Tag Archives: jewish influence

Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1

these_are_invaders

For years thousands of Africans and other non-Whites have been invading Europe, crossing the Mediterranean ocean by boat. Rather than turning these boats around, or simply sinking these invaders, European security forces, ostensibly sworn to protect their countries from invasion, have been increasingly more likely to “rescue” the invaders, to help them ashore, feed them, and release them to do as they please in Europe.

Why do European governments permit this invasion? I’m sure the details of the incidents and legal arguments are complicated and confusing. But to put it simply, it happens for the simple reason that the invaders aren’t offically regarded as invaders, but instead are described as innocent victims, “refugees” who are just looking for a better life for themselves and their families. And the simple reason for that is treason. The governments are operated by aliens and indigenous traitors who demonstrate by their words and deeds that they place the interests of alien invaders above the indigenous Europeans.

UN expert: rich countries must take in 1 million refugees to stop boat deaths, The Guardian, 22 April 2015.

François Crépeau‘s bio at McGill says he is:

the Hans & Tamar Oppenheimer Professor in Public International Law at the Faculty of Law of McGill University. In 2011, he was appointed United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants.

UN Rapporteur Francois Crepeau Has A Very Rude Word To Describe UK’s Attitude To Migrants, Huffington Post, 12 March 2014.

The only real solution to Europe’s migrant crisis is to let everyone in, by Dylan Matthews at Vox, 21 April 2015.

VOX’s Dylan Matthews: Ending Europe Forever Is The “Only” Solution To Migrant Crisis, by James Kirkpatrick at VDare, 22 April 2015.

‘Swedes will compare this to the Holocaust’, The Local, 20 April 2015:

A Swedish MEP [Cecilia Wikström] is stepping up a pan-European cross-party campaign for “legal and safe routes to Europe” for migrants in the wake of the latest Mediterranean boat disaster.

I think that my children and grandchildren are going to ask why more wasn’t done to help people running away from Isis, or violence in Eritrea or wherever, when we knew that people were dying in their thousands. People will ask the same question they did after the war, ‘if you were aware, why didn’t you do something?’. In Sweden we allowed our railroads to be used to transfer Jews to Nazi death camps.

Will Africa’s Northern Sea be the Mediterranean or the Baltic?, by Steve Sailer, 23 April 2015.

Swedish navy widens search for mystery submarine, Associated Press, 20 October 2014.

Francis Parker Yockey: The Destiny of America

semitic_countenance

Over the past year I’ve invested many hours reading and talking about Yockey, especially what he had to say about liberalism and race in Imperium, his magnum opus. I dove into the effort with the expectation of finding important insights. Long story short, I didn’t. Not to say it is a waste of time to read Yockey, but there are other authors a White man can and should read whose work in more concise and relevant. For instance, I would recommend any of Kevin MacDonald’s work before Imperium. Even better, read Revilo Oliver’s short book The Jewish Strategy.

In my opinion the flaw with the view of liberalism Yockey laid out in Imperium is that he largely ignored jewish influence on European thinking and history. Most every White historian and philosopher has. Most still do. They either ignore the jews, or regard them as fellow Europeans. In fact, this is proving to be a fatal mistake.

Whites did not stumble accidentally into the ideas of liberalism. Whites have long been infiltrated, manipulated and exploited by jews, who have all along been more fully conscious of themselves as a collective, distinct from and in fact hostile to Whites. Jews have directed the course of history, and their own destiny, exactly because they have organized and conspired to do that – to the long-term benefit of themselves and the detriment of Whites.

Though jew rule still isn’t overtly acknowledged as such, it is clear enough that the jews rode the values of liberalism – freedom, equality, tolerance – straight to the top. At this point in history it is jews who command the levers of financial, social and political power. Jews rule mainly in mind rather than body, by literally defining the very morals and terms by which the governing bodies of nearly the entire globe operate.

In this short essay titled The Destiny of America, published several years after Imperium, we can see that Yockey knew quite a bit about the difference between Whites and jews. I think it’s worth reading because in the sixty years since Yockey wrote, what he describes as the destiny of America has become the destiny of the world.

The version I’ll read is from archive.org, which carries this introduction:

The Destiny of America is a short essay by Francis Parker Yockey in which he discusses the American history and spirit, the Jewish history and spirit, and how Jews have manipulated Americans and took power over America. It is possible that this essay, as professor Revilo Oliver suggests, is an extract from the manuscript of The American Destiny, a book which Yockey wrote but was never published because the manuscript was taken and destroyed by authorities after Yockey’s arrest.

Though Yockey understood the jews as alien he still accepted the jewish narrative portraying them as historically persecuted and powerless. He misunderstood jewish parasitism and aggression as relatively recent and opportunistic behavior, as “revenge” for their “persecution”. As usual, Yockey is quite disdainful of White “liberals”, referring to them here as “sub-Americans with defective instincts”, essentially as useful idiots for the ruling jews. This is a strong distinction from Imperium, where Yockey presented European “liberals” as rational masterminds irrationally undoing themselves.

The Noah Shoah

trevor_noah_jew_jokes

On March 30th Trevor Noah was named as Jon Liebowitz’s replacement as host of The Daily Show. Jews immediately began swarming and screeching in protest.

By the next day the editorial staff at The Hollywood Reporter announced, Trevor Noah Criticized as Anti-Semitic Due to Twitter History, and laid out a handful of old twits as pretext for the screeching.

The “jokes” in Noah’s twits come across as ridiculously mild, especially in comparison to the kind of toxic mockery regularly aimed at Whites, whether on The Daily Show or in the broader corporate jewsmedia. In fact, though THR only vaguely identifies “the internet” as the source of the complaining about Noah, it is the broader corporate jewsmedia which has led and amplified the controversy from the get-go.

On the 30th, the day the Noah announcement was made, David Steinberg at the PJ Tatler wrote Trevor Noah and His Anti-Semitic Tweets. That same day Jamie Weinstein at The Daily Caller asked, Is New ‘Daily Show’ Host Trevor Noah Anti-Israel? The main point in both cases was to simply echo and add their screech to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article.

The next day, the 31st, Dave Itzkoff at the Jew York Times cited Weinstein’s article in Comedy Central Stands Behind Trevor Noah, New ‘Daily Show’ Host, Amid Scrutiny. Itzkoff also quoted Abraham Foxman, national director of the jews’ Anti-Defamation League, who acknowledged that comedians “poke fun at stereotypes” and “push the envelope of political correctness” but urged Noah not to target “jews, other minorities and women”. The logical implication of Foxman’s stereotypically jewy double-talk: White men are the only legitimate, non-offensive target.

Also on the 31st Alyssa Rosenberg at the Washington Post wrote How Trevor Noah can save his tenure at ‘The Daily Show’ before it starts. Rosenberg cited Itzkoff’s article and described the screeching as stemming from “material that targeted jewish women, heavier women, jews and Israel”. Rosenberg’s stereotypical jewish advice was that Noah should apologize to and surround himself with advisors like herself.

Also on the 31st Spencer Kornhaber and James Hamblin at The Atlantic wrote Trevor Noah Meets the Outrage Internet. Queer jew Kornhaber explains his outrage:

[a Noah twit] in May of 2014 indulges some not-s0-helpful thoughts about Jews controlling the world, but actually is almost a punchline, at least. The older stuff is just such a fascinating glimpse at what makes bad humor bad—the idea that you’re doing something exciting by saying something offensive, when really you’re just outing yourself as a deeply unoriginal thinker who has a tragically commonplace obsession with Jews. Or you’re outing yourself as the stereotype of a frat-bro when it comes to attitudes toward women.

Like Rosenberg, Kornhaber tells Noah what he should do:

He should explain the thinking behind some of those jokes and whether he still holds to that thinking. He should probably offer an apology.

Also on the 31st came a broader glop of jewcentricity from Phoebe Maltz Bovy at The Jew Republic: Trevor Noah’s Tweets Show Anti-Jewish Humor No Longer Acceptable. Bovy noted that Noah is a quarter-jew and pointed out the significance of this to jews, implying that most of the jews who were screeching must not have realized.

Perhaps the most hysterical reaction came via Blabbermouth reporting on an interview on Voice of Israel. Disturbed’s David Draiman Slams New ‘Daily Show’ Host Trevor Noah Over Twitter Jokes About Jews:

“You know, I’d love to have this mamzer [a Hebrew word referring to a person born of certain forbidden relationships] go ahead and call me on to his show. If he wants to go ahead and be a funny guy, go ahead. Have me on your show. Go ahead and start spewing anti-Semitic or Jewish jokes while I’m on your show. Somebody’s gonna end up in the hospital and somebody’s gonna end up in jail, and I’ll give you three guesses who that’s going to be.”

Asked how it could be that a public figure like Noah could “spout anti-Semitic rhetoric” to the world, Draiman responded: “I think that anti-Semitism has become fashionable. I think it’s become acceptable in a lot of people’s eyes.”

He continued: “The media continues to spin the State of Israel and Jews as war-mongering, evil people, which we are not. I think that it’s become something that, where people used to quickly rise to condemn it, they more and more are being very, very lackadaisical about it, and it’s becoming something that isn’t offensive to the mass public, which is very, very disturbing.

By April 1st it seemed the jews making the decisions at Comedy Central were not planning to cave in to the screeching jews, and the tone of some screeching changed. The Jew York Times ran an op-ed by Guy Branum, another queer jew, titled Trevor Noah Learns Twitter Just Can’t Take a Joke. Beyond the jew-washing title Branum played down Noah’s “handful of mediocre jokes with hack premises about women, jews and fat people” and shifted blame instead to the “mostly white, straight, male power dynamic within the comedy world”. Branum’s conclusion:

Mr. Noah has gotten a clear message about cheap jokes at the expense of marginalized groups, but so far it doesn’t seem as if that response will cost him the job. And it shouldn’t. Because, in the process of a comedian’s learning how to say the right thing, he needs the chance to say the wrong thing.

Not to mention, of course, that Noah also needs to learn to hire some marginalized fat queer jews as advisors.

For a week or so the screeching shifted elsewhere. On April 8th The Washington Post published Why we have to stop telling Jewish jokes by Michelle Van Loon, a jewess who describes herself as “someone who moves in Gentile church circles” telling Christian women what to think and do.

Loon cited an American Jewish Congress campaign intended to restart the swarming and screeching. President Jack Rosen asked, “How can one of the world’s most admired Jewish comedians leave his legacy to a sexist anti-Semite?”, and bluntly called on Liebowitz to rescind Trevor Noah’s contract.

Loon also refers to another glop of jewy thinking Phoebe Maltz Bovy wrote just before the Noah Shoah began: Lena Dunham New Yorker Jew-Dog Joke Not Offensive, But Unfunny. There are differences between Loon and Bovy. But their premises and conclusions are the same.

When we consider the various jewsmedia screechers mentioned above – Steinberg, Weinstein, Itzkoff, Foxman, Rosenberg, Kornhaber, Draiman, Bovy, Loon – their common conceit is that because they are jews they regard themselves as the arbiters of what is or isn’t offensive or funny, what is or isn’t permissible for anyone and everyone else to say.

A Grim and Terrible Fact

goy_fight

Revilo Oliver begins The Jewish Strategy with an insight which only becomes more relevant as jewish power and the elaborate efforts to disguise or excuse it make themselves ever more obvious:

IT IS A GRIM AND TERRIBLE FACT that most of the members of our own race have had their minds so deformed by centuries of cunning Jewish propaganda that they have been conditioned, as effectively as well-trained dogs, to snarl and bite when their Jewish masters utter certain key-words, such as “fascist,” “racist,” and the like, which take the place of the “sic ’em” to which dogs respond. They are, furthermore, so emotionally addicted to narcotic fantasies that many of them are both unwilling and unable to endure the distress of looking at the real world about them and thinking rationally about it. They understandably prefer to close tightly the eyes of their minds and live in the dream-world of pleasurable fairy tales, such as they heard in the childhood to which they subconsciously long to regress. As Kipling neatly characterized them, “If they desire a thing, they declare it is true. If they desire it not, though that were death itself, they cry aloud, ‘It has never been!'”

It is a tragic and potentially disastrous fact that any candid and reasonably comprehensive analysis of our present plight not only exposes its author to surreptitious or open reprisals, but also alienates many members of our befuddled and perhaps doomed race, making them snarl and want to bite the man who would make them face an unpleasant reality. Many more are so timorous that even a hint of disrespect for Jews sends them running for cover, like frightened cats, lest the Jews punish them for having listened to impious words.

This pattern recurs in every jewed facet of reaction to jewing for the same reason “anti-semitism” follows the jews wherever they go. Jewish parasitism comprises infiltration, manipulation and exploitation. Naturally, they seek to neutralize and overcome the resentment and resistance their behavior engenders in their hosts by applying ever more of the same. From the jewish hammer’s point of view everything else really is just a jew-hating nail.

Apropos “jewish manipulation of White vulnerabilities”, as discussed in the comments of Gaslighting, Oliver’s insight also accounts for the vector, the characteric elements of White racial mentality jews manipulate. Oliver laid out a total of seven elements in What We Owe Our Parasites. In the two paragraphs above he points to the White capacity for imagination being driven to “narcotic fantasies” and the White capacity for compassion misdirected into either snarling or sniveling. These latter symptoms are analogous to an auto-immune response – a pathological response which is, of course, instigated by and serves the interests of the pathogen, the jews.

The cure, or at least the first step toward one, is to “wake up”. To recognize the fantasies and misdirections as such. To face reality, no matter how unpleasant. As Oliver put it:

A dream is by definition a series of sensations that occur in the brain when both our senses of perception and our powers of will and reason are in abeyance, so that we have no control over that flux of sensations. But it is, of course, a well-known phenomenon that when we dream that we are dreaming, the dream ends and we awaken. Then the conscious mind takes over and we are again responsible for our thoughts, and must face a day in which we must be responsible for our actions, which, by their wisdom or folly, may determine the rest of our lives. Our dreams may give expression, pleasant or painful, to our subconscious desires or fears. But in our waking hours we must, if we are rational, make our decisions on the basis of the most objective and cold-blooded estimates that we can make: estimates of the forces and tendencies in the world about us; estimates of the realities with which we must deal; remembering always that nothing is likely to happen just because we think it’s good, or unlikely to happen just because we think it’s evil.

If ever we have had need to appraise carefully and rationally our position and prospects, the time is now.

Julius Evola: “the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism”

crypto_colossus

The significance of the bone of contention over jewish rule of Britain first came to my attention in Majority Rights Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl, and especially in the comments at MR afterward. Months later I came across the issue again in Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 8 and Part 9.

The “British” Empire is one of those elements of European history which resonates very strongly in the European psyche. Racialists tend to see it as an expression of Anglo-Saxon greatness. The jews have turned it into a cornerstone of their guilt-tripping about colonialism. Neither view accords with reality. The jews puppeteered the empire at the expense of Britons, just as today they puppeteer the colonization of Britain itself.

Evola’s assessment, excerpted below, was written in 1940, at which point jewish parasitic infiltration and manipulation of Britain (from the top) was clear enough. Evola’s discussion of the precise who and how provides a welcome contrast to Yockey’s jew-blind account in 1948. Indeed, the false notion that Britons ruled Britain then, and even now, prevails exactly because the jews still rule.

Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers:

We know that, wherever economic interests predominate, the Jew rapidly rises and accedes to the commanding positions. The penetration of Judaism into England is not a thing of recent days alone. It was the English Revolution and Protestantism which threw open England’s doors. The Jews, who had been expelled by Edward I in 1290, were readmitted to England as a result of a Petition accepted by Cromwell and finally approved by Charles II in 1649. From this time forward, the Jews, and above all the Spanish Jews (the Sephardim) began to immigrate en masse to England, bringing with them the riches which they had acquired by more or less dubious means, and it was these riches, as we have just explained, which allowed them to accede to the centres of command within English life, to the aristocracy and to positions very close to the Crown. Less than a century after their re-admission, the Jews were so sure of themselves that they demanded to be naturalised, that is to say, to be granted British citizenship. This had a very interesting result : the Law, or Bill, naturalising the Jews was approved in 1740. Most of its supporters were members of the upper classes or high dignitaries within the Protestant Church, which shows us the extent to which these elements had already become Judaised or corrupted by Jewish gold. The reaction came not from the English upper classes, but from the people. The Law of 1740 provoked such outrage and disorder among the populace that it was abrogated in 1753.

The Jews now resorted to another tactic : they abandoned their synagogues and converted, nominally, to Christianity. Thus the obstacle was circumvented and their work of penetration proceeded at an accelerated pace. What mattered to the Jews was to keep their positions of command and to eliminate the religious arguments on which the opposition of that period principally rested ; everything else was secondary, since the converted Jew remains, in his instincts, his mentality, and his manner of action, entirely Jewish, as is shown by one striking example among many others : the extremely influential Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, despite having converted, continued to support the Jewish community and was buried in a Jewish cemetery. His money bought for his son an enormous property and the title of Baronet.

This was the preferred tactic of the rich Jews of England from the eighteenth century on : they supplanted the English feudal nobility by acquiring their properties and titles, and thus mixing themselves with the aristocracy, by the nature of the British representative system, they came closer and closer to the government, with the natural consequence of a progressive Judaification of the English political mentality.

from the inception of imperialism on the large scale, what was less apparent was that the ‘British Empire’ was a creature of Judaism, which a Jew had given as a present to the British Royal Crown.

This Jew was Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s Prime Minister

Only one Jew could have conceived the idea of ‘reforming’ the conception of Empire and making of it something plutocratic and transforming it into imperialistic materialism. This Jew was Disraeli – ‘Dizzy’ as he was known. It was he who made of Queen Victoria an ‘Empress’, a colonial Empress, the Empress of India. This indefatigable proponent of the English ‘Imperial’ idea modelled his conception upon the Jewish Messianic-imperial idea, the idea of a people whose power consists in the riches of others, over which they take power, and which they cynically exploit and control. Disraeli always attacked very violently those who wished to separate England from her overseas territories, within which, as a Jewish historian has pointed out, Jews were the pioneers. Disraeli knew who it was that sustained this England which in turn was to dominate the riches of the world ; it is possible that he was among those initiates who knew that it was more than a simple British-Jewish plutocracy which was pulling the strings. One recalls those often-quoted words of Disraeli : “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

The prudent and noiseless penetration of Jewry into the English upper classes and into the government itself continued. It was Disraeli who performed the coup upon Egypt in 1875 – with whose help? Rothschild. In 1875, the Khedive had financial worries and Disraeli managed to learn that he was willing to sell 177,000 shares of Suez Canal stock. This was a magnificent opportunity to gain certain control of the route to the Indies. The government hesitated. Rothschild did not. Here is the record of the historic conversation between Disraeli and Rothschild (Disraeli had asked him for four million pounds sterling) : “What guarantee can you offer me?” “The British government.” “You shall have five million tomorrow.” The interest on the loan was ‘extremely low’ ; naturally, the real and important interest of the Jewish clique lay on another and less visible plane …

Disraeli did not fail to make more convenient to the Jews of England their ritual observance. A little-known fact is that the ‘English Saturday’ is nothing other than the Jewish Sabbath, the ritual day of rest of the Jews. It was suitably Disraeli who introduced it to England, under an adequate social pretext.

Thus, as the Judaification of old feudal England was accomplished by diverse means, and as the old aristocracy gradually decomposed and underwent inoculation with ideas which would make it an easy prey for the material and spiritual influences of Judaism and Freemasonry, Disraeli did not forget his other task, that of augmenting and reinforcing the power of the new ‘Empire of Shopkeepers’, the new ‘Imperial Venice’, the reborn Israel of the Promise. This he did in a manner which was just as characteristically Jewish. Disraeli was one of the principal instigators of that sad and cynical English foreign policy by means of ‘protected’ third parties and the use of blackmail, which it pushes to the most extreme consequences. The most striking case is that of the Russo-Turkish War. Disraeli did not hesitate to betray the ancient cause of European solidarity, by placing Turkey under British protection. Turkey, defeated, was saved by Britain ; by use of the well-known ‘English’ method of threats and sanctions, Disraeli was able to paralyse the Slavic advance to the South without a single shot being fired, and a grateful Turkey made him a present of Cyprus. At the Congress of Berlin, the Russian ambassador, Gortshakov, was unable to restrain himself from crying dolorously : “To have sacrificed a hundred thousand soldiers and a hundred million of money, and for nothing!” (*) There is a factor even more serious, from a higher point of view. By virtue of this situation, brought about by Disraeli, Turkey was admitted into the community of the European nations protected by so-called ‘International Justice’. We say ‘so-called’ because, until that time, far from being held to be valid for all the peoples of the world, this justice was held to be valid uniquely among the group of the European nations ; it was a form of recourse and of internal law for Europeans. With the admission of Turkey, a new phase of international law began, and this was truly the phase in which ‘justice’ became a mask and its ‘international’ character became a ruse of ‘democracy’, for it was simply an instrument in the service of Anglo-Jewry, and subsequently of the French also. This development led to the League of Nations, to crisis, and to actual war.

UPDATE 20 Sep 2018: The original link from which the excerpts above were taken is down. The new link says this about the original source:

‘L’Ebreo Disraeli e la costruzione dell’impero dei mercanti’ (‘Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers’) was published in September 1940 in Vita Italiana. Like the two other articles by Evola on Judaism which appear on this site, it is also included in the anthology ‘Il “Genio d’Israele” – L’Azione distruttrice dell’Ebraismo’ (‘The Genius of Israel – The Destructive Action of Hebraism’) (Il Cinabro, 1992).