Tag Archives: media

Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do


Some observations on the assassination of Charlie Hebdo “satirists” in France last week – specifically how jews have pushed their “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate” meme.

There is a distinct contrast between the jewsmedia response to the Hebdo attack, Anders Breivik’s attack in Norway in 2011, and their initial reaction to Mohammed Merah’s shootings in Toulouse in 2012.

Hebdo was anti-nationalist. In 1996 Cavanna, Val and Charb (three pillars of Charlie Hebdo) organized a public petition to ban Front Nationale and personally delivered the signatures they collected to the French government.

This animus is in step with The Demonization of Marine Le Pen by the broader jewsmedia.

Hebdo was also anti-islam/anti-muslim. This is what the mainstream jewsmedia found most controversial about it. It does not fit the liberal, leftist or cultural marxist mindset. It is neo-con. Like The Jew Republic under Peretz, but in crude cartoon form.

The controversy reflects a division among jews on whether the islamization of dar al goyim is good for the jews. Outside Israel the clearest ideological distinction between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” jews is where they stand on this issue.

“Liberal” jews see muslims as “new jews”, as allies. They think it best for the jews to extend some degree of special “hate speech” protection to muslims. “Conservative” jews see muslims as “islamofascists” (“new nazis”), as enemies. They think it best for the jews if muslims can be freely mocked and ridiculed – satirized – as Hebdo did.

Heebdo illustrates and defines the term, and also links and comments on some prominent examples.

Shyster Sheldon Nahmod is a professor who describes himself as a “well-known expert on constitutional law, civil rights and the law of Section 1983″ (which was “enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871″ and “was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states”).

Nahmod offers the following heebdo:

One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech, including but not limited to the anti-Semitic kind. Hate speech and anti-Semitism are major concerns in Europe and the Middle East and remain a nagging concern in the US as well. Hate speech can be defined as speech directed at a historically oppressed religious or racial minority with the intent to insult and demean. Hate speech undermines social attitudes and beliefs, it isolates its targets and it tends to silence them because they are often stunned and unable to respond. Hate speech also traumatizes (think of the effect it had on survivors and other Jews when the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie). We all know some of the hateful slurs that are too often directed against Jews, blacks, Latinos and Italians in this country.

This captures the essence of what you find when you search for “free speech” “hate speech” – lots of jews explaining how “free speech” is not “hate speech”, with jews literally defining “hate”. The decisive factor is identity and intent, who/whom, not words. The key phrase is “historically oppressed religious or racial minority”, the generalized-jew template, how jews describe themselves without using the word jew. It’s part and parcel of the broader jewish narrative.

As I indicated in Christmas 2014, jew worship is openly promoted at the highest levels of government. Charlie Hebdo has been criticized for blasphemy against the dieties of muslims and Christians, but for jews the mere caricature of a generic jew is regarded as blasphemous.

One of the examples the New York Times attached to Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation was a Hebdo cover depicting the Le Pen father and daughter in a concentration camp tower, laughing, with the “new reactionary” jew Eric Zemmour sitting between them looking sour. It is included in the article only as an example of something regarded as offensive and provocative to jews, because it toys with the most holy iconography of jew-worship.

If you like my podcasts, see TFeed.

The Jew Republic Disconnect Isn’t


Whatever happened at The New Republic we know that there wouldn’t be a story without the jews. Yet so far mainstream jewsmedia accounts haven’t even hinted that there’s a jewish angle.

Over the past week a collection of strictly jew-less and thus at best half-true accounts have been offered by Scott McConnell at The American Conservative; Jacob Heilbrunn at Politico; Dana Milbank, Ben Terris and Cinque Henderson at Washington Post; and Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic. The most elaborate attempt to explain the story, minus the jews, has been Ryan Lizza’s long article at The New Yorker, Inside the Collapse of The New Republic.

Every one of the aforementioned authors knows that TNR was “a jewish magazine”, as former editor Peter Beinart described it in Haaretz. None of them made any explicit mention of this, even though it meant leaving a gaping hole in their story. No account of the latest shakeup discussed, for example, how the “anti-semitism” card got played over similar, but less substantial staffing changes in January of 2013.

While searching for some exception to this bolshevist omission I ran across an even more detailed Beinart-like article aimed at explaining the story to jews. Anthony Weiss’ article The New Republic Exodus Raises Doubts About Magazine’s Jewish Future was cross-published by several explicitly jewish media outlets. Weiss described how “the jewish identity of the New Republic” made it “a primary address for American Jewish thought” and “one of the elite American media outlets with a strong focus on Zionism and Jewish intellectual life”. He noted:

Evidence of The New Republic’s Jewish DNA could be seen in the lists that have circulated on the Internet of the approximately 60 percent of the masthead who quit. Easily half are Jewish — including Foer and Wieseltier, whose resignations on Thursday under pressure from management triggered the general exodus — and many have written about their own Jewish lives.

A number of prominent Jewish staffers at the New Republic have gone on to greater prominence at other publications.

Weiss also supplied an explanation why the jewish magazine was not being described as such in the mainstream American jewsmedia:

The magazine also came to serve as a sort of successor to the mid-century journals, like The Partisan Review and Commentary, that had served as homes to Jewish public intellectuals. Wieseltier famously joked that The New Republic saw itself as “a sort of Jewish Commentary” — the joke being that Commentary, which was founded by the American Jewish Committee and continues to publish, is explicitly Jewish.

The New Republic was never explicitly or exclusively Jewish, either in its staffing or its focus, and it was defined as much, if not more, by its self-declared (albeit idiosyncratic) liberalism. Still, it retained what Berman described as a “Jewish sensibility,” and became a center for young Jewish writers and journalists.

Get it? Jews who disguise their jewish identity and interests, as at TNR, are being more jewish than those who more openly advertise their jewishness, as at Commentary. The joke is on the clueless goy readers, and on Hughes, the sucker who poured millions into the magazine and thought he actually owned it.

The upshot is that what appears to be a disconnect isn’t really. The pretense, in the American jewsmedia at least, that the jewish magazine isn’t a jewish magazine is only a continuation of the same old dissimulation that has always been going on at TNR. Such crypsis is in fact an age-old modus operandus of the jews.

Last but not least, Weiss also provided a more plausible reason for all the stomping and screeching than any of the jew-less explanations have:

Although Hughes rehired Foer and retained Wieseltier, observers noted a shift in its focus on Jewish issues. “Chris Hughes really has a different sensibility than [former owner/editor] Marty Peretz,” said [Judith] Shulevitz, who just stepped down from The New Republic. “He didn’t have the lightning-like focus on Israel and foreign policy that Marty did.”

The Jew Republic Cabal Swarms Forth


Dylan Byers, an ambiguous jew who tends to focus on jewcentric controversies, has been following the latest show-uh at The New Republic like a vulture. The following excerpts from Byers convey the highlights.

Shakeup at The New Republic: Foer, Wieseltier out; mag moves to N.Y., 4 Dec 2014:

Franklin Foer and Leon Wieseltier, the top two editors at The New Republic, quit on Thursday amid a shakeup that will relocate the Washington-based magazine to New York City

[Chris] Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, bought The New Republic in 2012 at the age of 28 with ambitions of restoring its esteemed place in Washington media. Instead, TNR failed to hire marquee names, struggled to attract advertisers and failed to gain a prominent place in the conversation.

In more recent months, Hughes has been working on plans to turn the once-venerable liberal magazine into a “digital media company,” an ambiguous proposal that left many staffers there uncertain about the future of the publication.

Inside The New Republic shakeup, 4 Dec 2014:

Through its history, The New Republic has been a vehicle for progressive thinking, while priding itself on a willingness to challenge liberal orthodoxy, from the left or right. In its early decades, it provided intellectual fuel for the emergence of the United States as an international force. And in recent decades, particularly after the 9/11 attacks, it continued to urge a robust foreign policy, even endorsing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After shake-up, New Republic staffers resign en masse, 5 Dec 2014:

Those who resigned are senior editors Jonathan Cohn, Isaac Chotiner, Julia Ioffe, John Judis, Adam Kirsch, Alec MacGillis, Noam Scheiber, Judith Shulevitz and Jason Zengerle; executive editors Rachel Morris and Greg Veis; digital media editor Hillary Kelly (who resigned from her honeymoon in Africa); legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen; and poetry editor Henri Cole and dance editor Jennifer Homans. Contributing editors Anne Applebaum, Paul Berman, Christopher Benfey, Jonathan Chait, William Deresiewicz, Justin Driver, TA Frank, Ruth Franklin, Jack Goldsmith, Anthony Grafton, David Grann, David Greenberg, Robert Kagan, Enrique Krauze, Damon Linker, Ryan Lizza, John McWhorter, Sacha Z. Scoblic, Cass Sunstein, Alan Taylor, Helen Vendler and Sean Wilentz.

TNR veterans protest Hughes’ ‘destruction’, 5 Dec 2014:

“From its founding in 1914, The New Republic has been the flagship and forum of American liberalism. Its reporting and commentary on politics, society, and arts and letters have nurtured a broad liberal spirit in our national life,” the statement continues.

The signers of the statement are: Peter Beinart (Editor), Sidney Blumenthal (Senior editor), Jonathan Chait (Senior editor), David Grann (Senior editor), David Greenberg (Acting editor), Hendrik Hertzberg (Editor), Ann Hulbert (Senior editor), Robert Kuttner (Economics editor), Robert B. Reich (Contributing editor), Jeffrey Rosen (Legal editor), Peter Scoblic (Executive editor), Evan Smith (Deputy editor), Joan Stapleton Tooley (Publisher), Paul Starr (Contributing editor) , Ronald Steel (Contributing editor), Andrew Sullivan (Editor), Margaret Talbot (Executive editor),Dorothy Wickenden (Executive editor), Sean Wilentz (Contributing editor), and Katherine Marsh (Managing Editor).

These lists of names are even jewier than the lists which came out during the Journolist scandal. I use the term jewsmedia for good reason. The mainstream corporate media is chock full of jews. Even the key figures who aren’t jews defer to the jews once they reach a consensus and start screeching about something in unison, as they have in this case.

The shakeup at TNR is creating such “anger” “shock” and “outrage” and getting as much notice as it is only because so many jews are involved. And that is not all. Jewsmedia jews are perpetually shocked, angered, and outraged about something or other, but their angst in this case is particularly poignant. That’s because Chris Hughes, the queer Facebook billionaire who owns TNR and made the decisions triggering all this very jewy whining and rending of garments, is a very goyish-looking goy.

“Anti-semitism” is the usual excuse jews make for throwing tantrums like this. In this case they already tried that and it already flopped. About two years ago there was a similar show-uh over changes Hughes was making at TNR. Back then “anti-semitism” was front and center, but “liberal” jews like Jonathan Chait and Jacob Heilbrunn mocked the “conservative” jews at The Washington Free Beacon for overreacting. This time around it’s “liberal” jews like Chait stomping their feet, and the “conservative” jews at the Beacon are mum.

In fact, that brings up another notable aspect of this latest swarm of angry jews. Like any swarm of angry jews really, it crosses and confounds the usual partisan “liberal” and “conservative” lines. For instance, from the descriptions above you might believe that TNR is a decidedly “liberal” institution. But here’s how “liberal” jew Philip Weiss describes it:

The New Republic has for forty years been a bastion of the Israel lobby.

This is a landmark in the era of the Jewish establishment. It’s petering out in an elite generation of far greater diversity. The New Republic had been supported by one neocon after another, from Michael Steinhardt to Bruce Kovner to Roger Hertog. For years the magazine helped impose its litmus test within the mainstream media: You must be a Zionist to write about the conflict; and if you’re not, then keep your mouth shut.

In other words, minus the jews there is literally nothing else to see here. The jewsmedia has for decades cheered on this frenetic globalist-capitalist economy in which corporations are bought and sold, shutting down and moving operations as a matter of course. When it’s goyim getting pink slips or being replaced it’s a non-story – the jewsmedia is apathetic or even antipathetic. But in perfectly typical fashion, when it finally comes around to them the jews exaggerate their suffering. The fact is that most of them left TNR on their own, probably because they prefer the jewy environs of Washington to the jewy environs of Jew York City, and probably, for the jews at least, because they know they’ll have an easy time finding work elsewhere in the jewsmedia.

Flames of War, A Very Jewy Production


Islamic State Issues Video Challenge to Obama, Jew York Times, 17 September 2014:

In one of the Islamic State’s first responses to President Obama’s declaration that he would “degrade and ultimately destroy” it, the group released a short video late Tuesday in which it appeared to say that its militants would kill American ground forces should President Obama deploy them.

The clip is only 52 seconds long and is billed as a preview for a longer video. With slow-motion replay, quick edits and high-quality video images, it looks like a Hollywood trailer.

In the background, Mr. Obama is heard saying, “American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq.” The screen goes dark, followed by a clip of what appears to be a militant for the group who is preparing to kill men on their knees.

The words “Flames of War” appear, with the phrase “Fighting has just begun” below. It ends: “Coming Soon.”

YouTube has already removed the video, perhaps for violating some Hollywood copyright.


Takes a Kicking and Keeps on Licking

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.


What’s Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tila Tequila

“Crazy asian slut? Wonderful! Fantastic! Brilliant! Edgy! Shocking! Put her on television! Make her a porn star! BWAHAHAHAHA, take that Puritans!”

“Oh wait, she’s a Hitler fan? How insulting! I’m offended! This is intolerable! She needs to be locked up in a mental hospital!”

Tila Nguyen‘s latest turn in look-at-me antics immediately captured the attention of the jewiest portions of the jewsmedia. Their usual irreverent snark muted, what came out instead was scandal and bemusement, anger and betrayal. “How dare this otherwise upstanding member of two (three? four?) oppressed classes be so careless and uppity?”

Tablet Magazine: Tila Tequila, Convert to Judaism, Poses as Sexy Hitler Atop Auschwitz

Animal: Tila Tequila’s Descent Into Nazism, Parallel Universes, and Reptilian Illuminati Warriors

Jezebel: Tila Tequila Is a Nazi Sympathizer Who Calls Herself ‘Hitila’

Hollywood Life: Tila Tequila In Nazi Uniform — Former Reality Star Rants About Nazism

Esquire: Wait, Hold On: Tila Tequila is a Neo-Nazi Now?

Of course, the jewsmedia being the jewsmedia, the shenanigans of even Z-list celebrities is BIG NEWS when it confounds the jews. Thus Tila Tequila’s transgressions against jewish sensibilities have not remained confined to celebrity-gawking cesspits, but has instead been elevated into a bona-fide mediacaust.

Business Insider: Tila Tequila Is A Nazi

International Business Times: Tila Tequila Ignites Twitter After Nazi Sympathizer’s Blog Defends Adolf Hilter

NY Daily News: Tila Tequila wears Nazi uniform, calls Hitler a ‘sweet kid’ in shocking Facebook rant

According to the News, Tila felt mocked and rejected when she tried to convert to judaism. This only adds to the case that this woman – from her fame to her infamy – is a product of judaization. It’s hard to fault the goyim for not understanding that the jews are jews and the goyim are goyim – after all, you don’t get anything but double-talk about it from the jewsmedia. Though the jews themselves are well aware of such distinctions (and indeed Tequila is an example of the tribe’s aphorism that a “philo-semite” is just an “anti-semite” who doesn’t know it yet), they’re also keen to stick to their age-old canard that jewishness is all about religious beliefs and that jews are always blameless victims. Thus Tila Tequila must be anybody’s fault but theirs.

Where will this go? Nowhere. And then quickly down the memory hole.

Going forward, as jews increasingly shift their attention toward new hosts, the “minority” coalition, being jew-led, is sure to be increasingly rocked by jew-centric controversies of this sort. During the awkward transition phase, professional jews like Brian Levin, whose job description is literally director of “hate” and “extremism”, is thinking it best to see it as a joke, a gift to sinecured jews like himself. Will the other “minorities” go for that? Does it matter?


White Privilege and Jewish Power

For more than a year the jewsmedia has been trying to turn the shooting of a black nobody by a mestizo nobody into an indictment of White “racism” and “privilege”. Meanwhile the top two candidates to replace Ben Shalom Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve are Larry Summers and Janet Yellen. All three are jews, but you won’t hear anything critical of that in the jewsmedia.

The jewish paper of record provides a typical example of how the jewsmedia goes about ignoring the jewish elephant in the room. The Battle for the Fed and In Tug of War Over New Fed Leader, Some Gender Undertones spin the struggle for power between two jew-dominated factions into a story about men versus women. Though “diversity” usually means less White, in this case it means less male.

Knowing how often jews are conflated and confused with Whites, I searched out commentary on Janet Yellen white privilege. Remarkably, I found only one article that put these four words together on the same page. Progressive Reading List at Winning Progressive calls Yellen “the best candidate to chair the Federal Reserve”, and in a separate item links The Privilege of Whiteness, describing it as:

an essay on the privilege that we place on whiteness in our society by treating white people as individuals while people of other races are racially profiled far too often.

The anti-White essay is by Paul Waldman. Another jew. These days just about anything serves as a pretext for anyone in the jewsmedia to decry White “racism” and “privilege” – it has become the new normal. The same critics don’t have anything to say about White “privilege”, much less jewish dominance, at a prominent and preeminent seat of financial and political power.

Empirically, jews are regarded as distinct from Whites. Jews like David Sirota, Tim Wise and Paul Waldman may pretend they are “white” because it helps enable their White bashing, and too many Whites are willing to go along with the charade. But the fact is that in the jew-dominated mainstream media and academia it is Whites who are most consistently criticized as a group. To the extent Whiteness is a “default setting”, as jews like Waldman argue, it is as the target for blame. Beside Sirota, Wise and Waldman, the most vile and blatant examples of anti-White invective come from jews like Susan Sontag (“the White race is the cancer of history”) and Noel Ignatiev (“the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race”). Why? Because jews as a group regard themselves not only as distinct from the White race, but at odds with it. Those who speak most stridently against Whites are not “self-hating” Whites, or even White-hating Whites – they are jews doing what they think is best for jews.

Constant complaints about White “racism” and “privilege” serve to distract attention away from jewish power. There are no complaints about White “privilege” at the Fed because it would call attention to jewish power. Those who hold power in the anti-White regime are either jews, in bed (literally or figuratively) with the jews, and/or are afraid of what will happen to them if they oppose the jews. They may complain about Whites. They may even pretend jews are “white”. But they will not abide complaints about jews. This is an indication not only of the power jews have, but the duplicitous and toxic nature of that power.


Segan and O’Hehir’s Big Damning White Problems

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

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

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

This is a big problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My emphasis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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