Beullogeo's

NAACP releases report accusing tea party groups of links to bigots:

The new report describes what it calls links between tea party factions and white supremacist groups, anti-immigrant organizations and militias, according to a news release issued by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, which wrote the document.

Not only have tea parties given platforms to extremists, the news release said, the movement is a recruiting ground for hard-core white nationalists who are “hoping to push these (white) protesters toward a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy.”

The "report" is available at Tea Party Nationalism, which is chock full of anti-White fear-mongering. Tea Parties - Racism, Anti-Semitism and the Militia Impulse is one comprehensive example.

big·ot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Today's news is that professional black and jewish bigots are denouncing Whites. They want everyone to know that they can't tolerate even the deracinated political views of Tea Partiers. "Supremacist", "extremist", "hard-core" they label us. Look how they frantically push those buttons, trying to pathologize and criminalize. They don't trust Whites. They don't like Whites. They are frightened of us, alienated by us. Our most naive attempts to appease them with color-blind politics simply don't well enough serve the interests of their groups. They already have a regime which favors them. They defend it, shamelessly, even as they grasp for more.

Their worst nightmares involve Whites becoming more self-conscious of our own interests and behaving as they do. Why shouldn't we meet them on a level field, as aware and organized as they are? Because it wouldn't be good for them? They don't care what's good for us. Because they might attack even more viciously? Yes. Exactly.

Every email and website to be stored
Every email, phone call and website visit is to be recorded and stored after the Coalition Government revived controversial Big Brother snooping plans

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 12:40PM BST 20 Oct 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8075563/Every-email-and-website-to-be-stored.html

It will allow security services and the police to spy on the activities of every Briton who uses a phone or the internet.

Moves to make every communications provider store details for at least a year will be unveiled later this year sparking fresh fears over a return of the surveillance state.

The plans were shelved by the Labour Government last December but the Home Office is now ready to revive them.

It comes despite the Coalition Agreement promised to "end the storage of internet and email records without good reason".

Any suggestion of a central "super database" has been ruled out but the plans are expected to involve service providers storing all users details for a set period of time.

That will allow the security and police authorities to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public if they argue it is needed to tackle crime or terrorism.

The information will include who is contacting whom, when and where and which websites are visited, but not the content of the conversations or messages.

The move was buried in the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which revealed: "We will introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.

"This programme is required to keep up with changing technology and to maintain capabilities that are vital to the work these agencies do to protect the public.

"Communications data provides evidence in court to secure convictions of those engaged in activities that cause serious harm. It has played a role in every major Security Service counter­terrorism operation and in 95 per cent of all serious organised crime investigations.

"We will legislate to put in place the necessary regulations and safeguards to ensure that our response to this technology challenge is compatible with the Government’s approach to information storage and civil liberties."

But Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said: "One of the early and welcome promises of the new Government was to ‘end the blanket storage of internet and email records’.

"Any move to amass more of our sensitive data and increase powers for processing would amount to a significant U-turn. The terrifying ambitions of a group of senior Whitehall technocrats must not trump the personal privacy of law abiding Britons.”

Guy Herbert, general secretary of the No2ID campaign group, said: "We should not be surprised that the interests of bureaucratic empires outrank liberty.

"It is disappointing that the new ministers seem to be continuing their predecessors' tradition of credulousness."
.........................................................................................................................................................................

October 19, 2010

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel," he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.

"Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter.

Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.

"With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew," said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.

An audio recording of some of the rabbi's remarks was broadcast on Israel's Channel 10.

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi's remarks in a statement issued Monday.

"Rabbi Yosef’s remarks -- suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews -- are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition."

.........................................................................................................................................................................

In my recent post about Sobran I linked Jeet Heer's Joseph Sobran: Far Worse than a Holocaust Skeptic. I left a few critical comments there which were greeted by Heer and his peanut gallery with the usual dehumanizing and intolerant attitude jews and their sympathizers so typically project onto others.

To Heer's credit, he let my comments stand. Last night I made a lengthy response to another comment and it got stuck in the moderation queue. Six hours later Heer announced that he was tired of letting "nazis" say "nazi" things and therefore, ACHTUNG!, he was closing the comments. I don't expect Heer will let my last remark through, so I'm posting it here instead. For context I encourage you to first read Heer's attack on Sobran and the thread of responses that followed.

PuffsPlus writes:

For those of you who don’t know, Tanstaafl is a blogger who wants a white-only ethnostate that excludes anyone with Jewish DNA. That would include his kids, because his wife’s father was a Jewish convert, IIRC. So Tanstaafl’s unreasonable hatred of Jews extends to the point of dreaming of a white-only country that would exclude his own children. Chew on that for a moment.

I realize I'm among enemies here, but I'm still chagrined to find such intellects overlooking the link in my name, and now acting like they've unmasked a stealthy boogeyman. Those who want something more than gossip and innuendo can chew on what I've actually written and decide for themselves if it's unreasonable:

Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites

A Personal Disclosure

It pleasures me to point out to my own kind (passing by or lurking here) the dishonesty of jewish partisans when facing non-jewish partisans. Regarding exclusion, my kids and I are excluded from Israel. Jewish hypocrisy rankles, but the exclusion from Israel not at all. You'd think those alienated by Whites would, of their own volition, not want to live among us. But no, the truth is they panic at the thought of being removed from their host. Claws and fangs come out because they much prefer to neutralize our partisans in order to lord over the rest. It reflects the jewish tendency toward totalitarianism which fully bloomed most recently and catastrophically as bolshevism. More recently it manifests as orwellian language, political correctness, and the criminalization of "hate", all while they project their own control-freak nature onto "nazis". As Chomsky put it, 98% control just isn't enough.

I see the norm here is to make grade school cases that rest on, for example, Sobran being "a fellow traveller to Nazism" and a "white nationalist defense of Sobran is far more damning". Never mind that Sobran's "nazism" is no more than the allergic reaction he causes jews, or the chauvinist jewish premise, unspoken and undefended, that Whites must not have what jews have (White nationalism) because it's bad for jews. The attack on Sobran and response to my counterpoints amounts to the presumption that anyone who will not accept that jewish interests outweigh their own is a heretic. Yes, such heresy is literally unthinkable for most jews, and most would make it unspeakable as well. No so the rest of us. So I ask again Heer, are you a jew, or a useful idiot?

The sad fact is that jew-firsters will have to keep repressing the rest of us, or get far away from us. I think the main reason more diaspora jews don't opt for the latter (beside not wanting to live among their own kind) is because they suspect when the lid comes off the precedents set by the Nuremberg trials and the later worldwide manhunts may repeat. As David Sachs worries, he and every jew he knows would all be forced (by "anti-semites" of course) to leap to every other jew's defense. The one thing that is virtually certain, evident in a millenia-long pattern, is that jews will continue to blame whatever goes wrong entirely on everybody else, especially those who reject their authority.

I went to Heer's latest post, Coren and Conservative Revisionism (wherein he denounces "conservative revisionism" as a defense of "nazism" and "fascism") and left another comment:

A comment of mine on the Sobran thread has been stuck in the moderation queue since six hours before you declared it closed.

Speaking of fascism, I'm wondering if you're going to let it through, or delete it.

I then read his post and watched the Michael Coren Show video he linked, to which I made the following comment:

Regarding the video you linked, the earnest disagreement about Vietnam-era US military demographics was interesting. Apparently, in cases like this, it's acceptable and important to argue about who was overrepresented, even though the whole enterprise is long past. What makes this part of the discussion so interesting is how it is interwoven with a non-debate of jewish overrepresentation in media today. Discussion of that disparity ended almost before it began, caricaturized and dismissed by Gordon as a "standard anti-semitic myth" that's "boring", and ultimately transformed by Coren into a red herring about how two jews can be counted on to have three opinions.

The point is that in the current mainstream media environment jews are free to argue out loud and at length about what's good for jews. Meanwhile, anyone who complains about this, or who tries to discuss what's good for their group (especially Whites), is pathologized and excluded with terminology such as "kook", "nazi", "fascist", "racist", "nativist", "xenophobe", "anti-semite", "denier", "minimizer", "revisionist", etc.

Whether this situation arises as a consequence of jewish disparities in ownership, control, employment, or just naive goyim favoritism for jews is really beside the point. The point is that there is a clear double-standard in how Whites and jews are treated - jews and their concerns strongly favored, Whites and our concerns strongly disfavored. This is no myth. Nor is it boring. But it is perfectly understandable why jews and their supporters try to deny or minimize it.

Upon posting this I noticed that my previous comment had been deleted. A few minutes later this last comment disappeared as well.

It's telling that reasoned and on-topic comments are deleted by someone who so hates "nazism" and "fascism". It's not pigeon-holing enemies or squelching dissent that disturbs Heer. He's a comic fanboy and culture critic. In those very jewish worlds dehumanization and censorship are only crimes when it happens to the nazi-fighting good-guys. Naturally I wonder if Heer is some kind of desi-jew. If not, then I wonder if he's ever wondered just how steeped in jewish thought he is.

Curiously, Heer has been critical of zionism and neocons, writing things like Israel's creation: Ethnic cleansing by any other name, The Jewish state and its enablers, and Operation Anglosphere. Perhaps he's trying to compensate for this by pathologizing other people's criticism of jews.

In Heer's Anglosphere piece he attaches significance to where someone is born. Why then his hostility to the notion that an identity conveyed by genes and upbringing can have significance? Is it only jewish identity which is exempt, or exempt from critique? He's not squeamish about attaching significance to "anti-semitism" and "nazism". What's that? Where does it come from? He doesn't seem to care. He uses the words as if they're magic.

Maybe he'll drop by and clear up some of these questions. Based on his lame response to challenges at his own blog, I doubt it.

Reconsider Columbus Day appeared on YouTube last year. Links to it are circulating again this year.

October 12 is Columbus Day A day that "our" government has deemed worthy of rememberance But with all due respect With all due respect With all due respect There's an ugly truth that has been overlooked For waaay too long Columbus committed heinous crimes Against the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean And millions of natives throughout the Americas And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the New World So please Please reconsider if this is a man you want to honor Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus It's not your fault It happened a long time ago But remaining neutral And pretending like it didn't happen Or that it doesn't still impact us today So please Take the day to learn the whole story Celebrate the people who were here first Petition for a nationally-recognized indigenous holiday So please Reconsider how you plan to spend October 12th Reconsider the story of Columbus Visit www.reconsidercolumbusday.org

Yes, let's stop pretending. Let's reconsider multiculturalism, reconsider multiracialism, and reconsider anti-racism. The people pushing these ideas are disingenuous. They don't oppose discrimination, oppression, or genocide. They're animated by hate and anger. They blame Whites for all the world's ills. In their mind it's payback time. Scapegoating Columbus is just the tip of an anti-White iceberg.

The purpose of the Reconsider Columbus Day campaign isn't to hold Columbus accountable for his "crimes". That was 500 years ago. The purpose isn't to celebrate "the people who were here first" either. "Our" government has already dedicated 30 days to celebrating them.

This campaign is aimed at White people. It's about guilt-tripping, criminalizing, and pathologizing us. It's telling us to stop enjoying a Eurocentric view of history, to stop having a sense of pride in our European heritage, and to instead feel ashamed and be more concerned about everyone else's point of view. The purpose is to convince us to celebrate and put the interests of other people above our own. It isn't an argument for non-discrimination or race-blindness. The people driving this campaign despise us and our point of view.

Instead of going along with the browbeating of people who hate us, or even simply ignoring them, I'm inclined to do just the opposite of what they want. Therefore I encourage Whites to reconsider the mestizo holiday Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates the killing of Europeans and swimming the Rio Grande (not necessarily in that order). And the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, commemorating "racists" not acting quickly enough to help black looters. And the mother of all anti-White guilt-tripping, The Holocaust ^TM - which academia and media and politicians commemorate day in and day out.

The common theme here is: Whites suck. Why should we go along with that? Reconsider who does or doesn't care about you. Reconsider what they tell you to care about. Reconsider whether it's all about doing what's "right" or "moral" or whether they just want you to better serve them. Respond accordingly.

Columbus: Continuation of a Genocidal Legacy is a Mexica Movement video connecting the dots from Columbus, to Cortez, to Custer, to Hitler. It presents a thoroughly one-sided view of the brutal facts of past conquest and war. Unlike the original blood-thirsty, slave-trading indigenous people, White newcomers kept relatively detailed records. But why dwell on the past? Do the job the anti-White moralizers in the media won't do. Compile in your mind a video of current events - the robbery, rape, and murder "people of color" perpetrate against Whites no matter when or where we have the misfortune of living together.

Reconsider the never-ending lectures we're fed about defamation, discrimination, stereotypes, blood libels. Think about these lectures the next time somebody quickly and blithely ticks off the usual politically correct litany of White "crimes". Think about what they will rationalize as right and just once they gain the upper hand completely. If you need a hand, that Mexica video graphically depicts what they have in mind.

Happy Columbus Day.

Jews hated him.

Sailer's "Joe Sobran, RIP" links Coulter's Not your average joe.

A Sailer commenter links Michael Tomasky's Rick Sanchez and Joe Sobran, which links Jeet Heer's Joseph Sobran: Far Worse than a Holocaust Skeptic.

Sobran once wrote that "anti-semite" used to mean a man who hated jews. Now it means a man who is hated by jews.

In Hard-line commentator, at the Washington Post, Matt Schudel writes:

Over the years, Mr. Sobran's views veered ever more wildly to the right, beyond the ken of National Review and anything resembling the mainstream. He praised an unabashedly racist publications called Instauration, which, in Mr. Sobran's own words, was "openly and almost unremittingly hostile to blacks, Jews, and Mexican and Oriental immigrants."

An archive of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration Magazine is online. Go see what the fuss is about.

How I Was Fired By Bill Buckley is Sobran's account of his ejection from the mainstream for violating what Buckley called "the structure of prevailing taboos".

UPDATE 19 Oct 2010: A few links provided by Jim Jones in the comments, from which I've extracted samples of Sobran's thoughts about jews.

Sobran's --- The Jewish Faction, May 2004:

In truth, the charge of “Christ-killing” is hard to find anywhere, outside of schoolyard taunts. Yet the Tribe “remembers” it, just as innumerable baseball fans used to “remember” seeing Babe Ruth’s legendary (and apocryphal) “called shot” in the 1932 World Series, the most famous home run never hit. Such non-happenings are a regular feature of Tribal memory, as witness the many testimonies of “Holocaust survivors” that have turned out to be delusions or outright forgeries. A large proportion of the Tribe is still absolutely convinced that Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope,” despite mountainous, and mounting, evidence to the contrary. (Hitler’s media called Pius “the Jews’ mouthpiece.”)

Sobran's --- The Jewish Establishment, September 1995:

Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as “anti-Semitism.” But there isn’t even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don’t censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason — liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America.

It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish Establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others — you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.

When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn’t make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his “loose” charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

The opposite applies to charges of “anti-Semitism.” The word has no precise definition. An “anti-Semite” may or may not hate Jews. But he is certainly hated by Jews. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn’t defined.

A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of “anti-Semitism,” everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined — even if the charge was baseless.

Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out.

“Anti- Semitism” is therefore less a charge than a curse, an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically.

Sobran's --- "For Fear of the Jews", September 2002:

It was once considered “anti-Semitic” to impute “dual loyalty” to Jews — that is, to assert that most American Jews divide their loyalty between the United States and Israel. This is now passé. Today most politicians assume, as a matter of course, that Israel commands the primary loyalty of Jewish voters. Are they accused of “anti-Semitism” for doing so? Does this assumption cost them Jewish votes? Not at all! Dual loyalty nothing! Dual loyalty would be an improvement!

Once again, it’s a practical necessity to know what it would be professional suicide to say. No politician in his right mind would accuse Jews of giving their primary loyalty to Israel; but most politicians act as if this were the case. And they succeed.

You can read Jewish publications like Commentary for years, and you’ll read interminable discussions about what’s good for Israel, but you’ll never encounter the slightest suggestion that what’s good for Israel might not be good for America. The possibility simply never comes up. The only discernible duty of Jews, it seems, is to look out for Israel. They never have to choose between Israel and the United States. So much for the “canard” of dual loyalty.