Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Lists

8 Comments

In “The Atlantic 50:” Pundit demographics Sailer writes:

The Atlantic Monthly has put together a list it calls The Atlantic 50, which it describes as “the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates:”

Rather than debate who is on the list, I’m going to use this list to answer a question I’ve been wondering about. Like Francis Galton in the 1860s, I like to take other people’s lists made for their own purposes and use them to answer my own questions, such as: What are the demographics of opinion-molders?

In Sailer’s estimation 50% of the pundits are jewish, while only 46% are White (96% “white” – 50% jewish), and 43% are Christian (23% Catholic + 20% Protestant). In response there were a few mentions of the jewish disproportion, the following two being the most negative:

Anonymous said…

Jewish 23.75 50%

Komment Kontrol will never allow me to say this, but there’s an element of self-fulfilling prophecy here – something along the lines of, “We write 50% of the commentary in this nation if and only if we declare that we write 50% of the commentary in this nation.”

Or maybe more like: “You are allowed to claim the other 50% of the commentary in this country if and only if we choose not to contest the claim.”

I just noticed the other day that you get the very same thing over at Wikipedia when you read a Bacharim biography versus a Shkotzim biography – for instance, compare the Wikipedia propaganda on Tarski [greatest thing since sliced bread; second coming of the Messiah] -vs- Church [hayseed hick redneck inbred troglodyte].

Anonymous said…

The 20 percent Protestant representation is not surprising and fits into the general late Roman Empire vibe the country has today. There have never been fewer Protestants on the Supreme Court or in Congress than there are today. And look at the demographics of Obama’s cabinet to really see the power shift: half-foreign; immigrants; children or grandchildren of immigrants. Catholic and Jewish by and large with perhaps two or three Protestants. You know you’re in trouble when Hilary Clinton is the best example one has of the old Protestant America. Obama’s maternal roots are deeply American but we all know what he thinks of his white heritage…he hates it.

But does the passing away of Protestant America matter? We’ll see.

In response came this:

Anonymous said…

if you guys are done whispering about the unspeakably powerful jewish/catholic cabal, (you guys DO realize how laughable and pathetic you sound, right? ever’thang would be all better if only hymie wasn’t keepin’ you down??)(i’ll BETCHA the vatican invented the AIDS virus, too! it’s clearly all part of a sinister centuries-in-the-making rothschild/opus dei plot for world domination! my god! this thing is huge! HUGE, i tell you!) maybe someone can answer this for a pore dumb redneck. krugman is number 1?!?

Note the characteristically anti-anti-semitic self-misidentification as a “pore dumb redneck”.

Komment Kontrol let my response through:

I realize how nervous and uncomfortable you sound. Something similar can be heard every time jewish disproportions are criticized.

50% of the list is jewish. It’s probably 100% philo-semitic. And for some strange reason anyone who finds this troubling has to be reminded, constantly, that they will be mocked for it. You might as well drop the pretense and simply remind us that it will soon be literally unspeakable, or at least illegal. That’s how laughable and pathetic the subject is.

The demographic I’m most concerned with here hasn’t been mentioned yet. It’s an issue “the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates” (in the Atlantic’s view) are especially adept at keeping from being debated.

Which of these people favor genocidal levels of immigration, whether shaped as “amnesty”, “comprehensive immigration reform”, or “open borders”

Dobbs, Hannity, and Limbaugh have taken more or less negative positions concerning illegal immigration, which could be seen as being at least half opposed. The rest I know something of are more or less in favor.

There is at least one person on the list with an explicitly dim view of Whites and Christians.

Harold Meyerson – Economy? What Economy?:

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.

Harold Meyerson – Hard-liners for Jesus:

As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it’s a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.

. . .

We’ve seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It’s more tribal than religious, and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst.

Is there anyone on the Atlantic list who has written similarly negative things concerning jews? Something that approximates Meyerson’s statements? More tribal than religious indeed.

Lists reflecting jewish disproportions are not difficult to find. Jewish power dominates at ‘Vanity Fair’ | Jewish News | Jerusalem Post, from 2007, is a good example. A list of lists can be found at A Summing Up – Achievements of Jews.

The double standards are clear. Jewish disproportions are good. White disproportions are “hate”. Attacking Whites is good. Defending Whites is “hate”.

Blog

Faux-White

31 Comments

I’ve used the term faux-White in essays and comments here and in other forums. It merits an explanation.

By faux-White I mean specifically those double-talking pro-jews who try to dictate to Whites who we are and what we’re permitted to think. Their rhetoric is also notably disingenously anti-“liberal”. They won’t squarely face the anti-White nature of neo-liberalism or the jewish interests it serves. They espouse a carefully constrained race-realist neo-“white” version of neo-liberal “non-discrimination”: we’re all equal but jews are more equal.

For a good example of in-your-face faux-White pro-jewish arrogance read just about anything written by The Undiscovered Jew. For example, see his comments at OneSTDV’s “More Thoughts on White Ethnostate”. For a double dose of faux-Whiteness see his exchange with Auster in Is human bio-diversity the next conservatism? I noted the strange humor they find in their own confused hypocrisy in A Moron Amused by a Fool Helping an Idiot.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that faux-Whites are often semi-jews. They exhibit a deep psychological conflict, craving for whatever reason to be seen as White, or more accurately “white”, while deprecating Whiteness. They echo neo-liberal anti-White guilt-tripping even as they strike a pose against it. They tend to ignore, distract from, or dissemble about jewish exclusion/particularism/discrimination/supremacism and anti-White culpability.

Contrast faux-Whites with ordinary Whites, who generally don’t want to discuss race, and certainly not jews, but when we do we tend to speak earnestly, without guile. Then compare faux-Whites with ordinary jews, who tend to be openly concerned about what they think is best for jews, and almost unanimously recoil with disgust at White anything. The main difference is that faux-Whites are able to partially mask this disgust and are more cryptic or even in complete denial about the primacy of their pro-jewish priority, but they tellingly denounce anyone who sees through them as “anti-semitic”. Rather than attacking from outside they prefer to cloak themselves in “white” as they subvert/co-opt/neuter Whiteness from within.

For more on neo-liberalism, White/jew double standards, and typical faux-White behavior see Fruitloopable Presumption, The Urge to Purge, A Censorious Debate, and Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial (Mencius Moldbug.is more iconoclastic reactionary semi-jew than faux-White).

Blog

The UNo

2 Comments

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar – Telegraph:

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.

In essence, the report calls for a new Bretton Woods-style system of managed international exchange rates, meaning central banks would be forced to intervene and either support or push down their currencies depending on how the rest of the world economy is behaving.

So much for that old amero “conspiracy theory”. Globalists, demonstrating how to not waste a crisis, are now openly proposing a global currency. And even if this radical proposal goes nowhere it helps make the relatively less radical amero (which will remain a “conspiracy theory” right up until it or the UNo becomes reality) that much more likely.

Blog

Ted Kennedy’s Legacy: Genocidal Immigrationist

29 Comments

I wrote about Ted Kennedy’s Legacy when his brain cancer was first announced in May of 2008. My opinion has only soured since. Please indulge me as I summarize his shameful legacy one more time, especially as our enemies at this moment are producing geysers of grief and love for their fallen hero.

From Wikipedia’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (AKA Hart-Celler Act):

During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”[2] The act’s supporters not only claimed the law would not change America’s ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1]

By equalizing immigration policies, the Act resulted in a flood of new immigration from non-European nations that changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[3] Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.[1]

From George Borjas’ The Bush-Kennedy-McCain Sham(nesty):

Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.

What follows now are amongst Kennedy’s final, and in my opinion most significant, words on the subject of immigration, offered just over two years ago in the wake of the failure of the comprehensive amnesty bill he had worked hard to enact. This intemperate and deeply cynical outburst has been all but memory-holed by the press. From BizzyBlog’s Bias in Coverage of Immigration-Bill Failure Extends to Protecting Ted ‘Gestapo’ Kennedy:

We know what they’re against, we don’t know what they’re for. Time and time again they tell us “We don’t like this provision, we don’t like that provision, we don’t want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.

What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That’s their alternative?

HotAir provides video.

During the long arc of Kennedy’s career as a rich, famous and increasingly powerful senator-for-life he dedicated a sizable portion of his fame and power to advocating nation-wrecking levels of legal immigration, though his good will extended even to tens of millions of illegal aliens who violated the liberal immigration laws he sponsored. A notable and consistent feature of his support for immigration was mendacity. It began with a denial of the negative impact immigration would likely have on us, the citizenry whose interests he was sworn to defend. His triumphant words in 1965 were in hindsight more prophesy than denial, for the future did unfold just as he promised it would not. The mendacity continued in 1986, two decades on, when he downplayed the horrible impact even though it was by then clear for all to see. It was in fact under the pretense of addressing this impact that he again made assertions later proven false. He again mouthed promises he made no effort to keep. The mendacity continued in 2007, another two decades on, the consequences of his handiwork now an order of magnitude larger than what he had promised would never happen again. His lies now concerned the impossibility of remedy and the negative impact any such remedy would have on the aliens. The interests of the citizenry no longer even rated lip service. He openly opposed us and cast aspersions on us.

For leaving a young woman to drown Kennedy appeared on nationwide television and apologized. For sinking our once orderly and prosperous nation, trapping 200 million Whites (and slipping) with 100 million non-Whites (and exploding), he never apologized. He went to the grave hating us.

If Kennedy had pursued medicine instead of politics we can imagine what might have happened. He might have shot his neighbor right after saying it was crazy for them to imagine he would do so. Then he might berate them for complaining about their pain while being wheeled into surgery, telling them not to worry, he’ll fix it. Finally he might let them die on the operating table because, in his expert estimation, to remove the bullet would simply cause too much harm. No sorries and no worries. The next of kin will get the bill.

Then he’d go out and find another neighbor to “help”. And another. And another. It would have been much better for most of us if Kennedy had gone this route. After only a few neighbors some cop or reporter would have started asking questions and his crime wave would have been stopped. What we got instead is far worse.

The next time you read about a crime committed by an alien, or the anchor baby of an alien, think about that. Remember Ted Kennedy. It’s on his head. He did his best to open the door for them and keep them here.

Ted’s brother Jack once called on America to put men on the moon, a quarter million miles away. Just because. And lo, with plenty of money and brainstorming and elbow grease men were there, less than a decade later. Playing golf. Ted in his turn, given an opportunity to right a wrong he helped create, argued instead that Americans should simply surrender and accept colonization by hostile, impoverished, uneducated aliens, because, we’re to believe, he couldn’t stomach the effort required to stop it.

In comparison to the trillions our corrupt politicians have since rushed to transfer from taxpayers to international financiers, Ted’s scary $250B for deportation seems positively puny. Beside that, it would be spread broadly and domestically in pursuit of a goal the citizenry has actually expressed an interest in. It would be an investment which would pay large dividends in the form of savings on unemployment, healthcare, law enforcement, education, utilities and infrastructure, and much more. In contrast, the trillions dropped in financier laps have simply vanished. The credit that absolutely positively had to loosen? It didn’t. Beyond preserving some undeserved bonuses it seems those trillions just got sucked right into the vacuum created by a decade or more of financial fraud and false profits. Plan B seems to be to give the country, and all of us, to China.

To hell with the money. It pales next to the genocide. Given the choice I would gladly put myself and my children on the hook for any amount to stop the immigration invasion, to send the ones already here home. As it happens I’m sure doing so would actually save money, which only makes the pain inflicted on us – the crowding, the crime, the violence, the political correctness – all the more senseless. Except it’s not. It’s genocide. We have what others want. We’re in their way. That’s the dynamic. You can see it in their furtive glare. At some point, as our numbers dwindle, order will break down. Look to Zimbabwe or South Africa to see where we’re heading.

You may not think of immigration as genocide. I never used to. Even now I don’t think it always was, or that it has to be. But recently I decided that the senseless flood being forced down our throats definitely is genocidal. It’s obliterating who and what we are. Fast and forever.

Allow me to offer a few of the stepping stones that brought me to this conclusion.

“Whether you declare war or not, we are in a societal conflict” excerpts a report, published in December of 2007, less than six months after Kennedy’s “gestapo” meltdown, on the hundreds of thousands of violent, criminal gangbangers fanning out across the US. Ted Kennedy was on their side. He wanted to make them citizens.

Pew Something Stinks describes how immigration has transformed the ethnic mix of this country. Anyone who knows anything about immigration knows this. Our corrupt politicians know we know it. In 1965 altering the mix was acknowledged, even by Kennedy, to be a bad idea. Today we’re supposed to pretend it’s a good thing, that we always wanted it to happen, otherwise we’re evil “racists”.

Genocidal Immigrationists is my first use of the phrase, prompted by the increasingly blatant sickening enthusiasm for nation-wrecking immigration in media and self-righteous jewish organizations, lobbying more zealously than ever for their immigrant friends. What seems insane is in truth only anti-White. It’s time to wake up. Smell the genocide.

– – –

On Tuesday, 25 August 2009, Senator Edward Kennedy died, escaping the justice he so richly deserved. It is Kennedy’s advocacy for genocidal immigration, especially after its ghastly impact was obvious, for which he should always be remembered. In ignominy. In infamy. Good riddance.

Blog

What Anti-Migrant Anti-Hornet Racism Tells Us

7 Comments

Yet another case of non-human biology providing a headline highlighting a similar, but suppressed, human reality.

Tourists warned as Asian hornets terrorise French:

Tourists are being warned to steer clear of Asian hornets that are colonising France, after swarms of the aggressive predators attacked seven people.

That’s odd. The threat pales in comparison to the swarms of aggressive predatory alien muslim youths who have been permitted to colonize France and who pose a far more deadly threat, yet neither the authorities nor the media have issued correspondingly omnious warnings about that.

Odd also that even though all of the trouble-making Asian hornets were born and raised in France nobody has started calling them French hornets, nor do they pretend they can’t or shouldn’t notice any difference from the indigenous hornets. Curiously, the article also fails to emphasize that not all of the Asian hornets are trouble-makers. Nor does it assert that they are France’s greatest strength, that France is a nation of insects, or that the undocumented migrant hornets are just coming to do the jobs French honeybees won’t do.

Very, very strange.

“Never attempt to destroy an Asian hornet nest yourself but call on specialist organisations, as this species charges in a group as soon as it feels its nest is threatened.”

Whoops. Another uncomfortable similarity, and another contrast. The human invaders also attack in groups, stirred to murderous riot by the flimsiest pretexts. But “specialist organisations” will only answer calls to destroy the nests of hornets.

As a knock-on effect of the invasive species, the European hornet has become more aggressive, due to a lack of food.

When European people, as opposed to hornets, respond similarly, the “knock-on effect” is that the government openly militates against the indigenous species, not the invasive species. In Britain, there’s even an Asian human in charge of doing it. Labour says they will ease up on Muslim fanatics:

We shall be putting a renewed focus on resisting right-wing racist extremism. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat.

This typifies the genocidal official response all across the Eurosphere. For those of us who see this, we shall resist the reality-inverting “racist extremism” rhetoric used to pathologize our perfectly natural reactions to violent colonization. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat it poses.