December 8, 2016
— The Eagle (@theeagle) December 6, 2016
The inquisitive Rabbi at Richard Spencer’s Texas A&M conference wasn’t just duly recognized by those of us struggling against Jewish power, but has opened up a big conversation within the Jewish community itself about the increasingly difficult position Jewish hypocrites are in presently in the Information age.
Spencer’s rhetorical question regarding the oxymoron of Zionists who support multiculturalism elsewhere was in response to the laughable peacenik public persona of a man whose profession requires the mastery of racial hatred (the Torah itself, but especially the Talmud), while at the same time being a fervent and uncritical backer of the only state on earth that still force-sterilizes black people.
The Rabbi in sheep’s clothing was unmasked, and not too happy about it.
After white nationalist Richard Spencer left him speechless by equating Zionism and white supremacy, Texas A&M Rabbi Matt Rosenberg is acknowledging that it wasn’t his best moment.
Rosenberg, the Hillel rabbi at Texas A&M University for the past three years, later said he found Spencer’s attempt to get him to defend Israel erroneous and bordering on anti-Semitic.
“I am a simple teacher of Torah,” he said.
Rosenberg later took part in a silent demonstration against Spencer’s address. He said that he was concerned at the attention given to the “alt-right” leader, who calls for the creation of a white “ethno-state.”
“The undue amount of attention given to Richard Spencer and his message was and is troubling to me,” he said. “We can’t normalize hate speech.”
Rosenberg also told the Forward he did not an anticipate a repeat on his campus of Tuesday’s events.
“I really do hope and think that this is a one-off for Texas A&M,” he said. “It’s a philo-Semitic campus, where people appreciate Jewish culture and Judaism.”
Despite his concerns about giving attention to hatemongers, Rosenberg handed the white supremacist the spotlight Tuesday when he asked Spencer that night to study Torah with him.
“You come here with a message of radical exclusion. My tradition teaches a message of radical inclusion, as embodied by Torah,” said Rosenberg, who attended the media event at the urging of one of his colleagues. “Would you sit down and study Torah with me and learn love?”
Spencer shot back by comparing Israel’s vision as a homeland for Jews with his own goals for a state for whites.
Rosenberg refused to respond, effectively leaving unchallenged Spencer’s assertion about Jews and Israel.
Jews have traditionally slipped by in their brazenly hypocritical prosecutorial discourse against whites and the right of Western civilization to exist because their former opposition – conservatives – refuse to attack them back as Jews.
In truth, even comparing Zionism to our nationalism is false moral equivalence, because we just want to have our own living space and be left alone, while Zionism is predicated on the extermination and enslavement of the world’s gentile population to provide sustenance for their parasitical state.
Even if you were to commit the Leftist error of juxtaposing American settling to Jewish ethnic cleansing in Israel, it is wrong, because America was nothing but wilderness populated by warring tribes when Europeans arrived in the new world, while Arab Palestine was a fully functioning, settled multicultural state with relatively advanced infrastructure at the beginning of Zionist settlement. In other words, Jews not only flooded into this territory equally sacred to Christians and Muslims, they despised the idea of multi-culturalism so they embarked on a massive ethnic cleansing campaign beginning during the 1948 war that continues to this day.
Whites, on the other hand, just want to be left alone. This life philosophy has no greater historical antithesis than the eternal Jew, as seen by their tribe’s consensus that Israel always comes first, even though half of their population lives outside of Israel.
Mondoweiss, a blog run by the miniscule minority of honest Jews, also wrote a lengthy piece on this exchange and the dialectical dilemma it poses to Jewry.
Yes, Spencer made a point, posing how Rosenberg’s supposedly Jewish, pink, multicultural advocacy of ‘radical inclusion and love’ is incompatible with Israel and Zionism, and Rosenberg was silent because he didn’t want to fall into the trap of ‘defending Israel’, that is, Israel’s intrinsically exclusionist policies, but he didn’t want to attack it either. Rosenberg’s silence represents the prevailing paradigm of prevailing Jewish ambivalence about Zionism, where the ‘liberals’ simply seek to paint it pink, white, green, diverse. One scratch under the surface and it isn’t diverse anymore.
Spencer masterfully put Rosenberg in a checkmate, whilst Rosenberg the amateur player was thinking that he would outplay him with liberal and humanistic bravura.
Morally bankrupt Jews have always found themselves deconstructing circumspect whites, rather than wry Aryans of our time who can think like a Jew. Spencer still has a lot of work to do in this regard. Rather than trying to draw parallels between Zionism and our Social-Nationalism/Nationalsocialism, it is imperative that we assert our ethical high ground amidst the barrage of accusations by men in beanies.
Not one Jewish or Zionist organization on earth supports self-determination for our folk, all Zionist and Jewish organizations on earth support open borders for Western nations. Their stated position as a collective is that we vanish from the face of the earth, there’s no way to reason with that kind of ultimatum. The Jew is the illegitimate one!
Their positions are indefensible and they know it, which is why contemporary “anti-racist” rallies emphasize drum beating and whistle blowing over ideas – violence, if that doesn’t work. ‘No platform,’ popularized on college campuses in the United Kingdom and spread out throughout the Western world, is a Jewish reaction to the fragility of their narratives and ideas. That is why our war is not one of who has the most refined or convincing ideas – unlike what many more intellectual racialists believe – but of the ability to look the Naked Emperor in the eyes and mock him, thus encouraging others in pursuit of eventually physically overpowering our opposition.
We already have many hyper-intellectuals in our camp and Spencer and others looking to represent the cause must not become one of them. We need more orators like Joseph Goebbels or Gerald L.K. Smith, men who can package our ideas in a way that rouses the heart into catching up with the mind. For the great majority of Aryan people today, the problem isn’t ignorance, it is a lack of courage.