Tag Archives: anti-white

The Jewed Establishment is Anti-White


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.)

Jews and “New Jews”, The Poisonous Victim Narrative

Jewish and Muslim leaders link arms in silent march to honour victims of shooting at Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse

James Kirchick explains Why ‘Islamophobia’ in Europe Cannot Be Equated With Anti-Semitism, Either in Nature or Degree, at Tablet Magazine:

Much of what passes these days for “Islamophobia”—a conversation-stopping word meant to render any and all criticism of Islam as “racist”—simply cannot be equated with anti-Semitism, either in nature or degree. To express qualms about the reactionary attitudes prevalent in many Muslim communities about women, as did the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn (who was murdered for his heresy), is not racist, nor is it in any way comparable to the bigotry directed at Jews, historically or today. In the United States, FBI statistics show that, since Sept. 11, anti-Semitic attacks have far outnumbered anti-Muslim ones. In Europe, mobs do not rampage and attack Muslims or mosques following Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks, as Jews are regularly assaulted whenever tension flares in the Middle East.

None of this should obscure the fact that there are important similarities between the Muslim and Jewish experience, of both today and yesteryear. Muslims, Reed College Anthropology Professor Paul Silverstein told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2006, are “the object of a series of stereotypes, caricatures and fears which are not based in a reality and are independent of a person’s experience with Muslims.” Replace “Muslims” with “Jews” and you get a serviceable definition of anti-Semitism. In Europe today, both Muslims and Jews have been the targets of campaigns aimed at outlawing their traditional religious practices, namely, circumcision and the provision of kosher or halal food. Claiming their real motive to be concern for the “bodily integrity” of children or “animal welfare,” militant European secularists portray Muslims and Jews as barbaric peoples stuck in the past. Living in Germany two years ago at the height of the country’s anti-circumcision hysteria, I was confronted with provocative advertising campaigns that effectively likened Jews and Muslims to child molesters. French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who likes to fashion herself a friend of the Jews, has called for banning not only the headscarf but also the kippah in public.

Nothing new here – just your typical jewish double-talk and hypocritical in-your-face moralizing. Muslims are innocent victims, just like jews, only less so. Whites are the Other, the common enemy, their mutual victimizers, stereotyped as “hysterical” “militant” “provokers” whose “stereotypes, caricatures and fears are not based in a reality”.

Kirchick illustrates how the jewish narrative is extended into a more generalized victim narrative, a narrative in which “racism” and “islamophobia” are both similar and yet incomparable to “anti-semitism”. This reflects the archetypical role of the jews as the first and foremost victim-narrators. The term “new jews” makes this role explicit, designating some group as junior victim-narrators, like the jews, and implying a special status, like the jews. Thus “new jews” are righteous, but not as righteous as the real jews, who otherwise wouldn’t need to be invoked, much less get to have a say in it.

The fact is that the jewish narrative and its terms are used proactively and aggressively, not defensively. The target of their aggression, their characteristic psychopathologization and demonization, is Whites. Their anti-White narrative has been institutionalized and is now a commonplace in the judaized corporate media.

This long-term jew-led assault has put Whites collectively on the defensive, leaving us disoriented and demoralized. In reality Whites, who according to the jewish narrative control everything, have no political representation as such. Leaders who openly and unapologetically identify with and advocate White interests have been excluded or hounded out of power as “racists”. The consequences of this have been disastrous for Whites.

Just one tip of one bloody iceberg has come to light in Rotherham. Unsurprisingly, there have been efforts to mischaracterize the harm as self-inflicted or as a consequence of partisanship. It is neither. What is evident in the revelation of this long-term and wide-spread predation is not only the humiliation of being colonized and despoiled by hostile aliens, but the enervating way in which it has been directly facilitated by the jews and their poisonous narrative.

The Revolution Devours its Zizeks


A sample of the judaized mainstream media reaction to Slavoj Zizek’s plagiarized review of Kevin MacDonald provides a glimpse of right and wrong as proscribed by the anti-White/pro-jew regime:

Did Marxist Philosophy Superstar Slavoj Žižek Plagiarize a White Nationalist Journal?, by Taylor Wofford, Newsweek.

Slavoj Zizek plagiarized white supremacist magazine American Renaissance. Why?, by By Rebecca Schuman, Slate.

Famed Philosopher Accused Of Plagiarizing White Separatist Journal, by Annalisa Quinn, NPR.

Slavoj Žižek Sorta Kinda Admits Plagiarizing White Supremacist Journal, by Michelle Dean, Gawker.

The “marxist”/”leftist” commissariat is virtually stoning one of their own superstars, and it clearly is less about his plagiarism, a mere intellectual crime, than it is about their perception that he kinda sorta violated their anti-White/pro-jew moral imperative.

The commissars are morally outraged. Plagiarism, schmagiarism. Though shalt not discuss anti-jew or pro-White thoughts without unambiguous and unreserved condemnation. It’s a secular, racially particularist morality which holds jews, as a group, exempt from any criticism, placing them over above and in utter contradistinction to Whites, who may only be criticized, at least when our very existence isn’t flatly denied.

Whereas the anti-White attitude is right up front in the headlines above, you have to dig a bit to find the pro-jew attitude driving it. Matthew Walther lays both halves out most explicitly in his brief condemnation of Zizek at The American Spectator. Walther asks, Did the Marxist Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Plagiarize a White Nationalist Magazine?

It certainly looks that way. The other night I was reading my galley copy of Adam Kirsch’s forthcoming essay collection, Rocket and Lightship. It’s full of good stuff, but the best piece in it is about the Slovenian Marxist gadfly Slavoj Zizek. Zizek is a strange character: a social democratic dissident turned unapolegtic Leninist; a pop-culture loving obscurantist; a millionaire philosopher. He is also, Kirsch intimates, without quite saying as much, an anti-Semite.

Now I read at Ron Unz’s new website that Zizek appears to have plagiarized a book review that appeared nearly two decades ago in Jared Taylor’s soi-dissant “white nationalist” (a stupid, meaningless phrase: there is no such country as “white”) magazine, American Renaissance.

Zizek has apparently been playing along the edge of the pro-jew line for a while, and some jews, ever sensitive and vigilant, have noticed.

Kirsch’s relatively lengthy indictment of Zizek The Deadly Jester, published by New Republic in 2008, strikes a similar tone to the brief and more recent scolds noted above. But lacking the “White nationalist” foil Kirsch had to perform a much more elaborate dance around “the Žižek phenomenon” before finally getting to his point.

“Our ‘freedoms,’” Žižek writes in Welcome to the Desert of the Real, “themselves serve to mask and sustain our deeper unfreedom.” This is the central instance in Žižek’s work of the kind of dialectical reversal, the clever anti-liberal inversion, that is the basic movement of his mind. It could hardly be otherwise, considering that his intellectual gods are Hegel and Lacan—masters of the dialectic, for whom reality never appears except in the form of the illusion or the symptom. In both their systems, the interpreter—the philosopher for Hegel, the analyst for Lacan—is granted absolute, unchallengeable authority. Most people are necessarily in thrall to appearances, and thereby to the deceptions of power; but the interpreter is somehow immune to them, and can singlehandedly recognize and expose the hidden meanings, the true processes at work in History or in the Unconscious.

This sacerdotal notion of intellectual authority makes both thinkers essentially hostile to democracy, which holds that the truth is available in principle to everyone, and that every individual must be allowed to speak for himself. Žižek, too, sees the similarity—or, as he says, “the profound solidarity”—between his favorite philosophical traditions. “Their structure,” he acknowledges, “is inherently ‘authoritarian’: since Marx and Freud opened up a new theoretical field which sets the very criteria of veracity, their words cannot be put to the test the same way one is allowed to question the statements of their followers.” Note that the term “authoritarian” is not used here pejoratively. For Žižek, it is precisely this authoritarianism that makes these perspectives appealing. Their “engaged notion of truth” makes for “struggling theories, not only theories about struggle.”

But to know what is worth struggling for, you need theories about struggle. Only if you have already accepted the terms of the struggle—in Žižek’s case, the class struggle—can you move on to the struggling theory that teaches you how to fight. In this sense, Žižek the dialectician is at bottom entirely undialectical. That liberalism is evil and that communism is good is not his conclusion, it is his premise; and the contortions of his thought, especially in his most political books, result from the need to reconcile that premise with a reality that seems abundantly to indicate the opposite.

Hence the necessity of the Matrix, or something like it, for Žižek’s worldview. And hence his approval of anything that unplugs us from the Matrix and returns us to the desert of the real—for instance, the horrors of September 11.

See where Zizek is going? Kirsch does.

There is a name for the politics that glorifies risk, decision, and will; that yearns for the hero, the master, and the leader; that prefers death and the infinite to democracy and the pragmatic; that finds the only true freedom in the terror of violence. Its name is not communism. Its name is fascism, and in his most recent work Žižek has inarguably revealed himself as some sort of fascist. He admits as much in Violence, where he quotes the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk on the “re-emerging Left-Fascist whispering at the borders of academia”—”where, I guess, I belong.” There is no need to guess.

Žižek endorses one after another of the practices and the values of fascism, but he obstinately denies the label. Is “mass choreography displaying disciplined movements of thousands of bodies,” of the kind Leni Riefenstahl loved to photograph, fascist? No, Žižek insists, “it was Nazism that stole” such displays “from the workers’ movement, their original creator.” (He is willfully blind to the old and obvious conclusion that totalitarian form accepts content from the left and the right.) Is there something fascist about what Adorno long ago called the jargon of authenticity—”the notions of decision, repetition, assuming one’s destiny … mass discipline, sacrifice of the individual for the collective, and so forth”? No, again: “there is nothing ‘inherently fascist’” in all that. Is the cult of martyrdom that surrounds Che Guevara a holdover from the death worship of reactionary Latin American Catholicism, as Paul Berman has argued? Perhaps, Žižek grants, “but—so what?” “To be clear and brutal to the end,” he sums up, “there is a lesson to be learned from Hermann Goering’s reply, in the early 1940s, to a fanatical Nazi who asked him why he protected a well-known Jew from deportation: ‘In this city, I decide who is a Jew!’… In this city, it is we who decide what is left, so we should simply ignore liberal accusations of inconsistency.”

Here, near the end, Kirsch finally drops his mask. The last fifteen paragraphs are all about jews, judaism, Israel and “anti-semitism” – laying bare Kirsch’s entirely jewish concerns. In classic jewish form he begins by psychopathologizing Zizek for “obsessing” about the jews:

To produce this quotation [about Goering] in this context is a sign, I think, of something darker. It is a dare to himself to see how far he can go in the direction of indecency, of an obsession that has nothing progressive or revolutionary about it.

It is not surprising that it is the subject of the Jews that calls forth this impulse in Žižek, because the treatment of Jews and Judaism in his work has long been unsettling—and in a different way from his treatment of, say, the United States, which he simply denounces. Žižek’s books are loosely structured and full of digressions, more like monologues than treatises, but for that very reason, his perpetual return to the subject of the Jews functions in his writing the way a similar fixation might function in an analysand’s recital: as a hint of something hidden that requires critical examination.

Typically, the form that Žižek’s remarks on Jews take is that of an exposition of the mentality of the anti-Semite. This is an unimpeachable and rather common forensic device, but somehow it does not quite account for the passionate detail of Žižek’s explorations.

The power and influence of jews is pervasive in, say, the United States. Other than jew-obsessed jews and the occasional slip-up by one of their useful idiots, only “anti-semites” take any notice. What is remarkable is that, whether they perceive jewish influence or not, most everyone else keeps their mouths shut about it, even while they freely criticize “Americans” and “Europeans” collectively.

Which brings us to the crux of Kirsch’s beef. It’s about policing perceptions and assigning blame:

Why this need to keep open, as if for the sake of argument, the possibility that the Jews really were guilty of all the things of which the Nazis accused them? Why, when Žižek returns to this same line of reasoning in Violence—”even if rich Jews in the Germany of the 1930s ‘really’ exploited German workers, seduced their daughters,” and so on—are there quotation marks around “really,” as though the truth or the falsehood of Jewish villainy were a question to be postponed until it can be given fuller consideration?

These moments, unpleasant as they are, are not quite expressions of anti-Semitism. But in In Defense of Lost Causes, Žižek does make plain what he might call the “fantasmatic screen” through which he sees Jews.

As far back as World War II, he remarks, rehearsing one of the oldest and most pointless “ironies” of modern history, “the Nazis and the radical Zionists shared a common interest…. In both cases, the purpose was a kind of ‘ethnic cleansing.’”

This method of alleviating European guilt by casting “the exemplary victims” of the Holocaust as in some sense the agents of holocaust is far from unknown on the European left. But what is less common, even there, is Žižek’s resurrection of some of the oldest tropes of theological and philosophical anti-Semitism.

It makes sense, then, that Žižek should finally cast his anti-Judaism in explicitly theological terms. Why is it that so many of the chief foes of totalitarianism in the second half of the twentieth century were Jews—Arendt, Berlin, Levinas? One might think it is because the Jews were the greatest victims of Nazi totalitarianism, and so had the greatest stake in ensuring that its evil was recognized.

Kirsch concludes:

Under the cover of comedy and hyperbole, in between allusions to movies and video games, he is engaged in the rehabilitation of many of the most evil ideas of the last century. He is trying to undo the achievement of all the postwar thinkers who taught us to regard totalitarianism, revolutionary terror, utopian violence, and anti-Semitism as inadmissible in serious political discourse.

Kirsch can’t quite call what Zizek does “anti-semitism” because Zizek makes it difficult to understand what he’s doing. In trying to decipher Zizek, however, Kirsch shows us his own “fantasmatic screen”, and it has nothing to do with Zizek. Kirsch sees the jews as purely innocent victims, and unsurprisingly it has everything to do with seeing Whites purely as their victimizers.

The Zizek affair isn’t about the revolutionary left devouring its own heroes. It’s about maintaining a regime under which painting Whites as guilty and evil is the norm, and any criticism of jews is inadmissible.

Picture source: Slavoj Zizek with Josefina Ayerza; “It doesn’t have to be a jew…” It doesn’t have to be an Eskimo either. But of course it is the jews – if not for them nobody would make such a ridiculous fuss insisting that it isn’t. That’s how a bullshit artist like Zizek can become rich and famous by regurgitating typically jewish psychobabble about “racists” and “Americans”, but stands to forfeit it all by kinda sorta offending the sensibilities of the jews.