My Correspondence with Noam Chomsky
(Occidental Observer) -- by John Wisniewski --
It’s no secret to anyone who visits TOO that the left desperately seeks to reduce Europeans to political impotence and cultural obscurity. The triumphant of the culture of critique has it’s own agenda when it comes to benefiting from the collapse of the White majority in America and Europe. Generally the Jewish left phrases their arguments in a moralistic tone and wants everyone to believe they are motivated by the deep concern for the less fortunate. But in reality hatred of the non-Jewish outgroup and resentment for past wrongs (real and imagined) motivate their psychological aggression.
Not too long ago, I corresponded with Noam Chomsky, the well-known pioneer in linguistics and perhaps one of the most widely known critics of U.S. foreign policy, which he sees as a threat to the very survival of humanity. Chomsky has a reputation as a universal humanitarian, a common self-image of Jewish leftists described in Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique (Chapter 3). For moral reasons Whites must be eclipsed by Third World immigration due to their ancestors’ bad behavior while colonizing the Americas, Africa, East India and elsewhere.
In Chomsky’s eyes, resistance by indigenous Europeans who do not wish to give up living space and political power is tantamount to Nazism. In response to my concerns about the imposition of Sharia law in Europe and my statement that “I take it that you believe indigenous Europeans have no right for living space,” Chomsky wrote that “talk about political impotence of the indigenous population as a result of Muslim immigration (to Europe) is so outlandish that one hears it only among neo-Nazis”
When asked what he thought about the recent trend of European leaders from England, France, and Germany declaring multiculturalism to be an “utter failure” Chomsky responded in saying :
“Shocking and disgraceful, and confirms my long-held suspicion that Europe is even more racist than the US.”
Even noticing the obvious fact that multiculturalism is not working is labeled as “racist” and therefore a grave moral sin. Well, European countries would’ve done themselves some good if they looked across the ocean to America prior to embarking on a disastrous immigration policy. The glorious multicultural America is filled with racially segregated neighborhoods, Middle Eastern terrorist cells, race riots, countless bureaucracies devoted to fixing a dilemma that was promised long ago to disappear; it’s a country where politics are becoming racialized, with Whites hunkering down and voting against the non-White coalition that has become the Democratic Party. The longer Western nations pursue this insane policy the more apparent the failures are becoming. It hasn’t worked in America and it’s not going to work in Europe.
I responded to Chomsky telling him that “it is true that Sharia Law would almost make any civil society not worth living in, … but a society filled with Blacks and Hispanics is equally undesirable”. Chomsky is a vocal proponent of international law and wishes it to be applied to America when it commits atrocities, believing that all U.S. presidents since Truman have been war criminals. But when pressed whether international law is applicable in protecting Whites, and whether they have legitimate interests in retaining political and cultural control in Europe Chomsky responded saying “I answered all your questions, but I did not of course respond to the question you are now posing: whether indigenous Europeans have the right to living space – that is, to remain the overwhelming majority and barring entry to those they have been crushing for centuries. And I won’t.”
Is it really that difficult to answer whether or not Whites in Europe have a right to exist? Don’t all groups of people have this right?...
This is typical of public Jewish leftists like Tim Wise in his vitriolic rant against whites, and Bill Maher who fawn over the idea that Whites are going away...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
It seems the misanthropic Judeofascists end up murderously hating whatever non-compliant, non-Jews with which they come into contact.
No wonder the Romans charged them with "odio gentis humanae"...hatred of the human race.
It occurs to me: this is why the Judeofascists love brain dead liberals and Judeo-Christian Zionists so much: they are malleable, easily manipulated, and ultimately compliant to their organized Jewish masters.
Chomsky: “I answered all your questions, but I did not of course respond to the question you are now posing: whether indigenous Europeans have the right to living space – that is, to remain the overwhelming majority and barring entry to those they have been crushing for centuries. And I won’t.”
In other words, Chomsky believes the answer to the question is "No, they don't." Why? Because "they have been crushing [non-Europeans] for centuries."
This is yet another self-serving, double standard embraced by supremacist Jewry that has made its way into left-wing discourse as a rhetorical and political device: the staunch belief in the collective and eternal guilt of non-Jews, and the collective and eternal unjust persecution of Jews by "the goyim" that must be eternally "compensated."
Here, Chomsky doesn't specifically acknowledge he is seeking a measure of revenge against innocent contemporary Europeans for crimes allegedly committed by a historical White and Christian collective; but it is unquestionably implicit in the way he framed his answer.
The irony, of course, is that Jewry screams hysterically any time, say, Christians accuse contemporary Jewry of being collectively responsible for the deicide of Christ, or in another example, of being collectively responsible for the crimes of the Israeli Jews. In the case of the last, left-wing Jews like Chomsky demand Israeli Jews be characterized as "Zionists."
So why doesn't Chomsky make the distinction between generic "Europeans" (most of whom never benefited from colonialism, other than the elites, including many elite and wealthy European Jews) and "European colonialists"?
The answer, of course, is because it's part of his left-wing and Jewish supremacist racket to punish, shame and extort Whites and Christians collectively and eternally until they are wrung for all they are worth, and then eradicated.
It should be demanded that leftists make the distinction between Europeans and European colonialists, and stop attempting to hold innocent Europeans and European-Americans accountable for crimes that may or may not have been committed by a long-dead, narrow European elite.
This collective and eternal out-group guilt ascribed to his opponents by Chomsky is yet another manifestation of putrid Jewish supremacist thought in "secular" left-wing politics and polemics to this day.
I think it’s pretty much been proven that corrupt Establishment Washington has supported Mideast dictators like Mubarak for decades because of the Israel lobby, ideological Zionism, and military industrial complex/war-profiteering fascism/Keynesianism (which Wall Street Jewry has its fingerprints all over as well), and not out of any national interest that benefited average Americans (just as colonialism never benefited average Europeans).
See HERE for example.
But organized Jewry never wants to take any responsibility for any of its actions or misdeeds. It’s always “the other groups fault,” or “the other guy started it,” or "the other group is responsible."
I’m sure MacDonald would probably say this is a group evolutionary strategy; perpetually pointing the finger at “the other” means you don't have to look at your own role in any undesirable outcome, hence you keep soldiering on in self-righteousness.
I would differ here, because this level of narcissism is also a characteristic of uncivilized, self-serving sociopaths in the West who have done so much to undermine social cohesion, (e.g. open borders corporatists and self-righteous, self-serving left-liberals, snakes like Bush/Cheney who lied the U.S. into the Iraq war, etc.) Jewish or not.
I would also add that Jewry has historically paid a high price for its sociopathic narcissism in the form of pogroms of all levels, on and off throughout history, from the Roman era to this very day.
Why are there so few Jews alive today given that they are so self-serving, cohesive and ethnocentric, even after they’ve been at it for some 3,000 years? Because sociopathic narcissism (fascism) -- individual or group -- ultimately doesn’t pay unless it can be enforced with some sort of totalitarian world government. And ethnocentric organized Jewry is operationally fascist (Judeofascist), and always has been, even when it maneuvers under the guise Communism or left-liberalism.
(Zionism and neoconservatism are far more transparently fascist than the others, and hence easier to peg, even though they all have the same Jewish supremacist end-goal in mind.)
Philip Weiss noted Chomsky’s Jewish ethnocentric narcissism and insistence on shielding organized Jewry from accountability (what I would categorize as a form of arrested development) here.
“Here is a great interview of the great Chomsky by David Samuels at Tablet, thoroughly exploring the roots of Chomsky's ethnic/religious identification, which I think is largely unconscious for him...in essence you have two ethnocentric Jews saying that Jews lack agency in American government, and had nothing to do with the decision to destroy Iraq, no that was Lockheed Martin and Intel and Goldman, Sachs, see, that's how power works. As readers here know, I ascribe a huge part of the blame to neoconservative Jewish thinkers; and the neoconservatism is all over the liberal Jewish community because of Israel; and we can't begin to undo the damage till we look at the role of Zionism in Jewish life.”
Post a Comment