Beullogeo's

The first editorial, dated 31 Jan 2009 and titled The Nativists Are Restless, starts the witch-hunt with a bang, accusing Vdare, The American Cause, and korean-jew Marcus Epstein of the second worst crime possible in their brave new progressivist-globalist world: "white supremacism". (The worst crime being "anti-semitism", of course. Surely the Times will eventually get to that.)

The next editorial, dated 2 Feb 2009 is titled The Nativists Are Restless, Continued. It continues the assault under the guise of seeking debate, accusing Republicans of not doing enough for latinos while saluting the Southern Poverty Law Center for sniffing out non-latino Whites distasteful enough to fret about our interests and audacious enough to actually pursue them. For the record, the Times states, they do not support open borders, and never have. They're only concerned that their metaphorical "Golden Door" might be closed. They don't favor "amnesty" either. They just want a "Golden Door" big enough so "that immigrants will go through, not around". And that those who do go around get to stay. That's not "open borders" or "amnesty". It's just the common sense of anyone who wants to "destroy America’s identity as a white, European country."

The editorial dated 4 Feb 2009 is titled ‘The Nativist Lobby’. It broadens the witch-hunt to FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA, and is based entirely on the SPLC's bolshevist smear tactics. Here the pretense at debate has been replaced with a list of people to be shunned and silenced. They conclude by saying "people should know about the groups’ history, something they and their allies don’t usually like to talk about".

This from people who don't like to talk about the history of immigration or their own group's role in shaping it. People who scream ANTI-SEMITE!!! at anyone who notices their relentlessly harsh and extreme pursuit of their own racial interests. Who scream HOLOCAUST!!! at anyone who mocks their fretfulness about their own race, culture and ethnicity. Who scream RACIST!!! if anyone suggests closing the "Golden Door" they worked so long and hard to pry open in order to create the multiracial majority-minority dystopia they desire and thrive in.

The underlying assumptions made by the Times editorialists are outrageously hypocritical:

• Whites should accept a political regime which explicitly panders to the interests of everyone other than Whites.
• Whites should not express concern about non-White immigration despite the obvious hostility of those immigrants and their supporters toward Whites.
• Whites should reject and distance ourselves from anyone who does not conform to these rules.

Jews seem incapable of doing so, but we Whites have no trouble substituting "jew" for "White" in the points above and recognizing the apoplectic reaction any such attack would cause in jews.

Ever since Congress and the media, including the Times, failed to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform down our throats in mid 2007 we haven't heard much from either source about immigration. Odd isn't it? One day the "12 million" undocumented invaders is a critical issue we just absolutely have to address, immediately and comprehensively. Then when it doesn't go the way they want the urgency evaporates and for some 18 months there's hardly a peep. It's doubly odd that this happened despite an intervening nationwide election. An election which, if the Times et al. really had been so eager to debate, would have been the perfect opportunity for Americans to debate and vote on immigration. Instead the Times, like the rest of the mainstream media and both major political parties, did their best not to talk about immigration. They quickly changed the subject when it did come up. It's been so long since they talked about it they're still throwing around the "12 million" number as if it hasn't changed!

Actually, none of this is odd once you understand that our country has been hijacked by greedy and dishonest people who either don't care about Whites or actively hate us. As Peter Brimelow says in a video the Times links at their own risk:

I think the issue in the immigration debate is not racism or xenophobia, it's treason. The people who are running current policy embarked upon a course that will destroy the United States as we know it. They have no loyalty to it, they want to transform it. So it's treason.

Well now there's a new president. The first sired by a resident alien. The first with illegal alien relatives. The first whose own natural born citizenship is in doubt. Oblivious to these notable and unprecedented firsts the Times focuses instead like a laser beam on race, "It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out." Among the views they consider pathetic in the "age of Obama" is anyone daring to mock their "Magic Negro". What else but magic could explain how so many embarassing firsts were ignored by the Times and most of the rest of the media during Obama's campaign? It makes far more sense to attribute it to jewish media influence and their self-serving interests in destroying America’s identity as a white, European country. That seems to be what frightens the Times most about Brimelow's view. If their treason becomes clear to enough people they know they're going to have hell to pay. Which they see of course as just another reason to carry through the destruction of America’s identity as a white, European country. They're committed to smothering even the most hapless, harmless Whites who fumble around trying to avoid being called "racist".

Despite the Times' attempt to guilt-trip us, we know that Juan "CIR co-sponsor" McCain's best efforts to woo black, latino, asian, and jewish voters failed miserably. It failed because the non-Whites voted overwhelmingly for the non-White:

Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

Obama	McCain	Other
White (75%)	43%	55%	2%
African-American (13%)	96%	4%	N/A
Latino (8%)	67%	31%	2%
Asian (2%)	63%	33%	4%
Other (3%)	66%	31%	3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat's stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain's 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

Whites don't deserve the blame for the lopsided non-White vote. The non-Whites do. After decades of legislated preferences for non-Whites, non-White immigration (legal and illegal), poisonous anti-White media propaganda (the NYT in the vanguard), forced integration, non-White on White violence, and piles of danegeld extorted from Whites and transferred to non-Whites by government mandate - after all this the hostility and resentment between non-Whites and Whites has only grown. The jewish-led, jewish-funded assault on Whites has only become more intense. The Times blames it all on Whites.

We have good cause to be angry. The harm done to us is by now crystal clear. Our country, as we knew it, seems doomed. What our enemies are doing now is trying to ensure that no one will be punished for the crime. The crime is genocide - a deliberately pursued policy to harm Whites. The editors of the Times and anyone who agrees with them are genocidalists. Their paranoia about what Whites might do to immigrants, or themselves, does not excuse them. Their response to White objections to the injustice inflicted upon us by immigration is not only unsympathetic, it is openly contemptuous and repressive. Their foot is on our throats. They meet our pleas to stop with derision and push harder. What they could in 1965 pretend was immigration, justified and debated on the basis of how many should be admitted in the best interests of the natives, has been revealed as a culture-killing invasion and alien colonization. Now we are told by our erstwhile dictators that it is expressly for the benefit of the immigrants, the cost to us irrelevant. It is a premeditated and coldly executed program to replace us, and the more we resist the more they pretend they are justified to dislike and fear us.

It may seem to the Times like a good time to once again discuss immigration. After the aforementioned 18 month quasi-blackout on the subject Pew recently announced that public concern for immigration is "slipping". Never mind that every other issue people claim they are more concerned about is directly impacted by immigration. That the Times would advocate in favor of millions of alien interlopers just now, when so many natives are struggling to find jobs, confirms the malice and distain with which they regard us. I don't believe this is a blunder. The Times considers it their duty, representing a combination of latino and jewish interests, to broach this subject now. They are preparing the ground so their Magic Negro and plutocrat-owned Congress can have another sham debate about the "12 million", this time following the fast-track bailout bill template. In that they hope to secure the future of the non-White immigrants while definitively destroying America’s identity as a white, European country.

They hate us so much they can't wait to forget we ever existed.

I haven't the time or energy for a cohesive post-election essay, but I do have a collection of links and some comments to share.

First, the title. The Obama shills are inordinately fond of this refrain. I think we can expect it to morph into many new and snottier forms even as the election itself recedes from memory. The Obamen seem to believe that they and their man are now beyond all criticism.

Back in September Obaman Jack Cafferty wrote:

Race is arguably the biggest issue in this election, and it's one that nobody's talking about.

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn't be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn't make sense…unless it's race.

Cafferty then cites Michael Grunwald, speaking in code about the evils of speaking in code. Decoded, this is what Cafferty and Grunwald are saying: hordes of unthinking, racist Whites stand between them and Utopia.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia's primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10.

Ooooo scary. Except we can see clearly now in retrospect that this was all alot of guilt-tripping nonsense.

Nobody was talking about race? Lots of people were talking about race, even in the mainstream media. What was most notable was that most of them were trying to lay the same race-based guilt-trip on Whites as McCafferty and Grunwald. Harold Meyerson and Ron Rosenbaum are two particularly ham-handed examples I've cited previously. It's easy to find others.

In the wake of the election we're hearing a new variation: yes Whites are racist, but not enough to make a difference. John Judis writes that "many white Americans still harbor degrees of conscious or unconscious resentment against blacks" but "it didn't matter enough to decide the election". In Judis' opinion Obama should have done better than Kerry did in 2004, but since he didn't (in some places) Whites therefore deserve to be taken to task in yet another guilt-tripping editorial.

The fact is that race really did matter to many voters, in fact we can see now looking back that it mattered much more to non-white voters than it did to Whites. Sailer provides the numbers in Exit Polls:

	Obama	McCain	Other
White (75%)	43%	55%	2%
African-American (13%)	96%	4%	N/A
Latino (8%)	67%	31%	2%
Asian (2%)	63%	33%	4%
Other (3%)	66%	31%	3%

The Jerusalem Post reports on the jewish bias:

Jews voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers, refuting speculation that Republican John McCain would peel away Jewish support due to concerns about the Democrat's stance on the Middle East and other issues.

Obama picked up 78 percent of the Jewish vote in comparison to McCain's 21% haul, according to exit polls. That rate is about two points higher than what former Democratic candidate John Kerry received in 2004 and similar to the numbers Al Gore and Bill Clinton garnered in previous elections.

This narrative that you have to worry about Barack Obama just didn't fly when they saw Barack Obama up close and they saw his relations with the Jewish community," he said, pointing to the extensive Jewish outreach campaign in states like this key swing state, where Jews make up a statistically significant slice of the electorate.

He noted that it was the first time a campaign had Jewish vote coordinators in all of the key battleground states, with Florida particularly notable for the size of the outreach, surrogate events and third-party efforts.

"There are nagging doubts in the Jewish community about Barack Obama and where he stands on important issues," he asserted.

Green, though, assessed that such concerns were outweighed by those on the Republican ticket, namely regarding the vice presidential nominee.

"There was contrary tendency," he said. "There were Jews who expressed skepticism about Obama but even more about Sarah Palin."

Note that what is called "nagging doubts" in jews is called "racism" in Whites.

What kind of guilt-tripping would Whites get if we voted in a bloc of 96%, 78%, 67%, or 63%? Our vote is objectively the least attributable to racial bias, and yet we get all the critcism for being biased. The most reasonable explanation for this is that our critics simply hate us.

As an aside, the JPost article also contains a handy "almost-complete list of the new Jewish congressional caucus: An all-time record of Jewish reps in Congress." The senate is 13% jewish, the house about 7.3% (32/435).

Jews may have had their doubts about Obama, but that was washed away by their fear and loathing for Sarah Palin and the unconsciously White Christian voters who flocked to support her. I'm not aware of anyone in the mainstream press making an attempt to guilt-trip jews about this. Quite the opposite. Here's Jacques Berlinerblau, associate professor of Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and author of "Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics". He thinks Palin just needs to try harder:

The Palin Effect: Two of the speakers observed that John McCain's selection of a running mate may have turned away Jewish voters who were once supportive of him. On Wednesday, I pointed out that this apparent "Palin Effect" has occurred despite the fact that the Governor of Alaska has made no egregious errors in her dealings with the Jewish community and has, in many cases, said the right things and cultivated the right relationships.

In short, 2008 has demonstrated the strategic importance of having skilled advisers and operatives in the domain of faith-based politicking. Accordingly, nothing precludes Palin from someday reversing negative perceptions among Jewish voters. And while she's at it she might find a receptive audience because . . .

Jews are going Republican?: Speaker Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council pointed out that rumors about Jews defecting from the Democrats to head over to the GOP have been around since the time of McGovern. He views this as a "man bites dog story," of great interest to the media if only because it is so counter-intuitive. The truth of the matter is that Jews are solid, true-blue Democrats who have given the party more than 75% of their ballot in the last 4 elections.

That's right. The truth, which negates Berlinerblau's blame-Palin argument, is that most jews just won't support someone Whites find appealing even if only unconsciously for racial reasons. It doesn't matter if that hapless White pol promises to nuke iran and send Whites to die to protect israel. That's not good enough now that jews have Bushes, Obamas, Bidens, and McCains who will do all that and more.

Berlinerblau concludes with a little disinformation:

Is the Jewish vote really that important?: Professor Yossi Shain of Georgetown's Government department made the provocative argument that polling data on Jewish voters is highly problematic and misleading. Drawing a distinction between Jewish citizens of the United States and eligible Jewish voters, Professor Shain cited the number of 2.8 million in the latter category--a number that decreases their already minor electoral significance.

Shain's observation corresponds with one that I have been making here: we should study and contemplate American Jewish voting behavior in all of its glory. But we should not overestimate its electoral import. At less than 2% of the American population (and only 3.6% of the population of Florida) Jewish-Americans do not stand to dramatically affect the outcome on November 4th.

Tsk tsk. They're neglecting the effect of money and media on modern campaigns. Now why would they do that? They must know that Jewish campaign contributions and media influence have an impact far larger than a measly 2% of the votes. Every politician knows this, which is why they all have special outreach programs for jews, make promises to AIPAC, and make pilgrimages to israel.

JPost: "Sarah Palin may be hurting McCain among Jewish voters":

"Palin is totally out of step with public opinion in the Jewish community" on domestic issues and has "zero foreign policy experience," the organization wrote in a fund-raising letter sent out last week. It also started an on-line petition asking: "McCain: What were you thinking when you selected Palin?"

Earth to Berlinerblau. For some strange reason plenty of jews expect politicians to think of jews first and not the far more numerous Whites.

In the days before the election I gathered many links that revealed a race-based hatred directed towards Sarah Palin. Whether or not Whites supported or opposed her on principle it was obvious by contrast that the animosity of "the left", and especially jews, came from a fear and loathing not so much for anything Palin herself had said or done, but for the White Christians instinctively drawn to her. Palin was treated like a blank sheet of paper on which non-whites (and self-loathing Whites) could finger paint whatever dim visions they pleased. Then they hated her for being whatever boogeyman they imagined her to represent.

Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks':

Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Black Florida congressman apologizes for Palin comments:

"The point I made, and will continue to make, is that the policies and priorities of a McCain-Palin administration would be anathema to most African Americans and Jews," he said in his statement.

The point I will make, and continue to make, it that the current regime, before and after this election, is anathema to Whites. I can quote example after example of pro-black, pro-jew, pro-latino, pro-anything-non-white government officials and media pundits bashing Whites and suffering no substantial consequences. Whites on the other hand mustn't say they care for themselves or are fearful of or distrust other groups, in spite of self-interested members of those groups telling us repeatedly how much they fear and distrust us.

Comic's Appeal to Jewish Voters for Obama Is Careful:

The reason Obama may yet still get 60% of the Jewish vote and at least one reason why Florida is so close now is because the Jews like Biden and are scared by Palin.

Jewish voters may be wary of Palin:

“There is almost always an inverse proportion between a candidate's popularity among conservative Christians and secular Jews,” said Jeff Ballabon, a Republican lobbyist long active in Jewish politics who supports McCain.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Secular jews plus jews hostile to Jews for Jesus equals a pretty broad range of jews.

“I find her offensive”:

“I was leaning towards McCain,” growled Marvin Weinstein, 74, as he strode to an appointment in a doctor’s office. “But I think his choice of her has turned me off.”

“What I hear is she’s an awful anti-Semite,” George Friedberg said as he sat curbside in his Escalade. “She won’t be getting my vote.” Friedberg’s wife, Florence, appeared at the passenger-side door, shopping bags in hand. “I was leaning towards McCain, but after he selected her I’ve ruled him out completely. I find her offensive.”

Koch: Obama is my guy — Palin is scary:

One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.

That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.

So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.

Note that defending America comes after Koch's concern for israel. Though to be fair he may see them as the same thing.

Palin Pick Puts Many Women on the Verge:

Senator McCain's selection of Governor Palin of Alaska as his running mate, which was hailed in some quarters and met with skepticism in others, is sparking intense reactions from some New Yorkers, who report being driven to fits of rage and even all-consuming panic.

"All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows," an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president."

"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage," an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. "When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."

Ms. Grose was not alone. More than 700 comments poured in, many from women who said they were experiencing a visceral hostility to Mrs. Palin that they were struggling to explain.

Ms. Kricorian said some of the agitation was because women felt Mr. McCain was pulling off a political trick, using the novelty of selecting a woman to hide her conservative social and religious views. "The women thing is a ruse. ... She was chosen because of the evangelical thing," the writer said. "It's weirdly stealthy that she's not talking about it."

It's not weird at all that these White-haters so unselfconsciously project their dishonesty onto us and so freely express their homicidal rage. They only struggle to explain how exactly it's all our fault that they hate us so.

In What Hollywood Jews think of white Americans James Edwards quotes Larry David:

The debates were particularly challenging for me to monitor. First I tried running in and out of the room so I would only hear my guy. This worked until I knocked over a tray of hors d’oeuvres. “Sit down or get out!” my host demanded. “Okay,” I said, and took a seat, but I was more fidgety than a ten-year-old at temple. I just couldn’t watch without saying anything, and my running commentary, which mostly consisted of “Shut up, you prick!” or “You’re a f**king liar!!!” or “Go to hell, you c**ksucker!” was way too distracting for the attendees, and finally I was asked to leave.

If Obama loses, it would be easier to live with it if it’s due to racism rather than if it’s stolen. If it’s racism, I can say, “Okay, we lost, but at least it’s a democracy. Sure, it’s a democracy inhabited by a majority of disgusting, reprehensible turds, but at least it’s a democracy.”

OK. That was directed at McCain, not Palin. But Larry David obviously hates McCain, our little Juan McCain, because he imagines that McCain represents White interests. And he thinks of us as disgusting, reprehensible turds. Keep this in mind now - the regime not only lets this guy make nationally broadcast primetime TV shows, they pay him to do so.

Pissed about Palin
McCain's running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it's time to get furious.
By Cintra Wilson

Sarah Palin and her virtual burqa have me and my friends retching into our handbags. She's such a power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty, it's easy to write her off and make fun of her. But in reality I feel as horrified as a ghetto Jew watching the rise of National Socialism.

She is dangerous. She is not just pro-life, she's anti-life. She is the suppression of human feeling and instinct. She is a slave to the compromises dictated by her own desire for power and control.

Notice how the nazi bugaboo has a way of popping up whenever jews don't like a White. Even when it's absurd because the person they're talking about isn't saying or doing anything remotely nazi-like. That's because to them "nazi" essentially means "anti-jew", thus it is only natural that it has become a jewish code word for White.

Here's another example. Heather Mallick, a liberal Canadian editorialist, wrote a couple of somewhat infamous fulsome little turgid screeds concerning Palin.

The Alaskan who went 'outside':

Small towns are places that smart people escape from, for privacy, for variety, for intellect, for survival. Palin should have stayed home.

One hundred thousand Canadians visit Alaska every year, and we like to pass by in cruise ships. But it never goes further than that. Alaska is our redneck cousin, our Yukon territory forms a blessed buffer zone, and thank God he never visits. Alaska is the end of the line.

CBC’s Mallick: ‘White Trash’ Palin Has ‘Porn Actress Look,’ ‘Smart People’ Flee Small Towns refers to an especially fulsome screed. The original document got flushed down the memory hole, but fortunately some leftist was particularly fond of it and saved a copy.

In the face of reader outrage Mallick did what any White basher normally does. She wrapped herself in philo-semitism and bashed the evil racists who criticized her. After all, she reasoned, only an evil racist White could object to her bashing Whites.

Canadian columnist's diatribe against Palin stokes anger in the U.S.:

The Toronto-based Mallick admits she's been shaken by the violence suggested in hundreds of e-mails similar in tone to Jones's, but adds the messages have simply served to underscore her point about the bigotry and small-mindedness of some Republican supporters.

"The violent and obscene threats against me were one thing — it's easy to filter those — but the anti-Semitic hate mail was very troubling. I am not Jewish but I am honoured to be taken for one. I consider it a great compliment."

What a hero. Curious, I reached back into Mallick's past columns to get a grasp on her pro-jewish sentiments. Here's an interesting column where she rails against racism. The subtlety of words: Are you Canadian or Canadian-born?:

Antonia Zerbisias is a brave unstoppable media critic for Canada's best and biggest paper, the Toronto Star. She took issue with a columnist named Christie Blatchford, who was objecting to the police statement that the accused men came from "a variety of backgrounds," for writing the following in a front-page column in the Globe and Mail: "The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Taliban fashion. They have first names like Mohamed, middle names like Mohamed and last names like Mohamed. Some of their female relatives at the Brampton courthouse who were there in their support wore black head-to-toe burkas … which is not a getup I have ever seen on anyone but Muslim women." Despite Blatchford's comments favourable to the majority of Canadian Muslims, I find the quoted material horrifying.

I didn't read the sentence as Mohamed this and Mohamed that. I read it like this:

The accused men are mostly young and mostly bearded in the Jewish fashion. They have first names like Yehoshua, middle names like Ariel, and last names like Morgenstern. Some of their female relatives wore typical Jewish garments, black and alien, their hair covered in typical Judaic fashion, not a garment I have ever seen on anyone but Semitic women.

Blatchford did not write this. I'm sure she never would write this. But people do write things like this when they believe it is popular. Racism is lumping a people together as if they were all the same. Thus the alleged sins of one are the sins of the group and this is when the bully pulpit and the violence join forces. This is how it begins.

Whether or not Mallick is jewish she sure sees the world as if she were. My old foil Larry Auster certainly does and so do his "conservative" jewish buddies. Hymowitz on Red State hysteria

I'm less and less alone. Here is yet another Palin-critical conservative. Kay Hymowitz ... casts a cold eye on the conservatives who have lost their minds over Sarah

Conservatives lost their minds? If anybody lost their minds over Palin surely I hope it's clear from all of the above it was jews. And by the way, I don't believe Auster, in all his many words on Palin, wrote anything at all about that.

If all of the above wasn't clear enough then it's a good thing I saved the worst for last.

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

Sandra Bernhard: Palin Would Be Gang-Raped By Blacks in Manhattan

You really should go read for yourself the vile hatred Bernhard expressed. The stunning thing about her invective is that it came not in some one-off drunken outburst, ala Mel Gibson, but instead was professionally produced and performed repeatedly in a mainstream jewish theater as entertainment for profit.

Ari Roth artistic director of Theater J was unsympathetic and unapologetic:

In fact, the play wears its politically VERY correct heart on its sleeve with its indictment of America as “A Man’s World, It’s a White Man’s World, It’s a Fucked Up White Man’s Racist World” and can only be suggested to be racist in its content if one is hell-bent on protecting White Folk for Sandra’s blistering indictment.When Sandra warns Sarah Palin not to come into Manhattan lest she get gang-raped by some of Sandra’s big black brothers, she’s being provocative, combative, humorous, and yes, let’s allow, disgusting. The fact that the show has a few riffs like this does not — to my mind — make it a “disgusting show.” there’s too much beauty, variety, vitality, and intelligence to label the entire show as “disgusting.” I’ll agree with you that we produced this show because we did find it to be edgy — because we wanted to give right wing conservative Jews a good run for their money by being on the receiving end of some blistering indictments from Sandra.Does it go over the edge sometimes? On the gang-rape joke, yes. Sure. Not much else. It goes over the edge and then comes right back to the cutting edge.Finally you ask, “where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration?” They were all there on opening night, one night before you came. We partied together after. There were three members of Theater J staff at the show last night, and there’ll be more of us this weekend when we present three shows — soon to be all sold out. I was teaching a political theater class last night, but I’ll be back for everything this weekend.We’re proud of our producing - proud of Sandra’s sense of timing - taking the fight out to the house and to the street beyond, channeling so much of our rage and frustration at the bizarre recent twists of fortune since Karl Rove trotted out Sarah Palin for John McCain to briefly meet and then get in bed with.Sandra’s face is hanging 10 feet tall in a banner over the DCJCC steps and we’re proud that she’s a new emblem and ambassador for our theater and our center. She’s not the only one who represents us. But her large heart, her generous talent, and her big mouth are all a big part of who we are.

About Theater J:

Hailed by The New York Times as “The Premier Theater for Premieres,” Theater J has emerged as one of the most distinctive, progressive and respected Jewish theaters on the national and international scene. A program of the Washington DC Jewish Community Center, Theater J works in collaboration with the four other components of the Washington DCJCC’s Morris Cafritz Center for the Arts, which include the Washington Jewish Film Festival and Screening Room, the Ann Loeb Bronfman Gallery, the Program in Literature, Music and Dance, and Nextbook.

Theater J produces thought-provoking, publicly engaged, personal, passionate and entertaining plays and musicals that celebrate the distinctive urban voice and social vision that are part of the Jewish cultural legacy.

Isn't that special?

A black and white version of this photo was on DrudgeReport Wednesday morning with the caption "LANDSLIDE" just below. I didn't have time to save Drudge's image or read the story he linked, but it did occur to me how manipulative it was to make the image black and white, deliberately modifying it in a way that left the messianic dimension intact while obscuring the racial dimension.

Later I was able to find the original full-color version. According to the source the photo was taken on 6 July 2008. Since then it has apparently bounced around the internets via secret brotha chain email. Sorta like the Obama-is-a-muslim meme and worse have been bouncing around the jewish internets.

Oddly enough I'm not in either social circle, so I didn't see this picture until just now. After searching for it. Doesn't the media usually monitor and report on popular phenomena like this? The full-color image sure does make a dramatic impression. It's Pulitzer material. Why should Whites be shielded from the graphic reality this race is revealing about race? Oh, that's right. We're not supposed to think about race.

Until you read the next headline. And the next. And the next...

- - -

Also from Drudge Wednesday: Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black:

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

. . .

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Drudge's headline, "PAPER: 'Socialist' label called 'old code word for black'...", made the any-criticism-of-Obama-is-racism meme transparent enough. The hilarious thing about the article's actual argument is that in the "old days", before reality-twisting honesty-smothering political correctness came to power, nobody used code words for blacks. People spoke plainly and simply said "negro" or "colored" when they meant negro or colored. "Socialist" might be a new code word for blacks, but it isn't an old one.

On the other hand "socialist", or more precisely "communist", was indeed an old code word for jews. Even as early as 1917 many Whites were afraid of the stigma attached to being called "anti-semite". Many of these Whites, even the ones in government whose job it was to defend us from enemies foreign and domestic, couldn't bring themselves to actually say out loud what they could plainly see with their eyes. That's because their brains knew what would happen to their wallets if they didn't bite their tongues. Just as it works today, only the "social pricing" was not as expensive.

There were men who spoke out anyway. Henry Ford. William Dudley Pelley. Charles Lindbergh. They all paid a price.

By 1972 even presidents dared to express anti-jewish thoughts only in private. Today we're told by our enlightened elite that Nixon was an anti-semite, because he must have been imagining the jewish influence that only an anti-semite can imagine has since become ever more pervasive and obvious. And it's just in our wild imaginations that the country seems to be going down the drain, just as Billy Graham and Nixon feared. But that's just more raving. Here's what's really important:

There's no way to settle whether Nixon was an anti-Semite—not just because you can't peer into someone's soul, but also because there's no litmus test for anti-Semitism. No, Nixon didn't hate all Jews personally, nor did he use unreconstructed Henry Ford-style anti-Jewish appeals—though, of course, virtually no major public figure in the last 50 years has. Yet clearly he thought and spoke of Jews as a group, more or less united in their opposition to him, possessing certain base and malign characteristics, and worthy of his scorn and hatred. You don't have to call that anti-Semitism if you don't want to. But there's no denying it represents a worldview deserving of the strongest reproach.

Never mind that you can find in the media virtually every day - without looking hard - opinions expressed about Whites as a group (sometimes coded), as more or less racist and possessing certain other base and malign characteristics, and worthy of scorn and hatred. Never mind that Ford's warning is almost 90 years past, not 50. In jewish minds Ford inspired Hitler to almost exterminate their race just yesterday, and today's rising crescendo of White-bashing from on high isn't a crime at all. It's not even happening. La la la la la. And if it is happening, so what? It's justice. And if you notice any jews bashing away it isn't because they're "deserving of the strongest reproach". No. It's because you're an anti-semite throwback - like Ford, Nixon, Graham, Pelley, Lindbergh, ... Knuckledragging jackbooted ignoramuses one and all.

- - -

Among the things Lindbergh mentioned in Des Moines was how smears and slurs are used to manipulate us. Here's a contemporary example. It concerns Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota who "appeared on Hardball and pounded away at Barack Obama’s associations with his long-time minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and bomber Bill Ayers, suggesting that the media should be investigating these associations with very anti-American voices". This prompted Mike Malloy, the former CNN news writer, to say:

She represents a district in Minnesota, she's a Republican of course, and she’s a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. She’s the type of person that I’m sure believes that the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was good and the use of depleted uranium in Iraq served a purpose. This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.

Note that Malloy implies that Whites who oppose Obama are not just guilty of being "racist", and we're not just guilty of genociding jews and indians. No. Now we're also guilty of genociding the poor vietnamese and iraqis.

Imagine what Whites will be accused of after four years of Change. I bet genociding somalis and latinos will be on the list. Read that link and see how those jews and socialists "fighting for equality" really get around. Somehow racist Whites will get the blame. You can bank on it. In fact you can build a Rube Goldberg-style business based on loaning somebody else's money to other somebodies you know will never repay while collecting a fat fee and selling the loans to other somebodies who will get screwed later. When that plays out you can get your distant relative in the government to "rescue" you with more money from some other people, so you can get out of that old used-up business and into another. Cha-ching.

If that "getting" and "making" stuff of Ford's is starting to make sense it's either because you're a loser who needs a non-White scapegoat to blame, or because it makes sense.

- - -

Such is the fruit of 60+ years of pretending race doesn't matter. Tastes a bit fecal, doesn't it?

Genocidal anti-racists hate Sarah Palin and her daughter for reproducing while White.

But even that old race-traitor Juan McCain appears to grok, deep down, that a White baby, illegitimate or not, fathered by a self-proclaimed redneck or not, is better than no White baby at all. If I could shake Levi's hand I'd say so explicitly, "congratulations son, now marry the girl and make four more".

Steve Sailer writes:

The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them.

Which is true, but doesn't capture the whole picture. A commenter named Mark puts his finger on the problem:

The thought of the Red Whites outbreeding the Blue Whites would give immense satisfaction, if I didn't simultaneously know that the Blue Whites in concert with many Yellow Reds are importing Blue Bronzes and Blue Yellows and Blue Blacks to outbreed even the Red Whites.

This is precisely what's happening.

Some bigots are not happy about who Sarah associates with:

Jewish Democrats have started to hit Sarah Palin hard for her association with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan

Obama camp connects the dots for Jews: McCain...Palin...Buchanan..."Nazis":

Barack Obama's campaign, perhaps miffed at all the Democrat-is-weak-on-Israel theme, started striking back at John McCain almost as soon as he tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Where the Dems are trying to paint McCain as more financially out of touch with people, they're strongly suggesting that his Christian conservative running mate is no friend to the Jews.

"Palin was a supporter of [MSNBC analyst] Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,'' Obama spokesman Mark Bubriski wrote in an email.

This is the likely reason Lawrence Auster thinks Palin should withdraw. It certainly makes more sense than the rationale he's currently peddling, which absurdly focuses on Palin's daughter's child. Clearly a politician's support for israel is paramount to Auster. As the ineffective and pathetic nature of his distaste for White reproductive habits plays out look for Auster to fall back on the same six-degrees-of-naziation smears other members of his extended family are already slinging.

Here's my paramount concern. What is Palin's position on immigration? Whether she was choosen to create all this hullabaloo about experience, pregnancy, and glass ceilings intentionally or not the result is that precious little attention is given to the fundamental, existential problem facing indigenous Whites: the invasion of hostile, ethnocentric, and fecund non-whites who want what we have. The media and our treasonous politicians are all very eager not to discuss that.

The MSM can't help but report on the downfall of their maverick hero John McCain. After all, they've cheered him on all these years. Now that his campaign has gone kablooey they have a duty to explain why.

Despite the titles of their articles, which promise to unveil the secrets behind the McCain campaign's "meltdown" and "chaos", all you'll find is whitewash. What virtually all the major media stories about McCain have in common is the way they tiptoe around immigration. They minimize McCain's unbridled support for immigration, and they minimize how this might be connected to his fall in popularity. First and foremost they mention his position on Iraq, his "maverick" status, his temper - none of which is news. Then they focus on his finance problems and staff changes. Symptoms, not causes. Buried somewhere near the end they might mention immigration. In an oblique "who knows, this might have something to do with it too" sorta way.

Very odd isn't it? McCain's stand in favor of shamnesty and the citizenry's overwhelmingly opposition to it both come into crystal clear focus just as he morphed from favored front-runner into bankrupt has-been. But for the open border pundits at Time, Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Fox News the clear link isn't notable, it is in fact hardly mentionable.

Observe the news carefully, from any mainstream source including Fox, and you can see clear signs of their immigration agenda. There is, for example, a never-ending flow of sob stories and sympathy plays, salted with the occasional hypocritical name calling by ethnocentrists and factually wrong wishful thinking.

We are constantly informed of the terrible conditions the immigrants are fleeing and the terrible suffering that enforcing our laws causes immigrants and their families. We hear repeated assertions that the opponents of immigration are a loud-mouthed minority who want to ship all the undocumented people off to concentration camps.

For more than a year now I've scrutinized the mainstream media for intelligent immigration debate. There isn't any. From the Beltway Boys, to O'Reilly vs Geraldo, to NRO vs the WSJ, the discussion is dominated by open border advocates of various stripes who never acknowledge the costs of immigration and quickly dismiss any suggestion to stop or reduce it as unthinkable or impossible.

Likewise with our pols. The Grand Bargain, negotiated in secret, turned out to be ridiculously lopsided. Even as the public rejected it the Grand Bargainers pulled every trick they knew to limit debate and speed it down our throats.

So far the Republican presidential debates have hardly touched immigration, and the Democrat candidates unanimously favor immigration and so don't discuss it at all. In the past months we've been informed by one pundit after another that it was absolutely critical to do something about immigration, but that if the Grand Bargain failed we wouldn't be able to discuss immigration again until after the next presidential election.

Huh? This is how our media and politicians serve voter interests? The Senate phone system was so overloaded it crashed. How many times has that happened before? By all accounts both sides are intensely interested in debate. Let's have it. Why shouldn't the 2008 presidential election be a referendum on immigration? Why shouldn't we talk about every aspect of immigration from now until 2009?

The main reason is that those who favor immigration know they would lose any honest, factual debate. They have until now provided nothing but irrational arguments based on emotion. Their advocacy for Ladeeenyo interests would be called bigotry if it were instead biased in favor of Americans, and their fervent desires to "diversify" America would be called genocidal if it were perpetrated on any other population.

The media does in fact provide plenty of information about the terrible consequences of immigration for Americans. They mix it in the daily firehose of facts and events, deliberately confusing the perfectly avoidable human disasters with unavoidable acts of nature. Their narrative consistently blames Americans for what are in fact the side effects of immigration. We use too much energy. We're destroying our environment. Schools are failing. Crime and poverty are rising. Bad Americans. Shame on you.

An open and honest debate will reveal our media's lies. We will see immigration's contribution to virtually every problem our society suffers. You can see it now. Just open your eyes.

Housing Foreclosures Jumped 90% in May From Year Ago
By Reuters | 12 Jun 2007

"Certainly not every community nationwide is seeing an increase in foreclosures, but foreclosed properties are becoming more commonplace and adding to the downward pressure on home prices in many areas."

As with most stories covering the mortgage crisis there is no attempt to examine the possible causes. Just a pile of facts.

The default rates in the subprime segment of the U.S. mortgage market, which caters to borrowers with poor credit histories, have jumped in recent months as the housing industry has slowed and prices have fallen.

In English: the problem originates in the risky, low end of the market, i.e. mostly poor overextended borrowers.

California documented one foreclosure filing for every 308 households, which as more than twice the the national average.

Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Indiana and Connecticut were some of the other states with foreclosures rates ranking among the nation's 10 highest in May.

The cities with the nation's top three metropolitan foreclosure rates were all located in California, and three other California cities also documented foreclosure rates among the top 10.

Strange coincidence. All these places have also been flooded with poor immigrants. Do you suppose the thus-far thwarted amnesty dreams of overextended invaders and the evaporating property values of overextended invadees might explain many of the subprime foreclosures?

Furious rates of home building and moving are signs of a booming economy, aren't they? Well wouldn't that depend on how much arises from white flight? One of the biggest reasons we supposedly need a constant influx of cheap unskilled labor is for construction, particularly home construction. It's a circular argument. What fraction of our economy is simply the churn created by immigration?

America has all sorts of problems whose root cause is too many people: jail crowding, teacher shortages, police shortages, traffic congestion, hospital closings, et cetera, ad nauseum. Virtually none of the articles you'll find in these news searches ever mentions how these problems are caused or exacerbated by permitting millions of indigent uneducated immigrants to flood into this country every year.

One very predictable consequence of all the crowding and poverty is strife.

Violent Crime Blazing Back in America

James Fox, a professor at Northeastern University, said part of the problem is that "gangs have made a comeback, and they are particularly well organized."

Are the Lords of Flatbush back? Well no, the professor is probably talking about MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia. Conveniently the article doesn't say.

"For years it has been very frustrating for those citizens and to the police when you hear all the press and media relations saying things are better, things are safer, and yet you have citizens still afraid to go to the grocery store," Officer Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the Fraternal Order of the D.C. Police Labor Committee, told ABC News.

The new crime figures come as "no surprise to police on the beat or to citizens in dangerous neighborhoods," Baumann said.

It is a big surprise to anyone who thinks white flight happens when racist whites flee (at great expense) perfectly harmless immigrants and their perfectly harmless gangs.

Attorney General Gonzales said there is only so much the federal government can do in fighting crime.

"We know that community-specific problems cannot successfully be tackled nationally," he said, "because crime issues vary from city to city, and even between neighborhoods in a single city."

We might try building the fence and deporting the criminals. It wouldn't be community-specific, but it would probably be pretty effective. Who can tell, the article doesn't really say the rise in violence has anything to do with immigration, so maybe it's just the xenophobe in me that imagines these things.

See how wonderful immigration is? The luckiest of us get to move to "nice places" with "good schools" and "friendly people". Aren't we privileged? What happened to the old neighborhood? Don't ask.

UPDATE 21 Jul 2007: Not every news source is coy about immigration. Here's something to think about the next time the media lays on a guilt-trip about America's broken health care system:

No health insurance? You're probably illegal

"We have a terrible, absolutely vicious, law called EMTALA: the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which is really the culprit that requires every emergency room, and every physician of an emergency room, to treat illegal aliens for free," she said.

Cosman said 84 hospitals in California have been forced to close because of the high cost of treating illegal aliens with only 50 percent of all treatments reimbursed by government.

"Even physicians in those emergency rooms don't fully get the point that by being compassionate, and generous, and gracious, they are, in essence, destroying their own livelihoods as well as their own hospitals," she said.

While politicians often mention there are 43 million without health insurance in this country, Cosman's report estimates that at least 25 percent of those are illegal immigrants. The figure could be as high as 50 percent.

Not being insured does not mean they don't get medical care.

Keep this in mind if you're unfortunate enough to see Michael Moore's "funniest movie yet", his crockumentary Sicko.

Free heath care? The illegals call their system No Hablo. Guess who pays the bills?

It's now obvious that the majority of American people, when asked directly and reported honestly, do not favor any form of amnesty for illegal aliens and in fact favor rounding them up and sending them home.

The problem has always been that we are not asked directly and the subject is not reported honestly. If for example our media reported on immigration the way it reports on Iraq - constantly questioning the premises and goals, always downplaying the positive news and emphasizing the negative - we would be much more aware just how disastrous the last four decades of immigration have been for the United States. The disaster would in fact never have been permitted to unfold.

Instead we have Big Liars like Ted Kennedy ("First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset") and John McCain ("I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it.") crafting our immigration policy, and a president responsible for enforcing our nation's borders and defending its citizens who thinks of himself as El Presidente and openly sides with the invaders instead. For this the big media lionize them. They are our great statesmen. Brave heroes.

The trouble for our treasonous and aloof elites is that despite their non-stop propaganda, constantly instructing us yokels how wonderful and enriching immigration is, the yokels are now very quickly waking up to reality. The reality that immigration has been a disaster.

All you have to do is look around. There are foreigners everywhere. Far too many who do not share our customs, traditions, values, or language and show no interest in starting. They've come here only to grab for themselves whatever they can get. The media has browbeaten Americans for decades to convince them not to reproduce, to ignore superficial differences like race, forget their families, abandon their silly religions, and shed their belligerent national loyalties - and no surprise, it has mostly worked.

Now here come the immigrants. With their giant broods and a shameless loyalty to their kin, their ethnicity, their faith (and ummah), and the nation they left behind. They care not one wit for America or the fat lazy stupid gringo-infidels who only by dumb luck and the sins of their fathers happen to inhabit it. They ignore our laws, evade our taxes, and demand rights exceeding our own. They claim they do all the work and constantly decry their supposed victimization and exploitation.

The reality of course is precisely the opposite. With regard to either work, money, or violence it's the native Americans being victimized and exploited.

"You stole this land, we're stealing it back, and there's nothing you can do about it Pilgrim."

Ladeeenyo mobs take over our city streets several times a year now, barely suppressing their primal urge to riot and loot. When legal Americans demonstrate in support of the law, within the law, they are harassed and threatened by those same unruly Ladeeenyos. El Presidente tells us they share our family values. Crime and education statistics tell a different story.

Any guero who's rubbed elbows with Ladeeenyos since the Senate bill died can sense the tension, see their glowering eyes, feel their smoldering resentment. My city's streets are full of "undocumented workers" pushing baby carriages with two or three "undocumented workers" toddling along behind. Aren't they concerned about their carbon footprint? Shouldn't these "workers" be, you know, working?

Likewise too many Muslims come here and then complain incessantly. Foot washing basins. Pork products. Hallucinations of discrimination. Let's be honest. All of them, the so-called moderates included, won't be happy until everyone is in pajamas on their knees praying toward Mecca five times a day. They differ only in the means and schedule for achieving that goal. Ask them. You'll find them either so confident they freely admit it, or trying to evade your questions with transparent lies (eg. "Sharia? What's that?" or "The roots of Islamist grievances are economic, starting with the injustices of colonialism" or "There shall be no compulsion in religion").

The most impatient Muslims hatch attacks even more frequently than the Ladeeenyos march. After 9/11, Fort Dix, and JFK who can believe that our immigration problems are all about the Ladeeenyos or cheap labor? After the jihadi doctor attacks in Britain what infidel can now help but wonder about the more insidious damage Muslim infiltrators might wreak?

These aliens aren't hiding in the shadows. They walk freely among us celebrating their rise, scheming our fall. They know they have friends in high places seeing to their rights, pursuing their interests. They're disappointed amnesty has failed for now, but they know time is on their side. Soon enough the fat lazy stupid Americans will get their comeuppance.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and don't get any ideas about defending yourself gringo-infidel racist fascist!"

It's a testimony to the mind-numbing power of modern propaganda that things have had to go this far before enough people stopped believing the happy talk and started believing what they could see and hear for themselves. The Senate's move was so brazen and so dishonest it boggles the mind to think that it only barely failed. They'll regroup, and they'll be back to try again.

And still many remain asleep. Busy busy busy with noses to the grindstone, they trust their government is working hard to protect them. To keep them that way our elites, previously much more subtle, have become desperate. Their stupifying message is now spelled out directly: If you oppose immigration or Islam you are a filthy racist. A criminal. The real threat, we are told, is white supremacist-driven nationalism. If we don't ban their radio shows and silence their hate blogs they'll form a Gestapo, load all the brown people and Muslims into railcars, and ship them off to concentration camps.

Riiiiiiight. Nobody I know has any such fantasies. But the nightmare that our homes and families will be trapped in a violent, intolerant Aztlan is slowly, surely becoming a reality. And if that doesn't come to pass being trapped in an even more violent, less tolerant Caliphate is not that much farther off.

This is the great gift of immigration, multi-culturalism, and diversity? No thanks. Take it back. Now. We don't want it.