The Root of "Hate"
A post by Steve Sailer, Michelle Malkin (Oberlin '92) on Hate Hoaxes and Hate Hysteria, prompted the following anonymous comment:
If it's a 'hate crime' to falsely accuse Jews of abducting Christian boys and using them for ritual slaughter, it's a 'hate crime' to accuse whites of committing all sorts of horrors they haven't.
"Hate" is a jewish construct. They've weaponized it.
It is possible the comment above is a troll, made by someone with a keen sense of irony. More likely it came from a mind, and made it past a moderator's mind, wholly unconscious of the double-think it represents.
According to jews, all accusations against jews are false accusations. The jewish "blood libel" narrative is a perfect example. The presumption is that every accusation of abduction and murder ever made against jews is false. Furthermore, they regard any rejection of this or any other part of their narrative as a "hate crime". There is no "if" about this.
Yet the jewish tales about "blood libel" are incredibly one-sided. They are a libel against Whites. A hoax. A deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. Likewise with their "holocaust".
Here are some recent examples of jewish "hate" hoaxing I've run across. A more deliberate and thorough search would undoubtedly produce a much longer list.
Manalapan, N.J. Overrun With Anti-Semitic Graffiti, Other Messages Of Hate « CBS New York, Sep 2012.
Zach Tennen, Michigan State University Student, Not Attacked Because Of Religion, Police Say, Aug 2012.
Why would Jews vandalize a Holocaust memorial?, Jun 2012.
Jewish man gets caught red handed spraying anti-Jewish hate messages in New York, Dec 2011.
Lawyer suspended for falsely claiming cop called him anti-Semitic slur, Dec 2011.
Jewish student caught painting Swastikas on her own door then claiming Anti-Semitic Attack, July 2010.
Jews aren't just going along with the "hate" hoax hysteria. They created the whole "hate" paradigm. They've been using it to milk Whites longest and hardest. In comparison everyone else are copy-cats, and pikers at it to boot.
The double-think in the comment quoted above is typical not only at Sailer's blog, but also in the similarly blinkered punditry he cites - Michelle Malkin, Gucci Little Piggy and Nicholas Stix. The common theme in these forums and elsewhere in the "race realist" sphere is that blacks are the main perpetrators and "white liberals" are their evil genius co-conspirators/enablers. Stix actually claims "[t]he role of Jews on the multicultural campus is presently ambiguous" and that Tim Wise is White.
They deplore "hate" but don't confront it's source. Why?
Well, Stix is a jew, Malkin is married to one, and Sailer believes he's part-jew. How many of the "white liberals" they finger are similarly compromised? I'm uncertain about GLC, but I know the rest of them pretend jews are "white". It seems to me that nothing enables the "hate" hoaxing as much as this delusion does.
And it is a delusion. The jews themselves are very clear on the most salient fact about "hate": jews are the victims and Whites are their oppressors. In other words, jews are the exact opposite of White. The premise that Whites "hate" non-Whites, and never the reverse, is only a generalization of the premise that Whites "hate" jews, and never the reverse.
P.S. Someone left a link to Oberlin Microaggressions — I'm the "white, Jewish professor" at GLP. Read it. It's a good window into how the "white jew" game is played:
I’m sorry if you read this post as anti-Semitic. That was never the intent. You were identified as “white” because it contextualizes your use of the word in question. You were identified as “Jewish” because it was used in your justification of the educational merit and personal sensitivity that you had in the situation. I do not want this to turn into an attack but rather a way to further dialogue and be able to have productive conversations.From one white Jew to another, I can only assume that you, being Jewish and a professor of higher learning, have background knowledge about systems of oppression and that you have some understanding about allyship and understand the importance of listening to oppressed and targeted groups.
Labels: anti-white, jewish influence, michelle malkin, nicholas stix, steve sailer
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/07/2013 12:32:00 PM
18 Comments:
A General Strategy by The Chosen People:
0. Foundation for the Deception: Be in good command over language (whichever place you migrate to become good in their language, discourage others from learning your language); be argumentative; Keep emphasizing the relativism that "Nothing can be said about anything till everything is known about everything". What is for the chosen people "A paradox to be resolved by balancing the opposites" (read whatever they choose to do) is a inherent contradiction between two extremes for the other out of which only one position can be held steadfastly (ideally or morally).
1. Applying the Deception: Publicize these two choices as "the only two options" and be at the "leadership" of both the sides. Keep emphasizing logic, consistency, and completion; and push people to the logical end of these two attitudes.
2. Hijacking the Language and Setting Up The Emotional Biases: From both the sides criticize "the chosen people" as "foolish" or "idealistic" or "whatever" but always paint them as "wronged" and "victims". Call the un-chosen people "the other" as "problems" or "traitors" or "violent". This sets the language of discourse completely biased.
3. Always Monitor to keep The Deception Complete: So "the other" from both the sides view only members belonging to "the other" as the problem. Also, "the other" from both the sides view "your chosen people" as "wronged or victims" even though their reasoning may be different. Keep reserved "swear words" to discredit even the slightest disagreement with the deception.
4. Perpetrating the Game: Thus advise people on one side to become "idealists" and the opposing side to become "practical" and "realists". Now your chosen people can use more deception, violence and so on, albeit putatively only for "bare survival". Simultaneously constrain the "others in both the sides" to move towards "moral self defense or ideal universalisms".
5. Tactical Defense: Ask others to Provide Proof (so they have to discuss their strategies or plans of action threadbare) before they Act; but you yourself (your people) Act first and then provide post-facto justification or fait-accompli. In this manner, you know the plans of your opponents and can strategise your defense while your adversaries "the other" can not.
6. Use Nuances to claim Moral High Ground: So your chosen people are merely fine-tuning the "balance" between extreme positions while the "others" are sliding into extremist views!
7. By perpetually being "victims" your chosen people always come out as winners. While "the other" (and such other can keep changing) is either fighting on the side of your chosen people or becomes a victim of your designs!
Part of the general strategy of above posted point zero is also to use any verbal distinction, no matter how insignificant, to avoid being pinned down.The CPs(chosen people)define the terms and these definitions shift, using these quiddities, as the occasion demands, or the argument dictates, only shifting for the benefit of the CPs.
That's a decent outline of their tactics. The strategy is, "What's best for the jews?"
Thanks Phal. I was hoping to get some insight on GLP. "I'm a race realist" generally means "I refuse to accept racial reality when it comes to the jews".
Hate…is good. A man without hate is a man without life. Hate motivates. It focuses the mind and steels the nerve. Hate conquers cowardice and apathy.
If I wanted to eradicate an enemy without resistance, I would seek to suppress and pathologize his natural, normal hate. For that is his emotional immune response. Shorn of which, he is just as likely to smile beatifically and thank me as I run a blade across his neck—after all, resistance would be hateful.
And not to bleat a yid source, but Larry’s latest left me speechful. Insulting with compliments: a primer.
It is said that without jews whites couldn’t extract their own dried mucus.
Yet they did construct some pretty buildings 900 years ago.
So while we rightfully exalt jewish genius, let us remember those old buildings.
His first commenter: Hey, jews contributed to those also you know!
Like the neologism of http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.in/2012/01/islamonausea-not-islamophobia.html Islamonausea suggested to replace Islamophobia; JudeoNausea too might be a good term.
"Larry Auster, American Hero"
http://whiskeysplace.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/larry-auster-american-hero/
"Larry Auster is dying. Which is a tragedy for not only his friends and family, but America. Because Larry Auster is an American hero. I, like many people Larry has never met, and sadly never will, owe him a great debt. But so too do the American people. Because of his example of heroism, pure and simple."
I'm betting Auster will convert to Catholicism just in time for the conclave and he will be announced the next, and last, "Pope Narcissist, Alpha and Omega".
When Auster dies his ego will live on, enshrined in a glass sarcophagus for pilgrims to pay annual homage. People will perform great miracles invoking the immutable and eternal vanity of Lozza Auster, Churchill and Cromwell reincarnate.
The miracle of the loaves and fishes will be as nothing compared to the vanishing of the anti-semites, in his name, Pope Anti-Hate, the divine Auster.
It befits a great man, such as is Auster, to spend his last months on earth which, in his beneficence he has deigned grace us with his presence, and write his own Res Gestae Divi Auster.
As Whiskey says, "I ask that all who have enjoyed his writings give a prayer of thanks to Larry." I ask you all tonight, today and for all our tomorrows, to pray TO Larry, our last visitation, so soon in his passing from this mortal coil. May he be bodily assumpted into heaven where he may sit, not at the right hand of the Lord, but the Lord at the right hand of Larry.
All hail Caesar!
Armor,
I don't see much wrong with that.
Sailer maintains that jews are "white", and generally spikes comments which indicate otherwise. The cited comment is ambiguous, which is how I think it got through. The default interpretation there is more favorable to jews than Whites, despite the double-think required to maintain it.
The Jewish media keep saying that race-replacement is good for us, but they don't want us to observe that enrichment through race-replacement is a Jewish idea, even though they say it is a good idea. If it is good, and if they say so themselves, how is it antisemitic to say it is Jewish?
What you're getting at is how jewish particularism, especially when it comes to morality, defines good and bad. As you note, whether something is "anti-semitic" or not depends on whether some jew thinks it's bad for jews.
To answer your question requires an understanding that what is "good for us" depends entirely on who "us" is. Jews arguing about what is "good for us" can generally be understood as arguing about what is good for the jews, even when they disguise it in more universalist terms. Likewise they will argue any attempt to identify or oppose such perfidy is "bad for us", meaning bad for the jews.
The answer to this jewish question, and all the others, is to recognize that they aren't us. Thus they have no authority to dictate morality to us.
Interesting reading that urban dictionary entry. It's as predictable as chemistry. Watch irreverence dissolve into veneration with just four little letters.
By the way Pat, thanks for the chuckle.
God I love this blog and the good (mostly) men who comment here :)
Mary, I'm sure the men who comment here are equally happy when you drop by with your thoughts. It's amazing to me how receptive people are in real life to the ideas here (and I'm talking of both White men and women), whereas online there really does seem to be a disproportionate number of jewish or jew-compromised policemen at every turn, with virtually no women. The lesson I think is that we shouldn;t take commenters as representative of the White population.
Great comment, Scott.
I hope Tanstaafl will be able to find the time to write an analysis of Kevin MacDonald's recent article on Larry Auster.
Tim Wise, according to wiki, is at least one quarter jew.
In the comments of Tim Wise Hates Whites I noted that Wise has, at least once, identified himself as a jew, specifically to explain his concern for the safety of "world jewry".
The original article, http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm, is gone, but Crimes of Zion: M.L.K and Zionism quotes Wise providing the relevent bits:
Because of my criticisms of Israel--and because I as a Jew am on record opposing Zionism philosophically--the Des Moines shtetl decided I was unfit to speak at an MLK event. After sending the supposed King quote around, and threatening to pull out all monies from the Jewish community for future NCCJ events, I was dropped. The attack of course was based on a distortion of my own beliefs as well. Federation principal Mark Finkelstein claimed I had shown a disregard for the well-being of Jews, despite the fact that my argument has long been that Zionism in practice has made world Jewry less safe than ever.
my mother was a german jew. my father was an irish orangeman. my mother told me she wanted me to be raised christian. as she believed the jewish religion was evil.mt
Thanks for helping to open my eyes. After reading a lot here I just can't help wondering if maybe christianity was an attempt to damage the roman empire that backfired. It would explain a lot. To see otherwise clever people condemn eachother to hell for believing in the 'wrong' kind of jew inspired mumbo jumbo... well, you see where I'm going with this.
Post a Comment
<< Home