Tag Archives: race

Niggers and Kikes, United Against Whites

maher_carmichael_lear

Notice all the cucks and niggers pretending to be offended at Bill Maher’s latest act, calling himself a house nigger. Among other things it demonstrates the power of taboos, how simply uttering certain magic words can unleash a torrent of emotion and vitriol, even if much of it is fake.

The nature of this power is revealed in who censures whom. If political correctness is a war on noticing, as Breezy Steve Sailer often notices, then semitical correctness is the war on noticing jewing. Thou shalt not mention jews or their jewing – that’s the One Strange Trick behind the current prevailing structure of taboos.

This tantrum Maher triggered has everything to do with mistaking him for “white”. In reality he’s anti-White. Indeed, he’s a shape-shifting transracialist mischling, a professional celebrity crypto-jew. He’s an actor-provocateur whose career consists of playing the white-faced minstrel, pissing on White norms while tilting impotently against semitical correctness. His job, couched in snark and irony, is to stake out what is or isn’t taboo and for whom, to spell out the unwritten rules by making an example of himself.

It is the pretense that Maher is “white”, an exemplar of “white privilege”, which makes his use of the word nigger “racist”. It is the white-washing of this jew’s jewing which makes it perfectly semitically correct to loath him. To call him out and loath him for being a particularly toxic jew is the exact opposite, perfectly semitically incorrect, six gorillion times worse than saying nigger.

Just prior to hysteria Maher inspired the jewsmedia was busy promoting a positive attitude about niggers saying nigger. The difference is complementary, not contradictory. Whereas Maher’s shtick is aimed at demoralizing the White goyim, The Carmichael Show strikes a defiant tone aimed at emboldening the black goyim.

The jewsmedia’s PR included this helpful little aside:

The use of the word is not unprecedented – see All in the Family. But that aired “before political correctness,” jewsmedia house niggress Loretta Devine said at NBCU Summer Press Day

Yes, see All in the Family, the icebreaker for prime-time anti-White talmudvision. Bill Maher’s jewing pales in comparison to Norman Lear’s. The old kike is jewing away to this day, ever more openly relishing it as he descends into senility. In May Lear invited Jerrod Carmichael on his podcast specifically so they could say nigger together.

Listening in you’ll notice that the real Carmichael, behind the uppity talmudvision nigger act, is a true jewsmedia house nigger. Jewsmedia jews made him, own his black ass, and he’s happy with the arrangement. More to the point, notice that neither Lear nor Carmichael bother to pretend jews are White.

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen

two_jews_discuss_anti-racism

It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

The Jew Coverup

freud_fraud_anti-white

I stumbled across this coverup of a coverup at Wikipedia. The Freudian Coverup:

The Freudian Cover-up is a theory first popularized by social worker Florence Rush in the 1970s, which asserts that Sigmund Freud intentionally ignored evidence that his patients were victims of sexual abuse.

Early within Freud’s career, he believed that little girls often experienced sexual abuse, since most of his patients were predominantly women and consistently reported childhood instances of sexual molestation. Many of Freud’s patients suffered from a common Victorian diagnosis, hysteria. Since his hysterical patients repeatedly reported sexual abuse, most often naming their fathers as the abusers, Freud drew a causal connection between sexual abuse and neurosis. This became the frame for the seduction theory, in which he pointed to a direct connection between sexual abuse in childhood and adult hysteria. According to Florence Rush, author of The Freudian Cover-up, this repeated and persistent incrimination of fathers by his patients made him uneasy, and led him to abandon the seduction theory.

Freud wasn’t trying to protect fathers, he was protecting his tribe. An Analysis of Freud’s Jewish Identity:

Freud’s early patients were almost exclusively Jewish women, yet there is little mention of this in Freud’s writings. Working with these women, Freud recognized the limitations of electrotherapy, the treatment of choice for mental illnesses such as hysteria, and argued that electrotherapy was successful only because of its suggestive effects rather than because of its actual effect on the nervous system. The missing variable in Freud’s rejection of electrotherapy, as Gilman notes, was the prevailing question in 19th-century medicine: race. Indeed, Freud found, upon his return to Vienna from Paris, that statements about the Jewish predisposition for forms of mental illness were commonplace. In fact, some sought to make a distinction in mental stability between secular and nonsecular Jews. These debates led Freud to abandon the idea of hysteria as an inherited disease with a racial component.

The so-called Freudian coverup happened at about the same time jews generally began abandoning the idea of race and started pushing anti-White “anti-racism” instead, just as an immune response to rampant jewing in Europe, the first truly racially-aware White state, was rising to state power in Germany. What a cohencidence.

The Tuvel Affair

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-”white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”

A Shift in Revulsion

mixed_up

The revulsion at race mixing was transformed into revulsion directed at “nazis”, because jews.

Science. 1973 Nov 23;182(4114):790-6.

Geneticists and the biology of race crossing.

Provine WB.

Abstract

Geneticists in England and the United States clearly reversed their published remarks on the effects of race crossing between 1930 and 1950. The reversal occurred in two steps. First came the change in the 1930′s from a condemnation of wide race crosses to an agnostic view. The second change, from the agnostic view to the belief that wide race crosses were at worst biologically harmless, took place during and shortly after World War II. The entire reversal occurred in the light of little new compelling data from studies of actual human race crosses. The lack of new data is unsurprising. Few geneticists wished to initiate experiments that took three human generations to complete. And controlled race crosses are hard to arrange, even with government grants. What might be more surprising was the willingness of geneticists to make such positive statements about race crossing when they had so little reliable genetic evidence. I interviewed or wrote to ten prominent geneticists who worked on human genetics between 1930 and 1950. Not one believed that new evidence on race crossing was the primary reason why geneticists changed their minds about the effects of race crossing. One plausible explanation, that the rise of “population thinking” (44) caused geneticists to change their minds, does not fit the evidence. Castle was no more of a “population” thinker than East, yet they differed radically in their conclusions about race crossing. What, then, did cause geneticists to change their minds? Most important was the revulsion of educated people in the United States and England to Nazi race doctrines and their use in justifying extermination of Jews. Few geneticists wanted to argue, as had the Nazis, that biology showed race crossing was harmful. Instead, having witnessed the horrible toll, geneticists naturally wanted to argue that biology showed race crossing was at worst harmless. No racist nation could misuse that conclusion. And geneticists did revise their biology to fit their feelings of revulsion. Geneticists’ ideas about the related question of hereditary mental differences between races is perhaps undergoing a similar development to that seen earlier in their ideas about race crossing. In 1951, judging from the response to the Unesco second statement on race and comments in genetics literature, most geneticists agreed with Muller that races probably differed in significant average mental traits. By 1969, when Arthur Jensen advocated this view in his controversial article (45), most geneticists who spoke publicly on the issue had adopted an agnostic position. Knowledge of hereditary racial differences in IQ had scarcely changed since 1951, but society had changed considerably in racial attitudes. It will be interesting to see if during the next several decades geneticists will argue, on the basis of little additional evidence, that hereditary mental differences between races do not exist. I am not condemning geneticists because social and political factors have influenced their scientific conclusions about race crossing and race differences. It is necessary and natural that changing social attitudes will influence areas of biology where little is known and the conclusions are possibly socially explosive. The real danger is not that biology changes with society, but that the public expects biology to provide the objective truth apart from social influences. Geneticists and the public should realize that the science of genetics is often closely intertwined with social attitudes and political considerations.

PMID: 4583525

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse, 2016

shlomo_says_phobia

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics, by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, 27 Nov 2016:

Democratic (((pundits))) are calling on their party to court working-class and non-coastal whites in the wake of this month’s electoral rout. But the Democratic Party is now dominated by identity politics, which defines whites, particularly heterosexual males, as oppressors of every other population in the U.S. Why should the targets of such thinking embrace an ideology that scorns them?

The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party’s ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in “aggressive, racialized discourse,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed. By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a “post-racial, bridge-building society,” according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker. Obama’s post-racial efforts have now “given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation,” writes Baker, in a front-page “news” story.

[Ta-Nehesi] Coates’s melodramatic rhetoric comes right out of (((the academy))), the inexhaustible source of Democratic identity politics. The Democratic Party is now merely an extension of (((left-wing))) campus culture; few institutions exist wherein the skew toward Democratic allegiance is more pronounced. The claims of life-destroying trauma that have convulsed (((academia))) since the election are simply a continuation of last year’s campus Black Lives Matter protests, which also claimed that “white privilege” and white oppression were making existence impossible for black students and (((other favored victim groups))).

Hillary Clinton employed classic Democratic “racialized discourse” throughout the campaign. During a Democratic presidential primary debate in January 2016, Clinton agreed that it was “reality” that police officers see black lives as “cheap.” In a February debate, she accused Wisconsin, along with other states, of “really systemic racism” in education and employment. In July she called on “white people” to put themselves in the shoes of African-American families who “need to worry” that their child will be killed by a police officer. When Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” who belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” she was speaking the language of (((the academy))), now incorporated into (((the Democratic worldview))).

Mac Donald attempts to spin the conflict as a black war on Whites, but the Clinton campaign was speaking the anti-White language of jews.

See also: Decoding the Racial Political Discourse (2012).

Why Dylann Roof is RIGHT! – Whites UNDER-REACT to Racial threats

dylann_roof_100_1644

Rather than making a podcast of my own this week, I’m going to urge you to listen to this one instead. It was originally posted on YouTube. All I’ve done is carve out the unique commentary (leaving out the several other short videos the author attached to the end of his) and transcode the audio to MP3 (leaving out the author’s image slideshow). If you can, I encourage you to watch the whole thing in its original form.

As I described when I first linked the video a few days ago, this podcast contains some very sobering testimony from a White man in Africa, a Boer. Dedicating a post to it gives me a chance to say a bit more about it, and a few other Roof-related items and issues.

First off I’ll say that I had never heard from this Boer before, but was curious about what else he had to say and where his podcasts and other work was published. Starting at History Reviewed Channel, on YouTube, it’s apparent that he’s made several other podcasts, before and since this one. From URLs attached to some of them it seems he operates a set of similar-looking websites, including Ban Judaism, AfricanCrisis, AmericanCrisis, and HistoryReviewed. Some of the items on these sites are snippets of private chats, like this one. Some involve “The Editor”, a handle I recalled running across on Twitter, and which turns out to point back to the same person.

Regardless of who this man is, what he has to say in this podcast makes alot of sense. What he says comports, just as the general views attributed to Dylann Roof do, with my own view of reality, sanity, and morality – as far as I can tell, a more or less accurate description of what’s happening and why. I feel compelled to choose my words so precisely and cautiously because there are two strong currents among Whites which put forth more or less opposing views.

The first current, which is to condemn Roof, attacking his sanity and morality, I have already addressed. I consider this current itself to be not only mistaken but worthy of attack. The tragedy is that it’s proponents support and agree with Roof’s motives, but in joining the enemy to condemn Roof’s actions end up undermining themselves, calling into question their own motives and actions.

The second current, which is to dismiss Roof, attacking his reality, and thus by extension the White racial reality, I have not previously addressed. The Boer does so very briefly at the start of his podcast. In my own view this “psyops”/”truther”/”crisis actors” current is also mistaken, but not worthy of attack. More than anything else it is a distraction. It’s true-believing core proponents fundamentally disagree with Roof’s purported motives – at best because they are deracinated, at worst because they are anti-”racists” and jews. They present a false critique of the jewsmedia narrative, providing in fact an astroturf extension of the distortion and confusion the corporate jewish media creates, toward the same anti-White ends. In other words, they are part of, or at least participating in, the larger “psyop” they complain about. In this case I think the tragedy is in some jew-wise White racialists lending this surreal phenomenon credence and attention.

The authenticity of Dylann Roof, the Boer, and even myself is something Whites must judge for themselves. A measure of skepticism is normal and healthy, and I think Whites could use more of it when dealing with anything coming from the jewsmedia or academia. I think that if anything Whites underestimate the jews, their perfidy, and the confusion they very deliberately create around race, politics, and history.

That said, I’ll repeat that the manifesto attributed to Roof and the commentary coming from the Boer both strike me as authentic. If either are in fact coming from jews, who are presumably trying to discredit pro-White motives by tying them to violent acts, then they are failing. If it is jews, then they are doing a good job, making so much sense, that they do a bad job of discrediting White racial consciousness. My argument against the Roof-condemners is that they discredit themselves by arguing in terms of a morality or sanity they otherwise demonstrate they do not actually believe. My argument against the Roof-disbelievers is that they discredit themselves by arguing for a measure of skepticism and consciousness they otherwise demonstrate they do not practice.

The Boer well describes the current zeitgeist in Africa and America. Though he doesn’t identify it as such, he describes the jew’s oppression narrative behind this zeitgeist, driving it morally and ideologically, consistently excusing non-Whites and blaming Whites for everything, no matter the circumstances.

The Boer’s main point, with which I concur, is that the essence of “liberal”/jew power is lying, the con job, fraud. To that he adds the point that behind their dishonest rhetoric and argument they have other, hidden interests and loyalties at heart – either involving themselves personally, their employer, or non-Whites (and jews) more generally. That White “liberals” are race traitors, a worse kind of enemy compared to blacks. That their nightmare is that enough Whites will recognize that the threat posed by their lies is real, has to be taken seriously and stopped, especially by resorting to violence. And finally, based on his personal experience with the course of events over the past 60 years in Africa, he opines that “right-wing”/racialist Whites have failed because they have underestimated the extent and gravity of the situation, whereas the “liberal”/jew lying, and especially guilt-tripping, has been ruthless, and with devastating effect.

The Boer understands more about the jews than he lets on in his podcast about Roof. In another podcast, published just before Roof’s reprisal, he shares his attempt to describe the jewish problem to a friend. Whites colonised Blacks; Jews colonise Whites! – JEWS 101: Introduction to the Jewish problem puts it in a pithy way that any White should be able to comprehend, but especially those Whites outside Europe, for whom the colonialism guilt-trip hits closest to home. I would describe the relationship as parasitism rather than colonialism, and trace it back far beyond Spain 500 years ago, but the way the Boer sees and describes it is definitely on the right track. The colonialism analogy is perhaps even better for persuading someone who is still under the influence of Christianity, or finds an understanding rooted more in sociology than biology more appealing.

The Boer identifies two analogues to Roof – Anders Breivik, with whom most Whites are at least somewhat familiar, and Barend (Hendrik) Strydom, a Boer with whom most Whites outside of Africa are probably completely unfamiliar. As the various articles on the murderpedia.org page make clear, Christianity played an important role in Strydom’s mindset, which he shared with his family and the larger Boer White nationalist group to which he belonged. I found these passages particularly interesting:

By the time (Barend) Hendrik Strydom was sixteen he was already a member of a number of extremist right-wing organisations and had visions of an all-white nation being established in South Africa. He claimed to have attended a veldschool in Standard 8, where he had been warned against the communist system as well as drug and alchohol abuse. “We were taught to be proud of our country,”he said. “I began to read many books on politics in South Africa and also attended right-wing meetings. They were the only true political movements – unlike the Nationalist government which lies to the people.” He saw some of the reform movements introduced by the government as a ,sell-out. His views were encouraged by his father, Mr Nic Strydom, an ex policeman, an elder in the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk, and a former regional leader of the Heidelberg Afrikaaner Weerstands beweging (AWB). Mr Nic Strydom would later claim proudly in court that he had ‘planted the seeds of religion and right-wing political views’ in his son’s heart. He also maintained that his son was a dedicated churchgoer and a person who strongly believed in God. “I explained to him that, according to the Bible, each nation should have its own church and religion, which Hendrik accepted whole heartedly.” It was also Mr Strydom’s belief that ‘blacks were animals’. “Blacks are not human beings according to the Bible, and many books I have read, and in my eyes they are animals. Many books Hendrik and I have read state, among other things, that Jews of today are not whites, blacks are animals and all whites stem from the Israelites,” Mr Strydom added.

“I became more aware of the enemy, especially people belonging to the left-wing organizations such as the United Democratic Front and the so-called Workers Union and their affiliated organizations, which were all African National Congress front movements.” He saw the actions, which the government was taking to combat internal rebellion as ineffective and began to fear that South Africa was going to the communists.

Despite this realization, Strydom selected random blacks as targets, not White/jew communists. More important, he never expressed regret or otherwise betrayed himself, his cause, or his people:

On Wednesday, 17 May, Mr Justice Louis Harms found Strydom guilty on all counts and called for arguments in mitigation of sentence. “I see what I did as totally correct,” Strydom declared the following day. “If I had to do it again I would do the same thing”. When questioned about the Wit Wolwe movement, Strydom maintained that it had been established in February 1986, but would give no further details. The police claimed that investigations indicated that the Wit Wolwe was merely a figment of Strydoms imagination. When it was put to the accused that he was bragging in an attempt to make himself important, Strydom denied this.

Even more important, his family and his people, the Boere, did not abandon or betray him:

In a press interview given a few days after the sentencing, Mr Nic Strydom told reporters: “I’m proud of Hendrik because he sacrificed himself for his beliefs. He is an honest man and I respect him for that. He killed for love the love of a nation.”

Contrast this with Roof’s family, one of which supposedly expressed an eager desire to condemn and even “push the button” himself, not only before the trial, but before he could possibly have known hardly anything about what had happened or why. And though they should have been, knowing what they know, the many pro-Whites who similarly rushed to condemn Roof were really no better in this regard.

More about the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, or Afrikaner Resistance Movement:

The AWB was formed in 1973 by Eugène Terre’Blanche and six other far-right Afrikaners. Terre’blanche remained the leader until he was murdered on his farm in 2010.

The AWB flag is composed of three black sevens (forming a triskelion) in a white circle upon a red background. According to AWB, the sevens, ‘the number of JAHWEH’, ‘stand to oppose the number 666, the number of the anti-Christ’. Red is considered to represent Jesus’ blood, while black stands for bravery and courage. The inner white circle symbolises the “eternal struggle”, or according to other sources “eternal life”.[30] The flag bears a resemblance to the Swastika flag used by the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany.

In the case of Strydom and the AWB, Christianity posed no moral obstacle to their racialism and even the use of violence in pursuit of their survival as a people. Likewise for some black nationalists, like the New Black Panthers. See, for example, Malik Shabazz Calls On Charleston Crowd To Finish “Mission” Killing “Slave Masters”. Shabazz urges violence and alludes approvingly to the black adoption of the oldest of jewish lies, their slaves-in-Egypt narrative.

Contrary to those White racialist naysayers who argue that it’s impossible to simply replace the jews in “what’s best for the jews”, in one way or another this is what nearly everyone actually does. It goes well beyond the confused racialism of black and White Christians who spell out their we-are-the-real-jews substitution more or less explicitly. Even those secular “liberal” (which includes most “conservative”) Whites who wouldn’t recognize it as such justify themselves with a mutation and expansion of the jewish moral code, a concern for “what’s best for jews/non-Whites”, which may in part even be sincere, but most of which is just a disguise for a narrower, “what’s best for myself”.

Dylann Goes Through the Roof

dylann_roof

“You rape our women and you’re taking over our country.” – Dylann Roof

It seems a White man has finally fired back in the decades-long war on Whites. The motive Roof purportedly stated, as relayed in early reports, is quickly being buried beneath a public outpouring of loathing aimed at Whites more broadly. The anti-White hostility is coming largely from non-Whites, of course, but much of it is also coming from deracinated Whites, and some even from racially-aware Whites, who should know better.

That much of this hostility originates from and is amplified by the jewsmedia is really just a consequence of jew rule, one indication that “they” have already taken over “our” country. Yet, in spite of the jewsmedia’s modus operandi, their usual attempt to bury what they can and distort what they can’t, a more or less fuzzy awareness of the harm caused by non-Whites still somehow seeps into some White heads.

Some of that awareness comes via first-hand experience. Some by word-of-mouth. The majority is undoubtedly spreading via social media and the internet more generally. Likewise what we know about Roof. At this point it’s difficult to know exactly what Roof thought. We should discover more during his trial, assuming he is ever afforded an opportunity to speak. Frankly, I wonder less about why Roof acted as he did than why there aren’t more Whites doing so. I don’t wonder if the jews will let a good crisis go to waste rather than using it as a pretext to ban the “hate” speech and guns they’re always looking to ban anyway.

For the jewsmedia it hardly matters that Roof appears White and is at least somewhat racially conscious. Their anti-Whiteness is ineffable and irrepressible. This was evident, for example, in the anti-White assumptions and speculations that they so freely expressed about the Beltway snipers and the Boston bombers before the perpetrators were identified. In George Zimmerman’s case they maintained their anti-White narrative even after it was visibly demonstrated to be false. With Roof they’ve only finally found the Great White Perp they’ve long been crying about. And even in this case, what Roof is accused of pales in comparison to the mountain of White casualties who have been targeted quite deliberately for rape, beatings, and murder by non-Whites. The jewsmedia derides and minimizes even the most common and blatant portion as “the Knock-out Game” – it’s just a game, goyim, only “racists” care about such things.

It’s also hardly surprising that non-Whites in general, who usually have nothing more to whine about than “micro-aggressions” and “cultural appropriation”, are once again suddenly interested in appropriating the White concept of justice from the “White supremacist” “oppressors” they insist on living amongst. Even when it’s one of their own who stands accused they think, speak, and organize monolithically, along racial lines – so there really is no difference here. As absurd as they may believe race is, they’ve accepted their assigned place in the jew-led anti-White “people of color” coalition. Nobody really cares what they think, especially not in the judaized overclass. And Whites shouldn’t.

What disturbs me most about the shooting is the reaction of Whites. I understand that most Whites are deracinated. They feel leaderless and powerless, able only to witness with a vague foreboding what they see going on around them. They may understand that something has gone horribly wrong in what used to be their country, but they’re too busy or afraid to think too deeply about it. They hear the drumbeat of the anti-White jewsmedia, but don’t consciously associate the animus as coming from the jews. To the extent they even think about jews they imagine them as some exotic kind of “white”. Thus when they hear the jewish narrative blaming all the problems on “racism”, effectively blaming Whites and only Whites, they internalize and adopt that poisonous attitude as their own. The demoralizing, pathological effects of this are visible every day, not only in the jewsmedia headlines, but on the internet, and in our face-to-face interactions with family and friends.

Among the most disturbing reactions are those coming from some race-aware Whites, as if their main concern is to openly condemn Roof or his actions. Perhaps they believe this will help either themselves or Whites generally. It won’t. They know, or should know, about the jewsmedia poison. That non-White anti-White hostility is implacable. That Whites need positive, unapologetic leaders. That White concerns and morality, starting with the very definition of right and wrong, can only be legitimately rooted in what is healthy or unhealthy for Whites, as a group. That the utopian “liberal” (now “conservative”) dream of creating a race-blind society has not only failed, but can never work, no matter how hard Whites try. That non-Whites, led by the hyper-self-interested jews, wouldn’t let it work even if it could, even if Whites foolishly continued to try to include and tolerate everybody. That instead Whites are being destroyed in the attempt.

In fact, the clearer the disastrous outcome, the clearer the complicitly of those who do nothing to reject and oppose it, let alone join in the anti-White chorus.

Dylann Roof didn’t cause any of this to happen. His actions haven’t made any of it worse either, but only concentrated and revealed the anti-White miasma that what was already there. Like a lightning rod. How everyone else reacts when the lightning strikes is their own choice, and their own responsibility.