the White network - Tanstaafl Archive

Jews Versus Whites – Part 3

Published on November 12, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Concluding a review of glaring differences between Whites and jews.

Two Lessons in Privilege from April 2013.

Susan Patton advised Princeton women:

For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

Under the initial presumption that Patton was a “WASP”, she was condemned as an elitist and “racist”. Once she played the jewish mother card all the anger and criticism turned into understanding and sympathy.

Suzy Lee Weiss wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal complaining about being rejected by elite colleges:

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would’ve happily come out of it. “Diversity!” I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would’ve been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

This too resulted in condemnation, until Tablet Magazine called her “family”, and Commentary Magazine (the mouthpiece of the American Jewish Committee) published two articles defending her. Then she started getting job offers.

An article in National Review Online played on the conflation of jews and Whites. To All the Colleges That Rejected Suzy Weiss:

Such sarcasm is seen as blasphemy in universities and colleges throughout America. Their faculty and administrative officers, and their professional associations, such as the American Council on Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of University Professors, overwhelmingly believe — firmly and unapologetically — that out-and-out racial and ethnic discrimination in college admissions is fully acceptable in the interests of “diversity.” Discriminating against culturally “nondiverse” Caucasians such as Suzy Weiss is, in their eyes, the right thing to do. And they want the Supreme Court to recognize such discrimination as constitutional.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that Ivy League and other top-notch schools practice such ugly discrimination. After all, they had similar practices in the 1920s to ensure their schools did not have “too many” Jewish students. Today, they just want to make sure they don’t have “too many” Caucasians or Asians on campus. All they have done is change the groups targeted for discrimination.

Suzy Weiss and many other high-school seniors across the United States are being discriminated against because of their skin color or because they have an epicanthic fold in their eyes. Such racial and ethnic discrimination is morally wrong, and neither “diversity” nor anything else can justify it.

Ron Unz has tried to get out in front of the who/whom of American university admissions. In The Myth of American Meritocracy he writes:

For a broader historical perspective, we should consider The Chosen by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel, an exhaustive and award-winning 2005 narrative history of the last century of admissions policy at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (I will henceforth sometimes abbreviate these “top three” most elite schools as “HYP”).

Karabel’s massive documentation—over 700 pages and 3000 endnotes—establishes the remarkable fact that America’s uniquely complex and subjective system of academic admissions actually arose as a means of covert ethnic tribal warfare. During the 1920s, the established Northeastern Anglo-Saxon elites who then dominated the Ivy League wished to sharply curtail the rapidly growing numbers of Jewish students, but their initial attempts to impose simple numerical quotas provoked enormous controversy and faculty opposition.10 Therefore, the approach subsequently taken by Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell and his peers was to transform the admissions process from a simple objective test of academic merit into a complex and holistic consideration of all aspects of each individual applicant; the resulting opacity permitted the admission or rejection of any given applicant, allowing the ethnicity of the student body to be shaped as desired.

The massively footnoted text of The Chosen might lead one to paraphrase Clausewitz and conclude that our elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”

Asian-Americans as the “New Jews”

The overwhelming focus of Karabel’s book is on changes in Jewish undergraduate percentages at each university, and this is probably less due to his own ethnic heritage than because the data provides an extremely simple means of charting the ebb and flow of admissions policy: Jews were a high-performing group, whose numbers could only be restricted by major deviations from an objective meritocratic standard.

Obviously, anti-Jewish discrimination in admissions no longer exists at any of these institutions, but a roughly analogous situation may be found with a group whom Golden and others have sometimes labeled “The New Jews,” namely Asian-Americans.

“The new jews” has also been used in reference to muslims, especially in Europe. It is an implicit reference to the jewish narrative distinguishing jews and Whites – with jews oppressed and Whites as their oppressors.

Once we begin separating out the Jewish portion of Ivy League enrollment, our picture of the overall demographics of the student bodies is completely transformed. Indeed, Karabel opens the final chapter of his book by performing exactly this calculation and noting the extreme irony that the WASP demographic group which had once so completely dominated America’s elite universities and “virtually all the major institutions of American life” had by 2000 become “a small and beleaguered minority at Harvard,” being actually fewer in number than the Jews whose presence they had once sought to restrict.50 Very similar results seem to apply all across the Ivy League, with the disproportion often being even greater than the particular example emphasized by Karabel.

In fact, Harvard reported that 45.0 percent of its undergraduates in 2011 were white Americans, but since Jews were 25 percent of the student body, the enrollment of non-Jewish whites might have been as low as 20 percent, though the true figure was probably somewhat higher.51 The Jewish levels for Yale and Columbia were also around 25 percent, while white Gentiles were 22 percent at the former and just 15 percent at the latter. The remainder of the Ivy League followed this same general pattern.

This overrepresentation of Jews is really quite extraordinary, since the group currently constitutes just 2.1 percent of the general population and about 1.8 percent of college-age Americans.52 Thus, although Asian-American high school graduates each year outnumber their Jewish classmates nearly three-to-one, American Jews are far more numerous at Harvard and throughout the Ivy League. Both groups are highly urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated within a few states, so the “diversity” factors considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews seem to fare much better at the admissions office.

Even more remarkable are the historical trajectories. As noted earlier, America’s Asian population has been growing rapidly over the last couple of decades, so the substantial decline in reported Ivy League Asian enrollment has actually constituted a huge drop relative to their fraction of the population. Meanwhile, the population of American Jews has been approximately constant in numbers, and aging along with the rest of the white population, leading to a sharp decline in the national proportion of college-age Jews, falling from 2.6 percent in 1972 and 2.2 percent in 1992 to just 1.8 percent in 2012. Nevertheless, total Jewish enrollment at elite universities has held constant or actually increased, indicating a large rise in relative Jewish admissions. In fact, if we aggregate the reported enrollment figures, we discover that 4 percent of all college-age American Jews are currently enrolled in the Ivy League, compared to just 1 percent of Asians and about 0.1 percent of whites of Christian background.53

Menachem Rosensaft: Israel’s Jewish Essence Is Non-Negotiable: A Response to Mahmoud Abbas, Huffington Post, 5 November 2011:

“My people,” Abbas declared, “desire to exercise their right to enjoy a normal life like the rest of humanity. They believe what the great poet Mahmoud Darwish said: Standing here, staying here, permanent here, eternal here, and we have one goal, one, one: to be.”

Our unambiguous response must be that we insist on precisely the same rights Darwish demands for the Palestinians. For us, a permanent, eternal Jewish sovereignty in the State of Israel is not only non-negotiable but must be, especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust, one of the cornerstones of any authentic and hopefully lasting peace.

When the remnant of European Jewry emerged from the death camps, forests and hiding places throughout Europe in the winter and spring of 1945, they looked for their families and, overwhelmingly, discovered that their fathers and mothers, their husbands, wives and children, their brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, had all been murdered by the Germans and their accomplices. And yet, they did not give in to despair.

On the contrary, almost from the moment of their liberation, the Holocaust survivors’ defiant affirmation of their Jewish national identity in the Displaced Persons camps of Germany, Austria, and Italy took the form of a political and spiritually redemptive Zionism.

My father, who taught me that a love of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel is the most important element of Jewish leadership, understood that the goal of a Jewish state was a spiritual lifeline that gave the survivors of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belsen, and all the other centers of horror a sense of purpose and a basis for hope. He died 36 years ago this week during the Days of Awe, midway between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. I cannot think of a worthier way to honor his memory than by evoking his spirit and his uncompromising dedication to the creation of a new Jewish commonwealth to refute each and every refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Menachem Rosensaft: White Nationalism: A Scourge That Won’t Go Away, Huffington Post, 12 March 2012:

Reacting to the inclusion of the “white nationalist” anti-immigration activist Peter Brimelow on a panel on “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the Pursuit of Diversity Is Weakening the American Identity” at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Ed Schultz observed on MSNBC’s The Ed Show that, “We’ve come to expect CPAC to bring together the far righties. But even CPAC should draw the line somewhere.”

Schultz went on to quote Brimelow as having said at CPAC that, “Democrats have given up on winning the white working class vote, so they use bilingualism to build up a client constituency. It’s treason. We hear about racism, but the real issue is treason.”

Brimelow certainly doesn’t mince words. He told a CBS reporter that US immigration policy, the legal kind, mind you, “is creating a “Spanish speaking underclass parallel to the African American underclass.”

“These are people who are completely dysfunctional,” Brimelow said. “They’re on welfare; they’re not doing any kind of work — at least not legal work — and their children are having a terrible time.” California, which used to be “paradise,” he added, is “rapidly turning into Hispanic slum.”

Nice. So who, precisely, is Peter Brimelow, and why should the rest of us be concerned when a white nationalist racist like him appears at the same event as, say, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin?

Brimelow is founder and editor of the VDARE.com website which has been designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and which, according to no less an authority than the Anti-Defamation League, “features the work of racists, anti-Semites and anti-immigrant figures.”

The ADL has been following Brimelow’s activities for some time. In February of 2009, the organization tells us, “Brimelow demonstrated his racist views” at “a conference of racists in Baltimore, Maryland, dedicated to ‘Preserving Western Civilization.'” There, Brimelow “delivered one of the most extreme presentations at the conference. He argued that the influx of “non-traditional” immigration is a problem all over the Western world and that the loss of control over the country by “white Protestants” will mean a collapse of the American political system. He urged that whites respond by creating an explicitly white nationalist political party.”

Hmm? An “explicitly white nationalist political party”? Where have we heard that before?

We all know that there are bigots amongst us who espouse theories of racial, ethnic or religious superiority. They have the right to express their views, however noxious, on street corners or on their websites. No one, however, is obliged to invite them to be part of polite society.

The fact that the organizers of CPAC chose to give Peter Brimelow a platform reflects on them. Why the other CPAC participants have chosen not to denounce or even distance themselves from his toxic rhetoric is a question well worth asking.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft, Wikipedia:

Menachem Z. Rosensaft, (*1948 Bergen-Belsen, Germany) an attorney in New York and the Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Survivors, is a leader of the Second Generation movement of children of survivors,[1] and has been described on the front page of the New York Times as one of the most prominent of the survivors’ sons and daughters.[2] He also served as National President of the Labor Zionist Alliance, and was active in the early stages of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As psychologist Eva Fogelman has written: “Menachem Rosensaft’s moral voice has gone beyond the responsibility he felt as a child of survivors to remember and educate. He felt the need to promote peace and a tolerant State of Israel as well. He wanted to bring to justice Nazi war criminals, to fight racism and bigotry, and to work toward the continuity of the Jewish people”.[3]

In March 2009, Menachem Rosensaft was appointed as general counsel of the World Jewish Congress, the umbrella organization of Jewish communities around the world based in New York.[4] Currently, Menachem Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School,[5][6] and Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at Syracuse University College of Law.[7] In 2011 he was appointed lecturer in law at Columbia University Law School where he teaches a course in the law of genocide.[8]

Israel Can Never Be Too Jewish, by Yaakov Dov Bleich, Forward.com, 9 September 2013:

Interesting to ask, has there ever been a debate in France about “French identity, too much or too little”? Or in Germany? Holland? England? The United States? Our Jewish identity, based on our Jewish traditions, is what has given us the connection to this Holy Land for so many thousands of years. It is what has kept us together, and it is what joins us today. It is our distinguishing character. It was in Egypt before we became a nation, and it is today. There can never be too much Judaism. Our Jewish Identity can never be too much. It can only be too little.

Is Israel too Jewish? An unorthodox solution, by Rick Jacobs, Haaretz, 11 September 2013:

My love for Israel is at the core of my Jewish identity, yet, as president of the largest movement of Jews in North America, the Reform movement, I find the religious status quo destructive to Jewish unity. Too many Diaspora Jews are disconnecting from an Israel that does not honor, reflect or support their core Jewish commitments.

Of course, Israel faces enormous external security threats, but it also faces an existential threat to its very soul and character. We need a global conversation about how to practice Judaism across borders, where Diaspora Jewry and Israeli Jewry can enrich each other.

But we must ensure that Israel represents a Jewish state that truly embodies the values and vibrancy of all Jewry, seeking to create a just and secure nation that will continue to link us as a people across oceans and across generations. Judaism and democracy can thrive only in an Israel with true freedom, freedom that embodies the dreams and promises of Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “to uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex… guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture… be based on freedom, justice and peace….”

In the free marketplace of Diaspora Jewish life, Orthodoxy and liberal Judaism are both flourishing, so why be afraid of affirming the legitimacy of the many authentic Jewish paths, including, too, the secular/cultural? Young Jews worldwide are searching for answers — and how they define their Jewish identities should be a source of renewal for the Jewish state.

The difference between jews and Whites is the difference between a parasite and its host. Jews pathologize Whites, literally cause pathology. They are pathogenic.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

3 Comments

Jews Versus Whites – Part 2

Published on November 5, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Continuing a review of fundamental ideological distinctions between jews and Whites.

In August 2000 Tim Wise provided his own personal jewish narrative – clearly identifying himself as a jew, his sympathies for jews like his grandfather, and describing how it fuels his antipathy for Whites:

For the sake of becoming American (and that had really meant to become white), one had to give up what one was, in order to metamorphose in Kafkaesque fashion into something one was not: a white man.

At the end of the day, even with the advantages that come with transformation, one has to wonder if it was a decent bargain: to trade your traditions and political-cultural soul for a permanent guest pass at someone else’s club, and a shot at the vice-presidency. The self-doubt we Jews have on this score is likely part of the reason we cling to the model minority myth with such dialysis-machine like ardor: it allows us to think it was worth it after all.

The terms minority and majority reveal a significant distinction between jews and Whites. Ordinarily a minority group is regarded as morally superior to the majority, which is often justified by pointing to differences in wealth or power. The exceptions are telling: Israel, where jews are the majority, and South Africa where Whites are a minority. White minority rule over South Africa was regarded as immoral and illegitimate, was boycotted and ultimately brought down. Meanwhile, jew minority rule over the United States is denied and otherwise disguised, and exposing or opposing it is painted as irrational and immoral.

“The Jewish Question” – Jared Taylor Vs. Brit sheds further light on Jared Taylor’s view of jews. Taylor implies that there is no racial distinction between Whites and jews – that the jewish question is not a question of race. Furthermore, he claims there are jews “entirely on our side”. Taylor’s point of view is more favorable to jews than Whites. Judaism, Culture and the Gentile World: A Conversation with Rabbi Mayer Schiller provides a window into the mind of an AmRen jew.

I’ve previously discussed the idea, propagandized primarily by jews in the jewsmedia, that something being “too White” is a problem. They have exactly the opposite attitude about “too jewish”. This was illustrated by the hysterical reaction to a relatively mild and innoculous statement Miley Cyrus made last month.

Miley Cyrus: Music Industry Too Old, Too Jewish To Understand Her Appeal, at Weasel Zippers:

“It’s always weird when things are targeted for young people, yet they’re driven by people that are like 40 years too old. It can’t be like this 70-year-old Jewish man that doesn’t leave his desk all day, telling me what the clubs want to hear.”

Miley Cyrus’ Anti-Semitic Slip is Showing, at Tablet Magazine:

But Miley’s comment deserves attention because of its very particular context. As Jody Rosen poignantly noted in New York shortly after her now-notorious twerking turn at MTV’s Video Music Awards, the singer’s current reincarnation is a bit of minstrelsy

As Rosen convincingly argues, such masquerading has frequently served as “a shortcut to self-actualization” for white people, from Al Jolson onwards. Entertainers have understood and applied minstrelsy as a performative process by which white—and, in the case of Jolson, Jewish—performers could remake themselves as all-American pop stars.

Rosen: The 2013 VMAs Were Dominated by Miley’s Minstrel Show, by Jody Rosen, 26 Aug 2013:

A doctoral dissertation could (and will) be written on the racial, class, and gender dynamics of Cyrus’s shtick. I’ll make just one historical note. For white performers, minstrelsy has always been a means to an end: a shortcut to self-actualization. The archetypal example is in The Jazz Singer (1927), in which Al Jolson’s immigrant striver puts on the blackface mask to cast off his immigrant Jewish patrimony and remake himself as an all-American pop star.

Miley Cyrus’ Shocking Anti-Semitic Remarks, at Hollyscoop:

Miley Cyrus’ entire point of living is to shock people. However, baring her midriff, rapping, and loving ecstasy is no longer shocking to anyone so Miley has moved on to thoughtless racial comments.

The point is that shocking Whites is regarded as normal, while the simple mention of jews is regarded as shocking. Both the standard and the threshold could hardly differ more.

One of the more hysterical expressions of jewish outrage came from hyper-jewess Debbie Schlussel – “View” Hags Attack Jews, Defend Miley Virus’ Anti-Semitism; Jenny McCarthy: “Jews Know How to Make Money; Whoopi: “Jews Controlled Music Industry”.

Burlington Takeaway: Words Whites Can’t Say touched on a legal distinction between Whites and jews.

New Legal Tools Fight Anti-Semitism, CLJ’s Susan Tuchman Says, July 2007:

That legal tool is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thanks in part to the efforts of Tuchman, anti-Semitism can now be challenged under Title VI.

The good news, Tuchman said, is that the inclusion of Jews as a protected class under Title VI was recently endorsed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bi-partisan agency that investigates and studies discrimination, reporting its findings to Congress and the president. In 2006, the Commission recognized that anti-Semitism encompasses more than name calling and threats, and that sometimes it is expressed as “anti-Israelism” or anti-Zionism.

The Commission accordingly recommended that colleges and universities come out and condemn anti-Semitism, Tuchman explained. The Commission rejected the argument that universities could remain silent because of the perpetrators’ right to free speech; instead, the Commission said, the schools had a moral obligation to take a stand against anti-Semitic speech.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an outgrowth of Title VII (no discrimination in employment) of the Civil Rights Act. EEO Terminology:

Discrimination: Any act or failure to act, impermissibly based in whole or in part on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, results in disparate treatment, or had a disparate impact on employees or applicants.

Disparate Impact: Under EEO law, less favorable effect for one group than for another. Disparate impact results when rules applied to all employees have a different and more inhibiting effect on women and minority groups than on the majority. For example, nonessential educational requirements for certain jobs can have a disparate impact on minority groups looking for work, as they often been limited in their access to educational opportunities.

Disparate Treatment: Inconsistent application of rules and policies to one group of people over another. Discrimination may result when rules and policies are applied differently to members of protected classes. Disciplining Hispanic and Afro-American employees for tardiness, while ignoring tardiness among other employees, is an example of disparate treatment. Such inconsistent application of rules often leads to complaints.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

7 Comments

Revilo Oliver – What We Owe Our Parasites

Published on November 1, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Blog

This month’s special program comes from Speeches and Broadcasts by Professor Revilo P. Oliver and other selected speakers. It will be broadcast each Wednesday and Friday starting at 9PM ET and streaming until the next scheduled program.

What We Owe Our Parasites — Speech given to the Lorelei Club; 9th June, 1968, Hamburg, New York: Dr. Oliver’s brilliant exposition of the present plight of our race and what it is about us that has made us such easy dupes of our enemies. His best and most comprehensive short work and a necessary part of every patriot’s education. (Also available in text form.) 76 minutes, 22 kHz, 13294 kb. listen now or download.

Jews Versus Whites

Published on October 29, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

How do we differ? Let us count the ways.

Jared Taylor commits racial treason on Phil Donahue !:

Donahue: “How are you with the jews? Are the jews OK?”

Taylor: “The jews? The jews are fine by me.”

Donahue: “And so jews can live in your neighborhood and go to your cocktail party with all those good looking people?”

Taylor: “Look white to me.”

Whatever Taylor thinks about the jews, his answer plays into widespread misperceptions of both jews and race. Saying you’re OK with the jews because they look “white” is saying that race is just skin color, literally skin deep, something trivial.

The differences run far deeper.

The jewish narrative distinguishes jews from Whites – painting jews as oppressed and Whites as their oppressors.

If jews saw jewishness as part of, or even on par with Whiteness, then they’d argue that both, or neither, should be capitalized. Instead they get angry and make ridiculous arguments in favor of double standards – the capitalization of words being just one seemingly trivial example.

The argument is often made that jews are just another type of White, but with a different religion. But unlike other European religions, any and all of which are freely and mercilessly criticized, criticism of judaism is regarded as “discrimination”, “hate”, “intolerance”.

Another argument that is often made is that jews are just another type of White, but with a different ethnicity, like the French or Hungarians. Except that jews, wherever they live, unite and lobby as a block, across borders. And those who live in France or Hungary demand to be treated as good or even better than any mere Frenchman or Hungarian.

Jewish DNA deserves a discussion of its own. Suffice it here to note that jews are genetically closer to Europeans than Africans, but are still clearly distinct. Even partial Ashkenazi ancestry can be discerned by DNA analysis.

The focus here will be on differences in thinking – the clearest being in group identity.

The recent Pew poll confirmed that jews generally identify positively as jews. They are hyper-aware and hyper-defensive about their jewishness and the interests of jews as a group. They view Whites not only as distinct from jews, but as a threat – either passively, by assimilation and intermarriage, or actively, via genocide.

This is in strong constrast with Whites, who generally don’t identify positively as White (or even “white”), are relatively unconcerned or defensive about their Whiteness, and have in large part accepted the jewish narrative which paints anyone with a strong, positive sense of White racial identity as morally or mentally defective. For the most part Whites view jews as “white”, socializing and intermarrying with them even when mixing with other races was not considered acceptable.

Jews are amongst the thought-leaders of anti-“racism”/anti-Whitism. For example, Susan Sontag (“the White race is the cancer of history”), Noel Ignatiev (“the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race”), and Tim Wise (“white like me”, who literally makes his living inciting hatred of Whites).

Differences in thinking and identity are also visible in politics and voting patterns.

Milton Himmelfarb “coined the aphorism on the Jewish community’s political persuasions: ‘Jews earn like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans.'”

Mik Moore: Reflections on the Jewish Vote, 2012, Mik Moore, 9 Nov 2012:

2012: 70% for Obama, 30% for Romney

2008: 74-78% for Obama, 22-26% for McCain

President Obama and the white vote? No problem., Chris Cillizza and Jon Cohen, 8 Nov 2012:

2012: 39% for Obama, 61% for Romney

2008: 43% for Obama, 57% for McCain

In the end, President Obama’s “problem” with the white vote wound up being less than advertised — and certainly less problematic to his political prospects than Mitt Romney’s 44-point loss among Hispanic voters.

This chart, again from our friends at the Post polling unit, tells that story better than we can write it.

Just one in every ten Republican voters were non-white. That is the story of the 2012 election.

The upshot is that the jewish vote is consistently, markedly distinct from the White vote.

It is also consistently jewish pundits who label Whiteness a “problem” – and not only when it comes to voting. I discussed many examples of this in Anti-White Problems.

Two recent examples follow.

Twitter, Women and Power,
by Nicholas Kristof, NYTimes.com, 23 Oct 2013:

Twitter is on schedule to go public as a company next month, a sparkling symbol of innovation, technology — and stale, old thinking reflected in a board of seven white men.

I also realize that I live in a glass house, because my world of punditry is a cacophony of mostly white male voices. Gender imbalance isn’t just Twitter’s problem, but a global challenge across many sectors.

Of course it is actually a cacophony of mostly jewish voices. Even the ones that aren’t jews parrot jewish opinions on race, immigration, nationalism, and with special deference to Israel and jews. The value to jews of posing as “white” is that in cases like this the attention and blame can be fobbed off onto Whites.

Apple, Twitter and Tech’s Middle-Aged White Guy Problem, Daily Ticker, Yahoo Finance:

Anyone who watched the Apple (AAPL) keynote this week (if you’re me) couldn’t help but notice that it was a parade of middle-aged white guys who came on stage to reveal the company’s latest and greatest.

And Twitter, ahead of it’s planned IPO next month, has come under fire for the makeup of its board of directors: all white men. The executive team isn’t much better (all men except for the general counsel).

The “white man” brought in to comment in this case doesn’t defend Whites or White men whatsoever. Instead he says things are changing, but “it needs to change faster”. The “white man” is, of course, a jew whose attitude toward jews is entirely different. Aaron Pressman from Yahoo! News tweeted: Feel exactly the same, tears to my eyes etc @winerip I’m Jewish, and when I was growing up…never buy a Ford or VW… http://t.co/DLLRLsbONl

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

10 Comments

Announcing Voice of Albion

Published on October 26, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Blog

As mentioned on today’s Saturday Afternoon with Carolyn, we’re pleased to announce that Paul Hickman will be bringing Voice of Albion to the White Network. It will be broadcast at 2 PM ET every Sunday, starting tomorrow.

Comments Off

Jewish Crypsis – Jewdar

Published on October 22, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Jewish crypsis – the name game, the nosejobs, the hiding behind religion, the half-jews – are indications of parasitism.

Jewdar, or j-dar, is short for jewish radar – trying to determine if someone is or isn’t a jew. It is akin to what the military calls IFF – “identification friend or foe”. Jews use the term because they know better than anyone else that jews disguise themselves, but still have a strong interest in identifying their kin.

A comment on Steve Sailer’s Nicholas Wade on Ashkenazi ancestry illustrates how even on “race-realist” forums, even on posts concerning the biological nature of jewishness, attempts are still made to deny that jews have any recognizable physical features, and that any attempt to do so is “crazy”:

Anonymous said…

“Even so, you can often tell white Jews from other whites.”

No, you can’t. I’ve lived in New York my whole life and I can’t tell Jews from non-Jews. (Excepting the ones in religious garb of course)

“Alan Dershowitz, Woody Allen, Noam Chomsky, Trotsky, Kafka, Carole King, the guy in SOCIAL NETWORK, Henry Jaglom, Roman Polanski, Bob Dylan, Streisand, Bette Midler, Elena Kagan, Ruth Ginzburg, Serge Gainsborough, Philip Roth, and etc. are recognizable as Jewish from a mile away.”

No, they are not. In fact those people don’t even look like one another! You know these people are Jewish and so you assign to them a physical commonality which does not exist.

The flip side of “pattern recognition” is “pattern imposition” – where the mind tries to see a pattern which is not there. You’re engaging in pattern imposition, not pattern recognition.

Jewdar is a form of pattern recognition based on an evaluation of various bits of evidence. The denial and psychopathologization of such pattern recognition is part of jewish crypsis. Jews know very well that 1) jews disguise themselves and 2) there are ways to recognize them anyway. They also know that their interests aren’t served by non-jews understanding any of this.

The Toronto Jewish Film Festival’s J-DAR website makes a game of it. ABOUT TJFF:

We Jews have a reputation for making great films, and that’s what the Toronto Jewish Film Festival is all about – great films. Movies that engage, thrill and make you laugh. Stories that are universal. No matter what your nationality, or religion. So grab a friend and some popcorn, and prepare to be entertained. After all, creating great films is what we do best.

HOW J-DAR WORKS explains how they rate a movie’s jewishness by looking up the writer, director, producer, editor and cast in

a database that contains the names of pretty much every jew in Hollywood – give or take a jew. Plus, it analyzes your movie for jewish content too.

That “jewish content”, often packaged in the moral of the story, is aimed at the unsuspecting subconscious of universalist-minded viewers.

Jews take their jewishness seriously. Making a joke of the interference their own crypsis causes them is one way of disguising it – even as they share tips on how to overcome the problem. For example, How to Jew: Activate your JEWDAR, at Schmooze Magazine:

Growing up, whenever my father would take me to a place that was known for being particularly WASP-y, he would whisper in my ear “Jew! Jew!” in imitation of the “Jew-alarm” our presence set off. While, to my knowledge, Jew-alarms do not actually exist, there are some more subtle ways of figuring out whether your friend’s cute roommate is a member of the tribe.

The article lists several elementary sources of evidence for an effective jewdar: physical appearance, the name game, breeding grounds, and shared social experiences. Another good source of evidence is language, eg. words like “schmooze”, expressions like “member of the tribe”, and other jewish terms that jews use and recognize but often go right over goyishe kopfs.

Jon Carroll is one of those goyishe kopfs. He’s up to his ears in jews but was surprised to learn about jewdar. He quickly understood that it’s just a big joke, of course, but life-and-death serious too. The mystery of Jewdar:

So these thoughts were running around my brain – which was also telling me that three columns on gaydar might be just a bit much – when my editor, the fabulous Andrea Behr, said casually, “Then there’s Jewdar.”

Jewdar?

Now, it should be said that, for an Irish lad, I’m pretty darned Jewish. Both my daughters are Jewish, and so of course both their daughters are Jewish. I have sung at a bat mitzvah, and I was not nearly as bad as some would have expected. Also, it turns out, most of my best friends are Jewish. (I would have said “some of my best friends,” but that’s now a cliche meaning “I met a Jewish guy once on the golf course,” which is not at all what I mean. English is so hard.) But I had never heard of Jewdar.

But – to return to the serious theme at the beginning of the column – there’s a larger and more compelling reason for the development of Jewdar. There was a time in Europe – and there still is a time in other places right now – when being able to know friend from foe was literally a matter of life and death. It was hard, because Jews come from many places on the globe and look many different ways, speak many different languages, and sorting it all out takes an almost supernatural instinct.

Get it wrong, go to jail. It’s like Monopoly, only with real people and the Gestapo.

It is not known how much of a role Jewdar played in the survival of those who did survive. Sometimes it might even be counterproductive: Oscar Schindler is an obvious example, but there were many others. Compassion is not limited by ethnic and cultural boundaries. But still, underneath all the joking, there’s the reality of friend versus foe, and what to do in the absence of shibboleths.

Underneath all the joking, Carroll sides with the jews against Europeans.

Understanding Jewish Influence I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism, by Kevin MacDonald, provides a more sober and objective assessment of what’s going on:

GST [Genetic Similarity Theory] has some important implications for understanding cooperation and cohesiveness among Jews. It predicts that people will be friendlier to other people who are genetically more similar to themselves. In the case of Jews and non-Jews, it predicts that Jews would be more likely to make friends and alliances with other Jews, and that there would be high levels of rapport and psychological satisfaction within these relationships.

GST explains the extraordinary rapport and cohesiveness among Jews. Since the vast majority of Jews are closely related genetically, GST predicts that they will be very attracted to other Jews and may even be able to recognize them in the absence of distinctive clothing and hair styles. There is anecdotal evidence for this statement. Theologian Eugene Borowitz writes that Jews seek each other out in social situations and feel “far more at home” after they have discovered who is Jewish.54 “Most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy camouflage.” Another Jewish writer comments on the incredible sense of oneness he has with other Jews and his ability to recognize other Jews in public places, a talent some Jews call “J-dar.”55 While dining with his non-Jewish fiancée, he is immediately recognized as Jewish by some other Jews, and there is an immediate “bond of brotherhood” between them that excludes his non-Jewish companion.

Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, wrote that in his first face-to-face meeting with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.”56 Reich is almost certainly correct: He and Greenspan do indeed have a recent common ancestor, and this genetic affinity causes them to have an almost supernatural attraction to each other. Or consider Sigmund Freud, who wrote that he found “the attraction of Judaism and of Jews so irresistible, many dark emotional powers, all the mightier the less they let themselves be grasped in words, as well as the clear consciousness of inner identity, the secrecy of the same mental construction.”57

Any discussion of Judaism has to start and probably end with this incredibly strong bond that Jews have among each other—a bond that is created by their close genetic relationship and by the intensification of the psychological mechanisms underlying group cohesion. This powerful rapport among Jews translates into a heightened ability to cooperate in highly focused groups.

Crypsis, jewdar and parasitism are all related.

A recent article Occidental Observer article by Tobias Langdon, Verbal Venom: Biological Parallels for Western Pathologies, discusses the psychological mechanics of jewish parasitism:

Neuroparasitology is the study of how parasites manipulate the brains of their hosts. Parasitic wasps are experts at this manipulation. For example, some inject paralysing toxins with their stings and create living larders for their offspring. Mason wasps lay eggs on paralysed caterpillars, then seal them into brood-chambers made of mud. The caterpillars are then eaten alive by the larvae that hatch from the eggs.

Parasitic wasps induce this suicidal passivity with minute injections of neurotoxin, because tiny amounts of chemical can have huge effects on nervous systems.

Each species of parasite exploits some particular aspect of its host’s biology. Wasps inject toxins that paralyse nerves; cuckoos lay camouflaged eggs that fool eyes and brains. But this raises a dangerous idea about Homo sapiens. It’s clear from biology that predation and parasitism evolve quickly and easily among animals. All birds have a common ancestor, but some birds, like eagles and shrikes, now prey on their relatives, while others, like cuckoos and skuas, now parasitize their relatives. So why can’t predation and parasitism have evolved among those animals known as human beings? Why can’t there be predatory or parasitic ideologies, professions and even races?

One answer might be this: there can’t be because that’s a wicked thing to suggest – it’s bigoted, hateful and racist.

My hypothesis, therefore, is that cultural Marxism is a language-based form of parasitism. But how might you go about proving this hypothesis? In the same way as you might prove that an animal has parasites. You don’t have to detect the parasites directly — you can deduce their presence from their effects on an animal’s metabolism

Pathogenicity, Wikipedia:

Virulence is, by MeSH definition, the degree of pathogenicity [the potential capacity of certain species of microbes to cause a disease] within a group or species of parasites as indicated by case fatality rates and/or the ability of the organism to invade the tissues of the host.

In an ecological context, virulence can be defined as the host’s parasite-induced loss of fitness.

The term “virulent anti-semitism” is a typical jewish inversion of reality. Virulence is a characteristic of parasites, a measure of their ability to infiltrate and harm their hosts.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

7 Comments

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 4

Published on October 15, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Regarding the double standards of exclusion and the Nuremberg laws.

Pew Survey About Jewish America Got It All Wrong, by J.J. Goldberg, The Jewish Daily Forward, 13 October 2013:

If you’ve been following the news about that new survey of American Jews from the folks at the Pew Research Center, you’ve probably heard the basics. The New York Times summed it up nicely: “a significant rise in those who are not religious, marry outside the faith and are not raising their children Jewish.”

There’s one more thing you need to know: It’s not true. None of it.

A “rise in those who are not religious”? Wrong. More Jews marrying “outside the faith”? Wrong. More Jews “not raising their children Jewish”? Wrong.

No, not wrong as in “I think there’s a better way to interpret those numbers.” Wrong as in “incorrect.” Erroneous. Whoops.

Mind you, most of what’s in the study seems solid, from what this reasonably informed layman can tell. It just so happens that Pew made an honest mistake in one highly visible spot, and that is what grabbed the headlines. Then the reporters made a few mistakes reading the material. The result was what you saw: a dark portent of doom.

Take away the errors, and you get a very different narrative. It would go something like this: Despite decades of warnings that American Jewry is dissolving in the face of assimilation and intermarriage, a major new survey by one of America’s most respected social research organizations depicts a Jewish community that is growing more robustly than even the optimists expected.

Who is a Jew?, Wikipedia:

“Who is a Jew?” … is a basic question about Jewish identity and considerations of Jewish self-identification. The question is based in ideas about Jewish personhood which have cultural, religious, genealogical, and personal dimensions. The question was of importance during the rule of the Nazi party in Germany, which persecuted the Jews and defined them for the government’s purposes by the Nuremberg Laws.

The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes or self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons.

Jews who have practiced another religion

In general, Orthodox Judaism considers individuals born of Jewish mothers to be Jewish, even if they convert to another religion.[36] Reform Judaism views Jews who convert to another religion as non-Jews.

Religious definitions

Halakhic perspective

According to the traditional Rabbinic view, which is maintained by all branches of Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism[48] today, only halakha can define who is or is not a Jew when a question of Jewish identity, lineage, or parentage arises about any person seeking to define themselves or claim that they are Jewish.

As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to the 613 Mitzvot, or even formal conversion to another religion, does not make one lose one’s Jewish status. Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all their female descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a religion other than Judaism, are defined by this perspective as Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are not considered to be Jews by halakha unless they formally convert according to halakha, even if raised fully observant in the mitzvot.

Antisemitic definitions

The question “who is a Jew?” is also sometimes of importance to non-Jews. It has had exceptional significance historically when considered by anti-Jewish groups for the purpose of targeting Jews for persecution or discrimination. The definition can impact on whether a person may have a certain job, live in certain locations, receive a free education, live or continue to live in the country, be imprisoned, or executed.

Nazism

The Nazi regime instituted laws discriminating against Jews, declared a race by the Nazis, and thus needed a working definition of who is a Jew as to its law-defined race system. These definitions almost completely categorised persons through the religions followed by each individual’s ancestors, according to membership registries. Thus personal faith or individual observance, as well as the religious definitions of Judaism as given by the Halacha, were mostly ignored.

Why did the germans write the nuremberg laws:

To take away the rights of the German Jews.

Nuremberg Laws, Wikipedia:

The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. After the takeover of power in 1933 by Hitler, Nazism became an official ideology incorporating antisemitism as a form of scientific racism.

The lack of a clear legal method of defining who was Jewish had, however, allowed some Jews to escape some forms of discrimination aimed at them. The enactment of laws identifying who was Jewish made it easier for the Nazis to enforce legislation restricting the basic rights of German Jews.

The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as “German or kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of “mixed blood”.[1] These laws deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited racially mixed marriages between Jews and other Germans.[2] Although the laws at first were aimed at Jews, a week after becoming intact the laws applied also to “Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring”.[3][4][5]

The Nuremberg Laws also included a ban on sexual relations between people defined as “Aryan” and “non-Aryan” and prevented Jews from participating in German civic life. These laws were both an attempt to return the Jews of 20th-century Germany to the position that Jews had held before their emancipation in the 19th century; although in the 19th century Jews could have evaded restrictions by converting, this was no longer possible.

Nazi Eugenics and Racial belief

The Nuremberg laws were based on a belief in Scientific racism and derived from a primitive understanding of genetics. Although the Nazis took these ideas to violent extremes, they were based on thinking that already existed across Europe and America. Nazi laws banning “interracial marriage” and according to Nazi racial ideology the Germanic Nordic-Aryans were a master race and in accordance with ideas expressed in Eugenics and Social Darwinism;[39] they therefore sought to preserve their supposed racial superiority by banning inter-marriage with people they regarded as inferior or as a threat, in particular Jews, Gypsies and blacks who were classified as untermenschen (“subhumans”) that were seen as racially distinctive minorities of “alien blood”.[4][40]

Russian-speakers who want to make aliya could need DNA test, The Times of Israel, 29 July 2013:

A source in the [Prime Minister’s Office] told Maariv that the consul’s procedure, approved by the legal department of the Interior Ministry, states that a Russian-speaking child born out-of-wedlock is eligible to receive an Israeli immigration visa if the birth was registered before the child turned 3. Otherwise a DNA test to prove Jewish parentage is necessary.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman said that the decision to require DNA testing for Russian Jews is based on the recommendations of Nativ, an educational program under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Office to help Jews from the FSU immigrate to Israel.

The issue cuts to the heart of Israel’s Law of Return, which allows anybody with a Jewish parent, grandparent or spouse to move to Israel and be eligible for citizenship. Determining who is a Jew — a definition which has evolved along with the religion’s many streams — has led the interior Ministry to create a somewhat byzantine system of checks and rules and has sometimes led applicants, especially converts to Judaism, to fight for the right to immigrate in Israeli courts.

Translation: Nuremberg Race Laws, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

Reich Citizenship Law of September 15, 1935

Article 1

1. A subject of the state is a person who enjoys the protection of the German Reich and who in consequence has specific obligations toward it.

2. The status of subject of the state is acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Reich and the Reich Citizenship Law.

Article 2

1. A Reich citizen is a subject of the state who is of German or related blood, and proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit to faithfully serve the German people and Reich.

2. Reich citizenship is acquired through the granting of a Reich citizenship certificate.

3. The Reich citizen is the sole bearer of full political rights in accordance with the law.

Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of September 15, 1935

Moved by the understanding that purity of German blood is the essential condition for the continued existence of the German people, and inspired by the inflexible determination to ensure the existence of the German nation for all time, the Reichstag has unanimously adopted the following law, which is promulgated herewith:

Article 1

1. Marriages between Jews and subjects of the state of German or related blood are forbidden. Marriages nevertheless concluded are invalid, even if concluded abroad to circumvent this law.

2. Annulment proceedings can be initiated only by the state prosecutor.

Article 2

Extramarital relations between Jews and subjects of the state of German or related blood are forbidden.

Article 3

Jews may not employ in their households female subjects of the state of German or related blood who are under 45 years old.

Article 4

1. Jews are forbidden to fly the Reich or national flag or display Reich colors.

2. They are, on the other hand, permitted to display the Jewish colors. The exercise of this right is protected by the state.

The History Place – World War II in Europe Timeline: September 15, 1935 – The Nuremberg Race Laws:

The Nazis settled on defining a “full Jew” as a person with three Jewish grandparents. Those with less were designated as Mischlinge of two degrees: First Degree – two Jewish grandparents; Second Degree – one Jewish grandparent.

After the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, a dozen supplemental Nazi decrees were issued that eventually outlawed the Jews completely, depriving them of their rights as human beings.

Background & Overview of the Nuremberg Laws | Jewish Virtual Library:

To create his homogeneous and harmonious Aryan society, Hitler had first to discard the Jews, a “people” incompatible with “true Germans.” The Nuremberg Laws helped Hitler take the first step toward getting rid of “these parasites” and imposing racial conformity on society.

Image source: Wikipedia, full size: 3328 x 2332.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

6 Comments

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 3

Published on October 8, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

How scrutinizing half-jews, and a recent poll of jews, reveals the biological nature of jewishness.

Pew Polls Jews highlights the characteristic duplicity of jewish identity, particularly the meaning of “religion”.

Sidebar: Who is a Jew?:

One of the first decisions that had to be made in conducting this study and analyzing its results was to answer the question, “Who is a Jew?” This is an ancient question with no single, timeless answer. On the one hand, being Jewish is a matter of religion – the traditional, matrilineal definition of Jewish identity is founded on halakha (Jewish religious law). On the other hand, being Jewish also may be a matter of ancestry, ethnicity and cultural background.

Pew’s report makes the primacy of ancestry plain in many ways, and yet in various ways maintains that it is instead about “religion”.

The very labels of the two categories Pew considered jews – “jews by religion” and “jews of no religion” – indicate that religion doesn’t matter except to distinguish different types of jew. The importance assigned to “jewish parents” is also telling. The most obvious, yet muted statistic:

Nearly all Jews say they had at least one Jewish parent, including 96% of Jews by religion and 97% of Jews of no religion.

All in all, 98% of Jews (and, by definition, 100% of Jews of no religion) were raised Jewish or had at least one Jewish parent; 2% of Jews had no such background but indicate they had a formal conversion to Judaism, while 1% did not formally convert.

Pew did not disclose statistics of half-jews/part-jews, but their significance was addressed, indirectly, by the hyperbolic sky-is-falling spin with which some jews reacted to Pew’s report.

Charlotte Alter’s piece at TIME, titled Jewish Identity Crisis Revealed In New Pew Survey, is a brief mainstream jewsmedia example:

Seventy-nine percent of non-religious Jews have married outside the faith, while only 36 percent of religious Jews have intermarried. And 90 percent of religious Jews plan to raise their children at least partially Jewish, while two-thirds of Jews who say they have “no religion” do not plan to raise their kids Jewish at all.

“Intermarriage” produces half-jews, which jews regard as an existential threat to jews.

A major theme of this spin is that older jews are more concerned to maintain the “faith” pretense than younger jews are. Of course, this neglects that younger jews eventually become older jews, and in the process often become more overtly obsessed with all things jewish.

There is no real demographic threat to jews. The fertility rates indicate that more jewy correlates with more fertile. The fertility rate for the jewiest jews, the “orthodox”, is twice what it is for the general (non-jew) population.

Another example of jewish alarm is Pew poll on Jewish identity: Jews are intermarrying, aren’t raising their kids Jewish, and don’t believe in God., by Jessica Grose, Slate, 1 Oct 2013.

Jews Are Leaving Faith Behind. Is That Bad for the Jews?

I ended up marrying a non-Jew (an Episcopalian to be exact). While our baby daughter is Jewish by lineage, I’m still not sure how Jewish we are going to raise her.

The notion that American Jews are eschewing religion so broadly makes me a little sad, or worried for Jewish continuity (or guilty for being part of the problem). But I can’t see myself bringing my daughter to temple every Friday to honor a God I don’t believe in.

Grose was reacting to this New York Times article in which fellow jews also worried about “jewish continuity”. Poll Shows Major Shift in Identity of U.S. Jews, by Laurie Goodstein, NYT, 1 Oct 2013:

“It’s a very grim portrait of the health of the American Jewish population in terms of their Jewish identification,” said Jack Wertheimer, a professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary, in New York.

“It’s very stark,” Alan Cooperman, deputy director of the Pew religion project, said in an interview. “Older Jews are Jews by religion. Younger Jews are Jews of no religion.”

The trend toward secularism is also happening in the American population in general, with increasing proportions of each generation claiming no religious affiliation.

But Jews without religion tend not to raise their children Jewish, so this secular trend has serious consequences for what Jewish leaders call “Jewish continuity.” Of the “Jews of no religion” who have children at home, two-thirds are not raising their children Jewish in any way. This is in contrast to the “Jews with religion,” of whom 93 percent said they are raising their children to have a Jewish identity.

Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist of American Jewry at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, in New York, and a paid consultant on the poll, said the report foretold “a sharply declining non-Orthodox population in the second half of the 21st century, and a rising fraction of Jews who are Orthodox.”

The survey also portends “growing polarization” between religious and nonreligious Jews, said Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz, senior director of research and analysis at the Jewish Federations of North America.

The Jewish Federations has conducted major surveys of American Jews over many decades, but the last one in 2000 was mired in controversy over methodology. When the federations decided not to undertake another survey in 2010, Jane Eisner, editor in chief of The Jewish Daily Forward, urged the Pew researchers to jump in.

As noted in Part 2, the polarization and controversy is over part-jews, over purity. The “orthodox” regard the “reform” bloodlines as tainted. Their “religious” concern is biological purity, not ideological purity.

At the bottom of the article which Jessica Grose concluded by expressing her guilt about jewish continuity was a link to another (serendipitously related) article Slate published on the same day – expressing horror that Germans, however briefly, had similar concerns.

Newly Discovered “Nazi Bride School” Curriculum Includes Lesson on How to Be “Sustainers of the Race”, by Katy Waldman, Slate, 1 Oct 2013:

At Least You’re Not at Nazi Bride School

I defy you, this Tuesday, to dream up something more horrifying than the phrase “Nazi bride school.” As The New Yorker reports, these training academies for Reich wives-to-be cropped up throughout the late 1930s to usher young maidens toward their spiritual and reproductive destinies. Classes designed to “mould housewives out of office girls” covered cooking, ironing, gardening, child care, appropriate cocktail conversation, how to polish boots and daggers, and more.

From their reactions to the Pew poll we can see two other phrases that horrify jews: “people of jewish background” (jews who delude themselves that they aren’t) and “people of jewish affinity” (non-jews who delude themselves that they are). These phrases should also horrify non-jews, and especially Whites, though for different reasons. Though jews may generally regard such quasi-jews as non-jews, they have an overall affinity for jews which best serves jewish interests.

What else did they do? Oh, “acquire a special knowledge of race and genetics” so that they might fulfill their calling as “sustainers of the race.”

In this sick, judaized reality in which we live jews openly fret about sustaining their race behind a veil of dissembling about “religion”, while pathologizing and demonizing Germans who tried to go about it forthrightly.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

3 Comments

Skrewdriver

Published on October 2, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Blog

This month’s special program is a Skrewdriver mix. It will be broadcast each Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday starting at 9PM ET and streaming until the next scheduled program.

LOUD and PROUD. These are forthright, defiant, inspirational anthems extolling blood and soil nationalism and racialism for Europeans.

Skrewdriver, Metapedia:

Skrewdriver were a White Power band formed by Ian Stuart Donaldson in 1977 in Blackpool, United Kingdom.

The program was transcoded from 1 Hour Skrewdriver Mix at YouTube. The songs in the mix are (some of these are alternate versions):

The spirit of Skrewdriver is well captured by WHITE POWER (not included in the mix):

I stand watch my country, going down the drain
We are all at fault, we are all to blame
We're letting them takeover, we just let 'em come
Once we had an Empire, and now we've got a slum

Chorus:
White Power! For England
White Power! Today
White Power! For Britain
Before it gets too late

Well we've seen a lot of riots, we just sit and scoff
We've seen a lot of muggings, and the judges let 'em off

(Repeat Chorus)

Well we've gotta do something, to try and stop the rot
And the traitors that have used us, they should all be shot

(Repeat Chorus)

Middle Eight:
Are we gonna sit and let them come?
Have they got the White man on the run?
Multi-racial society is a mess
We ain't gonna take much more of this
What do we need?

(Repeat Chorus)

Well if we don't win our battle, and all does not go well
It's apocalypse for Britain, and we'll see you all in hell

(Repeat Chorus) x2

Saga’s Son of Britain (not included in the mix) is an ode to Ian Stuart Donaldson:

From the once so Great Britain, a warrior came to us
He brought us Blood & Honour, The man that we all trust
Ian Stuart has now fallen, but his music still lives on
So it will continue, when all the filth has gone

Our ranks are filled with comrades,
marching down the street
We are hunting down the enemy,
let's force them to retreat!

Ian Stuart is still marching, walking by our side
His music is still clear and loud, his spirit full of pride!
Ian Stuart's weapon, was his battle songs
His music filled my backbone, and there it still belongs
A messenger of justice, a man who made us see,
Eternal laws of nature, in the songs for you and me
When the new empire rises, we won't forget the man,
Who took a stand for Europe, when everybody ran 
Fulfilment of his mission, is now our destiny
To purify our nations, and to set our people free

Total run time: 1:00:14

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

2 Comments

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 2

Published on October 1, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Of matrilineality and patrilineality. The controversy around this issue is a smoke screen which helps distract from the jewish consensus that jewishness is heritable – genetic, biological, racial. Jews disapprove of miscegenation with non-jews and the various significant “denominations” are distinguishable, in part, by their attitudes toward mixed offspring. The innermost orthodox, halachic, “religious” core is the most exclusive, the most concerned about racial purity. Beyond this core are progressively more permissive, more tainted layers. Half-jews who aren’t rejected outright are relegated to the margins of jewishness – by jews.

The jews are fundamentally dishonest about this. Their discussions concerning it are conducted more or less in code. The jewish double-talk creates confusion. What follows are some examples which supplement those already provided in Part 1. Note that in many cases the original articles have disappeared and were retrieved using Internet Archive: Wayback Machine. It is no coincidence that the spiked sources contain some of the most revealing information.

The Half-Jew’s Complaint, by Sadie Stein, 9 Jul 2009:

Debates are raging in Israel over whether to let people claim Jewish identity based on either parent. More conservative factions want to stick to matrilineality. Us half-Jews are confused.

Of course, as many a Jew will tell you, “there is no such thing as a half-Jew.” When halfjew.com tried to get off the ground – and, only half-jokingly, wanted to take over Governor’s Island, which just made the whole thing weird – debate became heated: you were either a Jew with a Jewish mother, wrote furious commenters, or a goy. (A few helpful anti-Semites chipped in vaguely for good measure. ) “Half-Jew,” said the more religious, was not a identity.

But, as any of us can tell you, it most certainly is. Certainly growing up in New York, where many of my classmates, like me, had a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, this was a standard form of identification. While a few of my friends’ families “compromised” on Unitarianism or Quaker meeting, many, obviously not terribly religious, raised their kids without a single religion, lighting a menorah in front of a Christmas tree and maybe eating chocolate eggs at Easter before going to a grandparent’s passover Seder. We knew which celebrities were half-Jewish: Gwyneth Paltrow, Lenny Kravitz, Carrie Fischer, Paul Newman. Many of us had distinctly Jewish names that would lead the world to make assumptions, yet understood that to the religious Jewish community, we’d not be considered Chosen unless we converted.

In truth, I’d never thought much about it until arriving at college where, in the way of such things, various religious groups made overtures to incoming freshmen. I remember one guy coming up to me and asking if I wanted to join Hillel House; when I explained that my mother wasn’t Jewish, his face darkened. “It’s people like your father who are ruining the Jewish religion,” he said angrily.

Stein links Opinion: Matrilineality is still best for Jewish identity, by Raymond Apple, Jerusalem Post, 7 Jul 2009:

The writer is emeritus rabbi of the Great Synagogue in Sydney, Australia.

In recent polling, about half of the Israeli population (but not the Orthodox) advocated allowing Jewish identity to follow either parent. This contrasts with the traditional definition whereby Jewish descent depends on the mother.

Descent is the key word. Descent traditionally follows both parents. What jews have traditionally argued about is how to define and reject those with non-jew descent. As we see here, the argument never ends and involves twisting the meanings of words.

It could be that there was an early stage of fluidity, but when the exiles returned from Babylon they saw the influence of “foreign wives” and encouraged Ezra (10:2-4, 9:11) to make rulings against outmarriage and the easy acceptance of “the daughters of strange gods.”

In the Roman period there were so many conversions and semi-conversions to Judaism that there needed to be a clear definition of Jewish status; otherwise, according to Lawrence Schiffman (Who Was a Jew?, 1985, ch. 2), Judaism would have been swamped by the children of gentile Christian mothers.

Rabbinic Judaism is unyielding in maintaining matrilineality. Lord Jakobovits (The Timely and the Timeless, 1977, pages 198-217) says the certainty of maternity must be set against the possible doubt of paternity. Even in nature the mother’s bond with the child is firmer than the father’s. And the mother has the superior influence on the child’s religious development.

Y-chromosomal Aaron, at Wikipedia, provides some insight into what half-jews and their “religious development” means to the core of jews:

Although membership in the Jewish community has, since at least the second century CE, been passed maternally (see: Who is a Jew?), tribal identity, and membership in the group that originally comprised the Jewish priesthood (Cohen or Kohen; plural: Cohanim or Kohanim), has been patrilineal.

This Wikipedia page also contains a diagram illustrating the genetic relations between the jewiest of jewish bloodlines. Among the surnames listed are those most recognizable even to non-jews as jewish exactly because they correlate with the (most “religiously” pure) genetic core of jewry. Sephardic surnames include: Cohen, Shapiro, Levy. Ashkenazic surnames include: Cohen, Coyne, Cowan, Kaplan, Kahan, Katz, Kagan, Kovacs, Garfinkel, Kohn.

Patrilineal Descent, at Jewish Virtual Library, reflects the layered jewish attitudes towards half-jews:

In March 1983, the Reform movement broke with the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish sects – and with Jewish law – and declared that a child born of one Jewish parent, whether it is the mother or the father, is under the presumption of being Jewish. This patrilineal descent resolution went on to state that a person’s Jewishness is not, however, automatic, but must be activated by “appropriate and timely” Jewish acts. It is not enough to simply be born to a Jewish parent. The Reform movement also notes that in the Bible the line always followed the father, including the cases of Joseph and Moses, who married into non-Israelite priestly families.

The Reform decision to regard a child as Jewish on the basis of patrilineal as well as matrilineal descent has prompted a bitter controversy. In the future, traditional Jews who wish to marry a Reform Jew will have to examine their prospective spouse’s background to ensure that he or she is Jewish according to Jewish law. In truth, however, the Reform movement’s change is not nearly as great as it first seemed. Had the Reform rabbis maintained the traditional definition of a Jew, and insisted on converting children of non-Jewish women married to Jewish men, Orthodox Jews would still have considered the conversions invalid, since they reject the validity of Reform. (It should also be noted, however, that in the case of a child born to a Jewish father but to a non-Jewish mother, most Orthodox rabbis will relax the stringent demands normally made of would-be converts.)

Within the Reform movement, a significant number of rabbis opposed the ruling, and a few have agitated to have the decision rescinded. That might occur only if the Orthodox rabbinate agrees to accept the validity of Reform conversions. Since no such agreement seems to be forthcoming, the Reform decision — apparently passed in large measure to accommodate and reassure the tens of thousands of intermarried couples who belong to Reform synagogues — will undoubtedly remain in force.

Within the Conservative movement, a minority attempt to define Jewishness on the basis of paternity as well as maternity has been soundly defeated.

More half-jew confusion. Patrilineal Jews Still Find Resistance, by Naomi Zeveloff, The Jewish Forward, 2 Apr 2012:

Rachel Brook, a 29-year-old vocalist living in Brooklyn, was born to a Jewish Israeli father and a non-Jewish mother. After her parents divorced when she was 3, Brook was raised by her father as a Jew in a Reform synagogue. Last year, she decided to apply to cantorial school at the Academy for Jewish Religion, but because AJR doesn’t accept students with only a Jewish father, Brook was told she would have to convert.

“It was hard for me to accept on many levels,” she said. “I felt I lived a recognizably Jewish life. I’m part Israeli. Never would it have occurred to me that others might not view me as legitimate.”

Accepted by the Reform and Reconstructionist movements, patrilineal Jews like Brook find themselves in limbo when they venture beyond their denominational walls. Nearly three decades after the Reform movement’s landmark 1983 decision to accept patrilineal Jews, the standard has yet to catch on with Conservative or Orthodox Jewry.

Now, as the first children born since the decision are beginning to have families of their own, patrilineal descent remains one of the most controversial decrees in American Jewish history. As Jews today gravitate away from movement-based worship and toward pluralistic venues, the resolution appears to be taking on new urgency. In communal settings like Taglit-Birthright Israel, JDate and Hillel, patrilineal Jews find themselves intermingling with people who question their Jewishness. “Dissent over descent” has reached a fever pitch.

The most telling paragraphs:

Officials in the Reform movement, now the largest denomination in America, say that their decision opened the door for mixed marrieds who were intent on raising their children as Jews. But critics from the Orthodox and Conservative movements, and even from within Reform Judaism itself, say that patrilineal acceptance has diluted the Jewish community beyond recognition, giving rise to a generation of half-Jews with tenuous religious ties.

Furthermore, they contend that patrilineal acceptance drove a wedge through the heart of the Jewish community, creating competing definitions of what it means to be a Jew. Whereas at one time, Orthodox parents might have allowed their child to marry a Reform Jew, the patrilineal decision caused traditional Jews, wary of Reform bloodlines, to question that acceptance.

“Jewish movements’ attempts to tamper with the definition of Jewish status obviously carried the seeds of terrible disunity for Jews as a people,” wrote Avi Shafran, spokesman for the ultra-Orthodox advocacy group Agudath Israel of America, in an email to the Forward. “This is why the first embrace of ‘patrilineality’ was strongly condemned by Jews who valued Jewish unity — that is to say, the maintenance of a single entity called ‘the Jewish people.’”

Reflecting on nearly 30 years of patrilineal descent, Reform leaders say that individual cases like Brook’s were the rationale for shifting the definition of Jewish identity, one based on blood lineage, to one based on Jewish commitment. “We had to get rid of a dissing approach that was inherent in Judaism,” said Rabbi Daniel Freelander, senior vice president of the Union for Reform Judaism. “We had a lot of individuals who feel good about their Jewishness, and who even had agreements with their partners to have a Jewish lifestyle, and there was no mechanism in Judaism to deal with those families.”

What we see here are the various layers of jews arguing about who’s really a jew and what’s really best for the jews. The coding is minimal, and the jewish concern about bloodlines and peoplehood is plain. To the extent this is a debate over “religious” doctrine, it indicates that the core, the ultra-orthodox, the rightest and truest believers, the jewiest of the jews, are naturally those who most stringently reject mixing.

The patrilineal descent decision may not have brought intermarrieds into the fold en masse, but it didn’t encourage intermarriage, either, as many of its early critics had warned would result. According to Cohen, the Reform movement’s 1983 resolution had a negligible impact on the intermarriage rate, which had been rising steadily since the 1960s and then tapered off at around 47% in the early 2000s. “I believe it had a small impact upon group boundaries and the boundaries were melting and weakening anyway,” he said. “The whole world of American religion has moved to nonexclusive identities, toward hybridity.”

In Cohen’s opinion, Reform Judaism’s decision to accept patrilineals makes sense as a way to accommodate the children of intermarrieds. But he also applauds the Conservative and Orthodox movements’ refusal to admit patrilineals without conversion. The approaches work together to send a potent mixed message to American Jewry — warning individuals against marrying outside the faith, but reassuring them that they’ll be accepted in some circles if they do.

Even so, the varying definitions of what makes a Jew a Jew have riled the Jewish community at large. Patrilineals from the Reform and Reconstructionist movements say they feel excluded when they bump up against more traditional notions of Jewish heritage. On a Birthright trip last December, for instance, Dartmouth University sophomore Patton Lowenstein, whose mother is a non-Jew, was chagrined when a rabbi at the Western Wall refused to wrap tefillin with him.

The second paragraph above acknowledges the jewish double-talk and its pragmatic purpose: to appease the half-jews most likely to make a stink about being rejected, while at the same time protecting the core of “the faith” from genetic taint.

More partial-jew confusion (a product or example of jewish double talk) and another “really interesting” broken link (saved by the Wayback Machine). Who is a half-Jew?, by Brad A. Greenberg, Jewish Journal, 13 July 2007:

There is a really interesting story in today’s Jewish Journal about the growing number of “half-Jews” fighting for acceptance. Jewish denominations differ on conversion requirements and whether the Jewish lineage comes from the mother or father, but each agrees that there is no such thing as a half-Jew—either you are or you aren’t.

The broader question—Who is a Jew?—is one of the most vexing for world Jewry and me personally. Both my grandmothers were Jewish and so was one grandfather; I look like a Jew, walk like a Jew and quack like a Jew—must be a duck—but I believe in Christianity, which is anathema to Judaism. So am I a Jew?

The dead link is a “preview” link, preserved at ‘Half-Jews’ fight for acceptance (it is still alive at this permalink):

The Jewish world has a problem with the way Renee Kaplan defines herself: half-Jewish. Kaplan, a television producer in her mid-30s, is the daughter of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother who was raised Jewish.

“I’ve had endlessly to defend my half-Jewishness: resist rabbis who wanted to convert me, resent Jewish men who didn’t want to date me,” she writes in “Half/Life: Jew-ish Tales from Interfaith Homes” (Soft Skull Press, 2006).

Kaplan says she rejects anyone who deems her dual identity inauthentic.

Many children of intermarriage say they simply cannot turn their backs on the non-Jewish half of their identity. Their rabbis may say they are Jewish, but in their hearts they are also whatever grandma and grandpa are.

This openness to multiple identities is particularly true among college students, according to Daniel Klein and Freke Vuijst, who interviewed hundreds of students for “The Half-Jewish Book” published in 2000.

Klein says those who call themselves half-Jewish “feel they are a combination, they are an amalgam, they are bicultural.”

A 2005 survey by Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life found that 48 percent of college students who consider themselves Jewish come from intermarried homes. It’s from this population that a new subculture is emerging of “people who draw from both sides of their heritage and synthesize their cultural halves into a remarkable new identity,” the authors write.

It’s something to celebrate, not hide, they argue.

Klein says his 27-year-old daughter considers herself half-Jewish, though he and Vuijst raised her as a Jew. She dedicated her bat mitzvah speech to her Dutch grandparents, who were honored as “Righteous Gentiles” for saving Jews during the Holocaust.

But her divided identity also causes her pain. In Israel on a visit, “everyone said she wasn’t Jewish,” Klein relates. At college she was kicked out of the kosher food line.

Some who use the term are conflicted.

Some self-proclaimed half-Jews feel anger, as they struggle for a sense of belonging in Jewish denominations that reject their dual identity.

“We’ll be the majority of Jews in this country by 2030,” [founder of half-jewish.net Robin] Margolis says. “Then the playing field changes. If we’re the majority, we’ll decide who’s a Jew.”

No, they won’t. What half-jews either don’t understand or won’t accept is the fact that the core of jewry always has and always will determine who is or isn’t a jew.

Here’s a half-jew who gets closer to the truth but still can’t accept it. Of Mischlinge and Mamzers, The Holy Halfbreed (“for descendants of intermarriage exploring jewish heritage”), 7 Feb 2010:

If we want to find each other, what can we call ourselves that won’t upset anyone? In the aftermath of yet another numbing debate (Robin’s latest article on Jewcy and ensuing discussion) and the binary world-view “you’re either Jewish or you’re not,” with a little “we don’t let Nazis decide who is Jewish” thrown in, AND the apparently hot-button issue we “halfies” have inherited due to the simple audacity of having been born, I wonder why Jewish communities should do outreach to us as a demographic if they don’t feel like it. I would have thought, based on logic, that it would serve them to do outreach to us because we are members of their extended families. There is a great deal of concern about Jewish continuity and assimilation, correct?

This article on the controversial subject of Who is a Jew describes what I often observe and others often deny.

The link is below.

It has been difficult for me to understand the matrilineal descent rule as anything other than an artificial construct. It has a creepy similarity to being “raced” (to use Lani Guinier’s term) by Nazis. Even though it is tribal, I can’t wrap my brain around why ancestry should matter in determining who belongs and who doesn’t, particularly today when we are mobile and often end up living far from where we were born. People adapt, after all. People convert to Judaism. So-called “intermarriage” is a fact of life. Intermarried couples who choose Judaism often receive grudging acceptance at best.

The Matrilineal Principle and Jewish Identity, Halakhah Think Tank, 16 Jul 2009:

This approach is crystallized in a clear rulingin Mishnah Kiddushin, which states that a Gentile woman produces Gentile offspring. Even this ruling met with some popular resistance, however. A few centuries later we have evidence of some in the Jewish community of Tyre wanting to circumcise such children on Shabbat, revealing their sense that “patrilineal” Jews ought to have been a part of the Jewish community. The rabbinic repsonse is fierce and clear: Such a child is a Gentile, in keeping with the Mishnah’s ruling. We will see however, that the feeling that patrilineal Jews are not identical to other Gentiles resurfaces later on.

On the question of the children of Gentile fathers and Jewish mothers, classical rabbinic sources are divided, and a debate persists for centuries. Some sources–including the Mishnah–argue that such a child is a mamzer, a Jew, fully obligated in mitzvot, but forbidden from marrying Jews of untainted lineage. (A mamzer can legally marry only another mamzer or a convert, who also lacks pure Jewish lineage.) Others maintain the Jewishness of said matrilineal child, while either lowering the level of lineal taint–such as forbidding a daughter from such a union to marry a kohen–or claiming that no taint exists whatsoever.

(Correction: In the podcast I mistakenly identified Mishnah as part of the Torah rather than the Talmud.)

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

4 Comments

Page 4 of 13‹ Previous 1 2 345 6 7 8 Next ›Last »

Jews Versus Whites – Part 3

Jews Versus Whites – Part 2

Revilo Oliver – What We Owe Our Parasites

Jews Versus Whites

Announcing Voice of Albion

Jewish Crypsis – Jewdar

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 4

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 3

Skrewdriver

Jewish Crypsis – Half-Jews – Part 2

Listen

Programs

Recent Broadcasts/Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Policy