Tag Archives: anti-white

The Reaction to the War on Whites

jewsmedia-approved_anti-White_conspiracy_theory

Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right presents a concentrated glop of typically neurotic jewsmedia psychoanalysis and psychopathologization targeting Whites. The main concern is to explain how the relatively mild-mannered Tea Party reaction has transformed into the much more outspoken race-conscious and jew-aware alt-right reaction:

Reactionary energy helped deliver all three branches of government to a Republican Party in the grips of an alt-right-curious anti-PC bomb-thrower the faithful called their “god-emperor” (or at least helped him along with last year’s affirmative action for white people, a.k.a. the Electoral College). But at no point during the campaign, even, could you have mistaken the unruly energy on the right for anything so organized as a party or as purposeful as a protest movement. It was — and is — a counterculture. One formed in the spirit of opposition to everything the existing Establishment stood for: globalist, technocratic liberal elitism. The amazing thing is, in November, for the first time in American electoral history, the counterculture won everything.

So what follows here is an attempt to really reckon with the alt-right and its fellow travelers: to organize and catalogue influences, philosopher-kings, and shit-posting foot soldiers; to track the movement’s history, its future, and the story of how the modern internet made it possible; to study its grievances, its media savvy, its symbols, its heroes and villains, its president and its critics of the president, its billionaire supporters and the underemployed message-board-dwelling “advocates” who serve as its creative engine. The movement is not a monolith — though it would also never be mistaken for a rainbow coalition — and part of what we’ve focused on is just how the various wings work together in concert.

The two recurring key words are White and reaction. The attitude shared by all the cited “experts” is unapologetically anti-White, their common theme being that they deplore Whites and White behavior. Even the cited “experts” who aren’t explicitly anti-White don’t have any problem associating with those who are. And despite the fact that the reaction they are talking about is decentralized and disorganized, and thus amorphous and incoherent, the anti-White consensus is that they are in fact talking about a collective White phenomenon.

What these full-time thinkers and writers have trouble explaining is why their White enemy is reacting, and what Whites are reacting to. I say what’s happening can be explained very concisely, and in plain language: Whites are reacting to jewing, and more specifically, Whites are reacting to a jew-led war on Whites. It is not so clearly stated in the jewsmedia exactly because the jews wage war by deception. The constantly stated imperative to “combat racism and anti-semitism” is as close as the anti-White/pro-jew regime gets to an open and forthright declaration of war.

While anti-Whites explicitly fault Whites for reacting, most also at the same time pretend there is no organized, collective, hostile anti-White force causing this reaction. It just happens. These professional anti-White combatants like to pretend Whites only imagine there is a war on Whites. Even more often they pretend that what’s happening is actually a White war on them, projecting their own group consciousness and motivations onto Whites. Though Whites are relatively confused and clueless, anti-Whites fear what might happen if Whites ever actually start to think and organize to the extent they themselves do.

The portion of this particular jewsmedia effort which best illustrates what I’m talking about is titled Fourteen Scholars on the Roots of the New Reactionary Rage. The “scholars” are actually racial partisans, professional non-Whites and/or anti-Whites, mostly jews and blacks. Undoubtedly the nymag.com editors solicited and published this anti-White perspective because they share it.

Among the most glaring language:

White supremacy. Pure and simple.

white nationalists … white nationalism … white nationalists … white nationalism … white nationalists … white nationalism

Everything has been infected by this notion of white identity politics.

it’s all about protecting this idea of the white male identity

the strain that holds everything together — say, anti-communism, anti-women’s rights, anti-unionization — is the foundation of white supremacy

But it was life-long professional jew Leon Wieseltier who very succinctly captured the essence of the war on Whites, how jews wage war under cover of this narrative which inverts cause and effect, and their fear of this truth coming to light:

What’s crushing to me about them is not that they’re all racist or anti-Semitic, because I don’t think that they all are, it’s that for none of them was racism or anti-Semitism a deal breaker. I don’t believe the majority of people in 1933 Germany were anti-Semitic. But for the majority of them anti-Semitism wasn’t a deal breaker. Some of it is about bigotry, some of it is about ideological fanaticism. It’s possible to be anti-government and not racist. The controlling emotions of the alt-right are rage and anger and resentment and fury. It is possible to be critical of the globalization policies of the 1990s without the anti-elitist madman. It is possible to believe that trade deals should include worker protections without becoming haters. But populism is a paroxysm of anger. Populism always passes. It exhausts itself.

It is possible to explain what Whites think and how Whites behave without being anti-White. It is a jew-constructed and jew-serving anti-White narrative that such explanations are perceived as “racism”, or more tellingly, “anti-semitism”. Visible non-Whites have some idea that they’ve got it good, but if Whites stop feeding them they may have it not so good. Jews, in contrast, are driving the whole process, and thus have a much clearer understanding. Jews realize they aren’t White and posture as “white” only to better manipulate and parasitize Whites, to better conduct the very war and feasting upon Whites which is making Whites resentful and angry. What jews fear is Whites clearly understanding this.

Purinton Triggers Haters

Adam_Purinton

He yelled ‘Get out of my country,’ witnesses say, and then shot 2 men from India, killing one, The Washington Post, 24 February 2017:

Authorities in Kansas filed first-degree murder charges against a man accused of opening fire in a bar there, killed one Indian man, injuring two other people and causing fears about bigotry to reverberate across the globe.

According to witness accounts, the gunman reportedly told two of the people who were shot — both Indian men who work for Garmin, the technology firm — to “get out of my country” before opening fire and had also used racial slurs during the Wednesday evening shooting.

Multiple law enforcement agents launched an investigation into the deadly shooting inside Austin’s Bar and Grill in Olathe, a city about 20 miles southwest of Kansas City. Even as authorities said they had not yet identified a motive for the attack, relatives of the Indian men said they feared the shooting was connected to a climate of fear and xenophobia in America.

The father of one of the people injured pointed to the election of President Trump, who has routinely described a threat posed to Americans from people outside the country’s borders, and pleaded with parents in India “not to send their children to the United States.”

Witnesses told the Kansas City Star and The Washington Post that Purinton was thought to have been kicked out of the bar Wednesday night before the shooting took place.

“He seemed kind of distraught,” Garret Bohnen, a regular at Austin’s who was there that night, told The Post in an interview. “He started drinking pretty fast.”

He reportedly came back into the bar and hurled racial slurs at the two Indian men, including comments that suggested he thought they were of Middle Eastern descent. When he started firing shots, Grillot, a regular at the bar whom Bohnen called “everyone’s friend,” moved to get involved.

Authorities have shied away from releasing many details about the attack. They have have not said the shooting was a hate crime, instead saying they are investigating it to see if it was spurred by bias. During a briefing Thursday, officials cautioned that it was still early in the investigation and declined to offer a motive for the shooting.

Bridget Patton, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Kansas, said Friday that the bureau was continuing to work with local police to investigate and “determine if there were any civil rights violations.”

The Kansas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called Thursday for state and federal hate crime charges to be brought against Purinton “in order to send a strong message that violence targeting religious or ethnic minorities will not be tolerated,” CAIR-Kansas Board Chair Moussa Elbayoumy said in a statement.

The infuriating silence of Donald Trump over an Indian engineer’s murder in Kansas, by Devjyot Ghoshal, 27 February 2017:

Trump’s silence is unsettling—and infuriating—for more than one reason.

By choosing not to openly condemn the attack in Kansas at a time when the US is deeply divided along racial lines, Trump risks giving the impression that he cares little for America’s influential Indian immigrants—or Indians in general.

“If the situation in Kansas were reversed, if two Indian immigrants attacked a group of white patrons to intimidate the larger community, there’s little question that Trump would respond with anger and condemnation,” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie wrote last week.

Trump’s silence about two Indians shot in Kansas speaks volumes, by Jamelle Bouie, 24 February 2017:

If accurate, witnesses and victims have described a hate crime: an attack meant to intimidate an entire community, as much as to harm a particular individual. Given the larger atmosphere of fear and hostility toward immigrants and people perceived as “foreigners,” this shooting has received wide attention from national outlets.

Donald Trump has not done much as president, but he has done this: He’s sent a clear signal to the country about who is worthy of empathy and concern—and protection—and who is not; about who deserves your outrage and indignation, and who doesn’t. Trump’s double standard is just another of the many ways he has told the American public that the lives and safety of immigrants and Muslims just don’t matter all that much.

First things first. The only reason Adam Purinton is in the news, nationwide, is because he looks White and the men he shot do not. It has nothing to do with who is president or what he hasn’t said. It has nothing to do with how many or what kind of non-White Purinton shot or what he said to them. It has everything to do with race.

From the more factual to the more hysterical the common theme of all the jewsmedia reports has been to send a clear signal that non-Whites, especially alien non-Whites, are worthy of empathy and concern – and protection – and that Whites, especially native Whites, are not. There is nothing but antipathy for Purinton in the jewsmedia. Though the cause of the altercation is unknown, and though it’s even possible the non-Whites threw the first racial slurs, the unanimous presumption in the jewsmedia is that Purinton was the aggressor, his motive and actions completely unjustified.

According to some reports, Purinton thought he had shot “Middle Eastern men” – and this has only multiplied the non-Whites screeching like jews for jew-like special treatment from the current anti-White government.

Bouie the jewsmedia house negro serves up only one of many disingenuous attempts to imagine the situation “reversed”. But we already know what the jewsmedia does when non-Whites kill Whites. A true reversal would be a media not owned and operated by jews, critical of non-Whites for anything anywhere at any time in history. A true reversal would be a real nation with real leaders, where terms like “my country” have real substance and bagel republic buzzterms like “civil rights violations” and “hate crimes” don’t.

In this case the most telling comparison that can be made is with jews. Organized jewry and the jewsmedia have been screeching longer and louder about entirely imaginary attacks. The more important difference is that the jews actually get the service nobody else does.

The Jewed Establishment is Anti-White

bill_oreilly_defends_one_jew_narrative_while_attacking_another

In their own ways Bill O’Reilly and Bill Clinton have just highlighted the defining character of the political zeitgeist – a clash of establishment narratives.

Referring to Trump’s selection, Clinton said, “He doesn’t know much. One thing he does know is how to get angry White men to vote for him.”

Referring to the jewed establishment’s response to Trump’s selection, O’Reilly said, “The left wants power taken away from the White establishment and they want a profound change in the way America is run.”

Trump and his campaign manager responded to Clinton. Trump, as usual, refused to even say the word White. Conway, rather than noting Clinton’s invective was anti-White, simply accepted his premise and responded in kind.

The jewed establishment’s response to O’Reilly has been to shit on O’Reilly for having the temerity to defend the establishment, specifically because he imagines it is White. Bill O’Reilly rose to the defense of white privilege in America’s presidential voting process, from The Washington Post, and Bill O’Reilly, in Defending “the White Establishment,” Nails a Liberal Vision of America, from Salon, capture the gist of this response.

Both little Bill scandals are merely reverberations of the recently completed hyper-racialized selection process. To recap, the Clinton team went with an anti-White strategy. Meanwhile, the Trump team wanted White votes, but wouldn’t even speak to Whites as such.

The jewsmedia, which in effect served as part of the Clinton team, has been pushing two conflicting narratives before, during, and now after the campaign.

The first narrative – decrying “White supremacism”, “White privilege”, “institutional racism”, and even lowly working-class White voters – is based on the premise that the current establishment is White. The second narrative decries the same thing – Whites, specifically because they are White – but is based on the premise that Whites have been emboldened by Hitler 2.0 to rebel against the current establishment, which alarms organized jewry and the jewsmedia precisely because they perceive this as a threat to jews.

There is some truth in both narratives. The apparent contradiction is resolved by putting them together.

The Clintons and the Trumps and many other individual members of the establishment may look White but their words and behavior aren’t pro-White. They all recognize the difference White votes can make, but none will so much as speak explicitly in favor of Whites. And even when the Conways or O’Reillys do use the word White, it’s only because they have internalized and are regurgitating the anti-White premise they are responding to, not to defend Whites as Whites.

The larger truth is that jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White. The establishment is anti-White because it is so thoroughly jewed. That’s why members of the current establishment, whether they look White or not, won’t say anything positive about Whites or negative about jews. Those who do dare are denounced and excluded.

Jews currently rule and are pushing a genocidal anti-White agenda. This is what’s making Whites angry. The jewsmedia reports every aspect of this situation, they simply report it from a point of view entirely sympathetic to jews and other non-Whites, and antipathetic to Whites.

Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White

do_i_look_too_jewish

The jews have noticed that White racial consciousness is growing. A few are freaking out and screeching to each other that Trump’s selection and the rise of the jew-aware alt-right is why jews, as jews, should freak out and screech more. This hysterical reaction, which only further exposes jew malevolence and power, is collective. It is what they are. The internet merely amplifies their jewing, allowing more of us to see it more clearly.

The essence of jew identity is inherently schizophrenic – a loud-furtive tribe of name-changing shape-shifting fraudsters who insist they are the victims of the many peoples they’ve parasitized and ultimately offed. They have thrived as a group because they are so keenly aware of themselves as a group, but also because they are aware that they thrive at the expense of others, their hosts, whose awareness jews spend a great deal of effort monitoring and ruthlessly manipulating – to suppress or redirect toward their own ends.

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a jewsmedia jewess whose long-term special concern has been to jewsplain, specifically to jews, how two toxic jew-driven anti-White memes – that jews are White, and that “White privilege” is evil – are colliding, and how this collision might ultimately not be good for the jews.

In a recent piece published by The Forward, Bovy empathizes with another, younger jewsmedia jewess, Sydney Brownstone. ‘Oh Man, Do I Look Too Jewish?’:

I have lived for 26 years under the illusion that I am unconditionally white, for example, and in pictures recently I have started looking at my face and going, oh man, do I look too Jewish? I’ve never done that before or at least not since I was 13 and like comparing myself to girls wearing Abercrombie.

Brownstone expressed this perfectly typical cryptic jew expression of hostility in a conversation with two other blabbermouth-stranger jewsmedia jews.

Brownstone was describing her concern about an impending alt-right revolution. She explicitly connected her antipathy for “a bunch of gun nuts shooting people” to her own conflicted self-image – a lifetime comfortably posturing as White while simultaneously seeing herself and her own violent, nutty tribe as separate from and at odds with Whites:

It’s just really weird to see this rise of anti-semitism, and think about kind of umm the historical pathway that even got my family on this continent and I know that, Eli, you share kind of a similar history. But I feel like there are ghosts that live in our blood and those ghosts are telling us to run or to remember the revolutions that our families survived and to look out for the signs that are happening now.

History is kind of umm weird because jewing. As White racial consciousness rose a hundred years ago jews as a group were compelled, by the Whites who ostensibly still governed America at that time, to resolve the weirdness, to present an argument that jews were racially “white”. Galvanized by this threat to their jewness a few jews went through the required motions. At the same time, other jews set out to remove the threat by constructing anti-”racism”.

Bovy offers an intimate and explicitly racial interpretation of Brownstone’s feels:

In one sense, pale-skinned American Jews are only now experiencing a shift in our racial self-conception. But if you step back and look at how these same Jews — specifically, the Jewish girls — often experience their teen and preteen years, it starts to seem as if maybe this experience of racist anti-Semitism isn’t entirely new.

And it feels a bit full-circle-ish, I must say, when you learn (on Facebook, where else?) that your 13-year-old self’s Abercrombie-girl equivalent now supports Trump.

Bovy, like Brownstone, clearly sees two separate groups – jews, whom they identify and sympathize with, versus Whites, whom they don’t. They act conflicted because there is a conflict, and they know they are on the jew side, against Whites.

No group is more conscious of race and identity than jews, who are well aware of the privilege they enjoy when Whites mistake them as White. They never tire of expressing their dislike and distrust for Whites, but also recognize the value of the error, the advantage it provides them to manipulate White thoughts and actions: “As a White, I think my fellow Whites suck.” At other times, especially when such goyposing fails, they revert to more explicit jewing: “As a jew, I can’t believe this craaaaaazy anti-semitism exists, shut it down.”

In this respect Bovy is full-time one-jewess band – more overt jew, less pretend “white”, but constantly dancing around the fault line. Bovy titled her take on Trump’s selection Between Guilt and Fear: White, Jewish, and Female after a Trump Victory:

But when I see “white women” posts from white Jewish women, I pause. Are we white women? Today? That is, are we complicit in what’s just happened?

The short, honest answer is no, jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White. But while Brownstone and Bovy provide one of the more blatant examples, it isn’t the only one.

Another jewsmedia jewess, Emma Green, coyly asks Are Jews White? (This article was published by The Atlantic, a “jewish Commentary” in the same sense as The Jew Republic.) Like Bovy, Green blames all this jewy double-talk, which has been going on forever, on the alt-right and Trump.

On the extreme right, Jews are seen as impure—a faux-white race that has tainted America. And on the extreme left, Jews are seen as part of a white-majority establishment that seeks to dominate people of color. Taken together, these attacks raise an interesting question: Are Jews white?

“Jewish identity in American is inherently paradoxical and contradictory,” said Eric Goldstein, an associate professor of history at Emory University. “What you have is a group that was historically considered, and considered itself, an outsider group, a persecuted minority. In the space of two generations, they’ve become one of the most successful, integrated groups in American society—by many accounts, part of the establishment. And there’s a lot of dissonance between those two positions.”

There’s that weird, jewed history again. The tales jews tell only seem paradoxical and contradictory to those who refuse to accept their implication. Jews, as a group, see themselves as distinct from and at odds with Whites. The confusion on this point persists because jews foment and perpetuate it. While fewer jews may believe that masquerading as White is still what’s best for the jews, they all peddle a version of history which hinges on the same stark distinction: excusing jews, faulting Whites.

Green’s coy bit triggered a jewlash much like the one just a week earlier, and for the same reason – jews lash out in anger when their jewing gets exposed. Green responded with Jews and the Social Construction of Race. The first article rehashed the old jew narrative on race, “It’s complicated, goyim, trust me.” The second article taps a more up-to-date jew narrative, “It’s imaginary, goyim, trust me.”

“Race” is a historically contingent and subjective category that is used to justify violence against minority groups. I specifically wrote about American Jews because their experiences—which are incredibly diverse and varied—show the hypocrisies and limits of these racial categories. Looking at the historical experiences of this one particular group, and the present-day tensions its faces, is a means of critiquing the way “whiteness” is used to delineate who is and isn’t considered powerful and valuable in society.

A lot of people seem to feel strongly that talking about Jews in terms of race—even to challenge the notion that Jews could ever fit neatly into a single racial category, which is what my article is about—is thought-provoking or, at worst, dangerous.

Here’s what I’d say to these objections: Racial categories exist in American society. Everyone—including and especially Jews, a group that is arguably constructed not just around religious identity, but also ethnicity—has to grapple with their relationship to those racial categories. As I argue in the piece, racial categories are flawed, socially constructed, and ultimately premised on control and power. But ignoring questions about race is not a way of bringing about racial justice or overturning white supremacy. It’s a way of stifling understanding, debate, and awareness.

Many jews realize they can’t talk about race without contradicting themselves, so they try to forbid the subject to everyone. Many others instead embrace the sort of weaponized racial double-talk Green uses in her second article – an overtly anti-White narrative about “white supremacy” and “control and power”, constructed by jews inside universities and broadcast to the masses by their corporate media. Both of Green’s narratives hammer home the same point. Jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White.

Then there are some jews who speak relatively plainly about jew identity and their historic racial animus toward Whites, like Micha Danzig, an Israeli soldier and NYPD cop. Anti-Semitism in America is Nothing New. Don’t Deny Jewish History and Culture by Calling Us “White”:

Ruiz-Grossman also apparently believes that Jews in America have been hiding behind their “skin privilege” instead of being at the forefront of the civil rights movement. Perhaps Ruiz-Grossman never learned that Henry Moskowitz, an Ashkenazi Jew, was one of the founders of the NAACP in 1909, and that many, if not most, of the civil rights attorneys fighting for racial equality in the South in the 1950’s and 1960’s were Jewish. Maybe she never learned that half of the famous volunteer “freedom riders” in the early 1960’s were Jewish, or that it was the murder by the KKK of three such freedom riders, two Jews, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, along with an African-American, James Chaney, that helped galvanize the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As if ignoring Jewish history in America is not enough, Ruiz-Grossman also disregards her own Jewish identity and Jewish history by characterizing herself and presumably all (Ashkenazi) Jews as “white.”

This is wrong and offensive. Anyone that understands Jewish history as well as the history of the entire development of the idea or construct of the “white race” should understand how that no Jew, Ashkenazi or otherwise, is “white.”

Ashkenazi Jews have been the victims of European and Western oppression and violence for centuries precisely because they were perceived as not being a part of the “white” world, beginning with the Roman colonialism of Judea and continuing through the 20th Century with arguably the worst genocide in history based on racial classification, the murder of more than 6 million, primarily Ashkenazi Jews, precisely because they were non-whites. The characterization of Jews as now somehow “white” and beneficiaries of “white privilege” is one of the main fallacies behind the relatively recent identification of some self-identified progressives with the demonization of Israel, a hateful cause to wipe off the map the world’s only Jewish state and to once again destroy the indigenous homeland of the Jewish people.

This is not merely a semantic issue. Jews are not “white.” We are a tribal people from the Levant. Many of our people were forcibly exiled out of and into other nations, including in Europe, where we were taken in chains and often subjected to brutal and oppressive institutional racism based on our ethnicity, tribal affiliation, culture and faith. For thousands of years, including nearly 2000 years where the majority of the Jewish people lived without the protection or comfort of having a Jewish homeland, we still maintained our indigenous culture, passing on from generation to generation our traditions, our language, and our sacred texts, all of which are entirely based on our indigenous tribal faith and affiliation. To call us “white,” when the notion of a “white” race was created by indigenous Europeans as a basis for supporting the “White Man’s Burden” and European imperialism, which certainly persecuted and oppressed Jews, in addition to numerous other non-Europeans, is a gross travesty and distortion.

No one that wants to end anti-Semitism and to fight against bigotry and racism should be claiming that Jews are “white.” People who try to depict or describe Jews as “white” are (albeit likely unintentionally) nullifying Jewish history and identity, and they are (again albeit likely unintentionally) essentially supporting Western imperialism, or at least it’s cultural imperialism, by imposing an artificial European creation (of a “White people”) on Jews — who regardless of our shade or whether we are Ashkenazi, Sephardic, or Mizrahi — are genetic brothers and sisters who have more in common genetically with each other than with most ethnic Europeans or “whites.”

Read that last paragraph again. Same anti-White jew narrative, yet another form. This is the ordinary jew-sixpack’s take on the weaponized double-talk produced by more subtle, polished jews, though his point about genetics is something none of them would be foolish enough to mention.

Anti-White Clinton Harpy Jewsplains The White Man’s Burden

jennifer_palmieri

The rhetoric of the Clinton campaign represents the semitically correct state of the art, the culmination of decades worth of anti-White political discourse. The anti-White animus driving the Clinton campaign came to the fore especially toward the end of the campaign, in both her alt-right speech on August 24th and her basket of deplorables speech on September 9th. These speeches created controversy when they were delivered, but now in retrospect can be seen as definitive of Clinton’s campaign strategy and emblematic of the broader jew-led war on Whites.

After the election the Harvard Institute of Politics and jewsmedia figures conducted a lengthy post-mortem discussion between Clinton and Trump’s campaign managers. The most heated exchange occurred when the role of White voters came up for discussion (at about 1:35:00):

JENNIFER PALMIERI, CLINTON CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician I am glad to have laws. [interruption] Give me a minute. I am more proud of Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech than any other moment on the campaign trail.

CONWAY: Wow.

PALMIERI: She had the courage to stand up. I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.

. . .

PALMIERI: Kellyanne, his schedule didn’t concern me. What concerns me is hiring — is, is himself, you know, we’ve already gone through some of the examples of his own language, of his own positions that I believe were at odds with my values as an American of embracing diversity, inclusivity, equality. And hiring someone like Steve Bannon who has an act, with Breitbart and gives people and one of my proudest moments with her is her standing up with courage and with clarity in Steve Bannon’s own words and Donald Trump’s own words the platform that they gave to white supremacists, white nationalists. And it is a very, very important moment in our history as a country and I think as his presidency goes forward I am going to be very glad to be part of the campaign that tried to stop this.

A more telling concern was expressed by the jew Joel Benenson (at about 1:45:00), “Who are you trying to take the country back from, my grandparents who came here?”

Palmieri’s point was that the Clinton team perceived Trump’s rhetoric as appealling to White voters, and that they regarded such an appeal as unthinkably wrong specifically because the voters are White. Palmieri reiterated this point in a Washington Post op-ed:

I don’t know whether the Trump campaign needed to give a platform to white supremacists to win. But the campaign clearly did, and it had the effect of empowering the white-nationalist movement.

Trump provided a platform by retweeting white nationalists — giving their views an audience of millions. Views previously relegated to the darkest corners of the Internet also had a platform on Breitbart, the website of Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.

If Trump expects the Americans who did not vote for him to accept him as president, he needs to show that he accepts all of them as Americans. He needs to show that he understands their concerns and hears their fears.

I suggest he and his team try “hashtag ‘we are all Americans.’ ” We all have a role to play here. But it’s the winner who carries the burden of taking the lead in uniting the country. It’s the burden of leadership. It’s the burden of being the president of the United States.

Palmieri’s assertion that Trump won by “providing a platform for White supremacists” is best understood as an inversion and psychological projection. Like Clinton, Trump pandered frequently and explictly to jews and every other group except Whites. Unlike Clinton, Trump never mentioned Whites. In contrast, the entire premise and frame of reference for Clinton’s alt-right speech, which Palmieri is most proud of, and Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” rhetoric, which she used in many contexts around the same time, was utterly and explicitly anti-White.

In light of this anti-White rationale, Palmieri’s suggestion that Trump’s burden is to serve “all Americans” is best understood as a clarification and restatement of Clinton’s campaign slogan: STRONGER TOGETHER (AGAINST WHITES).

Fake News, Real Enemies

jay_michaelson

Here’s a Daily Beast article that captures the jewsmedia echo chamber’s reaction to the Pizzagate scandal, combining their newest tropes (whatever jews disbelieve is “fake news” and whoever jews hate is a “Trump supporter”) with their oldest (stupid/crazy/evil “conspiracy theorists” are conspiring against the jews).

#Pizzagate Is the ‘Satanic Panic’ of Our Age—but This Time, the President’s Men Believe It, by Jay Michaelson, The Daily Beast, 6 December 2016:

No wonder Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for national security adviser, promoted the insane conspiracy theory on social media. It was part of the water in which Trump supporters were swimming.

The original post was subsequently deleted, but users on Reddit and Snopes have reconstructed the details of the original conspiracy theory, a stew of homophobia, panic, and paranoia among Trump supporters. More than anything, the #pizzagate tale is an eerie reminder of the “Satanic Panic” and child-molestation scares of the 1980s—and before that, of mob panics from colonial witch-burnings to the lynching of blacks, the blood libel against Jews, and McCarthyism.

According to the conspiracy tale, Comet Ping Pong pizza is a hub in a secret network of pedophile sex trafficking (false), coordinated by Clinton campaign leaders, including John Podesta (false). The original post noted that its owner, James Alefantis, was once the romantic partner of David Brock, the ex-conservative author (Blinded by the Right) and pro-Clinton advocate (true), and subsequent ones said that Alefantis’s Instagram was filled with sexual images of minors (false). The pizzeria, a hangout for D.C. Democrats (true), was said to have pornographic pictures in the restroom (false), secret doors (false), coded symbols for pedophilia on its menu (false), a downstairs “killing room” where children were kept (false) and sexual imagery throughout its artwork (false).

No, Pizzagate is not different in kind; only in degree. Like the others, it alleged a shadowy conspiracy, aided by “the media,” involving the most heinous crimes. Like other conspiracy theories, it made use of Russian-hacked emails—this time those belonging to John Podesta—which indeed mentioned pizza many times. (That’s not surprising, since Podesta was running a campaign filled with hungry staff people, but according to the theory, “pizza” was actually code for pedophilia.)

Sound familiar? It should. Pizzagate and the Satanic Panic echo earlier scares: McCarthyism (“there’s a commie in your bathroom!”); the witch trials, with their focus on illicit sexuality and adolescent girls; lynchings of black men accused of making sexual advances on young white women.

These kinds of panics are always about children being compromised, because children represent a lost innocence, threatened by a new world order: the multiculturalism of 21st century America, the sexual revolution, postwar transformations in American life, the New World, Emancipation. And they exist not in a vacuum, but on a continuum of paranoia. Pizzagate, in other words, is just a somewhat more extreme version of Steve Bannon’s harangues against coastal elites undermining “real” Americans.

Bannon is not, as some have alleged, a conventional bigot or anti-Semite. His populism is far more dangerous; like, yes, German fascism, but also like contemporary Russian and other right-wing nationalisms, it alleges a “real” American volk that is being undermined by a class of elites. Listen to his 2010 address to a Tea Party rally … You’ll learn that Western civilization is under attack by 1 percenters, multiculturalism, illegal immigrants, the liberal media, Hollywood, New York—anything that isn’t white Middle America.

Or move a half-step to the less-insane, to Trump’s calls to “Second Amendment people” who will stop Hillary Clinton, or to the Tea Party. This is the standard “paranoid style in American politics,” dating back to Trump’s mentor, Roy Cohn. Move a step closer to the center, and you’ll find the Christian Right arguing that our religious country has been hijacked, or Pat Buchanan. A step closer, and you’ll find only slightly extreme Republicans, and their funders in the Koch, DeVos, Coors, Scaife, Olin, and Bradley families.

In short, the Satanic allegations of Pizzagate, like those of the 1980s Satanic Panic, sit at the extreme edge of a paranoid continuum—with the Comet Ping Pong gunman perhaps at the extreme edge of that edge.

Of course the author of this is a proud sexually deviant rabbi, a professional jew whose everyday shtick involves lying about law, religion, and “LGBT issues”. His screeching sounds familiar because the nervous rabbi doth literally repeat himself and overall is reciting the same old jew narrative. According to jew quacks the root problem is Whites, because our “continuum of paranoia”/”paranoid continuum”/”paranoid style” is bad for the jews.

You might think it good and right for a polity to be disgusted by government corruption, defensive of its children, outraged at being deceived and betrayed by (mis)leaders. You might even see it as a hopeful sign of moral and mental health. But that’s because you’re not thinking like a member of the hostile parasitic alien tribe which is feeding upon that polity.

As the rabbi jewsplains, Pizzagate is just part of a larger problem. Listening to Bannon really can help you understand how. After bragging that his daughter is about to fly to the other side of the planet to fight for freedom Bannon describes a core grievance of the Tea party, the Big Ripoff of 2008:

Now how did the destruction of the American financial system, the world financial system, and the American political system take place? Tell me, how did that happen, when the biggest enemies we’ve had in the last hundred years – the nazis, the communists, the fascists, imperial Japan, even Osama bin Laden – not one of our enemies could ever destroy our financial and political system, they couldn’t even imagine it.

How did it happen? Quite easily. In the last twenty years our financial elites in the political class have taken care of themselves and led our country to the brink of ruin.

The cognitive dissonance in Bannon’s rhetoric is typical. He has accepted and internalized the jewed elite’s version of history, whereby jew bugbears are “our” biggest enemies. Yet at the same time some part of his brain understands that this jewed elite is in reality our biggest enemy.

The jew “conspiracy theory” double-talk is also typical. According to the jew narrative Whites incorrectly imagine jews are enemies because we are just born crazy and senselessly blame others for our problems. Yet every time jews regurgitate this narrative they contradict it, in effect confirming that they see Whites as enemies.

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse, 2016

shlomo_says_phobia

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics, by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, 27 Nov 2016:

Democratic (((pundits))) are calling on their party to court working-class and non-coastal whites in the wake of this month’s electoral rout. But the Democratic Party is now dominated by identity politics, which defines whites, particularly heterosexual males, as oppressors of every other population in the U.S. Why should the targets of such thinking embrace an ideology that scorns them?

The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party’s ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in “aggressive, racialized discourse,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed. By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a “post-racial, bridge-building society,” according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker. Obama’s post-racial efforts have now “given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation,” writes Baker, in a front-page “news” story.

[Ta-Nehesi] Coates’s melodramatic rhetoric comes right out of (((the academy))), the inexhaustible source of Democratic identity politics. The Democratic Party is now merely an extension of (((left-wing))) campus culture; few institutions exist wherein the skew toward Democratic allegiance is more pronounced. The claims of life-destroying trauma that have convulsed (((academia))) since the election are simply a continuation of last year’s campus Black Lives Matter protests, which also claimed that “white privilege” and white oppression were making existence impossible for black students and (((other favored victim groups))).

Hillary Clinton employed classic Democratic “racialized discourse” throughout the campaign. During a Democratic presidential primary debate in January 2016, Clinton agreed that it was “reality” that police officers see black lives as “cheap.” In a February debate, she accused Wisconsin, along with other states, of “really systemic racism” in education and employment. In July she called on “white people” to put themselves in the shoes of African-American families who “need to worry” that their child will be killed by a police officer. When Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” who belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” she was speaking the language of (((the academy))), now incorporated into (((the Democratic worldview))).

Mac Donald attempts to spin the conflict as a black war on Whites, but the Clinton campaign was speaking the anti-White language of jews.

See also: Decoding the Racial Political Discourse (2012).

“Whiteness Project” Stokes Anti-Whiteness

alex_the_jew

The tagline which greets visitors to Whiteness Project is “White people in Buffalo, NY, talk about race.” Here’s what comes up when you click on the About tab:

The Whiteness Project is a multiplatform investigation into how Americans who identify as “white” experience their ethnicity.

The project is conducting 1,000 interviews with white people from all walks of life and localities in which they are asked about their relationship to, and their understanding of, their own whiteness. It also includes data drawn from a variety of sources that highlights some quantitative aspects of what it means to be a white American.

At first glance this looks and sounds promising. It could be an updated, White-centric variation on Craig Bodeker’s video A Conversation About Race, or a web-based elaboration on Robert Griffin’s book, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race.

But who is behind this project, shaping it? What does Whiteness mean to them? Do they identity as “white”? If so, why do they write “white” instead of White? There’s a hint in their “Artistic Statement”:

Most people take for granted that there is a “white” race in America, but rarely is the concept of whiteness itself investigated. What does it mean to be a “white”? Can it be genetically defined? Is it a cultural construct? A state of mind? How does one come to be deemed “white” in America and what privileges does being perceived as white bestow?

Ahh. This is yet another slick attempt to pathologize Whites and deconstruct “White privilege”, an anti-Whiteness project hiding behind a misleading name.

Reading this VICE interview with director/producer Whitney Dow it’s apparent that whatever’s driving him it is not sympathy for Whites. Nor is it academic curiosity. Dow is animated by a deep-seated profanity-flecked hostility toward Whites.

Dow claims that White supremacy is the organizing principle of the United States today. The irony is he has somehow been able to make a career, a living out of promoting this reality-defying belief. Dow’s concept of Whiteness, which he claims is rarely investigated, is an anti-White view that has been taught by academics in elite universities for decades.

The idea behind Dow’s latest project is not new either. Ruth Frankenberg, a sociologist who helped define anti-White “Whiteness studies”, performed interviews in which she deliberately sought to “draw out” the “racism” in her “white” feminist subjects. Dow’s variation is to make a shallower pass over a more ordinary group he knows will “say a lot of dumb shit”. Whereas Frankenberg focused on shaming her deracinated feminist peers into anti-Whiteness, Dow targets Whites generally. Whereas Frankenberg worked in relative obscurity, Dow seeks and gets mass media promotion.

Responding to a question about his motives in the interview with VICE, Dow tries to explain:

I had this epiphany where I suddenly realized, I don’t have a racial identity… But oh my God, of course I have a racial identity. I have the most powerful racial identity on the motherfucking planet. And despite all the work I had done, all my talk about it, all my bullshit, until that moment, I hadn’t really processed it in a real way where I recognized it. It sounds really fucking corny, but it was like having some sort of conversion experience. With that knowledge, all of a sudden, I started to see the world in such a different way. It was kind of like getting X-ray glasses.

Some part of Dow’s brain seems to realize his epiphany about White supremacy is bullshit. At any rate he’s only explaining what triggered his conversion from unconscious to conscious anti-Whiteness. He doesn’t explain why he is anti-White in the first place. Frankenberg linked her anti-White resentment to her mixed jew/White identity. Is Dow’s underlying motive similar? Is his anti-Whiteness really just a reflection of jewness, or part-jewness?

Dow understands that jews are especially relevant to this issue of Whiteness. If you click on the Sources tab at his site and scroll down, one of his 21 blurbs reads:

94% of U.S. Jews identify as white. White Americans view Jews more positively than members of any other major religion.

How odd. Where are the statistics on other religions? What does religion have to do with Whiteness anyway? Why the jews? Dow leaves a truly telling question unasked: How do jews view Whites?

The Pew poll Dow cites as a source for his statement actually makes it clear that jews identify as jews more than anything else. Furthermore, jews think being a jew has more to do with biology (who their parents are) than religion, and 7 out of 10 jews “say remembering the Holocaust is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them”. Thus the most pertinent fact about jews vis-a-vis Whiteness is that jews identify themselves as distinct from Whites, as victims of Whites, as adversaries of Whites.

Dow must be aware of this. Alex, the “white” face Dow attached to his odd statement about jews, explains the distinction:

I don’t feel a common bond where, like, when I see another white person walking down the street I have to give them a high five or something along those lines. No. I do not feel a specific common bond with white people. If you were going to ask me if I feel a common bond with jewish people then yes, it would absolutely be yes.

Bullshit artists like Dow are able to make careers out of crusading against White supremacy only because Whites who identify positively as White are not in control, and because anti-White jews and people who think positively about jews are. It is exactly because jews have real power and privilege that “whites” of Dow’s ilk are not having epiphanies about jew supremacy and PBS will not be sponsoring any “Jewness Projects”.

So far the main response to Dow’s “Whiteness Project” has come from confused and consternated anti-Whites. The confusion is a direct result of the project’s misleading name and presentation. Their consternation is a result of the unthinkable injury of allowing Whites (or even “whites”) any kind of public platform to speak about race – even our own. Luckily for Dow, the more seasoned anti-Whites in the jewsmedia get his agenda. They have been happy to offer Dow and other anti-Whites a platform to make their distaste for Whites plain. Some examples are attached below.

White People Are Unironically Talking About the White Experience in New PBS Documentary, Tom McKay, Identities.Mic, 11 October 2014. (No White identity at “Identities.Mic”. McKay calls out just about every “white” except Alex the jew. Irony or coincidence?)

Twitter Users Reject The Whiteness Project’s Deposit, Trent Clark, Hip-Hop Wired, 12 October 2014. (14 pages of snarky twits “rejecting” the project because it isn’t overtly anti-White enough, see Anti-Whiteness is Trending.)

Anger at controversial PBS project on the ‘hardships’ of being white: Critics round on ‘The Whiteness Project’, Joel Christie, Daily Mail, 14 October 2014. (‘hardships’. Dow: “A bit nervous as I know it has a huge chance of being misunderstood” “White people have been very tentative about engaging.” “POC either get it right away or are hugely offended.”)

PBS under fire for documentary, ‘The Whiteness Project,’ on Caucasian hardships, Cheryl K. Chumley, Washington Times, 15 October 2014. (A rehashing of the DM article minus the sneer quotes on hardships.)

The Soapbox: “The Whiteness Project” Is A Pageantry Of White Ignorance, Tiffanie Drayton, The Frisky, 15 October 2014. (Angry black woman lectures Whites about “appropriation”, via the White internet, in White English.)

Why the Whiteness Project is so endlessly mortifying, Miles Klee, Salon, 15 October 2014. (“From our own vantage, it looks as if he was attempting a serious exploration of white identity in the tradition of Richard Dyer, but white people found a way to ruin it: by speaking their minds.”)

The Whiteness Project will make you wince. Because white people can be rather awful, Steven Thrasher, The Guardian, 15 October 2014. (Angry black man winces, wants to hear more.)

Why Would We Need Something Called ‘The Whiteness Project’?, Jessica Roy, NYMag, 16 October 2014. (Dow: “I expected white people to be outraged, and what’s actually interesting to me is the biggest critics of the project are white progressives on the web. They think it’s really outrageous, what I’m doing.”)

Making Sense of the Whiteness Project, Brigitte Fielder, Avidly – LA Review of Books, 16 October 2014. (“public responses to it have been so varied”, says yet another professional non-White who has literally made a career out of lecturing others about “Whiteness” and doesn’t think Whites should have anything to say about it.)