Monthly Archives: October 2007

Rabbi Beaten with Bat in Lakewood, N.J. Bias Attack

Posted on by

More evidence of the the creeping tide of anti-Semitism being introduced by the parasitic “Peace and Justice” movement that’s blighting our Black communities. From ABC News:

A man wielding an aluminum baseball bat attacked an Orthodox Jewish rabbi walking to synagogue, critically injuring the 53-year-old man and threatening to strain the already tense ethnic relations in this city, officials and residents said.

The beating of Mordechai Moskowitz, reportedly at the hands of a black man, has put residents on edge in Lakewood, a diverse city of 70,000 near the Jersey Shore that is home to a large Orthodox Jewish population, as well as black and Hispanic communities.

An Orthodox Jewish middle school teacher was found not guilty this summer of assaulting a black teenager. And a few weeks ago, a group of Orthodox Jews was pelted with eggs by teenagers from another town, The New York Times reported Thursday.

Anti-Semitism in our communities can be traced to two influences which Black leaders have left unchecked for decades for political reasons. The first is the hateful and poisonous doctrines of stage magician turned cult leader Drew Ali and the Black Supremacy movement in general, and the second is the White run social justice organizations that pillage our communities while spreading a nihilistic Marxism which includes “anti-Zionist” and Pro-Islamist positions.

In that atmosphere it is little wonder that tensions arise. Add to the mix the fact that many of these same Jews lean to the left and give their tacit approval through their silence of “anti-Zionism” and continue to support the left even when the lefts anti-Israel agenda is obvious and virulent, and you have a recipe for a pogrom.

h/t Trench

Ron Paul, HuffPo and White Supremacists: The Shocking Expose that Wasn’t

Posted on by

Huffington Post is, to we on the right side of the blogosphere, a blog best known for rabid Jew hatred and publishing the political ramblings of chronic woman abusers like Jim Lampley and Alec Baldwin. That and the racism of Jane Hamsher.

In other words HuffPo isn’t where you would expect to find an expose of a popular anti-war presidential candidates unseemly ties with various White Nationalist organizations, but when that Candidate is a “Republican” who’s stealing the key anti-Zionist/anti-N.W.O. vote away from the left and the story has already been well documented here in several posts and all around the Internet, you can count on the hacks at HuffPo to jump on the band wagon and not give those of us who have worked this story for months and ounce of credit.

Unlike right leaning blogs however, Thomas B. Edsall give Paul more than the benefit of the doubt in his piece, bending over backward to create more separation between Paul and the White nationalist crowd than actually exists:

Through no fault of his own, Rep. Ron Paul’s anti-globalist, anti-government campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has become a magnet in neo-Nazi networks, pulling in activists and supporters from the fringe white nationalist community where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are commonplace.

In some cases, these Internet-based activists acknowledge that even though the Paul campaign does not have a racist or anti-Semitic agenda, it can serve as a vehicle to find sympathizers and to recruit new loyalists drawn to the Republican congressman’s opposition to international trade agreements, federal police authority and to the income tax.

Such web-based organizations as Stormfront (motto: “White Pride, World Wide”), Vanguard News Network (“No Jews. Just Right.”) and the Nationalist Coalition (“working to create the relationships that will lay the foundation for the White community that is necessary to our survival”) have become sources of support for Paul’s bid for the Republican nomination, and in some cases have set up separate Ron Paul discussion groups.

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. “We don’t know who these people are,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s communications director. Their support has “nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for….His message of freedom, peace and prosperity – that’s why people support him.”

Paul has not made racist or anti-Semitic appeals to the controversial organizations and their members. Instead, their support is based on Paul’s libertarian opposition to government generally, including the IRS and the powers granted to the federal government under the Patriot Act – views that are shared by many on the conservative fringe of the spectrum.

In the 2000 campaign, Patrick J. (“Pat”) Buchanan appealed to many similar individuals and organizations. Buchanan had a history of expressing views that were often interpreted as anti-Semitic.

Edsall must consider accepting the money and support of radical groups dedicated to overthrowing the government and killing most of the rest of us off potent discouragement indeed. The last time I wrote a piece on Paul and his interesting followers I shot an email off to his campaign which went unanswered for weeks. I did receive a flurry of hate mail, but otherwise the Paul campaigns response to my question of when, if ever, Paul was going to distance himself from the Neo-Nazis supporting him was to email me weeks later telling me that in the 90’s Paul wrote an essay saying racism was collectivism.

Hardly discouraging to the White Nationalists. If their response to me was true to form (and I’m told it is) than in essence their defense is that Paul himself regards racism in general as collectivist, thus un-libertarian, but that otherwise the beliefs of White Nationalist may or may not be true. His non-response to the White Nationalist infiltration of his campaign leaves the door open, in both the Neo-Nazis and his other supporters minds, to Paul embracing on some level the other parts of Nazi ideology that isn’t “collectivist.”

Meaning of course that if you were to provide “proof” of Blacks being less human than Whites or Jews controlling the world than there’s room in the Paul brand of Libertarianism for you. As long as your ideas aren’t formed by “collectivist” means, you’re golden.

I’d say that by not clearly stating that White Nationalism is incompatible with Libertarianism, Paul is encouraging neo-Nazis to support him. But HuffPo has a more “nuanced” view. Nuanced like their fellow anti-war activists:

[youtube]yafeVz8eP0U[/youtube]

Ah. The key Neo-Nazi/breathless Phone porn operator endorsement. She does have a nuanced view. Not as nuanced as Paul himself, who has some interesting things to say about Abraham Lincoln in this interview starting around 1:48:

[youtube]c08dM8QV6rU[/youtube]

Yeah, he’s not saying anything calculated to appealing to anti-government kooks. Nothing at all.

So why the white wash (excuse the pun) of Paul’s perfidy on a left leaning blog that would love to tank any Republican’s chance at the White House? That’s a question we can all ponder. Though there is no doubt the piece could be used to demonize Paul supporters it gives Paul a pass that no other Republican running would get in the same situation.

And why doesn’t Edsall mention that this is an old story on the ‘net? Is it just the animosity of a die hard liberal unwilling to admit that we on the right have the integrity to question our fellow travelers or the kind of lazy journalism the left is known for? I think the former, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was the latter.

White Pride Party Wide III: ‘Netroot Klan Rally to Defend Rich White Couple

Posted on by

One of the lapdogs of racist harpy Jane Hamsher was so upset about the evil “wingnut” conspiracy that dares to question why a family that owns three cars and sends their children to private school can’t afford a $452 a month insurance policy for those same children that she leapt upon her moral high horse and penned a childish screed about being a better person than you and me, then closed the comments when she thought she’d take some heat.

Here’s her post in a nutshell:

Here’s a truth…honestly. If the folks who run Powerline or Michelle Malkin or any of these other folks had a child in danger and contacted me to ask about what they should do to contact authorities or protect their child, I would help them in a heartbeat. Hell, I’d probably try to save the kid from a speeding bus if my auto-immune-achy limbs could move fast enough. Because that is what compassionate people who care about childrens’ well-being do.

Compassionate people don’t attack kids who desperately need help — they help them. It is human instinct at its basest level — ask any good parent (who isn’t involved in an abuse and neglect case, since I’ve seen far too many of those in my lifetime to know that some parents don’t have this trait) about the ache they feel when their child cries out in the night. Hell, ask any person with a heart if they wouldn’t do whatever it took to help a child in need, and see you don’t get “yes, what can I do to help?” as your answer.

Oh. Is that so? It’s interesting how much compassion Hamsher’s lackeys can come up with for a for a well off White family, but how little mention there is of the Black teens murdered by MS-13 members in Newark, gang members who gravitated to Newark because of not only liberal sanctuary city polices but because of its thriving trade in drugs, also a problem created and perpetuated by rich White liberals.

The lily White Frost family, in which the father is a welder/woodworker and the mother is an office worker, claims to make “only” $45,000/yr so they can’t afford insurance. Though they won’t verify that claim, and it is known they own commercial property from which they collect rent so they may indeed make more, I will say what most dare not: $45,000 is good money. Especially for a couple who both only work part time (why one doesn’t work full time I have no idea) and frankly there are members of my own family that make less, have children and don’t have insurance.

Does Hamsher’s harpy care about them? Does she have as much compassion for the people who will end up paying higher taxes to pay for the entitlements of a family that has more net worth than them?

Of course not. Because the Frosts are downwardly mobile White liberals, working part time so they can spend an extra 20 hours a week or so smoking pot or doing whatever they do that keeps people from working more than part time to provide their children with better lives. In other words they’re par for the course among the Christy Smith set.

It’s been reported that they bought their house for $55,000 in 1990 and now it’s worth around $300,000. Why didn’t they sell it and buy the $461 a month insurance plan available in their area?

And now that I questioned that, how much racist bile will end up in my email?

This case isn’t about their kid. It’s about the sense of entitlement White liberals have in this country, and how vicious they become when someone who isn’t White says “no” to them. This is about a couple with one set of wealthy grandparents hailing from Bronxville, N.Y, where 4 bedroom houses go for 2.5 MILLION dollars, claiming to have nowhere to turn for help but the taxpayer’s pocket.

SCHIP is for the destitute, government entitlements should be for the poor, but people like the Christy Smith of FDL are more than willing to steal that money from those who truly deserve it and give it to well to do White liberals who refuse to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.

If the Frosts qualify for entitlements paid for by taxes levied on single mothers and the real working poor, who else qualifies? Smith? Hamsher? Every White American who wants to keep some extra cash in their pocket to buy drugs? How about this piece of White Trash who hasn’t worked since 2003 and lives with his parents? Is he qualified?

And why are the attacks on conservatives so vicious when this issue comes up? Especially attacks on Michelle Malkin? Is it her fault because she’s in some way provoking White liberals into paroxysms of racism?

Or is the idea of of a non-White telling Whites they don’t deserve everyone else’s money enough to make these supposed liberals expose themselves as the hateful, bigoted middle aged adolescents they are?

Meanwhile there are plenty of people in this world worse off than the Frosts, none of whom will receive an ounce of compassion from Christy Smith or any other liberal. Coincidentally, none of them are White.

More entitlements for undeserving Whites has been a staple of White Nationalist ideology for decades, the doctrine of Communitarianism which is popular with these folks; perhaps their newly forged close ties with the nutroots has given the the idea of a Whites-only welfare state new life, and luckily they already have a spokesfamily.

Richard Dawkins Finds a Myth He Does Indeed Believe In

Posted on by

Unsurprisingly it’s one of the more popular myths that circulates around the left. From Times-Online Comment Central:

I have just come across the most extraordinary statement by Richard Dawkins. It is right there on the Guardian website without a sentence even questioning it. Here it is:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened.

Stumbling and Mumbling points out that there is a Dawkins is inconsistent in apparently accepting rumors he’s heard from unnamed sources as proof of the existence a Jewish conspiracy but not of the existence of a deity:

The highlighted phrases illustrate Dawkins’ use of the heuristic of social proof – he seems to believe Jews are small but monopolize US foreign policy because others tell him so.
But you could use exactly the same method to believe in God – or at least to be agnostic. God exists as far as many people can see – indeed, many more, for much longer, than believe in Jews’ influence on foreign policy.
So, why is Dawkins happy to use social proof in one context, but reject it so violently in another?
It would be too glib to say this is an example of how rational people cease to be rational in thinking about politics, because there’s something to be said sometimes for the use of social proof.

However it’s The Midnight Sun which points out the most obvious conclusion we should all draw:

This may serve as a wake-up call for those Jews flirting with the secular Left. I certainly hope so. What disturbs me about the comments is that there is no challenge to them from the Guardian and that Dawkins is bold enough to utter such slander to a public readership. Not content to slam Christians, he is just itching to include the Jews in his dragnet as well.

It’s true what they say: The problem with people who believe in nothing is that they’ll fall for anything.