Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking

4 Comments

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.

Blog

The Science of Race as Clusters Rooted in a Biological Continuum

16 Comments

Tracing Ancestry, Researchers Produce a Genetic Atlas of Human Mixing Events, by Nicholas Wade, New York Times, 13 Feb 2014:

Having sampled genomes from around the world, they found they could detect about 95 distinguishable populations.

Though all humans have the same set of genes, their genomes are studded with mutations, which are differences in the sequence of DNA units in the genome. These mutations occur in patterns because whole sets of mutations are passed down from parent to child and hence will be common in a particular population. Based on these patterns, geneticists can scan a person’s genome and assign the ancestry of each segment to a particular race or population.

The Myers group has posted its results on a web page that records the degree of admixture in each population. The English, however, known to be a rich medley of Celts with invaders such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Norwegians, carry the notation “No strong evidence of admixture.” Dr. Myers said his method cannot yet detect genetic mixing between very similar populations, as was the case with the English and their invaders from Scandinavia and Northern Germany. He said he hoped to distinguish all these groups in a separate project on British ancestry.

The semitically correct emphasis is on admixture/mixing, though a closer look reveals the reality of race.

A genetic atlas of human admixture history, “Companion website for “A genetic atlas of human admixture history”, Hellenthal et al, Science (2014)”, lists the 95 “target populations” they distinguished:

Adygei, Armenian, Balochi, BantuKenya, BantuSouthAfrica, Basque, Bedouin, Belorussian, BiakaPygmy, Brahui, Bulgarian, Burusho, Cambodian, Chuvash, Colombian, Cypriot, Dai, Daur, Druze, EastSicilian, Egyptian, English, Ethiopian, EthiopianJew, Finnish, French, Georgian, GermanyAustria, Greek, Hadza, Han, HanNchina, Hazara, Hezhen, Hungarian, Indian, IndianJew, Iranian, Ireland, Japanese, Jordanian, Kalash, Karitiana, Lahu, Lezgin, Lithuanian, Makrani, Mandenka, Maya, MbutiPygmy, Melanesian, Miao, Mongola, Moroccan, Mozabite, Myanmar, Naxi, NorthItalian, Norwegian, Orcadian, Oroqen, Palestinian, Papuan, Pathan, Pima, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Sandawe, SanKhomani, SanNamibia, Sardinian, Saudi, Scottish, She, Sindhi, SouthItalian, Spanish, Surui, Syrian, Tu, Tujia, Tunisian, Turkish, Tuscan, UAE, Uygur, Uzbekistani, Welsh, WestSicilian, Xibo, Yakut, Yemeni, Yi, Yoruba

“Population genetics” research like this is a form of race science, with “population” serving as a rough euphemism for “race”, because in a broad sense a race is a cluster of relatively closely-related people. The clusters at the coarsest, continental scale are the ones most commonly associated with the word race today – the White, black, yellow and red races. But at the ethnic/national scale there are more clusters, like the 95 groups identified by this atlas. An even closer examination of the DNA would tease apart even finer distinctions, resolving larger clusters into sub-ethnic, clan and family strands, right on down to positively identifying an individual’s parents or siblings.

The propaganda that race is a social construct based on superficial attributes such as skin color, is a big lie. Race and racial distinctions are deeply rooted in biology. Though there are many clusters, at different scales, and the boundaries of those clusters are fuzzy, they are not arbitrary. As the article notes, “geneticists can scan a person’s genome and assign the ancestry of each segment to a particular race or population”. The same clusters people can distinguish with their senses alone correspond to the distinctions determinable by DNA alone.

Wade’s remark about the English reflects the clash between the jewish “nation of immigrants” narrative and the reality of Northwestern European genetic homogeniety.

Curiously, the atlas includes EthiopianJew and IndianJew but not the more numerous Ashkenazi and Sephardic clusters. Wade reported on the clustering of jews in June 2010, Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity:

The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City, Dr. Atzmon said.

Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find. The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long.

The research this NYT report discusses, Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry, concludes:

This study touches upon an issue that was raised over a century ago by Maurice Fishberg, Joseph Jacobs, and others about whether the Jews constitute a race, a religious group, or something else.29,30 In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. Within the study, each of the Jewish populations formed its own cluster as part of the larger Jewish cluster. Each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and variable admixture with European populations.

Whatever you want to call them, the point is that jews can be distinguished by their DNA. In fact, though neither Wade nor Hellenthal et al mention any jews in the “rich medley” of England, it’s not because finer analysis is required to detect them there, or anywhere else in Northwestern Europe. Finding “Lithuanian” and “Palestinian” admixture in the English, as illustrated by the attached image, seems to be a way of detecting the jews without noticing them.

Blog

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction

7 Comments

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.

Blog

State of The White Network Tonight (with Carolyn Yeager, Hadding Scott and Paul Hickman)

1 Comment

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Join Carolyn Yeager, Hadding Scott, Paul Hickman and I for one of our semi-regular round-table discussions on the Heretics’ Hour at the White network, live Monday at 9PM ET.

UPDATE: All-Hosts Get-Together (mp3)

Blog

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

16 Comments

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.