Blog

Age of Racism

16 Comments

Blacks are polling 95-1 for Obama, but a black commentator at CNN.com assures us: Black vote isn’t monolithic. Which sounds about as plausible as Ian Jobling’s assertion that jews aren’t ethnocentric.

The explanation for any apparent bias can presumably be found only in the minds of hate-filled racist Whites. That’s the way Harold Meyerson sees it. Blacks flock to Obama and somehow he blames it on deracinated Republicans.

Brace yourselves. For the forseeable future any criticism of Obama will be called racism. His smallest failures will be blamed on racism. His smallest successes will be proclaimed as great triumphs over racism. What remains of the constitution will be shredded in the name of halting the scourge of racism. Racism will ruin the economy, kill our soldiers, and make our children stupid. AIDS and cancer will be found to be caused, in part, by racism.

As Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson recently said, “black people don’t vote for candidates just because they are black. If Clarence Thomas ran for president, he would get five black votes.”

This is like saying, “jewish people don’t vote for candidates just because they are jews. If Israel Shamir ran for president of israel, he would get five jewish votes.” Shamir would lose for the same reason as David Duke. Because jews are intensely aware of and motivated by their collective interests, not because they aren’t.

Likewise with blacks. Colin Powell would be a fairer comparison to McCain, both being RINOs, but it’s not hard to imagine even Clarence “Uncle” Thomas getting more black votes than any White opponent he faced. Blacks would certainly cross party lines to vote for any black Republican over any White Democrat, just as they are crossing the other way in this election. The black votes Thomas wouldn’t get would be those who don’t trust him because he thinks and acts too White. Thomas’ ratio of black votes would only differ from Obama’s in quantity, not quality.

Whites had a similar choice with Clinton vs Obama and now with McCain vs Obama. In both cases White-haters denounce us as racists because we don’t vote 95-1 against the White candidate. The double standard is so blatant that even deracinated Whites are beginning to notice. When they start asking questions some of them are going to find out that not only are they “racists”, they’re “anti-semites” too. Uh oh.

Rather than trying to deny our “insane hate” I think more Whites will, like me, recognize such ridiculous rhetoric as a reflection of our critics’ ethnocentric character, not our own. These Whites will grow a shell and their heretofore reflexive apologetic reaction to accusations of “racism” and “anti-semitism” will disappear.

(Image by INCOGMAN.)

Blog

Nothing to do with Race, Nope, No Way

3 Comments

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption “LANDSLIDE” just below. I didn’t have time to save Drudge’s image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I’m not in either social circle, so I didn’t see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn’t the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It’s Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that’s right. We’re not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next…

– – –

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The “socialist” label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge’s headline, “PAPER: ‘Socialist’ label called ‘old code word for black’…”, made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article’s actual argument is that in the “old days”, before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said “negro” or “colored” when they meant negro or colored. “Socialist” might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn’t an old one.

On the other hand “socialist”, or more precisely “communist”, was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called “anti-semite”. Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn’t bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That’s because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn’t bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the “social pricing” was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we’re told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it’s just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that’s just more raving. Here’s what’s really important:

There’s no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can’t peer into someone’s soul, but also because there’s no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn’t hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don’t have to call that anti-Semitism if you don’t want to. But there’s no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day – without looking hard – opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford’s warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today’s rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn’t a crime at all. It’s not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It’s justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn’t because they’re “deserving of the strongest reproach”. No. It’s because you’re an anti-semite throwback – like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, … Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

– – –

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here’s a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who “appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices”. This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she’s a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being “racist”, and we’re not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we’re also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists “fighting for equality” really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else’s money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to “rescue” you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that “getting” and “making” stuff of Ford’s is starting to make sense it’s either because you’re a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

– – –

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn’t matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn’t it?

Blog

The Urge to Purge

34 Comments

There is a blog dedicated to documenting Charles Johnson’s purge of commenters at Little Green Footballs.

The post titled Levi from Queens and the Great Discarded Lizard Chainsaw Massacre of 2008 – Case Study #24 – LGF BANNED AND BLOCKED concerns the banning of several “racists” and “fascists” who dared to speak in favor of “race realists” Lawrence Auster and Ian Jobling.

I left a comment that compared Charles to Auster, noting that they disagree on ethnic European nationalism, but agree on jewish nationalism (it’s good), muslim nationalism (it’s bad), and silencing anyone who vexes them.

Then Ian Jobling dropped by. He linked an ostensibly pro-“white” manifesto in which he writes:

Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.

Jobling unequivocally blames Whites and absolves jews for any animosity between us. His is a pro-jewish manifesto cloaking itself in “white”. It is cut from the same cloth as Auster’s blame-for-the-“majority” protection-for-the-“minority” double-talk:

In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an “oppressive” majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority’s demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.

My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn’t mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority.

With “allies” like Jobling and Auster Whites don’t need enemies.

UPDATE 24 Oct 2008: Thanks to Guessedworker I see Jobling has answered, after a fashion. In Anti-Semites Stink Up Another Discussion Thread he writes:

I left a comment linking to my blog post on the incident and explaining why I’m not a fascist, hoping I might get a decent discussion of race realism going with the moderates who traffic the site. However, it was not to be: I was immediately set upon by a couple of professional anti-Semites named tanstaafl, who runs the blog Age of Treason, and Greg Polden.

Jobling either doesn’t care or is counting on the LGF BANNED thread disappearing, because anyone who’s interested can read for themselves who said what and who set upon who.

Jobling adds very little to what’s already been said. All he presents here is essentially point-and-sputter. He seems to be hoping LGF BANNED will delete the offending thread now that he has declared it “stinked up”. His modus operandus is just like Auster’s. What a coincidence.

I will continue to purge my comment queue of all dire ruminations sent in by tanstaafl and his like.

The urge to purge is strong in this one. I consider myself forewarned and thus will only waste time responding here.

The most substantial thing he wrote was in a comment:

Tanstaafl is referring to the fact that moderates like Johnson support Israel, but neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism. Since all that tanstaafl can see in politics is conflicts between different ethnic interests, or nationalisms, Johnson’s attitude seems completely nonsensical to him and can only be explained as a result of Jewish brainwashing.

However, once you go outside this absurdly narrow view of human motivations and realize that people’s political views are motivated by many different factors, then Johnson’s views make sense, even if you think they are mistaken. What matters most to moderates like Johnson is democratic, Western values. Since they think Israel exemplifies these values, they are pro-Israel. Since they think neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism are democratic ideologies, moderates are against them. Nationalism really has nothing to do with this preference; values explain them.

Bottom line: A person’s political outlook is rooted in many different factors, such as political ideology, ethnicity, class, and so forth. If you take a simplistic view of human motivations, the world makes no sense to you and leads you to make an ass of yourself in public.

I’m glad to see I got my point across. Yes, I think ethnic/racial interests are important. More important than class or political ideology. Jews are a perfect example. Despite their class, politics, country of residence, or how much Jobling denies being able to notice – jews just can’t seem to set aside their ethnocentrism.

I am simplistic. I say flat out that I’m pro-White. Jobling and Auster are more complicated, but in a deceptive way. They present themselves as pro-“white”, as “race realists”. But they refuse to distinguish between Whites and jews. And they attack Whites who do distinguish, but not jews.

Going on about “democratic, Western values” while calling for political opponents to be silenced is a good way to make an ass of yourself. If Johnson and Jobling think the jewish ethnostate represents “democratic, Western values” then why do they oppose White ethnostates? If jews do not differ from Whites “in any important respect” then I should be able to move to israel and collect welfare, right? What’s that? My mother has to be jewish? I don’t object. But to demonstrate his consistent values Charles Johnson should either denounce zionists as racists, or he should support White ethno-nationalism like he supports zionism. The latter is especially sensible if he cares for “the West”.

I’ve been deleting a lot of pro-MacDonald comments because their authors show no sign of having read the Lieberman article and are thus incapable of expressing an informed opinion. Anti-Semites show their typical dogmatism by leaping to the defense of MacDonald before they even know what the argument against him is.

Jobling seem to realize at some level that the urge to purge is not right. Thus he tries to transfer responsibility for the problem to those expressing the opinions he wishes to suppress. He makes repeated appeals to psychology…say doctor, heal thyself.

I didn’t mention MacDonald until Jobling did. I agree with and respect much of what MacDonald has written, but what I think and write doesn’t hinge on the truth or falseness of MacDonald’s positions.

Yes, trying to convince the Age of Treason types to take a reasonable view of this issue is like trying to teach a monkey table manners. All you’ll get for your pains is faeces thrown at you.

I’ve taken pains to understand Jobling’s arguments and to use his own logic and phraseology in answering and critcizing him. He can call that feces if he likes.

Blog

Not the Last Brainwashing

6 Comments

Letter to the White Race, ostensibly written from the point of view of a non-white, provides a fair summary of how impotent and defeated Whites have been made to appear.

This is facilitated by decades of brainwashing, beginning in early school years, portraying Whites not as the builders of a great civilization, or the admirable leaders of the Free World, but in a lopsided, entirely slanted way as oppressors, enslavers, genocidal “Nazis”, southern Klansmen, imperialistic Colonials, and toothless hillbillies just itching for a chance to lynch the first colored individual that comes along. This brainwashing not only inflames the minorities in these now racially-mixed “schools”, but also inculcates a sense of “White guilt” that the Out Group finds particularly useful in maintaining control.

Tonight I watched a prime-time television documentary called The Last Lynching:

Just weeks before the history-making 2008 presidential election, the first in which any political party has nominated an African American as its candidate, Discovery Channel presents a one-hour special on race in America. Some commentators are now speaking of a “post-racial” period in American history. While the nation has come a long way on the road toward racial equality, there is still much left to accomplish.

It is a prime example of Out Group brainwashing.

The documentary focuses on a Ku Klux Klan-related murder that took place in Mobile AL in 1981. Ted Koppel, who is jewish, interviews 1960s “freedom rider” and current congressional representative from San Diego, Bob Filner, who is jewish, and the SPLC’s founding hate-crusader Morris Dees, who is jewish. The moral of the story: Whites are lynch-happy racists – but we can redeem ourselves by voting for Barack Obama.

Daniel M. Gold writes in his New York Times review: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” And concludes his critique-free review with this:

In these accounts Mr. Koppel offers inspiration and a tribute to an event — the nomination of a black presidential candidate by a major party — that many had not expected in their lifetime. Yet “The Last Lynching” also conveys how close to the surface racial resentments can lie, and how easily they can be channeled into blind rage. In the end the program is as much cautionary tale as celebration.

Racial resentments indeed. This documentary is an excellent example of anti-White resentments motivating jews to not-so-subtly nurse black victimology and channel black resentments against Whites. When their man doesn’t win in November, whose “blind rage” is more likely to spill over? The blacks polling 95-1 for Obama and threatening race riots, or the Whites polling 55-40 for McCain who dare not make a peep about jews like Harold Meyerson who openly say “whiteness is a huge problem”.

In The Last Lynching the mendacity begins at the beginning with a cliched glossing over of the history of lynching in America. Quickly flashing images and carefully selected words convey the impression that only blacks were hung, and that none of it was just or warranted. Some 5000 who were lynched between the civil war and the 1930s are described only as “victims” – as if they were all selected at random, or simply because they were black. There is scant mention of the victims whose rape or murder instigated more than a few of the lynchings.

In glossing over this past Koppel even brazenly refers to The Birth of a Nation, a 1915 film that tells a quite different story from his own. Koppel and friends used snippets of the film to flesh out their characterization of hooded Klansmen mindlessly murdering random negroes. They’re counting on modern day viewers not to know the film’s story and not to know that the Klan rose from the post-war chaos in reaction to the depravities and injustices visited upon southern Whites. As late as 1915 most Whites still knew this history and celebrated the KKK, but even by then racial resentments were brewing:

When Griffith released the film in 1915, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (or NAACP) and other groups protested; the NAACP published a 47-page pamphlet titled “Fighting a Vicious Film: Protest Against The Birth of a Nation,” in which they referred to the film as “three miles of filth.” W. E. B. Du Bois published scathing reviews in The Crisis, spurring a heated debate among the National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures as to whether the film should be shown in New York. However, President and former history professor Woodrow Wilson viewed the film at the White House and proclaimed it not only historically accurate, but like “history writ with lightning.” Like Woodrow Wilson, many whites felt it a truthful and accurate portrayal of racial politics, so much so that they flocked to join the rejuvenated Ku Klux Klan. The years after Griffith released The Birth of a Nation saw massive race riots throughout the country, peaking especially in the North in 1919; many historians lay the blame for this racial conflict on Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation.

What happened between then and now? Well understanding that the early NAACP was organized, funded, and led by jews helps explain. It seems WEEJs (white eastern European jews) had an axe to grind with the WASP elite. It seems these WASPs were a wee slow in handing over control of the nation their forefathers gave birth to. After almost a century of “culture war” those busy little WEEJs are still grinding away. Today “KKK” is an epithet, and jews are making documentaries to explain how the ever expanding racial conflict they’ve poured gasoline on is all for the better. The only threat to their utopia are racist Whites itching to once again start lynching at random.

If jewish influence in the media were not so strong, or if jews did not so uniformly resent Whites, then perhaps today’s mainstream journalists and pundits would not so strongly and uniformly insist on inverting reality. The reality of post-KKK, post-Jim Crow, post-White, jewish-dominated America is black on White violence:

The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation, 2005

Mapping The Unmentionable: Race And Crime
February 13, 2005
By Steve Sailer

CRIME IN THE HOOD
La Griffe du Lion
November 1999

THE RACE WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE
Paul Sheehan
From the Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995

Guy White calls out “liberal” Tim Wise on his “lying” and “false logic” about this reality. Guy makes sense, except in failing to note that Tim Wise is a jew who makes a living channeling racial resentment towards Whites. Jewish race-based indifference, hostility, and even genocidal feelings toward Whites, no matter how hard we might wish to avert our eyes and pretend jews are “White Like Me”, is another harsh reality the media won’t discuss.

One final thought.

If an atypical murder from 1981 rates a prime-time documentary, then when might Ted Koppel make a documentary exploring the racial resentments behind the quadruple murder in Wichita, the rape/torture/murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, or the sickeningly common racial murder and rape of White women in America? When might Bob Filner spend time on a bus or in a jail cell for the benefit of White victims of racial violence? When might Morris Dees hound black rapists and murders in court?

I think they’ll get around to these things right after making a documentary guilt-tripping jews for their involvement in the biggest fraud in history.

In other words: never.

UPDATE 15 Oct 2008: The image at the top of this post is a corrected version of the reality-inverting original that was attached to a Slate essay from May titled In Praise of Liberal Guilt – It’s not wrong to favor Obama because of race. In that essay Ron Rosenbaum, who is jewish, delivers virtually the same message as Koppel/Filner/Dees: Whites should feel guilty because of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow. We should feel guilty about it forever. And because of it we should vote for Obama.

He also neglects to address the black on White violence occurring today.

What a coincidence.

We must recognize these attempts to guilt-trip us for events that occurred generations ago, to libel and damn us forever because of the race we are born into. We must recognize that these smears are not only false, they represent attacks made by people who wish us ill.

Blog

Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce

32 Comments

Steve Sailer has written several essays noting the disproportional large involvement of “minorities” in the housing bubble that triggered the Wall Street bailout, and noting the disproportionately small amount of attention the media has paid to it. More specifically he has focused on the role of “NAMs”, non-asian minorities, the euphemism he and his regular commenters use for blacks and latinos.

Sailer attributes the past decade of frenzied borrowing and spending in large part to the trendy but misplaced faith among our politically correct managerial class that relatively poor, uneducated, irresponsible blacks and latinos would pay back loans at the same rate as relatively wealthy, educated, responsible Whites. He labels this zeitgeist The Bullshit Years and calls the resulting bubble-bailout The Diversity Recession.

As usual there are some misguided souls who spring forth to defend the “brown people”. Often their argument is based on the rationale that putting minorities in a negative light, i.e. discriminating against them, is nothing but a nefarious attempt to blame everything on them, to make them scapegoats, because this is the only thing racists driven mad by hatred can think to do.

This is a dishonest but predictable response made by seemingly intelligent people. It epitomizes the prevailing political correctness and actually helps demonstrate Sailer’s point that “the Establishment” is infected with a mental disease which causes them to deliberately deny certain facts, as well as the consequences of this denial – and to villify anyone who will not behave likewise.

The fact is the plutocrats and their managerial class are more than willing to discriminate, to see minorities and their disproportions, even to the point that this willingness motivates offical policies which disproportionately aid minorities, even to the point where such policies are obviously detrimental to indigenous Whites.

Yesterday Sailer posted a reader’s more intelligent objection to his ideas. The argument in The Diversity Recession: A debunking is not based on the virtue of ignoring minorities, or the evil of not ignoring them, but instead aims at denying that minorities were disproportionately involved.

In accepting the validity of discussing disproportion such an argument is a small concession to the truth, and possibly even made in good faith, but the net result is the same: it is an attempt to defuse and deflect attribution of blame away from where it rightfully belongs. When “the Establishment” wishes to do favors for minorities there is little hesitation not only to fudge the numbers in whatever way is required to produce disproportions that need correcting, but also to blame those disproportions, sometimes explicitly, sometimes by implication, on the machinations of Whites who are ostensibly disporportionately “racist”.

In the case of Sailer’s would-be debunker, if the argument that blacks and latinos were not disproportionately involved in housing bubble foreclosures is correct, then by implication Whites and/or asians must have been. Sailer and his commenters have already provided plenty of evidence countering this debunking, and at any rate it seems a moot point. Under the leadership of Carter, Clinton, and Bush the government stated its belief that blacks and (later) latinos were disproportionately suffering injustice and explicitly sought to right that wrong by applying new, discriminatory standards. Those are the facts.

Sailer’s point, which several of his commenters have pointed out to his you-just-want-to-blame-brown-people critics, is not that the “NAMs” conspired to enrich themselves. The point is that intelligent non-“NAMs” in positions of authority consciously chose to pander to “NAMs” and pursue related fiscal policies that on their face would seem highly unintelligent because the macroeconomic consequences are turning out, as some predicted, to be incredibly bad.

This begs the question: why assume these otherwise supra-intelligent people in government and finance were behaving stupidly? Obviously some people got wealthy in the feeding frenzy leading up to the collapse. Some are now getting wealthy shorting and speculating during the collapse. Still more stand to get wealthy by securing taxpayer subsidies for themselves. There are plenty of people who simply do not care how much the macroeconomy suffers as long as their microeconomy gains.

Indeed Sailer and many of his commenters don’t really seem to assume “the Establishment” is stupid. They insinuate that the negative results of the malfeasence were mostly unintentional and attribute the blame in part to short-sighted greed and in part to the hopeless naivete of “whiter people” – i.e. liberal, politically correct “whites”.

For me this also is only a partial and thus unacceptable concession to the truth. The truth is there is another minority embroiled in this scandal. A minority whose participation nobody seems to want to note. I posted the following comment to The Diversity Recession: A debunking, but it did not make it past moderation:

As long as we’re examining disproportions of minorities, what about the disproportion of jews who:

A) argue any disproportion perceived as harmful to a minority is caused by White racism (described variously as redlining, institutional racism, White privilege)

B) “innovated” ways around regulation and created new forms of leverage built on the loosened lending resulting largely from A (described variously as mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligation)

C) advocate taxpayer-funded subsidies for private enterprises (described variously as loans, buyouts, bailouts)

D) enriched themselves via A, B, or C

E) are in positions of authority and oversight, and should now be seeking to ferret out and punish wrongdoing rather than what they are doing, which is trying to find some way, any way to provide more C

I have a theory that explains why the disproportionate involvement of the jewish minority goes even less frequently mentioned than the disproportionate involvement of either blacks or latinos. It has to do with the phrase “anti-semitism”.

First, obviously, anyone who would mention the jewish minority in such a negative light can expect it to be denounced as “anti-semitism” (refer to item A). Second, but more important, this same defensive tendency means that if even a relatively small number of the jewish minority perceived that the effects of either the housing bubble or the bailout were bad for themselves or jews in general (disproportionately or not) then they would have already blamed either situation on “anti-semitism”.

My theory is that the general jewish perception is that they have participated and benefited disproportionately. But most pundits, even the non-jewish ones who realize this and are un-PC enough to attribute blame to other minorities, dare not even mention jewish involvement for fear of the consequences of criticizing the most powerful and favored minority of all.

Perhaps someone here would do those of us in the White soon-to-be-minority who have been disproportionately defrauded the favor of trying to debunk this theory.

To support my assertion of jewish disproportions I direct the reader to look into the matter for themselves. This would involve familiarizing yourself with the concept of disproportion, jewish population statistics, and the rather laborious process of finding and reading wikipedia and NNDB biographical entries of the principals involved. The most common objections are likely to be based on either innumeracy or an inability to discriminate.

These obstacles should not impede Sailer or his disproportionately intelligent commenters. They have already expended great energy researching and arguing statistics concerning “NAM” disproportions. News From The West has started the task, but it’s only the very tip of the jewish-disproportion iceberg. If jews are not disproportionately benefiting, then why haven’t they been complaining about disproportionately suffering? It’s fairly obvious that jews comprise more than 3% of the reality-twisting race hustlers, government officials who legislated that hustle, financiers who built the house of cards on top of it, economists who validated it, bureacrats and advisors negotiating a “fix” for it, and political and market pundits whose words and voices are right now so overwhelmingly shilling in favor of that fix. Are we to believe that jews enjoyed precisely 3% of the loosened lending largesse and 3% of the financial wizardry profits, and stand to receive only 3% of the bailout money and pay only 3% of the taxes that will fund it?

Hypothetically, if a disproportion of blacks and latinos in “the Establishment” had arranged to dole taxpayer money out to a disproportion of black and latino borrowers and then reward disproportionately black and latino financiers for “failing” because of those policies, then I trust intelligent and honest people would notice and discuss it as the ethnically motivated scandal it would be. Is the fact that the actual circumstances involve a jewish minority indirectly disproportionately enriching themselves by first lobbying for and then leveraging the disproportionate enrichment of blacks and latinos really so much harder to understand or accept?

Come now, what’s constraining this discussion of minorities and disproportions?

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light