Tag Archives: media

bnp-rosette-pic-getty-959248601

The Surreality of Anti-BNP Propaganda

Just in advance of election day in Britain both the political and media wings of the anti-White regime have pulled out all the stops in their reality-inverting propaganda. Discarding their masks as sober statesmen and unbiased journalists, as well as their usual lip-service in support of democracy, they are shamelessly, hypocritically resorting to the most extreme and prejudicial language to gin up fear and loathing against those they accuse and condemn for doing the same.

They’re projecting their own guilty minds of course. The difference between the BNP and the anti-White bastards in control is that the BNP don’t currently control anything. It is the anti-White anti-BNP forces who have made all the failing policies and who control and censor all the established megaphones with iron fist.

The thrust of the anti-BNP propaganda campaign is that voters should fear what the BNP might be and might do, even though much of the scare-mongering is fabricated from whole cloth. Repeated often enough they hope their snide smears will make White voters forget what they can see with their own eyes: the imported anti-White hate and violence wreaking havoc all around them, and the traitorous leaders who brought it, rejoice in it, and have themselves attacked native Britons in order to defend it.

If any part of what I’m writing seems like an exaggeration, review for yourself the media’s own product.

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate, The Guardian, 2 June 2009:

We love Britain precisely because of its tolerance and diversity. The British National party and its allies are a threat to everything that makes us proud of this country we love. The BNP is working hard to conceal its extremism because it knows that people in Britain totally reject the politics of racism and hatred.

This statement, signed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, amounts to: “We love aliens more than we love native Britons, it is the aliens who make Britain great.” With native leaders like this, who needs alien enemies?

Voters urged not to support BNP in poll, Alex Forsyth, Portsmouth Today, 2 June 2009:

Fears have been raised that the far-right party could win seats on Hampshire and West Sussex county councils because voters have lost faith in mainstream parties.

Fears are being raised alright. By the media. Only in far-wacko minds is the simple act of voting your interests considered “far-right”.

Europe braces for extremist gains in elections, Paisley Dodds, The Associated Press, 2 June 2009:

In some of Manchester’s bleakest neighborhoods where unemployment is rife and anxiety about an immigration influx is palpable, one of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s worst fears is unfolding before Thursday’s European Union elections.

The British National Party, which doesn’t allow nonwhites as members and is against membership in the European Union, is gaining ground in former Labour Party strongholds that once threw their support behind Brown and his predecessor, Tony Blair.

More rhetoric of fear.

Most anti-BNP articles won’t even admit that reaction to the regime’s support for genocidal immigration is a well-spring of support for the BNP. This article does but inverts reality, painting opposition to genocide as “extremist”. The suggestion is that the BNP incites racial hatred, though the reality is that mass immigration bringing in other races is the more proximate cause.

Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband, James Kirkup, Telegraph, 3 June 2009:

Mr Miliband, whose Jewish father fled Belgium before the Nazi invasion, added: “This is the country that flew the flag of freedom against fascism in the 1940s.

“It will be a day of shame if we send fascists to the European Parliament.”

David Miliband has no ground on which to stand. He should be ashamed for trying to shame native Britons for voting their own interests in their own homeland. He should bugger off to Belgium, or better, to israel, if he doesn’t like that the British people today still wish to defend their homeland from being overrun by outsiders as their forefathers did. That was, after all what the Battle of Britain and the larger carnage of World War II was about, wasn’t it? Or was it all, then and now, really about doing what’s best for jews? Miliband’s idea of shame assumes the latter.

Why you should not vote for the BNP, Kevin Maguire, mirror.co.uk, 3 June 2009:

The extremist BNP are thick, as well as nasty, thugs.

Please don’t be conned into voting for this vile, racist, incompetent mob tomorrow.

This is a prime specimen of the kind of pure hypocrisy published by major media outlets. Though it is an opinion/editorial rather than “journalism”, it’s easy to see how the one colors the other. No major media outlet would publish a similarly worded piece about any other political party, never mind anything like the continuous stream of vile, nasty, thuggish “opinion” aimed at smearing the BNP.

BNP bigots are racist AND sexist, Fiona Phillips, mirror.co.uk, 2 June 2009:

As a Briton, enjoying our rich and diverse country. As a mother, wondering what future my children will grow up in.

And as a woman, because the BNP isn’t just a racist, homophobic, xenophobic party, it’s a sexist party too. Whatever they pretend, they just aren’t a normal party.

And don’t forget, they beat their spouses, molest children, lay about, and drink blood too! The media really knows no bounds when it comes to smearing anyone who stands up for White interests.

Even if any of the trash talk is true, the BNP’s saving grace is that they aren’t guilty of genocide. They don’t want Britain flooded with surly hostile aliens. They’re against that. So if it’s really all about your children then stopping the genocide should be your first priority. If you favor the aliens, well then be honest, for you it’s really all about their children, isn’t it?

Racist campaigning for BNP, Chris Osuh, Manchester Evening News, 2 June 2009:

A CONVICTED racist is boasting about his leading role in the British National Party’s campaign to win votes in this week’s European elections.

Roy West, from Dukinfield, pleaded guilty to racial harassment at Tameside Magistrates’ Court in February after telling his German next-door neighbour to ‘go back to Krautland and kill some more Jews.’

Astounding. The media normally (see Miliband’s comment above) see self-righteous speech that puts jews on a pedestal as virtuous, but here they’ve managed here to turn it into racist hate. It’s amazing to see the kind of contradictions created when all pretense at being consistent is discarded, except the rock solid consistent hatred for Whites standing up for their interests.

How BNP tries to hide its racist core, Harry Underwood, The First Post, 2 June 2009:

The BNP claims to have modernised, but its championing of British jobs for British people cannot hide its insistence that its members are white

Hide? The BNP is quite open about who they represent. You’ll find it in their Mission Statement:

The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.

We use the term indigenous to describe the people whose ancestors were the earliest settlers here after the last great Ice Age and which have been complemented by the historic migrations from mainland Europe.

It’s the first thing anyone who’s at all curious about the BNP find out. Logically a party so organized would restrict membership to the very people it purports to represent. It is not morally or ethically wrong, nor is it hidden.

Accusations otherwise are the projections of people who hide their hatred for Whites behind a false love of aliens.

Denial is opening the door to the extremists, Alice Miles, Times Online, 3 June 2009:

These were not skinhead thugs that I met on Monday. We should not stand, fingers in ears, pretending that such views do not exist on some of the ordinary housing estates of Britain.

Some anti-BNP articles are more subtle, being aimed at the regime’s thought-leaders rather than voters. This one admits the “hate” rhetoric isn’t working, arguing against pretense that it is, while pretending that the regime has simply not been listening. The reality is that the regime has been actively squelching and pathologizing any and all dissent to their genocidal policies on immigration and “diversity”.

The regime is far more likely to continue its denial, to the point of denying legitimacy to the BNP by outlawing opposition to immigration. To accept opposition to immigration would be a dangerous step toward admitting past wrong-doing. To do that, when the wrong-doing is genocide, would be suicidal, and the regime knows it. Those at the top are not in any way noble enough to stand down now.

BNP eyes ‘seismic’ breakthrough, BBC News, 2 June 2009:

The BNP was on course to win a seat in the North West, [Spokesman Simon Darby] said, and attract up to 12% of the vote in some regions.

Mr Darby said BNP candidates attracted unparalleled hostility from the media, campaigners, celebrities and other political parties – who accuse it of being racist and divisive – but said the election of a BNP MEP would “change the rules of the game”.

Native Britons on the fence should clearly see who their enemy is by comparing the hysterical anti-BNP smears and slander passed off by the media as news and opinon with the language used and positions taken by The British National Party itself.

Here are the anti-BNP headlines above gathered together to better illustrate the poison the media is trying to place in every readers’ mind:

Go to the polls to fight BNP hate
Voters urged not to support BNP in poll
Europe braces for extremist gains in elections
Shameful day if BNP wins seat, says David Miliband
Why you should not vote for the BNP
BNP bigots are racist AND sexist
Racist campaigning for BNP
How BNP tries to hide its racist core
Denial is opening the door to the extremists

nose-moustache-glasses

Cabal Theories

In JournoList: Inside the echo chamber, at Politico, Michael Calderone writes (my emphasis):

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?

Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.

“I’m very lazy about writing when I’m not getting paid,” Alterman said. “So if I take the trouble to write something in any detail on the list, I tend to cannibalize it. It doesn’t surprise me when I see things on the list on people’s blogs.”

Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.

But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.

POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList’s off-the-record rule “makes it seems secretive.” But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to “ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.”

One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.

A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, a nonmember, may be the only professional writer to have referred to it “in print” more than once — albeit dismissively, as the “Klein Klub.”

While members may talk freely about JList at, say, a Columbia Heights house party, there’s a “Fight Club”-style code of silence when it comes to discussing it for publication.

But a handful of JList members agreed to talk for this story — if only to push back against the perception that the group is some sort of secret, left-wing cabal.

Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.

“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin.

Toobin joined JList about a year ago, and he said that he had to get a new e-mail address just for JList in order to keep up with the sheer volume of commentary that appears there every day. The frequent disputes among members, he said, are “what’s most entertaining on the list.”

John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.

“There is probably general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP,” he said. “But beyond that, I would say there is wide disagreement on trade, Israel, how exactly we got into this recession/depression and how to get out of it, the brilliance of various punk bands that I have never heard of, and on whether, at any given moment, the Obama administration is doing the right thing.”

But aren’t there enough forums for arguing about domestic and foreign policy — or even for partaking in the more idiosyncratic JList debates about the merits of Bruce Springsteen and whether The New Republic is liberal enough? And do those debates really have to happen behind a veil of secrecy?

“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”

Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts.

Yglesias, who writes an eponymous blog hosted by the Center for American Progress, noted that “the combined membership has tentacles of knowledge that reach everywhere,” adding that “you can toss out a question about Japan or whatever and get some different points of view.”

Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.

“For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up-to-the-minute political minutia,” he said. “This list allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important.”

POLITICO’s Mike Allen, Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer are on the list. “The roster includes some of the savviest authorities on everything from behavioral economics to Ben’s Chili Bowl,” Allen said. “It’s a window into a world of passionate experts — an hourly graduate education.”

Said another JLister: “I don’t know any other place where working journalists, policy wonks and academics who write about current politics and political history routinely communicate with one another.”

But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?

That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.

Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.

Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.

“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”

Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”

“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.

But Time’s Joe Klein, who acknowledged being on JList and several other listservs, said in an e-mail that “they’re valuable in the way that candid conversations with colleagues and experts always are.” Defending the off-the-record rule, Klein said that “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.”

And then Klein — speaking like the JLister he is — said there wasn’t “anything more that I can or want to say about the subject.”

Nearly every name in this article is jewish, even the outsiders, Kaus and Goldfarb. A preponderance of the signers of the aforementioned open letter to ABC are jewish as well.

Are the JournoList “liberals” embarassed with the lack of diversity in their cabal? Are they concerned how their ethnic networking appears to “liberal” anti-racists?

Not likely. Diversity is a weapon of ethnic warfare intended for use solely against Whites. Likewise anti-racism. If these jewish journalists were White, “liberals” would viciously attack their cabal as a form of racist “white privilege“. Jews however are treated to a different standard.

Keep in mind now, the existence of this cabal in no way substantiates crazy conspiracy theories and old canards about jewish media influence. It is nothing special. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of cabals just like this one, all full of influential jews who disagree widely about what’s best for jews, how to defend israel, whether Bernie Madoff deserves life in prison or death, who to pin the financial meltdown on, which holocaust movie deserves the Oscar, etc.

dschlussel

Big Duplicity

I’d like to shine a light on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood.

Hollywood’s Second Class Jewish Chicks & “Two Lovers”

Hollywood’s Second Class Jewish Chicks & “Two Lovers”
by Debbie Schlussel

Why is it that on the silver screen, the Jewish chick is always the undesirable one, the safe choice, the ugly/annoying one? Even women who are Jewish (or half) in real life play the “desirable gentile goddess” while the Jewish woman character is the second fiddle. It might have something to do with the self-hatred of many male Jews in Hollywood for whom the Jewish woman is exactly that stereotype; besides, many of them need to justify marrying outside of the faith. Or maybe it’s just the self-hatred.

I ask this because in “Two Lovers,” which hit nationwide release this week, Joaquin Phoenix plays a Jewish guy whose parents want him to date (and marry) the beautiful Jewish daughter (Vinessa Shaw), of the couple who are buying their business. But, instead, he prefers the hot blonde gentile woman (played by the half-Jewish Gwyneth Paltrow) who doesn’t want him. The Jewish woman as the safe, not-as-sexy-or-hot choice is nothing new in Hollywood. We’ve seen it in sooo many TV shows and flicks, like the 1972 incarnation of “The Heartbreak Kid” in which Elliott Gould Charles Grodin dumps the homely Jewish stereotype-ette for the hot (at that time) Cybill Shepherd.

Read my review of “Two Lovers” and note that this stereotype can also work if you reverse the roles of each sex. For example, in the far superior and much warmer “Crossing Delancey” (1988), Amy Irving (who was not Jewish, but reportedly converted to marry Steven Spielberg) plays a Jewish woman who was in love with the male version of the Gwyneth Paltrow character, an author who didn’t really love her back. At the urging of her grandmother, she dates (and falls in love with) the more nebbishe/geeky Peter Riegert.

“Delancey” was 21 years ago and I thought we’d advanced. But apparently, the same Jewish liberals who are embarrassed about the first of those two adjectives are still running the show. They just don’t like themselves any more. Plus, they’re still trying to get away from their mothers, apparently.

There are plenty of beautiful Jewish women (some even blonde) in Hollywood, including my cousin, actress Amelia Kingston (real name: Shannon Schlussel). Sad that Hollywood still wants you to think they’re the ugly, annoying caricatures in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

More sad that the ones doing the caricaturing are neither Muslims nor Nazis, but my own fellow co-religionists.

Note: This post has been updated. Both Vinessa Shaw and Joaquin Phoenix were incorrectly identified as not being Jewish. We regret the error and thank the readers who pointed this out.

Schlussel is an ugly/annoying jewish chick who cares deeply for the welfare of jews, so deeply that she dares to blame Hollywood jews for the promulgation of destructive values and negative stereotypes. Sad that she still wants you to think muslims, Nazis, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have anything to do with what she’s complaining about. Her concern for purity and continuity is common amongst jews, as is the pretense that the basis for this concern is religious rather than genetic.

Of course when a White who cares deeply for the welfare of Whites dares to blame jews anywhere for anything we’re accused of being delerious with jew-hate. It’s almost as bad if we express even the slightest concern about marriage outside of “the faith”, or object to Hollywood jews casting annoying “half-faith” or outright alien chicks as our desirable goddess ideal.

The comments from Schlussel’s readers are mildly interesting. As usual we non-jews are to blame. America is suffused with a “nordic” female standard of beauty and we are simply not jewish enough to understand the romantic sub-genre in which jewish producers, directors, and actors change their surnames to better lust after hot button-nosed Aryan babes. What’s worse, in spite of unwritten rules to the contrary, “they” keep recycling the same handful of White Anglo-Saxons to play jews!

As eager as Schlussel is to discriminate jews from non-jews she makes mistakes and underestimates jewish influence. Perhaps only someone delerious with hate could say that it might be because:

Hollywood is chock full of Jewish celebrities, although some fly under the radar more than others. For every proud and outspoken Jewish star like Adam Sandler or Jon Stewart, there’s someone that you might not realize is Jewish, like Rachel Bilson or Harrison Ford.

Or Vinessa Shaw. Or Joaquin Phoenix. Schlussel should check with the Jewish United Fund before she complains about the black muslim actor that self-hating jews miscast as a jewish action hero in Tropic Thunder.

James Edwards takes issue with Rush Limbaugh’s early praise for Breitbart and Big Hollywood:

No, it’s how conservatives are going to spin their wheels and do absolutely nothing about the problem. Breitbart’s site isn’t “crucial” to changing the Hollywood culture. It’s the exact opposite. Worse than being irrelevant, it’s going to enable the people who run Hollywood and the news media to keep doing what they’ve been doing for decades – destroying our culture.

Note to Limbaugh: “Liberals” don’t run Hollywood. Jews run Hollywood, and Jews are to culture what Muslims are to tall buildings. Jews promote conservatism and traditional moral values the same way Muslims promote wearing bikinis. Of course, Limbaugh knows this. So does Breitbart, and everyone writing for his site. So does just about every right wing or conservative commentator and writer. They all know it, which is why they never, ever discuss it. Does anyone doubt for a minute that if were Muslims putting out all this filth Limbaugh and Breitbart and everyone else would pretend not to notice?

Well, to be fair, at least Schlussel notices that Hollywood jews are motivated by hate and are harming someone. However, the larger BH deception remains – there is no About page that explains their cause, but plainly they are concerned more about what’s good for jews than Hollywood or whoever else Hollywood might be harming. That would certainly seem to be the point of Confessions of a Recovering Anti-Semite (my emphasis):

But despite my aversion to them, and the harsh judgments I kept strictly to myself, I was jealous of Jews. I had been for a long time. Like Italians, Jews had all the attributes WASPs seemed to lack – namely passion, determination, and a fierce self-respect. They knew when to get mad, and they had no problem raising their voices – even yelling – when necessary.

They didn’t care what other people thought. Good behavior wasn’t the point. Anger and indignation were healthy emotions to express, to act on – the motivators for justice. And nobody recognizes injustice better than a Jew.

By comparison, the WASPs I knew were obliging doormats with no convictions about anything except pleasing the right people. Reformed people pleasers know what a dead end that is; ultimately, you please no one, least of all yourself. People who have been beaten understand this. That’s why they fight.

I spent most of my life in a people-pleasing coma. But since the attacks of 9/11, unWASPy waves of outrage wash over me more and more everyday. I have found my inner Jew. Meanwhile, the self-hatred that fueled my former mousy modesty seems to have caught on – and spread across an entire nation like some enervating cultural contagion.

Today, like it or not, we are all Jews. If you live in Israel, Great Britain or America, you are a Jew. If you are black, white, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, bi, questioning, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, married, single, divorced, male, female, rich, poor, young, old, if you love cats, dogs, monkeys, pigs, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse or opera – you are a Jew.

Because without our even realizing it, right beneath our very feet, the playing field has been leveled. At long last, we really are all equal. (Hear that, Human Rights Campaign?) We’re as equal as expendable, interchangeable, nothing-special, mass targets can be.

The horrors of Auschwitz, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen didn’t die with Hitler; they’ve gone global in a new kind of war that’s largely subliminal, psychological. And we’re nodding off fast when we should be popping No-Doz.

Islamic supremacists, who daily beat the drum for their imperialistic vision of a Jew-free, Great Satan-free world, have passion to spare. They are fired up, and united by the ferocious clarity of their convictions – just the way it once seemed to me the Jews were.

The BH distain for WASPs appears just as poisonous as Hollywood’s. Though it is more clumsily disguised by BH than “anti-liberal” jew Lawrence Auster, the common ulterior purpose is to recruit Whites to serve jewish interests.

I am not a jew. I see duplicity and disrespect directed toward myself and my people from a broad range of jews. Under no circumstances will I serve them.

freeland_zuckerman

Moral Hazard

View From the Top – Part 1, January 29 2009:

Mort Zuckerman, co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties, talks to Chrystia Freeland, US managing editor, and the economic crisis, the credit crunch and what government intervention should look like.

At about 3:20:

Zuckerman: …some how or another the federal govt is going to have to join in some way with guaranteeing bank loans. Not the full amount but let’s just say that commercial banks would make loans for 10 or 15 or 20…

Freeland: Guarantee new loans?

Z: New loans, not old loans. Because we must find a way to start credit flowing in the economy again or else we stand a chance of a real bust. So some how or another we have to get the government involved.

F: Wouldn’t that impose a risk of moral hazard? Isn’t that sort of Fanny Freddization all over again…

Z: Moral hazard, ideology, these are the things we can no longer think about – when you’re talking about saving the system. I wouldn’t care if we save the system by violating concerns about moral hazard or ideology.

F: If the govt has to intervene even more deeply in the financial system how much extra money do you think it’s going to end up spending on that?

Z: Well I saw where Larry Summers estimated that it would take somewhere between a trillion and a half dollars and three trillion dollars just in a sense to refloat the financial system. I think that’s a very good range. If anything I would come out near the top end of the range.

F: Of government money?

Z: Or government credit.

F: And do you think the American people, the American political system, is prepared to sign off on that amount of money?

Z: I think when they see what the alternatives are I think they’ll be prepared to do that.

At about 6:45:

Z: …because without that confidence nothing will work. No matter what this is a consumer led economy. 72% of our economy is based on consumption. If the consumer holds back and pulls back – which he or she can do – people can live very well with alot of what they already have other than food and drink and fuel.

F: No one needs to buy a new a car this year, no one needs to buy a new TV set.

Z: Right. A lot of people can live – it’s the TV programming that needs to be changed not the TV set. And I’ll tell ya, this is going to be an extraordinary year in American public life no matter who is in the Congress and who is in the White House.

View From the Top – Part 2, January 29 2009 begins:

F: You’re also a publisher. How is the print publishing business doing?

Z: Well the print publishing business is an oxymoron. It is no longer a business. It is an advertising driven business and the advertisers have driven elsewhere.

Zuckerman goes on to claim that almost every major newspaper is losing money, but that he didn’t get into the business to make money, he’s just addicted to journalism.

At about 8:05:

F: Has the Madoff affair had a particular impact on the American jewish community?

Z: Well I suppose on some level it is, the fact is that what he did was completely against jewish values, against not only the way jews contribute to a community in human terms but in financial terms – he robbed alot of charities of the funds which they are contributing to…

F: Specifically actually jewish charities that he was involved in.

Z: Yeah, alot of jewish charities, yes. My charity isn’t specifically a jewish charity – I mean I support cancer research, and scholarships, and things like that, but having said that, but you know as I said Ponzi, last time I checked, was an Italian and he was the person who gave the name to this kind of thing and it doesn’t mean that all Italians are involved in this. So the fact that he happens to be jewish, he’s also a sociopath, and that was the dominant feature of this man, who was willing to damage all sorts of people almost without remorse.

Freeland would seem to disagree. She’s concerned about the particular impact on jews, and specifically actually jewish charities.

It’s easy to imagine Madoff, at least up until December 2008, was thinking about his private pyramid scheme along the same lines Zuckerman is still thinking about the larger consumer-based economy: moral hazard, ideology, these are the things we can no longer think about – when you’re talking about saving the system.

Jewish charities. Keep people spending. Save the system. This is how jews really contribute to a community in financial terms.

Ponzi, last time I checked, was a piker compared to Madoff. From here on Madoff should be the person who gives the name to this kind of thing. As Zuckerman should readily agree, nobody will think that means all jews are involved.

485-1

Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:
Obama McCain Other
White (75%) 43% 55% 2%
African-American (13%) 96% 4% N/A
Latino (8%) 67% 31% 2%
Asian (2%) 63% 33% 4%
Other (3%) 66% 31% 3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat’s stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain’s 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

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

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

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

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

2850698189_2a7cea22a9

The Election is Over

I haven’t the time or energy for a cohesive post-election essay, but I do have a collection of links and some comments to share.

First, the title. The Obama shills are inordinately fond of this refrain. I think we can expect it to morph into many new and snottier forms even as the election itself recedes from memory. The Obamen seem to believe that they and their man are now beyond all criticism.

Back in September Obaman Jack Cafferty wrote:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it’s one that nobody’s talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

Cafferty then cites Michael Grunwald, speaking in code about the evils of speaking in code. Decoded, this is what Cafferty and Grunwald are saying: hordes of unthinking, racist Whites stand between them and Utopia.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia’s primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Ooooo scary. Except we can see clearly now in retrospect that this was all alot of guilt-tripping nonsense.

Nobody was talking about race? Lots of people were talking about race, even in the mainstream media. What was most notable was that most of them were trying to lay the same race-based guilt-trip on Whites as McCafferty and Grunwald. Harold Meyerson and Ron Rosenbaum are two particularly ham-handed examples I’ve cited previously. It’s easy to find others.

In the wake of the election we’re hearing a new variation: yes Whites are racist, but not enough to make a difference. John Judis writes that “many white Americans still harbor degrees of conscious or unconscious resentment against blacks” but “it didn’t matter enough to decide the election”. In Judis’ opinion Obama should have done better than Kerry did in 2004, but since he didn’t (in some places) Whites therefore deserve to be taken to task in yet another guilt-tripping editorial.

The fact is that race really did matter to many voters, in fact we can see now looking back that it mattered much more to non-white voters than it did to Whites. Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

Obama McCain Other
White (75%) 43% 55% 2%
African-American (13%) 96% 4% N/A
Latino (8%) 67% 31% 2%
Asian (2%) 63% 33% 4%
Other (3%) 66% 31% 3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat’s stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain’s 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

This narrative that you have to worry about Barack Obama just didn’t fly when they saw Barack Obama up close and they saw his relations with the Jewish community,” he said, pointing to the extensive Jewish outreach campaign in states like this key swing state, where Jews make up a statistically significant slice of the electorate.

He noted that it was the first time a campaign had Jewish vote coordinators in all of the key battleground states, with Florida particularly notable for the size of the outreach, surrogate events and third-party efforts.

“There are nagging doubts in the Jewish community about Barack Obama and where he stands on important issues,” he asserted.

Green, though, assessed that such concerns were outweighed by those on the Republican ticket, namely regarding the vice presidential nominee.

“There was contrary tendency,” he said. “There were Jews who expressed skepticism about Obama but even more about Sarah Palin.”

Note that what is called “nagging doubts” in jews is called “racism” in Whites.

What kind of guilt-tripping would Whites get if we voted in a bloc of 96%, 78%, 67%, or 63%? Our vote is objectively the least attributable to racial bias, and yet we get all the critcism for being biased. The most reasonable explanation for this is that our critics simply hate us.

As an aside, the JPost article also contains a handy “almost-complete list of the new Jewish congressional caucus: An all-time record of Jewish reps in Congress.” The senate is 13% jewish, the house about 7.3% (32/435).

Jews may have had their doubts about Obama, but that was washed away by their fear and loathing for Sarah Palin and the unconsciously White Christian voters who flocked to support her. I’m not aware of anyone in the mainstream press making an attempt to guilt-trip jews about this. Quite the opposite. Here’s Jacques Berlinerblau, associate professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of “Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics”. He thinks Palin just needs to try harder:

The Palin Effect: Two of the speakers observed that John McCain’s selection of a running mate may have turned away Jewish voters who were once supportive of him. On Wednesday, I pointed out that this apparent “Palin Effect” has occurred despite the fact that the Governor of Alaska has made no egregious errors in her dealings with the Jewish community and has, in many cases, said the right things and cultivated the right relationships.

In short, 2008 has demonstrated the strategic importance of having skilled advisers and operatives in the domain of faith-based politicking. Accordingly, nothing precludes Palin from someday reversing negative perceptions among Jewish voters. And while she’s at it she might find a receptive audience because . . .

Jews are going Republican?: Speaker Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council pointed out that rumors about Jews defecting from the Democrats to head over to the GOP have been around since the time of McGovern. He views this as a “man bites dog story,” of great interest to the media if only because it is so counter-intuitive. The truth of the matter is that Jews are solid, true-blue Democrats who have given the party more than 75% of their ballot in the last 4 elections.

That’s right. The truth, which negates Berlinerblau’s blame-Palin argument, is that most jews just won’t support someone Whites find appealing even if only unconsciously for racial reasons. It doesn’t matter if that hapless White pol promises to nuke iran and send Whites to die to protect israel. That’s not good enough now that jews have Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, and McCains who will do all that and more.

Berlinerblau concludes with a little disinformation:

Is the Jewish vote really that important?: Professor Yossi Shain of Georgetown’s Government department made the provocative argument that polling data on Jewish voters is highly problematic and misleading. Drawing a distinction between Jewish citizens of the United States and eligible Jewish voters, Professor Shain cited the number of 2.8 million in the latter category–a number that decreases their already minor electoral significance.

Shain’s observation corresponds with one that I have been making here: we should study and contemplate American Jewish voting behavior in all of its glory. But we should not overestimate its electoral import. At less than 2% of the American population (and only 3.6% of the population of Florida) Jewish-Americans do not stand to dramatically affect the outcome on November 4th.

Tsk tsk. They’re neglecting the effect of money and media on modern campaigns. Now why would they do that? They must know that Jewish campaign contributions and media influence have an impact far larger than a measly 2% of the votes. Every politician knows this, which is why they all have special outreach programs for jews, make promises to AIPAC, and make pilgrimages to israel.

JPost: “Sarah Palin may be hurting McCain among Jewish voters”:

“Palin is totally out of step with public opinion in the Jewish community” on domestic issues and has “zero foreign policy experience,” the organization wrote in a fund-raising letter sent out last week. It also started an on-line petition asking: “McCain: What were you thinking when you selected Palin?”

Earth to Berlinerblau. For some strange reason plenty of jews expect politicians to think of jews first and not the far more numerous Whites.

In the days before the election I gathered many links that revealed a race-based hatred directed towards Sarah Palin. Whether or not Whites supported or opposed her on principle it was obvious by contrast that the animosity of “the left”, and especially jews, came from a fear and loathing not so much for anything Palin herself had said or done, but for the White Christians instinctively drawn to her. Palin was treated like a blank sheet of paper on which non-whites (and self-loathing Whites) could finger paint whatever dim visions they pleased. Then they hated her for being whatever boogeyman they imagined her to represent.

Florida Congressman: Palin ‘Don’t Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks’:

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” said Hastings. “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.”

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Black Florida congressman apologizes for Palin comments:

“The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews,” he said in his statement.

The point I will make, and continue to make, it that the current regime, before and after this election, is anathema to Whites. I can quote example after example of pro-black, pro-jew, pro-latino, pro-anything-non-white government officials and media pundits bashing Whites and suffering no substantial consequences. Whites on the other hand mustn’t say they care for themselves or are fearful of or distrust other groups, in spite of self-interested members of those groups telling us repeatedly how much they fear and distrust us.

Comic’s Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful:

The reason Obama may yet still get 60% of the Jewish vote and at least one reason why Florida is so close now is because the Jews like Biden and are scared by Palin.

Jewish voters may be wary of Palin:

“There is almost always an inverse proportion between a candidate’s popularity among conservative Christians and secular Jews,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Republican lobbyist long active in Jewish politics who supports McCain.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Secular jews plus jews hostile to Jews for Jesus equals a pretty broad range of jews.

“I find her offensive”:

“I was leaning towards McCain,” growled Marvin Weinstein, 74, as he strode to an appointment in a doctor’s office. “But I think his choice of her has turned me off.”

“What I hear is she’s an awful anti-Semite,” George Friedberg said as he sat curbside in his Escalade. “She won’t be getting my vote.” Friedberg’s wife, Florence, appeared at the passenger-side door, shopping bags in hand. “I was leaning towards McCain, but after he selected her I’ve ruled him out completely. I find her offensive.”

Koch: Obama is my guy — Palin is scary:

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

Note that defending America comes after Koch’s concern for israel. Though to be fair he may see them as the same thing.

Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge:

Senator McCain’s selection of Governor Palin of Alaska as his running mate, which was hailed in some quarters and met with skepticism in others, is sparking intense reactions from some New Yorkers, who report being driven to fits of rage and even all-consuming panic.

“All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows,” an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. “People were flipping out. … Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president.”

“What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage,” an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull.”

Ms. Grose was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.

Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views. “The women thing is a ruse. … She was chosen because of the evangelical thing,” the writer said. “It’s weirdly stealthy that she’s not talking about it.”

It’s not weird at all that these White-haters so unselfconsciously project their dishonesty onto us and so freely express their homicidal rage. They only struggle to explain how exactly it’s all our fault that they hate us so.

In What Hollywood Jews think of white Americans James Edwards quotes Larry David:

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a f**king liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you c**ksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen. If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.”

OK. That was directed at McCain, not Palin. But Larry David obviously hates McCain, our little Juan McCain, because he imagines that McCain represents White interests. And he thinks of us as disgusting, reprehensible turds. Keep this in mind now – the regime not only lets this guy make nationally broadcast primetime TV shows, they pay him to do so.

Pissed about Palin
McCain’s running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it’s time to get furious.
By Cintra Wilson

Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She’s such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it’s easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she’s anti-life. She is the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.

Notice how the nazi bugaboo has a way of popping up whenever jews don’t like a White. Even when it’s absurd because the person they’re talking about isn’t saying or doing anything remotely nazi-like. That’s because to them “nazi” essentially means “anti-jew”, thus it is only natural that it has become a jewish code word for White.

Here’s another example. Heather Mallick, a liberal Canadian editorialist, wrote a couple of somewhat infamous fulsome little turgid screeds concerning Palin.

The Alaskan who went ‘outside’:

Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.

One hundred thousand Canadians visit Alaska every year, and we like to pass by in cruise ships. But it never goes further than that. Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.

CBC’s Mallick: ‘White Trash’ Palin Has ‘Porn Actress Look,’ ‘Smart People’ Flee Small Towns refers to an especially fulsome screed. The original document got flushed down the memory hole, but fortunately some leftist was particularly fond of it and saved a copy.

In the face of reader outrage Mallick did what any White basher normally does. She wrapped herself in philo-semitism and bashed the evil racists who criticized her. After all, she reasoned, only an evil racist White could object to her bashing Whites.

Canadian columnist’s diatribe against Palin stokes anger in the U.S.:

The Toronto-based Mallick admits she’s been shaken by the violence suggested in hundreds of e-mails similar in tone to Jones’s, but adds the messages have simply served to underscore her point about the bigotry and small-mindedness of some Republican supporters.

“The violent and obscene threats against me were one thing — it’s easy to filter those — but the anti-Semitic hate mail was very troubling. I am not Jewish but I am honoured to be taken for one. I consider it a great compliment.”

What a hero. Curious, I reached back into Mallick’s past columns to get a grasp on her pro-jewish sentiments. Here’s an interesting column where she rails against racism. The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?:

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada’s best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from “a variety of backgrounds,” for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: “The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women.” Despite Blatchford’s comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

I didn’t read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I’m sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Whether or not Mallick is jewish she sure sees the world as if she were. My old foil Larry Auster certainly does and so do his “conservative” jewish buddies. Hymowitz on Red State hysteria

I’m less and less alone. Here is yet another Palin-critical conservative. Kay Hymowitz … casts a cold eye on the conservatives who have lost their minds over Sarah

Conservatives lost their minds? If anybody lost their minds over Palin surely I hope it’s clear from all of the above it was jews. And by the way, I don’t believe Auster, in all his many words on Palin, wrote anything at all about that.

If all of the above wasn’t clear enough then it’s a good thing I saved the worst for last.

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan

You really should go read for yourself the vile hatred Bernhard expressed. The stunning thing about her invective is that it came not in some one-off drunken outburst, ala Mel Gibson, but instead was professionally produced and performed repeatedly in a mainstream jewish theater as entertainment for profit.

Ari Roth artistic director of Theater J was unsympathetic and unapologetic:

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a Fucked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting. The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a “disgusting show.” there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting.” I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge.Finally you ask, “where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration?” They were all there on opening night, one night before you came. We partied together after. There were three members of Theater J staff at the show last night, and there’ll be more of us this weekend when we present three shows — soon to be all sold out. I was teaching a political theater class last night, but I’ll be back for everything this weekend.We’re proud of our producing – proud of Sandra’s sense of timing – taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

About Theater J:

Hailed by The New York Times as “The Premier Theater for Premieres,” Theater J has emerged as one of the most distinctive, progressive and respected Jewish theaters on the national and international scene. A program of the Washington DC Jewish Community Center, Theater J works in collaboration with the four other components of the Washington DCJCC’s Morris Cafritz Center for the Arts, which include the Washington Jewish Film Festival and Screening Room, the Ann Loeb Bronfman Gallery, the Program in Literature, Music and Dance, and Nextbook.

Theater J produces thought-provoking, publicly engaged, personal, passionate and entertaining plays and musicals that celebrate the distinctive urban voice and social vision that are part of the Jewish cultural legacy.

Isn’t that special?

080522_Spec_liberalEX_fixed

Not the Last Brainwashing

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

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

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

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

It is a prime example of Out Group brainwashing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Color of Crime
New Century Foundation, 2005

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

CRIME IN THE HOOD
La Griffe du Lion
November 1999

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

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

One final thought.

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

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

In other words: never.

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

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

What a coincidence.

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

tvbroke-main_Full

The WEJs Replacing WASPs Will Not Be Televised

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

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

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

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

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

The comments exerpted below are even more blunt.

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

Posted by Mega Therion on Sep 23, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Simon Newman on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

Posted by Van Buskirk on Sep 24, 2008.

Question:

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

Posted by knickerblogger on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

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

Posted by Simon Newman on Sep 24, 2008.

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

Posted by Mega Therion on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

Posted by Bob on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

Posted by van buskirk on Sep 24, 2008.

ACRONYM ENVY

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

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

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

Posted by Sally on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by JS on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

Posted by Tappir Zapper on Sep 24, 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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