Tuesday, July 20, 2021

1165. Heeft BLM tòch gelijk? Zijn wij witte mensen de gruwel van deze wereld ? Parkinson als voorbeeld.

 

Een goede kennis van mij heeft Parkinson.  Hij heeft 30 jaar lang zijn landbouw-percelen met 'bestrijdingsm-middelen' bespoten.  Maar hij zei me dat dat niet de reden van zijn Parkinson was. 

Nu rijdt zijn 22 jarige zoon dus vrolijk de hele dag met de 'spuit' rond mijn huis. 

Ik baal er van, maar wat kan ik er tegen doen? 

Ik heb medelijden met de buurman, maar de ervaring leert me dat 'hulp' vaak op wantrouwen stuit. Men gelooft liever de artsen, die er bij zitten en niks doen.

BLM heeft tòch gelijk. 

Niet omdat wij hun discrimineren of omdat we vreselijke slavendrijvers waren.  Die verhalen zijn veel te ongenuanceerd. ( Maar dat zalik hier niet behandelen). 

Wat ze ons wèl mogen verwijten is dat wij al die Chemie bedacht hebben, en dat we de Big Corporations de kans geven om onze wereld te vergiftigen.

Niet omdat  zij zo graag in een giftige wereld wonen, maar omdat ..... 'de banalieit van het kwaad' noemde Hannah Ahrend  de wijze waarop de holocaust mogelijk was:  ieder radartje deed zelf niks verkeerds, en moest wel meedoen, en besefte niet waar het toe zou leiden etc etc.    Bedrijven doen hetzelfde: ze concurreren en willen de nadelen op lange termijn even niet zien. 'Hopen er het beste van.'  Hebben geen oog voor complexe middelen die op elkaar  inwerken en mogelijk onverwachte gevolgen sorteren.  Moeten de aandeelhouders tevreden houden. De bestuurders hebben geldingsdrang,  peers, dispuutgenoten die ze jaarlijks zien , zitten in een bubbel, haten de alternatieve doetjes, lezen selectief, last van confirmation bias etc etc. 


Het resultaat mag er zijn:  Mensen worden wel enkele jaren ouder dan 100 jaar geleden, maar leven 20 jaar met chronische ziekten.  Kanker , hartfalen, autisme, Parkinson, Alzheimer.... Al deze ziekten waren 100 jaar geleden nauwelijk bekend. Ze bestonden nauwelijks.

Volgens de Nieuwe Dokters is dit allemaal het gevolg van onvoldoende voedingsmiddelen. Slechte voeding. Voeding die het immuunsysteem sterk verzwakt, of aanzet tot een aanvalop onszelf. 

Suikers en koolhydraten die ons diabetes geven. 

Propaganda voor onverzadigde vetzuren terwijl die slecht zijn en de ouderwetse verzadigde juiost goed.

Vroeger zat er in een ei even veel Omega 3 (goed) als Omega 6 ( slecht). Nui bijna alleen nog Omega 6. 

Adviezen van VoedselBureau's die precies 180 graden fout zijn ( eet 6 keer per dag!) 

Etc etc.

Big Corp is de baas geworden en heeft àlle gremia die ons zouden moeten beschermen , geïnfiltreerd. 

Big Corp heeft dus niet alleen de wereld tot slaaf gemaakt ( sweat shops) en veroverd ( het begon al met de Boeren Oorlog: diamanten, goud) , maar ook vergiftigd en geplunderd.  En ze gaan door. 

En wij witten zijn verantwoordelijk.  Ook al zijn we zelf even goed slachtoffer ( chronische ziekten,  Parkinson, kanker, etc etc ) 

We hadden ons moeten verzetten. We hadden het elkaar eerder moeten vertellen. 

Ja, BLM is woedend wegens hardhandig politie-optreden. Maar vertel er wel bij dat zwarte jonge mannen erg impulsief en gewelddadig zijn, en dat ze elke maand 30 blanken vermoorden  in de VS. ( Bron: Anglin. Ron Unz.) 

Maar dat is natuurlijk peanuts in vergelijk met het leed dat de wiite Big Corp elke maand in de wereld verspreidty. 

Dat praat je niet over 30 mensen, maar 30 miljoen mensen die een klote leven hebben wegens de winsten die Big Corp persé wil behalen.  

BLM heeft dus gelijk: de witten zijn slecht. Maar niet op een actieve manier, maar omdat ze het allemaal laten gebeuren. Omdat ze die 'journalisten' nooit behandelen zoals Julain Assange ( een goede journalist)  wordt behandeld door Big Corp.


Hier het artikel in het ED ( bij Stan van Houcke gelezen) dat  de inspiratie was voor dit blog: 


Tractor spraying a field of corn
landbouwgif
PREMIUM
Tractor spraying a field of corn landbouwgif © Shutterstock

Neuroloog wil verbod op chemische middelen die hersenziekte kunnen veroorzaken: ‘Sjonge, het is verdorie urgent!’

Als neuroloog ziet Bas Bloem van het Radboudumc hoe Parkinson het leven van zijn patiënten vernielt. Pesticiden kunnen de hersenziekte veroorzaken, toch blijft een verbod uit. ,,Maar het is verdorie urgent! Hoe leggen we volgende generaties uit dat zij Parkinson kregen omdat wij aarzelden om maatregelen te nemen?”

Monday, July 05, 2021

1164 Huishoudelijke Mededeling.



UPDATE,  9 JULI: 

Op zaterdag 4 juli liet ik een Firewall installeren. 

Omdat ik vòòr die firewall ook al een 'blokkering' van blogspot had ervaren, en ook Rootman er last van heeft,  dacht ik dat de oorzaak bij Blogspot lag. ( Zie blog hieronder)   Later kregg ik meer problemen door de Firewall, enm die is tot nader order er uit gehaald.  Alles gaat nu weer goed.  Ook het reageren op Blogspot. Maar ik reageer weinig omdat ik 'zuinig ben ' , want het zou toch kunnen dat ik op rantysoen sta, en omdat ik totaal geen tijd heb. druk druk.

REACTIES VAN MIJ DIE NIET PLAATSBAAR ZIJN, KAN IK NOG WEL 'BLOGGEN'.  dAT ZAL IK VOORLOPIG HIER DOEN. 

HET ECHTE BLOG STAAT  DAARONDER. 

=============

Reactie, 12 juli: 

In een reactie op een youtube van De Nieuwe Wereld  vraag ik me af of China nu wèl of niet onder een hoedje speelt met de bankiers van het Westen. 

Peter Myers meld t in zijn recente nieuwsletter:   

Op video is te zien dat Xi  een Vrijmetselaars signaal afgeeft, als hij de Military Games in Wuhan opent.  Dat is volgens mij geen 'toevallig gebaar'.  Maar we weten het niet zeker, natuurlijk. Als China met de joodse bankiers in bed ligt, zijn we verloren! 

Onderbouwing: 

1) Mijn reactie op Jim Surie interview: 


Ik heb heel veel geleerd van Ellen H. Brown 's boek "Web of Debt". De strijd van de bankiers tegen het volk. Bankieren is een familiebedrijf, en het dient om de wereld te veroveren. Wat we niet weten is of China 'zelfstandig' is (en blijft) of reeds in the pocket is van dit familiebedrijf. Wie niet buigt voor de bankiers, wordt door een oorlog getroffen. Zo is het al enkele eeuwen. Ellen Brown besschreef in feite de Credite crisis van september 2008, maar haar boek kwam al vopro die tijd uit. Zoals wel vaker gebeurt: mensen van buiten de bubble zien veel sneller wat er echt gebeurt dan mensen die er in zitten. Bankiers hebben geen idee. Ze zien hun vak zoals hen dat altijd wordt voorgekauwd. Confirmation bias.

2) Myers beelden met het gebaar: http://mailstar.net/Xi-Masonic-Wuhan-2019.mp4

 

3) Site met de Masonic signs: https://veritas-vincit-international.org/2015/01/18/hand-signals-of-freemasonry-explained/

4) Stuk van Peter Myers tekst: 

How come the MSM missed this? Because they must be Masonic too. They

must see these handsigns all the time - and keep Mum (Mom) about it.

"In plain sight, for all not to see".

Which is the bigger story? That Xi made the handsign? Or that the MSM
suppressed it?

====================================================

Reactie JV, 12 juli.

Mike Mutzel bespreekt een groot onderzoek dor de CDC zelf, dat toont dat STRESShet verloop van een Corona besmetting sterk erger maakt ! 

Maar dàt is het beleid: STRESS creeren: elke dag zeggen hoeveel opnames en besmettingen er zijn. Elke dag schrijven dat je er niks aan kan doent, tot er vaccins zijn. 

Hier de video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY98nuD3Bco

New Analysis of Health Conditions & High Risk for C*19: Anxiety, Obesity + More


 Beste lezers,  

beste Wolf en Rootman  ( en de mensen die ik persoonlijk ken en die zeggen dit blog wel eens te lezen), 

Twee zaken: 

1) Het is heel lekker druk met de verpak van suikermais.  Ik geniet met volle teugen! 

( Ik doe nu ook vaker IF  ( Intermittend Fasting) en op dit moment heb ik al 60 uur niks gegeten.  Ik heb geen honger, maar wel 'lekkere honger': als ik aan iets lekkers denk, doet het wel pijn dat ik het nu niet kan pakken. ) 

2)  Ik denk dat ik IC aan mijn broek heb:  "Intermittend Censored" , ik bedenk de term nu ter plekke, maar het werkt als volgt:  

Als je te vaak woorden gebruikt die de Echte Machthebbers  niet leuk vinden, dan word je op rantsoen gezet:  Van elke 5 reacties die je wil plaatsen, lukt er maar één. 

Het is ontmoedigings-beleid.

In een email die ik met Rootman ( die er al langer last van heeft)  hierover wisselde schreef hij: 

"Ja.  Ik denk dat je alle woorden als joods, jew etc. zult moeten vermijden, blijkbaar ook in een link, en ook 'dog whistles' zoals 'het uitverkoren volk' etc.  Mensen worden tegenwoordig al geband als ze het woord ivermectine gebruiken!  Onlangs kwam een post over covid bij de Duran van mij niet door de censuur!  Het is typisch dat je dat net bij een post over N Korea moet merken!


Ik denk dat we naar een fase gaan waar er werkelijk geen enkele vrije meningsuiting meer overblijft, we zitten er eigenlijk al in."


De laatste regel van Rootman heb ik zelf   Vet gemaakt, want ik denk dat het zo is, en dat is natuurlijk een Gigantisch Belangrijke Gebeurtenis.

Hier wordt de facto de macht gegrepen door een kleine kliek. 

=== 

Ik heb nog een Wordpress account, dat ik destijds aan Putin wilde wijden, maar dat niet zo lang 'geleefd' heeft. https://putinisok.wordpress.com/


Mogelijk dat ik daar verder ga.


Mogelijk dat ik mijn eigen domein   www.evolutie.nl   dat ik al 20 jaar heb, maar niet   gebruik, toch ga gebruiken, en op een veilige plek of land host. 

Maar om dat alles uit te zoeken is tijd nodig, en die heb ik niet. 

Maar wat ik ook  nodig heb is een uitlaatklep:  snel even iets posten waar ik enthousiast over ben. Het is dan niet zo heel belangrijk dat er maar heel weinig mensen mee lezen.   Je wil het even kwijt. 

In de komende week hoop ik tijd te hebben om te onderzoeken wat er aan de hand is met mijn goodle account. 

Dit is de melding die ik krijg: 

===============================================

Oeps, dat is een fout.

Onze excuses voor het ongemak.

Probeer de pagina te vernieuwen en kijk of alles weer in orde is.

De volgende fouten zijn gevonden:
Input error: Memcache value is null for FormRestoration

Als je nog steeds problemen ondervindt, raden we het volgende aan:


==================================================================


Is er iemand die dit herkent ? 

( Ik heb het Rootman gevraagd, maar die geeft dan geen antwoord op de vraag, maar schrijft andere info.( zie boven)   Ook nuttig natuurlijk. 

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

1163 Van je joodse vrienden moet je het maar hebben...

 Artikel op de site van mijn joodse held, Ron  Unz:  

https://www.unz.com/article/critical-race-theory-as-a-jewish-intellectual-weapon/

Critical Race Theory as a Jewish Intellectual Weapon

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.
Noel Ignatiev in his journal Race Traitor

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.
Andrew Joyce on Whiteness Studies

To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived.
Michael Jones in Logos Rising

Earlier this year, my brother suddenly asked me what “Critical Race Theory” was. I was elated, for this was proof that this pernicious, genocidal, anti-White theory was finally entering into the consciousness of Whites. Since my brother asked me, stories about Critical Race Theory (CRT) have mushroomed, including much criticism of this previously arcane intellectual trend.

Much to my amazement, however, I’ve noticed that few if any critics of CRT have associated the theory with Jewish ethnic activism.

Though the theory has long been employed in university settings, more recently it has turned up in government and corporate offices, and even the military has been pushing it since the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. For me, it’s long been a given that CRT is linked to the social engineering of our “hostile elite,” which in the context of The Occidental Observer means powerful Jews and Jewish organizations who rule over America and much of The West. When viewed more broadly, however, the topic of CRT has in fact been much addressed by our writers but often under a consideration of something called “Whiteness Studies.” In that sense, I’m merely adding the term “Critical Race Theory” to an ongoing conversation about Jewish ethnic war on Whites.

For me, CRT fits squarely into the mold of Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” category in which Jewish “gurus” concoct a Talmudic verbal assault whose main goal is the further destruction of Gentiles — literally. I know because I had a ringside seat to the introduction of CRT in the graduate schools of the 1990s, with one of the most vicious practitioners of the “art” as one of my required professors. It was a brutal experience, but at least I was forced to reckon with it from then on and have since probed more and more deeply into its Jewish roots. In that sense, I’ve gained from the trauma I experienced and emerged out the other end able to share with my audience the lessons I’ve learned.

To tell this story, let’s begin with a now obscure Australian writer named Robert Hughes (1938 – 2012), who was once described as “the most famous art critic in the world.” In 1993, he’d gotten so fed up with identity politics that he penned the book Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America (Oxford University Press). In this book, he rightly skewered the growth of the Grievance Industry, giving example after example of how black groups or women’s groups or whatever loudly attacked the White Majority for all manner of sins. I recall how his book attracted attention from many of the print journals of the time, with many taking the Australian author’s side, so bad had this “culture of complaint” become.

What frustrated me, however, was the fact that Hughes completely neglected to address the “meta-complaint” in the West from which all lesser complaints emerged. To wit, Hughes failed to see how The Holocaust Narrative had been so successful in advancing Jewish interests that naturally other groups eagerly imitated this successful model.

Of course in 1993 the Complaint Industry was just hitting its stride and I soon endured the “graduate education” described above, with mere complaint being elevated to something far more pernicious and menacing. In any case, the direction of complaint was always the same: Against the White race.

I eventually staggered out of higher education, badly bruised and emotionally scarred, but with terminal degree in hand. Sturdier souls might have crowed that “Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger,” but I’ve been too battered since to engage in such braggadocio. Instead I try to keep my head down and stoically soldier on. Jews are playing for keeps in this battle.

Fast forward a few years when I was diligently working on a major composition about Jewish power in America and a professor of history with a Harvard Ph.D. twice encouraged me to “give the work of Kevin MacDonald a fair hearing.” I did and the experience has been life changing. His trilogy, culminating in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, appeared to me at just the right time; I was ready to truly hear what the master had to say.

Of course I immediately recognized the similarity of main titles between Hughes’ “Culture of Complaint” and MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique,” but fortunately the latter’s laser-like focus on Jews made MacDonald’s book far more important than Hughes’. Verily, if Whites ever come out of the ethnic battle described by MacDonald, The Culture of Critique will be among the top books in the new Western pantheon. Future generations of Whites will know the name “Kevin MacDonald” as household words, as well they should.

Here, I am assuming our audience knows the gist of Culture of Critique, as well as the later Cultural Insurrections, so I’m going to now jump to the founding of MacDonald’s Occidental Observer, the online blog which emerged from The Occidental Quarterly, our side’s academic journal. Early on, in 2008, MacDonald published a blog called “Promoting genocide of Whites? Noel Ignatiev and the Culture of Western Suicide” in which he parsed the wordplay used by the late Jewish professor from Harvard to reveal its genocidal intentions toward Whites. Ignatiev was the founder of the journal Race Traitor, the motto of which is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” a phrase which immediate recalls Jewess Susan Sontag’s infamous lines “The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilisation has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history …”

Situating Ignatiev’s clever use of words in the category of Jewish ideologies deconstructed in Culture of Critique, MacDonald wrote,

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide. And like so many strongly identified Jews, his hatred for the people and culture of the West comes shining through.

Further falling back on categories included in Culture of Critique, MacDonald concluded that

Ignatiev is just another Jewish intellectual in a long line that stretches back to Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School, and myriad others who now dominate the culture of Western suicide. He may call himself a race traitor, but there is every reason to believe that he has a sense of allegiance to his own people and the long history of hostility to the people and culture of the West that is so typical of highly committed Jews. For him, being a race traitor comes easily and naturally; it’s the mother’s milk of socialization as a Jew.

As fate would have it, the Jewish professor who so tormented me and other Whites in grad school had many similarities to Ignatiev, beginning with appearance:

And what MacDonald wrote about Ignatiev — “People like Ignatiev, who doubtless have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests, have managed to pathologize any sense of ethnic identity and interests among Europeans and European-derived peoples — and no one else” — was true in spades of my graduate school oppressor. What we were exposed to in the 90s is identical to what various critics of Critical Race Theory are describing now — the struggle sessions, the mandatory lectures on “White privilege,” and the complete lack of debate or discussion. I had to watch as our esteemed professor subjected White individuals to withering criticism in class, first reducing a young woman to tears, then much to my disgust, a fellow White male grad student. It was awful.

While MacDonald did not use the phrase “Critical Race Theory” to label Ignatiev’s assault, he was in fact describing the same thing. Best, MacDonald saw through Ignatiev’s sophism to expose the real intent, something which others on TOO have done since, as we shall soon see. Before addressing that, however, I’d like to add an aside whose timing is too good to ignore. As I was about to embark on my dissertation after having completing coursework and exams, another Jewish professor gave me a book he had received gratis in the chance that he might review it. The professor opted not to and gave me the fresh copy:

Written in 1997 by law professor Stephen M. Feldman, the book was titled Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (NYU Press). The subtitle containing “Critical History” points to the fact that the sponsor of the book was the Critical America Series from NYU Press, whose myriad titles revealed by the link can be enjoyed at readers’ leisure. Oh, I should mention that the very first words of the Introduction are: “I am Jewish.” Thus began another “culture of critique” attack on Western man and his major holiday.

Andrew Joyce on “Whiteness Studies”

The Occidental Observer was extremely fortunate to attract the considerable writing skills of Andrew Joyce, beginning with his Limerick “pogrom”: Creating Jewish victimhood, posted on St. Patrick’s Day in 2012. By 2015, however, he had written what can be seen as an extension of MacDonald’s 2008 unpacking of Ignatiev’s brutal intellectual campaign. In “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies,’” Joyce drew on MacDonald to show that “Ignatiev only very thinly disguised the unrestrained hatred that his ‘discipline’ incites against Whites and their culture.” Further quoting MacDonald, Joyce noted that

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.

All Ignatiev’s written material that we’ve seen carries the same odd message with the same extreme wording…Ignatiev writes darkly and dramatically of “abolishing the white race,” “genocide of whites,” etc. When pressed, he emphasizes that that he doesn’t really mean killing people who call themselves white. He only wants to destroy the concept of whiteness. So he’s off the hook, right?

Joyce comments:

Not quite. Ignatiev is really just playing a game of bait and switch. While fully tuned-in to his own Jewish racial identity, he ostensibly follows the PC line that “races” are only “social constructs.” When pressed, he claims to be little more than an extreme egalitarian, against all social hierarchies but especially those in which he imagines Whites to be at the top.

Like MacDonald, Joyce easily sees through Ignatiev’s gambit, writing that “The party line, therefore, is that it’s all about getting White people to stop thinking that they are White – for their own good of course. So while Black studies, women’s studies, Chicano studies etc. all aim to develop and nurture their relative identities and social agendas, ‘Whiteness Studies’ aims to utterly extinguish any sense of identity and awareness of group interests,” a very important distinction indeed.

Much of what Joyce wrote was very familiar to me by 2015. For instance, the wife of Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse “devoted much of her time to pushing her ideology through her ‘Unlearning Racism’ workshops, and indoctrinating White teenagers into supporting multiculturalism through her Oakland-based ‘New Bridges’ group.” Another Jewish woman, Ruth Frankenberg, wrote in 1993 that the dogma of her Whiteness discipline

orbits around the belief that race is nothing more than a fluid social, political and historical construct. She argued that while Whites may deny that they are ‘racist,’ they cannot deny that they are White. Frankenberg proceeded to argue that Whites are implicitly racist by virtue of their ‘dominant’ position in western society, and contended that we should ‘critically reflect’ on this social position of dominance that White people occupy in our society. ‘Whiteness Studies’ to Frankenberg, like her predecessors, was therefore nothing more than an exercise in convincing Whites that they are oppressors, whether they wished to be or not, and whether they had actually personally taken part in any oppression or not.

Been there, heard that back in the 90s. I’m sorry now that the broader public is hearing and being submitted to the same thing in the Biden Era.

Joyce had other good things to say. For instance, he found a section from Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun to be useful in exposing the deceit employed in Jewish aggression:

Inconspicuous, slow, yet implacable persecution, both economic and cultural: the systematic suppression of all possibilities for the vanquished, without it ‘showing,’ the merciless ‘conditioning’ of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly ‘gentle,’ the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies; violence under the cover of non-violence.

“Violence under the cover of non-violence” — although it could certainly morph into violence if Whites lose power to the rising tide of color, and indeed, we can already see the rise in anti-White violence in the interracial crime statistics and incidents like these, as compiled by AmRen. It was tactics like these that caused me so much distress as an isolated and powerless grad student years ago. Back then I knew of no Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Joyce who could guide me through those roiled waters. While I could recognize my professor’s method as a deliberate form of social engineering, I couldn’t yet figure out how it was done, so I was demoralized because, as E. Michael Jones said in the epigraph which begins this essay, “To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived,” and I could not fully perceive what these words meant, even as I felt their sting and saw their near universal effectiveness, just as I fear their effectiveness now.

Since grad school, my goal has been to understand this social engineering and explain it to others, which I have attempted relentlessly, in the classroom and in these columns. I now find comfort in the company of men like Andrew Joyce, who concluded in this White Studies piece,

The ‘educational’ programs of the ADL, the obliteration of our national borders, the assassination of our racial identity, and the slow genocide of our people are being accomplished without the bullet, bomb or blades. But it is, and will be, tremendously violent in its implications. Whiteness studies are not part of an academic discipline in any true sense of that term. The genre is an act of inter-ethnic aggression.

Joyce revisited Jewish involvement in Whiteness Studies (again, a close cognate, in my view, of Critical Race Theory) in 2020 with “Review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility,” a book that “is heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.”

Sure enough, Joyce found concrete evidence of this in the bibliography — “so many names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like shunned relatives at a family reunion — Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth Frankenberg, Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman. These are DiAngelo’s mentors and intellectual forbears …” We are definitely seeing a pattern here.

Critical Race Theory in the News Today

I originally began this essay with a story about Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who was fired for publicizing his views on the introduction of CRT into the military. Admittedly, it was asking for trouble to publish a book titled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military in today’s current climate, but he did. In an online Revolver article concerning the controversy, we find that “Lohmeier appeared on several podcasts to promote his book, and in response the Pentagon fired him. According to the DoD, his statements caused a ‘loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.’”

The article continued, “As far as Revolver and tens of millions of American patriots are concerned, Lohmeier’s actions represent the very pinnacle of courage and leadership,” an opinion I’ll second. Still, based on this interview, it seems Lohmeier could benefit from exposure to MacDonald’s Culture of Critique or my short discussion of White Studies above. When a term like “Marxist Race Theory” is used by an author, is it knowingly used as shorthand for “Jewish”? My impression given this interview and my brief exposure to Revolver’s approach is “No.” And that’s a problem. Consider Lohmeier’s words:

I am often asked, “how did this happen?” or, “when did this happen?” How is it, for example, that American people and institutions — predominantly our education system, and now, all federal agencies including even our military services — increasingly resonate and align with Marxist thought? How is it that Americans can now so easily question or forget the greatness of the American ideal and become victims to the tactics of subversion? Why haven’t we been able to recognize our slide into Marxism? There are two ways this has happened: gradually, then suddenly. …

Obviously, if he’s read The Culture of Critique, he knows “how this happened.” Given his relatively young age, if he’s followed the podcasts of The Daily Shoah or read more than a few dozen Andrew Anglin stories on The Daily Stormer, then he knows how this happened. My suspicion, however, is that he has no idea, so someone should forward him this article.

Anyone following American academia for the last three decades will know of the intense leftist slant gaining power with each passing year, and students of politics, the legal system and corporate affairs will be similarly aware. It only makes sense that it was slower to reach the military and that there was some pushback, summed up by Lohmeier with the statement, “There is a growing perception that the preponderance of political partisanship occurring in our armed forces is radical leftist partisanship.” Well, yes it is.

Next, does Lohmeier view the introduction of CRT into the military as being generically harmful, or does he see it as specifically anti-White? Based on the interview, it’s likely that he sees the anti-White import of official programs in today’s military, writing as he does that in one chapter he is critical of an essayist who sees her role in a project “as an attempt to ‘decenter whiteness.’” Sounds like we’re getting back to the White Studies aspect of CRT.

But is it even necessary to ask whether CRT can be evaluated as generically undemocratic or even racist rather than being specifically anti-White? Apparently it is, as a VDARE writer styling himself as “Washington Watcher II” has done in a blog called “Fight Against Critical Race Theory — But They Still Flinch From Calling It Anti-White Racism.” Note the subtitle claiming “They Still Flinch from Calling it Anti-White Racism.” Kind of hard to believe. But Washington Watcher found a CRT critic who “essentially argued that race doesn’t exist, a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. And along with many other cuckservatives, he promotes the cringe idea that CRT is bad because it harms non-whites.” Yes, it really is hard to believe. Our thanks to Washington Watcher for making this distinction clear, especially in his conclusion when he beseeches us to “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.”

Conclusion

We’ve reached the point where some are stepping forward to point out the obvious truth that CRT is in fact “anti-White racism.” Much to my surprise, however, I’ve seen little or no evidence that people have pointed to the far more instructive issue that while it is of course anti-White racism, it has been propagated by a long string of Jews for over fifty years. This is because Jews are prosecuting a deadly war on Whites, with previous examples such as the Bolshevik era in Russia, the Holodomor, and the various “cold” strategies documented in The Culture of Critique such as boosting non-white immigration and depressing White family formation. This is the point I am at pains to emphasize.

The consequences of this are immense, beginning with MacDonald’s claim in his 2008 TOO article that after demonizing Whites (or “Whiteness”), “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of Whites is the next step.” I couldn’t agree more and have stressed this point for over twelve years here on TOO.

I’ll close with a succinct version of all I’ve written about above, one that uses plain language to cut through sometimes lengthy analyses. On June 10, 2021 Andrew Anglin published a piece called Psychoanalytic Journal Publishes Paper Calling “Whiteness” a “Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition” which is a sort of companion piece to Aruna Khilanani’s fulminations as discussed by MacDonald in “Expressions of Anti-White Hatred in High Places: Aruna Khilanani at Yale” published two days earlier. MacDonald states that “Jews have been a necessary condition for creating multicultural America” and that “It’s no surprise that Khilanani is a textbook example of the influence of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, the forerunner of Critical Race Theory.”

Clearly, Anglin knows the work of Noel Ignatiev and his theories of Whiteness Studies, and immediately recognizes their import to the confessions of the non-white female psychiatrist:

This whole thing of claiming that “whiteness” is somehow different than “being a white person” is just a ruse. No one thinks that makes sense, including the people saying it. They are talking simply about white people.

They want to wipe out white people.

Recently, we saw the Indian psychologist – psychologist again! – Aruna Khilanani saying that she just wants to kill random white people. She didn’t say kill random “people infected with whiteness” – she just said white people.

Talking about “whiteness” as some kind of abstraction is a way for these people to really start pumping up the genocidal mania under a thin veil of semantics.

This puts me in mind of the predictions of Tomislav Sunic in his 2007 book Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, where he argued that “in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald in those years of writing about “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” (i.e. Jews) identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union.” Further,

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” These attitudes are well captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s — the vast majority of the population — were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

In his June 10, 2021 entry Anglin issued a similar warning, one I feel is a fitting close to this essay:

We are right on the verge of a large-scale culling.

We’ve talked about “white genocide” in terms of mass immigration and using feminism to restrict our breeding — but this cold genocide is about to get hot.

People should be aware.

There are warning signs all over.

There is a bloodbath coming.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)