Blog

A Personal Disclosure

85 Comments

I have generally avoided discussing details of my personal life on this blog. I don’t wish to change that, but there is something I feel obligated to divulge.

My wife’s father was an ashkenazi jew. He died when she was young but was by all accounts a loving, intelligent, and productive man who was not involved in stereotypically jewish politics or activism. My wife was not raised as a jew, though she is of course genetically 1/2 ashkenazi, and thus our children are, on average, genetically 1/4 ashkenazi.

I have not previously written of this for several reasons.

When I first started blogging in 2005 it seemed no more relevant to what I was thinking and writing than any other detail of my personal life. At that time I had no explicit racial awareness. I knew little about jews and considered them “white”. People who thought otherwise seemed insane to me.

In 2007, with a deepening understanding of globalization and immigration, and especially neo-conservative hypocrisy (Sailer’s “invade the world, invite the world”), I began to violate PC in earnest. I became racially aware. I realized then that my wife and children’s jewish heritage was relevant, though at that time I saw it only as a potential shield from smears of “anti-semitism”. I did not use it then for the same reason I have never resorted to “some of my best friends are…” defenses. Such tactics are a distraction, ultimately a waste of time and energy.

Since 2007 I have come to appreciate the biological and psychological differences between Whites and jews, as well as the history of jewish aggression and malfeasance against Whites. What I had seen as a shield turned into an achilles heel. I cared less about offending jews and more about offending fellow Whites. My self-regard shifted from confidence to unease.

I love my family. What I want stands. I can’t roll back time and make this revelation sooner, but I can at least be forthright about it from here on.

Blog

A Christmas Story

32 Comments

On 16 December 2009 Garrison Keillor wrote a brief editorial titled Nonbelievers, please leave Christmas alone, the thrust of which was “Christmas is a Christian holiday – if you’re not in the club, then buzz off”. What really caused a stir was:

Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that’s their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite “Silent Night.” If you don’t believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn “Silent Night” and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write “Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we’ll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah”? No, we didn’t.

Oh my. “Dreck”, for those who don’t know, is yiddish slang for shit.

The reaction from self-identified jews was unhinged. It follows a template including some or all of the following elements: denying Keillor’s claim, condemning him for it, acknowledging its truth, and saying nastier things about Christians. I’ll cite a few good examples. Here for instance is a response attached to the original editorial:

I am astounded Mr. Keillor that It has taken you most of your life to realize the depravity of the non-believers. Where I live in Silicon Valley, every ethnicity can be found on my block. Probably half are not Christian, yet most have Christmas trees. Lets send these non-believers to Auschwitz where they and the Jews can learn the true meaning of Christ. The Jews. Oh the Jews . They have contaminated Christmas by writing music and making movies about it. They have ruined it by inventing running a toy train under the Christmas tree and hosting a parade in New York. They have dared to stand up to the WASP tradition of segregation and hate.They actually claim that Jesus was one of them. Mr. Keillor enjoy your Christmas, Jew-less with Mel Gibson. You may be the last true Christians.

This self-righteous fellow equates criticizing shitty Christmas songs written by jews to putting them in a concentration camp. He gets so lost in his sarcasm that he reveals an acceptance of a broadened version of Keillor’s beef – that “the jews” righteously ruined Christmas, their hostility justified by “the WASP tradition of segregation and hate”.

More reader comments were published as separate items. For example, Keillor has wrong villain for Chrismas’ ills:

Yesterday, perhaps at roughly the same moment you were putting the finishing touches on “Non-believers, please leave Christmas alone” (Dec. 16), I was swallowing back bile while watching the Christmas songs for which you and I share equal antipathy being etched into the psyche my 2-year-old Jewish daughter. The frustration and sorrow that you feel about the trite-making of Christmas is, to borrow a phrase from your (likewise appropriated) Yiddish-Minnesota phrasebook, bubkes compared with a Jew’s sufferance of the Santa Claus tube-feeding to which we are subjected each year. You see, we have a little history that colors our feelings. I’ll leave it there.

That you included even the mere mention of Jews in your diatribe, you might imagine upon further reflection, is beyond infuriating. As an outsider to your traditions and holidays, I frankly agree with many of your conclusions, but you missed the point: the hijacking of Christmas is purely the result of capitalism and the free market economy. The fact that a bunch of Jews wrote your Christmas songs is solely a function thereof. I needn’t lecture you on the confluence of commerce and artisanship, but suffice it to say, it is a two-way street. In other words, y’all bought the songs that we sold. You buy it, you break it.

The long reach of your words is based upon the popularity you enjoy among the intellectual elite. Just take another look at the numbers at the listenership of the public radio stations that carry your program, then re-read the opinion piece in question. If self-sabotage is your aim, my compliments. If not, you may consider apologies to: Jews, pinch-faced drones (those who strive to understand and forward the human condition), Harvard alumni and the sorry suckers who work too hard to make Christmas perfect. Admittedly a mixed bag — your targets are either too elite for you or not elite enough.

I think it’s fair to summarize the sentiment here as: “No lowly Christian is fit to compare their sufferance to that of a jew. Yes, we wrote (and profit from) these shitty songs, but even mere disapproval of this infuriates us. Blame economics. Purely. Repent sinner, or feel our retribution.”

Another response is notable for its superbly compact hypocrisy and falsehood. Jews aren’t the ones who secularized Christmas:

We can barely get our children excused from school on the Jewish High Holidays, and Mr. Keillor whines about Jews who wrote songs inspired by Christmas.

The author inverts reality, claiming her imagined concerns are concrete and Keillor’s concrete concerns are imagined.

Lots of people have noted how and why jews have helped secularize Christmas. I’ll provide some examples of that in a moment. What I’d like to see is some evidence of jews anywhere in the US not being excused from school on their high holidays. In the midst of the greatest ripoff in history, which absolutely, positively had to be dealt with immediately, or else, congress somehow found the time to observe a jewish high holiday. Beyond that, the full force and weight of the US government stands ready to defend jews and their jewish children against any discrimination, whether by race or religion. The media isn’t at all shy about reporting anti-jewish “hate” within minutes of the mere hint of it being detected. Call it whining, but Christians, despite the supposed protection offered to religion, are treated to a different, lower standard than jews, and not only in schools. The assault goes on 24/7/365. Here’s a small sample I’ve gathered over the past few months.

Even if it were restricted to the words and deeds of Larry David, Bill Maher, Tim Wise, or Bonnie Erbe alone this list could be much longer. Garrison Keillor is a weak and lonely voice in a media brimming with jews whose fame and fortune aren’t at all threatened by their nasty attacks on Christians. For his crime Keillor will likely apologize and/or lose his soapbox. No such punishment awaits David, Maher, Wise, Erbe, or the hundreds of others guilty of saying far more hostile things than, say, shitty Christian music has ruined jewish holidays.

The point is that Keillor has a point. If anything, his complaint was too narrow. Similar defenses of Christianity – made by prominent voices in mainstream media – are increasingly timid and rare. The problem with Keillor’s complaint is not that it is inaccurate or attacks “the jews” – it’s that he implied one aspect of a tiny subset of jewish influence is bad. For that, under our thoroughly judaized regime, any man will be villified. This is especially true for anyone with a prominent voice.

In Garrison Keillor: ‘Lousy Holiday Songs By Jews Trash Up Malls’, Noel Sheppard describes the Keillor paragraph I quoted at the top as “rabid anti-Semitism”, provided a long list of well-known Christmas songs written by jews, and then called Keillor an “anti-Semitic (expletive deleted)”. There is no dispute about the contribution of jews. Keillor’s use of the words “trash” and “dreck” to describe that contribution is what triggers the typically hyperbolic reaction.

Andy Lewis, writing in the LA Times, titled his article published on 24 December 2009, Bob Dylan joins long list of Jewish musicians performing Christmas music. Apparently unaware that the idea is controversial he also provided a window into the jewish rationale for secularizing Christmas:

Diamond closed the album with a raucous performance of comedian Adam Sandler’s “The Chanukah Song,” which name-checks Jewish entertainers, including Kirk Douglas, Dinah Shore and “Star Trek’s” William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

“I thought I’d throw one in there for my people too, because we always feel a little left out around this time of year,” Diamond told the Telegraph in London recently. “Christmas music is amazingly evocative to people of all religions and cultures.”

Others also cite the universal aspects of the holiday season — and the role of music in it — as their justification for taking on the subject of Christmas.

“I feel the Christmas holidays and the music are basically, for me, not religious,” Neil Sedaka, one of the most prolific and successful songwriters of the ’60s and ’70s, said from his home in L.A. recently. “I’m proud to be Jewish, but I don’t practice it. To me the holidays are about bringing friends and family together. I can remember vividly years ago listening to Bing Crosby’s ‘White Christmas’ and thinking that Christmas music should be played throughout the year because it’s so joyous.”

Sedaka’s 2008 double album, “Miracle of Christmas,” brought together one disc of original songs he’d written, with a second disc of traditional songs and carols that he’d put together for the QVC cable channel.

“I started out as a concert pianist at the Juilliard School,” Sedaka said, “and I’m a very studied musician. I think of the music first, and what it brings to the people emotionally.”

Barry Manilow too says that the power of music, more than the scriptural messages, has spurred him to record three collections of Christmas music over the years.

In An All-American Christmas, published on 22 December 2005, Harold Meyerson claims:

Irving Berlin invented the separation of church and song with “White Christmas.”

“White Christmas” was one of a dozen numbers that Berlin wrote for “Holiday Inn,” each song commemorating a specific holiday. One hesitates to impute anything so vulgar as a message to a Crosby-Fred Astaire musical, but the message of this musical is that we are all Americans and these are our holidays. Easter belongs to all of us, even if it is about little more than strolling down Fifth Avenue. Christmas belongs to all of us. The religious content of those holidays was fine for Christian believers, but the composer of “God Bless America” preferred to celebrate a common national identity, complete with common holidays that had nonsectarian meanings.

Berlin kept Christmas in the public square and, more than anyone before or since, sent it out over the public airwaves. But it was an American, not a Christian, Christmas. And by the crass index of number of recordings sold, and the not-so-crass index of number of spirits touched, Berlin’s nonsectarian holiday has been the predominant version of Christmas in this country for the past 60 years.

Now the Fox News demagogues want to impose a more sectarian Christmas on us, supplanting the distinctly American holiday we have celebrated lo these threescore years with a holiday that divides us along religious lines. Bill O’Reilly can blaspheme all he wants, but like millions of my countrymen, I take attacks on Irving Berlin’s America personally. If O’Reilly doesn’t like it here, why doesn’t he go back to where he came from?

Like Bonnie Erbe, Harold Meyerson has a powerful media amplifier he uses to vent his hostility towards Christians, especially White Christians. Here he lauds the recent imposition of a secularized Christmas while heaping fear and loathing on the original, secular Christmas. In Economy? What Economy?, published on 3 Sept 2008, Meyerson echoes Erbe:

this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem

Jews are constantly complaining about the problems they have with Christians and Whites in terms far more broad, far more hateful, and far more common than what Garrison Keillor wrote. As Edmund Connelly’s essay Daniel Jonah Goldhagen: Peddler of Hate makes clear, the problems extend far beyond shitty Christmas songs.

(The image above is from a pro-jewish rant at Garrison Keillor: ‘Lousy Holiday Songs By Jews Trash Up Malls’ at Thee Rant.)

Blog

Lyndon LaRouche: Bad for “The Jews”

9 Comments

By way of preface I’ll admit that like other deracinated, mainstream White Americans, most everything I have ever read or heard about Lyndon LaRouche has come from people, mainly via TV or in print news, who don’t like him and take for granted that everyone should think LaRouche and the people who agree with him are insane clowns, fools, morons, losers, etc. I don’t remember any specific reasons being offered to justify this attitude, but not wanting to waste time understanding something marginal and not wanting to be considered insane was enough reason for me, until recently, to simply ignore him.

Relatively late in life however I’ve come to understand that, at least some of the time, certain people get heaped with opprobrium not because what they’re saying is wrong or insane, but because they pose a threat to people who have power. Incorrect, insane things can be said, even things that pose a threat, as long as they’re said about powerless people.

I only recently stumbled on this book about LaRouche. Once again the view is hostile, in fact extremely hostile, but unlike the vague smears I’ve encountered in the past this author explicitly details just what it is about LaRouche that he sees as a threat.

Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, by William Dennis King, published in 1989. The excerpts below are taken from the Revised online HTML edition, 2007. OCR errors have been left intact. Emphasis added.

The archive.org introduction notes:

Taken off Kings website, this is the most substantial mainstream book on the LaRouche movement. Has a definite anti-Larouche bias

From the beginning King makes it clear that he considers LaRouche not a “kook” to be dismissed but a serious threat, and refers frankly to the mechanisms by which such threats are usually contained.

Why did society’s containment system miss this “problem-case”? How did LaRouche break out of quarantine? Did powerful people know all along who and what he was, deciding simply to use him for their own purposes? Why did he remain invulnerable to prosecution for so many years? How did he inspire so much fear in those who should have led an early fight to drive him back into quarantine?

LaRouche apparently opposes “the oligarchy”, but that’s not who he really threatens.

The lynchpin of LaRouchism, as of more primitive systems of paranoia, is the fear and hatred of an evil and secretive force. Although LaRouche calls this force the oligarchy, he really means the Jews. Given the total paranoia of the system, the fear and hatred veers into neo-Nazism.

The latter is not an acceptable ideology in today’s America and so must remain partially disguised to evade the “donkey censor.” LaRouche’s conspiracy theory therefore becomes a double system: First, it extends the NCLC’s paranoia and hatred into every aspect of thought; second, it attacks the supposed forces of evil in a euphemistic manner. This dual nature of the theory should be kept in mind as we step by step “decode” the bizarre formulations in which it is couched.

If LaRouche had been a traditional anti-Semite, he might have based his conspiracy theory on the Protocols of the Elders ofZion, the infamous forgery that purports to document a nineteenth-century conspiracy to establish a Jewish world government through various diabolical intrigues. But the Protocols is too narrow in scope for the purposes of total paranoia and also is too thoroughly discredited by scholars for practical use among most educated people. LaRouche hesitated, however, to reject out of hand one of the most effective Big Lies of the first half of the twentieth century. So he compromised: The Protocols, he said, has a “hard kernel of truth” but is only of limited significance-it represents only a small piece of the real conspiracy of the “oligarchy.”

LaRouche’s oligarchy makes the Elders of Zion seem mild. It supposedly has dominated the world for tens of thousands of years with unremittingly evil motives. Indeed, LaRouche accuses it of periodically killing off a large portion of the human race through famines and plagues. Today it is supposedly plotting a New Dark Ages, which will include nuclear holocaust, the massive spread of AIDS, Zero Growth, and total bestial heteronomy.

“The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites” is LaRouche’s most thorough account of his version of world history. Apart from his schema of oligarchs versus humanists, this work and other NCLC pseudo-historical treatises appear to borrow heavily from the anti-Semitic “classics”: Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century {^ 899), Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the l/Vesf (1918-22), Hitler’s Mein Kampf {^ 925-26), Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century {^930), and Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium (1948), as well as assorted British and American Nazi tracts from the interwar years.

LaRouche’s attacks on the evil “Babylonians,” for instance, strongly resemble theories found in Chamberlain, who claimed that the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity rose to great influence over their captors, and that Babylon rather than Jerusalem was the real headquarters of the ancient Jews. Chamberlain even remarked on the “Rothschilds” of Babylon. This theory is popularized for American white supremacists in pamphlets sold by the Louisiana-based Sons of Liberty~for instance. The l/lerchants of Babylon by Rev. Bertrand L. Comparet, which features a photograph of four bearded rabbis on the cover. When LaRouche denounces the “Whore of Babylon,” the Ku Klux Klan knows exactly what he means.

King sure knows exactly what he means.

It can be said that LaRouche’s version of history not only begins with Nazi and proto-Nazi ideas (the Atlanteans from the North) but ends with them. His theory of the contemporary struggle between parasitic bankers and productive factory owners is suspiciously similar to the views of Hitler’s early economics adviser, Gottfried Feder. The latter likewise urged the crushing and expropriation of speculative capital on behalf of industrial capital. Oswald Spengler, in a somewhat different version, hailed the “mighty contest between the two handfuls of steel-hard men of race and of immense intellect-which the simple citizen neither observes nor comprehends.” Like LaRouche, SpengJer claimed that the “battle of mere interests” between capitalists and workers is insignificant in comparison.

With all the above, it is still a long step to the conclusion that LaRouche’s historical writings are genuine neo-Nazism. He does discuss the “British” as the racial enemy of humanity that must be crushed, destroyed, eliminated. But is he clearly referring to the Jews when he uses the word “British”?

Who’s calling who paranoid here?

When LaRouche says the Queen of England pushes drugs or that Britain is the chief enemy of the United States, he is not merely indulging in eccentricity or a Freudian dislike of female authority figures. These statements have a serious meaning to anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in West Germany and the United States. They are eccentric only to those who have not studied the history of modern anti- Semitism, in which the theme of Jewish-British race mixing and Jewish domination of the British Empire looms large.

The original Nazis popularized this theory. In Mein Kampf, Hitler complained that the Jews in England exert an “almost unlimited dictatorship” through their manipulation of public opinion. Heinrich Himmler speculated in his unpublished notebooks on the “Jewish blood” of the English and Scots. Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Cen^L/ry discussed the alleged identity of the policies of “Jewish high finance” with those of Great Britain and claimed that the British government had “handed over control of all financial transactions to Jewish bankers such as Rothschild, Montague, Cassell, Lazard, etc.” Expressing a theory that the LaRouchians later would repeat in Dope, Inc., Rosenberg said that England had “allowed the opium trade to fall increasingly into Jewish hands.”

Once Nazi Germany and Britain were at war, the Nazis developed a more exaggerated version. World-Battle, an official propaganda organ, depicted “English high finance” as Judaism incarnate. England’s aggression against innocent Germany, it said, was the result of the Jews buying Churchill with piles of gold. Meanwhile Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, came to regard the Jews and the British upper classes as virtually one racial entity. He wrote in his diary in 1 942: “Rothschild. ..took the floor [of the British House of Commons] and delivered a tearjerker bemoaning the fate of the Polish Jews….AII members of Parliament rose from their seats as a silent tribute to Jewry. That was quite appropriate for the British House of Commons, which is really a sort of Jewish exchange. The English, anyway, are the Jews among the Aryans. The perfumed British Foreign Minister, Eden, cuts a good figure among these characters from the synagogue. His whole education and his entire bearing can be characterized as thoroughly Jewish.”

King concludes:

Those who would project a political role onto law enforcement, hoping it will do what political leaders are unable or unwilling to do, only prove that the moral flabbiness on which demagogues thrive is still with us. Given this fact, the lessons of LaRouche’s rise and apparent fall are important. If we study them seriously and act on them, it may turn out that the LaRouche phenomenon was a blessing in disguise — a dry run, under relatively safe conditions, that revealed our hitherto unsuspected weaknesses without our having to pay a heavy price for this knowledge. One thing seems certain: America is too violent and diverse — and too vulnerable to economic crisis — to avoid forever a major internal challenge from some form of totalitarian demagoguery. When that test comes, the story of Lyndon LaRouche may provide the key to an effective and timely response.

King’s bio, from his blog:

William Dennis King was born (1941) in Durham, N.C. and raised in Chapel Hill, N.C. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1965. He has lived in New York City for over 40 years.

King is the author of two books, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Doubleday, 1989) and Get the Facts on Anyone (Third Edition, Macmillan Reference USA, 1999) (the latter book is widely used as a manual by investigative journalists). He has written scores of articles for local and national newspapers and magazines, the majority relating to the LaRouche network and other political cults and anti-Semitic groups.

I’m reminded by this subject matter of Henry Ford’s THE INTERNATIONAL JEW – THE WORLD’S FOREMOST PROBLEM, published in the 1920s, one of history’s more prominent threats to “the oligarchs” and “parasitic bankers”, which as per King, everybody ought to know really means “the jews”.

Blog

Quick Links, 10 Dec 2009

24 Comments

‘White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression.’ by Hugh Murray, 1999, discusses how:

Liberals seek to camouflage the overrepresentation of Jews by pointing the finger at alleged “white male privilege.”

Via Invisible Victims: White Males and Affirmative Action.

– – –

Another piece from fellist’s excellent Songlight for Dawn, ‘Why Work?’ by Dorothy L. Sayers, circa 1940:

Do you realize how we have had to alter our whole scale of values, now that we are no longer being urged to consume but to conserve?

– – –

Elizabeth Warren: America Without a Middle Class:

Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you can, would it still be America as we know it?

– – –

Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers. A window into blackness.

“Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him,” Johnson Cooper said.

Contrast with the media’s regard for Whites holding comparable views on race-mixing. Via Occidental Dissent.

– – –

El Centro holds position for highest jobless rate

El Centro, Calif., held its position of having the highest unemployment rate among the nation’s metropolitan areas, with the jobless rate at 30%, according to government figures released Wednesday.

While the figure fell from a revised 32.2% in September, it climbed from 26.8% a year ago and it is staggering even against the nation’s 10.2% unemployment rate, which is at a 26-year high.

But the jobless picture has always been inferior in southern California’s Imperial Valley.

Look at the ethnic makeup of the Schools in El Centro, CA. Don’t avert your eyes. This is where “diversity” leads. As Felipe Calderon put it: Where there are mexicans there is mexico.

– – –

The “cool jew” trend causes jews to complain about jews complaining about jews complaining about jews. Seriously.

Blog

Robert Jay Mathews

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Robert Jay Mathews was killed by US government agents 25 years ago yesterday. Here’s why:

The stronger my love for my people grew, the deeper became my hatred for those who would destroy my race, my heritage, and darken the future of my children.

By the time my son had arrived, I realized that White America, indeed my entire race, was headed for oblivion unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son the more I realized that unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age, he would be a stranger in his own land, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, blacks and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day.

I came to learn that this was not by accident, that there is a small, cohesive alien group within this nation working day and night to make this happen. I learned that these culture distorters have an iron grip on both major political parties, on Congress, on the media, on the publishing houses, and on most of the major Christian denominations in this nation, even though these aliens subscribe to a religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

These are the same people who Ex-Senator William J. Fulbright and the late General Brown tried to warn us about. Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg tried vainly to warn us also. Had we been more vigilant, my son’s future would not be so dark and dismal.

Thus I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle. A secret war has been developing for the last year between the regime in Washington and an ever growing number of White people who are determined to regain what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built and died for.

The FBI has been able to keep this war secret only because up until now we have been doing nothing more than growing and preparing. The government, however, seems determined to force the issue, so we have no choice left but to stand and fight back. Hail Victory!

In A Call to Arms – Part 1, recorded in 1991, William Pierce recounts his memories of Mathews in the introduction to a talk given by Mathews in 1981. Links to parts 1-13 are here at the bottom of the page.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light