Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Why Does Ricardo Duchesne Act Like He Can’t See the Jews?

18 Comments

suggestedlogoRev1

Via Mangan, Richardo Duchesne at Council of European Canadians asks, The Great Fear — Why do Whites Fear their own Ethnicity?

I encourage readers to watch “The Great Debate – Xenophobia: why do we fear others?” This debate, which took place at Arizona State University, March 31, 2012, was about the human instinct to form in-groups and out-groups particularly along ethnic lines. The members in this panel (primatologist Frans de Waal, economist Jeffrey Sachs, psychologist Steven Neuberg, neuroscientist Rebecca Saxe, and physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson) all recognized in varying ways the powerful drive within all living beings, including bacteria, to organize themselves into in-groups and out-groups; and yet the tenor and objective of the conference, as evident from the title, was to view this as a problem that needs to be transcended.

Why a problem to be transcended? Because this evolutionary selected instinct is characterized by xenophobia, fear of those groups who are different, and preference for one’s ethnic group. But why is this a problem if it is a behavioral disposition selected by nature for its survival advantages? Because this is a panel of Western scientists committed to the idea that diversity is a strength and that Western societies must be open to mass immigration. Why? Because these scientists are members of a European-created culture that has come to believe that European ethnocentrism, and only this ethnocentrism, is harmful to humanity. Therefore, Europeans, and only Europeans, must work towards universal forms of community and human solidarity without outside-ness and without fear of the other.

Duchesne goes on to note that Sachs was “the most articulate in his explicit admission that we must follow the ideology of diversity regardless of what the scientific evidence says” and wonders, “How can a man of Sachs’s intellectual stature go for an argument that is devoid of merit?”

After searching in vain for some hint of jew-awareness, I left a comment. It seems to be stuck in moderation.

The answer is not complicated. It is not a mystery. The basic mechanics of group psychology are right there in Duchesne’s discussion. Yet he makes no mention of the jews or their anti-White animus. Instead he acts as if jews and Whites are inseparable partners in one big indistinguishable “us”.

In reality the jews are the archetypical Other. Deference to and worship of the Other is a jew-created culture. A plurality of the panel Duchesne discusses, including Sachs, are jews. Jews stereotypically psychopathologize Whites for not doing enough to “transcend” supposed problems like “xenophobia”. To put it in Duchesne’s own terms, this is a behavioral disposition which confers a survival advantage to jews at the expense of Whites.

Why do Whites, especially those who think deeply about group identity and psychology, fail to distinguish and acknowledge that jews see themselves as a group separate from Whites, and that jews as a group are in fact hostile and harmful to Whites? Why do Whites insist on pretending that jews are White and would rather think and say Whites are doing this to ourselves than note the clear differences between us and them? Why?

The word “self-delusion” came often to my mind as I heard these speakers. Self-delusion is defined as the act or state of deceiving or deluding oneself. A common example, the dictionary tell us, “is a person who believes himself to be much smarter than he actually is.” But these scientists are smart. Perhaps the definition by Voltaire would apply: “The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.” But the self-delusion here is even worse since these scientists have found reasons (based on their life-long research) not to believe whatever it is they want us to believe, but they still believe what they are ideologically expected to believe. And they are doing this openly in front of a large audience without anyone pondering over this self-imposed contradiction.

It only seems like a self-imposed contradiction when you don’t distinguish jews from Whites. The jews aren’t deluding themselves. As previously noted, jews behave as they do because they are hyper-conscious of their identity and interests, not because they are unconscious. They do what they think is good for jews, and a big part of that is guilt-tripping and scapegoating Whites. But rather than seeing jews being jews, Duchesne sees “liberals”. As I wrote in Liberalism as a Suicide Pact:

The litany of White sins – slavery, colonization, holocaust – is a jewish construct. It is jews driving the guilt-tripping that causes White guilt and negative associations with White group identity. “You aren’t liberal enough!” is the gist of it. Auster and Gottfried tack yet another item onto the list: “You’re so liberal you’re killing yourself!”

The idea that Whites are so stupid and crazy that we’re killing ourselves is just the most recent addition to the litany of White sins.

Duchesne is associated with The Occidental Observer, but his jew-blind defense of “Western civilization” smacks more of Lawrence Auster (or Takuan Seiyo, who comments on Duchesne’s article) than Kevin MacDonald.

Why does Duchesne blame Whites without mentioning the jews? Does he think it’s not important? Does he think everyone sees and understands the jews? Is he deluding himself? Why do intelligent Whites go for the arguments jews make? Because they refuse to recognize jews as the enemy. Which one is Duchesne?

Blog

The Jewish Reaction to Eric Cantor’s Loss

3 Comments

eric_cantor

Left pivots from ‘Tea Party is dead’ to ‘Tea Party hates Jews’ after Cantor loses, Twitchy.

Lefties Drag Cantor’s Jewish Faith Into Shocking Loss, When They May Have Contributed to His Demise, Tom Blumer, NewsBusters:

Perhaps Cantor’s agreement to meet with a group which brazenly announced its intent “to play the Jewish card” to push “immigration reform” (read: illegal-immigrant amnesty), and who apparently have no problem with “wiggle-waggling the legal system” to get it done, sufficiently cemented a perception in GOP voters’ minds that he would inevitably sell out loyal constituents who had previously sent him to the House seven times.

If so, whose fault is that? Answer: Liberal Jews “playing the Jewish card” who thought that Eric Cantor was untouchable — and were emphatically proven wrong.

For Jewish Republicans: Oy vey, Alexander Burns, Politico:

His defeat has left Jewish organizations in both parties reeling, especially the GOP’s long-suffering Jewish coalition groups.

Cantor was – and for now, remains – the No. 2 Republican in a conference of 233 lawmakers. But for Jewish Republicans, Cantor is a singular figure, the only Jewish member of the House majority and the lone Jewish leader in a party that has strenuously courted the community in recent presidential elections, to little avail.

Now, with Cantor’s defeat, there’s no longer a point man to help organize trips to Israel for junior GOP lawmakers, as Cantor routinely did. Jewish nonprofits and advocacy groups have no other natural person in leadership to look to for a sympathetic ear. No other Republican lawmaker can claim to have precisely the same relationship with gaming billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a primary benefactor of both the Republican Party and the Republican Jewish Coalition.

And no other member can play quite the same role in promoting Jewish Republican congressional candidates, as Cantor did in one election after another.

As Democrats seek to cement a public perception of the GOP as an intolerant and homogenous party, the defeat of the nation’s leading Jewish Republican over his support for more relaxed immigration laws can only help.

Rabbi Jack Moline, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Committee, called it an especially bitter pill that Cantor went down to a challenger running to his right on immigration – as Moline put it, that Cantor “has been undone by an issue that they didn’t make much progress on, but that is reflective of Jewish values.”

“From the point of view of a Democrat, I’m not disappointed to see him go,” Moline said, acknowledging: “There is always a pride in the Jewish community when one of our own makes good, as I think there is in every community.

Former NJDC president David Harris, calling Cantor’s loss a “concern to nonpartisan Jewish organizations,” argued that the political takeaway for Jewish voters should be clear.

“Jews are so well represented on the Supreme Court. They’re so well represented in Congress. But as a professional political class, Jewish Republicans are just not part of that party,” he said.

If Cantor played a critically important symbolic role for Republican Jews, it’s unclear whether his defeat will bring immediate consequences for policy. The GOP is a staunchly pro-Israel party, even if many of its members may have never set foot in a synagogue.

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who serves on the RJC board, said that from a historical perspective Cantor’s defeat was “very sad – but my politics don’t revolve around my identity as much as they do my ideology.”

“It was a real point of pride to have Eric as a Jewish Republican. There are some other Jewish Republicans running in 2014,” Fleischer said. “Let’s wait and see.”

David Brat’s Writings: Hitler’s Rise ‘Could All Happen Again’, Reid J. Epstein, Wall Street Journal:

But it is the reference to Hitler’s Germany that is likely to turn heads during Mr. Brat’s first full day as a tea party star.

Cantor’s Loss a Bad Omen for Moderates, Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times:

And in a year when the Republican establishment was supposed to finally conquer its Tea Party wing, the upstarts wound up with perhaps the biggest victory of any primary season.

David Wasserman, a House political analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said another, more local factor has to be acknowledged: Mr. Cantor, who dreamed of becoming the first Jewish speaker of the House, was culturally out of step with a redrawn district that was more rural, more gun-oriented and more conservative.

“Part of this plays into his religion,” Mr. Wasserman said. “You can’t ignore the elephant in the room.”

Cantor’s loss leaves Jewish Republicans bereft, Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency:

“We’re all processing it,” said Matt Brooks, the president of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “He was an invaluable leader, he was so integral to the promotion of, to congressional support of the pro-Israel agenda. It is a colossal defeat not just for Republicans but for the entire Jewish community.”

Cantor’s Jewish involvement deepened as his days grew busier. Raised in a Conservative Jewish home, he started to keep kosher and take private classes with Orthodox rabbis. His three children with wife Diana, whom he met at Columbia University, were active in Jewish youth movements.

Confidants say his commitment to Israel intensified after a cousin, Daniel Cantor Wulz, was killed in a 2006 suicide bombing in Tel Aviv.

For Jewish leaders, Cantor was a critical address within the Republican Party for the Jewish community’s domestic agenda, said William Daroff, the Washington director of the Jewish Federations of North America.

“When there was a need for a heavy lift for much of our Jewish federation agenda, we could count on being able to call Eric and have him help us get to the finish line,” Daroff said.

Steve Rabinowitz, a publicist who represents Jewish groups as well as liberal and Democratic causes, said he was conflicted about Cantor’s departure. On the one hand, he couldn’t help but be amused that Cantor’s flirtation with the Tea Party came back to haunt him. On the other, Rabinowitz suggested that Cantor’s defeat was a minus for the Jewish community.

“Wearing my mainstream Jewish skullcap, it’s clear the community needs people like Eric Cantor,” Rabinowitz said. “This is a loss for the Jewish community. I have my disagreements with him, but he’s been there for the community.”

Did Eric Cantor Lose the GOP Primary Because He’s Jewish?, Jason Zengerle, New Republic:

Over the course of his 14 years in Washington, Cantor never ignored that elephant—and often tried to exploit it. This was most evident when it came to fundraising, which was the foundation of the Cantor political operation.

Beyond fundraising, Cantor’s religion gave him that thing his fellow Republicans so often lack and desperately covet: a diversity chit. He’s the only Jewish Republican in Congress—“I make the Jewish Caucus in the House bipartisan every time I go in,” he likes to joke—and his quest to become speaker of the House was made to seem a little less grubby and sweaty by the fact that he was seeking to make history by becoming the first Jewish speaker.

None of this is to say that Cantor’s religion hasn’t caused him difficulties over the years. There was always something uncomfortable about hearing Cantor’s Republicans colleagues attribute his fundraising success to his Judaism. And their portrayals of Cantor as an awkward grind—as someone who was no fun to be around—carried a whiff of cultural stereotyping. I remember wincing when one of them told me a story of being nonplussed at encountering an anxious Cantor not long after he joined the House GOP leadership: “I was like, ‘Dude, you just got appointed chief deputy whip and made it onto the Ways and Means Committee. It’s Hanukkah every day for you!’”

A number of his allies and aides had told me that one of the reasons they believed Cantor was so despised on the left was because of his religion—and the expectation that, as a Jew, he should be a Democrat. When I asked Cantor during one of our interviews in his Capitol office if he agreed with that theory, there was a long, painful pause. “I don’t, I can’t imagine that,” he finally said, “but it could be.” He went on to recall the criticism he received from some Jewish groups for meeting privately with Benjamin Netanyahu after the 2010 midterms—“I remember they laid into me, in a way, accusing me of things as a Jew, which I couldn’t even imagine”—and how any time there was a sign about Hitler or the Holocaust at a Tea Party rally, he was asked about it by the press.

Why Eric Cantor chose Bobby Van’s, Byron Tau, Politico:

“I think the party is definitely going to be losing one of its top two fundraisers in the House,” said Jeff Burton, a consultant and lobbyist who previously led the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns program founded by Cantor.

Aside from Boehner, Burton said, no other member of Congress in the Republican Party comes to close to Cantor in terms of being a cash magnet and a fundraising draw.

Federal Election Commission records show the Cantor campaign paid for event catering in cities like Boca Raton, Los Angeles, Richmond, Manhattan, Las Vegas, Palm Beach, Fla. Atlanta, Denver, Beverly Hills, Calif., and elsewhere. His campaign finance reports show hotel stays in Georgia, California, Florida, Nevada, New York and other fundraising hotspots in the weeks leading up to his election.

But critics of money in politics said that the window into Cantor’s extensive fundraising world shows the problems with the current system of money in politics.

“You’re entertaining donors that expect to be treated like royalty,” said Nick Nyhart, president of the group Public Campaign — a watchdog organization that advocates for publicly financed campaigns. “It’s another symbol that the big money fundraising system creates an out of touch Congress.”

Opponent Resonated With Christian Conservatives in a Way Cantor Could Not, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times:

“He’s a public official in an overtly non-Jewish world,” said Rabbi Gary S. Creditor of Temple Beth El in Richmond, which Mr. Cantor attended as a boy. “He didn’t flaunt being a Jew, and he did not highlight it, but he did not deny it, either.”

Now Mr. Cantor’s stunning primary loss on Tuesday — to a little-known economics professor, David Brat, who called his election “a miracle from God” — has raised questions about whether anti-Semitism was at work.

There were hints of anti-Semitism when Mr. Cantor first ran for the House in 2000 — a “whisper campaign,” Ms. Hoffman reported, portraying his opponent as “the only Christian” in the race. But there was nothing of that sort this time, said Richard Grossman, a Jewish lobbyist in Richmond and a Cantor supporter. “If there was an undertone or a hidden message somewhere, the Jewish community would have reacted,” he said, “and I would say our history has been that we may overreact.”

Nancy Belleman, who is active in Jewish affairs in Richmond, said she viewed Mr. Cantor with a mix of “pride and disappointment.” She said she and some other Jewish Democrats had long wished that Mr. Cantor would be voted out of office. Of Mr. Brat’s victory, she said, “It goes under the banner of, ‘Be careful what you wish for.’ ”

Eric Cantor’s extreme voters: The House Majority Leader’s 7th District primary voters were white, old, and conservative, William Saletan, Slate.

Overwhelmingly liberal, many U.S. Jews still took pride in Eric Cantor, Michelle Boorstein, The Washington Post:

Whenever Eric Cantor is in a room with fellow Jews, the Republican often is the odd political-man out. But the shocking defeat of the highest-ranking Jewish member of the House had Jews across the political spectrum nursing some tribal pride on Wednesday.

Much of Cantor’s conservative domestic politics are anathema to Jews, 7o percent of whom say they are Democrats or lean that way. But he played a unique role by advocating in the areas where many Jews are more conservative, particularly around the security of Israel and in public support for Jewish institutions.

“The partisan in me can’t help but be amused,” said Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic media strategist who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House and now serves many Jewish organizations. “But the Jewish communal professional in me thinks it’s not a good thing for the community.”

To many liberal, secular Jews, Cantor’s support for things like expanded public funding to religious institutions “is problematic,” Diament said.

“But from our perspective, we’re losing a real partner and real champion.”

Did Eric Cantor Lose Because He’s Jewish? You Betcha, J.J. Goldberg, The Jewish Daily Forward.

The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.

The reverberations triggered by Cantor’s unprecedented ouster reflect the thoroughly judaized nature of the current regime. The proverbial elephant in the room is the unrivalled power and influence of the jews – a group who, left or right, religious or secular, see themselves first and foremost as jews.

The standard left-vs-right partisan paradigm fails miserably to explain what’s happening here. Left and right against the tea party gets closer to the truth. Both lobes of the jew-led plutocratic media-financial-political complex are waging a genocidal war by mass immigration on a White population which is hopelessly divided, demoralized, in denial and in disarray.

Blog

The Fifty Worst Jews of 2014

2 Comments

jp_top50_worst_jews

‘The Jerusalem Post’s’ top 50 most influential Jews of 2014, 3 June 2014:

The point of putting together such a list is to recognize the achievements of our tribe across the world, people who in one way or another have worked tirelessly for the improvement of humanity and, in doing so, have made their mark on history.

Included in the overview article are links to separate pages with detailed descriptions for each jew in the list. The word power occurs almost as frequently as influence, especially for those at the top. These are jews who have definitely worked tirelessly and made their mark on history. However, the suggestion that they have used their power and influence “for the improvement of humanity” is ridiculous, unless you understand “humanity” to mean “jewry”.

Most of the jews in the list are Israelis, and most of them are government officials. Many of the rest head organizations in the Anglosphere which are dedicated to promoting jewish and Israeli interests. More than anything else this is a list of jew-first and Israel-first chauvinists. From the point of view of anyone whose interests are harmed by jewish power and influence this can therefore be regarded as a list of some of the worst jews.

‘The Jerusalem Post’s’ top 50 most influential Jews of: 1-10
‘The Jerusalem Post’s’ top 50 most influential Jews of: 11-20
‘The Jerusalem Post’s’ top 50 most influential Jews of: 21-30
‘The Jerusalem Post’s’ top 50 most influential Jews of: 31-40
‘The Jerusalem Post’s’ top 50 most influential Jews of: 41-50

Before the creation of the Jewish state, in the throes of rampant anti-Semitism and horrors of the Holocaust, it would have been unthinkable to put together such a list. But today, thanks in great part to the strength and stature of Israel and the unprecedented freedom that Jews enjoy in the United States and elsewhere, there has been a Jewish renaissance.

Rising anti-Semitism in Europe is a worrying trend, and it is especially important that prominent Jews with influence in Europe are supported in their struggle against this phenomenon.

Jewish power and influence now runs rampant over the rest of humanity. Denial and shifting blame is becoming less and less tenable. Beside serving as an expression of naked triumphalism, or as an Orwellian attempt to turn jewish rule into something their subjects should celebrate, lists like this represent in effect a burning of the boats, prodding the most prominent jews who aren’t already fully committed to use their power and influence to squash any pushback.

Have we left important people off the list? Of course.

Here are the names on the list:

1. Jack Lew
2. Janet Yellen
3. Binyamin Netanyahu
4. Shimon Peres
5. Sheldon Adelson
6 Malcolm Hoenlein
7. Avigdor Liberman
8. Adina Bar-Shalom
9. Yair Lapid
10. Naftali Bennett
11. Elie Wiesel
12. Ronald Lauder
13. Steven Spielberg
14. Stanley Fischer
15. Shari Arison
16. Rabbi Yechiel Z. Eckstein
17. Tzipi Livni
18. Scarlett Johansson
19. Isaac Herzog
20. Ed Miliband
21. Yosef Abramowitz
22. Lynn Schusterman
23. Matthew Bronfman
24. Karnit Flug
25. Joseph Gitler
26. Nir Barkat
27. Natalie Portman
28. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner
29. Irwin Cotler
30. Jeremy Ben-Ami
31. Moshe Kantor
32. Hershey Friedman
33. Ephrat Levy-Lahad
34. Ephraim Mirvis
35. Jonathan Sacks
36. Abe Foxman
37. Idan Raichel
38. Lena Dunham
39. George Soros
40. Vladimir Sloutsker
41. Benny Gantz
42. Daniel Gordis
43. Ester Rada
44. Raphael Mechoulam
45. Dalia Dorner
46. Ofra Strauss
47. Chaim Chesler
48. David Golinkin
49. Marcie Natan
50. Mark Leibler

Blog

Majority Rights Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl

16 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

twomenandmoon

Earlier today I had the pleasure of speaking with Guessedworker from Majority Rights. Over the course of about one and three quarter hours GW and I discussed jewish influence, race, liberalism, Christianity, Lawrence Auster, Paul Weston, White nationalism, European and American relations, and the White network.

Blog

On Jewish Deception

3 Comments

believe_what_you_want_to_believe

Andrew Joyce’s thought-provoking series of articles, “Reflections on Some Aspects of Jewish Self-Deception”, is posted at The Occidental Observer in five parts: Part 1. Introduction, Part 2. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography, Part 3. Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography (continued), Part 4. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Secular Culture, and Part 5. Self-Deception in Jewish Participation in Politics.

Joyce notes that jewish self-deception is a common theme at TOO and “a major component of [Kevin] MacDonald’s analysis of Jews”. He hopes “to widen its application as an analytical tool to different historical and contemporary contexts”.

He begins by examining the meaning of the term, especially in the context of the apparent double-standards of jewish moralizing:

While the basic premise of lying to oneself remains central, [Ann] Tenbrunsel and [David] Messick describe self-deception as the state of “being unaware of the processes that lead us to form our opinions and judgments. Such deception involves avoidance of the truth, the lies that we tell to, and the secrets we keep from, ourselves.”[7] Self-deception, on some scale, is “common, normal, and accepted as constant and pervasive in individual’s lives. We are creative narrators of stories that tend to allow us to do what we want and justify what we have done.”[8]

Crucially, they add that self-deception serves a purpose by allowing “one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one’s moral principles were upheld.”[9] This statement alone will have immediate resonance with anyone remotely familiar with the nature of Jewish interference in the cultural and demographic life of White countries. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that this “internal con game” aids a process where ethical aspects of a situation, and their moral implications, are entirely obscured.[10]

One of the key questions confronting anyone studying self-deception is the relationship between a conscious deception of others and an unconscious deception of the self. Tenbrunsel and Messick state that “it is unclear whether such deception is the result of a conscious act or an unconscious process. Self-deception is paradoxical in this sense, for to deceive oneself somehow implies that one must know that something needs to be hidden or kept secret.”[11] Or as other scholars have asked: “how can the self be both deceiver and deceived?”[12]

For our purposes, we would face the dilemma of whether influential Jewish historians, politicians, etc. are simply lying to us, or whether they truly believe what they are saying.

This paradox, at least with regard to the jews, can be unravelled by asking two fundamental questions: Who/whom? And cui bono? Who is lying to whom? And who benefits from these lies? In short, the paradox arises in trying to describe collectivist psychology in individualist terms.

Self-deception, in its most literal sense, is about lying to oneself to protect oneself. It is a personal mechanism for dealing with a personal problem – avoiding mental anguish by mentally avoiding reality. In the extreme it can be psychopathological.

The controversy and supposed paradox begin when the same term is applied to a seemingly related but qualitatively distinct behavior – lying to oneself to facilitate lying to others. The motives are still selfish, but others are now directly affected. In this sense it is on the cusp between psychology and sociology, an especially devious way one may deceive others. In the extreme it can be sociopathological.

Joyce notes that “scholars have identified and delineated four enablers of self-deception”, and that the first is “the employment of language euphemisms”, “careful use of language”. I agree, and thus see a corrective in paying careful attention to the use of language, and especially the term self-deception.

Joyce’s subject is really jewish deception, which includes jewish deception about jewish deception. Yes, the jews promote a narrative which tends to allow them to do what they want and justify what they have done. But it differs from ordinary self-deception in that the behavior is consistent and collective. It is about jews collectively lying to non-jews collectively to serve the interests of jews collectively. To call this plainly sociopathological behavior self-deception is to stretch the term beyond reason. Better to simply call it jewish deception, or jew lies, though even lie fails to capture the repetitive, in-your-face, black-is-white, now-white-is-black nature of it. Deception of others is at the very heart of jewish identity. It is a feature, not a bug.

To the extent either of the truer senses of self-deception plays a part, it seems to apply best to how non-jews try to cope with the otherwise inconceivably awful reality of jewish behavior. We may hypothesize, for instance, that the jews must be unconsciously deceiving themselves, that they know not what they do. Or we may say that jewish behavior is simply instinctive, that they can’t help what they do. But the reality is that jews behave as they do exactly because they are hyper-conscious of their collective identity and interests, not unconscious. Whatever portion of it is instinctive is very deliberately supplemented by indoctrination.

White minds recoil from such thoughts, but the lies jews tell about why jews lie are, in fact, just more jew lies. Jews tell these lies upon lies with the best interests of jews in mind, implicitly if not explicitly. It’s that simple.

In Part 2 Joyce introduces a good example of this:

Robert Wistrich (born 1945) is the current Neuburger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the head of the University’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism. Born to Polish leftist Jews in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, Wistrich emigrated to France and then Britain while still a youth. He grew up in England, and received his PhD from the University of London in 1974. Between 1974 and 1980 he was Director of Research at the Wiener Library, a piece of biographical information which is quite significant in itself.

In fact, the bulk of Joyce’s “Self-Deception in Jewish Historiography” concerns the work of this professional jew, who makes his hyper-consciousness of jewish interests quite explicit. In Part 3 Joyce writes:

Moving into the Enlightenment and the modern era, Wistrich becomes entangled in the increasingly complex and bizarre, self-deceiving “Christian virus” theory. Attempting to explain why anti-Semitism persisted into a period in which adherence to Christian dogma weakened radically, he proposes that the Christian virus remained dominant but had “pagan, pre-Christian anti-Semitism grafted on to the stem of medieval Christian stereotypes of the Jew which then passed over into the post-Christian rationalist anti-Judaism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”[29]

This is certainly an impressive mouthful, but in the absence of evidence it is completely ad hoc; it actually means and proves nothing and is instead typical of the attempts of Jewish historians to evade the rather obvious fact that in all eras and in all places the themes of anti-Semitism are unwaveringly similar. Talk of anti-Semitic themes “grafting” onto “stems” which ‘evolve’ and “pass over” into new forms simply can’t explain away, for example, the fact that we find evidence and complaints of Jewish avarice from ancient Rome, early Christian Syria, medieval England, and early modern Germany. Anti-Semitism is immutable.

Indeed, this behavior is typical. And it has nothing to do with these jews lying to themselves about what they’re doing. Jewish behavior is parasitic. The jews are virulent in the most literal biological sense of the word. While some work directly on extracting the resources of their host, others, like Wistrich, work more indirectly on damage control, spinning a narrative which shifts the blame onto their hosts. Inverting reality is a hallmark of the jews and jewish deception. Wherever jews cause pain, even more jews flock to cry out that jews are the ones who are the real victims.

My quibble about terms aside, Joyce’s articles are a masterful review of many facets of jewish deception. There are quite a few details and insights which were new to me, and thus I found it well worth reading.