Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Wednesday, January 08, 2014

Why the Jews Hate Those Who Love Them

Andrew Anglin points at Yori Yanover, who asks, Must Jews Dislike the Christians who Like Them? Yanover's answer is an emphatic yes:

In other words, while I and my fellow faithful Jews like the fact that the next pogrom will not come from an Evangelical torch and pitchfork crowd, we still don’t trust you. You can’t say you love me for who I am, because who I am includes a thorough rejection of the essence of your ideology, all of it, completely, I hold that there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

But wait, there's more.

Now do you love me? Do you love me in a future in which Jesus doesn’t come, and you continue to hold on to your faith, and I to mine?

Or, at least, can you keep the narrative about my seeing your light to yourselves?

That’s [what] we’re really asking.

Yanover imagines himself as a jewish superpope, who speaks for all the jews. It is a voice which is totally unselfconscious about jews force feeding others with their narrative, their tikkun olam and "light unto the nations" excuses for turning everyone else's life upside down for their own benefit, never mind their noxious holocaust narrative, which they insist everyone else must learn and describe as they see fit, with special laws and fines and prison terms for heretics.

But I think Anglin's response to Yanover gives Christians too much credit:

One might even go so far as to assert that continued existence of the Jews as a people is dependent on American Christian Zionists.

Surely, if it was not for them, we would cut the funding to the Jew state tomorrow, as aside from the weird cult, there is simply no logical reason to support these Jews. The fact that they use the money to commit genocide against the indigenous people of Palestine removes the humanitarian burden of protecting the allegedly persecuted Jews, even if you believe this Holocaust gibberish.

If it were not for the doctrine of Christian Zionism, most Christians would, by default, be Antisemitic, as this has been the default position of Christians since the beginnings of the religion. Thus, we would not continue to allow Jews to continue to run our government, economy and media.

Christians have bitterly opposed abortion and homosexuality, yet the jews have gotten their way on these domestic issues. Why would Christian opposition to Israel, or any other point of foreign policy, be different? Anglin knows it isn't Christian Zionists who control the money, the media or the political parties, it's the jews. It's their money and media which moderate the policies of the United States, not the other way around. It has very little to do with what voters want, Christian or otherwise.

The jews make mountains out of molehills. They know there is a built-in limit to Christian "anti-semitism". Yanover admits they're all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they'd still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. Christians have always welcomed jews to "convert", to infiltrate and manipulate them from within, even during the many brief periods of "persecution" that the jews complain most bitterly about.

The jews clearly wouldn't have nearly as easy a time infiltrating and manipulating White societies if Christianity didn't exist. Anglin's argument that the jews wouldn't exist if American Christian Zionists didn't exist is far less plausible.

It seems to me that the Christians who love the jews who hate them are suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome. The affliction in self-proclaimed Christian Zionists, like Vox Day, is particularly obvious and acute. They insist on seeing the jews as partners, or at least as peers, even after looking directly at evidence which indicates otherwise.

Having a faith in beliefs which can't be proven one way or another is one thing. Maintaining a truth which has been demonstrated false is something else. The first is a form of spirituality common to most men. The second is pathological. In this case the cause, the pathogen, is jews.

Though Christians make a spectacular show of the symptoms, and bashing Christians is perfectly semitically correct under the current, thoroughly judaized regime, Christians aren't the only ones afflicted. Christianity appears to be only one method by which jews "capture" the minds of their "hostages". Sharing short-term measures of fame or wealth or power seems to explain more.

Why do the jews hate those who love them? Because that's their nature. Race is real. The parasite's interest is not in loving or assimilating or cooperating with its host. The parasite's interest is in infiltrating, the better to manipulate, the better to exploit the host. Christians prefer a more purely spiritual view, which tends to preclude such an understanding. It's more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.

Labels: ,



Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's more difficult to explain why those who are comfortable thinking in secular, biological terms refuse to understand.

First of all, except for the nuts on the bottom Christians understand. Billy Graham understood. You've answered your own question, it's Stockholm Syndrome, and it will continue as long as jews control our media and are allowed to bribe our politicians. I also don't think Christianity had all that much to do with jews infiltrating Western countries. As you say, antisemitism should be the default position of Christians, and the default position of everyone once they have seen what jews do to their countries. It wasn't religion that allowed jewish infiltration but bribery to the crooks at the top, just like today, payments to the thugs in control for the franchise to exploit the people. The main difference today is that the thugs are willing to allow them to exploit their people to death, and the death of Christianity is one of the many things that promotes that.

1/09/2014 10:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Bogolyubski said...

The older, now almost-vanished, form of Christianity held the Jews to be the "Synagogue of Satan" and Christ-Killers - not only in the narrow sense of engineering a Roman execution of the Messiah they were too cowardly to execute for blasphemy under their own Mosaic Law (which they accused him of violating), but also in the broad sense of having an congenital murderous hatred of all Christians and of Christianity. The latter is certainly borne out by the historical record - repeatedly over the last 2000 years.

That which calls itself Christianity has been thoroughly infiltrated by them - from the blathering Protestant megachurches to the Grand Poofter of Rome. The only viable strategy for whites is the one Tan mentioned to Auster which resulted in a full-blown meltdown of Auster's part - separationism. Jews are utterly toxic to any nation or society where they land. Even St. Paul understood something of their fundamental nature when he referred to them as "the enemies of all men."

1/09/2014 09:08:00 PM  
Blogger Pneumatikon said...

You don't forgive someone for sinning against you if they don't give a rat's a__. Certainly not if you're looking at an ongoing assault. Saint Paul didn't put up with that nonsense and neither did Jesus Christ himself (except when he was SUPPOSED to).

Then there's that whole Synagogue of Satan bit. And read Matthew 12:43-45, paralleled with Luke 11:24-26: the parable of the return of the unclean spirit. This is directed against the Pharisees and the point is obvious: after he's resurrected and moved on, they'll become many, MANY times more filled with demonic power than they ever were.


The Old Testament, too. They've clearly taken to flat-out lying about it.

1/10/2014 03:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Bourgeois Reactionary said...


I'm a big fan of your podcasts on TWN. Like William Pierce, you have a knack for constructing welll-reasoned arguments in which your conclusions are logically established from the evidence you adduce. This is typical of people with a scientific, mathematical, or engineering education and it differs markedly from the linguistic legerdemain of many professional polemicists who conflate and subtly distort perceptions through emotionally charged rhetoric, false equivalences, and moving but ultimately false narratives which do not hold up to careful scrutiny.

I thought you might be interested in this example of Jewish deception.

AsiaTimes resident neoconservative Jew, "Spengler" attemps to cozy up to the Chinese.

Contrary to what this writer would prefer to have his readers believe, tribalism and corrupt ethnic networking have been the defining characteristics of Jews for centuries.

But that's not how "Spengler" wants us to see it:

Common Traits Bind Jews and Chinese

The Jews are not an ethnicity but a people defined by a partnership with the Creator God, in which they are obligated to recognize God's presence in the details of their daily lives, and empowered to help in the work of creation. Individuals of all races can be adopted into this nation by accepting its responsibilities; in today's State of Israel one sees hundreds of thousands of black African Jews from Ethiopia, as well as Jews of all ethnicities.

The Jews are not an ethnic nation, but a multi-racial family. The Jews were the first people to apply the same laws to the foreigner as to the home-born. Indeed, they are commanded to love the stranger in the same way that the love themselves, because they were strangers in Egypt.

He claims that jews were well educated and highly literate for millenia. Yet for centuries their faith was sustained merely through an "oral tradition", as opposed to the written word as inscribed by the Greeks. Also, until the Jewish Emancipation, the only notable cultural contribution of these highly educated jews was the creation of Talmud "scholars" whose significance never transcended the shtetl in which they dwelled.

Although he once postured as if he were a conservative Catholic, "Spengler" is a pious, observant Jew who regularly attends services at his Park Avenue synagogue. He knows he is lying about the true nature and orientation of Judaism which is a faith centered on notions of ethnic struggle and blood relations.

I've long since suspected that the main reason why such vast numers of Chinese and Indian immigrants have been imported to work in professions like medicine, engineering, and high finance is to create a technocratic overclass which is largely free of Whites.

What do you think?

1/10/2014 08:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tan, just to clarify, you're not buying into the "Christianity is a Jewish plot against the Gentiles" narrative, are you?

1/10/2014 08:45:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

the "Christianity is a Jewish plot against the Gentiles" narrative

I think at its origin Christianity fit the most crucial criteria for what Kevin MacDonald regards as a jewish intellectual movement. Specifically:

* Issues are framed in a rhetoric of universalism rather than Jewish particularism.
* Issues are framed in moral terms, and an attitude of moral superiority pervades the movement.
* Centered around charismatic leaders (Boas, Trotsky, Freud).
* Jews form a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core.
* Non-Jews appear in highly visible roles, often as spokespersons for the movement.
* A pronounced ingroup/outgroup atmosphere within the movement—dissenters are portrayed as the personification of evil and are expunged from the movement.

Most of KMac's other criteria don't fit well, in part because his model is based on post-Enlightenment/post-emancipation examples. But I think it's fair to see Christianity as prototypical. I don't know if he has discussed this consideration before.

I don't think the bulk of collective jewish behavior, including their intellectual movements, is based on plotting in the sense that it means conceiving, communicating, and agreeding upon a detailed plan beforehand, collectively. A single simple vague but overriding shared guiding principle, like "is X good or bad for the jews", suffices. That said, the jews certainly are also willing and able to meet and organize to plot more complex and specific strategies as well. For example, see The Jewish People Policy Institute.

1/10/2014 12:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting, and yet MacDonald frames Christianity, at least during the middle ages, as an altruistic collectivizing force that pitted Christian religious and economic interests against the powerful forces of Islam and Judaism.

1/10/2014 10:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think at its origin Christianity fit the most crucial criteria for what Kevin MacDonald regards as a jewish intellectual movement.

Well then, my question then becomes "where do you intend to go from there?"

1/10/2014 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yanover admits they're all but toothless now, but even if Christians returned to a more traditional position, seeing jews as a separate people, as accursed Christ-killers even, they'd still also see jews, even jews as blatantly alien as Yanover, as potential Christians, potential brothers in spirit. "

This is purely a Western, Filioquist perversion of the mindset of the Patristic Church. Trad. Orthodoxy has so many caveats for admitting Jews, the hurdles are far greater than the conversion rates. It's only the Papal west that has abandoned their innate distrust of the Deicides to which this caveat applied. Which means, perhaps the West's Xtianity is deficient in some way (filioquism?) that they are continually bamboozled by (as Luther said) 'the Jews, and their lies'?

- Fr. John+

1/11/2014 07:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know if you speak French but the "affaire dieudonne" in France is one of the most spectacular and open displays of jewish power I have ever seen.

Please look into it if you find the time. Let me know if you need help to find information.

1/11/2014 09:56:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Alain Soral commente l'actualité Dieudonné sur la BBC - YouTube, good summary in English.

1/11/2014 10:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Harry in PA said...

It's interesting to see my old friend Bolbolyubski's comment. He is doubtless ubiquitous as I am new to this blog. As he well knows I am a Christian (evangelical). It ought to be self-evident that without Christianity there would not have been a West and all the glories that that implies. It is simply a non-sequitur to fabulize a what-might-have-been. That is, if there were no God who sent His one and only Son into this world.

As for Zionism and the Church's (Protestant I have in mind) careening into this miserable error is merely (terribly) one of many errors to plague the church over the centuries. Arianism of a millenium-and-a-half ago nearly extinguished Trinitarianism but of course it was not to be.

A straight forward reading of the NT by a neophyte would almost certainly lead him to conclude that the book was unselfconsciously what today would be called anti-Semitic. Of course the scripture is a proclamation of truth and self-consciousness would only apply to a merely human document. When dispensationalism loses its grip on the evangelical church a return to the "default" or intuitive mind-set spoken of above will develop. This is of course what will also ensue as whites generally wake up to the filthy lie of the civil-rights mythos and all its myriad doctrines.

1/11/2014 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger Vanishing American said...

Christianity is on the ropes in this country. It is weakened and toothless as far as having any real clout or influence in government, education, or popular culture.

Christianity is at a low ebb, regardless of fake Christianity as shown on TV (TBN and the many so-called 'Christian networks).

Many churchgoing people do not 'walk the walk' or follow their church's teachings or Biblical doctrine. The vast majority do not, though poll numbers vary according who is taking the poll or grinding their particular axe.

What I am saying is that if apostate Christianity as it exists now leads to Zionism and philosemitism, it still has little effect on overall society. So if it is a vessel to promote Judaism or Israel, it seems pointless for those using Christianity to use a religion which is dwindling away and practically banned from the public square. Why would they bother using an enfeebled group?

As for politicians who may or may not be actual Christians, but who claim to be, well, we all know most pols are liars and opportunists who try to be all things to all voters.

1/11/2014 11:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

the "affaire dieudonne" in France

Another summary about that was made by Diana Johnstone at

1/12/2014 10:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would they bother using an enfeebled group?

The same question could be asked of white preservationists. The answer, of course, is because, like their genes, it is a part of them and their history, and as such, it is only right and proper that it be passed down to the next generation with the rest of their racial inheritance.

1/12/2014 01:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take solace. This enfeebled group, White Evangelicals, are highly ethnocentric and very fertile.

1/12/2014 07:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary said...

"Anti-semites" and "Hostile trolls" are being purged from, effective immediately :

Jew-Baiting Policy

For reasons beyond my comprehension, there are some who will despise odious Jewish moonbats like Harvey Weinstein not so much because they are moonbats, as because they are Jewish. It is also hard to understand why they would be attracted to this pro-Israel site, especially considering that the two most dominant influences on my point of view — Ayn Rand and Mark Levin — have Jewish backgrounds.

Other Jewish countermoonbats whom I hold in extremely high regard include Milton Friedman, David Horowitz, Evan Sayet, and Dennis Prager. See Right Wing News for a list of the top 20 most influential conservative Jews.

The focus on Jewishness as somehow inherently malign does worse than distract us from the actual problem, which is left-wing ideology. It also alienates people who might otherwise be valuable allies.

Obsessive anti-Semites have taken advantage of’s wide-open comment policy, which allows people to say whatever they please so long as there are no calls to violence. The exception is hostile trolls who attempt to bend the site to their own purposes by commandeering the comments.

Considering that the obnoxious anti-Semitism recently on display is likely to drive away treasured readers, Jew-baiters who persist in these attacks will be regarded as hostile trolls, subject to deletion and blocking as necessary to preserve the site’s integrity.

1/17/2014 08:23:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home