Tag Archives: religion

“Wokeness” is a Jew Construct

Here’s another professional jew claiming responsibility, connecting the dots between BLM, liberalism, and the Enlightenment. Recounting the “song of jew history” (the jew version of history, the eternal screech), he jewsplains how jews with a particularist “jew lives matter” idea always foremost in their own minds “practically invented” the toxic universalist ideas which have repeatedly killed their hosts.

Zionism is the Jewish Black Lives Matter – The Forward:

Throughout history Jews have tried the “all lives matter” argument. We brought the idea of ethical monotheism to the world — under the foundational beliefs that all humans are created in the image of God. In a world dominated by social hierarchies, the early Israelites and prophets railed against this unjust caste system, starting a long process of moral progression. We practically invented the idea of “all lives matter.”

According to Jewish tradition, we then tried teaching this to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans – yet their hostility towards others, specifically us, went unstopped. We engaged in medieval debates with the Christain hegemony, making the argument that all humans are inherently valuable and godly. Yet the libels, pogroms and scapegoating never ceased.

Finally, we thought after the Enlightenment that anti-Semitism would soon be over. Finally the world recognized that all lives matter — that people have fundamental and unalienable rights that need not depend on color or creeds. Yet we all know how that worked out.

. . .

The “all lives matter” song of Jewish history slowly stopped and was replaced by “Jewish lives matter.” A state for the Jews, in our historic and indigenous homeland, where we can govern and protect ourselves, cultivate our tradition and keep it alive, and be a refuge for any Jew in trouble. Yes — Zionis mis the ultimate claim that Jewish lives matter.

Jews have come to the difficult but important realization that we need to occasionally thrust aside universalism in favor of particularism. We understand that while we need to be constantly dedicated to global and universal issues, Jewish-specific education and protection is paramount to our well-being. We have no issue proudly advocating for the fact that “Jewish lives matter.”

Because of this, we don’t just have a moral imperative to support Black Lives Matter. We have a personal one. The same history and values that inspire me to be an outspoken Zionist underpin my support for Black Lives Matter.

Our prophets teach that in Messianic times the entire world will come together in a monolithic utopia where there is no more strife or war. Until then, we need to be on the frontlines of racial justice and yes, that means rejecting broken and ineffective claims such as “All Lives Matter.”

“Messianism” is jewing. The term refers specifically to the shameless jew-serving moralizing with which they have repeatedly turned their host societies inside out and upside down. The current moral panic, “wokeness”, is just the most recent example.

Many jewsmedia pundits have noticed this moralizing. Most critique its religious character, and its war-like character, while ignoring its jewy character. We’re In A Cultural Civil War. It’s Time For Conservatives To Fight Back is a typical “classical liberal” take:

In some sense this is entirely psychological. A relatively small group of radical left-wing activists is using classic cult psychology to wage psychological war against the rest of us. They are the vanguard of what can only be described as a religious movement in America.

Indeed, Black Lives Matter and its attendant ideology contain all the elements of a religion: it promulgates doctrines that are explicitly normative, it has a cosmology and a morality, its claims are not subject to or consistent with scientific proofs. James Lindsay has gone further and described it as a cult, with recognizable and well-established features of a cult such as initiation, indoctrination, and cult reprogramming.

But this is a religious movement unlike any we’ve seen before, because unlike established religions it’s formally secular enough to be allowed into purely secular institutions of public life. This is why the Black Lives Matter agenda and The New York Times’ 1619 Project are being taught openly in our public schools.

We certainly have seen this kind of “formally secular” religion before. Consider the “nazi death camp” and “six million” shibboleths. These Big Lies have been openly taught in public schools for decades. What’s more, jews organized openly as jews stage an annual public spectacle whereby their most useful servants make a pilgrimage to worship jews and recite their cultish beliefs about jewland.

Anything critics say about “the BLM agenda” applies even more so to jewing. No doubt that’s why many of the pundits who might say something critical of blacks decide not to. They’re not afraid of the blacks. They’re afraid of the jews who see “black lives matter” as a proxy for “jew lives matter”. Whites who have already accepted some form of jew worship will find it easier to accept black worship. They need only imagine blacks as their “new jews”. They might feel some cognitive dissonance when jews screech about black “anti-semitism”, but the jewsmedia will surely help them work that out.

Lindsay’s The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness, linked in the Federalist article quoted above, equates the “wokeness” behind BLM to anti-“racism” (another jew construct) and notes its similarity to Christianity (yet another jew construct):

“Christ died for your sins, so you can be forgiven” is a Christian example, and “Be an antiracist. Help us dismantle the system and build a better world” is an “antiracist” example.

Lindsay elaborates upon the emotional and psychological manipulation of “the mark” by “the cult”, but also connects it to Marxism, another “formally secular” bit of jewing:

I know this part gets a little heady, but it’s important. Critical consciousness is, formally, the cult mentality of Karl Marx’s conflict theory. Conflict theory, in briefest explanation, is the idea that society is broken into different groups or classes (for Marx, they were economic classes, and for the Woke, they are social group-identity classes) that are oppressive on one side, oppressed on the other, and in conflict over this. That is, conflict theory is the belief that different social groups in society are always in conflict with one another for power and dominance, and that rather than working together in complex, dynamical ways that can be mutually beneficial, they are at war. A critical consciousness means realizing this and that you are somehow personally complicit in creating the material conditions for that war and need to “do better,” either by renouncing your dominance (if dominant) or by agitating for a full-on revolution (if oppressed).

Critical consciousness is therefore a very cartoonish, us-versus-them reading of the world. This mentality, of course, tweaks various psychological and social impulses in people as described in social identity theory, for example, and dramatically increases what’s called “parochial altrusim.” This means strongly favoring the in-group (here, the cult) and forgiving it for every excess and abuse while becoming overtly hostile to the out-group (here, everyone else in society and society itself) and reading everything it does in the worst light possible. This is obviously core to the present sociological dynamic! It also dramatically increases cult commitment, adding an overtly warlike tenor to the us-against-them mentality, which in critical cults like Wokeness is us-against-the-world.

. . .

To summarize, then, Wokeness is a cult. It might even be, in its broadest functions, a proper religion at this point with a describable and fanatic cult element within it and protected by the relative reasonability of the broader faith. Antiracism, in particular, under its auspices is explicitly framed religiously and with clear patterns of cult initiation written all over it. This is what we’re up against.

This cult mentality Lindsay describes as manifesting in Christianity and Marxism springs from the more ancient and potent “critical consciousness” of jews. They translate their cabalist term “tikkun olam” as “social justice”. It means: “help us dismantle the (non-jew) system and build a better world (for jews)”.

The jews have always had an us-against-the-world mentality, a jews-versus-goyim “reading of the world”. Just a few months ago, amidst the hysteria around coronavirus, before BLM and “wokeness” went viral, jews were shamelessly screeching that “anti-semitism” is the real pandemic everyone should worry about. In that screeching it was clear that they see non-jews as diseased and ever more jewing as the cure.

The Tribe refers to themselves, among themselves, as “The Tribe”. They see themselves as morally and culturally distinct from and superior to non-jews. They see themselves at perpetual war with non-jews. Their primary weapons are emotional and psychological manipulation, using their long-standing dominance of the mass media and academia to constantly accuse non-jews, especially Whites, of oppressing them. The oppression narrative at the very center of “wokeness” isn’t a non-White construct, it’s a jew construct. In the “wokeness” narrative Whites remain the oppressors, the epitome of evil, and the jew role, by definition good, has simply been generalized to include all non-Whites. As jews sometimes put it, the non-Whites are the “new jews”.

“Supercession” is the religious term for this kind of jew-sanctioned, jew-serving extension of jew mentality. There’s a cargo cult quality to other non-Whites trying to ape the jews. This is especially the case with “wokeness”, where the jew role isn’t explicit, making it more likely some goy will lose the plot and either conflate or distinguish Whites and jews in a way that displeases the “fellow oppressed”.

Early in his article Lindsay notes:

The concept of “white fragility” in the antiracist Woke cult is exactly this sort of emotional shakedown. White fragility separates white people and their “adjacencies” into exactly two types: racists (who admit it) and racists (who are too emotionally fragile to admit it).

The concept of “anti-semitism” is where the concept of “racism” and this newer, more precisely-targeted buzzterm “White fragility” come from. “Anti-semitism” is the original “original sin”. The jews separate non-jews into exactly two types of “anti-semite”: those who know, and those who don’t know yet.

Another mainstream “classical liberal” has written pointedly about this jewing-by-other-means without identifying it as such. Andrew Sullivan coyly asks, Is There Still Room for Debate?

The orthodoxy goes further than suppressing contrary arguments and shaming any human being who makes them. It insists, in fact, that anything counter to this view is itself a form of violence against the oppressed. The reason some New York Times staffers defenestrated op-ed page editor James Bennet was that he was, they claimed, endangering the lives of black staffers by running a piece by Senator Tom Cotton, who called for federal troops to end looting, violence, and chaos, if the local authorities could not. This framing equated words on a page with a threat to physical life — the precise argument many students at elite colleges have been using to protect themselves from views that might upset them. But, as I noted two years ago, we all live on campus now.

In this manic, Manichean world you’re not even given the space to say nothing. “White Silence = Violence” is a slogan chanted and displayed in every one of these marches. It’s very reminiscent of totalitarian states where you have to compete to broadcast your fealty to the cause. In these past two weeks, if you didn’t put up on Instagram or Facebook some kind of slogan or symbol displaying your wokeness, you were instantly suspect. The cultishness of this can be seen in the way people are actually cutting off contact with their own families if they don’t awaken and see the truth and repeat its formulae. Ibram X. Kendi insists that there is no room in our society for neutrality or reticence. If you are not doing “antiracist work” you are ipso facto a racist. By “antiracist work” he means fully accepting his version of human society and American history, integrating it into your own life, confessing your own racism, and publicly voicing your continued support.

This suppression orthodoxy is visible in its purest form when jews swarm and screech about “anti-semitism” and “anti-semites”. It’s chilling effect is visible in these jewsmedia pundits describing “wokeness” as if it has no connection to jewing.

Whites “liberals” who display their “wokeness” by saying “black lives matter” are doing the same thing as White “conservatives” waving a jew-state flag and proclaiming that they “stand with Israel”. It is not an act of self-abnegation. Quite the opposite. They are trying to protect and even elevate themselves. Whites who have accepted and internalized the jew lie that race is a social construct may even imagine they can change teams, or “convert”, as if they were jews. Even those who don’t believe the lies understand they can get ahead by mouthing those lies more quickly or convincingly than others.

Job #1 of the jews’ anti-“racist” “work” has been painting Whites as public enemy #1. “Wokeness” is a recent extension of that project, an add-on to “political correctness”, which itself is more aptly described as semitical correctness. The jewing that begat “wokeness” isn’t shrinking or being displaced. It’s adapting and growing.

To be woke is to wake up to the truth — the blinding truth that liberal society doesn’t exist, that everything is a form of oppression or resistance, and that there is no third option. You are either with us or you are to be cast into darkness.

The truth is that liberalism and the Enlightenment belong to an earlier, now obsolete phase of jewing. It was characterized by jews dissimulating as “fellow whites”. This newer phase, the Enrichment, is characterized by jews dropping their “white” mask. In this phase jews are openly screeching as jews, jewsplaining how their jewness sets them apart, how their oppression status outranks any other and thus entitles them to tell non-jews what to think about anything.

The truth is that even the “wokest” non-White goy who somehow vexes jews gets piled on almost as viciously as any uppity White goy. Swarming screeching jews overrule any truth, trump any chimpout. However “nuanced” the pilpul gets when jews try to jewsplain what everyone else should think about “wokeness”, their premise is always the same. They either support it or oppose it because that’s what they think is best for their tribe. That’s the essence of semitical correctness.

Whenever a newer, more cryptic offshoot of jewing intersects an older, more in-your-face form of jewing, the jews on all sides will ensure the former is what gets corrected. Here’s an example:

The BBC has reportedly ordered its television presenters not to wear Black Lives Matter (BLM) badges on air after Campaign Against Antisemitism exposed worrying antisemitism in the movement and its other extreme views emerged.

. . .

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are not surprised that the antisemitic outbursts and revelations of other extremist views from within the BLM movement are causing those who had lent their support to distance themselves. All decent people oppose racism, which is why seeing anti-Jewish racism emerging from within the movement against anti-black racism has been an ugly sight. Prejudice cannot be beaten with more prejudice.”

Here the anti-White teacher is correcting their student.

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”.