Tag Archives: jewish influence

Intersectional Jewing

jew_tears_intensify

Concerning the jew victim narrative, AKA the jew version of history, which provides the much longer-term foundation for the past century’s jew-defined/jew-driven anti-White “anti-racism” and post-WWII identity politics. The latest twist in the jew narrative concerns intersectionality, which encompasses all the bitter squabbling over rank in the anti-White victim hierarchy. The Occupy Wall Street movement called this hierarchy the progressive stack.

Broadly put, intersectional jewing is what happens when one form of jewing comes into conflict with another. The conflict I focus on here arises mainly out of the clash between two jew narratives: the lie that jews are “white”, and the lie that Whites are evil. There is also a clash between the jew “anti-racism” fraud and the ongoing developments coming out of White science, mostly having to do with genetics and race.

In this podcast I reexamine a number of older topics and connect them with more recent examples.

The intersectional jewing connection first clicked for me while writing about Bret Weinstein at Evergreen. The Tuvel Affair and Trans-Reality are all about the jewing and counter-jewing around sexual degeneracy and transracialism/crypsis.

An early example was discussed in Liberalism as a Suicide Pact, which has to do with the common kikeservative assertion that “muh liberalism/constitution is not a suicide pact” (for the jews) originating from Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello.

The jewsmedia white-washing of the kikeservative Trump administration is discussed in A Tale of Two Steves: Decoding the Ongoing Bannonocaust and Intrigue in Trump’s Palace.

Non-White/anti-White jew double-talk is covered in Jews Debate Whiteness and Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White.

Ezra Levant jewsplains the jewing of “hate speech” jewing in Canada.

Lawrence Auster’s The First Law of Jewish Influence.

Alt-jew/JRx: On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction.

Jonathan Haidt at Duke: Two incompatible sacred values in American universities. A description of Haidt’s this-jewing-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-jews shtick:

“When I went to Yale, in 1981, it said above the main gate ‘Lux et Veritas’: Light and Truth. We are here to find truth,” Haidt says as he paces the stage at the Students for Liberty conference in Washington. “This is our heritage all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates.” But the pursuit of truth is being supplanted by a new mission, he warns, the pursuit of social justice. He paraphrases Marx: “The point is not to understand the world; the point is to change it.”

It’s human nature to make things sacred — people, places, books, ideas, Haidt says. “So what’s sacred at a university?” he asks. “Victims are sacred,” he answers. And a victimhood culture offers only two ways to get prestige: Be a victim, or, if you can’t manage that, stand up for victims. How? “By punishing the hell out of anyone who in any way, shape, or form, even inadvertently, marginalizes a member of a victim class.”

He clicks to reveal a slide titled “The Six Sacred Groups.” “The Big 3″ are Blacks, Women, LGBT. “The Other 3″ are Latinos, Native Americans, Disability. The list of sacred victims, he says, is growing. Among the newly sacrosanct are Muslims, transgender, and Black Lives Matter. “I’m in no way saying these are not victims,” Haidt says. “I’m not dismissing claims of systemic racism. I’m just pointing out that the quasi-religious conflicts we have on campus nowadays tend to revolve around these groups.”

Hysterical Jamie Kirchick’s Dykes vs. Kikes. The official response from the dykes:

Zionism is an inherently white-supremacist ideology. It is based on the premise that Jewish people have a God-given entitlement to the lands of historic Palestine and the surrounding areas. This ideology has been used to justify dozens of laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel, segregated road systems in the West Bank, and forced removal of Palestinian families from their homes in order to make way for Jewish-only housing, among other violent and discriminatory practices. We recognize that Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism, but instead represents an ideology that uses legacies of Jewish struggle to justify violence.

Fake News, Lethal Narratives

lying_jewsmedia

The ever so subtly amended paragraph from America’s Lethal Politics now reads:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

What is so special about Giffords? Why is the Jew York Times still promoting an imaginary connection between her shooter and Palin? Can you guess?

In 2011 the shooting of Giffords triggered the jewsmedia to unleash a torrent of vitriol at Palin and her White supporters. Palin called out the dishonest screeching in the jews’ own terms, which triggered the yids to really flip their lids.

In retrospect it wasn’t an isolated incident but a preview of the increasingly open anti-White hostility of the jewed elite, which they later really let hang out during Trump’s selection campaign. The thrust of the jewsmedia narrative, then as now, is that somebody else’s rhetoric is somehow inspiring violence. Of course words can inspire violence. Nobody understands this better than that most privileged tribe, constantly lecturing everybody else about the danger of tribalism, whose own toxic anti-White rhetoric prevails not only in the media but also in academia, the judiciary, and all major political parties.

The furor which erupted from the echo chamber in the wake of James Hodgkinson’s attack is theatre. The fakery extends well beyond a single paragraph, op-ed, publisher, or shooting. The spectacle created by the “left”-posing jewsmedia and the “right”-posing alt-jewsmedia, pointing and sputtering at each other, and especially at their designated kikeservative punching bags, is a deliberate and concerted distraction. The purpose is to keep the goyim on the defensive, scrambling to justify our beliefs, our speech, our guns, our very existence.

What all this jewsmedia screeching serves to do is shift attention away from the harm caused by their own rhetoric, harm so ubiquitous that it goes largely unremarked upon. Consider the disease, corruption, ripoffs, beatings, rapes, murders, bombings, and wars inspired or enabled or justified by the bipartisan anti-White/pro-jew regime’s narrative. Notice that they never take the slightest responsibility for causing any of this harm. They constantly screech as if they are victims not because they are ignorant or insane, but because they know well the harm they’re causing and the response it calls for.

Niggers and Kikes, United Against Whites

maher_carmichael_lear

Notice all the cucks and niggers pretending to be offended at Bill Maher’s latest act, calling himself a house nigger. Among other things it demonstrates the power of taboos, how simply uttering certain magic words can unleash a torrent of emotion and vitriol, even if much of it is fake.

The nature of this power is revealed in who censures whom. If political correctness is a war on noticing, as Breezy Steve Sailer often notices, then semitical correctness is the war on noticing jewing. Thou shalt not mention jews or their jewing – that’s the One Strange Trick behind the current prevailing structure of taboos.

This tantrum Maher triggered has everything to do with mistaking him for “white”. In reality he’s anti-White. Indeed, he’s a shape-shifting transracialist mischling, a professional celebrity crypto-jew. He’s an actor-provocateur whose career consists of playing the white-faced minstrel, pissing on White norms while tilting impotently against semitical correctness. His job, couched in snark and irony, is to stake out what is or isn’t taboo and for whom, to spell out the unwritten rules by making an example of himself.

It is the pretense that Maher is “white”, an exemplar of “white privilege”, which makes his use of the word nigger “racist”. It is the white-washing of this jew’s jewing which makes it perfectly semitically correct to loath him. To call him out and loath him for being a particularly toxic jew is the exact opposite, perfectly semitically incorrect, six gorillion times worse than saying nigger.

Just prior to hysteria Maher inspired the jewsmedia was busy promoting a positive attitude about niggers saying nigger. The difference is complementary, not contradictory. Whereas Maher’s shtick is aimed at demoralizing the White goyim, The Carmichael Show strikes a defiant tone aimed at emboldening the black goyim.

The jewsmedia’s PR included this helpful little aside:

The use of the word is not unprecedented – see All in the Family. But that aired “before political correctness,” jewsmedia house niggress Loretta Devine said at NBCU Summer Press Day

Yes, see All in the Family, the icebreaker for prime-time anti-White talmudvision. Bill Maher’s jewing pales in comparison to Norman Lear’s. The old kike is jewing away to this day, ever more openly relishing it as he descends into senility. In May Lear invited Jerrod Carmichael on his podcast specifically so they could say nigger together.

Listening in you’ll notice that the real Carmichael, behind the uppity talmudvision nigger act, is a true jewsmedia house nigger. Jewsmedia jews made him, own his black ass, and he’s happy with the arrangement. More to the point, notice that neither Lear nor Carmichael bother to pretend jews are White.

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen

two_jews_discuss_anti-racism

It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

The Jew Coverup

freud_fraud_anti-white

I stumbled across this coverup of a coverup at Wikipedia. The Freudian Coverup:

The Freudian Cover-up is a theory first popularized by social worker Florence Rush in the 1970s, which asserts that Sigmund Freud intentionally ignored evidence that his patients were victims of sexual abuse.

Early within Freud’s career, he believed that little girls often experienced sexual abuse, since most of his patients were predominantly women and consistently reported childhood instances of sexual molestation. Many of Freud’s patients suffered from a common Victorian diagnosis, hysteria. Since his hysterical patients repeatedly reported sexual abuse, most often naming their fathers as the abusers, Freud drew a causal connection between sexual abuse and neurosis. This became the frame for the seduction theory, in which he pointed to a direct connection between sexual abuse in childhood and adult hysteria. According to Florence Rush, author of The Freudian Cover-up, this repeated and persistent incrimination of fathers by his patients made him uneasy, and led him to abandon the seduction theory.

Freud wasn’t trying to protect fathers, he was protecting his tribe. An Analysis of Freud’s Jewish Identity:

Freud’s early patients were almost exclusively Jewish women, yet there is little mention of this in Freud’s writings. Working with these women, Freud recognized the limitations of electrotherapy, the treatment of choice for mental illnesses such as hysteria, and argued that electrotherapy was successful only because of its suggestive effects rather than because of its actual effect on the nervous system. The missing variable in Freud’s rejection of electrotherapy, as Gilman notes, was the prevailing question in 19th-century medicine: race. Indeed, Freud found, upon his return to Vienna from Paris, that statements about the Jewish predisposition for forms of mental illness were commonplace. In fact, some sought to make a distinction in mental stability between secular and nonsecular Jews. These debates led Freud to abandon the idea of hysteria as an inherited disease with a racial component.

The so-called Freudian coverup happened at about the same time jews generally began abandoning the idea of race and started pushing anti-White “anti-racism” instead, just as an immune response to rampant jewing in Europe, the first truly racially-aware White state, was rising to state power in Germany. What a cohencidence.

The Tuvel Affair

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.”

Jews Celebrate Victory in France

jews_jewing_jewishly

The anti-French sentiments of jews have been most frankly expressed in the jewsmedia aimed at jews.

Big in Israel: Macron captures 94 percent of French-Israeli vote – Israel News – Haaretz.com:

Many French-Israelis said they voted because they feared a Le Pen victory. Le Pen’s threat to strip French-Israelis of their dual citizenship stoked anxiety, and many feared that a Le Pen victory could spell trouble for their Jewish friends and relatives left behind in France.

French-Israelis vote overwhelmingly for Macron | The Times of Israel

French Jews ‘relieved’ Macron won but worried over Le Pen’s electoral gains | The Times of Israel

Saying ‘anti-Semitism defeated,’ Israelis fete Macron victory | The Times of Israel:

“I look forward to working with President Macron and together to take on the shared challenges of our two democracies,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement which included his congratulations.

“One of the greatest threats facing the world today is extremist Islamic terror, which carries out attacks in Paris, Jerusalem and many other cities around the world. Israel and France have a long-standing alliance and I am sure that we will continue to deepen our connections,” said Netanyahu.

Likud MK Oren Hazan, a brash backbencher who had publicly supported Le Pen and alleged that others in the ruling party did as well, was silent in the immediate aftermath of the results Sunday night. Hours before the results were announced, he wrote on Facebook that victory for Macron would be a disaster.

“If France becomes the first European-Islamic power, then it will be impossible to undo and Jews… will not be able to walk around there at all,”

However, most in Israel had opposed Le Pen, who finished with only 3 percent or so of the vote among expats in Israel in the first round of voting.

Similar sentiments have been expressed in more cryptic form in the jewsmedia aimed at non-jews.

(((Anti-Trump))) jew Yascha Mounk declared victory in France, but reminded his readers the broader war on Whites is not over yet. Four reasons not to be cheered by Emmanuel Macron’s defeat of Marine Le Pen:

Finally, and most important, a lot of the commentary on the rise of populism is treating the success of candidates such as Trump as though they were the result of a mysterious virus that might subside just as quickly as it spread. But to make this argument is to close our eyes to the fact that the current challenge to the political system has been steadily growing over time—which suggests that it has deep, structural causes.

There continues to be real debate as to just what these causes are. But there are some obvious candidates: Over the past decades, the living standards for most ordinary citizens have stagnated in both North America and Western Europe. Countries on both sides of the Atlantic have had to deal with high levels of immigration while overcoming deeply entrenched racial hierarchies that privileged whites over everybody else. At the same time, they have seen a growing chasm between affluent urban centers and a stagnant periphery, which feels increasingly neglected. To halt the rise of populism, moderate politicians will have to find answers to these immense challenges.

(((Anti-anti-Trump))) jew Marc Thiessen also declared victory in France, and jewsplained why this is good news for Trump-supporting jews. Le Pen’s defeat is good news for Trump:

The media are framing the defeat of Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election as a defeat for President Trump and his brand of populist nationalism.

Then there is the cloud of anti-Semitism that hangs over Le Pen’s National Front. At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum National Days of Remembrance ceremony, Trump delivered a strong denunciation of Holocaust denial, declaring that “there are even those filled with such hate, total hate, that they want to erase the Holocaust from history. Those who deny the Holocaust are an accomplice to this horrible evil.”

One of those “accomplices” is Le Pen’s father, who as leader of the National Front dismissed the gas chambers of the Holocaust as a “detail” of history and declared that the Nazi occupation of France was “not particularly inhuman.” Marine Le Pen called another anti-Semitic remark of his a mere “political gaffe” and distanced the party from her radioactive father in a campaign of what she called “dédiabolisation” (or “un-demonizing”) to bring it into the political mainstream.

But recent reminders of the National Front’s anti-Semitism almost certainly depressed her vote. After winning a spot in the presidential runoff in April, Le Pen handed the reins of the party to Jean-François Jalkh, her handpicked successor, who was then forced to step down days later when it emerged that he had praised a Holocaust denier and declared it was “impossible” for the Nazis to have used Zyklon B gas to kill Jews. Le Pen defended him and called the charges a “defamation.”

And there was also Le Pen’s own “gaffe” when she declared that “I don’t think that France is responsible for the Vél d’Hiv” — the infamous 1942 roundup by French police of 13,000 Paris Jews who were interned in a stadium near the Eiffel Tower before being deported to concentration camps. The arrests were carried out not by Nazi occupiers, but by the French themselves. For Marine Le Pen to deny French complicity in this “detail” of the Holocaust suggests that the apple did not fall far from the tree.

There is a big difference between American-style populism and the virulent strain that exists on the European continent. So it is a mistake to read the French election as a rejection of Trump or his agenda. French voters did not cast their ballots for open borders and global supranationalism — rather, they rejected the National Front with all its racist baggage.

Wherever jews live and however they express themselves the vast majority don’t feel any sympathy for Whites, French or otherwise.

Holocaust Day, Again and Again and Again

how_to_be_a_jew

Under jew rule every day is holocaust day, but some days are more holocausty than others.

Seven decades after WWII, references to “holocaust” (and Hitler, and “nazi”) are more common than ever in the jewsmedia. Because jews – because it is the jewsmedia, because the current regime is so thoroughly jewed, because the jews won that war.

Jews lie, Whites die. This was true even before that war, but it is so much more obviously the case ever since. And the jews are increasingly willing and able to criminalize saying so.

The post-war regime’s indoctrination has been so pervasive for so long that even non-jews in the most powerful positions have internalized and mindlessly regurgitate the jew narrative. What that regime says about race and jews and supremacism and privilege is completely contradicted by who it permits to say what about whom, and how they behave when it’s said.

The result is a clown world, a pro-jew/anti-White bagel republic in which the government’s primary function is to combat “racism” and “anti-semitism”, which in effect means protecting the wealthy hyper-screechy jews at the tippity top from the White masses who literally worship an imaginary dead jew, and who voted for a lifelong shyster who, like jews, literally worships “the jewish people”. And of course the real danger in this situation, because it might be bad for the jews, is that at any moment any of these non-jews might suddenly start singling out and hating the jews for no good reason whatsoever!

It seems like only yesterday that Sean Spicer, the new kikeservative-in-chief’s spokesman, tried to justify an act of war against one of the jew state’s neighbors by moralizing in terms of Hitler and gas. Tellingly the jewsmedia echo chamber was scandalized not so much by the act of war as it was by their own absurd notion that, once again, devious White nationalists in the White House had tried to bring about annuda shoah by writing the jews out of their own weaponized narrative.

The scene jews made about Spicer’s Hitler comparison was characteristically schizophrenic. An unthinkable sacrilege, insisted the jews, and at the same time hilarious. How dare you think gassing has anything to do with Hitler! How dare you think of Hitler and NOT think of the jews! How dare anyone imagine jews aren’t Germans! Don’t you know that’s what Hitler did, which is the worst crime ever because the jews aren’t Germans! This “neo-nazi” thought he could invoke Hitler, lol, look how scared out of this thug is now, lol. Oy vey, lol.

Well, time flies, and it’s already another official holocausty day. Again.

Trump Pledges ‘Never Again’ On Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, The Huffington Post, 24 April 2017:

U.S. President Donald Trump said anti-Semitism should be defeated and called the Holocaust the “darkest chapter of human history” in a video address on Sunday, following two missteps by his administration regarding statements about genocide during World War Two.

“The mind cannot fathom the pain, the horror and the loss. Six million Jews, two-thirds of the Jews in Europe, murdered by the Nazi genocide. They were murdered by an evil that words cannot describe, and that the human heart cannot bear,” Trump said in a speech to the World Jewish Congress Plenary Assembly in New York on Yom HaShoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.

“On Yom HaShoah, we look back at the darkest chapter of human history,” Trump added. “We mourn, we remember, we pray, and we pledge: ‘Never again.’”

“We must stamp out prejudice and anti-Semitism everywhere it is found. We must defeat terrorism, and we must not ignore the threats of a regime that talks openly of Israel’s destruction,” Trump said in an apparent reference to Iran.

How to fathom the pain and horror of a jew-first regime whose titular leader, the commander of the most powerful military on Earth, so openly and obediently parrots jew numerology like a braindead puppet? Words like kikeservative come in handy.