Tag Archives: liberalism

Blog

“Kabbalah is nothing but expanded Spinozism”

60 Comments

The negation word game mentioned in Timothy Murray’s comment brings to mind E Michael Jones’ shallow argument that all White means to him is “not black”, which for me calls into question any other argument Jones makes about anything.

Googling “Hegel used Spinoza’s claim that every determination is a negation as the basis for his dialectic” returned no links to Jones, but the top hit was interesting.

Omnis determinatio est negatio”: determination, negation, and self-negation in Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel, by Yitzhak Y. Melamed.

I stopped reading a few paragraphs in, when this jew Melamed quotes jew Maimon’s claim that “the Kabbalah is nothing but expanded Spinozism”, and further, “that Spinoza is wrongly described as an ‘atheist,’ since in fact in his system only God truly exists”.

Maimon’s claims are remarkable because they fly in the face of the more common and spurious jew argument that Spinoza was no jew, or at least not a good jew. Indeed, Maimon makes the kind of claims of responsibility I referred to in The Enlightenment: Good for Whom?. These are admissions that bolder jews make once they deem their tribe’s crimes sufficiently white-washed, or at least that the targeted goyim no longer have the will or power to strike back.

Like Marx, Spinoza ranks among the jewiest of jews exactly because he is not generally recognized as a jew, and because his impact is not generally recognized as harming Whites or benefiting jews. The jewsmedia depiction and thus the popular perception is that Spinoza was a renegade jew, a hero who helped Europeans climb out of the Dark Age. In fact Spinoza pioneered a fresh phase of more stealthy and virulent anti-White jewing called the Enlightenment, which spawned both communism and liberalism, which have now combined and mutated into the increasingly naked war on Whites now commonly euphemized as “wokeness” or “wokeism”.

Blog

Bari Weiss, Superjewess

39 Comments

Bari Weiss – Where Did the Media Go Wrong?

In this interview with two sympathetic alt-jew jesters Weiss revels in her hyper-tribalist jew identity while venting her hostility toward Whites. She sees herself first and foremost as a member of the world’s first and foremost collectively-imagined victim collective. She laughs as she refers to herself as an “unhinged zionist”. She describes her worldview as “liberalism”, claiming it is based on the “truths” that everyone is an individual, created in the image of “god”, and therefore should be treated equally by law. She says “no person should be held to a standard of collective innocence or collective guilt” due to their “immutable characteristics”.

This is the standard IDW shtick, though IDWers more typically avoid saying the jew part out loud. They prefer the jew-led war on Whites continue by deception, under the guise of “liberalism”. They oppose the more overt “wokeism” tack only because they believe more open aggression may somehow not work out as well for jews. Weiss makes her jew-first mindset more plain than usual, causing more cognitive dissonance. (Her new podcast, laughably titled “Honestly”, is bound to be more of the same “liberalism” double-talk.)

The portion of Weiss’ motivation which she does not credit directly to being a jew she attributes indirectly to an inner voice telling her to fight “anti-semitism” for her tribe’s collective benefit. She wrote what has to be the six gorillionth book on the subject.

As Weiss jewplains in the interview, she deplores “the right” because “anti-semitism”, but thinks it’s obvious to everyone. She prefers to focus on screeching about “anti-semitism” on “the left” (citing Columbia and the Jew York Times as her primary examples) because she imagines it is relatively unrecognized and unopposed.

Weiss is not so much stupid, delusional, or even hypocritical as she is unapologetically, unselfconsciously, and unfathomably jewy. Convinced that the jew-first “left” and “right” just aren’t good enough, she seeks to spawn a jew-first “center”.

You can picture Weiss’ frustration when she finally decided to leave the Jew York Times, having screeched herself hoarse at the supposed “anti-semitism” of all those uppity house niggers and with no White men left to blame. After so many hard years in the mainstream jewsmedia, boosted by her tribemates from one cushy position to another, constantly discussing what is or isn’t good for her tribe, Bari Weiss is now a mogul, raking in the shekels at the alt-jewsmedia hub Substack, finally free to be the Superjewess she always wanted to be.

Blog

Liberalism vs Wokeism – The Fix is In

27 Comments

Michael Tracey started a Clubhouse chat to discuss how the Clubhouse chats he’s in always devolve into a criticism of “wokeism”, and how nobody in his “liberal” bubble ever tries to defend it. For about 90 minutes that’s exactly what happens. Very boring, very politically correct – with everyone trying to sound like a deep thinker, unable to plainly state what they’re thinking.

Somebody recorded the bulk of the conversation and uploaded it to YouTube: “Is Clubhouse Obsessed with “Wokeism”?” Feb 26th 2021. I transcoded it to mp3.

Without the aid of Clubhouse avatars it’s sometimes hard to tell who’s speaking. The speaker’s race is easier to guess. Tracey bragged that there were plenty of non-White participants from various countries, but for the most part they conformed to White social norms. The jewy-behaving moderators carefully curated the conversation, allowing a series of jewy- and black-sounding voices to “popcorn in” and say their little piece of nothing.

The conversation finally got interesting at about 1:20:00, when the first overt defender of “wokeism” spoke. The mood becomes increasingly fraught. Within ten minutes someone was announcing that “the milquetoast stuff needs to stop” and the conversation needs to be about “White supremacy”.

About two hours in an aggressive nigress named Brooklyn enters, starts berating Tracey, gets admin privileges, and bounces Tracey out of his own chat. The mood changes dramatically. Niggers now control the room, whooping and high-fiving, talking over each other.

Even as they settle down it becomes clear that black social norms are very different. Brooklyn and the other field niggers are incensed that White people had the audacity to speak about proprietary black topics using proprietary black words. They giggle as they silence non-blacks. They institute “stack”-style moderation, explicitly privileging blacks. Brooklyn asserts the term and tactic were invented by blacks.

House niggers who were in the room from the start drop their masks and denounce the previous long boring politically correct conversation as “anti-black” and “violent”. They praise the field niggers for swooping in and saving them. The field niggers castigate the house niggers, accusing them of “cooning“.

One of the milquetoast nigresses says Tracey made her a moderator, and that she was the one who started the coup by elevating Brooklyn. They share a knowing laugh about their virtual “Haitian revolution“.

Tracey never saw any defense of “wokeism” because it’s proponents don’t defend, they attack. Like jews, blacks imagine themselves as victims of oppression, at the hands of Whites, and in their minds this naturally justifies the hostility and aggression they direct at Whites. They act offended at the idea that they have to argue with or even explain what they want.

At 2:45:00 Brooklyn notices Bret Weinstein is in the room. Saying Weinstein is a “mad racist” who is supposedly promoted by Clubhouse, she invites him to speak.

For years Weinstein has danced around what he is and what he believes. Here he finally copped to it, and did so even more bluntly than his older brother recently has.

Weinstein: Can I ask something of you, before I answer your questions?

Brooklyn: Did you answer those questions? Do you support White supremacy, are you anti-“racist”…

Someone else: and transphobia.

W: Okay. I’m happy to do all these things, but I would ask you to try to listen…

B: Listen, white man, we’re in charge here, okay? We axed you some questions. You can answer or you can go.

Some black male: Here’s da problem Bret. It’s the same thing as if I was to axe the president of the United States, or the previous president…

B: We’re not gonna do dat. Axe him, bro. Are you anti-racist? Are you transphobic? Are you anti-black, like give us the answers right now and quickly or you gonna get off the stage.

W: Sure, sure. 100%. But let me correct something Marcy said first.

B: 100% what? Are you 100% anti-black or are you 100% anti-racist? What’s goin on?

W: I am 100%…

crosstalk

B: Can you all stop trying to let this man wiggle out of answering the questions?

W: First of all, I’m not a classical liberal, I’m an actual liberal. Okay? Far left. Have been my whole life. I am thoroughly anti-racist by any normal definition, but I don’t like Kendi’s definition of anti-racist, it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not by any stretch of the imagination a White supremacist. As a matter of fact I’m not even sure I qualify as White. I’m jewish. It’s a different thing. My people have been persecuted by Europeans…

B: You are just spicy white, but continue.

W: Okay, fine, I’ll take that. I just don’t think it’s a simple issue. And to be honest I’m…was there a third question? Oh, am I transphobic? I am not the least bit transphobic. As a matter of fact I…

B: Stop right there.

At this point the discussion goes off into the “transphobia” weeds, with everyone involved oddly eager to drop any further discussion of the difference between Whites and jews. Shortly thereafter Weinstein describes himself as an evolutionary biologist. Brooklyn says, “A eugenicist. Dats what you mean.” A minute later they call Weinstein a White supremacist and mute him.

There is no reason to listen to the entire 5 hour and 20 minute recording. The 8 or so minutes with Weinstein are the most telling, capturing the essence of the farce, which is itself a microcosm of the shift in the broader jew agenda, the replacement of “liberalism” with “wokeism”.

Dissembling dissimulating jews, authors of the oppression narrative, posing as White liberals, leading the White surrender to non-Whites. To the extent the Weinsteins ever argue with non-Whites it is only to get across their point that, as jews, they also see Whites as their enemy.

Blog

The Enlightenment: Good for Whom?

105 Comments

In the comments on the previous post I made the somewhat flippant claim that the Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop. Fred W, a frequent commenter whose opinion I respect, asks:

??? How?

The foremost minds of the Enlightenment were the most antithetical to the jewish spirit and principles, foremost among them , Voltaire. Proto-Enlightenment philosopher, Bacon, didn’t have any common currency wi judaism. Diderot and his associates didn’t have any jewish persuasions.

How you can reach the reach the above idea, I don’t understand.

Even before Fred asked I had already expanded on my claim, stating that the essence of the so-called Enlightenment is that the goyim must never think or speak or act as the jews do, because jews. The only rationale ever offered for the system is that it serves the interests of “humanity”, i.e. the jews. Consult any mainstream discussion of the Enlightenment if you doubt this. Most of my readers are well aware of this and other games jews play with words, but here’s a bit on the meaning of “humanity”.

We can easily get lost in the weeds trying to define the Enlightenment and it’s key figures. The thrust of my argument, however, is elementary. Cui bono?

If you’re interested in getting lost in the weeds anyway, consider the bragging of jews, provided by Andrew Joyce. Here’s a taste:

I explore what is arguably the most ambitious effort yet attempted to create a Jewish icon for the non-Jewish world. In this, the case of Baruch Spinoza, I will outline the history of the Jewish effort to place him at the very heart of the Enlightenment, and to crown him as nothing less than the founder of the modern West, and even of modern democracy itself.

. . .

In [Jonathan] Israel’s words: Spinoza and Spinozism were “the intellectual backbone of the European Radical Enlightenment everywhere.”

I disagree with Joyce’s interpretation, that this effort from jews is a false exaggeration. Like most White men, Joyce sees the Enlightenment favorably, as a product of by and for White men. I see it more as typical jew arrogance, as the criminal claiming responsibility, boasting about their crime long after they imagine anything can be done about it.

The psychological failing here, the vector or vulnerability enabling the psyop, is apparently endemic to Whites. It is this peculiar recurring pattern of being hoist with the enemy’s petard, while jealously clinging to it as if it is your own. We see it also in (((the British Empire))), for example. It is a pitfall I’ve called racial solipsism.

I see the Enlightenment negatively. I see it as a watershed moment when White men, deluded and debilitated by Christianity but starting to wake to reality, tried to cure their hangover. Unfortunately, they ultimately did so by doubling down on the jew narrative, looking to the jews for answers to problems that jewing had caused. Whatever the details, they came to the conclusion that the answer was tolerance. The world was broken and the White man needed to fix it, and that meant…emancipating the jews, who then quickly helped themselves by helping the White man decide to emancipate the negroes, women, homosexuals, and so on. The disastrous consequences are exactly those things that the jewsmedia today most emphatically celebrates – feminism, open borders, sexual deviance, black lives matter, and the never-ending wars to keep the world safe for jewing.

There are people who purport that this is all about the White man trying to kill himself. They claim that all this pathology proves we’re suicidal. I disagree. I see the pathogen as jewing. I see jews bending the arc, as they put it, toward White replacement and extinction. They have made the highest purpose of every government they control to combat “racism” and “anti-semitism” while boycotting, imprisoning, or dropping bombs on whoever vexes the jews-first jews-only state. Proponents of this system call it “liberal democracy” and they trace its origins to the Enlightenment. In fact it is rule of by and for jews, and its roots go back much farther.

Here’s another recent claim of responsibility for the Enlightenment, with jews mischaracterizing themselves as the victims of their much less conscious Christian dupes, of course:

The development of the study of Jewish texts and Jewish culture within the university setting, as opposed to in a yeshiva or rabbinical academy, was by its very nature tied to the emancipation of the Jews in modern Europe, and their concomitant entry into broader European culture. As Martin Goodman notes, the earliest professors of Jewish literature in European universities were Christian professors of classical Hebrew, who claimed that their study of Hebrew language and literature could help them to discover the “true” (and invariably Christian) meaning contained within the text they called the Old Testament.

By the late Renaissance, Christian Hebraists in the university setting became interested in Kabbalah, part of a broader academic trend in which Christian scholars claimed that a whole array of esoteric literature, ranging from Zoroastrian and Hermetic texts to Egyptian hieroglyphs, could be interpreted to reveal Christian insights.

More on cabalism and its influence is coming in The Burden of Jewing, Part 3.

You might be thinking the Enlightenment is ancient history. But that’s where you’re wrong, bucko. The most vociferous proponents of Enlightenment/”classical liberal” thinking today are jews like Stephen Pinker, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and the broader jew intellectual movement calling itself the Intellectual Dark Web. They can clearly see a backlash building to the increasingly naked anti-White screeching of their “leftist” cousins. Their response is classic bagelian dialectic. Rather than call out their cousins’ jewing as jewing, they instead pine for a return to its previous, more cryptic form. They seek to moderate the White reaction to jewing, and they are doing so by encouraging still more Enlightenment thinking among Whites. They’re not doing this to hijack the credit for and esteem of what the deluded White man imagines is muh Greatest Achievement. They are doing so because they sense that the White man’s capacity for soft-headedness is not yet completely exhausted.

The Enlightenment was all along a jew-led, jew-serving psyop. Indeed, it is all the more obvious now in retrospect, now that jews no longer think there is any need to hide it.

UPDATE 6 Nov 2019:

In a remarkably explicit and expansive claim of responsibility, published in 2002 and titled The Jewish Roots of Western Freedom, Fania Oz-Salzberger jewsplains “the story of political Hebraism, the sustained effort to read the Bible politically during the seventeenth century”:

This essay attempts to point out some of the most interesting, most thought-provoking, and least studied Hebraic and Judaic origins of early modern political thought in England and beyond. It will examine several political Hebraists of the seventeenth century, and will consider the reasons for the abandonment of biblical and post-biblical sources of political thought by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thinkers—in particular modern liberals.

. . .

Jewish texts were not accidental sources for the subtle discussion of liberty engaged in by seventeenth-century thinkers. There were several important ideas about the nature of freedom, which early modern Europe learned from the Bible and its Jewish interpreters, and from them alone. These ideas, which Enlightenment thinkers and their progeny either abandoned or ignored, have now returned to the forefront of political discourse, and are relevant in no small measure to contemporary Israel as well.

. . .

Seventeenth-century thinkers used their Bible in a multitude of ways: There were biblical royalists, biblical republicans, biblical regicides, biblical patriarchalists and defenders of the old order, biblical economic revolutionaries and deniers of private property, biblical French imperialists, biblical English patriots, and their biblical Scottish counterparts. Policies, polemics, and parodies were based on the Bible. Writers and readers alike were intimately familiar with the Old Testament.

In Protestant Europe and in much of counter-Reformation Europe, it was the central compartment of a learned man’s toolbox, the principal weapon in his scholarly arsenal

. . .

What all of these had in common was their stout belief not only in the supreme importance of the Hebrew Bible as an authority for their convictions, but also in its uniqueness as a source of historical models. Since Calvinists and Puritans, monarchists and monarchomachs, French and Dutch and English alike all viewed themselves as the “second Israel,” the ancient Hebrew state was their best political template, if not their only one. Not Athens or Sparta or Rome, but Israel, with its kings and priests, its tribes and elders, its institutions and, especially, its laws.

. . .

the tradition of religious tolerance that was transformed by Spinoza and Locke into a doctrine of political tolerance.

. . .

A highly influential group of seventeenth-century thinkers found within Hebraic sources a cluster of significant ideas, and put them into the mainstream of European intellectual history. These thinkers, and the ideas about which they wrote, were linked to one another in several ways. The following sections of this essay discuss three seminal ideas, explicitly and often exclusively Hebraic in their inspiration—ideas for which Aristotle, Cicero, or Tacitus (among others) could not reasonably be credited— which played a crucial role in the genealogy of modern political thought. They affected early modern thinking about the state and about political liberty, and took part in the birth pangs of classical liberalism itself.

. . .

Seventeenth-century Amsterdam was the most fertile soil for social and scholarly interaction between Jews, primarily exiles from Spain well versed in classical thought, and Christian scholars, primarily Calvinists with a Hebraic fire burning in their bones. In the Dutch golden age, the “Hebrew republic” took shape as an ideal type for the modern European legal and political system. Grotius was one of the first to search for the Hebraica veritas, the Hebrew truth, a natural law common to all nations.

. . .

The glory of the Hebrew republic in Western political thought reached its apex in the middle of the seventeenth century, when the English republican revolutionaries made it their central historical model, some-times alongside the Roman republic, but more often above it.

. . .

These thinkers all repeat, with individual variations, the same basic theme: The people of Israel had a republic, a nearly perfect republic, from the time of the Exodus until at least the coronation of Saul.

“Political Hebraism”, i.e., jewing.

Blog

This Fictitious Conflict

77 Comments

zionism_is_code_for_death_by_jewing

Left-posing jew Weiss writes, Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals):

For a long time, liberalism and Zionism have gotten along fine in America– just look at the Democratic Party and its love for Israel. But Charlottesville represents a crisis for liberal Zionists. When they condemn white nationalism in the U.S. and celebrate Jewish nationalism in Israel, the contradiction is obvious to all.

Just consider three prominent voices. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the liberal Zionist group J Street, and blogger and Democratic Party thinker Josh Marshall.

Weiss cites three contemporary jew voices. Below I’ll cite a prominent opposing voice from the past.

The extent of the contradiction is worse than Weiss admits. The jews have an ethnostate, a state explicitly by for and of jews, whereas Whites have none. Not one. Even outside their explicit ethnostate the jews have laws specifically protecting themselves and their ethnostate from criticism. Jews claim that jews are White, that Whites have privilege and thus deserve to be oppressed, and that jews are oppressed by Whites and thus deserve their privilege. When Whites object even indirectly to any aspect of this jewing the jews swarm forth as a tribe and screech louder for even more special funding and protection from their ostensibly liberal host state.

So-called liberals and their liberal democratic states aren’t advertised as elevating one group above others. Quite the contrary. Yet they openly elevate the jews above all others, and especially above Whites. That’s the big contradiction. Zionists do not merely support a state for jews, they oppose any state for Whites. They regard Whites and jews as political opposites. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the parasite having its cake and eating its host too. Liberalism has always served the jews, providing the means by which any and all forms of jewing have been simultaneously advanced and defended.

Weiss continues:

Charlottesville makes this conversation urgent because the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership hurts resistance to intolerance. You can’t be righteously anti-nationalist in the U.S. and evangelists for Jewish nationalism over there.

This is not just good liberal philosophy. It’s the best policy to fight anti-Semitism. Israel’s status as a human-rights abuser is now its global reputation; and Jews and Jewish organizations who blindly defend it are hurting the reputation of Jews.

It is behind the mask of liberalism that academia, corporations, and the mainstream media have issued a constant stream of increasingly hostile rhetoric psychopathologizing and demonizing Whites. Whites who collaborate are rewarded, even if only temporarily. Whites who resist, even if only rhetorically, are punished. And behind that same liberal mask the same powerful institutions actively denounce and suppress any criticism of jews.

The snarling illiberal reality of this anti-White/pro-jew regime is deliberately concealed behind its smiley weaponized buzzterms. The jews cry “tolerance”, “social justice”, “diversity”, and “equity” as they strike “nazis”, by which they mean Whites, then screech “anti-semitism” when they imagine some ricochet might possibly hit the jews.

Weiss is an apologist for his tribe posing as a critic. He postures as a liberal but frets specifically about the best interests of jews. He minimizes the harm jewing causes Whites. He’s concerned about the potential harm any backlash might cause jews.

Yair Rosenberg provides a more overt example of jew hostility toward Whites. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg makes no pretense that he’s a liberal and offers no apologies for being obsessed with whatever is best for the jews, in or out of their jew state. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg’s toxic anti-White opinions are shamelessly amplified by the corporate mainstream jewsmedia.

Rosenberg recently jewsplained Why There’s No Such Thing as White Zionism, directly addressing the anti-White/pro-jew cake-eating Weiss misidentifies. Rosenberg describes the problem as sneaky White nationalists stupidly trying to use liberal-zionist double-talk in the same way jews have. Smirking Rosenberg admits that the argument is senseless, because jews are oppressed and Whites are oppressors, i.e. because jews aren’t White.

Writing nearly a century ago Adolf Hitler discussed this same apparent contradiction and described how he came to understand that jews aren’t Germans, how this fictitious conflict between liberalism and zionism brought about this realization:

It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.

Then I came to Vienna.

Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?

As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and uncertain.

Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and the district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.

But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.

To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself.

Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

Yes. Race and morality are key. Liberalism and zionism are simply code for death by jewing. They have mutated somewhat yet remain two faces of the same jew-first moral fraud. Both incite non-jews into fighting “racism” (Whites being White) and “anti-semitism” (anything that interferes with jews jewing). Both are championed by jews for the benefit of jews.

Hitler described accurately not only what was happening in Germany in his time, but also foresaw the jew-dominated future we’re now living:

The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.

As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another section hypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows how clearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.

The jew war on Whites is waged stealthily under the fiction that jews are White. It started and will end with the realization that they aren’t.