Pluralis Judaeis

genocide_by_semitical_correctness

You’ve heard of the royal “we”, here are two good examples of the jewy “we”.

After Paris Attacks, Don’t Close Doors to Refugees – Open Them, Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone:

When we see attacks like the horror in Paris, we should open our borders to a flood of refugees, not close them. We should shower those families with generosity. We should make sure they have jobs that fit their skills. We should educate their children. We should provide them health care and whatever social services they need.

In other words, “let’s you and them mix”, or, “let’s you serve them”.

A more familiar variant takes the form, “let’s you and them fight”. See, for example, French Jewish Council Calls for ‘World War’ Against ‘Jihadist Fanaticism’, Breitbart:

“Our country is bloodied by all those innocent lives cut short by the bullets of these new barbarians. The world war against the monstrosity of jihadist fanaticism must become the top priority of democratic nations,” [CRIF] said.

“We must combat them tirelessly and without pity, until they are defeated,” the group added.

The jewy “we”, pluralis judaeis, is deployed by jewhadis, “left” and “right”, not only to shamelessly lecture everyone else what they should think and do, but specifically to serve the interests of jews, whatever harm it will cause anyone else.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

39 thoughts on “Pluralis Judaeis”

  1. Another example, Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves, Ben Norton, Salon:

    The imperialist West always try to dislocate the blame. It’s always the foreigner’s, the non-Westerner’s, the Other’s fault; it’s never the fault of the enlightened West.

    Islam is the new scapegoat. Western imperial policies of ravaging entire nations, propping up repressive dictators, and supporting extremist groups are conveniently forgotten.

    The West is incapable of addressing its own imperial violence. Instead, it points its blood-stained finger accusingly at the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims and tells them they are the inherently violent ones.

    “You know who the real enemy is, right goyim? You are.”

  2. Good find. Love this:

    “We should make sure they have jobs that fit their skills.”

    Sure. “American” and “European” corporations haven’t wanted to do anything but employ Mexicans and Asians for over a generation. But for our enemies, oh yeah. Give the game away a bit more, Jesse.

  3. More jew ‘mind poison’. When will the poor gullible gentiles ever learn?
    I forgot, how many of these ‘refugees’ is israhell accepting ?

  4. The Western Allied powers who waged aggressive war against The Third Reich are getting exactly what they deserve. “You make your bed, you sleep in it” as they say.

  5. The jews have infiltrated, manipulated, and exploited every nation in “The West” for millenia. The jews have been winning all the wars fought by Whites the whole time. It continues to this day.

    The price is ultimately paid by all Whites, whether or not they or their ancestors betray their race. The lesson of history is, with jews, Whites lose.

  6. Jesse Berne is now whining about being criticized. In GOP Politicians Rejecting Refugees Sound Like Racist Internet Trolls he spells out more clearly that he’s a jew who sees Whites as his enemy:

    After that piece ran on RollingStone.com Saturday, I was flooded with messages on Twitter calling me a “retard,” “moron” and “faggot.” When they found out I was Jewish, I was a “lying kike motherfucker.”

    Those were the open extremists, of course, the ones who put hashtags like #WhiteGenocide in their Twitter bios; I saw at least one Hitler photo as an avatar. But whether they were open with their Nazi sympathies or more subtle, one thing was clear: The white-rights crowd does not want Syrian refugees – refugees who are fleeing the very kind of terrorism we saw in Paris last week – to be allowed into the United States. They expressed, in no uncertain terms, that they oppose allowing foreign – and brown! – refugees to come to Europe and America, and they’re using the fear of terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks to spread their racist message.

    Berne is one of many, many ambiguous jews in the jewsmedia. Their stereotypical behavior is to dissimulate as “white”, either keeping their jewishness hidden or pretending it has nothing to do with the poisonous policy they’re promoting. For the past few decades most of them have never been called on it.

    Of course, calling jews out won’t stop them from lying or kiking, but it does make it harder for them to pretend they’re up to anything more noble.

  7. Another example of the use of pluralis judaeis in calling non-jews to war on and exterminate non-jews, for the benefit of jews, Purim-style.

    Benjamin Netanyahu: ‘We have to fight terrorism, like we fought the Nazis’, Jerusalem Post:

    The international community must fight radical Islamic terrorism like it once fought the Nazis during World World II, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday during an interview with Jerusalem Post diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon.

    “You are not going to change them. You will not win them over. You will not pacify them. The only way to defeat them is the way you defeated Nazism,”

    . . .

    “In Jerusalem today we stand with the people of Paris. The people of Israel stand with the people of France. Ambassador, this is not a figurative stance, it’s not just lip service,” Netanyahu said.

    “First of all, we stand and we do not fall…We stand shoulder to shoulder, committed to defend our common civilization.

    “It’s difficult for civilized men and women to recognize that our cities, our airways, sometimes our waterways are prowled by beasts that devour the innocent in their way.

    “The beasts increasingly have a name – it is radical Islam. That is what is doing the killing, the murder, the rape, the burning, the beheadings.

    “We must stand together and fight together militant Islam. The people of Israel grieve with you, the people of Israel stand with you. Now and always,” Netanyahu told Maisonnave.

    Of course, at the moment the clearest example of radical, militant Islam is ISIS, and though they’re operating on Israel’s doorstep there have been no reports of any fighting between these two beasts.

    Beside that, as a historian, Netanyahu knows very well that he and his tribe actually regard the Europeans he claims to “stand with” as historic racial enemies.

  8. @ An old friend –

    Thanks much for the link, excellent article indeed.

    I can assure you the hardest thing to explain to comfortable White Folks, no matter where they might be, is:

    “There will be no escape for whites, no safe haven, nowhere.”

    All through the last quarter century I’ve had people living in Texas, New Mexico, near rust belt cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, and Lackawanna, New York. Not one could get through to their silly-billy Republican voting free-trade friends that this ain’t some joke, it’s not something they can forget about in their safe greenbelt neighborhood because soon enough there won’t be any. Whites in Detroit didn’t “deserve” what they got for joining unions, my family there were not union people anyway.

    Hope Germany can revolt, but then I hope all Europeans join them this time around.

  9. OT

    Here’s a good compilation of quotes made by world famous people on jews by Dr. E.R. Fields, published in 1964. It’s somewhat slanted towards a Christian viewpoint, but nethertheless, is still a valuable resource in our battle against Organized Jewry and its war against humanity and its goal of creating a Jew Word Order tyranny.

    What World-Famous Men Said About the Jews

  10. “Arch Hades’ commentary has the odor of gefilte fish.”

    Lol, It doesn’t take a Jew to recognize the racial differences in personality the British or French have from the Germans. Why did Karl Marx die in comfortably in Britain? Churchill wasn’t a Jew, and modern Britain leads the world in race mixing and their nationalist and racialist ‘movements’ struggle to get 1% of the vote. Germany fought a world war against the system in place, Britain and France fought for it.

  11. It doesn’t take a Jew

    Non-denial noted.

    to recognize the racial differences in personality the British or French have from the Germans

    . . .

    Germany fought a world war against the system in place, Britain and France fought for it.

    “It doesn’t take a jew” to create systems and wage wars which benefit the jews. I would even say it’s racially characteristic of jews not only to manipulate and exploit the relatively minor racial differences of hosts they are genetically alien and utterly hostile to, but also to spin narratives portraying themselves either as victims or entirely absent. Bravo, jew.

  12. Britain and France fought Germany to maintain the post-WW I dispensation because they believed it benefitted them to do so; not because their political leadership had any particular affection for race-mixing as you so risibly insinuate. Churchill in particular was an enthusiastic racialist and indeed an Anglo-Saxon supremacist.

    Even if Churchill had not existed at all Britain most likely would have warred with Germany anyway. In the end Lord Halifax was as adamant as Churchill that Britain go to war because if they did not it was feared Britain would be finished as a world power. He would have carried on as Prime Minister in Churchill’s absence; though of course without Churchill’s verve.

    The British didn’t give two figs about Poland. Their motivation for waging war was pretty mundane geopolitical power jockeying, really.

  13. “The British didn’t give two figs about Poland. Their motivation for waging war was pretty mundane geopolitical power jockeying, really.”

    The Jews had their own reasons to start a war against Germany. They probably played a central role. The population in France and Britain was not anxious to go to war. It was entirely the government’s idea. Who developed that idea in government circles and in the newspapers?

    About the Iraq war, we have Walt and Mearsheimer’s book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. About Jewish misdeeds in Russia, we have solzhenitsyn’s book 200 years together. What we need is an equally well documented book with a title like “The jew lobby and the launch of WW2″.

    Tons of books should have been written on that subject already. So far in France, on the subject of Jews pushing for war with Germany, the internet now makes it possible again to read Céline’s Bagatelles pour un massacre (1937), and Lucien Rebatet’s Les Décombres (1942). It seems not much else has been written on that subject since the Jews took power back in 1944.

    Also, when you get prosecuted in France for criticizing the Jews, the judge will tell you that what you said sounds just like what a “certain press” from “a certain period” used to print. What they have in mind is probably the weekly magazine “Je suis partout” (1930-1944), a magazine that opposed the Jews and their efforts to start WW2. For some reason, the fiercest opponents to the war are now seen as co-responsible for gassing 6 trillion Jews.

  14. CC, the political leadership including especially Churchill and the people held quite different positions on the war as it approached, and on race mixing with Jews, and on whether Jewish or British opinion and interests should determine policy.

    Churchill signed away the British Empire to Roosevelt – I am happy to say – but this hardly signals John Bull-ish geopolitical concerns.

    Churchill was thoroughly corrupted by alcoholism, vanity, indebtedness, sloth and philosemitism. No decision he allegedly made was ever his own.

  15. I’m not sure at all that Halifax absent a much more hawkish rival like Churchill would not have seen sense. He was generally cautious, although buffeted like all pols by then by the press and other influence.

  16. If you wish to be pointed to a smoking gun you really need look no further than Roosevelt’s man in Europe – William Bullitt. He was Jewish on his mother’s side. During the pre-war years Bullitt was ambassador to both the Soviet Union and France. His consistent message was that if there was a war with Germany Roosevelt would be happy to have America participate.

  17. My contention is that the main thrust of the Jewish desire to set European nation against European nation for the benefit of Jews during the pre-a WW II period emanated mainly and most decisively from America.

  18. If pluralis Judaeis is supposed to mean “Jewish plural”, then the correct form should be : pluralis iudaicus”.

    Pluralis Judaeis would mean “plural for the Jews”, but then it should be written correctly as : Pluralis Iudaeis. (the letter “J” didn’t occur in the Latin alphabet, it is a 17th century invention).

    Yes, the Jews often “identify” with us to let us work or fight for their interests, or even go against our own interests. Think about “White Like Me” Tim Wise.

  19. Nick, the difference between crackpot conspiracy mongering and formulating a damning indictment is one of evidence; of citing examples of specific individuals, in specific places, doing specific things. It is ultimately a matter of credibility and effectiveness.

    We do ourselves no favors by appearing to speak of Jewish influence as though it were a satanic cloud of noxiousness fuming out from the very pits of hell – numbing the wits and sapping the wills of all those it encapsulates.

    Lindbergh, in his famous Des Moines speech, identified three entities he believed to be primarily responsible for egging America on to war with Germany: the British government, the Roosevelt administration and the Jews.

    Now, so far as I am concerned those latter two were a distinction without a difference; and I think there is ample evidence to support the contention. But all three? Was Churchill a dysfunctional non-entity pulled about on puppet strings by some mysterious Jewish handlers? Perhaps so, but I have never seen any good evidence for concluding that.

  20. “not only to manipulate and exploit the relatively minor racial differences of hosts they are genetically alien and utterly hostile to”

    IMO, The differences in personality between the Germans and the British is not minor, it’s huge and played a decisive role in history, for the worst unfortunately. Tanstaafl, i’m not denying Jews are a hyper tribal and alien group to any Europeans, especially in comparison to Northern Europeans. That’s a given! With that said, trying to minimalism the personality differences between the British and Germans is delusional. Do you think Sicilians and Finns are the same? There’s about as much chance of the British creating anything resembling the Third Reich and it’s worldview as there is Negroes creating space stations on Mars. My point is the Jews have always been welcome in Britain or even France as compared to Germany.

    Anyway, No I’m not a Jew. I didn’t think I had to deny it. Name calling in order to shut up critics’ arguments is immature. Egalitarians do the same damn thing with the word ‘racist’. “Ohh he’s just a ‘racist’”, that ends the discussion. I’m not a White Nationalist [I am though a racialist and I recognize racial differences in personality]. I only stumbled upon your websites since you had a “Racial history of Europeans” section and I was researching that topic. I then listened to some of your other content, and I do like your broadcasting. Keep up the good work. I’ll be commenting on your website less since I’m most interested in the more scientific aspects of European racial history, not socio-political ones.

  21. I’m not minimizing differences, but I can understand why it would seem that way to someone who’s trying to exaggerate them. The differences between the English and Germans are insignificant in comparison to the jews.

    My point is the Jews have always been welcome in Britain or even France as compared to Germany.

    Your point is false. Over time the jews wormed their way into every European community. There is no evidence they were sincerely welcomed anywhere. To the contrary, their presence was most often either disguised or explicitly foisted upon the natives by fiat. It always created strife.

    The jews may have come to Britain with the Romans, but for sure they were carried in by their Norman hosts in 1066. By 1290 they were expelled and remained officially unwelcome until 1657. As usual, being unwelcome didn’t keep them out. Ultimately they purchased an official welcome back amidst the fog of cousin wars they most certainly helped instigate.

    The jews were likewise unwelcome amongst the Germans. Here they did accompany their Roman hosts as merchants and slavetraders. By the 8th century (with Charlemagne’s protection) the jews were openly slithering amongst the peoples who would later become both French and Germans. By the time of the Norman/jew conquest of Britain the jews had colonized and were thriving in the Rhineland. After that they were expelled at various times in various locales, but not for as long or across as vast an area as Britain, at least not until the 1930s.

    Name calling in order to shut up critics’ arguments is immature.

    You’ve had your say in this thread and the previous one. Nothing you’ve argued stands up to scrutiny. If you argue like a jew you shouldn’t be surprised to be called out as one. If you’re White you should be able to understand that, if you’re not I don’t care if you don’t.

  22. @Captainchaos

    “…Was Churchill a dysfunctional non-entity pulled about on puppet strings by some mysterious Jewish handlers? Perhaps so, but I have never seen any good evidence for concluding that…”

    Ever heard about the “Focus” group (mainly Jewish) around Churchill ?

    Read : “David Irving on Winston Churchill” at :

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html

  23. The ‘International Jew’ pretty much sums up the difference between an American jew and a British, or French or German, or Arab or Martian, for that matter….there ain’t one. A passport doesn’t make the man. A minor perusal of history sees the jew’s modus operandi everywhere.

  24. Off topic but on your feed:
    What is the name of the podcast entitled(podcast 3 online activism and WSU)
    It doesn’t load

  25. CC, when I give five ways in which Churchill was compromised and not his own man but you accuse me of saying it was ALL Jews, nothing but Jews, it’s just one more non-responsive reply.

    ***

    There is a reason they’re called Ashkenazis, ‘Jews of Germany.’ Linder also sometimes makes the charge that these Jews needed English tolerance to become a threat to all Europe. It’s one of several weak old women’s saws he relies upon.

    ***

    I do think Arch Hades drew attention to one problem with modern nationalist discourse in my part of the world, and that’s the tendency to think of the English as Germanic in distinction with the Celtic Scots, Welsh and Irish. GW especially wishes desperately he were German. It just isn’t so, we’re much more closely related to the other peoples of the British Isles than to Germans. And although AH makes a ridiculous comparison with Sicilians vs. Finns, it’s always been clear to me and much regretted that the English think and behave much more like the Irish than the Germans, who are, simply, the best of us.

  26. I hadn’t clicked that ‘crackpot conspiracy mongering’ meant my wondering at the surprising claim that an American anti-Nazi Jewish architect of the war on the Third Reich had a long affair with he wife of Britain’s notorious ‘pro-Nazi King’. I guess surprising claims are not to be wondered about, CC?

    That king was, incidentally, brought down by pressure from the Established church in the only case of traditionalist pressure it ever applied in a century of progressive meddling. And over the wishes of the more modern and tolerant masses, again uniquely, where the Church generally challenged the intolerance and old-fashioned thinking of the people. But here the country supported its king and his desire to marry Simpson. And the traditionalist putsch was led by a homosexual anti-Nazi, pro-Jew Archbishop.

    Nothing to explain here, says CC. Nothing to puzzle over and construct plausible hypotheses to explain unexpected phenomena, that would be conspiracy theorizing, or as it’s known elsewhere, the first two stages of the scientific method.

  27. Chris,

    https://soundcloud.com/on-the-front/on-the-front-podcast-3-internet-activism-wsu-11-29-15-1213-am

    I don’t know why but Damigo’s SC account works differently than others I’ve seen. I have to jump through hoops to get the audio URL, which is very long and differs each time I get it. It worked when I first put it on the feed, but I see it (and the link to the previous episode) produces “Access Denied” now. Sorry.

    For future reference you can open the feed URL http://age-of-treason.com/tfeed/index.rss in a browser to find the text page URL that’s associated with each audio file.

  28. I don’t believe that most White gentiles who walk through the corridors of power do so in an autistic stupor oblivious to Jewish influence. Their careers doing as such would not be viable if they did. As Joe Sobran stated, Jewish power is something one must be aware of yet never talk about.

    As I’m sure many do today, Churchill fancied himself clever enough to deal with Jews and not have himself and the British people come out with the short end of the stick for it. Of course, it did not turn out that way. I’ve read the first two volumes of Irving’s Churchill’s War and that is my conclusion.

    So why do gentile elites do this? My guess would be that in the main it is merely what Dostoevsky referred to as “lust of power for filthy gain.”

  29. Tanstaafl, Here are a couple of links which should be helpful in placing this forced immigration into perspective and identify some of the culprits who are using immigration as a weapon.

    We all have wondered who exactly it is who determines immigration policy and why. The author of this post may have made a significant discovery in a book written by a think-tanker:

    “A book from 2011 written by Kelly M. Greenhill titled Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy published by Cornell University Press, sheds quite a bit of light on the subject of creating various crises in order to generate a number of refugees who can then be used to destabilize targeted nations in a variety of ways.”
    ———

    “So Ms. Greenhill is a think-tank research fellow funded by globalist institutions like the Eisenhower, MacArthur and CIA-linked Ford foundation who also served as a program analyst for the Department of Defense.

    I would love to know which programs she helped analyze.
    Greenhill’s understanding of Weapons of Mass Migration campaigns appears to be second to none as she carefully lays out the programs of coercive engineered migrations and their desired results in her published paper (PDF):

    “Coercion is generally understood to refer to the practice of inducing or preventing changes in political behavior through the use of threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure—most commonly, military force. This article focuses on a very particular nonmilitary method of applying coercive pressure—the use of migration and refuge e crises as instruments of persuasion“…

    “Coercive engineered migrations (or coercion-driven migrations ) are “those cross-border population movements that are deliberately created or manipulated in order to induce political, military and/or economic concessions from a target state or states.”…

    Coercive engineered migration is frequently, but not always, undertaken in the context of population outflows strategically generated for other reasons. In fact, it represents just one subset of a broader class of events that all rely on the creation and exploitation of such crises as means to political and military ends—a phenomenon I call strategic engineered migration.”

    The paper itself is a fascinating look into mindset of those think-tankers and foundation-funded crafters of deep-state politics. It shows just how cold and calculating and diabolical these people really are.”
    ————
    http://memoryholeblog.com/2015/12/09/weapons-of-mass-migration/

    “German Chancellor Angela Merkel began implementing the main tenets of Greenhill’s book after its publication in 2010. In addition to the arrival of new bodies for Germany’s work force, Merkel saw a mass influx by refugees as a way for her to enable the German military, security, and intelligence services to take a more active role in domestic German affairs.

    The anti-terrorism forces of the German Special Operations Command (Spezialeinsatzkommandos or SEK) have already swung into action against jihadist “refugees” who have initiated mass violence inside German migrant shelters. It is only a matter of time before the SEK and other security forces begin to take action against newly-arrived jihadist troublemakers in German cities and towns like Hamburg, Leipzig, Cologne, Munich, and Berlin.

    Merkel’s government has mobilized the “Regional Backup and Support Staff” (Regionale Sicherungs- und Unterstützungskräfte or RSUKr), a “homeland security” force of military reservists. Since 2012, the RSUKr has had the authority to engage in domestic law enforcement inside Germany. If the RSUKr evokes memories of the Gestapo, it should. Currently content with conducting “anti-terror” raids on mosques and suspected jihadist homes in Germany, Merkel does not seem concerned about putting this counter-terrorism “genie” back into the bottle after it takes care of the jihadist threat.”
    —–
    “Merkel met Zuckerberg in NYC this month and they agreed to begin censoring FB for harsh criticism of her asylum politics. There is indeed a task force of massively intimidating censors working at all German language groups, chats, major MSM articles which threatens and bullies Germans into silence. The aggressive counter-intel trolls deployed on FB are actually catching critics of Germany’s migrant politics, accusing them racism, hate speech and sedition and handing them over to the court systems who have begun convicting them in on-the-spot trials in recent weeks. The last time I saw such total palpable surveillance such as the constant monitoring of the German language social media venues now was when I crossed the Berlin Wall and had Stasi eyes and ears following me around in the 70s. An atmosphere of fear and rage is simmering under the surface in Germany which will erupt into a civil war if this mass migration continues. This is not a normal refugee migration.”
    ————–
    http://www.thesullenbell.com/2015/11/02/weapon-of-mass-migration/

  30. One more link, this one features the author, Greenhill:

    “There’s been approximately one case of attempted coercion, on average, since the signing of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is pretty significant, and when the tool is used, it tends to be at least partially successful about three-quarters of the time. It might still be a pretty ineffective tool of coercion in that it may only be used by actors who are pretty sure that they’ve got a vulnerable target in their sites, but when it is used, it tends to be relatively successful, tragically for the victims.”
    —–
    The Role of Migration in Conflict: Q&A with Kelly Greenhill
    http://www.icm2016.org/the-role-of-migration-in-conflict-q-a-with-kelly-greenhill

  31. Tan,
    I recently found your Web site through Red Ice Radio and have been listening to your podcasts for the past couple weeks. It’s been very helpful, thank you very much for taking the time to spread truth.
    I find the parasite aspect of jews especially interesting and have been reading up on parasites (the insect) per your advice. It makes sense that a race that excels at building, innovating, creating wealth, would attract a parasite.
    For the most part I’m positive Whites will be healthy again.
    My concern is that a host/parasite relationship might be Nature’s way of keeping order, maybe Nature’s way of controlling whichever Human race is excelling above other races.
    My question is do you think the White race can evolve to be immune to parasites?
    (you may have already answered this, I haven’t listened to every podcast yet)
    Do you think jews can evolve to not be parasites?
    Seems like jews leave Asians alone. Do you think Asians are immune to parasites or jews just prefer the White host?
    I found a tick on my dog, it would have stayed there forever except for the fact that I plucked it out. Will Whites also need help? Or can we free ourselves on our own?
    Thank you for your time,
    Cora

  32. I think the more immediate and relevant question is whether a critical mass of non-jews will ever collectively recognize what jews are, what they have been doing, and somehow put a stop to it.

Comments are closed.