Tag Archives: jewish identity

Why the Jews Hate Those Who Love Them

Andrew Anglin points at Yori Yanover, who asks, Must Jews Dislike the Christians who Like Them? Yanover’s answer is an emphatic yes:

In other words, while I and my fellow faithful Jews like the fact that the next pogrom will not come from an Evangelical torch and pitchfork crowd, we still don’t trust you. You can’t say you love me for who I am, because who I am includes a thorough rejection of the essence of your ideology, all of it, completely, I hold that there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

But wait, there’s more.

Now do you love me? Do you love me in a future in which Jesus doesn’t come, and you continue to hold on to your faith, and I to mine?

Or, at least, can you keep the narrative about my seeing your light to yourselves?

That’s [what] we’re really asking.

Yanover imagines himself as a jewish superpope, who speaks for all the jews. It is a voice which is totally unselfconscious about jews force feeding others with their narrative, their tikkun olam and “light unto the nations” excuses for turning everyone else’s life upside down for their own benefit, never mind their noxious holocaust narrative, which they insist everyone else must learn and describe as they see fit, with special laws and fines and prison terms for heretics.

But I think Anglin’s response to Yanover gives Christians too much credit:

One might even go so far as to assert that continued existence of the Jews as a people is dependent on American Christian Zionists.

Surely, if it was not for them, we would cut the funding to the Jew state tomorrow, as aside from the weird cult, there is simply no logical reason to support these Jews. The fact that they use the money to commit genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine removes the humanitarian burden of protecting the allegedly persecuted Jews, even if you believe this Holocaust gibberish.

If it were not for the doctrine of Christian Zionism, most Christians would, by default, be Antisemitic, as this has been the default position of Christians since the beginnings of the religion. Thus, we would not continue to allow Jews to continue to run our government, economy and media.

Christians have bitterly opposed abortion and homosexuality, yet the jews have gotten their way on these domestic issues. Why would Christian opposition to Israel, or any other point of foreign policy, be different? Anglin knows it isn’t Christian Zionists who control the money, the media or the political parties, it’s the jews. It’s their money and media which moderate the policies of the United States, not the other way around. It has very little to do with what voters want, Christian or otherwise.

The jews make mountains out of molehills. They know there is a built-in limit to Christian “anti-semitism”. Yanover admits they’re all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they’d still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. Christians have always welcomed jews to “convert”, to infiltrate and manipulate them from within, even during the many brief periods of “persecution” that the jews complain most bitterly about.

The jews clearly wouldn’t have nearly as easy a time infiltrating and manipulating White societies if Christianity didn’t exist. Anglin’s argument that the jews wouldn’t exist if American Christian Zionists didn’t exist is far less plausible.

It seems to me that the Christians who love the jews who hate them are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. The affliction in self-proclaimed Christian Zionists, like Vox Day, is particularly obvious and acute. They insist on seeing the jews as partners, or at least as peers, even after looking directly at evidence which indicates otherwise.

Having a faith in beliefs which can’t be proven one way or another is one thing. Maintaining a truth which has been demonstrated false is something else. The first is a form of spirituality common to most men. The second is pathological. In this case the cause, the pathogen, is jews.

Though Christians make a spectacular show of the symptoms, and bashing Christians is perfectly semitically correct under the current, thoroughly judaized regime, Christians aren’t the only ones afflicted. Christianity appears to be only one method by which jews “capture” the minds of their “hostages”. Sharing short-term measures of fame or wealth or power seems to explain more.

Why do the jews hate those who love them? Because that’s their nature. Race is real. The parasite’s interest is not in loving or assimilating or cooperating with its host. The parasite’s interest is in infiltrating, the better to manipulate, the better to exploit the host. Christians prefer a more purely spiritual view, which tends to preclude such an understanding. It’s more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.

The Country Club Thing

As an addendum to Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare I quoted Rob Eshman’s use of the jewish narrative to excuse jewish behavior:

It’s not complicated, really. Poor little Jordan wanted to show those WASPs whose country clubs he couldn’t join that he was smarter, richer, better. What he failed to understand is that just about every Jew, every minority, shares the same impulses. But only a select few decide the only way to help themselves is to hurt others.

Sailer’s response to Eshman was:

I really am going to have to write about the country club thing one of these days. I’ve found an Anti-Defamation League report from a half century ago on country clubs that’s pretty interesting.

I can’t wait. Of course, the country club thing is only one of several common tropes in jewish tales of woe specific to America. Other, similar tropes focus on the relatively brief period during which there were informal limits on the number of jews admitted to some universities (discussed here) and informal restrictions on where they could work or reside (ala Gentleman’s Agreement, discussed here and here). The irony is that the jews are able to tell their one-sided woe-is-me version of this history only because the “WASP” defense of themselves and their institutions was not strong enough.

The explanation for jewish hostility is less complicated than either Eshman or Sailer will admit. It’s racial animus. The jews are parasites, hyper-aware of their otherness, the distinction between themselves and their host, in both body and mind. Conflicts of interest between them and their hosts are unavoidable. Jewish excuse-making and guilt-tripping is one mechanism for managing it. They understand the animus. They wish and indeed need to monopolize the explanation of it, to spin it in their favor.

The jewish narrative, stripped to its essence, is: YOU aren’t US, YOU should feel bad about that and try harder to please US. The double-think takes root in hosts with universalist, or at least pluralist tendencies. It expresses itself as a form of willful confusion about who US is: B-but, WE are all US, let US try harder to please US!

To see through this, you must be willing to think about what US means, and especially in biological terms, as the jews do. At least a few fans of Sailer’s “race realism” and “human biodiversity” are on the cusp of such understanding. As one commenter wonders:

What is this Jewish problem or hangup about country clubs? Freedom of association is a natural and okay thing. If WASPS didn’t want to have them, that’s their right. It is a PRIVATE club, not PUBLIC property like a library. Why couldn’t Jews just have their own clubs? Did it REALLY bug Jews that much that WASPS didn’t prefer them over their own kind? Why would they? Do Jews need validation so badly?

Why indeed. It is only a mystery as long as you pretend that jews are part of your US, or even wish to coexist with your US. They don’t. You are there to be infiltrated, manipulated, exploited. For their own good. This is why the suicide meme is so insidious. It is premised on, relies on, and even adds to the muddled thinking about who US is, abetting the “suicide” it purports to deplore.

While waiting on Sailer to share his little ADL tidbit, I’d like to recommend something Revilo Oliver wrote. It indicates not just how well established, how essential this “country club thing” is in the jewish psyche, but also how fruitless it is to go searching through history for ways to excuse jewish parasitism.

The following text comes from Oliver’s The Jewish Strategy:

III. THE JEWISH STRATEGY AT WORK: ANCIENT ALEXANDRIA

In the early years of our era, the Jews were then (as now) busy selling religion and revolution to the natives, and that is undoubtedly what the Emperor Claudius meant in 41 A.D. when, in his letter of warning to the Jews in Egypt (preserved in a papyrus now in the British Museum, R Lond. 1912), he described them as “the fomenters of a universal plague.”

Claudius’ phrase is the best description of the biologically innate nature of Jews that I have seen. I hope this does not startle you; if it does, I recommend a little objective observation of Jews engaged in collective action.

The publication of these papyri in the British Museum stopped with Volume V, just short of the group of papyri, beginning with #1912, that deal with Jews and Christians in Egypt. These, however, were edited in a separate volume by H. Idris Bell, London, 1924, which can be found under his name in any good library. Why the official series stopped where it did (and has never been continued), I do not know. One suspects there was a Jew in the woodpile.

P. Lond. 1912 is a long papyrus fragment excellently preserved. It is a private copy of an edict by Claudius that was posted in public places in Alexandria in 41 A.D. and is complete. It is in Greek, not Latin, because in Egypt every literate person (Greeks, Jews, Egyptians, and the comparatively few Romans who were there as governors and military commanders) knew Greek, whereas only the Roman officials knew Latin at all. Bell believes that our Greek text was translated from Claudius’s Latin, but I am certain that the text is what Claudius himself dictated to a secretary in Greek. Like every educated Roman of his day, Claudius spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and furthermore he was something of a scholar and wrote his two major historical works (now lost) in Greek. This Greek text contains stylistic peculiarities that are characteristic of Claudius’s mentality, but would probably have been smoothed away by a translator.

Claudius, who was born in 10 B.C., was the son of the male child with whom Livia was pregnant at the time that Augustus married her. If that child was legitimate, it was the son of Livia’s first husband and the younger brother of the Emperor Tiberius. If the child was illegitimate, as many suspected, Augustus was probably the father, but never acknowledged the paternity. Claudius’s mother was the daughter of Mark Antony. Claudius in infancy suffered from poliomyelitis or a similar disease that left him with a partly paralysed foot, some impediment in his speech, and muscles of the face and neck subject to spastic contractions. Regarded as unfit for public life, he devoted himself to historical and antiquarian studies, becoming both erudite and pedantic. He was quite intelligent, but timorous, excitable, and gullible, especially toward persons who showed him some attention and professed friendship during the first fifty-one years of his life, when he was regarded as an awkward and ridiculous political nullity, the butt of his nephew Caligula’s wit. Among those who thus acquired his gratitude and confidence were a number of clever Jews of great wealth and influence in Rome. Among these was Marcus Julius Agrippa (note the purely Roman name; a grandson of the Herod who appears in many versions of the Christ story), who, when the barbarian mercenaries rioted after the assassination of Caligula and, while plundering the palace, found old Claudius hiding in a closet and dragged him out to proclaim him emperor, by subtle and crafty machinations and bribery managed to get Claudius installed and recognized as emperor by the Senate. Claudius rewarded him generously, and was always under the influence of the prominent Jews in Rome. That is what makes his pronouncement so significant.

Alexandria was, of course, founded by Alexander the Great as a Greek city in conquered Egypt, and it became under his Greek successors, the Ptolemies, the capital of that country. Its position as the only real harbour in Egypt added to its great prosperity, and naturally Jews came streaming in from their colonies all over the civilized world. Alexandria became the New York of the ancient world, i.e., the largest Jewish city. The Jews took over two of the five quarters of the city for their ghettoes, from which they unofficially but effectively excluded white people, but naturally insisted on pushing their way into all the other quarters of the city and making themselves obnoxious in their normal ways. Jews always betray the countries in which they are feeding on the natives, so naturally, when Augustus attacked Egypt, the Jews naturally betrayed the Greeks, who remained loyal to Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies. Augustus punished the Greeks for their loyalty by depriving them of their local self-government, and rewarded the Jews for their treason with many special privileges, including the right to have a kind of Jewish government of their own.

The Jews, now riding high, naturally pushed the Greeks around more than ever, thrusting themselves into the gymnasia and other Greek institutions that were traditionally for Greeks only and inciting riots whenever they were so “persecuted” that the Greeks did not recognize them as a vastly superior race. The result was an endless series of civil disturbances that the Romans were powerless to prevent because no government dared to revoke Augustus’s grant of special privileges to the Jews. In the second year after Claudius became emperor, there was another one of the perennial riots in Alexandria that became virtual civil wars in the city, which was the most populous in the ancient world.

The Greeks of Alexandria despatched an embassy of their leading citizens to Claudius to request restoration of their local government and explain the cause of the riots, and the Jews, of course, sent an embassy of their own to snivel and whine about being “persecuted” by the wicked goyim.

The edict of Claudius of which the papyrus is a copy is addressed to the Greeks of Alexandria and announces his decision concerning the requests made by their envoys.

Omitted here are the contents of the document, both in the original Greek and Oliver’s translation.

The translation could be polished a bit, but it will show the meaning. The sentence in which we are particularly interested, delineated in detail, reads:

But if (they do) not, I shall in every way wreck vengeance upon them inasmuch as (=on the grounds that) they are persons who foment (=incite, propagate) a universal (=ubiquitous, found everywhere) disease (=pestilence, plague) of the oecumene (i.e., the settled and inhabited world, as distinct from jungles, steppes, and deserts).

You will have noticed that Jews were behaving normally in Alexandria, not only whining about being “persecuted” because of their Love of God while pushing their way into every place where the despised goyim hope to have a little privacy from them, but even illegally importing fellow parasites to prey on the white cattle, just as the Jews are constantly importing thousands of their congeners into the United States, not only across the border from Canada, but by ships that land thousands of the dear creatures at Red Hook on Long Island, whence they are carried by limousine to the New Jerusalem commonly called New York City, in open defiance of the immigration officers, who know about it but dare not intervene.

The country club thing is a parasitic thing. It is a pattern of behavior in jews which can be traced back as far back into recorded history as you care to go.

Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren’t “white” in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn’t subject to the usual standards by which “white” states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on “what it means to be pro-Israel.” A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the “tyranny of small differences,” as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening’s. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one’s support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist’s responsibility to guard Israel’s survival, to guard Israel’s interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What’s best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is “unanswerable” only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the “anti-semitic movements” which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally “liberal” jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally “conservative” jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No “dual loyalty” here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don’t face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any “anti-semitic movement”? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

“Anti-Semitism” as Racial Animus

Why Netanyahu Gave Pope Francis His Father’s History of the Spanish Inquisition, Tablet Magazine:

Understanding the book’s unique argument enables us to understand why Netanyahu chose to give such an ostensibly undiplomatic gift to the Pope. The Times recounts:

As a historian, Mr. Netanyahu reinterpreted the Inquisition in “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain” (1995). The predominant view had been that Jews were persecuted for secretly practicing their religion after pretending to convert to Roman Catholicism. Mr. Netanyahu, in 1,384 pages, offered evidence that most Jews in Spain had willingly become Catholics and were enthusiastic about their new religion.

Jews were persecuted, he concluded — many of them burned at the stake — for being perceived as an evil race rather than for anything they believed or had done. Jealousy over Jews’ success in the economy and at the royal court only fueled the oppression, he wrote. The book traced what he called “Jew hatred” to ancient Egypt, long before Christianity.

In other words, Ben Zion Netanyahu’s argument shifted the root blame for the Inquisition from religion to ingrained racial animus–from the spiritual to the secular. If one was going to give the pope a book about the Inquisition, then, this would be the one. Moreover, not only does the book’s revisionist reckoning partially absolve Christianity for Spanish persecution of the Jews, it offers a contemporary message of pressing relevance. At a time when Christian anti-Semitism has receded–evidenced not least by the friendly relations between the Vatican and the state of Israel–secular and racial forms of anti-Semitism have been on the rise, particularly in Europe, where a nearly a quarter of Jews say they are afraid to publicly identify as Jewish. The anti-Semitism diagnosed by Ben Zion Netanyahu is alive and well.

In other words, the diagnosis of the jews is that racial animus comes entirely from the goyim. This “unique argument” is the same double-talk that Douglas Rushkoff spews.

In trying to shift the root blame away from their parasitism, and particularly to their White hosts, jews try to have it both ways on race. They insist race doesn’t exist and the jews aren’t biologically distinct. Yet by invoking racial animus to explain “anti-semitism” they are implicitly acknowledging the reality of race and their biological distinctiveness.

Setting aside the self-serving jewish double-talk, “anti-semitism” is best understood as anti-parasitism. It has been the historic reaction of a variety of hosts to jewish infiltration, manipulation and exploitation.

Jewish Identity: Revolting

Via Daily Stormer, Douglas Rushkoff: “the thing that makes judaism dangerous…”

The thing that makes judaism dangerous to everybody – to every race, to every nation, to every idea – is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation states, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and judaism really teaches us how to see that.

In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real, and that’s very upsetting to people.

Rushkoff’s brief observation calls to mind a similar expression of a similar attitude by Barbara Spectre. Both examples deserve to be better known, especially among those who are either ignorant of or deluded about the nature of jews and their views.

The revolutionary impulse is a long-term and well-established characteristic of jews. But then so is double-talk. When jews aren’t bragging about their thirst for destruction they’re denying it, trying instead to pin the blame on someone else. This duality is visible even in the very brief statements above, indicating just how closely related the two things are in jewish minds.

Jews imagine themselves victims as a way of justifying their aggression against others. It’s always and completely everybody else’s fault. Especially White people.

Douglas Rushkoff on returning to religious core values, from 2004, provides a more fleshed out version of this jewish rationale. Starting at 2:21:

Rushkoff: Well, understandably, after a couple of thousand years of persecution in Europe, and after the holocaust, alot of jewish attention went to wondering about how many jews are there, how many of us are left. And there’s sort of this mindset of looking at ourselves as an endangered species that needs to be protected. That kind of became a dominant theme in judaism.

And it’s understandable that that would happen. But the problem is that the obsession with numbers starts to make the prime jewish directives to fight assimilation, prevent intermarriage, you make sure your son marries a jewish girl so the children will be raised jewish, and the money is spent creating social forums where jews can meet new jews to make other jews. And you go to synagogue and you’ll hear the rabbi speaking about these issues of assimilation and protecting jewry.

And it’s not the most appealing face for a spiritual path. It’s not the most appealing invitation that you’re doing judaism in order to help judaism, rather than doing judaism in order to somehow make the world a better place. Which is a much more, it’s a more appealing notion, I mean from a marketer standpoint, it’s a more appealing notion, it’s a better sell. But it’s also, it’s a more jewish one.

Interviewer: You’ve even gone further though. You’ve said this whole notion that jews form a race or a people is a false assumption. Explain that.

Rushkoff: Yeah. It’s funny, the first person to talk about the Israeli people – am? Israel – in Torah, is the pharoah. Right? He’s the bad guy, and he’s doing it because he’s scared that these Israelites are gonna replicate too much and then not support him in a war.

The first people to talk about a jewish race were the Spanish during the Inquisition, because so many jews had converted to Catholicism they needed a new reason to hate them. So they said well it’s not their religion, it’s their blood, you know it’s always going to be there.

And finally it was Hilter basterdizing a bit of Carl Jung, who said that, well, the jews have this genetic memory, so even if they’re only 1/8th or 1/16th jewish eventually what’s going to come out of them is this anti-establishment, kind of anti-fascist, disrespect for the fatherland – so we better kill them.

The problem is that jews ended up accepting this as our truth. You know, that judaiasm which was really born to defy all of these boundary conditions, to defy the notion that, oh, you move to this country and have this religion and believe in that god – that that’s ludicrous.

You know, that there’s sort of this one god pervades everything, it doesn’t matter where you live, that race isn’t a real thing – as any geneticist today will tell you that race isn’t real – but no, it seems that just as the world is waking up from these obsolete notions of race and nation state, it seems that jews are clinging to it as our sense of meaning, that well we’re a people, we’re a race, and this is the aspect of judaism we have to defend. And it seems ironic to me because these obsolete notions are part of what judaism was born to dissolve.

One takeaway from my recent series of podcasts examining jewish identity is that the most central tenet of jewishness, at the heart of their “religion”, is their belief in themselves as a people. That belief is literally more important than any other, including any beliefs about god. But there’s more. The jews are not just a people. They are a parasitic people. They not only thrive at the expense of others, they are acutely aware of it.

This is the reason for their double-talk and denial, dissembling and dissimulation. Rushkoff supplies an excellent example here. He’s not just regurgitating someone else’s lines. He’s thought it through. What the interviewer mistakes as a critique of jewry and denial of peoplehood is actually the opposite. He’s offering an apology, advising and excusing jews while blaming other peoples.

Rushkoff’s main concern is that his people are making their peoplehood too obvious, and he doesn’t think this is good for them. He’s disdainful of other people’s religions, but favors the pretense that jewishness is about religion because he knows others buy it. Jews, he knows, know better.

To make sense of Rushkoff’s statements is to understand that he sees jewish smashing and corroding, dissolving and obsoleting as good and only good when it comes to smashing, corroding, dissolving and obsoleting other peoples and nations. In contrast, he cares about the jews and wants them to continue. He thinks that the best way for them to do it, amidst all the destruction and harm they’re wreaking on the nations and peoples around them, is to not flaunt their own nation state and peoplehood so openly.

“Our poison is wonderful!”, Rushkoff says about his people, to his people, “Let’s not forget how it works and who it’s for!”