Tag Archives: anti-white

Blog

Foxman and Sacks Explain “Anti-Semitism”

15 Comments

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.

Blog

Segan and O’Hehir’s Big Damning White Problems

18 Comments

Google Glass’s White Male Problem, PCMag.com, by Sascha Segan, 1 May 2013:

Does anyone who isn’t a white man have Google Glass?

This is starting to get disturbing. Since Google Glass demo units started appearing a few weeks ago, proud Google Glass users have been spewing selfies all over the Internet. And except for the hired help in Google’s demo videos, every single Google Glass owner I’ve heard a word from appears to be a middle-aged white male, usually with some receding hairline action going on there. There’s even a Tumblr devoted to the phenomenon.

This is a big problem.

I say this as a middle-aged white man with extremely little hair. Google Glass is just breaking out of the dream stage, and our society is grappling with these wearable items: what they do, how to use them, and how we shouldn’t use them. People who aren’t white, middle-aged males need to be part of that conversation, but I don’t see that happening right now with Glass.

People from non-Western-European-descended, non-male gender and ethnic groups have different perspectives on technology and society that could help shape Google Glass and how it’s used.

For Segan Whites are “disturbing”, a “big problem”. Why? Because he sees Whites as distinct and different from non-Whites – a fact which Segan and PC Magazine willingly acknowledge, at least so long as it serves an argument in favor of non-Whites.

One of the reasons I so love reporting on mobile technology is that it’s tremendously egalitarian, and it crosses all gender, ethnic, and class lines. My peer group of mobile tech writers is whiter and maler than America as a whole, but it isn’t the complete white-out we’re seeing with Google Glass early adopters.

So Segan likes pretending everyone is equal and dislikes when reality confounds his fantasy. His “peer group”, however White, either shares his White-abnegating attitude or is unwilling to challenge it.

Google Glass, and wearables in general can change our society. That includes everyone. Being the vanguard of a major new product category, with so many possible societal ripples, makes Glass more important than a typical game or website whose usage naturally skews to one ethnic or gender group.

If the direction of this societal change is being determined entirely by a socially homogenous group of guys (no matter how hard they try), it’s going to be a less useful technology for that.

Who is “us”? Who comprises this society of “ours” that Segan thinks “we” should be so worried about? Who is this homogenous group determining the direction of societal change?

The prevailing wisdom of the current anti-White regime is that race is “entirely a social and political construct”. Yet somehow Segan is able to judge who is “white” just by looking at faces.

Based on his face – as well as his name and his anti-White attitude – I think Sascha Segan is a jew. I think a large fraction of the men in the Tumblr he links look like jews. I say this as a White man who recognizes that jews are different from Whites.

Even setting aside biological differences, Segan’s own line of argument suffices to make the point. Jews have a completely different perspective than Whites do. On the one hand, jews see jews as distinct from Whites, with jews as victims and Whites as their oppressors. On the other hand, Whites see jews as victims and also mistake them for “white”. It’s no mystery why so many Whites make this mistake. Jews constantly espouse these jewish perspectives at the same time they pathologize and demonize Whites for expressing any kind of White perspective.

In this case the difference between Whites and jews is even more glaring than usual. Segan is specifically blaming “whites” for a phenomena that is in fact even more markedly jewish. Would Segan have written an article about the disturbing big problem that too many Google Glass wearers are jews? Would PC Magazine have published it?

On Tuesday I talked about another example of this White problem meme I had recently run across. The Oscars’ old, white, male problem, Salon.com, by Andrew O’Hehir, 21 Feb 2012:

On one hand, the evidence dredged up by an extensive Los Angeles Times investigation into the membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is damning: The Oscars are being decided by 5,765 voting members (itself a smaller number than usually reported) who are 94 percent white.

O’Hehir is another jewish-looking, jewish-sounding anti-White critic. To him an organization being 94 percent White is not only a “problem”, it’s “damning”. Unlike Segan, O’Hehir doesn’t even try to explain why. An anti-White attitude is simply taken for granted at Salon.

Now, it’s also true that my reaction to all this diligent legwork by a team of at least seven Times reporters can be summarized with a colloquial phrase that begins with “No” and ends with “Sherlock.” No one who has paid attention to the Oscars or the Academy — or the American film industry at large — harbors any illusions about who’s running the show, or believes that Oscar voters have much in common with Americans or moviegoers at large. Indeed, the borderline-cruel caricature of a typical Oscar voter, often bandied about in private by journalists and publicists, is of a 70-something retired actor, certainly white and probably Jewish, who wears sky-blue slacks and white patent leather shoes and lives in Brentwood or Beverly Hills. That seems to be almost exactly what the Times investigation has revealed.

My emphasis.

Whereas Segan ignored jews while he was blaming Whites, O’Hehir actually calls attention to what he’s doing. He conflates Whites and jews, while in the same paragraph he acknowledges that he and anyone else who’s paying attention can see there’s a clear distinction.

For O’Hehir, like Segan, the problem is a certain concentration of “white” faces. How many have to identify positively as White to be a problem? It doesn’t matter. The problem is “white”.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Times pointedly did not inquire into the religious or ethnic affiliations of the Academy’s white members. I can’t deny being curious about the question of how Jewish the Academy is these days, and you might be able to construct a non-offensive argument for why that’s relevant information. But it’s information that ugly people would use for ugly reasons, and you can’t blame the reporters and editors involved for not jabbing a stick into that particular hornets’ nest.

It’s worth noting that O’Hehir explictly describes how different jews are from Whites. Counting and calling “whites” a problem is relevant and non-offensive. It’s something O’Hehir does and Salon enables. Counting jews, on the other hand, is offensive, irrelevant and ugly. These are two totally different kinds of problem. If they look “white”, “white” is the problem. Noticing jews makes them swarm and cause you problems.

One response is to say “so what,” as some people do in the Times piece. The Academy is a private membership organization, which is devoted to burnishing the image of the film industry and has never claimed to represent the public at large. It can give out awards however it wants, and people aren’t required to watch.

Once again, this only highlights the difference between jews and Whites. When someone in the jewsmedia calls out a so-called White problem they don’t lose their job. Instead Whites are expected to get busy increasing diversity, which means in effect to make whatever is being criticized less White. Even a passive “so what” is regarded as confirmation of the supposed problem. It’s a moot point because there isn’t a White left in the jewsmedia who would even dare say “so what”, never mind point out that jews aren’t White.

In contrast, “so what” is a typically jewish response to a criticism like this, and it is deployed in a decidedly aggressive manner. Regarding Hollywood, for example, Ben Stein and Michael Medved expressed this attitude. Both made the same basic argument: Yes, jews run Hollywood, and if you think that’s a problem then you’re the problem.

Jews take this hostile attitude toward criticism specifically because they are acutely aware of and attached to their jewishness. They voice their hostility toward Whites specifically because they don’t identify as White. This is a problem for Whites.

Blog

Sirota and Wise Define The New Normal – “White Privilege” as a Jewish Construct

27 Comments

David Sirota writes Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American:

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.

Tim Wise writes Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness:

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for whites to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening, or threatened with deportation.

White privilege is knowing that if the bomber turns out to be white, he or she will be viewed as an exception to an otherwise non-white rule, an aberration, an anomaly, and that he or she will be able to join the ranks of Tim McVeigh

among the pantheon of white people who engage in (or have plotted) politically motivated violence meant to terrorize and kill, but whose actions result in the assumption of absolutely nothing about white people generally, or white Christians in particular.

And white privilege is being able to know nothing about the crimes committed by most of the terrorists listed above — indeed, never to have so much as heard most of their names — let alone to make assumptions about the role that their racial or ethnic identity may have played in their crimes.

In short, white privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.

It is the source of our unearned innocence and the cause of others’ unjustified oppression.

That is all. And it matters.

David Sirota is a jew. Tim Wise is a jew. It matters.

The narrative of oppression is, after all, the jewish narrative. This is a narrative in which Whites and jews are polar opposites – where jews and other people of non-Whiteness are innocent victims of unjustified oppression by Whites.

Wise and Sirota, as hypersensitive as they are about race and identity, are well aware of this. The hypocrisy of their anti-“racist” screeds against Whites and the dishonesty of their “White like me” anti-White guilt-trip schtick can only spring from an unfathomable hatred for Whites.

To describe what’s going on in their own terms, it is jewish privilege that allows them to vent venom against Whites based on nothing more than literal fantasy – “if the bomber turns out to be White” or even “hoping the bomber turns out to be White”. Their shrill denunciations of illusory “White privilege”, echoed ever more often and loudly across the media, are an indication of just how deeply dishonest and malevolent jewish rule is.

Blog

Two Lessons in Privilege

32 Comments

There were two substantial tremblers along the White/jew faultline this week. In both cases a jewess published a public comment concerning higher education which triggered a viral outpouring of fear and loathing, the brunt of which has been directed at Whites.

The first was caused by Susan Patton’s OPINION: Letter to the Editor, at The Daily Princetonian, 29 March 2013. The most controversial part:

When I was an undergraduate in the mid-seventies, the 200 pioneer women in my class would talk about navigating the virile plains of Princeton as a precursor to professional success. Never being one to shy away from expressing an unpopular opinion, I said that I wanted to get married and have children. It was seen as heresy.

For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

An Alumna’s Advice for the Young Women of Princeton: Marry My Son, by Eveline Chao, The Daily Beast, 30 Mar 2013:

In a letter published in The Daily Princetonian on Friday, Susan A. Patton, the president of the class of ’77, offered her “advice for the young women of Princeton.”

One of the more-quoted lines that immediately began zinging across social media read, “Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.”

Patton continued: “As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market … You will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

There was also:

“I am the mother of two sons who are both Princetonians. My older son had the good judgment and great fortune to marry a classmate of his, but he could have married anyone. My younger son is a junior and the universe of women he can marry is limitless.”

The image conjured for most was of a rich, ‘50s housewife who dabbles in eugenics. Unsurprisingly, the blogosphere went nuts.

Patton was also called a “WASP,” “offensive,” and “sheltered.” One person said, “Thank god you didn’t have daughters.” On Twitter, @DesiderioAArnaz tweeted, “Feminism just died at Princeton.” Another user named @dylanmatt appended the link with, “A stirring call for the genetically gifted to band together and form a master race.” I myself am a Princeton alum, and when former classmates posted the link on Facebook, some speculated that it was an April Fools’ joke.

A phone call Friday with Patton confirmed that it was not.

“I’m mortified,” she said of the online comments. But when asked if she would like to clarify or change anything she’d said, she replied, “Not really.”

She also revealed a few details that might not reconcile her with feminists, but which do counter the impression given by her letter.

First, she isn’t a WASP. (“It was intended as advice from a nice Jewish mother. That’s all it was.”)

Second, she isn’t exclusively a homemaker. Patton has run her own HR consulting and executive coaching business in New York City for 20 years. She didn’t work the first five years after her first son, now class of 2010, was born, but has ever since.

And third, she isn’t married to a Princeton grad. In fact, she’s just out of what she calls a “horrible” divorce, after 27 years of marriage. “My husband’s academic background was not as luxurious as mine, and that was a source of some stress,” said Patton. “I think he felt a certain level of resentment.”

What Patton recommends seems to be common sense. An admonition to mate only with someone of the same race would make it even better. The main thing that makes any such advice controversial is jewish influence – whether in favor of womb-shrivelling feminism or anti-White anti-“racism”, in both academia and media. Naturally this consideration goes unmentioned, at least by jews and especially in the mainstream media.

By several accounts the strongest rebuke came the same day Patton’s letter was published. Maureen O’Connor’s Princeton Mom to All Female Students: ‘Find a Husband’ is full of snark and describes Patton as a luddite with a depressing worldview. Five hours later came a sheepish update, Q&A: Princeton Mom Wishes She Married a Princeton Man, in which O’Connor suddenly appears very understanding and even sympathetic. A day before Chao wrote her piece for the Daily Beast, O’Connor had the same conversation, and cited the same “clarifications” for her sudden change in attitude:

Patton spoke by phone from her home in the Upper East Side, where she runs her own business as a human resources consultant and executive coach. She was in the midst of reading responses to her letter when I called. “I’m astounded by the extreme reaction. Honestly, I just thought this was some good advice from a Jewish mother,” she laughed.

The understanding is that being a jewish mother is completely different from being a White mother. Later observers incorporate the jewish mother card into their story from the get go.

Susan A. Patton wrote to Princeton student newspaper urging female students to snag man, Mail Online:

Susan A. Patton, a proud Princeton University alumna and the living affirmation of the meddling Jewish mother stereotype, raised some eyebrows this week

A WASP could expect the recriminations and condemnations to eventually be accompanied by tangible sanctions. A jewess raises eyebrows and inspires some ambiguous finger-wagging about jewish stereotypes.

James Taranto didn’t do either. Instead, he quickly rode to Patton’s defense. Why? Well, Susan Patton Told the Truth. Oh, and:

It took some bravery for the young Miss Patton to go to Princeton, for she was not a legacy and was anything but a daughter of privilege. As she explained in a 2006 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, her mother was a survivor of Auschwitz, a German death camp in Poland; her father, of Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp in Germany.

The irony here is in Taranto insisting Patton isn’t privileged just before explaining how she is. He plays the camp survivor card right up front, presumably because he regards it as relevant to his point, which is that Patton is a righteous hero so these stupid/crazy/evil critics should back off.

Alyssa Rosenberg took a different tack, explaining The Real Problem With Susan Patton’s s ur-Jewish Mother letter to the editor is the Daily Princetonian:

Patton’s letter is exactly the kind of thing that is tremendously clicky, to the extent that it was probably worth it financially to the Daily Princetonian to publish it even if the site ended up offline because of the massive influx of readers.

All in all, it’s a very successful, cynical execution of a well-established strategy.

Rosenberg’s argument makes little sense except perhaps as a projection of her own obsession with clicks, money and cynical strategy.

Miraculously, Patton got some time to explain herself on television. When Megyn Kelly asked Patton to respond to the crux of the controversy, which is “elitist snobby Ivy League people [who] think they’re better than we are”, Patton did not play the jewish mother card. Instead she lied, claiming, “I’m not suggesting that anybody’s better than anybody”.

Except she did. In two different ways. The controversy concerns her letter where she used the term “worthy of you”, and explicitly acknowledged, “Yes, I went there.” She was talking about intelligence, not even race, but it was considered as such, at least at first. That changed as soon as she quickly played the jewish mother card, which is the second way she suggested somebody is more worthy.

At the heart of the “jewish mother” trope is the quite conscious concern that:

The only option in life for her children is college and (for the girls) marrying a nice Jewish boy (often parsed even more with “A nice Ashkenazic boy” or “A nice Ashkenazic doctor” or “A nice Ashkenazic doctor with an apartment in New York and plenty of frequent flier miles to visit your mother whom you never cawl anymore”). Likewise, a Jewish son is expected to bring home a nice Jewish girl. No matter how nice, however, this girl will not be good enough. Heaven forbid he marries a Shiksa Goddess.

As long as critics considered her White Patton’s suggestion of intellectual superiority was regarded as beyond the pale. That changed as soon as she played the jewish mother card. Being a “good jewish mother” implies group superiority. Though for a White mother this would only be regarded as more damning, for jews it miraculously serves to blunt the attack, and shifts the focus elsewhere.

It’s interesting to consider how this story might have unfolded differently if Susan Patton were White. Would she have written such a letter? Would it have been published? Would James Taranto have lept to her defense? Would feminists now be organizing a boycott of her business?

On the same day that Susan Patton’s letter was published, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from Suzy Lee Weiss, To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me:

If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would’ve happily come out of it. “Diversity!” I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would’ve been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—”The Real Housewives” is on.

As with Patton, controversy ensued. Suzy Lee Weiss: ‘Entitled’ high school senior sparks firestorm after writing biting open letter to the Ivy League schools that rejected her, Mail Online, 4 April 2013:

The article outraged many, who accused her of being entitled, self-indulgent and even racist.

‘Entitled little brat,’ one Twitter user said, as another said: ‘Choking on the petulant privilege of Suzy Lee Weiss & hoping she matures out of her ignorance rather than being bolstered by a book deal.’

Another directed a message to Weiss, saying: ‘Your letter reveals your republican homophobic leanings and hatred of others not exactly like you. Grow up.’

Despite the criticism Weiss, like Patton, was given television time to explain herself. On Today she claimed it was a joke, satire, that she was poking fun at political correctness. This contradicted her story that before writing she cried to her mother about it and then her sister. Weiss added that diversity is “a wonderful thing” and admitted that her letter led to job offers.

If you’re wondering how a whiny high schooler got their letter printed by the Wall Street Journal in the first place, it helps to know that her sister Bari Weiss, is a former Wall Street Journal editor. Bari is also now a senior editor at Tablet Magazine. Like Susan Patton, Suzy Lee Weiss is visibly jewish. Unlike Susan Patton, who played the jewish mother card early, the only mention I’ve found of Suzy Lee Weiss’ jewish identity is an article at Tablet, Suzy Lee Weiss Fires Back on the Today Show:

A story we’ve been following closely–how could we not? she’s mishpucha

Because they can’t yet have the internet and ban us from using it too, Whites who are curious about bits of tribal code can still read things like The Yiddish Handbook, which suggests 40 Words You Should Know:

mishpocheh

Or mishpokhe or mishpucha. It means “family,” as in “Relax, you’re mishpocheh. I’ll sell it to you at wholesale.”

That strikes quite a different tone than Weiss’ deprecatory reference to herself as a “saltine cracker”.

Commentary Magazine, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, provided two supportive editorials. After decades of non-stop jewish propaganda downplaying race, in particular by reducing it to skin color, in When Will Universities Understand Real Diversity? Michael Rubin complains:

The sad fact is that universities—both private and public—are essentially racist: They will gladly boil down diversity to the color of skin.

It’s Not Only the Colleges that Weren’t Honest with Suzy Weiss, by Seth Mandel comments on the Today interview mentioned above:

Guthrie then looks at Weiss and says: “I mean, for one thing, some people read this and they say you are being very cavalier about the importance of diversity.” Weiss dismisses the attempted shaming by saying the piece was satire. But here Weiss isn’t giving herself enough credit. The problem with the section of Weiss’s op-ed about diversity was that it wasn’t an exaggeration: had Weiss followed her joking suggestions, she very well might have been accepted by any number of universities whose admissions officers probably cringed at the op-ed because Weiss was describing actual applicants they happily accepted over Weiss.

Guthrie may have seen Weiss’s words as cartoonish, but here’s the point: they accurately describe the attitudes of the deans at America’s top universities. Weiss didn’t lampoon them so much as expose them to a wider audience.

Weiss can shrug it off because she knows she has a network of unflinching support. Diversity doesn’t change that. And anyway, jews understand “diversity” is code for less White. The problem, and the reason for all the beating around the bush at Commentary, is that jews, especially “conservative” jews, want to be seen as “white” by Whites, but they also want to be seen as “diverse”, or at least exempt from any cost of “diversity”.

The conflation of Whites and jews as “white” is deliberate. Julie Gerstein, writing at The Frisky, provides one example. In Entitled High School Senior Suzy Lee Weiss Makes Me Sad For The Future Gerstein writes about Weiss’ “screed” and “failure”:

Maybe the lesson for Ms. Weiss isn’t that she’d have gotten into college if only she’d “worn a headdress to school,” but that colleges are no different than the general population: They don’t like assholes. And they, like the rest of us, don’t appreciate deep-seated resentment, mild racism and selfishness in potential friends, mates and students.

Maybe, Ms. Weiss, you were rejected because your piss-poor attitude of entitlement and privilege seeped out of every word you wrote on your college application. No one “lied to you” about what colleges want. They want you to “be yourself,” as long as the “you” in question isn’t a smug jerk who believes you’re entitled to get everything you want just because you want it. And that, Ms. Weiss, is where you went wrong.

Entitled, “To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me,” the piece is a good old fashioned spiteful rant, flinging glasses of white whine into the eyes, not only of every college that denied her admission, but also every person who has ever been accepted into a college, ever.

It’s possible that Gerstein doesn’t recognize Weiss as a jew, but not likely. What she’s definitely doing is aiming a spiteful rant at “whites” that would not likely have been written, much less published at The Frisky, if it had been about jews.

Suzy’s mistake, it seems, was interpreting the advice “Just be yourself” literally. Like perhaps someone told her, “Applying to colleges? Ah, just be yourself,” and she accepted this as an instruction to pursue no activities other than being herself.

Being yourself is not a talent.

Unless of course you’re a jewish mother. Being jewish worked for Weiss and she didn’t even have to play that card herself. With a little help from the WSJ and Today she’s enjoying the privilege of being a jewish-looking girl with a jewish-sounding name that a jewish media outlet or two regard as family. Whether she was whining about her jokes or joking about her whining it all worked out well enough. At least for her. Meanwhile, Gerstein and others are busy slagging “whites” over it.

Kirsten West Savali, writing at Clutch Magazine, which is explicitly targeted at black women, provides an example of the desired effect. For Middle-Class White Girls When Being Privileged Isn’t Enough:

Suzy did what any self-respecting privileged, young, white woman would do — she used her familial connections with the WSJ to pave the way for her brilliant od-ed, which otherwise may have languished in darkness, never to be seen by human eyes. This literary phenomenon, which places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those pesky black and brown people who don’t deserve to go to college because, well, they’re black and brown, has exposed the world’s best-kept secret: “If it ain’t white, it ain’t right.”

See how that works? A jewess complains. She gets press and benefits. Whites get the blame. Savali, in her budding wisdom, at least gets a bit of the crying/joke:

Weiss, in her budding wisdom, exposed the mantle of white privilege for what it should be: Proud, unapologetic and unconcerned with anyone not blessed to posses it. She offered herself up as the scape-goat to be ridiculed. Though she did receive job and internship offers for her take-down of reverse racial discrimination, that was never the point.

The point was to reveal the face of the forthcoming post-racial state of America. A place where white students are rewarded for mocking the tenuous foundation of equality on which this country is built and education remains a coveted club to which only middle-class white students are entitled.

Equality is a delusion which mainly afflicts Whites. The point is that today jews and jewish interests rule academia and media, among other things. The fact that Whites get the blame for what jews do is evidence of jewish privilege, not “white” privilege, and certainly not White privilege.

Blog

The Root of “Hate”

24 Comments

A post by Steve Sailer, Michelle Malkin (Oberlin ’92) on Hate Hoaxes and Hate Hysteria, prompted the following anonymous comment:

If it’s a ‘hate crime’ to falsely accuse Jews of abducting Christian boys and using them for ritual slaughter, it’s a ‘hate crime’ to accuse whites of committing all sorts of horrors they haven’t.

“Hate” is a jewish construct. They’ve weaponized it.

It is possible the comment above is a troll, made by someone with a keen sense of irony. More likely it came from a mind, and made it past a moderator’s mind, wholly unconscious of the double-think it represents.

According to jews, all accusations against jews are false accusations. The jewish “blood libel” narrative is a perfect example. The presumption is that every accusation of abduction and murder ever made against jews is false. Furthermore, they regard any rejection of this or any other part of their narrative as a “hate crime”. There is no “if” about this.

Yet the jewish tales about “blood libel” are incredibly one-sided. They are a libel against Whites. A hoax. A deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. Likewise with their “holocaust”.

Here are some recent examples of jewish “hate” hoaxing I’ve run across. A more deliberate and thorough search would undoubtedly produce a much longer list.

Manalapan, N.J. Overrun With Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Other Messages Of Hate « CBS New York, Sep 2012.

Zach Tennen, Michigan State University Student, Not Attacked Because Of Religion, Police Say, Aug 2012.

Why would Jews vandalize a Holocaust memorial?, Jun 2012.

Jewish man gets caught red handed spraying anti-Jewish hate messages in New York, Dec 2011.

Lawyer suspended for falsely claiming cop called him anti-Semitic slur, Dec 2011.

Jewish student caught painting Swastikas on her own door then claiming Anti-Semitic Attack, July 2010.

Jews aren’t just going along with the “hate” hoax hysteria. They created the whole “hate” paradigm. They’ve been using it to milk Whites longest and hardest. In comparison everyone else are copy-cats, and pikers at it to boot.

The double-think in the comment quoted above is typical not only at Sailer’s blog, but also in the similarly blinkered punditry he cites – Michelle Malkin, Gucci Little Piggy and Nicholas Stix. The common theme in these forums and elsewhere in the “race realist” sphere is that blacks are the main perpetrators and “white liberals” are their evil genius co-conspirators/enablers. Stix actually claims “[t]he role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous” and that Tim Wise is White.

They deplore “hate” but don’t confront it’s source. Why?

Well, Stix is a jew, Malkin is married to one, and Sailer believes he’s part-jew. How many of the “white liberals” they finger are similarly compromised? I’m uncertain about GLC, but I know the rest of them pretend jews are “white”. It seems to me that nothing enables the “hate” hoaxing as much as this delusion does.

And it is a delusion. The jews themselves are very clear on the most salient fact about “hate”: jews are the victims and Whites are their oppressors. In other words, jews are the exact opposite of White. The premise that Whites “hate” non-Whites, and never the reverse, is only a generalization of the premise that Whites “hate” jews, and never the reverse.

P.S. Someone left a link to Oberlin Microaggressions — I’m the “white, Jewish professor” at GLP. Read it. It’s a good window into how the “white jew” game is played:

I’m sorry if you read this post as anti-Semitic. That was never the intent. You were identified as “white” because it contextualizes your use of the word in question. You were identified as “Jewish” because it was used in your justification of the educational merit and personal sensitivity that you had in the situation. I do not want this to turn into an attack but rather a way to further dialogue and be able to have productive conversations.

From one white Jew to another, I can only assume that you, being Jewish and a professor of higher learning, have background knowledge about systems of oppression and that you have some understanding about allyship and understand the importance of listening to oppressed and targeted groups.