Tag Archives: jewish malfeasance

Age of Treason Radio

Shanda fur die Goyim

Audio 20 Comments

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

whiny_alien

We’re going to decode this term and a few others for the goyim.

It is a perfectly normal reaction for Whites to find Yiddish or Hebrew off-putting, alienating. It’s natural to interpret such words as, “not for me”, and get the urge to go read or listen to something else. The author or speaker who chooses such words, rather than plain English, is sending a signal, expressing their jewishness. And when you perceive jews as the enemy, the disgust and urge to ignore any thought or argument coming from a jewish point of view becomes even stronger.

Regardless of how you might perceive the jews, what I intend to do here is make the case that the jews see the non-jews around them as their enemies. Any form of codespeak would be an indication of this – but the term “shanda fur die goyim” really puts a point on it.

First, let’s review some of the superficial explanations that jews themselves provide.

Instant Yiddish:

Shame on you for not knowing what “shanda” means!

“shanda” is the Yiddish word for “shame, disgrace, disgusting”

. . .

And not knowing what “shanda” means is a double shanda!!

So shanda is a code word, in that most non-jews don’t know it, though it’s relatively well understood among jews. The scandal, for a jew, is in not knowing that code word.

I found these “Instant Yiddish” pages using a search engine. They’re buried on the personal web site of some jew named Joel Aronson, not linked from the home page or site map. All you can gather from the surface is that Aronson is a photographer who graduated from James Madison High School in Brooklyn in 1955. But based on the names of his classmates, the school must have been full of jews.

The point is that Aronson doesn’t come right out and advertise himself as a jew – in fact, he likely hides the yiddish pages from sight exactly because it is such a definitive marker of jewishness. When I was growing up in New York I had a math teacher named Aronson – he was quirky, even spastic. It never occurred to me then that it was because he was a jew. I wonder now how many yiddish terms he sprinkled in his lessons, or conversations with other teachers, sending the signal, “I’m a jew”, mainly heard only by other jews.

I found another definition buried on the web site of the Santa Barbara Jewish Connection, Yiddish Phrases:

SHANDA: A shame, a scandal. The expression “a shanda fur die goy” means to do something embarrassing to Jews where non-Jews can observe it.

The subtitle of the page is: “The First Words You Learn”, with shanda being one of about 150 of the more common bits of jewish code. The scandal is not “for the goyim”, but for the jews in front of the goyim.

The usual jew cover story is that goy/goyim mean nation/nations. In practice, however, it means Them, the Other, and it has a distinct pejorative sense. Gentile is a synonym with a less disparaging, derogatory sense, but the point is that the very existence of these words indicates that jews see a clear distinction between themselves and Others, between jew and goy.

The classic example of the distinction is in the yiddish phrases yiddische kopf (jew head, smart) and goyische kopf (non-jew head, stupid).

Thought Catalog, which on the surface is not any more of a jewish site than say The New Republic or Slate, has a page titled 61 Hilarious Yiddish Insults You Need To Know:

51. Shanda: A scandal. … If you have a “shanda fur die goy,” that means that you fuck up in front of non-Jews, thus embarrassing your entire people. This is obviously not good.

Obviously not good for the jews.

Usually the term is only used by jews talking to other jews. Even when overheard it’s easy to misunderstand. You might take it to mean that jews feel bad about non-jews being harmed. That’s not it at all. It means they feel bad because they think it might cause jews harm, that whatever the scandal is might be bad for the jews.

A certain ambiguity is characteristic of yiddish. As programmers say: This is a feature, not a bug. It is a consequence of jewish crypsis, being furtive and secretive. Even when jews stop trying to hide their alien code and instead try to explain the significance of certain words, or the language itself, you must remain skeptical, cynical, and read between the lines.

A good example comes from The Daily Beast, a really jewy digital tabloid. Mazel Tov, Arvind! But Are You Sure It’s Not Kneydl?

The article highlights jewishness, their sense of Otherness, and how it is expressed via yiddish. The jew author absolutely revels in it. He recounts how an Indian kid won a spelling bee in the US by spelling this yiddish word kneydl. The joke is that yiddish is notorious for variations in spelling.

The jew provides the usual cover story. Jews just can’t agree, have no central authority – the old “two jews, three opinions” nonsense. That’s part of it, but it leaves out the most important facts.

The fact is that yiddish always has and continues to effectively serve as a code language. From a non-jew perspective the many variations in spelling make it harder to pin down, harder to search, though the internet makes it much easier than it ever would have been in the past.

Yiddish is so informal and quirky for the simple reason that it has almost entirely been passed down verbally, via jew to jew personal interaction. The jews did this on purpose, rather than writing books about it, though they very well could have, as they have done with every other imaginable subject.

As it turns out I did find a book specifically about yiddish. The exception proves the rule.

Dictionary of Yiddish Slang and Idioms, by Fred Kogos, published 1968 by Kensington Publishers:

When Hitler killed 6,000,000 Yiddish-speaking jews and when Israel proclaimed Hebrew was to be the official tongue of the nation, these actions spelled the death kneel [sic] of Yiddish.

Hebrew is spoken only by about 2,000,000 people in Israel, and a few abroad, while Yiddish is still spoken by, and known to, over 10,000,000 throughout the world! Yiddish is creeping into the English language more startlingly than is apparent, with even Webster’s Third International Dictionary containing over 500 Yiddish (and some Hebrew) words.

Kogos claims his book spells out Yiddish words for “the first time in Roman letters”, implying it had previously always been written in Hebrew characters – more evidence that jews intended to keep it to themselves.

Kogos claims its beginnings go back to the 11th century, that the “principle parent” is Middle High German with some influence from English, Hebrew, Russian and Polish, and that there are 4 major dialects: “Lithuanian, Ukrainian (Galicia), Polish, and Western (German)”.

The bulk of the book is omitted from Google books, including the entry for shanda.

Regarding “Kensington Publishers”. It doesn’t look like it, but Kensington is another code word.

The original Kensington is an area of West London.

It is also “a small and easily overlooked neighborhood of Brooklyn” which “has long had a vibrant Jewish community”.

It might also refer to Kensington Market, a neighborhood in Toronto that became known as “the jewish market” after waves of jews colonized it in the early 20th century.

“Since the 1970s, the city has been home to the largest Jewish population in Canada and become a centre of Jewish Canadian culture.” In other words, the largest colony of jews in Canada is in Toronto, and Kensington is the historic epicenter of the colony of jews in Toronto.

Kensington is an example of jews creating a ghetto and segregating themselves – counter to the usual jewish narrative that jews were forced to live in ghettos by others.

The Schmooze, by some old jewess, It’s a Shanda:

In Yiddish, “shanda”/”shande” means “shame.” And “shande far di kinder” means, literally, “a disgrace for the children.”

Arthur Naiman writes about the expression, “a shanda fur die goyim”: “To make a shanda fur die goyim is to do something embarrassing to Jews in a place where non-Jews can observe it. Understandably, this is looked on with much greater disfavor than to act like a jerk when only other Jews are around, since it makes things tougher on all of us–“Those damned Jews! See what they’re like.”

The old jewess provides examples, including “Madoff – the ‘ganef'”, “Jack Abramoff – convicted of mail fraud, conspiracy to bribe public officials, and tax evasion” and,

Selling organs is a “shande”

She cites some jew who suggested Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer get out of politics in an article titled:

“The Shanda Factor: What makes Jewish sex scandals different?”

For much of his career, Spitzer was a source of pride to Jews, with some supporters referring to him as having the potential to become the first Jewish president. In the blogosphere ethnic pride, when the scandal broke, the Web site, Gawker, proclaimed it’s a “shanda fur die Goyim.

When the jewish university Brandeis granted Tony Kushner an honorary doctorate some outraged jew wrote:

Tony Kushner is an anti-Zionist self hating shatdlan who never had a moral compass even in his genes nor has he any sense of Yiddishkeit. Brandeis has committed a SHANDE.

Yiddishkeit means “jewishness”, “jewish way of life”, “jewish essence” – or yiddishness. It is typified by jews moaning about a shanda or oy veying about something or other.

We find more about the essence of jewishness at yiddishkayt.org which greets visitors with the slogans “OPEN YOUR BORDERS” and “SHAKE UP YOUR PERSPECTIVE”. To them yiddishkayt means “the culture, language, art, and worldviews of Eastern European Jews”.

Shanda fur di Goyim! appeared in the e-newsletter ‘Keeping Our Families Jewish’, by Doron Kornbluth:

As if Bernie Madoff wasn’t enough. And as if Jack Abramowitz wasn’t enough. And as if riots in Jerusalem weren’t enough. Now we have a group of very religious looking Jews being handcuffed by the FBI in a massive fraud case that has brought down three mayors and scores of lawmakers and politicos in New Jersey.

The Yiddish phrase “Shanda fur di goyim” refers to (Jewish) embarrassment at a fellow Jew doing something Really Bad in front of non-Jews. In other words, don’t wash your dirty linen in public. Do we have problems? Of course. There have always been problems. But, the phrase suggests, be careful: the world tends to look at “the Jews” as one people and what one Jew does reflects well – or badly – on the rest of us. According to this idea, doing something bad is bad enough, but it becomes much worse when it reflects badly on the entire Jewish people.

How do you feel about this phrase? Does it still apply? Does the world still “clump us together”? I’ll leave it to you to decide.

In a sense, though, today the discussion may be academic. With modern technology, word gets out. Even if we wanted to wash our dirty linen in private – ie within the Jewish community – it isn’t really possible anymore anyway. The events mentioned above were on the news again, and again, and again. Specifically, the visuals of religious-looking Jews being violent or in custody are hard to avoid or forget.

Right. When the jews can’t hide what they’re doing, they switch to “explaining”.

Note the inversion. It is the jews who see themselves and act as one people more than anyone else. When jews fret about a “shanda fur die goyim” what they’re worrying about is that the goyim might catch on to their game and also see the jews as a group, maybe even punish them as a group, or organize their own groups.

Madoff and “Abramowitz” (Abramoff) loom large as recent examples of shanda fur die goyim. What triggered this article was the Bid Rig scandal, in 2009, when the FBI arrested a ring of orthodox jews in New York/New Jersey area.

Bid Rig also touched on the organ selling shanda the old jewess mentioned.

In Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 1 I discussed the minor “embarassment” that the orthodox jews take organs but don’t donate them. By Part 3 I described the deeper concern:

Shanda fur die goyim is misunderstood as embarassment. It is a reflection of jewish sensitivity to collective exposure/responsibility/vulnerability. It is an alarm, a call for the making of excuses and transferring of blame elsewhere. The most extreme and common example is how jews transfer blame to “anti-semitism”.

What’s going on it isn’t simply “organ trafficking”. There’s extortion of organs from misled and desperate victims, reselling them at enormous profit. And it’s all very jewy – jew patients, jew doctors, and jew brokers. It goes on, even though it’s illegal, because there are so many jews involved, because the jews won’t rat out each other, and because most of the time nobody else will dare prosecute any of them, even when they are caught red-handed. The cherry on top is that yet more jews are pushing to legalize the harvesting and selling of organs for profit.

Returning to Bernie Madoff – “the ganef”, also spelled gonef or gonif, which means thief, swindler, crook – an unscrupulous opportunist who stoops to sharp practice. It specifically means a jewish thief, or one who steals from jews. The use of the yiddish word implies “from a jewish point of view”, otherwise the English words would suffice.

An example of its use occurs in Michael Tomasky’s A Short Post About Jesse Jackson Jr at The Daily Beast:

I’m going to write this just so our conservative friends can’t say I brush these things under the rug. He’s clearly a troubled man, but he’s also a gonif and a loser, so good riddance to him. All right?

Tomasky is a “liberal” (somewhat ambiguous) jew sending a subtle signal here to “conservative” jews.

Bernie Madoff was a Wall Street insider:

a past chairman of the board of directors of the Nasdaq Stock Market as well as a member of the board of governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers and a member of numerous committees of the organization

Madoff was a money manager since 1960. For decades he ran a pyramid scheme informally known as The Jewish Bond. It was very exclusive, “invite only”, operated by and benefitting a tight circle of jewish family and friends, and servicing a clientele that was also glaringly jewish, many of whom assumed Madoff was cheating in some way, perhaps using his insider knowledge and access.

One of the main takeaways is that the scheme went on for nearly two decades before collapsing. It was not stopped by regulators or lawmen, despite suspicions and accusations expressed over the years. As with the organ “business”, the very obvious jewishness of the phenomenon seemed to create a protective bubble.

Another takeaway was the revelation of just how much jewish “philanthropy” money is sloshing around Wall Street, and how much of that “philanthropy” is actually dedicated to exclusively jewish causes.

When Madoff saw his pyramid scheme was collapsing he tried to take all the blame on himself, probably to protect his family and friends who were in the scheme up to their eyeballs. He turned himself in, called it “one big lie”, and claimed nobody else knew. There’s alot more to the story.

The collapse of this big jew’s jewish bond was an epic shanda fur die goyim. The jew cover story is that “Most of Madoff’s victims were charitable organizations, elderly people, and Jews.” – i.e. jews were victims, rather than perpetrators. This narrative traces back to a NYMag story that appeared only one week after Madoff’s arrest and prevails at Wikipedia and beyond to this day, despite the many revelations which contradict it. Jews got in on the ground floor of the scheme and in many cases pulled out far more than they put in. Their losses were largely imaginary. The biggest losers were the faceless non-jew corporations, municipalities, and feeder funds that got in late in the game.

There are lots of other examples of shanda for die goyim.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn , Jonathan Pollard (and other jewish spies), Greville Janner, Jeffrey Epstein and Alan Dershowitz, to name a few.

A comment on a jewsmedia article about Dershowitz notes, “If this isn’t an example of “shanda fur die goyim,” I don’t know what is!!”

In conclusion, keep in mind that the use of yiddish by jews is a clear expression not only of their Otherness, but their consciousness of that Otherness. It also indicates the asymmetry of this consciousness. Non-jews generally aren’t aware not only of the meaning of invididual words and phrases but are missing the larger picture – that the jews use yiddish as codespeak, to signal and communicate specifically jewish concerns to other jews.

In a “liberal” society, where we are all supposed to be one big US, the mere existence of the term “shanda for die goyim” is evidence of bad faith, evidence that the worldview of jews is actually in terms of US jews versus THEM goyim. They are fully conscious of this and that it would be bad for the jews if the goyim knew and acted on such a worldview as well.

There is no simple equivalent for the term in English. It is difficult to translate because jewish attitudes are so different.

Basically, it is yet another example of jews expressing their utmost concern for their own group. In this case the main concern is exposure, exposure of harm caused by jews, evidence of jewish parasitism, especially their manipulation or exploitation of non-jews.

The main desire of jews is not to stop the harm or even punish the jews who are most responsible, but to somehow stop the exposure, to stop any harm coming to jews. That’s what “shanda fur die goyim” means. It means, transfer the blame elsewhere. It means, bury it. It means, shut it down.

UPDATE 10 July 2017: 47 Reasons to Love New York, Right Now, More Than Ever:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (class of ’50), Bernie Sanders (’59), and Chuck Schumer (’67) all wrote for the newspaper at James Madison High School

Blog

Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiding as Ethnic Warfare

5 Comments

In PBS: The “Greed Is Good” 1980s as a war on anti-Semitism Steve Sailer waxes sarcastic over the narrative recounted in The Lucky Sperm Club: Jews, M&A and the Unlocking of Corporate America – “the inside story of the development of the mergers and acquisitions movement in the 1980s — a phenomenon that has ruled global commerce ever since”.

Sailer writes:

Back in the 1980s when I believed everything I read on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, the junk bond mergers & acquisition boom was often justified as a war on anti-Semitism in American business life. Eventually, after Ivan Boesky and Mike Milken went to jail and junk bonds contributed to the early 1990s recession, you stopped hearing that interpretation quite so much, but it’s still out there. Certainly, nobody is much interested in debunking it.

From PBS.org, here’s a preview of a new book that revives the argument that the 1980s leveraged buyout bubble was payback for discrimination against Jews. It’s by John Weir Close and is called A Giant Cow-Tipping by Savages: The Boom, Bust, and Boom Culture of M&A

Close, the author, provides the jewish version of how the mergers and acquisitions culture started:

M&A was driven by two Jews, Marty Lipton and Joe Flom, who had simultaneous epiphanies about how to take advantage of new government regulation

America was still an agglomeration of ghettos: Italians knew Italians, Jews knew Jews, Poles knew Poles, Irish knew Irish, WASPs barely knew any of them existed and the Cabots spoke only to God.

“When I came to New York in the ’70s, the WASP aristocracy still reigned,” the Lucky Sperm Club’s Shapiro recalls. “You didn’t see an Asian face above Canal Street. You didn’t see a black face in a law firm unless it was the mailroom. You certainly didn’t see an Hispanic face. Swarthy Italians and Jews? They were not people you dealt with.”

As recently as the 1970s, Jews and all others not of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ascendancy were still excluded from any position of real power at the bar, on the bench, at banks and in boardrooms.

Yet again, as happened so often in their history, the Jews somehow found their own methods to carry them past such barriers, and once those blockades were destroyed, other demographics followed.

But it was primarily Jews who first became expert in taking over companies against the will of their existing executives. The white-shoe law firms and elite investment banks found this simultaneously distasteful and tantalizing in the same way medieval merchants viewed the lending of money at interest. Both groups were discouraged from joining in one of the most profitable enterprises of their day: the old merchants by, among other things, an ecclesiastical ban on the practice of usury; the new lawyers, by the establishment’s social codes of behavior. Again, the Jews found themselves in control of an industry that then perpetuated the stereotype: the omnipotent, venal Machiavellian, hands sullied by the unsavory. But the business of takeovers paid the rent. And then some.

This is the jewish narrative. Jews oppressed by Whites. Who forced them into finance! Then the jews prevailed and turned their narrative into a template for other “minorities” – neutralize the White oppressors so everyone can pay their rent (to the jews, of course).

Sailer notes that it was Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, two more jews, who invented the “junk bond” fraud that helped finance their takeovers of corporate ownership. I wonder who the jews were who actually started it all by lobbying for and writing the government “regulations” all these other jews took advantage of.

At any rate, it was only the prosecution of Boesky and Milken in the 1990s which broke through into mainstream consciousness. The jew-dominated media was busy spinning the whole affair not as an ethnic war, but as an internecine corporate struggle, a hopelessly complex story best reduced to a parable about the excesses of greed. One clear indication that it was in fact part of an ethnic war came when Milken retained professional hyper-jew Alan Dershowitz for his legal defense. Throwing off the cloak and doubling down on the jewish privilege and aggression which had characterized the raiding all along, Dershowitz immediately went on the offensive. Aiming not so much at the courtroom as at the court of public opinion, Dershowitz leveraged the jew-dominated media to finger “anti-semitism” as the source of all the trouble.

Any perception that Dershowitz lost his battles – whether to keep Milken out of prison or to transfer blame for jewish malfeasance to “anti-semitism” – is wrong. Milken was sentenced to just 10 years in prison for the incalculable damage he had wrought. He served only 22 months. Purportedly disgraced, Milken remains rich and famous. He continues to advertise himself as a financier. At the time, the culprits were described in disapproving but deracinated terms, like “Den of Thieves“, and jews like Dershowitz howled that this was an example of jews being wronged. Today jewish power is even greater and more overt, so now the story is that jews were waging war because they had been wronged.

In fact, by the 1980s the jews had been waging an unrequited war for decades. Sailer points out that the “battle for Revlon was written about endlessly in the 1980s as a struggle between the dying WASP past and the new money meritocracy” even though the raider (Ron Perelman) and raidee (Charles Revson) were both jews.

This is no surprise to students of the jew. Henry Ford’s The International Jew well documented the distasteful qualities and startling extent of jewish power as of the early 1920s, before their hegemony was complete. The jews used the same playbook in the 1920s and 1980s as they do today. First they pillory the goyim for imagining jews are pillaging them. Then they pillory the goyim for making the jews pillage them. Pillory and pillage, pillage and pillory. Even when it’s nothing more than jews fighting jews over who gets to pillage the goyim, their age-old canard is that they’re fighting the discrimination and intolerance of an omnipotent “anti-semitic” conspiracy.

Sailer concludes with a lame plea of ignorance:

I don’t really know why the Revlon takeover of 1985 was seen in the media as such a milestone of Jews overcoming WASP discrimination. It just was.

In summary, the Revlon takeover as a plucky triumph over anti-Semitism is a good example of how malleable accounts of one’s people’s past oppression can become for the purpose of justifying dubious dealings in the present.

The corporate raiding was but a mopping up operation, a battle that could take place only because other political and social battles had been fought and won in prior decades. It was the jews’ overwhelming financial and media power, and partial control over business, which made mopping up on the corporate front possible. They prevailed mainly by default. Their whining about “WASPs” notwithstanding, in the US the jews have never faced any comparable opponent as aware, cohesive or ruthless, who clearly saw themselves at war and with whom.

The dominance of the jewish narrative today is an indication of jewish dominance not only over media, finanace and business, but over the very thoughts of non-jews. Yet the jewish narrative doesn’t spring from jewish dominance. Just the opposite. It is only an uncompromising belief in their righteousness, in the moral legitimacy of their cause, through which any people have any prospect of prevailing in the long term.

Armed with such beliefs the jews have, time and again, cultivated the opposite in their hosts – unawareness and disorganization – and thus prevailed. The very first step to combat jewish parasitism is recognize it as such. Jewish lies are not harmless, but are more properly regarded as the acts of a hostile adversary, an essential element of their stealthy struggle to attain and maintain dominance.

Blog

Jewish Revolutionaries: Good for Anyone Other Than the Jews?

37 Comments

From the Bastille to the boulevard: The long history of Jewish revolt, by Shuki Sadeh, Ido Efrati, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, 2 Sept 2011:

One hot day in the summer of 1967, a young, frizzy-haired guy named Abbie Hoffman tried to go into the visitors’ entrance of the building in which the New York Stock Exchange is located. When the guard stopped him, Hoffman said: “We are Jews and you are an anti-Semite who is not letting us in.” The disconcerted guard let Hoffman and his hippie-friends go up to the visitors’ gallery.

Jews have traditionally taken a particular interest in the successes of their people in every generation and in every field of endeavor. This Jewish “bookkeeping” is mostly tendentious and usually ignores the circumstantial and environmental conditions that made these success stories possible. Indeed, for the most part, it prefers to attribute these achievements to the genetic makeup of the Chosen People.

“The list of Jews who have been involved in leading revolutions [since the middle of the 19th century] is very long,” explains Prof. Moshe Zimmermann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s history department. “When a social group is not satisfied with its situation and feels it cannot change it – it will support a revolution. The Jews were not satisfied because they did not have privileges granted to other sectors and therefore the idea of revolution – whether communist or liberal – was attractive to them.

According to Prof. Moshe Zuckermann, a historian at Tel Aviv University, revolution was not the only option for Jews. They had least two other options.

“One was assimilation,” he explains, “as happened in Germany in the 19th century, and the other was going in the Zionist direction, a possibility that arose at the end of that century. If a Jew did not choose one of those two directions, his remaining alternative was to change the society at large – and therefore became a revolutionary.”

Trotsky was surrounded by quite a number of Jews, among whom his brother-in-law, Lev Kamenev, and Grigory Zinoviev stood out. “It is said jokingly,” comments Miron, “that when Lenin would leave the room, Trotsky was able to organize a minyan [prayer quorum].”

In Hungary, in another example, Bela Kun, a young man in his 30s, was among the founders of the Soviet Republic in Hungary in 1919. When it collapsed after 133 days, Kun went into exile in Russia, and was killed in one of Stalin’s purges at the end of the ’30s.

“Kun operated within a reality in ferment: Nearly half of the Hungarian journalists were Jewish, as well as the lawyers and doctors – even though they constituted only 5 percent of the population,” Silber explains. “At the end of World War I, Kun seized power in Hungary. He headed a government of 35 commissars, nearly all of them Jewish, and the impression was that a Jewish government really had been created. This led to a wave of anti-Semitism and terror against Jews.”

“In Germany there were various revolutionary ‘focal points’ dominated by Jews,” says Miron. “Kurt Eisner led the ‘Bavarian Soviet Republic,’ which briefly ruled in Bavaria. In Munich, there were three attempts at a revolution, all of them were led by Jews and all of them failed.”

Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish-born Jewess, was one of the founders of the Communist Party in Germany.

“Jewish revolutionaries for the most part live on the margins of Jewish society and sometimes cut off ties with the community,” notes Prof. Avi Saguy, head of the program for hermeneutics and a lecturer in philosophy at Bar-Ilan University. According to him, tikkun olam (repairing the world ) is a profound Jewish ethos – but a conservative rather than a revolutionary one.

“To say that in the Jewish genes there is a revolutionary element is utter nonsense,” says Prof. Zimmermann. “The Jews, by virtue of being a minority and because they were a religious group, adopted various types of behavior – which also explains the support for revolutions. The origin of the demand for social justice is indeed rooted in Jewish tradition, but in modern conditions, it can be said that it lies in revolutionary tendencies.”

Zuckermann, too, says there is no connection between the revolutionaries’ Jewishness and their political choices: “The discourse did not revolve around ultra-Orthodox religious Judaism, but rather around the Judaism that emerged in the period of the Enlightenment. From the moment the Jews integrated into the civil society of the 19th century – which, although it declared that they were emancipated, in fact did not accept them – they had a collective interest in changing society. Bourgeois civil society perceived the Jews in a new light: not only in a religious context, but also in socioeconomic one.”

Emanicipation of society

The most significant expression of the separation between the Jew’s social status and his tradition is found in the writings of Karl Marx, whose philosophy had a crucial influence on the revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in Germany in 1818, Marx came from a family of rabbis but his father converted and became a Lutheran.

In his 1844 essay “On the Jewish Question,” one of his early writings, Marx related to the secular status of the Jews in society and characterized them as a people identified with commerce and the accumulation of wealth.

“Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion,” he wrote, “but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society …

“We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” There are those who saw in Marx’s sharp words an expression of anti-Semitism and a denial of his Jewish past. However, in general he is perceived as a serious social theoretician, who called for the elimination of religious separatism of any kind and for abolishing economic commerce, on the way to creating an egalitarian, classless civil society.

“Most of the great revolutionaries,” says Zuckermann, “did not relate to their Judaism. People like Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg did not talk about emancipating the Jews from their Judaism, but rather about human emancipation, whereby people need to liberate themselves from social structures that create the oppression of various groups in the society, among them the Jews.”

Jews, jews, jews. Jews are so obsessed with themselves that they write stories bragging even about the mass murder and mayhem their tribemates have caused, turning European society upside down, spinning it as good and righteous. Then, perhaps realizing that this story may not fly, they hedge somewhat by lamely claiming it wasn’t really jews as jews.

But of course the story is about jews as jews. That’s what 9/10ths of it is about and that’s why it was published by Haaretz.

Blog

Glenn Beck, the Weather Underground, and SDS

23 Comments

Today Glenn Beck was talking about the “socialist” agenda of the Weather Underground and SDS. He didn’t point out anybody’s jewishness, of course, but he did make a subtle analogy. I’ll paraphrase:

Suppose you’re sitting on the couch, watching TV, and you say to your wife, “Hey, I think I smell smoke. Do you smell smoke?” And she answers, “Why do you always have to HATE people?!?”

He went on to say how weird it would be if you tried to get up to see if there was a fire and your wife actually obstructed your investigation. You’d begin to suspect maybe she had something to do with setting the fire.

It’s a good metaphor for how a literally “anti-racist” White with a clear conscience feels when they finally come face-to-face with the “racist”/”anti-semite”/”hate” zeitgeist. You go to a Tea Party because you’re disturbed by what’s happening in your country. You’re confused about why. Then the black, brown, and jewish organizations, voices full of venom, faces twisted with hatred, yell “racist”, as if you’re doing something wrong. The media paints them as moral giants, paragons of virtue, and paint you as a paranoid “hater”.

You start thinking race just might have something to do with this.

Beck is an entertainer. At best he’s cashing in on some timely pandering tuned to the instincts of the huge number of kosher “conservative” Whites still foolishly watching TV. At worst he’s souring and demeaning those instincts by conflating and confounding them with the clownish schtick he so often indulges in. Today, however, there were shades of Saul Rodgers, the subversive preacher character from William Pierce’s Hunter.

– – –

The following excerpts are taken from Mark Rudd’s Why were there so many Jews in SDS? (or, The Ordeal of Civility).

The author Paul Berman, himself a Jewish veteran of Columbia SDS, in his excellent book, “A Tale of Two Utopias,” gives the following data from reliable sources: two-thirds of the white Freedom Riders who traveled to Mississippi were Jewish; a majority of the steering committee of the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement were Jewish; the SDS chapters at Columbia and the University of Michigan were more than half Jewish; at Kent State in Ohio, where only 5 percent of the student body was Jewish, Jews constituted 19 percent of the chapter. I might add a strange statistic which I became aware of in the course of two trips to Kent State to commemorate the events of May, 1970: three of the four students shot by the National Guard at Kent State were Jewish. This, of course, defies all odds.

Indeed. The “tiny minority” excuse doesn’t fly when that minority is vastly overrepresented where it matters.

I invoke [writer Philip] Roth to let you in on the insularity of the world I grew up in. My family carried the Jewish ghettos of Newark and Elizabeth with them to the suburbs. We may have lived in integrated neighborhoods, that is integrated with goyim (there were only a few blacks in the town) and we may have gone to integrated schools, (of course there were no blacks in my elementary school) but we were far from assimilated, if that means replacing a Jewish identity with an American one. At about the age of nine or ten I remember eating lunch at the house of a non-Jewish friend and reporting back that the hamburgers had onion and parsley in them. “Oh, that’s goyish hamburger,” my mother said. I lived a Philip Roth existence in which the distinction between Jews and gentiles was present in all things: having dogs and cats was goyish, for example, as was a church-sponsored hay-ride which I was invited to by the cute red-haired girl who sat in front of me in my seventh grade home-room. My parents didn’t allow me to go, and, since repression breeds resistance, that was probably a signal event in my career of fascination with shiksas and things goyish, a career which paralleled that of young Alexander Portnoy in “Portnoy’s Complaint.”

Steve Sailer sheds some light on Roth’s significance to jews:

In other words, in the classic example of Jewish guilt, Portnoy’s Complaint, Jewish guilt is the opposite of white guilt: Portnoy’s feelings of Jewish guilt stem not from his ancestors being too ethnocentric (as in “white guilt”) but from himself not being ethnocentric enough to please his ancestors. His parents make him feel guilty because he’s individualistically ignoring his racial duty to settle down and propagate the Jewish race.

Back to Rudd:

As a teenager, Congregation Beth El seemed to me just another aspect of the suburban scene: materialist and hypocritical. This was the time of the civil rights movement, but the lily-white suburbs existed in order to escape the “schvartzes.” Jews in my parents’ and grandparents’ milieu used this derogatory term in exactly the same way southerners used “nigger.” “The schvartze is coming to clean the house.” “The schvartzes robbed my hardware store in Newark.” “I had to sell the apartments on Clinton Avenue because schvartzes moved next door.” There was no phony liberalism about the race war in Newark and Maplewood, at least not that I could see.

Race consciousness coming through loud and clear.

The Harlan County miners’ “Which Side Are You On?” was not the music of the Jewish suburbs.

Indifference to working class Whites.

I got to Columbia University as a freshman, age 18, in September, 1965, a few months after the United States attacked Vietnam with main force troops. There I found a small but vibrant anti-war movement. In my first semester I was recruited by David Gilbert, a senior who had written a pamphlet on imperialism for national SDS, Students for a Democratic Society. David was one of the founders of the Columbia SDS chapter, along with John Fuerst, the chapter Chairman. Both were Jewish, of course, as were my mentors and friends, Michael Josefowicz, Harvey Blume, Michael Neumann, and John Jacobs. Ted Kaptchuk and Ted Gold were Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Columbia SDS the year before I was elected Chairman, along with my Vice-Chairman, Nick Freudenberg. All of us were Jewish. It’s hard to remember the names of non-Jewish Columbia SDS’ers; it was as much a Jewish fraternity as Sammie. There were probably a greater proportion of gentile women than guys in SDS, and of course I got to know them.

Here “gentile women” means useful idiot revolutionary shiksas.

Identifying with the oppressed seemed to me at Columbia and since a natural Jewish value, though one we never spoke of as being Jewish.

Stay home and identify with the oppressed schvartzes in Newark? LOL!

But World War II and the holocaust were our fixed reference points. This was only twenty years after the end of the war. We often talked about the moral imperative to not be Good Germans. Many of my older comrades had mobilized for the civil rights movement; we were all anti-racists. We saw American racism as akin to German racism toward the Jews. As we learned more about the war, we discovered that killing Vietnamese en masse was of no moral consequence to American war planners. So we started describing the war as racist genocide, reflecting the genocide of the holocaust. American imperialist goals around the world were to us little different from the Nazi goal of global conquest. If you really didn’t like somebody—and we loathed President Lyndon B. Johnson—you might call him a fascist.

I’m sure it’s “fascist” to note that this rationale, which starts from the premise, “what’s good for jews?”, is the driving force behind genocidal immigration and “people of color” supremacism. The Tea Party should disband and Arizona should surrender because anything else is a violation of the jewish moral imperative to “not be Good Germans”.

Certainly I reveled in my role of head barbarian within the gates.

A shameless crypto-warrior for his race.

More than twenty years ago I read a book called, “The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity.” The author, an Irish-American sociologist named John Murray Cuddihy, advances a fascinating theory on the origins of Marxism and Freudianism. Jews were newly emancipated, that is, given legal and political rights, in Western Europe in the mid to late nineteenth century. But even bourgeois Jews were still excluded from civil society by customs and especially by manners. As Jewish (or formerly Jewish) outsiders ostensibly allowed in, but not really, Marx and Freud brought critical eyes to European bourgeois society. Marx said, in effect, “You think you’ve got yourself a fine little democracy here, well let me tell you about the class exploitation and misery that’s underlying it.” Similarly, Freud exposed the seamy, sexuality-driven motives, the up-raised penises controlling the unconscious minds of civilized, well-mannered bourgeois society.

We Jews at Columbia—and I would guess at colleges throughout the country—brought the same outsider view to the campuses we had been allowed into.

Kevin MacDonald offers an insider view on Rudd and friends.

Only a few of us came to Columbia from red-diaper backgrounds, children of communists. We were good Jewish kids, the cream of the crop, who had accepted the myths of America—democracy, opportunity for all, good intentions toward the world—and of the university—free and open inquiry toward the truth. We were betrayed by our country and the university when we learned, in a relative instant, that the reality wasn’t even close to these myths. We third generation American Jews suddenly woke up and realized this country may have been a blessing for us, but not for so many others who couldn’t pass for white.

Like al Qaeda – good muslim kids, the cream of the crop. Note that Rudd doesn’t consider jews White.

From my own experience I’m forced to disagree with the theory that there’s something special and inherent in our religion which leads us to social activism, altruism, and the left. My former rabbi, Lynn Gottlieb, was fond of telling us that the Torah enjoins us to “honor the stranger because we were strangers in Egypt” forty-six or one hundred and seventeen times. Whatever the number, it was probably one of those laws that needed to be reiterated continually because nobody was observing it.

Dr. Israel Shahak, recently deceased, was a Hebrew University Chemistry Professor, President of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, and a holocaust survivor. For many years he occupied a place in Israeli politics roughly the same as Noam Chomsky in this country. In a book entitled, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” he argues that as a reaction to being the victims of racism throughout the centuries, we developed a religion which itself enshrined racism toward the other. This is especially true of the rabbinical commentaries developed in Eastern Europe over the almost one thousand years in which we occupied a middle position between the landlords, whom we served, and the peasants who despised us and whom we in turn despised. How could it have been otherwise? In my family, if you wanted to say somebody was stupid you said they had a “goyishe kup,” a goyish head.

This is not “racist”. A White noticing the hypocrisy here is “racist”.

I am so obviously Jewish that no matter how much carne adovada or fry bread I eat, I’m instantly recognizable as a Jew. I proudly acknowledge the drive for education in Jewish culture which made me want to read about the world and to understand it and to become a teacher. I also recognize that in my social activism I am one of thousands working in the grand tradition of Jewish leftists, the Trotskys and the Emma Goldmans and the Goodmans and Schwerners of the twentieth century. I honor this lineage. As Jews our advantage in the past, though, was that we were outsiders critically looking in; today Jews sit at the right hand of the goy in the White House advising him whom to bomb next in order to advance the Empire.

To be outsiders in a nation or an empire is not such a terrible thing. Keeping critical and alert has allowed the Jewish people to survive all sorts of imperial disasters over the millennia—the Greeks, the Romans, Islam in Spain (which went from Golden Age to Inquisition in a few centuries), the Crusades, Reformation Europe, the Russian Czars, Nazism. This particular empire is neither the first nor the last to attempt to seduce us to join up. But we’d better not: it’s our job to be critical outsiders, both for our own survival and for that of the planet.

As a child I never fell for the seduction of patriotism. It seemed so arbitrary, who’s an American and who’s not. If my relatives hadn’t emigrated, who would I be? Since I was also at core an idealist and a utopian—another Jewish tradition?—I wanted to skip all that obviously stupid and dangerous stuff that gave rise to wars and racism. In 1965 I began to identify myself as a socialist and an internationalist. I still am an internationalist since old religions die hard.

Again, Rudd is not a “racist”. “Anti-racism” is anti-White.

Here Rudd shrugs off the “racism” of the jewish ethnostate.

I am heartbroken over the moral and spiritual costs of the Jewish State to the Jewish People. I challenge anyone who thinks of me as a traitor to my people or a self-hating Jew, both of which I’ve been called, to visit Palestinians in the West Bank or East Jerusalem for as little as one-half day. Every Jew needs to see the misery and humiliation which our Jewish nationalism and racism have wrought. These are not Jewish values, or at least my Jewish values.

Nor does the Jewish state guarantee Jewish safety and survival. My father was a military man and as such was always pessimistic about the long-term survival of Israel. He easily perceived Israel’s strategic weaknesses in both geography and demographics. The only way Israel has survived so far has been to ally with the sole remaining imperial power in the world. But all empires fall, as Jewish history so clearly tells us. Maybe they should have allied with China.

This year I visited Israel with my family for the first time. I learned that far from being culturally retro, which is the way I used to think of it—a small, socialist, anti-materialist nation—Israel is really an avatar, way ahead even of California. Israel is America’s future: militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding. If we don’t organize to stop the current direction in this country, thirty years from now we will be Israel.

Rudd is heartbroken about Israel having a government that defends the interests of its people using deadly force. So naturally he wants to make sure that never happens here. What’s that? He should make aliyah and be a revolutionary in Israel? What are you, some kind of “racist”?

Mark Rudd – Wikipedia:

Mark William Rudd (born June 2, 1947) is a political organizer, mathematics instructor, and anti-war activist, most well known for his involvement with the Weather Underground. Rudd became a member of the Columbia University chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1963. By 1968, he had emerged as a leader for Columbia’s SDS chapter. During the 1968 Columbia Student Revolt, he served as spokesperson for dissident students protesting a variety of issues, most notably the Vietnam War. As the war escalated, Mark Rudd worked with other youth movement leaders to take SDS in a more militant direction. When the general membership of SDS refused to go in a more violent and pro-Communist direction, Rudd together with some other prominent SDS members formed a radical, violence-oriented organization, referring to themselves collectively as “Weatherman” after the lyrics from a famous Bob Dylan song.

After seven years as a fugitive, Rudd turned himself in.

He received a small fine and ultimately spent less than one year in jail for all his crimes.

Blog

Madoff and Friends

1 Comment

The Madoff Circle: Who Knew What?, by Jake Bernstein, ProPublica:

What these men undeniably shared were similar backgrounds and interests. Based largely in New York and South Florida, they moved through parallel milieus of affluent Jewish country clubs and synagogues. They were active in similar philanthropies and served on the boards of foundations, universities and yeshivas.

The cast of characters, spelled out mostly in complaints filed by the trustee and the SEC, includes: Carl Shapiro,, 97, a Boston-based philanthropist who made one fortune in ladies dresses and a larger one with Madoff; Robert Jaffe, 66, Shapiro’s son-in-law; Maurice “Sonny” Cohn, 79, a onetime Madoff neighbor turned business partner; Stanley Chais, 83, a close friend of Madoff’s for more than 50 years and one of his earliest investors; and Jeffry Picower, a lawyer and accountant, who recently died of a heart attack at 67.

None of these men has been charged criminally. Thus far, federal authorities have indicated in court filings that just one of them – Chais – is the subject of a criminal inquiry. A year ago, The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan was investigating at least eight investors, including Picower, Chais and Shapiro.

All have denied being anything but victims of Madoff’s.

Chais, Cohn and Jaffe have drawn considerable ire from investors for running so-called feeder funds that channeled huge sums into Madoff’s investment business. Jaffe alone funneled more than $1 billion of investor money to Madoff, according to the SEC. He worked with Cohn in a business called Cohmad – a contraction of Cohn and Madoff – that operated out of Madoff’s offices. Contrary to what some investors in the funds believed, it appears the men did little to manage the money beyond simply collecting it for delivery to Madoff.

Members of this circle not only did far better than other investors, who averaged 10 percent to 12 percent returns annually, they also had a highly unusual level of input into the nature of their returns.

Bernie Madoff
His scheme is alleged to have been helped by wealthy investors who “knew or willfully ignored” signs that it was a fraud.
Jeffry Picower, 67
This lawyer, accountant, and noted philanthropist is alleged to have reaped the most from Madoff’s scheme – $7.2 billion. He died recently of a heart attack.
Carl Shapiro, 97
A Boston-based philanthropist who made a fortune in ladies fashion and allegedly as much as $1 billion from Madoff.
Stanley Chais, 83
A close Madoff friend for more than 50 years. He and his family are alleged to have withdrawn approximately $200 million more than they invested with Madoff.
Robert Jaffe, 66
Shapiro’s son-in-law is believed to have funneled more than $1 billion of investor money to Madoff.
Maurice Cohn, 79
Madoff’s former neighbor and business partner, he worked with Jaffe at a business called Cohmad, which allegedly did little else for investors beyond sending money to Madoff.