Tag Archives: media

Fake News, Lethal Narratives

lying_jewsmedia

The ever so subtly amended paragraph from America’s Lethal Politics now reads:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

What is so special about Giffords? Why is the Jew York Times still promoting an imaginary connection between her shooter and Palin? Can you guess?

In 2011 the shooting of Giffords triggered the jewsmedia to unleash a torrent of vitriol at Palin and her White supporters. Palin called out the dishonest screeching in the jews’ own terms, which triggered the yids to really flip their lids.

In retrospect it wasn’t an isolated incident but a preview of the increasingly open anti-White hostility of the jewed elite, which they later really let hang out during Trump’s selection campaign. The thrust of the jewsmedia narrative, then as now, is that somebody else’s rhetoric is somehow inspiring violence. Of course words can inspire violence. Nobody understands this better than that most privileged tribe, constantly lecturing everybody else about the danger of tribalism, whose own toxic anti-White rhetoric prevails not only in the media but also in academia, the judiciary, and all major political parties.

The furor which erupted from the echo chamber in the wake of James Hodgkinson’s attack is theatre. The fakery extends well beyond a single paragraph, op-ed, publisher, or shooting. The spectacle created by the “left”-posing jewsmedia and the “right”-posing alt-jewsmedia, pointing and sputtering at each other, and especially at their designated kikeservative punching bags, is a deliberate and concerted distraction. The purpose is to keep the goyim on the defensive, scrambling to justify our beliefs, our speech, our guns, our very existence.

What all this jewsmedia screeching serves to do is shift attention away from the harm caused by their own rhetoric, harm so ubiquitous that it goes largely unremarked upon. Consider the disease, corruption, ripoffs, beatings, rapes, murders, bombings, and wars inspired or enabled or justified by the bipartisan anti-White/pro-jew regime’s narrative. Notice that they never take the slightest responsibility for causing any of this harm. They constantly screech as if they are victims not because they are ignorant or insane, but because they know well the harm they’re causing and the response it calls for.

Are Jews People

cnn-chyron-526x345

The jews have been screeching about Richard Spencer’s NPI conference in Washington DC this past weekend. Alot of it is just the usual jew normal wow-just-wowing that a handful of Whites still have the nerve to openly meet and speak positively about White identity and interests. The loudest wailing has to do with a bit of exuberant hailing at the end of Spencer’s closing speech, but there was a more telling response to a rhetorical question he asked at the beginning:

This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous podcast hosts, and dissidents working deep within the beltway right proved that they objectively understood politics better than the “Republican strategists” and “political consultants” snarking at us every night on MSNBC. It’s not just that they are leftists and cucks. It’s not just the many are genuinely stupid. Indeed, one wonders if these people are people at all – or instead, soulless golem, animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking point John Oliver stated the night before.

This twit, from one screechy jew organization to another, captures the gist of the reaction that immediately echoed throughout the Lügenpresse: “‘Alt-right’ Trump supporters are unsure if Jews are people. @jfederations, are you sure you want to support this admin? #JewishResistance”.

CNN pushed a similar line, which produced a swift jewlash and apoplectic apology. Of course, the apology was for offending jew sensibilities, not for distorting what Spencer said.

Spencer was speaking in terms of partisan political opposition, at the edge of the jew normal box – his alt-right and Trump versus the left and their cuck-right. His use of the term golem alludes to jews as the animators of the entrenched opposition, implying that the non-jews, the kikeservatives of whatever party affiliation, are behaving inhumanly, like robots.

It is telling that jews immediately reduced what Spencer said to being entirely about jews – as if nobody else matters, as if nobody but jews is human. Much the same occurred last month when Trump started speaking stridently against the elite globalist bankers and media. Jews flipped out exactly because they perceived this as a coded threat to themselves, not at all out of concern for anybody else, elite or otherwise.

CNN’s crime was to highlight Spencer’s reference to the jews’ golem tale, in which the jews are saved from the inhuman goyim of medieval Europe, while deploring a modern day meeting of inhuman White “racists” and “anti-semites”. The jews are screeching so loudly because they feel exposed. By crying out they seek to ensure that everyone understands the jews are not just people, part of “us”, but are that extra special part of “us” who defines who “them” are.

When some member of the jewed elite equates Trump to Hitler what they’re implying is that Trump (and his supporters) must be attacked, destroyed, and even killed. Never Trump. Never again. By any means necessary.

The toxic anti-White jew Tim Wise put it this way: “Nazis must be crushed. No co-existence…crushed. If the “alt-right” wants to play Nazi, we need to play the Allies, circa 1944 and 45″.

Another toxic jew, jewsmedia editor Michael Hirsh, screeched his thirst for goy blood more explicitly: “Stop whining about Richard B. Spencer, Nazi, and exercise your rights as decent Americans. Here are his two addresses. …”

Are the jews people? In fact their definitive concern is for themselves, for their own peoplehood. As a parasitic people they not only organize around this exclusive sense of “us” as jews, but actively seek to co-opt, control, and ultimately destroy any similar sense among the goyim host “them” they feed upon.

One thing is certain. The jews aren’t White people. They are empirically collectively anti-White, the enemies of Whites. Indeed, when jews attack Whites while screeching about “anti-semitism” it is because they are drawing a clear distinction and expressing a truly racial animus.

The Jew Normal

oyyyy_veeeeeeyyyy

A major theme for the jewsmedia this selection cycle, especially after getting a result they didn’t expect, has been to cry about how out of the ordinary this or that aspect of Trump’s campaign has been. The current year’s new normal is, “wow, just wow”, and we can expect more of the same for the next four current years.

Of course, many aspects of the Trump campaign were extraordinary, but a truly frank discussion of the who, what, and why isn’t something you can actually find in the jewsmedia unless you read between the lines. Trump’s many transgressions were, vaguely speaking, violations of political correctness, which his supporters actually liked. The loudest screeching and deploring of these violations came from the jews, who created this web of taboos in the first place.

At heart the conflict is over what constitutes normal, it’s about who gets to define what normal means. The jews, tremendously amplified by the jewsmedia, see themselves and their screechy, neurotic sensibilities as normal, and have for decades foisted their preferences and priorities onto everyone else. Whites, on the other hand, voted for Trump exactly because they don’t like this jew normal. They imagine he might actually change it and return them to a less jewed culture they innately perceive as more natural.

A clear example of this struggle over the definition of normal is occurring right now. The cabal behind The Bannonocaust perceives it as just one battle against the “normalization” of Trumpism. It’s an unselfconscious inversion of the term. The idea is that anyone treating Trump like any other candidate or president-elect has ever been treated is behaving abnormally. How many times do the jews have to announce that Trump is Hitler all over again, “anti-semitic”, fueling “anti-semitism”, or let’s just say he’s promoting “conspiracy theories”, “racism”, “xenophobia”, “intolerance”, “hate”, “oyyyy veeeeeeyyyy”. What is it about all these jew buzzwords the stupid/crazy/evil goys don’t understand?

The tone of this screeching isn’t new. What’s new is the volume and the clarity with which the battle lines are drawn. The jews are at war with Whites. To see it just take a peek behind the jewsmedia curtain:

Elad Nehorai: “In case you don’t think antisemitism is officially normalized in the US, take a look at @PeterBeinart’s feed.”

Peter Beinart: “In name of Jewish safety, America’s most powerful Jewish groups normalized Trumpism. And now it’s turning on us.” Beinart links his own article in Haaretz, America’s most influential Jewish groups have prioritized Netanyahu over U.S. Jews’ safety.

David Corn: “Read this: White Nationalists Celebrate Trump’s Victory and Early Appointments. (Don’t Normalize Trum) #DONT” Corn links Pema Levy’s article in Mother Jones, White Nationalists Celebrate Trump’s Victory and Early Appointments.

The Bannonocaust, Hoax Culture

bannonocaust

In the wake of the selection of Donald Trump on the 8th of November a fresh wave of malformed swastikas began showing up in various jewy haunts across America. Despite the lame nature of these so-called “hate crimes”, and the long history of fakery, each new incident is soberly and earnestly reported by the jewsmedia not only as if it were an example of real hate but as the most disturbing crime ever committed. After each furtive act comes another very public act, the theatre echoing with cries for more money and more laws to combat “hate”. And even when some later report reveals yet another hoax there is no connecting of dots, no recognition of the larger pattern. Thus by very deliberate acts of both commission and ommission the jewsmedia creates and sustains this “hate” hoax culture.

Of course many people see through this charade, and when jewsmedia forums permit comment many critics do in fact speak out. On social media sites it is increasingly common to see these tall tales of “hate” not only called out but mercilessly derided. Alas, corporate social media is ultimately just another more insidious form of jewsmedia – owned, operated or otherwise ultimately marching to the tune called by jews. Critics are squelched with a circular argument: opposition to the jewsmedia narrative is by definition “hate”, especially if you notice the jews. Bad goy. Shut it down.

Amidst the swastikas comes an even grander hoax, The Bannonocaust, a jewsmedia construct through and through. Before social media platforms were widely used the journalist cabal used to strategize and coordinate via email. Nowadays they conspire more broadly and openly on Facebook and Twitter. On the 13th, when Trump tapped Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, the yids who operate the jewsmedia immediately flipped their lids. Before any articles had even appeared prominent jewsmedia figures were screeching anti-White invective into their collective Twitter echo chamber, decrying Bannon’s supposed “anti-semtism” and advising each other to gird for battle.

Jamil Smith: “Steve Bannon, an anti-Semite whose website is a hub for white nationalism, will be the @WhiteHouse chief strategist. We are in trouble.” Charles P. Pierce: “Let us be clear. The hiring of Steve Bannon as a WH policy adviser is exactly the same as hiring David Duke. Please don’t normalize this.” Jonathan Alter: “Bannon’s bigotry must be front and center in all coverage of him for as long as he has power.” David Corn: “Hey, media, if the words “white supremacist” or “racist” are not in the lede of your stories in Stephen Bannon, you’re doing it wrong.”

This is how the jewsmedia narrative on Bannon was constructed. Over the course of the next week it oozed out of various outlets in longer forms. On the 14th, David Rothkopf’s Trump Appointments Send an Ominous Signal appeared at Foreign Policy. In it Rothkopf laid out the jew versus White nature of the conflict fairly clearly. A similar, prescient article by Sarah Posner and printed by Mother Jones in late August, How Donald Trump’s New Campaign Chief Created an Online Haven for White Nationalists, was also widely cited and recirculated as an explainer.

Much of the broader print media and television coverage was less explicit. Generally the jewish source of the hostility toward Whites has been more muted, the accusations against Bannon reduced to unspecified “bigotry” and “racism”. Jay Reeves’ article, AP EXPLAINS: Election brings white nationalism to forefront, is typical in this regard, presenting Whites as the source of the trouble:

White nationalists often support the idea that white people are under attack in the U.S., and need protection from the growth of minority and immigrant groups. Adherents sometimes use the hashtag #whitegenocide on social media to promote their belief that the future of the white race is in peril. They see diversity as a threat to fight, not a goal to embrace.

In spite of such whitewashing, the fundamentally jewy nature of the Bannon controversy is made obvious in other ways. Self-righteously jewish screeching to fire Bannon has manifested quite literally. A representative of the bagel republic “found” yet another swastika, and the jewsmedia literally helped attach blame for the “hate crime” to Bannon. On the 18th, the “conservative” wing of organized jewry officially and collectively condemned Bannon’s appointment.

As with Trump, Bannon has long surrounded himself with jews and supported zionism – a jew-specific form of parasitic nationalism. Several jews have come forward to vouch that Bannon is a good goy, but none makes as compelling a case for it as Bannon himself. The Wall Street Journal ran an article quoting their interview with Bannon on the 18th:

Here are a few things you’ve likely read about Steve Bannon this week: He’s a white supremacist, a bigot and anti-Semite. He’s a self-described Leninist who wants to “destroy the state.” He’s associated with the “alt-right,” a movement that, according to the New York Times, delights in “harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media.”

At first Mr. Bannon insists that he has no interest in “wasting time” addressing the accusations against him. Yet he’s soon ticking off the reasons they are “just nonsense.”

Anti-Semitic? “Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America. I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement”—meaning boycott, divestment and sanctions—“in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.” He adds that given his many Jewish partners and writers, “guys like Joel Pollak, these claims of anti-Semitism just aren’t serious. It’s a joke.”

He blames the attacks on a lazy media, noting for instance that the “renegade Jew” line wasn’t Breitbart’s. Conservative activist David Horowitz (also Jewish) has taken responsibility for writing the headline himself, in a piece about Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

What about the charge of white supremacism? “I’m an economic nationalist. I am an America first guy. And I have admired nationalist movements throughout the world, have said repeatedly strong nations make great neighbors. I’ve also said repeatedly that the ethno-nationalist movement, prominent in Europe, will change over time. I’ve never been a supporter of ethno-nationalism.”

“Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.”
But he says Breitbart is also a platform for “libertarians,” Zionists, “the conservative gay community,” “proponents of restrictions on gay marriage,” “economic nationalism” and “populism” and “the anti-establishment.” In other words, the site hosts many views. “We provide an outlet for 10 or 12 or 15 lines of thought—we set it up that way” and the alt-right is “a tiny part of that.” Yes, he concedes, the alt-right has “some racial and anti-Semitic overtones.” He makes clear he has zero tolerance for such views.

Even before Bannon spoke out Dylan Byers was begging the question, “What’s the end-game of the anti-Bannon crusade?” What’s the point of any jewy hoaxing and screeching? As with so much of their swastika drivel The Bannonocaust is nothing more than a hoax – an attempt by jews who already dominate the political discourse to mold public opinion, to influence the political agenda, to grab more public funds and government-backed privilege for themselves. It’s not “nazis” doing this. It’s the jews.

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.

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.

Flames of War, A Very Jewy Production

flames_of_war_a_very_jewy_production

Islamic State Issues Video Challenge to Obama, Jew York Times, 17 September 2014:

In one of the Islamic State’s first responses to President Obama’s declaration that he would “degrade and ultimately destroy” it, the group released a short video late Tuesday in which it appeared to say that its militants would kill American ground forces should President Obama deploy them.

The clip is only 52 seconds long and is billed as a preview for a longer video. With slow-motion replay, quick edits and high-quality video images, it looks like a Hollywood trailer.

In the background, Mr. Obama is heard saying, “American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq.” The screen goes dark, followed by a clip of what appears to be a militant for the group who is preparing to kill men on their knees.

The words “Flames of War” appear, with the phrase “Fighting has just begun” below. It ends: “Coming Soon.”

YouTube has already removed the video, perhaps for violating some Hollywood copyright.