Jim Goad has a noteworthy comment on TakiMag on the liberal Jews David Sirota and Tim Wise who took the opportunity presented by the Boston bombings to complain about “White privilege” while exempting themselves from any taint of Whiteness (“Let’s Hope the Next Bomber is a Liberal Journalist“). (This was such low-hanging fruit that I couldn’t resist taking a shot myself.) Sirota’s column got a lot of attention by mainstream conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, but of course they never mentioned that Sirota was a Jew and had therefore exempted himself from White guilt and White privilege because, after all, he is a member of minority persecuted by those evil Whites.

Goad hits all the right notes, particularly the hypocrisy of these anti-White crusaders. You have to read the whole thing, but I can’t resist quoting his comment on Tim Wise:

Wise kinda-sorta claims to be white in an apparent quest to score self-flagellation points, but not really, since he says his Jewish ancestors were only able to achieve success by slyly passing as white. So if I’m understanding him correctly, even though he insists he’s white and that white guilt is a real thing, don’t try and pin any of the bad stuff about whiteness on him, because he’s not really white. This, apparently, is how he’s able to feel justified in plotting the “destruction” of the “conservative old white people [who] have pretty much always been the bad guys” while he refers to Jews as “my people.” Fuck me with a dreidel if that “destruction” line doesn’t sound somewhat genocidal, Uncle Tim. But what the hell do I know—I’m rendered deaf, dumb, and blind by “white privilege,” right? Although the Boston bombings had nothing to do with whiteness, Wise immediately squirted his shopworn “white privilege” meme all over the blood and guts in Boston.

Goad also discusses Sirota’s Jewish identity and his AIPAC history. Then the biggie:

So why is it that when we think of terrorist bombers, it’s either McVeigh or bin Laden and never the Stern Gang? [See here.] And why do leftist bombers wind up with tenure at prestigious universities? [Nice link. Highly recommended.] Could it be that the leftist media downplays, or even ignores, such acts of terrorism because that part of the media is egregiously stacked with a wildly disproportionate quotient of a specific minority Who Must Never Be Named Under Threat of Eternal Damnation? Perish the thought! (My Jew-sniffing dog sometimes makes mistakes, and it’s not as if Americans of that ancestry always advertise their heritage, but to the best of my research skills I counted anywhere from 13 to 19 “chosen” peeps from the 25 on that list, which would comprise 52%-79% of the total and thus a whopping statistical overrepresentation of anywhere from 2600% to 3950%. And there’s not one black person on that list. Holy mackerel, Andy!)

So the leftist-establishment media is dominated by Jews, and in another article, he suggests that mainstream conservatives are intimidated into not mentioning the Jewish role in bringing about things they don’t like:

Why are certain “right-wing” writers brave enough to criticize communism, open immigration, the liberal media, and political correctness while they’re mortified to even consider that Jews were often the primary architects behind such movements—or at least disproportionately represented? [From “The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches” The point of the “sandwich” article is that although people shouldn’t accuse Jews of everything they don’t like, there are certainly some things about Jewish attitudes and behavior that need explanation, e.g., “Is it even remotely possible that Jewish behavior, rather than a murkily mystical and ultimately unprovable notion such as “anti-Semitism,” sometimes led to negative perceptions about Jews? Even once throughout history?”[Good question!]

Putting this together, it would seem that Mr. Goad has come to the conclusion that Jews are indeed powerful and that they use their power against the interests of White Americans and to place any discussion of Jewish behavior and motives off limits for polite discussion—that indeed, as we phrase it at TOO, Jews are a hostile elite whose power is beyond public discussion while nevertheless presenting themselves (pace Sirota) as powerless and persecuted.

My impression from reading Goad’s Wikipedia page is that he is not the type of guy to be intimidated by accusations of “anti-Semitism” that are sure to start coming his way. This guy’s a fighter who has led a rough and tumble life; he is a highly creative artist (musician, actor), and it goes without saying that he has a great flair for writing. He’s completely without the inhibitions that make so many Whites weak in the knees when they contemplate eternal damnation that would result from naming the Jewish powers that be. And he is not at all an Old Believer (to use Wilmot Robertson’s label) hung up on the ideas of the past (limited government, Christianity) as a solution to the problems of Whites. This is exactly the kind of guy we need on our side.

However, it’s not at all clear that he is on the side of righteousness. The Wikipedia article links to Matt Parrott‘s review of Goad’s book, The Redneck Manifesto (“The Last Hipster“) on Counter-Currents. Parrott presents Goad as in rebellion against “America’s insecure White Elites, exposing their guilt, hypocrisy, and shallowness relative to their redneck relatives.” The subtitle of Goad’s book is “How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America’s Scapegoats“—the point being that the wrong group of Whites has been blamed for the evils of racism, slavery, imperialism, and economic exploitation. Parrott concludes that even though the book is subversive, Goad retains an allegiance to political correctness:

He redeems America’s White underclass–achieving (perhaps unwittingly) an Alinskyite objective of defeating the enemy by holding him to his own rule book. Jim Goad is a Leftist, even a paleo-Marxist, whose essentially Marxist perspective departs from contemporary Marxism in rejecting the Frankfurt School’s transition from dwelling on class conflict to dwelling on racial conflict. “For most of America’s history, they [White Elites] worked at getting the rednecks to blame the niggers. For the past thirty years or so, they’ve encouraged the niggers to blame the rednecks.” … In Goad’s analysis, “If the niggers and the rednecks ever joined forces, they’d be unbeatable.” He doesn’t see a race war in America’s future, but rather a class war: “America’s next large-scale ethnic skirmish may be intraracial: white trash vs. white cash.” He accurately notes that “. . . It’s blasphemous to exclude someone from your neighborhood based on any color but green,” but his own cosmopolitan hipster disposition is on display. While he’s insightful enough to recognize that White culture is indeed as valid and authentic as non-White culture, his worldview is essentially modern, which is to say that it’s economically reductionist. When he validates and embraces the hillbilly’s foibles and effects, he perceives them as merely accessories to be embraced as a fashion statement rather than outward manifestations of an integral folk identity. … Goad’s not a White Nationalist, and is content to ironically and sarcastically opine on the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of the elites subjecting our people to a systematic process of dispossession, displacement, and soft genocide. He doesn’t care whether there are any White people left in a few centuries, as long as the green is distributed equitably among the irreligious and alienated aliens.

Based on this, Goad is pretty clearly not on our side, clinging to ideas that will ensure the dispossession of Whites while nevertheless cloaking himself in an aura of subversion and rebelliousness. Definitely the sort of critique that the powers that be can tolerate.

But people change. On the basis of his recent writing, he seems to be coming to the realization that the elites who run America are not an amorphous mass of rich White folks prone to victimizing working class Whites as well as Blacks. Instead there is a major role for Jews who dominate the intellectual left in the media; they use that power specifically against Whites and have the power to rein in conservatives who might otherwise be tempted to discuss the role of Jews in critical public policy issues like displacement-level non-White immigration. This is a racial analysis, not a Marxist, social class analysis.

And, let’s face it. Who is really responsible for “How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America’s Scapegoats”? Any analysis of cultural imagery in America, at least since the 1960s, must take into account Jewish domination of the media. The image of working class Whites as bigoted racists, anti-Semites, stupid, and uneducated is a Hollywood mainstay, at least since the 1970s with shows like Norman Lear’s All in the Family. It was during the 1970s that Ben Stein commented on how Jewish writers portrayed small town America as “at its root, sick, violent, and depraved.” Michael Medved has stressed not only that Jews run Hollywood but that Hollywood has relentlessly attacked Christianity that is so central to the world view of so many White Americans of all social classes.

But of course, Hollywood has also spewed invidious portrayals of elite WASPs as emotionally uptight, dim-witted, unintellectual, snobbish, and prone to a sort of country club racism that excludes Blacks and Jews (see Edmund Connelly’s “Eye on Hollywood: Reel Bad WASPs“) while portraying Jewish issues “with respect, relative depth, affection and good intentions” (see here, p. 54). These are the Whites that are on Sirota’s mind when he comments that “I do find it odd that Jews are considered members of the white privileged class when less than two generations ago, whites wouldn’t let us into their country clubs.” And Ben Shapiro agrees, again showing that such attitudes span the entire Jewish political spectrum, from far left to neoconservative right.

The point is that Jews don’t like White America. They don’t like any part of it, except maybe people like Michael Moore (see below). All Whites, whether elite CEOs in the Northeast or car mechanics in small Southern towns, are the real targets of this assault. Jews as a hostile elite.

It is certainly true that working class Whites have suffered more under the new elite. They have typically been unable to escape the violence and poor schools resulting from importing tens of millions of low IQ immigrants; their jobs have been outsourced, and they are victimized by affirmative action and by the effects of immigration on the labor market. They have also lost the cultural supports for strong family values, because of an intellectual, media, and legislative environment hostile to traditional family values.

Nevertheless, educated Whites are also suffering from many of these same forces, particularly affirmative action. And it is becoming ever more obvious that Jews are actively excluding high-IQ Whites from American elites, most obviously, perhaps, by restricting their access to elite universities which are the ticket, after all, to elite status in American society.

In the long run, all Whites lose because of the policies pursued by our new hostile elite. Most basically, displacement-level immigration has greatly diminished the power of Whites in the democratic process, with the result that even landslide percentages of Whites are unable to elect a president.

Finally, I want to highlight Goad’s comment on why Whites are being attacked:

Despite everything the media has been peddling for generations, it appears that this oft-maligned demographic suffers from a fatal flaw, one that runs contrary to the stereotype—they’re way too nice. They’re not homicidally intolerant so much as they’re suicidally tolerant. And unless their antagonists—whether they’re self-loathing crackers such as Michael Moore or anyone else in the increasingly hostile and jeering Rainbow Coalition—learn to cool it with the screaming, it appears that the only option is to start screaming back. Otherwise it seems evident that the tireless bashers of everything white and male don’t view white males as a powerful oppressor so much as an easy target.

Exactly. Whites are being victimized by their addiction to moral universalism and their proneness to guilt. We are indeed suicidally tolerant at the same time we are continually chastised for being intolerant. And the people being imported to displace us are “increasingly hostile and jeering”—fitting right in with the attitudes of our new hostile elite. Quite obviously, the prospect of becoming a minority in a society with hostile majority is a grim prospect indeed.

But the main point is that Goad seems to have shed his class-based analysis which pits antagonistic groups of Whites against each other, seeing that the real game is racial, with a prominent role for conflict pitting all classes of Whites against Jews along with their hostile, jeering non-White allies—and where this anti-White coalition is aided and abetted by self-hating Whites like Michael Moore who are handsomely rewarded (Goad calls attention to Moore’s opulent vacation home in an all-White area) to hate their own people. Here’s Moore celebrating the eclipse of White America:

88% of Bush’s support [in 2004] came from white voters. In 50 years, America will no longer have a white majority. Hey, 50 years isn’t such a long time! If you’re ten years old and reading this, your golden years will be truly golden and you will be well cared for in your old age.

Again, as with the term “self-hating Jew,” the label “self-loathing cracker” is based on Moore’s attitudes and actions toward his own people, not social his class.

Starting out as a leftist, it took me a long time to see it that way too. But once you begin to see the real racial/ethnic conflict that is at the base of American culture and politics, there’s no going back. Goad strikes me as someone who has been struggling with the Jewish issue for some time, as in his “sandwich” article linked above. But with the “bomber” article, he is well on the way to being a major voice telling the truth about American politics and culture—a very welcome development indeed.