Jordan Peterson takes the shekel

Back in January I wrote a post on Jordan Peterson and his hands-off approach to the Jewish Question. I called for forbearance as despite his reticence he nonetheless continues to awaken huge numbers of Whites, especially White men to the war being waged against them. And let's face it, should he stray off the reservation on the JQ he loses his glittering career and celebrity status. His silence on the JQ was consistent with a core recommendation of his to 'tell the truth - or at least don't lie.'

Sad to relate he did exactly that - lie - in a recent article in which he finally addressed the JQ head-on. His position (you can read it here, it's quite short) is essentially that Jews don't conspire to undermine White societies, that their success is explained exclusively by superior intelligence* and not by nepotism or ethnic networking, that Whites who complain about Jewish influence are failures seeking to scapegoat others for their own inadequacies. He excoriates 'the players of identity politics on the far right' but has no issue with non-Whites' identity politics. In fact the whole essay is a no-holds-barred attack on those espousing White identity.

For this I accuse him of lies, cowardice and abandoning young White men, those he claims he most wants to help: He has already clearly identified the sources of their anomie and despair as the evils of feminism, discrimination via affirmative action, ridicule and humiliation in movies and TV, their women encouraged to mate with dusky foreigners, their countries' courts biased against them, their ancestors' stunning achievements denied and/or vilified. Be assured he knows full well the central role played by Jews in bringing these pathologies to fruition.

So the next time Jordan wells up in tears as he describes the unfortunate young men he treats remember that he has wilfully turned attention away from the source of their problems.

To conclude on a positive note the reader comments on his essay (thousands of them) have been largely negative towards JP. It's truly heartening to see the huge numbers of readers fully awakened to the Jewish role in our ongoing destruction. In fact it's possible that JP might have scored an own goal with this one.

*As I've mentioned on a number of previous occasions the much-touted Ashkenazi IQ average of 115 is based on very flimsy evidence. Vox Populi does an excellent dissection on the figure here and plausibly posits an average of 104 as being more accurate. In the process blowing JP's core argument to pieces.

A modest proposal

It's standard practice - for obvious reasons - to identify the affiliations of those being interviewed on the media. 'Muslim Brotherhood spokesperson', 'Far-right activist' or whatever. Poor David Duke (on the odd occasion he gets on the MSM) gets tagged to this day with the 'ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan' appellation even though he left that organisation over forty years ago. So why then should we not identify the ethnicity of Jews appearing on the media? 'Jewish journalist', Jewish Senator' etc.

You can just imagine the squawks and squeals of outrage such a proposal would elicit. Hitler and the Nazis would get yet another airing, another Holocau$t would be in the making. But why should this be? Why would they object to being identified as Jewish? In fact they revolt against the idea for the same reasons I support it. First it would highlight their staggering over-representation at the controlling heights of Western society. Second it would bring into sharp relief the fact that, despite internal disagreements about methods and means and bracing claims of universal moral pieties, they operate under a single criterion: 'Is it good for the Jews?'

At which point the nativists would start getting restless. Very restless.

As Josef Goebbels observed: One may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I've been found out."

Elevator pitch 3: The JQ

This, the JQ, is the big kahuna. Yet paradoxically it probably isn't the most important one in terms of waking normie Whites up, being of now too close to the bone for most of them. The following pitch might strike some of our more muscular readers as rather insipid. But remember the purpose of the elevator pitch. It's to get normies questioning the Official Narrative, and hopefully thereafter to pursue truth to a deeper level.

So here's my suggestion. "I'm not saying it's all or even most Jews but it's become very clear to me that Jews have been at the forefront of everything that ails us Whites today. Open borders, modern feminism and its catastrophic impact on families, anti-White 'hate' and affirmative action  laws, bogus theories on racial and gender equality and White guilt. degradation of our art, literature and music, central banks running our countries, turning our universities into close-minded intolerant propaganda machines. You name it. Jews have been leading the way, And you know it's very easy to demonstrate the truth of what I just said'.

Obviously you'll need to become versed in the material required to back up the pitch should the need arise. It'd be a great shame to achieve first base by eliciting questions only to find you can't answer them.

Good luck!

Elevator pitch 2: 'But where are you REALLY from?'

Being asked 'where are you from?' is an exasperating experience for black musician Nura from the band SXTN. The rapper said that when she tells people she’s from Germany, they often press further by asking, “but where are you really from?”. Her experience is common all over the world and it persists despite endless programming to make us believe that holding a German passport makes you German. I'm reminded of that clownish Bishop of Dublin with his fatuous observation on Muslim Brotherhood 'activist' Ibrahim Halawa (this fine young Irishman is pictured here with his lovely sisters) to the effect that 'he's as Irish as any of us'.

It's vital that Whites clamp down on this insidious nonsense and it's possible to do so without being unduly "offencive" to normies. So here's my proposed elevator pitch* for use the next time you hear Mo Farah described as British or other such nonsense. It's important not to let it pass.

"But he's not Irish [or any other White nationality] because the Irish today have evolved over thousands of years, sharing territory, ethnicity, language, culture, religion, history, traditions, myths and legends which have fused to make us what we are today, which is in effect an extended tribe with unique characteristics and a strong sense of national identity. Being born here to African parents affords him none of that. It doesn't mean he's a worse person or anything, it just means he's not Irish. If I had been born in Japan would it not be understandable for people to ask me 'but where are you really from?' If he can be deemed Irish then the word has lost all meaning."

I think that's a powerful pitch. It can of course be modified - if the conversation continues! - to show that European peoples are merely an extended version of White nations. That is, we have more in common with one another than we ever will with those of different races.

*So-called because it represents the duration of a typical elevator ride in which you have to make your point to a prospect.

Elevator pitch 1: Migrants

Much discussion has taken place here over the last few weeks on the most effective way to address the JQ. A strong majority (including me) recognises a full-frontal assault to be generally counter-productive, that most people have been programmed to tune out and/or rebel if fed too much too fast. Same applies in other areas of interest to White advocates. We must recognise that our opportunities to exert influence on normies in an interpersonal level is limited, particularly in relation to time. What we require therefore is a form of 'elevator pitch'* for each subject, something short and punchy that will, if not open up a deeper interaction, at least introduce an element of doubt in the other's mind. 

Here's my suggested elevator pitch for the migrant issue. (I'll suggest others over the coming weeks).

Normie: 'How can you be so cruel and uncharitable as to turn away those unfortunates 'fleeing war and poverty'?'

You: 'So are you saying that everyone who wants to come here should be accepted? Research from Oxford University shows that hundreds of millions of sub-Saharan Africans would migrate to Europe if they could. Are you suggesting that Europe's population be doubled within a few years?'

'Of course not. Therefore you have to agree that migration controls are necessary in principle. Which means we're talking about how we implement immigration controls rather than immigration controls per se. We're making progress!

'Here's another thing. If migrants seeking illegal entry knew with certainty that they'd be rejected and returned (i.e. the Australian Solution) the mass drownings would stop overnight. If you're sincere about preventing these drownings you'd support the Australian Solution too.'

*So-called because it represents the duration of a typical elevator ride in which you have to make your point to a prospect.

Stunning: Or is it?

It's long been my understanding that the Jewish Power over White countries has been applied by relatively subtle means. The Jew-behind-the-curtain stereotype has arisen for a reason. There have been exceptions of course, the early Soviet Union being an obvious example, the Bela Kun regime in Hungary another. But for the most part I would have thought that a juicy combination of financial inducements, favourable (((media))) coverage and blackmail would have done the trick. I remember reading that when Netanyahu first met with President Clinton he's supposed to have pointed out that some damaging material about him (Clinton) had fallen into Mossad hands...but not to worry 'it's safe with us'. 

I was therefore staggered to read the following in the Occidental Observer. Bear in mind that in political circles even very close associates of senior political figures will use their formal title in front of 'outsiders'. I have had many meetings with Government Ministers in Ireland, South Africa, Pakistan and the Middle East and they were always referred to as 'Minister' in my presence even when it was obvious they all were on personal terms with the others at the meetings. I'm talking about Ministers or even Under-Secretaries here, not Prime Ministers or Presidents. That puts in context the following staggering exchanges.

"Levy was described as “undoubtedly the notional head of British Jewry” by the Jerusalem Post. Two potential donors to New Labour, John and Courtney Coventry, described what happened when they met Levy and Blair:

“We were greeted by Jane Hogarth [a New Labour official] and taken to meet Lord Levy. He was like an animated cartoon, with large gestures and an overbearing personality. He discussed donations and how appreciative the party would be, especially Mr Blair. He said he would introduce us to ‘Tony’ and Jack Straw [the half-Jewish Home Secretary], Alastair Campbell [Blair’s thuggish spin-doctor] and various others. He said we would have plenty of time with Tony.” Then they [John and Courtney Coventry] witnessed an extraordinary exchange. Lord Levy was taking a call when the Prime Minister walked over to him and started to speak. Courtney said: “Lord Levy held up his hand and said, ‘Not now, Tony,’ and went back to his phone call. The Prime Minister turned to walk away and Lord Levy said, ‘Tony, wait, I need to speak to you.’

“I thought, ‘My God, what a way to talk to a Prime Minister.’ But Mr Blair stood there like a puppet on a string while Levy continued his phone call for at least a couple of minutes. Then he turned to the Prime Minister without apology for keeping him waiting and launched into a conversation about the importance of the evening. Here was the leader of your Government being treated like a child. Jane Hogarth, Lord Levy and Tony Blair all acted like this was normal.” (Lord Cashpoint, the bogus count and his porn star wife, The Daily Mail, 24th March 2007)

But it was normal. Blair knew his place: as gentile frontman for a Judaeocracy, that is, a government funded and controlled by Jews. That’s why, as the Jewish Chronicle has reported, he “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” He knew that if he obeyed orders, he would get to feed first his narcissism in office and then his avarice out of office."

That just blows my mind and maybe puts a question mark over my optimism in the previous post.

Nil desperandum!

It's clear that for whatever reason (fear of White awakening and/or collapse of the financial ponzi?) our globalist overlords are moving in for the kill. Activity on every single battlefront has been ramped up in the War On Whites. Open borders, anti-White affirmative action, 'hate' legislation, anti-White and pro-minority programming in 'entertainment' and media, rewriting of history....the full Orwellian playbook. Of considerable worry is the project to eliminate Bad Thought (i.e. White advocacy) from the internet through an unholy alliance of tech companies, media and traitorous Western governments. This is potentially disastrous as the internet represents easily our most effective communications medium. As always, sometimes behind the curtain, other times in full view, the Tribe has its hands up the asses of their goyim puppets, manipulating them at will. It seems that no matter where we turn our enemies command the reins of power.

But despair not. At least not yet. Because Jews held an almost similar grasp on the commanding heights of society in Weimar Germany. If you're interested in further reading this excellent book provides chapter and verse. Suffice to say that, just like in the West today they dominated politics, banking, media, universities, courts and the medical profession despite comprising little more than 1% of the population..... 'everywhere except agriculture'  as the author notes. 

Their malign impact on popular culture has eerie parallels with today's degenerate West. "The streets are sexually charged, lined with a heady concoction of prostitution, homosexuality, transvestism and drugs. A ferment of artistic and sexual experimentation, the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) privileged an outpouring of cultural creativity in the Bauhaus movement of modern art and the development of the International Style in modern architecture. Against a background of inflation and depression, Berlin drew the talent and energies of the rest of Germany towards its glittering cabaret performances and burgeoning sex tourism industry. From within this hotbed of frenzied immorality, supposedly constitutional sexual equality worked to create the myth of the sexually liberated and financially independent 'New Woman' in Weimar German society. Criminal gangs involved in prostitution, narcotics, gambling, pornography, robbery, and burglary developed and flourished."

Yet within a few years the whole panoply of control had been swept aside with patriotic Germans now in control. Naturally enough this transformation elicited, and does to this day, howls of anguish, much of it focused on how the replacement of Jews (the most talented and industrious of all!) represented an irrecoverable loss for Germany. On the contrary the transformation was accompanied by a (short-lived, admittedly) golden age of economic, cultural and military transformation, all in the face of a ferocious international Jewish boycott.

The lessons being that it is possible to get (((their))) foot off our necks and, far from suffering thereby, Whites will thrive.

The future of American Renaissance

The previous post proposed that a spectrum of opinion in defence of White identity, from the blood and thunder Daily Stormer right over to the tepid and genteel Amren, helps rather than hinders our cause. The Amren case raises a related issue, to what extent - if any - should White identitarians ally with Jews. Amren and Jared Taylor in particular have bent over backwards to accommodate such an alliance. “The role of Jews in a society, the morality of abortion, the influence of Christianity, the appropriate foreign policy, and the place of homosexuals should all be discussed openly in a free society, all in their appropriate places. AR is not that place”.

And that, Jared, is text-book bait and switch. Much like dismissing conspiracy theorists as those who believe 'the earth is flat......and 9/11 was an inside job'. A bit like telling the Titanic story without mentioning that incident with the iceberg.  Because the role of Jews in a society, unlike the other issues he referred to, has been and will be absolutely critical to the success of Amren's objectives. Arguably it's the single most important factor and JT does his cause no service by tiptoeing around this particular elephant. Grovelling before Jewish interests, begging for Jewish Conference speakers (despite often brutal rejection) and banning the likes of David Duke have spectacularly failed so far to generate any payback.

And in my view never will, other than in the form of some short-term tactical alliances. How could anyone think otherwise? Amren's ostensible goal of a White ethnic homeland represents the worst possible nightmare for most Jews. That's why they have been the drivers of the anti-White agenda......open borders, affirmative action, 'hate' legislation, busing, forced integration and a stream of non-stop anti-White propaganda through media and entertainment for close to a hundred years. And if anything have raised the intensity in recent years.  

I understand that a number of Jews are now working at Amren - which is like allowing the fox into the chicken coop. Because infiltrate and subvert is their standard MO as we've seen with the BBC, National Geographic, Ford Foundation and National Review. These legendary White institutions - and dozens of others like them - have over time been taken over by Jews and weaponised against Whites. Amren would be easy meat by comparison. 

Time will tell

The spectrum of White Identitarians

Prof. Kevin McDonald is taking quite a bit of flack - Caroline Yeager has a right go - from many White Identitarians (including several on this forum) for failing to call out the Holocau$t™ in a recent interview. Indeed he could have been stronger on it but the question is should he?  Because had he directly called it out for the hoax it is he'd have been instantly reclassified from a simple anti-Semite to a (shudder) Holocaust denier. This in turn would have been used to further marginalise and discredit his valuable and ground-breaking research on Jews and their calamitous impact on their White hosts. KMcD is an academic and his value to the White cause lies in his academic credibility which remains high despite countless attempts to undermine it. 

Point is when it comes to awakening slumbering Whites it's not always essential to directly identify the JQ. In fact due to more than half a century of relentless brainwashing it can actually be counter-productive. It has to be handled carefully, ideally by way of Whites being induced to discover the truth themselves. Here's what I said in an earlier post about Jordan Peterson. Thanks to JP huge numbers of Whites, especially White men, are being awakened to the war being waged against them. Even though he avoids the JQ (and hey, he's one goy who knows) his material inevitably leads many of his White followers to dig deeper into the existential war being waged against them. That's good enough for me. Remember JP reaches a vast audience, most of whom would never go near the more explicitly Jew-wise sites. At least not before he had ignited their curiosity. What's more he's winning huge numbers of converts to his views on, inter alia, feminism, Cultural Marxism and men's rights. Should he stray off the reservation on the JQ he loses all that and becomes a David Irving, even to the possibility of serving time in the slammer under Canada's Orwellian 'human rights' laws.

We can all help in our own way. Obviously this blog directly addresses the JQ and the Holocau$t™ wheeze, the main effect of which is to guilt-trip Whites into self-destruction. But personally I don't have much to lose being retired, financially comfortable and in a position where all my acquaintances (including a few Jews!) know my views. And this is why I admire those like David Duke, Mark Collett, Greg Johnson and many others who have fearlessly taken on the behemoth from more vulnerable positions. And it's why I don't have much respect for the likes of Jared Taylor who not alone turns away from the JQ but actively misrepresents their destructive and subversive role.

Whites are awakening. The question is whether enough will awaken before we get overtaken by events. Our fight back can take many forms but attacking our own is surely not one of them.

Too damn right....