Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Friday, September 23, 2011

Our Jewish Problem

Here's a mainstream media article that makes no bones about the jewish hegemony over US politics. The central point of debate is whether jews think Obama is good or bad for the jews. That they have the power to decide his fortune, one way or the other, is taken for granted.

The tone for this exposition of particularist jewish concerns is set right in the title. Tsuris is yiddish slang meaning "trouble or woe; aggravation". The masters of finance, politics and media are displeased, and they intend for us to know it.

The Tsuris - Why Barack Obama Is the Best Thing Israel Has Going for It Right Now, John Heilemann, New York Magazine, 18 Sept 2011:
Barack Obama is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand?
How, exactly, did Obama come to be portrayed, and perceived by many American Jews, as the most ardently anti-Israel president since Jimmy Carter?

This meme, of course, has been gathering steam for some time, peddled mainly by right-wing Likudophiles here and in the Holy Land. But last week, it took center stage in the special election in New York’s Ninth Congressional District, maybe the most Jewish district in the nation and one held by Democrats since 1923. When the smoke cleared, the Republican had won—and Matt Drudge was up with a headline blaring REVENGE OF THE JEWS.

Obama’s people deny up and down that the loss of a seat last occupied by Anthony Weiner portends, well, pretty much anything for 2012. But the truth is that they are worried, and worried they should be, for the signs of Obama’s slippage among Jewish voters are unmistakable. Last week, a new Gallup poll found that his approval rating in that cohort had fallen to 55 percent—a whopping 28-point drop since his inauguration. And among the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine last time around, stories of dismay and disaffection are legion. “There’s no question,” says one of the president’s most prolific fund-raisers. “We have a big-time Jewish problem.”
Obama’s team has made its share of errors in the conduct of its diplomacy and in allowing misperceptions to take hold: that its tough-love approach to Israel has been all the former and none of the latter; that its demands on the Palestinians have been either negligible or nonexistent. And many Jewish voters, like those Wall Street financiers (and, to be sure, the overlap between those groups isn’t trivial) who flocked to Obama and were then chagrined when he called them out as “fat cats,” have all too often focused more on the president’s words than his deeds—and come away with the impression that he doesn’t seem to “feel Israel” in his bones.

For Obama, such assessments would be funny if they weren’t so frustrating and absurd; and for the Jews who know him best, they are simply mystifying. In the last days of the 2008 campaign, the former federal judge, White House counsel, and Obama mentor Abner Mikva quipped, “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” And while that prediction has so far proved to be wildly over-optimistic, there is more truth in it than meets the eye.
The suspicions regarding the bone-deepness of Obama’s bond with Israel were present from the start, and always rooted in a reading of his background that was as superficial as it was misguided. Yes, he was black. Yes, his middle name was Hussein. And yes, in his time in Hyde Park, his friends included Palestinian scholars and activists, notably the historian Rashid Khalidi. But far more crucial to Obama’s makeup and rise to prominence were his ties to Chicago’s Jewish milieu, whose players, from real-estate powerhouse Penny Pritzker to billionaire investor Lester Crown, were among his chief supporters and financial patrons. In 2008—after herculean efforts by his campaign to reassure the Jewish Establishment that he was, er, kosher and stamp out the sub-rosa proliferation of the lie that he is a Muslim—he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote, four points higher than John Kerry’s total four years earlier.

This background meant that, although Obama was hardly an old hand on Israel when he became president, he was well attuned to the Jewish community and its views. “With the kind of exposure he had to Jewish backers, Jewish thinkers, in Illinois,” says deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes, “he came into office with a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and Jewish thought than, I would argue, any president in recent memory.”
The American push for a settlement freeze would be the first flash point in Obama’s relations with Israel and also a turning point in his standing with Jewish voters at home. With Netanyahu having just reassumed the prime-ministership in a coalition government that included several ultraconservative parties, he resisted Obama’s call for a freeze. American Jews, meanwhile, saw the administration as aggressively pressuring Israel but treading softly on the Palestinians. In combination with its policy of engagement with Iran, this fostered the impression that Obama’s stance amounted to punishing America’s truest friend in the region while rewarding its—and Israel’s—most lethal foe.
And then there was Netanyahu’s surpassingly volatile governing coalition, which was held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements (cf. Avigdor Lieberman).
Omitted: paragraphs detailing yet another Netanyahu snub.
But Netanyahu knew he could get away with it—so staunch and absolute is the bipartisan support he commands in the U.S. Garishly illuminating the point, on the night before his speech to Congress, the prime minister attended the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, where he was the headline speaker at the event’s gala banquet. Before he took the stage, three announcers, amid flashing spotlights and in the style of the introductions at an NBA All-Star game, read the names of every prominent person in the room, including 67 senators, 286 House members, and dozens of administration and Israeli officials, foreign dignitaries, and student leaders. (The roll call took half an hour.) When Harry Reid spoke, he obliquely but unambiguously chastised Obama for endorsing the use of the 1967 lines as the basis for a peace deal: “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else.” The ensuing ovation was deafening—but a mere whisper compared with the thunderous waves of applause that poured over Netanyahu.

The next day came his speech to Congress, in which he spelled out demands that were maximal by any measure: recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations, a refusal to talk if Hamas is part of the Palestinian side, an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and absolutely no right of return for Palestinian refugees.
Exactly one month after his Oval Office awkwardfest with Netanyahu, Obama made the mile-and-a-half trip from the White House to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel to have dinner with several dozen wealthy Jews. His appearance had twin objectives: to rake in more than $1 million and to calm their jangled nerves. Unlike many conservative Jews, the big-ticket Democrats in the room, who had paid $25,000 to $35,800 a head to be there, didn’t believe that Obama was hostile to Israel. Yet it’s fair to say they had their share of qualms and a ton of questions.
In addition to deploying Axelrod and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his campaign has hired an official outreach director to try to fix its Jewish problem: Ira Forman, the former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Forman is known for an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish politics and a history in waging trench warfare against Republican Jewish groups. But none of that will prepare him for the job he is taking on. “A lot of what he’ll be doing is coaxing and persuading,” says a Jewish Obama megabundler. “A lot of people who raised a ton of money for the president last time are very short on enthusiasm for doing it again.”

The hiring of Forman is a tacit acknowledgment that the White House has badly handled the continual care and feeding required to keep major donors sweet—and all the more so in this case. The first White House liaison to the community was Susan Sher, who at the time was chief of staff to Michelle Obama. “Lovely woman, but she knew nothing about Israel,” says an Obama bundler, who some time ago attended a dinner with Sher and a clutch of A-list tribesmen: Mort Zuckerman, HBO co-chief Richard Plepler, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. “It was kind of insulting to have this woman talking to these people who know this issue backward and forwards. And then there was no follow-up. Nothing.”

Both the nature and scale of Obama’s Jewish problem—at least where donors are concerned—are tough to pin down. A recent poll by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates found that among Jewish donors who gave to Obama in 2008, just 64 percent have already donated or plan to donate to him this time. Complicating the picture is the fact that Jewish buckrakers cite a variety of complaints with Obama: Some object to his rhetoric on Wall Street, some to his economic policies, and some to his handling of Israel.
Omitted: paragraphs explaining why the jewish vote in NY-9 (Anthony Weiner's vacacted seat) doesn't matter.
On the other hand, thanks in large part to the indefatigable Ed Koch, who endorsed Obama in 2008 but has now become one of his loudest (and loopiest) critics on Israel, the NY-9 election was framed to an unusual extent as a referendum not just on Obama but on his supposed betrayal of the chosen people. All over TV and the web was Koch, doing a squawky imitation of Romney, saying that the “Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Muslim nations.”
Even in the face of the most pessimistic (for Obama) reading of NY-9, Democrats will comfort themselves with two facts. The first is that, for all the outsize attention they command—and the earsplitting volume of the collective megaphone they wield—Jews make up about 2 percent of the national electorate. Too small a proportion, that is to say, to matter much to the overall popular vote.
The second ostensibly comforting fact for Democrats has to do with the trend lines of recent presidential-election history: Obama’s 78 percent of the Jewish vote, Kerry’s 74 percent, Al Gore’s 79 percent, Clinton’s 78 and 80 percent in 1996 and 1992, respectively. The implication here is that, in the end, the Jews will come home to Obama—mainly because they are overwhelmingly liberal and have nowhere else to go.
The trouble for Republicans is that, in the extant crop of candidates, there is no one who bears even a passing resemblance to Dutch. Though Rick Perry is as avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive—“If you’re our friend, we are with you,” he says. “I’m talking about Israel. Come hell or high water, we will be standing with you!”—his positions on almost every other issue are anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor. And Perry’s theocratish tendencies have been criticized even by some who are pretty far right; the Christian rally he held in Houston not long before jumping into the race, “The Response,” was derided by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League as a “conscious disregard of law and authority” because of the way it traversed the spheres of church and state.

Mitt Romney is an entirely different case. Within the Republican donor class, Romney is the strong favorite. He has actively courted the AIPAC crowd, staking out hawkish positions on Iran and pillorying Obama on Israel. The day before he opened his Florida headquarters earlier this month, Romney dropped in on a local AIPAC meeting in Tampa and was greeted with a standing O. But when it comes to winning over independent Jews or queasy Democratic ones, Romney may have done too effective a job in transforming himself from a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights moderate into a more conventionally conservative candidate. “He’s a phony,” a cheeky Democratic operative notes. “But for a lot of Jews, he may turn out to be just a little too convincing.”
The premise of Obama’s approach to Israel all along has been straightforward. Given the demographic realities it faces—the growth of the Palestinian population in the territories and also of the Arab population in Israel itself—our ally confronts a fundamental and fateful choice: It can remain democratic and lose its Jewish character; it can retain its Jewish character but become an apartheid state; or it can remain both Jewish and democratic, satisfy Palestinian national aspirations, facilitate efforts to contain Iran, alleviate the international opprobrium directed at it, and reap the enormous security and economic benefits of ending the conflict by taking up the task of the creation of a viable Palestinian state—one based, yes, on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

The irony is that Obama—along with countless Israelis, members of the Jewish diaspora, and friends of Israel around the world—seems to grasp these realities and this choice more readily than Netanyahu does. “The first Jewish president?” Maybe not. But certainly a president every bit as pro-Israel as the country’s own prime minister—and, if you look from the proper angle, maybe even more so.
Heilemann proceeds from an explicit recognition that jewish financial power ("the non-trivial overlap between jewish voters and Wall Street financiers") and jewish political contributions ("the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine") drive US politics. Clearly this drive extends beyond their current focus on Obama and Israel.

Heilemann idolizes jews and their ethnocentrism. Whether as "the Jewish vote", "the Jewish Establishment", "the Jewish community", "the Jewish diaspora" or just plain old "the Jews", jews and jewish interests are presented in a purely positive light. This is in stark contrast to the cynical, sinister regard for Whites and White political interests found in most of the mainstream media. Jews are not pathologized for having a group identity, nor are they portrayed negatively for openly arguing about and pursuing their own group interests, independent of the rest of us.

Heilemann and US media pundits and politicians in general treat jewish nationalism with the utmost deference and respect. Though Israel is a jewish ethnostate, ruled by a coalition "held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements", it enjoys the obsequious fealty of Obama and other top US politicians. This may cause consternation for some jews who don't think it is good for the jews, but their grumbling pales in comparison to the pitiless condemnation and vilification routinely aimed at any form of White nationalism.

Heilemann confides that even the most powerful non-jewish politicians in the US are expected to "feel Israel in their bones". This is really just one facet of the more general requirement to placate jews, doing whatever they deem best for themselves. But the jews often can't agree on what they think is best, and so what results is a humiliating, circus-like environment in which US presidents and their challengers regularly profess their love for the jews, only to get kicked in the teeth by one subset of jews or another who don't find the performance pleasing enough.

Here Heilemann describes Rick Perry as "avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive" and yet "anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor". In other words, anathema to virtually every jew. Heilemann's point is that Obama and every contender for his job each have their own jewish problems, though different in degree. As Heilemann relates the dances these clowns perform to please the jews, what comes through loud and clear is the presumption that the rest of us are immaterial. How this impacts our lives if of no concern. In this way Heilemann indirectly informs us that we all have a jewish problem.

Labels: , , ,



Blogger Average Joe said...

Jews don't support the Democratic party because it is pro-Israel, but because it is anti-gentile. The only way the GOP could win the Jewish vote in 2012 is if the Republicans convince the Jews that the GOP wants to undermine white gentiles just as much as they do.

9/24/2011 04:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Sheila said...

Excellent comment by Average Joe.

9/24/2011 05:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Sam Davidson said...

Can you imagine if those hundreds of American politicians were cheering someone pledging support for American borders?

9/24/2011 09:03:00 PM  
Anonymous WLW said...

I recognized this problem a long time ago. This nation is Jewish controlled; its finances, its media, its culture (as in Hollywood), in academia, in politics.

Nothing can be done until the Jews are suppressed. Their voting rights need to be taken away.

This is not even on the radar of most people including our politicians. The Catholic Church protested when Napoleon freed the Jews. The greatest enemy was the Protestants who hitched their wagon to the Jews. Now, the Catholic Church is 180 degrees; it has a great philosemitism.

It's disgusting. I see no hope. We can't organize. The ATF and FBI have agent provacateurs to disrupt any organization. We have no leadership. The modern republican movement was about destroying European culture, institutions and Church that protected us from the Jews. That is all gone. We are sitting ducks. The Jews have engineered great masses of Hispanics who hate us. They have, through academia, inculcated a great hatred amongst the Blacks. The Jews have organized the Hispanics and Blacks and white women as their army.

We have nothing. And with libertarianism teaching extreme individualism, we're toast. I see no long term solution. I see nothing on the horizon either. All the Repub candidates are hopelessly pro semitic. The only candidate Pat Buchanan was effectively marginalized. They control all things.

Without a king, aristocracy and Church, we're goners. And all of them now are all politically correct. We have no institutions, no body politic to defend us. The Enlightenment deceived one and all to get rid of the only bastion against Jewish and Muslim supremacism!

Maybe Western man because he is a fool, deserves to die.

9/25/2011 03:53:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

Well, Western man has himself. The reason there IS western man is because ancient ancestors chose to stay white. It's the original wagons rolling west story.

It's our race that matters, whether protestant or catholic. "Love thy neighbor."

Anti-racist is Anti-white. We don't deserve to die.

9/25/2011 05:47:00 PM  
Blogger "Diversity" means white geNOcide said...

You can solve the Jewish problem by lending a hand in solving the anti-white problem over at

9/25/2011 07:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is basically the diaspora jewry saying to the israeli jewry:
"Look, this is our house bro. We need him to further our agenda of multiculturalism, unlimited immigration, ethnic dispossession of the indigenous populations etc. He serves our group interests as american jews.
Don't worry, of course he is pro-Israel. He's just not as rabidly zionist as you'd like him to be, because he also needs to pander to his fellow muslims."

The israeli jewry replies:
"STFU, this joke has gone too far. We'll take a rabid zionist over the house bro any fuckin' time, thank you very much."

9/25/2011 11:20:00 PM  
Anonymous JMR said...

Our first obligation as White nationalists should be to study our own history and not the jew regurgitated version that we receive at schools.
It amazes me that if you mention Catholicism to someone they automatically parrot off about the Inquistion and Galileo without ever having studied the reasons behind the Church's actions,but people are completely ignorant as far as Jewish perfidy is concerned.
You don't need to go back too far. You could start with the 20th century and research the role of the jews in financing the Japanese in the Russian /Japanese war;in the bolshevik revolution;in the atrocities committed in Hungary,the Ukraine,Rumania and Spain;in the Franfurt School etc.etc.
People have never heard of the role of the jews in the French revolution , the opium wars and in the slave trade . Before the internet our options were limited as the jews control the publishing houses. But now we must take advantage of this opportunity before they censor the internet. Only read history books written before the second world war.
If you read literature read people like Thackery, Trollope, John Buchan. It is amazing the disadin felt for Jews even in Protestant England.
We need to be like them in developing some kind of collective memory and pass down our knowledge of jewish perfidy from generation to generation. It seems that each generation is a blank slate as far as jewish atrocities are concerned.

9/26/2011 03:49:00 AM  
Anonymous WLW said...

Obama is not the first Jewish president.

The first Jewish President was Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson was the hand puppet of Bernard Baruch and Colonel House. The Roosevelts may be Jewish. Bernard Baruch controlled Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Eisenhower may be another one. Even Pat Buchanan felt the need to have a Jews on his staff. Jorge Busheron was surrounded by them. Both Cheney and Bush were surrounded by Jewish advisors! Hell, even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have their Israeli minders.

Even our classical departments that are supposed to be teaching Western culture and civilization are swamped with Jewish professors and Department chairs. They control all aspects of our culture.

Hell, we have even 4 Jews on the Supreme Court, Beyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayer (she is a Marano even though she is "catholic"). It is so bad that several "catholic" justices have talmudic law students working for them---all to ensure that our law conform to Jewish standards and ideals.

What a mess we have gotten into!

9/26/2011 07:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Tory said...

Good thing those Protocols of Zion were a "forgery", eh? The first commenter was right, they'll support whatever party is most genocidal against whites, though that is becoming somewhat blurred these days.

9/26/2011 01:07:00 PM  
Anonymous MajikFireHorney said...

@WLW, & other pessimists. Aside from playing the Jews' game, you are dead wrong. Step back. Look at the 3,000 year-long trajectory of Jew history. The Tribe has risen high many times, and fallen hard many times...because they always over-reach. Now, via wide-open borders/free trade globalization, the Jews are making their final bid for world domination. But thanks to their effort to grease the skids via debt formation, it is all going to blow up in their face. And this time the Jews' downward arc will achieve terminal velocity.

9/26/2011 08:39:00 PM  
Anonymous JMR said...

I wish I could be so sanguine. How are we going to mobilise a concerted opposition?
They have achieved their aims:- Our families have been fractured beyond repair; Our nations have been mongrelised; Our men have been undermined and pacified; Our young are materialistic and nihilistic;The Catholic Church has been cowed and co-opted; We have lost all sense of history and pride in the achievements of Western civilisation.
I think that when the economic collapse comes we will see something ike a repeat of the end of the Roman empire.European nations will balkanise and disintergrate into warring racial groups.The young compete with the old.Chaos will ensue.
Remember they still have the money and people will be so tired of conflict that they will give up their freedoms for a potage of security and then we will see the installation of the NWO.

9/27/2011 03:33:00 AM  
Anonymous WLW said...

To Majik, I'm former military and a history buff. I understand what it takes to defend, to have a community, to war. All of that has been brilliantly undermined. Right now, cadres from our military schools, like West Point, go to Germany to study the Holocaust. They are being indoctrinated into Marxism. I completely second JMR's comments. Do you not observe young Europeans? Most of them are whiggers. What aren't whiggers, are panzies. Most are into video games. None of them have any fighting skills, are not atheletic, etc. Almost all have been indoctrinated into political correctness.

I keep on harping on the need for the suppression of them. I get banned from many a site. Nobody wants to hear it. No one sees the danger and the Church now is totally comprimised with weenie liberals. Without the Church, there is no backbone to Western civilization and it all falls apart.

Pessimist? Sure am. Logic, based on observable facts, knowledge of history, dictates so. The Jews have a strangehold over this country and over us. They control all aspects. Right now, they are developing robot drones that need no human guidance. They operate on facial recognition, or situation recognition to take out targets. The Jews own our military, they will own this. secure in robot drones. With the coming depression, they will kill many as well. The hordes will be set upon one another. The panzie effeminate whites are going to be caught up between the angry, chip on the shoulder blacks, and the angry, La Raza, drug cartel, hispanics. All wanting a piece of whitey. This is what they want. It's coming.

I'm under no illusions.

9/27/2011 06:30:00 AM  
Anonymous ATBOTL said...

BTW, The Roosevelts and Sotomayer are not Jewish. That kind of crazy talk makes it hard for us to persuade other whites that we are worth listening to. There should be no place in the pro-white movment for those who spread lies and disinformation.

9/27/2011 07:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

"those who spread lies and disinformation"

... and pure rubbish: "Right now, [the Jews] are developing robot drones that need no human guidance. They operate on facial recognition" (from WLW's last post)

He is overdoing it on purpose.

WLW troll: "when Napoleon freed the Jews"

He didn't exactly "free the Jews". They were not held in slavery.

9/27/2011 08:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Cameron said...

Taanstafl, here's a link to the outcome of the Bolt court case which I pointed out to you to a while back:

Fair to say that this is the death knell of freedom of speech in Australia. No surprises when reading the names of the judge and prosecuting lawyers.

Here's a good background article on the case for anyone unfamiliar with it:

9/27/2011 09:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Matra said...

The politics of Canadian Jews

The majority of Canadian Jews had usually voted Liberal before the Harper Conservatives took office. The Liberals were seen as the party of immigration and diversity, important values for Jewish voters. The Liberals were also pro-Israel. Even when the Progressive Conservatives’ Brian Mulroney governed, a leader as staunchly supportive of Israel as any prime minister, the majority stuck with the Liberals.

In recent years, however, the Liberals have been seen as not being pro-Israel enough for a lot of Canadian Jews, who have switched their political preference to the Harper Conservatives.

9/28/2011 02:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary said...

I want to give you guys a "heads up" on Frank Kitman's website. I noticed that he has really been focusing on the "jewish" angle with his docs lately, as well as a strong focus on White Genocide in South Africa. He runs a brilliant site:

9/29/2011 06:24:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Get a load of this: Jews and Money - Abe Foxman - Part 1 - YouTube

9/29/2011 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I think some people who have been at this a while notice the proliferation of jews on the other side and sometimes use "jew" or "jewish" to identify the opposition in an ideological sense, just as many more people on the other side effortlessly throw around "nazi"/"anti-semite"/"jew-hater" accusations. It is an empirical recognition of the way someone thinks or acts regardless of the self-identification of the accused themselves.

Technically, the difference between "jew" and "jewish" is that the former refers to someone who is, while the latter refers to someone who is like. This can also be seen as the difference between "nazi" and "neo-nazi", though the other side rarely castigates each other over such fine distinctions. In fact there is a more serious asymmetry here which does not work in our favor, which is that in common use "jew" and "jewish" both tend to be taken strictly as "is", whereas "nazi" and "neo-nazi" both tend to be taken loosely as "is like". Thus our enemies have the convenience of tossing "nazi" everywhere, while many of us, me included, spend time searching to determine if someone has identified themselves as a jew before we will identify them as much. (Not to mention writing long blog comments to explain such things.)

Whether FDR or Sotomayer or anyone else have genetically jewish roots is a perfectly valid question to ask. Whether they actively serve jewish interests is an even more pertinent question. We are often pathologized for asking such questions, usually with ridicule. When someone accuses me of "being obsessed with jews" or "playing find-the-jew" my rebuttal is to point out that I could never hope to beat the jews at it. Indeed what is ridiculous is that even here in the context of jews themselves calling Obama the first jewish president we should feel self-conscious about discussing who else might fit that description.

9/30/2011 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Scott said...

Thus our enemies have the convenience of tossing "nazi" everywhere, while many of us, me included, spend time searching to determine if someone has identified themselves as a jew before we will identify them as much.

That's a profound point. Americans are the proverbial fish who don't realize they're wet -- drenched in jewishness, as it were. It's interesting that even as many people are cured of the cancerous jewish version of blank slatism, and accordingly accept that it's not only ideas but people that make up a culture (e.g. we now often hear the point in conservative circles that as Mexicans increase in number, states are becoming more like Mexico), no-one sees or dares to mention that a nation in which all levers of power and influence are dominated by jews will take on jewish characteristics. Arguably, judaization of a nation is the most oppressive kind of transformation because of their inability to live and let live. The only comparison, in fact, may be sharia -- which might explain why jews are so irrationally afraid of it in their home base of America (in Europe, where sharia might be a somewhat greater concern, Islamization is still a net plus for them, I'd say).

9/30/2011 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

Saw this and thought of this place

(my translation - capitalization is as in the original:)


To the consternation of certain citizens, the City of Hampstead has forbidden noise for the duration of the two days of Rosh Hashanah, a jewish festival, which begins thursday.

"I think that the city has been taken over by religious extremists [...] Enough, it's enough [...] I want to take this to the supreme Court", declared one Hampstead inhabitant

"Hampstead is proud even as a small municipality of being able to act so as to respect the needs and the wishes of its residents," declared the Mayor

The regulation adopted earlier this year stipulates that "construction work or yard work capable of causing noise in the exterior, including the use of a lawnmower, is forbidden during the period of Rosh Hashanah".

Thursday and friday, the public Security [police] of this municipality to the west of the island of Montreal will effectuate their normal patrols and fines will be imposed upon violators. The regulation will apply equally during the Yom Kippur, the 8th of october [...]


First comment on the 2nd page lists the mayors, and I don't believe the commenter's closing comment requires translation:

James BAILIE 1914 – 1923
James A. BAILLIE 1924 – 1927
William S. LIGHTHALL 1928 – 1929
James A. BAILLIE 1930 – 1931
Archibald F. BYERS 1932 – 1934
Vincent E. SCULLY 1935
Harland G. PARSONS 1936 – 1947
Lyman I. PLAYFAIR 1948 – 1964
Stuart M. FINLAYSON 1964 – 1974
Irving. L. ADESSKY 1974 – 2001
William STEINBERG 2006

9/30/2011 02:59:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

BTW, The Roosevelts and Sotomayer are not Jewish. That kind of crazy talk makes it hard for us to persuade other whites that we are worth listening to. There should be no place in the pro-white movment for those who spread lies and disinformation.

I've never seen any credible evidence regarding the Roosevelts, but in the case of Sotomayor it's a simple recognition of the demographic facts. Puerto Ricans who aren't black and have three-digit IQs (Sotomayor barely qualifies) almost always have significant Jewish ancestry.

10/04/2011 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger Chechar said...

Off topic: I’d love if any of you, who are more knowledgeable on the JQ than me, would comment in Counter-Currents featured article today, “White nationalism is not anti-Semitism” (I am a bit confused with the opposite viewpoints).

10/06/2011 09:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

I wish there was some limit of depth to the coruption, a moral flaw below which things could not go.

There isn't. Ronald O. Perelman and Andy Stern cash in, big time, from the administration of what Glen Reynolds justifiably calls President Goldman Sachs.

11/14/2011 11:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Oops. I meant to say "moral floor". I don't have to wish for moral flaws, they are obvious and abundant.

11/14/2011 11:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

The Jewish money-lender who is hostile or at least harshly indifferent to gentile interests is a familiar figure from antisemitic complaints.

The obvious answer to these complaints is: "It's your fault! Just don't borrow money from him."

In the face of governments that grant concessions to Jews (which Jews constantly seek and often get) and that are indifferent to White interests, that advice fails, and what we are seeing is modern demonstrations of how it fails.

The American government doesn't have money for these corrupt purchases. It's doing everything on credit now. When the ruling circle hands out hundreds of millions of dollars to its corrupt partners, it creates hundreds of millions of dollars more debt, which is owed for the most part by White tax-payers, who are unlikely to get the special tax deals that Hollywood gets. Hey presto, White man, you're in hock!

A discussion of how it is not in the interests of White Americans to be made debtors to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of Jewish criminals is or would be socially unacceptable.

I haven't seen any sign that it's an issue in Jewish circles, where there is zero willingness to accept blame, and not even the willingness to accept that "Whites" exist to the extent of having any legitimate interests against Jews.

11/14/2011 01:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home