Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren't "white" in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn't subject to the usual standards by which "white" states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on "what it means to be pro-Israel." A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the "tyranny of small differences," as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening's. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one's support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist's responsibility to guard Israel's survival, to guard Israel's interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor "dual loyalties" and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What's best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is "unanswerable" only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the "anti-semitic movements" which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally "liberal" jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally "conservative" jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No "dual loyalty" here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don't face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any "anti-semitic movement"? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

The Murder of Mary Phagan

Part 1 in a series of podcasts on this subject was first broadcast two weeks ago. Part 3 broadcasts tonight. The series will likely continue through January.

In the wake of Mary Phagan's murder on 26th of April 1913 came "the trial of the century", culminating in the lynching of Leo Frank in 1915. Overall I'm finding it a fascinating subject to examine, quite informative about race relations between Whites, jews and blacks, then and now.

When Circular Firing Squads Attack

Responding to Carolyn Yeager's most recent program, Movement Madness, Rodney Martin made a SPECIAL BROADCAST via his by American Nationalist Network.

The complaints Yeager and Martin have about each other don't interest me, but I would like to answer Martin's references to me.

@17:50:

My wife is not an injun, sorry to disappoint you Carolyn. I would ask you however to have you to post a picture of your partner over at the White network, Tanstaafl, and if you like I can reveal his name and his jewess wife, and let's just see how much Ashkenazim blood runs over there. We wanna get into your tagline "Whites talking about Whites about White interests", let's really get into this. This all could have been resolved if you had just sent me an email...

I don't see what I or my wife have to do with this, and neither did Martin until he decided he didn't like what Carolyn was saying. He lashes out at me out of spite, not based on any principle he wouldn't have continued to overlook if he had gotten the right email.

If I wanted my name or face revealed I would reveal them myself. What I have disclosed about myself personally, including my wife's background, I have done in order not to speak under false pretenses.

@20:30:

Talking about hypocrisy, you don't attack people using a fake name, you don't have a person running your network and talking about White issues who's married to a jewess and using a fake name, who's terrified about being contacted by anyone in the movement...

My fake name and wife are really beside the point. The point is that I help keep Carolyn online, and since Martin has decided he doesn't like what she's saying, I have to go.

I'm a technician and analyst. I have no ambition to be a public spokesman for Whites, much less a leader. Even though I don't make myself easy to contact, I have met several people, including one or more who have probably met Martin.

@30:45:

Can you imagine if I were to open my email right now and read every email that people sent me regarding Carolyn Yeager? I can tell you people would be shocked. If I were to read the emails telling me about her co-host Tan? I'm not gonna do that today, I won't do that unless I have to. He's disclosed that he's married to a jewess. One of the criticisms we've had/heard was that during the Thanksgiving week, which was also Hannukah, they didn't have any programs. Were they taking Hannukah off, because of the face-to-face relationship there? I don't know.

If Martin thinks he knows something other Whites should know, he should disclose it. Holding it out as a threat, to be disclosed only "if he has to", signals vendetta, not principle.

I took two weeks off after making podcasts for 75 weeks straight. During most of that break I was on the road with my family. We're not jews. We don't celebrate jewish holidays. My wife's father was a jew. He died when she was a little girl. If you want to condemn me, let it be for what I've done, not some trumped up bullshit out of your imagination.

Chechar's Crusade

On Carolyn and Tan is Chechar's latest effort to explain why I suck. It amounts to the fact that I don't share his position, that Whites suck:

In other words, Tan leaves Christianity off the hook. Only Jews are to be blamed. He has never replied to my very iterated argument that here in what used to be called New Spain the Inquisition, already familiar with the Jewish tricks at the Iberian Peninsula, persecuted the crypto-Jews; that New Spain was the first Judenfrei state in the continent, and that even sans Jews the Spaniards and the Creoles managed to blunder on a continental scale to the point of destroying their gene pool with Amerinds and the imported Negroes.

Hardly the Jews can be blamed for what happened here or even at the Iberian Peninsula. It was clearly a case of white suicide sans Jews.

As I've explained before, I'm not inclined to make lengthy or frequent responses to Chechar because he mainly craves attention and doesn't really offer any new or useful ideas. His belief that Whites suck is already the dominant belief amongst Whites, and it's doing Whites great harm. To put it bluntly, I don't believe Chechar offers honest criticism of Whites, much less my positions.

As I noted in my conversation with Carolyn on White pathology, many Whites go back through history searching for answers. What I find most bizarre are the ones who go back out of a desire to "prove" that the answer is not the jews. Chechar is one example of this. Another that comes to mind is Ian Jobling.

Chechar argues that I blame the jews entirely as a way of excusing Whites entirely, that I have identified attempts to excuse jews by blaming Whites (the suicide meme), therefore I must be trying to accomplish the opposite. Basically Chechar likes the suicide meme, thus he dislikes my pointing it out and arguing against it.

Chechar's argument for White suicide is based on a tautological rationale that can hardly even be called an argument. He cites two inter-related phenomena, the history of Christianity and Spain, exactly because in his mind Whites are entirely responsible for them. Therefore, not the jews. QED.

Chechar's just-so argument is not simply wrong, it's wrong in an ironic and telling way. Chechar misinterprets and downplays the influence of jews on both Christianity and Spain, and jewish crypsis more generally. Briefly put, he agrees with the jewish narrative - that Christians persecuted jews, therefore Europeans are responsible for Christianity. The reasoning is based, first of all, on the false notion that jews, once "converted", turn into Europeans. Second, it requires a willful misreading of the persecution, calling attention to the exception, the jews who were most obvious, to distract from the rule, the jews who were more or less successful in infiltrating and manipulating Christianity without much notice.

Any model of reality which is true, not to mention constructed from a point of view in favor of Whites, must account for the jews, and especially jewish crypsis - their deliberate deceptions about who they are and what they're up to. Jewish crypsis, if nothing else, is evidence of jewish hostility toward Whites. According to the jewish narrative, Whites are to blame for it. According to Chechar the jews don't even matter. In my view, people who argue as Chechar does are either knaves or fools. Throughout history the jews have cultivated and exploited exactly this kind of behavior in their hosts, preaching blindness and ignorance while they condemn and cavort however they please.

In his conclusion Chechar quotes approvingly the following comment:

it’s hard to blame the parasite when the host has developed a symbiotic relationship with it. Still I just think focusing on the Jews is a waste of time, people get emotional and discussions are seldom productive.

It's hard to see this as anything but an excuse for jewish parasitism. If White/jew relations were symbiotic there wouldn't be anything to get emotional about. But jews and their sympathizers do get emotional, using that and other excuses to prevent and derail such discussions. From a parasite's point of view discussions about parasitism can't be good for the parasites. From a White point of view that's exactly why Whites should discuss it, not shut up.

What's Flipping Yid Lids Today: Tila Tequila

"Crazy asian slut? Wonderful! Fantastic! Brilliant! Edgy! Shocking! Put her on television! Make her a porn star! BWAHAHAHAHA, take that Puritans!"

"Oh wait, she's a Hitler fan? How insulting! I'm offended! This is intolerable! She needs to be locked up in a mental hospital!"

Tila Nguyen's latest turn in look-at-me antics immediately captured the attention of the jewiest portions of the jewsmedia. Their usual irreverent snark muted, what came out instead was scandal and bemusement, anger and betrayal. "How dare this otherwise upstanding member of two (three? four?) oppressed classes be so careless and uppity?"

Tablet Magazine: Tila Tequila, Convert to Judaism, Poses as Sexy Hitler Atop Auschwitz

Animal: Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism, Parallel Universes, and Reptilian Illuminati Warriors

Jezebel: Tila Tequila Is a Nazi Sympathizer Who Calls Herself 'Hitila'

Hollywood Life: Tila Tequila In Nazi Uniform — Former Reality Star Rants About Nazism

Esquire: Wait, Hold On: Tila Tequila is a Neo-Nazi Now?

Of course, the jewsmedia being the jewsmedia, the shenanigans of even Z-list celebrities is BIG NEWS when it confounds the jews. Thus Tila Tequila's transgressions against jewish sensibilities have not remained confined to celebrity-gawking cesspits, but has instead been elevated into a bona-fide mediacaust.

Business Insider: Tila Tequila Is A Nazi

International Business Times: Tila Tequila Ignites Twitter After Nazi Sympathizer's Blog Defends Adolf Hilter

NY Daily News: Tila Tequila wears Nazi uniform, calls Hitler a ‘sweet kid’ in shocking Facebook rant

According to the News, Tila felt mocked and rejected when she tried to convert to judaism. This only adds to the case that this woman - from her fame to her infamy - is a product of judaization. It's hard to fault the goyim for not understanding that the jews are jews and the goyim are goyim - after all, you don't get anything but double-talk about it from the jewsmedia. Though the jews themselves are well aware of such distinctions (and indeed Tequila is an example of the tribe's aphorism that a "philo-semite" is just an "anti-semite" who doesn't know it yet), they're also keen to stick to their age-old canard that jewishness is all about religious beliefs and that jews are always blameless victims. Thus Tila Tequila must be anybody's fault but theirs.

Where will this go? Nowhere. And then quickly down the memory hole.

Going forward, as jews increasingly shift their attention toward new hosts, the "minority" coalition, being jew-led, is sure to be increasingly rocked by jew-centric controversies of this sort. During the awkward transition phase, professional jews like Brian Levin, whose job description is literally director of "hate" and "extremism", is thinking it best to see it as a joke, a gift to sinecured jews like himself. Will the other "minorities" go for that? Does it matter?

Talking with Kyle Hunt

I'll be live with Kyle this Monday evening at 8PM ET on The Blitzkrieg Broadcast at Renegade Broadcasting.

The program post is The Blitzkrieg Broadcast w/ Kyle Hunt 12-9-13 - you can tune in live via the player on the front page at Renegade Broadcasting.

Download here.

Ding Dong, Mandela's Dead

Nelson Mandela remembered by L.A.‘s South African Jews, published by the Jewish Journal today, provides more of the usual duplicitous jewish crowing that jews are "white", love Mandela, and therefore helped him "lead" their overthrow of White rule in South Africa.

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

Germany embarks on fresh attempt to ban NPD

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.

"Anti-Semitism" as Racial Animus

Why Netanyahu Gave Pope Francis His Father's History of the Spanish Inquisition, Tablet Magazine:

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.