Media Influence

Christopher Donovan: Those Dreaded All-White Juries, Again

/22 Comments/in , , , /by

Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream.  First, for the absurdity itself.  And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.

The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation.  The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries.  Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.

The story itself is a farce.  Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.”  Really?  A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication?  It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.

On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.”  Were they, really?  This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical.  But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.

Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk.  I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”

Sigh.  Allow me to reiterate my point.  It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors.  They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks.  Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t.  It’s that simple.  Same analysis, different conclusion.  Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?

Why won’t the press ever look into THAT?  If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?

And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?

And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?

And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?

I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Kagan’s journalist supporters

/35 Comments/in , , /by

We at the TOO blog have been emphasizing how Jewish ethnic networking is the real story of the  Kagan nomination. One is led to that conclusion from simply looking at how utterly ordinary she is in terms of scholarly accomplishment or anything else that would qualify her for the court–truly the Harriet Miers of the Obama administration. Now Politico has an article discussing Kagan’s friends among journalists (“Kagan’s journo friends“). Of the 8 journo friends mentioned, 7 have obvious Jewish names, the other, Jonathan Capehart, is a Black homosexual. And two of the comments show that the journalist met Kagan in the context of a Jewish social event:

“I first met Kagan in the mid-’90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,” wrote The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen.

“Elena danced at our wedding in 1986,” wrote The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin. “When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer.”

Patrick Cleburne has another excellent blog on Kagan. It calls attention to her hostility to free speech, but also makes a point of Kagan’s (Jewish) journo friends, this time at the NYTimes, but also explicitly calls attention to some of her other Jewish connections:

That curious specimen Dick Morris appears on NewsMax.com to ludicrously argue that

Kagan ‘Moderate’ Democrat Tuesday,11 May 2010

Based on the Elena Kagan that I knew, she would be a moderate on the court. She’d be a little bit like Sandra Day O’Connor . .

Morris must really think Newmax.com readers stupid. The New York Times puff piece yesterdayA Pragmatic New Yorker on a Careful Path to Washington
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG, KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and LISA W. FODERARO.) reports Kagan worked on Liz Holtzman’s 1980 Senate campaign, having also interned with Representative Ted Weiss. She then benefited from the patronage of former Congressman Abner Mikva who as a Federal Judge gave her a clerkship. All dedicated leftists (the first two usually 100% in the Americans for Democratic Action rankings) – and fellow Jews.

But then again, so is Morris. There has been a surprsing amount of MSM comment on the exclusion of Protestants from the Court; this is the boot that hasn’t dropped.

Not only are Protestants excluded, Whites will now be in a minority (3 Jews, 1 Latina, and 1 Black are the new majority). This transformation into a non-White elite is happening with breathtaking speed, so much so that Whites are actually a minority in this elite institution well before becoming a demographic minority. Perhaps this will help to make Whites conscious of what is really happening.


Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Ignoring the Jewish Lesbian in the Room

/15 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: Kevin MacDonald has done great blogging about Elena Kagan, who’s now known to be Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.  She is, of course, Jewish, and stands as a spectacular example of the “Good Ol’ Jews Network” — her main qualification seems to be that everyone (as in, fellow power-Jews) gushes praise for her, which in turn causes more gushing.  Everyone wants to comment on the king’s fine new clothes.  This type of thing happens to wealthy Jews from the Upper West Side.  It does not happen to White Protestants from Oklahoma, no matter how smart they are.

Speaking of which, there are now no Protestants on the Supreme Court. One might think that white Protestants would bemoan this fact.  But they aren’t.  They’ve been trained not to, of course.  Which stands in sharp contrast to, say, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.  She’s supposed to be the Hispanic representative.  The Hispanic complaint was that they didn’t have anyone on the Supreme Court.  Obama fixed that.

So, all things being equal, white Protestants would have just as much of a complaint now that they’re on the outs.  But we all know that racial politics in America today aren’t about actual equality, they’re about pushing Whites off the stage. Elena Kagan will turn the Supreme Court into a “Sanhedrin”, in the phrase of some associates — 1/3 Jewish.  This reflects the shift in America’s powerbase from white Protestant to Jewish.

This has consequences:  policies that hurt whites are enacted, and Whites suffer.  It’s that simple, and that monumental. Yet the conservative legal blogosphere is completely silent on this point.  It is even censoring comments of anyone who mentions it.

At National Review — long discredited in any event, but worth noting as a gauge of the absurd — says nothing about it. Some of them are taken in by Kagan’s having reached out to the Federalist Society as a sign that she’s “not hostile” to conservatism.

This is a complete crock.  Kagan just grasps that it’s “hip” to hang with the Federalist Society because it shows your open-mindedness, but the Federalist Society has absolutely nothing to say on issues that affect Whites.  In fact, it’s a tool for the promotion of Israel-friendly “war on terror” policies.

Most “conservative” legal bloggers are, of course, themselves Jews, so they make sure to keep the focus on silly details.  Ted Frank and Eugene Volokh are good examples. See here, here, and here.

America no longer belongs to whites.  Its machinery is controlled by those hostile to their interests.  We need to recognize this fact and respond.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Totenberg On the Bench, Totenberg on NPR, Totenberg Everywhere

/21 Comments/in , , , , /by

From the Self-Perpetuating Jewish Power Circle Dept. comes the recent news that Amy Totenberg, sister of NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg, has been nominated to the federal bench by President Obama.

This nomination reflects a well-established trend of powerful Jews, often related to each other by blood or acquaintance, being elevated to incredibly powerful positions in our society that can then be leveraged to keep the other positions protected or elevated.

Nina Totenberg, for instance — in addition to her already heavy liberal, anti-white bias — is now in a position to report positively on her sister (not likely, as that would be too obvious), fail to report negatively on her sister (a guarantee), and generally put a spin on legal coverage that reflects her sister’s likes and dislikes (very likely).

Amy Totenberg, meanwhile, would be in a position to issue rulings that track the bias of her sister’s liberal views.

The two of them together could operate like that two-man hand-crank train car you see in the cartoons.

Did I mention that Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at Nina Totenberg’s wedding?

The entire thing makes me sick to my stomach.

One, the same power-grabbing by White gentiles would described by Jews as an example of “the good ole boys’ network”, “institutional racism” or “the white power elite.”  Practiced by Jews, it goes unremarked.  No, make that “uncommentable”, because anyone pointing to it will be branded an awful racist.

Two, unlike high-level nepotism by Whites, the Jewish variety works in a hundred different ways against whites.  Their clear trend, with rare exceptions, is toward policies and media messages that are harmful to white interests.

The Totenberg sisters are not going to be addressing in any positive way the injustices facing whites.  Instead, we can expect them to be working overtime to perpetuate those injustices.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Jews and immigration policy — Again

/35 Comments/in , , , , , /by

A friend sent along Steve Sailer’s review of historian Otis L. Graham’s  Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future. Misleading title. American immigration policy was chosen. It just wasn’t chosen by the vast majority of the American people, and this is Graham’s point. As I have tried to show, it was chosen by the organized Jewish community and put into action as a result of Jewish political pressure and financial wherewithal. Graham notes that the successful immigration restriction of 1924 was seen by historians as one of the reforms of the Progressive Era’s campaign against the excesses of capitalism, since immigration lowered wages.

It’s fair to say, however, that Jews never saw it that way and there’s at least a fair amount of truth in the idea that the 1924 law was enacted to achieve an ethnic status quo that Jews saw as unfair to them. (Jewish immigrants were correctly seen by restrictionists as disproportionately involved in political radicalism, and it was generally a period of ethnic defense of White America.)

As Sailer’s review shows, Jews have not ceased seeing the 1924 law as exclusion of Jews. Graham points out that Jews live in the past when it comes to thinking about immigration: “the “filiopietistic” urge (“of or relating to an often excessive veneration of ancestors …”) is particularly strong among Jewish media figures. Italian-Americans, in contrast, tend to approach the immigration policy question by thinking about the future rather than by obsessing over the past. This anti-rational emotional reflex about immigration contributes to the kitschy quality of MSM discourse on the topic.”

In other words, Jews see the 1924 immigration law as part of their lachrymose history among Europeans, It’s just another example of irrational anti-Semitism — an example that warrants the evil nature of  the people and culture who created it. Since, as Sailer notes, Jews constitute half of the most influential media figures, and since the other half are rigorously vetted to exclude anyone who opposes what amounts to the Jewish consensus on immigration, there really isn’t much real debate in the above-ground media.

Of course, there is a lot of self-censorship. Graham recounts the example of Theodore White, then the most influential journalist in America (and a Jew), refusing to publish his views on immigration. “‘My New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right [on immigration], but I can’t go public on this.’ ” Sailer quotes Graham:

Hearing White’s agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo [against immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public with his worries about the state of immigration. …

I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons. They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public policy in America.

In a nutshell, that’s the problem with Jews: They get what they want and what they want is not necessarily what others want (leading to conflicts of interest) or what is good for the country as a whole. It really wouldn’t matter if the only group that wanted open borders was African Americans. But it matters greatly that Jews do.

Incidentally, Otis Graham’s brother Hugh Davis Graham, agrees with me on the forces behind the 1965 law. He wrote in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

Bookmark and Share

Charles Dodgson’s "Get Smart! and Birth of a Nation: Lessons for White Cultural Emancipation"

/6 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I hope people get a chance to read Charles Dodgson’s latest TOO article. The critical take-home point is the power of the media in shaping attitudes. The Birth of a Nation of 1915 was a powerful call to White racial awareness and defense. Right now, there is a huge amount of anger among Whites in America, but it will probably be channeled within politically acceptable boundaries —boundaries in which White racial consciousness and the need for racial defense will remain beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. Hence the  energetic attempts at containment by organizations like the ADL and the $PLC aimed at completely cleansing the mainstream media of anything remotely likely to legitimize White racial consciousness and defense (even Glenn Beck).  As Dodgson notes, “White Americans will continue to lose the culture war — and their freedom and identity — until they retake the commanding heights of mass entertainment and guard that position with the same determination with which their forebears defended the nation’s physical borders.”

Gabriel Schoenfeld exists in an alternate universe

/35 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Gabriel Schoenfeld’s The Weekly Standard  article “Back to the Future: British Anti-Semitism Returns with a Vengeance” is the sort of thing that makes you want to bang your head against a wall. The idea is that those virulent anti-Semites John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt managed to “peddle” their vicious article on the Israel lobby to the London Review of Books when it was sensibly rejected by American publishers. It then metastasized into a book that was much admired in the US by the likes of David Duke and pretty much no one else. The “respectable middle” were on page with Leslie Gelb’s authoritative review in the august New York Times which accused them of “shoddy scholarship” that promoted anti-Semitism. As I noted in an earlier blog, “Some of Gelb’s charges might even seem reasonable—if you haven’t read the book.”

The fact that Mearsheimer and Walt managed to first publish their monstrosity in England is no accident. After all, the Brits are a bad lot and always have been. “Anti-Semitism has deep roots in England. In the 12th century, many of the country’s Jews were put to the sword in a wave of massacres. The 13th century began with the introduction of the yellow badge, the mandatory marking that Jews were compelled to wear, and ended with the mass expulsion of the Jews.”

There you have it. Nothing much has changed in England since the 12th century when it comes to the Jews. Anti-Semitism remained rampant in England throughout the 20thcentury, going underground when the Brits were fighting the Nazis (who were even more anti-Jewish), but re-emerging now into the open. In its latest incarnation, it manifests itself as hatred toward Israel.

According to Schoenfeld, this irrational anti-Jewish hate is more obvious than ever.  You can tell that because Britain is now “a congenial home” where radical Muslims “preach their genocidal doctrines.” (Never mind the role of Jewish organizations in facilitating immigration into England and opposing nationalist parties like the BNP that want to keep England English. See Ch. 7 of Culture of Critique.)

In fact, right now Parliament is considering a law to force Jews to report to concentration camps.

No wait. Actually, it’s an inquest into how Tony Blair made the decision to join in the Iraq invasion. Not only that, but a newspaper columnist had the temerity to complain that two of the panelists were Jews. Another chimed in that this complaint was “helpful” because the war was “initiated .  .  . by a group of influential American neocons .  .  . nearly all of whom were ardent Zionists.” And the London Times didn’t even label all of this “anti-Semitic.”

And then there was Peter Oborne’s program (see Martin Webster’s TOO article) on the influence  of the Israel Lobby: “With shades of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and shades of Mearsheimer-Walt, the program conveyed a picture of a nefarious conspiracy to plunge Britain into war in Iraq.”

The last straw is the court decision that an Orthodox school is guilty of discrimination for insisting on matrilineal descent as a criterion of admission. Schoenfeld puts ‘discrimination’ in quotes because, you see, it’s not discrimination if Jews do it. Surely it’s obvious that Jews (and no one else) ought to be able to discriminate on the basis of biological descent.

Obviously, Jews like Schoenfeld (and they’re the ones we keep hearing from in the media) are out of touch with reality. This is Abe Foxman on steroids. In Scheonfeld’s eyes, the inquest into the Blair government’s actions and the Oborne program are nothing more than updated examples of centuries-old anti-Jewish hatred. No need to look at what actually happened.

Indeed, the very thought that Jews might be biased against finding that Jews whose main allegiance is to Israel were the major force behind the decision of the British government to join the Iraq invasion is so obviously wrongheaded that even asking the question betrays vicious hatred of Jews. By their very nature Jews are impartial and completely uninfluenced by their ethnic identification. Schoenfeld doubtless sees himself as an exemplar of evenhandedness — completely above the fray and able to judge Israel’s actions and all things Jewish with brutal, impartial honesty.

Schoenfeld and the rest of these Jewish spokespeople are living in an alternate universe — a universe where mundane things like facts and truth are irrelevant. It’s an absolute article of faith that Jewish behavior is always — always —completely irrelevant to anti-Semitism. No matter how much money Jewish activists and organizations shower on politicians and no matter now much media they own and influence, Jews never actually influence anything. And if they do happen to have a slight influence, they only want the best for everyone. There could not possibly be legitimate conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews.

There is simply no way to communicate with people like Schoenfeld. And that’s a big part of the problem.

Bookmark and Share