Tag Archives: anti-christian

the_beam_in_my_eye

Why the Jews Hate Those Who Love Them

Andrew Anglin points at Yori Yanover, who asks, Must Jews Dislike the Christians who Like Them? Yanover’s answer is an emphatic yes:

In other words, while I and my fellow faithful Jews like the fact that the next pogrom will not come from an Evangelical torch and pitchfork crowd, we still don’t trust you. You can’t say you love me for who I am, because who I am includes a thorough rejection of the essence of your ideology, all of it, completely, I hold that there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

But wait, there’s more.

Now do you love me? Do you love me in a future in which Jesus doesn’t come, and you continue to hold on to your faith, and I to mine?

Or, at least, can you keep the narrative about my seeing your light to yourselves?

That’s [what] we’re really asking.

Yanover imagines himself as a jewish superpope, who speaks for all the jews. It is a voice which is totally unselfconscious about jews force feeding others with their narrative, their tikkun olam and “light unto the nations” excuses for turning everyone else’s life upside down for their own benefit, never mind their noxious holocaust narrative, which they insist everyone else must learn and describe as they see fit, with special laws and fines and prison terms for heretics.

But I think Anglin’s response to Yanover gives Christians too much credit:

One might even go so far as to assert that continued existence of the Jews as a people is dependent on American Christian Zionists.

Surely, if it was not for them, we would cut the funding to the Jew state tomorrow, as aside from the weird cult, there is simply no logical reason to support these Jews. The fact that they use the money to commit genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine removes the humanitarian burden of protecting the allegedly persecuted Jews, even if you believe this Holocaust gibberish.

If it were not for the doctrine of Christian Zionism, most Christians would, by default, be Antisemitic, as this has been the default position of Christians since the beginnings of the religion. Thus, we would not continue to allow Jews to continue to run our government, economy and media.

Christians have bitterly opposed abortion and homosexuality, yet the jews have gotten their way on these domestic issues. Why would Christian opposition to Israel, or any other point of foreign policy, be different? Anglin knows it isn’t Christian Zionists who control the money, the media or the political parties, it’s the jews. It’s their money and media which moderate the policies of the United States, not the other way around. It has very little to do with what voters want, Christian or otherwise.

The jews make mountains out of molehills. They know there is a built-in limit to Christian “anti-semitism”. Yanover admits they’re all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they’d still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. Christians have always welcomed jews to “convert”, to infiltrate and manipulate them from within, even during the many brief periods of “persecution” that the jews complain most bitterly about.

The jews clearly wouldn’t have nearly as easy a time infiltrating and manipulating White societies if Christianity didn’t exist. Anglin’s argument that the jews wouldn’t exist if American Christian Zionists didn’t exist is far less plausible.

It seems to me that the Christians who love the jews who hate them are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. The affliction in self-proclaimed Christian Zionists, like Vox Day, is particularly obvious and acute. They insist on seeing the jews as partners, or at least as peers, even after looking directly at evidence which indicates otherwise.

Having a faith in beliefs which can’t be proven one way or another is one thing. Maintaining a truth which has been demonstrated false is something else. The first is a form of spirituality common to most men. The second is pathological. In this case the cause, the pathogen, is jews.

Though Christians make a spectacular show of the symptoms, and bashing Christians is perfectly semitically correct under the current, thoroughly judaized regime, Christians aren’t the only ones afflicted. Christianity appears to be only one method by which jews “capture” the minds of their “hostages”. Sharing short-term measures of fame or wealth or power seems to explain more.

Why do the jews hate those who love them? Because that’s their nature. Race is real. The parasite’s interest is not in loving or assimilating or cooperating with its host. The parasite’s interest is in infiltrating, the better to manipulate, the better to exploit the host. Christians prefer a more purely spiritual view, which tends to preclude such an understanding. It’s more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.

offended_asian

Angry Asians Moralizing to Whites about Race and Religion

Christians arrrooksame – too White, too “racist”.

Evangelical Racism Is Not a Growth Strategy, W. Anne Jah, NYTimes.com – Room for Debate, 27 Oct 2013:

A recent open letter to the Christian evangelical church, signed by a wide array of Asian-American scholars and Christian practitioners, complained of numerous racially offensive incidents in evangelical circles. In yet another sign of callousness, Asian-Americans were initially told, in effect, to “get over it.” Instead, it is U.S. white Christians who must “get over” their whiteness and their failure to see the already changed face of Christian faith.

If U.S. evangelical Protestant churches – now 81 percent white, according to 2012 Pew research – hope to become a more diverse representation of all the people of God, they must respond more positively to constructive criticism like that in the recent open letter.

But persistent use of derogatory racial stereotypes by many white evangelical churches continues to surface in a variety of ways, among leaders, at religious events, in church practices and, painfully often, in church curricula.

It is the conceit of religious white racism to presume that one’s evangelicalism transcends racial and cultural identities, making such “worldly” labels no longer important. The letter reminds church leaders that those identities still matter. White evangelical Christians must stop clinging to an alibi of color-blindness and recognize that vibrant growth within “their” churches has much to do with nonwhite members’ views of them.

“Let us angelic asians into your churches and tell you how to run them, you lying, evil Whites!”

Many Whites, and especially Christians, fancy themselves blind to race. It isn’t fooling asians, who are instead following the jewish example, proclaiming how different they are from Whites, whining loudly about how offended they are at not being treated to a different, better standard by “racists”.

jewish_experts_on_tolerance

Tolerance (the Berkeley-Popper Mix)

How Not To Defend Atheism – Crazy gay, jewish Atheist goes postal at street preacher:

I’d be alot freer if people like you were put in prison… as retaliation for the COLLECTIVE CRIME OF RACISM, ANTI-SEMITISM, MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA!

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy are louder and plainer than usual, but the animating force is the same narrative broadcast by the media, taught in schools and, ironically, preached in mainline Christian churches.

The point of the jewish narrative isn’t that intolerance is bad or wrong as a general principle, the point is that jewish intolerance of “the dirty goyim” is good and right because “the dirty goyim” are intolerant of jews, and that’s what’s bad and wrong.

As I noted in The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2, philosopher jew Karl Popper put it this way:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Jewish rhetoric about tolerance is best understood as an effort to promote the best interests of jews. From the screaming queer nobody to the world-renowned philosopher, jews don’t have any qualms about dictating to everyone else what “we” should do to best serve them. “The dirty goyim” should recognize this double-talk for what it is: dishonest, destructive, criminal, intolerable.

foxman_sacks

Foxman and Sacks Explain “Anti-Semitism”

Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, on Why Anti-Semitism Endures.

What is “anti-semitism”? Foxman says it’s jealousy, scapegoating, a “disease of the Christian world”. Take your pick. As a shyster performing the same schtick for decades, his explanation is remarkably incoherent. He doesn’t address why “anti-semitism” endures, nor why it follows the jews wherever they go.

Here’s Foxman again, on The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism.

Foxman estimates just how many Americans are “seriously infected with anti-semitism”; notes various aggressive measures jews use to promote their interests (litigatation, legislation, education); argues that “the greatest challenge is the internet”, “the dark underbelly”, “superhighway for bigotry”; claims the ADL “broke the back” of the KKK by promoting anti-mask laws in Georgia in the 1950s.

A transcript of the interview is at Big Think Interview With Abraham Foxman.

Though Foxman is the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in the US, and perhaps the world, he doesn’t come across as exceptionally intelligent or well-spoken. This is especially evident when he is contrasted with the highest-profile spokesman for organized jewry in Britain, Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth.

In The “Fourth Mutation of Anti-Semitism” Sacks, like Foxman, paints “anti-semitism” in pathological/psychological/biological terms. Sacks provides a typical example of the jewish narrative – a one-sided version of European history, entirely sympathetic to jews and antipathetic to Europeans.

Sacks doesn’t just invert the jewish problem, he abridges it. He begins with the Greeks by excusing them, along with the Romans. He says “anti-semitism” stage one “got personal with the birth of Christianity” and characterizes it as “a hatred of jews, not of people in general”.

Stage two starts around 1096, having to do “with the massacre of jewish communities in Northern Europe during the First Crusade”. This is “when jews became a demonic force”, “the infidels, the anti-Christ”. He cites “the blood libel” as “demonic anti-judaism”.

As an aside, Sacks use of the term demonic is similar to Foxman’s use of the term bigot. In both cases it is blatantly hypocritical – professional bigot Foxman accusing jewry’s enemies of bigotry against jewry, and professional rabbi Sacks demonizing jewry’s enemies for supposedly demonizing jewry. “The blood libel”, to which both of these two professional jews refer, is in fact a defamation of Europeans.

Sacks dates “mutation three” to the coining of the term “anti-semitism” in 1879, which was “not religious hostility to judaism, but racial hostility to jews”. He claims with this understanding of jews, “all you could do was work for the extermination of the jews” and that “the holocaust was already implicit in that word itself”.

Jews regard anyone who recognizes jews as a potential threat, and ultimately as exterminationist. It is projection – a window into their own parasitic minds. Jews see themselves as separate even while they sniff out and pathologize any sign of awareness in their host. Such aggressive inversion confuses fair-minded people who, in the end, find it easier to swallow the mealy-mouthed platitudes jews offer than comprehend the relentlessly dishonest jew-centricity of jewish minds.

Sacks describes the “fourth mutation” as “demonic anti-zionism”, “focused not on jews as individuals but jews as a nation in their own sovereign state”, “poisoning the world peace”, “responsible for every kind of distress in the universe”.

A stereotypical jewish strawman argument. Jews are responsible for having their own sovereign state, of by and for themselves. They are also responsible for self-righteously organizing and lobbying to have every other sovereign state serve jewish interests as well. Jews, including Foxman and Sacks, do this and brag about it, as if it’s good and right. Objecting to it is what they characterize as “anti-semitism”.

Sacks asserts that “jews must never fight ‘anti-semitism’ alone”, that “the fight against ‘anti-semitism’ is led by non-jews” and is in fact “a government-led activity”. He cites “international conferences of parlimentarians” actively discussing ways to promote the best interests of jews.

The sad fact is that jews are effective in getting others to serve them, even to fight and die for them. The concern of jews like Sacks, however, is Why the Jewish Voice Isn’t More Self-Confident.

Sacks says it’s because jews are paranoid and define themselves as “the people who dwell alone”, “nature’s victims”, who everyone hates. Sacks says he disagrees with this self-image, though as mentioned above it is the same image reflected in the jewish narrative he recites.

“Why has being a jew become a burden?” Sacks explains, “that is the residue of “anti-semitism”. He defines judaism as “the voice of hope in the conversation of humankind”. His final assertion:

There’s nothing threatening about judaism because we don’t try to convert anyone. We say look, guys, this is how we see things. If it makes sense to you please have it, and if it doesn’t, that’s okay.

The reality is that jews argue and organize in order to tell others how to see things – what is right and wrong, what can or can’t be said or done. If this doesn’t make sense to you, and you argue or organize for your own benefit, then you will find that the jews have governments on their side.

Here is the Big Think page for the Sacks interview. The whole interview, including the two bits linked above, runs 14:35.

Some highlights: Sacks expresses his pride in building day schools for jews in Britain, says jews “have an influence out of all proportion to our numbers”, and sees “no model” for a Chief Rabbi in the US overlooking the pontiff-like, moralizing role played by Foxman.

pope_greenkeit

Of Popes and Jews

Dennis Mangan asks, Is the Pope Catholic?, and notes:

Some conservatives and Catholics seem to believe that non-Catholics shouldn’t criticize the Pope and his opinions.

I made several comments there before realizing it was more appropriate to recast them, and some further comments, into a post here.

The trick is to frame your critique in moral terms, taking for granted that the sensibilities and interests of your group trump all others. It also helps if the media is in your pocket and takes your side.

Revised Catholic prayer troubles some rabbis, Sun Journal, Feb 2008.

Pope under fire for Yad Vashem speech, Jerusalem Post, May 2009.

US Jewish leaders denounce Catholic sermon, The Guardian, Apr 2010.

Jews Worried By Vatican Gesture To Traditionalists, Huffington Post, Sep 2011.

Anti-Semite is among papal candidates, MiamiHerald.com, Feb 2013.

Why the new pope matters to Jews, Fox News, March 2013.

Jews will be even less of a priority for the next Pope, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, March 2013.

You should never be put off from criticizing another group just because you don’t belong. But remember you can always join a more universalist group to pursue your more particularist agenda from within.

The role of Jewish converts to Catholicism in changing traditional Catholic teachings on Jews, The Occidental Observer.

I have spoken before about the important distinction between universalism versus particularism (Morals, Morality and Moralizing and Universalism and Particularism).

One particularly popular jewish trope is that the jews have no pope. Like most jewish tropes about jews, this is a distortion of reality. The relationship between jews and popes is fascinating, and telling, specifically because the pope supposedly isn’t a jew, because of the pretense that jewishness is entirely about religion (ideology) not peoplehood (biology), and because the usual jewish rhetoric about mutual respect and tolerance is, in practice, entirely one-sided.

First of all, the fact that the Catholic pope isn’t a jew does not keep jews, big or small, from criticizing him, or other religious leaders for that matter. The underlying presumption is that even non-jews can and should be doing more to serve the best interests of jews. Second, there is organized jewry, a vast collective network that is in many ways more powerful, and more likely to use that power to promote particularist ends, than organized Christianity is. More broadly, there are thousands of jews who act, with and without the consent of organized jewry, as if they were superpopes, in the sense that they advocate more tirelessly and vociferously for the best interests of their group than any recent pope does for his.

Consider, for example, Alan Dershowitz, the author of the letter to the editor in the Miami Herald linked above. Dershowitz is usually described as a lawyer or professor and claims he isn’t particularly religious. Yet his passion and efforts in favor of his own people (as a people, not as a religion) is so strong that, like thousands of other jews, he feels morally capable, entitled even, to publicly pass judgment on Christians and their leaders. In the minds of jews like Dershowitz, no Christian or pope comes before, or even equates, to them or their group.

New pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, has Jewish connections, JTA Jewish & Israel News.

A good pope, from the shamelessly particularist point of view of jews, should have “a personal connection to the Jewish people”.

Note that JTA, aiming at a jewish audience, didn’t pretend it was about a spiritual connection to the jewish faith.

This is just one jewish answer to the question, implicit in this case, “Will this new pope be good for the jews?” Right now many other jews are undoubtedly asking and answering this same question more or less explicitly. Two jews, three opinions about what the pope could do to better “connect with the jewish people”.

Society of Jesus, Wikipedia:

Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuit conversos (Catholic-convert Jews),[50] an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus.[51] The 16th-century Decree de genere remained in exclusive force until the 20th century, when it was repealed in 1946.[52]

The Jesuits, Jew or Not Jew:

The Jesuits, a Catholic order that was established in 1534, emphasized education, and tried to draw the brightest academics. (You know what that means: Jews!) They welcomed conversos with open arms, and, as a result, many prominent early Jesuits had Jewish heritage. The list includes Juan Alfonso de Polanco, the secretary and ghostwriter of the order’s founder, as well as the second Superior General, Diego Lainez.

“Conversion” didn’t used to fool Christians into thinking that jews stopped being jews. It still doesn’t fool the editors at Jew or Not Jew.

I think it’s safe to say that the influence of crypto-jews/conversos/marranos, whether on Jesuits or Christianity as a whole, has been greater than most contemporary Christians are aware of. The Occidental Observer article linked above makes a good case that the relatively recent shift in popular perception of morality, specifically in favor of jews, is both evidence of and a product of jewish influence.

The image source is GreenKeit hits the Vatican?, Jewlicious THE Jewish Blog. Paranoia disguised as mockery, or vice versa, this is yet another perfectly typical example of jewish attitudes regarding popes and Christians. HaShem is a reminder how distinct the jewish and Catholic conceptions of god are.

navanethem-pillay

Terry Graham’s Genocide Complaint to the UN


To: euroamrights@hotmail.com
Subject: genocide complaint
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:52:26

I’m writing to verify that you are Terry Graham, and that you did indeed write the letter and press release referred to at the following links:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741333/
http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/bob-whitakers-bbq/9328-genocide-complaint-filed-un.html
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/09/15/immigration-moving-the-goalposts/comment-page-1/#comment-80318

I’d like to ask a few questions with the intent to publish your answers, as well as your press release, on my blog – https://age-of-treason.com/

Is there a public website or forum where the definitive version of your complaint is available, where you post status updates, or answer questions?

Why did you specifically identify “European-American Christians” as the target of genocide, rather than “European-Americans” in general?

Have you received any response from the UN? The US government? Representatives of news or media organizations?

What kind of response have you received from other groups or individuals? Questions? Opposition? Support?

Tanstaafl

From: T Graham (euroamrights@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/17/10 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: genocide complaint

Yes, I did the filing and this email box was almost immediately shut down until this morning. It may be shut down again, so I will try to send this out.

I included “Christian” because that is what I am, and religious “groups” can be the target of genocide. You know of others who have made claims based on religious persecution/targeting.

I have no website to post the complaint, but you are welcome to do so. All anyone has to do is file the SAME filing, but putting their name and contact info at the end of the complaint. I hope others MAIL it to Geneva (REGISTERED to prove delivery).

The best we can do is wait and see. This is the THIRD time I have filed this complaint with the UN. (1999, 2007) and have never even received a response, though I have the receipt of delivery from 2007.

Hope this answers your questions. Please let others know that my EMAIL was BLOCKED for days, and I have not been able to even see who emailed me until this morning.

Terry Graham

Attached to Terry’s email was the following (in docx format, which I converted to html using OpenOffice):

Date: September 3, 2010 SENT VIA REGISTERED MAIL: Sept. 3, 2010

TO: Ms. Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

OHCHR address: 
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson
52 Rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

Mailing address: 
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Email: InfoDesk@ohchr.org Website: www.ohchr.org

FROM: Terry Graham on behalf of European-American Christians

RE: Formal Complaint Charging the U.S. Federal Government with the Crime of Genocide of European-American Christians.

There is no greater sorrow on earth than the loss of one’s native land.”

Euripides, 431 BC, posted on the United Nations Human Rights website: www.unhch.ch

Dear Ms. Pillay:

I hereby file a formal complaint with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, charging the United States’ Federal government with violating human rights laws by intentionally committing GENOCIDE against myself and other European-American Christians through its immigration laws, policies and procedures, including failures to enforce existing laws. I further charge that U.S. Federal immigration laws, policies and procedures – and actions and lawsuits filed by the Federal government against individuals and States including, but not limited to, Arizona with the result of continuing the intentional GENOCIDE of European-America Christians — violate the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948, international customary law, international treaty law, and U.S. law.

Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American Christian population is a serious legal, moral, cultural, social, religious, political and economic issue, and a matter of the survival of my people, and because the pace of that destruction is escalating, I petition the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to promptly investigate this charge of GENOCIDE, and to make an immediate formal request of the United States federal government to place a judicial stay on all immigration laws, policies, procedures, lawsuits and legal actions that advance this GENOCIDE.

This stay must halt all admissions into the U.S. of all non-European/Christian immigrants, refugees, asylees, parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can complete a thorough investigation of this claim, and take immediate, appropriate steps to remedy this egregious situation.

In 1960, European-American Christians constituted nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-Americans will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population.

Rafael Lemkin, creator of the term “GENOCIDE” defined it as follows:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a nation… It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group.”

The U.N. Genocide Convention, Article II, Section C defines GENOCIDE in part as, “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Citations on relevant international customary and treaty law, as well as U.S. federal law and legal decisions, are provided below.)

Legal remedies for the crime of GENOCIDE include “reparations” as defined by international law that “…must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.”

Therefore, I further petition the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to immediately demand that the Federal government of the United States take immediate steps to re-establish the European-American Christian population relative to the current U.S. population to its demographic size — 90 percent – on December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against GENOCIDE took effect.

If the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses to investigate and act upon my complaint of GENOCIDE, I must conclude that:

(1) international law and human rights law are no longer binding on the United States of America federal government, or

(2) European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by these laws.

Please respond in writing to my complaint without delay, no later than September 30, 2010.

Θ Euro-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration

Background of Complaint Charging U.S. Federal Immigration Laws, Policies, and Procedures Result in GENOCIDE of European-American Christians:

The effect of U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when — for the first time in our nation’s history – the U.S. Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has been to perpetrate GENOCIDE against the nation’s European-American Christian majority.

The term “GENOCIDE” is defined here by:

(1) International customary law,

(2) International treaty law, and

(3) U.S. federal law.

Today, Federal immigration policy is “deliberately inflicting on” European-American Christians, “…conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part,” one of the definitions of GENOCIDE set forth in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948. [Article II also defines GENOCIDE as: “(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and (d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, which would include taxation policies that penalize and impose undue financial hardships upon European-American Christians, while providing tax-subsidized services for non-European, non-Christian illegal aliens and immigrants.]

Under international law, the following acts are punishable offenses: “conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide.”

To reiterate: Legal remedies for the crime of GENOCIDE include “reparations” as defined by international law that “must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and to re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.”

Θ European-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration

In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President Bill Clinton in June 1998 said that, “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.”

President Clinton’s public acknowledgement that the ongoing, intentional destruction of the nation’s European-American Christian majority was underway revealed that this destruction would continue until this majority (90 percent) national group was reduced to a minority. That is, Pres. Bill Clinton acknowledged the crime of GENOCIDE and did nothing to stop it; all Presidents since Clinton – in fact since Lyndon Johnson – have acted to expedite this GENOCIDE.

This unprecedented devastation of our nation’s majority population during peace time is confirmed by our national Census. In 1960, the Census found European-Americans were 89 percent of the nation’s population, compared with 81 percent in the 1790 Census, and eight-point increase that took more than 100 years. Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of “white” had been reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population – an astonishing 14-point drop in just 30 years. (Note: Since the “white” Census category includes non-European, non-Christian whites from North Africa, the Middle East including Israel, and the former Soviet Union, and non-European Mexicans, South Americans – who comprise a significant number of immigrants – the true number of white Americans of European and Christian descent is likely far lower. (See, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice’s racial and ethnic categories and definition of “White”.)

Citizens’ efforts to create a “European-American” category in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses were thwarted by federal officials. These and other Federal policies make it impossible to evaluate the true scale of GENOCIDE against European-American Christians. The 2010 Census failed to capture population figures for European-American Christians, demonstrating a double-standard because the Census questionnaires include many identifiers for the diverse racial, ethnic, and national origin of respondents who are not of European descent.

The sharp demographic decline – GENOCIDE — of European-American Christians is the direct result of immigration policies pursued by the U.S. government since 1965, resulting in 80 to 90 percent of all current legal immigrants coming from Third World sites such as Mexico and other parts of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. More than 90 percent of all illegal aliens amnestied – that is, granted legal status – by the U.S. government also come from the Third World. And nearly all of the estimated 300,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens who settle each year in the U.S. are from the Third World.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-American Christians will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population. In California, European-Americans became a demographic minority by the year 1999, and will soon become a minority in Texas, Florida and New York.

Despite grassroots efforts to stop present GENOCIDAL immigration policies and strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce – or halt – immigration and stop granting citizenship status to offspring of illegal aliens born in the U.S., Federal government actions are quickly reducing the European-American Christian population in this nation.

Since 1965, the Federal immigration policies — including recent legal actions and lawsuits filed against the State of Arizona and various individuals — imposed upon the European-American Christian majority by the U.S. Government have been both illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons:

#1 These policies violate international customary law against GENOCIDE, binding on the U.S. government since its adoption by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2, Section 702, d, [c] which recognizes international customary law against GENOCIDE, prohibits “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. While just one of the legal definitions of “group” must be met under this law, European-American Christians in fact meet at least two. Racially, we are white or Caucasian; ethnically we are European, 90 percent are Christians or ethnic Christians; and as 89 percent of the U.S. population in 1960, we defined the nation and shared a common origin.

#2 U.S. Congress has recognized international customary law against GENOCIDE in U.S. Public Law 95-435. Enacted in 1978, Section 5 (b) states: “It is the sense of the Congress that the Government of the United States should take steps to disassociate itself from any foreign government which engages in the crime of genocide.” Since the Senate did not ratify the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention until 1988, and the foreign country specified in this law as guilty of genocide – Uganda — also was not yet a signatory to the Convention, U.S. Public Law 95-435 can refer only to international customary law against GENOCIDE. By enacting this Public Law, Congress has recognized both the validity of international customary law against GENOCIDE and its applicability to acts of the Federal government. Federal, State and local governmental employees take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and laws, which they are violating with intent.

#3 The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 both recognizes international customary law and confers on Congress the power “to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”

#4 The U.S. Supreme Court has held international customary law binding on the U.S. government since Paquete Habana in 1900 (175 U.S. at 708). In that opinion, Justice Gray wrote, “…international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.”

#5 In 1988, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. Article II, Section C defines genocide in part as “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Article IV of the Convention guarantees the right to take legal action against the U.S. federal government and others for violating this law, stipulating that those who commit GENOCIDE, “…shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.”

#6 U.S. Federal immigration policies violate Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.”

#7 U.S. Federal immigration policies violate U.S. Public Law 100-606 which, in accordance with Article V of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, made the provisions of that Convention federal law. This statute amended Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code by inserting “Chapter 50A – Genocide”. Section 1091 (a) (4), defines GENOCIDE to include act(s) which “subjects the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part” in time of peace or war.

#8 The U.S. Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority population. U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that, “The distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.” Sen. Kennedy added that, “… [This] should set to rest any fear that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States.” U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of the 1965 immigration bill, stated at the onset of Senate hearings that, “The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset” by this legislation. In other words, Americans were assured repeated that 1965 changes in Federal immigration laws would not perpetrate GENOCIDE against the majority population at that time, i.e., European-American Christians. These assurances were misrepresentations – lies — designed to obfuscate and confuse Americans on the planned GENOCIDE of European-American Christians which Pres. Clinton and others now freely acknowledge and advance with impunity.

#9 U.S. immigration law, policies, and procedures violate human rights law and the rights of European-American Christians specifically.

European-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration: Two Separate – Unequal & Unjust – U.S. Immigration Policies

Since at least 1965, the U.S. Congress, the President and Executive Branch, and the judiciary have actively imposed massive Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European-American Christians have always been the majority population. In stark contrast to its domestic policies, the U.S. Congress, has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories where non-European peoples form the majority populations – American Samoa, the Northern Marians, and the “Free Associated States” of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau – for the express purpose of preserving their respective ethnic majorities.

These distinct, conflicting immigration policies – one for the United States, another for five U.S. territories – show that the U.S. Congress is well aware of the direct relationship between immigration and racial, ethnic and religious demographic shifts that can constitute GENOCIDE, and is destroying the nation’s European-American Christians, its racial-ethnic-religious demographic majority, deliberately with assistance from the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

International law against GENOCIDE is jus cogens, that is it preempts, supersedes and nullifies any laws which violate its principles, including all current U.S. Federal immigration law, policies and procedures, legal actions and lawsuits that advance GENOCIDE.

I hereby demand “reparations” as defined by international law, specifically: to restore the United States’ nation’s racial and ethnic mix in 1948, when the law against GENOCIDE took effect.

Θ Overview of This Complaint and Remedies Sought:

* U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate human rights law against GENOCIDE

* U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate international and United Nations’ laws against GENOCIDE

* U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate U.S. laws against GENOCIDE

* U.S. immigration law, policies, and procedures that are advancing GENOCIDE against European-American Christians are therefore null and void

* The U.S. government must re-establish the European-American Christian population to its demographic size — 90 percent relative to the current population — as of December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against GENOCIDE took effect.

* The U.S. government must immediately adopt and enforce an immigration policy which admits only ethnic Europeans until such time as the European-American population again constitutes 90 percent of the total U.S. population. The U.S. Federal government, with the full cooperation of State and local governments must also actively repatriate non-citizen immigrants to expedite that outcome.

Θ European-American Christians Meet Legal Requirements for Standing

European-American Christians meet the legal requirements for standing required to file this complaint:

I and other European-American Christians have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (b) this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct of the U.S. Federal government and (c) there is a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial decision in their favor. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, 3000 murders by immigrants on September 11, 2001.

European-American Christians satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since:

(1) We can establish legal standing

(2) We are suffering severe injuries from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and

(3) We can show that the benefits to the European-American Christian population of a stay on all offending U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible adverse impact that such a stay could have on others.

Θ U.S. Courts’ Rulings on International Law

U.S. Federal courts have a history of rulings based upon international customary law and international treaty law. In these cases, described below, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants were U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents, nor did the alleged crimes occur in the United States or within its jurisdiction.

Some Relevant Legal Citations:

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980)

Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (623 F. Supp. 246) (1985)

Forti v. Suarez-Mason (No. CD-87-2058-DLJ) (1988)

Xuncax v. Gramajo (Civil Action No. 91-11564-DPW) (1995)

Kadic v. Karadzic (Docket Nos. 94-9035, -9069) (1995)

In summary, I ask that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights immediately act on my complaint, made on behalf of myself and other European-American Christians, investigating and acting upon my charge of GENOCIDE against the U.S. Federal government.

As I stated earlier, if the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses or fails to investigate and rule on my complaint that the U.S. Federal government’s laws, policies, procedures and other actions are an act of GENOCIDE against U.S. European-American Christians, we must conclude that:

(1) Human rights and international law are no longer binding on the U.S. government and/or

(2) European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by those laws.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this very serious matter,

Respectfully,

Terry Graham

XXXXXXX

EuroAmRights@hotmail.com

California, US

PS. This is the THIRD Complaint I have filed with your office, charging the United States of America’s Federal government with intentionally committing GENOCIDE against European-American Christians. I first filed a complaint 11 years ago during the Clinton administration on September 3, 1999 (sent via U.S. Post, Registered Mail #R732364784, received by your Geneva office on September 13, 1999). My second filing was made via email in 2007. Neither of your predecessors even acknowledged my earlier filings, which were similar to this. Given U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent filing with your office regarding international human rights law and the State of Arizona’s new immigration law, and U.S. President Obama and his administration in concert with the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent filing of lawsuits against the State of Arizona and Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arapaio – all of which actions may advance the illegal act of GENOCIDE outlined above — I ask for your immediate and equally serious attention to this my complaint as that you give to Ms. Clinton’s filings.

I don’t think Whites, Christian or not, have any cause to hope that the UN will speak in our favor. I commend and support Terry Graham’s effort if only because it highlights for our own people the double standards for genocide.

While U.S. government policy has become genocidal toward Whites, and especially White Christians, its policy is to defend jews worldwide:

The Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and internationally. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. SEAS develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

SEAS was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department’s annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and SEAS provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

Led by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, DRL/SEAS welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports.

Why is that?

hanukkahharrydavernyc

A Christmas Story

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 Christains 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.)

2850698189_2a7cea22a9

The Election is Over

I haven’t the time or energy for a cohesive post-election essay, but I do have a collection of links and some comments to share.

First, the title. The Obama shills are inordinately fond of this refrain. I think we can expect it to morph into many new and snottier forms even as the election itself recedes from memory. The Obamen seem to believe that they and their man are now beyond all criticism.

Back in September Obaman Jack Cafferty wrote:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

Cafferty then cites Michael Grunwald, speaking in code about the evils of speaking in code. Decoded, this is what Cafferty and Grunwald are saying: hordes of unthinking, racist Whites stand between them and Utopia.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia’s primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Ooooo scary. Except we can see clearly now in retrospect that this was all alot of guilt-tripping nonsense.

Nobody was talking about race? Lots of people were talking about race, even in the mainstream media. What was most notable was that most of them were trying to lay the same race-based guilt-trip on Whites as McCafferty and Grunwald. Harold Meyerson and Ron Rosenbaum are two particularly ham-handed examples I’ve cited previously. It’s easy to find others.

In the wake of the election we’re hearing a new variation: yes Whites are racist, but not enough to make a difference. John Judis writes that “many white Americans still harbor degrees of conscious or unconscious resentment against blacks” but “it didn’t matter enough to decide the election”. In Judis’ opinion Obama should have done better than Kerry did in 2004, but since he didn’t (in some places) Whites therefore deserve to be taken to task in yet another guilt-tripping editorial.

The fact is that race really did matter to many voters, in fact we can see now looking back that it mattered much more to non-white voters than it did to Whites. Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

Obama McCain Other
White (75%) 43% 55% 2%
African-American (13%) 96% 4% N/A
Latino (8%) 67% 31% 2%
Asian (2%) 63% 33% 4%
Other (3%) 66% 31% 3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat’s stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain’s 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

This narrative that you have to worry about Barack Obama just didn’t fly when they saw Barack Obama up close and they saw his relations with the Jewish community,” he said, pointing to the extensive Jewish outreach campaign in states like this key swing state, where Jews make up a statistically significant slice of the electorate.

He noted that it was the first time a campaign had Jewish vote coordinators in all of the key battleground states, with Florida particularly notable for the size of the outreach, surrogate events and third-party efforts.

“There are nagging doubts in the Jewish community about Barack Obama and where he stands on important issues,” he asserted.

Green, though, assessed that such concerns were outweighed by those on the Republican ticket, namely regarding the vice presidential nominee.

“There was contrary tendency,” he said. “There were Jews who expressed skepticism about Obama but even more about Sarah Palin.”

Note that what is called “nagging doubts” in jews is called “racism” in Whites.

What kind of guilt-tripping would Whites get if we voted in a bloc of 96%, 78%, 67%, or 63%? Our vote is objectively the least attributable to racial bias, and yet we get all the critcism for being biased. The most reasonable explanation for this is that our critics simply hate us.

As an aside, the JPost article also contains a handy “almost-complete list of the new Jewish congressional caucus: An all-time record of Jewish reps in Congress.” The senate is 13% jewish, the house about 7.3% (32/435).

Jews may have had their doubts about Obama, but that was washed away by their fear and loathing for Sarah Palin and the unconsciously White Christian voters who flocked to support her. I’m not aware of anyone in the mainstream press making an attempt to guilt-trip jews about this. Quite the opposite. Here’s Jacques Berlinerblau, associate professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of “Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics”. He thinks Palin just needs to try harder:

The Palin Effect: Two of the speakers observed that John McCain’s selection of a running mate may have turned away Jewish voters who were once supportive of him. On Wednesday, I pointed out that this apparent “Palin Effect” has occurred despite the fact that the Governor of Alaska has made no egregious errors in her dealings with the Jewish community and has, in many cases, said the right things and cultivated the right relationships.

In short, 2008 has demonstrated the strategic importance of having skilled advisers and operatives in the domain of faith-based politicking. Accordingly, nothing precludes Palin from someday reversing negative perceptions among Jewish voters. And while she’s at it she might find a receptive audience because . . .

Jews are going Republican?: Speaker Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council pointed out that rumors about Jews defecting from the Democrats to head over to the GOP have been around since the time of McGovern. He views this as a “man bites dog story,” of great interest to the media if only because it is so counter-intuitive. The truth of the matter is that Jews are solid, true-blue Democrats who have given the party more than 75% of their ballot in the last 4 elections.

That’s right. The truth, which negates Berlinerblau’s blame-Palin argument, is that most jews just won’t support someone Whites find appealing even if only unconsciously for racial reasons. It doesn’t matter if that hapless White pol promises to nuke iran and send Whites to die to protect israel. That’s not good enough now that jews have Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, and McCains who will do all that and more.

Berlinerblau concludes with a little disinformation:

Is the Jewish vote really that important?: Professor Yossi Shain of Georgetown’s Government department made the provocative argument that polling data on Jewish voters is highly problematic and misleading. Drawing a distinction between Jewish citizens of the United States and eligible Jewish voters, Professor Shain cited the number of 2.8 million in the latter category–a number that decreases their already minor electoral significance.

Shain’s observation corresponds with one that I have been making here: we should study and contemplate American Jewish voting behavior in all of its glory. But we should not overestimate its electoral import. At less than 2% of the American population (and only 3.6% of the population of Florida) Jewish-Americans do not stand to dramatically affect the outcome on November 4th.

Tsk tsk. They’re neglecting the effect of money and media on modern campaigns. Now why would they do that? They must know that Jewish campaign contributions and media influence have an impact far larger than a measly 2% of the votes. Every politician knows this, which is why they all have special outreach programs for jews, make promises to AIPAC, and make pilgrimages to israel.

JPost: “Sarah Palin may be hurting McCain among Jewish voters”:

“Palin is totally out of step with public opinion in the Jewish community” on domestic issues and has “zero foreign policy experience,” the organization wrote in a fund-raising letter sent out last week. It also started an on-line petition asking: “McCain: What were you thinking when you selected Palin?”

Earth to Berlinerblau. For some strange reason plenty of jews expect politicians to think of jews first and not the far more numerous Whites.

In the days before the election I gathered many links that revealed a race-based hatred directed towards Sarah Palin. Whether or not Whites supported or opposed her on principle it was obvious by contrast that the animosity of “the left”, and especially jews, came from a fear and loathing not so much for anything Palin herself had said or done, but for the White Christians instinctively drawn to her. Palin was treated like a blank sheet of paper on which non-whites (and self-loathing Whites) could finger paint whatever dim visions they pleased. Then they hated her for being whatever boogeyman they imagined her to represent.

Florida Congressman: Palin ‘Don’t Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks’:

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” said Hastings. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Black Florida congressman apologizes for Palin comments:

“The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews,” he said in his statement.

The point I will make, and continue to make, it that the current regime, before and after this election, is anathema to Whites. I can quote example after example of pro-black, pro-jew, pro-latino, pro-anything-non-white government officials and media pundits bashing Whites and suffering no substantial consequences. Whites on the other hand mustn’t say they care for themselves or are fearful of or distrust other groups, in spite of self-interested members of those groups telling us repeatedly how much they fear and distrust us.

Comic’s Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful:

The reason Obama may yet still get 60% of the Jewish vote and at least one reason why Florida is so close now is because the Jews like Biden and are scared by Palin.

Jewish voters may be wary of Palin:

“There is almost always an inverse proportion between a candidate’s popularity among conservative Christians and secular Jews,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Republican lobbyist long active in Jewish politics who supports McCain.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Secular jews plus jews hostile to Jews for Jesus equals a pretty broad range of jews.

“I find her offensive”:

“I was leaning towards McCain,” growled Marvin Weinstein, 74, as he strode to an appointment in a doctor’s office. “But I think his choice of her has turned me off.”

“What I hear is she’s an awful anti-Semite,” George Friedberg said as he sat curbside in his Escalade. “She won’t be getting my vote.” Friedberg’s wife, Florence, appeared at the passenger-side door, shopping bags in hand. “I was leaning towards McCain, but after he selected her I’ve ruled him out completely. I find her offensive.”

Koch: Obama is my guy — Palin is scary:

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

Note that defending America comes after Koch’s concern for israel. Though to be fair he may see them as the same thing.

Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge:

Senator McCain’s selection of Governor Palin of Alaska as his running mate, which was hailed in some quarters and met with skepticism in others, is sparking intense reactions from some New Yorkers, who report being driven to fits of rage and even all-consuming panic.

“All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows,” an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. “People were flipping out. … Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president.”

“What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage,” an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull.”

Ms. Grose was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.

Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views. “The women thing is a ruse. … She was chosen because of the evangelical thing,” the writer said. “It’s weirdly stealthy that she’s not talking about it.”

It’s not weird at all that these White-haters so unselfconsciously project their dishonesty onto us and so freely express their homicidal rage. They only struggle to explain how exactly it’s all our fault that they hate us so.

In What Hollywood Jews think of white Americans James Edwards quotes Larry David:

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a f**king liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you c**ksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen. If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.”

OK. That was directed at McCain, not Palin. But Larry David obviously hates McCain, our little Juan McCain, because he imagines that McCain represents White interests. And he thinks of us as disgusting, reprehensible turds. Keep this in mind now – the regime not only lets this guy make nationally broadcast primetime TV shows, they pay him to do so.

Pissed about Palin
McCain’s running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it’s time to get furious.
By Cintra Wilson

Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She’s such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it’s easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she’s anti-life. She is the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.

Notice how the nazi bugaboo has a way of popping up whenever jews don’t like a White. Even when it’s absurd because the person they’re talking about isn’t saying or doing anything remotely nazi-like. That’s because to them “nazi” essentially means “anti-jew”, thus it is only natural that it has become a jewish code word for White.

Here’s another example. Heather Mallick, a liberal Canadian editorialist, wrote a couple of somewhat infamous fulsome little turgid screeds concerning Palin.

The Alaskan who went ‘outside’:

Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.

One hundred thousand Canadians visit Alaska every year, and we like to pass by in cruise ships. But it never goes further than that. Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.

CBC’s Mallick: ‘White Trash’ Palin Has ‘Porn Actress Look,’ ‘Smart People’ Flee Small Towns refers to an especially fulsome screed. The original document got flushed down the memory hole, but fortunately some leftist was particularly fond of it and saved a copy.

In the face of reader outrage Mallick did what any White basher normally does. She wrapped herself in philo-semitism and bashed the evil racists who criticized her. After all, she reasoned, only an evil racist White could object to her bashing Whites.

Canadian columnist’s diatribe against Palin stokes anger in the U.S.:

The Toronto-based Mallick admits she’s been shaken by the violence suggested in hundreds of e-mails similar in tone to Jones’s, but adds the messages have simply served to underscore her point about the bigotry and small-mindedness of some Republican supporters.

“The violent and obscene threats against me were one thing — it’s easy to filter those — but the anti-Semitic hate mail was very troubling. I am not Jewish but I am honoured to be taken for one. I consider it a great compliment.”

What a hero. Curious, I reached back into Mallick’s past columns to get a grasp on her pro-jewish sentiments. Here’s an interesting column where she rails against racism. The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?:

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada’s best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from “a variety of backgrounds,” for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: “The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women.” Despite Blatchford’s comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

I didn’t read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I’m sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Whether or not Mallick is jewish she sure sees the world as if she were. My old foil Larry Auster certainly does and so do his “conservative” jewish buddies. Hymowitz on Red State hysteria

I’m less and less alone. Here is yet another Palin-critical conservative. Kay Hymowitz … casts a cold eye on the conservatives who have lost their minds over Sarah

Conservatives lost their minds? If anybody lost their minds over Palin surely I hope it’s clear from all of the above it was jews. And by the way, I don’t believe Auster, in all his many words on Palin, wrote anything at all about that.

If all of the above wasn’t clear enough then it’s a good thing I saved the worst for last.

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan

You really should go read for yourself the vile hatred Bernhard expressed. The stunning thing about her invective is that it came not in some one-off drunken outburst, ala Mel Gibson, but instead was professionally produced and performed repeatedly in a mainstream jewish theater as entertainment for profit.

Ari Roth artistic director of Theater J was unsympathetic and unapologetic:

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a Fucked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting. The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a “disgusting show.” there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting.” I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge.Finally you ask, “where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration?” They were all there on opening night, one night before you came. We partied together after. There were three members of Theater J staff at the show last night, and there’ll be more of us this weekend when we present three shows — soon to be all sold out. I was teaching a political theater class last night, but I’ll be back for everything this weekend.We’re proud of our producing – proud of Sandra’s sense of timing – taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

About Theater J:

Hailed by The New York Times as “The Premier Theater for Premieres,” Theater J has emerged as one of the most distinctive, progressive and respected Jewish theaters on the national and international scene. A program of the Washington DC Jewish Community Center, Theater J works in collaboration with the four other components of the Washington DCJCC’s Morris Cafritz Center for the Arts, which include the Washington Jewish Film Festival and Screening Room, the Ann Loeb Bronfman Gallery, the Program in Literature, Music and Dance, and Nextbook.

Theater J produces thought-provoking, publicly engaged, personal, passionate and entertaining plays and musicals that celebrate the distinctive urban voice and social vision that are part of the Jewish cultural legacy.

Isn’t that special?