Archive for the ‘Media bias’ Category

« Older Entries

Christopher Donovan: Overwhelmingly White

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

At least one media critic has noted the media groupthink in denouncing the Tea Party/Glen Beck rallies as “overwhelmingly white.”

This particular critic’s angle is that the media is being hyopcritical, because it, too, is “overwhelmingly white.” (Nathan Birchfiel, “Overwhelmingly White Media Criticizes Conservative Rallies as ‘Overwhelmingly White.”)

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.”

Tags:
Posted in Media bias, Neoconservatism | 14 Comments »

Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as ‘Disgruntled Man’ by Media

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010
In Connecticut the other day, a black employee of a beer distributorship shot and killed 8 presumably white employees.  I say “presumably”, because his quip was “I killed the five racists that was there bothering me.”
 
Yet the majority of the MSM totally underplayed the racial angle, for reasons everyone by now understands:  the killer was black, and the victims were white.  My own local newspaper made absolutely no mention of the racial element in the small brief it ran.  But given that race was what (rightly or wrongly) drove the entire incident, the media’s censorship of this is a gross dereliction of duty. 
 
Here’s the AP’s take.
 
(As usual, the commenters inject the common sense that the media won’t give on its own.  Just look at the first five comments alone:  all of them note the double standard against whites and the underplaying of the story.  They don’t differ much from the comments on American Renaissance or this website.)
 
Readers are deprived of any understanding of what happened.  Importantly for whites, what would have been a story that balanced the “whites are bad, blacks are good” media line is kept away from them, thus rendering them poorly equipped in the policy debates and ultimately, less physically safe.  In other words, the media, through its unfair treatment of whites, is actually contributing to whites’ exposure to physical danger. 
 
Worse than underplaying it, some media outlets even attempted to spin the black murderer as a hero for having cut down “racists” in the workplace.  From CBS news,  Manchester, Conn. (CBS/WFSB/AP) (Omar Thornton: “I Killed the Five Racists“):
Family members say Omar Thornton, the man suspected in the Tuesday morning massacre at Hartford Distributors, was a quiet, hard-working man who wasn’t a violent person, but was pushed to the breaking point by harassment at work. 
Nobody, of course, is questioning the “racism” of these Connecticut workers (yes, Connecticut, home of so many bloodthirsty white racists).  Yet we do get the trickle of information that the killer was videotaped stealing beer, and had been confronted over it.  I can tell you that plenty of blacks are so steeped in racial entitlement that they would consider someone who merely confronted them over a crime they actually committed to be a “racist”, i.e., anyone who dares challenge their right to steal.  It’s a safe bet the killer fit this category.  Given how difficult it is to fire a black worker (lawsuits come quick), he must have been an inveterate troublemaker.
 
I also doubt that he would have found a hanging noose, given that this type of incident is frequently faked or claimed in order to engender sympathy.  There also doesn’t seem to be an prior reporting of this incident.
 
By now it should go without saying that a white employee who targeted 8 blacks for killing would be automatically termed a “white supremacist.”
 
Whites need to understand that media can spin any set of facts to fit its anti-white agenda — even the horrific killing of 8 whites by a black supremacist.  The bigger picture, of course, is a society in which most of the elite institutions — the media, government, academia — is populated by Jews, non-whites and liberal whites who seek the total submission of whites.  As the Connecticut shooting shows, whites face more than political or cultural dispossession and displacement — they face literal death.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Media bias | 113 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: What Can’t The Media Spin Into a Story on ‘Hate Groups’?

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010
In Central Pennsylvania recently, a white attorney was shot and killed at a public rifle range, and his customized weapon taken.  Two white men were arrested and charged, and one said he was helping an “unnamed group” that sought to overthrow the government. (See here.)
 
I was personally amazed that the local newspaper took a whole 24 hours before reaching out the Southern Poverty Law Center — and then didn’t even get a call back.  With all their millions, you’d think they’d have a 24-hour media hotline set up for a quick quote.
 
The story is depressingly rote, with the reporters following the tight script of American journalism:  any incident involving white men and guns is tied to the KKK, the neo-Nazis and Timothy McVeigh. 
 
What if the media took a similar tack with blacks, Hispanics or Jews?
 
A black man is charged with robbing a white couple.  This comes just days after the NAACP called for America to treat blacks with more fairness.  Experts are convinced the two are related.  ‘When you create an atmosphere of that much hate, that much intolerance, and that much grievance, things like this are bound to happen’, said the expert.  “We even have a black president who said that the civil rights movement didn’t go far enough.  With those kinds of messages coming from the top, whites are just sitting ducks for black violence.” …
 
Three Hispanics entered the country illegally the other day.  Meanwhile, a supremacist group called ‘La Raza‘ has been loudly agitating for amnesty for illegal aliens.  Experts think there’s a connection, and the potential for violence grows every day. …
 
Nationally, hate experts have traced the rise of Israel, a supremacist state in the Middle East, to an active network of lobbyists and fundraisers — almost all of them Jewish, and many in the United States. 
Sigh.  I’m not holding my breath.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Media bias | 11 Comments »

The A3P replies to the New York Daily News and Huffington Post

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: The New York Daily News has reached a new low in journalistic propaganda with its article “New Hampshire State House Candidate Running On White Supremacist Platform” (July 13, 2010). The article purports to be a description of the candidacy of Ryan J. Murdough for the state senate in New Hampshire. The accompanying photo pictures a man with a swastika tattooed on his head giving a Nazi salute despite the fact that there is no connection at all between the photo and anyone in the American Third Position.

Daily News caption: A New Hampshire man (not pictured) is hoping to use racism and the support of a hate group to get elected as a Republican to the State House.

Daily News caption: A New Hampshire man (not pictured) is hoping to use racism and the support of a hate group to get elected as a Republican to the State House.

Similarly, a Huffington Post article on Murdough’s candidacy features a photo of a flag with a Swastika along with Nazi-style salutes–again, completely unrelated to anyone connected with the A3P (“New Hampshire State House Candidate Running On White Supremacist Platform”; July 13, 2010).

Uncaptioned photo from the Huffington Post article

The Daily News article refers to the A3P as a “hate group,” and Mr. Murdough is characterized as “racist.” Like many other Americans, Mr. Murdough is concerned about the very rapid demographic changes engulfing the country. His comments reflect absolutely normal and legitimate concerns about the future of his people and his culture.

We reject labels such as “white supremacist” or “racist” that are routinely bestowed on assertions of White identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression. In the vast majority of countries around the world, it is perfectly normal and legitimate for people to resist the invasion of other peoples. No one would suppose that, say, South Korea has a moral obligation to admit millions of non-Koreans so that native Koreans become a minority. Nor is there any moral imperative that they give up the primacy of Korean culture. No one would suppose that Koreans are being evil or “racist” for opposing the entry of millions of people unlike themselves–people who will be allowed to vote and compete for political power and other resources.

Our main concern is that this upheaval unleashed by massive non-White immigration opposes the legitimate interests of the European-descended peoples of the U.S. It’s not about hatred. It’s about seeing real conflicts of interest among different ethnic groups. Quite simply, massive non-White immigration is not in the interests of the vast majority of White Americans.

Murdough’s letter to the Concord Monitor expresses concern about the costs of diversity. Throughout the world, ethnically diverse societies are marked by ethnic conflict. No one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. Our vision of the future of America is that it is well on the road to becoming a cauldron of competing ethnic groups, with chronic divisions over issues like affirmative action, redistribution of wealth and the establishment of public goods like health care — any issue that may be seen as benefiting one ethnic group more than another.

Finally, the Daily News article grossly distorts the views of the directors of the A3P. We do not endorse “Nazi ideals” or simplistic, biologically reductionist theories of Judaism and Jewish influence. Questions related to the influence of various ethnic groups and conflicts of interest between different ethnic groups can be scientifically investigated. It is perfectly legitimate for any ethnic group, including White Americans, to identify the forces that oppose their interests and to act on that basis.

A major aspect of ethnic activism for all other ethnic groups is to call attention to their perceived opponents. For example, the Los Angeles Times reports today that Latinos of all political parties oppose the Arizona immigration law and see White racism as the source of the opposition to legalizing millions of Latinos. Similarly, it makes sense for A3P to articulate the forces we see arrayed against us.

There can be little doubt that one of the main forces arrayed against White people identifying as Whites and acting on their interests is the non-White coalition of ethnic groups  centered in the Democratic Party, and this includes the organized Jewish community as well as other non-White minority groups, such as Latinos. We understand that Latinos have an interest in getting as many of their people into the U.S. as possible. However, Latino interests in immigration conflict with the interests of White Americans. We have a legitimate interest in preserving our culture and our political power.

The fact that the great majority of White Americans feel they cannot identify as Whites or discuss their conflicts of interest with other ethnic groups is a completely unnatural state of affairs — the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by politically and ethnically motivated elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II and especially since the 1960s. Our purpose is to change that, and Mr. Murdough’s candidacy is a big step in that direction.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Media bias, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy | 121 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Amy Biehl Syndrome, Acute Case: Professor Peter Erlinder

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

Peter Erlinder is a law professor recently released from a Rwandan prison, where he found himself jailed for his attempts to represent an opposition leader.

Whatever the merits of his cause, Erlinder strikes me as a typical White American academic/liberal who thinks he can make the world a better place by immersing himself in the messes of Black Africans.  The stirring, Academy Award-winning movie based on his heroic life — complete with singing, drumming Africans in the background — plays in his head on the plane ride over.  For him, going to jail probably only added to the romance.

Erlinder walks towards the baggage claim with his wife, Masako Usui, by his side. StarTribune.com

Of course, his towering mistake is to think that anything he does will have any influence over the lives of Black Africans.  It won’t, largely because black Africans simply don’t operate like white Westerners:  they don’t think like them, behave like them, or value what they value.

Neither, of course, do many black Americans, one of whom robbed Erlinder at gunpoint upon his return.  (The robber was Black, a fact censored by the press, as usual.)

Does it get any better than this?  What will it take for Peter Erlinder to understand that Black people are simply not worth his intellectual energy?  We joke about people who wouldn’t know something “if it smacked them in the face”, but for White people, it can truly be said that the vast majority of Whites wouldn’t acknowledge racial difference if it smacked them in the face.  Or robbed them at gunpoint.

Attention, White law professors:  the people needing heroic advocacy are your own people.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Media bias, White pathology/guilt | 23 Comments »

Kevin MacDonald: Charles Krauthammer’s “Those Troublesome Jews”

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Charles Krauthammer has always been extreme even by neocon standards. He was among the first to recommend that America seize the opportunity created by the fall of the Soviet Union to remake the entire Arab world in the interests of “democratic globalism.”

Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism. Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition—to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries.

America as a country with no biological identity should go to war so that Israel can achieve its ethnic interests. Americans are wonderfully principled people who have no ethnic identity. So he pitches eternal war as a moral crusade for righteousness that America must be committed to because that’s just how Americans are: Principled people who must be reminded once in a while that they need to wage holy war to uphold their lofty principles.

America is committed not to blood but to supporting democracy and freedom. America must defeat “the new global threat to freedom, the new existential enemy, the Arab-Islamic totalitarianism that has threatened us in both its secular and religious forms for the quarter-century since the Khomeini revolution of 1979.”

He’s probably had to rethink the rationale for war against the Arab and Islamic world since Hamas won the largest number of votes and parliamentary seats in democratic elections held in 2006.

Moral posturing is absolutely central to Krauthammer’s modus operandi.  While the rest of the world remains horrified at the behavior of the Israeli military, his column on the 2009 Gaza invasion was titled “Moral clarity in Gaza“:  “Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.”

Krauthammer always knows who the good guys are and he knows Americans are suckers for arguments framed as moral imperatives.

So it’s not surprising that he sees Israel as the hapless victim in the flotilla incident, condemned for simply “defending” itself. Andrew Sullivan is correct that to read Krauthammer is to enter into an alternate universe where aggressors are victims and where “forward defense” means invasion and murder of civilians. Krauthammer is the foremost exponent of the Israeli Derangement Syndrome: “This is a form of derangement, or of such a passionate commitment to a foreign country that any and all normal moral rules or even basic fairness are jettisoned.”

What’s different about Krauthammer is his willingness to play the anti-Semitism card — combined with the usual trademarked dose of moral posturing. His column on the flotilla is titled “Those Troublesome Jews” — troublesome in his view because Jews insist on defending themselves:

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.

Israel’s problems don’t stem from push back resulting from its aggressive ethnonationalism. They stem from the fact that the world–the entire world–wants another Holocaust, including “the supine Europeans who’ve had quite enough of the Jewish problem.” While the rest of the world hates Jews because of Third Worldism, the Europeans hate Jews just as they have for the last millennium. They’re all basically Nazis at heart.

This is not an exaggeration. His 2002 article “Please excuse the Jews for living” had the same logic. He recited the many sins of France, including the fact that Jean Marie LePen – “the modern incarnation of European fascism” — had enough votes to be a run-off candidate for president.

I don’t recall Krauthammer condemning the many signs of fascism in Israel — particularly the present Israeli government and, most famously, its foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. It’s clear that Krauthammer thinks that European countries are proposition countries too. For Europeans, nationalism is a morally reprehensible reminder of National Socialism; for Israelis, it’s simply Jews being assertive.

And what accounts for the fact that European governments join in the chorus of condemnation of Israel? Plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Europeans just don’t like assertive Jews.

The explanation is not that difficult to find. What we are seeing is pent-up anti-Semitism, the release – with Israel as the trigger – of a millennium-old urge that powerfully infected and shaped European history.

What is odd is not the anti-Semitism of today, but its relative absence during the last half-century. That was the historical anomaly. Holocaust shame kept the demon corked for that half-century. But now the atonement is passed. The genie is out again.

This time, however, it is more sophisticated. It is not a blanket hatred of Jews. Jews can be tolerated, even accepted, but they must know their place. Jews are fine so long as they are powerless, passive and picturesque.

What is intolerable is Jewish assertiveness, the Jewish refusal to accept victimhood. And nothing so embodies that as the Jewish state. What so offends Europeans is the armed Jew, the Jew who refuses to sustain seven suicide bombings in the seven days of Passover and strikes back. That Jew has been demonized in the European press as never before since, well … since the ’30s. …

Just when Europe had reconciled itself to tolerance for the passive Jew – the Holocaust survivor who could be pitied, lionized, perhaps awarded the occasional literary prize – along comes the Jewish state, crude and vital and above all unwilling to apologize for its own existence.

It’s a clever argument of the sort that appeals to those morally principled Westerners. Israeli nationalism and aggressiveness are good, and if you don’t think so, you’re an anti-Semite. Europeans have always hated Jews. In another column, Krauthammer writes of “a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands.”

One wonders if there are any examples of Israeli aggression that he would see as morally reprehensible. Probably not. He has rationalized every example of Israeli aggression to date and has denounced the Oslo Accords as  “the most catastrophic and self- inflicted wound by any state in modern history.”

The existence of fanatical Jews like Krauthammer isn’t a surprise given what we know about the massive ethnocentrism at the heart of Jewish identity. What is truly depressing is that he is published in the Washington Post and syndicated in over 200 other newspapers and websites, such as Townhall. He is a regular commentator on Fox News and Inside Washington.

The result is that Americans are continually subjected to pro-Israel chauvinism, towering Jewish ethnocentrism, and anti-European hatred in the most prestigious and popular media outlets. We internalize the double standard in which Krauthammer rationalizes Israeli racialism and apartheid but promotes and exploits the idea that America and European countries exist for the purpose of defending abstractions like “freedom” and “democracy”; any signs of White identity and sense of White interests are morally repugnant.

We come to take these ideas for granted–to the point that Krauthammer is eminently respectable, especially among conservatives. Other commentators, like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, seem to have internalized this mindset as well. Accepting people like Krauthammer is what it means to be a mainstream conservative.

It’s a major part of the sickness we face.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel, Israel Lobby, Media Influence, Media bias, Neoconservatism | 91 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Those Dreaded All-White Juries, Again

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream.  First, for the absurdity itself.  And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.

The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation.  The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries.  Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.

The story itself is a farce.  Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.”  Really?  A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication?  It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.

On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.”  Were they, really?  This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical.  But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.

Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk.  I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”

Sigh.  Allow me to reiterate my point.  It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors.  They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks.  Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t.  It’s that simple.  Same analysis, different conclusion.  Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?

Why won’t the press ever look into THAT?  If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?

And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?

And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?

And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?

I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Media Influence, Media bias, SPLC, The charge of White racism | 23 Comments »

Edmund Connelly: “Machete”: A new front in the war on Whites

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Edmund Connelly: Here at TOO, we have often noted that the heavily Jewish elite in America today does not particularly like the non-Jewish masses it controls, especially us Whites. Several writers (see, e.g., here) has also pointed to the way Jews have used blacks to advance the Jewish assault on the hated non-Jewish power structure in America.

One of the best accounts of this comes in a book by E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. There, Jones devotes eight chapters to telling the story of the way Jews executed their plan to “carry the war into Africa” by turning American Negroes into revolutionaries. Some “alliance.”

In a way, however, that story is old hat. A newer story involves how the burgeoning numbers of Hispanics are being manipulated into assaulting Whites. My favorite blogger, Steve Sailer, shows how. In MSM Buries Lead—American Majority Supports Arizona Law. But Our Elites Don’t Like The American Majority, he begins by noting that

In modern America, Latinos often function as a sort of “stage army” for our elites. They want Hispanics to intimidate—by sheer bulk of numbers—the citizenry and make resistance to elite projects appear historically hopeless. The vast and seemingly always increasing quantities of Hispanics can be cited as justification for whatever a person in a position of influence wants to do. . . .

I wonder if “intimidate” is not too weak a word for what we are seeing. Evidence suggests that some parties seek to turn Hispanics in America into actual political murderers of “gringos.”

For example, a few years back, a spoof movie trailer called Machete was made. Here is that original trailer.

In these anti-White times, such a murderous depiction of a war on Whites has lasting power, so the idea has now been turned into a movie.  Wikipedia already has an entry for it (see here).

To emphasize the racial aspect of this film, a new message has been added to the beginning of the trailer. The message threatens the people of Arizona for having passed a stringent law against illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico. Click on the video in the middle of this blog to hear Danny Trejo growl, “This is Machete with a special Cinco de Mayo message — to Arizona!”

A consistent theme of TOO has been that the rise of hostile anti-White minorities with historical grudges presents enormous dangers for Whites, especially as we become a minority. As in the cartoon below, high-minded Whites (the Amy Biehl syndrome) will not be spared.

Viva la irony: http://www.lonenutcomics.com/2010/05/viva-la-irony.html

Machete is yet another wake-up call on what the future holds for Whites–quite possibly, the very near future. Alex Jones bluntly called this film a rallying cry for race war in America. Later, he claimed that two anonymous Hispanic crew members alerted him to the extent of the anti-White scenes in the film. “Further, two individuals who were privy to early screenings of Machete have warned that the film is far more racially inflammatory than either the trailer or leaked have indicated.”

Machete is slated to be released on September 3rd of this year.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Ethnocentrism, Latinos, Media bias, White victimization | 29 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Amy Biehl Syndrome

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

Christopher Donovan: Every so often, a tale from the world of current events manages to stand on its own as summation of the white genocide.  The murder of Amy Biehl was one such tale.  Biehl, a pretty, blonde Californian studying at Stanford, traipsed off to South Africa in the early 1990’s to assist blacks during the apartheid challenges.  One day, she was surrounded by a group of blacks (unaware of her being ‘on the good side’, if you will) who stoned her to death.

To white advocates, the implications of the tale are obvious.  But for those new to white consciousness, let me explain.  First, Biehl was an attractive, well-off white woman, and obviously bright (she did make it into Stanford).  As white advocates, we bemoan the fact that our best and brightest are so indoctrinated against their own race that they’d dive into dangerous situations to help non-whites — and worse, those in conflict with whites.  They’ve been conditioned all their lives to believe that a virtuous life means running to a far-off land to “help” the non-whites, who suffer only because of colonialism or some other white-caused unfairness.  They are not taught, by contrast, that becoming a wife and mother and helping their own race is virtuous.  No, the opposite:  those are contemptible courses.

So, that’s one level on which “Amy Biehl Syndrome” is a problem.  The other is the sheer irony of the death:  these women end up killed by the very “noble” non-whites they seek to help.  To white advocates, what this shows is that these are ill-spent efforts:  underlying the mission is an assumption that the non-whites will be grateful for the white help.  But in truth, many of these non-whites are violence-prone and so lacking in discernment that they’d kill a white person willing to help them.  This in turn reveals the deep-seated racial differences that make co-existence very difficult.

And on a third level, the parents of Amy Biehl actually forgave the black killers and shook their hands.  White advocates see this as the Stockholm Syndrome of our dispossession — rather than react in a normal, healthy way by becoming angry, we actually get on bended knee to ask the forgiveness of the murderers of our race.  We’ve become a race that wants to apologize for not dying off quickly enough.  It boggles the mind.

Was the recent murder of a white girl who sought to be a “mule” for illegals an example of Amy Biehl Syndrome?  Possibly — or this girl may have been acting out of cash-driven self-interest.  But one element, at least, is there:  a young white woman who’s been brainwashed by multiculturalism to the point that she doesn’t recognize the danger of venturing into Mexico on such a mission.  She watched “Dora the Explorer” and thus believes that Hispanics are all nice people.

When I lived in Park Slope, Brooklyn, I’d read a story every few months in the New York tabloids about a young, idealistic white woman from the midwest who’d come to New York to work in the inner city public schools, only to be stabbed in the back (literally) by young black thugs.  Another white life lost to multicultural lies, I would think.  She was convinced by a hundred different propaganda points that this would be an “exciting” life (not that I was totally immune, since I was living there myself.)

The consequences of diversity propaganda are real.  Whites — often the best whites — end up dead.  We must teach them that true virtue today lies in defense of their race.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Media bias, White pathology/guilt | 21 Comments »

Kevin MacDonald: Mexican stories

Friday, May 7th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Lately I have been inundated with stories about Mexicans. Up in Morgan Hill (near San Jose), four White students had the temerity to wear American flags  on Cinco de Mayo, resulting in Mexicans swearing at them in Spanish. The John and Ken radio show, a major LA-area talk show with  a huge audience and very negative attitudes on illegal aliens, interviewed a woman who recounted being physically threatened by a crowd of Mexican students swearing at her in Spanish . She closed her comments by saying that she thinks that it may all end with a race war.

I suspect that the response of the White students indicates an emerging racial/ethnic consciousness. Overtly, it was about American flags versus Mexican flags, but the racial difference was obvious.

Today’s LA Times recounts the story of a Mexican family that crossed the border a century ago. What’s amazing is that after a century they seem completely unassimilated to the US. They have large families with “dozens of relatives” living in adjacent houses, and they still speak Spanish as their first language. A Mexican gunman with a long record of arrests murdered three family members, including the mother of his child. The family is depicted as working class. In other words, no assimilation and no upward mobility in 100 years.

Today’s LA Times also has an article on Ricardo Dominguez, a Mexican American just granted tenure at UC-San Diego. Dominguez is a performance artist who, in the words of this tenure-granting letter, is a “defining figure in the migration of performance art from physical space to virtual space.” His performances in virtual space are political gestures aimed at shutting down websites of people who are not on board with his leftist-ethnocentric, pro-immigration agenda.

His latest claim to fame is using $10,000 in public funds to develop a cell phone that tells illegals where there’s water while entertaining them with poetry as they cross the desert (“May the wind always be at your back”). His course is described as “Trans( )infinities as an (empty set) of potential aesthetic practices that move between, through, across, and beyond the post of the post-contemporary by transfixing on the loan words” — whatever that means. But it’s good enough for tenure at the University of California. And of course, his moment of fame has received a great deal of encouragement from his numerous colleagues on the academic nutcase left: Dominquez describes the praise he has received as  “a kind of glorious moment in the performance. … It’s the humanity that has gathered around … Electronic Disturbance Theatre.”

Another LA Times story from today describes 14 Mexican-looking people (I realize this is profiling) who were arrested after tying up traffic for hours while lying down in front of the city jail as a protest against the Arizona immigration law. They joined their hands  together inside plastic piping to make it harder to arrest them. The sign in the print edition had a clenched brown fist and a what looks like a reference to Arizona’s “racist laws.”

Finally, there was the article in the NY Times by Zev Chafets on Julian Castro, the “The Post-Hispanic Hispanic Politician.“  Castro’s mother is a former La Raza activist, and it’s pretty obvious she still identifies as a Mexican and is not too fond of Anglos:

To Rosie, the Alamo is a symbol of bad times. “They used to take us there when we were schoolchildren,” she told me. “They told us how glorious that battle was. When I grew up I learned that the ‘heroes’ of the Alamo were a bunch of drunks and crooks and slaveholding imperialists who conquered land that didn’t belong to them. But as a little girl I got the message — we were losers. I can truly say that I hate that place and everything it stands for.”

Despite this, the whole point of the article is to assure readers that there is no danger of Mexicans being an unassimilated minority:

In 2000, while Castro was still in Cambridge, the political theorist Samuel P. Huntington argued that mass immigration from Mexico poses an existential threat to the United States. “Mexican immigration,” he wrote, “is a unique, disturbing and looming challenge to our cultural integrity, our national identity and potentially to our future as a country.” At the heart of Huntington’s critique, which many Americans share, is the sense that Mexican-Americans will form a permanent, unassimilated superbarrio across the Southwest and elsewhere. Julián Castro’s San Antonio is one place that counters that concern.

Chafets writes as if finding one Mexican politician who seems on the surface to be assimilated means we should all breathe a sigh of relief–despite Castro’s radical mother and a whole lot of very unassmilated Mexicans, even after several generations. What I see does nothing to remove Huntington’s concerns.

But it’s clear that Castro is getting a huge publicity push. Chafets quotes people eager to declare him to be the likely first Latino president. And it doesn’t hurt that his chief of staff is Robbie Greenblum — a Jewish lawyer. If nothing else, Castro has figured out how to get ahead in American politics, and Zev Chafets and the NY Times are doing all they can to play along.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Latinos, Media bias, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy | 29 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Spinning Illegal Immigration: How the Anti-White Media Does It

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Christopher Donovan: ABC News’ report on Arizona’s latest illegal immigration legislation is juicy example of extreme anti-white bias in the MSM. Correspondent “Huma Khan” loads up five — count ‘em, five — anti-legislation sources:  two Hispanic women who feel aggrieved, a spokesman for MALDEF, another spokesman whose group is described as seeking “comprehensive immigration reform”, and no less than Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles.

Were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter busy?  Mark Potok taking a cigarette break?
 
Against this phalanx is the lonely state rep who wrote the bill.
 
Khan’s description of a “national uproar” against the bill is based on calls to the governor’s office, though it’s doubtful how well this reflects America’ mood.
 
Khan does not seek out the opinion of any “man on the street” who’s for the bill.  She does not speak to any (real) immigration reform spokespeople.  She does not speak to the family of the murdered rancher.  She doesn’t talk to Peter Brimelow.  She doesn’t talk to the Pinal County Sheriff.  She doesn’t talk to Dan Stein or Julie Kirchner.  No recent poll data on America’s opinions of illegal immigration.

Bookmark and Share

 
But she gives Cardinal Mahony a platform to call the bill a “Nazi” law.
 
Let me note the obvious.  “Huma Khan“  is outraged by efforts to restrict immigration.  She personally hopes there’s a “national uproar” against the bill, which sets the template for her account.  She can’t imagine anyone but evil White racists supporting the bill.  As a non-White woman, she feels a particularly acute duty to save the legions of Hispanics illegally in Arizona from detection.  She imagines herself winning journalism awards for her sensitive hand-holding of the poor illegals.  And she’ll do what she can from her MSM post to kill the bill.
 
Huma Khan’s presence in this country and her writing for ABC News are yet another example of Whites’ worsening prospects in multi-racial America.  As Huma Khan’s vision becomes reality, more police die.  More ranchers are shot.  More White-earned tax dollars are handed over to illegals.
 
And she will not be telling that story.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Immigration, Media bias | 24 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: The Mohawk Settlement: Some Justice For Whites

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

Christoper Donovan: At VDare.com, I see that the class action plaintiffs in the Mohawk RICO suit have settled for $18 million.  Attorney Howard Foster’s idea was that by hiring so many illegal aliens, carpet giant Mohawk depressed the wages of American citizens working for the company.  This was a creative legal strategy, a nice victory, and the type of suit that benefits Whites (for the most part — one plaintiff was herself a legal Hispanic).  With a recovery of $250 per worker, the suit was largely symbolic, but it should make big companies think twice about brazen mass hiring of illegals.

In reading the account, I was surprised at what had happened to a Mohawk employee who made complaints while the suit was pending.  Norman Carpenter (not sure if he’s White, but I assume so) went to management about the number of illegal aliens working for the company.  In response, a Hispanic lawyer for the company was dispatched to meet with him — and allegedly threatened him with termination if he kept complaining about illegals.  But Carpenter kept talking, and he was fired.  That turned into a wrongful termination claim, in which Foster sought the deposition of the lawyer, Juan Morillo.  Interestingly, new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has let stand a decision that Morillo be deposed (perhaps she angled for the opinion in the hopes that it would cast her in an independent light).

I would be interested to see what happens to Morillo, whose career got a nice boost from networking with co-ethnics and clerking for a Hispanic judge.  No doubt he felt tingly flexing his prestigious legal muscles in defense of his race, but he’s run into a bit of a problem:  the whistleblower laws.

If Hollywood weren’t run by Jews, a character like Morillo would make for a great movie villain:  a self-satisfied minority fat cat whose trajectory screams “affirmative action” and who makes big bucks representing huge companies and bullying work-a-day Whites who toil in carpet factories, only to be brought low by a scrappy attorney who had justice on his side.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Immigration, Media bias, The law | 2 Comments »

Kevin MacDonald: The Netanyahu-Obama Flap

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the US, says that the US-Israel relationship is at its lowest ebb in 35 years. Well, maybe.  But the Israel Lobby is far from dead. Half of Congress turned out at the recent AIPAC convention in Washington, and there were  pledges of eternal support by Hilary Clinton, followed up by a host of politicians. In the conflict between the Obama administration and Netanyahu, the media was solidly lined up on the side of a foreign country.  Indeed, as Philip Giraldi notes, “The Washington Post led the charge, calling on ‘expert’ analysis of the situation from Elliot Abrams, Danielle Pletka, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Curter, Martin Indyk, and Charles Krauthammer while excoriating the White House with its own lead editorials.”

Dominating the mainstream media definitely has its advantages.

Meanwhile, more than 3/4 of the House of Representatives signed on to a statement asserting “unbreakable bonds” between the US and Israel and ludicrously asserting that “A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.”

We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises [a municipal Jerusalem announcement on approval of another step towards the construction of 1,600 apartments in a post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhood during U.S. Vice President Biden's recent visit to Israel], however unintended, will not recur.

In other words, the House is satisfied that Israel will not to make any surprise announcements that coincide with a visit of a US dignitary. But the House does not expect Israel to stop confiscating Palestinian land and building housing for Jews. Business as usual. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.

There is a long history in which Congress is far more susceptible to pressure from the Israel Lobby than the administration. Congress understands that opposition to the lobby means that their opponents will suddenly have a great deal of money donated by Jews who live outside their districts and they will have far less positive media coverage.

On the other hand, American presidents must at least make a show of promoting peace in the region, and that means putting up a credible facade to other countries. All American administrations since Carter have officially opposed the colonization of the West Bank, and this has at times led to well-publicized conflict. For example, in 1992 the first Bush administration attempted to withhold loan guarantees for Israeli housing. It backed down, with Bush famously saying “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” Bush seems to believe that his defeat in the 1992 election stemmed from this action, and I can vividly remember the sudden shift in media coverage of Bush at the time. George W. Bush’s awareness of the power of the Israel Lobby from conversations with his father may well have been a primary force in making him the most pliable president  in history to the pleadings of the Israel Lobby.

The clincher from the House statement is: “Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.” And therein lies the rub for AIPAC. For all its influence on Congress, it will be much more difficult to get an angry Obama and his administration fully on board with the Israel Lobby’s project of destroying Iran. The reality of the Lobby’s power even in presidential politics, as indicated by what happened to George H. W. Bush,  is doubtless sobering to the Obama administration. But it’s one thing to effectively turn a blind eye to Israeli colonization and apartheid (as, in the end, all US administrations have done). It’s quite another ball of wax to get the US to lead the charge in a confrontation with Iran after 5000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and a $3 trillion price tag just for the war in Iraq. This in an era where the federal deficit is already through the roof. Doing the Israel Lobby’s bidding on Iran requires a great deal of pro-active effort in getting international cooperation in the teeth of Israeli intransigence on settlement issues and the spectacle of Israel as an expansionist apartheid state for all the world to see.

Indeed, in her speech to AIPAC Hilary Clinton pointedly noted that “We cannot escape the impact of mass communications” — perhaps a comment that the reality of Israel’s brutal program of expansion is a very hard sell to the rest of the world, especially in the age of the Internet when there is more and more leakage in Jewish control of the media in the US and elsewhere. The statement by General David Petraeus that Israeli policies oppose US vital interests in the Middle East is all over the Internet — much to the chagrin of the ADL.  Petraeus himself has done his best to limit the damage by disputing this account. 

It’s the same for Joe Biden’s statement that Israeli policy is dangerous for the US. It’s also all over the Internet,  quoted, for example, by John Mearsheimer in his blog – despite denials by Biden that he ever said it. As Mearsheimer notes, “it is now commonplace to talk about the lobby in the mainstream media and almost everyone who pays serious attention to American foreign policy understands – thanks mainly to the internet – that the lobby is an especially powerful interest group.”

With information about Israel more available than ever, with the costs of doing Israel’s bidding ever more prohibitive, and with Israel getting ever uglier with the passage of time, the job ahead for the Israel Lobby is going to be increasingly difficult. And Israel can’t escape its ugliness. The slow motion ethnic cleansing and land grabbing, the apartheid, the vast open air prisons for 3.8 million Palestinians simply can’t be stopped by any force within Israeli society. And it certainly won’t be stopped by the Jewish Diaspora no matter how much hypocrisy that entails given its commitment to multiculturalism and its opposition to White ethnonational interests. The racialist and religiously fundamentalist right is firmly in charge in Israel, and all the Jewish demographics are on their side. The extremists, as always, will win the day. That forecasts a very bloody future in the Middle East and beyond. And here in the US, AIPAC and the ADL have a long, tough road ahead.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Israel, Israel Lobby, Jewish influence, Media bias | 28 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Mark Potok and Terry Gross: Two Well-Funded Jewish Supremacists Discuss ‘Extremism’

Saturday, March 27th, 2010

Christopher Donovan: “Fresh Air”, the NPR program hosted by Terry Gross (see past criticism here), last week gave its platform to one of America’s foremost haters of whites, the SPLC’s Mark Potok.  (Listen to the show here.  Note that in the copious comments, not everyone’s a blind worshipper of the SPLC.)  Needless to say, Gross, a liberal Jewish woman, never once disagreed with Potok, or even asked a semi-skeptical question (Potok apparently had a Jewish father and leads a life perfectly consistent with Jewish aims).  The entire program was a love-fest between two powerful figures who act in mutually reinforcing ways:  The SPLC provides “news” for NPR to report, and NPR, by quoting the SPLC, confers upon it the status of “respected civil rights group.”

A hundred points could be made:  Gross and Potok ignore the evidence of violence and threats of violence from the left (including the cancellation of American Renaissance), they paint with a broad brush everything to the right of Mao as “extremism”, and of course never delve into whether any particular frustrations are justified.  Toweringly, the same reduction of a movement or people to nasty names is exactly what the SPLC is practicing itself.  If it’s “extreme” to say Obama is a “socialist”, isn’t it just as “extreme” to say that tea partiers are “racist”?  But any conservative might make such observations.

An equally important point is that Gross and Potok are strongly identified with secular Jewish lifestyles and political aims.  Both NPR and the SPLC are as important to Jews as the Temple Mount. When they both report for work in the morning, their desks are essentially cockpits of jet fighters that rain down hostile fire on Whites, and Jews are as happy to fund NPR and the SPLC as they are Birthright Israel.

Potok is right on one point:  the “rage on the right” is indeed largely driven by White frustration, something the “tea party” set won’t admit.  But here’s a suggestion for the tea partiers:  Frustration is in fact the source of your anger, and there’s nothing wrong with that anger.  You, as a White person, have every right to be angry about a Black president who wants a health care program that forces you to subsidize non-whites.  They’re going to call you a racist anyway — so you might as well be honest, right?

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Media bias, SPLC | 19 Comments »

Kevin MacDonald: Edmund Connelly on Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: The mainstream media is influential partly because of constant repetition. The theme of Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article, “Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education,” is one that should be repeated over and over again by White advocates. The least little public departure from political correctness receives wall-to-wall national media treatment and an outpouring of candlelight vigils and expressions of moral outrage, while murder and mayhem committed by non-Whites against Whites is ignored or given grudging local coverage in which the race of victims and perpetrators is downplayed if mentioned at all. This pattern is not merely an expression of media power and the cowardice of university administrators steeped in the culture of the left. It is also a harbinger of the future when Whites will be a minority in a sea of hostile non-Whites.

Neither of the two Kent state murders mentioned in Connelly’s article was the result of planning. It’s not as if the Black murderers consciously set out to murder a White person. They were impulsive crimes motivated by uncontrolled anger. For example, in the Kernich case, the  story I get is that Kernich yelled “you morons” (not “you Black morons,” much less the N-word) at a car that almost hit them. The Black men in the car got out and there was a fight–a classic male status thing made more intense because of race differences and perhaps because word ‘moron’ feeds into Black insecurities about intellectual ability. The fact that the fight escalated to murder was quite possibly facilitated by racial differences in impulsivity and behavioral restraint (see Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior). The racial difference may also have energized the murderers by tapping into latent or overt Black hostility toward Whites made  more intense by the emotion of the moment.

The bottom line, however, is that once again, a White person was victimized by a Black person and the media and the university did everything they could to downplay the  racial angle. Most importantly, the public is largely unaware that Black on White crime is vastly more common than White on Black crime and much more of a public policy problem than White fraternity boys making fun of Black History Month at UC-San Diego.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Media bias, Political Correctness | 29 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Totenberg On the Bench, Totenberg on NPR, Totenberg Everywhere

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Christopher Donovan:  From the Self-Perpetuating Jewish Power Circle Dept. comes the recent news that Amy Totenberg, sister of NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg, has been nominated to the federal bench by President Obama.

This nomination reflects a well-established trend of powerful Jews, often related to each other by blood or acquaintance, being elevated to incredibly powerful positions in our society that can then be leveraged to keep the other positions protected or elevated.

Nina Totenberg, for instance — in addition to her already heavy liberal, anti-white bias — is now in a position to report positively on her sister (not likely, as that would be too obvious), fail to report negatively on her sister (a guarantee), and generally put a spin on legal coverage that reflects her sister’s likes and dislikes (very likely).

Amy Totenberg, meanwhile, would be in a position to issue rulings that track the bias of her sister’s liberal views.

The two of them together could operate like that two-man hand-crank train car you see in the cartoons.

Did I mention that Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at Nina Totenberg’s wedding?

The entire thing makes me sick to my stomach.

One, the same power-grabbing by White gentiles would described by Jews as an example of “the good ole boys’ network”, “institutional racism” or “the white power elite.”  Practiced by Jews, it goes unremarked.  No, make that “uncommentable”, because anyone pointing to it will be branded an awful racist.

Two, unlike high-level nepotism by Whites, the Jewish variety works in a hundred different ways against whites.  Their clear trend, with rare exceptions, is toward policies and media messages that are harmful to white interests.

The Totenberg sisters are not going to be addressing in any positive way the injustices facing whites.  Instead, we can expect them to be working overtime to perpetuate those injustices.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Tags:
Posted in Jewish ethnic networking, Jewish influence, Media Influence, Media bias, The law | 21 Comments »

Kevin MacDonald: Pat Buchanan is Censored by Human Events

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Pat Buchanan is a national treasure — by far the most articulate and sensible spokesman in the mainstream media — or at least close to it — for a wide range of issues, from immigration, to economic nationalism, to foreign policy issues. Unfortunately, his exposure in the MSM seems to be on the wane. He still appears on the McLaughlin Group, but his former base at MSNBC has disappeared, and his exposure in the major newspapers seems non-existent. I can remember in the 1990’s when he was a regular on the LA Times op-ed page, which seems inconceivable now. (There was an LA Times column he did on the Frankfurt School at a time when I was starting to research Jewish intellectual movements. After reading his account of how the Frankfurt School undermined the family, I thought that there might be a Jewish story there. Not a bad guess. The Frankfurt School was labeled a “Jewish sect” by Gershon Scholem, and the Frankfurt School became the subject of Ch. 5 of The Culture of Critique and much subsequent writing. Thanks Pat.) Not surprisingly, Buchanan has a very long rap sheet at the ADL.

Buchanan’s latest article, “The Poodle Gets Kicked,” on the Biden visit to Israel will do nothing to endear him to the ADL. Buchanan makes an excellent case on the absurdity of supposing that US and Israeli interests are identical. The  interesting thing is that the version that appeared on the Human Events website was about half the length of the original. (See “Human Events Censors Pat Buchanan’s Latest Column” at Buchanan.org). Linda Muller, who runs Buchanan.org, suggests that this is the result of neocon censors at Human Events, and notes that the revised version leaves out any mention of AIPAC or the USS Liberty incident.

It should surprise no one that Human Events would be involved in such a clumsy version of censorship. These are the people who fired Kevin Lamb after a phone call from the SPLC. (See Lamb’s VDARE article, “The Leftward Course Of Human Events.“)

The Human Events censor seems to have been motivated to expunge statements implying extreme groveling by Biden, as in his ridiculous statement  “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel.” Of course, the opposite is the case. No space means that Israel can stall peace talks forever without having to worry that the US will do anything about it. Biden should have a special place in George Orwell’s Hall of Fame.

The censor also expunged the most egregious examples where Israel has demonstrated quite clearly that it has always pursued its own interests even when they conflict with US interests — not only in the USS Liberty case, but also stealing uranium during the JFK administration, transferring US technology to China, and spying on the US. (Buchanan was being kind by only mentioning Pollard; there are many more examples; see here and here.) The Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing on the West Bank and Jerusalem is therefore part of a long list of areas where Israel refuses to modify its goals by listening to its poodle. Why should it? Nobody cares what poodles think.

The following is Buchanan’s entire column with the censored parts underlined.

Actually, Joe set himself up. From the moment he set foot on Israeli soil, our vice president was in full pander mode.

First, he headed to Yad Vashem memorial, where he put on a yarmulke and declared Israel “a central bolt in our existence.”

“For world Jewry,” Joe went on, presumably including 5 million Americans, “Israel is the heart. … Israel is the light. … Israel is the hope.”

Meeting Shimon Peres the next day, Joe confessed that when he first visited at age 29, “Israel captured my heart.”

In Peres’ guestbook, he wrote, “The bond between our two nations has been and remains unshakeable.”

He then told Peres and the world, “There is absolutely no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.”

As Peres spoke, Biden took notes. When Peres called him “a friend,” Joe gushed, “It’s good to be home.”

Even at AIPAC, they must have been gagging.

Walking around the corner to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office, Joe called him by his nickname, “Bibi,” declared him a “real” friend and said the U.S. relationship with Israel “has been and will continue to be the centerpiece of our policy.”

Then the sandbag hit.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced construction of 1,600 new apartment units in Arab East Jerusalem. Stunned and humiliated, Biden issued a statement saying he “condemned” the decision.

He then retaliated by coming late to dinner at Bibi’s house.

Netanyahu has apologized for the timing, but they are going ahead with the apartments. What are the Americans going to do about it? At this point, nothing but bluster.

Indeed, a day later, at Tel Aviv University, Joe was back at it: “(T)he U.S. has no better friend … than Israel.”

On his departure for Jordan, Ha’aretz reported that Israel plans to build 50,000 new homes in East Jerusalem over the next few years.

Biden may feel he was played for a fool, and Americans may feel jilted, but we got what grovelers deserve. And if we wish to understand why the Arabs who once respected us now seem contemptuous of us, consider that battered-spouse response to a public slap across the face.

Consider also the most remarkable statement of Biden’s first 24 hours.

“Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel.”

Biden is saying we are a more effective force for Mideast peace in a region where Arabs outnumber Israelis 50 to one if everyone knows we sing from the same song sheet as Israel and have no policy independent of Israel’s.

How can America be seen as an honest broker between Arabs and Israelis if there is “no space” between America and Israel?

Even with the closest ally in our history, Britain in World War II, there was space between Winston Churchill and FDR on where to invade — North Africa, Italy, France, the Balkans? — whether to beat Stalin to Berlin, Prague and Vienna, who should be supreme allied commander, even whether the British Empire should survive.

Israel keeps its own interests foremost in mind, and when these dictate actions inimical to U.S. interests, Israel acts unilaterally. David Ben-Gurion did not seek Dwight Eisenhower’s permission to attack Egypt in collusion with the French and British in 1956, enraging Ike.

Israel did not consult JFK on whether it could steal enriched uranium from the NUMEC plant in Pennsylvania for its atom bomb program.

Israel did not consult us on whether it could attack the USS Liberty in the Six-Day War, or suborn Jonathan Pollard to loot our security secrets, or transfer our weapons technology to China. They went ahead and did it, knowing the Americans would swallow hard and take it.

Ehud Olmert did not consult President-elect Obama on whether to launch a war on Gaza and kill 1,400 Palestinians. Nor did Netanyahu consult us before Mossad took down the Hamas minister in Dubai.

What Netanyahu and Yishai are telling Obama with their decision to keep building on occupied land is, “When it comes to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, we decide, not you.”

And if Netanyahu has jolted Joe and others out of their romantic reveries about Israel, good. At least now we no longer see as through a glass darkly.

Israeli and U.S. interests often run parallel, but they are not the same. Israel is concerned with a neighborhood. We are concerned with a world of 300 million Arabs and a billion Muslims. Our policies cannot be the same.

If they are, we will end up with all of Israel’s enemies, who are legion, and only Israel’s friends, who are few.

And if our policy and Israel’s are one and the same, the Arab perception will be what it is today — that America cannot stand up to Israel, even when her national interests command it.

Joe’s performance before he got the wet mitten across the face only underscored the point: The mighty superpower is a poodle of Israel.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-Defamation League, Israel, Israel Lobby, Media bias | 69 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: AR Conference Cancellation: What About White Victims of Terrorism?

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

Christopher Donovan:  This weekend was to have been the American Renaissance conference, a fantastic gathering of white advocates from across the Western world.  Its cancellation was forced, as most know by now, because of pressure and terroristic threats received by three (or four?) hotels that were to have hosted.  The anti-white and left-wing elements are gleeful about this development, naturally.

I don’t personally know all the details, and this was actually the first of about four or five conferences in a row that I would have missed (financial reasons, in part).  So I’m casting about in the dark here, but here is what I would like to see.

1.  A thorough investigation by federal law enforcement.  Whether the FBI, the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (criminal or civil sections) or Homeland Security, this entire episode screams out for agents to look into what happened.  Imagine if the NAACP had to cancel a conference because of similar threats.  What would law enforcement’s reaction be?  Swift, fierce and overwhelming.  Law enforcement should set up a sting.  It would be so easy — and bound to catch someone, as the anti-whites are increasingly convinced they’re untouchable.  Yes, most white advocates laugh at the notion that the federal government would ever investigate crimes against us — but don’t be too sure.  Not everyone in federal law enforcement is sitting around itching for the death of the white race, believe me.

2.  Consideration by American Renaissance organizers of civil legal options.  A lawsuit against the hotels, against Fairfax County or D.C. government, against law enforcement, against One People’s Project — whoever else could be named.  Breach of contract, outrageous conduct, prima facie tort, tortious interference, interference with First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, interference with civil rights, emotional distress… you name it, there’s a cause of action, if not a hundred.  Who is this Daryle Jenkins?  Or Jeffrey Imm?  What do these men know about what happened?  Did they encourage illegal activity?  Or civilly tortious activity?  Who are their financial backers, and could those sources be reached?  This option may go nowhere, but it’s worth thinking about.  As a civil defense attorney, I saw the absolute fire-bombing a plaintiff’s attorney could accomplish with nothing but a well-pleaded complaint and discovery.  If you can lay waste to a company because one employee claims sexual harassment — bringing the CEO on down to the cleaning lady in for day-long depositions — imagine what else you could do.

3.  Coverage by the press.  The press hates white advocacy, but they love a juicy story.  “White supremacist conference cancelled” is a juicy story, and there are plenty of people to talk to and comment.  A good reporter should do some digging around.  He (or she) might come up with gold.  If not the NYT, how about the Village Voice?  If there’s no legal recourse here, this must at least be known to the general public, who can usually be expected to say “I don’t agree with those guys, but they should have the right to speak.”  We as white advocates cannot let this incident go undocumented and forgotten, like a modern-day Katyn.  Are you listening out there, journalists?  Jared Taylor will speak to the press, and Lord knows the SPLC will, too.  It’s all packaged up and ready to go… unless, of course, you actually have zero sympathy for white advocates being prevented from meeting, and actively seek to suppress that story because it would present them in too sympathetic a light.  I will be watching, I can assure you.  And I know damn well some of you know about this incident.

4.  Strategizing by white advocates about how to stop this in the future.  This has already been going on, and lots of good ideas have come out, like more-public (i.e., government-run) or private venues.

What’s so depressing about this episode is that it can’t really be called a “wake-up call” for white advocates.  We already know exactly how marginalized we are.  We know exactly what the stiff consequences are for standing up publicly on these issues.  We’ve seen violence against our people.  We’ve seen our people fired from their jobs.  We can’t get paid ads run in publications.  We know CPAC wouldn’t allow us a table.  So, this really is a hard blow. 

Could the speakers have their comments recorded and uploaded to the AmRen site for youtube-style viewing?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Media bias, The law | 50 Comments »

Kevin MacDonald: The New Republic’s “High Shul phase”

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Andrew Sullivan is busy attempting to exonerate himself from charges of anti-Semitism — always a difficult chore, and likely to consume quite a bit of his time given Leon Wieseltier’s rather long accusatory piece. Sullivan’s offense is that he circulated a comment of poet W. H. Auden that it would be to explain the Christian doctrine of the Trinity to the secular leftist TNR writers of the 1940s. How anyone could think of that as “anti-Semitic” is beyond me.

Sullivan’s first line of defense is to link to his “passionate defense of the Jewish people from Catholic bigotry.” I’m sure Sullivan is thinking, “Hey, I earned my stripes as a goy in the media by defending Jews. How dare you question my motives!”

But then it gets interesting. We find that Jews think of TNR as a Jewish publication. Wieseltier himself is quoted as saying that TNR is a kind of “Jewish version of Commentary.” (Update: HelenChicago, a commenter on this blog writes, “”A Jewish version of Commentary“?!? Isn’t that a bit like “a kosher version of matzoh”? Wish I had thought of that. As we all know, Commentary is published by the American Jewish Committee.) 

Sullivan notes that “my old friend, Frank Foer” (translation: “some of my best friends are Jews”) commented that Auden made his statement “before we entered our High Shul phase.” And he goes on to describe the “joke ubiquitous at TNR when I worked there . … We teased each other for years about my being one of the few goyim at the place, that I was a function of affirmative action, etc. Leon was particularly and often mordantly hilarious on this kind of theme.”

This reminds me of Michael Wreszin’s comment that Dwight Macdonald, a member of the New York Intellectuals and contributor to Partisan Review, was “a distinguished goy among the Partisanskies.” He stood out because he was a goy in a Jewish-dominated movement. Always good to have a few goyim for window dressing.

Pretty clearly, the Jews who run TNR think of it as a Jewish publication. But one dare not say that Jews influence the media or that Jews attempt to use their position in the media to advance their version of Jewish interests (or that the New York York Intellectuals were a Jewish intellectual movement). Auden’s quote happened before TNR became a High Shul — a presumably the consequence of Martin Peretz buying TNR and turning it into a fanatically pro-Israel publication. This is a passage in The Culture of Critique:

Jews have also been greatly overrepresented as editors, publishers and contributors to a variety of radical and liberal periodicals, including The Nation, The New Republic, and The Progressive (Rothman & Lichter 1982, 105). In 1974 The New Republic (TNR) was purchased by Martin Peretz, son of a “devoted Labor Zionist and right-wing Jabotinskyist” (Alterman 1992, 185) and himself a leftist student activist before moving in the direction of neoconservatism. The only consistent theme in Peretz’s career is a devotion to Jewish causes, particularly Israel. He reflects a major theme of Chapter 3 in that he abandoned the New Left when some in the movement condemned Israel as racist and imperialist. During the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, he told Henry Kissinger that his “dovishness stopped at the delicatessen door” (p. 185), and many among his staff feared that all issues would be decided on the basis of what was “good for the Jews” (p. 186). Indeed, one editor was instructed to obtain material from the Israeli embassy for use in TNR editorials. “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” (p. 195).

Sullivan better watch it — he’s just getting himself in deeper. All those quotes from Jews who joke among themselves about Jewish control of particular media outlets like TNR are for internal consumption only. For someone like him — or me — to mention it will certainly draw the ire of people like Wieseltier and the ADL. Tune in for more on this as it unfolds.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Israel, Israel Lobby, Jewish influence, Media bias | 20 Comments »

Christopher Donovan: Super Bowl Quick Take

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Christopher Donovan:  *Jewish comedian Jerry Seinfeld once observed that because of constantly rotating rosters, cheering for a sports team is essentially cheering “for a uniform.” That point was underscored at yesterday’s Super Bowl, where New Orleans native Peyton Manning played against his hometown of New Orleans.  If the racial discordance of college and pro sports isn’t enough, you barely ever have anyone who’s even from the area they’re playing for. Put another way, fans root for the local branch of a globalized business enterprise more than they root for the “blood and soil” military-in-miniature warriors of a real hometown team.

*  The game was good enough, with a successful on-side kick and a 70-yard interception that made for some excitement.  An alien in Miami (the kind from outer space, that is) might observe that football is a game where white men throw the ball to black men.  The folks at Caste Football lament this.

* In pre-game interviews, I was struck by the marked Whiteness of Manning and his opponent, Drew Brees.  They both exuded the can-do earnestness of your Eagle Scout, Rotary-club next-door neighbor —  qualities much mocked by Jews and other culture-setters.  Of course, to me, these are heartening qualities, and I suppose our masters only look the other way when lots of money is being made off them.

* If there was a big loser at the Super Bowl, it was the ads.  Lots of people hitting other people, which was supposed to be funny but wasn’t, and lots of crass sexuality.  “People without clothes on” was the theme of more than one ad.  Even Budweiser came up short, with the “people bridge” ad being the only amusing one (you can probably find it on the Internet somewhere, but I’m not linking.)

* One interesting ad theme:  the emasculated male of today’s society.  In one ad, men drone on about all that’s de-masculinizing about being an adult male, then insist that the muscle car will be their refuge.  Hey, white man — yes, you’re emasculated.  You’re deracinated, too.  But instead of chomping Doritos and slathering yourself with Dove, try checking into your racial displacement.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Tags:
Posted in Anti-White attitudes, Media bias | 11 Comments »

« Older Entries