All posts by Tanstaafl

Coronavirus

Global pandemic, jews hardest hit.

Coronavirus and the Black Death: spread of misinformation and xenophobia shows we haven’t learned from our past:

But the most alarming similarity between the two is the way the public reacted. During the Black Death in the 14th century, Jewish communities appeared to be dying in fewer numbers than their Christian neighbours. Many saw this as evidence that the Jews were intentionally spreading the disease by poisoning wells, rivers and springs. As a result, Jewish people across Europe were tortured and killed.

During later outbreaks in the late 16th to early 17th centuries, this fear was quickly transferred to all outsiders. For example, a proclamation issued during the reign of Elizabeth I stated that an outsider wishing to enter the city could do so only if they possessed a “special certificate” – an item usually reserved for the very wealthy.

Coronavirus: Concern over New Rochelle case stretches to Washington D.C.:

Already, the tentacles of the investigation into the man’s contacts have reached to the highest levels of government.

TFeed Index 2019

tfeed-320x320

This is an archive of the items that appeared in TFeed during 2019.

TFeed is an RSS feed for audio files I’m either interested in hearing or have already heard but think might appeal to others with similar interests.

You can send suggestions (please include link) for audio to put in the feed to tanstaafl at age-of-treason dot com.

See also: TFeed Index 2018, TFeed Index 2017, TFeed Index 2014-2016, and the introductory post, TFeed.

***

Bernie Sanders on Jewing

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed for Jewish Currents on what jewing means to him.

Speaking for jews, to jews, Sanders jewsplains why jews are anti-White, how unlike Whites jews have a “right of self-determination”, how they serve their own interests by preaching “solidarity” and “equality” while demonizing and attacking Whites, and how this is all also a “conspiracy theory”. He then points out how jews have been doing this for centuries, screeching about “oppression” and “persecution” long before any other non-White/anti-White parasites showed up.

The Enlightenment: Good for Whom?

In the comments on the previous post I made the somewhat flippant claim that the Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop. Fred W, a frequent commenter whose opinion I respect, asks:

??? How?

The foremost minds of the Enlightenment were the most antithetical to the jewish spirit and principles, foremost among them , Voltaire. Proto-Enlightenment philosopher, Bacon, didn’t have any common currency wi judaism. Diderot and his associates didn’t have any jewish persuasions.

How you can reach the reach the above idea, I don’t understand.

Even before Fred asked I had already expanded on my claim, stating that the essence of the so-called Enlightenment is that the goyim must never think or speak or act as the jews do, because jews. The only rationale ever offered for the system is that it serves the interests of “humanity”, i.e. the jews. Consult any mainstream discussion of the Enlightenment if you doubt this. Most of my readers are well aware of this and other games jews play with words, but here’s a bit on the meaning of “humanity”.

We can easily get lost in the weeds trying to define the Enlightenment and it’s key figures. The thrust of my argument, however, is elementary. Cui bono?

If you’re interested in getting lost in the weeds anyway, consider the bragging of jews, provided by Andrew Joyce. Here’s a taste:

I explore what is arguably the most ambitious effort yet attempted to create a Jewish icon for the non-Jewish world. In this, the case of Baruch Spinoza, I will outline the history of the Jewish effort to place him at the very heart of the Enlightenment, and to crown him as nothing less than the founder of the modern West, and even of modern democracy itself.

. . .

In [Jonathan] Israel’s words: Spinoza and Spinozism were “the intellectual backbone of the European Radical Enlightenment everywhere.”

I disagree with Joyce’s interpretation, that this effort from jews is a false exaggeration. Like most White men, Joyce sees the Enlightenment favorably, as a product of by and for White men. I see it more as typical jew arrogance, as the criminal claiming responsibility, boasting about their crime long after they imagine anything can be done about it.

The psychological failing here, the vector or vulnerability enabling the psyop, is apparently endemic to Whites. It is this peculiar recurring pattern of being hoist with the enemy’s petard, while jealously clinging to it as if it is your own. We see it also in (((the British Empire))), for example. It is a pitfall I’ve called racial solipsism.

I see the Enlightenment negatively. I see it as a watershed moment when White men, deluded and debilitated by Christianity but starting to wake to reality, tried to cure their hangover. Unfortunately, they ultimately did so by doubling down on the jew narrative, looking to the jews for answers to problems that jewing had caused. Whatever the details, they came to the conclusion that the answer was tolerance. The world was broken and the White man needed to fix it, and that meant…emancipating the jews, who then quickly helped themselves by helping the White man decide to emancipate the negroes, women, homosexuals, and so on. The disastrous consequences are exactly those things that the jewsmedia today most emphatically celebrates – feminism, open borders, sexual deviance, black lives matter, and the never-ending wars to keep the world safe for jewing.

There are people who purport that this is all about the White man trying to kill himself. They claim that all this pathology proves we’re suicidal. I disagree. I see the pathogen as jewing. I see jews bending the arc, as they put it, toward White replacement and extinction. They have made the highest purpose of every government they control to combat “racism” and “anti-semitism” while boycotting, imprisoning, or dropping bombs on whoever vexes the jews-first jews-only state. Proponents of this system call it “liberal democracy” and they trace its origins to the Enlightenment. In fact it is rule of by and for jews, and its roots go back much farther.

Here’s another recent claim of responsibility for the Enlightenment, with jews mischaracterizing themselves as the victims of their much less conscious Christian dupes, of course:

The development of the study of Jewish texts and Jewish culture within the university setting, as opposed to in a yeshiva or rabbinical academy, was by its very nature tied to the emancipation of the Jews in modern Europe, and their concomitant entry into broader European culture. As Martin Goodman notes, the earliest professors of Jewish literature in European universities were Christian professors of classical Hebrew, who claimed that their study of Hebrew language and literature could help them to discover the “true” (and invariably Christian) meaning contained within the text they called the Old Testament.

By the late Renaissance, Christian Hebraists in the university setting became interested in Kabbalah, part of a broader academic trend in which Christian scholars claimed that a whole array of esoteric literature, ranging from Zoroastrian and Hermetic texts to Egyptian hieroglyphs, could be interpreted to reveal Christian insights.

More on cabalism and its influence is coming in The Burden of Jewing, Part 3.

You might be thinking the Enlightenment is ancient history. But that’s where you’re wrong, bucko. The most vociferous proponents of Enlightenment/”classical liberal” thinking today are jews like Stephen Pinker, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and the broader jew intellectual movement calling itself the Intellectual Dark Web. They can clearly see a backlash building to the increasingly naked anti-White screeching of their “leftist” cousins. Their response is classic bagelian dialectic. Rather than call out their cousins’ jewing as jewing, they instead pine for a return to its previous, more cryptic form. They seek to moderate the White reaction to jewing, and they are doing so by encouraging still more Enlightenment thinking among Whites. They’re not doing this to hijack the credit for and esteem of what the deluded White man imagines is muh Greatest Achievement. They are doing so because they sense that the White man’s capacity for soft-headedness is not yet completely exhausted.

The Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop. Indeed, it is all the more obvious now in retrospect, now that jews no longer think there is any need to hide it.

UPDATE 6 Nov 2019:

In a remarkably explicit and expansive claim of responsibility, published in 2002 and titled The Jewish Roots of Western Freedom, Fania Oz-Salzberger jewsplains “the story of political Hebraism, the sustained effort to read the Bible politically during the seventeenth century”:

This essay attempts to point out some of the most interesting, most thought-provoking, and least studied Hebraic and Judaic origins of early modern political thought in England and beyond. It will examine several political Hebraists of the seventeenth century, and will consider the reasons for the abandonment of biblical and post-biblical sources of political thought by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinkers—in particular modern liberals.

. . .

Jewish texts were not accidental sources for the subtle discussion of liberty engaged in by seventeenth-century thinkers. There were several important ideas about the nature of freedom, which early modern Europe learned from the Bible and its Jewish interpreters, and from them alone. These ideas, which Enlightenment thinkers and their progeny either abandoned or ignored, have now returned to the forefront of political discourse, and are relevant in no small measure to contemporary Israel as well.

. . .

Seventeenth-century thinkers used their Bible in a multitude of ways: There were biblical royalists, biblical republicans, biblical regicides, biblical patriarchalists and defenders of the old order, biblical economic revolutionaries and deniers of private property, biblical French imperialists, biblical English patriots, and their biblical Scottish counterparts. Policies, polemics, and parodies were based on the Bible. Writers and readers alike were intimately familiar with the Old Testament.

In Protestant Europe and in much of counter-Reformation Europe, it was the central compartment of a learned man’s toolbox, the principal weapon in his scholarly arsenal

. . .

What all of these had in common was their stout belief not only in the supreme importance of the Hebrew Bible as an authority for their convictions, but also in its uniqueness as a source of historical models. Since Calvinists and Puritans, monarchists and monarchomachs, French and Dutch and English alike all viewed themselves as the “second Israel,” the ancient Hebrew state was their best political template, if not their only one. Not Athens or Sparta or Rome, but Israel, with its kings and priests, its tribes and elders, its institutions and, especially, its laws.

. . .

the tradition of religious tolerance that was transformed by Spinoza and Locke into a doctrine of political tolerance.

. . .

A highly influential group of seventeenth-century thinkers found within Hebraic sources a cluster of significant ideas, and put them into the mainstream of European intellectual history. These thinkers, and the ideas about which they wrote, were linked to one another in several ways. The following sections of this essay discuss three seminal ideas, explicitly and often exclusively Hebraic in their inspiration—ideas for which Aristotle, Cicero, or Tacitus (among others) could not reasonably be credited— which played a crucial role in the genealogy of modern political thought. They affected early modern thinking about the state and about political liberty, and took part in the birth pangs of classical liberalism itself.

. . .

Seventeenth-century Amsterdam was the most fertile soil for social and scholarly interaction between Jews, primarily exiles from Spain well versed in classical thought, and Christian scholars, primarily Calvinists with a Hebraic fire burning in their bones. In the Dutch golden age, the “Hebrew republic” took shape as an ideal type for the modern European legal and political system. Grotius was one of the first to search for the Hebraica veritas, the Hebrew truth, a natural law common to all nations.

. . .

The glory of the Hebrew republic in Western political thought reached its apex in the middle of the seventeenth century, when the English republican revolutionaries made it their central historical model, some-times alongside the Roman republic, but more often above it.

. . .

These thinkers all repeat, with individual variations, the same basic theme: The people of Israel had a republic, a nearly perfect republic, from the time of the Exodus until at least the coronation of Saul.

“Political Hebraism”, i.e., jewing.

Hoaxing Jewsplained

The fake Nazi death camp: Wikipedia’s longest hoax, exposed!

The story under this Haaretz headline is not what you might expect. The “Nazi death camp” narrative is a jew construct, so naturally we are tempted to think maybe the tribe’s own shameless hoaxing is being exposed. It is, but only indirectly.

This attempt to revise the accepted history of the Shoah on the internet encyclopedia parrots the revised historical narrative currently being trumpeted by the Polish government. In this narrative, the Poles in general – not just the country’s Jewish population – were the main victims of the Nazi occupation. This line attempts to shift the light away from a growing body of research into cases of Polish cooperation and collaboration with the Nazis in the persecution of Jews. The effort to rewrite Polish history on Wikipedia joins Holocaust distortion efforts by Polish think tanks – picked up and echoed by nationalist media outlets – that try to increase the estimate of the number of Poles who perished during the so-called Polocaust, a term that has gained popularity in recent years and is used to describe the mass murder of non-Jewish Poles at the hands of the Nazis. Many times, this also includes minimizing the number of Jews who died during the Holocaust. And while this new Polish narrative has failed to make headway in academia or the world media, on Wikipedia it has thrived.

. . .

One explanation is that though there was no death camp in Warsaw called KL Warschau, there was certainly a concentration camp with that name. The false facts that comprise the death camp hoax – the existence of gas chambers and the 200,000 death toll – managed to survive in Wikipedia because they were inextricably intertwined with real historical facts regarding the Warsaw concentration camp.

. . .

part of what Grabowski calls the “competing victimology” of the Polish right.

“In the beginning of 1990s, a new narrative was being pushed out by nationalists that there was an extermination camp in Warsaw and that there were gas chambers there. But it was totally, but totally, absurd as a theory.

“What you have are small-time concentration installations which are now getting magnified by right-wing conspiracy theories to include hundreds of thousands of Polish victims – their objective is to increase Polish losses and therefore Polish victimhood,” says Grabowski.

The number 200,000 is significant in the context, both scholars explain. Some 200,000 ethnic Poles were indeed killed during the 1944 Polish uprising. Adding another 200,000 (fictitious) Polish deaths would raise the Polish death toll in the city to 400,000 – almost identical to the number of Jews who were murdered in the ghetto.

“By pulling another 200,000 victims out of thin air,” explains Dreifuss, “they’re trying to equate what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust to what happened to Poles during the Holocaust. In this sense, it is also no coincidence that the manner of death was also by gas,” she says, adding: “But it’s just false.”

. . .

According to Icewhiz, waging memewar on Wikipedia], simply the number 200,000 should have served as a red flag, for it would have meant that KL Warschau was a bigger death camp than the likes of Sobibor and Majdanek. That didn’t happen, however, and the disinformation only continued to spread with the help of Polish editors.

. . .

The first time was in 2006, as part of what can only be termed a “Polish cleansing” of the text. In addition to adding the inflated Warsaw death toll, the editor also deleted a line explaining that, “the primary intention of these camps was the extermination of the Jews.” The revision highlights how the attempt to push out the false narrative regarding KL Warschau goes hand in hand with attempts to minimize the Jewish Holocaust and exaggerate the so-called Polocaust.

Fancy footnote work

By piggybacking on a real camp and inflating a real death toll, those peddling the KL Warschau conspiracy theory managed to pass Wikipedia’s first muster. But how did they overcome the Wikipedia community’s demand to attribute and source every claim?

. . .

“Ah, yes, the tunnel that is a gas chamber,” laughs Grabowski, “This is of course a joke,” since a 500-meter long tunnel can hardly serve as a sealed gas chamber. However, this joke has a rich history as a Polish conspiracy theory

. . .

riding on the coattails of the populist wind that swept the current government into power in Poland, the story has taken on a life of its own, assuming a key role in the Polocaust narrative and developing a cult-like following among nationalists.

. . .

A church memorial plaque commemorates the “200,000 victims.” The number is “baseless,” Prof. Dreifuss says.

. . .

“If it could be proved that the Germans had built a gas chamber for the purpose of exterminating non-Jewish Poles, this would undermine the status of the Holocaust as a crime of unique proportions,” Davies went on.

. . .

These kinds of claims and calculations “allow the Poles to say, ‘not only you Jews were murdered with gas,” explains Havi Dreifuss. “But the truth is that Jews and Poles were unequal victims. Poles were victims of a horrible ethnic cleansing, but that was not the systematic annihilation that the Jews faced.

“The current attempt to invent slaughters and victims that never took place is a horrible thing that may actually undermine the real history of the vicious persecution Poles suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany. The truth is that there was no systematized mass murder of the Polish population – and that is of course a good thing. The Holocaust is not something one should envy.”

. . .

“For example,” she continues, “in the [English] article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the fighting forces [that battled the Germans] are misrepresented in the info box on the side. A reader that is not well versed in history could think that it was a joint struggle by four equally important organizations – two Polish groups and two Jewish ones. But that’s not true, the uprising was the result of Jewish actions and the Jewish organizations led the fighting, while Polish groups played an extremely marginal role. There are other much more serious examples.”

. . .

Grabowski explains that “nationalists in Poland don’t care about what’s written in Polish, they already control the public discourse in Poland. They dominate the local narrative, but not the international narrative. That’s why they are flocking in a frenzy to Wikipedia and dedicating so much time and energy to it. I’ve heard there are hundreds of volunteers.”

According to Icewhiz, however, the number is no greater than six or seven: “You don’t need more than that to take over an entire discourse.”

Operation Poland

Icewhiz admits he can be a bit obsessive, and over the past year and a half he has documented almost fanatically what he claims is a systematic attempt by a handful of editors to rewrite the history of the Holocaust. This group, he claims, is comprised of Polish expatriates who have embraced a nationalistic position that is far to the right of the Polish mainstream.

. . .

Grabowski, whose own Wikipedia page was targeted by members of the group Icewhiz describes, is not surprised. “Everything that is related to negative treatment of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust is now being distorted and manipulated – with the goal of promoting a false narrative and sowing confusion on English Wikipedia.”

. . .

Icewhiz claims Poeticbent and Piotrus, for example, were active in rewriting numerous articles dealing with Jewish ghettos, with the goal of including a disproportionate emphasis on heroic rescue of Jews by Poles to overshadow any negative aspects. This kind of editorial skewering is the minutiae of Wikipedia politics, where the battle is over framing as much as facts.

. . .

Most of the examples in this story are taken from Icewhiz’s increasingly quixotic battle against the group of Polish editors.

. . .

A review of Icewhiz’s claims reveals what does indeed look like a concerted attempt by a small group of editors to distort the history of the Holocaust along the lines being espoused by the IPN and the Polish regime.

. . .

Though Icewhiz has earned a bad reputation on Wikipedia, due to his combative personal style and aggressively pro-Israel position, his claims of an encyclopedic conspiracy are not unfounded

. . .

He says the Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left – people who are sensitive to claims of victimhood and reluctant to call out anti-Semitism. It is exactly these kinds of claims that have turned many in the Wikipedia community against Icewhiz. For example, a Twitter account allegedly set up by the Israeli to counter the distribution of revised Wikipedia articles online recently got him banned.

This is exactly the type of behavior that has caused Icewhiz to lose his standing within Wikipedia. For many, his past efforts to defend Israel’s good name on Wikipedia is no different than the Polish editors’ attempt to defend Poland’s.

. . .

Icewhiz says that he brought his story to Haaretz because he has all but lost the battle against Polish revision on Wikipedia. Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history. By reporting on Polish revisionism on Wikipedia, the facts being purged by Polish editors are preserved as true by a verifiable source, granting him ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war.

Despite having history on his side, on September 28, Icewhiz lost his case against the group of Polish editors.

. . .

Moreover, they accused the Israeli editor of harassing them on Wikipedia, claiming he was driven by hatred of Poland and Poles.

. . .

After deliberating the case, Wikipedia’s top panel ruled against Icewhiz and he was banned from editing any article related to the subject of Poland and the Holocaust. In their ruling, the panel members accepted the Polish editors claims and said Icewhiz’s use of terms such as “Polocaust” and “Polophile” were “ethnically derogatory.” As a result of their decision, henceforth, any attempt by one editor to label another editor or source as revisionist or anti-Semitic can be considered a form of hate speech on Wikipedia.

What we have here is an example of just how deep jew chutzpathy runs, how shamelessly jews screech when they see someone else trying to follow their playbook, how they attack and psychopathologize their own tribe’s thinking and behavior whenever they believe they’ve caught a glimpse of it reflected in the goyim.

The article is very long, but the excerpts above capture the most relevant points.

Too few non-jews understand that when jews screech about the supposedly holy “six million” supposedly killed by the supposedly demonic “Nazis”, that it isn’t just about continuing a totally absurd conspiracy theory that jews created and promulgated during that war. This screeching, like all their screeching, is part of a much older and darker story.

I happened across a book titled Six Million Open Gates recently. The author gathered together a small sample of the victimology which the jews today accuse the Poles of trying to compete with. The book, like the Haaretz article, makes the totally convincing case that the jews’ victimology really does have no equal. As everyone knows, if only by absorbing it unconsciously through repetition by the jewsmedia, the magical number in the jew narrative is “six million”. What many people don’t realize is just how long the jews have been screeching about their supposed victimhood and attaching it to this magic number. We know now, thanks to the internet, that it predates by at least half a century the fratricidal White-on-White war during which the jews added their even more absurd claims about “Nazi death camps” with “gas chambers”.

What we have here, via Haaretz, is a window into the mind of the jew. We see how jews consciously conspire to do what they perceive to be best for jews, and how they do so by ruthlessly promoting and defending their jew-first victimology. We see how sensitive they are to anyone contradicting their jew-first narrative, how incensed they are by the slightest pushback from non-jews. We see how they perceive the rhetoric of equality as a weapon, and how, especially when they perceive its use mimics their own, they regard it as an existential threat to themselves.

Most White people mistakenly think that the great crime that the “Nazis” (and Germans, and Poles, and Whites generally) are accused of by the jews is that we don’t regard them as equals. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of jew identity and mentality. When someone who looks like us screeches as if they are being treated badly, most Whites instinctively sympathize, because we imagine ourselves in their place. The semitically correct moral of the jews’ “Nazi death camp” narrative is that Whites must sympathize with people specifically because they are not like us. So, some Whites sympathize with jews because we mistake them for us, while others pretend to sympathize because they understand that jews are the most non-White non-us of all. Either way the jews benefit.

Whatever your rationale, rejecting the jews’ “Nazi death camp” narrative can get you the gulag. Social media websites cite the jews’ “Nazi death camp” narrative to justify silencing Whites. The jews don’t see this as an unfair bias in their favor. They see it as unfair that they even have to argue with the lowly goyim at all.

The jews have nothing but antipathy for Whites – whether they see us as Poles, Germans, or otherwise. The grievances of non-jews, even if only directed at other non-jews, are effortlessly discounted and dismissed by the jews.

When jews swarm and screech about some supposed injustice they often try to muddy the water by thrusting some proxy out in front. Occasionally the true nature of the spectacle is made plain when their proxy says something that vexes the jews. The surreal screeching about Trump and “The Squad” is a recent example. The jew cries “LEAVE JEWS OUT OF THIS” as he strikes.

Sometimes the spectacle is nothing but jews screeching at jews. When you dig into these victimological kerfluffles you find nothing but bagelian dialectic, nothing but a more or less disguised debate about what’s best for the jews. The concerns of non-jews are window dressing, utterly secondary and disposable. Back in the 1920s Adolf Hitler saw the most common form of this fakery in the apparent conflict between zionism and liberalism. He called it “this fictitious conflict”.

More generally, the driving force is intersectional jewing, and this driving force is laid as bare as can be in this Haaretz article. Here the jews are clearly grappling with the prevalence and dominance of their own narrative, the supremacy of their own victimology. It presents them with a conundrum. How can they shut down the goyim without interfering with jewing? The answer is to throw off the mask, to proclaim that nobody’s victimology rivals their own, nobody’s narrative is as sacred as their own, nobody’s concerns are as great, nobody’s opinion as worthy of protection, nobody is like jews. Here is just another example of jews themselves saying so.