If Left Unchecked, The Problem of Goyim Noticing Inevitably Becomes One of Goyim Knowing

Diversity Macht Frei
Februrary 9, 2018

You really have to marvel at the extent of Jewish Privilege these days. They’ve already secured a status quo in which anyone publicly drawing attention to Jewish power becomes persona non grata: disavowed by former acquaintances and colleagues, hounded from jobs or public life.

But that’s not enough. Now Jews demand the right to do outrageous things and not have anyone notice the outrageous thing, even if the Jewish angle behind the outrageous thing is completely ignored.

Following immediately on the Daily Telegraph’s report of George Soros funding an anti-Brexit campaign comes the charge of antisemitism.

The Jew even admits there is not a single word or any other element of the article that hints at antisemitism. But somehow, his Goyim Noticing detector has been triggered. And we all know where Goyim Noticing leads, don’t we? Unless checked hard, it leads to Goyim Knowing.

Here are extracts from the Guardian article, written by (((Rafael Behr))):

These days you are never more than a couple of clicks away from weapons-grade antisemitism.

But it still comes as a shock when one of the oldest and most versatile themes of the genre – the Jewish financier, dandling politicians on puppet strings, coordinating events in the shadows – finds its way on to the front page of a national British newspaper.

…

Soros’s name turns up in far-right protests across the former eastern bloc, but also in the US, where he is a hate figure for Trumpian ultras. He has been accused of paying for anti-Trump protests. He has been accused of meddling in the US election. He has been accused of trying to dilute Christian white culture in Europe by orchestrating influxes of Muslim refugees. And now he is accused by the Daily Telegraph of conspiring against Brexit. A busy man indeed.

…

I don’t expect the Telegraph, finding itself in possession of material of interest to its audience, to do anything other than publish it. What I might have expected is that someone, somewhere in the organisation might be sufficiently literate in European history and attentive to what has been going on in the rest of the world to understand the wider cultural context of this material. 

…

What I care about is the whole package. There is no one specific line or picture or adjective or omission that can be held up as cast-iron proof. There is no single moment where the line is crossed. There is no clause or adjective from which the antisemitic smoke rises as from the barrel of gun. And yet a modicum of cultural awareness and a glancing acquaintance with old Jew-hatred and its modern iterations would have alerted a half-decent editor to the signal being sent by that front page. In case there is no such person at the Telegraph to decrypt that signal let me spell it out for them. It was this: shadowy Jew-financier conspires against Britain. That might not seem obvious to many readers. It might even sound a little paranoid. But I am very confident that two audiences understood it instantly and very clearly in exactly those terms. One was antisemites, the other was Jews. The first group cheered, the second recoiled in horror. And of that shameful negligence, oh, Daily Telegraph, j’accuse. 

Source

Of course comments were turned off for the article, as is now routine on the Guardian for anything related to Jews or Jewish interests. The goyim cannot be allowed to talk back.

For years I used to make pretty harsh anti-Muslim comments on the Telegraph blogs. In fact, following Anders Breivik’s gun rampage, quite a few people genuinely thought that it might have been me who did it – because my comments on the blogs and his in his manifesto were so similar. But the website censors generally allowed these comments to stand, only deleting them occasionally.

Then, once I became aware of the JQ, I would occasionally raise it mildly and circumspectly on the same blogs. Within about 3 weeks, my entire account had been deleted together with my full comment history stretching back years. I only mention this to illustrate how philosemitic the Telegraph is. But no. Now it stands accused of antisemitism merely for noticing the actions of a powerful Jew.

In a sad spectacle, the author of the article is already begging for mercy.