Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:22 | #

“Baballah was the child of a Jewish mother and a Muslim father, the only mixed marriage in [the Israeli village of] Akko, the court said.  He said employers refused to hire him when they learned about his parents [...].  Sailors also followed Baballah in town and called him ‘goy,’ which means non-Jew [...], the court said.”  (—from the San Francisco Chronicle article linked in the log entry)

So much for the if-your-mother(-or-maternal-grandmother-)is-Jewish-you’re-Jewish “rule” ... I guess there goes Christopher Hitchens’ claim to be Jewish, down the tubes ... Hitch won’t be happy about this ...

Posted by EC on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:47 | #

I commend Mr Sears and Mr Womack of Resisting Defamation for their attack on the anti-white establishment.  I do have the small critique of using this phrase…

the use of these terms serves to suppress the diversity of every other group in the world except for the group with which Chafets identifies.

and others such as…

anti-diversity labels…we are not offended 

While we want to get our point across that the MSM and others are hypocritically and viciously anti-white, this plea for the acknowledgement of diversity may result in counterproductiveness to the cause.  Of course we all know the diversity within Europe and its peoples and lumping us all as “Goy”, white trash, Anglo, whitey, cracker etc is hostile, I do not think we should be asking for “diversity” nor using it in the letters.  Because what WE mean by diversity has a totally different meaning than what they mean when they say it and use it.  We know we are diverse, yet what we should be fighting for is a collective ban against European white bashing, period. 

Also, of course we are offended.  Rightly pissed off, actually.  No harm in letting them know, is there? 

Thanks

Posted by Bo Sears on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:16 | #

Our Names, Ourselves

Excellent points, EC.  We don’t know how to address the diversity issue and label. It has become a word heavily laden with particular meanings. If you have a suggestion about a different way to address it, we’d like to hear it.

“Goy” and its derivatives do smother our extraordinary differences and variations into bland, featureless white males and white females.  And the dominant media culture is totally dedicated to covering up our continental origin, national origins, regional origins, languages, histories, cultures, and heritages. That it knows what it is doing is shown by its use of “vibrant” and “diverse” to describe every other demographic.

Regarding the claim about being offended, the problem with that claim is that the perpetrators of hate speech against us can undermine it by finding some white slacker on the street corner who can be convinced to say, “But it doesn’t bother me!”

In any case, it is the perpetrator’s mind whose feelings we need to plumb to determine the degree and nature of hatred he or she harbors for us as a group.

Posted by calyen on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:29 | #

Great post EC. Best not embroil ourselves in their style of ‘recognition’ gameplay, which is hostile to us at the outset.

Fred: Nevermind Hitch will keep plugging away for acceptance as windswept shabbos goy/court jester. Thankful for small mercies does not spring to mind.

Posted by allotmentkeeper on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:07 | #

Bo,

I think it’s fantastic you have built an organisation which challenges media use of slurs like ‘caucasian’, ‘westerner’ and ‘frog’, and I thank you for it. But what do you have in mind in this letter when you talk about ‘divisiveness’ and ‘anti-diversity’? particularly where you charge the newspaper with “endorsing divisive, supremacy-driven, and anti-diversity labels”.

Posted by dan on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:21 | #

Bo,

The problem with the “diversity” issue is that most white Americans (or Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, etc) don’t recognise, or at least really care about, the diversity you’re trying to protect. In fact, when it comes to national allegiance many actually go far to distinguish themselves from their countries of heritage. I can only speak from an antipodean perspective but I never hear of people calling themselves ‘English-Australians’ or ‘Scots-Australians’ or ‘French-Australians’.

Rather, most white people call themselves, simply, “Australian” - and the term is still very widely used to distinguish white Australians from non whites - which could be seen as a voluntary “smothering of diversity”.

My point is that it will be hard to find popular indignation among whites at the smothering of a diversity to which they have long discarded any salient attachment. The American experience may be different however.

In any case, I would imagine you’ll have more support with the general theme of pointing out and expressing outrage at expressions of anti-white racism - which in itself should be enough to garner a little support if you yell loud enough.

None of which is to say that you are not doing a wonderful and badly needed job, of course. My best wishes to you.