Sunday, December 08, 2013
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Ding Dong, Mandela's Dead
The broader jewsmedia brims with sorrow for the "civil rights leader", who for decades has been THE black poster boy for the judaized internationalist elite. Mandela was of course a "civil rights leader" only in the ironic sense that his name and face embody the idea that Africa is for the Africans. "Civil rights" means non-White rights.
You see, the judaized internationalist elite plainly doesn't have a problem with majority rule, or minority suffering, as long as it involves non-Whites ruling over Whites. It is just a corollary of the deeper law of "civil rights" illustrated by Israel, or for that matter anywhere else on the planet, whereby the rule of any number of jews over any number of non-jews is sacrosanct, and any challenge a sacrilege.
How Enemies Treat Enemies
The charge most often levelled against White nationalists is that they're "supremacists" who seek to exclude, ban, imprison or otherwise impinge upon others. Many Whites make the mistake of thinking this charge stems from the violation of some general principle against exclusion, banning, or imprisoning people on the basis of their race or beliefs.
But at times the mask slips, and it's clear that the current ruling judaized globalist regime regards banning and so forth to be a perfectly proper and acceptable way to treat their enemies. The real charge against White nationalists, as evident in the report above, is that any subset of Whites organizing politically to do what's best for themselves, separate and apart from others, is bad because it is "anti-semitic"/"racist", i.e. bad for jews and other non-Whites. By citing "anti-semitism" in addition to and distinct from "racism" the ruling regime is just making it crystal clear that for them the overriding principle is that the best interests of the jews come before anyone or anything else.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
"Anti-Semitism" as Racial Animus
Understanding the book’s unique argument enables us to understand why Netanyahu chose to give such an ostensibly undiplomatic gift to the Pope. The Times recounts:
As a historian, Mr. Netanyahu reinterpreted the Inquisition in “The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain” (1995). The predominant view had been that Jews were persecuted for secretly practicing their religion after pretending to convert to Roman Catholicism. Mr. Netanyahu, in 1,384 pages, offered evidence that most Jews in Spain had willingly become Catholics and were enthusiastic about their new religion.
Jews were persecuted, he concluded — many of them burned at the stake — for being perceived as an evil race rather than for anything they believed or had done. Jealousy over Jews’ success in the economy and at the royal court only fueled the oppression, he wrote. The book traced what he called “Jew hatred” to ancient Egypt, long before Christianity.
In other words, Ben Zion Netanyahu’s argument shifted the root blame for the Inquisition from religion to ingrained racial animus–from the spiritual to the secular. If one was going to give the pope a book about the Inquisition, then, this would be the one. Moreover, not only does the book’s revisionist reckoning partially absolve Christianity for Spanish persecution of the Jews, it offers a contemporary message of pressing relevance. At a time when Christian anti-Semitism has receded–evidenced not least by the friendly relations between the Vatican and the state of Israel–secular and racial forms of anti-Semitism have been on the rise, particularly in Europe, where a nearly a quarter of Jews say they are afraid to publicly identify as Jewish. The anti-Semitism diagnosed by Ben Zion Netanyahu is alive and well.
In other words, the diagnosis of the jews is that racial animus comes entirely from the goyim. This "unique argument" is the same double-talk that Douglas Rushkoff spews.
In trying to shift the root blame away from their parasitism, and particularly to their White hosts, jews try to have it both ways on race. They insist race doesn't exist and the jews aren't biologically distinct. Yet by invoking racial animus to explain "anti-semitism" they are implicitly acknowledging the reality of race and their biological distinctiveness.
Setting aside the self-serving jewish double-talk, "anti-semitism" is best understood as anti-parasitism. It has been the historic reaction of a variety of hosts to jewish infiltration, manipulation and exploitation.
Friday, November 29, 2013
TJB: Sarah Silverman's Thanksgiving Jeer
Happy stealing life & land from a people who only ever knew how to share Day!
She made a similar crack in 2010.
Get the joke? It's ineffably jewish.
The joke is that every jewish holiday is a celebration of outwitting/outplaying/outlasting some other people.
The joke is that the jews have gotten so many of the people around them throughout history to see the jews as the victims.
The joke is that jews jeer like this, for all to hear, all the time, and so many of the people around them still don't get that it's not a joke. It's a taunt from a deadly serious enemy.
Friday, November 22, 2013
He never sought my consent. I never objected.
After a recent exchange I suspect Johnson will no longer have any desire to republish my writing. At any rate, I intend for it to be clear that I now object to it.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
A Year of Age of Treason Radio in Review
Friday, November 08, 2013
Ron Unz is Anti-White
Last year Unz wrote The Myth of American Meritocracy. In it he notes:
elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”
His analysis distinguished jews from Whites (as "non-jewish whites"), but focused mainly on Asians (as "the new jews"). Given his anti-White attitudes, detailed below, this was likely an inoculative effort aimed at replacing more direct complaints on behalf of Whites.
Unz's participation in a recent non-debate about immigration provided a window into the kind of discussions which take place amongst the thoroughly judaized anti-White elite. Here, as usual, Unz comes across as "conservative" only in that he expresses more concern than the other participants to prevent a backlash against that elite:
The reason America in its history, largely avoided the disastrous political results of many European countries is that every decade Americans were wealthier and better off than they were before. That's no longer true today. And it's no longer been true for 40 years now. Allowing an unlimited number of impoverished foreign workers to come to the United States would obviously make that situation incredibly much worse. And the result would be an economic disaster.
It's true that possibly 1 percent or 2 percent or even 5 percent of Americans would benefit tremendously from that change. But probably 90 percent of the American population would suffer economically. And they are the people who vote. They are the people who can protest. And their views would certainly be made known. And the result would be tremendous political backlash. We have to ask ourselves whether one reason for many of the problems we've had in the last few decades economically is because the glorification, the amplification of theoretical concepts that may look very good to pure economic theorists, people basically spend their time in the ivory tower, but don't understand that ordinary workers suffer when their incomes don't rise for 40 years.
The apoplectic response of the south Asian immigrant (whose main concern is that America remain open to south Asian immigrants, even though he says they don't really want to come and the internet makes it unnecessary) was to misinterpret Unz as speaking in favor of the Whites they both see as their enemies, "these Tea Party anti-immigrant people who [go] around creating fear about the billions who are going to invade America and take away our jobs".
Twenty years ago Unz was campaigning to become governor of California, posing as a "conservative" while making the ridiculous argument that the state would be bankrupted not by immigrants but by the effort to cut off benefits to those immigrants. As he demogogued in the Los Angeles Times in 1994:
Most Californians view illegal immigrants as unwanted house guests. One very effective means of getting rid of such guests is to set your house on fire and burn it to the ground. This is Proposition 187's solution to illegal immigration. It would be a financial and social disaster for California, and the worst moral disaster for our state since the internment of Japanese Americans. No decent Californian should support it.
Proposition 187 passed but was never enforced. The will of a majority of California's Whites, including my family, was ultimately nullified by a single judge. As I've noted before, Governor Pete Wilson warned that immigration would bankrupt the state. It did.
For that Wilson is nowadays demonized. Though Unz-like disdain for Whites and White political interests has gone mainstream, Unz himself continues to dissimulate, posing as a rebel. His new website, The Unz Review: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media, includes a reposting of his cover story for Commentary, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, in late 1999. California and the End of White America begins:
Californians of European ancestry—”whites”—became a minority near the end of the 1980s, and this unprecedented ethnic transformation is probably responsible for the rise of a series of ethnically-charged political issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education, as seen in Propositions 187, 209, and 227. Since America as a whole is undergoing the same ethnic transformation delayed by a few decades, the experience of these controversial campaigns tells us much about the future of our country on these ethnic issues.
Our political leaders should approach these ethnic issues by reaffirming America’s traditional support for immigration, but couple that with a return to the assimilative policies which America has emphasized in the past. Otherwise, whites as a group will inevitably begin to display the same ethnic-minority-group politics as other minority groups, and this could break our nation. We face the choice of either supporting “the New American Melting Pot” or accepting “the Coming of White Nationalism.”
Unz sees that mass immigration and forced integration has had a genocidal impact on Whites. His main concern, then and now, is that this genocide continue unimpeded. He is even aware of this criticism. Commenting as "RKU" on Sailer's blog in the wake of Breivik's attack:
One very mainstream but very true explanation of the factors motivating the Oslo guy's rampage was the exceptionally shrill and wild rhetoric found on lots of HDB, anti-Islamic, and quasi-WN websites. Both the management and the commenters are always accusing their political opponents of being "traitors" aiming at the "extermination" of their racial group via a deliberate policy of "genocide." Traitors...extermination...genocide...traitors...extermination...genocide...
So maybe after many years of reading all those websites, the Oslo guy started to actually take all that crazy rhetoric seriously. And if "traitors" really are attempting to "exterminate" your people via a deliberate policy of "genocide", well, shooting as many of them as you can isn't really so unreasonable, is it? As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been "we really, really didn't mean it!!" while the other half has been "great job, Oslo guy!"
Now Norway's on the other side of the world, and there was also an extremely strong Israel/Zionist angle, so the story doesn't seem have legs in the American MSM. But perhaps people should consider that vast numbers of American "activists" read those same "excitable" websites. And if some crazy American guy did the same thing, and massacred a whole campful of Young Democrats because of the all the crazy "traitor---extermination---genocide" rhetoric he'd been reading, well, I suspect that *extremely* bad things would immediately happen to an awful lot of loudmouth bloggers, some of whom probably deserve it and some of whom probably don't. And the MSM barrage would probably ensure that 95% of the public supported doing all those extremely bad things, just like the mass roundups of Muslims after 9/11.
Endlessly shouting "traitor!"---"extermination!"---"genocide!" at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well.
RKU makes the same argument "liberal" jews made about Sarah Palin. His ridicule and fantasies about "extremely bad things" being done to his White enemies also call to mind Tim Wise's drunken tick tock rant.
Jews know better than anyone else how well shouting "genocide!" works. Since WWII they have thrust their holocaust narrative to the very center of Western consciousness - sanctifying themselves while demonizing Whites.
Saturday, November 02, 2013
"White Pathology" on Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn
At 2PM ET this afternoon at the White network Carolyn Yeager and I will discuss Kevin MacDonald's Recently in The Occidental Quarterly: Special Sections on White Pathology.
A related video I've run across is Psychology of White Self Hatred, which is introduced by the speaker, Hugh MacDonald, as: Group Polarization and the Fad of Ethnomasochism. The case is well stated, as far as it goes. My concern with any exposition of "White pathology" is that it sometimes amounts to nothing more than a review of symptoms, with causes left unexplored if not unmentioned.
Whites do not exist in a vacuum. We fail in refusing to acknowledge the role and import of the Other - among other things, the harm of the jewish narrative cannot be countered if it is not recognized.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Controversy over Jack Straw's Comments on Jewish Influence
Former Israeli Knesset Member Einat Wilf was in attendance at the debate and posted Straw’s comments on her Facebook page.
Straw said, according to Wilf, that the greatest obstacles to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and her Arab neighbors are the “unlimited” funds available to Jewish organizations and AIPAC in the US, as well as Germany’s “obsession” with defending Israel.
“I guess he neglected to mention Jewish control of the media…,” Wilf added on her Facebook status.
Indeed. The controversy has to do with the publicly stated belief of a major figure in British politics regarding jewish influence over US foreign policy. It is being widely reported and commented on in the portion of the jewsmedia aimed at jews, and hardly at all in the jewsmedia for non-jews. Non-jewish interests are neither informed nor served by this discrepancy. Wilf implies that non-jews control the media and are responsible for this.
Straw has confirmed and expanded on his statement, explaining that he's trying to help the jews. I'm not remotely anti-Semitic, says ex-British FM Straw, The Times of Israel, 28 Oct 2013:
“I am not remotely anti-Semitic. Quite the reverse. I have all my life strongly supported the state of Israel, and its right to live in peace and security,” Straw wrote in an email.
Lastly, the former foreign secretary said he had addressed “the problems which faced President [Barack] Obama from AIPAC and the ‘Israeli lobby’ more generally.” He said he had “pointed out that Prime Minister Netanyahu was a player in domestic US politics, on the Republican side, and that under US political funding rules (or their absence) huge sums were spent by AIPAC in support of some elected politicians (or candidates), and against others. This is in sharp contrast to the rules in the UK, where spending is tightly controlled,” he wrote.
“None of this is ‘anti-Semitic,’” Straw concluded. “There are plenty of people in Israel who take a similar view to me — not least (as I do) because they believe that the current approach of the Government of Israel will weaken the position of the state of Israel in the medium and long-term.”
This is what passes for criticism of jewish influence in the mainstream political discourse, with controversies like this becoming a regular ritual. However it starts, it quickly boils down to a debate about what's best for the jews. It is a sign not just of jewish influence, but of jewish power. The mere implication that jewish influence is not necessarily what's best for anyone else is immediately drowned out by cries and hand-wringing about "anti-semitism". It is an affirmation of jewish power - the preeminence of jewish interests over all others.
For jews like Jonathan Tobin at Commentary Magazine these sick rituals serve as a pretext to get on his jewsmedia soapbox and explain, to jews and their allies, that jews are really the victims here. In Nothing Legitimate About Anti-Semitic Slur he notes "traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish money and insidious attempts to control the policy discussion" and implies they are "conspiracy theories that are thinly veiled new versions of traditional myths about Jews".
Of course, these regular rituals reinforce these stereotypes about jews. Tobin's screed only adds to the insidious jewish attempts to control the policy discussion. He sees "jew-hatred" and "nasty stuff" in Jack Straw's words, and thinks it "tells you all you need to know about the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe". And it does. Jewish power harms others, creating hatred all around. Tobin, like most jews, simply hates and blames anyone but jews for it.
Tobin claims that "Straw’s charges" "are easily dismissed", asserting that "the vast, wall-to-wall bipartisan coalition that supports the Jewish state is a function of American public opinion, not Jewish money". If that were true there would be more reporting and discussion of Straw's statements in places where American public opinion is shaped. Instead it is restricted almost entirely to jews talking to jews about it. To the extent non-jews are even made aware, it's only to be put on notice that their concerns will not only be ignored, but will be regarded as offensive:
Making such accusations is offensive rather than just wrong because, as Straw knows very well, talking about Jewish money buying government policy is straight out of the anti-Semitic playbook of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The purpose of such claims is not to argue that Israel’s supporters are misguided so much as that they are illegitimate.
Jewish money and lobbying has an obvious effect on government policy. Somebody must be accountable for this, but in the fevered minds of jews like Tobin, it cannot be jews. According to him jewish power is not illegitimate or wrong, recognition and opposition is. He defends jewish power by attacking, crying out in pain as he strikes.
This is perfectly stereotypical behavior for jews. The best hope for change is that others come to see it for what it is and come to the realization that a gang of unscrupulously and unapologetically jew-obsessed jews having such influence over their governments, their media, their finance, cannot be good for them.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Angry Asians Moralizing to Whites about Race and Religion
Evangelical Racism Is Not a Growth Strategy, W. Anne Jah, NYTimes.com - Room for Debate, 27 Oct 2013:
A recent open letter to the Christian evangelical church, signed by a wide array of Asian-American scholars and Christian practitioners, complained of numerous racially offensive incidents in evangelical circles. In yet another sign of callousness, Asian-Americans were initially told, in effect, to “get over it.” Instead, it is U.S. white Christians who must “get over” their whiteness and their failure to see the already changed face of Christian faith.
If U.S. evangelical Protestant churches – now 81 percent white, according to 2012 Pew research – hope to become a more diverse representation of all the people of God, they must respond more positively to constructive criticism like that in the recent open letter.
But persistent use of derogatory racial stereotypes by many white evangelical churches continues to surface in a variety of ways, among leaders, at religious events, in church practices and, painfully often, in church curricula.
It is the conceit of religious white racism to presume that one’s evangelicalism transcends racial and cultural identities, making such “worldly” labels no longer important. The letter reminds church leaders that those identities still matter. White evangelical Christians must stop clinging to an alibi of color-blindness and recognize that vibrant growth within “their” churches has much to do with nonwhite members’ views of them.
"Let us angelic asians into your churches and tell you how to run them, you lying, evil Whites!"
Many Whites, and especially Christians, fancy themselves blind to race. It isn't fooling asians, who are instead following the jewish example, proclaiming how different they are from Whites, whining loudly about how offended they are at not being treated to a different, better standard by "racists".
Monday, October 21, 2013
Jewish Identity: Revolting
The thing that makes judaism dangerous to everybody - to every race, to every nation, to every idea - is that we smash things that aren't true. We don't believe in the boundaries of nation states, we don't believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and judaism really teaches us how to see that.
In a sense our detractors have us right, in that we are a corrosive force. We're breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they're not real, and that's very upsetting to people.
Rushkoff's brief observation calls to mind a similar expression of a similar attitude by Barbara Spectre. Both examples deserve to be better known, especially among those who are either ignorant of or deluded about the nature of jews and their views.
The revolutionary impulse is a long-term and well-established characteristic of jews. But then so is double-talk. When jews aren't bragging about their thirst for destruction they're denying it, trying instead to pin the blame on someone else. This duality is visible even in the very brief statements above, indicating just how closely related the two things are in jewish minds.
Jews imagine themselves victims as a way of justifying their aggression against others. It's always and completely everybody else's fault. Especially White people.
Douglas Rushkoff on returning to religious core values, from 2004, provides a more fleshed out version of this jewish rationale. Starting at 2:21:
Rushkoff: Well, understandably, after a couple of thousand years of persecution in Europe, and after the holocaust, alot of jewish attention went to wondering about how many jews are there, how many of us are left. And there's sort of this mindset of looking at ourselves as an endangered species that needs to be protected. That kind of became a dominant theme in judaism.
And it's understandable that that would happen. But the problem is that the obsession with numbers starts to make the prime jewish directives to fight assimilation, prevent intermarriage, you make sure your son marries a jewish girl so the children will be raised jewish, and the money is spent creating social forums where jews can meet new jews to make other jews. And you go to synagogue and you'll hear the rabbi speaking about these issues of assimilation and protecting jewry.
And it's not the most appealing face for a spiritual path. It's not the most appealing invitation that you're doing judaism in order to help judaism, rather than doing judaism in order to somehow make the world a better place. Which is a much more, it's a more appealing notion, I mean from a marketer standpoint, it's a more appealing notion, it's a better sell. But it's also, it's a more jewish one.
Interviewer: You've even gone further though. You've said this whole notion that jews form a race or a people is a false assumption. Explain that.
Rushkoff: Yeah. It's funny, the first person to talk about the Israeli people - am? Israel - in Torah, is the pharoah. Right? He's the bad guy, and he's doing it because he's scared that these Israelites are gonna replicate too much and then not support him in a war.
The first people to talk about a jewish race were the Spanish during the Inquisition, because so many jews had converted to Catholicism they needed a new reason to hate them. So they said well it's not their religion, it's their blood, you know it's always going to be there.
And finally it was Hilter basterdizing a bit of Carl Jung, who said that, well, the jews have this genetic memory, so even if they're only 1/8th or 1/16th jewish eventually what's going to come out of them is this anti-establishment, kind of anti-fascist, disrespect for the fatherland - so we better kill them.
The problem is that jews ended up accepting this as our truth. You know, that judaiasm which was really born to defy all of these boundary conditions, to defy the notion that, oh, you move to this country and have this religion and believe in that god - that that's ludicrous.
You know, that there's sort of this one god pervades everything, it doesn't matter where you live, that race isn't a real thing - as any geneticist today will tell you that race isn't real - but no, it seems that just as the world is waking up from these obsolete notions of race and nation state, it seems that jews are clinging to it as our sense of meaning, that well we're a people, we're a race, and this is the aspect of judaism we have to defend. And it seems ironic to me because these obsolete notions are part of what judaism was born to dissolve.
One takeaway from my recent series of podcasts examining jewish identity is that the most central tenet of jewishness, at the heart of their "religion", is their belief in themselves as a people. That belief is literally more important than any other, including any beliefs about god. But there's more. The jews are not just a people. They are a parasitic people. They not only thrive at the expense of others, they are acutely aware of it.
This is the reason for their double-talk and denial, dissembling and dissimulation. Rushkoff supplies an excellent example here. He's not just regurgitating someone else's lines. He's thought it through. What the interviewer mistakes as a critique of jewry and denial of peoplehood is actually the opposite. He's offering an apology, advising and excusing jews while blaming other peoples.
Rushkoff's main concern is that his people are making their peoplehood too obvious, and he doesn't think this is good for them. He's disdainful of other people's religions, but favors the pretense that jewishness is about religion because he knows others buy it. Jews, he knows, know better.
To make sense of Rushkoff's statements is to understand that he sees jewish smashing and corroding, dissolving and obsoleting as good and only good when it comes to smashing, corroding, dissolving and obsoleting other peoples and nations. In contrast, he cares about the jews and wants them to continue. He thinks that the best way for them to do it, amidst all the destruction and harm they're wreaking on the nations and peoples around them, is to not flaunt their own nation state and peoplehood so openly.
"Our poison is wonderful!", Rushkoff says about his people, to his people, "Let's not forget how it works and who it's for!"
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Tommy Robinson and Friends Abandon English Defence League, Join Anti-English Regime
Mr Robinson's co-leader, Kevin Carroll, has also opted to leave.
Their decision follows discussions with the Quilliam group, which describes itself as a "counter-extremism think tank".
Mr Robinson said: "I have been considering this move for a long time because I recognise that, though street demonstrations have brought us to this point, they are no longer productive.
"I acknowledge the dangers of far-right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas."
He explained his motives for leaving, telling BBC Radio 5 live's Nicky Campbell: "When some moron lifts up his top and he's got the picture of a mosque saying 'boom' and it's all over the national newspapers, it's me, it's when I pick up my kids from school the parents are looking at me, judging me on that.
"And that's not what I've stood for and my decision to do this is to be true to what I stand for. And whilst I want to lead the revolution against Islamist ideology, I don't want to lead the revolution against Muslims.
"I believe that the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back."
Revolution? A politically incorrect shirt convinced Robinson that the English are not worth defending. What he's on about now is no more revolutionary than Madonna. Indeed, it's about spinning in circles, making a stink about "far-right extremism" while the English are steadily displaced and dispossessed by aliens under the auspices of a genocidal state-sanctioned ideology which celebrates mass immigration and compulsory integration.
Tommy Robinson Stands Down From The EDL, Yahoo News UK, 8 Oct:
"I apologise for the fact that what I've said has not resonated individually with Muslims," he told journalists at a news conference.
"I don’t hate Muslims. Luton is a completely multicultural town and from day one we've wanted to embrace everyone; all colours and creeds.
"I have a passion to combat Islamist ideology and I want to lead a revolution against that ideology, but I don't want to lead a revolution against Muslims."
He added that in order to solve what he sees as the problem of Islamist extremism in Britain, he needs to work with Muslims not against them.
"We had fought for three years to keep fascists and racists out of the EDL. When I attended our demonstration in Manchester I saw White Power flags that didn't represent me.
"Am I willing to be the public face for them? No I'm not.
"I believe that the revolution needs to come from within the Islamic community and they need to stand up. And I believe this is a step forward not a step back."
Mr Robinson and EDL co-founder Kevin Carroll announced their departure through counter-extremism think tank Quilliam.
In contrast, Robinson doesn't mind being photographed in front of Jew Power flags.
"Multiculturalism" is a propaganda term. It isn't about embracing everyone. It's about embracing the colonization of White homelands and eventual replacement of native White people by alien non-Whites. Whatever Robinson thought he wanted to defend when he first formed the EDL, what he's making clear now is that it isn't England or the English people.
This is no surprise. See for example EDL Exposed, a 49 minute presentation wherein British National Party chairman Nick Griffin describes Robinson's close associates and how their neo-conservatism and counter-jihadism contrast with nationalism. What Lies Behind the English Defence League is a 46 page PDF spelling it out in more detail.
In the political discourse of the current regime the simple act of Whites organizing as Whites is regarded "racist", "extremist", and "far-right". Whatever their actual beliefs, leaders like Robinson and Griffin are targeted for pathologization and demonization precisely because they try to organize and lead groups which appeal overwhelmingly to Whites. Tea Partiers get the same treatment in the US. Robinson seems to think he can end the abuse by singing the regime's anti-"racist" tune ever louder. And whatever Griffin is on about, his careful qualifications concerning the jews won't ever spare him from being identified as a "neo-nazi".
Whites are confused and demoralized. What we could use is less apologetic, less compromising leadership which speaks clearly about what's happening, about who the enemy is, and takes to heart that enemy's guiding principle, "Never forgive, never forget".
Robinson's counter-jihadist comrade Baron Bodissey wrote the following at his blog, Gates of Vienna:
The Quilliam Foundation is one of those quasi-governmental entities that exists to serve the purposes of the governing elites. A coordinated strategy involving it would serve to decapitate the EDL, driving much of the membership of the regional divisions into the arms of the BNP. From the point of view of Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband, nothing could be better: the EDL’s effectiveness as street force would be reduced, a renewed BNP would mop up the “Islamophobic” opposition and marginalize them further, and support for UKIP would be weakened.
The BNP is not the real threat to the British Powers That Be — it is widely seen as being an appendage of MI5, and is kept within a cozy anti-Semitic corral like the NPD in Germany, unable to achieve any meaningful electoral success whilst drawing the support of discontented nationalists.
Bodissey and the counter-jihadists he hosts at GoV like to pretend that the Powers That Be are leftists and the biggest problem they're responsible for is islamization. Their diagnosis is suicidal stupidity. Just so. Period. End of story.
It is no coincidence that points of view to the contrary, as with opposition to the ruling regime's agenda, are denounced as "racist" or "nazi" and suppressed. What they don't want to face is that this regime is thoroughly judaized - riddled with jews, part-jews and non-jews who are governed by the same pro-jew/anti-"racist" mindset they are. It isn't possible to oppose this judaized regime in any meaningful way without being "anti-semitic".
Professing love and respect for jews and waving Israeli flags, as the Robinson-led EDL and many counter-jihadists do, is what leftists call dog whistling. They are signalling an implicit recognition of and subordination to jewish power. In spite of this, the EDL and counter-jihadists are still marginalized and regarded as "extremists" even by mainstream conservatives.
What this demonstrates is that the counter-jihadists are more alarmed about islamist "extremism" than the judaized regime is. For the moment the regime is still more interested in solving the White problem once and for all. Counter-jihadists like to talk about Tours and Vienna. They don't like to talk about how the jews in Spain solved their Visigoth problem. The resulting muslim caliphate is what jews to this day refer to as the jewish golden age.
As it turns out, Bodissey's regard for jewish sensibilities hasn't been obsequious enough to please Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer. Each posted nearly identical announcements about Robinson's move (Geller at Atlas Shrugs and Spencer at Jihad Watch) in which their concerns about "fascism" and "anti-semitism" loom larger than anything else, bragging about their influence on Robinson and sniffing dismissively in Bodissey's general direction. Geller writes:
This move has come after many months of deliberation and many years of constant efforts by Robinson and Carroll to prevent the EDL from being infiltrated and co-opted by racists, anti-Semites, fascists, neo-Nazis, and far-right elements. Increasingly, Robinson's time has been taking up with patrolling and policing EDL demos to keep out these infiltrators and far-right ideologues. He has decided, and my AFDI colleague Robert Spencer and I strongly endorse his decision, that his time is better spent working for the defense of England and human rights against Sharia and Islamization in different and more effective ways.
This has been a long time coming. Back on June 30, 2011, I wrote: that because of the "neo-fascists that had infiltrated the administration of the group," I was "withdrawing my support from the EDL." Tommy Robinson immediately issued a a statement to SIOA, saying: "We repudiate any individual, group or writing that favors anti-Semitism, neofascism, and any race-based ideology. Any rogue elements within the EDL who go against our mission statement and our beliefs will be removed from the organization; we are determined to remain true to our mission. Anti-Semitism will not ever be tolerated within the EDL."
These statements drew the ire of some counter-jihad bloggers who apparently didn't mind the racists and anti-Semites within the EDL, and who addressed an Open Letter to me denouncing me for drawing back from the EDL. But a huge group of counter-jihad bloggers declared their support of our stand. When Robinson assured us that he was just as concerned about these elements as we were, and was working to root them out of the EDL, we continued to support the organization.
Like Robinson's "English Defence League", Geller's "counter-jihad" has a misleading name. She could be more honest and call it "goyim-doing-only-what's-best-for-the-jews". But then making it that plain would defeat the whole purpose.
Monday, October 07, 2013
Pew Polls Jews
The term "jews of no religion" presents a problem for those who misunderstand (or want others to misunderstand) the true nature of jewishness, specifically by mistaking it as a type of theology or "faith". The second page of the report, Sidebar: Who is a Jew?, finesses the problem with the usual double-talk:
One of the first decisions that had to be made in conducting this study and analyzing its results was to answer the question, “Who is a Jew?” This is an ancient question with no single, timeless answer. On the one hand, being Jewish is a matter of religion – the traditional, matrilineal definition of Jewish identity is founded on halakha (Jewish religious law). On the other hand, being Jewish also may be a matter of ancestry, ethnicity and cultural background.
Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 2 goes over the issue of matrilineality and the biological nature of jewishness in more detail. Suffice it here to note that even the "religious law" is actually a matter of ancestry. So the "ancient question" does in fact have a "single, timeless answer". Being jewish is, and always has been, a matter of ancestry. All along the jews have also pretended otherwise.
The primacy of ancestry comes through in the flowchart Pew uses to describe how they categorized poll participants. Those who "were raised jewish or have a jewish parent" but profess no "religion" are counted as jews. Those who claim no jewish parent are excluded, even if they regard themselves as jewish.
It's not on the flowchart, but Pew also inquired about the parents of those who claimed to be "jews by religion". They buried those numbers (and another hint of the primacy of ancestry) in a brief reference in Chapter 3: Jewish Identity:
Nearly all Jews say they had at least one Jewish parent, including 96% of Jews by religion and 97% of Jews of no religion.
All in all, 98% of Jews (and, by definition, 100% of Jews of no religion) were raised Jewish or had at least one Jewish parent; 2% of Jews had no such background but indicate they had a formal conversion to Judaism, while 1% did not formally convert.
In other words, jewishness is 96-97% a matter of ancestry.
Here are a few more of the relevant and interesting bits from that same chapter. According to jews this is what being a jew is about:
U.S. Jews see being Jewish as more a matter of ancestry, culture and values than of religious observance. Six-in-ten say, for example, that being Jewish is mainly a matter of culture or ancestry, compared with 15% who say it is mainly a matter of religion. Roughly seven-in-ten say remembering the Holocaust and leading an ethical life are essential to what it means to them to be Jewish, while far fewer say observing Jewish law is a central component of their Jewish identity. And two-thirds of Jews say that a person can be Jewish even if he or she does not believe in God.
Importance of Being Jewish
More than four-in-ten U.S. Jews (46%) say being Jewish is a very important part of their lives, and a third (34%) say being Jewish is somewhat important to them. One-fifth of Jews say that being Jewish is not too (15%) or not at all important to them (5%). Jews by religion are nearly five times more likely to say being Jewish is very important to them compared with Jews of no religion (56% vs. 12%).
Nearly nine-in-ten Orthodox Jews (87%) and two-thirds of Conservative Jews (69%) describe being Jewish as very important in their lives. Far fewer self-identified Reform Jews say being Jewish is very important to them (43%). Among Jews who are unaffiliated with any particular Jewish movement or denomination, just one-in-five say being Jewish is very important to them (22%).
Pride, Connectedness and Responsibility
More than nine-in-ten Jews (94%) agree they are “proud to be Jewish.” Three-quarters (75%) say they have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, and about six-in-ten (63%) say they have a special responsibility to care for Jews in need around the world.
Overwhelming majorities of both Jews by religion and Jews of no religion say they are proud to be Jewish (97% and 83%, respectively). Most Jews by religion also say they have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people (85%) and that they feel a responsibility to care for Jews in need (71%). Far fewer Jews of no religion share these sentiments.
What Does it Mean to be Jewish?
. . .
The survey asked Jews whether each of nine attributes and activities is essential to what being Jewish means to them, is important but not essential, or is not an important part of what it means to be Jewish. In response, roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Jews (73%) say remembering the Holocaust is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them.
From this it's clear that jewishness is more about peoplehood than religion, more biological than ideological. In fact the ideological portion is just another facet of the biological portion. In spite of their many profound ideological differences, the core beliefs that jews share most religiously have to do with seeing themselves as part of and concerned for the well-being of their people, a biological collective.
Theologically speaking, note that the jewish collective sees God as unnecessary but regards their guilt-tripping and extortion narrative as essential.