All posts by Tanstaafl

Age of Treason Radio

Pathology and Pathogen

Audio 25 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

biohazard

Andrew Joyce’s recent article, The Bizarre World of Dr Theodore Isaac Rubin, is mostly excellent. It’s about how jews explain “anti-semitism”:

Although written in 2009, Ted Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind,[1] is in several respects a relic of a by-gone era in that it is a classic work of old-school Freudianism and psychoanalysis. Kevin MacDonald has noted in The Culture of Critique that:

One way in which psychoanalysis has served specific Jewish interests is the development of theories of anti-Semitism that bear the mantle of science by deemphasizing the importance of conflicts of interest between Jews and gentiles. Although these theories very greatly in detail — and, as typical of psychoanalytic theories generally, there is no way to empirically decide among them — within this body of theory anti-Semitism is viewed as a form of gentile psychopathology resulting from projections, repressions, and reaction formations stemming ultimately from a pathology-inducing society.[2]

Rather than antipathy being a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest, antipathy towards Jews is thus seen as a psychological illness — owing absolutely nothing to the behavior of Jews, and everything to Western culture. This is the central thrust of Rubin’s book.

Rubin wastes no time in applying medical and psychiatric language to anti-Jewish attitudes. They comprise (11–12) a “malignant emotional illness,” a “psychiatric illness,” and a “chronic, pandemic and incredibly destructive disease.”

I agree with Joyce and MacDonald’s assessment. Antipathy is a natural and normal result of real conflicts of interest. I would add that the key word in “conflicts of interest” is conflict, and the roots of the antipathy and conflict are racial. More than anything else, Joyce’s article brings out the clash between White and jewish mentality – the completely different way each group sees the conflict between the groups.

These are racial differences in mental processes. MacDonald explains some of these differences in a recent article of his own, On the HBD Chick Interview. There he summarizes part of a chapter from the first volume of his trilogy on jews, A People That Shall Dwell Alone:

Briefly, the idea is that Jews, or at least Ashkenazi Jews, are high on several personality systems, resulting in 1.) tendencies toward personalities that react intensely to environmental contingencies (i.e., high on the emotionality system), 2.) strongly attracted to dominance, social status, reward (including sex), and prone to aggressiveness (i.e., high on the behavioral approach system), and 3.) able to have strong top-down control over modular systems related to emotions and behavioral approach (i.e., high on the conscientiousness system).

. . .

I updated some of this material in “Background Traits for Jewish Activism” (2003) which focuses on traits that are most important for the success of Jewish activism: hyper-ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity (emotionality), and aggressiveness.

To put it in less genteel terms, the jews are a race of ruthless crooks and liars, at least when it comes to dealing with Whites.

Jews are instinctively collectivist and assign jewish interests the highest priority, to the point they have co-opted science and committed fraud to serve that end. In the jewish mind emotionalism trumps rationalism. They also tend to project their negative thinking onto the Other.

Whites, in contrast, are relatively individualist and universalist, with a higher regard for objectivity. In the White mind rationalism trumps emotionalism. Whites tend to project our positive thinking onto the Other. These are tendencies, partly encoded in our genes, partly inculcated into our minds after birth. The big difference is group consciousness. The jews inculcate their own with an unapologetic preference for their own kind and distaste for the Other. Jews inculcate most Whites too, but with exactly the opposite moral standards.

This kind of lopsidedness, or asymmetry, is characteristic of the entire history and nature of the conflict between Whites and jews. Jews have continuously aggressed against Whites. Whites, for the most part, have been oblivious of this. As Joyce observes, jews unabashedly distort reality and invert the conflict, placing 100% of the blame for it on Whites. Jews use the most harsh-sounding biomedical terms, describing their enemies not as participants in a conflict with an opposing point of view, but as pests who should be simply silenced and even exterminated.

Whites, in contrast, have generally reacted to this kind of bombast by recoiling defensively, in denial, trying to argue that they aren’t the congenital monsters the jews accuse them of being. In accordance with our instinct for objectivity, Whites consistently step outside and above the conflict, to seek out some less harsh-sounding explanation for it. We imagine, for example, that the jews aren’t so different and must be deceiving themselves, because that’s how Whites tend to deal with unpleasant realities.

The real root of this asymmetry, as the jews recognize, is biomedical. The jews are racially distinct. They are far more racially conscious, far more aware of racial distinctions. They not only see the distinction between themselves and others more clearly, they are more willing and able to ruthlessly exploit those differences.

The jews dedicate a great deal of effort not only to nurturing their own consciousness, but to tearing down such consciousness in their hosts. The jewish pseudo-science of psychoanalysis Joyce examines is an example of both – excusing and leveraging their own consciousness and ethnocentrism while at the same time they psychopathologize White consciousness and ethnocentrism.

Joyce calls attention to the key component of this psychopathologizing:

Another of Rubin’s assertions, and this is equally common among many Jewish psychologists and academics, is that those holding anti-Jewish attitudes are low in self-esteem and are (31) “desperate for simplistic explanation and solutions, especially for those they may find outside themselves.” But ‘anti-Jewish theory,’ if one wants to call it that, is far from simplistic. The assumption is made by the psychoanalysts that since the only problem causing conflict with Jews exists solely in the mind of the ‘anti-Semite,’ then the ‘anti-Semite’ needs only a ‘symbol’ to cure his own inner conflicts — this symbol is the Jew. He is said to cling to the simplistic belief that “the Jews” are behind all of his personal problems, and thus he can externalize his internal conflicts by ‘hating’ Jews, and somehow raising his own self-importance and self-esteem in the process. But this assessment is built on a deeply flawed assessment of both anti-Semitism and the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes.

Overall I think Joyce is very perceptive, but in this I think it’s his assessment of jewish behavior that’s flawed. The jews are not making a mistake. It is about esteem.

First of all, by blaming “anti-semitism” they are excusing themselves, placating and even feeding their own already enormous collective esteem for themselves as a people. Second, they are deliberately attacking the esteem of “anti-semites”, in other words, those Whites who are most racially conscious and most aware of the jews. The attack the jews make elicits a defensive posture, causing their enemy to question themselves. That the jews cloak their attack in scientific terms, as a medical diagnosis, is an intentional deception. Such fraud is a feature of their aggression, not a flaw.

The psychoanalysts never acknowledge that some of the most high-profile anti-Jewish writers of the past have been at pains to blame their own people and nation before the Jews — there has never been a rush to ‘externalize’ all blame for the ills of society.

The jews get the defensive response they seek: “B-but we’re not stupid or crazy. A-allow me to provide some objective arguments and examples.” Joyce supplies several paragraphs in this vein, and it’s as eye-opening and edifying as his writing usually is. He perceives the jews as enemies, but the examples he cites demonstrate the point. Throughout history even the most notorious “anti-semites” have been far too willing, in the attempt to be objective and fair, to blame our own people, to fruitlessly seek some built-in flaws our race simply must have, somewhere.

The irony is that in striking such a defensive posture it is self-esteem which keeps us from accepting that this behavior is the flaw we’re looking for. Whites don’t have an inherent racial lack of self-esteem relative to jews, we have a relative lack of group-esteem. We have a relative willingness to accept responsibility, especially guilt, especially collectively.

I don’t think this lack is entirely inborn. I think a large portion of it is induced by jews pushing the psychological button Joyce has noticed but mistaken the significance of. Jews have been moralizing and lecturing Whites for millenia now that, “It’s all your fault, you stupid/crazy/evil goyim.” While some Whites are able to shrug it off, few actually see it for the purposeful guilt-tripping, the aggression, the assault it is.

Contrary to the arguments of the psychoanalysts, the problem always contains a very significant internal element, and thus the holder of anti-Jewish attitudes is rarely free to simply blame all on ‘the Other.’

This phenomenon continues today. Critics of Jews are equally concerned with developing an understanding not only of Jewish power and influence, but also of the pathology of Whites that has facilitated Jewish power and influence as well as the current disaster of displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism. The emphasis is on the identification of multiple sources and origins of the current societal malaise, and on evidence-based intellectual and scientific investigation of all aspects of the interactions between Jews and non-Jews in all locations and throughout historical time. This activity can in no way be seen as the seeking of simplistic answers.

This is the problem. The jews shamelessly attack and blame everything on their enemies. And in response their enemies, not wanting to appear simplistic, try to rationalize and intellectualize and demonstrate how fair-minded they are. That is “white pathology” in a nutshell.

As I’ve said before, where there is a pathology there must be a pathogen. So what is it? If we’re going to speak of this phenomena in biomedical terms, then let’s grab the bullshit by the horns, shall we?

Jews clearly see that there is a conflict of interests, first and foremost with Whites. Whites are now so deracinated and ennervated that they are afraid to see any conflict whatsoever, because that would make them “racists”. Jews hate Whites. Whites worship jews. Whatever anyone thinks caused this situation, this lopsided Stockholm Syndrome relationship with jews, it’s clear that to the extent most Whites even see it as a problem, they blame jews for approximately none of it. Instead, the popular explanation is the jewish explanation: Whites are to blame for all of it.

“White pathology” is a non-explanation for this situation. For one thing, the idea forgets or at least downplays the racial conflict. Joyce at least brings it up while discussing the jews. More often it is used alone, without any mention of jews or their aggression, implying there is some “suicidal” problem baked into Whites and only Whites.

The idea is solipsistic. It is a self-satisfying pathologization of Whites. It plays on the same psychological mechanism behind the jewish explanation of “anti-semitism”. It’s an attack on our self-esteem, our fear of being seen as “stupid” for seeing an enemy as an enemy. Which, if you think about it, is what’s really stupid.

What’s also really telling about the falseness of the idea is that the term itself has a completely different meaning to most Whites. When racially conscious Whites say “white pathology”, they mean Whites as a group aren’t racially conscious enough. But if you try and explain “white pathology” to a typical deracinated White they’ll take it as confirmation that Whites, especially Whites like you, are too “racist”.

The “white pathology” idea appeals to the racially aware because there is a grain of truth to it. It’s a diagnosis that comes close but literally gets stuck on the pathology, the symptoms, and too often neglects to ever identify the cause, the pathogen. If Whites are behaving pathologically, well-meaning Whites should be doing their best to identify the pathogen causing this behavior. We should be seeking, without fear, ways to neutralize the cause, rather than ourselves.

The problem is not that Whites have blamed the jews too much. Quite the opposite. It’s clear that the jews have encouraged this solipsistic attitude exactly because it serves them. Thinking Whites alone, right now, determine White destiny is a notion that appeals especially to the most racially conscious Whites. But it is a fantasy as long as most Whites remain, as they are, unconscious of any collective destiny.

Calling the jews pathogens or parasites it is not an idle insult. Nor is it an excuse for Whites, their hosts. In fact, it’s a degrading and humiliating situation that is painful for Whites to acknowledge. Such terms are simply more honest and explicative. It is an acknowledgement not just of the conflict but its asymmetric nature. Among the benefits of calling a parasite a parasite is parasitology – an existing body of understanding based on true science, which offers practical insights and potential solutions no amount of “white pathology” navel-gazing ever will. Another benefit: Rather than misdirecting White resentment toward ourselves, it is directed at the cause, where it belongs – the detestable, whiny, self-obsessed, manipulative, exploitative jews. Without jews Whites would still have problems – but these “anti-semitism”/”white pathology” bugbears wouldn’t be among them.

Examples of this pathogen at work are easy to find in the mainstream jewsmedia:

UK must ‘wipe out’ anti-Semitism – Home Secretary

BERLIN: Europe’s Jews ponder: Is it time to flee again?

Do we really mean ‘never again’?

Blog

Rhyes and Linder on Breivik

16 Comments

inspiration

Bill Rhyes focused his 29 Jan 2015 Might is Right Power Hour program on Anders Behring Breivik, mainly based on information and links in a recent article, Anders Breivik Jewed the Jews, posted at The End of Zion.

Rhyes plays a snippet of William Pierce reading a passage concerning innocence from The Turner Diaries; reads Anders Behring Breivik letter 13-09-29 to International Press, written a little more than two years after the attack in July 2011; reads the analysis written by Alex Linder the week after the attack, here and here; and adds his own insights concerning polarization, means and ends, and more. Rhyes describes how his opinion of Breivik began to change when he learned more of what Breivik himself had to say.

I’ve spent a great deal of time reading, thinking, writing and talking about Breivik. I became familiar with what Breivik refers to as the Vienna school (a nexus of the counter-jihad) and its central exponent, Fjordman about the same time he did. I’m still not sure what Breivik’s true motives were, but I’m happy to find another racialist, beside Linder, who is interested in why Breivik acted and what he accomplished rather than reflexively looking for some excuse to disassociate from him.

I haven’t had anything to say about Breivik since his trial ended almost three years ago because nothing substantial has changed. The evaluation I formed was based on the portions of his compendium he had actually written (as opposed to the large sections he copied from others, like Fjordman, and which many readers mistook took for his), and especially his statement when his trial began. During the trial he clearly and apparently sincerely claimed to be an “ultra-nationalist” who feels a duty and loyalty to his people, in a genetic sense. Breivik is a racialist.

I summed up this evaluation in response to one of the more popular criticisms of him at that time:

“Breivik was a Zionist agent“

Based on what Breivik wrote, he did not understand the jews. His attitudes toward them, and vice-versa, are examined in some detail in the comments of Norway Attacks – Anders Behring Breivik and Kay on Breivik on “The Jew”.

At the moment I don’t think Breivik was acting as an agent for any larger organization. I understand him as a Norwegian/Nordic/European patriot who correctly perceived immigration and multiculturalism as harmful to his people. He aimed his attack at members of the treasonous political class (and their children) he deemed most directly responsible.

From the Kay link:

“I notice that the actions of Baruch Goldstein did not deal a fatal blow to Jewish nationalism. They did not deal even a minor blow to it. Israel did not renounce its frankly racist policies in reaction to that atrocity. It might be instructive to ponder the differences and simlarities between that case and this one.”

Rhyes mentions that The Gates of Vienna published the letter. The two relevant articles are Breivik Repudiates the Counterjihad and Breivik’s “Double-Psychology”, published about a year ago.

Here’s why Bodissey crowed about it:

the Butcher of Utøya told the world that his purported admiration for Fjordman, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or, et al. had just been a ruse on his part, and that his real ideological commitment was to what he calls “ethno-nationalism” or “nordicism”. He had embraced the Counterjihad in order to damage it, and to draw attention away from his allies among white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

I didn’t bother to write about it at the time because the jewhadis had been condemning and otherwise trying to distance themselves from Breivik all along. Bodissey’s explanation of jewsmedia motives is typically distorted by his jew-blinders:

It’s easy to see why the MSM wanted to bury this half of the letter. It shows them up as gullible fools who took a shrewd psychopathic killer at his word, and parroted the exact line expected of them. Their case against the Counterjihad as “Breivik’s mentors” has been totally destroyed. As a result, they’re no longer interested in discussing the topic.

Media pundits, especially jews, immediately perceived Breivik’s attack as a threat to the jew-led multicult. From the start they tried to shift attention and demonize as broadly as possible all forms of “conservative”, “far-right”, nationalist, anti-islamization and anti-immigrant political expression. This is what they always do, regardless of the attackers or their stated motives.

Some pundits did sift through Breivik’s compendium. Jonathan Kay, for example, picked out Breivik’s references to jews and imagined his own connection to The Turner Diaries. Most pundits no doubt recognized or came to understand that the counter-jihad is kosher, and thus paid it no particular attention. One misidentified it instead as “white supremacist”.

The media was never interested in Breivik’s “real” views, and dropped even the pretense of interest during the trial. The most likely reason the prosecutors ultimately didn’t go after anyone but Breivik is because they believed he conceived and carried out his operation alone.

It has always been difficult to take what Breivik has to say about his motives at face value. He admitted to deliberately lying to trick others even in his compendium. He could very well be lying even about some of his lying. Maybe his story shifted over time simply because his understanding deepened over time. Perhaps his claim that he was just trolling is a way to make himself look clever rather than ignorant or duped.

At any rate, here’s the “out-jewing the jews” portion of his letter:

The reason I chose another <<sales narrative>> in the compendium was among other things to prevent them from immediately ending the ideological discussion with their <<6-million-omg-nazi-enough-said>>- bashing stick. I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only aprox. three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-islamist perspective), and that only approx. 0,2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasn’t so. The reason why so called <<counterjihadists>>, at least the great majority, seemingly <<praise>> Israel, is to avoid the above described suppression-tactic. However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc., but their organisations are so heavily infiltrated by nordicists and ethnocentrists that it’s hard to say which wing are actually controlling them.

When dealing with media psychopaths, a good way to counter their tactics is to use double-psychology, or at least so I thought. The compendium was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical <<gateway-design>> (the 2+?+?=6-approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their <<media-rape-squads>> against our opponents. It worked quite well.

It may have worked to some degree, but only at the cost of creating confusion about his true purpose. I think Whites are more likely to be heartened by clear, unambiguous blows against the anti-White regime, minus any such dubious attempts to “out-jew the jews”.

UPDATE 2 Feb 2015: I’ve already made this more about my own analysis of Breivik’s letter, so I might as well add more. In this portion Breivik explains his rationale (which I suspect he constructed after-the-fact) for his shifting narrative:

Apparently, many people didn’t comprehend my deliberate usage of double-psychology, and this is my own fault. In any case, the Fjordman-network figured it out quite early, which explain why they have attacked me so viciously. It wasn’t my intention to cause the outing of Fjordman, with subsequently he being brutally media-raped by 200 MSM-psychopaths. But on the other hand, ethnocentrism gained momentum at the same time as I managed to prevent a significant crackdown against the european and US nordicist movement.

There has been an active power-struggle between the two factions within the contra-jihadist movement for years, and the reason why it’s so critically important to dominate and influence this movement is because it acts as a <<supplier of terms>> to moderate european nationalist parties with a base consisting of tens of millions of europeans. The battle within the <<counter-jihad>>-movement is in many ways a battle for the future content of northern-european nationalism. This makes it even more ironic that many nordicists and ethnocentric nationalists, Stormfront included, still don’t know that I systematically used double-psychology in order to protect them, and in an attempt to prevent the multiculti MSM from using their <<I-win-button>>.

First he says his intent was to cause the “media-rape” of the jewish Fjordman-network. Here he says he didn’t intend that Fjordman be “media-raped”. This is incoherent.

I have seen no evidence of the struggle within counter-jihad that Brevik describes. These two wings he describes – anti-ethnocentrist and ethnocentrist – do not exist within it, but instead distinguish it from the kind of racialist nationalism Breivik says he sides with. CJ is very much a jewish intellectual movement in that it puts the concerns and interests of jews above all others. Fjordman is one example. Takuan Seiyo is another. Those who disagree are purged.

Beyond lacking the courage of their convictions, the Fjordman-network attacked Breivik because they realized, like I did, that his thinking, as stated even in his compendium quoting them, did not match their convictions. They do not support any fundamental opposition to the basic liberal, anti-“racist” premises of the multicult agenda – certainly not with deadly force. However, like the jewsmedia, they do oppose “nazis”, and for the same reasons. Their opposition to islamization is motivated by their main, underlying priority: keeping Israel, Europe, the US, Australia, the whole world really, safe for the jews.

Regarding his “real” motive:

But everyone should know that 22/7 happened in order to try to force a dialogue between the chief editors in the <<big five>> in all 13 nordic countries, and the so called <<fascist movements>> in the corresponding countries.

I remember there was at least one journalist during the trial touching the core of this issue, as he stated; <<The only thing that could prevent the extinction of nordics are racial hygiene-programmes on a full scale, something which is impossible in today’s multiethnic and multicultural societies. Therefore, it is pointless to enter into dialogue with “these people”. We simply cant co-exist with them>>. First of all, we are of course fully aware of the fact that you feel you have no other choice than to suppress us, due to this reason. And you have been brutal the past 68 years. This harsh suppression and persecution has driven thousands of nationalists in northern-europe to suicide, something which explains why these editors don’t like to admit to being responsible for these acts. However, if only more than one out of 5000 nordic journalists could be this honest, 22/7 and approx. 500 annual nationalist and <<racist>> attacks could be avoided in the future.

Of course we understand that full scale racial hygiene-programmes are difficult in today’s societies. But if they had just stopped their bigotry for one second and listened to what we have to say, they would have learned that we can coexist. First of all, one of the reasons the first- and second-generation nordicist leaders have failed with entering into dialogue, is because of their <<all-or-nothing>>-strategy. From a “third-generation” point of view, considering that we lost the european civil war (WW2), the <<all-or-nothing>>-approach has been a complete failure, and continuing this path is counter-productive, irresponsible and may lead to extinction of the nordic race.

Here also Breivik seems to be trying to sound like a mastermind, citing statistics he is pulling out of his ass. With regard to the nature of the jews and the media he comes across as naive. The journalist he quotes has a better understanding of the situation. There will be no dialog or compromise. There is no turning back. They know it. They have chosen their side. They are far more aware of the monstrous crime that has been committed than the general public. They use what power they have to transfer blame for the harm to racialists and nationalists.

The all-or-nothing approach has not failed. It has worked spectacularly… for the jews. The failure has been on the White side. This is where the “it’s not the jews”/”it’s suicide”/”we just have to play the jew-rigged game harder”/”those damn nazis” spirit of “conservative” denial and compromise have prevailed. As this is the mindset which prevailed, this is the mindset which is culpable for the consequences. This is the mindset which is discredited and will be replaced, one way or another.

Age of Treason Radio

The Jew Menace

Audio 20 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

the_jewish_argument

The big news this week is that the jews have very openly and collectively, as jews, called upon governments everywhere, but especially in Europe, to provide them special treatment, to protect and serve the jews specifically by suppressing and punishing any expression of whatever the jews decide to define as “anti-semitism”.

Effectively the jews and their worshippers are calling for a ban on blasphemy against the jews. They’re seeking to criminalize any expression of irreverence, disrespect, distaste, disagreement, or even mere disregard for the complaints and demands that jews are constantly making. Complaints and demands such as the ones they’re making this week – which we’re going to critique in some detail. This is precisely the sort of critique that the jews are demanding goverments illegalize. Everywhere.

Let’s start by noting that there are two very specific kinds of blasphemy that the jews are most keen to stop. The first they call “holocaust denial”, by which they mean any form of challenge to or rejection of their version of history, their narrative about the period of European history which used to be known as World War II. The second kind of blasphemy they want governments to stop is any and all forms of criticism of their ethnostate, Israel.

This is actually old news in that the jews have been making these same complaints and demands for decades – especially since the war ended. It is a difficult fact for White people to face – and even 70 years after that war most still will not think about it in such terms – but the White race, all European peoples whatever their nationality and wherever they may live today, lost that war. The jews won.

There is no clearer indication of this than the unrivalled position of power from which the jews have been able to dictate to Whites everywhere what can and can’t be said about jews or virtually anything jews feel impinges on their interests. Most especially having to do with that war. Thus it is less and less even referred to as World War II, and more and more “The Holocaust”, or “Shoah”. Because that is how the jews see it. And, as everyone can see now, if only because the jews’ media and political power compels it, that war was all about the jews.

The most elementary point I’d like to make here is that these three things – the jews, Israel, and their holocaust narrative – are connected. They come in a package. And it is this way because the jews themselves insist upon it. Yet they also insist that if anyone else makes this connection it is “anti-semitism”. As I mentioned the last time, when describing jew-worship and blasphemy, the double-standards jews promote seem surreal, almost magical in nature. But I think it’s really just a reflection of their dominance.

Speaking of dominance, and old news, I’m recording this the night before, but tomorrow is a special day for jews and jew-worshippers. When this special day was first declared by the UN in 2005, Robert Faurisson wrote a short article about it titled The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism:

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.

Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Faurisson’s conclusion:

This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.

Faurisson was being optimistic. Here we are in that dark future. The jews are still at it. More aggressively pushing for more banning. More directly connecting it to themselves, their Holocaust narrative, and their ethnostate. Let’s take a closer look at three jewsmedia reports on the menace jews have been making of themselves this week.

Prosor calls on European leaders: Take a stand against anti-Semitism, quotes Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor:

“Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Semitism,” Prosor said.

This rhetorical fraud – jews cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language – can be found throughout their pronouncements this week. It’s a constant feature of what jews do and how they do it.

To see just how transparently brazen this statement is you simply have to substitute one word: Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Europeanism.

Is there even one European politician, in power, who would claim he himself is taking a stand against anti-Europeanism, much less lecture the rest of the world that they should do so?

Prosor asserted that “The struggle against anti-Semitism must be a priority for every nation because the hatred that begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews. History has shown us time and again that when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk.”

The main struggle of the jews is to ensure that the harm the jews cause others is never attributed to the jews. To do this jews shift the blame elsewhere, in this case, as usual, to “anti-semitism”.

The argument Prosor is making here is that everybody else must make it their priority to stop somebody else from even complaining about what the jews do.

History has shown us time and again that jews are parasites who infiltrate, manipulate, and ruthlessly exploit other nations, that they have cared only for their own interests as they have undermined and ultimately brought to ruin and fled every other nation they have ever lived amongst.

History has shown us time and again that jews pose a special menace to hosts which attempt to look after their own safety and defend themselves against the depredations of the jews. Even those who succeed in reclaiming control over their nation as the national socialists did in Germany find that the jews never forgive and never forget. In Germany’s case, world jewry declared war in 1933, began agitating Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States to war, to teach them all the lesson Prosor alludes to: “when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk”.

The jews blame their hosts for resisting them. That they bribe and lobby and propagandize and even succeed in taking control of the host’s leaders and crucial organs and makes them more culpable and harm they cause more insidious, not less.

“Europe is being tested,” he said. “We don’t need any more monuments commemorating the Jews who were murdered in Europe, we need a strong and enduring commitment to the living Jews in Europe. If the governments of Europe succeed in defending their Jewish communities, then they will succeed in defending liberty and democracy.”

Prosor cites the jewish victim narrative even as he denies it.

Jews actually want, and get, both – worship and defense. They get monuments and holidays commemorating them, and special security. It is sponsored by governments, funded by taxing others.

It is jews telling Europeans what to think and what to do – in this case Prosor literally defines “liberty” and “democracy” and even success as the defense of jews.

And vowed that “The days when Jews were the world’s victims are over. We will never again be helpless and we will never again remain silent. Today we have the State of Israel standing guard.

Victimhood again, this time couched in menace: “We don’t need to incite others to war against you, we have weapons of our own now”.

The article explicitly mentions the attack on the “kosher supermarket” in Paris a few weeks ago, giving the impression that this is what triggered the jews to action this week. It isn’t. The bombing of Gaza this summer was not explicitly mentioned, though that was the actual impetus for the UN meeting. It is hinted at indirectly in this paragraph toward the end:

The meeting was requested by 37 countries who sent a letter to assembly President Sam Kutesa on October 1 calling for a meeting in response to “an alarming outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide.” They said they wanted a meeting because “a clear message from the General Assembly is a critical component of combatting the sudden rise of violence and hatred directed at Jews.”

This simple statement, in both what it says and doesn’t say, reflects the incredible power and influence jews have over dozens of other governments outside the single government they officially control. Jews have enough control over the govts of 37 countries (most crucially the US) to manipulate them in this fashion.

That they could orchestrate such a show of force in response to the murder of four jews in Paris would be amazing enough. But in fact it was actually orchestrated in defense of Israelis who murdered thousands of non-jews in Gaza. The Israeli military bombs Gaza and then jews worldwide join with Israels to organize a UN meeting to literally shift the blame to “anti-semitism worldwide”.

UN meeting challenges world to stand up to anti-Semitism, describes the result:

But 40 mainly Western countries issued a joint statement afterward urging all nations to “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism,” strengthen laws to combat discrimination, and prosecute those responsible for anti-Semitic crimes.

“The determination to eradicate the conditions that gave rise to the Holocaust was a guiding principle among the founders of this organization over six decades ago,” their statement said. “Let us rededicate ourselves to that principle and endeavor to eliminate anti-Semitism in all forms.”

I could find no UN source for this UN declaration. All the pages containing “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism” are variations on this AP story.

Note the unequivocal, uncompromising language used to compel others to serve jews.

In the keynote speech, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said blaming Jews “is once again becoming the rallying cry of a new order of assassins.”

Levy, who is Jewish, called for new arguments to counter anti-Semites who say “Jews are detestable.”

These anti-Semites call Israel an “illegitimate state,” deny the Holocaust, and believe Jews give far too much attention to Holocaust victims and stifle other people’s martyrs, including the Palestinians, he said.

Dozens of speakers echoed his call to address the root causes of anti-Semitism as well as wider religious intolerance, hatred and extremism.

The jews try to dictate what others are permitted to find detestable. That’s detestable.

Levy offers no arguments, and his call for arguments is disingenuous anyway. The whole point of the UN meeting was for jews to make public their demands, which amount to telling everyone else they must “reject” and “prosecute” and “eliminate” blasphemy against the jews.

Levy is one of the many jews who unambiguously connects jews to Israel and to their holocaust narrative.

France’s minister of state for Europe Harlem Desire urged the world to act “with the utmost firmness, wherever anti-Semitism rears its head in the world.”

“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned.

Harlem Desire, which is his real name, is a semitic-looking mulatto.

The premise of Desire’s argument is that “the world”, and especially European govts, should be more worried about what’s best for the jews than what’s best for Europeans; that “the world”, and especially European govts, should see a Europe without jews as unthinkable, and literally not think at all about what Europe will be like without Europeans.

A host can survive without a parasite. A parasite cannot survive without a host. Thus the jews equate expulsion to extermination. Jews, without the wealth and security wheedled out of Europeans, would cease to exist. Europe, without the parasitic load of the jews, would thrive – as Spain did after expelling its jews in 1492, and as Germany did as well in 1933.

Roth and Desire called for a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material.

This is needed today, Desire said, “to put the responsibility on those passing the message” such as Google and Twitter.

This the closest thing to a “new argument”, though it’s just the old methods applied to new technology, new forms of communication. The tactic suggested here is to leverage the influence and power jews already have over some governments in some places and couple it with the influence they have over certain internet corporations in order to impose the priorities and interests of jews over and above everyone else, everywhere else, all at once.

Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism, describes a separate but related push:

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

Let’s decode “Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”.

“Ethnic” is a euphemism for race – an ethnic group is a genetically and culturally (in other words racially) distinctive group.

The oldest ethnic groups in Europe are the Europeans, not the jews.

Jewish roots, genetically and culturally, are in the Levant, not Europe. Jews have quite consciously preserved their distinctiveness from Europeans for more than two millenia while living amongst Europeans.

The words “minority” and “exodus” allude to the jews’ victim narrative, and a reminder that it stretches back to Egypt, far more than 70 years ago and outside Europe.

The fact is that the jews, whomever the host among whom they live happens to be at any point in time, see themselves, organize and operate as a collective. This international lobbying, using their influence over some governments to influence other governments to “combat anti-semitism” is a perfect example.

The fact is that the jews have collectively imposed themselves upon virtually every European nation at one time or another. They have infiltrated, manipulated and exploited Europeans, moving and concentrating physically in each and every place Europeans have ever been or have ever gone. Today they manipulate Europeans collectively, via the EU.

“Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”? No. The jews are the oldest and most hostile alien interlopers in Europe. The jews have parasitized Europeans, who have for millenia served as their primary hosts.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

This is essentially an echo of the demands the jews put forth at the UN, but aimed more specifically at the EU. It is also more fleshed out with ready-made answers to those demands – an indication of the long-term, premeditated nature of the effort.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

This is the traditional approach jews have taken, disguising their concern for their interests by wrapping them up and conflating them with others. It’s not clear whether they want to ban burqas, or ban the banning of burqas. It hardly matters because whatever it is it’s subject to change depending on what the jews running the show demand tomorrow.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group,” says the document.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”

“Tolerance” and “freedom of expression” as defined by the jews, in the interests of security of the jews.

Amid acute European angst over multiculturalism, fundamentalist violence perpetrated on alleged religious grounds and the response of the state, the call for uniform rules across Europe is to be initiated this week in Prague at events commemorating the Holocaust and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Yet another reminder, amidst all the disposable universalist platitudes, that it is the holocaust narrative, the jews-as-victims-of-Europeans narrative, that the jews themselves provide as justification for the contempt and hostility they so constantly and freely express toward Europeans.

Age of Treason Radio

Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy

Audio 16 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

song_of_the_kosher_angels

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.

Blog

George Lincoln Rockwell speaking at UCLA 5/16/1967

Audio 6 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

george_lincoln_rockwell

In this relatively high-quality recording of George Lincoln Rockwell speaking at UCLA 5/16/1967 he covers many topics: How a jew editor distorted his Playboy interview (he did not live to answer Alex Haley’s jewed theatrical vision); losing Vietnam; how he was “almost a liberal” before he saw through the lies, e.g. Churchill’s 1920 article Zionism versus Bolshevism; how jews disguise their actions by putting non-jews on top and out front; the jewishness-as-religion fraud; the kosher tax; free speech and how jews stifle opposition by keeping others from reading/hearing what they hate (e.g. Rockwell, or Madison Grant’s Conquest of a Continent); on FDR whipping up hate during WWII; the name game, and more.

I wanted to put this speech on TFeed but I couldn’t find an audio file, so I downloaded the “video” from YouTube, transcoded it to mp3, and am making it available here for educational (i.e. fair use) purposes.

I found the image above (originally from Playboy, I presume) attached to From Ivory Tower to Privy Wall: On the Art of Propaganda at Daily Stormer – which provides another excellent example of Rockwell’s worldview.