Shaming the Shameless

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I’m glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He’s notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer’s line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, “Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you’re a nasty jew-hater.”

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don’t think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He’s wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else’s.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don’t. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as “insiders”? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I’ve always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.

. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn’t fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society’s problems are due to “the majority” simply abdicating.

The reality is that America’s jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless “anti-semites”. It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce’s Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the “Sons of Ellis Island”, see Kevin MacDonald’s Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the “Diversity Recession” and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil’s examination of Diversity in income and education.


Prompted by the links discussed in Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time, Auster writes My November 2007 response to Tanstaafl about the First Law and the Jews.

He begins by rephrasing his “First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society” for the Nth time:

The First Law refers to a liberal majority’s concealment of the negative truths about minorities who are visibly dysfunctional, alien, or threatening: the more dysfunctional or dangerous they are, the more their negative qualities are denied and are blamed on the majority.

He goes on to deny that jews are dysfunctional. One of his commenters gets him to dissemble about their alien nature. He doesn’t address “threatening” or “dangerous”. His own reaction to the idea that his law applies to jews provides a vivid example of the law in action. He admits he was thinking of blacks and muslims and didn’t consider jews when he formulated this version for John Savage (his emphasis):

As I look over your collection, it’s clear to me that there is but one Law, and it’s simply this: that the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.

The new, shorter version is missing the reference to “racism”. How convenient. Most of the rest of Auster’s comments are an attack on Chechar and myself for “anti-semitism”, that extra special form of “racism” most noted for its use in covering up the crimes, misbehavior, and dysfunctions of an extra special “minority”.

Auster could have called his law “The Law That Covers Everbody Except Jews”. Too late, it’s The First Law of Jewish Influence now.

Diversity is Divisive

Commenter Flippityflopitty sends this link via email. Let’s Get Real About Racism: Lee Mun Wah:

Before we can truly become a multicultural nation, we must have relationships based on respect and understanding, reflection and compassion; where our differences and our similarities are embraced, valued, useful and integrated into the very fabric of our workplaces, communities, schools and governmental institutions. I come from the belief that awareness and holidays are just the beginning. What is required is an ongoing dialogue and relationship with each other, one that allows for conflict and differences, questions and curiosity. To me, that is what a healthy and intimate relationship possesses. I hope that you will join me in making this not only a better world for our children, but for ourselves – not by starting tomorrow, but beginning today.

Let’s Get Real: What People of Color Can’t Say & Whites Won’t Ask

For People of Color:

1. What’s hard telling whites the truth about racism?
2. What’s the price of telling the truth about race relations in the U.S.?
3. Why do you think it’s so hard for whites to hear the truth about racism?
4. What would you say to whites if you could tell them the truth about racism?
5. In what ways do whites keep people of color from telling the truth about race/racism?
6. How have you learned to “play the game” to appease white folks?
7. What would it take for you to feel safe enough to tell the truth about race/racism to white folks?
8. What is the difference between talking about race and racism?
9. What is the illusion about race relations in the United States?
10. Are race relations getting wors e or better in the U.S? Why or why not?
11. Can you ever envision a world without racism? Why or why not?
12. What was your most profound experience with racism? How old were you? How did it affect you and how does it affect you today?
13. What do you think it will take for whites to truly embrace diversity?
14. In order to unlearn racism, what do you need or want from white folks?
15. What can’t you say about racism? Why or why not?
16. What does assimilation mean to you? Why?
17. When you have told the truth about racism, what has been some of your experiences? How have those outcomes affected you?
18. When talking about racism, what opens you up and what close you down?
19. What do you say to folks that feel that racism is no longer an issue now that we have a black president?
20. Do you think that your children will experience racism when they grow up? Why or why not?
21. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color?

For Whites:

1. What’s good and what’s hard talking about racism?
2. How does guilt keep you from dealing with racism?
3. How do you think you benefit from racism?
4. What opens you up and what closes you down to talk about racism? Why?
5. What are some of your fears to bring up the issue of racism with people of color? With other white folks?
6. What do you need from people of color to feel safe to talk about racism?
7. What do you need from other whites to feel safe to talk about racism?
8. If you could say three things to people of color about racism, what would you say?
9. What do you think it will take for people of color and whites to trust each other?
10. Do you believe that racism is a learned behavior and attitude? If yes, why? If not, why not?
11. Where did most of your stereotypes about people of color come from? How did those stereotypes affect your perceptions and attitudes toward them?
12. What part do you think you play in perpetuating racism?
13. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color? Why?
14. What do you think it will take to unlearn racism for white folks?
15. What are some of the things that you are afraid to say to people of color?
16. What would be some questions you would like to ask people of color?
17. Why do you think many white folks don’t identify as a group?
18. When did you first experience racism? What happened and how did it affect you?
19. What percentage is your life is impacted by racism? Why or why not?
20. In what ways have you been able to avoid talking or dealing with racism?
21. Are there two Americas? Why or why not?
22. What does assimilation mean to you?
23. What does diversity or multicuturalism mean to you?
24. What do you think keeps people of color and whites apart?
25. What do you think it will take for the United States to heal from racism?

1. Why does anyone mistake this anti-White bigotry for “anti-racism”?
2. Why should Whites respect, embrace, or have any dialogue or relationship with people who blame us for all their problems?
3. How can we make them leave us alone?
4. Where can we go to get away from them?
5. If we somehow succeed in saving ourselves, how do we keep this from happening again?

Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time

Chechar questions the non-anti-semitic limits on his White nationalism: A lightning in the middle of the night!

Lawrence “the majority should reassert itself” Auster supports the move, saying he understands Whites and jews have different, sometimes conflicting interests, and though he unequivocally favors jews he does not object to White political or cultural self-determination: An anti-anti-Semitic blogger announces that he is removing the first “anti”.

Just kidding. Larry is such a serious anti-“anti-semite” he’d never say anything remotely like that.

UPDATE 26 Feb 2010: “Tanstaafl on Auster (I)”

Something Rotten Down Under

While searching for the government immigration report mentioned in Cheerleading Genocidal Immigration I ran into a recent Australian government report.

Clear-eyed report spells out the risks | The Australian:

THE government’s white paper on counter-terrorism is a landmark, a watershed, a signal moment: choose your metaphor.

What I mean to say is, it’s a very important document, and for none of the reasons you have been hearing about in the past few days.

Sometimes the press gallery and the main media commentators so spectacularly miss the point that you wonder what universe they are living in.

For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It’s in the white paper, but not the media.

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It’s in the white paper but not the media.

The other criticism of the white paper is for using the term jihadist. If it really was Rudd who insisted on this he deserves high praise. It is crucial we tell the truth. The al-Qa’ida version of jihad, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or of many Wahabi Muslims and of the strand of Shia represented by the Iranian government, is, terribly, a minority but longstanding tradition within Islam. To pretend otherwise is to intellectually disable ourselves.

The descriptive passages in the white paper are written in calm but straightforward language and have the virtue of telling the truth clearly and unapologetically.

One weakness, or contradiction, for the government is that the white paper rightly extols the need for tight border security, yet the government’s policies have weakened border security to our north. Virtually any Middle East or South Asian Muslim who gets to Christmas Island now gets to stay in Australia permanently and ultimately gets access to family reunion. That’s starting to be many thousands of people who have not been chosen under regular Australian procedures.

The white paper is online at Counter-Terrorism White Paper: Securing Australia – Protecting our Community. It is focused on al qaida and muslims. Here are several excerpts that convey the gist.

The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.

Future geo-political events could mean other terrorist movements with a presence or support base in Australia could become willing to engage in operational activity here. And in the future new terrorist threats could manifest themselves in Australia, either as a by-product of events overseas or as a result of a political grievance within Australia. There will always be the disaffected and disempowered, often but not always at the fringes of communities or the followers of radical ideologies, who mistakenly see advantages in the use of terrorist tactics.

The aim of Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy is to protect Australia, its people and interests from terrorism.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are intelligence-led and focused on prevention.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups. However, we know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject ideologies that promote violence, no matter from where they arise or to what purpose they aspire. We must all support and protect the values and freedoms from which all Australians benefit. By reducing disadvantage, addressing real or perceived grievances and encouraging full participation in Australia’s social and economic life, government policies can help to mitigate any marginalisation and radicalisation that may otherwise occur within the Australian community.

To be effective, Australia must pursue a principled and proportionate response that promotes and upholds the values we seek to protect.

This chapter explains how Australia will counter violent extremism by:

* building on Australia’s history of inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism;

Australia’s inclusive, multicultural society is one of our strengths. Australia needs to harness this strength in the face of the divisive narrative of terrorist groups. We have a key interest in not allowing messages of hate to divide our community. Maintaining a resilient society based on shared freedoms, respect and understanding of our diversity helps us achieve that.

Australia is a country that recognises, accepts and respects cultural diversity. However, Australia will not tolerate the propagation of violent extremism and hate under the cloak of that diversity. The Government is committed to promoting respect, inclusion and a sense of belonging, in ways which address issues impeding social cohesion.

Exclusion or marginalisation of any individual or group of people can affect us all. It can affect a society’s cohesiveness, economic performance and, as we have seen overseas, the security and stability of the community as a whole. There are few countries in the world where migrants have achieved the level of economic, political, social and cultural participation that they have in Australia. But we cannot afford to be complacent. We know that a small number of Australians hold extreme beliefs and some of these individuals are or may be committed to supporting or engaging in acts of terrorism.

Media, academia, and government across the West have long been cheerleading for diversity and the immigration that brings it. They have also consistently ignored, disassociated, and otherwise played down and covered up any negative consequences.

This “clear-eyed” report laying out the Australian government’s counter-terrorism priorities only pays lip service to protecting Australia and its people. It actually puts “inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity” first. If this were not the case the report would address the hate-based and divisive pro-diversity, anti-native, anti-White narratives which have promoted and defended genocidal immigration and multicultural policies under the cloak of double-talk about inclusion. It would point out that this has created an islamic terrorism problem where none existed before – no muslim immigrants, no islamic terrorism. It would explain that the biggest threat to an Australian sense of belonging and social cohesion is the immigration of any racial or cultural aliens, and advocate a return to the White Australia policy.

Instead we get a cross-eyed report premised on a bullshit history and orwellian future in which inclusion of diversity produces cohesion.

(The image above comes from Australia Racism Protest Photo. The threat to Australians is not restricted to jihadists. Diversity is divisive. Immigration is genocide.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light