Tag Archives: jewish influence

Charlie Hebdo and What Heebs Do

what_heebs_do

Some observations on the assassination of Charlie Hebdo “satirists” in France last week – specifically how jews have pushed their “free speech, not hate speech, jews define hate” meme.

There is a distinct contrast between the jewsmedia response to the Hebdo attack, Anders Breivik’s attack in Norway in 2011, and their initial reaction to Mohammed Merah’s shootings in Toulouse in 2012.

Hebdo was anti-nationalist. In 1996 Cavanna, Val and Charb (three pillars of Charlie Hebdo) organized a public petition to ban Front Nationale and personally delivered the signatures they collected to the French government.

This animus is in step with The Demonization of Marine Le Pen by the broader jewsmedia.

Hebdo was also anti-islam/anti-muslim. This is what the mainstream jewsmedia found most controversial about it. It does not fit the liberal, leftist or cultural marxist mindset. It is neo-con. Like The Jew Republic under Peretz, but in crude cartoon form.

The controversy reflects a division among jews on whether the islamization of dar al goyim is good for the jews. Outside Israel the clearest ideological distinction between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” jews is where they stand on this issue.

“Liberal” jews see muslims as “new jews”, as allies. They think it best for the jews to extend some degree of special “hate speech” protection to muslims. “Conservative” jews see muslims as “islamofascists” (“new nazis”), as enemies. They think it best for the jews if muslims can be freely mocked and ridiculed – satirized – as Hebdo did.

Heebdo illustrates and defines the term, and also links and comments on some prominent examples.

Shyster Sheldon Nahmod is a professor who describes himself as a “well-known expert on constitutional law, civil rights and the law of Section 1983” (which was “enacted as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871” and “was originally designed to combat post-Civil War racial violence in the Southern states”).

Nahmod offers the following heebdo:

One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech, including but not limited to the anti-Semitic kind. Hate speech and anti-Semitism are major concerns in Europe and the Middle East and remain a nagging concern in the US as well. Hate speech can be defined as speech directed at a historically oppressed religious or racial minority with the intent to insult and demean. Hate speech undermines social attitudes and beliefs, it isolates its targets and it tends to silence them because they are often stunned and unable to respond. Hate speech also traumatizes (think of the effect it had on survivors and other Jews when the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie). We all know some of the hateful slurs that are too often directed against Jews, blacks, Latinos and Italians in this country.

This captures the essence of what you find when you search for “free speech” “hate speech” – lots of jews explaining how “free speech” is not “hate speech”, with jews literally defining “hate”. The decisive factor is identity and intent, who/whom, not words. The key phrase is “historically oppressed religious or racial minority”, the generalized-jew template, how jews describe themselves without using the word jew. It’s part and parcel of the broader jewish narrative.

As I indicated in Christmas 2014, jew worship is openly promoted at the highest levels of government. Charlie Hebdo has been criticized for blasphemy against the dieties of muslims and Christians, but for jews the mere caricature of a generic jew is regarded as blasphemous.

One of the examples the New York Times attached to Proud to Offend, Charlie Hebdo Carries Torch of Political Provocation was a Hebdo cover depicting the Le Pen father and daughter in a concentration camp tower, laughing, with the “new reactionary” jew Eric Zemmour sitting between them looking sour. It is included in the article only as an example of something regarded as offensive and provocative to jews, because it toys with the most holy iconography of jew-worship.

If you like my podcasts, see TFeed.

Christmas 2014

whitehouse_christmas_2014

I’m taking a break from AoTR for the next few weeks, I’ll get back to it again in January.

‘Tis the season to remind your “conservative” friends that the war on Christmas is just one front in the jew-led war on Whites; that the worship of a mythical jew named Jesus is being steadily replaced by an even more queer, more explicit worship of the jews, as a people, in the right here and now; and that this newer form of jew worship is enthusiastically embraced by even the most powerful and irreligious “liberals”. See, for example, Joe Biden Lights Menorah With Praise for Jews and Obama: I’m Jewish ‘in my soul’.

The Jew Republic Disconnect Isn’t

tjr

Whatever happened at The New Republic we know that there wouldn’t be a story without the jews. Yet so far mainstream jewsmedia accounts haven’t even hinted that there’s a jewish angle.

Over the past week a collection of strictly jew-less and thus at best half-true accounts have been offered by Scott McConnell at The American Conservative; Jacob Heilbrunn at Politico; Dana Milbank, Ben Terris and Cinque Henderson at Washington Post; and Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic. The most elaborate attempt to explain the story, minus the jews, has been Ryan Lizza’s long article at The New Yorker, Inside the Collapse of The New Republic.

Every one of the aforementioned authors knows that TNR was “a jewish magazine”, as former editor Peter Beinart described it in Haaretz. None of them made any explicit mention of this, even though it meant leaving a gaping hole in their story. No account of the latest shakeup discussed, for example, how the “anti-semitism” card got played over similar, but less substantial staffing changes in January of 2013.

While searching for some exception to this bolshevist omission I ran across an even more detailed Beinart-like article aimed at explaining the story to jews. Anthony Weiss’ article The New Republic Exodus Raises Doubts About Magazine’s Jewish Future was cross-published by several explicitly jewish media outlets. Weiss described how “the jewish identity of the New Republic” made it “a primary address for American Jewish thought” and “one of the elite American media outlets with a strong focus on Zionism and Jewish intellectual life”. He noted:

Evidence of The New Republic’s Jewish DNA could be seen in the lists that have circulated on the Internet of the approximately 60 percent of the masthead who quit. Easily half are Jewish — including Foer and Wieseltier, whose resignations on Thursday under pressure from management triggered the general exodus — and many have written about their own Jewish lives.

A number of prominent Jewish staffers at the New Republic have gone on to greater prominence at other publications.

Weiss also supplied an explanation why the jewish magazine was not being described as such in the mainstream American jewsmedia:

The magazine also came to serve as a sort of successor to the mid-century journals, like The Partisan Review and Commentary, that had served as homes to Jewish public intellectuals. Wieseltier famously joked that The New Republic saw itself as “a sort of Jewish Commentary” — the joke being that Commentary, which was founded by the American Jewish Committee and continues to publish, is explicitly Jewish.

The New Republic was never explicitly or exclusively Jewish, either in its staffing or its focus, and it was defined as much, if not more, by its self-declared (albeit idiosyncratic) liberalism. Still, it retained what Berman described as a “Jewish sensibility,” and became a center for young Jewish writers and journalists.

Get it? Jews who disguise their jewish identity and interests, as at TNR, are being more jewish than those who more openly advertise their jewishness, as at Commentary. The joke is on the clueless goy readers, and on Hughes, the sucker who poured millions into the magazine and thought he actually owned it.

The upshot is that what appears to be a disconnect isn’t really. The pretense, in the American jewsmedia at least, that the jewish magazine isn’t a jewish magazine is only a continuation of the same old dissimulation that has always been going on at TNR. Such crypsis is in fact an age-old modus operandus of the jews.

Last but not least, Weiss also provided a more plausible reason for all the stomping and screeching than any of the jew-less explanations have:

Although Hughes rehired Foer and retained Wieseltier, observers noted a shift in its focus on Jewish issues. “Chris Hughes really has a different sensibility than [former owner/editor] Marty Peretz,” said [Judith] Shulevitz, who just stepped down from The New Republic. “He didn’t have the lightning-like focus on Israel and foreign policy that Marty did.”

The Jew Republic Cabal Swarms Forth

the_jew_republic

Dylan Byers, an ambiguous jew who tends to focus on jewcentric controversies, has been following the latest show-uh at The New Republic like a vulture. The following excerpts from Byers convey the highlights.

Shakeup at The New Republic: Foer, Wieseltier out; mag moves to N.Y., 4 Dec 2014:

Franklin Foer and Leon Wieseltier, the top two editors at The New Republic, quit on Thursday amid a shakeup that will relocate the Washington-based magazine to New York City

[Chris] Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, bought The New Republic in 2012 at the age of 28 with ambitions of restoring its esteemed place in Washington media. Instead, TNR failed to hire marquee names, struggled to attract advertisers and failed to gain a prominent place in the conversation.

In more recent months, Hughes has been working on plans to turn the once-venerable liberal magazine into a “digital media company,” an ambiguous proposal that left many staffers there uncertain about the future of the publication.

Inside The New Republic shakeup, 4 Dec 2014:

Through its history, The New Republic has been a vehicle for progressive thinking, while priding itself on a willingness to challenge liberal orthodoxy, from the left or right. In its early decades, it provided intellectual fuel for the emergence of the United States as an international force. And in recent decades, particularly after the 9/11 attacks, it continued to urge a robust foreign policy, even endorsing the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After shake-up, New Republic staffers resign en masse, 5 Dec 2014:

Those who resigned are senior editors Jonathan Cohn, Isaac Chotiner, Julia Ioffe, John Judis, Adam Kirsch, Alec MacGillis, Noam Scheiber, Judith Shulevitz and Jason Zengerle; executive editors Rachel Morris and Greg Veis; digital media editor Hillary Kelly (who resigned from her honeymoon in Africa); legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen; and poetry editor Henri Cole and dance editor Jennifer Homans. Contributing editors Anne Applebaum, Paul Berman, Christopher Benfey, Jonathan Chait, William Deresiewicz, Justin Driver, TA Frank, Ruth Franklin, Jack Goldsmith, Anthony Grafton, David Grann, David Greenberg, Robert Kagan, Enrique Krauze, Damon Linker, Ryan Lizza, John McWhorter, Sacha Z. Scoblic, Cass Sunstein, Alan Taylor, Helen Vendler and Sean Wilentz.

TNR veterans protest Hughes’ ‘destruction’, 5 Dec 2014:

“From its founding in 1914, The New Republic has been the flagship and forum of American liberalism. Its reporting and commentary on politics, society, and arts and letters have nurtured a broad liberal spirit in our national life,” the statement continues.

The signers of the statement are: Peter Beinart (Editor), Sidney Blumenthal (Senior editor), Jonathan Chait (Senior editor), David Grann (Senior editor), David Greenberg (Acting editor), Hendrik Hertzberg (Editor), Ann Hulbert (Senior editor), Robert Kuttner (Economics editor), Robert B. Reich (Contributing editor), Jeffrey Rosen (Legal editor), Peter Scoblic (Executive editor), Evan Smith (Deputy editor), Joan Stapleton Tooley (Publisher), Paul Starr (Contributing editor) , Ronald Steel (Contributing editor), Andrew Sullivan (Editor), Margaret Talbot (Executive editor),Dorothy Wickenden (Executive editor), Sean Wilentz (Contributing editor), and Katherine Marsh (Managing Editor).

These lists of names are even jewier than the lists which came out during the Journolist scandal. I use the term jewsmedia for good reason. The mainstream corporate media is chock full of jews. Even the key figures who aren’t jews defer to the jews once they reach a consensus and start screeching about something in unison, as they have in this case.

The shakeup at TNR is creating such “anger” “shock” and “outrage” and getting as much notice as it is only because so many jews are involved. And that is not all. Jewsmedia jews are perpetually shocked, angered, and outraged about something or other, but their angst in this case is particularly poignant. That’s because Chris Hughes, the queer Facebook billionaire who owns TNR and made the decisions triggering all this very jewy whining and rending of garments, is a very goyish-looking goy.

“Anti-semitism” is the usual excuse jews make for throwing tantrums like this. In this case they already tried that and it already flopped. About two years ago there was a similar show-uh over changes Hughes was making at TNR. Back then “anti-semitism” was front and center, but “liberal” jews like Jonathan Chait and Jacob Heilbrunn mocked the “conservative” jews at The Washington Free Beacon for overreacting. This time around it’s “liberal” jews like Chait stomping their feet, and the “conservative” jews at the Beacon are mum.

In fact, that brings up another notable aspect of this latest swarm of angry jews. Like any swarm of angry jews really, it crosses and confounds the usual partisan “liberal” and “conservative” lines. For instance, from the descriptions above you might believe that TNR is a decidedly “liberal” institution. But here’s how “liberal” jew Philip Weiss describes it:

The New Republic has for forty years been a bastion of the Israel lobby.

This is a landmark in the era of the Jewish establishment. It’s petering out in an elite generation of far greater diversity. The New Republic had been supported by one neocon after another, from Michael Steinhardt to Bruce Kovner to Roger Hertog. For years the magazine helped impose its litmus test within the mainstream media: You must be a Zionist to write about the conflict; and if you’re not, then keep your mouth shut.

In other words, minus the jews there is literally nothing else to see here. The jewsmedia has for decades cheered on this frenetic globalist-capitalist economy in which corporations are bought and sold, shutting down and moving operations as a matter of course. When it’s goyim getting pink slips or being replaced it’s a non-story – the jewsmedia is apathetic or even antipathetic. But in perfectly typical fashion, when it finally comes around to them the jews exaggerate their suffering. The fact is that most of them left TNR on their own, probably because they prefer the jewy environs of Washington to the jewy environs of Jew York City, and probably, for the jews at least, because they know they’ll have an easy time finding work elsewhere in the jewsmedia.