Tag Archives: anti-white

BELVEDERE

Triangulating From the Right

During this past month has Lawrence Auster has expressed a considerable shift in rhetoric, fundamentally altering his depiction of “liberalism” by adopting, without explanation, ideas he had previously ignored, dismissed, or denounced.

In First thoughts on the PWC conference, posted on 8 Feb 2009, we see Auster was giving speeches “meticulously describing” non-discrimination and writing about “suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences”.

In What is good discrimination?, posted on 24 Feb 2009, Auster wrote:

We need to distinguish between necessary/proper/good discrimination and unnecessary/improper/bad discrimination. This is something that liberalism never does, because liberalism considers all discrimination to be bad; moreover, it considers every type of discrimination to be equally bad.

At Oz Conservative, around 17 Feb 2009, something had changed. Suddenly Sailer’s “competition between whiter people“, which Auster had previously judged useless, was transformed into war and became his own idea. Auster wrote:

The signs are gathering that the Western societies are heading into an age of civil wars. Not between white and nonwhite, not between Christian and Muslim, but between liberal whites and non-liberal whites. That’s shaping up as the major divide of our time.

Next he transformed “suicidal white guilt” into “murder”. In The cause of the white race will not go away, posted on 5 Mar 2009, Auster wrote:

when I consider today’s systematic campaign, organized and backed by all the ruling powers of society, to put down, demonize, disempower, and marginalize the white race, I think it is shaping up as the greatest crime in the history of mankind

Today, 10 Mar 2009, Auster posts The supposedly race-blind liberal media defines a “true American”, finally realizing (or finally admitting) that non-discrimination isn’t at all what “liberalism” is about. He writes:

Liberalism is not about making race unimportant. Liberalism is about elevating nonwhites, particularly blacks, over whites, and about turning whites into non-persons. Liberalism is pure racism under the guise of anti-racism. What “anti-racism” really means is simply anti-whiteness.

It is extraordinary watching Auster break so much new ground so quickly. Where on earth is he getting these insane ideas?

Here are three more major related pieces he has yet to cough up:

  • Note that “liberalism” does not turn jews into non-persons. Quite the contrary, both jews and “liberalism” sees jews as non-White and elevates them over everyone else, including blacks.
  • Note that “liberalism” has become more anti-White at the same time and in the same proportion as jewish influence over Western sociopolitical thought has increased.
  • Note that even in his own shifty estimation all of the above is “anti-semitism”, move to israel to find himself and repent his sins, blog exclusively in hebrew from this point on, and never again try to command “the majority” (to which he is alien) what to say or do.

485-1

Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration

The first editorial, dated 31 Jan 2009 and titled The Nativists Are Restless, starts the witch-hunt with a bang, accusing Vdare, The American Cause, and korean-jew Marcus Epstein of the second worst crime possible in their brave new progressivist-globalist world: “white supremacism”. (The worst crime being “anti-semitism”, of course. Surely the Times will eventually get to that.)

The next editorial, dated 2 Feb 2009 is titled The Nativists Are Restless, Continued. It continues the assault under the guise of seeking debate, accusing Republicans of not doing enough for latinos while saluting the Southern Poverty Law Center for sniffing out non-latino Whites distasteful enough to fret about our interests and audacious enough to actually pursue them. For the record, the Times states, they do not support open borders, and never have. They’re only concerned that their metaphorical “Golden Door” might be closed. They don’t favor “amnesty” either. They just want a “Golden Door” big enough so “that immigrants will go through, not around”. And that those who do go around get to stay. That’s not “open borders” or “amnesty”. It’s just the common sense of anyone who wants to “destroy America’s identity as a white, European country.”

The editorial dated 4 Feb 2009 is titled ‘The Nativist Lobby’. It broadens the witch-hunt to FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA, and is based entirely on the SPLC’s bolshevist smear tactics. Here the pretense at debate has been replaced with a list of people to be shunned and silenced. They conclude by saying “people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about”.

This from people who don’t like to talk about the history of immigration or their own group’s role in shaping it. People who scream ANTI-SEMITE!!! at anyone who notices their relentlessly harsh and extreme pursuit of their own racial interests. Who scream HOLOCAUST!!! at anyone who mocks their fretfulness about their own race, culture and ethnicity. Who scream RACIST!!! if anyone suggests closing the “Golden Door” they worked so long and hard to pry open in order to create the multiracial majority-minority dystopia they desire and thrive in.

The underlying assumptions made by the Times editorialists are outrageously hypocritical:

  • Whites should accept a political regime which explicitly panders to the interests of everyone other than Whites.
  • Whites should not express concern about non-White immigration despite the obvious hostility of those immigrants and their supporters toward Whites.
  • Whites should reject and distance ourselves from anyone who does not conform to these rules.

Jews seem incapable of doing so, but we Whites have no trouble substituting “jew” for “White” in the points above and recognizing the apoplectic reaction any such attack would cause in jews.

Ever since Congress and the media, including the Times, failed to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform down our throats in mid 2007 we haven’t heard much from either source about immigration. Odd isn’t it? One day the “12 million” undocumented invaders is a critical issue we just absolutely have to address, immediately and comprehensively. Then when it doesn’t go the way they want the urgency evaporates and for some 18 months there’s hardly a peep. It’s doubly odd that this happened despite an intervening nationwide election. An election which, if the Times et al. really had been so eager to debate, would have been the perfect opportunity for Americans to debate and vote on immigration. Instead the Times, like the rest of the mainstream media and both major political parties, did their best not to talk about immigration. They quickly changed the subject when it did come up. It’s been so long since they talked about it they’re still throwing around the “12 million” number as if it hasn’t changed!

Actually, none of this is odd once you understand that our country has been hijacked by greedy and dishonest people who either don’t care about Whites or actively hate us. As Peter Brimelow says in a video the Times links at their own risk:

I think the issue in the immigration debate is not racism or xenophobia, it’s treason. The people who are running current policy embarked upon a course that will destroy the United States as we know it. They have no loyalty to it, they want to transform it. So it’s treason.

Well now there’s a new president. The first sired by a resident alien. The first with illegal alien relatives. The first whose own natural born citizenship is in doubt. Oblivious to these notable and unprecedented firsts the Times focuses instead like a laser beam on race, “It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out.” Among the views they consider pathetic in the “age of Obama” is anyone daring to mock their “Magic Negro”. What else but magic could explain how so many embarassing firsts were ignored by the Times and most of the rest of the media during Obama’s campaign? It makes far more sense to attribute it to jewish media influence and their self-serving interests in destroying America’s identity as a white, European country. That seems to be what frightens the Times most about Brimelow’s view. If their treason becomes clear to enough people they know they’re going to have hell to pay. Which they see of course as just another reason to carry through the destruction of America’s identity as a white, European country. They’re committed to smothering even the most hapless, harmless Whites who fumble around trying to avoid being called “racist”.

Despite the Times’ attempt to guilt-trip us, we know that Juan “CIR co-sponsor” McCain’s best efforts to woo black, latino, asian, and jewish voters failed miserably. It failed because the non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for the non-White:

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.

Whites don’t deserve the blame for the lopsided non-White vote. The non-Whites do. After decades of legislated preferences for non-Whites, non-White immigration (legal and illegal), poisonous anti-White media propaganda (the NYT in the vanguard), forced integration, non-White on White violence, and piles of danegeld extorted from Whites and transferred to non-Whites by government mandate – after all this the hostility and resentment between non-Whites and Whites has only grown. The jewish-led, jewish-funded assault on Whites has only become more intense. The Times blames it all on Whites.

We have good cause to be angry. The harm done to us is by now crystal clear. Our country, as we knew it, seems doomed. What our enemies are doing now is trying to ensure that no one will be punished for the crime. The crime is genocide – a deliberately pursued policy to harm Whites. The editors of the Times and anyone who agrees with them are genocidalists. Their paranoia about what Whites might do to immigrants, or themselves, does not excuse them. Their response to White objections to the injustice inflicted upon us by immigration is not only unsympathetic, it is openly contemptuous and repressive. Their foot is on our throats. They meet our pleas to stop with derision and push harder. What they could in 1965 pretend was immigration, justified and debated on the basis of how many should be admitted in the best interests of the natives, has been revealed as a culture-killing invasion and alien colonization. Now we are told by our erstwhile dictators that it is expressly for the benefit of the immigrants, the cost to us irrelevant. It is a premeditated and coldly executed program to replace us, and the more we resist the more they pretend they are justified to dislike and fear us.

It may seem to the Times like a good time to once again discuss immigration. After the aforementioned 18 month quasi-blackout on the subject Pew recently announced that public concern for immigration is “slipping”. Never mind that every other issue people claim they are more concerned about is directly impacted by immigration. That the Times would advocate in favor of millions of alien interlopers just now, when so many natives are struggling to find jobs, confirms the malice and distain with which they regard us. I don’t believe this is a blunder. The Times considers it their duty, representing a combination of latino and jewish interests, to broach this subject now. They are preparing the ground so their Magic Negro and plutocrat-owned Congress can have another sham debate about the “12 million”, this time following the fast-track bailout bill template. In that they hope to secure the future of the non-White immigrants while definitively destroying America’s identity as a white, European country.

They hate us so much they can’t wait to forget we ever existed.

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?

africoon-dictator-2

Age of Racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Image by INCOGMAN.)

080522_Spec_liberalEX_fixed

Not the Last Brainwashing

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

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

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

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

It is a prime example of Out Group brainwashing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation, 2005

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

CRIME IN THE HOOD
La Griffe du Lion
November 1999

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

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

One final thought.

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

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

In other words: never.

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

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

What a coincidence.

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

tvbroke-main_Full

The WEJs Replacing WASPs Will Not Be Televised

Where the WASPs Aren’t
Posted by Austin Bramwell on September 23, 2008 (original links and emphasis):

The TV show Gossip Girl, now in its second season, chronicles the “scandalous lives of Manhattan’s elite”—”elite” meaning private school kids and their families.

In Gossip Girl, rich kids all have names like Waldorf, Archibald, Bass and van der Woodsen. (In keeping with media’s loathing of the Texas Bass family, the villain is named “Chuck Bass.”) In reality, however, the families of the old Protestant Establishment make up only a minority of New York’s wealthy elite. They haven’t entirely disappeared; they still host their debutantes balls, the Forbes family still keeps the Social Register afloat, and a handful of institutions (mostly hidden from public view) are still controlled by WASPs. Some WASPs even have substantial fortunes. (Those fortunes, however, are rarely very old; no Knickerbocker family like “van der Woodsen” can afford New York’s social whirl.) But WASPs as a whole just don’t have the numbers, much less the will, to dominate New York society. As Louis Auchincloss gently puts it, they have “lost their monopoly.”

Instead, perhaps a plurality of the rich private school kids in Manhattan—even at historically Protestant schools—are Jewish. The Jewish Daily Forward goes so far as to report that Trinity and Dalton, two of the top private schools in New York, are “largely Jewish.” An entire media industry follows the lavish bar mitzvahs of Manhattan private school kids. The closest real-world model for the high school in Gossip Girl, The Dalton School, has historically been the most recherché school for Jewish New Yorkers. (Most WASPs prefer to send their children to the old single-sex grammar schools.) Tellingly, the media now treat Dalton as the most posh school in Manhattan.

In Gossip Girl, however, Jewish kids don’t even exist, much less predominate. Everything about Gossip Girl is modern, from the drugs to the iphones, except for the sociological background, which the writers may as well have lifted out of the Gilded Age.

The comments exerpted below are even more blunt.

“Gossip Girl” is produced by Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage…(“Savage” is also used by the radio personality Michael Weiner)and produced by Bob Levy,Leslie Morgenstein and John Stephens.

Posted by Mega Therion on Sep 23, 2008.

HCL:
“Never mind Jews took over Manhattan 100 years ago, no one wants to watch a sitcom of them, not even the Jews themselves.

The one US sitcom that ever really offended me was Seinfeld, where WASP women were treated as disposable bags of meat.

Most US sitcoms take the more passive-aggressive approach of making the WASP male characters impotent, like Chandler in ‘Friends’ or, more overtly, the Kyle MacLachlan character in Sex and the City (so his WASP wife leaves him for the virile Jewish lawyer).

I also get the impression, contrary to some posters above, that up until the ‘60s US sitcoms & drama generally showed a positive portrayal of WASPs and the WASP nuclear family, especially heartland WASPs (Leave it to Beaver, Mayberry PD etc).

Nowadays we have stuff like ‘Law & Order’, where the Great WASP Beast is slain every week, over and over again, in a manner renminiscent of pagan ritual. Here it’s the always rich, always ‘old money’ white perpetrator, imprisoned by the heroic crusading non-WASP prosecutors (ironically Sam Neill is the very model of a Scots-WASP, playing an Irish-American ADA).

There’s something quasi-religious about it. I think it’s fascinating that Jewish New York writers seem to feel the need to do this, to eternally re-enact their grandfathers’ victories over the WASP establishment on TV, always dressed up in modern clothing.

I suppose there’s a parrallel with the popularity of Cowboy & Indian films, up until the ‘50s, ever re-enacting America’ victory over a long-dead enemy. In Britain for a long time we did the same with World War 2. The obvious difference though is that the primary market for these ritualised TV tales of Victory-over-the-WASP… is WASPs.

Posted by Simon Newman on Sep 24, 2008.

As the family of one of those ‘faded elite’ I would like to add a few thoughts:
a. there is little or no solidarity or identity among WASPs anymore – the networks of old families and communication simply do not exist.
b. Jews know FULL WELL they are the dominate elite now, and they also had a sense they were wresting power from WASPs and guilt ridden wasps didn’t seem to be a aware of it. You can often see manifestations of when Jews say the wasps ‘gave up without firing a shot’ – well we didn’t know we were in a war -we thought the jews were really upset about discrimination – it turns out they were upset about Jewish discrimination – they had and have no problem discriminating against us.

I openly admit I have bitterness against the new jewish elite not because they dominate but because they NEVER had any intention of being fair -it was all thinly vieled ethnic self interest. (and I emphasis my bitterness is towards the elite not ‘the jews’

Posted by Van Buskirk on Sep 24, 2008.

Question:

the new elite and new system still has to ‘pretend’ the old establishment exists. Why? And once people find out who really runs the prep schools, Ivy Leagues and most elite institutions in NYC if not a large part of the US and just how much their ethics have changed, what are the implications? For example, does our support of Israel take on a whole new light? Or our support of the Oligarchs and hostility towards Russia? What about the hostility towards Christmas ornaments? All the sudden it looks a lot more hatred than fairness.

Posted by knickerblogger on Sep 24, 2008.

Van Buskirk:
“Jews know FULL WELL they are the dominate elite now”

They seem nervous about it though. The one US show I see regularly is The Daily Show, so by now I’ve seen dozens of hours of Jon Stewart sitting talking behind that desk, interviewing Bill Kristol, and so on. One can’t help but notice a lot about what Stewart seems to think of himself, his interviewees, his place in the world, and so on. I don’t know exactly how typical he is of the New York Jewish media elite, but from how he’s deferred to I’m guessing he’s not much of an outlier. The main impression I get is nervousness, a kind of “OK, we’re on top NOW, but if THEY ever realise it, who knows what could happen…”

Where the New York WASP elite seems to have been excessively complacent, the New York Jewish elite seems excessively insecure. And their fear is not overtly directed towards any rising group that might one day replace them, but towards the remaining WASPs and especially the non-elite WASP heartlands of ‘flyover country’.

Posted by Simon Newman on Sep 24, 2008.

I’m guessing 1/4 of John “Stewart’s” audience has no clue he is Jewish or that his name is John Stuart Liebowitz. Never underestimate the public’s wits.

Posted by Mega Therion on Sep 24, 2008.

Yes, it took 100 years but the Jewish Supremacists who own and control the USA are CLEARLY ruling America now and turning it into a police state.

The only people who haven’t figured it out yet are the brain dead.

Posted by Bob on Sep 24, 2008.

Bob, I don’t know that I’d phrase it that dramatically – they are clearly the dominate ethnic group in New York and have considerable, disproportionate influence in DC and, imhop, most importantly, in popular culture.

I will say, in my own waspy way, they have utterly failed as custodians and stewards (considering their long brutal history in East europe as buergermeisters , tax collectors and agents of oppressive regimes this should come as no surprise). It think this is deeply culturally ingrained – maybe even genetically- but the high mistrust and hostility towards ‘other’ particular the Christian west, makes them utterly unfit for leadership and trust as a group – individuals are another matter.

Posted by van buskirk on Sep 24, 2008.

ACRONYM ENVY

One of the things we experience on the West Coast is some resentment in Jewish circles about the fact that only the Anglo-Saxons are allowed an acronym. Jews are insisting that WEJ is the correct acronym for white Jews when WASP is used, simply for equity.

WEJ as we all know stands for White European Jew and is pronounced “wedge” in the same manner that WASP is pronounced as the name of an insect.

It is to be much regretted that Austin Bramwell ignored this element of courtesy and we have to ask ourselves if he might be motivated by a little bias against Jews.

Posted by Sally on Sep 24, 2008.

Interesting post! I’m new here, so I was amused but puzzled by some of the exceptionally silly crypto- (and not-so-crypto-)anti-Semitic comments above. But I think I figured it out!

I’m pretty sure the people making these comments are themselves Jews, trying to discredit WASPs by portraying them as anti-Semitic to the other readers, who are also Jews.

The Jews posting the faux-anti-Semitic comments are, of course, doing it out of a psychological need to simultaneously co-opt and destroy the power that they feel has traditionally been in the hands of mainline Protestant blog commenters.

And the Jew readers of the blog are here as a result of an assimilation neurosis that makes them want to be like WASPs, which they believe entails reading anti-Semitic comments left by “fellow WASPs.”

So, as a Jew myself, I’d just like to say, to commenters and lurkers alike, “Hi guys! See you at the next world domination meeting!”

Posted by JS on Sep 24, 2008.

I think the pattern for Jews in relation to the Wasp governing class is ape, rape and escape. First they ape the Wasps; then they financially, politically and culturally rape them; then they escape them by surpassing them.

We now live in a very dynamic period in which different Jews are at each stage of the ape, rape and escape process.

Posted by Tappir Zapper on Sep 24, 2008.

Commenter JS demonstrates that it is not possible to observe, openly and matter of fact, that jews now dominate New York’s upper class without at least one reality-inverting anti-anti-semite showing up to shovel the usual combination of mockery, denial, fear, and effrontery.

Edmund Connelly’s Reel Bad WASPs provides an analysis of Caddyshack and Happy Gilmore as further examples of jewish in-your-face culture war grave-dancing – examples which predate Gossip Girls.

Whether big screen or small screen, the message has been the same, as Hollywood insider Ben Stein noted. Writing in 1976 (and updated in book form in 1979), Stein explained how the preponderance of Jewish writers—men who assumed mainstream America hated them, so the writers loathed them in return—meant that a false image of majority Americans was being created:

A national culture is making war upon a way of life that is still powerfully attractive and widely practiced in the same country. . . . Feelings of affection for small towns run deep in America, and small-town life is treasured by millions of people. But in the mass culture of the country, a hatred for the small town is spewed out on television screens and movie screens every day. . . . Television and the movies are America’s folk culture, and they have nothing but contempt for the way of life of a very large part of the folk. . . . People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be.

David Gelernter pointed out in a wonderful essay that “the old elite used to get on fairly well with the country it was set over. Members of the old social upper-crust elite were richer and better educated than the public at large, but approached life on basically the same terms.” The new, heavily Jewish elite is not only different from the non-Jewish masses, in Gelernter words, “it loathes the nation it rules.”

“WASP” rule was legitimate and forthright, so long as it lasted. To a fault they followed their precious principles, shared their power, and their progeny now find themselves marginalized to the point that they cannot or will not prevent their own scapegoating. The “WEJs” in contrast deny they have power. Yet it is only because they do have power and suffer no hesitation in using it that their domination goes unchallenged, even as it visits social and economic upheaval upon the law-abiding, taxpaying disproportionately White “middle class”.

auster

We’re White, We’re Indigenous, Get Used to It

Lawrence Auster, self-styled advocate of the “white” West, writes and blogs regularly about the West’s troubles. At first I found his analysis refreshing. Then I found it confusing. Now I see him as an obstacle. A false friend. A poseur.

Auster regularly exhorts Whites to reassert themselves, to call their enemies and problems by their proper names. But then he just as regularly peevishly denounces Whites who assert themselves in the wrong way or use inappropriate words.

Three months ago Auster was explaining why we shouldn’t capitalize White:

Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., “White people,” “Black people,” which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR’s usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.

Oh, I see. That must be why standard usage is to write “hard-working Latino”, “hard-working African-American”, and “hard-working white”. Because white is just a color. Just an adjective. That makes sense.

No it doesn’t. The standard usage is inconsistent. I assert that it’s wrong.

In the same post Auster explained why he thinks some words are capitalized and others are not:

All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize “white,” a color which should not be capitalized, and put “Jew,” a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.

More transparent rot. If Auster were as concerned about Whites as he is about jews he’d insist on the same standards, regardless of conventions. He wouldn’t insult Whites by pretending the word is an adjective, and he’d argue that “white” is dehumanizing instead of making excuses for it.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but the way I capitalize words has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with consciousness. I am conscious of the anti-White convention. I consciously reject it. To drive home the point I invert it.

There are more symptoms of Auster’s sorta, kinda, half-hearted pro-”white” pose.

Just a few days ago, Auster asked, Why are white Westerners describing themselves as “indigenous” peoples?:

I protest the recent and expanding use of “indigenous” to describe white Western majority peoples, as Rick Darby used it innocently and in passing in another thread. Yes, in the simplest sense “indigenous” means “originating where it is found,” and therefore could, I suppose, be used to describe the British, since the white British population goes back to the Neolithic. But the word would not apply to white Americans, the earliest ancestors of whom came to this continent 400 years ago.

But there is a larger problem with “indigenous.” It doesn’t just mean native to a location. It also implies people in their original, undeveloped state. Traditionally, we never thought of a people in a developed society, with complex institutions and a national state, as “indigenous,” even if their ancestors had lived in that land for 10,000 years.

Further, indigenous is typically used by outside people who are studying or protecting some tribal group.

For majority whites to call themselves “indigenous” is exactly like whites asking for their “rights” under multiculturalism. It is an admission of surrender to multiculturalism, whites’ transformation of themselves into just another minority group needing protection, rather than being and asserting themselves as the leading and dominant people of our respective countries.

Western peoples thus gratuitously diminish and weaken themselves by referring to themselves as indigenous. As a self-description of white Westerners it is incorrect, unnecessary, demoralizing, and defeatist.

Then, notwithstanding his rationale for “white”, Auster writes:

The Brits seem to go out of their way to make themselves into nothing. They now even spell the the word “west,” as in “western civilization,” in lower case. They’re so wimpy they won’t even capitalize the name of their own civilization. Next they’ll be spelling Britain as “britain.”

He goes on to quote a Mr. Carpenter who tells us “That is pathetic”, “Quite disgraceful”, and “Very sad”. Auster says we must not call ourselves “indigenous” and we must write “West”, otherwise we are wimps. But we must write “Jew” and we must write “white”, otherwise we are haters.

Scolding. Lecturing. Constraining. Upbraiding. Insulting. Talk about demoralizing. We should assert ourselves as the dominant people of our respective countries, but by using the wrong words we gratuitously diminish ourselves. Please sir, if it’s not too much trouble sir, how and when may we “whites” assert ourselves?

Piffle. Why do “whites” write “west”? Come now Auster. Use your own logic. It’s nothing but a mere direction. Right?

And why are White Westerners describing themselves as “indigenous”? This also isn’t a difficult question to answer. But Auster and his philo-semitic peanut gallery don’t want an answer. They are only interested in heaping shame and insults on “whites”. The behavior of these hecklers hints at the problem. They aren’t White. They want “whites” to do what they see as good and necessary to help jews, but they attack uppity Whites who think or act in their own interests.

The short answer these Austerites don’t want to face is that Whites no longer dominate their respective countries. Beyond broad swipes at vague “liberals” the Austerites also don’t want to discuss why.

Whites used to dominate not only their own countries, but most of the globe. Nowadays we’re indoctrinated that this was a monstrous crime. We’re reminded in many ways on a daily basis that everybody and anybody is more important than Whites now, and jews are on top. How did this happen? Well, in large part because Whites relinquished control. We’ve been badgered, harangued, brow-beaten, and guilt-tripped for generations, first by humanists and abolitionists, then increasingly by resentful, self-interested, culturally and economically revolutionary jews. Many Whites were convinced that giving away power and opening the borders was the right and noble thing to do. So now today we are inundated and assaulted by a broad coalition of resentful self-interested “minorities”.

I have referred to myself as indigenous several times in the past few years. I will do so again. The reason why is not difficult to explain. But I’m not surprised Lawrence Auster pretends it is a mystery.

Under the increasingly pro-jew, anti-White politically correct regime it has become the norm to extend preferential status to “indigenous” people. Like most everything in this upside-down regime the preference is selective and applies only to non-whites. Of course this violates the holy PC tenet of non-discrimination and reveals PC’s equalitarian claptrap for the steaming pile of manure it is. Just as in Animal Farm – where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The word indigenous has a common, biological sense. It means native, and that’s precisely what any decent dictionary says. The meaning that liberals prefer is deliberately contorted to serve their politics. For them indigenous means non-white native. How absurd it seems for anti-liberal Auster to accept and defend this definition. Unless we remember his philo-semitic imperative. Yes, Auster wants Whites to assert ourselves. Somebody has to do something about the muslims and blacks he’s freaked out about. He just doesn’t want us showing anywhere near the same consciousness for ourselves and our interests as jews do. Let’s avoid the whole native-alien can of worms. Somebody might make an argument that serial immigrant jews don’t want to hear.

But why should Whites avoid it? Let’s speak some truth to power. Immigrant invaders are the precious darlings of our academia, media, religious, business, and political leaders. Our institutions and lands are ever more thoroughly infiltrated by hostile aliens and their advocates. Sometimes it seems all we Whites have left is principled whining. That and an inexorable leftward slide is certainly all our sold-out mainstream conservatives offer. How depressing and defeatist it is to acknowledge this reality. Shame on me.

So a few uppity Whites reject the liberal definition and refer to ourselves as indigenous. Some, like me, may even intend it as a finger in our enemy’s eye. A White calling himself indigenous under the PC regime is like a cow calling himself a pig in Animal Farm. It’s a sure fire way to piss off the pigs. It’s also a perfectly apt and legitimate way to distinguish ourselves from the “undocumented migrants” that progressivists and globalists, neocons and neolibs, are all so fond of.

No, we’re not going to save the West with words. But neither is this why we’re losing it.

At Rick Darby’s Reflecting Light commenter Greg, referring to Auster’s protest against the use of indigenous, writes:

We are in a pickle, us Brits certainly. Sadly, our simplest road to freedom is blocked by some of those who say they are our friend.

The only absolutely non-negotiable policy uniting all ‘acceptable’ parties is support for Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And all that we require not to go the way of the Garamantians is for our people to decide they are due equal consideration from their government in this respect as are the Jewish people.

But there’s anti-semitism you see, while there isn’t, for some reason, any anti-gentilism. And this double-standard includes people like Laurence Auster, who would quickly disavow the BNP if it were to propose that we Brits had (by necessity) equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us.

This heading us off at the pass-to-freedom, is also, I think, why he opposes the word “indigenous” applied to Europeans.

Greg makes a valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Auster, naturally, can muster only insults and evasion:

How pathetic is Greg in his miscomprehension.

The BNP has a history as a seriously anti-Semitic organization that totally marginalized it. BNP’s own leader—on HIS initiative, not MINE—has led a serious intellectual effort over the last several years to reject that anti-Semitic past. I have consistently praised him for that effort. Sounds like Greg ought to complaining about Nick Griffin, not about me.

Second, the fact that Greg thinks my criticism of the word “indigenous” is aimed at WEAKENING the British people, rather than at STRENGTHENING them by getting them to drop a self-description that makes them sound like the equivalent of a third-world people, shows him as so stupid that he’s not deserving of being treated with minimal respect.

Auster’s criticism of words is beside the point. The point is Auster is a half-hearted part-time supporter of “whites”, but an ardent and unwavering supporter of jews. As Greg said, the problem is that Whites and Christians do not have “equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us”. To my knowledge Auster has never addressed this point, even though he constantly urges “whites” to assert ourselves and often argues that “we” can draw distinctions from muslims, blacks, and latinos. Faced with a White who wishes to distinguish themselves from jews he either ignores the point or devolves into a gibbering anti-anti-semitic robot.

But anti-semitism is the grandaddy of all the isms that have been used to deconstruct the West. Racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, and islamophobism all derive from the same mindset: pathologization of the familiar and normal, glorification of the alien and abnormal. The most sacred principle is non-discrimination. The highest goal, diversity. None of it is honest. It all serves as cover for attacking anything European, anything Christian, and anything White. Anti-liberal Auster knows this well. He regularly echoes this view. Minus anti-semitism. When faced with criticism of jews Auster simply cannot help himself. Both his anti-liberalism and his intellect evaporate. What remains is primitive emotion and paranoia, which he then projects onto his stupid, evil, psychologically deficient enemies. There’s a name for jews who like to tell Whites how stupid and evil and psychologically deficient they are. Auster calls them liberals. They are, in his opinion, indistinguishable from non-jewish liberals and, by the way, it’s stupid and evil to try and tell the two apart.

When Auster criticizes liberal jews it is usually because he thinks they’re harming jews. Just in case anyone thinks he’s being anti-semitic he’ll point out how stupid and evil Whites are who think these jews also harming Whites:

The only group more out of touch with reality than liberal Jews are the white nationalist anti-Semites, who, following the theories of Kevin MacDonald, believe that the Jews are compelled by Darwinian evolutionary forces to destroy white gentile societies so as to advance their own power. These anti-Semitic idiots haven’t noticed that something like half the Jews of Israel (not to mention most Jews in the U.S.) support policies leading to the destruction of the Jewish state. How does THAT fit into the MacDonald thesis of merciless Jewish evolutionary competition against non-Jews?

There is a veritable army of jews in and out of Western universities who dedicate their lives to critcizing Whites and arguing about what’s good for jews. In comparison there are only a handful of Whites criticizing jews or discussing what’s good for Whites. And they are constantly harrassed for it.

Lawrence Auster, erstwhile defender of the “white” West and encourager of “white” assertiveness has a problem with liberal jews. Not to worry. It’s nothing that smearing assertive White nationalists and one of the few assertive White academics can’t fix!

Here’s a brain bender for you Larry. How does the extreme liberalism of the jewish state or its eventual destruction due to that, do anything but support the thesis that jewish “liberals” are also harming the West? How are MacDonald’s theories concerning how millenia of diaspora shaped jewish group evolutionary strategies invalidated by the failure of the six-decade old jewish state?

Why shouldn’t X’s discuss and debate the value of their relationship with Y’s? Why is this unspeakably stupid and evil only when X is White and Y is jew? Auster and his choir are worried about the violent jew-hating muslims flooding the West. They’re worried about the violent jew-hating blacks already in Crown Heights. They feel free to discuss what they’d like to do and why. As Rachel S. describes:

At that point our side would need unapologetic, respected voices as reinforcements to keep our burgeoning movement from being killed. Where are those voices? Where is the media to disseminate them in the same volume? We need slogans and imagery as well; built on a foundation philosophy, culture, arts; this movement will take decades to get going if it is to be done correctly. Each aspect of the fight could use a separate organization that was tied to the whole. We need the thinkers, the people who help them do the administrative work, the go-betweens who translate the ideas into graspable concepts for those “average” people who sense there is something wrong with America, but will be turned off by anything that seems extreme. AND we need to think about how any growing racial consciousness by whites will be seized upon by the neo-Nazi movement, and how we would nullify that “guilt by association” effect that would occur when the uninformed see an out of context media clip of David Duke championing this-and-that law as a victory for his side. I am reminded of an article you linked to awhile back about the need for a new conservative apologetics.

Got that? They need us “average” people, but they don’t want us “seized upon” by “neo-Nazis”. Oh and by the way, we need to do something about that guilt by association effect. You know, that nasty liberal tactic where, for instance, you call anyone who doesn’t put jews on a pedestal a “neo-Nazi”.

Auster dubs his choir’s plan An incrementalist strategy, which to me seems sickeningly similar to the cultural marxist “long march through the institutions”. There seems to be no appreciation for what we have already lost, or that it cannot be restored by destroying what destroyed it. Mark Jaws (who is jewish) writes:

Those of us over 50 can remember when whites could talk openly about black crime and other assorted social pathologies associated with blacks. However, by 1975 Stalinist-type PC thought control made such discourse taboo. If we are to alter the unacceptable status quo, we must adopt the tactics and strategy used by our adversaries which brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

When we study the incremental approach used by civil rights activists we see an effective method that applied pressure on the white Southern power structure one obstacle at a time. In the early 1950s the civil rights movement focused on overturning school segregation. As soon as Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was settled in 1954, attention was drawn to the Montgomery bus boycott in early 1955, and only the boycott. There were no accompanying demands for affirmative action or for banning the Confederate flag. But when the white power structure gave way on one issue, the civil rights movement quickly moved to the next target of opportunity, and so on.

We must adopt a similar strategy if we are to dismantle the liberal PC multicultural stranglehold on our culture. First, we must concentrate on toppling the weakest tower of this complex by breaking the long-imposed silence on black-on-white crime. We can do this with a tide of letters to our newspapers and to our politicians, and, more importantly, with calls to radio talk shows. By such a show of concentrated, unapologetic force we can bring black-on-white crime out in the open and put blacks on the defensive, especially given the candidacy and likely election of Barak Obama, which I believe is a gift from heaven. If Barak and Michelle Obama can sit their butts in a racist church for 20 years, then how can it be racist if we talk about black-on-white crime? If Barak and Michelle had no problem with black liberation theology which calls for “the destruction of the white enemy,” then why can’t we talk about white victims of black crime? If Michelle can claim her husband “as a black man is in danger just by going to the gas station,” then why can’t we talk about white men in comparable–and real–danger, and from whom? If Michelle and Barak want an open and frank discussion on race, then let’s give it to them–but from a direction which they do not expect and cannot deal with.

The first step we must take in restoring white racial consciousness is to assert our right OPENLY to discuss our concern, dismay and outrage at the staggering amount of black-on- white crime the past 40 years. We must make it acceptable for whites to engage in such discourse, period. No need to use disparaging racist talk or hyperbole. Just stick to the facts–and we have plenty at our disposal in “The Color of Crime” and other government statistics.

No.

The first step is for self-righteous jews to step off their pedestal. Show Whites the respect you demand for jews. Stop pathologizing us. Stop smearing us. Stop insulting us. Stop blaming all the West’s ills on us and stop downplaying jewish control and responsibility.

For Austerites all of the above applies, only moreso. We don’t need another long march of destruction. And we don’t need “friends” obsessed with manipulating us. You make distinctions – stop telling Whites we cannot. You say you like Whites – act like it. Treat us as equals. You can start by capitalizing White.

UPDATE 9 Aug 2008: On 19 July Auster provided a non-answer to this post titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist?, though he doesn’t quote me or link here. He asserts that “[c]apitalization is governed by the nature of the word, not by a political or racial agenda”.

Today, in An Orwellian spelling change, Auster shows: A) that he recognizes “the makers of these rules–liberals all” have an agenda, and B) that his own agenda can motivate him to defy those rules on occasion.

tim_wise

How Does Racism Harm Whites

I encountered this question several days ago on a blog called Resist racism:

I asked this question once in a seminar full of white people. Got no answers. Have you got one?

I read the responses and noticed that none addressed what seemed to me the most obvious answer. So I left the following comment:

How does “racism” harm Whites? Isn’t it obvious? It’s a weapon specifically crafted and primarily used against Whites! You didn’t get an answer at your seminar because most Whites fear that saying as much will cost them their employment and/or social standing. To be White and to complain about racism only gets you accused of racism. Duh. Was it a “diversity” seminar? Double duh.

The idea of racism, especially the version promoted by “anti-racists”, is actually anti-Whitism, as this blog and so many of the comments here confirm. The obvious harm to Whites is that the oh so politically correct scapegoating and verbal hatred eventually seeps into some of the weaker minds, creating a depraved and dehumanized image of Whites that justifies outright discrimination and assault.

Consider item 4 in Kim’s comment above from October 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm. What makes a 12-year-old attack a stranger just because they are of another race? Race-based hatred placed in their head by their parents, teachers, and role models. Where is the hate coming from today? It’s coming from anti-racists in the blogosphere, in politics, the media, and in academia, and it’s directed entirely at Whites.

“Racism” has been used to silence and shame and disarm Whites in their own homelands. Homelands that, because Whites are now defenseless, have been thoroughly colonized by non-whites. Non-whites who detest Whites. And of course the reeeaaal reason for immigration is because Whites are just lazy and greedy and want to exploit the immigrants. In other words the immigration that’s costing Whites their jobs and raising their taxes is really just another good reason to blame and hate Whites!

Whites are lectured by anti-racists that their forefathers’ treatment of non-whites was wrong. Then we are told by anti-racists that we deserve similar mistreatment, today, by virtue of the fact that we had the wrong colored forefathers. Any objection is called “racist” – and is further proof of “privilege” that is taken to justify the harm being done to us. What people do not resent aliens moving into and disrupting their communities, telling them what they can say and do, telling them their race is evil, and especially so if they speak against aliens? If that’s a crime then every race on the planet is guilty of it.

But anti-racists say only Whites can be “racist”, which we are told every day is the most evil thing a person can be. We are told Whites are so thoroughly “racist” that many are not even aware of it! By simply socializing with other Whites or complaining about race-based mistreatment Whites simply demonstrate their guilt. The only out is to renounce Whites and join non-whites in attacking Whites who will not do so – just as the pathetic self-hating whites here are doing.

As with my sortie against the reality-based totalitarians at Pandagon, described in Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics, I posted on topic and crapped squarely on the fundaments of Resist racism’s unreality-based fundamentalism. Then I watched and waited for a response. Nobody wrote but some days later my comment just disappeared. I noticed yesterday and reposted it. It’s gone again.

One of the many commenters on the original post is Tim Wise:

Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White. A collection of his essays, Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male, will be published in the fall of 2008. He has contributed chapters or essays to twenty books, and is one of several persons featured in White Men Challenging Racism: Thirty-Five Personal Stories, from Duke University Press. He received the 2001 British Diversity Award for best feature essay on race issues, and his writings have appeared in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. Wise has also been a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide.

So here we have an archetypical anti-Whitist – an “anti-racist” whose income and acclaim derive from his tireless efforts to validate and channel resentment and hatred toward Whites. A race “scholar” whose peculiar scholarship is scapegoating Whites. Precisely the kind of anti-White anti-racist I was referring to in my comment.

It may be useful to know that Wise is jewish, not White. And like other prominent anti-White jews he seems to thrive on confusion and hypocrisy. For example consider what he writes at Resist racism:

Though it is certainly true that racism’s impact on whites is far less than that on people of color, there are several serious injuries to whites (call it “collateral damage” for lack of a better phrase) that come from white supremacy and privilege. The ones already mentioned are good ones, but here are some more:

1. Racism and white privilege/supremacy have served to trick working class white folks (the majority) into believing their interests were racial rather than economic/social, etc. The whole history of whiteness as a concept was created to divide and conquer class-based coalitions of Europeans and Africans in the colonies of what became the U.S. Instead of providing decent jobs, land and working conditions, the elite extended skin privilege to euros, no matter how poor, so as to get them on the “white” team. After these benefits were created (the right to own a little property, to serve on slave patrols, etc), rebellions diminished greatly. The divide and conquer worked. In the civil war, this same race privilege and identification with the elite on the part of working class and piss-poor whites led them to go off and fight to maintain rich folks’ property interests in slaves. Ironic, since the slave system actually undermined the wage base of working class whites (think about it, if I have to charge you a dollar a day to work on your plantation but you can get someone who is enslaved to do it for free, guess who gets the gig?). Then in the early days of the union movement, white labor leaders elevated whiteness above class interests by barring folks of color from their unions (supposedly to maintain the “professionalism” of the working class). This meant their unions were smaller, weaker and less militant, to the detriment of working people everywhere. So, historically, white privilege and racism against people of color has created an alternative form of property for whites (whiteness) which may pay psychological dividends, to be sure, and material ones too in a relative sense, vis a vis people of color, but which comes at the direct expense of their overall well being.

2. Racism and white privilege/supremacy generates a mindset of entitlement among those in the dominant group. This entitlement mentality can prove dangerous, whenever the expectations of a member of the group are frustrated. Principally this is because such persons develop very weak coping skills as a result of never having to overcome the obstacles that oppressed folks deal with every day and MUST conquer in order to survive. SO, as a result, it is the privileged (the beneficiaries of racism, and also, it should be pointed out, the class system) who are ill-prepared for setback: the loss of a job, stocks taking a nose-dive (who were the folks jumping out the windows in the great depression–not poor folks and folks of color, but rich whites who couldn’t handle being broke!) Likewise, if you look at the various personal pathologies that tend to be disproportionate in the white community (and upper middle class for that matter) they are interesting in that they all are about control–controlling one’s anxiety, emotional pain, or controlling and dominating others–like suicide, substance abuse, eating disorders, self-injury/mutilation, serial killing and mass murder (as opposed to just regular one-on-one homicide), sexual sadism killings, etc. Now, think about it, which group would be most likely to manifest a control pathology: the group that had never been in control, or the ones who always had been, and had long felt entitled to be, but who then had their expectations frustrated and snapped. Think Columbine (and the vast majority of the mass murder school shootings, for that matter–Va Tech was an exception to the rule on these things).

3. Not knowing how the world works is dangerous. White privilege and racism allow the dominant group to live in a bubble of unreality. Most days that’s no big deal I suppose. But every now and then reality intrudes on you and if you haven’t been expecting it, the trauma is magnified. So, when 9/11 happened, millions of whites were running around saying “why do they hate us?” because whites have never had to see our nation the way others do–we’ve been able to live in la-la land. But folks of color didn’t say this, because those without privilege HAVE to know what others think about them. Not to do so is to be in perpetual danger. So whites flipped out, and by virtue of being unprepared, pushed for a policy response (war) that folks of color were HIGHLY skeptical of from the beginning. But whites, enthralled by our sense of righteousness (itself a manifestation of privilege), pushed forward, convinced that the war in Iraq would go swimmingly. How’s that working out?

In other words, racism and privilege generate mentalities and policies that are dysfunctional, even deadly for whites as with folks of color. Folks of color are the first victims, to be sure, and the worst. But as someone else said, what goes around…

There is more I could say here, but these are a few of the key points I try to make when speaking about these issues, and in the re-write to my book White Like Me.

Wise says “white privilege” and “racism” are why non-whites hate us, and that White cluelessness about this is just one more way we demonstrate how racist and evil we are. The argument is circular, but I take Wise at his word. His hostility toward Whites comes through clearly.

Read his comment above again but now try to imagine he’s casting similar aspersions on a group other than Whites. Try to imagine him for instance criticizing jewish privilege – the privilege to criticize everybody else, as harshly as you please, coupled with the magical power to deflect any criticism of yourself by calling it irrational anti-semitism – that special form of racism only a special race can suffer. You know, a real privilege, codified in various forms throughout the West.

We don’t have to imagine how Wise would answer this. He already has. In PARANOID PREJUDICE: Debunking the ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ Wise not only dismisses concerns about wealthy, influential, and privileged jews – he thinks blaming jews is just another way “whites” express hate:

That’s when my Internet penpals turn to the real source of their hatred and offer up what they consider the ultimate refutation of anything I have previously written: Namely, I am a Jew (usually a “dirty” one at that, they being quick with the adjectives), and this explains my desire, as they put it to “destroy the white race.”

To this way of thinking (and I use “thinking” with caution here), Jews seek to destroy white unity via multiculturalism, immigration and affirmative action, so as to weaken the resistance of the white majority, thereby increasing our own power.

Although most Jews in America are from Europe, we do not qualify as white in this view, but rather as the ultimate social, cultural, and even genetic threat to white survival.

We are, in other words, viewed as a biological pollutant in the body politic.

“Destroy the white race” is how Noel Ignatiev describes his goal, using much the same “privilege” and “racism” rhetoric as Tim Wise. The idea of racism was derived from the idea of anti-semitism. Magnus Hirshfeld was among the first to popularize it. All three men share these ideas, and an animosity toward Whites. Whether or not they are “dirty” isn’t important. That they are White-hating jews is. The White-hating part being self-evident, the jew part being not-so-evident but greatly helping to explain the former.

To the classic anti-anti-semitic way of thinking (and I use “thinking” with caution here), Whites who criticize jews who harm Whites are a special and completely irrational type of racist called an “anti-semite”. In bigoted anti-anti-semitic minds there are no valid reasons to criticize jews whatsoever. But they feel free to criticize “whites” all day long. In fact, since “white” is just a social construct, and more than that, a monstrous social construct responsible for all the ills of the Western world and beyond, you can imagine all sorts of dastardly motives that make “whites” tick. You can blame today’s “whites” for the evil deeds of any “white” in recorded history. Read some Ignatiev or Wise. This is what they do.

Accuse Whites of imaginary “privileges” and your opinions will appear in dozens of popular, professional and scholarly journals. You’ll also be a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide. Accuse jews of blowing the holocaust out of proportion, or having wildly disproportionate representation and influence in finance, media, politics – or leading destructive ideologies – and well that’s just crazy talk, paranoid prejudice. At least that’s how privilege expert Wise sees it.

The belief that the Holocaust of European Jewry never happened, for example, which would have been considered prima facie evidence of cerebral damage just a few decades ago, is now widespread throughout parts of Europe. Likewise, beliefs that Jews control the media and U.S. economy are increasingly heard on the Internet and elsewhere.

So let us now dispense with the nonsense about Jewish power. The idea that we run everything as evidenced by our “overrepresentation” in media and finance is nothing short of insane, even based on the “evidence” for such a claim marshaled by those who believe it.

The same faculties the anti-racist Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to blame Whites for harming everyone, including themselves, the anti-anti-semite Wise uses to concoct bogus reasons to excuse jews. There’s no contradiction. These are two sides of the same coin polluting the body politic: Whites can do no right, jews can do no wrong.

- – -

How does “racism” harm Whites? It’s a weapon non-whites, and especially jews, have used for decades. It’s being used to justify our genocide, it will eventually cause our genocide, and then it will be used to excuse those responsible for our genocide.