Now turn to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (joined by the other three “liberal” justices). The first few paragraphs tell you everything you need to know about the left’s approach to race in this country. First, “the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow.” A shadow that, from the left’s perspective, white America never will get out from under. This is Justice Ginsburg’s major premise, and is repeatedly expressed in her opinion. Second, the only appropriate “remedy” for this past discrimination (which, of course, was very real) is racial bean-counting ad infinitum and requiring that the goods of society (here, high-level civil service positions) be doled out according to the demographic makeup of the population.

Half those “liberals” are jews, which explains their anti-White animus, and the other two are self-abnegating retards. But of course distinguishing between Whites and jews would be considered “anti-semitism” by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Auster, and if the government did distinguish, then doling things out “according to the demographic makeup of the population” wouldn’t be very good for jews. This is the main reason it doesn’t happen, even while “liberal” jews completely out of proportion with the demographic makeup of the population promote blacks and latinos replacing Whites.

The Journal and the EU:

In the larger sense, all ideologies that reduce the world to a single principle—whether that principle is individual freedom, or economic freedom, or sexual and expressive freedom, or equality of rights, or equality of wealth, or equality of cultures, or the supremacy of a culture or race, or Darwinian evolution, or material causation, or reason, or utility, or atheism, or God—must end as tyranny.

He forgot to mention the single principle “what’s good for jews”.

A documentary on the fraud of “racism” immediately brings to mind the similar but older fraud of “anti-semitism”. Bodeker could make a video on “anti-semitism” exposing just as many “disconnects” and “double-standards”. But questioning “anti-semitism” is much more problematic than questioning “racism”. For one thing, such a video would likely be banned from YouTube. And Larry Auster wouldn’t describe it in neutral terms, he’d condemn it to hell.

Diana West’s speech in Denmark blames “hate speech” and “hate crimes” laws on islam. Auster doesn’t disagree, pointing for instance to the dozens of “anti-semites” in European prisons for “holocaust denial”, or to Sheppard and Whittle, who it seems don’t rate a mention anywhere in Auster’s passing scene. Instead he writes:

West then says that instead of waging a war against terror or Islamization, we’ve been waging a war against alienating Islam, a war to avoid blaming Islam. And thus we have had ever increasing restrictions on speech about Islam. All that is good, and makes up the main body of the speech. But West, as good as she is, still doesn’t get to the bottom of the issue. Why are we set on not offending Islam? What are the principles that make us believe that we must not offend Islam? West does not say. Better than any other writer in the mainstream media, she knows that Islam is the problem. But she still lacks a theory to explain why Western intellectuals keep covering up this fact. The answer, as I see it, is that both the right-liberal (i.e. “conservative”) belief in a single universal humanity and the left-liberal (i.e. “liberal”) belief in the equality of all cultures means that we must never negatively judge or discriminate against any group.

The answer, as I see it, is something that Auster keeps covering up, which is that jews realize that anyone negatively judging or discriminating against any group leads inexorably back to negatively judging or discriminating against them. They were the first and are still the most protected “minority”.

Although I was an observant Jew during my years at Yale Law School, I was not very Jewish minded. I had no real interest in Israel, in oppressed Jews, in the Holocaust, in anti-Semitism (except as it minimally affected my career choices). It was as if my observance filled my quota of Jewish concern. I was so busy conforming to the ritual that I had no room in my life for more political Jewish issues. As I became somewhat less observant, after leaving Yale, I found myself becoming more Jewishly involved. The same was true for my boyhood friends, who have all become more active in Jewish political and communal affairs even as most have reduced the degree of their ritualistic observance.

Hmm. Is Lawrence Auster one of Dershowitz’s boyhood friends?