Beullogeo's

Norway massacre exposes incendiary immigration issue, Reuters, 25 July 2011 (my emphasis):

Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik said he killed 93 people to spark a "revolution" against the multiculturalism he believed was sapping Europe's heritage, and experts say a frank debate about immigration may be the best way to prevent similar explosions of violence.

In some Nordic countries, and elsewhere in Europe, political parties have fed on rising public concern over immigration as economic conditions worsen and a drip-feed of Islamist attacks stokes fear and suspicion of new arrivals.

But experts argue overly aggressive political rhetoric and scare tactics have inflamed passions rather than address the many complex, underlying problems.

A crack in the anti-White regime! The "experts" are finally ready to listen to the rising public concern over immigration! Or are they?

"If the twin attacks in Norway fail to trigger an honest discussion of the issue, exposing often scare-mongering arguments used by the extreme right, this may marginalise the radical groups and worsen the situation, which in turn could bring more similar attacks in the future," said Lilit Gevorgyan, Europe analyst at the IHS Global Insight think-tank.

"This is not just an issue in Norway. Across Scandinavia and also in Western and Eastern Europe, you have a lot of people who are very frustrated by the lack of open debate," she added.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed, in speeches that were otherwise careful to highlight the contribution of immigrants.

But critics say such statements at best do little to offer solutions to tackle the economic and societal pressures that stem from increasing immigration and globalisation, and do even less to harness the benefits of a multi-ethnic society.

At worst, they say such comments risk victimising often vulnerable immigrant communities and souring race relations.

Oh. This is no debate. The "experts" are "critics". They blame the radicalization multiculturalism is creating on "the extreme right", not on multiculturalism.

Anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic parties have gained traction in Nordic and Scandinavian countries in recent years, tapping public anxiety over the relatively recent phenomenon of mass migration, particularly of Muslims, to their region.

The anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats were last year elected to the Swedish parliament for the first time, despite the party having roots in neo-Nazi movements of the 1980s and 1990s. The party has criticised Muslims and Islam as being un-Swedish.

Swedish anti-fascism magazine Expo, where the late best-selling novelist Steig Larsson was highly active, says while there may be no direct link between violence and comments by politicians, the rhetoric creates a fertile environment for ethnically motivated attacks.

"It is very aggressive ideology that the Swedish Democrats are pushing towards Muslims ... it has become a more and more accepted way to speak about Muslims this way," said Expo reporter Johannes Jakobsson.

"Of course if you are in the Swedish parliament and point fingers at Muslims and say these people are dangerous, of course this is going to influence people to become more hostile towards them," he added.

Oh. The "expert" "critics" include pro-immigration Expo, who have for years been pointing fingers at indigenous nationalists, saying these people are dangerous. As it turns out, Breivik's book, 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, has something to say about Expo:

The Swedish organisation Expo has demonstrated a willingness to “share information” with radical groups of “anti-Fascists” in Antifascistisk Action (AFA). The thugs of AFA in the spring of 2008 destroyed[11] the car of an elderly woman and wrote “nasse“ (Nazi) on top of it. As it turned out, they picked the wrong car. Yet years of such attacks against private citizens have not prompted the authorities to crack down on their activities.

Leading newspaper Aftonbladet has close ideological ties to the Social Democrats, the country’s dominant party for most of the past century. Helle Klein, its political editor-in-chief from 2001 to 2007, during a demonstration organised by Islamic and anti-racist organisations in December 2006 stood in front of a banner which read “A Sweden for all - Stop the Nazi violence“ and held a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organisation Hamas[12] in her editorials while warning against the threat posed to world peace by Israeli aggression and the Christian Right in the USA[13]. Hamas is a Fascist organisation openly calling for mass murder of Jews. Violent attacks against Jews in Europe in 2008 are to an overwhelming degree caused by Muslim immigration, which is encouraged by the EU and the national political elites. The irony of warning against “Nazi violence” while showing sympathy for an organisation that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently doesn’t strike Ms. Klein.

One of Klein’s fellow columnists at Aftonbladet, the long-time Communist Robert Aschberg, is the publisher of Expo magazine. Leading Expo member Charles Westin in October 2007 published the book Brunt! (“brown,” as in “Fascist”), where he let members of AFA contribute some of their intelligence regarding “right-wing extremists,” among them people associated with the legal party the Sweden Democrats. In addition to Mr. Westin, the book was co-authored by Mats Deland, who is a journalist in Aftonbladet. Why is it considered OK that a representative of one of Scandinavia’s largest newspapers, with ties to the country’s largest political party, thus associates himself openly with an organisation known for physically assaulting members of a legal opposition party, even in their private homes?

Before the elections in 2006, the established parties cooperated in boycotting the Sweden Democrats and other “xenophobic” parties. In one of many similar incidents, which extreme Leftists bragged about on the Internet, around 30 members of the SD were attacked during a peaceful, private party outside the town of Växjö. The brave “anti-Fascists” threw tear gas into the building, forcing people outside where they were beaten with iron bars and axes. Open, aggressive and sometimes violent harassment of critics of the country’s immigration policies has been going on for years while the authorities have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. Seemingly encouraged by the silence from the establishment to political violence, extreme Leftists have stepped up their attacks to include mainstream parties. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. Expo, which is backed by the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Daniel Poohl from the unelected organisation Expo states[14] that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence.

According to Jonathan Friedman, an American Jew working in Sweden for years, “no debate about immigration policies is possible, the subject is simply avoided. Sweden has such a close connection between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. The political class is closed, isolated.” The elites are worried to see their power slip away and therefore want to silence critics, for instance the Sweden Democrats, a small party opposed to immigration: “It is a completely legal party, they just aren’t allowed to speak.…In reality, the basis of democracy has been completely turned on its head. It is said: ‘Democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy.’ It is grotesque and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, more like a kind of moral dictatorship.”

Breivik copied these passages from a Fjordman essay posted by Pamela Geller, Fjordman At Atlas: Swedish Hypocrisy Regarding Israel and Muslims.

Anders Behring Breivik: Tunnel vision in an online world, by Thomas Hylland Eriksen, guardian.co.uk, 25 July 2011:

Anders Behring Breivik's world view seems to have been shaped by online fantasy games and the anti-Islamist blogosphere – a recipe for national fragmentation.

Every country needs some degree of cohesion. Just how much is a legitimate matter of dispute. Some believe that cultural pluralism is a recipe for fragmentation and the loss of trust. This may be the case, but not necessarily. So long as common institutions function impartially – education, housing, work etc – a society can live well with considerable diversity. However, the moment we cease to speak to each other, something serious is under way. This is exactly what happened with Breivik and many of his co-believers: they developed a parallel reality on the internet.

Breivik must willingly have allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites. However, had he instead been forced to receive his information through a broadsheet newspaper, where not all the stories dealt with Europe's loss of confidence and the rise of militant Islam, it is conceivable that his world would have looked slightly different. Perhaps one lesson from this weekend of shock and disbelief may be that cultural pluralism is not necessarily a threat to national cohesion, but that the tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet is.

Breivik's book also has something to say about Eriksen:

Europe is heading towards cultural and demographical suicide due to the absence of nationalistic doctrines. Nationalism is the anti-thesis of multiculturalism/internationalism. In order for nationalism to succeed, multiculturalism must be deconstructed and vice versa. The cultural Marxists/humanists/globalists will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent nationalists from succeeding as we have witnessed now for several decades.

Campaigns of psychological warfare (anti-nationalism) have been integrated into the school curriculums and all intellectual public frameworks. Europeans have been psychologically conditioned into a state of denial and self contempt. A majority of Europeans are therefore in a permanent state of psychological trauma, some nationalities more than others.

The most severely affected are of course the Germans and the Nordic countries; Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark. The justification for demonising their forefathers is a mixture of portraying the evil crusaders, the evil colonisers/enslavers and of course Nazi Germany’s policies of nordicism. The clear message from our cultural elites is that we are by definition evil and unworthy of life. And that we will do the world a big favor by contributing to our own extermination through third world colonisation. The self loathing runs deep through most aspects of society. To quote one of the most influential professors in Norway, Thomas Hylland Eriksen[1]:

“Our (the Marxist elites of Europe) most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again”.

Later quote

“This will contribute to understanding and liberation”

The problem in our societies isn’t primarily that individuals like Eriksen exists (and believe me, every country has their share of these highly influential anti-nationalist intellectuals) but rather that they are allowed unrestricted access to broadcasting networks, state channels, the main stream media in general to spread their hate-speech. They are allowed this access because 80% of politicians and 98% of journalists (category A and B traitors) are aiding and abetting them in the ongoing genocide. This while people like myself, who are trying to warn people of this extremist hate speech, are systematically ignored and demonised as, guess what; racist, fascist extremists… It is nothing less than insane and it borders to an advanced level of psychopathic absurdity. A majority of Europeans are still susceptible to this brainwashing although this is gradually changing.

Breivik appears to have written the passages above. He cites Håper på fem nye Culcom-år - Universitetet i Oslo. Google Translate can't handle the https URL.

Reddit is shitstorming over a comic which satirizes multiculturalism: http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/itmdq/now_let_me_be_clear_i_dont_hate_white_people/

Ctrl+F 'skeptix', that guy's a load of fun.

Via 4chon.net/new/ (4chon is shitstorming too, links there disappear quickly).

Feds sue New Berlin for racism, Beloit Daily News, 24 June 2011:

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The U.S. government has filed a lawsuit alleging New Berlin city officials caved to pressure from their largely white community by deciding not to build low-income housing that could attract more black families.

The government is deliberately attempting to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of a White community in Wisconsin.

The very first reader comment on the story offers forthright support for that community:

Kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2011 9:27 AM:

" Its Their lives, their town, their 'pursuit of happiness'. The government has not right to tell these people who they should think, how they should live. I hope they stand up and resist this invasion. "

The very next reader comment is a weasel-worded anti-White response:

Red Rock wrote on Jun 27, 2011 1:24 AM:

" That's right Kevin! You go! For example, if the town has designs on only blue-eyed and blond haired residents that are Protestants, then that is their riight! Oh, wait. Wasn't that tried in the 1940's in Germany? Nevermind. On second thought Kevin, you're all wrong on this one. "

Red Rock thinks it's OK to destroy a White community in Wisconsin today because, when you get down to what's really important, they remind him how much he hates blond-haired blue-eyed people no matter when or where they are.

For more details and another anti-White view see Racism's Ugly Face in Wisconsin, Courthouse News Service, by Lisa Buchmeier, 23 June 2011:

MILWAUKEE (CN) - Housing developers say the mayor of New Berlin buckled to racist pressure and shut down an affordable housing project. To "save his political career," the builders say, the mayor, who is not racist himself, truckled to community fears that affordable housing would draw minorities to the city, which is 93.3 percent white.

At one meeting, a member of the public commented, "If being against low-income housing makes me a racist and a bigot, then I guess I am a racist and a bigot," according to the complaint.

The developers say the bigotry stems from "the perceived lower socio-economic status of many minority group members and because of the demographic disparity between Waukesha County ... and neighboring Milwaukee County."

Four days later Buchmeier followed up with Feds Take on Racism in Wisconsin:

After changing his vote, Chiovatero wrote an open letter to all residents: "In 2010, when the Section 42 Workforce housing came to public attention, it was clear that the nearby residents did not want this project to go forward. In support of the residents, I have since researched a means to halt the project. I am committed to focusing on what suitable options are available. The City Staff and I have found justification for discontinuing the project and will now be focusing on alternatives."

But the plaintiff United States of America says that New Berlin's "application of its zoning and land use laws have the intent and effect of discriminating against prospective black tenants and residents of New Berlin."

The clear intent and effect of the government subsidizing and ultimately imposing the construction of "affordable housing" - a dishonest code-word everyone knows means disproportionately non-White housing - in a majority White community is to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of that community, in whole or in part. This destruction is being imposed over the explicit, earnest objections of community members who have expressed legitimate, reasonable fears. The government is aided and abetted by media reports blithely pathologizing and demonizing those who oppose this destruction.

Here's another report. U.S. accuses New Berlin of racial bias in housing decision, Journal Sentinel, 23 June 2011:

From the start, some objectors expressed concern that prospective tenants would be African-Americans or other minorities and used racially derogatory terms to refer to them, or implied racial bias as the reason for objecting to the development, according to the complaint.

The complaint cites correspondence that mentioned "white flight," crime, drugs, slums, gangs, families with 10 or 15 kids, needing "to get a gun," not wanting New Berlin to turn into Milwaukee, moving to New Berlin "to get away from the poor people," not wanting to provide housing to people "who work but do not live here." Some writers also used racially derogatory terms for African-Americans.
New Berlin, a city of about 39,000, is 95% white, according to the lawsuit.

Finally, here's an article that sheds some light on the government's history of imposing non-White housing in White neighborhoods in the Milwaukee area. South Milwaukee, developer settle apartment bias issue, Journal Sentinel, 27 June 2011:

In 1992, developers bought land at what is now 3344 Marina Road with the intent of building the apartments, some of which would serve lower income and disabled residents.

The following year, after citizen opposition mounted, the city imposed a moratorium on building permits for Lake Bluff and then rezoned the land from multifamily to single-family housing.

In 1994, a Milwaukee County circuit judge ordered the city to issue building permits for Lake Bluff. By 1995, construction was complete and residents had moved in.

But in November 1995, the state Supreme Court ruled in the city's favor, saying the judge's order on the building permits should not have been issued.

Nearly five years later, in June 2000, the city won another court ruling, ordering the developer to tear down the two Lake Bluff buildings.

Earlier in the same article we find the sad precendent and likely outcome for New Berlin:

The long-running South Milwaukee dispute once saw the city attempting to raze the Lake Bluff Apartments complex, which includes affordable housing. About one-third of the complex's residents have been minorities. The city's population was 1% black by the 2000 census.

In July 2009, a federal jury found that razing the property would have a disproportionate effect on minority and disabled residents and would be in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

South Milwaukee officials had said they sought to raze the buildings because it violated the city's zoning, and not with the purpose of discriminating. The parties have been negotiating for more than a year, with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman mediating.

Provisions of the settlement, according to lawyers, include:

The two buildings of Lake Bluff, at 3344 Marina Road, will not be torn down, and the complex will continue its mix of 25 affordable-housing units and 31 market-rate units until 2025.

In the predominant narrative of the anti-White regime non-Whites are presented as innocent victims who are just looking for a better life for themselves. Whites who could just as easily be seen in such a positive light are instead regularly depicted as greedy, selfish, ignorant and evil. De facto segregation is presented as a problem, with compulsory government-imposed integration as the solution. The anti-White nature of the regime is confirmed by the casual sinister, cynical regard aimed specifically at Whites and which is dominant among the perpetrators and apologists in positions of power and authority in government, law and media.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone who hates Whites moralizing about White "bigotry" and "racism": no matter how many people oppose it, segregation isn't genocide, and no matter how many people support it, compulsory integration is.

(The image is taken from New Berlin City Council meets for first since federal gov. filed lawsuit, Gamut News, 29 June 2011. Embedded on that page is a video of local Fox News affliate coverage.)

"Stick Together"

‘Mensch’ Dan Adler targets minorities with stereotype-laden ad, by Rachel Rose Hartman:

What's the best way to reach out to Asian voters? Tell them you're Jewish so you can relate. Right?

That's the route Democratic candidate Dan Adler took in his most recent ad for California's 36th District special election. In a heavily staged discussion among constituents at a set suggestive of a Korean-owned dry cleaner, the former Disney executive tells a woman behind the counter--who speaks with a heavy Asian accent--that he can relate to her concerns because "my wife is Korean."

"You're Jewish," she replies.

"My family is Jewish."

"We minorities should stick together," she replies. Adler laughs as a young Asian couple looks on--the man's shirt opens to reveal his Chinese script tattoos.

"Dan Adler. Send a mensch to Congress!" a multi-racial crowd shouts at the end, noting the Yiddish word for a person of high character. "What's a mensch?" the woman from the dry cleaner asks the camera.

Adler's faux pas here, according to Hartman, is the use of stereotypes in his explicitly pro-minority, implicitly anti-White campaign commercial. Something tells me this will not upset either Adler's jew or Asian funders and voters, and if any Whites complain they can look forward to being branded and brushed off as "racists".

Adler's message assumes it is right and good that:

1) "minorities" see themselves as natural allies against non-"minorities", ie. Whites.

2) jews identify as "minority", not White.

Your deracinated White friends will not appreciate the use of this video as a teachable moment, but rub their noses in it anyway.

Last week a Hamburg judge filed a criminal complaint against German Chancellor Angela Merkel for "endorsing a crime" after she stated she was "glad" that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces. Self-described jewish fifth columnist Lawrence Auster responded to this report by blaming Germans for all of Europe's ills:

Just think, if the anti-Hitler plotters in 1944 had succeeded in killing him, and if some German leader had expressed his joy, this German judge, if translated back to 1944, would seek to punish him. I guess Germany hasn't changed so much after all, hmm? Pure liberalism, which the Germans in their humorless fanatical thoroughness aspire to as the opposite of Nazi totalitarianism, is another form of totalitarianism. And in the same way, as I have often remarked, the German-championed transnational opposite of the Nazi nationalism which sought to destroy the nations of Europe, is also destroying the nations of Europe. One way or another, whether in their Nazi form or in their hyper-liberal form, the Germans pose a determined threat to the nations and peoples of the West. To paraphrase Churchill's famous remark about the Germans, they need to be kept at our feet, or else they will go for our throat.

I am not being extreme or "anti-German" when I say that. The Germans agree with me. They see themselves as a threat to others. That's why they say that the EU is necessary, to keep them, the ever-threatening Germans, in check. The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

Then in Debate on Germany Auster expressed regret that his sweeping condemnation of "the Germans" was not more comprehensive:

My strongly worded entry last week about German hyper-liberalism has set off something of a debate in the blogosphere. At Gates of Vienna, a German writer, Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, replies to me. I haven't yet read his article. But for the moment I want to repeat once again the qualifications I made last week. My statements about Germany were not intended as a comprehensive criticism of Germany and Germans, and if I gave that impression I regret it. My argument related to one, narrowly framed, core issue: that just as the German hyper-nationalism of the past sought to crush the nations of Europe, German hyper-liberalism, which arose as an all-consuming reaction against German hyper-nationalism, also poses a danger to the nations of the West, and therefore it is not desirable for Germany, in its present, hyper-liberal state, to dominate Europe.

Auster's "narrowly framed" problem isn't just with nationalist or anti-nationalist Germans but with "the Germans" in general. He identifies Germans as a biological group having personality traits such as "humorless fanatical thoroughness" and "hyper-liberalism". He sees them posing a danger not only to Europe but "the nations of the West". Thus they must be "kept at our [sic] feet".

In The Real Problem is “Global Governance” Manfred Kleine-Hartlage responds to Auster's outrageous slander, specifically calling attention to Auster's claim that "the Germans" agree with him:

Many Germans say this, because they were told to speak and think such things. They were taught to consider thousand years of German history just as a pre-history of Hitler. They were taught to regard their history as merely a history of crimes. They were taught that they are a danger to others. They were taught that patriotism and “nationalism” are the same thing, and that the latter is the root of all evils in the world. They were taught to hate themselves.

It started with the re-education after 1945, and this re-education is still going on. To poison an entire nation with self-hatred turned out to be a working concept, and this concept, once successfully applied, was generalized to the Western world as a whole, and as the concept of “white guilt” is now undermining our civilization. This is nothing you should blame the Germans for. They were just the guinea pigs.

The million-dollar-question is: Why is this done, and who does so?

Excellent question.

Having dealt with Auster, Kleine-Hartlage follows up by going where Auster never does. He points to the connection between the never-ending Global War on Terror and the never-ending drive for genocidal levels of immigration into all White countries - our hostile international elite:

Yes, Bin Laden was our enemy, but on the list of our enemies he was not number one, and not even number ten. Islam is marching forward in Europe not by terrorism, but by immigration and ethnic struggle, with strong support from the international political elites. It makes no sense to assert a difference between American and European elites, because they all belong to a transatlantic network centered in, but not confined to, America. Within this network, strategies are made compatible with each other, so that there is no such thing as a strictly national policy. There are disagreements on minor questions, but the general direction is towards establishing a global uniform civilization. The EU is part of this process, and an analyst blaming just Germany for that, as Mr. Auster does,

The problem is that the German-led EU which in the German mind is aimed at suppressing the German nation, must suppress all other European nations as well. This is why, just as German nationalism could not be allowed to rule Europe, German anti-nationalism also cannot be allowed to rule Europe. Germany must not rule, period.

proves that his hatred of a particular country is stronger than his analytical capabilities.

Why is the leading power in the “war on terror” at the same time urging France to open herself to Islamic infiltration and secretly fostering this infiltration, as we know by Wikileaks (and there is no reason to assume that the same strategy is not applied to other European countries)? Why is the European power most passionately joining this war — Great Britain — at the same time and with the same passion engaging in self-Islamization? Why are the Anglo-Saxon powers, while at war with more than one Islamic country, urging Europe to enlarge the European Union more and more, predictably with the result that Turkey and North Africa will join the club, thereby opening Europe to a flood of Muslim immigrants?

So instead of "the Germans" Kleine-Hartlage blames "the Anglo-Saxon powers" - the US and Britain. From his afterword:

Mr. Auster’s polemics have shown the gap between Anglo-Saxon and German conservatism. To bridge the gap a little bit, I have started a new blog, German Views, in order to make important articles from the conservative German blogosphere available in English.

The essay is reposted at his new blog, From a German Point of View: a Reply to Lawrence Auster, minus the afterword, but Kleine-Hartlage reiterates his point in a comment:

The problem – and the reason why I started this blog – is the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon narrative on Germany.

Kleine-Hartlage seems unaware that Lawrence Auster is no Anglo-Saxon, that his grandparents were all jewish immigrants to the US. Auster refers to Britain as "the Dead Island", just as he refers to Germany as "that dead land". His affections are for Israel. It may also surprise Kleine-Hartlage to know that the US Ambassador to France, Charles H. Rivkin, whose Wikileaked embassy report he linked, also has Russian jewish roots.

If we wish to talk honestly about who dominates not only the narrative on Germany but who dominates political, social, cultural and historical narratives in general, who is relentlessly encouraging Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and Whites in general to hate ourselves and feel guilty, then we must not neglect to mention the jewish elephant in the room. It is possible to honestly debate how significant jewish influence is. It is not honest to neglect to address that influence entirely.

I presume Kleine-Hartlage knows better than I do how German speech regarding jews is proscribed by law. Perhaps this is why he pins the blame on Anglo-Saxons.

Kleine-Hartlage might be interested to know that Auster's recent ranting about the threat of German "hyper-liberalism" and German "anti-nationalism" is consistent with his usual schtick. He blames "the majority" (Whites) for "liberalism" (anti-Whiteness). He explicitly excuses "the jews".

Just a few years ago Auster was discussing anti-nationalist sentiment in the US. Jews’ idiotic anti-nationalism:

Asked by the General Social Survey if immigration improves America, 52 percent of Protestants, 61 percent of Catholics, and 90 percent of Jews said yes. Matthew Yglesias, a Jew who works for The American Prospect, explains why Jews support immigration so much more than other groups, and Steve Sailer offers effective replies.

One of Yglesias’s points is: “Second, as a historical matter, nationalism has been Bad For The Jews.”

Yglesias is certainly correct that this is the Jewish view of the matter. But how truly idiotic and despicable a view it is. Jews have always lauded America for defeating Hitler. Would America have been able to defeat Hitler if it hadn’t existed as a nation and been a strong nation? Would it have been better for the Jews if Britain had had a weak sense of nationality and compromised with Hitler, instead of, as was the actual case under Churchill, a strong sense of nationality and stood up to him? Would Ann Frank’s family have had to hide in an attic for two years and then been arrested and sent to concentration camps where they died horrible deaths, if the Netherlands, instead of being a weak nation that was easily overrun by the Germans, had been a strong nation that was able to prevent the Germans from conquering the Netherlands and capturing all its Jews?

Also, most Jews are thankful for the fact that America, the strongest nation on earth, stands almost alone against the world-wide movement to destroy Israel. Will a weak and divided America be able to perform that function?

Don't worry, Auster eventually excuses "the jews". Note also that he doesn't argue that jewish anti-nationalism is despicable because it's bad for Whites (American, Briton, or Dutch). He thinks it's despicable because it's bad for "the jews".

The usual judeo-liberal anti-nationalist hate/guilt narrative is that Whites must subordinate our interests to the interests of "minorities", because if we worry about what's best for us then we're guilty of hate. Auster regularly calls attention to this narrative, at least as it pertains to blacks or muslims, but he wishes to preserve the special privileges of "minority" status for "the jews". If we worry about what's best for Whites, and that conflicts with what Auster thinks is best for "the jews", then according to him we're guilty of hate.

I'll conclude here by quoting two jews who, though separated geographically and linguistically, sound remarkably alike. In fact if Lawrence Auster were transported back to 1944 it's not unreasonable to imagine him expressing his thoughts in very similar terms.

Ilya Ehrenburg:

The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.

Theodore Kaufman (in his book, Germany Must Perish!):

Today's war is not a war against Adolf Hitler.

Nor is it a war against the Nazis.

It is a war of peoples against peoples; of civilized peoples envisioning Light, against uncivilized barbarians who cherish Darkness.

Of the peoples of those nations who would surge forward hopefully into a new and better phase of life, pitted against the peoples of a nation who would travel backward enthusiastically into the dark ages. It is a struggle between the German nation and humanity.

Hitler is no more to be blamed for this German war than was the Kaiser for the last one. Nor Bismarck before the Kaiser. These men did not originate or wage Germany's wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the German nation for conquest and mass murder.

This war is being waged by the German People. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war. otherwise, there will always be a German war against the world. And with such a sword forever hanging overhead the civilized nations of the world, no matter how great their hopes, how strenuous their efforts, will never succeed in creating that firm and solid foundation of permanent peace which they must first establish if ever they intend to start the building of a better world.

For not only must their be no more German wars in fact; there must not even remain the slightest possibility of one ever again occurring. A final halt to German aggression, not a temporary cessation, must be the goal of the present struggle.

This does not mean an armed mastery over Germany, or a peace with political or territorial adjustments, or a hope based on a defeated and repentant nation. Such settlements are not sufficiently conclusive guarantees of no more German aggressions.

This time Germany has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever!

In fact -- not in fancy!

Germans are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats.

Though these men try to conflate their narrow concerns for jews with the interests of others, let us not pretend that what we see and hear are Whites spouting self-hatred.

When non-Whites flee it's regarded as normal and natural, to "look for a better life". When Whites flee it's regarded as a pathological condition, either "racism", paranoia, or cowardice.

As an example of the latter, see the book by Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism.

Mangan's Ferd Throws Whites Under the Bus provides the link and some context on Ferdinand Bardamu's Whites Are Their Own Worst Enemies, posted at his anti-feminist/manosphere/gamer blog called In Mala Fide. Bardamu writes:

The reason why the beauty of the white Aryan woman may perish from the earth before this century is up is not because of the Jews, or the blacks, but because of white people themselves. It was whites who let third-worlders swarm into their lands, forever altering the demographic makeup of their nations. It was whites who gutted protections for workers and transformed the economy into a scam designed to bleed the middle-class dry and make the richer even richer. It was whites who conjured up feminism, driving a wedge between men and women, driving down the birth rate and leaving immigrants and illegals to pick up the slack. Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted.

The small subset of race conscious, jew-saavy Whites vex him especially:

“But but but it was the Joooooooos! The Jews are the ones who’ve destroyed the white race, and everyone knows the Jews aren’t white! Durrrrrr…”

First off, the only people who claim Jews aren’t white are you folks, but let’s take your thesis at face value – the Jews are the cause of all our woes. But guess what? Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault! Why? Because last I checked, the Jooooooos didn’t forcibly send armies to capture our cities, destroy our governments and enslave us. Whites were the ones who LET Jews settle in their countries and gave them equal rights, allowing them to ascend to the highest rungs of politics, education and finance. Ever wonder why Jews were few and far between in European history prior to the 19th century? It’s because they had zero rights and were forcibly segregated from gentile society, like the Gypsies. When revolutionary France emanicipated its Jews in 1791, that opened the floodgates. So whining about the Joooooos doesn’t let you off the hook, whitey.

The logic here is so twisted I find it difficult to take seriously. Bardamu mocks it himself. Just take his thesis at face value. He's one of "you folk" who doesn't consider jews to be White. He thinks the Whiiiiiiites are the cause of all our woes. But whining about Whitey doesn't get him off the hook.

Bardamu deserves praise for providing, unwittingly or not, the clearest, most extreme example of the suicide meme I've yet run across. Usually it occurs in a less complete, less direct form. Briefly stated, the suicide meme is the slanderous suggestion that Whites are destroying ourselves. It is an expression of the "politically correct" zeitgeist and the judaized, anti-White regime which promulgates it. It is the final touch in the epitaph our despisers wish to carve in our headstone: "Here lies the stupid, evil White race. They stole our land, enslaved us, gassed us, and then they killed themselves."

Calling what's happening suicide is a way of preempting a more accurate diagnosis, namely genocide, as part of a stealthy, long-term ethnic war perpetrated by a hostile overclass, "a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home" and "are increasingly a nation unto themselves". Calling it suicide implicitly excuses this overclass by not mentioning them, never mind "the jews" who are in it up to their eyeballs. At worst "the jews" get lumped in with the imaginary "we" who are supposedly doing this to "ourselves".

Bardamu is apparently familiar with the argument but wanted to change it up. In the process he lost the plot, clumsily and spectacularly highlighting "the jews".

Though the title and a large chunk of Bardamu's point are classic suicide slander ("Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted") he offers this only as a corollary, after setting "the jews" apart from Whites and excusing them right up front ("not because of the Jews"). He cites three problems - immigration, finance, feminism - which jews are deeply complicit in. He acknowledges that jews are in "the highest rungs of politics, education and finance". He even traces the cause back as far as the emancipation of jews - tarring "France" and "Whitey" for the unpopular actions of a Rothchild-backed Napoleon.

Bardamu helpfully offers all this and more in support of his unshakable premise that jews are not to blame, perfectly encapsulated in this little gem: "Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault!"

Bardamu doth protest too much. His logic is tautology, his argument unintentional self-parody.

"This has nothing to do with the joooooos. To demonstrate I'll explain all about the jews."

"Durrrrrr."

- - -

About In Mala Fide:

an online magazine dedicated to publishing heretical and unpopular ideas. Ideas that polite society considers “racist,” “misogynistic,” “homophobic,” “bigoted” or other slurs used to shut down critical thinking and maintain the web of delusions that keep our world broken and dying. We’re here to put their myths to rest

Malafide:

with or in bad faith.

White Supremacist David Lynch Shot in Head at Home, ABC, Russell Goldman, 4 March 2011:

One of the country's leading white supremacists was gunned down in his California home, shot in the head and torso as his pregnant girlfriend watched, police said.

David Lynch, 40, an organizer for the American Front, one of the country's oldest skinhead groups, was killed in his home early Wednesday morning. Lynch's 33-year-old girlfriend, who is five months pregnant, was shot in the leg.

Soon after police responded to the 911 call, they arrested Charles Demar, 36, another white supremacist and acquaintance of Lynch. Authorities are calling Demar "a person of interest." They charged him with drug possession.

Since the 1980s, Lynch has been on the radar of law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Lynch as a "clever and charismatic racist skinhead organizer whose history of racist activism dates back to the late 1980s."

Lynch rose through the ranks of California's skinhead movement, consolidating power and ultimately uniting once rival racist organizations throughout the state, as well as in Utah, Florida and Canada, according to the SPLC. In 2005, he met with then-National Alliance chairman William Pierce, perhaps the most prominent American neo-Nazi, when Pierce visited Sacramento, according to SPLC.

The Anti-Defamation League calls the American Front one of the "oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States."

On its website the group describes itself as "a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites, dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs." Since his death, white supremacists have taken to the Internet to mourn Lynch.

On the Website of White Revolution, a caption under his photo reads "Hero, Patriot, and Friend."

Writing on the same site, Billy Roper, whom the SPLC calls "the uncensored voice of violent neo-Nazism," wrote: "Dave Lynch: My Friend, and one of the best men I've ever known, a hero of our people and our cause. We are in shock."

White supremacist David Lynch shot dead, Calif. police arrest "person of interest", CBS, Camille Mann, 4 March 2011.

Police have arrested a person of interest in the killing of prominent white supremacist David Lynch, a chief organizer of the skinhead movement in the 1980s.

David Lynch, white supremacist leader of the American Front, shot dead in California home: cops, NY Daily News, Aliyah Shahid, 4 March 2011:

Lynch was the leader of the American Front, which according to the Anti-Defamation League is one of the "oldest continuously active racist skinhead groups in the United States." He began working as an organizer for the group in the 1980s.

"The group espouses an anti-Semitic, white supremacist ideology and disseminates its message in public events that demonize Jews, immigrants, and other minorities," the ADL says on its website.

Lynch's acquaintances told The Bee that Lynch was working as an asbestos removal contractor. The doormat in front of his home read, "Come back with a warrant."

Local gang expert Lt. Milo Fitch described Lynch to CBS News as "one of the most well known and influential figures in the white supremacist movement."

'This is a significant event in the white supremacist world - it will send shock waves," he added.

The Associated Press: Skinhead leader killed in shooting at Calif. home, AP, 4 March 2011:

Authorities say a leading white supremacist known for organizing skinhead groups has been fatally shot at his Northern California home.

Skinheads In Sacramento: The death of David Lynch brings bad memories to past victims of white hate groups, Fox KTXL Sacramento, Lonnie Wong, 4 March 2011:

The death of white supremacist organizer David Lynch, founder of the group American Front, was a suprise to victims of hate violence in the Sacramento area.

"I didn't know there was a leader so prominent living in our community," said Sacramento County supervisor Jimmie Yee. Yee's home was firebombed in 1993 by Richard Campos, a teenaged white supremacist who grew up near his neighborhood.

Yee said hate crimes have no place in Sacramento and that Lynch's death was a wake-up call. Lynch was found shot in the head in his Citrus Heights home. He was one of the nation's best known hate-group leaders and was described as charismatic by those who track hate-groups and their leaders.

"It's disturbing," said Sacramento City council member Jay Schenirer who is the president of the B'nai Israel synagogue, one of three in the area that were firebombed in what is known as the "Summer of Hate," in 1999.

Lt. Milo Fitch, a gang unit officer who tracked white hate groups for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, said it's not suprising tht neighbors didn't know Lynch's history. Lynch often wore khaki pants and button-up shirts, according to intelligence from hate watch organizations. Clothing and tattoos don't necessarily define an ideology.

"Many of them come from middle class families, not from the lower socio-economic groups you find with other gang members," said Fitch.

Yee says the community should be aware of groups that take a lower profile.

"That type of organization is still very active and they'll do anything to cover up their activities," said Yee.

Schenirer said they have to take a more sophisticated preventative approach to dealing with young people who are recruited by hate-groups. That means education programs for middle and high school students.

"The intervention after it's happened aren't going to work really well. We need to the community to work on the prevention side of it," said Schenirer.

In a few more years these same people will be surprised and disturbed to discover they have any White neighbors, period.

A man killed in a Citrus Heights home has been positively identified as David Lynch, a skinhead leader and founder of branches of the group American Front, KTXL, 4 March 2011:

The shooting investigation remains on-going, and anyone with information should contact the Citrus Heights Police Department's Tip Line at (916) 727-5524 and reference CHPD Case number 1102586.

White supremacist leader killed in Calif, MSNBC, 4 March 2011:

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told msnbc.com that Demar is also a white supremacist who goes by the name Charlie Boot. He is the lead singer of Stormtroop 16, a white-power rock 'n' roll band, Potok said.

[Citrus Heights police Lt. Gary] Hendricks told KXTV police are investigating whether Lynch's death is related to an association with skinhead groups.

"We're following up leads in regards to (Lynch being part of a skinhead organization) based on a rumor that is actually coming from the media, not from us," Hendricks told the TV station. "So we're following up with regards to that as well. That is part of our investigation as well."

Organizations that monitor hate groups described Lynch as an influential white supremacist with a two-decade-plus history of racial activism.

"I would describe him as a former first-tier leader in the '90s. He was very well-known, especially on the racist skinhead scene. He was a bright and charismatic man and also a man sometimes with incredible potential for violence," said Potok of the SPLC.

According to his enemies, David Lynch was a bad person. It is a measure of their influence that within hours of Lynch's murder every major media outlet has quickly broadcast their negative views, not as a paid advertisement or op-ed, but as raw, supposedly objective news. Lynch's own words, and the reactions of his friends and supporters, are either not mentioned or are minimized. While several reports cite and even link to the non-White supremacist ADL and SPLC as authorities, none link Lynch's own American Front.

American Front defines itself in Fighting For the White Worker Since 1984!:

Who We Are

We are a collective of highly motivated racialists of European descent, striving to establish an autonomous homeland for American whites.

We are dedicated to securing, advancing, and defending the sacred blood of our glorious ancestors at all costs.

We will work to promote our values, goals and ideals so that this and future generations of our folk will not be enslaved by the greed of Capitalism, the oppression of Communism, or the disgrace of multiculuralism.

We believe in White unity first and foremost, putting petty and personal differences aside to concentrate on the real issues of our dying race.

We do not pollute our bodies with drugs or excessive drinking, as we attempt to live as man was intended with pure mind, body, and race.

We believe that we must be as self sufficient as possible, first in our own daily lives then in our nation.

We accept many different political stances as long as race is the first component of their platform.

We accept any religion unless it contradicts racial law.

We feel the struggle of our people is not a gender specific issue therefore both men and women are accepted as full members.

We strive to make sure our membership is comprised of quality individuals; solid comrades are the backbone of solid organizations.

We believe in the re-institution of the morality, strength, and honor of our revolutionary forefathers.

We will heed the call in defense of all that is sacred to our family, race, and nation.

We are Greyshirts, and if you are a loyal white racialist, we believe in you!

I had not previously heard of David Lynch. If, like me, you're curious what it is that he believed that so disturbs the ADL and SPLC, then you'll want to read Commonly Asked Questions & Answers Concerning the American Front.

The people who hate David Lynch hate Whites for being White.

Paul Fromm talked about Lynch in his most recent podcast, The Fighting Side of Me: In Memoriam, David Lynch at Voice of Reason.

In RIP Dave Lynch at Occidental Dissent, Andrew Yeoman writes:

For those unfamiliar with Dave he was a lifelong advocate of white people and worked tirelessly to bring justice to our people. Lynch was a driven and highly motivated leader and charismatic man that led a turbulent yet increasingly effective community of men and women in the skinhead scene and beyond.

Raised in San Francisco during the 1980′s, he is survived by two daughters and an unborn child.

Dave was a great man. I knew Dave as a tough, street smart, and passionate man who deeply loved his family, the future of our people, and the legacy of white advocates such as Bob Mathews and surviving members of The Order.

I will miss his guidance and laughter like the loss of my own brother.

David Lynch wanted what I want. I'm eager to learn more about Lynch and the skinhead scene. Comments with information and links to other coverage are requested.

Chris Rock Quotes on Tea Party, Obama, Oscars Jude Law and More, interviewed by Scott Raab at Esquire, 16 Feb 2011:

SR: Like many nice Caucasians, I cried the night Barack Obama was elected. It was one of the high points in American history. And all that's happened since the election is just a shitstorm of hatred. You want to weigh in on that?

CR: I actually like it, in the sense that — you got kids? Kids always act up the most before they go to sleep. And when I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism's almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They're going crazy. They're insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they're fucking knocked out. And that's what's going on in the country right now.

SR: I hope so. Because it seems like a lot of people feel they just can't live with this man being president.

Rock has made a living on race-based comedy. Here's a skit that's right in line with what Rock told Raab, making it crystal clear how he and his black fans view Whites. If that wasn't clear enough, here's another.

Wikipedia says "Raab is a self-professed 'fat Jew from Cleveland'".

Joe Sobran wrote something apt that comes to mind here:

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible.

It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.

Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.

The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.

The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.

Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.

- Sobran’s — April 1997

New York Times critic Manohla Dargis, who is not Jewish, but to use her words, "I am married to a Jewish man, so I am sensitive to the representation of" ... how jewish Hollywood is. It doesn't stop her from complaining that Hollywood's movies are too "white".

Steve Sailer quotes Dargis, reacts to her misdirected distaste like it's a big joke, and tosses in his own sneer at "hillbilly" "white trash" for good measure. Sailer likes things like this. He calls attention to White/jew double standards without identifying them as such. Then instead of a sober lecture about "human biodiversity" he serves up a comedy schtick.

The search result in the first link in this post has been scrubbed of the blurb concerning Dargis' jewish sensitivities, but the short synopsis that remains is relevant in its own right. Project MUSE - Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies - The Fockerized Jew?: Questioning Jewishness as Cool in American Popular Entertainment, by Samantha Baskind:

This essay examines the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture, using the film Meet the Parents (2000) and its sequel Meet the Fockers (2004) as a case study to demonstrate how the Jewish Jew is no longer avoided and when portrayed does not fall victim to stereotyping. While looking at these two films together, I describe a broader evolution in media from the de-ethnicized Jew, and for that matter the de-ethnicized Jewish actor, to performers flaunting (and thereby celebrating) Jewishness in a Christian-centric society that has found acceptance of the Other. The paper also questions what about Jewishness is cool and describes how viewer subjectivities influence the perception of coolness.

The "upsurge in overt jewish identity" continued with Little Fockers (2010), which Dargis reviewed:

Part of what made the first movies work as well as they did — “Meet the Parents” hit in 2000, and its sequel, “Meet the Fockers,” followed four years later — was the cultural clash that dare not fully speak its name. Initially, the series only broadly winked at the reasons for Jack’s slow-burning tsuris. Was that a bagel in Greg’s pocket, or was he just glad to see his shiksa girlfriend and then wife, Pam (Teri Polo)? But when the second movie brought in Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman to play Greg’s parents, any residual anxiety about the characters’ nominal cultural differences gave way to the spectacle of two legends playfully batting around the Jewish stereotypes that the stars themselves struggled against and transcended.

What Dargis calls "the cultural clash that dare not fully speak its name", and then dances around in ewjay odecay, speaks its name quite clearly in jewish studies journals. Jews may fault everybody else for regarding them as the Other, but the truth is they freely discriminate themselves from "whites" whenever they like. When Whites distinguish ourselves from jews they act as if we're morally or mentally defective.

Here are three more reviews of the Fockers series, with the common thread being an acute jewish awareness of the distinction between jews and Whites.

Meet the Parents: Little Fockers | SabDesi paints the Focker culture clash as one-sided "anti-semitism":

There has always been some interesting cultural tension behind these films, an argument between race and power. Jack Byrnes (no relation, thank God) is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male force entering the domestic arena. That’s why his character worked for the CIA for 34 years, including 19 months in a Vietnamese prison camp; he is American power brought to bear on the enemy within – the schlemiel who is stealing his princess.

Greg Focker’s fool is a very old kind of Jewish comic character – a Jew who fears life among the Gentiles. Ben Stiller is its foremost practitioner in modern movies. It was clear in the first movie that a large part of Jack’s objection to Greg was anti-Semitism, along with his contempt for his caring profession. “Not a lot of men in your profession, are there Greg?” he asked in the first movie.

The second movie went further into this anti-Semitism, with Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand as Greg’s parents, Bernie and Roz. They were hippies from Florida – a tad embarrassing but open-hearted. Roz was a flamboyant TV sex therapist; Bernie’s job was to smother everyone with kisses, especially Jack. The contrast was obvious but effective: cold eastern Protestant establishment versus warm kosher humanity. Puritans versus emigrants: no wonder Spielberg was interested.

Dannielle Blumenthal, self-described "Professional communicator fascinated by all things branding", explains How the "Little Fockers" Brand Makes Sexism, Racism, and Anti-Semitism OK:

While the character of Roz Focker (Bernie's wife) is supposed to represent liberated femininity, she is also portrayed as emasculating, pushy (recall the stereotype of the "pushy Jew"), and even a bit crazy. The message being that "women's libbers" are all three of these things.

In contrast, Pam Focker (Greg's wife) and Dina Byrnes (Jack's wife) are portrayed as "normal and stable," wives who know their place, don't make "trouble" (e.g. emotional demands), and support their husbands endlessly no matter how crazy and possibly even unfaithful they act.

It is precisely Pam's endless supportiveness, as well as her stereotypical Barbie-like beauty, that leads her to be portrayed as the "one true love" of Kevin, who pursues other women, but can never forget her. The most that Pam asks of Greg is to check on the facepainter for the kids' upcoming birthday party, and when he doesn't do it, she simply sighs and leaves the room.

In terms of racism, there were very few African-Americans in this movie at all, much less any in power. I saw one character playing a patient, one playing an incompetent nurse, and another on the subway train as an "extra." Do the Fockers and the Byrnes not have any African-American friends, associates, customers, and so on? Why was the movie so "White?" I'm not saying that movies have to be advertisements for diversity but the Caucasian-ness of the movie seemed extreme.

There is another example of anti-Semitism besides the writers' antipathy toward Roz (and Bernie) but I don't want to give away that part of the plot.

Clearly though this is very much a movie poking fun at "WASP" culture and the difference between it and the movie's Jewish characters. It seems like WASPiness is "idolized," but also seen as dysfunctional, whereas Jewish culture is a kind of corrective. (Interestingly I was reading the book "Stuff White People Like" yesterday and it had a similar attitude toward WASPiness. It was also hilarious.)

Blumethal is hyper-sensitive to anti-jew slights, but like Sailer anti-White slights make her laugh.

The Fockers Trinity, by Joan Alpert:

Despite the silliness, the movies portray the shifting role of Jews in American culture. Jews have previously been portrayed as outside the majority culture; their masculinity is different than the norm; they are neurotic, weak and effeminate—a continuation of the anti-Semitic tradition that questioned Jewish maleness, says Daniel Itzkovitz, director of American Studies at Stonehill College in Easton, Massachusetts and contributor to the 2006 Jewish Identity in Postmodern American Culture. The movies give an “unwholesome perception of Jews,” claims one commentator, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an Orthodox rabbi in California, by portraying them as “heinous caricatures.”

Fockers’ writer Joe Hamburg however, defends his films’ non-Jews. They “are not anti-Semitic,” he says; it’s just that Greg “feels out of place” in a WASP world in which bulletproof Kevlar surrounding the family van is the answer to paranoia, and lie detector tests and sodium pentathlon injections are the means to truth. Life is serious. Pam warns Greg, “Humor is entirely wasted on my parents.”

Basically, the WASP, Jack, is a jerk and the Jew, Greg, is a schlemiel, and the schlemiel wins. Actually, Greg is “a post modern schlemiel,” says Itzkovitz. Although he has the attributes of the stereotypical nerdy fumbler, “American society is now identifying with him.” He adds: “Non-Jews as well as Jews are feeling unsettled in the 21st century.” They realize they are not all-powerful, like Rambo, but anxious and insecure like Greg, whose warmth, decency and caring attract Pam.

There you have it. The professional jewish bigots say, "hey, your movies are anti-jew". The writer answers, "nope, anti-WASP".

"[T]he shifting role of Jews in American culture" has been to steadily displace and dispossess Whites. The jew schlemiels win. The White jerks lose. That's how and why movies like the Fockers get made. That's why Hollywood is the way it is.

UPDATE 15 Feb 2011: Danielle "Hollywood Jew" Berrin and friends lift the veil on an Oscar-nominated "white" film, Aaron Sorkin's The Social Network, which they see as a jewish production with a central jewish theme.

Who does Aaron Sorkin really hate? | Jewish Journal:

While it is true that women in general do not shine in “The Social Network,” the critique is misguided, because Sorkin is quite specific as to which kind of women he is referencing, when he references them at all — and they come in two forms: Asian Americans and Jews. According to a surface reading, neither gets a pretty portrait; Asian women are depicted as attractive and easy, and Jewish women are brawling shrews.

Jewishness, in general, is a characteristic the fictional Zuckerberg and his friends are desperate to escape. At the Caribbean Night party at the Alpha Epsilon Pi house, one of Zuckerberg’s friends wryly remarks: “There’s an algorithm for the connection between Jewish guys and Asian girls: They’re hot, smart, not Jewish and can dance.” Sorkin would have us believe that, in the eyes of some Jewish men — or at least those run-of-the-mill Harvard scholars — one of the best things about an Asian woman is that she isn’t a Jewish woman. And in Sorkin’s story, Asians get bonus points for performing oral sex in public bathrooms.

“That’s not what you’re going to get from an Erica,” said Olivia Cohen-Cutler, referring to the film’s only female Jewish character. Cohen-Cutler, a senior executive at ABC, is the chair of Hadassah’s Morningstar Commission, which devotes attention to images of Jewish women in the media. While most are decrying the film’s treatment of women, Cohen-Cutler sees something different in the character Erica Albright.

In the film’s opening scene, the fictional Zuckerberg is on a date with Erica, who is pretty, sophisticated and exquisitely articulate. While trying to woo her, an arrogant and socially inept Zuckerberg winds up insulting her every which way, which prompts Erica to unequivocally reject him: “You’re going to be successful and rich. But you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won’t be true: It’ll be because you’re an asshole.”

But her assertiveness, while well-founded, is met with a withering take-down. Zuckerberg avenges himself on his blog, her rejection providing the impetus for the creation of “Facemash” — the beginning of Facebook.

In real life, he wrote, “[So and so] is a bitch. I need to think of something to take my mind off her. Easy enough. Now I just need an idea.”

In the movie, the fictional Zuckerberg also insults the size of her breasts — and her last name, with a subtle dig about how her family changed their name from “Albrecht” to “Albright” — the only hint that she is Jewish, though it’s never explicitly confirmed.

“In one way [the Zuckerberg character] was saying, ‘She’s a fraud because her family did this and I’m not because I’m still Zuckerberg,’ “ Cohen-Cutler said in an interview. “What you saw throughout the film was a combination of Zuckerberg’s arrogance and self-loathing related to his otherness, which played into the ‘Jewish men hate Jewish women’ continuum.”

If this were pure fiction, it might sting a little less, but unfortunately it isn’t: Zuckerberg, who might be the most eligible Jewish bachelor in the world, met his real-life girlfriend, the Chinese American medical student Priscilla Chan, on erev Shabbat at an AEPi party during his sophomore year. (According to The New Yorker, friends speculate that they will marry.)

Liel Leibovitz, a writer for the online Jewish magazine Tablet and an assistant professor of communications at New York University, believes this is just more evidence that Hollywood is undeniably and irretrievably hostile to Jewish women.

“Being ‘Jewish’ in Hollywood means adhering to the stereotype, namely the smart and shlubby person who overcomes insecurities and applies wit to get ahead,” Leibovitz wrote via e-mail. “That, of course, is a stereotype that’s great for guys, but not too great for women. While Jewish men can fit right into the ‘Jewish’ niche in Hollywood’s arsenal of preconceived notions and crumbling clichés, Jewish women cannot.”

Indeed, Erica is punished, not for being the object of the male gaze, but for subverting it by being the only character in the movie who is actually smarter than Zuckerberg. Even if her rejection is the proper comeuppance for his immaturity and arrogance, it is Zuckerberg who becomes the hero, while Erica remains the heartless wench who wounded him.

Where does this animosity toward Jewish women come from?

“I am convinced by the theory that pins the blame largely on Jewish men,” Leibovitz wrote in his e-mail. His much-read 2009 article “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” postulates that both Hollywood’s executives and its leading men prefer shiksas. Period.

In that vein, Sorkin’s script and its obvious aversion to Jewish women can be seen as an indictment of Jewish women nobody likes: the entitled Jewish American Princess and the overbearing Jewish Mother. But Erica Albright-Albrecht doesn’t fit into either of those stereotypes, even if she derives, in some way, from an archetypal Jewish feminine strength.

“I long for the day when a Jewish actress would play a Jewish character that’s just the normal, uncomplicated, unremarkable love interest who also happens to be Jewish,” Leibovitz said.

An uncomplicated Jewish woman? No wonder Sorkin doesn’t deliver. He seems, instead, ambivalent about them. He can’t stand the stereotypical figures (either on screen or from his own life), but he is also trying to imagine something different. So while Erica is reproved for her boldness, it is Zuckerberg who ends up endlessly longing for her, and an ideal that doesn’t really exist.

I suppose it’s asking Hollywood too much for two smart, good-looking Jews to run off into the sunset together. Or at least, in this case, to Silicon Valley.

“It’s too bad that this movie, which is really a testament to the brilliance and single-mindedness of someone, had to flip the bird to being Jewish,” added Cohen-Cutler, who admitted she loved the movie regardless.

Too bad, indeed. The real world is full of Jewish women whose qualities run contrary to Hollywood stereotypes. Which leads me to believe that it isn’t Jewish women that are the problem; it’s that Jewish men like Mark Zuckerberg and Aaron Sorkin are hanging out with the wrong ones.

Jews like Berrin, Cohen-Cutler, and Leibovitz are obsessed with jewishness and jewish interests. They are free to observe and opine on those interests from authoritative, paid positions without being pathologized or demonized as "racists". They are exquisitely attuned to the most subtle cues of jewishness and what they perceive to be anti-jewish slights. They personify the "stereotype" of jewish women (and neurotic, weak, effeminate jewish males) as brawling shrews.

In contrast non-jews are not similarly obsessed or attuned, or at least are strongly discouraged from being so by the pathologization and demonization they would be subjected to should they behave in such a fashion. If they see The Social Network in racial terms at all they see it as a "white" film. The subtle slights remain, but can instead be seen through White-centric eyes as evidence that Hollywood, and the jewish shrews, are undeniably and irretrievably hostile to Whites. (The word "shiksa", for instance, is an epithet on par with "kikess". Jews feel comfortable using such insults, confident that non-jews either don't understand or that those who do can be dismissed as "anti-semites" for objecting to it.)

Liel Leibovitz's Gentlemen Prefer Blondes provides more of the same hyper-aware jewish analysis:

Since the dawn of American entertainment, Jewish women were largely rendered invisible, absent everywhere from burlesque to Hollywood to prime-time television. Instead, they watched as their sons and brothers and husbands became successful producers, directors, and impresarios, powerful men who then chose to populate their works with a parade of sexy, sultry shiksas who looked nothing like their female kin.

Note that for Berrin and Leibovitz jewishness is about kinship, who a jew chooses to mate with. They do not pretend it is about religion. Their double-talk is that jewish men run Hollywood but have used their power to bash jewish women. This is an implausible rationalization offered as a substitute for the more plausible view that the jews who run Hollywood initially rendered jewish men and women alike invisible. Now that their hated competitors the WASPs have been routed jewish domination is increasingly secure, not only in Hollywood, but media in general, not to mention law, finance, education, and politics. What we are actually subjected to is "the recent upsurge in overt Jewish identity in American popular culture" that Baskind takes note of. The large number of recent films starring Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, and Seth Rogen come to mind.

Of course through jewish eyes everything is about jews. Every situation is evaluated based on what's good or bad for jews. Jewish dominance is never complete enough. Jewish "stereotypes" are like so many jewish Moby-Dicks, haunting jews even as they obsess over them, sniffing them out and impotently trying to slay them. Though jews are fanatically self-aware and hyper-critical the blame is inevitably transferred to someone else. They change names and get nose jobs but only because "anti-semitism" compels them to do so. They make movies portraying WASPs as buffoons, but what they actually see is cryptic "anti-semitism" glorifying "shiksas".

No matter how self-consciously White I try to imagine being I can't ever hope to hold a candle to such bigotry.

In the wake of the Loughner/Giffords shooting, amidst all the vitriolic rhetoric guilt-tripping Whites for participating in politics, a number of jews were speaking out about what they perceived the deeper meaning to be. From the beginning jews injected their own specifically jewish concerns into the political discourse and busily set about transforming the narrative from "congresswoman shot", to "jewish congresswoman shot", to "jewish congresswoman shot because she's a jew".

By the time Sarah Palin's response came, days later, both the jewish and hypocritical nature of the most vitriolic rhetoric was increasingly obvious. Palin's speech, America's Enduring Strength, like most contemporary politcal speeches, consisted largely of non-partisan platitudes wrapped in pleasant sentiments, evoking images of an America which for the most part no longer exists. What set it apart was that in the middle Palin called out the scapegoaters in jewish terms:

If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

And again, near the end, Palin made another pointed reference to the scapegoaters, their methods, and their purpose:

We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy.

As mild as this carefully worded reproach was, it hit very close to home. Hypocrisy is an accusation of serious substance to Whites, especially the kind who support Palin, but it isn't at all effective on the "journalists and pundits". The jews who responded weren't upset about being called hypocrites. What they were upset about was an uppity, ignorant non-jew using their proprietary, jews-only victim card. Several jews were so incensed that they wrote two responses, or wrote something and also appeared on television.

General Reports: Jewish Blood Boiling

Jewish Group Slams Palin for ‘Blood Libel’ Remark, The Daily Beast, 12 Jan 2011.

Palin slammed for using ‘blood libel’ term, Jewish Journal, 12 Jan 2011. "Sarah Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” to decry blaming conservatives for the Arizona shooting has raised the ire of the Jewish community."

U.S. Jewish leaders slam Sarah Palin's blood libel accusation, Haaretz, 12 Jan 2011.

Blood libel: Jewish leaders object to Palin's 'blood libel' charge, latimes.com, 12 Jan 2011. "Sarah Palin's charge of 'blood libel' spurs outcry from Jewish leaders".

Palin's blood libel charge ignites firestorm, 12 Jan 2011.

Sarah Palin's Blood Libel Controversial Reference Has Riled Emotions, 12 Jan 2011:

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor's team has been talking to security professionals.

Authoritative Statements from Professional Jewish Bigots

J Street Responds to Palin’s “Blood Libel” Statement, J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami, 12 Jan 2011:

We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term “blood libel” brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.

David A. Harris: Palin's Incendiary "Blood Libel" Reference: Wrong Time, Wrong Place, Wrong Always:

WASHINGTON, D.C. Jan. 12, 2011 - The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) today condemned Sarah Palin's charged "blood libel" accusation, released early Wednesday by video. NJDC President and CEO David A. Harris said upon hearing Palin's statement:

Following this weekend's tragedy, we -- and many others -- simply did two things: we prayed for our friend Gabby while keeping all of the murdered and wounded in our thoughts and prayers, and we talked in broad terms about our increasingly charged level of political debate -- asserting that now is as good a time as any to look inward and assess how all of us need to dial back the level of vitriol and anger in our public square. Nobody can disagree with the need for both.

Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a "blood libel" against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries -- and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.

Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today.

All we had asked following this weekend's tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin's invocation of a "blood libel" charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.

The NJDC statement on the day of the shooting also expressed the desire to see their enemies "banished from our political discourse".

Palin: Stop Fanning Flames, Jewish Funds for Justice, 12 Jan 2011:

JFSJ to Sarah Palin: Stop Fanning the Flames of Division

NEW YORK – Simon Greer, president of Jewish Funds for Justice, released the following statement in response to Sarah Palin “blood libel” comment:

We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin’s decision to characterize as a “blood libel” the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term “blood libel” is not a synonym for “false accusation.” It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.

In the past two months, Ms. Palin and Glenn Beck, the most well-known media personalities on Fox News, have abused two of the most tragic episode in the history of the Jewish people: the Holocaust and the blood libel. In addition, Roger Ailes, the head of the Fox News channel, referred to the executives at NPR as “Nazis.” Perhaps the popular news channel has such an ingrained victim mentality that it identifies with one of the most persecuted minorities in human history. But the Jewish community does not appreciate their identification, which only serves to denigrate the very real pain so many Jews have suffered because of anti-Semitic violence. It is clear that Fox News has a Jewish problem.

Sarah Palin did not shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Only the perpetrator can be found guilty for this act of terrorism. But it is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin’s map showing her district in the crosshairs. “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize that there are consequences to that action.” According to Ms. Palin’s logic, Rep. Giffords statement was a blood libel against the Fox News host. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish and Ms. Palin is Christian makes the accusation even more grotesque.

Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement.

Simon Greer also appeared on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, accompanied by a Sarah Palin avatar labeled "INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC". Countdown: Palin angers Jewish community with speech, 12 Jan 2011:

Olbermann: Sarah Palin, knowingly or not, is comparing herself to the persecuted jews of the middle ages as a jewish congresswoman lies in critical condition in an Arizona hospital after being shot in the head.

Greer: Sarah Palin is trying to confuse us and make us think there is a victim in Alaska, which clearly there isn't, and to do it adding insult to injury, she invokes a phrase that has cost countless lives of jews across the centuries and she uses it to launch a complaint about the media. On the face of it it's a grotesque comparison.

Olbermann: Usually when somebody invokes it it's related to actual persecution of another group. Is part of the problem here that the person who claims the blood libel is being used is also the person who claims it's being used against them?

Greer: Yeah, you have a situation where a jewish congresswoman is fighting for her life and a Christian is claiming that she's the one that's the victim of a blood libel. It does make me think the leaders like Sarah Palin and other Tea Party leaders like Glenn Beck have a jewish problem. They continue to invoke holocaust, Hitler, nazi, blood libel - as if they're trying to paint a picture of themselves as victims in an almost Orwellian turn of phrase. It's a bit hard to fathom.

Greer: If she does offer an explanation I for one would love to hear what were the circle of jewish advisors around her, what were they thinking. Were they thinking, "we know what the blood libel is and we're going to use it to great effect" or, "oops we didn't really know what it meant, we deliberated for four days about what to say and then we slipped in the blood libel". I would love to hear her explanation.

Marvin Hier to Sarah Palin: You’re “Over the Top”, Jewish Journal, 13 Jan 2011:

That provoked Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, to call an out-of-bounds.

“It is simply inappropriate to compare current American politics with term that was used by Christians to persecute Jews,” said Hier. “She has every right to criticize journalists without going over the top.”

But as Palin may someday learn, and Hier and other Jewish leaders know wel, words really do matter. Equating even harsh criticism with “blood libel” is like going to the ER for a boo boo. It grossly demeans the historic reality of the blood libel and the victims who suffered brutally and needlessly because of it.

Other recent SWC trips to the ER: SWC Denounces 'New Blood Libel' at UC Campuses, 22 May 2007; Swedish Government’s Response “Inadequate” to New “Blood-Libel”, 19 Aug 2009.

Sarah Palin Charge of 'Blood Libel' Provokes Rhetorical Controversy, Andrea Stone, 12 Jan 2011:

To critics, Palin was reckless in her choice of words because "blood libel" is fraught with historic connotations.

"The term has a very specific meaning" connected to the charge that Jews used the blood of Christian boys in preparing matzah for the Passover Seder, said Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies. "Governor Palin could have found a better term, especially given the fact that Representative Giffords is Jewish."

Palin's use of the term is "glaringly inappropriate and displays a profound lack of historical sensitivity," said Jenna Weissman Joselit, a professor of history and Judaic studies at George Washington University.

"I would have advised against using it -- the term is historically unique and refers specifically to false charges of ritual murder," said Noam Neusner, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and the son of a famed Talmudic scholar. "While Ms. Palin has a legitimate gripe against her liberal critics, who were wrong to associate the Tucson shooter with her politics, she is using a term that simply does not apply. She could have simply used the word 'libel' and she would have been fine."

Palin has been a strong supporter of Israel, and even her staunchest critics don't suggest that anti-Semitism is behind the faux pas.

But Robert Lehrman, a former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore, said Palin's choice of words was likely not accidental.

"Only Jews know about" the visceral meaning of the term, he said. "And because the right and some tea party people -- like Tony Katz -- talk about the Jewish-dominated media, the unspoken implication is this: 'Most people won't get this, but you Jewish reporters know what I'm saying.'"

Brad Hirschfield: Palin's Charge of Blood Libel Plays the Jewish Card, Brad Hirschfield, self-described "Rabbi, Author and Expert on Religion and Public Life", 12 Jan 2011:

First, let's be clear about what a blood libel is. In the briefest terms, it is the charge that Jews use the blood of non-Jews, typically that of children, for ritual purposes, especially the making of Passover matzah.

The charge, which originated among medieval Catholics, has also been used by Protestants and more recently by Muslims too, to provoke rage at Jews -- rage which on many occasions resulted in violence against Jews, and even their murders. That's what makes Palin's use of the term so interesting -- for the analogy to work, she must be the Jew!

I have no particular problem with people, including gentiles, analogizing their own woes to that of Jews, but does Ms. Palin actually believe that her life is in danger because of the journalists and political talking heads who accuse her of complicity in the tragedy in Tucson?

If she does, then not only does she seem eager to play the Jew, she seems to agree with her detractors about the power of words to inspire violence. It's amazing how the two sides, each so eager to cast blame upon the other, are so very much alike. Because her analogy, however unintentionally, drives home that point, I think it may be quite apt.

Ms. Palin's choice of analogies is also a good one because it points to a situation in which people need to cast blame upon others to deflect from their own sins. In the case of the blood libel, it was used not only to create anti-Jewish sentiment, but to justify it.

Jews, it was charged, deserved to be tortured and killed because of their evil deeds. So Jew haters created a reason for the hate, one which not only inspired increased hate but justified, in their own minds, the hate they already had for Jews.

When Journalists and Pundits Attack

Sarah Palin Says Media Guilty of ‘Blood Libel’: Why Her Speech Was Wrong, Howard Kurtz, 12 Jan 2011:

Blood libel, for those who are not familiar, describes a false accusation that minorities—usually Jews—murder children to use their blood in religious rituals, and has been a historical theme in the persecution of the Jewish people.

Had Palin scoured a thesaurus, she could not have come up with a more inflammatory phrase.

As someone who has argued that linking her rhetoric to the hateful violence of Jared Loughlin is unfair, I can imagine that the former governor was angry about how liberal detractors dragged her into this story. But after days of silence, she had a chance to speak to the country in a calmer, more inclusive way. She could have said that all of us, including her, needed to avoid excessively harsh or military-style language, without retreating one inch from her strongly held beliefs.

Instead she went the blood libel route.

The same day Howard Kurtz Tweeted:

There was some sympathy for Palin over being tied to shooting, + she chose to go inflammatory. Blood libel has special resonance for Jews.

Hardball - Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman, 12 Jan 2011:

Matthews: Why would she use a phrase like that?

Todd: I don't know. I think, ahh, I, uhh, it's uhh, it, to me, she needs to answer that, I don't understand...

Fineman: She has only one gear and that is forward and she only one mode and that is attack. I don't think she fully understood the history because if she did understand the history she would realize that she was comparing herself, in this situation, to a jewish martyr during the middle ages, or the cossacks in russia or whatever, and all of her critics as people who engaged in that kind of behavior. That's not just over the top, that's the other side of the moon.

With 'Blood Libel,' The 2012 Campaign Has Begun, Howard Fineman, 12 Jan 2011:

After a litany of other Republicans, from Roger Ailes to Ari Fleischer, suggested that calmer rhetoric is warranted in the aftermath of Tucson, Palin -- after remaining essentially silent for three days -- amped up the rhetoric in a pointed counterattack, accusing "journalists and pundits" of manufacturing a "blood libel" against her by suggesting that she somehow is to blame for the toxic political atmosphere in Arizona.

There are few more freighted phrases in the history of hate than "blood libel," which is the ancient and false accusation that Jews secretly murder Christian children as part of their religious rituals. This anti-Semitic attack has resulted in countless pogroms and massacres through the ages.

Saint Sarah, it seems, is now comparing herself to one of those martyrs.

Notably absent was any second-guessing of a single word or action of her own over the last two years. To do so, apparently, would mean to somehow accept the premise that the "lamestream media" is worthy of attention. As far as she is concerned, they don't exist -- except for the sake of being likened to pillaging Cossacks. (The comparison is not only over-the-top, it's also insensitive, given that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish.)

Blood Libel, Adam Serwer, 12 Jan 2011:

Over at Greg's place, I explain why Sarah Palin's use of blood libel in the context of people accusing her of being responsible for the incident in Tucson is wrong, even if the accusations are unfair

This links The foolishness of the 'blood libel' charge:

Blood libel is a term that usually refers to an ancient falsehood that Jews use the blood of Christian children in religious rituals. For hundreds of years, particularly during the Middle Ages, it was used to justify the slaughter of Jews in the street and their expulsion from entire countries. "Blood libel" is not wrongfully assigning guilt to an individual for murder, but rather assigning guilt collectively to an entire group of people and then using it to justify violence against them.

This is a new low for Palin, but outsize comparisons of partisan political conflict to instances of terrible historical oppression is a fairly frequent rhetorical device among conservative media figures.

Now, mere days after the incident, with six people dead and Giffords still recovering, Palin is making herself the center of attention. It might please the audience for conservative talk radio or Fox News, but most people will be disgusted. As well they should be.

Sarah Palin charges critics with 'blood libel', Jennifer Epstein, 12 Jan 2011:

Palin’s use of the charged phrase “blood libel” — which refers to the anti-Semitic accusation from the Middle Ages that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzo for Passover — touched off an immediate backlash.

“The blood libel is something anti-Semites have historically used in Europe as an excuse to murder Jews — the comparison is stupid. Jews and rational people will find it objectionable,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic political consultant and devout Jew. “This will forever link her to the events in Tucson. It deepens the hole she’s already dug for herself. … It’s absolutely inappropriate.”

But in her first extended response to the shooting - and just hours before President Barack Obama planned to speak at a memorial service in Tucson - Palin created a frenzy.

It was chiefly because of her use of “blood libel,” but also because she used the video largely to make an unapologetic case for her brand of confrontational politics.

RealClearPolitics - Video - NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Palin "Ignorant" For Using Term "Blood Libel", 12 Jan 2011.


Yglesias » Blood Libel, Matt Yglesias, 12 Jan 2011:

Indeed, Jews throughout America can join me in remembering when our ancestors fled Eastern Europe in order to live in a land where nobody would ever criticize us on television.

Analysis: Palin Plays the Victim Card, Dan Farber, 12 Jan 2011:

Palin appears to be appropriating the term to indicate that she is a victim, as a result of some groups and individuals claiming that her political rhetoric contributed to the actions of the deranged, lone gunman.

But the real victims are Rep. Giffords and the others who were wounded or killed, not Palin, who appears to be tone deaf to Giffords statement that there are consequences to actions. The consequences of Palin's crosshairs may not be directly related to the shooting rampage in Tucson and assassination attempt, but they are related to the level of divisiveness in the country.

"Community leaders, not just political leaders, need to stand back when things get too fired up," Giffords said during her MSNBC appearance in March 2010.

The likely presidential aspirant doesn't seem to take any responsibility for ratcheting up the political dialog or believe that there is any need to moderate the tone of political discourse in America.

What ‘blood libel’ really means, Jonathan Zimmerman, 13 Jan 2011:

Palin should apologize, too. And not just to Jews, including Giffords.

No, Palin should apologize to all of us. In a speech condemning the irresponsibility of her critics, who have played fast and loose with the facts, Palin did something even worse: She trivialized one of the great crimes of human history.

The Libel of "Blood Libel", Noah Baron, 13 Jan 2011:

I cannot believe that Palin was ignorant of the history of the term "blood libel," which was long used as an excuse by anti-Semites to persecute Jews. More likely, she chose it on purpose.

Palin's statement is but one in a long line of manifestations of a paranoia and persecution complex that now characterizes the American conservative movement.

Why Sarah Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel' Is a Great Thing, Jeffrey Goldberg, 12 Jan 2011:

Sarah Palin has called the post-Tucson campaign of vilification against her and her fellow travelers a "blood libel." On the one hand, this is unfortunate, as Jonah Goldberg points out, because it threatens to redefine the phrase, plus, what is happening to her is not precisely the byproduct of a blood libel.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin is such an important political and cultural figure that her use of the term "blood libel" should introduce this very important historical phenomenon to a wide audience, and the ensuing discussion -- about how Fox News is not actually Mendel Beilis -- will serve to enlighten and inform. It is a moral necessity, I think, for Christians to understand the blood libel (Muslims, too -- see the Damascus Blood Libel of 1840), not only because it is part of their history, but because the blood libel still has modern ramifications -- Israel, after all, was founded as a reaction to Christian hatred, of which the blood libel was an obvious and murderous manifestation.

I mean it sincerely when I say I hope Sarah Palin, who regularly expresses love for Jews and Israel, takes the time to learn about the history of the blood libel, and shares what she has learned with her many admirers.

Sarah Palin, Jewish Educator - The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, 12 Jan 2011:

My theory that Sarah Palin's otherwise gross use of the term "blood libel" to describe criticism leveled against her has an upside -- the potential to educate people about the actual meaning and history of the "blood libel" and its frightening relevance today -- is being borne out in the in-box. Two such e-mails:

i had no idea 'blood libel' had a jewish origin, i doubt sarah palin does either, she picked up on it because it sounded sexy, and voila, more headlines.

I think it's true that Sarah Palin had no idea of the meaning; I don't actually believe she was Jew-baiting, or consciously trying to denigrate the experience of Jewish communities at the hands of their Christian neighbors.

And this:

What do you think the actual chances are that Sarah Palin will actually come out and apologize and learn something about the blood libel and try to raise consciousness about this? I don't think it's very high.

Keep hope alive, I say. This is a great moment for Sarah Palin to demonstrate some sensitivity, and to show that she's capable of absorbing and assimilating new knowledge, and sharing that knowledge with others. I hope she doesn't miss the chance.

Backstory

Intermittent respites from the unhinged jewish firestorm.

Ben Smith on Twitter, 12 Jan 2011:

A quick 'blood libel' thought. Palin's aides, including @thegoldfarb [Michael Goldfarb], get the context -- so this is a pot being stirred, not an accident...

Palin: 'Blood libel', Ben Smith, 12 Jan 2011:

The phrase "blood libel" was introduced into the debate this week by Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, and raised some eyebrows because it typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, and has been used more recently by Israeli's supporters to refer to accusations against the country. It's a powerful metaphor, and one that carries the sense of an oppressed minority.

The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel, Glenn Reynolds, 10 Jan 2011.

The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common Than You Might Think, Jim Geraghty, 12 Jan 2011.

Team Sarah Points to Even More Recent Uses of ‘Blood Libel’, Jim Geraghty, 13 Jan 2011.

With Friends Like These

“Blood Libel” - By Jonah Goldberg - The Corner - National Review Online, 12 Jan 2011:

I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal.

Jewish Republicans muted on Palin's 'blood libel' comment, Jordan Fabian, 12 Jan 2011:

Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition's board of directors, did not address Palin's use of the phrase "blood libel" but said she would have been better served by focusing on a more positive message.

Exclusive: Alan Dershowitz Defends Sarah Palin’s Use of Term ‘Blood Libel’, 12 Jan 2011:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Charles Krauthammer on debating Palin’s use of ‘blood libel’: ‘Have we completely lost our minds?’, 13 Jan 2011:

“[T]he fact is that even the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League in expressing a mild rebuke to Palin for using this admitted itself in its statement that the term ‘blood libel’ has become part of English parlance to refer to someone falsely accused,” Krauthammer said. “Let’s step back for a second. Here we have a brilliant, intelligent, articulate, beautiful, wife, mother and congresswoman fighting for her life, in a hospital in Tucson, and we’re having a national debate over whether the term ‘blood libel’ can be used appropriately in a non-Jewish context? Have we completely lost our minds?”

Jewish Pols Appalled, Condemn Palin, Others Feign Ignorance

Palin Calls Criticism 'Blood Libel', Michael D. Shear, 12 Jan 2011:

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is a close friend of Ms. Giffords, issued a statement condemning her use of the phrase “blood libel.”

“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s spokesman. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Giffords’s faith and the events of the past week.”

Palin starts storm over media ‘blood libel’ - TheHill.com, Michael O’Brien and Jordan Fabian, 12 Jan 2011:

“When I heard it, I said, ‘What? This is ridiculous!’ ” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, told The Hill. “It’s appalling. It’s an insensitive choice of words.”

Lawmakers on Wednesday indicated they were baffled by Palin’s “blood libel” characterization.

“Blood what?” Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.) responded when asked for his response to the characterization.

Pallone’s confusion was shared by Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

Gohmert said that he had not read or heard Palin’s self-defense, stating, “There are some words that you know incite people, just inflame their passions, and those are things that are helpful to stay away from.”

Other House Republicans simply shook their heads and opted not to comment on Palin’s message.

McGovern didn’t know what “blood libel” meant, saying he thought initially “it must be some sort of Alaska thing.”

Jewish Influence and Coded Language

Sarah Palin: Critics Blaming Political Right for Shootings Commit 'Blood Libel', Tom Diemer, 12 Jan 2011:

Palin, like many conservative Christians, is a strong supporter of Israel, and she has been particularly supportive of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line stands versus the Palestinians. In an open letter to incoming Republican freshmen last November she implicitly rebuked President Obama when she wrote that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not a settlement," and in June she slammed Obama over what she said was his weak-kneed support of Israel following the Israeli commando attack on a Gaza-bound flotilla that left nine activists dead.

But Christian conservatives like Palin are also growing increasingly fond of Jewish religious traditions and motifs, sometimes celebrating Passover Seders and appropriating Old Testament references like the Israelites in exile to describe their own experience in modern America. Palin, for example, likes to compare herself to Queen Esther, the Jewish beauty from the Book of Esther who saves her people from destruction.

Such religious borrowing can be problematic for Jews, and Palin's "blood libel" reference evoking such a devastating history at the hands of Christians could be especially explosive. The Anti-Defamation League said it was "inappropriate to blame Palin and others for causing this tragedy." Still, the ADL said, "we wish Palin had not invoked the phrase 'blood libel'" -- words that have become part of English parlance, but ones "so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

Palin Knew What She Was Saying, Matthew Cooper, 12 Jan 2011:

But, as is often the case, Palin is likely being underestimated and, perhaps, misunderstood. It's highly unlikely that she threw an incendiary term out there without knowing what it means, and it's even less likely she did so in an effort to promote anti-Semitism.

Here' s another theory of the case: The former Alaska governor was likely trying to send a signal to her evangelical Christian supporters who are, in fact, deeply pro-Israel (although many Jews are wary of their support for the Zionist state, seeing them as more interested in the Rapture than a healthy Jewish nation).

Palin was likely aligning herself with pro-Israel evangelicals by identifying with Jews, not by insulting them, although that was surely the effect given the widespread bristling at her remarks.

After all, it's not the first time Palin has aligned herself subtly with Jews. She has noted that after her election as governor in 2006, her childhood pastor suggested that she take the Bible's Queen Esther as a role model. Esther was a beauty queen who became a fierce protector of the Jewish people. Palin is comfortable in the role of Esther, and many of her evangelical supporters see her in that guise, describing her as Esther-like. The multi-faith website Beliefnet called this phenomenon "Esther-mania."

By adopting the blood libel language, Palin was most likely trying to pull another Esther -- aligning herself with Jews, not denouncing them. It appears to have been a badly miscalculated effort, but it's unlikely that it was her intention to offend.

"It was a dog whistle," said one Jewish Republican who worked in the George H.W. Bush administration and declined to be named to avoid becoming enmeshed in the intraparty debate over Palin. The reference was to a device that's silent to some ears but calls to others. "The media didn't get it, but Christian activists did," this source added.

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle' -- or Just Inadvertent?, Matt Lewis, 12 Jan 2011:

As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread.

While many believe this to be an example of "dog whistle" politics, I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?

My guess is that this is simply a case of ignorance on the part of Palin and the speechwriter -- and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Simply put, a lot of people don't realize that these loaded terms have deeper and more sinister meanings.

Postscript, Business as Usual

Democrat invokes Nazis to slam GOP on health care - On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2012 Election, 19 Jan 2011. US Representative Steve Cohen, speaking on the record in the House of Representatives:

They say it's a government takeover of health care. A big lie just like (Joseph) Goebbels. You say it enough and you repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie and eventually people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the jews, and the people believed it, and you had the holocaust. You tell a lie over and over again.

Over the Top and Beyond the Moon

Regardless of who chose the term blood libel or whether the intent was to provoke an overreaction from jews, that's exactly what it produced. What happened is that an army of influential jewish journalists, pundits, and professional bigots instantly swarmed forth to self-righteously lecture the unwashed hoi polloi about jewish sensitivities and sensibilities, instructing Palin and the rest of us what we may or may not say.

That two words could produce such an enormous, immediate, angry jewish reaction is an indication of just how sensitive and defensive jews are about even an indirect reference to their influence. It also serves as a measure of that influence.

Jews focused on attacking Palin specifically because they didn't want to address her point. As Fineman projected, jews have only one mode: attack. What agitated them so was being called out in jewish terms. They certainly were not put out about being called hyprocrites. Hypocrisy is something only Whites get upset about.

After seeing blood libel defined over and over and over again it's impossible to believe that the term causes jews any pain whatsoever. What most obviously gets them exercised is seeing anyone but jews as victims. And my how cruel, merciless and paranoid they can be when they think someone is trying to use their own tricks against them.