Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Why Labor Leaders Favor Genocidal Immigration

12 Comments

It’s jewish “social justice”.

New Labor Leaders Take a Page From History, from The Jewish Daily Forward:

Washington — If you want to see the movers and shakers behind the tumult in today’s labor movement, the place to be is Stephen Lerner and Marilyn Sneiderman’s modest home in Washington after sunset concludes Judaism’s holiest day of the year.

Last year’s dinner had an air of momentous imminence, coming, as it did, on the eve of Barack Obama’s election as president, amid a world economic crisis that recalled the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930s. The labor movement itself was approaching the end of a year in which it would record an uptick in union membership for the second time in a row after decades of decline. Lerner began the evening by telling his guests, “The months and years ahead are our chance, our moment to be part of making history.”

Lerner and the other Break Fast attendees are at the core of a resurgence of Jewish involvement in the labor movement. Like the legendary Jewish labor leaders of the ’30s, the folks at Lerner’s house by no means represent a majority of union leaders. But like those earlier leaders, they are exerting an outsized influence, working at the front end of some of the most innovative, and occasionally divisive, union campaigns of today.

“When you are there, you physically experience the number of Jews in Washington who are in the labor movement — but also the larger passion for social justice that is driving that,” Lerner told the Forward.

There is, of course, a firm precedent for this quiet, mostly unacknowledged trend. Before World War II, an explicitly Jewish labor movement was an engine of change for the broader American society. Morris Hillquit helped found the United Hebrew Trades labor federation in 1888, and in the ’30s this body morphed into the Jewish Labor Committee, which was one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America. At that time, the heads of the heavily Jewish garment unions — men like David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman — helped pass the legislation that created America’s social safety net and labor protections. These were Eastern European immigrants who had risen from the factory floors and moved easily among the labor community, the Jewish community and the leftist political world.

The current moment shares many similarities with the ’30s, due to the election of a president friendly to labor, the plunge in the stock market, and the resulting openness to new economic models and social reforms. The Employee Free Choice Act, which is currently moving slowly through Congress, is said to be the most significant labor legislation since the ’30s.

But the labor leaders of today are a very different breed from those of the ’30s. Jewish union leaders such as Stern of the SEIU and Booth of AFSCME — along with Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America; Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Bruce Raynor, general president of Unite-Here — did not rise up from the working class. They have college degrees and are part of a new, sophisticated leadership that has come to the fore over the past decade and devised innovative tactics to battle the labor movement’s long decline.

“You really have the leaders of some of the largest unions — certainly some of the most progressive unions — being Jews,” said Simon Greer, a former labor activist and the current president of the Jewish Funds for Justice. “That comes out of history — and it ties back to the history.”

Unlike in the ’30s, many of the Jews involved in the labor movement today have little affiliation with the organized Jewish community — and the presence of Jews in the labor movement can be an uncomfortable topic at times, because of the relative paucity of Jews in the rank and file of union membership. But for many inside the labor movement, the Jewish presence — not just in leadership roles, but also throughout the professional staff — occasionally becomes so obvious that it cannot be ignored.

“One night last Passover, I was here trying to finish something just before Seder, and people were like, why are you here?” said Jessica Champagne, a young researcher at the SEIU. “There are just those moments where you realize that whether or not people are observant, there are a lot of Jewish folks who have found their way here.”

– – –

Despite some continuity between the earlier generation of Jewish labor leaders and the current one, the two are not connected by a simple unbroken line.

While the Jewish garment unions were national players before World War II, their political clout afterward began to fade. Then, it was industrial unions, like the steel workers, autoworkers and teamsters, that became the face of the union movement. These tended to have few Jewish members. Because many of these unions had a policy of taking leaders from the rank and file, there ended up being few big Jewish labor leaders.

“Labor was not particularly welcoming” back then, recalled Marshall Ganz, the son of a rabbi who got involved in social movements in the 1960s.

When he left the Cesar Chavez-run United Farm Workers — a progressive and open labor group — Ganz said: “For me to go work for a [conventional] union would have been a strange thing. The unions had to be reopened to a certain extent.”

This was the situation when one of the most prominent labor leaders of today, Stern, became involved. Stern joined his union of government social workers in 1972 after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school. Sitting recently at the SEIU’s sleek new headquarters in Washington, Stern told the Forward that back then, “my vision of unions was Teamster white guys and construction workers.”

Stern himself had become a social activist through his involvement in protests against the Vietnam War. But under AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a staunch anti-communist, the big unions had lined up in support of the war.

“The first thing I learned about unions was not a very good one,” said Stern. “In 1968 or 9, I was watching construction workers beat up anti-war protesters.”

But then, after Stern was elected to lead his local union, he attended the meetings of the local labor council in Philadelphia. There, he ran into a number of holdouts from the Jewish garment unions, and other Jewish union activists who “had a kind of ethical, cultural set of values that I understood better than people who had grown up in a more working-class — in many cases, Catholic — background.”

“I had never thought of the union movement as a place of Jewish activism in my growing up,” Stern said. His father had been a lawyer for small businesses in suburban New Jersey. But, Stern said, he saw at the Philadelphia labor council that “there was really a disproportionate number of labor leaders who were Jewish in major positions — and a lot of them were ones that were more involved in, I would say, the more progressive side of the labor movement.”

This was not true in many other parts of the country — and in many parts of the labor movement at that time. Stern said he sometimes thinks back on the serendipity of where he got his start.

“I always think, what would have happened if I had started my union career in, say, Ohio?” Stern said. “I don’t know what would have happened if there hadn’t been a lot of Jewish leaders. It just didn’t seem odd where I was to be a labor leader and be Jewish.”

– – –

The progressive tradition that Stern noticed was legendary in an earlier era. Tony Michels, a professor of Jewish and labor history at the University of Wisconsin, said that in the ’30s, labeling a union as Jewish was often a shorthand way of describing its socialist politics. A number were further to the left, which is to say, communist.

The two most powerful Jewish unions were the ones for workers in the men’s and women’s garment industries in New York City — the largest unions in the city at that time. It was no coincidence that both unions had close ties to the nation’s largest Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Daily Forward, with executives moving frequently between the publishing offices and the union halls. The head of the women’s garment union, Dubinsky, and the head of the men’s garment union, Hillman, were both immigrants from Eastern Europe who spoke with Yiddish accents. Together they helped found the socialist American Labor Party. Their socialist politics also shaped the unique structure and aims of the garment unions.

“The view of the Jewish socialists was that unions should be a vehicle for social change — not just a defense of narrow interests like wages and hours,” said Michels, who wrote the book “A Fire in Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York.” “They were involved in cooperative housing, and educational programming and culture. Other unions just weren’t doing that.”

The Jewish labor movement itself was divided internally for decades by a bitter feud between socialists and communists. The socialists originally coalesced between 1897 and 1900 around the Socialist Party founded by Hillquit and Eugene V. Debs. The Forward, founded in 1897, was established originally as an organ for their more moderate views. The communists, who split off from the Socialist Party after the 1917 Russian Revolution, favored a more militant, confrontational approach in the workplace and in politics. The two groups battled for decades over control of union locals, newspapers and even Yiddish schools, until communists were expelled en masse from the major unions in 1948.

Historians and labor activists have given a number of explanations for the distinctive character of the Jewish garment unions. Ray Scannell, a labor researcher and historian, said that unlike many other immigrant groups, Jewish immigrants had already been isolated minorities in the places from which they had migrated. As a result, they were well practiced in banding together to protect their own rights.

“When you go back, one of the interesting things about the history of the Jewish labor movement is that they have these common organizational roots,” said Scannell, who has taught a class on Jewish labor history at the Washington, D.C. Jewish Community Center. “Whether it’s in Vilna or Warsaw, or the Lower East Side, the poor and the oppressed in the community know how to organize themselves to protect themselves.”

Scannell, director of research at the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union, has watched these dynamics play out in his own life. He is from an Irish Catholic family in New York, but his wife and children are Jewish, and he has been fascinated to see the lingering influences of history in families like his own.

“It’s such an interesting story, because as Jews in America become more assimilated, nonetheless they continue this idea, that is frankly not as well rooted in the white Protestant community, of community self-help and organization,” Scannell said. “Even as they moved out to the suburbs and married the non-Jews, there was a continuation of these ideals of social justice that connected them back with community traditions that they might not have been entirely aware of.”

– – –

By the 1980s, as Stern was beginning to rise through the SEIU, the progressive spirit in the labor movement had all but disappeared. Union membership was in a tailspin. Federal law had made it more difficult to organize workers, and most of the big unions were committing few resources to organizing new members.

In order to combat the decline, a few peripheral unions began looking to new, more sophisticated strategies to win new members and stop the decline. Both the hotel workers and the SEIU led the charge in hiring college graduates to serve in research departments that had the task of developing elaborate organizing campaigns. Stern and Lerner were both brought into the SEIU leadership during this period by Sweeney, an Irish Catholic labor leader who had gotten his own start in the New York garment unions before becoming the SEIU chief.

A major turning point came when the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of national unions, decided to open up the Organizing Institute, which was designed to provide college graduates a direct entry point into unions so that they would not have to first pass through the rank and file. The institute was founded in 1989 by a young Jew from Kentucky, Richard Bensinger, who had been recruited into the union movement by Richard Rothstein, a Jewish labor organizer and activist at one of the garment unions.

Bensinger, who is a labor consultant today, remembers when his team began looking over applications from college students who wanted to attend the institute.

“It used to be almost a joke. They would all say, ‘I’m interested because my grandmother or my grandfather was in one of the garment unions,’” Bensinger told the Forward. “It was incredible how many people who came to the institute came out of families that were involved with that union. It was application after application.”

Amy Dean, who was the head of the labor council in California’s Silicon Valley during the 1990s, said that in the years after the Organizing Institute was founded, when Sweeney won the presidency of the AFL-CIO, she saw the first steps of a process that brought a “huge influx of Jews coming to the table and wanting to be a part of the labor movement.”

“It was exciting to be in there,” said Dean, who is currently finishing a book on the modern labor movement. “We were looking outward for the first time in many years.”

Dean herself had decided to join the labor movement rather than attend graduate school at the University of Chicago. A number of the other major labor leaders of today came into their unions after law school. This sort of influx has not happened at every union; many unions have maintained old policies of promoting leaders and organizers from the rank and file only. But it has been unions that took people from the outside, such as the SEIU and the hotel workers union, that have experienced the fastest growth. The SEIU, for example, has grown to more than 2 million today under Stern, from 625,000 members in 1980, when Sweeny took its reins.

But there is a potential downside: Stern and others in the new generation of union leadership have been criticized by more traditional union leaders for giving union jobs to people who did not get their start in the working class. The generation of college-educated leaders have also been involved in a number of recent fights that have divided the labor movement (see sidebar). Paul Buhle, a labor historian at Brown University, said that in the current era, when unions are largely trying to organize black and Latino populations, the presence of so many educated Jewish leaders can be an “embarrassing detail.”

“Not to be the rank and file is embarrassing — because Jews are giving orders even in progressive unions,” Buhle said. “It comes back to a conspiratorial view of Jews in American life.”

– – –

The labor movement is, of course, not the only progressive movement that has drawn well-educated Jews, but many progressive Jewish activists say that the labor movement has a different character to it.

On a practical level, the labor movement is one of the few progressive causes offering young people both steady work and a reliable institutional structure — in short, a career. Michael Perry, who works for the AFSCME in Illinois, observed: “These are kids like me, who grew up in middle-class life. They won’t go back and work minimum wage. They want to do justice. But I still have a middle-class job here — with decent wages and benefits.”

But Perry and others also point to the unique historical connection.

“The labor connection is more than 100 years old,” Greer noted. “This puts it in another category than other progressive causes.”

Even with the history, though, the current demographic gap between union membership and leadership has, at times, required some negotiating.

Lerner’s first job was in North Carolina, organizing workers for the garment union. During that campaign, Lerner said, one of the local newspapers wrote an article implying that the organizers were a bunch of “northern Jews and rabble rousers.” Lerner recalled what happened when the organizers next met: “After we all got indignant, we looked around the room, and there really were so many Jews in the room.”

It is no coincidence that the two most prominent films about unions in recent times have both been about the cultural exchanges that happened when a Jewish organizer pushed to organize non-Jewish workers. In the 1979 movie “Norma Rae,” the Northerner is Reuben Warshowsky, who is said to be a composite of a number of Jewish organizers who worked for the textile unions. The more recent movie, “Bread and Roses,” is based on a Jewish organizer, Jono Schaffer, who worked on Lerner’s Justice for Janitors campaign.

While the current generation of Jewish labor leaders has risen up in a largely non-Jewish labor movement, their work has nevertheless helped some of them find their Jewish roots.

Greer got his start at a campaign that was being run by Cohen, who is now the head of the Communication Workers of America. Greer said that at the campaign, known as Jobs With Justice, “I really came into my Jewish identity in noticing that among all these people I was working with, there was a disproportionate number of Jews.”

Greer said it made him want to explore “what led me in my background and what led them in their backgrounds to want to be in this kind of work.”

Outside of organizations like Greer’s, though, the connection is seldom made so explicitly and with such pride. Many Jewish labor leaders see few reasons to connect their labor work and their ethnic heritage, at least as they have experienced the latter. Most Jewish organizations today have not made labor a central theme in their political platforms. The Jewish Labor Committee, which has served as a meeting point between organized Jewish community and organized labor, is a fraction of the size it was when Dubinsky and Hillman founded it in the ’30s.

There are efforts underway to change that. Stuart Applebaum, president of the Jewish Labor Committee, says he sees a greater willingness among labor leaders to identify with the Jewish community.

“There is a renewal now,” Applebaum told the Forward. “You find that the Jewish leaders have not run away from their Jewishness as they once did.”

Sneiderman, a longtime official at the AFL-CIO and wife of Lerner, said that the idea of the couple’s Yom Kippur Break Fast event is part of a “conscious effort to try to make the link for people who work in the labor movement and are Jewish, so that they see that it’s not by accident that they are doing this work — and that is tied to their roots and values.”

“We’ve lost a lot of our history,” said Sneiderman, who recently left the labor world to take a job at the Jewish youth group BBYO as chief field officer.

For his part, Stern said that he recently looked back through a family scrapbook to try to recover some of his own history.

“You do wonder how you get here — you know, what were my parents teaching me?” Stern said. Stern had a Jewish education; he became a bar mitzvah at a Reform synagogue in northern New Jersey. But at the dinner table, labor was never a subject for discussion. In his scrapbook, though, Stern found the project he had done for his synagogue confirmation. It was an ethical will that went into depth “about being ethical, and trying to use your life to help other people.”

“Clearly, the values that had been instilled in me by my parents had been much more of service than of success in a traditional sense,” Stern said, looking back.

“Underneath kind of a very normal middle-class, New Jersey life, they did actually teach me some things,” he said.

After a pause, he added, with a laugh, “I’m praying it’s true for my son.”

Via a comment by Lucius Vorenus on Sailer’s “Amnesty: Our betters are back at it”.

SEIU – Service Employees International Union home page. SEIU on immigration.

Blog

Iran So Far Away

11 Comments

The recent turmoil in Iran and our regime’s reaction to it are of interest even to those of us who aren’t much concerned which hostile alien runs a country full of hostile aliens on the other side of the planet.

For example, contrast the media’s intense interest in iran with it’s interest in the ongoing violence right next door. The Los Angeles Times has written about Mexico’s Drug War, as have others. From their own occasional reports the situation is so out of control they can hardly ignore it. “Mexico Under Siege – The drug war at our doorstep”, “It’s a war. – Mexican President Felipe Calderon”, writes the LAT. Yet despite the occasional splash of recognition nothing much else happens.

When will the regime show some sustained concern, and when will someone in the media ask Obama “what took you so long” to address the war next door, across a border you don’t want to defend?

The answer is never. Or at least not until the regime is toppled.

Violent immigrant aliens, economic crisis, and an outbreak of disease all cause the regime to leap to the defense of the aliens. Meanwhile they officially recognize native Whites as their most feared enemy, even acknowledging that we’re displeased by and reacting to their own behavior. What’s lacking is a broader recognition of the strength and nature of this assault on Whites.

Much of the attention the media has directed toward iran has the curious effect of revealing their double standards on political rights and censorship. In iran we’re told the “cracking down” on people trying to express themselves is a hallmark of totalitarianism and thuggery. Meanwhile at home in the West the same media plays an instrumental role in demonizing “racism” and “hate“.

Attempted Iran media clampdown meets Internet age contains a typical example of the media’s attitude toward iran:

CNN turned in part to the social-networking sites, broadcasting images posted on Facebook and Twitter, and explaining on-air that it was using “creativity” to cover a big event under government restrictions.

“We cannot verify readily some of this material that we’re going to show you,” correspondent David Mattingly warned viewers. Much of the material on Twitter is posted anonymously.

CNN spokeswoman Bridget Leininger said that adding context and explaining issues was necessary when reporting with such online sources. “We are committed to making the most information available in a tough news environment, while being totally transparent with the audience,” she said.

Yes indeed they are committed to using “creativity” to get the word out about the events in an alien country. At home however they demonstrate a decided lack of interest in the squashing of White political free expression. The case of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle for instance. The Mail’s Race-hate Britons return to UK for sentencing is fairly typical of the sparse, unsympathetic coverage:

Two Britons who fled to the United States after they were accused of waging a campaign of hate against Jews and other minority groups appeared in front of a British court today after they were returned to the UK.

Simon Sheppard, 52, and Stephen Whittle, 42, were convicted of a number of race-hate crimes at Leeds Crown Court following two lengthy trials, the last of which finished in January.

The investigation into the men began when a complaint about a leaflet called ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ was reported to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a Synagogue in Blackpool.

Here we see evidence, and only after the outcome of the case has been locked down tight, of the single standard behind what only seems to be a double standard. They sing the praises of free expression so that someone, anyone, replaces Mr. Wipe Israel Off the Map, while mostly burying their own disgust with the free expression of Sheppard and Whittle. Whether with iran or the persecution of our own free speaking heretics, the regime is concerned primarily about what’s best for jews. It’s a rhetorical question, but Whose Country Is This Anyway?

Here’s another example of the government and its media being on the same page:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

Iranian aliens are able to ask questions of the US president. Iranian aliens are “courageous” to communicate online.

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

The media, the government, and jewish activists (specifically the SPLC) have most assuredly coordinated their own anti-White activities here at home.

Bonnie Erbe, a media heavyweight who just happens to be jewish, responded to an attack in which a single non-jew was killed by calling for the government to Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks:

If yesterday’s Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is. Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen appeared on CNN yesterday right after the shooting, as she wrote a play that was supposed to have been debuted at the Holocaust Museum last night. Her play is about Emmett Till, whose lynching helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, and Ann Frank, whose diary told the story of Holocaust victims in hiding in the Netherlands during World War II.

She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree.

The regime wants the internet open to iranian aliens (at least for now), and closed to “hate speakers”. In fact silencing “hate” isn’t enough. They want to “Round Up Hate-Promoters Now”. Erbe’s hysterical attitude reveals her own hate. The dishonest and hypocritical language of “hate” provides a politically correct way for jews to openly do themselves, from positions of power, what they constantly accuse powerless “haters” of wanting to do to them. They project their own thoughts onto others and then cry “hate!” It’s disgusting as well as hateful.

Blog

A Moron Amused by a Fool Helping an Idiot

59 Comments

A good (and true) joke, according to Lawrence Auster:

From a discussion at the blog Half Sigma, where the topic is the irrationality of the Jew-hating and Israel-hating white nationalists. A commenter says:

As I said on the von Brunn thread, the bigger mystery is why they hate the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics. It is a purely economic issue. But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Auster apparently didn’t find the pseudonym of the commenter or the rest of his comment funny. Neither did I, but here it is:

Yes, most Fed board members – including Bernanke and Greenspan – are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 12, 2009 at 02:41 PM

The Undiscovered Jew’s “joke” was made in response to a brief post made by Half Sigma titled Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?:

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

All of this – from Half Sigma’s indignant confusion, to Undiscovered Jew’s sack dance over a strawman, to Auster’s shallow smirking – comes across as puerile, not funny. I don’t presume to speak for James von Brunn or “the Stormfronters” or anyone else who “hates” the Federal Reserve, but it’s easy to demonstrate how self-servingly clueless these three jews are.

Let’s work backwards toward the source, in the order I’ve just introduced Larry and his cousins Moe and Curly.

– – –

Auster frequently provides grist for my mill. Some say too much. His part in this post is small. See Fruitloopable Presumption for more about him.

In the past few months Auster has spent a great deal of effort attacking and denouncing Darwinism. I’m not going to bother picking apart his “logic”, he’s clearly doing it for the same reason he does anything else. He thinks Darwinism is bad for jews, though it isn’t really Darwinism per se that he dislikes, it’s the use of evolution and genetics in understanding the world and how jews stand in it that Auster can’t stand. This he labels “jew-hate”, and there’s nothing he hates more than “jew-haters”. Except maybe “israel-haters”.

Auster’s passionate hatred for hate runs so deep that it wraps around and he actually gets a chuckle from the jokes one jewish Darwinist tells another about those jew-hating israel-haters, AKA “the Stormfronters”. This fills him with such mirth that he left the name and punchline of The Undiscovered Jew undiscovered.

The Undiscovered Jew’s name actually is a bit of a joke – an ironic reference to the jewish tendency to keep their jewish identity and interests from being discovered, except when they find it more convenient to proclaim the significance of their jewishness, which very often coincides with them ridiculing any non-jew who thinks jewishness has significance or is worth discovering.

The contradiction U-Jew sees in “Stormfronter” logic reflects his own witlessness.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics.

He finds this misunderstanding of “Stormfronter” understanding so critical that he reiterates it:

It is a purely economic issue.

Except it isn’t.

But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Non sequitur. It is curious however that so many of those who think any negative proclamation about “the jews” is ipso facto “irrational” “hate”, but have no problem making truly irrational statements (as Half Sigma and U-Jew do) about the mythically monolithicness of “the Stormfronters”, which for Half Sigma and his commenters is nothing but a euphemism for pro-Whites they deliberately misconstrue instead as “jew-haters” (which they do because they are pro-jew).

Yes, most Fed board members – including Bernanke and Greenspan – are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

So here we see that right after denying it U-Jew actually does see “the Stormfronter” point; but what he’s really trying to do is distort it. Better than anyone else jews are acutely aware that they don’t control everything. Many wish they did. The ones most obsessed with control are exactly the ones who are so quick to tick off the various vexing ways jews don’t “control ***Everything***”. Jewish media influence? “Ted Turner isn’t jewish!”

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Here’s a better question. One that isn’t based on a false premise. If “the Stormfronters” are powerless why should they be such a focus of hatred from “anti-liberal” “race-realists” like Auster and Half Sigma? Don’t they have bigger fish to fry?

If U-Jew is in the slightest bit curious what causes anybody to “hate” the Federal Reserve he could begin by watching The Money Masters. This 215 minute documentary-style video reviews financial history, describing in deracinated jew-blind layman’s terms how the modern Western banking system evolved over the last several hundred years, largely through war and intrigue. The distinct impression it leaves is that the banking system is essentially fraudulent, based on the creation of wealth by trickery (AKA fractional reserve banking) and the subversion and subordination of citizens and their governments to plutocrats and their agents (eg. the “international bankers” who own and operate the Fed). All you have to do is add even a dim “race realist” recognition of disproportionate jewish involvement in finance such as U-Jew exhibits and you have the solution to U-Jew’s own very disingenous, very jewish reasoning.

Now on to Half Sigma and his rhetorical question: Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Once again it’s not possible to ignore the simplistic and unjustified implication that all White nationalists (i.e. Whites who would prefer to live in a White country that defends and pursues White interests) oppose jewish nationalism. The fact is that jewish nationalists have a country they can go to, where jewish interests are openly pursued and non-jews are second class citizens. This is only one of the many inconsistencies that irritate White nationalists. Another fact is that many jews, whether they support jewish nationalism or not, are rabid opponents of Whites pursuing their own interests, never mind nationalism. Any White who begins to experience even the dimmest racial consciousness can’t ignore that jews are their most rabid opponents. Some jews who like the societies Whites build and desperately wish to be seen as “white” (as Half Sigma and Auster do) react to the undeniable reality of jewish aggression against Whites by desperately spinning excuses and rationalizations, in the end absurdly laying all the blame on “the Stormfronters” or “the jew-haters”.

There are myriad organizations dedicated to the defense and pursuit of jewish interests, many of them excluding non-jews, even if only implicitly. If only in response then it is reasonable that Whites, nationalist or otherwise, organize for our own interests and exclude jews. We have and would be more successful at it were it not for the constant, venomous attacks on us by jewish organizations.

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

Yes, no doubt if israel collapses it will all be blamed on “the anti-semites”. And yes, jews are already preparing to evacuate to the US. See for example The Kvetcher’s Jewish Immigration Policy as Worst Case Scenario Appears Ever More Likely, especially the outrageously arrogant comments of blode0322, who in contrast to Half Sigma’s suggested terminology I’d describe as a white non-Gentile nationalist.

Half Sigma concludes:

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

Race-realist Half Sigma’s question was rhetorical, and the answer oddly based on the same “hate” rationale that race-denying “liberals” use, because he doesn’t want to face the real answer, which is that jews aren’t White. Unfortunately for Sigma the real answer explains not only the general antipathy self-conscious Whites have for the jewish state of israel, but also for the obvious fear and loathing jews express toward anything White – whether it’s spelling White with a capital W, White nationalism, or even a Whites-only political party that doesn’t exclude them.

Half Sigma, recognizing this threat to his convenient and comfortable hatred of “jew-hate”, followed up later the same day with a lame assertion. In Jews are white he writes:

Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race, even black. If you think that Spaniards are white, then you would also conclude that Sephardic Jews from Spain are white.

Only white nationalists and Stormfront types insist that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t white, and that’s because they hate Jews but love whites, so they need some sort of rationalization for the inconsistency.

A year ago, Steve Sailer posted a 3-D chart showing how Ashkenazi Jews cluster genetically when compared to other ethnicities, and it’s clear from the chart that Jews are similar to Russians and Western Europeans, and quite dissimilar from Middle Eastern ethnicities such as Druze, Samaritans, and Yemenites.

You shouldn’t even need the chart to figure out that Jews are white, because common sense should inform you that you can’t tell the difference between Jews and other Europeans. It’s true that some Jews have a Jewish look about them, but Italians have an Italian look about them, Irish have an Irish look about them, and Poles have a Polish look about them, but those European ethnicities are rarely accused of not being white. No one is better at identifying other Jews than Jews themselves, and Jews usually can’t tell whether or not someone looks Jewish. I remember an organization in the Phoenix area which threw parties for Jewish singles, and they would always ask at the door, “are you Jewish?” The reason they had to ask the question is because they can’t tell by looking. It’s hard to imagine a black organization asking at the door, “are you black?”

I don’t know of any Ashkenazi Jews who consider themselves anything other than white. There are many Jews who, when asked their ethnicity, say that they’re Jewish, but I don’t say that. I tell people I’m half Russian and half Polish. I would encourage more Jews to identify themselves that way.

Jewish political groups aren’t doing anything to defend against the anti-Semitic meme that Jews aren’t white because Jewish groups tend to be very liberal, and liberals think that defending against the accusation that one isn’t white would be admitting that you believe that there’s something wrong with not being white, and it would be racist to think there’s something wrong with not being white. But in my opinion, it’s not racist to point out that some white nationalists are saying stuff about Jews which isn’t true.

Coming from a popular, supposedly intelligent, “race-realist” blogger this confused babble would be perplexing, except that it makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent once we realize that it’s coming from a jew. Why should Whites not consider jewishness significant? Why should we look the other way while jewish apologists peddle such incoherent nonsense as a cover for jewish attacks on us? What Half Sigma is writing is in fact just another more insidious form of attack. “You can’t call yourself White! You should call yourself “white gentile”, because I as a jew consider myself “white” and I get to order you around because you hate jews!”

Immediately Half Sigma’s own pro-jewish commenters tried to point out his foolishness. Unlike Auster, Half Sigma runs a somewhat open forum, but like Auster he shows the same discomfort with criticism, meticulously inserting his rebuttals right into the first few dissenting commenters comments. Later on The Kvetcher responded with Overreaching on Jewish Whiteness:

Half Sigma starts out with a half-truth, noting, “Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race…” This is, in and of itself, true, of course. Judaism is not based or limited to any race. In fact, there is no explicit term for race in the Torah.

But Jews are, to a large degree, a specific people sharing similar genetic code. The reference to The Jews in our liturgy is filled with the mention of “am Yisroel,” or, “the nation of Israel.” Who comprises “the nation” of Israel? The twelve tribes. The convert is a “stranger.” Not the illegal immigrant — the convert.

Kvetcher points out a graph that better illustrates jewish genetic distinctiveness at Gene Expression: SNPs don’t lie. Another graph is attached to Criticizing Auster. It indicates ashenazi jews are genetically more distinct from Poles than Poles are from Italians or Greeks. I’m a Darwinist in the sense that I think the sociopolitcal distinctions I’ve already made between jews and Whites spring largely from personality differences which spring largely from genetics.

– – –

So what explains jewish “race realist” Half Sigma’s behavior? How can he be so acutely aware of his jewish heritage and yet unaware of its significance? What drives him to caricaturize and hate and wish to exclude “the Stormfronters” in the same way he mistakenly assumes “all” of “them” wish to do to jews? Why does he so desparately argue jews are “white”, while he, like so many other jews, shows such a deep disrespect and disdain for Whites who disagree?

I think the cause is his jewishness. And I think this kind of thing isn’t said more openly and more frequently because the West, or the White Gentile West to put it in terms Half Sigma might better understand, has become thoroughly judaized. After generations of effort by jewish-led intellectual and political movements, and more recently flipping into overdrive with the rise of mass media, and the aid of jewish influence in that media, any criticism of jews, even when they say the most hypocritical and self-serving things, is considered an egregious crime. To even say “you’re only saying this crap because you’re jewish” is considered “irrational” “jew-hate”.

For this reason many jews have become accustomed to facing little or no opposition, which leads them to overreach, becoming more and more overbearing and openly hostile and resentful of Whites, revealing in their continuous and brazen arrogance and hypocrisy that they are not motivated by any principle or reason higher than “what’s good for jews?”

– – –

I’ll conclude with a few miscellaneous related items.

In Just Another Day (Part 2) Prozium points to Half Sigma’s posts as just a small part of another typical day of jewish attacks on Whites. He also links to Ben Cohen at the Huffington Post who, big surprise, dictates MSNBC, Pull the Plug on Pat Buchanan. What is truly amazing is his reason why. It hinges on exactly the kind of pernicious race-based libels against Whites that jews are always so quick to see and denounce in any criticism of themselves:

When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there’s not much the Jews couldn’t take from Germany to make things right.

White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.

White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960’s, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.

Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.

Here’s a rhetorical question for Half Sigma. Does Ben Cohen consider himself “white”? As I noted in Not the Last Brainwashing it certainly isn’t uncommon for jews to peddle “blood libels” against Whites in the mainstream media. They’re not even aiming at “the Stormfronters”. They hate ordinary unsuspecting just-acting-natural White people.

Attacks like this on Whites by “liberal” jews are commonplace. What causes me to believe the source is more jewish than “liberal” is that even “anti-liberal” jews like Lawrence Auster, pro-West half-jews like Takuan Seiyo, pro-“white” philo-semites like Ian Jobling, and half honest jewish-but-I-wanna-be-white race-realists like Half Sigma won’t face a very simple fact:

The government and the mainstream media are staunchly anti-White, not anti-jewish. In fact an ever growing body of laws explicitly puts jews on a pedestal, whether they attend a synagogue or not. Laws and censorship curtailing “hate speech” are perpetrated and rationalized largely by jews whose first and foremost concern is to protect jews from criticism.

What these “race realist” faux-White dissemblers listed above have in common is their holier-than-thou insistence that they have every right to generalize about and criticize muslims, blacks, “the Stormfronters”, or anybody else they wish, but consider it unacceptable to treat jews in the same way. Rather than openly proclaiming their pro-jewish sentiments, acknowledging and defending their double standards, and/or moving to israel to be with the people they love so much, they instead spend a great deal of effort doing exactly what “liberals” do, pretending to be “white” while directing hate toward anyone who acts White.

Blog

The Surreality of Anti-BNP Propaganda

48 Comments

Just in advance of election day in Britain both the political and media wings of the anti-White regime have pulled out all the stops in their reality-inverting propaganda. Discarding their masks as sober statesmen and unbiased journalists, as well as their usual lip-service in support of democracy, they are shamelessly, hypocritically resorting to the most extreme and prejudicial language to gin up fear and loathing against those they accuse and condemn for doing the same.

They’re projecting their own guilty minds of course. The difference between the BNP and the anti-White bastards in control is that the BNP don’t currently control anything. It is the anti-White anti-BNP forces who have made all the failing policies and who control and censor all the established megaphones with iron fist.

The thrust of the anti-BNP propaganda campaign is that voters should fear what the BNP might be and might do, even though much of the scare-mongering is fabricated from whole cloth. Repeated often enough they hope their snide smears will make White voters forget what they can see with their own eyes: the imported anti-White hate and violence wreaking havoc all around them, and the traitorous leaders who brought it, rejoice in it, and have themselves attacked native Britons in order to defend it.

If any part of what I’m writing seems like an exaggeration, review for yourself the media’s own product.

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate, The Guardian, 2 June 2009:

We love Britain precisely because of its tolerance and diversity. The British National party and its allies are a threat to everything that makes us proud of this country we love. The BNP is working hard to conceal its extremism because it knows that people in Britain totally reject the politics of racism and hatred.

This statement, signed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, amounts to: “We love aliens more than we love native Britons, it is the aliens who make Britain great.” With native leaders like this, who needs alien enemies?

Voters urged not to support BNP in poll, Alex Forsyth, Portsmouth Today, 2 June 2009:

Fears have been raised that the far-right party could win seats on Hampshire and West Sussex county councils because voters have lost faith in mainstream parties.

Fears are being raised alright. By the media. Only in far-wacko minds is the simple act of voting your interests considered “far-right”.

Europe braces for extremist gains in elections, Paisley Dodds, The Associated Press, 2 June 2009:

In some of Manchester’s bleakest neighborhoods where unemployment is rife and anxiety about an immigration influx is palpable, one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s worst fears is unfolding before Thursday’s European Union elections.

The British National Party, which doesn’t allow nonwhites as members and is against membership in the European Union, is gaining ground in former Labour Party strongholds that once threw their support behind Brown and his predecessor, Tony Blair.

More rhetoric of fear.

Most anti-BNP articles won’t even admit that reaction to the regime’s support for genocidal immigration is a well-spring of support for the BNP. This article does but inverts reality, painting opposition to genocide as “extremist”. The suggestion is that the BNP incites racial hatred, though the reality is that mass immigration bringing in other races is the more proximate cause.

Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband, James Kirkup, Telegraph, 3 June 2009:

Mr Miliband, whose Jewish father fled Belgium before the Nazi invasion, added: “This is the country that flew the flag of freedom against fascism in the 1940s.

“It will be a day of shame if we send fascists to the European Parliament.”

David Miliband has no ground on which to stand. He should be ashamed for trying to shame native Britons for voting their own interests in their own homeland. He should bugger off to Belgium, or better, to israel, if he doesn’t like that the British people today still wish to defend their homeland from being overrun by outsiders as their forefathers did. That was, after all what the Battle of Britain and the larger carnage of World War II was about, wasn’t it? Or was it all, then and now, really about doing what’s best for jews? Miliband’s idea of shame assumes the latter.

Why you should not vote for the BNP, Kevin Maguire, mirror.co.uk, 3 June 2009:

The extremist BNP are thick, as well as nasty, thugs.

Please don’t be conned into voting for this vile, racist, incompetent mob tomorrow.

This is a prime specimen of the kind of pure hypocrisy published by major media outlets. Though it is an opinion/editorial rather than “journalism”, it’s easy to see how the one colors the other. No major media outlet would publish a similarly worded piece about any other political party, never mind anything like the continuous stream of vile, nasty, thuggish “opinion” aimed at smearing the BNP.

BNP bigots are racist AND sexist, Fiona Phillips, mirror.co.uk, 2 June 2009:

As a Briton, enjoying our rich and diverse country. As a mother, wondering what future my children will grow up in.

And as a woman, because the BNP isn’t just a racist, homophobic, xenophobic party, it’s a sexist party too. Whatever they pretend, they just aren’t a normal party.

And don’t forget, they beat their spouses, molest children, lay about, and drink blood too! The media really knows no bounds when it comes to smearing anyone who stands up for White interests.

Even if any of the trash talk is true, the BNP’s saving grace is that they aren’t guilty of genocide. They don’t want Britain flooded with surly hostile aliens. They’re against that. So if it’s really all about your children then stopping the genocide should be your first priority. If you favor the aliens, well then be honest, for you it’s really all about their children, isn’t it?

Racist campaigning for BNP, Chris Osuh, Manchester Evening News, 2 June 2009:

A CONVICTED racist is boasting about his leading role in the British National Party’s campaign to win votes in this week’s European elections.

Roy West, from Dukinfield, pleaded guilty to racial harassment at Tameside Magistrates’ Court in February after telling his German next-door neighbour to ‘go back to Krautland and kill some more Jews.’

Astounding. The media normally (see Miliband’s comment above) see self-righteous speech that puts jews on a pedestal as virtuous, but here they’ve managed here to turn it into racist hate. It’s amazing to see the kind of contradictions created when all pretense at being consistent is discarded, except the rock solid consistent hatred for Whites standing up for their interests.

How BNP tries to hide its racist core, Harry Underwood, The First Post, 2 June 2009:

The BNP claims to have modernised, but its championing of British jobs for British people cannot hide its insistence that its members are white

Hide? The BNP is quite open about who they represent. You’ll find it in their Mission Statement:

The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.

We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe.

It’s the first thing anyone who’s at all curious about the BNP find out. Logically a party so organized would restrict membership to the very people it purports to represent. It is not morally or ethically wrong, nor is it hidden.

Accusations otherwise are the projections of people who hide their hatred for Whites behind a false love of aliens.

Denial is opening the door to the extremists, Alice Miles, Times Online, 3 June 2009:

These were not skinhead thugs that I met on Monday. We should not stand, fingers in ears, pretending that such views do not exist on some of the ordinary housing estates of Britain.

Some anti-BNP articles are more subtle, being aimed at the regime’s thought-leaders rather than voters. This one admits the “hate” rhetoric isn’t working, arguing against pretense that it is, while pretending that the regime has simply not been listening. The reality is that the regime has been actively squelching and pathologizing any and all dissent to their genocidal policies on immigration and “diversity”.

The regime is far more likely to continue its denial, to the point of denying legitimacy to the BNP by outlawing opposition to immigration. To accept opposition to immigration would be a dangerous step toward admitting past wrong-doing. To do that, when the wrong-doing is genocide, would be suicidal, and the regime knows it. Those at the top are not in any way noble enough to stand down now.

BNP eyes ‘seismic’ breakthrough, BBC News, 2 June 2009:

The BNP was on course to win a seat in the North West, [Spokesman Simon Darby] said, and attract up to 12% of the vote in some regions.

Mr Darby said BNP candidates attracted unparalleled hostility from the media, campaigners, celebrities and other political parties – who accuse it of being racist and divisive – but said the election of a BNP MEP would “change the rules of the game”.

Native Britons on the fence should clearly see who their enemy is by comparing the hysterical anti-BNP smears and slander passed off by the media as news and opinon with the language used and positions taken by The British National Party itself.

Here are the anti-BNP headlines above gathered together to better illustrate the poison the media is trying to place in every readers’ mind:

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate
Voters urged not to support BNP in poll
Europe braces for extremist gains in elections
Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband
Why you should not vote for the BNP
BNP bigots are racist AND sexist
Racist campaigning for BNP
How BNP tries to hide its racist core
Denial is opening the door to the extremists