web analytics

Tag: Jewish Question (JQ)

Have people woken up?

I cannot believe it. Last month I briefly discussed Stefan Molyneux’s dishonest video on the synagogue massacre but had not looked at the comment section of that video. This morning I’ve taken a look at it and am very surprised to see that so many people have woken up on the Jewish question. The fact is that Molyneux, a gatekeeper from our side of the psychological Rubicon, a steppingstone from the side of the normies, got completely crucified in the comment section of that video. These are only a few comments. Keep in mind that the subject matter was precisely the JQ:

• His most dishonest video yet.

• You’re intellectually dishonest. This is not how a good philosopher acts. The JQ shall set you free.

• This was a disgusting display Stefan. I write this as Jean-Francois Gariépy wraps up his response stream. I dare you to debate someone on this topic. JFG wouldn’t be a bad choice. Others have naturally suggested Kevin MacDonald as well.

• This video exemplifies what many of us have been saying for ages. Stefan is a fool, and anyone who believes his C rate acting is also a fool. It is painfully clear why he refuses to debate anyone of real intellect, and sticks to the safety of YouTube.

• This was just embarrassing. Stefan, Mr. “Not An Argument” delivers non-argument after non-argument here. He must have thrown out his back bending over backwards to misrepresent the JQ. For someone who likens himself to the philosophers of old, he sure does seem to know who to not criticize.

• Stefan has put himself in the corner here. It’ll be interesting to see if he addresses this comment section in his next video or if he’ll try to pretend it never happened.

• He won’t even bother with damage control. What can he do, lie about his heritage once more and avoid the JQ again?

• How stupid will he look though if his next video is just “let’s talk about why atheism is so smart again” or “let’s talk about how great capitalism is again”. Edit: looks like he already put up another video [unrelated to the challenges presented in the thread], typical kosher cowardice.

• The goyim know Stefan, it’s too late to shut it down. Address the JQ or lose your integrity forever.

• Reconsidering my donation subscription after this video.

• I never thought I’d see the day when so many people are aware of the Jewish question. Holy shit.

• Great video Stefan, give me more of those blue pills baby. They’re delicious! Yum yum yum yumyum. No more JQ hallucinations, yay, I’m cured!

• Ugh, you just gave up and showed your soft underbelly Stefan. I used to recommend you, now… I’m un-subbing, you are simply cringe worthy now.

This is only the tip of the iceberg in that comments section. How hilarious! I didn’t expect that within my lifetime so many people, apparently outside the hardcore of white nationalist forums, were red-pilled on the JQ.

If this awakening continues there’s still hope…!

Categories
Videos

Check, Stefan – your move

A JFG review of contradictory statements made
by Stefan Molyneux about his Jewish heritage:

https://youtu.be/M8ul4429H84

David Duke’s impassioned speech yesterday

In my yesterday’s post I embedded this YouTube clip featuring notable pro-whites discussing the Midterms. I watched most of it and it was fun, especially when James Edwards proposed that Richard Spencer ran for president with him, and Spencer agreed.

Those who have not heard about the Jewish Question should listen to David Duke’s impassioned speech during the show (it is a 6-hour show so you can skip the rest).

Unlike the others, Duke is right that we must constantly name the enemy (toxic Jewish influence in the West). He said ‘This is the fundamental issue why we are in this position’. He also said ‘I am Christian’. But as a Christian, he completely omits a fact that non-Christians like Tom Sunic can see: that the sort of Puritanical Christianity that conquered the northeastern part of the American continent, together with their Mammon worship, was sympathetic to Jewish takeover.

Duke also said, ‘Only when (((they))) are defeated are we able to make the gains that we have to save our people’. But perhaps having in mind the recent Pittsburgh massacre he added that this sort of action ‘is evil or wrong’. As a good Christian, he also said on this topic, ‘…hurt all Jews—I don’t believe we have to hurt anybody’. Later he said, ‘All [races and cultures] have the rights to create their own society’ and by the end of the show Duke recommended pro-whites to do something inside the Republican Party.

Although I liked Duke’s interventions the most compared with the other voices on yesterday’s show, the difference between he and Hitler cannot be more conspicuous. I recommend those who want to see how should a real white advocate think to become familiar with Hitler’s table talk on Christianity.

Categories
Videos

Jean-François Gariépy destroys Stefan Molyneux

Although I find offensive the American flag that shows up sometimes in the studio’s background and disagree with Gariépy that Molyneux is honest, with a diametrically opposed character to mine (I’m a creature of boiling hate) Gariépy pulverised Molyneux in his most recent show. Gariépy has demonstrated that Molyneux’s most recent video on the Jewish question, that I briefly discussed yesterday, is full of strawmen.

After 1:10 to 1:18 it is very interesting to learn how Gariépy became interested in the JQ. Those who don’t have the time to see the whole show must at least watch those few minutes.

Unfortunately, at 1:24 atheist Gariépy reveals himself as a secular neo-Christian. If he already woke up in the JQ, he still has to go a long way to wake up in the CQ. (Later he says that he has people to ban hate speech in the comments section.)

After 2:31, almost at the end of the show, Gariépy believes Molyneux that the latter has no Jewish blood: a claim Molyneux made precisely in the video Gariépy is taking issue with. Well, I’m not so sure…

Categories
Kevin MacDonald

Extremely dishonest Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux has reacted on the massacre of Jews by Robert Bowers.

By the sixth minute, he mentioned Hitler shaking his head in disapproval. From the 7:20 minute on, he gave many statistics about the Jewish community in the diaspora and in Israel (the statistics are irrelevant to those who understand the Jewish problem). From minute 20 he began to talk about anti-Semitism and confessed ‘I had a Jewish step-grandmother’.

At no time did he address the Jewish problem, which on this site I have defined in a nutshell (Jews are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the white majority, only in those that weaken that majority).

Molyneux’s extreme dishonesty is obvious. He has uploaded thousands of videos and invited many intellectuals… but cleverly eludes every intellectual conscious of the Jewish problem. Not only does he fail to invite a Jew-wise blogger. He does not even debate with the most elemental writing of, say, Kevin MacDonald. Molyneux could, without inviting the professor, answer what MacDonald says only in the preface of his best-known book: an essay that summarizes his life’s work. But the dishonest Molyneux fails to do it…

Nor does he mention, even in passing, the webzine that best explains the Jewish problem, The Occidental Observer. At minute 28:47 Molyneux exclaimed: ‘Blaming Jews I do not see it! In fact I see the opposite’ in the sense that he sees the Jews as a positive influence for the West. He says that the Dark Ages had more to do with Islam than with Judaism, which makes him an ignorant (cf. the masthead of this site, ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’).

From minute 34 Molyneux launched such a passionate speech against gentile hatred of Jews that it makes me think he has Jewish blood; he almost cries. He ends by saying ‘We must reason with each other. Reason. Evidence’—but he violates exactly these words because of what I’ve said above!

Molyneux ends his clip with teary eyes. He reminded me that at some time in his life he represented works by Shakespeare. His YouTube show is more theatre than substantial ‘philosophy’.

He’s obviously trying to do a psyop trick on us.

Categories
Civil war Real men

Pittsburgh shooting

No comments from me here (remember that last month this site was suspended for more than a day). But you are welcome to comment below or see the updates at The Daily Stormer (here).

Postscript of 5:50 pm:

One thing is certain, those who make peaceful revolution impossible are making violent revolution inevitable. As an
anti-libertarian I may disagree with YouTube vlogger Styxhexenhammer666, but today he hits the nail.

Categories
William Pierce

Joyce on Jewish psyops

Fans of this blog may be familiar with my favourite article that explains the Jewish problem, one published in 1999 by the late William Pierce, ‘Seeing the Forest’. But to refute intellectuals like Nathan Cofnas and others, who claim that the Jewish problem is a hallucination of white supremacists, it is necessary to continue to write erudite articles that ratify what Pierce said almost twenty years ago.

Andrew Joyce is a heavyweight on the Jewish question. He recently wrote ‘Modify the Standards of the In-group: On Jews and Mass Communications’: an article published in two parts (here and here) on The Occidental Observer. It is an impressive piece of work that every sceptic of the Jewish problem should read. One of the commenters said: ‘This is the most important article by Dr. Joyce that I have read. I had no clue about this vital information’.

There is no excuse for continuing to be blind about the Jewish problem. Once one understands the Psy-ops that Jews have been doing to whites for millennia, it is easier to appreciate the starting point of this blog: the Psy-op that represented Christianity in the fall of the Greco-Roman world.

Categories
Christendom Deranged altruism Jesus New Testament

Heisman's suicide note, 4

Editor’s note: To better understand Mitchell Heisman✡ yesterday I printed the first five hundred pages of Suicide Note, and I have been reading it carefully. Although he shot himself after finishing his book, committing suicide does not mean he was aware of the Jewish Problem.
Suicide Note is a labyrinth full of traps for the unsuspecting reader. Even before I printed the first 500 pages, I told Spahn Ranch that getting into that book reminded me of Bacon’s criticism:

Francis Bacon said that philosophers love to spin webs. You can imagine the care one must have with this large web [Heisman’s book]. I feel like Frodo crossing Shelob’s tunnel with no more help than the Phial of Galadriel!
But this light is enough for me to orient myself in such a tunnel. In fact, in about fifteen minutes you will see, as my first entry about this new Otto Weininger, my excerpts from his extremely long-winded book. [comment link: here]

More than long-winded, Heisman reminds me of ‘Sartre’s verbosity diarrhea’: what an American visitor observed when visiting Sartre in Paris. Just compare this with the laconic way in which the Spartan spake (see the series on Sparta that these days publishes The Occidental Observer, for example: here).
Although I’m not going to read all of Heisman’s Suicide Note, in the comments section I also told Joseph Walsh the following:

If I understand the kike correctly, he’s saying that through Xtianity the Jewish memes have won the battle over Aryan genes; and that the creation of ‘God’ thru A.I. will even take that victory further, obliterating race altogether and even the human species. [comment link: here]

The triumph of the Aryan would be the triumph of white genes over Jewish memes. Recall in Evropa Soberana’s essay that, when the Jews realised that they could not defeat the Romans through conventional wars—genes—they resorted to the subterfuge of confusing them by means of an ethnosuicidal theology—memes. Heisman✡ is good to see this theology. He wrote:
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Jesus radicalized a form of altruism. But here one must be very careful about precisely what kind of altruism Jesus radicalized. At first glance, it would appear that Jesus radicalized “love your neighbor”. Jesus did praise loving your neighbor, but “neighbor” can be ambiguous; somewhere between family and enemy. Insofar as “loving your neighbor”, in practical terms, amounts to loving your kin or your tribe (as opposed to enemies of your kin or tribe), radicalizing the love of kin or tribe would amount to advocating radical Jewish nationalism. Was this Jesus’s defining innovation, a morality of exclusive Jewish nationalism?

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. (Matt. 5:43- 44)

Jesus’s reversal implied not only loving your enemies, but hating your neighbor—insofar, that is, as “neighbor” is connected with family in opposition to enemy. Jesus did not radicalize the corrective of the Jewish kinship paradox; Jesus radicalized the Jewish kinship paradox itself. This is one reason why Jesus’s innovations contradicted Jewish law at its traditional root. Instead of preaching “love thy neighbor” as a correction of “causeless hatred”, Jesus radicalized causeless hatred itself: Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. (Matt. 10:21-23)
In place of the Old Testament commandment, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart”, Jesus preached, in effect, you shall hate your brother in your heart. This necessarily broke Jewish law. And this is why the kind of “love” Jesus advocated worked against Jewish “nationalism” and towards human internationalism. This extreme compelled the genesis of Christianity out of Judaim. Unqualified radical altruism leads to the negation of family values…
The core innovation at the heart of the Five Books of Moses is the Exodus paradigm; the inversion of the Egyptian pyramid-hierarchy; the first revolution. From Judaism to Christianity to the neo-Judaism of liberal democracy to neo-Christianity of Marxism, all of these revolutions share in common the fire started by Moses: the decisive triumph of nurture over sociobiological nature. Like waves that ripple from a singular stone plunged in water, all share reverberations of the first revolution. Like a miracle, the ripples are gathering back to their singularitarian source, humanity’s last revolution. [pages 126-128]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note:
‘And this is why the kind of “love” Jesus advocated worked against Jewish “nationalism” and towards human internationalism’ wrote Heisman✡ above. This is one of the dozens of traps I have found in Heisman’s book. What this guy astutely omits is that Jesus’ message is not really directed at the already ethnocentric Jews but at Romans.
At this point I differ radically from both commenter Arch Stanton and Heisman✡. The trick of the Jewish psyop is to make us believe that a wise individual said such and such, that eventually the evangelists recorded and now good Christians try to use as a new golden rule.
There is no historical evidence of this, as Joseph Hoffmann saw in the primal essay of this site to understand the so-called historical Jesus. What can be verified with certainty is that the authors of the New Testament were either Jews or Judaised gentiles. That is what concerns us.
The trap of Heisman✡ and of every Christian or neo-Christian is that they continue to sell us the idea of a historical Jesus who fought for such and such ideal, when ultimately the only thing that matters is the so-called New Testament itself: its message to the Romans; who wrote it, and the motivation of the authors.
When one reads the passages quoted above by Heisman✡ the motivation is obvious.

____________

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Categories
Ancient Rome Christendom Darkening Age (book) Eduardo Velasco Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Library of Alexandria

Nixey & Heisman

Today, as I finished reproducing my extracts from the first volume of Kriminalgeschichte, I would like to clarify something.
There was a time when I wanted to add to my excerpts the hundreds of footnotes that appear in Karlheinz Deschner’s book but I changed my mind: mere excerpts do not require the notes, especially in a blog. However, I must point out that there are bibliographical references in a book that the English speaker can read in his native language.
I am referring to Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World: an elegant book published last year in Britain and available this year, in addition, by an American publisher.
Deschner was an obsessive scholar who worked to the nitty-gritty, nose-to-the-grindstone level throughout his life. Although The Darkening Age is not as monumental as Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, I will reproduce Nixey’s preface and the third part of her Introduction. It is vital that English speakers know that we are not inventing a black history of Christianity. Some of the main references that support what we have been saying with the translations of Deschner and Evropa Soberana, also appear in Nixey’s book.
What is more, if you search you will find that even The Reader’s Digest which publishes copiously illustrated books for the simple, and very Christian, American families acknowledges the facts. For example, the image below shows a crowd of Christians who, encouraged by Pope Theophilus of Alexandria, destroyed the temple of Serapis in 391.

I scanned that image from pages 242-243 of the translation from English into Spanish of After Jesus (The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., 1992). What we see in the illustration represents the first dark hour of the West: the era that saw the destruction of ancient knowledge in the Library of Alexandria. Now we are living the second dark hour, when the enemy attacks directly your DNA so that the West cannot recover again, not even after a dark age as it did in the Renaissance.
That’s why I call ‘darkest hour’ to our times.
About the first dark hour, of the authors I have quoted and will continue to quote, Soberana, Deschner and Nixey are gentiles. But yesterday almost midnight a commenter called my attention to Suicide Note, a book of almost two thousand pages of Mitchell Heisman (1975-2010). I began to leaf through the Suicide Note chapter on how the Christians installed Semitic malware in the psyche of the Romans to move them to commit ethnic suicide.
I was fascinated and continued reading until almost two in the morning today. However, when I wanted to inquire about the author via Google, I discovered that Heisman was a Jew who committed suicide upon finishing the book!
Of the German Deschner, the English Nixey and the Spaniard Soberana, only the latter awoke about the Jewish question. It is really curious that, although neither Deschner nor Nixey took the red pill, an American Jew did take it.
The PDF of Suicide Note is available online for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. Tomorrow I’ll start reproducing those passages that elucidate what we have been saying about the Christian problem. Of course: I have to place the star of David after the author’s name. It is very rare for a Jew to say anything about the psyop that his tribe applied to the Aryan since the origins of Christianity. One of them is Heisman✡.
Trouble is that most white nationalists still don’t want to see what even a kike saw just before blowing his brains…

Manu's site


Our Spaniard friend, after changing the subject-matter of his blogsite La Respuesta de Europa for a long time (he’s now a Gaia buff) finally returns to subjects of our interest. In his latest article he wrote:

I draw attention to the fact that the most ethnocentric ethnic group that has known this planet—the Jews, the chosen ‘people’—is the one most determined to convince the rest of the peoples that ethnic differences among humans do not exist.

My translation above. Original source: here.