Tag Archives: crypsis

Blog

The Tuvel Affair

19 Comments

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-“white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”

Blog

Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White

31 Comments

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 a 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.

Age of Treason Radio

Trans-Reality

Audio 6 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

fluid_frauds_dolezal_jenner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

Furthermore:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the problematic internet comments connecting transgender to transracial:

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

first president of the Asian American Psychological Association

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Age of Treason Radio

Shanda fur die Goyim

Audio 20 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

whiny_alien

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

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

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

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

Instant Yiddish:

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously not good for the jews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original Kensington is an area of West London.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selling organs is a “shande”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernie Madoff was a Wall Street insider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE 10 July 2017: 47 Reasons to Love New York, Right Now, More Than Ever:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (class of ’50), Bernie Sanders (’59), and Chuck Schumer (’67) all wrote for the newspaper at James Madison High School

Blog

On Jewish Deception

3 Comments

believe_what_you_want_to_believe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Part 2 Joyce introduces a good example of this:

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

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

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

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

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

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