The Definitive Source For News On Jews

Readers of Guilt By Association know the role played by the power of association when well-timed crises are used to advance a global agenda—specifically to ensure that Israel retains military dominance in the Middle East, its monopoly on nuclear weapons and its refusal—along with Axis of Evil member North Korea—to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Israel long ago mastered this craft as evidenced by its ongoing ability to avoid compliance with agreed-to terms of the Roadmap. Thus it came as no surprise to see a crisis in North Korea just as the pro-Israelis who induced the U.S. to invade Iraq intensified efforts to expand the war to Iran.
After years without a serious incident, both Iran and North Korea detained U.S. journalists over a six-week period in 2009. In early February, National Public Radio’s Roxanna Saberi was detained by Tehran. In mid-March two female employees of Current TV, founded by Al Gore, were detained by Pyongyang and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

In early April, North Korea launched a rocket capable of reaching Hawaii, suggesting a threat to the U.S. Meanwhile Tel Aviv upped the pressure on Washington to shut down Iran’s nuclear program, suggesting a threat to Israel. Six weeks later, Pyongyang announced a nuclear test, its first since 2006. Meanwhile Israel insisted that Iran not be appeased or—like North Korea—it would pose a nuclear threat.

When President Obama advanced his proposed engagement with Iran, a Twitter-catalyzed crisis around Iranian elections made such diplomacy unlikely or, at the very least, ineffective. Meanwhile attempts failed to rekindle six-party talks with North Korea, making engagement unlikely and diplomacy ineffective.

Discrediting the U.N.

Simultaneously, the peace-brokering role of the U.N. was sidelined as its credibility continued a steady decline since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Though U.S. war-planners chose not to protect Baghdad’s famous antiquities museum, ensuring widespread looting, the Oil Ministry was captured intact, securing the evidence required to prove U.N. mismanagement of Iraq’s food-for-oil program—with Iran oil-trader Marc Rich again a major player.

This program offered relief from a U.N. embargo for the sale of Iraqi oil to buy food and medicine. In September 2005, an 18-month probe of the $64 billion program found that Saddam Hussein benefitted from kickbacks and oil-smuggling profits, with lucrative commissions paid to the people in between. Findings of lax U.N. oversight were worsened by charges that Koji Annan, son of Secretary General Kofi Annan, profited from insider information and access.

The discrediting of both the U.S. and the U.N. began in February 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched by war-planners to the U.N. Security Council to vouch for the veracity of intelligence—since proven false—about Iraqi biological weapons. Then high-profile U.S. Senate hearings, chaired by Senators Carl Levin and Norm Coleman, put the food-for-oil scandal in the public eye, further damaging the U.N.’s credibility and effectiveness.

With the U.N. and its leadership at their weakest in recent memory, Israel pressed Annan for a Holocaust memorial at the U.N. and for a day to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the death camps. Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor in the Congress, lobbied reluctant nations. On January 24, 2006, the U.N. saw the first ever prayer service on its premises—the Jewish hymn for martyrs—followed by the Israeli national anthem.

Fast-forward to June 2009 and a cargo ship departed North Korea enroute to Myanmar trailed by a U.S. warship that, under a U.N. resolution, could not use force for interdiction. Pyongyang portrayed any interference as an act of war and assembled 100,000 marchers to denounce the U.S. while its leaders promised, if provoked, to “wipe out” the U.S.

A month earlier, Myanmar elections were thrown into crisis with the arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Her May 27th detention enables avoidance by the ruling junta of the open elections promised in 2010 as part of the “roadmap to democracy.” In a well-timed incident, the Nobel peace laureate was taken into custody for violating the terms of her house arrest when she allowed an intruder to stay at her home for two days after he swam to her compound.

The intruder, American John Yettaw, claimed he was on “a mission” to warn her that she would be assassinated. He swam over a mile to her heavily guarded compound using cardboard flippers and plastic containers for flotation. Described by a member of Suu Kyi’s staff as “a nutty fellow,” Yattaw covered the distance carrying the book of Mormon, the ‘revealed’ text of a Zionist sect whose devotees are called “Latter Day Saints” and “The Lost Tribe of Israel.”

With another totalitarian regime (Myanmar) potentially gaining access to nuclear technology, Tel Aviv gained another “associative” case it can cite to oppose Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile an election crisis catalyzed another rallying cry for regime change in the Middle East—in Iran.

U.S. credibility in the Middle East was undercut months ago when Dennis Ross was appointed State Department special envoy to Iran. A senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy, a think tank founded by the Israel lobby, he has since been promoted to senior director of the National Security Council. Americans can only hope that—in that position—he will be closely monitored by those committed to restoring the national security of this nation.

Louisiana Legislature reaches a new low!UPDATE: complete video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEdJ_…hurricane chris performs an inappropriate and lurid rap song for the Louisiana state house of representativesHere are the lyrics to this filthy song:Bow bow bowBow bowBow bow bowBow bowBow bow bowHurricaneBow bowBow bow bowBow bowBow bow bowBum bum bumBum bum bumBum bum bumBum bum bumShe fine

In Iranian politics, few loom larger that Hashemi Rafsanjani. Yet for whom does he work—really?
As chairman of the Assembly of Experts, he oversees the selection, monitoring and dismissal of Iran’s Supreme Leader. As Chair of the Expediency Council, he mediates legislative conflicts. As President of Iran from 1989-1997, he created a power base dating back to his study of theology with Ayatollah Khomeini. But that was then; what about now?

To grasp his role in this “election” requires a reflection on whose interests are best served by crises in the region. Serial crises are essential to sustain the plausibility of the much-touted Clash of Civilizations as a means to justify a “global war on terrorism.” When Mahmoud Ahmadenijad won out over Rafsanjani in a 2005 bid for the presidency, the result was a spokesperson with little political power but a high-profile platform.

In today’s media-saturated politics, candidates are akin to brands. Soon after their release in the market, each is identified with a message. Ahmadenijad was quickly branded the world’s most famous anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. As the academics say: Cui bono—who benefits? Which nation gained most from that branding? Iran? Or Israel?

For an enclave dependent for support on branding itself the unwitting victim of a hostile, anti-Semitic world, who better to freshen up that brand? If so, what role does Rafsanjani play in a nation whose leaders have long collaborated with Israel in duplicitous operations?

Those operations, too numerous to describe, include the Israeli-enabled, presidency-discrediting Iran-Contra affair that Ronald Reagan denied and then was forced to admit. That clumsy arms-for-hostages exchange aided Iran in its war with Iraq, then a U.S. ally, and resulted in 11 federal convictions for Reagan-era officials. All were pardoned.

What role does Rafsanjani play in the casting for a real life drama that, if events continue on course, is poised to discredit another U.S. president? What we know is this. Ahmadinejad charged the Grey Eminence and his family with massive corruption, including racketeering, embezzlement and money laundering. That appears accurate. The Rafsanjani clan emerged wealthy beyond measure, including one son who is allegedly a billionaire in a nation long plagued with the ravages of poverty and false piety.

We also know that Rafsanjani, a billionaire also known as “the shark,” financed the campaign of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. As Prime Minister, Mousavi was Tehran’s go-between for Iran-Contra. He also reportedly served as Iran’s middleman for the October 1983 bombing in Beirut that killed 241 Marines.

The question remains: for whom was he a middleman—really? For the bombing, was he the go-between with Hezbollah terrorists blamed for the attack? That may well be true. Yet former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky insists that Israeli intelligence had a complete description of the truck used in that attack—and chose not to alert their ally.

That mass murder prompted the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, leaving the Middle East vulnerable to political manipulation by whatever nation proved most adept at the craft. Quo bono? Did Iran benefit from that bombing? Lebanon? Or Israel?

Any conclusions must remain conjectural until more is known about the role played by Israel and pro-Israelis in fixing the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq. And may yet induce an attack on Iran aided by a well-timed crisis that may deter the direct negotiations that Washington proposed—and Tel Aviv opposed.

Readers of Guilt By Association know that analysis pivots off a person identified as “John Doe.” He encountered the Grey Eminence two decades ago while profiling the transnational criminal syndicate chronicled there. Rafsanjani was then selling an office building in Manhattan built by the Shah of Iran.

The top floors were occupied by arbitrageur Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken’s co-conspirator in securities frauds for which both were convicted. Boesky spent two years in Iran for purposes that remain obscure. Doe negotiated the sale with Pincus Green, the partner of Marc Rich who was then illegally trading oil with Iran—when Rafsanjani was president.

Rich’s defense team was led by Nixon White House counsel Leonard Garment and Lewis Libby who then worked in the Pentagon for Paul Wolfowitz in the G.H.W. Bush era. All four men are Ashkenazim. For G.W. Bush, Libby emerged as Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney when Wolfowitz, as Deputy Secretary of Defense, became a lead advocate for invading Iraq in response to the mass murder of 911.

In May 2007, Libby was found guilty on four federal charges for his attempts to obscure the fixing of intelligence that induced the invasion in pursuit of the expansionist goals for Greater Israel. The neoconservatives who advanced that agenda have since confirmed that their primary target was—and remains—Iran.

History is best understood in hindsight. Yet where, as here, behavior patterns repeat over multiple decades, Americans who continue to put their faith in false friends may find themselves repeating past tragedies. To avoid future calamities, Iranians had best grasp that neither this election—nor the Grey Eminence—may be what they seem.

Most people who come to my blog already know this, but this guy, Julian I believe, puts it in a good way. This would be a good video to show people when trying to convert them to our cause.

The election crisis in Iran began May 18th when President Obama granted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a White House press conference. From that high profile pulpit, this Likud Party leader announced that Iran was Israel’s top priority and that Israeli settlements would continue to expand despite U.S. objections.

By providing that opening to right-wing Israeli interests, Obama enabled a geopolitical manipulation that would not mature until a month later when a post-election crisis in Iran provided an opportunity to vilify Tehran while proceeding with the settlements.

The catalyst for this crisis was a social network “Twitter attack” in Iran that began June 13th, the day after the election. “IranElection” was the most popular keyword for tens of thousands of tweets, half of them featuring the same profile photo. Over 40% of the Twitter.com users came from the U.S., lending plausibility to the charge that this was not an Israeli but a U.S. operation meant to destabilize Iran by spreading charges of election fraud.

Mainstream media declined to mention that pre-election polling showed President Ahmadinejad a two-to-one favorite. Nor was there any reference to his opponent’s plans to privatize the oil and gas industry. Aware of how that path led to an entrenched oligarchy in Russia, it’s easy to see why mainstream Iranians rejected that future.

Asked about Tehran’s response to the protests, Netanyahu said “the true nature of this regime has been unmasked….this is a regime that oppresses its people.” The crisis also enabled him again to portray Iran’s nuclear program as “an international danger” that “should be dealt with by an international effort led by the United States.”

For those concerned at Israeli influence over U.S. foreign policy, Obama’s comment on June 23rd offered hope. In assessing this multi-front crisis, he noted that the U.S. “is not a tool to be exploited by other nations.”

If not Israel, what nation can exploit the U.S.—from the inside? What nation benefits from this crisis? If not Tel Aviv, what government has the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to conduct such operations?

If the U.S. is induced to invade Iran, no plausible outcome would be successful at preventing the conflict from spreading—lending plausibility to the widely touted Clash of Civilizations. Just as Israel seeks to delegitimize and vilify Iran, so too an attack on Iran would see the U.S. discredited and despised for allowing itself—yet again—to be exploited by Israel.

For Tehran to enrich uranium poses no threat to U.S. interests. President Kennedy saw the real threat. He sought in June 1963 to ensure that Israel did not develop nuclear weapons. His assassination brought to office a president with different priorities.

Citing an “existential threat” from Iran, a nuclear-armed Israel now deploys increasingly transparent efforts to exploit its “special relationship” with the U.S. to advance its interests. Yet war game strategists agree that an attack—any attack—would ignite a wave of anti-Americanism, further weakening us financially, militarily and diplomatically. That outcome is well known both in Washington and in Tel Aviv. These same pro-Israeli exploiters induced the U.S. to invade Iraq with the allure of a quick victory more than six years ago.

By June 23rd, Netanyahu was sufficiently emboldened to announce that even arguing about the settlements was “a waste of time.” Meanwhile Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak gave the green light for a settlement covering 212 acres of Palestinian farmland far from the main settlement blocs and several miles inside the West Bank.

While insisting “our hand is extended for peace,” Tel Aviv once again insisted on conditions certain to preclude peace. For veterans of this duplicity, this behavior is all too familiar. During the 1956 Sinai war, a captured Egyptian colonel conceded that his troops were put on high alert every time David Ben-Gurion insisted “our hands are extended for peace.”

To his credit, Obama has not—as yet—allowed himself to be drawn deeply into the fray in Iran. It’s unclear how much of the credit is due to a national security team familiar with how Tel Aviv exploits its allies to wage wars for Greater Israel. The Joint Chiefs may well stand united in their opposition, hardened by their experience with pro-Israelis who fixed the intelligence that induced our invasion of Iraq.

Barack Obama enabled this behavior by granting an Israeli leader a global platform. Is this ‘candidate of change’ advising Americans to no longer view Israel as an ally? That’s the change Tel Aviv most fears. Is he signaling what the facts confirm: Israel is neither friend nor ally but a deceiver and an enemy within? Is this president prepared to put a priority on holding accountable those who gave aid and comfort to these exploiters?

The recent turmoil in Iran and our regime’s reaction to it are of interest even to those of us who aren’t much concerned which hostile alien runs a country full of hostile aliens on the other side of the planet.

For example, contrast the media’s intense interest in iran with it’s interest in the ongoing violence right next door. The Los Angeles Times has written about Mexico’s Drug War, as have others. From their own occasional reports the situation is so out of control they can hardly ignore it. “Mexico Under Siege – The drug war at our doorstep”, “It’s a war. – Mexican President Felipe Calderon”, writes the LAT. Yet despite the occasional splash of recognition nothing much else happens.

When will the regime show some sustained concern, and when will someone in the media ask Obama “what took you so long” to address the war next door, across a border you don’t want to defend?

The answer is never. Or at least not until the regime is toppled.

Violent immigrant aliens, economic crisis, and an outbreak of disease all cause the regime to leap to the defense of the aliens. Meanwhile they officially recognize native Whites as their most feared enemy, even acknowledging that we’re displeased by and reacting to their own behavior. What’s lacking is a broader recognition of the strength and nature of this assault on Whites.

Much of the attention the media has directed toward iran has the curious effect of revealing their double standards on political rights and censorship. In iran we’re told the “cracking down” on people trying to express themselves is a hallmark of totalitarianism and thuggery. Meanwhile at home in the West the same media plays an instrumental role in demonizing “racism” and “hate“.

Attempted Iran media clampdown meets Internet age contains a typical example of the media’s attitude toward iran:

CNN turned in part to the social-networking sites, broadcasting images posted on Facebook and Twitter, and explaining on-air that it was using “creativity” to cover a big event under government restrictions.

“We cannot verify readily some of this material that we’re going to show you,” correspondent David Mattingly warned viewers. Much of the material on Twitter is posted anonymously.

CNN spokeswoman Bridget Leininger said that adding context and explaining issues was necessary when reporting with such online sources. “We are committed to making the most information available in a tough news environment, while being totally transparent with the audience,” she said.

Yes indeed they are committed to using “creativity” to get the word out about the events in an alien country. At home however they demonstrate a decided lack of interest in the squashing of White political free expression. The case of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle for instance. The Mail’s Race-hate Britons return to UK for sentencing is fairly typical of the sparse, unsympathetic coverage:

Two Britons who fled to the United States after they were accused of waging a campaign of hate against Jews and other minority groups appeared in front of a British court today after they were returned to the UK.

Simon Sheppard, 52, and Stephen Whittle, 42, were convicted of a number of race-hate crimes at Leeds Crown Court following two lengthy trials, the last of which finished in January.

The investigation into the men began when a complaint about a leaflet called ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ was reported to the police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a Synagogue in Blackpool.

Here we see evidence, and only after the outcome of the case has been locked down tight, of the single standard behind what only seems to be a double standard. They sing the praises of free expression so that someone, anyone, replaces Mr. Wipe Israel Off the Map, while mostly burying their own disgust with the free expression of Sheppard and Whittle. Whether with iran or the persecution of our own free speaking heretics, the regime is concerned primarily about what’s best for jews. It’s a rhetorical question, but Whose Country Is This Anyway?

Here’s another example of the government and its media being on the same page:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

Iranian aliens are able to ask questions of the US president. Iranian aliens are “courageous” to communicate online.

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

The media, the government, and jewish activists (specifically the SPLC) have most assuredly coordinated their own anti-White activities here at home.

Bonnie Erbe, a media heavyweight who just happens to be jewish, responded to an attack in which a single non-jew was killed by calling for the government to Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks:

If yesterday’s Holocaust Museum slaying of security guard and national hero Stephen Tyrone Johns is not a clarion call for banning hate speech, I don’t know what is. Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen appeared on CNN yesterday right after the shooting, as she wrote a play that was supposed to have been debuted at the Holocaust Museum last night. Her play is about Emmett Till, whose lynching helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, and Ann Frank, whose diary told the story of Holocaust victims in hiding in the Netherlands during World War II.

She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree.

The regime wants the internet open to iranian aliens (at least for now), and closed to “hate speakers”. In fact silencing “hate” isn’t enough. They want to “Round Up Hate-Promoters Now”. Erbe’s hysterical attitude reveals her own hate. The dishonest and hypocritical language of “hate” provides a politically correct way for jews to openly do themselves, from positions of power, what they constantly accuse powerless “haters” of wanting to do to them. They project their own thoughts onto others and then cry “hate!” It’s disgusting as well as hateful.

A good (and true) joke, according to Lawrence Auster:

From a discussion at the blog Half Sigma, where the topic is the irrationality of the Jew-hating and Israel-hating white nationalists. A commenter says:

As I said on the von Brunn thread, the bigger mystery is why they hate the Federal Reserve.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics. It is a purely economic issue. But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Auster apparently didn’t find the pseudonym of the commenter or the rest of his comment funny. Neither did I, but here it is:

Yes, most Fed board members – including Bernanke and Greenspan – are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | June 12, 2009 at 02:41 PM

The Undiscovered Jew’s “joke” was made in response to a brief post made by Half Sigma titled Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?:

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

All of this – from Half Sigma’s indignant confusion, to Undiscovered Jew’s sack dance over a strawman, to Auster’s shallow smirking – comes across as puerile, not funny. I don’t presume to speak for James von Brunn or “the Stormfronters” or anyone else who “hates” the Federal Reserve, but it’s easy to demonstrate how self-servingly clueless these three jews are.

Let’s work backwards toward the source, in the order I’ve just introduced Larry and his cousins Moe and Curly.

- – -

Auster frequently provides grist for my mill. Some say too much. His part in this post is small. See Fruitloopable Presumption for more about him.

In the past few months Auster has spent a great deal of effort attacking and denouncing Darwinism. I’m not going to bother picking apart his “logic”, he’s cleary doing it for the same reason he does anything else. He thinks Darwinism is bad for jews, thought it isn’t really Darwinism per se that he dislikes, it’s the use of evolution and genetics in understanding the world and how jews stand in it that Auster can’t stand. This he labels “jew-hate”, and there’s nothing he hates more than “jew-haters”. Except maybe “israel-haters”.

Auster’s passionate hatred for hate runs so deep that it wraps around and he actually gets a chuckle from the jokes one jewish Darwinist tells another about those jew-hating israel-haters, AKA “the Stormfronters”. This fills him with such mirth that he left the name and punchline of The Undiscovered Jew undiscovered.

The Undiscovered Jew’s name actually is a bit of a joke – an ironic reference to the jewish tendency to keep their jewish identity and interests from being discovered, except when they find it more convenient to proclaim the significance of their jewishness, which very often coincides with them ridiculing any non-jew who thinks jewishness has significance or is worth discovering.

The contradiction U-Jew sees in “Stormfronter” logic reflects his own witlessness.

The Fed has nothing directly or indirectly to do with race or genetics.

He finds this misunderstanding of “Stormfronter” understanding so critical that he reiterates it:

It is a purely economic issue.

Except it isn’t.

But von Brunn and the Stormfronters want a gold standard almost as badly as a second Holocaust.

Non sequitur. It is curious however that so many of those who think any negative proclamation about “the jews” is ipso facto “irrational” “hate”, but have no problem making truly irrational statements (as Half Sigma and U-Jew do) about the mythically monolithicness of “the Stormfronters”, which for Half Sigma and his commenters is nothing but a euphemism for pro-Whites they deliberately misconstrue instead as “jew-haters” (which they do because they are pro-jew).

Yes, most Fed board members – including Bernanke and Greenspan – are Jewish; but the Stormfronters think the Jews already control ***Everything***.

So here we see that right after denying it U-Jew actually does see “the Stormfronter” point; but what he’s really trying to do is distort it. Better than anyone else jews are acutely aware that they don’t control everything. Many wish they did. The ones most obsessed with control are exactly the ones who are so quick to tick off the various vexing ways jews don’t “control ***Everything***”. Jewish media influence? “Ted Turner isn’t jewish!”

If the Jews already control Western civilization from top to bottom then why should the Fed be such a focus of their hatred?

Here’s a better question. One that isn’t based on a false premise. If “the Stormfronters” are powerless why should they be such a focus of hatred from “anti-liberal” “race-realists” like Auster and Half Sigma? Don’t they have bigger fish to fry?

If U-Jew is in the slightest bit curious what causes anybody to “hate” the Federal Reserve he could begin by watching The Money Masters. This 215 minute documentary-style video reviews financial history, describing in deracinated jew-blind layman’s terms how the modern Western banking system evolved over the last several hundred years, largely through war and intrigue. The distinct impression it leaves is that the banking system is essentially fraudulent, based on the creation of wealth by trickery (AKA fractional reserve banking) and the subversion and subordination of citizens and their governments to plutocrats and their agents (eg. the “international bankers” who own and operate the Fed). All you have to do is add even a dim “race realist” recognition of disproportionate jewish involvement in finance such as U-Jew exhibits and you have the solution to U-Jew’s own very disingenous, very jewish reasoning.

Now on to Half Sigma and his rhetorical question: Why are white nationalists anti-Israel?

More accurately they should be called white gentile nationalists, because they don’t want white people who are Jewish in their movement. They would love for all the Jews to leave the United States, but where would the Jews go if not to Israel?

Once again it’s not possible to ignore the simplistic and unjustified implication that all White nationalists (i.e. Whites who would prefer to live in a White country that defends and pursues White interests) oppose jewish nationalism. The fact is that jewish nationalists have a country they can go to, where jewish interests are openly pursued and non-jews are second class citizens. This is only one of the many inconsistencies that irritate White nationalists. Another fact is that many jews, whether they support jewish nationalism or not, are rabid opponents of Whites pursuing their own interests, never mind nationalism. Any White who begins to experience even the dimmest racial consciousness can’t ignore that jews are their most rabid opponents. Some jews who like the societies Whites build and desperately wish to be seen as “white” (as Half Sigma and Auster do) react to the undeniable reality of jewish aggression against Whites by desperately spinning excuses and rationalizations, in the end absurdly laying all the blame on “the Stormfronters” or “the jew-haters”.

There are myriad organizations dedicated to the defense and pursuit of jewish interests, many of them excluding non-jews, even if only implicitly. If only in response then it is reasonable that Whites, nationalist or otherwise, organize for our own interests and exclude jews. We have and would be more successful at it were it not for the constant, venomous attacks on us by jewish organizations.

Conversely, if Israel is taken over by Muslims, there would be millions of Jewish refugees, and the bulk of them would probably wind up in the United States. Thus white nationalists seem to be actively working against their goals by being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

Yes, no doubt if israel collapses it will all be blamed on “the anti-semites”. And yes, jews are already preparing to evacuate to the US. See for example The Kvetcher’s Jewish Immigration Policy as Worst Case Scenario Appears Ever More Likely, especially the outrageously arrogant comments of blode0322, who in contrast to Half Sigma’s suggested terminology I’d describe as a white non-Gentile nationalist.

Half Sigma concludes:

The question was merely a rhetorical one, because the answer is that the white gentile nationalists hate the Jews so much that they just want to enjoy seeing Israel overrun by Muslims.

Race-realist Half Sigma’s question was rhetorical, and the answer oddly based on the same “hate” rationale that race-denying “liberals” use, because he doesn’t want to face the real answer, which is that jews aren’t White. Unfortunately for Sigma the real answer explains not only the general antipathy self-conscious Whites have for the jewish state of israel, but also for the obvious fear and loathing jews express toward anything White – whether it’s spelling White with a capital W, White nationalism, or even a Whites-only political party that doesn’t exclude them.

Half Sigma, recognizing this threat to his convenient and comfortable hatred of “jew-hate”, followed up later the same day with a lame assertion. In Jews are white he writes:

Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race, even black. If you think that Spaniards are white, then you would also conclude that Sephardic Jews from Spain are white.

Only white nationalists and Stormfront types insist that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t white, and that’s because they hate Jews but love whites, so they need some sort of rationalization for the inconsistency.

A year ago, Steve Sailer posted a 3-D chart showing how Ashkenazi Jews cluster genetically when compared to other ethnicities, and it’s clear from the chart that Jews are similar to Russians and Western Europeans, and quite dissimilar from Middle Eastern ethnicities such as Druze, Samaritans, and Yemenites.

You shouldn’t even need the chart to figure out that Jews are white, because common sense should inform you that you can’t tell the difference between Jews and other Europeans. It’s true that some Jews have a Jewish look about them, but Italians have an Italian look about them, Irish have an Irish look about them, and Poles have a Polish look about them, but those European ethnicities are rarely accused of not being white. No one is better at identifying other Jews than Jews themselves, and Jews usually can’t tell whether or not someone looks Jewish. I remember an organization in the Phoenix area which threw parties for Jewish singles, and they would always ask at the door, “are you Jewish?” The reason they had to ask the question is because they can’t tell by looking. It’s hard to imagine a black organization asking at the door, “are you black?”

I don’t know of any Ashkenazi Jews who consider themselves anything other than white. There are many Jews who, when asked their ethnicity, say that they’re Jewish, but I don’t say that. I tell people I’m half Russian and half Polish. I would encourage more Jews to identify themselves that way.

Jewish political groups aren’t doing anything to defend against the anti-Semitic meme that Jews aren’t white because Jewish groups tend to be very liberal, and liberals think that defending against the accusation that one isn’t white would be admitting that you believe that there’s something wrong with not being white, and it would be racist to think there’s something wrong with not being white. But in my opinion, it’s not racist to point out that some white nationalists are saying stuff about Jews which isn’t true.

Coming from a popular, supposedly intelligent, “race-realist” blogger this confused babble would be perplexing, except that it makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent once we realize that it’s coming from a jew. Why should Whites not consider jewishness significant? Why should we look the other way while jewish apologists peddle such incoherent nonsense as a cover for jewish attacks on us? What Half Sigma is writing is in fact just another more insidious form of attack. “You can’t call yourself White! You should call yourself “white gentile”, because I as a jew consider myself “white” and I get to order you around because you hate jews!”

Immediately Half Sigma’s own pro-jewish commenters tried to point out his foolishness. Unlike Auster, Half Sigma runs a somewhat open forum, but like Auster he shows the same discomfort with criticism, meticulously inserting his rebuttals right into the first few dissenting commenters comments. Later on The Kvetcher responded with Overreaching on Jewish Whiteness:

Half Sigma starts out with a half-truth, noting, “Judaism is a religion and not a race. Jews can be of any race…” This is, in and of itself, true, of course. Judaism is not based or limited to any race. In fact, there is no explicit term for race in the Torah.

But Jews are, to a large degree, a specific people sharing similar genetic code. The reference to The Jews in our liturgy is filled with the mention of “am Yisroel,” or, “the nation of Israel.” Who comprises “the nation” of Israel? The twelve tribes. The convert is a “stranger.” Not the illegal immigrant — the convert.

Kvetcher points out a graph that better illustrates jewish genetic distinctiveness at Gene Expression: SNPs don’t lie. Another graph is attached to Criticizing Auster. It indicates ashenazi jews are genetically more distinct from Poles than Poles are from Italians or Greeks. I’m a Darwinist in the sense that I think the sociopolitcal distinctions I’ve already made between jews and Whites spring largely from personality differences which spring largely from genetics.

- – -

So what explains jewish “race realist” Half Sigma’s behavior? How can he be so acutely aware of his jewish heritage and yet unaware of its significance? What drives him to caricaturize and hate and wish to exclude “the Stormfronters” in the same way he mistakenly assumes “all” of “them” wish to do to jews? Why does he so desparately argue jews are “white”, while he, like so many other jews, shows such a deep disrespect and disdain for Whites who disagree?

I think the cause is his jewishness. And I think this kind of thing isn’t said more openly and more frequently because the West, or the White Gentile West to put it in terms Half Sigma might better understand, has become thoroughly judaized. After generations of effort by jewish-led intellectual and political movements, and more recently flipping into overdrive with the rise of mass media, and the aid of jewish influence in that media, any criticism of jews, even when they say the most hypocritical and self-serving things, is considered an egregious crime. To even say “you’re only saying this crap because you’re jewish” is considered “irrational” “jew-hate”.

For this reason many jews have become accustomed to facing little or no opposition, which leads them to overreach, becoming more and more overbearing and openly hostile and resentful of Whites, revealing in their continuous and brazen arrogance and hypocrisy that they are not motivated by any principle or reason higher than “what’s good for jews?”

- – -

I’ll conclude with a few miscellaneous related items.

In Just Another Day (Part 2) Prozium points to Half Sigma’s posts as just a small part of another typical day of jewish attacks on Whites. He also links to Ben Cohen at the Huffington Post who, big surprise, dictates MSNBC, Pull the Plug on Pat Buchanan. What is truly amazing is his reason why. It hinges on exactly the kind of pernicious race-based libels against Whites that jews are always so quick to see and denounce in any criticism of themselves:

When you consider the 6 million people the Germans managed to wipe out, there’s not much the Jews couldn’t take from Germany to make things right.

White Europeans committed perhaps the biggest genocide in history when they came to the Americas. The native population was literally wiped off the land to make way for white settlers, and for those who managed to survive, a few crumbs were passed off to them decades later for their troubles.

White people transported millions of African slaves to the United States, subjected them to horrific treatment, murder and cultural annihilation. Blacks have only been treated as equal citizens in America since the 1960′s, and the notion that centuries of enslavement, degradation and economic disenfranchisement could be reversed in a few decades is just laughable.

Every minority in America has suffered at the hands of white people. It is a country founded by white people, built by white people and controlled by white people. To pretend otherwise is akin to holocaust denial. It is a fact.

Here’s a rhetorical question for Half Sigma. Does Ben Cohen consider himself “white”? As I noted in Not the Last Brainwashing it certainly isn’t uncommon for jews to peddle “blood libels” against Whites in the mainstream media. They’re not even aiming at “the Stormfronters”. They hate ordinary unsuspecting just-acting-natural White people.

Attacks like this on Whites by “liberal” jews are commonplace. What causes me to believe the source is more jewish than “liberal” is that even “anti-liberal” jews like Lawrence Auster, pro-West half-jews like Takuan Seiyo, pro-”white” philo-semites like Ian Jobling, and half honest jewish-but-I-wanna-be-white race-realists like Half Sigma won’t face a very simple fact:

The government and the mainstream media are staunchly anti-White, not anti-jewish. In fact an ever growing body of laws explicitly puts jews on a pedestal, whether they attend a synagogue or not. Laws and censorship curtailing “hate speech” are perpetrated and rationalized largely by jews whose first and foremost concern is to protect jews from criticism.

What these “race realist” faux-White dissemblers listed above have in common is their holier-than-thou insistence that they have every right to generalize about and criticize muslims, blacks, “the Stormfronters”, or anybody else they wish, but consider it unacceptable to treat jews in the same way. Rather than openly proclaiming their pro-jewish sentiments, acknowledging and defending their double standards, and/or moving to israel to be with the people they love so much, they instead spend a great deal of effort doing exactly what “liberals” do, pretending to be “white” while directing hate toward anyone who acts White.

Barack Obama’s June 4th speech in Cairo addressed a global population of 1.3 billion Muslims long outraged at the abuse that Israel has inflicted on its neighbors—with U.S. support. The potential positive impact of that speech was offset when he appeared the next day in Germany at the Buchenwald death camp. The timing of that Holocaust photo-op resolved all doubts about who stage-manages his presidency.

Attention then turned back to newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In mid-May, Obama’s handlers allowed this right-winger to proclaim—from the White House—that peace with the Palestinians was a distant second to Israeli concerns about Iran. In a mid-June speech, an emboldened Netanyahu grudgingly mentioned a “two state solution.” Obama quickly portrayed his use of that phrase as an “important step forward.”

In truth, that speech announced several giant steps backward. Rather than agree to negotiate a two state solution, he insisted on preconditions certain to preclude two states, leaving nothing to negotiate. Obama again countered the positive impact from Cairo when he praised a speech that directed Palestinians to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state” where Jerusalem as “Israel’s capital will remain united.”

Those remarks also proclaimed Israel’s right to continue its colonization of Palestinian land by expanding the very settlements that preclude a viable Palestinian state. By applauding Netanyahu’s defiant speech, a U.S. president helped inflame the very conditions that have precluded peace in the Middle East for more than four decades.

Anticipating pressure to change, Tel Aviv opened a three-front assault. Foreign Minister Avignor Lieberman (from Moldova) began talks in Moscow (in fluent Russian) to show that Israel could—and readily would—turn elsewhere for a “special relationship.” Second, the Israel lobby opened a domestic assault on Obama by announcing, “Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives.” The lobby also reminded this political product of Chicago-Ashkenazi money where his presidential bread is buttered.

Third, as soon as Middle East envoy George Mitchell opened talks with Syria, the first since the U.S. withdrew its ambassador in 2005, Netanyahu gave a speech with no mention of the Golan Heights and with terms certain to ensure that peace would remain beyond reach.

With no need to cite the Holocaust photo-op, the official Syrian newspaper noted simply, “This is the principle that always guides Israel when approaching the Zionist-Arab conflict. The Israelis see themselves as victims rather than the aggressor.”

By again failing to stand up to Tel Aviv and its U.S. lobby, Obama enabled the very conduct that most endangers national security. While his words in Cairo promised a “new beginning,” his actions signaled business-as-usual. If this Chicago politician continues to appease Israeli extremists, his behavior may well induce another terrorist attack.

Should that happen, recent history suggests that an orgy of evidence will plausibly point to “Islamo” fascists while Israel again portrays itself as the perennial victim in need of protection in a hostile neighborhood. Absent Obama’s proven resolve to expunge “special” from this relationship, this entangled alliance will continue to make the U.S. look guilty by its association with Israel’s extremist behavior. There lies the greatest peril to national security.

With his unrepentant remarks, Netanyahu turned a two state solution back into a bargaining chip. By his insistence on terms that preclude a final settlement, he reconfirmed Tel Aviv’s commitment to sustain this conflict. Obama’s propensity to blink at time-critical moments suggests he will continue to encourage a course that invites more terrorism—either by Israelis or those provoked by their behavior.

Any objective ranking of this presidency would reveal its disproportionate pro-Israeli staffing. Democrat Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist, offered nation-state legitimacy to this Zionist enclave. Republican G.W. Bush, also a Christian-Zionist, staffed his presidency the same as Democrat Obama.

This transpartisan insider operation shares an allegiance neither to party nor president but to a common covenant whose faith-based obligations take precedence over U.S. interests. The depth and duration of this disabling bias suggests that the only way to restore national security is to withhold funding for Israel, withdraw our diplomats and reshape our foreign policy around U.S. interests.

Should this president, like his predecessors, continue to perform inconsistent with the national interest, an informed citizenry must remind him why the Framers set a low evidentiary standard for proving treason, requiring only that the accused “adhere” (or grant “aid and comfort”) to an enemy—whether domestic or foreign.

Should Dennis Ross, a reliably pro-Israeli diplomat, be removed as U.S. envoy to Iran, that would be the first sign that Barack Obama may yet perform consistent with his constitutional oath to defend this nation. By his repeated refusals to stand up to the Israel lobby—and by reliably blinking under pressure from a tiny minority, this president risks not only U.S. national security but also a personal charge of treason.

Another Schell Production

“One can be proud of one’s people only if there is no class left of which one need be ashamed. When one half of a nation is sunk in misery and worn out by hard distress, or even depraved or degenerate, that nation presents such an unattractive picture that nobody can feel proud to belong to it.”-Adolf HitlerMein Kampf, Unexpurgated Edition. Vol. 2 P. 239

Good quote from Alex Kurtagic’s article “I am not racist, but…”"So long as we fail to match our enemy’s astute understanding of the irrational urges that motivate human behaviour, we will remain on course to be remembered in future histories as the extinct human race that always apologized for itself with the timid preface, “I am not racist, but…” ” Read the article HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More rhetoric of fear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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