Jim Russell, who is the Republican candidate for New York’s 18th Congressional District, is busy combating accusations about his association with The Occidental Quarterly. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s take is a classic example of the power of the media to create an alternate reality where facts don’t matter and where simply stating Russell’s opinions is enough to create mild amusement in her audience benumbed by decades of leftist propaganda. No need to note that Russell is a scholar who has a Ph. D. and has written a book published by Oxford University Press on how Christianity was influenced by German culture during the early Middle Ages. No need for any informed scholarly opinions on his statements in the article in question. If that well-informed anthropologist and psychologist Rachel Maddow thinks something is outlandish, then it must be outlandish. End of story.
Maddow starts by labeling TOQ a “White supremicist journal” —shorthand for not having to deal with the ideas presented there and not being sensitive to the obvious difference between White supremacy and White advocacy. Does she think that it is always illegitimate for any ethnic group to seek to advance its interests? If so, then she should come out publicly against the ADL, the NAACP, and La Raza.
She then puts up on the screen this quote from the article:
While liberals and universalists constantly yammer about “bringing us together” and “diversity is our strength,” it may be suggested that the biological function of human language and culture is just the opposite, that is, to keep discrete groups apart.
What an absolutely outrageous idea! Maddow, being Jewish by descent,* could not possibly be expected to grasp the concept of a culture that erects barriers between itself and the surrounding society—as Diaspora Judaism has done for its entire history and as Israel has now taken to the point of building walls between themselves and the Palestinians, providing separate roads and neighborhoods—in short, apartheid.
Contemporary mainstream evolutionary theories of culture highlight the importance of badges of group membership, such as language and modes of dress that function to define ingroups and outgroups, and psychologists are well aware that there is a powerful evolutionary psychology of social identity that responds to these cues by making people in ingroups have exaggerated negative attitudes toward outgroups and exaggerated positive attitudes toward their ingroup.
She then highlights Russell’s quoting “old racist arguments” from T. S. Eliot:
The population should be homogeneous…. What is even more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make a large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.
As noted here repeatedly, multiculturalism has huge costs, especially for the majority ethnic group in terms of social cohesion, social isolation, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like government-sponsored health care— with no discernible benefits apart from ethnic restaurants. Yet if there has been one overriding goal of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the US and other Western societies over the last century, it has been to legitimize multiculturalism and pathologize any sense that the traditional people of these societies have any interests in maintaining their demographic predominance and their culture.
Maddow then goes after Russell’s expressed concern about the effects of the media on imprinting children with images of other races because they may affect later mating preferences. Notice that Russell expresses himself quite tentatively: “One wonders how a child’s sexual imprinting is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact.” But in fact, there is quite a bit of research that has come out since Russell wrote his article indicating just that. For example, this is a quote from an academic article of mine:
Research on human infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However, racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006; Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005). (p. 1022)
The reality is that social psychology provides strong support for the idea that exposure of babies to other races would make them favor their own race less. And Russell is certainly correct that the media is doing its best to aid this process. However, the good news is that the media does not really have access to infants, or at least much less access than it does to older children and adults. The research seems to indicate that babies learn who their people are by seeing family members–resulting in hysteria over “racist babies.” One can anticipate government programs that force White babies to be exposed to non-Whites (but exempt non-Whites from this process).
Maddow then goes off on Russell’s accusation that the media promotes miscegenation in films directed at adolescents and pre-adolescents and his claim that parents have “a natural obligation as essential as providing food and shelter to instill in their children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.” Again, research supports the idea that media images could indeed overcome our natural liking for people like ourselves (programmed in infancy; see above) and lead people to be more open to miscegenation—especially in impressionable and conformist-minded children who are led to think that such behavior is “cool” and the sort of thing popular, attractive teenagers do. Several prominent social psychologists have argued that constant repetition by media images–especially if they are seen as coming from elite, mainstream sources–can overcome predispositions to be attracted to our own people.
One would think that Maddow would be well aware that her people have had very strong socialization pressures for marrying within the group which has led to very strong genetic commonality among long-separated Jewish groups. Urgings by Jewish religious and secular authorities (e.g., Alan Dershowitz, Elliott Abrams) to marry other Jews are commonplace. But when Russell makes similar suggestions, he is labeled a racist and a kook.
Her piece is a good example of how the media is focused on changing the behavior of one group and one group only: White Christians.
*According to WikiAnswers, Maddow was raised Catholic, with an Irish mother and Russian father. She asserted she is “distantly Jewish.” See also here.
Facing the Future as a Minority
A Sense of Peoplehood is not a Pathology.
It is not racist for a professor such as Alan Dershowitz or for an ex-professor like Jim Russell, who wants to run for Congress, to advocate for their ethnic group interests.
The words for bigotry, that are often used, such as: ant-Semitic, anti-White, anti-Black, anti-Arab, anti-feminist, anti-gay and hundreds of other labels, are for the most part overstated. Instead, it should be seen as pro-White, or pro-Jewish or pro-women or pro-traditional family and not be ashamed of it.
These “pro” sensibilities are part of the human condition, not to be pathologized into an “anti.”
It is about group interests.
A race or an ethnie without a sense of peoplehood or ethnichood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies. (Yes, ethnie, not ethnic).
The feelings or thoughts for peoplehood is not a pathology. The European-American will have White ethnic interests and it is not racist to have them. Just as Hispanics, Asians, Jews and Blacks have their own ethnic interests, it should not be a pathology for Whites to have ethnic interests.
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
An Ethnie without a sense of peoplehood will end up being used to achieve the goals of other ethnies. — Michael Santomauro
Her piece is a good example of how the media is focused on changing the behavior of one group and one group only: White Christians.
one would think whites would have caught on by now but by and large, sadly enough this is not the case. As Paul Gottfried points out there will be more than a few white liberals who will side with Maddow.
Fortunately, Rachel Madcow is just that – a bellowing cow, and an apparent lesbian one at that. I suspect her relatively small following includes little more than the Jewish/homo camp whose views she regurgitates ad nauseum. Some wag said her few fans take turns watching her program so they can be called a real audience.
Long ago I pondered if RM was Jewish. I searched around and couldn’t find anything about it. Is she Jewish?
Well, this is embarrassing. Apparently she is “distantly Jewish” but was raised Catholic.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Rachel_Maddow_Jewish
FTA: “If that well-informed anthropologist and psychologist Rachel Maddow thinks something is outlandish, then it must be outlandish.”
Always remember the definition of “anti-semite”: Although it used to mean someone who hates Jews, it now means someone whom Jews hate.
Hear! Hear! Jim Russell!
A lot of us would like to see Mr. Russell win.
But he’s running in the 18th district, and that isn’t far enough upstate to escape the metro-area multiculturalist Jews and their various non-White imports and charity cases. In that proximity to Manhattan and Long Island, hit pieces like Maddow’s threaten to tilt the balance against him.
Thanks to Maddow, he now has his work cut out for him. May the wind be at his back.
It will be interesting to see if Comcast, as they take majority control of MSNBC and CNBC, reins in some of their more outrageous TV characters like Rachel Maddow.
GE has let Maddow run wild, but, GE is very sensitive to criticism of both MSNBC and CNBC, and their actors like Maddow.
I see where Comcast has already knocked out a couple of top level Jews, Jeff Zucker for one, in the last few days, and hopefully they will continue.
A complaint to either GE or Comcast about Maddow couldn’t hurt.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GE+Profile
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CMCSA+Profile
Btw, I don’t doubt that Maddow is of Jewish ethnic origin, but, she is also of French Roman Catholic ancestry, and maybe a practicing Roman Catholic lesbian.
I enjoyed the Maddow clip: it was almost comical to see her cringing over perfectly reasonable statements by Jim Russell. The clip also doesn’t do her any favours, as she comes across as ignorant, prejudiced, narrow-minded, and condescending. What a thoroughly unpleasant and preposterous person.
So, how does Maddow explain Jewish only dating services?
Isn’t that eugenics and avoidance of race-mixing?
How does Maddow explain Jewish funding of mixed race dating services?
K. MacDonald said:
“Maddow starts by labeling TOQ a “White supremicist journal” —shorthand for not having to deal with the ideas presented there and not being sensitive to the obvious difference between White supremacy and White advocacy.”
The first step in de-legitimizing opposing views for agenda driven pundits is to remove all elements of nuance and difference among the individuals who make up that opposing view…present them as a monolith rather than a “diverse” community (much like what white advocates are allegedly doing to other groups.) That Russell is a Ph.d and author was left out of the piece shouldn’t surprise us. All white separatists live in trailer parks, REMEMBER???
How many people on TOO blogs have criticized the Tea Party? Lots. How many people on TOO blogs dislike Glenn and Rush ? Most. That doesn’t matter to the opposition…The tea party and Beck and Russell and TOO bloggers are all wearing armbands with swastikas. Maddow only acknowledges that Russell, as a white advocate, is a lot “weirder” than the rest …not exactly nuance.
Still, maybe we should cut Rachel some slack. This is probably the first time in centuries that acknowledged homosexuals can publicly call OTHER people “weird.” It’s probably kind of a thrill for her ( possibly on par with Bella Abzug showing some leg??)
And maybe makes her feel more normal.
Oh yeah, and we never did “MEET” Jim Russell…we met Rachel Maddow’s OPINION of Jim Russell. Maybe next time she won’t be afraid of actually INTERVIEWING him.
Has anyone told Maddow about TOQ’s enlightened policies on homosexuals?
Tom, if you had bothered to do a few minutes worth of research, you would have found that Comcast is a Jewish company.
http://www.comcast.com/corporate/about/pressroom/corporateoverview/corporateexecutives/corporateexecutives.html
She’s obviously a lesbian pervert and attempts to justify her perversion by creating a worldview wherein her perversion is acceptable. She hates everything associated with cultural norms regarding sexuality. In this respect she is just like a Jew, who also rejects Truth and tries to create a world in which Truth doesn’t matter or exist outside of their own warped reality. So she basically is a Jew, regardless of blood.
The thing about Jews and activist sexual perverts is that they need to convince themselves that they are “right” but the only way they can do it is to spend their entire life fixated on those that believe they are wrong. What a waste of a life. What a miserable, empty life.
Anything to destroy the W.A.S.P. After all aren’t they the perpetrators of all the evil in the world? Let’s see. Didn’t she go to school on a Rhode’s Scholarship? Money well spent I would say. Pay for someone’s education and own them for life. For this young and impressionable lesbian, perhaps already struggling with her sexuality, it wasn’t that hard to indoctrinate her into the Jewish way of smearing anyone they have malice towards. Or was she just born a raving bigot?
Jen, don’t you mean, “weak, LIMPY white men”?
With a name like “Rachel Maddow”, it’s certainly not surprising she is at least distantly Jewish. Anyway, I’m sure there are scores of people like her in the pipeline getting PhDs, ready to co-opt public opinion and keep it manageable, while policy is made largley irrespective of public opinion. Glenn Beck is another example of that. Maddow’s position at MSNBC, complete with anti-Iraq-war megaphone, was awarded after neoconservative plans for an American-dominated Iraq had already completely failed.
@ ZOG
Did you read what I posted?
According to what I’ve read Burke of Comcast showed the Jew Zucker of GE the door. Take that however you want. But, I think that it’s starting to get through to a lot of these corporate executives—that White men are not happy with the Jews in particular & non-Whites in general. You read this White reaction in most financial blogs & financial comment sections. Some of it even surprises me. The days of corporate philo-semitism are drawing to an end.
Maddow looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and distantly is a duck.
Maddow (or, at least, Madow) is a Jewish surname.
According to Avotanyu, the surname can be found in the JewishGen Belarus Database, the JewishGen Family Finder, the Family Tree of the Jewish People and the Jewish Genealogical Society of Montreal’s list of Quebec Jewish surnames.
Rachel Maddow’s father must’ve been at least partly Jewish on his father’s side (having had a Jewish surname). If he was fully Jewish, then Rachel must be half Jewish (if her mother really is 100% Irish – her mother’s maiden name was Gosse which is actually a Norman-English name),
Maddow (Madow) sounds like a variation of Madoff to me.
Rachel Maddow does admit to having some distant Jewish ancestry.
Click on my name for the LINK to the Jewish website:
Jew or not a Jew
Santomauro,
You say you are not an “anti-Semite”. I take it you mean by that, all rhetorical triangulation aside, you would stop hating the Jews if they would just bugger off. I mean in the sense that mosquitoes are not considered by you any less inherently noisome merely by their being out of sight and out of mind. And “hate” being a Pavlovian tripwire in the minds of the lemmings to be avoided by smooth politicers, and all that. Especially if one wishes to refute the Holohoax, the king of all tripwires.
“She’s obviously a lesbian pervert”
Spooky, isn’t it your contention that we should not place such a high priority on acquiring racially exclusive living space (yup, Lebensraum) for the reason that cultural homogeneity for Whites is elusive in your opinion? Where would we be without your grand strategy vision? LOL!
Please, pardon my compulsive candor and lack of tact, all. I’m half Kraut, can’t really help it.
Tom,
So now Comcast, a Jewish company, will own 51% of NBC Universal, and you think that’s a good thing?
(Stephen Burke is Jewish too, by the way.)
MacDonald did good here. The existential crisis facing our race front and center. I mean, the Jews can terrorize the Chinese for all I care. (Of course they won’t succeed, cuz they don’t really look Chinese. The Chinese will not be able to look at Jews and see something of themselves in Jews. No resonance with which to conduct the scam.) Hating Jews is not an end unto itself for me, the existential issue is. Once the Jews bugger off, either on their own accord or with some less than gentle encouragement, my beef with them ends.
Maybe Mad Rachel, Lady Gag Hag and Sarah Silverloins could team up for a world tour with zombies, vampires and corpses on stage. It would bring in billions!
@ ZOG
Stephen B. Burke
http://www.nndb.com/people/969/000128585/
Stephen B. Burke Presbyterian & Christian
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/24/style/miss-hoadley-is-wed-to-stephen-b-burke.html
Zoggy you are off on a tangent.
“Hating Jews is not an end unto itself for me, the existential issue is. Once the Jews bugger off, either on their own accord or with some less than gentle encouragement, my beef with them ends.”
To me, that’s a healthy outlook and attitude. There’s a lot of incriminating evidence against the agenda driven, self serving elements of judaism out there, and once it’s exposed to (and TAKEN TO HEART by) the non-jewish world, our hatred won’t be necessary to solve the problem. Once exposed, it will likely cause the world-wide jewish community to implode (if the non-jewish world can get past their absurd holocaust guilt, that is.)
On the other hand….my idol, Henry Ford, tried that approach, and it wasn’t exactly successful. But hatred hasn’t solved the problem, either.
Captainchaos says: “MacDonald did good here.”
No he didn’t. He goofed.
Quick acknowledgement of the error heals what can be healed, but it’s still an oopsie.
This jew was on TV today- http://www.richardsilverstein.com/
He said that jewish rhetoric is getting worn out, and that new approaches are needed. He mentioned that a guy named Kunst had written a 100 page detailed report on how jews should now defend Israel, i.e. talking points. I assume this represents the cutting edge in manipulation tactics. I can’t find the report, but if MacDonald can, he may be able to dissect it for common patterns, or find something new.
I saw Pres. Perez interviewed. He laid out the typical jew formula for manipulating Anglo-Saxon Christians. It’s the exact same civil rights formula that the jews taught the blacks in the NAACP.
Regarding how to deal with Ahmadinejad, he said we must “shame” everyone for being willing to live in a world that permits Ahmadinejad. He said that it is a moral issue.
We are suckers for that kind of language. As a White Christian, I see how churches use the shame + morality + values = we must do more for social justice ploy all the time.
I don’t fall for it, because in spite of Jesus’ telling me to love my enemies, he never told me to surrender to my enemies, and if he had, I’d be tempted to just read more insanity from Nietczhe just to keep my dignity as I grow into a bitter, sour, old atheist.
Jesus never told me to surrender to jews, blacks, muslims. He told me that something called “enemies” existed, but when he turned his other cheek to his enemies, they killed him. I got that message loud and clear. The Sermon on the Mount was given before he was killed, not after.
Jesus never told me that just because someone is jew, black, or muslim, I am required, because of my Anglo-Celtic-Saxon-Germanic blood, to always put their interests and desires ahead of my own. If he had said that without explaining why my interests are inferior to theirs, then the illogical argument would nullify him.
In the hope of salvation, Whites certainly are willing to accept a great deal of irrationality. I’ll keep the hope and accept Purgatory. I’ll be a Christian, but an imperfect one, because I’m a racist Christian who sees racism as no sin. Why didn’t Jesus go on an outreach mission to Ghana for saving the souls of the voodoo worshippers? He stayed out of Africa. Why didn’t he tell the prostitutes that if they sin, be sure to sin with Diversity?
Captainchaos asked me a question, here is my answer:
An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.
BUT I will say this:
Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish!!
Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is “nothing more than a screen to present chosen views.” The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually “think outside of the (Jewish) box.” –Michael Santomauro
Captainchaos, I’m not into whiteness per se, you’re correct. It’s not someone’s skin color that ticks me off, it’s the nonsense that someone spouts. It’s not the disunity of color that lets Jews take control (although it helps), it’s disunity of opinion. So no, I’m not into fighting with someone I don’t agree with just because our skin color is the same. At the same time I hate diversity for diversity’s sake. Diversity isn’t even in the same ballpark as Truth.
We were on the wrong side of WW2. Not because we weren’t on the side of whites, but because we weren’t on the side of Truth.
Michael Santomauro: “Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish!!”
I agree with this and this is why it is important for us to read books and articles before Tribe Psycho’s triumph over the once Anglo-Saxon civilization of the West.
They don’t have to be books by people who the Tribe targeted as the sworn enemies of their destructive transformative agenda like Lothrop Stoddard or Madison Grant, (although they themselves were considered mainstream whilst the Tribe were in the process of establishing their grip, during their inter-war period, in their drive towards near-total hegemony of what passes for “legitimate” ideas) but intelligent analysts like historian Charles Austin Beard or a sociologist like Edward Alsworth Ross.
When you read the original source material published in the early part of the last century you are struck by just how much the assumptions of such analysts have been changed.
Beard, proud of his Mid-West origins and defender of those who opened up the West like his Grandmother/father and a great defender of the civilization which made such an expansion possible.
Ross wondering about the living standards of existing Americans in the face of mass immigration, though at least, apart from the Tribe, they were mainly of European origin, though still at that stage very alien to existing Americans but brought in for the same reason as today: short-term greed of the employers.
Edward Alsworth Ross (December 12, 1866–July 22, 1951
Amongst others:
The Old World in the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People (1914)
Charles Austin Beard (November 27, 1874 – September 1, 1948)
Amongst others:
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913)
Such authors inhabit a whole different psychological universe where the assumptions are that of Western European man coming to grips with his past. present and future and not being dictated, unlike todays alien diet of “history” bulldozed into both Child and Adult minds alike, with the obsessions of Tribe Psycho consolidating their rule over a subject people, which currently exists in near totality.
Back to then to retain our Future.
MSM propagandist Rachel Maddow holds Whites to ridiculous racial standards, whitewashes endemic institutional racism of her Judeofascist-Left masters
http://www.judeofascism.com/2010/09/msm-propagandist-rachel-maddow-holds.html
Although to be honest I’ve never met a person of any color but white that I’ve fully agreed with. It seems that fundamentally everybody has a racial issue but whites. My first experience with “race” as a child came from other children. I always thought we were all the same. I certainly never learned about it at home. But then the black kids would say something racially aware. As if they were all taught from a very young age about the “white devil,” that whites were different, that browns or blacks or whatever were better. For everyone else but whites it comes down to color.
But I don’t think we need to embrace color to succeed again. We just need to stop the noxious ideologies used to keep us down. Which means we need to rediscover Truth and jealously guard it. We need to agree. We need to create a culture strong enough to counter the monolithic Jewish propaganda machine. And that has absolutely nothing to do with color. After all, most Jews could pass as white. They are only called out by what they say. And if they keep their mouth shut, who cares?
Finally, if history shows us anything, it’s that skin color doesn’t ignite the white imagination. It’s a hard-sell. It seems the only thing that ignites the white imagination on a large scale anymore is Jews. Skin color can’t compete with that. Only a greater Truth can. A Truth that we used to know but that has been subverted at every level. That Truth being that we need to agree. It’s only by agreeing to agree that we can create a monolithic wall of competing “propaganda” large enough to fight the Jews. You start by saying the God the Jews worship sent a Son to tell the world He hates their ways and you build from there. Seriously.
Those guys knew what they were doing. I’m telling you.
Alex Kurtagic said: “she comes across as ignorant, prejudiced, narrow-minded, and condescending. What a thoroughly unpleasant and preposterous person.”
Unfortunately, that describes the typical New Yorker, and certainly the typical White voter. They see her performance and think: “Look, she thinks just like me!”
Just as ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ mean ‘what I see on MSNBC’, so they would reject your description of her as “ignorant etc.” since they define “intelligent and informed” as “reads the New York Times.”
Freddie Turnill says:
“It is important for us to read books and articles before Tribe Psycho’s triumph over the once Anglo-Saxon civilization of the West. … Such authors inhabit a whole different psychological universe where the assumptions are that of Western European man coming to grips with his past. present and future and not being dictated, unlike todays alien diet of “history” bulldozed into both Child and Adult minds alike, with the obsessions of Tribe Psycho consolidating their rule over a subject people, which currently exists in near totality.”
Extremely important. I frequently make this point over at my blog, and document some of my discoveries, such as James Gould Cozzens, Pulitzer prize winning, best selling, book-of-the-month club popular, novelist taken down by the New York “Intellectuals” and now forgotten.
I try to restrict my reading to old books, bought at old bookstores or online. One of the ironic advantages to the current economic crisis; who needs expensive new dreck?
Actually, it’s almost impossible to really FIND anyone, before say WWII, who ISN”T politically incorrect, hence the need to ban or ignore “dead white guys.” Take that Eliot quote that riled Maddow. As Evola said at his trial for “fascist propaganda”, “Evola denied he was a Fascist and insisted that he thought the same as well-bred men with sound minds thought prior to the French Revolution. ” [http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=1026]
Distantly Jewish…
Like Kerry and Albright? Kerry, the “Irish Catholic”, his grandpa a few generations back was the famous flying rabbi of Poland who made golem.
Lady Gaga, true name Stefani Joanna Angelina Germanotta. Her surname Germanotta is Ashkenazic Jewish, originating from Northern Italy. Which is notable, because Italy and Southern Europe in general has mostly had Sephardic (North African and Middle Eastern) Jews since Roman times.
“Lady Gaga” with dark hair before she was famous.
BTW Wiki cannot be trusted for giving accurate Judeo information, I’ve seen entries where KNOWN Jews were called Irish Catholics etc.
Wikipedia has been repeatedly manipulated by Jewish Supremacists and is common knowledge.
Types like Maddow (pronounced “Maddoff” I assume and perhaps much more appropriately spelled as such) are, because of their mercenary not-really Kosher status go OTT, “plus royaliste que le roi” or “more royalist than the king”.
Those who choose to ape Tribe type humour because they see it as a good career move ( a bit like modern-day Western homosexuality) with its “watch me I’m so clever” routine as they elbow themselves to the front of the queue are forever on a knife edge.
These fakes have not the assurance (or insurance) of actually belonging to Tribe Psycho so their comic turns tend to be more frenetic and over-the-top dismissive as they have to keep proving to and ingratiating themselves with their masters so any Tribe blood contribution will be emphasized though kosher Tribe wont take that too seriously methinks.
Though I wouldn’t put Christopher Hitchens quite on a par with a mindless motor-mouthed Leftist clone like Maddow, a professional L’ enfant terrible like Christopher Hitchens likes to play up this angle though he insured himself to continue his chauffeur-driven Leftism by marrying a Kosher Tribe.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
“In an article in the Guardian Unlimited on 14 April 2002, Hitchens says he could be considered Jewish because Jewish descent is matrilineal.
According to Hitchens, when his brother Peter Hitchens took his fiancée to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her 90s, Dodo said, “She’s Jewish, isn’t she?” and then announced: “Well, I’ve got something to tell you. So are you.” She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, that her ancestors had the family name Blumenthal, and were from Poland.”
& to consolidate his reputation even more with the Tribe he autobioed :
“Hitchens has written of his homosexual experiences when in boarding school in his memoir, Hitch-22. These experiences spilled over into his college years when he allegedly had relationships with two men who eventually became a part of Margaret Thatcher’s government”
His particular show seems to be currently if not soon-to-be-permanently off-the-road for rather more personal reasons.
“On 30 June 2010, Hitchens postponed his book tour for Hitch-22 to undergo treatment for metastatic esophageal cancer that has spread to his lymph nodes and lungs”
No matter how much self-assurance these types have they know that they are permanently “on license” which can be taken away at any time.
Hitchens, like Maddow, employs an intellectual slight of hand when presenting his views, and he’s good at it. He claims to value logic and reason over silly things like superstition and religion, yet believes he’ll convert billions of believers over to his church of atheism by ridiculing their faith (and culture), which, of course, is neither logical or reasonable. He is smart, but he gets away with it mostly because of his pompous demeanor.
Leftists like Hitchens and Maddow seem to believe that it’s impossible for leftists to be hateful or judgemental or backwards, so they do it all the time and call it something else.
I’m sorry to hear about his cancer – I wouldn’t wish that on anyone – but it will be interesting to see if it alters his theology. I doubt it.
Mr. MacDonald,
I just read a comment on Rachel Maddow’s blog:
“I was going to say that Rachel Maddow looks like Andy Dick. But then I realized that Rachel doesn’t do dick.”
Ooops!
Jim: “[Hitchens] claims to value logic and reason … [he] believes he’ll convert billions of believers over to his church of atheism by ridiculing their faith (and culture), which, of course, is neither logical or reasonable. He is smart, but he gets away with it mostly because of his pompous demeanor.”
“Smart”? Mr. Hitchens is no more capable of displaying a mastery of logic and reason than any other homosexual Jewish alcoholic wearing philosophical blinders.
In a fair and civil debate on the topic of religion and theology, Hitchens wouldn’t last five minutes against a qualified opponent even if his friends Dawkins and Dennett were propping up his drunken carcass from either side.
eurodele said:
” ‘Smart’? Mr. Hitchens is no more capable of displaying a mastery of logic and reason than any other homosexual Jewish alcoholic wearing philosophical blinders.”
It’s interesting, there are actually a polls out there that “rate” the world’s top intellectuals…Hitchens is listed #5…around there usually.
OK, my first question is, who the hell is qualified to rate the world’s top intellectuals other than the world’s top intellectuals? So it’s like the NCAA Coaches poll or something?? They send questionaires out to the world’s top intellectuals every month? The whole thing is absurd.
Anyway, Hitchens was much lower in those polls until he started making a lot of TV appearances, then he dramatically shot up for some reason…his Richard Burton-ish voice, I suppose. Sounds like the People’s Choice Awards to me. What Hitchens is truly a master of is the art of bluster.
Jim: “It’s interesting, there are actually polls out there that ‘rate’ the world’s top intellectuals…Hitchens is listed #5…around there usually.”
As you might expect, what such polls are rating is not intelligence or IQ. They’re rating “popularity as an intellectual” within the responding sample and the population of which it is representative … how smart various intellectuals on a list are perceived to be by the respondents, or equivalently, how successfully they create the impression of brightness.
In other words, a list of preselected intellectuals is shown to a set of people who might be expected to recognize the names on it – as you surmise, these people would be other “intellectuals” – and they rank the names they recognize. These results are then used to compute the final ordering. Intellectuals who don’t make the initial list of choices have no chance of being ranked; it’s as though they don’t exist.
If the poll is “free”, on the other hand – if the sample is self-selected and they can name whomever they like – things really get kinky. Here are the top ten names in such a poll conducted in 2008:
Fethullah Gulen
Muhammad Yunus
Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Orhan Pamuk
Aitzaz Ahsan
Amr Khaled
Abdolkarim Soroush
Tariq Ramadan
Mahmood Mamdani
Shirin Ebadi
Recognize any of these heavyweights? (I didn’t think so.) Hitchens comes in at #27 on that one, and only because he’s a darling of “The Brights”, a crowd of militant atheists controlled by Hitchens’ pugnacious drinking buddies Richie Dawkins and Danny Dennett.
Together, these shortcomings make this kind of poll totally subjective and nothing but a media circle-jerk. It’s strictly for entertainment and publicity.
If Maddow is only ‘distantly Jewish’ then what ethnicity is she supposed to be instead? Not Anglo Saxon, that’s for sure. Being ‘raised as a Roman Catholic’ is not a valid answer for her ethnicity. She looks fairly Jewish to me, and like so many Jews I have known, she trys to avoid explicitly asserting herself as a Jew.
Oh yeah, and we never did “MEET” Jim Russell…we met Rachel Maddow’s OPINION of Jim Russell
brilliant
This means absolutely nothing. All it means is that his wife is possibly non-Jewish. Try again.
Whilst I was a student at Oxford in 1969 there was some attempted occupation of the Clarendon Building in Broad St, which as the following states was
http://kostisvelonis.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
” the university’s symbolic centre, home of the proctors (chief disciplinary officers) and their fearsome “bulldogs” (bowler-hatted constables), was briefly occupied.”
Supposedly some “files” were kept in this building which held confidential information about certain student’s activities.
Somehow the various Leftist-Trotskyite organisations persuaded enough of the ordinary not particularly political students that there was some vast surveillance operation going on spying on students and collecting and collating the information so gathered in “files” supposedly held at this building.
The “occupation” itself was a farce in that only the ante-room into the offices were “occupied” but far too many students had been caught up in the “surveillance” and “spying” fever to be accommodated in the one ante-room so the “occupation” spilt out onto the expansive courtyard area.
This was my 1st experience of Christopher Hitchens who was by head and shoulders far and away the “star” of the whole show.
Whilst the rest of the crew who spoke were capable of only spouting the usual litany of monotone Leftist victimology CH was capable of great feats of oratory which captivated his audience with his self-confidence, bravura assurance, wit and humour and ability to caricature and extemporise.
I had, needless to say, never heard of him until that time but didn’t forget him afterwards due to his exceptional presentational skills irrespective of what he actually said.
I don’t actually remember him using a loud hailer but his voice certainly carried to the hundreds of students gathered in the courtyard.
He himself now represents the episode in a rather flippant way in his autobio:
http://www.epubbud.com/read.php?g=TJHP4X9Q
Hitch-22
Written by Hitchens, Christopher
“For all who try to lead a double life there will eventually be “a small but interesting revenge” as James Fenton later phrased it to me.
Mine came when I was addressing a crowd of infuriated students from the steps of the Clarendon Building and denouncing some official infraction of our rights to free sex and free association and free speech.
Over the heads of the audience, as I was hitting my peroration, I saw the silvered and saturnine features of “The Warden,” who must by then have been the most execrated figure on the Oxford Left. A twitch at the corner of his lip betrayed his design, which I detected almost at the same instant.
Making a discreet but determined path through the astonished protestors, he arrived just as I was concluding and said: “My dear Christopher, I am so sorry to have missed most of your speech. I have no doubt it was admirable. But I do hope you haven’t forgotten that you promised to look in after dinner tonight.”
It was a moment of cock-crow. I could have pretended not to understand, but I replied instead that I was looking forward to it and—as he glided away with a sleek air of “game, set, and match” clinging to him—faced the slightly baffled faces of my comrades.
I could have taken refuge in some “know your enemy” formulation, but something in me said that this would be ignoble. I didn’t want a one-dimensional politicized life.” (or miss out on good wines and sumptuous dinner and networking to boot! Also I did not witness the above incident)
He has continued to have the verbosity, the charisma and the debating skills (instant recall and an ability to embarrass your opponent by so doing) to be able to caricature and belittle his opponents (I remember Joe Sobran recalling he got worsted by him in debate) to be a public intellectual but had he not had the correct set of ideas which chimed in with the needs of the Tribe’s destructive agenda no amount of talent would ensure access for these to be displayed.
This has been the great change. Charles Beard’s books sold in there millions back in the 20′s and especially the 30′s and he was the very definition of a “public intellectual” then holding no academic position since his resignation from Columbia in 1917.
You only have to read his early works to see his identification with the concerns of his own people and with the analysis and intellectual development of his own society’s ideas and not, a la, Hitchens, the 2nd hand reworking of the Tribe’s ideological agenda presented with English Plum accent and not a care in the world about the fate of the English.
Views of the impressive Clarendon Building can be seen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarendon_Building
The rear of the building with the courtyard is where the “action” took place.
Also:
http://kostisvelonis.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
“Balliol College’s outer wall was transformed into a palimpsestic street newspaper.
All Souls College, then as now a research institution with no students, was picketed by student enragés. Otherwise, nothing much happened.”
John Sparrow (1906-1992) Warden of All Souls College, Oxford from 1952-77 was a particular remote establishment hate figure caricatured by Hitchens at the time supposedly for being some éminence grise figure dictating University policy. Indeed for sometime I thought that John Sparrow was held to some particular “responsibility” for all the “”surveillance” and “spying” supposedly being undertaken at the time.
Convenient scapegoats of the old (but not the new) Establishment seem to be a specialty of CH.
Daybreaker,
“No he didn’t. He goofed.”
MacDonald gave prominence in this post to miscegenation, which goes directly towards addressing the existential threat which looms over our race. That is what I was referring to and hope to see more of. The continued existence of our race is more important than who is or is not Jewish, or what Jews individually and collectively do. The reason I am concerned with Jews is that significantly they work towards the destruction of my race.
Santomauro,
Are you telling me you don’t believe Jews have a evolved genetic propensity to do what it is you find so loathsome? That would be miraculous indeed.
Spooky,
“I’m not into whiteness per se,”
Yet you enjoy the benefits that flow from the genetic constitution of the White race but are less than concerned with preserving said. You are a free rider, then. Okey-dokey.
“But I don’t think we need to embrace color to succeed again.”
We don’t need to explicitly, consciously embrace what we ARE (that is an ontological statement, I refer to our very being) in order to preserve that when just that is slippy away? LOL! You are either a incredibly superficial thinker or a troll.
Newsflash: Race is not merely skin deep.
No, race is not skin deep. But neither is the human spirit. There are a ton of white dirt bags. If there weren’t so many white dirt bags we wouldn’t be where we are. Our problem is not that we can’t see color, it’s that we can’t see dirt bags, because we’ve lost Truth, we’ve lost cohesion and we’ve lost the ability to think critically.
Indeed I enjoy the benefits that flow from the culture of white people. No question. It’s a culture of discernment. I see absolutely no discernment in falling back on skin color. That is the epitome of shallow thinking. Good luck with that.
There is no such thing as “distantly Jewish”. Like saying “distantly sharkish”. If it bites your leg off, it’s a shark.
“I had, needless to say, never heard of him [Hitchens] until that time but didn’t forget him afterwards due to his exceptional presentational skills irrespective of what he actually said.”
What an interesting experience that must’ve been.
It appears that Hitchens’ “truth” ultimately resides within his charisma and abilities. I suspect, therefore, it may be as Pat Buchanan said of Hitler, another charismatic orator – his truth will “not long survive the death of it’s messiah.”
Kevin,
“Maddow starts by labeling TOQ a “White supremicist journal” —”
I know you are short on time and resources, but ideally this should be handled as the ADL would handle it.
Look either TOQ is a “White supremicist journal” — given an official unbiased definition of supremacist which is universally applicable — or it is not. If it is, supremacist needs to be rehabilitated and applied equally to all like cased. If not, legal action needs to be considered, given the libel.
I think a common mistake Westerners make is to not try to aggressively defend their name and image. The impression I get is that people think they don’t need to because the charges are so preposterous. Which itself is preposterous. There is a reason you only have a few thousand people associated with white advocacy. The whole movement is like the chump that lets himself get bullied
KMD: “The reality is that social psychology provides strong support for the idea that exposure of babies to other races would make them favor their own race less.”
True. But it is hard to imagine how Whites could be made any more anti-racist than they already are.
KMD: “Her piece is a good example of how the media is focused on changing the behavior of one group and one group only: White Christians.”
Not really. Most White Christians are already completely on board with the system’s anti-racist diktats. Their churches are in the forefront of bringing non-White savages into their own lands, where it is perspicuously clear that they will murder their sons and breed with their daughters. They have no objection to seeing their race destroyed because they are convinced it pleases rabbi Jeebus. This is very much in accord with Scripture. In fact, it is easy to show that the project of race elimination is the explicit goal of Christianity. E.g., see Paul:
KMD: “MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s take is a classic example of the power of the media to create an alternate reality where facts don’t matter and where simply stating Russell’s opinions is enough to create mild amusement in her audience benumbed by decades of leftist propaganda.”
It’s not merely a question of the power of media. A great deal of the blame for this behavior must be laid at the doorstep of human nature as it has been shaped by 20 centuries of Christianity. As I mentioned in the “multiculturalism in Europe” thread below, Whites received two dramatic and important cultural modifications by adopting this religion: the substitution of faith in a desert spook for reason and self-reliance, and a broad-based and far-ranging intolerance. Both clashed enormously with what was the White spirit of that time, and are essentially Jewish, not White, approaches to the world. One of the first concrete results of that change was the imposition of a social conformity as fanatic as it was unprecedented. One simply cannot imagine the devotees of Mithras, for example, warring against the worship of Zeus or Aphrodite. Pagan Whites were quite tolerant of one another’s religions. By contrast, the history of Christianity is the history of intolerance; it is the history of the imposition of conformism, from the plundering and eventual outlawing of the pagan temples, to the cutting of the sacred groves of the Druids, to the destruction of whole libraries full of ancient texts. Christianity even enforced conformity within itself, persecuting internal heresies, such as Gnosticism, Arianism, and Marcionism. This sometimes erupted in White-on-White genocidal fury, such as the Albigensian Crusade, or the Thirty Years’ War.
My point is that after so much enforced conformism, it would not be surprising if Whites in general have become much more conformist than they once were. Such behavior is selected for by Christianity and the cultures it creates, and this has been the case for two thousand dysgenic years. Therefore, I would say that the degree of media “control” is probably overestimated; but in any case, it is easy to control what has become a race of sheep, who have been specifically and progressively bred for increased docility. Open your eyes and look around. Do you see much rebellion among Whites? The truth is, rebellions are few and far between. It is easy to lead such an ovine people in a direction they want to go anyway, and are already headed.
Praise Jeebus!
- Der weiße Engel aka “The Living Embodiment of Evil” :-)
Maddow, Madow, Maddoff, Maddof, Maddov, Maddov, and other similar variants….moderately common Jewish surnames all.
Der weiße Engel:
Your posts are superb. If you are not a professional writer, you should be. I haven’t seen such undiscovered raw talent since Alex Linder exploded onto the scene nearly a decade ago. Do you have a blog or a webpage? Why not write some feature articles for TOO or TOQ? Your humble posts outshine even many of the feature writers here. Super powerful, erudite, great style, like a first round knockout. More please!!!!!!
There is a lot to agree with in what “Der weiße Engel” says.
Why the European elites beginning around the time of the Roman collapse began to support the importation of this Middle-Eastern monotheistic cult which eventually became THE only religion of European peoples in European societies despite having no antecedents within its own soil I’m not sure.
Somehow their readiness seems to have been connected with the basing of the cult in Rome and the backwash of the legacy of the prestige of the Roman Empire giving some credence and legitimacy to the cult’s missionary ambassadors.
Despite (or because of?) all this those from northern European society organised Christianity was extremely self-consciously ethnic and racial: that this was so enabled them to conquer the world setting up lasting replicas of their original civilisation against tremendous odds for themselves in lands they peopled and brought other warring races under their control and over and against whom they continued to remained separate.
The Boers and the American West were conquered by a combination of gun in one had and bible in the other and its people remained self-consciously racial.
It has only been as a consequence of the successful campaign of Tribe Psycho (aided and abetted by those of European elites who sought advantage for themselves riding in the baggage train of the Tribe) for monopolistic secular ideological power (and hence elite political, economic, educational and social power too) and the diminution in the ideological and everyday role of that Christianity descending into some pathetic feel-good cult lead by types every bit as traitorous and treacherous as their political class counterparts that the present sorry state of European racial unconsciousness (deracination) has been reached.
As a tribute to Christianity’s past identity it is possible to point to Tribe Psycho retaining their Talmudic hatred bent on revenge through destruction against Christianity, more even in its secular manifestation, despite the fact that the current leadership of the various denominations (if not a good segment of their congregations) are completely on message with the multi-cult agenda without regard for their historic peoples.
And despite my antipathy to the importation of this religion this is somewhat muted by fact that the founder of Christianity was crucified under blackmail from the Tribe religious leadership for ideological transgressions so there must be something about Christian beliefs which are not to Talmudic precepts either of the religious or secular variety.
Also the weasel contrivance of conjoining “Judaeo-Christian” to make an “Ethic” much punted by the Tribe and its Christian supporters is, I think, rather new.
When reading “Dungeon Democracy” about an Englishman Christopher Burney experiences in Buchenwald
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Burney
he referred to the “Greco-Christian” traditon which I think a much more accurate description of our historic civilisation. The Judaeo is very much in evidence today though only in its secular Talmudic version!
Freddy: “Despite (or because of?) all this those from northern European society organised Christianity was extremely self-consciously ethnic and racial: that this was so enabled them to conquer the world setting up lasting replicas of their original civilisation against tremendous odds for themselves”
Quite so…and this, of course, shows that there is nothing in the religion per se, as abstracted from the “Judeo-Christian” bureaucracy, that precludes a strong ethnic identity or demands Judaization. In the course of time and human affairs, all creeds share the tendency to generate corrupt bureaucracies; there have been no exceptions to date. It’s a function of human nature and political and economic reality.
In fact, there is evidently something about the bare Christian religion that is capable of bringing together even the most warlike pagan tribes exactly as White Americans and polyglot Europeans need to come together on the issue of reconquering their lands. We need that commonality of purpose, and here – with a few interpretational constraints and adjustments – is a proven way to achieve it, replete with glorious examples from a long and illustrious White-dominated history. All that is required is some interpretational fine-tuning to preclude the sort of heresy we now see from modern “Judeo-Christians”, who have, after all, sold out their religion exactly as many elite Whites have sold out their race.
It is quite clear that Christianity is distinct from the perversion known as “Judeo-Christianity”; the change of nomenclature clearly reflects a change of content that would never have been tolerated by Christ Himself, who literally hated the “Jews” of his day and their corrupt belief system. The prefix “Judeo-“ and all that it signifies is an add-on, the leech on a turtle, the tick on a dog, a barnacle on a ship. Beware those who pretend otherwise, for they are the ones who invest this prefix with the absurd power to change even that which expressly contradicts it, and thus betray their own essentially Judaic motives.
(Please note: That initial quote in my last post above should have been attributed to Freddie_Turnill.)
eurodele said:
“It is quite clear that Christianity is distinct from the perversion known as “Judeo-Christianity”; the change of nomenclature clearly reflects a change of content that would never have been tolerated by Christ Himself…”
I think this is true. There are, however, many people currently involved in biblical scholarship who are trying to redefine the very early Christian church as merely a ‘jewish sect” or cult. These people are the same ones who are taking the revisionist view that it was the Romans who wanted Jesus dead, not the jews.
And yes, many of these new New Testament scholars are jews. There are more jewish New Testament scholars now than there ever have been. I believe Jeremy Cohen is one of them.
Jewish New Testament scholars link:
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/2_24/pages/new_testament.html
Note the PC tone of the above link. They’re trying not only to infiltrate our religion, but our doctrine.
“When he was an undergraduate, Rabbi Harry Manhoff scoffed at the idea. That’s when he first read the Christian Scriptures for a religion course. The experience filled him with rage. ‘I grew up in a small suburban community in New Jersey, where anti-Semitism was rampant,’ he said.”
Oh, for Christ’s sake! Yes, indeedy! New Jersey, USA, hotbed of anti-Semitism! Why, the Jersey girls are storming the synagogues with torches and pitchforks!
“‘Judaism is a complete religion,’ said Wylen, a Reform rabbi. ‘It does not have a hole in it waiting to be filled by Jesus. (For Jews) this will never be more than a historical interest.’”
That’s too bad then, isn’t it? Because that means that Judaism is stuck with its theological limitations, and its main limitation is just this: its God, instead of being objectively defined on nature in something approaching a logical and/or scientific way, is contractually obligated to one little group of self-dealing miscreants who are about as full of hate and loathing as human beings can be.
This means that the Judaic God, as self-interestedly defined by Jews, cannot possibly be anybody else’s God. Such a God cannot possibly represent non-Jewish interests, as it classifies non-Jews as mere soulless instruments of Jewish satisfaction. This categorically prevents the Jewish God from being incorporated by non-Jews in their spiritual and racial identities; they could only be connected to it by their souls. And that, of course, categorically prevents the Jewish God from being shared by Christianity.
No doubt about it, this new breed of kosher faux-theologian needs to crawl back into its God-forsaken hole and be silent. Needless to say, that goes double for the pathetic, self-hating Judeo-Christian sell-outs who stupidly and suicidally subscribe to their nonsense.
The old testament god is petty, “jealous”, arbitrary, spiteful, plays favorites, and basically has anger management issues. None of these traits are found in the God described in the New Testament. Same God??? I won’t say one way or the other, but it’s something to think about for the next 2000 years or so.
Regardless, the whole underlying message of the New Testament and Jesus’ ministry on earth is this: the jews fundamentally failed in God’s eyes. THAT’S why they hate Jesus.
“Same God??? I won’t say one way or the other, but it’s something to think about for the next 2000 years or so.”
I have a strong hunch we won’t have to wait that long.
I do not believe for a moment that Maddow has any claim to being raised Catholic. She has referred to herself as Jewish on her own program. She has an allegiance to Israel and has stated as much. “Distantly Jewish,” as someone else noted, is absurd particularly if one looks at Maddow where she is distinctly Jewish and as she puts on the years will look more and more mannish, which is not a complete non-sequitur if one considers an article which dealt with the subject of bio-genetics in lesbians.
We’re going to have to drive the Christian-bashers out at some point. They seem to value their abstractions and theology more than they do white people.
P.S., I’m an agnostic.
To leaven our bread for the soul of Whites, as well as to instruct non-Whites on the merits of apartheid, a little humor: Racial divorce because of Irreconcilable Differences. joe
“It is quite clear that Christianity is distinct from the perversion known as “Judeo-Christianity”; the change of nomenclature clearly reflects a change of content that would never have been tolerated by Christ Himself…”
Jesus was a Jewish messianic aspirant (one of many in First Century Palestine), whom some Jews believed would free Judea from the occupying Roman Goyim by way of a fiery apocalypse, leading to the ‘Kingdom of God’– a Goyim-free Jew Heaven-on-Earth. Forget all that stuff about Jesus loving non-Jews: that stuff, where it exists, was added later and is totally bogus retrohistory, used to attract non-Jews to the new religion, once it had been morphed a bit by Jews living outside of Palestine.
The fact is that everything anti-Jewish in the New Testament reflects one of three things: early Jew vs. Jew strife (i.e., believers in Jesus as the Messiah vs. those who didn’t believe– typical Semitic religious infighting with attendant name-calling and hyperbole), later propaganda efforts by Hellenized Jews living in the Roman world who wanted to bowdlerize and obfuscate the tale of the seditionist anti-Roman Jesus coming out of Palestine for their own safety– in the exact same way that American and European Jews with media power today censor what news the Goyim can hear about Israel and what it does so Jews can sleep easy among the Goyim– and, lastly, stuff added by the Gentile dupes who had swallowed the whole kosher business and took what the Hellenizers said seriously and then kicked up the anti-Jewishness a notch (typical:a Jewish plot blowing up in the Jews’ faces).
So, over the course of the Gospels (written from 70AD to 120AD), the ethnocentric Jewishness was reduced, while the anti-Jewish (and pro-Gentile) sentiment was increased, which is why the gospel of Mark (70AD) gives us a Jesus who tells the Syrophonecian woman (a gentile) that he doesn’t want to waste his talents on non-Jewish “dogs”, and the final gospel, John (120AD), gives us Christian anti-Semite gems like “Jews are the Synagogue of Satan.”
The fact is this: Christianity began as an apocalyptic, anti-Goyim movement among Jewish ethnonationalist religious fanatics– and that’s what’s at its core, and that’s why it is poison for Europeans.
KDM seems to be banking on Christianity as the historical-cultural glue that might help us avoid the Jew-orchestrated White demographic apocalypse, but I have my doubts.
“The fact is this: Christianity began as an apocalyptic, anti-Goyim movement among Jewish ethnonationalist religious fanatics– and that’s what’s at its core, and that’s why it is poison for Europeans.”
At this point in time, no one can possibly know the precise details of how Christianity began. That Jesus fit into the Jewish Messianic tradition is well-known, but as he clearly departed from Jewish doctrine in many respects, this does not imply religious continuity between Judaism and Christianity.
If one wants to talk about the “core” of Christianity, one must address its content, which is obvious conflict with certain Jewish precepts (including the superiority and special entitlement of the Jewish race). This content must be evaluated in terms of abstract principles including monotheism, teleology, morality, and the Intercessor function of Jesus himself.
Properly interpreted and rationally qualified, such principles are not inconsistent with the survival of the White race. Add to this the fact that the entire history of Western Civilization is Christian from start to finish, and that there is no clearly superior ideology anywhere on the horizon, and throwing it out the window hardly seems a viable option.
Hasbara Matata: “The fact is this: Christianity began as an apocalyptic, anti-Goyim movement among Jewish ethnonationalist religious fanatics– and that’s what’s at its core, and that’s why it is poison for Europeans.
KDM seems to be banking on Christianity as the historical-cultural glue that might help us avoid the Jew-orchestrated White demographic apocalypse, but I have my doubts.”
Christianity as glue?!? That’s a hot one! Anyone can see it’s not sticking; it’s everywhere falling apart and turning into mush, like a cardboard box left out too long in the rain, or like the contents of Bubble Biter’s skull.
Even funnier than that is how these Jeebus-apologists immediately start backpedaling when you ask them point blank if they actually believe their own nonsense. Did a Jew actually come back from the dead? Did he walk on water, or turn it into wine? Did he bring someone back from the dead after the corpse had already started to rot? Suddenly, they don’t want to talk about it anymore. Trying to get a yes or no answer from these hypocrites is an exercise in futility. The truth is, they would answer no, but they are too ashamed to say so. They don’t believe this stuff themselves, they just want YOU to believe it; or rather, they want stupid, intellectually sub-par Whites to believe it. You know, the kind of Whites that can be easily mulcted for financial support; the kind that might someday make up the mass movement that’s supposed to be just around the corner, right after “we” seize control of the media. Yesiree! It’s gonna happen any day now, they tell us. Itz coming, and you must be a Jew if you don’t think so!
So, HM, sound like a good game plan? What’s that? You still “have your doubts”?
Yeah. Call me crazy, but I also doubt it. In fact, I suspect that this whole line of thinking and the endless discussion it provokes is an enormous source of comfort for any Jews reading sites like TOO; as you say above, Christianity is a poison pill they are all too happy to see Whites swallow, even if reviving Christianity were possible, which in fact it is not. And most of them, with the parasite’s instinct for judging the health of the host, probably also can pick up the smell of its death in the air. Their little feelers are twitching with delight, because they know a focus on Christianity dooms any resistance right from the start.
“Okay, okay, it’s broken, but maybe we can fix it!” say the so-called smart guys who are still in contact with reality enough to recognize the poisonous nature of the product currently packaged and marketed under the brand name called Christianity. These whiz kids have somehow got it into their noggins that repackaging it in a shiny new wrapper takes care of the poison. Doh! Pure genius, right?!? Even Dr. Pierce fell for this. He explored the idea of re-writing Christianity and using it as a tool for duping credulous Whites in his book Hunter. Problem one: It isn’t going to be easy to suddenly start preaching not-A when you’ve been preaching A for so long. “Jeebus was a Jew!” You know they’ll say it. Your mission, should you choose to accept it: You must somehow make the distinction between Whites and Jews important again after that. It’s really mission impossible. That fact alone makes it an anti-racist creed. And actually, rehabilitating Christianity would require a 180 degree reversal in many key areas; possible in a book of fiction like Hunter, maybe, but in the real world not nearly so simple. In fact, it probably would be easier to take over the media than the churches, and if you could do that, what would you need the churches for? Problem two: Beyond milking them for funds, there’s not a hell of a lot you can do with a mass movement made up of people stupid enough to believe all the above-mentioned hokum, and the several semi-truckloads more contained in the rest of the Bible. Problem three: You are still lying to them; manipulating them in a Frankfurt-style scam like a Leo Strauss … like a Jew! (Oy vey! I guess it’s true, Christians really do become Jewish in spirit!) Problem four: Chrisitianity is dying anyway from natural causes, losing ground each year to its successor religion called science, in its applied form called technology. It should be obvious even to the brain-damaged Christlings that it’s going to continue this process until it is dead, dead, dead. No amount of CPR is going to work. There is just no way to resuscitate it.
BS Alert: Der kleine Wiesel, AKA “DwEebzillastein”, sighted en route to Tokyo!
DwEebie’s problem 1 is semi-legitimate, but addressable under the right circumstances. (Dweebs isn’t quite smart enough to understand what those circumstances might be, as he demonstrates by ranting against “Jeebus” and preemptively declaring “mission impossible”.)
Problem 2 ignores the tendency for faith to overpower reason, which can be countered simply by increasing the ratio of reason to faith (thus ameliorating problem 1).
Problem 3 is pure DwEebistic nonsense, the a priori assumption that there can exist no truthful, logical, scientifically valid rendition of the core principles of Christianity. This is easily recognizable as the root of DwEebella’s sourness regarding problems 1, 2, and 4. (The DwEebster is welcome to his ditzy opinions on such matters, but is in absolutely no position to wax authoritative about them.)
Problem 4 is analogous to 2, but from an empirical instead of a logical vantage. Unfortunately, instead of entertaining the possibility that a rational version of Christianity can absorb science and logic in their entireties, DwEeberstein immediately lapses into the bleak pessimism and atheistic faux certitude for which he is known (“dead, dead, dead!”), stopping all reason…well, “dead” in its tracks.
This has been a public service message on behalf of White people.