Vanguard News Network

This is so awesome. You know, nothing like this has ever been done in all history. It is completely unique. Here we have a central world-political body espousing its commitment to facilitating the spread of the Jews’ collective death-mythos. It is more breathtakingly absurd than Rome, more insanely morbid and stultifying than Christianity ever was.

If you look at this from the perspective of 100 years hence, to get some perspective, it just leaves you in awe of what these freak Jews have accomplished — with minimal violence.

Incorrect: the world hates – or rather: strongly dislikes – Israel, not Jews, motivated by what they would call concern for the plight of the Palestinians. In most countries, people who have an opinion at all will always carefully point this out to you, unaware that their careful, humanitarian umbrage is of course a reflex of Jewish propaganda. It is illogical (and useless) to assume this is an hatred of Jews qua Jews. That, for goyim, would be a revolution of thought as profound as conceiving of the world as an oblate spheroid as opposed to a plain.

You’re missing my point, which is precisely that the barrier to a proper assessment of Jewry’s adverse role in culture and politics is language and terminology. You have actually just validated my point, because it is precisely in these euphemisms that the problem lay. Your error is in thinking that beneath these public euphemisms is a private understanding that Jews, and not the euphemisms employed, are the issue, which credits people with too much craftiness in opinion. No doubt this is the case for some, if not many, but for the vast majority, if you follow my paraphrase here, “a Zionist is a Zionist is a Zionist”.

Take for example these polls conducted by the BBC in conjunction with European Jewry to gauge European “anti-Semitism”: the language or “code”, as the leftists say, is “Which country do you fear most?”, or “What do you consider the leading cause of disharmony in the world?”, and the majority of the answers are always: Israel. Not Jews, and not so much because such an answer would be omitted, but because Europeans – and for the most part, Kwans with an “opinion” on this matter – have been trained to see “Zionist” instead of “Jew”. The Jew does not exist as a political category in their minds, you see. It is not part of their conceptual framework which with they assess, in their limited way, the events of the world. The Jews have succeeded, even in the face of clearest evidence, evidence so apparent that denial is utterly appalling, in removing themselves from the public mind as a political category, and reserving themselves for the sympathetic categories of victim and religious.

In other words, they don’t name the jew because they simply don’t have the name in their accepted vocabulary. But they HATE kike-ishness, with a passion!

That is true, certainly — my point however is that the ability to correct identify the source of “kikeishness” is crucial to retaining the public (formerly “the masses”) as a theoretical value in political thought. So far as I can see, very few evince either the understanding or will to do so. The point here is that identifying the rhetoric of public dissatisfaction (largely manufactured by Jews themselves) with Jewry itself, or Jews qua Jews, is illogical: this identification does not exist in the minds of the public, indeed they most often violently reject it if it is made in their presence.

Your list of those who do not hate Jews is of course wantonly simplistic.

There is a long, long way to go, but people are becoming more jew-aware.

Again, that is not illogical. The public level of understanding of political events actually seldom rises to any great pitch of clarity, least of all today when Jews and other falsifiers are equipped with the most sophisticated means of propaganda ever seen in human history. Of course your reliance on “people” is rhetorical, not an assessment of the social situation, so it’s hardly necessary to point that out. I can only repeat that “people” are not “becoming more jew-aware”, but at most, maintaining the same split down the middle with regard to Israel and “Zionism” (as a rhetorical unit) which has been the dominant paradigm of public discourse since, I don’t know, the late 50’s or something.

I’ve had many private conversations with Kwans in recent years in which, unprompted, a surprisingly anti-jewish remark pops up.

Now, I must remind you that you said the world, which I took up; here you are restricting the question to Americans, and that in a very narrow sphere – private discourse – which changes the whole question. Naturally, as we all know, many whites are inclined to let their hair down when they feel safe. I too have met such people, I am one myself, probably so are you. It’s always refreshing cut loose and discover that this person you at first wrote off as a stupid kwan is, in fact, not so stupid after all regarding Jews and race. However, this is the private sphere — not the public, which is all that matters politically, and politically, we are stuck at the very low level of dissatisfaction with “Zionism” from naive, mawkish, stagy humanitarian “concern”. Moving between these two spheres or realms is very easy in speech, but there is no such hopskotch possible in real, political life. You have to learn to not allow your enthusiasm for moments of honesty intra goyim to give you grandiose visions of awakening masses and revolution.

Now the Kikes want the whole world to cry for them.Boo-Hoo!Trying to awaken a sleeping goyim,easier to pull eye-teeth out of a stubborn mule.Yea there is a solution to the problem of”kikeishness”-it costs 22. cents.