And the fix is in… all Jews are our eternal racial enemies.
This really torpedoes the comical alt-light disinfo that fanatic Israeli Jews are our friends and allies.
No, Israeli Heebs hate us as much as they hate moslems. And they want to send moslems our way so that we kill each other off while they rule the world from Jerusalem.
Like the Jew said in the video, they just want to keep these moslems out of their country, but wholeheartedly support dumping them in ours to weaken our race.
No Jew is our friend… not one self-identifying Jew is an ally of the white man unless he renounces Judaism completely and joins his local Nazi party. But even then he is probably just acting as a subversive or spy to cause trouble and report back to the tribe.
No Jew can be trusted… they’re all, in one way or another, complicit with the global conspiracy to install Jewish Talmudic law over the heads of Gentiles.
I saw that little video some years ago on libertarianism realists channel. More people need to see it.
Uncle Adolph didn´t make a good and final solution.
Are Jews doing everything that so-called anti-Semites accuse them of doing?
Yes.
Are Jews in the vanguard of every movement inimical and deleterious to our heritage, ethnic/genetic, social, cultural and otherwise?
Yes.
Are ALL Jews–meaning, presumably, every single Jew without exception–our implacable enemies?
How can that be established? Can we know the character of each of the world’s approximately 13 million Caucasian Jews (they’re the ones we have these calamitous problems with: the black, Chinese and other adherents to Judaism are hardly a problem)?
Anyhow, the sweeping pronouncement seems to run afoul of evidence. Yeah, there’s Efrati but there are also Daniel Pipes and Eric Zemmour–the former being among the international advocates of Orban’s and others’ anti-Islamic-invasion postures, while the latter is equally anti-Muslim-invasion, convicted in France of hate speech against the invaders. None of this means they love us, but they HAVE gone unmistakably on record for wanting the very opposite of what Efrati wants.
I don’t know of any more stalwart defender of Classical European Civilization against black Europhobes and White traitors than Mary Lefkowitz. Shite, man, with that kind of enemy, who needs friends? I can say that owing to my remote activist past, dealing with issues normally associated with “liberal” politics, I’ve known a great many Jews and that not all of them were our foes: 99% were, to be sure, but that leaves 1%.
I think it’s enough to say that the Ash and Seph are disproportionately represented–to an obscene degree–among the deadly assailants of all that we hold dear, and that, owing to this huge hostile proportion, Jewry itself must remain a concern and a problem. I also think that, besides acknowledging all this, to promote the specific political measures we need, without going overboard in representing it as a struggle between us and any particular group, is a wiser path.
To go further, and claim things that aren’t surely corroborated by plain facts, is to risk losing the intellectual respect of skeptical persons whose good opinion we need. If in public debate we were to insist that ALL Jews are Talmudic bigots, all that anyone would need to do to make us appear untrustworthy is mention Benjamin Freedman. No, it’s not logically impossible that Freedman was in some devious way advancing a purpose opposite to that which he professed to have; but I’ve examined his gift from every angle and have yet to find strings attached….
P.S. I don’t believe that Jews hate us as much as they hate Muslims. They hate us more, and think history gives them the right to do so. Efrati is pretty typical.
So if 1% are not for the anti-white agenda, then that does what for us? As if we need some token Jew to advocate for our interests?
1% of blacks are not our foes, so what? Most of them are.
They are a problem as a group. And they will be judged as a group, and dealt with as such, as Hitler did.
We can’t afford to be soft and pedantic about this.
BM: I would’ve thought that the value I see in sticking to confirmable fact, in not making extreme statements of dubious veracity, was suggested by
“To go further, and claim things that aren’t surely corroborated by facts [e.g., that all Jews are implacable enemies] is to risk losing the intellectual respect of skeptical persons whose good opinion we need”;
and
“I think it’s enough to say that the Ash and Seph are disproportionately represented–to an obscene degree–among the deadly assailants of all that we hold dear, and that, owing to this huge hostile proportion, Jewry itself must remain a concern and a problem.”
I wasn’t talking about how we might get Jews on our side, only how we might package our ideas in a way likeliest to command the respect of any (usually of course non-Jewish) persons not yet convinced of the value of WN. That is ALWAYS my focus when I advocate strictly conscientious adherence to what is established as fact. You are writing a helluva lot of posts and on top of it are replying to comments, so it’s not always possible to spend as much time on a point as might be needed; but I’m sure that if you read the comment again you’d see what I was driving at.
What exactly are the merits of GOING TOO FAR? What did Schopenhauer achieve by saying that only men, not women, are human beings?! He made points about “woman” which are buttressed by history and daily experience, but then he added shit to them, something absurd and NOT buttressed by reality…. He didn’t help his case; he adulterated it, and confirmed his reputation as a crank whose word one is a fool to accept. People not yet attuned to his valid points might not earnestly consider them, thinking “Aw this guy’s a wacko.”
I seem to see in the WN Movement a tendency to assume that the stronger our condemnation of Jews the more effective our efforts to save our heritage will be. NOTHING positive must be said of any Jew, even if it’s true. We mustn’t give American Jews credit for supporting Classical non-Jewish-European Art the way they do, nor even acknowledge their being in our ethnic/genetic mega-cluster, because that is viewed as whitewashing them, making them the good guys like us, instead of what it is–namely a recognition, sans political motivation, of objective anthropological reality.
Well, that our chances of defeating Jewish subversion are greater the more hardline we are toward Jews may embody a big fat non sequitur…. There are two schools of thought, y’know, on the actual utility of making Jews feel threatened. We NEED to be as hardline as possible against threats favored by our Jewish foes–such as migration and the transgender myth; but whether more ill-will displayed directly toward Jews is better than less, is or should be a question for the Movement. I give all sorts of attention to it; and while I don’t how right Herzl, Samuels and Einstein were to worry that waning “antisemitism” would eventually destroy Western Jewry as a viable ethno-religious entity, I seem to see signs of erosion thereof–even now–in the very bastion of Jewish power, the USA.
Well,