July 21, 2010

Muffling discussion of Rev. Wright

From the Daily Caller, an interesting account of how press coverage is shaped by partisanship, rage, and behind-the-scenes threats of ostracism:
It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”...
Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote....

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.” [I bet they do!]

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list. [Emphasis mine.]

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”...

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

...“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.” Ackerman went on:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.”

He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

... Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

The basic question in electoral campaigns is: "Whose side are you on?" Candidate Obama had repeatedly boasted that he was on Rev. Wright's side. Rev. Wright had spent a long career making clear whose side he was on, such as holding a gala at the Chicago Hyatt Regency in November 2007 to give his personal Lifetime Achievement Award to the Hon. Louis Farrakhan.
This kind of thing was kept largely on the down-low (although it was readily apparent to anybody with Internet access who wanted to find out) by concerted efforts of the press until after 42 out of 50 states had voted in the primaries, when finally videotapes of Rev. Wright got on-line. Obama then gave an eloquent speech full of half-truths and outright lies, which the press triumphantly accepted. Eventually Wright got back from his ocean cruise and in April Wright pointed out that Obama had lied in order to become President. That caused a brief flurry, but Obama lied some more, and the press and John McCain accepted it.
End of story

88 comments:

Marc B said...

"George Stephanopoulos Named 'Good Morning America' Anchor
Chris Cuomo to Co-Anchor '20/20'; Juju Chang Becomes 'GMA' News Anchor"

This seemed like a major demotion to me at the time and didn't make sense until now.

OneSTDV said...

Sickening.

Chris said...

Wow, this was a incredibly Jewish affair:

Ezra Klein, Spencer Ackerman, Michael Tomasky, Thomas Schaller, Jonathan Stein, Jared Bernstein, Joe Conason, David Greenberg, Todd Gitlin.

I wonder how the full list breaks down.

Anonymous said...

Spencer Ackerman sounds like quite a piece of work.

Even though I'm an anti-anti-semite, when I see the names that come up in this article, I realize that in this case I have to let the anti-Jew brigade have their moment (while noting that not all the conniving journos were Jewish).

Anonymous said...

Does this mean we should hold these propagandists responsible for the immense damage to this country our minority president has done so far? If so, what penalty or retribution is fitting?

This country is in a hole for 3.7 trillion dollars worth of "minority justice." Suppose we never get out? Suppose our children have a damaged future because of this? Um. Civil wars happen over a whole lot less. Basically, the election of Obama was a racialist victory leaving about 112 million white people the victims. Our nation is being looted by immigrants and black nationalists.

What next?

Anonymous said...

The media are largely discounted, and becoming more so.

McCain could have won this if he had taken it to the mat.

Perhaps it was blackmail rather than ineptitude? Not wanting to appear to be that bloody mess on the street.

Porquemada said...

What percentage of those on the list were Jewish? Is that taboo to ask? If you assume that an honest, aggressive follow-up to Jeremiah Wright could have torpedoed Obama's candidacy, what we have here is essentially a small group of partisans covertly deciding elections.

bjdouble said...

Can't blame the press. It was McCain's job to make an issue of it.
He thought Ayres was a good enough proxy . . . he was wrong. Republicans can't expect the press to do their work for them.

Whiskey said...

Doc Zero on Hotair made a comment I thought interesting. That in his view, the people who voted for Obama who now wish they hadn't, are looking for an excuse. Rather than really understanding the reason they voted for him. And so are looking intensely at media trickery as a reason they were "duped."

[Unspoken but I think part of his reasoning, is that White guilt played a part in voting for Obama, rather than a rational appreciation of who and what the man was and was likely to do in office.]

I do think White guilt is over or rapidly ending. But the fallout will be distrust by most middle class, middle aged White folks of the media.

Anonymous said...

Self-identified liberal journalists, most working for self-identfied liberal organizations, talking about trying to elect a liberal(er) president? Stop The Presses!

But yet nothing to say about Fox "News" and the rest of the right wing media actually making up a story out of whole cloth, and getting an innocent woman fired? Not very surprising.

Steve the Conservative Jew said...

As a Jew, it quite sickens and disturbs me, how many of my co-ethnics reside on the far left and the damage that they are doing to my country. Of course not all lefties are Jews, and not all Jews are radical leftists. But, there is no denying the fact that we are extreme outliers among the most radical fringe. I wish that this wasn't the case, as these pigs serve neither their coethnics or their country well. Thankfully (and for my own sanity as well, lol) we are reasonably well representated with some very bright and passionate people on the other side. Mark Levin, for one, comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

Self-identified liberal journalists, most working for self-identfied liberal organizations, talking about trying to elect a liberal(er) president?


Many of them are the sort of liberal journalists who claim loudly that they put their party aside and are impartial in their work. I did not know that the Columbia School of Journalism was a "self-identfied liberal organization".

But yet nothing to say about Fox "News" and the rest of the right wing media actually making up a story out of whole cloth, and getting an innocent woman fired?


I had no idea that Fox news possessed the power to get anyone fired. Now you made me wonder why they have not gotten Holder fired yet ...

anony-mouse said...

Is there anything in the Journolist emails that refers to Israel?

Its an article of faith among folks here that the Jews alter the media to make Israel look good.

'Article of faith' because the Journolist emails don't show that at all.

I look forward to reading all the apologies by so many of the commenters here.

Anonymous said...

Even though I'm an anti-anti-semite, when I see the names that come up in this article, I realize that in this case I have to let the anti-Jew brigade have their moment


That's the whole problem with the anti-anti-semites. You have this fantasy that anyone who says out loud what is bindingly obvious to everyone - e.g. that the Journalist is basically a Jewish list - is therefore an "anti-Semite".

That's a great way to make the whole world "anti-Semitic". Sometimes I think you people really hate the Jews after all.

Cherub's Revenge said...

Steve the Conservative Jew said:

"I wish that this wasn't the case, as these pigs serve neither their coethnics ...well. "

How many Jews need to make the Forbe's richest list and what percentage of Ivy League graduates being Jewish would it take to convince you they're serving their co-ethnics quite well?

Harry Baldwin said...

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

I'm trying to recall when the Right had control of this country. Was it back when Calvin Coolidge was president, or before that? All my life there have been only right-liberals like Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes to counter the left-liberals like Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama.

Anonymous said...

"But yet nothing to say about Fox 'News' and the rest of the right wing media actually making up a story out of whole cloth, and getting an innocent woman fired? Not very surprising."

Nothing yet to say about a lie?

Not very surprising; you're right.

PS: scare quotes are for cowards

Cherub's Revenge said...

"But yet nothing to say about Fox "News" and the rest of the right wing media actually making up a story out of whole cloth, and getting an innocent woman fired? "

Innocent? Just because one claims to have seen the light after they commit the crime (and what she admitted doing is a federal crime) does not make them innocent.

Anonymous said...

Its an article of faith among folks here that the Jews alter the media to make Israel look good.


Uh... it is?

Anonymous said...

What's with the lefty love for Ross Douthat?

Whiskey said...

Journolist is full of anti-Israeli invective. The thing you can say about folks like Ackerman is that they are indeed, true and zealous believers in SWPL-ism.
-------------------
The fallout from the Sherrod affair is astonishing.

First, she's fired in damage control. Then, because the full video has her disavowing her earlier racism and racist behavior (she did not help the White farmer until 7 days before foreclosure because of his White skin) ... Vilsack offers a groveling apology and another higher paying and superior position.

Every White guy who saw either the full or short video knows ... there is a very significant chance of a non-White official (confirmed in her own words) harboring racial animus towards Whites and willing to act on it in very deniable ways "I did just enough to help him so he couldn't say I didn't do anything."

Thus for every White guy, its either make government so small this sort of thing is irrelevant, or make all officials as much as possible, White.

Finally, Obama is proving "Its OK I'm Black" is his operative phrase, no racial act of animus, no matter how egregious, will have any significant consequences as long as the victims are White and the perpetrators non-White.

Kylie said...

Steve the Conservative Jew said..."As a Jew, it quite sickens and disturbs me, how many of my co-ethnics reside on the far left and the damage that they are doing to my country."

Unfortunately, I can substitute "woman" for "Jew" and "gender" for "co-ethnics" in your statement and then apply it to myself.

Anonymous said...

LOL

politics guys. I think they did a good job.

Udolpho.com said...

Sherrod joked, and a black audience laughed, about her predisposition to screw some white farmer who "condescended" her...sorry, she's not innocent, despite the massive all hands on deck spin now being waged by race men for her benefit. Also see my post about the Daily Caller piece.

Anonymous said...

I think the Daily Caller is going to be dropping the names on the emails ve-ry, ve-ry slowly. More to come.

Oh, and more to come on the DOA woman too--still not innocent, she.

Mr. Anon said...

I suspect Stephanopoulos was asking embarrassing questions in his capacity as permanent lackey and stooge for the Clinton family.

The behavior of these propaganda commissars, uh, I mean "journalists" was loathesome and unprofessional. Could it in any way be construed as criminal, I wonder?

Shouting Thomas said...

Yeah, the media suppressed the Rev. Wright story, but that wasn't why McCain lost.

He lost the day he ran back to Washington to vote for the Bush stimulus.'

After that, what reason remained to vote for McCain?

If you can't beat 'em said...

We need to make "racist" no longer the worst thing to be called. Until then, the left will constantly use it at moments like this as a tool of distortion. The whole tea-party racist issue is orchestrated as a similar measure. We need to quit running from this and start taking it on head.
Call everyone racist all the time. Just throw it out there so often that it loses any meaning. Especially when being accused of being racist. I understand that has been part of the response to the NAACP, but it needs to go further than that. When a Jewish pundit says something snide about a white Southern politician, the pundit needs to be called out as a racist. When a white nonjewish pundit says something snide about Southern education, he needs to be called a racist. Why is he a racist? Because to there are a high percentage of blacks in those states and he is implying something racist.
If accusations of racism can fly by all the time and for any reason, it will be something that people won't be scared about.
I'd like to see people just using it as a synonym for bad. Refs should make "racist" calls and the stock market should be "racist" today.

Anonymous said...

and John McCain accepted it

Do you have to keep reminding us of this?

If the leftists can re-write history to make it seem worse than it was, then can't we re-write it to make it seem better than it was?

Or, barring that, at least forget about it altogether?

Ugh.

[PS: Michael "Savage" Wiener was right - something happened to McAmnesty in Hanoi which broke his spirit - some bizarre Stockholm syndrome which has defined his persona for the subsequent four decades.

PPS: McAmnesty's grandfather was a legitimate dyed-in-the-wool war hero.]

Anonymous said...

Even though I'm an anti-anti-semite, when I see the names that come up in this article, I realize that in this case I have to let the anti-Jew brigade have their moment (while noting that not all the conniving journos were Jewish).

I sense that somebody is already well on his way down the path which ends at an odd parity of anti's in his semitism.

Even if he doesn't realize it just yet.

jody said...

an accurate but old topic. this is 2008 stuff. not sure what the point is of bringing it up now, seeing as how obama provides new material of this nature on a monthly basis. his presidency is the biggest outright scam in the history of the united states.

what's hilarious is how millions of people are required to keep a straight face about it. i mean, from this point forward, barack obama's name now goes in every US history book ever printed, forever. to me, it's unbelievable how this person is now a permanent, central figure in american history that every student will be required to study.

naturally they'll be required to study total and outright lies about him, his life story edited to taste and then presented as fact by his jewish handlers.

i imagine quite a few high school history teachers will have trouble keeping a straight face when teaching from the book. there will probably be a whole chapter on obama called "The Great Uniter" or something like that. the academic brainwashing will be thick as wet concrete when it comes to barack obama.

Anonymous said...

This might be about as good a thread as any to make this slightly off-topic point, but I just watched Up, with some kids, and throughout the entire movie, I kept thinking to myself, "Dadgum, this is a real little gem of a film."

Then the credits scrolled by at the end, and, as far as I could tell, there were zero overtly/obviously Jewish names to be seen [not even among the various & sundry "producers"].

So what the hell is going on at Pixar?

How long will it be until Iger, Eisner et al put the kabosh on these reactionary shenanigans at their subsidiary?

Something does not compute here.

Updated to add - I just googled Pete Docter, and Wikipedia has him giving an interview with Christianity Today, in which he describes having lived a "blessed life"?!?

Someone needs to send that shegetz to the gulag.

Anonymous said...

For whatever it's worth--got it from American Thinker:

July 21, 2010
Known Journolisters
Clarice Feldman

A FR poster compiled this list of known members of the Journolist

Save this--a poster at FR has compiled a list of known journolist members

The following 65 names are confirmed members of the now-defunct JournoList listserv.
1. Ezra Klein
2. Dave Weigel
3. Matthew Yglesias
4. David Dayen
5. Spencer Ackerman
6. Jeffrey Toobin
7. Eric Alterman
8. Paul Krugman
9. John Judis
10. Eve Fairbanks
11. Mike Allen
12. Ben Smith
13. Lisa Lerer
14. Joe Klein
15. Brad DeLong
16. Chris Hayes
17. Matt Duss
18. Jonathan Chait
19. Jesse Singal
20. Michael Cohen
21. Isaac Chotiner
22. Katha Pollitt
23. Alyssa Rosenberg
24. Rick Perlstein
25. Alex Rossmiller
26. Ed Kilgore
27. Walter Shapiro
28. Noam Scheiber
29. Michael Tomasky
30. Rich Yesels
31. Tim Fernholz
32. Dana Goldstein
33. Jonathan Cohn
34. Scott Winship
35. David Roberts
36. Luke Mitchell
37. John Blevins
38. Moira Whelan
39. Henry Farrell
40. Josh Bearman
41. Alec McGillis
42. Greg Anrig
43. Adele Stan
44. Steven Teles
45. Harold Pollack
46. Adam Serwer
47. Ryan Donmoyer
48. Seth Michaels
49. Kate Steadman
50. Matt Duss
51. Laura Rozen
52. Jesse Taylor
53. Michael Hirsh
54. Daniel Davies
55. Jonathan Zasloff
56. Richard Kim
57. Thomas Schaller
58. Jared Bernstein
59. Holly Yeager
60. Joe Conason
61. David Greenberg
62. Todd Gitlin
63. Mark Schmitt
64. Kevin Drum
65. Sarah Spitz
Sources:
(http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/25/the-death-of-journolist-does-privacy-end-at-the-edge-of-your-th/)
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20086.html)
(http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/after-journolist)
(http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/17/politico-the-secret-liberal-journalist-cabal/)
(http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/03/26/journolist-revealed-inside-the-liberal-media-email-cabal.aspx)
(http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/03/who-doesnt-love-the-journolist.html)
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/25/usa)
(http://www.frumforum.com/the-inside-scoop-on-journolist)
(http://twitter.com/TimFernholz)
(http://twitter.com/DanaGoldstein)
(http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/9/22/142845/064?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime+%28TalkLeft%3A+The+Politics+of+Crime%29)
(http://www.fr/ umforum.com/responding-to-john-hawkins)
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/obama-wins-and-journolisters-rejoice/)
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/)
(http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/)

robert61 said...

Shouting Thomas nails it. If McCain had responded "Over my dead body!" to the Bush stimulus, he would have won in a walk, and all the identity issues would have gotten the short shrift they so richly deserve. Instead he showed his colors as an establishment toady and an impetuous hothead (a tough combination to achieve). Until that moment, I was inclined to vote for McCain for reasons of SCOTUS appointments. Afterwards, feh.

Gerry Ferraro said...

What a bunch of weasels! This also demonstrates yet again what a failure Hillary's campaign was. Why didn't they swift boat Obama early and crush him? No oppo research?
And how the left-wing journalist cabal must hate the Clintons - and their lackeys like the "rat" Stephanopoulos.
I wonder if Bill and Hillary are familiar with the work of Kevin MacDonald? Plenty of time to read The Culture of Critique on those long plane rides to Jihadistan, Hill.

nano-mouse said...

"Its an article of faith among folks here that the Jews alter the media to make Israel look good."


You're right, quite amazing reading anything from the usual suspects which does not find a connection to the fate of poor Israel within about 1.5 sentences.

The real question would be whether these types of ridiculously hypocritical "journalists" would ever consider fomenting this type of lying and viciousness towards their co-ethnics, say in Israel? We know the answer already.

Anonymous said...

A question for the anti-anti-Semites:

What exactly is "anti-Semitic" about observing that the JournoList is made up almost entirely of Jews?

headache said...

Stephanopoulos's rediculous puff questions were so harmless that I couldn't imagine the genius Obama not being able to ward them off with ease. Sounds like them Journolisters were/are not so confident of their man.

stari_momak said...

When you are racist like the tea partiers, you have to constantly look for some 'uncle Tom' to be your keynote speaker -- and you have to comb your gatherings to find the few people of color and photograph them.

On the other hand, one of the cool things about being an anti-Racist Obama voter is that you, you know, don't have to associate with actual black folks -- even on a mailing list. Indeed you can hang out online with a certain, specially Chosen group of white folk. See below"

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=29858

Svigor said...

(while noting that not all the conniving journos were Jewish).

Hangers-on will always join a mob. Ashkenazis are the guys who form the mob in the first place.

This is an important part of human nature vis-a-vis how societies deliberate. I don't know if there's been any real work done on this in the social sciences, but would welcome any such.

In layman's terms, as far as I can tell, a cohesive minority can REALLY influence a substantially less cohesive population. Basically, you get 10 guys to start singing, and before you know it, the other 90 are singing along because that's just how people work. The only way I can think of to combat this is conscious ethnocentrism; you get your own hymn book. Explaining the actual meaning behind the lyrics the 10 have got everyone singing is a good technique.

Svigor said...

Can't blame the press. It was McCain's job to make an issue of it.
He thought Ayres was a good enough proxy . . . he was wrong. Republicans can't expect the press to do their work for them.


If a Republican falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Svigor said...

Is there anything in the Journolist emails that refers to Israel?

Its an article of faith among folks here that the Jews alter the media to make Israel look good.

'Article of faith' because the Journolist emails don't show that at all.

I look forward to reading all the apologies by so many of the commenters here.


Different cabal. That one's two doors down on the left.

Seriously though, do you really find the lack informative? Look at all the energy Ashkenazis expend on policing whites for Incorrect thoughts. Now compare that to the energy Ashkenazis expend enabling their ethnostate. Try and imagine how nuts they would go if reciprocal rights and privileges were extended to whites (i.e., an ethnostate for whites where Ashkenazis aren't welcome except on vacation). Or if whites did to another ethnic group what Israelis are doing to Arabs.

In the big (non-deliberately-obtuse) picture and in context, isn't it obvious that even SILENCE on Israel is evidence of bias?

And what's keeping all the SWPLs in check? Why aren't they all frothing over Israel, all the time? It's like this giant red hot poker in their eye but they barely notice it.

Svigor said...

Can't blame the press. It was McCain's job to make an issue of it.
He thought Ayres was a good enough proxy . . . he was wrong. Republicans can't expect the press to do their work for them.


And white America's fault for believing Obama's lies, for not knowing the media is a giant propaganda machine (turns a profit, too!), for not turning off their teevees and learning what's really going on, etc. Yes, life's complex and if you want to shift blame, there are usually many that deserve a portion. Doesn't mean we should forget a pack of villains like these.

headache said...

stari_momak:
David Brock looks like a freak.

Otherwise loads of pride, ponftification and arrogance.

Svigor said...

"But yet nothing to say about Fox 'News' and the rest of the right wing media actually making up a story out of whole cloth, and getting an innocent woman fired? Not very surprising."

I love to hear progressives whine about Fox News. It's so obviously a shoe on the other foot phenomenon...

PS: scare quotes are for cowards

I love scare quotes! They convey meaning succinctly, what's not to like?

Fred said...

The reason McCain didn't pull the Jeremiah Wright card on Obama wasn't incompetence but fear of ostracism from the D.C./media ruling class. McCain would rather lose the election and continue to be admired by the D.C. elite than win and be hated by them.

The reason Hillary's compaign didn't Swift Boat Obama was sheer incompetence combined with overconfidence. Because Hillary was confident, she put a lacky/affirmative action hire in charge of her campaign, Patti Solis Doyle. Doyle spent her days watching soaps while the campaign cratered. Hillary finally ditched her, but it was too late by then, as Obama had racked up too many early delegates.

Stephanopoulis was no Clinton toady. Like other former members of the Clinton inner circle, he had no loyalty toward them (remember his critical book about Bill, "All Too Human"?).

Peter A said...

Obama lied? How so? It's been crystal clear since his election that he is NOT on Rev. Wright's side and, probably never was. Obama cynically used Wright to gain "ethnic credibility" and advance his career. Look at what just happened with Sherrod - Obama is allergic to the slightest whiff of black favoritism. If Obama is on anyone's side it is the side of the Ivy League/Wall Street elite.

Peter A said...

If McCain had responded "Over my dead body!" to the Bush stimulus, he would have won in a walk

No. He would have immediately been put under so much pressure from his donors and political sponsors that he would have had to issue a retraction within 24 hours. Every politician running for national office is a bought and paid for tool of some interest group. The real issue is who is calling the shots - and that is what is difficult to find out.

Fred said...

"Try and imagine how nuts they would go if reciprocal rights and privileges were extended to whites (i.e., an ethnostate for whites where Ashkenazis aren't welcome except on vacation)."

Svigor,

Where are you getting the idea that whites aren't welcome in Israel? As an "ethnostate" (a term which would better describe some European countries, but we'll work with it), obviously it is easier to become a citizen if you are Jewish, but Israel has about the same percentage of Christians as the U.S. has Jews (most of those Christians are Arab, but there are also some Euro Christians). One doesn't have to be Jewish to be a resident or citizen of Israel.

If you want to live in a white ethnostate with few if any Jews in it, it's not as if you don't have options available to you today, in Northern and Eastern Europe.

David said...

anony-mouse said

>Is there anything in the Journolist emails that refers to Israel? Its an article of faith among folks here that the Jews alter the media to make Israel look good.<

As a folk here, let me correct you. You're talking about foreign policy. Domestically, what Jews are renown for in media and out is driving "anti-racism" and "civil rights" with totalitarian zeal.

"The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League were central to the campaign against racial prejudice. Jews made substantial financial contributions to many civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. About 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the 1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws." That's just soft-soaping the tip of the iceberg, to mix metaphors (MLK was the protege of Levison, for starters).

See Pod Sr.'s new tome, entitled "Why Are Jews Liberals?" Top committed Jews of ideological bents are and have been "liberals" on race. These individuals want - and work to achieve - a non-white, preferably black POTUS. (There is even some indication Obama is a stooge groomed for this purpose.) So, no way are reported facts about Obama's important associations and beliefs going to be allowed to mess up the goal of "transforming America" into a place with less of a "whitebread" (proto-Nazi) vibe.

So, it's Israel abroad and blacks at home for United States Jews.

Mencius Moldbug said...

A question for the anti-anti-Semites: what exactly is "anti-Semitic" about observing that the JournoList is made up almost entirely of Jews?

An answer from an anti-anti-Semite: they're not Jews, fool. This is a Jew.

Rather, the J-listers are people of Jewish descent whose ancestors converted, typically in the early 20th century, to liberal Protestantism.

A universal religion which goes by many names, including "moderate Islam," "secularism," "Reform Judaism," etc, etc. When was the last time you saw a Unitarian Universalist arguing religion with a Reform Jew? That's how you know they agree.

Sure, you call them "Jews." They call themselves "Jews." But "Jew" is just a word, and it's a stupid word for us non-Jews to use, because it means two things: a person who follows the law of the Jewish God, and a person descended from the Jewish race.

The modern anti-Semites, like KMcD, use this trivial semantic juxtaposition to switch the pea under the thimble all the time. Who the fsck cares what someone's racial descent is? Some people, but not Ezra fscking Klein. Seeing as anti-ethnocentrism, at least for liberal Protestants, is basically the First Commandment of liberal Protestantism.

Suppose we call Yahweh-worshipers Judaists, and non-Yahweh-worshipers post-Jews. Moshe Feiglin is a Judaist. Sholom Rubashkin is a Judaist. Ezra Klein is a post-Jew.

If the Daily Caller reveals a clip of the post-Jews on Journolist conspiring to promote Moshe Feiglin or defend Sholom Rubashkin, I will donate $100 to the anti-Semitic charity of KMcD's choice. I ain't worried. Post-Jews and Judaists got no love for each other.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that earlier in the 20th century, it was politically correct for post-Jews (such as Louis Brandeis) to promote Zionism. Did this make Brandeis a frickin' Hasid with a Jew hat and a ZZ Top beard? No, it made him a supporter of a foreign nationalism.

Just as Ezra Klein has no problem with black nationalism. That doesn't mean he doesn't hate (a) white nationalism and (b) Moshe Feiglin like the devil. Because he does.

When Zionism was the cause of the oppressed, louse-infested, backward ghetto Yid, it was cool for liberals (regardless of race) to be Zionists. Brandeis was a big supporter of Israel, but so was Henry Wallace. In fact, old Zionism had a strong socialist streak, still seen in the Labor establishment in Israel today. Which isn't any more fond of Feiglin than Ezra Klein is.

But the Israelis grew strong instead of weak, and reality moved them to the right (some, like Jabotinsky, were there already), and they turned into Rhodesiawicz.

Add this to the old and continuing Protestant affection for the Arabs, who are and have remained natural clients, and I'd be amazed if there's an Israel in 50 years. Or even 20. You certainly won't find a lot of Israel-loving on the J-list.

And if you're a post-Jew and don't love Israel, how exactly are you following your "ethnic genetic interests"? You hate it less than you should? According to your liberal-Protestant hippie Jesus, which tells you to destroy everything civilized which you don't control? Because he hasn't yet succeeded in giving Israel the full Rhodesia treatment, Ezra Klein is Menachem Begin in Doc Martens? C'mon, man, give me a break.

Chris said...

So we need to start referring to the collection of genetically Jewish lefty freaks who are playing a central role in ruining the country as "post-Jews." Got it.

Anonymous said...

The whole tea-party racist issue is orchestrated as a similar measure. We need to quit running from this and start taking it on head.

I think, instead of being on the defensive every time we are charged with racism, take it as an opportunity to point out the countless groups that are specifically race based to benefit their own race. They are almost uniformly non-white. The only form of institutional racism is discrimination against whites in the form of AA and wealth transfer in the form of government handouts.

It really is an opportunity to point out just who is behaving in overtly racist ways.

To be honest, I think it is perfectly natural for groups to advocate for their own. What is highly unnatural is the way whites will advocate for any group but their own.

Anonymous said...

An answer from an anti-anti-Semite: they're not Jews, fool. This is a Jew.

Rather, the J-listers are people of Jewish descent whose ancestors converted, typically in the early 20th century, to liberal Protestantism.

Uh huh.


It's remarkable how the subject of the Jews can cause otherwise intelligent people to babble incoherently.

If your contention were correct I'd expect to see rather more genuine liberal Protestants on the list. So why don't I?


Sure, you call them "Jews." They call themselves "Jews." But "Jew" is just a word, and it's a stupid word for us non-Jews to use, because it means two things: a person who follows the law of the Jewish God, and a person descended from the Jewish race.

Virtually nobody uses the first sense of the word, including most self-proclaimed Jews themselves. Jewishness is a racial construct, as can be see by the Jewish obsession with Jewish genes. You call them converts to a universal religion (Protestantism), and I say: When will they start acting that way?

What makes Jews different from liberal Protestants is that while they espouse universalism for everyone else, they don't think it should apply to themselves.

Sheila said...

So we're not supposed to identify the Journolist Jews like Ezra Klein as Jews because they hate the Jews like Sholom Rubashkin, is that correct Mencius Moldbug? They are genetically and philosophically and politically two different species, is that what you are claiming? Please, then, clarify for me exactly why "Steve the Conservative Jew" felt it important to mention his Jewishness as well as his purported conservatism. Are we to applaud his supposed moral courage in being a Jewish conservative? Is he as near to sainthood as those awesome blacks who speak at all the Tea Party rallies? And, of course, he is comforted that although the majority of the Journlisters are liberal Jews, he and his coreligionists (who are really post Jews, you inform us) can also claim conservative public opiners such as Mark Levin. Of course, why such an outsize percentage of journalists and public opinion makers (and financiers and professors and lawyers and pornographers) being Jewish is a positive, or at least morally neutral thing - well, we just won't go there. Survival of the fittest, isn't it? Cream rising to the top? Oh, now I get it, that's why some Jews believe in HBD - it confirms their sense of innate genetic superiority. But then, they're not really Jews, of course, they're . . . post Jews. Right, I think I've got it now.

Anonymous said...

Israel has about the same percentage of Christians as the U.S. has Jews



What percentage of those Israeli Christians sit on the Israeli Supreme Court? You're being absurd. Jews in America form a large part of the ruling class. Christians in Israel do not and cannot.

Anonymous said...

You certainly won't find a lot of Israel-loving on the J-list.


You won't find a lot of Israel hating on the list either. That's because the principle area of concern for the "post-Jewish" members is American domestic politics.


Because he hasn't yet succeeded in giving Israel the full Rhodesia treatment, Ezra Klein is Menachem Begin in Doc Martens?


I've never seen the slightest indication that Erza Klein is interested in giving Israel "the full Rhodesia treatment".

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that he's interested in giving America that treatment.

Anonymous said...

The black/jewish relationship in the US is fascinatingly strange and one-sided. But, it's not just American Jews who patronize blacks. I remember watching the movie Borat and as I watched scene after scene of Baron-Cohen setting up unsophisticated southern whites (and drunk frat boys) to look ridiculous and anti-semitic, he let his one interaction with blacks go without any effort to humiliate them--which is odd because every poll and study demonstrates that black Americans are the most anti-semitic sub-group of Americans.

Fred said...

"An answer from an anti-anti-Semite: they're not Jews, fool. This is a Jew."

As a non self-hating Jew, I'm a de facto "anti-anti-Semite", but you're weasel wording of "Jew" here is ridiculous. Ezra Klein and friends are Jews, by most Jews' definition. That they are following in, and extending, a liberal WASP tradition is mostly true; that they have non-Jewish allies in this is also true; further, it's true that there are also prominent Jewish conservatives who oppose them. But you or I can't claim they're not Jews just because we don't like their politics.

"What percentage of those Israeli Christians sit on the Israeli Supreme Court? You're being absurd. Jews in America form a large part of the ruling class. Christians in Israel do not and cannot."

Meet Salim Joubran, Israel's Christian Supreme Court Justice.

Anonymous said...

As a non self-hating Jew, I'm a de facto "anti-anti-Semite", but you're weasel wording of "Jew" here is ridiculous. Ezra Klein and friends are Jews, by most Jews' definition.



Fred, perhaps you can answer my question. Do you consider it "anti-Semitic" to observe that the Journolist was chiefly Jewish? And if so, why?

A lot of the "anti-anti-Semites" strike me as not so much against anti-Semitism as they are against any discussion of Jews, no matter how factual and rational.

(Not saying that you are one of these)

Fred said...

"Fred, perhaps you can answer my question. Do you consider it "anti-Semitic" to observe that the Journolist was chiefly Jewish?"

If the list was mostly Jewish, I wouldn't consider it anti-Semitic for someone to observe or note that.

Truth said...

"despite the massive all hands on deck spin now being waged by race men for her benefit. "

Yes, including the "Race men" who's farm she saved. You know, the white ones.

"He lost the day he ran back to Washington to vote for the Bush stimulus.'

After that, what reason remained to vote for McCain?"

Is brilliant selection of a vice president wasn't exactly a shining example of good decision-making either.

Mencius Moldbug said...

I've never seen the slightest indication that Ezra Klein is interested in giving Israel "the full Rhodesia treatment.

Obviously that's because you didn't google "Ezra Klein Israel" and read the first link.

But you or I can't claim they're not Jews just because we don't like their politics.

No, I claim they're not Jews (Judaists) because they don't practice the Jewish religion. Israel agrees. Many (though not of course all) are Jews (by descent), of course.

Again, the label "Jew" is just a label. It is an ambiguous label. It means two things. If we want to speak precisely, we should disambiguate. Since nobody else uses the labels "post-Jew" or "Judaist," they are perfectly unambiguous. There is also very little blurring between them. If you find them silly, just say Jew (A) and Jew (B).

The idea that Jews(A) act tribally is an obvious fact - see Crown Heights. The idea that the Jews(B) of the Ivy League care who is or is not of Jewish descent is ridiculous - talk to anyone who's been there.

Humans have a natural tribal instinct. But culture easily overpowers and redirects this instinct. Ezra Klein is a loyal member of the tribe of Leftstein.

For centuries, the Ottoman Empire maintained a community of Janissaries, soldiers adopted at kindergarten age from Christian (eg, Albanian) ancestry. Genetically, the Janissaries were Albanian (etc). Culturally, they were anything but.

Here's a question for anti-Semites: how does a person with Jewish genes erase his corruption of the blood? If a genetic Jew is adopted at age five into the Ottoman Corps of Janissaries, will he be a traitor to Islam and the Sultan, waiting patiently for the time he can serve his ethnic Jewnetic interests and plunge his scimitar into the High Dervish's back? Or whatever? Again, give me a damned break.

stari_momak said...

The idea that the Jews(B) of the Ivy League care who is or is not of Jewish descent is ridiculous - talk to anyone who's been there.

From a long and tedious essay about Elena Kagan on 'Lawyers, Guns and Money"

But nothing about Kagan’s career has been normal. Kagan had a lot of friends in Cambridge, including heavyweight constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, for whom she had been a research assistant the summer after her law school graduation. Most notably, she was also good friends with then-Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers, whom she had worked with in the Clinton administration, and who had numerous connections throughout Harvard’s administrative structure. With her judicial nomination in what would prove to be permanent legislative limbo, Kagan accepted an offer to join the Harvard faculty as a visiting professor in the fall of 1999. [my emphasis]

In the words of Gilda Radner, 'you don't have to be Jewish, but it woudn't hurt'.

Kiwiguy said...

A more recent example of muffling an inconvenient story. The Washington Post's Ombudsman explains:

"But in this case, coverage is justified because it's a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights' investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.

National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy "significant," said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.

Better late than never. There's plenty left to explore."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081.html

Chris said...

The full Rhodesia treatment of Israel consists in pointing out in blog posts that their imperialism has of late been hamhanded and poorly received?

I certainly hope Israel manages to survive his onslaught.

David said...

Jews are Jews, except when they aren't. Sure.

Like blacks are no longer black after they convert to Rosicrusianism.

Anonymous said...

Since nobody else uses the labels "post-Jew" or "Judaist," they are perfectly unambiguous.



They are also meaningless to everyone but you.

I think its problematical in several ways that Jews use the same word to describe a religion (in theory open to anyone), a culture, and a race. In fact the Jews themselves coined a term to disambiguate the meanings - Zionist means "secular Jew".

Trouble is, if anyone but a Zionist uses the term "Zionist", the Zionists accuse that person of being a raving anti-Semitic lunatic.

Mencius Moldbug said...

Dear anti-Semite,

The query you're looking for is "Ezra Klein one-state solution." See, for instance, here. See also this article, "The Conflict Between Zionism and Liberalism." Author: Ezra Klein.

The "one-state solution" is the Zimbabwe plan for Israel - ie, a demographic structure under which the Jews of Palestine will inevitably be governed by the Arabs thereof. Ie, "peace not apartheid," as Jimmy Carter put it. The fate of the Rhodesian whites will follow shortly and fast.

But as a racist, shouldn't you be for apartheid, not peace? Hm...

Anonymous said...

Dear anti-Semite


Has anyone pointed out to you that you use "anti-Semite" in exactly the same fashion as the left uses "racist"? As a short-hand for "Shut up, you @!*&%!!!".

Practically none of the people whom the anti-anti-Semites are "anti" are in fact "anti-Semites". Ninety-nine percent of the time they are just people pointing out awkward facts which the "anti-anti-Semites" would rather not hear.

Anonymous said...

Rosicrucianism.

Svigor said...

The reason McCain didn't pull the Jeremiah Wright card on Obama wasn't incompetence but fear of ostracism from the D.C./media ruling class. McCain would rather lose the election and continue to be admired by the D.C. elite than win and be hated by them.

Yup. Republicans would rather eat at the kiddie table than outside.

Svigor said...

Rather, the J-listers are people of Jewish descent whose ancestors converted, typically in the early 20th century, to liberal Protestantism.

How to nip MM's crap in the bud? Start at the beginning:

Liberal Protestants attack Liberal Protestants. Jews attack Liberal Protestants?

Who's converted whom again? Who's in charge of whom again?

Who reverts to type in their homeland again?

Which group can possibly be seen as following "is it good for us?", and which cannot?

Svigor said...

I think, instead of being on the defensive every time we are charged with racism, take it as an opportunity to point out the countless groups that are specifically race based to benefit their own race. They are almost uniformly non-white. The only form of institutional racism is discrimination against whites in the form of AA and wealth transfer in the form of government handouts.

"Are the Tea Baggers racist?"

"Isn't it racist to assume white people are racists? To hold them to a unique standard?"

Svigor said...

But you or I can't claim they're not Jews just because we don't like their politics.

I got a finn says MM has, at least once, played the same "not Jews" card on all those "post-Jews" hip-deep in the Red Terror.

Svigor said...

Yes, including the "Race men" who's farm she saved. You know, the white ones.

T! Where ya been?

We're talking about the black bureaucrat who announced in a speech to the NAACP that she screwed over a white farmer, right?

I'm curious, because I haven't read much about this; it seems like she told a story about screwing over a white farmer qua white farmer, and the rest is window dressing ("I tell this story to show my journey" bla bla bla). Do I have this right? She did in fact screw over a white guy because he was white, right?

I'm curious because I'm having a hard time imagining a white guy getting way with this (and having the media defend him). "Oh yeah I used to screw over blacks because they're black but I'm okay now."

The full Rhodesia treatment of Israel consists in pointing out in blog posts that their imperialism has of late been hamhanded and poorly received?

I certainly hope Israel manages to survive his onslaught.


Indeed, Israel may never survive Klein's posturing.

But as a racist, shouldn't you be for apartheid, not peace? Hm...

You never fail to dazzle. What should all those "liberal" Jews be? Oh, I know...for apartheid for me, and peace for thee.

Doug1 said...

Mencius Moldburg's comment was ridiculous Jewish squid ink.

Here is a view/summary of Kevin MacDonalds's scholarly and thoroughly researched "The Culture of Critique". Sort of a cliff notes to the book.

http://www.mypostingcareer.com/forums/index.php?/topic/107-the-culture-of-critique/

Moldberg is right though that liberal WASP protestants, who used to be the power elite in the country until Jews largely displaced them to secondary or partnering roles) were already tending to want to lean over backwards in fairness to other peoples and avoid boorish ethnocentrism.

However Jewish founded and lead intellectual movements have changed and molded that wasp elite ethic into full up political correctness after the 1960s hand off in power.

What is needed is for this to be called out, and for PC to crumb. And also for Jewish networked sort of shaming control of the media to be greatly diminished. They're 3% but they're definitely leading the media "racist, racist, racist"
vicious character assassinations on anyone for deporting illegal aliens or actually effectively restricting our borders.

Fred said...

"We're talking about the black bureaucrat who announced in a speech to the NAACP that she screwed over a white farmer, right?"

Svigor,

You're letting yourself be guided by the snippet of video released by the Jew Breitbart. The black bureaucrat didn't screw over the white farmer. Her first impulse was to not go out of her way to help him, but she referred him to a white lawyer. When his white lawyer dropped the ball, she stepped up and saved the white farmer's farm. The white farmer and his wife stepped up to her defense after she was forced to resign.

If you open your heart to the possibility of Christian fellowship, you could learn something from this.

Anonymous said...

You're letting yourself be guided by the snippet of video released by the Jew Breitbart.

Breitbart was actually adopted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart#Origins_and_personal_life

I believe he's of Irish descent. He even looks like Colm Meaney without the curly hair.

Fred said...

"I believe he's of Irish descent. He even looks like Colm Meaney without the curly hair."

He does look a little like Colm Meaney. Interesting that a couple of ethnocentric Jews would adopt an ethnic Irish baby.

Truth said...

"If you open your heart to the possibility of Christian fellowship, you could learn something from this."

Yeah Svig. As Barry would say, this is a "teachable moment."

Gentile from CA said...

It seems some people here want the solution wrapped in a neat little box. It's so simple, JEWS are the problem, right? To me that's just as bad an error as the university professor that thinks the last five centuries of history can be best explained through the prism of White European oppression of other cultures. It's just plain wrong.

Steve Sailer is doing the world a big favor here by trying to get us all to understand a few things:

First, Jews are over-represented in EVERY intellectual endeavor.

Second, for whatever historical reason they are still (mostly) REALLY afraid of white gentiles. Especially Bush-style evangelical Christians. And even more afraid of race racialists like us. Because noticing race means you will notice Jews and for whatever reason they still think they should be able to hide in plain sight. ((And as a quick aside to holocaust-deniers...IT'S IRRELEVANT. Whatever you think about the details, at the very least Eisenhower thought it was true and now it's part of world history and their people's history and how are you ever going to take that away from them? Even if you tried you would fail...these people have a way higher verbal IQ than you...so just deal with it))

Third: If you think the problem is simple as "Jews are trying to destroy America" well then what is your solution? Do you think simply trumpeting this view will cause our elites to come around to race realism and end the racial preferences tearing this nation apart?

There are far more liberal WASP gentiles than liberal Jews. I am just as disgusted as you are when I read these Journolist comments. But I think the point Steve is trying to make is: They think they are fighting the good fight. When someone feels their heart is in the right place, the details don't matter. You do whatever you can to win. Sure, some of the more nasty ones may be motivated by petty hatred, but I truly believe the majority of them are motivated by some vision of this harmonious multicultural future. They will muffle the discussion of Reverend Wright because they think its just a distraction. He's just a silly old man..let the blacks have their handful of dumb extremists...that's not important. What's important is that we just found a black candidate that can WIN, and he can unite us all!

Svigor said...

Svigor,

You're letting yourself be guided by the snippet of video released by the Jew Breitbart.


Nah, haven't even seen that, lol. I just heard a quick snippet on the radio, from Rush I think (anyone else noticed him talking about the Ruling Class this week? Isn't that the sort of talk Republicans sneered at a few years back? Now you can't shut Rush and Beck up about this stuff; a lot of it sounds like stuff ethnopatriots say, but with the serial numbers filed off - Beck announced today he's a "revolutionary" and wants "radical change," lol.).

Totally don't know what I'm talking about, heh. That's why I asked.

Svigor said...

Yeah Svig. As Barry would say, this is a "teachable moment."

LOL. :) Never stop learning, says I.

Fred said...

"LOL. :) Never stop learning, says I."

Barry should invite you, me, and Truth to the White House for a beer summit. It would be a conversation like nothing he's ever heard in his life.

Fred said...

"anyone else noticed him talking about the Ruling Class this week? Isn't that the sort of talk Republicans sneered at a few years back?"

A couple of points about that. Rush has long bucked the party line on immigration, to his credit. That, and the Medicare Part D expansion were two major issues he's opposed the GOP leadership on in the last several years.

Also, for Rush, there's a personal as well as political aspect to the Ruling Class stuff. The political aspect is that it explains the motivations of RINOs. The personal aspect is that when Rush moved to New York he expected that, as the host of the biggest political radio show in America, he'd be welcomed into the New York political media society, i.e., that he'd get invited to Peter Jennings's parties. Zev Chafets wrote about that in his article on Limbaugh in the NYT Mag a couple of years ago.

ben tillman said...

Barry should invite you, me, and Truth to the White House for a beer summit. It would be a conversation like nothing he's ever heard in his life.

LOL. And when I say "LOL", I mean it literally.

Good one.

ben tillman said...

Second, for whatever historical reason they are still (mostly) REALLY afraid of white gentiles.

It has nothing to do with history. It's entirely due to the fact that they are few, and we are many. If we (1) thought we needed to and (2) could present a united front, we could rout the Jews every time.

Thus, the Jewish community (1) uses the apparatus of public opinion formation to conceal the conflict of interest between Jews and gentiles and to conceal Jewish efforts to further their group interests where they conflict with ours and (2) generates intellectual movements designed to atomize us and pathologize our pursuit of our collective self-interest.