Beullogeo's

The mainstream reporting on Breivik's thinking has so far neglected to dig into his opinions on "the jews". Perhaps that's because it would be difficult to describe that thinking faithfully without either embarassing or infuriating "the jews". Jonathan Kay at the National Post seems to think he has found a way.

Kay has skimmed Breivik's book, 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence, and sees similarities with the William Pierce's 1978 book, The Turner Diaries. Kay sums up the former as a "rambling and disjointed manifesto" whose "bigoted and paranoid worldview" seems to have originated with the latter, which he describes as "badly written and tedious". Never fear, you needn't read either work yourself. Kay is an expert in such things and he's very eager to explain how it's all about "the jew":

In a general sense, Breivik can be seen as a Norwegian, Islamophobic version of Pierce, McVeigh and the other right-wing hatemongers that populated the fringes of American life until the Clinton administration cleaned up the Midwest’s various White Supremecist quasi-Christian militia sects in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. But there is also something very new in Breivik’s attack.

For one thing, he represents the first mass-casualty post-9/11 terrorist attack purportedly committed in the name of stopping radical Islam. In this sense, it is Europe’s equivalent to the 1995 slaying of Yitzhak Rabin, whose perpetrator, extremist Orthodox Jew Yigal Amir, also imagined that he could protect his nation from Islamic encroachments by staging a murderous terrorist attack on his own government.

Breivik’s sick mythology also shows another new post-9/11 element: the changing role of the Jew in the narrative of the West’s right-wing extremists.

The Jew traditionally has been the primary target of such extremists because it was imagined that his evil hand lay behind those forces — capitalism, Marxism, globalization, financial speculation — once deemed to be most threatening to the traditional Western order that Breivik says he wants to defend. The creation of Israel in 1948 added a new excuse for anti-Semitism: The Turner Diaries are full of references to American foreign policy being controlled by Israel (an accusation that, of course, has now been taken up by the left).

With 9/11, that changed: The greatest cultural and military threat now is seen to be militant Islam, with the Jew — and Israel — now instantly cast as a defender of the established Western order. To quote something I wrote in my recently published book, Among The Truthers: “The Jew [is now seen as] the perfect anti-Islamist, whose zeal and reliability in the war on terrorism was hard-wired into his political DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the Middle East. For the first time in the history of Western civilization, the Jew’s ‘foreignness’ and mixed loyalties-to the United States, Israel, world Jewry- became a source of respect and trust rather than suspicion.”

Thus, in Section 2.93 of Breivik’s manifesto, we get the sort of words that, pre-9/11, no one could ever have dreamed would be typed by a right-wing hatemonger: “We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issues, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel’s defence [and] partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund.”

In any other context, a reduction in right-wing anti-Semitism would be an unreservedly welcome development. But as we mourn the innocent victims of Breivik’s attacks, we understand that evil minds inevitably will channel their hate somewhere — if not toward innocent Jews, then toward innocent Muslims, or members of the political party that represents them.

The senselessness and tragedy of that hatred: this hasn’t changed, and never will — for all time to come.

The passage Kay quotes from Breivik's book wasn't written by Breivik. Here it is in full context:

There have been hundreds of attempts to forward and distribute demands (on behalf of the indigenous peoples of Europe) to Western European governments, political parties and media organisations since 1955. As with all attempts for dialogue, every single one of them has been rejected, ignored or ridiculed. One of these pleas was written by Fjordman in March 2007:

A European Declaration of Independence

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Malta and Ireland demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don't as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.
 
We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for "Euro-Mediterranean cooperation" between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye'or's work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilisation - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.
 
We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel's defence, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defence Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide.

We demand that the ideology of multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture's eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations.

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been re-established in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of "racism." Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history.

We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of "racism and xenophobia" by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonisation (see demographic warfare) by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamisation and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonisation and desire self-determination then Europeans have that right, as well. And we intend to exercise it.

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn't dismantled, multiculturalism isn't rejected and Muslim immigration isn't stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

The above declaration was forwarded to many political parties of the so called “Multiculturalist Alliance” (MA100 political parties) and many “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist media organisations in 2007. As expected, no one ever bothered to comment on the demands as it was categorised as “right wing nonsense” and categorically ignored.

By the by, hate is one of Kay's specialties. In his Oct 2010 article, A hate reaching back 1,400 years, Kay reviewed the many reasons, stretching back centuries, justifying "the jew"'s hatred for muslims. And but of course, he hasn't forgotten European crimes against "the jew" either:

It goes without saying that Muslim civilization has no monopoly on violent and systematic anti-Semitism: Spasms of murderous Jew-hatred were common all across Christendom during the 14 centuries of Islam’s existence.

Read about it in the comments at Mangan's.

The Wire - The Most Dangerous Thing in America

The Heretic:

Much of [David] Simon’s work focuses on the troubles of low-income African Americans, be they heroin dealers or trombone players. It’s a preoccupation he shares with a long line of American Jewish social activists and cultural figures, from early abolitionists to the Jews who helped found the NAACP to the Jewish Freedom Riders murdered in the early 1960s. When I bring that up, though, Simon brushes aside the comparison. “The Freedom Riders and NAACP founders were doing something far more substantive, and in the case of the Freedom Riders, risking far, far more,” he says. “I wouldn’t put myself in that category under any circumstances.”

Nonetheless, he’s very conscious of that history.

It began with the usual judeo-liberal media attempts to ignore or at least downplay the scandal as it was first starting to swirl around one of their rising stars. When it was clear the controversy could not be snuffed out with silence Weiner himself went on the attack, calling an interviewer's implication that he had done anything inappropriate outrageous. As we know now Weiner was bluffing, but at the time he seemed to think customary jewish tactics of argument - playing the victim with bombastic bluster while he berates his interlocutor - could serve more broadly as a long-term strategy.

Of course the fact that Anthony Weiner is a jew, or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz might put it, a proud pro-Israel jewish member of Congress, has gone mostly unremarked upon in mainstream coverage. As with the DSK affair, a powerful political figure can be a proud jew, a representative of their very distinct community, right up until they do something embarassing or criminal, at which point, oh yeah, they just happen to be jewish, no different than anybody else, and anyway, so what?

A fleeting glimpse of the significance of Weiner's jewishness came to light in a Radar Online article titled Weiner Used Jewish Sexual Stereotype To Facebook Sexting Partner, by Dylan Howard, 6 June 2011. Oh my. Howard says Weiner's "reference to a stereotype of Jewish women’s aversion to the sex act is sure to create more heat under a scandal that is already red hot." Actually, it was the opposite of aversion:

“You give good head?” the embattled and married New York congressman asked the woman on March 16, this year.

She responded: “I’ve been told really good...and i love doing it.”

At that point, 46-year-old Weiner declared: “wow a jewish girl who sucks (bleep)! this thing is ready to do damage.”

So the problem, according to Howard, isn't Weiner's lying, or infidelity, or obsession with sex. The problem is that Weiner thinks negative thoughts about jewish women. In private.

This is an absurd excuse for a more direct and plausible understanding of the exchange, which is that Weiner is not only happy to have found an eager virtual sex partner, but that he is delighted that she is jewish - that he finds her jewishness especially exciting. Such an understanding is bound to create cognitive dissonance in the minds of deracinated Whites, lectured relentlessly for decades now, most especially by jews, that any preference for our own kind is peculiar and wrong. So better to invert reality and pretend that Weiner holds a dim view of jewish women.

There's more on this stereotyping excuse below, but first let's take a brief detour. The Radar Online article contained a link to a May/June 2011 Moment Magazine article which provides some background on Weiner and specifically his jewish bona fides. Live from New York, It's Anthony Weiner, by Daphna Berman:

A Master Of Political Theater, Congressman Anthony Weiner Has Leveraged His Strong Liberal Opinions, New York Attitude And Willingness To Go Head-To-Head With Republicans On Cable TV To Fill A Void In The Democratic Party.

Weiner, whose ninth district includes parts of Queens and Brooklyn, represents what is arguably the most Jewish congressional district in the U.S. Raised in Park Slope, Brooklyn, in a middle-class Jewish family, he now lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and is—as he likes to remind people—a true New Yorker. His parents are divorced: His father, Morton, is a lawyer, and his mother, Frances, a retired public school teacher. He had two brothers, Jason and Seth (who was killed in a 2000 hit-and-run accident). Weiner and his mother are close, and she has accompanied him on campaigns—though he refused to have his mother answer questions directly. “She’s completely out of control,” he tells me. “You have no idea what she’s going to say.”

Weiner attended New York public schools, from Brooklyn Technical High School to SUNY Plattsburgh, where he graduated in 1985 with a degree in political science. He went to work for then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and became something of a protégé; he reportedly said to his boss, “I’m going to take your job some day.” He learned quite a bit from his mentor—also Jewish, and now the senior senator from New York—and, most notably, has absorbed much of the media acumen for which Schumer is known. “As a staff member to Schumer, he learned how to take advantage of the electronic media and how to get on television,” says Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Former Republican Senator Bob Dole once said the most dangerous place in Washington was the space between Schumer and a camera, and critics could say the same of Weiner.

[Congressman Jason] Chaffetz [(R-Utah)], who has worked with Weiner on other bipartisan issues, concedes that Weiner can be “over-the-top,” adding that “his style offends a lot of people and he sometimes makes issues a little too personal. He’s aggressive, which works for some people. When we’re on the same side, it can be helpful.”

Jousting with conservatives can sometimes come across as a sport for Weiner, although he insists otherwise. “It’s a necessary thing to do,” he says. “I have a choice: I can shout at my television or shout at the host directly. I’m not afraid of having a debate about these issues. And some of these programs are so deep in lies and demagoguery that someone needs to be there to correct the record.” Then, with a smile, he adds: “It allows me to burn off bile.”

One of his colleagues is Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, who serves with him on the Judiciary Committee and is a personal friend. “Anthony is one of the most quick-witted legislators there is, and once he gets hold of an issue, there’s no letting go,” she says. “He’s very well-spoken and knows how to get a point across succinctly and effectively. He’s an excellent debater, and when a back and forth is necessary, he’s someone you can call on to be the standard-bearer.”

Weiner has always been assertive about his Jewishness. In his own words, he’s spent “more time at melaveh malkahs [post-Shabbat gatherings], a lot more time at shul, at sisterhood breakfasts, and at bond breakfasts than probably just about anybody else.” He doesn’t belong to a synagogue or consider himself close to a single rabbi—except to say, consummate politician that he is, “all the shuls in my district are my home shuls.” Says Warren Hecht, president of the Queens Jewish Community Council: “He’s a Jewish official who hasn’t forgotten” his roots or his district.

Weiner, whose middle name is David, had his bar mitzvah at Union Temple in Park Slope, Brooklyn. As part of a promise to his Twitter followers, he recently released a photo of himself on his big day as an awkward-looking 13-year-old boy, complete with a self-described 1970s Jewfro. “We weren’t a very religious household, but we had a very strong sense of our Judaism,” Weiner says of his upbringing.

He came by his solid Zionist inclinations early on. “Support for Israel was always a very big focus in my household growing up,” says Weiner, who has been to the Jewish state more than a half-dozen times. He remembers wearing a homemade pin to Sunday school that read, “I am a Zionist.”

As a congressman, he has consistently pushed pro-Israel legislation, and Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), counts him among the “top 10 congressmen” in terms of Israel issues.

From the outside, Weiner’s hawkish Israel views appear to have collided with his personal life. His wife, Huma Abedin, was born in Michigan to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, and raised in Saudi Arabia. Her late father, an Islamic scholar, established an institute there that aimed to deepen religious tolerance, while her mother, who is a sociology professor in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helped create one of the first women’s colleges in the country.

The pair dated for two years before announcing their engagement, and Weiner was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about their courtship. In a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board in 2008, Weiner dodged a number of personal questions but was adamant when asked if his relationship posed a potential risk to his political ambitions. “I’m certain that the relationship was not the product of a political calculation,” he said. Later, he also refused to answer what his Jewish mom thought of his girlfriend. “It’s not something I want to talk about.”

The July 2010 wedding was covered widely. The reports were gushing, accompanied by photos of the couple with the beautiful bride in a white Oscar de la Renta gown. Response in the Jewish community was tepid: “Christian President Marries Jewish Congressman to Moslem Political Aide on Shabbos,” read the headline on The Yeshiva World News after the Saturday nuptials.

The ZOA’s Klein is more direct: “People I’ve spoken to in his district said they wouldn’t support him because he intermarried.” In fact, before Weiner came to the ZOA dinner in December, Klein warned him that his marriage to a Muslim might elicit jeers from the crowd.

Whoops. More cognitive dissonance, this time for jews. How to reconcile Weiner's assertive jewish identity with his choice of a non-jewish spouse? Hmmm. As Moment is written by jews, for jews, at least the readers who are unhappy about "intermarriage" (wink, wink, it's about "religion") aren't subjected to any insinuations that they're ignorant xenophobic bigots.

The article also discusses Weiner's aspirations to become mayor of New York City:

It’s unclear what Weiner’s chances may be. At the 2011 Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner, noting the absence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Weiner, one of the event’s headliners, said: “Who knew that what it takes to be mayor of a big city is to be a hot-tempered, arrogant, loud Jew with nine and a half fingers. Who knew? And in other news, I’ve taken a job as a meat cutter at Arby’s.”

But changing demographics, as well as a shifting political reality, may present something of a challenge to what until now has been a meteoric rise. Political strategist Hank Sheinkopf says, “New York is less white than ever and less Jewish than ever, and traditional social class lines don’t hold.” Weiner’s only chance, he says, “is to position himself as a non-billionaire from the outer boroughs. He can do it, but it will be difficult.”

The article's conclusion contains a bit of unintended prophesy:

“He’s passionate—people respect that and respond to that,” says Queens Jewish Community Council President Hecht. “If he was a phony, people would see right through him.

Tablet Magazine (by jews, for jews) expanded on Radar Online's quick bit of damage control. Understanding Weinergate, by Marc Tracy, 7 June 2011:

How social media felled a rising star, and how his Jewishness was involved

That about sums it up. Half of Tracy's article is spent floating the implausible notion that Weiner doesn't understand the internet. He's an idiot savant. No mention of the more plausible notion that Weiner's incredible arrogance and lust had something to do with his assertive self-image as a "rising star", an unassailable zionist soldier for judeo-liberal interests.

Expanding on the Radar Online article quoted above, the second half of Tracy's excuse-making consists of a deeper examination of jewish identity, group-pity, and navel-gazing about stereotypes:

There is one more thing to discuss, though if my mom wanted to stop reading this post now, I wouldn’t mind. A Nevada woman Weiner flirted with on Facebook told him that she understood herself to be good at giving oral sex and added, “i love doing it.” To which the congressman from Queens responded: “Wow a jewish girl who sucks []! this thing is ready to do damage.”

I’ll pause for your laughter. But this is also, believe it or not, yet another manifestation of a generation gap! Weiner is old enough to be of the generation that, brought up on Portnoy’s Complaint and its spawn, generalizes Jewish women as sexually cold, and specifically unwilling to perform blow jobs and inept at them when they can be reluctantly coaxed. But a younger generation has almost the exact opposite conception of Jewish women: They (again generalizing) see Jewish women as more willing than the average woman to give blow jobs and as especially skilled at the task. Contributing editor Rachel Shukert has written the definitive article about this (she discusses it here); the new stereotype became especially pronounced in the public consciousness, she argues, thanks to Monica Lewinsky. When that scandal broke, Weiner was almost 30.

Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that the single journalist most responsible for forcing this scandal into the open—who briefly hijacked Weiner’s press conference yesterday demanding an apology—is the conservative impresario Andrew Breitbart, who, yeah. Can you imagine if they had had Twitter in the shtetls?

When jewish stereotypes are discussed in scandal rags like Radar Online, intended for consumption by the hoi polloi, there is a pretense that jews are scandalized by such things. Amongst jews themselves such things inspire laughter. Listening in on their conversation what one actually finds is a seemingly inexhaustible capacity to argue about how they perceive themselves and how they are perceived by others, coupled with strong desires and active efforts to shape those perceptions.

If Weiner's private lewd flirtations make you queasy, you don't want to click the "here" link in the text above. It takes you to Interview with Rachel Shukert on Jewish girls and blowjobs at Best Sex Writing 2008. Here's the most relevant portion of this irrelevant sideshow:

Why do you think the stereotypes about Jewish women and sex are so pervasive? What do you make of the contrast between the older stereotype of the frigid Jewish woman vs. the newer one of the oversexed one?

Well, I think it’s important to stress that most of the factors in the culture that have made Jewish women seem unattractive–whether it’s being frigid, or physically unappealing, demanding, spoiled, etc.–have been created by Jewish men. Now, I love Jewish men. The men I love most in the world–my husband, my father, my grandfather–are Jewish men. But it’s not Gentiles who invented the “shikse goddess” or wrote all the JAP jokes. Who knows why? Frustration, mostly, I think. All that self-loathing and insecurity.

I’m going to speak in incredible generalizations here for a minute, so just bear with me. I think that Jewish men in the past 30 or 40 years have been extremely invested in making themselves sexy and attractive to the culture-at-large–and they are, they seem smart, sensitive, generous, etc. But with it comes this sense of fear, this kind of atavistic fear, I think, that at any moment they’ll be found out. And if anyone can call a Jewish man on his bullshit, it’s a Jewish woman. So they rationalize why they shouldn’t be involved with Jewish girls–all of these reasons. Jewish women are left open to constant criticism. And since Jews have been such an intrinsic part of popular culture, all this stuff disseminates and becomes conventional wisdom.

Now, I think this is changing, hugely. I think Jews have become more and more of an accepted part of mainstream culture, and this generation of Jewish men are more comfortable with themselves than ever before, and no longer feel like they’re straddling two worlds and trying to leave one of them behind. They can look on their Jewishness as something comforting instead of something constricting. But in the meantime, I think Jewish women have been like, “You know what? We’re sick of waiting for you,” and started on their own project of who they are, which is extremely interesting. And that’s what’s ascendant right now, I believe, which is very exciting for me. So that’s the split, I think, that the old Jewish stereotypes were disseminated by men, and the new ones by women. And the mainstream picking up on it.

Judeo-centric views like this were discussed in Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame. I find it refreshing to read such criticisms of jewish media influence, cited approvingly by jews without the usual denials and personal attacks in response. It's refreshing because critiques from any point of view sympathetic to "shiksas" or their men is painted as "hate" and greeted with howls of real hate from jews.

The nonchalant "yeah" link in the Tablet article above tugs on another interesting jewish thread. You may have noticed how the judeo-liberal media makes judeo-conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart out to be the devil incarnate. Breitbart broke the Weiner story and wouldn't let it die. Maybe you wonder why. Tablet relates the jewish view in Being Andrew Breitbart, by Allison Hoffman, 21 May 2010:

But who is Breitbart? The New Yorker sent Rebecca Mead to find out, and it turns out that Breitbart, who was adopted, is a Jewish boy from L.A.’s Westside, specifically in Brentwood. There he attended the exclusive Brentwood School, which is the kind of place that turns out the people who run Hollywood’s machinery—the Ari Golds and the producers and the lawyers and the managers. But Breitbart tells Mead he was, even as a high-schooler, turned off by “the industry” and instead fascinated by the theatrics of Washington, D.C. His politics, he reports, emerged from his exasperation with the “deconstructive semiotic bullshit” first introduced to the American cultural scene by emigré members of the Frankfurt School—radicals, almost all of them Jews, exiled by the Nazis in the 1930s.

The article Hoffman links provides more insight into Breitbart's background and motives. Rage Machine - Andrew Breitbart’s empire of bluster, by Rebecca Mead, 24 May 2010:

Breitbart is the founder of Breitbart.com, which, since 2005, has aggregated news from the Associated Press, Reuters, and other wire services. He is also the proprietor of several newer Web sites—Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism—that provide right-leaning commentary and original reporting. Their content is largely supplied by unpaid bloggers, who are given a more prominent platform than they might otherwise attain. The Big sites are dedicated to countering what Breitbart believes is the leftist bias of American cultural and media institutions.

Breitbart, who is Jewish, grew up in Brentwood, an affluent part of Los Angeles. He seems a familiar bicoastal type until he starts explaining his conviction that President Barack Obama’s election was the culmination of a plot, set in place in the nineteen-thirties by émigré members of the Frankfurt School, to take over Hollywood, the media, the academy, and the government, with the aim of imposing socialism.

Breitbart is tall and burly, with eyes the color of Windex, silver hair that he sometimes forgets is no longer blond, and jowls that he wobbles for emphasis when he wishes to express outrage. He is fond of saying that he has two modes of discourse: righteous indignation and puerile jocularity. “I like to call someone a raving cunt every now and then, when it’s appropriate, for effect,” he informed me. “ ‘You cocksucker.’ I love that kind of language.”

Breitbart considers himself an accidental cultural warrior. “I am not as partisan as people think I am,” he told me, calling himself eighty-five per cent conservative and fifteen per cent libertarian. His conservatism fails him on issues such as the legalization of prostitution, and he sometimes tilts toward favoring gay marriage. “But, when the entire media is structured to attack conservatives and Republicans, there is a huge business model to come in and counterbalance that,” he said.

He does not pretend to be an expert in policy, or to be particularly interested in it. “Just because I am paying attention to politics and culture doesn’t mean that I should be talking about the health-care bill, talking about the minutiae,” he told me. Instead, Breitbart is obsessed with wresting control of the political narrative from the established media organizations. If the wire services that Breitbart aggregates, and the bloggers he recruits, serve as his content providers, then Breitbart might be called a malcontent provider—giving seething, sneering voice to what he characterizes as a silenced majority.

Breitbart frequently decries racism, and likes to point out that he was adopted, as was his younger sister, who is of Mexican descent. “I hold in great disregard the idea that somehow her blood and my blood separate us,” he told me. “I grew up resenting people who would look at us at the table and would go, ‘Why are those people together?’ ” He likes to say that he is “pro-miscegenation.” As a result, Breitbart says, he is outraged when charges of racism are cynically made. Last year, he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” and sounded this theme: “There’s nothing in this country that is a worse accusation—in America, if you accuse somebody of racism, that person has to disprove that.”

"I just feel like I am one of these Idaho guys saying, ‘You’re not taking my land’—with a gun, on my porch,” Breitbart told me one evening. He was sitting in the bar of the Bowery Hotel, in Manhattan, drinking white wine from a glass that was being refilled by a slim waitress in a black wrap dress. His companions were similarly urbane.

Breitbart’s image of himself as a Western survivalist, he was explaining, referred to the sense of siege he felt in Los Angeles, which, he contends, has become egregiously radical since September 11, 2001. “There are people there that are aggressors,” he said. As the evening progressed, it emerged that the closest Breitbart had ever come to the real Idaho was on the Internet. He’d been looking online at properties in Coeur d’Alene, a resort town, while fantasizing about life elsewhere. “I saw the golf course there, and it had a really cool island,” Breitbart said.

Breitbart’s parents were quietly conservative. His father was a restaurateur and, later, a lobbyist for the food-service industry; his mother was a bank executive. But their son, who attended the prestigious Brentwood School, was reflexively liberal. “It was like the water I was in,” he told me. Gary Hewson, a classmate, who is now a real-estate developer, recalls Breitbart as “a bit of a class clown, a rabble-rouser.” Breitbart says, “That was my only discernible skill.”

For college, Breitbart went to Tulane University, in New Orleans, a period that he now regards with a mixture of shame and nostalgia. “It was four hideous years of debauchery of a level that was incomprehensible to me,” he told me. “I remember rationalizing my misbehavior. I remember giving my dad a book on the chemical structure of MDMA”—Ecstasy—“and I was, like, ‘Dad, what do you think of this?’ ”

“I was so excruciatingly bored after college—it was like going home to Pittsburgh to get into the steel industry, then realizing that you hate steel,” he says. “I hated Hollywood. I hated being at parties and hearing people say, ‘I work at “Mad About You,” I work in the clothing room.’ ”

Breitbart also began to reconsider the education that he had received in Tulane’s American Studies department, where, in his off-hours from partying, he had been exposed to critical theory. “I wanted to read Mark Twain and Emerson and Thoreau,” he says. “And I remember moments in class where I thought my head was going to explode, going, What the fuck are these people talking about? I don’t understand what this deconstructive semiotic bullshit is. Who the fuck is Michel Foucault?” He came across the work of Camille Paglia, and was captivated by her analysis of the takeover of academia by the left.

“A lot of these guys I was reading about in my American Studies class were German and Italian social scientists from the University of Frankfurt,” he says. “Once you see what their plan was, you realize that it was implemented. It was taking over the cultural institutions. The left is smart enough to understand that the way to change a political system is through its cultural systems. So you look at the conservative movement—working the levers of power, creating think tanks, and trying to get people elected in different places—while the left is taking over Hollywood, the music industry, the churches. They did it through academia; they did it with K-12. You look back at the last forty years, and people didn’t put up a fight.”

But of course many people put up a fight, and still do. The inconvient truth for judeo-conservatives like Breitbart is that most of those people are demonized as "racists" and "anti-semites" - shoved down the memory hole as if they never existed, never resisted. Judeo-conservatives join judeo-liberals in doing this. They are two faces of a jewish hegemony over politics, media and culture. Breitbart may feel some small measure of compassion for the Whites who never resisted, especially because he knows just how much judeo-liberals detest us anyway, but it's only relative. Judeo-conservatives find White conservatives (which is to say most Whites) useful, for the moment at least. For them the judeo-liberal takeover doesn't represent a tragedy, much less a crime. But it does present a "huge business model" selling a white-washed view of the ongoing jewish aggression and hegemony. Judeo-conservatives are just as fond of vulgarity and deviance as their judeo-liberal comrades. Sure, they disagree about some things, vehemently some times. What they agree on is that Whites must defend or at least defer to jewish interests, while the idea of Whites defending White interests fills them all - from Weiner to Breitbart - with fear and loathing.

The video above is part of a CNSNews article, DNC Chair: Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime', 31 May 2011. It quotes Wasserman Schultz spouting the usual apologia in favor of genocidal levels of immigration into the US:

“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity," she said. "And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

12 million? The backbone of our economy? The Republican solution is arresting them all? Political views don't get much more detached from reality than this. And this is not some random US congresswoman. Wasserman Schultz leads one of the two major political parties.

The second half of the video starts with a question about a disagreement at a meeting which took place a few days earlier. Note that this question triggers a far more impassioned response:

Question: The Republican Jewish Coalition head was reported in the New York Times - Matt Brooks is saying that you were proposing a gag order on this subject.

Wasserman Schultz: Ha ha, yeah, well, uh, you know I take... one of the most tremendous sources of pride for me is that I am the first jewish woman to represent the state of Florida in Congress. And, ah, another tremendous source of pride for me is that I am a pro-Israel jewish member of Congress and I proudly support a president that is pro-Israel. Um. What I think is unfortunate and what I suggested, along with others, including members of the Republican Jewish Coalition that are not the executive director of that organization, um, is that we need to make sure, like AIPAC pushes for, like Jewish Federation pushes for, like ADL and every major jewish organization pushes for in this country, we need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue. And that's what we talked about in that meeting.

The meeting was a bipartisan jewish affair regarding jewish interests. Jewish GOP official blasts DWS, Politico, 24 May 2011:

The top official at a Republican Jewish group blasted Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for an “unprecedented and inappropriate” effort to quell partisan debate over Israel in a private meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday at which both were present.

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks clashed with Wasserman Schultz, as I reported yesterday, after Wasserman Schultz called for partisan unity on matters of Israel policy and Brooks – whose group had criticized her for speaking before the liberal group J Street – responded that he reserved the right to attack Democrats who stray from a hawkish pro-Israel line.

Another take on the interview and the disagreement - DNC chair argues Obama isn't losing support of Jewish voters, Los Angeles Times, 26 May 2011:

The South Florida Democrat laughed at charges leveled by the head of a Republican Jewish group that she wanted to squelch partisan criticism over Israel. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, accused Wasserman Schultz of proposing a “gag order” on criticism about Israeli policy when they and others met privately with Netanyahu this week.

“We need to make sure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue, and that’s what we talked about in that meeting,” Wasserman Schultz said. She quoted Netanyahu as saying, at the end of the meeting, that when it comes to Israel, “we need to erase the aisle” between Democrats and Republicans.

“Everyone that calls themselves legitimately pro-Israel believes that we should not make Israel a partisan issue. Unfortunately, I think there are organizations that claim to be pro-Israel that are partisan first and pro-Israel second. And I think unfortunately the way the Republican Jewish Coalition has conducted itself is they put their Republicanism in front of their pro-Israel stance. And I think that’s unfortunate. And I think it’s why the Israeli Embassy said that Israel should not be a partisan issue.”

Here are a couple of previous media reports concerning Wasserman Schultz's background.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz picked as Democratic National Committee chair, POLITICO, 5 Apr 2011:

The congresswoman is beloved by the Democratic rank and file for her aggressive, outspoken advocacy for liberal points of view. She’s frequently deployed as a surrogate, particularly to groups of women and Jewish voters.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Picked to Chair D.N.C., NYTimes, 5 Apr 2011:

Ms. Wasserman Schultz is known inside the party for her strong fund-raising abilities, and she represents South Florida, which will be a critical battleground in the 2012 presidential race.

Some background on Matthew Brooks:

Matthew Brooks serves as Executive Director of both the Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization dedicated to enhancing ties between the Jewish community and the Republican Party, and the Jewish Policy Center, a think-tank that examines public policy from a Jewish perspective.

Matt began his political career as State Chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans while still an undergraduate at Brandeis University in Waltham, MA. Matt managed the Jack Kemp for President campaign in Massachusetts, as well as directed projects in New Hampshire and New England. Matt became the Political Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in 1988. Taking a leave of absence from the RJC, Matt served as the National Field Director for Victory ‘88 Jewish Campaign Committee, designing and implementing campaign strategy on behalf of the Bush-Quayle ‘88 campaign. Matt was appointed Executive Director of the RJC in 1990.

Matt was twice selected (in 2006 and 2008) by the Jewish Forward as one of the 50 most influential Jews in America.

In addition to his duties leading the RJC, Matt also serves as the organization’s principal spokesman. In this role Matt has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and has been quoted extensively in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers.

One of the many consequences of jewish influence in media and academia is that the perfectly descriptive term Zionist Occupation Government is painted as "an antisemitic conspiracy theory". Yet, the jewish conspiracy is right out in the open. Erase the aisle. Israel first, party second. This is the state of US politics today.

What we see here is a disagreement between hyper-ethnocentric jews who hold positions of great power and have strong influence over the US government. What they care about most is what's best for the jewish ethnostate of Israel. They all agree that in US politics the interests of Israel should always come first, across the board, for everyone, not just jews. The big question for them is whether to continue imposing this the usual stealthy judeo-liberal way, or the usual in-your-face judeo-conservative way.

Let's blame the Jews, via Pat Condell on Israel, Jew-Hatred, and Islam at Gates of Vienna.

Pat Condell is a counter-jihadist favorite. He's a proud (if unconvincing) anti-"racist". He mercilessly bashes muslims. He gleefully ridicules Christians. And for some strange reason he just loves "the jews".

Condell starts off mocking the strawman that jews "control the world" because their numbers are so small. By the end he is so overcome with enthusiasm for his (adopted?) tribe that he forgets about the numbers and waxes orgasmic about what a substantial force for good they are. He wishes the world really was ruled by "the jews". It's the most creepy display of jew-worship I have seen since, ohhh how many days has it been since Netanyahu got all those standing ovations from Congress?

Condell makes a point about muslims being taught from childhood to hate jews. So what should we make of jews teaching their children and everyone else that their tribe's time amongst Europeans has been one long string of anti-jew oppression and violence? According to the jewish version of history every conflict jews have ever had with Europeans is entirely to blame on evil Europeans blinded by spontaneous jew-hate. It's fair to say that by teaching this kind of one-sided view of history jews are teaching everyone to hate Whites. Maybe Condell's next video will be about this. It could start with a review of the flash mob of journalists, pundits and politicians who suddenly turned into jewish history experts and explained their seething hate to Sarah Palin a few months ago.

I won't be holding my breath. From the way Condell sneers at Europeans it's clear he's already absorbed those lectures and thinks Whites suck. He's concerned about Europe being overrun by muslims because it's bad for jews. I wonder if this is the only motive behind all his anti-islam and anti-Christian tirades. I've never heard him speak so emotionally or favorably about Britons. Is he not capable of loving his own kind? Or is that what he's doing when he gushes in favor of jews?

There are two final points to make about Condell's "control the world" bluster. First, since he likes to go on and on about Islam it would be trivial to mock him in the same terms. What do earnest counter-jihadists think when somebody paints them as morons who say muslims control the world? Second, Condell titles his diatribe "Let's blame the jews", which he means to be taken ironically. He blames the jew-haters. What he's saying, to use his own dishonest way of characterizing such things, is that the jew-haters control the world. What an idiot.

France's National Front: Le Pen, mightier than the sword?, The Economist, 5 May 2011:

UP CLOSE, the most unnerving thing about Marine Le Pen is not her obsession with Islam, her populism or her divisive politics—but the way she oozes charm. With a ready laugh and unaffected manner, this steely politician deflects awkward questions with an easy grace that makes her a rarity in French politics. The newish leader of the far-right National Front is an intriguing study in how to make extremist politics marketable—and in doing so, perhaps to reshape French party politics.

In the short run, Ms Le Pen wants to decontaminate the National Front, stripping it of the skin-headed image it had under her father, Jean-Marie. At the party’s annual May 1st rally, she surrounded herself with fresh-faced young women in jeans and T-shirts. Her father, a former paratrooper, perfected a line in anti-Semitic and xenophobic outrage. She shares much of his programme, such as support for the death penalty and job preference for French nationals. But she has junked the anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi sidekicks in favour of a subtler tone. “When I talk about the immigration problem, I don’t talk out of hate, or xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or fear,” she insists, but pragmatism. “We cannot afford to let everybody in.”

Across Europe, traditional divisions between left and right have blurred, Ms Le Pen argues, giving way to a new fracture between those who believe in globalisation, international governance and open borders, and those who believe in the primacy of the nation. In her eyes President Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the IMF and a likely Socialist candidate, are “interchangeable”: standard-bearers for a globalised world view. By contrast, she wants a return to national sovereignty, a withdrawal from the euro (“before it collapses”) and NATO (“submission to America”), the return of border controls and an unapologetic protectionist policy to “re-industrialise France”.

For under scrutiny, many of Ms Le Pen’s ideas, when not toxic, are deeply flawed. France cannot compete with China on cost, she says, so better to put up borders, go for a competitive devaluation and start building factories at home again. She dismisses worries about the colossal cost of protectionism or of debt-servicing with a devalued currency as scaremongering. For now, such details have yet to spoil the seductive simplicity of her message. And this will keep her a highly disruptive figure in the run-up to 2012 and beyond.

Unlike DSK, Marine Le Pen has never been accused of committing a crime, violent or otherwise. However, as made clear by the defamatory, accusatory opinion quoted above - fairly typical of the limited coverage Le Pen receives in English-language media - Le Pen is regarded with a poisonous cynicism, a combination of fear and loathing that would elicit outraged cries and condemnations of "hate" if it were directed at any representative of immigrants or jews. Le Pen, like all European nationalists, is treated to a different standard, worse than any accused rapist. She's undeniably popular with the native French, who for perfectly normal reasons would like to be led by someone, anyone who actually favors them over aliens. Naturally this frightens and disgusts anyone who loves aliens and hates the French.

The double standard was clearly visible amid the empassioned cacaphony following the arrest of DSK. The realization that the scandal would likely improve Le Pen's prospects frightened certain pundits so much that they couldn't help but couple their open-minded reminders that DSK is innocent until proven guilty with cognitive-dissonance-inducing paranoia and hang-wringing over Le Pen. The most egregious examples I've found are Doug Schoen and Anne Applebaum. I don't think it's any coincidence that while neither one is French, both are jews.

UPDATE 20 May 2011: Marine Le Pen becomes Front National leader: A pivotal moment for French politics? - Telegraph, by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet, 16 Jan 2011:

It's a measure of the inroads Marine Le Pen has already made in the French political debate that she now splits opinion among the rarefied world of Parisian intellectuals.

On the one hand, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy still thinks she reeks of sulphur: according to him, the youngest daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, 82, the longstanding Front National leader, is "even more dangerous than her father".

Yet on the other Elisabeth Lévy, the shrewd editor of Causeur magazine, the French answer to The Spectator, considers not only that Marine Le Pen "says nothing scandalous or morally unacceptable", but also that she might well "be truly breaking away from the old French extreme-Right, to create something new."

It's a measure of just how un-French "French" political debate is that Moutet cites two jews as representative, even though they are members of a powerful, exclusive ethnic group who comprise less than 1% of the overall population.

[Marine's father, Jean-Marie] Le Pen, an orphaned Breton fisherman's son, tried to join the Résistance in 1944, and later fought in Algeria and in the Suez expedition.

But he made his indelible mark in French politics by obsessively picking at the scabs of the country's dark past. He boasted of using torture in Algeria to combat terrorism; called the gas chambers "a point of detail" of the Second World War; used time-and-motion calculations to dispute the number of Auschwitz victims; and described France's German occupiers as "very civilised".

He was several times condemned under French incitement laws - all of which he used to paint himself as a larger-than-life pariah in the too-tame, self-referential world of French politics.

Le Pen is being painted as a pariah here for having the audacity to try to represent his people. Let's be honest. Is there anyone who picks more obsessively at scabs from the past (like Auschwitz) than jews do? Argue with them, like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and you're painted as dangerous. Don't argue, like Marine Le Pen, and you're painted as worse.

At 42, a handsome, single working mother of three, she presents herself as the young, modern face of the Front National, in sharp contrast to her defeated opponent in the Party leadership contest, the 60-year-old academic Bruno Gollnisch, under whose banner the Party's residual hardliners had sought an increasingly exiguous shelter.

In the Gollnisch camp gather the "tradis", the traditionalist Catholics who are horrified by Marine's support of gay rights - short of gay marriage - and refusal to support abolition of the 1975 law permitting abortion. (She says she only wants all provisions of the law strictly applied, so that women are first offered "alternatives" such as pre-natal adoption.)

No-one in France will admit to anti-Semitism, which is actionable by law, but campaign rumours from the Gollnisch camp included descriptions of Marine's entourage as "full of Jews, queers and Arabs".

Actionable by law is an innocuous way of saying that in France you can be persecuted for making elementary observations like the ones I just have. Meanwhile no special laws prevent jews living in France from saying whatever they wish about the French.

It is interesting that two personalities she quoted positively during a half-hour conversation were two Jews: Simone Veil, the former health minister and European Parliament president, who first introduced the abortion bill, and Elisabeth Badinter, the left-wing feminist author.

It is interesting how jews keep coming up in Moutet's piece. Is she jewish? At any rate, the impression Moutet creates is that what's most important about Le Pen is what jews think about her, not what she thinks about anything. And never mind what the French think either.

"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.

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty, by Paul Vallely, The Independent, 16 April 2004 (my emphasis):

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded - at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government - and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply," Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: "Take a chair." His caller, affronted, said: "You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis." To which Rothschild replied: "Take two chairs." At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan's great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of "the slow murder of 600,000 people" on the continent "we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time." And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today's terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.

Napoleon and the Jews, Wikipedia:

Napoleon's indirect influence on the fate of the Jews was even more powerful than any of the decrees recorded in his name. By breaking up the feudal trammels of mid-Europe and introducing the equality of the French Revolution he effected more for Jewish emancipation than had been accomplished during the three preceding centuries. The consistory of Westphalia became a model for other German provinces until after the fall of Napoleon, and the condition of the Jews in the Rhine provinces was permanently improved as a consequence of their subjection to Napoleon or his representatives. Heine and Börne both record their sense of obligation to the liberality of Napoleon's principles of action, and the German Jews in particular have always regarded Napoleon as one of the chief forerunners of emancipation in Germany.

(Image from Jews and French Grand Opera.)

Below are some excerpts from a review by PLEASUREMAN, The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career (original emphasis):

When I started reading Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique, I didn't quite know what I was getting into. John Derbyshire was warned about people who get "the Jew thing", and as I mentioned in Who's Afraid of Kevin MacDonald? his own review of MacDonald's work more or less pretends that the last 40 years of major Jewish influence on conservative politics never happened. It's one thing to find this influence an overall positive thing, but to forget to mention that it happened strikes one as careless, especially when reviewing a work that discusses just this influence.

If conservatives are not introspective it follows that they are not closely focused on the permutations of conservatism that go beyond policy debate, including the permutations that lead to conservatism's dark side. This dark side includes a tendency towards authoritarianism, close-mindedness, and paranoia. Liberalism has its extremism, conservatism has its dark side. It would be naive to fail to acknowledge this dark side when approaching controversial work like MacDonald's. Unlike Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, The Culture of Critique is not anchored in decades of irrefutable science, it is a more at a theory that attempts to explain Jewish dominance in Western academia, politics, and business. Moreover it is a theory tied to an already controversial idea, that ethnic groups can have an unconscious or subconscious group evolutionary strategy which benefits not merely the individual but the group itself. This goes beyond the normal attachment one feels for one's nationality or ethnicity, and suggests that genetics and culture can interact in such a way that the result is justifiably called an evolutionary strategy.

But more than that, MacDonald's scholarship is in what contemporary culture defines as forbidden territory. It must stand in the shadow of a malevolent lunatic fringe that has always followed conservative thought--a fringe that finds Jewish (and other) conspiracies everywhere, lives in fear of sinister forces, and rages impotently about everything it sees as a potential threat. There is no way to approach the question of Jewish influence without both conjuring this fringe and finding oneself accused of sympathy with it.

In my view, MacDonald's incisive work is worth reading whether you are prepared to believe in a group evolutionary strategy or not, whether you believe Jewish influence has been pronounced or not. Even if MacDonald is completely wrong, his approach to groups deserves attention, particularly with regard to the ongoing transformation of American political life from a culture formed and guided by Northern Europeans to one that is approaching complete ethnic pluralism. I think it is likely that Jewish culture, as it has been shaped over the millenia, has worked to reinforce a set of behaviors, beliefs, and strategies with regard to other groups (and particularly with the universalist-minded West), and whether it is driven by evolutionary forces is beside the point--it nevertheless is, and has been strikingly influential upon the events of the 20th century. Indeed, it has changed the course of American history.

My initial goal here is to summarize MacDonald's arguments and evidence, by chapter. This post is an introduction, and subsequent posts will take the chapters in sequence.

As Henry Ford remarked about Charles Lindbergh, "When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews." Get ready to talk about the Jews.

MacDonald next mentions Stephen Jay Gould, whose long record of intellectual prevarication on the subject of genetic differences (and human biodiversity in particular) speaks for itself. Gould has been an incredibly important figure in the demonization of psychometrics and his book The Mismeasure of Man is virtually a bible for what one might term the anti-intelligence clergy (intelligence doesn't exist, cannot be measured, is not variable, etc). According to MacDonald, Gould's views were influenced by his Jewish-Leftist identity and fear of anti-Semitism.

Gould made exaggerated and provably false claims about the congressional debates of the period. The immigration debate was largely about preserving America's Nordic-derived identity and culture, and IQ testing did not play a significant role in any part of it. Gould's response to such criticism was to ignore it, a response that has become a tradition among Gould's worshipful and ill-informed followers. (Similarly, Gould ignored all modern IQ research on the ludicrous grounds that it was "ephemeral".) A revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man essentially ignored all critical response to Gould's book.

Gould further claimed that the 1924 immigration law was in some sense responsible for the deaths of Jews unable to emigrate from German-held territories before World War II, a hyperbolic and frankly hysterical conclusion that has become typical of Jewish anti-intellectualism. This rhetorical behavior is readily found in much Jewish political output, and MacDonald catalogues the varieties of it found in Gould's work, including use of denigrating labels, oversimplified straw men, gilded writing, and perhaps the most popular technique, claiming moral superiority over one's debate opponents. Nevertheless, Gould maintains a high level of posthumous prestige.

The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career - Page 2:

A response to The Culture of Critique

I was going to canvass some of the responses to MacDonald's book, but why not just quote from the SLPC's considered, measured review:

SPLC:

Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, MacDonald, who also is a board member of the white supremacist Charles Martel Society, published a trilogy that supposedly "proves" that Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies. MacDonald also argues that anti-Semitism, far from being an irrational hatred for Jews, is a logical reaction to Jewish success in societies controlled by other ethnic or racial groups. After the publication of a 2007 Intelligence Report exposé detailing MacDonald's anti-Semitism, his teaching duties were reduced and many of his colleagues publicly condemned his racist research.

This is, as you have seen in my summary of MacDonald's book, wholly malicious, tendentious, and dishonest. But we expect nothing less from the SPLC, a Jewish dominated organization that carefully manages its Wikipedia page to remove any hint of criticism. The SPLC is fixated on white supremacist groups but has of late broadened its scope to include any right-wing rhetoric that is more arousing than David Brooks after a bong hit. It doesn't have any serious charter to pursue hatred as such, or else it would have to monitor itself for its flamboyant belligerance and crude bullying and coercion.

It may as well be said that this type of aggressive, moralistic posturing is a signature of Jewish rhetoric. It has such a long tradition that it must be recognized by everyone today as the sort of thing Jews often do--it is a hallmark, for example, of arguments in favor of Israel's right to do everything, and was used extensively by neocons to justify the Iraq War.

This manner of argument is in keeping with Judaism's aggressive competitive tendencies, high Jewish IQ, and legalistic morality. I add the last item because legalistic moral systems must of necessity be rigid. They are based on the idea that goodness is not arrived at by communal judgement (favored in altruistic societies), but by command of authority--and here the difference with Christianity could not be more striking. As I have noted in another context, much of the behavior we see today is premised on the notion that what is legally permissable is morally permissable--a statement very pregnant with meaning, and very much an inheritance from Jewish thinking, whether we realize it or not.

And what about The Culture of Critique? MacDonald chose his title well--Jewish culture is very tied up in the idea that argument, even tendentious argument, is good. I am not sure I follow him in his belief that Jewish behavior is an evolutionary adaptation--but let me qualify this. The idea of group evolutionary behavior remains controversial. There is some question as to how it operates through natural selection; I am not expert enough to present either side of this question. But then I suspect that the interaction between culture and natural selection is rather murky and difficult to quantify, much as most mixed nature-nurture traits are.

It is quite possible that characteristic Jewish culture was formed by happenstance--that is, it was shaped by the unique series of events and struggles it found itself in due to its place and time of origin and adjacent cultures. As a firm believer in the role that randomness plays in all life, I am not convinced that an explanation of cultural thinking must be any less arbitrary than this.

This remains an academic question because we can never develop a rigorous and falsifiable theory--we are left to believe what we will. But however it came to be, Jewish culture as it is today is a compelling force that has dramatically changed Western culture.

Perhaps a more interesting line of argument is that Jewish culture is a byproduct of high IQ. The pursuit of pluralism, for example, can be seen as Jewish defensiveness given its competitive nature--but it is also the mark of high IQ novelty seekers. Similarly, many of the ideological movements that MacDonald surveys had little trouble attracting gentiles of a certain type, however dominated their upper ranks may have been by Jews. And by "certain type" I am referring to the cognitive elite--the class of person who is readily won over to abstract theories and is disdainful of traditional practices. That Jews dominate may have less to do with Jewish culture and more to do with Jewish IQ. One omission MacDonald makes is in comparing Jewish achievement and wealth without controlling for IQ.

However this book is an impressive survey of Jewish involvement in the great changes of the 20th century. Wherever one comes down on this subject, it deserves better than the SPLC's malicious and disingenuous treatment, or the cool oblviousness of most of the rest of Western society. It opens the door to many fascinating questions, not only to Jewish culture but to the whole nature of Western civlization and its potential downfall, to the study of group interaction, to the contrast between impermeable and assimilationist societies. It is a serious and manifestly well-intentioned academic work.

And for that reason, the reception of MacDonald's work should be considered scandalous. We do not live in a freely thinking society if this careful and conscientious exploration of group behavior is beyond the pale. But then, looking around, one can readily see that we in fact live in a society governed by frivolity, snark, and clownishness--clownishness much like the SPLC's ridiculous summary of MacDonald's study of Jewish culture. Such is our intellectual world.

I do not agree with MacDonald that ethnic separatism offers European-derived culture anything more than devolution. I think ethnic separatism within a diverse nation will alter what we think of as Western culture and turn it into something no better than the self-interested ethnic enclaves that have exploited it. Universalism is simply a hallmark of the West; if it loses this trait, it loses itself.

The question of what to do is far too complicated to explore briefly, but a return to assimilationism and a renewal of Western values must be the only plausible course. All of our politics should be subordinate to this issue.

The Culture of Critique - My Posting Career - Page 3:

It's sometimes used as an excuse that Jews even criticize themselves, without acknowledging that Jewish self-criticism is aimed at increasing cohesion by punishing deviation (such as intermarriage), while Jewish criticism of other cultures is aimed at undermining cohesion. It is silly to equate the two.

Kevin MacDonald:

I do think that the social tensions resulting from this assault on our people and culture will eventually get to the point that there will perforce be an audience for my work. It may seem odd to phrase it this way, but in a real sense all of us writing from a pro-White, pro-European perspective should be desperately trying to break through into the wider culture — to become famous and respected. If it doesn't happen for any of us, then we have surely lost.

Referring to an interview with Kevin MacDonald by Alex Kurtagic:

http://www.wermodand...0220110000.html

The treatment of MacDonald shows the ugliest side of Jewish culture, particularly because the venue is academia. For me it is a reason I can never feel sympathetic toward Jewish concerns or Jewish claims of injustice; their culture is very hospitable to injustice and quite glibly so.