Jewish racism vs anti-Jewish anti-racism

https://news.yahoo.com/disturbing-rise-anti-semitism-among-030155753.html

Like anti-Black racism, anti-Jewish racism cannot have a place in any legitimate anti-racist liberation movement, yet unfortunately, like with anti-Black racism, those who spout anti-Jewish ideas refuse to acknowledge their prejudice, instead qualifying their hateful words with claims to good intentions.

There is no such thing as “anti-black racism”. Racism is always pro-ingroup, never anti-outgroup. I have never encountered a racist who is genuinely “anti-black”. Even William Pierce, who in The Turner Diaries advocates killing all “black” people in the world:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-we-lose/

is not “anti-black”, because he advocates such killing as a way to benefit “whites”. Ask Pierce if he is willing for all “whites” to die as the price for all “blacks” dying simultaneously, and he is certain to refuse such a deal. Pierce measures everything according to its benefit to “whites”. He is thus pro-”white”, not “anti-black”. This – being pro-ingroup – is what it means to be racist.

However, Jews want us to believe there is such an oxymoronic thing as “anti-black racism” in order to cloud the meaning of racism. Because Jews themselves measure everything according to its benefit to Jews. Jews are thus racist: they are pro-Jewish. But they do not want us to notice this, hence are trying to disorient anti-racists into thinking instead about being pro-”black” (note their use of the deliberately long-winded term “anti-racist liberation movement”, which, in conjunction with the other deliberately long-winded term “anti-black racism”, subtly conditions the reader to erroneously presume anti-racism is about “liberation”, implicitly of “blacks”).

Genuine anti-racism, however, must be the structural opposite of racism. Given that racism (as defined above) is about being pro-ingroup, anti-racism must be about being anti-ingroup. Therefore it is not “black” “liberation” that anti-racists care about. Anti-racists only care about exterminating racists. There is no “anti-racist liberation movement”. There is simply an anti-racist movement – a movement against racists.

And those racists include Jews. So there is certainly no “anti-Jewish racism”. There is only anti-Jewish anti-racism. (Similarly there is no “anti-white racism” either, but only “anti-white anti-racism”.)

When Black celebrities claim that their anti-Semitism is actually a “pro-Black” stance, they assert that the only possible form of liberation for Black people is through creating our own “Other.”

Whichever celebrities made such a claim, we disavow them. If their anti-Jewishness has a pro-”black” motive, I guarantee that they will also be willing to become pro-Jewish as soon as they are shown that being pro-Jewish can be a more efficient way to be pro-”black”. (Indeed, some already have so turned within a matter of weeks since their initial outbursts against Jewry.) The only celebrities (or ordinary people too) who will be able to remain steadfastly anti-Jewish are those whose anti-Jewishness was never motivated by pro-”black” intentions, but only ever by authentic hatred towards racists, including Jews.

There is a huge difference between critiquing whiteness—a racist fabrication with undeniable social consequences—and denigrating Jewishness.

Not really. Jewishness is also a racist fabrication (a tribe marking its own ingroup), and with a much longer history of undeniable social consequences.

Anti-Black racism (as well as anti-Arab racism) as practiced by Jewish institutions and individuals ought to be critiqued where observed, but on the basis of white assimilation and imperialism, not on the basis of Jewish identity.

But Jewish institutions do not in fact practice “anti-black racism” or “anti-Arab racism”. They practice pro-Jewish racism (which includes favouritism for Jewish “whites” over non-Jewish “whites”, disproving that racism by Jews is merely ordinary “white” racism). Why, then, should they not be critiqued on the basis of Jewish identity?

Which is not to say, on the other hand, that Eurocentrism is not a significant aspect of Jewish identity. Pro-Jewish racism will certainly prefer Jews over non-Jews when both are perceived as similarly “white”, but at the same time is likely to prefer “white” non-Jews over even  Jews (or those who claim Jewishness) if the latter are perceived as “non-white”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_Jews#Igbo_Jews_in_Israel

the Igbo Jewish community is not recognized by the Israel’s Supreme Court or by any other Jewish religious group. Indeed, while they identify themselves as part of the worldwide Jewish community, they are still struggling to be recognized by other Jews.[17] Indeed, Igbo Jews asserts that they are connected to Judaism via their Jewish blood as they claim to be descendants of the ancient Israelites.[16] In S. Afsai article, an affiliate of the Gihon Hebrews’ Synagogue declares:[17] “We say we are Jews from blood. We are now excluded; we cannot go and participate as Jews in any place. I make an appeal that we be recognized, not excluded and isolated from other Jews.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#Intra-Jewish_racism:_Racism_between_Jews

Some Jewish Israelis of European descent, known also as Ashkenazi Jews, have been described as viewing themselves as superior to non-Ashkenazi Jews. They are accused of maintaining an elite position in Israeli society,[150][151] with some describing the attitudes of Ashkenazim as racist or of being a manifestation of racism.[152]

Israeli society in general – and Ashkenazi Jews in particular – have been described as holding discriminatory attitudes towards Jews of Middle Eastern and North African descent, known as Mizrahi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and Oriental Jews.[162] A variety of Mizrahi critics of Israeli policy have cited “past ill-treatment, including the maabarot, the squalid tent cities into which Mizrahim were placed upon arrival in Israel; the humiliation of Moroccan and other Mizrahi Jews when Israeli immigration authorities shaved their heads and sprayed their bodies with the pesticide DDT

In the 1950s, 1,033[179] children of Yemenite immigrant families disappeared. In most instances, the parents claim that they were told their children were ill and required hospitalization. Upon later visiting the hospital, it is claimed that the parents were told that their children had died though no bodies were presented or graves which have later proven to be empty in many cases were shown to the parents. Those who believe the theory contend that the Israeli government as well as other organizations in Israel kidnapped the children and gave them for adoption. Secular Israeli Jews of European descent were accused of collaborating in the disappearance of babies of Yemeni Jews and anti-religious motives and anti-religious coercion were alleged.[180][181][182][183][184][185][186] Some went further to accuse the Israeli authorities of conspiring to kidnap the Yemeni children due to “racist” motives.[187]

there have been a series of reports in the Israeli press about alleged acts of police brutality against Ethiopian Israelis, with many in the community saying they are unfairly targeted and treated more harshly than other citizens

This is especially the case in the sphere of reproduction, when Jews frequently reproduce with “white” non-Jews with the offspring accepted as Jews and without systematic worry about polluting the Jewish gene pool, yet when it comes to “non-whites” (even if Jewish), all hell breaks loose:

In 1962, authorities in Israel were accused by articles in the Indian press of racism in relation to Jews of Indian ancestry (called Bene Israel).[188][189] In the case that caused the controversy, the Chief Rabbi of Israel ruled that before registering a marriage between Indian Jews and Jews not belonging to that community, the registering rabbi should investigate the lineage of the Indian applicant for possible non-Jewish descent

In 2010, Israel was accused of a “sterilization policy” aimed towards Ethiopian Jews, for allowing the prescription of contraceptive drugs like Depo-Provera to the community.[202][203] They stated that the Israeli government deliberately gives female Ethiopian Jews long-lasting contraceptive drugs like Depo-Provera.[202]

Israel initially denied the claim of imposing a sterilization policy on the Ethiopian women,[202] but later admitted to it … 35 Ethiopian women who had immigrated to Israel said they had been told they would not be allowed into Israel unless they agreed to the shots.

So basically in Jewish eyes: “white” Jews > “white” non-Jews >> “non-white” Jews > “non-white” non-Jews.

To be truly anti-Jewish must include rejecting Eurocentrism. This is why only leftists can be truly anti-Jewish, though admittedly even among leftists many have yet to clear the poison inside their own minds. If you need help with this, or want to help others with this, please join us here:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/psychological-decolonization/

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Jewish racism vs anti-Jewish anti-racism

  1. RP says:

    I have seen some “blacks” who use the terms “anti-black racism” but they seem to be Jew-aware, and have called out Jewish segregationists and Jewish slave owners. Perhaps they are only using the phrase unintentionally? How do we know?

  2. . says:

    Obviously, RP, Aryanisation will have to entail telepathy at some point soon.

  3. RP says:

    Worth noting that “black” itself is a Eurocentric category, so to be “pro-Black” one would have to be a Westerner. Am I right here?

  4. AS says:

    @RP

    They may be “Jew-aware” in the sense that they know Jews are up to no good, but it is likely they have not studied how racists actually think (ie. they are not “tribe-aware”). This is also why they are prone to describe racism as “hate” when, as I have shown over and over again, not only does racism have nothing whatsoever to do with hate (meat-eaters do not hate the animals who had to be slaughtered to produce the meat), but it is anti-racism which needs to be based on hate.

    Slave-owners owned slaves not because they are “anti-black” (much less because they hate “blacks”). They owned slaves because slave labour increased their commodity output FFS! Again, pro-ingroup, not anti-outgroup.

    Segregationists segregated not because they are “anti-black” (much less because they hate “blacks”). They segregated because segregation increased their real estate values FFS! Again, pro-ingroup, not anti-outgroup.

    Racists are too selfish to hate anyone. Only the unselfish possess the psychological disposition required to hate. But how many people out there understand this at present?

    “to be “pro-Black” one would have to be a Westerner. Am I right here?”

    Yes, in the sense that one is reinforcing the notion of “blackness” which is a Western notion.

    Many “black” leftists who have read, understood and agreed with the Aryan Diffusion series are nevertheless reluctant to start using our terminology in public. This is really annoying. I have already done the hard part for them, and they are unwilling to even do the easy part.

  5. RP says:

    “ Racists are too selfish to hate anyone. Only the unselfish possess the psychological disposition required to hate. But how many people out there understand this at present?”

    Being that the group I mentioned are Jew-aware (which automatically separates them from the False Left), I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are only using terms such as “anti-black racism”, “hate”, etc. out of ignorance, since those terms dominate the prevailing academic discourse, and “blacks” do not have non-Western academics to learn from. Another litmus test that puts them in the True Left camp is that they are highly critical of reproductive Eurocentrism (in both genders, unlike PUAs/feminists who only critique the opposite gender).

    “Many “black” leftists who have read, understood and agreed with the Aryan Diffusion series are nevertheless reluctant to start using our terminology in public”

    These are irredeemable False Leftists (Wakandans). I suggest we reach out to True Leftists (I.e. Kemet fans). While the former group agrees with the historical narrative of Kemet existing, they will always sympathize with Wakanda. Moreover, the latter group only uses “black” to refer to “foundational black Americans” (FBA) since they were the ones who were brought into captivity during the slave trade by “whites” who labeled them as such, and does not expand the definition to include all “Africans” (many of whom they criticize for propagating Eurocentric stereotypes against American “blacks”). Contrast this with the Wakandans who readily embrace the ironically Eurocentric “Pan-Africanism”.

  6. RP says:

    @AS
    “They may be “Jew-aware” in the sense that they know Jews are up to no good, but it is likely they have not studied how racists actually think (ie. they are not “tribe-aware”).”

    But since their Jew awareness comes from the perspective of a victim of racism (as opposed to those whose Jew awareness comes from being a perpetrator of it i.e. WNs), they are a threat to Jews, no? Then again, Jews can simply convince them that they are “pro-Black” and then all of it won’t matter. But I feel that they will have a hard time doing this to “blacks” who call them out on their role in the slave trade/segregation, etc. It all depends on how much a victim of racism despises their perpetrator.

  7. RP says:

    “Yes, in the sense that one is reinforcing the notion of “blackness” which is a Western notion.”

    Exactly. And by doing so they are implicitly acknowledging that “Whiteness”, and “Jewishness” (both Westerners) have a right to exist. Whereas an anti-racist would view these two groups as identities to be destroyed.

    BTW, what about non-Western tribalists? Wouldn’t they view those two groups as rival tribes and thus threats, and would therefore be different from the “pro-Black” types?

  8. AS says:

    “they are highly critical of reproductive Eurocentrism”

    Can you post links?

    “since their Jew awareness comes from the perspective of a victim of racism (as opposed to those whose Jew awareness comes from being a perpetrator of it i.e. WNs), they are a threat to Jews, no?”

    For now, yes. It is still too early to tell whether it can last under what will surely be increasing pressure, however. The crucial thing now is for other groups to wholeheartedly support them so that they feel confident enough to not back down when Jews come for them, as is already occurring.

  9. RP says:

    @AS
    “Can you post links?”
    “Black” male criticizes the reproductive Eurocentrism of his female counterparts:
    https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1290342474469138432?s=20

    Same “black” male criticizes the reproductive Eurocentrism of other “black” males:
    https://youtu.be/PDFjEBVMZ-8?t=2537
    (Watch for 9-10 mins from timestamp for full context)

    “For now, yes. It is still too early to tell whether it can last under what will surely be increasing pressure, however.”

    For a few days, it really seemed like we had them by the balls, as even “leftist” Jews were showing their hand by condemning the “anti-Semitism”. Then all it took was an apology and these same Jews could again pretend to be on our side by criticizing the people demanding an apology.

  10. AS says:

    “all it took was an apology and these same Jews could again pretend to be on our side by criticizing the people demanding an apology”

    ???

  11. RP says:

    @AS
    “???”

    I meant that Jews could again pretend to be on the “left” by criticizing the “Israel lobby” (but not Jews) for reprimanding “black” celebrities, and also bring it back into the fold of Zionism by tying it in with Jewish causes, such as the Zionists’ recent “reprimanding” of Seth Rogen (Jew) for his “anti-Zionist” comments.

  12. AS says:

    That is not how I would describe it. By the very behaviour of these Jews, they further prove correct all the assertions made by the True Left about Jewish racism.

    Why do they not at least accuse other Jews of Jewish fragility instead? (By the way, we should do this.)

    https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism

    DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated in white supremacy. Why, she wondered, did her feedback prompt such resistance, as if the mention of racism were more offensive than the fact or practice of it?

    These splutterings “work,” DiAngelo explains, “to reinstate white equilibrium as they repel the challenge, return our racial comfort, and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy.” She finds that the social costs for a black person in awakening the sleeping dragon of white fragility often prove so high that many black people don’t risk pointing out discrimination when they see it. And the expectation of “white solidarity”—white people will forbear from correcting each other’s racial missteps, to preserve the peace—makes genuine allyship elusive. White fragility holds racism in place.

    Substitute “Jewish” for “white” in the above passage and it remains no less true. Reflexively accusing of “anti-Semitism” those who point out Jewish racism is Jewish fragility epitomized. But how many Jews out there are willing to agree, much less actively raise public awareness of Jewish fragility as a pervasive social phenomenon?

  13. Mza9 says:

    @.

    “Obviously, RP, Aryanisation will have to entail telepathy at some point soon.”

    Only individuals and small groups of dedicated people have ever changed the world, that is one reason we don’t need you….

  14. RP says:

    @AS
    “This is also why they are prone to describe racism as “hate” when, as I have shown over and over again, not only does racism have nothing whatsoever to do with hate (meat-eaters do not hate the animals who had to be slaughtered to produce the meat), but it is anti-racism which needs to be based on hate.”

    The ironic thing is, their anti-racist sentiments can only be described as hate and are (accurately) categorized as such by rightists and even some False Leftists. But instead of doubling down, they deny it. I believe they are non-Westerners but are prone to using Western terminology to attack racists because of their Western education.

  15. Mza9 says:

    “The ironic thing is, their anti-racist sentiments can only be described as hate and are (accurately) categorized as such by rightists and even some False Leftists. But instead of doubling down, they deny it. I believe they are non-Westerners but are prone to using Western terminology to attack racists because of their Western education.”

    Think about western hip-hop culture that has constantly pumped into the heads of western youth that it is wrong to be a “hater”, which consequently also blinds them to the true machinations of the real devil. The term “player hater” is just as ridiculous when applied as general terminology because it gives people the wrong understanding by suggesting that all “players” are on the same team, when nothing could be further from the truth. There is a ‘good guys’ team and a ‘bad guys’ team and if a person cannot hate the bad guys then they are more than likely one of them, or at least so wishy-washy on their own moral and ethical standing that they can easily be swayed by the bad guys. And, it’s not as hard to spot the bad guys really, they are the ones who never live by the most simple moral code that underlies all true morality, that code being: “Do unto others as you would want done unto thyself”.

    Consequently this is how you know “whites” are full of shit and are on the bad guy team because they themselves would never want to be persecuted for their skin color. Simple really. Why is this SO difficult for the average westerner or colonial subject to see?

  16. Mza9 says:

    @AS:

    “Substitute “Jewish” for “white” in the above passage and it remains no less true. Reflexively accusing of “anti-Semitism” those who point out Jewish racism is Jewish fragility epitomized. But how many Jews out there are willing to agree, much less actively raise public awareness of Jewish fragility as a pervasive social phenomenon?”

    I understand you viewing Gilad Atzmon of being a Jewish apologist ultimately, but couldn’t one argue that he is one of a few Jews who actually addresses the phenomenon of “Jewish fragility”?

  17. AS says:

    @RP

    “non-Westerners but are prone to using Western terminology to attack racists because of their Western education.”

    So why not call them Westerners?

    @Mza9

    “Gilad Atzmon”

    My main problem with Atzmon is that he promotes Duke:

    https://www.thestruggle.org/duke%20and%20atzmon%20like%20each%20other.htm

    The left is devastated by David Duke for instance. He was in the KKK when he was young. But here is something quite amazing: I read him and I was shocked to find out that this guy knows more about Jewish identity than I do! How could a supposedly ‘racist’ Gentile who probably never entered a synagogue knows more than I do about Judaism? The reason is in fact very simple : he is a proud white man.

    This is Atzmon pushing classic Boromir Syndrome: Jewishness is bad but “whiteness” is good. To whatever extent he addresses Jewish fragility, it is worthless because he does not address “white” fragility in the same way.

  18. RP says:

    @AS
    “So why not call them Westerners?”
    Ok, but then wouldn’t this mean that merely identifying as “black” would constitute being a Westerner?

    “Slave-owners owned slaves not because they are “anti-black” (much less because they hate “blacks”). ”
    I have seen some female racists retort that they are not racist because they have a “black” partner, but ultimately they view “blacks” as sexual objects and are thus racist. This is further evidenced by the fact that most female racists possess a latent fear of reproducing with “black” men (and rarely do so) because they do not want their bloodline to be “polluted”. “Black” anti-racists, noticing this, are quick to call them out, but inaccurately characterize their sentiments as “hate”. While I do not doubt their anti-racist intentions, I fear that by using Western terminology they will inevitably weaken the anti-racist cause they want to fight for. How would you propose we characterize these sentiments, if not as “hate”?

  19. RP says:

    Also, regarding reproductive Eurocentrism, I notice that “non-White” False Leftists not only exclusively target the opposite gender for it (i.e. PUAs and feminists) but they even go so far as to squarely place the blame on “non-Whites” for being reproductive Eurocentrists. While those “non-Whites” who practice reproductive Eurocentrism are certainly worthy of our scorn, it must be understood that they are only doing so because they want to be “White”. What do you think?

  20. RP says:

    @AS
    “This is Atzmon pushing classic Boromir Syndrome: Jewishness is bad but “whiteness” is good. To whatever extent he addresses Jewish fragility, it is worthless because he does not address “white” fragility in the same way.”

    I think this is because Atzmon wants to gain credibility among sincere anti-Zionists, and sell “whiteness” as the “lesser evil”.

  21. AS says:

    @RP

    “wouldn’t this mean that merely identifying as “black” would constitute being a Westerner?”

    Yes, hence the “” around “black”. Of course there is a difference between being aware that one is seen as “black” by others (which is merely social awareness), and oneself believing one is “black”. The former cannot realistically end until Western civilization is dead. Ending the latter is required to kill Western civilization.

    “How would you propose we characterize these sentiments, if not as “hate”?”

    Ethnic stereotyping, bigotry, Eurocentrism, etc..

    “While those “non-Whites” who practice reproductive Eurocentrism are certainly worthy of our scorn, it must be understood that they are only doing so because they want to be “White”.”

    Which is why they are to blame.

    “What do you think?”

    What I see as the bigger problem is that many critics of reproductive Eurocentrism, instead of focusing on the Eurocentrism itself, focus on the systematic “rejection” of “[insert "non-white" category here] men/women”, as if those men/women are all entitled to acceptance. They are not. True Leftists want people’s reproductive standards to be as high as possible. We are merely against Eurocentrism (and broader Western aesthetical assumptions) distorting the content of these standards. The higher the % of [insert "non-white" category here] men/women someone rejects, the more respectable they are – so long as they at the same time reject “white” (including Jewish) men/women at an even higher %.

    “I think this is because Atzmon wants to gain credibility among sincere anti-Zionists, and sell “whiteness” as the “lesser evil”.”

    It is our duty to ensure that he fails.

  22. RP says:

    @AS
    “ Which is why they are to blame.”
    I agree. I was trying to say that the cause of the problem is “whiteness”, rather than “non-whiteness” as the False Left implicitly states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>