Anti-Semitism as the New Liberty

A deadly shooting in Pittsburgh recalls a growing movement confusing hate with a mind to question

 A group of women’s rights activists trying to take over the world.

A group of women’s rights activists trying to take over the world.

10/29/18, 7:54 pm EDT

By John Corry, photo from the Times of Israel

“Don’t fake beef with the (((who))) if you have no beef. Proof is always in the pudding. Stop standing in the way of the Europeans right to exist. Or being un-ironical in your anti-European racism.”

That was a text a friend of mine sent to me at 2:19 in the morning last night. Over the past few months, she’s been going off over the (((you-know-whos))), and arguing for a worldwide, history-laden conspiracy on the part of the (((Jewish))) people. She references many historical facts and events, from the Israeli bombing of the American Naval ship the USS Liberty, to the potential of widespread subconscious brainwashing on the part of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, and even to the fact that so many higher-ups in Hollywood and Silicon Valley are (((you-know-what))). Many times, she’s on point. Many times, she’s not. But if there’s one thing running throughout it’s that no amount of facts can paint reality as something as easily understood simply (as facts). There is more to reality than facts, and there are ways you distort facts, even if by accident, to warp a certain understanding of reality to fit a specific narrative (because the way we perceive time (successively, and not simultaneously) means we must formulate a subjective intuition (narrative) before we can perceive what happens in it (fact).

To say that my friend is simply doing this and only doing would be irrelevant, however, especially given that so many of her arguments do have merit. For example, real quick: what happened with the USS Liberty can be seen as shady, and from what I understand regarding the Frankfurt School, there are some questions there as well. I’d like to take a moment to mention that I do like my friend, and these kinds of arguments are really the primary reason I wake up in the morning (mostly). It would be nice if she’d shut the fuck up and question the probability that she doesn’t know everything that’s possible to know in the universe, but I’ll be damned if she’s not passionate about knowing the objective facts as best she can.

What she’s referring to in the text is my somewhat consistent assertion that I knew about the (((you-know-whos))) before she did. I maintain that I did, but to certain extent.

After the shooting in Pittsburgh this past Saturday (see my detailed dissertation on how to curb the frequency of mass shootings here), in which eleven people were killed, including a holocaust survivor, the question of ‘anti-semitism’ is back in the news (as if it ever left). ‘Anti-semitism’ has been around pretty much as long as the (((you-know-whos))) themselves, so it’s no wonder there’s some outrage going on over this in the shooting’s aftermath. Several things differentiating now from other times, however: Trump’s belly dancing for the anti-semitic leanings of the ‘alt-right’ and other groups, and the Liberal’s embrace of such fairly obvious anti-semites as Louis Farakhan and Linda Sarsoor.

These are all parts of the same disease, however, and the real question is in another (disease): any even somewhat liberal society’s contradiction with itself if its government can keep secrets from its people.

I’ve talked about this before, but given recent events, I feel I should quickly readdress it, plus the context is different here. One of the primary arguments against the (((you-know-whos))) is that they’re trying to control the world. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of all ethnicities, and the state of Israel, while obviously in a complicated situation, is the sole country in the West where it’s legal to refuse citizenry based on ethnicity (you cannot live in Israel without Jewish blood). There are several examples of (((you-know-whos))) talking about how they’re superior to everyone, which doesn’t have anything to do with this as that could be said for literally every kind of person ever, but the damage is there–

People are afraid of smart people–

They can tease and manipulate and force me to do things without my even knowing I’m doing them! The smartest people on the planet are like the biggest bear in the forest: they may be just like all the other ones, but is that really so great a thing anyway? And what if they’re not (((not))) (((not))) (((not)))?

The fear that the (((you-know-whos))) are actively trying to take over the world (unless they actually are) can exist through one intellectual/constitutional deficiency and one deficiency only: people don’t trust their elites. And how could they when their government has every right and incentive to lie to them? Think about it; how are we supposed to differentiate dream from reality when the government is standing right at the crossrods, with all of the information on which path to take next, asking us for money, and telling us not to worry about anything (except ‘the other guy’ (((the other guy))) (((the other guy)))? What my friend didn’t understand is that I’m not concerned about the (((you-know-whos))), and nor was I ever specifically, I’m concerned about any potential power trying to control or manipulate people. And once you take the specificity out of the concept, you can actually start to figure how how something might actually come to be, and how to fight it.

For example: if the (((you-know-whos))) really are trying to enslave humanity, you think getting offended by it and shooting up a synagogue is going to help or hurt their situation? Any power trying to enslave humanity would need outrage to get the populace to tear itself apart, that’s one of its first steps. If you’re going to get all caught up in the specific entity which may be trying to do it, you forget that you might have the ability to understand it, even if you’re not part of that ethnicity or group.

The argument that I’d be ‘standing in the way of the Europeans right to exist’ as the result of my thoughts here is prefaced by a MLK-esque argument that if something is wrong, your standing around doing nothing is complicit in the evil. The percentage of ‘white people’ in European countries, as well as in America, is going down, and the fear is that without ‘white people’, the people who made and continue Western Democracy and capitalism (and the huge strides in the average human’s happiness levels since their inceptions), Western Democracy and capitalism will crumble, because a ‘people make a nation’.

Is it possible for ‘black people’ to understand Western Democracy and capitalism? If you’ll say that they clearly aren’t proving themselves to be right now, I’ll say ‘how do you know the future’, after I’ve given up trying to argue with someone who refuses to accept that sometimes, people disagree, and that it’s not about beating the crap out of the other guy as it is simply trying to understand (ironic that’s one of the main point of Western Democracy and capitalism??? (the constitution is filled with thought, not ‘beating the crap out of people (at least before it is thought (it’s the thought that’s ‘beating the crap out of people’))).

I’m not concerned with ‘standing in the way of the Europeans right to exist’, and nobody should be, because that’s beside the point, that’s obvious: of course ‘Europeans have a right to exist’, the concern is how to actually make sure that idea lives on even as the physical world changes. If there is a way to do this outside of me being a douchebag, it’s certainly not through yelling and screaming and assuming that if someone disagrees with you it means she’s a ‘shill’ or she’s being ‘un-ironical’ in her ‘anti-European racism’.

Am I hearing my friend argue for subconscious racial bias???

The assertion that the (((you-know-whos))) are actively trying to enslave humanity is no different that saying the American government is doing that, or the Germans or whoever, and to argue that it is (in itself) is to relegate any concept of individualized ‘liberty’ as nil, because it gives you the right to assume anything you have to in order to confirm your narrative, given that something so big and so complex as a (((you-know-who)))-esque conspiracy would have to be proven in order to be known completely. If liberty is about personal freedom, how is enclosing yourself in an impenetrable box for fear of the (((you-know-whos))) getting in and convincing you that evil is an inherent good in any way libertarian? And how are you ‘for liberty’ if you assert that race, IQ, and place of birth are more important than any concept, or more implicative of, or important for the evolution of, intellect? What could liberty even mean in that context??? (See: the title of this article.)

But none of that matters, because the FACT that (((you-know-whos))) are trying to enslave the species is evident in every little thing there is. This is obvious. There is no way to test it, because (((they))) have made it that way. There is no escaping it. We are all doomed.

If we’re all fucked anyway, so what other choice do I have? (Please take note of the general hint of sarcasm here; I am saying that debate and compromise are the ways to ‘fight it’, because any material way would play right into their hands (if they are indeed involved in some malicious behavior).)