Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Jewish Crypsis – An Introduction

Published on July 9, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

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:

Chapter 6 – JEWISH STRATEGIES FOR COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 3

Published on July 2, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

The Nature of Jewish Power – Part 2

Published on June 25, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

The Nature of Jewish Power

Published on June 18, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

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

Published on June 11, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

The Jewish Problem and “Anti-Semitism”

Published on June 4, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

The Jewish Problem

Published on May 28, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

The jewish problem is a White problem, the key to many other White problems.

Who are the jews, what is the problem: poison. The central characteristic is dishonesty – the bad faith and dual nature with which they present themselves. They lie about who they are. They lie about what they want.

The jews problem has existed as long as the jews have and follows them wherever they go. Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Gothic Spain, and the Ottoman Empire for example. What do all these societies have in common? They all had a jewish problem, and they’re all gone now.

Excerpts from Carolyn Yeager’s Thoughts on the Jewish Problem and the HoloHoax:

Some people get upset when the word ” holohoax” is used instead of “holocaust,” thinking it is unnecessarily antagonizing to Jews — but I think it is proper, if just to keep from having to repeat their word, Holocaust, over and over and thus reinforcing a word that to those of us in the know, is offensive to us.

The idea I’m presenting is that the real problem we face is The Jewish Problem, also known as “the Jewish Question” – which Jewry turns around on us and calls antisemitism. Henry Ford’s early publication of his ambitious work was titled The International Jew – The World’s Foremost Problem.

The major effort of the Jews throughout history has been to prevent their expulsion from their host countries. Think about it – as parasites, which they truly are, it is critical to their survival to remain in host countries.

Everything in nature is built, or has evolved, with survival as the strongest, most primary instinct or value. Survival is our first concern as humans, before anything else can matter. For Jews, survival depends on the willingness of their hosts to allow the Jews to live as parasites among them. This requires a great amount of propaganda and thought-control by the Jews, which is why they went first of all for control of communication outlets, which we now call Media.

Through their foresight, planning and propaganda, they managed to disable the survival instinct of their White host population by convincing us that our survival was not at risk. The very idea seemed impossible to us and was not entertained … until very recent times when we see with our bare eyes (if we’re not blind) the terribly dangerous demographic and political situation we are facing.

Considering this, defining the rightness or wrongness of expelling Jews en masse from any of their host nations is the key to solving The Jewish Problem. The idea that it is wrong to do so, and cannot be justified under any circumstances, IS The Jewish Problem today.

This campaign to create a total intolerance of antisemitism is a huge project of International Jewry. The Alliance Israelite Universelle was founded in 1860 in France as an international organization to defend against any perceived slurs or “attacks” on Jews anywhere in the world.

Hoax, Wikipedia:

A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth.

Hoax, the Free Online Dictionary:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick.

2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

Parasitism, Wikipedia:

Parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

parasites are generally much smaller than their host

Parasites show a high degree of specialization, and reproduce at a faster rate than their hosts.

Parasites reduce host biological fitness by general or specialized pathology, such as parasitic castration and impairment of secondary sex characteristics, to the modification of host behaviour. Parasites increase their fitness by exploiting hosts for resources necessary for their survival, e.g. food, water, heat, habitat, and transmission.

Parasites whose life cycle involves the death of the host, to exit the present host and sometimes to enter the next, evolve to be more virulent or even alter the behavior or other properties of the host to make it more vulnerable to predators.

Virulence, Wikipedia:

Virulence is by MeSH definition the degree of pathogenicity within a group or species of parasites as indicated by case fatality rates and/or the ability of the organism to invade the tissues of the host. The pathogenicity of an organism – its ability to cause disease – is determined by its virulence factors.[1] The noun virulence derives from the adjective virulent. Virulent can describe either disease severity or a pathogen’s infectivity.[2] The word virulent derives from the Latin word virulentus, meaning “a poisoned wound” or “full of poison.”[2][3]

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

George Lincoln Rockwell’s The Fable of the Ducks and the Hens puts the jewish problem in parable form. See also this illustrated video version, narrated by Edgar J. Steele.

Biden on Jewish Influence.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

White Problems

Published on May 21, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

A survey of problems for Whites.

Who’s White? Only advocates agonize over this. Critics don’t.

The term “White problem” is most often misapplied to anti-White complaints about Whites.

The idea that Whites have any real problems is mocked.

First World Problems, Know Your Meme:

First World Problems, also known as “White Whine,” are frustrations and complaints that are only experienced by privileged individuals in wealthy countries. It is typically used as a tongue-in-cheek comedic device to make light of trivial inconveniences.

First World Problems, Urban Dictionary:

Problems from living in a wealthy, industrialized nation that third worlders would probably roll their eyes at.

Louis C.K.:

We have white people problems in America. That’s what we have. White people problems. You know what that is? That’s where your life is amazing, so you just make up shit to be upset about. People in other countries have real problems. Like “Oh shit, they’re cutting all our heads off, today!” Things like that. Here, we make things up to be upset about. Like “How come I have to choose a language on the ATM. It’s bullshit. I shouldn’t have to do that. I’m American!

See also, White Whine – A Collection of First-World Problems. From the front page:

After suffering the indignity of the suburbs today to pick up a replacement iphone, I now must return to the suburbs tomorrow, as the replacement phone is broken.

So-called “White whines” are not even consciously voiced from a White point of view.

Contrast with Jewish Complaining and Jews Love to Argue, from Television Tropes and Idioms.

Non-Whites whine about microaggressions. Some examples of the various petty ways they feel offended or oppressed can be found at Microaggressions : Power, privilege and everyday life. A sample from the front page:

My close friend is Armenian, and her father has friends in the Armenian community in Watertown, much of which is located on Franklin. In these last 24 or so hours, one of his friends have received calls, threatening or yelling at him just for being Armenian.

These petty complaints are based upon a self-conscious identity as self-righteous diversity.

They are taken seriously, not mocked. Microaggression, Wikipedia:

Sue et al. (2007) describe microaggressions as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

Microinvalidation – Characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person.

White identity is excluded and invalidated by definition.

White Activism: More Harm than Good?, Racism is A White Problem:

It made me wonder if white people are MORE racist during their activist, anti-racist activities. The very act of trying to uproot racism, so seemingly central to white survival, can provoke a backlash within the white activist. And at the same time that this racism is showing up, the white person gets to feel like a good white person for being an activist. So, in the end, does it really help?

Schools and media are openly anti-White, antipathetic to Whites, engaging in anti-White indoctrination and anti-White propaganda.

Whiteness studies, Wikipedia:

A central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history and its effects on the present, inspired by postmodernism and historicism, in which the very concept of racial superiority is said to have been socially constructed in order to justify discrimination against non-whites.

Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. Krizek write about whiteness as a “strategic rhetoric,” asserting that whiteness is a product of “discursive formation” and a “rhetorical construction” in the essay “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric.” Nakayama and Krizek write, “there is no ‘true essence’ to ‘whiteness’: there are only historically contingent constructions of that social location.”

White privilege, Wikipedia:

The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.[1] These include cultural affirmations of one’s own worth; greater presumed social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.[2] The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one’s own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.

The government is anti-White. Affirmative action, explicit preferences/favoritism for non-Whites. Rhetoric and programs promoting diversity, meaning less white, as good and right. Anti-discrimination principles in practice serve to protect non-Whites, not Whites.

Birth rates are below replacement rate in many White subpopulations.

Living spaces are being colonized, with Whites demographically swamped by non-Whites.

Whites don’t identify positively as White.

Whites are too easily divided – whether by partisan politics, class, religion or by ethnic/national passions. Whites have the capacity to see the world in terms of Us and Them, but a strange preference to fight among ourselves rather than uniting against more alien Others.

Whites are too prone to self-criticism and guilt. Too gullible, too trusting, too easily misled. As a result, more likely to serve the interests of anyone but Whites.

Too tolerant, too nice, too concerned about being polite, prim, proper, not giving offense.

Few Whites are thinking about, much less addressing White problems.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

Anti-White Problems

Published on May 14, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

Expanding upon Segan and O’Hehir’s Big Damning White Problems, tracking a disturbing pattern of “White problem” rhetoric.

Economy? What Economy?, Washington Post, 3 Sep 2008:

But the economy is not all; the GOP’s last best hope remains identity politics. In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

Identity politics is a weapon created by leftwing jews who view any form of White identity – no matter how weak, implicit, or even denied – as a “huge problem”. Meyerson’s ideal is an un-White America.

Harold Meyerson:

In September, 2009 Atlantic Monthly named Harold Meyerson one of 50 Most Influential Columnists. Calling its list “its all-star team,” Atlantic Monthly’s Top 50 are the most influential commentators in the nation – the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates.

This anti-White view has been echoed by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, jewess DNC chairwoman, during the 2012 election. From Decoding the Racial Political Discourse:

There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum — to African Americans.

The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.

Jews have two parties actively seeking to serve their interests, non-Whites have one, and Whites have none. Meanwhile, the judaized media narrative inverts reality, painting this situation as biased in favor of Whites.

From Problem, What Problem?, Ballet series has lots of talent, little diversity, Washington Post, Sarah Kaufman, Jun 2010:

The companies are also overwhelmingly white and dotted with Europeans — as they have always been. Diversity in ballet remains a serious problem for the small companies as well as the large, on the coasts as well as in the heartland. In the 21st century, we can put a black man in the White House, but as last week’s survey shows, we can’t put a black ballerina in the Opera House. Clearly, not enough work is being done to foster African American dancers.

“Too White” is another way anti-Whites describe their problems.

Vienna Philharmonic attacked for past Nazi ties, being too white, latimes.com, 3 Jan 2013:

Norman Lebrecht, who runs a widely read classical-music blog, wrote that the orchestra has no Asian or other non-white members, “even though one third of the students at Vienna’s University of Music come from the Far East.”

Iowa’s Critics traces one manifestation of this idea that broke into the mainstream in Jan 2012.

Andrea Mitchell:

The rap on Iowa: it doesn’t represent the rest of the country — too White, too evangelical, too rural.

The source of this rap was Arthur Gregg Sulzberger:

Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.

The critic was Stephen Bloom, who wrote Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life:

I’ve lived in many places, lots of them foreign countries, but none has been more foreign to me than Iowa.

In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa’s not representative of much. There are few minorities, no sizable cities, and the state’s about to lose one of its five seats in the U.S. House because its population is shifting; any growth is negligible. Still, thanks to a host of nonsensical political precedents, whoever wins the Iowa Caucuses in January will very likely have a 50 percent chance of being elected president 11 months later.

These ideas – “White problem”/”too White” – are being propagandized, repeated over and over to the masses by the thoroughly judaized corporate media. This demoralizes Whites and emboldens non-Whites. One way to counter such propaganda is to call it out for what it is: manipulative lies intended to create problems for Whites.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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

Media, Identity and the Boston Bombing – Part 2

Published on May 7, 2013 by in Age of Treason Radio

David Sirota twits:

The eerie way the history of violence repeats itself [links The Boston backlash is rooted in America’s paranoid past]

The eerie repeating pattern is jews siding with the immigrant/alien Other while pathologizing and demonizing Whites for even recognizing there are Others. For example, see Sirota or the anti-White opinions he agrees with…

The Boston backlash is rooted in America’s paranoid past, Salon.com, by Andrew O’Hehir, 27 Apr 2013:

I’m talking about the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley by an unemployed 28-year-old anarchist named Leon Czolgosz

Superficially, the America of McKinley’s time – a nation of 76 million people dominated by an Anglo-Saxon Protestant elite, in which only a handful of nonwhites and women were even permitted to vote — has little in common with the America of Barack Obama. But the nativist paranoia about alien ideologies and alien religions remains strikingly familiar, as does the quest for “enemy combatants” behind every door and under every sofa. If you ask me, the real enemy combatants, now as in 1901, are right here at home, ready and willing to surrender our remaining rights and freedoms in the name of rooting out the supposedly imported virus of evil.

Over the last few days we’ve heard a lot of delirious right-wing chatter, very little of which has any direct relevance to the bizarre and painful case of the Tsarnaev brothers. Most obviously, the Tea Party troika of Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul seem determined to twist this story into a reason to persecute Muslims in general and derail immigration reform. (Of course, they want to do those things under any and all circumstances; Boston is merely a pretext.)

A few months before shooting McKinley, Czolgosz met the legendary Russian-born anarchist Emma Goldman at a speech she gave in Cleveland, where she reportedly said that she understood why anarchist revolutionaries turned to violence to overthrow despots, although she stopped short of endorsing it. Czolgosz told police later that her words had burned themselves into his brain.

But while he was on Death Row, Goldman wrote an eloquent and tormented essay called “The Tragedy at Buffalo” that compared Czolgosz to Brutus, the assassin of Julius Caesar, and praised his courage and daring without quite embracing his crime. (She somehow neglected to mention that she had met him at least twice.)

I don’t believe I had ever read Goldman’s essay before this week, but it strikes an oddly similar tone to the article I wrote for Salon last weekend, inquiring into the “massive and disheartening national freakout” that followed the Boston bombing.

Goldman was vilified on all sides for her undeniably peculiar defense of a man who was widely seen, even at the time, as a mentally unbalanced loner. But it’s worth considering what she says about Leon Czolgosz when we think about the Tsarnaev brothers. Her essential point is that Czolgosz wasn’t much of an anarchist but was definitely an American, “a child of Columbia,” shaped by conditions of economic inequality in which “a small band of parasites have robbed the American people, and trampled upon the fundamental principles laid down by the forefathers of this country.” He was nurtured, she suggests, on “a perverted conception of patriotism, and the fallacious notion that all are equal and that each one has the same opportunity to become a millionaire (provided he can steal the first hundred thousand dollars).” Realizing that all that was a lie, she says, essentially sent him around the bend.

If that critique sounds strikingly contemporary, so does Goldman’s Dr. Phil-style amateur psychology. She describes Czolgosz as “a soul in pain, a soul that could find no abode in this cruel world of ours.” That’s ladling it on pretty thick, but we’ve already heard at least the elder Tsarnaev described in similar terms.

Czolgosz and the Tsarnaevs were dangerous enough, in their way. But not dangerous enough to destroy America. Only we can do that.

“We” who? O’Hehir pretends jews are “white” while regarding them as completely different. The Oscars’ old, white, male problem, Salon.com, by Andrew O’Hehir, 21 Feb 2012:

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the Times pointedly did not inquire into the religious or ethnic affiliations of the Academy’s white members. I can’t deny being curious about the question of how Jewish the Academy is these days, and you might be able to construct a non-offensive argument for why that’s relevant information. But it’s information that ugly people would use for ugly reasons, and you can’t blame the reporters and editors involved for not jabbing a stick into that particular hornets’ nest. (Internet comment threads on this topic are likely to be bad enough without raising the subject directly.) For the record, I suspect anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists might be a little disappointed. Of course it’s true that Hollywood retains some of its traditional identity as an industry founded by Jewish immigrants at a time when other business ventures were closed to them.

Another might be to institute radical reforms, as suggested by 2001 best-actor winner and longtime member Denzel Washington: “If the country is 12 percent black, make the Academy 12 percent black. If the nation is 15 percent Hispanic, make the Academy 15 percent Hispanic.”

Andrew Rosenthal, the New York Times’ editorial page editor since January 2007, who oversees the editorial board, the letters and Op-Ed departments, and Sunday Review asks, What’s the Difference Between McVeigh and Tsarnaev?, NYTimes.com, 22 Apr 2013:

The argument that we should treat Mr. Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant boils down to his religion and his ethnic origin. This is the kind of logic that led the United States to imprison Japanese-Americans during World War 2, and to far worse acts of ethnically and racially motivated violence in other countries.

More from Rosenthal, The Boston Bombing and Immigration, NYTimes.com, 26 Apr 2013:

And when did the United States start excluding immigrants from dangerous places? Seems to me that they fall into the categories of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” not to mention “wretched refuse” of teeming shores and the “homeless, tempest-tossed.”

Emma Lazarus, Wikipedia:

She is an important forerunner of the Zionist movement. She argued for the creation of a Jewish homeland thirteen years before Theodor Herzl began to use the term Zionism.

Mona Charen, Wikipedia:

Mona Charen is an American columnist and political analyst, and the author of two best-selling books, Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got it Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (2003) and Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us) (2005). She was also a weekly panelist on CNN’s Capital Gang until its cancellation. Her political stance is conservative.[1] Charen usually writes about foreign policy, terrorism, politics, and culture. She regularly writes about her Jewish faith[2] and is also known for her generally pro-Israel views.

Charen served as Jack Kemp’s speechwriter during his unsuccessful 1988 presidential bid.

The Hatred in the Heart of White America, by Mona Charen:

We Americans are not confused about the morality of what happened in Birmingham that September morning in 1963, nor during the Jim Crow era in America generally. We do not hesitate to condemn utterly the behavior and the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan (the perpetrators of this bombing and others) and their white supremacist fellow travelers. We do not worry that reviling white supremacists and their grotesque deeds will somehow taint all white people.

Today, American liberals are obsessed not with terrorism but with the color and ethnicity of terrorists. They can readily enough attribute violent tendencies to groups they dislike — the tea party, for example, which hasn’t committed so much as a littering offense. But when it comes to Islamic terrorism, their voices falter.

Boston’s Mosques & Radical Ties – Radical Islam – Connecting The Clues – Wake Up America!!, FoxNews, posted 21 Apr 2013. The “expert” in this case is Charles Jacobs. He suggests viewers google muslims. Instead I googled him.

For ten years Jacobs’ one-man “group” has been telling government officials how they can better defend “American” interests by promoting peace and tolerance for jews. Here’s how he describes it:

Mission

Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a Boston-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting peaceful coexistence in an ethnically diverse America by educating the American public about the need for a moderate political leadership that supports tolerance and core American values in communities across the nation.

About Us

Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization composed of concerned citizens, academics, and community activists. As Christians, Moslems, and Jews, we are united by the need to keep America hate-free. We believe peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnic populations is only possible if we promote a climate of tolerance and civil society.

Leadership

Americans for Peace and Tolerance is headed by Dr. Charles Jacobs, named by the Forward as one of America’s top 50 Jewish leaders. Jacobs has founded and led several highly successful organizations characterized by groundbreaking ideas and initiatives.

Jacobs’ disingenuous rhetoric for peace and tolerance is of a kind with the leftwing jewsmedia’s disingenuous rhetoric against prejudice and discrimination.

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 
© the White network