From the News We Already Knew Dept.:  The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has found that the U.S. Dept. of Justice ignores white victims of voter intimidation and other civil rights infractions.  Notable:  One DOJ attorney, Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Rights Act section, bravely defied DOJ orders not to testify about the anti-white bias.  Coates relayed that some attorneys would simply refuse to work on cases where whites were the victims.  He has since been stripped of his position and now works as an AUSA in South Carolina.

Another  attorney, J. Christian Adams, the lead prosecutor in the Black Panther voter intimidation case that was scuttled by DOJ,  resigned over the incident.

It’s outrageous that the highest enforcement authority in the land — the United Stated Department of Justice — blatantly ignores white victimization.  But it only lays bare what we know about America more broadly:  whites are quickly losing their power, and they are not experiencing multiracial nirvana as a result.

The architect of the changeover is Matt Parrott. Matt combines technical proficiency with political activism. He heads the Indiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens and has written for TOO (”George Washington Plunkitt on the Sausage Factory of American Politics“). He also has a radio show on the Reason Radio Network (”Radio Free Indiana”) where he recently interviewed me on a wide range of topics  — a very enjoyable experience that will doubtless be repeated in the future.

We at TOO are greatly indebted for all the work he did—much more than we could adequately pay him for. It would be a nice gesture to acknowledge his efforts. His PayPal account is the same as his email address: parrott.matt@gmail.com

Kevin MacDonald, Editor

“If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism. There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” He called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Wilders also includes Judaism as part of the European cultural tradition, expressing his desire that “the European Judaeo-Christian tradition to be formally recognised as the dominating culture.”

Wilders also rejects certain elements of the right that are particularly offensive to Jews:

‘My allies are not Le Pen or Haider,’ he emphasises. ‘We’ll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.’ Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him, he says.

One would think then that Wilders would be popular among Jews, but he is not. It’s one thing to support Israel, but the problem is that he has the outlandish idea that Europe should be for Europeans and that immigration from Muslim countries should be halted. 

The recent JTA article (”Not wild about Wilders? Populists’ anti-Islam message has European Jewish leaders worried“) makes clear that, as in the US, the organized Jewish community wants a multicultural future for Europeans. Despite contrary opinions by some Jews, the expressed ideal of Jewish leaders is that Europe continue to import Muslims to create a multicultural Europe.

The article quotes the “Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life” statement that “about 5 percent of the EU population is Muslim, with the percentage growing because of higher birthrates among migrants and low birthrates among ‘native Europeans.’” “Native Europeans” must, of course, be put in quotes because the very concept of native Europeans is abhorrent to the multicultural zeitgeist. All Western societies are nations of immigrants, you see — even if the European immigrants arrived thousands of years ago. The report concludes with the obligatory statement that “the successful integration of European Muslims is crucial to the future of Europe.” Where have we heard that before?

From the standpoint of the Jewish leadership, the basic problem is that populists like Wilders “want a Sweden for the Swedes, France for the French and Jews to Israel,” in the words of  Serge Cwajgenbaum, secretary general of the European Jewish Congress. This is a slippery slope argument because shipping the Jews off to Israel is certainly not Wilders’ position. Indeed, Lena Posner, president of the Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities states, “We are quite upset about having a party [in the Parliament] that says they are only addressing Muslims and immigration. History has taught us about where this can lead, and this is not necessarily good for the Jews”—a comment that combines the slippery slope with the Holocaust obsession.

The slippery slope argument dovetails with traditional Jewish fear and loathing of homogeneous White, Christian cultures. As usual, Jewish leaders want to have their cake and eat it too:  a diaspora strategy that dilutes the power of the native peoples while promoting their own ethnic nationalism in Israel.  In fact, Israel is now insisting that the Palestinians acquiesce in the idea that Israel is a Jewish state with scarcely a peep from the diaspora.

Predictably, Abe Foxman is incensed at Wilders’ failure to agree with both prongs of the Jewish strategy, loving multiculturalism at home and Israel abroad: “It’s akin to the evangelical Christians. …  On one hand they loved and embraced Israel. But on the other hand, we were not comfortable with their social or religious agenda.”

Arch-neocon Daniel Pipes does his “good Muslim-bad Muslim” routine, also designed to maximize Jewish interests in a multicultural West by officially favoring a housebroken Islam allied with diaspora Jews: “Our goal has to be to build and help with the development of a moderate Islam that [Wilders] says doesn’t exist and can’t exist. So we are allies, but there is a significant difference.”

Pipes hopes populist parties will drop their “neo-fascist conspiratorial ideas, strange economic ideas, anti-Semitic and racist ideas” and develop broader platforms. But certainly, none of this applies to the philo-Semitic, libertarian Wilders (who sees Margaret Thatcher and the execrable Winston Churchill as his political role models). So the deeper agenda is to promote multiculturalism in Europe while  managing Muslim discontent about Israel.

The reality is that this is what the entire Jewish political spectrum wants, from the far left to the neoconservative right. Again we see that despite the well-oiled myth that Jews are beset by fundamental disagreements about policy, Jewish power is pushing in one direction throughout the West: Multiculturalism and the end of racially and culturally homogeneous White societies.

And it should be obvious that White advocates who attempt to recruit Jewish support in opposition to multiculturalism are engaging in a futile undertaking. The fact that the organized Jewish community favors Muslim immigration throughout the West even when so many Muslims are hostile to Israel and to Jews (to the point that Jews have been forced to vacate Muslim areas in many places, including Sweden) shows how committed they are to their campaign against the people and the culture of the West.

Intellectual diversity is what schools value least. Instead, it is only diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation — all of which are very desirable, to be sure — that rules the day in higher education. This agenda dominates higher education in faculty hiring, student admissions, curricula, student life programs and virtually every other aspect of college life.

Redding must establish his bona fides by genuflecting before the gods of the “very desirable” forms of diversity. What if the conservative faculty he thinks would be a great addition turn out to really hate all this other diversity—as a real (at this point, revolutionary) conservative would?

I have a recent article on this, in The Occidental Quarterly—soon to be available online to subscribers. (Hint.) Redding notes that conservative students are at a disadvantage because “conservative students lack academic role models, have more distant relationships with their professors and have fewer opportunities to do research with professors (particularly on sociopolitical issues).”

In a word, they feel alienated from their professors, which in turn explains why conservatives don’t think of the academy as a place where they want to spend their lives.

My paper is based on a well-publicized academic article by Ethan Fosse and Neil Gross, “Why are Professors Liberal?” Their paper fits well with Redding’s article because it emphasizes self-selection. The academy is liberal not because smart people are liberal but because smart non-liberals quickly realize that the academy would be a terrible place to spend your life. As I note in the article:

With my current beliefs, it would be suicide to embark on an academic career—doomed to be a secret agent all through graduate school and at least up until the granting of tenure, never able to express my real attitudes. (Yet, that is exactly the position of a number of graduate students and young faculty who have contacted me over the years.)

Even after tenure, one doesn’t want to remain an associate professor for the rest of one’s career. Promotion would be impossible for anyone who came out as a conservative, much less someone like me who believes in the importance of ethnic genetic interests, ending legal and illegal immigration, the role of Jewish influence in shaping elite political and cultural attitudes, etc.

Even full professors at many institutions would think twice about espousing conservative views. They would stop being invited to parties and they would find they have many fewer friends. They could forget about obtaining federal grants or receiving financial or other types of support from the university, and they could even see their salary drop, since at many institutions the department chair or a committee has power over their salary.

And, as Foss and Gross relate, “when it occasionally happens that conservative students do form the aspiration to become professors, they are likely to run up against barriers involving both self-concept incongruence and negative judgments from peers and occupation members.”

I remember before I became an academic scofflaw—when I became a Reagan-type mainstream conservative, somewhere in the early 80s. Going to an academic party became an experience in dissembling—forced smiles at anti-Reagan jokes uttered with absolute confidence that everyone would join in the fun. There is an absolute certainty that all conservatives have two-digit IQs and are infinitely inferior to them intellectually. They also believe that conservatives suffer from severe psychiatric disorders—just like in the movies. Conservatives speak with a Southern accent, drive pickup trucks, are fond of guns, and are filled with irrational hatreds. Or they are snooty capitalists who exploit minorities, attend exclusive country clubs, and have retrograde attitudes on race and homosexuality.

Typical academics have internalized the attitudes that have come to dominate the Western intellectual scene. There’s no question that it’s a herd mentality. The assumption of ideological homogeneity is stifling—some kinds of diversity are simply out of bounds in an academic environment—even mainstream conservatism. And yes, based on my experience, coming out as a non-liberal is guaranteed to result in “negative judgments from peers and occupation members.”A conservative professor is not exactly an oxymoron, but a mainstream conservative—and certainly an evolutionary psychologist who believes that White people have ethnic genetic interests—is certain to be regarded with moral revulsion by pretty much all the people he works with.

He is of course celebrated by his co-ethnics in the media as a genius.

He isn’t, of course.  He’s a modestly funny, left-wing Jew straight from the tradition of the culture of critique.  America, to him, is a big place filled with dumb, doughy Whites whose foibles deserve merciless skewering.  He throws in the occasional mockery of others for an appearance of balance.

His own background is typically Jewish — and typically connected.  He’s from New Jersey, claims anti-Semitic bullying as a child, has a brother who’s chief operating officer of the New York Stock Exchange, and was once roommates with Anthony Weiner, the Jewish Congressman from New York City (to whom Stewart donates).

Stewart, like Al Franken, enjoys taking his mockery of White America into the policy realm.  It’s a compounding of the mockery, as if to say, “You see how stupid these White Americans are?  I make fun of them, and then they let me actually walk into a power position, where I can mock them and their political system further.”

Through it all, humor serves as a devastating weapon:  Stewart himself parries the Jewish issue with gentle self-mocking — enough to get everyone laughing, but certainly not enough to abdicate his role.  I’m sure he’s got a bagful of wisecracks and video clips for any “anti-Semites” who come his way.

The problem with a John Stewart is that through of combination of Jewish activism and White gentile gullibility, he’s managed to become the entire media unto himself — news and entertainment wrapped into one.  Both my parents and in-laws think he’s great — along with other relatives who might actually be confused about whether The Daily Show is real or fake.  But who should know better.  They’re entertained by the cheap laughs, but don’t get that the joke is really on them.

So that’s where my complaint is.  Not necessarily with Jon Stewart — though it would be nice to see him back doing the 2 a.m. set at the comedy club instead of commanding the attention of all of America.  But with Whites, who should get a clue about who Jon Stewart is and what his real motivations are.  And then ignore him, even if he is occasionally funny.

The JTA article on the rabbi’s statement includes this disclaimer:

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

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

Which goes to show how easy it is for the Jewish community to project whatever image it desires–no matter what the facts. Americans and other Westerners have been long indoctrinated with the view that Jewish ethics are universalist, so the AJC’s statement will have a ring of truth for most readers, Jews and non-Jews alike. Indeed, the AJC statement implies that Judaism made an irreplaceable contribution to universalist ethics.

The transformation of Jewish ethics to a veneer of universalism was an important project of the 19th-century attempt to present Judaism as on a par with Christianity.  In doing so, it trampled on a great deal of its own history. As John Murray Cuddihy noted, “these Diaspora groups were uninterested in actual history; they were apologists, ideologists, prefabricating a past in order to answer embarrassing questions, to outfit a new identity, and to ground a claim to equal treatment in the modern world” (The Ordeal of Civility, p. 177).

As discussed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone (Chapter 6), different ethical standards for Jews and non-Jews are the norm in Jewish religious law. For example, according to the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 79a) an Israelite is not guilty if he kills an Israelite when intending to kill a heathen. However, if the reverse should occur, the perpetrator is liable to the death penalty. The Talmud also contains a variety of rules enjoining honesty in dealing with other Jews, but condoning misappropriation of gentile goods, taking advantage of a gentile’s errors in business transactions, and not returning lost articles to gentiles (Katz 1961a, 38).

One very embarrassing question is the clear evidence that the “outrageous” statement by the rabbi is actually quite mainstream in orthodox circles. Israel Shahak is the best source for this sort of thing. In Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Shahak and his co-author Norton Mezvinsky show just how mainstream these views are. Here is a quote from Lubivitcher Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who, as Duke notes, has been welcomed at the White House and been given a medal by the US Congress:

We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of . . . a totally different species. . . . The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world . . . The difference of the inner quality [of the body] . . . is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”. . . . An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.

Shahak and Mezvinsky note that

many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad, continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like to ignore or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. [This is a reference to the boundaries of Israel as including all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates, as stated in the Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4] . . . our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” It is usually yeshiva students who chant “Death to the Arabs” on CNN. The stealing and corruption by religious leaders that has recently been documented in trials in Israel and abroad continues to raise the question of the relationship between Judaism and ethics.

Jewish nationalist groups like Gush Eminum explicitly exempt Jews from normal ethical considerations:

Jews are not, and cannot be a normal people. The eternal uniqueness of the Jews is the result of the Covenant made between God and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai … The implication is that the transcendent imperatives for Jews effectively nullify moral laws that bind the behavior of normal nations. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of Gush Emunim’s most prolific ideologues, argues that the divine commandments to the Jewish people “transcend the human notions of national rights.” He explains that while God requires other nations to abide by abstract codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews

As Duke emphasizes, these are not fringe groups making such statements. As I summarize elsewhere, writing in 2003:

these fundamentalist and ultranationalist groups are not tiny fringe groups, mere relics of traditional Jewish culture. They are widely respected by the Israeli public and by many Jews in the Diaspora. They have a great deal of influence on the Israeli government, especially the Likud governments and the recent government of national unity headed by Ariel Sharon. The members of Gush Emunim constitute a significant percentage of the elite units of the Israeli army, and, as expected on the hypothesis that they are extremely ethnocentric, they are much more willing to treat the Palestinians in a savage and brutal manner than are other Israeli soldiers. All together, the religious parties represent about 25% of the Israeli electorate—a percentage that is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious Jews and because intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more sympathetic to their cause.

Particularly important is the fertility of these groups. The present Israeli government is the most ethnonationlist in its history, but these trends will be even more pronounced in the future. In the long run, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to maintain the illusion of a universalist Jewish ethics no matter how much the AJC wants to project that image.

progressive on issues such as labor, immigration, environment, capital punishment, etc. …  They say they feel for the plight of the Palestinians, but when it comes to any real challenge to the status quo, such as BDS in any form, they are not to be found. Their voices during the Lebanon and Gaza invasions were there in mild, but very mild, criticism. They spend most of their time on the Middle East “reaching out to our Muslim brothers.” I must say they are very supportive of Muslim groups and Islamic mosques when it comes to anti-Muslim discrimination. But, there is an unstated and sometimes stated price for these folks to pay, which is “be gentle on Israel, be critical of certain measures, such as house demolitions, but be understanding in general.”

Since I work with the same Muslim groups, going back several years ago I found their deference to their “liberal Jewish friends who are so supportive of us” to be very frustrating. But, fortunately, these are not foolish people and they have now seen the ploy. As a result, while interfaith dialogue between liberal Jewish clergy and Muslims still exists, it is pretty much window dressing and Muslim groups are much more outspoken on Palestinian issues. But, in conclusion, liberal/progressive Jewish clergy in the LA area set back support for Palestinian rights like Wiesenthal Center, ADL and AIPAC never could; and I believe that was their role.

In my experience, it’s the same with secular Jewish academics: constantly reaching out to all non-White groups, including Muslims, and advocating all things multi-cultural. Paragons of tolerance and moral uplift, they are quick to make minor criticisms of Israel but never suggest that the US government or American Jews abandon their support for Israel or seriously question the settlement project. Their goal is to seek Muslim cooperation in the assault on White America while channeling Muslim outrage at Israel to manageable levels. In faculty email debates, the Jewish professors do all the talking, while their Muslim colleagues defer to them. So there were no peeps of protest by the Muslims when the Jewish activist professors ignored my suggestion that they channel all that moral outrage at intolerance, violations of human rights, and ethnic cleansing by directing their activism at changing policy in Israel.

Thomas Dalton makes the same argument about Norman Finkelstein:

The modern approach is to stake out the opposition’s turf, or to plant a ’soft’ opponent.  I doubt that Norman is a plant, but he serves the same purpose:  a nice, safe, credible ‘critic’ of Zionism who knows his limits, and doesn’t go too far.

People like Weiss and organizations like J Street function to give Judaism a softer veneer that is consistent with post-racial, multicultural America without having any effective influence on the “ethnocentric arrogance” at the heart of Judaism or even lessening the support of the Israel Lobby for Israel as an apartheid, racialist state. Yet liberal Jews with many of the same beliefs as Weiss are the main bulwark of the left in America that has so successfully pathologized any sense of ethnocentrism by Whites — and only Whites.

The fact that  Juan Williams was immediately fired by NPR (headed by Chief  Executive Vivian Schiller and Ellen Weiss, head of the news division) for saying he was afraid to fly on a plane with Muslims is yet another example of liberal Jews showing their commitment to the alliance with Muslims in multicultural America. But don’t expect them to become seriously critical of Israel.

Weiss’s commentator contrasts organizations like the ADL with liberal rabbis. But they are as one when it comes to supporting Muslims as part of the non-White coalition. Here’s Abe Foxman cataloging all the ways that the ADL supports the political and cultural aims of Muslims in America. The only difference between liberal Jews and the ADL is that the ADL can’t find any fault with Israel.

So the overall picture is that Jews have a good cop/bad  cop thing going: Criticism of Israel is performed within very narrow boundaries with liberal Jews careful not to upset the basic status quo in Israel or the relationship between Israel and the US, while Foxman and the ADL legitimize the hard line ethnic cleansing policies in the mainstream media and in political process.

And all sides join together in the crusade against White America.

The question, as always, is: What do they have to hide? Pressure against public discussion of Jewish issues is very common: the role of neocons in promoting the Iraq war, the bombing of the USS Liberty, the power of Jews in the media and the political process in the US and throughout the West, role of the organized Jewish community in promoting massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism in the West,  the status and role of Jews in the early decades of the USSR, the causes of historical anti-Semitism, and on and on.

There is definitely a logic whereby Israel and its agents had a huge motive to ensure maximum destruction. So if they knew about it in advance, then it is not much of a leap to suppose that they went further and made sure that the attack would be a success. I am not concluding that this is what happened, only arguing that it should be investigated by an impartial commission.

Anyway, the point of this post is simply to solicit commentary on this issue. Let the chips fall where they may.

The unthinkable is happening. White penises (sic) are becoming the minority: 2010 was the first year in which more minority babies were born in the U.S. than white babies. This is what conservatives are really upset about — that the president is black, and the best golfer is black, and the Secretary of State is a woman, and suddenly this country is way off track and needs some serious ‘restoring.’

Right. We are really pissed off about it and we want our country back. Nothing wrong with that. I’d like Maher to name any other group of people who didn’t find their own eclipse a bit scary, especially when so many people like Maher seem absolutely ecstatic about it and especially when so many of the people displacing them have such hatred for Whites.

You have to read his column to see the scatological depths to which he descends, but let’s just say he has nothing but contempt for his subjects. Which brings up why he should have such contempt for White males since most people would classify him as a White male. Turns out his father is Irish and his mother Jewish, and that he self-identifies as half Jewish. Maybe that has something to do with it, since it’s well known that the organized Jewish community and the great majority of Jews strongly support the displacement of Whites via non-White immigration. A pity he can’t think like the Irishmen who resisted English colonization for centuries.

Then there’s LA Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez. At least we can be sure that his motivation is simply to get more people like himself into the US. From my point of view, the really hard thing is to explain why so many Whites acquiesce in their own eclipse. But for Rodriguez the puzzling question is why Whites are so prone to the psychopathology of xenophobia. His solution is a variant of psychoanalysis:

Swiss psychoanalyst Arno Gruen has argued that xenophobia and extreme nationalistic fervor in individuals is often compensation for “inner emptiness.” It’s an observation that seems to fit American unease all too well. To overcome it, to make ourselves feel better, we “need” enemies, the sense of rootedness and cohesion that crises, and even wars, can bring.

He acknowledges that other people have the same tendencies. But of course Rodriguez’s animus is directed not at (Mexican) flag-waving Mexican illegals or at La Raza (or, for that matter, at the Israel Lobby), but at White America’s resistance to colonization by non-Whites.

Psychoanalysis has been wonderfully plastic in its abilities to explain anything, and because it was a creation of the Jewish left and because Jews have always formed the backbone of the movement (Gruen is Jewish), it has mostly been used to pathologize White ethnocentrism and call into question Western sexual norms. Gruen’s work certainly fits into that tradition.

It’s nice to see a current example of a would-be intellectual like Rodriguez plugging into this hopelessly unscientific and obviously politically motivated intellectual tradition. It’s yet another illustration of the intellectual bankruptcy of the elite media.

Well, let me provide a wee bit of counter-balance to the propaganda of an area that is part of America’s Heartland.  Ever been addressed at an airport by a ticket-agent as “sweetheart”…ever had men almost as solicitous and friendly…. around the Left Coast (I hear you thinking about the East Coast)?  Huh?  Surplus smiles…Kentucky must figure in Robert Putnam’s study on diversity, in which diverse communities were found to be miserable…all races.  Kentucky is about 91% White and 8% Black with almost no foreign born.  However, I was told that the mexers are getting in now for agricultural work.

Putnam’s study, if it included Kentucky, must report pretty happy Kentuckians.  One gal told me that mexers were taking White jobs in tobacco..a hitherto source of extra income for Whites…seasonal work.

I drove from Nashville up to  Lexington , Kentucky and made a loop thru countryside, etc.  Small scale agriculture including tobacco.  Pleasant pastoral and agricultural scenes.  Cities looked just fine.  Talked to a couple gals who reported that the Mexers were almost as bad as the Blacks. These folks have not been corrected in how to think, although I did tune into NPR and “All Things Considered” wherein the Jewish interviewer interviewed Sean Wilentz, a Princeton Jewish professor, who was very upset about Glenn Beck for confusedly fumbling around with tags like Nazi and Communist.  Well, what the Professor did not understand is that Beck and the Tea Party may have the terminology a bit off, but they feel the disease of which the Professor is part.  Professor started off very slick and grandfatherly but got a bit excited by the end. … as well he should.

Then I was instructed by a Chinese Professor from the U.S. who has written a book about a massacre (alleged) of Chinese back in the days of the Yellow Peril…1880s I guess.  Thus, two back-to-back-Bad-Whites interviews. Fact is that ALL the White workingmen were racist in those days and still are to some large extent, and had an unreasonable fear of losing their jobs to cooly labor. Do the Chinese accept White immigration?

Kentucky and Tennessee are sparsely populated…if we Whites do not take back our country, after the killing fields, the Chinese can put about 20 million there.  So long.  Whites are very peculiar, they luv the folks who hate ‘em.

I tuned back to country music which I found very interesting. Instead of White rock ‘n roll which contains a lot of raw sex, I heard actual songs and narratives about family, love, country, jobs, loss, pain, and other trivial concerns.  Only once in many hours of listening while on the road, did I hear a country song about sex, per se.  I tuned past a Black station…all sex songs.  At least I did not hear rap but on the other hand I did not listen for long.

Nice music, country.

Of course, these Scots-Irish Whites are pretty religious, and I guess that keeps their girls and young women properly dressed, smiling, and radiating that Southern Hospitality.

In Nashville, the home of country music, the most appalling apparition appeared in downtown Nashville: an exact copy of the Parthenon as it has been pieced together by scholars (in terms of the original)!  My God!  And a 40 foot tall statue of Athena inside, with skin so white the SPLC and NAACP should be sicced on Nashville.  Complete with copies of the Elgin Marbles from the British Museum.  Shucks, they might as well drape confederate flags over the whole thing.  Damn!  I did hear on NPR that there was a conference by some kind equalities commission for Kentucky to look into housing disparities, etc. Those Greeks, Whiteness as Whiteness has only tried to emulate.

Of course, Kentuckians and Tennesseans  know better and will never be bullied into Liberal Totalitarianism.  One of the gals I talked to stated that local Mexers have tried to pull her into their doorways as she walked by.  She told them to lay off or she would call the immigration folks.  That seemed to work.  However, she was more afraid of the Blacks who she said would murder you into the bargain.

This is a gal who needs to go to college and get Corrected.  Didn’t Kentucky stay with the Union after all?  Yup, while Tennessee went with the Confederacy.  Whites shooting one-another over the Africans….620,000 dead Whites…for what?  for THIS.  Stay tuned for Civil War , Part II.  I came upon Honest Abe’s birthplace and just kept on drivin’.

And then there are the horse farms.  Manicured fields and fences  and spotless elegant barns and the bluegrass which is blue because of a springtime blue flowering, rarely seen because of cutting and so on, and dry right now.  Rolling hills and flats with copses here and there.

My Dad’s dad was out of Kentucky, born in 1863.  Left for Spokane, Washington, a pioneer MD.  Wonder why he left.