Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tila Tequila

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Insider: Tila Tequila Is A Nazi

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

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

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

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

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

White Privilege and Jewish Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Segan and O'Hehir's Big Damning White Problems

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

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

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

This is a big problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My emphasis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pressure Cooker Sympathies

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

From Hollywoodism (one facet of jewsmediaism):

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

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

P.S. Sirota:

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

Avoiding The Real Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Lessons in Privilege

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mishpocheh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being yourself is not a talent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puttin da Muhfugging Bullit Throo da Muhfugging Boozeye

Women Ready For SHTF

Youtube hosts a broad selection of gun-related videos. The titilating sub-genre sandwiched in the middle of the video above is probably among the more popular. In fact, the gun video genre as a whole represents just the tip of an enormously popular and vibrant American gun subculture. The Constitution-reading, law-abiding portion of this subculture is also overwhelmingly White. Even so, it's hard to find videos like this on YouTube. This video doesn't just titilate. It expresses a pro-White political position.

The black man is alarmed because he sees that, when the Schumer Hits The Fan, Whites will not only be well armed but better prepared. The contrasting sights and sounds - vulgar threat, bonny poise - stir deep, primal emotions. The women shooters don't have to say a word. Any White man with a properly functioning limbic system gets this message. As disgust and tingle pass, there is anger. White women shouldn't need to take up arms. Something is wrong in a society where they see such a need. Racial pride wells up, however, with the recognition that we do prepare well to face challenges, in whatever form they come.

Where we are weak is identity, which compounds our difficulty in properly identifying threats to us. Whites don't have a problem hitting the bullseye. Whites have a problem deciding which bullseye to hit. Ultimately, this is because Whites have a problem thinking clearly about who "we" is.

The 1960s-era Wally Butterworth voice-over at the end adds historic context. What has gone wrong started going wrong a long time ago. The Butterworth commentary is a reminder that for decades now the struggle for cultural and political power in the US, for it's identity, hasn't primarily been with blacks, but with jews. Neither he nor Rockwell tried to fool themselves or others into thinking that someday blacks would run America. Like George Lincoln Rockwell, Butterworth rightly made a point of calling upon Christian Whites to defend the country they had built. Today it is only more obvious that the assault is on White interests as a race, not constrained by borders or creed.

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse

During a discussion on MSNBC's The Cycle concerning Mitt Romney‘s assertion that President Obama should "take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago", Touré, the program's co-host and designated angry black man, got angry:

“That really bothered me,” he said. “You notice [Romney] said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”

“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”

“Do you see how dishonest that is?” she asked.

Touré denied calling anyone a racist, which prompted Cupp to say, “Certainly you were implying that Mitt Romney and the base will respond to this dog-whistle, racially-charged coding, and hate Obama, the angry black man?”

“Absolutely,” he replied.

“That’s so irresponsible,” Cupp answered back.

“This is not a revolutionary comment,” Touré later said. “This is a constituency all-white party that rejects the black vote.”

Indeed, anti-White rhetoric in media and politics is a long-term trend. Touré's comments call to mind Cassandra Jackson's Huffington post article from June, Why the War on Affordable Health Care is a War on Blacks and Latinos, which I discussed in a podcast titled Guilt-Tripping.

Niggerization, if the term has any meaningful sense, describes a political environment such as we have today, whereby race-conscious blacks like Touré freely project their own racial fears and animosities onto hopelessly deracinated Whites like Romney. This niggerization was preceeded and is enabled by judaization, whereby race-conscious jews lecture and lord over deracinated Whites. For example, in faulting the Republican party for being too White, Touré is simply aping the attitudes and tactics of race-conscious jews. As Harold Meyerson wrote in 2008:

Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz reiterated the point in January:

There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum -- to African Americans.

The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.

Non-Whites who participate in the discourse hosted by the thoroughly judaized corporate media are expected to wear their racial identity on their sleeve and regularly present their race-based grievances against Whites. Any White who might respond from a perspective explicitly favorable to Whites has already been excluded or removed. The deracinated Whites who remain can only sputter helplessly about how "divisive" and "irresponsible" their unrestrained racial antagonists are, the pretense being, despite constant reminders otherwise, that the only responsible divide is ideological.

The most notorious icons of Whiteness - Romney, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity - are strictly judeo-conservative, afforded their limelight only so long as they profess love and respect for jews and Israel. Tellingly, it is these deracinated, pro-jew Whites who are most often identified as "nazis", accused of using dog-whistles to appeal to Whites, while secretly hating jews.

What we see here are the reality-inverting, guilt-tripping tactics I referred to in my discussion of Jackson. Non-Whites are using the jewish playbook, passively-aggressively accusing Whites of sneakily conspiring to stereotype, scapegoat, and even war on them. One clear marker is how they unapologetically assert their Otherness even as they pathologize and demonize Whites for noticing. It taps into decades of cultural marxism and anti-White propaganda, and is ultimately based on a centuries-old jewish blame-shifting narrative that put Whites on the defensive back when blacks were still in chains.

The simple fact is that non-Whites are waging and currently winning a war against Whites. It is a war the vast majority of Whites will not think or speak of, much less fight. The more Whites concede, the more non-Whites demand. Their chauvinists fight more or less openly for the interests of their people, allying with each other against Whites. All Whites get in the judaized, niggerized mainstream is indirect, ineffective code-speak.

Wade Michael Page Triggers an Outpouring of Anti-White Hate

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes itself as a "civil rights" organization, yet they focus almost exclusively on pathologizing and demonizing White people, especially those who identify as White and express explicitly pro-White attitudes. The SPLC does not pathologize or demonize non-Whites who express explicitly pro-non-White attitudes. The SPLC is not hostile toward all people acting or organizing according to racial identity - just Whites.

Powerful media organizations like CBS, Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post parrot the SPLC's anti-White talking points.

These media organizations do not report or object to the SPLC's anti-White bias. They agree with the SPLC. They aid and abet the SPLC's anti-White mission. They portray non-Whites who explicitly identify as non-White and have pro-non-White attitudes in a positive, approving light. They dedicate resources specifically to non-Whites who explicitly identify as non-White and have pro-non-White attitudes, and in doing so even publish explicitly anti-White attitudes.

The US government's Justice Department fights "racism" and defends "civil rights" in the same way the SPLC does. In practice this means pathologizing and demonizing Whites while promoting the interests of non-Whites. The US government's State Department is committed to Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism. They bring their fight to promote jewish interests to the entire world.

Would media organizations parrot the SPLC if the SPLC was collecting information and making negative statements about jewish music and jewish nationalism? Would they join in specifically pathologizing and demonizing jews who express explicitly pro-jewish attitudes? Would they do this after some jew commits some crime? What action would government organizations dedicated to combating "racism" and "anti-semitism" take against media organizations which published anti-jewish articles? Why don't the SPLC, the media, and the government treat jews like they treat Whites? Why don't they treat Whites like they treat jews? Aren't jews White?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

The SPLC, the media, the government say they oppose "racism" and "hate", but their narrative and rhetoric are dishonest. They attack Whites using terms and arguments they could but do not apply to non-Whites. They defend non-Whites using terms and arguments they could but do not apply to Whites. They are anti-White. What's more, they are pro-jew. In fact, the current regime is anti-White and pro-jew because it is effectively controlled by jews - dishonest jews who hate Whites.

[The image is taken from The Sikh Temple Shooter's Racist Tattoos, Deciphered, published by Mother Jones. The author, Adam Weinstein, cites the deceptively named Anti-Defamation League, an explicitly pro-jewish organization, describing how it hates, hates, hates David Lane's 14 words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.]

Enemy Media: Breivik's Views Too Popular

In the wake of a very active first week, The Guardian's Anders Behring Breivik page is relatively moribund today.

Anders Behring Breivik loses front-page power in Norway, published Friday, provides a hint why:

Silje Gloppen, a teacher, said however abhorrent Breivik's views, lessons needed to be learned from him. "Norwegians and, I believe, the rest of the world have to consider the possibility that this man is speaking the truth when he says he believes our 'Norwegian culture and ethnicity' is threatened by multiculturalism," she said.

Breivik's outlook is shared by "too many", she argued, citing the comment fields under articles on Norwegian newspaper websites, and a battle on Wikipedia pages related to the case between moderators and extremist writers trying to take hold of "the truth" on the internet.

"I am afraid the left side in politics have for too long failed to grasp that there are challenges with the new society that need to be discussed," she added.

Paul Brennan (paulrbrennan) has been silent since court adjourned Friday.

Helen Pidd (helenpidd) twits today that she's back in London where she will find it tricky to report further on the trial. She redirects those who are interested to Lars Bevanger (lbevanger) and Trygve Sorvaag (trygvesorvaag). She also cites Chris Elliott's op-ed, Open door: The readers' editor on … the problems of tweeting the Anders Behring Breivik trial, which in turn provides a reporter's rationalizations about why reporting testimony directly from Breivik's trial is bad:

A tweet goes straight from event to air – and stays there. It is a discrete package that may later form a strand of a larger, more complex, story, but which will, nevertheless, exist of itself, shorn of context.

It is an effective form of digital journalism and is increasingly first with the news – whether that comes from a journalist or a well-informed tweeter. However, it is reductive by nature. When the Guardian was planning coverage of the trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian extremist who has admitted killing 77 people, the Guardian's editorial team discussed whether tweeting was an appropriate tool.

Helen Pidd, the reporter who is covering the trial, was concerned beforehand that reducing "his justifications to a stream of 140-character soundbites" would be giving Breivik the platform he sought.

Pidd fingers the most important reason: Despite the reduction and distortion, she finds her enemy's position still too potent.

Pidd said: "I would say I have had far more comments from people thanking me for the 'grim but necessary' reports on Twitter than those complaining I was giving Breivik the platform he craved. Two followers tweeted me to say they were 'unfollowing' until I left Oslo because it was 'too much'."

She has gained almost 3,000 followers in four days, a number of whom were angry when she said she wasn't going to tweet everything on day one "because … they accused me of censorship".

She said she wasn't "completely comfortable with tweeting the trial", not least because so much of Breivik's ideology was formed online. But she felt it was important to engage readers, plus it does drive traffic to the website.

Breivik correctly identified the media and it's pundits as enemies. Those pundits are less forthright about it, but reading them closely it's clear they agree. They understand, at some level, that their multicult ideology is unpopular, that the verdict on it is already in. Now that they've gotten enough to reduce Breivik to "the Norwegian extremist who has admitted killing 77 people", that's the only context they want to provide.

Anti-White/Pro-Jew Hackers Attack A3P

The announcement left by the attackers at the American Third Position home page (down at the moment, the screenshot is from Google's cache) begins:

Jamie Kelso and American Third Position Hacked and Destroyed; Private Emails Expose Blatant Racism and Ties to Ron Paul

#ANONYMOUS #ANTIFASCIST #OPBLITZKRIEG #OCCUPYWALLSTREET #ANTISEC

DISCUSS ON PIRATEPAD OR IRC.ANONOPS.LI #OPBLITZKRIEG

Fellow anons: we are pleased to bring you the dismantling of a major US-based white supremacist network known as the "American Third Position"(A3P). These racist losers have chapters across the US, operate several white power websites, forums and online stores, and are even running a candidate in the 2012 elections. Although they try hard to maintain a professional public image to camouflage their vile racism, we're now airing all their dirty laundry all over the internet. Contained in this major dump are several thousand private forum messages, personal emails, internal organization notes, names, phone numbers, home addresses and other information on all of their members and supporters. It’s time for these cowardly suit and tie white supremacists to sleep with one eye open. Scared much?

In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul's racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage -- not to mention having authored the racist "Ron Paul Papers" and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups.

We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com. We went ahead and wiped those websites off the internet as well, dumping private messages and order information. Aside from us releasing his information such as his social security number, address, resume and private discussions, we also heard some folks went on a joyride with Kelso's credit card and made some lulzy purchases, including sex toy purchases and making donations to the Anti Defamation League and many others. Oops.

We call upon not only other antifascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilize this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags. It is essential if we wish to live in a world free from oppression to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets.

No Dialogue! No sympathy! Destroy White Supremacy!

*** DEFACED WEBSITES:
A3P sites:
http://american3rdposition.com
http://www.whitenewsnow.com
http://merlinmiller2012.com
http://virgilgoode2012.com

German Nazi forums and store:
http://www.nsl-forum.com
http://www.rhs-verdand.com

*** DOWNLOAD FROM:
http://www.nazi-leaks.info
http://www.p4rtyvan.net

Other articles on A3P:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-third-position
http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/Backgrounder:+American+Third+Position.htm

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=940
http://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/american-olympic-gold-medalist-joins-white-supremacist-political-group/

Table Of Contents:

Private Conversations from James Kelso and A3P emails

Private Forum discussions exemplifying connections between a3p and Ron Paul

More Forum Conversations Filled with Racism, Sexism. Transphobia etc

Addresses, phone numbers and other personal info on hundreds of A3P members,supporters and merchandise purchasers

Private Conversations

Taken from the following email accounts:
admin@american3rdposition.com
admin@whitenewsnow.com
contact@american3rdposition.com
jamie.kelso@american3rdposition.com
jamiekelso@whitenewsnow.com

**CONNECTIONS WITH BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY**

Title: Meeting Minutes for 1/7

. . .

Following this is a selection of private emails, as well as a long list of names, addresses and phone numbers.

The attackers also gained access to A3P's twitter account, renaming it "American3Pwned" and using it to post links to a variety of additional information, including post-attack exchanges they have had with A3P personnel.

The motives and intentions of the attackers are clearly stated:

We call upon not only other antifascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilize this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags. It is essential if we wish to live in a world free from oppression to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets.

No Dialogue! No sympathy! Destroy White Supremacy!

Only a handful of mainstream media outlets have so far reported on the attack. Whereas the Anonymous rhetoric is malevolent, specifically anti-White and cites the ADL and SPLC as authorities, mainstream reports overlook the malevolence and helpfully transliterate that rhetoric into a righteous assault on "nazis" while focusing on the guilt-by-association of various non-A3P political figures.

Anonymous attacks American Nazis, msnbc.com.
Anonymous Expose Nazi Third Position 'Bridging Tactic' with Ron Paul, International Business Times.
BNP links to US extremists revealed by Anonymous, The Guardian.

An Interview with Robert Stark

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE, 31 Jan 2012: The Stark Truth: Interview with Tanstaafl, Part 2 (mp3).

Anti-European Experts Driving Media Narrative on Breivik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later quote

“This will contribute to understanding and liberation”

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

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