Tag Archives: sarah palin

Blog

Judaized Discourse – A Holocaust Over Blood Libel

32 Comments

In the wake of the Loughner/Giffords shooting, amidst all the vitriolic rhetoric guilt-tripping Whites for participating in politics, a number of jews were speaking out about what they perceived the deeper meaning to be. From the beginning jews injected their own specifically jewish concerns into the political discourse and busily set about transforming the narrative from “congresswoman shot”, to “jewish congresswoman shot”, to “jewish congresswoman shot because she’s a jew”.

By the time Sarah Palin’s response came, days later, both the jewish and hypocritical nature of the most vitriolic rhetoric was increasingly obvious. Palin’s speech, America’s Enduring Strength, like most contemporary politcal speeches, consisted largely of non-partisan platitudes wrapped in pleasant sentiments, evoking images of an America which for the most part no longer exists. What set it apart was that in the middle Palin called out the scapegoaters in jewish terms:

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

And again, near the end, Palin made another pointed reference to the scapegoaters, their methods, and their purpose:

We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy.

As mild as this carefully worded reproach was, it hit very close to home. Hypocrisy is an accusation of serious substance to Whites, especially the kind who support Palin, but it isn’t at all effective on the “journalists and pundits”. The jews who responded weren’t upset about being called hypocrites. What they were upset about was an uppity, ignorant non-jew using their proprietary, jews-only victim card. Several jews were so incensed that they wrote two responses, or wrote something and also appeared on television.

General Reports: Jewish Blood Boiling

Jewish Group Slams Palin for ‘Blood Libel’ Remark, The Daily Beast, 12 Jan 2011.

Palin slammed for using ‘blood libel’ term, Jewish Journal, 12 Jan 2011. “Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to decry blaming conservatives for the Arizona shooting has raised the ire of the Jewish community.”

U.S. Jewish leaders slam Sarah Palin’s blood libel accusation, Haaretz, 12 Jan 2011.

Blood libel: Jewish leaders object to Palin’s ‘blood libel’ charge, latimes.com, 12 Jan 2011. “Sarah Palin’s charge of ‘blood libel’ spurs outcry from Jewish leaders”.

Palin’s blood libel charge ignites firestorm, 12 Jan 2011.

Sarah Palin’s Blood Libel Controversial Reference Has Riled Emotions, 12 Jan 2011:

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.

Authoritative Statements from Professional Jewish Bigots

J Street Responds to Palin’s “Blood Libel” Statement, J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami, 12 Jan 2011:

We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term “blood libel” brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.

David A. Harris: Palin’s Incendiary “Blood Libel” Reference: Wrong Time, Wrong Place, Wrong Always:

WASHINGTON, D.C. Jan. 12, 2011 – The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) today condemned Sarah Palin’s charged “blood libel” accusation, released early Wednesday by video. NJDC President and CEO David A. Harris said upon hearing Palin’s statement:

Following this weekend’s tragedy, we — and many others — simply did two things: we prayed for our friend Gabby while keeping all of the murdered and wounded in our thoughts and prayers, and we talked in broad terms about our increasingly charged level of political debate — asserting that now is as good a time as any to look inward and assess how all of us need to dial back the level of vitriol and anger in our public square. Nobody can disagree with the need for both.

Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a “blood libel” against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.

Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today.

All we had asked following this weekend’s tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin’s invocation of a “blood libel” charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.

The NJDC statement on the day of the shooting also expressed the desire to see their enemies “banished from our political discourse”.

Palin: Stop Fanning Flames, Jewish Funds for Justice, 12 Jan 2011:

JFSJ to Sarah Palin: Stop Fanning the Flames of Division

NEW YORK – Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice, released the following statement in response to Sarah Palin “blood libel” comment:

We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin’s decision to characterize as a “blood libel” the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term “blood libel” is not a synonym for “false accusation.” It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.

In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel. In addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as “Nazis.” Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem.

Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism. But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin’s map showing her district in the crosshairs. “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize that there are consequences to that action.” According to Ms. Palin’s logic, Rep. Giffords statement was a blood libel against the Fox News host. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish and Ms. Palin is Christian makes the accusation even more grotesque.

Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement.

Simon Greer also appeared on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, accompanied by a Sarah Palin avatar labeled “INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC”. Countdown: Palin angers Jewish community with speech, 12 Jan 2011:

Olbermann: Sarah Palin, knowingly or not, is comparing herself to the persecuted jews of the middle ages as a jewish congresswoman lies in critical condition in an Arizona hospital after being shot in the head.

Greer: Sarah Palin is trying to confuse us and make us think there is a victim in Alaska, which clearly there isn’t, and to do it adding insult to injury, she invokes a phrase that has cost countless lives of jews across the centuries and she uses it to launch a complaint about the media. On the face of it it’s a grotesque comparison.

Olbermann: Usually when somebody invokes it it’s related to actual persecution of another group. Is part of the problem here that the person who claims the blood libel is being used is also the person who claims it’s being used against them?

Greer: Yeah, you have a situation where a jewish congresswoman is fighting for her life and a Christian is claiming that she’s the one that’s the victim of a blood libel. It does make me think the leaders like Sarah Palin and other Tea Party leaders like Glenn Beck have a jewish problem. They continue to invoke holocaust, Hitler, nazi, blood libel – as if they’re trying to paint a picture of themselves as victims in an almost Orwellian turn of phrase. It’s a bit hard to fathom.

Greer: If she does offer an explanation I for one would love to hear what were the circle of jewish advisors around her, what were they thinking. Were they thinking, “we know what the blood libel is and we’re going to use it to great effect” or, “oops we didn’t really know what it meant, we deliberated for four days about what to say and then we slipped in the blood libel”. I would love to hear her explanation.

Marvin Hier to Sarah Palin: You’re “Over the Top”, Jewish Journal, 13 Jan 2011:

That provoked Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, to call an out-of-bounds.

“It is simply inappropriate to compare current American politics with term that was used by Christians to persecute Jews,” said Hier. “She has every right to criticize journalists without going over the top.”

But as Palin may someday learn, and Hier and other Jewish leaders know wel, words really do matter. Equating even harsh criticism with “blood libel” is like going to the ER for a boo boo. It grossly demeans the historic reality of the blood libel and the victims who suffered brutally and needlessly because of it.

Other recent SWC trips to the ER: SWC Denounces ‘New Blood Libel’ at UC Campuses, 22 May 2007; Swedish Government’s Response “Inadequate” to New “Blood-Libel”, 19 Aug 2009.

Sarah Palin Charge of ‘Blood Libel’ Provokes Rhetorical Controversy, Andrea Stone, 12 Jan 2011:

To critics, Palin was reckless in her choice of words because “blood libel” is fraught with historic connotations.

“The term has a very specific meaning” connected to the charge that Jews used the blood of Christian boys in preparing matzah for the Passover Seder, said Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies. “Governor Palin could have found a better term, especially given the fact that Representative Giffords is Jewish.”

Palin’s use of the term is “glaringly inappropriate and displays a profound lack of historical sensitivity,” said Jenna Weissman Joselit, a professor of history and Judaic studies at George Washington University.

“I would have advised against using it — the term is historically unique and refers specifically to false charges of ritual murder,” said Noam Neusner, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and the son of a famed Talmudic scholar. “While Ms. Palin has a legitimate gripe against her liberal critics, who were wrong to associate the Tucson shooter with her politics, she is using a term that simply does not apply. She could have simply used the word ‘libel’ and she would have been fine.”

Palin has been a strong supporter of Israel, and even her staunchest critics don’t suggest that anti-Semitism is behind the faux pas.

But Robert Lehrman, a former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, said Palin’s choice of words was likely not accidental.

“Only Jews know about” the visceral meaning of the term, he said. “And because the right and some tea party people — like Tony Katz — talk about the Jewish-dominated media, the unspoken implication is this: ‘Most people won’t get this, but you Jewish reporters know what I’m saying.'”

Brad Hirschfield: Palin’s Charge of Blood Libel Plays the Jewish Card, Brad Hirschfield, self-described “Rabbi, Author and Expert on Religion and Public Life”, 12 Jan 2011:

First, let’s be clear about what a blood libel is. In the briefest terms, it is the charge that Jews use the blood of non-Jews, typically that of children, for ritual purposes, especially the making of Passover matzah.

The charge, which originated among medieval Catholics, has also been used by Protestants and more recently by Muslims too, to provoke rage at Jews — rage which on many occasions resulted in violence against Jews, and even their murders. That’s what makes Palin’s use of the term so interesting — for the analogy to work, she must be the Jew!

I have no particular problem with people, including gentiles, analogizing their own woes to that of Jews, but does Ms. Palin actually believe that her life is in danger because of the journalists and political talking heads who accuse her of complicity in the tragedy in Tucson?

If she does, then not only does she seem eager to play the Jew, she seems to agree with her detractors about the power of words to inspire violence. It’s amazing how the two sides, each so eager to cast blame upon the other, are so very much alike. Because her analogy, however unintentionally, drives home that point, I think it may be quite apt.

Ms. Palin’s choice of analogies is also a good one because it points to a situation in which people need to cast blame upon others to deflect from their own sins. In the case of the blood libel, it was used not only to create anti-Jewish sentiment, but to justify it.

Jews, it was charged, deserved to be tortured and killed because of their evil deeds. So Jew haters created a reason for the hate, one which not only inspired increased hate but justified, in their own minds, the hate they already had for Jews.

When Journalists and Pundits Attack

Sarah Palin Says Media Guilty of ‘Blood Libel’: Why Her Speech Was Wrong, Howard Kurtz, 12 Jan 2011:

Blood libel, for those who are not familiar, describes a false accusation that minorities—usually Jews—murder children to use their blood in religious rituals, and has been a historical theme in the persecution of the Jewish people.

Had Palin scoured a thesaurus, she could not have come up with a more inflammatory phrase.

As someone who has argued that linking her rhetoric to the hateful violence of Jared Loughlin is unfair, I can imagine that the former governor was angry about how liberal detractors dragged her into this story. But after days of silence, she had a chance to speak to the country in a calmer, more inclusive way. She could have said that all of us, including her, needed to avoid excessively harsh or military-style language, without retreating one inch from her strongly held beliefs.

Instead she went the blood libel route.

The same day Howard Kurtz Tweeted:

There was some sympathy for Palin over being tied to shooting, + she chose to go inflammatory. Blood libel has special resonance for Jews.

Hardball – Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman, 12 Jan 2011:

Matthews: Why would she use a phrase like that?

Todd: I don’t know. I think, ahh, I, uhh, it’s uhh, it, to me, she needs to answer that, I don’t understand…

Fineman: She has only one gear and that is forward and she only one mode and that is attack. I don’t think she fully understood the history because if she did understand the history she would realize that she was comparing herself, in this situation, to a jewish martyr during the middle ages, or the cossacks in russia or whatever, and all of her critics as people who engaged in that kind of behavior. That’s not just over the top, that’s the other side of the moon.

With ‘Blood Libel,’ The 2012 Campaign Has Begun, Howard Fineman, 12 Jan 2011:

After a litany of other Republicans, from Roger Ailes to Ari Fleischer, suggested that calmer rhetoric is warranted in the aftermath of Tucson, Palin — after remaining essentially silent for three days — amped up the rhetoric in a pointed counterattack, accusing “journalists and pundits” of manufacturing a “blood libel” against her by suggesting that she somehow is to blame for the toxic political atmosphere in Arizona.

There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than “blood libel,” which is the ancient and false accusation that Jews secretly murder Christian children as part of their religious rituals. This anti-Semitic attack has resulted in countless pogroms and massacres through the ages.

Saint Sarah, it seems, is now comparing herself to one of those martyrs.

Notably absent was any second-guessing of a single word or action of her own over the last two years. To do so, apparently, would mean to somehow accept the premise that the “lamestream media” is worthy of attention. As far as she is concerned, they don’t exist — except for the sake of being likened to pillaging Cossacks. (The comparison is not only over-the-top, it’s also insensitive, given that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish.)

Blood Libel, Adam Serwer, 12 Jan 2011:

Over at Greg’s place, I explain why Sarah Palin’s use of blood libel in the context of people accusing her of being responsible for the incident in Tucson is wrong, even if the accusations are unfair

This links The foolishness of the ‘blood libel’ charge:

Blood libel is a term that usually refers to an ancient falsehood that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals. For hundreds of years, particularly during the Middle Ages, it was used to justify the slaughter of Jews in the street and their expulsion from entire countries. “Blood libel” is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.

This is a new low for Palin, but outsize comparisons of partisan political conflict to instances of terrible historical oppression is a fairly frequent rhetorical device among conservative media figures.

Now, mere days after the incident, with six people dead and Giffords still recovering, Palin is making herself the center of attention. It might please the audience for conservative talk radio or Fox News, but most people will be disgusted. As well they should be.

Sarah Palin charges critics with ‘blood libel’, Jennifer Epstein, 12 Jan 2011:

Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” — which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover — touched off an immediate backlash.

“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews — the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.”

But in her first extended response to the shooting – and just hours before President Barack Obama planned to speak at a memorial service in Tucson – Palin created a frenzy.

It was chiefly because of her use of “blood libel,” but also because she used the video largely to make an unapologetic case for her brand of confrontational politics.

RealClearPolitics – Video – NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: Palin “Ignorant” For Using Term “Blood Libel”, 12 Jan 2011.

Yglesias » Blood Libel, Matt Yglesias, 12 Jan 2011:

Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.

Analysis: Palin Plays the Victim Card, Dan Farber, 12 Jan 2011:

Palin appears to be appropriating the term to indicate that she is a victim, as a result of some groups and individuals claiming that her political rhetoric contributed to the actions of the deranged, lone gunman.

But the real victims are Rep. Giffords and the others who were wounded or killed, not Palin, who appears to be tone deaf to Giffords statement that there are consequences to actions. The consequences of Palin’s crosshairs may not be directly related to the shooting rampage in Tucson and assassination attempt, but they are related to the level of divisiveness in the country.

“Community leaders, not just political leaders, need to stand back when things get too fired up,” Giffords said during her MSNBC appearance in March 2010.

The likely presidential aspirant doesn’t seem to take any responsibility for ratcheting up the political dialog or believe that there is any need to moderate the tone of political discourse in America.

What ‘blood libel’ really means, Jonathan Zimmerman, 13 Jan 2011:

Palin should apologize, too. And not just to Jews, including Giffords.

No, Palin should apologize to all of us. In a speech condemning the irresponsibility of her critics, who have played fast and loose with the facts, Palin did something even worse: She trivialized one of the great crimes of human history.

The Libel of “Blood Libel”, Noah Baron, 13 Jan 2011:

I cannot believe that Palin was ignorant of the history of the term “blood libel,” which was long used as an excuse by anti-Semites to persecute Jews. More likely, she chose it on purpose.

Palin’s statement is but one in a long line of manifestations of a paranoia and persecution complex that now characterizes the American conservative movement.

Why Sarah Palin’s Use of ‘Blood Libel’ Is a Great Thing, Jeffrey Goldberg, 12 Jan 2011:

Sarah Palin has called the post-Tucson campaign of vilification against her and her fellow travelers a “blood libel.” On the one hand, this is unfortunate, as Jonah Goldberg points out, because it threatens to redefine the phrase, plus, what is happening to her is not precisely the byproduct of a blood libel.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin is such an important political and cultural figure that her use of the term “blood libel” should introduce this very important historical phenomenon to a wide audience, and the ensuing discussion — about how Fox News is not actually Mendel Beilis — will serve to enlighten and inform. It is a moral necessity, I think, for Christians to understand the blood libel (Muslims, too — see the Damascus Blood Libel of 1840), not only because it is part of their history, but because the blood libel still has modern ramifications — Israel, after all, was founded as a reaction to Christian hatred, of which the blood libel was an obvious and murderous manifestation.

I mean it sincerely when I say I hope Sarah Palin, who regularly expresses love for Jews and Israel, takes the time to learn about the history of the blood libel, and shares what she has learned with her many admirers.

Sarah Palin, Jewish Educator – The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, 12 Jan 2011:

My theory that Sarah Palin’s otherwise gross use of the term “blood libel” to describe criticism leveled against her has an upside — the potential to educate people about the actual meaning and history of the “blood libel” and its frightening relevance today — is being borne out in the in-box. Two such e-mails:

i had no idea ‘blood libel’ had a jewish origin, i doubt sarah palin does either, she picked up on it because it sounded sexy, and voila, more headlines.

I think it’s true that Sarah Palin had no idea of the meaning; I don’t actually believe she was Jew-baiting, or consciously trying to denigrate the experience of Jewish communities at the hands of their Christian neighbors.

And this:

What do you think the actual chances are that Sarah Palin will actually come out and apologize and learn something about the blood libel and try to raise consciousness about this? I don’t think it’s very high.

Keep hope alive, I say. This is a great moment for Sarah Palin to demonstrate some sensitivity, and to show that she’s capable of absorbing and assimilating new knowledge, and sharing that knowledge with others. I hope she doesn’t miss the chance.

Backstory

Intermittent respites from the unhinged jewish firestorm.

Ben Smith on Twitter, 12 Jan 2011:

A quick ‘blood libel’ thought. Palin’s aides, including @thegoldfarb [Michael Goldfarb], get the context — so this is a pot being stirred, not an accident…

Palin: ‘Blood libel’, Ben Smith, 12 Jan 2011:

The phrase “blood libel” was introduced into the debate this week by Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, and raised some eyebrows because it typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, and has been used more recently by Israeli’s supporters to refer to accusations against the country. It’s a powerful metaphor, and one that carries the sense of an oppressed minority.

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel, Glenn Reynolds, 10 Jan 2011.

The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common Than You Might Think, Jim Geraghty, 12 Jan 2011.

Team Sarah Points to Even More Recent Uses of ‘Blood Libel’, Jim Geraghty, 13 Jan 2011.

With Friends Like These

“Blood Libel” – By Jonah Goldberg – The Corner – National Review Online, 12 Jan 2011:

I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal.

Jewish Republicans muted on Palin’s ‘blood libel’ comment, Jordan Fabian, 12 Jan 2011:

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition’s board of directors, did not address Palin’s use of the phrase “blood libel” but said she would have been better served by focusing on a more positive message.

Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’, 12 Jan 2011:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Charles Krauthammer on debating Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’: ‘Have we completely lost our minds?’, 13 Jan 2011:

“[T]he fact is that even the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League in expressing a mild rebuke to Palin for using this admitted itself in its statement that the term ‘blood libel’ has become part of English parlance to refer to someone falsely accused,” Krauthammer said. “Let’s step back for a second. Here we have a brilliant, intelligent, articulate, beautiful, wife, mother and congresswoman fighting for her life, in a hospital in Tucson, and we’re having a national debate over whether the term ‘blood libel’ can be used appropriately in a non-Jewish context? Have we completely lost our minds?”

Jewish Pols Appalled, Condemn Palin, Others Feign Ignorance

Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’, Michael D. Shear, 12 Jan 2011:

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is a close friend of Ms. Giffords, issued a statement condemning her use of the phrase “blood libel.”

“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s spokesman. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Giffords’s faith and the events of the past week.”

Palin starts storm over media ‘blood libel’ – TheHill.com, Michael O’Brien and Jordan Fabian, 12 Jan 2011:

“When I heard it, I said, ‘What? This is ridiculous!’ ” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, told The Hill. “It’s appalling. It’s an insensitive choice of words.”

Lawmakers on Wednesday indicated they were baffled by Palin’s “blood libel” characterization.

“Blood what?” Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.) responded when asked for his response to the characterization.

Pallone’s confusion was shared by Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Gohmert said that he had not read or heard Palin’s self-defense, stating, “There are some words that you know incite people, just inflame their passions, and those are things that are helpful to stay away from.”

Other House Republicans simply shook their heads and opted not to comment on Palin’s message.

McGovern didn’t know what “blood libel” meant, saying he thought initially “it must be some sort of Alaska thing.”

Jewish Influence and Coded Language

Sarah Palin: Critics Blaming Political Right for Shootings Commit ‘Blood Libel’, Tom Diemer, 12 Jan 2011:

Palin, like many conservative Christians, is a strong supporter of Israel, and she has been particularly supportive of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line stands versus the Palestinians. In an open letter to incoming Republican freshmen last November she implicitly rebuked President Obama when she wrote that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement,” and in June she slammed Obama over what she said was his weak-kneed support of Israel following the Israeli commando attack on a Gaza-bound flotilla that left nine activists dead.

But Christian conservatives like Palin are also growing increasingly fond of Jewish religious traditions and motifs, sometimes celebrating Passover Seders and appropriating Old Testament references like the Israelites in exile to describe their own experience in modern America. Palin, for example, likes to compare herself to Queen Esther, the Jewish beauty from the Book of Esther who saves her people from destruction.

Such religious borrowing can be problematic for Jews, and Palin’s “blood libel” reference evoking such a devastating history at the hands of Christians could be especially explosive. The Anti-Defamation League said it was “inappropriate to blame Palin and others for causing this tragedy.” Still, the ADL said, “we wish Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood libel'” — words that have become part of English parlance, but ones “so fraught with pain in Jewish history.”

Palin Knew What She Was Saying, Matthew Cooper, 12 Jan 2011:

But, as is often the case, Palin is likely being underestimated and, perhaps, misunderstood. It’s highly unlikely that she threw an incendiary term out there without knowing what it means, and it’s even less likely she did so in an effort to promote anti-Semitism.

Here’ s another theory of the case: The former Alaska governor was likely trying to send a signal to her evangelical Christian supporters who are, in fact, deeply pro-Israel (although many Jews are wary of their support for the Zionist state, seeing them as more interested in the Rapture than a healthy Jewish nation).

Palin was likely aligning herself with pro-Israel evangelicals by identifying with Jews, not by insulting them, although that was surely the effect given the widespread bristling at her remarks.

After all, it’s not the first time Palin has aligned herself subtly with Jews. She has noted that after her election as governor in 2006, her childhood pastor suggested that she take the Bible’s Queen Esther as a role model. Esther was a beauty queen who became a fierce protector of the Jewish people. Palin is comfortable in the role of Esther, and many of her evangelical supporters see her in that guise, describing her as Esther-like. The multi-faith website Beliefnet called this phenomenon “Esther-mania.”

By adopting the blood libel language, Palin was most likely trying to pull another Esther — aligning herself with Jews, not denouncing them. It appears to have been a badly miscalculated effort, but it’s unlikely that it was her intention to offend.

“It was a dog whistle,” said one Jewish Republican who worked in the George H.W. Bush administration and declined to be named to avoid becoming enmeshed in the intraparty debate over Palin. The reference was to a device that’s silent to some ears but calls to others. “The media didn’t get it, but Christian activists did,” this source added.

Was Sarah Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Comment a ‘Dog Whistle’ — or Just Inadvertent?, Matt Lewis, 12 Jan 2011:

As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term ” ‘Blood libel’ is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread.

While many believe this to be an example of “dog whistle” politics, I’m not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the “dog whistle” are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?

My guess is that this is simply a case of ignorance on the part of Palin and the speechwriter — and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. Simply put, a lot of people don’t realize that these loaded terms have deeper and more sinister meanings.

Postscript, Business as Usual

Democrat invokes Nazis to slam GOP on health care – On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2012 Election, 19 Jan 2011. US Representative Steve Cohen, speaking on the record in the House of Representatives:

They say it’s a government takeover of health care. A big lie just like (Joseph) Goebbels. You say it enough and you repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie and eventually people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the jews, and the people believed it, and you had the holocaust. You tell a lie over and over again.

Over the Top and Beyond the Moon

Regardless of who chose the term blood libel or whether the intent was to provoke an overreaction from jews, that’s exactly what it produced. What happened is that an army of influential jewish journalists, pundits, and professional bigots instantly swarmed forth to self-righteously lecture the unwashed hoi polloi about jewish sensitivities and sensibilities, instructing Palin and the rest of us what we may or may not say.

That two words could produce such an enormous, immediate, angry jewish reaction is an indication of just how sensitive and defensive jews are about even an indirect reference to their influence. It also serves as a measure of that influence.

Jews focused on attacking Palin specifically because they didn’t want to address her point. As Fineman projected, jews have only one mode: attack. What agitated them so was being called out in jewish terms. They certainly were not put out about being called hyprocrites. Hypocrisy is something only Whites get upset about.

After seeing blood libel defined over and over and over again it’s impossible to believe that the term causes jews any pain whatsoever. What most obviously gets them exercised is seeing anyone but jews as victims. And my how cruel, merciless and paranoid they can be when they think someone is trying to use their own tricks against them.

Blog

Quick Links, 22 Nov 2009

5 Comments

In the Battle Between Facebook and MySpace, A Digital ‘White Flight’ | The New York Observer – Berkeley grad student examines online social networks and sees metaphorical “White Flight”, which is something bad people do, because integration is what every good person should want.

ADL Special Reports: Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies – The Influence of the Mainstream Media – organized jewry can’t stomach even buffoonish deracinated zionist Whites like Glenn Beck. They don’t like the philo-semitic Oath Keepers either. It’s enraging.

Bashing Palin and the horse she rides in on. Too many Whites scares Chris Matthews – “I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, White vs. other people.”

Semitic tribal aspects at Princeton. The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West – “This is how it works: Defy Islamic supremacism and be demonized as a supremacist.” Substitute “jewish” for “islamic” and you get… Choosing the chosen people – The Daily Princetonian – a student body that’s 13% jewish isn’t good enough, it should be 25% jewish like Harvard, Brown, Columbia and Penn. Commenters clash.

A cartoon croons, Not My Waterpark. Tragic comedy, not at all funny.

Blog

The Election is Over

7 Comments

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?

Blog

Nothing to do with Race, Nope, No Way

3 Comments

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption “LANDSLIDE” just below. I didn’t have time to save Drudge’s image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I’m not in either social circle, so I didn’t see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn’t the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It’s Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that’s right. We’re not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next…

– – –

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The “socialist” label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge’s headline, “PAPER: ‘Socialist’ label called ‘old code word for black’…”, made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article’s actual argument is that in the “old days”, before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said “negro” or “colored” when they meant negro or colored. “Socialist” might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn’t an old one.

On the other hand “socialist”, or more precisely “communist”, was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called “anti-semite”. Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn’t bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That’s because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn’t bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the “social pricing” was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we’re told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it’s just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that’s just more raving. Here’s what’s really important:

There’s no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can’t peer into someone’s soul, but also because there’s no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn’t hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don’t have to call that anti-Semitism if you don’t want to. But there’s no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day – without looking hard – opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford’s warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today’s rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn’t a crime at all. It’s not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It’s justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn’t because they’re “deserving of the strongest reproach”. No. It’s because you’re an anti-semite throwback – like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, … Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

– – –

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here’s a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who “appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices”. This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she’s a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being “racist”, and we’re not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we’re also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists “fighting for equality” really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else’s money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to “rescue” you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that “getting” and “making” stuff of Ford’s is starting to make sense it’s either because you’re a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

– – –

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn’t matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn’t it?

Blog

Little Known Sarah Palin Facts

38 Comments

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

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

Steve Sailer writes:

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

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

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

This is precisely what’s happening.

Some bigots are not happy about who Sarah associates with:

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

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

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

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

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

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