Counter-Currents
2,181 words
House Passes New “Antisemitism Awareness Act” to Protect America’s Most Underprivileged Group
With the planet ramping up for what may become yet another World War designed to answer the Jewish Question, last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved of H. R. 6090, aka the “Antisemitism Awareness Act.”
Why, they almost make it sound as if anyone on the planet who isn’t marooned on North Sentinel Island or stranded in Antarctica isn’t already highly “aware” of “antisemitism.” When those Jews said “Never Forget,” they weren’t kiddin’!
What this new bill — which still needs Senate approval and Biden’s signature — seeks to eradicate, though, is any form of discussion that may encourage “awareness” of the causes of “antisemitism,” at least as the alleged Semite-haters articulate them.
The bill seeks to codify the federal government’s definition of “antisemitism” so that it aligns with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition as they laid it down in Bucharest in May of 2016:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. . . .
To me, language such as “a certain perception . . . which may be expressed as hatred” is so impossibly vague and subjective that it provides totalitarian psychopaths with an excuse to use the mere accusation of “antisemitism” as a mallet to bludgeon anyone they dislike into terrified silence. I guess that makes me guilty of committing antisemitism.
The IHRA’s definition that the US Department of Education seems poised to adopt cites several examples of how one can commit the crime of antisemitism and thus be guilty of a felonious Civil Rights violation under US law. These include:
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement alleging that the bill “threatens to censor political speech critical of Israel on college campuses under the guise of addressing antisemitism.” The bill, which would codify an “Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism” that Donald Trump issued in 2019, would effectively criminalize the public expression of any opinion that runs counter to the official Zionist narrative. But it’s not only opinions that are endangered: Just like laws against Holocaust denial, it would also criminalize the mere attempt to provide factual evidence that would undermine the official Zionist narrative.
Many have noted that the passage condemning “claims of Jews killing Jesus” would turn the entire New Testament into “hate speech.” An essay in Zero Hedge points out the irony that since part of the Talmud claims that Jews killed Jesus, the new law would reclassify Judaism itself as an anti-Semitic doctrine.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 320-91. Only 21 Republicans voted “No.”
Is there any question that the most powerful state in the USA is the State of Israel?
Informal TikTok Poll: Most Women Would Rather Be Trapped in the Woods with a Bear Than with a Man
Joe Biden signed a foreign-aid bill in late April that included $26 billion for our longsuffering and deeply impoverished Greatest Ally to aid in its noble mission to make the Middle East safe for international bankers and to make the West more receptive toward non-white incursions. Included in the bill was a provision that forced the Chinese-based company which owns the massively successful video-sharing website TikTok — which is essentially YouTube, but for people who are much vainer and have far shorter attention spans — to sell off its assets or face an outright ban in the United States.
Although Biden isn’t quite senile enough yet to admit it publicly, it’s suspected that one reason the feds finally put the screws on TikTok was that its youthful-skewing audience has also been tilting heavily in favor of Palestinians and against Our Greatest Ally in recent pre-game coverage of World War III, and we can’t afford to tolerate such impudence if we’re going to send the nation plunging head-first into a global suicide mission so that Israel can live to see another sunrise.
For the time being, TikTok survives and thrives as the sort of place where brain-dead political memes are born. Last September, a topic that caught fire revolved around how often men think about the Roman Empire.
The burning question last week was whether women would rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear. Based on everyone’s accents, the 29-second video that set the big-brained nibbas of TikTok a-buzzin’ appears to have been filmed in Australia. A man poses the question to eight young women on the streets, and all but one of them say they’d rather be stuck with a bear than a man:
Male Interviewer: Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?
Woman #1: Bear. Men are scary.
Woman #2: Um, with a bear.
Woman #3: What I’ve heard about bears, they don’t always attack you, right? Unless you like fuck with them. So maybe a bear.
Woman #4: Depends what man, but probably a bear.
Woman #5: 100% a bear, which is like terrifying to say, but . . .
Woman #6: Definitely a bear. Some men are very scary out there.
Woman #7: A bear [giggles].
Woman #8: I would say, I would say a man.
A tight-lipped woman followed up by posting a TikTok video where she recited a litany of comments from women who’d viewed the initial video and explained why they’d rather confront a bear in the wild than a male human:
If I survive the bear attack I won’t have to see the bear at family reunions.
The worst thing the bear can do is kill me.
The bear sees me as a human being.
After what those men did to that monitor lizard, the bears are not safe with men, either.
The bear doesn’t get enjoyment out of it.
The bear didn’t pretend to be my friend for months beforehand.
No one will say that I liked the bear attack.
No one will talk about the bear’s bright future.
If the bear and the man both want to hurt me and I scream loud enough, there’s a better chance that the bear will actually run away.
A bear wouldn’t film it and send it to all his friends.
The men getting angry at this don’t realize that there are fates worse than death. Ask Junko Furuta, Sade Robinson, Shanann Watts if they would choose the man or the bear.
I tried researching whether a bear has ever raped a human woman, but all I could find was an apparent urban legend about Leonardo DiCaprio being raped by an 800-pound grizzly bear while filming a scene in British Columbia. Notably, most of the videos I could find on YouTube about bears brutalizing human women involved female bears encroaching upon human turf.
In an article titled “Why women would prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear than a man,” writer Lisa Sugiura from the University of Portsmouth subtly shifts the nexus of the discussion, because the original question involved being “stuck” in the woods with a bear rather than the more intimate and possibly even romantic “alone.” Sugiura takes great pains to inform us that bears are not part of a global patriarchal conspiracy:
Women’s view of men is also coloured by their non-violent actions that harm women. Clearly, bears also do not contribute to or uphold systemic sexism and misogyny, but most men do. . . . This culture props up the men who are silent bystanders, observing sexism, harassment or abuse but doing nothing, the men who make or laugh along with the sexist or rape jokes, those who are rape apologists and blame women for their sexual victimisation, those who become aggressive when women turn them down, those who stalk, control and abuse women, and those who are rapists, sexual harassers and murderers. This continuum of misogyny is women’s everyday reality — and at no point do bears feature.
I can confidently state, and would be willing to testify in court without fear of perjuring myself, that I’ve never heard a bear tell a rape joke.
It’s a statistical fact that far more women are killed by men than by bears, but it’s also true that far more men are killed by women than by bears. Because human/bear encounters in the wild are so rare relative to human-on-human encounters in the developed world, it’s nearly impossible to get a bead on whether it’d more dangerous for a woman to randomly encounter a bear — male or female — in the woods than to chance upon a human male in the woods.
Many men who scoffed at the poll’s results cited it as evidence that modern women have been so brainwashed by overblown feminist dogma about white-male patriarchal maleficence that they’re utterly clueless about the dangers of encountering a wild beast in its own habitat.
But what if something even more sinister was afoot? What if many women have been so suckered into believing that white males are the fount of all evil that they’d deem any male mammal beyond a white human as not only safer, but potentially more arousing? After all, the women weren’t asked whether they’d rather encounter a bear or a black man in the woods.
In a section of my book The Redneck Manifesto where I scrutinized Bigfoot-related lore, I cite an intensely odd female-penned novel called Children of a Lost Spirit that features a lonely Caucasian housewife who wanders into the Pacific Northwest’s tall timber, is raped by a Sasquatch, likes the experience, and abandons city life to become a member of a local Bigfoot clan.
A disturbingly similar story arc plays out in the 1976 novel Bear by Canadian author Marian Engel, which spotlights a female protagonist who escapes “a dreary and unfulfilling life in Toronto” to work alone at a nearby island, where she develops a sexual relationship with the island’s resident bear. Sample passages:
“Oh, Bear!” she said, rubbing his neck. She got up and took her clothes off, because she was hot. She lay down on the far side of the bear, away from the fire, and a little away from him, and began in her desolation to make love to herself. The bear roused himself from his somnolence, shifted, and turned. . . . He began to lick her. A fat, freckled, pink and black tongue. It licked. It rasped, to a degree. It probed. It felt very warm and good and strange. . . . He licked. He probed. She might have been a flea he was searching for. He licked her nipple stiff and scoured her navel. With little nickerings, she moved him south. She swung her hips to make it easy for him. Bear! Bear! she whispered, playing with his ears. The tongue that was muscular but also capable of lengthening itself like an eel found all her secret places. And like no human being she had ever known, it persevered in her pleasure. When she came, she whimpered, and the bear licked away her tears.
A 2018 tome called Animal Intimacies features a chapter called “The Bear Who Loved a Woman” that fairly celebrates woman/bear sex as a way of transcending “anthropocentric hierarchies” and the “gendered division of labor”:
This chapter examines a genre of narratives about black bears who are believed to abduct and have sex with women. The transgressive desires celebrated by women in their accounts of these interspecies sexual encounters call into question not just patriarchal but also anthropocentric hierarchies in which the boundary between humans and nonhumans is drawn on the terrain of desire. What makes this talk about bear-human sex so compelling is the fact that women come to know and relate to these animals differently than men on account of the gendered division of labor involved in creating and sustaining interspecies relationships.
Clearly this informal “poll” needs to be conducted again. Women need to be specifically asked whether they’d prefer being stuck in the woods with a bear or a black man. They also should be asked whether, in the event that they were to be raped in the woods by a bear or a black man, would the black man “persevere in her pleasure” with as much tender attentiveness as the bear would?
Whether or not humans are safer than bears, it’s hard to argue that they aren’t weirder.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
39 comments
There are multiple articles linking George Soros’ money to funding to these pro-Palestinian protests. So naturally there are other articles playing the boilerplate anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and trope card. Haaretz is flat out gaslighting and lying by omission that Politico issued a correction and it’s “debunked.” Click here for the Haaretz gaslighting. Politico has only issued a correction with regard to the Gates funding, click here for that one. I think liberal Jews who are Zionist and alt-right when it comes to Israel but want to be subversive and leftist when it comes to their diaspora county are in a bit of a quandary. On the one side most of them don’t like these protests and support Israel but they were certainly singing a different tune when the righteous indignation of the Floyd protests of 2020, very much in the same spirit to what is going on right now, were happening. All the pilpul and mental gymnastics about “mostly peaceful protests” as white middle America burned to the ground.
I mean, it really is such a deadpan at this point. There is a Jewish author who literally has a book titled The Influence of Soros. Which one is it? Soros having influence is a debunked conspiracy theory or is saying it’s a debunked conspiracy theory some sort of stratagem of deception and self-deception a la Kevin MacDonald?
This is coming from someone who honestly means well for Jews. I don’t think this dialectic where Jews are above reproach and who lobby for making it a criminal act to notice that they are lobbying to make saying they are lobbying a criminal act a criminal act as they are about to go Old Testament on Gaza bodes well for Jews. You can choose Jewish Nationalism/Zionism for your ethnostate or Tikkun Olam/subversion for your white gentile host country but you can’t chose both. I guess I’m guilty of some cognitive dissonance myself having both pro-white and pro-Jewish/Israel sympathies. I can’t get over the palpable irony, though, that arguably the Nexus of these protests is at Columbia, where the Frankfurt School set up shop. How’s that repressive tolerance working out for you now, Dr. Marcuse?
A turning point on the JQ for me was Andrew Joyce’s 2014 Occidental Quarterly article on English Catholic writer Hillaire Belloc’s 1922 book, The Jews.
He wanted to end the cycle of violence that damaged both sides. He named the basic cause in the fiction that Jews were fellow-countrymen of the Europeans they lived among, because while claiming to be part of the host nation, they would always make their fellow Jews their priority, regardless of the damage to their hosts. Eventually, the game would result in violent explosions of resentment from those who felt (and who were) duped. Then the Jews would use guilt about their sufferings to return to the old pattern and use fear to solidify. Rinse and repeat.
Belloc’s solution was for all parties to admit publicly and legally that Jews could then not be fooled about who they were dealing with and Jews would stop lying about their real identity. Truth, he thought, would benefit both sides.
Clearly his now century-old suggestion was ignored. And the game continues even more intensely today in the aftermath of WW2, as the Jewish “my fellow white people” trope shows. And as the recent antics of the US Congress confirms.
I don’t want Israel destroyed. I want the Jews to have their ethnostate, so they can go there and leave ours to us.
“For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”
That is certainly the case currently. Joyce notes:
“Belloc returns to form in his chapter on Zionism, which is prophetic to say the least. With the creation of a Jewish state not yet a reality, he was left to ponder solely theoretical scenarios. He begins by asking “whether the Zionist experiment will tend to increase or to relax the strain created by the presence of the Jew in the midst of the non-Jewish world (231).” Pondering the creation of a Jewish state, Belloc was particularly interested in “the status of the Jew outside this territorial unit, which he had chosen to be much more than a symbol of his national unity — its actual seat and establishment (232).” He correctly predicted that the majority of Jews would continue to live outside such a state because they live “and desire to live the semi-nomadic life, the international life, which has becomes theirs by every tradition, and which one might now almost call instinctive to them (233).”
The new Zion, then, is to be “no more than a fixed rallying point, an established but small territorial nationhood (234).” Faced with the questioning of their political character, diaspora Jews would cling to insisting that he is “to be regarded as the full national in the nation in which he happens to be for a time (234).” In an astonishingly clear prediction of modern Jewry’s relationship with Israel, Belloc argues that “He shall in every respect be regarded, by a legal fiction, as identical with the community in which he happens to be settled for the moment, but at the same time he is to have some special relation with the Jewish State (234].”
But dreaming of a very different future is part of the C-C vision, so having a territory for them to go (freely or not) is a way to free us from them. Without such a territory, they remain our internal problem forever.
If the man had to be a darkie then I might take my chances with the bear. Shudder!
Also, to the Jews: hahahahahaha
Also, to the Jews: hahahahahaha
Uh…right! The First Amendment is being attacked and if this bill goes through will smother free speech in this country. Just hilarious!
The Jews deserve to be mocked endlessly. They are afraid, as shown by this is a desperate move. This bill confirms to everyone on the fence about the small hats that the conspiracy theorists are correct, and due to it’s scope will be unenforceable. Loyalty is dying on both political sides and criminalising the Bible will destroy support from even the Evangelicals. They were always going to try and take away free speech, we wouldn’t be making progress if they didn’t.
Jews read this site everyday, so I want them to know how I feel about them.
It would be interesting to flesh out this discussion with a poll that asked men if they would prefer that their wife/daughter/mother/sister be stranded in the woods with a man or a bear. Or maybe antwhere with anyone.
By Yahweh, we must admit these people are brilliant. And so is commenter Josephus Cato who enlightened us with this analysis:
“…I don’t think this dialectic where Jews are above reproach and who lobby for making it a criminal act to notice that they are lobbying to make saying they are lobbying a criminal act a criminal act as they are about to go Old Testament on Gaza bodes well for Jews…”
If enacted into law, in one fell swoop this half-passed bill will put a heavy price on those participating in the Streisand Effect, possibly even nullifying it, but certainly giving it an enhanced meaning. It will then be illegal to notice and even refer to it as the Streisand Effect. How far into the weeds are they willing to go if we just call the Barbara Effect by another name? Could we then list Biden’s Cabinet and point to the number of gentiles in less important positions?
We could beat about the bushes and engage in some type of apophatic noticing. We shall find out if the bill has this covered.
And the bear said, “You didn’t come here to hunt, did you.”
hahahahahahaha
So have the members of the House of Representatives who passed the ‘Antisemitism Awareness Act’ ever hear of the 1st Amendment? Does Jewish sensitivities and money now get to null and void freedom of speech in America?
Yep. They’ve heard of it. And on Judgement Day they’ll hear of it again. With power comes responsibility, and God will judge accordingly. I’m sorry for two sets of folks: the ones who hate the truth and the ones who deny it to others. The truth still lives, either way.
No surprise there are new anti- antisemitism bills in the works. A lost opportunity to have anti-wokeness bills, the root of the latest kvetching. Rather than single out Jews, I suggest statistics in which we whites bow down and apologize for being overrepresented. But in the spirit of inclusivity, include the stats for which other groups are over represented right alongside ourselves. Asians are doing alright, too.
The TikTok bear poll discussion… evidence of (cough) misandry? But it exemplifies a truth of modern progressive women. They publicly proclaim things that they do not want to practice. They put up a rainbow lawn sign that says “In this house we believe…” in BLM, open borders, Trump was the antichrist, etc. Yet they do not want their own kids going to school with the great unwashed, they don’t want the methadone clinic on their block, nor the low income housing, etc. But give ‘em progressive cache for the lawn sign. I don’t make fun of them too harshly because might be converts once they realize the rainbow doesn’t taste like unicorn cake… it tastes like bear shit.
Ok, so antisemitism is illegal because it will cause harm to someone? Then can anyone tell me if this video clip from YouTube should ban a certain politician:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkOluULXTGw
Does a bear shit a woman in the woods?
Is this a Russian bear, an American grizzly bear, a German bear, or a Chinese panda? That is the question.
Worse still, it’s a Drop Bear.
I’ve forgotten Austalian Koala.
Lobbying Congress for legislature to guard this special 2% of the public against criticism, and then of course the politicians kiss up to them yet again… Why, golly jeepers, what a fantastic way to show that they don’t exercise undue influence over the government! Just wondering, is there anything in this bill other than enshrining this special definition into law?
All kidding aside, a good rule of thumb if you’re a gendered novelist challenging anthropocentric hierarchies in the woods and you encounter bears in the wild, you want to pretend to harm their cubs. They get a kick out of that.
So “a priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into a bar” is now hate speech? But it’s okay if someone named “Shecky” says it? I call bullshit.
Glenn Greenwald examines the Antisemitism Awareness Act. He concludes that it is an attack on the free speech rights of American citizens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBz5UwrL8YE
Glenn Greenwald likes Palestinian terrorists and also traitors like Snowden.
Greenwald defends Palestinian people and criticizes IDF terrorists. Snowden betrayed the Surveillance State so the American people can know what is going on.
Snowden betrayed the Surveillance State
They all spoke and still speak so.
Ames betrayed the Surveillance State
Hanssen betrayed the Surveillance State
Nicholson betrayed the Surveillance State
Howard betrayed the Surveillance State
Pitts betrayed the Surveillance State
Walker Family betrayed the Surveillance State
Martin and Mitchell betrayed the Surveillance State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a3eCHij4Vo
About Snowden I would recommend to read Cliff Kincaid’s book BLOOD ON HIS HANDS, and also Edward J. Epstein’s HOW AMERICA LOST ITS SECRETS. There is still some difference between a whistleblower and a traitor, even if the traitor had originally good intentions.
Four Indian men got it on with a Bengal monitor lizard! That would be bad enough if just one did it, but four men! How does that even come up in conversation???
I’d hate to be the Indian guy that came back as that lizard.
Monitor lizards, in terms of habits and life mode, have to be one of the dirtiest, filthiest most disgusting creatures in all creation. Just check out footage of komodos or read up about their habits.
So I really don’t know which is filthier, the monitor lizards or the subcons who cloacally penetrate them.
…[What H.R. 6090] seeks to eradicate, though, is any form of discussion that may encourage “awareness” of the causes of “antisemitism….”
—
First, it would help if these Judeophile legislators will define Semitism aka Jewish Supremacism since there would be no awareness of anti-Semitism without citing the cause for it.
The 91 courageous legislators who voted “No” on the bill get a pat on their backs after explaining why.
Like the Patriot Act, the Antisemitism Awareness Act has an Orwellian sound to it. It’s political censorship. It’s one more step in setting up a police state.
Pardon the long comment but Whites considering this pro-Jew legislation should read Dr. Thomas Dalton’s recent essay, “The Primacy of Anti-Semitism” on nationalvanguard.org
…[T]he overriding concern of the day, and the primary moral imperative, is to be anti-Jewish — that is, to be “anti-Semitic.” Every person of conscience needs to stand up and state, unambiguously and proudly, “I am an anti-Semite.” We need to say, in so many words, “Jews are at the heart of the global poly-crisis, and therefore we must, of necessity, be anti-Jewish.” Anything less is to evade the root cause, and anything less will effectively yield to catastrophe…
My concern is with ethnic Jews. Virtually all religious Jews are also ethnic Jews, but only a minority of ethnic Jews are religious. The distinction is often exploited by those who would prefer to disguise their identity; it allows your dissembling, ethnically-Jewish English professor to say “I’m not Jewish!” — by which he means he is a secular Jew….
So far, so good, but then rather that recognize that with Jewry all Jews are guilty Dr. Dalton, arguably the foremost living expert on Jewry, goes on to further explain his personal position:
When I say “Jews” or “the Jews,” I do not mean literally every Jew. In using such terms, I refer to most Jews, or the most powerful Jews, or the Jewish elite, as the context requires…
I can’t agree with Dr. Dalton there playing good Jew/bad Jew. William Pierce on the other hand states that in the Jew v. Aryan struggle it is their entire racial tribe — Jewry, versus our tribe — not just bad Jews but their entire tribe.
Pierce made that point well in his speech “The Significance of the Holocaust” found on nationalvanguard.com:
…Jews as a whole are socially, morally, intellectually, and racially destructive, and that they have a unique faculty for being destructive. The reason for this is their unique mode of existence as a parasitic minority in a non-Jewish host population. Sometimes this dispersion — or diaspora — as a minority among Gentile hosts has been supplemented by a geographical concentration of Jews in Palestine or Babylon or another Jewish center, and sometimes not. In either case, parasitic is the applicable adjective…
The National Alliance used to carry the Jew Norman Finklestein’s book The Holocaust Industry and hopes to offer it again. In this speech Pierce went on to say:
Finkelstein’s book is especially valuable because it is so well documented. He cites dozens of other books and gives specific references to a number of especially revealing statements by other Jews. He also spares no scorn in talking about charlatans such as Wiesel and Goldhagen. He shows up Wiesel as a pious fraud whose standard speaker’s fee for lying about what happened during the Second World War is $25,000. Wiesel’s popularity is based on his ability to look solemn and spout utter nonsense without cracking a smile. He doesn’t talk about reality but about the sacred, ineffable mystery which is the Holocaust, a mystery beyond all understanding or explanation, which must never be examined or questioned. And his Gentile audiences just eat it up. I must admit that I thought a Jew couldn’t be embarrassed by this sort of fraud, but apparently Finkelstein really is embarrassed by Wiesel.
Finkelstein’s explanation as to why the Holocaust was invented is essentially the same as mine: the Holocaust gives the Jews immunity from criticism for whatever they do to non-Jews, no matter how atrocious, and it gives them a rationale for demanding a handout from the rest of the world. Finkelstein does a very creditable job of establishing this explanation by detailing the way in which the Jews have squeezed the Swiss and others for billions of dollars in Holocaust reparations. He writes: “In recent years the Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket.”
Certainly, Finkelstein’s book should be read by anyone interested in what the Jews are doing. It is filled with very valuable information. It does have one extremely serious shortcoming, however. It blames the Holocaust fraud on a few greedy and unscrupulous Jews. Finkelstein writes about the activities of some of these Jews: Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Israel Singer, the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress; Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center; Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, and so on. And the greed and pushiness of these Jews is indeed breathtaking…
But the fact is that if there were only a few greedy conspirators involved, the Holocaust industry never would have made a profit. The average couch potato never would have heard of it. The average soccer mom wouldn’t feel a twinge of guilt whenever Elie Wiesel invokes the sacred Holocaust mystery. So-called “Holocaust studies” would not be a part of the curriculum for high school students in 17 states. Israel wouldn’t be able to build a huge arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons without a peep of protest from anyone and then demand successfully that Iraq be bombed back into the Stone Age for trying to do the same thing.
The fact is that the Holocaust industry was built first and foremost by the mass media, and literally hundreds of thousands of Jews labor in that particular vineyard. A few ambitious Zionists and greedy Jewish hucksters may have come up with the original idea, but Steven Spielberg has done infinitely more to build the Holocaust myth than all of the greedy Zionist officials together. Furthermore, the Holocaust has been endorsed and supported by nearly the entire Jewish community… Those like Finkelstein who have done anything at all to expose the fraud or even to disassociate themselves from it are a very tiny minority. Finkelstein certainly understands that, but he doesn’t admit in his book that he understands it. He doesn’t want to indict the Jewish community as a whole for the fraud, but in fact, it is the Jewish community as a whole that is guilty.
I said earlier that the Jews as a whole are destructive, and I used the example of the Holocaust to support this statement. The Holocaust is supported by and benefits Jews as a whole, not just a few of them.
The once popular libertarian conservative Tucker Carlson influenced many Whites when he would close his Fox News show each night with “Tucker Carlson Tonight’ is the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think.”
It’s easy to hate lying, pomposity and smugness. but group think? Whites as a unique race are a group, Tucker, and better start thinking as one for our interests as anti-White groups like LGBT freaks, Jews, Mestizos and other the non-Whites do.
I have never read the National Vanguard, but now I might. I like your quotes from both Thomas Dalton and William Pierce. I should read their work.
“Holocaust studies” is a joke, as are “White studies”, “Black studies”, “LGBTQ studies”. They are all just Jewish propaganda against the White race.
Jews hate the truth, so they always gotta censor. That’s how they cheat. They allow only their propaganda to be published, and forbit any dissent or contradiction. The facts and the truth are no defense in our jew-run court system. The Antisemitism Awareness Act is the latest example of Jewish censorship.
kolokol: May 10, 2024 I have never read the National Vanguard, but now I might. I like your quotes from both Thomas Dalton and William Pierce. I should read their work.
You are already quite Jew-wise, kolocol. I see my job is to educate and further radicalize the few Whites like you who can be radicalized even further by introducing them to the works of some of our best leaders, like Pierce and Dalton. For instance, those who consider themselves pro-White should not be supporting either side in the brothers’ war — Whites killing Whites — in Ukraine. To disabuse Whites from supporting the Jew-backed, Jew-led Ukrainians. See Dalton’s fascinating, fact-packed “The Jewish Hand in World War Three” at nationalvanguard.org.
Dalton and Russian Alliance member Wolf Stoner will provide just as compelling reasons for why racially conscious Whites should neither support Putin’s neo-Bolshevik Kremlin regime.
Psychopathic “Ashkenazi-Stasi” metastasis
bullies, stalk, terrorize and “criminalize” free-
dom-loving young Swedes for “wrongthink”.
https://odysee.com/@redicetv:1/jewish-media-mogul-robert-aschberg-used-tv-shows-to-police-resistance-to-immigration-in-sweden:c
A bear would eat anyone of those stupid bitches alive as soon as look at her.
They are either profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest.
Apparently, menstruating women are advised never to enter territory where bears are lurking in close proximity.
It is said that bears can smell the menstrual blood with uncanny ability, in the minutest concentration, and that the smell of this blood acts as a very strong appetite/attack stimulant for the bear.
Hey J Goad,
dud you see that video a few years back about the young Alaskan woman that first uses bear spray to push back a bear suitor , then the Bear Suitor starts messing with her Kayak .
she tries to lecture the bear like only preachy American women try to with every male;
“Bear go away”
”Stop messing with my kayak “
” why are you messing with my Kayak “
She tries ordering the bear and then crying for the bear . The bear is having none of it .
i was rooting for the bear .
how about you ?
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment