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.

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.

Some Slurs Are More Equal Than Others

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


Not Acceptable R-word PSA

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

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

Chink: To call me a chink.

Fag: To call me a fag.

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

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

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

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

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

The description attached to the video:

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

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

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

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

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

Goodbye "Model Minority", Hello Angry Horde

Asians are angry about alexandra's anti-asian video about "manners". Referring to Asians in the Library - UCLA Student's Racist Rant, Angry Asian Man writes:

This is so incredibly ignorant, it's almost hard to believe that she's for real. I've re-watched it several times now, and I actually find myself laughing at the sheer stupidity. For those who want the literary version, here's the full transcript of her rant. It's equally hilarious and infuriating.

He links a few responses from UCLA administration and various asian groups condemning the video, and Alexandra Wallace grovelling for forgiveness. AAM's blog post currently concludes with the following:

UPDATE: The UCLA Asian American Studies Center has also released a statement on "Asians in the Library." An excerpt:

"Asians in the Library" is a travesty on many levels, representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university with deep ties to communities and institutions in Asia and other parts of the world. It entails a "new racism" by foregrounding students who speak Asian languages and have different family traditions, as it insidiously groups and attacks UCLA's American-born as well as our international students of Asian ancestry. As the only University of California campus without a diversity requirement, UCLA surely needs to implement a diversity requirement that will expose every student to the task of living civilly with people of different origins, backgrounds, orientations, and beliefs, whether they are born here or come from abroad.

A diversity requirement might not be such a bad idea.

Two UCLA Professors Seek Campus Diversity Requirement:

In the aftermath of a racially offensive Internet video, two University of California, Los Angeles professors are urging the administration to require diversity training for students in hopes of discouraging such incidents.

Dr. David Yoo, director of the Asian American Studies Center, and Dr. Lane Hirabayashi, department chairman of Asian American studies, issued a joint statement this week observing that, “We still have much work to do before we can claim to live in a ‘post-racial’ society.”

The phrase “ching chong” is considered an ethnic slur that historically mocked Chinese speaking patterns but sometimes has been aimed at other Asians. Asian Americans comprise the largest racial group among 26,000 UCLA undergraduates at 37 percent; Whites make up 32 percent.

Both UCLA scholars called on the administration “to respond institutionally since the video addresses larger issues of campus climate and culture.” They called the video rant “a travesty representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university. This type of prejudice and use of derogatory words cannot be tolerated.” They urged the administration to implement a diversity requirement for students.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block released a statement on Monday afternoon saying he was “appalled” by Wallace’s comments and that her opinions do not reflect nor represent UCLA.

“I recoil when someone invokes the right of free expression to demean other individuals or groups. Speech that expresses intolerance is indefensible,” Block said.

Colleges around the country have steadily added academic courses with a diversity component or global cultures aspect, requiring undergraduates to complete a certain number of credit hours as a graduation prerequisite.

The problem is indeed ignorance - an ignorance deliberately created by an orwellian twisting of words which pathologizes Whites for being "intolerant" of "diversity". The unspoken premise is that White displacement and dispossession is right and good, therefore Whites are mentally or morally defective for objecting in the slightest way. Even the confused rant of a lone, exasperated, powerless White against "ching chonging" "asians in the library" is an intolerable, indefensible crime. Wallace will be punished for her insolent outburst, and the already widespread indoctrination of Whites as to our proper subordinate and silenced place will be further broadened and accelerated.

Those who lie about their motives and methods have no real standing to blame others for being ignorant of them. Dishonesty engenders ignorance. But let's not pretend these anti-White "anti-racist" liars are decrying our lack of understanding. They mock us for it. When they call Whites ignorant it is to abuse and intimidate us. Their orwellian use of the term is nothing but a pretentious, exceptionally intolerant way of trying to shut someone up by calling them stupid.

As with most Whites, Wallace has been misguided and probably used to imagine that the goal of her university and the overarching regime is to educate people, to create a fair, tolerant society where all people are treated equally. Condemned by powerful, race-conscious, self-interested asian organizations and insulted and threatened with violence by faceless hordes of angry asians, Wallace is now finally getting a real education.

Burlington Takeaway: Words Whites Can't Say

Media reports on the Tom Burlington case have glossed over interesting points. As it turns out, the recent court ruling those reports were based on contains an informative summary of the events and the current legal thinking on race-based social and workplace standards. The picture it paints is one that will shock and surprise anyone who believes the premise or goal of "civil rights", "affirmative action", or "anti-discrimination" is racial equality under law or anywhere else.

To make this ruling more readable I've excerpted the court's PDF below, preserving the bulk of it while omitting many of the parenthesized, superfluous citations to Burlington's original complaint, and the subsequent motions and depositions, as well as the bulk of the references to specific case law.

I am White. I am not a lawyer.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 4, 2009, Plaintiff Thomas Burlington filed suit against Defendants News Corporation, Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Television Stations of Philadelphia, Inc. alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 951 et seq. Plaintiff is a white male. He alleges that he was discriminated against because of his race, was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that Defendants retaliated against him. Defendant News Corporation was dismissed from this litigation by stipulation of the parties. The remaining defendants are Fox Television Stations, Inc., and Fox Television Stations of Philadelphia, Inc. (collectively “the Station,” “Fox,” or “Defendants”).

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a reporter in December 2004. Plaintiff received a B.S. in Journalism from the University of Colorado in 1984 and an M.A. from Wake Forest University in 1994. He had 17 years of experience as a reporter or anchor when he was hired by Defendants. Plaintiff has won several awards for his reporting, including the Edward R. Murrow Award. His written evaluations while an employee at the Station rate him as a “Solid Performer.” Plaintiff was promoted to weekend anchor/reporter on February 20, 2006. Joyce Evans, an African American female, was Plaintiff’s weekend co-anchor.

The Station regularly held newsroom editorial meetings in which its journalists discussed the stories that would air on that evening’s news broadcast. Plaintiff claims that he suffered reverse discrimination as a result of a comment that he made at a newsroom editorial meeting on June 23, 2007. Plaintiff attended the June 23rd newsroom editorial meeting along with eight of his coworkers. The individuals who attended the meeting and their races are as follows:

• Plaintiff—White
• Christopher Denton—White
• Cynthia Cappello—White
• Charles Edmondson—White
• John Jervay—African American
• Rebecca Rogers—White
• Tor Smith—African America
• Robin Taylor—White
• Nicole Wolfe—African American

During the June 23rd meeting, the group discussed a story about the Philadelphia Youth Council of the NAACP holding a symbolic burial for the word “nigger.” Robin Taylor had been assigned to the story. Taylor had attended the symbolic burial and testified that the participants at the burial used the word “at least a hundred times or more” during the course of the proceedings. Taylor discussed the story with her colleagues at the editorial meeting and consistently referred to the racial slur as “the n-word” instead of using the full word. During the meeting Plaintiff asked, “Does this mean we can finally say the word ‘nigger?’” Taylor said that she would not say the word in her story. Plaintiff told Taylor that although he did not necessarily expect her to use the word in her story, he thought that doing so gave the story more credence. At his deposition Plaintiff testified that he “wanted to make the point that I felt if we’re going to refer to the word ‘nigger,’ we should either say the word ‘nigger’ or refer to it as a racial epithet or a slur instead of using the phrase the ‘N’ word.” Plaintiff used the word once during the newsroom meeting. Nicole Wolfe exclaimed in response to Plaintiff’s use of the word, “I can’t believe you just said that!” Neither Plaintiff nor Taylor recalls anyone else saying anything on this subject during the meeting.

After the discussion about whether to use the word, the meeting proceeded as normal, though Plaintiff noticed that his comments had elicited a negative reaction from Nicole Wolfe. Wolfe later told Taylor that she was offended by Plaintiff’s use of the racial slur during the meeting. Nobody at the meeting believed that Plaintiff used the word in its pejorative sense as a racial slur. Taylor later told the head of human resources, Ameena Ali, that she thought more was being made of the situation than should be, and that Plaintiff had not acted maliciously in making his statements during the meeting.

After the meeting, Plaintiff approached Wolfe and said that he had sensed that she was upset and “wanted to explain.” Wolfe said that she did not want to discuss the meeting. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff was confronted by his co-anchor, Joyce Evans, who was not present at the meeting but had been approached by several meeting attendees who had been offended by Plaintiff’s remarks. Evans is African American. Evans informed Plaintiff that he had upset his coworkers, and Plaintiff decided to talk to each of the attendees individually. Plaintiff spoke to John Jervay and explained his rationale for using the word during the meeting. Jervay perceived this to be “some form of an apology.” During the conversation with Jervay, Plaintiff again used the word once or twice. Plaintiff had similar conversations with Christopher Denton, Cynthia Cappello, Charles Edmondson, and Tor Smith. As with Jervay, Plaintiff used the word in several (though not all) of these conversations. After he explained himself and apologized to his coworkers, Plaintiff again spoke to Evans. Plaintiff testified that during this conversation, “Joyce said, [b]ecause you’re white you can never understand what it’s like to be called a nigger and that you cannot use the word ‘nigger.’” Evans denies telling Plaintiff that he could not say the word because he was white, and she also denies ever saying the word during her conversation with Plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that Evans used the word twice in their conversation. Plaintiff told Evans that he was surprised at her position, because he did not believe that a journalist was not allowed to say certain words in an editorial context. [Footnote 1: Ameena Ali, the head of Defendants’HR department, testified in her deposition that Evans’s statement that white people could not say the word would be a violation of Defendants’EEO policies.]

The conversation ended with Evans and Plaintiff in full disagreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff overheard Evans telling another employee that “people get fired for using that word.” Plaintiff testified that at that point, he realized that “she was not letting this go.” On Sunday, June 24, Evans called the Assistant News Director, Leslie Tyler, at home to tell her about Plaintiff’s actions at the previous day’s newsroom editorial meeting. Tyler is African American. Evans told Tyler that employees were upset over what Plaintiff had said during the meeting. Evans felt that Tyler should know what had happened in the meeting and how people reacted to it. Tyler called several employees that day to find out what had happened in the meeting. Tyler testified that she believes that she called Nicole Wolfe, John Jervay, Tor Smith, Becky Rogers and Robin Taylor. Plaintiff contends based on Taylor’s and Rogers’s deposition testimony that Tyler only called the African American employees who were present at the meeting. [Footnote 2: Becky Rogers stated in her deposition that she first spoke to Tyler about the incident in Tyler’s office later in the week—not on the phone on Sunday, June 24, as Tyler testified. Similarly, Robin Taylor testified that she did not talk to anyone about the incident until “days later. Probably a week later.” This contradicts Tyler’s testimony that she called Taylor on Sunday, June 24. We must not resolve factual issues, but we must view the facts and the inferences in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).] Defendants dispute this, pointing out that Tyler and/or Ali eventually spoke to Christopher Denton, who is white, and several other white employees who attended the meeting. In any event, the record shows that on Sunday, June 24, 2007, Tyler called all the African American employees who had been present at the meeting but had not called the majority of the white attendees, including Plaintiff himself.

On Monday, June 25, Tyler spoke to the News Director at the Station, Philip Metlin, about the June 23 meeting and its aftermath. Metlin is a white male. Tyler had intended to inform Ameena Ali about the situation, but Metlin told Tyler not to contact Ali or to do anything else at that juncture. Over the following few days, Tyler received emails from several of the people whom she had called the previous Sunday. Tor Smith sent an email to Tyler and Metlin on Wednesday, June 27. Joyce Evans had recommended that Smith speak to Tyler about his discomfort with Plaintiff’s comments. Tyler in turn recommended that Smith detail his complaint about Plaintiff in an email to Tyler and Metlin. Smith’s email details his version of Plaintiff’s remarks during and after the June 23 meeting. Nicole Wolfe also wrote an email to Metlin and Tyler, as did Becky Rogers. In addition, John Jervay sent an email describing Plaintiff’s actions to Metlin and Tyler. Jervay’s email explicitly uses the word “nigger” three times, twice in all capital letters.

Becky Rogers wrote her email to Metlin and Tyler after a conversation with Joyce Evans in which Evans asked Rogers how she felt about Plaintiff’s behavior at the meeting. Rogers said that she was “horrified.” Evans said that it was important that Rogers let management know how she felt because “[t]he only people who have complained so far have been black people.” Rogers said that she would think about it.

At this point, Metlin brought the issue to Mike Renda, the General Manager of the station. Renda is a white male. Renda ordered Ameena Ali to conduct an investigation into Plaintiff’s actions. As part of that investigation, Ali asked Plaintiff to participate in a meeting with her, Metlin, and Renda on June 29, 2007. During the meeting, Metlin asked Plaintiff to give his version of the events at the editorial meeting the previous Saturday. Plaintiff recited what he had said in the editorial meeting, using the word in the process. Ali responded, “Tom, you’re still saying the word, why are you doing that?” (“Ms. Ali cut me off and said, ‘I can’t believe you said it again. . . . Don’t you know you can’t use that word?’”). Plaintiff replied that he was simply relating what had happened at the editorial meeting, as Metlin had requested. Ali testified that she found Plaintiff’s use of the word during the meeting offensive. Metlin, who is Jewish, explained to Plaintiff that his use of the word was akin to calling someone a “kike.” Metlin told Plaintiff that he would be suspended pending an investigation, and the meeting ended abruptly. The entire meeting lasted about five minutes. Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to give his version of the events that occurred after the editorial meeting, including his apologies to coworkers.

Plaintiff was never asked to explain his side of the story during the subsequent investigation. Plaintiff emailed Metlin on June 30 requesting an “opportunity to allow you to assess my sincerity by speaking with you face-to-face so you can hear what is in my head and in my heart.” Plaintiff never received a response from Metlin. As part of the investigation, Ali spoke to Cyndi Cappello, Nicole Wolfe, and Robin Taylor. [Footnote 3: Ali’s testimony that she spoke with Robin Taylor as part of her investigation is in conflict with Taylor’s testimony that Ali did not speak to her.] Ali did not speak to Plaintiff during the course of the investigation. Nor did Ali inquire as to whether the employees who had attended the June 23rd editorial meeting had reacted to Plaintiff’s comments the way they did because of Plaintiff’s race.

The investigation concluded on July 3, 2007. Plaintiff was issued a memorandum entitled “Final Warning and Employee Assistance Program Referral.” The memorandum briefly described the events that had led to Plaintiff’s suspension and informed Plaintiff that “[y]our behavior was unacceptable and will not be tolerated. You will not be warned again. Further failure to meet the job performance standards of your position will result in the immediate termination of your employment.” It referred Plaintiff to sensitivity training and stated that Plaintiff’s failure to contact the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to schedule the sensitivity training, or to follow its recommendations, would be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate. According to Plaintiff, Mike Renda told Plaintiff at about this time that they were “going to ride this one out,” and that Plaintiff would be reinstated if he complied with the EAP’s requirements. Phil Metlin testified that at this point Defendants had most likely not yet decided to terminate Plaintiff, as they would not have given a final warning to an employee whom they had decided to terminate.

On July 5, 2007, the Philadelphia Daily News published an article about Plaintiff’s suspension in which it stated that “FOX 29 anchor/reporter Tom Burlington has been suspended by the station following what sources describe as a ‘bizarre’ and ‘shocking’ sermon in which he insisted there’s nothing wrong with a word most commonly referred to as ‘the N-word.’” Dan Gross, Fox’s Tom Burlington suspended, Phila. Daily News, July 5, 2007. The article stated that Plaintiff had “used the word more than a dozen times as he argued that doing so was not such a big deal.” Plaintiff called the article “false and defamatory” and suggested that the source of the Daily News’s information was a coworker who wanted to end Plaintiff’s career. The Philadelphia Tribune picked up the story the following day, running a front-page article with Plaintiff’s picture. Larry Miller, Fox news anchor suspended—reports say journalist used the ‘n-word’, Phila. Trib., July 6, 2007, at 1A. The story was subsequently picked up by several other print and online media outlets.

The Daily News article attributes its information about the June 23 editorial meeting to Plaintiff’s colleagues at the Station. Phil Metlin acknowledged that leaking information about the editorial meeting would be a violation of the Station’s policies. Mike Renda testified that if he learned of a Station employee leaking this story to the press, the employee most likely would have been terminated. The Station did not conduct an investigation to determine whether one of its employees had leaked the story to the media.

The Station’s management began to receive requests from employees that they not be assigned to work with Plaintiff. Photographer Paxton Reese emailed Chief Photographer John Campbell with a request that he not be assigned to work with Plaintiff. Paxton Reese is African American. Mike Renda testified that other photographers requested that they not be assigned to work with Plaintiff because they were concerned for their safety if they appeared on the street with Plaintiff.

In the meantime, Plaintiff complied with the EAP’s requirements. On July 6, 2007, the EAP informed Ali that Plaintiff was fit to return to work. (See Pl.’s Resp. Ex. MM (stating that Plaintiff was “in compliance” and was fit to return to work, and that “[h]e feels very badly and is remorseful about what happened”).) Ali forwarded the email to Mike Renda. On July 9th, Renda replied to Ali’s email, stating, “[w]e need to talk about return scenario—news would like him to return Wed.”

Joyce Evans called Ameena Ali on July 10th to inform her that she was receiving phone calls from the National Association of Black Journalists (“NABJ”) and the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists (“PABJ”) regarding Plaintiff’s behavior at the editorial meeting. Evans also told Ali that she was hearing a lot of comments from “people talking to [her] on the street” about Plaintiff’s use of the word during and after the editorial meeting. Evans testified that she received a lot of phone calls asking if she was okay, as well as a voicemail from the NABJ and a voicemail from the PABJ. Evans did not actually talk to anyone at the NABJ or the PABJ, and she could not provide the name of anyone who had spoken to her regarding Plaintiff’s behavior. Ali testified that she believed Evans had called her to ask for advice on how to respond to these inquiries. Evans also told Ali that she was concerned about her on-air chemistry with Plaintiff in light of Plaintiff’s actions. Ali testified that she did not believe that Evans was trying to prevent Plaintiff from returning to work. Upon viewing Ali’s notes from the phone call with Evans, which read, “Getting lots of calls / NABJ / PABJ / People on street / Was concerned about the chemistry if Tom comes back,” Phil Metlin agreed that there was a racial issue regarding Plaintiff’s comments. (“Q: As you read [Ali’s notes], is this document indicating to you that there’s a racial issue concerning Mr. Burlington’s comments? A: Yes.”)

On July 12, 2007, Mike Renda, Ameena Ali, and Phil Metlin met with Plaintiff and informed him that he would not be put back on the air, and that his contract would not be renewed when it expired. Renda testified that the Station could have fired Plaintiff for cause, stating that the adverse publicity resulting from Plaintiff’s behavior violated the clause in Plaintiff’s contract that prevented him from engaging in “any activity that may result in adverse publicity or notoriety for performer or company.” Nevertheless, Renda offered Plaintiff the opportunity to resign, believing it to be the right thing to do. Plaintiff told Renda, Metlin, and Ali that it would ruin his career if they terminated him, but Metlin assured Plaintiff that he would “come through this without any problems.” Renda explained that their concern for Plaintiff’s safety was the basis for his decision. Plaintiff was unable to elicit any further explanation. No one stated that Plaintiff’s race was the reason for his termination, and Plaintiff did not suggest as much during the meeting. Plaintiff never returned to work at the Station, though the Station paid Plaintiff through the end of his contract, which expired on February 19, 2008. Since his contract with Fox expired, Plaintiff has been unable to obtain a job as a journalist. He is currently working as a real-estate agent.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party is entitled to summary judgment when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the [party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 316 F.3d 431, 443 (3d Cir. 2003). Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may identify an absence of a genuine issue of material fact by showing the court that there is no evidence in the record supporting the nonmoving party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 325 (1986); UPMC Health Sys. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 497, 502 (3d Cir. 2004). If the moving party carries this initial burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (stating that “an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must . . . set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial”); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (noting that the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”). The nonmoving party may not avoid summary judgment by relying on speculation or by rehashing the allegations in the pleadings. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. for M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 1999). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)). “We must construe the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, and summary judgment must be denied if there exists enough evidence ‘to enable a jury to reasonably find for the nonmovant on the issue.’” Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 179 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009)).

In plain English, this says that viewing the evidence in Burlington's favor, as he must, the judge feels obliged to allow a jury to decide the case. Do not mistake this for sympathy with Burlington.

The section labeled "III. ANALYSIS" comprises the majority of the original document. Much of it is jargon, including lengthy quotes and citations to related case law. Here I have excerpted only the portions I consider most intelligible and informative to laymen.

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff generally must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that “(1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) he/she was qualified for the position; (3) he/she was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified; and (4) . . . circumstances that raise an inference of discriminatory action . . . .” Warenecki v. City of Phila., No. 10-1450, 2010 WL 4344558, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2010) (citing Sarullo, 352 F.3d at 797) (ellipses in the original). However, where plaintiffs allege reverse discrimination, the analysis is changed somewhat. See Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151, 158 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting that literal application of the first element of the prima facie case would preclude white plaintiffs from establishing a prima facie case). In reverse discrimination cases, “a non-minority plaintiff must show [that] (1) he or she was qualified for the position in question, (2) he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the evidence is adequate to create an inference that the adverse employment action was based on a trait protected by Title VII.” Warenecki, 2010 WL 4344558, at *5 (citing Mosca v. Cole, 384 F. Supp. 2d 757, 765 (D.N.J. 2005)).

The upshot of this is that Whites are not members of a "protected class" and thus do not qualify to sue for discrimination. A separate legal concept called "reverse discrimination" is applied to "non-minority" (i.e. White) plaintiffs. Title VII "anti-discrimination" law itself discriminates Whites from non-Whites, assigning Whites an inferior legal status, subjecting us to a different legal standard. The consequences of this are clear in the discussion that follows.

Defendants concede that Plaintiff was qualified for his position and that he suffered an adverse employment action. Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case because he cannot identify any similarly situated persons outside his protected class who were treated more favorably, and because the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s termination do not support an inference of discrimination. Plaintiff counters that he is not required to show that similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably, and that in any event, three African American employees who said or wrote the word “nigger” in the workplace were not disciplined in any way.

Note that by very consciously using the deferential neologism "African American" and placing the word at issue in quotes the court itself shows subtle signs of race-based discrimination.

Plaintiff points to three African American comparators who stated or wrote the word but were not disciplined by the Station: David Huddleston, John Jervay, and Joyce Evans. Plaintiff testified in his deposition that during a newsroom editorial meeting, his coworkers were discussing a “dumb criminal” story in which the criminal was African American. Huddleston, who is African American, commented, “Man, that’s one dumb nigger.” The meeting attendees all laughed. Plaintiff testified that Leslie Tyler, who is part of the management team, was at the meeting. Tyler does not recall Huddleston saying the word or hearing people talk about this alleged exchange. Huddleston was not disciplined by the Station for saying the word.

Defendants argue that Huddleston is not similarly situated to Plaintiff. Defendants point out that there was a different General Manager at the Station when Huddleston made his comments and argue that “where there are different decisionmakers, employees are not similarly situated.”

Burlington also pointed to Philip Metlin's use of kike, but apparently didn't insist that Metlin was a similarly situated comparator.

Defendants also argue that Huddleston’s comments did not incite complaints from his coworkers and negative publicity for the Station the way Plaintiff’s comments did, and Huddleston is therefore not an appropriate comparator for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case. This argument misses the point. Plaintiff contends that his coworkers’ reaction and the negative publicity that resulted were all the product of racial discrimination that ultimately influenced management. The point of a comparator analysis is that when two employees of different races who act in a similar manner are treated differently, it permits the inference that the race of the employees accounts for the difference.

The meaning of prima facie is important: "It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

The primary self-evident fact about arguments concerning discrimination is that when a member of a "protected class" files suit they are presumed to be "protected", and thus are qualified to make accusations of discrimination for which the threshold of self-evidence is relatively low. In contrast, it is self-evident that Whites are not "protected", and thus the threshold of self-evidence for anything we claim is higher. Even if we can adequately demonstrate our claims, they will only ever constitute a qualified, and thereby diminished reverse echo of anything "protected classes" are to be protected from.

Following the June 23rd newsroom editorial meeting, John Jervay, an African American, wrote an email to Phil Metlin and Leslie Tyler explaining that “during the news meeting the word nigger was used by Tom Burlington.” Jervay’s email used the word twice more in all capital letters. Defendants argue that Jervay simply “accurately reported and described Plaintiff’s offensive use of the word,” so his use of the word was therefore not as serious as Plaintiff’s. But when Plaintiff was asked during the June 29th meeting to explain what had happened in the June 23rd newsroom editorial meeting, Plaintiff’s use of the word provoked an immediate reaction from Ameena Ali and Phil Metlin. Plaintiff testified that Ali said, “I can’t believe you said it again. . . . Don’t you know you can’t use that word?” Mirroring Defendants’explanation of Jervay’s use of the word, Plaintiff replied that he was simply relating what had happened at the editorial meeting, as Metlin had requested. Metlin suspended Plaintiff, although Plaintiff’s suspension had been ordered by Mike Renda before the meeting. Jervay, by contrast, was never disciplined for using the word under almost the same circumstances as Plaintiff during the June 29th meeting. General Manager Mike Renda’s explanation of this inconsistency was as follows:

Q. And in this email [Jervay] uses the word—the full word nigger three times?
A. Correct.
Q. And is that a violation of Fox policy for him to have done it?
A. He was quoting Tom Burlington in an investigation.
Q. So that it was acceptable for him to do that?
A. We asked him what was said.
Q. And he—my question is: Was it a violation of Fox policy for him to use the word?
A. Not in the context of this investigation.
Q. Earlier I was talking to you about when Ameena Ali questioned Tom Burlington about what he said in the meeting and Tom Burlington used the full word nigger when he recounted what happened, and you said that would be a violation of policy. [. . .]
Q. Let me ask you again. Would it be a violation of policy for Tom
Burlington to have used the full word with Ameena Ali when he was asked about the incident? [. . .]
A. It was inappropriate.
Q. My question is—
A. No.
Q. Okay.
A. Well, wait a second. Let me take that back. The fact is that any time you use the word, it is a violation.
Q. Okay. So then looking at this email, was it a violation for John Jervay to type this word, send it in an e-mail and use it three times?
A. I will repeat what I said. No. He was asked to send this as part of the investigation.
Q. Well, you just said that any time that the word is used, it’s a violation of policy. So that’s not true?
A. I stand by what I said.
Q. Well, it doesn’t make sense. Is it always a violation of policy or are there exceptions?
A. We asked John Jervay what happened, and he reported to us.
Q. My question is different. Is it always a violation of policy or are there exceptions? [. . .]
A. I don’t know.

A reasonable jury could conclude that Renda’s testimony demonstrates that Defendants were unable to draw a principled, non-race-based distinction between Jervay’s use of the word in describing what happened at the newsroom editorial meeting and Plaintiff’s use of the word when he was asked to describe what had happened at the meeting. Plaintiff’s use of the word elicited a severely negative reaction, brought the meeting to a close before he could explain himself, and was followed by his immediate suspension, while Jervay’s use of the word elicited only Defendants’ defense of his actions. Plaintiff is white. Jervay is African American. Management’s inability to explain why Jervay was allowed to use the word while Plaintiff was not permits the inference that their races influenced the decision, and that a similarly situated African American employee was treated more favorably than Plaintiff under similar circumstances. [Footnote 4: We agree with Defendants that Joyce Evans is not a similarly situated employee. Plaintiff did not report her alleged use of the word to management until Plaintiff filed his EEOC charge, which was well after his termination.]

Given the Third Circuit’s repeated admonitions that “the plaintiff’s burden at this first stage is not particularly onerous,” Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 369 (3d Cir. 2008), we find that Plaintiff has satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

Given such damning evidence of differing standards a reasonable judge operating on a premise of racial equality could easily have concluded that FOX is arguing in bad faith. Instead the premise of the law is inequality. Discrimination against non-Whites prior to Title VII has been replaced with discrimination against Whites.

(ii) Defendants’ legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s termination

Defendants offer three legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s termination: First, Defendants offer Plaintiff’s misconduct in using the word “nigger” at the editorial meeting and repeatedly thereafter as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Next, Defendants offer the adverse impact that Plaintiff’s misconduct had in the workplace as a reason. Finally, Defendants offer the negative publicity and public embarrassment that Plaintiff’s conduct generated as a reason. Defendants contend that their action in suspending and terminating Plaintiff or in not renewing his contract had nothing to do with race. Rather, their action was a result of Plaintiff’s outrageous use of a word that was hurtful to his coworkers, caused a disruption in the newsroom, and caused the Station to be subjected to adverse publicity resulting in the Station and Plaintiff being brought into public contempt, ridicule, and disrepute. Defendants contend that this was in direct violation of the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment agreement and justified the suspension and termination. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ reasons themselves rely on impermissible racial considerations, because Plaintiff’s coworkers’ reactions to his statements and the negative publicity that they generated are based on the assumption that it is permissible for an African American to use the word, but not a white person. Plaintiff points out that he did not use the word in its pejorative sense; rather, he used it in an academic newsroom discussion of a news story involving the word and he had no intention of belittling or hurting anyone. Moreover, the adverse publicity that followed the newsroom discussion was the result of the discriminatory animus of his coworkers who leaked the story to the newspaper in violation of company policy and without any investigation or sanction. Assuming the existence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s termination, we must determine whether those reasons are simply a pretext for discrimination.

Based upon the totality of the evidence, we are compelled to conclude that a reasonable jury could find that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of Defendants’ action, or that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were not the real reasons for the termination. See id.

We begin by addressing an issue that does not appear to have been decided by the federal courts: can an employer be held liable under Title VII for enforcing or condoning the social norm that it is acceptable for African Americans to say “nigger” but not whites? The text of the statute is the starting point for our analysis. Lawrence v. City of Phila., 527 F.3d 299, 322 (3d Cir. 2008). Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). It is well settled that Title VII’s prohibition of race-based discrimination protects white employees as well as minority employees. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 278-79 (1976) (stating that Title VII is “not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race”). As the law by its terms outlaws treating employees of one race differently from another race, the question becomes is there some justification for treating the white employee who says the word differently from the African American employee who says the word.

In Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918), Justice Holmes observed that “[a] word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.” This is certainly so with this particular word. Merriam-Webster notes in the usage section of its definition of the word that “[i]ts use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but . . . it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 837 (11th ed. 2005); see also Randall Kennedy, Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word 105-08 (First Vintage Books ed. 2003). Professor Kennedy, an African American, made the observation that

many people, white and black alike, disapprove of a white person saying “nigger” under virtually any circumstance. “When we call each other ‘nigger’ it means no harm,” [rapper] Ice Cube remarks. “But if a white person uses it, it’s something different, it’s a racist word.” Professor Michael Eric Dyson likewise asserts that whites must know and stayin their racial placewhen it comes to saying “nigger.” He writes that “most white folk attracted to black culture know better than to cross a line drawn in the sand of racial history. Niggerhas neverbeen cool when spit from white lips.”

Historically, African Americans’ use of the word has been ironic, satirical, or even affectionate. Too often, however, the word has been used by whites as a tool to belittle, oppress, or dehumanize African Americans. When viewed in its historical context, one can see how people in general, and African Americans in particular, might react differently when a white person uses the word than if an African American uses it.

Nevertheless, we are unable to conclude that this is a justifiable reason for permitting the Station to draw race-based distinctions between employees. It is no answer to say that we are interpreting Title VII in accord with prevailing social norms. Title VII was enacted to counter social norms that supported widespread discrimination against African Americans. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 800 (stating that the purpose of Title VII was “to eliminate those discriminatory practices and devices which have fostered racially stratified job environments to the disadvantage of minority citizens”). To conclude that the Station may act in accordance with the social norm that it is permissible for African Americans to use the word but not whites would require a determination that this is a “good” race-based social norm that justifies a departure from the text of Title VII. Neither the text of Title VII, the legislative history, nor the caselaw permits such a departure from Title VII’s command that employers refrain from “discriminat[ing] against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

With the foregoing in mind, there is evidence in this case to suggest that at least two African Americans said the word in the workplace with no consequences. Dave Huddleston described the subject of a “dumb criminal” story as a “dumb nigger.” Like Plaintiff, Huddleston used the word in a newsroom editorial meeting. Unlike Plaintiff, Huddleston clearly used the word in its pejorative sense, rather than in a philosophical discussion of the word itself. Unlike Plaintiff, Huddleston’s coworkers simply laughed, and management was not notified. Similarly, John Jervay used the word in an email while describing what had transpired at the newsroom editorial meeting. When Plaintiff used the word for the same purpose in the June 29th meeting, it brought the meeting to an abrupt end, with Ameena Ali chastising Plaintiff and Phil Metlin suspending him. While Jervay obviously was not describing his own previous usage of the word as was Plaintiff during the June 29th meeting, Mike Renda’s deposition testimony attempting to explain why it was permissible for Jervay to say the word under those circumstances but not Plaintiff demonstrates that the General Manager of the Station was unable to reconcile this inconsistency.

In addition, Plaintiff has adduced facts about Joyce Evans’s role in Plaintiff’s suspension and termination that would permit a factfinder to infer that Plaintiff’s suspension and termination were motivated at least in part by his race. If Plaintiff is believed, upon learning of Plaintiff’s use of the word in the newsroom editorial meeting, Evans informed Plaintiff that he could not say the word because he was white—a statement that would have violated the Station’s EEO policies, according to the Station’s own human resources manager. Thereafter, Plaintiff overheard Evans telling another employee that “people get fired for using that word.” The next day, Evans called Leslie Tyler at home to inform her about Plaintiff’s use of the word in the previous day’s newsroom editorial meeting. Evans told Tyler that as the Assistant News Director, Tyler should know what had happened in the meeting and how people reacted to it. Later that week, Evans told Becky Rogers, who is white, that “the only people that have said anything so far have been black people. I think it’s important they know that you felt offended.” On July 1, 2007, Rogers emailed Tyler about Plaintiff’s behavior in the newsroom editorial meeting.

Plaintiff was suspended on June 29th. A reasonable jury could conclude based upon the evidence that as of July 9th, Plaintiff was going to be permitted to return to work. Mike Renda wrote an email to Ameena Ali on July 9th stating that “[w]e need to talk about return scenario—news would like him to return Wed.” [Footnote 5: Renda testified in his deposition that a decision had not yet been made on whether to bring Plaintiff back or not, and that his email meant that news (meaning Leslie Tyler and Phil Metlin) wanted to know for scheduling purposes whether Plaintiff would be back on Wednesday. Similarly, Ameena Ali testified that Renda’s email, which stated that “News would like him to return Wed,” actually meant that “they [news] were working on scheduling and they were anxious to know, you know, what was going on.” Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, see Brown, 581 F.3d at 179, it is reasonable to assume that Renda’s email establishes that Defendants were contemplating bringing Plaintiff back to work by Wednesday, July 11th.] Defendants deny that any decision had been made by July 9th to allow Plaintiff to return to work, however. On July 12th, Plaintiff was terminated. The only evidence in the record about what happened between July 9th and July 12th involves Joyce Evans. On July 10th, Evans called Ali to inform her that Evans was receiving phone calls from the NABJ and the PABJ regarding Plaintiff’s use of the word at the newsroom editorial meeting. Evans also told Ali that “people [were] talking to [her] on the street” about Plaintiff’s behavior. However, Evans testified in her deposition that she did not actually talk to anyone at the NABJ or the PABJ—she received a voicemail from each organization. Moreover, Evans could not name anyone “on the street” who had spoken to her regarding Plaintiff’s behavior. Evans also told Ali that she was concerned about her on-air chemistry with Plaintiff in light of Plaintiff’s actions. Before Evans’s call, Ali testified that she had no reason to believe that Plaintiff was going to be terminated. Plaintiff was terminated two days after Evans’s conversation with Ali.

Plaintiff also contends that Evans has a history of similar discriminatory behavior. (See Pl.’s Resp. 71-72.) In 2003, a white former Fox News anchor whose contract had not been renewed sued Fox for discrimination in violation of Title VII. See Noonan v. Fox Television Stations of Phila., Inc., No. 03-5044 (E.D. Pa. 2003). The complaint in Noonan alleged that the plaintiff’s contract had not been renewed because Fox wanted to replace him with an African American, which it did after his contract expired. See Complaint, Noonan v. Fox Television Stations of Phila., Inc., No. 03-5044 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2003), ECF No. 2. In her deposition in Noonan, Evans testified that she had told the General Manager and two News Directors that Fox “had a [news] team that was very white,” and that people were concerned that a Fox News billboard with four white anchors was located in predominantly African American and Latino neighborhoods. (Evans Dep. (Noonan) 56:8-9, 58:20-59:4, June 24, 2004, Pl.’s Resp. Ex. TT, ECF No. 28.) When asked who was expressing concern about the racial composition of Fox’s news team, Evans was unable to name anyone specifically, attributing this view to “people on the street” (id. at 57:20) and “people leaving a voice mail.” (Id. at 64:14-15.) Plaintiff argues that the actions of Joyce Evans and his other coworkers in the wake of the June 23rd newsroom editorial meeting were motivated by discriminatory animus and therefore do not provide a permissible basis for his termination. In essence, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants liable for the discriminatory animus of his coworkers. Defendants counter that general manager Mike Renda was the sole decisionmaker in terminating Plaintiff’s employment, and there is no evidence that his actions were based on Plaintiff’s race.

We conclude that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether “those exhibiting discriminatory animus influenced or participated in the decision to terminate” Plaintiff. See Abramson, 260 F.3d at 286. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and making all inferences in his favor, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff’s coworkers in general, and Joyce Evans in particular, exhibited discriminatory animus and influenced the decision to terminate Plaintiff. See id. Evans did not hear Plaintiff’s remarks firsthand. Yet she involved herself in the situation from nearly the beginning, when she called Leslie Tyler at home on a Sunday to inform her about what Plaintiff had said, and remained involved until two days before Plaintiff’s termination, when she phoned Ameena Ali to express concerns about her on-air chemistry with Plaintiff if he returned to work and to inform Ali that “people on the street” were offended by Plaintiff’s behavior. A jury must assess the actions and motivation of Evans, Plaintiff’s coworkers, and the Station management. Viewing the record as a whole, and keeping in mind the Third Circuit’s admonition that “[s]ummary judgment is to be used sparingly in employment discrimination cases,” Doe, 527 F.3d at 369, we conclude that Plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to “believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer’s action.” Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 264. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate on Plaintiff’s discrimination claims under Title VII, the PHRA, and § 1981.

Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Defendants argue that there is insufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. We agree with Defendants that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim cannot survive summary judgment.

To establish that Defendants subjected him to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, Plaintiff must show that: “(1) he suffered intentional discrimination because of his [race]; (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular; (3) it detrimentally affected him; (4) it would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same protected class in his position; and (5) there is a basis for vicarious liability.” Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 262 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251, 260 (3d Cir. 2001) (alterations in the original)).

For Plaintiff to prevail on a claim for hostile work environment, the Station’s discriminatory conduct “must be so ‘severe and pervasive’ that it actually ‘alter[s] the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create[s] an abusive working environment.’” Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 786 (1998) (alterations in the original). In determining whether the conduct at issue is sufficiently extreme to constitute a violation of Title VII, we must consider the “totality of the circumstances.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. City of Phila., 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)). These circumstances “may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993).

Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that he was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff himself states that the hostile work environment only commenced when he said the word at the June 23, 2007, newsroom editorial meeting. Plaintiff was suspended on June 29th and terminated on July 12th. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that he endured a hostile work environment for the final 19 days of his two-and-a-half-year employment at the Station. He spent all but six of these 19 days at home while suspended. Plaintiff alleges that several incidents during those six days show that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. He points to Joyce Evans’s admonition that Plaintiff could not understand what it feels like to be called a “nigger” and could not use that word at work. He states that his use of the word in the newsroom editorial meeting “elicited a negative response from both coworkers and management because he is white.” He also contends that his coworkers tried to ruin his career by feeding false and defamatory information about him to the media.

We cannot agree that the behavior recited by Plaintiff constitutes behavior that is so severe or so pervasive that it gave rise to a claim for hostile work environment. Indeed, these are precisely the kind of “isolated incidents” and “offhand comments” that the Supreme Court has warned “will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 271 (2001) (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788). Plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his hostile work environment claim.

Again, under the premise of racial equality a court could note that there is a severe and pervasive discriminatory social norm, clearly present at the FOX station, that Whites are not permitted to utter certain words. The court's premise is not racial equality because that is not the law's premise. The conclusion thus is that hostile anti-White social norms are simply normal, and so they are also justified in the workplace.

IV. CONCLUSION

This case presents unique issues regarding an employer’s liability under Title VII for cultural assumptions about a word that is considered by many to be the most offensive in the English language. Plaintiff portrays himself as a victim of political correctness run amok, while Defendants portray themselves as employers who made the only choice they could in response to an employee who repeatedly uttered “the most noxious racial epithet in the contemporary American lexicon,” Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1034 (9th Cir. 1998), resulting in problems in the workplace and significant adverse publicity. Whether Plaintiff was a victim of discrimination or his own poor judgment is for a jury to decide. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ R. Barclay Surrick
U.S. District Judge

The court implicitly accepts the "cultural assumptions about a word that is considered by many to be the most offensive in the English language", viewing Burlington either as "a victim of discrimination or his own poor judgment". The latter possibility implies he is the wrongdoer, that he should have known Whites can be punished for being uppity.

It is easy to imagine that if the races in this case were reversed the situation would be regarded very differently by all concerned. Supposing a black employee brought suit after being dismissed for saying a word, any word, that White employees also used, FOX could be expected to simply settle, perhaps sensing the likelyhood that arguing White co-workers are not "similarly situated" to a black plaintiff could be interpreted as prima facie discrimination, not to mention the bad publicity that would result from any suggestion there are words Whites can use but blacks can't. Whether or not such arguments were even made the black plaintiff could still file his own request for summary judgment and have a reasonable expectation that the court would be deferential to the sensibilities and sensitivities of "African Americans" and grant it.

Not only does it appear that FOX treated Burlington to a different standard and fired him because he is White, the law itself regards him and his claims as inferior specifically because he is White. Since the law of the land discriminates against Whites, why shouldn't employers or anybody else do so?

Other questions come to mind.

The court recognizes "white" and "African American" as racial classifications. Who decides which classifications are valid and what the proper term for them is? The term for blacks has constantly shifted, so isn't it reasonable to expect that at some point older terms like "negro" or "black", euphemisms like "the n-word", or even the term "African American" itself, will also become socially and legally forbidden for Whites to speak?

Who assigns these classifications to the various actors? If one of Burlington's great-grandparents was in fact a negro, would he be entitled to claim he is "African American" and thus entitled to say nigger?

Ameena Ali and Barclay Surrick play a central role in this case. Why are their racial classifications not provided?

Does the law agree with Metlin's implicit assumption that jews are a "protected class"? Are jews thus also entitled not to suffer hearing certain words from lesser Whites?

Isn't "anti-discrimination" just another code word for anti-White?

- - -

Philadelphia Inquirer report dated 5 Jan 2011: Trial set for firing over use of 'n' word.

Philadelphia Inquirer report dated 5 July 2007: Fox's Tom Burlington suspended.

Lawrence Auster, Champion of "The Jews"

The need for a better word for anti-Semitism. Commissar Auster is searching for a new term because "anti-semite" isn't working as well as he would like. Oh, and it seems the facts aren't good for "the jews" either, so they'll need to be replaced too.

Auster refers, indirectly, to Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin. After three years of presenting facts and naming names I stand by what I've written.

Polanskization

The overwhelming instinctive revulsion amongst Whites created by the spectacle of a judaized transnational cosmopolitan elite rushing to hysterically defend the undefendable actions of a depraved tribemate.

Subclasses of Extremophile

From wikipedia:

An extremophile is an organism that thrives in and may even require physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental to the majority of life on Earth.

The article then describes a few specific types. Acidophile, alkaliphile, and thermophile for example. For some reason the following classes are missing.

Minorophile: An organism that thrives in and even acts to generate a cosmopolitan, multicultural, multiracial, "majority minority" environment. Their mating call is "Diversity is our greatest strength." Obsessed with eradicating white bread and plain vanilla.

Fiscalophile: An organism capable of concocting devious methods of creating wealth. Typically the riches are derived from thin air, by borrowing from future generations, or by harnessing the power of the state to extract it from other organisms - often using a combination of these techniques. Usually found near large concentrations of money acquired under mysterious circumstances.

Gulagophile: An organism capable of silencing, banishing, imprisoning, torturing, or killing other organisms while claiming that it favors high ideals such as liberty, equality, and/or fraternity. A ruthless competitor, resistant to all forms of shame or decency.

Obscurophile: An organism that clouds the thinking of other organisms. Expert in both logic and fallacy these organisms most commonly gather whenever and wherever discussion concerns the traits of and differences between organisms.

Polyextremophile organisms fall in two or more categories, which means they thrive that much better in conditions detrimental to the majority of other organisms.

Obama: Just Say Si

Barack Obama: Your Children Should Learn To Speak Spanish.

Transcription via World On the Web:

I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about we need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, we want just ... we want English-only.

He begins with a lie. He understands what this means. He wants Americans to accept their fate as a conquered people.

Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But ... understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English—they’ll learn English—you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language

More lies. The invaders aren't learning English. That's the only reason Americans have to learn spanish. The emphasis on children makes it even clearer. The invaders should all know English by the time our kids learn spanish, right Obama? So why bother? Because he's talking about us adapting to latino colonization.

Widespread multilingualism isn't a good thing, it's a bad thing. Tower of Babel bad.

Bilingualism is part of the bigger lie of "diversity". What it really means is division. The spanish language and the latinos who carry it here bring us confusion. They bring resentment. This is a natural and predictable consequence of alien invasion.

You know, it’s embarrassing ... when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?

Embarassed? About what? The vast majority of people who have ever lived, who will ever live, master only one language. Why do Obama and the Pilgrim-haters who support him only pathologize stupid, lazy, bitter, racist Americans for this? What's next, we're inferior because we don't speak chinese?

Why compare Americans to Europeans? Why not compare us to the latinos Obama wants to replace us with? How many latinos speak more than one language? How many of them know what irony means? Because it's ironic that the amerinds and mestizos use the word reconquista - speaking in the tongue of the European conquerors they supposedly detest - to describe what they want to do, and are doing, to America. Hypocrites.

Does Obama know what reconquista means? How about raza, aztlan, mecha, guero, and gabacho? Those are the very first spanish words Americans should learn.

Where I come from we have a very useful expression. Fuck that shit. Pardon my French. Feel free to translate it into spanish, ebonics, and hebrew for the benefit of Obama and his supporters.

We're White, We're Indigenous, Get Used to It

Lawrence Auster, self-styled advocate of the "white" West, writes and blogs regularly about the West's troubles. At first I found his analysis refreshing. Then I found it confusing. Now I see him as an obstacle. A false friend. A poseur.

Auster regularly exhorts Whites to reassert themselves, to call their enemies and problems by their proper names. But then he just as regularly peevishly denounces Whites who assert themselves in the wrong way or use inappropriate words.

Three months ago Auster was explaining why we shouldn't capitalize White:

Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., "White people," "Black people," which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR's usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.

Oh, I see. That must be why standard usage is to write "hard-working Latino", "hard-working African-American", and "hard-working white". Because white is just a color. Just an adjective. That makes sense.

No it doesn't. The standard usage is inconsistent. I assert that it's wrong.

In the same post Auster explained why he thinks some words are capitalized and others are not:

All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize "white," a color which should not be capitalized, and put "Jew," a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.

More transparent rot. If Auster were as concerned about Whites as he is about jews he'd insist on the same standards, regardless of conventions. He wouldn't insult Whites by pretending the word is an adjective, and he'd argue that "white" is dehumanizing instead of making excuses for it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the way I capitalize words has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with consciousness. I am conscious of the anti-White convention. I consciously reject it. To drive home the point I invert it.

There are more symptoms of Auster's sorta, kinda, half-hearted pro-"white" pose.

Just a few days ago, Auster asked, Why are white Westerners describing themselves as "indigenous" peoples?:

I protest the recent and expanding use of "indigenous" to describe white Western majority peoples, as Rick Darby used it innocently and in passing in another thread. Yes, in the simplest sense "indigenous" means "originating where it is found," and therefore could, I suppose, be used to describe the British, since the white British population goes back to the Neolithic. But the word would not apply to white Americans, the earliest ancestors of whom came to this continent 400 years ago.

But there is a larger problem with "indigenous." It doesn't just mean native to a location. It also implies people in their original, undeveloped state. Traditionally, we never thought of a people in a developed society, with complex institutions and a national state, as "indigenous," even if their ancestors had lived in that land for 10,000 years.

Further, indigenous is typically used by outside people who are studying or protecting some tribal group.

For majority whites to call themselves "indigenous" is exactly like whites asking for their "rights" under multiculturalism. It is an admission of surrender to multiculturalism, whites' transformation of themselves into just another minority group needing protection, rather than being and asserting themselves as the leading and dominant people of our respective countries.

Western peoples thus gratuitously diminish and weaken themselves by referring to themselves as indigenous. As a self-description of white Westerners it is incorrect, unnecessary, demoralizing, and defeatist.

Then, notwithstanding his rationale for "white", Auster writes:

The Brits seem to go out of their way to make themselves into nothing. They now even spell the the word "west," as in "western civilization," in lower case. They're so wimpy they won't even capitalize the name of their own civilization. Next they'll be spelling Britain as "britain."

He goes on to quote a Mr. Carpenter who tells us "That is pathetic", "Quite disgraceful", and "Very sad". Auster says we must not call ourselves "indigenous" and we must write "West", otherwise we are wimps. But we must write "Jew" and we must write "white", otherwise we are haters.

Scolding. Lecturing. Constraining. Upbraiding. Insulting. Talk about demoralizing. We should assert ourselves as the dominant people of our respective countries, but by using the wrong words we gratuitously diminish ourselves. Please sir, if it's not too much trouble sir, how and when may we "whites" assert ourselves?

Piffle. Why do "whites" write "west"? Come now Auster. Use your own logic. It's nothing but a mere direction. Right?

And why are White Westerners describing themselves as "indigenous"? This also isn't a difficult question to answer. But Auster and his philo-semitic peanut gallery don't want an answer. They are only interested in heaping shame and insults on "whites". The behavior of these hecklers hints at the problem. They aren't White. They want "whites" to do what they see as good and necessary to help jews, but they attack uppity Whites who think or act in their own interests.

The short answer these Austerites don't want to face is that Whites no longer dominate their respective countries. Beyond broad swipes at vague "liberals" the Austerites also don't want to discuss why.

Whites used to dominate not only their own countries, but most of the globe. Nowadays we're indoctrinated that this was a monstrous crime. We're reminded in many ways on a daily basis that everybody and anybody is more important than Whites now, and jews are on top. How did this happen? Well, in large part because Whites relinquished control. We've been badgered, harangued, brow-beaten, and guilt-tripped for generations, first by humanists and abolitionists, then increasingly by resentful, self-interested, culturally and economically revolutionary jews. Many Whites were convinced that giving away power and opening the borders was the right and noble thing to do. So now today we are inundated and assaulted by a broad coalition of resentful self-interested "minorities".

I have referred to myself as indigenous several times in the past few years. I will do so again. The reason why is not difficult to explain. But I'm not surprised Lawrence Auster pretends it is a mystery.

Under the increasingly pro-jew, anti-White politically correct regime it has become the norm to extend preferential status to "indigenous" people. Like most everything in this upside-down regime the preference is selective and applies only to non-whites. Of course this violates the holy PC tenet of non-discrimination and reveals PC's equalitarian claptrap for the steaming pile of manure it is. Just as in Animal Farm - where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The word indigenous has a common, biological sense. It means native, and that's precisely what any decent dictionary says. The meaning that liberals prefer is deliberately contorted to serve their politics. For them indigenous means non-white native. How absurd it seems for anti-liberal Auster to accept and defend this definition. Unless we remember his philo-semitic imperative. Yes, Auster wants Whites to assert ourselves. Somebody has to do something about the muslims and blacks he's freaked out about. He just doesn't want us showing anywhere near the same consciousness for ourselves and our interests as jews do. Let's avoid the whole native-alien can of worms. Somebody might make an argument that serial immigrant jews don't want to hear.

But why should Whites avoid it? Let's speak some truth to power. Immigrant invaders are the precious darlings of our academia, media, religious, business, and political leaders. Our institutions and lands are ever more thoroughly infiltrated by hostile aliens and their advocates. Sometimes it seems all we Whites have left is principled whining. That and an inexorable leftward slide is certainly all our sold-out mainstream conservatives offer. How depressing and defeatist it is to acknowledge this reality. Shame on me.

So a few uppity Whites reject the liberal definition and refer to ourselves as indigenous. Some, like me, may even intend it as a finger in our enemy's eye. A White calling himself indigenous under the PC regime is like a cow calling himself a pig in Animal Farm. It's a sure fire way to piss off the pigs. It's also a perfectly apt and legitimate way to distinguish ourselves from the "undocumented migrants" that progressivists and globalists, neocons and neolibs, are all so fond of.

No, we're not going to save the West with words. But neither is this why we're losing it.

At Rick Darby's Reflecting Light commenter Greg, referring to Auster's protest against the use of indigenous, writes:

We are in a pickle, us Brits certainly. Sadly, our simplest road to freedom is blocked by some of those who say they are our friend.

The only absolutely non-negotiable policy uniting all 'acceptable' parties is support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And all that we require not to go the way of the Garamantians is for our people to decide they are due equal consideration from their government in this respect as are the Jewish people.

But there's anti-semitism you see, while there isn't, for some reason, any anti-gentilism. And this double-standard includes people like Laurence Auster, who would quickly disavow the BNP if it were to propose that we Brits had (by necessity) equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us.

This heading us off at the pass-to-freedom, is also, I think, why he opposes the word "indigenous" applied to Europeans.

Greg makes a valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Auster, naturally, can muster only insults and evasion:

How pathetic is Greg in his miscomprehension.

The BNP has a history as a seriously anti-Semitic organization that totally marginalized it. BNP's own leader—on HIS initiative, not MINE—has led a serious intellectual effort over the last several years to reject that anti-Semitic past. I have consistently praised him for that effort. Sounds like Greg ought to complaining about Nick Griffin, not about me.

Second, the fact that Greg thinks my criticism of the word "indigenous" is aimed at WEAKENING the British people, rather than at STRENGTHENING them by getting them to drop a self-description that makes them sound like the equivalent of a third-world people, shows him as so stupid that he's not deserving of being treated with minimal respect.

Auster's criticism of words is beside the point. The point is Auster is a half-hearted part-time supporter of "whites", but an ardent and unwavering supporter of jews. As Greg said, the problem is that Whites and Christians do not have "equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us". To my knowledge Auster has never addressed this point, even though he constantly urges "whites" to assert ourselves and often argues that "we" can draw distinctions from muslims, blacks, and latinos. Faced with a White who wishes to distinguish themselves from jews he either ignores the point or devolves into a gibbering anti-anti-semitic robot.

But anti-semitism is the grandaddy of all the isms that have been used to deconstruct the West. Racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, and islamophobism all derive from the same mindset: pathologization of the familiar and normal, glorification of the alien and abnormal. The most sacred principle is non-discrimination. The highest goal, diversity. None of it is honest. It all serves as cover for attacking anything European, anything Christian, and anything White. Anti-liberal Auster knows this well. He regularly echoes this view. Minus anti-semitism. When faced with criticism of jews Auster simply cannot help himself. Both his anti-liberalism and his intellect evaporate. What remains is primitive emotion and paranoia, which he then projects onto his stupid, evil, psychologically deficient enemies. There's a name for jews who like to tell Whites how stupid and evil and psychologically deficient they are. Auster calls them liberals. They are, in his opinion, indistinguishable from non-jewish liberals and, by the way, it's stupid and evil to try and tell the two apart.

When Auster criticizes liberal jews it is usually because he thinks they're harming jews. Just in case anyone thinks he's being anti-semitic he'll point out how stupid and evil Whites are who think these jews also harming Whites:

The only group more out of touch with reality than liberal Jews are the white nationalist anti-Semites, who, following the theories of Kevin MacDonald, believe that the Jews are compelled by Darwinian evolutionary forces to destroy white gentile societies so as to advance their own power. These anti-Semitic idiots haven't noticed that something like half the Jews of Israel (not to mention most Jews in the U.S.) support policies leading to the destruction of the Jewish state. How does THAT fit into the MacDonald thesis of merciless Jewish evolutionary competition against non-Jews?

There is a veritable army of jews in and out of Western universities who dedicate their lives to critcizing Whites and arguing about what's good for jews. In comparison there are only a handful of Whites criticizing jews or discussing what's good for Whites. And they are constantly harrassed for it.

Lawrence Auster, erstwhile defender of the "white" West and encourager of "white" assertiveness has a problem with liberal jews. Not to worry. It's nothing that smearing assertive White nationalists and one of the few assertive White academics can't fix!

Here's a brain bender for you Larry. How does the extreme liberalism of the jewish state or its eventual destruction due to that, do anything but support the thesis that jewish "liberals" are also harming the West? How are MacDonald's theories concerning how millenia of diaspora shaped jewish group evolutionary strategies invalidated by the failure of the six-decade old jewish state?

Why shouldn't X's discuss and debate the value of their relationship with Y's? Why is this unspeakably stupid and evil only when X is White and Y is jew? Auster and his choir are worried about the violent jew-hating muslims flooding the West. They're worried about the violent jew-hating blacks already in Crown Heights. They feel free to discuss what they'd like to do and why. As Rachel S. describes:

At that point our side would need unapologetic, respected voices as reinforcements to keep our burgeoning movement from being killed. Where are those voices? Where is the media to disseminate them in the same volume? We need slogans and imagery as well; built on a foundation philosophy, culture, arts; this movement will take decades to get going if it is to be done correctly. Each aspect of the fight could use a separate organization that was tied to the whole. We need the thinkers, the people who help them do the administrative work, the go-betweens who translate the ideas into graspable concepts for those "average" people who sense there is something wrong with America, but will be turned off by anything that seems extreme. AND we need to think about how any growing racial consciousness by whites will be seized upon by the neo-Nazi movement, and how we would nullify that "guilt by association" effect that would occur when the uninformed see an out of context media clip of David Duke championing this-and-that law as a victory for his side. I am reminded of an article you linked to awhile back about the need for a new conservative apologetics.

Got that? They need us "average" people, but they don't want us "seized upon" by "neo-Nazis". Oh and by the way, we need to do something about that guilt by association effect. You know, that nasty liberal tactic where, for instance, you call anyone who doesn't put jews on a pedestal a "neo-Nazi".

Auster dubs his choir's plan An incrementalist strategy, which to me seems sickeningly similar to the cultural marxist "long march through the institutions". There seems to be no appreciation for what we have already lost, or that it cannot be restored by destroying what destroyed it. Mark Jaws (who is jewish) writes:

Those of us over 50 can remember when whites could talk openly about black crime and other assorted social pathologies associated with blacks. However, by 1975 Stalinist-type PC thought control made such discourse taboo. If we are to alter the unacceptable status quo, we must adopt the tactics and strategy used by our adversaries which brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

When we study the incremental approach used by civil rights activists we see an effective method that applied pressure on the white Southern power structure one obstacle at a time. In the early 1950s the civil rights movement focused on overturning school segregation. As soon as Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was settled in 1954, attention was drawn to the Montgomery bus boycott in early 1955, and only the boycott. There were no accompanying demands for affirmative action or for banning the Confederate flag. But when the white power structure gave way on one issue, the civil rights movement quickly moved to the next target of opportunity, and so on.

We must adopt a similar strategy if we are to dismantle the liberal PC multicultural stranglehold on our culture. First, we must concentrate on toppling the weakest tower of this complex by breaking the long-imposed silence on black-on-white crime. We can do this with a tide of letters to our newspapers and to our politicians, and, more importantly, with calls to radio talk shows. By such a show of concentrated, unapologetic force we can bring black-on-white crime out in the open and put blacks on the defensive, especially given the candidacy and likely election of Barak Obama, which I believe is a gift from heaven. If Barak and Michelle Obama can sit their butts in a racist church for 20 years, then how can it be racist if we talk about black-on-white crime? If Barak and Michelle had no problem with black liberation theology which calls for "the destruction of the white enemy," then why can't we talk about white victims of black crime? If Michelle can claim her husband "as a black man is in danger just by going to the gas station," then why can't we talk about white men in comparable--and real--danger, and from whom? If Michelle and Barak want an open and frank discussion on race, then let's give it to them--but from a direction which they do not expect and cannot deal with.

The first step we must take in restoring white racial consciousness is to assert our right OPENLY to discuss our concern, dismay and outrage at the staggering amount of black-on- white crime the past 40 years. We must make it acceptable for whites to engage in such discourse, period. No need to use disparaging racist talk or hyperbole. Just stick to the facts--and we have plenty at our disposal in "The Color of Crime" and other government statistics.

No.

The first step is for self-righteous jews to step off their pedestal. Show Whites the respect you demand for jews. Stop pathologizing us. Stop smearing us. Stop insulting us. Stop blaming all the West's ills on us and stop downplaying jewish control and responsibility.

For Austerites all of the above applies, only moreso. We don't need another long march of destruction. And we don't need "friends" obsessed with manipulating us. You make distinctions - stop telling Whites we cannot. You say you like Whites - act like it. Treat us as equals. You can start by capitalizing White.

UPDATE 9 Aug 2008: On 19 July Auster provided a non-answer to this post titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist?, though he doesn't quote me or link here. He asserts that "[c]apitalization is governed by the nature of the word, not by a political or racial agenda".

Today, in An Orwellian spelling change, Auster shows: A) that he recognizes "the makers of these rules--liberals all" have an agenda, and B) that his own agenda can motivate him to defy those rules on occasion.