Andrew Jackson: Nemesis of Fed, Cherokee & British, Erased by Symbol of Reversed Enslavement

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:18.

Whites have paid trillions for her children and must continue to pay and pay and pay for this people that they want nothing to do with, suffer from, die from, and had nothing to do with enslaving.

In fact, Whites are not free to reject voluntary contact with them, but are forced into involuntary contract with them, having payment for blacks imposed; nor are they free to decline to live, work and educate with blacks but have blacks imposed upon their living space; they must co-habitate, hire, buy and sell to blacks, educate blacks and in all other ways serve blacks; they cannot reject intermarriage and its offspring - the relationship of slavery has been effectively reversed - it is Whites who have been enslaved to black Ethnic Genetic Interests.

It is twisted “irony” by which the Jewish controlled Federal Reserve Back would make Andrew Jackson - nemesis of the concept of a Federal Reserve - the first casualty in the erasure of White currency. Perhaps the (((Banking Mile of London))) has an interest in this as well, nemesis of the Crown and all that Jackson was (Revolution and War of 1812: Battle of New Orleans, in particular). The Cherokee won’t miss him either and an image of their guilt trip may have been an even more appropriate symbol to erase Jackson’s ill will. But such is Jewish and Jewish inspired revisionism - the objective sought is always that which might be most devastating in effect to Whites.

Nothing is so effective in that regard as the terror of blacks and the thought of the replacement of our co-evolutionary women with them - they have been brought to bear to a complete reversal of taboos, to where it is now one of the greatest taboos to object that black males are inappropriate partners for White girls/women - and no symbol of unfair trade to White men is more graphic than a black woman proper - none more conducive to guilt trips at the disposal of those who have nothing positive to offer in exchange than a black woman who was a slave but smuggled herself and other blacks into free White communities:

Harriet Tubman is the perfect symbol of the endless guilt trip that Whites are supposed to feel, without hope of fair compensation - for even those few, long ago and almost always completely unrelated White right wingers, ridiculous enough to participate in slavery. Black slavery did absolutely no good to the vast percentage of normal, working class White men - not then and not ever. In fact, it led to the destruction of America by bringing blacks there, providing a presence of ongoing anti-White terror and destruction - against normal Whites and their habitats - while there was absolutely no good in this relation for Whites. Jewish interests, with the help of Christian fanatics, imposed blacks - making Whites ostensibly live by “White rules” in “civil rights” - really a Jewish perversion of freedom of association, rather involuntary association and imposed contractual servitude to blacks. But the YKW went further, to hold a blackout on black crime and accurate portrayal of black nature in their controlled media - on the contrary, with it they agitated blacks and guilt tripped Whites generations later with a disingenuous narrative; of White privilege and oppression; guilt trips about slavery and black poverty by which they have been able to bring Whites down, in fact able to reverse servitude for generations and convince the world that Whites deserve this - collective punishment as Whites, for being White.

Comments:

Posted by Maxism/Capitalism destroy proper elite control on Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:05 | #

Robert Stark interviews “Giovanni Donnato” who raises a good point:

Note: “Giovanni Donnato” is the pseudonym of a guest of Robert Stark and Alex von Goldstein. “Donnato” comes onto their Gottfried stewarded platform with the premise that he thinks that the J.Q. is overemphasized in alt-right circles; he also acknowledges that he has not read Kevin MacDonald’s work before they move onto their discussion. That caveat rendered that the context of the discussion and its direction is controlled, there is a good topic raised as food for thought for the White Left:

“Giovanni Donnato”: I see that Marxism and Capitalism actually have a lot in common. They both seem to be products of the French Revolution Enlightenment type of thinking in that they put excessive trust in the rationality of the common man to make the right decisions - like, the only difference really is that Marxism thinks that the working class will make the right decisions and Capitalism believes that a direct economics democracy of everyone’s dollars will be for the greater good and have the best outcome.

Robert Stark: That’s interesting because a Leftist will say that capitalism is elitist, but in some regards capitalism is anti-elitist.

They have a legitimate point up to here - and it is something that The White Left must correct; but at this point Stark starts taking it into an errant direction, saying that..

Robert Stark: “If you think about it the people who have the most money in society are people who have ‘catered’ to the masses, people like the owners of Wallmart, fast food companies, people who make trashy pop culture while artists and people who create high-brow culture generally don’t make that much money.”

As if MacDonald’s and Wallmart are “catering” to working class Whites - trawling lumpen proles is more like it.

Again, they make a good point - which must be taken into serious consideration - up to the point of Stark’s example.

Giovanni Donnato: It’s really important to control the people at the top of the hierarchy.

e.g., Not Stark’s Jewish cohorts (von Goldstein want to avoid civil war and blend Whites away indefinitely).

Posted by Preparing White girls for race war on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:15 | #

Posted by Ron Unz interviewed on Sat, 30 Apr 2016 21:22 | #

Robert Stark and Alex von Goldstein interview Ron Unz

Ron Unz is the one who ran the article which discussed discrimination in The Ivy League schools.

It forefronted the fact that on meritocratic standards, Asians are discriminated against but exposes the fact that Whites and even blacks are discriminated against as well in favor of Jewish nepotism - that Jews are vastly over represented at the expense of meritocratic standards.

The Ivy-League schools are a significant gateway to professional and political power in America.

Posted by Ron Unz is Jewish and anti-White on Sat, 30 Apr 2016 23:35 | #

Ron Unz is anti-White

Age of Treason, “Ron Unz is Anti-White” 8 Nov 2013:

Ron Unz is one of the relatively small number of jews who is mistaken as a “conservative”, in part because he was the publisher, until recently, of The American Conservative. As typical for jews, Unz doesn’t constrain himself to the usual left-right dichotomy.

Last year Unz wrote The Myth of American Meritocracy. In it he notes:

elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”

His analysis distinguished jews from Whites (as “non-jewish whites”), but focused mainly on Asians (as “the new jews”). Given his anti-White attitudes, detailed below, this was likely an inoculative effort aimed at replacing more direct complaints on behalf of Whites.

Unz’s participation in a recent non-debate about immigration provided a window into the kind of discussions which take place amongst the thoroughly judaized anti-White elite. Here, as usual, Unz comes across as “conservative” only in that he expresses more concern than the other participants to prevent a backlash against that elite:

The reason America in its history, largely avoided the disastrous political results of many European countries is that every decade Americans were wealthier and better off than they were before. That’s no longer true today. And it’s no longer been true for 40 years now. Allowing an unlimited number of impoverished foreign workers to come to the United States would obviously make that situation incredibly much worse. And the result would be an economic disaster.

It’s true that possibly 1 percent or 2 percent or even 5 percent of Americans would benefit tremendously from that change. But probably 90 percent of the American population would suffer economically. And they are the people who vote. They are the people who can protest. And their views would certainly be made known. And the result would be tremendous political backlash. We have to ask ourselves whether one reason for many of the problems we’ve had in the last few decades economically is because the glorification, the amplification of theoretical concepts that may look very good to pure economic theorists, people basically spend their time in the ivory tower, but don’t understand that ordinary workers suffer when their incomes don’t rise for 40 years.

The apoplectic response of the south Asian immigrant (whose main concern is that America remain open to south Asian immigrants, even though he says they don’t really want to come and the internet makes it unnecessary) was to misinterpret Unz as speaking in favor of the Whites they both see as their enemies, “these Tea Party anti-immigrant people who [go] around creating fear about the billions who are going to invade America and take away our jobs”.

Twenty years ago Unz was campaigning to become governor of California, posing as a “conservative” while making the ridiculous argument that the state would be bankrupted not by immigrants but by the effort to cut off benefits to those immigrants. As he demogogued in the Los Angeles Times in 1994:

Most Californians view illegal immigrants as unwanted house guests. One very effective means of getting rid of such guests is to set your house on fire and burn it to the ground. This is Proposition 187′s solution to illegal immigration. It would be a financial and social disaster for California, and the worst moral disaster for our state since the internment of Japanese Americans. No decent Californian should support it.

Proposition 187 passed but was never enforced. The will of a majority of California’s Whites, including my family, was ultimately nullified by a single judge. As I’ve noted before, Governor Pete Wilson warned that immigration would bankrupt the state. It did.

For that Wilson is nowadays demonized. Though Unz-like disdain for Whites and White political interests has gone mainstream, Unz himself continues to dissimulate, posing as a rebel. His new website, The Unz Review: A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media, includes a reposting of his cover story for Commentary, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, in late 1999. California and the End of White America begins:

Californians of European ancestry—”whites”—became a minority near the end of the 1980s, and this unprecedented ethnic transformation is probably responsible for the rise of a series of ethnically-charged political issues such as immigration, affirmative action, and bilingual education, as seen in Propositions 187, 209, and 227. Since America as a whole is undergoing the same ethnic transformation delayed by a few decades, the experience of these controversial campaigns tells us much about the future of our country on these ethnic issues.

Our political leaders should approach these ethnic issues by reaffirming America’s traditional support for immigration, but couple that with a return to the assimilative policies which America has emphasized in the past. Otherwise, whites as a group will inevitably begin to display the same ethnic-minority-group politics as other minority groups, and this could break our nation. We face the choice of either supporting “the New American Melting Pot” or accepting “the Coming of White Nationalism.”

Unz sees that mass immigration and forced integration has had a genocidal impact on Whites. His main concern, then and now, is that this genocide continue unimpeded. He is even aware of this criticism. Commenting as “RKU” on Sailer’s blog in the wake of Breivik’s attack:

One very mainstream but very true explanation of the factors motivating the Oslo guy’s rampage was the exceptionally shrill and wild rhetoric found on lots of HDB, anti-Islamic, and quasi-WN websites. Both the management and the commenters are always accusing their political opponents of being “traitors” aiming at the “extermination” of their racial group via a deliberate policy of “genocide.” Traitors…extermination…genocide…traitors…extermination…genocide…

So maybe after many years of reading all those websites, the Oslo guy started to actually take all that crazy rhetoric seriously. And if “traitors” really are attempting to “exterminate” your people via a deliberate policy of “genocide”, well, shooting as many of them as you can isn’t really so unreasonable, is it? As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been “we really, really didn’t mean it!!” while the other half has been “great job, Oslo guy!”

Now Norway’s on the other side of the world, and there was also an extremely strong Israel/Zionist angle, so the story doesn’t seem have legs in the American MSM. But perhaps people should consider that vast numbers of American “activists” read those same “excitable” websites. And if some crazy American guy did the same thing, and massacred a whole campful of Young Democrats because of the all the crazy “traitor—extermination—genocide” rhetoric he’d been reading, well, I suspect that *extremely* bad things would immediately happen to an awful lot of loudmouth bloggers, some of whom probably deserve it and some of whom probably don’t. And the MSM barrage would probably ensure that 95% of the public supported doing all those extremely bad things, just like the mass roundups of Muslims after 9/11.

Endlessly shouting “traitor!”—”extermination!”—”genocide!” at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well.

RKU makes the same argument “liberal” jews made about Sarah Palin. His ridicule and fantasies about “extremely bad things” being done to his White enemies also call to mind Tim Wise’s drunken tick tock rant.

Jews know better than anyone else how well shouting “genocide!” works. Since WWII they have thrust their holocaust narrative to the very center of Western consciousness – sanctifying themselves while demonizing Whites.

Posted by U. Cal claims to recognize ethnonationalism on Sun, 01 May 2016 00:35 | #

The Conversation, “Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism on campus – how should universities respond?” 31 March 2016:

There was a significant development in the global fight against anti-Semitism last week when the University of California’s Board of Regents unanimously adopted a new statement of Principles Against Intolerance.

The principles, which were written in response to a rise in anti-Semitic anti-Zionism on campus, were carefully balanced to accommodate both freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination.

The University of California (UC) principles offer an imperfect but useful model for how to draw a line between anti-Semitism and legitimate academic and political discourse.

[...]

For Jews, the land of Israel is a central part of their ethnic, religious, cultural and national identity. To deny land as part of peoplehood for Jews but not for others, discriminates against Jews.

Posted by Mexican anti-Trump protests in Costa Mesa on Mon, 02 May 2016 14:59 | #