Efface the Facts: White Supremacism in the Jewish Community

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.

Isaiah Young-Sam, a victim of hate ignored by the liberal elite

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.

Peter Wolodarski, fake feminist

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.

Jerzy Sarnecki, fake feminist

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.

Katherine Viner (second from left) and other Guardian journalists

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.”

White Supremacism #1: Jewish baby with Jewish parent

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.

White Supremacism #2: Jewish children in a classroom

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.

White Supremacism #3: a blue-eyed Jewish boy

Original advert as animated gif

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.”

White Supremacism #4: a pale Jewish beauty – the prominent white text says “Your Daughter” in Hebrew

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.”

White Supremacism #5: a future Jewish warrior

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.

Goyifying Ginsburg

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)

Felicity Jones

Felicity Jones

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

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.

34 replies
  1. George Romanian
    George Romanian says:

    First of all, I’d like to wish a happy new year to the TOO crowd !

    In my opinion, (mind you, I’m not an homme des lettres nor a psychologist), the goyification pointed out by Mr. Langdon has multiple causes. Of course, crypsis and hiding their tracks is one of them, but I think the European Jew sees himself as an imperfect White. That’s why they display simultaneously a complex of superiority and one of inferiority. Resentment fuels their actions. Imagine being told you are part of the chosen people, yet being physically weak and unattractive by comparison to the surrounding goyim. And yet they have to live among a host population that proved resourceful, inventive, organized and ruthless if needed. Not once I’ve noticed Jews claiming goy national symbols as their own: e.g. on BBC some Jew claimed that fish and chips are a Jewish invention. Israel’s national anthem melodic line is “Cucuruz cu frunza-n sus”, a Romanian folk song.

    My work took me to Texas, Central Asia, Gulf countries, Algeria and Reunion Island. I’m probably stating the obvious, but all non-whites I’ve met displayed the same ambivalence towards whites: hatred and secret admiration.

  2. tito perdue
    tito perdue says:

    Or, consider this: If a white policeman shoots, even justifiably, a negro, The New York Times undergoes a psychological meltdown. But if 750 (750) negroes shoot 750 other negroes as for example in Chicago last year, that same paper relegates it to page 6. If that’s not racism….

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      Yes, as Colin Flaherty notes, it took the San Francisco Chronicle years to acknowledge the city’s “dirty little secret” of black on Asian crime, even if only in passing. There’s no sustained effort to connect the dots since that admission, despite the steady onslaught of “random” crimes committed by black perps against Asian vics. If the press wasn’t ignoring, denying, or outright condoning it, people might begin to ask hard questions and demand solutions. Perhaps we were better off under segregation, they might ask? And no politician wants to seriously table the negative effects of multiculturalism because that inevitably leads to the gas chambers, or so I’m told.

    • Charlie
      Charlie says:

      Or consider if 10 Negros rape/rob then shoot 750 whites there is only a brief mention on Page 28 of the Jew York Times suggesting “a unknown band of youths” was involved.

  3. stealth
    stealth says:

    it amused me recently to find out that the fashion for girls dying their hair blonde is a jewish phenomenon.vidal sassoon being a prominent early brand of bleach..maybe we dont have to get worried until it is fashionable to get rick james permanent ringlets.was michael jackson trying to look jewy?

  4. joe six pack
    joe six pack says:

    Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister in 1868 and then again 1874-80, was baptized a Christian to advance his career, but was ethnically Jewish. Along with being Prime Minister, Disraeli also wrote many novels. Those years were the golden age of racism, when the European nations looked around and said “Wow we control 83% of the earth’s surface, what is the explanation for that?”
    Disraeli wrote Tancred where his Semitic superman Sidonia, articulated the prevailing Zeitgeist of the Age, saying, “All is race, there is no other truth”

    We would rather forget these facts nowadays when we live in the Holy Age of Diversity and must sacrifice our children’s futures on the Altar of Multiculturalism. However Disraeli’s ethnic descendants will not absolve us of our past transgressions, reminding us constantly of how bad we were, all the while, conveniently tucking Disraeli(and their) ‘primitive’ attitudes down the memory hole.
    “All is race, there is no other truth”

  5. Lavon Dishon
    Lavon Dishon says:

    Underneath all the talmudry in this article lies the bedrock reality that American Ashkenazi Jews are white people from Europe, unless the West wants to abandon Locke’s epistemology based on sense perceptions and replace it with an arbitrary Platonism. We should be fighting the threat of the ethnic cleansing of white gentiles through mass immigration together, but extreme left “social justice” Jews and bigoted gentiles keep us from cooperating.

    • Talmudrion ב‬
      Talmudrion ב‬ says:

      Underneath all the talmudry in this article lies the bedrock reality that American Ashkenazi Jews are white people from Europe.

      You need to look into Ashkenazi genetics. They’re half “white people from Europe” and half Middle Eastern. They don’t regard themselves as “white” and hate and fear genuine whites, though they envy white features and white achievements.

      extreme left “social justice” Jews and bigoted gentiles keep us from cooperating.

      Great! Those “extreme left ‘social justice’ Jews,” being “extreme” and v. few in number, will be easy to separate from the sensible, moderate, pro-white majority of Jews. The amazing thing is that this hasn’t already happened, despite the hard work of mainstream Jewish organizations across the Diaspora.

      Anyway, could you post links to a few anti-immigration, pro-white articles at the ADL, SPLC et al, so that the bigoted gentiles here can see the error of their ways?

      • joe sixpack
        joe sixpack says:

        Here is Mike Wallace, former 60 Minutes newscaster, revealing his view of being ‘White’
        Around .15 to .20 of the vid

        Wallace, whose family’s surname was originally Wallik,[2] was born on May 9, 1918, in Brookline, Massachusetts,[2] to Russian Jewish immigrant parents,[2

      • Charlie
        Charlie says:

        ” pro-white majority of Jews”

        Like “a nice jooish boi” – no such thing as a pro-white joo exists.

      • Lavon Dishon
        Lavon Dishon says:

        I don’t think it useful to play the “no true Scotsman” game of precisely delineating who is or is not white. Some racial taxonomies list only four or five races, and in these, Jews come under the white group simply by virtue of skin color. I see no grounds for determining that Jews are less white than Hungarians, for instance. Nor should we put too much weight on the issue of whether white Gentiles and Jews constitute one people or two different peoples who should be able to cooperate.There is no way of knowing what proportion of Jews would join Gentiles against the ethnic cleansing of the latter, but that group might go beyond Stephen Miller plus a bare minyan.
        As most Jews do not publish, the potentially cooperative proportion of Jews cannot be determined by surveying the literature. While I concede that articulate Jewish opinion skews heavily antiwhite, it may be possible to break off 10-20%, and the white right would be stronger if it had that support of 10-20% of the Jewish community.
        Unfortunately most of the white right is not as welcoming as Jared Taylor’s AmRen. The Daily Stormer and the TRS group evince excessive bigotry (Mike Enoch confessed that he is one of the worst anti-Semites.) And I can think of no explanation besides bigotry to explain why a publisher as secular as Kevin MacDonald would feature articles decrying the rapprochement between Catholics and Jews as contrary to Catholic doctrine or identifying Judaism as the Synagogue of Satan. Darwinian evolutionary theory ignores such issues.

        • Talmudrion ב‬
          Talmudrion ב‬ says:

          Where are the anti-immigration, pro-white links from the ADL, SPLC et al? Nowhere, which proves the point I wanted to make.

          I don’t think it useful to play the “no true Scotsman” game of precisely delineating who is or is not white.

          Genetics is useful, tho’, and genetics says that Ashkenazim are not white Europeans but a hybrid of white Europeans and Middle Easterners. This confirms what white Europeans have been observing and saying about the Tribe for more than 2000 years.

          While I concede that articulate Jewish opinion skews heavily antiwhite, it may be possible to break off 10-20%, and the white right would be stronger if it had that support of 10-20% of the Jewish community.

          Thank you for struggling to be honest. I’m not sure what you mean by “articulate Jewish opinion.” That a tiny minority of Jews are articulate and anti-white, while the vast pro-white majority grind their teeth in impotent rage and wish they weren’t tongue-tied and illiterate?

          And I can think of no explanation besides bigotry to explain why a publisher as secular as Kevin MacDonald would feature articles decrying the rapprochement between Catholics and Jews as contrary to Catholic doctrine or identifying Judaism as the Synagogue of Satan.

          I can think of an explanation: he likes free speech and free enquiry. And it’s not as tho’ TOO is full of theological claims like those. The bigotry you see isn’t there: you should worry about “articulate Jewish opinion,” which is definitely bigoted and hate-filled.

  6. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Here’s the defintion of Supremacist that appears from a Google search of the word,

    supremacist /suːˈprɛməsɪst,sjuːˈprɛməsɪst/Enviar
    noun 1. an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.
    “a white supremacist”

    You want to talk about effacing the facts. We have to respond en masse in any way we can to challenge the definition offered above (“offered”, haha, anyway). Because it’s not just slander, it’s international slander that, by their own way of looking at the matter, is a clear incitement to racial violence on a global scale. Who does that? Well, a supremacist, of course.

    And the fact that, though it’s slanderous we can’t sue the slanderers exactly because they have the power, not us. Thereby invalidating their claim. Which, of course, they continue to make with impunity because they have the power. A fact easily proven. Just try to turn the tables on them, accusing them of being the real supremacists and see how far you get.

    Anyway, we still have to respond. But the important point I’d like to make is that our responses must not simply be definitional, but observational (I’ll offer one of my own in another comment. For now I just want to focus on the procedural, not the personal, because I think it might be useful for us).

    The question to ask then, regarding the sacred words used by The Hostile Elite against The Host Populations of the West is this,

    What is there in the world that the word supremacist (or racist, sexist, antisemite, islamophobe, homophobe, transphobe, xenophobe, or nativist) directs us to locate?

    What is there in the world that corresponds to the word?


    What aspect of human experience does the word supremacist locate and inform us about?

    From an intellectual and ethical perspective this has been philosophy’s principle concern, ie;

    What are we talking about, if, indeed, we’re talking about anything?

    To simply give definitions places the problem exactly where it does not belong, in the mind.

    To ask the question in the way I have suggested above places it exactly where it does belong, in the world.

    From this perspective it’s obvious what is going on regarding the accusations made against an entire race, without any proof (which certainly fits their definition of racism, and so, should be used against them).

    What’s going on is that the accuser wants us to focus on the accusation and the accused. Not on the validity of the accusation itself. But the validity is determined not by the accusation itself, but by its method.

    So, what is their method?

    The method of the individual or group who makes the accusation of White supremacy, etc. is that their response to the complexity of life immediately collapses into a single variable, “supremacy”, which automatically mushrooms into an absurd absolute that claims to account for all reality, “White supremacy.”

    Their “method” is mostly (though not entirely) unconscious and therefore automatic. Hence their tenacious resistence to exposure.

    And because their accusation cannot be verified in the real world, it has to be imposed by force. That’s why, until they acquired power the accusation was either not made or, if made, not taken seriously.

    The only reason it’s taken seriously now is not because of the validity of the accusation, but because the accusers now have power. Which, of course, makes the accusation of White Supremacy self-discrediting.

    An obvious fact the accusers have overlooked. But not us.

    In any event, the accusation originates in the mind and is imposed on the world and sustained by force. And the only people who would want to do this in the first place, and can do it in actuality are, supremacists. The real article. Not some figment of our imagination.

    Whereas the other response offered in this comment uses the word to search for evidence in the real world, the real world that our words direct us to observe, understand and control. In other words, it’s predictive.

    This is the difference between Dogma and Pragma.
    Pragma is willing to expose its ideas, and its words, to a process of continuous feedback and correction.
    Dogma isn’t. No harm is done from the dogmatic side until, of course, such a mentality is in a position of power over others.

    And that is the situation we’re in today. Thanks to the real supremacists. Who, sooner or later, in one way or another, we simply going to have to confront.

  7. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Because the Hostile Elite engage in Victim-Blaming the Host Population that they’re attacking, any self-defense on behalf of the Host Population will be denounced and demonized as evidence of “White Supremacy.”

    Here’s my response:

    What is a Supremacist? It’s a person or people who not only advocate for the supremacy of their group by demanding to be in control, placed above criticism, loved unconditionally, and blindly obeyed; but, who actually have the power to effectuate that demand.

    Are Whites making that demand?
    No. On the contrary, Whites are the only people in the history of the world who have permitted their authority to be criticized in the countries they established, who do not demand to be placed above criticism, loved unconditionally or blindly obeyed, and who do not have the power to effectuate that demand even if they did.

    Can you criticize Whites with impunity?

    So much then for White Supremacy.

    Is any other group, or groups, demanding to be placed above criticism, etc.?

    Do they have the power to effectuate that demand?
    Of course.

    Well then, there’s your Supremacists.

    So, why the accusation of White Supremacy?
    To defelct attention away from the Real Supremacists. Obviously.

    This can be easily tested. Just name that group or groups in public and criticize them, and see what happens.

    No matter how respectful your tone of voice, no matter how fact-based your point of view, your freedom of speech will be taken away from you, demonized as “Hate Speech”, and you will be pathologized as someone filled with “Hate.” In an Orwellian twist you’ll be accused as “a threat to Democracy” (I know that this all sounds so weird and crazy, but that’s not my fault).

    You will then be smeared as an Antisemtic, Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, Eskimophobic, Nativist Bigot, and you will be subject to economic deprivation and social isolation, or worse.

    There’s your Supremacy.

    There is no White Supremacy. It’s a made up category by the Real Supremacists designed to gut Free Speech. shut us up, deflect attention away from them, and justify their insane lust for control by any means necessary.

    By the way, if you wanted real evidence for “collusion” look no further than these supremacists.

    • Robert Keith
      Robert Keith says:

      You nailed it, Richard. That’s very well put. Now, all we need to do is have have people object massively when they come upon these offensive allusions, if not downright accusations.
      Of course, for the offenders to know that we really mean business, we will have to start using our real names. Short of that, it’s interesting talk, but toothless, and they know it.

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        Yes, I agree. It would be ideal if we could use full names or real names. But, speaking for myself, it wouldn’t be brave of me to use my full name now, it would be foolhardy.

        Regarding toothlessness, that’s the way it is for all of us right now, real names, full names, and anonymous alike, obviously.

        Naturally all of us would if we could and when we can we will. But, again, speaking for myself, I’m certainly not going to do it to “prove” myself to anyone. I’m going to do it when it would be wise to do it. Not when it would be unwise.

        Meanwhile, the psychological, emotional, and, in a certain limited, but still important sense, the social benefit to all of us here and elsewhere is obvious. For some its all we have. That might be regretable, but it’s idle to complain about it.

        I’m grateful for sites like this and for the ability to both comment and read the comments of others, yours included.

  8. Edward
    Edward says:

    The excuse that multicultural societies make the perpetrators of multicultural societies more obscure and more comfortable is a prepared statement for the coming times as it becomes more obvious that multiculturalism was always going to be a dystopia. The prepared statement also reiterates the idea that an homogenous society—especially ours—is too dangerous for the interlopers/multiculturalism promoters and this attempts to reinforce white guilt.

  9. Rinaldo
    Rinaldo says:

    From a genealogical standpoint, neither the Jews nor the Edomites were Israelites, as defined by the prophets. Most of the prophets wrote of Israel after the kingdom had been divided, and so they wrote about Israel and Judah as two separate entities.

    [mod note: sorry, this isn’t the right site for long scriptural excursions, so i’ve cut a lot here]

    See –

  10. DaftAida
    DaftAida says:

    On ‘the Stephen Lawrence affair’. Over a decade ago, a builder-decorator was working on my kitchen and among other topics, this case was discussed as he happened to live within the community where the Lawrence ‘victim’ lived and knew of those involved. He claimed that Lawrence was a cocky troublemaker who had persisted in chasing a white girl and molesting her despite warnings and simply got his comeuppance. It was said that he was waiting for his drug contact at the bus stop with a case full of cash when justice was done. Was the contact a cop? Hence the ballyhoo and coverup whitewashing the character of this toe-rag and his vulgar manshe parent into martyr and ‘dame’. This one case bullwhipped police policy to comply with the anti-white racist agenda which, over time is likely to result in the mess reported in Sweden. We are victims of our kindness, intelligence and tolerance.

  11. Jim Russel
    Jim Russel says:

    Criminal acts take place when there are motive, means, and opportunity. In the olden days of journalism, every story was supposed to show who, what, when, how, and why. What is the motive, or why is this being done? Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely. But people are waking up and seeing the lies for what they are. History suggests that expulsion could occur as a reaction.

    Fifty years ago I was a child in a hebrew day school who apalled my teachers by questioning the holocaust story. I asked if the Eastern European Jews who rode train cars across Europe to sedately walk into gas showers had ever rebelled or balked. I asked why was there no known acts of resistance from any of the supposed six million. I asked why was there not even one scrap of a paper record of the extermination campaign. I told them that it’s the German character to follow orders and to document everything. And I gave them the example of my cat who would hide in the woods all day if we mentioned the veterinarian. Was my cat smarter than all six million of those Jews?

    I’ve seen a Carolyn Yeager interview of Prof. MacDonald where she asks him about the biggest sacred cow of our age. It takes a brave soul to face truth. So you’re just chipping at the edges if you don’t face the biggest and most pernicious lie of our modern world.

    I’m not afraid to speak truth about this because I really don’t care iif they come and kill me for it. Ron Unz might just be the bravest man in America for what he’s done recently at his American Pravda articles. He too doesn’t seem to fear being killed or disgraced.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Hmmm- a former attendee at a hebrew day school asserts that a certain jew may be “the bravest man in America”. . .Hmmmmm

      • Richard B
        Richard B says:

        “Fifty years ago I was a child in a hebrew day school who apalled my teachers by questioning the holocaust story.”

        That’s odd. 50 years ago no one was talking about the Holocaust. In fact, there was no real public mention, let alone discussion, in the media until well into the 70’s.

        Maybe they were test piloting it on their own children first to see how it would fly before attempting to sell it to the general public.

        “I asked if the Eastern European Jews who rode train cars across Europe to sedately walk into gas showers had ever rebelled or balked. I asked why was there no known acts of resistance from any of the supposed six million. I asked why was there not even one scrap of a paper record of the extermination campaign.”

        You asked all of that?

        As a child?

        Uh huh.

        “I told them that it’s the German character to follow orders and to document everything.”

        Wow. What a coincidence. You shared with them something the “Holocaust Deniers”, ie; Fact-Based, Reality-Oriented and Truly Courageous Historians, shared in their work after years of careful thought and research prior to publication.

        And you did it all by yourself in a classroom as a child 50 years ago. Again, Wow! You are super duper Gary Cooper amazing!

        “I told them that it’s the German character to follow orders and to document everything.”

        You knew that?

        I’m gobsmacked. What a prodigy.

        “And I gave them the example of my cat who would hide in the woods all day if we mentioned the veterinarian. Was my cat smarter than all six million of those Jews?”

        Oh brother.

        “It takes a brave soul to face truth.”

        I’ll say.

        Actually, it takes a brave soul to face the truth of themselves. That could be said about Kevin MacDonald. But not by anyone else you mentioned in your comment, including yourself.

        “So you’re just chipping at the edges if you don’t face the biggest and most pernicious lie of our modern world.”

        Don’t underestimate chipping at the edges. And are you really in a position to be talking about liars?

        “I’m not afraid to speak truth about this because I really don’t care iif they come and kill me for it.”

        Oh, you’re so brave.

        There are articles available online about the science of bragging, where research has shown a link between bragging on social media and a love for money. Given, by your own admission, where you went to school, I’ll let that comment stand for itself.

        “Ron Unz might just be the bravest man in America for what he’s done recently at his American Pravda articles.”

        Making a comment like that at a site like this, and in an article like the one above, where a truly brave man simply shared his experience, by stating the facts without trying to draw attention to himself, shows what an insanely self-absorbed person you are.

        You’re a clown.

        “He too doesn’t seem to fear being killed or disgraced.”

        And a drama queen.

        Addiction has been defined as a pathological relationship to any mood-altering substance or experience. So you’re addicted to yourself. You’re like a drunk who has stumbled onto the comment section of TOO to babble for the purpose of impressing himself because when you’re sober you’re so unimpressive. Failing to realize that when you’re drunk you’re only impressive to yourself. Not to the sober.

  12. sixten
    sixten says:

    Jerzy Sarnecki. Wikipedia states that he was criticised for not researching the over-representation of immigrants in crime. He says he is doing research on it but said it is caused by socioeconomic factors. This will be the card he plays in his upcoming “study”.

    Clearly another strategy is needed to combat this type of ‘effacement’. It needs to be non-violent and non-emotionally based. It has to have a voice that can be easily spread. We know most people on the right will agree with these sentiments, so the challenge is to create a workable strategy that targets centrists and even liberals who are not on the extreme side of the spectrum.

  13. SS
    SS says:

    My daughter went to “the best” public junior high school in the city. She had only been there a few weeks when she noticed one day that all the most obnoxious kids were absent from each of her classes. She marveled at this strange occurrence, had God answered her prayers and struck down all these brats? Then she found out it was the first Jewish holy day of the school year. All the loud mouths just happened to be JEWISH. Racially, they were as white as the other white kids.

  14. TJ
    TJ says:

    Racially, they were as white as the other white kids.

    To be a jew is to have a jewish mother- it’s biological.

    This is jewish law.

  15. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    TJ writes:- “To be a jew is to have a jewish mother- it’s biological.”
    That’s not biological. A Jewish male is racially the same as a Jewish female, at least if their race theory is true.

Comments are closed.