That Bright, Dying Star, the WASP

[holston]

And

Not only are Jews racist against blacks.

Israel?s Anti-Black Pogrom by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com

They are racist against white non-Jews as well.


Harvard Professor: ?Abolish the White Race? | EUTimes.net


Black racism against whites makes the consensus of the MAJORITY decidedly AGAINST "whitey".

Harvard Professor: ?Abolish the White Race? | EUTimes.net

All this anti-white racism continues amidst the decline of white (non-Jewish) power and population.

Minorities In America: Whites Losing Majority In Under-5 Age Group

 

[holston]

We can't leave this out.

Jews perpetually profligate materials designed to inflame racial animosity between white non-Jews and other races, blacks in particular.

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds | Fox News

This is made evident by the praises they heap upon blacks who incite violence and commit acts of terror against white non-Jews.

Mandela, Apartheid And The Jews | The Jewish Week


While Jews continue to enforce policies and maintain Israel as a Jewish State, discriminating against blacks and non-Jews themselves, they actively promote unrestricted immigration of different racial groups into areas largely populated by white non-Jews such as South Africa, Europe, and the United States.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf

Jewish Immigration Act of 1965

This is with the express purpose of altering the demographics of predominantly white countries into those which resemble the third world countries of non-whites.

1965 Immigration Law Changed Face of America : NPR

 

[holston]

Is anyone beginning to see a pattern emerging?

Jews are traditionally Marxist.

Jews and Communism In South Africa


While they promote enforced "separation of church and state", they actively promote Judaism in government.

Exposed Roots: The Importance of Faith-Rooted Spiritual Activism | Social Justice Rav | Jewish Journal


Jews encourage violence against whites by "minorities" and even commit acts of violence against other ethnic groups such as the Palestinians while pretending to be non-violent themselves.


Occasionally the cat gets out of the bag but this is never emphasized in the media as neither are acts of violence committed against white non-Jews by blacks. Only acts of white violence against blacks receive national attention, thus further demonstrating the control of liberal Jews over the media.

Donald Sterling Is Right Black Jews Are Treated Like Dogs In Israel



Kill the Whites - YouTube

 

[holston]

Jews and Communism In South Africa

A picture is worth a thousand words.

One needs to bear in mind that these same Jewish Unions are at work in the US as of right now!

 

[holston]

And those are the kinds of things which the Jewish Supremacists would rather you didn't know.
As I said earlier, 9/11 was merely a symptom of an underlying disease which began to take root decades ago.
No doubt that event marked the beginning of the Project for a New American Century, PNAC, or P-JAC, as I like to call it (Project for a Jew American Century). They might refer to it as the opening stages of the coming "Mashianic Age" or New World Order as it has been referred to. Again, I prefer the more accurate name, Jew World Order.

Those who can't fathom the idea of a minority control of the Globe underestimate the power of the Almighty Dollar.
Of course, the plan is to substitute some other International or Global currency in it's place, but you get the idea. Money is money.

 

[longly]

I'm saying there were Black people there even as you claimed there was not. How in the world does it belong to anyone other than the Khoisan people?

The Dutch established an agriculture colony on the cape in the 1600s to supply their ships bound for the far east. I never said the land was uninhabited. I believe it was Sparsely inhabited by hunter gathers, primitive farmers and herders. If the land had been densely settled by farmers why would the Dutch go to expense raising their own food. It would have been more economical to just buy from local farmers. And If the area had been densely populated why would they have allowed foreigners to establish an out post on their land.

The Dutch were good at making money.

In the beginning the Dutch had no interest South Africa except for the food it provided.

This was the sentence that prompted my post.

As a matter fact the whites arrive and settled on the cape a couple hundred years before the blacks were seen there.

After reading that it appears you are saying that there was no one there. What did you mean?

My main point was this: The Bushmen were the aboriginal people of Southern Africa if ownership is determined by who was there first it would be them. The Bantu people such as the Zulu have no greater claim to the country than do the whites they both arrived in the area about he same time.

But the point is moot; ownership is not determined by who was there first. Ownership is determined by power. It is the blacks that have power in South Africa and the minorities have no rights that the blacks need to respect. The rights that minorities presently have will exist only as long as the black majority see it as advantageous.

I suspect that a title to property in South Africa is worthless in the long run. Anyone who would invest in the country would be in my opinion a fool. There is no long term security for property in that country.


Would you support the idea of transporting those whites who would be willing to leave out of Africa to be resettled in Australia?

 

[holston]

The Dutch established an agriculture colony on the cape in the 1600s to supply their ships bound for the far east. I never said the land was uninhabited. I believe it was Sparsely inhabited by hunter gathers, primitive farmers and herders. If the land had been densely settled by farmers why would the Dutch go to expense raising their own food. It would have been more economical to just buy from local farmers. And If the area had been densely populated why would they have allowed foreigners to establish an out post on their land.

The Dutch were good at making money.

In the beginning the Dutch had no interest South Africa except for the food it provided.

This was the sentence that prompted my post.

As a matter fact the whites arrive and settled on the cape a couple hundred years before the blacks were seen there.

After reading that it appears you are saying that there was no one there. What did you mean?

My main point was this: The Bushmen were the aboriginal people of Southern Africa if ownership is determined by who was there first it would be them. The Bantu people such as the Zulu have no greater claim to the country than do the whites they both arrived in the area about he same time.

But the point is moot; ownership is not determined by who was there first. Ownership is determined by power. It is the blacks that have power in South Africa and the minorities have no rights that the blacks need to respect. The rights that minorities presently have will exist only as long as the black majority see it as advantageous.

I suspect that a title to property in South Africa is worthless in the long run. Anyone who would invest in the country would be in my opinion a fool. There is no long term security for property in that country.


Would you support the idea of transporting those whites who would be willing to leave out of Africa to be resettled in Australia?

I would be in favor of transporting as many Jews as possible to Africa and preferably leaving them under the rule of someone like Nelson Mandela or Idi Amin.

Of course none of them would like this idea very much. For one thing the Jews despise the blacks. For another they are having much too fine a time bleeding the US for all it's worth.

 

[Asclepias]

The Dutch established an agriculture colony on the cape in the 1600s to supply their ships bound for the far east. I never said the land was uninhabited. I believe it was Sparsely inhabited by hunter gathers, primitive farmers and herders. If the land had been densely settled by farmers why would the Dutch go to expense raising their own food. It would have been more economical to just buy from local farmers. And If the area had been densely populated why would they have allowed foreigners to establish an out post on their land.

The Dutch were good at making money.

In the beginning the Dutch had no interest South Africa except for the food it provided.

This was the sentence that prompted my post.

As a matter fact the whites arrive and settled on the cape a couple hundred years before the blacks were seen there.

After reading that it appears you are saying that there was no one there. What did you mean?

My main point was this: The Bushmen were the aboriginal people of Southern Africa if ownership is determined by who was there first it would be them. The Bantu people such as the Zulu have no greater claim to the country than do the whites they both arrived in the area about he same time.

But the point is moot; ownership is not determined by who was there first. Ownership is determined by power. It is the blacks that have power in South Africa and the minorities have no rights that the blacks need to respect. The rights that minorities presently have will exist only as long as the black majority see it as advantageous.

I suspect that a title to property in South Africa is worthless in the long run. Anyone who would invest in the country would be in my opinion a fool. There is no long term security for property in that country.


Would you support the idea of transporting those whites who would be willing to leave out of Africa to be resettled in Australia?

You do realize the Khoisan are Black as well right? The Bantu are just a different type of African. Let them work it out. They don't need white babysitters.

Not really. Whites shouldn't be in Australia either. That is also African land. The Aborigines have been there for over 100K years.

 

[S.J.]

This was the sentence that prompted my post.



After reading that it appears you are saying that there was no one there. What did you mean?

My main point was this: The Bushmen were the aboriginal people of Southern Africa if ownership is determined by who was there first it would be them. The Bantu people such as the Zulu have no greater claim to the country than do the whites they both arrived in the area about he same time.

But the point is moot; ownership is not determined by who was there first. Ownership is determined by power. It is the blacks that have power in South Africa and the minorities have no rights that the blacks need to respect. The rights that minorities presently have will exist only as long as the black majority see it as advantageous.

I suspect that a title to property in South Africa is worthless in the long run. Anyone who would invest in the country would be in my opinion a fool. There is no long term security for property in that country.


Would you support the idea of transporting those whites who would be willing to leave out of Africa to be resettled in Australia?

You do realize the Khoisan are Black as well right? The Bantu are just a different type of African. Let them work it out. They don't need white babysitters.

Not really. Whites shouldn't be in Australia either. That is also African land. The Aborigines have been there for over 100K years.

So what? Use it or lose it, MF.

 

[longly]

This was the sentence that prompted my post.



After reading that it appears you are saying that there was no one there. What did you mean?

My main point was this: The Bushmen were the aboriginal people of Southern Africa if ownership is determined by who was there first it would be them. The Bantu people such as the Zulu have no greater claim to the country than do the whites they both arrived in the area about he same time.

But the point is moot; ownership is not determined by who was there first. Ownership is determined by power. It is the blacks that have power in South Africa and the minorities have no rights that the blacks need to respect. The rights that minorities presently have will exist only as long as the black majority see it as advantageous.

I suspect that a title to property in South Africa is worthless in the long run. Anyone who would invest in the country would be in my opinion a fool. There is no long term security for property in that country.


Would you support the idea of transporting those whites who would be willing to leave out of Africa to be resettled in Australia?

I would be in favor of transporting as many Jews as possible to Africa and preferably leaving them under the rule of someone like Nelson Mandela or Idi Amin.

Of course none of them would like this idea very much. For one thing the Jews despise the blacks. For another they are having much too fine a time bleeding the US for all it's worth.

What is this problem you have with the Jews? They haven’t done anything that any other group people could not have done if they were determined. Unless I have missed something they operate, in the economy, under the same rules as everyone else. Jewish families are general economical better off than the average American family because they tend be born to parents that are professional and business people.

They have this advantage because they were badly discriminated against in Europe. The only way they were allow to make a living was through the professions and business. Being wealthy could be a matter of life and death. A Jew’s life had no value unless he had powerful gentile friends to protect him. It was no crime kill a Jew unless it angered the local prince. However the best defense of the average Jew had was to live in a walled ghetto. Originally the word ghetto meant a place of safety.

I suspect that there were many Jewish women who were raped as well many who had voluntary sexual liaisons with European men because by the time the Nazis there were many Jews that could pass as Germans. This turned out to be a blessing because they could slip out of the ghetto to search for food for their Jewish families. However there still were many Jews that had a Middle Eastern appearance, but before the war was over the Nazi had quite an impact on the appearance the average Jew.


These are beliefs I have had for a long time if I am wrong about anything let me know.

 

[holston]

What is this problem you have with the Jews? They haven’t done anything that any other group people could not have done if they were determined. Unless I have missed something they operate, in the economy, under the same rules as everyone else. Jewish families are general economical better off than the average American family because they tend be born to parents that are professional and business people.

Whether I have a problem with A "Jew" or not depends upon the Jew.

I've made it clear throughout this thread the problems I have with JewS.

While the laws of the land are SUPPOSED to be applied evenly without bias to everyone, we know that this is not actually the case.

The same goes for matters of protocol such as University enrollment and employment.
The entire argument posited by the leftists and their Jewish lawyers and Social Commentators for pushing legislation and establishing social policies which give preferential treatment to either Jews or other "minorities'" is based on the supposition that DISCRIMINATION occurs. What they neglect to acknowledge is that parties on any side of these controversies may be guilty of the same.

This has been the basis for LEGALLY ENFORCED DISCRIMINATION called "Affirmative Action". It also serves as the foundation for the implementation of so called "Hate Laws", which tacitly imply that only "majority" groups, that is to say, WHITE (non-Jewish) groups are the only ones capable of committing any offense being motivated by "hate".

The Jews have leveled the accusation against "WASPs" since they've been in this country that "WASPs" are discriminatory and prejudiced with respect to other races, religions, and ethnicities. I'm fairly sure that it was the Jews themselves who popularized the derogatory acronym "WASP" just as they conceived of "NAZI". As Jews use the terms, the intention behind them is roughly the same. They are a handle by which to peg the designated target.

They have sued enumerable times and campaigned to bust up all manner of "good ol' boy" clubs at every opportunity in the effort to ensure that it is impossible for "WASPs" to work together in their own behalf.

I previously gave you a list of organizations which can be found by simply by searching for "Jewish networks". The list of such organizations are too many to post here. There are hundreds if not thousands of these organizations nationwide, AND GLOBALLY.
They are called "Jewish" because they were organized by Jews and operate on behalf of Jews.

No such organizations can be found by searching for "white Anglo Saxon networks".

I can not say how many times I have heard some news item over the years in which some club or business was attacked by some "Civil Rights" advocacy because of their alleged nepotism.

SO. What can be determined from looking at the facts above?

We can see that JEWS practice the very kinds of DISCRIMINATORY practices for their own social advancement which they have condemned, censored, and attempted to legal forbid "WASPs" from practicing.

The reason that Jews network the way they do is because of the advantages that doing so offers them economically and socially.

They do not want "WASPs" to do these things because they wish to minimize the power of any other ethnic, religious, or racial groups as much as they can.

It's simple.

Jews, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, are after a few basic things. Chief among them are MONEY and POWER.

They attempt to mask the avarice which is common to man by labeling all their social and political maneuvering under the heading of "Social Justice" and disguising their operations as existing for nothing other than charitable purposes.

In short, Jews seek advantages for themselves which they would deny to others.

They have seen the "WASP" as occupying the position of "King of the Hill". So they have used any other "minority" cause as a leverage with which to oust him from that position.

Jews occupy a disproportionate number of lucrative and professional positions because of the way Jewish communities NETWORK , DISCRIMINATE, and GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO OTHER JEWS.
Their society or Kahillas have grown up around a system whereby any members within it are subject to scorn, ostracism, or some form of socially imposed penalty for violations of those discriminatory and prejudicial TRADITIONS.

They have this advantage because they were badly discriminated against in Europe. The only way they were allow to make a living was through the professions and business. Being wealthy could be a matter of life and death. A Jew’s life had no value unless he had powerful gentile friends to protect him. It was no crime kill a Jew unless it angered the local prince. However the best defense of the average Jew had was to live in a walled ghetto. Originally the word ghetto meant a place of safety.

This is not exactly true. In Germany the Jews rose to a status similar to that which they have achieved in the US. They did so because of the ABSENCE of discrimination and prejudice by native Germans against them.

It was not until AFTER the JEWISH COMMUNITY betrayed Germany, promoted Bolshevism, and declared WAR on Germany that their trouble with the German people commenced.

If this discrimination which you are alleging had existed prior to those events then there would have been no way in which the Jews could have risen to economic prosperity and prominence as they had!

All of what I am saying can be demonstrated by historical records from that period.

Again, you are attempting to portray Jews as being pure as the driven snow and totally innocent of any form of unethical treachery.
Not only is this just not true, the assumption flies in the face of common sense.

I suspect that there were many Jewish women who were raped as well many who had voluntary sexual liaisons with European men because by the time the Nazis there were many Jews that could pass as Germans. This turned out to be a blessing because they could slip out of the ghetto to search for food for their Jewish families. However there still were many Jews that had a Middle Eastern appearance, but before the war was over the Nazi had quite an impact on the appearance the average Jew.

The first sentence there doesn't make any sense.

Jewish women were not being raped in Germany anymore than what normally would occur at any time.

The insinuation that Jewish women were trying to barter themselves is just ridiculous. Besides, that has nothing to do with what is happening in the US right now in which white non-Jewish woman ARE being prostituted either of their own free will or not!

I know a woman who was a small child during that time. She told me that when food was in short supply that they would have to go to the Jews under cover of night to barter for it for fear of being seen by their neighbors. She didn't know where they got it.

These are beliefs I have had for a long time if I am wrong about anything let me know.

There are a lot of misconceptions which people have about WWII because much of what they have been taught came from post war propaganda and much of the story was never taught at all.

Today, any American who is only exposed to national media and accepts that as being nothing but the truth and the whole truth is grossly deceived.


If the Jews want to harangue everyone else with their egalitarianism they are going to have to adjust themselves to the fact that they can't do that until they consider themselves as being no more than "equal".

They can't do this because Judaism is by it's nature a Supremacist religion.

What underlies "the problem" with Jews is not unlike the problems which exist with other UNIONS, such as the Teamsters or even the National Education Association. Everything they do has basically one aim, to enrich themselves.

The Jews are no different except that they are much more cohesive in this way, and the quasi religious nature of their racially oriented ethnocentrism has been shielded from scrutiny and the same type of government interference which the Jews have sought to impose on all others.

It's time that this cozy arrangement be exposed for what it is and an end put to it.

If the Jews are going to operate Politically, Socially, and Economically like a consortium of political factions they are going to have to be treated as such.

The behavioral characteristics or identity of any individual must be considered apart from the mass affect of the aggregate to which they belong.

 

[MHunterB]

Oh, puh-LEEZE! NO group of a few million people has a 'mass affect': that many individual humans cannot possibly have the same emotional make-up OR be in the same 'place' emotionally simultaneously......

Affect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Unless, of course, the poster abused the English language by posting 'affect' when the appropriate word (a NOUN) 'effect' should have been used.

 

[holston]

Oh, puh-LEEZE! NO group of a few million people has a 'mass affect': that many individual humans cannot possibly have the same emotional make-up OR be in the same 'place' emotionally simultaneously......

Affect - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Unless, of course, the poster abused the English language by posting 'affect' when the appropriate word (a NOUN) 'effect' should have been used.

 

[holston]

So. What have we learned up to now, kiddies?

We've learned that it's OK to talk about politics in terms of Democrats and Republicans all you want.

It's OK to trash one or both of them depending on which side you think you are on.

The one thing you are NOT allowed to do is name the Jewish hand in it all.
Even though they contribute well over half of all campaign money to BOTH parties, and even though there is virtually no difference between them other than in name so far as what they do!

You are not supposed to notice this. And if you do notice it you are not supposed to say anything about it because that money is not supposed to mean anything as far as who those "Democrats" and "Republicans" owe their elections to.
To mention any of this would be "anti-Semitic".

Only a "Nazi" would suggest that all this Jewish money flowing into Political Action Committees and all the influence that Jewish lobbies exert on politicians might have some effect on the way the country operates.

We've also learned that it is alright when Jews boast of their power but it is not OK if any non-Jew says anything about it.
For example, Jews can boast about running Hollywood. But if a non-Jew says this, he must be an "anti-Semite".

It's also OK for Jews to chortle about the decline of the establishment they have designated as "WASP", and to celebrate it's demise.
But for any white non-Jew to be concerned about it is a sure sign that they are "racist" and "White Supremacists". To suggest that perhaps white non-Jews have interests that need to be protected and spoken for would go against the multicultural agenda and could only mean that the person doing so "hates minorities" and non-whites.

What else could it possibly mean? White non-Jews have nothing to protect because they already own everything. Right? And besides, whites don't need to look out for themselves or attempt to secure their own position because they can depend on the Jews and the other "minorities" to do this for them. Right?
And isn't it only fair that whites take their turn at being discriminated against since they have the ones who have committed all the world's atrocities in the name of racism. Therefore they deserves whatever "come uppins" they get. Right? It makes no difference whether YOU personally had any part in any of that whatsoever. What matters is that YOU are white. This means that you have been a member of the "privileged" class for too long and now should be punished for the sins of your Fathers. Right?


We should never point out the LEADING role that Jews have played in bringing about this unhappy situation that the much maligned "WASPS" find themselves in.

It is alright for Jews to boast about having brought about the decline of the WASP establishment and to brag about supplanting it with their own.

It is just NOT OK for YOU to say so. For if YOU are a non-Jew, to call attention to any of these things is a sure sign that YOU are a "Jew hating" "anti-Semite" "White Supremacist" "Neo-Nazi" tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Not only will the Jews tell you this themselves. All their Goyische media talking heads will tell you the same also.

The lesson is this: DO NOT NAME THE JEW.

Anytime you do, it had better be couched in the most glowing terms of praise and adoration. Otherwise keep your mouth shut or you will be besieged by name calling Hasbara or worse.

 

[holston]

 

[holston]

Jewish activist Anetta Kahane wants to destroy Europe via non-European immigration

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuYKtwnzG7M]Jewish activist Anetta Kahane wants to destroy Europe via non-European immigration - YouTube[/ame]

Anetta Kahane says:

"You have to really change the policy of immigration inside Europe. This is very important, you have to adopt the educational system and adapt all the self understanding of the states. They are not anymore only white or only Swedish or only Portuguese or only German. They are multicultural places in the world."

Why is this "very important" Anetta Kahane?

There also seem to be a particular obsession with the idea of deconstructing the nation state of Sweden, have you been paying attention to this fact? Sweden is constantly brought up when discussion takes place in this context. Why? Same as Barbara Spectre... who sits in Sweden, with state funding, doing her "good work" to destroy Sweden and Europe from within.

"They are not anymore only Swedish" isn’t that it Anetta Kahane?

This is the description text from YouTube:

Anetta Kahane (see bio at metapedia) is a typical left-wing Jew straight from the tradition of Marx, Trotsky, Freud, Rosa Luxemburg, Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno, Max Shachtman, Sidney Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Abraham Foxman etc.

Jewish leftists wants to de-Europize Europe.

They aren't just "wanting to". They are!

Not only that, they are doing the same thing to the Continental United States.

Only YOU are not allowed to mention it!

You can accuse the Republicans, the Democrats, or anyone else of doing it. You can say the Mexicans are doing it or the blacks are doing it. You can even say that the communists or Obama is doing it.

JUST DON'T SAY THE JEWS ARE DOING IT!

What's more, DON'T EVEN IMPLY THAT THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, no matter how many Jews you can find on tape or in print saying essentially the same thing!

 

[holston]

That Bright, Dying Star, the American WASP - WSJ.com

By Robert Frank

Quote:
In the long downward spiral of what used to be known as America's Protestant Establishment, there have been several momentous milestones: Harvard's opening up its admissions policies after World War II. Corporate America's rush in the 1980s to bring more diversity to the corner office. Barack Obama's inauguration as the first African-American president.
Quote:
History may reveal another milestone—Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. If she is confirmed, the nation's nine most powerful judges will all be Catholic or Jewish, leaving the court without a Protestant member for the first time.

A Kagan appointment would end the Protestants' high-court run. Associated Press

Quote:
Whether the court's religious makeup even matters in today's legal world has become a subject of hot debate. Yet by ushering in a Protestant-free court, Ms. Kagan is helping to sweep away some of the last vestiges of a group that ruled American politics, wealth and culture for much of the nation's history.
Quote:
In old-money enclaves like Palm Beach, Fla., Nantucket, Mass., and Greenwich, Conn., WASPs are being priced out of their waterfront estates and displaced on their nonprofit boards by Jewish, Catholic and other non-Protestant entrepreneurs.
Quote:
A survey by Pew Research found only 21% of mainline U.S. Protestants had income of $100,000 or more, compared with 46% of Jews and 42% of Hindus.

Quote:
In "The Protestant Establishment," Mr. Baltzell pointed to the prejudice and insularity of the elite as the eventual causes of its decline. "A crisis has developed in modern America largely because of the White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment's unwillingness, or inability, to share and improve its upper-class traditions by continuously absorbing talented and distinguished members of minority groups into its privileged ranks."