Tag Archives: peter beinart

The White Race and its Discontents


Regarding the war on Whites – the origin and destruction of White/Western civilization.

Remarks by President Trump to the People of Poland, 6 July 2017:

Under a double occupation the Polish people endured evils beyond description: the Katyn forest massacre, the occupations, the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the destruction of this beautiful capital city, and the deaths of nearly one in five Polish people. A vibrant Jewish population — the largest in Europe — was reduced to almost nothing after the Nazis systematically murdered millions of Poland’s Jewish citizens, along with countless others, during that brutal occupation.

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it? (Applause.)

We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.

Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield — it begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls.

. . .

Our freedom, our civilization, and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory.

. . .

I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph.

Trump’s speech was reportedly written by jewhadi Steven Miller and though he specifically condemned “nazis” and specifically mourned the jews, and only referred ambiguously to “our civilization” and “the West”, this was enough to trigger non-White jewsmedia critics to immediately vent their anti-White animus.

The Racial and Religious Paranoia of Trump’s Poland Speech, Peter Beinart, 6 July 2017:

In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to “the West” and five times to “our civilization.” His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It’s important that other Americans do, too.

The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white. Where there is ambiguity about a country’s “Westernness,” it’s because there is ambiguity about, or tension between, these two characteristics.

The most shocking sentence in Trump’s speech—perhaps the most shocking sentence in any presidential speech delivered on foreign soil in my lifetime—was his claim that “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.” On its face, that’s absurd. Jihadist terrorists can kill people in the West, but unlike Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, they cannot topple even the weakest European government. Jihadists control no great armies.

Trump’s sentence only makes sense as a statement of racial and religious paranoia. The “south” and “east” only threaten the West’s “survival” if you see non-white, non-Christian immigrants as invaders. They only threaten the West’s “survival” if by “West” you mean white, Christian hegemony. A direct line connects Trump’s assault on Barack Obama’s citizenship to his speech in Poland. In Trump and Bannon’s view, America is at its core Western: meaning white and Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian). The implication is that anyone in the United States who is not white and Christian may not truly be American but rather than an imposter and a threat.

. . .

America is racially, ethnically, and religious diverse. So when Trump says being Western is the essence of America’s identity, he’s in part defining America in opposition to some of its own people. He’s not speaking as the president of the entire United States. He’s speaking as the head of a tribe.

Beinart’s critique only makes sense as a statement of racial and religious paranoia. He is shocked to hear words like survival because he understands it to mean White racial survival. He understands it is his own tribe which threatens White survival, thus interprets any concern for White survival as an implicit threat to his own tribe.

The white nationalist roots of Donald Trump’s Warsaw speech, Jamelle Bouie, 7 July 2017:

To the extent that he does have an ideology, it’s a white American chauvinism and its attendant nativism and racism. It was the core of his “birther” crusade against Barack Obama—the claim that for reasons of blood and heritage, Obama couldn’t be legitimate—and the pitch behind his campaign for president. Trump would restore American greatness by erasing the racial legacy of Obama’s presidency: the Hispanic immigration, the Muslim refugees, the black protesters.

House nigger Bouie also links approvingly to some hysterical Haaretz jew complaining that the kikeservative-in-chief’s recounting of the jews’ big lie “erases victims of Polish anti-Semitism”.

Here are some other examples. The hallmark is explicit anti-White animus, often marked by a telling attempt to shift blame for the speech from Miller to Bannon. Zeleny: Trump address in Poland a ‘White America, America First’ speech, Trump’s theo-nationalistic Poland speech sounds a whole lot like Steve Bannon, Trump’s alt-right Poland speech: Time to call his white nationalist rhetoric what it is, Fourteen words? Three words from Trump’s speech in Poland are truly terrifying.

The mainstream cucked kikeservative defense of Trump’s speech uniformly downplayed race – ignoring the explicitly anti-White nature of the hostility and only obliquely acknowledging its jewy source. The hallmark in this case is the term “judeo-Christian” (which sprang into being during WWII) and otherwise reducing and equating civilization to judeo-liberal values: Trump’s Poland Speech — Western Values Trump Universalism, Yes, They Really Do Despise Their Civilization.

The anti-White critics are correct in that the West and Western civilization are euphemisms for European civilization – which is a product/construct/extension of the White race. As Beinart alludes, “the West” is understood to extend beyond Europe only because this is so. Though terms like White and European are much older than “judeo-Christian” they are all still newer than the people and gene pool to whom they are attached.

Who are these people? The answer isn’t as ambiguous or as complicated as anti-Whites pretend. If you ask them what they oppose they’ll tell you it’s “Whiteness”. If you ask what that is, they’ll claim it’s a social construct. Of White people. And so it is, of course.

From archeological and ancient genetic evidence it appears the particular mix of DNA which constitutes the White race was already relatively stable 40000 years ago, when Cro-Magnon hunter-gatherers settled what we now call Europe, replacing the Neanderthal inhabitants. Certainly this was the case by about 6000 years ago when the Yamnaya/Aryans swept westward, conquering and interbreeding with their distant Cro-Magnon cousins. Until the 20th century the European gene pool was only relatively slightly altered by additional migration and mixing and evolution. The jews were among the more recent interlopers, and certainly the most deleterious.

A civilization and its culture are racial constructs – the bottom up, grass-roots instincts of the masses largely modulated and moderated by the elite. The West’s elite is today thoroughly jewed, racially distinct from and hostile toward Whites. The disfigured culture of the current anti-White/pro-jew regime is expressed in its propagandized slogans: “Diversity is our greatest strength!” “Combat racism and anti-semitism!”

Loxism – the jews’ hatred for Whites – is not a new phenomenon. In the past the jews simply did not have the same breadth or depth of political power that they do today. Cuddihy’s The Ordeal of Civility describes the shift, the jewing of European civilization, exposing the roots of cultural Marxism, a collective effort personified primarily by Marx and Freud.

Freud’s psychopathologization of European social norms was particularly toxic and typically jewish. He imagined himself a conquering semitic general like Hannibal, waging war on Rome (yet another ancient expression of and metaphor for the White race). Freud waged his war culturally and cryptically, in part by projecting his own tribe’s sick predilections under the guise that he was revealing universal truths about “our” civilization.

Freud is just one example of historic jew hostility toward Whites. Jews as a group are the seminal source of anti-Western/anti-White critique. Another example is Susan Sontag (born Rosenblatt), who in 1966 produced a quintessential expression of loxism, infamously claiming that “[t]he White race is the cancer of human history” in Partisan Review, a journal founded and run by communist jews.

Sontag’s loxist outburst was never punished, and to this day is rarely discussed. Like Beinart, Sontag perceived Western civilization as an expression of the White race, and thus a righteous target for her loathing. This is clear from the context of her statement:

If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. It’s easier, much easier, to accuse the kids, to reproach them for being “non-participants in the past” and “drop-outs from history.” But it isn’t real history Fiedler is referring to with such solicitude. It’s just our history, which he claims is identical with “the tradition of the human,” the tradition of “reason” itself. Of course, it’s hard to assess life on this planet from a genuinely world-historical perspective; the effort induces vertigo and seems like an invitation to suicide. But from a world-historical perspective, that local history that some young people are repudiating (with their fondness for dirty words, their peyote, their macrobiotic rice, their Dadaist art, etc) looks a good deal less pleasing and less self-evidently worthy of perpetuation. The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al, don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. What the Mongol hordes threaten is far less frightening than the damage that western “Faustian” man, with his idealism, his magnificent art, his sense of intellectual adventure, his world-devouring energies for conquest, has already done, and further threatens to do.

Sontag was condemning the White race in defense of the 1960s freakout, led by jews, and described the jewed mindset of the “kids” she sympathized with as “post-Freudian and post-Marxian”. She concluded her screed by distinguishing her tribe from the White race:

One last comparison, which I hope won’t seem farfetched. The Jews left the ghetto in the early nineteenth century, thus become a people doomed to disappear. But one of the by-products of their fatal absorption into the modern world was an incredible burst of creativity in the arts, science, and secular scholarship – the relocation of a powerful but frustrated spiritual energy. These innovating artists and intellectuals were not alienated Jews, as is said so often, but people who were alienated as Jews.

(((Anti-Trump))) Versus (((Anti-Anti-Trump)))


David Harsanyi on Peter Beinart on David Frum, Eliot Cohen, David Brooks, Jonathan Tobin, and Nachama Soloveichik on Jonathan Freeland and Peter Beinart on Jared Kushner.

Following this exchange backward through time you see jews conducting an entirely jewy debate about what’s best for jews, trying to cloak it the hackneyed terms of left versus right only after it erupted out of the jewiest corners of the jewsmedia and threatened to become a full-blown shanda fur die goyim.

This particular debate came to light in the mainstream via Why The Resistance Is The Best Thing That’s Happened To Donald Trump, published by the Federalist’s senior editor David Harsanyi on 14 February 2017:

In a recent Atlantic piece titled “The Anti-Anti-Trump Right,” by Peter Beinart, the subheadline reads: “For conservative publications, the business model is opposing the left. And that means opposing the people who oppose Trump.” As is customary these days, the Left, much like Trump, questions the motives of political foes rather than addressing their arguments. Beinart goes on to name the two only honorable conservatives in the entire country (according to Democrats), David Frum and David Brooks.

Here is one jew describing another jew naming two other jews – without mentioning that it’s all about jewing. Unless you’re familiar with the names you might think the the story has nothing to do with jews. But here’s another little hint:

What seems to most vex critics of the anti-anti-Trump contingent (and I am mentioned in the Atlantic piece) is that conservatives aren’t appropriately agitated about the world that liberals see — a world that has turned out to be far less apocalyptic in the early going than they imagine. But if it’s a zero-sum choice they’re offering, that includes picking Neil Gorsuch over Planned Parenthood; tax cuts over teachers unions; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran’s Holocaust deniers; deregulation of the bureaucratic state over legislation, or forcing progressive cultural mores on everyone. And so on.

What Beinart was actually talking about was a divide on the “right” between Whites and the “right”-posturing jews those Whites like to imagine are their allies. The Anti-Anti-Trump Right was published by The Atlantic on 13 February 2017:

Several weeks into the Trump presidency, one can divide the reaction among conservative commentators into three categories.

At one extreme sit those conservatives who championed Trump during the campaign, and still do: Breitbart, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, among others. Their base is talk radio. They pride themselves on speaking for those plainspoken, dirt-under-the-fingernails conservatives who loathe not only Hillary Clinton, but Paul Ryan. Their chief enemies are globalism and multiculturalism, which they believe infect both parties, and are destroying America from without and within. Their ideological forefathers are Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace and Pat Buchanan, who claimed that America’s cosmopolitan, deracinated ruling elite had betrayed the white Christians to whom the country truly belonged.

At the other extreme sit conservatives like my Atlantic colleague David Frum, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies Professor Eliot Cohen, and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who warned against Trump during the campaign, and believe he is now vindicating their fears.

Beinart’s first extreme, the White kikeservatives who love love love the jews but kinda sorta temporarily don’t like some of the jewed elite’s agenda, is what anti-White anti-Trumpers more commonly refer to as “racists”, “anti-semites”, “White nationalists/supremacists”, or simply “neo-nazis”. In Beinart’s eyes they are the chief enemy.

On the other extreme are Beinart and his tribemates, the anti-Trumpers who identify more with (((America’s cosmopolitan, deracinated ruling elite))). Beinart specifically names three “right”-posturing jews. He could have added vociferous anti-Trumpers Bill Kristol, John Podhoretz, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, or Jamie Kirchick to the list, but perhaps he thought that would make his point too plain.

Anyway, Beinart’s third category is who he is really upset about. This is the jewy group he’s calling anti-anti-Trump, whose modus operandi he describes aptly enough. “Their business model is opposing the left. And that means opposing the people who oppose Trump.” I.e. those jews who still believe their “right”-posturing is best for the jews.

Beinart is talking here about a White/jew divide and was actually responding to Nachama Soloveichik and other jews calling him out on a jew-jew divide, for critcizing jews as jews.

Soloveichik’s article, Jew-Shaming Liberals Discredit Religion & Themselves, was published by National Review on 6 February 2017:

Liberal Jews are falling over one another to label President Trump the latest incarnation of Jew-haters from Pharaoh to Haman to Hitler.

These attacks have ranged from the exaggerated to the absurd. And while these inflated diatribes are concerning enough, a new theme has developed that is as baffling as it is destructive: Jew-shaming.

There has long been an expectation in Jewish circles that members of the tribe should support leftist policies and candidates. The thinking is that the Jews’ centuries-long persecution compels them to support the party that professes to protect persecuted minorities. Like women and African Americans, leftists are often shocked to stumble across the existence of conservatives who are Jewish, female, or black.

As a member of this endangered species, I’m familiar with this phenomenon. As a Jewish, female political conservative, I am often met with bewilderment. I am also sensitive to the history of persecution. I lost too many relatives in the Holocaust. This persecution is undeniable and unforgettable. What’s baffling is why people think they can decide for me, for Jared Kushner, and for any other Jew what Judaism means to us or how we should vote as Jews.

One of the “left”-posturing jews Soloveichik named was Jonathan Freedland, and as an example of his “jew-shaming” linked Jews must oppose Trump’s new order, published by The Jewish Chronicle on 26 January 2017:

Put simply, Jews should want nothing to do with Trumpism. Some might be drawn to the new president’s hawkishness on Israel, typified by his promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and his nomination of the pro-settler extremist David Friedman to serve as ambassador. But those who care about Israel’s future viability as a state both Jewish and democratic know such moves can only hurt, not help. They are a bottle of vodka left on the doorstep of an alcoholic: presented as an act of friendship, they are in fact an encouragement to self-destruction.

Put simply, Freedland is saying to jews, “Don’t fall for the destructive tricks we use on the stupid goyim!”

There is an obvious place for Jews in Trump’s world — standing against every last bit of it.

This is a jew speaking as a jew, calling for jews to unite as jews, because he thinks Trump is bad for the jews. But Soloveichik found an even jewier example:

The worst of the worst came from the Forward, where senior columnist Peter Beinart sought to indict Kushner’s moral identity as a Jew.

Beinart goes straight for the jugular, declaring Kushner a failure of Modern Orthodoxy.

And in this era of vicious political attacks spread on social media, we’d all do well to take a moment and ask ourselves, “Who are we, that we should issue religious indictments on our fellow Jews?”

Soloveichik’s point is on beyond Freedland and Beinart, a reminder to them and other jews that jews jewing transcends any Trump Trumping.

Beinart’s original article, Jared Kushner’s Moral Failure Indicts Orthodox Judaism, was published by the Forward on 31 January 2017. Beinart was trying to express his dismay about Kushner failing to stop Trump’s lame “muslim ban”, which came out as a typically overwrought rehashing of the same jew victim narrative that’s real in Soloveichik’s mind:

In remarkable ways, modern Jewish history echoes the passage from powerlessness to power that begins in the Book of Exodus. Therefore, the challenge for Jared Kushner, and everyone in our extraordinarily privileged generation, is to remember our ancestors’ suffering and honor their memories by defending the weak, vulnerable and oppressed today.

How could Kushner — a Modern Orthodox golden boy — fail to internalize that?

Kushner’s failure is not his problem alone; it should chill every Modern Orthodox educator, rabbi and parent in the United States. How could the Modern Orthodox community, a community that prides itself on instilling in its children Jewish knowledge and ideals, have failed so profoundly?

Thus what started with jews calling each other race traitors, identifying Whites as the enemy, by the time it eventually bubbles to the surface of the luegenpresse has nothing to do with jews and is all about Trump.