Monday, 31 March 2014


Many white nationalists and those on the alternative right have rightly pointed out the disgusting hypocrisy of many influential Western Jews. The same people who promote multiculturalism and denounce any manifestations of white identity unapologetically assert Israel’s right to exist as a “Jewish state.” I won’t write about that, since Jewish hypocrisy regarding Israel is well documented. However, what isn’t acknowledged too often is the insincerity of Jewish support for non-white minorities within Western countries. Jews love to boast about how they supported the black civil rights movements and were at the forefront of liberal egalitarian movements. But did they really care about black people and other minorities, or were more self-serving motives present? The late Malcolm X has his own answer to that question:
“I gave the Jew credit for being among all other whites the most active, and the most vocal, financier, “leader” and “liberal” in the Negro civil rights movement. But I said at the same time I knew that the Jew played these roles for a very careful strategic reason: the more prejudice in America could be focused upon the Negro, then the more the white Gentiles’ would keep diverted off the Jew. I said that to me, one proof that all the civil rights posturing of so many Jews wasn’t sincere was that so often in the North the quickest segregationists were Jews themselves…And an even clearer proof for me of how Jews truly regard Negroes, I said, was what invariably happened wherever a Negro moved into a neighborhood that was thickly Jewish. Who would lead the whites’ exodus? The Jews!” 
The Autobiography of Malcolm X, page 380
So Jews are not only hypocritical when it comes to differing attitudes on Western countries and Israel, but even their own domestic support for minorities is shallow and hypocritical. Malcolm X quotes aside, what are some examples of such insincerity? For starters, Jews adamantly believe that their victimhood trumps all others. Non-white victimhood is acceptable so long as it’s directed against white gentiles and does not infringe upon Jewry’s monopoly. Norman Finkelstein once referred to such an attitude as “the uniqueness doctrine.” For a great fictional example of the “uniqueness doctrine” in action, watch the following clip from the acclaimed HBO mafia series The Sopranos. (skip to around the 0:30 mark)

Even the most dimwitted person can’t help but notice the Jewish character Hesh’s fundamental shift in demeanor towards the Latino character Reuben during the course of the conversation. When speaking purely of Columbus and the genocide of the Taino Indians, Hesh displays nothing but sympathy and support. After all, Jews “because of their history have common cause with the oppressed.” Never mind that all the claims about wide usage of infected blankets are nonsense (the only recorded instance of such biological warfare was its use by British general Jeffrey Amherst during the French & Indian War during colonial times). However, Reuben made the fatal mistake of presuming that Jewish and non-Jewish lives are equal, because he foolishly asserted that Columbus was no better than Hitler. Major blunder. All of Hesh’s sympathy and “common cause with the oppressed” instantly evaporated, and his tone and body language demonstrated nothing but hostility. Reuben was accused of “trivializing the Holocaust” and told that he was revealing his “covert anti-Semitism.” Hesh then proceeded to kick Reuben out of his house.

So how exactly was Reuben engaging in anti-Semitism? Did he claim that Jews were a biological race, and an inferior one at that? Did he express any animus towards the Jewish people? No, merely by claiming that the suffering of American Indians was on equal footing with Jews during the Holocaust, he violated Jewish sensibilities. If the writers of The Sopranos had some more courage, they would have had Reuben question Hesh on why the suffering of Jews was more important than that of American aboriginals. But not even the creative and intrepid creators of America’s favorite crime series dared to challenge the notion that Jewish victimhood towers above other peoples’ suffering. Instead, Reuben was outraged over the charge of anti-Semitism. When accused with anti-Semitism, one can only deny and never challenge. One must always be on the defensive.

For a recent and real life example of this hypocrisy, consider the case of iconic black South African anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu and Ohio State University Hillel member Misha Berkovic. Upon seeing a video of Tutu describing the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as apartheid, Berkovic referred to Tutu as a neo-Nazi. When taken to task for his absurd slander, Berkovic proceeded to call Tutu a Jew hater and rant about how much Jews have done for blacks.

Or take the conflict between the Toronto-based “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid” and the Canadian Jewish Congress. Former CJC head and “human rights advocate” Bernie Farber absolutely adores gay people and their struggle. That is, until they run away from the plantation and fight for the human rights of Palestinians, which causes paragons of social justice such as Bernie Farber to bring down the hammer.

So there you have it. Jews love minorities and will gladly fight with them against white goyim oppression. However, the second they step out of line and challenge Jewish racism and exploitative practices, they transform into vile anti-Semites. Far from being a new phenomenon related to Israel, this is business as usual. Norman Finkelstein describes the Jewish abandonment of the black struggle in his book The Holocaust Industry:

“Jews, no longer mindful of past allies among the have-nots, increasingly earmarked their resources for Jewish concerns only. This reorientation of American Jewry was clearly evident in growing tensions between Jews and Blacks. Traditionally aligned with black people against caste discrimination in the United States, many Jews broke with the Civil Rights alliance in the late 1960s, when, as Jonathan Kaufman reports, ‘the goals of the civil rights movement were shifting – from demands for political and legal equality to demands for economic equality. ‘When the civil rights movement moved north, into the neighborhoods of these liberal Jews,’ Cheryl Greenberg similarly recalls, ‘the question of integration took on a different tone. With concerns now couched in class rather than racial terms, Jews fled to the suburbs almost as quickly as white Christians to avoid what they perceived as the deterioration of their schools and neighborhoods.” pages 35-36

Finkelstein attributes this to a “rightward shift,” but I know better. In a nutshell, Jews were happy to support blacks so long as they were protesting against the white goyim and knew their place. But the second that blacks began to demand equality with Jews and were no longer content to be junior partners in their alliance, Jews “took on a different tone.”

These are but a few pieces of evidence and observations that highlight the very capricious nature of Jewish support for minority groups. Many believe that Jews are hypocritical about their liberalism. I would argue that Jews are not even liberal on a fundamental level. Through their deeds, Jews (at least those in the organized community) have demonstrated that they’re not genuinely committed to individualist, universal values that transcend tribal identity. Whenever liberalism collides with “is it good for the Jews?” the Abe Foxman’s and Bernie Farber’s of the world will always choose the latter. Jewish liberalism is a tool used to advance their tribal interests.

I’m not saying that all or even most individual Jews are like that. I’m capable of distinguishing between group and individual behavior, as evidenced by my very diverse social group. Some might wonder why I’m even bothering to write this post. After all, what do black-Jewish relations have to do with white preservation? The point I’m trying to make is that white people shouldn’t be so easily cozened by the sophisticated moral arguments and assaults against the West. Jewish liberal talking heads are not simply misguided and clinging to quixotic beliefs. They’re not promoting their liberalism in good faith, and any white person not blinded by the cult of Jewish victimhood should recognize it for the racial self-interest that it is.

From what I’ve observed, it is only white gentile liberals who genuinely embrace liberal values. How else can one explain white liberals applauding or even celebrating growing diversity and the impending minority status of their own people, whereas so-called “liberal Zionists” would have a heart attack at the thought of Palestinians numerically eclipsing Jews within Israel? This is not confined to Jews, as Asian Americans and Latinos likewise employ liberalism as a shield for their tribal interests.

Originally published at Occidenta Invicta.

No comments:

Post a Comment


by Colin Liddell AUDIO VERSION AVAILABLE HERE In recent days, the news cycle has been dominated by so-called "racism" ...