Rosenfeld is on a mission not to allow the differences of the identity of the Jewish victims to disappear, and he is both a moral thinker and an astute cultural critic.

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