Beullogeo's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fockers Trinity, by Joan Alpert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who does Aaron Sorkin really hate? | Jewish Journal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does this animosity toward Jewish women come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In The Eternal Obsession, Steve Sailer quotes Sarah Kaufman's WaPo article, Ballet series has lots of talent, little diversity:

The companies are also overwhelmingly white and dotted with Europeans -- as they have always been. Diversity in ballet remains a serious problem for the small companies as well as the large, on the coasts as well as in the heartland. In the 21st century, we can put a black man in the White House, but as last week's survey shows, we can't put a black ballerina in the Opera House. Clearly, not enough work is being done to foster African American dancers. But with public money in their coffers, ballet companies -- and the local, state and federal funders -- need to make equal opportunity in the dancer ranks a priority.

Sailer then witlessly tries to dismiss this as friendly fire:

I'm always struck by how white people are constantly admonishing each other

Sarah Kaufman thinks too many "white" people in ballet is a "serious problem", but she didn't have anything to say about that in Israel Ballet at Silver Spring Performing Arts Center. An all-jew troupe? That's just splendid. In fact, in Paul Taylor's Marvelous Melting Pot Kaufman gives the distinct impression she can't get enough of jewish "diversity". In To strengthen Jewish identity in America through the arts and humanities Richard Siegel, "the Executive Director of the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, an organization dedicated to enhancing Jewish identity in America through the arts and humanities", cites Kaufman's article in defense of Taylor's production. Defense from what? Well, it seems some jews think Taylor's production wasn't jewish enough.

Kaufman's snide attack on "whites" in ballet echoes Harold Meyerson, who in Economy? What Economy? wrote about the "huge problem" of "whiteness" in politics, likewise using blackness as a proxy:

In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks' party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

Meyerson is #48 in The (shockingly jewish) Atlantic 50.

I'm struck, like many of Sailer's commenters, by a pattern of jews attacking "whites". That they are funded and broadcast by mainstream sources only underscores the seriousness of the problem. Contra Sailer it appears Kaufman and Meyerson don't consider jews "white", otherwise we could find them criticizing the more lopsided voting of jews, the bipartisan power of the Israel lobby, jewish over-representation on SCOTUS, in law generally, in finance, in media, or in pushing an anti-White agenda. It seems to me that anti-White jews behave as they do precisely because they consider their "jewishness" distinct from Whiteness.

I'm also struck by Sailer, a proponent of "human biodiversity", lamely describing this situation as "white people constantly admonishing each other". Is political correctness making him stupid, or is it the jewish genes he suspects he carries? Either way he can consider himself admonished.

Kaufman, meanwhile, has just been lauded by her anti-White/pro-jew peers. The Pulitzer Prizes | Citation:

Awarded to Sarah Kaufman of The Washington Post for her refreshingly imaginative approach to dance criticism, illuminating a range of issues and topics with provocative comments and original insights.

Contrast this with Helen Thomas, who was excoriated and ultimately lost her job for making a provocative comment about jews.

Race factors into evaluation of Gerhart - NFL - Yahoo! Sports:

If you’ve seen Toby Gerhart carry the football, you’re well aware that the former Stanford halfback and Heisman Trophy runner-up is about as subtle as Iron Man. It’s no surprise, then, that as the NFL draft approaches, the player one AFC front-office executive described as “a bowling ball with butter knives” is hell-bent on obliterating the perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed in the pros.

I’ve spoken with numerous NFL talent evaluators about Gerhart over the past few months, and there are plenty of skeptics who don’t seem to be locked into mindless stereotypes.

Did skin color keep Stanford RB Toby Gerhart from being a first-round pick? - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com:

"One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back," Gerhart said. "They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, 'No, I'm just out there playing ball. I don't think about that.' I didn't really know what to say."

Opinions seem mixed on Gerhart, who was obviously productive but also absorbs a lot of punishment and isn't especially shifty. One scout told Silver that Gerhart's pigmentation was definitely working against him.

Nothing to see here, move along folks. When a White guy faces race-based bias it's a "perception that he lacks the athleticism to succeed" and his "pigmentation" is "working against him".

Just last year Michael Silver, the jewish author of the first article linked above, was offended and outraged over race-based perceptions. In No excuses: Redskins need a new nickname - NFL - Yahoo! Sports, Silver wrote:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

If the NBA placed a franchise in Hawaii, would it consider paying homage to the islands’ Asian influences by competing as the Yellowskins?

And while I’m sure we could all come up with some Jewish slurs to continue the analogy, I submit that an anti-Semitic major league owner like Marge Schott might’ve been quite comfortable fielding a team known as the Foreskins.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. And Redskin is just as absurd, whether you’ve been conditioned to regard it as normal or not.

If Toby Gerhart were a jew Silver wouldn't describe the problem as "the perception that he lacks the foreskin to succeed in the pros". He'd describe it as "anti-semitism". He'd be throwing up in his mouth and wondering why there is no widespread outrage.

Gerhart isn't a victim of his skin color. He and other White players are subjected to a different race-based standard by sports and media machers who favor "African-Americans" over "whites". We are conditioned to regard this as normal. It's not.

Steve Sailer wrote an article about Gerhart last October titled Blackballed? Sailer wonders:

So, why are there a lot of white starting tailbacks in high school, very few in big time college football, and none in the NFL?

There are three general explanations:

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Blacks (A.K.A., Did You Know that Jewish Players Used to Dominate Basketball?) This is the dominant public explanation put forward by the sporting press. The party line is that blacks are forced by poverty to become multimillionaire stars, while wealthy whites relax in the lap of luxury by, uh, playing center or breaking up the wedge on kickoffs or … well, never mind. The facts aren’t important.

As Tom Wolfe implied in I Am Charlotte Simmons, this theory is motivated less by any serious urge to explain reality and more by Jewish pundits’ concerns over whether honest analysis of racial differences is good for the Jews.

In Wolfe’s 2004 novel, the frat boys watch a talk show on ESPN:

… four poorly postured middle-aged white sportswriters sat slouched in little, low-backed, smack-red fiberglass swivel chairs panel-discussing the ‘sensitive’ matter of the way black players dominated basketball. “Look,” the well-known columnist Maury Fieldtree was saying, his chin resting on a pasha’s cushion of jowls, “just think about it for a second. Race, ethnicity, all that—that’s just a symptom of something else. There’s been whole cycles of different minorities using sports as a way out of the ghetto. …

Maury Fieldtree goes on to talk about the Irish and boxing, Italians and boxing, Germans and football, and then, inevitably:

In the 1930s and 1940s, you know who dominated professional basketball long before the African Americans? Jewish players. Yeah! Jewish players from the Jewish ghettos of New York!”

The Rube Goldberg ish logic underlying the conventional wisdom is, roughly, that

A) If it became socially acceptable to admit in public that blacks might have on average genetic advantages in jumping and sprinting; then

B) It might become acceptable to admit that maybe blacks have lower average IQs for genetic reasons; which would then

C) Let the gentiles find out that Jews might higher average IQs for genetic reasons; thus,

D) The goyim will come for us with their torches and pitchforks; and therefore,

E) We must just bury the whole topic in mindless kitsch to prevent A from ever happening.

In contrast, the two serious theories are:

Genetics: As O.J. Simpson explained to Time in 1977: “We are built a little differently, built for speed—skinny calves, long legs, high asses are all characteristics of blacks.”

Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Whites: The website CasteFootball.us has long been single-mindedly documenting outstanding young white athletes who have been channeled by coaches from traditionally black positions such as tailback, cornerback or wide receiver to whiter, less glamorous positions such as linebacker, strong safety, or tight end.

The conventional wisdom is actually a combination of all three theories. "People of color" are discriminated against and biologically superior and it's right and good to discriminate against Whites because of the stereotype that they've been discriminating against superior "people of color" for ages.

In "Depression v. Nervous Breakdown", Sailer writes:

I noticed this when I was reading up on the Civil War and got to the formidable Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's psychological collapse in late 1861, in-between his strong performances at the battles of First Bull Run in 1861 and Shiloh in 1862. While organizing behind the lines for the next year's campaigns, he had to be relieved of command so he could recuperate at home. Sherman later joked, "Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

The Wikipedia page on Sherman uses the old-fashioned term "nervous breakdown" and blames "the concerns of command." In contrast, James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom sometimes uses the more modern term "depression," and at one point suggests that Sherman was depressed by his vision of the logic of Total War.

Or was he suffering Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder over Bull Run?

Maybe Sherman was depressed because he realized Total War would someday result in the rise to power of pushy, hostile jews and the subsequent colonization of the entire White world by unarmed Amerindian, African, and Asian peasants. Then again, it isn't likely Sherman would have ever recovered and continued to kill his cousins if he realized that.

General Grant's Infamy:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the "Department of the Tennessee," an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Thoughts On America’s Jewish Ruling Class And Noblesse Oblige is a broad but somewhat superficial overview of jewish influence by Steve Sailer. Such criticism is rare, so I'm glad he wrote it and that VDARE published it. However, he underplays and overlooks some aspects of jewish influence, and his critique is weakened by the needling style and obsequious tone he always adopts when speaking truth to jewish power. (He's notably less generous and circumspect when accusing and blaming White power.)

Sailer's line of argument is hopelessly flawed:

The theory behind the dusty old concept of noblesse oblige is that a powerful class that thinks of itself as being in the game for the very long run will tend to behave in a more responsible fashion than one that doesn’t.

How do jews feel about this? We get a hint in How to Think About: Jewish Bankers | The Atlantic Wire, where media jew Michael Kinsley discusses finance jews. The attitude, which should be familiar to anyone who has ever opined on jewish influence, can be summed up as, "Yeah, jews are powerful. So what? Oh, and by the way, you're a nasty jew-hater."

Sailer presumes the jewish ruling class can be made to care about and behave like Whites. He compounds this error by presuming that they don't think of themselves as being in the game for the long run. He's wrong on both counts. Jews have for millenia existed in diaspora as a successful and influential minority. They have infiltrated, outwitted, and outlasted every nation in the Levant and Europe. They know who they are. They know their history. When they feel safe they boast of their success at our expense. When they need sympathy they instead recite a long litany of woe at our hands. They know non-jews tend to underestimate them. They have survived because they make a point of not tying their future to anyone else's.

The reason jewish rule is so ruinous for Whites is because they are alien to us. They will never care for us or behave like us because they are not us. They know this, but for the most part Whites don't. My previous post links comments in which political pundit jew Lawrence Auster admits as much, even while defending jewish interests:

James N. writes:

. . .

Do you really think that American Jews perceive themselves, and self-identify, as "insiders"? My experience is quite the contrary. In fact, I've always observed (and found it curious) that American Jews, from their positions of wealth and achievement, practically cultivate and nourish a sense of outsiderness, which is often wielded as a grievance.

My medical school class had 226 freshmen. Of these, at least 190 were Jewish. At that, an orthodox Jewish professor complained more than once that the admissions committee discriminated against Jews, proving that America truly had it in for the Jews.

I think that a lot of the recent, and public, obsessive anti-Bush and anti-Palin sentiments made by prominent Jews arise from this same sense that ordinary, middle-American virtues and values are alien to them, SO alien, in fact, that sounding off in public, in a borderline-hysterical way, is a way of proving group solidarity AND outsiderness at the same time.


. . .

LA replies:

I agree with your observations about Jewish attitudes. But in my comment I did not mean that Jews perceive themselves as insiders. I meant (1) that the white gentile majority perceives the Jews as insiders, and (2) that in key respects the Jews are, in reality, insiders. And therefore that a First Law-type analysis doesn't fit them.

Sailer at least acknowledges that anyone who challenges jewish power is punished. Auster pretends all our society's problems are due to "the majority" simply abdicating.

The reality is that America's jewish ruling class is shameless. They are not embarrassed about lying to, defrauding, and ultimately genociding us. To the extent they or their apologists even respond to objections and resistance it is only to misdirect blame onto powerless "anti-semites". It will stop only when enough people realize the consequences of jewish misrule and misbehavior and act against it.

For a more thorough review of jewish influence in media, see William Pierce's Who Rules America?. For more about what Sailer glibly alludes to as the "Sons of Ellis Island", see Kevin MacDonald's Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. More on what Sailer has called the "Diversity Recession" and the jewish role he assiduously underplays can be found in Minority Disproportions and the Fraud They Produce. Damning evidence of the anti-White/pro-jew nature of the regime is discussed in DHS Hypocrites Direct Fear and Hatred Toward Whites. The graph above is from Yggdrasil's examination of Diversity in income and education.

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

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

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

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

Anonymous said...

Jewish 23.75 50%

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

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

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

Anonymous said...

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

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

In response came this:

Anonymous said...

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

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

Komment Kontrol let my response through:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harold Meyerson - Economy? What Economy?:

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

Harold Meyerson - Hard-liners for Jesus:

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion:

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The city threw out the results because it feared potential lawsuits from activist groups if few or no minority candidates were promoted. The city also claimed that in addition to potential lawsuits, promotions based on the test results would undermine their goal of diversity in the Fire Department.

The firefighters sued, arguing that New Haven was discriminating against them by deciding that the tests would promote too many white candidates and too few minorities.

Federal Judge Janet Bond Arterton rejected the firefighters’ appeal, siding with the city and saying that no racial discrimination had occurred because the city didn’t promote anyone at all.

U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor issued an order that affirmed Arterton’s decision, issuing a one-paragraph judgment that called Arterton’s ruling “thorough, thoughtful, and well reasoned,”

Steve Sailer wrote about Ricci in Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci.

Sotomayor’s View of Judging Is on the Record from the New York Times, 14 May 2009:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life," said Judge Sotomayor

Note that if the ethnies were reversed and this came from a White mouth anti-Whites wouldn't hesitate to identify such an opinion as "racist" "anti-latino" "White supremacism". They would not only exclude such a White from consideration for SCOTUS, they would agitate to terminate whatever current employment the White enjoyed.

The penalty for Sotomayor? Nothing. It might even be a reason she got nominated. But the NYT thinks it "could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing".

How -- and why -- Barack Obama picked Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court at politico.com, today:

An Obama aide said the president, who interviewed her for an hour in the Oval Office, “was blown away by her — her personal story, her sharp intellect and confidence, and her experience as prosecutor, trial judge, litigator and appellate judge.”

As the most arguably liberal of the four finalists, Sotomayor provides the most fodder for conservative groups, which have vowed to spend millions of dollars on television advertising. Leaders hope a court brawl will help rebuild their movement.

Via Elena Kagan: Free Speech Denier comes The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen, 4 May 2009:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

UPDATE 26 May 2009: In Sotomayor hates white people and Sotomayor hates white people, pt. 2 James Edwards covers the same subject. He concludes:

Get ready, white folks. Obama is making it as clear as he can that it’s payback time for honkies. You know how he said he wants judges who have “empathy” to be on the Supreme Court? Well, “empathy” means hatred for white people, just like “equality” and “diversity” do.

Anti-Whites call euphemisms like these "dog whistles" - though as the Wiki page describes, they think this cynical label only applies to phenomena that confirm their own one-sided view of "racism".

There is no moral equivalence between the appeal to the popular, instinctive desires of White voters that these anti-White anti-racists so detest, and the dishonest euphemisms they themselves so cherish and pretend are popular due to repetition ad nauseum by a like-minded anti-White press. But the comparison does support Edwards' blunt observation. If the "dog whistle" people think popular sympathies for state's rights or against immigration reflect White "racism", then by their own reasoning it's safe for us to conclude that their orwellian celebration of "empathy", "equality" and "diversity" means "I hate Whites".

UPDATE 27 May 2009: From the WSJ, dated 28 (sic) May 2009, Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up:

Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."

White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn't put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn't inevitable.

"We're all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.

"We wanted to make sure we showed the broad support she has in the community," said Mr. Wilkes [executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens], whose group has 115,000 members.

Ms. Sotomayor's critics are fighting an uphill battle, unless some unknown personal scandal emerges, because Democrats control the Senate.

Heat? Scandal? Where? She's anti-White and that's "extremely pleasing". The nomination is "right on course".

What in the world could sink her? A quip about pubic hair? Plagiarism? Unpaid taxes? Not paying an undocumented migrant ladeeenyo employee's social security? Starring on Celebrity Apprentice, killing a less wise White competitor with less rich experiences and eating his still beating heart, in prime time? Please. Can anybody imagine anything that might cause Obama or Schumer or Sotomayor herself to withdraw this "historic" nomination?

In "Greenspan to testify on immigration" Steve Sailer wrote:

The Open Boarders (sic) crowd isn't even trying to make sense these days, are they?

My comment got lost/filtered:

In identifying them, "Genocidal Immigrationists" comes closer to the truth. For example, with that understanding of their intent, their nonsense makes perfect sense.

When something doesn't make sense it's often because you're view is distorted or incomplete. But sometimes it's willful. Sailer himself likes to call attention to and ridicule this kind of willful ignorance, categorizing his observations under "political correctness makes you stupid".

Recognizing that many of the wealthy, intelligent, educated, and well-informed progressivist globalist administrators of the world actively perpetrate genocide and many more acquiesce to and abet it is apparently something Sailer finds too dangerous to permit his commentariat to try and deride or dispute.

Then again, maybe Blogger just dropped my comment.

- - -

There has been no substantial criticism of Genocidal Immigrationists, though the accusation is quite explicit. Beside the relatively light volume of visitors here I attribute this mainly to the accusation's validity. At best the most ardent supporters of mass immigration simply don't care who suffers the consequences, and at worst they intend them. Their justification usually hinges on claims that immigration is profitable overall. When they respond to those who object it is only to smear us as losers, haters, or some combination of the two - another sign of their bad faith and ill will.

I learned only recently from a post at Majority Rights titled ‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat that there's an old name for the mendacity I had long noticed genocidal immigrationists indulging in, particularly those of the economist persuasion. It's called the Broken Window Fallacy, which is the idea that any economic activity whatsoever is more desirable than none. For example, when our genocidalist administrators permit thousands of aliens to flood into our countries to the point that they overload our schools, hospitals, courts, prisons, housing, utilities and roads we shouldn't see that as bad. No, it's a wonderful boon. We're so very lucky because it means lots of jobs and increases the globalist economist's holiest of holies, the Gross Domestic Product. Never mind that the lives and efforts of some of our finest men and women end up flowing down a rat hole or into aiding those who hate us.

Globalism is in essence a world-scale pyramid scheme. It can only exist because the kind of economic wisdom contained in Bastiat's essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen has for too long not been seen.

- - -

In their initial responses to the Swine Flu various globalist mouthpieces again reveal their genocidal motivations, falling over themselves as they have not to calm the public, or to announce measures that would slow or blunt the impact of the outbreak. No. Instead their first reactions have been to announce loudly and clearly that closing borders and restricting travel would most definitely NOT happen - and that only xenophobes and nativist loser-haters who would think such measures might help. Of course if your main concern is continuing to flood the West with third worlders, then an outbreak of infectious disease isn't important to you except as a threat to trade and travel.

Here's one typical example from Monday:

Swine Flu Border Closures are Political, WHO Says

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

“By definition, pandemic influenza will move around the world,” Chan said in the call today. “Does that mean we are going to close every country? Does that mean we are going to bring the world’s economy to a standstill?

“We know from past experience that transmission of influenza or the spread of new influenza disease would not be stopped by closing borders and would not be stopped by restricting movement of people or goods,” Chan said.

Note the numerous hysterical exaggerations. "Impossible to contain", "every country", "bring the world’s economy to a standstill". Note also the inversion in the headline. It is WHO who is driven by politics more than science. The fact is that the rate and extent of the spread of an epidemic is directly related to the frequency and intimacy of contact among people. Reducing interaction slows the rate of infection, stretching it over time, reducing the severity of the impact (so all the cops, firefighters, doctors, and nurses aren't sick at once) and making it more likely medicine can be produced and distributed.

I don't think a world-class executive like Chan or her advisors fail to understand this. Instead it seems they are motivated by different priorities that override any such understanding.

Travel to Asia plunged during in the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory disease, or SARS.

SARS, which killed 770 people, reduced passenger air traffic 19 percent in Asia and 8.2 percent worldwide. Malaysia shut its borders to travelers from China and Hong Kong, and other countries instituted health checks at airports and borders. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discouraged travel to some affected countries and said it might screen travelers in a bird flu epidemic.

“When we talk about travel advisories, we cannot think of the old days when we were dealing with SARS,” Chan said today. “It’s a totally different ballgame now.”

Calling 2002-2003 "the old days" and claiming the SARS outbreak is "totally different" is a transparently lame attempt to deny that closing borders and reducing travel might help. "Who cares how many people die", seems to be the thinking.

- - -

Contrast the current reaction with the reaction of the US government in 1976 to a single death from Swine Flu. Advisors feared a pandemic because "[t]he virus isolated at Fort Dix is antigenically related to the influenza virus which has been implicated as the cause of the 1918-1919 pandemic which killed 450,000—more than 400 out of every 100,000 Americans":

Then President Ford, on the same March 24, 1976, only one day after his surprise loss to Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, announced on national television his recommendation to the American public for a crash nation-wide influenza vaccination program to include “every man, woman and child.” Congress responded promptly to the president’s call for funds (appropriations were voted by the Senate April 9, by the House April 12, and signed into law April 15, 1976). Vaccine was produced, field tested, and evaluated in April, May and June. There were problems with producing the vaccine. Nevertheless, between October 1 and December 16, 1976, the U.S. Public Health Service, through state and local public health department “public sector providers,” rapidly spread out among the citizenry to successfully vaccinate 85% of 40 million voluntary vaccinees in 10 weeks (the other 15% of the 40 million voluntary vaccinees received their vaccinations from “private sector providers”).

It seems we're heading for something closer to a repeat of 1918 than 1976.

- - -

This morning I was listening to NPR and was quite surprised to hear the commentator declare that the common thread in the outbreak so far was a connection to Mexico.

A minute later they mentioned that the israeli health minister found the word swine offensive to jews and muslims and suggested calling it mexican flu instead, which offended mexicans. That made me laugh quite a bit, though I sobered up when I realized it's only a matter of time before the selfless advocates for all "people of color" decide to call it White flu and blame blue-eyed people for engineering it. Nobody will care if that causes us any offense.

- - -

In "Swine flu" Sailer writes:

Some people are puzzled as to how human, pig, and bird strains of the flu have mixed together, but if you have spent any time in rural Mexico the answer is obvious: these creatures all live together in close quarters.

Commenter El Caudillo quotes this and suggests a more accurate term would be mestizo flu. I didn't bother testing if Sailer would permit a comment suggesting genocidal globalist flu is even more accurate. Ben Tillman said as much in a subtle way:

It's the evolution of virulence through horizontal transmission. Immigration policy is designed to foster such increased virulence.

Indeed, that's the science of it. Obviously the politics are instead driven by what is financially and biologically profitable for the mendacious few at the tip of the pyramid. The rest of us be damned.

In an entry titled Why do the anti-Semites always deny their own openly stated positions? Lawrence Auster writes (his emphasis):

Wheeler thus exhibits the classic dishonesty of the anti-Israelites which I've discussed many times. They ceaselessly grumble about the fact that they are called anti-Semites and excluded from discussion forums because they "don't subscribe" to Israel, or because they "don't genuflect" to Israel, or because they "don't jump on the Zionist bandwagon," and other similar phrases, as though anyone were asking them to subscribe or genuflect or jump on a bandwagon! These people never have the simple honesty and manhood to say something like, "Auster excluded me because I said that of all the nations on earth Israel alone is cursed and deserves to be the target of terrorism forever."

Why do the anti-Semites, who make such a deal about their own courage, nobility, and honesty in the face of a hostile and hypocritical society, always try to conceal their actual beliefs and the actual reasons that other people reject them? Why do they keep telling such transparent lies? Why don't they take proud responsibility for their avowed principles that get them excluded? Why do they declare a war of perpetual terrorism against Jews, and then claim to have been treated unfairly when Jews simply refuse to talk to them?

In other words, apart from their sick and evil beliefs about the Jews, what is wrong with these people?

We begin by observing that in this post, as he so often does, Auster is projecting his own guilty mind onto others. It is Auster himself who does a daily dance of pretense. He has provided more than enough evidence (which I have pointed out before and will cite and add to below) that he is not clearly and openly expressing his true motives or priorities. He never has the simple honesty and manhood to say something like, "I called for these people to be excluded because my highest priority is to do what I think is good for jews". He's always grumbling that others should take responsibility for their avowed principles even while he distorts what those principles are and regularly violates his own.

For one thing, note how illogical and sloppy Auster's argument above is. Auster leaps from criticizing Wheeler, to all anti-israelites, to all anti-semites. He takes a single brief comment of Wheeler's, the general sentiment of which Wheeler has openly expressed on several occasions in several forms and forums, searches out the longer more specific exchange with himself to which Wheeler referred, interprets the differences between the two as a sign of maliciousness, absurdly asserts that Wheeler is trying to mislead others about what he really believes, and then extends this smear to a broad, amorphous group of other people, claiming that it exemplifies their "sick and evil" beliefs. Auster's thinking here is not only irrational. It is based on precisely the kind of leaps of logic and idiotic generalizations he himself decries when he thinks such tactics are being used against jews.

Auster often misrepresents his own previously stated positions. Here he implies that he believes the only punishment for those he labels "anti-semite" is and should be that jews simply not talk to them. The fact is that he has provided a vast corpus detailing how he really feels about and wants done to anyone "to his right" on jews or israel. In reading this corpus it is clear he hates "anti-semites" and "anti-israelites" with a passion deeper, more emphatically expressed, and less convincingly justified than he puts into anything else he writes about.

Consider the specific example provided by In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? in which he unselfconsciously peddles and projects the "one truth" about which anti-anti-semites like himself obsess (Auster repeats it like a mantra):

Imagine going through life having that one obsessive thought, and believing that this one thought is the truth, the great truth that explains everything, the great truth that will save the world, the great truth that the world is forever suppressing. Having given over their whole being to the idee fixe that the Jews are the source of all evil, the anti-Semites are souls in hell, and, as in Dante's Hell, they don't know that they're in hell, but keep repeating for eternity the same sin that consigned them to hell.

Auster, who so often indulges in guilt-by-association and calls for anyone he labels anti-semite to be censored, is apparently quite willing to associate with and even to provide a forum for Ken Hechtman. This is likely the "Ken H" who comments in the hell thread linked above. There "Ken H" insults Christians as unthinking "true believers" and compares this caricature to Auster's caricature of anti-semites. This really disturbed Auster. Not because it was an insult to Christians, but because he didn't want his condemnation of anti-semites to be diminished in any way. "Ken H" agrees that "[a]nti-Semites are certainly outside the pale of normal civil discourse" after which Auster has nothing to say about his slur against Christians.

Months later Auster focused directly on Ken Hechtman. From Hechtman's thoughts alone Auster's readers judged him to be a liberal jew. Concerning Hechtman and his thoughts Auster wrote:

You're beyond the left. You're off in some fantasy land of your own.
. . .
his agenda is not to preserve our existing society, but to advance Muslim power and influence in Canada and America as step toward building One World
. . .
It may seem, as I said earlier, that Ken Hechtman's views are so extreme that they cannot be seen as representative of even the usual (i.e. the radical) pro-large-scale immigration, pro-open-borders position, such as that of the people who supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
. . .
You want to destroy Canada, the U.S. and Europe. You want to destroy everything the West and the Western peoples have been.
. . .
KH's ideas are simply a formula to destroy everything that we are, and should be identified as such.
. . .
These leftists live in an unreal world and are hyper-alienated from anyone who doesn't share their unreality.

After all that Auster didn't dehumanize Hechtman or other hyper-alienated pro-open-borders leftists who want to destroy the West by saying they are sick, evil, or have consigned themselves to hell. He never called for any of them, or Hechtman himself, to be censored. Instead he wrote:

I hope Mr. Hechtman doesn't feel he's being ganged up on here

Ever since this exchange Mr. Hechtman has been an occasional guest of Mr. Auster's. Auster meticulously copies and pastes Hechtman's comments onto his blog just like any other he hand selects for inclusion. Without any mention of his hyper-alienation and anti-West sentiments. Why is that?

Here's another example. In Anti-Semites: the evil and stupid party Auster writes:

The central assertion of the anti-Semites who have been posting at the American Renaissance website for the last week is that "Zionist Jews" (as distinct from non-Zionist Jews) are the main threat to Western culture. This idea is so moronic that anyone who says it should be excluded from a discussion forum on that basis alone.

By the way, one of the absolute proofs that someone is an anti-Semite is that he describes anti-Semites as people who are merely "asking questions" about the Jews, or who are merely "criticizing" Jews, and therefore it's terribly unfair to call them anti-Semites. This is the parody of rationality I've often mentioned. When I talk about the difference between rational criticism of Jews and anti-Semitism, I'm talking about something real. When the anti-Semites try to do the same thing, they are merely playing their endless game of trying to get themselves legitimized.

Now sit back for a moment and try to imagine the frustration of these anti-Semites. They are in possession of the one truth that explains all the ills of the world (the Jews are doing it) and that would cure all the ills of the world (kill all Jews in the world), but no one will listen to them! Instead, they are despised, called names, excluded, utterly shunned. Which only proves to them that the Jews are not only destroying the world, but are successfully repressing the only people who can save the world. Which shows how demonically evil and powerful the Jews really are.

According to certain Eastern teachings, the souls of persons who have died suddenly, "before their time," remain in this world, not knowing that they have died, and so continually seeking the satisfaction of the same desires that they had in life. But they cannot satisfy these desires because they no longer have physical bodies with which to pursue and experience them. The anti-Semites are like that. They have ceased to live as human beings, and all they have left is the single obsessive desire, never satisfied, to get themselves recognized by normal people as legitimate participants in the discussion, and to have the chance--at last!--to prove that the Jews really are the source of all the ills of the West.

There he goes again dehumanizing "anti-semites".

Against all reason let's take Auster's description of the explicitly constrained criticism of jews at AR at face value. How then is the idea that zionism is the main threat to Western culture "moronic"? How can anyone decide what threatens them, or how much, unless all sides of the argument can be openly and fully voiced? Nobody can come to an informed view if discussion is declared "moronic" and forbidden. His correspondents have called Auster's attention to Whiteness Studies, but he has never called that moronic, nor has he called for its proponents to be excluded from anything.

Auster discusses threats. He even criticizes jews. In How Jews can end the fatal contradiction between supporting Israel and supporting Muslim immigration into the West he acknowledges that zionist jews do pose a threat:

If you address your questions to pro-Israel Jewish neocons and liberals, you will not get an answer. They will go into a fog-like state or change the subject. They cannot acknowledge that through the non-discriminatory immigration policy that they support like a religion, indeed, that they support as the very definition of Jewishness, America has brought the Jews' mortal enemies into this country.

This is all about the threat jews pose to themselves. Auster cares a great deal about muslim immigration, because they are the mortal enemies of jews. As always his criticism of jews is based on what he believes is good for jews. It is not based on what is good for Whites or the West in general, but it's easy to see from his words how someone might think so. It certainly isn't difficult to believe that the immigration jews "support like a religion" is more of a threat to Whites. The non-muslim aliens flooding into the West are just as effectively genociding indigenous Whites as the muslim immigrants are.

It is self-serving and arrogant beyond words that in Auster's view the more anyone he labels an "anti-semite" struggles to reject censorship and make rational arguments, the more they only prove themselves irrational and worthy of silencing. His logic is circular. His arguments are made in bad faith. His ridicule and scorn boomerangs back on himself.

It is indeed frustrating witnessing Auster so casually project his twisted mentality onto myself and others. The man who simplistically and disingenuously blames virtually every ill on "liberals" and "liberalism" (when he's not blaming "anti-semites") imagines his cartoonish "anti-semites" are stupid and evil because he thinks they believe themselves to be "in possession of the one truth that explains all the ills of the world (the Jews are doing it) and that would cure all the ills of the world (kill all Jews in the world)". In none of the posts I have read has he quoted anyone professing anything close to this, much less claiming that these twin beliefs are their "one truth".

I call Auster and those who behave as he does anti-anti-semites because they concern themselves so strongly with defining, ferreting out, and attacking anti-semites. For them anti-semitism is not only the extreme claim that jews are the cause of all the problems in the world or that one wishes to kill them. For some anti-anti-semites it is the belief that jews deserve any portion of blame at all. Or any criticism of jews not made in their best interests. The simple act of discriminating Whites from jews or reversing the liberal norms of capitalizing proper nouns can be grounds enough for condemnation.

Labeling someone an anti-semite justifies all further demeaning, dehumanizing, and demonizing of them, and the explicit purpose is to discredit and silence them. Anti-anti-semites do not argue that jews alone should not talk to "the anti-semites", as Auster claims, they call on anyone who wouldn't like to suffer the same treatment as them to treat them just as anti-anti-semites do. To the chagrin of anti-anti-semites this doesn't always happen, but surely they desire it and try hard to make it so.

This "one truth" mantra is one of a handful of pat formulas Auster and other anti-anti-semites use to caricaturize anyone who criticizes jews or israel. They treat even the mildest critcism as a foot in the door, the camel's nose in the tent as their semitic cousins might say, and assume the source is a single-minded focus on jews. This is a reflection of their own views. They know everything bad that happens to jews is preceeded by criticism of jews. They know everyone knows this is true. Therefore anyone who criticizes jews must want bad things to happen to jews. In every conflict between jews and non-jews these jew-obsessed minds (those of anti-anti-semites that is) place the blame entirely on the non-jews. They claim jews are forever the blameless victims and non-jews are forever the evil victimizers, filled with a hate for jews which springs from nowhere. It afflicts all non-jews (and a few "self-hating" jews) like some cosmic constant across time and space. In their view it is not being attacked, ridiculed, silenced, and then accused of being a hate-addled and insane aggressor that drives non-jews mad with righteous indignation. It is because the non-jews are simply morally and mentally flawed to begin with, prone to scapegoating jews for being successful, envious of jewish superiority.

Or at least that's how many anti-anti-semites rationalize their bigotry.

Most jews believe it's wrong to make generalizations about groups. Most are also perfectly comfortable generalizing about the anti-semitism of anti-semites. Some jews even believe that philo-semites are anti-semites who like jews. Talk about one truth.

What demonstrates to me how "powerful the jews really are" is how they have imparted their one-sided views on anti-semitism to Whites. That and their overrepresentation in media, academia, politics, law, and finance, and how effectively and consistently they have used their wealth and positions of authority and control to squelch any criticism of themselves or their power. Many use their verbal dexterity first to deny, then to make blatantly disingenuous arguments about their small absolute numbers, or cite their positive contributions, as a group, knowing full well that the point is their disproportion, as a group, in key positions and the deleterious effect this has empirically had on "the majority" (ie. Whites) for whom most also know full well they harbor animosity. If and when these ploys and pretenses fail, and sometimes before, more than enough jews are willing to punish the critic, or call for others to punish them, using the economic, political, and legal power they claim not to have.

A few days ago, in The anti-Semites and me, Auster criticized Majority Rights. He deems the discussions there unfairly hostile to jews and especially himself:

Overall it is the usual whacked-out anti-Semitic take on me that is seen in those quarters, namely that my real purpose is not to defend the white race and its civilization, the very existence of which is threatened by the West's continuing openness to mass non-Western immigration, but to undermine the white race in order to protect and empower the Jews. According to the anti-Semites, my entire work--everything I've written about immigration, race, culture, liberalism, and neoconservatism--has been motivated by, and is a cover for, my concern for the Jews. From the anti-Semitic perspective, it couldn't be otherwise. Since I am of Jewish origin, everything I do must be determined by, and focused on advancing, the Jewish agenda.

Auster is concerned with protecting jews. He demonstrates it every time he takes time away from his criticizing of liberals, muslims, and blacks to condemn as "sick and evil" a subset of non-liberal Whites who largely agree with him on immigration, muslims, and blacks. He criticizes them all for the same reason: a perceived threat to jews. This priority overrides any defense he makes of Whites or our civilization. For example, he correctly identifies mass non-Western immigration as an existential threat to the West, but as noted above he does so primarily because he believes it is a threat to jews. When an argument is made that immigration and the many other ways in which jewish efforts to do what they believe to be good for themselves or "minorities" in general (eg. economic and cultural Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, feminism, civil rights, anti-White anti-racism) have undermined and harmed the West in general, and specifically Whites, Auster declares such thoughts "moronic", "stupid", "sick", or "evil". He refuses to acknowledge the common roots of these jewish-led movements, the common anti-White anti-WASP anti-Christian and anti-Western motives driving them. Instead he attempts to pathologize and silence any such criticism, not because it is mistaken, but because it could harm jews.

Clearly if someone calls himself an X it is perfectly normal for him to also claim to be and act as if he is pro-X. I am White. I am explicitly pro-White. I think and say and do what I do because I am pro-White, not because I hate jews or any other group of non-Whites. I criticize them to the extent I perceive them to have harmed or are harming the interests of myself and my extended family. I understand and respect those who are openly pro-jewish or pro-israel.

Auster however is a charlatan. A poseur. A dissimulator. He acts superficially as if he is pro-Christian, pro-White, and pro-American, but he focuses much more time and energy seeking out and attacking anti-jewish or anti-israel sentiments than he spends seeking out and fighting anti-Christian, anti-White, or anti-American sentiments. He conflates the interests of jews with "whites" and America. He refuses to distinguish these interests and he attacks those who do.

I don't think any regular writer here or at MR believes Auster is trying to "undermine the White race". Such can only be a deliberate error coming from someone who so often preens about how carefully he parses others' thoughts and phrases his own. Why does Auster distort the true criticism? Why is he unable to state it accurately much less answer it, even when he points right at it?

Prozium has made the criticism clearly enough. He notes how and why Auster dodges it.

Auster is more pro-jew than he is pro-White. I've said this before and Auster's predictable response was to call it an "anti-semitic attack". He got angry at Gates of Vienna for not censoring me when he said they should.

Auster is pro-"white", subject to constant caveats and reservations. He views jews and Whites as one inseparable "white", except of course when he's expressing his concerns for the wholly separate and special interests of jews. He scoffs at the suggestion he is duplicitous, even as he constantly projects his own deceit and ill-will onto others. When my writing first came to his attention he responded with I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite, a title which misrepresented my criticism of him in a way that actually reflected his pro-jewish priority:

Now, a person who is not an anti-Semite and who disapproves of anti-Semitism would want to explain clearly that he is not an anti-Semite. A person who declares that he's indifferent to whether people call him an anti-Semite is announcing either that he is an anti-Semite, or that he has no problem with anti-Semitism.

Auster thinks I should be concerned about the smears he and others direct at me. He deliberately mistakes my clearly stated distain for indifference and assumes his misinterpretation substantiates his smears.

I reject Auster's tautological idiocy, but since it's his I certainly think it's fair enough to apply it to himself. Therefore his scoffing should be interpreted as an announcement that his real purpose is not to defend the white race and its civilization but to undermine it. That everything he's written about is a cover for his concern for jews. If he had a problem with this understanding he would have said as much rather than just repeating it with such indifference.

His post Should Auster be ostracized? contains a similar announcement. Here he reproduces part of a comment I wrote at Hesperado (the [sic] business reflects, once again, his priority in opposing even the slightest slight he perceives as anti-jewish):

I would prefer Auster aim all his criticism and advice at the jewish [sic] community he obviously cares so much for, and stop issuing commands and attacking "the majority" that he obviously values only to the extent we serve jewish [sic] interests.

Once again this was aimed directly at Auster but he referred to it as "anti-semitism". He then took "both Hesperado and Mangan to task for allowing a loony anti-Semite to post at their sites" (just as he did at GoV). Rather than claiming he does this because he hates Whites I think it's because he loves jews. It's simply ironic that he left off the first and especially relevant half of my comment, the whole of which was made in response to an Auster fan:

Lawrence Auster is a shining example of an astute mind, one unencumbered by the malaise of political correctness. His contribution to traditional conservative values, and conservatism in general, is invaluable, in my estimation.

Oh yes, I particularly cherish the traditional conservative value of denouncing people as anti-semites and insisting they be shunned and censored.

I would prefer Auster aim all his criticism and advice at the jewish community he obviously cares so much for, and stop issuing commands and attacking "the majority" that he obviously values only to the extent we serve jewish interests.

Auster did not explain clearly that he objects to my description of his motivations. Thus he announces his agreement.

In Reply to Gottfried Auster plays the innocent victim, complaining a fellow jew is attacking him, and resorting to a series of dishonest rationalizations that provide a window into his mind (his emphasis):

According to Gottfried, I am such a monster that I call people anti-Semites, the most damaging thing you can say about someone, simply for disagreeing with me. In reality, I call people anti-Semites who express and invoke hatred against the Jewish people, who with an evil indifference to truth demonize Jews as Jews, who see Jews as the enemy of mankind, who see the Jews as the source of all ills. In fact, I'm so precise in my use of the word anti-Semitic that I don't even describe outright enemies of Israel as anti-Semitic, unless there is specific proof of the latter. For example, as I've explained many times, though Patrick Buchanan is an inveterate bigot against Israel, I've never called him anti-Semitic, because he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Similarly, prior to today, I didn't call Taki anti-Semitic, I called him an Israel-hater, which he undeniably is. But today I called him an anti-Semite, when he turned Bernard Madoff into a symbol of Jewish perfidy and wrote:

Israel can now safely be called the Bernie Madoff of countries, at it has lied to the world about its intentions, stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948, and managed to do all this with American tax payer's money. Every American taxpayer, starting with George W. Bush, has Palestinian blood on their hands thanks to the butchers that run Israel.

Nobody called Auster a monster. And of course he doesn't call people anti-semites simply for disagreeing with him. He generally reserves that label for those who disagree with him about jews. He acknowledges the power of the label, "the most damaging thing you can say about someone", preens again about how precisely he chooses his words, then very precisely dances around the fact that he does apply the label to people, like myself, who do not fit the criteria for anti-semitism that he so precisely states here.

Auster plays even more precise word games with people like Buchanan. In Are neoconservatives "Trotskyites"? Auster writes (my emphasis):

In my view, anti-Semitism must involve an attack on Jews as Jews, or an invocation of hostility against Jews as Jews. Buchanan, as I've said before, is self-evidently an anti-Israel bigot. He always puts Israel and Israeli self-defense in the worst light, wants to see Israel destroyed, and takes the side of terrorists. His motives for this may well be an animosity against Jews; I personally believe that he probably does have such an animosity and such a motive.

How magnanimous of Auster. He didn't once call Buchanan an "anti-semite". He doesn't do it again in Buchanan's White Whale, an article Auster filled with all sorts of mind-reading tricks. Criticizing Buchanan for "protesting too much" against anti-semitism, for hating israel, and worst of all, turning "anti-Semitism into a matter of opinion". (That must be why there so many standards! It's all Pat Buchanan's fault.)

Auster's treatment of Steve Sailer is another example of bizarre denial. Auster regularly pats himself on the back for not calling Sailer an anti-semite. Sure he assumes Sailer is revealing a secret desire to see israel destroyed whenever he makes flippant baseball analogies, just like I do by spelling israel with a small i. I wrote a bit about this in Suicide vs. Competition. Here's how Auster explains himself:

I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I've argued at length why I think that's incorrect.

Auster thinks anti-semitism is a matter of opinion. In his expert opinion neither Buchanan nor Sailer is an anti-semite. Buchanan hates jews because he said - er, well, he didn't actually say anything of the sort, but Auster claims he thinks it. What Buchanan did say - er, well, he didn't say this either, but Auster claims he thinks this too - is that anti-semitism is a matter of opinion. What Buchanan actually did complain about is how critics of israel are often smeared as anti-semites. Obviously this is the kind of delusion only an israel-hating imagination could conceive.

Clear as mud, isn't it? How could anybody believe Auster is a hypocrite who changes his positions and isn't being honest about his priorities? I mean, sure, here's yet another example, this one highlighting Auster's smearing of WASPs and then editing it out.

I could go on and on, but this post is already too long.