Kevin MacDonald: My fate in life is to work at a university. What that means right now is to be completely immersed in the culture of the left. Trudie Pert’s current TOO article shows that in the humanities right now it’s all about queer theory and the Frankfurt School, with supporting roles for psychoanalysis and Marxism. Prof. Ruth Joeres describes her course:
In this course the contributions of ‘German’ women of ethnic heritage such as Afro-German, Turkish-German, Japanese-German women are studied. What does it mean to be called, ‘German”?
We can guess that it has nothing to do with being ethnically German. In the eyes of these people, Germany too has doubtless become yet another proposition society.
And then there’s professor Morris (Moskowitz) and her idea that fraudulent Holocaust memoirs are to be preferred to the real thing because they are more moving. (Why does a Jewish activist in a department of Jewish/German Studies use a non-Jewish sounding name? I can understand why Jewish communists did it in the 1930s or post-WWII Eastern Europe, but why now?) And Prof. Zipes and his campaign to the minds of young children. My favorite title: “Down with Heidi, Down with Struwelpeter: Three Cheers for the Revolution: Towards A New Socialist Children’s Literature in West Germany.” In other words, down with every vestige of traditional German culture.
The academic food chain is starkly obvious here. Pert notes that the professors at Minnesota received their doctorates at elite Eastern universities, and their students will staff the second-level colleges, universities, and K-12 schools throughout the mid-West. It’s a top-down system, with zombie-like grad students emerging to carry on the revolution of the left at the lower levels of the educational system.
What’s striking is that Jews and other non-Europeans wear their ethnic identity and sense of victimhood proudly and explicitly. The Whites typically have their own sense of victimhood — as gays or as women. In my experience, the heterosexual White males become adept at effusive expressions of guilt in order to be accepted into the system. In this culture of victimhood, all the rewards go to those who make alliances with other victims.
It’s easy enough intellectually to point out that gays and women have ethnic interests too, and that White identity and interests are entirely legitimate. But getting academics to think and act on that basis means disrupting mutually reinforcing networks where all the rewards come from allying oneself with the culture of victimhood.
And it means that real change must start at the top of the academic food chain. In the social sciences, one clings to a hope that this could happen because there is still a scientific tradition with some power. But in the humanities, it’s a lost cause. The triumvirate of the Frankfurt School, psychoanalysis, and Marxism is impervious to scientific findings and is intensely political; it will strenuously resist significant change. The revolution will have to happen without a very large part of the educational system.
Facing the Future as a Minority
“In 2005, while filming The Reader, Kate Winslet, its star, stated, “I don’t think we need another film about the Holocaust, do we? … No, I’m doing it because I’ve noticed that if you do a film about the Holocaust (you’re) guaranteed an Oscar.” (She was right!)”
No, Winslet was acting ( not taking time out from filming ‘The Reader’) it was in fact a joke written by Ricky Gervais for his show ‘Extras’. She appeared dressed as a nun while playing a foul mouthed actress. Kate Winslet’s Prophetic Joke: Holocaust = Oscar .
“The triumvirate of the Frankfurt School, psychoanalysis, and Marxism is impervious to scientific findings and is intensely political”
Easier for the students to buy into the social sciences’ intellectual Ponzi scheme, all they have to do is parrot a ideology.
What Pert shows in her article, and as Kmac reiterates and confirms, is the fact that the educational institutions, and, indeed, White society at large, have been infected with cultural rot and ideological toxin. Cultural distortion and self-hatred is what these nihilistic witch doctors are really practicing. Some call it Cultural Marxism, and it is to a high degree, but I call it a conditioned White death-wish miasma. We are witnessing a virtual Mad Hatter’s Tea Party of self destruction, that appears likely to run its disastrous historical course. That is, unless fate intervenes, with a lightning storm of White racial awakening. At present, it’s a bleak uphill fight, because huge segments of the Anglo population have been poisoned, and are hopelessly clueless about it.
I just wanted to mention that Ms. Pert indicated that Christianity is about blaming the Jews for the unforgivable sin of deicide. I’ve been a Christian all of my life, and I feel compelled to say that she is totally and utterly wrong. The idea of collective guilt cannot be correct. Also, theologically, what sense would it make to have a savior to die for one’s own sins when what Ms. Pert seems to be saying is that we’re not the sinners–the Jews are the real sinners. Lastly, forgiveness is granted to anyone who asks and wants to be forgiven.
I’m extremely offended by this. Also, let me say that I have nothing against honest discussions about other people’s dirty laundry. (And we should welcome people who have critical things to say about what we’ve done to them, as well–people can learn from criticism — plus, history is completely boring without all the “juicy” stuff.) But I think many writers at TOO go way to far because, at the end of the day, they’re ultimately interested (and motivated by) payback and vengeance. These things definitely are not Christian.
I’ve notice that some writers at TOO seem very eager to attempt to hijack Christianity and bend it toward their own aims. Please–don’t.
I’ve learned some things reading this site and others that I was never taught in the universities. I can say that had I not stumbled on these sites in many areas I would be completely in the dark and confused–for example, some of the dynamics which lead academics to behave the way they do, etc.
But vengeance and payback? No. This is going to far. How about trying something much more difficult but ultimately much more rewarding: love.
“How many times should a man forgive his brother? Seven times? I say seventy times seven times.” Anyone reading this know who said this?
The university has become an unhealthy institution and is itself part of the problem. Contemporary universities are starting to look a lot like their “ancestors”, i.e. the monasteries.
Re Qwerty’s comment: There is no implication that Ms. Pert meant that all Christians think it’s an important religious belief that Jews killed Christ or even that he did it. But it has been important in some historical eras; the analogy holds. Kevin M
Qwerty says:
The idea of collective guilt cannot be correct.
There’s plenty of anti-Semitism in the Bible, what with the Jews constantly scheming to kill Jesus (John 7:1, 8:37), eventually succeeding, and accepting full responsibility:
“And all the people [i.e., the Jews] answered and said: ‘His blood be upon us and on our children.’” (Matthew 27:24-25)
“How many times should a man forgive his brother? Seven times? I say seventy times seven times.” Anyone reading this know who said this?
Yep. Same guy that said:
“Ye [i.e., the Jews] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
John 8:44
Qwerty, the quotation is from Jesus. Please read Luke 17: 3-4 very carefully:
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”
There is quite clearly a condition attached to forgiveness. Do you know what that condition is?
The condition is that the sinner has to repent. You are under no obligation to forgive him until he repents.
Too many Christians are giving forgiveness before penitence.
I studied German in college a decade ago and my professors discussed this — in a roundabout way. Well, it gives us our own language to speak. Now we just need a religio-philosophy. And then we can be inverted Jews in an inverted society.
To admin: My interpretation of what Ms. Pert wrote is different from yours. Here’s what she literally wrote: “This inverts a fundamental teaching of Christianity. Christianity teaches that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are the central events of history and that the Jews are forever responsible for the unforgivable crime of deicide.” She uses the word “fundamental,” she indicates that “Christianity teaches.”
To Adam: As for Matthew 27:24-25. Here’s a very interesting article I just perused that addresses that subject. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/augustweb-only/42.0b.html?start=1
As for John 8:44 — Jesus was referring to a particular group of Jews, not all Jews then and certainly not all Jews throughout history.
I’ll just reiterate: I’ve learned a lot from this site that I otherwise never would have known. I took a history course on the creation of the Soviet Union, and I can’t even remember my professor mentioning anything about Jewish involvement. (If she did, it was such a fleeting reference that I can’t remember it–she was not Jewish, by the way.) Why was that? Political correctness? Or perhaps she herself didn’t know any better–this is what can happen when people sweep knowledge under the rug–it gets lost.
Knowledge by itself isn’t bad and if incorporated correctly into one’s life it’s very, very good. I’m glad to have certain knowledge I now have that I didn’t have prior to reading TOO.
Kevin MacDonald and others could offer information to us that doesn’t typically see the light of day, and he could do it in a way that doesn’t have an edge (or more than an edge) or a suggestion that the Jews have done something to us that is unforgivable. Yes, I know that just saying anything critical about the Jews–regardless of how true–is enough to get Abraham Foxman and certain other Jewish advocates up in arms. But forget about Foxman and the others.
By the way, I read in the last two weeks that a majority of Jews are against immigration (–can’t remember if it was illegal or immigration in general). It’s the leaders (along with Protestant and Catholic leaders) who have very little common sense.
Qwerty says:
To admin: My interpretation of what Ms. Pert wrote is different from yours. Here’s what she literally wrote: “This inverts a fundamental teaching of Christianity. Christianity teaches that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are the central events of history and that the Jews are forever responsible for the unforgivable crime of deicide.” She uses the word “fundamental,” she indicates that “Christianity teaches.”
To Adam: As for Matthew 27:24-25. Here’s a very interesting article I just perused that addresses that subject. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/augustweb-only/42.0b.html?start=1
This is from your link:
A truly laughable attempt at deconstruction. The issue isn’t whether the Jews actually are cursed, or whether God (even if you assume there is one) endorses those words. The issue is that the Jews were trying to kill him — for which we have the authority of John in so many words, in numerous places in the gospel that bears his name — and that they not only admit it, but they revel in it. So full of bloodlust are they that they are eager to accept full responsibility of their own accord.
The second part of your argument has to do with the fact that, out of all the Jews in the world, only some of the Jews were trying to kill him, and so you reason that all of the Jews should not be held responsible. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But first of all, we must take notice of the fact that such an interpretation, how ever pleasing and natural to our modern ears, is directly opposed to the literal meaning of the text. When Jesus tells the Jews gathered before him that they are all liars and the sons of the devil, it’s very clear that he doesn’t mean JUST those few Jews standing before him. He’s not talking just about them, but about the Jewish people as a whole, collectively. Second, you should put John 8:44 in context. Before Jesus tells the Jews that they are the sons, not of Abraham, but of the devil, he repeats that they are trying to kill him for telling the truth, and that “this Abraham did not do”.
It’s clear, isn’t it, that he doesn’t mean that only THESE PARTICULAR Jews are trying to kill him? He means the Jews collectively, the Jews as a people. That’s the only way the passage makes any sense at all, and indeed, that’s how the Jews themselves interpret it. For next they say:
They accuse Jesus not only of being insane (having a devil), but of being a Samaritan, i.e., a NON-JEW. The Jews say that Jesus is not even a Jew, a charge that Jesus, perhaps significantly, does NOT deny, although he does deny being insane.
So we must conclude on the authority of the Bible not only that there is such a thing as collective responsibility, but that Jesus himself endorses the idea. The fact of the matter is that only three possible assignments of blame can be made here. Either we blame the Jews (the plain Biblical meaning) for killing Jesus, assign part the blame to Gentiles and part to the Jews (your preference?), or ALL of the blame to Gentiles (the politically correct version). Attempts to deconstruct this and shift all of the blame to Gentiles just don’t wash. Primarily they don’t wash because they run counter to the plain meaning of the text, but also they don’t wash because they are usually made by people like yourself, who are arguing AGAINST collective responsibility. But it then turns out that such people have no problem with collective responsibility per se. Only when it is directed against Jews do they object! Blaming Gentiles is perfectly okay, it’s completely “kosher”.
And indeed it is kosher. Jews themselves, to this very day — in spite of the so-called lessons of the so-called Holocaust®© — have no problem with collective responsibility. They continue to blame the entire German people for events alleged to have happened over half a century ago. Quoth professional Holocaust®© victim Elie Wiesel:
They just don’t like it when someone holds them to the same standards that they hold everyone else to. Blaming Jews for their bad behavior is “anti-Semitism”; it’s “hate”. In practice, you will not find one Jew in a million who will disagree with this. Even the middle choice, assigning only part of the blame to Jews for Jesus execution, will inevitably evoke charges of anti-Semitism. Blaming Jews AT ALL, for ANYTHING, even their own behavior, is “anti-Semitism” according to them.
Now, what was Jesus saying about them all being liars, again? ;-)
I want to add to the comments by Someday, Junghans, and Knutsson about the university system. They agree with Kevin MacDonald that the system is broken in the social sciences and will not be part of the solution but a continuing and important part of the problem.
I agree. However, this presents a problem for those committed to fighting back because it means that our opponents are being manufactured en masse while we can only influence a few. It’s a formula for continued decline.
What to do when we are losing the battle over quantity of ideas?
The answer I think lies in quality of ideas. As Charles Dodgson points out in his latest blog, the New York Times and the media in general dare not publish the truth about ethnic differences and the causes of Western success. And it bears repeating that the Frankfurt School, psychoanalysis and Marxism are bad science. The same goes for the lies of Big Science, for example Scientific American. These schools of thought and these publications dare not admit truths as basic as population differences and the genetic basis of personality. They reject twin studies and other methodologies that make the rest of the social sciences look softer than soft. Their inconsistencies are palpable, e.g. demanding group rights for minorities but denying them to the American majority.
Our opponents are trapped by their own web of lies. Because their power is based on deception, their “science” is necessarily flawed.
I think that those who want to stand up for Western civilization should be passionate about the truth. We should “witness”, to use that wonderful Christian term, for true ideas and for the individuals who declare them. People like J. P. Rushton and K. MacDonald should be recognized as national treasures.
At a practical level we need to develop parallel institutions. One avenue is home schooling. Another is private schools and universities. And of course we should never abandon the fight to win back the institutions that our ancestors built.
I agree with Steven Banks that it’s necessary to develop parallel institutions. The university – a basically medieval dinosaur – is in trouble these days, undergoing a process of “ossification”.
Adam: Okay, as I’m sure everyone else is getting bored with what we have to say to each other, I’ll try limiting this to my last post.
The crowd of Jews gathered by the opponents of Jesus say, “His blood be upon us and our descendants” One way to interpret this is that the writer means that the crowd is uttering symbolism despite themselves: that what those Jews who have killed Jesus does in fact amount to a charge of deicide against the Jewish people for ever and always. A second way to interpret this is that the author was simply pointing out that the crowd had been worked up into such a frenzy of hatred toward Jesus by Jesus’ opponents that they reveled in the charge of killing Jesus–they wanted to be known for being guilty of killing such a heretic. (I understand that in certain Talmudic passages the writers essentially do the same thing–they parade around the fact that they did, in fact, kill Jesus–and they’re very proud of it.) If the first interpretation were true, I would find this much more troubling (as a believing Christian) than the first–not that I would think it were true, but because clearly it can’t be true. If anything, it would amount to a mark against scripture. Since I’m not a literalist, I don’t think that scripture has to be perfect to be God-sent (perhaps, one could argue, the writer was PO’d at the Jews of the day for persecuting Christians and his anger came out in what he was writing), but if scripture were too imperfect this would make me wonder if it could be God sent. I like the second interpretation better because it implicates scripture less in making a moral mistake: the writer is simply suggesting that a crowd of Jews got carried away, whipped into such a hate by the Pharisees. Perhaps there’s a third interpretation–one in which their words are partly symbolic but not symbolic in a way which implicates Jews for collective guilt. (I believe I’ve read somewhere that most of the NT writers were Jews and still considered Christianity as the correct outgrowth of Judaism–so, in other words, they didn’t hate the Jews–they were Jews themselves and saw themselves as such.)
I’ll admit that I have been somewhat troubled by the Matthew quotation. (As a child, no–I never read it as implication of the Jews, but as an adult when I heard it had been used historically as a grounds for persecuting Jews I could see how one could argue that the text writer was attempting to put symbolism into the mouths of the Jewish crowd–again, not that I ever believed this could be correct or from God.) The Christianity Today article seemed to “work” for me, but I do want to read more about this matter.
As for the “Ye are of your father the devil,” and other similar verses (I haven’t looked it up, but I’ve read it many times, so I’ll take your word for it that it’s John 8:44): I’ve just admitted that I’ve been somewhat troubled by the Matthew quotation, but please believe me when I say that never in my entire life have I been in the least troubled by this verse. I’ve always–even as an adult into my late thirties–naturally and otherwise felt he WAS just referring to his opponents–a set of people within the group of Pharisees. I’m not deconstructing this, I’m not trying for a fancy read, this is just how I read it, quite naturally. I feel very confident that the vast majority of readers will agree with me if they read the verse in context.
I certainly don’t believe that only the gentiles have collective guilt over Jesus’ death–that would be very PC as you point out. I guess I have issue with the idea of collective guilt in the first place. I read the NT as essentially saying this: see, this is what happens when I send you (all people–Jews and gentiles) down a savior–you kill him. Why do you do this? Because of sin that’s in the heart of everyone–Jew and gentile alike. It’s not about collective guilt, it’s more just pointing out a fact of human nature–that people are sinful. I guess technically one could argue that it’s simply an anecdote–he’s dealing with only the people right there–ancient Jews and Romans–but to me it works–they stand in for all people. How could we think that our hearts aren’t also filled with the same “stuff” that caused Jesus’ death?
I hope I’ve done a decent job explaining my viewpoint. I’ve gotta go to work now!
“Easier for the students to buy into the social sciences’ intellectual Ponzi scheme, all they have to do is parrot a ideology.”
But I still maintain that this is exactly how they will lose and we will win. That is, if we don’t succumb to despair first.
The reason is, as I’ve said before, that language is linked to the world by behavior. Or behavior is linked to the world by language.
For the Hostile Elite language is linked to the world by more language.
And that is why the intellectual center of power for them is in the humantities where everything they say is imposed, not tested.
It virtually functions like gossip. Interesting that the word gossip and gospel are so close in our language, since the function of both is to be believed, not tested.
But the union of their motley crue exists mostly in the realm of the verbal.
Almost each of the non-White groups are hostile to each other, and all of them have more than a little hostility to Jews.
Then there are the gays. As someone who worked and lived as a fisherman in Cape Cod for a time you only need to visit Provincetown to see the hostility between the gays and lesbians there.
And this in turn explains their heavy reliance on endless propaganda.
“And it means that real change must start at the top of the academic food chain”
If that’s the case then the intellectual challenge before us requires not merely a formal demonstration of the inadequacy of their belief system but also an explanation of why it exists in the first place, and of its function in the uses they make of those beliefs.
This is exciting, because it is going to push us into the area of human behavior, verbal and non-verbal, and if our investigations in this area prove fruitful we will emerge with an insight into our behavior that no insight can match, and before which their belief system will be reduced to rubble. It very well may be.
Qwerty says:
(I believe I’ve read somewhere that most of the NT writers were Jews and still considered Christianity as the correct outgrowth of Judaism–so, in other words, they didn’t hate the Jews–they were Jews themselves and saw themselves as such.)
The apostles were racially Jewish, but no longer adhered to the Jewish religion. They were persecuted by the Jews, who regarded them as heretics. All heretics of any religion may regard themselves as the only true keepers of the flame, but that doesn’t change the fact that Christians of that era, many of whom were former Jews by religion and still Jews by race, were now effectively at war with organized Jewry. Just like KM’s problems with Jews arising from his writings, whether the apostles regarded it as hating all Jews or not is less important than the fact that the Jews themselves regarded it that way.
Consider Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians, which again (properly!) fixes blame upon the Jews for killing Jesus:
(I understand that in certain Talmudic passages the writers essentially do the same thing–they parade around the fact that they did, in fact, kill Jesus–and they’re very proud of it.)
Before leaving this topic, I will also call the reader’s attention to the essentially anti-Semitic nature of Jesus’ statement in John 10:16, quoted above. The essential meaning of this passage would appear to be that, with the coming of Jesus, the Jews ultimately lose their place as God’s favorites, to be absorbed into the single “fold” of all humanity. It eliminates the Jews’ “chosen” status. If you were a Jew, and had been trained since you were born to think of your race as superior to all others and destined to inherit all the wealth of the world, you can see how threatening that message would be. No wonder the Jews have the highest place in their pantheon of hate reserved for Jesus! Christianity is, in its essence, directly opposed to Judaism, and had it triumphed, would have destroyed it. In its early days it posed such a threat to Judaism that the Jews single out Jesus for special punishment in their Talmud, with the rabbis saying that he is being boiled by G-d in hot excrement for all eternity. Moses Maimonides is considered by the Jews to be the greatest Jewish sage who ever lived, Judaism’s foremost exponent, and this is what he says:
Judaism is a racial religion that exalts a particular people as Chosen, and condemns to slavery or destruction everyone else. The concepts of collective guilt, collective salvation, and collective punishment are deeply embedded within it. The deepest theme of the Old Testament is to exalt the Jews, COLLECTIVELY, as a people Chosen by G-d to remain forever apart, at war with everyone else. In support of this I will offer just the one passage below, although many more similar to it could be cited.
Christianity, by contrast, is universalist, and claims everyone can be “saved” and become one of God’s favorites, regardless of race. Judaism is based on hate and vengeance, and is quite racist; Christianity on love and forgiveness, and irredeemably anti-racist. Indeed, it is only the lack of a racial aspect which flaws it as a weapon for white people. The Christian philosophy would be perfectly serviceable in a world where everyone believed it and acted upon it. But in a world filled with Jewish wolves, the Christians are only sheep who offer their throats to them.
Qwerty says:
(I believe I’ve read somewhere that most of the NT writers were Jews and still considered Christianity as the correct outgrowth of Judaism–so, in other words, they didn’t hate the Jews–they were Jews themselves and saw themselves as such.)
The apostles were racially Jewish, but no longer adhered to the Jewish religion. They were persecuted by the Jews, who regarded them as heretics. All heretics of any religion may regard themselves as the only true keepers of the flame, but that doesn’t change the fact that Christians of that era, many of whom were former Jews by religion and still Jews by race, were now effectively at war with organized Jewry. Just like KM’s problems with Jews arising from his writings, whether the apostles regarded it as hating all Jews or not is less important than the fact that the Jews themselves regarded it that way.
Consider Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians, which again (properly!) fixes blame upon the Jews for killing Jesus:
(I understand that in certain Talmudic passages the writers essentially do the same thing–they parade around the fact that they did, in fact, kill Jesus–and they’re very proud of it.)
Before leaving this topic, I will also call the reader’s attention to the essentially anti-Semitic nature of Jesus’ statement in John 10:16, quoted above. The essential meaning of this passage would appear to be that, with the coming of Jesus, the Jews ultimately lose their place as God’s favorites, to be absorbed into the single “fold” of all humanity. It eliminates the Jews’ “chosen” status. If you were a Jew, and had been trained since you were born to think of your race as superior to all others and destined to inherit all the wealth of the world, you can see how threatening that message would be. No wonder the Jews have the highest place in their pantheon of hate reserved for Jesus! Christianity is, in its essence, directly opposed to Judaism, and had it triumphed, would have destroyed it. In its early days it posed such a threat to Judaism that the Jews single out Jesus for special punishment in their Talmud, with the rabbis saying that he is being boiled by G-d in hot excrement for all eternity. Moses Maimonides is considered by the Jews to be the greatest Jewish sage who ever lived, Judaism’s foremost exponent, and this is what he says:
Judaism is a racial religion that exalts a particular people as Chosen, and condemns to slavery or destruction everyone else. The concepts of collective guilt, collective salvation, and collective punishment are deeply embedded within it. The deepest theme of the Old Testament is to exalt the Jews, COLLECTIVELY, as a people Chosen by G-d to remain forever apart, at war with everyone else. In support of this I will offer just the one passage below, although many more similar to it could be cited.
Christianity, by contrast, is universalist, and claims everyone can be “saved” and become one of God’s favorites, regardless of race. Judaism is based on hate and vengeance, and is quite racist; Christianity on love and forgiveness, and irredeemably anti-racist. Indeed, it is only the lack of a racial aspect which flaws it as a weapon for white people. The Christian philosophy would be perfectly serviceable in a world where everyone believed it and acted upon it. But in a world filled with Jewish wolves, the Christians are only sheep who offer their throats to them.
You all are discussing religion. If a person asserts their religious beliefs then you shouldn’t argue with them since we are supposed to be able to believe whatever we choose and to do so without persecution.
The Jews claim that a nobel prize winning Israeli has come up with what they call Game Theory. Its actually ideas and practices of the CIA that were stolen by the Jews (what else is new) and they claim it as their own.
Anyway this Game Theory predicts what people will do if certain actions are taken. For instance, use a famous Cricket star in Britain and have him claim that Muslims did such and such. Prediction: Muslims will retaliate – which they have done by bombing London underground.
Another example: Report that Pat Robertson made another outrageous statement. Prediction: the public will turn on Christians.
Bomb the WTC and Americans will justify bombing the ME.
This is how the Jews manipulate and get things their way. I do not wish to be critical of any Christian for this reason, they’re already persecuted enough by Jews and this tears away at religious freedoms in America and creates the thing that Jews love, other groups fighting one another.
No race likes Jews so they try to keep the rest of us fighting one another. Prediction: someday people will get fed up, again.
I accept that certain Christians wish to spread Christian Love rather than retaliate against Jews. That is their freedom to do so.
Regarding what Jews are doing and as to the perversion of German and other Anglo Saxon related teaching in our schools, I wonder why we couldn’t sue under Title VI which prohibits allowing a racially hostile educational environment in schools and programs receiving federal financial assistance and provides for a private cause of action for violations?
Barbara Cornett says:
You all are discussing religion. If a person asserts their religious beliefs then you shouldn’t argue with them since we are supposed to be able to believe whatever we choose and to do so without persecution.
Yet the Jews assert their religious belief that you should meekly submit to whatever they, the Chosen People, want, and you do nothing but argue.
Oy vey, Barbara! Stop with the poisecution already! ;-)
“I agree with Steven Banks that it’s necessary to develop parallel institutions. The university – a basically medieval dinosaur – is in trouble these days, undergoing a process of “ossification”.”
No, Right thinking Westerners need to be pushed to get their PHDs and to lock themselves into tenure positions. We need to begin supporting this through offering private scholarships. Giving up Academia is like giving up access to the public library and the right to write books.
Lesacre: I agree, but I was referring to the fact that a lot of research is now done outside the traditional universities. Even if universities have been modernized, they are in many respects dysfunctional and archaic organizations. The obvious post-1968 pathologies are, I believe, described in Pert’s article.
Qwerty, I hate to offend you, but that attitude you have is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. You fail to take the different types of human nature into account. The Jews seemingly have an overall view toward us, behavior toward us, that is sociopathic. They’ll nod and shake your hand, talk about love with you. Then chuckle and call you an idiot, fool the moment you turn your back. “This” isn’t about payback, you’re putting words in people’s mouths. It’s about getting their fingers off the collective neck of whites and the West.
Pert’s piece was tough to read.
I think one cannot begin to comprehend the blatant anti-White programming of minds in colleges and universities today.
No matter what the subject matter is, save POSSIBLY organic chemistry, there is militant war waged on our people, our traditions. Whether it is the idea of the 2nd Amendment being an evil White construct, or White males as evil incarnate, perhaps homosexual white males get a slight pass however it is, indescribable really just what is written in textbooks, let alone the electioneering YES political campaign advocacy in CLASS by professors. I thought to myself, can even IMAGINE a straight, White, conservative prof getting away with telling students how to vote in an election!
It was, in the past IMPLIED today it is explicit.
One observer noted in over a decade ago:
It was and with me. We can communicate on this theme.