Category Archives: Blog

A Brief History of Virulence

This coronavirus pandemic needs to be kept in perspective. The tribe in particular has a virulent need to jewsplain.

Why Trump’s ‘foreign virus’ speech is as dangerous as coronavirus itself, by Aviya Kushner, The Forward, 12 March 2020:

“This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history,” Trump said.

Let’s unpack that.

Foreign. Virus.

The idea that outsiders or foreigners are both dangerous — and dangerous to health — is straight out of the Nazi playbook.

“A key part of Nazi ideology was to define the enemy and those who posed a threat to the so-called ‘Aryan race,’” the Holocaust Museum states on its website. “Nazi propaganda was essential in promoting the myth of the “national community” and identifying who should be excluded. Jews were considered the main enemy.”

. . .

Of course, the strategy of blaming someone else—namely, the “outsider” in a society—for a pandemic is at least as old as the Middle Ages, when Jews were blamed for the Black Death.

“In 1348 there appeared in Europe a devastating plague which is reported to have killed off ultimately twenty-five million people,” Fordham University’s Jewish History sourcebook explains. “By the fall of that year the rumor was current that these deaths were due to an international conspiracy of Jewry to poison Christendom.”

After the Black Plague ended, the idea of tarring the “foreigner” for widespread death persisted. In his chilling article “Immigration, Ethnicity, and the Pandemic,” Dr. Alan Kraut traces how immigrants were historically blamed for pandemics.

“In the 1830s, impoverished Irish immigrants were stigmatized as the bearers of cholera,” Kraut writes. “At the end of the 19th century, tuberculosis was dubbed the “Jewish disease” or the “tailor’s disease.”

The “Jewish disease” doesn’t sound so different from the “foreign virus.”

. . .

At times, Trump’s speech sounded like a paean to the economy, peppered with comments on a virus. Despite Trump’s ample praise, stock futures dropped precipitously after he spoke about banning people and goods.

That, too, is something Jewish history knows about — economic crisis is also often pinned on outsiders. When the economy shudders, there will again be a need to blame someone, preferably someone foreign, someone who is not part of the “family,” as Trump put it.

Given these statements by world “leaders,” it’s no surprise that racism and xenophobia are on the rise, and that anti-Semitism related to the coronavirus is already spreading.

. . .

It may be hard to pay attention to language at a time like this, with infections and deaths increasing, and travel bans going up everywhere. But history suggests that the term “foreign virus” and its hateful implications may be as dangerous — and perhaps more dangerous — than the coronavirus itself.

Scapegoating is a jew word for a characteristically jewy behavior. It’s what the jews’ kapparot ritual is about. It’s what this Forward article is about. It is a ritualistic recounting of the historic narrative whereby jews shift the blame for their virulent jewing onto their hosts. It is offered as justification to do so again now.

As was the case with Jeffrey Epstein, articles like this reveal what jews are thinking, even if most won’t say it out loud. They are all concerned that their tribe might get blamed, even the ones who are pushing a totally de-jewed narrative shifting blame onto someone else. The Forward article lays out the why and the how.

Every jew knows that the current regime’s virulently anti-White agenda to psychopathologize “racism” and “xenophobia”, to tear down White defenses, comes directly from the jews. They know the “New World Order” is a jew world order. They know that whenever Whites think about what’s good for ourselves, that’s not good for jews. They say as much not just here, but whenever they try to jewsplain their attacks on Whites.

To see why they feel justified doing this you can simply unpack the historical jew complaint and apply it to themselves. They see non-jews as goyim. Goyim is their word for foreigners, outsiders, non-jews, the opposite of jews. They are scandalized that the goyim would ever reciprocate and see jews likewise. The goyim who are doing what’s best for goyim are failing to do what’s best for jews. No need to unpack this, to a jew such a thing is just unthinkably evil.

You may have heard that the jew cries out in pain as he strikes you. Maybe that saying makes you chuckle. You may not fully appreciate what it means. Why does the jew cry out? It is because he knows he’s striking you. He knows you don’t like the harm he’s causing you. He knows you might also come to know these things. He’s worried you will retaliate. He sees your getting angry as the real problem. He knows his crying out confuses you. He wants you to mistake him for a fellow victim, the real victim, and blame someone else, even yourself.

Most of the time this trick works. Historically speaking, pandemics and pyramid scheme collapses are rare, and goyim uprisings rarer still. Through it all, and everything in between, the jews screech that “anti-semitism” is a virus, that it is the goyim who are diseased.

How can jews blame goyim for what jews do? How can jews pose as “white” while condemning nationalism for Whites and celebrating nationalism for jews? How can jews pose as powerless victims while dominating banking and media and politics and literally dictating what everyone else can say? I still sometimes wonder how these arguments of theirs fly. Then I realize they aren’t arguing about any of these things. They’re moralizing. They argue only about what’s best for the jews, they don’t argue about that premise. They mercilessly attack anyone who even questions it. That’s how jewing works. It really is that simple.

Coronavirus

Global pandemic, jews hardest hit.

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

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

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

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

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

TFeed Index 2019

tfeed-320x320

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

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

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

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

***

Bernie Sanders on Jewing

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

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

The Enlightenment: Good for Whom?

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

??? How?

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE 6 Nov 2019:

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

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

. . .

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

“Political Hebraism”, i.e., jewing.