“In the White House, the threat comes from those, like Stephen K. Bannon, who admire nativist strongmen. The blood-and-soil nationalism of men like Russian President Vladimir Putin, or women like France’s Marine Le Pen, is never good for Jews; even when they don’t specifically target Jews, they attract strong support from more vigorous anti-Semites. On social media, we see anti-Semitism from anonymous trolls, and while we can’t say anything about the sincerity or strength of their intentions, they are terrifying (to Jewish reporters, among others). …
But for now, we Jews should worry less about whether attacks against us are “on the rise,” because it’s not clear whether they are. That’s not the most important question, because to any student of history it’s no comfort if anti-Semitic attacks aren’t on the rise. In many times and places, Jews have been the canary in the coal mine; when racist authoritarianism arrives, we Jews are among the first to sniff it in the air. “
Is it good for the Whites though?
Why is the Lügenpresse so concerned about anti-Semitism? Why not, say, Russophobia or anti-Whitism or anti-Christian sentiment instead? Why is it “mainstream” to carry forth in The Washington Post about what is “good for the Jews,” but it is “fringe” to discuss what is “good for the Whites?” Isn’t it strange how we can discuss the interests of every group but the majority population?
I think we all know the answer. We Gentiles aren’t the ones who control the media.
Note: The New York Times (Jews) and Chuck Todd of MSNBC (Jew) and Peter Beinart of The Atlantic (Jew) are all working together to construct the Narrative. This is only a small example of how Jews are so overrepresented in the “mainstream” news media that they have the power to inject their own peculiar ethnic obsessions into literally everything.
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) February 17, 2017