Talmud and Taboo – katana17

Andrew Joyce – Trumpism, Bidenism, and the System – Nov 9, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 09:18:39 +0000

[This is the 9th video in the Talmud & Taboo series from The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his BitChute channel.

Here Joyce discusses the US elections between Trump and Biden and how the outcome is just more of the same in either case as both are entwined within the jewish power structure, aka, the Deep State, aka ZOG.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce

Trumpism, Bidenism,

and the System

Nov 9, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zp8w5VhWrca7/

Published on Nov 9, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 18:04 UTC on November 9th, 2020.

channel image

OccidentalJoyce

1430 subscribers

Support via Bitcoin: bc1q58vh2h6llgstvu8hfnqz93h9tlyywhm7pe3yeh

Essay on Jewish intermarriage into White elites: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/10/15/reflections-on-jewish-intermarriage-into-native-elites-2/
Category None
Sensitivity Normal – Content that is suitable for ages 16 and over

The owner has disabled comments on this video.

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

_____________

TRANSCRIPT

(16:34 mins)

[00:00]

[Intro imagery and music]

[00:31]

Hello everyone. And welcome back to Talmud and Taboo. I am your host Andrew Joyce. And I think it’s as good a time as any to return to podcasting given the drama, the recriminations and shenanigans that have accompanied the recent putative election of Joe Biden to the presidency of the United States.

I have very mixed feelings about the events of the last few days, very mixed feelings, indeed!

I think I should begin by saying that I was never “MAGA”, on the Trump Train. I always had my reservations and doubts about Donald Trump.

Way back in 2015, I wrote an article titled “Jewish Intermarriage with Native Elites”, in which I attempted to take the marriage of Ivanka Trump to Jared Kushner, to highlight as a warning and to contextualize it and provide some historical background for the way in which it seem to be an almost conscious strategy of Jews to marry the children of their elites with the children of native European elites.

And I dug into the history of this. In Prussia in the 1800s, especially the Junker families. And the way in which certain salons were established in which the young men from the Junger families would be encouraged to socialize, especially with these jewish daughters. And in which these marriages would be more or less set up, or a context laid, in which the pairing up of these individuals would be more or less inevitable.

And I made the argument that these marriages provided a kind of concrete biological entwining of interests. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that when your daughter, when your family, or your grandchildren, are for all intents and purposes Jewish, that basically you are going to have an additional concern, or certain perspective, on things like zionism, or the State of Israel, or the history of the Jewish people, that will lend you certainly more amenable to jewish arguments, and I believe Jewish influence.

So, the Kushner influence was something that concerned me very, very, early on in the drive for a Trump Presidency. And I must say that my feelings are no different when it comes to Joe Biden, who has no less than three children who have married Jews. Everyone has been talking about the certain statistical unlikelihood of Joe Biden‘s recent election results. And I would simply say, well here is another statistical improbability. The improbability that all three of one’s children would end up marrying Jews! I think that’s something worth thinking about again.

And if you haven’t read my essay “Jewish Intermarriage with Native Elites”, then I think you certainly should do so in the next few days. I think it will help contextualize some of the things that surely will unfold over the next four years.

So there is an ambivalence there, a certain ambivalence, a certain trepidation about Trump. And I think over the four years of Trumpism that we have thus far witnessed that there were concerns more or less confirmed. Certainly I don’t feel any radical need to revise any of my initial concerns. I felt right at the outset that was what we would see would be more or less a continuation of the non-negotiables of what you might call “The Deep State” or ZOG, or whatever label you wish to place on the fact that this system, as we know it, would more or less continue.

So we have seen the ongoing expansion of GloboHomo, for example. We’ve seen the fixation on GDP, as the axis upon which global happiness is supposed to turn. We’ve seen the relentless and flamboyant “Village People” promotion by Donald Trump of homosexuality in remote African States.

And we’ve had this bizarre spectacle, this bizarre sight of evangelical Christians in the Red States cheering on a President who is actively pushing sodomy in African backwaters. So it takes on a kind of surreal perspective whenever you look at it in the cold light of day.

So there’s been a continuance of these things, and certainly there’s been a continuance of the American-Israel symbiotic relationship.

This habit of unquestionably donating to Israeli military ambitions, and providing Israel with all of the diplomatic and institutional support that it so desperately seeks from the United States. This has all continued unchallenged, unabated, and unscathed.

So when the first turn in the votes, shall I say, in favor of Joe Biden occurred, a quote came to mind from the book “Anarchy and Christianity” by the French philosopher Jacques Ellul.

Ellul will be familiar to some of you, because he wrote a book called “The Technological Society”, which I think he floats his disgust, on at least one occasion, and which is certainly complementary, or certainly supplementary, to Ted Kaczynski’s* writings. It’s basically decrying the influence of technique, and technology on society. And I believe that Jacques Ellul is a philosopher worth paying some attention to.

[*Theodore John Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, is an American domestic terrorist, anarchist, and former mathematics professor. He was a mathematics prodigy, but he abandoned his academic career in 1969 to pursue a more primitive lifestyle. Source: Wikipedia]

Now in “Anarchy and Christianity” Ellul basically makes the argument for Christian anarchism. He claims that anarchism is something that can never be genuinely politically fulfilled. But he makes a case that Christianity itself is an anarchist doctrine. Now I don’t agree with the central premise of the book. And overall, actually, it’s not that interesting of a book. But there are some interesting quotes and arguments made within it. And one of those quotes which stuck in my mind and which was resurgent in that initial turn of the votes towards the election of Joe Biden, was the following, quote:

“All our political forms are exhausted and practically nonexistent. Our parliamentary and electoral system, and political parties, are just as futile as dictatorships are intolerable. Nothing is left! And this this nothing is increasingly aggressive, totalitarian, and omnipresent. This nothing!”

When I sat back and I started thinking about the transition which is surely to play out between Trump and Biden, I listened to all of the media uproar and the discussion of how America is so partisan now, and all of the differences between Biden and Trump, and how this was going to change, and that was going to change.

And certainly on some level there are going to be some superficial, and I suppose not so superficial changes taking place. There are certainly going to be a radical change in the mood of American government.

There’s no question that even though we can doubt the sincerity of Donald Trump‘s political beliefs. And certainly have our suspicions about some of the influences coming to bear on him, that Trump was a force of an amorphous, reactionary, conservatism, which picked it’s battles and was kind of symbolically Republican, conservative.

[09:03]

There’s no real coherence to Trumpism. So when I read recent news articles talking about how Trumpism may, or may not, or could, or should survive the downfall of Trump, whether it might be a resurgence, for example, in the young politician Cotton, the young senator, I have my misgivings about that. I’m not sure that we would want Trumpism to survive.

I’m not sure that it can survive without Trump because it’s so dependent on his own personality. I think that once you subtract Trump from Trumpism, what are you left with?

You are left with a kind of vague neoconservative, bland GDP worshiping, kind of a glorification of capitalism. That’s me thinking off the top of my head.

But what is Trumpism? Where does it go, beyond memes and owning the Libs with statements that don’t leave anywhere? What is Trumpism other than consecutively, and unceasingly, giving serious consideration to doing something. I’m not sure that we can encapsulate Trumpism in such a way that it can survive the downfall of Trump.

So anyway, with all of these debates and discussions about what might happen next and how things might change and all of this, I was focused on what will stay the same. I was focused on “the nothing” that Ellul was alluding to, and discussing there.

This “nothing”, this kind of inert, but slowly moving progress towards decline! This gradual slip into an abyss! An abyss dominated by the non-negotiables of the system global Globohomo, zionism, and the worship of GDP, and the subservience of the common man to the system, and his depressing inability to overcome it, or overturn it, in anyway.

I think it’s foolish of liberals, and leftists, of a sincere ideological bent, to celebrate the victory of Joe Biden. Joe Biden ultimately is as meaningless, and as incoherent, and as amorphous, as Trumpism was.

Biden will be nothing more, and has been elected as nothing more, than a symbol. He’s a symbol of being not Trump. Just as Trump was elected as a symbol of not establishment.

Both of these symbols are surface level. Both of these symbols are ultimately meaningless, and result in the ongoing frustration of an electorate that cannot seem to achieve anything, no matter how many times it votes. No matter how many times it goes to the polling booth. No matter how many shit posts they put on social media. No matter how much outrage they can manage to stoke over very superficial things. And I suppose some not so superficial things. That we just end up repeating the same pattern over, and over, and over again.

So I’m not mourning the downfall of Trump and Trumpism. And I’m not terrified of the rise of Joe Biden. I think that the challenge for people like us, is more or less the same. It is to challenge the non-negotiables of the system. It is to challenge Globohomo. To challenge the ceaseless worship of GDP the axis upon which our happiness is supposed to turn, but really under which our happiness is ruthlessly crushed and oppressed.

And above all we must, of course, work hard to bring down this emphasis on support for Israel as a kind of prerequisite to any meaningful and just participation in our political systems.

So the point I’m trying to make, I suppose, is that your task hasn’t changed, nothing has changed! There may be some differences, if anything though, in the tactical realm.

I see with the downfall of Trump, the end of the kind of meme wars, humor-based activism that marked the period, perhaps, 2015. But really it was dying by 2018. The meme wars, this idea of owning the Libs. You’re not owning the Libs! And to be fair the Libs aren’t really owning us. We are all just participating in this endless wheel, this endless cycle, which spirals ever downwards.

And we push them, they push us, in all of these superficial ways, and nothing gets achieved, nothing is accomplished, and we just simply decline.

I think that broader perspectives on the nature of the system are what are required today. And I view it as a positive that a lot of the activism in the movement in terms of producing content at the minute is system based. It’s looking at some of the philosophical, first principles, of the issues that we are facing. And it’s giving serious discussion and serious critique to things like GDP worship. And as always, criticism of Jewish influence at the highest levels.

If I want you to take away any message from this podcast, it’s that we need to challenge “the nothing”. We need to challenge “the nothing” which is increasingly aggressive, totalitarian, and omnipresent. And the best way of doing that is by creating something. We will have to create institutions that will perhaps at first be powerless. But they will be there. And they will be something that is not “the nothing”.

And I think that now is the time for us to refine ourselves ideologically, and to present a vision to well-meaning, well-intentioned people that is quite a part from Trumpism and Bidenism, which ultimately on the grand scale, are both indistinguishable from the other.

Thank you for listening. Goodbye.

[16:34]

END

top

NOTE: Andrew Joyce has subsequently posted an article at The Occidental Observer expanding on this podcast topic:

Four More Years Of …

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words = 2,378
Total images = 35
Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

Version History

top

Version 4: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 4:

Version 3: Nov 16, 2020 — Added link to a new TOO article by Andrew Joyce.

Version 2: Nov 15, 2020 — Added images, and links. Fixed some typos. Updated See Also links.

Version 1: Nov 14, 2020 — Published post.

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:42:45 +0000

[This is the 8th video in the Talmud & Taboo series from The Occidental Observer (TOO) contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.

Here Joyce discusses the origins of the terms “semitism” and “anti-semitism“, or as the jews would prefer the un-hyphenated version “antisemitism“, as it hides the existence of something to be “anti” against.

He then goes on to discuss the nature of semitism and its anti-European nature, using Ireland as an example and the jewish academic Ronit Lentin and her deceptive version of recent history and how Ireland needs more non-Whites. She cites how Ireland’s poor record of accepting jews into Ireland whilst they were being “burnt” in Europe during WW2 is evidence supporting her promotion of more non-White intake.

Joyce then talks about how “semitism” is not only about jews who support semitism, but also non-jews, like Christian Zionists, who carry water for jews.

He then cuts to the chase. Those who support semitism are anti-European, while anti-semites support Europe and Europeans.

And never the twain shall meet.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 8:

Semitism

Aug 28, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/OuEv3N4iRHn5/

Published on Aug 28, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 17:23 UTC on August 28th, 2020.

channel image
Andrew Joyce

OccidentalJoyce

1279 subscribers

Support via Bitcoin:
bc1q49w2t7lvcvvuj43y30mqtv5wcw7ar57arcalv6

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

_____________

TRANSCRIPTS

(03:43) (16:02)

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 — Preview: SEMITISM – Aug 22, 2020 — Transcript

[00:00]

[Intro music and imagery — Irishmen looking at a wall poster “Vote for Sinn Fein — National Panel]

[00:31]

Ronit Lentin: To say there is migration to Ireland is a new thing, that Ireland was never a migration destination. Entirely untrue. Over the years waves of migrants, you had Celts, and Normans. Huguenots, and whatever, …

Screen text: Celts, Normans, Huguenots = Northern Europeans.

Ronit Lentin: In the last 20 years or so there has been accelerated migration which was disproportionate.

When we talk about that kind of quantities of migrants we are still talking about reasonably small numbers. You know it is still under populated. There’s still room for people. Yet there is a panic. Ireland is a nation state which constructed the Irish people as a Gaelic catholic people. But over the years there was a tendency to strengthen Irish identity as Gaelic and Catholic.

In the course of that people who didn’t fit were excluded. And this is what the State does, and it does it in all sorts of ways. But at the moment it does it particularly through its immigration policies.

The experience of Jewish people during the War between 1933 and 1946 only 60 Jewish refugees were allowed into Ireland, which was neutral. And these people were being burnt!

And one of the things said by Minister Boland was that if allow too many Jews in there will be anti-semitism again. Jews obviously carry anti-semitism powder in their suitcase!

I come from Israel, [looping] I come from Israel, I come from Israel, I come from Israel. …

[screen image — “Irish could be minority ethnic group here by 2050 – professor. Ireland’s native population could be in a minority but the middle of this century, the president of Dublin City University (DCU)]

[02:09]

[music]

[02:09]

Richard Lynch: Hi this is Richard Lynch you are watching I Love Limerick dot com and we have com to Limerick’s Milk Market for Africa Day.

[Blacks playing drums and dancing, surrounded by a crowd of blacks and a few Whites.]

[jungle music]

[Two blacks attacking, with lengths of wood, some Whites at the front door of what looks like an abandoned house. Black youths running wild about in a street and a park.]

[Various images of black gang-bangers posing, and making signs, posing with White traitors.]

[03:43]

END

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 — SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

[00:00]

[Intro music and imagery]

[00:21]

Andrew Joyce: Hello everyone! And welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo.

I’d like to begin, as usual, by thanking those of you who sent donations via Bitcoin and Dinero after the last episode. Your generosity and support is much appreciated!

Today, our subject is “Semitism”, which as we will see is a more complicated matter than at first appears.

In the small preview video [see above] I made for this episode, an interview with the Israeli academic, Ronit Lentin, I attempted to convey the central elements of semitism, or rather to let the semitism of Lentin speak for itself.

If you haven’t watched that short video you should pause this episode and do that right now. I think you will find it very instructive.

In this interview with Lentin we see several aspects of the phenomenon that I believe can be usefully described as “semitism”. It begins with a re-writing of the national history of a European nation, in this case the Irish nation. Lentin argues that because Ireland has previously witnessed the migration of Celts, Normans, and Huguenots, then we should regard Ireland as a kind of “Proposition Nation”. A nation of immigrants that should continue to welcome immigrants.

She moves on to describe Irish identity as:

“Wholly constructed.”

And from there moves to a condemnation of this identity as:

“Inherently exclusionary.”

She plucks out the example of jewish difficulties in moving to Ireland during World War Two as the ultimate evidence of this.

The elements of semitism are rather obvious in my opinion. We see bad faith in participation in culture. She comments on history solely in order to distort or undermine it. We see actions to break down homogeneity of the host nation by promoting or providing apologetics for mass migration. We see hostility to national culture and identity among European out-groups, and especially we see commitment to jewish identity, especially aspects involving historical grievances.

These are some, but not all, of the elements that comprise this phenomenon. In order to delve a little deeper it might be useful to first investigate the origins of our terminology.

The term “semitism” in our understanding begins with the work of the 19th century orientalist scholar Ernest Renan. An expert in semitic languages. Renan believed that racial characteristics were instinctual and deterministic. And he singled out the semitic races of the Levant, including the jews, as being prone to dogmatism, and a cosmopolitan conception of civilization.

Even though Renan’s views on jews were complex and sometimes positive, he was singled out at the time by the Austrian jew academic Moritz Steinschneider, who accused Renan of promoting of what he called “anti-semitic prejudices”. And this is probably the first time “anti-semitic” appears in a distinctive terminology in the German as “antisemitische”.

It’s important to highlight at this early stage that Steinschneider was accusing Renan of possessing a systematized prejudice rather than defending anything called semitism. And to the extent that Renan employed the term “semite” or “semitic” he did so in terms of describing linguistic, or racial groups, rather than systematic or pattern behaviors they might demonstrate.

The crucial departure in this terminology really begins with the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, who coined the term “anti-semitism” in its modern understanding. For Marr in his pamphlet “The Victory of the jewish Spirit over the German Spirit — Observed from a Non-religious Perspective“, Marr made the case for “semitism” as a distinctive patterned behavior common to jews.

Here “Antisemitische” becomes “Antisemitismus”. “Semitismus” in Marr’s lexicon being interchangeable “Judentum” or jewry. Both referred to the jewish spirit, or a set of inclinations, aptitudes, and behaviors that refereed to “jewishness” as a thing in itself.

Marr’s innovation broke with the past in two ways. It sent a clear message that opposition to judaism as a religion played no part in the hostility to jews in modernity. And secondly, it pointed to the fact that unlike earlier terms, like “Judenhetze” or jew hatred, or in the English terminology “jew baiting”. The issue was not with the jews in themselves as jews, but in certain behaviors they exhibited that contributed to racial hostility.

These early origins of terminology are important because language is indicative of the ideology. You either believe that it are something that can be called “semitism” or you don’t. If you don’t, you will like Steinschneider, employ “antisemitism” as a single word, referring to a prejudice.

On the other hand if you employ the hyphenated “anti-semitism” you can see there is a “semitism” to be against. For this reason the 20th century jewish philosopher Emil Fackenheim advocated total abandonment of the hyphenated form. Quote:

“In order to dispel the notion that there is an entity ‘semitism’, which ‘anti-semitism’ opposes.”

End quote. Today there is a general reluctance to embrace the terms “anti-semitism” or “semitism”, because jewish groups have so completely dominated the use of the terminology that exists in culture solely to denote a prejudice and knowledge of what “semitism” might connote is almost nil in the population at large.

Because of the flight from these terms you will search in vain for uses in the modern dissident right. Kevin MacDonald trilogy, for example, is essentially an exploration of semitism. But it appeared there as a group evolutionary strategy. And in the many memes about jews, such as “Every Single Time”, what we are highlighting again is the phenomenon that earlier generations would have known simply as “semitism”. It’s patterned, observable, repeated, behaviors.

So what is “semitism” today? Is it confined solely to jews? Do all jews demonstrate semitism? What relevance does semitism have for present day politics and culture? I think semitism should be understand in the same way as leftism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, or socialism, in the sense that it does connote something that is systematic, idealogical, political, cultural, and even spiritual. It is like all of these things a world view. One with a clear historical development, even if it has, in large part, been linked almost exclusively to jews.

Semitism has certain prejudices or foundational ideas which inform it’s praxis and dictate it’s progression. The roots of semitism do lie in judaism, though it has grafted other elements and influences to itself over the centuries. From judaism, semitism derives a racial instinct.

And one of the foundations of semitism is an understanding that jews are an authentic and legitimate racial group. And perhaps the only authentic and legitimate racial group. All others, as seen in the Lentin video, are simply “constructs”. Their entire history meaningless.

Jews do of course subscribe meaning to their own history and this is the second foundational element of semitism. Again we see the influence of judaism which with tales like that of the Exodus, attribute to jews the beginning is of a lachrymose history of victimhood. Victimhood is key to semitism, providing it with an arsenal of resentment to cohere around and a method of conceptualizing opponents that galvanizes hostility at a group level.

Again, if we look at the Lentin video we can see that Lentin views on Ireland are more than a little coloured by what is quite clearly an ethnic grievance rooted in a perception of past injustice.

This warped perception contributes to hostile action within culture which is the third foundational element of semitism. Semitism blames out-groups for the circumstances of the past and demand both revenge and a new set of values and circumstances that will prohibit the perceived injustice from ever happening again.

Since the beginning is of jewish involvement in European culture this has taken on very clear forms, ironic, sarcastic or deprecating attitudes towards out-group nationalism and identities. Promotion of cosmopolitanism and tolerance of deviance or alternative ways of living. Promotion or facilitation of mass migration, the rights of minorities in general, or in some extreme cases even invasion by hostile forces.

All of these things have to be achieved from within culture, so semitism as we know it really begins with jewish emancipation after the French Revolution. Emancipation initiated jewish participation in culture. And judaism was given rich soil in which to evolve into a more radical form.

Semitism is a radical judaism inflected via European culture. Semitism requires as one of its foundations the presence of jews occupying insider-outsider status. Jews who profess to have primary identity of American, French, German, etc., but whose actual activities, writings, and behaviors run counter to that identity.

Semitism in part is the hostile, or oppositional stance to a cult that one professes to belong to.

Another of the foundational elements of semitism is its economic, or financial, character. The influence of semitism proceeds from the wealth of semitism. Semitism is linked to intense capitalism. No one becomes a billionaire by accident. One must first of all desire to obtain that level of wealth. And very, very strongly, obsessively, in fact.

The high proportion of jewish billionaires doesn’t just indicate certain financial aptitude. But also the fact that jews are uniquely, or disproportionately, obsessed with money! This isn’t an ethnic slur, but an observable fact! Jews disproportionately produce individuals who’s life goal appears to be the acquisition of wealth, and the material access and political influence the com with that.

An important point to note however is that non-jews can become complicit in semitism and advance it. Christian zionism is an example of semitism to the extent that it shares in its foundations. Christian zionists accept and promote the idea of jews as the only authentic and legitimate racial group, a “chosen people”. The rest of the quote “constructed” nations merely fall into the category of being “two dimensional goyim”.

They also share in the conceptualization of jewish history of one of victimhood, and often join with jews in a fight against anti-semitism. Christian zionism also disavows White interests, and is awash itself with the wealth and influence of semitism. In short Christian zionism is an example of modern day semitism among non-Jews.

And semitism is increasing in culture. Recent plans for the removal of certain patriotic songs from famous cultural events in Britain are the work of certain black and ethnic activists, but they are acting within culture according to the framework innovated by the jews. They are using the techniques of semitism.

Blacks who join in viewing themselves as legitimate, and Whites as a “construct”, who follow the jews in adopting victimhood as a foundation of their identity, or who clamour for mass migration, are merely partaking of and advancing the dictates of semitism.

This bleeds in to the fact that certain memes of semitism such as “race as a social construct”, “white fragility”, and “no one is illegal”, are now absolutely widespread, viral, even.

Semitism truly is be coming something more approximating Marr’s conception of a jewish spirit, a Geist, than a conventional political ideology. There is a destructive and malicious quality to semitism that is evident even in the nihilism of the “Black Lives Matter” protests. Which are a quintessential mixture of race, identity, and grievance.

Successfully challenging semitism is extremely difficult. Jewish groups dedicated to semitism have perfected the propagation of the idea that the anti-semite is someone who simply doesn’t like jews! In much the same way that it is claimed that Whites find Africans objectionable, just because of their skin colour.

When I am asked if I like or dislike this or that jewish person, I often reply that:

“The question doesn’t match the problem! I don’t need to know this or that jewish person, or to have an opinion on jewish people as a whole, to understand the problematic nature of semitism and to have an opinion on it!”

The key question of the age is not whether, or not, people hate jews, or what to do about it, but whether semitism or anti-semitism are more sane, appropriate, and beneficial to Europe and Europeans.

Semitism says that Europeans are illegitimate! Anti-semitism says they are legitimate.

Semitism says that Europe is open to foreign colonization. Anti-semitism says it isn’t.

Semitism claims jews are unique, world victims worthy of special privileges. Anti-semitism says they aren’t.

Semitism denies it’s own existence, where anti-semitism calls for all card to be placed on the table, and to an open discussion of interests.

Which is more sane, appropriate, and beneficial to Europe and Europeans?

There are only two ways of proceeding.

Either jewish people can be convinced to liberate themselves from this toxic aspect of their culture, and this is unlikely, if not impossible.

Or Europeans liberate themselves culturally, and politically, and spiritually, from semitism.

All alternatives will simply assist decline!

Thank you for listening.

[15:40]

[Outro music]

[16:02]

END

============================================

PDF Download

top

* Total words = 2,907
* Total images = 24
* Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

Version History

top

Version 5: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 4: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 3: Sep 20, 2020 — Updated See Also links and image.

Version 2: Aug 30, 2020 — Adding images.

Version 1: Aug 29, 2020 — Published post.

Andrew Joyce – T&T 7 – The TOO Takedown – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:07:13 +0000

[This is the 7th video in the T&T series from The Occidental Observer (TOO)contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.

Here Joyce discusses the recent and ongoing take-down of The Occidental Observer website jew to a Website Firewall provider (Sucuri) no longer willing to provide security against DoS [Denial of Service] attack.

UPDATE: TOO is back (as of Aug 15) with a new firewall provider.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 7:

The TOO Takedown

Aug 14, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ek8VnCfeH8EF/

Published on Aug 14, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 20:48 UTC on August 14th, 2020.

OccidentalJoyce

1221 subscribers

Support via Bitcoin:

bc1qx9fmwe9f3uljysnm3c9ly6fvxa5ajw2hyy9pjp

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

_____________

TRANSCRIPT

(22:55)

[00:00]

[Intro music and imagery]

[00:31]

Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo.

I’d like to begin by saying a very special thank you to those who donated via Bitcoin and Dinero after the last episode. Certainly very encouraging and it makes me want to keep going in producing these podcast episodes.

This week I’d like to talk about something very serious and actually very personal.

Just a few days ago I was as part of my daily reading routine going online to take a look at The Occidental Observer, which I enjoy reading as much as the rest of you. And I found I couldn’t access the website. So I tried a couple of different browsers and nothing was working and I checked my WiFi, and it was fine. And then a message popped up on my phone from a friend, and the message said that he couldn’t access the website either.

So I went on Kevin MacDonald’s Twitter, and sure enough Kevin had a msing posted on his Twitter basically saying that the protection service, the firewall protection service The Occidental Observer had used had decided to revoke their service from us due to violation of Terms of Service. This is the terminology that they use.

Now we need that firewall protection because around four years ago The Occidental Observer came under very sustained DDOS attack from a lot of Israeli IP addresses. So for those of you who don’t know it a DDOS attack, a denial of service attack is where basically there are so many requests are made on the website that it basically freezing the website and crashes it and makes it unusable.

So whenever you employ one of these firewall services, … Cloudflare is another one of them for example, then it can filter out, and it can interpret the requests to ensure that only those which are genuine, and not part of some automated program or whatever, are allowed to actually access the website. So it slows down the demand so the website does not itself crash.

Now, whenever you remove this kind of firewall protection it not only makes the website vulnerable to such attacks again, but it makes it vulnerable to also to things l hacking, and retrieval of certain data and information as well.

So in this day and age, especially for controversial websites service providers like this which offer firewall protection are absolutely essential to the functioning of a website. And if you can knock that out then basically you are bringing the website to its knees. And that is what has happened here with The Occidental Observer.

Someone and I think we can all guess, we can make a reasonable estimate as to who exactly this was. Jewish groups have contacted the providers. The service provider for The Occidental Observer and whether certain threats have been made, or whether certain propagandistic arguments have been made, either way, pressure has been brought to bear on that service provider to cease providing a service to The Occidental Observer.

So for the time being The Occidental Observer, as I say, has been brought to its knees and it requires someone to step in and offer that same level of service, and that type of service. If the website is to continue.

This is kind of a personal thing because over 200 of my essays are on that website. They are on The Occidental Observer. Now some of my essays, maybe 20, 30, have been reposted over the years elsewhere. But The Occidental Observer contains the bulk of my work. Over eight years of work, spanning many thousands of words. I actually tallied up the number of words that I have written, what the average book would be, and really on The Occidental Observer there is the equivalent of eight books that I’ve written on Jewish matters, Jewish history, contemporary Jewish activism, etc, etc.

So this is a personal blow for me, it’s a personal blow for Kevin MacDonald, who has many thousands of blog posts there. It’s a personal blow for all of the writers, who have over the years contributed to the website. I mean as of right now none of that content is available for anyone to read, anyone to share, anyone to benefit from, or learn from. There are also many, many comments. Some of the listeners to this podcast are frequent commenters at The Occidental Observer, and I’m sure you will be disappointed also that your own interactions with that material and with other readers has, for the time being, completely vanished!

[05:15]

It’s interesting to me as well as alarming because it reinforces the fact jewish activism today is very much focused on censorship. In fact, they are going for broke on the censorship tactic.

Since the Second World War there has been an emphasis in jewish groups on censorship. Before the Second World War, actually beginning in the 1880s, in response to the rise of the anti-semitic political parties, the rise of the anti-semitic political movements in the 1880s, which were themselves a reaction to the intrusion of jews into European culture after emancipation, which occurred really beginning with the French Revolution. And it kind of more or less finished in Europe by around 1840, 1850.

Then you get about three decades of discontent which results in the 1880s emergence of anti-semitic political groups designed to remove the cultural and political, economic rights of jews which in the firm of citizenship. And the jews then responded to this effort with their so-called “jewish defense” bodies. They begin really in Germany, but are quickly replicated in Britain, and then in the United States and France, and so on, and so forth.

So between 1880 and 1930s, so we shall say, that fifty year period jews did not initially go for censorship exclusively. They focused very much on counter-propaganda. So if someone made the argument that jews were dominate in culture, jews would produce texts and books, and pamphlets which argued the opposite. Which argued that jews were powerless in culture, or which attacked in some way or another the anti-semitic parties and their credibility, and tried to undermine the information that they were putting out.

The problem with this tactic was that it was always going to fail! I mean one of the quotes which stand out to me from Hilaire Belloc’s 1922 book “The Jews” is where Belloc says that:

“One of the great strengths of the anti-semites was their ability to collect factual information.”

And really build a factual case that is almost indestructible!

And for Belloc, the jews were never quite able to combat this thing. They never really had the argument on their side, and never had truth on their side! And therefore they were always, in some sense, weak in their attempt to engage with them with this kind of material put out by the anti-semites.

And jewish counter-propaganda material was always weak and it never had the desired effect because when you are looking at two pieces side by side, it is actually quite easy to tell that the jewish argument is bogus! And actually jews, in many cases, found that their counter-propaganda not only didn’t work, but actually made things worse, because it was so obviously a piece of contrivance, it was so obviously an artificial piece of material.

So obviously the production of such material had failed catastrophically by the 1930s, because it didn’t prevent the rise of the National Socialists, and it didn’t prevent the rise of anti-semitic political parties elsewhere in Europe. It didn’t prevent widespread anti-jewish hostility in countries like Romania, or Hungary, or even in France, when you look at the Dreyfus case, for example.

[08:49]

So this strategy always failed for jews because they never had truth on their side. The other response, then, was that they simply relied on trying to get as much control over the narrative as possible, and tried to smother, rather than argue with the arguments of the anti-semites.

In the post-war period, this has resulted in widespread jewish lobbying throughout the West for group libel laws, for speech laws, for definitions of things like “anti-semitism”, which we’ve seen in recent times, and those definitions are, by nature, designed to quell speech. They are necessarily broad in their definitions and necessarily open to very generous interpretations by judges seeking to curtail speech.

I would say that in the last ten years, the newest front in the war has been to take on tech – to get a real grasp on the internet, and to get a choke-hold on all of the big platforms, and to figure out strategies to work their way through – whether it’s with propaganda, or legal pressure, or advertising boycotts – the smaller service providers, which together make up the internet and what it means to have a functioning website and to be able to disseminate information.

[10:25]

So, whether you are a web host – say, something like GoDaddy – or whether you’re providing an ancillary service like Cloudflare, who offer DDOS protection and so on, all of those necessary components, … if these jewish bodies and censorship activists can manage to get their hooks into at least one part of this necessary puzzle, then they basically bring down the whole house of cards, and the targeted website, the source of information which is particularly grievous to them, can be brought to its knees by simply attacking that one component.

And this is what we’re seeing. And it’s becoming more and more brazen. Arguments in favour of free speech seem to be disappearing. You find fewer and fewer individuals willing to stand up and say:

“Where’s free speech in all this?”

Because, actually, I think a turning point has already been reached at the highest levels. On the level of theory and the philosophy of speech underpinning a lot of this activism, the tide of opinion has already shifted away from defending our ideas. It’s already shifted in a direction which says;

“Our ideas are beyond the pale! They’re not protected by free speech. They’re not protected as legitimate speech, and therefore they can be banned.”

And therefore, we’re going to see a lot more falling back on things like:

“Terms of service, terms of service, terms of service!”

And in those terms of service for all these organisations, service providers, and companies, we will increasingly see not only arguments for protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, or sex, or gender identification, or whatever it’s going to be, we will start see in “terms of service” things like definitions of “anti-semitism”, which benefit organised jewry.

So already, just a couple of days ago — it’s funny how so much of this is starting to happen all at once — Facebook have more or less declared that they are adopting the definition of “anti-semitism” developed by these jewish bodies. That means they will now start censoring any material which portrays jews, or represents jews, or reflects jews as “powerful”, as having influence in the media, in politics, et cetera, et cetera …

So, a tidal wave — a tsunami of censorship — is building! And I feel like we haven’t even seen the worst of it yet. I feel like the worst is definitely yet to come. And I think that that will actually take the form of legal measures, eventually.

I think the censorship of speech is a prelude to “legal censorship”. They will start by saying that this kind of speech is “in breach of terms of service”. I think that the end point here is that this kind of speech is “in breach of the law”. This is the long game that’s going to come. We need to always keep that in mind.

Now, the argument that they’re making is that when we talk about things like jewish influence, that this is a very hostile and very insidious “conspiracy theory”, [a claim] which is unsustainable in any reasonable intellectual sense. The example that I always fall back on when I’m trying to explain these things to friends, is to say:

“If I told you that Ethiopians were exerting too much influence in the media, what would you say?”

They would laugh and say it’s nonsensical. I would then ask them:

“Then why is it nonsensical?”

They would say:

“There’s no evidence for it. Point out for me the Ethiopians that are in very influential positions within the media, or banking, or whatever it might be, or in politics, or the Ethiopian lobby; just point to the individuals and the supposed methodologies that might underpin such a conspiracy.”

I would say:

“That’s a fair point. Excellent! Right! We’ve now got the argument underway. We’re moving in the right direction.”

They would say:

“How so?”

And I would reply:

“Now consider that I said that jews have the same influence in those spheres [that was previously ascribed to Ethiopians]. Would you now say it’s ridiculous, or nonsensical?”

They wouldn’t go that far. If they’re pro-Jewish, or they have no identified position on the matter yet, they will normally kind of wriggle for a little while. They will reach for caricature, like,

“They don’t all meet together and come up with some sort of grand plan, or whatever it might be.”

[15:23]

But the reason they don’t say it’s “nonsensical”, or that it’s a “load of garbage”, or what have you, is because it’s quite obvious, and it’s quite provable that jews, as individuals, or as a group, actually do occupy very significant positions in all of these influential spheres.

It’s nonsensical to say that somebody who runs a media company does not have influence!

And it’s equally nonsensical to say that an individual running such a company does not have influence because he’s jewish. No! The jewishness in some ways doesn’t matter, because the position is influential. And if you have a jew – a strongly identified jew – in such a position, then that strongly identified jew is influential! And I think it’s interesting and worthy of enquiry as to whether his “Jewishness” features, to any extent, in his exertion of influence! Because that then taints the influence and it becomes a jewish influence.

So all of these things are actually empirically testable and observable, and we can track these things. We can look at how many jews are in pro-immigration groups. We can look at who these individuals are who are producing pro-migrant propaganda. Or, we can look at who these individuals are who are putting pressure on internet service providers and ancillary services to try and limit the ability of certain websites to operate and to disseminate the information that they have.

So, the question of jewish influence is always testable! And, in theory, should always be debatable. It should always be an arguable point, if you have the information which you feel will prove your case.

Unfortunately, jews appear on the one hand to have completely capitulated to the fact that we are telling the truth! Simply because they have “exited the argument”, shall we say.

The sole strategy that they now appear to be pursuing is that of completely crushing our ability to speak! And to completely censor our arguments! And to completely eliminate any possibility that people who are, as yet, undecided, or who are unread in these matters, or who are in a position where they’re simply asking questions, or noticing that things aren’t adding up, or, as in the case there of they’re looking at things like the potential Ethiopian conspiracy, versus the jewish conspiracy, and they’re noticing that there might be something there!

They’re at that very early stage, which I think most, so-called “anti-semites”, who might self-describe, or not now, were once at that stage themselves. It’s that first initial feeling that:

“Wait a second! There might actually be something going on here! Because I can see that there are certain coincidences in the demographics behind some of the issues that I’m looking at.”

And it’s very useful to jews to be able to snuff out such patterns of thought at a very early stage.

And for those generations which have not been indoctrinated as young children, and all the way through their education system, [that indoctrination] which now seems to be happening. Lots of pre-schoolers are being educated on “tolerance”, and so on and so forth.

But for the older generations, in particular those who are perhaps in their 30s, 40s or 50s, and are only now perhaps waking up to certain realities about the world they live in, it’s very useful to be able to prevent the spread of information to those people.

Of course, the other argument being made by jewish groups when they’re putting pressure on all these service providers, the infrastructure of the internet, these social media companies, peer-to-peer video platforms, and everything else, is they make the case there is a moral argument here.

“You’re hosting immoral and dangerous content!”

This has always “triggered” me, to employ the SJW language! It “triggers” me because these people are part of the same, so-called “liberal superstructure”, which thinks that it’s moral to take unborn children and execute them, and dismember them in the womb!

[20:05]

These are the “moral values” of those lecturing us about posting heavily-footnoted articles about verifiable history on The Occidental Observer. These are the “moral paragons” who are dictating to us what our moral parameters should be. These are the same people who very enthusiastically support a state, wherein it’s a social function to pull out an armchair, grab some popcorn and some soft drinks, and watch bombs get dropped on women and children a little while over a heavily fortified wall! This is what passes for our “moral superiors”!

And I’ve always thought, what if we ask someday that jews adhere to their own “terms of service”? The terms of service apparently laid down in their own holy books, especially the Old Testament? What if we ask them to adhere to some of those moral principles, rather than pay them lip service, and lecture the rest of us about a supposed “Judeo-Christian civilisation”?

The truth of the matter, of course, is that our civilisation learnt absolutely nothing from the jews, when it comes to morals! Absolutely nothing!

The only thing Christians ever learnt from jews, was:

“Don’t take out loans without knowing the full extent of the interest you might be charged, and to always be wary of jewish ‘terms of service’, because they’re liable to change at a moment’s notice!”

When you look at jewish emancipation, and jewish citizenship, we ask them to adhere to certain “terms of service”: That they behave like other citizens; that we give to them as jews, everything, but as a group, nothing.

But unfortunately, that early ambition of the Enlightenment has been frustrated many, many times, and in some respects, utterly betrayed! To the extent where our freedoms are being eroded, and we are being told that we are not adhering to “our terms of service”.

So perhaps it’s time for new “terms of service”.

Perhaps it’s time for a revisiting of how jews live in European society and among Europeans.

Perhaps it’s time that, in terms of the jewish-European relationship, we revised and re-examined those “terms of service”.

Thank you for listening.

[22:55]

END

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words = 3,558
Total images = 14
Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

Version History

top

Version 5: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 4: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 3: Sep 20, 2020 — Updated See Also links and image.

Version 2: Aug 16, 2020 — Added 15 minutes (08:49 to end) of transcript, very helpfully provided by Vigilante Jesus.

Added Gaza cartoon/photo image. Added remaining 4 minutes. Transcript text now complete. Added note that TOO is now back up.

Version 1: Aug 15, 2020 — Published post. Have done the first 5 minutes of the transcript.

Andrew Joyce – T&T 5 – The Return of the Bucket – Aug 5, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Thu, 06 Aug 2020 11:12:16 +0000

[This is the 5th video in the T&T series from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.

Here Joyce revisits a previous topic and ponders the usefulness of engaging in philosophical musings, while discussing again his differences with Tyler, aka, Thamster.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 5:

The Return of the

Bucket

Aug 5, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/wI8ETsK1DIvw/

Published on Aug 5, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 19:02 UTC on August 5th, 2020.

OccidentalJoyce

1127 subscribers

My reply to Thamster’s reply. This will be my final comment on the subject.
Please support via BitCoin:

bc1qx9fmwe9f3uljysnm3c9ly6fvxa5ajw2hyy9pjp

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

_____________

Introduction

TRANSCRIPT

(13:10)

[00:00]

Introduction

top

[00:30]

Hello and welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo. This episode is going to be quite brief. It is a reply to a reply.

Tyler, aka, Thamster has replied to Episode 3 of Talmud and Taboo, “Kicking over the Bucket”. The episode that I recorded was quite brief, it was 10 minutes long. It’s difficult to say, because of the simplicity of its message, how it could be misconstrued, but I think it has been misconstrued.

The only criticism that I made against Thamster in that Episode was that he had presented Adorno briefly, as a throw away comment, as a reactionary in music. I produced a few pieces of information which clearly demonstrated that that wasn’t the case. I think that that information is valid and I think that the argument that I made is inarguable. It still stands.

In the broader terms of the Episode the point being made is that you can engage in abstraction, but all you are going to be doing is playing with abstraction, it’s not going to advance much in the political world, or in the real world of action, of improving demographics, of improving culture at large.

Philosophy is a fascinating subject. I have a lot of respect for it. I have a lot of respect for Thamster’s productions in the realm of philosophy. But I do think it has its limits. I think it has its limits with common man. That doesn’t mean that it is utterly pointless, it just means it’s not going to rescue us from this situation.

And in fact in one of Thamaster’s comments, beneath one of my videos, he said that his goal was to advance philosophy. I think that is a noble goal. But that goal ends with that goal. You can advance philosophy all you want, but that is not going to create some kind of revolution in society. That is not how it works.

And ironically enough I think if you look at philosophers, like Nietzsche, this point was made very very explicitly by them. Nietzsche, for example chided the kicking over the bucket philosophy of Zen when he said that man of action of the future will be someone who engages in a woeful forgetfulness. Nietzsche envisaged a man who could empty his mind first in order to act!

And I think while ideas are fascinating and certainly Thamster seems to have taken a very brief 10 minute video with a very simple message in it, it seems like, I hope I’m not being unfair to him here, but it seems that rather than simply see the bucket, he has looked at it in terms of what he can break down and what he can, how he can basically scoop out the intellectual potential of what was a very, very basic podcast.

And perhaps something that you outgrow with age. I went through a phase like that when I was younger, but it has its limits. And I hope that all of you listening to this will understand that an element of action requires an element of forgetfulness, of disentangling yourself from second thoughts, from doubts, you may have.

And when we engage with certain topics, and cultural marxism is one of those topics, they do present a kind of intellectual thicket. And as I said in the first episode it’s not really a matter of intelligence.

When I am asking someone, or when I’m suggesting that in order to act there requires an emptying of the mind to some extent, that is not an anti-intellectual attitude. In fact, you can think intellectually in a “no-think” way, if that makes sense. You can have a structure to your plan of action without over indulging in abstraction.

I hope what I’m saying there is clear. I certainly don’t find the subject of cultural marxism, it’s finer points of theory, to be so interesting that I want to devote a large number of podcast episodes to it, or to speak for one, or two hours, on the subject. It simply doesn’t interest me enough. And also I don’t want to engage in an endless series of exchanges on the subject with someone on my own side. I don’t see the point in needless factionalism over this.

To come back the reason for Episode 3, I had noticed fractions and divisions within the movement with one section of the movement looking at the, I suppose, philosophical Third Positionists, and disdaining them for snobbishness, or a certain level of intellectual conceit.

And on the other side, the intellectual Third Positionists were looking at others as grugg tier wignats who have nothing really valuable to contribute and who should shut up and listen to their intellectual betters!

Both of those sides have a point! But both of them need to just shut up and work together. And when I suggest “kicking over the bucket”, it’s not a condemnation of either side. It’s a call to reconciliation and seeing things for how they are.

And yes, there is room for philosophers in a movement. But the movement should not be a movement of philosophers. And there is room for activists and foot soldiers, and people who are men of action in the movement. But at the same time we should not have a movement consisting solely of such men. We are all part of the same body and until can work together and come together in a positive sense, with a positive vision, we really aren’t going to make any kind of progress, whatsoever.

Which brings me on to a question. And that question has bothered me for, I don’t know, five, six years. Probably ever since the birth of what became known as the “Alt-Right”. The Alt-Right initiated a new departure in our politics because it developed a side to our politics that was based on entertainment.

So we saw a flourishing of podcasts, of memes, of audio-visual products. And the reason for all of this is of course was to create a culture, a White nationalist, Third Positionist, or Alt-Right culture. And that needed cultural expression. So we had music, and as I say, we had even art works and things were being produced. All this is fantastic!

But I have always had the reservation where I wondered if it was not the case that we were degrading somewhat into an entertainment business, or a sphere of the “Entertainment Complex” albeit a niche element within that broader complex. And I’ve always had reservations especially some of the more intellectual content.

And this is an indictment of myself here! I’ve written over 300 essays. Some of them are very, very intellectual, and very, very academic and have all of the apparatus of academic essays, with heavy footnotes and references to multiple texts and what have you.

So I’m not presenting myself, please do not make the mistake of thinking I’m presenting myself as either above all this or outside of it, but looking on and criticizing everyone. That is not the case. If anything it’s an attempt at self critique. I’m trying to examine what I’m doing and asking myself:

“Am I’m doing something wrong here?”

But I’ve been worried that some of this is nothing more than distraction, that we are confusing entertainment with action. That in producing a podcast that is listened to by a few thousand people, that that in itself is a form of achievement, or productive action. And I’ve always been apprehensive in terms of answering that question. I’m still not convinced either way. And perhaps you could let me know in the comments, how you feel, or if you have had similar feeling.

But, for Tyler to have highlighted the fact at the end of my episode “Kicking over the Bucket” that pointed to Heidegger and Schmidt, … Again I think he is making connections that weren’t there, and he is mis-interpreting the very simple message of the podcast. When I’m saying that there are limits to a conference on Heidegger, or a podcast on Schmidt, I think that point is simply inarguable!

There is a limit to the usefulness of such activity. There is a point at which that could be argued to be nothing more than an intellectual entertainment. It doesn’t mean it has no value, but it does mean the in the broader path of progress, those kinds of activities don’t kick over the bucket! They just don’t advance things. They take off to another intellectual cul-de-sac where we can feel comfortable, and feel entertained and feel like we are doing something, but in fact we aren’t, we are just again hitting the brick wall. We are trying to develop, or embellish, or reinterpret what are essentially abstract theories. And actually all of these theories when you break them down are actually quite simple in the end. And anyway they are just loaded with jargon a lot of them.

And I include Heidegger in that. I think Heidegger relies a lot on jargon to embellish what were often very, very simple points, whether it is about technology, or whether it’s about the nature of being. And I suppose their is an argument to be made that philosophy as a whole is about inventing and then breaking down and re-examining jargon. There’s an argument to be made there, that that is the case.

But, that is the point that was being made! It’s no more complex than that. It’s no more controversial than that. And I don’t think that the very simple points that I made which really only two points. One of which was Adorno was not a reactionary in music. The other point is that we shouldn’t confuse entertaining and lively discussions about philosophy for political progress, and nor should we ever do that.

Those points are inarguable! They speak for themselves. So as much as I appreciate Tyler’s reply, that is all I have to say on it. I won’t be engaging in any further discussion. And I think that my points still stand, like concrete! Undisturbed and monolithic and unchanged. And that is just how I see it. But I wish Tyler all the best.

And certainly I encourage everyone to consume his content and I think he is a very intelligent guy with lots of worthwhile [things] to say. And I respect him and will continue to listen to him. I just think that in the broader scheme of things with the debates that have been ongoing, and some of the divisions that are there, that my approach is best. And I’ll stick by that.

Anyway, thanks for listening! I hope that clarifies a few things. And the next episode I think we will return to some history and politics, because I think that is where everyone who is following me really wants to go with this thing.

Anyway, that is all I have to say on the matter!

Thanks for listening, and good bye.

[13:10]

END

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words = xxx
Total images = xx
Total A4 pages = xxx
Click to download a PDF of this post (1.0 MB):

Version History

top

Version 4: Mar 21, 2021 — Added See Also Part 3 image and links.

Version 3: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 2: Sep 20, 2020 — Updated See Also links and image.

Version 1: Aug 6, 2020 — Published post.

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:45:45 +0000

[This is the 3rd video in the T&T series from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.

Here Joyce advises against getting tangled up in debating jewish ideologies with all their abstractions that are essentially anti-White contrivances, and time-wasters.

He tells the story of a Zen master who posed a challenge to his monks by placing a bucket of water in front of them and asking them to tell him of its significance. None could answer this “abstract problem” to his satisfaction. Their cook though, who had been listening, stepped in and through action solved the challenge.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 3:

Kicking Over the Bucket

July 27, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1sMrTN8hpxSA/

Published on Jul 27, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 12:25 UTC on July 27th, 2020.

OccidentalJoyce

937 subscribers

Support via BitCoin:

bc1q58vh2h6llgstvu8hfnqz93h9tlyywhm7pe3yeh

In this episode, I discuss Jews, abstraction, and avoiding getting tangled up in needless debates.

Adorno’s 1951 “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda” – http://www.freudians.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Adorno_Freudian_Theory_Pattern_Fascist_Propaganda.pdf

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

_____________

Introduction — US TV Host

Jews and Abstraction — Zen Buddhist Story

Cultural Marxism vs Cultural Capitalism

Theodore Adorno — 1951 essay, “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda”

Jewish Tradesmen and Benjamin Disraeli

Our Task

TRANSCRIPT

(12:53)

[00:00]

Introduction — US TV Host

top

US TV Host: The Census Bureau has taken a new snapshot of America and it has shows some dramatic changes and it predicts still more ahead. For one thing the new report says that more than four out of ten Americans under the age of 20 belong to racial, or ethnic minorities.

[00:59]

Andrew Joyce: Hello and welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo!

I would like to begin by saying a very big thank you to those individuals who sent donations via Bitcoin last week. I certainly don’t want, or expect to make a living from writing and podcasting, but these donations will help me spend more time on this and to invest in better equipment and software. So again, I thank you sincerely.

This week I’ve worked on the audio, and I hope listeners see a radical improvement in volume and sound quality. I’ve also listened to recent requests to record readings of my essays, and a number are now in the pipeline.

Jews and Abstraction — Zen Buddhist Story

top

Now, let’s get down to business.

Today I want to talk about jews and abstraction.

One of my favorite stories from the Zen Buddhists concerns a famous and highly sought after master of Baizhang [sp]. He was so popular with prospective students that his monastery was eventually at capacity, with demand still arising. To solve the problem he decided, I suppose, to “franchise out”. And so, he wanted to select his best students to run the new monastery, and in a way most true to his teaching.

And so he devised a test and gathered together his best students. He placed a bucket of water in the middle of the room and formed the students in a circle around it. He then pointed at it and said:

“Without making an assertion, and without making a denial, tell me what this is.”

All of the students were puzzled and silent.

And then the student who had to up to this point been the most promising said:

“It couldn’t be called a piece of wood.”

But the master didn’t accept this. And then the monastery cook, who had been watching the whole thing, walked into the middle of the circle and kicked the bucket over! And walked away.

And he got the job.

Why?

Zen, of course, is based on a rejection of abstraction, and places a very heavy emphasis on direct action and experience.

The other monks, faced with an abstract problem, responded with abstractions of their own. And thus, got no closer to truth, or their goal, in this case, the promotion.

I worry sometimes that faced with jewish abstraction, especially the kind that we see in intellectual movements, we are too eager to respond with abstractions of our own.

Cultural Marxism vs Cultural Capitalism

top

I recently listened to Keith Woods’ discussion with Tyler, aka, Thamster Wingnut on Cultural Marxism vs Cultural Capitalism. It was a very good discussion. And I think both young men are very intelligent and capable. I’m glad with have people like this on our side.

But one comment from Tyler bothered me. He was talking about Theodor Adorno, and supposedly conservative, or reactionary attitudes that Adorno held, especially in relation to classical music. Tyler commented that in one of Eric Striker’s recent debates in which classical music came up as subject matter, Adorno would have been on Striker’s side.

I don’t really know where to begin in terms of how problematic such a statement is, except to say that it is an excellent example of how easy it is to get lost in a verbal jungle, so thick that you lose sight of enemies and perceive them as friends. What’s missing in Tyler’s statement, and again I have a lot of respect for Tyler, is an awareness of the basic nature of the jewish intellectual activist, who invariably combines snobbish arrogance and malicious destructiveness.

Did Adorno pose as a classical music expert and aficionado? Yes he did! He studied music. He could play Beethoven rather well. And he even composed his own pieces.

But one often finds this jewish instinct to be, quote, “more German than the Germans”, or “to know classical music better than the Europeans”. There’s an arrogance over talent in this regard.

But more importantly, was Adorno a conservative reactionary in music? Of course he wasn’t! He was a relentless promoter of abstract, avant-garde garbage, as the future of classical music! And did much to boost the status of his talentless co-ethnic Arnold Schoenberg, and his abstract schizophrenic productions. In truth Adorno wouldn’t have been on Striker’s side, on any matter, at any time!

Theodore Adorno — 1951 essay, “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda”

top

All of which raises questions about the value of regurgitating Cultural Marxism theories in the belief that they can somehow be re-purposed for our cause.

Of course, I agree that modern capitalism requires critique. Bloated mass consumption, the globalist movement of labour, and the commodification of all areas of life, are evils that must be confronted. But it can be asserted with confidence that where the critiques of Cultural Marxism are good, they are unoriginal. And where they are original they are awful!

Take, for example, Ardorno’s 1951 essay, “Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda”. If we took Adorno at face value and entered into the game of abstraction, he would begin with a lengthy critique of capitalism and his indictment that capitalism destroys the ego and leaves a vacuum in the personality. We might agree! Some of us might agree. We might be tempted to say:

“Adorno’s on to something here! We can use this!”

But Adorno’s entire theoretical framework, is that capitalism destroys the ego, and that fascism fills the vacuum. The entire theory, is the presentation of fascism as a psychological pathology induced by capitalism. This, of course, is a self-serving jewish theory! And it’s difficult to see how it can be recovered, even in part, from its origins.

It annoyed me a few weeks ago to see the alt-Right Third Positionists circle, descend into infighting over issues just like this. The use of jewish abstractions and capitalism and communism.

But as I said, there is an inevitability of getting too deep into material that is ultimately circular, sterile, and redundant.

In my own writing, whether it’s on theories of anti-semitism, or Whiteness Studies, I’ve preferred to “kick over the bucket”! I simply point out the jewish nature of the ideas and thus expose them in the only light they really need to be seen.

Here it is important above all to know with whom we are talking, rather than what he has to say.

Jewish Tradesmen and Benjamin Disraeli

top

You know, when jews first arrived in the West in very large numbers between 1840 and 1900, they went selling things on credit, door to door. Often it was secondhand clothes. And a common insult levelled at Benjamin Disraeli in the British Parliament was shouts of:

“Old cloh! Old cloh!”

Mocking the shouts that the jewish tradesmen would utter when walking through the streets of London.

Well it so happened that across the West at the time, there were many, many complaints from housewives, and so on, that they had ended up purchasing very shoddy goods on very, very bad terms! And they would explain that the jewish salesman would run a very confusing and distracting sales patter on them at the time of the sale.

So when I advise against getting into the finer points of abstract jewish theories, I’m not saying these things are too difficult to figure out. In fact, it’s not a matter of intelligence at all. I’m saying, don’t get sucked into a sales patter designed to distract you from your real goals, and which won’t provide you in the end with anything meaningful at all.

Good examples of “kicking over the bucket”, are Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, which doesn’t engage in psychoanalysis, other than to demonstrate its jewish origins and most obvious flaws. And my own exploration of Whiteness Studies is focussed much more heavily on the biography of its key figures, and the genealogy of its ideas, rather than the ideas themselves.

Our Task

top

Our task is not, and never has been, to engage in Talmudic dialectics in order to justify, or excuse our existence. It isn’t our responsibility to show jews how intelligent we are, least of all in respect of their own intellectual contrivances.

When someone asks you a question like:

“What is White culture?”

Your task is not to engage in historical cultural analysis, but to see through the request and “kick the bucket” over, before walking away.

Our task is not to host endless conferences on Heidegger, or yet another podcast on Schmidt. Our task ultimately will inevitably require direct experience and action. Raising families, creating space for Europeans, and building a future.

As a man once said:

“We are here to fight, and to die, and to continue the flow.”

My friends, only one of these things is certain in everyone’s life. We will all die! Some of you will die this year, some maybe this week. Maybe one of you will die before the sun goes down. But the question remains over the other two. Will you continue the flow? Do you have children? And do you equip them with what they will need for the future? And will you struggle and fight in this culture war in order to preserve the best of what was, and usher in the best of what can be?

I hope that in doing so you see the value of “kicking over the bucket”, of stepping over obstacles, rather than getting tangled up in them.

If you enjoyed this podcast and want to hear more, please consider leaving a modest Bitcoin donation. The address is below.

Thanks for listening. I’ll see you next time.

[12:27]

[Outro music]

[12:53]

END

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words = 1,896
Total images = 20
Total A4 pages = 21
Click to download a PDF of this post (1.0 MB):
Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

Version History

top

Version 5: Nov 15, 2020 — Updated See Also links.

Version 4: Sep 20, 2020 — Updated See Also links (11) and image.

Version 3: Aug 5, 2020 — Updated See Also image (7) and links.

Version 2: Jul 29, 2020 — Added links in BitChute Description. Added PDF for download. Added Table of Contents with links.

Version 1: Jul 28, 2020 — Published post.

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 2 – And then one day… – Jul 20, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:50:43 +0000

[This is the 2nd video in the T&T series from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, available at his newly created BitChute channel.

In this video he first discusses how some ordinary jews deny that they bear any responsibility for the negative reactions that non-jews have towards them and that has existed since ancient times.

He then talks about how he became “jew aware“, and that something was seriously wrong with the official narrative of jewish victimhood through reading the work of John Doyle Klier, an academic, who wrote how the tales of 19th century Russian pogroms against jews were greatly exaggerated, and often completely fabricated.

Such propaganda pushed throughout Western media of the time facilitated the mass migration of jews out of Eastern Europe and Russian and into the West.

“… he’s saying that jews engaged in a coordinated mass hoax!”

Finally he says that the path to becoming “red-pilled” will firstly involve the overcoming of accepted narratives of jewish victimhood, a difficult task given the mass indoctrination the public receives through jewish control of the media and education systems.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 2:

And Then One Day, …

July 20, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/AFw1ACwDKZBi/

Published on Jul 20, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 17:42 UTC on July 20th, 2020.

channel image

OccidentalJoyce

828 subscribers
Support via Bitcoin:
bc1q58vh2h6llgstvu8hfnqz93h9tlyywhm7pe3yeh

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

_____________

TRANSCRIPT

(17:44)

[00:00]

Voiceover: They are fleeing their homes and getting out of town. Members of the Lev Tahor community who practice an austere form of Judaism say they are being persecuted for their beliefs. They claim village elders threatened to cut their water and electricity if they did not leave San Juan village, near Guatemala city. This spokesperson said:

“This attitude that they have taken against us, to accuse us of something we didn’t do. Legally we as Guatemalans are the majority here, and also foreigners, have the right to live where we want to live. Let’s respect the country’s laws.”

We do not want another Jewish holocaust, she said at, … [screeching laughter by Mexican guy]

A Closer Look at Jewish Victimhood

Joyce: Hello and welcome to another episode of Talmud and Taboo! In today’s episode I want to investigate in a little bit more depth the issue of Jewish management of historical narratives, which, of course, is another important aspect of the broader problem of Jewish censorship.

Now one of my favorite memes that I see on social media, especially Twitter is that beneath some report, or other, of Jews behaving badly — this might be promoting mass migration, it might be promoting pornography, or anything really negative — someone will write beneath that:

“And then one day, for no reason whatsoever, an Austrian painter began to hate them.”

And I have always found this funny. And actually I think it is a lot more profound than it’s flippancy would give it credit for. Now what is someone saying when they post that? What is someone trying to get at? Well, they are trying to say that throughout history there have in fact been reasons why people have reacted negatively toward is Jews.

Now why would such a point need to be made? Well, it’s not actually self-evident, not in this day and age. When we look at the education system — and I’ll take mine for example — my first encounter with Jews in my education system when I was about 15 or 16, and I was learning about the rise of the Nazis, and the build up to World War Two. Now what was I taught about jews? Very little. I was taught very little.

The only thing I was taught about jews was that they were “scapegoats”. This was no real historical context given to any European hatred of Jews what so ever. Anti-semitism was something that was completely fabricated. It seemed to me my educational course that it had been invented pretty much invented by Adolf Hitler! That is the extent of the historical gap that was left in my own education. It was a gap that I would have to devote over a decade of my own time and energy and thorougher investigation in order to fill that gap and form my own conclusions.

But in my own education the origins of European anti-semitism, as taught to me in a national school curriculum, seemed to begin pretty much in 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor, or if not that, then some murky point in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, so by 1918. So it was a kind of half-cocked argument that in the aftermath of World War One, Germany was somehow psychologically damaged, it was economically troubled. And out of this fog, this need to find a way of explaining the situation to themselves, the Germans just spontaneously latched on to the Jews as a reason why they were troubled. And they basically purged themselves therefore on the Jews. And that is basically what ended up with the so-called “Holocaust”.

I look at it now, as a grown man — and I’m sure most of you do as well — and it seems ridiculous to me. It seems that it leaves out so much of what is essential. It seems to say that there is no adequate explanation for what happened, and what happened so many other times in the past.

And of course when you are learning about European anti-semitism in the context of the Second World War, you really aren’t given any clues that this might have been something that took place on a much larger and geographically widespread scale! Because of course they don’t want you to think too much! They don’t want you to think this “spontaneous” event happened — so-called spontaneously — at so many other locations throughout so many other historical periods. That would just provoke too many questions.

So you are encouraged to have a very simplistic view of the entire thing, and I don’t know about you but I also shown “Shindlers List”. And I remember being 15 or 16 and being puzzled by the entire thing. And wondering:

“What’s going on here? And this doesn’t really make any sense!”

But one of the problems that we face is that these interpretations of what happened and this level of understanding — if you can call it a level of understanding — is absolutely widespread.

So if you were to ask pretty much anyone on the street that you met, if you just stopped them and you said:

“Hey, can I speak to you for a second. Just answer a quick question for me. Can you tell me why the “Holocaust” happened? Or can you tell me why people don’t like Jews?”

And often times you would get the response that:

“They were scapegoats, they were scapegoats.”

Scapegoats for what? No one ever keeps going and asking any more probing questions than that. It’s just left that Jews were scapegoats! That is profoundly unsatisfying to me! And it’s one of the reasons why I continued on the path which has brought me to the current point, where I’m recording a podcast like this!

But I sometimes wonder to what extent the Jews even believe in it? And I actually believe that many of them engage in a kind of self-deception on that point. An interesting point. Let’s just pause here and actually look at some footage of Israelis answering the question:

“Why have Jews been expelled from so many countries for so many centuries?”

And let’s look at their reactions.

Interviewer: Do you think there is a reason that Jews were expelled from 120 countries?

Jewish male: If there is a reason that they expelled Jews from 120 countries?

Interviewer: Is there a legitimate historical reason?

Jewish male: Hate is hate is hate. It doesn’t matter what the reasons were. You don’t need to find reasons to hate.

Jewish female: I think sometimes people are looking to find someone to be mad at.

Interviewer: A scapegoat? To scapegoat someone?

Jewish female: Yeah. I think it was easy because they were a bit different.

Male (off camera): I have a fuller question.

Interviewer: Okay. Go to it.

Male (off camera): Can they be blamed even in a small part for being kicked out?

Female (off camera): No. No.

Jewish female: I don’t think. So I think they were okay.

Jewish male (bald): Everyone is anti-semitic!

Interviewer: Do you think there is something in Jews, ..?

Jewish male (bald): No.

Joyce: [chuckling] I think that last one is my personal favourite. But what’s going on here? I mean I think if you look at the reactions, … And I hope that you will all look at the video as well as listen to this podcast. Because the video was quite instructive. All of them, when they are first asked the question, looked kind of shocked. And there is almost a flinch there, there’s some kind of reflect that kicks in, where I think on some level they know what they are about to say it is complete nonsense, but they say it anyway. It’s what they are used to being taught. It’s what they are used to saying. It’s what they are used to believing. It’s what they use to convincing themselves is the case.

Now the first man simply says that, “hate is hate”. So he has this kind of quasi-metaphysical response. He’s basically saying that hate exists in and of itself, it’s ominous, it’s a force that acts in history. To which you could probably only ask:

“Well, why does something so irrational and so unpredictable occur in this instance when we are talking about Jews with such regularity and in such a patterned form?”

His response really doesn’t answer that question. It doesn’t meet any basic standards for any thesis.

The second answer is framed somewhat differently. She say the Jews are simply a scapegoat, and have been a scapegoat throughout history. But we are confronted with the same problem. If people are scapegoating based on being confronted with their own problems and they are just looking to lash out, it means that they are either incredibly incompetent at seeing and dealing with those problems. And also it implies that again that something completely irrational is following a pattern again, and again, and again, especially when it comes to Jews.

And the third one, my personal favourite, is simply a response to the question:

“Why is everyone anti-semitic?”

By saying:

“Everyone is anti-semitic!”

It’s just a circular argument. And all of these responses are similar although they sound quite different on the surface. And all of them are basically designed to absolve Jews of accepting any kind of responsibility, or even contemplating accepting any kind of responsibility.

Well then! Where does that leave us? With have a Jews that is totally reluctant to accept even the smallest responsibility in provoking historical aggression. And to make matters worse, we have a general population that is totally indoctrinated with educational structures, and content, that is disturbingly narrow, and that leaves so much out that is utterly essential to understanding the problem as a whole.

Unfortunately in order for any human being to get a grasp of the Jewish Question, it requires and overcoming of accepted narratives of Jewish victimhood. Let me say that again. In order for anyone to get to grips with the Jewish Question the first step has to be an overcoming of accepted narratives of Jewish victim-hood.

This isn’t going to easy! And for everyone it is going to different. In my case it wasn’t reading something by Kevin MacDonald, or David Duke, that made me realise that something a amiss in the standard Jewish victimhood narratives. In fact, and this might sound strange, it was a work by a professor of Jewish studies at Oxford university. A guy called John Doyle Klier, who died in 2007.

Now Klier was an American Catholic. And how he ended up in Jewish studies I don’t know, and I don’t think I will ever know, or understand. But he was a fascinating guy and he spent about 20 or more years investigating the so-called “Russian Pogroms” of late 19th century Russia.

And in the course of his research he had discovered that there were serious problems with the standard narrative of the pogroms, as had been advanced both at the time and in historiography since then. So Klier went right back to basics. He looked at all the original documents. And what he discovered was that the pogrom narratives that involved things like babies having their heads smashed with hammers by Russian peasants, and Jewish women having their breasts hacked off, and, you know, just bloodbaths, hyper gory stuff, that all of this was really invented!

He want right back to the original documents, he want right back to government interviews with rabbis. He looked at the reports of British diplomats who had been sent out to Russia in order to investigate these events. And what emerged was a picture radically at odds with the received narrative. Klier later wrote in his book “Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–1882” that the reports from Jewish journalists at the time should be treated by historians today with “extreme caution”! That is the words he used. Extreme caution!

He said that all of the reports with deliberately sensationalized, that they were exaggerated, that the death toll was not only exaggerated but things were happening, like people were claiming 2,000 deaths where there was none! None! Where there was no deaths! Not simply exaggerating numbers, but inventing wholesale massacres.

But Klier’s book was published pretty much either while he was on his deathbed, or just afterwards. And I was never able to contact him about any of these things, unfortunately. Otherwise, had he still been alive, had I been red-pilled on these things at the time I would had so many questions for him.

But today I wonder, how long perhaps did Klier sit on this stuff? Did he publish it right on his deathbed to a reason? Was he starting to get some of these things out when he knew that there would be no repercussions on him for doing so? I wonder about these things.

But the fact of the matter is, when I read that, when I was starting to dig a little bit deeper into the Jewish victim-hood narrative, and just trying to dissect some of the problems I had with it, this book hit me like a bombshell! And it was, … I remember for a few days just kind of like really starting to digest this stuff and saying:

“Wait a second! Wait a second!”

You know, I’ve come across terms like “Revisionism”, etc., etc., on the “Holocaust”, but here I have an Oxford professor, an Oxford professor of tremendous standing whose research appears to me to be absolutely bulletproof. And he’s saying that Jews engaged in a coordinated mass hoax!

Which in its aftermath permitted via the creation of sympathy, the pathways for Jews to engage in mass migration from the empire of Russia to the United States, to Great Britain, to Australia, and basically to be able to fan out across the West. Into France, into Germany, etc., etc.

So this in its implications was astonishing to me. And the more I thought about it, the more I investigated it, different aspects of what was going on around it, the more disturbed I was, and the more I accelerated my research, and reading into the subject.

Now, does any of this mean that John Klier’s book is the magic bullet? No it’s not! It’s a highly academic book, it costs over a hundred dollars to buy. It didn’t even make the slightest splash in terms of mainstream attention. A lot like Kevin MacDonald’s book, you know, it just has not penetrated through to the mainstream.

Although Kevin MacDonald has made a much bigger impact I think on culture, and certainly in driving the alt-Right, than anything that John Klier produced. And Klier was a mainstream academic, and some of his statements are a little bit more equivocal, despite the astonishing nature of some of his findings.

But no, it worked for me, it just might not work for everyone else. Everyone is going to have their own path to the truth on this thing. But we still will come back to the fact that Jewish victimhood narratives need to be reassessed for anyone to make any kind of individual progress on these things, in order to develop their understanding a little bit better.

And this is where we come back to the meme, this is where we come back to:

“And then one day, for no reason whatsoever, an Austrian painter began to hate them!”

Because I think that in its simplicity, in the demands that it makes on any thinking person when they see this meme, I think when it’s consistently posted beneath anything that involves Jews engaging in bad behaviour, … But also, I think when it is posted below Jews claiming sympathy for something, or other, it’s just begging the question! It’s asking someone, anyone reading it to just delve a little bit deeper into their own thought processes and just say:

“Hey, wait a minute! Maybe there’s something here? Maybe I’m missing something?”

And that is invaluable! And that is why there is a place for meme culture, as much as there is a place for books like John Doyle Klier’s heavily academic — over 500 page — text on the pogroms.

Both of them are asking questions. Important questions. And both of them in their own way are pointing to important answers.

Thank you for listening, and please tune in next time.

[17:03]

[Outro music]

[17:54]

END

============================================

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast – T & T No. 1 – The Skype Directory — Jul 15, 2020 — Transcript

admin — Mon, 20 Jul 2020 09:43:41 +0000

[This is the 2nd podcast (although labelled as No. 1) in a series from The Occidental Observer contributor and scholar Andrew Joyce on the “jewish problem/question“, with the series re-titled as “T & T” (“Talmud and Taboo“), and available at his newly created BitChute channel.

In this podcast he discusses his Twitter based “Skype Directory” project that catalogued jewish activists with brief bios and descriptions of their work. This was eventually taken down by jews as it shone a light on their negative activities as jews and as a group.

He then goes on to discuss the long-term efforts of leading jewish activists, such as billionaire Moshe Kantor, to criminalize worldwide of all and any criticism of jews and their agenda of multiculturalism, under the pretext of “tolerance“. A jewish tyranny, imposing total censorship as their goal, in other words.

— KATANA]

Andrew Joyce’s Podcast

T & T No: 1

The Skype Directory

July 15, 2020

Click here for the video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jrHfJZni7jQX/

Published on Jul 15, 2020

Bitchute Description

First published at 06:59 UTC on July 15th, 2020.

channel image

OccidentalJoyce

707 subscribers
Support via Bitcoin:
bc1q58vh2h6llgstvu8hfnqz93h9tlyywhm7pe3yeh

Donate to theoccidentalobserver.net

Zygmunt Bauman’s theory of “Allosemitism” – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosemitism

The Forward’s coverage of the project: https://forward.com/news/352301/online-neo-nazi-hit-list-shut-down-after-forward-report/

_____________

TRANSCRIPT

(16:22)

[00:00]

Well, well well! I had predicted 24 hours on Spreaker, we actually managed 48! Which I’m going to chalk up as a small victory!

And in any case here we are now at BitChute. This is I hope going to the permanent home for the podcasts, which I’m going to rename “T & T”, an abbreviation of “Talmud and Taboo”. And hopefully this will be dynamite!

So here we go.

With all the recent internet censorship and different things going on around that, it took me back to a little project of mine from late 2015, early 2016, on Twitter. Some of you might have heard about it. It was the “Skype Directory”. Now at the time, late 2015, early 2016 this was the heyday of the alt-Right. Every thing was high energy, every thing was funny! It was a great time to be alive. It was a great time to be part of the whole alt-Right scene. It looked like every thing that we touched turned to gold. It was fantastic!

And one of the humorous memes that took off at that time was this business of “Skype” and “Google”. For some context, while the banning of people and groups had not yet started there were some censorship of words, what was perceived as coded words. So some big-brained person on 4chan, or something like that, decided that it would be a good idea if we started using Skype and Google as code words for jews and blacks. And if they wanted to censor this references, “Google” and “Skype” and so on, would basically be censoring references to themselves.

So I don’t think that tactic actually worked in the end but it was funny for a while to start referring to jews as “Skypes” and blacks as “Googles”.

So the “Skype Directory” was basically a list of Skypes! It was a list of jews, jewish activists who at some point in their careers had tweeted, written, or otherwise broadcast a view that was absolutely anti-White. So it was promoting mass immigration, pornography, something along those lines. Censorship, whatever it would be.

And the idea was really simple. I would post an image of the Jewish person. I would post a screenshot of whatever they had written, or a reference to whatever they had written. And in the little text section that Twitter allows I would just write their name and the briefest of bios. So if they were affiliated to a university I would write which university they were attached to. And that was it! There were no pejoratives, no racial slurs, no additional commentary. Nothing inciteful, nothing that could be construed as hate, … Just nothing, absolutely no additional commentary what so ever. People were left to make up their own minds.

And at the top of the account I had a header image which said:

“Jews Rock.”

It was a screencap from the “Million Dollar Extreme” music video, “Jews Rock”, if you remember that. Also the whole page was non-offensive. It was just a collection of jews who had undertaken activities which they themselves had been promoting as positives. So you could have construed as a catalogue of jewish achievements on behalf of Western Civilization. Or at least this is how they have been portraying their activities.

But very very quickly it was flagged up as anti-semitic! Why was it flagged up as anti-semitic? It was flagged up as anti-semitic because although there’s not really a guilty conscience at play in Jewish activism, there is an awareness, there’s a keen self-awareness of the fact that what they are doing is wrong! Is that it definitely carries negative implications for Whites.

So while jews are very, very comfortable when they are diffuse through the culture. For example acting simply as an academic at a particular university, or as a journalist at this newspaper, or as a politician with this party. When their activism is diffuse and they don’t have to bear the burden of their ethnic affiliations, they are absolutely rabid in the promotion of this stuff. And they are really gung-ho, and they are really, this is what Western Civilization needs, this is absolutely positive, this is progress, and so on, and so on.

But when someone like me comes along, and I see what is going on and what I chose to do is I want to distill all this activism and concentrate it and bring in under one umbrella and look at it for what it is, that sends alarm bells going! Because, then you’re pulling back the curtain of the fierce nature of this activity. And you are looking at it for what it actually is, ethnic activism. And that scares the life out of jews who crave anonymity, or semi-anonymity.

You know, I think he’s dead now, but there was a Polish sociologist called Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish jew, who was an academic, I think, at Leeds university in England. And he coined the term “allosemitism”.

What’s allosemitism? Allosemitism is any view that jews are special. Bauman was quite suspicious of Christian Zionism, for example. He was suspicious of any perception, even if they are positive perceptions, really overtly, ridiculously exaggerated perceptions of jews, even in a positive light, because he viewed any perception of jews as being out of the ordinary, as being something worthy of jewish concern.

So allosemitism is the view that jews somehow stand apart in any way. And the importance of allosemitism as a concept is that it is deeply ingrained in terms of a fear response within jews. And it’s the fear of being seen as a jew, and for ones actions as being seen as jewish actions.

Jews, of course, the one exception to this rule is when jews can appeal to a certain concept of jewish victim-hood. But that concept even in itself has to be really extreme.

And one finds that jews rarely claim to be sort of moderate victims of society, in any way. It is to go to the extreme!

So when you, this jewish privilege hash tag which recently trended on Twitter, where initially it was from our movement, and it was a provocation to examine the reality of jewish privilege. When jews co-opted the hash tag and started to use it to promote victim-hood narratives, it wasn’t:

“Oh we have suffered in the past.”

It wasn’t anodyne bland stuff. People were talking about relatives being tortured, or castrated by Joseph Mengele, and so on, at Auschwitz. They went for the most extreme anecdotes! And it always has to be the most extreme, in order to justify any departure from the concept of allosemitism, in order to make Jews feel comfortable in that sense.

[Image] Joseph Mengele (center) in happier times.

So the instinct is always to dissolve to the background. To act with the greatest ferocity and intensity, but always where possible to fade into the background and hope not to be noticed.

So that is the tipping point here, that is the axis upon which much of the Jewish Question pivots. And Skype Directory disrupted all of this, and it concentrated Jewish bios in one place. And while there was no additional commentary to these profiles there was no need for additional commentary. It spoke for itself. Which again, was extremely terrifying to jews.

So the account was shutdown with very little fanfare and it was hoped that I would disappear. A few days after the account was deactivated, or whatever it was, suspended. Whenever that happened, unbeknownst to me, but a follower of the account had actually been extracting all of the profiles and he created a website, just a basic WordPress website called “Jews in Western Society” or something or other. “Jews in 20th Century Western Society”. And he just re-posted screenshots of all of the profiles.

Well, The Forward, about two days after that tried to find out who had created this account — I don’t think they were successful — but they were successful in having WordPress [Yola, actually] remove the website altogether. And they published an article in The Forward which, the headline was something like “Neo-Nazis Create Hitler-List of Jews”!

And it wasn’t a hit-list. It was never intended as a hit-list. It clearly wasn’t a hit-list. But the fact it was perceived as such by jews in shear terror at the simple fact the someone had just collected all of these supposedly beneficial pieces of activism and writings, and different things, brought all into one place, that was terrifying to them! Absolutely terrifying!

And to this day I’m really glad that I operated that project, because I learned a lot. And I think a lot of people who were involved in following the account and seeing how it came to an end and afterwards. And I hope this applies to some normies at the time also. That if there were any doubt how jews actually view their activism, this should have removed all doubt.

It should have revealed, as I said, that while there isn’t necessarily a guilty conscience here, there is most definitely a self awareness that what they are doing is negative. That it can be perceived as negative because it is negative!

And when Jews engage in this kind of stuff, they don’t care that it’s negative! All they care about is the it’s effective, and that they don’t get noticed for doing it.

So, with all the banning and every thing going on at the minute, it stirred up a lot of that stuff in my mind. And of course my most recent articles at The Occidental Observer concerns the process that is ongoing, and has been ongoing in immediate terms since 2011, to get control over the internet. Which is the only thing really at the minute within culture that has the potential to bring widespread attention to the ethnic nature of this activism.

[Image] “Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1

And to disrupt the hidden nature of all of this diffuse activism which is here, and it’s there, it’s in journalism, and it’s in politics, it’s in academia, it’s in the media! And it’s everywhere, yet somehow it’s nowhere because it can’t be seen, because it’s not being dragged kicking and screaming into the light.

And when you have Twitter accounts like the guy Cursed Salad [@cursedsalad], or you’ve got Twitter accounts like Keith Woods, or others, who are posting regularly on this topic and are posting information, again without much additional commentary, without pejoratives and racial slurs, this stuff has to be shut down!

Any excess of allosemitism, of looking at jews as jews, needs to be shut off! It needs to be closed down. It’s too dangerous! We don’t want attention to be drawn to these wonderful things supposedly that are being done by Jews.

This is where we are in the culture right now. And this process that really started in 2011 with Moshe Kantor’s “Manifesto for Secure Tolerance”, this process of step by step, incremental steps towards what really is total censorship! Because this doesn’t end, as I explore in the article, it doesn’t end with just being kicked off a social media platform.

It’s not going to end when your internet service provider, or your web host, shuts down your website, that is not where this ends! That isn’t the end goal here! The end goal is the kind of opinions and views that you have will be declared illegal! The end goal is that when you want to point out:

“Hey wait a minute! I’ve noticed that this group of people who are protesting and pushing for all of these different measures to be introduced, which are harming my ethnic interests, and those of my children, and their children, I’ve noticed that all these people are jews!”

Well, under the current process of incremental steps toward is total censorship the goal there is that you are going to prison for saying that!

The end goal here is that you are going to do serious prison time!

Because it’s going to be treated as an aggravated offense! It’s going to be treated as a matter of the grossest criminal conduct, along with molesting children, or terrorism!

Those opinions that you have, that ability that you have to actually look behind the curtain and see these things, that is going to be criminalized!

And if you think that because you are in the United States and you have got your Constitution, and you have got your Bill of Rights, that your freedom of speech is going to be there forever, you need to wake up! You need to wake up because it’s there in black and white that these proposals are meant to go throughout the West. There will be no exceptions! They will be imposed throughout the West!

It’s going to start in the EU for obvious reasons. There are what, 27 countries in the EU? 27 countries. They start at the top with the EU bureaucracy, with these measures. And they are at an advanced stage. Once they are imposed that is 27 countries in one go! That will have signed up for this legislation to be imposed.

What is the legislation? Criminalization of denial of the “Holocaust”. The legal protection of multiculturalism, and the compulsory promotion of “tolerance” and “diversity”.

So your country’s schools will have to teach “tolerance”, so-called and “diversity”, “multiculturalism”. And if they don’t they will be fined, and their governments will be fined.

And if you refuse to send your kids for tolerance education you are going to be arrested and you are going to do prison time!

That is where all of this ends! That is where “secure tolerance” is going to end up.

So the Skype Directory was a kind of canary in the coal mine. It showed which way the wind was blowing. And I can tell you now a storm is coming.

Tune in next time, we will talk a little bit more about this subject. Thanks.

[16:22]

END

============================================

Talmud and Taboo – katana17

Andrew Joyce – Trumpism, Bidenism, and the System – Nov 9, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce

Trumpism, Bidenism,

and the System

Nov 9, 2020

https://www.bitchute.com/video/zp8w5VhWrca7/

Bitchute Description

TRANSCRIPT

END

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 – SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 8:

Semitism

Aug 28, 2020

https://www.bitchute.com/video/OuEv3N4iRHn5/

Bitchute Description

CONTENTS

TRANSCRIPTS

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 — Preview: SEMITISM – Aug 22, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce – T&T 8 — SEMITISM – Aug 28, 2020 — Transcript

“Wholly constructed.”

“Inherently exclusionary.”

“In order to dispel the notion that there is an entity ‘semitism’, which ‘anti-semitism’ opposes.”

“The question doesn’t match the problem! I don’t need to know this or that jewish person, or to have an opinion on jewish people as a whole, to understand the problematic nature of semitism and to have an opinion on it!”

END

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

Andrew Joyce – T&T 7 – The TOO Takedown – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 7:

The TOO Takedown

Aug 14, 2020

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ek8VnCfeH8EF/

Bitchute Description

CONTENTS

TRANSCRIPT

“One of the great strengths of the anti-semites was their ability to collect factual information.”

“Where’s free speech in all this?”

“Our ideas are beyond the pale! They’re not protected by free speech. They’re not protected as legitimate speech, and therefore they can be banned.”

“Terms of service, terms of service, terms of service!”

“If I told you that Ethiopians were exerting too much influence in the media, what would you say?”

“Then why is it nonsensical?”

“That’s a fair point. Excellent! Right! We’ve now got the argument underway. We’re moving in the right direction.”

“How so?”

“Now consider that I said that jews have the same influence in those spheres [that was previously ascribed to Ethiopians]. Would you now say it’s ridiculous, or nonsensical?”

“They don’t all meet together and come up with some sort of grand plan, or whatever it might be.”

“Wait a second! There might actually be something going on here! Because I can see that there are certain coincidences in the demographics behind some of the issues that I’m looking at.”

“You’re hosting immoral and dangerous content!”

“Don’t take out loans without knowing the full extent of the interest you might be charged, and to always be wary of jewish ‘terms of service’, because they’re liable to change at a moment’s notice!”

END

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

Andrew Joyce – T&T 5 – The Return of the Bucket – Aug 5, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 5:

The Return of the

Bucket

Aug 5, 2020

https://www.bitchute.com/video/wI8ETsK1DIvw/

Bitchute Description

CONTENTS

TRANSCRIPT

Introduction

“Am I’m doing something wrong here?”

END

See Also

PDF Download

Version History

Andrew Joyce – T&T No 3 – Kicking Over the Bucket – Jul 27, 2020 — Transcript

Andrew Joyce’s

T & T No 3:

Kicking Over the Bucket

July 27, 2020

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1sMrTN8hpxSA/