The Trump Impeachment: A Clash Between America’s Competing Elites?
Previously posted at Vdare.com.
Is the Trump impeachment a Jewish coup? It’s a dangerous question even to ask. The Christian news outlet TruNews was labeled an anti-Semitic conspiracy-theory website and banned by a Jewish-dominated company—YouTube—for saying so. [2 Jewish Congress members want White House to shun news outlet that called Trump impeachment effort ‘Jew Coup’, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 10, 2019] (Subsequently, TruNews has been deplatformed by PayPal for asserting that Jeffrey Epstein was running a Mossad honeypot operation designed to blackmail leading U.S. political figures).
But undeniably, Jews have taken very prominent, very public roles in impeachment. Most prominent are the two congressmen who conducted the House hearings: Adam Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Jerry Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Both Schiff and Nadler were named as prosecutors in the Senate trial, with Schiff designated as lead prosecutor.
Both of the Democrats’ counsels at the House hearings were Jews: Norm Eisen for the Judiciary Committee and Daniel Goldman for the Intelligence Committee. Several of the most prominent witnesses called by the Democrats were also Jews, including Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland.
Strikingly, all three of the legal scholars called by Nadler’s committee—Noah Feldman of Harvard, Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford University—were Jews, with a strong Jewish identity. [The Tell: Three of the impeachment witness lawyers were Jewish, and it matters, By Ron Kampeas, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 6, 2019] Gerhardt is a Fellow at the Katz Center for Advanced Jewish Studies, University of Pennsylvania and has given several lectures on Judaism the law (e.g., “Jewish Lives and the American Constitution: Selected Stories,” Bar Ilan University Law School). Karlan is a self-described example of “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women,” and Feldman is Director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard.
In effect, impeachment is a project of the numerically-dominant Jewish Democrat-voting Left, with the Jewish counsels for the Democrats questioning Jewish witnesses in House committees headed by Jewish representatives, and covered with breathless enthusiasm by Jewish-owned media outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and The New York Times.
The only surprise: that the Jewish role has been so public. In times past, Jews in many walks of life used WASP-sounding names to lessen public perceptions of their Jewishness, and non-Jews were often recruited to serve as window dressing in what were in fact Jewish-dominated movements, most notably the radical Left in pre-1960s America.
I believe this new blatant approach is a marker of Jewish power in 2020 America: Jews now feel confident enough that they can safely participate in such displays, knowing that their role will never be noted in public debate.
Indeed, it’s quite possible that the average white American watching the hearings genuinely sees the Jewish principals as nothing more than garden-variety white folks—they often seem to have no “Jewdar” at all.
This is no accident, since the percentage of Americans who think “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” in 2008 was 22%, compared to ~50% in 1964—despite Jewish dominance remaining obvious to anyone who bothers to seriously inquire. Being afraid to notice ethnic realities, or having been brainwashed into not noticing them, are major factors in the power of what has to be described as America’s new, Jewish-dominated, elite.
Donald Trump ran on a platform guaranteed to arouse the hatred of this elite. His immigration-related proposals and comments (e.g., “Paris is no longer Paris,” “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best”) and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy were red flags to an Establishment bent on massive immigration and endless wars in the Middle East to protect Israel. His victory was a hostile takeover of the Presidency, opposed by the entire spectrum of elite political opinion, from the far Left to the neoconservative “Right,” and including Conservatism, Inc. cheap-labor lobbyists like Paul Ryan.
Trump’s platform was populist to the core—it was essentially an end-run around elite opinion. And American Jewish intellectuals have long shown their hostility toward populism, as I noted in Chapter 5 of my The Culture of Critique.
But the Trump phenomenon went beyond its rational content, It was an implicitly White revolt, motivated by fears about what being a white minority in a majority black and brown America would mean for the future— entirely reasonable concerns.
However, Trump’s implicit white appeal worked both ways—it inspired both support and also opposition, above all among Jews.
In interesting contrast to their fellow Americans of similar socioeconomic status, some 70–80 percent of U.S. Jews vote Democrat. But even so their visceral animosity toward Trump during the 2016 campaign was extraordinary (see my VDARE.com five-part series titled “Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump”).
So it’s no surprise that Trump’s actual election was greeted with quite unprecedented anguish and frustration. The Washington Post headlined The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun the day of Trump’s inauguration. [By Matea Gold, January 17, 2017] (But in fact—incredibly—it dates back to even before his nomination).
I believe the present political crisis should be seen as a struggle between our new, Jewish-dominated elite, stemming from the 1880–1920 First Great Wave of immigration, and the traditional white Christian majority of America, significantly derived from pre-Revolutionary colonial stock but augmented by subsequent white Christian immigration. This new elite, while influential prior to World War II, had increasing influence throughout the 1950s—typically seen as a rather placid decade of peace and prosperity, but in reality, a decade of intense Kulturkampf roiling just below the surface but bursting out periodically, most spectacularly with the controversies surrounding Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
The nascent elite defeated Sen. McCarthy, despite subsequent evidence that he was substantially right. Of course, it is simply a fact that the individuals caught up in the McCarthy accusations were disproportionately Jewish. McCarthy’s crusade may be regarded as the last gasp of traditional America. So the possible resurrection of traditional America under a populist President Trump was seen by our new elite as a catastrophe.
The new elite really came to power in the Counter-Culture Revolution of the 1960s, the decade that saw the enactment of the 1965 Immigration Act, opening up immigration to all the peoples of the world, and the Civil Rights Movement, which has now morphed into what amounts to anti-white identity politics.
I was on the Left during the 1960s. I’ve often said that if someone had asked me what America would look like in 50 years, I would have said it would be fairer, but I would not have envisioned the demographic transformation. Nor would I have anticipated the mushrooming of anti-white hate that has emerged in the elite media and academic world (see my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition for a summary, pp. 446–448).
I have documented that this new elite is fundamentally Jewish, in the sense Jews have constituted its indispensable core. It has promoted attitudes on immigration, multiculturalism, foreign policy affecting Israel, and non-white and gender-based identity politics that have now reached unchallengeable consensus among elites in the U.S. and throughout the West. But they were prevalent in the mainstream Jewish community since well prior to the 1960s, contrasting strongly with the rest pre-1960s America.
For example, the organized Jewish community has promoted the interests of Israel since 1948, overcoming opposition of the former WASP foreign-policy Establishment that had dominated the U.S. State Department.
Even more importantly, the Jewish community has been actively involved in opposing immigration restriction since the late nineteenth century and in promoting the ideology that America is a “Proposition nation’ open to all the world’s peoples.
As Professor Otis Graham commented on the Anti-Defamation League’s getting John F. Kennedy to put his name on a pro-immigration book in 1958 ghosted by one of its operatives:
The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-Semitism, had made a golden alliance. A Vast Social Experiment: The Immigration Act of 1965, NPG, October 30, 2005
Thus, despite the high-flown rhetoric, increasing immigration was really all about ethnic defense—by reducing the demographic, political, and cultural power of European-Americans (see also Chapter 7 of my Culture of Critique), as reflected in the attitudes of Jewish leaders going back to the 1920s.
Jewish organizations are now deeply involved in punishing people who dissent on immigration and other favored issues, as indicated by the example of TruNews [Inside the War to Take Away Our Free Speech, by Eric Striker, Unz.com, January 21, 2020] This looks like a switch, but free speech is not at all a Jewish value, quite absent from traditional Jewish communities. And in the contemporary world, Jewish organizations, such as the ADL, and organizations with prominent Jewish funding and staff, such as the SPLC, have uniformly supported “Hate Crime” legislation throughout the West. Jewish groups in Europe have long advocated criminal penalties for “hate speech” and criticism of Israel, and they have succeeded in getting them enacted in the UK, Germany, France, and elsewhere.
In the U.S., these organizations have taken a lead role in getting dissidents de-platformed from social media and financial institutions, forming partnerships with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Microsoft to combat “cyberhate,” including pressuring You Tube to remove accounts associated with the Alt Right. They have also been prominently involved in doxing dissidents, often resulting in loss of livelihood. Just recently, ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt testified in Congress that the social media companies were not doing enough to combat “hate speech,” and asked that Congress step in to rectify the problem—a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Jewish lobbyists even persuaded President Trump (who contrary to their fears seems to have a policy of appeasement, for example by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) to sign an executive order that effectively penalizes speech critical of Israel at universities. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education commented that
While the order is couched in language intended to paper over the readily evident threat to expressive rights, its ambiguous directive and fundamental reliance on the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of anti-Semitism and its examples will cause institutions to investigate and censor protected speech on their campuses. … [C]olleges and universities will rush to punish student and faculty speakers in an attempt to avoid federal investigation and enforcement.
UPDATED: FIRE statement regarding executive order on campus anti-Semitism, December 10, 2019
Of course, university administrators are highly experienced in suppressing free speech even from mainstream conservatives, having acquiesced repeatedly to hecklers’ vetoes and physical harassment by campus leftists.
In fact, Trump’s EO includes language that might be construed as targeting an article such as this one, because it might be said to contain “stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively … Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” as set forth in the IHRA definition.
As always, truth would not be a defense.
This new elite saw itself on the verge of complete victory in 2016. If Hillary had won, it would have been business as usual on all fronts, from foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia, to an immigration surge (as attempted during the Obama presidency), Amnesty for illegals, removing penalties for illegal entry and promoting multiculturalism, to knock out the white majority.
There would have been increased pressure for European-style legislation penalizing speech related to immigration and diversity, which would have been upheld by a Supreme Court refashioned with more justices like Elena Kagan, who has already signaled willingness to rein in the First Amendment on speech related to diversity issues.
As Angelo Codevilla has written (without acknowledging the Jewish dimension):
Were any Democrat to win [in 2020], we can be certain that the demands on us [Deplorables] would escalate, and the government’s choke hold on education, speech, religion, medicine, law, and all manner of administration would tighten further.
A Deplorable Strategy Beyond 2020, American Greatness, December 2, 2019
To be sure, Trump’s election has not resulted in his promised policies being enacted. Middle Eastern wars continue, reflecting the priorities of major Jewish donors Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer who have collectively contributed north of $250M to Trump re-election. On immigration, there have been some improvements at the southern border and on enforcement, but promises to end Birthright Citizenship via executive order (of course it will be litigated, but so what?) and lower legal immigration (which should have been attempted when the GOP had control of both houses of Congress) have not been fulfilled. The U.S. is still on schedule to have a white minority in the near future.
So, given Trump’s lack of success in effecting fundamental change, why Schiff et al. expending so much energy in an impeachment scenario that has, by all accounts, no chance of actually removing Trump?
Because they can’t help themselves. I suggest that that the “visceral animosity” that I noted above is motivated by the parallels between Trump’s white working-class base and working-class support for National Socialism in 1930s Germany. This phenomenon was traumatic for Jewish intellectuals, who at the time were deeply immersed in classical class-struggle Marxism. It was of critical importance in motivating the shift pioneered by Frankfurt School toward conceptualizing Jewish interests in terms of race—that the real problem Jews faced was white ethnocentrism, the latter solvable only by propaganda efforts aimed at vilifying white racial identity (which soon became mainstream in the educational efforts of the Jewish activist community) and by importing non-whites in order to diminish white political power.
And, as always, this Jewish effort to nip Trump-style populism in the bud has been carried out with the great psychological intensity that is a general trait of Jewish activism. My observation is that among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing: even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue. (I discuss this at greater length in Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits For Jewish Activism, The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2003, pp 24-26.)
As Peter Novick described this attitude in The Holocaust in American Life
There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’
In the case of impeachment, this psychological intensity is motivated by the fear that Trump could be reelected and be in a much better position to effect fundamental change. Indeed, Adam Schiff made exactly that point during his remarks during the Senate trial. [ Schiff Tells Senators They Must Not Allow Trump to Run for Re-Election , CNSNEWS, January 24, 2020]
So is this a Jewish coup? Of course, such a claim needs qualification. The Democratic Party may have “tipped” demographically, but it still contains plenty of white gentiles. And there are Jews who are vigorously defending Trump, such as Jay Sekulow, who is on Trump’s personal legal team, and Stephen Miller, who remains a shining star in the administration’s efforts on immigration. Plus there are Jewish Trump donors noted above, although their driving interest in creating bipartisan support for Israel is typically combined with moving the GOP to the left on social issues, including immigration.
But yes, it is a Jewish coup. Indeed, the entire post-1965 regime should be regarded as a Jewish coup motivated by fear and loathing of the people and culture of pre-1965 white America.
Very lucid and accurate analysis by Professor McDonald – as always.
I had an aunt who testified in the proceedings against Alger Hiss. Years later, while attending public schools, I was taught about “the evils of McCarthyism,” and at one point asked my aunt if Senator McCarthy was delusional or correct in his beliefs. Her response was revealing: “I don’t know about other federal agencies,” she said, “but the State Department was loaded with Commies.”
I think the fact that the USA along with Great Britain, which also had powerful Jews, both made war on Germany instead of staying neutral or even allying themselves with Germany in WW II, reveals the facts. Both countries were loaded with communists and communist sympathizers, many in high positions in all fields and many were Jews that supported the ideology and were big supporters of the USSR because they dominated it (according to Russian President Putin, Jews made up 80 to 85% of the first Soviet government) and because it was the biggest enemy of their biggest enemy – Germany.
As Patrick Buchanan wrote in “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War”, it was Great Britain’s choice to declare war on Germany and it was FDR’s choice as well when he began sending weapons to Germany’s enemies and the US Navy began attacking German U-Boats, both while the US was still officially neutral. Unfortunately, Pat does not give credit to David Irving in his footnotes. Irving spent many years researching the war and exposed the very close relationship between Jews and Churchill, which led Britain into war with Germany.
The USA allied themselves with the murderous USSR which murdered millions of its own citizens during the 1930’s, while major Jewish owned US media outlets like The New York Times ignored and refused to report on these atrocities and even denied the atrocities, defending the USSR against these accusations. At the same time, the propaganda against Germany prior to the beginning to the war was already at fever pitch, portraying the country as full of violence, murder and danger, even though Germany had very little violence. These lies were propagated because Germany enacted laws against Jews to encourage them to leave the country, but there was little or no violence against Jews (population 500,000) in Germany while millions were being killed in the USSR. Germany may have been the only major country that publicly condemned the USSR (repeatedly) while this was happening and they explicitly identified the Jews as the murderers in speeches by Goebbels (referred to as a liar since then by the Americans and British) and Hitler. Germany correctly said the USSR was extremely violent, murdering millions and extremely dangerous to itself and the rest of Europe and both Great Britaiin and the USA allied themselves with “Uncle Joe”, as FDR affectionately called Stalin.
There is no doubt that McCarthy and the anti-communists or the America First people would have had a different American foreign policy in the 30’s and 40’s if they had more power then, but it took two Jews, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and countless others before Americans realized their country was run by communist sympathizers and communists.
I am waiting to see when this will be acknowledged and discussed.
Whatever the value of the historic American Republic, it fell on Dec 7, 1941 when rooseveltian WASP’s and Jewish Power got the war with Japan and hence Germany that they had been conspiring for going back to 1933. Understanding that war is the baseline for understanding our problems today. But given the post war brain wash, talking about it is the land mine Jewish power wants us to step on. This is the Conundrum
That ‘watershed’ occurred earlier – 1913 and the first WW…
Below is Stefan Molyneux / Diana West.
Everything Peter says is mentioned in this superb interview with Diana West, an author writing about the enemy-within commies operating in the East during the War.
Mentions the colossal transfer of military hardware from the US to the Soviet Union, and the way the War was prolonged in order to help the Soviet cause even though the Japanese wanted to end the war.
Diana West is right about many, many things. She names communist infiltration, even communist occupation – tantalisingly close – and islam but fails to name judaism and zionism as the ‘organisers’ of these ‘proxy’ wars against western countries.
In her words at a Heritage Foundation lecture on her book “American Betrayal” she says: ” ……Admiral Canaris was made a ‘righteous gentile’ by yad yeshem”.
As far as I know chabad lubavitch made that recommendation!
She’s either being careful not to jeopardise her book and career or rationalises it as a ‘strategic’ move or she has a large blind spot.
Nauseating to realize that Stalin knew of FDR’s and that Drunkard’s opinion and negotiating points for the next day, before even going to bed: compliments of Hiss, pictured standing behind Churchill and to his left in that famous Yalta photo.
45 additional years of murderous Judeo-Bolshevism through the Warsaw Pact. These swine maintained an extrajudicial execution cellar close to my aunt’s residence in East Berlin. Pitiable East Europeans – finally freed by their own effort – seeded through Reagan’s bankrupting them through his Star Wars Initiative.
As a mere transatlantic observer, I thought the enthusiasm shown by thoughtful US patriots for Trump somewhat excessive and premature. His personal flaws were obvious and have been uncorrected. Still, he stirred things up. An empty head and an impulsive character – who would jump in to fill the gap with ideas and actions? Step forward the Likud Lobby. And good old Alan “Jews Must Never Be Afraid to Use Their Well-Earned Power” Dershowitz (Gatestone Institute, March 27, 2019). Watch that space!
William Luther Pierce predicted, more than 20 years ago, that Trump would be the next republican president after Bush. No thoughtful person showed enthusiasm for Trump.
“…Stephen Miller, who remains a shining star in the administration’s efforts on immigration.”
Are you sure about that? Ann Coulter maintains that his role is actually the opposite.
A perfect opportunity to apply CoC analysis. This article stood out above all others of the week and perhaps the year. How could anyone not notice the ethnic component of the ludicrous impeachment? I’m also glad this article appeared at VDARE before a fairly wide, immigration-patriot audience. Another good sign is that a Christian broadcast (TruNews) boldly went where few have gone. It’s time for Christians to catch on to what’s happening. Let’s hope the word is getting out.
“How could anyone not notice the ethnic component of the ludicrous impeachment?”
Watch the Boomers and the Xer’s fail to notice. They are brain dead vs Jews. I know. I am a boomer. For most of my adult life I failed to notice what was right in front of me. I could look at Jews swarming over media, academe and entertainment and somehow not see them as Jews. With a naivete about the import of race and ethnicity which was created and encouraged by Jews, I simply let Jews hide behind their Anglo names. But even when I recognized Jews as Jews it was simply as Americans who HAPPENED to be of Jewish origin. This reaction to Jews seeped into my head practically from birth. Seeped from where ? Why from the media, academe and entertainment industries where the Jews were swarming
Luck to anyone who thinks that large numbers of boomers and x’ers are going to wake to the Jews. Boomers and x’ers have been semophiled to the grave
It’s a FAKE “clash between competing elites.”
It’s all jews. Just as you listed many jews on the Demo side, you can list just as many jews on the Repub/Trump side, but you didn’t.
Jew coup? LLLLOOOOONNNNNGGGG time ago.
A REAL impeachment proceeding would be on the real and obvious High Crimes and Misdemeanors: Blatant Violations of Oath of office, First Amendment, and Second Amendment. 100% guilty. Trump, all of Congress, the Supreme Court, and judges across the country who have upheld their crimes, are guilty.
Trump’s role, having been (s)elected president as a supposedly pro-White man, is to serve as punching bag. He’s an “evil White gun-promoting racist!”
Truth: He is evil. But he’s not White, he’s a crypto-jew. He has already eroded gun rights. And he certainly is a racist: a jew against all other races.
To conclude on the subject of the article, impeachment: It’s just the Repubs turn on the pedestal. For people who don’t have such short attention spans, we remember Clinton’s turn on that pedestal. We all know how that impeachment “clash” ruined his career, caused him to be prosecuted for decades of crimes (see “Clinton Body Count” videos, and other similar mountains of evidence), caused his money-machine fake charity to dry up, caused jew Jeffrey Epstein to kick him off his pedo plane and pedo island, and put him on the outs with corporate high-rollers and international leaders. NOT.
The title was not of my choosing.
KM’s brief reply hints at a larger point that TOO readers would do well to incorporate for future reference. That point is this: the headline of a story is one of the principal ways in which those with the real power assert their presence in the Narrative Industry, if I may call it that.
In mainstream journalism, print or otherwise, the headline is a senior editor’s work in essentially every instance. In stuff out of the mainstream, no matter how samizdat it may be, the case is the same more often than not. While Peter Brimelow, for instance, is no enemy of TOO, his background and concerns differ in numerous important ways from Dr. MacDonald’s. Hence PB’s desire to direct weapons’ fire toward targets he considers very important and away from others he doesn’t.
That this paradigm seems not to be regnant here at TOO is indicative not just of KM’s trust in the value of his associates articles but preeminently of his candid confidence that he and his colleagues serve only the truth—truth being something that requires no massaging, no coy expression, no organizational agenda, no special pleading to make its presence felt.
(I grant that truth seems to be down for its twelfth mandatory eight count while we’re barely into the fifth round, but surely that’s a matter for another day’s discussion.)
Thank you, Patton.45. Agreed.
Excellent and interesting piece. Trump is a mystery and his true allegiance is not clear at all. This is a key question. Is he a pragmatic narcisist, a below the radar real American or jewish shill? For the life of me I cannot tell but I still have hope for the man as a true patriot if only because the alternative is too painful to contemplate. More research needs to be done on this front.
Trump was chosen by the Chosen. Therefore his allegiance it to the Chosen.
Michael Cohen and Steward Rahr were the players behind ShouldTrumpRun.com. Trump was the Likud’s man from the outset, with the primary focus being Iran. Immigration reform and all the populist fanfare merely a means to win office, never to be realized. One imagines that a second term will see Trump deliver on his Iran war promises to Adelson and Netanyahu, while doing nothing for the GOP base. Dissidents should expect the worst.
There is a joke: “Democracy is government of the People by the people chosen by the Chosen People”. If someone like Sacha Baron Cohen or Jackie Mason said this on a NY stage, it might get a laugh. If someone said it in public in a UK forum, it might get a visit from HM Constabulary.
I will copy my previous reply: “William Luther Pierce predicted, more than 20 years ago, that Trump would be the next republican president after Bush. No thoughtful person showed enthusiasm for Trump.”
Those who cover their ears while shouting “lalala” are probably beyond redemption at this point, maybe it’t not too late for you. You should read or listen to what Pierce predicted, so you can plan accordingly.
As always, everything written by Kevin MacDonald is meticulously researched and spot-on. BUT considering Donald Trump’s shameful performance and outright treason of the hopes and ideals of millions of racially aware Americans that voted for him the impeachment is irrelevant. The Jews have an obedient puppet in the White House that so far had done absolutely everything they asked/told him to do. (like all previous American presidents). So, why should we care?
Prof MacDonald is more than generous when he describes Trump’s nefarious actions as “lack of success in effecting fundamental change”. There was never such an intention. He proved it from almost day one.
Kevin is right when he says “because they cannot help themselves”. That is true. There is never enough power for them.
The title of this article is very misleading. There has been no clash whatsoever because there are no competing elites. There is only one elite, the one that has been ruling the US since FDR. There was never such a thing as a WASP elite just a bunch of greedy Gentile/Aryan bastards without any racial awareness that led them to accept the Jews aa partners and equals. The only concern of America’s old ruling class was to make money (Vanderbilt, Morgan, Rockefeller, Getty, etc.) that is why they went along so well with the Jews. “If you want to know the end look at the beginning”.
The USA had it coming. Prof Revilo Oliver was right.
Trump admin is way better than the Dems would have been–but of course, it’s been a long time coming and will not result in fundamental change. This is a good example of what Trump has managed to do: https://twitter.com/vdare/status/1222177871596310528
I agree with you on that one Kevin.
I think we have to hope that the changes that have occurred will precipitate more change. I recall ten years ago, when you brought up the immigration issue the rank and file Eloi would simply parrot back the “nation of immigrants” line at you. Now, at least, they’re debating the subject matter. My fear is that after Trump the arguing will simply fade back into business as usual. But we must hope.
Trump is very much influenced by arrogant son in law Kushner 24/7.
Angelicus: “The Jews have an obedient puppet in the White House that so far had done absolutely everything they asked/told him to do. ”
If you owned a restaurant in New York in 1930 and the mafia made you an offer you could not refuse about providing security for your business in exchange for a weekly fee, would you pay them? – and smile while you do so pretending you do not mind – or would you declare ‘I refuse to give in to this pressure’ and give them nothing?
If you reply that you would stick to your principles and pay them nothing, then how long would you be in business for?
How long do you think Trump would last if he resisted the blackmail & threats? And they would go after his family too.
So, according to you, Trump is a wonderful, patriotic warrior that has been threatened and blackmailed by the Jews, and he cannot do a thing about it? Well, it is not as easy as that.
Unlike the defenceless, isolated owner of a shop approached by the Mafia. Trump had connections, wealth, and therefore, some power had he wanted to do something he could have done it, but the problem is that from the very beginning he was a puppet. For starters he allowed his disgusting daughter to marry a Jew and he was very proud about it. Here is an excellent article that illustrates what I said: https://nationalvanguard.org/2018/01/the-disavow-betray-disavow-timeline/
Trump was NEVER “one of us”! He was, like almost all American Gentile millionaires, a greedy bastard obsessed with making money, that means he was ready and willing to do anything to succeed.
So, please stop making excuses for someone like Trump.
If Trump were only a “greedy bastard obsessed wih making money” he would never have run for president, but would have continued to make money in real estate. Do you really think after 4 more years as president, around age 80, he will go back into business and make a killing?
People like you, and there are a lot of you, cannot think your way through a paper bag, and what’s worse, you don’t even try.
I am sorry Carolyn, I did not mean to upset you. I did not know that you are: (A) A close friend of Donald, or (B) Related to him, because only those circumstances could explain your spiteful words which were uncalled for.
To begin with, the fact that Trump chose to run for president had nothing to do with him being a greedy bastard. I never suggested that. He did it motivated by his monstrous ego clearly illustrated by the title of one of his books “No such a thing as over-exposure”. Or, do you really believe that he did it moved by his “deep love for America”? The guy is a narcissistic egomaniac.
What is very sad is the number of imbeciles that still see in him a patriot. The guy has been three years in power, and in those years he has done NOTHING for the Americans of European descent. How many more years do you need to wake up? Name just ONE action that Trump has made in favour of the downtrodden white American people. There is no worse blind than that who refuse to see.
Please, Carolyn, stick to your revisionism where you have done such a wonderful job but refrain from commenting or analyzing current affairs, you are not qualified to do so.
” and he cannot do a thing about it? ”
Correct, in my view. Trump is severely outnumbered. The swamp is very deep.
Speaking of Trump’s family. he has a daughter who is a convert to orthodox Judaism, a son in law who is an orthodox Jew and an older brother – now deceased – who pledged a jewish fraternity in college and claimed that his and Donald’s father was a Jew who converted to Christianity
An apt title if “America” is removed. A clash of two agendas, the Israel one and that of the Diaspora.
I agree: schizo on one side and phrenic on the other.
I was under the impression the elite meant intellectual elite.
Love your article and your viewer commentary but I have yet to see any proposed recommendation to combat the evil menace of attacks by Jews on the white Christian race by you mr Sailor,mr. Joyce or the witty and intelligent audience of people who write their options on commentary to TOO! Wish there were a well funded organizational body to combat these Paracites!
and 50% going to 22% as in the article
The vast majority of the people have very sophisticated and highly-developed radar to detect when it is they can and cannot say, and what opinions the current culture allows them to have, and most are happy to go along with this arrangement. The reason it does not cause any unease is simply that most people are not wired to be bothered about truth, justice, logic etc, (whilst at the same time claiming that these are their guides).
Over the millennia, the tribes that accepted all the opinions they were given are the ones that won the battles and land, not the tribe in which all matters are discussed at length by the people before deciding on what is justice and truth.
Today our allowed opinions are provided for us by the mainstream media, more than by the leaders/politicians, but the same principle applies, and besides, today the two of them are in unison over immigration & political correctness, apart from Trump.
So for the vast majority, there is no attempt to get to the bottom of any issue, such as ‘do the Jews influence US politics’?
Evidence for this is provided by the way the people are able to accept all the following 1-3 below at the same time even though the application of logic tells us this is impossible. Contradictions are simply ignored. In an alternative world, one were where contradictions are not accepted with ease, and where truth and justice do matter, then very quickly an intense indignation, to say the least, would arise over the Jewish influence.
Accepted contradictory statements:
1) Aipac make on secret of the fact that they influence US politics. They say so themselves when they appeal to donors.
2) We are not allowed to say the Jews influence US elections, and most of us ‘believe this’is the case, but only in the sense that no thoughts are ever directed to the task of pondering on this assertion, so we ‘virtually believe this’ which is not quite the same as full belief, but going into this state of mind saves having any troubling thoughts, such as ‘this is not right’.
When the chieftan says ‘the other tribe stole our land so we need to go to war’ the people respond with ‘they certainly did!’, and the person who says ‘did they?’ finds himself turned on by the group, in the way K MacDonald’s work colleagues in academia turned on him. Only a small proportion of us can withstand this group pressure. However it is worth noting that several listened to the chief, knew it was false, and said noting. These are represented by the donkey in ‘Animal Farm’ – they know very well the Jews influence US politics but say nothing.
3) Russia possibly does influence US elections, albeit not via having representation in Congress and not by dontating millions of pounds to openly Russian pressure groups in the US
Clearly All the majority are interested in is ‘what am I supposed to think’ .
However, what we can also conclude is that if the media/culture was no longer controlled by the Left and the Jews, then suddenly the same majority would quickly change their minds when the message was changed. If this happens, the people would be swimming in the direction of self-interest, not against it as they do at present, so the journey would be much easier and swifter, and we could get a lot done to put right some wrongs.
Mainstram media accepted view on Jewish influence:
But this Sunday, when 18,000 members and supporters are expected to descend on Washington for the annual Aipac Policy Conference, a new wave of anti-Israel critics, including several new members of Congress, have resurrected the anti-Semitic canard that American Jews have too much power. And they’re blaming Aipac again.
Another relevant point is that the Jews are second dog in controlling the media, and the Left are top dog. This is demonstrated by the way the MSM do not take Israel’s side in the land conflict with the Palestinians. The Jews do not have enough influence to achieve this.
The US Christians support Israel as they see a *civilised* nation (Israel) besieged by a backward one (crazy muslims obsessed by the Crusades who love war & conflict & terrorism) and the Christian Right will naturally favour the civilised when it is civilised versus the backward/hostile. But the Christian Right do not influence the msm.
The Left, however, when they observe conflict between the civilised and the backward in Israel/Palestine, they naturally side with the backward. It is in their nature to do this. And we see that in the MSM the left wins.
This is why the ‘Alt-Right’ make a bad move when they support the Palestinian cause – they are alienating the average white person (religious or not) from their cause by siding with the uncivilised, which discredits them in the eyes of the average right wing person.
Neither could the Jews save Weinstein – and we have to acknowledge that he was in a position of great influence and therefore very valuable to them.
We falsely assume they have more power than they do as they have so much power when it comes to using the weapon of ‘antisemitism’ and getting us all to bow to the Holocaust Industry – but this power is merely granted to them by the Left, which is happy to go along and fully support these themes as they suit the left in their aim of demonising the Right, and all white people.
The Left not jews control the media.
Let me get this facepalm out of the way.
Can the left make money ex nihilo?
The FCC was created in 1934- CBS [network] to (((Paley))), NBC to (((Sarnoff))), ABC to (((Goldenson))). . .
@TJ Re Jews controlling the news, banks & Hollywood
I do not doubt their huge influence and control, but they too have to operate within parameters.
Those who think they control the news 100% have to explain why the mainstream news favours the Palestinians over Israel re the land dispute.
And another indication of limited power is that ‘Holocaust denial’ is still not a criminal offence in many countries, such as Britain. (There are consequences – being sacked, media turns on you if you are important/famous etc, but prison is not one of the consequences).
Alison Chabloz says you’re seriously downplaying Jewish power in Britain:
pterodactyl: I don’t know about Britain, but the MSM in the U.S. is not pro-Palestinian.
They couldn’t care less about the Palestinians.
It’s only a small portion of the Left — mostly active on college campuses — that supports the Palestinians.
As for Holocaust denial not being a criminal offense in Britain, I believe that it is in fact a criminal offense, only it is charged as “inciting hatred” rather than as Holocaust denial per se.
Whether or not I am right, Brits are criminally charged all the time for saying the wrong thing. We are getting close to having that happen in the U.S. as well.
As for Weinstein, the only reason Jews couldn’t save him is that something they created — modern feminism (Steinem, Millet, etc.) — took him down.
You have things backwards as far as America goes.
Jews planted the seeds for the contemporary Left in America (the two “Emmas — Lazarus and Goldman — Boas — Frankfurt School) as well as the contemporary Right (a mixture of libertarianism — Rothbard — neo-conservatism — Kristol — and Christian Zionism — Untermeyer via Scofield). I suspect the same is true in Britain.
Re: Weinstein – let’s not forget the intrafamilial dispute over the direction of the company that was backdrop to the event. From time to time (((dirty laundry))) does get washed in public. The Kushner family falling out comes to mind.
Pterodactyl shows the complexity of the white western predicament, and the folly of single-issue and single-cause “explanations”. We need to understand all our opponents, their motivations, disagreements and weaknesses.
One illustration: how Holocaust “Day” has been used to invoke tolerance, kindness and amity both to deter any criticism – however reasonable – of any activities whatever by Jews, including especially leading Zionists, and to neutralise resistance to “non-white” immigration, even from groups with no great love for Israel. Look also, for instance, at the concerns driving ALL the current efforts of Dr Moshe Kantor. Neither rage nor defeatism, however, is an asset. Jews are neither demons nor gods, but human beings like the rest of us, though with their own characteristics and interests.
It is indeed uphill to speak truth to power, notably via the MSM, but it has to be truth; and the nature of the power, and its own vulnerabilities – and “contradictions” (as Leftists would say) – need to be accurately understood, if they are to be successfully utilised.
David Ashton: “Holocaust “Day” has been used to invoke tolerance, kindness and amity both to deter any criticism – however reasonable – of any activities whatever by Jews,”
The current display in the MSM of fawning is disgusting and shameful. It demonstrates that the narrative is very strongly controlled. Either by the Jews or the Left or a mixture of the two, such as the Left granting the Jews permission to run the H industry. The Left love this industry too as it portrays white ppl and the right-wing as evil. If Js, already wealthy, get massive extra compensation as part of this, so be it.
The MSM crow about how ‘we won the War for our freedom’ and at the same time enforce a strict ban on dissenting opinions. The question is, how many readers notice this and feel a slight stirring that something is not quite right when they observe the kind of ‘freedom’ we have..
The H is the lynch pin for anti-white hostility and if it breaks the backlash will be huge.
On a positive note:
1. As time passes after the War, those with ‘full commitment’ to the official War narrative will decrease – these committed ones are currently the middle aged children of the generation that spent 1945 to the end of their lives telling themselves, each other, and their children how virtuous they were to fight white racists who wanted to kill Js for no reason.
These committed ones are the ones preventing any review of the War. Their opinions are generally fixed and it is futile to attempt to reason with them, or at least 95% of them. But they are being replaced by a generation that can see things from a distance instead of as participants. Participants are drawn in and forced to ‘be patriotic’ ie side with their own side, and this includes absorbing government propaganda lies, but non-participants – ie the current/next generation are not drawn in in this way by having their patriotism urges that operate during war during War activated.
2. There is a mainstream TV program on Sky freeview called ‘Impossible Engineering’. It had a 20-min feature about Finland during WWII building defensive towers to fire on Soviet bombers in order to protect their factory making Molotov cocktails for use against Soviet tanks.
What was remarkable about this program was that it was sympathetic to the Finns who were allies of the Nazis, and it portrays the Soviets in a bad light. Generally the narrative on TV is full on anti-Germany and portrays the War as the Allies being an army of saints who were fighting a defensive war against evil white racists. This programme clearly portrayed the Soviets as the villains wanting to grab more land for themselves during the War, not as the usual ‘defending themselves against racist Nazis’ line.
I hope this TV program indicates that the narrative might be changing, or at least less tightly controlled and enforced, as there are fewer who are instinctively committed to the War narrative
Very interesting Pterodactyl. I am of the generation that got its collective brains marinated in the Wasp-Jewish rendition of
the WW2 story line. Unfortunately I have only recently become aware of that fact.
Now after discovering my own brain death
at such a late age I spend a lot of time wondering how precisely it all happened. I think it was not so simple as the greatest generation telling my generation of its virtue.
I think a lot of the greatest generation and their parents – my grandparents – knew or at least sensed the Big Lie about the War but were afraid to start talking about it. Pearl Harbor really was one of the greatest cons in history. It begged to be explained in the conventional way rather than the actual way it came about I so wish had my large family back. Many served in the war but had to have remembered America First though they never talked to me about it. I probably wouldn’t have paid much attention if they did. Such ideas would have made my own progress problematic.Today I would pick their brains – ask them what they really knew
Studs Terkel wrote a book called “The Good War” — an oral history of WW II — that shows how skeptical Americans were about fighting that war, just as they had been skeptical about fighting WW I. I highly recommend it. Our “leaders” ignoring what the people want is nothing new.
The question then becomes, How did this skepticism become transformed into the knee-jerk support for both wars that we see today?
I think the answer to this question is a matter of basic psychology. Americans made huge sacrifices, especially during WW II, and it would be psychologically intolerable for them to continue to maintain that it was all wrong and a waste of time. It would be even more psychologically intolerable for them to acknowledge that they supported evil instead of good.
Most people just want to move on, so they rationalize what they have done as basically good, regardless of what the facts say otherwise.
But I am not quite satisfied with this psychological explanation.
America has killed millions of people for no good reason — Vietnam, etc. — and it is a mark against the Anglo-American character that this has been allowed to go on for so many decades and continues going on to this day.
It is also a mark against our national character that we support Israel’s brutal attacks on the Palestinian people, many of whom are Christian.
No honest and aware American can say that they don’t know that America (along with its allies) is the world’s chief bully and fully deserves the hatred that it receives from other nations.
Accessing my inner Alexander Pope, I am led to suggest that pterodactyl’s Finnish surmise lacks the learning and awareness to support it adequately. People on the hard left have been cutting the Finns and their Winter War slack since at least Robert Sherwood’s prizewinning 1940 play “There Shall Be No Night.” (Sherwood’s leftist bona fides, be it noted, included being an FDR speechwriter and publicly calling Lindbergh a Nazi before it had become cool to do so.) The play gets round the problem of explaining how the good Soviets could be bad aggressors by simply failing to mention the matter—or indeed anything to do with Germans.
I myself first heard of the Winter War from a TV program about it dating from the mid-1950s, while I was still in grammar school. Again, no mention of evil Nazis soiled the omission-filled fantasy. What I best recall about the program, however, was my profound relief at not living in a place that was evidently even colder in winter than New York City.
Then there was the Olivier-narrated “World at War” series from fifteen or so years later. Same story: good Finns, bad Soviets, and Germans channeling Conan Doyle’s “Silver Blaze” by failing to bark in the night.
The list goes on. In sum, its effect is to make nonsense of pterodactyl’s premise.
As for the following from David Ashton,
surely this is confusing an effect with a cause. There would never be so ridiculous a celebratory day had not Jewish influence long since made them immune from criticism, no matter how factually grounded.
There are times when the pose of sweet reasonableness—specifically, anent the Jews as primary cause of White woes—is precisely that: a pose. Except in the posers’ imagination, the mirror they question is not telling them that they’re the fairest of them all.
“Jews are neither demons nor gods, but human beings like the rest of us, though with their own characteristics and interests.”
In the first place, Jews certainly don’t agree with you. They see themselves as superior to everyone. That’s why they call themselves “the Chosen”, and are the only ones who do so.
Germans never called themselves the master race. That’s a jewish lie (or a jewish statement, same thing).
Of all peoples, especially the world-historic peoples, ie; Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, Romans, Europeans, and Jews, ONLY the Jews chose to hide.
All peoples have come to a point where they either choose to stand and be accounted for, to say, in effect, “Behold the man!” and die fighting for who they are, ie; to live a noble life.
OR, hide and live “By any means necessary”, no matter how ignoble.
Jews chose the latter. And, as a people, they are the ONLY ones in history to do so.
So, no, they’re not human like everyone else.
They don’t see themselves like everyone else for reasons based on lies, about both them and everyone else.
And we don’t see them that way based on the facts.
Which is why they’re trying to shut us all up – forever.
Especially those foolish enough to give them a voice in the first place.
That many Jews have a mistaken idea about themselves doesn’t make them another species. Most of your answer bypasses the points I have been making. We should not be frightened by enemies, but know them, and how and why they think, in the most accurate and thorough way.
Saying that Jews are “human beings like the rest of us” suggests that they can be reasoned with and reformed. But history has shown otherwise. The Jews have been enemies of the rest of mankind for thousands of years, especially white Europeans and Christians.
I get tired of comments on TOO that seek to minimize Jewish culpability. It’s as if the commenters were ignoring all the evidence that is provided to them on this website — which of course is a possibility. There is another possibility, but I won’t discuss that now.
You are right. Eric. That sentence (“the Jews are human beings like the rest of us”) shows a lethal ignorance about the true nature of this evil people. I remember having a big argument here at TOO with an imbecile who argued that it was possible to reason with some of them and even have some kind of friendship or relationship.
Chris M has also made some excellent observations about David Ashton’s foolish comment. You may read hundreds of books and yet learn nothing if there is no common sense to guide you.
Maybe you should read this article by David Cole a Jew about the so-called “Left”:
@John Doe. Two good quotes from the article:
(“I love my children but I hate you more”).
“Leftist Jews are holding out their hands like a scale. In one palm is the well-being of their community. In the other, the war against the white Christian West.”
Perhaps the human characteristic of hatred and hostility, displayed by the Js and the Left against white ppl, perhaps this explains more things going on, including Western suicide, than the alternative explanation that the left and the Js operate out of some sort of self-interest on the part of Js, or some sort of moral urge from the left to make the world more equal. Self-interest from Js, and the moral urge for equality – these are positive things. They are motives suggested by those on the right to explain why the Js and the Left act against their own interests in the West (such as supporting 3rd world immigration). Surely they would not be so foolish, they assume, to act against themselves without some sort of positive motive?
Those who suggest such positive motives by Js and the Left cannot conceive that ppl would try and sink the boat that they too lived in and drown themselves also, simply out of hatred of the other passengers, and with no self-interest involved at all.
But in fact there are many examples of this in everyday life. Many divorcing couples demonstrate this principle every day. They prioritise hurting their former partner over the happiness of their children and over their own financial position and happiness. Their happiness *is* their partner’s misery, even if this is obtained by damaging their own interests and their children’s.
@ john doe
I have read the article. Not all Jews are involved in the current proces he attacks; some oppose it. I am against anyone, whatever their ethnicity, numbers or influence engaged in the demolition of western civilization and the white race. A Latino USA and a Muslim Europe are not especially attractive futures for Israel.
I dissent from some other voices here on several points, including: (1) Jewish motivations are varied and complex, and need to be properly understood, if harmful activities are to be effectively resisted; (2) effective resistance does not exist, for example, in describing “the Jew” as a “pathogen” to be exterminated, but contributes to failure – such effusions merely hand ammunition to SPLC, ADL &c.
On WW2, Bullitt and Communism, I prefer leave these matters raised by Cole if another article here invites comment; I missed the boat with the articles on Marx.
“A Latino USA and a Muslim Europe are not especially attractive futures for Israel.”
Hence the support of Trump by Likudniks such as Stewart Rahr and Sheldon Adelson. There is a national tension between the agenda of the Diaspora and that of Israel.
Any calls to exterminate “the Jew” would be in breach of the site’s conditions, not to mention federal and state codes.
I find “goyim” rather hilarious per se, but recognize that context is everything:
“Even the best of the ‘goyim’ should all be killed.” (Soferim 15)
I think we should be beyond such statements as “not all Jews support X…” and “Jewish motivations are varied and complex.”
These are innocuous truisms that are beside the point.
The collectivity of Jews is at war with us, and has been so for a long time.
I am not interested in statements that tend to exculpate the Jews and thereby minimize the stakes in this centuries-old battle.
Absolute accuracy is required. Not personal abuse of me.
The “true nature of this evil people” against my supposedly naïve “foolishness” requires clear definition, plus full evidence, genetic and cultural, in all relevant historical circumstances. Do we distinguish between any of these “people” at all on any grounds (as done by e.g. Hans Guenther, Fritz Lenz, Eugen Fischer, Otmar von Verschuer, Carleton Coon, Cyril Darlington, John Baker, Richard Lynn)?
It also requires practical proposals for counter-action. Suggestions please from my critics.
The reason it does not cause any unease is simply that most people are not in sufficient pain to act otherwise.
“MSM do not take Israel’s side in the land conflict with the Palestinians”
Surely you jest.
Trenchant – In Britain I hardly ever watch the news as it is so biased but whenever I do and it is about Palestine/Israel, they always have some Palestinians who are poor and having their houses knocked down by the rich Israelis who want to build settlements. Or, after Palestine is bombed they allow the Palestinians to arrange the scene before the cameras arrive – as the Soviets arranged the concentration camps at the end of WWII – and then they interview the grieving parents whose children got killed. Or they film teenagers throwing stones at soldiers and say it is one side with stones versus the other with bullets.
I have never seen on TV a map showing Israeli land in one colour on a map and arab lands in another colour. This would show just how much land each side has. They never use the word ‘Judea’ or suggest on TV that muslims in Palestine could go to other muslim countries, which are sparsely populated, rather than go to Israel, in the name of peace, and accept the monetary compensation that is offered.
Clearly in the eyes of the left who run the MSM news, the conflict is the civilised (Israel) versus the backward (muslims) and clearly the Left instinctively favour the backward, and clearly the religious Christian Right in the US will instinctively favour the civilised. Let us define ‘civilised’ here as a place where a white woman can walk around for 5 minutes without being kidnapped/raped.
K MacDonald often states how the Right in the US (Republican voters) support Israel. They do this in my view as they see it as the civilised (Israel) versus the backward/hostile (muslims). They have no idea that the most hostile group of all is the organised Js within the West, as they overwhelmingly support 3rd world immigration into the US, supporting it with money and political pressure – HIAS for example. Pro-immigration groups are openly supported by the Board of Deputies, ie not hidden, and meanwhile no Jewish groups oppose immigration from the 3rd world to the West. But despite this being done so openly, the Republican voters still have not realised it is happening, so they still foolishly think that the Js are on their side.
If the US Republican voters were to realise that the Js are fully committed with money and effort to making the US multiracial, they might be less inclined to be so pro-Israel, but for now they believe the Israelis are on their side, so they do not like it when the Al-right sides with the hostile muslims.
In my view the Palestinians and the Israelis are both villains, although the villainy of the Israelis is practised in the West and is subtle, and not practised within Israel, which is civilised, in the sense that you or I could visit without being kidnapped/murdered within a few days as would happen if we visited the Palestine that the Alt-R supports. All the Js in Israel are doing is fighting for land for their ppl and I have no issue with that – my issue with them is that in the West they want us to NOT have land for our ppl.
Trenchant “with Palestinians with whom they have in common an oppressor,”
In the West the whites do not see the Js as oppressors anywhere in the world – not in Palestine and not in the Western countries where the Js live. In fact in the West the ppl generally see the Js as an oppressed group. This is largely due to the Holocaust industry. In Palestine the Js are not the oppressors either – they have offered compensation to the Palestinians to leave but the Palestinians prefer eternal conflict for the glory of Islam – to conquer the Holy Lands. There are mothers in Palestine who raise their sons to be suicide bombers. They say they want land not compensation. They want to burn and pillage the Holy Lands that the Christian Right in the US respect and revere. See Bill Warner for the intention of the muslims, eg on Red Ice Radio. The Palestinians are the opposite of ‘oppressed’, they are hostile and war-loving and they are fighting to drive Jews and Christians out of the Holy Lands for the glory of Islam, and the only thing stopping them is that they are too backward to get their act together.
Not that I support military aid for Israel or anything like that – but my reason is that Js are actively hostile to the West and actively on the side of the enemy-within Left within the West, and nothing to do with the rights and wrongs going on in Israel. It is clear that the Alt-R support the Palestinians only because they do not like what the Js are doing against the West, ie their motive is not really that they feel for the poor oppressed Palestinians. No-one seriously believes that. What about the oppressed Tibetans or 1001 other oppressed groups in the world? No, they single out the Palestinians for their sympathy -a backward, hostile and war-loving group that wants to drive you into the sea after they have driven the Js into the sea. You cannot enlist my sympathy for that group, even of they are a thorn in the side for the Js.
‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’ – not for me, for me it is ‘all my enemies are my enemies, even if they hate each other.’
Straight off the bat, it’s not the Left but the *Jewish* Left that sets the media agenda for the most part. Witness the hysteria from all media quarters that marked Corbyn’s incumbency as Labor leader. This because he allowed *qualified* legitimacy to the Palestinian cause rather than siding unconditionally with Israel. The fact that some news unpalatable to Zionists, or insufficiently spinned, reaches the public is a function of the significant Muslim population and their familiarity with ME politics.
You tacitly acknowledge the salience of European peoples’ empathetic tendencies by how both sides compete for the victim card. That the victim be backward does not diminish his cause in the slightest, quite the contrary, as you see from Europeans’ and Americans’ constant endeavors to help the Third World (or blacks in their own midst). No, that the Christian Right in the US supports Israel is a function of highly selective, pro-Israel news reporting, Scofield Bible “rapture” prophecies, and strict vetting of GOP politicians for any hint of nationalist leanings.
The back-Israel-because-it’s-advanced argument has a long tradition:
pterodactyl: I see a lot of confusion here. “…muslims could go to other muslim countries…” Why should they? Israel is their country, of which they have been dispossessed. And not all Palestinians are Muslims — many are Christian.
“…you or I could visit Israel without being kidnapped/murdered within a few days as would happen if we visited the Palestine that the Alt-R supports…” What evidence do you have that you would likely be kidnaped/murdered within a few days if you visited Palestine?
“All the Js in Israel are doing is fighting for land for their ppl…” Yes. Land that they took away from other people.
“In Palestine, the Js are not the oppressor either — they have offered compensation for the Palestinians to leave…” Yes, to leave their own land. You don’t mention that part. Why should they leave, compensation or no compensation? No American or Brit would accept that “deal” — why should they?
“What about the oppressed Tibetans…” We’re not talking about Tibetans. But if you want to go there, Mao had Jewish mentors and advisers.
I don’t understand where you’re coming from. You have claimed that the MSM doesn’t take Israel’s side in its conflict with the Palestinians. But you apparently take Israel’s side, and I suspect that is the result of your exposure to the MSM in (I presume) Britain.
Your casual dismissal of Palestinians — who have a perfect right to object to having their land taken away from them — is very telling.
“the ‘Alt-Right’ make a bad move when they support the Palestinian cause”
Not so. If there is any basis to the belief that Europeans are hard-wired to be more empathetic vis-à-vis other ethnic groups, then far better they empathize with Palestinians with whom they have in common an oppressor, than with blacks, the oppressor’s foot soldiers and no less “uncivilized” than Palestinians.
“Over the millennia, the tribes that accepted all the opinions they were given are the ones that won the battles and land, not the tribe in which all matters are discussed at length by the people before deciding on what is justice and truth.”
A statement that shows not the slightest comprehension of the last 3,000 years of Western cultural life.
Chris M – just calling another post ignorant and citing ‘history’ as the evidence is not a valid argument.
When WWII was declared men went to sign on for the War ‘for their country’. Without my having any witness accounts of conversations in the queues to enlist I am nevertheless certain that in all the queues in all the enlisting stations in 1939 there was not a single debate about the borders of Germany and Austria and how they had changed over the past 100 years, and which country had the greater right to rule Austria. I am certain that no such debate occurred. I am also certain that if a man joined the queue and said to the others ‘you know what, the Germans have a valid claim for these lands in my view’, if one man said this the others would turn on him and call him a traitor.
This shows that when it comes to conflict, it is not truth and justice that matters, or even enters the equation, and all that matters is that the ppl take their own side. Those who objected to the War like Oswald Mosley and the Black Shirts, and who wanted to accept Hitler’s peace terms (not mentioned in history lessons in school!) – even they were pressurised into fully joining ‘their own team’ once the War started, even if they thought Churchill was a psychopath, and the Black Shirt men did join the Allied army, and those who still objected to the pointless War, such as Lord Haw Haw were treated as the lowest of the low. Even the King George V had to change the Royal name to Windsor to make it less German.
If I said 70 years on after WWII, ie today, that ‘WWII was a pointless war’ on Twitter, this actually would put me in the position of ‘socially condemned’ with an assigned traitor level of 5 out of 10 – not too high, tolerable. If someone had said this just after the war the traitor level given by the group would be 9/10. During the War it would have been 10/10. But I can say WW I (one) was a pointless war today with a traitor level of 0/10. I once said that at the time of W W I (one) everyone would have supported the war so dissenters would be 10/10 traitors but Pierre de Crayon I think it was pulled me up and I have to defer to his knowledge on this point, although I am a little surprised.
Obviously if I ‘denied the H’ I would be condemned at the 8/10 level and if I said anything positive about you know who I would be assigned the 10/10 level even today. This shows how enforced unity can last after a War is over in some cases, if the culture setters and the government are in unison and the message is further reinforced in this case by ((the H industry supervisors)) who still benefit from it today. Denying the Armenian massacre is another example of enforced unity long after the event, and the Russians view of Stalin, once enforced, is a strange one that I am not sure about.
This human behaviour has its origins in prehistory. If the elders declared that the position of Mars means that the gods want them to attack the rival tribe, who are the low ppl to question this? No, they accepted the decrees of those who set the culture.
It does not mean they all fully believed the leaders/culture setters, but those who did not were advised to behave like the wise donkey in ‘Animal Farm’ and say nothing.
Another example is the communist posters in the Soviet Union. You did not have to believe them – probably most did not, but the point was they were declarations of the dominant culture with the understanding that anyone who questioned them or contradicted them would get the treatment handed out to the animals in Animal Farm who questioned the leaders. These were enforced even outside the War.
When there is significant dissent from one section in the group, this might result in civil war or it might result in the dissenting group being ejected. But tribe A cannot go to war against tribe Z with half of tribe A saying they can see tribe Z’s point of view!
When the US was at War with Vietnam there were a lot of Americans opposing the War but this was not a full on War. WWII was such a war and siding with the Germans was not allowed.
In fact the process of ejecting dissenters, or dissenters fleeing which comes to the same thing – could in prehistory lead to actual natural selection taking place, assuming that the dispute divides the people in such a way that the ppl are different genetically who are ejected. In the Civil War in Britain the losers could not flee (as they would have in prehistoric times) as the two sides were too large and shared the same geographical area. A more ‘natural outcome’ that would have occurred in prehistory when man was hunter gatherer rather than huge fixed populations, – the ‘natural outcome’ was for geographical separation to be the outcome of civil War and after this the two populations would have been different genetically. In his Red Ice interview K MacDonald explains how the two sides in the English civil war were probably different genetically. If proper geographical separation had occurred as a result of the English civil war, then significant genetic population differences would have been established, with the Puritans representing more egalitarian tendencies. But no separation of the population took place, and both genetic types merged. But we can see how genetic differences would have been established in previous times by the losers fleeing.
This process of enforced unity is the reason that everyone in the US and Britain and Canada and Australia in WWII (but not the Boers) were forced to agree that Hitler was the most evil man ever. And this state of mind was prolonged after the War. If the US had not joined in the War they would not have joined in with this mentality and today would be less inclined to bow at the alter of the Holocaust.
In the diary of Samuel Pepys he describes how everyone drank the health of Charles II and said ‘Long live the King’. And how the same ppl – himself included – had previously condemned the King some years previously. This shows how everyone had to go along with the current culture/leader. One day saying in unison ‘down with the King’ and later the same ppl declaring ‘Long live the King’.
Mosley’s position was clear: (1) Peace with any power that did not threaten Britain; (2) resistance to invasion of Britain by any power.
A lot of Americans like my father were drafted to fight in WW II. They didn’t volunteer. And they did not buy the “Germany is evil” argument.
Read Studs Terkels’ “The Good War” to find out what Americans really thought about going to war with Germany.
Americans were even less willing to fight Germany in WW I. Dissenters were simply thrown into prison.
There’s a big difference between accepting an opinion and not being allowed to express an opposing opinion.
Having come of age during the turbulent sixties, I witnessed for myself the underhanded dealings used to push “civil-rights” on us law-abiding whites.
It was the JEWS…It’s ALWAYS the JEWS. Almost every “civil-rights worker” was a left-wing JEW.
During the first so-called “civil-rights” movement, we used to have a saying: “Behind every Negro, there is a Jew”. It was no secret that Jews were behind the “civil-rights” movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
From personal experiences, blacks were not the “non-violent” types who only wanted “equality”, but were always violent racists who demanded that “whitey” acquiesce to their “wants and needs”, quite often taking by force (stealing) what they felt should have been theirs.
Growing up in 1950s Detroit (which was still a livable city), us whites had to be wary of blacks. Black criminality was quite often ignored by “the powers that be”, the “excuses” being the “racism” and “discrimination” that blacks lived under. This was all orchestrated by the jew civil-rights “experts” attempting to impose a massive guilt trip on us whites. Of course,our protests against integration were drowned out by the jews and the mainstream media of the time, which demonized us whites, even back then. Us whites retreated into our shells, being careful not to offend the jews and their “pets”–blacks, but in the backs of our minds, we knew, even then that the whole “civil-rights” movement was a major factor in the destruction of our society.
Civil-rights policies initiated in the 1970s didn’t help, either. The imposition of “affirmative action”, forced busing of school students, and the outlawing of aptitude tests for employment assured that substandard, unqualified blacks would be pushed into the workforce. Of course, large corporations and the federal government could easily absorb the incompetence by hiring qualified whites to mentor unqualified blacks, but what about small businesses?
Even some liberal whites are seeing that this whole “civil-rights” deal is a massive scam perpetrated on us whites.
“Us whites retreated into our shells, being careful not to offend the jews and their “pets”–blacks, but in the backs of our minds, we knew, even then that the whole “civil-rights” movement was a major factor in the destruction of our society.”
And the reason this happened is not because jews are so smart, but that Whites organize like blacks swim. Badly.
Whites couldn’t organize to save their lives. Even if their lives depended on it. And, as it turns out, their lives do depend on it.
The anti-Whites violence in the last 50+ years alone (not that it doesn’t go back farther than that) and the amount of money Whites have given through taxes to black government set asides, ie; $20+ trillion, should be enough for Whites to say “ENOUGH!” and organize.
While it’s true more and more are starting to say “Enough!” Whites are far from organizing for reasons already stated. They couldn’t if their lives depended on it.
Barring a miracle, and it would take one, Whites are finished.
@ Chris M & supporters:
So we white people are totally “finished”, are we? Totally defeated by a minority that is totally “evil” but not actually human? And lacking realism and common-sense, am I? At least my critics on this TOO blogsite have abandoned the ludicrous falsehood that I am a Jew trolling from Israel. I have been an opponent of polyethnic mass-immigration since the 1950s and a student of Jewish questions soon after, long before Kevin MacDonald took an interest and “sides” in these issues. I live and learn, but will never give in or give up; I love my English and western heritage too much.
In a previous post in this thread, of which I could not find the option “reply” you said:
The “true nature of this evil people” against my supposedly naïve “foolishness” requires clear definition, plus full evidence, genetic and cultural, in all relevant historical circumstances.
What do you mean by “clear definition, plus full evidence”? Do you think that this is an academic contest? Are we supposed to quote dozens of books to prove how knowledgeable about the JQ we are? Is this some test? We have the gun, and the murderer’s fingerprints are on it. What else do you want? Haven’t you learnt anything from History?
The last 120 years have provided more than enough “full evidence” about the true nature of this infernal people. I do not give a damn about how many of them support (or not) their leaders’ agenda, because when the crisis comes, they ALL close ranks and fight as a well-disciplined army.
even from so far afar as Milan, it was impossible not to recognise names and faces, and ask: – Why so many Jews against Trump ? Even though he affirmed Jerusalem as the holy capital of their “holy” country, they’re trying to ruin him. So, why ?-.
And of course you’re right: they can’t help themselves.
As a side note: I was reading an article and its comments on Breitbart, and a reader quoted you extensively from CoC. He received many “like”. On Breitbart.
Rosy: Good question. Trump/Kushner have done everything possible to accommodate Israel and the Jews. Yet they still want him out asap – at least the Jewish media. It must be -perhaps- his anti globalism/anti open borders policies? Trump even built in opportunities for American Jew(eg Goldman)bankers in the trade deal part one. It seems counter productive/intuitive from the Jewish point of view -and benefits- to oppose him.
I think it’s irrational: the see a blonde white man (of German origin “en plus”), a successful business man (hence a competitor) and before being attacked by him – as they are sure it will happen, sooner than later – they attack. I met several of them and they acted so: they blamed you, mistreated you, tried to disqualify
you, because they thought, they feared, you would do
the same to them, although you had no intention, not even an idea, to behave like that. Projection ? Transfer? Ereditary mental illness ?
No KMac has got it right with “they can’t help themselves” Jews know they have been up to their usual tricks. Trump unlocks in them their traditional fear of gentile whites rising against them. History may record that a shabbos goy Trump was the best thing that ever happened to Jews as he deflected white resentment over the denationalization of the US that is key to the Jewish program. But Jews see their traditional nemesis in Trump. But Jews are crazy. High IQ nut cases
A very well-reasoned argument, and one that I would like to see met head-on by all the thinkers who disdain to engage with Professor MacDonald. But, somewhat off-topic, might I invite him to consider two articles that appeared in the Washington Post today. Each involved a speech transgression, one of which made reference to Auschwitz and the other to Hitler; neither came close to advocating Nazism, yet in both cases the punishment was swift. Are these cases just about control? In any case, I hate it when I hear someone apologizing for something that is utterly unblameworthy: College football coach suspended after saying Hitler was undeniably ‘a great leader’
Jan. 27, 2020 at 9:31 p.m. EST
Grand Valley State University suspended a newly hired member of its football coaching staff after he made laudatory remarks about Adolf Hitler during an interview with the Michigan school’s student newspaper, saying, “The way he was able to lead was second-to-none.”
During the Q&A-style interview, published Thursday by the Grand Valley Lanthorn, sports editor Kellen Voss asked Morris Berger a variety of questions intended to help fans learn more about the football team’s newest offensive coordinator. Toward the end of the interview — as a nod to Berger’s degree in history from Drury University — Voss asked him to name any three people in history he’d like to have dinner with, excluding football figures.
“This is probably not going to get a good review, but I’m going to say Adolf Hitler,” Berger replied. “It was obviously very sad and he had bad motives, but the way he was able to lead was second-to-none. How he rallied a group and a following, I want to know how he did that. Bad intentions of course, but you can’t deny he wasn’t a great leader.”
Berger, who was named the team’s offensive coordinator on Jan. 20, rounded out his trio with John F. Kennedy and Christopher Columbus after the Nazi leader, whose policies resulted in millions of deaths in the Holocaust.
In a statement, Grand Valley State spokesperson Mary Eilleen Lyon said Berger had been suspended and that the university was conducting an investigation.
“The comments made by Offensive Coordinator Morris Berger, as reported in The Lanthorn student newspaper, do not reflect the values of Grand Valley State University,” the statement said.
A GOP lawmaker, the son of an Auschwitz survivor, compared doctors treating transgender children to Nazis. He regrets it.
Add to list
In this Jan. 8, 2019 photo, South Dakota state legislators listen while Gov. Kristi L. Noem delivers her first State of the State address at the state Capitol in Pierre, S.D. (Ryan Hermens/Rapid City Journal via AP)In this Jan. 8, 2019 photo, South Dakota state legislators listen while Gov. Kristi L. Noem delivers her first State of the State address at the state Capitol in Pierre, S.D. (Ryan Hermens/Rapid City Journal via AP)
Jan. 28, 2020 at 7:25 a.m. EST
The South Dakota legislature is considering the nation’s first law which could send doctors to jail for treating transgender youths with hormone therapy or surgery and the fight over the legislation is intensifying.
It’s become so heated that after the legislation passed out of its first committee, the bill’s sponsor recently compared the doctors who treat transgender children to Nazis.
He did it this week, as the world is remembering the liberation 75 years ago of the prisoners held in Auschwitz, where more than 1 million people, most of whom were Jewish, were killed in the concentration camp’s gas chambers.
“To me, that’s a crime against humanity when these procedures are done by these so-called doctors,” the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Fred Deutsch (R), told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in an interview on Wednesday. “You know, I’m the son of a Holocaust survivor. I’ve had family members killed in Auschwitz. And I’ve seen the pictures of the bizarre medical experiments. I don’t want that to happen to our kids. And that’s what’s going on right now.”
The State House’s Democratic leader denounced Deutsch’s comments as “ridiculous,” the Argus Leader reported.
“What doctors are providing is the best care they know for their patients,” state Rep. Jamie Smith (D) told the Leader.
During the Holocaust, Nazi doctors and scientists forced Jewish prisoners in concentration camps to undergo horrific medical experiments that often killed the victims or left them permanently disabled. They forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people while practicing eugenics in an attempt to eliminate certain groups of people from the population.
Deutsch told The Washington Post late Monday that he did not intend to equate those crimes with the medical practices that would be affected by South Dakota House Bill 1057.
“I regret making the comparison,” Deutsch said. “I regret saying anything at all. It was pretty stupid.”
Offensive coordinator, indeed.
On a positive note, whilst Sky TV in Britain broadcasts, predictably, about 3 hrs a day (not exaggerating) of anti Nazi ‘history’ programs, the other day they had one called ‘Impossible Engineering’ on the ‘Yesterday ‘ channel in which Finland, the ally of Germany in WWII, was portrayed as the good side re their defensive towers used to shoot down the Soviet bombers attacking the Molotov cocktail factory. I have never seen this before on TV – a TV programme about the War with an ally of Germany portrayed as the good guys.
Either an exception or an indication that some cracks in the narrative are appearing.
And today as part of ‘bow to the H’ week in the MSM the ‘DM’ see below is crying about a German bottle of beer that reminds them of the Nazis.
One comment out of the 5 allowed: ‘utterly sick’
feedback on this comment: 121 agree 691 disagree
– this means that only 121 are crying along with the MSM DM and 691 do not wish to worship the H today.
An excellent article as always by the good Professor.
I agree with the premise that the hyper-active Jewish effort to suppress free speech for Whites goes back to the tragically one-sided love affair the Jewish Left once had with working-class blue-collar workers. If you look back at the 1920’s and 1930’s, you will find all manner of Jewish cultural production devoted to the idea of blue-collar Whites rising up as one to strike a blow at Capitalism, and usher in a new, revolutionary order (which (((they))) would be in charge of).
The White “volk”, both in Europe and the US disappointed the Jewish intellectuals by tending to adhere to things like patriotism and religion, and by fundamentally preferring order to chaos.
Post-WWII there was a brief regrouping around the idea of anti-Nuclear arms activism, but the Left really got its feet back under them with “civil rights” (stirring up blacks) in the 1950’s, and Feminism (stirring up women) in the 1960’s.
But let me propose that there was another factor that made the Jews just as angry at White majorities as our refusal to stage a working-class revolution did: the ostracism of homosexuals.
I believe that it is a fury at old-fashioned standards (and any idea of standards, actually) that the Eternal Jew is most motivated by in the last few decades. Sure, they love to idolize blacks, and encourage White people to idolize blacks more particularly; and, yes, they are truly invested in setting White women against White men. But the rage? The sheer seething hatred? The apoplectic spluttering triggered by MAGA-types? It’s a reaction to anti-homosexual prejudices that are still perceived to obtain in the Republican Party, and among White conservatives.
They hate us for all the reasons the Professor states, but I would suggest we look at the pro-homosexual Jewish movement to better understand the intricacies of that hatred, if we care to know more about it. However, understanding it won’t mean a damn thing until we can learn how to respond as a people to being constantly undermined by a hostile and powerful parasite.
It was about time for KMac to opine on the Trump situation, and he didn’t disappoint.
But he didn’t explain, to my satisfaction at least, the apparent oxymoron existing between the support of the “donors” and the rejection by the 80%. Of course, the easy explanation for the donor support is the “gifts” to Israel in exchange for his election support (the real impeachment issue as respects abusing his office for his personal benefit), a “foreign” matter, which does not resonate with his uninformed base. They are clueless regarding the ramifications of this largesse on America, because they simply do not care what goes on outside the country. Half of the problem solved – for Trump.
But that still leaves the questionable adversarial situation created between the donors and the 80% in America a. Are we to believe that the latter can simply disregard what he has “done” for Israel because of the “minor” issue of their fanatical distaste for Trump? We thought they were all working for Israel to the disregard of America and his base. Trump lives in America, not Israel, so how does he survive with so many Jews working against him here. Or are they? They even want to impeach him.
J. Eric Smith says that Trump is a mystery. Isn’t he, rather, just incoherent, not mysterious? We want politicians to make sense, but that’s not their game. In Trump we finally have a clear explanation. Politicians have be all things to all people, who are, of course, at loggerheads. You. can’t change them, but you can adjust to them, right, Donald? There is no inconsistency in the above when we look at the situation from Trump’s point of view. He wants to get elected. So he creates a situation where the voters can support what he is doing, while disliking what he isn’t doing, but not with enough vigor to vote against his opponent, sort of like 49-51%.
So Trump can be an Israel-Firster and America-Firster at the same time and no one can do anything about it, even though these two positions are polar opposites. He can have his cake and eat it too. As he recently said to the Jewish group, “You may hate me, but you’re going to vote for me anyway” (because of the stock market and Israel). Voters are, of course, looking at things from their point of view, and he’s absolutely right.
This prescient article, ignored in the hoopla that preceded the election, might shed light on the *apparent* contradiction between donor support for and community dislike of Trump:
Link doesn’t work.
So what is the point of this? Do you fools really think that the USA is going to be a good place for whites to live, even if there is a complete shutoff of immigration?
Is it not clear, from looking at millennials, that the spirits of the country are already sunk? Is it not clear that American whites are defeated and dejected, and hated, with no possible end? Is it not clear that whites are not even in the running when it comes to competing for status?
What are you going to do to “fix” things? What are whites to do? Where do we go from here?
Whites are still supporting the system- time to tune in, turn on, and drop out.
Doctor Timoth E. Leery ejaculated- “I am what I am because of the CIA. . .”
I have been stating the only possible answer on sites like this for more than a decade. It is White Preservationist territorial ingathering. I don’t know why KMac and others don’t talk about this (except in the context of the Ethnostate, but even that is discussed in terms of its ethics, necessity, eventual Racial Constitution, etc – never in terms of how it might arise). Look, Mexicans took over my state of CA peacefully. They moved here. That’s it. Can WPs not start moving and massing somewhere WE find congenial? Are WE inferior to migratory Mexicans and Muslims?
The real bottom line is that Whites as a race are incorrigibly individualistic (which is probably why KMac wrote his recent book), or at least atomized and deracinated. BUT NOT ALL OF US ARE! WPs are everywhere – but in all sovereign polities (except possibly in Eastern Europe, about which I know very little), we are always a genetic minority (by which I mean, one’s racial views being, I believe, largely hereditarian, that percentage of the white population which is innately WP seems to be less than a majority everywhere). The rise and ubiquity of the internet proves this. Whites with any strong proclivity to nationalism are probably already at least superficial nationalists.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that we whites will ever reclaim any of our homelands in their current political geographies (and this even in the unlikely event that immigration should be frozen, which has thus far proven to be a bridge too far – and yet from our perspective it is a bridge not far enough, at least in terms of expatriating race aliens and building the actual Ethnostate). If we want to endure, we must colonize and electorally conquer territory. We must do this sub rosa and sotto voce for a long time, until we possess sufficient power to strike for what we want – the Ethnostate, the last place of refuge not for whites per se, but for racially consciousness whites, the only ones who will resist the sirens of miscegenation over the long haul, and thus preserve our race.
We will never keep up with the forces causing human migration and the forces adding almost a billion Third Worlders to the planet’s surface each decade. So…we can cloister ourselves in some location, but only temporarily before the winds of change erase whatever demographic security we’ve created there. If we understand this, why would we be inclined to uproot ourselves from the places where we’ve invested blood, sweat and tears to build our homes and our lives?
I’m surprised you didn’t mention that the very incentives that encourage whites’ disenfranchisement are subsidized by same and will therefore diminish at worst in line with State power, and at best, much faster, when whites withdraw support from the State.
I remember reading one TOO commenter a while back who said words to the effect that
Whites are an Occupied Territory. And the only way to liberate an Occupied Territory is with aggression.
But, as I also recall, and not just cause I agreed with the comment, but because it was obviously true, the commenter added that since Whites aren’t good at organizing on their own behalf, they would, barring a miracle, remain an Occupied Territory.
Anon is correct, but who is to blame for the white Western countries becoming anti-white?
Answer: white people! The whites, by the way they voted, invited the anti-white 3rd world over to share their wealth, and when they arrived they gave them affirmative action ie favoured the newcomers over themselves.
The politicians never hid their pro-immigration stance, including the Jewish ones, and the white ppl still voted for them. Eg they voted in the US for pro-immigration politician Barrack Hussein Obama – twice! Therefore the white ppl are 100% to blame for their own destruction.
This happened because the white ppl could not cope with democracy. They are programmed to vote according to group identity, not according to policies, therefore democracy does not work. Whilst the other races vote by race, the w ppl vote by other groupings, and the fact that such a group is anti-white does not deter them (the ‘share the wealth’ groups)
The white ppl do not mind giving away their country and wealth – and that of their descendants, as they are, after all, only custodians of what their ancestors gave them to look after and pass on – they do not mind handing it over to foreigners without protest, but what they do mind is being called a Nazi or a racist.
The strong invited over the weak to be conquered by them. This is why you cannot learn from history as this never happened before in human history. This is because such wealth never existed before. There are new parameters and this has allowed strange group behaviour to be manifest, from genes that were never ‘meant to’ work this way, but will continue to do so until Natural Selection removes them.
I wish that white ppl could divide into two groups geographically – one group that is prepared to bear the burden of being called ‘nazi racist islamophobe’ in one place and the rest of the whites in another. Then let the pro-immigrant ant-white whites destroy their own areas and leave the rest of us alone. The genes of white ppl who hate w ppl are bad genes that do not need preserving. Let them mix and mingle with the other races that they love so much.
Exculpate Jews and blame “white ppl” for immigration changes, now there’s something truly novel.
Your comment about “pterodactyl” is wrong and unfair. There is a saying: “It takes two to tango” Without the cowardice of many, if not most, whites the Jewish’s ethnic cleansing could not have succeeded. You may excuse it on the grounds of ignorance, relentless propaganda, and so on, but the fact remains that most whites don’t care about their own. They are crap and deserve everything they get. Unfortunately, those who we care are in the same boat.
It seems that some people think that because they are white, they are above criticism. It is not so. To be white is just a physiological fact; what it really matters is how this person behaves about his fellow whites. “pterodactyl” was right when he said that white-hating traitors should be deported to Africa to enjoy the diversity they love so dearly.
I read this originally at VDare and since there is no comments section at the site decided to pose a question to you here, Professor MacDonald. Is this bold, out-in-the-open Jewish coup attempt due to confidence or because they feel their power has peaked and may be slipping away? I’ve noticed more openness as to the Jewish identity of those working as a Fifth Column in the United States in other areas and events, too. It is hard to tell whether the motivation is arrogance or fear, but certainly “they can’t help themselves” and that has been a pattern throughout history, with always the same bad ending for that group as the host country reacts in predictable and often justifiable manners. You seem to lean toward “confidence” but that’s just not plain to me.
Thank you in advance.
There seems to be more openness about being Jewish. Three Dem presidential candidates for example. I think they are supremely confident right now, but yes, there is always anxiety because deep down they know they have violated the most fundamental interests of White America. Their response (as always) is not to stop what they are doing but to squelch talking about it.
Thank you for the response. Their success in squelching discussion has been mostly successful on social media, no small thing, obviously. National populism is growing rapidly and there has been very limited success squelching it either in the United States or Western Europe. The Jewish nature of impeachment would seem to be playing with fire because of the latter but there indeed seems an air of triumphalism in part due to the former. So the suggestion there is simultaneous anxiety and supreme confidence would make sense.
Maybe there’s an element of Michael Hoffman’s “Revelation of the Method” in this transparency. Drive (2011) was quite extraordinary in featuring a pair of strongly-identified Jewish gangsters with few redeeming features. Moreover, it was personal (from Wikipedia):
“Refn said, ‘The character of Nino was originally not particularly interesting, so I asked Ron why he wanted to be in my movie when he’s done so many great films. When Perlman said, ‘I always wanted to play a Jewish man who wants to be an Italian gangster’, and I asked why, and he said, ‘because that’s what I am – a Jewish boy from New York’, well, that automatically cemented it for me.”
As a psychologist, Dr MacDonald, how do you know what they think “deep down”?
Also, social media has encouraged ppl to say what they think more, as in social media ppl tend to end up tweeting or posting with others who are like-minded, and this gives the impression that ‘the crowd’ or ‘everyone’ or ‘the group’ endorses their views, and so the group approval encourages ppl to get carried away and end up saying things openly that a few years ago they would not have done.
There was a good Twitter account last year that did nothing apart from post comments by Jews that contained anti-white hatred – very open and strong and not hidden. The account was closed down, despite doing nothing except quote Jews, none of whom received any sanctions for all the anti-white hatred they openly displayed. This was about the same time as they banned Andrew Joyce from Twitter.
The point is that these anti-white comments encouraged others to join in, due to group endorsement, thus making the Jews more confident to make even more of them and creating new parameters for what is acceptable, and also these anti-white comments by Jews proved to them that the authorities/elite/establishment approved of their comments, as those who made them received no sanctions, whereas those who merely collated their comments together did get sanctions.
See also Breitbart for seeing how the Js say too much when they get in groups, getting carried away with mutual congratulation. See how their hatred comes out and they search around for causes to explain it away, sometimes going back 1000 years to try and find justifications for their current hostility. Once I said the Js gave Russia communism, and one replied ‘do you blame us?’ All hostilities are, in their view, fully justified, no matter how malicious they are.
What got me banned from BB was saying to Js along the lines of “your comment seems to be hostile to white ppl/the US/ the West/etc/ – would you say you feel hostile to us? They really do not like such observations. They are openly hostile, but they do not like it when it is pointed out.
However, in my view this new openness is an own goal as the anti-white narrative is awakening the sleeping whites, who before now could not spot anti-white racism even if it was slapping them in the face constantly. Now they are being slapped AND kicked at the same time they are finally waking up.
Re the title, I am told that it came out that way because of concern about social media pressure on the part of vdare. The title isn’t really accurate–it’s not about two competing elites, but about our new Jewish-dominated elite that is hostile to traditional White America versus those elements of the White population that they see as a danger to their power–populist movements appealing to the traditional White population. The interests of the traditional White population have not been represented in elite opinion for well over 50 years, and one of the sections that was cut from the article described the decades-old opposition of Jewish intellectuals to populism and how America has become an oligarchy where all the decisions are made by media, political, and academic elites–an oligarchy where public opinion is molded and channeled in a manner that makes it appear as though the US is still a democracy. As noted in the article, Trump’s rhetoric during the campaign was all about populism and our new elite reacted in horror and is still obsessed with getting rid of him. Like everyone else, I have criticisms and doubts about Trump, but he is certainly a ray of hope, and the future may bring us a far better version.
“Trump, but he is certainly a ray of hope,”
The shortest verse in the gospels comes to mind.
I still have almost 60 years later the McGuffeys 5th eclectic reader I was given as a boy. The first political memory I have is Nov 22 1963. American comics, when they still contained light, were amongst my earliest reading materials. The first song I remember is “High Hopes” and a nurse smiling at me as she buttons my coat. The first album I was given as a teenager was “American Pie”. What happened in the early morning on the day of my birthday, a couple of hours before the first plane hit the twin towers, is seared in my memory. I have never been an enemy of America – the opposite is the case but because of a tiny minority who brazenly rule over you America is now a criminal state run by evil people. The media is the dope of people mainlined 24/7 and this had never happened before in history.
God help you.
Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, on the advice of the bankruptcy lawyer/US Ambassador Friedman is mild, compared to his megalomaniacal emulation of becoming Balfour II, by giving the resource rich Golan that doesn’t belong to him to people who have no right to it.
Let’s not forget the Israeli journalist, cited widely in Israel, who disclosed his conversation with the heroic Moshe Dayan, who divulged, that Israel took possession of the Heights after provoking the Syrian troops on the Heights with repeated, ever further penetration of the no-man’s land
with their tractors. Decimating them via air power as a purported, legitimate counter attack ! Not exactly the US Marines making the world safe for United Fruit, but certainly US military aid thieving for Genie Oil of New Jersey: the real beneficiaries. [ Rothschild; money: Cheney; political clout: Murdock; media ]. As always, socialize the costs of theft; privatize the profits !
And let’s not even go into his and Jared’s Peace Plan, which buttresses the unaltered 1897 Zionist Congress con game concocted in Basel.
I do not disagree with anything in Kevin’s comment just above, but a distaste for popular-rule democracy was surely one of the prime factors behind the summoning of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. The correspondence involving Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and other luminaries, along with their diary and journal entries, reveals that their desire to rid the several states of the Confederation of the Articles had to do with much more than just inefficiencies related to trade, currency, and travel.
I am hardly being original in suggesting that democracy surely contains within itself the seeds of its destruction. Checks, balances, and other safeguards are all well and good, but the present state of affairs shows that they cannot withstand the protracted assault of a political class utterly without virtue and integrity.
Surprised my comments re: “Holocaust” and the organized industrial concentration camps was edited out.
(Mod. Note: This mod hasn’t edited anything like that out.)
So many claim there is no Jew fifth-column, yet when one exercises their free speech Jew owned or connected firms swarm in to eliminate said speech and destroy any platform used to disseminate it.
Orwell’s critique of the Jews come to power, 1984, proves more and more prescience every day.
thanks you are doing an invaluable work
A bit surprised to see several comments from readers struggling with the apparent “contradiction” that Jews hate Trump, while all along he is supporting Israel in so many substantive ways.
1. Jews in the USA are culturally and traditionally Leftists.
2. Rich and connected Jews are always supporting both sides, Republican and Democrat, in a system like ours. When a Left-leaning President is in office, they get social goals like honoring homosexuals, opening immigration rights up to anyone, and a general evisceration of the remaining conservative social fabric. When a “Right”-leaning President is in office, they usually get foreign wars for the greater good of Israel, along with a consolidation of the social gains advanced by the last Democrat President. In the meantime, since they own the Congress both Dem and Repub, they really don’t have much of a downside no matter which party holds the White House. And the drama of the election battle every four years keeps the goyim hypnotized.
3. Trump excited White voters, and also made something resembling identity politics for Whites almost mainstream. The unabashed racial sense of unity at Trump rallies was enough to earn the hatred of the Jews, almost the entirety of them, on that basis alone. If he excited Whites and made them think they might have group interests, he is going to be hated by Jews even if he moves the US capitol to Tel-Aviv.
Right. I have been in a room full of Jews when the subject of Trump was raised. What I saw and felt was seething hatred. Nobody said it but nobody needed to: they think Trump has an inner Hitler.
Yeah, but think of all the good that such a move might do for the mental health of the remaining Tel Avivians, many of whom are suffering from dreaded AIW (acute importance withdrawal) syndrome, what with the loss of face attendant upon the relocation of the entirety of the political class to Jerusalem.
Surely there can be no more virtuous enterprise than making some Jew somewhere feel good about himself.