Spinning dem Semites

HasanAbi leads us on a trip from Freemasonry in the French Revolution to Operation Reinhardt in eastern Poland to the 2025 Anti-Semite of the Year to early-closing pubs in Belfast

The foundation of my last article was the Grayzone boys, who in the world of internet alt talking heads are about as serious as it gets (Max is trying to break into standup though), but in this piece I’m going to swing wildly in the other direction, using Twitch-streamer (whatever that is) / bodybuilder / Junk Wiggler nephew Hasan Piker as my anchor. Which means this piece isn’t exactly going to be as serious as it gets, at least not on the surface. But underneath? Only you can decide…

I’ll start with a clip of Hasan critiquing a clip of a couple of “liberal” talking heads I’ve never heard of before who apparently infiltrated Nick Fuentes’ groyperworld seeking out the real story behind America’s 21st century rebirth of genuine Nazism.

So these guys have, with the assistance of Nate Robinson, a British Jewish-wannabe (sort of the left version of Douglas Murray) who most recently wrote a book about Gnome Chomsky after being given access to the walled-off great man in his final months, compiled a collection of Nick’s bombastic moments related to Hitler. But Hasan the leftist spins this toward Nick’s extreme racism, because as we all know the left today is defined by cultural Marxism.

In those clips we see Nick making vague references to problems with the Holocaust narrative, specifically related to cookie-baking in the ovens at Auschwitz and the ability to bake a million packages of cookies in their few individual-batch wood-fired ovens without visible smoke. It all appears to be in code, word to those who know the specifics of Holocaust-denial without being all serious about it. A wink and a nod.

But Hasan has to get all serious because this is the fucking Holocaust for chrissakes, the Holy of Holies, and sarcasm is simply not allowed, verboten. But again he turns right back to the racial stuff, the race-mixing, because that’s his strong suit. Then he ties the package with a bow - it’s Christian white nationalist neo-Nazism, which means Nick is the tip of the spear on the Big Problem with Euro-Christians, who are the bloody heart of the matter in cultural Marxism.

Next he equates himself to Nick as the Fuentes of the left, but that in the eyes of the dreaded “liberals”, the Clintonite centrist Dems who are the enemy of all ex-Berniecrat post-progressives, even if they aren’t exactly ex-Berniecrats or post-progressives. In other words, he and Nick share certain aspects of presentation style, including the sparring interactions with their listeners/commenters. And since Nick turned on Trump they share the same enemy, the establishment on their respective sides of the great divide.

Hasan continues with that theme and normies on Nick’s side of the divide:

So the culture wars stuff, but the difference is that Nick blames it on the Jews, “it” being the wokeness of the “liberal” left and not the wokeness of Hasan and his leftist ilk, which he’s already displayed with his fixation on criticism of race-mixing. But then what he says is that Nick is saying, clarifying coded language, that the Jews run the Democratic Party, Jews are the creators of today’s liberalism. Absolutely, undeniably true, but to Hasan it’s just an antisemitic conspiracy theory, because as much as he hates the libtards, as much as Fuentes if not more, he’s a complete slave to cultural Marxism and its minority victim groups.

Then a commenter drags him back into the Big H, the Holy Six Million, and more specifically Operation Reinhard. The thought poles here are that and settler colonialism, the latter being the goyification of Jewish nationalist Zionism by making it just another form of the Euro-Christian expansion out into the broader, browner world that started in 1492 and took its supposed last step in 1948.

But Hasan makes his position on the Holocaust perfectly clear - it’s stupid and probably immoral to debate the Holocaust on any sort of detailed level, because the Germans themselves documented their atrocities so well and it’s essentially the most-researched event in human history. In other words, every indication that he’s a total Holocaust normie.

So what does he know about Operation Reinhard, anything? Does he know that it consisted of the three pure extermination camps in eastern Poland (Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec), does he know the system of extermination gassing (diesel exhaust), does he know the claimed numbers of Jewish deaths (1.5-1.75M), does he know about the disposal of the bodies (burial, exhumation and burning on open fires)?

There is certainly available information out there supporting what the commenter is saying, starting with Dean Irebodd’s essential 4-hour and 15-minute documentary film One Third of the Holocaust, and also books written by Carlo Mattogno and others. And there has been open debate via those books, an example being two books one can open-source on the internet, one being written by five exterminationists countering Mattogno and two other revsionists titled Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues, and the other being a response by those three titled The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence”, Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers.

Although it was not part of Operation Reinhard, here is how the latter addressed the Babi Yar massacre in Kiev in late 1941, an event that I have focused some attention on previously, including in my review of the Ken Burns Holopropadoc The U.S. and the Holocaust in late 2022:

…and here is the mention of Babi Yar on page 100 of the former which they referred to, including the page’s footnoting:

Babi Yar is important because it was apparently the most Jews claimed to have been killed over a two-day period in the entire Holocaust and it is the most notorious event in the Holocaust by Bullets in the east done by the Einsatzgruppen, which accounted for almost half of the six million. The number of dead is interesting, and it’s explained in the AI result of a Google search:

The document that provides evidence for the murder of exactly 33,771 Jews in the Babi Yar massacre is the official German “Operations Situation Report of Einsatzgruppe C” (or Einsatzgruppen Operational Situation Report No. 101).

This report, dated October 7, 1941, was sent by the Einsatzgruppe C (a Nazi mobile killing squad) headquarters in Kyiv to their superiors in Berlin. It systematically details that 33,771 Jews from Kyiv and its suburbs were shot dead by machine-gun fire at the Babi Yar ravine on September 29 and 30, 1941.

This primary source document is considered key evidence of the systematic nature of the Holocaust by bullets in Eastern Europe and was later used in the Nuremberg Trials to prosecute Nazi war criminals.

That number is indicated in the bloggers’ reference, but the response indicates 33,711, perhaps sourced from the footnoted title to the German denier Udo Walendy’s book, but an odd mistake to make. I’ve seen the document evidencing this number and although the document is of course in German the number is very clear. And this report, which the responders speculate is either a forgery or a lie by the original writer(s) of it, is the only source documentation of the exact number of dead.

Another odd error regarding this number was contained in two books I’ve read that were both published in 2015, Timothy Snyder’s Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning and The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy. Snyder, formerly of Yale before bailing to Canada with his Jewish professor wife Marci Shore over Trump’s fascism this year, and Plokhy of Harvard are/were perhaps the two most-renown historians of Ukraine in the US. But both books indicated a number of 33,761 as the death count at Babi Yar, and given that they were both published in the same year I can’t imagine that one sourced the number from the other.

So how did these great historians get a number wrong that has only one source in exactly the same way? But I guess the AI knows enough not to use these great historians as a source, no doubt relying more heavily on the USHMM…

In any case, Hasan is doing the normie thing here, condemning Fuentes based on his own normieness and lack of curiosity regarding something of an absolutely critical nature in these times of justification of Zionism based on the Holocaust and also the core foundation of the deadliness of antisemitism as a concept. If the mythological Holocaust is basically a false construct, a lie, then the whole thing falls apart, but he’s just not interested even though he claims to absolutely oppose this undeniable mass murder in Gaza that he and so many others label a genocide.

But, hey, the Holocaust is “a pretty well-established atrocity”, so let’s just move on.

Here, after conceding Wall Street and Hollywood, we have the claim that there is no organized Jewry, despite the nature of, say, the Israel lobby made up of dozens of organizations, virtually all dominated by Jews. Despite the current expanding takeover of the establishment media by Jews of influence and power. Despite the takeover of US foreign policy by Jewish neoconservatism over the last 30 years, a political movement which even the Jew Dave Smith has said has been 80% Jewish-manned.

No, instead Jews are just like Christians, they have come to America and become American in every sense, and dual-loyalty to the Jewish state is just an antisemitic trope. That two-thirds of the Jews in NYC voted for Cuomo in no way suggests any sort of group-think among Jews, rather the million Jews of New York are just more conservative than the average goy New Yorker, who voted for Mamdani. Yeah, right.

He concedes Zionism, but claims it’s falling apart with Jews because of Gaza, showing a headline that says almost 40% of US Jews say that’s a genocide. But saying the Netanyahu government is committing a genocide does NOT equate to abandoning Israel and the Zionist project, just as saying nearly 40% of Americans saying Trump is trying to install fascism isn’t the abandonment of the American experiment.

Well, I guess it is to these folks…

Then he goes personal, saying the ADL attacks him and doesn’t waste time on Fuentes (false, of course) because they are concerned about Hasan influencing young Jews - not young Americans but young Jews, for some bizarre reason thinking the ADL isn’t obsessed with what goys think. But he defends the charge based on his own efforts to combat antisemitism, which just makes him part of the problem. And he does that by going after people like Fuentes, people who will openly talk about Jews in a negative light, and we just can’t have that. Screw the Palestinians, our job number one on the left is to protect the Jew.

No, Fuentes’ opposition to Gaza mass murder “comes from an antisemitic position”, while Hasan’s opposition is pure, in the sense that he doesn’t blame the Jews for that mass murder. No, it’s European settler colonialism, Christian Zionism, and US imperial aircraftcarrierism.

Since we’re on antisemites…

First, let’s cover this organization; from its wiki:

Social media influencer Liora Rez founded StopAntisemitism as StopAntisemitism.org in October 2018 to monitor and expose online antisemitism. Rez was born in Kyiv, Ukraine, then a part of the Soviet Union, where her family experienced antisemitism.She started her social media career in 2013, under the name “Jewish Chick”. Rez says the organization’s goal is to “create consequences for those who espouse hatred and violence against Jewish people.”

As of September 2019, the organization’s social media posts were viewed more than 750,000 times per month. According to Rez, StopAntisemitism is 100% privately funded. The Milstein Family Foundation, operated by Gila and Adam Milstein, is among the funders. The Merona Leadership Foundation, where Gila Milstein is president, pays the salary of StopAntisemitism’s executive director and provides about $270,000 to the organisation for expenses.

So this is a Jewish operation but of course Glenn doesn’t say that, rather she’s just a crazy Israel fanatic.

Glenn says they don’t allow Jews into this contest, and he’s kinda pissed because he thinks he deserves the award. There is of course a reason for that - if Jews take over antisemitism itself they can control it, manage it, and not just from the outside pointing the hairy finger. In no way does Greenwald deserve it; if he was an actual antisemite of any kind he’d call this woman what she is, an ethnocentric Jewess. And by calling her an Israel fanatic instead he’s implying that antisemitism is all about Israel, which it absolutely is not. That’s the whole idea behind what Hasan said about Fuentes - his opposition to Israel comes from an antisemitic place, but if antisemitism was all about Israel that would be circular logic.

Finally Greenwald claims the apparent Jewish exclusion is antisemitic in itself, which just confirms that everything is evidence of rampant antisemitism. 🙄

More:

So no Candace and no Nick - and no Hasan either, an obvious virulent antisemite. I’ll get to that.

Glenn claims that antisemitism now just means criticism of Israel, which both justifies his claim that he’s an antisemite, and one who should be honored, and trivializes the accusation of antisemitism related to Gaza, which of course is an accusation that has been aimed at him. He equates it to racism, the overuse of that cultural Marxist concept blamed on Democrats and liberals, but when he returns to antisemitism it’s just theyisms, one assuming the they remains Dems and libs, when in fact he should be saying Jews, or maybe Republicans and conservatives, who are quicker to make accusations of antisemitism related to Zionism. But Glenn has both partisan and ethnic axes to grind.

In fact what we see here are people who are not antisemites being accused of being antisemites, and that’s not because antisemitism as a paradigm has gone away. But rather it’s because the concept is being extended even further, even more broadly, that the result of the genocide, to people who are opposed to that or at least America’s involvement in that, and the goal is to shut those people up. The reason that Fuentes isn’t nominated is because he’s an actual antisemite, in their actual terms, and they don’t want to be promoting him or his rhetoric. So Carlson gets nominated, a guy whose main crime was platforming Fuentes, but Fuentes himself misses the cut. 🤔

So let’s get back to Hasan:

Hasan is pissed just like Greenie, and his qualifications are even weaker than Glenn’s - he would never platform Fuentes, even in his current repentant state.

His take is that Ms Rez is off her mental reservation, instead of the completely logical explanation I just gave you. And then he claims Hasbara relies on metal illness, but does he see that in himself related to the mother of all Hasbara, the Hasbocaust? Of course not, it’s the most-researched event in human history… by the Jews by the way. 🤔 Huh.

But expanding the contest is a great idea. If they added a category for the least well-known, non-partisan former-leftist non-podcaster boomer blogger, I might actually have a shot at getting a vote! Maybe…

Btw, did I mention that nominee Junk Wiggler, uncle to Hasan, wanted Kamala to choose Josh Shapiro for VP last year, that ethno-Zio loon one heartbeat away from the Big Chair? Think about that one.

We saw that Hasan lost out to Candace last year, and third was Greta Thurnberg, which I guess just underlines how weak second might have actually been. So let’s listen to Hasan taking revenge on last year’s victor:

“Gnome Chomsky! What are we talking about?”

Now, what is this du Pont shit actually all about? My guess is Candace had gotten herself into a bit of a bind narrative-wise, by fixating on Brigitte’s manly French penis at the point where Kirk was killed and she spun that against Israel. But these are two completely separate things and it’s hard to leave them both hanging out there and be doing them justice without some kind of grand unifying (conspiracy) theory.

Now she has that, by bringing the French into the picture in the US as a subversive force, and in particular connecting them to the FBI here, making it structural. That connection is that the FBI’s progenitor the Bureau of Investigation was founded by Charlie Bonaparte, the grandnephew of Nappy, who was Teddy Roosevelt’s Attorney General. Now she can link the Franco-frankfurter to the Mossad via the neckjob, and suddenly she’s working one story and not two. Sacre bleu!

More:

“Everything feels different in this post-Charlie Kirk world.”

Here she drags Freemasonry into it, a story that she got from some priestly bookworm in jolly old England. But is that the real story, or did she get it from the neo-Bircher world, the people who are responsible for the Illuminati conspiracy business, that so closely linked to Masonry? And all related to the revolution… yes, that one, the French Revolution. Or maybe she got it from cantankerous old eMike, who has addressed the history of Freemasonry, although he does not consider it to be anything of any significance today.

He published a translation of The Jewish Question in Europe, that published in Civilta Cattolica in 1890, related to the centennial of the hated revolution, and here is part of that (not eMike’s version) which addresses Freemasonry:

So the first sentence connects Masonry to the Jews, which means this absolutely works for her within her grand unifying theory of Charlie’s death and Brigitte’s schlong. Her Catholic conversion is bearing serious professional benefit to the lady who just asks questions.

And it feeds the monkey of neo-Bircherism, all of the fanboys of Joe Atwill and his ilk. Candace has landed in clover here, such a perfect means of converging these stories, to create a whole that is much greater than its idiotic parts. The only thing that’s left to do, if indeed it hasn’t already been done outside of my limited Cando-knowledge, is to tie Epstein into it all. Now that would be a true masterpiece - Jeffo arranged Kirk’s killing from the grave while working as an agent for French intelligence, whose organizing principle is doing harm to Candace…

But does Hasan the face-stuffer understand all of this? Does he have any real appreciation for the elegance of this solution to her little problem? Doubtful, very doubtful. No, he’s just fixated on the unquestionable looniness of it all, rather than the artfulness of the product of her insane ambition to become incredibly famous, reasonably wealthy and bizarrely influential. Without actually doing anything that’s any real good for anyone, beyond providing top-level vacuous infotainment.

Someone else who is disappointed to not be nominated antisemite of the yada yada is another Jew, the libertard Dave Smith, whose antisemitic chops are entirely based on opposition to Israel, and since you’re not allowed to equate Jews with Israel, that means you’re not an antisemite at all. Funny how that works out.

Here he’s been full of himself talking about his latest of many appearances on Piers Morgan right before this pod, his Jewish opposition to Israel combined with the political mask of libertarianism making his career explode in 2025 - everybody loves themselves some kosher Dave:

The funniest thing I have ever heard either of these comedians say was Woodstein saying here, “who criticized Israel more than you?” 🤣

Again we see Dave sideways bragging on himself, this time for personally knowing a number of the supposed antisemites. He seems to miss the boat on the actual reasoning behind the nominations, but falls back on his libertarianism by taking a shot at some kid favoring socialism, that based on the accumulated wisdom of his much greater number of years, which has taught him to favor a system which only exists in theory and has never actually been tried in the real world.

Well, it kind of has, recently in Argentina perhaps, and then there’s 40-50 years of neoliberalism across the world that might give us an indication. But no, Dave has read a few books written by von Mises, Hayak and Rothbard, so he just knows. As if someone with basic values that have lead him to socialism is going to be converted by that bullshit. The only leftists who convert to Paulite libertarianism are people like Dave Rubin. 🕎

Then his right-wingism leads him to the rise of Trump (I assume referring to Russiagate, etc), crazy wokeism and covid, which he extrapolates to Zionism, as if ethno-nationalism’s a left-wing type of movement. But people who don’t think like him are just ritualistically humiliating themselves - thinking there were microchips in the vaccine, that’s humiliating yourself. It’s funny how far he can wander off the subject of the ASotY, and of course how that wandering inevitably leads to covid, the defining event of people who pre-covid were really just normies but then unknowingly discovered the allure of right-wing conspiracy via “it’s just the flu” and gene-altering vaccines, whether or not they were right-wing before all that. My guess would be that Dave found (Jewish) libertarianism back in Brooklyn when he rejected the residual (Jewish) political Marxism of his parents’ generation as well as their cultural Marxism, that arising from his own internal Jewish revolutionary spirit… 😏

The title discussion on this pod was about the failure of clownworlder Dan BonJovi, and here is a piece of it that reminded me of something I said in my last piece about all these comedian podcasters:

What I had said was this: How many of today’s youth have had their political opinions influenced by fucking comedians essentially doing their political bit rejects, the stuff that’s not even that funny? This strikes me as exactly that, Smith doing a bit that he’s either playing with out of false hope or has already rejected because it’s just not funny (that video is six months old, btw).

When Dave says, “Imagine if this ever comes out of your mouth, Rob”, I’m sure Woodstein imagines he’s up on stage doing this bit and no one’s laughing, instead there are only a few people barely smiling while he’s up there dying inside…

On another recent podcast the subject was another aspect of the Jewish Question (which Piker mentioned in an earlier clip), the Great Replacement Theory:

Dave’s description of this matter isn’t all that bad, except that he doesn’t mention the Jews at all, and instead implies that open immigration is just the fault of the Democrats. Never mind that one of the leading congressional Jews involved in ending the old quota system in 1965 was the Republican senator Jacob Javits of NY. This is revisionist history. And even at that it’s not really accurate either - how many countries in Europe are actually closing in on a white minority like the US is? The issues in Europe are two things - post-colonialism and war refugees - and neither of those applies to America in any material numbers.

Likewise Canada is a different case, allowing predominantly Asian immigration for economic reasons, but even as they’re further along perhaps than any European nation, they’re still decades behind the US. The US numbers problems are rapidly-reproducing post-slavery blacks imported centuries ago and post-1965 Hispanic immigration; the smaller Asian problem in the US is like Canada driven by economics. But blacks and Hispanics now make up a third of the population; 60 years ago it was less than half of that.

I am kind of amazed that this subcontinental guy at the Times can be that blatant about rubbing whitey’s face in it, but maybe that’s a side benefit of the level of Jewish blatancy these days. The bit I liked best was about the Patel motels, which has been a curse on America over recent decades, which I am very aware of as someone who has long liked to travel the back roads of the country…

I agree with Dave’s sentiments at the end, it’s better when people are honest about their agendas, but the issue there is of course cultural Marxism and specifically political correctness. In other words, another problem primarily sourced from the Jews, which Dave is erasing here by leaving out “they will not replace us!”. Neutralize the matter by embracing it, after it’s done its work and it’s too late, but without any admission of ethno-guilt.

More from Dave:

What really jumps out here is “…that your family risked everything to get to”. Sorry, Dave, but this isn’t 1875 and these people aren’t packed together down in steerage, they’re on airplanes coming armed with higher educations that will get them good jobs.

But, yes, India sucks, and the people who leave to come here are the people who have the means to do so, it ain’t your weak, your tired, your yearning to be free. These people primarily yearn to be rich, and their politics reflect that - just look at people like D’nish D’Souza, Vevick Swamaramy, Nimarata Haley, Kash “Only” Patel, right-wing reactionaries with serious issues and a superficial understanding of America.

Then the supremacist Woodstein says we gotta get rid of the socialism, by which he means the thin gruel of the US welfare state, as if Indian programmers are coming to America today to get their hands on our food stamps. Of course he’s pushing his libertarianism, which would work fine for Jews like himself, already having more wealth than other groups and a cultural tradition of intra-group cooperation. Once you’re on top libertarianism works great (theoretically, of course), because democracy is neutralized with severely-limited government.

To get to the foundation of post-1965 open immigration, let’s again go back a couple decades and listen to Kevin MacDonald explaining this matter:

“They saw American culture in negative terms” - jeez, that sounds a lot like that Desi fuckwad from the Jew York Times.

But you’re not going to get any of that from these Jews, that’s now all blue water under the bridge. And yet we see how Jews react when someone like Tucker just has a conversation with someone like Fuentes, the wheels come right the fuck off.

I should also point out that the anarcho-libertarian general position is that there shouldn’t be borders locking people out or people in, because labor should simply be allowed to go where it’s needed in order to create the greatest efficiencies. Because the bottom line is all about free-market capitalism, that’s what lies at the heart of anarcho-libertarianism, and the rest is kinda bullshit.

Since we’ve slipped into libertarianism here, here is an interesting opening to a recent Rising Points segment:

What this goy-libertard debate over tech is really reflective of is what I call neo-libertarianism, the evolving form of libertarianism being pushed by Silicon Valley billionaire oligarchs like Peter Thiel and their guru Curtis Yarvin. And of course it’s like all libertarianism, it has a pronounced Jewish element.

This reminded me of anarcho-libertarian extremist (anarcho-voluntaryism, with some Canuck sect guru whose name I don't recall) James Corbett, who a decade ago was promoting Bitcoin, AirBnB, Uber, the new techy internet-based unregulated business models that would set us all free. Fucking liberty, man, it’s always fucking liberty that screws you in the ass…

I also found it amusing that Rico Suave of Rising is on one side of the debate and his former understudy in that libertard-adjacent role Emily now of Rising Points is on the other side. I think Ryan needs to keep a very close eye on her or it might become three against one…

On the Indo-legacy side of RP, here is libertard-adjacent Cigaar going on about Zionist Jews revealing their tribal nature, in a segment targeted at Hillary as the trad enemy of the Rising corporate model retained when these people went indie - Krystal gets so wet when they get to talking about Killary:

It was funny that right before this Cigaar was bashing Killary and saying he’s so glad that she lost in 2016, when the guy who won was Trump and here we see the impact of his biggest donors the Adelsons and his choice for NSA Mike Waltz, as the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. I also noted that neither he nor Krystal corrected that guy who said Mamdani got 40% of the Jewish vote when he only got 32-33%.

They get into the problem of tribalism, but you don’t ever hear them say exactly which tribe it is they’re talking about. Then Cigaar gets into the Indian problem that we just saw with that NY Times subcontinental, claiming that he’s a good American and on the right side of the anti-tribalism debate. This from the guy whose fixation is to throw boomers out of their homes using property tax increases so people like himself can move in. And remember that the baby boom generation was finished being born right before 1965 and the beginning of the immigration wave that has brought almost all current subcontinentals into America - there are almost no Indo-boomers in the USA, rather they are overwhelmingly white.

He finally says the word “Jew” when he’s saying he doesn't believe “all Jews” are exercising their power for the benefit of Israel, and Krystal underlines that with an anecdote about one Jew, Peter Beinart, who actually advocates for a one-state solution. But in 2003 he was editor of the Jewish rag The New Republic which advocated for the Iraq war; he said years later his concern was that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, so a neocon-adjacent WMDer. More from his wiki:

Beinart is the author of the 2006 book The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. The book, which grew out of a 2004 article in The New Republic arguing that Democrats need to take the threat of Islamic totalitarianism more seriously, is a liberal defense of muscular interventionism abroad, particularly with a view to reforming various nations in the Middle East.

There’s your heroic Jew in a sea of pro-Israel blue. Fuck Peter Beinart, he’s just the left’s version of David Brooks. But they think he’s just great, and remember not to ever talk about dual-loyalty, which is clearly anti-semitic.

One last (sound-only) clip for today, of EMJ’s latest discussion with Tim Kelly, which I missed because eMike hadn’t posted it on his Bitchute channel, that perhaps now reserved for his Catholic stuff. It was on the civil war on the right, and here they’re talking about Tucker:

It’s nice to hear these guys discussing this essential matter, finally listening to adults in the room, striding through it straight-talking and not tiptoeing around making sure to not step on the Jew. But as always when talking about the heroic Carlson they cut him a bit more slack than he almost certainly deserves - it’s just etiquette that’s stopping Carlson from addressing the Jewish Question, seriously?? Take off your Republican red underwear, fellas.

I did like that Jones called out Sachs as a ethno-serving Jew in that Tucker interview, and of course that they shit all over the Zio-loon Marc Levin (and Ben Shapiro). The flaw, as always, is defining the Jew as a theological construct, instead of as an ethnic group, which does not involve DNA in a racialist sense. That’s apparent in his citing of the Jewish revolutionary spirit and logos, the subjects of the two works that bookend the 2008-2020 period of his mission to the gentiles on the Jews, before he flipped to proselytizing Catholicism.

I should also mention that Jones’ third American republic has less than four weeks to go now, and one of the signs of its end will be the death of Holocaustism. Was HasanAbi sounding like the enlightened of the fourth republic when he dismissed Operation Reinhard out of hand? I think there’s still serious work to do here, much more than can possibly be done in a few weeks minus some holidays.

So that wasn’t actually the end, because I just have to end this article with more face-stuffer H-Abi, here continuing to Twitch over evolving Clandace-blather from Belfast:

Wait a minute, Wally MacMood is not the president of Egypt?? This is truly a breaking story. Was he also in Belfast in May? Did he fly in on the yellow BTU or the purple BTT? 🤔

So in the podcast world it’s all a numbers game, and Candy-O is seriously poppin’. Me, I thought her Kirk fixation was dragging her down some in recent weeks when Jeffreygate emails, Ukrainian 28-point plans, Caribbean boat kills, etc were stealing her thunder, but this French masterstroke has apparently elevated her back to previous levels when the neo-Bircher legacy clownworld crowd became fascinated with her blending of Charliegate and penisgate this week.

Hasan is absolutely right that Clandace will eventually end up along the East River at the UN, because that was foretold by the Birchers over a half century ago.

But hey, if condomhead Tim Pool can figure out that Candy is full of retard crap, I guess it must be true, right? I mean, that guy can't figure out anything. Beyond how to accept Russian rubles for his brand of crap, that is…

This is Candace’s world and the rest of us just live in it.

Postscript:

Since I’ve once again gotten into criticism of libertarianism here, and since a form of that has attached itself to the more traditional right-wingism of Trump in the 2.0 version of himself, I thought I’d offer up a history lesson that explains some of that, from a woman whose pod keeps coming up in my feed for some reason - I can’t tell you how many times I’ve fallen asleep while listening to something and then woke up a couple hours later to her voice, wondering who the fuck is in my living room.

She’s obviously on the mainstream Dem left, and that shows in her story, but she’s not wrong about what she presents, at least as a general overall picture. The role of government in people’s lives did change dramatically under FDR, both in what government did directly with regard to them and indirectly, regarding regulation and economic management.

When she gets to Reagan in the 1980s she’s talking about supply-side economics or Bush’s voodoo economics, but what it really was is neoliberalism. Okay, fine, but where she starts to veer off reality in a pronounced way is in the ‘90s, when she takes a battle which arose out of civil rights in the ‘50s-‘60s, the growing welfare state and black dependency on that, and tries to expand that to all of rising cultural Marxism’s victim groups, finally ending up at the LTDGQ+ thing.

That‘s a consequence of something she doesn’t mention, the embrace of neoliberalism under Clinton in that decade, and also neoconservatism, which killed off much of the pre-Reagan left of opposition to war and empire, and also the tradition of support for the working man that went back to FDR and to populist progressivism before that. It’s also a consequence of something else happening at the same time, the Dem’s embrace of New Leftism, which was actually cultural Marxism.

And her whole story is colored by the impact of cultural Marxism post-Clinton, the identity politics, the social justice warfare, the political correctness stuff. So what she says is important about 1965 is the voting rights act and not the Hart-Celler immigration act that ended national-origin quotas. And that connected to women, which leads into her defining of the ‘70s, the NOW decade that ended with the defeat of the ERA. She blames the American reaction against effectively New Leftism on big business’ opposition to regulation, which is dubious at best.

So by the ‘70s it’s all about race and gender vs hierarchical traditionalism. But when she gets to Reagan she rights her ship some, because he was about returning America to it's pre-1935 form, in the sense of economics and neoliberalism, which includes reduced taxes and regulation on businesses and letting the free market do its thing.

By 2016 she’s framed this as the alliance between big business and the wealthy, the long-standing core of the GOP elite, and the racist and sexist base, which I assume is centered on Christian fundamentalists in the bible belt. What she doesn’t talk about is the conversion of the other side to people of equal race and gender fixation, the Clintonite Dem establishment that resulted in the first black president and the first female presidential nominee. The people who created private-industry-based Obamacare but rejected M4A and even a public option.

So in other words, her history has been stripped of the Jew. But getting to libertarianism, her history includes a desire to roll back to the pre-SS 1920s of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, which is a fair appraisal of Reaganism. But there are two parts of Paulite libertarianism and one is Bircherism; the Birchers were/are fixated not on FDR but on Wilson, the Fed, the IRS and income tax, and Wilsonian internationalism. In fact that was part of populist progressivism, so the Birchers really want to go back to at least 1912 and perhaps 1896. So that’s back to the robber baron era.

The other part is classical liberalism, which is reflective of the government decades earlier, before the Civil War and the post-war amendments to the constitution, when the government didn’t really do anything for the people, rather was just a loose structure binding the states together with real limits on what it could do beyond that. And that is what libertarians want to go back to, except even less than that, as that was only one strain of early American political thought. From the wiki on it:

Classical liberalism developed in the early 18th century, building on ideas dating back to the 16th century, and was foundational to the American Revolution and the “American Project” more broadly... It drew on classical economics, especially the economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations, and on a belief in natural law. In contemporary times, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, George Stigler, Larry Arnhart, Ronald Coase and James M. Buchanan are seen as the most prominent advocates of classical liberalism. However, other scholars have made reference to these contemporary thoughts as neoclassical liberalism, distinguishing them from 18th-century classical liberalism.

Me, I don’t yearn for much of anything from 200 years ago, except maybe the world’s population and the state of the environment, outside of any city of any size, that is. Do anti-genocide libertards like Dave Smith understand that their classical liberal constitutional republic of those days was in the process of conducting the mother of all genocides at that time?

Oh, and as I always say, “neo” means “Jewish” in latin. 😂