Tag Archives: politics

Bernie Sanders on Jewing

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed for Jewish Currents on what jewing means to him.

Speaking for jews, to jews, Sanders jewsplains why jews are anti-White, how unlike Whites jews have a “right of self-determination”, how they serve their own interests by preaching “solidarity” and “equality” while demonizing and attacking Whites, and how this is all also a “conspiracy theory”. He then points out how jews have been doing this for centuries, screeching about “oppression” and “persecution” long before any other non-White/anti-White parasites showed up.

The Enlightenment: Good for Whom?

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.

The Tautology of Jewing

Andrew Anglin has been reviewing the jewing revealed by Vicky Ward’s recent book abouth the Kushner crime family, highlighting the many previously unpublicized details and adding many relevant points of his own. It’s a great read.

How did such criminality, infiltrating and manipulating the very highest levels of government, avoid the scrutiny and criticism of the so-called Fourth Estate for so long? To paraphrase how I once described the similar situation around Jeffrey Epstein: All you need to know to understand why the jewsmedia, which supposedly hates hates hates Trump, has never made a big deal out of Trump’s connection to the Kushner crime family is that it’s the jewsmedia and the Kushners are jews.

Why is this criminality coming to light now? The jews are ruthless and their conspiracy is tribal, and this gives them tremendous power. But they aren’t omnipotent. They can’t keep everything supressed forever.

The Kushner jewing was well known and tolerated as such for years by the inner party jews and their tools in Jew York Shitty and Jew Jersey. What’s remarkable is how long it has taken the story to come out even after the agents of this sordid criminal jewing were ensconced in the White House. The national jewsmedia has spent the past three years screeching as if Russians and White nationalists were pulling Donald Trump’s strings. This is not because they are crazy, but because they’ve known all along the real string-pullers are jews.

To understand the slow disclosure and systematic distortion of this or any other kind of jew-related corruption you must understand the jewsmedia follows an unwritten code. The jewing they can’t hide, they spin. What they can’t spin, they White-wash. What they can’t White-wash, they simply grit their teeth and minimize. While the result is often a combination of these tactics, at this point there’s not much left for them to do with the Kushners but minimize.

Presumably the Mueller investigation has uncovered some of the campaign-related “Russian” jewing, so some of the truth about the “foreign influence” is coming out anyway. We must keep in mind that however damning the information about the Kushners that the jewsmedia finally discloses, it will be a limited hangout. Any connections implicating the larger ethnic network and totally jewed culture which birthed and fostered the Kushners will be downplayed, to the extent they’re revealed at all.

Ward’s book, for example, seems calculated to keeps the blast radius limited to the Kushners. The recent interview Ward did with Virginia Heffernan shows how it’s done. During the discussion jewing comes up directly only once, while discussing Jared Kushner’s mysterious acceptance into Harvard despite his mediocre rank in grade school. Heffernan, ever the good goy, knowingly brings up the fact that it was an exclusive jews-first/jews-only grade school, but only to praise it for supposedly being forthcoming about Kushner’s poor performance. After 50 minutes of even more superficial chit chat you’re left with the impression that what’s bad about Kushner, what shapes and drives his “vaguely zionist” worldview, is that he’s in bed with “the Saudis”.

Based on what Anglin has written, as far as Ward’s book covers jewing at all it seems to be trying to portray the Kushners as renegades, at odds with their tribe. From Karl Marx to George Soros this is one of the more common lines of apologia when jews get called out for doing something wrong. They’re not really jews, you see, or not good jews anyway. But you’re still an “anti-semite” for noticing.

This point I made about Weinstein applies far more generally than even the more jew-wise goyim realize. It applies in this case too. So it’s worth repeating:

Weinstein was able to carry on for as long as he did exactly because he is a member of a larger criminal tribe, whose methods he shared, and whose mutual protection he still enjoys. Indeed, across time and space Weinstein’s tribe has operated Weinstein-wise, as an ethnic gang – a widely-dispersed, obsessively-organized, now skulking, now screeching, genetically-related mafia. But in comparison to any other form of ethnic gangsterism jewing is far more insidious, more virulent, more chronic. Unlike others, the jews have repeatedly infiltrated and manipulated hosts so completely that they’ve repeatedly managed to privilege themselves and legalize their gangsterism.

Controlling the narrative, the perceptions, the thinking, the morality of their host has been integral to jewing. Properly understood, jewing is part pretense, part practice; part denial, part celebration; part carrot, part stick; part hidden, part in-your-fucking-face-and-whattaya-gonna-do-about-it-goyim. Jewing is parasitism so “successful” that none dare call it parasitism.

Suits and ties and jewsmedia fluff pieces may have gotten the Kushners this far, but under any scrutiny their minds and mores come across as so alien, so jewy, that they cannot be White-washed, they cannot be passed off as White. The fate and fortune of the Kushners has had nothing to do with “White privilege”. It has everything to do with jewing. That’s the crux of the scandal. Their identity as jews explains their motives, it explains their methods, and it explains the lack of scrutiny on them thus far. It will also dictate how the jewsmedia treats the story around them from this point on.

The jewing at the core of the story, the key to understanding it, is exactly what the jewsmedia will try hardest to minimize. Paradoxically, minimizing the criminal jewing will involve maximizing the OYYYY VEEEEYYYYYY jewing. Assuming the story gets mainstream traction, and a critical mass of goyim knowing starts to take form, articles will appear preemptively screeching that the Kushner kerfluffle is a terrible shanda fur die goyim.

No doubt some of this screeching will go so far as to imply that the jewsmedia is “anti-semitic”. We know Trump, who never says a word in defense of his White supporters, is totally comfortable championing jews as a collective. If and when necessary he will likely try to defend his criminal in-laws the same way.

I can hear him now. “THE ANTI-SEMITIC LYING MEDIA ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE IS TRYING TO SMEAR MY BRILLIANT SON-IN-LAW, HIS WONDERFUL FAMILY, AND THE STUPENDOUS JEWISH PEOPLE!!1!” Playing right along, the jewsmedia will just screech ever louder that Trump is “anti-semitic”, peddling age-old “tropes” and “canards” that have dogged the jews for millennia, wherever they wander.

This is the tautology of jewing. “Anti-semitism” everywhere, on the tip of everyone’s tongue, yet according to the jewsmedia jewing has nothing to do with it. If they can get away with this shtick even when the jewing is openly celebrated, why not under harsher light?

But then it may not even come to that. Take Epstein’s case for example. There was a cloak of secrecy around him and his network even before it was partially exposed and reburied. Epstein has been back in court over the past several months, and though he is directly connected to Trump, and the jewsmedia hates hates hates Trump, the self-professed speaking-truth-to-power types are all still mostly ignoring that story. At best they merely try to jewsplain it, providing lots of boring detail, glossing over the basic fact that Epstein’s network and the cover still afforded it is perfectly typically tribal.

Jews Hunting King

anti-white_jews_attack_steve_kingIn the wake of yesterday’s midterm selections one of the top stories in the jewsmedia concerns the seething fear and loathing jews are directing at Steve King.

Steve King, dubbed America’s ‘white supremacist congressman,’ wins re-election – U.S. News – Haaretz.com:

King has been criticized by members of his own party for comments and support for candidates with white supremacist affiliations – The New York Times has dubbed him the “White Supremacist Congressman” in a recent article.

Last month, King tweeted a photo of multiple breeds of dogs, noting “all the diversity” at his annual pheasant hunt.

King has a long track record of remarks decried as racist, but the comments came under renewed scrutiny after a massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue in late October.

. . .

During a recent trip to Europe financed by a Holocaust memorial group, King met with officials from an Austrian far-right party with ties to neo-Nazi groups after touring Holocaust sites, according to the Washington Post and other media outlets.

After the Pittsburgh shooting, King told the Washington Post he was not anti-Semitic. He also retweeted a Twitter post quoting the late Pope John Paul II saying that Jews are “dearly beloved brothers.”

White Nationalist Rep. Steve King Reelected In Iowa – The Forward:

In his interview, King also accused billionaire liberal megadonor George Soros, who is Jewish, of being behind the Great Replacement and funding the U.S. midterm elections, the Washington Post reported.

King also endorsed a white nationalist candidate for Toronto mayor who’s running to prevent “white genocide,” according to Esquire, and retweeted a British neo-Nazi.

Following the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue late last month, some religious communities in Iowa came together to denounce King and urge donors to dump him. Two Jewish leaders said he is “an enthusiastic crusader for the same types of abhorrent beliefs held by the Pittsburgh shooter.”

Antisemitic candidate wins tight race in U.S. House – American Politics – Jerusalem Post. The text of this article is a subset of the other two. The key word, “antisemitic”, is in the title.

The gist of these jewsmedia articles is to assert a very specific racial grievance. King is being attacked for acting too White. He is being attacked by jews, who are making it clear that they are anti-White because they are jews.

King’s jew problem stretches back several years. As King increasingly saw and described himself as a defender of Western civilization, jews have become increasingly hostile toward him. In March of 2017 yids flipped their lids when King indicated that he understood Western civilization as a racial construct, and more to the point, that he saw a difference between the us responsible for constructing it and the them who can only deconstruct it.

Are Jews Part Of Steve King’s ‘Western Civilization’?“, jews mockingly-aggressively ask. They know how crucial the perception of us and them is. They know the answer to their coy question.

Unfortunately for Whites, King and similar self-described defenders of Western civilization imagine jews and their jew-first state as part of the us they seek to defend. To the extent such people think in racial terms at all they see jews as “white”. They imagine the jew-first state as an outpost of Western civilization, its greatest ally, a bulwark against the muslim them who threaten us.

In fact, when called out directly on this point King defended himself by citing his life-long support for the jew-first state. Steve King shouts down question linking his worldview to Pittsburgh shooter’s | The Times of Israel:

Iowa Republican, who has been accused of supporting white nationalism, defends himself by pointing to his support of Israel

. . .

“Do not associate me with that shooter,” King interrupted, pointing at the questioner. “I knew you were an ambusher when you walked in the room, but there is no basis for that and you get no question and no answer.”

When the questioner, speaking calmly, attempted to speak, King said loudly: “No, you’re done, we don’t play those games in Iowa. You have crossed the line. It is not tolerable to accuse me of being associated with that guy who shot 11 people in Pittsburgh. I am a person who has supported Israel since the beginning. The length of that nation is the length of my life and I’ve been with them all along, and I will not answer your question and I will not listen to another word from you.”

The jews attacking King know all about his life-long support for the jew-first state. They condemn him in spite of this support, and specifically for also supporting a future for White babies. Will the pro-Israel community separate itself from Rep. Steve King? | JNS.org:

“Faith Goldy, an excellent candidate for Toronto mayor, pro Rule of Law, pro Make Canada Safe Again, pro balanced budget, &…BEST of all, Pro Western Civilization and a fighter for our values. @FaithGoldy will not be silenced,” tweeted King, who represents his state’s 3rd congressional district.

Members of the pro-Israel community slammed King’s endorsement.

“I fervently condemn any support for despicable, racist white supremacists,” national president of the Zionist Organization of America Mort Klein told JNS. “Congressman King should retract his support of this bigot immediately.”

Professional jews, openly organizing and speaking as jews, are accusing people like King (and Goldy, Gorka, Trump) of being too White, and for that reason attack them. They despise White Western civilization.

To objective observers it might seem bizarre to see professional jews so explicitly directing such bile and vehemence at Whites for being White in our own countries, for merely wanting some semblance of what jews have in their own jew-first state on the other side of the planet. It can only seem all the more bizarre that the people jews most viciously attack have only ever professed their deference and fealty to jews and their jew-first state.

This seemingly bizarre behavior is easily understood. Just accept the nature and substance of the accusation and reverse it. The jews agree there is an us and a them – they just see jews as us and Whites as them. They realize most people mistake jews for “white”, but know they identify as jews first and foremost. You can see them dancing around this distinction whenever they try to jewsplain how they feel about “White privilege”. And you can see it whenever unapologetic supporters of an alien jew-first state brazenly condemn domestic White nationalism.

Coordinated Amplified In-Your-Face Jewing

The full text of their monolithic demands, via The Jewish Chronicle:

Today, Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers — Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and Jewish Telegraph — take the unprecedented step of speaking as one by publishing the same front page.

We do so because of the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.

We do so because the party that was, until recently, the natural home for our community has seen its values and integrity eroded by Corbynite contempt for Jews and Israel.

The stain and shame of antisemitism has coursed through Her Majesty’s Opposition since Jeremy Corbyn became leader in 2015.

From Chakrabarti to Livingstone, there have been many alarming lows. Last week’s stubborn refusal to adopt the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, provoking Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge to call her leader an antisemite to his face, was the most sinister yet.

Labour has diluted the IHRA definition, accepted in full by the government and more than 130 local councils, deleting and amending four key examples of anti-Semitism relating to Israel.

Under its adapted guidelines, a Labour Party member is free to claim Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour and compare Israeli policies to those of Nazi Germany, unless “intent” – whatever that means – can be proved. “Dirty Jew” is wrong, “Zionist bitch” fair game?

In so doing, Labour makes a distinction between racial anti-Semitism targeting Jews (unacceptable) and political anti-Semitism targeting Israel (acceptable).

The reason for this move? Had the full IHRA definition with examples relating to Israel been approved, hundreds, if not thousands, of Labour and Momentum members would need to be expelled.

With the government in Brexit disarray, there is a clear and present danger that a man with a default blindness to the Jewish community’s fears, a man who has a problem seeing that hateful rhetoric aimed at Israel can easily step into anti-Semitism, could be our next prime minister.

On 5 September, Labour MPs vote on an emergency motion, calling for the party to adopt the full IHRA definition into its rulebook.

Following that, it will face a binary choice: implement IHRA in full or be seen by all decent people as an institutionally racist and anti-Semitic party. After three deeply painful years for our community, September is finally make or break.

These jews are shamelessly singling out and demanding privileged treatment for jews, in terms spelled out by jews, solely because they are jews. The Labour party has in fact already conceded on all these points. The increasingly hysterical screeching of these jews, as if they are victims of some injustice, is aimed at extending the privileged treatment even to jews who are openly acting as agents of a foreign state.