Brace Yourself: DOJ Ignores White Victims

December 7th, 2010

by Christopher Donovan

From the News We Already Knew Dept.:  The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has found that the U.S. Dept. of Justice ignores white victims of voter intimidation and other civil rights infractions.  Notable:  One DOJ attorney, Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Rights Act section, bravely defied DOJ orders not to testify about the anti-white bias.  Coates relayed that some attorneys would simply refuse to work on cases where whites were the victims.  He has since been stripped of his position and now works as an AUSA in South Carolina.

Another  attorney, J. Christian Adams, the lead prosecutor in the Black Panther voter intimidation case that was scuttled by DOJ,  resigned over the incident.

It’s outrageous that the highest enforcement authority in the land — the United Stated Department of Justice — blatantly ignores white victimization.  But it only lays bare what we know about America more broadly:  whites are quickly losing their power, and they are not experiencing multiracial nirvana as a result.

TOO’s new look—Thanks to Matt Parrott

November 2nd, 2010

TOO is getting a new look. The main thing is that now the featured article and the blog will be on the same page, making it more convenient to browse our content. Please have a look and let us know what you think by commenting on this blog. Changes should go into effect on the evening of November 2.

The architect of the changeover is Matt Parrott. Matt combines technical proficiency with political activism. He heads the Indiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens and has written for TOO (”George Washington Plunkitt on the Sausage Factory of American Politics“). He also has a radio show on the Reason Radio Network (”Radio Free Indiana”) where he recently interviewed me on a wide range of topics  — a very enjoyable experience that will doubtless be repeated in the future.

We at TOO are greatly indebted for all the work he did—much more than we could adequately pay him for. It would be a nice gesture to acknowledge his efforts. His PayPal account is the same as his email address: parrott.matt@gmail.com

Kevin MacDonald, Editor

Kevin MacDonald: Geert Wilders’ Unrequited Love

October 31st, 2010

Geert Wilders loves Israel. He lived there for two years in his youth and sees it as a bastion of the West in a sea of Muslim barbarism: For example:

“If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism. There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” He called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Wilders also includes Judaism as part of the European cultural tradition, expressing his desire that “the European Judaeo-Christian tradition to be formally recognised as the dominating culture.”

Wilders also rejects certain elements of the right that are particularly offensive to Jews:

‘My allies are not Le Pen or Haider,’ he emphasises. ‘We’ll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.’ Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him, he says.

One would think then that Wilders would be popular among Jews, but he is not. It’s one thing to support Israel, but the problem is that he has the outlandish idea that Europe should be for Europeans and that immigration from Muslim countries should be halted.  Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin MacDonald: Why Are Professors Liberal?

October 28th, 2010

Richard Redding’s LA Times op-ed,  ”It’s Diverse If You Are Liberal” comes to the shocking conclusion that conservative viewpoints are excluded from college campuses. Who’d have thought? Indeed, “most [students] did not think it entirely safe to hold unpopular opinions on campus.”

Intellectual diversity is what schools value least. Instead, it is only diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation — all of which are very desirable, to be sure — that rules the day in higher education. This agenda dominates higher education in faculty hiring, student admissions, curricula, student life programs and virtually every other aspect of college life.

Redding must establish his bona fides by genuflecting before the gods of the “very desirable” forms of diversity. What if the conservative faculty he thinks would be a great addition turn out to really hate all this other diversity—as a real (at this point, revolutionary) conservative would?

I have a recent article on this, in The Occidental Quarterly—soon to be available online to subscribers. (Hint.) Redding notes that conservative students are at a disadvantage because “conservative students lack academic role models, have more distant relationships with their professors and have fewer opportunities to do research with professors (particularly on sociopolitical issues).” Read the rest of this entry »

Christopher Donovan: The Media Eclipse That is Jon Stewart

October 28th, 2010

Jon Stewart is riding high these days.  The Jewish funnyman — born John Leibowitz — hosts the top-rated Daily Show, released the best-selling book Earth:  The Book and is set for a satirical rally designed to mock the conservative Whites who attended the Glenn Beck rally.  President Obama is scheduled to appear on his show.

He is of course celebrated by his co-ethnics in the media as a genius.

He isn’t, of course.  He’s a modestly funny, left-wing Jew straight from the tradition of the culture of critique.  America, to him, is a big place filled with dumb, doughy Whites whose foibles deserve merciless skewering.  He throws in the occasional mockery of others for an appearance of balance.

His own background is typically Jewish — and typically connected.  He’s from New Jersey, claims anti-Semitic bullying as a child, has a brother who’s chief operating officer of the New York Stock Exchange, and was once roommates with Anthony Weiner, the Jewish Congressman from New York City (to whom Stewart donates). Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin MacDonald: Rabbi Yosef’s Statement:“Goyim were born only to serve us”

October 26th, 2010

This video by David Duke (no ad hominems please)  gets at the essence of the Jewish sense of racial superiority based on some recent statements by Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef as well as quite a bit of other similar material.

The JTA article on the rabbi’s statement includes this disclaimer:

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday.

“Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition.”

Which goes to show how easy it is for the Jewish community to project whatever image it desires–no matter what the facts. Americans and other Westerners have been long indoctrinated with the view that Jewish ethics are universalist, so the AJC’s statement will have a ring of truth for most readers, Jews and non-Jews alike. Indeed, the AJC statement implies that Judaism made an irreplaceable contribution to universalist ethics.

The transformation of Jewish ethics to a veneer of universalism was an important project of the 19th-century attempt to present Judaism as on a par with Christianity.  In doing so, it trampled on a great deal of its own history. As John Murray Cuddihy noted, “these Diaspora groups were uninterested in actual history; they were apologists, ideologists, prefabricating a past in order to answer embarrassing questions, to outfit a new identity, and to ground a claim to equal treatment in the modern world” (The Ordeal of Civility, p. 177). Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin MacDonald: Jewish Liberals and Israel: Managing the Enemy

October 25th, 2010

Philip Weiss expressed his surprise that “liberal” rabbis would support buying products produced at a West Bank settlement. Of course, this is not too surprising, and one of his readers called him on it.  In the reader’s experience, there are plenty of rabbis who are

progressive on issues such as labor, immigration, environment, capital punishment, etc. …  They say they feel for the plight of the Palestinians, but when it comes to any real challenge to the status quo, such as BDS in any form, they are not to be found. Their voices during the Lebanon and Gaza invasions were there in mild, but very mild, criticism. They spend most of their time on the Middle East “reaching out to our Muslim brothers.” I must say they are very supportive of Muslim groups and Islamic mosques when it comes to anti-Muslim discrimination. But, there is an unstated and sometimes stated price for these folks to pay, which is “be gentle on Israel, be critical of certain measures, such as house demolitions, but be understanding in general.”

Since I work with the same Muslim groups, going back several years ago I found their deference to their “liberal Jewish friends who are so supportive of us” to be very frustrating. But, fortunately, these are not foolish people and they have now seen the ploy. As a result, while interfaith dialogue between liberal Jewish clergy and Muslims still exists, it is pretty much window dressing and Muslim groups are much more outspoken on Palestinian issues. But, in conclusion, liberal/progressive Jewish clergy in the LA area set back support for Palestinian rights like Wiesenthal Center, ADL and AIPAC never could; and I believe that was their role.

In my experience, it’s the same with secular Jewish academics: constantly reaching out to all non-White groups, including Muslims, and advocating all things multi-cultural. Paragons of tolerance and moral uplift, they are quick to make minor criticisms of Israel but never suggest that the US government or American Jews abandon their support for Israel or seriously question the settlement project. Their goal is to seek Muslim cooperation in the assault on White America while channeling Muslim outrage at Israel to manageable levels. In faculty email debates, the Jewish professors do all the talking, while their Muslim colleagues defer to them. So there were no peeps of protest by the Muslims when the Jewish activist professors ignored my suggestion that they channel all that moral outrage at intolerance, violations of human rights, and ethnic cleansing by directing their activism at changing policy in Israel. Read the rest of this entry »

Rob Lonaker on 9/11

October 22nd, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Rob Lonaker’s current TOO article “9/11: Media Ignores Evidence for WTC Explosives” was a difficult editorial decision. I have long been very sympathetic to the idea that Israel knew about 9/11 in advance. This was based on reliable descriptions of the Israeli filming crew and the art students, as briefly summarized in the article. But I was very reluctant to go further into 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, I decided that the common denominator here is huge pressure on the media from Jewish activist organizations to prevent discussion and a full investigation—even when there was presumptive evidence of Israeli foreknowledge—and that always rankles me.

The question, as always, is: What do they have to hide? Pressure against public discussion of Jewish issues is very common: the role of neocons in promoting the Iraq war, the bombing of the USS Liberty, the power of Jews in the media and the political process in the US and throughout the West, role of the organized Jewish community in promoting massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism in the West,  the status and role of Jews in the early decades of the USSR, the causes of historical anti-Semitism, and on and on.

There is definitely a logic whereby Israel and its agents had a huge motive to ensure maximum destruction. So if they knew about it in advance, then it is not much of a leap to suppose that they went further and made sure that the attack would be a success. I am not concluding that this is what happened, only arguing that it should be investigated by an impartial commission.

Anyway, the point of this post is simply to solicit commentary on this issue. Let the chips fall where they may.

Kevin MacDonald: Two Recent Ventings against Whites: Bill Maher and Gregory Rodriguez

October 18th, 2010

I have always disliked Bill Maher, partly because of his over-the-top smarminess and partly because this White-hating liberal had the audacity to call one of his shows “Politically Incorrect.” His recent column on the pathetic Bret Favre suddenly veers off into a celebration of the imminent eclipse of White males. “Brett Favre is like a lot of white males: he’s owned the world for so long, he’s going a little crazy now that he doesn’t.”

The unthinkable is happening. White penises (sic) are becoming the minority: 2010 was the first year in which more minority babies were born in the U.S. than white babies. This is what conservatives are really upset about — that the president is black, and the best golfer is black, and the Secretary of State is a woman, and suddenly this country is way off track and needs some serious ‘restoring.’

Right. We are really pissed off about it and we want our country back. Nothing wrong with that. I’d like Maher to name any other group of people who didn’t find their own eclipse a bit scary, especially when so many people like Maher seem absolutely ecstatic about it and especially when so many of the people displacing them have such hatred for Whites.

You have to read his column to see the scatological depths to which he descends, but let’s just say he has nothing but contempt for his subjects. Which brings up why he should have such contempt for White males since most people would classify him as a White male. Turns out his father is Irish and his mother Jewish, and that he self-identifies as half Jewish. Maybe that has something to do with it, since it’s well known that the organized Jewish community and the great majority of Jews strongly support the displacement of Whites via non-White immigration. A pity he can’t think like the Irishmen who resisted English colonization for centuries. Read the rest of this entry »

Joe Webb: My Old Kentucky Home: Travels in Kentucky and Tennessee

October 15th, 2010

Remember Kentucky?  and Tennessee?  They actually exist.  And for those old enough to remember the movie Deliverance, do you remember the hillbillies/cretins delivered to you by the people who run Hollywood?

Well, let me provide a wee bit of counter-balance to the propaganda of an area that is part of America’s Heartland.  Ever been addressed at an airport by a ticket-agent as “sweetheart”…ever had men almost as solicitous and friendly…. around the Left Coast (I hear you thinking about the East Coast)?  Huh?  Surplus smiles…Kentucky must figure in Robert Putnam’s study on diversity, in which diverse communities were found to be miserable…all races.  Kentucky is about 91% White and 8% Black with almost no foreign born.  However, I was told that the mexers are getting in now for agricultural work.

Putnam’s study, if it included Kentucky, must report pretty happy Kentuckians.  One gal told me that mexers were taking White jobs in tobacco..a hitherto source of extra income for Whites…seasonal work. Read the rest of this entry »

Christopher Donovan: By Our Comments Ye Shall Know White Resistance

October 14th, 2010

The media is as anti-White as ever these days.  I’ve dedicated hours of my life to showing how, on this blog and elsewhere.

But the comments — the Internet postings of the everday nobodies in reaction to stories and blog items — are heartening.

The trend is definitely “pro-White.”

Take the New York Times — whose pro-White comment-censoring I’ve blogged about before.  Here’s a recent item about President Obama’s Black journalists-only off-the-record meeting.

Then check out the comments, starting with No. 1 (”Did Bush have summits reserved for white journalists and bloggers?”).

Here’s a run-of-the-mill crime story out of Pennsylvania.

One commenter says:

EXACTLY!!!! This is just down right shameful on the part of Harrisburg leaders and the Patriot news! If this is a group of white kids that beat up a black couple the feds would be involved. But hey, whitey deserves it…right.

And then people here and in the real world wonder why it’s easy for people to become racist. Gee, I couldn’t imagine why.

There are more like it. Whites are getting restless.  And with the interactivity of the Internet, it’s getting harder and harder for anti-white — often Jewish — media to keep them out.

I am confident that the MSM will remain as brittle as ever in its resistance to whites.  Good.  Let it break.

Christopher Donovan: The USS LIberty: True Tales of the Jewish Memory Hole

October 13th, 2010

The USS Liberty was an American ship attacked by Israel during the Six-Day War. The Israelis killed 34 Americans and wounded many more. The attack was either designed to hide Israel’s designs on the Golan Heights or some other territorial target (the Liberty was a spy ship) or draw the U.S. into the war by making it look like Egypt or another Arab country had attacked the ship. It was clearly not a “mistake”, as Israel has maintained, because American flags were visible. (And the “mistake” excuse is amusing in light of Israel-firsters’ usual gushing about the superiority of the Israeli military — they’re an undefeatable collection of geniuses, but they just happened to slip up this once?)

A newly released book, What I Saw That Day, is a fantastic first-hand account by survivor Phillip Tourney.  Tourney is not a White activist, but he’s clearly wise to the ways of Jewish message control. In the book, he speculates that beyond the defeaning silence surrounding the attack, someone’s gotten inside the group of survivors themselves and attempted to hush things up.

Tourney himself is having none of it. Hats off to him for continuing to publicize an episode that everyone should know about. If you get a chance to buy his book, I encourage you to do so. The attack on the Liberty and subsequent silence is an undeniable example of Jewish power — and Jews’ disregard for the White non-Jews who serve them.

Kevin MacDonald: “The Social Network”

October 10th, 2010

Is The Social Network a  Jewish movie and, if so, what can we make of it? Of course, if Alan Dershowitz had his way, such a question is completely off limits. The movie is simply a movie written by a screen writer who happens to be Jewish (Aaron Sorkin) about people, some of whom happen to be Jewish. End of story.

That seems to be the take of the vast majority of critics if Wikipedia’s summary is any indication. Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks, who is about as obsessively Jewish as Dershowitz, does see a Jewish message, but you have to read between the lines: Mark Zuckerberg is the symbol of the new Harvard, smart and driven to succeed (i.e., Jewish), but without social or moral graces. “It’s not that he’s a bad person. He’s just never been house-trained. He’s been raised in a culture reticent to talk about social and moral conduct.” And he compares Zuckerberg to the Jews who elbowed out the WASPs and invented their version of Hollywood: “Immigrant Hollywood directors made hyperpatriotic movies that defined American life but found after fame and fortune they were still outsiders. In this movie, Zuckerberg designs a fabulous social network, but still has his reciprocity problem. He is still afflicted by his anhedonic self-consciousness, his failure to communicate, his inability to lose himself in the throngs at a party or the capacity to deserve the love he craves.” Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin MacDonald: Alan Dershowitz on Jewish Media Influence

October 8th, 2010

A sure sign that Jews control the media is that someone like Alan Dershowitz can get away with trotting out totally lame arguments in the mainstream media against the idea that Jews control the media. (Do Jews Control the Media?)  It’s an example of Orwell’s idea of blackwhite: ”a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”

Dershowitz’s basic point is that yes, there are “individual Jews” with influence in the media, as well as the law, finance, and academia. His phrase “individual Jews” is meant to indicate that they are people “who happen to be Jewish.” They do not “act together in a conspiratorial manner.”

If he means that Jews in the media do a Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion thing where they get their marching orders from Abe Foxman, I would have to agree with him. But the fact is that in general Jews do not act simply as individuals. There is a shared vision that influences the attitudes and behavior of individual Jews. As I noted in summarizing J. J. Goldberg, “There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties” (Jewish Power, p. 5). Indeed, the consensus on these issues among Jewish activist organizations and the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed here despite a great deal of disagreement on other issues is striking.These attitudes typify the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the mainstream Jewish left to the neoconservative Jewish right, and in general, the Jewish profile on these issues is quite different from other Americans. Massive changes in public policy on these issues coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States.

Philip Weiss points out that Dershowitz himself has emphasized general Jewish goals, particularly the defense of Israel. And he presents examples of Jews in the media who see themselves as promoting Israel or who actively exclude points of view critical of Israel. To which I would add the comment by Eric Alterman about Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic: It is not enough to say that TNR’s owner is merely obsessed with Israel; he says so himself. But more importantly, Peretz is obsessed with Israel’s critics, Israel’s would-be critics, and people who never heard of Israel, but might one day know someone who might someday become a critic.”

Dershowitz gives the New York Times as an example of a Jewish-owned media, noting that is critical of Israel. But in general, the Times’ coverage has been highly skewed toward Israel, as documented by Alison Weir’s If Americans Knew. Weiss gives the well-known quote from former editor Max Frankel: The NYT’s former executive editor Max Frankel wrote, “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”

A recent Forward article recounts the firings of Rick Sanchez, Octavia Nasr, and Helen Thomas for their comments on Jewish issues. It points out that “Jews have done more than other groups to make it clear that they will not suffer lightly the public slights like those made by Sanchez — let alone by those with even bigger mouths, like Mel Gibson. As Foxman put it, ‘We are a community that is sensitive, and — have no doubt — we’ll respond.’ ‘

Right. But at least we know what the game is. The truth will be suppressed with all the power that the Jewish community can bring to bear. The message is out that anyone who wishes to have a career in the media must play by these rules or look for another line of work.

Lasha Darkmoon: Sex Plague

October 7th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: I invite comment on Dr. Lasha Darkmoon’s current TOO article “Sex plague.” It is yet another take on Jews as a hostile elite—the “sheer destructive power” of the Jewish intellect, as Paul Johnson had it. Psychoanalysis attacked the most basic institutions of Western society—its sexual mores. It was the most egregious pseudo-science ever invented. Maintained by cult-like devotion and the political discipline worthy of a communist cell, it opened the door to a host of cultural changes. But it is the motivation of these Jewish intellectuals that is critical: Freud’s “we are bringing them the plague” and his hatred of the Catholic Church are paradigmatic. But Darkmoon also brings in contemporary descendants of this attitude: Al Goldstein’s “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks.” And Richard Pacheco who saw no conflict between his career as a porn star and his career as a rabbinical student. And Annie Sprinkle, who blurs the border between pornography and high art—a feat that is possible only in a culture that is completely degraded.

There can be little doubt that these movements have had a generally negative influence on the culture and on the cultural self-confidence of those espousing traditional values. My view is that the biggest effects of this cultural onslaught have been on people on the lower end of the Bell curve. See here.

As usual, there is no claim that all Jews have these attitudes. And certainly many non-Jews have been involved whether motivated by fame, fortune, or psychosis. (Darkmoon mentions Tracey Emin, Hannah Wilke, and Karen Finley.) And yet, while not necessarily focused on sexual subversion, it is acknowledged on all sides that in general Jews have hostile attitudes toward the people and the culture of the West, particularly Christianity. (See, e.g., here.) Of course, this wouldn’t matter if Jews were a powerless minority like the Gypsies. It matters a great deal when Jews have risen to an elite in all of the areas that matter: politics, the media, personal wealth, and the academic world.

Joe Webb: The Coming Hurricane

October 6th, 2010

Komrads, The Don Quixotes of the Left from the 60s and 70s, the Weather Underground, Prairie Fire, and the less poetic naming of myriad Black groups like Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, Black Revolutionary Army and so on, tried to set fire to the Republic, but nobody, least of all the Proletariat, gave them a glance, except for radical chic types, some media, etc. ‘Course the blacks rioted about 250 times in various cities per some fact sheet I saw recently, but usually just burned down their own neighborhoods. That did serve some useful purpose in educating Whites.

So here we are in 2010 and all hell is breaking loose. Gone are the days of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, the Sheeple, Archie Bunker subverted by Jews and commies, racialized school busing amidst tight-lipped working class Whites and grinning Liberals and Jews who sent their kids to private schools while pinning medals of Righteousness on one-another.

Liberalism is becoming a dirty word, as dirty as “communist” in the 50s. Jerry Brown of California calls himself a fiscal conservative, which is funny. (The Meg Whitman campaign should get hold of Pacifica Radio (KPFA) transcripts of Jerry back in the 80s doing a good impression of Fidel Castro.) The Democrats are dissolving into internecine warfare, rats are leaving Obama’s ship…especially the charming Rahm Emmanuel.

So, here is a column from Peggy Noonan in which she provides details on Obama’s whining—sounding like Nixon who claimed that now they would not have him to kick around any longer. She quotes some of the Democratic critics of Obama. She then says:

“This isn’t the language of disagreement, the classic to-and-fro between a restive base and politicians who make compromises. This is the language of estrangement … of  alienation [my emphasis].”

The Dems have fled Washington without passing a budget, it is not a ” split in two, with the left versus the establishment. It’s more like splintering, with left-leaning activists” and “moderate politicians distancing themselves from Obama.”

Then she describes the Republicans as caught up in the same dynamic. “The Internet changed everything.” Right, 550 years ago Gutenberg invented the Printing Press. It changed everything them…Protestant revolt, secularized revolt…and so on. Now the Internet brings the Counter-Revolution…maybe.

Peggy Noonan quotes a GOP congressman who says the old “social” issues like abortion no longer count. It is now government and the pols. The public hates them. He says that Tea Partiers are not enraged. They are “scared, frightened for their own futures and for the future of the country.” Now that’s more like it…

Enter “Stormfront”, not Prairie Fire and rad armies of the night. Today it is a storm coming from the Right, not the Left. Jews are looking under their beds, Liberals are gnashing teeth, antifas are violently attacking anybody they consider a fascist; that would be cops, and anybody who does not love non-Whites.

“At this point in history, with America teetering on the brink of bankruptcy…” Well, a bit colorful, but I guess Peggy is registering her own angst as well. She complains about the negative campaigns that mostly the Dems are waging. This is dragging down the country too.

“What appears to be coming is a Republican rout.” She politely remarks that the GOP is almost as out-to-expense-account-lunch as the Dems.

Well, one third of the country like the Tea Partiers—including 91% of Republicans. Meanwhile, Democrats are behaving as French Revolutionaries behaved, and every Revolutionary Party behaves, with fracturing, and bloodlust mounting. 70% of the country wants the Mexicans out. Remove the Mexicans and Liberal race traitors from that figure and it is probably 90% of Whites who wish the Mexicans were not here.

Whites are supposed to be 65% of the U.S. I saw a claim the other day that 40% of “youth” are now non-white. Also, Arabs and various Others are counted as White when they are not White, especially in terms of culture and tradition. Europe is heating up more slowly, but the same implicitly racist anti-immigrant feeling is building. No substitute for Experience.

Not a tornado, but a hurricane is coming. Enoch Powell of England predicted rivers of blood for England as it imported the wretcheds. …That was back about 1968…it is coming. The only positive here is that the Tea Partiers will probably morph into more militant White Folks, and I would guess that they mostly are armed. Then there are the old Archie Bunkers, now deconstructing their jewish subversion and cleaning/clinging to their guns and bibles…boy does that make the Jews nervous.

The Democrats are hopelessly run by race- mixers, race hustlers, con artists, Liberal pinkos, and natural born socialists. However, even white women are now deserting the great Black hope. It is a time of reckoning…folks are thinking, thinking.

When one identifies the Enemy, what is next comes into focus. Joe

Kevin MacDonald: More Reactions to the Sanchez Indiscretion: Jon Stewart and Christopher Hitchens

October 5th, 2010

I have the feeling that Rick Sanchez will manage to return to a career in the national media. Jon Stewart concluded his bit on the affair by questioning whether Sanchez should have been fired for some “banal Jew baiting”; he also showed a clip where Sanchez condemned a guy with a swastika in the background who says he avoids the “Jew media.” So Sanchez’s heart is in the right place, at least when he “has time to think about it” and “isn’t worried about being fired anyway.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Hurty Sanchez
www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Christopher Hitchens wrote some odd things.

In the manner in which Sanchez spoke … there was something like a buried resentment. He didn’t descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media

But that’s exactly what he did say, which is why he got in so much trouble. The amazing thing about all the mainstream discussion is a failure to discuss the extent which that is true. Hitchens continues:

But he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity.

Sorry, I didn’t get that. Sanchez certainly accused Stewart of being a bigot and of having ”an establishment White liberal point of view.” Hitchens comes much  closer to acknowledging Jewish power when he comments:

I ask myself if the world in which I have worked for so many decades—the intersecting and overlapping world of the news media, publishing, the academy, and the think-tank industry—is even imaginable without the presence of liberal American Jews. The answer is plainly no. Moreover, I can’t think of any other “minority” of which this is remotely true, unless it were to be the other minority from which I can claim descent: people of British or Anglophile provenance.

Hitchens’ claim that “British and Anglophile provenance” are even remotely on a par with Jewish involvement in these overlapping elites is far less than remotely true. And in any case, this high level of Jewish involvement means that Jews effectively hold veto power over things that can and cannot be said. That’s why Sanchez got fired in the first place.

Still, his statement is one of the remarkable statements on Jewish involvement in the information elites to appear from a mainstream media figure—a nice addition to Edmund Connelly’s collection.  Coupled with his statements on the power of the Israel Lobby and his defense of Karel de Gucht, Hitchens is definitely being a bit edgy.

That reminds me of Philip Weisss recent comments in his series “Note on my racism” (which bear a more extended discussion):

When you look at hives of Jewish writers, say the New Yorker Magazine, or the professors at Columbia University schools, I believe there is a strong kinship network at work. I’ve mentioned Lawrence Summers and Elena Kagan and Michael Walzer and Judith Shklar, their faculty networks at Harvard, as indicative of the same tendency.

Right. Elena Kagan as the poster child of Jewish ethnic networking. Jewish ethnic networking is the key to understanding contemporary information (and other) elites.

Hitchens wants Sanchez reinstated:

The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez’s reinstatement. If it then didn’t happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.

The idea seems to be that if Jews in the media like Hitchens (half-Jewish on his mother’s side) and Stewart call for Sanchez’s reinstatement but fail, then it would show that Jews really do pull the strings.

But the issue of how much influence Jews have on the  media is not at all dependent on what happens in this case. There is already overwhelming evidence for Jewish power in the media and elsewhere based on a great many sources. Sanchez’s reinstatement, perhaps after a bit of groveling, certainly wouldn’t change that.

The good news is that statements of Jewish power are becoming more common all the time, both on the power of the Israel Lobby and the power of Jews the media. In the long run, frank discussion of Jewish power would also mean a frank discussion of how Jewish power compromises the interests of White Americans. That would really be the stuff of which revolutions are made.  And even without an above-ground discussion, Whites with any degree of political sophistication are starting to “get it” and that in itself is a major step in the right direction.

James Edwards: When Rick Sanchez and Helen Thomas get together…

October 4th, 2010

What do you think they talk about? I’m guessing it’s about how Jews are a poor, oppressed, powerless minority group who have absolutely no say as to what goes in the news industry. (See also Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Rick Sanchez on Jewish Media Power.”)

As you probably know, Rick Sanchez got fired from his anchorman job at CNN a day after he gave a radio interview and mocked the idea that that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority group in America, especially considering they pretty much run the news industry. He and the host got off on that subject because Sanchez called Jon Stewart a “bigot” for always making fun of him. See, Sanchez, who’s as white as you and me, was trying to claim victimhood status, apparently being too darned dumb to understand that having a Spanish name doesn’t make you a victim; having brown skin is what makes Hispanics “victims”. Sanchez is about as “Latino” as Christina Aguilera. That was his first mistake. As Steve Sailer so eloquently points out, Victimism is a high stakes, dangerous game, and you’d better know exactly what you’re doing when you sit down to play. Sanchez was clearly in way over his head. He’s like the tourist in Vegas who sees all the excitement at the World Series of Poker, so he plunks down his $10,000 entry fee, and asks “Does the dealer stand on soft 17?”

Sanchez somehow made it to his position on the basis of his perceived “ethnicity” without anyone ever sitting him down and explaining the official rules of Victimism to him. He’s white, and it doesn’t matter that he grew up speaking Spanish in Cuba, and then in Miami after fleeing Cuba, because a white man can never be a victim (unless he’s a homosexual). His second mistake was accusing Jon Stewart of being a bigot. Jon Stewart’s real name is Jon Liebowitz, and people named Liebowitz can never be a victimizer. And they generally don’t take very kindly to being accused of being bigoted or prejudiced. They’ll be the ones calling people racists and bigots, thank you very much.

And his third mistake was not taking the hint from his interviewer on the radio show. Obviously thinking that Sanchez is as dumb as a box of rocks and has no idea he’s wading into dangerous territory, he helpfully points out that Liebowitz/Stewart doesn’t fit the profile of a “bigot”, being an oppressed minority himself. In other words he was saying “Uh, Rick…you’d better cool it man. Jon Stewart can’t be a bigot; he’s not white. He may look white, but he’s actually Jewish, and you are on very dangerous ground here.” I guess he thought Sanchez didn’t realize Stewart is Jewish.

But not only did Sanchez know Stewart’s Jewish, he knew a few other things, too. He said that most of the people who run CNN and the other news networks are just like Stewart, and the idea that Jews are a poor, oppressed minority in this country is absurd.

Of course, it’s lunacy to think Jews run the news industry. Which is why Sanchez was fired almost immediately after saying Jews run the news industry.

Makes sense to me!

It’s funny if you do a Google news search about his firing. Most of the headlines say he was fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot. Yeah, that’s a good one. And people wonder why no one trusts the news media?

And if you read the reactions from commentators, both left and right, it’s clear they’re terrified of the Jewish control of the news media. Not a one of them, liberal or “conservative”, suggests that what Sanchez said is wrong. They all talk about how “stupid” or “dumb” he is for saying it, not that he’s crazy for believing it. The mainstream “conservatives” are actually mocking him for having the guts to tell the truth. He speaks more truth in 30 seconds than Glenn Beck has in his entire career, and he’s a pariah, and he deserved to get fired because there are some things you just don’t talk about.

That’s modern “conservatism” for you, folks.

Hell, most of these “conservatives” are so terrified of Jewish power that they would freak out if you suggested that Jews run our nation’s synagogues.

Of course, what’s really telling is a story I wrote about some time ago. Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote a column a while back boasting that Jews control Hollywood, Wall Street, DC, and the news media. Not just boasting about it, but saying that anyone who doesn’t know this fundamental fact of life in America is pretty much an idiot.

Joel Stein can brag that Jews control the news media, Hollywood, Washington and Wall Street, and nobody bats an eye.

Rick Sanchez can simply state that Jews run the news industry, and he’s instantly fired.

That’s because Rick Sanchez is a white man, and Joel Stein is a Jew.

And “conservatives” cheer Sanchez getting fired for saying what everyone knows is true, and which Jews like Joel Stein rub in our faces.

Which is really disgusting. The craven cowardice is simply breathtaking.

Don’t EVER believe a word a mainstream “conservative” says.

Reposted from The Political Cesspool.

Kevin MacDonald: Joe Sobran was Right on Jewish Media Power

October 2nd, 2010

In my post on Joe Sobran, I included this quote from Joe:

Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

A current example that illustrates exactly this is the firing of Rick Sanchez from CNN for saying the following about Jews as victims:

Very powerless people… [snickers] He’s such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]… Please, what are you kidding? … I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]

This is the offending section of the  interview:

So the scenario is exactly as Joe Sobran described it. Deep down you must be fully aware of Jewish power, but public utterances must pledge allegiance to the idea that Jews are powerless victims. Don’t mention the fact that “a lot of people who run [CNN and] all the other networks are a lot like [Jon] Stewart” — that they are Jews with immense power, able to shape public discourse on everything of importance. Never mention the obvious fact that Jews are a very large component of the elite in the US and throughout the West. And if you don’t go along with the “Jews as powerless victims” idea, then Jews will destroy you.

Powerless victims with the power to destroy their enemies.  And that’s exactly what happened.

Joe Sobran (1946-2010)

October 1st, 2010

Joe Sobran will be much missed. I met him only once, but I am a great admirer of his writing. The American Conservative wrote this:

The 20th century produced many great conservative writers, but none brought together wit, erudition, and humanity on a single page so well as Joseph Sobran.

At VDARE.com, Steve Fulford included this very appropriate quote from Joe:

Most prejudices aren’t created by official doctrines; they result from popular experience and the slow spreading of a group’s reputation. The first gypsy I ever met — on a street in Rome — grabbed a wad of money out of my hand. I’d been too naive to be wary of her, though my companions had warned me against her.

(Editor’s note: Readers of this post have posted many other wonderful quotes from Sobran in the comments section. Well worth reading. Joe clearly understood exactly what was going on and who are enemies are.) My own favorite quotes, culled from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents, include the following:

In comments reminiscent of those of Heinrich von Treitschke, columnist Joseph Sobran has also raised the issue of Jewish media control and how it shapes discussion of Jewish interests versus those of the Christian Right:

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

This quote ended with the following footnote:

In another column, Sobran (1996b) quoted an essay, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote, “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.” Sobran comments that “in a single phrase—‘in our hands’—Shavit has lighted up the American political landscape like a flash of lightning. Notice that Shavit assumes as an obvious fact what we Americans can say publicly only at our own risk.” Sobran lost his position with National Review because of his views on the influence of American Jews on U. S. policy toward Israel.

As indicated in the last line, Sobran paid for his honesty about the Israel Lobby. His departure marked the rise of neocon domination at the Buckley’s execrable National Review and the equally execrable Republican Party. It was a huge loss for conservative thought in America.

The following may be called  Joe Sobran’s Dictionary. These are quotes attributed to Joe. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these, except for the definition of an anti-Semite (which has become a classic). But they certainly fit his character. A particularly insightful comment, not included in the dictionary, is the  following — very appropriate in an age where the courts routinely overturn popular referenda, such as the recent Arizona immigration law: “Our constitution has never been an impediment to those who rule us.” The same thing happened to California’s Proposition 187. As Thorborne Richardson notes, the American legal system is a fraud.

Joe Sobran’s Dictionary

anti-Semite: a person who’s hated by Jews

association, freedom of: discrimination

bigot: one who practices sociology without a license

bribe: an irregular transaction through which the citizen may get his money’s worth of service from the government

civil rights: government power used in behalf of large groups

guilt: the deepest vested interest

isolationist: an American who thinks America should behave like other countries

opinion polls: clever devices to make the hostages think they control their captors

political correctness: the felt pressure of enlightened public opinion, under which we sense that certain thoughts, though technically legal now, are already destined to become taboo.

psychoanalysis: a form of aggression for humorless people

public opinion: what everyone thinks everyone else thinks

rich: politicians’ nickname for “other people” (as in “tax the rich”)

rights: authorizations for new areas of government control

rogue nation: a country that behaves like America

voting: trying to say something with a gag in your mouth

Rest in Peace.