Tag Archives: media

Blog

Who Writes This Crap

2 Comments


The Wire – The Most Dangerous Thing in America

The Heretic:

Much of [David] Simon’s work focuses on the troubles of low-income African Americans, be they heroin dealers or trombone players. It’s a preoccupation he shares with a long line of American Jewish social activists and cultural figures, from early abolitionists to the Jews who helped found the NAACP to the Jewish Freedom Riders murdered in the early 1960s. When I bring that up, though, Simon brushes aside the comparison. “The Freedom Riders and NAACP founders were doing something far more substantive, and in the case of the Freedom Riders, risking far, far more,” he says. “I wouldn’t put myself in that category under any circumstances.”

Nonetheless, he’s very conscious of that history.

Blog

Weinergate: Jewish Values on Display

61 Comments

It began with the usual judeo-liberal media attempts to ignore or at least downplay the scandal as it was first starting to swirl around one of their rising stars. When it was clear the controversy could not be snuffed out with silence Weiner himself went on the attack, calling an interviewer’s implication that he had done anything inappropriate outrageous. As we know now Weiner was bluffing, but at the time he seemed to think customary jewish tactics of argument – playing the victim with bombastic bluster while he berates his interlocutor – could serve more broadly as a long-term strategy.

Of course the fact that Anthony Weiner is a jew, or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz might put it, a proud pro-Israel jewish member of Congress, has gone mostly unremarked upon in mainstream coverage. As with the DSK affair, a powerful political figure can be a proud jew, a representative of their very distinct community, right up until they do something embarassing or criminal, at which point, oh yeah, they just happen to be jewish, no different than anybody else, and anyway, so what?

A fleeting glimpse of the significance of Weiner’s jewishness came to light in a Radar Online article titled Weiner Used Jewish Sexual Stereotype To Facebook Sexting Partner, by Dylan Howard, 6 June 2011. Oh my. Howard says Weiner’s “reference to a stereotype of Jewish women’s aversion to the sex act is sure to create more heat under a scandal that is already red hot.” Actually, it was the opposite of aversion:

“You give good head?” the embattled and married New York congressman asked the woman on March 16, this year.

She responded: “I’ve been told really good…and i love doing it.”

At that point, 46-year-old Weiner declared: “wow a jewish girl who sucks (bleep)! this thing is ready to do damage.”

So the problem, according to Howard, isn’t Weiner’s lying, or infidelity, or obsession with sex. The problem is that Weiner thinks negative thoughts about jewish women. In private.

This is an absurd excuse for a more direct and plausible understanding of the exchange, which is that Weiner is not only happy to have found an eager virtual sex partner, but that he is delighted that she is jewish – that he finds her jewishness especially exciting. Such an understanding is bound to create cognitive dissonance in the minds of deracinated Whites, lectured relentlessly for decades now, most especially by jews, that any preference for our own kind is peculiar and wrong. So better to invert reality and pretend that Weiner holds a dim view of jewish women.

There’s more on this stereotyping excuse below, but first let’s take a brief detour. The Radar Online article contained a link to a May/June 2011 Moment Magazine article which provides some background on Weiner and specifically his jewish bona fides. Live from New York, It’s Anthony Weiner, by Daphna Berman:

A Master Of Political Theater, Congressman Anthony Weiner Has Leveraged His Strong Liberal Opinions, New York Attitude And Willingness To Go Head-To-Head With Republicans On Cable TV To Fill A Void In The Democratic Party.

Weiner, whose ninth district includes parts of Queens and Brooklyn, represents what is arguably the most Jewish congressional district in the U.S. Raised in Park Slope, Brooklyn, in a middle-class Jewish family, he now lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and is—as he likes to remind people—a true New Yorker. His parents are divorced: His father, Morton, is a lawyer, and his mother, Frances, a retired public school teacher. He had two brothers, Jason and Seth (who was killed in a 2000 hit-and-run accident). Weiner and his mother are close, and she has accompanied him on campaigns—though he refused to have his mother answer questions directly. “She’s completely out of control,” he tells me. “You have no idea what she’s going to say.”

Weiner attended New York public schools, from Brooklyn Technical High School to SUNY Plattsburgh, where he graduated in 1985 with a degree in political science. He went to work for then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and became something of a protégé; he reportedly said to his boss, “I’m going to take your job some day.” He learned quite a bit from his mentor—also Jewish, and now the senior senator from New York—and, most notably, has absorbed much of the media acumen for which Schumer is known. “As a staff member to Schumer, he learned how to take advantage of the electronic media and how to get on television,” says Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Former Republican Senator Bob Dole once said the most dangerous place in Washington was the space between Schumer and a camera, and critics could say the same of Weiner.

[Congressman Jason] Chaffetz [(R-Utah)], who has worked with Weiner on other bipartisan issues, concedes that Weiner can be “over-the-top,” adding that “his style offends a lot of people and he sometimes makes issues a little too personal. He’s aggressive, which works for some people. When we’re on the same side, it can be helpful.”

Jousting with conservatives can sometimes come across as a sport for Weiner, although he insists otherwise. “It’s a necessary thing to do,” he says. “I have a choice: I can shout at my television or shout at the host directly. I’m not afraid of having a debate about these issues. And some of these programs are so deep in lies and demagoguery that someone needs to be there to correct the record.” Then, with a smile, he adds: “It allows me to burn off bile.”

One of his colleagues is Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, who serves with him on the Judiciary Committee and is a personal friend. “Anthony is one of the most quick-witted legislators there is, and once he gets hold of an issue, there’s no letting go,” she says. “He’s very well-spoken and knows how to get a point across succinctly and effectively. He’s an excellent debater, and when a back and forth is necessary, he’s someone you can call on to be the standard-bearer.”

Weiner has always been assertive about his Jewishness. In his own words, he’s spent “more time at melaveh malkahs [post-Shabbat gatherings], a lot more time at shul, at sisterhood breakfasts, and at bond breakfasts than probably just about anybody else.” He doesn’t belong to a synagogue or consider himself close to a single rabbi—except to say, consummate politician that he is, “all the shuls in my district are my home shuls.” Says Warren Hecht, president of the Queens Jewish Community Council: “He’s a Jewish official who hasn’t forgotten” his roots or his district.

Weiner, whose middle name is David, had his bar mitzvah at Union Temple in Park Slope, Brooklyn. As part of a promise to his Twitter followers, he recently released a photo of himself on his big day as an awkward-looking 13-year-old boy, complete with a self-described 1970s Jewfro. “We weren’t a very religious household, but we had a very strong sense of our Judaism,” Weiner says of his upbringing.

He came by his solid Zionist inclinations early on. “Support for Israel was always a very big focus in my household growing up,” says Weiner, who has been to the Jewish state more than a half-dozen times. He remembers wearing a homemade pin to Sunday school that read, “I am a Zionist.”

As a congressman, he has consistently pushed pro-Israel legislation, and Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), counts him among the “top 10 congressmen” in terms of Israel issues.

From the outside, Weiner’s hawkish Israel views appear to have collided with his personal life. His wife, Huma Abedin, was born in Michigan to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, and raised in Saudi Arabia. Her late father, an Islamic scholar, established an institute there that aimed to deepen religious tolerance, while her mother, who is a sociology professor in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helped create one of the first women’s colleges in the country.

The pair dated for two years before announcing their engagement, and Weiner was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about their courtship. In a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board in 2008, Weiner dodged a number of personal questions but was adamant when asked if his relationship posed a potential risk to his political ambitions. “I’m certain that the relationship was not the product of a political calculation,” he said. Later, he also refused to answer what his Jewish mom thought of his girlfriend. “It’s not something I want to talk about.”

The July 2010 wedding was covered widely. The reports were gushing, accompanied by photos of the couple with the beautiful bride in a white Oscar de la Renta gown. Response in the Jewish community was tepid: “Christian President Marries Jewish Congressman to Moslem Political Aide on Shabbos,” read the headline on The Yeshiva World News after the Saturday nuptials.

The ZOA’s Klein is more direct: “People I’ve spoken to in his district said they wouldn’t support him because he intermarried.” In fact, before Weiner came to the ZOA dinner in December, Klein warned him that his marriage to a Muslim might elicit jeers from the crowd.

Whoops. More cognitive dissonance, this time for jews. How to reconcile Weiner’s assertive jewish identity with his choice of a non-jewish spouse? Hmmm. As Moment is written by jews, for jews, at least the readers who are unhappy about “intermarriage” (wink, wink, it’s about “religion”) aren’t subjected to any insinuations that they’re ignorant xenophobic bigots.

The article also discusses Weiner’s aspirations to become mayor of New York City:

It’s unclear what Weiner’s chances may be. At the 2011 Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner, noting the absence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Weiner, one of the event’s headliners, said: “Who knew that what it takes to be mayor of a big city is to be a hot-tempered, arrogant, loud Jew with nine and a half fingers. Who knew? And in other news, I’ve taken a job as a meat cutter at Arby’s.”

But changing demographics, as well as a shifting political reality, may present something of a challenge to what until now has been a meteoric rise. Political strategist Hank Sheinkopf says, “New York is less white than ever and less Jewish than ever, and traditional social class lines don’t hold.” Weiner’s only chance, he says, “is to position himself as a non-billionaire from the outer boroughs. He can do it, but it will be difficult.”

The article’s conclusion contains a bit of unintended prophesy:

“He’s passionate—people respect that and respond to that,” says Queens Jewish Community Council President Hecht. “If he was a phony, people would see right through him.

Tablet Magazine (by jews, for jews) expanded on Radar Online’s quick bit of damage control. Understanding Weinergate, by Marc Tracy, 7 June 2011:

How social media felled a rising star, and how his Jewishness was involved

That about sums it up. Half of Tracy’s article is spent floating the implausible notion that Weiner doesn’t understand the internet. He’s an idiot savant. No mention of the more plausible notion that Weiner’s incredible arrogance and lust had something to do with his assertive self-image as a “rising star”, an unassailable zionist soldier for judeo-liberal interests.

Expanding on the Radar Online article quoted above, the second half of Tracy’s excuse-making consists of a deeper examination of jewish identity, group-pity, and navel-gazing about stereotypes:

There is one more thing to discuss, though if my mom wanted to stop reading this post now, I wouldn’t mind. A Nevada woman Weiner flirted with on Facebook told him that she understood herself to be good at giving oral sex and added, “i love doing it.” To which the congressman from Queens responded: “Wow a jewish girl who sucks []! this thing is ready to do damage.”

I’ll pause for your laughter. But this is also, believe it or not, yet another manifestation of a generation gap! Weiner is old enough to be of the generation that, brought up on Portnoy’s Complaint and its spawn, generalizes Jewish women as sexually cold, and specifically unwilling to perform blow jobs and inept at them when they can be reluctantly coaxed. But a younger generation has almost the exact opposite conception of Jewish women: They (again generalizing) see Jewish women as more willing than the average woman to give blow jobs and as especially skilled at the task. Contributing editor Rachel Shukert has written the definitive article about this (she discusses it here); the new stereotype became especially pronounced in the public consciousness, she argues, thanks to Monica Lewinsky. When that scandal broke, Weiner was almost 30.

Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that the single journalist most responsible for forcing this scandal into the open—who briefly hijacked Weiner’s press conference yesterday demanding an apology—is the conservative impresario Andrew Breitbart, who, yeah. Can you imagine if they had had Twitter in the shtetls?

When jewish stereotypes are discussed in scandal rags like Radar Online, intended for consumption by the hoi polloi, there is a pretense that jews are scandalized by such things. Amongst jews themselves such things inspire laughter. Listening in on their conversation what one actually finds is a seemingly inexhaustible capacity to argue about how they perceive themselves and how they are perceived by others, coupled with strong desires and active efforts to shape those perceptions.

If Weiner’s private lewd flirtations make you queasy, you don’t want to click the “here” link in the text above. It takes you to Interview with Rachel Shukert on Jewish girls and blowjobs at Best Sex Writing 2008. Here’s the most relevant portion of this irrelevant sideshow:

Why do you think the stereotypes about Jewish women and sex are so pervasive? What do you make of the contrast between the older stereotype of the frigid Jewish woman vs. the newer one of the oversexed one?

Well, I think it’s important to stress that most of the factors in the culture that have made Jewish women seem unattractive–whether it’s being frigid, or physically unappealing, demanding, spoiled, etc.–have been created by Jewish men. Now, I love Jewish men. The men I love most in the world–my husband, my father, my grandfather–are Jewish men. But it’s not Gentiles who invented the “shikse goddess” or wrote all the JAP jokes. Who knows why? Frustration, mostly, I think. All that self-loathing and insecurity.

I’m going to speak in incredible generalizations here for a minute, so just bear with me. I think that Jewish men in the past 30 or 40 years have been extremely invested in making themselves sexy and attractive to the culture-at-large–and they are, they seem smart, sensitive, generous, etc. But with it comes this sense of fear, this kind of atavistic fear, I think, that at any moment they’ll be found out. And if anyone can call a Jewish man on his bullshit, it’s a Jewish woman. So they rationalize why they shouldn’t be involved with Jewish girls–all of these reasons. Jewish women are left open to constant criticism. And since Jews have been such an intrinsic part of popular culture, all this stuff disseminates and becomes conventional wisdom.

Now, I think this is changing, hugely. I think Jews have become more and more of an accepted part of mainstream culture, and this generation of Jewish men are more comfortable with themselves than ever before, and no longer feel like they’re straddling two worlds and trying to leave one of them behind. They can look on their Jewishness as something comforting instead of something constricting. But in the meantime, I think Jewish women have been like, “You know what? We’re sick of waiting for you,” and started on their own project of who they are, which is extremely interesting. And that’s what’s ascendant right now, I believe, which is very exciting for me. So that’s the split, I think, that the old Jewish stereotypes were disseminated by men, and the new ones by women. And the mainstream picking up on it.

Judeo-centric views like this were discussed in Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame. I find it refreshing to read such criticisms of jewish media influence, cited approvingly by jews without the usual denials and personal attacks in response. It’s refreshing because critiques from any point of view sympathetic to “shiksas” or their men is painted as “hate” and greeted with howls of real hate from jews.

The nonchalant “yeah” link in the Tablet article above tugs on another interesting jewish thread. You may have noticed how the judeo-liberal media makes judeo-conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart out to be the devil incarnate. Breitbart broke the Weiner story and wouldn’t let it die. Maybe you wonder why. Tablet relates the jewish view in Being Andrew Breitbart, by Allison Hoffman, 21 May 2010:

But who is Breitbart? The New Yorker sent Rebecca Mead to find out, and it turns out that Breitbart, who was adopted, is a Jewish boy from L.A.’s Westside, specifically in Brentwood. There he attended the exclusive Brentwood School, which is the kind of place that turns out the people who run Hollywood’s machinery—the Ari Golds and the producers and the lawyers and the managers. But Breitbart tells Mead he was, even as a high-schooler, turned off by “the industry” and instead fascinated by the theatrics of Washington, D.C. His politics, he reports, emerged from his exasperation with the “deconstructive semiotic bullshit” first introduced to the American cultural scene by emigré members of the Frankfurt School—radicals, almost all of them Jews, exiled by the Nazis in the 1930s.

The article Hoffman links provides more insight into Breitbart’s background and motives. Rage Machine – Andrew Breitbart’s empire of bluster, by Rebecca Mead, 24 May 2010:

Breitbart is the founder of Breitbart.com, which, since 2005, has aggregated news from the Associated Press, Reuters, and other wire services. He is also the proprietor of several newer Web sites—Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism—that provide right-leaning commentary and original reporting. Their content is largely supplied by unpaid bloggers, who are given a more prominent platform than they might otherwise attain. The Big sites are dedicated to countering what Breitbart believes is the leftist bias of American cultural and media institutions.

Breitbart, who is Jewish, grew up in Brentwood, an affluent part of Los Angeles. He seems a familiar bicoastal type until he starts explaining his conviction that President Barack Obama’s election was the culmination of a plot, set in place in the nineteen-thirties by émigré members of the Frankfurt School, to take over Hollywood, the media, the academy, and the government, with the aim of imposing socialism.

Breitbart is tall and burly, with eyes the color of Windex, silver hair that he sometimes forgets is no longer blond, and jowls that he wobbles for emphasis when he wishes to express outrage. He is fond of saying that he has two modes of discourse: righteous indignation and puerile jocularity. “I like to call someone a raving cunt every now and then, when it’s appropriate, for effect,” he informed me. “ ‘You cocksucker.’ I love that kind of language.”

Breitbart considers himself an accidental cultural warrior. “I am not as partisan as people think I am,” he told me, calling himself eighty-five per cent conservative and fifteen per cent libertarian. His conservatism fails him on issues such as the legalization of prostitution, and he sometimes tilts toward favoring gay marriage. “But, when the entire media is structured to attack conservatives and Republicans, there is a huge business model to come in and counterbalance that,” he said.

He does not pretend to be an expert in policy, or to be particularly interested in it. “Just because I am paying attention to politics and culture doesn’t mean that I should be talking about the health-care bill, talking about the minutiae,” he told me. Instead, Breitbart is obsessed with wresting control of the political narrative from the established media organizations. If the wire services that Breitbart aggregates, and the bloggers he recruits, serve as his content providers, then Breitbart might be called a malcontent provider—giving seething, sneering voice to what he characterizes as a silenced majority.

Breitbart frequently decries racism, and likes to point out that he was adopted, as was his younger sister, who is of Mexican descent. “I hold in great disregard the idea that somehow her blood and my blood separate us,” he told me. “I grew up resenting people who would look at us at the table and would go, ‘Why are those people together?’ ” He likes to say that he is “pro-miscegenation.” As a result, Breitbart says, he is outraged when charges of racism are cynically made. Last year, he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” and sounded this theme: “There’s nothing in this country that is a worse accusation—in America, if you accuse somebody of racism, that person has to disprove that.”

“I just feel like I am one of these Idaho guys saying, ‘You’re not taking my land’—with a gun, on my porch,” Breitbart told me one evening. He was sitting in the bar of the Bowery Hotel, in Manhattan, drinking white wine from a glass that was being refilled by a slim waitress in a black wrap dress. His companions were similarly urbane.

Breitbart’s image of himself as a Western survivalist, he was explaining, referred to the sense of siege he felt in Los Angeles, which, he contends, has become egregiously radical since September 11, 2001. “There are people there that are aggressors,” he said. As the evening progressed, it emerged that the closest Breitbart had ever come to the real Idaho was on the Internet. He’d been looking online at properties in Coeur d’Alene, a resort town, while fantasizing about life elsewhere. “I saw the golf course there, and it had a really cool island,” Breitbart said.

Breitbart’s parents were quietly conservative. His father was a restaurateur and, later, a lobbyist for the food-service industry; his mother was a bank executive. But their son, who attended the prestigious Brentwood School, was reflexively liberal. “It was like the water I was in,” he told me. Gary Hewson, a classmate, who is now a real-estate developer, recalls Breitbart as “a bit of a class clown, a rabble-rouser.” Breitbart says, “That was my only discernible skill.”

For college, Breitbart went to Tulane University, in New Orleans, a period that he now regards with a mixture of shame and nostalgia. “It was four hideous years of debauchery of a level that was incomprehensible to me,” he told me. “I remember rationalizing my misbehavior. I remember giving my dad a book on the chemical structure of MDMA”—Ecstasy—“and I was, like, ‘Dad, what do you think of this?’ ”

“I was so excruciatingly bored after college—it was like going home to Pittsburgh to get into the steel industry, then realizing that you hate steel,” he says. “I hated Hollywood. I hated being at parties and hearing people say, ‘I work at “Mad About You,” I work in the clothing room.’ ”

Breitbart also began to reconsider the education that he had received in Tulane’s American Studies department, where, in his off-hours from partying, he had been exposed to critical theory. “I wanted to read Mark Twain and Emerson and Thoreau,” he says. “And I remember moments in class where I thought my head was going to explode, going, What the fuck are these people talking about? I don’t understand what this deconstructive semiotic bullshit is. Who the fuck is Michel Foucault?” He came across the work of Camille Paglia, and was captivated by her analysis of the takeover of academia by the left.

“A lot of these guys I was reading about in my American Studies class were German and Italian social scientists from the University of Frankfurt,” he says. “Once you see what their plan was, you realize that it was implemented. It was taking over the cultural institutions. The left is smart enough to understand that the way to change a political system is through its cultural systems. So you look at the conservative movement—working the levers of power, creating think tanks, and trying to get people elected in different places—while the left is taking over Hollywood, the music industry, the churches. They did it through academia; they did it with K-12. You look back at the last forty years, and people didn’t put up a fight.”

But of course many people put up a fight, and still do. The inconvient truth for judeo-conservatives like Breitbart is that most of those people are demonized as “racists” and “anti-semites” – shoved down the memory hole as if they never existed, never resisted. Judeo-conservatives join judeo-liberals in doing this. They are two faces of a jewish hegemony over politics, media and culture. Breitbart may feel some small measure of compassion for the Whites who never resisted, especially because he knows just how much judeo-liberals detest us anyway, but it’s only relative. Judeo-conservatives find White conservatives (which is to say most Whites) useful, for the moment at least. For them the judeo-liberal takeover doesn’t represent a tragedy, much less a crime. But it does present a “huge business model” selling a white-washed view of the ongoing jewish aggression and hegemony. Judeo-conservatives are just as fond of vulgarity and deviance as their judeo-liberal comrades. Sure, they disagree about some things, vehemently some times. What they agree on is that Whites must defend or at least defer to jewish interests, while the idea of Whites defending White interests fills them all – from Weiner to Breitbart – with fear and loathing.

Blog

A Guide to “Racist” Guilt-Tripping

35 Comments

Primate in Chief: A Guide to Racist Obama Monkey Photoshops by Abe Sauer, 19 April 2011:

People are outraged—outraged!—that a senior GOP official from Orange County, CA sent an email about Barack Obama that questioned his place of birth. But we’ve all become so numb to the “birther” conspiracies that the outrage wasn’t at all about the absurdity of a party official confronting the president of the United States about some conspiracy theory. The outrage was about an attached photo, depicting Obama as an ape.

Anyone who has been on the real Internet knows that the Obama-as-ape Photoshop actually predates the mainstream talk about his birth certificate. How prevalent is it? Very. Here’s a collection of artwork depicting the nation’s first-ever African American president as a primate, which builds on a long history of various racist Obama caricatures.

Sauer’s samples of “outrageous” Obama-ape images omitted.

“Chimpout” is a notorious white supremacist site with a robust collection of images like the two above, which happen to be more reserved compared to others. Of course, the “Obamas as primates” theme and the fundamental (and admitted) racism of the site is a coincidence.

Update: Chimpout wanted to let people know more about their site. It is…

not a white supremacist website. We accept membership from Asians, Hispanics, Anglo, Indians, Arabs, Jews etc… We have a diverse membership and even our administration multi-racial. The purpose of chimpout.com is to expose the huge disproportionate amount of black crime including rape and murder in relation to the percentage of population.

We do not allow violent rhetoric, Nazi propaganda or other white nationalist garbage on our site.

We exist only to report the huge numbers of black crimes that get swept under the carpet by the mainstream media.

We do of course have our jokes and photo-shops but they are just for amusement. We really think much too highly of apes than to seriously compare them to blacks.

So there you go.

(I think this answers Incogman’s question: Is CHIMPOUT.com Jew-Infested?)

Omitting more of his cornucopia of “outrageous” Obama-ape images, Sauer continues:

When confronted, the Orange County GOP official insisted the image was not at all racist. There exists a rich vein on the Internet of conservative blog posts that don’t seem to understand at all why comparing Barack Obama to a primate is racist, while comparing George Bush to one is not racist. This is a conversation that is still going on.

See, when Bush was president, apparently some upset person or people created a wealth of George W. Bush monkey Photoshops. The argument from many on the right here is that because of this, a hundred years of racist sentiment comparing Africans and African Americans to primates is negated.

And then… no, wait, that’s the whole argument.

This is Sauer’s small, sarcastic contribution to the hundreds of years jews have spent guilt-tripping Whites. To Sauer “racist” is both weapon and shield – a magic word that serves to protect blacks while bashing Whites. Point and sputter at the stupid, evil “conservatives”, “Tea Partiers”, “birthers”, “racists” – that’s Sauer’s whole argument.

Back in March Sauer got his snarky New York jew panties all in a bunch about the crime of calling someone a “Coastie”, which he oh-so-soberly described as “cultural intolerance and antisemitism”.

Sauer typifies the jewish “liberal” vein of thought: hypersensitive to and offended by all insulting stereotypes or labels, except those they delight in directing at Whites. As I intimated in Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders, which Sauer linked but otherwise ignored, their ideal is a caustic, irreverent, unflinching, uncompromising culture of critique from which jews and select proxies are exempt and protected.

The image above is supplied by The Yeshiva World, representing the jewish schwarze/chimpout.com vein of thought in which the deification of Obama and blacks in general does not serve jewish interests.

Blog

David Lynch Murdered, Demonized by Media

40 Comments

White Supremacist David Lynch Shot in Head at Home, ABC, Russell Goldman, 4 March 2011:

One of the country’s leading white supremacists was gunned down in his California home, shot in the head and torso as his pregnant girlfriend watched, police said.

David Lynch, 40, an organizer for the American Front, one of the country’s oldest skinhead groups, was killed in his home early Wednesday morning. Lynch’s 33-year-old girlfriend, who is five months pregnant, was shot in the leg.

Soon after police responded to the 911 call, they arrested Charles Demar, 36, another white supremacist and acquaintance of Lynch. Authorities are calling Demar “a person of interest.” They charged him with drug possession.

Since the 1980s, Lynch has been on the radar of law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Lynch as a “clever and charismatic racist skinhead organizer whose history of racist activism dates back to the late 1980s.”

Lynch rose through the ranks of California’s skinhead movement, consolidating power and ultimately uniting once rival racist organizations throughout the state, as well as in Utah, Florida and Canada, according to the SPLC. In 2005, he met with then-National Alliance chairman William Pierce, perhaps the most prominent American neo-Nazi, when Pierce visited Sacramento, according to SPLC.

The Anti-Defamation League calls the American Front one of the “oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States.”

On its website the group describes itself as “a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites, dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs.” Since his death, white supremacists have taken to the Internet to mourn Lynch.

On the Website of White Revolution, a caption under his photo reads “Hero, Patriot, and Friend.”

Writing on the same site, Billy Roper, whom the SPLC calls “the uncensored voice of violent neo-Nazism,” wrote: “Dave Lynch: My Friend, and one of the best men I’ve ever known, a hero of our people and our cause. We are in shock.”

White supremacist David Lynch shot dead, Calif. police arrest “person of interest”, CBS, Camille Mann, 4 March 2011.

Police have arrested a person of interest in the killing of prominent white supremacist David Lynch, a chief organizer of the skinhead movement in the 1980s.

David Lynch, white supremacist leader of the American Front, shot dead in California home: cops, NY Daily News, Aliyah Shahid, 4 March 2011:

Lynch was the leader of the American Front, which according to the Anti-Defamation League is one of the “oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States.” He began working as an organizer for the group in the 1980s.

“The group espouses an anti-Semitic, white supremacist ideology and disseminates its message in public events that demonize Jews, immigrants, and other minorities,” the ADL says on its website.

Lynch’s acquaintances told The Bee that Lynch was working as an asbestos removal contractor. The doormat in front of his home read, “Come back with a warrant.”

Local gang expert Lt. Milo Fitch described Lynch to CBS News as “one of the most well known and influential figures in the white supremacist movement.”

‘This is a significant event in the white supremacist world – it will send shock waves,” he added.

The Associated Press: Skinhead leader killed in shooting at Calif. home, AP, 4 March 2011:

Authorities say a leading white supremacist known for organizing skinhead groups has been fatally shot at his Northern California home.

Skinheads In Sacramento: The death of David Lynch brings bad memories to past victims of white hate groups, Fox KTXL Sacramento, Lonnie Wong, 4 March 2011:

The death of white supremacist organizer David Lynch, founder of the group American Front, was a suprise to victims of hate violence in the Sacramento area.

“I didn’t know there was a leader so prominent living in our community,” said Sacramento County supervisor Jimmie Yee. Yee’s home was firebombed in 1993 by Richard Campos, a teenaged white supremacist who grew up near his neighborhood.

Yee said hate crimes have no place in Sacramento and that Lynch’s death was a wake-up call. Lynch was found shot in the head in his Citrus Heights home. He was one of the nation’s best known hate-group leaders and was described as charismatic by those who track hate-groups and their leaders.

“It’s disturbing,” said Sacramento City council member Jay Schenirer who is the president of the B’nai Israel synagogue, one of three in the area that were firebombed in what is known as the “Summer of Hate,” in 1999.

Lt. Milo Fitch, a gang unit officer who tracked white hate groups for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, said it’s not suprising tht neighbors didn’t know Lynch’s history. Lynch often wore khaki pants and button-up shirts, according to intelligence from hate watch organizations. Clothing and tattoos don’t necessarily define an ideology.

“Many of them come from middle class families, not from the lower socio-economic groups you find with other gang members,” said Fitch.

Yee says the community should be aware of groups that take a lower profile.

“That type of organization is still very active and they’ll do anything to cover up their activities,” said Yee.

Schenirer said they have to take a more sophisticated preventative approach to dealing with young people who are recruited by hate-groups. That means education programs for middle and high school students.

“The intervention after it’s happened aren’t going to work really well. We need to the community to work on the prevention side of it,” said Schenirer.

In a few more years these same people will be surprised and disturbed to discover they have any White neighbors, period.

A man killed in a Citrus Heights home has been positively identified as David Lynch, a skinhead leader and founder of branches of the group American Front, KTXL, 4 March 2011:

The shooting investigation remains on-going, and anyone with information should contact the Citrus Heights Police Department’s Tip Line at (916) 727-5524 and reference CHPD Case number 1102586.

White supremacist leader killed in Calif, MSNBC, 4 March 2011:

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told msnbc.com that Demar is also a white supremacist who goes by the name Charlie Boot. He is the lead singer of Stormtroop 16, a white-power rock ‘n’ roll band, Potok said.

[Citrus Heights police Lt. Gary] Hendricks told KXTV police are investigating whether Lynch’s death is related to an association with skinhead groups.

“We’re following up leads in regards to (Lynch being part of a skinhead organization) based on a rumor that is actually coming from the media, not from us,” Hendricks told the TV station. “So we’re following up with regards to that as well. That is part of our investigation as well.”

Organizations that monitor hate groups described Lynch as an influential white supremacist with a two-decade-plus history of racial activism.

“I would describe him as a former first-tier leader in the ’90s. He was very well-known, especially on the racist skinhead scene. He was a bright and charismatic man and also a man sometimes with incredible potential for violence,” said Potok of the SPLC.

According to his enemies, David Lynch was a bad person. It is a measure of their influence that within hours of Lynch’s murder every major media outlet has quickly broadcast their negative views, not as a paid advertisement or op-ed, but as raw, supposedly objective news. Lynch’s own words, and the reactions of his friends and supporters, are either not mentioned or are minimized. While several reports cite and even link to the non-White supremacist ADL and SPLC as authorities, none link Lynch’s own American Front.

American Front defines itself in Fighting For the White Worker Since 1984!:

Who We Are

We are a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites.

We are dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs.

We will work to promote our values, goals and ideals so that this and future generations of our folk will not be enslaved by the greed of Capitalism, the oppression of Communism, or the disgrace of multiculuralism.

We believe in White unity first and foremost, putting petty and personal differences aside to concentrate on the real issues of our dying race.

We do not pollute our bodies with drugs or excessive drinking, as we attempt to live as man was intended with pure mind, body, and race.

We believe that we must be as self sufficient as possible, first in our own daily lives then in our nation.

We accept many different political stances as long as race is the first component of their platform.

We accept any religion unless it contradicts racial law.

We feel the struggle of our people is not a gender specific issue therefore both men and women are accepted as full members.

We strive to make sure our membership is comprised of quality individuals; solid comrades are the backbone of solid organizations.

We believe in the re-institution of the morality, strength, and honor of our revolutionary forefathers.

We will heed the call in defense of all that is sacred to our family, race, and nation.

We are Greyshirts, and if you are a loyal white racialist, we believe in you!

I had not previously heard of David Lynch. If, like me, you’re curious what it is that he believed that so disturbs the ADL and SPLC, then you’ll want to read Commonly Asked Questions & Answers Concerning the American Front.

The people who hate David Lynch hate Whites for being White.

Paul Fromm talked about Lynch in his most recent podcast, The Fighting Side of Me: In Memoriam, David Lynch at Voice of Reason.

In RIP Dave Lynch at Occidental Dissent, Andrew Yeoman writes:

For those unfamiliar with Dave he was a lifelong advocate of white people and worked tirelessly to bring justice to our people. Lynch was a driven and highly motivated leader and charismatic man that led a turbulent yet increasingly effective community of men and women in the skinhead scene and beyond.

Raised in San Francisco during the 1980′s, he is survived by two daughters and an unborn child.

Dave was a great man. I knew Dave as a tough, street smart, and passionate man who deeply loved his family, the future of our people, and the legacy of white advocates such as Bob Mathews and surviving members of The Order.

I will miss his guidance and laughter like the loss of my own brother.

David Lynch wanted what I want. I’m eager to learn more about Lynch and the skinhead scene. Comments with information and links to other coverage are requested.

Blog

Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame

47 Comments

New York Times critic Manohla Dargis, who is not Jewish, but to use her words, “I am married to a Jewish man, so I am sensitive to the representation of” … how jewish Hollywood is. It doesn’t stop her from complaining that Hollywood’s movies are too “white”.

Steve Sailer quotes Dargis, reacts to her misdirected distaste like it’s a big joke, and tosses in his own sneer at “hillbilly” “white trash” for good measure. Sailer likes things like this. He calls attention to White/jew double standards without identifying them as such. Then instead of a sober lecture about “human biodiversity” he serves up a comedy schtick.

The search result in the first link in this post has been scrubbed of the blurb concerning Dargis’ jewish sensitivities, but the short synopsis that remains is relevant in its own right. Project MUSE – Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies – The Fockerized Jew?: Questioning Jewishness as Cool in American Popular Entertainment, by Samantha Baskind:

This essay examines the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture, using the film Meet the Parents (2000) and its sequel Meet the Fockers (2004) as a case study to demonstrate how the Jewish Jew is no longer avoided and when portrayed does not fall victim to stereotyping. While looking at these two films together, I describe a broader evolution in media from the de-ethnicized Jew, and for that matter the de-ethnicized Jewish actor, to performers flaunting (and thereby celebrating) Jewishness in a Christian-centric society that has found acceptance of the Other. The paper also questions what about Jewishness is cool and describes how viewer subjectivities influence the perception of coolness.

The “upsurge in overt jewish identity” continued with Little Fockers (2010), which Dargis reviewed:

Part of what made the first movies work as well as they did — “Meet the Parents” hit in 2000, and its sequel, “Meet the Fockers,” followed four years later — was the cultural clash that dare not fully speak its name. Initially, the series only broadly winked at the reasons for Jack’s slow-burning tsuris. Was that a bagel in Greg’s pocket, or was he just glad to see his shiksa girlfriend and then wife, Pam (Teri Polo)? But when the second movie brought in Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman to play Greg’s parents, any residual anxiety about the characters’ nominal cultural differences gave way to the spectacle of two legends playfully batting around the Jewish stereotypes that the stars themselves struggled against and transcended.

What Dargis calls “the cultural clash that dare not fully speak its name”, and then dances around in ewjay odecay, speaks its name quite clearly in jewish studies journals. Jews may fault everybody else for regarding them as the Other, but the truth is they freely discriminate themselves from “whites” whenever they like. When Whites distinguish ourselves from jews they act as if we’re morally or mentally defective.

Here are three more reviews of the Fockers series, with the common thread being an acute jewish awareness of the distinction between jews and Whites.

Meet the Parents: Little Fockers | SabDesi paints the Focker culture clash as one-sided “anti-semitism”:

There has always been some interesting cultural tension behind these films, an argument between race and power. Jack Byrnes (no relation, thank God) is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male force entering the domestic arena. That’s why his character worked for the CIA for 34 years, including 19 months in a Vietnamese prison camp; he is American power brought to bear on the enemy within – the schlemiel who is stealing his princess.

Greg Focker’s fool is a very old kind of Jewish comic character – a Jew who fears life among the Gentiles. Ben Stiller is its foremost practitioner in modern movies. It was clear in the first movie that a large part of Jack’s objection to Greg was anti-Semitism, along with his contempt for his caring profession. “Not a lot of men in your profession, are there Greg?” he asked in the first movie.

The second movie went further into this anti-Semitism, with Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand as Greg’s parents, Bernie and Roz. They were hippies from Florida – a tad embarrassing but open-hearted. Roz was a flamboyant TV sex therapist; Bernie’s job was to smother everyone with kisses, especially Jack. The contrast was obvious but effective: cold eastern Protestant establishment versus warm kosher humanity. Puritans versus emigrants: no wonder Spielberg was interested.

Dannielle Blumenthal, self-described “Professional communicator fascinated by all things branding”, explains How the “Little Fockers” Brand Makes Sexism, Racism, and Anti-Semitism OK:

While the character of Roz Focker (Bernie’s wife) is supposed to represent liberated femininity, she is also portrayed as emasculating, pushy (recall the stereotype of the “pushy Jew”), and even a bit crazy. The message being that “women’s libbers” are all three of these things.

In contrast, Pam Focker (Greg’s wife) and Dina Byrnes (Jack’s wife) are portrayed as “normal and stable,” wives who know their place, don’t make “trouble” (e.g. emotional demands), and support their husbands endlessly no matter how crazy and possibly even unfaithful they act.

It is precisely Pam’s endless supportiveness, as well as her stereotypical Barbie-like beauty, that leads her to be portrayed as the “one true love” of Kevin, who pursues other women, but can never forget her. The most that Pam asks of Greg is to check on the facepainter for the kids’ upcoming birthday party, and when he doesn’t do it, she simply sighs and leaves the room.

In terms of racism, there were very few African-Americans in this movie at all, much less any in power. I saw one character playing a patient, one playing an incompetent nurse, and another on the subway train as an “extra.” Do the Fockers and the Byrnes not have any African-American friends, associates, customers, and so on? Why was the movie so “White?” I’m not saying that movies have to be advertisements for diversity but the Caucasian-ness of the movie seemed extreme.

There is another example of anti-Semitism besides the writers’ antipathy toward Roz (and Bernie) but I don’t want to give away that part of the plot.

Clearly though this is very much a movie poking fun at “WASP” culture and the difference between it and the movie’s Jewish characters. It seems like WASPiness is “idolized,” but also seen as dysfunctional, whereas Jewish culture is a kind of corrective. (Interestingly I was reading the book “Stuff White People Like” yesterday and it had a similar attitude toward WASPiness. It was also hilarious.)

Blumethal is hyper-sensitive to anti-jew slights, but like Sailer anti-White slights make her laugh.

The Fockers Trinity, by Joan Alpert:

Despite the silliness, the movies portray the shifting role of Jews in American culture. Jews have previously been portrayed as outside the majority culture; their masculinity is different than the norm; they are neurotic, weak and effeminate—a continuation of the anti-Semitic tradition that questioned Jewish maleness, says Daniel Itzkovitz, director of American Studies at Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts and contributor to the 2006 Jewish Identity in Postmodern American Culture. The movies give an “unwholesome perception of Jews,” claims one commentator, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox rabbi in California, by portraying them as “heinous caricatures.”

Fockers’ writer Joe Hamburg however, defends his films’ non-Jews. They “are not anti-Semitic,” he says; it’s just that Greg “feels out of place” in a WASP world in which bulletproof Kevlar surrounding the family van is the answer to paranoia, and lie detector tests and sodium pentathlon injections are the means to truth. Life is serious. Pam warns Greg, “Humor is entirely wasted on my parents.”

Basically, the WASP, Jack, is a jerk and the Jew, Greg, is a schlemiel, and the schlemiel wins. Actually, Greg is “a post modern schlemiel,” says Itzkovitz. Although he has the attributes of the stereotypical nerdy fumbler, “American society is now identifying with him.” He adds: “Non-Jews as well as Jews are feeling unsettled in the 21st century.” They realize they are not all-powerful, like Rambo, but anxious and insecure like Greg, whose warmth, decency and caring attract Pam.

There you have it. The professional jewish bigots say, “hey, your movies are anti-jew”. The writer answers, “nope, anti-WASP”.

“[T]he shifting role of Jews in American culture” has been to steadily displace and dispossess Whites. The jew schlemiels win. The White jerks lose. That’s how and why movies like the Fockers get made. That’s why Hollywood is the way it is.

UPDATE 15 Feb 2011: Danielle “Hollywood Jew” Berrin and friends lift the veil on an Oscar-nominated “white” film, Aaron Sorkin’s The Social Network, which they see as a jewish production with a central jewish theme.

Who does Aaron Sorkin really hate? | Jewish Journal:

While it is true that women in general do not shine in “The Social Network,” the critique is misguided, because Sorkin is quite specific as to which kind of women he is referencing, when he references them at all — and they come in two forms: Asian Americans and Jews. According to a surface reading, neither gets a pretty portrait; Asian women are depicted as attractive and easy, and Jewish women are brawling shrews.

Jewishness, in general, is a characteristic the fictional Zuckerberg and his friends are desperate to escape. At the Caribbean Night party at the Alpha Epsilon Pi house, one of Zuckerberg’s friends wryly remarks: “There’s an algorithm for the connection between Jewish guys and Asian girls: They’re hot, smart, not Jewish and can dance.” Sorkin would have us believe that, in the eyes of some Jewish men — or at least those run-of-the-mill Harvard scholars — one of the best things about an Asian woman is that she isn’t a Jewish woman. And in Sorkin’s story, Asians get bonus points for performing oral sex in public bathrooms.

“That’s not what you’re going to get from an Erica,” said Olivia Cohen-Cutler, referring to the film’s only female Jewish character. Cohen-Cutler, a senior executive at ABC, is the chair of Hadassah’s Morningstar Commission, which devotes attention to images of Jewish women in the media. While most are decrying the film’s treatment of women, Cohen-Cutler sees something different in the character Erica Albright.

In the film’s opening scene, the fictional Zuckerberg is on a date with Erica, who is pretty, sophisticated and exquisitely articulate. While trying to woo her, an arrogant and socially inept Zuckerberg winds up insulting her every which way, which prompts Erica to unequivocally reject him: “You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true: It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”

But her assertiveness, while well-founded, is met with a withering take-down. Zuckerberg avenges himself on his blog, her rejection providing the impetus for the creation of “Facemash” — the beginning of Facebook.

In real life, he wrote, “[So and so] is a bitch. I need to think of something to take my mind off her. Easy enough. Now I just need an idea.”

In the movie, the fictional Zuckerberg also insults the size of her breasts — and her last name, with a subtle dig about how her family changed their name from “Albrecht” to “Albright” — the only hint that she is Jewish, though it’s never explicitly confirmed.

“In one way [the Zuckerberg character] was saying, ‘She’s a fraud because her family did this and I’m not because I’m still Zuckerberg,’ “ Cohen-Cutler said in an interview. “What you saw throughout the film was a combination of Zuckerberg’s arrogance and self-loathing related to his otherness, which played into the ‘Jewish men hate Jewish women’ continuum.”

If this were pure fiction, it might sting a little less, but unfortunately it isn’t: Zuckerberg, who might be the most eligible Jewish bachelor in the world, met his real-life girlfriend, the Chinese American medical student Priscilla Chan, on erev Shabbat at an AEPi party during his sophomore year. (According to The New Yorker, friends speculate that they will marry.)

Liel Leibovitz, a writer for the online Jewish magazine Tablet and an assistant professor of communications at New York University, believes this is just more evidence that Hollywood is undeniably and irretrievably hostile to Jewish women.

“Being ‘Jewish’ in Hollywood means adhering to the stereotype, namely the smart and shlubby person who overcomes insecurities and applies wit to get ahead,” Leibovitz wrote via e-mail. “That, of course, is a stereotype that’s great for guys, but not too great for women. While Jewish men can fit right into the ‘Jewish’ niche in Hollywood’s arsenal of preconceived notions and crumbling clichés, Jewish women cannot.”

Indeed, Erica is punished, not for being the object of the male gaze, but for subverting it by being the only character in the movie who is actually smarter than Zuckerberg. Even if her rejection is the proper comeuppance for his immaturity and arrogance, it is Zuckerberg who becomes the hero, while Erica remains the heartless wench who wounded him.

Where does this animosity toward Jewish women come from?

“I am convinced by the theory that pins the blame largely on Jewish men,” Leibovitz wrote in his e-mail. His much-read 2009 article “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” postulates that both Hollywood’s executives and its leading men prefer shiksas. Period.

In that vein, Sorkin’s script and its obvious aversion to Jewish women can be seen as an indictment of Jewish women nobody likes: the entitled Jewish American Princess and the overbearing Jewish Mother. But Erica Albright-Albrecht doesn’t fit into either of those stereotypes, even if she derives, in some way, from an archetypal Jewish feminine strength.

“I long for the day when a Jewish actress would play a Jewish character that’s just the normal, uncomplicated, unremarkable love interest who also happens to be Jewish,” Leibovitz said.

An uncomplicated Jewish woman? No wonder Sorkin doesn’t deliver. He seems, instead, ambivalent about them. He can’t stand the stereotypical figures (either on screen or from his own life), but he is also trying to imagine something different. So while Erica is reproved for her boldness, it is Zuckerberg who ends up endlessly longing for her, and an ideal that doesn’t really exist.

I suppose it’s asking Hollywood too much for two smart, good-looking Jews to run off into the sunset together. Or at least, in this case, to Silicon Valley.

“It’s too bad that this movie, which is really a testament to the brilliance and single-mindedness of someone, had to flip the bird to being Jewish,” added Cohen-Cutler, who admitted she loved the movie regardless.

Too bad, indeed. The real world is full of Jewish women whose qualities run contrary to Hollywood stereotypes. Which leads me to believe that it isn’t Jewish women that are the problem; it’s that Jewish men like Mark Zuckerberg and Aaron Sorkin are hanging out with the wrong ones.

Jews like Berrin, Cohen-Cutler, and Leibovitz are obsessed with jewishness and jewish interests. They are free to observe and opine on those interests from authoritative, paid positions without being pathologized or demonized as “racists”. They are exquisitely attuned to the most subtle cues of jewishness and what they perceive to be anti-jewish slights. They personify the “stereotype” of jewish women (and neurotic, weak, effeminate jewish males) as brawling shrews.

In contrast non-jews are not similarly obsessed or attuned, or at least are strongly discouraged from being so by the pathologization and demonization they would be subjected to should they behave in such a fashion. If they see The Social Network in racial terms at all they see it as a “white” film. The subtle slights remain, but can instead be seen through White-centric eyes as evidence that Hollywood, and the jewish shrews, are undeniably and irretrievably hostile to Whites. (The word “shiksa”, for instance, is an epithet on par with “kikess”. Jews feel comfortable using such insults, confident that non-jews either don’t understand or that those who do can be dismissed as “anti-semites” for objecting to it.)

Liel Leibovitz’s Gentlemen Prefer Blondes provides more of the same hyper-aware jewish analysis:

Since the dawn of American entertainment, Jewish women were largely rendered invisible, absent everywhere from burlesque to Hollywood to prime-time television. Instead, they watched as their sons and brothers and husbands became successful producers, directors, and impresarios, powerful men who then chose to populate their works with a parade of sexy, sultry shiksas who looked nothing like their female kin.

Note that for Berrin and Leibovitz jewishness is about kinship, who a jew chooses to mate with. They do not pretend it is about religion. Their double-talk is that jewish men run Hollywood but have used their power to bash jewish women. This is an implausible rationalization offered as a substitute for the more plausible view that the jews who run Hollywood initially rendered jewish men and women alike invisible. Now that their hated competitors the WASPs have been routed jewish domination is increasingly secure, not only in Hollywood, but media in general, not to mention law, finance, education, and politics. What we are actually subjected to is “the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture” that Baskind takes note of. The large number of recent films starring Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, and Seth Rogen come to mind.

Of course through jewish eyes everything is about jews. Every situation is evaluated based on what’s good or bad for jews. Jewish dominance is never complete enough. Jewish “stereotypes” are like so many jewish Moby-Dicks, haunting jews even as they obsess over them, sniffing them out and impotently trying to slay them. Though jews are fanatically self-aware and hyper-critical the blame is inevitably transferred to someone else. They change names and get nose jobs but only because “anti-semitism” compels them to do so. They make movies portraying WASPs as buffoons, but what they actually see is cryptic “anti-semitism” glorifying “shiksas”.

No matter how self-consciously White I try to imagine being I can’t ever hope to hold a candle to such bigotry.