Nailing the “shiksa” label at Mercury News

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 03 February 2007 17:55.

The following is an e-mail sent by me in my capacity as Executive Secretary of ResistingDefamation.org to William Dean Singleton, Vice Chairman & CEO, MediaNews Group. It was subject-titled “Hate Speech Unbound: Susan Goldberg & Bruce Newman”.

Susan Goldberg, executive editor of the San Jose Mercury News, and movie critic Bruce Newman struck a blow for the most loathsome kind of hate speech on page 1E in the Mercury News today, 2/2/07, by promoting two hate labels, “shiksa” and “WASP.”

We request that you terminate the employment of both Goldberg and Newman for cause, namely, spreading hatred toward an identifiable section of our community.

SHIKSA

The well-known and widely-recognized hate term shiksa was used in the following way in the second paragraph of the article:

She (Diane Keaton) won an Oscar as the ultimate shiksa (italicized in text)
in “Annie Hall,” so it’s a little unsettling now to see her trying to play the
most aggressive yente (italicized in text) the movies have produced since
“Fiddler On the Roof.”

By linking shiksa to yente and “Fiddler On the Roof,” Susan Goldberg and Bruce Newman explicitly declared the Jewish nature of shiksa which, we are told by Israel Shahak in “Jewish History, Jewish Religion” on page 26, is defined by the “Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary,” published in Israel, as “unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination.” It also has a colloquial meaning in America and Europe as “Christian whore.”

Somehow the director, Michael Lehmann, was spared any criticism for this film at all. We can only wonder why the director was spared when the female star was pilloried with racist terms.

Resisting Defamation, however, finds shiksa to be repugnant because it is a name for European American women that they did not choose for themselves. Its use is a claim to name all European American women by someone outside the class of people named which, in turn, requires that it be based on a claim to supremacy. That is, Goldberg and Newman openly lay claim to supremacy over (and the right to name) all European American women. We explicitly condemn their racist claim, and denounce them for claiming supremacy over all European American women.

In addition, the term shiksa is used to demonstrate contempt (it’s not funny on any level) and to smother the diversity of those so-named. Its use in AD 2007 on the pages of the Mercury News is a shocking commentary on the bigotry that lies in the hearts and minds of Executive Editor Susan Goldberg and movie critic Bruce Newman.

We are not claiming that shiksa is “insensitive” or that its use is “offensive” to us. We are simply examining the minds and hearts of Goldberg and Newman, and asking that their employment be terminated.

WASP

The hate term WASP was used in the following way in the third paragraph of the article:

Of course, there’s nothing in the Talmud that says a WASP
can’t be just as meddling a matchmaker as Molly Picon…

We don’t know why Susan Goldberg and Bruce Newman explicitly linked WASP with the Talmud, but they clearly identified the term as a Jewish hate term this way. So let us look at WASP from a Jewish point of view. The Jewish analog is WEJ, a well known term of abuse for Jews which means White European Jew. Not having seen Newman, we don’t know what color he is, but Goldberg certainly qualifies as a WEJ, and we trust she won’t mind our tagging her with it in the same way she worked with Newman to tag European American women with WASP.

None of the Goldberg/Newman criticism of the film in question denigrates the director, Michael Lehmann. Could it be that he is spared name-calling because his last name isn’t Keaton? Readers want to know.

Resisting Defamation, however, finds the use of WASP to be repulsive because it is a name for European American men and women that they did not chose for themselves. Its use is a claim to have a supremacy power, the power to name those not in ones’ own group. We explicitly condemn Goldberg’s and Newman’s open claim to supremacy over (and the right to name) all European Americans.

WASP is used to demonstrate contempt and to smother the diversity of all European Americans. It is a “three-fer” in the world of hate speech by denigrating a skin color (white), an ethnicity (Anglo-Saxon), and a religion (Protestant Christians). Its use in AD 2007 on the pages of the Mercury News is just more commentary on the bigotry that lives in the minds and hearts of Executive Editor Susan Goldberg and movie critic Bruce Newman.

We are not claiming that use of WASP is “insensitive” or “offensive.” To see the entire hateful article go to one of these Internet addresses:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/16605377.htm [Ed -registration req]
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/16605377.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp [Ed -registration req]

Stanley Womack
ResistingDefamation.org

Tags: Activism

Comments:

Posted by allotmentkeeper on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:10 | #

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Have you made your own arguments (at resistingdeformation.org) safe from the complaints you rather automatically bash other websites and web-activists with?

Your post above reveals an example of ethnic labels which specific groups ‘did not choose for themselves’, specifically JEW and WEJ

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:09 | #

Stanley will speak for himself. However, it seems to me that the biter should be bit. Jewish supremacism is as “sinful” as Jews say anti-semitism is.

This allottment, anyway, is growing beautiful weeds, far more natural to the European mind than the “cultivated” variety. These glorious weeds we will spread as far and wide as we can, ripping up the unnatural growth wherever we find it.

Posted by Bud White on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:27 | #

It’s well past time the so called “oppressed minorities” are allowed to get away with hurling racial invective, and casting aspersions at people of European decent with impunity.

I say Kudos go to Stanley Womack for speaking up, and protesting this issue.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:01 | #

Stanley Womack is doing a yeoman’s job in defending our people’s interests.

Keep up the great work.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:15 | #

Stanley Womack is either feigning indignation or is a pathetic pussy—a jumper on the professional-victimological bandwagon.

“Sticks and stones may break my bones…” Boo hoo hoo, someone called me a WASP, mummy!

He doesn’t cry for me. I’m a descendant of the Titans who built world civilisation; the lesser breeds can call me what they like.

I’m not some swarthy little louse creeping over the body of his host, sucking blood and squealing for shekels because he’s been “insulted”.

These tit-for-tat tactics are a completely lame waste of time.

Posted by Bud White on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:06 | #

“Stanley Womack is either feigning indignation or is a pathetic pussy—a jumper on the professional-victimological bandwagon.”—Matt O’Halloran

You just don’t get it, do you? The MSM is the most powerful tool on the planet in shaping the opinions and attitudes of people. It just so happens that the MSM is dominated by our enemies, therefore, the people in charge need to be challenged everytime they blatantly assault the moral character of our people! Get it!?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:19 | #

Matt etc,

Why do you spend so much energy assaulting the very people with whom you are most in sympathy? I do not understand you. Nothing could more certainly be a lame waste of time than castigating those who share your (even general) designs.

Look, I will call your on this. Write me a post - a proper one - detailing what, in your view, is not a waste of time. I will put it on the blog and we’ll see how it fares on the thread.

You can reach me through the contact button under the header.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:47 | #

Just help me out at the enemy’s sites, GW, instead of lurking in your foxhole shivering with fear because someone called you a shiksa!

You’re all pussies, not just Womack.

Why should I waste my time appealing to the de-bollocked?

Posted by Englander on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:37 | #

Matt has a point. If I had half the knowledge possessed by many of the posters on this blog, I would be out there fighting. Many of you can articulate your arguments so well that you would be sure to convert some people.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:53 | #

The Mercury isn’t an enemy site? Mr. Womack is part of an organisation that is putting it’s “real” name on the the line, not cowering behind a pseudonymous moniker or two or six. He’s the one with the real cojones. GW named himself to Auster. It’s out in the open, exactly who he is. Why is your effort so special?

Posted by Kulturkampf on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:58 | #

But it is a good idea to try to convert a hostile audience? IMO the best target is a wavering or moderately sympathetic readership, which you have more chance of winning over, as opposed to being gunned down like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (or less romantically, having some geek ban you from his website).

The comments threads on the websites of major newspapers, such as The Times or The Telegraph seem to be happy hunting grounds - into which I’ve observed GW himself occasionally sallying forth (pace Matt, etc). This raises the constructive challenge of adapting your message to a mainstream audience so it doesn’t get dismissed out of hand or banned by the moderator.

Posted by Troll Watch on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:50 | #

WJ Phillips’ crusading at the Guardian Talkboards currently involves discussing the whereabouts of Patrick Mower, Barbara Flynn and other luminaries of Brit TV, interspersed with updates of his shopping trips to Netto.

Really!

Then there is his court jester act at Harry’s place…

Posted by Stanley Womack on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:21 | #

There are undoubtedly 100 ways to combat the perilous situation in which Euroman finds himself in AD 2007. We begrudge no one his or her choices in tactics and strategies.

However, one of the very serious problems confronting young European Americans is that they are carefully taught to hate themselves in our government-controlled schools and by our government-licensed media companies. This hate is carried forward on playgrounds, school buses, and sidewalks. There is little respite from the barrage of hate speech directed against them by media, entertainment, and academia.

Because we want our children to grow up with a decent sense of self-respect (and because we want our children to grow up respecting their parents and grandparents), we really need to combat this escalation of hate speech. To some extent, what is happening is like “beating the dog before the lion,” a custom at the time of Louis XI of intimidating a young lion by beating a dog (that’s us and our grandparents) to death in front of the young lion (that’s our children and grandchildren).

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g19.htm

We often hear the question, why didn’t the “greatest generation” do more to undermine the development of the threats to Euroman all over the world back in the mid-twentieth century? Does anyone want our grandchildren to ask, why didn’t their grandfathers work to stop the hate speech of the early twenty-first century?

There are so many issues to tackle, that we each have many opportunities to strike blows for freedom. At every point on the compass, we are under serious attack. Shouldn’t every point be prepared to repulse attacks?

Wilmot Robertson, author of “The Dispossessed Majority” (AD 1972), wrote about ADL that it monitors the printed and the spoken word for the most subtle anti-minority allusions, and added, “The Majority, to its great loss, has no similar watchdog organizations.” Well, we have had one since AD 1990, and it needs allied organizations throughout Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand.

When will we learn that a rapid response to every attack on Euroman and his children is necessary?

Posted by Andy Wooster on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:43 | #

You’re all pussies, not just Womack.

Why should I waste my time appealing to the de-bollocked?

Hardly. I have never been afraid to engage “the enemy”. After all, steel sharpens steel, or so I have been told. (Of course, debating an anti-racist is like trying to sharpen steel on paper mache, but that’s another matter).

The problem, O’Halloran, is that I don’t think your tactics are particularly effective. You can’t just wade into a crowd with your 45s blazing. You’ll end up being shot yourself or you will scare the crowd away. Furthermore, engaging the enemy is useless when the enemy of composed almost entirely of marxoid morons. You need to pick at the margins. Identify those who have previously expressed doubts about some aspect of the ruling orthodoxy and give them a well-placed nudge in the form of a helpful argument, a well-placed link or a helpful reading suggestion. Don’t waste your time trying to convert the unconvertable.

Just help me out at the enemy’s sites, GW, instead of lurking in your foxhole shivering with fear because someone called you a shiksa!

Guessedworker plays an important role in all of this. Those who are just waking up need a place to go where they can see these ideas expressed clearly and articulately. Furthermore (speaking from personal experience) those who have already awoken sometimes need a refuge, an island of sanity in the midst of so much depravity.

Posted by Matra on Mon, 05 Feb 2007 23:04 | #

Many of you can articulate your arguments so well that you would be sure to convert some people

Only with those who are not blood enemies.

There must be millions of people who have been sidetracked by movement conservatives and libertarians. Unlike the “Free Mumia” crowd incremental progress is more than possible with these nominal conservatives if the right arguments are made in the right tone.

I’ve spent enough time reading the mostly philo-semitic conservative blogs to know there are a lot of (presumably non-Jewish) posters scratching their heads in bewilderment about the refusal of supposedly right wing politicians to take immigration seriously. Recently one of the most rabid WOT conservatives at Hugh Hewitt’s blog said he no longer cared about the WOT or the GOP because of the immigration issue. Such people are all over these sites but in time most will be brought back into the fold by others who say “I hear you, man, on quotas and the illegals, but we gotta win the war on terror first”. (Another old chestnut is the one about how racial issues like quotas will go away once the government gets off our backs!). MR commentators could jump in at such moments providing alternative views and blocking out distractions like the WOT and big government.

Some conservative sites get tens of thousands of hits per day

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:28 | #

Matra.

The awstats on my hoster’s page report a January 07 total of 62,681 unique visitors (excluding robotic programmes) perusing 494,940 “pages”. The total January hit-rate, including returns, was 1,669,385.

I think Andy is right about the margins. One has a certain missionary duty and for my part I continue to make gestures in that direction, subject to the availability of time. But there have also to be centres of well-constructed argument to which sleepers can, eventually, be drawn. If this blog has any objective value at all it is as such a centre.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:38 | #

Matt O’Halloran’s amusing, if gratuitous, rudeness re Stanley Womack is probably unworthy of this blog’s commentary section.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:28 | #

“But there have also to be centres of well-constructed argument to which sleepers can, eventually, be drawn. If this blog has any objective value at all it is as such a centre.” (—GW)

Yes. So that the sort of “failure of follow-through” described in the following passage from View from the Right can never happen again:

[...G]iven the soundness of [Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood”] speech, was there any follow-through? Did [Powell] pursue these same vital themes in a series of speeches? Did other politicians join him? My point is: the speech could and should have sparked a movement seeking to do exactly what Powell was calling for: the end of Commonwealth immigration and the encouragement of the departure of many recent immigrants. But it doesn’t seem as though any such movement took shape, and so the arena was left to the “anti-racists” of the Establishment. Was it because other politicians were afraid? But Powell became very popular as a result of the speech. Still, there are not many people who are willing to be called racists. At the same time, if people thought that Powell’s position was correct and necessary for national survival, fear of the charge of racism would not have silenced them to the extent it did. Which suggests that fear was not the main factor squelching immigration restrictionism, but a lack of true belief in it. [...] The apparent lack of follow-through may have been due to the fact that while Powell recognized the catastrophe attendant on the coming racial de-Europeanization of Britain, he did not explain in sufficient depth why this was a problem. This made it easy for liberal politicians to say he was just expressing irrational racist fears of blacks and other non-whites. Ok, then Powell and others needed to answer such attacks by elaborating the argument further, showing in objective terms how the changing racial make-up of Britain would change Britain in a variety of negative and irreversible ways and why it was morally right to stop this and reverse it. A single speech was not enough. What was needed was a movement. And what I am suggesting here [...] is that no one came up with the needed effective arguments against the liberal position. Simply saying that “non-whites are changing our country” was not enough [...].

In fairness to Powell, it needs to be remembered he didn’t have the internet, our indispensable tool of today. Without the internet watching his back it was too easy for the gatekeepers of three decades ago to thrust all manner of knives into it.

GW’s exploitation of that tool, the internet, in creating this very important web-site has been a heroic act. In the hour of his nation’s need he did not stand idly by but answered the call and stood like a rock.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:38 | #

Excuse me, that should have been the gatekeepers of four decades ago, not three.

For any who many not know it, here‘s the speech — rightly called by Peter Brimelow one of the great political speeches of the English language.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:24 | #

Getting some talented people to do a bit of blogging hardly qualifies as “heroism”, Fred. Moreover, if there is one thing that can destroy everything we set out to do, it’s egoistic showboating. We are loyal servants to our people, and not anything more. Heroes, leaders and great men of every kind will be needed in the next generation. Or, as Homer Simson once said, “I believe the children are our future, unless we stop them now!”

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:22 | #

If, as I suspect, Amalek and Matt O’Halloran consitute the same Janus-like personage, perhaps the former’s oft-declared Christianity might be further burnished by standing outside his Surrey church on Sunday and engaging his co-religionists in some friendly banter about Britain’s suicidally insane immigration policies.

I’m not sure,however, if this brave demonstration of integrity would involve the cancellation of Amalek’s reservation for comfortable quarters in old Jesus’s famous senior living facility, located, we are assured, way up in the stratosphere.

Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:10 | #

You’re under spam attack, guys.

Posted by Bud White on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:38 | #

“Or, as Homer Simson once said, “I believe the children are our future, unless we stop them now!”

Isn’t it a sad state of affairs when the most astute political observations are found within the scripts of cartoons rather than the nightly news?

Re: King of the Hill.
” HANK: What the hell kind of country is this where I can only hate a man if he’s white? ...

Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:52 | #

Yuh, Lurker Mk.WJP, and you’re the spammer.