My Jewish Past
February 5, 2017 ©
Watch ‘EU-Censor-Free!’ HERE!
It’s Just a Cohencidence
Why Do Jews Rage Against the “One-State Solution”?
February 18, 2017
We all know Jews operate on a wild battery of double standards that they try to keep a jealous secret, and when a brave soul dares point them out, they threaten and attack them. There used to be a whole industry of political commentary dedicated to covering for this double standard, called “Conservatism,” but it is waning after the Jew Neo-Cons put all their chips on Hillary and blew their credibility.
It’s impossible to make billions in Manhattan real estate without an intuitive understanding of the Jew and his odious psychology. I’m not saying Donald Trump hates every individual Jew, but he definitely knows how dangerous Jews are when they get together in a group, and without a doubt notices that their impact on our country and the world is detrimental.
For the less savvy, Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu makes him a cuck, but there was a subtle troll at this event that brought bat ears to attention across the political spectrum.
Donald Trump said today that he was open to a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, appearing to casually back away from a decades-long US commitment to supporting a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Speaking alongside Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of their first meeting at the White House, Mr Trump was asked if he supported a two-state solution or a one state-solution to the long-running conflict.
“I’m looking at two-state and at one-state and I like the one that both parties like,” Mr Trump said.
“I can live with either one. I thought for a while the two-state looked like it may be the easier of the two but honestly if [Mr Netanyahu] and if the Palestinians, if Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best.”
Mr Trump’s openness to a one-state solution is a break from the policies of Barack Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton, all of whom tried to broker a peace deal that would lead to the creation of two separate states.
Terms like “Two-State Solution” and “One-State Solution” to the Israel-Palestine conflict are abstract-sounding; this language is used purposefully, so that you don’t know what they’re talking about. The two-state solution, which is what American politicians are paid to support, is a plan to deport Israel’s indigenous Arab population to a Palestinian state, and create a racially homogeneous Zionist country.
Trump’s little off-the-cuff remark about a “one-state solution” is something which Jews are angered at the mere mention of. A one state solution would mean Israel absorbs the Palestinian territories and integrates the Arab population as fully-protected legal citizens. In such a scenario, the Arab population would outnumber Jews about 3 to 2.
What’s wrong with the one state solution? Aren’t Jews the most tolerant, open minded and cosmopolitan people to ever live? Why does diversity work everywhere in the West but not in Israel?
Every last Jewish and Zionist institution supports a “one-state solution” for white countries, and their genocide organs (the media, academia, finance) constantly stress how beautiful it is that whites will be outnumbered and outvoted by non-whites in the near future.
In fact, when white nationalists and black nationalists want to discuss the prospect of a desperately needed two-state solution in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League call it “hate” and put them on a targeted-harassment list. Yet, these same Zionist groups believe anyone calling for an American-style racially pluralistic democracy in Israel is also “hate”!
The Right of Return
Typically, Jewish racists pretending to be hippy-citizens of the world have evaded direct rebuttals of exactly why they don’t want to share a country with non-Jews by claiming that the Palestinians don’t want it either. This is a lie bolstered by cooked up polls. The two dominant Palestinian parties, Hamas and Fatah, both have the Palestinian “Right of Return” as dominant aspects of their platforms. The right of return is the assertion that Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from Israel in 1948 and 1967 have a right to move back into the homes and properties they once owned and were never compensated for.
There is a much stronger legal and ethical case for this claim than there is for the “Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society” assertion that endless millions of random non-whites in other countries are entitled to live in America on our tax dollars and social services because of a poem written by some other Jew about the Statue of Liberty.
The belief in the right of return is so strong among Palestinians, that Fatah arguably lost the last election over taking bribes in support of a no strings attached “two-state solution.” In recent years, they have gone back to supporting this important plank. Hamas’ principled stance to refuse to negotiate until Palestinians going back to homes they have deeds to in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, etc. is on the table, as well as being able to equally access Muslim holy sites in Israeli territory, is the basis from which cuckservatives and Zionists attack them as “refusing to recognize the Jewish state.”
The Jew Unmasked
Netanyahu knew to play it cool while next to Trump, but his agent behind the scenes, Commissioner Gordonberg, beamed the spotlight. Ratmen got the signal.
Some Jews, like Alan Dershowitz, interpreted (or tried explaining away) Trump’s remarks as a ploy to attack Palestinians and so supported it. A minority of Jews saw it as an endorsement of South African style Apartheid and applauded his comment, but I don’t think this is what Trump intended at all.
Trump’s brilliance here is that at the same time he is being barraged by organized Jewry for his immigration restrictions, he has simultaneously forced them to go around talking about how Israel must be kept racially Jewish at all costs. It isn’t just rabid Kahanists who are reacting, but also high profile liberal Jews, writing for hard Left publications, being forced to awkwardly attack Trump for suggesting maybe a “diverse” Israel is an option, while the related headlines around their article call him “racist” for banning Somalis.
Here are some examples from some very anti-Trump, anti-white, pro-mass immigration publications that support my theory. Some reactions are more extreme and kneejerk, while others are more surgical.
Though increasingly diminished and undermined, the two-state solution has endured since then—through the assassination of an Israeli prime minister, an intifada, the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, and three subsequent wars. In some of his final remarks as secretary of state in December, John Kerry made an urgent plea for the survival of the idea. “Here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic—it cannot be both—and it won’t ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one state solution.”
Nevertheless, after decades of American diplomacy, jockeying, and cajoling, the two-state imperative did not survive a four-question press conference with President Donald Trump. And, in its place, there are still no other alternatives.
What about diversity and inclusion Adam? Last December, this brazen Jew wrote a fawning article on his fellow Jews working as immigration lawyers heroically defying Donald Trump, overtly implying that there are no alternatives but to make America brown. But for Israel, there are “no alternatives” but to keep Israel a majority Jewish Talmudic-authoritarian country.
The New York Times, Editorial Board statement:
President Trump came forward with a nonsensical statement on Wednesday as he dangerously backed away from the two-state solution, which has been central to America’s Mideast policy for more than 20 years and remains the only just answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Mr. Trump voiced optimism about getting a “great peace deal” between Israel and its neighbors. While Mr. Trump did urge Mr. Netanyahu to “hold back” on settlements in the West Bank and said Israel must make compromises, he offered no details on any peace initiative, and the vagueness of his remarks suggests he has no inkling of how to move forward. His willingness, however, to lend credence to those who would deny a separate state to the Palestinians will certainly make peace harder to achieve. Palestinians have long sought their own state and are sure to reject the idea of having their lands annexed by Israel, even if offered some kind of limited autonomy.
How many Palestinians are on the New York Times editorial board? Yet this Jew fake news portal once again claims to speak in their name.
Meanwhile, the actual Palestinians at Electronic Intifada liked Trump’s statement.
Advocates of a two-state solution, including the previous US administration and European governments, see it as the only way to rescue Israel as a racist state that ensures its Jewish demographic majority through a battery of racist laws – a situation they refer to as “peace.”
The New York Times of course doesn’t agree with Palestinians that Israel is also their country. They are the natives, and had a functioning and sophisticated state before Jews began flooding into it. They have a right to be there, unlike millions of Oaxaca Mexicans Jews transplanted into California.
According to J street, Trump’s statement that was “both meaningless and dangerous” and essentially “removed the anchor that has steadied and stabilized US policy toward the region”.
“How can there be a negotiation, let alone an agreement, when there is no longer a consensus on what the end goal should be?,” they said. “To be clear, there is no one-state configuration that leads to peace. There is no resolution to this conflict without full political rights and independence for both peoples.”
The organization added that “all so-called ‘one-state solutions’ are recipes for more violence that will ultimately threaten Israel’s identity as a democracy and a Jewish homeland” and that the two leaders “seemed detached from reality”.
They added that President Trump’s vagueness on this issue will likely dismay key allies of the US in the Arab world and will embolden extremists within Israel, among Palestinians and throughout the region.
J Street is considered a “liberal” Zionist group with a special place in their heart for Palestinians. Except when Trump talks about them having to share a country with these indigenous people, then the real Jew explodes out of their chest like a scene from John Carpenter’s The Thing.
This reaction from the (((Congressional Democrats))) speaks for itself.
Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, called Trump’s comments “shameful” and “short-sighted.” Last year, she spearheaded a letter to then-President Barack Obama signed by 394 House members — 90% of the entire chamber — reaffirming Congress’ support for a two-state solution.
“A two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians is the only means to ensure Israel’s long-term security and enable Palestinian aspirations for their own state,” she said in a statement Feb. 15. “That is why presidents from both parties, the vast majorities of the House and Senate, and the American people have consistently supported this objective, and why President Trump must as well.”
The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., agreed on the substance.
”The alternatives to a two-state solution would mean that Israel would have to choose between its commitment to democracy and the solemn obligation to be a homeland for the Jewish people,” he said in a statement. “The parties must come back to the negotiating table to find a mutually agreed-upon solution.”
The top Democrat on the committee’s Middle East panel, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., shared similar thoughts.
“The goal of this process must continue to be two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish democratic state of Israel and a demilitarized Palestinian state,” he said in a statement.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told Al-Monitor that Trump “doesn’t really understand the issues.” Earlier in the day Nadler tweeted out an April 2015 letter from Netanyahu in which the prime minister wrote him that he remained “committed to a sustainable two-state solution.”
“Certain things are very clear. You have to have a two-state solution, because you’re going to get no other solution,” Nadler said. “A one-state solution just means you’re going to try to impose your will on the Palestinians, and that’s a formula for war eventually, or you have a binational state, which has never worked in the Middle East, which is never going to work, and the dream of Zionism for 2,000 years for a Jewish state goes up in smoke.“
Vox, by (((Sarah Wildman))):
By abandoning an American-led, negotiated two-state solution, Trump is essentially giving up on the idea of there ever being a real, internationally recognized sovereign Palestinian state. Many Israelis and Palestinians believe that outcome would not only destroy any hope for peace between the two sides, leading to years of violence. They believe it could fundamentally alter, if not destroy, the Jewish and democratic state of Israel as we know it
In part that is because of demographics: Absorbing the Palestinian population would eventually result in there being more Palestinians than Jews in the country. To maintain a democratic state, with equal rights for all people, Israel would have to cede its Jewish character. The alternative is undemocratic — giving Palestinians unequal rights and treating them as second-class citizens.
I’ve written extensively about the extreme anti-white vitriol published by Vox. Predictably, it’s run entirely by Jews who get fat Wall Street investments.
Huffington Post, by (((David Harris))):
In the end, however fraught with difficulty the two-state path might be, the one-state alternative is even more menacing because it is simply not sustainable. Sooner or later, it would sound the death knell for Zionism as we know it. Hence the concern about President Trump’s comment, even if this is surely not what he intended.
Why would a few million Palestinians be the “death knell of Zionism,” since nations are nothing but passports and a set of values? That’s the kind of thinking Jews forcefully impose on everyone else!
The quotes in this article are only the tip of the iceberg. There are literally dozens of high profile media Jews who oppose any immigration restriction in America who are furious about Trump’s comment.
The Jew Harris, whose gang of international Kikes at the American Jewish Committee personally went to Greece to get Golden Dawn thrown in jail, is an egregious hypocrite to say the least.
Some people think that pointing out Jewish double-standards is a fruitless endeavor, and it is – but only when you’re trying to point them out to Jews. Of course, trying to play that “I’m a White Zionist” game to get Jews off your back is pointless (although it can lead to some mildly effective moments if non-Jews are watching).
But in the end, National Socialists are distinct from Zionist Jews. National Socialists accept that all races have a right to their living space. We do not endorse driving natives out of their land, whether it’s the people of Tibet, the Palestinians or the Germans in Germany.
But Israel isn’t Jewish land, and looking at the reaction from Left-wing Jews at what is essentially a very mild comment (he didn’t even say it would be US policy), Trump has stumbled upon a gaslighting gold mine.
For whites, people who live by double-standards are viscerally offensive. If you show the average white person that organized Jewry is behind every unpopular immigration project in the West while at the same time holding virulently racist views in the only country they have loyalty to, it will resonate.
With a bigger audience than ever, renew that prescription of red pills on this topic. It didn’t work before because nobody was listening. They’re listening now.
The Daily Stormer editorial board hereby endorses a One-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, with full right of return to all Palestinians forced out of their homes and property.
Only Russia’s Veto Stopped Official Adoption of Bogus Definition of Antisemitism
Diversity Macht Frei
February 18, 2017
One of Beate Winkler’s masterpieces, one of many
The saga of the “Working definition of antisemitism” continues. This does indeed appear to have been one of the Jews’ most ingenious scams in recent times. If you’re at all concerned about the Jewish Question, you should force yourself to read, in full, this article (link) explaining the genesis of this “Working Definition of Antisemitism”, since it is one of the principal free speech suppression instruments the Jews are currently using. The machinations behind it are also very illustrative of their methods of operation, their international networking, their skill in conning naive goy into going along with their ethnocentric agenda, their obsession with suppressing free expression, their mastery of the art of lying and their sheer persistence in the face of setbacks.
I’ll recap for those who haven’t been following along. A minor EU official (working for what then was the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) and “artist” (one of her “paintings” is reproduced above) called Beate Winkler (link) was invited to attend a conference about antisemitism in New York. There she was waylaid by some Jews from the ADL and American Jewish Congresss. In fact, the whole invitation may have been set up as a kind of trap for her in the first place. They put her under pressure about the need for a formal definition of antisemitism.
Jews: “Hey, thanks for coming and pretending to care about antisemitism. We’re also pretending to care about it since we know it’s not a real problem but we can leverage in various ways we find useful to advance the agenda of our tribe. Do you have a clear definition of antisemitism, by any chance?”
Artiste Beate Winkler: “No, I don’t think so.”
Jews: “Would you like us to send you one?”
Artiste Beate Winkler: “Umm, sure, we are open for submissions, you can send one in if you like.” Jews: “OK, we will. Heheh.”
So the Jews send in their submission and its gets listed on the website along with numerous other unevaluated and unapproved submissions. It was never adopted or made use of by the agency. It had no official status whatsoever. From the Jews’ perspective, the key functional element of the “working definition” is that it includes criticism of Israel as an expression of antisemitism. This is what accounts for emotional impetus behind Jewish lobbying on this issue. It’s a way to protect Israel, a tool to use against the ongoing BDS campaigns around the world. Indeed, the original idea for the “Working Definition” supposedly came from Dina Porat of Tel Aviv university.
Having got their text posted on the Monitoring Centre’s website, Jews then start furiously lying, misrepresenting to all and sundry that this was the “EU’s Working Definition of Antisemitism”. They even got explicit reference to this “EU’s Working Definition of Antisemitism” included in numerous reports, statutes and codes of practice within local governments, institutions, universities, even a committee of the British parliament (link).
After a while, the Monitoring Centre removed it from their website and declared that it never had any official status. This left the Jews in a quandary because they had already been making much fruitful use of the bogus definition and its fake authority. Solution? Get it adopted by an organisation they control, but one that has a general prestige the goy might take seriously. Step forward the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Once this outfit adopted the definition, the Jews had a new “official-seeming status” they could use to promote it.
On the basis of these new bogus credentials, Theresa May was then recently prevailed upon to adopt it in Britain, where it is now already being used by Jews to demand that Israel’s critics be investigated and free speech suppressed (link). The Jews are now pushing for it to be adopted by the OSCE. And, it seems, only Russia’s veto has prevented that from happening.
Israel’s ambassador in Moscow criticized Russia for blocking the international adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism, which he linked to a recent string of allegedly racist statements about Jews by Russian politicians.
Gary Koren made his unusual statement on anti-Semitism in Russia in an interview with Interfax, the news agency reported Wednesday. Koren singled out Russia for blocking the definition’s adoption by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental group of 57 member states. “The OSCE has attempted to determine a text, which ought to define what can be classified as anti-Semitism and what its working definition is,” the envoy said. “We are discussing this issue with the Russian Foreign Ministry and hope that Russia will adopt this definition in the future.”
Israeli ambassadors to Russia rarely comment on issues that do not involve Israel and bilateral relations directly. Koren’s statement came as confirmation to reports, including by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, that Russia was the only country blocking the adoption of the definition, which is controversial because it lists some forms of hate speech on Israel as an example of anti-Semitism. “All the other countries accepted the definition but Russia,” Arkush revealed during an address February 4 at the Limmud FSU Europe conference on Jewish learning in London. “I expect we will see some diplomatic action on Israel’s part in the near future on this issue.”