Who Celebrates Lawrence Auster and Why

Recalling Lawrence Auster, Nicholas Stix asks:

In a land of almost 314 million “residents,” how important could one old, crotchety, heterosexual, white Christian man have been?

Only the most vile sycophants of this self-professed jewish fifth columnist continue to celebrate him. Tellingly, they do it either by ignoring or distorting what he really was or what he really cared about.

Lawrence Auster was a jew whose most fervent passion was sniffing out and denouncing "anti-semitism".

Peter Brimelow, toward whom Auster expressed a downright poisonous jew-centric hatred, published a longer, more odious ode from Stix titled Remembering Lawrence Auster, After A Year:

For years, he argued what I considered to be a mistaken position, that the Left believes in “egalitarianism,” “tolerance,” and “non-discrimination.” In fact, as I have pointed out for years, the Left actually believes in power—and is willing to accept the most extreme inequality, intolerance, and discrimination.

Auster meticulously cultivated a constant but superficial discussion of symptoms, most of which he attributed to "liberalism", a vague catch-all for anything Auster disliked but didn't more specifically identify as "anti-semitism". He disapproved of terms like "the Left" because he wished to obscure the jewish source of anti-White animus, not expose it. For this reason his view of race was similarly cartoonish. He usually maintained that jews are "white", and "whites" are doing everything to ourselves. When push came to shove he not only saw the difference, he sided with the jews against Whites.

It was because of this position, and in spite of any prickliness when challenged on "mistakes", that Auster attracted worshippers like Stix - a motley assortment of jews, crypto-jews, quasi-jews, wanna-be jews and jew-firsters who see "white" judeo-Christian "conservativism" as their greatest strength. They could imagine clarity and truth in their guru's dissembling and dissumulation because in that guru and his double-talk they saw themselves.

Lawrence Auster: First Anniversary of His Death on March 29, 2013, at Saber Point, offers this synopsis of Auster's early life:

Lawrence Auster was no stranger to controversy and aimed his criticisms not only at obvious targets on the left but also at those on the right whom he saw losing one battle after another. After Pope Benedict XVI apologized for his 2006 speech in Regensburg, which criticized Islam, Auster wrote, “As long as our own principles are liberal, as long as such liberal values as pluralism and tolerance, rather than traditionalist values such as nation and civilization, are our ultimate governing values, we will not be able to oppose liberalism and the liberalism-assisted takeover of the West by the Other. Mainstream conservatism is itself largely liberal. Only a belief system that is non-liberal at its core, namely traditionalism, can save the West.”

Mr. Auster was born in Union, New Jersey in 1949 to Sean Irving Auster, an early electronics whizkid, businessman, and real estate investor, and Charlotte Auster, a homemaker. From the age of 11 he grew up in South Orange, New Jersey, where his older siblings introduced him to classical music and Bob Dylan, both lifelong passions, along with poetry. He attended Columbia University for a year and witnessed the student riots in 1968. He did not like the Ivy League university, which he found too impersonal. He also attended Bard College for a semester before deciding that he needed to educate himself on his own before completing a bachelor’s degree.

In the 1970s, he lived a bohemian life in Aspen, Colorado, playing guitar, reading great works of literature, working at a book store, and, it amused him to recount later, wearing a sandwich board through the streets of Aspen with the menu of a local restaurant. For a while, he was a professional astrologer. He then earned a bachelor’s degree in English at the University of Colorado in Boulder. For a time, he was a follower of the Indian spiritual leader Meher Baba, traveling to India to visit his center there.

He then moved to Manhattan, rented a spartan studio apartment on the Upper West Side in which he lived up until his final weeks, and began an often frustrating search for the right career. He attended law school for a year, but decided he would never make a good lawyer. He worked as an administrator at a private school, drove a cab, read lots of books and worked as a temp. He referred candidly to his “odd and eccentric life.”

“I’ve never had any mainstream “moves” in my makeup. I’ve been a solitary intellectual seeker and spiritual seeker all my life, and a misfit in mainstream society,” Mr. Auster wrote, late in life. “I’ve never had a normal career. Even if I had wanted to, I could not have had a mainstream career as a writer, because writing for money or fame or whatever was simply not part of my makeup. Everything I’ve written, I’ve written because it’s been intensely important me to say something that I had to say. I can’t write any other way.”

He discovered his main subject when he was walking through Manhattan one day and, looking at the people around him, suddenly realized that whites were on their way to becoming a minority in America. He said that since he was so firmly convinced of the essential humanity of all people, he felt suited to writing about the controversial subject of race and challenging the crippling plague of white guilt.

How absurd and yet how stereotypical that this ex-hippie, this wandering jew, had the arrogance to proclaim his jew-first moralizing and pilpul "traditionalism", not to mention deliver it from the very epicenter of cosmopolitan jewry, that Other who has taken over the West, whose poisonous influence he mostly pretended not to see.

Auster never challenged "the crippling plague of white guilt". That would have required acknowledging the distinction between the Whites being guilt-tripped and the jews, like himself, who perpetrate it. If Auster's traditionalism meant anything, it meant only a reform of White guilt, redirecting and refocusing its benefits back to the jews alone. What irked Auster was not that Whites defer to anybody, but that Whites defer to anybody but the jews.

To commemorate Auster's death his most vile sycophant, Laura Wood, excerpted a speech he delivered at the 1994 American Renaissance conference. The War Against White America captures Auster's early posturing. It is notably less vague than the later, more superficial positions Stix mistakes for mistaken:

So before we recoil in horror or embarrassment from speaking explicitly about race, let us remember that America’s current politics is already a race-conscious politics, only it’s a politics based on lies about race. It’s a politics directed against whites and their civilization. And it pretends that it’s not about race at all, but that it’s race-neutral and universal. So instead of today’s race-conscious politics, which is based on lies about race, let us have a race-conscious politics based on truths about race.

These truths include the following propositions:

• Long-term harmonious relations between a racial majority and racial minorities are possible only when the minorities do not exceed a certain percentage of the population.
• While individuals of different races living in the same society can get along on a basis of equality and mutual recognition, entire races, living in the same society, cannot.
• In the right circumstances, individuals or small groups of one people can be assimilated into a host culture of a different people, but there are limits to such assimilation. Certainly if the entire people associated with the host culture is displaced or swamped by a different people, the host culture will also disappear. Even smaller shifts in numbers can be enough to delegitimize the host culture and produce chronic cultural conflict.
• Therefore, the culture, identity and traditions of white America and Western civilization cannot survive in any community or institution that becomes multiracial or white-minority.
• Because of the greater attractiveness, prosperity and openness of white Western societies, nonwhites will keep moving into them as long as they can. Therefore white America can survive demographically and culturally only if it recognizes itself as a threatened ethnoculture; if it ceases or drastically reduces, on a national scale, all non-European immigration; and if it assures, on a local scale, communities where its own institutions may survive.
• The large and enduring differences in average intelligence between blacks and whites mean, first, that blacks on their own can never be expected to maintain a modern, democratic, civilized society; and second, that blacks can never be expected to achieve collective economic equality and other kinds of parity with whites. The forced attempt to achieve such collective equality, through affirmative action and through endless attacks on white racism as the supposed cause of existing inequalities, can only break down all the institutions and standards of society and lead to race warfare.
• There are therefore only two sane options for black-white relations in this country. Either blacks accept the above facts; accept a society where white Western standards of law, behavior and intellectual life are dominant and where advancement will be open for blacks only on an individual, not a collective basis; accept their status as an ethnic minority and be grateful to be living in a white society where they have goods and opportunities undreamed of in a black society; or else, if blacks are not willing to accept these things, then to avoid race warfare there must be peaceful separation between the races.

These propositions have nothing to do with any notions of race-hatred of the other, or of race-worship of one’s own. White people are just as sinful and imperfect as any other people. Unlike ideologies such as Afrocentrism and Nazism, which are based on the deification of one’s own people and the demonization of others, this new politics is based on a Christian recognition of our human limitations, namely that we do not possess the godlike power to create a perfect world where everyone is equal, and where differences don’t matter. If there is any arrogance to be seen today, it is in our current immigration and affirmative action policies, which are among the greatest examples of hubris in the history of the world.

There are only two sane options for black-white relations in this country.

The irony is that whites are terrified that non-whites will hate them and even start a race war if whites stand up for themselves, while the truth is that many nonwhites will begin for the first time to respect whites. Currently minorities don’t respect whites because whites have defined themselves ideologically as nothing while, in personal terms, they still try to protect their self-interest. Whites thus seem both weak and hypocritical and therefore despicable, and nonwhites just keep moving into the vacuum left by white surrender. But when whites begin to assert their own civilizational and racial identity and their desire to preserve it, not in a hateful way but in a calm, intelligent and firm way, then nonwhites will begin to see whites, not as the “oppressors” of left-liberal demonology, but as human beings who have the same basic interests and concerns for their people and culture that the minorities have for theirs.

Classic. Auster discussed blacks and Whites and other Others in terms he literally found unthinkable to apply to jews. He spoke of "minorities" and "oppressors" and "left-liberal demonology" as if it is all a figment of the imagination of Whites and had nothing whatsoever to do with the jews.

The irony is that so many Whites are terrified that jews will hate them, even though jews already make their contempt plain enough. Auster went against that grain by advocating a "white" racial identity, but of course, it was only to the extent that he thought that would best serve the interests of jews, not Whites. Auster's importance, if anyone wishes to recall it accurately, was in being even more condescending and less honest than usual for a jew.

Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking

Mel Gibson's Career -- Why He Deserves Another Chance In Hollywood, by Allison Hope Weiner, Deadline|Hollywood, 11 March 2014:

As a journalist who vilified Gibson in The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly until my coverage allowed me to get to know him, I want to make the case here that it is time for those Hollywood agencies and studios to end their quiet blacklisting of Mel Gibson. Once Hollywood’s biggest movie star whose film Braveheart won five Oscars and whose collective box office totals $3.6 billion, Gibson hasn’t been directly employed by a studio since Passion Of The Christ was released in 2004.

For those who are skeptical, I understand. For the longest time, I disliked Gibson and thought he was a Holocaust-denier, homophobic, misogynistic, racist drunk. I wrote as much in articles for EW and the NY Times. And whenever I wrote about him, I would get irate calls from his representatives saying I didn’t know him.

It developed into something that felt like friendship, which doesn’t often happen with investigative journalists and the subjects they cover. Odder still was that it happened with a man disdained by my colleagues, friends and my family, who, like me, are observant Jews. At this point, Gibson’s career had gone all kinds of wrong, starting with that 2006 DUI arrest, when he told that cop that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Four years later, he sounded positively unhinged and racist in surreptitious recordings of an angry phone exchange between Gibson and ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva — the mother of his infant daughter. The whole world heard him shout abusively at her and make racist remarks.

Since then, I’ve gotten to know Gibson extremely well. I thought it would be difficult for him to have a friend in the media, but he has been surprisingly honest and trusting. As a lawyer-turned-reporter, I have no problem asking tough questions, even of friends. Gibson never wavered or equivocated when I confronted him, whether the subject was his drinking, his politics, his religion or his relationships with women. It soon became clear that my early journalistic assessment of him wasn’t right.

This crystallized when we met each other’s families. It was hard to blame his family for being skeptical of a journalist, but the issues with my own family were more challenging. Gibson asked to meet them at my son’s bar mitzvah celebration. Imagine the scene: A room filled with Jews. In walks the person who, in their minds, might be the most notorious anti-Semite in America. Gibson attended alone and I can only imagine what was going through his head when he walked into the party.

Before the evening was over, he was chatting with many of my relatives, who saw a funny, kind, charming guy and not the demon they’d read about. Gutsier still, he attended our Yom Kippur break fast dinner. Anyone who has attended such a gathering knows there is nothing more imposing than making friends in a room full of Jews who haven’t eaten in 24 hours.

I’ve discussed the Holocaust with Gibson and whether his views differed from those of his father. Just as he refused to condemn his father in that TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Gibson refused to discuss his dad with me. Similar to what he told Sawyer, Gibson told me that he believed that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. “Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,” he told Sawyer. “It was an atrocity of monumental proportion.” In our conversations, I took that a step further. Why, I asked him “did you say those things about the Jews starting all the wars? Where did those unkind things come from?” Gibson thought for a moment, then answered that he’d been terribly hurt by the very personal criticism of him from the Jewish community over The Passion Of The Christ. He said that while he’d been criticized for films before, this was personal and cruel. He said that when he drinks, he can be a mean drunk and “Stuff comes out in a distorted manner…” His own faith led him to make his version of Christ’s story, and he found himself being attacked for making a film that might get Jews killed, and that he was insensitive that his depiction of Jews as Christ’s killer could inflame religious tensions. He was called names by numerous Jewish leaders and a few people literally spat on him. “The criticism was still eating at me,” he told me. “This was a different kind of hammering. A very personal attack.”

Based on my exchanges with Gibson and my own reporting on his transgressions, I’ve stopped doubting him. He worked in Hollywood for 30 years without a single report he was anti-Semitic.

In his second apology on the anti-Semitic statements, Gibson promised to reach out to Jewish leaders. Gibson followed up by meeting with a wide variety of them. He gave me their names when I asked, but Gibson asked me not to publish them because he didn’t want them dragged into public controversy or worse, think he was using them. The meetings were not some photo op to him, he told me, but rather his desire to understand Judaism and personally apologize for the unkind things he said. He has learned much about the Jewish religion, befriending a number of Rabbis and attending his share of Shabbat dinners, Passover Seders and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur dinners. I believe that effort, along with our conversations, helped him understand why Jewish people reacted as they did to The Passion Of The Christ and why there was Jewish support for the Second Vatican Council. Gibson has quietly donated millions to charitable Jewish causes, in keeping with one of the highest forms of Tzedakah in the Jewish faith, giving when the recipient doesn’t know your identity.

Gibson went well beyond a mea culpa tour. He came out of that experience determined to film the Jewish version of Braveheart. He set at Warner Bros a film about Judah Maccabee, who with his father and four brothers led the Jewish revolt against the Greek-Syrian armies that had conquered Judea in the second century B.C. That seminal story is celebrated by Jews all over the world through Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights.

While talent including director Roman Polanski (drugged and sodomized a minor, and fled), Mike Tyson (rape conviction), Chris Brown (beat up ex-girlfriend Rihanna), T.I. (weapons charge), and many others are repped by major agencies, no agency has touched Gibson since Emanuel discharged him as a WME client after those tapes surfaced and he used the “N” word. Gibson has been shunned not for doing anything criminal; his greatest offenses amount to use of harsh language.

Weiner knows that Gibson's "greatest offense" isn't "harsh language" aimed at women or blacks, and they aren't responsible for his "quiet blacklisting". Weiner identifies herself as a jew and dedicates the bulk of her words to Gibson vis-a-vis jews exactly because she understands that it is jews who have not-so-quietly blacklisted him.

The demonization and blacklisting of Gibson is a reminder that in jew-run Hollywood, talent, popularity and profitability aren't the primary considerations - jewish sensibilities are. And Gibson will continue to be blacklisted as long as jews collectively regard him as "the most notorious 'anti-semite' in America". Weiner's explicit appeal to jews, to attempt to convince them otherwise, only calls attention to their power.

Weiner describes Gibson's grovelling, trying to please and befriend the jews who despise him, as "gutsy". Yet it is quite the opposite. Even Weiner's own version of Gibson's story comes across as serial gutlessness: Lashing out in drunken rage, Gibson bit the hand that fed him, and ever since has been licking the boot that kicks him. Weiner's suggestion that Gibson's problem is alcohol, or anger, or both, is also disingenuous. Though he has far more fame and fortune than most of the rest of his race, he has the same main problem. The jewish problem. He could fund and direct some wonderful films about that, but instead gives his love and money to the enemy. Whether such pathological behavior is fueled by Christian beliefs, greed, ambition, or even alcohol - it certainly isn't guts.

As usual, the jews have tried to make themselves out as the ones who have been harmed. And as usual, this serves to distract from the harm they have done to others. In this case, their handwringing about whether Mel Gibson is or isn't good for the jews is a distraction from the monstrous harm done by the lies, filth and poison delivered by the judaized media.

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction

Peter Blood:

The Neo-Reaction, in my opinion, has several characteristics that make it similar to Neo-Conservatism.

Neo-Cons: liberals, disproportionately Jewish, “mugged by reality”, not pro-white, eventually honeycombing the right and driving out old hard rightists (example, ironically, Paul Gottfried). Eventually everything is done for the Jews.

Neo-Reaction: libertarians, disproportionately Jewish (MY SUSPICION ONLY), “mugged by reality”, not pro-white (boy, they really hate blacks, though), To Be Determined….

It’s the “neo” thing. Irving Kristol: “Ever since I can remember I’ve been a Neo-Something.”

Hipster Racist:

Interesting parallel between the neo-cons and the neo-reaction. I remember back in the day the “neo” in “neo-con” was often noted to be practically synonymous with “judeo.”

I don’t even like the term “reactionary” to be honest – it’s a communist term. There’s the Marxist Revolution, than the Reaction from the bad guys (nationalists, capitalists, conservatives, religious, racists, etc.) I assumed that the “Dark Enlightenment” and “neo-reaction” were just labels slapped onto the emerging internet consensus among non-leftist types, a mix of race realism, sex realism, and scepticsm of utopianism. I prefer “Aryan Skynet” myself. The argument against democracy, for example, is intellectually interesting, and fun in a devil’s advocate sort of way, but 12 years after the Diebold Voting Machine scandal of 2002, kind of a moot point, isn’t it? Noam Chomsky from the Judeo-Left used to quote Walter Lippman about this in the 1990s, all about the “crisis of democracy” and the use of mass media to “manufacture consent.”

One thing I’ve noticed, YKWs have a lot of time on their hands to write all sorts of articles and comments. I can see a few enterprising YKWs doing what they have always done, as described by Kevin MacDonald, set up little cults-of-personality based on a guru and co-opt various intellectual trends into some “movement” or “ideology,” give it a catchy name, then ruthlessly purge the “anti-semites” and otherwise repurpose the movement to whatever benefits jews.

Indeed. The reaction is to judaization. Neo-reaction is the judaization of the reaction to judaization.

What's Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht

In a short letter to the Wall Street Journal, Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?, Tom Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, retired founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, expressed a simple-minded concern which appeared not at all out of step with the thoroughly judaized contemporary political discourse:

I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?

The response from outraged jews was swift and venomous. Undeterred by Perkins' wealth, power and love of jews, jews big and small have taken to their soapboxes to insult and lecture him. The gist of it all is to self-righteously inform Perkins, and any other uppity goyim who might be under a similarly mistaken impression, that only jews are permitted to invoke the jewish narrative.

To illustrate I've selected a few of the clearer examples of jews getting so carried away with their attempts to describe what Perkins has done wrong and condemn him for it that they effectively end up describing and condemning themselves and their tribe.

Steven Greenhouse, labor and workplace correspondent for the New York Times, issued this twit:

As someone who lost numerous relatives to the Nazi gas chambers, I find statements like this revolting & inexplicable

Then this one:

Rather shocking that Tom Perkins seems to embrace Nazi Germany's stereotype that Jews were Europe’s rich 1%

Perkins' mistakes are hardly inexplicable. It's jews who have filled his head with nonsense. He has internalized jewish myths. He has misunderstood jewish self-pity and self-concern as applying more generally to wealthy minorities.

What Greenhouse is revolted and shocked about is Perkins equating the merely rich to the jews. Greenhouse knows there is no such equivalence. His hysterical overreaction probably has less to do with events decades past and more to do with the "stereotype" of jews in the 1% of the right here and now.

For a lecture about the jewish version of history, Greenhouse links a Salon article by Elias Isquith, titled Wealthy venture capitalist Tom Perkins says the 1% in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany:

For those who don’t already know: Kristallnacht was a giant anti-Semitic riot, organized by the Nazi government, that left nearly 100 Jews in Germany and Austria murdered and resulted in the incarceration of some tens of thousands more in concentration camps. It was an act of coordinated barbarism done in service of the Nazis’ ultimate goal, the expulsion (and, later, elimination) of Europe’s Jewish population.

Is it any mystery why accounts that differ from the jewish narrative go unknown or unheeded? Look how jews howl and bring to heel even someone rich and famous who tries to parrot their story in some way that doesn't please them.

For those who don't already know, there are other versions of history that don't excuse the jews. For example, Carolyn Yeager, based on the work of Ingrid Weckert, has made a convincing argument that organized jewry instigated and benefited from "Kristallnacht".

As confused and conflicted as Matthew Yglesias is about jewish identity, he is confident that Tom Perkins is nuts and that his letter "certainly proves you can get rich without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent".

Steve Benen, another ambiguous jew, aims his psychoanalysis more broadly, claiming the letter reflects "a persecution complex at the heart of conservative ideology" "that bordered on self-parody". For one thing, it certainly proves you can get a gig defending the jews at MSNBC without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent.

One of the more telling responses I've encountered so far comes from Mark Suster. If not for his overweening jewish superiority Suster would come closest to being a peer of Perkins. Suster's response to "this terribly insensitive and tone deaf letter", Putting Tom Perkins Comments into Context, begins:

Um. Seriously?

People of middle or lower income families protesting the concentration of wealth in America is the same as a political party in Germany instituting a policy of systematically killing 6 million Jews and countless more who didn’t fit the model Aryan citizen?

It probably doesn’t take much more to explain how disconnected from reality Tom Perkins is.

Perkins, recall, referred to the jewish Kristallnacht myth, not their six million myth. It is Suster and his tribemates who are disconnected from reality.

Referring to a WSJ article in which Perkins claims others call him the king of Silicon Valley, Suster mocks:

Who says out loud that they are the king of anything?

I’m sorry, Mr. Perkins. You are now the bumbling dunce of Silicon Valley.

True enough. How much of a king can anyone be when the jews can so easily transform them into a bumbling dunce?

This is not a mere gaffe that people won’t remember in 3 years. Perkins will forever be associated with greed, insensitivity and lack of historical context.

Never forgive, never forget. Vex the jews and they will ensure that you go down in their history as the one who is greedy and insensitive.

And then there are the Jews of which I am one.

Mr. Perkins. Jewish people weren’t persecuted merely for their financial successes and it’s total mythology to believe all Jewish people are wealthy despite our population over-indexing in education, arts and wealth. Jews were persecuted for being different. The sort of mindless intolerance that I see lobbed today against Muslim people, African Americans, gay couples and others.

Jews followed their own rituals that made them seem “strange” to gentiles. Jews were excluded from trade guilds across Europe for hundreds of years which made it impossible for Jewish people to have a normal, stable income from the most important jobs of those era. Because they couldn’t have “normal” professions they become traders, peddlers, market makers and financiers.

Again we see Suster's disconnection from reality and arrogance in lecturing others about what is or isn't mythology. His account of the one-sided jewish version of history is quite typical. We're to believe Europeans somehow couldn't ever make the jews leave but could compel them to become financiers.

But...

Jews weren’t persecuted for being rich. Jews were scapegoated whenever countries had economic problems simply because they were different and were an easy target for political leaders. It’s a societal consequence when times turn bad and people affected look for somebody to blame.

This too is a common jewish account of "scapegoating". What the financier jew is saying is that when there are economic problems the people shouldn't blame financier jews, they should instead blame themselves for blaming the financier jews, not to mention forcing the jews to become financiers in the first place.

Mr. Perkins. I am a member of the 1%. Yes, I earned it. But with a lot of help that many of the 350 million other Americans don’t have. I’m ok with you having extravagant houses and competing with the likes of Larry Ellison for extreme spending on Yachts and such. That’s your prerogative.

But when it comes for speaking for our great state or country. When it comes to speaking for Jews around the world. When it comes for speaking up for venture capitalists for which you are simply not a “king” I have but one bit of advice.

STFU.

Not only is there no honor among thieves, in the minds of commissars like Suster only the jewish thieves should be speaking for anyone.

As illuminating as these examples have been, I've saved the most pompously self-unaware for last. Paul Krugman titled his New York Times op-ed Paranoia of the Plutocrats. He begins like Benen, by making it clear that his critique is aimed at a broader group:

You may say that this is just one crazy guy and wonder why The Journal would publish such a thing. But Mr. Perkins isn’t that much of an outlier.

Here's the punchline:

But every group finds itself facing criticism, and ends up on the losing side of policy disputes, somewhere along the way; that’s democracy. The question is what happens next. Normal people take it in stride; even if they’re angry and bitter over political setbacks, they don’t cry persecution, compare their critics to Nazis and insist that the world revolves around their hurt feelings. But the rich are different from you and me.

And yes, that’s partly because they have more money, and the power that goes with it. They can and all too often do surround themselves with courtiers who tell them what they want to hear and never, ever, tell them they’re being foolish. They’re accustomed to being treated with deference, not just by the people they hire but by politicians who want their campaign contributions. And so they are shocked to discover that money can’t buy everything, can’t insulate them from all adversity.

I also suspect that today’s Masters of the Universe are insecure about the nature of their success. We’re not talking captains of industry here, men who make stuff. We are, instead, talking about wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming some off the top as it sloshes by. They may boast that they are job creators, the people who make the economy work, but are they really adding value? Many of us doubt it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy themselves, a form of self-doubt that causes them to lash out even more furiously at their critics.

There you have it. The jews aren't normal people. They see themselves as somewhere outside and above normal. That's why they can think and write so critically about others without seeing how the criticism applies to themselves, without even thinking that they or anyone else could apply it to themselves.

It isn't self-doubt that makes the jews lash out furiously at their critics, much less at someone like Perkins, who grovels for them. It is an aggressive sadism. A hostility born of racial animus, enabled by a confidence born of racial solidarity. They see themselves having more in common with each other, rich or poor, left or right, than they do with any multi-millionaire goy.

Some jews no doubt fear their group's cover being blown, their depredations being revealed. Not the ones I've quoted here. These jews appear confident that they can say and do as they please, no matter how blatantly overbearing.

Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren't "white" in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn't subject to the usual standards by which "white" states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on "what it means to be pro-Israel." A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the "tyranny of small differences," as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening's. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one's support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist's responsibility to guard Israel's survival, to guard Israel's interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor "dual loyalties" and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What's best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is "unanswerable" only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the "anti-semitic movements" which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally "liberal" jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally "conservative" jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No "dual loyalty" here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don't face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any "anti-semitic movement"? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

Chechar's Crusade

On Carolyn and Tan is Chechar's latest effort to explain why I suck. It amounts to the fact that I don't share his position, that Whites suck:

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

As I've explained before, I'm not inclined to make lengthy or frequent responses to Chechar because he mainly craves attention and doesn't really offer any new or useful ideas. His belief that Whites suck is already the dominant belief amongst Whites, and it's doing Whites great harm. To put it bluntly, I don't believe Chechar offers honest criticism of Whites, much less my positions.

As I noted in my conversation with Carolyn on White pathology, many Whites go back through history searching for answers. What I find most bizarre are the ones who go back out of a desire to "prove" that the answer is not the jews. Chechar is one example of this. Another that comes to mind is Ian Jobling.

Chechar argues that I blame the jews entirely as a way of excusing Whites entirely, that I have identified attempts to excuse jews by blaming Whites (the suicide meme), therefore I must be trying to accomplish the opposite. Basically Chechar likes the suicide meme, thus he dislikes my pointing it out and arguing against it.

Chechar's argument for White suicide is based on a tautological rationale that can hardly even be called an argument. He cites two inter-related phenomena, the history of Christianity and Spain, exactly because in his mind Whites are entirely responsible for them. Therefore, not the jews. QED.

Chechar's just-so argument is not simply wrong, it's wrong in an ironic and telling way. Chechar misinterprets and downplays the influence of jews on both Christianity and Spain, and jewish crypsis more generally. Briefly put, he agrees with the jewish narrative - that Christians persecuted jews, therefore Europeans are responsible for Christianity. The reasoning is based, first of all, on the false notion that jews, once "converted", turn into Europeans. Second, it requires a willful misreading of the persecution, calling attention to the exception, the jews who were most obvious, to distract from the rule, the jews who were more or less successful in infiltrating and manipulating Christianity without much notice.

Any model of reality which is true, not to mention constructed from a point of view in favor of Whites, must account for the jews, and especially jewish crypsis - their deliberate deceptions about who they are and what they're up to. Jewish crypsis, if nothing else, is evidence of jewish hostility toward Whites. According to the jewish narrative, Whites are to blame for it. According to Chechar the jews don't even matter. In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools. Throughout history the jews have cultivated and exploited exactly this kind of behavior in their hosts, preaching blindness and ignorance while they condemn and cavort however they please.

In his conclusion Chechar quotes approvingly the following comment:

it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

It's hard to see this as anything but an excuse for jewish parasitism. If White/jew relations were symbiotic there wouldn't be anything to get emotional about. But jews and their sympathizers do get emotional, using that and other excuses to prevent and derail such discussions. From a parasite's point of view discussions about parasitism can't be good for the parasites. From a White point of view that's exactly why Whites should discuss it, not shut up.

What's Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tila Tequila

"Crazy asian slut? Wonderful! Fantastic! Brilliant! Edgy! Shocking! Put her on television! Make her a porn star! BWAHAHAHAHA, take that Puritans!"

"Oh wait, she's a Hitler fan? How insulting! I'm offended! This is intolerable! She needs to be locked up in a mental hospital!"

Tila Nguyen's latest turn in look-at-me antics immediately captured the attention of the jewiest portions of the jewsmedia. Their usual irreverent snark muted, what came out instead was scandal and bemusement, anger and betrayal. "How dare this otherwise upstanding member of two (three? four?) oppressed classes be so careless and uppity?"

Tablet Magazine: Tila Tequila, Convert to Judaism, Poses as Sexy Hitler Atop Auschwitz

Animal: Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism, Parallel Universes, and Reptilian Illuminati Warriors

Jezebel: Tila Tequila Is a Nazi Sympathizer Who Calls Herself 'Hitila'

Hollywood Life: Tila Tequila In Nazi Uniform — Former Reality Star Rants About Nazism

Esquire: Wait, Hold On: Tila Tequila is a Neo-Nazi Now?

Of course, the jewsmedia being the jewsmedia, the shenanigans of even Z-list celebrities is BIG NEWS when it confounds the jews. Thus Tila Tequila's transgressions against jewish sensibilities have not remained confined to celebrity-gawking cesspits, but has instead been elevated into a bona-fide mediacaust.

Business Insider: Tila Tequila Is A Nazi

International Business Times: Tila Tequila Ignites Twitter After Nazi Sympathizer's Blog Defends Adolf Hilter

NY Daily News: Tila Tequila wears Nazi uniform, calls Hitler a ‘sweet kid’ in shocking Facebook rant

According to the News, Tila felt mocked and rejected when she tried to convert to judaism. This only adds to the case that this woman - from her fame to her infamy - is a product of judaization. It's hard to fault the goyim for not understanding that the jews are jews and the goyim are goyim - after all, you don't get anything but double-talk about it from the jewsmedia. Though the jews themselves are well aware of such distinctions (and indeed Tequila is an example of the tribe's aphorism that a "philo-semite" is just an "anti-semite" who doesn't know it yet), they're also keen to stick to their age-old canard that jewishness is all about religious beliefs and that jews are always blameless victims. Thus Tila Tequila must be anybody's fault but theirs.

Where will this go? Nowhere. And then quickly down the memory hole.

Going forward, as jews increasingly shift their attention toward new hosts, the "minority" coalition, being jew-led, is sure to be increasingly rocked by jew-centric controversies of this sort. During the awkward transition phase, professional jews like Brian Levin, whose job description is literally director of "hate" and "extremism", is thinking it best to see it as a joke, a gift to sinecured jews like himself. Will the other "minorities" go for that? Does it matter?

Ding Dong, Mandela's Dead

Nelson Mandela remembered by L.A.‘s South African Jews, published by the Jewish Journal today, provides more of the usual duplicitous jewish crowing that jews are "white", love Mandela, and therefore helped him "lead" their overthrow of White rule in South Africa.

The broader jewsmedia brims with sorrow for the "civil rights leader", who for decades has been THE black poster boy for the judaized internationalist elite. Mandela was of course a "civil rights leader" only in the ironic sense that his name and face embody the idea that Africa is for the Africans. "Civil rights" means non-White rights.

You see, the judaized internationalist elite plainly doesn't have a problem with majority rule, or minority suffering, as long as it involves non-Whites ruling over Whites. It is just a corollary of the deeper law of "civil rights" illustrated by Israel, or for that matter anywhere else on the planet, whereby the rule of any number of jews over any number of non-jews is sacrosanct, and any challenge a sacrilege.

Controversy over Jack Straw's Comments on Jewish Influence

British MP decries ‘unlimited’ Jewish funds as destroying Mideast peace, JPost, 27 Oct 2013:

Former Israeli Knesset Member Einat Wilf was in attendance at the debate and posted Straw’s comments on her Facebook page.

Straw said, according to Wilf, that the greatest obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and her Arab neighbors are the “unlimited” funds available to Jewish organizations and AIPAC in the US, as well as Germany’s “obsession” with defending Israel.

“I guess he neglected to mention Jewish control of the media…,” Wilf added on her Facebook status.

Indeed. The controversy has to do with the publicly stated belief of a major figure in British politics regarding jewish influence over US foreign policy. It is being widely reported and commented on in the portion of the jewsmedia aimed at jews, and hardly at all in the jewsmedia for non-jews. Non-jewish interests are neither informed nor served by this discrepancy. Wilf implies that non-jews control the media and are responsible for this.

Straw has confirmed and expanded on his statement, explaining that he's trying to help the jews. I'm not remotely anti-Semitic, says ex-British FM Straw, The Times of Israel, 28 Oct 2013:

“I am not remotely anti-Semitic. Quite the reverse. I have all my life strongly supported the state of Israel, and its right to live in peace and security,” Straw wrote in an email.

Lastly, the former foreign secretary said he had addressed “the problems which faced President [Barack] Obama from AIPAC and the ‘Israeli lobby’ more generally.” He said he had “pointed out that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a player in domestic US politics, on the Republican side, and that under US political funding rules (or their absence) huge sums were spent by AIPAC in support of some elected politicians (or candidates), and against others. This is in sharp contrast to the rules in the UK, where spending is tightly controlled,” he wrote.

“None of this is ‘anti-Semitic,’” Straw concluded. “There are plenty of people in Israel who take a similar view to me — not least (as I do) because they believe that the current approach of the Government of Israel will weaken the position of the state of Israel in the medium and long-term.”

This is what passes for criticism of jewish influence in the mainstream political discourse, with controversies like this becoming a regular ritual. However it starts, it quickly boils down to a debate about what's best for the jews. It is a sign not just of jewish influence, but of jewish power. The mere implication that jewish influence is not necessarily what's best for anyone else is immediately drowned out by cries and hand-wringing about "anti-semitism". It is an affirmation of jewish power - the preeminence of jewish interests over all others.

For jews like Jonathan Tobin at Commentary Magazine these sick rituals serve as a pretext to get on his jewsmedia soapbox and explain, to jews and their allies, that jews are really the victims here. In Nothing Legitimate About Anti-Semitic Slur he notes "traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish money and insidious attempts to control the policy discussion" and implies they are "conspiracy theories that are thinly veiled new versions of traditional myths about Jews".

Of course, these regular rituals reinforce these stereotypes about jews. Tobin's screed only adds to the insidious jewish attempts to control the policy discussion. He sees "jew-hatred" and "nasty stuff" in Jack Straw's words, and thinks it "tells you all you need to know about the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe". And it does. Jewish power harms others, creating hatred all around. Tobin, like most jews, simply hates and blames anyone but jews for it.

Tobin claims that "Straw’s charges" "are easily dismissed", asserting that "the vast, wall-to-wall bipartisan coalition that supports the Jewish state is a function of American public opinion, not Jewish money". If that were true there would be more reporting and discussion of Straw's statements in places where American public opinion is shaped. Instead it is restricted almost entirely to jews talking to jews about it. To the extent non-jews are even made aware, it's only to be put on notice that their concerns will not only be ignored, but will be regarded as offensive:

Making such accusations is offensive rather than just wrong because, as Straw knows very well, talking about Jewish money buying government policy is straight out of the anti-Semitic playbook of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The purpose of such claims is not to argue that Israel’s supporters are misguided so much as that they are illegitimate.

Jewish money and lobbying has an obvious effect on government policy. Somebody must be accountable for this, but in the fevered minds of jews like Tobin, it cannot be jews. According to him jewish power is not illegitimate or wrong, recognition and opposition is. He defends jewish power by attacking, crying out in pain as he strikes.

This is perfectly stereotypical behavior for jews. The best hope for change is that others come to see it for what it is and come to the realization that a gang of unscrupulously and unapologetically jew-obsessed jews having such influence over their governments, their media, their finance, cannot be good for them.

Tommy Robinson and Friends Abandon English Defence League, Join Anti-English Regime

EDL leader Tommy Robinson quits group, BBC News, 8 Oct:

Mr Robinson's co-leader, Kevin Carroll, has also opted to leave.

Their decision follows discussions with the Quilliam group, which describes itself as a "counter-extremism think tank".

Mr Robinson said: "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive.

"I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas."

He explained his motives for leaving, telling BBC Radio 5 live's Nicky Campbell: "When some moron lifts up his top and he's got the picture of a mosque saying 'boom' and it's all over the national newspapers, it's me, it's when I pick up my kids from school the parents are looking at me, judging me on that.

"And that's not what I've stood for and my decision to do this is to be true to what I stand for. And whilst I want to lead the revolution against Islamist ideology, I don't want to lead the revolution against Muslims.

"I believe that the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back."

Revolution? A politically incorrect shirt convinced Robinson that the English are not worth defending. What he's on about now is no more revolutionary than Madonna. Indeed, it's about spinning in circles, making a stink about "far-right extremism" while the English are steadily displaced and dispossessed by aliens under the auspices of a genocidal state-sanctioned ideology which celebrates mass immigration and compulsory integration.

Tommy Robinson Stands Down From The EDL, Yahoo News UK, 8 Oct:

"I apologise for the fact that what I've said has not resonated individually with Muslims," he told journalists at a news conference.

"I don’t hate Muslims. Luton is a completely multicultural town and from day one we've wanted to embrace everyone; all colours and creeds.

"I have a passion to combat Islamist ideology and I want to lead a revolution against that ideology, but I don't want to lead a revolution against Muslims."

He added that in order to solve what he sees as the problem of Islamist extremism in Britain, he needs to work with Muslims not against them.

"We had fought for three years to keep fascists and racists out of the EDL. When I attended our demonstration in Manchester I saw White Power flags that didn't represent me.

"Am I willing to be the public face for them? No I'm not.

"I believe that the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back."

Mr Robinson and EDL co-founder Kevin Carroll announced their departure through counter-extremism think tank Quilliam.

In contrast, Robinson doesn't mind being photographed in front of Jew Power flags.

"Multiculturalism" is a propaganda term. It isn't about embracing everyone. It's about embracing the colonization of White homelands and eventual replacement of native White people by alien non-Whites. Whatever Robinson thought he wanted to defend when he first formed the EDL, what he's making clear now is that it isn't England or the English people.

This is no surprise. See for example EDL Exposed, a 49 minute presentation wherein British National Party chairman Nick Griffin describes Robinson's close associates and how their neo-conservatism and counter-jihadism contrast with nationalism. What Lies Behind the English Defence League is a 46 page PDF spelling it out in more detail.

In the political discourse of the current regime the simple act of Whites organizing as Whites is regarded "racist", "extremist", and "far-right". Whatever their actual beliefs, leaders like Robinson and Griffin are targeted for pathologization and demonization precisely because they try to organize and lead groups which appeal overwhelmingly to Whites. Tea Partiers get the same treatment in the US. Robinson seems to think he can end the abuse by singing the regime's anti-"racist" tune ever louder. And whatever Griffin is on about, his careful qualifications concerning the jews won't ever spare him from being identified as a "neo-nazi".

Whites are confused and demoralized. What we could use is less apologetic, less compromising leadership which speaks clearly about what's happening, about who the enemy is, and takes to heart that enemy's guiding principle, "Never forgive, never forget".

Robinson's counter-jihadist comrade Baron Bodissey wrote the following at his blog, Gates of Vienna:

The Quilliam Foundation is one of those quasi-governmental entities that exists to serve the purposes of the governing elites. A coordinated strategy involving it would serve to decapitate the EDL, driving much of the membership of the regional divisions into the arms of the BNP. From the point of view of Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, nothing could be better: the EDL’s effectiveness as street force would be reduced, a renewed BNP would mop up the “Islamophobic” opposition and marginalize them further, and support for UKIP would be weakened.

The BNP is not the real threat to the British Powers That Be — it is widely seen as being an appendage of MI5, and is kept within a cozy anti-Semitic corral like the NPD in Germany, unable to achieve any meaningful electoral success whilst drawing the support of discontented nationalists.

Bodissey and the counter-jihadists he hosts at GoV like to pretend that the Powers That Be are leftists and the biggest problem they're responsible for is islamization. Their diagnosis is suicidal stupidity. Just so. Period. End of story.

It is no coincidence that points of view to the contrary, as with opposition to the ruling regime's agenda, are denounced as "racist" or "nazi" and suppressed. What they don't want to face is that this regime is thoroughly judaized - riddled with jews, part-jews and non-jews who are governed by the same pro-jew/anti-"racist" mindset they are. It isn't possible to oppose this judaized regime in any meaningful way without being "anti-semitic".

Professing love and respect for jews and waving Israeli flags, as the Robinson-led EDL and many counter-jihadists do, is what leftists call dog whistling. They are signalling an implicit recognition of and subordination to jewish power. In spite of this, the EDL and counter-jihadists are still marginalized and regarded as "extremists" even by mainstream conservatives.

What this demonstrates is that the counter-jihadists are more alarmed about islamist "extremism" than the judaized regime is. For the moment the regime is still more interested in solving the White problem once and for all. Counter-jihadists like to talk about Tours and Vienna. They don't like to talk about how the jews in Spain solved their Visigoth problem. The resulting muslim caliphate is what jews to this day refer to as the jewish golden age.

As it turns out, Bodissey's regard for jewish sensibilities hasn't been obsequious enough to please Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer. Each posted nearly identical announcements about Robinson's move (Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Spencer at Jihad Watch) in which their concerns about "fascism" and "anti-semitism" loom larger than anything else, bragging about their influence on Robinson and sniffing dismissively in Bodissey's general direction. Geller writes:

This move has come after many months of deliberation and many years of constant efforts by Robinson and Carroll to prevent the EDL from being infiltrated and co-opted by racists, anti-Semites, fascists, neo-Nazis, and far-right elements. Increasingly, Robinson's time has been taking up with patrolling and policing EDL demos to keep out these infiltrators and far-right ideologues. He has decided, and my AFDI colleague Robert Spencer and I strongly endorse his decision, that his time is better spent working for the defense of England and human rights against Sharia and Islamization in different and more effective ways.

This has been a long time coming. Back on June 30, 2011, I wrote: that because of the "neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group," I was "withdrawing my support from the EDL." Tommy Robinson immediately issued a a statement to SIOA, saying: "We repudiate any individual, group or writing that favors anti-Semitism, neofascism, and any race-based ideology. Any rogue elements within the EDL who go against our mission statement and our beliefs will be removed from the organization; we are determined to remain true to our mission. Anti-Semitism will not ever be tolerated within the EDL."

These statements drew the ire of some counter-jihad bloggers who apparently didn't mind the racists and anti-Semites within the EDL, and who addressed an Open Letter to me denouncing me for drawing back from the EDL. But a huge group of counter-jihad bloggers declared their support of our stand. When Robinson assured us that he was just as concerned about these elements as we were, and was working to root them out of the EDL, we continued to support the organization.

Like Robinson's "English Defence League", Geller's "counter-jihad" has a misleading name. She could be more honest and call it "goyim-doing-only-what's-best-for-the-jews". But then making it that plain would defeat the whole purpose.

When Revolting Elites Revolt

secretprojectrevolution

Watch Madonna’s Insufferable 17 Minute Black & White Video About Persecution, Roger Friedman, Showbiz411:

Madonna wants to start a revolution. No one will take her seriously. So she’s made this video with photographer Steven Klein. This is what she wants to know: “If I was a black man and had an Afro would you take me seriously? If I was an Arab waving a hand grenade would you take me seriously?”

This sophomoric nonsense is the product of a 55 year old woman whose view of the world really comes from her own isolation from reality.

It’s called “secretprojectrevolution.” It’s dedicated to anyone who’s suffered persecution.

Madonna’s ‘secretprojectrevolution’ should stay hidden, Kyle Smith, New York Post:

“Economic markets are collapsing,” she intones. “People all over the world are suffering.” But the real enemy is intolerance. “I keep telling everyone I want to start a revolution, but no one is taking me seriously,” she complains, and it’s all because, “I’m a woman. I’m blond. I have t - - s, an ass and an insatiable desire to be noticed.”

Madonna Screens 'Secretprojectrevolution' in New York, Megan Buerger, WSJ/Speakeasy:

If shock value were currency, Madonna would be the richest woman in the world.

At last night’s premiere of her new short film, the previously top-secret “Secretprojectrevolution,” she pulled out all the stops to get her political message across: Asking everyone in the audience to sit on the floor of New York’s Gagosian Gallery, including several A-listers, she blurred the lines between pop art and interpretive dance in the name of fighting oppression and discrimination.

The 17-minute short, a black-and-white collaboration with photographer Steven Klein, is indeed disquieting. Madonna plays a jailer and a prisoner, sings an eerie rendition of “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” and there are guns and blood and a stroller on fire (things to know before cueing it up at the office). She also serves as the narrator, issuing a call to arms for the world to join her in a “revolution of love.” In Madonna-speak, this means standing up for those who are discriminated against because of their race, gender, religion or sexuality.

STEVEN KLEIN STUDIO: #secretprojectrevolution.

Madonna and Steven Klein Foment Revolution For Art Piece, Erik Maza, Women's Wear Daily:

In a press release days earlier Madonna said “secretprojectrevolution,” as the film is formally called, would be a “call to action and give people a place to voice their own creative expression to help fight oppression, intolerance and complacency.”

For a party, there were an awful lot of instructions from the pop star. Before the projection began, Madonna requested that everyone sit down, and so the black-and-white short film played out with everyone cross-legged on the floor, like in art class. The bar staff was instructed to stop serving or refilling wine until after the performance was over. And no one was allowed to leave until the end

From Merriam Webster:

rev·o·lu·tion noun \ˌre-və-ˈlü-shən\

: the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one

: a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.

: the action of moving around something in a path that is similar to a circle

An elite revolt against the revolting elite? Not even close. It's the dog chasing his tail sense of the word revolution that applies here. The point of Madonna's secretprojectrevolution is not to foment violence or change. Quite the opposite.

A more accurate name would have been projectlookatmelookatmemoreofthesame. It's just more of the same old hypocritical moralizing against oppression, persecution, discrimination and intolerance - of "minorities". As every member of the "minority" at the tippity-top of the judaized elite well knows by now, whether you're a jew or not you had better be able to mouth all the right jewish platitudes. Or else.

Even well-established critics find Madonna's performance art recasting of the well-established jewish narrative "insufferable". Why? The message is too overt, too vague, too heavy-handed, too flip. The messenger is also at fault. She's too privileged and prosperous, too obviously posturing and self-absorbed.

Though challenging the judaized elite or their sensibilities is probably the last thing on Madonna's mind, her "sophmoric nonsense", this 17-minutes of burlesque holocaustish harangue, is so absurd it might do some harm.

There's no real need for her to supply such nonsense. The jews, their media and their puppets already provide a constant stream of authorized and offical nonsense.

Sophmoric reinterpretations and regurgitations of the jewish narrative pose a threat to the extent they broaden and thereby dilute and distort that narrative. The whole purpose of favoring "minorities" is to benefit the jewish "minority" that's on top, pimping that narrative. Thus Madonna, so celebrated for vulgarizing all things goyishe, becomes "insufferable" in this case exactly because she's vulgarizing something so ineffably jewish.

Syria: Organized Jewry Organizing War

Mainstream jewsmedia reports:

Pro-Israel and Jewish groups strongly back military strike against Syria - The Washington Post

Simon Wiesenthal Center calls for action against Syria

Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike - Bloomberg

AIPAC in Full Court Press on Syria - The Daily Beast

Jewish groups back Obama on Syria, but downplay Israel angle | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Jewish organizations in US support Syria strike | The Times of Israel

Simon Wiesenthal Center calls for action against Syria

Andrew Anglin's Daily Stormer:

Jewess Debbie Wasserman Schultz Justifies Planned Syrian Slaughter by Invoking the Holohoax: ‘As a Jew … Never Again has to Mean Something’

Top Israeli Intelligence Chief Confirms Israeli Interest in Toppling Syrian Government

Top Jew Kissinger Says Not Invading Syria Would Have ‘Enormous’ Consequences

Bloodthirsty Zionist Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is Obama’s New Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike

Kevin MacDonald at Occidental Observer:

The Israel Lobby and the Organized Jewish Community Want Regime Change in Syria

How the media works: David Makovsky on the non-existent AIPAC 800-lb gorilla

Pat Buchanan: Just Whose War Is This?

Gregory Hood at Counter-Currents provides the most comprehensive analysis: Standing With Syria

- - -

By far the best indication of the poisonous nature of jewish power is the confused reaction of some patriots in the US military: Tea Party Troops Protest Syria Strike On Facebook, Raise Questions About Military Code Of Conduct.

Jews and jewish organizations are the driving force lobbying for US/European miliary strikes aimed at degrading/toppling the Assad regime in Syria. Their weaponization of the jewish narrative is blatant. The bottom line of all the jewish moralizing is that non-jews must kill and die in order to protect jews.

The mainstream jewsmedia is openly reporting on both the who and the why of this jewish drive for war. The White servicemen who will be doing the killing and dying sense something is wrong, but cannot properly identify what. They are disturbed at the prospect of serving inimical alien interests, but cannot accept that they already do.

Much Ado About Who Betrayed Whom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radosh worries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes We Can

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

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

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

He was wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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