Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Who Celebrates Lawrence Auster and Why

13 Comments

Recalling Lawrence Auster, Nicholas Stix asks:

In a land of almost 314 million “residents,” how important could one old, crotchety, heterosexual, white Christian man have been?

Only the most vile sycophants of this self-professed jewish fifth columnist continue to celebrate him. Tellingly, they do it either by ignoring or distorting what he really was or what he really cared about.

Lawrence Auster was a jew whose most fervent passion was sniffing out and denouncing “anti-semitism”.

Peter Brimelow, toward whom Auster expressed a downright poisonous jew-centric hatred, published a longer, more odious ode from Stix titled Remembering Lawrence Auster, After A Year:

For years, he argued what I considered to be a mistaken position, that the Left believes in “egalitarianism,” “tolerance,” and “non-discrimination.” In fact, as I have pointed out for years, the Left actually believes in power—and is willing to accept the most extreme inequality, intolerance, and discrimination.

Auster meticulously cultivated a constant but superficial discussion of symptoms, most of which he attributed to “liberalism”, a vague catch-all for anything Auster disliked but didn’t more specifically identify as “anti-semitism”. He disapproved of terms like “the Left” because he wished to obscure the jewish source of anti-White animus, not expose it. For this reason his view of race was similarly cartoonish. He usually maintained that jews are “white”, and “whites” are doing everything to ourselves. When push came to shove he not only saw the difference, he sided with the jews against Whites.

It was because of this position, and in spite of any prickliness when challenged on “mistakes”, that Auster attracted worshippers like Stix – a motley assortment of jews, crypto-jews, quasi-jews, wanna-be jews and jew-firsters who see “white” judeo-Christian “conservativism” as their greatest strength. They could imagine clarity and truth in their guru’s dissembling and dissumulation because in that guru and his double-talk they saw themselves.

Lawrence Auster: First Anniversary of His Death on March 29, 2013, at Saber Point, offers this synopsis of Auster’s early life:

Lawrence Auster was no stranger to controversy and aimed his criticisms not only at obvious targets on the left but also at those on the right whom he saw losing one battle after another. After Pope Benedict XVI apologized for his 2006 speech in Regensburg, which criticized Islam, Auster wrote, “As long as our own principles are liberal, as long as such liberal values as pluralism and tolerance, rather than traditionalist values such as nation and civilization, are our ultimate governing values, we will not be able to oppose liberalism and the liberalism-assisted takeover of the West by the Other. Mainstream conservatism is itself largely liberal. Only a belief system that is non-liberal at its core, namely traditionalism, can save the West.”

Mr. Auster was born in Union, New Jersey in 1949 to Sean Irving Auster, an early electronics whizkid, businessman, and real estate investor, and Charlotte Auster, a homemaker. From the age of 11 he grew up in South Orange, New Jersey, where his older siblings introduced him to classical music and Bob Dylan, both lifelong passions, along with poetry. He attended Columbia University for a year and witnessed the student riots in 1968. He did not like the Ivy League university, which he found too impersonal. He also attended Bard College for a semester before deciding that he needed to educate himself on his own before completing a bachelor’s degree.

In the 1970s, he lived a bohemian life in Aspen, Colorado, playing guitar, reading great works of literature, working at a book store, and, it amused him to recount later, wearing a sandwich board through the streets of Aspen with the menu of a local restaurant. For a while, he was a professional astrologer. He then earned a bachelor’s degree in English at the University of Colorado in Boulder. For a time, he was a follower of the Indian spiritual leader Meher Baba, traveling to India to visit his center there.

He then moved to Manhattan, rented a spartan studio apartment on the Upper West Side in which he lived up until his final weeks, and began an often frustrating search for the right career. He attended law school for a year, but decided he would never make a good lawyer. He worked as an administrator at a private school, drove a cab, read lots of books and worked as a temp. He referred candidly to his “odd and eccentric life.”

“I’ve never had any mainstream “moves” in my makeup. I’ve been a solitary intellectual seeker and spiritual seeker all my life, and a misfit in mainstream society,” Mr. Auster wrote, late in life. “I’ve never had a normal career. Even if I had wanted to, I could not have had a mainstream career as a writer, because writing for money or fame or whatever was simply not part of my makeup. Everything I’ve written, I’ve written because it’s been intensely important me to say something that I had to say. I can’t write any other way.”

He discovered his main subject when he was walking through Manhattan one day and, looking at the people around him, suddenly realized that whites were on their way to becoming a minority in America. He said that since he was so firmly convinced of the essential humanity of all people, he felt suited to writing about the controversial subject of race and challenging the crippling plague of white guilt.

How absurd and yet how stereotypical that this ex-hippie, this wandering jew, had the arrogance to proclaim his jew-first moralizing and pilpul “traditionalism”, not to mention deliver it from the very epicenter of cosmopolitan jewry, that Other who has taken over the West, whose poisonous influence he mostly pretended not to see.

Auster never challenged “the crippling plague of white guilt”. That would have required acknowledging the distinction between the Whites being guilt-tripped and the jews, like himself, who perpetrate it. If Auster’s traditionalism meant anything, it meant only a reform of White guilt, redirecting and refocusing its benefits back to the jews alone. What irked Auster was not that Whites defer to anybody, but that Whites defer to anybody but the jews.

To commemorate Auster’s death his most vile sycophant, Laura Wood, excerpted a speech he delivered at the 1994 American Renaissance conference. The War Against White America captures Auster’s early posturing. It is notably less vague than the later, more superficial positions Stix mistakes for mistaken:

So before we recoil in horror or embarrassment from speaking explicitly about race, let us remember that America’s current politics is already a race-conscious politics, only it’s a politics based on lies about race. It’s a politics directed against whites and their civilization. And it pretends that it’s not about race at all, but that it’s race-neutral and universal. So instead of today’s race-conscious politics, which is based on lies about race, let us have a race-conscious politics based on truths about race.

These truths include the following propositions:

  • Long-term harmonious relations between a racial majority and racial minorities are possible only when the minorities do not exceed a certain percentage of the population.
  • While individuals of different races living in the same society can get along on a basis of equality and mutual recognition, entire races, living in the same society, cannot.
  • In the right circumstances, individuals or small groups of one people can be assimilated into a host culture of a different people, but there are limits to such assimilation. Certainly if the entire people associated with the host culture is displaced or swamped by a different people, the host culture will also disappear. Even smaller shifts in numbers can be enough to delegitimize the host culture and produce chronic cultural conflict.
  • Therefore, the culture, identity and traditions of white America and Western civilization cannot survive in any community or institution that becomes multiracial or white-minority.
  • Because of the greater attractiveness, prosperity and openness of white Western societies, nonwhites will keep moving into them as long as they can. Therefore white America can survive demographically and culturally only if it recognizes itself as a threatened ethnoculture; if it ceases or drastically reduces, on a national scale, all non-European immigration; and if it assures, on a local scale, communities where its own institutions may survive.
  • The large and enduring differences in average intelligence between blacks and whites mean, first, that blacks on their own can never be expected to maintain a modern, democratic, civilized society; and second, that blacks can never be expected to achieve collective economic equality and other kinds of parity with whites. The forced attempt to achieve such collective equality, through affirmative action and through endless attacks on white racism as the supposed cause of existing inequalities, can only break down all the institutions and standards of society and lead to race warfare.
  • There are therefore only two sane options for black-white relations in this country. Either blacks accept the above facts; accept a society where white Western standards of law, behavior and intellectual life are dominant and where advancement will be open for blacks only on an individual, not a collective basis; accept their status as an ethnic minority and be grateful to be living in a white society where they have goods and opportunities undreamed of in a black society; or else, if blacks are not willing to accept these things, then to avoid race warfare there must be peaceful separation between the races.

These propositions have nothing to do with any notions of race-hatred of the other, or of race-worship of one’s own. White people are just as sinful and imperfect as any other people. Unlike ideologies such as Afrocentrism and Nazism, which are based on the deification of one’s own people and the demonization of others, this new politics is based on a Christian recognition of our human limitations, namely that we do not possess the godlike power to create a perfect world where everyone is equal, and where differences don’t matter. If there is any arrogance to be seen today, it is in our current immigration and affirmative action policies, which are among the greatest examples of hubris in the history of the world.

There are only two sane options for black-white relations in this country.

The irony is that whites are terrified that non-whites will hate them and even start a race war if whites stand up for themselves, while the truth is that many nonwhites will begin for the first time to respect whites. Currently minorities don’t respect whites because whites have defined themselves ideologically as nothing while, in personal terms, they still try to protect their self-interest. Whites thus seem both weak and hypocritical and therefore despicable, and nonwhites just keep moving into the vacuum left by white surrender. But when whites begin to assert their own civilizational and racial identity and their desire to preserve it, not in a hateful way but in a calm, intelligent and firm way, then nonwhites will begin to see whites, not as the “oppressors” of left-liberal demonology, but as human beings who have the same basic interests and concerns for their people and culture that the minorities have for theirs.

Classic. Auster discussed blacks and Whites and other Others in terms he literally found unthinkable to apply to jews. He spoke of “minorities” and “oppressors” and “left-liberal demonology” as if it is all a figment of the imagination of Whites and had nothing whatsoever to do with the jews.

The irony is that so many Whites are terrified that jews will hate them, even though jews already make their contempt plain enough. Auster went against that grain by advocating a “white” racial identity, but of course, it was only to the extent that he thought that would best serve the interests of jews, not Whites. Auster’s importance, if anyone wishes to recall it accurately, was in being even more condescending and less honest than usual for a jew.

Blog

Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking

4 Comments

Mel Gibson’s Career — Why He Deserves Another Chance In Hollywood, by Allison Hope Weiner, Deadline|Hollywood, 11 March 2014:

As a journalist who vilified Gibson in The New York Times and Entertainment Weekly until my coverage allowed me to get to know him, I want to make the case here that it is time for those Hollywood agencies and studios to end their quiet blacklisting of Mel Gibson. Once Hollywood’s biggest movie star whose film Braveheart won five Oscars and whose collective box office totals $3.6 billion, Gibson hasn’t been directly employed by a studio since Passion Of The Christ was released in 2004.

For those who are skeptical, I understand. For the longest time, I disliked Gibson and thought he was a Holocaust-denier, homophobic, misogynistic, racist drunk. I wrote as much in articles for EW and the NY Times. And whenever I wrote about him, I would get irate calls from his representatives saying I didn’t know him.

It developed into something that felt like friendship, which doesn’t often happen with investigative journalists and the subjects they cover. Odder still was that it happened with a man disdained by my colleagues, friends and my family, who, like me, are observant Jews. At this point, Gibson’s career had gone all kinds of wrong, starting with that 2006 DUI arrest, when he told that cop that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Four years later, he sounded positively unhinged and racist in surreptitious recordings of an angry phone exchange between Gibson and ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva — the mother of his infant daughter. The whole world heard him shout abusively at her and make racist remarks.

Since then, I’ve gotten to know Gibson extremely well. I thought it would be difficult for him to have a friend in the media, but he has been surprisingly honest and trusting. As a lawyer-turned-reporter, I have no problem asking tough questions, even of friends. Gibson never wavered or equivocated when I confronted him, whether the subject was his drinking, his politics, his religion or his relationships with women. It soon became clear that my early journalistic assessment of him wasn’t right.

This crystallized when we met each other’s families. It was hard to blame his family for being skeptical of a journalist, but the issues with my own family were more challenging. Gibson asked to meet them at my son’s bar mitzvah celebration. Imagine the scene: A room filled with Jews. In walks the person who, in their minds, might be the most notorious anti-Semite in America. Gibson attended alone and I can only imagine what was going through his head when he walked into the party.

Before the evening was over, he was chatting with many of my relatives, who saw a funny, kind, charming guy and not the demon they’d read about. Gutsier still, he attended our Yom Kippur break fast dinner. Anyone who has attended such a gathering knows there is nothing more imposing than making friends in a room full of Jews who haven’t eaten in 24 hours.

I’ve discussed the Holocaust with Gibson and whether his views differed from those of his father. Just as he refused to condemn his father in that TV interview with Diane Sawyer, Gibson refused to discuss his dad with me. Similar to what he told Sawyer, Gibson told me that he believed that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. “Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,” he told Sawyer. “It was an atrocity of monumental proportion.” In our conversations, I took that a step further. Why, I asked him “did you say those things about the Jews starting all the wars? Where did those unkind things come from?” Gibson thought for a moment, then answered that he’d been terribly hurt by the very personal criticism of him from the Jewish community over The Passion Of The Christ. He said that while he’d been criticized for films before, this was personal and cruel. He said that when he drinks, he can be a mean drunk and “Stuff comes out in a distorted manner…” His own faith led him to make his version of Christ’s story, and he found himself being attacked for making a film that might get Jews killed, and that he was insensitive that his depiction of Jews as Christ’s killer could inflame religious tensions. He was called names by numerous Jewish leaders and a few people literally spat on him. “The criticism was still eating at me,” he told me. “This was a different kind of hammering. A very personal attack.”

Based on my exchanges with Gibson and my own reporting on his transgressions, I’ve stopped doubting him. He worked in Hollywood for 30 years without a single report he was anti-Semitic.

In his second apology on the anti-Semitic statements, Gibson promised to reach out to Jewish leaders. Gibson followed up by meeting with a wide variety of them. He gave me their names when I asked, but Gibson asked me not to publish them because he didn’t want them dragged into public controversy or worse, think he was using them. The meetings were not some photo op to him, he told me, but rather his desire to understand Judaism and personally apologize for the unkind things he said. He has learned much about the Jewish religion, befriending a number of Rabbis and attending his share of Shabbat dinners, Passover Seders and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur dinners. I believe that effort, along with our conversations, helped him understand why Jewish people reacted as they did to The Passion Of The Christ and why there was Jewish support for the Second Vatican Council. Gibson has quietly donated millions to charitable Jewish causes, in keeping with one of the highest forms of Tzedakah in the Jewish faith, giving when the recipient doesn’t know your identity.

Gibson went well beyond a mea culpa tour. He came out of that experience determined to film the Jewish version of Braveheart. He set at Warner Bros a film about Judah Maccabee, who with his father and four brothers led the Jewish revolt against the Greek-Syrian armies that had conquered Judea in the second century B.C. That seminal story is celebrated by Jews all over the world through Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights.

While talent including director Roman Polanski (drugged and sodomized a minor, and fled), Mike Tyson (rape conviction), Chris Brown (beat up ex-girlfriend Rihanna), T.I. (weapons charge), and many others are repped by major agencies, no agency has touched Gibson since Emanuel discharged him as a WME client after those tapes surfaced and he used the “N” word. Gibson has been shunned not for doing anything criminal; his greatest offenses amount to use of harsh language.

Weiner knows that Gibson’s “greatest offense” isn’t “harsh language” aimed at women or blacks, and they aren’t responsible for his “quiet blacklisting”. Weiner identifies herself as a jew and dedicates the bulk of her words to Gibson vis-a-vis jews exactly because she understands that it is jews who have not-so-quietly blacklisted him.

The demonization and blacklisting of Gibson is a reminder that in jew-run Hollywood, talent, popularity and profitability aren’t the primary considerations – jewish sensibilities are. And Gibson will continue to be blacklisted as long as jews collectively regard him as “the most notorious ‘anti-semite’ in America”. Weiner’s explicit appeal to jews, to attempt to convince them otherwise, only calls attention to their power.

Weiner describes Gibson’s grovelling, trying to please and befriend the jews who despise him, as “gutsy”. Yet it is quite the opposite. Even Weiner’s own version of Gibson’s story comes across as serial gutlessness: Lashing out in drunken rage, Gibson bit the hand that fed him, and ever since has been licking the boot that kicks him. Weiner’s suggestion that Gibson’s problem is alcohol, or anger, or both, is also disingenuous. Though he has far more fame and fortune than most of the rest of his race, he has the same main problem. The jewish problem. He could fund and direct some wonderful films about that, but instead gives his love and money to the enemy. Whether such pathological behavior is fueled by Christian beliefs, greed, ambition, or even alcohol – it certainly isn’t guts.

As usual, the jews have tried to make themselves out as the ones who have been harmed. And as usual, this serves to distract from the harm they have done to others. In this case, their handwringing about whether Mel Gibson is or isn’t good for the jews is a distraction from the monstrous harm done by the lies, filth and poison delivered by the judaized media.

Blog

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction

7 Comments

Peter Blood:

The Neo-Reaction, in my opinion, has several characteristics that make it similar to Neo-Conservatism.

Neo-Cons: liberals, disproportionately Jewish, “mugged by reality”, not pro-white, eventually honeycombing the right and driving out old hard rightists (example, ironically, Paul Gottfried). Eventually everything is done for the Jews.

Neo-Reaction: libertarians, disproportionately Jewish (MY SUSPICION ONLY), “mugged by reality”, not pro-white (boy, they really hate blacks, though), To Be Determined….

It’s the “neo” thing. Irving Kristol: “Ever since I can remember I’ve been a Neo-Something.”

Hipster Racist:

Interesting parallel between the neo-cons and the neo-reaction. I remember back in the day the “neo” in “neo-con” was often noted to be practically synonymous with “judeo.”

I don’t even like the term “reactionary” to be honest – it’s a communist term. There’s the Marxist Revolution, than the Reaction from the bad guys (nationalists, capitalists, conservatives, religious, racists, etc.) I assumed that the “Dark Enlightenment” and “neo-reaction” were just labels slapped onto the emerging internet consensus among non-leftist types, a mix of race realism, sex realism, and scepticsm of utopianism. I prefer “Aryan Skynet” myself. The argument against democracy, for example, is intellectually interesting, and fun in a devil’s advocate sort of way, but 12 years after the Diebold Voting Machine scandal of 2002, kind of a moot point, isn’t it? Noam Chomsky from the Judeo-Left used to quote Walter Lippman about this in the 1990s, all about the “crisis of democracy” and the use of mass media to “manufacture consent.”

One thing I’ve noticed, YKWs have a lot of time on their hands to write all sorts of articles and comments. I can see a few enterprising YKWs doing what they have always done, as described by Kevin MacDonald, set up little cults-of-personality based on a guru and co-opt various intellectual trends into some “movement” or “ideology,” give it a catchy name, then ruthlessly purge the “anti-semites” and otherwise repurpose the movement to whatever benefits jews.

Indeed. The reaction is to judaization. Neo-reaction is the judaization of the reaction to judaization.

Blog

What’s Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tom Perkins on the 1% and Kristallnacht

16 Comments

In a short letter to the Wall Street Journal, Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?, Tom Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, retired founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, expressed a simple-minded concern which appeared not at all out of step with the thoroughly judaized contemporary political discourse:

I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant “progressive” radicalism unthinkable now?

The response from outraged jews was swift and venomous. Undeterred by Perkins’ wealth, power and love of jews, jews big and small have taken to their soapboxes to insult and lecture him. The gist of it all is to self-righteously inform Perkins, and any other uppity goyim who might be under a similarly mistaken impression, that only jews are permitted to invoke the jewish narrative.

To illustrate I’ve selected a few of the clearer examples of jews getting so carried away with their attempts to describe what Perkins has done wrong and condemn him for it that they effectively end up describing and condemning themselves and their tribe.

Steven Greenhouse, labor and workplace correspondent for the New York Times, issued this twit:

As someone who lost numerous relatives to the Nazi gas chambers, I find statements like this revolting & inexplicable

Then this one:

Rather shocking that Tom Perkins seems to embrace Nazi Germany’s stereotype that Jews were Europe’s rich 1%

Perkins’ mistakes are hardly inexplicable. It’s jews who have filled his head with nonsense. He has internalized jewish myths. He has misunderstood jewish self-pity and self-concern as applying more generally to wealthy minorities.

What Greenhouse is revolted and shocked about is Perkins equating the merely rich to the jews. Greenhouse knows there is no such equivalence. His hysterical overreaction probably has less to do with events decades past and more to do with the “stereotype” of jews in the 1% of the right here and now.

For a lecture about the jewish version of history, Greenhouse links a Salon article by Elias Isquith, titled Wealthy venture capitalist Tom Perkins says the 1% in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany:

For those who don’t already know: Kristallnacht was a giant anti-Semitic riot, organized by the Nazi government, that left nearly 100 Jews in Germany and Austria murdered and resulted in the incarceration of some tens of thousands more in concentration camps. It was an act of coordinated barbarism done in service of the Nazis’ ultimate goal, the expulsion (and, later, elimination) of Europe’s Jewish population.

Is it any mystery why accounts that differ from the jewish narrative go unknown or unheeded? Look how jews howl and bring to heel even someone rich and famous who tries to parrot their story in some way that doesn’t please them.

For those who don’t already know, there are other versions of history that don’t excuse the jews. For example, Carolyn Yeager, based on the work of Ingrid Weckert, has made a convincing argument that organized jewry instigated and benefited from “Kristallnacht”.

As confused and conflicted as Matthew Yglesias is about jewish identity, he is confident that Tom Perkins is nuts and that his letter “certainly proves you can get rich without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent”.

Steve Benen, another ambiguous jew, aims his psychoanalysis more broadly, claiming the letter reflects “a persecution complex at the heart of conservative ideology” “that bordered on self-parody”. For one thing, it certainly proves you can get a gig defending the jews at MSNBC without being very thoughtful, perceptive, or intelligent.

One of the more telling responses I’ve encountered so far comes from Mark Suster. If not for his overweening jewish superiority Suster would come closest to being a peer of Perkins. Suster’s response to “this terribly insensitive and tone deaf letter”, Putting Tom Perkins Comments into Context, begins:

Um. Seriously?

People of middle or lower income families protesting the concentration of wealth in America is the same as a political party in Germany instituting a policy of systematically killing 6 million Jews and countless more who didn’t fit the model Aryan citizen?

It probably doesn’t take much more to explain how disconnected from reality Tom Perkins is.

Perkins, recall, referred to the jewish Kristallnacht myth, not their six million myth. It is Suster and his tribemates who are disconnected from reality.

Referring to a WSJ article in which Perkins claims others call him the king of Silicon Valley, Suster mocks:

Who says out loud that they are the king of anything?

I’m sorry, Mr. Perkins. You are now the bumbling dunce of Silicon Valley.

True enough. How much of a king can anyone be when the jews can so easily transform them into a bumbling dunce?

This is not a mere gaffe that people won’t remember in 3 years. Perkins will forever be associated with greed, insensitivity and lack of historical context.

Never forgive, never forget. Vex the jews and they will ensure that you go down in their history as the one who is greedy and insensitive.

And then there are the Jews of which I am one.

Mr. Perkins. Jewish people weren’t persecuted merely for their financial successes and it’s total mythology to believe all Jewish people are wealthy despite our population over-indexing in education, arts and wealth. Jews were persecuted for being different. The sort of mindless intolerance that I see lobbed today against Muslim people, African Americans, gay couples and others.

Jews followed their own rituals that made them seem “strange” to gentiles. Jews were excluded from trade guilds across Europe for hundreds of years which made it impossible for Jewish people to have a normal, stable income from the most important jobs of those era. Because they couldn’t have “normal” professions they become traders, peddlers, market makers and financiers.

Again we see Suster’s disconnection from reality and arrogance in lecturing others about what is or isn’t mythology. His account of the one-sided jewish version of history is quite typical. We’re to believe Europeans somehow couldn’t ever make the jews leave but could compel them to become financiers.

But…

Jews weren’t persecuted for being rich. Jews were scapegoated whenever countries had economic problems simply because they were different and were an easy target for political leaders. It’s a societal consequence when times turn bad and people affected look for somebody to blame.

This too is a common jewish account of “scapegoating”. What the financier jew is saying is that when there are economic problems the people shouldn’t blame financier jews, they should instead blame themselves for blaming the financier jews, not to mention forcing the jews to become financiers in the first place.

Mr. Perkins. I am a member of the 1%. Yes, I earned it. But with a lot of help that many of the 350 million other Americans don’t have. I’m ok with you having extravagant houses and competing with the likes of Larry Ellison for extreme spending on Yachts and such. That’s your prerogative.

But when it comes for speaking for our great state or country. When it comes to speaking for Jews around the world. When it comes for speaking up for venture capitalists for which you are simply not a “king” I have but one bit of advice.

STFU.

Not only is there no honor among thieves, in the minds of commissars like Suster only the jewish thieves should be speaking for anyone.

As illuminating as these examples have been, I’ve saved the most pompously self-unaware for last. Paul Krugman titled his New York Times op-ed Paranoia of the Plutocrats. He begins like Benen, by making it clear that his critique is aimed at a broader group:

You may say that this is just one crazy guy and wonder why The Journal would publish such a thing. But Mr. Perkins isn’t that much of an outlier.

Here’s the punchline:

But every group finds itself facing criticism, and ends up on the losing side of policy disputes, somewhere along the way; that’s democracy. The question is what happens next. Normal people take it in stride; even if they’re angry and bitter over political setbacks, they don’t cry persecution, compare their critics to Nazis and insist that the world revolves around their hurt feelings. But the rich are different from you and me.

And yes, that’s partly because they have more money, and the power that goes with it. They can and all too often do surround themselves with courtiers who tell them what they want to hear and never, ever, tell them they’re being foolish. They’re accustomed to being treated with deference, not just by the people they hire but by politicians who want their campaign contributions. And so they are shocked to discover that money can’t buy everything, can’t insulate them from all adversity.

I also suspect that today’s Masters of the Universe are insecure about the nature of their success. We’re not talking captains of industry here, men who make stuff. We are, instead, talking about wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming some off the top as it sloshes by. They may boast that they are job creators, the people who make the economy work, but are they really adding value? Many of us doubt it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy themselves, a form of self-doubt that causes them to lash out even more furiously at their critics.

There you have it. The jews aren’t normal people. They see themselves as somewhere outside and above normal. That’s why they can think and write so critically about others without seeing how the criticism applies to themselves, without even thinking that they or anyone else could apply it to themselves.

It isn’t self-doubt that makes the jews lash out furiously at their critics, much less at someone like Perkins, who grovels for them. It is an aggressive sadism. A hostility born of racial animus, enabled by a confidence born of racial solidarity. They see themselves having more in common with each other, rich or poor, left or right, than they do with any multi-millionaire goy.

Some jews no doubt fear their group’s cover being blown, their depredations being revealed. Not the ones I’ve quoted here. These jews appear confident that they can say and do as they please, no matter how blatantly overbearing.

Blog

Answering the American Studies Association

3 Comments

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren’t “white” in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn’t subject to the usual standards by which “white” states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on “what it means to be pro-Israel.” A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the “tyranny of small differences,” as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening’s. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one’s support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist’s responsibility to guard Israel’s survival, to guard Israel’s interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What’s best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is “unanswerable” only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the “anti-semitic movements” which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally “liberal” jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally “conservative” jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No “dual loyalty” here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don’t face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any “anti-semitic movement”? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.