Who remembers Isaiah Young-Sam? His family and friends certainly do, but Britain’s liberal elite certainly don’t. That’s puzzling, because he was a young Black man murdered at the age of 23 in a particularly shocking way: “stabbed through the heart as he fled a baying gang wielding chains, baseball bats and knives, who hunted him down simply because he was black.”
Savages still at large
Isaiah Young-Sam was a devout Christian, a gentle, law-abiding young man who worked for Birmingham City Council in the English Midlands. And he was brutally murdered “simply because he was black.” Why have the liberal elite forgotten him? And why are the liberal elite not outraged that his racist killers are still at large? Since his murder in 2005, the authorities have tried and failed to bring those racists to justice. Three men were jailed in 2006, but their convictions were overturned on appeal and Isaiah Young-Sam’s family still don’t have what liberals call “closure.”
Worse still, his family live in fear of the racists: when an uncle discussed the case in 2012, the uncle “asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals.” Given all this, you would expect Isaiah Young-Sam to have a martyr-cult like the one that surrounds Stephen Lawrence, the young man murdered in London in 1993 “simply for being black.” A Jewish “anti-racist” called Dr Richard Stone has been the High Priest in the Lawrence martyr-cult, supplying the high intelligence and ease with officialdom lacked by the martyr’s mother Doreen Lawrence. But Dr Stone and other Jewish activists have shown no such interest in Isaiah Young-Sam. This is puzzling when you consider that the two racist murders were very similar, except that Isaiah Young-Sam’s murder was worse. Stephen Lawrence was stabbed in a chance encounter and might easily have survived. Isaiah Young-Sam was “hunted down” by a “baying gang” who were fully intent on killing any Black they could catch.
The wrong kind of racist
But Britain’s liberal elite forgot Isaiah Young-Sam long ago. They’ve never added his name to their Big Book of Minority Martyrs and, unlike Stephen Lawrence, he hasn’t been the subject of an endless stream of books, articles, TV programmes and radio broadcasts. Why so? It’s simple. Isaiah Young-Sam has not been turned into a minority martyr because he was murdered by the wrong kind of racist. His killers were brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims. Therefore his murder is useless to the liberal elite. It can’t be used for promoting the lie that ordinary Whites are an ominous and ever-present threat to the lives and well-being of gentle, vulnerable non-Whites.
In other words, the liberal elite don’t really care about “racism” or about the welfare of non-Whites. They care about attacking Whites in order to expand and strengthen their own power. That’s why they efface the facts whenever the facts contradict their lies. And so Stephen Lawrence has an official martyr-cult and Isaiah Young-Sam has nothing. You can see the same agenda at work in British towns and cities like Rotherham, where the philo-Semitic Labour MP Denis MacShane worked tirelessly for Jewish interests but did nothing to help the “at least 1,400” White girls who were being raped, prostituted, beaten and sometimes murdered by brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims.
Afghan predators hunting White prey
And if you cross the North Sea, you’ll find the same agenda at work in Sweden, whose liberal elite claim deep concern for women’s welfare and deep abhorrence for all forms of sexual violence. The liberal elite in Sweden are lying, because they are perfectly happy to ignore women’s welfare when non-Whites are harming it. They efface the facts just as readily as the liberal elite in Britain:
The annual We Are Sthlm music festival attracts some 200,000 people, mostly aged between 13 and 19, to Kungsträdgården Park in central Stockholm. On a balmy evening in August 2015, a middle-aged psychologist, whom the author calls Hans, as he wishes to remain anonymous, took his teenage relatives to the festival. As twilight fell, he noticed how groups of men and boys appeared and began “eyeing the young girls in hot pants”. During the evening he saw girl after girl stagger out from the crowd to ask for help from the security guards after being sexually assaulted.
Afterwards Hans was haunted by the memory of “watching packs of predators hunt helpless prey”, and was shocked that nothing appeared in the press the next day. When he emailed the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, a journalist called him. Although she sounded interested, when he mentioned that “the vast majority” of the perpetrators “appeared to be Afghans”, her tone became “noticeably colder”. No article appeared, leaving Hans angry that “in a country that claims to be one of the most feminist places on earth”, no one cared. (Sweden’s Dark Soul by Kajsa Norman review – ‘far from a utopia’, The Guardian, 20th December 2018)
One irony in that damning story in the Guardian is that Dagens Nyheter (Today’s News) is Sweden’s equivalent of the Guardian. It’s edited by a Jew called Peter Wolodarski, who is also the Guardian’s go-to guy for commentary on Swedish affairs. Just like the Guardian, when Dagens Nyheter is given a choice between defending women’s welfare and collaborating with non-White “rape culture,” it doesn’t hesitate a second. It collaborates with rape culture. The Guardian made the same choice in Rotherham and many other places: it did nothing to help the White girls who were being raped and prostituted.
Worse than nothing
Similarly, Dagens Nyheter did nothing to help the girls who were sexually assaulted at the We Are Sthlm music festival. Jews like Peter Wolodarski cannot advance their own power by defending White girls against non-White abusers. Therefore they do nothing.
And worse than nothing. Another of Sweden’s liberal elite is a Jewish sociologist called Jerzy Sarnecki (pronounced Sarnetski), who “prominently features in the [Swedish] media as an expert on all things crime-related.” Sarnecki has recently done his best to dismiss crime-statistics showing that migrants and their offspring are hugely over-represented as rapists in Sweden and form the “vast majority” of gang-rapists. In other words, Sarnecki isn’t merely effacing the facts: he is actively denying them and trying to help non-Whites commit more and worse crimes against Swedish Whites.
Is Katherine Viner, the editor of the Guardian, also Jewish? I can’t prove it, but I strongly suspect she is. Britain certainly has many Jews in its liberal elite working hard to promote lies about Whites and censor the truth about non-Whites. Andrew Joyce and Francis Carr Begbie of the Occidental Observer have described the anti-White, pro-minority labours of Jews like Jonathan Freedland and David Aaronovitch.
But Freedland and Aaronovitch are writing for the goyim in newspapers founded by goyim, so what do journalists say at specifically Jewish newspapers like the Jewish Chronicle? I’ve described how the Chronicle often lets the truth slip by peddling “anti-Semitic stereotypes” that no mainstream gentile writer would dare to touch. For example, the Chronicle has likened Margaret Thatcher to a Jew because Thatcher displayed “paranoia, arrogance and insecurity.” It has claimed that “many in the Jewish community … like being close to power.” It has also exposed a cover-up when the Jewish politician Jeremy Newmark brought an anti-Semitic stereotype to life by lying and cheating with psychopathic abandon.
White supremacism at the Jewish Chronicle
But the Chronicle’s reporting on Jewish affairs is interesting not just for what it says, but also for what it shows – that is, for the images it chooses to accompany certain stories. I would say it shows “white supremacism” in its choice of imagery. When it ran a story celebrating the fact that “Jewish births rose three times higher than the British [average],” it accompanied the story with a photo of a very pink baby being touched by a very white parent’s hand. I think it was a stock photo of a White baby, not something taken in a Jewish hospital. In other words, the Chronicle was effacing the facts: it chose a White baby to represent a Jewish baby. For the Chronicle, “Jewish” obviously meant “white.”
And when the Chronicle ran a story lamenting the fact that seven-year-old Jewish girls at an Orthodox female-only primary school in London are “still unable to read fluently,” it accompanied the story with a photo of some very white girls raising their hands in a classroom. The girls have long hair and look like miniature versions of the “Beckys,” or White women, who are often now attacked in the American media for “racism” against Blacks. But if you look closer at the photo, you can see that the mini-Beckys are accompanied by a White boy. The Chronicle has obviously looked for a stock photo of White children in a classroom and hasn’t worried that the photo didn’t fully fit its story about a female-only primary school. For the Chronicle, “Jewish” again obviously meant “white.” It was effacing the facts again.
And what about a child-welfare advert run by the Chronicle and other Jewish newspapers? The advert wasn’t a random stock photo, but something specifically created for “Jewish Child’s Day.” It was an animated image of a White boy with pale skin and blue eyes whose face is progressively disfigured by dark bruises. That is why the advert is powerful: it shows light assailed by darkness. If you changed the text, you could run exactly the same image for “Aryan Child’s Day,” because the boy does not look Jewish.
Pallidity is pulchritude
The same “white supremacist” iconography appears in a story about Israel run by the Chronicle in October 2018. Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi or The Jewish Home is “an Orthodox Jewish, religious Zionist political party” whose leader, Naftali Bennett, is the Israeli minister of education (and has been accused by the Chronicle of “defaming the diaspora”). In October the Chronicle reported that Bennett’s party used some interesting posters for a municipal election in the Israeli city of Ramle (also known as Ramleh).
The posters showed an attractive pale-skinned Jewish girl in a hijab accompanied by this stark warning in Hebrew: “Hundreds of cases of intermarriage in Ramle, and no one cares. Tomorrow it could be your daughter. Only a strong Jewish Home will maintain a Jewish Ramle.”
The Chronicle condemned the posters as “Islamophobic,” but didn’t condemn the image chosen to represent a Jewish girl. After all, like Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi, the Chronicle thinks that “Jewish” means “white.” But it wasn’t Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi who were behind another White supremacist poster in Israel. Instead, it was “one of Israel’s top hospitals,” which issued a poster of a white-skinned and white-featured Jewish foetus floating in the womb while wearing a military beret and performing a military salute. Translated from Hebrew, the accompanying text runs: “Recipient of the Presidential Award of Excellence, 2038.”
I didn’t see this poster mentioned in the Jewish Chronicle, but it was condemned by Jewish liberals at +972 Magazine, which said: “The notion that a good hospital will produce good soldiers is pathological. That a top hospital believes the best way to get women to choose their maternity ward is by convincing them their baby is destined to be a successful soldier in the Israel Defense Forces is also a genuine indication of just how militaristic Israeli society is.”
White is Right
Well, yes, Israeli society is militaristic, but it’s also “white supremacist,” because Israel’s Ashkenazi elite clearly regard pale skin and goyish features as the ideal. After all, dark-skinned Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries still complain that David Ben-Gurion, the Ashkenazi Jew who was Israel’s founder and first prime minister, “didn’t want them” in the country. Ben-Gurion worried that Mizrahi children would “descend to the level of Arab children” and claimed that “in the past few hundred of years the Jews of Europe have led the nation [i.e., Jewish people], in both quantity and quality.”
But there’s worse. Black Ethiopian Jews in Israel complain long and bitterly that prejudice and mistreatment keep them rooted at the bottom of Israeli society. Israel has allegedly tried to limit the numbers of Black Jews with the powerful contraceptive Devo-Provera. And white-skinned Israelis abuse Black Jews with the hateful term kushi, the Hebrew equivalent of “nigger” (like “nigger,” which originally meant simply “black,” kushi was a geographic term that has acquired a derogatory meaning). Israel is undoubtedly a Jewish supremacist state, but part of Jewish supremacism is “white supremacism.” Jews at newspapers like the Jewish Chronicle and in parties like Ha-Bayit Ha-Yehudi choose to portray Jews with white skins and classically “white European” features – just see the images above.
And see the article “Ruth Bader Ginsburg… Shiksa?” by the Jewish writer David Cole at Taki Mag. I had prepared this article long before I read what Cole had to say, so I was pleased to see that he confirms my claims:
Christmas is supposed to be a holiday for Christians, but this year Santa’s bringing a very special present for America’s Jews: the gift of seeing Ruth Bader Ginsburg the way we wish she looked. Opening in theaters December 25th, On the Basis of Sex tells the story of a plucky young RBG as she risks everything in a quest to become a nationally known feminist hero. …
The actress portraying the young Ginsburg is Birmingham-born Felicity Jones, a Brit who is most definitely not Jewish, unlike the brittle SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] scarecrow she’s portraying. In fact, Jones could not look less Jewish if she tried. This girl is so Aryan, she could give Himmler’s corpse a boner. And yet she’s portraying a woman who — hmm, how to put this gently? — is the reason Jewish men often date outside the flock. Not since Warren Beatty decided to portray Dick Tracy without facial prosthetics has there been a greater physical disconnect between actor and subject.
… What I’m interested in is how little outrage the goyification of Ginsburg has provoked. Indeed, as the most influential racial/ethnic group in Hollywood, Jews don’t just tolerate goyifying, they’re the ones doing it. Let’s look at that most sacred of Jewish cinematic genres: the Holocaust film. The movie that launched it all — NBC’s 1978 miniseries Holocaust — starred as the doomed family of Jews a parade of gentiles, including James Woods (not Jewish), Fritz Weaver (very not Jewish), and Meryl Streep (a descendant of William Penn… very very not Jewish). …
So why do we see such a markedly different reaction from Jews as compared with blacks when it comes to being racially/ethnically altered for the screen? Well, there are several reasons. The first is something I’ve written about before — the remarkable Jewish ability to be either white or “ethnic” depending on the needs of the moment. Jews don’t mind being seen as white; we just don’t want to be seen as white when it disadvantages us. Portraying Holocaust victims as strapping Aryans is to our benefit. It makes the Huns who Holocausted us feel perhaps a little bit more guilty, because now they see their own likeness in the faces of Hitler’s victims. “Look what you did, you monsters… you just gassed Frodo Baggins” (Elijah Wood, extraordinarily not Jewish, killed in a death camp by Gary Sinise in 1992’s The Witness).
So we don’t mind the idealized images, because in a way they give us comfort. We don’t see what we can never become, but what we can [with the help of plastic surgery]. … She [Ginsburg]’s probably as pumped as everyone else to see her ethnically cleansed onscreen depiction.
Well, actually, not everyone’s pumped. It took some searching, but I finally found a roaring dissent in the sea of silence regarding the Ginsburg/Jones ethnic switcheroo. Marissa Korbel is a self-described “bleeding heart lawyer” and “award-winning essayist” who writes for Harper’s Bazaar, Guernica, and Bitch magazine. Last week, she penned a piece for the online literary journal The Rumpus that I’d wager is the single most honest piece of writing on the ’net regarding Jews and the Aryanization of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. … But don’t expect Korbel’s essay to be picked up by national Jewish news and opinion sites. Even its concluding and comforting descent into leftist banality can’t make up for the disquieting honesty of the rest of it. We Jews are generally an introspective lot, but every now and then we encounter an abyss into which even we prefer not to gaze, lest we find Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Semitic mug gazing back at us. (“Ruth Bader Ginsburg… Shiksa?”, Taki Mag, 25th December 2018)
Jew turns into shiksa: RBG and Felicity Jones
This is another way in which Jews “efface the facts.” The actress chosen to represent Ginsburg is a shiksa and doesn’t have “Ginsburg’s Semitic mug.” But that isn’t the full story, because Jews do sometimes try to promote women like Barbra Streisand and Sarah Jessica Parker as sex-symbols, although Streisand and Parker too have clearly “Semitic mugs.”
Goyification is glorification
Nevertheless, Cole’s neologism “goyification” is a very useful term and describes a real phenomenon in Jewish culture and iconography. The images above from the Jewish Chronicle and +972 Magazine are all goyified. They’re supposed to represent Jews, but the Jews look like goys. And goyification is also glorification. As David Cole says, Jews want to look like Whites. They don’t want to gaze into the physiognomic “abyss” and find “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Semitic mug gazing back.”
However, this glorification and envy of White features can also be accompanied by hatred and a desire to harm Whites. Jews promote mass immigration and race-mixing in part because they feel safer in atomized, culturally and ethnically chaotic societies. But I would also suggest that they promote these things because they like the idea of destroying Whiteness. From the Jewish point of view, it would be a delicious irony if Jews acquired and retained White faces even as Whites lost them thanks to race-mixing. That would be effacing the facts to the max.