Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Jewish Crypsis – Nose Jobs and More – Part 2

More about Sander Gilman and what drives him, from How Even ‘Good’ Stereotypes Can Be Bad; Myriad Subjects With a Common Thread: The Images We Build to Define Ourselves, New York Times, 21 November 1998:

When ”The Bell Curve” was published in 1994, black groups angrily protested the authors’ suggestion that because black people score lower on intelligence tests, they have genetically inferior mental capacities. But amid the outcry, Sander Gilman spotted what he thought was an equally insidious assumption about Jews. Although the book seemed to pay Ashkenazi Jews a compliment by implying they are smartest because they score highest on intelligence tests, Mr. Gilman, who studies stereotypes, was troubled.

”I thought, ‘This is really scary stuff!’ ” he said. ”This pseudoscience had come back with a vengeance. Positive stereotypes are just as powerful a means of control as negative stereotypes.”

Mr. Gilman said his interest in stereotypes grew out of his childhood in New Orleans. His mother was born in Poland; his father, a truck driver, was American-born of Russian descent. Mr. Gilman said he grew up as a ”double outsider, between white and black.”

”Even though I may have appeared white,” he said, ”I was along this fissure line because being a Jew in the South was not being white.” The Ku Klux Klan was both anti-Jewish and anti-black. Not only that, but he was also acutely aware of the class distinctions between New Orleans’s well-established German Jewish community and its newer Eastern European Jews. Even within his group, Mr. Gilman said, he ”realized that some people were whiter than other people.”

His sense of the power of stereotypes was heightened by the civil rights movement when as a teen-ager he was involved in sit-ins in New Orleans and ”I saw what ugly stereotypes could do.”

During the 1970’s, Mr. Gilman came across photographs of insane people from the 19th century. ”There was a theory in the 19th century that crazy people always look different.” As a result, he wrote ”Seeing the Insane,” about images of the insane in painting and photography.

With that book, he said, ”I started thinking about broader questions of stereotyping, the psychology of what happens when stereotypes begin to be internalized.” He said he realized that he had been avoiding the personal stake he had in his scholarship, his own Jewishness. He began studying how Jews responded to stereotypes of themselves.

”Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews,” published in 1986, was a study of Jewish writers from the 15th century to the present. ”In every case, the Jew is told either directly or implicitly that because he is inherently different, he can never have command of the language of the culture. One reaction is to become better than, not just as good as.”

Jews are neurotic about the physical differences that distinguish them from others, denying that such differences exist or are significant while discussing them at length and spending great deals of money to surgically alter themselves.

Their resentment of the Whites they’re trying to fool comes out in the recurring anti-White slur that can be found in their complaining: shiksa.

Shiksa Goddess, from Television Tropes & Idioms:

The tendency of some Jewish male characters in media to be paired with possibly non-Jewish female characters (“Shiksa” in Yiddish.) These women are often blonde and blue eyed (although shiksas need not be albino, just non-Jewish). Jewish society traditionally looks down on its members marrying outside the faith, and, since early Jewish comedy writers were almost always male, it stands to reason that they would be the ones depicted marrying out.

Note: The word “shiksa” comes from a Hebrew word meaning “abomination,” so it’s generally considered rude to call a non-Jewish woman that.

The meaning of the word is clear from the context in which it is used. They are looking down on non-jews, especially the blonde, blue-eyed goddesses that jewesses see themselves in competition with.

As White power has declined and jewish power increased, some jews no longer see the value in trying to pass for White.

As Ethnic Pride Rises, Rhinoplasty Takes a Nose Dive, Jane Gross, New York Times, 3 January 1999:

The heyday for nose jobs, experts agree, was in the 60’s and early 70’s, when the post-war baby boomers were teen-agers. Parents of Jewish ancestry who knew first-hand of the Nazi atrocities were ever on the alert for stirrings of anti-semitism.

They wanted their own children spared discrimination. And to them, that meant fitting inconspicuously into the Protestant mainstream. ”Jewish parents at that time didn’t want their children to look Jewish,” said Dr. James L. Baker Jr., who practices outside Orlando, Fla. ”They feared a stigma left from the war.”

The physical characteristic that most set Jews apart was their noses, and so legions of teen-agers, usually girls, had them fixed. The technology was primitive compared to today’s and so the results, through the 1970’s, had a cookie-cutter similarity — little ski-jump noses with the bony bridge scooped away.

But that was O.K. with the patients. ”Everybody wanted to look like a shiksa,” said Dr. Thomas D. Rees, a retired plastic surgeon who trained many of the high-priced doctors at work today along Park Ave.

Dr. Antell said he sees older women who have tired of their cute little ski-slope noses and ”want to turn the clock back” and look like real people.

To jews, “shiksas” and their “cute little ski-slope noses” (another recurring term in jewish complaints about the jewish nose) aren’t “real people”.

It’s difficult to imagine White women wanting to look like kikesses, with some eventually getting tired of their giant beaks and wanting to look like real people again. It’s impossible to imagine the New York Times would ever describe it that way, even if it were owned and operated by real people.

Making the Cut, Keren Engelberg, Jewish Journal, 20 January 2005:

Forget the bar mitzvah. Today, nose jobs for American Jews have become so ubiquitous a rite of passage, they’re a cliché.

Jews, who have always had a love/hate relationship with plastic surgery — and their own appearance — have helped create a trend that has now exploded into the mainstream. They were “early adopters” of a surgical technology that has since gone from rare to ubiquitous, from stigmatized to embraced. Jews, out of their very desire to appear less Jewish, made plastic surgery acceptable to the very people whom they were trying to look like.

“Certain kinds of noses speak Jewishness…. Jews assimilating into a largely gentile culture thus strip from our features the traces of our ethnicity. We have other aesthetically assimilating rituals. We straighten curly hair, dye dark hair light. We get very thin to disguise what we often imagine are Jewish-coded thighs and hips. What we choose to treat are precisely the features that are culturally selected as our distinguishing physical traits,” writes Virginia L. Blum in her book “Flesh Wounds: The Culture of Cosmetic Surgery” (University of California, 2003).

Historically, Blum is correct in her observation. This has been our tradition, but in the early years of plastic surgery, it was a survival mechanism against anti-Semitic eugenic philosophies as much as an effort at social acceptance. Supposed ethnic identifiers like Jewish or Irish noses and “Dumbo ears” were a major target of plastic surgery in its earliest stages, as were facial deformities resulting from disease or genetics.

With the advent of antisepsis and anesthesia in the late-18th century, the science of plastic surgery truly began to flourish, with nose jobs the major focus. The first real nose job by modern standards was performed in 1885, by Jaques Joseph, a Jewish surgeon, on a Jewish patient. Other doctors worked to help rid the Irish of the “pug nose” and Jews of “a large, massive, club-shaped, hook nose,” to quote one eloquent anthropologist of the time, Robert Knox.

The ubiquitous fixing of the ubiquitous jewish nose that everybody but jews is supposed to pretend doesn’t exist.

Love/hate is symptomatic of the dual nature of jewish identity – jews love being jews and hate having to hide it. They love themselves and hate the blonde, blue-eyed shiksas with the cute ski-slope noses.

A Bridge Too Far: Jewish Teenagers Are Saying No to Nose Jobs, Rita Rubin, Tablet Magazine, 7 June 2012:

For generations, Jewish girls from well-off families underwent a special rite of passage, one that fell somewhere between their bat mitzvahs and their weddings: their nose jobs. But according to a set of recent statistics, that may be changing: Far fewer nose jobs are being performed than just a decade ago—in what may reflect shifting standards of beauty and perhaps even Jews’ diminishing dissatisfaction with what they see in the mirror.

Indeed, anecdotal evidence seems to confirm that nose jobs are not the status symbol they once were among Jews. “It was like a rite of passage, and it’s not that anymore,” said Babak Azizzadeh, a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills, who says he no longer sees Jewish parents pushing their teenage children to get rhinoplasty the way they used to.

“It seems likely that the number of Jewish nose jobs has gone down,” said Emory University physician and anthropologist Melvin Konner, author of The Jewish Body. “It’s fair to say that this was once a lot more routine for Jewish girls than it is now.”

Konner goes on to suggest a reason behind the changing attitude toward nose jobs: “I think it’s because of increased ethnic pride and a decreased desire to stop looking Jewish and blend in,” he said, “which is why rhinoplasty was invented.”

“The WASPs are becoming a minority,” said filmmaker Gail Kirschenbaum—and that means that old standards of beauty are changing. “It’s not about trying to have the WASPy nose anymore. What is acceptable and considered beautiful is different now.”

When Haiken was working on Venus Envy, she perused women’s magazines from the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s; comparing them to women’s magazines today, she noted a definite increase in the diversity of women’s images: “You see Asian models, you see African-American models. You never used to at all.” However, Haiken pointed out, as far as fashion models go, “you don’t see a lot of hooked noses, thick lower lips—the kind of features that are caricatures for Jews.”

Those are jewish characteristics. Caricatures only work to the extent they exaggerate real characteristics.

The Decline of the Jewish Girl Nose Job, Katie J.M. Baker, Jezebel, 7 June 2012:

“I think it’s because of increased ethnic pride and a decreased desire to stop looking Jewish and blend in,” said Emory University physician and anthropologist Melvin Konner, author of The Jewish Body, “which is why rhinoplasty was invented.” Another historian told Tablet that ethnic men and women, like Jews, Italians, and Greeks, used to feel pressure to look like WASPs due to anti-immigration sentiment. But now most U.S. children under a year old belong to racial or ethnic minorities, meaning upturned noses are increasingly less prominent — and, therefore, less desirable.

Kids don’t care so much about looking “All American” anymore. Maybe Lea Michelle is the new Grace Kelly! (Okay, that could be a stretch. But, you know, aesthetically speaking.) “The ideal beauty can be anybody,” said Babak Azizzadeh, a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills, aka nose-job Mecca. “I think people actually don’t want to assimilate as much.” He writes on his practice’s website that Jewish patients want to keep “their ethnic identity intact.”

At the same time, as national rates go down, more Orthodox Jews feel comfortable getting the surgery because modern rabbis are giving them the go-ahead. One doctor said less religious Jews ask him for eyelid lifts and chin implants, but Orthodox Jews always want nose jobs.

The sentiment seems especially odd coming from the man who produced a pop-punk music video called “Jewcan Sam.” Yes, you heard me — it’s real, and it’s spectacular. (And you really have to see it to believe it, but be warned: the catchy refrain will definitely get stuck in your head.) In the video, the lead singer’s dream girl will only date him if he gets a nose job. “You’ve got a beak like Jewcan Sam. I only go with guys with perfect upturned noses … I will love you till forever if you get your nose circumcised,” the song goes. At the end (SPOILER ALERT), the singer does get the operation — although he still doesn’t get the girl, because she “only dates football players.” What a shiksa.

How to Celebrate Passover, Jewish-Atheist Style, Katie J.M. Baker, Jezebel, 6 April 2012:

When I was eight years old, my best friend’s mother told me, over a spaghetti dinner, that my dad wasn’t Jewish because he didn’t believe in God.

“Yes he is,” I said.

“But he’s an atheist, right?” she asked.

“Yeah,” I said, twirling noodles around my fork.

“Then he can’t be a Jew,” she said, rather definitively, for a Catholic. I burst into tears at the table.

My father has always been very open with me about his atheism, even when I was younger and still believed in a higher power. Whenever I’d ask, “But how do you know there’s not a God?” He’d say, “I don’t. How do you know there’s not a giant pickle behind the sun?” Still — at least in my mind — he was undeniably as much of a Jew as my mother, brother, and I. I had seen his Bar Mitzvah photos. Some of his ancestors had died in the Holocaust. He refused to let us get a Christmas tree because it made him feel (irrationally, he’d admit) uncomfortable. We celebrated Passover, Hanukkah, and the High Holidays every year, sometimes even attending temple services if any of my grandparents were in town. My dad also looks like a mix between Paul Simon and Raffi: in other words, like a mega, mega Jew. So, growing up, I never equated being Jewish with being religious — the former was a huge part of my cultural identity, while the latter was a concept I didn’t quite understand. I may not cry over it anymore, but I still have a difficult time reconciling my Judaism with my feelings about organized religion.

Jewish plastic surgeon in trouble over YouTube song on nose jobs, Haaretz:

In the video clip, yarmulka-wearing Staiman tries to woo a blonde woman, but is rejected.

“Jewcan Sam” – named after “Toucan Sam,” the cartoon mascot for Froot Loops breakfast cereal with a bulging, multicolored beak – has reportedly sparked uproar among some American Jews, who say the song perpetuates a stereotype that does not need any more publicity.

Andrew Rosenkranz, the Florida director for the Anti-Defamation League, called the five-minute video “hurtful” for featuring a Jewish young man who is rejected by a fetching young woman because of his beaky nose, the Huffington Post wrote.

“For hundreds of years Jews have been depicted negatively with distorted features, including large hooked noses,” Rosenkranz was quoted as saying. “It’s a physical trait that is associated with the image of the Jew as someone who doesn’t belong, someone who is alien.”

The Most Talked-About Jewish Nose Jobs, Jewcy:

Sarah Jessica Parker: From Girls Just Want To Have Fun to women just want to go to Abu Dhabi.

Tori Spelling: Beverly High’s own Donna Martin becomes a reality TV star.

ScarJo: The big screen’s Russian-born Black Widow whose maternal family comes from Minsk IRL.

Natalie Portman: the Israeli-born, Long Island-bred actress formerly known as Natalie Hershlag.

Jennifer Grey: the Dalton grad who will always be Baby to us.

According to Bernice Schrank, author of the academic paper “Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Race,” many actors and actresses get their noses fixed to “pass” as a member of the dominant race — and play non-ethnic roles.

The author cites Jewish actress Sarah Jessica Parker’s changed looks as part of her success in playing non-ethnic New Yorker Carrie Bradshaw in the smash hit series “Sex and the City.”

Project MUSE – “Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Race”: Jewish Stereotypes, Media Images, Cultural Hybridity:

This is a paper about “Jewish noses” and how perceptions of them have varied in American popular culture in the twentieth century. The importance of the “Jewish nose” is that it is perceived as one of the most obvious defining feature of Jews. Jews with non-Jewish noses are able to “pass”, by which I mean being able to blend into the dominant culture and thereby being able to become invisible as Jews.

Dirty Dancer Grey’s Nightmare Nose Job, Contactmusic.com:

DIRTY DANCING star JENNIFER GREY’s Hollywood dreams were shattered after a “nose job from hell” changed her appearance so drastically, she looked nothing like her former self.

The 1980s star’s promising career ground to a complete halt overnight in the early 1990s because suddenly nobody recognised her – and even friends would blank her when she bumped into them.

She says, “I went in the operating theatre a celebrity – and come out anonymous. It was like being in a witness protection program or being invisible.

Ethnic Makeovers: Women and Jewish Noses in Hollywood, Pygmalion’s Fantasy.

‘I may be striking – but I’d rather be pretty’, Katie Grant, The Independent, 27 November 2012:

For most of my life, I’ve fantasised about trading in my prominent Jewish nose for a less conspicuous model. I distinctly remember craning my neck aged seven to examine my profile in the mirror one day, and noticing for the first time that, instead of following a clean geometric line ending in a neat point like the other girls in my class, my nose featured a noticeable hump on its bridge before curving downwards into an unsightly hook shape. “I’m the Wicked Witch of the West!” I realised, horrified.

“Don’t worry, you’ll see a vast improvement. I can absolutely make your nose more beautiful, less Jewish and unattractive.” I stormed out, furious. Shattered ego aside, I was appalled that Mr S clearly equated Jewishness with ugliness – it didn’t strike me until later that he had in fact articulated my own private worries.

Over the years, the phrase “Jewish nose” has somehow become shorthand among medical practitioners to denote a race-based physical deformity. In the lead up to the Second World War, as anti-Semitism became increasingly widespread, it became commonplace for Jewish immigrants to undergo surgery to escape social and economic alienation.

In her essay The “Jewish Nose” and Plastic Surgery: Origins and Implications, Beth Preminger explains: “By incorporating this term into their clinical vocabulary, early plastic surgeons unwittingly lent scientific credibility to popular stereotypes about beauty and ethnicity.”

Consequently, the “Jewish nose” was transformed into a “pathological condition for which there existed a medical protocol for correction”.

The Nose Job Jew, YouTube.

On the Nose: A True Story, Nice Jewish Mom:

My pride in being Jewish is as plain as the nose on my face. The nose on my face, however, is not actually mine.

There, I’ve said it. I’ve come clean after nearly four decades. That’s how long it’s been since my nose was “done.”

I’ve remained embarrassed about having had the surgery all my life.

I’m still ashamed to this day, although no longer to the point of needing to lie. How sad it is to be surgically altered rather than learn to take pride in who you are or how you look.

Next to my older brother’s whopper of a snout, mine was a mere Whopper Junior. Why, I eventually asked my mother, wasn’t his nose ever altered, too?

“No comment,” she replied, with an uncomfortable laugh. Neither was she forthcoming on another perplexing area: Why, when my parents were harping incessantly about the need for me to marry a fellow Jew, did they need to make me look less Jewish?

For isn’t that, in essence, what Jews having nose jobs is all about? (Or, as my above-mentioned, extremely direct friend Suzanne insists, isn’t it about Jewish men lusting after Gentile women – fine-featured shiksa goddesses?)

This, though, is what I really want explained: I went on to marry a nice Jewish man. Meanwhile, my brother, with his muzzle intact, ended up marrying a Catholic. Ironic? Yes.

Rhinoplasty – A Woman Tells Why She Resisted a New Nose, Lisa Lewis, ELLE, 27 April 2010:

Yet by 2006, when I was 24, single, and working in film production in New York City, it became clear that my mother wasn’t the only one who reacted negatively to my nose. People stopped me on the street to tell me I looked like Barbra Streisand. Japanese tourists wanted to take pictures with me. Hairstylists told me I needed to play down my nose—“no offense.” I started writing down the unprovoked remarks in a journal; in one year, I recorded 59.

September 23, 2006

Gay man at a party in Williamsburg: “Damn, girl, why you never got that thing taken off?”

A woman overhearing: “I like it, don’t get it fixed.”

Her friend: “You’re Jewish, right?”

Dreyfus, Kant and Nose Jobs, ck, Jewlicious, 13 Jan 2006:

Sander Gilman considers philosophical and historical questions rarely broached by cosmetic surgeons or their patients. He looks at how new notions of race, beauty, and happiness arose in the 18th and 19th centuries, and how these turned “the Jewish nose” into an obsession for Jews and non-Jews alike. How are ideals of beauty informed by notions of race and ethnicity? How does external appearance relate to emotional well-being? And how has plastic surgery affected debates about Jewish identity?

The Jewish nose an obsession for non-Jews? Consider Alfred Dreyfus, he of the notorious Dreyfus affair that inspired a certain Austrian journalist named Herzl to found a new movement. Dreyfus’ nose in the photo is unremarkable, but it takes on leviathan proportions in the minds of anti-semitic French caricaturists (see below).

I think what we can learn from all this is that haters will hate, no matter what. Anti-Semitism and other forms of hate are innately irrational. Dreyfuss had an ordinary nose, and they still depicted him in the most grotequely anti-semitic way possible. German Jews pioneered nose jobs and 45 years later they were being shoved into ovens by the people whose approval they sought.

Why I’ ll Never Get a Nose Job, Lisa Miya-Jervis, from the book Adiós, Barbie, July-August 1999:

My big honkin’ nose makes it clear I’m Jewish—and I wouldn’t change it for the world

I’m a Jew. I’m not even slightly religious. Aside from attending friends’ bat mitzvahs, I’ve been to temple maybe twice. I don’t know Hebrew; my junior-high self, given the option of religious education, easily chose to sleep in on Sunday mornings. My family skips around the Passover Haggadah to get to the food faster. Before I dated someone from an observant family, I wouldn’t have known a mezuzah if it bit me on the butt. I was born assimilated.

But still, I’m a Jew, an ethnic Jew of a very specific variety: a godless, New York City–raised, neurotic middle-class girl from a solidly liberal-Democratic family, who attended largely Jewish, “progressive” schools. When I was growing up, almost everyone around me was Jewish; I was stunned when I found out that Jews make up only 2 percent of the American population. For me, being Jewish meant that on Christmas Day my family went out for Chinese food and took in the new Woody Allen movie. It also meant that I had a big honkin’ nose.

Their lust for the button nose is probably more a desire for a typical femininity than for any specific de-ethnicizing. But given the society in which we live, the proximity of WASPy white features to the ideal of beauty is no coincidence. I think that anyone who opts for a nose job today (or who pressures her daughter to get one) would say that the reason for the surgery is to look “better” or “prettier.” But when we scratch the surface of what “prettier” means, we find that we might as well be saying “whiter” or “more gentile” (I would add “bland,” but that’s my personal opinion).

Even though I know plenty of women with their genetically determined schnozzes still intact, sometimes I still feel like an oddity. From what my mother tells me, nose jobs were as compulsory a rite of passage for her peers as multiple ear-piercings were for mine. Once, when I was still in high school, I went with my mother to a Planned Parenthood fund-raiser, a cocktail party in a lovely apartment, with lovely food and drink, and a lovely short speech by Wendy Wasserstein. But I was confused: We were at a lefty charity event in Manhattan, and all the women had little WASP noses. (Most of them were blond, too, but that didn’t really register. I guess hair dye is a more universal ritual.)

“Why are there no Jewish women here?” I whispered to my mother. She laughed, but I think she was genuinely shocked. “What do you mean?” she asked. “All of these women are Jewish.” And then it hit me: It was wall-to-wall rhinoplasties. And worse, there was no reason to be surprised. These were women my mother’s age or older who came of age in the late ’50s or before, when anti-Semitism in this country was much more overt than it is today. Surface assimilation was practically the norm back then, and those honkers were way too, ahem, big a liability on the dating and social scenes.

Only once did I feel uneasy about being “identified.” At my first job out of college, my boss asked, after I mentioned an upcoming trip to see my family, “So, are your parents just like people in Woody Allen movies?” I wondered if I had a sign on my forehead reading “Big Yid Here.” His comment brought up all those insecurities American Jews have that, not coincidentally, Woody Allen loves to emphasize for comic effect: Am I that Jewish? I felt conspicuous, exposed. Still, I’m glad I have the sign on my face, even if it’s located a tad lower than my forehead.

Judaism is the only identity in which culture and religion are supposedly bound closely: If you’re Irish and not a practicing Catholic, you can still be fully Irish; being Buddhist doesn’t specify race or ethnicity. To me, being a Jew is cultural, but it’s tied only marginally—even hypothetically—to religion, and mostly to geography (New York Jews are different from California Jews, lemme tell ya). So what happens when identity becomes untied from religion? I don’t know for sure. And that means I’ll grab onto anything I need to keep that identity—including my nose.

Af – A documentary about Jewish noses, YouTube:

What does it mean to have a Jewish nose, and what does it mean to want to change it?

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Jewish Crypsis – Nose Jobs and More – Part 1

Concerning the characteristic physical appearance of jews – specifically how they regard, alter and explain away these characteristics.

There are several general physical distinctions bewteen Whites (specifically the northern European/Nordic/Aryan ideal) and jews. Aryans are relatively tall, slim, light skinned, blue eyed, blond haired, with straight, narrow noses; while jews tend to be relatively short, dumpy, dark skinned (I said sallow in the podcast, but I see now there is disagreement whether that word means olive or pale), dark eyed, black haired (often frizzy or curly, the so-called “jewfro”), with large, misshapen noses.

Jews themselves make a big deal about these differences, lamenting that Aryan traits epitomize what is widely considered healthy-, fit-, or athletic-looking.

The Poisonous Mushroom, available at archive.org, also known as, Der Giftpilz, which is described by Wikipedia as:

a children’s book published by Julius Streicher in 1938.[1] The title is German for “the toadstool” or “the poisonous mushroom”.

An excerpt, relevant to this topic, is How to Tell a Jew:

Background: This story comes from Der Giftpilz, an anti-Semitic children’s book published by Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Stürmer. He was executed as a war criminal in 1946.

“One can most easily tell a Jew by his nose. The Jewish nose is bent at its point. It looks like the number six. We call it the ‘Jewish six.’ Many Gentiles also have bent noses. But their noses bend upwards, not downwards. Such a nose is a hook nose or an eagle nose. It is not at all like a Jewish nose.”

“Right!” says the teacher. “But the nose is not the only way to recognize a Jew…”

The boy goes on. “One can also recognize a Jew by his lips. His lips are usually puffy. The lower lip often protrudes. The eyes are different too. The eyelids are mostly thicker and more fleshy than ours. The Jewish look is wary and piercing. One can tell from his eyes that he is a deceitful person.”

The teacher calls on another lad. He is Fritz Müller, and is the best in the class. He goes to the board and says:

“Jews are usually small to mid-sized. They have short legs. Their arms are often very short too. Many Jews are bow-legged and flat-footed. They often have a low, slanting forehead, a receding forehead. Many criminals have such a receding forehead. The Jews are criminals too. Their hair is usually dark and often curly like a Negro’s. Their ears are very large, and they look like the handles of a coffee cup.”

The teacher turns to the students.

“Pay attention, children. Why does Fritz always say ‘many Jews have bow legs’, or ‘they often have receding foreheads,’ or ‘their hair is usually dark’?”

Heinrich Schmidt, a large, strong boy in the last row speaks.

“Every Jew does not have these characteristics. Some do not have a proper Jewish nose, but real Jewish ears. Some do not have flat feet, but real Jewish eyes. Some Jews cannot be recognized at first glance. There are even some Jews with blond hair. If we want to be sure to recognize Jews, we must look carefully. But when one looks carefully, one can always tell it is a Jew.”

Compare with Stereotypes of Jews, Wikipedia:

Physical features

In caricatures and cartoons, Jews are often depicted having dark skin, curly black hair, large hook-noses, thick lips, dark-colored beady eyes[3] and wearing kippahs.

Jews are commonly caricatured as having large noses[4] or hook noses.[5] Jews are also portrayed as swarthy and hirsute.

The implication on this page, which is typical, is that “stereotype” means “imaginary”, but jews are all too aware that such physical differences are real.

Sander Gilman (more below) singles out the nose as the key physiological sign of the jew. To the extent this is so, the “nose job” (rhinoplasty) is a key sign of jewish crypsis.

Rhinoplasty was pioneered by a jew, Jacques Joseph, in Germany at the end of the 19th century. Jews have since driven the development of plastic surgery in general, both supply and demand.

In Controlling Anti-Jewish Stereotypes: The Case of the “Hook-Nosed Jew”, Lasha Darkmoon notes how jews often play up the stereotype:

It seems that many Jews, far from shrinking from mention of their noses, never lose an opportunity to reinforce this particular stereotype by referring to their own noses negatively if there is no one else around to do so. When Jewish cemeteries are vandalized or swastikas are found defacing walls, the culprits on numerous occasions have turned out to be Jews. (See, e.g., here and here.) So it is with the legendary “Jewish nose”: a protected species of stereotype deliberately nurtured and kept alive by organized Jewry for propaganda purposes.

This can be seen as one of several ways jews attempt to hide what seems too obvious to be hidden:

  • Embrace and exaggerate it, own it, preempt others from doing so.
  • Make it taboo/illegal for anyone else to talk about it.
  • Alter reality with surgery.

Sander Gilman is a jewish author, intellectual – a prolific apologist for jews. He embodies the duality of jewish physical differences – discussing them in great detail only to explain them away.

Gilman’s book, The Jew’s Body, published in 1991, is described by a reviewer as:

Drawing on a wealth of medical and historical materials, Sander Gilman sketches details of the anti-Semitic rhetoric about the Jewish body and mind, including medical and popular depictions of the Jewish voice, feet, and nose.

The jewish psyche was previously discussed in Race and Genetics – Part 4 and Part 5. German scientist Fritz Lenz noted racial differences in mental traits, for example the jewish fondness for Lamarckism and the Nordic fondness for objectivity:

The jewish inclination toward Lamarckism [anti-racism] is obviously an expression of the wish that there should be no unbridgeable racial distinctions.

Gilman is much like Raphael Patai (The Jewish Mind, The Myth of the Jewish Race) in that these are jews who scrutinize jewish traits only to minimize or explain them away.

Gilman has supplemented and published one chapter of The Jew’s Body as The Jewish Nose: Are Jews White? Or the History of the Nose Job:

When the Lubavitcher Manis Friedman, the dean of the Bais Chana Women’s Institute in St. Paul, preaches that “jews are different. Let’s accept it and be thrilled,” one can only agree. But his sense of difference is cast in a language that itself is contaminated with the sense of a negative jewish difference, a difference of the jewish body. He continues, “For 2000 years we have come denied our uniqueness. We have tried to come to the world as if we were normal. Well guess what? The world hasn’t bought it, and they never will.” According to Friedman, jews aren’t normal.

What appears to be the original version can also be downloaded as a PDF or viewed online at Google Books.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

Jewish Crypsis – The Name Game

Analysis of an elementary and potent aspect of jewish identity and crypsis.

The film Gentleman’s Agreement portrayed the change from White to jew as requiring just two elements: a change in name, and telling people you’re a jew. That’s closer to the truth for the reverse, when jews pose as White, many times it’s as simple as changing names and NOT telling anyone they’re a jew.

Jews are well known for changing names in order to pass, a deception and disguise which benefits them, enabling them to better manipulate the opinions and perceptions of others.

The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names, from THE DEARBORN INDEPENDENT, issue of 12 November 1921:

Prior to the nineteenth century the Jews resident in Germany did not use family names. It was “Joseph the son of Jacob,” “Isaac ben Abraham,” the son being designated as the son of his father. But the Napoleonic era, especially following upon the assembly of the Great Sanhedrin under Napoleon’s command, caused a distinct change in Jewish customs in Europe.

In 1808 Napoleon sent out a decree commanding all Jews to adopt family names. In Austria a list of surnames was assigned to the Jews, and if a Jew was unable to choose, the state chose for him. The names were devised from precious stones, as Rubenstein; precious metals, such as Goldstein, Silberberg; plants, trees, and animals, such as Mandelbaum, Lilienthal, Ochs, Wolf, and Loewe.

The German Jews created surnames by the simple method of affixing the syllable “son” to the father’s name, thus making Jacobson, Isaacson; while others adopted the names of the localities in which they lived, the Jew resident in Berlin becoming Berliner, and the Jew resident in Oppenheim becoming Oppenheimer.

The Jewish habit of changing names is responsible for the immense camouflage that has concealed the true character of Russian events. When Leon Bronstein becomes Leo Trotsky, and when the Jewish Apfelbaum becomes the “Russian” Zinoviev; and when the Jewish Cohen becomes the “Russian” Volodarsky, and so on down through the list of the controllers of Russia—Goldman becoming Izgoev, and Feldman becoming Vladimirov—it is a little difficult for people who think that names do not lie, to see just what is transpiring.

Indeed, there is any amount of evidence that in numberless cases this change of names—or adoption of “cover names,” as the Jewish description is—is for purposes of concealment.

How Did Jews Choose Their Last Names?, Forward.com, 9 July 2008:

When talking about Jewish family names, or at least, about the names of the Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern and Central Europe from which the great majority of American Jews descend, it is important to keep one fact in mind: Until the late 18th or early 19th century, very few Jews had such names at all. Every Jew, that is, had a Jewish “last name,” but it was a personal one that was not passed on to children, since it was the name of one’s father that was used on ritual occasions. If your name was Boruch and your father’s name was Simcha, you were called up to the Torah as Boruch ben-Simcha; if your name was Rokhl and your father’s name was Dovid, you were mentioned in a ketubah or marriage contract as Rokhl bas-Dovid. But your son Aryeh was called to the Torah as Aryeh ben-Boruch, and your daughter Rivka was written in the ketubah as Rivka-bas-Eliahu (if that was the name of Rokhl’s husband). Such “last names” were one-generational.

The introduction of permanent last names into European Jewish life came with the decision of European governments to make their Jewish populations, which had previously been granted a large measure of communal autonomy, fully subject to the same state regulations and bureaucratic record-keeping as were other citizens. In the Austrian Empire, which ruled much of southern and eastern Poland, Jews were ordered to take such names in the 1780s and ’90s; in Germany, in 1797; in tsarist Russia, in 1804.

The jewish name game is often associated with “anti-semitism”, which is to say that jews regard the outing of jews who are trying to pass (commit fraud) as “bad for the jews”. The problem, according to jews, is not the fraud but the person who calls attention to it.

Tony Curtis, Jewish Movie Star, Dies at 85, by Danielle Berrin (Hollywood Jew) at Jewish Journal, September 2010:

There may have been Jewish movie stars before Curtis, from Emmanuel Goldenberg (Edward G. Robinson) to Issur Danielovitch (Kirk Douglas). But none of them sounded like Bernie Schwartz, who even after he changed his name was unmistakably a Jewish street kid from the East Side of Manhattan. It’s no coincidence that the one line of Curtis’ that everybody knows is “Yonda lies da castle of my fadda”—a silly phrase given an ethnic mangling, it seems to encapsulate his whole career and persona.

The line didn’t become notorious, Curtis says, until Debbie Reynolds made fun of it on a talk show: “Did you see the new guy in the movies? They call him Tony Curtis, but that’s not his real name. In his new movie, he’s a got a hilarious line where he says, ‘Yonder lies the castle of my fadda.’”

“You could chalk her ridicule up to my New York accent,” writes Curtis (as channeled by Peter Golenbock), “but when she mentioned the issue of my real name on television, I began to wonder if there was something anti-Semitic going on there.”

This excerpt is just one small piece of a longer tale of woe about how this movie star jew was supposedly bullied and victimized in jew-run Hollywood.

David Copperfield’s Magical Relationship With God and Judaism, Forward.com, 4 July 2013:

Born David Seth Kotkin, the son of middle-class parents in Metuchen, N.J., Copperfield sees a direct link — indeed, a historical connection — between being Jewish and achieving the most stunning and unlikely feats.

“Being Jewish is all about picking yourself up by your bootstraps,” he told the Forward. “When people are beating you down and throwing you out, you just dust yourself off and make the best of it. That’s the Jewish upbringing. And magic is about taking adversity and turning it into a smile, taking the no’s and turning them into yesses. Magic is about making people dream.”

Copperfield attended Hebrew school, became a bar mitzvah and to this day honors his roots. It’s an important part of who he is — “for better or worse,” he added. “I have a personal relationship with God and I pray a lot. My kids go to Hebrew school.”

Being jewish is more about ethnic networking and tribal nepotism and boosterism (as for example engaged in by Forward.com). Magic is about illusion. It’s about duping and tricking people using misdirection and manipulation.

On the emotionally charged topic of name changing, Copperfield said he initially planned to be an actor and didn’t think “Kotkin” was a good actor’s name. While the title character in the Dickens classic is memorable and nobody else in show biz has it, Copperfield is not sure, were he just starting out now, whether he would change his name at all, as prevailing sensibilities have evolved. If he had it to do over, he said, he might not pick “Copperfield” because he now views Charles Dickens as anti-Semitic.

Fagin was a fictional thief whom Dickens clearly identified as a jew. Kotkin is a real thief who stole a Dickensian name to help make himself rich and famous, deceiving the goyim as to his true identity. Naturally, in Kotkin’s mind, Dickens is the criminal.

The jewish name game is an “emotionally charged topic” because jews make a big stink about being outed as jews.

Consider the May 2013 exchange between Jon Stewart and Donald Trump.

Twitter / TheDailyShow:

By the way, did you know Donald Trump’s birth name is F**kface Von Clownstick?

Twitter / realDonaldTrump:

What’s funny about the name “F**kface Von Clownstick” — it was not coined by Jon Leibowitz– he stole it from some moron on twitter.

In Donald Trump Outs Jon Stewart as a Jew, Elspeth Reeve at The Atlantic Wire asserted:

The whole punchline of Trump’s tweet is that Stewart is Jewish.

Actually, that was her point. Trump’s point was that Leibowitz is a hypocrite.

What is most relevant to our topic here is that certain names are obviously jewish, that these are the kinds of names that jews deliberately change, and that they act as if somebody else is doing something wrong when their fraud is exposed.

Should Jon Stewart change his name back to Jon Leibowitz?, by hyper-jew Ron Rosenbaum at Slate Magazine, July 2009:

And, on a more serious note, it would represent the end of a shabby, antiquated era, pronouncing that aspect of anti-Semitism now (hopefully) dead and gone. It might even make it easier for young comedians, actors, and rock stars to resist the temptation to try to “pass.” (Although, frankly, I hope that Gene Simmons of Kiss keeps his origins hidden from those who don’t know about them.) It could be an important cultural moment.

Don’t you think it’s about time for Jews to reject the rejection of their ancestry and the WASP-ification of their names? Not just you, but all Jews in show business, indeed all Jews in business business. The practice might once have served a purpose, back in the ’20s and ’30s, when it was insisted upon by powerful but fearful Hollywood movie moguls who wanted Jewish talent but were afraid of Jewish names seeming un-American to the mass of the populace who, it’s probably true at that time, suffered from a low-grade case of anti-Semitism. Or nativist hostility to foreign names in general. So Issur Danielovitch Demsky became Kirk Douglas. (You could have gone with Kirk Leibowitz.)

It’s strange, isn’t it? Shouldn’t that era be long over?

We see in this how “anti-semitism” serves jews as a scapegoat for any kind of jewish malfeasance, no matter how obscure. Even if nobody else complains, jews will whine about it themselves and blame the jewish misbehavior on “anti-semitism”.

Rosenbaum’s comparison to Michael Jackson and his family revelations are telling:

I guess you could make the case that Michael just happened to think he looked better that way, that there’s no need to introduce theories about racial pathology, or the oppressed internalizing the aesthetic values of the oppressor, into the discussion. He had every right to make himself look white if he felt like it.

But it’s hard to believe that his decision to change his skin from black to white wasn’t a reaction to racism, to seeing the ugly way people with dark skin were treated even by members of his own race with lighter skin. Well, you can say that feeling, that attitude, belongs to a sad time that has thankfully passed.

At this point, wouldn’t changing your name be just an honorable thing to do as well as a long-overdue symbolic celebration of the passing of the age of “passing”? I will admit I have a personal interest in this matter since I have a recognizably Jewish name. I want to tell you two quick stories about my mother and father. My mother couldn’t get a teaching job during the Depression, and in order to get any regular secretarial work, she felt she had to change her name in Morgenstern-to-Morningstar fashion. No, it wasn’t Dachau-style anti-Semitism she was reacting to; it was more “gentleman’s agreement”-style, country-club anti-Semitism, but there was something ugly about the necessity of the change, nonetheless.

Note that the “honor” Rosenbaum refers to is for jews and jewish identity, not at all for the “ugly” enemies it used to be necessary to fool.

And yet there it still is: Jon Stewart. A faint but unnecessary relic of anti-Semitism. You know, Jon, the treatment of Jewish names is often a barometer of that social disease.

Jews telling jews that they can stop the pretense that they’re not jews is a barometer not only of jewish power but of the fundamentally fraudulent, duplicitous nature of jewish identity.

Now, you have every right to wonder why I’m singling you out like this. I think it has something to do with what I like most about your show, which is that you, like the best satirists, focus on making fun of those who put up a false front. Not that Stewart is false in any malign sense of the word. (It was your middle name—well, Stuart was!) But that it’s a kind of mask, and you spend most of your time making fun of the pretentious masks that politicians, celebrities, and big shots adopt.

You’re all three now—a politician, a celebrity, and a big shot—in the sense that you have remarkable influence politically.

So Rosenbaum called out Leibowitz’s name-game-related hypocrisy in 2009. Nobody accused Rosenbaum of “anti-semitism” because he is a jew and his argument was that Leibowitz calling himself Leibowitz would be good for the jews.

The Name Game, by Teresa Strasser in Jewish Journal, is a good example of typically jewish neurotic anxiety regarding the importance of names and jewish identity:

When we were little, my brother and I realized that whenever we asked if someone was Jewish, my mother would answer by simply repeating their name, as if that said it all.

“Irving Fishbaum? Ira and Esther Lefkowitz? C’mon.”

We decided to see if we could induce this behavior and selected the perfect test case. When she came home one day, we ambushed.

“Mom, are Simon and Garfunkel Jewish”?

She looked at us, lowering her head and raising her eyebrows. “Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel? C’mon.”

That was before we understood that names could be obviously Jewish, that any name containing “gold,” “silver,” “green,” “fish,” “blatt,” “baum,” “stein,” “feld” or “witz” was usually a dead giveaway. That was before we knew that Shapiro was Shapiro and Kaplan was Kaplan. Kaplan? C’mon. This is still a family joke and if she’s distracted, you can sometimes get her to do it to this day.

“Mom, is Itzhak Pearlman Jewish?”

“Itzhak Pearlm — oh, stop it.”

If Jewish names are on a scale of one to Hadassah Lieberman, mine may be a one.

When I was 20, an editor at a Jewish newspaper walked up to my desk on my first day of work, didn’t introduce himself, didn’t shake my hand, just looked at me and asked, “What’s a Jew doing with a name like Teresa?” I told him he could call me Rachel if it would make him feel better.

My parents insist they did me no wrong by not calling me Jodie or Debbie or Stacy. Teresa is a good Hungarian name they say, my great-grandmother’s name, although she was called Tess.

Until recently, I’ve always appreciated having an ambiguous name. It’s nice to reveal your ethnicity only when you feel like it, when it feels safe, when it’s your choice. Now, however, I wonder what it would have been like to be called Ruth Oppenheimer or Shoshana Hirshfeld. My life would have been totally different as Mona Moskowitz, who isn’t kidding anyone.

Growing up, I never really liked the sound of Jewish surnames, their Germanic bite, all the connotations and stereotypes from which I was happy to distance myself. I planned to do away with my own surname, vague as it may be, and fantasized about becoming Teresa Willis or Teresa McBride. I figured I’d marry a guy with a nice vanilla moniker, and that would be that. I could monogram my way into belonging. I’d have a name people could spell and pronounce.

I tell you, I must be undergoing some major self-acceptance because out of nowhere, Jewish names are starting to sound downright … sexy.

As an adult, I’ve always planned to keep my last name if I got married, but I still play the dating name game, taking surnames out for a spin. Teresa Cohen? Teresa Goldstein? I still enjoy the sheer, unabashed WASPiness of Teresa Tyler or the incredible misdirect of Teresa Puccinelli, but I no longer cringe from Teresa Saperstein.

As a Jew, your name identifies you. I never wanted to run from that, but I welcomed the option to “pass.” Now I wonder what it would be like to remove all doubt. “I’m Teresa Blumenfeld, nice to meet you. Yeah, Blumenfeld.”

Teresa Strasser, Wikipedia:

Strasser married Daniel Wachinski, an IBM accountant, in a small ceremony at the Venetian in Las Vegas, Nevada, on June 25, 2008.

French Jews win right to choose their own names, The Times of Israel, 3 April 2013:

After decades of denying Jews the right to change their French last names to their original Jewish ones, the French Ministry of Justice recently revised its position.

Fearful of anti-Semitism, many French Jews decided to adopt French surnames in the late 1940s and ’50s.

“Even though the French administration never forced them to adopt less foreign-sounding names, they were highly encouraged to do so,” says Céline Masson, a lecturer in psychoanalysis at Université Paris-Diderot and a co-founder of La Force du Nom (“The Strength of the Name”), a Paris-based organization that lobbies for the right to reclaim old names.

Nearly 70 years after World War II, many descendants of both Holocaust survivors and Jews from North Africa have decided to reconnect with their roots by taking back the names of their ancestors.

French law, however, stipulates that once changed, a last name is considered “immutable.” It also prohibits citizens from reverting to a “foreign-sounding name.”

“We’re talking about a very small minority here,” [Céline Masson, a lecturer in psychoanalysis at Université Paris-Diderot and a co-founder of La Force du Nom (“The Strength of the Name”), a Paris-based organization that lobbies for the right to reclaim old names] Masson told The Times of Israel. “So far, we’ve had about 30 cases or so. But in a country where 76,000 Jews were deported [during the Holocaust], it’s bound to be a powerful debate.”

In their applications, both advocates argued that allowing the reversion to previous names constitutes a “symbolic reparation” that France owes its Jewish citizens.

Backed by years of experience as a psychoanalyst and her personal history, Masson explains that changing one’s name can represent a “trauma,” especially for younger generations that now want to reconnect with their Jewish roots and family past.

In some cases, certain family members choose to revert to their old Jewish names, while others maintain the newer one.

“Sometimes family members don’t agree on what their name should be and what it represents,” Masson said. “I’ve seen cases where children feel like having a Jewish name, and the parents or the grandparents don’t, or vice versa.”

“This is the kind of problem we didn’t think we would encounter at first,” she continued. “But this is definitely something we ought to analyze more in the years to come. It is yet another interesting aspect of how complex a Jewish identity can be, even today.”

Some Jews in France wish to revert to family names, Los Angeles Times, July 2010:

A portion of the French civil code adopted after the war stipulates that family names are “immutable” and must be continued. The civil code allows “foreign sounding” names to be changed to those considered more French-like, but declares the “impossibility” of reverting.

In the 1940s and ’50s hundreds of thousands of Jews, many still reeling from the Holocaust, arrived in France. Mainly poor and stateless, and fearful of latent anti-Semitism in a country from which 76,000 Jews were dispatched to concentration camps, most were just grateful to be allowed to stay.

There was no legal obligation for them to drop their family names, but they often were encouraged to do so. Many people agreed to new French-sounding names even when the new names bore little relation to the ones they had passed down through generations: So the Rozenkopfs became the Rosents; the Frankensteins the Franiers; the Wolkowiczs the Volcots.

“When he was naturalized, my grandfather was asked if he wanted to French-ify his name, and Fazel was suggested. He didn’t really agree but was under the impression there was no real choice,” Jeremie Fazel says.

“He never complained. Remember these were people who, after what they had been through, just wanted to live in peace. They would do anything to blend in.”

When Celine Masson’s family — originally surnamed Hassan — arrived in eastern France in the 1960s among a wave of Jewish emigres from Tunisia, French officials suggested making the name sound more French-sounding. Again, while not forced to change, Celine Masson’s father agreed to do so.

“There was a lot of anti-Semitism in those days,” said Masson, a senior university lecturer in psychoanalysis. “Even after changing it there were people who stopped buying from his furniture store when they discovered he was Jewish.

“I was born a Masson, but the name means nothing,” she said. “It carries no history, it says nothing about my family, my roots, where we came from.”

Masson has set up an organization called La Force du Nom (The Strength of the Name) with French lawyer Nathalie Felzenszwalbe — whose family retained its name — representing more than 30 French Jews who want to change their names to reflect family origins.

“Everyone needs to know where they come from. A family’s name is part of the compass in life,” Fazel said.

Names are one of the more outwardly visible and important indications of a person’s identity. Certain names, by themselves, are enough to identify jews. Jews are aware of this, and often change their names to disguise themselves, to fool Whites into mistaking them for “us”.

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

See also The Gentle Art of Changing Jewish Names – Episode 75 for a complete reading of Chapter 70 of The International Jew, with commentary by Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
17 Comments  comments 

Jewish Crypsis – An Introduction

To properly evaluate jewish power requires an understanding of who is or isn’t a jew.

Consider the case of Denis Goldberg and the cognitive dissonance of “white” jews with “white privilege” siding with blacks, as mentioned in Mandela and Friends.

Wikipedia asserts that Goldberg is “white”, “white”, “white”:

he joined other leading white members in forming the Congress of Democrats

He was the only white member of Umkhonto we Sizwe to be arrested and sentenced in the Rivonia Trial to life imprisonment.

Goldberg described the issue of being white and involved with the armed struggle as follows: “Being black and involved (in the struggle) meant you had support of many people and it meant you got to be part of a community. Being white and involved meant being isolated.”

The jews at Jewish Journal are more subtle. They equate Mandela to Moses and cite him mistaking jews as “white”:

It was a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who took an interest in a young Mandela, gave him his first job as a law clerk and, in Mandela’s words, became his “first white friend.”

“I found Jews to be more broadminded than most whites on issues of race and politics,” Mandela once wrote, “perhaps because they themselves have historically been victims of prejudice.”

Jews, who could have lives of white privilege in apartheid South Africa, aligned themselves with Mandela

Cognitive dissonance arises when the suggestion that jews are “white” is contradicted by jewish assertions that jews are distinct from and victims of Whites. Jews pose/pass as White and wreak havoc as insiders. They are motivated by a race-based animus for Whites.

Compare and contrast the jewish narrative concerning the “struggle against White minority rule” in South Africa with any opposition to non-White, and especially jewish, minorities. Whereas Whites tend to regard rule by minority, even a White minority, as illegitimate, jews paint any expression of White interests, even when it includes them as “white”, as illegitimate.

Passing (sociology), via Wikipedia:

Passing is the ability of a person to be regarded as a member of social groups other than his or her own, such as a different race, ethnicity, caste, social class, gender, intelligence, age and/or disability status, generally with the purpose of gaining social acceptance [1] or to cope with difference anxiety. This may take the form of changing only one group from the person’s own, such as a person’s dressing so as to pretend to be of a higher social class.

Etymologically, the term is simply a clipped form of the phrasal verb pass for or pass as, as in a counterfeit passing for the genuine article or an impostor passing as another person. It has been in popular use since at least the late 1920s.

Passing is a form of fraud.

Crypsis, via Wikipedia:

In ecology, crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms.

Camouflage and mimicry play a role.

Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents (PDF), pp 218:


Phenotypic Resemblance: Crypsis

The data summarized in PTSDA (Ch. 4) indicate that there has been a powerful trend for Jews in traditional societies to maximize phenotypic differences between themselves and host populations, by a variety of segregative practices. Nevertheless, there are many instances in which Jews themselves have minimized these differences.

A particularly interesting example is crypsis. When threatened by severe sanctions, Jews have “converted” to other religions, practicing Judaism in secret and ultimately becoming overtly Jewish again when the threat had passed. Crypsis is “as old as the Jew himself” (Prinz 1973, 1).

The dual nature of jewish identity: some maximize differences in order to remain separate, others minimize differences in order to “assimilate”, which in practice often means infiltrate and subvert.

Sirota and Wise Define The New Normal – “White Privilege” as a Jewish Construct describes how “assimilated” jews, posing and posturing as “whites”, attack Whites.

Tim “White Like Me” Wise has made a career of anti-Whitism. His article on the Boston Bombing was Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness:

White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.

In short, white privilege is the thing that allows you (if you’re white) — and me — to view tragic events like this as merely horrific, and from the perspective of pure and innocent victims, rather than having to wonder, and to look over one’s shoulder, and to ask even if only in hushed tones, whether those we pass on the street might think that somehow we were involved.

Wise expresses the guilty thoughts of someone who is passing – aware of their fraud and afraid of being outed.

Wise’s hostility towards Whites spring from his identity as a jew. Gore-Vey! Joe Lieberman, Jewish Mobility and the Politics of Race in America, August 2000:

I am a Jew. And according to what others of my faith tradition tell me, I should be beaming with pride at the fact that Al Gore has picked a fellow Hebrew as his Vice Presidential running mate. Well, excuse me if I refrain

And our ascent has been every bit as contingent upon good fortune and the skin we’re in, as anything beneath it like superior culture.

In fact, a good deal of our community’s advance has come at the direct expense of black people, and would never have materialized in the absence of their oppression, coupled with a willingness by most Jews to undergo a transmogrification that, in effect allowed us to “become white”–something we could do by downplaying who and what we were, and hiding in our epidermal camouflage

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

Wise acknowledges that he sees a great distinction between Whites and jews, noting that jews must “transmogrify” (change or alter greatly, into a different shape or form, especially one that is fantastic or bizarre) to “become White”.

David Sirota cited Wise when he wrote Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American:

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Sirota and Wise’s description of “white privilege” inverts reality. See If Hasan Were White and Omar Thornton’s “Anti-Racist” Killing Spree.

Sirota’s attitudes are, like Wise, shaped by his identity “as a jew”. Lanny, Joe & The Right-Wing Religious Hate Machine, August 2006:

As a Jew, I am disgusted by these tactics coming from Lieberman – but I am not surprised anymore. The willingness of Lieberman to simultaneously proclaim his piety while manipulating his religion for his own personal political gain is disgusting and, frankly, embarrassing to all Jews.

Sirota discussed his anti-White point about the Boston bombing with a tribemate in Shapiro responds to Sirota on Boston suspect article. The two jews agreed that the “white” in “white privilege” doesn’t include jews:

David Sirota: You likely don’t believe America is as nasty or xenophobic because you are white and you don’t have to face it everyday. That’s the definition of white privilege. But talk to people of color living in New York City about stop and frisk, or talk to Muslims about surveillance, or talk to Latinos here in Denver about police brutality, and you might see things a bit differently.

Ben Shapiro: Racism exists. But it is not the dominant force in American life.Speaking of which, I do find it odd that Jews are considered members of the white privileged class when less than two generations ago, whites wouldn’t let us into their country clubs.

David Sirota: Re: Jews – as one, I agree on that point.

The Sirota Cries Out in Pain links another indication of how important Sirota’s self-image as a jew is to him:

Out of all the hate mail I get, none is more depressing than the stuff that includes holocaust denialism. That’s some f’d up repugnant shit.

Even the secular, assimilated, “white like me” jews like Sirota and Wise see jews as distinct from Whites. They guilt-trip Whites for “white privilege” and for being too discriminatory. The truth is the opposite. Jews are privileged and Whites, on the whole, fail to recognize that jews are their enemies.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

Oswald Mosley

Published on July 3, 2013 by in Blog

This month’s special program comprises three audio tracks of Oswald Mosley. It will be broadcast each Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday starting at 9PM ET and streaming until the next scheduled program.

Oswald Mosley, via Metapedia:

Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet (November 16, 1896 – December 3, 1980) was a British politician and founder of several nationalist organizations, the most notable being British Union of Fascists and Union Movement. Educated at Winchester and Sandhurst he fought with the 16th Lancers on the Western Front during the First World War. He later transferred to the Royal Flying Corps but was invalided out of the war after a plane crash in 1916.

The first selection is Mosley Set to Music, via National-Socialist Worldview:

Sir Oswald Mosley (1896 -1980) was the leader of the British Union of Fascists, and a friend of National-Socialist Germany. (He was also an hereditary baronet and fourth cousin of the mother of Queen Elizabeth II.)

The Westminster Gazette in the 1920s called Mosley “the most polished literary speaker in the Commons, words flow from him in graceful epigrammatic phrases that have a sting in them for the government and the conservatives. To listen to him is an education in the English language, also in the art of delicate but deadly repartee. He has human sympathies, courage and brains.”

The original message was recorded by Mosley (without musical backing) in 1938. The original text appears below. Notably omitted from the musical adaptation is Mosley’s reference to the national-socialist and also every specific reference to Britain.

In this brief speech Mosley advocates a revolutionary spirit and calls for revolution by Britons.

The audio itself is blood axis – sarabande oratoria, on YouTube. The length is 4:05, including music.

The second selection is Oswald Mosley Speaks for European Unity, from YouTube. The length is 10:08. The audio is of relatively poor quality, including a few lengthy drop outs. The uploader’s description:

Oswald Mosley Leader of Union Movement speaks for EUROPE A NATION in 1951.

At the start Mosley identifies his opponents:

I speak for Union Movement. We stand for a change in this country. For that reason we are either abused or boycotted by those who want to keep things as they are. The financiers, the vested interests and the old parties who serve them hate our movement and use their money power to destroy us. They control directly or indirectly the press, the cinema and the radio. That is why you hear nothing of union movement except silly abuse which has no relation to truth.

The third selection is Oswald Mosley – Make Europe A Nation 1964, from YouTube. The length is 44:29. The uploader’s description:

Oswald Mosley gives a firey speech in 1964 about his vision for a united Europe. This speech was given some 18 months after the Venice Conference and his meeting with the heads of numerous European political parties which called for the formation of a National Party of Europe.

According to Metapedia, the National Party of Europe was created by the Declaration of Venice, an initiative undertaken by a number of political parties in Europe during the 1960s to help increase cross-border co-operation and work towards European unity. The idea of an NPE began when Oswald Mosley launched his Europe a Nation campaign after World War II.

More information about Mosley is available from oswaldmosley.com. Most notable is the special emphasis placed on Mosley’s attitudes regarding jews. Near the top of the list of Top 10 Lies about Oswald Mosley:

2. Oswald Mosley and his supporters were anti-Semitic.

Oswald Mosley never criticised anybody for what they were born. But he didn’t believe that Jews were the only people in the world immune from criticism. Oswald Mosley criticised some Jews for what they did, not all Jews for what they were. That’s why Jews like John Beckett (British Union Director of Publications), Bill Leaper (Editor of the Blackshirt) and Harold Soref (later Tory M.P. for Ormskirk), and the Jewish boxer Kid Lewis had no problem supporting him.

This item links to an article titled Antisemitism – British Union and the Jews. It is without attribution and not dated, but presumably represents Mosley’s position at some time after World War II. It begins:

More drivel is talked about the Jews than most subjects; both ways. The views that all Jews are born wicked, or that all Jews should be the sacred objects of the system, seems to me equal nonsense. I am neither an anti-Semite, nor a sycophant of Semites. The attitude of our movement has been both consistent and intelligible throughout. We have never attacked any man on account of race or religion, and we never shall. But we attack any man, whatever his race or religion, who acts against the interests of Britain or Europe; particularly Britons who ought to know better than to serve alien interests. It is a straightforward attitude, which has been formed by clear principles.

Why then have we been involved in clashes with Jewish interests, and why are so many Jews violently against us? The answers again are clear. Before the war I believed that certain great Jewish interests were trying to involve us in war, not in a British, but in a Jewish quarrel: I still believe it. The reasons for our belief and for the Jewish action are equally intelligible. It is true that a considerable number of Jews were having a bad time in Germany, and it can also be argued that if a similar number of Englishmen had been having an equally bad time in Germany, there would have been a demand among many Englishmen for war against Germany. But it is beyond question from the evidence of the period, that powerful Jewish interests were trying to produce war between Britain and Germany. They made it their business to start a war in the Jewish interest. I, and my friends, made it our business to stop that war, in British interest. That led to a head-on clash, and I still think that we were right in doing our utmost to prevent that war.

The issues between us, and those Jews before the war, were therefore quite simple and clear. They wanted to make a war, and we wanted to stop it. That is the long and the short of the whole matter. There was no question of racial persecution on our part. That was entirely contrary to our principles, which I put on public record at the time. We British were running a great Empire composed of many different races, and any suggestion of racial persecution would have broken it up. For practical, as well as moral reasons, it would have been the gravest error for us to pursue a policy of any kind of racial persecution. The Germans had entirely different national problems, as well as in some respects, a different national character, which was derived from a diversity of historic experience.

Our duty then, was to hold together and develop a multi-racial Empire.

This is doublethink. Mosley presented (and perhaps imagined) himself as neutral regarding jews, yet in the very act of doing so demonstrated a special regard for them and recognition of their special antagonism for himself and his movement.

Another example of Mosley’s attitudes about jews is captured in the article William Buckley Interview, which took place four years after Mosley published his autobiography, My Life. The text of the interview is also available (in Microsoft Reader eBook format) via archive.org, which describes it as a transcript of the Firing Line television program broadcast on 9th April 1972.

Buckley’s very first concern is to explore how Mosley’s fascism relates to the jews.

MR. BUCKLEY: . . . I was instantly struck by the especially laudatory notices given to [the book] in England by members of the left; for instance, Mr. Michael Foot, who called the book, “a dazzling gleam across the whole century. What Mosley so valiantly stood for could have saved this country from the hungry Thirties and from the Second World War”; and from R. H. Crossman, intellectual leader of the Socialist party (laughter), or so he is regarded, “Mosley was spurned simply and solely because he was right.” I think it would be instructive to explore the current and historical meaning of fascism, something we have yet to do on this program, and I want to begin with the understanding that we shall not devote anything like the entire program to it. By touching on racism and fascism, specifically on anti-Semitism and British fascism, I’d like to ask Sir Oswald: do you believe there is a nexus between the two ? anti-Semitism and fascism?

SIR OSWALD: No, none whatever. That was a purely German phenomenon and that really made the whole complication. Germany, of course, under Hitler, was definitely anti-Semitic. There’s no doubt about that whatever — none whatever. That’s all –

MR. BUCKLEY: You’re not going to dispute that?

SIR OSWALD: – too painfully clear. But in the other countries where fascism occurred, in very different national forms, there was no question of it in the origin of the movement. Fascism was, essentially, a national creed — both its strength and its weakness – and, therefore, it took, in every country, a completely different form. And if you are running, as we hope to run, a multi-racial empire, you obviously cannot have a racialist policy. And the quarrel with certain Jewish interests, not with all, by any means, arose on quite different and much later questions.

As with Mosley’s article regarding “anti-semitism”, the substantial, very earnest expressions of deference to or concern for the best interests of jews collectively, as jews, contradicts the very idea that the jews can or should be treated as individuals.

This portion of the exchange is particularly cringe-worthy:

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, now, is it your point that a national minority, whether religious or racial, does not have the right to attempt to mobilize national energy to come to the rescue of a persecuted people in other parts of the world?

SIR OSWALD: I think he’s absolutely, perfectly right in stating his opinion. Anybody should be allowed to state his opinion, but the answer must be allowed to be put. And my answer was that I was against a war with Germany, and I think most of the English were at that time. I quite understood why they were agitating in favour of a war, but the interest of the majority was against it and, therefore, I pointed out that certain Jewish interests were trying to produce a war, which was against the interests of Great Britain.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, why would you say that it was their Jewishness that was a factor? Why wouldn’t it simply be their humanitarianism? Why shouldn’t a Jew say, “We have reason to believe that this madman in Germany is not only going to threaten the peace in Europe, but is also going to engage in large-scale genocidal ventures which have already been adumbrated, and it is the responsibility of a free and humanitarian people to do what they can to stop him”? Does this become Jewish sectarianism?

SIR OSWALD: No, you’re perfectly right.

Buckley argues that jews are motivated to fight by their jewishness but also that it is the responsibility of “free and humanitarian people” to fight for them too.

The oxymoronic term “national minority” is indicative of this doublethink. In the context of nations and nationalism it is especially obvious that jews think of themselves as jews first and foremost, that jews are naturally distinct from every other nation and, because they are self-obsessed and parasitically bent on infiltration and manipulation of others, are ultimately hostile to everyone else’s nationalism. From their own behavior it is clear that every member of the political elite understands this, more or less. Some, like Mosley, believe they can ignore or finesse this inconvenient fact. Others, like Buckley, explicitly embrace and defend and excuse jews for their hostility.

That non-jews behave so obsequiously with regard to jews – either minimizing their part or joining with them – is an indirect but telling measure of jewish power.

Mosley’s autobiography is available as a PDF via nazi.org.uk. Kerry Bolton reviews Sir Oswald Mosley’s My Life at Counter-Currents Publishing.

(Note: There is no audio download for this program – please tune in via the MP3 Stream.)

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3

Double-talk and the dual nature of jewish identity fuels White doublethink – ignorance and denial of jewish power.

More from John Derbyshire’s Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You, 28 Feb 2007:

The place of Jews in modern American conservatism is a deep and fascinating story, with of course the conversion of the neocons at its center. You have to bear in mind the overwhelming dominance of Jews in every kind of leftist movement in the U.S. until about 30 years ago. Yuri Slezkine has the astonishing numbers. (Did you know that of the four student protesters shot by National Guardsmen at Kent State in 1970, three were Jewish? So says Slezkine, anyway. If you take four people at random from the U.S. population, the chance that three or more of them will be Jewish, given the most generous estimate of the proportion of Jews in the population, is worse than one in four thousand.)

In any case, it was a great achievement, and a great boost, for American conservatism to have peeled off a platoon of articulate, energetic intellectual heavyweights from the great socialistic mass of American Jewry.

Generally speaking—and I certainly include myself here—American conservatism is proud of its Jews, and glad to have them on board. Not that there aren’t some frictions, particularly on mass immigration, the mere contemplation of which just seems to make Jews swoon with ecstasy (American Jews, at any rate. Israeli Jews have a different opinion…). MacDonald gives over a whole chapter of The Culture of Critique to the Jewish-American passion for mass immigration.

Derbyshire recognizes jews as distinct from Whites, and sees the “ecstasy” with which they push genocidal levels of immigration, yet he mischaracterizes this as suicide.

Joe Sobran, ‘For Fear of the Jews’, address at an IHR conference in 2002:

In my thirty years in journalism, nothing has amazed me more than the prevalent fear in the profession of offending Jews, especially Zionist Jews.

The fear of the label anti-Semitic is a fear of the power that is believed to lie behind it: Jewish power. Yet this is still pretty much unmentionable in journalism. It’s rather as if sportswriters covering pro basketball were prohibited from mentioning that the Los Angeles Lakers were in first place.

There has been a qualitative change that is downright eerie in American conservatism generally. The “fear of the Jews,” to use the phrase so often repeated in the Gospel according to John, seems to have wrought a reorientation of the tone, the very principles, of today’s conservatism. The hardy skepticism, critical intelligence, and healthy irony of men like James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, and the young Buckley have given way to the uncritical philo-Semitism of George Will, Cal Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and of course the later Buckley — men who will go to any lengths, even absurd and dishonorable lengths, to avoid the terrorizing label anti-Semite.

It was once considered “anti-Semitic” to impute “dual loyalty” to Jews — that is, to assert that most American Jews divide their loyalty between the United States and Israel. This is now passé. Today most politicians assume, as a matter of course, that Israel commands the primary loyalty of Jewish voters. Are they accused of “anti-Semitism” for doing so? Does this assumption cost them Jewish votes? Not at all! Dual loyalty nothing! Dual loyalty would be an improvement!

At the very heart of the jewish problem is the historic ability jews exhibit in passing – as German, as White, as “us”. It plays on the host society’s capacity for both fear and love. As jewish power becomes more obvious and overtly hostile, their “allies” try to find ways to cope.

Stockholm syndrome, Wikipedia:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.

Battered-person syndrome is an example of activating the capture–bonding psychological mechanism

Symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome:

In order for Stockholm syndrome to occur in any given situation, at least three traits must be present:

  • A severely uneven power relationship in which the captor dictates what the prisoner can and cannot do
  • The threat of death or physical injury to the prisoner at the hands of the captor
  • A self-preservation instinct on the part of the prisoner

Included in these traits are the prisoner’s belief (correct or incorrect, it doesn’t matter) that he or she cannot escape, which means that survival must occur within the rules set by the all-powerful captor; and the prisoner’s isolation from people not being held by the captors, which prohibits any outside view of the captors from infringing on the psychological processes that lead to Stockholm syndrome.

Four decades ago the most powerful Whites in America regarded jewish power as a threat and expressed their fear of it, privately.

Billy Graham Responds to Lingering Anger Over 1972 Remarks on Jews, New York Times, 2002:

”They’re the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” Mr. Graham said on the tape, after agreeing with Mr. Nixon that left-wing Jews dominate the news media. The Jewish ”stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” he continued, suggesting that if Mr. Nixon were re-elected, ”then we might be able to do something.”

Finally, Mr. Graham said that Jews did not know his true feelings about them.

”I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know,” he told Mr. Nixon, referring to A. M. Rosenthal, then the newspaper’s executive editor. ”And all — I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.”

Graham regrets Jewish slur:

Nixon, who became friends with Mr Graham in the 1950s during his time as vice president in the Eisenhower administration

There is a worldwide jewish conspiracy. Jews have power. It is based in part on the ignorance of the masses and in part on intimidation of the White elite. Both parts are deliberately cultivated by jews and their allies.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
7 Comments  comments 

The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2

Concerning the duality, duplicity, doublethink and double-talk inherent in jewish identity and characterizing jewish power.

Prince Charles warns of rising antisemitism | UK news | The Guardian, 24 June 2013:

Prince Charles has warned that Britain was suffering from an “apparent rise in antisemitism, along with other poisonous and debilitating forms of intolerance”, according to . He made the comments in a speech that praised the work of Lord Sacks, the outgoing chief rabbi, in promoting tolerance.

Charles said: “Running throughout your time as chief rabbi has been that all-important principle of which this country has long been an exponent – the principle of tolerance.

“I sometimes fear not enough recognition is given to the role of the faith communities in the life of our country in promoting such a critical principle, and I join with you, in mounting anxiety, at the apparent rise in antisemitism, along with other poisonous and debilitating forms of intolerance.”

This principle of tolerance means in effect subordinating White interests to the interests of “minorities”, with jews as the archetypical “minority”. This tolerance is poisonous and debilitating to Whites.

In his speech Sacks was due to describe his 22 years as chief rabbi as the most exciting and fulfilling of his life. But he was also expected to issue a warning over the number of Jews who do not have a Jewish marriage, and the growth of so-called ultra-orthodoxy.

George Orwell on Doublethink:

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Charles Jacobs’ Americans for Peace and Tolerance:

Promoting peaceful coexistence in an ethnically diverse America

From the sidebar:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. […] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

– Sir Karl Popper

The quote continues:

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper on Jewish nationalism and cosmopolitanism:

Popper’s ever present fear of anti-Semitism and his refusal to see Judaism as compatible with cosmopolitanism raise important questions as to the realisable limits of the cosmopolitan ideal. His inability to integrate an understanding of Jewishness in his cosmopolitan political ideal resulted in his strong opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel.

Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies inspired his student, George Soros. Popper saw “open society” as synonymous with “liberal democracy”.

Contrast jewish double-talk about principles with a quintessentially White attitude:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

John Derbyshire cites Joe Sobran on jewish power in Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You by:

To your next point (I am working from the bottom up again) that my professed fear of ticking off Jews is some kind of affectation or pose, I can only assure you that this is not so. Almost the first thing you hear from old hands when you go into opinion journalism in the U.S. is, to put it in the precise form I first heard it: “Don’t f*ck with the Jews.” (Though I had better add here that I was mixing mainly with British expats at that point, and the comment came from one of them. More on this in a moment.)

Joe Sobran expressed it with his usual hyperbole: “You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”

Jews have power and use it to punish those they perceive as enemies. This is what they call “promoting tolerance” and “combating hate”.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

The Nature of Jewish Power

Tying together and expanding on the themes of recent podcasts:

and blog posts:

More on Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View (PDF).

US Dept of State Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism:

The Special Envoy was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004

Secretary Kerry Names New Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism:

[Ira Forman] led the National Jewish Democratic Council for fifteen years.

About Us | NJDC:

NJDC also educates Democratic elected officials and candidates to increase support for Jewish domestic and foreign policy priorities.

We do this to promote both social justice in America and a secure, democratic Jewish State of Israel.

Stemming the Tide: Confronting the Rise of Global Anti-Semitism; Ira N. Forman; American Jewish Committee (AJC) Global Forum 2013; Washington, DC; June 4, 2013:

Good morning. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to come before a group which is dedicated to combating anti-Semitism, promoting democratic values, and standing up for fair treatment for the State of Israel — and which has done such great work toward those ends for many years.

It has been four years since the President went to Cairo to speak out against intolerance as a global ill. Much has happened since that time. Old authoritarian regimes which preached fear and hate have fallen. But the damage they have done to their own people’s world view lives on — and it complicates the efforts of democrats in those societies to build national cultures that are tolerant and democratic.

The popular rejection of the old regimes presents the United States with both an opportunity and a challenge. We can and must support efforts to combat hate and promote tolerance in our world.

We are attempting – through diplomacy, public messaging and programs all over the world – to advance those principles. Our strategy is to confront and combat hatred in all its ugly forms — whether it is hatred directed against people on account of their religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or differences of political opinion, or due to their country of origin. Anti-Semitism is a widespread form of such hatred. If we want to change these trends, we need to stand together in our efforts to promote tolerance, acceptance and compassion.

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is not history — it is news. More than six decades after the end of the Second World War, anti-Semitism is alive and well. Centuries-old stereotypes and myths are conflated with current events to inject new life into the stale prejudices of the past. In many cases, myths and misinformation about Israel were indoctrinated into the minds of people by authoritarian regimes desperately seeking a pretext to remain in power. The myths and misinformation have outlived the regimes that propagated them. Undoing the damage that has been done doubtless will be the work of generations. But the enormity of the task only underscores its urgency.

The trends are deeply troubling.

“Old fashioned” anti-Semitism is instilling fear where there should be freedom and draining Jewish communities of resources they can ill afford.

Some threats to a Jewish way of life may be motivated by genuine but misplaced concern about children’s rights, such as efforts to outlaw or severely restrict the ritual practices of circumcision. Interestingly, these restrictions affect Muslim communities as well, and we saw in Germany alliances develop between Jews and Muslims to preserve their religious traditions. Just last week, an offensive cartoon appeared in a Norwegian newspaper. The U.S. government firmly believes in freedom of religion and freedom of expression; they are universal rights, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As always, however, we hope that responsible government and civic leaders would make clear their objections to speech that promotes intolerance.

Nationalistic movements target immigrants, and religious and ethnic minorities – in the name of protecting the identity and ‘purity’ of their nation.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

The Jewish Problem and “Anti-Semitism” – Part 2

Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View (PDF). From the foreward by the translator:

Also significant is, that in some of the secondary literature the present pamphlet is quoted as the one in which Marr first coined the expression anti-Semitism. That this is not so is easily verified, since the present pamphlet does not contain this term

Marr explains his purpose:

I shall announce, loudly and without any attempt to be ironic, that Judaism has triumphed on a worldwide historical basis. I shall bring the news of a lost battle and of the victory of the enemy and all of that I shall do without offering excuses for the defeated army.

Indeed, Marr is quite critical of the Germans. The excuses he offers are for the jews.

Marr accepted the jewish narrative, including the jews’ “blood libel” against Europeans:

If in reality during the Middle Ages some fanatical Jews had, during passover — “slaughtered Christian children”– and if such atrocious events had actually taken place, something which has no demonstrable basis in history

Marr argues that the true nature of the conflict is not relgious:

I therefore unconditionally defend Jewry against any and all religious persecution and think that it is hardly possible to express this more clearly than I have done here.

On the other hand, I emphasize the following indisputable truth: With the Jews, the Romans have forced a tribe upon the West, which as its history shows, was thoroughly hated by all the peoples of the Orient.

Blaming the Romans, excusing the jews.

Nothing is more natural than the hatred the Jews must have felt for those who enslaved them and abducted them from their homeland. Nothing is more natural than that this hatred had to grow during the course of oppression and persecution in the Occident

Nothing is less natural than the completely one-sided jewish version of history – jews as blameless victims of “oppression” and “persecution”.

Marr claims the jews’ social and political rule over Germans was cemented at the start of the revolutions of 1848. He reckons financial and commercial dominance even farther back.

He predicted jewry would precipitate a revolution in Russia:

With Russia, Jewry will have captured the last strategic position from which it has to fear a possible attack on its rear, but once it has paralyzed Russia, its rear will be perfectly secure. After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The “last hour” of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years, since events develop more rapidly now, than they did in past centuries.

The 1800 years war with Judaism is nearing its end.

Marr’s most outrageous claim:

We have been vanquished in open battle.

Yes, in open battle; because Jewry has always shown its true face and their little falsehood that we acted like religious fanatics when we offered resistance, must be forgiven.

We are no longer a match for this foreign tribe.

The main point of Marr’s pamphlet was to argue that the nature of the war had hitherto been mistaken as religious rather than racial. Jews, to this day, dissimulate and dissemble about their identity and aims. As a general rule jewry wages war not openly, but by deception and proxy.

Gentleman’s Agreement (1947), IMDb:

A reporter pretends to be Jewish in order to cover a story on anti-Semitism, and personally discovers the true depths of bigotry and hatred.

Gentleman’s Agreement, Wikipedia:

[Darryl] Zanuck decided to make a film version of Hobson’s novel after being refused membership in the Los Angeles Country Club when it was assumed incorrectly that he was Jewish.

Professor Fred Lieberman Quotes from Gentleman’s Agreement:

PROFESSOR FRED LIEBERMAN: Millions of people nowadays are religious only in the vaguest sense. I’ve often wondered why the Jews among them still go on calling themselves Jews. Do you know, Mr. Green?

PHIL GREEN: No, but I’d like to.

PROFESSOR FRED LIEBERMAN: Because the world still makes it an advantage not to be one. Thus it becomes a matter of pride to go on calling ourselves Jews.

Contrasting today’s jew-dominated anti-White regime to the White/Christian-dominated society depicted in the film highlights how jews have turned White society upside down and inside out to suit themselves and their own interests. The consequences for Whites, have been disastrous. Though jews dominate, they cry “anti-semitism” more loudly and more often than ever. Contra Marr, this lends disguise to their dominance, and perpetuates the fraud by which they achieved it.

Rabbi Harley Karz-Wagman:

Rabbi Harley Karz-Wagman serves as the new spiritual leader of Mount Sinai Synagogue in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He also serves as an Associate Chaplain at Cheyenne Regional Medical Center, teaches for the Laramie Jewish Community Center, teaches Holocaust History at Laramie County Community College, and practices law with the Law Office of Richard Gage, in Cheyenne.

Ordained in 1984 through the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati, Ohio)

Anti-Semitism & Jewish Power:

Some say that Jews obsess about anti-Semitism. Our stories agree. In a 7 grade class at an international school in Europe, the students are assigned a paper about the horse. Please excuse the stereotypes, but they make the story work. The French student effuses about the beauty and grace of the horse. The German student describes the power and stamina of the horse. The Jewish student writes about: “The Horse and the Jewish Problem.”

We have good reasons to fear anti-Semitism, but at times, we make it the core of our identity.

Tonight, I suggest some good news about anti-Semitism.

Third, and most crucially, we now have sufficient power to combat anti-Semitism, at least in America. While anti-Semites will always denounce us as too powerful, we should feel proud of our clout. Today, no one attacks us, without paying a heavy cost. This power took nearly a century to build, but we have it, and we need to work to keep it.

As I review the past century of growing Jewish influence in America, please notice how a few factors meant the most. These need to be our focus, today. We should work on sustaining our alliances with other activists. We must continue to push education, since expertise often leads to influence. We have to remain politically active. And, as uncomfortable as this may sound, we need to keep growing Jewish wealth and using it for politics.

Image source: A Survey of Philosemitism.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

The Jewish Problem and “Anti-Semitism”

Reiterating the importance of identity and point of view.

“Anti-semitism” came up during Happy First Birthday to The White Network.

The jewish problem and “anti-semitism” are two names for the same conflict of interests.

Foxman and Sacks Explain “Anti-Semitism” relates and critiques the contemporary jewish point of view. Jews openly regard their enemies as viral, infected, diseased.

The Metapedia article on Anti-Semitism is very good. On the etymology of “anti-semitism”:

originally invented in 1860 by a liberal Jew named Moritz Steinschneider,[1] the son of a Talmudist born in Moravia. In its initial coining, it was applied in a criticism of Ernest Renan’s contrast of Semites and Indo-Europeans, though at this stage was in a wider more general context than just opposition to Jewishness. It was the socialist Wilhelm Marr who popularised the term in the 1870s with his League of Anti-Semites

Renan posited that the Indo-European and Semitic races had created superior civilisations to the African and Amerindian races, but since the coming of Christianity, the Indo-Europeans had entirely eclipsed the Semites.[4] He contrasted the contemporary creative ability, discipline and political organisation of Indo-Europeans with what he regarded as the sensuous, parasitic and unimaginative nature of the Semites.

Joseph Sobran, National Review, 16 March 1992:

An “anti-semite” in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply can’t bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as profanation and blasphemy.

Count Cherep-Spirodovich, The Hidden Hand, 1925:

Are we going to let our world be destroyed so as not to offend a tiny number of people who accuse us of anti-Semitism to cover up the crimes they are committing against us?

(Note: I can find no passage with this wording in The Secret World Government or Hidden Hand)

A pivotal figure in jewish problem/”anti-semitism” mutation 3.0, per Jonathan Sacks, is Wilhelm Marr:

Wilhelm Marr (November 16, 1819 – July 17, 1904) was a German agitator and publicist, who popularized the term “antisemitism” (1881).

In 2010 Kevin MacDonald wrote about Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View to call attention to an English translation of this important pamphlet, originally published in 1879. Here’s the PDF.

From the foreward by translator:

Today he is considered one of the most important exponents of modern anti-Semitism. Just how important a role he may have played is described in a book by Prof. Moshe Zimmermann of Hebrew University of Jerusalem with the title Wilhelm Marr, the Patriarch of Anti-Semitism.

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

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 
© the White network