Tag Archives: jewish influence

(((Anti-Trump))) Versus (((Anti-Anti-Trump)))

muh_muh_holocaust

David Harsanyi on Peter Beinart on David Frum, Eliot Cohen, David Brooks, Jonathan Tobin, and Nachama Soloveichik on Jonathan Freeland and Peter Beinart on Jared Kushner.

Following this exchange backward through time you see jews conducting an entirely jewy debate about what’s best for jews, trying to cloak it the hackneyed terms of left versus right only after it erupted out of the jewiest corners of the jewsmedia and threatened to become a full-blown shanda fur die goyim.

This particular debate came to light in the mainstream via Why The Resistance Is The Best Thing That’s Happened To Donald Trump, published by the Federalist’s senior editor David Harsanyi on 14 February 2017:

In a recent Atlantic piece titled “The Anti-Anti-Trump Right,” by Peter Beinart, the subheadline reads: “For conservative publications, the business model is opposing the left. And that means opposing the people who oppose Trump.” As is customary these days, the Left, much like Trump, questions the motives of political foes rather than addressing their arguments. Beinart goes on to name the two only honorable conservatives in the entire country (according to Democrats), David Frum and David Brooks.

Here is one jew describing another jew naming two other jews – without mentioning that it’s all about jewing. Unless you’re familiar with the names you might think the the story has nothing to do with jews. But here’s another little hint:

What seems to most vex critics of the anti-anti-Trump contingent (and I am mentioned in the Atlantic piece) is that conservatives aren’t appropriately agitated about the world that liberals see — a world that has turned out to be far less apocalyptic in the early going than they imagine. But if it’s a zero-sum choice they’re offering, that includes picking Neil Gorsuch over Planned Parenthood; tax cuts over teachers unions; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran’s Holocaust deniers; deregulation of the bureaucratic state over legislation, or forcing progressive cultural mores on everyone. And so on.

What Beinart was actually talking about was a divide on the “right” between Whites and the “right”-posturing jews those Whites like to imagine are their allies. The Anti-Anti-Trump Right was published by The Atlantic on 13 February 2017:

Several weeks into the Trump presidency, one can divide the reaction among conservative commentators into three categories.

At one extreme sit those conservatives who championed Trump during the campaign, and still do: Breitbart, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, among others. Their base is talk radio. They pride themselves on speaking for those plainspoken, dirt-under-the-fingernails conservatives who loathe not only Hillary Clinton, but Paul Ryan. Their chief enemies are globalism and multiculturalism, which they believe infect both parties, and are destroying America from without and within. Their ideological forefathers are Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace and Pat Buchanan, who claimed that America’s cosmopolitan, deracinated ruling elite had betrayed the white Christians to whom the country truly belonged.

At the other extreme sit conservatives like my Atlantic colleague David Frum, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies Professor Eliot Cohen, and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who warned against Trump during the campaign, and believe he is now vindicating their fears.

Beinart’s first extreme, the White kikeservatives who love love love the jews but kinda sorta temporarily don’t like some of the jewed elite’s agenda, is what anti-White anti-Trumpers more commonly refer to as “racists”, “anti-semites”, “White nationalists/supremacists”, or simply “neo-nazis”. In Beinart’s eyes they are the chief enemy.

On the other extreme are Beinart and his tribemates, the anti-Trumpers who identify more with (((America’s cosmopolitan, deracinated ruling elite))). Beinart specifically names three “right”-posturing jews. He could have added vociferous anti-Trumpers Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, or Jamie Kirchick to the list, but perhaps he thought that would make his point too plain.

Anyway, Beinart’s third category is who he is really upset about. This is the jewy group he’s calling anti-anti-Trump, whose modus operandi he describes aptly enough. “Their business model is opposing the left. And that means opposing the people who oppose Trump.” I.e. those jews who still believe their “right”-posturing is best for the jews.

Beinart is talking here about a White/jew divide and was actually responding to Nachama Soloveichik and other jews calling him out on a jew-jew divide, for critcizing jews as jews.

Soloveichik’s article, Jew-Shaming Liberals Discredit Religion & Themselves, was published by National Review on 6 February 2017:

Liberal Jews are falling over one another to label President Trump the latest incarnation of Jew-haters from Pharaoh to Haman to Hitler.

These attacks have ranged from the exaggerated to the absurd. And while these inflated diatribes are concerning enough, a new theme has developed that is as baffling as it is destructive: Jew-shaming.

There has long been an expectation in Jewish circles that members of the tribe should support leftist policies and candidates. The thinking is that the Jews’ centuries-long persecution compels them to support the party that professes to protect persecuted minorities. Like women and African Americans, leftists are often shocked to stumble across the existence of conservatives who are Jewish, female, or black.

As a member of this endangered species, I’m familiar with this phenomenon. As a Jewish, female political conservative, I am often met with bewilderment. I am also sensitive to the history of persecution. I lost too many relatives in the Holocaust. This persecution is undeniable and unforgettable. What’s baffling is why people think they can decide for me, for Jared Kushner, and for any other Jew what Judaism means to us or how we should vote as Jews.

One of the “left”-posturing jews Soloveichik named was Jonathan Freedland, and as an example of his “jew-shaming” linked Jews must oppose Trump’s new order, published by The Jewish Chronicle on 26 January 2017:

Put simply, Jews should want nothing to do with Trumpism. Some might be drawn to the new president’s hawkishness on Israel, typified by his promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and his nomination of the pro-settler extremist David Friedman to serve as ambassador. But those who care about Israel’s future viability as a state both Jewish and democratic know such moves can only hurt, not help. They are a bottle of vodka left on the doorstep of an alcoholic: presented as an act of friendship, they are in fact an encouragement to self-destruction.

Put simply, Freedland is saying to jews, “Don’t fall for the destructive tricks we use on the stupid goyim!”

There is an obvious place for Jews in Trump’s world — standing against every last bit of it.

This is a jew speaking as a jew, calling for jews to unite as jews, because he thinks Trump is bad for the jews. But Soloveichik found an even jewier example:

The worst of the worst came from the Forward, where senior columnist Peter Beinart sought to indict Kushner’s moral identity as a Jew.

Beinart goes straight for the jugular, declaring Kushner a failure of Modern Orthodoxy.

And in this era of vicious political attacks spread on social media, we’d all do well to take a moment and ask ourselves, “Who are we, that we should issue religious indictments on our fellow Jews?”

Soloveichik’s point is on beyond Freedland and Beinart, a reminder to them and other jews that jews jewing transcends any Trump Trumping.

Beinart’s original article, Jared Kushner’s Moral Failure Indicts Orthodox Judaism, was published by the Forward on 31 January 2017. Beinart was trying to express his dismay about Kushner failing to stop Trump’s lame “muslim ban”, which came out as a typically overwrought rehashing of the same jew victim narrative that’s real in Soloveichik’s mind:

In remarkable ways, modern Jewish history echoes the passage from powerlessness to power that begins in the Book of Exodus. Therefore, the challenge for Jared Kushner, and everyone in our extraordinarily privileged generation, is to remember our ancestors’ suffering and honor their memories by defending the weak, vulnerable and oppressed today.

How could Kushner — a Modern Orthodox golden boy — fail to internalize that?

Kushner’s failure is not his problem alone; it should chill every Modern Orthodox educator, rabbi and parent in the United States. How could the Modern Orthodox community, a community that prides itself on instilling in its children Jewish knowledge and ideals, have failed so profoundly?

Thus what started with jews calling each other race traitors, identifying Whites as the enemy, by the time it eventually bubbles to the surface of the luegenpresse has nothing to do with jews and is all about Trump.

The Politics of Fear, The Psychology of Treason

(((donor class)))

In Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1 and Part 2 I discussed the psychological motives and mechanics of the White traitors aiding and abetting the invasion and colonization of Europe by “refugees”.

(((Corey Robin))) has written an article for the Jew Republic, What’s in it For The Collaborators?, getting inadvertently at what I was try to get at more deliberately. I’ve just taken the liberty here of deobfuscating (in the current year even the jews admit “elite” is just code for “jews”) and excerpting those portions which well describe the interplay of host collaboration and jew parasitism:

By conventional understanding, a collaborator is one who assists an enemy, helping groups to which he does not belong threaten groups to which he does belong. But this definition, it seems to me, is too restrictive. It presumes that a group is a discrete whole, that once in it, we can’t get out of it or have competing affiliations. Collaborators, however, cannot be so neatly bound.

Whether we belong to one group or another in some existential sense, in the course of our lives we do incur moral obligations to our comrades and friends, whom we betray when we aid our opponents.

But to avoid the question of identity that restrictive definitions of collaboration entail, I will use the definition contained in the word’s Latin root collaborare: “to work together.” By collaborator, I simply mean those men and women who work with jews and who occupy the lower tiers of power and make political fear a genuinely civic enterprise.

The collaborator confounds our simple categories of jew and victim. Like the jews, the collaborator takes initiative and receives benefits from his collaboration. Like the victim, he may be threatened with punishment or retribution if he does not cooperate.

Many collaborators, in fact, are drawn directly from the ranks of the victims. Perhaps then we can distinguish between collaborators of aspiration, inspired by a desire for gain, and collaborators of aversion, inspired by a fear of loss. The first are akin to jews, the second to victims. But even that distinction is too neat. Jews also fear loss, and victims hope for gain, and as the economist’s notion of opportunity costs attests, the hope of gain often informs the fear of loss.

Collaborators serve two functions. First, they perform tasks that jews themselves cannot or will not perform. These tasks may be considered beneath the dignity of the jews: cooking, cleaning, or other forms of work. They may require local knowledge—as in the case of informers, who provide information jews cannot access on their own—or specialized skills.

Second, collaborators extend the reach of jews into corners of society that jews lack the manpower to patrol. These collaborators are usually figures of influence within communities targeted by jews. Their status may come from the jews, who elevate them because they are willing to enforce the jews’ directives. More often, their authority is indigenous. Figures of trust among the victims, they can be relied upon to persuade the victims not to resist, to compound the fear of disobedience the victims already feel.

Because their functions are so various, collaborators come in all shapes and sizes. Some travel in or near the orbit of jew power; others are drawn from the lower orders and geographic peripheries. One common, though unappreciated, influence upon their actions is their ambition. While some collaborators hope to stave off threats to their communities and others are true believers, many are careerists, who see in collaboration a path of personal advance.

Whether the payment is status, power, or money, collaboration promises to elevate men and women, if only slightly, above the fray.

Though ambitious collaborators like to believe that they are adepts of realpolitik, walking the hard path of power because it is the wisest course to take, their realism is freighted with ideology. Careerism has its own moralism, serving as an anesthetic against competing moral claims. Particularly in the United States, where ambition is a civic duty and worldly success a prerequisite of citizenship, enlightened anglers of their own interest can easily be convinced that they are doing not only the smart thing, but also the right thing. They happily admit to their careerism because they presume an audience of shared moral sympathy.

Organized Jewry Screeches About Jew Privilege

adl_barking_at_betsy_devos

Pictured is a screenshot of this twit from Jonathan Greenblatt, which in turn links an ADL blog post, New Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos: Promises Made, Promises to be Kept.

A search for the language in this twit brought up a more detailed account from a Jerusalem Post op-ed, US Jewish students now protected from anti-Semitic abuse, 17 November 2010:

After a six-year Zionist Organization of America campaign, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced an important policy benefiting Jewish students in elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools. In a letter issued on October 26, OCR declared that it will enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect Jewish students from harassment, intimidation and discrimination at federally funded schools.

This is a breakthrough. Until this announcement, OCR wouldn’t enforce Title VI to protect Jewish students, leaving them without the same civil rights protections that have been afforded to other ethnic and racial groups since Title VI’s enactment in 1964.

It was OCR’s policy denying Jews the protection of Title VI that largely accounted for the agency’s decision to dismiss the complaint the ZOA filed in 2004 on behalf of Jewish students at the University of California at Irvine. UCI students had been subjected to years of anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation, described in detail in the ZOA’s 11-page complaint to OCR.

One of the authors of that op-ed was quoted saying something similar several years earlier. SPME: New Legal Tools Fight Anti-Semitism, CLJ’s Susan Tuchman Says, The Jewish Chronicle of Pittsburgh, 5 July 2007:

“Campus anti-Semitism is a serious problem,” [director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Law and Justice (CLJ), Susan] Tuchman said, “but the good news is there is a legal tool to address it.”

That legal tool is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thanks in part to the efforts of Tuchman, anti-Semitism can now be challenged under Title VI.

The good news, Tuchman said, is that the inclusion of Jews as a protected class under Title VI was recently endorsed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bi-partisan agency that investigates and studies discrimination, reporting its findings to Congress and the president. In 2006, the Commission recognized that anti-Semitism encompasses more than name calling and threats, and that sometimes it is expressed as “anti-Israelism” or anti-Zionism.

The Commission accordingly recommended that colleges and universities come out and condemn anti-Semitism, Tuchman explained. The Commission rejected the argument that universities could remain silent because of the perpetrators’ right to free speech; instead, the Commission said, the schools had a moral obligation to take a stand against anti-Semitic speech.

The Commission’s findings have sent “a powerful message to colleges and universities,” Tuchman said.

The OCR had already publicly conceded to jew demands for special treatment in 2004 – Title VI and Title IX Religious Discrimination in Schools and Colleges, 13 September 2004:

OCR has recently addressed two kinds of race and sex discrimination allegations commingled with allegations of religious discrimination. First, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, OCR has received complaints of race or national origin harassment commingled with aspects of religious discrimination against Arab Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish students. Second, OCR has recently encountered allegations of racial and sex discrimination commingled with allegations of religious discrimination against Christian students. OCR does not tolerate either of these forms of harassment, which are prohibited by Title VI and Title IX.

As we pass the third anniversary of September 11, 2001, we must remain particularly attentive to the claims of students who may be targeted for harassment based on their membership in groups that exhibit both ethnic and religious characteristics, such as Arab Muslims, Jewish Americans and Sikhs. President George W. Bush and Secretary Rod Paige have both condemned such acts of bigotry. As President Bush has said, “those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of their behavior.”

So the six-year campaign mentioned in the 2010 article appears to have actually been about cementing and/or broadening a special privileged status for jews. And now seven years beyond that organized jewry is still screeching as if at any moment jews might be treated as if they are White.

I touched on this particular point in Jews Versus Whites – Part 2. Behind the Orwellian language of civil rights – the disingenuous universalist moralizing against the evils of discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact – lies a fundamental distinction between protected classes and everyone else.

So what the jews have been screeching about all this time, as if they are victims, is that the government, under the false pretext that “jew” is a religion, discriminates in favor of jews and assigns them special legal privilege as a protected class.

A Tale of Two Steves: Decoding the Ongoing Bannonocaust

stephen_jewhadi_miller_steve_useful_idiot_bannon

Last summer the jewsmedia mocked Trump’s economic advisory council with a variation on the usual “Too White” screech – “All of them are white, half of them are named some version of Steve”. Trump’s list, including most of the Steves, was actually chock full of jews, which is all the more remarkable in a country where there are far fewer jews than Whites.

Such incidents are among the most blatant examples of both the how and the why of the jewsmedia’s semitical correctness. By persistently exaggerating and so explicitly condemning the White this or White that of anything relating to Trump they effectively whitewash the gaggle of jews jewing jewishly all around him. And it is precisely this type of jew-serving anti-White “political correctness” that Trump never challenges.

During the past week another rash of this meta-jewing has broken out, the jewsmedia’s anti-White screeching once again rising to crescendo over a couple of Steves.

The Steve the jewsmedia is most fixated on demonizing is Steve Bannon. We’ve already reviewed the jewy nature of the hatred directed at him. Here we’ll dig more into his thinking. You can start with this article, which elaborates on Bannon’s background as “an ex-(((Goldman Sachs))) trader dabbling in (((the movie business)))”.

The other Steve the jewsmedia is screeching about is Stephen Miller, mainly concerning his work with Bannon on Trump’s inauguration speech and the travel ban. Miller is a jew, though the jewsmedia rarely mentions it and never faults him for it. While most of the jewsmedia focuses on demonizing Bannon, Rosie Gray literally portrayed her tribemate as a “scapegoat”.

In these first few weeks of the Trump administration there have been many short articles with titles like this one from Slate: Trump Gives Steve Bannon, Champion of White Nationalism, Key National Security Seat. The articles themselves describe almost nothing about Trump or Bannon’s ideology, much less what Whites have to do with it. In such cases “White” merely serves as a shibboleth.

There have been some jewsmedia articles that actually do try to explore Bannon’s thinking. For example, Steve Bannon’s own words show sharp break on security issues, from USA Today, 31 January 2017:

In dozens of hours of audio recordings reviewed by USA TODAY of his Breitbart News Daily radio show in 2015 and 2016, Bannon told his listeners that the United States and the Western world are engaged in a “global existential war,” and he entertained claims that a “fifth column” of Islamist sympathizers had infiltrated the U.S. government and news media. Those recordings, preserved online, offer an often unfiltered window into the thinking of Trump’s interview-averse senior adviser.

In January 2016, Bannon discussed various threats facing Europe in the late 1930s and evaluated Islam alongside fascism and Nazism.

“This is when Europe’s looking down the barrel of fascism — the rise of Mussolini in Italy, Stalin and the Russians and the communist Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union. And obviously Hitler and the Nazis,” he said. “I mean you’re looking at fascism, you’re looking at communism. And to say that — what so blows me away is the timing of it. You could look in 1938 and say, ‘Look, it’s pretty dark here in Europe right now, but there’s something actually much darker. And that is Islam.’ ”

Concern about brewing conflict, he said, was a fundamental concept behind Bannon’s media enterprise. “Our big belief, one of our central organizing principles at the site, is that we’re at war,” he said.

It’s war. It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war,” he said in December 2015. “Note to self, beloved commander in chief: We’re at war.”

Bannon is concerned about a muslim war on a neoconservative figment called “the Judeo-Christian West”. This is the particular concern of a neoconnish fringe known as counter-jihad. And we might as well just call the true believers jewhadis. They speak of defending (((the West))), but when pressed they always put the interests of jews and the jew-state first. Many of its proponents are in fact jews, part-jews, or crypto-jews. The rest are useful idiots or outright cucks.

The typical jewhadist regards White nationalism as antithetical to their own position. As I’ve previously described it:

Counter-jihadists can be understood as quasi- or even pseudo-nationalist dissimulators. Their opposition to muslims and islamization is ultimately predicated upon support for jews and judaization. Full-throated advocacy for jewish nationalism is de rigueur. White nationalism is regarded with skepticism. White racial identity is regarded with contempt.

Counter-jihadists/jewhadis characteristically equate islamism with fascism. Despite obvious differences they regard them as in essence the same – a mortal threat to (((the West))) they love, as deracinated and degenerate and thoroughly jewed as it is.

A few jewsmedia articles go beyond Bannon’s jewhadist thinking and name some of the more prominent jewhadis he has associated with. Steve Bannon in 2010: ‘Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission’, CNN, 31 January 2017:

President Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, once dismissed the notion that Islam is a religion of peace, describing it in a 2010 radio interview as “a religion of submission.”

Bannon made the comments on “Western Word Radio with Avi Davis,” an online right-wing radio station.

In the segment, Bannon, who at the time served on the board of Breitbart, criticized former President George W. Bush for what he and fellow guest conservative columnist Diana West described as injecting political correctness into the federal government.

Avi Davis was a jewhadi jew, Diana West still is.

Here’s another article naming more names. The Dark History of the White House Aides Who Crafted Trump’s “Muslim Ban”, Mother Jones, 30 January:

The Trump administration has insisted since Sunday that the president’s executive order banning travel to the United States from seven predominately Islamic countries “is not a Muslim ban.” But as Mother Jones first reported in a series of investigations starting last summer, the two top Trump advisers who reportedly crafted the immigration crackdown—Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller—have a long history of promoting Islamophobia, courting anti-Muslim extremists, and boosting white nationalists.

Ambiguous jew Roger Stone and obnoxious jewhadi jewess Pamela Geller are specifically named. There’s also some more detail on Stephen Miller’s jewhadist views:

Miller has long been an advocate of framing the fight against terrorism in religious terms. In 2007, while an undergraduate at Duke University, he started the Terrorism Awareness Project, an effort to make “students aware of the Islamic jihad and the terrorist threat, and to mobilize support for the defense of America and the civilization of the West.” The group promoted “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on college campuses and took out ads in college newspapers titled, “What Americans Need to Know About Jihad.”

What’s missing from this article is any evidence that Trump or Bannon are “boosting white nationalists”. By its own account Miller has done the opposite.

The most sober and informative article about of the jewhadist worldview pervading Trump’s inner circle was published by The Jew York Times. Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to Center of U.S. Policy-Making:

Mr. Trump was echoing a strain of anti-Islamic theorizing familiar to anyone who has been immersed in security and counterterrorism debates over the last 20 years. He has embraced a deeply suspicious view of Islam that several of his aides have promoted, notably retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, now his national security adviser, and Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s top strategist.

This worldview borrows from the “clash of civilizations” thesis of the political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, and combines straightforward warnings about extremist violence with broad-brush critiques of Islam. It sometimes conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world. In its more extreme forms, this view promotes conspiracies about government infiltration and the danger that Shariah, the legal code of Islam, may take over in the United States.

Those espousing such views present Islam as an inherently hostile ideology whose adherents are enemies of Christianity and Judaism and seek to conquer nonbelievers either by violence or through a sort of stealthy brainwashing.

As I’ve already alluded, the “clash of civilizations” thesis is a neoconservative theme. It was promoted by the jew Bernard Lewis as well as Huntington. It is at odds with the jew golden age narrative, which jewhadis mostly ignore. It’s also difficult to square with the jew holocaust narrative, which jewhadis actually espouse (and seek to silence nonbelievers) just as fervently as the jewsmedia. These contradictions are a feature, not a bug. The general idea: clash you goyim. The common theme: jews lie, goyim die.

Among the most outspoken of those warning about Islam are Pamela Geller, of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch, and Frank Gaffney Jr., of the Center for Security Policy.

In an interview, [Gaffney] explained his view of Islam, which focuses less on the violent jihad of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State than on the quieter one he sees everywhere. By his account, potential enemies are hidden in plain sight — praying in mosques, recruiting at Muslim student associations and organizing through mainstream Muslim rights groups — and are engaged in “this stealthy, subversive kind of jihad.”

“They essentially, like termites, hollow out the structure of the civil society and other institutions,” Mr. Gaffney said, “for the purpose of creating conditions under which the jihad will succeed.”

Like Geller, Spencer and Gaffney are full-time professional jewhadis, all as hostile to White nationalism as they are to islamism.

Nearly any critique aimed at muslims and jihadis can be turned into a “conspiracy theory” which fits jews and jewhadis even better. Gaffney’s termite analogy is a good example. It is for this reason so many jews regard muslims as proxies for jews. They see a defense of muslims as serving the interests of jews. Thus they try to psychopathologize and make “islamophobia” taboo in much the same way they have already done with “racism” and “anti-semitism”. Jewhadi jews differ mainly in that they reject these semitically correct taboos around criticizing islam and muslims because that’s what they think is best for (((the West))).

As the Times article hints, this entirely jewy divide on islam and muslims isn’t entirely new. It confounded generals during the Bush and Obama “war on terror”. It will only cause more confusion during Trump’s “war on radical islamic terror”. All the while jewhadis like Andrew Bostom will only complain about symptoms, never the cause.

Prior to Trump’s selection the jewsmedia was content to ignore jewhadis. Now that Trump has thrust the jewhadist worldview into the limelight, and they’re compelled to explain it, it’s no surprise they’re trying to blame it on Whites. After all, that’s what jews usually do when their jewing get exposed.

Somewhere Behind the Rainbow

listen_only_to_me

Oh, somewhere over the rainbow way up high
And the dream that you dare to, why oh, why can’t I?

Some jews have been screeching about Trump’s rainbow nationalism because it includes Whites.

Now some jews are screeching about Trump’s rainbow lolocaustianity because it isn’t exclusively about jews.

And some jews, like Chemi Shalev, screech both forms of toxic jewing at the same time.

Shalev on Twitter, “David Duke-Pat Buchanan-Bannon’s alt-right-America First-Jewless Holocaust. Hey, GOP Jews, u don’t see a pattern?” links himself at Haaretz, “Adding insult to injury, Trump flirts with classic Holocaust denial”:

In her book “Denying the Holocaust, the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory” – the one that sparked her famous trial with Holocaust denier David Irving, now featured in the Hollywood film Denial – historian Deborah Lipstadt cites a “Yes, but” attitude of some historians towards the Holocaust. “It is a response that falls into the gray area between outright denial and relativism.” she writes. “It is the equivalent of David Duke without robes.”

The Trump administration’s lame excuse for not mentioning Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day on Friday falls into the category of “Yes, but” excuses, but only if one wants to be generous. By less forgiving accounts, the White House is engaged in full-throttle denial of the Holocaust, which includes denying the centrality of Jews. Yes, six million Jews died, but so did many others, according to spokesperson Hope Hicks. “We took into account all of those who suffered,” she told CNN. “We are an incredibly inclusive group.”

What all this screeching means is that Trump’s kikeservativism isn’t good enough for the jews. This screechfest is much like the tantrums jews pitched over Palin invoking “blood libel” and Perkins invoking “kristallnacht” – a horde of self-righteous kikes get out their bullhorns to jewsplain how the stupid goyim should just shut up and stop fumbling with buzzterms jews specifically weaponized for use by jews to benefit jews.

The solution, according to Podhoretz, is to just let his tribe, “the most beleaguered people in history”, dictate what can and can’t be said at the highest levels of government.

The irony of these jews now condemning Trump for being too inclusive, i.e. not jewy enough, is that they also condemn him for being too exclusive, i.e. too jewy. It is only because Trump worships the jews that he even imagines he can wall off his jew-first rainbow America and treat Mexicans/muslims/aliens approximately like the jew-first jew-state treats non-jews.

The jews think different.

The First and Foremost Detrimental Alien Cries Out in Pain

shlomo_patron_saint_of_refugees

On Friday Trump ordered a suspension of entry by aliens from certain countries for 90 days, entry by alien “refugees” for 120 days, and entry specifically from Syria indefinitely – proclaiming that such alien entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”.

Even before this executive order was announced jews were screeching that Trump and other kikeservatives had neglected to sufficiently emphasize the jew-first moral of their WWII narrative. The screeching intensified with jews big and small slithering forth to jewsplain how Trump’s order threatened their sensibilities and interests as jews.

Beside the condemnations issued by organized jewry, social media was also full of individual jews directly invoking their muh six million narrative in support of their muh refugees agenda. The general thrust of the argument: It is irrational and immoral for you goyim to defend yourself from detrimental aliens, because that might be bad for the jews.

As one particularly noxious little jew, Lucas Neff, put it: “When you say ONLY Muslim countries, it is the exact same as saying it’s ONLY the Jews. Do you not get it??? Do you honestly not get it??” And: “I keep seeing ppl breathe a sigh of relief and say: “It’s ONLY Muslims countries. Not us.” AS A JEW, AS A HUMAN, I WANT TO SCREAM.” A few days earlier the scream was: “My wife is a permanent resident w a green card. Fuck u for voting 4 him. I do not forgive u. I will never forgive u.”

The jewsmedia social media echo chamber sent six gorillion twits along similar lines. Here’s a sampling.

Julia Ioffe: “I have to say: My family came here as refugees. You’ll never meet prouder Americans, or know how much this breaks my heart.”

David Rothkopf: “My father, his family came here as refugees too. If yours did, say so…let others understand how core that is to our country’s greatness.”

David Rothkopf: “Someone needs to take Trump to the Statue of Liberty and let him read the words at its base. They’re what make America great.”

(In the process of deconstructing America jews like to pretend their toxic tribemate Emma Lazarus was a Founding Father and her bit of doggerel praising “wretched refuse” should be treated like the Zeroth Amendment.)

Sen. Cory Booker: “On Holocaust Remembrance Day: never forget that the U.S. denied Anne Frank & her family entry into America as refugees. #RefugeesWelcome”

David Rothkopf: “Tweet of the day.”

At times there was even some lame pushback from alt-jews.

Seth Barron: “Trump reduced the number of Muslims who can come to the US in the next 90 days from 1.5 to 1.3 billion. #Holocaust #EmmaLazarusWept”

Will Saletan: “So no worries if we were to ban, say, just the Jews from countries that are populated by some violent Jewish extremists, right?”

Steve Sailer: “What hysteria over “Islamophobia” is mostly about is Jewish paranoia over completely hypothetical anti-Semitic persecution.”

Will Saletan: “Yes. So hypothetical. http://auschwitz.org/en/”

Steve Sailer: “Perfect illustration of my point: America can’t have a pro-American immigration policy because Auschwitz.”

In fact the jew agenda to destroy White America was already in motion well before WWII. America can’t have a pro-American immigration policy for the same reason American political discourse consists of so much screeching about “nazis” and “the holocaust”.

Because jews.

Discussing Jewing and Alt-Jewing with John Friend

this_is_how_we_jew_it

John and I spoke earlier this evening, mainly about the TRS debacle and the issues specifically around jew-mixing. In the course of the discussion we touched on LARPing vs fraud, poz/degeneracy reflecting the jew agenda, gaslighting as a metaphor for the relationship between Whites and jews, the insanity of the “good jew” argument, NRx, “left” vs “right” political theatre, and Trump.

More context:

Jews Denounce Trump’s ‘Dangerous Lie’ About Immigrant Voter Fraud, Forward.com.

Greg Johnson, “Why I Support Mike Enoch”.

Doxing Only Works Once, Greg Johnson speaking with Henrik Palmgren.

This is How We Jew It (webm), TixGirl = Peinovich’s turbokike wife.

Undeniable evidence that Michael Enoch is Jewish – “amongst other jews” – not sure what TDS episode this was, but it was some time prior to March 2016.

The following three snippets were taken from Rebel Shoah: Fashy Struggle Session, which has since been memory-holed.

Enoch admits he’s a jew part 1 by Cora 1488.

Enoch admits he’s a jew part2 by Cora 1488.

Enoch – “AltRight is not WN” by Cora 1488.

The Brown v. Board of Education Scam, by Paul Craig Roberts.

The Grave Dangers and Deep Sadness of ‘America First’, by Max Boot.

Full Event: President Donald Trump Full Speech at Department of Homeland Security (1/25/2017).

The Jew Wife Problem

dats_purity_spiraling

I spent hours yesterday reading about the doxxing of the main TRS hosts – the dox themselves, and comments from others about it. I’ve enjoyed listening to their shoot-the-shit Daily Shoah podcast, the future of which is now uncertain, as well as the political analysis on Fash the Nation, which has been shut down by its own hosts, presumably to deter their own doxxing.

Whether any of what they discussed was to your liking, I think it’s fair to say that Whites talking to Whites about things that concern Whites is good for Whites. TRS not only did that, they inspired and facilitated many others to do so as well.

From what I can see, the initial doxxing – first Ghoul, then Bulbasaur, then Seventh Son – didn’t reveal anything especially interesting. They are the ordinary White Americans they presented themselves as. Their doxxing was personally punitive, the main result being that anyone who wants to give them grief IRL will have an easier time doing so now.

It’s not difficult to understand why so many of the few Whites who feel compelled to speak out choose to use a pseudonym. Those whose personal concerns prevail over racial concerns simply keep their mouths shut, and are far more numerous. Like White flight, this is as much a reflection of the utter wickedness of the current anti-White/pro-jew regime as it is an expression of collective White fear and demoralization.

Mike Enoch’s doxxing is qualitatively different. First, because he has been the most pensive and eloquent voice at TRS, its hub, its guru. Without Enoch, TRS would not exist and probably will not continue. The more important difference is the jew wife thing.

A few Daily Stormer commenters argued about the apparent similarity to my situation. The main difference is that I disclosed it myself. I’ve never wanted to be popular, or a leader, but I do care about my race and want to speak the truth about its foremost pathogen, the jews. I’m sure there are many other people in my situation, more than even most jew-aware people realize. Many see their situation differently than I do. I’m not at all surprised some would try to speak some truths while compartmentalizing others.

The truth is that race-mixing is an existential threat to any race, including Whites. Race-mixing with jews is the worst because it helps jews infiltrate and manipulate Whites to think otherwise. As a result even many Whites who aren’t race-mixing deal with such truths by denying them, by denying race exists, or that it matters. And among the Whites who don’t deny that race matters many won’t accept that jews are a racial, existential threat to Whites. The more Whites are forced to confront and overcome any form of this denial, the better.

The most important point that can be made about the jew wife thing is that it is a problem. It matters. It isn’t irrational or immoral for Whites to despise and reject race-mixers, as the jews want us to believe. Quite the contrary, those who deny the problem, lie about it, or try to hush it up are only making it worse.