The Definitive Source For News On Jews

Oliver Stone Controversy – Media Decoder Blog – NYTimes.com:

In an interview with The Times to promote his documentary “South of the Border,” which is about South American politics, Mr. Stone defended Hitler. “Hitler was a Frankenstein, but there was also a Dr. Frankenstein,” he said. “German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support. Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people.”

Mr. Stone then proceeded to discuss what he called “the Jewish domination of the media,” adding with an expletive that Israel had messed up “United States foreign policy for years.” Bloggers quickly picked up on the comments, and the American Jewish Committee issued a news release condemning him. “By invoking this grotesque, toxic stereotype, Oliver Stone has outed himself as an anti-Semite,” the committee’s executive director, David Harris, said in the release.

In January the director told a gathering of television critics that “Hitler is an easy scapegoat” while discussing his Showtime nonfiction mini-series, “Secret History of America.” At that time the Simon Wiesenthal Center harshly rebuked him for the remarks.

On Monday afternoon, Mr. Stone released this statement:
“In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”

Turns out Stone is as easy to scapegoat as Hitler. The poor guy was just trying to say that the Germans (and Americans and British) are worse than Hitler. No big deal. Now that he’s apologized for implying that jewish influence was hindering that work he can get back to it.

Billionaire Haim Saban crusades against Oliver Stone | Hollywood Jew | Jewish Journal:

The Israeli-American billionaire is reportedly campaigning among Hollywood’s higher-ups to have Stone—and his upcoming 10-part series, “A Secret History of America,” blacklisted. According to TheWrap.com, Saban called CBS chief Les Moonves to urge him to cancel the Showtime series, becoming the first industry figurehead to criticize the director’s controversial remarks from earlier this week.

“This guy should be helped in joining Mel Gibson into the land of retirement, where he can preach his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in the wilderness where he belongs,” Saban told TheWrap.

Saban, who is a huge supporter of Israel and a major donor to the Democratic party, told The Wrap.com by email that he had also called William Morris Endeavor chairman Ari Emanuel to help pressure CBS.

That Saban is launching a crusade against Stone isn’t surprising: In a New Yorker profile of Saban published last May, Saban said, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

Whoops. Turns out the “conservative” side of the “grotesque, toxic stereotype” won’t forgive so easily. I see a film hugely supporting Israel in Stone’s movie-making future – if he has one.

Mangan’s The One-Man NAACP of the Right links Pat Hannagan’s Purging the Faux White Right. Mangan and Hannagan dismantle Lawrence Auster’s latest attempt to pathologize “the anti-semites” who see jewish ethnocentrism in the defense of Polanski and attack on Gibson.

What makes Auster notable is that he’s the tip of a little jewish iceberg of Polanski defenders, sticking out more than others due to his usual pose as an traditionalist anti-”liberal” convert to Christianity. The clear jewish pattern emerges from the long list of people quoted in my series of posts concerning Polanski. In a nutshell, Polanski is a jewish OJ. His plight neatly polarized jews, who tend to view him as a victim, wronged and hunted by a cruel, puritanical system, and everybody else, including Whites, who tend to see him as a celebrity pervert who has long escaped justice.

When Polanski was first arrested, the immediate, morally outraged reaction from a number of jews with various social and political orientations was generally sympathetic to Polanski, and in some cases, like Auster’s, they went so far as to condemn broad swathes of people misperceived as Polanski’s “persecutors”. From the comments their own reader’s considered this behavior shocking – probably because they generally did not see the ethnocentric connection. It is fair to presume that the early defenders did not coordinate their arguments, though they nonetheless shared a number of transparently bogus excuses, and conveniently overlooked or minimized the most damning facts. More than a few made an issue of Polanski’s status as a special kind of jew – a “holocaust survivor”. Applebaum called it a “mitigating circumstance”. Many used language indicating a deeply emotional state of mind – even those, like Auster, who claimed to have never met Polanski. Patrick Goldstein was as eagerly defensive as Applebaum and Auster, and also alluded to Javert. Bruce Crumley, at Time, went beyond Javert, invoking Dreyfus, the poster child of jewish persecution. See my original posts for many more examples.

After the nature of this initial defense and the reader backlash started to gel, many jews either shut up, moderated their defense, said something vaguely disapproving about Polanski, or tried to divert attention and blame elsewhere – to the Swiss, the French, the British, Puritanism (a swipe at “WASPs”), America, Hollywood, “liberals”, “the Glenn Becks” (a swipe at Tea Party Whites). First and last come “the anti-semites” – the eternal scapegoats for jewish misbehavior. Evidently, broadly bad-mouthing these groups of people is ok in the “Javert Nation“.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, gets drunk, is alleged to beat his mistress, and says a few politically incorrect things about jews and niggers. For that Gibson must be shunned and his career must be over, because, after all, the blacks who run Hollywood say so.

What explains this behavior if not jewish ethnocentrism? From their terms and themes it’s perfectly reasonable, obvious really, that what the Polanski apologists and obscurantists share is a view of jews, collectively and individually, as blameless victims. Even the ones who happen to be absconding pedophile rapists, like Roman Polanski. Recognizing this fact is “anti-semitic”, just like the Tea Party is “racist”, and wanting a government that isn’t biased against Whites and doesn’t impose genocidal levels of immigration is “hate”. These are terms of abuse. The purpose is to pathologize, intimidate, and manipulate. They are fighting words used by arrogant and dishonest enemies whose chutzpah knows no bounds.

Transcript of Obama’s Immigration Speech.

In this treasonous speech, delivered on 1 July 2010, Barack Hussein Obama, president of the United States, advocates in favor of alien interlopers, claiming that “being an American is not a matter of blood or birth”. This is not surprising coming from someone with a cloud over their own blood and birth. His view is:

It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.

In other words, potentially every person on earth is an American.

What are these shared values “we” all hold so dear? Obama takes a while to get to that, finding it necessary to first disparage the founders and their posterity who for most of this country’s history haven’t shared his values. Eventually he comes to what he thinks “our” values are:

Finally, we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship — not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.

We have laws, see? Any alien who wants to be an American must admit they broke the law, see? Oh, and you’ll have to register, pay taxes and a fine, and learn English too. The punishment for not doing so? Well, you’ll probably still get your “legal status”. You just might not get to be a citizen. Maybe. But no big deal. A citizen is just an American whose fundamental responsibility is to create a pathway for “legal status” for any alien who wants it.

Obama didn’t mention his relative, Zeituni Onyango, who was recently granted “legal status” by immigration judge Leonard Shapiro even though she never admitted breaking any laws. Obama did however conclude his speech by mentioning that prototypical “nation of immigrants” whose interests so often seem to be more interesting than everyone else’s:

One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground. The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic. Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.

It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America.

Unfortunately for Americans, Lazarus and her subversive tribemates weren’t long ago forced to flee America. Their golem Obama faithfully represents their twisted genocidal idea that, for their good, America’s highest value should be to displace and dispossess Americans.

Semitism trumps feminism. Imagine that.

Breaking: Helen Thomas retires, effective immediately, by Kim Priestap, “a Ronald Reagan conservative”, with a strong concern for Israel’s well-being:

From this day forward, Ms. Thomas will no longer be a part of the White House Press Corps. While I expect nothing less than than a fawning send off from her adoring colleagues in the media, to much of America she will be long remembered, not for her reporting and breaking of the glass ceiling for women in journalism, but for her irrepressible anger and hatred for Israel and the Jews. It’s a pathetic way to end a career, but in Helen Thomas’s case, a fitting one.

For me, Helen’s words brought back memories from my tour of the National Holocaust Museum in DC. It’s important to note that the Nazis didn’t just suddenly round up and gas the Jews out of nowhere. It was part of a long and effective strategy of government sanctioned anti-Jewish text books, children’s storybooks, public posters, and print and radio propaganda designed to generate enough public distrust of and anger toward the Jews that it caused the German people, unaware of the Nazi government’s ultimate goal, to marginalize them.

Priestap is so concerned for jews that she hasn’t noticed that today it is Whites who are targeted for marginalization by virtually all Western governments.

Priestap links Helen Thomas Retires, by black “conservative” La Shawn Barber:

Helen Thomas’s comments that Jews should leave Israel and go back to Poland and Germany were especially weighty for me, as I’ve spent the last couple of weeks reading and watching documentaries about WWII and the Holocaust. I guess she forgot that Jews fled Poland and Germany to escape Nazi death camps, and suggesting they “go back” invoked Holocaust images.

I was sad and enraged when I saw a photo of naked Jewish women walking to a mass grave to be shot, and one carried a newborn. I’ve seen lots of Holocaust photos, but that one in particular brought the tragedy into focus. According to a book on the subject, Nazi’s sometimes buried the babies alive with their dead mothers, instead of shooting them.

The moral of this token’s little testimonial: jewish propaganda even works on blacks.

Priestap also links Leftists Cheerfully Defend Helen Thomas’ Anti-Semitism, which embeds a longer version of the Thomas interview, Helen Thomas Complete (original). Thomas uses the same argument as the jews who have accused her of being ignorant of history: “Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?” The leftist “defense” is that Thomas is offering friendly advice to young jewish journos – she probably thought it was safe to speak her mind because, “some of my best friends are jews” and “after all, some of them have said the same thing”.

The right’s Helen Thomas hypocrisy, by Gabriel Winant at salon.com:

In much the same way that some of us on the left are fond of calling out racism among conservatives, right-wing commentators love little more than lobbing the accusation of anti-Semitism back our way. Normally, they aim way too wide, and wing a bunch of people who are plainly just reasonable critics of Israel. (As someone who’s unmistakably Jewish in person, but lacks a particularly Jewish last name, I especially enjoy blogging about Israel and getting called a Jew-hater in the comments. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a Heeb.)

For once, though, conservatives are piling up on someone who really did cross some kind of line.

Oddly enough, when jews aren’t nervously trying to pass they’re shoving their jewishness in your face.

Helen Thomas: When An Icon Disappoints, by Irin Carmon at Jezebel, “an Israeli-born Jew, whose European grandparents and great-grandparents were among the few in their families to survive Nazi genocide because they were Zionists in what was then known as Palestine”:

There may be only one Helen Thomas — who refused to follow the script for a woman, who has pushed back at every single president since Eisenhower, and who has now disappointed a lot of us. But maybe we’ve moved to a point where she no longer has to stand in for all loudmouthed, fearless women. There have been plenty of firsts and seconds and thirds since then, so even though she is harder for me to admire now, I hope that we no longer need her as badly.

No longer need her as badly? I think we all know what that really means is Carmon wants to ship Thomas to a concentration camp.

Why Helen Thomas and Not Rush Limbaugh? (crossposted at HuffPo), by Joanne “PunditMom” Bamberger:

I don’t condone in any way what she said about calling for the Jewish people to get out of Palestine or the way that she said it. It was a horrible and thoughtless comment and there should be consequences when someone who is supposed to be an objective journalist not only inserts themselves into a news story, but also does it in an offensive and inexcusable way.

But I have to ask — why does Helen have to “resign” but others who have done similar things get to keep their jobs?

Like, say, Rush Limbaugh?

Or Sean Hannity?

Or Glenn Beck?

Or Bill O’ Reilly?

If forced resignation is good enough for someone who’s actually contributed to real journalism, then it ought to be good enough for those who work for “news” organizations with an agenda when they cross that kind of not-so-fine line of offensiveness.

But I suppose in this day and age of opinion news, as long as the offenders are making money for their bosses, it will get excused. If Helen Thomas had been working for FOX News, she’d probably still have a job.

Sure, because in PunditMom’s fevered imagination Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, and FOX are clearly “anti-semitic”. Why might she imagine that? Well here’s PunditMom on Surviving My Mixed Marriage:

My husband and I are very different in many ways.

He’s a city boy and I’m a farm girl. I’m Protestant and he’s Jewish.

The Helen Thomas media blitz: She got fired for WHAT?!, by Meryl Yourish:

It’s a rare person that actually came out and criticized Thomas without pretending that she made her remarks because she’s old or angry. The remarks are sheer Jew-hatred, nothing less. Jews’ millennia-old ties to the land of Israel are utterly discounted by Thomas, who chooses to use the fiction that Israel was a country created specifically by and for Holocaust survivors.

Meryl Yourish is:

a former New Jerseyan who now resides in Virginia. She is a former liberal who now considers herself center-left, and has been the SNN token woman and token feminist since almost the beginning of the podcast.

Since moving to Virginia she has voted twice for Republican presidential candidates, purchased a handgun and a rifle (and knows how to shoot them), and spends most Fourth of July holidays at Fort Lee in Petersburg. Zionism and finding media bias are Meryl’s two specialties, as well as delivering as much juvenile scorn as a subject will stand. Meryl blogs about Jewish and Israeli issues at yourish.com.

Losing Helen Thomas, by Rachel Sklar at Mediaite (whose alter ego, when she’s in a lighter mood, is Lady Jew-Ga whose “biggest hit” is Bad Shiksa):

It’s not enough to have spent a lifetime being an awesome, trailblazing journalistic and feminist icon. Because longer still than the shadow cast by such a great career is the one cast by the Holocaust.

The verdict is in. People who love Israel and love jews hate Helen Thomas.

In an exchange with Joey Kurtzman at jewcy.com, Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You, subtitled “Criticizing Jews is professional suicide”, John Derbyshire writes:

Almost the first thing you hear from old hands when you go into opinion journalism in the U.S. is, to put it in the precise form I first heard it: “Don’t f*ck with the Jews.”

Joe Sobran expressed it with his usual hyperbole: “You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”

Helen Thomas has been a fixture in the White House press corps since JFK was president. She must have understood Derbyshire’s little bit of journo wisdom. What little I know of her involves her supporting role in the left-right kabuki that passes for US politics. Based on opinion from the right, or “conservative” side of the theatre, all I could ever really be sure of was that Thomas was some kind of immortal wicked witch of the left. She was “a nasty piece of work” who could be impertinent and insolent, even to presidents, and yet she never had to fear for her job.

Now that portion of the kabuki lies in tatters.

The response from “the jews” of all stripes to Thomas’ heresy has been swift and merciless. For “liberal” jews, Thomas’ “anti-semitism” towers above personal friendships, her decades of reliable “liberal” service, and her being the first woman journalist to do this or that. For “conservative” jews, her “anti-semitism” totally eclipses her “liberalism”. Everyone could live with Thomas’ “liberalism”, but now she has vexed “the jews”, and this cannot be tolerated. With the flotilla flap making Israelis look like bullies there couldn’t be a better time to remind everyone that they had better not say as much out loud.

Helen Thomas Says Jews Should Get the Hell Out of Palestine and Back To Germany-MUST SEE VIDEO, at Yid with Lid:

There are some people who believe that any criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitism. That belief is as ignorant as Anti-Semitism itself. There is however, a great deal of crossover between hatred of Israel and Hatred of the Jews. To find out what people really mean you need to examine the words they use.

Helen Thomas’ comparing of the IDF to Nazi Germany is nothing but an attempt to water-down the horror of the Holocaust, and to dehumanize Israel. And her advice to the Jews to get the hell out of Palestine, and go back to Poland and Germany is nothing short of anti-Semitism. If Thomas’ comments were directed toward any other group but the Jews, she would have been out of work a very long time ago. Maybe it’s time for Helen’s bosses to retire her to the “The Home For Old Crazy Anti-Semites.

VIDEO: Frau Helen Thomas wants to join Pat Buchanan’s Army, Too, Debbie Schlussel:

Helen Thomas–who is a Christian Arab, not Muslim (plenty of Christian Arabs hate Israel and the Jews)–continues in her neo-Nazi ways. In this video, she preaches Judenrein, which is in line with her previous support for Hezbollah.

So, Helen, I’ll go “back” to Poland (even though I, myself, am not from there), if I can get back all of my family’s land, my maternal great-grandfather’s thriving hardware store, my great-grandfather’s spot as Mayor of his town, my great-grandmother’s diamonds, my paternal great-grandparents’ farm, etc., etc., etc. (But since I’m an American, just as many other Jews are Israeli, I love my country and will only stay a week.)

Schlussel’s title alludes to her similarly motivated ethnic animus aimed at Pat Buchanan, most recently expressed in Pat HAMAS Buchanan: Qaeda Attacks on US Justified b/c of Israel – TownHall, Human Events, WND Run Column. These two columns of Schlussel’s contain one over-the-top, hysterical statement after another.

Obama’s White House Correspondent: Jews Should Go Back to the Ovens, Pamela Geller, at Atlas Shrugs:

Look, this would never stand under any other administration. The fact that Palestinian Jews were in Israel (Transjordan, Palestine) thousands of years before and during and after the Palestinian Muslims began their Islamic anti-semitic genocidal massacres is ignored by the morally depraved Thomas and her ilk.

Has The White House thrown her out on her ugly Jew-hating keyster? Not a chance.

Helen Thomas, Jew Hatred And Acceptance, by JoshuaPundit:

Helen Thomas is valuable because she provides a picture perfect example of the double standard most Left- leaning journos ( and believe me, the majority are Left- leaning) have when it comes to Jew hatred. While they might not personally endorse it, they’re prepared to accept it, just like Joe Lockhart, as a legitimate point of view that is subject to debate. That’s something virtually none of them would do if that hatred was directed anywhere else but at Jews.

So I think it’s better that Helen Thomas remains an honored part of the White House press corps, especially since few if any of them seem uncomfortable with her in their midst. It tells us a great deal about a large part of the membership of that august body. And who knows? It may actually serve as a wake up call about how commonplace and acceptable in public discourse this kind of obscene anti-Semitism has become.

Ari Fleischer: Fire Helen Thomas:

“She should lose her job over this,” Fleischer said in an email. “As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling.”

“She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs.”

Former Clinton counsel Lanny Davis calls reporter Helen Thomas an anti-semite over Israel comments, NYPOST.com:

Lanny Davis, the former White House Counsel for President Bill Clinton, weighed in on the Helen Thomas controversy today, calling her an “an anti-Semitic bigot.”

“Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot. This is not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite,” Davis said in a statement.

In a written statement issued Friday, Thomas apologized for the comment to Rabbi David Nessenoff, saying, she deeply regretted her comments and they “do not reflect” her “heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance.”

But Thomas’ apology did not go far enough, Davis said.

“In my opinion, her apology was not direct and didn’t address the merits of her belief in the stereotype that Jews are aliens in Israel and don’t belong there. She should be at the least suspended from all privileges in the White House press room since bigots don’t merit such privileges. And I believe Hearst should consider a similar suspension of her position as a nationally-syndicated columnist until she owns up to her bigotry and aplogizes (sic) for it,” he said.

Helen Thomas Should Go, Says Lanny Davis, by Jennifer Rubin at Commentary:

Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot. This not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.

However, her statement that Jews in Israel should leave Israel and go back to Poland or Germany is an ancient and well-known anti-Semitic stereotype of the Alien Jew not belonging in the “land of Israel” — one that began 2,600 years with the first tragic and violent diaspora of the Jews at the hands of the Romans.

If she had asked all Blacks to go back to Africa, what would White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials — much less a privileged honorary seat?

Privileged bipartisan icon Abraham Lincoln wanted free Africans to be sent back to Africa. We know this particular viewpoint of Lincoln’s has become unspeakable because nobody ever speaks of it.

Rubin adds that she has already used her hotline to the White House:

See, that wasn’t so hard. Where is the rest of the media, the White House Correspondents Association, and the White House? As to the latter, no response to my inquiry has been forthcoming.

The Helen Thomas ‘Scandal’, by Jonah Goldberg at The Corner:

For starters, this is a classic gaffe because Helen Thomas accidentally told the truth. She’s wrong on the substance, obviously. But of course she believes the Israelis should go away. I sincerely doubt there is anyone familiar with Thomas who really doubts for a moment that she was being less than honest when she made her “back to Poland” comments or that she is lying now when she says she didn’t mean it.

But beyond that, can we do away with all of the shock and dismay at Thomas’ statement? Spare me Lanny Davis’s wounded outrage. Everyone knows she is a nasty piece of work and has been a nasty piece of work for decades.

And when I say a nasty piece of work, I don’t simply mean her opinions on Israel. She’s been full-spectrum awful. I’ve known a few people who knew her 40 years ago, and she was slimy then too.

Organized jewry had some monotonously repetitive and hate-filled things to say about ignorance.

Helen Thomas Apology ‘Does Not Go Far Enough’, by Abe Foxman of the ADL:

Helen Thomas’s statement of regret does not go far enough. Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate, especially since she uttered them on a day the White House had set aside to celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of American Jews during Jewish American Heritage Month.

Jewish group: Dismiss Helen Thomas – Israel Jewish Scene, Ynetnews:

The B’nai B’rith International organization says that the YouTube video showing long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas saying that “Jews should go back to Poland…back to Germany…and America, and everywhere else” demonstrates an outrageous and complete lack of understanding of history.

“Thomas’ comments are contemptible,” said B’nai B’rith International President Dennis W. Glick. “Her distortion of historical reality is astonishing. Her call for Jews to return to Poland and Germany—site of the Nazi genocide, the worst genocide in modern history—is beyond offensive.”

“These vile comments, unfortunately, are the culmination of Thomas’ ongoing anti-Israel sentiments that she kept thinly veiled over the years,” said B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin. “There should be no place for her in a news organization. Her comments go beyond commentary and land well in the camp that will stop at nothing to delegitimize Israel.”

B’nai B’rith called on the Hearst Corporation to dismiss Thomas, its current columnist, immediately.

AJC Outraged by Journalist Helen Thomas’s Remarks on Israel, by the American Jewish Committee:

“Her comment revealed unbridled hostility to Israel’s very existence, if not to the Jewish people,” said Harris. “It also showed profound ignorance, as half of Israel’s Jews come not from Germany or Poland but from the Arab world, itself a telling point.

Ms. Thomas’s statement is astonishing both in its ignorance and insensitivity. It ignores entirely the enduring historical link of more than 2,000 years between the Jewish people and the land. It ignores the painful history of the Jewish people in Germany and Poland. And, it ignores the fact that half of Israel’s Jewish population today has roots in Arab countries, from which they were expelled or driven out by persecution.

While Ms. Thomas has issued an apology, it is unconvincing. It seemed designed to do nothing more than attempt to put out a fire of her own making. She has demonstrated blatant antipathy for Israel, and for the Jewish people.

This Haaretz article isn’t as emotionally charged as any of the items quoted and linked above, but its headline accurately sums up the consequences of saying something “the jews” don’t like: Top U.S. journalist loses agent, friends after saying ‘Jews should get the hell out of Palestine’.

Despite the impotence and fears of partisanship feigned by “conservative” jews, Thomas has indeed lost her job, or as the Drudge headline put it: “Helen Sent to Poland”. In the fullness of time we’ll see if her career-ending statement has made her notorious enough to join the bipartisan pantheon of infamous “jew-haters”, like Harry Truman and Richard Nixon, or if she will simply be flushed down the memory hole.

The irony is that Helen Thomas could have said something quite the opposite and she would just as likely have ended up vilified and fired. She could have suggested that all the zionist diaspora jews advocating so diligently for Israeli interests from afar should get the hell out and move to Israel. With only slight modifications to the portions of rhetoric about “unbridled hostility to Israel’s very existence” the jewish denouncements would be much the same and from the same people. The crime is the “insensitivity” to jewish sensibilities.

The strange thing about jewish sensibilities is that so many of them have such a preference for insensitively bossing people around, telling us what is or isn’t moral, dictating what we can or can’t say, judging whether our grovelling is good enough or not. And yet, it doesn’t really matter what you command them to do, the reaction is best characterized as unbridled hostility to your very existence.

Jewish moralizing about expulsion is as ignorant of history as it is brazenly hypocritical. Current events, such as the flotilla flap, provide constant reminders that many zionists would like the Palestinians to get the hell out. The Israelis have actually killed people to encourage as much. The Israeli government has a long history of ethnically cleansing Palestinians:

Benny Morris is a leftist Israeli historian who attained notoriety some years ago by uncovering Israel Defense Forces documents showing Israel’s deliberate policy of expelling Arabs from Israel during the 1948-49 War of Independence. Morris then startled the world by turning around and declaring that such expulsions were essential for Israel’s survival against enemies seeking to destroy it, and were therefore moral. He then went further and said that Ben Gurion’s great error was that he got cold feet and did not expel all the Arabs from Israel in 1948. He then went further and said that Israel in the near future will face an existential crisis in which it will, as a matter of necessity, complete the job that Ben Gurion failed to complete.

For a more recent critique see The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment, by Peter Beinart at The New York Review of Books:

[Effi] Eitam, a charismatic ex–cabinet minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the West Bank. “We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here and remove Israeli Arabs from [the] political system,” he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu’s Likud. And for the 2009–2010 academic year, he is Netanyahu’s special emissary for overseas “campus engagement.” In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last fall on the Israeli government’s behalf. The group that organized his tour was called “Caravan for Democracy.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam’s views. In his youth, he briefly joined Meir Kahane’s now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion of Arabs from Israeli soil. Now Lieberman’s position might be called “pre-expulsion.” He wants to revoke the citizenship of Israeli Arabs who won’t swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed Israel’s 2008–2009 Gaza war from running candidates for the Knesset. He said Arab Knesset members who met with representatives of Hamas should be executed. He wants to jail Arabs who publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day, and he hopes to permanently deny citizenship to Arabs from other countries who marry Arab citizens of Israel.

In 2009, a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 53 percent of Jewish Israelis (and 77 percent of recent immigrants from the former USSR) support encouraging Arabs to leave the country. Attitudes are worst among Israel’s young. When Israeli high schools held mock elections last year, Lieberman won. This March, a poll found that 56 percent of Jewish Israeli high school students—and more than 80 percent of religious Jewish high school students—would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset.

Has anybody of any consequence tried to defend Thomas? Why would they? They’d lose their job too. Whatever their political differences, jews agree: one set of rules for “the jews”, another for everyone else. If you have a problem with this then they will work to make sure you will indeed have a problem.

ARIZONA’S DREADFUL ANTI-IMMIGRANT LAW, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of LA Cardinal Roger Mahony, 18 April 2010:

What led the Arizona legislature to pass such a law is so obvious to all of us who have been working for federal comprehensive immigration reform: the present immigration system is completely incapable of balancing our nation’s need for labor and the supply of that labor. We have built a huge wall along our southern border, and have posted in effect two signs next to each other. One reads, “No Trespassing,” and the other reads “Help Wanted.” The ill-conceived Arizona law does nothing to balance our labor needs.

The law is wrongly assuming that Arizona residents, including local law enforcement personnel, will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents. That’s also nonsense. American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation. Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers? Are family members and neighbors now supposed to spy on one another, create total distrust across neighborhoods and communities, and report people because of suspicions based upon appearance?

This is delusional. The government has not finished the border wall, and the people at the top never intend to finish it. The government hasn’t effectively enforced immigration law since Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback in the 1950s, and the signs the anti-White regime has been flashing for decades now read “Free Stuff, Come And Get It!” and “Welcome Non-Whites!”

More than anything else it is mass immigration that brings distrust and suspicions based on appearance, and more than anyone else it is the anti-Whites in media and government forcing this upon us. The Nazism-as-the-epitome-of-evil theme is ever popular, especially in the venom aimed at Arizonans. It indicates the depth and breadth of jewish influence on culture and thought.

The “Russian Communist techniques” were largely jewish techniques. The chilling totalitarian grip of political correctness has increased exactly as jewish influence and power has increased. To the extent “Russian Communist techniques” are already present in this country – be it laws against free speech, free association, or people being encouraged to turn in “racists” and “haters” – jews are the prime source. In earlier times, pre-Vatican II, a Catholic clergyman would have understood and might have forthrightly said as much. Father Coughlin also delved into economics and politics, but unlike Mahony Coughlin sided with the common man, not the aliens or plutocrats.

Obama Seeks Immigration Overhaul, Slams Arizona Law, Bloomberg, 23 April 2010:

“Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” Obama said at a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for 24 members of the U.S. military. “That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

The actions by the Arizona legislature threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans,” Obama said. It also may hamper trust between residents and law enforcement authorities, he said.

He said he has instructed U.S. authorities to monitor the state’s actions and to “examine the civil rights and other implications” of the legislation.

“Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable,” Obama said. “The American people demand and deserve a solution.”

Obama, the ostensible president of the United States and commander in chief of its armed forces, is obviously more concerned for the welfare of invading aliens than the citizenry of Arizona. In this Obama is only slightly worse than his pro-immigrant predecessors, Bush and Clinton. There has been no “failure to act”. The lack of action has been completely deliberate. Mission accomplished, as planned.

For years members of the anti-White regime have sympathized with a surreally constant “12 million” “hiding in the shadows”. Some now are beginning to pretend that the number has actually decreased. The truth is that nobody knows how many interlopers there are. All we do know is that they have no reason to hide. The regime has made it clear that they have no intention to find illegal aliens, much less deport them.

Not in my state: Anti-immigration law doesn’t reflect the beliefs of Arizona’s people, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, Washington Post, 23 April 2010:

As an immigration bill that nationally embarrasses Arizona becomes bad law, our best hope in my hometown is that the rest of America doesn’t do to Arizona what Senate Bill 1070 requires our police officers to do to people with brown skin: “profile” them based on stereotypes and insufficient information.

Our state is frustrated. We have become ground zero in the battle over illegal immigration because of years of lapsed federal border security. This week that frustration exploded, thanks to hateful political opportunists such as state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the legislation, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is already under investigation by the federal Justice Department for alleged violations of civil rights.

We in Arizona do respect the Constitution, just as we respect the hard work and sacrifices of the many immigrants who have contributed to making our state a diverse, welcoming place. That respect has driven a series of massive, passionate counterprotests to this legislation, and it will continue to drive opposition from the center, the left and the moderate right. The opponents of S.B. 1070 are many in Arizona, a majority who can no longer be silent if the price of silence is allowing the vocal, spiteful few to rule: All of us, from business leaders to police chiefs, elected representatives to church groups, will continue to pressure Gov. Brewer. As we see it, the governor must call a special session of our legislature to fix the act’s myriad flaws.

Until she does, we will explore every option available to quell the fear and frustration that have become rampant here. Already, I have called a special meeting of the Phoenix City Council to establish standing to sue the state on the grounds that S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally co-opts our police force to enforce immigration laws that are the rightful jurisdiction of the federal government.

Where the archbishop only alluded to appearance the jewish mayor lays it out plainly – he thinks the law is not good for people with brown skin. Whites in Arizona, and indeed the entire country, don’t want to be branded as “racist” or “anti-semites”. They don’t want to say “we don’t want to live around and be attacked by non-Whites”, lest they be attacked by non-Whites for saying so. So instead they say “we want our laws enforced”, and are promptly attacked by non-Whites anyway. The jewish mayor and other “people of color” are the ones who so bluntly associate illegal immigration with brown skin. It’s one of the few things they’re actually being honest about. Whites aren’t trying to be dishonest in avoiding the subject. They’re afraid of the consequences of discussing it.

Another common theme in pro-brown/pro-invasion rhetoric is the suggestion that politicians who seek to do what voters want are “political opportunists”. Oddly, nobody ever gets accused of that when they’re pandering to latinos or jews. Every politician, for or against, knows immigration, put to a vote, would lose. Full of hate and spite, members of the anti-White regime try to stereotype anyone who wants to restrict immigration as hateful and spiteful. We’re all equal, but they alone know best what’s in everyone else’s interests. They are more than willing to frustrate our desires and direct fear at us while they self-righteously defend their heroes, the invaders who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to invade our country.

Phoenix is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Hispanics fear profiling under new Arizona law, AP, 24 April 2010:

Arodi Berrelleza isn’t one of the targets of Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigration – he’s a U.S. citizen, a high school student from Phoenix.

But the 18-year-old said he’s afraid he’ll be arrested anyway if police see him driving around with friends and relatives, some of them illegal immigrants.

“If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he’s going to stop me,” Berrelleza said. “What if people are U.S. citizens? They’re going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin.”

Berrelleza’s concerns were echoed by Hispanics across the state Saturday, a day after Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

Civil rights advocates vowed to challenge the law in court, saying it would undoubtedly lead to racial profiling despite Brewer’s assurances.

Supporters dismiss concerns about racial profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. The measure’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, said opponents are using racial profiling as a cover for their true concern – deportation.

“This is not about profiling. They’re worried about the laws being enforced,” Pearce said.

Immigrant advocates say the bill could worsen an already tenuous relationship between law enforcement and Hispanics in Arizona.

State Sen. Rebecca Rios, a Phoenix Democrat and fourth-generation Arizonan, said she’s concerned about her 14-year-old son being harassed by police because of his brown skin, black hair and dark-brown eyes.

“I don’t want my son or anyone else’s son targeted simply because of their physical characteristics,” Rios said. “There’s no reason I should have to carry around any proof of citizenship, nor my son.”

Fear is another major theme. The conventional anti-White wisdom is that White fears are imaginary and illegitimate because they are based on greed, laziness, or ill-will toward others; but brown fears are tangible and legitmate because they reflect a sincere fear of those crazy, nasty White people. This skewed view filters down even to 18-year-olds who, if they’re brown, feel free to express themselves about everything the regime has deliberately and actively encouraged them to fear. Meanwhile 18-year-old Whites are indoctrinated to fear their Whiteness and the thought that they might have interests as a White person.

One deliberately encouraged false fear is that illegal aliens will stop cooperating with the police. It ignores the reality that the invaders have defied the law to get here, and if they were interested in cooperating they would leave. Deporting them would prevent them from being either perpetrators, witnesses, or victims of crime – making the whole issue of cooperation with the police moot.

In Rebecca Rios we also see clearly the Trojan Horse nature of immigration. After four generations Rios still feels like an alien, despite her political power. She blames us for this, and sides with the aliens, “brown” like her, even though they just snuck across the border. I can understand that. I have similar feelings, except my distrust is for “people of color”, and my affinity is for Whites.

Fifty years ago the census didn’t even count latinos. Now we’re informed that they’ll be taking over. It’s entirely due to immigration. Why should Whites stand by and watch this happen? Why shouldn’t we do something to prevent ourselves from being overrun by people who so dislike us, even after spending generations among us? We shouldn’t.

Arizona immigration law protesters urge action, Reuters, 25 April 2010:

Representative Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force, called the new Arizona rule that police determine if people are in the country illegally a “serious civil rights catastrophe that Republicans in Arizona are unleashing on immigrants.”

“I am going there to let the people of Arizona know that they are not alone in fighting against bigotry and hatred,” said Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat.

“I have not seen the Latino community nationwide react in such a forceful way to an attack on immigrants since 2006, just after House Republicans passed a measure to criminalize and deport all undocumented immigrants and their families,” he added.

Immigration is a bitterly contested issue in the United States, where some 10.8 million illegal immigrants live and work in the shadows. But until recently it has been eclipsed at the national level by issues including healthcare and financial reform, angering many Latino supporters of Obama.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, asked on CNN’s “State of the Nation” if Hispanic-American voters might be stay home without a serious effort by Obama to deal with immigration this year, said that although it was a national issue, “there is a problem in the Latino community. They see it as a civil rights issue of their time.”

ARIZONA PROTESTS

Echoing this sentiment, Ramon M. Garcia, an activist who traveled from Tucson to take part in Sunday’s rally said, “I feel very strongly that the law is extremely unconstitutional and racist, and it violates both human and civil rights.”

More hate-filled latino supremacist bigots hypocritically hyperventilating about bigotry and hatred. Like Phil Gordon, and in strong contrast to White pundits and leaders, these non-Whites unabashedly see politics, and immigration in particular, through a brown lens. If non-Whites are so disturbed by the supposed bigotry and hatred of Whites, then why do they want to live among us? I don’t think they are disturbed. But they know we are.

Note Reuters’ sympathetic reference to the supposedly shrinking number “in the shadows”. The major media outlets keep immigration in the shadows when it suits their agenda, which is most of the time. Throughout the last presidential campaign there was a virtual media blackout on the subject. What they do report is hopelessly biased in favor of immigrants and immigration. Immigration hasn’t been “eclipsed” by healthcare or the bailouts either. It is considered “racist” to mention the links between these things, and other than an occasional “YOU LIE!” the links are actively ignored by the media and politicians. Immigration has thus been effectively disassociated from its role in both healthcare and the bailout ripoff. In a healthy country, with a government loyal to its citizens, the wisdom of extending free medical coverage and credit to “undocumented migrants” would have been strenuously debated.

Arizona rep.: Overturn ‘this unjust, racist law’, Philadelphia Daily News, 26 April 2010:

Civil-rights activists called on President Obama yesterday to fight a tough new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants and promised to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply if the measure takes effect.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told about 3,500 protesters gathered at the state Capitol that the Obama administration can help defeat the law by refusing to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police and turned over to federal immigration officers.

“We’re going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we’re going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law,” said Grijalva.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking yesterday in New York, said that just as freedom riders battled segregation in the 1960s, he would organize “freedom walkers” to challenge the Arizona law.

“We will go to Arizona when this bill goes into effect and walk the streets with people who refuse to give identification and force arrest,” Sharpton said.

Furor grows over Ariz. law against immigrants, AP, 26 April 2010:

The furor over Arizona’s new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders demanded a boycott of the state, and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.

Activists are planning a challenge of their own, hoping to block the law from taking effect by arguing that it encroaches on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration and violates people’s constitutional rights by giving police too much power.

“If you look or sound foreign, you are going to be subjected to never-ending requests for police to confirm your identity and to confirm your citizenship,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is exploring legal action.

Employees at the Capitol came to work Monday to find that vandals had smeared swastikas on the windows. And protesters gathered for a second straight day to speak out against a law they say will lead to rampant racial profiling of anyone who looks Hispanic.

The White House would not rule out the possibility that the administration would take legal action against Arizona. President Barack Obama, who warned last week that the measure could lead to police abuses, asked the Justice Department to complete a review of the law’s implications before deciding how to proceed.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said the law is discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown.

Currently, many U.S. police departments do not ask about people’s immigration status unless they have run afoul of the law in some other way. Many departments say stopping and questioning people will only discourage immigrants from cooperating to solve crimes.

In a statement Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the state’s new law would probably hinder law enforcement in dealing with more serious crimes. Napolitano vetoed similar proposals when she was Arizona governor.

“They would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve,” she said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera urged policymakers in the city to stop dealing with Arizona and Arizona businesses. Leaders in Mexico and California also demanded a boycott, as did civil rights leader Al Sharpton.

More alienated bigots openly advocating in favor of lawlessness. This is why what used to be immigration is more properly seen as an invasion. We ask them to get documents and show them and it’s painted as a catastrophic violation of their “civil rights”, which in effect means their rights to inflict harm on us, to displace and dispossess us. Meanwhile, what they’re doing – violating laws, advocating for brown interests – is painted as perfectly normal and just. It’s simply “people of color” doing what’s best for “people of color”.

Breathing While Undocumented, Linda Greenhouse, NYTimes.com, 26 April 2010:

I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon.

Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

The intent of the new Arizona law, according to the State Legislature, is “attrition through enforcement.” Breathing while undocumented, without a civil liberties lawyer at hand, is now a perilous activity anywhere in Arizona.

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat from Tucson, has already called on the nation’s business community to protest the law by withholding its convention business. Such boycotts can be effective, as demonstrated in the late-1980s when the loss not only of convention business but of — horrors! — the Super Bowl prompted Arizona voters to reinstate a Martin Luther King holiday in the state.

But a boycott is a blunt instrument that can hurt innocent business owners and their employees. So I will stick to my own personal protest without presuming to urge anyone else to follow my example.

Rather, I’ll offer a reflection on how, a generation ago, another of the country’s periodic anti-immigrant spasms was handled by the Supreme Court. In 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children — a good number of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then — faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future.

The law was challenged in federal court, with the Carter administration supporting the plaintiffs. By the time the case, Plyler v. Doe, reached the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan was president, and there was a major debate within his administration over whether to change sides. Rex E. Lee, the admirable solicitor general, refused to do so.

In June 1982, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited the state from imposing “a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a Nixon appointee and the swing justice of his day, provided the fifth vote. The law “threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents,” he wrote.

I have no doubt that but for that ruling, public school systems all over the country would be checking papers and tossing away their undocumented students like so much playground litter. Blocked from that approach, local governments now try others.

Here’s a modest proposal. Everyone remembers the wartime Danish king who drove through Copenhagen wearing a Star of David in support of his Jewish subjects. It’s an apocryphal story, actually, but an inspiring one. Let the good people of Arizona — and anyone passing through — walk the streets of Tucson and Phoenix wearing buttons that say: I Could Be Illegal.

Believe it or not the creature who wrote this turgid little fulsome screed

is the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at Yale Law School. She was a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who covered the United States Supreme Court for nearly three decades for The New York Times.

If it wasn’t clear from the characteristic hyperbole, melodrama, and history lecture, yes, Greenhouse is jewish. Against the odds she somehow managed to find and marry another jew, depriving an “undocumented” of untold joy.

As Greenhouse herself recounts, as far back as 1975 the American government at the highest levels was already reneging on in its duty to protect its citizens. Yet Greenhouse pathologizes us for trying to do something to protect ourselves. Americans haven’t migrated to Mexico and forced Mexican kids out of their schools. It’s the Mexicans coming here, illegally, overcrowding our schools, squeezing out our children. Today we’re still pathetically attempting to defend ourselves. Meanwhile latinos and jews openly scheme how to best impose more hardship on us. Here’s a modest proposal for the invaders and their anti-White apologists. Go live and walk the streets among your own kind. If you think that’s an insult, an unthinkable curse, then why should we want your kind walking among us?

New Arizona law brings renewed attention to immigration reform, JTA – Jewish & Israel News, 26 April 2010:

Jewish groups are slamming Arizona’s stringent new immigration-enforcement law, but hope outrage over the measure will reignite efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform on a national level.

“I believe that it has absolutely ignited a movement across this country for comprehensive immigration reform,” said U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the daughter of Jewish immigrants, who is a co-sponsor of a bill that would provide illegal immigrants with an opportunity to normalize their status. “You see people pouring out of their homes and into the streets and halls of government rejecting this notion of allowing our country to become a police state.”

The new law has been criticized by an array of Jewish groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center, National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a public policy umbrella group comprised of the synagogue movements, several national groups and scores of local Jewish communities across North America.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a Jewish Democrat, referred to the immigration bill as one that “nationally embarrasses Arizona” in an Op-Ed piece published Saturday in The Washington Post.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a statement that “Allowing an individual’s accent or skin color to precipitate an investigation into his or her legal status is an anathema to American values of justice and our historic status as a nation of immigrants. The bill is also likely to endanger our communities by discouraging immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement on issues of national security.”

Along similar lines, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a statement saying that “This law makes no sense — it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias.”

Amy Laff, chair of the Arizona chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, told The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix that she has lingering concerns about the new law.

“I’m concerned that the law will be viewed by many as mean spirited and hostile to minorities,” she said. “I’m also disturbed by the prospect of Arizona residents filing actions against law enforcement personnel whom they deem not to be enforcing federal immigration statutes to the full extent of the law.”

Whites have been indoctrinated to walk on eggshells around jews, even jews who go around “slamming” us with “outrage”. Here they are trying to stigmatize, intimidate, endanger and discourage us – all while they accuse us of doing exactly that. Here’s another modest proposal. Let’s see and understand their behavior as the anti-White “hate” it is.

Jews have an even stronger Trojan Horse tendency than latinos. Of all people it is jews who have an historic status as a nation of immigrants. Certainly Israel is more a nation of immigrants than the US. Schakowsky, Gordon, Saperstein, Hier and any jew who thinks like they do should make aliyah so as to better preach to their own people about getting brown-skinned immigrants to cooperate with Israeli authorities.

City workers banned from official travel to Arizona, San Francisco Chronicle, 27 April 2010:

Supervisor David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have called for a boycott of Arizona and businesses based there. If the resolution passes, Herrera will try to identify contracts with Arizona companies that could be legally terminated.

Newsom, while blasting the Arizona law as “unacceptable,” has expressed skepticism about unintended consequences from a city-instituted boycott, including opening up San Francisco to lawsuits if it includes rescinding already-awarded contracts. He also questioned what companies it would cover.

To address those questions, the mayor today convened a taskforce that includes representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, Controller, city purchasing office and his chief of staff to look at a “smart and effective” targeted boycott, Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker said.

Treasonous latinos and a useful idiot White mayor. Whether we see politics in us and them terms or not the “people of color” do, brazenly exploring “smart and effective” ways to target us.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Mexico Issues Travel Warning for Arizona Over Law, Bloomberg, 27 April 2010:

Mexican President Felipe Calderon said April 26 that his country’s citizens are “angered and saddened” by the Arizona law, which he said “doesn’t adequately guarantee respect for people’s fundamental rights.”

In 2007 Calderon said:

I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico,” he said. “And, for this reason, the government action on behalf of our countrymen is guided by principles, for the defense and protection of their rights.

Aliens in Mexico are required to carry their documents. They are forbidden to protest or otherwise try to influence government policy.

Napolitano: Ariz. law could stretch fed resources, AP, 27 April 2010:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says Arizona’s new immigration law could siphon federal money and staff needed to go after dangerous immigrants.

Napolitano says Immigration and Customs Enforcement fears it will have to use its stretched resources to deal with those arrested under Arizona’s new law. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Napolitano’s department oversees border security.

First of all, the cost of enforcing immigration laws is vastly outweighed by the cost of not doing so. More on those costs at the end of this post.

Second, the expense is small compared to other government spending. For example, it costs US taxpayers about a million dollars a year per soldier to protect poppy farmers on the other side of the globe. The ICE budget for 2010 is around $5.7 billion for some 15,000-17,200 employees. Obama’s 30,000 man surge in Afghanistan will cost an extra $30 billion per year on top of whatever was already being spent there. The argument that enforcing immigration laws is too expensive is made in bad faith by people who know better. A loyal and legitimate regime would put our soldiers to work defending our country from invasion.

Is Arizona’s new immigration law unconstitutional?, The Christian Science Monitor, 27 April 2010:

US Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters on Tuesday that he has assembled a group of lawyers from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to weigh a possible federal lawsuit.

Last week, President Obama called the Arizona law “misguided,” and instructed administration lawyers to “examine the civil rights and other implications.”

Holder voiced similar concerns. He said the measure was “unfortunate” in that it might give rise to potential “abuse” by law enforcement officials. He declined to offer a more detailed legal analysis of the law’s ability to survive a constitutional lawsuit.

“We are reviewing the law right now,” the attorney general said. “We have a group that has been together over the past few days to examine exactly what our reaction is going to be.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. He did not say why.

“What happened in Arizona is that good people are so afraid of an out-of-control border that they had to resort to a law that I think is unconstitutional,” he said during a hearing with Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano told the Judiciary Committee she had deep concerns about the law from a law enforcement perspective. “We believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are committing the most serious crimes,” she said.

This is another surreal take on immigration. Potential abuse by law enforcement officials is more important to prevent than the actual costs and crimes imposed by the invasion.

What is the benefit of waiting until the invaders commit a serious crime? It doesn’t save money. Our country is our collective home, and home invasion is a serious crime. Discrimination is supposed to be a bad thing, so stop discriminating and deport all the invaders ASAP, before they have a chance to commit more serious crimes.

Bill Clinton Sees ‘More Immigrants’ As A Way To Reduce Deficit, Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 28 April 2010:

Former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants — not fewer — to ensure its long-term fiscal future.

At a symposium on deficit reduction today (see my earlier story), Clinton said that one key to avoiding massive debt is to maintain a good ratio between people paying into the system, and those receiving payouts (through such programs as Social Security.)

That means more jobs and more people working, he said. “Which to me means more immigrants.”

Clinton spoke glowingly of the immigrant experience in the United States. “We’ve got somebody from everywhere here, and they do well,” he said.

And looking at the overall budget numbers, comparing money in to money out, “I don’t think there’s any alternative for us but increasing immigration,” he said. “I just don’t see any palatable way out of this unless that’s part of the strategy.”

Clinton didn’t mention it, but it’s not just legal immigrants who contribute to the plus side of the Treasury’s balance sheet. In fact, undocumented immigrants are even more lucrative for the government, particularly Social Security. Many undocumented workers have payroll taxes automatically withheld from their wages, but because they use fake numbers, never collect the benefits.

Clinton justifies genocidal levels of immigration by claiming it’s profitable and beneficial for the immigrants. Froomkin thinks even illegal immigration is “lucrative”. No doubt it has enriched some people, including the invaders, but it has cost the rest of us our country.

AZ cities consider fighting immigration law, AP, 28 April 2010:

The cities include Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff. Their possible legal action could lend momentum to the backlash over the harsh immigration crackdown.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon criticized the measure as “economically devastating.” But he was unable Tuesday to muster support from Phoenix City Council members to jointly file suit to block implementation of the law.

The mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.

The Arizona legislature and governor passed the law because Arizona is being bankrupted by immigration. Just like California. If stopping immigration turns out to be “economically devastating” to Arizona it will most likely be due to boycotts and other economic sabotage organized by latinos and jews.

Mega March leader fears ‘ethnic cleansing’, WFAA.com Dallas, 28 April 2010:

The streets of downtown Dallas were filled with several hundred thousand people in 2006 to protest immigration reform.

At a news conference Wednesday, a diverse group of activists vowed to march again to promote justice for everyone.

“If they come in the morning for brown-skinned people and we remain silent, they may come in the evening for us,” said Peter Johnson, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “So we must stand against Arizona.”

Johnson marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement. He strongly disagrees with Arizona law that now lets police check immigration status at any time.

The biggest fear? “There will be an ethnic cleansing in the State of Arizona,” said march organizer Domingo Garcia. “Once we have ethnic cleansing like we had in the Balkans, next there will be Oklahoma that has bills pending, and other states could follow.”

California is already being ethnically cleansed of Whites. The media and politicians don’t care. If anything they blame White Flight on Whites.

The following articles from various NBC affliate come with sidebars indicating reader feedback. As usual, wherever public feedback is permitted it clearly demonstrates how displeased the public is with the media and government.

Top Calif. Lawmaker: Cut Ties With Arizona, NBC Bay Area, 28 April 2010:

69% LAUGHING
16% FURIOUS
8% THRILLED

Now, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is joining the call for the state to take a stand and sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger saying the law amounts to racial profiling and urged the governor to cancel the state’s contracts with Arizona.

Steinberg also wants to, “ensure that no new contracts are negotiated until Arizona’s law is effectively repealed.”

Rep Wants AZ Immigration Law in Texas, NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, 28 April 2010:

86% THRILLED
7% FURIOUS
2% INTRIGUED
2% LAUGHING
2% SAD

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a San Antonio Democrat and former president of the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, called the law “extremely damaging and hateful.”

Van de Putte predicted failure for any similar measures in Texas and said the GOP would suffer politically for such a move.

LA Could Pass Arizona Boycott, NBC Los Angeles, 29 April 2010:

56% FURIOUS
22% THRILLED
16% LAUGHING

“More than half of the folks living in Los Angeles are Latino, and for us to do nothing is unacceptable,” he said. “For us to not to take heed to this action, which essentially is promoting this concept that every state can establish their own federal immigration laws, is just wrong and dangerous.”

The resolution introduced by [Los Angeles City Council member Ed] Reyes and Councilwoman Janice Hahn calls for the city of Los Angeles to “refrain from conducting business with the state of Arizona including participating in any conventions or other business that requires city resources, unless SB 1070 (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Acts”) is repealed.”

“On the boycott, what we want to do is make sure we understand and review every monetary transaction, any kind of funding that comes from Los Angeles (to Arizona), evaluate it, refrain from conducting business with them and make them aware that their actions have real consequences from a monetary view,” Reyes said.

“The Spanish-speaking community is the largest part of the economy. Without our participation, (Arizona) will be hurt, and if every state in this country took the same road, we could isolate (Arizona) economically so they can understand how they are mistreating and abusing people in America,” he said.

This again illustrates the willingness to work collectively to deliberately inflict harm, to force immigration upon the White community which doesn’t want it.

How Arizona’s law will hurt America: Mayor Michael Bloomberg assails the new immigration statute, New York Daily News, 28 April 2010:

A new Arizona law requiring local police officers to stop anyone they might reasonably suspect of being here illegally may produce unintended consequences that could hurt not only Arizona, but all of America.

The law is so vaguely written that it may force officers to stop people who look or dress differently – or who speak a foreign language, or English with an accent.

Already, stories are appearing about foreign travelers crossing Arizona off their vacation lists. Who wants to visit the Grand Canyon if you could end up getting hassled by the police – or arrested – if you leave your passport at the hotel? Foreign business leaders may also think twice about visiting or investing in Arizona.

While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.

But if some of them stop visiting and investing in America, and if other states follow Arizona’s lead – as some are now discussing – the economic consequences will be felt in middle-class communities across the country.

American citizens would lose jobs as businesses downsize, and governments with lower tax revenues would lay off teachers, firefighters and police officers. As a result, our country would have a harder time climbing out of the national recession.

What’s at stake here is nothing less than America’s international reputation as the most open and attractive marketplace in the world, and our standing as the world’s strongest economic superpower. Immigrants have always been at the heart of American culture and capitalism, and casting suspicious eyes on legal immigrants will only harm both.

Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona’s anti-immigrant law: ‘We are committing national suicide’, New York Daily News, 29 April 2010:

“This is not good for the country. I don’t agree with it,” he said. “We love immigrants here.”

Bloomberg said that because federal lawmakers have failed to tackle the thorny issue, lawmakers in states like Arizona have taken matters into their own hands.

“This country is committing national suicide,” Bloomberg said.

The Arizona law allows cops to stop anyone they think is in the country illegally and arrest folks who can’t prove their immigration status or citizenship.

Bloomberg deemed it an invitation to harassment.

“We have to get real about the 12 million undocumented here,” the mayor said. “We’re not going to deport them. Give them permanent status. Don’t make them citizens unless they can qualify, but give them permanent status and let’s get on with this.”

Bloomberg long has been a supporter of immigration reform, saying current law deters international companies from sending employees through border hassles to work in the U.S. – and freezes out the highly skilled immigrants America needs.

“We don’t have doctors, and we’re not allowing people who want to come here and be doctors to come here,” the mayor said. “This is just craziness.”

National suicide? If we need more doctors, or more of anything else, it’s only because the population is larger. And that growth is driven entirely by immigration.

What’s crazy is the number of prominent politicians who will openly admit that they think genocidal levels of immigration are justified by economics and profit. It is the immigrants, and the Trojan descendents of immigrants, who are balkanizing America. More precisely it is latinos and jews who are here openly arguing that for their own good they will harm Whites who stand in their way. It is not suicide. It is two nations trying to destroy another.

New York is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Michael Bloomberg, Wikipedia:

Michael Rubens Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is the current Mayor of New York City, and the 8th richest person in the United States with personal wealth of US$18 billion in 2010.[2] He is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., a financial news and information services media company.

His father, William Henry Bloomberg, born in Chelsea, Massachusetts on January 19, 1906, was the son of Alexander “Elick” Bloomberg, a Russian Jewish immigrant and a real estate agent. His mother, Charlotte Bloomberg (nee Rubens), born January 2, 1909 in New Jersey, was the daughter of a Russian immigrant and a New Jersey–born mother.

In March 2009, Forbes reported Michael Bloomberg’s wealth at $16 billion, a gain of $4.5 billion since the previous year, which makes him one of the most successful billionaires in the United States during the recession, and the world’s biggest increase in wealth in 2009.

Bloomberg’s Offshore Millions, The New York Observer, 20 April 2010:

According to an extensive review of the mayor’s financial records by The Observer, even as Mr. Bloomberg was trying to counter the loss of taxes and other income from the richest New Yorkers, the foundation he controls was in the process of shuttling hundreds of millions of dollars out of the city and into controversial offshore tax havens that would produce nothing at all for the city in terms of tax revenue.

By the end of 2008, the Bloomberg Family Foundation had transferred almost $300 million into various offshore destinations—some of them notorious tax-dodge hideouts. The Caymans and Cyprus. Bermuda and Brazil. Even Mauritius, a speck of an island in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Madagascar. Other investments were spread around disparate locations, from Japan to Luxembourg to Romania.

Bloomberg says we can’t deport the aliens or the aliens will stop visiting and investing in America. He has already shipped his money overseas. Now if we can just get him to leave…

Mack (R) compares Ariz. law to Nazi Germany, The Hill, 29 April 2010:

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) ripped into the new Arizona immigration law today, comparing it to Nazi Germany.

“This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause,” Mack said in a statement.

“This is not the America I grew up in and believe in, and it’s not the America I want my children to grow up in,” he added.

The country I grew up and believe in and want my children to grow up in is one where the government is loyal to their nation and defends it against all attacks. We don’t need to go back in time. Israel is the best current example of what Mack so vehemently opposes. Until Whites once again have an ethnostate of our own Mack should feel free to denounce Israel.

Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost State Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game; Some Push Boycotts, ABC News, 29 April 29 2010:

A New York congressman who called for the league to move the 2011 game from Phoenix is the latest person to push for an economic boycott against the state in protest of the new law.

“I think that when people, states, localities make decisions this monumental, they should know the full consequence of that decision,” Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y., said. “I think Major League Baseball, with 40 percent Latino ballplayers at all levels, should make a statement that it will not hold its All-Star Game in a state that discriminates against 40 percent of their people.”

Our country is flooded with aggressive, imperious immigrants as a consequence of previous decisions not to enforce immigration laws. As their numbers increase we should know that they will only become more aggressive and imperious.

Editorial – Stopping Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law, NYTimes.com, 29 April 2010:

A fight is brewing over Arizona’s new law that turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects. And this is not a local fight. The poison is spreading; there is talk in Texas of passing a version of the Arizona statute.

President Obama has called the law “misguided” and promised to keep an eye on it. But when racial separation finds a foothold in any of the 50 states, the president needs to do more than mildly criticize. He should act. Here’s a partial but urgent to-do list:

DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS The Justice Department needs to challenge this law forcefully in court. The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.

The mainstream jewish paper of record weighs in with it’s own racial double-standard: doing what Whites want is “spreading poison” while doing what latinos want is “defending civil rights”.

At this point in the one-sided “debate” polls reveal that Arizona’s new law has strong support throughout the country.

Poll: Most support Arizona immigration law, UPI.com, 29 April 2010:

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they’d support requiring their own police to determine people’s U.S. status if there was “reasonable suspicion” the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn’t prove they were legally in the United States.

Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found.

When asked about solving the status of illegal immigrants, 45 percent said undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and be deported, the poll found.

Sixteen percent said those people should be allowed to continue working on a temporary basis and 28 percent supported letting them to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship.

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law, Gallup, 29 April 2010:

More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona’s new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

In politics numbers like this are commonly interpreted as a landslide. With immigration it is interpreted as meaning 51% of the population is “racist”.

Gallup’s puzzling new Arizona immigration poll, Media Matters, 29 April 2010:

Gallup polled adults nationally about a law that only applies to one state and that, at the time of the survey, had only really been in the national news for a few days, and assumed people who had “heard” of the new law knew what the law was about? That strikes me as odd.

It strikes me as odd that this skepticism is aimed at the people who were polled rather than at the politicians and media pundits who are paid to know these things, and who from the start have been spewing blatantly ignorant and biased views uncritically amplified and broadcast by the mainstream media. What the people polled have “heard” has been overwhelmingly opposed to the law, and yet they still strongly support it.

Immigration debate shakes US to the core, AFP, 30 April 2010:

Some of the strongest criticism has come out of New York, an immigrant magnet where 60 percent of residents are foreign born, or children of foreign-born parents.

A group of Latino members in the New York state assembly is even planning to go and chain themselves to the US-Mexico border fence.

“We’re willing to risk ourselves for the people of Arizona and other immigrants across the country,” local lawmaker Felix Ortiz told Cityhallnews.com.

Entertainers speak out on Ariz. immigration law, AP, 30 April 2010:

“Mexican-Americans are not going to take this lying down,” singer Linda Ronstadt, a Tucson native, said at a news conference on a lawsuit planned by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Immigration Law Center.

Colombian singer Shakira visited Phoenix to meet the city’s police chief and mayor amid her concerns the measure would violate human and civil rights.

“It goes against all human dignity.” she said.

At the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony in Puerto Rico, singer Ricky Martin denounced the law, too, saying it “makes no sense.”

In Mexico City, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced he would try to join lawsuits seeking to overturn the law, with a statement from his office calling the measure “a planned Apartheid against Mexicans.”

And officials in El Salvador urged countrymen to avoid traveling to Arizona, according to the Foreign Ministry. In Nicaragua, officials called on the Organization of American States and the United Nations “to take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights of the Hispanic population.”

The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders also sued Thursday, and sought an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argued that federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona’s law violates due process rights by letting police detain suspected illegal immigrants before they’re convicted.

In filing his suit, [15-year Tucson police veteran Martin] Escobar, argued that there’s no way for officers to confirm a person’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates constitutional rights. Tucson police said Escobar acted on his own.

More Trojan latinos coming out of the woodwork to side with their people.

Guillen Says Immigrants Deserve to Be Praised, NYTimes.com, 30 April 2010:

“This country could not survive without Mexicans, all the Latinos,” [manager of the Chicago White Sox Ozzie] Guillen said. “They cannot live without us. A lot of people from this country, they’re very lazy. They want to be on the computer and sending e-mail, and we do the hard work. We’re the ones who work in the sun all day long to make this country better.”

Guillen said laborers who do not speak English were sometimes exploited in the United States. “We’re abused,” he said. “They’re cheaper, or they can’t say no. They are underpaid and they are still working.”

“Believe me, we’re pretty smart,” Guillen said. “We come all the way from Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and you’ve got to cross the border and we did it. We’re going to spread all over the place. We’re going to keep moving around. We’re not leaving because we’re not doing anything wrong.”

Numerous Whites have lost their jobs for making less “supremacist” statements. Guillen won’t even be reprimanded. He’s special. He’s latino. More importantly, the Chicago White Sox owners are, guess who – Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn.

Keep Protesting The Arizona Diamondbacks, Thomas Alter, Huffington Post, 1 May 2010:

This issue does not start or end with the Diamondbacks. Major League Baseball has turned a blind eye to players with murky immigration status such as Joakim Soria, all-star closer for the Royals. There are dozens of players in the big leagues alone whose citizenship is in question. What happens when the Royals come to Arizona? What happens if Soria makes the all-star game in 2011 which is scheduled to be played in Phoenix? If a police officer sees Soria are they legally bound to arrest him? If not, than the bill is pointless. It says that you can pick on the poor migrant worker but not the million-dollar baseball player. This is precisely why the MLB Players Union has come out strongly against the bill. They realize how absurd it is that a quarter of their league would be racially profiled if they lived in Arizona. For a league that’s very conscious of their image within the Latino community, this issue could be devastating.

It’s not hard to imagine there are dozens of players in the big leagues whose citizenship is in question. We’ve got a president who’s in the same boat, in a manner of speaking.

In response to Alter’s sympathetic post someone left a pointed comment that applies just as well to all of these vapid apologists:

Like it or not, everyone on the planet cannot live in the United States.

The Associated Press: MLB players’ union opposes Arizona immigration law, AP, 1 May 2010:

Given a chance to take part in the 2011 All-Star game at Arizona, Ozzie Guillen insists he won’t go.

“I wouldn’t do it,” the Chicago White Sox manager said Friday. “As a Latin American, it’s natural that I have to support our own.”

“It’s a bad thing,” said Baltimore shortstop Cesar Izturis, born in Venezuela. “Now they’re going to go after everybody, not just the people behind the wall. Now they’re going to come out on the street. What if you’re walking on the street with your family and kids? They’re going to go after you.”

“These international players are very much a part of our national pastime,” MLB union head Michael Weiner said. “Each of them must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status.”

Nonsensical phrases like “international players are very much a part of our national pastime” are hardly surprising coming from a self-consciously ethnocentric jew like Weiner. He’ll surely have a good laugh about it with his jewish students.

Anger over Ariz. immigration law drives US rallies, AP, 1 May 2010:

From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and “came out” about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.

Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.

“It’s racist,” said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. “I have papers, but I want to help those who don’t.”

Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona’s new law targets Mexicans.

“This country doesn’t seem to be anti-immigrant,” said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. “It seems to be anti-Mexican.”

Here we have Mexicans breaking laws to help other Mexicans who have broken laws because they perceive the laws to be anti-Mexican. And nobody in government or media is hectoring them about “racism”.

An estimated 8,000 people protest Arizona immigration law in Chicago, chicagotribune.com, 1 May 2010:

Poland-born Ursula Domaradzki of Lombard, who became a U.S. citizen about a decade ago, said she worries authorities could use the law to harass people based on the color of their skin or thickness of their accent.

“This is a country of immigrants,” said Domaradzki, who had come downtown for the Polish Constitution Day parade and stayed for the immigration march. “I’m concerned about what’s happening in Arizona, and I fear it’s going to lead to discrimination.”

For every self-interested immigrant like Domaradzki there are surely others who don’t want to see America overrun by immigrants, because after all, if they wanted to live with latinos or Poles they would have immigrated to Mexico or stayed in Poland. Of course the media does a good job of lending their megaphone mostly to open border fanatics.

Hispanics decry Arizona law at May Day rallies, Reuters, 1 May 2010:

Activists want a repeal of the law that seeks to drive illegal immigrants out of the U.S.-Mexico border state and they want Obama to fulfill his election promise to overhaul immigration laws. An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants, mostly from Latin America, live in the United States.

“What is happening in Arizona is making the community come out to the street,” said activist Omar Gomez in Los Angeles.

Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States and a powerful voting bloc, particularly in Southwestern states.

“Laws that make suspects out of people for no other reason than the color of their skin have no place in our country,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Mexican-American, told marchers packing into the city center.

“We must show that bigotry has no place in the United States of America,” added Villaraigosa, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful Hispanics in U.S. politics.

In Washington, Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez from Obama’s home state of Illinois, was arrested with 34 others after they locked arms and sat in front of the White House fence, chanting Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes we can” in Spanish. The congressman was later released, a spokesman said.

In Chicago, where activists turned out to protest the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team at a game this week, tens of thousands of marchers turned out. In the Boston area, some 2,000 people marched in favor of legalizing undocumented migrants.

Anger at the law spilled over the border to Mexico on Saturday, where activists toting placards reading “Justice for Migrants,” gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

Self-interested invader is closer to the truth than “undocumented migrant”.

Los Angeles is a sanctuary city. Treasonous scofflaw officials from such cities have no standing to lecture anyone else about the law.

Deputy shot; illegal immigrants suspected, AP, 1 May 2010:

A veteran sheriff’s deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

On 4 May 2010 the title had changed to “17 caught in search for deputy’s attackers” the text above was replaced with the following:

Authorities have captured 17 suspected illegal immigrants in southern Arizona as they continued their manhunt Saturday for smugglers who they say shot and wounded a sheriff’s deputy in a remote desert area 50 miles south of Phoenix.

Legalizing the “undocumented migrants” won’t stop the smuggling and murders.

Thousands across Bay Area protest new Arizona immigration law – 5/01/10 – San Francisco News, abc7news.com, 1 May 2010:

In San Jose, thousands of marchers headed to an evening rally at city hall. In San Francisco, a separate demonstration wrapped up in the afternoon, but not without a bit of trouble.

Three people were attacked and at least two others were arrested. The people assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration, a group in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law.

They said a large group of immigrants’ rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.

“They said we were racists, and we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco,” said Parker Wilson with the Bay Area National Anarchists. “What they were saying, they said we need to get out and called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me.”

“Nobody is trying to make this a Nazi police state or anything,” said Minutemen member Steve Kemp. “That’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is giving police the authority to be able to question people if they’re in this country illegally.”

But, Andres Balkan of San Francisco believes, “Minute Men is a neo-Nazi organization.”

The regime encourages everyeon to see any White who stands up to defend their interests as “Nazis”. In practice it means we are subhumans who deserve to be assaulted and worse. Legalizing the “undocumented migrants” won’t stop these attacks.

Dallas immigration Mega March: ‘Education not deportation’ chant thousands of students for Dream Act, Examiner.com, 1 May 2010:

[student co-cordinator, Ramiro Luna] acknowledged seeing anti-immigration reform protesters with signs, “that we would rather not have seen,” at the same time he conceded that there were some marchers, though not in the student group, with swatiska signs depicting Governor Brewer of Arizona as a Hitler with a Nazi band on her arm and Sheriff Arpaio as a KKK leader in front of a burning cross. Although Luna didn’t see any flags that were from other countries, he understood that for every 100 American flags, there was maybe one from another country and he seemed disappointed but resigned that the positive message couldn’t be 100% controlled.

Op-Ed Columnist – If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem, Frank Rich, NYTimes.com, 1 May 2010:

In this Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality, it’s politically incorrect to entertain a reasonable suspicion that race may be at least a factor in what drives an action like the Arizona immigration law. Any racism in America, it turns out, is directed at whites.

Rich, another self-righteous jew, sees the link between the Arizona law and the Tea Party, and like most “people of color” he more clearly sees that it’s about Whites trying to do what’s best for Whites than most Whites do. And he doesn’t like it one bit. In his Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality what Whites are doing is “hysteria”, “a politcal virus”, “vicious”, “bigoted”, “extremist”, “latino-bashing” – and of course we’re only imagining there is any “racism” directed at us.

It has become quite common to find Whites bashed like this in the mainstream media, with Rich and the New York Times being a steady source. However you won’t find any critique of group-obsessed latinos or jews, no matter how openly and aggressively they pursue their group interests.

Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law, Byron York, Washington Examiner, 1 May 2010:

– New York Times editorial
– Dana Milbank, Washington Post
– Cardinal Roger Mahony
– Michael Gerson, Washington Post
– Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
– Washington Post editorial
– Bishop Desmond Tutu, Huffington Post
– Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on ABC’s “This Week”
– President Barack Obama
– Seth Myers, “Saturday Night Live”

Phoenix Suns to wear ‘Los Suns’ on jerseys on Cinco de Mayo, ESPN, 4 May 2010:

[Phoenix Suns owner Robert] Sarver, who was born and raised in Tucson, said frustration with the federal government’s failure to deal with the illegal immigration issue led to the passage of what he called “a flawed state law.”

“However intended, the result of passing the law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question,” he said, “and Arizona’s already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them.”

Phoenix general manager Steve Kerr said he and Sarver talked about making the gesture as the team flew home from Portland last week.

“We just felt like it was important,” Kerr said. “We’re in the public eye and this is obviously a huge issue. We acknowledge there are two sides to the issue and there are a lot of dynamics. It’s a difficult thing to sift through and there are going to be differing opinions. But what we’re focusing on is we want to celebrate the diversity that exists in our state and the diversity that exists in the NBA, make sure that people understand that we know what’s going on and we don’t agree with the law itself.”

The NBA Players Association released a statement criticizing Arizona’s immigration law and praising the Suns for the gesture.

“We applaud the actions of Phoenix Suns players and management and join them in taking a stand against the misguided efforts of Arizona lawmakers,” the NBAPA said. “We are consulting with our members and our player leadership to determine the most effective way for our union to continue to voice our opposition to this legislation.”

But Kerr said “this isn’t a huge political stand as much as it is just a celebration of diversity.”

He said the Suns called the NBA for approval “and they were all for it.”

Suns coach Alvin Gentry didn’t want to comment on Arizona’s immigration bill and said he was focused on showing appreciation for the Latino community and Arizona’s diversity.

“I’m not trying to duck it,” Gentry said. “I don’t know enough about it to really comment on it. I would think that if it had anything to do with racial profiling, then obviously as an African-American I would not be for anything that had any hint of racial profiling.”

The Suns wore the “Los Suns” jerseys twice in the regular season, and won both games.

“It’s going to be great to wear Los Suns,” Phoenix’s Amare Stoudemire said, “to let the Latin community know that we’re behind them 100 percent.”

No surprise here considering who owns the Suns.

Jews good for the Suns…and vice versa, Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, 12 December 2008:

Although this game marked the first official event geared toward the Jewish community, the Phoenix Suns organization has had ties to the Jewish community since the team’s inception in 1968. Donald Diamond, one of the team’s original owners, is a Jewish real estate agent from Tucson. In fact, Sarver, whose family attended services at Temple Emanu-El in Tucson when he was a child, has said that he first became a basketball fan after receiving Suns tickets as a birthday gift from Diamond, who is a family friend of the Sarvers.

Sarver then asked the children in the crowd if they liked going to Hebrew school. When only a couple said yes, he turned to one of his sons and asked where he would be the next morning. “Hebrew school,” his son muttered despondently into the microphone.

“Our religion teaches about the importance of giving back to the community,” Sarver said to the crowd near the end of the session. “That’s very important, and it’s important to the Phoenix Suns as well.”

Sarver is of course talking about giving to the jewish community.

It’s likely that as Phoenix’s latino community grows and its White community shrinks “Los Suns” ticket sales will dwindle toward zero. In the meantime don’t expect any White, American, or European Heritage Nights.

What’s the proper response to Arizona’s new immigration law? Turn it on its head, Jeff MacGregor, ESPN, 4 May 2010:

If they were smarter, maybe they’d see that baseball offers an answer, a way out. Or a way in. Let life mimic the game. Because at its best, the game is color-blind. Apolitical. It’s a gesture of mind and body that recognizes only mind and body. Run. Hit. Throw. It transcends language and culture and country in the way all sports do. Maybe they’d see it if they were smarter. Maybe they’d see it if they weren’t so frightened and angry. You know how hot-headed and hot-blooded they are.

I mean, it’s not like I’m suggesting we stitch some kind of symbol to their clothes or anything. That’s crazy. A simple laminated card. Maybe with some sort of DNA coding. Or an embedded computer chip. GPS. Make it part of a digital national database. You just carry that special ID card at all times — or maybe wear it around your neck on a lanyard so the police can see it — and be prepared to show it to anyone who asks, and everything will be OK.

Sometimes, doing what seems like a cowardly thing takes a lot of courage. A lot of courage. And then you get used to it and it’s OK. I mean, it gets easier, right? It’s not cowardly anymore. To do these things we have to do to protect ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no bigot. Some of my best friends are from Arizona. Really.

Isn’t that clever? You can safely write all the nasty things you want for ESPN – as long as it’s about “Arizonans”. MacGregor knows how to please his bosses. But his readers weren’t pleased. See Conversations: Razing Arizona.

Arizona’s Short-Sighted Immigration Bill, Joel Kotkin, Newgeography.com, 4 May 2010:

In terms of the Arizona law, this is not simply a case of one wacko state. The most recent Gallup survey shows that more Americans favor the law than oppose it, with independents and Republicans showing strong support. Despite the negative coverage in the media, the Arizona gambit could somewhat pay off in November. A weak economy tends to exacerbate nativist sentiments, something that has been constant throughout much of American history.

You don’t have to go very far–in fact just across the California border–to see what awaits Arizona’s nativist Republicans. The Grand Canyon state’s future has already emerged there. In the 1970s and 1980s California’s generally robust economy made it a primary destination for immigrants from both Asia and Latin America. Comfortable in their Anglo-ness, papers like the Arizona Republic were dismissing California as a “third world state,” particularly in the wake of the 1992 LA riots.

Like their Arizona counterparts today, many white Californians then were sickened by pictures of mass Latino participation in looting during the riots. Many were also concerned with soaring costs of providing social services to a largely poor immigrant population. Sensing an opportunity, in 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson–locked in tough re-election battle amid a deep recession–endorsed Proposition 187, a measure designed to prevent illegal aliens from accessing public services. The measure passed easily, with support from both whites and African-Americans. The strong backing among Independents and even some Democrats helped Wilson win re-election with surprising ease.

But the long-term consequences of 187 reveal the longer-term consequences for the GOP. During the Reagan era and even the first Wilson term, Latino voters split their votes fairly evenly between the parties. But after 1994 there was a distinct turn toward the Democrats, with the GOP share at the gubernatorial level falling from nearly half in 1990 to less than a third in subsequent election. In some cases, right-wing Republicans garnered even smaller portions of Latino voters.

This is a classic case of the past waging war on the future. Since 1990 Latino and immigrant population has continued to grow. Overall, the percentage of foreign-born residents, according to USC demographer Dowell Myers, has grown from roughly 22% to 27%. One-third of Californians in 2000 were Latino; Myers projects Latinos will constitute almost 47% of the state’s population in 2030.

Of course, as Latinos integrate and intermarry, they may become less particular in their world view and share more in common with other middle-class Americans. Yet memories of slights against a particular group can overcome even economic self-interest. Blood often proves thicker than bank accounts. The tendency of Jews, a largely affluent and entrepreneurial tribe, to back often harshly anti-business Democrats has its roots in old world scars left from the pogroms in czarist Russia as well as the right-wing genocide in Nazi Germany. Some older voters recall the rabid anti-Semites once prominent in the American far-right as well as the more genteel exclusionism practiced by more refined upper-class Republicans.

In the future, today’s images of shrill, anti-immigrant right-wing activists could resound for coming generations of Latinos as well as Asians and other newcomer groups.

But instead of fighting for their economic interests, the Arizona law has handed the Democrats a golden opportunity for to engage their own demagogy on race issues. Instead of having to defend their plans to restart the economy and reorient them to middle and working class needs, Democrats now can play to narrow racial concerns among Latinos while further bolstering the self-righteousness of their affluent, white, left-wing base.

The reversion to racial politics prompted by the Arizona law ultimately does no good for anyone except “base-oriented” partisan campaign consultants, nativists and ethnic warlords. With all the long-term economic and social challenges that face this growing country, Phoenix’s folly marks an unfortunate step backward to our more shameful past and away from a potentially promising future.

Proposition 187 was never enforced. The will of all those California voters, including my entire extended family, was nullified by a single judge. Immigration fanatic and billionaire jew David Gelbaum was so freaked out by 187 that he paid the Sierra Club $100 million to stop opposing immigration. Pete Wilson supported 187 because he could see California was being bankrupted by immigration. Wilson was right. Today California is bankrupt, Los Angeles is for all intents a Mexican city, and frustrated Whites are leaving the state in droves. The cause is immigration.

Joel Kotkin echoes his tribemate Frank Rich. They see that what they face is a broad White problem, not confined to Arizona. Kotkin isn’t concerned at all about the shrill anti-White activists. But we should be. Kotkin wants us to relax and accept our fate at the hands of groups (especially latinos and jews) who nurse historic race-based grudges against Whites. Whether we relax and forget the past or not, they won’t.

Kotkin is an enthusiastic cheerleader for genocidal levels of immigration. See Another 100 Million People for the U.S., Mangan’s, 26 March 2010.

Kotkin has also thought deeply about how his own tribe has and will continue to cope with immigration and “the reality of L.A. city schools”. Q & A With Joel Kotkin, Jewish Journal, 5 May 2005:

JJ: What do you think the future holds for L.A. Jews? Do you expect them to grow in number or flee to other cities or states with better schools?

JK: Jews are weird. They will stay around long after their counterparts by class and education from other groups, including Latinos, Asians and African Americans, flee. The growth of Hebrew day schools, even among Reform congregations, may stem the outflow a bit as well. Long term, the economic conditions in L.A. may deal the worst blow, as people seek opportunity and more affordable housing elsewhere. But the Jews will be around in L.A. for quite a long time. We’re not so easy to get rid of, and I think even the next mayor, however noxious his politics, will recognize this and will try to appeal to us.

This interview contains an answer for those people who might wonder, “gee, why would jews want to support open borders and ruin their own home in the US?” Jews like Kotkin are acutely aware of their long history in diaspora, as a minority among other people, White or brown.

- – -

Here are a few recent links concerning the costs of the invasion.

snopes.com: Just One State – Cost of Illegals in Los Angeles.

The Signal – Santa Clarita Valley News – County welfare for kids of illegal aliens tops $50 million in January:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY – Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich released figures from the Department of Public Social Services showing that illegal aliens’ children born in the United States collected more than $50 million in welfare benefits (CALWORKS + Food Stamps) for the month of January.

Approximately 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are made to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their native-born children.

“When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education,” Antonovich said.

County seeks $2.9 million to jail illegal immigrants | Houston Politics | Chron.com – Houston Chronicle.

UPDATE 7 May 2010: Activists launch boycott of Arizona over immigration law, AFP, 6 May 2010:

The boycott was called by the National Council of La Raza, the largest US-based Hispanic civil rights group, which also urged President Barack Obama to redouble his efforts to see that immigration reform becomes law.

“We are calling for a boycott because this law will blow open the door to increased racial profiling, wrongful arrests, and other discrimination,” said Janet Murguia, the president of the group, who criticized the Arizona law as “not American.”

“There is a right way and a wrong way” to achieve an overhaul of US immigration policy, she added.

“The right way is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to properly regulate immigration,” she said, urging Americans not to travel to the southwestern US state.

If it gains support, the boycott could put a major crimp in Arizona’s coffers.

The boycott has received strong backing from scores of labor, immigrant and minority rights groups, and since its enactment last month, individual tourists and large companies alike have been canceling conventions and pulling hotel reservations in Arizona.

“We need to send a message to other states,” said Karen Narasaki, of the Asian American Justice Center, giving the boycott her full endorsement.

“There is a price to pay when they abuse the law,” she said.

Meanwhile, the largest US civil rights group, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the law “tramples on the civil rights of Hispanic persons and… cannot be enforced without resorting to racial and ethnic profiling.”

President Barack Obama on Wednesday issued his toughest criticism yet of the law, urging Republicans to join him in beginning work on a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.

The US leader said the new law undermines “fundamental principles that define us as a nation.”

“You can’t start singling out people because of who they look like or how they talk or how they dress,” Obama said at the White House, at a reception marking the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

“You can’t turn law-abiding American citizens and law-abiding immigrants into subjects of suspicion and abuse,” Obama said.

“You can’t divide the American people that way. That is not the answer,” he said adding that he had instructed his government to carefully monitor the new law.

This rhetoric, especially Obama’s, is like Frank Rich’s Alice in Wonderland inversion of reality – angry “people of color” unite for their “civil rights” to make “racial profilers” (ie. Whites) pay, while petulant illegal aliens and their bald-faced ethnocentric enablers are magically transformed into “law-abiding” by a treasonous non-White-community-organizer-in-chief who simultaneously accuses White citizens of being paranoid, abusive, and divisive.

“Civil rights” is about “people of color” making Whites pay for being color-blind.

Race factors into evaluation of Gerhart – NFL – Yahoo! Sports:

If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.

Did skin color keep Stanford RB Toby Gerhart from being a first-round pick? – The Huddle: Football News from the NFL – USATODAY.com:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart said. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

Opinions seem mixed on Gerhart, who was obviously productive but also absorbs a lot of punishment and isn’t especially shifty. One scout told Silver that Gerhart’s pigmentation was definitely working against him.

Nothing to see here, move along folks. When a White guy faces race-based bias it’s a “perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed” and his “pigmentation” is “working against him”.

Just last year Michael Silver, the jewish author of the first article linked above, was offended and outraged over race-based perceptions. In No excuses: Redskins need a new nickname – NFL – Yahoo! Sports, Silver wrote:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

If the NBA placed a franchise in Hawaii, would it consider paying homage to the islands’ Asian influences by competing as the Yellowskins?

And while I’m sure we could all come up with some Jewish slurs to continue the analogy, I submit that an anti-Semitic major league owner like Marge Schott might’ve been quite comfortable fielding a team known as the Foreskins.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. And Redskin is just as absurd, whether you’ve been conditioned to regard it as normal or not.

If Toby Gerhart were a jew Silver wouldn’t describe the problem as “the perception that he lacks the foreskin to succeed in the pros”. He’d describe it as “anti-semitism”. He’d be throwing up in his mouth and wondering why there is no widespread outrage.

Gerhart isn’t a victim of his skin color. He and other White players are subjected to a different race-based standard by sports and media machers who favor “African-Americans” over “whites”. We are conditioned to regard this as normal. It’s not.

Steve Sailer wrote an article about Gerhart last October titled Blackballed? Sailer wonders:

So, why are there a lot of white starting tailbacks in high school, very few in big time college football, and none in the NFL?

There are three general explanations:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks (A.K.A., Did You Know that Jewish Players Used to Dominate Basketball?) This is the dominant public explanation put forward by the sporting press. The party line is that blacks are forced by poverty to become multimillionaire stars, while wealthy whites relax in the lap of luxury by, uh, playing center or breaking up the wedge on kickoffs or … well, never mind. The facts aren’t important.

As Tom Wolfe implied in I Am Charlotte Simmons, this theory is motivated less by any serious urge to explain reality and more by Jewish pundits’ concerns over whether honest analysis of racial differences is good for the Jews.

In Wolfe’s 2004 novel, the frat boys watch a talk show on ESPN:

… four poorly postured middle-aged white sportswriters sat slouched in little, low-backed, smack-red fiberglass swivel chairs panel-discussing the ‘sensitive’ matter of the way black players dominated basketball. “Look,” the well-known columnist Maury Fieldtree was saying, his chin resting on a pasha’s cushion of jowls, “just think about it for a second. Race, ethnicity, all that—that’s just a symptom of something else. There’s been whole cycles of different minorities using sports as a way out of the ghetto. …

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldberg ish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is, roughly, that

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening.

In contrast, the two serious theories are:

Genetics: As O.J. Simpson explained to Time in 1977: “We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks.”

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites: The website CasteFootball.us has long been single-mindedly documenting outstanding young white athletes who have been channeled by coaches from traditionally black positions such as tailback, cornerback or wide receiver to whiter, less glamorous positions such as linebacker, strong safety, or tight end.

The conventional wisdom is actually a combination of all three theories. “People of color” are discriminated against and biologically superior and it’s right and good to discriminate against Whites because of the stereotype that they’ve been discriminating against superior “people of color” for ages.

In “The Myth of ‘Judeo-Christian Values,’” Paul Gottfried writes:

Although I agree with Larry [Auster] about the need for a moratorium on immigration, particularly from Latin America, and although I share his view that decadent, childless Europeans are committing physical and demographic suicide by repopulating their countries with lower-class Muslims, who often incline toward Islamic Fundamentalism, I strongly dissent from his unqualified generalizations about adherents of Islam.

I am not “suiciding” myself and I don’t know anyone who is. What Gottfried misidentifies as “suicide by repopulating their countries” is actually genocide by immigration. It is being imposed on lots of people I do know who don’t want it by a class who most certainly do not see themselves as “us” or these countries as “ours.” It is rationalized and excused by a number of specious arguments, the most effective of which is that any substantive resistance to this supposed “suicide” makes you a horrible, immoral, ignorant person — a “racist” or “nazi.” You’re a mortal threat to the interests of “minorities.”

Jews, of course, are the prototypical threatened minority, with a mind boggling disproportion of wealth and over-representation in Western media and politics. That’s why anyone who stands against this so-called “suicide” is called a “nazi” — whether or not they have any knowledge of “nazi” history or jewish power. Whites may be ignorant of our interests, but jews are not ignorant of theirs, and they don’t hesitate to use their power to viciously attack anyone they perceive as an enemy.

Neither Gottfried nor Auster are powerful, in part because they oppose immigration. Despite their differences on muslims both feel free to make unqualified negative generalizations about Whites. Both scapegoat us for “suiciding” ourselves. Both talk about and even criticize jews, but ultimately excuse them and blame Whites instead.

Larry might wish that Jews thought differently about Christian believers since he himself is one, but alas most of them don’t. Jewish organizations here and in Europe view Christians as people whose exaggerated guilt over the Holocaust can be channeled into support for the Israeli government. Prominent Jewish groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League, show nothing but indifference or hostility to the continued existence of Christian institutions in what used to be Christian countries.

This isn’t about religion. Christianity here is nothing but a proxy for Whiteness, and Gottfried and Auster both know it.

Those same prominent jewish groups joined with muslims and the Catholic Church, the media, and the EU ruling caste to condemn a popular, secular Swiss vote banning minarets. Led by jewish example and jewish rhetoric they all take the slightest indication that the Swiss want Switzerland to remain Swiss as a sign of “nazism,” which they see as a mortal threat. Never mind the mortal threat to the Swiss. In this and dozens of recent examples across the West, opposition to genocidal levels of immigration is more and more explicitly described as bad for jews and the alien migrants they identify and sympathize with. The rationale is that such opposition threatens them with genocide.

The impact of this inversion of reality isn’t anti-Christian, it’s anti-White. Even when White opposition to immigration is deracinated and expressed in terms of law, economics, or culture the genocidal immigrationists shamelessly inject their own ethnic and racial interests into the debate while accusing the White opposition of disguising “racist” motives.

I’m not as familiar with Gottfried, but I know Auster follows European politics almost as closely as he follows domestic American politics. His main concern isn’t religion. It’s “anti-semitism.” If he gets the slightest whiff that a person or organization opposes jewish interests, explicitly or not, it doesn’t matter whether they are good Christians, dislike muslims, or agree with him on every other point of his pro-jewish worldview.

There might well be problems with the liberal ideas that Jews have supported until now, but it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I’ve never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew.

Auster only poses as an anti-”liberal” “conservative.” His preoccupation is with defending jewish interests. His opposition to immigration into the West is based primarily on it being bad for jews. His dissembling about “liberalism” and “judeo-Christian” heritage is only part of his deliberate and more general conflation of White and jewish interests. Gottfried likewise but less blatantly poses as a “conservative” against “liberalism”. Together he and his friend Auster demonstrate that self-identity as a jew is not only connected to “liberals” and leftist politics.

I’ll conclude with an exchange in June 2009 between these two hyper-conscious jews about how jews are innocent and Whites (disingenously euphemized first as “Protestants,” then as “Christians,” and finally as the “white gentile majority”) are to blame, excerpted from Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants (Auster’s emphasis):

LA replies:

Let me see if I can reconcile these statements.

You seem to be saying that the egalitarian fiction (the races are equal in capacities, so blacks’ backwardness must be due to white racism) is the source of white guilt, but that the energy pushing this guilt and never giving it a rest is the projection of Christian spiritual guilt onto secular racial guilt about nonwhites.

Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying?

However, this leads me to another point, I think I have just finally understood something you’ve been saying to me for a number of years. You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Is this what you’ve been saying?

Paul Gottfried replies:

You’ve summed up my views on the differences between Jewish and Christian liberals with more succinctness that I’ve been able to apply to the problem. And your conclusion is spot on. True liberals, who incarnate the Freudian death wish, yearn for the extinction of their ancestral group.

Jews, including “conservatives” like Auster and Gottfried, feel ok about themselves, they think Whites are the problem.

UPDATE 16 April 2010: Alt-Right’s ongoing construction of a fictional Auster is Auster’s lame reply to “ignorant and off-base statements about me.” He complains that:

Every time an article about me appears at Richard Spencer’s website Alternative Right, which is not an infrequent event, it attributes to me, without evidence, without any quotations from my writings, views that I do not have and that I have never stated and that frequently are the opposite of my actual views. There have been so many such false attributions, particularly in Richard Spencer’s long article, “Austercized” (which I only gave a careful reading recently, after Spencer’s podcast interview of me), and in Richard Hoste’s blog entries about me, and it would take so much work and time to reply to them all, and there are so many more pressing and more interesting things to write about, that I’ve put off replying to them so far, though I will try to get around to it.

The latest Auster-critical fantasy fest (or, rather, “Larry”-critical fantasy fest, since the writers at Alt Right do not refer to me by my last name, but as “Larry”) is a 1,600 word article posted yesterday by Paul Gottfried which, without a single quotation of me, attributes to me numerous views that I do not have and have never stated.

Of course whenever I write about Larry I quote him extensively. My frequent critiques of him have been rooted entirely in his views and his arguments. It has never stopped him from writing any number of ignorant and off-base statements about me.

Focusing finally on Gottfried, Auster writes:

Beyond his wild mischaracterizations of my views, of which I’ve only touched the surface, is a much more consequential matter. Gottfried’s main point in this vile and incoherent article is to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians, to make Christians feel that Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims are.

The quotes Auster provides and his statement of his “real” views do not demonstrate any “wild mischaracterizations” made by Gottfried. And Auster provides no quotes in support of his own wild mischaracterization of Gottfried’s main point, which Gottfried put right in his title: “The Myth of ‘Judeo-Christian Values.’” Gottfried is accusing Larry of mischaracterizing the history of European/jewish relations. The only real flaw with that criticism is that Gottfried neglects to add that many other jews and zionist Christians join Larry in that mythologizing. “Judeo-Christian” rhetoric is the norm, not the exception, and in fact the only politically correct, mainstream, “liberal” view of “judeo-Christian” history is one in which jews have always been the completely innocent victims of undeserved persecution, repeatedly perpetrated by envious, irrational, and ignorant Europeans.

As usual Auster doesn’t address the criticism that’s actually aimed at him. Instead he complains hypocritically about “personal attacks” and “reckless indifference to factual truth” and changes the subject. And of course the subject that he really wants to talk about is the threat to jews posed by Gottfried’s blunt words concerning their dim views of “Christians,” i.e., Europeans.

I’m disgusted by the dissembling coming from both of these jewish “conservative” poseurs, but I’m happy to see so many in the Alternative Right commentariat aren’t fooled.

Age of Treason, April 15, 2010

In The Myth of “Judeo-Christian Values”, Paul Gottfried writes:

Although I agree with Larry [Auster] about the need for a moratorium on immigration, particularly from Latin America, and although I share his view that decadent, childless Europeans are committing physical and demographic suicide by repopulating their countries with lower-class Muslims, who often incline toward Islamic Fundamentalism, I strongly dissent from his unqualified generalizations about adherents of Islam.

I am not suiciding myself and I don’t know anyone who is. What Gottfried misidentifies as “suicide by repopulating their countries” is actually genocide by immigration. It is being imposed on lots of people I do know who don’t want it by a class who most certainly do not see themselves as “us” or these countries as “ours”. It is rationalized and excused by a number of specious arguments, the most effective of which is that any substantive resistance to this supposed “suicide” makes you a horrible, immoral, ignorant person – a “racist” or “nazi”. You’re a mortal threat to the interests of “minorities”.

Jews, of course, are the prototypical threatened minority, with a mind boggling disproportion of wealth and over-representation in Western media and politics. That’s why anyone who stands against this so-called “suicide” is called a “nazi” – whether or not they have any knowledge of “nazi” history or jewish power. Whites may be ignorant of our interests, but jews are not ignorant of theirs, and they don’t hesitate to use their power to viciously attack anyone they perceive as an enemy.

Neither Gottfried nor Auster are powerful, in part because they oppose immigration. Despite their differences on muslims both feel free to make unqualified negative generalizations about Whites. Both scapegoat us for “suiciding” ourselves. Both talk about and even criticize jews, but ultimately excuse them and blame Whites instead.

Larry might wish that Jews thought differently about Christian believers since he himself is one, but alas most of them don’t. Jewish organizations here and in Europe view Christians as people whose exaggerated guilt over the Holocaust can be channeled into support for the Israeli government. Prominent Jewish groups, such as the World Jewish Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League, show nothing but indifference or hostility to the continued existence of Christian institutions in what used to be Christian countries.

This isn’t about religion. Christianity here is nothing but a proxy for Whiteness, and Gottfried and Auster both know it.

Those same prominent jewish groups joined with muslims and the Catholic Church, the media, and the EU ruling caste to condemn a popular, secular Swiss vote banning minarets. Led by jewish example and jewish rhetoric they all take the slightest indication that the Swiss want Switzerland to remain Swiss as a sign of “nazism”, which they see as a mortal threat. Never mind the mortal threat to the Swiss. In this and dozens of recent examples across the West, opposition to genocidal levels of immigration is more and more explicitly described as bad for jews and the alien migrants they identify and sympathize with. The rationale is that such opposition threatens them with genocide.

The impact of this inversion of reality isn’t anti-Christian, it’s anti-White. Even when White opposition to immigration is deracinated and expressed in terms of law, economics, or culture the genocidal immigrationists shamelessly inject their own ethnic and racial interests into the debate while accusing the White opposition of disguising “racist” motives.

I’m not as familiar with Gottfried, but I know Auster follows European politics almost as closely as he follows domestic American politics. His main concern isn’t religion. It’s “anti-semitism”. If he gets the slightest whiff that a person or organization opposes jewish interests, explicitly or not, it doesn’t matter whether they are good Christians, dislike muslims, or agree with him on every other point of his pro-jewish worldview.

There might well be problems with the liberal ideas that Jews have supported until now, but it is simply wrong to pretend that Jewish liberals act from liberal motives that have nothing to do with their Jewish fears and hostilities. I’ve never met a Jewish liberal whose leftist politics was not in some way connected to his self-identity as a Jew.

Auster only poses as an anti-”liberal” “conservative”. His preoccupation is with defending jewish interests. His opposition to immigration into the West is based primarily on it being bad for jews. His dissembling about “liberalism” and “judeo-Christian” heritage is only part of his deliberate and more general conflation of White and jewish interests. Gottfried likewise but less blatantly poses as a “conservative” against “liberalism”. Together he and his friend Auster demonstrate that self-identity as a jew is not only connected to “liberals” and leftist politics.

I’ll conclude with an exchange in June 2009 between these two hyper-conscious jews about how jews are innocent and Whites (disingenously euphemized first as “Protestants”, then as “Christians”, and finally as the “white gentile majority”) are to blame, excerpted from Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants (Auster’s emphasis):

LA replies:

Let me see if I can reconcile these statements.

You seem to be saying that the egalitarian fiction (the races are equal in capacities, so blacks’ backwardness must be due to white racism) is the source of white guilt, but that the energy pushing this guilt and never giving it a rest is the projection of Christian spiritual guilt onto secular racial guilt about nonwhites.

Is that an accurate summary of what you’re saying?

However, this leads me to another point, I think I have just finally understood something you’ve been saying to me for a number of years. You have often told me that Protestant liberals are worse than Jewish liberals, and I never quite understood what you meant by this. But now I think maybe I see it.

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following.

Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel ok about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals. The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

A true liberal is a person who is willing to accept his group’s extinction. Protestants are willing to accept their group’s extinction. Jews are not. Therefore Protestants are closer to the true liberal essence than the Jews are.

Is this what you’ve been saying?

Paul Gottfried replies:

You’ve summed up my views on the differences between Jewish and Christian liberals with more succinctness that I’ve been able to apply to the problem. And your conclusion is spot on. True liberals, who incarnate the Freudian death wish, yearn for the extinction of their ancestral group.

Jews, including “conservatives” like Auster and Gottfried, feel ok about themselves, they think Whites are the problem.

UPDATE 16 April 2010: Alt-Right’s ongoing construction of a fictional Auster is Auster’s lame reply to “ignorant and off-base statements about me”. He complains that:

Every time an article about me appears at Richard Spencer’s website Alternative Right, which is not an infrequent event, it attributes to me, without evidence, without any quotations from my writings, views that I do not have and that I have never stated and that frequently are the opposite of my actual views. There have been so many such false attributions, particularly in Richard Spencer’s long article, “Austercized” (which I only gave a careful reading recently, after Spencer’s podcast interview of me), and in Richard Hoste’s blog entries about me, and it would take so much work and time to reply to them all, and there are so many more pressing and more interesting things to write about, that I’ve put off replying to them so far, though I will try to get around to it.

The latest Auster-critical fantasy fest (or, rather, “Larry”-critical fantasy fest, since the writers at Alt Right do not refer to me by my last name, but as “Larry”) is a 1,600 word article posted yesterday by Paul Gottfried which, without a single quotation of me, attributes to me numerous views that I do not have and have never stated.

Of course whenever I write about Larry I quote him extensively. My frequent critiques of him have been rooted entirely in his views and his arguments. It has never stopped him from writing any number of ignorant and off-base statements about me.

Focusing finally on Gottfried, Auster writes:

Beyond his wild mischaracterizations of my views, of which I’ve only touched the surface, is a much more consequential matter. Gottfried’s main point in this vile and incoherent article is to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians, to make Christians feel that Jews are a greater threat to the West than Muslims are.

The quotes Auster provides and his statement of his “real” views do not demonstrate any “wild mischaracterizations” made by Gottfried. And Auster provides no quotes in support of his own wild mischaracterization of Gottfried’s main point, which Gottfried put right in his title: The Myth of “Judeo-Christian Values”. Gottfried is accusing Larry of mischaracterizing the history of European/jewish relations. The only real flaw with that criticism is that Gottfried neglects to add that many other jews and zionist Christians join Larry in that mythologizing. “Judeo-Christian” rhetoric is the norm, not the exception, and in fact the only politically correct, mainstream, “liberal” view of “judeo-Christian” history is one in which jews have always been the completely innocent victims of undeserved persecution, repeatedly perpetrated by envious, irrational, and ignorant Europeans.

As usual Auster doesn’t address the criticism that’s actually aimed at him. Instead he complains hypocritically about “personal attacks” and “reckless indifference to factual truth” and changes the subject. And of course the subject that he really wants to talk about is the threat to jews posed by Gottfried’s blunt words concerning their dim views of “Christians”, ie. Europeans.

I’m disgusted by the dissembling coming from both of these jewish “conservative” poseurs, but I’m happy to see so many in the Alternative Right commentariat aren’t fooled.

For more than a year media pundits and celebrities and an army of lesser-known left-leaning editorialists and bloggers have ridiculed and dehumanized Tea Party protesters as “teabaggers” and “racists”. With the recent surge in anti-White sentiment openly expressed in the “liberal” media it must be dawning on more and more Tea Partiers that the problems with their country go beyond taxes, healthcare, or socialism.

In Teabaggers Vs. Immigration Rally: A Tale of Two Americas – huffingtonpost.com, Miguel Guadalupe writes:

At the immigration rally, you saw a wide spectrum of races and ethnicities. Those attending were mostly Latino, but the rally also welcomed the participation of Whites, Asians, and Blacks who support a path to citizenship, reuniting families, and providing opportunities to students and veterans.

At the Teabagger rally, the monochromatic masses were spitting and yelling racial and homophobic slurs at Black, Latino, and openly gay congressional reps.

At the immigrations rally, the participants were expressing hope – hope that reform would reunite them with their families. Hope that they would be given the opportunity to fully contribute to society, and the hope that their sacrifices, including the sacrifices of those who have served in the military or have lost their lives defending this country, will not be in vain.

At the Teabagger rally, the participants were expressing fear – fear of a socialist nation, fear of some type of take over of individual rights, fear of some conspiracy involving the democratically elected President and a democratically elected representative majority. They punctuated their expression of fear with threats of violence.

I highlight these opposing images because soon enough, these two groups will collide. The national debate on immigration reform will come soon, and if the Teabaggers act as they have against health care reform, we can expect more vitriol, fear mongering, harassment and acts of violence. These so-called “Americans” will feel even less restrained against people they consider to be “foreign” or “illegal,” deserving even less respect than they gave to our elected officials.

In Whose Country Is It? – NYTimes.com, Charles Blow writes:

The far-right extremists have gone into conniptions.

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite, less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care – NYTimes.com, Frank Rich writes:

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

In Too much tea party racism – Salon.com, Joan Walsh writes:

The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.

These views well reflect the increasingly obvious race-based double standard propounded in the media for more than a decade now: non-White aliens good, White natives evil.

The psychological device they’re using in the battle over healthcare is the same one that’s been used against anyone opposed to immigration. They call Whites “racist” for objecting to anything we don’t believe is in our best interests, trying to guilt-trip us and implying that we’re somehow morally or mentally defective. As we can see from the full-throated anti-White reaction to even the largely deracinated Tea Partiers, whether we think or speak in explicitly racial terms is irrelevant. Our “anti-racist” antagonists are hyper-sensitive to race and any conflict with their own racial interests, or as in the case of Joan Walsh, act as a self-righteous proxy for such interests. White leaders perversely reject and profess distaste for our group interests even as we see an increasing number of non-White leaders who openly and unabashedly advocate in favor of theirs.

White fears are justified. We had a country of our own and still want one, organized to our tastes and run for our benefit. What sane group of people does not? In 1965 we were told that the changes to the immigration laws would not alter the ethnic makeup of our country. Anyone who foresaw that it would was smeared as an insane “racist”. Today it’s clear that immigration has in fact radically changed the ethnic makeup of the country. Now we’re told it’s irrepressible, irrevocable, and the country is no longer ours. Anyone angered by this situation or the duplicity used to produce it is smeared as an insane “racist”.

We are being displaced and dispossessed by genocidal levels of immigration and concomitant inter-racial transfers of wealth and power. This is foisted on us by liars and hypocrites whose deceptions, self-interests, and disdain for us becomes more transparent every day. They control all the major channels of education and discourse, and thus shape the terms of debate, defining and denigrating practically anything we have to say about any of this as “hate”. Their moralizing invokes injustices decades or centuries past, while they disregard and even celebrate the injustices being done to Whites right here, right now. They project onto us and decry their own malign motives and guilty deeds, shamelessly broadcasting a never-ending stream of race-based vitriol and fear mongering from myriad well-funded, high-profile sources, attacking us for peaceably expressing legitimate political interests. We have accommodated and appeased them for too long. For decades we have demonstrated our good faith, which they have taken advantage of and not reciprocated. The harder they try now to scapegoat us and the louder they insinuate that our calls for self-determination portend violence, the more they reveal their malevolent intent.

(Snide image discourtesy of the New York Times.)

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I’m glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He’s notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer’s line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, “Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you’re a nasty jew-hater.”

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don’t think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He’s wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else’s.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don’t. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as “insiders”? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I’ve always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.

. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn’t fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society’s problems are due to “the majority” simply abdicating.

The reality is that America’s jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless “anti-semites”. It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce’s Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the “Sons of Ellis Island”, see Kevin MacDonald’s Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the “Diversity Recession” and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil’s examination of Diversity in income and education.

Israeli officials, neoconservatives, and Zionists are pushing relentlessly for the military destruction or internal overthrow of Iran. The drumbeat of anti-Iranian propaganda on television, in the print media, from Jews and government officials, while not yet as intense as anti-Iraq propaganda prior to the 2003 invasion of Mesopotamia, is ceaseless and mounting.

Iranians (or Persians), the largest ethnic group in Iran, are not Semites. Unlike Jews and Arabs, they are Indo-Europeans. Iranians have a distinguished Aryan past. Many Iranian “minorities” also have Indo-European origins or speak Indo-European languages. As elsewhere across the highly admixed Eurasian borderlands, the racial and ethnic picture in Iran is highly complex and a millennium and a half of Islamic religious and cultural overlay further differentiates the populace from Europeans. Nevertheless, in biocultural terms, the people of the West and Iranians share common Indo-European and proto-Indo European roots.

Whites and Jews do not.

Bloodlust

Pat Buchanan wrote recently that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) “is surely aware a US clash with Iran, with him at the president’s side, could assure his re-election. Last week, Reid whistled through the Senate, by voice vote, a bill to put us on that escalator. Senate bill 2799 would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes. And cutting off a country’s oil or gas is a proven path to war.” (Reid, who is white, has a Jewish wife and children.)

In contemporary politics it’s always six of one, half dozen of the other. Rather than military attack, Buchanan therefore favors current US policy: “US interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West”—elements he describes as “the leaders of the Green Movement who have stood up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.”

In other words, Buchanan and the establishment Left prefer a clandestine coup d’état (”regime change”) engineered by the secret police agencies and governments of the ex-West on behalf of Israel.

Prior to the 1991 Gulf “War,” Israel’s disinformation machine depicted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a tyrant and a danger to the world. According to ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, “The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty International to fully bought members of the US Congress.” The same process is at work now, with “Holocaust denier” Ahmadinejad-Hitler replacing Saddam-Hitler as the embodiment of ultimate evil.

Two years ago, in an article in The New Yorker (July 7, 2008), Jewish journalist Seymour Hersh revealed secret Buchanan-Obama style US subversion inside Iran, including murders, creation of minority ethnic strife, and political meddling designed to overthrow the government there. Although Hersh’s account covered Bush Administration-Congressional Democratic policy, things have not changed under unitary Obama-Reid-Pelosi Democratic dominance. (US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D.-Calif.], a Catholic Italian-American, has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren.)

Jewry and Israel are guilty as well. The Times (London) reported:

Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, in a speech at the weekend, alluded to a report in The Times on Saturday that Mossad was waging a covert war of assassinations across the Middle East, targeting Hamas and Iranian officials.

“There are a huge range of options between a full military attack and accepting a nuclear Iran,” Mr Olmert said. “There are other means that, together with other things happening, and they are happening [emphasis added], can create a result that would not allow the Iranians to reach what they are trying to reach.” (February 16, 2010)

The January 20, 2010 Jewish assassination of Hamas member Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, again according to the Times (February 21, 2010), occurred within the “context” of anti-Iranian policy. Since the murder had been deceptively arranged to look like a natural death, it was only discovered because the government of Dubai is not as controlled as the ex-Western governments that quietly facilitated the killers’ movements.

“The mission was not regarded as unduly complicated or risky,” the Times reported. According to an Israeli source, the killers were “very much aware of the CCTV [closed-circuit television surveillance cameras] in Dubai” that led to their being discovered—though not captured or punished. They got away scot-free. It’s creepy reading and watching [video] how the swarm of psychopaths glued themselves to their unwitting victim, especially knowing our government is in league with them, and that Dubai is but the small tip of a very large iceberg.(1)

It would appear that Jewish elements are accustomed to operating with impunity in ex-Western nations possessing far more advanced police systems and technological capabilities than Dubai. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, when Jewish and Israeli firms are so deeply enmeshed in providing, staffing, and training the public and private “security” apparatus in those countries? Jews anticipated that, like the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Dubai officials would be unable or unwilling to reconstruct and assemble the multiple CCTV images of their operation into one account.

Conclusion

Neither coup d’état nor invasion is acceptable.(2) The fact that the Iranian nuclear program is being used as a pretext for the Great Power assault compounds the evil, for Israel bristles with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, acquired with the criminal connivance of officials in France, Norway, and the United States, and concealed from public view by cooperative media establishments.

From a strategic and fiscal perspective, the destruction of Iran is folly. It is not in our interests. It is iniquitous. But our corrupt and self-absorbed ruling class is not known for prudence, self-restraint, adherence to law, or morality. Even if its impetuous hatred ultimately brings our own house crashing down around our heads like the Twin Towers, there is nothing whites can do about it.

Only dissent by a Jewish minority can eventually alter the course of events, because only Jews have primary influence in such matters. Everyone else is merely along for the ride, remaining silent or choosing which Jewish faction to support on the basis of expediency, obedience, conformity, or normative preference. Precluded by a totalitarian political and cultural regime from making independent contributions to an artificially circumscribed “debate,” and certainly prevented from advancing non-Jewish interests or values, Gentile ideological and policy input must remain derivative, marginal, and uninspiring, à la Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc.

The internal Jewish schism over Middle East policy that seems to be forming will take time to develop—too much time, it appears, to spare the Iranians, who, as a minor power, will likely be destroyed either by a subterranean coup d’état or neoconservative military violence.

From the standpoint of history, race, and community, our primary interests align more closely with (more or less) Indo-European Islamic Iranians than with anti-white Jews, Israelis, and ex-Western governments currently riding high at everyone else’s expense. There is no evidence that Iranians desire the extermination of our people.

---

1. For a concise analysis of the social dangers of free-roaming Jewish death squads, see sociologist James Petras, “Mossad’s Murderous Reach: The Larger Political Issues.” Killings like the one in Dubai are what elites were chortling about in the despicable movie Inglourious Basterds (2009), about which Jewry’s most powerful censor wrote, “If only it were true!”  Abraham Foxman, “Inglourious Basterds Should Be Recognized With An Academy Award,” HuffingtonPost.com, February 18, 2010.

2. Israel Defense Forces website, “U.S. Army Chief: ‘Iran attack option on the table,’” Feb. 14, 2010.

As many regular visitors to Age of Treason probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls “The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society.” The essence of it is that “liberalism” dictates that “minorities” who behave worst must be treated best by “the majority.” It’s a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster’s terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster’s law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn’t, can’t, doesn’t, and musn’t. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a “serious anti-semite” would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted “Auster’s Law and Corollary”. I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says he feels threatened by jews is declaring himself a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar’s post arguing against Auster’s law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don’t care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It’s important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster’s frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish (”in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment”). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks “support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue.”

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and “anti-semites”) from “our” society, but not jews. They’d like to roust “the majority” to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It’s a gambit. They know “the majority” might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. “Oh, misbehavior doesn’t include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing — misbehavior means violence!” Of course when this doesn’t fly it’s right back to the same old story. Blame “anti-semitism.” Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of “majority-minority relations” perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn’t. We can pretend the law doesn’t apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster’s dissembling. “The majority” is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by “liberalism” but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether “the majority” means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don’t get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from “whites,” which is Auster’s term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-”white,” it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-”white” regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as “suicide” would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may be get warmer at times, but I don’t believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He’s more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as “the majority,” or “white gentiles,” or “white Christians”) it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Here Auster reveals that when he blames “liberalism” daily for the West’s various ills he’s really blaming White Christians. What do these Protestants feel so guilty about? Has nobody ever pointed out to them that guilt-free White-blaming jews love to conflate misguided liberal equalitarianism with consciously anti-White anti-Christian neo-liberalism?

Auster says jews know what’s going on and think the white gentile majority is the problem. It certainly describes his own view. It explains his regular commands for “the majority” to “reassert itself” by throwing off just those parts of neo-liberalism he doesn’t like. He regularly asserts that “we” are “suiciding” ourselves, as if jews are standing idly by in some ghetto watching instead of actively leading, funding, and participating in the destruction of White society while doing their utmost to protect jews.

The fact that some weak-minded Whites have been convinced to blame themselves and protect jews does not absolve the jews who are involved. What justifies treating jews as a group is how they leap as a group to the defense of the jews who are complicit. Auster got my attention because he’s one of the handful of jews who comments on these things. Even he ultimately sides with the misbehaving jews.

C’est la guerre.

Age of Treason, February 15, 2010

As many regular visitors here probably know, Lawrence Auster has been writing for years about an idea he calls “The First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society”. The essence of it is that “liberalism” dictates that “minorities” who behave worst must be treated best by “the majority”. It’s a valuable insight, but I use sneer-quotes where Auster’s terminology obscures reality. The law is more precisely stated in less euphemistic terms. Neo-liberalism dictates that non-Whites or non-Christians who behave worst must be treated best by White Christians. Jews behave the worst and must be treated the best.

This explains how news and opinion are reported by the media, how subjects are taught in academia, and how policy is formed by the government. Day in and day out they tell us that Whites are monsters and jews are saints.

When I first pointed out that Auster’s law applies to jews he responded first by making an attempt, lame beyond belief, to explain why it shouldn’t, can’t, doesn’t, and musn’t. Then he shifted the argument to what a bad person I was, based in part on my pseudonym. No shit. He eventually settled, and remains settled to this day, on the logically unassailable position that only a “serious anti-semite” would think negatively of jews, therefore such thoughts should be ignored.

That summarizes the exchange until now. I refer those who want more detail to Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism, which contains my initial challenge and his response. Criticizing Auster reviews the argument eight months later. Other comments regarding Auster are here.

What prompts me to write today is that a few days ago Chechar posted “Auster’s Law and Corollary”. I left a comment there with the two links above and some short comments.

A few days later Auster linked Chechar in The more the Other threatens us , the more we accommodate ourselves to him, yet another pithy formulation of his law that fits jews. Auster no doubt thinks it is a safe statement to make. In his mind anyone who says they feel threatened by jews is declaring themselves a threat to jews, and this in no way represents any special accomodation whatsoever.

Don Marco Jawsario and Hesperado left comments on Chechar’s post arguing against Auster’s law applying to jews. It seems they are unaware of or don’t care what has already been written, but I made some brief responses.

It’s important to know where these commenters are coming from, as Auster is fond of saying. Don Marco Jawsario appears to be Auster’s frequent correspondent Mark Jaws, AKA Marco Jawsario, who is jewish (“in the Army I was usually the only Jew in my regiment”). I have previously written about Hesperado in Hesperation. He has made it clear that he thinks “support for Judaism and the Jews is a non-negotiable virtue”.

Auster obviously formulated his law with muslims and blacks in mind, not jews. He and his supporters want to exclude muslims and blacks (and “anti-semites”) from “our” society, but not jews. They’d like to roust “the majority” to do the heavy lifting, and they point to just the portion of the anti-White system they want us to dismantle. It’s a gambit. They know “the majority” might notice that a particular minority has long been dictating the terms for their own benefit. (After all, here I am saying it.) So for appearences they try to keep their version of the law jew-safe by adding subtle qualifications only indirectly exempting jews. “Oh, misbehavior doesn’t include things like fraud, opening the borders, hate speech laws, bribery, organ trafficing – misbehavior means violence!” Of course when this doesn’t fly it’s right back to the same old story. Blame “anti-semitism”. Jews are exempt and only jew-haters/conspiracy theorists/bad stupid evil subhumans think otherwise.

The question is, why should Whites heed this jew-serving double-talk? The law itself explains this aspect of “majority-minority relations” perfectly. In fact it fits better when they make their excuses and sling their insults than it would if they didn’t. We can pretend the law doesn’t apply to jews, and came from who knows where. Or we can say it does apply to jews, serves their interests, and has been promulgated by them for that very reason.

At the root of this double-talk is Auster’s dissembling. “The majority” is White, and we are quickly being reduced to a minority, not by “liberalism” but by anti-White/pro-jew neo-liberalism. We can argue about whether “the majority” means White Christian, but Christian is an increasingly imperfect proxy for White. Non-White Christians don’t get shit on by neo-liberalism. Non-Christian Whites do. Whites are distinct from “whites”, which is Auster’s term for an amalgam of Whites and jews inseparable except when jews see fit to distinguish themselves for special treatment. The regime is not anti-”white”, it is anti-White. If what is being done to Whites were being done to jews, even as part of an anti-”white” regime, they would call it genocide, and people who tried to paint it as “suicide” would be accused of aiding and abetting that genocide. Auster may get warmer at times, but I don’t believe he will ever come clean about these crucial distinctions. He’s more concerned with the consequences for jews than anything else.

When Auster discusses Whites (euphemized as “the majority”, or “white gentiles”, or “white Christians”) it is only to blame us. He does not blame jews. For example, in Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants, Auster writes (my emphasis):

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Here Auster reveals that when he blames “liberalism” daily for the West’s various ills he’s really blaming White Christians. What do these Protestants feel so guilty about? Has nobody ever pointed out to them that guilt-free White-blaming jews love to conflate misguided liberal equalitarianism with consciously anti-White anti-Christian neo-liberalism?

Auster says jews know what’s going on and think the white gentile majority is the problem. It certainly describes his own view. It explains his regular commands for “the majority” to “reassert itself” by throwing off just those parts of neo-liberalism he doesn’t like. He regularly asserts that “we” are “suiciding” ourselves, as if jews are standing idly by in some ghetto watching instead of actively leading, funding, and participating in the destruction of White society while doing their utmost to protect jews.

The fact that some weak-minded Whites have been convinced to blame themselves and protect jews does not absolve the jews who are involved. What justifies treating jews as a group is how they leap as a group to the defense of the jews who are complicit. Auster got my attention because he’s one of the handful of jews who comments on these things. Even he ultimately sides with the misbehaving jews.

C’est la guerre.

Guy White has a new post about White Nationalism and anti-Semitism that mentions me and brings up several topics of relevance to this website. As usual, what Guy says contains a grain of truth, but he likes to paint in broad strokes. He also tends to come at White Nationalism from a Jewish perspective.

Here’s my own two cents:

1. There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths. They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews. Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view. In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing. If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.

2. It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy. They are unreachable. These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm. Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments. The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.

3. Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet. I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website. There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.

4. There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe right-wing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse. You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.

5. I’m a reasonable man. If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans. We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.

6. Jews are resented because of their actions. Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website. We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.

7. I totally reject the victimization theory. Jews have never been victimized in the United States. I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem. Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here. They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people. Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.

8. White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South. Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.

9. White Americans are the victims, not Jews. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies. White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.

How did they repay us? By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on. We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.

In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness. American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived. They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!

10. Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews? No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice. This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.

The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet. That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.

Antisemitica, February 2, 2010

On January 26, 2010, a new campaign of intellectual and political persecution was launched against Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. The express goal of this campaign is to get Professor MacDonald fired from his job because of his research and political convictions.

Professor MacDonald’s research threatens the cultural and political hegemony of the organized Jewish community by exposing their ongoing subversion of Western civilization. This research has made Professor MacDonald a target of persecution by Jewish individuals, organizations, front groups, and their dupes for nearly a decade.

This persecution has intensified of late because of Professor MacDonald’s affiliation with the newly-formed American Third Position political party, which threatens Jewish hegemony by explicitly representing the interests of white Americans, who are being culturally and politically dispossessed by Jews and their non-white allies.

Student agitators affiliated with Jewish front groups called “Students Fight Back” and the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” entered Professor MacDonald’s classrooms on the first day of the Spring semester and passed out propaganda to induce students to drop his classes. The agitators also threatened to circulate a petition calling for Professor MacDonald’s dismissal.

See Douglas Kauffman, “Long Beach students boycott fascist professor Kevin MacDonald,” on the website of the Party for Socialism and Libertation and Sonia Scherr’s “Student Activists Confront Anti-Semitic California Prof” on the website of Professor MacDonald’s long-time persecutors the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Professor MacDonald has commented on the latest round of harassment on The Occidental Observer Blog: “The multi-cultural left’s broad definitions of ‘racism’ — and aggressive tactics” and “The academic left’s involvement in politics.”

Professor MacDonald’s enemies try to cloak their radical agenda in standard liberal pieties, but whether from cynicism or mere stupidity, their attempts are so clumsy that any child can see through them.

For instance, one of the agitators, Marylou Cabral, is concerned that Professor MacDonald’s research and political commitments might color his teaching. The fact that she does not apply the same standards to politically engaged leftist professors, indeed to entire politically engaged disciplines — women’s studies, black studies, gay and lesbian studies, etc. — shows that her objection is not to academic political engagement per se, but merely to Professor MacDonald’s views.

Another agitator, Douglas Kauffman, said: “Our campus is one of the most diverse in the country, and that really flies in the face of having a Nazi as a professor.” Student Shavanda Williams echoed these sentiments, asking: “Why is he here if he has these white supremacist ideas?”

Genuine liberals should find such statements dismaying. After all, “liberal education” is not supposed to mean education by a bunch of dogmatic liberals who all think alike. Liberal education is an education that expands the horizons of students by exposing them to a variety of different viewpoints.

Thus, although it really is not fair to characterize Professor MacDonald as a Nazi or a white supremacist, even if he were, the presence of a faculty member with such unusual viewpoints would make CSLB more intellectually diverse

Of course Kauffman, Cabral, & co. are not liberals. They are left-wing totalitarians. For them, “diversity” is merely a euphemism for the stigmatization and dispossession of whites by Jews and non-whites.

“Diversity” does not mean diversity of opinion. It means black leftists, lesbian leftists, Asian leftists, mestizo leftists, feminist leftists, etc. all working under the tutelage of Jewish leftists to root out every possible form of white racial consciousness.

“Diversity” does not mean that all races and ethnic groups should take pride in themselves and watch out for their interests. No, when whites do that, it is not “diversity,” it is “hate.” And the fanatical persecution of “hate” is what leftists call “tolerance” — and, presumably, “love” (they are all just snarling and sputtering with love).

Before Kevin MacDonald is nailed to the cross of tolerance, I hope we will hear some voices of protest from the genuine liberals — faculty, administrators, and students — at his university and in academia at large. Academia being what it is, we can’t expect anything much better than sincere liberals. But genuine liberalism should be enough to protect Kevin MacDonald’s freedom to think, write, teach, and exercise his political rights as he sees fit.

We will be watching.

Catcher In The Rye author shaped the popular culture he came to shun – Times Online:

For a man who spent half his life as a recluse, J. D. Salinger left an extraordinary, indelible imprint on popular culture. His influence transcended his literary fame and shaped future directions in film, television, music, and theatre as well as popularising the term “to screw up”.

Salinger’s classic is frequently cited as proof that culture cannot be held responsible for acts perpetrated by the people who consume it.

Really? That’s not at all what they say about The Turner Diaries or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

J. D. Salinger: Author of The Catcher in the Rye | Times Online Obituary:

J. D. Salinger shot to worldwide fame with his novel The Catcher in the Rye, which appeared in 1951. With its disenchanted adolescent anti-hero, perpetually at war with adulthood, especially as embodied in his own parents, it seemed to encapsulate the mood of an entire generation. Perhaps more remarkably it simultaneously exercised a considerable effect on that generation’s behaviour.

Its protagonist Holden Caulfield instantly became the symbol of teenage alienation in America and his influence spread rapidly across the Atlantic. Not merely, as is so often the case, for his own generation, but for those that followed, the character of Caulfield continued to stand for the seeming impossibility for the younger generation of communicating in any meaningful way not only with their parents but also with the friends and associates of those parents. When the Sixties opened, with teenage rebellion in Western society taking on a different hue and, under the influence of rock’n’roll, sexual emancipation and drugs, having apparently a different set of preoccupations, the gospel of Catcher in the Rye remained as potent as ever.

Jerome David Salinger was born in New York in 1919, the son of a kosher cheese salesman of Polish ancestry, and his wife, who was a convert to Judaism.

Here is an example why distrust of even partial jews is justified. Their racial confusion can express itself in highly destructive forms. Yet Salinger’s refusal to bask in the media’s adulation seems to confound and bemuse them, though they seem to know more then they let on about why. Perhaps what drove Salinger to become a recluse was shame and disgust at the negative impact of his novel, and perhaps that sprang from his non-jewish side.

Why did J D Salinger spend the last 60 years hiding in a shed writing love notes to teenage girls? | Mail Online:

Born in New York on January 1, 1919, J.D. (Jerome David) Salinger’s early life gave little hint of what he would become, although there were several factors that affected him deeply.

One was the shock of believing he was Jewish and then discovering that he was only half-Jewish – his mother was, in fact, a Catholic.

More scarring still, however, were his experiences in World War II, in which he saw numerous comrades killed around him.

He landed on Utah Beach on D-Day and fought all the way to Paris. There, he met Ernest Hemingway who encouraged his writing.

Still in Europe when the war ended, he was sent to Germany to interrogate Nazis.

There, he fell in love with a girl called Sylvie – later believed to be a former Nazi official – whom he married and, after eight months, divorced.

He later described her as ‘an evil woman who bewitched me’.

Salinger went back to his life of seclusion in the hidden cabin, around which he now owned 450 acres. Dressed in a blue boiler suit, he wrote every day, although not for publication – a possible treasure trove of up to ten novels are believed to lie in his locked safe.

I get the distinct impression these later writings would be hated by the same people who love Catcher. Ironically, in today’s anything-goes, sexually-liberated environment smears of a sexual nature are a typical treatment for heretics. “Nothing to see here! Don’t pay any attention to what this pervert has to say!” Tellingly, Salinger didn’t hole up in Manhattan, Palm Beach, or the Hollywood hills where he could have much more freely slaked his supposed tastes sheltered alongside other celebrated perverts.

How alienating it is to witness the media today looking back and celebrating the impact of Salinger’s novel, even as they ridicule the author and his own reaction. But then they celebrate everything destructive about the White/jewish “culture war”. Caulfield’s alienation makes sense to them, it’s laudable even, while the alienation engendered by themselves they paint as malevolent “ignorance” and “hate”.

It is for good reasons that Francis Parker Yockey described jews as Culture-distorters and the bearers of Culture-disease. In a culture free of jewish influence novels such as Catcher in the Rye would be disparaged, not celebrated.

I ran into an interesting statement in the February issue of Wired that neatly captures the essence of the plutocracy’s current dilemma. The statement came from Peter Thiel – “billionaire”, “staunch libertarian”, and “VC philanthropist” – in Utopian Pessimist Calls on Radical Tech to Save Economy:

Wired: What happens if we don’t get the growth everyone expects?

Thiel: If it doesn’t happen, people will go bankrupt in retirement. There are systemic consequences, too. If we don’t have enough growth, we will see a powerful shift away from capitalism. There are good things and bad things about capitalism, but inequality becomes completely intolerable to society when everything’s static.

“The economy”, such as it is today, is essentially a pyramid scheme. Its “health” hinges entirely on growth. More people, more consumption, more loans, more interest, and more profits, especially for those on top. The plutocrats fear that if the growth ever stops, or even pauses for any length of time, the jig is up.

Is Thiel, like so many other “philanthropist” plutocrats, jewish?

He’s hated for supporting NumbersUSA and has written a book criticizing multiculturalism, two things rather untypical of jews.

With friends like these … Tom Hodgkinson on the politics of the people behind Facebook, 14 January 2008:

But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the “multiculture” led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review – motto: Fiat Lux (“Let there be light”). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself “way libertarian”.

Thiel says that PayPal was motivated by this belief: that you can find value not in real manufactured objects, but in the relations between human beings. PayPal was a way of moving money around the world with no restriction. Bloomberg Markets puts it like this: “For Thiel, PayPal was all about freedom: it would enable people to skirt currency controls and move money around the globe.”

Thiel is #377 on the 2009 Forbes 400, but he isn’t counted as jewish (“either personally or in their giving”) by Jacob Berkman in Jewish Philanthropy Navigates The Economy’s Rough Seas.

The authors of Jews On The Internet and The Jewish hand behind Internet come from polar opposite views on jewish influence, but they both agree Thiel is a jew.

George Soros, another plutocrat who definitely is a jew, was quoted in the news today offering his underling in the White House some public advice.

Davos Soros: Obama reform plan not tough enough – Times Online:

Mr Soros told delegates: “To tax the banks when they are doing everything they can to get out of a hole is the exact opposite of the policy you are trying to pursue…This development came too soon because the banks are not out of the woods.”

Mr Soros also said governments around the world needed to continue spending, even if they had sizeable budget deficits, to avoid the risk of a double dip recession.

What Soros is saying is: tax and indebt the masses, not the plutocrats.

Other bankers expressed concern over “stifling growth”.

As Hunter Wallace put it:

Democracy: the theory that you have as much power and influence as George Soros.

You could say the same about any plutocrat. But the power and influence of Thiel, Soros, David Gelbaum, and other jewish plutocrats is compounded by its tribally-networked nature. What comes through clearly in the Berkman article is the “supremacism” with which jews view their collective power, and the unapologetically “racist” way in which they direct so much of their “philanthropy” to fellow jews. What should make this situation troubling for any White, rich or poor, is that jews do it under the aegis of a regime which favors and defends jews and jewish interests even as it directs fear and hatred toward Whites.

Where are the mainstream media’s fierce critics, the speakers of truth to power? Like the figureheads in our illegitimate government they’ll bash powerless White “teabaggers” with glee, but they’re afraid to question their jewish overlords.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it.

–Samuel Francis in Race and the American Prospect

Among the many good things that paleoconservative Sam Francis left to us was his analysis of the “managerial elite.” Francis drew his understanding of this concept from James Burnham, who in the 1930s moved beyond his Marxist views to offer a competing theory known as the theory of the managerial revolution. In this view, as traditional capitalism and its ruling class passed from the scene, managers—or more properly “technocrats”—would replace them (p. 384). More specifically, it would include “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, [and] technocrats” (p. 385).

(All numbered quotes are drawn from Francis’s “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,”in Race and the American Prospect. See here and here for further reading.)

Francis laid out the problem starkly:

. . . the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history—that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn. (p.377)

Further, he noted, these assaults on whites “are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent” (p.377).

What explains it then? Francis argued that the classical theory of elites, along with James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, do the job (p. 378). “The two essential characteristics of an elite-ruling class are what may be called Unity and Dominance—unity in that it needs to cohere around its interest and to agree on what its interests are and (in general) how to pursue them, and dominance in that it must be able to make its interests prevail over those of rival groups” (p. 382).

As Francis saw it,

The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected. (p. 386)

Francis clearly advanced the argument that the managers of these larger institutions are responsible for the destruction of the traditional white societies that came before them. Those old elites “championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethnic—hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification” (p. 388).

If he was right, then we need not search for another primary cause of the collapse of traditional Western societies. In particular, he offered a competing view to that of Kevin MacDonald and his idea that Jews had unleashed a “culture of critique” on white societies. For Francis, the existence of such a withering critique is not in question; rather, for Francis, the source was and is the managerial elite.

“The managerial ideology,” he wrote, “also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as ‘obsolete,’ ‘backward,’ ‘repressive,’ ‘exploitative,’ and ‘narrow-minded’” (p. 389). Thus, it had no compunction about destroying the traditional family, local community and religion, or traditional cultural and moral codes. Nor did it have a need for ethnic or racial identities (as far as whites were concerned). In fact, the whole nation-state was superfluous (p. 390).

(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)

That Francis does not attribute this powerful attack on traditional society to be the work of Jews does not mean he saw no role for Jews. On the contrary, he had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the role Jews played.

In his section “The Agenda of Dispossession,” Francis acknowledged the detailed work done by Kevin MacDonald to document the Jewish role in the dispossession of whites. But for Francis, the Jewish aspiration to cultural and political supremacy over whites is merely fortuitous, for “the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other.”

Now a man of Francis’s rare intelligence and insight is not about to downplay the vast role played by Jews in America today. Rather than attributing dominance to this group, however, he takes an alternative tack: “Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class. . . . perform[ing] a support function” (p. 397).

So we’ve reached the crux of the issue: Are Jews subordinate to the (implied) white managerial elite, or are they dominant? This very question divides white nationalists to this day.

Here I will argue that Francis’s belief in Jewish subordination was wrong, but it was intentionally wrong. Put another way, in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” and in his other writings, he was writing esoterically because he knew the consequences of writing too candidly about Jewish power.

Consider that Francis noted the new role of managerial bureaucrats in government and the political parties in displacing the previous White, non-Jewish power holders. This new governmental domination is mirrored by that occurring in the universities, foundation, think tanks, national newspapers and magazines, as well as visual mass media. But hasn’t Jewish dominance in these spheres has been so massively documented (by MacDonald, for example) that it would seem “managerial elite” is practically synonymous with “Jewish elite”?

When reading the following list proffered by Francis, does not the informed reader perforce construct a mental image of Jewish dominance: “public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity . . .” (p. 385).

Two institutions that might fall outside the immediate ken of Jewish domination are large corporations involved in manufacturing, and the military (although the last time I checked, Norton Schwartz headed the US Air Force, becoming the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marines. This is according to The Jewish Forward.)

Unless it wasn’t clear before, the recent economic meltdown has largely proven the dominance of Wall St. capital over individual corporations, particularly those in manufacturing (see this blog for a short description). As for the military, the heavily Jewish neoconservatives have successfully made the US military subordinate to their will. Again, both of these claims need not be demonstrated here for they have been demonstrated so well in other familiar and accessible places.

Francis also listed non-white ethnic and racial groups which are encouraged to openly pursue their own interests, such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and so on. In a footnote, he acknowledged the contribution to Race and the American Prospect made by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish creation and control of the NAACP. As editor of the book, Francis simply cannot plead ignorance. In the same way that MacDonald shows how the NAACP was a front group in the Jewish assault on white society, so too can we show that many of the other managerial groups cited by Francis have been dominated by Jews. Jews were not and are not merely performing a support function.

A good friend who is following these debates sums up the situation well: “Jewish influence is so pervasive and powerful that other factors can hardly be said to be truly independent. It is not now possible to live in a vacuum, a world that is unaffected by their influence.”

He continues:

I’d like to know what force is larger and more menacing than they are? The only even remotely plausible candidates would quite simply have to be secret societies, because there is no force that is possible to detect in the daylight that is bigger, more powerful, or more menacing. And secret societies are of course notoriously difficult to trace or, in some cases (like the Illuminati) even to prove that they exist. So, to the extent that the Jews are not the tool/pawn of some larger force that is very difficult to verify, it is reasonable to conclude that the Jews are the greatest power in the world today (and the world of the past hundred years). I certainly haven’t seen anything in Francis’s work that has convinced me otherwise.

A similarly well-informed friend adds,

Furthermore, Jews socialize to create a certain elite—the “beheading” of the natural elite. [See my own essay on that topic here.] Their ability to control discourse [as in Israel Shamir’s Masters of Discourse], both through media domination and by destroying individuals such as Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, or organizations like the IHR (they firebombed it), completely distorts public discourse.

It is pointless to argue with philo-Semites of any stripe. Even philo-Semites would be different in the absence of Jews: they’d have to identify a different god to worship and center their lives around!

Again, this position is a common one among those who have studied The Jewish Question at length. Such observers—properly, in my view—have little patience with theories that posit Jews as supporting actors or as people who are overtaken by impersonal forces that supposedly ride herd over us humans.

Sam Francis died nearly five years ago, so he missed the continued rise of the Zionists and neocons, and the transparently Jewish-backed elevation of a non-White to the Presidency, and the present econmic tumult, with its famed minority mortgage meltdown, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the bailouts to Wall St., followed by the obscene bonuses paid to those bankers. Had he lived, he may indeed have begun to write more openly about The Jewish Problem.

Personally, I sympathize greatly with someone in a situation such as his. He played by the rules, earning advanced degrees at good universities, then went quietly to work in the halls of power, all the while honing his writing skills.

When the time came, he moved to an editorial position at The Washington Times, but as Joe Sobran noted, Sam “stayed at the Times for nine years until he was abruptly fired for speaking (on his own time) at an American Renaissance Conference. The comments in his speech were not at issue. The newspaper objected to his having appeared at the gathering.”

Francis knew the line he was walking and did his best to stay honest to himself and to his readers. He also knew the risks—and paid for taking them.

Still, he had critics among white nationalists who felt he should have done more to expose the threat emanating from the Jewish quarter. One of critics was Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. who posted on VNN this exchange with Francis. Chided for not naming Jews, Francis replied, “You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anything like mainstream media.”

Gerhard upped the ante, however, demanding of Francis:

Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns — they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.

I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power! Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work. [emphasis added]

Sam shot back:

I don’t deny that Jews have power — certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a satellite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming the actual ruling class because they have no interest in that as long as their interests are secured.

My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomaniacal obsession with an omnipotent Jew. [emphasis in the original]

Again, I appreciate that Francis was in a difficult situation. John Derbyshire described it quite well in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

Note that he never says anything about the truth value of such hypothetical remarks; presumably, even true ones that reflect poorly on the Jews would succeed in getting one banished. That is the point.

The fact is, tactics aimed at the protection and advancement of Whites tried till now have not succeeded. They have failed. Consider again the scope of the problem, outlined here by an incredulous Peter Brimelow:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . . What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power.

As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people? . . . How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control?”

The answer is that the founding stock—and two hundred million other Euro-Americans—have come under the rule of an alien elite, along with the multitude of non-White minorities which that elite has recruited.

A serious study of this process will reveal that rather than the Managerial Revolution as postulated by Burnham or Francis being responsible, it has been a race-centered progression instituted by organized Jewry and by Jews individually. I think of it as a “promote-punish-purge” process in which perceived Jewish interests are always paramount.

Francis was purged because his writings were pro-white, an unacceptable position to Jews because only THEY among powerful groups may promote group integrity. From the time German Jews arrived in America during the 1800s, they have actively pursued this “promote-punish-purge” campaign, boosting Jewish power and influence, while undermining and destroying that of their current main nemesis, Whites.

The list of those pro-Whites punished and purged is long, and it is hard to reconcile the vehemence of the attacks against them with the desire of the managerial elite to gain and hold power. Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin, Pound, Eliot, McCarthy, Carto, Pierce, Oliver, Duke, Dickson, Robertson, Buchanan, Sobran, Irving, Gibson, MacDonald. This list goes on.

Meanwhile, the enemies of Whites—mainly drawn from the ranks of White liberals—have been assiduously promoted for over a century. Ted Kennedy, the public face of the 1965 immigration law betrayal, is but an example.

Had Sam Francis been given his threescore years and ten, I suspect he would have come over to the side of more white nationalists on the Jewish Question and I think he would have done so publicly.

Is it not our duty, then, to honor Dr. Francis’s memory by addressing forthrightly the chief problem facing us today?

I got an email this morning from a conservative reader. The headline was “Amconmag Goes Neocon.” It appears that someone has signed me up on a conservative email list. I don’t think the author will mind me sharing its contents:

It’s official

Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of the American Conservative, has become a mestizo apologist.

American Conservative now reads like the neocon Weekly Standard in support of open borders

This is not surprising, considering:

Buchanan and Taki no longer have anything to do at all with the American Conservative

Ron Unz opposed Prop. 187 in California (a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services)

A link was provided to a new article by Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of The American Conservative, called “His-Panic: The Myth of Immigrant Crime.” Razib Khan of Gene Expression assisted Unz with the technical data. After visiting the site, I noticed that it is the cover story of the March issue. Personally, I’ve never written a single word about Hispanic crime at this website. VDARE and Amren have addressed the issue and should respond to Unz in some fashion.

In addition to “His-Panic,” there is another headline article called “Open Arms, Open Doors” from The Washington Post that argues U.S. immigration policy is killing Haitians and that the best way to help them is to let millions of starving refugees flood into the United States. What’s that doing in a paleoconservative magazine? Some of you might recall that last month Unz published Peter Hitchen’s “Far Wrong” hit piece on the BNP. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going.

The choice of “His-Panic” as the title of the headline article in the new TAC is revealing. Geraldo Rivera (the Jewish/Puerto Rican liberal journalist) has a book called His-Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S. I knew the term sounded familar. I want to say that the neocon Linda Chavez has also written something under that label.

After hearing this, I think most White Nationalists will have the same reaction. A cardinal belief of White Nationalism is that Jews control the media and that their collective influence has pushed America in a more liberal, anti-racist direction. An important corollary is that Jews should be totally excluded from our media and organizations. This is why Amren’s inclusion of Jews has stirred so much controversy within the racialist community.

As The American Conservative goes the way of National Review, a few chastened paleos might learn something from this experience. Even if you disagree with White Nationalism, you can’t build viable conservative institutions with Jews in leading positions of influence. It never pans out. The idea that Jews could be relied upon to restore a healthy White Christian America was always absurd.

Unfortunately, I doubt this episode will put an end to that fanciful notion on the Alternative Right.

Occidental Dissent, January 26, 2010