Tag Archives: jewish influence

obama_ich_bin_ein_hitler

Obama = Hitler

ABC News’ Jake Tapper: Obama Won’t Answer Holocaust Question
By Debbie Schlussel

An Israeli journalist called out to Obama: “Can you ensure that there will be no second Holocaust?”

Obama walked into the museum’s main building without responding. . . .

Schlussel’s response:

Disgusting. The question is a no-brainer. If you don’t have an automatic, “I will assure that there won’t be a second Holocaust,” response, then you don’t deserve to occupy a square foot of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Apparently Obama didn’t get the memo. Besides visiting israel and donning a jewish cap all US candidates for president must now also turn off their brain and make an unqualified pledge to rescue jews whereever they go from whoever they consider to be their enemy. Otherwise you’re just a “yarmulke-wearing fraud”. For her readers it’s an invitation to vent their hitlerosis.

Frankly I’m envious. I’d like a reporter, any reporter, to ask either Obama or McCain: “Will you defend America from invasion?” Sure I’m like Hitler just for wanting that question asked. And I know the reporters and politicians all know the answer is no. But hearing the answer out loud might help a few more bitter gun- and bible-clinging redneck racists in fly-over country understand that upon joining the US military their utmost priority will not be to defend their families and friends, it will be to serve the interests of people who consider them bitter gun- and bible-clinging redneck racists and who couldn’t care less about the invaders flooding fly-over country. The reporters and politicians know that too. That’s why that question doesn’t get asked.

UPDATE 26 July 2008: Auster objects to Rush Limbaugh’s “unhinged characterization of Obama’s speech” in Germany, calling it “insanely overwrought, imputing all kinds of vicious thoughts to Obama that Obama never stated or implied”:

America sucks, America’s deficient, America’s guilty, but America is now willing to pay the price because we have a Messiah who understands the faults, the egregious errors made by the United States and her people. We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world. And we torture. And we, of course, are biased against people who want to get into our country illegally. We have a lot to pay for.

I find this to be a fair characterization of cultural marxist talking points. The problem with Limbaugh, as well as Republican conservative commentators Hannity and O’Reilly, is that they consistently misidentify both the cultural marxists and their target. They don’t want to be seen as racist, so they use “America” and “left” as euphemisms for White and anti-White.

It is this fear of being openly pro-White, just as much as their political partisanship, that causes their blind spots. In contrast to Auster I don’t think Limbaugh’s failure to criticize Bush, especially relative to Obama, means he is “incapable of seeing truth” or is “in a frenzied state in which they accept any negative statement about the other side, no matter how absurd, and see only goodness on their own”.

That’s ridiculous. But it certainly is a good description of Auster himself when he flips into anti-anti-semite mode. In that mode he imputes all kinds of vicious thoughts on people that they never stated or implied. And Auster doesn’t seem concerned enough about unhinged characterizations to object to this:

E. writes:

Obama was certainly in the right country for his rousing speech–the only thing missing was the shouts of “Sieg heil.”

Auster I think senses that Limbaugh’s words are perhaps too accurate a description of cultural marxism. Limbaugh’s “American” listeners might start trying to understand where it came from. Whites might start thinking about how PC and the whole hate-ideology (racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and the grandaddy of them all: anti-semitism) sprang largely from jewish minds filled with resentment towards Europeans. Whites might realize how over the past 150 years this archetypically jewish victimology has been progressively generalized and applied to minorities of every type and color – except White. The one common theme: Whites are the enemy.

Auster, as usual, wants the buck to stop with “liberalism”:

Yes. Liberalism, consistently followed, means the destruction of literally every distinct thing, because liberalism demands the end of all inequality and exclusion, and every distinct thing that exists, by the fact of existing, is unequal to and exclusive of everything that is not itself.

This is not only simplistic, it’s wrong. Neither the classical liberal values of fair-play and equality before God and law, nor the neo-liberal values of anti-racism and anti-discrimination eliminate all distinction. Not in theory and not in practice. Neo-liberalism – which dominates Western politics, media, business, and academia – is extremely divisive and makes quite clear distinctions. It is, for example, anti-White and pro-jew. That’s why the West has laws promoting “diversity” and punishing “hate”. That’s why neo-liberals invite violent, uneducated, indigent non-whites from the turd world and send “Americans” out to fight and die in the turd world protecting the interests of international corporations. That didn’t happen when America was founded and ruled by White classical liberals, and it didn’t become the norm until they lost control.

elephant_in_living_room

Who’s on Top?

John Savage wrote an interesting post titled The Leftist Social Pyramid. It was not my intent but in commenting there I upset him, and he closed the thread to further comment. He may withdraw the post, which is his perogative, but I hope he doesn’t. It begins like so:

This week, commenter Mark P. at VFR predicts a coming factionalization of the Left. This goes back to the question I keep asking: Why is the Left so monolithic, in the sense that we rarely hear of fights over whether one or another thing is a proper leftist principle? Whatever difficulties there have been in making the decisions, they seem to have been out of the public spotlight, and discontent among the losers seems to have done little damage to the overall movement.

I suggested last fall that there is a Hierarchy of Entitlement on the Left. To recap, non-Western immigrant groups seem to be at the top. The toleration of violence and even ethnic cleansing by these groups against native-born blacks demonstrates that these groups stand above blacks. The attempt to prosecute disabled whites for racist “hate speech” demonstrates that nonwhites still stand above the disabled, and the toleration of nonwhite violence against homosexuals demonstrates that nonwhites stand above homosexuals. The toleration of nonwhite rape of white women demonstrates that white women are considerably lower than any nonwhites, while white heterosexual men are at the very bottom.

My emphasis.

At my prompting we exchanged a few comments concerning where jews fit in this hierarchy. I argued they’re on the top. John discussed it, but I think he would really have preferred to leave them unmentioned. It’s a common problem. It supports the point I was trying to make. Of all the elephants in the room the jewish elephant is the one everyone seems most eager to ignore. Thus when someone will not ignore it it’s easy to paint them as abnormal, just as John eventually did to me.

Whether or not jews are on top, they certainly are one of the most prominent, powerful victim groups in the “Leftist Social Pyramid”. Opinion on anti-semitism is more monolithic than any other social or political principle in the West. It transcends left and right.

The principle of anti-semitism is this: no matter the merits of what you say, if it is critical of jews then you are insane. It doesn’t matter whether you are ancient egyptian, contemporary korean, amerindian, leftist former president (Jimmy Carter), or rightist former presidential candidate (Pat Buchanan).

In a presentation titled For Fear of The Jews Joe Sobran said:

What, exactly, is “anti-Semitism”? One standard dictionary definition is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.” How this applies to me has never been explained. My “hostility” toward Israel is a desire not for war, but for neutrality — out of a sense of betrayal, waste, and shame. Our venal politicians have aligned us with a foreign country that behaves dishonorably. Most alleged “anti-Semites” would wince if Jews anywhere were treated as Israel treats its Arab subjects. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly betrayed its only benefactor, the United States. I have already alluded to the place Dante reserves for those who betray their benefactors.

These are obvious moral facts. Yet it’s not only politicians who are afraid to point them out; so are most journalists — the people who are supposed to be independent enough to say the things politicians can’t afford to say. In my thirty years in journalism, nothing has amazed me more than the prevalent fear in the profession of offending Jews, especially Zionist Jews.

Emphasis mine.

I’m sorry if making this point upsets jews, or John Savage, or anyone else. I raise it because it’s important. Not many people will discuss it calmly. John’s accusation that I’m “unreasonable” and “see jews everywhere” is itself unreasonable – it imagines only two extremes: either jews are not worthy of mention, or they control everything. That’s a false dichotomy. I reject it.

cows2

Overcoming Our Blooming Idiocy

Luke Ford’s A Chat With Stephen Bloom, Author Of Postville, from 2003 (via Steve Sailer) is frank and revealing. You may find this Postville context useful.

Stephen: “I’ve spoken in a lot of public places. It’s rare when I’m in a metropolitan venue and someone doesn’t stand up and scream something like, ‘Shame, shame, shame. For a Jew to say this about other Jews, shame on you.’ I’m not going to surrender my role as a journalist based on erroneous inferences that some may draw that this is a story about Jews in general.

“I spoke in Chicago to the American Jewish Congress. I was introduced as a culinary Jew, as a lox and bagels kind of Jew. That did not sit well with me. It made me think that there is some kind of pecking order. That there are certain Jews who are less Jewish than other Jews. That if you keep kosher, you are a better Jew than others. If you go to synagogue every week, somehow you are a better Jew. It was a rating game. I didn’t like being relegated to the bottom of that rating card. I think that fractures the collective nature of what it is to be a Jew.”

Luke: “I know you emotionally didn’t like it but didn’t you intellectually realize that there was something to it, in that only the people who observe Jewish Law are going to perpetuate Judaism and the Jewish people?”

Steve: “No. If you and I were together, I’d probably be grabbing your shoulders right now and shaking you. Absolutely not. It’s not in an intellectual way, it’s in a visceral way that I found that offensive. My son Michael, his Hebrew name is Moishe, was just Bar Mitzvahed two weeks ago. To say that because I like lox and bagels that I’m not going to carry on the tradition of Judaism, shame on you. Shame on anyone. That’s like the Orthodox saying, ‘The Conservatives are the goyim.’ That’s like the Conservatives to the Reform, ‘They don’t know anything.’ No, that’s a bunch of bulls—. My kid is just as Jewish as any of those kids in Postville. And my kid read his parsha [Torah section] without mistake. My son wore a tallit and was able to carry a Torah around a synagogue. And to say that somehow because I don’t keep kosher, I’m less committed to carrying on a Jewish tradition. No, that’s the height of hypocrisy.”

It appears Ford understands the nature of judaism better than Bloom does. It is not liberalism. Modern liberalism, or neo-liberalism, is anti-racialism, an ideological solvent whose core tenet, and primary effect, is to dissolve racial consciousness. That’s all.

Bloom is confused. One moment he’s noting how his jewish critics cry shame, then he does it to Ford. He decries the internal pecking order of jews, then he explains how he, vicariously, claims a place in it. After Bloom ticks off a list of exclusive metrics by which he separates himself as a jew from non-jews Ford fingers the core contradiction facing every liberal who simultaneously professes themselves jew:

Luke: “Do you think it is wrong of Lubavitchers to ignore non-Jews?”

Steve: “They can do what they want. The way I carry on my life, I want to include people. There are too many bountiful things in this world for me to put blinders on so I can’t allow myself to say hello to somebody on a Saturday morning in the middle of Iowa because his mother isn’t Jewish. No, that’s what you call racism. It’s based on blood. Lubavitchers don’t even see the guy on the sidewalk because to acknowledge him would be the beginning of assimilation. Then his children will play with my children and that’s the end of our faith. I don’t think it is the end of my son’s faith if he plays stickball with Hispanic kids. I want him to do that.”

Luke: “How would you feel if he married a non-Jew?”

Steve: “That’s his decision. Isn’t it presumptuous for me to tell my son to marry somebody based on solely on who somebody’s mother is?”

Luke: “I don’t think so, but I affiliate Orthodox. We’re talking about the clash of Orthodox Judaism with modernity.”

Bloom is in denial. He denies race. He denies that he is not a good jew. He denies the one contradicts the other. Most jews resolve the contradiction by understanding liberalism as anti-racism, specifically anti-Whitism. Bloom adheres to anti-racialism. He tries lamely to hold jews to the same standard of racial disarmament he expects of Whites. And he fails. Good jews will not have it.

What interests me is not orthodoxy or modernity. It is the clash between jews and Whites. What distresses me is the deleterious effect that clash is having on my people. Whites. The problem is that anti-racialism, anti-racism, and philo-semitism have come to dominate White thought. Generally speaking our leaders deny race, dislike Whites, and love jews. Just like jews.

This is good for jews, but bad for Whites. Bloom can see it. My anti-anti-semite foil Larry Auster can see it. Most jews can see it. Or they could if they ever turned their self-obsessed thoughts about what’s good for them outward and recognized that Whites might think the same way about themselves. The problem is: they won’t and we don’t. We cannot expect jews to change. The majority perceive that as bad for themselves. Get it? It’s up to Whites to set aside the anti-racialist crack pipe. Recognize that we are White. Recognize that anti-racism is anti-Whitism. And think, as Whites: What is good for Whites?

Cora_B_Darling_dnc-1504726104

Not Yoshor

Feds: Drugs made at kosher meat plant:

Federal authorities charged that a methamphetamine laboratory was operating at the nation’s largest kosher slaughterhouse and that employees carried weapons to work.

In a 60-page application for a search warrant, federal agents revealed details of their six-month probe of Agriprocessors. The investigation involved 12 federal agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the departments of labor and agriculture.

According to the application, a former plant supervisor told investigators that some 80 percent of the workforce was illegal. They included rabbis responsible for kosher supervision, who the source believed entered the United States from Canada without proper immigration documents. The source did not provide evidence for his suspicion about the rabbis.

The Des Moines Register has written many reports that provide details not found elsewhere. In who and what they quote many of the reports are as biased in favor of the invaders as any other mainstream source. See their Related Stories links. They’re not all bad. I’ll highlight just a few things I think stand out.

Claims of ID fraud lead to largest raid in state history:

Father Nils Hernandez of the Immaculate Conception Parish in Cedar Rapids came to Waterloo after he heard about the raid.

“This is inhumane,” he said.

The article implies the padre was speaking about the raid, which by other accounts was perfectly civilized. A large number of invaders with children were immediately released. Contrast this treatment with the persecution and injustice the Feds have recently inflicted on FLDS families.

In Postville the inhumane people are the criminal alien employers greedily exploiting mostly latino alien invaders and lording their wealth and power over the natives:

Another plant worker told federal officials that undocumented workers were paid $5 an hour for their first few months before receiving a pay increase to $6 per hour. The minimum wage in Iowa is $7.25 an hour.

Company officials could not be reached for comment. The plant, which produces kosher and nonkosher meats, opened in 1987 when butcher Aaron Rubashkin and about 200 Hasidic Jews from New York took over a defunct meatpacking plant. Hasidic Jews follow strict laws. It is a branch of Orthodox Judaism.

The Jews’ arrival turned Postville, a community of 2,273 people on the Allamakee-Clayton county border in northeast Iowa, into one of Iowa’s most ethnically diverse.

Emphasis mine. See my SchoolDigger-related comments below.

The governor said federal officials reassured his staff that those arrested and detained will have their rights protected. He also emphasized the importance of enforcing immigration laws.

“I have said before that I believe it is important that we crack down on illegal immigration,” Culver said. “Illegal means illegal, not just those that are crossing the border illegally, but also those who are responsible for helping to make it happen.”

Say governor, besides “illegal means illegal”, would it also be fair to say that “20 years of illegal means corruption”? Should not those in government responsible for letting this go on so long also pay?

Critics, including former Gov. Tom Vilsack, accused federal officials of violating the workers’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Federal agents also were criticized for separating parents from their children.

In Postville, ICE spokesman Harold Ort said that the children of anyone detained would be cared for, and that “their caregiver situation will be addressed.

“They were asked multiple times if they have any sole-caregiver issues or any child-care issues,” he said.

Forty Agriprocessors workers were later released, with supervision, “on humanitarian grounds,” said Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney.

“They assured us the kids were going to be taken care of,” said Postville Mayor Robert Penrod.

Penrod said a majority of townspeople understand the plant’s role in the Postville economy, while a small number would cheer the raid.

“There’s people who hate the Hispanics, and there’s people who don’t like the Jews and would like to run them out of town,” he said.

This moralizing, like most of the “arguments” made against this and other raids, is ridiculously skewed. It considers the alien interests superior to those of the natives.

First, anyone who really cares about the Constitution should recognize that by not protecting our country from invasion federal officials at the very highest levels have, for a long time now, failed to uphold their oaths to protect the Constitution and their country’s citizens. They are actively committing treason. Appeals to the Fourth Amendment are specious.

Second, anyone who really cares about the welfare of the invaders should focus their resentment on the employers who exploit them. Nobody is forcing the employers to pay subpar wages and provide substandard working conditions. They do it because they are greedy, and in doing so flout immigration, employment, safety, and tax laws. The poor undocumented migrant sob stories would never happen if the Feds enforced our laws. Government officials are guilty of not keeping the invaders out. They are guilty of waiting 20 years to crack down on Agriprocessors. That is their crime.

Third, native families and children are human beings. They pay taxes. They obey the laws. They work hard. Equalitarians and egalitarians belie their professed beliefs and demonstrate their disregard for natives when they so lopsidedly devote their concern and sympathy to invaders and aliens.

When we natives see our representatives, the people we pay taxes to, who are supposed to enforce our laws, instead give priority to the interests of aliens, we are naturally outraged. It makes us wonder why we pay taxes and obey the law. At the same time, the aliens who break our laws suffer little consequence and are thereby emboldened to ever more lawless and anti-social behavior, further harming and incensing the natives.

Immigration raid: biggest kosher meatpacker started by Jews in 1987:

Shutting down production at the plant will have a significant impact on the kosher meat sales, said Menachem Lubinsky, chief executive of Luicom Marketing and editor of KosherToday.

“They are a major supplier to retail establishments all over the world,” Lubinsky said.

The company processes and packages kosher meat and poultry products under the brand Aaron’s Best that it supplies to small grocery stores and meat markets across the United States. The company also processes non-kosher meat products including Iowa Best Beef.

Agriprocessors also operates a meatpacking plant in Gordon, Neb., called Local Pride LLC, which the Rubashkins opened in 2005.

The Rubashkins, Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn, N.Y., came to Postville in the late 1980s and created Agriprocessors, a kosher meatpacking plant run by observant Jews.

The Rubashkins have been in the kosher meat business since Aaron Rubashkin immigrated to the United States in 1952. Rubashkin and his sons, Sholom and Heshy, relocated their business to Iowa to be closer to livestock supplies. The company bought the former HyGrade meat processing plant in Postville in 1987.

Agriprocessors, Aaron’s Best, Iowa Best Beef, Local Pride. Check. If you buy these brands you’re aiding and abetting the exploitation of poor undocumented migrants. Stop it.

Lubinsky is (or was as late as 2005, see below) Agri’s paid PR guy. Honest, professional reporters should investigate and mention things like that, right?

- – -

Whenever I’m curious about the “diversity” of a community I find SchoolDigger very useful. Schooldigger, unlike census data, is finer-grained in time and space, and less prone to undercounting invaders, at least the asian and latino ones. SchoolDigger also offers graphs that reveal trends over the last 20 years, and make it crystal clear what “diversity” really means. From what I’ve seen “diversity” often means “pure latino, coming soon”. It almost always means “less White”. Therefore when the Des Moines Register writer and so many other invasion supporters celebrate diversity they’re celebrating one race getting pushed out and replaced with another. They seem so eager to perpetrate this “diversity” that they don’t care if it involves massive violation of laws. They are celebrating ethnic cleansing.

See Alain Leroy Locke Senior High for example, where latinos and blacks recently brawled. A glimpse at the SchoolDigger graph conveys a better understanding of what’s going on in that school’s neighborhood than any politically correct newspaper article.

The people writing these PC articles, like Alan Abramowitz, think so poorly of Whites that even when there are no overt signs of racism they consider it perfectly acceptable to conceive poisonous imaginary crimes like symbolic racism. Thus they can continue to demonize and scapegoat us until we are completely gone. They never express any concern about the very concrete anti-White racism that, for example, transforms peaceful White towns like Postville into alien-dominated scofflaw enclaves. That transformation, and the racist “diversity” mentality driving it and protecting it, is something to celebrate.

Look again at the Alain Leroy Locke graph. Look at the graph for Postville’s Cora B Darling school to the right. Look up the schools in places you care about. These graphs don’t reflect the imaginary or “symbolic” ravings of a paranoid anti-White journalist. They reflect very real ethnic cleansing. A displacement of people that is as real and tangible as racism gets.

The apologia, the disinformation, the disregard for corruption, and the outright denial of the illegitimate nature of this demographic shift – all of it coming from invasion supporters – makes the accusation of genocide both reasonable and justifiable.

- – -

Another report from the Des Moines Register. Worker describes scene at plant:

When she’s deported, she said she would rather be taken to Mexico, where it will be easier to reenter America.

She was put in a building with other women, she said, but could not identify the building. There were cots set up inside, and the group she was with was told to go to sleep.

Hours later, she told nurses she wasn’t feeling well. They checked her and instructed agents to return her to Postville. She was driven by a male and female agent in a white van back to town, but when they asked where she lived, she said she told them to take her to St. Bridget’s Catholic Church.

She said she was afraid of leading ICE agents to her house.

She rang the doorbell at the church again and again. Father Paul Ouderkirk thought a fellow pastor had locked himself out of the house.

Now, the woman said she’s worried for her children in Guatemala. The raid means she won’t make money this week, and can’t send any back, she said.

Ouderkirk said he toured the plant in 2002, one of seven he’s toured nationwide.

“It was one of the dirtiest plants I’ve been in,” Ouderkirk said.

Ouderkirk said he toured all sections of the plant, but was denied access when a new section was built.

“The pace was fast,” Ouderkirk said. “They had no place where people could sit down and eat, only a room about the size of (a 15 ft. by 15 ft. area) where they crowded in.”

Many of the immigrants detained in Postville on Monday came from small, rural towns in Mexico or Guatemala, Ouderkirk said, arriving in small groups with relatives or friends.

“It’s like any grapevine,” he said. “They hear it and they come.”

DHS and or the FBI should shut down St. Bridget’s as well as Agri’s plant. Aiding and abetting known criminals is a crime.

Do they have slaughterhouses, children, or laws in Guatemala? How would the reporter, Ouderkirk, or this Guatemalan lady feel if gueros were moving to Guatemala, disrupting Guatamalan communities, displacing Guatemalans from their jobs, ruining their schools, and then cried about fear? They would laugh. They would call the invaders invaders. Racist invaders. They would say, “yanqui go home”.

Lady, go back where you came from. Take your children with you.

- – -

The problems in Postville are not new. What’s happening there reflects what’s happening all over America, and why. Criminal aliens and their allies think of America as a “nation of immigrants” – a “proposition nation” where the proposition is “how fast can you make money, no matter what effect it has on the natives”. Natives who are harmed are just so many subhuman obstacles to be insulted and abused before being shoved aside.

Another recent story from the Register. Immigration raid: Proliferation of undocumented workers began in early ’80s:

Workers in the country illegally have likely been at the Agriprocessors plant in Postville for almost 20 years, said author Stephen Bloom, a journalism professor at the University of Iowa.

“This is the worst-kept secret in Iowa,” said Bloom, who in 2000 published a book chronicling how Agriprocessors’ Hasidic culture affected Postville, a town in northeast Iowa.

The only “thing you need to work at the plant was a strong back and a strong stomach” and a Social Security number, whether it was valid or not, he said.

“Iowans don’t want to do this kind of work for minimum wage and few or no benefits,” he said.

The proliferation of undocumented workers at meatpacking plants can be traced to the early 1980s, said Dave Swenson, an Iowa State University economist.

“Jobs Americans won’t do” is one of the more deeply dishonest ways of describing what’s going on. The invasion is not about Americans not wanting to do jobs. Iowans did the jobs in Postville for a long time before any aliens came to town. Many continued afterward. The real problem, there and elsewhere, starts with the employers who are too greedy to pay a wage citizens will accept, and too unscrupulous to obey the laws and pay their taxes. The other problem, as I’ve already mentioned, is a federal government that has failed in its primary responsibility: to defend our territory from invasion.

The greed and crime in Postville went on for 20 years. Why? Was the government forced to act after the crimes became so egregious they could no longer be ignored? Or are the government’s apparently haphazard raids deliberately calculated to drum up political and financial support for the invasion?

Lonewacko’s report, Agriprocessors meat packing raid, Postville, Iowa (kosher, UFCW), contains an interesting breakdown:

Of those arrested, 290 are Guatemalan, 93 are Mexican, four are Ukrainian and three are Israeli.

He also linked this summary of events leading up to the raid: Postville – A Sleepy Iowa Town Is Transformed Into A Multicultural Sewer, which in turn links to a page containing even more detail.

It turns out the same Steve Bloom quoted by the Register above wrote an interesting, relevant book concerning the culture clash in Postville. Published in 2000, it generated plenty of discussion:

Manuel came from a religious family in Guatemala, but he rarely has time for observance. AgriProcessors does not slow down for Sundays or for any Christian holidays, except Christmas. A more practical problem, however, arises on Jewish holidays, when the plant closes and the workers are not paid.

Pay is a recurring complaint from AgriProcessors’ workers. Manuel makes $7.25 an hour, having moved up from $6.25. But Manuel and many other workers said that their weekly paychecks come up three or four hours short regularly, a claim that the union organizers reported hearing frequently. When supervisors are alerted, they promise to correct things but rarely do, workers and union officials said.

How Agriprocessor came to town has already been described farther above. In hindsight, if we can find any fault with the people living in Postville in 1987 it would be that they foolishly put their desire for wealth and jobs above their sense of community. But then it’s not like they could have told the jewish aliens not to come to town. It may have taken the Feds 20 years to lift a finger against Agriprocessor’s flagrant immigration, tax, drug, and safety violations. But we can be sure that those same Feds would fly in instantly, anywhere, and armed for war if they heard even so much as a rumor that some alien’s civil rights were being violated.

Nevertheless, 10 years later, the locals aren’t exactly happy with their marriage of necessity. “The Jews,” as they’re called, drive like maniacs, never mow their lawns, build without permits, bargain furiously (which the locals feel implies the price is unfair), and wait months, if ever, to pay their bills. Disregarding the fundamental rule of Iowa coexistence, the Hasidim won’t even make eye contact on the street. One of Bloom’s local informants asks: “Hadn’t their mothers taught them any manners?”

Bloom does his best to be fair to the Hasidim as he explores their hermetically sealed world. He notes his relief at the familiar speech rhythms, the questions upon questions. He accepts an invitation for a Shabbat stay with a Hasidic family, revels in the food, and prays with his hosts on command. But finally, Bloom is a liberal, not a fundamentalist: He’s repelled by their intolerance, their insularity, their open delight in cheating “the goyim,” and their manipulative arguments. He quotes one Hasid as saying proudly: “I am a racist… . Why haven’t the Jews been extinguished after scores of attempts throughout history? That we are still here defies logic. There is only one answer. We are better and smarter. That’s why!” Bloom’s heart is with the Postville local who says: “It’s not such a great religion if they don’t want to be a part of the community, is it?”

Knowing this, isn’t it difficult to blame “the goyim” for not liking the jews? The dislike appears mutual. Mayor Penrod, quoted above, surely knows this and should have mentioned it. Instead he chose to smear the natives as irrational haters.

The jews, as they’re called, is a label they often use themselves. Bloom probably knows that. As a journalist who seems to sympathize with Iowans he should also recognize that it’s a more neutral than “the nativists”, “the racists”, “the rednecks”, and all the other not-so-subtle insults journalists, especially the jewish ones, prefer to “the Whites”.

Intolerance, insularity, cheating “the goyim” (a disrespectful label we do not attach to ourselves), and manipulative arguments are indeed fundamental, long-held characteristically jewish values. Certainly in comparison to those of European stock. The cheating and manipulation are especially alien and objectionable. From his thoughts Bloom seems a rare breed. Liberals like him usually have no problem cheating or making manipulative arguments. He enjoys his muted jewishness while disapproving, openly in a book, of others who feel their bigotry more strongly. That’s rare. And finally, jews usually get their panties in a bunch only when they sense intolerance, insularity, and fundamentalism in White Christians. Whoops, wait a minute…

Bloom, a largely secular Jew who frequently frames his relationship to his faith in terms of Jewish food, came to Iowa from San Francisco to teach journalism at the state university. At first, Bloom, his wife and their young son loved their new home.

But by their third year there, the blush had begun to fade.

“We were lonely. We didn’t fit into the local social order. . . . We missed people like us.”

Soon Bloom begins to see “them” everywhere. Two female American Gothic types stare at the Bloom family in a restaurant, and as the Blooms leave ask “in an Almira Gulch tone, ‘You’re not from around here.’ ” Bloom took this to mean “what they were driving at wasn’t where we were from, but who we were, what we were: city folks, Jews. . . .”

Here is some insight into the mind of a self-righteous alien. Self-righteous because who else could move to a place and expect the people there, who by his own choice of words (“people like us”, “American Gothic types”, “Almira Gulch tone”) he obviously considers alien, not notice that he is in fact just as much an alien to them? If stares and getting called “city folk” is the worst story Bloom has then it’s no wonder rude, unscrupulous aliens are flocking to America’s heartland.

The Hasidim had some supporters, too, though many of them seem to be people who directly benefited from their arrival.

But the crux of the problem seemed to revolve around three major issues. The Hasidim were very aloof. They treated the locals as though they were diseased. “If they mix with us they think we’ll contaminate them,” someone told Bloom.

More disturbing to Bloom was that the Lubavitchers were dishonorable in their business dealings. They’d buy something and not pay for it or pay or withhold payment for a long time.

“I get bills and throw them away,” one bragged to him. “The more bills I get, the faster I throw them away. If they want to get paid that badly, they’ll send me another notice and then another. When I’m ready to pay them, I pay them.”

I’m very curious to see how people react to this story and how it plays out over time. Will anyone in Agri’s management go to jail? Will they be driven out of Iowa? Out of business? Will the jewish community, acutely aware of this case because it affects their supply of holy meat, rise up and shout, “Exploitation and lawbreaking! Not in my name!” Or will it be, “Oh my G-d! Stop the persecution, stop the anti-semitism!”

There is a precedent, from 2005, that would seem to favor expecting the latter response. The following blog post outlines a coldly calculated plan based on manipulative arguments. What a surprise.

PETA doesn’t play Kosher:

Now, how does a group of orthodox rabbis, the different groups that ordain food as Kosher, and, well, Agriprocessors take on an organization that is a well-oiled PR and grass roots machine? Well, the rabbis and the kashrut organizations hired Lubicom Marketing Consulting, a firm that has a long history of working with kosher companies and causes.

Quoted below is Lubicom’s founder, Menachem Lubinsky, who was quoted by the Register above as if he were a disinterested kosher pundit.

Lastly, the venom they have spewed and the degree of how they continue to go after a major supplier of glatt kosher meat in this country can only be construed as anti-Semitism, especially when stunned animals and practices at non-kosher plants certainly are nowhere as humane as the practices at Agri.

The comment section of a Yeshiva World News report on the Agri raid is also interesting. There you can see a battle being waged. The fair-minded people appear outnumbered. This window into alien “frum/yidden” thinking is more discomforting and more difficult to comprehend than anything Bloom has to say.

Quote “lets blame the unions, lets blame peta, lets blame the anti-semites…but god forbid we should blame rubashkin….sorry people, but rubashkin and others dont pass the savings at using illegal labor onto their customers…i for one hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law… ”

Comment by bacci40 — May 12, 2008 @ 6:04 pm

Is “bacci” short for bacon? since when do Yidden hope to see other Frum jews prosecuted to the full extent of the law, especially as you haven’t even heard his side.

Do you hire illegal immigrants to clean your house?

Comment by isi98 — May 12, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

The Rubashkins are AMAZING balei chesed and balei tzedaka……Please visit their store on 13th avenue and see all the homeless they feed daily (for free). For all those who are hoping they get punished and for those that claim they are not passing on their savings etc. Before you judge and make your comments please realize they have helped countless yisoimim – almanos – and continue to do so. I pray for them – I pray they should continue with their business and go from strength to strength.. Closing them down will only hurt hundreds and maybe thousands of people. Please don’t be so quick to chanmpion for another’s downfall. After all we are all one .. their goodness benefits all of us.

Comment by frumma — May 12, 2008 @ 9:54 pm

Yidden, frum, balei, chesed, tzedakah? We are all one? And who is this “us” to whom frumma refers? In trying to understand alien thoughts like these I’m getting the distinct impression I’m meant to misunderstand that the friendly-sounding translations apply to jew and non-jew alike. I suspect, however, they were originally intended to define how jews should treat each other, and that plenty of them still see it that way. Just as many muslims consider infidels inferior, and lie to us about it and other things they think.

But that’s probably just my “symbolic racism” peeking through.

- – -

The title of this post comes from what I understand to be the respected words of a respected jew:

In one of his most famous essays – entitled Glatt Kosher – Glatt Yoshor – [Rav Breuer] wrote:

‘Kosher is intimately related to yoshor. G-d’s Torah not only demands the observance of kashruth and the sanctification of our physical enjoyment, it also insists on the sanctification of our social relationships. This requires the strict application of the tenets of justice and righteousness which avoid even the slightest trace of dishonesty in our business dealings and personal life.’

“Yoshor”, to put it in my terms and not to diminish the concept, seems comparable to Superman’s “truth, justice, and the American way”. I understand and respect that value. It’s why I feel compelled to leave the shithole this decidedly non-yoshor immigration invasion is turning California into, and to find a new home amongst natives who share my values. It’s why I write about it. Unlike Bloom when those “American Gothic types” notice I look different or act different I understand it to mean that I’ve accidentally brought some “city” with me. I accept it as my duty to assimilate, and my responsibility for failure, not theirs.

From their prior words and acts it seems the Rubashkins and their friends either have no regard for yoshor or think it only applies to their dealings with other jews. The latter view would explain why they have such a bad reputation as employers and yet a good one as yidden. What this raid and the subsequent revelations of their dishonest business dealings will do is provide other jews an opportunity to demonstrate what they think yoshor means.

Lhermitte_La_Paye_des_moissonneurs

Usurp This

Kevin MacDonald is a White advocate who has been condemned for expressing politically incorrect thoughts:

I am morally certain that Jewish involvement in the radical left in the early to middle part of the last century was a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for many of the horrific events in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. (About this, of course, one can disagree. I am simply saying that I find the evidence compelling.) But the main point is that I came to see Jewish groups as competitors with the European majority of the U.S., as powerful facilitators of the enormous changes that have been unleashed in this country, particularly via the successful advocacy of massive non-European immigration into the U.S. I found that I was being transformed in this process from a semi-conservative academic who had little or no identification with his own people into an ethnically conscious person — exactly as predicted by the theory of social identity processes that forms the basis of my theory of anti-Semitism (see MacDonald 1998a). In fact, if one wants to date when I dared cross the line into what some see as proof that I am an ‘anti-Semite,’ the best guess would probably be when I started reading on the involvement of all the powerful Jewish organizations in advocating massive non-European immigration. My awareness began with my reading a short section in a standard history of American Jews well after the first book was published. The other influences that I attributed to Jewish activities were either benign (psychoanalysis?) or reversible — even radical leftism, so they didn’t much bother me. I could perhaps even ignore the towering hypocrisy of Jewish ethnocentrism coinciding as it does with Jewish activism against the ethnocentrism of non-Jewish Europeans. But the long-term effects of immigration will be essentially irreversible barring some enormous cataclysm.

The immigration invasion clearly enriches and delights a small number of people even as it produces disastrous consequences for most natives and our progeny.

For a long while it puzzled me why the ruling class would tax, prosecute, and demonize citizens while they simultaneously excuse, forgive, and sanctify immigrants. Why do they not sympathize with their own people?

Polite society has no answers. If you ask the only answer you get is, “shut up racist”. Why? Because it is all about race.

The rulers consider themselves distinct and superior. They are outsiders and natives blinded by greed who have thrown in with the outsiders – adopting their rootless cosmopolitan values, fraudulent tactics, and totalitarian goals.

As their power has increased they have grown ever more explicitly and viciously anti-White. Nowadays they openly mock “flyover country” and the “rednecks” who inhabit it. They no longer feel constrained by the votes, laws, traditions, or heros of the “xenophobic” “hill-billies”. They’re importing new citizens. For the deracinated native collaborators it’s just business. The labor is cheap, the profit great. For the true outsiders it’s more than business. It’s also hypocritical hyper-racist payback for what they see as millenia of unrelenting and undeserved persecution at the hands of an ungrateful European “host”. The non-white hordes will end that most horrible jewish nightmare, White nationalism, and present a final solution to the White cancer – by destroying the White race.

Is it clear now why the shysters at the SPLC hound MacDonald but have precious little to say about Sontag or Ignatiev? They are anti-White. With every victory in the culture war the scapegoating and dehumanization of powerless Whites as “neo-Nazis” and “White supremacists” becomes ever more absurd. Does Kevin MacDonald or any of the other people that anti-anti-semites demonize wield anywhere near the social, economic, or political power they do?

Since when has a pro-White leader had any influence on public policy?

It was before our military became the world’s police. Before forced integration. Before our women and college kids freaked out. Before our borders were erased. Before our government sold its citizens to Wall Street, who sold them to the Arabs and Chinese. Before it became a requirement for US politicians to don a yarmulke and pray at the Wailing Wall. Before scatology became prime time humor and perversion became the norm. Before pro-White speech became hate speech, and pro-White thoughts became thought crimes.

Everything went to hell when the parasitical, traitorous usurpers took over. They profit from and celebrate the disowning, disenfranchisement, and displacement of my people. For the moment they still fear having to answer for it. This is why anything but celebration is very strictly discouraged.

Our rulers do not believe in civil rights or free speech. That is but cud for their cattle. In their minds they are our superiors and we have no right to indict them. I think otherwise. I support men like Kevin MacDonald who dig up evidence and supply the indictment.

arguing

Irony Thy Name is Auster

Lawrence Auster, in a post inaptly titled Are racial differences in IQ explained by cultural stereotypes?, writes:

Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who argue that there are no inherent differences in intelligence between the races are left-wing Jews, who use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence?

R. Davis writes:

The fact that left-wing Jews “use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence” raises two questions: 1. Are they doing so simply for cultural/political reasons, i.e., to subvert the majority non-Jewish culture by undermining its ethnic-racial foundations, while subtly affirming a Jewish intellectual superiority? or 2. Does their superior intelligence afford them insights the rest of us aren’t capable of? Given their own ethnic/racial makeup, they would seem to be the best refutation of their own thesis, but perhaps at that intellectual elevation the forest is a bit far off.

This question does touch on a facet of racialist politics (highlighted by the Wright affair) that no one dares discuss–namely, if in fact intellectual differences do exist between blacks and whites/Asians, whether genetically or culturally induced (what does it matter?), why should those at the low end of the bell curve be granted almost exclusive control over the national dialogue on race or on any other issue? Look where that is taking us. Rev. Wright is not an iconoclast. The majority of blacks believe the US government is using AIDS genocidally against them. Our schools dumb down deliberately to accommodate racial differences (which dare not be mentioned). On the other hand, those at the high end of the intellectual spectrum have done much to mire us in this racial quagmire. How does one make sense of this?

LA replies:

There’s truth to this. The people at the high end ally with the people at the low end to destroy the vast silent majority in the middle–the actual society.

What I’ve just described (and this goes beyond the question of the specifically Jewish role, though it includes it) in fact represents the essential structure of liberalism as it actually operates in society. Liberalism requires three groups in order to function. First, there is the liberal elite itself, the people who make liberalism happen. They demonstrate liberalism by preaching and practicing non-discrimination toward the Other, the minority, the less capable. Second, there are the Other and the less capable, upon whom the liberal elite practices its liberal virtue of non-discrimination. Without the Other, toward whom one practices non-discrimination, liberalism would die. Therefore liberalism requires an ever-renewed population of non-assimilated and unassimilable people. But a third group is also needed for liberalism to function, and that is the vast unenlightened majority whose backward morality is needed as a foil against which the elite demonstrates its morality and establishes its legitimacy and right to rule.

James M. writes from England:

During the Watson controversy a high-IQ British Jew called Steven Rose tried to peddle the “all equal” line at the Guardian, attacking the “long-exploded racist claim that “Africans” are inherently less intelligent than “us”‘.

Well yes Larry, since you asked, some people have noticed. A hardy few, like Luke O’Farrell, have written more coherently than you have concerning both the who and why:

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade.

Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history”. It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.

Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West.

To write such things you have to be hardy because you will inevitably be swarmed by anti-anti-semites who will deny there is any merit whatsoever to anything you say. They will consign you to hell, ridicule you as a mindless robot, question your sanity, misrepresent your position, then call for you to be fired from your job, banned from the web, and shunned by anyone who doesn’t want to be similarly abused.

It is possible to elicit this kind of belligerent treatment by simply noting how typical it is, as Auster’s hostile reactions to his correspondents George R. and Tom M. illustrate.

I’ve thought and written more than a little about Auster. It started with an assertion about his oft-repeated and ever-mutating Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, which he once succinctly stated as:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

What I asserted is that this law of liberalism obviously applies to jews. PC protects them above all others.

Silly me. Auster set aside his anti-liberalism and dismissed my assertion as anti-semitic. When I fleshed out the argument he whined I was attacking him for not being an anti-semite. When I quoted him he claimed I was calling him a lousy anti-semite hypocrite.

Auster’s intellectual dishonesty runs deep. He is incapable of confronting what I actually say, which is this: He is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a bigoted pro-jewish racist. He is a hypocrite because he regularly exhibits all the irrational symptoms he sees and self-righteously denounces in others. He is not pro-White, as he at times may appear, he simply believes Whites are better for jews than the invading immigrants favored by most other jews. Jews, in the mind of an anti-anti-semite like Auster, are entitled to special treatment. To criticize jews you must, like him, have their best interests foremost in mind. Otherwise you are a special type of racist, worthy of a special label. This magic label makes you subhuman, eligible for all the dehumanization he assumes you wish on jews. Jews who openly denigrate Whites are also special. Auster does not demonize them or call for them to be shunned.

Someone who reasons this way should be able to see that someone else might instead have the best interests of Whites foremost in their mind. But Auster repeatedly and ever-so-intelligently demonstrates he is incapable of doing so:

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.

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.

White, when used to identify a group of people, is not a color or an adjective. It is a proper noun. Thus I capitalize White. I no longer capitalize jew specifically to draw attention to the inconsistent norm that Auster so staunchly supports. His reason is so clouded that this simple rationale of reversal does not compute. For him “jew” is a sure sign of racist anti-semitic dehumanization, but “white” is a completely innocent convention.

So now Auster wonders if he is the first to notice that “left-wing jews” ally with “non-assimilated and unassimilable people” against the “vast unenlightened majority”. If he were to state his position in less weaselly language from a pro-White point of view he might find himself saying something anti-semitic. He might admit his MMRILS applies to jews. That would be ironic, but we can be sure it won’t happen. Auster does not have the best interests of Whites foremost in his mind. If he did he wouldn’t pretend we are a vast majority, and he wouldn’t so quickly and hypocritically dehumanize the few who seek unblinkered enlightenment.

UPDATE 31 Mar 2008: More snippets from Auster’s post:

Mark Jaws writes:

Of course, I, the quintessentially politically astute New York Jew (albeit with Slavic blood to taint my Yiddish pedigree), long ago noticed it was primarily left-wing Jews such as Jay Gould, who were the most ardent opponents to Shockley, Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. I attributed it in part to Jews having been the main victims of the Nazi eugenics movement, so even though these smart Jews probably knew deep down inside that there were IQ differences, it would be best to nullify and pervert the movement which they perceived to be Nazi-like.

Whatever good the name calling and lies has done for jews it has only come at the expense of Whites. Auster does not point this out because he is not pro-White.

Bert R. writes:

The comments of yourself and others here regarding Jewish intellectuals remind me of Kevin MacDonald’s. Is there now a broader range of agreement between you both than before? I ask as I recall that you wrote a somewhat critical article or comment about him some time ago.

LA replies:

Comments like this make me want to throw up my hands.

Kevin MacDonald’s central idea is that the Jewish people are driven by an instinct created by Darwinian evolution to destroy European peoples. He is the most influential anti-Semitic thinker and inspirer of exterminationist anti-Semites of our time. I wonder on what basis you would construct a similarity between my ideas and his based on what was said in this thread.

See my article where I lay out the differences between what MacDonald says about the Jews and what I say.

Inspirer of exterminationists? Such deranged hyperbole is the hallmark of anti-anti-semitism.

I wrote a little about this in White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals.

It isn’t difficult to differentiate the two men.

MacDonald is a scholar who focuses on analyzing the conflicts between White and jewish interests, a subject Auster only occasionally touches. MacDonald writes in plain language remarkable for its contrast with the obfuscatory postmodern academic norm. Auster prefers misleading euphemisms like “the majority” and “liberals”. MacDonald is more circumspect and consistent than Auster, who constantly and explicitly advises “the majority” what they must do, who they must keep out or deport, and who the anti-semites are that must be slandered and ostracized in order to appease the “liberals” he is supposedly resisting.

In short MacDonald is pro-White and Auster is pro-jew. Perhaps Auster can only throw up his hands because he cannot imagine simply telling the truth.

question-by-Rockwell

Questions Questions

Under the title Whiteness and the Jewish Question Prozium writes:

Jews are a Semitic ethnic group like the Syrians or the Palestinians. “Ethnicity” is also a muddle of kinship and cultural factors. Jews have defined themselves as a distinct people for thousands of years. Until very recently, European Christians treated Jews as an alien element within their societies. Jews remain to this day painfully aware of their history and distinctiveness and do not identify with the American majority like other groups.

The debate over the “whiteness” of the Jews is unique to America. With few exceptions, Europeans have never cared much about “whiteness” because they have traditionally lived in racially homogeneous societies. Even in America, “whiteness” has never been synonymous with Caucasian. “White” was originally a synonym of “English” and was later refined into “Nordic” by the early twentieth century. The Italians were finally accepted as “white,” but are still thought of (accurately, in my view) as being less “white” than Scandinavians. The whiteness of Levantines like the Jews is even more suspect.

Most racialists find the “whiteness” debate interesting but consider it less important than other questions. Even if the Jews were “white” by some genetic proxy, it would not absolve them of the unique role they have played in undermining white racial consciousness in the United States. The fact remains that the organized Jewish community has treated white racialists as “the enemy” ever since the end of the Second World War.

They are the ones who started to antagonize us, not the other way around. Up until the 1960s, American racialism wasn’t associated with anti-Semitism. This changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when it became clear that Jews had played a vanguard role in pushing the racial and cultural changes in America that we dislike. Their actions are what generate “anti-Semitism” and sympathy for the Third Reich.

It is completely rational to exclude a hostile, antagonistic minority from your living space. One can easily imagine an alternative timeline in which Jews showed respect for the customs and traditions of their host and presented themselves as defenders and admirers of Western civilization. I doubt there would be any resentment against Jews if their behavior was of this sort. No one spends their time fretting over the “Mongolian Question.”

In reality, Jewish behavior confirms many of worst stereotypes about their race. They are avaricious, inconsiderate, duplicitous, condescending, materialistic, and aggressive. They cry foul when they endure the slightest criticism, even when they are in the process of destroying others like in their recent attack on Lebanon, or egging on Bush/Cheney to attack Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

Not all Jews are of this sort. The Jewish community is divided on all sorts of issues. Aside from the neocons, American Jews are more concerned with domestic policy than foreign policy. Jewish wealth and the disproportionate representation of Jewish voices in academia, government, business, and the news and entertainment media has created a pro-Jewish bias in American culture and public policy that would otherwise not exist. This has come at the expense of other groups like the Palestinians and racially conscious white Americans whom Jews count amongst their ethnic enemies.

It doesn’t suit us as Whites for Jews to continue to enjoy privileges like their immunity from criticism or their vast fortunes. This is the gist of the Jewish Question.

To which I responded:

The US has the Latino Question, and Europe has the Muslim Question. Both are really the Immigration Invasion Question, which is: whose interests are served by permitting millions of impoverished, uneducated, hostile aliens to flood any nation? These questions trace back and are in fact subordinate to the Jewish Question. Which is how I became aware of it.

The question “are jews White” is exactly what you need to consider to understand why there is a JQ to begin with, and to contemplate answers. That these questions are taboo, while the anti-racist questioning of Whiteness is not, reveals at least two prongs of anti-White aggression. So I cannot agree that there are more important questions to consider.

Excellent analysis otherwise.

The question “are jews White” was new to me and still fresh in mind when I wrote Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin. I was exposed to it by an article written by E. Michael Jones called Francis’s Legacy:

The last time I saw Sam Francis, it was at a meeting in Washington. Sam was the moderator at a talk given by John Tyndall, a leader of the National Front in England. Mr. Tyndall was trying to get us enthused about being white guys, and so he launched into a peroration about the glories of Elizabethan England. Since Elizabethan England was the place where Catholic priests, like Edmund Campion, SJ, could be hanged until not quite dead, drawn and quartered and have their entrails thrown into boiling oil for the crime of saying the Mass, I was less than enthralled by the picture Mr. Tyndall had painted for us. In fact, if his intention was to bring us all together, his talk had the exact opposite effect. Since both Father Campion and Lord Burghley and his henchman Walsingham were all white, just what meaning did this fact possess?

My friend Gerry Bruen must have been entertaining the same thoughts because after Mr. Tyndall finished his speech, Gerry asked him whether “the Irish are white.” The question annoyed Mr. Tyndall, who got a disgusted look on his face and said, “Of course, the Irish are white. My mother is Irish.”

At this point, Sam Francis broke into the discussion, and turning to Mr. Tyndall, he asked, “Are Jews white?” Mr. Tyndall was taken aback by the question. After a long pause, he turned to Sam and said, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” So today I’d like to honor the memory of Sam Francis by trying to answer his unanswered question: “Are Jews White?

Jones believes that the root of America’s cultural divide is not race, but religion. Besides Sam Francis the story intertwines Catholics, Leo Pfeffer and the Neoconservatives, Kevin MacDonald, the NAACP, Mearsheimer & Walt, and the SPLC. Jones ends with an appeal to spirituality and Logos I find moving but unconvincing:

In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and asked him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as we enter the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer that the main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead. There are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this development because in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression and 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.

And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly defines the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).

We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles–and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle–no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.” We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.”

The Catholic heirarchy and broader Christian leadership stand alongside the vast majority of jews in support of the immigration invasion and, by implication, the liquidation of Whites. So I disagree with Jones’ claim that the main confrontation is between Jews and Catholics. The confrontation I care about is between Whites and the people actively demoralizing, displacing, dispossessing, and disenfranchising them.

Jones is wrong about DNA. DNA is more important than anything else in determining low-level personality traits. Traits that ultimately express themselves in higher forms as ethics, morals, and culture. There is some feedback flowing the other direction, but the driving force is DNA. Some races, ie. genetic clusters, produce more morons, and some produce more geniuses. Likewise sociopaths who crave infinite wealth or totalitarian power and to best achieve these aims gravitate toward, foment, and revel in revolution.

The denial of such truths is akin to Lysenkoism, both in contradiction of biological reality and in the dependence on repressive political and social tactics. We call these tactics Hate Laws and Political Correctness, which suppress truth primarily by suppressing questions.

jail2

Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial

Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.

"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.

Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:

Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender – if they’ll let us.

For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. “I am race!” Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?

Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us – we know the boilerplate answer.

What’s interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you’re looking for another R-word, I also answer to “realist”), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied – especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.

Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam’s razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don’t have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.

I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.

Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:

Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old “upper-crust” aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.

Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don’t really matter because they are divided by class.

He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student’s naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s “liberated” in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you’d like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.

One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:

The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.

And I haven’t even stated my theory yet.

Fortunately, it’s not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as “using the barbarians to control the barbarians.” Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I’d like to think it’s obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it’s lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they’ll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you’re a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I’m not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it’s all working. They don’t need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they’re doing. And you can’t exactly call it a failure.

Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa’s leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting “kill the whites?”

Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting “kill the rednecks,” ie, Slovo’s hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.

No, I don’t like Mencius’ explanation. It’s certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.

The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.

A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn’t exist:

However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.

Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a “cosmopolitan Anglophone” Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.

Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.

Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I’ve sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.

For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn’t like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn’t really need. The ones whose brilliant “industry” boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.

Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist’s “logic” makes any sense.

Here’s what makes sense to me.

Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion’s waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.

Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as “liberals” warring on “the Christian majority”. He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn’t explain why his “brahmin” should want or need to attack what he calls “[t]heir real hereditary enemy … the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter”.

Caste/class make us “hereditary enemies”? Sorry, for my part it’s the fact that they’re trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it’s clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.

We don’t need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.