Tag Archives: jewish influence

“Wokeness” is a Jew Construct

Here’s another professional jew claiming responsibility, connecting the dots between BLM, liberalism, and the Enlightenment. Recounting the “song of jew history” (the jew version of history, the eternal screech), he jewsplains how jews with a particularist “jew lives matter” idea always foremost in their own minds “practically invented” the toxic universalist ideas which have repeatedly killed their hosts.

Zionism is the Jewish Black Lives Matter – The Forward:

Throughout history Jews have tried the “all lives matter” argument. We brought the idea of ethical monotheism to the world — under the foundational beliefs that all humans are created in the image of God. In a world dominated by social hierarchies, the early Israelites and prophets railed against this unjust caste system, starting a long process of moral progression. We practically invented the idea of “all lives matter.”

According to Jewish tradition, we then tried teaching this to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans – yet their hostility towards others, specifically us, went unstopped. We engaged in medieval debates with the Christain hegemony, making the argument that all humans are inherently valuable and godly. Yet the libels, pogroms and scapegoating never ceased.

Finally, we thought after the Enlightenment that anti-Semitism would soon be over. Finally the world recognized that all lives matter — that people have fundamental and unalienable rights that need not depend on color or creeds. Yet we all know how that worked out.

. . .

The “all lives matter” song of Jewish history slowly stopped and was replaced by “Jewish lives matter.” A state for the Jews, in our historic and indigenous homeland, where we can govern and protect ourselves, cultivate our tradition and keep it alive, and be a refuge for any Jew in trouble. Yes — Zionis mis the ultimate claim that Jewish lives matter.

Jews have come to the difficult but important realization that we need to occasionally thrust aside universalism in favor of particularism. We understand that while we need to be constantly dedicated to global and universal issues, Jewish-specific education and protection is paramount to our well-being. We have no issue proudly advocating for the fact that “Jewish lives matter.”

Because of this, we don’t just have a moral imperative to support Black Lives Matter. We have a personal one. The same history and values that inspire me to be an outspoken Zionist underpin my support for Black Lives Matter.

Our prophets teach that in Messianic times the entire world will come together in a monolithic utopia where there is no more strife or war. Until then, we need to be on the frontlines of racial justice and yes, that means rejecting broken and ineffective claims such as “All Lives Matter.”

“Messianism” is jewing. The term refers specifically to the shameless jew-serving moralizing with which they have repeatedly turned their host societies inside out and upside down. The current moral panic, “wokeness”, is just the most recent example.

Many jewsmedia pundits have noticed this moralizing. Most critique its religious character, and its war-like character, while ignoring its jewy character. We’re In A Cultural Civil War. It’s Time For Conservatives To Fight Back is a typical “classical liberal” take:

In some sense this is entirely psychological. A relatively small group of radical left-wing activists is using classic cult psychology to wage psychological war against the rest of us. They are the vanguard of what can only be described as a religious movement in America.

Indeed, Black Lives Matter and its attendant ideology contain all the elements of a religion: it promulgates doctrines that are explicitly normative, it has a cosmology and a morality, its claims are not subject to or consistent with scientific proofs. James Lindsay has gone further and described it as a cult, with recognizable and well-established features of a cult such as initiation, indoctrination, and cult reprogramming.

But this is a religious movement unlike any we’ve seen before, because unlike established religions it’s formally secular enough to be allowed into purely secular institutions of public life. This is why the Black Lives Matter agenda and The New York Times’ 1619 Project are being taught openly in our public schools.

We certainly have seen this kind of “formally secular” religion before. Consider the “nazi death camp” and “six million” shibboleths. These Big Lies have been openly taught in public schools for decades. What’s more, jews organized openly as jews stage an annual public spectacle whereby their most useful servants make a pilgrimage to worship jews and recite their cultish beliefs about jewland.

Anything critics say about “the BLM agenda” applies even more so to jewing. No doubt that’s why many of the pundits who might say something critical of blacks decide not to. They’re not afraid of the blacks. They’re afraid of the jews who see “black lives matter” as a proxy for “jew lives matter”. Whites who have already accepted some form of jew worship will find it easier to accept black worship. They need only imagine blacks as their “new jews”. They might feel some cognitive dissonance when jews screech about black “anti-semitism”, but the jewsmedia will surely help them work that out.

Lindsay’s The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness, linked in the Federalist article quoted above, equates the “wokeness” behind BLM to anti-“racism” (another jew construct) and notes its similarity to Christianity (yet another jew construct):

“Christ died for your sins, so you can be forgiven” is a Christian example, and “Be an antiracist. Help us dismantle the system and build a better world” is an “antiracist” example.

Lindsay elaborates upon the emotional and psychological manipulation of “the mark” by “the cult”, but also connects it to Marxism, another “formally secular” bit of jewing:

I know this part gets a little heady, but it’s important. Critical consciousness is, formally, the cult mentality of Karl Marx’s conflict theory. Conflict theory, in briefest explanation, is the idea that society is broken into different groups or classes (for Marx, they were economic classes, and for the Woke, they are social group-identity classes) that are oppressive on one side, oppressed on the other, and in conflict over this. That is, conflict theory is the belief that different social groups in society are always in conflict with one another for power and dominance, and that rather than working together in complex, dynamical ways that can be mutually beneficial, they are at war. A critical consciousness means realizing this and that you are somehow personally complicit in creating the material conditions for that war and need to “do better,” either by renouncing your dominance (if dominant) or by agitating for a full-on revolution (if oppressed).

Critical consciousness is therefore a very cartoonish, us-versus-them reading of the world. This mentality, of course, tweaks various psychological and social impulses in people as described in social identity theory, for example, and dramatically increases what’s called “parochial altrusim.” This means strongly favoring the in-group (here, the cult) and forgiving it for every excess and abuse while becoming overtly hostile to the out-group (here, everyone else in society and society itself) and reading everything it does in the worst light possible. This is obviously core to the present sociological dynamic! It also dramatically increases cult commitment, adding an overtly warlike tenor to the us-against-them mentality, which in critical cults like Wokeness is us-against-the-world.

. . .

To summarize, then, Wokeness is a cult. It might even be, in its broadest functions, a proper religion at this point with a describable and fanatic cult element within it and protected by the relative reasonability of the broader faith. Antiracism, in particular, under its auspices is explicitly framed religiously and with clear patterns of cult initiation written all over it. This is what we’re up against.

This cult mentality Lindsay describes as manifesting in Christianity and Marxism springs from the more ancient and potent “critical consciousness” of jews. They translate their cabalist term “tikkun olam” as “social justice”. It means: “help us dismantle the (non-jew) system and build a better world (for jews)”.

The jews have always had an us-against-the-world mentality, a jews-versus-goyim “reading of the world”. Just a few months ago, amidst the hysteria around coronavirus, before BLM and “wokeness” went viral, jews were shamelessly screeching that “anti-semitism” is the real pandemic everyone should worry about. In that screeching it was clear that they see non-jews as diseased and ever more jewing as the cure.

The Tribe refers to themselves, among themselves, as “The Tribe”. They see themselves as morally and culturally distinct from and superior to non-jews. They see themselves at perpetual war with non-jews. Their primary weapons are emotional and psychological manipulation, using their long-standing dominance of the mass media and academia to constantly accuse non-jews, especially Whites, of oppressing them. The oppression narrative at the very center of “wokeness” isn’t a non-White construct, it’s a jew construct. In the “wokeness” narrative Whites remain the oppressors, the epitome of evil, and the jew role, by definition good, has simply been generalized to include all non-Whites. As jews sometimes put it, the non-Whites are the “new jews”.

“Supercession” is the religious term for this kind of jew-sanctioned, jew-serving extension of jew mentality. There’s a cargo cult quality to other non-Whites trying to ape the jews. This is especially the case with “wokeness”, where the jew role isn’t explicit, making it more likely some goy will lose the plot and either conflate or distinguish Whites and jews in a way that displeases the “fellow oppressed”.

Early in his article Lindsay notes:

The concept of “white fragility” in the antiracist Woke cult is exactly this sort of emotional shakedown. White fragility separates white people and their “adjacencies” into exactly two types: racists (who admit it) and racists (who are too emotionally fragile to admit it).

The concept of “anti-semitism” is where the concept of “racism” and this newer, more precisely-targeted buzzterm “White fragility” come from. “Anti-semitism” is the original “original sin”. The jews separate non-jews into exactly two types of “anti-semite”: those who know, and those who don’t know yet.

Another mainstream “classical liberal” has written pointedly about this jewing-by-other-means without identifying it as such. Andrew Sullivan coyly asks, Is There Still Room for Debate?

The orthodoxy goes further than suppressing contrary arguments and shaming any human being who makes them. It insists, in fact, that anything counter to this view is itself a form of violence against the oppressed. The reason some New York Times staffers defenestrated op-ed page editor James Bennet was that he was, they claimed, endangering the lives of black staffers by running a piece by Senator Tom Cotton, who called for federal troops to end looting, violence, and chaos, if the local authorities could not. This framing equated words on a page with a threat to physical life — the precise argument many students at elite colleges have been using to protect themselves from views that might upset them. But, as I noted two years ago, we all live on campus now.

In this manic, Manichean world you’re not even given the space to say nothing. “White Silence = Violence” is a slogan chanted and displayed in every one of these marches. It’s very reminiscent of totalitarian states where you have to compete to broadcast your fealty to the cause. In these past two weeks, if you didn’t put up on Instagram or Facebook some kind of slogan or symbol displaying your wokeness, you were instantly suspect. The cultishness of this can be seen in the way people are actually cutting off contact with their own families if they don’t awaken and see the truth and repeat its formulae. Ibram X. Kendi insists that there is no room in our society for neutrality or reticence. If you are not doing “antiracist work” you are ipso facto a racist. By “antiracist work” he means fully accepting his version of human society and American history, integrating it into your own life, confessing your own racism, and publicly voicing your continued support.

This suppression orthodoxy is visible in its purest form when jews swarm and screech about “anti-semitism” and “anti-semites”. It’s chilling effect is visible in these jewsmedia pundits describing “wokeness” as if it has no connection to jewing.

Whites “liberals” who display their “wokeness” by saying “black lives matter” are doing the same thing as White “conservatives” waving a jew-state flag and proclaiming that they “stand with Israel”. It is not an act of self-abnegation. Quite the opposite. They are trying to protect and even elevate themselves. Whites who have accepted and internalized the jew lie that race is a social construct may even imagine they can change teams, or “convert”, as if they were jews. Even those who don’t believe the lies understand they can get ahead by mouthing those lies more quickly or convincingly than others.

Job #1 of the jews’ anti-“racist” “work” has been painting Whites as public enemy #1. “Wokeness” is a recent extension of that project, an add-on to “political correctness”, which itself is more aptly described as semitical correctness. The jewing that begat “wokeness” isn’t shrinking or being displaced. It’s adapting and growing.

To be woke is to wake up to the truth — the blinding truth that liberal society doesn’t exist, that everything is a form of oppression or resistance, and that there is no third option. You are either with us or you are to be cast into darkness.

The truth is that liberalism and the Enlightenment belong to an earlier, now obsolete phase of jewing. It was characterized by jews dissimulating as “fellow whites”. This newer phase, the Enrichment, is characterized by jews dropping their “white” mask. In this phase jews are openly screeching as jews, jewsplaining how their jewness sets them apart, how their oppression status outranks any other and thus entitles them to tell non-jews what to think about anything.

The truth is that even the “wokest” non-White goy who somehow vexes jews gets piled on almost as viciously as any uppity White goy. Swarming screeching jews overrule any truth, trump any chimpout. However “nuanced” the pilpul gets when jews try to jewsplain what everyone else should think about “wokeness”, their premise is always the same. They either support it or oppose it because that’s what they think is best for their tribe. That’s the essence of semitical correctness.

Whenever a newer, more cryptic offshoot of jewing intersects an older, more in-your-face form of jewing, the jews on all sides will ensure the former is what gets corrected. Here’s an example:

The BBC has reportedly ordered its television presenters not to wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) badges on air after Campaign Against Antisemitism exposed worrying antisemitism in the movement and its other extreme views emerged.

. . .

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are not surprised that the antisemitic outbursts and revelations of other extremist views from within the BLM movement are causing those who had lent their support to distance themselves. All decent people oppose racism, which is why seeing anti-Jewish racism emerging from within the movement against anti-black racism has been an ugly sight. Prejudice cannot be beaten with more prejudice.”

Here the anti-White teacher is correcting their student.

A Brief History of Virulence

This coronavirus pandemic needs to be kept in perspective. The tribe in particular has a virulent need to jewsplain.

Why Trump’s ‘foreign virus’ speech is as dangerous as coronavirus itself, by Aviya Kushner, The Forward, 12 March 2020:

“This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history,” Trump said.

Let’s unpack that.

Foreign. Virus.

The idea that outsiders or foreigners are both dangerous — and dangerous to health — is straight out of the Nazi playbook.

“A key part of Nazi ideology was to define the enemy and those who posed a threat to the so-called ‘Aryan race,’” the Holocaust Museum states on its website. “Nazi propaganda was essential in promoting the myth of the “national community” and identifying who should be excluded. Jews were considered the main enemy.”

. . .

Of course, the strategy of blaming someone else—namely, the “outsider” in a society—for a pandemic is at least as old as the Middle Ages, when Jews were blamed for the Black Death.

“In 1348 there appeared in Europe a devastating plague which is reported to have killed off ultimately twenty-five million people,” Fordham University’s Jewish History sourcebook explains. “By the fall of that year the rumor was current that these deaths were due to an international conspiracy of Jewry to poison Christendom.”

After the Black Plague ended, the idea of tarring the “foreigner” for widespread death persisted. In his chilling article “Immigration, Ethnicity, and the Pandemic,” Dr. Alan Kraut traces how immigrants were historically blamed for pandemics.

“In the 1830s, impoverished Irish immigrants were stigmatized as the bearers of cholera,” Kraut writes. “At the end of the 19th century, tuberculosis was dubbed the “Jewish disease” or the “tailor’s disease.”

The “Jewish disease” doesn’t sound so different from the “foreign virus.”

. . .

At times, Trump’s speech sounded like a paean to the economy, peppered with comments on a virus. Despite Trump’s ample praise, stock futures dropped precipitously after he spoke about banning people and goods.

That, too, is something Jewish history knows about — economic crisis is also often pinned on outsiders. When the economy shudders, there will again be a need to blame someone, preferably someone foreign, someone who is not part of the “family,” as Trump put it.

Given these statements by world “leaders,” it’s no surprise that racism and xenophobia are on the rise, and that anti-Semitism related to the coronavirus is already spreading.

. . .

It may be hard to pay attention to language at a time like this, with infections and deaths increasing, and travel bans going up everywhere. But history suggests that the term “foreign virus” and its hateful implications may be as dangerous — and perhaps more dangerous — than the coronavirus itself.

Scapegoating is a jew word for a characteristically jewy behavior. It’s what the jews’ kapparot ritual is about. It’s what this Forward article is about. It is a ritualistic recounting of the historic narrative whereby jews shift the blame for their virulent jewing onto their hosts. It is offered as justification to do so again now.

As was the case with Jeffrey Epstein, articles like this reveal what jews are thinking, even if most won’t say it out loud. They are all concerned that their tribe might get blamed, even the ones who are pushing a totally de-jewed narrative shifting blame onto someone else. The Forward article lays out the why and the how.

Every jew knows that the current regime’s virulently anti-White agenda to psychopathologize “racism” and “xenophobia”, to tear down White defenses, comes directly from the jews. They know the “New World Order” is a jew world order. They know that whenever Whites think about what’s good for ourselves, that’s not good for jews. They say as much not just here, but whenever they try to jewsplain their attacks on Whites.

To see why they feel justified doing this you can simply unpack the historical jew complaint and apply it to themselves. They see non-jews as goyim. Goyim is their word for foreigners, outsiders, non-jews, the opposite of jews. They are scandalized that the goyim would ever reciprocate and see jews likewise. The goyim who are doing what’s best for goyim are failing to do what’s best for jews. No need to unpack this, to a jew such a thing is just unthinkably evil.

You may have heard that the jew cries out in pain as he strikes you. Maybe that saying makes you chuckle. You may not fully appreciate what it means. Why does the jew cry out? It is because he knows he’s striking you. He knows you don’t like the harm he’s causing you. He knows you might also come to know these things. He’s worried you will retaliate. He sees your getting angry as the real problem. He knows his crying out confuses you. He wants you to mistake him for a fellow victim, the real victim, and blame someone else, even yourself.

Most of the time this trick works. Historically speaking, pandemics and pyramid scheme collapses are rare, and goyim uprisings rarer still. Through it all, and everything in between, the jews screech that “anti-semitism” is a virus, that it is the goyim who are diseased.

How can jews blame goyim for what jews do? How can jews pose as “white” while condemning nationalism for Whites and celebrating nationalism for jews? How can jews pose as powerless victims while dominating banking and media and politics and literally dictating what everyone else can say? I still sometimes wonder how these arguments of theirs fly. Then I realize they aren’t arguing about any of these things. They’re moralizing. They argue only about what’s best for the jews, they don’t argue about that premise. They mercilessly attack anyone who even questions it. That’s how jewing works. It really is that simple.

Coronavirus

Global pandemic, jews hardest hit.

Coronavirus and the Black Death: spread of misinformation and xenophobia shows we haven’t learned from our past:

But the most alarming similarity between the two is the way the public reacted. During the Black Death in the 14th century, Jewish communities appeared to be dying in fewer numbers than their Christian neighbours. Many saw this as evidence that the Jews were intentionally spreading the disease by poisoning wells, rivers and springs. As a result, Jewish people across Europe were tortured and killed.

During later outbreaks in the late 16th to early 17th centuries, this fear was quickly transferred to all outsiders. For example, a proclamation issued during the reign of Elizabeth I stated that an outsider wishing to enter the city could do so only if they possessed a “special certificate” – an item usually reserved for the very wealthy.

Coronavirus: Concern over New Rochelle case stretches to Washington D.C.:

Already, the tentacles of the investigation into the man’s contacts have reached to the highest levels of government.

The Enlightenment: Good for Whom?

In the comments on the previous post I made the somewhat flippant claim that the Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop. Fred W, a frequent commenter whose opinion I respect, asks:

??? How?

The foremost minds of the Enlightenment were the most antithetical to the jewish spirit and principles, foremost among them , Voltaire. Proto-Enlightenment philosopher, Bacon, didn’t have any common currency wi judaism. Diderot and his associates didn’t have any jewish persuasions.

How you can reach the reach the above idea, I don’t understand.

Even before Fred asked I had already expanded on my claim, stating that the essence of the so-called Enlightenment is that the goyim must never think or speak or act as the jews do, because jews. The only rationale ever offered for the system is that it serves the interests of “humanity”, i.e. the jews. Consult any mainstream discussion of the Enlightenment if you doubt this. Most of my readers are well aware of this and other games jews play with words, but here’s a bit on the meaning of “humanity”.

We can easily get lost in the weeds trying to define the Enlightenment and it’s key figures. The thrust of my argument, however, is elementary. Cui bono?

If you’re interested in getting lost in the weeds anyway, consider the bragging of jews, provided by Andrew Joyce. Here’s a taste:

I explore what is arguably the most ambitious effort yet attempted to create a Jewish icon for the non-Jewish world. In this, the case of Baruch Spinoza, I will outline the history of the Jewish effort to place him at the very heart of the Enlightenment, and to crown him as nothing less than the founder of the modern West, and even of modern democracy itself.

. . .

In [Jonathan] Israel’s words: Spinoza and Spinozism were “the intellectual backbone of the European Radical Enlightenment everywhere.”

I disagree with Joyce’s interpretation, that this effort from jews is a false exaggeration. Like most White men, Joyce sees the Enlightenment favorably, as a product of by and for White men. I see it more as typical jew arrogance, as the criminal claiming responsibility, boasting about their crime long after they imagine anything can be done about it.

The psychological failing here, the vector or vulnerability enabling the psyop, is apparently endemic to Whites. It is this peculiar recurring pattern of being hoist with the enemy’s petard, while jealously clinging to it as if it is your own. We see it also in (((the British Empire))), for example. It is a pitfall I’ve called racial solipsism.

I see the Enlightenment negatively. I see it as a watershed moment when White men, deluded and debilitated by Christianity but starting to wake to reality, tried to cure their hangover. Unfortunately, they ultimately did so by doubling down on the jew narrative, looking to the jews for answers to problems that jewing had caused. Whatever the details, they came to the conclusion that the answer was tolerance. The world was broken and the White man needed to fix it, and that meant…emancipating the jews, who then quickly helped themselves by helping the White man decide to emancipate the negroes, women, homosexuals, and so on. The disastrous consequences are exactly those things that the jewsmedia today most emphatically celebrates – feminism, open borders, sexual deviance, black lives matter, and the never-ending wars to keep the world safe for jewing.

There are people who purport that this is all about the White man trying to kill himself. They claim that all this pathology proves we’re suicidal. I disagree. I see the pathogen as jewing. I see jews bending the arc, as they put it, toward White replacement and extinction. They have made the highest purpose of every government they control to combat “racism” and “anti-semitism” while boycotting, imprisoning, or dropping bombs on whoever vexes the jews-first jews-only state. Proponents of this system call it “liberal democracy” and they trace its origins to the Enlightenment. In fact it is rule of by and for jews, and its roots go back much farther.

Here’s another recent claim of responsibility for the Enlightenment, with jews mischaracterizing themselves as the victims of their much less conscious Christian dupes, of course:

The development of the study of Jewish texts and Jewish culture within the university setting, as opposed to in a yeshiva or rabbinical academy, was by its very nature tied to the emancipation of the Jews in modern Europe, and their concomitant entry into broader European culture. As Martin Goodman notes, the earliest professors of Jewish literature in European universities were Christian professors of classical Hebrew, who claimed that their study of Hebrew language and literature could help them to discover the “true” (and invariably Christian) meaning contained within the text they called the Old Testament.

By the late Renaissance, Christian Hebraists in the university setting became interested in Kabbalah, part of a broader academic trend in which Christian scholars claimed that a whole array of esoteric literature, ranging from Zoroastrian and Hermetic texts to Egyptian hieroglyphs, could be interpreted to reveal Christian insights.

More on cabalism and its influence is coming in The Burden of Jewing, Part 3.

You might be thinking the Enlightenment is ancient history. But that’s where you’re wrong, bucko. The most vociferous proponents of Enlightenment/”classical liberal” thinking today are jews like Stephen Pinker, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and the broader jew intellectual movement calling itself the Intellectual Dark Web. They can clearly see a backlash building to the increasingly naked anti-White screeching of their “leftist” cousins. Their response is classic bagelian dialectic. Rather than call out their cousins’ jewing as jewing, they instead pine for a return to its previous, more cryptic form. They seek to moderate the White reaction to jewing, and they are doing so by encouraging still more Enlightenment thinking among Whites. They’re not doing this to hijack the credit for and esteem of what the deluded White man imagines is muh Greatest Achievement. They are doing so because they sense that the White man’s capacity for soft-headedness is not yet completely exhausted.

The Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop. Indeed, it is all the more obvious now in retrospect, now that jews no longer think there is any need to hide it.

UPDATE 6 Nov 2019:

In a remarkably explicit and expansive claim of responsibility, published in 2002 and titled The Jewish Roots of Western Freedom, Fania Oz-Salzberger jewsplains “the story of political Hebraism, the sustained effort to read the Bible politically during the seventeenth century”:

This essay attempts to point out some of the most interesting, most thought-provoking, and least studied Hebraic and Judaic origins of early modern political thought in England and beyond. It will examine several political Hebraists of the seventeenth century, and will consider the reasons for the abandonment of biblical and post-biblical sources of political thought by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinkers—in particular modern liberals.

. . .

Jewish texts were not accidental sources for the subtle discussion of liberty engaged in by seventeenth-century thinkers. There were several important ideas about the nature of freedom, which early modern Europe learned from the Bible and its Jewish interpreters, and from them alone. These ideas, which Enlightenment thinkers and their progeny either abandoned or ignored, have now returned to the forefront of political discourse, and are relevant in no small measure to contemporary Israel as well.

. . .

Seventeenth-century thinkers used their Bible in a multitude of ways: There were biblical royalists, biblical republicans, biblical regicides, biblical patriarchalists and defenders of the old order, biblical economic revolutionaries and deniers of private property, biblical French imperialists, biblical English patriots, and their biblical Scottish counterparts. Policies, polemics, and parodies were based on the Bible. Writers and readers alike were intimately familiar with the Old Testament.

In Protestant Europe and in much of counter-Reformation Europe, it was the central compartment of a learned man’s toolbox, the principal weapon in his scholarly arsenal

. . .

What all of these had in common was their stout belief not only in the supreme importance of the Hebrew Bible as an authority for their convictions, but also in its uniqueness as a source of historical models. Since Calvinists and Puritans, monarchists and monarchomachs, French and Dutch and English alike all viewed themselves as the “second Israel,” the ancient Hebrew state was their best political template, if not their only one. Not Athens or Sparta or Rome, but Israel, with its kings and priests, its tribes and elders, its institutions and, especially, its laws.

. . .

the tradition of religious tolerance that was transformed by Spinoza and Locke into a doctrine of political tolerance.

. . .

A highly influential group of seventeenth-century thinkers found within Hebraic sources a cluster of significant ideas, and put them into the mainstream of European intellectual history. These thinkers, and the ideas about which they wrote, were linked to one another in several ways. The following sections of this essay discuss three seminal ideas, explicitly and often exclusively Hebraic in their inspiration—ideas for which Aristotle, Cicero, or Tacitus (among others) could not reasonably be credited— which played a crucial role in the genealogy of modern political thought. They affected early modern thinking about the state and about political liberty, and took part in the birth pangs of classical liberalism itself.

. . .

Seventeenth-century Amsterdam was the most fertile soil for social and scholarly interaction between Jews, primarily exiles from Spain well versed in classical thought, and Christian scholars, primarily Calvinists with a Hebraic fire burning in their bones. In the Dutch golden age, the “Hebrew republic” took shape as an ideal type for the modern European legal and political system. Grotius was one of the first to search for the Hebraica veritas, the Hebrew truth, a natural law common to all nations.

. . .

The glory of the Hebrew republic in Western political thought reached its apex in the middle of the seventeenth century, when the English republican revolutionaries made it their central historical model, some-times alongside the Roman republic, but more often above it.

. . .

These thinkers all repeat, with individual variations, the same basic theme: The people of Israel had a republic, a nearly perfect republic, from the time of the Exodus until at least the coronation of Saul.

“Political Hebraism”, i.e., jewing.

The Burden of Jewing, Part 2 – “Conversion”

In Part 1 we examined “messianism”, in Part 2 we’ll discuss “conversion”.

As with “messianism”, “conversion” means something different to jews than it does to non-jews. What’s more, jews actively promote this difference in understanding, and use it to their advantage. To put it bluntly, jew “conversion” is a form of identity fraud – a fraud repeatedly and ubiquitously perpetrated by jews collectively, against non-jews collectively, for the benefit of jews collectively, at the expense of non-jews collectively. Cengiz Sisman’s book, The Burden of Silence: Sabbatai Sevi and the Evolution of the Ottoman-Turkish Dönmes, exposes a prominent historical example of this type of fraud.

Examining this particular example sheds light on the more general and recurring pattern. Sisman’s book is a celebration of such jewing, so he only inadvertently highlights the difference in perception between jews and non-jews, and never literally describes the exploitation of it as fraud. Yet there would be no book if “conversion” worked the way non-jews imagine, if it actually turned jews into non-jews. If that were true the descendents of the Sabbatean jews who “converted” into muslims would long ago have become indistinguishable from other Turks and there would be no Dönmes to write about. There would be no crypto-jews of any sort. In the process of explaining how the Dönmes not only exist but have exerted great influence, Sisman divulges the trick that made it possible: Convincing non-jews to imagine jew “converts” are defectors who have abandoned their jewing, even as jews themselves view “conversion” as a continuation of jewing by other means.

Sisman refers to the Dönmes “survival question”, asking how they continued to exist as a distinct people even centuries after their ancestors “converted” to Islam. He finds the answer in their deliberate creation of:

a parallel space and time zone in which they had their own cemeteries, prayer houses, ceremonies, charities, and even courts. In this world, women mostly stayed at home, carrying the culture and transmitting “the knowledge” to future generations, while the men acted in a sort of “go-between” role between the parallel worlds. In their parallel worlds, I argue, the Dönme subsects fashioned and refashioned themselves within a post-messianic and mystical Jewish world, and created their own version of Kabbala.

. . .

The fifth chapter carefully reconstructs the full development of “open secret” or “crypto-communities” in the so-called Dönme dark age in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in relation to similar phenomena such as those experienced by the Frankists in eastern and central Europe. I argue that the period was a very critical moment for the Dönmes since they “silently” developed their idiosyncratic theological arguments and social practices that enabled them to maintain their own parallel messianic self-government. In the meantime, the relationship between the Dönmes and crypto-Sabbateans in Europe never ceased.

Describing its rationale so plainly, in terms of evolution (in the title) and survival (in the text), is a matter-of-fact acknowledgement of the biological nature of crypto-jewing. The “parallel space” the Dönmes created is just as crucial to jewing generally. The main difference between open jewing and crypto-jewing is the degree of secrecy with which jews construct and maintain their own “space”. In any case, jewing exists and continues only because jews consciously distinguish themselves from the non-jews they insinuate themselves among and exploit. Sisman’s tale correctly conveys the impression that crypto-jewing isn’t “forced” upon jews any more than jewing is. It is just another way jews jew.

There are several notorious examples of jews shifting tactics collectively in this way – whereby large groups of jews “convert”, yet continue to operate as a covert group within some larger non-jew group, consciously preserving their genetic and memetic identity, sometimes for centuries, until at some point conditions favor “converting” back. Crypto-jewing is secretive by design, of course, so there are undoubtedly many more examples less known to non-jews. Outside Turkey, and especially outside the Islamic world, the Dönmes themselves are hardly known.

Recall that Sisman helpfully puts sneer quotes around terms with special significance. In the snippet above it denotes the fraud, the “open secret”, known to jews, but not non-jews. Sisman eventually lays bare the essence of this fraud, that jews understand jewness primarily as an immutable heritable trait, rather than merely a state of mind, as they encourage non-jews to imagine:

It is technically impossible for a Jew to change his or her Jewishness. As far as the Jewish law, halakha, is concerned, even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion she or he remains a Jew, albeit a sinner (Talmud: Sanhedrin, 44a).

The context for this admission is the “conversion” of the jew “messiah” Sabbatai Sevi, the protagonist of Sisman’s book:

Toward the end of the trial, the interrogators asked Sabbatai to embrace Islam or to be prepared to die. He had come to the palace with the initial aim of converting the sultan but now found himself facing death. What should he have done? Coming from a Sephardic background, steeped in the rabbinic tradition, and familiar with the Marrano experience, he was no doubt well aware of the Jewish attitude to apostasy and martyrdom. When he had to choose between martyrdom and conversion, he chose life, for this act could be justified by the Sephardic tradition. Had he been of the Askenazi origin, his inner dilemma may well have been much more serious.

The issue of conversion and martyrdom in Judaism is very complex. It is technically impossible for a Jew to change his or her Jewishness. As far as the Jewish law, halakha, is concerned, even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion she or he remains a Jew, albeit a sinner (Talmud: Sanhedrin, 44a). One, of course, should make a distinction between a voluntary and a forced conversion. The voluntary converts are known as mumar (from the root meaning “to change”), or meshummad (from the root meaning “to persecute or force abandonment of faith”), or apikoros (“heretic”), or kofer (“denier”), or poshe’a Yisrael (“‘transgressor’ Jew”). The forced converts, as in the case of the Marranos, are called anusim. “What was to happen when an idolater forced an Israelite to transgress one of the commandments of the Torah on pain of death?” asks the Mishna Torah of Maimonides. The answer to that question is clear: “He transgressed and did not suffer death because it was said of the commandments that when a man performed them he must live and not die. (Leviticus 18:5). If he is killed and did not transgress, he is guilty of his own life.” However there are exceptions in transgression as is seen in Maimonides’s words: “To what does this word refer? To all commandments, except idolatry, immorality and bloodshed. Regarding these three, if one says ‘transgress one of them or die’ one must die and not transgress.” Since Islam is not an idolatrous religion in Maimonides’s view, it was acceptable to convert to Islam under duress, rather than choosing martyrdom.

Sevi’s original “messianic” plan, according to Sisman, was to “convert” the sultan and other Ottoman leaders, to manipulate them for the benefit of jews. It was only after that plan was thwarted that Sevi felt compelled to “convert” himself, to shift his “messianism” into an another form. Sisman makes it sound more complicated by citing jew pilpul on “conversion”, but this only demonstrates the depth of their familiarity with and ambivalence on the subject. Rather than simply forbidding the supposed “sin”, jews instead fetishize the degrees of trangression crypto-jews may by accused of by their tribemates. The key point is that they all continue to regard each other as tribemates. Obscured by their overheated disagreement over means, their shared “messianic” end, to save the jews, goes entirely unquestioned.

The similar case of Sephardic jewing/crypto-jewing in Iberia, which pre-dates the Ottoman jewing we’re reviewing here, is much better known to Europeans. Even in the Anglosphere the words converso and marrano have since become generic terms for crypto-jews. The terms exist because they describe a repeating pattern of behavior. Likewise, these terms also all have negative connotations, and for non-jews the specific implication is fraud.

The standard jew narrative on “conversion” (or financial fraud, or any other example of jewy malfeasance) inverts reality, portraying jews always as victims rather than as the perpetrators. Sisman’s tale is interesting to the extent it deviates from the standard apology. Sisman instead provides a narrative where jews do have some agency, even if only visible when he compares them to each other. As mentioned in Part 1, Sisman describes, for example, jews as fleeing from the oppression of non-jews elsewhere – primarily Spain and Poland – flocking to the Ottoman empire because there, in their own estimation, they could jew more freely. He cites a lesser known example of crypto-jewing among Persians specifically to contrast it with their situation among Turks:

In 1839, Mashadi Jews in Iran were forced to convert to Islam. While some managed to escape, the rest adopted Islam only outwardly. Most of their descendants emigrated to the West in the twentieth century and returned to Judaism.

This is the more typical and complete sequence of “conversion”. The jews who transformed themselves into Sabbateans and eventually into Dönmes have just not yet shape-shifted back into jews.

Sisman notes that the Sabbateans were not the only jew “converts” among the Turks. For example:

The Catholic priest and historian Henri Gregoire, writing in 1829, claimed that there was another crypto-Jewish community in Salonica whose members were frequently confused with the followers of Sevi. A number of Jewish bankers of this city having been condemned to death by the pasha “some century and a half ago” managed to save their lives and property by undergoing a nominal conversion and embracing Islam—perhaps thirty families.

In trying to distinguish the Sabbateans from other crypto-jews Sisman highlights the overall pattern. Supposedly threatened for jewing openly, the jews switch to crypto-jewing, and thus carry on. Even a sympathetic account can’t help but imply that the jewing is key. As soon as the jews disguise their jewing, taking the “burden of silence” tack, the resistance abates. The jewing doesn’t stop. The harm it causes non-jews is just less likely to be associated with jews.

Sevi was not the first or only would-be “messiah” to “convert”. Maimonides, mentioned above, was “among the foremost rabbinical decisors and philosophers in jewish history, and his copious work comprises a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship”. Sisman cites Maimonides, who is regarded by jews as the authority on “conversion”, specifically because he performed the same disingenuous dance Sevi did, before Sevi did. Maimonides ultimately reverted to open orthodox jewing, inspiring other jews to do the same. Sevi, in contrast, inspired a subset of jews to jew differently, becoming an example for crypto-jews. These jews both personify the complementary tactics – now overt, now covert – by which jews ruthlessly pursue their own jewy interests.

In Sisman’s opinion, “Maimonides’s placement of Christianity closer to idolatry and Islam to monotheism must have been one of the other reasons Jewish conversion to Islam rather than to Christianity was easier in pre-modern times.” Sure. Or Mainonides simply dealt more with Islam than Christianity, and a jew confronted with the reverse circumstance might just as well claim the reverse.

Ethnocentric Europeans tend to believe that their own kind are most easily duped by jews. Some think that Christianity debilitates non-jews, but Islam strengthens them. They’re wrong. For one thing, jews are genetically closer to Turks and Arabs than they are to Europeans. This allows jews to pass more easily among the former than the latter. Also, Islam is not inherently any more antithetical to jewing than Christianity. Both ideologies actually enable jewing, specifically via “conversion”.

Sisman cites another indication that, in Sevi’s day at least, Turks were just as thoroughly jewed as Europeans:

As [Paul] Rycaut notes, the seventeenth-century Ottoman world was very open to converts:

No people in the world have ever been more open to receive all sorts of Nations to them, than they, nor have used more arts to increase the number of those that are called Turks; and it is stranger to consider that from all parts of the world, some of the most dissolute and desperate in wickedness, should flock to these Dominions, to become members and professors of the Mahometan superstition, in that manner that at present, the blood of the Turks is so mixed with that of all sorts of languages, and Nations . . . the English called it Naturalization, the French Enfranchisement; and the Turks call it becoming a Believer.

Sevi was born in the Ottoman empire and lived 40 of his 50 years openly as a jew. Remarkably, even after Sevi presented himself as a straightforward “messiah”, trying to influence others for explicitly jewy reasons, Ottoman authorities did not of their own volition arrest or otherwise threaten him. After Sevi’s “conversion” the sultan only expected him to help “convert” more jews. Sevi, who saw this as the best way forward for jews, did so enthusiastically.

Sisman indicates that the harrassment Sevi and his Sabbateans faced was mainly instigated by other jews. Their primary concern was that the fanfare around Sevi’s new form of subversive jewing might be bad for the jews who were perfectly comfortable jewing more openly. Sisman alludes to this in many places, detailing how influential jews repeatedly sicced the Ottoman authorities on Sevi:

After few years in Salonica, Sabbatai’s “intolerable” and “strange” activities created displeasure among the Jewish authorities, and he was expelled from the city in 1658. Sabbatai went to Istanbul, hoping to find a more “tolerant” Jewish audience.

. . .

once again he was expelled, leaving Istanbul by the end of 1658

. . .

Wearied rabbis in Istanbul had been closely monitoring the news about the emerging messiah. They dispatched a letter to the rabbis of Izmir, stating “the man who spreads those innovations is a heretic, and whosoever kills him will be accounted as one who has saved many souls.”

That’s right. Some jews wanted Sevi, who was trying to save the jews, assassinated because they thought that would be the better way to save the jews.

As the [Sabbatean] movement gained strength, the social and economic life of Izmir was heavily affected by the messianic chaos engulfing it. European merchants expressed concern about the demise of economic life in the city. Reports from cities such as London and Amsterdam show that regular business dealings with the Jews became problematic because of their belief that the End of Days was at hand. Tens of male and female “prophets” were heralding the coming of the Messianic Age on the streets. People were abandoning their daily affairs, and many believers were engaging in penitential practices. Through a Christian lens, Hammer writes that Sabbatai, “the Antichrist,” wrote letters to Jews all around the world when he was in Izmir, and that he called himself the First Created, the only Son of God, the Messiah and Redeemer of Israel. It should be noted that Muslim and Christian observers of the movement differed on one major point: the Muslims perceived the movement mostly within a political framework and referred to it as a source of sedition, whereas the Christians tended to see it mostly from a religious point of view and frequently referred to the protagonist as the Antichrist, which was a very common theme in pre-modern Christian prophecy books.

As a response to the agitation in the city, and rabbinical and European complaints, Sabbatai was ordered to appear before the Ottoman authorities.

It isn’t difficult to grasp what was going on back then. The same thing is happening today with “messiah” Trump.

For the Ottomans, Sabbatai was a “false” Jewish prophet. Abdi refers to him as a Jewish rabbi (haham), and then prophet (peygamber). Silahtar and Raşid add the term cehud (a pejorative term for Jews) to his description. None of the Ottoman chroniclers mentioned that he was a messiah. Why the Ottoman observers called Sabbatai “prophet” and not “messiah” is still an unanswered question. Even Rycaut occasionally refers to him as a prophet. Kömürcüyan mentions that Sabbatai had a stamp that read “Sabbatai, the prophet of the Jews.

Just as few non-jews today comprehend what all the jews swarming and screeching about Trump means, Europeans and Turks did not understand what Sevi represented. Like cuckoo chicks, crying out in pain, the jews create confusion about who is harming whom. Yet there at the center of it all is “messianism” – an indelibly jewy word for an irrepressibly jewy fanaticism.

As sobering as this topic is I laughed out loud when Sisman recounted how another contemporary “messiah”, who totally grokked Sevi’s game, challenged him:

A rabbi from Poland by the name of Nehemiah Cohen came to visit Sabbatai in the fortress. In accordance with the theological argument of a “double messiah,” he argued that he was, in fact, the first messiah, coming as he did from the house of Joseph, who was assumed to have come before the messiah from the House of David, and urged Sabbatai to acknowledge him as such. Sabbatai was not convinced and rejected his offer. Perhaps out of revenge, Nehemya went to Edirne and there converted to Islam. While there he warned the Ottoman authorities about Sabbatai, complaining that he was causing a major social and religious upheaval among the Jews and the Muslims. He then disappeared from history.

Online discussions of the “double messiah” concept are vague. It appears to be an ancient term for their “two jews, three opinions about what’s best for jews” shtick, a “religious” wrapper for their constant sectarian bickering. Just as jews see a potential “anti-semite” in every non-jew, they see a potential “messiah” in every jew, especially themselves. Whether or not it actually happened, the argument between Sevi and Cohen reflects a disagreement not only about who will save the jews, but also the deeper question about who comprises “the jews”. Are jews who only secretly think of themselves as jews still jews? Does it matter if one sect of jews screech at and disavow another? From a non-jew point of view it comes across as nothing more than a two-faced jew charade.

From an objective point of view it is an adaptive biological behavior. The jews assess and argue every issue in the starkest terms, seeing the portent for destruction or salvation of the jews in everything. Subdividing to pursue seemingly opposed tactics helps the jews survive. It enables them to sow division and confusion among non-jews while they remain conscious of themselves as a single collective. Sabbateanism is but one prominent example of this behavior.

The paradoxical impact of the messiah’s conversion was not settled swiftly in Jewish communities. Even a year after the conversion, one could see that the Jews were still accusing each other of harboring false beliefs. Wanting to keep everything under control, nine leading Constantinople rabbis sent a letter to Izmir and other cities, asking the Jewish authorities to suppress all remnants of Sabbateanism and to praise the sultan, since he had rescued Judaism from a great calamity.

. . .

Against this general rabbinical ban, Sabbateans continued their activities clandestinely. In later centuries Ottoman rabbis developed a more neutral attitude toward the Sabbateans in comparison to the European rabbis such as Jacob Sasportas (1610–1698), Naphtali Cohen (1649–1718), Moses Hagiz (1676–1750), and Jacob Emden (1697–1776), who condemned the Sabbateans and pronounced the name of Sabbatai with the addition of “may his name and memory be blotted out.”

Indeed, this is what happened. The “open secret”, the crypto-jewing of the Turks, continued clandestinely. Meanwhile, Sevi and the memory of the Sabbateans was also “blotted out”, effectively disappearing them from history, or at least from the minds of Europeans. The jewing and crypto-jewing continue unabated. Likewise the jew screeching that the sky is always falling on the jews.

It is mistaking jewness for mere religion that makes jew “conversion” seem plausible to non-jews. Jews themselves understand that jewness is a heritable trait. This is the “open secret”. This deception is what angers non-jews whenever it is revealed. The fact that jews do not cease in perpetrating this fraud, even after it has been repeatedly exposed as such, is mute testimony to its intrinsic value to jews. In Chapter 2 Sisman provides an example of this value, arguing that:

the Ottoman authorities perceived [Sabbateanism] as a heretical religious movement (fitne), not as a political revolt with possible military backing (huruc). As a result, they did not feel any urgent need to violently suppress it or kill its leader. The Ottoman accounts are in agreement with the European and Jewish sources in outlining the general trajectory of the movement, but they differ from them in some crucial points. It is the examination of these details that allows us to explore how Sabbatai Sevi b. Mordechai the Messiah became Aziz Mehmet Efendi b. Abdullah the Chief Gatekeeper.

It is good to not be recognized as a threat by your enemy. Better if your enemy doesn’t even see you as an enemy, and allows you to live among them. Better still if your enemy regards you as a potential ally and eagerly seeks to “convert” you in the hope you will provide financing, good press, helpful advice, capable offspring, etc.

Where do non-jews get the ridiculous idea to solicit “converts” from rival tribes? From Abrahamism, created by the tribe that most infamously rejects “converts”. Abrahamism paints jews as the oldest, highest moral authority, the inventors of “messianism”. Supercession gives non-jews a way to “convert” themselves into jews, a way to imagine they are the new jews, the inheritors or most truest interpreters of the oldest, highest moral authority.

In theory Christianity and Islam are rivals of Judaism. In practice they are alternate vehicles for jew “messianism”. Both ideologies were conceived or at least midwived by jews. Both have been cultivated for centuries by a constant stream of jew “converts”, like Sevi and the Sabbateans, who saw their task as indoctrinators, and shamelessly set about training non-jews how to properly save the jews. This same animus is less obvious, but thus all the more insidious, in recent progressive/post-religious ideologies like liberalism and marxism.

All jew-spawned jew-serving ideologies share the same primary directive: To combat “racism” and “anti-semitism”. It’s all about tearing down non-jew tribalism to make the world safe for jew tribalism. Whether this agenda is justified in the service of “god” or “the people”, jews understand it and thereby make it about serving the jews. Meanwhile most non-jews frankly do not understand. The religious call their willful ignorance “faith”. The secular call it “reason”. Either way most non-jews are content to feel righteous.

It’s impossible to overemphasize this point. Whatever jews preach to jews explicitly puts tribalism over ideology. The ideologies jews craft for non-jews encourage the opposite. These ideologies seek to override and replace tribalism. The gist of virtually all jew advice to non-jews is this: “You have no tribe! You have no enemies! You defeat your enemies by treating them like friends! Our enemies are your enemies! KILL THEM!” Jewing enables crypto-jewing which enables jewing. It’s a positive feedback loop.

Many White men have criticized Christianity’s role in this. Sisman’s book illustrates the similar role played by Islam.

Sisman speculates that Sevi’s miraculous transmutation, from rabble-rouser to Chief Gatekeeper, was aided by other jew “converts” already embedded in the sultan’s court. This and other anecdotes indicate that the Turks, under the influence of Islam, misunderstood and underestimated jewing:

During the trial, Sabbatai must have had a hard time explaining himself. He knew some Turkish, since he was smart and born in Ottoman society and lived in the empire for forty years. However, he may not have been sufficiently fluent to pursue a legal/political argument during the trial. One of the palace physicians, Hayatizade Mustafa Efendi, a Jewish convert originally known as Moshe ben Abravanel, would have been the obvious choice to serve as interpreter.

. . .

Sabbatai was not an exceptional convert who was granted an important, real, or honorary position at the palace. For instance, Hayatizade was a paramount
example of what one could get in return for conversion.

Can you guess what happened next?

It seems that Aziz Mehmet [Sevi’s new name], albeit very secretly, resumed his messianic activities after the initial shock of the conversion experience.

. . .

Backed by sultanic authority and his own messianic convictions, Aziz Mehmet undertook the double mission of converting the Jews to Islam and to his cause. He visited synagogues in Edirne, Istanbul, and Salonica, and preached his idiosyncratic doctrine to believers and non-believers alike, sharing his “mystery” with the trustworthy followers. These sermons are almost reminiscent of the forced sermons in Spain in the thirteenth through fifteenth centuries, when the Jews were brought to the churches and forced to listen to proselytizing sermons. According to Tobias Cohen, he “sometimes prayed and behaved like a Jew, and sometimes like a Muslim, and he did queer things.” Since he was preaching in Ladino, the Ottoman escorts were not able to monitor his message in the synagogues.

. . .

Since his activities were sanctioned by the sultan and he was escorted by Ottoman officials, it was impossible to simply physically prevent him from fulfilling his mission. Angiroslo Cohen, the chief rabbi of Edirne, tried his best to avert the danger by alerting his people, but that did little to change the ultimate results. From the Ottoman perspective, Aziz Mehmet’s ability was proven in the following months and years, for many Jews converted to Islam.

. . .

The more new converts he gained, the more privileges he was granted by the Ottoman authorities.

. . .

The early converts considered themselves to be the elect of the “true Israel.”

Sisman’s narrative very plainly describes Sevi and the Sabbateans as “converting” because they considered that the best way to continue their “messianism”. Rather than an anomaly, critical readers will see the Sabbatean case as typical, and in turn see the standard jew narrative – that jews are always and everywhere oppressed – for the lie it is. Even when Sisman himself echoes the “forcing” and “escaping” of the standard jew narrative it rings hollow. In the context of his celebration of Sabbateanism we see that rhetoric all the more clearly as a reflection of jews’ own serial interloping, compulsively imposing themselves and inflicting their toxic save-the-jews ideologies (not to mention the incidental material depredations) upon one group of non-jews after another.

George Lincoln Rockwell insightfully caricatured the characteristically whiny hostility of jewing in The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens. The story jews tell their current hosts shifts all the blame onto their previous hosts, even as they repeat the same parasitic behavior – infiltrating, manipulating, exploiting, destroying, migrating – over and over again.