Tag Archives: politics

Blog

How Jews Jewsplain Jewing

10 Comments

the_nose_knowsHow do you define anti-Semitism? It’s complicated.:

“[T]he JCC bomb threat hoax wasn’t just an isolated swastika daubing — it was an ongoing story affecting Jewish institutions in nearly every American Jewish community. It shaped a communal narrative that something ugly and insidious was happening out there. And it fueled a political crisis among most American Jewish organizations and the White House, with the former accusing the latter of taking too long to denounce anti-Semitism and to comfort Jews traumatized by the bomb threats and at least two major cemetery desecrations.”

Kadar, 18 at the time of his arrest in April, “deserves” the dubious distinction for another reason: He personifies a Jewish question, perhaps the Jewish question of 2017, which is, “How do you define anti-Semitism?” Kadar’s circumstances are of course peculiar to him, asking if a series of hoaxes that terrified Jewish institutions stop being anti-Semitism because the caller is Jewish. The question I am talking about is both semantic and political, pitting left against right on at least two battlegrounds.

“Anti-semitism” is defined by jews. In practice the term denotes anything one or more jews don’t like, as jews. They have difficultly acknowledging this, but it’s not because they can’t agree on what they don’t like. The difficultly arises from what they do agree on, which is that “anti-semitism” is entirely a goyim malfunction and has nothing whatsoever to do with jews jewing. This assertion of theirs is both essential to and contradicted by the way they acutally brandish the term, like a weapon, using their imagined victimhood to justify their aggression, to excuse whatever harm jewing causes non-jews.

Kadar is an excellent example. Jews screeched and jews profited, non-jews weren’t involved except as subordinates. The “anti-semitism” was nothing more than a supposed failure of the kikeservative-in-chief to service the jews when and how they expected. The only question jews ask is how far they can ride their loxism.

Left-leaning groups — on campus and on the outside — worry that labeling even hostile political rhetoric as hate speech puts Jews on the wrong side of the free speech debate. They say that a tool that has only recently been applied to anti-Semitic activity on campus — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — takes too broad a brush in defining anti-Semitism and ends up blaming legitimate critics of Israel of creating an “unsafe” environment for Jewish students.

Two of the most active groups in promoting the use of Title VI — the Zionist Organization of America and the Lawfare Project — are on the right.

The jews define “hate” too, primarily as a pretext to restrict what anyone else can say or do about what they don’t like. The cry-out-in-pain-as-you-strike nature of jew aggression becomes obvious whenever they try to formulate a precise meaning for “anti-semitism”, and especially when they read it into ostensibly secular liberal law.

The pantomime of left-jew versus right-jew serves as a thin disguise for the fact that Title VI is simultaneously promoted and exploited by jews. The upshot is that the supposed anti-discrimination law is interpreted to discriminate jews from Whites. Organized jewry wants Whites trying to be White criminalized as “hate”, while at the same time they demand their jewing be specifically privileged and protected. The courts, the schools, the corporations, all dance to jewry’s tune.

On the political front, the anti-Semitic debate broke in almost exactly the opposite way: The left was quick to label President Donald Trump as a fomenter of anti-Semitism and some of his aides and minions as anti-Semites outright. The failure of the White House to name Jews in its formal statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day — like Trump’s tepid condemnation of the racist and anti-Semitic marchers at Charlottesville — was not just an inadvertent mistake, many on the left reasoned, but a dog-whistle to the nationalist, and sometimes racist and anti-Semitic, right that supported Trump.

On the political front, the jews kick and the kikeservatives lick. White voters, deracinated and demoralized, too forgiving and forgetful, get only disingenuous dog-whistling. The jews, hyper-ethnocentric and ever-moralizing, never forgiving or forgeting, swiftly swarm to pillory any figurehead who steps over one of their many semitically correct lines.

Charlottesville demonstrated that Whites cannot freely assemble and speak, as Whites, in public. The swift and hysterical reaction from the local, state, and federal governments, officially condemning Whites because “anti-semitism”, demonstrated that Whites and jews are poltical opposites. Decades of phoney judicial dancing around race and privilege have suddenly been supplanted by explicit executive and legislative proclamations that the regime is officially anti-White out of deference to jews.

The ongoing chutzpathic attempt to invert this reality, to portray the kikeservative-in-chief as a tool of “anti-semites” rather than jews, merely reflects how thoroughly jewed the media and current political system are. Trump viciously counter-attacks anyone who attacks him. Everyone but the jews. When the jews kick, Trump licks.

Or maybe it’s not such a new phenomenon after all, because behind the debate are a familiar series of issues that have long divided the Jewish activist class: tikkun olam vs. “peoplehood”; universal justice vs. particularist priorities; a broad human rights agenda vs. a narrower focus on Israel. A polarized political climate only created the conditions for divides that were there all along.

Their toxic “communal narrative”, their hoax culture, their intersectional jewing, their left-vs-right dissembling, their constant screeching and gesticulating. No, none of this is new, only more blatant. To jewsplain their virulent collective behavior jews pretend it’s more complicated than it actually is, moaning about the divisiveness they themselves manufacture. Behind it all is the same old game – two jews, three opinions how to jew.

Blog

Barrage on Farage

34 Comments

farage_thanks_jews

Nigel Farage: ‘Jewish lobby’ has disproportionate power in the US.

Farage is about to get the Hagel treatment. The jews, who have tirelessly organized and lobbied to codify the conflatation of jews and Israel, are screeching that Farage has…conflated jews and Israel while noticing they organize and lobby. Under jew rule speaking about jew power is a criminal offense.

Like any good kikeservative, Farage will likely attempt to atone by humiliating himself. This would involve loudly professing that he is not a “racist”, has always especially loved the jews, their lobbying, and their state, maybe while visiting one or more of the many prominent places of jew-worship and sliding a pile of shekels their way. The jews will then undoubtedly return to demonizing him, and he will return to acting as if they don’t exist except when told to speak or perform some service for them. As usual.

Blog

Jews Celebrate Victory in France

20 Comments

jews_jewing_jewishly

The anti-French sentiments of jews have been most frankly expressed in the jewsmedia aimed at jews.

Big in Israel: Macron captures 94 percent of French-Israeli vote – Israel News – Haaretz.com:

Many French-Israelis said they voted because they feared a Le Pen victory. Le Pen’s threat to strip French-Israelis of their dual citizenship stoked anxiety, and many feared that a Le Pen victory could spell trouble for their Jewish friends and relatives left behind in France.

French-Israelis vote overwhelmingly for Macron | The Times of Israel

French Jews ‘relieved’ Macron won but worried over Le Pen’s electoral gains | The Times of Israel

Saying ‘anti-Semitism defeated,’ Israelis fete Macron victory | The Times of Israel:

“I look forward to working with President Macron and together to take on the shared challenges of our two democracies,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement which included his congratulations.

“One of the greatest threats facing the world today is extremist Islamic terror, which carries out attacks in Paris, Jerusalem and many other cities around the world. Israel and France have a long-standing alliance and I am sure that we will continue to deepen our connections,” said Netanyahu.

Likud MK Oren Hazan, a brash backbencher who had publicly supported Le Pen and alleged that others in the ruling party did as well, was silent in the immediate aftermath of the results Sunday night. Hours before the results were announced, he wrote on Facebook that victory for Macron would be a disaster.

“If France becomes the first European-Islamic power, then it will be impossible to undo and Jews… will not be able to walk around there at all,”

However, most in Israel had opposed Le Pen, who finished with only 3 percent or so of the vote among expats in Israel in the first round of voting.

Similar sentiments have been expressed in more cryptic form in the jewsmedia aimed at non-jews.

(((Anti-Trump))) jew Yascha Mounk declared victory in France, but reminded his readers the broader war on Whites is not over yet. Four reasons not to be cheered by Emmanuel Macron’s defeat of Marine Le Pen:

Finally, and most important, a lot of the commentary on the rise of populism is treating the success of candidates such as Trump as though they were the result of a mysterious virus that might subside just as quickly as it spread. But to make this argument is to close our eyes to the fact that the current challenge to the political system has been steadily growing over time—which suggests that it has deep, structural causes.

There continues to be real debate as to just what these causes are. But there are some obvious candidates: Over the past decades, the living standards for most ordinary citizens have stagnated in both North America and Western Europe. Countries on both sides of the Atlantic have had to deal with high levels of immigration while overcoming deeply entrenched racial hierarchies that privileged whites over everybody else. At the same time, they have seen a growing chasm between affluent urban centers and a stagnant periphery, which feels increasingly neglected. To halt the rise of populism, moderate politicians will have to find answers to these immense challenges.

(((Anti-anti-Trump))) jew Marc Thiessen also declared victory in France, and jewsplained why this is good news for Trump-supporting jews. Le Pen’s defeat is good news for Trump:

The media are framing the defeat of Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election as a defeat for President Trump and his brand of populist nationalism.

Then there is the cloud of anti-Semitism that hangs over Le Pen’s National Front. At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum National Days of Remembrance ceremony, Trump delivered a strong denunciation of Holocaust denial, declaring that “there are even those filled with such hate, total hate, that they want to erase the Holocaust from history. Those who deny the Holocaust are an accomplice to this horrible evil.”

One of those “accomplices” is Le Pen’s father, who as leader of the National Front dismissed the gas chambers of the Holocaust as a “detail” of history and declared that the Nazi occupation of France was “not particularly inhuman.” Marine Le Pen called another anti-Semitic remark of his a mere “political gaffe” and distanced the party from her radioactive father in a campaign of what she called “dédiabolisation” (or “un-demonizing”) to bring it into the political mainstream.

But recent reminders of the National Front’s anti-Semitism almost certainly depressed her vote. After winning a spot in the presidential runoff in April, Le Pen handed the reins of the party to Jean-François Jalkh, her handpicked successor, who was then forced to step down days later when it emerged that he had praised a Holocaust denier and declared it was “impossible” for the Nazis to have used Zyklon B gas to kill Jews. Le Pen defended him and called the charges a “defamation.”

And there was also Le Pen’s own “gaffe” when she declared that “I don’t think that France is responsible for the Vél d’Hiv” — the infamous 1942 roundup by French police of 13,000 Paris Jews who were interned in a stadium near the Eiffel Tower before being deported to concentration camps. The arrests were carried out not by Nazi occupiers, but by the French themselves. For Marine Le Pen to deny French complicity in this “detail” of the Holocaust suggests that the apple did not fall far from the tree.

There is a big difference between American-style populism and the virulent strain that exists on the European continent. So it is a mistake to read the French election as a rejection of Trump or his agenda. French voters did not cast their ballots for open borders and global supranationalism — rather, they rejected the National Front with all its racist baggage.

Wherever jews live and however they express themselves the vast majority don’t feel any sympathy for Whites, French or otherwise.

Blog

The Politics of Fear, The Psychology of Treason

6 Comments

(((donor class)))

In Fear and Loathing and Treason – Part 1 and Part 2 I discussed the psychological motives and mechanics of the White traitors aiding and abetting the invasion and colonization of Europe by “refugees”.

(((Corey Robin))) has written an article for the Jew Republic, What’s in it For The Collaborators?, getting inadvertently at what I was try to get at more deliberately. I’ve just taken the liberty here of deobfuscating (in the current year even the jews admit “elite” is just code for “jews”) and excerpting those portions which well describe the interplay of host collaboration and jew parasitism:

By conventional understanding, a collaborator is one who assists an enemy, helping groups to which he does not belong threaten groups to which he does belong. But this definition, it seems to me, is too restrictive. It presumes that a group is a discrete whole, that once in it, we can’t get out of it or have competing affiliations. Collaborators, however, cannot be so neatly bound.

Whether we belong to one group or another in some existential sense, in the course of our lives we do incur moral obligations to our comrades and friends, whom we betray when we aid our opponents.

But to avoid the question of identity that restrictive definitions of collaboration entail, I will use the definition contained in the word’s Latin root collaborare: “to work together.” By collaborator, I simply mean those men and women who work with jews and who occupy the lower tiers of power and make political fear a genuinely civic enterprise.

The collaborator confounds our simple categories of jew and victim. Like the jews, the collaborator takes initiative and receives benefits from his collaboration. Like the victim, he may be threatened with punishment or retribution if he does not cooperate.

Many collaborators, in fact, are drawn directly from the ranks of the victims. Perhaps then we can distinguish between collaborators of aspiration, inspired by a desire for gain, and collaborators of aversion, inspired by a fear of loss. The first are akin to jews, the second to victims. But even that distinction is too neat. Jews also fear loss, and victims hope for gain, and as the economist’s notion of opportunity costs attests, the hope of gain often informs the fear of loss.

Collaborators serve two functions. First, they perform tasks that jews themselves cannot or will not perform. These tasks may be considered beneath the dignity of the jews: cooking, cleaning, or other forms of work. They may require local knowledge—as in the case of informers, who provide information jews cannot access on their own—or specialized skills.

Second, collaborators extend the reach of jews into corners of society that jews lack the manpower to patrol. These collaborators are usually figures of influence within communities targeted by jews. Their status may come from the jews, who elevate them because they are willing to enforce the jews’ directives. More often, their authority is indigenous. Figures of trust among the victims, they can be relied upon to persuade the victims not to resist, to compound the fear of disobedience the victims already feel.

Because their functions are so various, collaborators come in all shapes and sizes. Some travel in or near the orbit of jew power; others are drawn from the lower orders and geographic peripheries. One common, though unappreciated, influence upon their actions is their ambition. While some collaborators hope to stave off threats to their communities and others are true believers, many are careerists, who see in collaboration a path of personal advance.

Whether the payment is status, power, or money, collaboration promises to elevate men and women, if only slightly, above the fray.

Though ambitious collaborators like to believe that they are adepts of realpolitik, walking the hard path of power because it is the wisest course to take, their realism is freighted with ideology. Careerism has its own moralism, serving as an anesthetic against competing moral claims. Particularly in the United States, where ambition is a civic duty and worldly success a prerequisite of citizenship, enlightened anglers of their own interest can easily be convinced that they are doing not only the smart thing, but also the right thing. They happily admit to their careerism because they presume an audience of shared moral sympathy.

Blog

The Jew-State Solution

27 Comments

john_kerry

Secretary of State John Kerry’s Remarks on Middle East Peace:

Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region.

Despite our best efforts over the years, the two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy.

The truth is that trends on the ground – violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation – they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want.

Today, there are a number – there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.

Now, most on both sides understand this basic choice, and that is why it is important that polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that there is still strong support for the two-state solution – in theory. They just don’t believe that it can happen.

After decades of conflict, many no longer see the other side as people, only as threats and enemies.

Kerry’s assertion that “Israel can either be jewish or democratic” touched a nerve, causing yids everywhere to flip their lids.

The context provided by Kerry is testimony to the inordinate power jews wield outside Israel, right now, an open admission that a pro-jew mindset prevails at the highest levels of USGOV and distorts policy-making in the most profound ways. The unhinged response from jews – inverting the situation, imagining themselves victims of powerful enemies – serves mainly to distract from the fact that, as usual, the entire argument is all about what’s best for the jews.

As infuriated jewess Mona Charen put it in Stupid Anti-Israel Policy, there are so many ways the stupid goyim could be better serving the jews:

The world is aflame with threats and instability, yet Kerry and Obama, petulant leftists with an Israel fixation, could not resist this last kick in the teeth to the region’s sole democracy. They knew it would harm Israel’s moral standing – now the delegitimizers can claim that Israel is in violation of “Security Council” resolutions – and give an unmerited win to the Palestinians. Perhaps most infuriating of all, they claim to be doing it all for Israel’s own good.

Kerry presents “democracy” and the jew ethnostate as two mutually exclusive ideas, as if jews will some day have to choose one or the other. Yet the two ideas are best understood as complementary outgrowths of the same whatever’s-best-for-the-jews premise. The political reality is that the jews have their ethnostate, and its form of government, whatever anyone might call it, has been and will continue to be decided exclusively by jews. When apologists like Charen emphatically advertise Israel as “the region’s sole democracy” all they’re really saying is that they see it as the duty of everyone else’s “democracy” to serve this jew ethnostate. The “two-state solution” Kerry prefers is moot. It’s not good enough for the jews, who see no compelling reason to concede anything to their enemies. They already have a “two-state solution” – their ethnostate and a USGOV which serves them too.

Ezra Pound is purported to have noted that “democracy is now currently defined in Europe as a country run by jews”. It fits this jew ethnostate, overtly run by jews, just as well. Where Kerry and other “petulant leftists” get hung up is in the pretense there is any more sensible definition.