Tag Archives: jewish influence

The Jew Coverup

freud_fraud_anti-white

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tuvel Affair

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews Celebrate Victory in France

jews_jewing_jewishly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holocaust Day, Again and Again and Again

how_to_be_a_jew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy, Authoritarianism, War

three_famous_tools_of_war

What connects democracy, authoritarianism, and war? The jews of course.

Is America Still Safe for Democracy? by Robert Mickey, Steven Levitsky, and Lucan Ahmad Way, Foreign Affairs, 17 April 2017:

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States—a man who has praised dictators, encouraged violence among supporters, threatened to jail his rival, and labeled the mainstream media as “the enemy”—has raised fears that the United States may be heading toward authoritarianism.

It was only in the early 1970s—once the civil rights movement and the federal government managed to stamp out authoritarianism in southern states—that the country truly became democratic. Yet this process also helped divide Congress, realigning voters along racial lines and pushing the Republican Party further to the right. The resulting polarization both facilitated Trump’s rise and left democratic institutions more vulnerable to his autocratic behavior.

The safeguards of democracy may not come from the quarters one might expect. American society’s purported commitment to democracy is no guarantee against backsliding; nor are constitutional checks and balances, the bureaucracy, or the free press. Ultimately, it may be Trump’s ability to mobilize public support—limited if his administration performs poorly, but far greater in the event of a war or a major terrorist attack—that will determine American democracy’s fate.

The bulk of this particlar article is behind a paywall, but similar concerns are elaborated in an article published a few months earlier.

Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?, by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, The New York Times, 16 December 2016:

Donald J. Trump’s election has raised a question that few Americans ever imagined asking: Is our democracy in danger?

The clearest warning sign is the ascent of anti-democratic politicians into mainstream politics. Drawing on a close study of democracy’s demise in 1930s Europe, the eminent political scientist Juan J. Linz designed a “litmus test” to identify anti-democratic politicians. His indicators include a failure to reject violence unambiguously, a readiness to curtail rivals’ civil liberties, and the denial of the legitimacy of elected governments.

Mr. Trump tests positive. In the campaign, he encouraged violence among supporters; pledged to prosecute Hillary Clinton; threatened legal action against unfriendly media; and suggested that he might not accept the election results.

This anti-democratic behavior has continued since the election. With the false claim that he lost the popular vote because of “millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump openly challenged the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Like a pickup basketball game without a referee, democracies work best when unwritten rules of the game, known and respected by all players, ensure a minimum of civility and cooperation. Norms serve as the soft guardrails of democracy, preventing political competition from spiraling into a chaotic, no-holds-barred conflict.

Among the unwritten rules that have sustained American democracy are partisan self-restraint and fair play.

Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Trump is a serial norm-breaker. There are signs that Mr. Trump seeks to diminish the news media’s traditional role by using Twitter, video messages and public rallies to circumvent the White House press corps and communicate directly with voters — taking a page out of the playbook of populist leaders like Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey.

An even more basic norm under threat today is the idea of legitimate opposition. In a democracy, partisan rivals must fully accept one another’s right to exist, to compete and to govern. Democrats and Republicans may disagree intensely, but they must view one another as loyal Americans and accept that the other side will occasionally win elections and lead the country. Without such mutual acceptance, democracy is imperiled. Governments throughout history have used the claim that their opponents are disloyal or criminal or a threat to the nation’s way of life to justify acts of authoritarianism.

The risk we face, then, is not merely a president with illiberal proclivities — it is the election of such a president when the guardrails protecting American democracy are no longer as secure.

What we see in these two articles is a good example of what the jewed media and academia refer to as “us versus them thinking” and “the politics of fear”, and routinely project entirely onto us, their White enemy. This particular message is aimed not at the masses but at their peers and allies in the jewed elite. The message is that )))public support((( for )))authoritarianism((( threatens (((democracy))).

This characteristically jewy hissing aimed at psychopathologizing White socio-political behavior traces back at least as far as Freud. The most prominent examples are Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality, Hofstader’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies.

The jewed elite speak to each other in code because they are aware their rule is illegitimate, based not on law or popular support but on double-talk. As “whites” they decry privilege, as jews they decry oppression, and do both at the same time from inside the biggest social institutions, the most powerful corporations, and all the branches of government. This fraud can fly only so long as jews recognize a racial-political line between themselves and Whites, and Whites do not.

The jewed elite is nervous because many Whites already implicitly recognize what’s going on – the most obvious sign of which is the unpopularity of the jewsmedia and its narrative. The jews have long been warning that Trump is violating their norms, for example by breaking the main “unwritten rule” of anti-populist judeo-liberal democracy: Thou shalt not say what White voters want to hear.

And it’s no wonder that the jewsmedia is unpopular with Whites. What we see in this instance is the usual jewsmedia expression of fear and loathing directed not so much toward Trump as toward the White supporters he misleads and misrepresents. Between December and April Trump reneged on the campaign promises which most appealed to Whites, swamping his administration with jews and globalist bankers who promptly convinced him to teach )))the world((( a lesson by hurling 59 Hebrew Hammers worth of (((democracy))) at )))authoritarian((( Syria. And though Trump shifted gears, the terms and tone of the disingenuous jewsmedia narrative have not.

The most “basic norm” the jews sense is “under threat today” is their most fundamental fakery, their crypsis. They can’t do what they do under scrutiny. It is only the conflation of jews with Whites which enabled an increasingly jewed elite, increasingly hostile to Whites, to slither into power in the first place. And their perverse con is only becoming more obvious amid the now daily hysterical screeching that “neo-nazi” “White supremacist” “anti-semites” are in the White House.

These “safeguards” and “guardrails” jews refer to were constructed at the behest of jews, for the benefit of jews, the purpose being to keep the jews safe from the Whites they have insinuated themselves among and have fed upon with impunity. They’re talking about what comes next, now that it appears these devices are failing.

War is the jews’ harvest and their 23 skidoo. Not the end-game, just another essential stage in their lifecycle. After years of relentless organizing and lobbying, constantly crying about )))authoritarianism((( from the biggest megaphones their fake money can buy, all aimed at orchestrating yet another Purim-fest from which they profit BIGLY. Before the war even starts they’ve already pinned all the blame on someone else, and before the war is even over they’ll have laid the foundation for the next.

Whites must see this cycle to end it, and the jews don’t want this cycle to end, thus don’t want Whites to see. Like Wilson and FDR before him, Trump is betraying his White supporters. War looms again. After more than a century the reason remains the same: To keep the world safe for the jews.

Worshipping the Tribe Who Seeks To Destroy You

happy_holidayssssss

First, let’s listen to a jew explain what Passover means to the jews. “We can’t let them win”: Passover is more than a holiday — it’s a call to arms against oppression:

Passover is more than just a holiday. It’s a call to arms. I have realized and maybe you did, too, even before the election laid bare the fight we would face, that above all else Passover is the story of a successful uprising against tyranny. It is a story dripping with hope, one that inherently looks to the future — a story we need this year in America more than ever.

As a people, we Jews have historically led the resistance against intolerance and persecution, from championing the civil rights movement to standing up against authoritarianism in all its guises. We have always sought a better world, not only for ourselves but also our children. This Passover we must come together, urgently, to sit among friends and family and listen to the unprecedented story of a profound resistance. We must remember that we have faced dark times before — in Egypt, in Spain, in Auschwitz — and that we have outlasted them. We will outlast these dark, turbulent times as well, not just because we continue to stand on the right side of history, but also because, as targets of hate and survivors of it, we know exactly what’s at stake if we fail.

This is a concise, precise formulation of the jew narrative. It clearly indicates the jew-centric origin of the most powerful weaponized buzzterms used against Whites today – “intolerance”, “persecution”, “civil rights”, “authoritarianism”, “seeking a better life for ourselves and our family” – and connects it directly to the long string of hosts jews have previously infiltrated, exploited, and ultimately exterminated.

Jew holidays are nothing more and nothing less than a regular opportunity for “the jewish people” to remind each other of their conspiracy against everyone else, and to celebrate the tremendous advantage their jew-righteous jew-justifying jew-first mindset gives them in that fight.

Now listen to how the jews’ narrative is distorted and misinterpreted by the jews’ most powerful servant and millions of his witless Christian supporters. President Trump Easter Holiday Message To The Nation:

This week, jewish families across our country, and around the world, celebrate Passover and retell the story of God’s deliverance of the jewish people. The story of the Exodus is a story of freedom. It is the story of an incredible people who were liberated from oppression and raised up the face of humankind.

Down through the centuries, the jewish people have lived through one persecution after another–and yet, they persevered and thrived and uplifted the world beyond measure. And now, the state of Israel stands as a monument to their faith and endurance.

The jews’ hostile particularist us-versus-them narrative has been transformed into an Animal Farmish jews-are-the-best-of-us form.

Whereas jews see Whites (Christian or not) as alien enemies whose mere existence amounts to oppression, Whites misinterpret jews not only as friends but as moral superiors who have been unjustly persecuted. Whereas the view jews share with each other emboldens and empowers them, the delusions jews encourage among their hosts confuse, demoralize, and ultimately destroy them.

During his selection campaign, the kikeservative-in-chief often reminded his supporters of the dangers of such destructive behavior by recounting the ancient European parables of The Trojan Horse and The Snake. And as usual for dire warnings about “pathological altruism”, the fatal conceit of Trump’s enraptured audience was that he was talking about somebody else’s error.

Intrigue in Trump’s Palace

palace_intrigue

The big news last week was Trump’s abrupt decision to bomb Assad. Around that story swirled rumors of an internal conflict between factions led by Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon, a conflict the Bannon faction has evidently lost.

Most jewsmedia reports described the Kushner/Bannon conflict in anodyne code, typically describing the opposing sides as globalists and nationalists. What’s notable about the following three accounts is how they explicitly describe the jew versus White nature of the conflict, making plain a key aspect of the story that is otherwise buried between the lines in the many more mundane accounts. Moreover, the jews writing these more explicit accounts clearly see the Kushner/Bannon conflict as part of a much larger and ongoing conflict.

Josh Marshall got out in front early on with Inside the Emerging Trumpian Alt-Right Snuff Novel, trying to jewsplain how the anti-jew reaction he was anticipating had actually somehow started it all:

But can we miss that the man who gave coherence and verve to Trump’s campaign against the ‘globalists’ and unrooted cosmopolitan elites is about to be booted by the President’s Jewish tycoon son-in-law and a group of bankers (yes, Jewish bankers) from Goldman Sachs?

All on his own he drew around himself that coterie of “alt-right” white nationalists and neo-Nazis who will likely be his greatest and most lethal contribution to the American political scene. But it was only with Bannon’s arrival that Trump took on the much more coherent and consistent language of Europe-derived rightist nationalism, anti-”globalism” and the thinly covert language of anti-Semitism.

It was pure Bannon, remember, who was behind the speech that became this notorious anti-Semitic closing ad, released on November 5th, 2016.

And yet here we are and let’s not shy away from it. All accounts suggest that Bannon has fallen from grace and will soon be fired by the President. His ouster comes as the loser in a battle with a group of Jewish Goldman Sachs (Cohn, Mnuchin) bankers and the tall, dapper and yet nebbishy Jewish legacy real estate tycoon Jared Kushner. (I’m Jewish. I can say all of this.) It all reads like the kind of alt-right morality play one of Bannon’s deplorables might have written in some grand alt-right dystopic novel. Even the non-Jews are veritable auslanders: A key new player is Dina Powell (born Dina Habib), an Egyptian immigrant (albeit a Copt) who was herself a banker at Goldman Sachs in addition to being a Republican policy insider.

Nor is any of this lost on the Bannonites. We keep hearing that in the harum-scarum of the Trump White House the crowd around Kushner is referred to as the “New York Democrats” or various similar formulations. As an older Jewish friend (who reminds me he’s been asked his whole life whether he’s from New York even though he’s from a different part of the country and has never lived in the city) told me yesterday, this language is not accidental. It’s a reference to their being Jews.

Trump connected to his base not through lifestyle but through the experience of disrespect, grievance and the desire for revenge. He ran a campaign which more and more literally and explicitly demonized (especially under Bannon’s late guidance) the ‘globalist’ machinations of Goldman Sachs. Yet, increasingly, he has built an administration run by Goldman Sachs bankers. Of course, it’s Goldman Sachs bankers and Jared Kushner and protectionist ‘economic nationalist’ xenophobes and racists. It’s an interesting combination. They’ve even imported period piece Eastern European racist nationalists to be part of the fun – see, Sebastian Gorka.

But let’s stipulate now that if the ‘alt-right’ wanted to write a betrayal narrative that touched all the ideological erogenous zones on that fetid body of thought they could scarcely have come up with material more charged, melodramatic and grand.

Of course, jews like Marshall screeched that Trump’s campaign video was “packed with anti-Semitic dog whistles, anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Semitic vocabulary” exactly because they perceive international finance and Goldman Sachs in particular as a big fat example of jewing. Rather than even try to deny such conspicuous jewing, jews instead compound it, and in a characteristically jewy way, by blithely psychopathologizing and demonizing any non-jew who dares to notice.

As usual for dog whistling, Trump’s campaign rhetoric has proven entirely disingenuous. Before his inauguration, still promising to “drain the swamp”, Trump was instead swamping his administration with jews, Goldman Sachs alumni, and jew Goldman Sachs alumni.

The ADL’s account of the Kushner/Bannon clash, Explosive Growth of Hateful Memes and Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Against Jared Kushner, couching it as a reality-inverting White conspiracy against jews:

This campaign of anti-Semitism has been driven by white supremacists and anti-Semites and has all the hallmarks of classic Jewish conspiracy theories. The narratives include accusations that Jews in the Trump Administration are trying to start a war to advance the interests of Israel. They contend that Trump has abandoned his “America First” policy, which the alt right supported, because he is being manipulated by Kushner and other Jewish advisors.

The anti-Semitic social media campaign, which features hashtags on Twitter such as #firekushner, #kushneratwar, #kushnerswar, appears to have begun on April 5 with a few tweets describing the administration’s actions as a betrayal alongside the #firekushner hashtag.

Again, the jew view is that the problem always starts with the reaction to jewing, no matter how unconscious or disorganized or impotent, it never starts with jewing, no matter how conscious or organized or powerful. This attitude is really just a corollary of the more basic premise that jew = good and non-jew (and especially White) = evil.

A third account from Brian Beutler, senior editor at Jew Republic, cites and synthesizes these other two accounts to produce the jewiest take of all. The main point of Trump Would Fail Even Worse With Kushner’s Centrism is that Trump is a tool not of the jews but of his White supporters:

Bannon may be deluded about many things, but one thing he does not misapprehend is the extent to which the white ethnonationalist politics he and his boss practice have no crossover appeal.

Trump can’t un-run the campaign he just ran. Politicians often make too much of poisoned wells to rationalize counterproductive obstruction, but poison was the quintessence of Trump’s appeal. Even the popular aspects of his populism were cloaked in the language of revenge—of empowering his people at the expense of political aliens, like immigrants and minorities, who had overtaken them. There is no undoing the impression, widespread among Trump’s foes, that anything he supports must be regressive.

Which is just to say, Kushner wants Trump to chart a new course that leads to a substantive dead end for at least another 19 months. Bannon’s path, at least, preserves the hope of keeping his base consolidated through the legislative ebb. He can deregulate, scapegoat, and unburden law enforcement to turn his Herrenvolk fantasy into reality—all while keeping congressional investigators at bay.

There’s no real logical rebuttal to this, except to point to three months of chaos and humiliation as indicative of the futility of continuing to do things Bannon’s way.

Just as jews loudly screeching “anti-semitism” is a sure sign of jew malfeasance, the consistent reflexive visceral jew hostility toward Whites is a sure sign jews aren’t White.

Many accounts make a similar attempt to attribute Bannon’s downfall and Kushner’s rise to the thwarted travel bans and failed attempt to replace Obamacare. The logical rebuttal is to point out that organized jewry was calling for war on Syria years before Trump, Kushner, or Bannon were in the White House. Likewise, jew knives were out for Bannon months before any internal conflict or legislative failure could be used as a pretext. Beside that, the travel bans were just as much Stephen Miller’s brainchild and healthcare was Gary Cohn’s.

Needless to say the jewsmedia will never give Kushner, Miller, Cohn, Mnuchin, or any other member of the tribe the Alinsky treatment. Though McCarthy and Nixon still loom like Trump-Hitler phantasms in the minds of jews, their jew aides, Roy Cohn and Henry Kissinger, are either ignored or celebrated. The same is and will continue to be the rule for Trump’s jews.

My take on the Kushner/Bannon conflict is that it reflects a clash between the two main jewhadi factions backing Trump. The faster, please open-borders perpetual worldwide “war on terror” neoconish faction is prevailing over the upstart “war on ISLAMIC terror” counter-jihadi kids and their economic “JUDEO-Christian” non-nationalism. Wall and ban rhetoric may have helped Trump get elected, and he may return to it in 2020, but in the meantime he doesn’t need to pretend to believe it.

The two factions which have most vehemently opposed Trump – the left-posing jews driven more by an all-consuming hatred for Whites and the right-posing #NeverTrump neocons driven more by an all-consuming love for the jew state – view the phoney nationalism of Trump’s counter-jihad faction as worse than unnecessary. Letting Whites think they can criticize or exclude anyone but other Whites is dangerous for the jews. They have their jew state and feel no pressing need to concede anything like it to anyone, especially not obsequious kikeservatives. As the three takes above indicate, the jews who oppose Trump see Whites as the primary enemy, not the mooselimbs and certainly not bankers.

It was evident from the very beginning of Trump’s campaign that, like most politicians, he understood very well what Whites are desperate to hear. Unlike most politicians Trump was more willing to say those things, even though it meant violating jew taboos. But it was also evident that Trump never intended to do anything “racist”, i.e. anything that might truly benefit Whites, much less check jew power. The fact is that neither Trump nor Bannon nor Gorka nor anyone else in the current administration has ever said anything positive about Whites as Whites or anything negative about jews as jews. Quite the opposite. They all basically agree with their jew tormentors that “nazis” are the real problem.

When the anti-White jewsmedia screeches that Trump is somehow promoting “White supremacism” or “anti-semitism” what they’re really doing is “the reverse”. They’re white-washing jews and their jewing. And in that process they’re making it clear who is waging war upon whom.

A Shift in Revulsion

mixed_up

The revulsion at race mixing was transformed into revulsion directed at “nazis”, because jews.

Science. 1973 Nov 23;182(4114):790-6.

Geneticists and the biology of race crossing.

Provine WB.

Abstract

Geneticists in England and the United States clearly reversed their published remarks on the effects of race crossing between 1930 and 1950. The reversal occurred in two steps. First came the change in the 1930′s from a condemnation of wide race crosses to an agnostic view. The second change, from the agnostic view to the belief that wide race crosses were at worst biologically harmless, took place during and shortly after World War II. The entire reversal occurred in the light of little new compelling data from studies of actual human race crosses. The lack of new data is unsurprising. Few geneticists wished to initiate experiments that took three human generations to complete. And controlled race crosses are hard to arrange, even with government grants. What might be more surprising was the willingness of geneticists to make such positive statements about race crossing when they had so little reliable genetic evidence. I interviewed or wrote to ten prominent geneticists who worked on human genetics between 1930 and 1950. Not one believed that new evidence on race crossing was the primary reason why geneticists changed their minds about the effects of race crossing. One plausible explanation, that the rise of “population thinking” (44) caused geneticists to change their minds, does not fit the evidence. Castle was no more of a “population” thinker than East, yet they differed radically in their conclusions about race crossing. What, then, did cause geneticists to change their minds? Most important was the revulsion of educated people in the United States and England to Nazi race doctrines and their use in justifying extermination of Jews. Few geneticists wanted to argue, as had the Nazis, that biology showed race crossing was harmful. Instead, having witnessed the horrible toll, geneticists naturally wanted to argue that biology showed race crossing was at worst harmless. No racist nation could misuse that conclusion. And geneticists did revise their biology to fit their feelings of revulsion. Geneticists’ ideas about the related question of hereditary mental differences between races is perhaps undergoing a similar development to that seen earlier in their ideas about race crossing. In 1951, judging from the response to the Unesco second statement on race and comments in genetics literature, most geneticists agreed with Muller that races probably differed in significant average mental traits. By 1969, when Arthur Jensen advocated this view in his controversial article (45), most geneticists who spoke publicly on the issue had adopted an agnostic position. Knowledge of hereditary racial differences in IQ had scarcely changed since 1951, but society had changed considerably in racial attitudes. It will be interesting to see if during the next several decades geneticists will argue, on the basis of little additional evidence, that hereditary mental differences between races do not exist. I am not condemning geneticists because social and political factors have influenced their scientific conclusions about race crossing and race differences. It is necessary and natural that changing social attitudes will influence areas of biology where little is known and the conclusions are possibly socially explosive. The real danger is not that biology changes with society, but that the public expects biology to provide the objective truth apart from social influences. Geneticists and the public should realize that the science of genetics is often closely intertwined with social attitudes and political considerations.

PMID: 4583525