Critical Race Theory as a Jewish Intellectual Weapon

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.
Noel Ignatiev in his journal Race Traitor

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.
Andrew Joyce on Whiteness Studies

To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived.
Michael Jones in Logos Rising

Earlier this year, my brother suddenly asked me what “Critical Race Theory” was. I was elated, for this was proof that this pernicious, genocidal, anti-White theory was finally entering into the consciousness of Whites. Since my brother asked me, stories about Critical Race Theory (CRT) have mushroomed, including much criticism of this previously arcane intellectual trend.

Much to my amazement, however, I’ve noticed that few if any critics of CRT have associated the theory with Jewish ethnic activism.

Though the theory has long been employed in university settings, more recently it has turned up in government and corporate offices, and even the military has been pushing it since the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. For me, it’s long been a given that CRT is linked to the social engineering of our “hostile elite,” which in the context of The Occidental Observer means powerful Jews and Jewish organizations who rule over America and much of The West. When viewed more broadly, however, the topic of CRT has in fact been much addressed by our writers but often under a consideration of something called “Whiteness Studies.” In that sense, I’m merely adding the term “Critical Race Theory” to an ongoing conversation about Jewish ethnic war on Whites.

For me, CRT fits squarely into the mold of Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” category in which Jewish “gurus” concoct a Talmudic verbal assault whose main goal is the further destruction of Gentiles  —  literally. I know because I had a ringside seat to the introduction of CRT in the graduate schools of the 1990s, with one of the most vicious practitioners of the “art” as one of my required professors. It was a brutal experience, but at least I was forced to reckon with it from then on and have since probed more and more deeply into its Jewish roots. In that sense, I’ve gained from the trauma I experienced and emerged out the other end able to share with my audience the lessons I’ve learned.

To tell this story, let’s begin with a now obscure Australian writer named Robert Hughes (1938 – 2012), who was once described as “the most famous art critic in the world.” In 1993, he’d gotten so fed up with identity politics that he penned the book Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America (Oxford University Press). In this book, he rightly skewered the growth of the Grievance Industry, giving example after example of how black groups or women’s groups or whatever loudly attacked the White Majority for all manner of sins. I recall how his book attracted attention from many of the print journals of the time, with many taking the Australian author’s side, so bad had this “culture of complaint” become.

What frustrated me, however, was the fact that Hughes completely neglected to address the “meta-complaint” in the West from which all lesser complaints emerged. To wit, Hughes failed to see how The Holocaust Narrative had been so successful in advancing Jewish interests that naturally other groups eagerly imitated this successful model.

Of course in 1993 the Complaint Industry was just hitting its stride and I soon endured the “graduate education” described above, with mere complaint being elevated to something far more pernicious and menacing. In any case, the direction of complaint was always the same: Against the White race.

I eventually staggered out of higher education, badly bruised and emotionally scarred, but with terminal degree in hand. Sturdier souls might have crowed that “Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger,” but I’ve been too battered since to engage in such braggadocio. Instead I try to keep my head down and stoically soldier on. Jews are playing for keeps in this battle.

Fast forward a few years when I was diligently working on a major composition about Jewish power in America and a professor of history with a Harvard Ph.D. twice encouraged me to “give the work of Kevin MacDonald a fair hearing.” I did and the experience has been life changing. His trilogy, culminating in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, appeared to me at just the right time; I was ready to truly hear what the master had to say.

Of course I immediately recognized the similarity of main titles between Hughes’ “Culture of Complaint” and MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique,” but fortunately the latter’s laser-like focus on Jews made MacDonald’s book far more important than Hughes’. Verily, if Whites ever come out of the ethnic battle described by MacDonald, The Culture of Critique will be among the top books in the new Western pantheon. Future generations of Whites will know the name “Kevin MacDonald” as household words, as well they should.

Here, I am assuming our audience knows the gist of Culture of Critique, as well as the later Cultural Insurrections, so I’m going to now jump to the founding of MacDonald’s Occidental Observer, the online blog which emerged from The Occidental Quarterly, our side’s academic journal. Early on, in 2008, MacDonald published a blog called “Promoting genocide of Whites? Noel Ignatiev and the Culture of Western Suicide” in which he parsed the wordplay used by the late Jewish professor from Harvard to reveal its genocidal intentions toward Whites. Ignatiev was the founder of the journal Race Traitor, the motto of which is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” a phrase which immediate recalls Jewess Susan Sontag’s infamous lines “The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilisation has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history …”

Situating Ignatiev’s clever use of words in the category of Jewish ideologies deconstructed in Culture of Critique, MacDonald wrote,

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide. And like so many  strongly identified Jews, his hatred for the people and culture of the West comes shining through.

Further falling back on categories included in Culture of Critique, MacDonald concluded that

Ignatiev is just another Jewish intellectual in a long line that stretches back to Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School, and myriad others who now dominate the culture of Western suicide. He may call himself a race traitor, but there is every reason to believe that he has a sense of allegiance to his own people and the long history of hostility to the people and culture of the West that is so typical of highly committed Jews. For him, being a race traitor comes easily and naturally; it’s the mother’s milk of socialization as a Jew.

As fate would have it, the Jewish professor who so tormented me and other Whites in grad school had many similarities to Ignatiev, beginning with appearance:

And what MacDonald wrote about Ignatiev — “People like Ignatiev, who doubtless have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests, have managed to pathologize any sense of ethnic identity and interests among Europeans and European-derived peoples — and no one else”  — was true in spades of my graduate school oppressor. What we were exposed to in the 90s is identical to what various critics of Critical Race Theory are describing now — the struggle sessions, the mandatory lectures on “White privilege,” and the complete lack of debate or discussion. I had to watch as our esteemed professor subjected White individuals to withering criticism in class, first reducing a young woman to tears, then much to my disgust, a fellow White male grad student. It was awful.

While MacDonald did not use the phrase “Critical Race Theory” to label Ignatiev’s assault, he was in fact describing the same thing. Best, MacDonald saw through Ignatiev’s sophism to expose the real intent, something which others on TOO have done since, as we shall soon see. Before addressing that, however, I’d like to add an aside whose timing is too good to ignore. As I was about to embark on my dissertation after having completing coursework and exams, another Jewish professor gave me a book he had received gratis in the chance that he might review it. The professor opted not to and gave me the fresh copy:

Written in 1997 by law professor Stephen M. Feldman, the book was titled Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (NYU Press). The subtitle containing “Critical History” points to the fact that the sponsor of the book was the Critical America Series from NYU Press, whose myriad titles revealed by the link can be enjoyed at readers’ leisure. Oh, I should mention that the very first words of the Introduction are: “I am Jewish.” Thus began another “culture of critique” attack on Western man and his major holiday.

Andrew Joyce on “Whiteness Studies”

The Occidental Observer was extremely fortunate to attract the considerable writing skills of Andrew Joyce, beginning with his Limerick “pogrom”: Creating Jewish victimhood, posted on St. Patrick’s Day in 2012. By 2015, however, he had written what can be seen as an extension of MacDonald’s 2008 unpacking of Ignatiev’s brutal intellectual campaign. In “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies,’” Joyce drew on MacDonald to show that “Ignatiev only very thinly disguised the unrestrained hatred that his ‘discipline’ incites against Whites and their culture.” Further quoting MacDonald, Joyce noted that

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.

All Ignatiev’s written material that we’ve seen carries the same odd message with the same extreme wording…Ignatiev writes darkly and dramatically of “abolishing the white race,” “genocide of whites,” etc. When pressed, he emphasizes that that he doesn’t really mean killing people who call themselves white. He only wants to destroy the concept of whiteness. So he’s off the hook, right?

Joyce comments:

Not quite. Ignatiev is really just playing a game of bait and switch. While fully tuned-in to his own Jewish racial identity, he ostensibly follows the PC line that “races” are only “social constructs.” When pressed, he claims to be little more than an extreme egalitarian, against all social hierarchies but especially those in which he imagines Whites to be at the top.

Like MacDonald, Joyce easily sees through Ignatiev’s gambit, writing that “The party line, therefore, is that it’s all about getting White people to stop thinking that they are White – for their own good of course. So while Black studies, women’s studies, Chicano studies etc. all aim to develop and nurture their relative identities and social agendas, ‘Whiteness Studies’ aims to utterly extinguish any sense of identity and awareness of group interests,” a very important distinction indeed.

Much of what Joyce wrote was very familiar to me by 2015. For instance, the wife of Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse “devoted much of her time to pushing her ideology through her ‘Unlearning Racism’ workshops, and indoctrinating White teenagers into supporting multiculturalism through her Oakland-based ‘New Bridges’ group.” Another Jewish woman, Ruth Frankenberg, wrote in 1993 that the dogma of her Whiteness discipline

orbits around the belief that race is nothing more than a fluid social, political and historical construct. She argued that while Whites may deny that they are ‘racist,’ they cannot deny that they are White. Frankenberg proceeded to argue that Whites are implicitly racist by virtue of their ‘dominant’ position in western society, and contended that we should ‘critically reflect’ on this social position of dominance that White people occupy in our society. ‘Whiteness Studies’ to Frankenberg, like her predecessors, was therefore nothing more than an exercise in convincing Whites that they are oppressors, whether they wished to be or not, and whether they had actually personally taken part in any oppression or not.

Been there, heard that back in the 90s. I’m sorry now that the broader public is hearing and being submitted to the same thing in the Biden Era.

Joyce had other good things to say. For instance, he found a section from Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun to be useful in exposing the deceit employed in Jewish aggression:

Inconspicuous, slow, yet implacable persecution, both economic and cultural: the systematic suppression of all possibilities for the vanquished, without it ‘showing,’ the merciless ‘conditioning’ of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly ‘gentle,’ the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies; violence under the cover of non-violence.

“Violence under the cover of non-violence” — although it could certainly morph into violence if Whites lose power to the rising tide of color, and indeed, we can already see the rise in anti-White violence in the interracial crime statistics and incidents like these, as compiled by AmRen. It was tactics like these that caused me so much distress as an isolated and powerless grad student years ago. Back then I knew of no Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Joyce who could guide me through those roiled waters. While I could recognize my professor’s method as a deliberate form of social engineering, I couldn’t yet figure out how it was done, so I was demoralized because, as E. Michael Jones said in the epigraph which begins this essay, “To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived,” and I could not fully perceive what these words meant, even as I felt their sting and saw their near universal effectiveness, just as I fear their effectiveness now.

Since grad school, my goal has been to understand this social engineering and explain it to others, which I have attempted relentlessly, in the classroom and in these columns. I now find comfort in the company of men like Andrew Joyce, who concluded in this White Studies piece,

The ‘educational’ programs of the ADL, the obliteration of our national borders, the assassination of our racial identity, and the slow genocide of our people are being accomplished without the bullet, bomb or blades. But it is, and will be, tremendously violent in its implications. Whiteness studies are not part of an academic discipline in any true sense of that term. The genre is an act of inter-ethnic aggression.

Joyce revisited Jewish involvement in Whiteness Studies (again, a close cognate, in my view, of Critical Race Theory) in 2020 with “Review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility,” a book that “is heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.”

Sure enough, Joyce found concrete evidence of this in the bibliography — “so many names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like shunned relatives at a family reunion — Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth Frankenberg, Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman. These are DiAngelo’s mentors and intellectual forbears …” We are definitely seeing a pattern here.

Critical Race Theory in the News Today

I originally began this essay with a story about Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who was fired for publicizing his views on the introduction of CRT into the military. Admittedly, it was asking for trouble to publish a book titled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military in today’s current climate, but he did. In an online Revolver article concerning the controversy, we find that “Lohmeier appeared on several podcasts to promote his book, and in response the Pentagon fired him. According to the DoD, his statements caused a ‘loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.’”

The article continued, “As far as Revolver and tens of millions of American patriots are concerned, Lohmeier’s actions represent the very pinnacle of courage and leadership,” an opinion I’ll second. Still, based on this interview, it seems Lohmeier could benefit from exposure to MacDonald’s Culture of Critique or my short discussion of White Studies above. When a term like “Marxist Race Theory” is used by an author, is it knowingly used as shorthand for “Jewish”? My impression given this interview and my brief exposure to Revolver’s approach is “No.” And that’s a problem. Consider Lohmeier’s words:

I am often asked, “how did this happen?” or, “when did this happen?” How is it, for example, that American people and institutions — predominantly our education system, and now, all federal agencies including even our military services — increasingly resonate and align with Marxist thought? How is it that Americans can now so easily question or forget the greatness of the American ideal and become victims to the tactics of subversion? Why haven’t we been able to recognize our slide into Marxism? There are two ways this has happened: gradually, then suddenly. …

Obviously, if he’s read The Culture of Critique, he knows “how this happened.” Given his relatively young age, if he’s followed the podcasts of The Daily Shoah or read more than a few dozen Andrew Anglin stories on The Daily Stormer, then he knows how this happened. My suspicion, however, is that he has no idea, so someone should forward him this article.

Anyone following American academia for the last three decades will know of the intense leftist slant gaining power with each passing year, and students of politics, the legal system and corporate affairs will be similarly aware. It only makes sense that it was slower to reach the military and that there was some pushback, summed up by Lohmeier with the statement, “There is a growing perception that the preponderance of political partisanship occurring in our armed forces is radical leftist partisanship.” Well, yes it is.

Next, does Lohmeier view the introduction of CRT into the military as being generically harmful, or does he see it as specifically anti-White? Based on the interview, it’s likely that he sees the anti-White import of official programs in today’s military, writing as he does that in one chapter he is critical of an essayist who sees her role in a project “as an attempt to ‘decenter whiteness.’” Sounds like we’re getting back to the White Studies aspect of CRT.

But is it even necessary to ask whether CRT can be evaluated as generically undemocratic or even racist rather than being specifically anti-White? Apparently it is, as a VDARE writer styling himself as “Washington Watcher II” has done in a blog called “Fight Against Critical Race Theory — But They Still Flinch From Calling It Anti-White Racism.” Note the subtitle claiming “They Still Flinch from Calling it Anti-White Racism.” Kind of hard to believe. But Washington Watcher found a CRT critic who “essentially argued that race doesn’t exist, a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. And along with many other cuckservatives, he promotes the cringe idea that CRT is bad because it harms non-whites.” Yes, it really is hard to believe. Our thanks to Washington Watcher for making this distinction clear, especially in his conclusion when he beseeches us to “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.”


We’ve reached the point where some are stepping forward to point out the obvious truth that CRT is in fact “anti-White racism.” Much to my surprise, however, I’ve seen little or no evidence that people have pointed to the far more instructive issue that while it is of course anti-White racism, it has been propagated by a long string of Jews for over fifty years. This is because Jews are prosecuting a deadly war on Whites, with previous examples such as the Bolshevik era in Russia, the Holodomor, and the various “cold” strategies documented in The Culture of Critique such as boosting non-white immigration and depressing White family formation. This is the point I am at pains to emphasize.

The consequences of this are immense, beginning with MacDonald’s claim in his 2008 TOO article that after demonizing Whites (or “Whiteness”), “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of Whites is the next step.” I couldn’t agree more and have stressed this point for over twelve years here on TOO.

I’ll close with a succinct version of all I’ve written about above, one that uses plain language to cut through sometimes lengthy analyses. On June 10, 2021 Andrew Anglin published a piece called Psychoanalytic Journal Publishes Paper Calling “Whiteness” a “Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition” which is a sort of companion piece to Aruna Khilanani’s fulminations as discussed by MacDonald in “Expressions of Anti-White Hatred in High Places: Aruna Khilanani at Yale” published two days earlier. MacDonald states that “Jews have been a necessary condition for creating multicultural America” and that “It’s no surprise that Khilanani is a textbook example of the influence of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, the forerunner of Critical Race Theory.”

Clearly, Anglin knows the work of Noel Ignatiev and his theories of Whiteness Studies, and immediately recognizes their import to the confessions of the non-white female psychiatrist:

This whole thing of claiming that “whiteness” is somehow different than “being a white person” is just a ruse. No one thinks that makes sense, including the people saying it. They are talking simply about white people.

They want to wipe out white people.

Recently, we saw the Indian psychologist – psychologist again! – Aruna Khilanani saying that she just wants to kill random white people. She didn’t say kill random “people infected with whiteness” – she just said white people.

Talking about “whiteness” as some kind of abstraction is a way for these people to really start pumping up the genocidal mania under a thin veil of semantics.

This puts me in mind of the predictions of Tomislav Sunic in his 2007 book  Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, where he argued that “in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald in those years of writing about “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” (i.e. Jews) identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union.” Further,

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” These attitudes are well captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s — the vast majority of the population — were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

In his June 10, 2021 entry Anglin issued a similar warning, one I feel is a fitting close to this essay:

We are right on the verge of a large-scale culling.

We’ve talked about “white genocide” in terms of mass immigration and using feminism to restrict our breeding — but this cold genocide is about to get hot.

People should be aware.

There are warning signs all over.

There is a bloodbath coming.

76 replies
  1. John
    John says:

    Thank u Noel Ignatiev for being overt, which makes us stupid Europeans aka Whites now know (beyond any shadow of doubt) that our enemies, that we have allowed into our societies, want us exterminated. Our posterity will b justified holding us in contempt.
    Additionally, it takes a special kind of stupidity allowing the importation of the 3rd world into our societies.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Christianity made “The Whites” ( aka EuroMan ) of the USA , in particular , at best ignore inveterate worldly issues of racial commingling and at worst made Whites downright stupid about race commingling .

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        You couldn’t be more wrong. What caused what you describe is the US Government war party under the Leftist Rooseveltians, etc with their successful takeover of German (Allied Control Council headed by D. D. Eisenhower and other US Generals) that engineered the total demonization and censorship of Adolf Hitler/the National Socialist Party as a murderous criminal cabal, to be forever outlawed.

        This is the direct cause of where we are today.

  2. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    Excellent article filled with thought provoking insights. Well done.

    One quote I find particularly grating: ““Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.”

    The reason it grates is because “racism” is a slur used ONLY against White people (no matter what the dictionary says). In common usage, only White people have this particular “sin”.

    To correct this issue: “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t “racism”; it’s AntiWhiteism.”

    AntiWhiteism is our very own word which applies only to us. Just as you will never, ever find Jews saying “anti-Jewish racism” – they have their own very special word: anti-semitism.

    • Keith_SA
      Keith_SA says:

      Wholeheartedly agree. AntiWhiteism : a hatred of White people – is the evil. Succumbing to the use of “racism” validates their twisted narrative – which invalidates White identity. It is normal to feel a greater affinity towards those of your own stock. This does not mean malignant plans for others. Until Whites are fully deprogrammed from fearing this word – racism – they will fear the only solution to the West’s problems: White solidarity. Racism/ racist should not be used as bogey words at all.

      • W. Poe White
        W. Poe White says:

        I agree that “Racism/ racist should not be used as bogey words at all.” But I disagree that “Succumbing to the use of “racism” validates their twisted narrative – which invalidates White identity.” Nonsense.
        Why should it?

        Whether you like it or not the words “racism” and “racist” have taken on meaning and have a hold on people’s minds. Trying to ban the words will not break the spell they hold over anyone.

        It is more effective to go on the offensive by pointing out how the self-proclaimed anti-racists are actually virulently racist. They are targeting a race for total dispossession of all its homelands and a likely gradual physical extinction through being bred out of existence – if not outright mass murder. That is genocide. You can’t get more malignly racist than that.

        I also agree with you when you say “It is normal to feel a greater affinity towards those of your own stock.” This greater affinity is racial preference. This is a form of racism but it’s a benign form of racism which we have every right to feel and express. It is also part of normal healthy human nature in all races. Anyone who tries to condemn all forms of racism, the benign along with the malign, is actually making war on human nature – and therefore making war on humanity, full stop.

        To truly free people’s minds from the spell cast by the weapon word “racism” four points need to be hammered home: (1) self-proclaimed anti-racists – led by Jews acting in their perceived ethnic group interest – are actually virulently anti-White racists; (2) there exists non-trivial racial diversity and people of all races will naturally tend to feel a racial preference for their own race; (3) some forms of racism like racial preference are benign whereas other forms of racism like targeting a race for dispossession are malign and warlike; (4) any attempt to suppress natural racial preference in a group is an attack on that group.

        Instead of trying to avoid the word “racism,” demystify it, make explicit its different meanings, acknowledge that some of these meanings are benign while others are malign, and relentlessly point out the hypocrisy of anti-White racists pretending to be principled anti-racists.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Until Whites are fully deprogrammed from fearing this word – racism – they will fear the only solution to the West’s problems: White solidarity.”

        Superb observation .

    • W. Poe White
      W. Poe White says:

      Some White Guy, I disagree with you and agree with Edmund Connelly in endorsing the statement “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.” It is important to highlight the fact that the attacks on White people are indeed forms of racism. Whether you like it or not the word “racism” as entered the lexicon and meaningfully refers to any form of preference, bias, hostility, discrimination, attacks and partisanship based on race.

      It is especially important to highlight the fact that White people are under an attack which can be objectively identified as racist in order to awaken White “normies” under the “anti-racist” spell from their hypnotic slumbers. As Kevin MacDonald has observed, White people tend to hold ethically universalist attitudes and be reluctant to act unless they believe themselves to be in the right as judged by universalistic moral criteria. Seeing that we are being singled out for attack based upon our race by the same people who trumpet their supposed anti-racism to all and sundry is potently red-pilling. This is a straightforwardly and massively hypocritical double standard. So… let’s use this to wake our people up!

      Yes, the word “racism” has so far been used almost invariably as a weapon word against White people. But this selective usage is itself a clear case of racial bias and contradicts the claims of engaging in principled anti-racism. Anti-racism is an ethically universalistic concept which logically must apply to any and all races equally. So self-proclaimed anti-racists who refuse to apply the term to non-Whites in cases in which it obviously objectively applies are transparent hypocrites.

      So go ahead and use the term “anti-White” but don’t neglect to point out that this is a genus belonging to the species “racism.”

      It should also be vigorously argued that racism in the forms of racial preference and racial solidarity is not evil. Anyone who genuinely sought to suppress all racism would be waging war against human nature. This project would be utopian and doomed to fail as well as sure to cause great mischief. Not only should the term racism be used but some forms of racism should also be defended as ethical and in any event inevitable. People free to be themselves will feel and express racial preferences. If people have a right to freedom then they must also have a right to be racist.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        …” some forms of racism should also be defended as ethical “…

        Good luck with that . The vast majority of the USA population and also the vast majority of USA Whites are either unable to comprehend such a notion or are conditioned to refuse to consider that possibility as it would be contrary to their comfortable oversimplified norm of intended meaning .

        • W. Poe White
          W. Poe White says:

          moneytalks says “the vast majority of USA Whites are either unable to comprehend such a notion [that some forms of racism are defensible] or are conditioned to refuse to consider that possibility.” Then you might as well give up because that is precisely what is involved in deprogramming people from the “anti-racist” brainwashing. White solidarity is “racist.” Any racial solidarity is “racist.” It’s human nature to be “racist.” But not all forms of “racism” are the same. Some forms of racial bias and discrimination are benign whereas others are malign and warlike. On the other hand, utopian attempts to socially engineer people to stop feeling and expressing racial preference constitute a warlike attack on those people which itself might be deemed “racist.”

          Whether you like the word “racism” or not the meanings evoked by the word are real things. The task of deprogramming people from “anti-racist” indoctrination requires the realization that racial preference is no evil.

          The reason this is so difficult now is not because our people are stupid or innately incapable of thinking for themselves. It’s because voices of sanity debunking the “anti-racist” dogmas have no platform to reach the White masses, leaving the White masses hearing nothing but the “anti-racist” loudspeakers of the Globalist (and overwhelmingly Jewish controlled) media and schools.

          Further, the right of other races to their own communities and homelands should also be acknowledged. The Kalergian project of universal racial mixture in a global melting pot is part of the Globalist agenda. Ethnonationalists of different races and nationalities should be making common cause against their mutual Globalist enemy. How else will the Globalists be stopped? I doubt that we will be able to do this on our own.

          The championing of a universal right to feel and express racial preference is a variant form of universalist ethics which will appeal to many of our people (as it does to me). This is a form of universalist ethics which acknowledges the reality of non-trivial human diversity rather than simply imposing a one-size-fits-all morality in the usual fashion of ethical universalisms such as Christianity, Islam, Western Humanism, Liberalism and Communism.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            …” expressing racial preference constitute a warlike attack on those people “…

            Precisely ; and that is why the specified deprogramming does not begin until hostilities commence against the enemy . Countering a murderous enemy attack with anti-assault rationalizations does not cut it .

          • W. Poe White
            W. Poe White says:

            “Countering a murderous enemy attack with anti-assault rationalizations does not cut it.” You miss the point. I’m urging a persistent effort to deconstruct and critique the “anti-racist” ideology and its key weapon concept “racism.” Committed enemies are not the intended audience. The principal intended audience is White people still under the “anti-racist” spell – especially young White people who are unsure of what to believe.

            The objective of the critique of anti-racism is first and foremost to free White minds from the notion that feeling and expressing spontaneous authentic racial preferences is evil. People of all races will tend to prefer being with other people of their own racial type. There is nothing immoral in this for anyone – including White people. It’s simply human nature. What is sure to generate much evil is the hubristic attempt to overrule such powerful currents of human nature. This realization is what will free White people from feelings of guilt for preferring to be with other White people. This is the crux of “anti-racist” deprogramming.

            Saying “deprogramming does not begin until hostilities commence against the enemy” is putting the cart before the horse. There obviously won’t be any action of racial self-defense on the part of White people who are still under the “anti-racist” spell. Deprogramming must come first.

            What I’m offering is a guide to deprogramming based upon my own experiences of self-deprogramming. The arguments I am making are precisely the ones with which I freed my own mind from the spell of “anti-racism” and White guilt-tripping. They are the fruit of bitter experience when, as an earnest and idealistic young man of populist libertarian Leftist sympathies, I first began to realize the harsh realities of race, Jewish power over America and the West and the existential threat to the White race.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            …” deprogramming people from “anti-racist” indoctrination requires the realization that racial preference is no evil. ”

            It would seem that half of “The Whites” ( aka EuroMan or descendants ) , whom have one of the highest average IQs of any major race , should be able to deduce on their own the fact of intelligence ( not fact of IQ ) ” that racial preference is no evil ” and thus would not need to be deprogrammed of the contrary false assertion that it is evil . Apparently , a much higher average IQ than 100 is needed to resist racial nonsense brainwashing .

          • W. Poe White
            W. Poe White says:

            “Apparently , a much higher average IQ than 100 is needed to resist racial nonsense brainwashing ” A high IQ no doubt helps to free oneself from psywar attacks but the main problem is not lack of IQ. The majority of White people don’t lack the intelligence to free their minds from “anti-racist” programming. Their ability to think clearly is short-circuited by irrational and emotive forces.

            The force of (perceived) mass majority opinion, the lack of historical knowledge to refute “anti-racist” blood libels and canards against Whites, the presumption that supposed “experts” are telling the truth and the possibility of losing friends and, above all, career/livelihood if one entertains politically incorrect views all militate against the realization that one has every right to feel and express their innate racial preferences.

            The paralysis of White will is due to powerful non-rational pressures. We are the targets of a potent campaign of psychological warfare. As well as economic warfare. And lawfare. War by other being waged on us.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      Yes, we need our own special victim term. “Anti-Aryanism”. “Anti-Japhetism”. “Anti-Caucasianism”. They are all so awkward, but so is ‘anti-semitism’.

  3. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    Want to understand the manifestation of the visceral hatred we’re talking about here? I strongly such history, e.g., David Irving.

    We just read, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1965-1879 [i], by Thomas Goodrich

    i “Some of the most savage war in world history was waged on the American Plains
    from 1865 to 1879. As settlers moved west following the Civil War, they found
    powerful Indian tribes barring the way. When the U.S. Army intervened, a bloody
    and prolonged conflict ensued.
    “Drawing heavily from diaries, letters, and memoirs from American plains settlers,
    historian Thomas Goodrich weaves a spellbinding tale of life and death on the prairie,
    told in the timeless words of the participants themselves. Scalp Dance is a powerful,
    unforgettable epic that shatters modern myths….”

  4. Frenly Groyper, English Division
    Frenly Groyper, English Division says:

    Great work, thank you, and how refreshing to see both of the brilliant Andrews quoted in the same TOO article.

  5. Eric
    Eric says:

    My personal experience in discussing these issues with friends and family:

    My brother is upset that the school he went to has hired a consulting firm. The firm is supposed to help the school become more “inclusive”. He’s given them money and wanted my opinion on whether he should continue to do so. After my suggestion he give me the money was summarily rejected, I agreed to help him with a letter he proposed to write to the school. I could tell this whole process was difficult for him. He’s like a man who wants to scream but has no voice.

    I wrote a draft accusing the school of abusing its White students. I pointed out that CRT (assuming that is what the school wants) is anti-White. I said there was no justification for this. Not because racism is “bad” (who cares; I like racism and think it’s natural), but because everything Whites are accused of has been done by other races for thousands of years.

    I gave my brother the draft with some trepidation. So many White people — even family members — will un-person you if you are perceived as falling into the Jewish-created category of “White Nazi, racist, anti-Semite, etc.”

    In a phone discussion he agreed CRT is anti-White and that it is racism against Whites. I wanted to move on to the Jewish angle, but I got some pretty strong signals that criticizing the Chosen might be a bridge too far.

    The other discussion I had was with a friend. It extended over many years. If it is possible for a White of Christian heritage to be a Jew, he fits the bill. Maybe it’s his Unitarian upbringing? I thought he was kidding when he said Whites deserved to be gassed. The subject of Whites didn’t come up often. But in the last few years, as hatred of Whites became more obvious in society, I couldn’t help but comment on it.

    His response: It was “beneath me” to be concerned about it. My attitudes were illegitimate because they were product of my “privileged upbringing” (which itself was illegitimate).

    Long story short, our relationship ended when I closely argued every point he made, and he couldn’t defend himself. He is quite a bit older than me, and I had shown him a certain deference. But now I had the confidence to stand my ground and not give an inch. That he could not tolerate.

    A lot of friendships are going to end in the next few years. That’s a good thing. Time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    • Edmund Connelly
      Edmund Connelly says:

      “A lot of friendships are going to end in the next few years.” Amen to that, Eric. For reasons similar to the ones you give, it’s happened to me over the last twenty years, and now it can happen simply due to one’s silence. As you say, however, now is the time for this to happen so we’ll know friend from enemy.

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      In reference to the last sentence of your comment, hang in there. Many of us are going through the same thing.

      Yes, many otherwise good-spirited Christians are totally blind to the Jewish Question for one reason only: They place their faith in a very, very poorly translated Book instead of placing their faith in a Person.

      Hey Brother, ride well, walk tall, speak the truth and shoot straight.

      • Brian Dougan
        Brian Dougan says:

        Tim; I’m assuming you are a Christian. However; your “very; very; poorly translated [Bible]” comment hangs in mid-air. Are you unintentionally misrepresenting scripture? Skeptics reading your comment will take it at face value; likely not what you intended. Why reinforce their skepticism? Your context appears to be duped Christians; who prostrate themselves at the feet of the Jews. The two words “Jews,” and “gentiles” HAVE been carelessly translated; giving ammunition to the Talmudists. (Jews.) The word gentile (no capitalization) is not a proper noun, and has several meanings–based on the context. It does NOT specifically mean “non-Jew.” It CAN be applied to Jews. Again; context. We are NOT “gentiles.” Gentile means nation; not a person. Try word substitution: The Lord told Rebekah (a Hebrew) that “two nations are in thy womb.” (Jacob and Esau.) Substitution: “Two GENTILES/NON-ISRAELITES are in thy womb.” HAHA! (Genesis 25:23.) One more? Read Genesis 48:19; where Jacob blesses Joseph’s second son Ephraim “…[Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: But truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of NON-ISRAELITES.” Let’s go to the New Testament: “Pilate answered, ‘am I a Judahite?’ Thine own NON-ISRAELITES and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: What has thou done?” (John 18:35.) The words “gentiles” “goy” and “ethnos” are NOT the exclusionary terms that the authors have attempted to make them. Slightly off topic; it’s worth remembering that the word “Jew” does not appear in the Bible until 1 Kings. There is much to be said–biblically–on the topic of Jews. I will address a few key; biblically supportable facts in a separate comment. Finally; on the topic of New Testament reliability; I’ll quote the late Dr. F. F. Bruce; one of the leading New Testament scholars in recent memory: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.” I’ll leave him with the last word. “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.” A treasure trove of academic material about the historicity, and reliability–of the Old Testament–Is also available. The skeptic only needs a willingness to investigate.

    • Nancy Goldfarb Greenbak
      Nancy Goldfarb Greenbak says:

      I lost many of my friends as a result of getting redpilled.
      Most of my idiot friends were lefties, and some were non-white.
      None of them were able to listen to me and none of them were even willing to try.
      The jews have convinced all “liberals” that whites are evil and should be exterminated….
      it’s an odious program the jews have instituted and it’s very effective.
      It might sound like a sad thing to lose so many friends, but what I realized is they were never really my friends to begin with, as they were always anti-white pieces of shit.
      I don’t miss any of them.

    • Storm rising
      Storm rising says:

      “A lot of friendships are going to end in the next few years. That’s a good thing. Time to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

      This is an important point. As we push the anti-White popular culture out of our lives, those around us who have embraced its themes need to be marginalized and discarded as well. This hatred of Whites is exceeded only by the self-hatred some Whites have adopted. Cut them loose, even if close family. What is coming will be far worse than severed relationships and these toxic people cannot be trusted.

      In asymmetrical war, all tools must be used. For example, if you are about to lose your job due to anti-White prejudice, do everything you can to sabotage your employer. Nothing should be off limits. You do not want someone in your life who will report that you have turned financial records over to your employer’s rivals, for example.

      This society and its genocidal scheme can be collapsed and toppled even now. Cut loose those who would stop it.

    • Lucius Vanini
      Lucius Vanini says:

      Shocking, that White Christian friend of yours! Who’d have dreamed that a CHRISTIAN would have anything to do with notions of collective, congenital guilt, of deserving to be punished because one intrinsically “sucks”!

      He is undoubtedly the zombie of modern talmudic scum a’ la Ignatiev. At least in part, with the lion’s share probably belonging to the psychological-warfare juggernaut brought to Europe by Rabbi Saul of Tarsus.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        I said he was of Christian heritage, not that he was a Christian. I presume you also are of Christian heritage.

        Jesus condemned not just the Jews who rejected him but the whole Jewish baggage of the past. HIs death on the cross ended the Mosaic Covenant and transferred God’s favor from Jews to Christians. The early Christians were former Jews, but it was huge numbers of pagans who transformed Christianity from a small sect into a major world religion.

        For a Jew, sin is anything that is good for the non-Jew and bad for the Jew. Jewish morality is completely ethnocentric.

        Christian morality is the opposite of that. Whereas the Jew doesn’t even recognize morality as a universally applicable concept, the Christian understands that anyone can be immoral and should be held to account for being immoral. This is what we call “sin”.

        For you, Christianity has the “stink” of the Judaism out of which it evolved. Well, I don’t see it that way. Vegetables we eat grow out of dirt. Get over it. We live in a fallen world, and no pagan was ever able to withstand the Jew (or the Muslim) over the long run. Only Christians have been able to do that. And it is not a coincidence that Jewish power has increased in direct proportion to the decline of Christianity in White nations.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          “HIs death on the cross ended the Mosaic Covenant and transferred God’s favor from Jews to Christians.”

          Did Jesus say that’s what his death did? Or was it Saul (Paul), who decided to claim a special relationship with Jesus after the latter’s death? So what basis do you have to claim that particular covenant change?

          “Vegetables we eat grow out of dirt.”

          No they don’t. they can only grow and produce out of living SOIL, rich in organic matter. Such soil is not ‘dirty.’ Some weeds may grown in dirt, but that’s all.

          “… no pagan was ever able to withstand the Jew (or the Muslim) over the long run. Only Christians have been able to do that.”

          You don’t know this, and it’s not true. This is just another of your ‘talking points’ that you use without concerning yourself of its accuracy.

          As to your last sentence, you could just as well say that Christian influence has decreased while at the same time Jewish influence has increased. Less of one, more of the other. You’ve in no way proven the reason(s) why. Why weren’t Christians able to hold on to the powerful influence they had? Why didn’t they resist and continue to condemn the Jews?

          You specialize in the sin/lie of omission — leaving out what is not convenient.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            “Did Jesus say that’s what his death did?” The meaning of his impending crucifixion is made clear in KJV Mat. 21:33-44; John 10:24-38; John 8:19-58; Mat. 28:19-20; and Mat. 23:25-28. Not just Jesus’ words, but events show that Jews lost the Covenant and that the Mosaic law was superseded: Mat. 27: 50–53.

            As for Paul, his writings take up most of the New Testament. If you reject them — if you reject his encounter on the road to Damascus as actually happening and his conversion to Christianity as actually happening — then of course, you reject Christianity. Which is fine; just say so. But don’t try to tell me I don’t understand it when you can offer no evidence to back up that claim.

            Not only did Jews lose the Covenant, Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple were completely destroyed in 70 A.D. as Jesus said they would be: Mat. 23:34-39; Mat. 24:1-2. When Julian the Apostate tried to rebuild the temple, it could not be done. Fires and explosions of unknown origin made the task impossible.

            “Soil”, “dirt”, your distinction is mere pettifogging and beside the point. Is not manure mixed in with the soil to stimulate growth?

            “You don’t know this.” I do know it. The Jews have outlived pagan civilizations from Egypt to Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and ancient Greece and Rome. They’ve preserved themselves as a people. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, ancient Greeks and ancient Romans have not. And pagans/atheists who try now won’t succeed either.

            Christianity has been weakened by Jewish influence. It is now mostly Judaized. This false presentation of Christianity has turned away people who would otherwise be drawn to the church. The Jew Samuel Untermeyer financed the Scofield Reference Bible, which thoroughly Judaized and Zionized evangelical Christians. Vatican II resulted in the Catholic Church having a “dialog” with Jews in which Jews did all the talking and all the getting their way. Even now, the Jew Jeffrey Sachs serves as the Pope’s right hand man.

            Islam couldn’t conquer Europe in spite of a thousand years of trying when Christianity was strong and free of Jewish influence. Now that Christianity is weak and Judaized, the Muslims don’t need to invade; they’re invited in.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Among the verses you sent me, Jesus never said his death would accomplish a certain objective (“His death on the cross ended the Mosaic Covenant” -eric), nor did he say there had been a ‘Covenant’ with Jews in the first place. He didn’t say his crucifixion would be the sign of a new covenant with non-Jewish people. Jesus and most of his disciples were then “Jews.”
            Jesus was teaching and speaking truth as he knew it, but that it was prophecy was decided later.

            “If you reject Paul […] you reject Christianity.” -eric
            I didn’t reject anything. I said Paul claimed a special relationship with Jesus, whom he had never known in life. Paul became the voice of ‘Christianity’ and the disciples were relegated to lesser importance. The spiritual authority of it has to be “believed.” This is a matter of faith only.

            I do understand the power of faith, but you speak as if you have physical, worldly proofs when it’s only scriptures you refer to … none written by Jesus. Jesus’ words in the bible are hearsay, actually.
            The destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was the work of the Romans.

            I am a lover of soil, and of vegetables, and do not accept soil being called “dirt.” It’s not pettifogging and certainly not beside the point. You were wrong to say such a dumb thing, and don’t want to admit it out of male pride.

            “No pagan …” Never say never. You have no idea how many pagans there were and are. Some certainly withstood and still withstand Jewish influence. But it was Christian influence that brought down the pagans … by force! Cruel and inhuman force, like stake burnings. We talked about that before.

            “… transferred God’s favor from Jews to Christians.” -eric
            You really believe God shows favor between groups of people … and based on such shallow reasons as how well they obey him? Well, if your God is Yahweh of Old Testament fame, I guess you can believe that. So you also believe a favored spot in Heaven is awaiting you? Congratulations when you arrive there.

            Finally, If God made a new covenant with the Christians, leaving behind the Jews, how could it be that the Christians couldn’t succeed over the Jews? The Scofield Bible???? Where is the all-powerful God in all this? God has bad luck — first the Hebrews and then the Christians fail him.

            I can tell you this — you have not thought this through well.

        • Oscar Wilson
          Oscar Wilson says:

          @ “Eric” the resident Bible authority:

          What about Matthew 5.17-18: Jesus came to fulfill the Law & the Prophets? Did God know that his Son (also God) would be crucified and that the Mosaic Covenant would have been a waste of time?

          Opinion polls show that a large %age of self-defined Jews in the USA and
          worldwide do not believe in God. They themselves seem to be their main object of worship with the Holocaust as more important than Shauvoth.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” We live in a fallen world “…

          No doubt . As long as Christians keep putting the cart of morality in front of the horse of sense , they will never make any sustainable material progress toward their ultimate goal of immortality other than their life-after-death fantasy which may or may not be real .

          Adherence to a particular moral code is NOT the ULTIMATE purpose of life which necessarily has priority before any moral code that only exists to facilitate achievement of the ultimate goal . The TEN COMMANDMENTS were only meant for maintaining internal Jewish/Hebrew tribal cohesion in order for them to sustain their agenda to attain dominion of the world
          ( re: The Jewish Holy Torah / KJV / Genesis 1:26 ) .

          Further elaboration is beyond the scope of this comment .

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            Well, aside from the many other ills these three Semitic tomfooleries have created, just think of the divisiveness they’ve caused.

            Contrary to what most WNs think, there are plenty of White Jews. There are plenty of White Muslims–not only the millions of ancestral Europeans in Southeastern Europe, from Bosnia to the Caucasus Region, but many elements in West Asia and North Africa. No disagrees that there are plenty of White Christians. But in any case, instead of joining hands in the knowledge of their great ethnic/genetic nearness and similar cognitive levels, these Caucasians have been and are enemies–and all because of asinine fables and dogmas…. Their chief danger is integration and amalgamation with non-Whites, above all Sub-Saharans–that would be the END–yet instead of doing all they can to distance themselves from the biological/cognitive adulteration, they struggle against one another.

            I don’t know of a single “religious war” fought among Pagans–or Hindus, or Buddhists. (Hindus have certainly fought Muslims–but it was the latter who brought it on: Hinduism is a model of toleration, like the Pagan religions of ancient Europe: Hindus have resisted Muslims as anyone resists those who kill them and theirs, not because they’ve thought Islam itself is evil.) No, that kind of idiocy seems to belong exclusively to the three Semitic tomfooleries….

        • Lucius Vanini
          Lucius Vanini says:

          Right again: Judaism is ethnocentric; Christianity is not. Hence Judaism is clearly more useful to its adherents. You’d see that if you weren’t besotted with asinine dogmas that the Brothers Grimm and Hans Andersen would’ve been ashamed to include in their works.

          “For a Jew, sin is anything that is good for the non-Jew and bad for the Jew.” (LOL–what scientific or philosophic evidence is there for this thing you call “sin”?) Yes, and for a Christian, sin is anything that is good for the Christian but not good for anyone else. Only HYPOCRISY–thank Pantheos for it–enabled Europe to be great with such self-abnegating superstitious baggage on its back.

          What? WHICH Pagan civilization fell to the wiles of the Talmudic bigots? You mean Rome–which swallowed the opiate proffered by Rabbi Saul, the opiate to which you’re addicted?

          Europe and Euro-America have declined in proportion as they’ve incorporated into their secular world-view the Christian morality of unselfing–according to which selfishness is wrong. Where on the planet do you see societies that are lying down and inviting strangers to trample on them, or apathetically witnessing their own undoing–if not indeed feeling they’re being virtuous by not resisting? Why, Europe and Euro-America. Do you think it’s mere coincidence that it was those regions which were saturated with toxins like “Bless, pray for and love those who despitefully use you,” etc.?

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Well, of course being ethnocentric is more useful in this world. I’ve pointed that out myself many times.

            What evidence is there for the existence of sin? You’ll be able to tell me if someone you love is tortured and killed in front of you. You already know there is sin, so let’s not waste our time over that.

            Not just Rome, but Egypt, Babylon, Persia and Greece. Egypt and Babylon were not Christian when they faded away into the dust of history. The point is that the Jews are still a people; those ancient peoples — mostly pagan — are history.

            The Christianity you complain about is a false Christianity. Not the genuine article that kept the Muslims at bay for a thousand years and kept the Jews in their place. I’m not interested in that false, Judaized Christianity. At the same time, I’m not interested in an anti-Christian approach that is guaranteed to repel the great majority of White people and get you absolutely nowhere.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            I would begin to suspect , if it were safe to do so , that Pagans consider the three Abrahamic religions — Judaism , Christianity , and Islam — to be the deadliest frauds ever perpetrated on humanity .

        • Lucius Anthony Vanini
          Lucius Anthony Vanini says:

          No, I do NOT know there is such a thing as “sin.” I know that if a loved one of mine were tortured, witnessing it would be overwhelmingly traumatic for me. But “sin” implies that a deed is intrinsically evil–irrespective of anyone’s opinion of it–and that it’s condemned by a god who represents the one standard by which things are known to be good or evil.

          But nothing–NOTHING–is intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong. Only relatively to the value-judge. All value judgments are subjective, perspectivist: NONE is objectively correct. As the Bard says, “Nothing is good or bad but [except that] thinking makes it so.”

          The torturer would regard it as serving some object he desires–and therefore as “good”; and my contrary valuation is no more intrinsically right than his. As for your moralizing god–lol–presumably “he” knew what he was doing when he made a creature capable of cruelty and allowed an “evil spirit” to tempt that creature to be cruel, since he was omniscient; and if he judges, condemns and punishes the creature for realizing the potentiality he himself created, well, he seems an unjust Demon rather than a God of Love lol.

          None of this means I wouldn’t do everything I could to save my loved one and SLAY the torturer (slowly if possible); but that wouldn’t mean that I regard the latter as sinful–no, only that I love my loved ones and hate those who injure them! (STILL subjective, see?!)

          You said above that no Pagan societies withstood the Talmudic bigots. Huh? That smashingly great Egypt existed for about 4000 years (more than twice as long as fully christianized Europe, which is in frightening decline: in fact you often say real christianity has already been undermined); and it was successively conquered by Pagan powers such as Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia/Hellas, Rome: PAGANS knocked the stuffing out of it, not the lol Chosen. Persia was solidly Zoroastrian until MUSLIMS took it. Greece and Rome were incalculably harmed by christianity. Apparently you didn’t see my point when I said Rome swallowed the opiate offered by Rabbi Saul. You always talk as though judaism and christianity were basically unrelated; but if the latter was NOT a Jewish assault on Europe, then Rome and Greece did NOT succumb to the Jew, right? If any cult killed Rome and Greece, it was the cult of God as victim.

          As for Europe being protected by christianity for long ages, you once again stand truth on its head. It was merely NOMINAL christianity that saved Europe from Islam–Crusader and Conquistador christianity.
          In other words, hypocrisy saved Europe (although when you consider that Islamic Spain was by far the most advanced civilization in Europe during the unchallenged reign of your god in the rest of Europe, it’s questionable whether Charles Martel, the Reconquista and Sobieski really did anything more than prevent Europeans having better societies).

          Consider a few of the “christians” who made Europe great. Columbus, Cortes, Pizarro.

          Oh yeah, they prated about Jesus and his mother all the time and about the saints. Columbus was so besotted with christian mythology and his own conceits as to his being a pious man lol, that he got to signing his name in a combo of Greek and Latin–“Xpo ferens,” making explicit the meaning of “Christopher” as “Christ carrier”–because as St. Christopher carried the Christ child across the river, he, Columbus, carried Christ across the Atlantic. MEANWHILE, he conquered the natives of Espanola, enslaved them, and allowed the also “christian” Spaniards under him to cut off the hands of the natives if they didn’t supply them with a quantity of gold every three months. In other words, he lived by the sword, laid treasures upon the earth and served Mammon rather than Jesus/Jehovah. He evidently didn’t believe that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven, because his greed for treasure was insatiable

          Cortes destroyed a great Mesoamerican civilization and did what Columbus did on a greater scale. He too was a professing christian. And Pizarro destroyed the Incan civilization, promised to release the Inca if the latter filled some room with treasure, then, after the Indian emperor complied, killed him anyway–strangled him with a garotte. And when at around 70 some younger conquistadors came to overthrow him, this fearless adventurer drew his sword, flung himself on the group of young men, yelling repeatedly “Jesus” (HAY-SOOS); and when he was run through and on the floor, he drew a cross from the pool of his blood. Another St. Francis of Assisi lol!

          Yeah, Eric, all these guys were great aficionados of lol the Sermon on the Mount–fervent practitioners of christian mercy, voluntary poverty, turning the other cheek, etc., etc.

          NO, sir: these men–great men, the kind to whom we owe the Global European Hegemony–were PSEUDO-christians, christian in name only. And they were representative of what you crazily regard as the truly christian Europe. The characteristic ethical doctrines of christianity are above all in the Sermon on the Mount: DOCTRINAL ethical christianity is FAR more in evidence in contemporary Sweden, where people in effect say “Vi ar verdilose” and allow that filth of a Barbara Lerner Spectre to bring aliens into their ancestral land–for after all, is that not unselfish? And kind, and compassionate?

          When Merkel says that her politics are consonant with the teachings of christianity, she is only speaking the truth. When the pope tells Italians they are bad christians if they don’t accept black invaders, all of whom are poor, he too is only telling the truth.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” But nothing–NOTHING–is intrinsically good or bad, right or wrong.”

            Would you like a dash of arsenic to put in your morning cup of coffee ?

  6. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of Whites is the next step.”

    What would the aborting of 60 million European Americans in 6 decades be called?

    • Phil
      Phil says:

      The genocide of Whites in the US and elsewhere is already taking place due to large scale immigration, including of the illegal type.

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      I’m not sure about your figure of 60 million. . That figure would represent the total # of abortions, not only EuroAmericans, as far as I can determine. NonWhite women have a higher rate than White people. There’s much written on this, lots of statistics, so you can interpret this for yourself. For various reasons, rates of abortion are down over the past several years.,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

      From the Guttmacher Inst: This is rather interesting. Seems as if purportedly Catholic Hispanic women aren’t exactly following their religion.

      “The abortion rates among women in minority communities have followed the overall downward trend over the three decades of legal abortion. At the same time, however, black women consistently have had the highest abortion rates, followed by Hispanic women (see chart). This holds true even when controlling for income: At every income level, black women have higher abortion rates than whites or Hispanics, except for women below the poverty line, where Hispanic women have slightly higher rates than black women.”

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        “It is an ill wind that blows no good,” and “Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in its head.”

        Abortion has an ugly side–at least, in my eyes, when White embryos are killed. But think of the millions of black street-savages it has filtered out of the pipeline! Without it, there’d be millions more of those barely-humans, humans by the skin of their teeth! I’m thankful to abortion for that, as I am to the stratospheric murder rate in the black enclaves.–those-most-different-from-us

        Death is an inextricable feature of our existence. It should never be considered an intrinsic evil–especially when it yields clear benefits

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” Death is an inextricable feature of our existence. It should never be considered an intrinsic evil–especially when it yields clear benefits ”

          Good point . That alludes to another fundamental defect of Christianity that dogmaticly overgeneralizes death as “the wages of sin”.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            A rabbi was/is simply a man who was above average in knowledge of Jewish scriptures and religious law. Therefore he could advise and/or teach others. In the case of “Rabbi” Jesus, his words and teachings as they’ve been passed down to us are sometimes at odds with what is official “Christianity”. The two should not be confused. Actually, Christianity varies a lot among different sects and confessions too. That should be kept in mind, right?
            I don’t think you disagree with that. It’s Eric it should be directed to.

  7. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    For those of us awake, this is quickly heating up. So much these words from Dr Goebbels comes to mind;

    “ “The Jew is also a human being.” Certainly. None of us has ever doubted it. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He does not get along with us. He lives according to different internal and external laws than we do. The fact that he is a human being is not enough reason for us to be oppressed and bullied by him in inhuman ways. He is a human being — but what kind? If someone whips your mother’s face with a whip, do you say: “Thank you, he is a human being?” That is no human being, but rather a monster.“

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Thank you so much. It’s always better to quote exactly what a top “nazi” says instead of guessing and paraphrasing what one think they said. Goebbels writes so much better than most others do. lol.

      I would like to know exactly where this quote comes from, but even so, it sounds just like Joseph Goebbels and is very apropos.

  8. Phil
    Phil says:

    The people with the strongest self-identity – Jews – are the ones who do NOTt want Whites and those of European heritage (also Christian heritage) to have a strong self-identity.

    Anti-White, Anti-Christian,and Anti-Heterosexual ideologies are being introduced in public schools to make children with those backgrounds feel ashamed.

    One example is Drag Queen Story Hour which seeks to confuse children as young as 3 as to their sex and sexual orientation:

    Israel has a strong religious and ethnic self-identity but mainly White countries should not have as strong an identity – or so think Jews.

  9. Greg
    Greg says:

    How would this agenda succeed when most Jews have pale white skin. Are they wanting to dispose of themselves? Before they pull the trigger or swing the baseball bats, how much time would a group of thugs give a Jewish person to explain that even though they have white skin they don’t identify as a white person?

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      You make the common mistake to think that Organised Jewry, our mortal enemy, cares a jot about normal Jews. They don’t, they never have, and if they need to sacrifice Jews to advance their agenda against us, they do it in a heartbeat.
      If there is one group of people Organised Jewry, by which I mean all the anti-white organisations, the Zionists, Jewish Supremacists, B’nai B’rith downwards etc, etc, hate more than us, it’s Jews who assimilate into Western culture. As Western culture is now dead, and the horrid, ghastly, Satanic Jewish monstrosity sits in it’s place, perhaps now it would be more accurate to say not Jews who assimilate into ‘Western Culture’, they despise, but Jews who aren’t part of the ongoing push to extinguish the white man.
      This is a religious thing with these supremacist Jews, think of the position they put the German Jews in in the Nazi era, and they know fine well Jews are violently run out of any area in Europe by the Muslim invaders the Jews imported into our homelands.
      It all goes back to some typically sadistic tale from one of their holy books, I forget which, because who really cares the details? If anyone is interested, it’s all explained in Jewish History, Jewish religion, The Weight of 3,000 years, by Israel Shahak.
      This is an absolutely fascinating book, by the way, and everyone who comes to this site would get a huge amount of wisdom from it. Especially anyone who is still puzzled as to why the Jews are, and always forever have been, so misanthropic, this book explains all.

      • Cat
        Cat says:

        A book everyone should read. It was where I learned that they game God. You can be sure that any people who regularly game God are not going have any problem lying, cheating and stealing from you.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      It’s presumably not as important for them. For one thing, they have Israel as a backup. It also should be noted that in general Jews are much better than whites at playing identity politics, since they have thousands of years experience thriving as a group amidst low-trust multicultural societies.

      If we assume that an organized group of Jews have immense control the media and various levers of power, and they are intentionally working to diminish European whites, there’s nothing prevented them from strategically changing course later on if it becomes too dangerous from Jews as well. Think of the the corporate media suddenly “educating” people on the differences between Jews and whites. Or maybe they just plan on toning down anti-whiteness later on. Who knows.

  10. Walter L
    Walter L says:

    Why is it that Martin Luther King not known for the racist that he was?

    He only directed the charge of racism at White people.
    He never admonished his fellow Black people to curb their racism towards White people.
    It is undeniable that Blacks in America have singled out White people as a group of bad people.

    MLK, if were not an anti-White racism person himself, and truly interested in stopping racism, would have made anti-White racism his priority number one.

    Also MLK campaigned to have Blacks forcibly integrated into White neighborhoods without consulting the White people there if they were okay with his tyrannical social engineering program.

    If it is morally right to force Whites to live with Blacks it is morally right to force Whites to live without Blacks.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      It’s also totally contra to the Bill of Rights’ freedom of association, one of the few ‘rights’ that are actually worth anything.

  11. Robert Zio-Duvall.
    Robert Zio-Duvall. says:

    British Television….totally dominated by tribesmen.
    Take the programme “Countdown” (cats).

    This programme is led by a smart alec jew (Jimmy) with a line up of regulars who are almost all Jewish….BUT only one of the presenters is open about being Jewish…she does the math of the numbers game….infact she is likely an activist jew because she has appeared in the MSM.
    The other participants disguise their ethnicity….so that enables them to satarise Jesus/christianity “safely”.Naturally they dont touch muslims etc.
    So this crypto jew “schtick” enables attacks on Christianity with impunity!!.
    These veiled attacks are across the board…Family Guy does it just for example.Family Guy is an entirely Jewish production.
    It features the voice of a Ukrainian Jewish actress who co-starred with that midget actor in “TED”….HE purports to be a Catholic,but is infact a Marrano.
    The “Ukrainian/Jewish” actress is married to the replacement for Charlie Sheen (jewish) in the sitcom…He is interesting because the PR said he was a Catholic but underwent a conversion therapy so to speak and became a jew.(like Trumps daughter and the wife of that Israeli comedian….An Australian Marrano)
    So this Jewish liar/actor did not really undergo conversion at all HE WAS ALREADY JEWISH…..rather like Drake the hip hop star who is fully barmitzvahed.

    The US Govt is full of fakes like the above.Boris Johnson in Britain is said to have spent time on a kibbutz in the 1980’s. And has a relative who was a rabbi…his new wife “Princess NutNut” is undoubtedly a jewess.

  12. Sophie
    Sophie says:

    It has always struck me as at least very odd that the hate-the-Whites fall all over themselves to get to live in countries built by the evil Christian White Man. And none of them ever wants to leave! How is it that they are not homesick? All that loving culture they have left behind! All that pristine moral height! We should invite them to feel free to escape from the land of guilty, annihilation-worthy White Man, and bask in the love of their own superior kind. They need never again suffer the agony of living with the hate of White with which we have burdened them. Do they not know this? Oh, dear! We should tell them.

  13. Daniel Fedorchuk
    Daniel Fedorchuk says:

    Have you read Scalp Dance? It’s a must read if you ask me. The other side of Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee. A quote from a corporal Hervey Johnson
    I dont care who does the fighting, I dont want any more of it “in mine.” The boys out here have all come to the conclusion that fighting indians is not what it is cracked up to be,
    especially when it is fighting on the open prarie against five to one, we always have to fight at such a disadvantage, we always have to shoot at them running, they wont stand
    and let a fellow shoot at them like a white man.3
    I got a chuckle out of that. The book is gruesome, and the hatred against the Indians out front, honest, just like jew hatred against the Palestinians and all Arabs in Israel. I’d say the hatred of Indians was even more inflamed by the interference of the government on the settlers, a kind of mirror of what is happening now. They want a civil war, y’all know that.
    Great article by the way. I was always jew aware, my father told me when I was a child, I never forgot, I just didn’t care until I saw the extent of the power grab. They are everywhere and in control.

  14. Sudol Tramway
    Sudol Tramway says:

    The 2008 article on Noel Ignatiev had one comment. This article has 25 and growing.

  15. MOB
    MOB says:

    Winter Morn says:
    June 23, 2021 at 4:30 pm GMT • very recent • 200 Words ↑

    I would take issue with the title of the piece. What is taking place under the obfuscatory expression “Critical Race Theory” is neither theoretical nor intellectual. It is Jewish warfare, which means:

    having goals that benefit, enrich, and empower Jews, it is Jewish schemed, Jewish promoted. Jewish funded, Jewish organized, Jewish fomented, Jewish euphemized . . . and totally or primarily non-Jewish implemented, non-Jewish suffered, and non-Jewish disempowered.

    Jewish warfare is extremely successful: globally unified (but hidden by way of deception and the masking effect of opportunistic goyische collaborators), its divide and conquer methods can and do destroy individuals, groups as small as families and as large as whole countries, and the quantity and quality of virtually everything that comprises our lives.

    Jews take over. What is called “critical race theory” is nothing more than Jews doing openly what they’ve been doing more secretly since about 1900 – taking over the control of what goes into the minds of the masses – this time targeting the nation’s children.

    I’m reminded of a slogan that I read many years ago; it was called “the 14 words’—“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

    These are my impressions.
    Click to Edit – 1 minute and 25 seconds

  16. Oscar Wilson
    Oscar Wilson says:

    It is not logical to conclude from the particular comments by Ignatiev that they represent the views of all Jews or are necessarily characeristically Jewish. They have been attacked by Jews. You could quote Jews who attack Zionism and say that anti-Zionism was Jewish. But maybe the founder of formal logical Aristotle was a crypto-Jew which is what your love-thy-enemy Christian “Eric” apparently but wrongly thinks about me.

  17. DELFI
    DELFI says:

    I would highly recommend after reading this excellent TOO article that everyone reads about “the 8 steps to genocide.”
    You can clearly see what level we are at.
    Prepare yourself.
    If possible. Prepare yourself as a collective.
    Revenge for the Shoah is coming.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Militaries , including also USA ones , have practically ineluctable collective tendencies whereby commanders are empowered to sacrifice anyone or larger unit under his command “for the greater good”.

      Screw “the collective” .

      If the members of a collective are so cowardly they must conspire for or demand , as detewrmined by the ruler/(leadership hierarchy)/commander of the collective , the personal sacrifice of another member or group of members , under the presumption that it could “save” the collective , then the collective of cowards is not worth saving . On the other hand , if “The White” descendants of EuroMan fail to expeditiously form noncollective systematic defense organizations that are designed to uphold the supremacy/sovereignty of any members against involuntary personal sacrifice , then “The Whites” will surely be genocided into extinction except perhaps for a very small inconsequential remnant of survivors .

  18. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    See also: Noel Ignatiev (d.2019), “Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People of Palestine,”” (Indian), June 18, 2004, online; Jonathan S. Tobin, “The Jewish Stake in the Battle against Critical Race Theory,” Jewish News Syndicate, June 21, 2021; Eric L. Goldstein, “The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity” (Princeton UP, 2008).

    PS. – I am NOT Jewish.

  19. Cat McGuire
    Cat McGuire says:

    In the mid-1980s, Ricky Marcuse gave her Unlearning Racism workshop in my home. I was a believer involved heavily in anti-racist activism. That was before critical race theory got warped and weaponized. We were all such naive do-gooders.

    Susan Sontag’s infamous line: “The white race is the cancer of human history…” Dare I say it’s poetic justice that Sontag died of cancer?

    DiAngelo’s intellectual roots are stacked with Jews. What about Kendi’s?

    • Michael Santomauro
      Michael Santomauro says:

      Hi Cat MAGUIRE:

      I remember being in agreement with you back in 1984. I also suffered from political correctness until about the late 1990s when I was exposed to KMDs trilogy—and it woke me up ⬆️ 🆙.

      I had clients ( I owned Roommate Finders) who lived in his building that you were demonstrating in front of from the above news clip. Bernard Getz was not all there to begin with before the subway shooting. I would hear from his neighbor’s who knew him that he got away with a lot of violent behavior before he got caught.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        His name is Bernhard Goetz, and you are guilty of a cheap shot. Not your first, needless to add.

  20. Michael Santomauro
    Michael Santomauro says:

    Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish.

    Fall 2010

    Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is “nothing more than a screen to present chosen views.” The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually “think outside of the (Jewish) box.”

    What happened to Oliver Stone is a good case study. The Wall Street Journal reported this past summer that Stone said that “public opinion was focused on the Holocaust because of ‘Jewish domination of the media.’” Stone also said that the Jews “stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f—– up United States foreign policy for years.”

    Like so many others before him, Stone groveled: “In trying to make a broader historical point about the range of atrocities the Germans committed against many people, I made a clumsy association about the Holocaust, for which I am sorry and I regret. Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry.”

    Joe Sobran who died this past week had this to say about Jewish media power:

    “Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.”

    In 1996, reprinted in the May 27th issue of the New York Times, by Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist describing his feelings on the killings of a hundred civilians in a military skirmish in southern Lebanon. Shavit wrote:
    “We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own.”


    Michael Santomauro

    PS: An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      “…PS: An antisemite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an antisemite…”

      Yes, we shouldn’t condemn Jews for “being Jews”, but we should condemn them for “acting as Jews”, which is, with a few exceptions, intimately connected with their “being Jews”. Their only way to salvation is to become “ex-Jews” , such as Gilad Atzmon or Brother Nathanael.

      Your idea that we all grew up “inside the Jewish box” is highly insightful, and it takes years of study to grow out of it.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Your idea that we all grew up “inside the Jewish box” is highly insightful, and it takes years of study to grow out of it.”

        The Whites ( aka EuroMan ) do not have years of time to do it . We may have a few years to prepare to launch a significant kinetic counteroffensive and that is all .

  21. Harry Warren
    Harry Warren says:

    Wonderful follow-up article on this today, by Andrew Anglin at the Daily Stormer: “Tucker Carlson strikes back against vile anti-white hog Karlyn Borysenko.”

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Their greatest fear is the emergence of White Identity Politics, but that is exactly what they provoke with their aggressive Critical Race Theory. White resistance against CRT is the beginning of White Identity Politics.

  22. Oracle
    Oracle says:

    To accept the terms of the racist/anti-racist ‘debate’ is to accept this aggressive imposition of the enemy and doing so will only continue white subservience to it. Also the strategy of pointing out how racist the racist/anti-racist system is against whites has already been anticipated as can be seen in narratives such as it is impossible to be racist against whites.

    Better to head out on our own and create a new language to describe our own experience. Antiwhiteism is a start but it’s a bit awkward. Something more flashy and to the point.

  23. lobro
    lobro says:

    is CRT Jewish? I am aghast that someone may even bother doubting this.

    In my day, people would ask “Is Pope Catholic?” in response to something blatantly obvious … unfortunately, Pope is no longer Catholic but CRT’s Jewish origin is just as blatantly obvious, in fact the non-Catholic Pope strongly subscribes to it which should tell you something about the status of this metastasis.

    One interesting consequence of this galloping metastatic process is the rise of truths expressed n clear separation rather than seeking mewling accommodation, whether in contemporary sources like Andrew Anglin, Thomas Dalton or older ones e.g., the NSDAP literature (Positive Christianity)—by fearlessly distancing themselves from the fake discourse, they gain clear prominence.

    For my part at risk of oversimplification or caricature, yet a necessary one, it goes like this:

    • Devil runs the material world (e.g., John 14:30),
    • His sole aim is to turn everything to evil (antithesis of Logos), so that even the incidental evil gains his automatic support,
    • Jews (The Chosen) are the selected agency for realization of the plan (Tikkun Olam),

    ⛬ every globalized violation of Logos has Jews behind it, CRT obviously included.

    (to accord them the insipid “innocent until proven guilty” benefit of doubt when in EVERY case to date, every suspicion and conspiracy theory has been proven massively correct, is the height of suicidal white weakness)

    • lobro
      lobro says:

      Conversely, whenever Jew distinctly identifies some person or organized entity as enemy requiring immediate destruction, it behooves one to consider them as potentially powerful ally, directly proportional to the intensity of Jew’s hate.

      Because if the “Enemy” was a net agency of evil, it would be fulfilling Devil’s work and thus be absorbed into “principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).

      Such a simple, straightforward concept, yet I can hardly find a gentile who can grasp it. In fact, majority of self-described Jew-wise gentiles will go to great lengths to coopt every single thus labeled “Enemy of Jews” as also their own.
      The case in point illustrating the insidious malady of JUDEO-Christianity.

  24. Petras
    Petras says:

    What church did Jesus Christ found (hint: he had a very intimate conversation with one man prior to its inception)?

    The blood of Jesus Christ was proclaimed to be on the hands of this people and on their children. As the act of deicide is still imputed to them, their guilt remains. That is an extremely heavy burden to bear through history, even if only by association, but, being the talmudic scholars that they came to be and well-practiced in disputation, these people came up with a clever device, projection. It is even a customary practice in the modern era to offer a victim, a chicken for example, to bear away their sins. This practice, and the entire Old Testament Covenant, was replaced lock, stock and barrel when Jesus Christ said “Behold, I proclaim a new covenant in my blood..”. Thus, as a commenter rightly stated, the Chosen People is no longer that of the Old Covenant but rather those who will acknowledge the New Covenant borne of His blood offered on the Holy Cross.

    Now, if I were of the tribe that had once been favored by the Creator of the whole universe, and then my tribe, not me personally, had come to an erroneous conclusion about who the Creator’s Son was, then my tribe, or its leadership, might be forced to do some whacky talmudic conjuring to absolve itself of its guilt. Thus the intense ethnocentrism so many reference in the comments. Keep it very close to the vest, so to speak. The writings of the tribe, in which they state that the Creator consults their rabbis on certain matters (let that sink in for a minute) were not writings until a few centuries after the disputed Savior was executed at their urging and provocation. So, a few centuries to agree upon who this Jesus Christ fellow really was, a “sorcerer”, etc., and where he is now, “boiling in excrement in hell”, and who the real brains of the world are, remember “God consults rabbis” per their book. Now, that brief summary aside, if your tribe believes in this, we are the Chosen People/God consults rabbis/rest of the human-looking creatures are really goyim made to serve us/our tribe is the Messiah, then you may begin to understand chutzpah. An almost infinite pride in your own existence.

    This almost infinite pride leads to, again according to their book, understanding (not believing) that to lie to goyim is impossible because you cannot lie to an animal, can you? Substitute murder, cheat, subvert, etc. and then the tribal morality is clear. So, perhaps there are those who are of a particular portion of the tribe who reject the book in favor of the Torah, the Old Testament, and even some who just do not like the nasty Zionist bent to the nation it stole/terrorized to its will. The problem again, no matter which flavor of the tribe you see, is that the underlying covenant undergirding it no longer is valid. Just bear with me, as I know many here are rolling their eyes and preparing to hammer the myths, etc., as a thought experiment. No legitimacy per God. No mandate. No force but that of their own unjust minds driving them to assail everyone not useful to them or not convinced of their quasi-infinite superiority in the world.

    Critical Race Theory is child’s play. They have an entire planet to run.

Comments are closed.