Tag Archives: jewish influence

Little Known Sarah Palin Facts

Genocidal anti-racists hate Sarah Palin and her daughter for reproducing while White.

But even that old race-traitor Juan McCain appears to grok, deep down, that a White baby, illegitimate or not, fathered by a self-proclaimed redneck or not, is better than no White baby at all. If I could shake Levi’s hand I’d say so explicitly, “congratulations son, now marry the girl and make four more”.

Steve Sailer writes:

The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them.

Which is true, but doesn’t capture the whole picture. A commenter named Mark puts his finger on the problem:

The thought of the Red Whites outbreeding the Blue Whites would give immense satisfaction, if I didn’t simultaneously know that the Blue Whites in concert with many Yellow Reds are importing Blue Bronzes and Blue Yellows and Blue Blacks to outbreed even the Red Whites.

This is precisely what’s happening.

Some bigots are not happy about who Sarah associates with:

Jewish Democrats have started to hit Sarah Palin hard for her association with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan

Obama camp connects the dots for Jews: McCain…Palin…Buchanan…”Nazis”:

Barack Obama’s campaign, perhaps miffed at all the Democrat-is-weak-on-Israel theme, started striking back at John McCain almost as soon as he tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Where the Dems are trying to paint McCain as more financially out of touch with people, they’re strongly suggesting that his Christian conservative running mate is no friend to the Jews.

“Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,” Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email.

This is the likely reason Lawrence Auster thinks Palin should withdraw. It certainly makes more sense than the rationale he’s currently peddling, which absurdly focuses on Palin’s daughter’s child. Clearly a politician’s support for israel is paramount to Auster. As the ineffective and pathetic nature of his distaste for White reproductive habits plays out look for Auster to fall back on the same six-degrees-of-naziation smears other members of his extended family are already slinging.

Here’s my paramount concern. What is Palin’s position on immigration? Whether she was choosen to create all this hullabaloo about experience, pregnancy, and glass ceilings intentionally or not the result is that precious little attention is given to the fundamental, existential problem facing indigenous Whites: the invasion of hostile, ethnocentric, and fecund non-whites who want what we have. The media and our treasonous politicians are all very eager not to discuss that.

UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA

On 11 July 2008 the Yorkshire Post published Holocaust denier convicted of trying to incite race hate online:

A jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday found Simon Sheppard, 51, guilty of nine counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material on his website between March 2005 and April 2006. The court heard Sheppard’s website attracts 4,000 visitors a day.

Four of the articles were penned by Stephen Whittle, 41, who was yesterday convicted of four counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material.

The others included a cartoon by the American cartoonist Robert Crumb and an article written during the 1960s by the leader of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell.

Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford told the jury that Sheppard and Whittle were a pair of racists who held what they may regard as fairly extreme views about people who were Jewish, black, Asian, Chinese, Indian and, in reality, anyone who wasn’t white.

“People in this country are entitled to be racist and they are entitled to hold unpleasant points of view, but what they aren’t entitled to do is publish or distribute written material which is insulting, threatening or abusive and is intended to stir up racial hatred or is likely to do so.”

On 15 July the Yorkshire Post published Hunt for race hate writer on run:

Police have launched a manhunt after a writer who penned race hate articles for a controversial website failed to turn up at court.

Stephen Whittle penned five offensive articles which appeared on the Internet, a jury was told.

Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford told the jury that Whittle used the pseudonym Luke O’Farrell for the articles, which were posted on the web between March 2005 and January 2006.

The articles were either threatening, insulting or abusive and may have been intended to stir up racial hatred, Mr Sandiford added.

I first read of these developments at Majority Rights.

A google news search currently returns 8 hits, only one of which reports on what has transpired since the conviction of Sheppard and Whittle.

An google web search returns a fairly informative page titled Why don’t US media report that Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle from Britain ask for asylum in the US? It contains the following:

Piercing the Press Blackout on the Heretical Two

After establishing the media black-out on the Sheppard and Whittle story by contacting the Immigration authorities in Los Angeles who told her their phone lines were red hot with call after call from the UK media about the Heretical Two, the BPP Women’s Division organiser has written to every major daily newspaper to ask why they are following the story but NOT reporting it.
Below is a copy of the email sent:

Sir/Madam:

I have been following with great interest the recent story concerning Mr. Simon Sheppard and Mr. Steve Whittle who were the first people in the World to be tried and subsequently charged with Inciting Racial Hatred for anti-Semitic articles they published on a website hosted in the USA. When found guilty they fled to Ireland and then flew to Los Angeles to claim political asylum after they had received confirmation from the US Government that the articles were not illegal there. They fled persecution and to my knowledge they are the first White indigenous people from the UK to have ever done this. The Court case was a total sham but most crucially, as I said, was the first of its kind in the World (previously sites hosted in the US were deemed out of the jurisdiction of the UK laws) and now they are also the first from the UK as White indigenous people to claim they are fleeing Political persecution in the UK (rightly so). I spoke with the Department of Homeland Security in America who state quite clearly that the British media have ‘gone crazy’ about this story with them receiving hundreds of telephone calls a day yet the only publications to have even mentioned this story are local Yorkshire ones, this indicates to me that the bigger publications KNOW of the story and are actively following it but are not publishing it, this does not make any sense to me at all? I would surmise that the people of the UK need to know about the dictatorial regime we live under where the most fundamental of human rights is not afforded to us – the right to freedom of speech. I would be most grateful if you could look into this and get back to me.

Kind regards.

Miss K Dermody

Simon and Steve are currently being held in Santa Ana Jail, California and their addresses are produced below. Please give these comrades your support by sending them messages of goodwill which they will appreciate.

Whittle, Stephen
0800006408
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U.S.A.

Sheppard, Simon
0800006404
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U.S.A.

A video titled Fugitives from British Injustice! contains more information and pictures of Sheppard and Whittle (extracted and reproduced above).

– – –

For the moment Sheppard’s site Heretical Press is accessible and its contents, including the articles written by Steve Whittle under the pseudonym Luke O’Farrell, remain intact.

In a 1998 article titled Social Psychology, Religious Belief, Censorship and the Holocaust Sheppard quotes Sir Stanley Unwin:

The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants to hear both sides of every question.

The Crumb cartoon, When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, was easy enough to find. It originally appeared in Weirdo #28, 1993.

There are four George Lincoln Rockwell items:

Rockwell: Boat Ticket 1
Rockwell: Boat Ticket 2
Rockwell: Lincoln Rockwell
Rockwell: The Swastika

It was perhaps the third link containing excerpts from This Time The World that the court considered offensive:

I examined the tactics of the Jews in dealing with all previous approaches to the problem, and found they had a sliding scale of increasingly vicious attacks on those who tried to expose and oppose them publicly.

The first and instinctive weapon of the Jew is economic. If you are an ‘anti-Semite’, then you and your family must starve, if it is in the power of Jewry to accomplish this — which it almost always is, since they supply, control or patronize all businesses. The whole weight of Jewish business is brought to bear on anyone who dares to oppose these lovers of free speech. Usually this is enough to terrify and reduce any man, especially one with a family, to humiliating and disgusting submission to Jewry.

But if that doesn’t work, they go after his reputation and social life. He is smeared and blasted and lied about in the Jew-controlled media of entertainment and information. He is called a ‘bigot’, a ‘hate-monger’, a ‘failure’ and finally, when all else fails, he is damned as a ‘Nazi’.

If there is still life in the would-be exposer of Jewish treason, they then reverse the field, for fear of giving him publicity, and give him instead the ‘silent treatment’. His meetings, speeches, distributions and resolutions are simply ignored, no matter what he does. This is a particularly frustrating experience and usually discourages even the toughest battlers, with the mere passage of time.

If the rising ‘anti-Semite’ survives all this, they next try their jail bit. The police are pressured until they crack and are willing to harass and persecute the ‘offender’ for all sorts of ‘violations’. And if the Jew-fighter persists regardless of the fines and other penalties incurred for not having a properly licensed dog, for distributing literature in a disorderly manner, etc., they prepare a ‘frame’ for him, as they did to Emory Burke in Atlanta. The patriot is found with dope in his possession, or it is ‘discovered’ that he has been giving ‘kick-backs’ to his employees, or his tax returns are not in order, etc.

Failing this tactic, the Jews hit their man with their newest masterpiece: ‘mental health’. The patriot must be ‘sick’, so he is locked up ‘for his own good’ in the bughouse.

If this also should fail to stop such a ‘mad anti-Semite’, then the Jews resort to the eternal weapon of all tyrants: naked violence. The would-be opponent of Jewish treason and tyranny is beaten up by hoods, his place is attacked by fire and missiles, and he discovers that his life is in danger, unless he stops doing whatever it is that offends the Jews.

During all their direct attacks against the staunch patriot, the Jewish ‘lovers of sweet reason’ employ two equally dirty indirect plays: They build up sincere, but harmless anti-communist outfits, like the John Birch Society, by showering them with publicity to draw off the growing hordes of maddened Americans from any real and therefore dangerous activity and, secondly, they open up a heavy media bombardment of lies about Hitler and National Socialism, in order to destroy by discrediting ‘Nazis’ like ourselves, without giving us any publicity.

There is no question that a man who has survived all these attacks will be killed, if possible, by the Jews or their agents. The Jews have no choice. They are too guilty to permit anybody to expose them and organize any effective resistance against them. Traitors cannot survive such an exposure. With such as the Jews, it is kill or be killed.

Rockwell was shot and killed on 25 August 1967.

I have found no reference to precisely which O’Farrell articles the court deemed offensive. Every one is witty and unapologetically pro-White. They are all well worth reading. I recommend you begin at the bottom and work upward through them all. That way you can try to judge for yourself which thoughts the court considers too dangerous for adults to read.

I’ve taken the liberty of noting here a handful I find particularly relevant.

Dr. Strangeloathing – or – How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (27 FEBRUARY 2005)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

Whodunnit? Jewdunnit! – Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid (18th JULY 2005)

At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.

Freedom of Screech – Non-white Cuckoos in the White Nest (7 OCTOBER 2005)

Evidence that we’re less racist than non-whites is actually evidence that we’re just concealing our racism. We’re guilty till proved guilty, and we have to wake up and understand the truth about anti-racism and the ever-growing “diversity” industry. Not only is equality between different races impossible to achieve, anti-racists and diversocrats do not want to achieve it. They want non-whites to take everything Whites have got, and the only freedom they’re interested in is the freedom for non-whites to screech louder and louder about racism as more and more White power and money are handed over to them.

Programmed for Pogrom – You Can’t Say That – It’s True! (9th December 2007)

Most voters in the UK would have no idea what “LFI” and “CFI” are and do, but you can be sure that every member of parliament is well aware. You do not get to the top in British politics without groveling hard and long before Jews, Britain’s richest and most selfish ethnic group. Jews like Levy, Abrahams and “Sir” Ronald Cohen, Gordon Brown’s chief financial backer, aren’t funding the Labour and Conservative parties out of the goodness of their goy-loving hearts: it’s a yid pro quo. Jews supply the cash, goys obey the orders. The same rule applies in the US with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the same hysteria greets any attempt to put Jewish power under scrutiny. Recall that Melanie Phillips wailed about “Walt and Mearsheimer”, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), being “given a respectful hearing” and having “their calumnies broadcast on the BBC”.

But who is really broadcasting calumnies and peddling caricatures here? Phillips, Pollard and the rest of the hysterical Jewish chorus obviously believe that the goyim are programmed for pogrom and that this “progromming” is always ready to run. If any caring, sharing anti-racist gentiles are reading this, you should recognize that Jews regard you in the same way as they regard knuckle-dragging neo-Nazis like me and Simon Sheppard. All goys are dangerous and all goys have to be kept under control:

O’Farrell then quotes a Lawrence Auster article titled Why Jews Welcome Muslims that I’ve quoted several times myself:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances – in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world – it is both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason…. What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed.

Joyim for Goyim – Miliband, Mild Mel and the Joys of Judeocracy (17th February 2008)

Oh dear, so it wasn’t the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] who wanted to turn us into a police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free speech, that’s who. If Jews have power and influence, they start working to take away free speech. It’s no use arguing that some Jews support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there any popular support for Britain’s race laws, introduced in the 1960s and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn’t, but what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn’t gotten them.

Nothing to see here. Move along now.

UPDATE 1 August 2008: More information via Vanguard News Network Forum: Asylum racist facing LA prison ‘Porridge’
Published Date: 19 July 2008
By Jenny SImpson

A racist Preston writer who fled to the apparent safe haven of Los Angeles could be set for a hairy few months – after being banged up in prison.

[American immigration expert] Mr [Alex] Rojas reckons Whittle’s bid for asylum is unlikely to succeed and he could face up to a year in jail in Britain if convicted of absconding.

Mr Rojas said: “It is very difficult to get political asylum from the UK. You have to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

That’s “White privilege”: members of the White race persecuted for their political opinion are unlikely to get political asylum.

Racist who fled hate trial caught in America
From The Jewish Chronicle
Leon Symons
July 18, 2008

The court heard that Sheppard was investigated by police following complaints and when his flat was searched in March 2005 police seized a number of computers and found documents entitled “Dumb Niggers, Gloating Jews” [7th March 2005, actual title: Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys: Sometimes People Say More Than They Mean To], “Make Niggers History” [10th July 2005, actual title: Make Niggers History: It’s Fingerclickin’ Good!], “Diversity = Death” [7th September 2005, actual title: Diversity = Death: Why Multi-Racial Societies are Doomed to Fail] and “Rockwell, the Swastika”.

Sheppard has been found guilty of 11 of the 18 counts he faced. The jury failed to agree on seven further charges relating to the possession, publishing and distribution of two pamphlets called “Tales of the Holohoax” and “Don’t Be Sheeple”.

Links added. White adults may wish to click through and read what we are forbidden to write.

“Don’t Be Sheeple” took some extra effort to find. The search turned up an essay written by Sheppard in January 2008 titled BNP Religion: The Psychology of False Messiahs and Illusory Utopias. It explains the purging of “vermin” from the BNP (relevant to the discussion at GoV), the demographic dead end Whites in Britain face (and anywhere else where our borders are open to non-white invasion), and the relentless, unscrupulous, self-interested nature of the enemies doing these things.

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.

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.

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?