Beullogeo's

When news of jewish director Roman Polanski's arrest broke two days ago I excerpted the following details from an early article, Festival says director Polanski in Swiss custody - Yahoo! News (* - see endnote):

A native of France who was taken to Poland by his parents, Polanski escaped Krakow's Jewish ghetto as a child and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Auschwitz Nazi death camp.

In 1977, he was accused of raping a teenager while photographing her during a modeling session. The girl said Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude pill at Jack Nicholson's house while the actor was away. She said that, despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.

Polanski was allowed to plead guilty to one of six charges, unlawful sexual intercourse, and was sent to prison for 42 days of evaluation.

Lawyers agreed that would be his full sentence, but the judge tried to renege on the plea bargain. Aware the judge would sentence him to more prison time and require his voluntary deportation, Polanski fled to France.

Note that AP didn't provide the details of the crime whose consequences Polanski has been running from for 32 years until after they made it clear he is a jew, and a special class of jew at that.

Why do people react to Roman Polanski the way they do? The answer is clear to anyone who won't avert their eyes from the rise of jewish power over the past 65+ years, or to the series of symptoms that rise has produced. In much the same way a cross-section of rock tells a geologist something of history, the sordid, decades-long Roman Polanski saga tells us something of the "culture war" between Whites and jews. In this case the clash is between the Rule of Law and "what's good for jews". In fact it's worse. What's good for one criminal jew apparently outweighs the Rule of Law.

Polanski polarizes Whites and jews in much the same way OJ Simpson polarizes Whites and blacks. Whether or not Whites see him as a jewish OJ, jews do. Polanski's defenders don't hesitate to play up his jewishness, which despite their tales of woe is definitely not one of his liabilities. If anything it helps explain how he's been able to remain at large for so long. Don't expect any mainstream detractors to touch this aspect of the story. Who wants to tiptoe through that minefield? Most probably think there's no need, the scandalous nature of Polanski's crime will be enough to see justice done. Though for 32 years it hasn't, and from the bits I cite below it seems instead that powerful forces are doing their best to let him walk. Months after the spotlight has moved on the ambitious but naive lawmen in LA and Switzerland who pushed this will be quietly informed that their services are no longer required. That's not so much a prediction as it is an educated guess.

Let's begin with Lawrence Auster, a convert to Christianity of "jewish heritage" who styles himself a traditionalist conservative. He made his view on Polanski clear in America's vendetta against Roman Polanski, which I'm going to reproduce in full because he's pulled or altered posts in the past (the emphasis, here and below, is mine):

I was stunned to read in Monday's paper that Roman Polanski, 76 years old, was, with the connivance of U.S. authorities, tricked into being arrested in Switzerland for the 32 year old offense of raping a 13 year old girl, so that he could be returned to the U.S. for trial. Who ever heard of a crime--other than murder--being pursued over so many years? I thought all crimes--other than murder--have a statute of limitations.

This is appalling. What is America now--the Javert Nation?

Anne Applebaum writes about it in the Washington Post.

- end of initial entry -

Christopher C. writes:

Shocked at your post.

The best response I've seen so far is from the comment thread on that lawyer's gossip site, Above the Law, which just so happens to catch the ignorance, tone, and spirit of your post:

Comment # 20:

"The crime is pretty darn old--from 32 years ago. Isn't it time to give it a rest?"

Totally. It had only been 15 years when they caught Adolf Eichmann in Argentina--but 32 is a lot longer!

"His victim takes a fairly forgiving attitude towards Polanski."

Then she can forgo a civil lawsuit. (Also, lots of victims of domestic abuse "forgive" their abuser--so I guess we shouldn't prosecute those, either.)

"Polanski claims that 'there was no premeditation and that 'it was something that just happened.'"

I "just happened" to swipe a twenty-dollar bill off my co-worker's desk. So it's not theft!

"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"

Than enforce laws?

"Questions have been raised regarding the propriety of the original prosecution."

If only there were means in the legal system to challenge the propriety of the prosecution--aside from direct appeals, two additional layers of habeas challenges (state and federal), and requests for executive clemency or commutation.

But no, seriously, he should get to stay in France and eat wine and cheese and make movies.

LA replies:

The comment which you think is so spot on is filled with inanities. Someone who can't discuss the Polanski case without comparing Polanski to Adolf Eichmann is the very definition of an intellectual mediocrity. I'm shocked that you would consider this an apropos point.

In New York State until three years ago there was a five year statute of limitations on rape. Then it was removed.

In California as of 2007 and presumably still today has a 10 year statute of limitations on rape. How then can Polanski be pursued? I suppose it's because statute of limitations refers to the amount of time between the commission of the crime and the indictment. Polanski had already been arrested and charged and was in the middle of his trial when he fled, because he feared that a deal that had been made whereby he wouldn't serve jail time had been abrogated. So (I'm assuming) the statute of limitations is irrelevant here.

Still, 32 years have passed. He committed one offense. He's lived half his life in exile. He's 76 years old. To keep pursuing him like this is sick. I don't think that this pursuit is an expression of justice. I think it's an expression of the power of feminism.

Jonathan W. writes:

You are correct that the statute of limitations is inapplicable here. Since Polanski had already pled guilty, which is equivalent to a conviction, the statute of limitations doesn't apply. Also, in many jurisdictions (although I am unsure about California specifically), intentionally fleeing the jurisdiction tolls the statute until the fugitive returns to the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.

September 29

Charles T. writes:

I had to read the initial post twice. I could not believe you were posting this. This is the first very serious disagreement I have had with your postings. Polanski is the sick one here. I recently read the victim's very detailed story of what happened--I regret I cannot find it at this point. It is a gut wrenching tale of serious mistakes made by her parents and of Polanski's predatory behavior and actions towards her. The story makes clear this was not something that just happened--it plays out over several days time. This little girl was his prey.

No mercy for Polanski. He is a predator. Rape is an incredibly serious crime--and Polanski should pay for it.

LA replies:

I do not know the details of the crime, I've read a few stories in the last couple of days. I did read, I think in the NY Post, that there was an agreement in which Polanski understood he would not face jail time, but then the case was given to a different judge who would give jail time, and that was when Polanski fled the country. Now if there was an agreement that involved no jail time, the crime itself could not have been of the gravest nature, certainly not of a nature that he should still be pursued across the world 32 years later. My response to this is based purely on the amount of time that has elapsed. 32 years! Isn't there a point when you say, let it go?

Other than in cases of murder, and of Nazi crimes against humanity, I've never heard of a person being pursued and arrested for a crime 32 years later.

David B. writes:

There is a brief account of the Polanski case in a book I have titled, "The D.A." It is about the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, published in 1996.

After the grand jury indictment, the girl's mother decided she did not want her daughter subjected to a trial. She hired a politically influential attorney who talked to the district attorney. An offer was made to Polanski to plead guilty to statutory rape, with the heavier counts dismissed, and the sentence is "open," which means left to the judge to decide.

The prosecutor wanted to go to trial, but the "front office" negotiated a plea bargain. Polanski accepted the offer and plead guilty to felony statutory rape. On the day before sentencing, Polanski fled the country for France. He has not returned.

My view is that Polanski should be brought back for the case to be dealt with. I don't think Polanski will receive much, if any, prison time.

LA replies:

So the charge for which he's wanted to statutory rape. Do you pursue a man for 32 years across the ocean for statutory rape?

My attention is immediately drawn to Auster's hysterical tone. "America's vendetta", "stunned", "the connivance of U.S. authorities, tricked into being arrested", "appalling", "pursue a man for 32 years across the ocean". What justifies this strong reaction, in support of a criminal, especially when he is ignorant of the details of the crime? I daresay not traditionalism or Christianity.

As I've pointed out before, Auster is a dissimulator. Whatever else he pretends to care about he's first and foremost pro-jew. Most of the time he's strenuously defending America, because he thinks that's best for jews. Here he's on the attack, because somebody has to protect jewish rapists from being tricked by those conniving Americans.

Auster can be an incredible fruitloop, simultaneously fascinating and repugnant. As we're about to see, he links approvingly to Applebaum, who plays the Nazi card. Then he calls drawing a direct analogy to Adolf Eichmann "the very definition of an intellectual mediocrity". I've wasted more than enough of my life picking him apart. I'll cut it short here and simply follow two links from his post.

PostPartisan - The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski, by Anne Applebaum, September 27, 2009:

Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

Here are some of the facts: Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl -- was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.

I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.

If he weren't jewish, I bet so many jews wouldn't be displaying their intellectual mediocrity in his defense.

Applebaum's facts are carefully selected. Here in compact, distilled form she presents almost all of the arguments and hyperbole being offered in every other Polanski defense. It is a veritable masterpiece of bullshit. This must be one reason she was on The Atlantic 50 list of "columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates".

Unfortunately, most of what Applebaum writes is an appeal to emotions, not reason or the law. She doesn't even get some of her facts right. Consider the following link to Above the Law, mentioned by Christopher C above. Beside the portion Auster quoted, which pulls the pants on most of the Polanski defenses, we find this nugget in The Roman Polanski Prosecution: Keep On Keeping On, or Drop It Like It's Hot?:

Wow, I just read the GJ testimony of the victim: Disgusting. While he was raping her, he asked if she was on the pill. When she said no, he asked when she had last had her period. When she said a couple of weeks, he switched to sodomizing her so he could come in her ass.

And that stuff about not knowing she was a minor: BS. Shortly before the raping in earnest starts, he actually talks to the girls mother on the phone to reassure her that everything's all right but that they'll be home a little late.

The comments are more interesting than the post itself. It's been all but expunged from the mainstream media, and even on the internet it often takes cryptic forms, but the "culture war" rages on. Two more Above the Law comments offer more recurring defense themes:

Misallocation of scarce governmental resources. Statutory rape is not an enforcement priority.

I second the suggestion to see the film Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired...
(http://theenvelope.latimes.com/movies/filmfestivals/sundance2008/env-et-polanski17jan17,0,4818835.story)

If that documentary is to be believed, and I think it was very credible, the whole case was corrupt - particularly the scumbag judge - and Polanski fled because he was being railroaded and lied to and knew he couldn't get real justice - he was willing to plead guilty and take the punishment THE JUDGE AGREED TO - but the judge reneged and was posing and posturing to get celebrity attention and use Polanski's celebrity - I am not defending his actions but the man has had a LOT of terrible things in his life and has contributed a LOT to the world - and even the "victim" is done with his "crime"

Enough is enough. Let's all get a life and leave the man alone

Enough is enough. The judge (who's dead and can't defend himself) is a corrupt scumbag, Polanski a victim. Can't we all just get along? If it doesn't fit you must acquit. Let my people go.

Here's another one-sided jewish kitchen-sink defense, largely overlapping Auster and Applebaum - holocaust, Javert, Tate and Manson, victim forgives him, see Wanted and Desired, ... Roman Polanski still being hounded by L.A. County prosecutors | The Big Picture | Los Angeles Times, by Patrick Goldstein, September 27, 2009:

But at a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you'd hope that L.A. County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime, especially one that Polanski's victim wants to put behind her.

In the coming weeks, the Polanski affair will no doubt become a tabloid sensation, with op-ed moralists, excitable bloggers and the Glenn Becks of the world noisily weighing in on the propriety of his possible prosecution.

Glenn Beck? What does he have to do with...oh, there's the "culture war" again. "Glenn Becks" is oh-so-clever ew-jay ode-cay for uppity Whites. I'm mildly surprised that he kept himself from saying "rednecks" or "teabaggers".

Did you notice that where the title says "hounded" the URL (ie. the original title) says "stalked"? That's at least a small sign of restraint.

Here's another outrageous defense, Joan Z. Shore: Polanski's Arrest: Shame on the Swiss, concludes:

Now, three decades later, the long arm of Uncle Sam is grabbing this man and hauling him back to California, thanks to the complicity of the Swiss. There are surely more important issues in the world, and more villainous rogues at large that we should be attending to. Why does America always get sidetracked by sex and scandal?

I suggest, in the finest American tradition, we protest this absurd and deplorable act by smashing our cuckoo clocks, pawning our Swiss watches, and banning Swiss cheese and chocolate.

Is Shore jewish? She certainly argues like she is, appealing to the same mind-numbing nonsense, throwing in some shame and a boycott.

I'm wondering whether Applebaum, Goldstein, Shore, and other Polanski defenders have been sharing notes on JournoList? Or perhaps it's just that they've all seen that same movie Bill Wyman panned in Whitewashing Roman Polanski:

In "Wanted and Desired," Zenovich casts Polanski, whose face repeatedly fills the screen with a Byronic luminosity, as a tragic figure, a child survivor of the Holocaust haunted by the murder of his wife, the actress Sharon Tate, at the hands of the Manson family. His friends are uniformly supportive: "This is somebody who could not be a rapist!" one exclaims.

Polanski wannabes are up in arms, perceiving a clear and present danger to their libertine lifestyles. Top directors rally around Polanski - Yahoo! News, Mon Sep 28:

"We demand the immediate release of Roman Polanski," urged the petition, which was coordinated from France by the SACD, an organisation which represents performance and visual artists.

France's Society of Film Directors also voiced concern the arrest "could have disastrous consequences for freedom of expression across the world".

Polish film-makers called on their government to act and prevent a "judicial lynching".

Some 100 Swiss artists and intellectuals signed a petition demanding the release of Polanski, while papers in the country lamented that a "trap" had been laid there for the director.

The film industry's outrage was echoed by the international community with France and Poland criticising the arrest.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was working with his Polish counterpart Radek Sikorski to help Polanski and that they had jointly written to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ask for the charges to be dropped.

"This affair is frankly a bit sinister. Here is a man of such talent, recognized worldwide, recognised especially in the country where he was arrested. This is not nice at all," Kouchner told France-Inter radio.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand has called the arrest of the film-maker, who lives in Paris, "absolutely horrifying".

Look at this silly hyperbole. And all these powerful people, sworn to uphold the law, openly working to subvert it. Applebaum put it well enough, there is a deeper story here.

The list of petitioners: Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Naming Names: The ‘Free Roman Polanski’ Petition.

Here's a bizarre piece that tries to paint the White/jewish culture war as an American/French or American/European conflict. Roman Polanski's Arrest: Why the French Are Outraged - TIME:

Although the cultural divide between Europe and the U.S. has narrowed over the years, the legal fate of director Roman Polanski shows there are still major differences. Polanski's arrest in Switzerland on Sept. 26 was greeted with satisfaction in the U.S., where authorities hope he will face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Europeans, meanwhile, are shocked and dismayed that an internationally acclaimed artist could be jailed for such an old offense.

"To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history — and as he was traveling to an event honoring him — is absolutely horrifying," French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand said after Polanski was arrested upon arrival in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where he was to receive a lifetime achievement award. "There's an America we love and an America that scares us, and it's that latter America that has just shown us its face." In comments that appeared to be directed at Swiss and American authorities to free Polanski, Mitterrand added that both he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy hoped for a "rapid resolution to the situation which would allow Roman Polanski to rejoin his family as quickly as possible."

No doubt great pressure is being exerted behind the scenes that we're not hearing about.

If Polanski's 32 year old conviction is "ancient history", then why does his even more ancient Nazi-era history keep coming up? Oh. That's right. "Culture war".

The 76-year-old, who was born in France, has increasingly been seen as the victim of an obsessive U.S. justice system that is ready to pluck him up and drag him off to prison at any moment.

More "Wanted and Desired" fans.

"The French view Polanski as an artist and celebrity and feel he deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people, which just isn't an option in the U.S.," says Ted Stanger, an author and longtime resident of France who has written extensively on the differing public views and attitudes across the Atlantic. "The French in particular, and Europeans in general, don't understand why it isn't possible for American officials to intervene and say, 'Hey, it's been over 30 years and things look a little different now. Let's just forget this thing.' "

Things look a lot darker now.

I think we would have forgotten "this thing" if Polanski had appeared in court when he was supposed to. People accused, convicted, and imprisoned for possessing digital pictures of someone underage that they've never even met, and people in general, don't understand why Polanski deserves a different kind of treatment than ordinary people. I'm sure more than a few can be found in Europe.

I imagine John Demjanjuk must be thinking, "Hey, it's been over 65 years and things look a little different now. Let's just forget this thing." But I don't think he has any rich and famous friends. And let's face it, Demjanjuk is the opposite of a jew. That's why he's treated completely differently than Polanski.

"To the French mind, this has made Polanski a combination of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Dreyfus — the victim of systematic persecution," Stanger says. "To the American mind, he's proof that no one is above the law." That's a perception gap as wide as the Atlantic.

Inspired by Patrick Goldstein, I predict that in the coming weeks the perception gap will grow, and the anti-semitism card will be played more overtly and more often. Let's have a conversation contrasting Eichmann, and Demjanjuk, and Sheppard and Whittle with Polanski. Let's hear more about why Polanski deserves special treatment. Let's hear how anti-semitic it is to question this.

In the meantime, let me cite some hard facts Polanski's defenders consistently neglect to mention.

Here is the grand jury testimony, and here is Polanski's guilty plea.

Polanski Fights Extradition to U.S. From Switzerland (Update4) - Bloomberg.com, by Paul Verschuur, Antonio Ligi and Edvard Pettersson, September 29, 2009:

Prosecutors became aware of Polanski’s travel plans last week and through the U.S. Justice Department asked that he be arrested, Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, said today in a phone interview.

Extraditing Polanski could take several months, Robison said. The request for Polanski’s arrest wasn’t related to his failed attempt this year to have the 1977 case thrown out, she said.

“It’s because he’s been a fugitive,” Robison said.

No Statute of Limitations for Polanski - The Early Show - CBS News, Sept. 28, 2009:

There is no statute of limitations governing the case of Roman Polanski who was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday on a 31-year-old arrest warrant.

CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom said that is because the director, now 76, had already pleaded guilty in 1978 to having had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl. "He already has been convicted."

Polanski fled the U.S. as he awaiting sentencing, convinced the judge would renege on his plea bargain deal. A judicial review this year did find there was misconduct on the part of the judge (who is now dead), but the charges could not be set aside as long as Polanski was a fugitive.

Fearing renewed attention, Polanski's victim, [Samantha Geimer,] who accepted a cash settlement from him, has said she does not want the case reopened.

"This is a crime against the people of the State of California, as all crimes [there] are," she said. "And so a civil settlement does not end it. This is a man who fled on the eve of sentencing because he was concerned he was going to get a harsher sentence than he expected under the plea bargain. He's been a fugitive for 30 years. He still faces sentencing here in California. It's irrelevant legally that he has a civil settlement with the complaining witness."

Why would anyone who knows enough about the case to mention that the victim had forgiven Polanski not also mention that he had paid her? I'm guessing it's the same reason they'd describe Polanski as having been "stalked" or "hounded" or "pursued across the ocean" when he has never even taken the trouble to hide.

Here's a critique of "The Global Committee to Defend Roman Polanski", Roman Polanski is Not a Victim - Swampland - TIME.com, by Amy Sullivan Monday, September 28, 2009. It concludes by responding to the Dreyfus comment highlighted above:

Except that Wilde was persecuted for being gay and Dreyfus was persecuted for being Jewish. In the western world, at least, it's no longer acceptable to target someone for his sexual orientation or his religious faith. In 2009, just as it was in 1977, however, it is still considered a bad thing to rape a child. And so it will be 30 years from now and 60 years from now. At least, I dearly hope so.

Except that this doesn't squarely face the reality here. This isn't about sex or religion. When Mr. Roman Catholic is accused of homosexual pederasty jews are just as eager to condemn as they are here to defend Mr. Roman Polanski. The reality is that a bunch of mostly self-righteous secular jews are upset that a fellow jew, who just happens to be a convicted criminal, has been arrested. They know anti-semitism when they smell it. They can't see why else a brilliant jew who drugs and anally rapes a 13-year old girl needs to be held to account. I sympathize with Sullivan. She very likely understands this, as well as the consequences of speaking frankly about it. A gentile can't write directly about the White/jew "culture war" and keep a mainstream media job.

Among the comments to Sullivan's brief article is this one:

Everyone outraged by Applebaum should simply email WaPo about her failure to disclose her conflict of interest. Her husband has worked to free Polanski of this charge.

spob September 28, 2009 at 6:08 pm

Sure enough, see Patterico’s Pontifications » WaPo Columnist Has Undisclosed Conflict of Interest on Roman Polanski Matter. Applebaum doesn't need to worry about her job. I don't think she'll even bother to come clean about the conflict of interest. Because what are "the anti-semites" going to do about it?

More signs of the "culture war": Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » HuffPo Goes All In to Defend Polanski, Readers Revolt and Wikipedia locks Polanski page after editing war - Yahoo! News.

- - -

* - There is something strange about the AP-Yahoo article, Festival says director Polanski in Swiss custody - Yahoo! News, linked above. When I first read it the article was more or less identical to this one at Breitbart. Today however the same URL produces a heavily modified version whose tone is different and which has been retitled "Polanski's arrest could be his path to freedom". In the new version Polanski's ghetto history is introduced more subtly (as if to explain what a French minister said the day after the story broke) rather than just being baldly injected into the story as it was in the original (as visible in the Breitbart version). It was only upon writing this essay that I noticed the change and searched out the original. Besides the Breitbart version that search revealed another fishy Yahoo link: http://omg.yahoo.com/news/festival-says-director-polanski-in-swiss-custody/28577. This URL redirects to the new "path to freedom" story. For the moment this journalistic irregularity is still visible in google's cache. Note the timestamps on the cache and the "path to freedom" page.

Maybe this kind of change happens more often than I'm aware, but I've excerpted many web-based articles and have only noticed changes like this a few times. On its own I don't think it's a big deal, though it does make me wonder. What was so wrong with the original article that justified it being replaced/redirected?

In "The Atlantic 50:" Pundit demographics Sailer writes:

The Atlantic Monthly has put together a list it calls The Atlantic 50, which it describes as "the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates:"

Rather than debate who is on the list, I'm going to use this list to answer a question I've been wondering about. Like Francis Galton in the 1860s, I like to take other people's lists made for their own purposes and use them to answer my own questions, such as: What are the demographics of opinion-molders?

In Sailer's estimation 50% of the pundits are jewish, while only 46% are White (96% "white" - 50% jewish), and 43% are Christian (23% Catholic + 20% Protestant). In response there were a few mentions of the jewish disproportion, the following two being the most negative:

Anonymous said...

Jewish 23.75 50%

Komment Kontrol will never allow me to say this, but there's an element of self-fulfilling prophecy here - something along the lines of, "We write 50% of the commentary in this nation if and only if we declare that we write 50% of the commentary in this nation."

Or maybe more like: "You are allowed to claim the other 50% of the commentary in this country if and only if we choose not to contest the claim."

I just noticed the other day that you get the very same thing over at Wikipedia when you read a Bacharim biography versus a Shkotzim biography - for instance, compare the Wikipedia propaganda on Tarski [greatest thing since sliced bread; second coming of the Messiah] -vs- Church [hayseed hick redneck inbred troglodyte].

Anonymous said...

The 20 percent Protestant representation is not surprising and fits into the general late Roman Empire vibe the country has today. There have never been fewer Protestants on the Supreme Court or in Congress than there are today. And look at the demographics of Obama's cabinet to really see the power shift: half-foreign; immigrants; children or grandchildren of immigrants. Catholic and Jewish by and large with perhaps two or three Protestants. You know you're in trouble when Hilary Clinton is the best example one has of the old Protestant America. Obama's maternal roots are deeply American but we all know what he thinks of his white heritage...he hates it.

But does the passing away of Protestant America matter? We'll see.

In response came this:

Anonymous said...

if you guys are done whispering about the unspeakably powerful jewish/catholic cabal, (you guys DO realize how laughable and pathetic you sound, right? ever'thang would be all better if only hymie wasn't keepin' you down??)(i'll BETCHA the vatican invented the AIDS virus, too! it's clearly all part of a sinister centuries-in-the-making rothschild/opus dei plot for world domination! my god! this thing is huge! HUGE, i tell you!) maybe someone can answer this for a pore dumb redneck. krugman is number 1?!?

Note the characteristically anti-anti-semitic self-misidentification as a "pore dumb redneck".

Komment Kontrol let my response through:

I realize how nervous and uncomfortable you sound. Something similar can be heard every time jewish disproportions are criticized.

50% of the list is jewish. It's probably 100% philo-semitic. And for some strange reason anyone who finds this troubling has to be reminded, constantly, that they will be mocked for it. You might as well drop the pretense and simply remind us that it will soon be literally unspeakable, or at least illegal. That's how laughable and pathetic the subject is.

The demographic I'm most concerned with here hasn't been mentioned yet. It's an issue "the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates" (in the Atlantic's view) are especially adept at keeping from being debated.

Which of these people favor genocidal levels of immigration, whether shaped as "amnesty", "comprehensive immigration reform", or "open borders"

Dobbs, Hannity, and Limbaugh have taken more or less negative positions concerning illegal immigration, which could be seen as being at least half opposed. The rest I know something of are more or less in favor.

There is at least one person on the list with an explicitly dim view of Whites and Christians.

Harold Meyerson - Economy? What Economy?:

Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

Harold Meyerson - Hard-liners for Jesus:

As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.

. . .

We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It's more tribal than religious, and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst.

Is there anyone on the Atlantic list who has written similarly negative things concerning jews? Something that approximates Meyerson's statements? More tribal than religious indeed.

Lists reflecting jewish disproportions are not difficult to find. Jewish power dominates at 'Vanity Fair' | Jewish News | Jerusalem Post, from 2007, is a good example. A list of lists can be found at A Summing Up - Achievements of Jews.

The double standards are clear. Jewish disproportions are good. White disproportions are "hate". Attacking Whites is good. Defending Whites is "hate".

Jefferson was a mouthpiece for the Globalist cabal. His statement was phrased in such a way as to give the appearance of defence of the common man against the tyranny of the elite, making the Globalist stooge appear a hero. This technique is common to the establishment. What better way to show one's power than to state one's objectives, and not only provoke no dissent, but in actuality, provoke applause and blind support. The gradualism of a revolution per generation is an old technique. Jefferson was espousing Fabianism before the term was officially coined.

I've used the term faux-White in essays and comments here and in other forums. It merits an explanation.

By faux-White I mean specifically those double-talking pro-jews who try to dictate to Whites who we are and what we're permitted to think. Their rhetoric is also notably disingenously anti-"liberal". They won't squarely face the anti-White nature of neo-liberalism or the jewish interests it serves. They espouse a carefully constrained race-realist neo-"white" version of neo-liberal "non-discrimination": we're all equal but jews are more equal.

For a good example of in-your-face faux-White pro-jewish arrogance read just about anything written by The Undiscovered Jew. For example, see his comments at OneSTDV's "More Thoughts on White Ethnostate". For a double dose of faux-Whiteness see his exchange with Auster in Is human bio-diversity the next conservatism? I noted the strange humor they find in their own confused hypocrisy in A Moron Amused by a Fool Helping an Idiot.

I don't think it's a coincidence that faux-Whites are often semi-jews. They exhibit a deep psychological conflict, craving for whatever reason to be seen as White, or more accurately "white", while deprecating Whiteness. They echo neo-liberal anti-White guilt-tripping even as they strike a pose against it. They tend to ignore, distract from, or dissemble about jewish exclusion/particularism/discrimination/supremacism and anti-White culpability.

Contrast faux-Whites with ordinary Whites, who generally don't want to discuss race, and certainly not jews, but when we do we tend to speak earnestly, without guile. Then compare faux-Whites with ordinary jews, who tend to be openly concerned about what they think is best for jews, and almost unanimously recoil with disgust at White anything. The main difference is that faux-Whites are able to partially mask this disgust and are more cryptic or even in complete denial about the primacy of their pro-jewish priority, but they tellingly denounce anyone who sees through them as "anti-semitic". Rather than attacking from outside they prefer to cloak themselves in "white" as they subvert/co-opt/neuter Whiteness from within.

For more on neo-liberalism, White/jew double standards, and typical faux-White behavior see Fruitloopable Presumption, The Urge to Purge, A Censorious Debate, and Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial (Mencius Moldbug.is more iconoclastic reactionary semi-jew than faux-White).

We now live in a land which our forefathers would disown. Personal responsibility and Family have been replaced with individualist selfishness and reliance on the neo-Soviet State. Community with the ancestors and the divine have been replaced with a soul-less materialism and a hatred for tradition and heritage. Appreciation of natural beauty has been replaced by a drive to destroy the land fro profit, and on an individual level by the devotion to fashion and the obsession with image. Style without substance has replaced an understanding of the need for balance in all things - indeed what passes for style is proof that the ruling caste are enjoying making the masses act in the manner of circus animals. On a more serious note, the justice of the community has been replaced by the power of the law - with insane punishments for political transgressions (thought crime) running side-by-side with the molly-coddling of rapists, murderers, and thieves - although when one considers that these are the attributes of the Royal Family, and their political-economic-religious underlings, that is only apt.

We now live in a lawless, soul-less, rootless hellhole. The only consolation we may grasp is that the Illuminati through their puppet Marx declared in advance that the sub-human masses, the lumpen proletariat, the 'Chavs', would be eliminated once they had helped undermine the greater society. Surely the demise of this scum amongst us must be nigh?

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar - Telegraph:

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.

In essence, the report calls for a new Bretton Woods-style system of managed international exchange rates, meaning central banks would be forced to intervene and either support or push down their currencies depending on how the rest of the world economy is behaving.

So much for that old amero "conspiracy theory". Globalists, demonstrating how to not waste a crisis, are now openly proposing a global currency. And even if this radical proposal goes nowhere it helps make the relatively less radical amero (which will remain a "conspiracy theory" right up until it or the UNo becomes reality) that much more likely.