Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Picking up where we left off last week’s discussion of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
That discussion was specifically focused on jews getting on their jewsmedia soapboxes to pontificate and moralize about the virtues of “free speech”, while at the same time distinguishing and arguing in favor of punishing “hate speech”, with jews literally and figuratively defining what “hate” means, cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language.
“We’ve” got to ban “hate” because that’s what’s best for “us”.
It’s a sleight of words, a moral and linguistic fraud. Like many frauds, it’s not complicated once you see the trick.
What jews want said they label “free speech”. What jews don’t want said they label “hate speech”. It’s that simple.
Jews use their power, their money, their media, their positions of authority in politics, academia and in law, to foist their collective views, values, and interests on everyone else. When doing this they claim a right to “free speech”. But when they hear or see something they don’t like, they argue instead that it is “hate speech” and should be banned.
Some jews are more harsh, some more loose in making their argument either way. But the general consensus on what jews don’t like most of all is telling. The most common element of so-called “hate speech” is race. The hatiest hate of all hateful things is “racism”. And the most hateful kind of “racism” is “anti-semitism”.
As the saying goes, anti-“racism” is a code word for anti-White. There are other code words. Words like “diversity”, “discrimination”, “intolerance”. Calling it “code” is simpler than describing the specific trick that’s being played, the particularism-disguised-as-universalism fraud. But you can see who’s behind it, who’s driving it, in the close, peculiar relationship between the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism”.
This report was published a week before the Hebdo attack. French president vows to fight racism and anti-Semitism:
French President Francois Hollande has used his New Year’s Eve television speech to say that the fight against racism and anti-Semitism will be his national cause for 2015.
The president of France’s New Year’s resolution was not to protect the French, but the jews and muslims, the alien interlopers in France. Protect them from who? From the native French.
This is just one timely reminder of the general rule about “racism” and “anti-semitism”. On the one hand, Whites merely speaking in defense of Whites, even without mentioning any other group, is regarded as “racism”. On the other hand, jews speaking in defense of jews is not regarded as “racism”. They’re just combatting “anti-semitism”.
Even when jews explicitly criticize Whites, as a race, it isn’t called “racism”, it’s called “whiteness studies”.
Jews are “white”, we’re told, because saying they’re not is worse than “racist”, it’s “anti-semitic”.
This power jews have over the meanings of words is almost magical. Substitute White for jew in some form of political expression and “satire” instantly transmutes into “hate”.
But this isn’t magic. It’s money. It’s media. It’s politicking. It’s also the knock-on effect of jew-worship, a consequence of jews not just being simply unopposed, but of actually being aided and abetted by others, the non-jew jew-worshippers who police and punish heretics on the jews’ behalf, expressly in their defense.
I’m using the word worship in a looser sense than usual, but not lightly.
Recognition and encouragement of this jew-worship was evident in the free speech/hate speech heebdo I talked about last time. Blasphemy was a recurring theme in that heebdo. Beside defining “hate”, jews define what is or isn’t blasphemy. The epitome of “hate speech” is blasphemy againt jews.
The mulatto comedian Dieudonné was arrested in France last week. Commenting at the Daily Stormer, Armor wrote:
The pretext is that he said he felt like he was Charlie Coulibaly (link). Coulibaly is the Blackman who was killed the other day after killing a black policewoman as well as four people in a Jewish supermarket in Paris.
Being black, with the relative immunity to charges of “racism” this confers, was not enough to protect Dieudonné. Whatever the official charge turns out to be, Dieudonné’s crime in the eyes of jew-worshippers is irreverence for the jews.
Armor also linked and translated a snippet of what the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, had to say in response to criticism of the arrest:
“Justice must be implacable towards those preachers of hatred,” he pleaded. Manuel Valls refused the comparisons that have been made here and there, under the pretext of freedom of expression, between Dieudonné’s polemical shows and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons.
“There is a fundamental difference between freedom of impertinence -blasphemy is not mentioned in our law, and never will be-, and anti-Semitism, racism, advocacy of terrorism, revisionism, which are criminal offenses that justice will probably have to punish even more severely”, he said.
Another example that English readers were more likely to have run across came from hyper-jew Jonathan Chait, less than 24 hours after the attack. The punchline of Charlie Hebdo and the Right to Commit Blasphemy is in his conclusion:
The Muslim radical argues that the ban on blasphemy is morally right and should be followed; the Western liberal insists it is morally wrong but should be followed. Theoretical distinctions aside, both positions yield an identical outcome.
The right to blaspheme religion is one of the most elemental exercises of political liberalism. One cannot defend the right without defending the practice.
That identical outcome is “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate”. All the heebdo isn’t intended to change that. And it isn’t going to change that. Almost all of it is offered in defense of the status quo, where the ongoing shift in political and legal attitudes is toward this conception of “hate speech”, not away from it.
Many others chattered about blasphemy, agreeing, as Chait put it, that “the right to blaspheme religion” is elemental. But if that’s true, why is it the subject of so much debate? What is all the arguing really about?
flippityfloppity, commenting at my blog, took a stab at making sense of it:
so blasphemy is an attack on religion which is ok and protected by free speech. antisemitism is hate speech which is an attack on persons so its not ok, not protected and should not be tolerated.
My argument is that the arguing is about the meaning of blasphemy. It’s word games. Again. Empirically, irreverence for the jews is the only thing the jewsmedia and the current governments of Western countries actually regard as blasphemy. Blasphemy against anyone or anything else can be seen as either “free speech” or “hate speech”, depending on what consensus the jews come to about whether it’s good or bad for the jews.
16 thoughts on “Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy”
Israeli jews levy jewhad against Haaretz.
“In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last week, Haaretz published a daring cartoon juxtaposing journalists killed in Gaza by Israel during the brutal summer slaughter with the journalists killed at the office of the satirical magazine in Paris. This set off a chain reaction, which ultimately led to calls for murdering Haaretz journalists, after Ronen Shoval, founder of the neo-Zionist and proto-fascist Im Tirtzu movement, called for an investigation of the news source’s editors.”
NYC Hasidic developers are reserving apartments for fellow hasidics and excluding non-Jews – especially Latinos and Blacks
“It’s word games”. That is the money quote. It is all Talmudic. Power in the words. It is about twisting, finding loopholes, redefinition that is the basis of Talmudic methodology.
In Greek thought, in Socrates and Plato, words have a definite meaning, or they sought to find the one meaning and then applying the principle of consistency. “What is the definition of courage that operates in all situations that courage appears in”. There is a world of difference between Greek system of thought and the Jewish system of thought. But since the Greeks are poor, and the Jews rich, then the Jews decides what rules he wants to promote. We don’t live in Western culture anymore.
Great analysis, but why so short? Are we not entitled to a full 30 minutes of Tanstaafl per week? I think that’s in the constitution, and if it’s not… it should be!
Tan, If I am reading this following link correctly, Baron Edward Rothschild has bought Charlie Hebdo for the Rothschild family. I’m not sure of the date, but it relates to a quote apparently made on January 9 and the Hebdo “attack” happened on January 7.
This part at the bottom indicates that the interview with Rothschild (Phillipe, I think) happened a certain amount of time before the attacks.
“Het interview met De Rothschild-telg vond plaats in zijn kantoor aan de Champs-Élysées, ruim voor de aanslagen. Het hele gesprek kunt u hier lezen: ‘Mensen blijven altijd jaloers.’ ”
In any event, it seems that Charlie Hebdo is now owned and operating under the Rothschild family.
An example of jew free speech as applied in America:
“There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, .Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S…”.
“It’s word games.”
Yes. That was my point. Jews are a religion when it suits them, a people when it suits them, a race when it suits them. But in their universality – everyone else is particularist, can be weeded out and tar & feathered… when it suits them (Jews).
And in other news:
“….a meeting scheduled even before the recent attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris.”
“But he said “based on the available records we were able to check, this is indeed the first time that anti-Semitism as such is specifically the subject of an informal meeting of the U.N. General Assembly.”
– can you hear the clapping leading to roars of approval and a standing ovation. Hurray! Hurray! we have finally recognized this as a world problem needing specific UN recognition and resolutions not to be muddled into generalities like “intolerance, xenophobia, violence, racism and human rights violations.” No, no they need a special place….
and Jews make up what percentage of the world population? app. 14 million or 0.2%?
Tutsi – 13 million
Armenians – 10 million
Romani – (up to) 12 million
Copts – 10-20 million
Rohingya – 2 million
I guess its there white privilege….
but then again…
White South Africans
White [Fill in African nation here]
Christians in general – 100 million
“NYC Hasidic developers are reserving apartments for fellow hasidics and excluding non-Jews – especially Latinos and Blacks.”
and thats what actually makes it to print. It is far more prevalent than a few hasidic developers. Meanwhile, DOJ is hunting down every recipient of HUD money to identify disparate impact (not actual discrimination, mind you) by the evil white communities.
Tan, Another perceptive article on how the Hebdo narrative is evolving from the event itself – into a narrative which is for the jews’ interest only – is from The Occidental Observer:
“One such pattern, inescapable in its current scale, has been the Jewish co-opting of the jihadist murders. At TOO, and in Nationalist circles more generally, we are aware of what the narrative should be. We know that what occurred in France was the result of the actions of an Islamist fifth column which remains rooted in, and continues to thrive on, the Muslim mass immigration to Europe. In addition to this, we are only too aware of the Jewish role in facilitating this monstrous migration.
But this was not the narrative served up by the media. Instead we were treated to a confused and emotive chronicle, full of vacuous bleating about “free speech,” debates over whether the journalists “deserved it,” and how the actions of “a few cranks” certainly don’t typify “all Muslims.” As familiar and diseased as this narrative was, it was at least slightly more honest than the one now creeping into public prominence. You see, the events in France have now taken on a new aspect. In this new narrative, it is the kosher supermarket, rather than the unassuming office at 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert which has become the primary focus of the political fallout from the Charlie Hebdo incident. The attacks, clearly a symptom of disastrous immigration and foreign policies, are now redrawn as an allegory which offers a lesson to Europe on how it should treat its Jews, and the need to tackle what is imagined to be Europe’s ‘anti-Semitism problem.’”
“Facebook Wants To Remove ‘FAKE’ News”
“Pew Research Center said in its 2013 survey that 30 percent of adults in the US rely on Facebook for their news…”.
“The new algorithm developed by the internet giant filters out the flagged story’s link from the people’s feeds, based on the number of users who reported the story to be fake.”
It seems that I am taking more than my share of room on the comments, Tan, but here is another article in connection with the jew decoding and worship with multiple sources of commentary.
Tan, Another. This time it’s from the Republican wing of the Zionist Party.
“Congress invites Netanyahu to rebut Obama on Iran, and White House slams ‘breach of protocol’’
“House Speaker John Boehner’s statement on the invite plays off of the Paris murders, and grants Netanyahu an authority he doesn’t seem to grant Obama:
“Prime Minister Netanyahu is a great friend of our country, and this invitation carries with it our unwavering commitment to the security and well-being of his people,” Boehner said. “In this time of challenge, I am asking the Prime Minister to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life. Americans and Israelis have always stood together in shared cause and common ideals, and now we must rise to the moment again.”
The Hill reports the invitation as a direct rebuke to Obama’s Iran policy”.
Tan, Here is a confirming article which relates in English much the same information about the Rothschilds and Hebdo as was pointed out in my Jan 21 9:05 comment. In a Henry Makow style of disinfo, however, it minimizes the jew angles in order to push the “Illuminati” theme – ignoring that “Illuminati” are merely more filthy jews operating one angle of their many diversionary scams. Except for that, the site does give some good information.
“The recognized New York based Epoch Times 20 Jan 2015 also has the story in German and tells that Edouard de Rothschild took over Liberation in December 2014.
This may explain quite a lot about the Illuminati-tactical Hegelian false flag attack on Hebdo and here. One thing is certain: The attack has increased Hebdo´s print run enormously in Rothschild´s favour.
WaPo memory-holed the New Year’s article I linked above: French president vows to fight racism and anti-Semitism. They also set their robots.txt so archive.org wouldn’t save it.
Whatever. It is still available at the Jew York Times: French President Vows to Fight Racism and Anti-Semitism.
In its place WaPo presents the slight post-attack repositioning, Hollande vows to protect all religions in France, but warns open society untouchable:
“Religion”, as usual in a jewish context, serves to confuse. Note how jews and muslims are identified as people. If anything it is “France” that is a mere religion, the “non-negotiable”/”untouchable” (i.e. sacred) ideas of “open society”. For the president of France, the French as a people rate no mention, much less care.
Tan, “When real Americans — the kind of Americans who identify with the American Founding — meet real Jews — the kind of Jews who embrace Israel’s past and future — there is an instant sympathy, for Jews remind Americans of what is best in their character: the new mission in the Wilderness, the vision of a new City on a hill.”
I know that meeting “real” jews will change all of us into “real Americans”.
Denouncing the colonization of Africa = free speech.
Denouncing our colonization by the third world = hate speech.
Complaining about jewish over-representation = hate speech
Complaining about black under-representation = free speech
Complaining about race replacement = hate speech
I fail to understand how the lack of equal representation can be a problem when race replacement is not, but I understand how the “antiracist” Jews, by blaming us for the under-representation of the non-Whites, make it harder for us to complain about our race replacement by non-Whites.
Jews Aryeh Cohen-Wade and Phoebe Maltz Bovy discuss Charlie Hebdo and the trouble with viewing Jews as symbols. No surprise, it’s completely jewy hand-wringing about what house goy Manuel Valls and jews Jonathan Chait and Glenn Greenwald have to say. Bovy is especially worried that “the West” means “rah rah support for jews”, and she sees this as dangerous for the jews.
Comments are closed.