Pornography on tap is a reality of the Internet age. A particularly dehumanizing subset — for everyone involved — is interracial pornography, especially the black-male-on-white-female variety. Whoever produces this stuff should hang from a high tree. It may be one issue upon which white advocates, feminists and even some multiculturalists could agree.
This form of porn is a truly brutal attack on the white psyche. What our enemies seek for our race literally is concentrated symbolically here: our race dominated, disgraced, humiliated; its gene flow blocked. It sickens the heart.
Just ask this female judge from Canada, whose white lawyer husband apparently thought it would be cute to offer her up for sexual domination by a black client.
It’s not clear to me what the extent of her own involvement is, or whether the black man’s allegations are true. I am assuming the basic facts are true: that the white husband wanted his white wife to be ravaged by this black man.
According to the news accounts, the white man, one Jack King, was “depressed” as this all unfolded. I think his mental state is something else: perfectly in line with the way our enemies want white men to think.
And this is how they think. It says a lot about the state of the West that the power elite spend their time seeking out interracial three-ways. I feel safe in assuming that they aren’t rushing off to American Renaissance conferences or otherwise concerned about the fate of their race.
And I don’t have to tell Canadian white activists what the Canadian judiciary is up to otherwise. To the point: hammering away at free speech, free association and other rights. I note one lawyer who is standing up to that: Douglas Christie.
Whites need to reject the likes of Jack King and Lori Douglas, and affirm the Doug Christies.
My angle is that it shows the current sorry state of white advocacy. The mere fact that the whiteness of a crowd shows how bad it is, is, well, very bad. A group of whites — whites who, mind you, aren’t even gathering explicitly as whites — is illegitimate in the eyes of the media and the power centers they serve. That such a state of affairs even exists is a crime against the human rights of white people.
Sadly, I am sure that many Tea Party activists would agree that they need to be more “diverse.” My hope is that some synapse in their heads snaps, and they suddenly demand to know what’s wrong with being white. Or even “overwhelmingly white.”
Predictably, Jonah Goldberg has nothing but positive things to say about Glenn Beck’s extravaganza (LA Times, “Glenn Beck’s ecumenical moment”) Whereas we at TOO lament the fact that massive crowds of White people who are worried about their future are being lulled to sleep by this new Elmer Gantry, Goldberg shows his neocon heart by being thrilled that Beck isn’t really trying to get at the real issues that are causing deep anxiety and anger among Whites:
While the crowd was preponderantly white, the message was racially universal — on the stage and in the crowd. When Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie asked a couple whether as “African Americans” they felt comfortable in such a white audience, the woman responded emphatically but good-naturedly. “I’m not African, I am an American … a black American.” She went on to say “these people” — i.e. the white folks cheering her on — “are my family.”
This is the dream of a multicultural America where everyone gets along just like one big happy family. It’s the impossible dream that ignores racial realities, such as IQ differences that inevitably result in racial stratification in the absence of enormous, resentment-inducing government efforts. And it ignores the other results of research on the reality of multicultural societies: less social cohesion and increased social conflict; reduced contributions to public goods like health care and a general loss of trust.
The pathetic thing is that Beck is leading the charge into this impossibly harmonious future under the banner of conservatism.
As a neocon Jewish intellectual, Goldberg is horrified at any suggestion that Whites will begin to define themselves as White and seek to advance their interests: “I confess, if Beck wasn’t a libertarian, I would find his populism terrifying. But his basic message, flaws notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage largely defines us as a people, regardless of race, religion or creed.”
In other words, Beck is fine because he believes in the proposition nation. That’s the ticket to media success: There is a certain amount of leeway on acceptable attitudes, but don’t rock the boat on the proposition nation thing. That’s the litmus test of acceptability.
Glenn Beck’s big rally at the Lincoln Memorial a couple days ago is the talk of the news media and the internet. Liberals are denouncing it, conservatives are walking on air, while tens of millions of people are completely mystified. And with good reason – if Seinfeld was a show about nothing, this massive gathering was a rally about nothing. And while it may have looked impressive, in reality it shows just how impotent and adrift the mainstream conservative movement has become.
Nobody is really sure what it was even about. Beck, who is only famous because he has spent hours a day for the last decade ranting about politics, says it had nothing to do with politics, even though Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker.
It was about “restoring honor” or something, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Or it was a way of supporting the troops, depending on which day you talked to Beck.
Then it turned into a rally to reclaim the Civil Rights movement, and give it back to the people who Beck swears pioneered the Civil Rights movement, right wing conservatives. Yes, that’s what Beck actually claims to believe. Leave it to Glenn Beck to make white-hating black columnist Leonard Pittslook sane and reasonable.
It also has something to do with honoring all those unsung heroes of the American Revolution, the numerous black Founding Fathers, whose existence (until Beck came along to set the record straight) has been covered up by “liberals” who are trying to divide us by race. Yes, Beck actually says this, too.
And Palin? She was asked what Martin Luther King would’ve thought of the rally. This was a great opportunity to tell it like it is for all of America to hear. She could’ve said something like: “Martin Luther King? I’m white – why would I give a damn what Martin Luther King would’ve thought about this rally? At any rate, he no doubt would have disapproved, as he was a radical left wing socialist whose movement was all about increasing the size and power of the federal government, and using it to take rights and resources from white people and give them to non-whites. Hell no he wouldn’t have approved, and I couldn’t be more proud of that fact.”
But did she say anything like that? Of course not. Instead, she talked about how she could “feel his spirit” in this place that MLK’s presence had turned into “sacred ground” and that he would’ve heartily approved because the rally was all about “equality”, which is what he stood for. And “conservative” National Review was so proud of her words they posted the video.
(Of course, none of this idiotic pandering did anything to convince liberals and non-whites that Beck, Palin, and the hundreds of thousands of white people who showed up at the rallyare anything but despicable racists and Nazis.)
As it turned out, the rally was actually a huge revival meeting, in which Beck implored America to turn back to the god(s) of our Jewish-Christian-Muslim-Hindu-Mormon-Sikh-Zoroastrian heritage that made America great. He had over 200 members of the clergy on the podium, and he stressed that they were from “all faiths” and it didn’t matter which god we pray to, as long as we pray to something or someone, singular or plural. Just pick a higher power and go with it. In other words, it was the largest Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in history. Listen as Beck tells the crowd to “go back to your church, your synagogue, your mosque” and get to work on “refounding America.”
Now, normally, evangelicals would be horrified at this pantheism of “America needs to turn back to god, but it doesn’t matter which god” on full display Saturday, at a huge revival meeting led by America’s most famous Mormon. But not anymore. Judging by the posts and comments on the website of America’s biggest Christian news magazine, they ate it up. One columnist pretty much compared Glenn Beck to Jesus:
We arrived an hour late. The entire reflecting pool area of the National Mall was packed. The adjacent fields were packed, and the tide stretched toward the Washington Monument. The Associated Press has reported that “tens of thousands” were there. That kind of cynical numbers-downplaying reminded me of Heidi’s Romans 8:28 observation and made me glad that every lie will come out in the wash eventually. They lied about Jesus the whole of his ministry. And after he was raised, which was the ultimate vindication, they paid off soldiers to spread the rumor that his body had been stolen. But as the Bible says, “No weapon forged against you shall prosper” (Isaiah 54:17).
———-
Neither Beck nor his other speakers (among whom, Sarah Palin) mentioned a word about Mr. Obama. This concerted decision to steer clear of politics and hatefulness robbed the Huffington Post of the ability to dub the affair “political,” forcing them to settle for the accusation that it was “religious.” This is like when the Pharisees called Jesus a glutton and drunkard when he ate and drank, and a madman when the crowds thronged Him so that he couldn’t eat—the damned if you do and if you don’t approach that makes me glad for the sovereignty of God and Romans 8:28.
Toward the end, Glenn Beck told the attentive crowd that if we don’t go home and let our revival meeting change our lives, by drawing near to God and by telling the truth in our daily living, then all we will have had was a good time on a Saturday afternoon.
Notice how she accepts the liberal premise that criticism of Obama is “hatefulness.” Then she calls the rally a “revival meeting”, after complaining that the media was calling it “religious” in nature! If Beck comes across to normal people as a complete nutcase, it’s because he knows his audience.
Another columnist for Worldalso wrote about the rally. His 72 year old mother attended, in spite of recently having a hip replacement. Which was no doubt paid for by Medicare, which probably doesn’t even phase her when she agrees with Beck and the Tea Parties that “government should get out of health care.” Anyway, his 72 year old mother must be a member of the lying liberal media, because she said the rally was all about god:
I called my mother to see if the stories were accurate. “Mom, what was the rally like? What was the tone?” I asked. “Beck’s speech was primarily all about God,” she said verifying the news reports of the giant Tea Party. There wasn’t any focus on politics. It was about recognizing God.
Clearly, Beck’s rally was a vague, confused jumble of meaninglessness. Or, if you prefer, a hot ghetto mess. Yet many conservatives are excited and thrilled, and think that 8/28/10 will forever be remembered as some kind of turning point, as the day when the huge task of “taking America back” formally got underway. In reality, it was the exact opposite. I’m convinced that one of these days, we’ll look back on this as the nadir of the mainstream conservative movement, as its death rattle, as the day the conservative movement gave up the ghost. Hundreds of thousands of white conservatives spent millions of dollars to travel to DC, to stand around and do nothing, after being ordered not to bring any signs to express themselves, while Beck and Palin lectured them on the glories of The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., and the importance of getting back to the fundamentals of the Christian-Jewish-Muslim-Hindu-Sikh-Mormon faiths.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the world they’re desperately trying to preserve, but can’t, because they’re desperately afraid to even name it, just keeps disappearing. In fact, the very next day the New York Timespublished an article about the death of conservatism in Orange County, California, which used to be the epicenter of political conservatism in America.
Orange County has been a national symbol of conservatism for more than 50 years: birthplace of President Richard M. Nixon and home to John Wayne, a bastion for the John Birch Society, a land of orange groves and affluence, the region of California where Republican presidential candidates could always count on a friendly audience.
But this iconic county of 3.1 million people passed something of a milestone in June. The percentage of registered Republican voters dropped to 43 percent, the lowest level in 70 years.
It was the latest sign of the demographic, ethnic and political changes that are transforming the county and challenging long-held views of a region whose colorful — its detractors might suggest zany — reputation extends well beyond the borders of this state.
At the end of 2009, nearly 45 percent of the county’s residents spoke a language other than English at home, according to county officials. Whites now make up only 45 percent of the population; this county is teeming with Hispanics, as well as Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese families. Its percentage of foreign-born residents jumped to 30 percent in 2008 from 6 percent in 1970, and visits to some of its corners can feel like a trip to a foreign land.
The demographic changes that have swept the county reflect what is happening across the state and much of the nation. It has happened slowly but surely over the course of a generation, becoming increasingly apparent not only in a drive through the 34 cities that fill this sprawling 789-square-mile county south of Los Angeles, but also, most recently, in the results of a presidential election. In 2008, Barack Obama drew 48 percent of the vote here against Senator John McCain of Arizona. (By comparison, in 1980, Jimmy Carter received just 23 percent against Ronald Reagan, the conservative hero whose election as California governor in 1966 and 1970 was boosted in no small part by the affection for him here.)
The demographic changes that have transformed Orange County are also transforming the rest of America. The process may be further along in Orange County, but it’s happening everywhere. Thanks to immigration, sixty percent of the babies being born in Texas are non-white, and it’s only a matter of a few more elections before Texas’s electoral votes go to the Democrats, and when that happens, the GOP can forget about putting one of their own in the White House ever again. And there are many other cities and states that are right behind Texas, and lots more where the process will take a few more decades to have the same effect, but all of America is on its way to turning into Orange County, California.
That’s why the Beck Heads and Tea Partiers are losing their country. Not because they don’t attend their local mosque often enough. But they can’t admit that, because that would be “racist”, and losing your country is a lot better than being called “racist.”
But a conservative movement as willingly impotent as the crowd that came to DC on Saturday can’t go on much longer. At some point it’s going to dawn on them that no matter how much they grovel to MLK and praise his holy name, or how many “conservative” imams they pack their podium with, they still get called racists and Nazis, and their country just keeps slipping further down the tubes.
When that finally sinks in with conservatives, and it may be sooner than we think, things will start to get interesting.
In response to a recent article by Edmund Connelly onJewish self-mockery, Kevin MacDonald had this to say: “The question is, what about media pieces that have an obvious anti-Jewish sub-text? Jews control the media, right? So why do we find clips like ‘Overcome stress by visualizing a greedy, hook-nosed race of creatures.’”
“The Jewish sub-text,” MacDonald points out, “is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of negative stereotypes of Jews. Connelly doesn’t really know the answer, and I don’t either. That’s why we are asking for suggestions.”
Having spent quite a lot of time pondering Jewish noses and negative stereotypes — I once devoted an entire essay to the subject — I hope I may be allowed to suggest an answer to this riddle.
It’s a case of Jewish irony. If you don’t get it, it’s not because you are irony deficient. This is not meant to be a criticism of your sense of humor, still less of your intelligence. No way! It’s just that you have failed to understand that an extremely subtle sense of irony is the hallmark of Jewish humor. It is so nuanced, so rarefied, that you are often not even aware it is irony. Jews get the joke, but the goyim usually don’t. They’re not meant to get it. That’s the whole point.
The apparent self-mockery of the Jew is actually an inverted way of patting himself on the back. Woody Allen and Sarah Silverman specialize in this sort of black humor. Jewish comics make a habit of poking fun at Jews and their supposed faults in order to convince us of the sheer absurdity of anti-Semitism.
Let me give you some examples.
A few years ago, when I was a schoolteacher, I set up a cartoon competition for the students in my class. One of the entries was sent in by a boy called Cohen with a chip on his shoulder 2000 years long. It was a picture depicting a massive billboard on a major motorway. It showed a hideous, bald-headed man who looked like he’d just stepped out of a Der Sturmer cartoon: a monstrous beak of a nose, a bile green complexion, and a mouth coruscating with gold teeth. The caption read: “WARNING!!! WATCH OUT FOR ALIEN ABDUCTION!!! Green-eyed monsters, Martian ghouls, and men with funny hooked noses could come knocking on your door offering to sell you encyclopaedias!”
You see what I mean? This apparent self-mockery was actually a sneer at the goyim for being so out of touch with reality that they still—even after the Holocaust—didn’t seem to get the message that Jews are just like everyone else: a pretty harmless, well-meaning race that the rest of the world have ganged up against for some inexplicable reason.
Of course, if such a billboard as featured in Master Cohen’s cartoon should ever become an actual billboard one day, a large number of irony-deficient Jews would scream “Anti-Semitism!” And an equally large chorus of irony-deficient goyim would undoubtedly join the same shrill choir.
But consider this: a large number of Jews who were in on the joke and who were NOT offended by the cartoon would also, at this point, raise tongue-in-cheek cries of “Anti-Semitism!” These are the pranksters. The incorrigible pisstakers. You see, it’s a huge mistake to assume that every Jew who complains of anti-Semitism is one big angry Jew. No, he’s often pretending to be angry. His rage is ersatz. He’s putting on the fury, secretly snickering up his sleeve that you should be so dumb as to take him seriously.
Incidentally, I gave Master Cohen first prize for his cartoon. I had no choice. If I’d given him second prize, he would have complained of anti-Semitism!
You can’t win.
* * *
Now consider this cartoon by the famous British cartoonist Steve Bell:
Steve Bell, acclaimed Guardian cartoonist, won the British Political Cartoon Society 2003 Award with this cartoon depicting Ariel Sharon devouring babies. The usual suspects were incensed and Bell was stigmatized as an anti-Semite.
Ask yourself: would this cartoon have won a major competition in a politically correct country such as Britain if organized Jewry had been up in arms against it? Of course not. No, the Jews let it win for two reasons: (1) It proved that “free speech” was alive and kicking in Britain and that we actually live in an intensely anti-Semitic world in which Jews, ever the victims, are totally helpless to stop people saying bad things about them. (2) The cartoon, on another level, was also saying: How absurd that anyone should regard cuddly old Ariel as a “baby eater” when President George W Bush apparently thought the world of him. I mean, wasn’t this charismatic war hero, so adulated in Israel and Brooklyn, actually a “man of peace”?
It has to be asked: was Ariel Sharon upset or angry at Bell’s cartoon depicting him as a child-eating ghoul? No, I am reliably informed that he was delighted. He was tickled pink. This reminds me of the story of French poet Charles Baudelaire who, in order to improve his image as a monster of depravity, began to circulate the story that he ate babies for breakfast.
The point about anti-Semitism is this: when people who are neutral to Jews — and that includes most people — are presented with gut-wrenchingly distasteful displays of anti-Semitism, the seed of philosemitism is sown in their hearts. Their first reaction is: How unfair this is to the Jews, how needlessly cruel.
Here lies the supreme paradox: Philosemitism can actually be manufactured through ironical and over-the-top displays of anti-Semitism. It’s all a part of social engineering.
* * *
A point worth bearing in mind is this: a Jew is permitted to tell an outrageous anti-Semitic joke that a non-Jew would be crucified for relating. Recently, National Security Adviser General James Jones gave a key note speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and started the ball rolling by telling a joke depicting Jews as greedy merchants. He clearly meant no harm. He probably thought it would be obvious to his audience that he was merely sending up the silly anti-Semitic “canard” that Jews were just a bunch of moneygrubbing Shylocks.
“I’d like to begin with a story that I think is true,” General Jones begins, somewhat tactlessly. “A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban, the jokes goes on, begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea. Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant. They can sell you water. The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he’s back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: ‘Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.’”
Frankly, I think that’s funny. And if a Jew starts grinding his teeth with rage at such an innocuous joke, there has to be something seriously wrong with him. But sure enough, the joke was condemned by Jewish groups everywhere. Abe Foxman thought it “inappropriate”, and the Jewish Forward thought it “insensitive”. (See also here).
I have an anti-Zionist Jewish friend who told me this hilarious joke, adding a few embroideries of his own. He found it on a Jewish website, filed under “Israeli humor”. (See here). It’s the best example of Jewish self-mockery I’ve come across. I retell the joke in my own words, more or less as my Jewish friend told it to me.
If General Jones had told this joke, he would have been hanged, drawn and quartered.
This Israeli Jew arrives at Ben Gurion airport with two large suitcases. His name is Baruch and he’s been living in the United States. The customs agent opens up the first case and finds it stuffed with dollar bills. “How come you have all this money?” he asks.
Baruch grins and taps his hooked nose.
“Listen, I’ll tell you one way you can make a huge fortune in America. You just go into a public washroom and you see a guy having a pee. All you have to do is grab hold of his penis and say, ‘If you don’t donate ten bucks to Israel — for illegal settlements — I’m gonna cut off your goddamn penis!’ It’s fantastic, the amount of money you can make for Israel!”
“Wow, that’s cool!” says the customs agent. “So what’s in your other case?
Baruch shakes his head sadly.
“You just won’t believe,” he sighs, “the number of people in America who refuse to support Israel.”
Sometimes it’s pretty obvious what’s wrong with conservatives. Glenn Beck’s Washington gathering turns out to have been a plea for a religious revival (NYTimes: “At Lincoln Memorial: A Call for Religious Rebirth“):
“Something that is beyond man is happening,” Mr. Beck told the crowd, in what was part religious revival and part history lecture. “America today begins to turn back to God. … There’s nothing we can do that will solve the problems that we have and keep the peace unless we solve it through God.”
It was a plea made to an overwhemlingly White audience by a rainbow coalition of speakers:
All that implicit Whiteness and no place to go. When Whites put on a rally for an overwhelmingly White constituency, they feel a need to pledge allegiance to America as not really having an ethnic identity. Hence the need for non-White speakers. The same thing happened at a Tea Party rally I attended in Southern California: the obligatory Black speaker needed to deflect charges of racism that automatically surface when the crowd is overwhelmingly White. That’s why NASCAR is assiduously courting Black drivers to perform in front of their overwhelmingly White audiences.
The LA Times article notes that “Speaker after speaker praised the nation’s military, its Founding Fathers and Lincoln.” Red meat to the Tea Partiers—guaranteed to bring tears to the eye. Unfortunately, the military has been co-opted by the Israel Lobby. And the pleas to religion, the Founding Fathers and Lincoln are just another version of the proposition nation creed: All will be well if we accept a certain set of universal ideas with no ethnic content.
But it won’t. The people attending are overwhelmingly White because Whites are angry and deeply anxious about their future in America as other groups expand their power and as Whites are increasingly victimizedas Whites, in everything from affirmative action to violent crime. But they can’t explicitly state that this is a war against them. So they end up pledging allegiance to the very things that are dispossessing them–and calling it conservative. The worst part is that it gives his gullible audience hope that there are easy, painless solutions. We can do it if we just BELIEVE.
They can’t break with the ruling ideology. Until they do, they will just keep on losing and getting more and more desperate. And that, in a nutshell, is the argument for the A3P.
First, there is a story on p. A1 of a Mr. “Dickstein” and his wife, lawyer, man about town and good liberal who has been caught slipping it to the goyim by taking , allegedly of course, about $400,000 illegal dollars from the city in some kind of caper to bilk and defraud aforesaid goyim out of their autistic kids program dough. The guy is a top lawyer the paper says.
Then there is a stellar piece by an economics grad student who suggests that the cure for the housing market crunch is to bring in more immigrants to help create more demand. Yes, the Mexicans. He does not suggest how they are going to pay for their new digs.
Then , the prize goes to a piece by one Carolyn Sufrin, a subverso no doubt, who complains about the jail practice of taking pregnant women to hospital who are starting labor, and leaving them shackled by one arm to the hospital bed. She says the AMA has called this “barbaric”. I would like to see the AMA document.
However, the interesting angle here is that the LIb-er-als are getting pretty hard-up for stories about the Prison-Industrial Complex run by the blue-eyed Devils. So they call it “barbaric”. How many women who have avoided jail would go for a “one-hand-shackled deal” to get the State to pay for their baby? Just a cool 10 grand or so. Just asking.
Talk about barbaric…what if the State should decide that the mother was unfit to keep the child? Well…how many Black babies are brought up in orphanages because nobody wants them?Answer: none. The Blacks get to keep their babies because the State can see down Freedom Road far enough to realize it is much cheaper. Is it barbaric to let criminals “raise” their kids?
Are there any adjectives left in the liberal lexicon armory with which to discuss certain other practices in the world—witch burning in Africa, Jihadist Arabs chopping off the heads of their wives for filing for divorce, Israeli soldiers shooting out the eyes of Palestinian kids?
And don’t forget the Jewish Wars we are fighting for Israel. What about those folks who are not killed outright, but come home with major body parts missing, like a quarter of their heads…US soldiers. ( Never mind the Iraqis…the hell with them, they’re just A-rabs.) Then some of them get a reunion with their girl-friends. What do you say to your fiancé who shows up with half a head? Dear John….
The the final laugh for today’s Chronicle is yet another sob of despair on California schools— “High Cost of Resistance.” The first paragraph is worth quoting: “California’s disappointing performance in the competition for federal Race to the Top funds must not become an excuse to slow down efforts at innovation and reform. One area in which this state is clearly behind the others is in its commitment to holding teachers accountable for raising students’ test scores.”
The piece then brings “Resistance” into focus by hammering the Teachers’s Union which naturally resists tying teachers’ performance/pay, to the performance of their (let’s call it what it is) black and brown”students.
Let us recall the boring example of Revolutions Devouring their own Children. Teachers, as a group, I take it , are pretty Liberal and Believe in Racial Equality. So, the first group to get the revolutionary bullets are going to be the teachers, the front-line workers…sort of like the Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution (China). Or, take the USSR, please.
After they fire all the teachers, send them to Re-education Camps or send them to live with their black and brown students in the hoods and barrios to become more culturally sensitive and aware of black and brown styles of learning….and that does not work either. For those teachers who live to tell the tale, then , I dunno, maybe Obama will give piles of cash to the families, since, as they say, the thing that correlates with good grades in students is—Bingo!—Family income.
The biological fact is that higher income folks are smarter. Period.
How long this can go on is not clear. But the vast middle and working classes are getting fed-up, that is, the Whites. Your property tax bill is paid by check. When home owners no longer Believe, the fat will be in the fire.
BTW, the cartoon accompanying this Education story is that of a White female school teacher getting ready to erase the teacher performance scores. Right. It is the White school teacher, just as the Oppressed Revolutionaries of Color say, who is irredeemably Racist! All of that said, I would be curious to find out whether White teachers are more successful than Latino and Black teachers. I call this kind of thinking, “Postjudice”, not “prejudice”.
First they killed all the racists, then came for….
Conclusion: The Liberals are getting desperate for stories about White Devils . The school teachers are going to the guillotine, the White ones that is. Shackled jailbird sistas are oppressed by the White Establishment. Open the gates to the wretched of the Earth…to help solve our recession problems…right.
Life in multiracial America presents us with stark choices: live in an urban area with a short commute and risk mugging or murder, or live in the suburbs and spend hours of your life behind the wheel. Send your kids to public school and leave them uneducated and terrorized by blacks and Hispanics, or send them to private school, and work long hours to pay for it.
The choice for a food delivery person in an inner-city area: risk getting shot in the stomach for your Chinese food delivery cash, or risk being sued and called a racist. (“Delivering food is a risky joby, but denying service could be catch-22, experts say.”) Some might say the latter is worse. A black, corn-rowed thug with a gun, or a Jewish lawyer whining about “hate and intolerance” and deposing you… it’s a tough call. (I personally suspect that the targeting of Chinese food delivery people is a form of hate crime: the black robbers assume that the Chinese will be meek and give it up easily.)
I’ve read that some pick a third option: go home. This is apparently what many Koreans in the Los Angeles area have done.
We whites, of course, don’t have the option of returning home in order to escape this madness. This is our home. We’re stuck.
The lesson is getting clearer and clearer: we cannot continue to live like this. It’s going to kill us. We need to move toward something else, whether it’s some form of separation or a greater white consciousness that serves as a much stronger bulwark against black violence and theft — and other anti-white ethnic attacks.
Jewish humor confirms some very serious things about Jews. Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article (”Jews Mocking the Tribe?“) points to Jewish hostility toward Christianity and Jewish feelings of superiority toward non-Jews. It also shows the extreme sensitivity that Jews in the media have about airing anything Jewish. Precisely why is an important question, perhaps best answered by Al Franken: “People might not like it. … There’s a lot of us in this business, let’s not call attention to it, you know.” The elite doesn’t officially exit. It is the elite that cannot tell its name.
But the question is, what about media pieces that have an obvious anti-Jewish sub-text, at least to perceptive viewers? Jews control the media right? So why do we find clips like “Overcome stress by visualizing a greedy, hook-nosed race of creatures.” The Jewish sub-text is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of negative stereotypes of Jews.
Connelly doesn’t really know the answer, and I don’t either. That’s why we are asking for suggestions. I am attracted to the idea that most people simply won’t grasp the Jewish sub-text. I remember an academic colleague being very surprised at my claim that Seinfeld was a very Jewish TV show. And I wonder how many viewers of the Saturday Night Live skit on the financial meltdown knew that George Soros, Barney Frank and the Sandlers are Jewish. Lots of people just don’t get it.
Connelly also suggests it’s a matter of Jewish comedy writers pushing their parents’ buttons. Maybe. But presumably this is done with the belief that the goyim won’t suddenly get all pogromy —either because of ignorance or because, even though they know full well what the stereotypes are, they are incapable of believing that Jews actually embody those negative traits. The latter would represent the ultimate triumph of Jewish media influence.
The War Party is beating the drums again, and much of the media is obediently falling into line. Jeffrey Goldberg, whose article for the New Yorkerwas an important part of the disinformation campaign that was so central to the successful neocon push for the Iraq war, is leading the charge once again. His recent Atlantic article, “The Point of No Return,” is a brief for another war, this time with Iran. Rather than present his own doubtless warmongering views, he slants his article as objective reportage on the mindset of Israel’s leaders, particularly Benjamin Netanayahu’s “belief … that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.
“Duty-bound”? That’s quite a sense of duty. The world has a duty to deal with a regime whose overt animus is directed at Israel, and if it doesn’t, Israel will do it itself. Goldberg claims that a military strike is also favored by Arab states, a point cogently disputed by Marc Lynch writing in Atlantic. In any case it’s a bit difficult to believe that “Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran.” How about America’s standing in the region depending on its ability to pressure Israel from its expansionist aims and end Israeli oppression of the Palestinians?Nah, the Arabs could care less about that.
In any case, one still wonders how attacking Iran is in the interests of the US or the rest of the world. But of course, interest is irrelevant. That’s the thing about duties. When one has a duty, self-interest and personal desire are irrelevant. You have a duty. Be a good soldier. Do it and don’t ask questions. End of story.
Goldberg never tells us why the US has a duty to initiate a military strike against Iran (although one can infer it has something to do with the Holocaust). So his main thrust is to show that Netanyahu would do it unilaterally if the US won’t. And why is Netanyahu so gung-ho on war? It’s because of the influence of his father, Ben-Zion Netanyahu: “To understand why Netanyahu possesses this deep sense—and why his understanding of Jewish history might lead him to attack Iran, even over Obama’s objections—it is necessary to understand Ben-Zion Netanyahu, his 100-year-old father.”
The senior Netanyahu is a premier example of a Jewish academic ethnic activist. Goldberg informs us that he was Vladimir Jabotinsky’s secretary. Jabotinsky was the father of racial Zionism and the inspiration of the terrorist wing of Zionism prior to 1948. Since that time, Jabotinsky has been the inspiration for the pro-expansion, pro-settler Likud Party—racial Zionism in all but name. As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”
Goldberg describes Ben-Zion Netanyahu’s most important work, The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain (1995), as follows: “He argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was spurred by the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood; it was proto-Nazi thought, in other words, not mere theology, that motivated the Inquisition. Ben-Zion also argued that the Inquisition corresponds to the axiom that anti-Semitic persecution is preceded, in all cases, by carefully scripted and lengthy dehumanization campaigns meant to ensure the efficient eventual elimination of Jews. To him, the lessons of Jewish history are plain and insistent.”
Netanyahu’s apologetic account of the Spanish Inquisition is a major topic of Chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents (”Rationalization and Apologia: The Intellectual Construction of Judaism”), including especially a long appendix.I remember when I first read his work that I was struck at how baldly apologetic it was—up front and in your face. One reviewer referred to his “almost mystical jeremiads against the Inquisitors” — not exactly the mark of an objective historian.
Basically, it’s the same old story: the behavior of Jews is irrelevant to the hostility people have against them. In this case, he tried to show that the Jews who converted to Christianity were sincere in their beliefs so that the Inquisition was at bottom racialist. I accept that some of the New Christians may have been sincere (and even Netanyahu admits that some were not). But I point out that, whatever their beliefs, there is a lot of evidence that the New Christians continued to intermarry and retain all the other ingroup connections that have always characterized Jews. The result was that an ethnically alien group came to dominate Spanish society even though it had adopted a surface of Christianity. In other words, Jewish racialism came first, followed by the Inquisition as a reaction. In the absence of surface religious differences, the only clue the Inquisition had was suspicion based on their ethnic ties—limpieze de sangre. Ethnicity matters as a point of conflict, even when people have the same surface beliefs.
One of Netanyahu’s comments made an indelible impression because it depicted Jews as willing and self-conscious agents of princely “massive exploitation”—a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes in traditional societies.
It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation. By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to: the fundamental conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life. It was in part thanks to this conflict of interests that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe that they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe. Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the “alien” Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects. In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world. (Netanyahu 1995, 71–72)
One would think on the basis of his portrayal of Jews as willing and self-conscious agents of massive exploitation in alliance with corrupt elites that Netanyahu would realize the rationality of traditional anti-Jewish attitudes. However, there is little evidence of that, and certainly his treatment of the motives behind the Inquisition strongly suggest that he thinks Jews are blameless. (I can’t resist pointing out the parallel to our current situation—that our new American elite is substantially composed of ethnically conscious Jews with a heavy sprinkling of corrupt White people with no allegiance or loyalty to their own people—exactly the Jewish formula for success in traditional societies.)
Indeed, the above passage can be read as saying that the Jews had to be exploiters in order to survive the Middle Ages. Survival comes first before any compunction about exploiting non-Jews.(Jewish exploitation of non-Jews was greatly facilitated by Jewish religious attitudes that non-Jews are exploitable outgroups—an ideology that is enshrined in all the founding Jewish religious documents, from the Old Testament to the Talmud.) It’s an argument that can easily be applied to issues like West Bank settlements — needed to make Israel into a viable entity. George Will’s recent column pointed once again to the pre-1967 borders of Israel as dangerously indefensible.
It’s interesting that this survival-first argument is the key to the current attitudes emanating from the Netanyahu camp. Goldberg never once mentions the reality that Jewish behavior has poisoned the atmosphere in the Middle East. It’s simply about survival. As Netanyahu the elder stated: “The Jewish people are making their position clear and putting faith in their military power. The nation of Israel is showing the world today how a state should behave when it stands before an existential threat: by looking danger in the eye and calmly considering what should be done and what can be done. And to be ready to enter the fray at the moment there is a reasonable chance of success.”
This view that the behavior of Jews is irrelevant to hatred directed against them is an incredibly important part of the Jewish self-concept. A recent review of a book on the history of British attitudes on Jews begins, “What is important about anti-Semitism—a fairly modern term for an ancient clutch of ideas—is that it has less to tell us about the Jews themselves than about their enemies” (”Inverted targets,” David Vital’s review of Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora, TLS, July 23, 2010).
One can always understand the appeal of an existential argument, but it would be much more compelling for non-Jews if Israel’s behavior since 1967 had not appalled pretty much everyone who is paying attention. The problem is that Jews have a long history of not acknowledging the role of their own behavior in fomenting anti-Jewish attitudes. Then, when it blows up, it’s all about survival. Survival trumps everything else, certainly including any need to alter their behavior. As Tallyrand saidof the Bourbon kings, “They learned nothing, they forgot nothing.”
Kevin MacDonald: White advocates are inured to being seen as evil, mean-spirited people. Our desire to retain control over the lands we have controlled for hundreds or thousands of years is routinely denounced as racist and morally untenable. Alex Kurtagic’s current TOO article,“Women are our allies,” is an antidote for all that:
The degree to which the Europeanness of our societies is an important and valuable asset finds its most dramatic proof in the treatment women receive in many non-European cultures. Earlier I mentioned the civic erasure of women in not a few Islamic societies; yet this seems tame in comparison to some of the forms of suppression and abuse practiced in parts of Africa and South Asia.
The accompanying photos of women who have been horribly disfigured as a result of behavior that is normative in these cultures are difficult to look at. But we have to understand that non-European cultures are not just different; they condone practices toward women that are completely repellent. If they had any sense, Western feminists would be avid supporters of shutting off the massive flow of non-Whites into the West. While we are still a majority, Whites, incluing feminists, can prevent these cultures from having a decisive influence. But, as Kurtagic notes, it is beyond optimistic to suppose that they can do so when Whites become a minority: “Demography, as they say, is destiny.”
As Eric Kaufmann noted, one of the conceits of WASPdom is to suppose that other peoples would be just like themselves. In the 19th century, it was common to think that Catholics would convert to Protestantism and even that Africans would become White eventually. Their expansive optimism did have a solid basis if confined to other European peoples. But the idea that the millions of non-Whites will become just like White folks has no basis in science or common sense. Such sentiments live on among Whites not only on the high-minded left, but also among braindead conservatives — perhaps now with more than a tinge of desperation as events continue to unfold and Whites become increasingly anxious about their future.
The individualist proclivities of the West have always resulted in an elevated status for women compared to non-Western cultures, where women are enmeshed in a web of clan and kinship — where women are little more than pawns in games played by powerful men. Tacitus noticed the high status of women among the Germanic tribes, and the status of women in Rome was incomparably higher than anywhere in the Middle East, India, China, or Africa. Many 19th-century Americans thought of individualism as an ethnic trait. They were right.
Kevin MacDonald:Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is a rare disorder that has shed a lot of light on how biology shapes sex differences. Girls with the disorder have a defective enzyme, and as a result their adrenal glands begin secreting male hormones well before they are born. The result is that to varying degrees their sexual organs are masculinzed at birth, often resulting in surgical repair. More interestingly, their behavior is masculinized: They are more aggressive, more likely to prefer rough, active play, less attracted to taking care of children, and prefer functional clothing to feminine finery. And even more interestingly, they are more likely to be lesbian. It’s the lesbian thing that has the homosexual activists all worked up.
The reason for their ire is that there is a promising treatment for the disorder. (”A rare disorder, a rarer debate“; LA Times, Aug. 15, 2010). The problem for the activists is that as a side effect of treatment, the girl would be less likely to be lesbian. Horrors! The inside headline in the print edition screams, “Side effect outrages gay advocates.” Their greatest worry is that “some doctors might tell parents that a reduced chance of homosexuality is one of the therapy’s benefits.”
One activist group, Advocates for Informed Choice, “favors allowing children born with intersex conditions to participate in decisions about their gender identity, including delaying a decision until adolescence.”
But by that time the girl would already be masculinized and biologically predisposed to lesbianism. It’s obvious what her “choice” would be. The effects of the hormones during the prenatal period could not be undone at that point. In effect, the girl’s choice would have already been made for her.
So the child cannot meaningfully make a choice. Who can?
Amazingly, there is not one word in the article about what interests the parents have–or even what the real interests of the child are. You don’t have to be an evolutionist to realize that parents have a huge stake in the sexual orientation of their children. It’s likely to be the difference between having grandchildren and not having grandchildren, especially given that these girls have relatively little interest in nurturing children. Even without an evolutionary analysis, it’s obvious that most parents want grandchildren eventually and take great pride and joy in having them. Don’t they have a say?
And what about the child? These gay activists want the child to be just like them. But how does that benefit the child? For an evolutionist, the true interests of the child are clear: Heterosexuality and femininity are far more likely to result in children and well-cared for children at that. But even apart from that, there is no reason to suppose that lesbians are happier than heterosexual women.
The attitudes of the gay activists here are yet another example of how far the culture of the left has departed sanity and common sense. For these people, lesbianism has a value for its own sake, independent of the interests and desires of the parents, and independent of the interests of the child.
As a biologically oriented psychologist, I am not surprised that research indicates the importance of biological influences on homosexuality. The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable—and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interestsjust like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children.
And they should be very happy that there is a promising treatment that would allow girls affected with CAH to grow up wanting to be wives, mothers, and grandmothers.
Because a lot of people who read the blog don’t read the main articles and because the main page doesn’t have room for comment, this is notice of Solzhenitsyn’s Chapter 21. See here. Kevin M
The Seattle Weekly is a very poor excuse for a newspaper, and mainly serves to advertise prostitutes, promote homosexuality, and sow hatred of the European-American majority in every way possible. It also worships Israel whenever it gets a chance.
The story describes how the Department of Agriculture Farm Service
Agency is operating a segregated, Mexican-only program that buys out struggling, traditional European-American farms and then hands them over to the Mexicans at near zero interest rates. (One reason the European-American farms struggle is they have no access to credit.)
One area targeted for ethnic cleansing is the very productive Yakima Valley in Eastern Washington. Since segregated, Mexican-only NGOs like the Rural Community Development Resources, run by Luis Gutierrez, provide the conduit to the funding, it is all going to Mexicans.
One example of how the program works is that of Sergio Marquez who came up from Mexican to work on a 200-acre apple orchard, and within years was given ownership of the orchard by the federal government with no down payment and sub-market rates of interest.
Finally, the federal government guarantees that it will buy 100% of production from these privileged Mexican operations, and then in turn donates it to food banks.
Who would have thought ethnic cleansing would be so profitable?
Ron Brownstein’s latest suggests that a political crisis is on the horizon, spurred by the disaffection of White voters and possibly leading to revolutionary stirrings and a movement toward a third party (”A Corrosive Loss of Confidence“).
Even as voters prepare to send more Republicans to Washington, polls show that Americans are not enthusiastic about the GOP. Indeed, the arc of disillusionment spreads beyond the two parties to virtually every major American institution. If November’s election allowed Americans the opportunity to fire not only members of Congress, but also the nation’s entire public and private leadership class, they might take it. This deep, broad, and visceral discontent is a recipe for social and political volatility.
Whites are more alienated from both major parties than non-Whites. Brownstein proposes that this is solely due to the economic downturn. I suspect that White disaffection also involves racial anxiety about the non-White future. Non-Whites doubtless feel optimistic about the long term future in a White-minority America, even if their present circumstances are difficult.
There is an apocalyptic tone to Brownstein’s essay—a belief that our new elite is out of touch with the great majority of Americans, that revolution may be just around the corner, and that third parties may be swept into power:
If polls existed just before the French Revolution, they might have returned results such as these. They point toward a widely shared conviction that the country’s public and private leadership is protecting its own interest at the expense of average (and even comfortable) Americans.
Because he sees the economic downturn as central, Brownstein sees a successful third party as headed by “a non-politician with a problem-solver pedigree” who is seen as able to turn the economy around.
He may be right, but the American Third Position believes that a prime mover of White disaffection is racial anxiety—amplified by the recession and by the perception that elites are completely out of touch with the interests and attitudes of the great majority of Americans. Good examples of the latter are recent court rulings that nullify popular sentiment on issues like the Arizona immigration law and California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Indeed, today’s op-ed page in the LA Times shows the divide: Thepro-homosexual marriage piece piouslydefending the courts and the anti-homosexual marriage piece emphasizing the undemocratic nature of the ruling: The “people’s will” was violated.
There is a feeling of powerlessness–that even strong majorities don’t matter any more. And that is indeed what revolutions are made of.
From the Too-Good-Not-To-Splash-Across-the-Web Dept. comes Steve Sailer’s take on Morris Dees’ extravagant digs. Here is the entire 60-item photo shoot, including the following:
Hypocrisy. Absurdity. Mockery. Words fail. How about a deliciously funny screenplay lampooning a Dees-like character? It’s got gargantuan comedic potential. Tom Wolfe, are you paying attention?
Apropos the recent series on chapters from Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together (especially Chapter 18), a new textbook for university students in Russia emphasizes the elite status of Jews in the early decades of the USSR. (JTA, August 8, 2010: “Russian Textbook Seen as Anti-Semitic“) The Foreword states, “For the greater part of its 70-year history, the USSR was ruled by people of non-Russian nationality.” The book also states that, “By the 1930s, the Jewish nation was the leader among those represented in the Communist party and the state machinery, in Science and Art.”
At this point, the elite status of Soviet Jews during this period is common knowledge among scholars (e.g., Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century), but that doesn’t mean that scholars are free to draw attention to ethnicity in textbooks intended for university students. Predictably, any such effort is regarded as “anti-Semitic”: “some are calling [the book] anti-Semitic because it counts the number of Jews in Soviet governments.” As in the US, Jews are the elite that “cannot tell its name.”
Jewish activist organizations go ballistic over any mention that Jews are a disproportionate portion of American elites–truth is irrelevant. Those who stray into this forbidden territory soon learn that their lives have just gotten a lot more complicated. The result is that people behave like well-conditioned rats in a psychology experiment and keep their mouths shut no matter how obvious Jewish overrepresentation is. (”The New Elite Doesn’t Officially Exist“
The theme of the textbook is that the Russians were ruled by non-Russians. Rule by outsiders had predictably disastrous results for those without power: it was during this period that the most horrific mass murders of Russians occurred. The common sense of it is that Russians would not have murdered huge numbers of their own people in the name of international socialism. (It takes Puritans to do that.) This leads to an often-repeated theme on this website: It is the ultimate folly to allow non-Whites — especially non-Whites with powerful historic grudges — to become a majority and develop the power to rule over Whites.
Also predictably, the article uses guilt-by-association arguments. An author of the textbook was the advisor to a student who is now on trial for murdering two anti-fascists, and the university where the text is used is “tainted by anti-Semitism” because it invited a Holocaust dissident to speak.
Okay. But does that show that the USSR was not ruled by non-Russians during this period or that Jews were not an elite during the worst excesses of the Soviet regime? The same can be said about the comment from the Jewish apologist attacking the idea that deportation of the Crimean Tatars was caused by the necessity of clearing the territory for the proposed Jewish republic. Even if true, it doesn’t go to the heart of the matter. Here’s what Solzhenitsyn says in Chapter 18:
The settlement of the Jews in the Crimea provoked the hostility of the Tatars (“Are they giving Crimea to the Jews?”) and dissatisfaction of local landless peasants. Larin writes “evil and false rumors are circulating throughout the country about removal of land from non-Jews, the expulsion of non-Jews and the particularly strong support the authorities have given to the Jewish settlers”. It went so far that the chairman of the CIK of the Crimean ASSR, Veli Ibraimov published an interview in the Simferopol paper Red Crimea (Sept 26, 1926) which Larin does not quote from, but which he claims was a manifestation of “evil bourgeois chauvinism” and a call for a pogrom.
Solzhenitsyn seems to agree that the Jews were treated very well by the government (with the help of foreign Jewish organizations), and he amply documents the resentments this caused among non-Jews. But he does not state that the Tatars were expelled because of Jewish settlement.
Of course, for all I know, the textbook doesn’t say that either. The Tatars weren’t deported until 1944, long after the project for Jewish settlement had fizzled.
Like millions of non-Jewish white men in America, I am circumcised. Until my wife became pregnant with a boy, it was never anything I reflected upon too much. It’s all I’ve ever known, and mostly all I’ve ever seen in the American locker room. When I inquired of my parents about my own circumcision, I was told that it was just “what everyone did” at the hospital. I was whisked away for the procedure with nary a discussion. They also didn’t give it much thought, apparently.
But reflect on that for a second: a bizarre ritual in which sharp instruments slice up the most intensely personal part of the male body, right after birth, and for which is there is almost no legitimate medical explanation. That’s just what “everyone does”? How does that insanity come to be?
When female circumcision (or “mutilation” — note the difference in terminology) is discussed, it’s treated as a brutally sexist and barbaric practice — an incomprehensible horror designed to oppress women. But male genital mutilation — which is really what it is – is barely mentioned.
For our son, the decision was easy: no circumcision. Informing my decision was 1) the increasing medical evidence that circumcision’s supposed benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks, and 2) my suspicion that “universal circumcision” is a Jewish attempt to normalize their practice and render them indistinguishable from the rest of us.
My boy was born whole, and he’ll stay whole. Other fathers’ justifications of “he should look like me” struck me as absurd. Our people have to start clawing their way back to some identity, and we might as well start now. Should any question arise, I’m happy to explain that his penis was not clipped because that’s a ritual primarily of the Jews, and he’s not Jewish. That might be a nice starting point for any number of discussions and thinking on his part.
There are other reasons to keep our boys whole, I come to find out. One correspondent tells me than in researching this topic, he discovered that an erect circumcised penis is necessarily somewhat shorter — unlike the “full capacity” uncircumcised penis, it’s got less skin to expand and fill with blood. Many sources report that there are crucial nerve endings in the cut-off portion of the penis, so that sexual pleasure is reduced.
That squares with the minimal research I’ve done — mostly confined to the Internet — which has rabbis acknowledging that pouring a little cold water on the male libido is indeed one good result of circumcision. Maimonides is said to have mentioned this.
Historically, according to Jews, circumcision was strictly a rite — and a very important one, at that — that did not rest on any medical justification.
Interestingly, it appears that circumcision may have originated as some sort of substitute for actual human sacrifice. The ancient Egyptians may have started it, and other non-Jewish peoples appear to have practiced it, but in the ancient world, it became a distinguishing rite of the Jews.
In Europe and Britain of recent history, it appears that circumcision was practiced almost exclusively by Jews. I recall that in the Holocaust movie “Europa Europa“, the Jewish protagonist, a young boy, escapes into the fold of the Nazis because of his “Aryan” good looks, and tries to complete the picture by stretching his own foreskin stub down enough to make him look uncircumcised.
So it’s obvious that in Europe in World War II, a Jew was indelibly and unmistakably distinguished from non-Jews by the practice of circumcision.
A question that burns for me is: were Jews responsible for persuading so many American gentiles to peform this bizarre ritual, primarily as a way to “normalize” the practice and remove the stigma? Perhaps they thought that if everyone were circumcised, the young protagonist of “Europa Europa” would never have faced the difficulties he did.
The topic cries out for research. I would love to know how circumcision spread from an ethnically particular practice — one that, in the words of Sir Richard Burton, was “held in horror” by Christendom — to something that “everyone does”.
There is plenty to Google up about circumcision, with several sites taking a strong anti-circumcision stand, and a few Jewish sites defending it. But none of these sites address the issue of whether Jews sought to persuade white American non-Jews to be circumcised.
There does seem to be some evidence that fascination with germs and cleanliness motivated gentiles, independently of Jewish influence, to practice circumcision. But if it’s even partly true that Jews encouraged “universal circumcision” so as to disguise their practice as ethnically unique, white non-Jews should be embarrassed. It would mean that they allowed a stereotypically tricky group of Jews to convince them to perform this ritual on their boys without ever questioning or thinking about it. So flaccid (if you will) was the white sense of racial strength and solidarity – and their sense of skepticism at Jewish claims — that they quite literally got their dicks nicked.
You might almost call it a “mass ethnic rape” of white non-Jewish males by Jews. That many millions of white males subjected to that physical trauma at birth — and denied that extra measure of sexual satisfaction — just so that Jewish males could “hide out in the open”? Staggering to consider.
If Jews can talk “the goyim” into doing that, what can’t they talk them into? Persuading them to fight their wars in the Middle East seems like child’s play by comparison. Persuading them to stop reproducing, to divorce at the drop of a hat, to give up their power slots, their property, their very lives? No problem.
I don’t know for sure that Jews persuaded whites to become circumcised in order to disguise themselves in the open. But the bare evidence available does seem to fit the theory, and as with so many thing Jewish, the incredible dearth of research and information on the topic makes me yet more suspicious — especially given that it seems to be the very sort of thing that curious academics tuck into.
Are we afraid to tackle the issue because of offending Jewish sensibilities? Do men avoid the topic because they don’t like to admit that they’ve had a part of their penises cut off, and never had any say in the matter? I think all of this may be going on, but the larger lesson could be that whites, in their ethnic competition with Jews, find themselves badly outmatched when it comes to the power of persuasion.
Edmund Connelly: In his recent blog, Steve Sailer tells us about last week’s shooting of eight White workers near Hartford, Connecticut. Sailer notes that although the only evidence discovered thus far about actual racist behavior toward the black shooter “appears to have been in the stupid and resentful mind of a thieving mass murderer, he was a black stupid and resentful thieving mass murderer, so attention must be paid.”
Am I the only one that is weary beyond description of the way the media and American society more generally handle these cases of mass murders of Whites? We get endless sympathetic stories about what might have driven a generally good but troubled non-White soul to have suddenly lashed out and taken the lives of so many Whites.
About those suddenly dead Whites, however, we hear so little. No movies, no comments from the President, no front page New York Times stories. It’s not like these Whites came from the perpetual victim classes like Vincent Chin or Leon Klinghoffer.
It’s all summed in the narrative about Chai Vang, the Hmong immigrant who nearly six years ago took the lives of six innocent White hunters. Well, possibly not so innocent because Vang — and the mass media acting as the chorus behind him — claimed the hunters had used racial slurs against him. Case closed: Whites said something racist, so death was a foregone conclusion. And besides, justice was served.
In the present case of Omar Thornton, this narrative is duly repeated. For instance, in a story used by Sailer, Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism, we read that the mass murderer was a really nice guy:
But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday in which the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself.
“I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work,” said his girlfriend, Kristi Hannah. …
Thornton, who grew up in the Hartford area, complained about racial troubles on the job long before he worked at Hartford Distributors.
“He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black,” said Jessica Anne Brocuglio, his former girlfriend. “Basically they wouldn’t give him pay raises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.”
Well, I think we can call this murderous workplace explosion another instance of “going postal.”
It also points to something deeper: a common pattern where a black employee goes after White co-workers. In particular, it reminds me of a chilling case back in 1994. In that incident, three White FedEx pilots were attacked inflight by fellow black pilot Auburn Calloway. Calloway, too, was obsessed with the idea that his career had stalled due to White racism. In fact, he believed it had begun when he was a naval aviator.
Having reached his limit, Calloway concocted a plan to kill the three-man crew of a DC-10, then crash the heavily-loaded plane into FedEx’s headquarters building at the hub in Memphis, Tennessee. To effect this plan, he signed on to “deadhead” aboard the flight and brought with him hammers, a knife, and a spear gun secreted in his guitar case.
To their great credit, the Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel showed in their seriesMayday an accurate racial portrayal of attacker and victims. See this Video link from National Geographic Channel’s website. (You can also watch a re-enactment of the attackhere in these YouTube segments.)
Here is an account of the attack where, thirty minutes into the flight, Calloway initiated his ambush of the White pilots:
None of the three men heard Calloway enter the cockpit. Sanders suddenly became aware of a struggle, and heard the awful sound of hammer blows raining down upon his crewmates. He turned to see both men slumped in their chairs, injured terribly, and a blood-soaked Auburn Calloway moving toward him.
Calloway swung wildly at Sanders. Some of the blows landed, some were deflected. The plane lurched as Sanders desperately tried to defend himself. Then something happened that Calloway had not counted upon. Tucker and Peterson recovered and began fighting back. Calloway was surrounded; he flailed about with the hammer, still inflicting gruesome injuries. The men would not give up, though . . .
The cockpit voice recorder transcript of the attack is worth reading to if only for the fact that it records with chilling clarity the risk Whites face due to the present multicultural arrangement that has been foisted upon us by a hostile elite:
DS = pilot Sanders
JT = co-pilot Tucker
P = flight engineer Peterson
AC = attacker Calloway
AW = autowarning
JT: Do you, uh, live over in Arkansas, Dave, or . . . ?
DS: Naw, I live in Fisherville.
JT: Aw, Fisherville, great spot.
(Sounds of hammer blows striking pilots.)
AP: Ow!
JT: God! Oh, ah, shit.
DS: God almighty!
AP: Ow!
JT: What the fuck are you doing?
DS: God, (groan), (groan), God almighty! God, God, God. . . .
JT: Get him, get him, get him
DS: He’s going to kill us.
JT: Get him!
DS: Get up, get him!
AP: I can’t, God!
UV: STOP! (unintelligible) Hold his goddamn . . .
AC: Sit down, sit down, get back in your seat, this is a real gun,
I’ll kill ya.
JT: Get him, get him, get him, get him, get him, get him!
AW: bank angle, bank angle…
JT: Get him, get him, get him!
AC: I’m gonna kill you! Hey, hey! I’ll kill ya!
AW: bank angle, bank angle
DS: Get him, get him, get him!
AW: bank angle, bank angle
DS: Yeah, get him!
AW: bank angle, bank angle
JT: Get him, get him, get him, Andy, I got the airplane!
AW: bank angle, bank angle
JT: Get him, Andy, get him!
AW: bank angle, bank angle
As Sanders and Peterson fought their attacker in the cabin, copilot Tucker “swung the aircraft into dangerous flight maneuvers in an attempt to literally knock the man off his feet.” At nearly 400 miles per hour, the copilot executed a barrel-roll, “as the three struggling men were tossed about the galley area, alternately weightless and pressed upon by three times their weight in G forces.
By now, the aircraft was inverted at 19,700 feet, and the alarmed air traffic controllers in Memphis were desperately calling for Flight 705. Incredibly, after struggling with his attacker in the cabin, Sanders was able to return to his captain’s seat and land the plane, despite his near-fatal injuries and despite the fact that the DC-10 was grossly overweight for a landing.
I don’t mean to be voyeuristic with this use of the cockpit tapes. Rather, I want to wake people up. Despite the endless black carjacking murders of Whites, the rape-murder of White women, the murder of White police officers, and, like last week, the workplace executions of White men, people by and large still won’t wake up.
Feedburner Link