Category Archives: Age of Treason Radio

Dilemmas False and True

Kikemagician

Elaborating on a brief exchange on Twitter concerning terminology, logic, and identity.

A_Linder on Twitter: “Whites won’t even divide up verbally, but persist in using language of the conqueror. “Antisemtism” & “racism” = #antiwhite clown concepts.”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 likewise xeno/homo/islamo-”phobia” – the jew psych-warfare packed right into the word”

Sigmund Freud and pseudo-scientific Freudianism is the best known example of this characteristically jewish psychological warfare – the identification of fear as not just irrational but wrong, psychopathological, baseless.

The seminal work of the Frankfurt school, the source of what is referred to as cultural marxism, is The Authoritarian Personality:

Some observers have criticized what they saw as a strongly politicized agenda to The Authoritarian Personality. Social critic Christopher Lasch[26] argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book’s goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” Similarly, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek wrote, “It is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity, however, that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in Gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views differed from theirs was insane.

Richard Hofstader pushed a similar agenda in 1964 with The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT the jew’s verbal strategy is forced false dilemma, which is a logical fallacy. works only if you control mass media.”

A dilemma is any problem with two potential solutions. It’s more than just a fork in the road. A dilemma has negative connotations, captured in common expressions such as “caught between a rock and a hard place” and “stuck on the horns of a dilemma”. “Choosing between the lesser of two evils” captures the essence of the US selection/election process over the past several decades.

A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that leverages a strong tendency toward binary thinking. “My way or the highway” and “noose or loose” are examples of this tactic. Binary thinking is baked into Aristotlian logic, the premise being that any statement must either be true or false, with nothing in between – the law of the excluded middle.

I’ve often encountered a false dilemma when arguing against the suicide meme. Apologists who describe what’s happening as White “suicide” are implicitly assigning jews 0% responsibility, and when challenged they pretend the exact opposite, that jews are 100% responsible, is the only other possibility. Neither extreme fits the asymmetric, parasitic nature of the relationship and the genocidal effect the jewish agenda is having on Whites.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT all their terms amount to: you’re either with us or agin us. and if you’re against us, you’re evil and should be suppressed”

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT One problem is PhDs on our side use clown terms like ‘antisemitism’ and ‘racism,’ thereby validating them.”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 they fear being seen as stupid/crazy/evil by their enemies, fear to even acknowledge that the enemy is an enemy”

The failing of our most intelligent, our would-be/could-be elite, is to clearly distinguish between peers and enemies, between Us and Them. To make a clear distinction is to expose oneself to ridicule and attack.

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 thoughts shape language, and vice-versa, when us/them-recognition works the proper language follows, reinforces it”

Tan Staafl on Twitter: “@A_Linder_5 which is why jews psychopathologize/demonize White us/them-recognition most of all – “put down the gun Whitey, do it now””

Terms like “racist” and “anti-semite” are terms of abuse, used to identify and intimidate enemies. They are “buzz terms”, packed with a pejorative payload, weaponized by repetition by supposed authorities, experts in academia and media. The mere recognition that such terms are used by enemies and represent an attack deprives them of their psychological punch and inspires a healthy response instead.

A_Linder on Twitter: “@TanstaaflAoT it’s sickly funny that the only verbal recognition of jew-commies’ mass murder of 100m last century is: political correctness”

See Master List of Politically Correct Terms (and Arguments, Frames, Concepts) at Vanguard News Network Forum.

Political correctness is the only term (or one of a few) which represents some form of pushback against the jewish agenda and jew rule. Joe Sobran suggested that it would be more appropriate to call it semitic correctness. “PC” is just a “PC” euphemism for SC.

Sobran also noted that “anti-semite” used to be someone who hates the jews, now it’s someone the jews hate. It hasn’t actually changed, both meanings co-exist. Whites almost always mistake it for the former, whereas jews have almost always used it to mean the latter. Before “anti-semite” was popularized in the 1870s the word jews used to identify their enemies was “Amalek”. Since the 1930s “Nazi” has been used for the same purpose.

A_Linder on Twitter: “It’s not hatred when jews attack whites. It’s humor. Edgy. Daring. Boundary breaking. It’s hatred, rather, when whites criticize jews.”

Excellent point. Charlie Hebdo is a recent illustration. Jews define “hate”, which is criminalized, but also “humor”/”satire”, which is given a pass. Semitically correct “humor”/”satire” can be magically transformed into “hate” by simply swapping the target.

There is a true dilemma facing Whites which jews take great pains to misrepresent as a false dilemma. Are jews White, or not? Jews clearly want Whites to see them as “white”, as allies, as Us, and to see anyone who argues otherwise as a stupid/crazy/evil “racist”, “anti-semite”, “hater”, as the enemy, as Them. For the most part they succeed. Yet jews also clearly see and speak about themselves as distinct from and at odds with Whites. Jew regard Whites not only as an Other, but as their bugbear, their eternal mortal enemy. The tragedy is that Whites generally do not recognize this enemy and their hostility, much less reciprocate.

Treason is Trending

the_poison_gobblet

Concerning the invasion of Europe, the US election cycle, and Donald Trump. The links below include the most significant articles and events discussed, along with the most relevant aspects of my previous commentary and analysis. All of it is connected to what I refer to here as the fundamental fraud of Western politics: the false idea that jews are White.

Links for the invasion of Europe (#refugeecrisis) highlighting the jewish narrative behind it:

Syria’s Refugees Feel More Welcome in Europe Than in the Gulf – Bloomberg Business

When Jewish people look at Calais migrants, we see ourselves | Laura Janner-Klausner | Comment is free | The Guardian

OPINION – Closing Europe’s borders is not the right answer to the refugee crisis :: World Jewish Congress

Is Branding Migrants a Shameful Throwback to Holocaust? – Breaking News – Forward.com

Refugee crisis: ‘Love the stranger because you were once strangers’ calls us now | Jonathan Sacks | Comment is free | The Guardian

Recalling Shoah, European Jews Urge Aid to Refugees – Breaking News – Forward.com

Jewish Groups Lead Push To Crack Open Doors to Syria Refugees – News – Forward.com

There’s No Stopping a Mass Migration That Will Alter the World – Opinion – Haaretz

Netanyahu: Israel ‘too small’ to absorb Syrian refugees | Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Merkel condemns ‘disgusting’ message of hate toward refugees | Reuters

Two examples of jews doing what jews do best – the constant backdrop, whatever else is going on. First, jews teach their children to clearly distinguish themselves from their primary host-enemies (Whites/Europeans):

Three-year-old ultra-Orthodox Jewish children told ‘the non-Jews’ are ‘evil’ in worksheet produced by London school – Education News – Education – The Independent

Meanwhile, “assimilated” jews dissimulate as “white” to better psychopathologize such behavior in their White host-enemies and preach toxic anti-White abnegation instead:

10 Ways White Liberals Perpetuate Racism | George Sachs, Psy.D.

Hightlights of the anti-White/pro-jew “left” response to Trump:

Twenty Thousand Considered Disappointing Turnout for Racist Event in Alabama – The New Yorker

Worse Than Hitler | KUNSTLER

Donald Trump 2016: Mobile, Alabama rally and the ghost of George Wallace – POLITICO

Behind Trump, the GOP Really Is Becoming the Racist Party – The Daily Beast

The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia | Rolling Stone

Donald Trump and white nationalism: Does the candidate’s rise represent the ascendency of a resentful white wing of the American right?

Trump the Fascist

Nazis and White Supremacists Love Donald Trump. You Know Who Else Nazis Loved? 

#NRORevolt, explained – Vox

Highlights of the anti-White/pro-jew #cuckservative #kikeservative “right” response to Trump:

Trump, Sanders, Immigration — Nationalism & Socialism | National Review Online

Donald Trump and the White Nationalists – The New Yorker

Are Republicans For Freedom or White Identity Politics?

Donald Trump’s Popularity — It’s Corrupting Conservatism| National Review Online

Donald Trump and the War on the Brains of the Right

Jonah Goldberg and the Anti-Trump Bourgeoisie – Breitbart

Some ill portents for the White supporters of future President Shitlord:

Trump: I Want a ‘Big, Fat, Beautiful, Open Door’ for Legal Immigrants – NBC News

Donald Trump: I don’t want David Duke’s endorsement – POLITICO

Sheldon Adelson Is Ready to Buy the Presidency — NYMag is a jewsmedia overview of the dominance jews (e.g. Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, etc) have over “the right”. Though the focus is on Sheldon Adelson the article touches on many aspects of jew rule. Among other things it refers to organized jewry organizing (across party lines) to counter and defeat the “anti-racist” blowback against Israel in the form of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement (BDS).

Obama’s Jewish problem: 10 principles that have guided his conversations with Jews about Israel.

“Jews, jews, jews! My head hurts!” Alex Jones debates David Duke 2015 08 18 full interview HQ – YouTube (mp3).

Related AoT podcasts and articles: Stupid/Crazy/Evil, Identity Politics, The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2, Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1, Moral Fraud, Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy, Anti-”Racism” is a Jewish Construct, Calling Out the Cuckery, Catching up with Kyle Hunt.

This just in, a transparent discussion of how the jews who fund “right” politics are hesitant to support Trump mainly because they so despise the Whites who will vote for him, whom they see not as a major demographic to appeal to, but as an obstacle to their agenda, a “more inclusive” (less White) party and country: Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans – News – Forward.com

Calling Out the Cuckery

aipac_politics

The term cuckservative is shaking up the American political discourse. It originated outside the corporate judaized mainstream, in reaction to the destructive, destabilizing, degenerate policies of the anti-White/pro-jew regime. Cuckservative is as insult, an accusation, an indictment aimed at those who participate in this poisonous regime by those of us who are sick and tired of being poisoned.

Cuckservative has gained traction so quickly because it strikes a big, fat, pulsing White nerve. The term is an expression of White racial grievance. It has crystallized and brought forth decades worth of pent up White anger, resentment at being lied to and betrayed by White political leaders who have been going along to get along, dog whistling what they have to to get elected, and then giving the country away to aliens, people whose thoughts and desires and behaviors are so different from ours that they alienate us even when they’re not physically hostile and dangerous.

There are many aspects of the term cuckservative and the reaction it’s creating that are good and indicate a shift in a positive direction for Whites. There are also a few aspects that cause some concern.

On the good side, the cuckservatives and their cuckers haven’t yet figured out how to effectively deflect or defuse the accusation. The main response has been no response. The relatively few defenses have so far been along the lines of, “that’s racist, this is coming from White supremacists”, which only confirms the charge that cuckservatives, and the system they serve, are anti-White. Another type of reaction – the insinuation or counter-accusation that the term is being pushed by “liberals” – reflects the blinkered bunker mentality that afflicts those Whites who continue to work within the anti-White regime. They so want to keep on working within it that they pretend it is all that really exists.

The term cuckservative is breaking through and spreading through White minds faster and more broadly than other explicit attempts to craft language to express White interests have been. Bob Whitaker’s mantra, which has been spreading gradually for years, was too wordy and ironically stated. Even the more recent, shorter slogans expressing the same basic sentiments – that anti-”racism” is code for anti-White and to fight White genocide – just haven’t spread as quickly as cuckservative has. I think these other terms have helped. They’ve prepared the ground, and they’ll probably enjoy more use going forward. Many Whites don’t want to be discriminated against for being White, but they still aren’t willing to identify positively as White. The polarization created by the term cuckservative will surely encourage more Whites to see that they do have a racial identity, that they do have racial interests. More will find the nerve to say, “Yes, I’m White, and I’m angry, because I can see the media, the schools, the laws, the government, the whole system is anti-White. It has been working against me and my kind. That’s not right, and it’s got to go.”

I’m also glad because I think cuckservative also takes the wind out of the sails of “White pathology”. That’s the truly pathological idea that Whites are a race of catladies, that we’re driving ourselves to extinction because our ancient altruistic hunter-gather personality traits are reasserting themselves, causing us to want to smile as we give everything over to the hostile, alien invaders flooding our former homelands. “White pathology” is the idea that we’re doing this to ourselves, or at least that we’re literally programmed to be exploited by others. That it’s in our DNA.

The attack on cuckservative demolishes this “White pathology” suicide meme in two ways. First, if it wasn’t already obvious that many Whites oppose the anti-White regime, the popularity of the cuckservative attack demonstrates that the White opposition is broader than many of us imagined. So, no, we’re not a race of catladies. Second, it takes two, or more, to cuck. Cuckservative better fits the reality than catlady, in the same way genocide fits better than suicide. The leaders who are selling out and betraying us aren’t catladies. They’re not impoverishing themselves serving nameless, faceless, agentless cats. They’re enriching themselves personally by serving the interests of anyone and everyone but Whites, other people who every day more freely express their own “vibrant” non-White/anti-White racial identity. The word cuck evokes the biological roots of the injustice, the despicable, disgusting, deplorable, exploitative nature of the crime.

I’ve made the argument many times that parasitism is a more accurate term for what’s happening. Cuckolding is just one aspect of parasitism. Cuckholding hints at sexual deviance and gives perverts a cheap thrill, whereas parasitism more completely encompasses the sick, subversive, collective nature of the phenomenon – the infiltration, manipulation, and exploitation of one group for the benefit of another.

So on the downside, the term cuckservative is not as clear or racially explicit as parasitism or “White genocide”. In fact it’s more popular because of that, because it offers some wiggle room for the merely less squishy Whites to point their finger at the more squishy Whites and say, “they’re the problem”. Some Whites are using cuckservative only because they think they can tell themselves and their critics that, really, they’re not racists, they’re just upset about their money being given away or their Christian values being trashed, by other White people. In other words, they’re not really conscious of their racial interests, much less that they have racial enemies.

Another reason the term is so popular (and another downside) is because it plugs into the mental mold of the existing system – it focuses attention on just one half of the left/right, liberal/conservative, two-faces-of-the-single-party that is judeo liberal democracy. There are in fact White cuckees and jew cuckers in both halves of the anti-White/pro-jew system. The left side is certainly more explicitly anti-White, and it is the increasing obviousness of this hostility which has brought the anger at cuckservatives, who are seen as capitulating to this obvious enemy. There is a false impression, which is only reinforced by the partisan roots of the word cuckservative, that the source of the hostility is “the left”, that it arises more from some abstract ideological wonkery rather than from an inherent and implacable racial animus.

The White traitors on the left are just more out of the closet about it. As Robert Frost put it way back in 1961, “A liberal is a man too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.” That captures a good part of the cuck mentality. We could call White liberals cuckerals, to match cuckservatives, but from what I’ve seen the terms libtard and shitlib are already far more popular.

There’s also some ambiguity to the term cuck which isn’t good. Calling someone a cuck could be taken to imply they’re a victim, that they’re the one being harmed. In the strict, biological sense of the word, you’re only being cuckolded if it’s your resources being taken and used to the benefit of another. That sense of the word technically fits someone like Jeb Bush, who married an anti-White mestiza, better than it fits a mere closeted queer RINO, like Lindsey Graham. But in both cases the outrage aimed at these two cuckservatives and others is collective, not personal. The politicians being called cucks are being accused mainly of giving away other people’s resources, the resources of their partisan base or race, not their own.

Which brings me to the last nit I have to pick with the term cuckservative. It mistakenly implies the traitor is weak, effeminate. In this way it is similar to the catlady slur. It’s easy to mock and taunt weaklings. They don’t fight back. But when you call these traitors out, and calling them cuck works well enough, they will fight. Generally speaking these are men and women who have risen to where they are in the poisonous anti-White environment because they have a lack of racial loyalty and a lack of scruples, not because they lack the will to seek and hold fast to personal power.

Still, as powerful as they may seem, the White traitors aren’t running the show. As I’ve just pointed out, they’re generally self-interested individuals. They aren’t really any more loyal to each other or their party or its abstract ideology than White voters. They aren’t in cahoots with each other either. The old boys club of White supremacy is long gone, not much more than a figment of jewish imagination at this point. It lives on in the imaginations of others mainly because of the propaganda the jews produce and distribute via media and academia.

What’s so demoralizing about the Whites at the top is that even the ones who aren’t actively selling out are keeping their mouths shut. They know that to even say something sympathetic about Whites, as a group, is “racist”, so they don’t. You occasionally hear someone say that cuckservatives, or other White politicians, are just afraid of being called names like “racist”. That isn’t accurate. A good part of their motivation is fear of pain. Fear of being punished, fear of being ostracized. It isn’t pain alone, and it isn’t a desire for power, fame or fortune alone. It’s both. It’s carrot and stick.

The jews are the ones wielding the carrots and sticks. The jews aren’t cucked. The jews aren’t White. The jews are the ones who are organized, and have always been organized, as a group. They’ve been organized and aggressing against Whites, from within White societies, for millenia. The jews are the source of the racial animus against Whites. The cucker is not “the left”, or “the right”, but the jews who fund and dictate the policies of both sides of the system. That’s why it is not just an anti-White system but a pro-jew system. That’s why the one unshakable principle that none of the White cucks, left or right, dares to question is jewish privilege. Jewish power is so thorough-going and secure inside America that jews have for decades been able to control American foreign policy to the painfully obvious benefit of Israel, a foreign ethnostate of jews, by jews, and for jews.

In the 1980s the well-known cuckservative William F. Buckley purged Joe Sobran from conservativism specifically for being insufficiently respectful of the jews and Israel. Since then jewish power has only grown. Nowadays every significant politician from every “Western” country sooner or later makes a pilgrimage to Israel to pay symbolic tribute to their jewish overlords.

Some of the people tossing around the cuckservative charge don’t realize it, yet, but the reason that term is bound to cause a real backlash from the regime isn’t because it embarrasses the traitors, or upsets the blacks or browns. It will be because it displeases the jews. The charge that White politicians are ignoring or betraying White political interests is a direct challenge to the jews and their narrative. Under the current zeitgeist Whites aren’t supposed to advocate for their interests as a group, that’s “racist”. If you do so with any hint that you understand that the jews are your opponents, not just standing in the way but the ones who are actively deconstructing and destroying White racial interests, then you’re a “nazi”.

Everybody knows the jewish narrative, that “racists” and “nazis” are not just wrong but crazy and evil. But the pols and pundits at the top also know that the first rule of jew rule is that nobody talks about jew rule. The notion that the jews and their interests are at the crux of it all this cucking business is already visible in some articles and comments. This may grow. I hope it does. That would be good for Whites.

The traitors certainly know who’s got the carrots and sticks. Super-cuckservative Mike Huckabee just recently provided an excellent example of both the dominant and unspeakable nature of the jews’ narrative and power. Huckabee tried to explain how he objects to the recent US nuclear agreement with Iran because he thinks it’s bad for the Israelis, and used the jewish holocaust narrative when he did it. He was immediately upbraided by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a jewess politician from “the left”. His crime, apparently, was using terms that the goyim aren’t supposed to use, even in service of the jews. She actually demanded an apology.

Politicians who aren’t traitors also know about jewish power. They also understand that there are penalties for speaking against it. From France there is news that the nationalist politician Jean-Marie Le Pen is going to be prosecuted, again, for confronting the primacy of the jews and their narrative. As The Independent reports:

The decision to prosecute followed the aging politician’s comments on French television in April when he said: “Gas chambers were a detail of the war, unless we accept that the war is a detail of the gas chambers.”

He responded to the new charges by referring to the recent public protests that followed the muslim attack on Charlie Hebdo. He said:

“I thought that millions of French people had marched for freedom of expression”

“I thought that included the right to blaspheme. And this is blasphemy, isn’t it? It is after all an almost religious point.”

(For context see Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do and Decoding Jew-Worship and Blasphemy.)

But that’s the moral of the jewish narrative, that the jews are paragons of virtue, the highest moral authority. Thus it is right that they dictate what’s good and bad, what’s allowed and not allowed. The White race traitors say and do what the jews tell them to, even if it makes for something that looks like a glaring contradiction – arguing open borders and multicult for the US and security and ethnic homogeneity for the jewish state, for example. Whether any of them actually believe the fairy tales the jews tell, or not, they know the jews will punish them if they misbehave. That threat, and the fear it inspires, is what looms behind all the cucking.

Dylann Raises the Roof

the_last_rhodesian

What is morality? What is sanity? What is heroism? Let’s start with the last one. The hero is an ancient European archetype, indeed it’s characteristically Aryan:

A hero or heroine is a person or character who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, displays courage or self-sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good. . . . Historically, the first heroes displayed courage or excellence as warriors. The word’s meaning was later extended to include moral excellence.

Stories of heroism may serve as moral examples.

Last month Andrew Anglin wrote an article, White Legends: Heroes Ransdell and Heimbach Troll Black Baseball Whiners! Matt Parrot and some other men whose names I don’t know were also there, in public, verbally confronting “yet another ‘racial injustice’ event, wherein a group of crybabies was giving a press conference about how sad it is that Black people get arrested for committing crimes”.

That is heroism. They faced danger and adversity from a position of weakness, displayed courage and self-sacrifice for the greater good. The greater good of their people. White people.

They didn’t make the ultimate self-sacrifice, but nobody has to lose their life in order for their act to be seen as heroic, just as they don’t have to escape with their life in order for some cowardly act to be seen as such. A hero doesn’t have to succeed, though it’s more likely he’ll be remembered if he does. Heroism isn’t a popularity contest. You can be a hero in the eyes of just one person, or nobody, while everyone else sees you as nothing better than an enemy or a troublemaker. This is true of Ransdell, Heimbach, Parrot, the others who accompanied them, and all the Whites who have ever acted in the face of danger in the interests of their race. They are heroes.

A few days ago I wrote a short article, Dylann Goes Through the Roof. I wanted to make just a few simple points, then and now. It was and still is difficult to be sure what happened and why. I think the comment Roof was purported to have made at the time was telling: “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. You have to go.” I think his purported manifesto is in line with that sentiment and fleshes it out. Hopefully he’ll get a chance to speak for himself in court and make it even clearer.

My main purpose in writing was to highlight the broader backdrop, the poisonous influence of the jewsmedia and the miasma of implacable non-White anti-White hostility. To confront this situation I said Whites need positive, unapologetic leaders who understand, even if only intuitively, that White concerns and morality, starting with the very definition of right and wrong, can only be legitimately rooted in what is healthy or unhealthy for Whites, as a group.

I think that was not quite right. I think the problem is that it’s not just leaders but Whites generally who need to understand this, because if they did, then they wouldn’t tolerate anything less from their would-be leaders. I don’t want to tear down those who put themselves forth as leaders. I’m not fit to lead myself. But I do think Whites need to reexamine their values, to think about and get the basics straight. We need, for example, to understand what morality and sanity and heroism really mean. I think the root of the problem lies in our minds, in the general confusion on these elementary concepts. Because Whites think within the limits and using terms which are literally defined by a hostile, parasitic group which is only concerned about it’s own best interests. Blacks are violent and destructive, but it is the jews who define any such understanding as out of bounds, as “politically incorrect” “hate speech”.

When Roof’s manifesto came to light his motives became clearer. Thanks to the internet, even though he was only 21 he apparently understood the basics. He understood enough to make many of the White racialists who have criticized or condemned him look foolish for leaping to the conclusion that he must have been stupid or crazy or evil.

Alex Linder twitted, Roof is a hero. The Holocaust is a giant hoax. Whites are the good guys. Jews are the bad guys. Any questions? #vnnforum and I personally thank Dylann Roof for his sacrifice. I appreciate that he did it to protect my race, which is under genocidal assualt. #hero.

My initial reaction was simple caution, to avoid senseless speculation or condemnation. I have to admit I felt reluctant to think of Roof as a hero. But I think it’s more fitting than condemning him. If he wrote that manifesto and that’s really why he did what he did, then Dylann Roof is a hero. Literally. He faced danger and adversity from a position of weakness, displayed courage and self-sacrifice for the greater good. The greater good of his people. White people.

White racialists can criticize his actions and argue about whether this actually was his purpose, or whether he helped or harmed that purpose. But that is the measure, the moral compass, the moral standard they should be using. Does it serve the greater good of Whites? That is the moral attitude Whites need to have in order to survive and thrive. Right now most Whites lack this basic understanding, this very basic healthy sense of group identity, the willingness to take their own side, together, against anything or anyone harmful is why we are currently in a one-sided race war.

Whites won’t organize along racial lines, and are running away from the reality of race rather than confronting it. It’s no surprise why. We’re propagandized from birth that Whiteness is not only stupid and crazy but pure evil. In other words, immoral. Forget about fighting back with guns. Even thinking that there’s something worth fighting back for is depicted as evil. Roof saw through this fraud. More than that, he eventually saw that it was a deliberate lie, not random. He was shocked when he realized that the mass media was lying about race. He says he understands the Jewish problem. I don’t think he appreciates the depth of it. But for that matter many older and more experienced racialists don’t either. As it is he understands more than I did at his age.

My point is that to be good leader, a moral leader, in fact to be a good moral normal healthy White person, you don’t have to say anything positive about Roof, or what, why, or how he did what he did. But you shouldn’t be joining in the mindless chorus condemning him out of hand. If you’re afraid you’ll look bad unless you say something negative, waving your hands about morality and senselessness, stop yourself. Who will look bad to whom, exactly? What might you say that could help your race? If you can’t answer such questions then say nothing. If you’re put on the spot, recall the Five Words: “I have nothing to say”. That bit of wisdom doesn’t only apply when you’re being questioned by the police.

My point is that nervous Whites condemning one of their own and explaining how sad they are about dead niggers only further demoralizes Whites, because we sense that it’s a lie, a sign of White weakness. It also emboldens the non-Whites, who get the same sense of it, but even more clearly because they’re more racially conscious. As Roof explained, he felt compelled to act because he saw nobody else was doing so. Whites have been apologizing and retreating since before Roof was born.

Let’s move on to sanity. Here I’m thinking of the many White critics who called Roof’s actions senseless.

As with morality, racialists often talk about sanity without identifying or perhaps even thinking about it as such. I’ve talked about it quite a bit over the past six months – “White pathology”, “pathological altruism”, gaslighting, narcissism, and even trans-reality all have as much to do with sanity as they do with morality. The two are closely related.

Like morality, sanity is a basic concept that most Whites misunderstand. In general terms we see sanity as something good and desirable. Nobody wants to be insane. As it turns out, even the psychologists and psychiatrists who specialize in understanding such issues have trouble agreeing what exactly constitutes sane versus insane or unsane behavior.

None of the specialists will say it, but the reason for the confusion about sanity is the same as the confusion over heroism and morality. The jews literally define what these terms mean. That’s why when Bruce Jenner decides he’s a woman, that makes him a hero in the eyes of the jewsmedia. And for the same reason, anyone who thinks Jenner is just insane is regarded as morally defective. Intolerant is what they call it, meaning you don’t agree with what the jews want you to believe. Thus you’re not simply wrong, you’re evil.

It works by extension, indirectly. Jews set the tone. Others adopt their definitions because they hear the media megaphones, they see the herd mooing a bit and changing direction. They maybe even tell themselves it’s “sane” to want to keep in line with everyone else rather than defying what everybody else seems to have accepted and getting trampled or left behind or roughed up as a consequence.

Is it sane for White politicians to advocate that their country take in more “migrants” and “refugees”, to seek them out and escort them in? Of course it is, if sane means recognizing and doing what is most likely to advance your career. Some people misdescribe this as “suicide”. It’s really the exact opposite. It’s somebody doing something that they fully expect will benefit themselves personally, regardless of what harm it causes others.

Now here’s the nub of it. Anders Breivik, in Norway, very deliberately targeted this traitorous class and their children. Alot of people said he was insane. But do you think those traitorous politicians would still consider what they’re doing sane if there were more supposedly insane attacks like Breivik’s? Wouldn’t it actually start to concern some of these highly self-interested politicians to think that beside the reward there might be some real cost for their treason? Might some of them come to see the sense in finding a new definition of sanity? Maybe start arguing that it would be right and just to start sinking those damned boats full of invaders?

Likewise, do you think blacks would be more likely or less likely to attack Whites if there were more counter-attacks like Roof’s? That’s the hypothetical I’d like racialists to consider. Do you think your people would be better off with more Breiviks and Roofs, or less?

I think more. I think that the White race’s problem is that there aren’t more White men who see the world around them in the truly sane and morally clear terms Breivik and Roof (apparently) think in, and act accordingly. I think there aren’t more because White men are confused and demoralized. I think there are plenty who are deluded by the jewsmedia and their propaganda, who end up wasting their lives on truly senseless, insane, and immoral pursuits. They may face danger and adversity. They may display courage and self-sacrifice. They may even be called heroes by the jewsmedia and their deluded friends and family. But they’re not doing it for the greater good of their people, or even their country or family. Instead they kill and get killed for the benefit of aliens, to advance the interests of hostile racial enemies, maybe for a bit of money or excitement for themselves. It’s pathological. It’s immoral. It’s insane.

Those who condemn Roof especially because he attacked blacks in a church, describing it as senseless, aren’t thinking very clearly themselves. The conclusion of Roof’s manifesto outlines a perfectly sensible reason:

I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country.

That church has great anti-White significance, or as the jewsmedia puts it, a “rich history”:

Civil rights luminaries spoke from its pulpit and led marches from its steps. For nearly 200 years it had been the site of struggle, resistance and change.

Also:

The Wednesday evening shooting occurred a day after the June, 16, 1822 slave rebellion, organized by Denmark Vesey, who was revered as one of the founders of the Emanuel AME Church. The house of worship is the oldest AME church in the southern part of the country.

That church has very likely been a hub of recent activism too, during this past year’s worth of #blacklivesmatter, #handsupdontshoot, #icantbreathe complaining. Given the contents of Roof’s manifesto, it’s likely he understood that the target he selected, like many other “black churches”, has historically served essentially as a racial headquarters for pro-black/anti-White warfare. Much like mosques serve muslims.

Trans-Reality

fluid_frauds_dolezal_jenner

We’re going to compare and contrast two recent controversies, one involving Bruce Jenner, the other involving Rachel Dolezal. And of course we’ll also discuss what this all has to do with the jews.

The two controversies revolve around the same core issue – the poisonous concept of fluidity, an extension of identity politics, which is itself an extension of the constantly metastasizing jewish intellectual movement known as cultural marxism or multiculturalism. Fluidity is the idea that individuals have a right to choose who they are, to be what they want to be, that social considerations or even physical biological realities are not or should not be any real constraint. It’s the idea that what what you think and believe and imagine you are matters more than anything else.

This idea of fluidity is part of a larger social context in which integration, mixing, blurring, “diversity” – anything degenerate, really – is put forth by cultural and political elites as right and good, and thus something that can and has been compelled by force. Meanwhile anything separate, homogeneous, with clear borders – anything necessary for the continuity and survival of a people, really – is portrayed as wrong and even evil, and thus can and has been targeted for destruction.

Such an abstract and objective description is really just the universalist sugarcoating over a deeper fraud, a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the racial animus that’s behind multiculturalism, driving it all. The driving force and it’s goals are not at all universalist but utterly particularist. It is really all about tearing down and destroying anything and everything European or White. It’s about marching through the institutions created and formerly dominated by Whites, now dominated by jews, and using those positions of authority to denounce Whites, to make the world safe for the jews first and foremost.

Clouding the issue is the fact that the jewish nature of this aggression has all along been largely disguised, cloaked by the earlier promotion and preeminence of “liberalism” – particularly secularism, individualism, and pluralism. The aggression has advanced most recently under the pretense of promoting “freedom” and “tolerance” and “equality” for everyone, even as the efforts have become ever more especially and obviously to secure special preferences and privileges for various “minorities”, and accompanied by ever shriller condemnations of “White supremacy”, “White privilege”, and Whites generally.

Identity politics is only superficially about everyone having and celebrating their unique identities equally. Behind the facade it’s a thoroughly jewish construct. It’s about jews with a strong jewish identity and racial animus for Whites spinning a historic narrative of victimhood and oppression. Jews and their holocaust narrative are at the absolute center, serving as the template, defining and driving a larger coalition of narrowly self-interested deviants, degenerates, feminists, and non-White “people of color”, inciting and uniting and directing them against Whites, and especially White heterosexual men.

So it’s against this cultural backdrop that we have in the first instance this idea of fluid gender in the spotlight, focused at the moment on Bruce Jenner, a famous White man, Olympic gold medal winner, married three times, father of four children. Jenner declared that he had long wished he was a woman and had finally resolved that he would undergo surgery to make himself look more like one physically. He then appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, dressed in a woman’s swimsuit, sporting breast implants, long hair, and makeup. The caption read, “Call me Caitlyn”, the new name Jenner has selected for himself. The jewsmedia celebrated.

Unfortunately, most of us have heard of this kind of sexual deviance before – transexuals, trannies, the T in LGBT – but Jenner’s fame and the jewsmedia’s hoopla took the already toxic contemporary popular culture to a whole new level of bizarre. What’s new about transgenderism is that it goes beyond tolerating a mentally deranged individual’s desire to be something they’re not, and becomes a metric by which everyone else’s value is measured by their willingness to say they approve of behavior that should repulse anyone healthy and normal. Abnormal and unhealthy are the new normal and healthy.

Late last week the other controversy sprang up, this one around a relatively unknown local leader of a black political organization named Rachel Dolezal. The initial report concerned her claim that she was the victim of “hate”, her 8th or 9th such complaint in as many years. This time around she claimed she had received a letter whose contents she found offensive. Pictures of nooses or whatever. This time it was also almost certainly a hoax, since the letter was supposedly received at a post office box that only herself and her staff had access to, and yet it’s stamp had not been cancelled, signifying that it had not actually been handled by anyone at the post office.

The jewsmedia regularly announces “hate” crimes, and almost as regularly but more quietly and ambiguously announce the corresponding hoaxes, when the supposed victim actually turns out to be the perpetrator. What made the Dolezal story stand out was the revelation that she had all along been hoaxing her blackness, that she was in fact a White woman who had simply frizzed her hair, darkened her skin, and passed herself off as black.

In Dolezal’s case the spotlight is shining on transrace, the fluidity of race. Coming so soon after the celebratory circus the jewsmedia had made about Jenner, the glaring similarity of their bizarre pretense is easy to see, and easy to mock. A glaring contrast is also clear. The jewsmedia which hailed Caitlyn Jenner has been either ambivalent or disapproving about Dolezal. The most common theme is an irrational insistence that the two situations are completely different.

The size, swiftness, and character of the public response has been telling in it’s own way. However relentless and pervasive the jewish promotion of the lie that neither race nor gender are rooted in biology, it is a lie, and many people aren’t buying it. The general consensus, in social media for sure, but even in the jewsmedia, is that Dolezal is a fraud, that she can’t possibly be black because she has no black ancestors. In other words, when it comes to racial identity, genes are the decisive factor. What Dolezal’s case demonstrates is that you can feel black, marry black, go to a black school, dedicate your life to serving blacks, you can look and act and you might even be mistaken as black, but none of that can actually make you black. For that you have to have black ancestors.

The case is similar for Jenner, though the jewsmedia treats it as though it is different. Despite Jenner’s surgery he’ll never really be a woman. The jewsmedia hype about him will in fact make it less likely he will even be able to even sincerely fool anyone. Just like Dolezal now that she’s been outed.

There are a few articles about these controversies that I’d like to cite, read excerpts from, and comment on, tying into and adding to what I’ve already said. However tempting it may be to simply disregard what’s happening and chalk it all up to insanity, the overarching point I’d like to make is that there is some sense that can be made of this if we read between the lines.

Paul McHugh, the former Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital, wrote an article about Jenner titled, Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme, published on the web site Public Discourse. McHugh noted that what is today called transgenderism used to be a rare phenomenon but has dramatically increased in recent years. He describes this pathological behavior as “mental unrest” and attributes it’s spread to the spread of a pathogenic meme:

The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.

. . .

But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.

I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims.

. . .

Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

Emperor’s clothes indeed, but even McHugh’s truth-telling is couched in semitically correct compassion for the most botched. The suicides are only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the harm is being done to the many more otherwise healthy men and women whose minds are more subtly poisoned by this pathologenic transgender meme, who as a consequence will never form a proper family, and thus never reproduce.

McHugh does at least try to identify the source and driving force. He notes that:

both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters

Furthermore:

The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.

But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.

McHugh’s diagnosis of transgenderism dovetails very well with Kevin MacDonald’s description of the jewish culture of critique. A comparable diagnosis surely applies to transracialism. At the center of the moral fury in both cases is the jewish holocaust narrative.

Another psychologist commented was quoted in an article at People.com titled, Psych Expert: Rachel Dolezal Not Like Caitlyn Jenner. The author claims that “most people” think Jenner and Dolezal have “very little in common” but:

Some commenters on the internet likened Dolezal to someone who is “transracial”

To explain how “very different” transracial is from transgender she quotes a “racial identity expert”, who says:

“I would say being LGBTQ, there is strong evidence that there is a biological [reason behind it],” . . . “Caitlyn Jenner is not identifying with being a woman because of the upbringing and cultural conditioning.”

This is at odds with what McHugh described as the pathogenic meme behind transgenderism, “the idea that sex is a feeling, not a biological fact”. I think McHugh’s view is far more credible for reasons I’ll describe in a bit.

Concerning the problematic internet comments connecting transgender to transracial:

“I think [the comparison] is all an attempt to not really see the issue. The issue is deception, honesty and pretense. You have to get to the bottom of that.”

The “expert” is referring here to the jewsmedia talking point, popping up in many places now, that the big difference is that Dolezal was a fraud, dishonest. The reality is that Jenner, if he’s telling the truth now, has admitted that he has been lying to his friends and family for a much longer time.

The reality is that the idea that gender is not essentially biological is just as false as the idea that race is not essentially biological. Both ideas are a very deliberate deception. As McHugh puts it, anyone who confronts the deception faces fury.

The issue here is honesty, says the “racial identity expert”. The name of this expert, according to the article, is Derald Wing Sue. The article fails to identify Sue as a professional non-White anti-White. As his page at Wikipedia describes him:

Sue was born in Portland, Oregon to a Chinese American family. He lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, with his parents, four brothers, and one sister[3] where was reportedly bullied and teased on a regular basis, due to his race[4] which later influenced his studies in cross cultural counseling.[5] Two individuals who influenced Sue’s path of study were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.[3]

. . .

first president of the Asian American Psychological Association

. . .

Sue’s ethnic minority status was his biggest influence in pushing for multiculturalism in psychology.

What’s more, Sue teaches this pathogenic meme known as “White privilege”. It’s the explicit premise of a presentation of his on the internet titled, What Does It Mean to Be White. It describes how he did some “research” that sounds like a stripped down version of the Whiteness Project I wrote about in November of 2014. In academia the word Whiteness is a deception. What it really describes is anti-Whiteness.

When this chinaman asked Whites what Whiteness means to them they mostly claimed they didn’t know, didn’t care. They were visibly disturbed and agitated by the question. He also asked non-Whites, and they revealed their sympatico with the “White privilege” meme Sue teaches – they see Whites as oblivious of their “privilege”, and they think being White means always being right, never having to explain yourself or apologize.

The fact that a racial alien who has not only demonstrated his anti-White animus but is actually paid to do so is called upon by the jewsmedia to comment on the behavior of White people in any way is a good sign that Whites do not have any tangible political power, never mind privilege.

The NAACP Statement on Rachel Dolezal came shortly after she was outed as White:

One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. . . . the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.

More deception. This is a good example of a particularist organization trying to cloak itself with universalist-sounding rhetoric. What the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is claiming is that it doesn’t discriminate against anyone who is willing to help them advance black interests.

On Monday Dolezal announced her resignation. She made no apologies. Instead she reiterated her commitment to “human rights” and advancing black interests.

Dave Chappelle a black who has made a career out of joking about race was serious about Dolezal:

“The world’s become ridiculous,” he told the awestruck grads at George Washington University’s Lisner auditorium. “There’s a white lady posing as a black lady. There is not one thing that woman accomplished that she couldn’t have done as a white woman. There’s no reason!

I think this reflects the poisonous effect that “White privilege” propaganda has even on blacks. They see even deranged Whites like Dolezal as golden, simply because she’s White. The false assumption is that Whites have even one university which teaches a positive view of our race, or even one organization that can provide us a with a stable career working for the advancement of our race. The truth is that Dolezal’s anti-White career was, materially speaking at least, far easier to pursue and more lucrative than any pro-White career. The race-based “storm” she says she’s experienced for a few days, and couldn’t take, is a taste of what she would have faced on a regular basis as a White woman openly trying to advocate for the advancement of her own race out of an office in Spokane.

The New York Times, the belly of the jewsmedia beast, ran an article titled Black or White? Woman’s Story Stirs Up a Furor:

Faking a racial history, in either direction, raises difficult questions about what race is and why it matters, and about the assumptions people make.

Jim Crow laws often imposed a “one-drop rule” so that people with even a sliver of black ancestry, no matter how white they appeared, were legally considered black. It is only because of that history that Ms. Dolezal could be accepted as black, said Martha A. Sandweiss, a history professor of Princeton University.

“There was very little to be gained by identifying yourself as black, so if you did, no one questioned it,” said Ms. Sandweiss, author of “Passing Strange,” an acclaimed book about a man who did just that in the late 19th century. “It shows how absurd racial classifications often are.”

What the Dolezal incident demonstrates is that there is something to gain, and there’s a new one-drop rule. No matter how black you appear, you need at least a sliver of black ancestry. So far as I know the current anti-White regime has squelched or avoided any legal challenge of it. Dolezal sued Howard University for discrimination against her, as a White woman. She lost.

Martha Sandweiss is another one of these deceptive “experts” on race. In fact, it appears she’s transracial, like Dolezal but different in an important way. From what I can tell she’s actually a jewess who’s posing as “white”. And like the chinaman “expert”, her expertise, her profession, is being critical of Whites.

There was an article about Sandweiss in the Princeton Alumni Weekly in 2009, with a title based on her jewsmedia-acclaimed book, Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception Across the Color Line. American Renaissance reprinted it in 2009 under the title A Strange Double Life. The jewess’ double life as “white” went unmentioned.

If this story reminds readers of The Human Stain, Philip Roth’s novel about a half-black, half-white man passing as white and Jewish, you’re not alone. Sandweiss thought of it frequently during the four-and-a-half years she spent writing Passing Strange, especially with the number of times she had to fill in historical blanks.

“That was absolutely an inspiration for this book. I admire that book so much, how Roth gets inside of his character’s heads and imagines their motivations. Certainly many times working on this book I wished I was a novelist so I could narrate with a kind of a magnificent omniscience what’s really going on here.

“But I’m not a novelist, and I’m certainly not a brilliant novelist like Philip Roth. I’m a historian who lives and dies by her footnotes. This is a history book.”

(Uptown Girls is Sandweiss’ 2013 NYT review of Miss Anne in Harlem by Carla Kaplan. More of the same – concerning the “fiction of race”, the “absurdity of the one-drop rule”, and effusive praise for a tribemate spreading similar poisonous memes.)

Here’s why the jewsmedia attitude toward the transracial idea is generally negative even while their attitude toward transgender is positive. The jews deliberately promote fluidity of both race and gender, but the fluidity of race is of more critical importance to their parasitic lifestyle. Promoting a certain one-way belief in the fluidity of race helps enable jewish infiltration and manipulation of their hosts. The promotion of gender fluidity comes later, as part of the exploitation and parasitic castration of their hosts. Naturally jews are interested in racial identity and passing, thus they set themselves up as authorities on these subjects. They think deeply about these things, but they don’t want their hosts thinking too deeply about it.

Last week Andrew Joyce published a good article following up and expanding on a point I took issue with in Gaslighting. In Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in “Whiteness Studies” Joyce examines not just Noel Ignatiev but the jewy clique around him. He doesn’t directly address gender or race fluidity, but he does at least identify the jewish source and driving force behind these poisonous anti-White memes.

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.

Joyce gets less coherent toward the end when he tries to tie it in with his previous description of “White pathology” and “suicide”:

One major factor facilitating this ethnically suicidal behavior is the ongoing Jewish domination of academia and the constant mutation of what may loosely be termed ‘Frankfurt School’ ideologies into superficially novel intellectual movements. There is really nothing novel at all about ‘Whiteness studies.’ It is simply the latest guise for the radical critique of White culture and, all Talmudic logic about ‘race as a construct’ aside, the active promotion of White genocide. The hypocrisy of the Jewish architects of ‘Whiteness studies’ is self-evident — made clear in their total lack of identification with Whites, and in their very strong identification with Jewish culture and group interests. It is tragic, criminal in fact, that this corrupt cabal of ethnic activists and dysfunctional Communist wannabe-Jews has hijacked positions on faculty, has obtained access to elite publishing outlets, and with it, significant power and influence over culture.

The second factor at play in the success of ‘Whiteness studies’ is the ongoing problem of White pathology. One side of white pathology is altruism towards other races. The even more insidious side is the tendency towards self-hate.

Even according to the details of his own description of the non-jews who were involved as wannabe-jews, it’s really the same single factor – a jewish intellectual movement. I find it frustrating that a mainstream figure like McHugh won’t mention the jews, but will at least identify the ideas jews promote as pathogenic, whereas Joyce will bluntly identify the jews and what they’re doing, but still talks about the pathological behavior of Whites as if it’s something separate.

To conclude, the gist of what I’m getting at this time, which bears repeating, is that abnormal is the new normal. Trans-reality is a jewish construct.

Now more clearly than ever before in history, the problem is jewish rule. The fact is that jews are so powerful and privileged that hardly anyone in any position of power dares to openly challenge them or any of their cultural or moral dictates, no matter how obviously destructive. When supposed leaders and pundits aren’t snickering nervously, mocking “conspiracy theories” about “the jooos”, they’re loudly proclaiming their respect and admiration for jews, as a group, as a people, and denouncing anyone who doesn’t as the enemy, as literally evil. It’s more bizarre really than even the controversies around Jenner and Dolezal.

My point is that jews clearly use their influence in media and academia to define and promote pathogenic memes – the fluidity of gender and race are just two prominent examples. They do this because it’s good for the jews. They benefit from the almost-anything-goes atmosphere they create. In particular, they are the foremost practitioners of transracialism. They’ve used it throughout their history, not just recently, and not only to infiltrate and manipulate White hosts.

Shanda fur die Goyim

whiny_alien

We’re going to decode this term and a few others for the goyim.

It is a perfectly normal reaction for Whites to find Yiddish or Hebrew off-putting, alienating. It’s natural to interpret such words as, “not for me”, and get the urge to go read or listen to something else. The author or speaker who chooses such words, rather than plain English, is sending a signal, expressing their jewishness. And when you perceive jews as the enemy, the disgust and urge to ignore any thought or argument coming from a jewish point of view becomes even stronger.

Regardless of how you might perceive the jews, what I intend to do here is make the case that the jews see the non-jews around them as their enemies. Any form of codespeak would be an indication of this – but the term “shanda fur die goyim” really puts a point on it.

First, let’s review some of the superficial explanations that jews themselves provide.

Instant Yiddish:

Shame on you for not knowing what “shanda” means!

“shanda” is the Yiddish word for “shame, disgrace, disgusting”

. . .

And not knowing what “shanda” means is a double shanda!!

So shanda is a code word, in that most non-jews don’t know it, though it’s relatively well understood among jews. The scandal, for a jew, is in not knowing that code word.

I found these “Instant Yiddish” pages using a search engine. They’re buried on the personal web site of some jew named Joel Aronson, not linked from the home page or site map. All you can gather from the surface is that Aronson is a photographer who graduated from James Madison High School in Brooklyn in 1955. But based on the names of his classmates, the school must have been full of jews.

The point is that Aronson doesn’t come right out and advertise himself as a jew – in fact, he likely hides the yiddish pages from sight exactly because it is such a definitive marker of jewishness. When I was growing up in New York I had a math teacher named Aronson – he was quirky, even spastic. It never occurred to me then that it was because he was a jew. I wonder now how many yiddish terms he sprinkled in his lessons, or conversations with other teachers, sending the signal, “I’m a jew”, mainly heard only by other jews.

I found another definition buried on the web site of the Santa Barbara Jewish Connection, Yiddish Phrases:

SHANDA: A shame, a scandal. The expression “a shanda fur die goy” means to do something embarrassing to Jews where non-Jews can observe it.

The subtitle of the page is: “The First Words You Learn”, with shanda being one of about 150 of the more common bits of jewish code. The scandal is not “for the goyim”, but for the jews in front of the goyim.

The usual jew cover story is that goy/goyim mean nation/nations. In practice, however, it means Them, the Other, and it has a distinct pejorative sense. Gentile is a synonym with a less disparaging, derogatory sense, but the point is that the very existence of these words indicates that jews see a clear distinction between themselves and Others, between jew and goy.

The classic example of the distinction is in the yiddish phrases yiddische kopf (jew head, smart) and goyische kopf (non-jew head, stupid).

Thought Catalog, which on the surface is not any more of a jewish site than say The New Republic or Slate, has a page titled 61 Hilarious Yiddish Insults You Need To Know:

51. Shanda: A scandal. … If you have a “shanda fur die goy,” that means that you fuck up in front of non-Jews, thus embarrassing your entire people. This is obviously not good.

Obviously not good for the jews.

Usually the term is only used by jews talking to other jews. Even when overheard it’s easy to misunderstand. You might take it to mean that jews feel bad about non-jews being harmed. That’s not it at all. It means they feel bad because they think it might cause jews harm, that whatever the scandal is might be bad for the jews.

A certain ambiguity is characteristic of yiddish. As programmers say: This is a feature, not a bug. It is a consequence of jewish crypsis, being furtive and secretive. Even when jews stop trying to hide their alien code and instead try to explain the significance of certain words, or the language itself, you must remain skeptical, cynical, and read between the lines.

A good example comes from The Daily Beast, a really jewy digital tabloid. Mazel Tov, Arvind! But Are You Sure It’s Not Kneydl?

The article highlights jewishness, their sense of Otherness, and how it is expressed via yiddish. The jew author absolutely revels in it. He recounts how an Indian kid won a spelling bee in the US by spelling this yiddish word kneydl. The joke is that yiddish is notorious for variations in spelling.

The jew provides the usual cover story. Jews just can’t agree, have no central authority – the old “two jews, three opinions” nonsense. That’s part of it, but it leaves out the most important facts.

The fact is that yiddish always has and continues to effectively serve as a code language. From a non-jew perspective the many variations in spelling make it harder to pin down, harder to search, though the internet makes it much easier than it ever would have been in the past.

Yiddish is so informal and quirky for the simple reason that it has almost entirely been passed down verbally, via jew to jew personal interaction. The jews did this on purpose, rather than writing books about it, though they very well could have, as they have done with every other imaginable subject.

As it turns out I did find a book specifically about yiddish. The exception proves the rule.

Dictionary of Yiddish Slang and Idioms, by Fred Kogos, published 1968 by Kensington Publishers:

When Hitler killed 6,000,000 Yiddish-speaking jews and when Israel proclaimed Hebrew was to be the official tongue of the nation, these actions spelled the death kneel [sic] of Yiddish.

Hebrew is spoken only by about 2,000,000 people in Israel, and a few abroad, while Yiddish is still spoken by, and known to, over 10,000,000 throughout the world! Yiddish is creeping into the English language more startlingly than is apparent, with even Webster’s Third International Dictionary containing over 500 Yiddish (and some Hebrew) words.

Kogos claims his book spells out Yiddish words for “the first time in Roman letters”, implying it had previously always been written in Hebrew characters – more evidence that jews intended to keep it to themselves.

Kogos claims its beginnings go back to the 11th century, that the “principle parent” is Middle High German with some influence from English, Hebrew, Russian and Polish, and that there are 4 major dialects: “Lithuanian, Ukrainian (Galicia), Polish, and Western (German)”.

The bulk of the book is omitted from Google books, including the entry for shanda.

Regarding “Kensington Publishers”. It doesn’t look like it, but Kensington is another code word.

The original Kensington is an area of West London.

It is also “a small and easily overlooked neighborhood of Brooklyn” which “has long had a vibrant Jewish community”.

It might also refer to Kensington Market, a neighborhood in Toronto that became known as “the jewish market” after waves of jews colonized it in the early 20th century.

Since the 1970s, the city has been home to the largest Jewish population in Canada and become a centre of Jewish Canadian culture.” In other words, the largest colony of jews in Canada is in Toronto, and Kensington is the historic epicenter of the colony of jews in Toronto.

Kensington is an example of jews creating a ghetto and segregating themselves – counter to the usual jewish narrative that jews were forced to live in ghettos by others.

The Schmooze, by some old jewess, It’s a Shanda:

In Yiddish, “shanda”/”shande” means “shame.” And “shande far di kinder” means, literally, “a disgrace for the children.”

Arthur Naiman writes about the expression, “a shanda fur die goyim”: “To make a shanda fur die goyim is to do something embarrassing to Jews in a place where non-Jews can observe it. Understandably, this is looked on with much greater disfavor than to act like a jerk when only other Jews are around, since it makes things tougher on all of us–”Those damned Jews! See what they’re like.”

The old jewess provides examples, including “Madoff – the ‘ganef’”, “Jack Abramoff – convicted of mail fraud, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and tax evasion” and,

Selling organs is a “shande”

She cites some jew who suggested Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer get out of politics in an article titled:

“The Shanda Factor: What makes Jewish sex scandals different?”

For much of his career, Spitzer was a source of pride to Jews, with some supporters referring to him as having the potential to become the first Jewish president. In the blogosphere ethnic pride, when the scandal broke, the Web site, Gawker, proclaimed it’s a “shanda fur die Goyim.

When the jewish university Brandeis granted Tony Kushner an honorary doctorate some outraged jew wrote:

Tony Kushner is an anti-Zionist self hating shatdlan who never had a moral compass even in his genes nor has he any sense of Yiddishkeit. Brandeis has committed a SHANDE.

Yiddishkeit means “jewishness”, “jewish way of life”, “jewish essence” – or yiddishness. It is typified by jews moaning about a shanda or oy veying about something or other.

We find more about the essence of jewishness at yiddishkayt.org which greets visitors with the slogans “OPEN YOUR BORDERS” and “SHAKE UP YOUR PERSPECTIVE”. To them yiddishkayt means “the culture, language, art, and worldviews of Eastern European Jews”.

Shanda fur di Goyim! appeared in the e-newsletter ‘Keeping Our Families Jewish’, by Doron Kornbluth:

As if Bernie Madoff wasn’t enough. And as if Jack Abramowitz wasn’t enough. And as if riots in Jerusalem weren’t enough. Now we have a group of very religious looking Jews being handcuffed by the FBI in a massive fraud case that has brought down three mayors and scores of lawmakers and politicos in New Jersey.

The Yiddish phrase “Shanda fur di goyim” refers to (Jewish) embarrassment at a fellow Jew doing something Really Bad in front of non-Jews. In other words, don’t wash your dirty linen in public. Do we have problems? Of course. There have always been problems. But, the phrase suggests, be careful: the world tends to look at “the Jews” as one people and what one Jew does reflects well – or badly – on the rest of us. According to this idea, doing something bad is bad enough, but it becomes much worse when it reflects badly on the entire Jewish people.

How do you feel about this phrase? Does it still apply? Does the world still “clump us together”? I’ll leave it to you to decide.

In a sense, though, today the discussion may be academic. With modern technology, word gets out. Even if we wanted to wash our dirty linen in private – ie within the Jewish community – it isn’t really possible anymore anyway. The events mentioned above were on the news again, and again, and again. Specifically, the visuals of religious-looking Jews being violent or in custody are hard to avoid or forget.

Right. When the jews can’t hide what they’re doing, they switch to “explaining”.

Note the inversion. It is the jews who see themselves and act as one people more than anyone else. When jews fret about a “shanda fur die goyim” what they’re worrying about is that the goyim might catch on to their game and also see the jews as a group, maybe even punish them as a group, or organize their own groups.

Madoff and “Abramowitz” (Abramoff) loom large as recent examples of shanda fur die goyim. What triggered this article was the Bid Rig scandal, in 2009, when the FBI arrested a ring of orthodox jews in New York/New Jersey area.

Bid Rig also touched on the organ selling shanda the old jewess mentioned.

In Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 1 I discussed the minor “embarassment” that the orthodox jews take organs but don’t donate them. By Part 3 I described the deeper concern:

Shanda fur die goyim is misunderstood as embarassment. It is a reflection of jewish sensitivity to collective exposure/responsibility/vulnerability. It is an alarm, a call for the making of excuses and transferring of blame elsewhere. The most extreme and common example is how jews transfer blame to “anti-semitism”.

What’s going on it isn’t simply “organ trafficking”. There’s extortion of organs from misled and desperate victims, reselling them at enormous profit. And it’s all very jewy – jew patients, jew doctors, and jew brokers. It goes on, even though it’s illegal, because there are so many jews involved, because the jews won’t rat out each other, and because most of the time nobody else will dare prosecute any of them, even when they are caught red-handed. The cherry on top is that yet more jews are pushing to legalize the harvesting and selling of organs for profit.

Returning to Bernie Madoff – “the ganef”, also spelled gonef or gonif, which means thief, swindler, crook – an unscrupulous opportunist who stoops to sharp practice. It specifically means a jewish thief, or one who steals from jews. The use of the yiddish word implies “from a jewish point of view”, otherwise the English words would suffice.

An example of its use occurs in Michael Tomasky’s A Short Post About Jesse Jackson Jr at The Daily Beast:

I’m going to write this just so our conservative friends can’t say I brush these things under the rug. He’s clearly a troubled man, but he’s also a gonif and a loser, so good riddance to him. All right?

Tomasky is a “liberal” (somewhat ambiguous) jew sending a subtle signal here to “conservative” jews.

Bernie Madoff was a Wall Street insider:

a past chairman of the board of directors of the Nasdaq Stock Market as well as a member of the board of governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers and a member of numerous committees of the organization

Madoff was a money manager since 1960. For decades he ran a pyramid scheme informally known as The Jewish Bond. It was very exclusive, “invite only”, operated by and benefitting a tight circle of jewish family and friends, and servicing a clientele that was also glaringly jewish, many of whom assumed Madoff was cheating in some way, perhaps using his insider knowledge and access.

One of the main takeaways is that the scheme went on for nearly two decades before collapsing. It was not stopped by regulators or lawmen, despite suspicions and accusations expressed over the years. As with the organ “business”, the very obvious jewishness of the phenomenon seemed to create a protective bubble.

Another takeaway was the revelation of just how much jewish “philanthropy” money is sloshing around Wall Street, and how much of that “philanthropy” is actually dedicated to exclusively jewish causes.

When Madoff saw his pyramid scheme was collapsing he tried to take all the blame on himself, probably to protect his family and friends who were in the scheme up to their eyeballs. He turned himself in, called it “one big lie”, and claimed nobody else knew. There’s alot more to the story.

The collapse of this big jew’s jewish bond was an epic shanda fur die goyim. The jew cover story is that “Most of Madoff’s victims were charitable organizations, elderly people, and Jews.” – i.e. jews were victims, rather than perpetrators. This narrative traces back to a NYMag story that appeared only one week after Madoff’s arrest and prevails at Wikipedia and beyond to this day, despite the many revelations which contradict it. Jews got in on the ground floor of the scheme and in many cases pulled out far more than they put in. Their losses were largely imaginary. The biggest losers were the faceless non-jew corporations, municipalities, and feeder funds that got in late in the game.

There are lots of other examples of shanda for die goyim.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn , Jonathan Pollard (and other jewish spies), Greville Janner, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, to name a few.

A comment on a jewsmedia article about Dershowitz notes, “If this isn’t an example of “shanda fur die goyim,” I don’t know what is!!”

In conclusion, keep in mind that the use of yiddish by jews is a clear expression not only of their Otherness, but their consciousness of that Otherness. It also indicates the asymmetry of this consciousness. Non-jews generally aren’t aware not only of the meaning of invididual words and phrases but are missing the larger picture – that the jews use yiddish as codespeak, to signal and communicate specifically jewish concerns to other jews.

In a “liberal” society, where we are all supposed to be one big US, the mere existence of the term “shanda for die goyim” is evidence of bad faith, evidence that the worldview of jews is actually in terms of US jews versus THEM goyim. They are fully conscious of this and that it would be bad for the jews if the goyim knew and acted on such a worldview as well.

There is no simple equivalent for the term in English. It is difficult to translate because jewish attitudes are so different.

Basically, it is yet another example of jews expressing their utmost concern for their own group. In this case the main concern is exposure, exposure of harm caused by jews, evidence of jewish parasitism, especially their manipulation or exploitation of non-jews.

The main desire of jews is not to stop the harm or even punish the jews who are most responsible, but to somehow stop the exposure, to stop any harm coming to jews. That’s what “shanda fur die goyim” means. It means, transfer the blame elsewhere. It means, bury it. It means, shut it down.

Solipsism and Narcissism

narcissus_and_nemesis

A further examination of the rational and emotional machinations which enable White genocide.

There’s an old joke I wanted to tell, to make an analogy, and when I went searching for an example to read here I found that there’s a name for the analogy. It’s called the streetlight effect. The joke goes like this:

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, “this is where the light is.”

As the Wikipedia article describes it, the streetlight effect is a type of observational bias where people search where it is easier, rather than where it would be more fruitful.

Over the course of the past year or so I’ve laid out what I think has been a thorough and fairly stated critique of what others refer to as “White pathology”, and specifically what they call “pathological altruism”. The key point I return to, again and again, is that there is a pathogen, an Other, an enemy. The jews. My criticism, to put it simply, is that much of what is labeled “White pathology” is a result of enemy action.

In fact I’ve gone farther and pointed out that if Whites exhibit any behavior which could justifiably be called pathological, symptomatic of a collective mental disease, then it would be how Whites collectively fail to perceive jews collectively as a mortal enemy. And this in spite of the jews’ relentless expressions of alienation and hostility, made most plain in the victim narrative jews never tire of recounting. In essence the jewish narrative portrays the jews as entirely blameless and eternally oppressed by “anti-semites”, which by their own telling includes every people they’ve ever come into contact with, but most recently is primarily Whites. Their holocaust narrative is the latest, most specific, most in-your-face example of this narrative.

In other words, jews clearly see Whites as their enemy, and you can hear them more or less openly lecture everyone about this in their media and from their privileged perches in universities and corporations and government any day of the week. Yet even Whites who have demonstrated some greater than average racial consciousness and even an awareness of the jews seem prone to discount the impact of jewish hostility, their influence, or both. Instead they hypothesize some mysterious inborn defect in Whites, some baked-in weakness that makes Whites vulnerable, with the premise that it has nothing to do with the jews. As I’ve pointed out, this desire to search within their own collective – to look where the light is best so to speak – is itself, I think, a symptom of the very weakness they’re looking for.

It also seems to me that there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for why this happens. The word for it is ethnocentrism, an anthropological term:

the technical name for the view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything

There is another recurring theme, or to put it more bluntly another elementary error, which occurs in many attempts to understand and explain collective behavior using terms which are ordinarily used to describe the motives and behaviors of individuals.

Using the term suicide instead of genocide is a good example of both mistakes – blotting out the jews and personalizing the problem at the same time.

The psychological term “self-deception”, as in “jewish self-deception” is another. I’ve argued that it should really just be called jewish deception. The real “self-deception” is in White individuals who misinterpret the persistent and collective nature of jewish lying.

The error in such individualistic terms is that it inevitably personifies and thus distorts the problem, even if only in the minds of listeners. The speaker may simply be grasping for words, with a preference for familiar terms, where there seems to be more light. In my opinion blunter language is ultimately more fruitful, even if we must invent or call in other terms so as not to misunderstand or misrepresent what is in truth a collective phenomena.

A few months ago I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome and Gaslighting, trying to address these errors and to offer some other psychological terms and concepts which I think better fit the relationship between Whites and jews. In particular, that it is a relationship, and that it is an asymmetic, abusive parasitic relationship in which jews benefit and Whites are harmed.

To refresh your memory about gaslighting

Gaslighting or gas-lighting[1] is a form of mental abuse in which information is twisted/spun, selectively omitted to favor the abuser, or false information is presented with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception and sanity.

The obvious analogy is that the jews and their holocaust guilt-tripping and psychoanalytic theories of “anti-semitism” are the mental abusers, the sociopathic liars who deny any wrongdoing, and Whites are the victims of their mental abuse, and exhibit various “white pathologies” as a result.

I’ll emphasize again right here that I’m drawing an analogy. It’s not a perfect fit. For one thing, gaslighting ordinarily describes a relationship between two individuals, whereas the analogy I’m making is for the relationship between Whites and jews collectively, even though within those collectives there are a broad spectrum of individual motives and attitudes.

I do think however that the analogy is useful because it fits the most relevant and important aspect of the relationship between Whites and jews, the relatively conscious and lopsided relationship between White and jew elites.

Here’s a bit more about these kinds of relationships, specifically to the point of anyone who says what I’m presenting is an argument that Whites are blameless.

When You Love Your Abuser: Stockholm Syndrome and Trauma Bonds, via Psychopathyawareness’s Blog:

So far I’ve used the word “victim” to describe the women (or men) who suffer at the hands of psychopaths. Yet I don’t really like this word for several reasons. It tends to imply a certain passivity, as if the woman herself had nothing to do with the decision to get involved with the psychopath or, worse yet, to stay with him even once his mask of sanity started to slip. It’s rare that a psychopath physically coerces a woman to get involved with him or to stay with him. Although he intimidates and brainwashes her, generally the victim cooperates.

A victim of Stockholm Syndrome irrationally clings to the notion that if only she tries hard enough and loves him unconditionally, the abuser will eventually see the light. He, in turn, encourages her false hope for as long as he desires to string her along. Seeing that he can sometimes behave well, the victim blames herself for the times when he mistreats her. Because her life has been reduced to one goal and one dimension which subsumes everything else–she dresses, works, cooks and makes love in ways that please the psychopath–her self-esteem becomes exclusively dependent upon his approval and hypersensitive to his disapproval.

As we know, however, psychopaths and narcissists can’t be pleased. Relationships with them are always about control, never about mutual love. Consequently, the more psychopaths get from their partners, the more they demand from them.

“The combination of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and ‘cognitive dissonance’ produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival.

This calls to mind recent statements by Manuel Valls in France and Joe Biden in the US concerning how absolutely essential jews are.

In criticizing the rhetoric of “White altruism” I’ve argued against what I’ve described, grasping for the proper language, as a form of racial solipsism:

Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning “alone”, and ipse, meaning “self”)[1] is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.

Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.

In the view of a White racial solipsist other races have no independent existence, no agency. It is a form of extreme ethnocentrism, a focus on the collective self to the point of ignoring enemies – a pathological ethnocentrism.

Gorgias of Leontini

Solipsism was first recorded by the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated:[3]

Nothing exists.

Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.

Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can’t be communicated to others.

Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that “objective” knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera).

The foundations of solipsism are in turn the foundations of the view that the individual’s understanding of any and all psychological concepts (thinking, willing, perceiving, etc.) is accomplished by making analogy with his or her own mental states; i.e., by abstraction from inner experience. And this view, or some variant of it, has been influential in philosophy since Descartes elevated the search for incontrovertible certainty to the status of the primary goal of epistemology, whilst also elevating epistemology to “first philosophy”.

There an element of what the jew fraud Freud called projection in there. And the common understanding of the word comes with quite a bit of individualist and philisophical freight. Rather than trying to tack a racial qualifier on solipsism I think a term like pathological ethnocentrism is the better fit.

Another term comes to mind that came up in the discussion of gaslighting, but which reflects an ancient European archetype, originating in a European myth. It even has to do with “suicide”. The term is “narcissism”, which comes from the archetype and myth of Narcissus:

In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope.[1] He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus drowned. Narcissus is the origin of the term narcissism, a fixation with oneself.

The self-attraction/self-infatuation of narcissism is broadly understood. That this weakness is exploited and made fatal by a hostile Other, a nemesis, is not as well known.

Multiple versions of the myth have survived from ancient sources. The classic version is by Ovid, found in book 3 of his Metamorphoses (completed 8 AD); this is the story of Narcissus and Echo. One day Narcissus was walking in the woods when Echo, an Oread (mountain nymph) saw him, fell deeply in love, and followed him. Narcissus sensed he was being followed and shouted “Who’s there?”. Echo repeated “Who’s there?”. She eventually revealed her identity and attempted to embrace him. He stepped away and told her to leave him alone. She was heartbroken and spent the rest of her life in lonely glens until nothing but an echo sound remained of her. Nemesis, the goddess of revenge, learned of this story and decided to punish Narcissus. She lured him to a pool where he saw his own reflection. He didn’t realize it was only an image and fell in love with it. He eventually realized that his love could not be addressed and committed suicide.[1]

Again, the Other plays a key role. In this case there is a gaslighting Other as well as the vengeful Other. There are other versions. All end in the death of Narcissus – which is the moral of the story.

Anti-”Racism” is a Jewish Construct

combat_racism_for_the_jews

The poisonous bit of anti-wisdom that “race is a social construct” is one of the most common expressions of anti-”racism”. The truth is the opposite – society is a racial construct.

In Race and Jews – Part 6 we examined how the jews were for race before they were against it, how their stand on race has shifted over the past century, guided by the underlying principle that good is what’s good for the jews.

In The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity:

Goldstein describes the private communications between jewish leaders in America. In 1909 these leaders feared that race scientists were close to declaring the jews a non-White race, and so they conspired to:

enlist the help of an anthropologist in order to get “a very strongly worded declaration as to the practical identity of the white race,” one that would presumably leave no doubt as to the whiteness of Jews.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, Columbia University Processor Franz Boas was the best known anthropologist of Jewish origin in the United States. Boas shared the concern of the Jewish communal elite about racial nativism, but his preference to identify as a German American rather than as a Jew prevented him from engaging too directly in Jewish defense efforts during these years. Instead, Boas worked to discredit the centrality of race in evaluating human capabilities, arguing that differences between groups–including those between blacks and whites–were heavily influenced by environmental factors. Because these ideas contradicted the overwhelming consensus about the importance of racial differences in the United States, however, they offered little to Jewish leaders hoping to win acceptance for their group in white America.

The other jewish scientist that jewish leaders enlisted was Maurice Fishberg. In a book published in 1911:

Fishberg argued that the jews were not a “race, creed or nation” but simply a “social phenomenon”.

The reception from jews was cold. Goldstein tried to explain the apparent conflict like so:

If Jews found that race was an increasing liability and threatened to lump them with nonwhites, they also found themselves unable to break the emotional commitment they had to a racial self-understanding. The result was a constant stuggle with these two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness, one that led many acculturated Jews to assert their status as a religious group in public while privately clinging to a much broader racial understanding of Jewishness.

In my assessment these “two powerful impulses for inclusion and distinctiveness” are not at odds but are instead exactly what a parasitic organism needs to succeed. The parasite must infiltrate, manipulate and exploit its host, and in doing so it must detect and disarm the host’s defenses while being mindful enough not to attack or destroy its own.

The topic here is an extension of information and arguments laid out in a previous series of installments on race science, including a 5-part series on Race and Genetics, a 5-part series on Race and Anthropology, and finally a half-dozen more parts focused on Franz Boas and his proteges, titled Race and Fraud.

Peter Frost is a contemporary physical anthropologist, a scientist who studies the evolutionary genetic nature of the most visible racial attributes of Whites, namely skin, eyes and hair. He describes his work like so:

My own research has focused on the sex difference in human complexion. In short, women are paler and men ruddier and browner because of differing amounts of hemoglobin and melanin in the skin’s outer layers.

This subject has also led me to the puzzle of European pigmentation, i.e., the highly visible facial and body hues that occur almost wholly in Europeans. How can we explain the wide range of hair colors, the equally wide range of eye colors, and the maximum lightening of the skin? These color traits are a puzzle, all the more so because they do not have a single genetic cause.

For example, see his articles Why do Europeans have so many hair and eye colors? and Why are Europeans so white?

Frost is a favorite among “human biodiversity” enthusiasts, especially the subset of the HBD-o-sphere which has coalesced around unz.com, a web site run by the anti-White jew Ron Unz. The discussion at unz.com is “race realist” in the sense that the false mainstream “race is a social construct” tenet of anti-”racism” does not prevail. Even jews come up for discussion. However, amongst HBD writers and commenters, at unz.com and elsewhere, there is a conspicuous preponderance of jews, part-jews, jew-firsters, and outright jew-worshippers. One of the consequences is that whenever the jews do come up for discussion, so do all the old evasions and excuses.

It is in this context that Frost published a series of articles, both at unz.com and on his personal blog “Evo and Proud”, concerning Franz Boas and the origins of anti-”racism”.

In the first article, The Franz Boas you never knew, Frost argues that early in his career Boas believed race differences were real, significant, and rooted in biology. But:

Something critical seems to have happened in the late 1930s. When Boas prepared the second edition of The Mind of Primitive Man (1938), he removed his earlier racialist statements. The reason was likely geopolitical. As a Jewish American seeing the rise of Nazi Germany, he may have felt that the fight against anti-Semitism would require a united front against all forms of “racism”—a word just starting to enter common use and initially a synonym for Nazism.

Boas died in 1942 and the leadership of his school of anthropology fell to Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. With the end of the war, both of them wished to pursue and even escalate the fight against racism.

As we have already seen above, Boas was hard at work against race science long before the national socialists rose to power. As early as 1909 jewish leaders saw race science as a problem for the jews and were looking for a way to co-opt it, to establish that jews were White, so they wouldn’t be excluded.

They won by attacking on multiple fronts. Today “race is a social construct” prevails, and “there is no such thing as the White race”, at least in the judaized mainstream. The recognition that jews are not White, in body or mind, but are instead the hostile enemies of Whites, is considered just as scandalous among the jewy “race realists” as it is in the judaized mainstream.

Frost’s conclusion contains his thesis:

Boas had sought to strike a new balance between nature and nurture in the study of Man. The war intervened, however, and Boasian anthropology was conscripted to fight not only the Axis but also racism in any form. Today, three-quarters of a century later, we’re still fighting that war.

It is Frost who is seeking to strike a new balance. The current thoroughly judaized, anti-White regime sees Boas as a hero, a champion. Pro-White jew-wise dissidents properly finger Boas as an enemy and villain. Both sides agree that Boas was the earliest, most prominent, and most prolific proponent of what eventually became anti-”racism”.

Frost is trying to argue that Boas is somewhere in the middle, just a guy trying to strike a balance – who only sided with his own race when pushed into it by the evil “nazis”. In fact, Frost takes that argument a step farther by trying to argue that the jews as a group are not responsible for anti-”racism”. In other words, he’s excusing the jews.

I think Frost is White. I don’t know. He thinks more like a White man than a jew. His view comes across as objective rather than emotional, especially regarding the jews. He calls the stuggle between “racism” and anti-”racism” a war – and though he’s actually engaged in it, a soldier in the ongoing battle over the idea of race rooted in science, he doesn’t seem to want to take it seriously as a war and side with his own team, against the aggressors. He sees and understands the racial identification and concerns of the jews, but does not feel his own.

Frost’s argument has been challenged by the pseudononymous blogger n/a (not applicable?) who writes at “race/history/evolution notes”. n/a has a deep understanding of race – genetics, history, and the jews. I think n/a is a he, an American, a logical thinker, probably a scientist of some sort. He identifies very strongly with “WASP”s, to the point of recognizing and disliking that term as an enemy slur, in much the way national socialists dislike “nazi”.

n/a often takes issue with someone, like Frost, who misunderstands or misrepresents history, especially regarding WASPs, America’s founding stock, and especially when it involves the jews.

n/a’s appreciation of European history and the jews was visible when he identified the spirit of neo-reaction (AKA judeo-reaction) in 2009, before it had even had adopted a name, mocking the mindset of it’s part-jew guru Moldbug: “Bring back Monarchy so I can live out my dream of becoming a court Jew”.

n/a took issue with a comment Frost made where he let slip the argument behind his argument.

Reply to Peter Frost’s most recent bizarre attempt at rewriting history (part 1):

Peter Frost has previously claimed:

Anti-racism was neither solely nor primarily a Jewish invention. It initially arose through a radicalization of the abolitionist movement in the early to mid 19th century, its adherents being overwhelmingly of WASP origin. It then fell into decline, largely in response to the failure of black emancipation and the growing influence of Darwinian thinking in the social sciences. It was this half-discredited antiracism that Jewish immigrants, like Franz Boas, encountered in the late 19th century and the early 20th. With the rise of Nazi Germany, antiracism made a resurgence, and Jewish intellectuals certainly contributed to this resurgence for obvious reasons. But it was at all times as much a northeastern WASP cultural trait as a Jewish one.

He’s now back with more of this:

How did [Franz Boas's] views on race evolve over the next twenty years? This evolution is described by Williams (1996), who sees his views beginning to change at the turn of the century. After getting tenure at Columbia University in 1899, he became immersed in the elite liberal culture of the American northeast and began to express his views on race accordingly. [. . .]

From 1900 to 1930, Boas seemed to become increasingly liberal in his views on race, but this trend was hesitant at best and reflected, at least in part, a change in the audience he was addressing. As a professor at Columbia, he was dealing with a regional WASP culture that still preserved the radical abolitionism of the previous century. A good example was Mary White Ovington, whose Unitarian parents had been involved in the anti-slavery movement and who in 1910 helped found the NAACP. Boas was also dealing with the city’s growing African American community and, through Ovington’s contacts, wrote articles for the NAACP. Finally, he was also dealing with the growing Jewish community, who identified with antiracism partly out of self-interest and partly out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture.

It’s an outrageous distortion of history to suggest Jews supported antiracism “out of a desire to assimilate into northeastern WASP culture”.

Most northeasterners, of any class, were never abolitionists (antislavery does not equal abolitionist), and even most abolitionists did not advocate anything approaching modern anti-racism.

No major constituency in America denied the existence of biological differences between blacks and whites when Boas immigrated, and advocating such views provided no quick path to social advancement (though obviously, at a deeper level, Boas was no doubt motivated by a desire to eliminate “anti-semitism”).

It would have been very strange indeed for a physical anthropologist in 1890s America to outright deny the existence of race or obvious racial differences. What matters is the direction in which Boas differed from his contemporaries. And there’s no question Boas was promoting “anti-racism” from the outset.

The sneer quotes n/a puts around enemy propaganda terms demonstrates his awareness of and disdain for them as such.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 2): Boas was a product of German(-Jewish) culture, not American culture:

The version of history in which Franz Boas was a dispassionate purveyor of real talk who picked up anti-racism from “liberal WASPs” is of course wholly Peter Frost’s own invention. This scenario finds no support outside of Frost’s imagination.

Boas’s agenda remained consistent over his entire career, and it’s not an agenda he picked up in America. Boas was born in Germany, studied anthropology in Germany, brought his fully-formed worldview with him from Germany, and continued to identify with Germany throughout his life.

Nor was it “liberal WASPs” Boas primarily affiliated himself with in America.

n/a excerpts parts of an academic anthropology paper from 1982, titled Types Distinct from Our Own: Franz Boas on Jewish Identity and Assimiliation, by Leonard Glick. The synopsis reads:

Boas’s published writings on assimilation were deeply influenced by his German Jewish background. In particular, his unwillingness to recognize Jewish cultural identity as a reality was central to his persistent emphasis on human plasticity and his insistence that people not be “classified” in groups.

Boas’s work is marked with the deepest irony, in that his position on these questions was shaped – far more deeply, it would seem, than he recognized – by his own heritage as a German Jew and by formative years which coincided precisely with an eruption of the most explicit and virulent anti-Semitism in Germany prior to Hitler.

In other words, Boas’ outward anti-”racism” sprang from his inner jewishness.

The paper concerns, from a jewish point of view, an interesting period in German history, after the emancipation of the jews and prior to the rise of national socialism. Those who trace anti-”racism” back to abolitionism, including Frost, usually neglect to consider the connection between the emancipation of jews and negroes, and that the one preceded and undoubtedly influenced the other.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 3): The founding of the NAACP.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 4): Grant vs. Boas:

From Jonathan Spiro’s Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant:

. . .

If, as we delve into these complicated and long-forgotten controversies, the issues sometimes seem arcane if not downright petty, it will be good to bear in mind that, like the Cold War battles over Quemoy and Matsu, a great deal more was at stake then met the eye. The lives of millions of persons depended on the struggle over the validity of scientific racism.

For years, however, Boas had been diligently training a cadre of professional anthropologists who shared his revulsion for the theories of Grant, so that by the end of the 1910s Boas was surrounded and supported by a growing group of scholars well positioned to use their expertise to join in the assault on eugenics. Some of the more important anthropologists who received their Ph.D. from Boas were A. L. Kroeber (who earned his degree in 1901), Robert Lowie (1908), Edward Sapir (1909), Alexander Goldenweiser (1910), Paul Radin (1911), Leslie Spier (1920), Ruth Benedict (1923), Melville Herskovits (1923), Margaret Mead (1929), and Ashley Montagu (1937). With the exception of Kroeber, Benedict, and Mead, all were Jews, many were immigrants, and several were both. (It was a poorly kept secret that Ashley Montagu, the son of a Polish-born Jewish tailor, had been Moses Israel Ehrenberg before metamorphosing into Montagu Francis Ashley-Montagu.)

The old name game.

On a theoretical level the debate between the Grantians and the Boasians pitted the defenders of heredity against the proponents of environment. Intellectually, the split was a disagreement between adherents of polygenesis, who were obsessed with the classification of races, and adherents of monogenesis, who were fairly certain that races were socially constructed myths. And professionally, it was a conflict between an older generation of physical anthropologists (often gentleman amateurs with no academic affiliation or perhaps an association with a museum) and the newer generation of cultural anthropologists (usually trained professionals with full-time positions in academia). But for all that, it was difficult not to notice that at heart it was a confrontation between the ethos of native Protestants and the zeitgeist of immigrant Jews.

The older generation of amateurs were aristocratic WASPs with the money and leisure time to ponder fossils as an avocation, whereas the younger generation of professionals were immigrant Jews who saw higher education as a route to social respectability and jobs in academia as a means of economic survival.

Contra Frost, it was “difficult not to notice” that the conflict was between White racialists and jewish anti-”racists”.

Polygenesis is the theory that the continental races evolved separately and crossed the threshold to become “human”, capable of art, culture, civilization, separately. Monogenesis is the theory which has been popularized as “out of Africa”, summed up in the poisonous aphorism, “we’re all one race, the human race”.

In this next part n/a cites an anthropology book published in 2004 which argues for the biological reality of race. Here we see an argument for the longer-term and decidedly jew-driven nature of the anti-”racist” war.

Reply to Peter Frost (part 5): anthropology as the science of race:

In discussing the history of anthropology, Sarich and Miele (in Race: The Reality of Human Differences) find it useful to:

highlight three critical junctures in which science, politics, and personality interacted: the disputes between Ernst Haeckel and Rudolf Virchow, between Franz Boas and Madison Grant, and finally between Carleton Coon and Ashley Montagu.

Of the two cases that played out in America, both involve race-denialist Jewish immigrants opposing “northeastern WASPs” with colonial roots (Coon’s ancestry is 3/4 colonial New England and 1/4 Cornish; all of Grant’s ancestors were in America before 1790, at least half of Grant’s ancestry can be traced back to New England).

. . .

Haeckel and all he came to champion were opposed by his former professor, the distinguished biologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902). The conflict between them was both personal and political.

Virchow, whose name and appearance betrayed a Slavic ancestry

Haeckel was a strong supporter of the German Volk and Reich; Virchow was a radical advocate of social reform who fought at the barricades in the revolution of 1848.

Eugenics is applied race science – helping to guide politics, shaping government policies.

When Galton died in 1911, eugenics was widely accepted not only in Britain and Germany but in the United States as well. Raymond Pearl, professor of biology at Johns Hopkins University (then a supporter of eugenics but later an opponent), noted that by 1912, “eugenics was catching on to an extraordinary degree with radical and conservative alike.” [. . .]

At the start of the twentieth century, most American anthropologists came from wealthy Brahmin families and were educated at Harvard University. They were solidly in the eugenics camp, agreeing with [Francis] Galton on both individual and race differences. And then, as one author put it, Along Came Boas. His name is hardly a household word, but it is no exaggeration to say that Franz Boas (1858-1942) remade American anthropology in his own image. Through the works of his students Margaret Mead (Coming of Age in Samoa and Sex and Temperament in Three Societies), Ruth Benedict (Patterns of Culture), and Ashley Montagu (innumerable titles, especially the countless editions of Man’s Most Dangerous Myth), Boas would have more effect on American intellectual thought than Darwin did. For generations, hardly anyone graduated from an American college or university without having read at least one of these books. They all drew their inspiration from Boas’s The Mind of Primitive Man.

. . .

Before Boas, anthropology was the study of race. After Boas, anthropology in America became the study of culture

. . .

Franz Boas was a dark-haired Jewish immigrant from a leftist milieu, educated at German universities steeped in the ideals of the Enlightenment. Madison Grant, an archetypal Nordic, was a lawyer turned amateur biologist and a pillar of America’s WASP establishment. Grant claimed that his fellow American Nordics were committing racial suicide, allowing themselves to be “elbowed out” of their own land by ruthless, self-interested Jewish immigrants, who were behind the campaign to discredit racial research.

. . .

Coon vs. Montagu:

The Boasians were outsiders. Papa Franz and many of his stu­dents were Jews, though “the preponderance of Jewish intellectuals in the early years of Boasian anthropology and the Jewish identities of anthropologists in subsequent generations has been downplayed in standard histories of the discipline.” Some, like Boas himself, were immigrants to boot. Montagu was born Israel Ehrenberg in the working-class East End district of London, England. He was so leery of anti-Semitism (“If you’re brought up as a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic . . . It’s a good working hypothesis”) that he reinvented himself as Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu from London’s well-to-do West End financial district, complete with a posh public school accent. When he came to the United States, Montagu played the role of the British headmaster, lecturing American audiences before a receptive media on the foolishness of their prejudices. Later he dropped the hyphen and became simply Ashley Montagu.

Mead and Benedict could point to WASP pedigrees as pure as Madison Grant’s, but Mead was bisexual and Benedict a lesbian. At that time, those sexual orientations were far more stigmatized than they are today. Their sexual preferences are relevant, be­ cause developing a critique of traditional American values was as much a part of the Boasian program in anthropology as was their attack on eugenics and nativism. [. . .]

Whatever their individual origin, the Boasians felt deeply es­tranged from mainstream American society and the male WASP elites they were displacing in anthropology.

. . .

According to Degler, “Boas almost single-handedly developed in America the concept of culture, which, like a powerful solvent, would in time expunge race from the literature of social science.” In fact, Boas achieved his goal only with help, including a great deal from a most unwelcome source— Hitler and the Holocaust. After World War II, “race” and “eugenics” became very dirty words.

. . .

In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was called upon to adopt “a program of disseminating scientific facts designed to remove what is generally known as racial prejudice.” For the drafter of the first UNESCO statement, Ashley Montagu, this was an opportunity to deny the reality of race.

. . .

ASHLEY MONTAGU VERSUS CARLETON COON

The preliminary match in anthropology’s fight over race was Vir­chow versus Haeckel. Then there was Boas versus Madison Grant. The final match in anthropology’s dispute went the distance.

. . .

[Carleton Stevens] Coon believed that race was a central issue and his job as an anthropologist was to study race; Montagu felt his was to banish race to the periphery and replace it with the concept of “ethnic group.” He began his effort to have the word “race” replaced by “ethnic group” in his 1942 book, Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. When he was selected to draft the initial (1950) UNESCO Statement on Race, Montagu was given a platform from which to present his view to a much larger, non-academic audience.

Carleton Coon‘s magnum opus was the physical anthropology textbook, The Origin of Races (1962). He was a proponent of polygenesis.

There is one other point about Frost’s narrative which he continues to repeat and which n/a does not address. In his third post on the subject, Age of reason, Frost reasserts:

The interwar years gave antiracism a new lease on life, thus reversing a long decline that had begun in the late 19th century. This reversal was driven largely by two events: the acrimonious debate over U.S. immigration in the mid-1920s and Hitler’s rise to power in the early 1930s. Many people, especially academics, were convinced of the need for an uncompromising war on “racism”—a word just entering use as a synonym for Nazism.

Frost’s insistence that “racism” was a synonym for “nazism” would appear to undermine his own argument that anti-”racism” was not primarily a jewish invention. He has at the same time implied that Boas and jews generally were, but of course, opposed to “nazism”, it’s synonym.

The fact that “nazism” remains a synonym for “racism” and both are slurs to this day, seven decades after the “nazis” were destroyed, is because the jews won that war and now more or less openly dominate Western culture and promote their narrative, their morality, via education and mass media.

The understanding is beginning to spread that anti-”racism” is really just anti-Whitism. The fact that the terms “racism” and “anti-semitism” so often appear together in political rhetoric is evidence that it is jews who are defining and driving the regime’s anti-White/pro-jew political agenda. The fact that the word “combat” is often attached to these terms – as in “combating racism and anti-semitism” – is evidence that it is a war, a one-sided war on Whites in which jews openly organize conferences, call for laws, and direct governments to dedicate funds for their benefit.

What has happened in the past century is quite different from the way Frost and other jew-excusers see it. As I put it in Race and Jews – Part 7:

During the 19th century and into the 20th Whites were just beginning to appreciate the depth and breadth of their roots, their biological relationship with each other, but also to recognize their common parasite. They were beginning to appreciate just how biologically and psychologically distinct and implacably alien and hostile the jews are and have always been. How the jews have in fact insisted upon being and remaining this way.

This growing understanding of their roots, this racial consciousness, was not fabricated out of nothing, but was based on evidence gathered from study and research – archeology, linguistics, biology. It was spreading not only among the elite, the intelligensia, but was beginning to trickle out to the masses too.

In the first half of the 20th century Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race and Lothrop Stoddard’s Rising Tide of Color were popular books. White understanding of race was increasing.

In 1933 the national socialists took power in Germany, and for the first time a White European government officially and definitively answered the question, “who is us”, and pursued policies guided by the principle, “what’s best for us”, racially. Expressing a collective group-consciousness that for the first time approximated (and took into account the competitive and adversarial nature of) the kind of collective awareness of identity and interests that the jews had been practicing for millenia among Europeans.

Even before this, before this racial consciousness had fully coallesced into a national socialist government, those jews most aware of their collective interests recognized this burgeoning understanding among their host as a threat to the jews. They saw that jews embracing race was not going to be good for the jews in the long run.

By the time national socialism rose to power in Germany the jews had come to the consensus that race was definitely bad for the jews, and they were throwing all their efforts into an idea, a movement that would eventually be called “anti-racism”.

“Anti-racism” is a jewish contruct, though they have tried to generalize it and otherwise obscure this. As many Whites are beginning to realize, “anti-racism” is really just anti-Whitism. It is a movement, a perverse way of thinking about race that doesn’t abolish the idea of race, but simply inverts White consciousness – making White bad and non-White good. It was inspired and continues to be led and driven by jews who think that this is what’s best for the jews.