Why no “Affirmative Action” where it would REALLY count?

It really is high time USAmericans looked seriously at the scandalous lack of “Affirmative Action”, impartiality or sense of the common good among our government bureaucrats (e.g.: Supreme Court justices, professors, etc.)—among the same exact people who one-sidedly demand and oversee “Affirmative Action” upon the rest of us: (e.g.: students, “private” business employees, etc.)! Situated so croneyistically in those cushy ivory towers of tenured and lifelong positions for which the taxpayer foots the bill are a disproportionate number of a certain ethnicity—not to mention of a certain political party. This constitutes a true travesty and a serious transparency issue regarding what is being done with our taxes. Never mind the fact that 1/3 of US foreign aid goes to the already extremely rich State of Israel, whose by contrast rightist regime doesn’t reflect any of the policies their contacts endorse so ham-handedly (“diversity”, “open borders”, “nuclear disarmament”, etc.) for the USA. Something is very, very wrong with the USA, the hypocrisy is inestimable, and the apathy is slowly killing our humanity. I love Jews—as I love all people—individually. But I am not comfortable with the percentage of my taxes that is clearly being used to fund their clubs and their families without any meaningful accountability, reciprocity or representation. Until bureaucrats represent a cross-section of Americans there will not be freedom. And this is without even mentioning the fact that the Federal Reserve hasn’t been audited by Congress in forever—and yes, alarmingly enough, all Federal Reserve chairmen of recent memory have been Jewish. Who, I must ask, elected King David to rule over an allegedly “Christian” nation! In the words of William Shakespeare, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (substitute “Denmark” with “America”).

Come on, America…YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS.

Advertisements

Let’s not forget: There IS such a phenomenon as anti-Semitism

As much as the term anti-Semite [1] has expanded through crass misuse by the fascist types of what I like to call “Greater Israel” [2]—and perhaps by no one quite so much as by Italo-Swedish Facebooker James “Jimmy” Quaresmini—let that not obscure the fact that there still is a place for thinking people to use the term anti-Semite.

But before continuing, let me rephrase my thesis: there is still a semi-appropriate way to use the term anti-Semite—and I caution “semi-appropriate” because the term Semite strictly refers to Sephardic Jews and Arabs such as you’ll find for example in Spain or pre-Israeli Palestine, and not to the Ashkenazim say of Germany, who appear and can indeed be genetically proven to have descended predominately from the Kuzarim, or Khazars, who in turn descend from Turkic, Hunnic, and Rus’​ stock [3] rather than any Hebrew stock, though let it be known that the Khazars in their conversion process did import rabbis and later immigrated Babylonian Jews (with their rather repulsive Babylonian Talmud!) as the latter group were evacuating what is today a complete ghost town. [4]

But for argument’s sake, let’s just say that the Ashkenazim are “Semites” in that highly restricted sense. The cultural issue of “anti-Semitism” is basically this: The nationalist crowd tends to draw (or even to produce) genuine anti-Semites. Nationalism [5] is really an older term meaning “racism”, and all racial supremacists and purists [6] are going to tend to be anti-Semites—not exactly because they hate Ashkenazim quo Ashkenazim, but rather because they are xenophobes and the Ashkenazim [7] have proved a uniquely resilient, adaptable and clever people, which is why the latter group find a great facility—even a compulsion—to be disruptive of the host-cultures whose paradigms were frankly constructed by comparatively dull peoples—so with Ashkenazim and other gypsy/nomadic groups, you have quite the “bull in a china shop” phenomenon, which together with the rabbinical tyrannies [8] must have played a key role in the Ashkenazim’s prodigious isolationism up until the so-called “Age of Enlightenment”.

In short, the Ashkenazim have done a better job than any other group of being a “nation among the nations”. The Irish diaspora, by contrast [9], don’t really have much of a global network, nor do they do a good job of preserving their own language anywhere outside of Ireland. Then again, the only groups that are still self-contained—many of whom for precisely this reason are difficult to research at all—would go to include the Chasidim (i.e. “Hasidic Jews”), the Amish, the Mennonites, the Wahhabis, Nation of Islam agrarian compounds, and one expects a slew of other communes, monasteries, sketes, cave dwellers, independent and misfit communities of all sorts—both new and old.

In view of this, one could make the case that classical anti-Semitism is best represented by the socialist partisans who relentlessly attack those who persist in a simpler and more self-contained way of life, much the way Mr. Quaresmini, ever the paragon of hypocrisy and intrepid incoherence, attacks North America’s “redneck militia groups” on his Facebook wall. In conclusion, in the spirit of tolerance for all, it is incumbent upon us to write a letter to the Swedish government outlining James’ actions, which seem motivated to cause an international incident through trolling. Thank you very much for your consideration.

________
[1] And by extension even the overtly euphemistic term Nazi.
[2] “Greater Israel” would include the Anglophone world, Scandinavia, and all other states currently indebted to the “World Bank”.
[3] The Ashkenazim could rightly claim a sliver of ancestry among certain bastardized Jews whose Talmud reflects their the extent of their assimilation into the ways of Babylon and who are never mentioned in the writings of the Jews of the Middle East beyond their immigration into Khazaria following the drought in Babylon, which continues to this day.
[4] On the other hand, the Kuzarim are nowhere written about by the Sephardim, so draw your own conclusions as to how genuine their conversion appeared to the brethren!
[5] The term Nationalism doesn’t always mean “Patriotism” in the sense of “Statism”, which by the way has its own intellectual flaws: see Larken Rose.
[6] With the obvious exception of Sephardic, Arabic or Ashkenazic supremacists and purists, such as Jihadists (among Arabs) and Zionists (among “Jews”).
[7] For most of history Western Europeans supposed the Ashkenazim originated from “Palestine” (yes, they really called it that quite habitually: see for example some of Immanuel Kant’s best known quotes about “the Jews”).
[8] These rabbis, founders that they were of the ghettos, have always been careful to use the Hebrew Scriptures as a pretext for their forced separateness, right up until it became logistically too absurd to sustain.
[9] The Irish diaspora were mostly dispersed through the draconian policies of Oliver Cromwell, who, interestingly enough, was famously Ashkenazi-friendly.