USDA Contributes to White Dispossession

/20 Comments/in , /by

The Seattle Weekly is a very poor excuse for a newspaper, and mainly serves to advertise prostitutes, promote homosexuality, and sow
hatred of the European-American majority in every way possible. It also worships Israel whenever it gets a chance.

However, one news story was very interesting: “USDA Looks Good To Washington’s Hispanic Farmers “, August 3, 2010, p. 9, by Nina Shapira, a strong advocate of illegal immigration.

The story describes how the Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency is operating a segregated, Mexican-only program that buys out struggling, traditional European-American farms and then hands them over to the Mexicans at near zero interest rates. (One reason the European-American farms struggle is they have no access to credit.)

One area targeted for ethnic cleansing is the very productive Yakima Valley in Eastern Washington. Since segregated, Mexican-only NGOs
like the Rural Community Development Resources, run by Luis Gutierrez, provide the conduit to the funding, it is all going to
Mexicans.

One example of how the program works is that of Sergio Marquez who came up from Mexican to work on a 200-acre apple orchard, and within years was given ownership of the orchard by the federal government with no down payment and sub-market rates of interest.

Finally, the federal government guarantees that it will buy 100% of production from these privileged Mexican operations, and then in turn donates it to food banks.

Who would have thought ethnic cleansing would be so profitable?

Bookmark and Share

Jews Mocking the Tribe?

/in /by

The Jewish love of mockery is famous. Given the chance, they mercilessly mock many things, particularly their enemies, the goyim. Toward that end, they also mock that which is sacred to goyim, such as Christianity and Christian holidays.

For example, one of Freud’s first students, Theodore Reik, found such aggressive themes and hostility toward non-Jews in Jewish humor. Here is an example:

Little Moritz sees an historical film showing the early persecutions of the Christians. During a Roman circus scene in which many Christians are thrown to the lions, Moritz breaks out in sobs and says to his mother: “Look at that poor little lion there, it has not got any Goy to eat!” Under the disguise of duty for the neglected beast is an old hatred and repressed cruelty toward Gentiles. It breaks through here, surprisingly, and reaches the emotional surface.

Brandeis University professor Steven Whitfield shares this relatively innocuous but revealing joke about Gentiles: “Why did God create goys?” “Somebody has to buy retail.”

Whitfield notes that Moritz Saphi “may well have been the first writer to perceive Jewish wit as ‘the defense and weapon of the oppressed,’ a way of getting revenge and a form of stress management.” As an example, he describes a pious Jew on his deathbed who announces that he wants to covert to Christianity. Shocked, his family asks why. “Better one of them should go than one of us.”

Cutting humor about Christianity is at times a staple of Jewish American humor, though Jews have been careful to gauge the reception such humor among Gentiles is likely to receive.  One comic who pushed these limits — further than many Jews of the era would have preferred — was Lenny Bruce. In a “funny variation on Jewish delusions and gentile nightmares,” Bruce joked about Presidential contender Barry Goldwater:

So dig. Goldwater lives in Arizona. He did a switch, man. He says, “Frig it. I’ll keep my name and I’ll change my religion.” That was his bit.

That’s weird, you know? Finally we have a man in — that’s going to be Goldwater’s last step: gets in, gets before the T.V. cameras for the acceptance speech, and he rips off the mask and you see the big nose and the semitic look and the spittle coming out and [Goldwater screaming vindictively] “YAHAHAHAAAAAA!  WE’LL BURN ALL THE CHURCHES!”

Bruce performed one of his most famous routines in a Chicago nightclub:

You and I know what a Jew is — One Who Killed Our Lord. I don’t know if we got much press on that in Illinois — we did this about two thousand years ago. . . . And although there should be a statute of limitations for that crime, it seems that those who neither have the actions nor the gait of Christians, pagans or not will bust us out, unrelenting dues, for another deuce.

Alright, I’ll clear the air once and for all, and confess. Yes, we did it. I did it, my family. I found a note in my basement. It said: “We killed him . . . signed, Morty.” And a lot of people say to me, “Why did you kill Christ?” “I dunno . . . We killed him because he didn’t want to become a doctor, that’s why we killed him.”

Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner share a milder story about Christ, “The Two Thousand Year-Old Man,” which begins:

You’re a little storekeeper in Nazareth, and I would like to know what happened the day when they crucified Christ on the mountain. Did you know Christ?

Yes; thin, thin, nervous — wore sandals. Came in the store, didn’t buy much, mainly water, wanted water — so I gave him water. Look! You have a business. You can’t always make a sale. So when people want water, you give them water. But one thing I have to admit.  He was a bit of a troublemaker. He beat up a couple of rovs on the steps of the shul — and you know you can’t do that! But they didn’t have to nail him up. They could have given him a severe lecture. I didn’t agree with such a severe punishment. Oh, such a terrible day! All that yelling and screaming up on the mountain. I tell you it was very upsetting. In fact, it got so bad, I had to close up the store.

The authors of a book on Jewish humor relate a joke that is a good summation of three Jewish themes relating to Gentiles: love of the shiksa [non-Jewish woman], social acceptance, and Gentile gullibility:

Three Jews who have recently converted to Christianity were having a drink together in a posh WASP country club. They started talking about the reasons for their conversions.

“I converted out of love,” said the first, and noticing the dubious looks on his friends’ faces, he continued: “Not for Christianity, mind you, but for a Christian girl. As you both know, my wife insisted that I convert.”

“And I,” said the second, “I converted in order to rise in the legal system. You probably know that my recent appointment as a federal judge may have had something to do with my new religion.”

The third man spoke up: “I converted because I think that the teachings of Christianity are superior to those of Judaism.”

“Are you kidding?” said the first man, spitting out his drink. “What do you take us for, a couple of goyim?”

This joke, Professor Whitfield writes, “reveals more than a hint of contempt toward a sister monotheism.  It slyly stabs at the mental inferiority ascribed to non-Jews, whose religious creed is too preposterous to be credible.”

This sentiment is in evidence in another Jewish joke he cites:

Three recent converts to Christianity were being tested.

“What is Easter?” the first man was asked.

“Easter is when Jesus was born.”

“Go back and study,” they said to him. “Next!”

“What is Easter?”

“Easter,” said the second man, “was when Jesus split the Red Sea.”

“I’m sorry,” he was told. “You’ll have to do some more studying. Next!”

“What is Easter?” the third man was asked.

“Easter,” he said tentatively, “was when Christ was reborn.”

“Excellent. Please continue.”

“Well,” the man said cautiously, “he was in the grave for three days. . . .”

“Very good; and then?”

“And then he came out, saw his shadow — and went back in!”

Finally, we arrive at what must be the most blatantly hostile and offensive portrayal of Christmas ever found in the mainstream American media. The creators of the animated series South Park concocted a Christmas character to replace Santa. This new character is “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo,” an animated human feces. Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror. (This early version can be viewed here and a long discussion I did of the topic here.)

One hardly knows what to make, then, of recent examples where young Jews really push the envelope on exposing their own power or even crimes, all done with cutting humor.

For instance, the whole question of Jewish power in Hollywood and in TV is a touchy one. In his excellent study The Jews of Prime Time, David Zurawik asks, “What is ‘too Jewish’ yet not Jewish enough?”  Answer: “the strange history of Jewish characters on prime-time network television.” The incongruence to which he refers comes from the fact that nearly all the top TV executives and producers were Jewish, yet they were ambivalent about portraying their own high status or that of Jews in other important areas of American life. To illustrate, he begins with an interview with Jewish comedian Al Franken (now a Senator from Minnesota). Zurawik’s direct access to Franken and TV mogul Brandon Tartikoff provides an inside view of Jewish thinking on the “too Jewish” issue.

Tartikoff was concerned about a sketch on NBC Entertainment’s highly popular Saturday Night Live show, in which actor Tom Hanks plays a fictional emcee of a game show called “Jew/Not-a-Jew.” Alluding to Laverne & Shirley co-star Penny Marshall, Hanks asks, “Okay, panelists, Jew or not a Jew?” Tartikoff allowed that it was funny “but was it anti-Semitic?” After agonizing over it for a week, he gave the skit a green light, whereupon his phone rang off the hook on Sunday morning “with calls from colleagues, many of whom were Jewish.” The most troubling call, said Tartikoff, came from his mother. “I cannot believe it. I’m embarrassed to call you my son. This Jew/Not-a-Jew sketch was the most anti-Semitic thing I’ve ever seen.”

While Tartikoff may have erred in this instance, there were other times he pulled the plug because a sketch or show was “too Jewish.” Why did Tartikoff and other Jewish executives so often react this way? To Franken, it was because “there’s a feeling among some Jews that ‘Hey, let’s not get too out front in our Jewishness, because people might not like it.’ . . . ‘Hey, let’s not . . . draw fire. There’s a lot of us in this business, let’s not call attention to it, you know.’” This may well explain why so many Jewish network executives and TV programmers shaded or avoided any connection between Jewish identity and what characters said or did on so many shows. In fact, Tartikoff in 1991 nearly canceled Seinfeld after just one episode for being — surprise — “too Jewish.”

Why, then, did the heavily Jewish Saturday Night Live crew ever create — let alone run — a skit that makes fun of the prominent role Jews played in the financial meltdown? The skit spoofs Jews such as Herbert and Marion Sandler, Congressman Barney Frank, and even George Soros. Here’s the unadulterated original version.

Who, exactly, are they mocking? True, everyone in the skit is by definition a buffoon, from the character of President Bush to the Yuppie scum so totally self-absorbed in their own lives.

Is the real target, however, the gentile audience which comprises the victim class in all of these Jewish financial crimes? After all, Jews are no doubt highly cognizant of the fact that co-religionists such as Bernie Madoff, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and literally hundreds more Jews have been involved in these financial crimes.

Thus, is the joke here in part due to the assumption that the goyim watching the skit will not really understand who has done what and to whom? Further, isn’t there more than a suggestion that the skit really mocks goyim because even if they have figured out the ethnic identity of the bulk of these scammers, they still won’t or can’t do a damn thing?

Now comes an even more blatant example of this kind of humor. The problem is, I don’t really know who should get the credit. It’s a parody newscast from something called Onion News Network, an offshoot of the original newspaper of that name. At this point, I can’t say to what extent it or this particular skit is Jewish-influenced, so I’ll wait for further comment on that.

Still, the ADL has yet to issue a condemnation of the skit, something one would expect had non-Jews created a blatantly anti-Semitic image. Or maybe Nathan Rabin had a hand in it. He’s the head writer at the A.V. Club, the entertainment-oriented sister publication to The Onion. Again, I’d like to hear more about this from readers.

In any case, the title of the parody in question is “Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures.” Now to someone of my generation, “hook nosed” is an unambiguously negative reference to Jews. We know this because Jewish groups are constantly telling us NOT to think of Jews in this way. To an older generation, such images are right out of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda magazine:

Have a look now at the image, first a frame from the video, then watch the short video itself.


Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures

I must say, the set is professional looking and faux-hosts “Jim Haggerty” and “Tracy Gill” are indistinguishable from the real thing.  Under the banner “STRESS RELIEF NOW!” we read about today’s guest: Expert Christine Eckard Shares Stress-Relief Exercises.

On a surface level, the humor succeeds because the hosts and guest are so typical of today’s superficial TV personalities and therapy experts. They’re also very goyish (the name Christine, for example, amplifies this).

As we go deeper, however, it gets more difficult to read. For starters, what they are showing is quite accurate. So how does using the truth perform as part of the humor? I don’t think the skit is making fun of Jews for their appearance or behavior. Rather, I think the writers are making fun, first, of their goy audience. “Look, we’re showing you explicitly what Jews are, yet you’re still too stupid to see it. What can’t we do and not get away with? There is no limit to your goyische kopf stupidity.”

More pointedly, however, I think the Jews behind the skit (again, I have to assume this because I can’t imagine non-Jews ever daring to create images such as these) are getting a thrill out of scaring and offending older Jews. It’s a very adolescent thing — to scandalize your parents. For a young Jew in America today, where physical safety has also been guaranteed and financial or job prospects never a true worry, what can beat the frisson of excitement associated with tweaking the noses of the goyim with some secrets about the tribe and in the process really upsetting mom, dad and uncle Bernie down at the country club in Miami?

For instance, our goyische “expert” tells her audience to

Imagine my money-related stress as the most disgusting terrifying creature I can think of. I’d like to imagine an ugly, greasy little creature with a hooked nose and oily black hair. I call him the Grabbler because he’s a greedy little monster who wants to grabble up all your money. Now think of all the problems. He invented interest rates like the ones on your credit card. He’s taking the jobs because Grabblers only hire their own kind.”

That’s hitting a little too close to home, isn’t it, messieurs Madoff, Blankfein and Soros?

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs

The next part clearly mocks goyim for our penchant of sticking our heads in the sand rather than face up to real problems. Better, it mocks us because rather than face our problems and deal with them, we resort to puerile tactics such as shifting our focus to happy, sappy things. Like, say, rather than dealing with the fact that a gang of Black punks has just knifed your neighbor’s 16-year-old, you light candles, hug each other and visualize a world filled with nothing but love. Goyim can be really, really stupid.

In the case of this video, our expert beseeches us to imagine yourself in a peaceful field full of lilies. Meanwhile, the banner at the bottom of the screen reinforces this: “Picture Yourself In A Quiet Space Free Of Grabblers, Such As A Field Or A Church.”

Get it?  A church is where goyim go.

The expert than asks us to expunge idea that grabblers are scheming or trying to rob you. The power of positive thinking. How utterly stupid. But of course a grabbler by nature schemes and tries to rob people. You’ve just imagined away any defense from these grabblers. I guess that’s funny to some people.

Therapist Christine moves next to “Blabblers,” “people who love to argue and complain in a nasal voices. They’re always lurking like rats.” Here’s the image:

The first thing that came to my mind when hearing the world “blabbler” was an image of Barbra Streisand who is affectionately known as “Babs.”

The mock interview ends with host Haggerty plugging guest Christine Eckard’s latest book. We then get a close-up of the title: The Solution: Kill all the Grabblers.

So our expert with the German-American sounding name, Christine Eckard, has genocide in her eyes, quite appropriate for anyone with German blood. Ha ha ha.

As I’ve said, there is a lot going on in this short video, and I’m far from reaching any conclusions.

A Google search turns up a few hints. A site called Subverted Nation, for one, argues that

to your conscious mind, it all sounds just as silly as it’s presented. The problem is that your subconscious mind only sees things in a literal sense. It does not have the ability to reason, and it is completely unable to use any logic whatsoever. So, when you are told to visualize these problems simply fading away, and replacing the imagery with something soft and sweet, this is exactly what your subconscious mind does.

It’s very subtle, but this kind of neuro-linguistic programming works extremely well, and your enemy is seasoned in this practice in ways many of you are unable to imagine. These are the kinds of techniques taught in the secret mystery schools to all of their kind. This is the stuff you often miss, that is playing a vital role in their battle for your mind, bodies, and souls.

This writer also argues that “90% of the people on planet Earth do not know who this enemy really is, they do not recognize the “grabbler” as the Jew, and they are utterly clueless as to how serious of an issue this really is.” I simply can’t agree with that. I refuse to believe that anything close to such a majority of fellow Americans are clueless about such stereotypes about Jews. Could it be possible?  Again, I’d like to hear from readers.

An acquaintance seemed to think it possible, though. He told me that “Most people watching the ‘Grabbler’ sketch don’t see it with our [Jew-wise] eyes. Indeed, one could come up with a PC, philo-Semitic reading of the spoof: it reveals that all gentiles have anti-Semitic fantasies and thus are in need of sensitivity re-education.” If he’s right about this reading, then we’re in deeper trouble than I had realized.

In closing, let me proffer one last hypothesis for the Jewish medium known as television for offering negative but fairly accurate depictions of Jews: Could these Jews be crying out to get caught? Naaaaawwww.

Bookmark and Share

"A Corrosive Loss of Confidence"

/52 Comments/in , /by

Ron Brownstein’s latest suggests that a political crisis is on the horizon, spurred by the disaffection of White voters and possibly leading to revolutionary stirrings and a movement toward a third party (“A Corrosive Loss of Confidence“).

Even as voters prepare to send more Republicans to Washington, polls show that Americans are not enthusiastic about the GOP. Indeed, the arc of disillusionment spreads beyond the two parties to virtually every major American institution. If November’s election allowed Americans the opportunity to fire not only members of Congress, but also the nation’s entire public and private leadership class, they might take it. This deep, broad, and visceral discontent is a recipe for social and political volatility.

Whites are more alienated from both major parties than non-Whites. Brownstein proposes that this is solely due to the economic downturn. I suspect that White disaffection also involves racial anxiety about the non-White future. Non-Whites doubtless feel optimistic about the long term future in a White-minority America, even if their present circumstances are difficult.

There is an apocalyptic tone to Brownstein’s essay—a belief that our new elite is out of touch with the great majority of Americans, that revolution may be just around the corner, and that third parties may be swept into power:

If polls existed just before the French Revolution, they might have returned results such as these. They point toward a widely shared conviction that the country’s public and private leadership is protecting its own interest at the expense of average (and even comfortable) Americans.

Because he sees the economic downturn as central, Brownstein sees a successful third party as headed by “a non-politician with a problem-solver pedigree” who is seen as able to turn the economy around.

He may be right, but the American Third Position believes that a prime mover of White disaffection is racial anxiety—amplified by the recession and by the perception that elites are completely out of touch with the interests and attitudes of the great majority of Americans. Good examples of the latter are recent court rulings that nullify popular sentiment on issues like the Arizona immigration law and California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Indeed, today’s op-ed page in the  LA Times shows the divide: The pro-homosexual marriage piece piously defending the courts and the anti-homosexual marriage piece emphasizing the undemocratic nature of the ruling: The “people’s will” was violated.

There is a feeling of powerlessness–that even strong majorities don’t matter any more. And that is indeed what revolutions are made of.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: The Absurdity That is Morris Dees

/9 Comments/in /by

From the Too-Good-Not-To-Splash-Across-the-Web Dept. comes Steve Sailer’s take on Morris Dees’ extravagant digs. Here is the entire 60-item photo shoot, including the following:

Hypocrisy.  Absurdity.  Mockery.  Words fail.  How about a deliciously funny screenplay lampooning a Dees-like character?  It’s got gargantuan comedic potential.  Tom Wolfe, are you paying attention?

Bookmark and Share

Another Attempt to Control Historical Writing on the Role of Jews in the USSR

/25 Comments/in , , /by

Apropos the recent series on chapters from Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together (especially Chapter 18), a new textbook for university students in Russia emphasizes the elite status of Jews in the early decades of the USSR. (JTA, August 8, 2010:  “Russian Textbook Seen as Anti-Semitic“) The Foreword states, “For the greater part of its 70-year history, the USSR was ruled by people of non-Russian nationality.” The book also states that, “By the 1930s, the Jewish nation was the leader among those represented in the Communist party and the state machinery, in Science and Art.”

At this point, the elite status of Soviet Jews during this period is common knowledge among scholars (e.g., Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century), but that doesn’t mean that scholars are free to draw attention to ethnicity in textbooks intended for university students. Predictably, any such effort is regarded as “anti-Semitic”: “some are calling [the book] anti-Semitic because it counts the number of Jews in Soviet governments.” As in the US, Jews are the elite that “cannot tell its name.”

Jewish activist organizations go ballistic over any mention that Jews are a disproportionate portion of American elites–truth is irrelevant. Those who stray into this forbidden territory soon learn that their lives have just gotten a lot more complicated. The result is that people behave like well-conditioned rats in a psychology experiment and keep their mouths shut no matter how obvious Jewish overrepresentation is. (“The New Elite Doesn’t Officially Exist“

The theme of the textbook is that the Russians were ruled by non-Russians. Rule by outsiders had predictably disastrous results for those without power: it was during this period that the most horrific mass murders of Russians occurred. The common sense of it is that Russians would not have murdered huge numbers of their own people in the name of international socialism.  (It takes Puritans to do that.) This leads to an often-repeated theme on this website: It is the ultimate folly to allow non-Whites — especially non-Whites with powerful historic grudges — to become a majority and develop the power to rule over Whites.

Also predictably, the article uses guilt-by-association arguments. An author of the textbook was the advisor to a student who is now on trial for murdering two anti-fascists, and the university where the text is used is “tainted by anti-Semitism” because it invited a Holocaust dissident to speak.

Okay. But does that show that the USSR was not ruled by non-Russians during this period or that Jews  were not an elite during the worst excesses of the  Soviet regime? The same can be said about the comment from the Jewish apologist attacking the idea that deportation of the Crimean Tatars was caused by the necessity of clearing the territory for the proposed Jewish republic. Even if true, it doesn’t go to the heart of the matter. Here’s what Solzhenitsyn says in Chapter 18:

The settlement of the Jews in the Crimea provoked the hostility of the Tatars (“Are they giving Crimea to the Jews?”) and dissatisfaction of local landless peasants. Larin writes “evil and false rumors are circulating throughout the country about removal of land from non-Jews, the expulsion of non-Jews and the particularly strong support the authorities have given to the Jewish settlers”. It went so far that the chairman of the CIK of the Crimean ASSR, Veli Ibraimov published an interview in the Simferopol paper Red Crimea (Sept 26, 1926) which Larin does not quote from, but which he claims was a manifestation of “evil bourgeois chauvinism” and a call for a pogrom.

Solzhenitsyn seems to agree that the Jews were treated very well by the government (with the help of foreign Jewish organizations), and he amply documents the resentments this caused among non-Jews. But he does not state that the Tatars were expelled because of Jewish settlement.

Of course, for all I know, the textbook doesn’t say that either. The Tatars weren’t deported until 1944, long after the project for Jewish settlement had fizzled.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Penis Mutilation, aka Male Circumcision: Did Jews Persuade The Rest of Us To Get Circumcised?

/92 Comments/in /by

Like millions of non-Jewish white men in America, I am circumcised.  Until my wife became pregnant with a boy, it was never anything I reflected upon too much.  It’s all I’ve ever known, and mostly all I’ve ever seen in the American locker room.  When I inquired of my parents about my own circumcision, I was told that it was just “what everyone did” at the hospital.  I was whisked away for the procedure with nary a discussion.  They also didn’t give it much thought, apparently.

But reflect on that for a second:  a bizarre ritual in which sharp instruments slice up the most intensely personal part of the male body, right after birth, and for which is there is almost no legitimate medical explanation.  That’s just what “everyone does”?  How does that insanity come to be?

When female circumcision (or “mutilation” — note the difference in terminology) is discussed, it’s treated as a brutally sexist and barbaric practice — an incomprehensible horror designed to oppress women.  But male genital mutilation — which is really what it is — is barely mentioned.

For our son, the decision was easy:  no circumcision.  Informing my decision was 1) the increasing medical evidence that circumcision’s supposed benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks, and 2) my suspicion that “universal circumcision” is a Jewish attempt to normalize their practice and render them indistinguishable from the rest of us.

My boy was born whole, and he’ll stay whole.  Other fathers’ justifications of “he should look like me” struck me as absurd.  Our people have to start clawing their way back to some identity, and we might as well start now.  Should any question arise, I’m happy to explain that his penis was not clipped because that’s a ritual primarily of the Jews, and he’s not Jewish.  That might be a nice starting point for any number of discussions and thinking on his part.

There are other reasons to keep our boys whole, I come to find out.  One correspondent tells me than in researching this topic, he discovered that an erect circumcised penis is necessarily somewhat shorter — unlike the “full capacity” uncircumcised penis, it’s got less skin to expand and fill with blood.  Many sources report that there are crucial nerve endings in the cut-off portion of the penis, so that sexual pleasure is reduced.

That squares with the minimal research I’ve done — mostly confined to the Internet — which has rabbis acknowledging that pouring a little cold water on the male libido is indeed one good result of circumcision.  Maimonides is said to have mentioned this.

Historically, according to Jews, circumcision was strictly a rite — and a very important one, at that — that did not rest on any medical justification.

Interestingly, it appears that circumcision may have originated as some sort of substitute for actual human sacrifice.  The ancient Egyptians may have started it, and other non-Jewish peoples appear to have practiced it, but in the ancient world, it became a distinguishing rite of the Jews.

In Europe and Britain of recent history, it appears that circumcision was practiced almost exclusively by Jews.  I recall that in the Holocaust movie “Europa Europa“, the Jewish protagonist, a young boy, escapes into the fold of the Nazis because of his “Aryan” good looks, and tries to complete the picture by stretching his own foreskin stub down enough to make him look uncircumcised.

So it’s obvious that in Europe in World War II, a Jew was indelibly and unmistakably distinguished from non-Jews by the practice of circumcision.

A question that burns for me is:  were Jews responsible for persuading so many American gentiles to peform this bizarre ritual, primarily as a way to “normalize” the practice and remove the stigma?  Perhaps they thought that if everyone were circumcised, the young protagonist of “Europa Europa” would never have faced the difficulties he did.

The topic cries out for research.  I would love to know how circumcision spread from an ethnically particular practice — one that, in the words of Sir Richard Burton, was “held in horror” by Christendom — to something that “everyone does”.

There is plenty to Google up about circumcision, with several sites taking a strong anti-circumcision stand, and a few Jewish sites defending it.  But none of these sites address the issue of whether Jews sought to persuade white American non-Jews to be circumcised.

There does seem to be some evidence that fascination with germs and cleanliness motivated gentiles, independently of Jewish influence, to practice circumcision.  But if it’s even partly true that Jews encouraged “universal circumcision” so as to disguise their practice as ethnically unique, white non-Jews should be embarrassed.  It would mean that they allowed a stereotypically tricky group of Jews to convince them to perform this ritual on their boys without ever questioning or thinking about it.  So flaccid (if you will) was the white sense of racial strength and solidarity — and their sense of skepticism at Jewish claims — that they quite literally got their dicks nicked.

You might almost call it a “mass ethnic rape” of white non-Jewish males by Jews.  That many millions of white males subjected to that physical trauma at birth — and denied that extra measure of sexual satisfaction — just so that Jewish males could “hide out in the open”?  Staggering to consider.

If Jews can talk “the goyim” into doing that, what can’t they talk them into?  Persuading them to fight their wars in the Middle East seems like child’s play by comparison.  Persuading them to stop reproducing, to divorce at the drop of a hat, to give up their power slots, their property, their very lives?  No problem.

I don’t know for sure that Jews persuaded whites to become circumcised in order to disguise themselves in the open.  But the bare evidence available does seem to fit the theory, and as with so many thing Jewish, the incredible dearth of research and information on the topic makes me yet more suspicious — especially given that it seems to be the very sort of thing that curious academics tuck into.

Are we afraid to tackle the issue because of offending Jewish sensibilities?  Do men avoid the topic because they don’t like to admit that they’ve had a part of their penises cut off, and never had any say in the matter?  I think all of this may be going on, but the larger lesson could be that whites, in their ethnic competition with Jews, find themselves badly outmatched when it comes to the power of persuasion.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly: Black Rage Means White People Die

/34 Comments/in , /by

Edmund Connelly: In his recent blog, Steve Sailer tells us about last week’s shooting of eight White workers near Hartford, Connecticut. Sailer notes that  although the only evidence discovered thus far about actual racist behavior toward the black shooter “appears to have been in the stupid and resentful mind of a thieving mass murderer, he was a black stupid and resentful thieving mass murderer, so attention must be paid.”

And of course the media is paying attention, as Christopher Donovan related in his blog “Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as ‘Disgruntled Man’ by Media.”

Am I the only one that is weary beyond description of the way the media and  American society more generally handle these cases of mass murders of Whites? We get endless sympathetic stories about what might have driven a generally good but troubled non-White soul to have suddenly lashed out and taken the lives of so many Whites.

About those suddenly dead Whites, however, we hear so little. No movies, no comments from the President, no front page New York Times stories. It’s not like these Whites came from the perpetual victim classes like Vincent Chin or Leon Klinghoffer.

It’s all summed in the narrative about Chai Vang, the Hmong immigrant who nearly six years ago took the lives of six innocent White hunters. Well, possibly not so innocent because Vang — and the mass media acting as the chorus behind him — claimed the hunters had used racial slurs against him. Case closed: Whites said something racist, so death was a foregone conclusion. And besides, justice was served.

In the present case of Omar Thornton, this narrative is duly repeated. For instance, in a story used by Sailer, Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism, we read that the mass murderer was a really nice guy:

But underneath, Thornton seethed with a sense of racial injustice for years that culminated in a shooting rampage Tuesday in which the Connecticut man killed eight and wounded two others at his job at Hartford Distributors in Manchester before killing himself.

“I know what pushed him over the edge was all the racial stuff that was happening at work,” said his girlfriend, Kristi Hannah. …

Thornton, who grew up in the Hartford area, complained about racial troubles on the job long before he worked at Hartford Distributors.

“He always felt like he was being discriminated (against) because he was black,” said Jessica Anne Brocuglio, his former girlfriend. “Basically they wouldn’t give him pay raises. He never felt like they accepted him as a hard working person.”

Well, I think we can call this murderous workplace explosion another instance of “going postal.”

It also points to something deeper: a common pattern where a black employee goes after White co-workers. In particular, it reminds me of a chilling case back in 1994. In that incident, three White FedEx pilots were attacked inflight by fellow black pilot Auburn Calloway. Calloway, too, was obsessed with the idea that his career had stalled due to White racism. In fact, he believed it had begun when he was a naval aviator.

Having reached his limit, Calloway concocted a plan to kill the three-man crew of a DC-10, then crash the heavily-loaded plane into FedEx’s headquarters building at the hub in Memphis, Tennessee. To effect this plan, he signed on to “deadhead” aboard the flight and brought with him hammers, a knife, and a spear gun secreted in his guitar case.

To their great credit, the Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel showed in their series Mayday an accurate racial portrayal of attacker and victims. See this Video link from National Geographic Channel’s website. (You can also watch a re-enactment of the attack here in these YouTube segments.)

Here is an account of the attack where, thirty minutes into the flight, Calloway initiated his ambush of the White pilots:

None of the three men heard Calloway enter the cockpit. Sanders suddenly became aware of a struggle, and heard the awful sound of hammer blows raining down upon his crewmates. He turned to see both men slumped in their chairs, injured terribly, and a blood-soaked Auburn Calloway moving toward him.

Calloway swung wildly at Sanders. Some of the blows landed, some were deflected. The plane lurched as Sanders desperately tried to defend himself. Then something happened that Calloway had not counted upon. Tucker and Peterson recovered and began fighting back. Calloway was surrounded; he flailed about with the hammer, still inflicting gruesome injuries. The men would not give up, though . . .

The cockpit voice recorder transcript of the attack is worth reading to if only for the fact that it records with chilling clarity the risk Whites face due to the present multicultural arrangement that has been foisted upon us by a hostile elite:

DS = pilot Sanders

JT = co-pilot Tucker

P = flight engineer Peterson

AC = attacker Calloway

AW = autowarning

JT: Do you, uh, live over in Arkansas, Dave, or . . . ?

DS: Naw, I live in Fisherville.

JT: Aw, Fisherville, great spot.

(Sounds of hammer blows striking pilots.)

AP: Ow!

JT: God! Oh, ah, shit.

DS: God almighty!

AP: Ow!

JT: What the fuck are you doing?

DS: God, (groan), (groan), God almighty! God, God, God. . . .

JT: Get him, get him, get him

DS: He’s going to kill us.

JT: Get him!

DS: Get up, get him!

AP: I can’t, God!

UV: STOP! (unintelligible) Hold his goddamn . . .

AC: Sit down, sit down, get back in your seat, this is a real gun,

I’ll kill ya.

JT: Get him, get him, get him, get him, get him, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle…

JT: Get him, get him, get him!

AC: I’m gonna kill you! Hey, hey! I’ll kill ya!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

DS: Get him, get him, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

DS: Yeah, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

JT: Get him, get him, get him, Andy, I got the airplane!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

JT: Get him, Andy, get him!

AW: bank angle, bank angle

As Sanders and Peterson fought their attacker in the cabin, copilot Tucker “swung the aircraft into dangerous flight maneuvers in an attempt to literally knock the man off his feet.” At nearly 400 miles per hour, the copilot executed a barrel-roll, “as the three struggling men were tossed about the galley area, alternately weightless and pressed upon by three times their weight in G forces.

By now, the aircraft was inverted at 19,700 feet, and the alarmed air traffic controllers in Memphis were desperately calling for Flight 705.  Incredibly, after struggling with his attacker in the cabin, Sanders was able to return to his captain’s seat and land the plane, despite his near-fatal injuries and despite the fact that the DC-10 was grossly overweight for a landing.

You can read the whole account in the suspense-filled book Hijacked: The True Story of the Heroes of Flight 705.

I don’t mean to be voyeuristic with this use of the cockpit tapes. Rather, I want to wake people up. Despite the endless black carjacking murders of Whites, the rape-murder of White women, the murder of White police officers, and, like last week, the workplace executions of White men, people by and large still won’t wake up.

So I’m doing what I can to say, WAKE THE HELL UP!

Bookmark and Share