Beullogeo's

Can anyone handle the truth?

U.S. official resigns over Afghan war, October 27, 2009:

When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.

A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.

But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

Rather than being satisfied with the selective snippets of Hoh's resignation letter provided in media accounts, I recommend you read the whole thing. Here are the portions I found most interesting.

I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end. To put it simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war.

The value of the GWOT is to keep the world safe for plutocracy.

If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that not only pits tribes, valleys, clans, villages and families against one another, but, from at least the end of King Zahir Shah's reign, has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency. The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies.

Another way of seeing it is that Afghanistan is no more than a supporting actor in our so-called "culture war".

The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police units that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

Psy-ops could try calling the Pashtuns "haters" and "racists". It would take decades of repetition and indoctrination, and its probably essential to have some verbally-skilled Pashtun-looking "anti-racists" to supply the poison, but it really does work in the long run. In a generation or two Pashtuns themselves will be clamoring to import diversity into the most hideously Pashtun areas, just like Whites do.

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. However, again, to follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

The stated reasons, to spread freedom and democracy, are specious. The stated strategy, to have our infidel military win over alien muslim hearts and minds, is absurd.

What's really going on is the US's judaized, urban, secular, educated ruling class is at war with its White rural, religious, illiterate (or at least misinformed), traditional class. In this war, the plutocrats kill two birds with one stone by sending a disproportionately White military to stir up trouble and die trying to repress Afghan peasants who quite understandably resent their presence.

All that's being spread is misery, not freedom or democracy. Here at home the freedoms we Whites require for survival (association, arms, speech) are under constant assault. In the age of mass media, broadcast to a dumbed down, cowed, misinformed electorate our vaunted democracy is only a fig leaf for plutocracy. Our politicians answer to wealthy cosmopolitans, not the citizenry they're supposedly sworn to serve.

More so, the September 11th attacks, as well as the Madrid and London bombings, were primarily planned and organized in Western Europe; a point that highlights the threat is not one tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. Finally, if our concern is for a failed state crippled by corruption and poverty and under assault from criminal and drug lords, then if we bear our military and financial contributions to Afghanistan, we must reevaluate and increase our commitment to and involvement in Mexico.

The threat to us comes mainly from the plutocrats and their globalism, and no, they are not tied to traditional geographic or political boundaries. They compel our politicians to allow millions of hostile aliens to flood over our borders even as they send our guardians overseas, ostensibly to guarantee peace and safety for other aliens.

Overseas the plutocrats know their enemies, our military men, will be maimed and killed with bullets and bombs. Here at home they employ more insidious legalistic weapons, like "hate" laws and anti-White "civil rights". Coupled with biological weapons, like immigration and refugee resettlement, the damage is more devastating, and lasting. When the U.S. military finally withdraws the Pashtun will still be Pashtun. Whites face extinction.

Alongside the genocide an epic swindle is perpetrated.

"We are spending ourselves into oblivion" a very talented and intelligent commander, one of America's best, briefs every visitor, staff delegation and senior officer. We are mortgaging our Nation's economy on a war, which, even with increased commitment, will remain a draw for years to come. Success and victory, whatever they may be, will be realized not in years, after billions more spent, but in decades and generations. The United States does not enjoy a national treasury for such success and victory.

Of course "we" aren't spending ourselves into oblivion. The plutocrats have had their political lackeys hand them monumental sums and stick taxpayers with the bill. The trillions spent on endless global war also end up in their pockets. What's happening is they're spending us into oblivion.

Henry VIII may have been the man responsible for rift between the English Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church IN England, but it was his daughter, Elizabeth, who created the Church OF England as a separate entity. The entire justification for the founding of the Church was to legitimise the adultery, divorce and remarriage of Henry VIII. From this one event followed centuries of persecution of Catholics who held true to the Christian faith and rejected the Satanic Cult which had supplanted it in England. It is a sad indictment of the character of the English that the majority betrayed their faith and adopted the anti-Christ cult of the Royalty. To be fair, there was stiff resistance in the early days of the C of E, and it took the insane tortures ordered by the establishment (Royal and Cromwellian) to finally break the Catholic Church in England.

Stripped of its spiritual defence, England was open for the return of the descendants of the Talmudists who had been expelled in 1290 by the Catholic King, Edward Longshanks. For all his ills, the King acted in the manner of a true Christian and realising that the Talmudists could not be allowed to stay in England if the nation was to survive, took the only logical spiritual decision and removed them. Roman Catholicism in its authentic form is the absolute opposite of Talmudism. Sadly, the Cult of Edom which officially labelled itself as Anglicanism, was not simply a Reformist Protestant variation of Catholicism, it was rather, nothing short of a Talmudic cult. Embracing Divorce/adultery, and Usury/covetousness, the C of E embraced the essence of Talmudism. Putting the value of goods and money above the divine, the materialistic cult was the launching point for Capitalism and all the suffering that abomination was to cause.

Queen Elizabeth was in every way as evil as her namesake of modern times. It was during her reign that the pirate ships of her criminal navy terrorised the high seas, murdering and stealing for the benefit of the Crown. It was also during her reign that the Freemasonic Francis Bacon led a team of writers who wrote the plays attributed to the illiterate actor, William Shakespeare. These plays are a perfect example of political correctness, in that they falsified history in order to create a positive image of the ruling elite. These plays which are celebrated as masterpieces of English literature and art unfortunately also have obliterated knowledge of our true history. George Orwell's description of the revision of history with the truth disappearing down the memory hole was not merely a pseudo-prophetic analysis of the potential for manipulation by a coming elite, it was actually describing events which have already unfolded. The Elizabethan era saw the Establishment of the English Empire, and its accompanying Secret Police as created by the Satanist, John '007' Dee. We have been mis-educated in the school system to look back at this period as a great time for England. In truth it saw the birth of a despotic empire which murdered generations of Englishmen in the pirate navy, and the slave fields. If any point in history can be seen as the moment when the English became nothing more than cannon fodder and slaves to the ruling class, the Elizabethan era was that point. The English descendants of the heroic Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Celts never recovered from the break with Rome. They allowed a false jingoist patriotism to pervert them from being spiritually wholesome family-centred people, into Empire-worshipping materialistic bigots.

As England was turned from a natural society into a materialistic sewer, those who dissented were beaten into submission by a tyrannical Army and Police State. The natural reaction of the people should have been to revolt against an armed force killing our brothers and sisters. Instead the people rallied behind the troops at massacres such as Peterloo. When the Luddites who protested against the mechanisation of production and the destruction of childhood (with children dying in massive numbers in mills unfit for any human presence), were murdered by the establishment, the people did nothing. As the industrial era progressed and the English Empire became the British Empire, the common people rallied to the rag of their oppressors, proudly flying the Union Jack and celebrating the butchery in Ireland and across the globe. Press-ganging, slavery (first of Englishmen, then of the Irish, then of Africans) was treated as nothing to complain about, the rule of the elite via barbaric punishments such as exiling the hungry to prison colonies in Australia for the crime of trying to feed themselves and their families - these and other signs of the sickness of the elite were ignored, and later celebrated.

During the reign of the insane butcher, Victoria, and into the Twentieth Century the establishment fought a succession of Imperialistic wars of aggression, against the Dutch and German farmers (Baueren/Boers) in southern Africa, and against continental Europe in the Great War and Second World War. The people, so befuddled by generations of Judaeo-Anglicanism rather than refusing to murder their kin in foreign countries, raced to 'join-up' to increase the wealth of the Rothschild-Royal cabal. Those who had the wisdom to see that the wars were acts of pure evil, solely for the enrichment of an inhuman elite, were slandered as cowards and shot for refusing to participate in the carnage which destroyed the last vestiges of English decency.

The demise of England was finalised with a cowed and despondent public sheepishly embracing the post-war Europe and allowing themselves to be stampeded into the EU prison state. Why did they allow this? Simply because being the product of generations of psychological and physical abuse at the hands of a criminal elite, it was all they knew. Just as an abused child expresses its love for the abuser, so the abused English express their devotion to the Monarchy and their hatred for those who expose this diseased family and seek its overthrowal.

What is to be done for poor little England? Now that Rome herself has fallen to a variation of Anglicanism, reconversion of the nation to Catholicism is out of the question. Without a spiritual defence against Talmudic materialism, England cannot but remain lost. Pity our dead nation. Nothing short of a spiritual revolution akin to the great deed of 1290 will save us now - but this time the Monarchy will have to be destroyed to the last man, woman and child. They are not part of the solution, but a fundamental part of the problem.

I came across an article which I recommend every one read. The article concerns the pariah state of Israel and how it has milked the Holyhoax to the point where people are heartily sick of hearing sob stories about poor innocent Jews being gassed, turned into lampshades, transported to a different concentration camps, being gassed again, turned into soap, then miraculously surviving to make a fortune selling their memoirs to a dumbed down Zionised world - and of course getting rich sucking the financial wealth of Europeans who were not even in the political establishments of the nations which built the transit camps, oops, extermination camps, in the first place!




Having exhausted the lie of the Shoah, the savage regime in occupied Palestine are now building up Iran as the new Nazi menace, and are set to destroy Iran in order to gain the financial support of a grateful gentile world, which will naturally drop all allegiance to Christianity as a mark of respect for the self-chosen people. Those who practice Judæo-Christianity will simply just drop the pretence that they are anything but Talmudists and simply jettison Jesus - no doubt joining in the blasphemous cat-calling about Him roasting over an open privy for eternity. Read the Talmud - this is what the book so beloved of the Œcumenical 'Judaism is equal with Christianity' lunatics states.



In the light of the USA and EU being ruled by Talmudists who may make token gestures of opposition to Israel, but in truth are of the same Zionist mould, it is important that everyone understands the game afoot here. The prize is nothing short of complete global domination and servitude for those outside the chosen cabal. Those who have taken the time to study the Protocols of Zion will know that the document is no forgery, but is rather a blueprint which is not far from being realised in its entirety.

The article concerning the slithering and posturing of the Talmudist-Sabattean cult who have captured and subverted Judaism can be found here: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/the-golden-goose-of-holocaustianity-and-the-real-reasons-for-irana-phobia/

Fashion has come to be an indicator of the power of the establishment. What is the reaction one gets when one is critical of the sexualisation of children, or the contrived immigration of unassimiable aliens for the benefit of the economic elite? Are the arguments in favour of morality, decency, protection of children, defence of family, the primacy of the spiritual over materialism, the halt to degeneracy and decadence etc... are these arguments met with reasoned discussion? No! Those who uphold morality and decency are immediately labelled as 'old-fashioned' are by the application of this label, all debate is prevented!

We need to confront this farce and reject the pressure to conform to fashion. We are right to defend our people and to expose the enemy. Being out of step and out of fashion with the sickening Zionist cult which is destroying the world is no source of shame, but rather of pride.

Fashion is just another word for thought control. Resist it.

In Moving Forward Prozium cites me favorably as one of the handful of people who write about White Nationalism in the blogosphere on a semi-regular basis. I'm nonplussed and will respond by expressing some recent thoughts.

Late last week I met Prozium and a few other pro-Whites I have until now known only online. I'm neither a leader nor a joiner, and have for a variety of other reasons so far been disinclined to engage openly. I'm having a change of heart lately and like Prozium I am becoming more interested in activity and collaboration offline.

Before anyone else bothers I'll point out myself that the focus of my writing here hasn't been on White nationalism per se, but mainly on jewish influence and the White/jew faultline, the purpose being to educate myself and my few visitors to various double standards and acts of jewish malfeasance. I'm growing tired of this, disgusted might be a better word, but it's something I felt a need to do. I had climbed similar learning curves on islam and immigration in the years before, and my more recent focus has been a logical continuation of that self-education. It has also been a response to various anti-anti-semites who have since my awakening come with nothing but disinformation and dementia (see Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin and White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism).

I am prepared now not only to join Prozium and state openly that my ultimate goal is a jew-free, White ethnostate in North America, but also to say that I've come to this position after deep consideration, having gathered substantial information and arguments in support. I understand that racialism and separatism are among the most frowned upon concepts in today's public discourse, never mind criticizing jews. What I can also see clearly however is that the same rotten thoroughly judaized regime that makes this true also advances and celebrates anti-Whitism and the slow genocide of my kind, which has only accelerated as we've become more deracinated and obsequious. Now that the regime's nature is obvious to me I cannot do anything but oppose it and share what I've learned with others.

What Whites need to survive is at least one place where we are not guilt-tripped, harrassed, mugged, raped, murdered and ultimately bred out of existence by shitheads who hate us. We have never had a problem dealing with our own shitheads. It's with the non-White shitheads, and only in the last few generations, that we get all tangled up. What I know now is that it started with jewish emancipation. What Whites need to thrive is a culture composed and controlled by our own kind, exhibiting a confident and positive self-image. This has been less and less the case as jewish ownership and influence in our media, art, and entertainment has increased.

Whether we remove ourselves, or those who hate us, or some combination of both is not as important to me as the recognition that the status quo cannot endure. If we do nothing we will surely disappear, so why not resist? It is already open season on Whites, despite our disproportionate representation in the police and military. As we lose control of these institutions and our political and financial influence wanes we will see the hostility and violence against us increase dramatically.

A cold Winter comes. We must make preparations in order to see Spring.

It honors the memory of a jewish mega-donor's grandparents.

This is an old story that isn't as widely known as it deserves to be. Brenda Walker touched on it recently in The Van Jones Fiasco—How Low Can Lefty Greens Go?

The Man Behind The Land:

David Gelbaum has shunned publicity while giving millions to preserve California wilderness and teach youths about nature.
By Kenneth R. Weiss
Times Staff Writer

October 27, 2004

He has given more money to conservation causes in California than anyone else. His gifts have helped protect 1,179 square miles of mountain and desert landscapes, an area the size of Yosemite National Park.

His donations to wilderness education programs have made it possible for 437,000 inner-city schoolchildren to visit the mountains, the desert or the beach often for the first time.

Over a decade of steadily growing contributions including more than $100 million to the Sierra Club this mathematician turned financial angel has taken great pains to remain anonymous.

I used to live in California. It was nice, until it started turning into Mexico.

"I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."

Gelbaum said he was a substantial donor at the time but not yet the club's largest benefactor. Immigration arose as an issue in 1994 because Proposition 187, which threatened to deny public education and health care to illegal immigrants, was on the state's ballot.

He said he was so upset by the idea of "pulling kids out of school" that he donated more than $180,000 to the campaign to oppose Proposition 187. After the measure passed, he said, he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to civil rights lawyers who ultimately got the measure struck down in court.

Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

"I asked, 'Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?' " Gelbaum said. "Abe didn't speak English that well. He said, 'I came here. How can I tell them not to come?'

"I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents."

My entire extended family and most everyone I knew voted for Prop 187. It was one of the few times in my life that the government showed any interest in the citizenry's opinion about immigration. I didn't realize until more than 10 years later that our democracy is actually a cryptic form of plutocracy, and the plutocrats want genocidal levels of immigration.

Prop 187 passed and the voters went about their business, thinking the matter resolved. Then a judge killed it, though most of us didn't hear about that, because the media supports genocidal immigration too.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote about it in Throw out-of-control Judge Pfaelzer off the bench, Apr 24, 1998:

Judges are so out of control today that a single federal judge thinks nothing about casting aside popular referendums passed by the votes of millions of citizens and imposing outcomes that are the opposite of what was voted.

The latest example is U.S. district judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who declared on March 13 that California citizens must tax themselves to meet the needs of illegal aliens. Pfaelzer, it seems, is under the influence of University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum, who teaches that the concept of national citizenship is too exclusive and "morally dangerous." Justice and equality, she claims, require "allegiance to the worldwide community of human beings."

Californians think not, but who are they to matter? Pfaelzer has thrown out California's Proposition 187, which restricted illegal aliens from living off taxpayers.

Fast forward a decade or so and California has been bankrupted by immigration, its White population deliberately displaced and dispossessed by "diversity". So what's on the Sierra Club's agenda now?

Sierra Club Insider: Yep, We're Too White, July 28, 2009:

"We are proud that Sierra Club has successful diversity programs already established," said the Sierra Club President Allison Chin. "Now, with the leadership of a diversity council and my election as our first Asian-American president, the Sierra Club is committed to becoming an even more welcoming and inclusive organization."

Judging by their reaction, White members did not feel either welcomed or included. Unfortunately for them, the Sierra Club has more than 100 million reasons not to care.

Two reactions where the sense of betrayal comes through crystal clear:

Immigrants typically come to the US with 3rd world birthrates and 1st world appetites -- the WORST POSSIBLE COMBINATION from an ecological standpoint.

I'm white and I got a vasectomy and had no kids, because long ago I realized the Earth didn't need more humans. This was a good-faith decision on my part.

How do open borders advocates respond when I tell them that? Almost inevitably I am mocked, often times with semi-literate obscenities and mindless machismo bluster. It doesn't make me feel like grovelling for their approval, I'll tell you that.

Posted by: Pat Kittle | August 21, 2009 at 06:23 PM

Yes, I remember during the 60s/70s, there was that jerk, Paul Ehrlich who talked about having "0 Population growth." Our generation even had propaganda movies like: Soylent Green, Roller Ball, Logan's Run and a couple of Star Trek episodes to drive the point home.

Since I was a kid at the time being indoctrinated with this BS, I didn't realize that Kennedy passed the 1965 Immigration Bill NOR did I know about La Raza, MEChA and other groups that were teaching about AZTLAN/ANAHUAC and they planned to outbreed us to reclaim lost Mexican Territory the AZTLAN plan or in the ANAHUAC case to reclaim the entire Americas and boot everyone else out.

Now, our grand reward for watching our birth rates for Mother Earth because of Ehrlich's (Population Bomb) is to be made fun of for "not making babies."

And the Sierra Club, the Rockefellers (Club of Rome)and other bogus "green" groups continue to look completely the other way when we're being flooded with immigration (both legal and illegal) to drive down wages, displace our own legal citizens' jobs and Balkanize our nation.

By the way, immigrants (legal and illegal) also use water and other resources. We can cut back and conserve but that will be entirely negated with continued uncontrolled growth.

Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Roxan | August 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM

What's happening to California, with the rest of the US not far behind, is not an accident. It's the result of a deliberate drive to "diversify" White Americans into minority status. Then non-existence. It's genocide.

Curiouser and curiouser!

A defense of Applebaum's defense of Polanski. Doug MacEachern : Polanski, "Patterico" and Applebaum:

Personally, I don't think Ms. Applebaum wrote a very good column in the first place. And her self-defenses against [Patterico, AKA Patrick] Frey's increasingly contemptuous attacks were weak. And, for that matter, Frey dug out a legitimate news scoop when he revealed that the Polish official working to foil Polanski's extradition was, in fact, Applebaum's husband.

But, still...

All Applebaum had to do to make Frey go away was to not engage him at all. She didn't need to respond to his blogs. But she did. And, boy, did he make her pay for it. With Frey's readers urging him on, he turned nearly every word Applebaum wrote to him via email into a sensational "lie."

Frey claws at his prey for her weak attempts at defending her column.

MacEachern's thrust is: "Ignore these unpaid bloggers. They may be right, but they're just so incredibly rude about it."

A few days before the Polanski arrest Applebaum's opinion-shaping WaPo colleague Michael Gerson shared his dim view of people whose opinions differ from his own. He wants to Banish the Cyber-Bigots:

User-driven content on the Internet often consists of bullying, conspiracy theories and racial prejudice. The absolute freedom of the medium paradoxically encourages authoritarian impulses to intimidate and silence others. The least responsible contributors see their darkest tendencies legitimated and reinforced, while serious voices are driven away by the general ugliness.

He's projecting.

Legally restricting such content -- apart from prosecuting direct harassment and threats against individuals or incitement to violence -- is impossible. In America, the First Amendment protects blanket statements of bigotry. But this does not mean that popular news sites, along with settings such as Facebook and YouTube, are constitutionally required to provide forums for bullies and bigots. As private institutions, they are perfectly free to set rules against racism and hatred. This is not censorship; it is the definition of standards.

More on Applebaum. Can We Still Trust Anne Applebaum? Her Irrational Defense of Polanski, by Ron Radosh:

By now, there have been scores of terrific comments on the Polanski controversy. But perhaps the best single line was offered on it by Jay Leno. “It’s not as if he committed a real crime,” Leno said, “like colorizing a black and white movie.” That comment reveals the mindset of the Hollywood elite, for whom anal rape of a 13-year-old drugged with Quaaludes is something to be forgiven. This is especially true when committed by a celebrated director whose status as a Holocaust survivor offers him lifetime protection from having to pay for his own criminal behavior.

It's an especially terrific comment if you remember it was Ted Turner, the media's token non-jew, who got so much grief about colorizing movies.

Her argument reminds me of those African Americans who applauded the jury nullification in the O.J. Simpson case, arguing that African Americans were oppressed for a century and many were lynched, and this was payback and proof that even if guilty, the accused had a right to go free because of the past history of oppression. Did Applebaum see “mitigating circumstances” in the O.J. trial outcome?

Third, she notes Polanski’s age: 76. Evidently the persecutors of the Gulag or the Nazi death camps, if still alive and caught living free for crimes they committed half a century ago, should also go free because of their age. Did she chastise the Israelis for catching Eichmann in Argentina and putting him on trial in Jerusalem? Does she believe that Germany should now release Ivan Demianiuk because the man claims he was wrongly identified, that he was only a guard forced to do what he was asked, and that he is now in his 80’s?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Finally, Applebaum says nothing about the horrible rape and mental and physical injury sustained by an innocent 13-year-old girl. She has young children who, I believe, are now close in age to the victim decades ago. If her daughter were at a party and a famous film director appeared, drugged her, and raped her in a similar fashion, would Applebaum rush to his defense because he had suffered in the Holocaust and made good films? To ask the question is to answer it.

Polanskization raises lots of questions that, if considered honestly, answer themselves.

So, I am more upset that a columnist like Anne Applebaum has somehow lost her senses and her moral compass than that the Hollywood elite — whom we all expect to rally around one of their own — has joined in the ruckus to free Polanski. Does she not realize that these columns hurt her own calls for justice to those who suffered in the Gulag, and her understanding that for certain crimes, there is no statute of limitations? Does she want her readers to take her seriously in the future?

We have come a long way from both morality and seriousness when an intellectual columnist like Anne Applebaum can write in defense of the indefensible. Now if only Polanski had agreed to colorizing his early black and white films. Then, perhaps, the auteurs would not have sprung so readily to his defense.

Radosh's philo-semitic bias causes him to conclude an article about how a non-auteur sprang to Polanski's defense by absurdly blaming auteurs.

It's the same bias that causes Radosh to misinterpret The Conservative Debate Over Glenn Beck, which turns out to be jewish "conservatives" David Frum and David Horowitz arguing, Is Glenn Beck Good for Conservatives? Get it? Well, what these jewish "conservatives" mean by "our side" apparently goes right over Radosh's head. Here's Frum's view of it:

Although flattered by David’s description of me as an “armchair aristocrat” (pretty good for a guy whose ancestors came from the next street down from the Horowitz clan!), I was grieved by David’s core point:

“Our country is under assault by a determined, deceitful and powerful left which will stop at nothing to realize its goals. Facing them, I would rather have Glenn Beck out there fighting for our side than 10,000 David Frums who think that appeasing leftists will make them think well of us.”

I don’t believe that distortion and defamation count as “fighting for our side.” I think they are wrong, period, and also as the [Harvard Law professor Cass] Sunstein episode shows, stupid and counter-productive.

You can follow this tangent of jewish distortion and defamation of non-jews in Is Glenn Beck Good for Conservatives? Horowitz vs. Frum Round Two and Are Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter Good for Conservatives? Horowitz vs. Frum, Round Three.

On another bile-inducing tangent, here's a long, uncharitable review of Applebaum's book Gulag:

Gulag, Book Review (Introduction)
Gulag, Book Review (Part I)
Gulag, Book Review (Part II)
Gulag, Book review (Part III)
Gulag, Book Review (Part IV)
Gulag, Book Review (Part V)

By the time the last paragraph has been absorbed, you should have an equitable grasp of both neocon and communist mentality and why the author of Gulag obtained the status of a journalistic deity.

Wintermute gave his evaluation in response to Sailer's recent essay on Noam Chomsky:

I think his closest analogue is Anne Applebaum, who has relentlessly de-Semitized the gulag to the plaudits of the chattering/ ruling classes.

Here's an anti-Polanski-sounding non-prosecution. L'affaire Polanski: The people hold court on a pedophile, by Mireille Silcoff, October 03, 2009:

It came in the form of the nearly unvarying opinion of the non-rich and non-famous, the tens of thousands of Internet users having their say in such places as the talkback forums of newspaper websites, as much in Europe as on this side of the Atlantic.

But has anyone seen Bitter Moon lately? I watched it in a series of excruciating nine-minute segments on YouTube last night (every single Polanski movie has been rented out across Montreal) and it felt like watching Polanski raising a triumphant middle finger to those who would dare tell him how to live.

Maybe he saw it at the time as an irresistible and yet low-risk move. It was 1992, sleeping dogs were lying, and Polanski felt free enough to cast himself a look-alike (Peter Coyote) and then have his stand-in engage in sexual watersports, suffocating oral sex and what can only be termed barnyard S&M onscreen with the director's actual 24-year-old wife, Emmanuelle Seigner. As Coyote prances through a Paris apartment naked but for a pig's mask, he ejaculates a dozen sleazy variations on the theme of "I just can't control myself! The passion! The degeneracy! It's my nature!"

Holy chutzpah, Roman Polanski! Today, there'd be an instant feeding frenzy on the blogosphere.

Silcoff concludes:

In truth, the Julian Schnabels and the Monica Belluccis who signed the Liberate Polanski petitions were only under the same spell that most of us were under. We'd all simply forgotten. Now that forgetting has become impossible, it will be fascinating to see if Roman Polanski will be able to find as many, or indeed any, useful allies.

I believe she was under the same spell, and even most of the people she considers "us". But silly Silcoff just noted that given the opportunity to finally express our opinion most of the non-rich and non-famous proved we were not under any spell. What's fascinating to see here is how the spectrum of kosher commentary runs from clueless denials (such as Radosh's) to cheeky, manipulative attempts to disguise or simply laugh off the glaring jewish component of Polanski's defense. "It's my nature!" Indeed.

Brendan O’Neill is the editor of spiked, and a professional opinonator whose opinion here is so confused and equivocal that it could easily be taken as an attempt to be deliberately obfuscatory. It does however contains a few notable nuggets. Refighting the Culture War over Roman Polanski | spiked:

But perhaps the worst aspect of the Polanski affair is the competition of victimhoods. It is testimony to the domination of the victim culture in contemporary society that both Polanski haters and Polanski defenders, both sides in this bizarre re-enactment of the Culture War of the 1960s and its aftermath, have used the language of victimology to make their case. For many American and British commentators this is all about Samantha Gailey [now Geimer], whom they have transformed into the archetypal and eternally symbolic victim of the alleged great evil of our time, Child Abuse. ‘Remember: Polanski raped a child’, says a headline in Salon, in an article that provides sordid, misery-memoir-style details of what Polanski did with his penis to Gailey’s vagina and anus (9). For European observers, by contrast, Polanski’s actions can be explained by his own victimised past, especially during the Holocaust. We have to understand his ‘life tragedies’ and how they moulded him, says one filmmaker (10). Anne Applebaum, the American commentator who spends much of her time in Europe, says Polanski fled America in 1978 because of his ‘understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived in Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto.’ (11) (Applebaum fails to disclose that she is married to the Polish foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, who is actively campaigning against Polanski’s extradition.)

This spat in victimology confirms that the politics of victimhood, the pursuit of law, politics and morality in the name of respecting and helping victims, dominates debate on both sides of the Atlantic, but in the Anglo-American sphere it is the victim of child abuse that is most sacrosanct, while in Europe it is the victims of the Holocaust who enjoy the greatest, most unquestioned moral authority – to the extent that Polanski’s pretty cowardly fleeing of America in 1978 can be excused as a latent reaction by a tortured man to the emotional horrors of Auschwitz.

L’Affaire Polanski has become a Culture War that dare not speak its name, a pale and dishonest imitation of the debates about values and morality that have emerged at various times over the past 50 years. As a result we are none the wiser about the legal usefulness of 30-year-old arrest warrants or contemporary extradition laws, as desperate political observers have instead turned Polanski into either a ventriloquist’s dummy or a voodoo doll for the purposes of letting off some cheap moral steam.

It is understandably difficult to acknowledge that out of either fear, respect, or love of the jewish power that has waxed over the last 50 years, most people, especially pundits whose livelihood depends on their not opposing that power, don't want to say anything that confronts it. That's why so many people speak only in vague "culture war" terms, or absurdly scapegoat whole countries, or explain what's happening by way of membership in nebulous groups like "liberal" or "elite" or "Hollywood" when there's a big fat jewish elephant in the room. Euphemism is one safe way to pretend you're being insightful about Polanskization even as you babble nonsense about it.

Another way is to ignore the whole thing. In 'ET,' 'Insider' and 'Access Hollywood' steer clear of Polanski | Company Town | Los Angeles Times, by Joe Flint takes note:

But anyone looking to learn about the fate of Roman Polanski by tuning in to "Access Hollywood," Entertainment Tonight" or "The Insider" will be sadly disappointed. While cable news, particularly CNN, has been micro-analyzing the arrest and the entertainment industry's reaction, the three shows that claim to be the insider's guide to all things Hollywood have for the most part steered clear of the controversy.

That was as of September 30. Once the semitically correct way of seeing Polanskization gets worked out online we can be sure they'll be all over the story.

Hollywood split on Polanski:

Not everyone in Hollywood supports embattled director Roman Polanski.

It's a big mystery at CNN.

Here's a Christian perspective that came out fairly early on. Georgetown/On Faith: Father Polanski Would Go to Jail - Thomas J. Reese, September 28, 2009:

The world has truly changed. Entertainment is the new religion with sex, violence and money the new Trinity. The directors and stars are worshiped and quickly forgiven for any infraction as long as the PR agent is a skilled as a saintly confessor. Entertainment, not religion, is the new opiate of the people and we don't want our supply disturbed.

Is there a double standard here? You bet.

I'm wondering. Did anybody in or out of "entertainment" stand up for Mel Gibson? Was it with anything like the fervor of the jews who wanted him black-balled, or the jews who sprang to Polanski's defense? Will Father Reese ever discuss the jewish supremacism implied by this double standard? I think he'd rather keep getting published by Newsweek and WaPo.

Look. Here's a direct comparison of Gibson and Polanski that still dances around the reason they're treated differently. Polanski sex case arrest provokes backlash against his supporters in Hollywood, by Paul Harris, 4 October 2009:

"Hollywood people really don't see the world in the same way as average people... that is why there is a backlash," said Mike Levine, a Hollywood PR expert.

It is also speaks to a certain type of Hollywood culture which appears to insist that its top stars are in some ways elevated above the law and should be treated differently to ordinary members of the public.

If Polanski was just an ordinary man instead of a world-famous film director, the bare facts of his case would be likely to elicit little sympathy – especially from the world famous. Hollywood stars seem to be arguing, in some ways, that Polanski's talent should allow him some sort of free pass for his past behaviour. "Hollywood... looks at the Polanski case and says, 'You have to make allowances for genius'," said Gallagher.

Hollywood's elite also functions as a kind of club and Polanski, seen by the elite as a great European auteur director, is a firm member. That requires a certain degree of success but also a great deal of ideological conformity. It is a cliche that Hollywood is uniformly liberal in its politics, but one with more than a dash of truth in it. It is certainly interesting to see the reaction to Polanski's case and compare it with the reaction to Mel Gibson, when he was caught mouthing drunken anti-Semitic abuse.

Gibson, a rare conservative in Hollywood, was brutally condemned by his fellow stars and sent into virtual career exile. Polanski, whose crime is far more serious, has seen a vast outpouring of sympathy. Being a member of the Hollywood club certainly seems to have its privileges.

"The difference between the reaction to Gibson and the reaction to Polanski has been just huge. Huge!" said celebrity interviewer Gayl Murphy. "That says a lot about what Hollywood thinks is important to them."

Gibson is arguably a bigger star and a bigger money-maker than Polanski. Gibson was not above the law, and nobody but himself, when he was drunk, ever argued he was. The question is, why is he not a member of the same privileged Hollywood club as Polanski? If Gibson had made a drunken rant about the French or the Europeans or liberals, would he have been treated as he was? To ask the question is to answer it. It is jewish favor/disfavor that explains the difference.

But, more importantly, it has also exposed a huge fault line between what Hollywood thinks of itself and what Americans think of Hollywood. No longer is it just the right wing of America lambasting "Hollywood liberals" for their permissive and overly Democratic ways. It is Democrats too. And feminists. And conservatives. Polanski seems to have united the different strands of America in a way that few other things have.

Polanskization united otherwise hostile feminists, liberals, and conservatives, exposing a huge fault line between them and other feminists, liberals, and conservatives who sympathized with Polanski because he's jewish.

UPDATE 5 Oct 2009: In A British court's remarkable involvement with Roman Polanski, Lawrence Auster writes:

British leftie Nick Cohen, writing in the Observer/Guardian, sides against Polanski and his supporters.

As we'll see below, this is delusionary, and it's telling that Auster wants his readers to see Cohen's article this way. There are articles that actually do take sides against Polanski and his supporters. Cohen's isn't one of them. In contrast see Ron Radosh's essay, or the article Auster derides in The sub standard world of conservative writing.

Auster continues:

And he says that the country most guilty of having taken Polanski's part is not France, but England

This is an accurate summary of Cohen's article, assuming Auster meant "Polanski's side" rather than "Polanski's part". Auster sees this "guilt" so clearly because it resonates with his own view of Britain as the "Dead Island". Like Cohen, he's willing to scapegoat a whole country collectively rather than discuss the individuals who actually came to Polanski's defense and why.

Note Nick Cohen's acid tone and who he directs it at. Why Roman Polanski just loves the English courts, 4 October 2009:

With bungling financiers and a brooding and bewildered prime minister, the British do not have much to feel superior about. Yet in these dark days when all sources of consolation seem gone, at least the Polanski affair allows us to enjoy our traditional pleasure of patronising the French.

Poor France. What is there left to say about that unfortunate country?

Inevitably, the task of rewarding Polanski fell to London judges, who have made the slogan "English justice" an oxymoron the world over.

Like Russian oligarchs and Saudi Arabian petro-billionaires, Polanski wanted to sue in plaintiff-friendly England, rather than in France, where his citizenship protected him from extradition.

But London is not known as "a town called Sue" for nothing, and in a ruling which is still shocking to read, the Law Lords protected Polanski from arrest by allowing him to testify via a video link from France as they upheld the reputations of sexual predators.

Of all the asinine interventions made by the English establishment in the Polanski affair, this was the worst.

Tories claim that Britain has a "liberal judiciary" but in two respects our judges are reactionaries. They will not stand up for freedom of expression, and they will not defend the rights of women or, as the Polanski case shows, the rights of girls either.

The thrust of Cohen's article is that, rather than the unfortunate French, his readers should direct their attention and their anger toward "the British", "London judges", "English justice", "the English establishment", and the "liberal judiciary". Why? Because in 2002 they "rewarded" Polanski by permitting him to testify via video link in a libel suit he brought against Conde-Nast. Cohen argues that this is what his reader's should really be upset about.

Contra Auster, Cohen makes no mention of the people who have come to Polanski's support today, and if anything is redirecting blame away from them. Cohen could have written about the very recent, very shrill, very jewish attempts to subvert the justice system for Polanski's benefit. Instead he wrote to blame the British and their justice system.

What's really remarkable about Cohen's argument is how absurd it is. The reason Polanski wanted to testify via video link is because he feared the liberal British justice system would arrest and extradict him. Cohen twists this into "the Law lords protected Polanski from arrest", which of course they didn't. However bad the British system may be, in that regard it's better than France's.

To sum it up then, Cohen uses a bogus argument to misdirect blame from the French, whom others have tried to blame and who don't deserve it, to the British, who don't deserve it either. The problem is, we know exactly who sprang to Polanski's defense, writing hysterical op-eds and signing an insane petition demanding his release. We know which government officials sprang to join them. We can also see who is trying to apologize and distract attention from this. It's far past obvious that the explanation why has more to do with jewishness than anything else.

Phase I: A number of outspoken, incensed jews, dismayed at the arrest of Roman Polanski, spring to his defense peddling patently lame arguments. Their op-eds as well as hard news accounts emphasize Polanski's status as a holocaust survivor. His crime and flight are minimized. It's "ancient history". The expense too great. "We demand the immediate release..."

Phases II: The rest of us call bullshit.

Phase III: Amidst this backlash some start to ask, "what's going on here?"

Some follow up on Phase I's notorious Applebaum: Telling the Whole Truth Now Would Be Too Confusing.

Phase II continues to manifest anywhere the Polanski apologists and equivocators offer an open forum.

Examples of Phase III were rare, at least at first.

Patrick at Popehat wonders why Feminist Majority Foundation chair, film producer Peg Yorkin, advocates forgiveness for Roman Polanski where once she advocated genital torture for rape:

One of the most interesting aspects of the Roman Polanski arrest, which my co-blogger Ken has covered in all its sordid glory, is the split that it creates. Chris, who frequently comments here, described Polanski as an “OJ Simpson for the elites,” and that’s not too far off the mark.

Popehat links an LAT piece which asks, In Roman Polanski case, is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?:

In an opinion piece in London's the Independent, Weinstein Co. co-founder Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said.

"You misunderstand. I'll tell you how to see it. Hollywood is your moral compass."

Some of the industry's most prominent women said they believe Polanski, who faces a sentence as low as probation and as high as 16 months in prison for pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, should be freed. "My personal thoughts are let the guy go," said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things."

See Popehat's detailing of Yorkin's stand on non-Polanski rape.

In The Roman Polanski Case: Once Again, It’s Hollywood vs. America Kevin MacDonald notes that Hollywood fundamentally reflects jewish attitudes on culture.

Here's a helping of emergency opinion-shaping, courtesy of the New York Times, under the friendly title The Polanski Uproar. It's presented on the "Room for Debate Blog", which leaves no room for debate, at least not via any comment mechanism.

The Consequences of Fame:

Jonathan Rosenbaum, a former film critic for The Chicago Reader, is the author of the forthcoming “Goodbye Cinema, Hello Cinephilia” and writes at jonathanrosenbaum.com.

I’m not at all in favor of giving artists free passes when it comes to their personal morality. But in the case of Roman Polanski, anyone who’s bothered to follow the history of his case in any detail is likely to conclude that (a) he’s already paid a great deal for his crime, (b) the interests of journalism and the entertainment industry in this matter usually have a lot more to do with puritanical hysteria and exploitation than any impartial pursuit of justice.

Considering the many crooks who continue to go unpunished (including Wall Street tycoons, prominent politicians, war profiteers, torturers of innocent people, and racist hatemongers) — most of whom continue to be rewarded and validated by the same press and the same self-righteous “moralists” who are now calling for Polanski’s head — it seems hypocritical to express so much outrage and bloodlust against Polanski at this point.

So Rosenbaum gives Polanski a free pass in order to stick it to "puritanical hysteria".

Rosenbaum's paragraphs above, by the way, are intended to expand on his pithier, contemporaneous reaction, On the Arrest of Roman Polanski:

American lynch mobs never die; they only become more self-righteous about their savagery.

The sentiment here is similar to Auster's title, America's vendetta against Roman Polanski. I don't think it's a coincidence. What's telling is that both men expressed these hostile attitudes towards Americans/America before the broad backlash had materialized. They were not reacting to the millions of online comments supporting Polanski's arrest, they were reacting to news of his arrest, sharing their cynical view of the justice system and/or their alienation from what they perceive to be American/America's values.

Multiple Views From France:

Judith Surkis is associate professor of history and literature at Harvard University. She is currently writing a book on the history of sexual scandal in France.

The “Affaire Polanski” seems to fit comfortably into well-worn media scripts on both sides of the Atlantic. French journalists, intellectuals, and politicians often depict the United States as simultaneously prone to ‘Puritanical’ sexual morality and overt anti-intellectualism. Americans, by contrast, alternately romanticize and repudiate the French as libertine elitists.

In the 1980s, the American culture wars targeted artists such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano for their “indecent” and sexually explicit images. In France, by contrast, to “shock the public” (épater le bourgeois) is a cherished, and at this point almost staid, national tradition going back to Baudelaire and Flaubert.

The well-worn script is that this is an American/French clash. The truth is that the judaized elites have more in common with each other than they do with the ordinary people in the countries they want to jacuzzi in or abscond to. They make that clear every time they bemoan the "puritanical" morality of the "flyover country" they happen to be flying over. Could there any clearer illustration of this than the jet-setting he's-a-jew, now he's-a-Pole, now he's-a-Frenchman games Polanski's advocates play?

Mapplethorpe and Serrano are not innocent victims any more than Polanski is. Kevin MacDonald points to the predominance of wealthy jews among art collectors, critics, and gallery owners, and how they promote extreme expressive individualists like Mapplethorpe and Serrano. The part artists like this play in the "culture war" is comparable to the part bombs play in a shooting war. The victims here are the public. Our taxes subsidize these art collectors, critics, gallery owners, and extreme expressive individualists, to produce a load of shocking crap most of us don't want.

Vadim Rizov complains about Eight offensive quotes on the Polanski situation, four "prosecution" and four "defense".

The four "defense" quotes come from three jews and a quasi-jew - Shore, Winger, Weinstein, and Goldberg.

Two quotes Rizov labels "prosecution" were not really viewed that way by their readers. These were Richard Cohen and Roger L. Simon. Both are jewish. A third (weak) "prosecution" quote comes from Andrew Klavan, who is jewish.

Rizov's fourth "prosecution" quote comes from Wendy Murphy, who glosses over the details of Polanski's depravity on television. What really offends Rizov is:

A few sentences later, she notes that abroad, Polanski was "hanging around on the Left Bank," which kind of gives the game away; Murphy, a noted Bill O'Reilly compatriot, knows how to tie in her undeniably sincere rape-victim advocacy to a broader culture war.

In other words, Rizov is offended because Murphy revealed something that reflects badly on israel.

Because really, why does it matter if he was on the Left Bank or in a Trappist monastery?

Because really, he was actually on the Left Bank and never in a Trappist monastery.

So, to take stock of this, seven of Rizov's eight offensive quotes came from jews, and the eighth was judged offensive because it "gives the game away", by alluding to Polanski's jewishness.

The most bizarre reaction to the backlash has been from Lawrence Auster. As I noted in The Outrageous Defense of Roman Polanski, Auster was initially not only supportive of Polanski, he was "stunned" and "appalled" that "with the connivance of U.S. authorities" poor Polanski was "tricked into being arrested". He summarized his view by titling it America's vendetta against Roman Polanski.

Several readers provided Auster with some actual facts of the case. At first he insulted them, and stubbornly stood his ground. Finally he admitted, "I do not know the details of the crime", "I didn't know about these specifics until now", "Again, I was not aware until today of the extent of what he did to the girl." In other words, he took a position, expressed with deep emotion, stuck with it despite being presented with the facts, and only then admitted he didn't actually know what he was talking about. Eventually he even wrote: "So I take back what I said earlier."

For this several sycophants praised him, and we know this because he duly copied and pasted that praise into his blog.

Unfortunately, nobody ever pointed out the most important thing he got wrong, which is was what Polanski is actually in trouble for, which is contempt of court. It turns out that every time some verbally-skilled, ethically-challenged Polanski-phile bemoans the 32 years that have passed, thinking it somehow diminishes the rape, they're actually unwittingly highlighting the seriousness of the crime he's not yet answered for: skipping his date with the court for 32 years.

But don't expect any of them to ever acknowledge that.

Auster wasn't specific about what he was taking back. But at some point he silently changed the post's title to "The arrest of Roman Polanski". He never got around to justifying "America's vendetta", and none of his readers questioned him on it. At least none that got past his copy and paste.

Soon after Auster changed his position, he described

the anti-Semitic theory of Lawrence Auster, which says that none of my positions are what they seem, that every position I take is "really" motivated by my agenda to advance the Jews over gentile whites

Then he confirmed the theory.

My initial position in this thread, of protesting the arrest of Polanski because 32 years had passed since his crime, was not taken by me for the reasons I gave, but for a hidden reason of defending any Jewish person because he's Jewish. Everything else I say, all my arguments, is a front for that.

I've previously described Auster's tendency to say telling things couched in false irony in "Fruitloopable Presumption". I'm pleased to see him do it again. What set him off this time is The Last Moral Frontier. You can find further discussion of his odd antics there.

The overwhelming instinctive revulsion amongst Whites created by the spectacle of a judaized transnational cosmopolitan elite rushing to hysterically defend the undefendable actions of a depraved tribemate.

What a difference a day makes. I underestimated the relevance of this story when it first broke, then miscalculated the direction it would break.

Last night at this hour the most self-righteous Polanski defenders were still waxing hyperbolic, issuing demands, acting as if by sticking Polanski's jewishness in everyone's face they could ride roughshod over the few neutral, factual articles and negative op-eds. The elites were coming to the consensus that Polanski was the victim, and the ethnic-ethical divide was almost exclusively constrained to the disgusted comments of a million faceless nobodies.

Since then a few new Polanski defenders have come forward, but the overall tone has completely reversed. Some celebrities have questioned the defense. With the nobodies clearly and overwhelmingly against Polanski the elites have already begun trying to defuse the anger. Some of his early defenders are retreating from their previous positions.

A few zealous jews haven't yet gotten the memo. Roman Polanski: backlash as Whoopi Goldberg says director didn't commit 'rape-rape' - Telegraph:

Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.

One celebrity supporter, the actress Debra Winger, said it was a "three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities. We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece." Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein said Polanski was a "humanist" who had been the victim of a "miscarriage of justice". He said: "We will have to speak to our leaders, particularly in California. I'm not too shy to go and talk to the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and to ask him once and for all to look at this."

That's curious. Weinstein thinks the governor of California answers to him.

However, the views of the Hollywood elite seemed out of step with those of ordinary Americans and they now face a backlash.

On the Los Angeles Times website only one in 30 comments from members of the public supported Polanski and most called for him to face justice.

Recall that bizarre piece that tried 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? They can file that one under oooooops. Roman's long, outrageous European holiday: For years, elites embraced child rapist Polanski, by James Kirchick, September 30th 2009:

For evidence of the widening cultural gulf between average people and the transnational cosmopolitan elite, look no further than reactions to the recent, and long overdue, arrest of Roman Polanski.

Fortunately, the degradation of the European intellectual and political class does not seem to be trickling down to the masses. In an online poll conducted by the French newspaper Le Figaro, more than 70% of the 30,000 participants voted in favor of Polanski's deportation to the United States, as did most of the 400 people who wrote letters to the magazine Le Point.

Keep in mind, however, that the supposed rage of the European masses was not stirred until his arrest last week, which inevitably brought forth a lurid rehashing of the original charges. Never before was there a popular movement among ordinary Europeans to have Polanski sent back to the U.S. in leg irons.

French support softens for Polanski, Hollywood divided | Entertainment | People | Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in New York that Polanski's extradition from Switzerland to California to face sentencing on the 1977 sex crime charge was a matter for judges, not diplomats, to handle.

But support in Europe and Hollywood appears to be eroding. Along with the French government's new focus on strictly legal matters, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk on Tuesday said that while Polanski should be offered consular help, ministers need not get involved in the extradition battle.

Translation: all political manuevering to pardon/spring/free Polanski has now officially moved behind the scenes, away from public view.

Kirstie Alley on Roman Polanski: Don't Celebrate or Defend Him, Hollywood! - E! Online. Alley gets as unhinged as a Polanski defender, against Polanski and his defenders.

Twitter / Jewel: Polanski-admitted raping ...:

Polanski-admitted raping a 13 yr old-whys every1 in the arts upset hes facing jail? cause hes a gifted director? what am i missing?

This is a good indication Jewel Kilcher is not jewish. Only Whites can be so naive.

Next up, malpractice suit? Director Roman Polanski's boastful lawyer triggered arrest: report:

In paperwork filed as part of his bid to get 31-year-old rape charges dropped, Polanski's lawyers said the Los Angeles County district attorney's office wasn't really trying to hunt him down.

Bad move.

The Los Angeles Times reported that this claim "caught the eye" of prosecutors and prompted them to plot an end to Polanski's three decades as a fugitive.

But the Los Angeles County district attorney's office contends it has been trying to nab the filmmaker since he fled 30 years ago - including once in Israel as recently as 2007.

Prosecutors released a list Monday detailing their efforts to nab the director since 1978. They sought arrest warrants for Polanski in England, Thailand and France, they said.

Here's Patrick Goldstein climbing down. Sort of. Those angry town-hall Whites (AKA "Glenn Becks") are still to blame. Hollywood liberals under fire: The Polanski debate gets political | The Big Picture | Los Angeles Times:

It was surely only a matter of time. The noisy partisan divide that seems to infect everything in America today -- from what health care plan you want to what car you drive -- has surfaced again. As soon as commentators started weighing in on Roman Polanski's arrest over the weekend in Switzerland, the debate over whether the filmmaker should be made to stand trial in Los Angeles for his 1977 rape of a 13-year-old girl quickly turned into a series of shouting-match-style denunciations, with conservatives casting Polanski defenders as despicable, soft-headed liberals.

I know because I've been reading my mail, which has been running about 100-to-1 against Polanski. And since I wrote a column that most people interpreted as a defense of Polanski, the mail was also running 100-to-1 against me.

We live in an age where everyone is angry about everything. But I was taken aback by how many letters viewed the Polanski issue through a political prism -- if you weren't full of outrage over his crime and subsequent flight from prosecution, then you were a yellow-bellied lefty, always willing to come up with some new excuse for the loathsome behavior of the chic Hollywood elite.

So once again, we have a right-versus-left divide, with Hollywood, teeming as it is with Prius-driving liberals, being easily tossed into the lefty camp. To hear conservatives tell it, Polanski represents the classic example of the decadent artist who gets a free pass from liberals, the same liberals who'd be the first to express outrage against greedy Wall Street predators or Catholic priests accused of pedophilia.

He skipped town, sensing, as most people involved with the case have since concluded, that the judge had his own agenda and was going to bring the hammer down on him. But worrying about judicial fairness when it comes to a sexual predator would inject a layer of complexity into this affair that most people don't want to hear. Call it justice or call it vengeance, but people are town-hall-style angry that Polanski got off scott free, just as they are mad at the bankers on Wall Street who got bailed out -- after socking away millions in profit -- while regular folks got the shaft.

Commenters, once again, try to set Goldstein straight.

If your inbox is running 100-1 against Polanski then it's not a liberal conservative divide. It's a few Hollywood types who are comfortable letting him off since it wasn't "rape-rape."

Posted by: Tina | September 30, 2009 at 12:45 PM

This article confuses me. You are polarizing conservatives and liberals. I'm as liberal as they can get. I vote and donate to liberal causes, liberal politicians, environmental causes, etc..
There are a lot of liberals that I know, like me, who don't support the Polanski camp.

I think that when Polanski decided to rape a 13 yr old child - and sodomize her, he was absolutely wrong - there is no gray zone here. He was also wrong to flee his sentencing - and from what I have read - the Judge wanted to sentence him to an additional 48 days of prison... only 48 days... and that is why he fled the country. His lawyers wanted to have time served from his incarceration for psychiatric evaluation and the judge said no. Unlike a lot of other people, I actually read through the scanned transcript of that trial that is now publicly available on the web. What he did was horrific. period.

And no I don't think he has suffered already - he lives a lavish and free life. And to argue that he should never have gone to jail because he had horrible experiences in his life is a strange argument. Most of the people in our jails now had horrible upbringings and witnessed horrible crimes throughout their lives, yet no one is fighting to set all of them free.

Let's take a simpler and less morally challenging case - the artist is drunk driving and kills someone - shouldn't he be prosecuted the same as any other DWI case?

Sincerely, left-wing knee jerk liberal - who thinks raping children is wrong.

Posted by: Kim | September 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM

The main basis of the defense isn't liberal, or elite liberal, or Hollywood liberal. It's jewish.

Here's Anne Applebaum climbing down. Sort of. And much like Goldstein, it's done by first calling attention to the insulting feedback. Then she claims she didn't mention her conflict of interest because she didn't know there was one. We're to believe she wasn't in contact with her husband (I guess because being on different continents keeps phones from working) and didn't read any of the reports concerning his actions on Polanski's behalf. There's nothing worth excerpting from Applebaum's portion of PostPartisan - Reaction to Roman Polanski. But this reader's reaction is worth quoting and answering:

Ms. Applebaum,

I posted the link to wikipedia which stated your relationship with the polish foreign minister, whom I identified as Polish Ambassdor. I do not work for any DA or any government. Your defense of Mr. Polanski rings just as hollow as the people who defend or defended OJ Simpson. Mr. Polanksi is a deviant and a criminal. Because of his fame he was able to hide in Europe.

Posted by: nikhil22 | September 29, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Polanski is a jewish OJ. He quite neatly polarizes Whites and jews. Jews view him as a victim, wronged and hunted by a cruel, puritanical system. Whites see him as a pervert who has escaped justice.

OJ was famous and tried to run. Martha Stewart was famous and didn't run. Polanski ran but didn't hide. His fame and ego made that impossible. What enabled him to remain at large was the special deference any jew enjoys, but especially a "holocaust survivor" in Europe. That's why all the early defenses so bluntly played that card.