Not Guilty! Identity Evropa Organizer Ian Hoffmann speaks out on Charlottesville, Public Activism and our coming Courtroom Battles

/34 Comments/in , , , /by

“You had a group on one side who was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now,” The President had told a hostile press. “You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit, and they were very, very violent.”

I remember watching the prime time news in that hotel room on the 12th with my fellow White activists when we heard our Commander in Chief not only tell the truth about what had happened on the ground, but then give a cold shoulder to a hostile corporate media as they called on him to say something to “White nationalists who say they support you.” The President gestured to the media and walked back to the podium. The reporters grew silent waiting with bated breath. “They’d like me to sign the bill here, instead of outside, so I think we’ll do that. Ok? Thank you.” Knowing how triggered this would leave our enemies in the press and those who attacked the permitted rally, our hotel room erupted with laughter.

We hadn’t seen the fighting. We arrived late and heard that the rally had been moved out of the park and pushed through a gauntlet of violent Antifa. The images playing out on every major news network was the first violence I had seen from rally.

The night prior, the University of Virginia had hosted a 700-strong torch-lit march through its campus, where the marchers ousted counter-demonstrators at the monument to Thomas Jefferson — the slave-owning and soon-to-be-expunged -from-the-American-pantheon founder of UVA. Several marchers were forced to defend themselves. One, appearing stoic and unwavering on the news footage, was taken into custody. Read more

Agobard of Lyon and The Origins of the Hostile Elite

/130 Comments/in , /by


As part of the introduction to my forthcoming volume of essays, Talmud and Taboo, I’ve included an overview of key developments in the historical relationship between Jews and Europeans. During the course of this overview I emphasize the historical suppression of European responses to Jewish group behavior, an important and perennial aspect of Jewish-European interactions. This suppression/taboo, as a thing in itself, tends to be less explored and understood when compared to the attention devoted to more obvious manifestations of Jewish influence (e.g. assertive action in influencing immigration control), but consideration of it is crucial to a complete understanding of Jews as a hostile elite. A working theoretical definition of what is meant by “Jews as a hostile elite” is of course also necessary, and is taken here as the implication not only that Jews have historically been opposed/hostile to the interests of the European masses, but also that Jews have had direct access to political power, or significant levels of influence over European elites in possession of it. While writing the introduction to Talmud and Taboo I was primarily concerned with the origins of the Jewish acquisition of this power or influence in Europe, the mode of its expression, and its evolution over the course of centuries. Due to restrictions of space in the introduction to Talmud and Taboo, I want to take the opportunity here to expand on one such example.

To date, our best understanding of modern Jewish political strategies in the context of the “taboo” can be found in Chapter 6 of Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontent: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, titled “Jewish Strategies for Combatting Anti-Semitism.” One section deals with “Political Strategies for Minimizing Anti-Semitism.” MacDonald notes that Jews have been flexible strategizers in the political arena, buttressed by an IQ substantially above the Caucasian mean, and argues that the foundations for Jewish influence are wealth, education, and social status.[1] Today, Jews apply this influence in order to stifle negative discussion of their group, and at times to stifle any discussion of Jews at all. MacDonald points out that this is normally done via extensive communal support for “self-defense committees,” which are a feature of every Diaspora population. These committees invariably lobby governments, utilize and influence legal systems, produce pro-Jewish and pro-multicultural propaganda, and fund pro-Jewish candidates or initiatives. Another of their vital functions has been to monitor and expose “anti-Semites,” and to use legal systems in order to exact individual punishments, thereby making an example of individuals and thereby imposing a deterrent atmosphere on the rest of the population. Read more

Jews and the Shiksa II: Dustin Hoffman

/107 Comments/in , /by

 

From its origins, Hollywood has been stamped with a Jewish identity, but nobody else was supposed to know about it.  But somehow, no matter how thorough the attempt to suppress or disguise it, Jewishness is going to bob to the surface anyway.
Stephen J. Whitfield

In what I hope to be a short series of essays on Jewish Hollywood, I wish to focus primarily on the topic of the shiksa, as I did recently in Harvey Weinstein: On Jews and the Shiksa. A larger issue, however, will be to show why it matters that Jews control Hollywood. That is the reason I have used the valuable Moment Magazine cover photo (above) time and again in my blogging, for it is an admission of something critical to American (and world) history: “Jews Run Hollywood.”

Of course that is no secret to the vast majority of TOO readers, so it is the subtitle that really interests me: “So What?” I confess I am put on the defensive about this question. It has always been clear to me why it matters, at least once you realize that Jews do in fact run Hollywood. Yet, as incredible as it seems, the heavy majority of those I get to agree that Jews do indeed run Hollywood respond with that maddening phrase “So What?” In my view, this is mental self-policing at its worst. So, as has been the case in all my Hollywood writing, my aim is to explain (to the normie, perhaps) why it matters who controls a medium as powerful as Hollywood has been for a century.

In the Harvey Weinstein blog, I argued that aggressive hostility is a large component of the Jewish male domination of Gentile females (shiksas). Right on cue, TOO editor Kevin MacDonald followed up with a powerful exegesis of the phenomenon in his essay Harvey Weinstein: Revenge and Domination as Jewish Motives. Here he wrote that “The hatred is real and is intimately tied in with sexual competition” and also quoted from his review of Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century:

The amorous advances of the Jewish protagonist of Eduard Bagritsky’s poem “February” are rebuffed by a Russian girl, but their positions are changed after the Revolution when he becomes a deputy commissar. Seeing the girl in a brothel, he has sex with her without taking off his boots, his gun, or his trench coat—an act of aggression and revenge:

I am taking you because so timid
Have I always been, and to take vengeance
For the shame of my exiled forefathers
And the twitter of an unknown fledgling!
I am taking you to wreak my vengeance
On the world I could not get away from!

The passage is stunning, yet my experience has shown that almost no non-Jew I’ve talked to has any idea about this hostility, let alone how it appears in Hollywood fare. Why is that? Read more

Who Owns Bishop Pepe?

/31 Comments/in /by

Matt Furie is an American artist based in Los Angeles.  He is generally identified as the creator of the popular internet meme known as Pepe the Frog (a claim disputed by Andrew Anglin).  His Pepe character was unveiled on Myspace in 2005.  In 2006, Pepe appeared in print in a comic called Boy’s Club.  There, Pepe was a black-and-white line drawing, described by Furie himself as “almost coloring book style, very minimal.”  That crude comic book, now marketed on Amazon.com as a “stoner classic,” portrays Pepe and his three slacker roomies as “teenage weirdos” given over to “laconic psychedelia, childlike enchantment, drug-fueled hedonism, and impish mischief.”  Furie’s Pepe likes to urinate with his pants pulled down around his ankles.  When asked why, Pepe famously answers, “feels good man.”

By 2008, the Pepe meme had been “widely adopted by users of 4chan and remixed ad infinitum from there.”  His character and image, if not his name, were transformed.  Anonymous online fans coloured his face green with brown lips and the laidback hedonism of the comic book Pepe was adapted “to fit different scenarios and emotions, such as melancholy, anger, and surprise”.  In short, Furie lost control over the Pepe meme.

For quite a while Furie remained faithful to Pepe’s hippy lifestyle.  Accordingly, up until September 2016, he repeatedly professed indifference to bourgeois legal issues such as copyright and intellectual property.  For example, when asked in an interview with The Atlantic whether he was upset by the ubiquitous use of the Pepe meme or the fact that people were “using him in different contexts,” Furie replied, “It’s never bothered me, in fact, “it’s been kind of inspiring to me.”  But, the interviewer interjects, what “about the way it’s been adopted by the so-called alt-right”?  Furie remains unruffled: “My feelings are pretty neutral, this isn’t the first time that Pepe has been used in a negative, weird context. … It’s just out of my control, what people are doing with it, and my thoughts on it, are more of amusement”. Read more

World War II and the Walters (Lippmann and Winchell):  Their Implications for Our Time

/106 Comments/in /by

Around the turn of the century, I wrote a book about white advocate William Pierce (1933–2002)—The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds (1stBooks Library, 2001).  One of the things that stuck with me about that experience is Pierce’s consuming interest in World War II.   I put it this way in the book:

Pierce is engrossed in the World War II period. The most powerful stimulus behind Pierce’s consuming interest in this era is his conviction that it was a monumentally important turning point in the course of Western history [i.e., white history].   The direction cultural and political events of Europe and America have taken over the past half-century were set in motion by that war, Pierce believes.   If white people are to understand their time, he contends, they are going to have to get beyond the official version of what World War II was about and take a hard look at what really happened back then.  He sees himself in a tough battle in getting them to do it, however, because there are powerful forces that make questioning the prevailing interpretation of those years, and any suggestion of an alternative account, a highly unwelcome, and even condemned and punished, undertaking.

A primary focus in Pierce’s work was the effect Jews have on the wellbeing of white people.   Basically, he saw World War II as bad news for whites and, despite the Holocaust (which Pierce was skeptical about), good news for Jews, as it contributed to the formation of Israel, the ascendency and sacred cow status of Jews, and to this country’s obsession with Middle East politics (that is, with the fate of Israel), and to what Pierce saw as the Jewish agenda of egalitarianism, racial integration, and feminism, and the demonization, emasculation, and displacement of whites. It can be argued that indeed these are the policies that have been favored by the mainstream Jewish community and its activist organizations in America.

Pierce went so far as to say that if we thought we had to fight in World War II, which we didn’t, we should have been on the other side, with the Germans taking on the Russians, and to have put our efforts into working out peace terms between Germany and Britain.  Pierce’s claim was that Hitler was an Anglophile and never wanted war with Britain (or the U.S.) in the first place.   If Churchill would have backed off he would have.  Churchill and Roosevelt were the ones that wanted war, not him.  That brought me up short—I’d never thought of that. Read more

Fifteen Years for Reading This: Authoritarianism, Immigration and Obeying the Tribe

/64 Comments/in , /by

Amber Rudd

Amber Rudd. It sounds like the name of a fish, a variety of apple or a herbal medicine. In fact, it’s the name of a shabbos–shiksa, that is, a non-Jewish female who, like Hillary Clinton and Theresa May, is dedicated to serving Jewish interests. Here is the shabbos-shiksa in action:

Amber Rudd: viewers of online terrorist material face 15 years in jail

People who repeatedly view terrorist content online could face up to 15 years behind bars in a move designed to tighten the laws tackling radicalisation the home secretary, Amber Rudd, is to announce on Tuesday. A new maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment will also apply to terrorists who publish information about members of the armed forces, police and intelligence services for the purposes of preparing acts of terrorism.

The tightening of the law around viewing terrorist material is part of a review of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy following the increasing frequency of terrorist attacks in Britain this year “I want to make sure those who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions, face the full force of the law,” said Rudd. (Amber Rudd: viewers of online terrorist material face 15 years in jail, The Guardian, 3rd October 2017)

Amber Rudd promises crackdown on antisemitism and online extremism

Amber Rudd has outlined her intention to clamp down on violent and non-violent extremism, including antisemitism and neo-Nazism. The Home Secretary also told the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that social media companies must “act now, honour your moral obligations” to use new technology to stop radical material appearing on their platforms.

Ms Rudd said: “Violent and non-violent extremism in all its forms — antisemitism, neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, intolerance of women’s rights — these, and others, cannot be permitted to fester. Our values are far, far better than this. And we owe it to ourselves to root this hatred out wherever it emerges. The safer Britain I want to help build as Home Secretary is a united one.” (Amber Rudd promises crackdown on antisemitism and online extremism, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd October 2017 / 13th Tishri 5778)

If Amber Rudd is so concerned about building a “safer Britain,” why does she permit mass immigration from the Third World? For the past fifty years and more, Britain’s liberal elite has imported non-Whites with high tendencies to crime and low tendencies to civilization. The results have included suicide bombing, rape-gangs, honour killings, female genital mutilation, inbreeding and exotic diseases. In truth, Amber Rudd doesn’t want a safer Britain: she wants a more authoritarian Britain. She’s a shabbos-shiksa, after all. She follows a Jewish strategy of importing non-White pathologies in order to justify laws against “extremism.” Read more