2,181 words

House Passes New “Antisemitism Awareness Act” to Protect America’s Most Underprivileged Group

With the planet ramping up for what may become yet another World War designed to answer the Jewish Question, last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved of H. R. 6090, aka the “Antisemitism Awareness Act.”

Why, they almost make it sound as if anyone on the planet who isn’t marooned on North Sentinel Island or stranded in Antarctica isn’t already highly “aware” of “antisemitism.” When those Jews said “Never Forget,” they weren’t kiddin’!

What this new bill — which still needs Senate approval and Biden’s signature — seeks to eradicate, though, is any form of discussion that may encourage “awareness” of the causes of “antisemitism,” at least as the alleged Semite-haters articulate them.

The bill seeks to codify the federal government’s definition of “antisemitism” so that it aligns with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition as they laid it down in Bucharest in May of 2016:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. . . .

To me, language such as “a certain perception . . . which may be expressed as hatred” is so impossibly vague and subjective that it provides totalitarian psychopaths with an excuse to use the mere accusation of “antisemitism” as a mallet to bludgeon anyone they dislike into terrified silence. I guess that makes me guilty of committing antisemitism.

The IHRA’s definition that the US Department of Education seems poised to adopt cites several examples of how one can commit the crime of antisemitism and thus be guilty of a felonious Civil Rights violation under US law. These include:

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.


• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.


• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.


• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.


• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.


• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement alleging that the bill “threatens to censor political speech critical of Israel on college campuses under the guise of addressing antisemitism.” The bill, which would codify an “Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism” that Donald Trump issued in 2019, would effectively criminalize the public expression of any opinion that runs counter to the official Zionist narrative. But it’s not only opinions that are endangered: Just like laws against Holocaust denial, it would also criminalize the mere attempt to provide factual evidence that would undermine the official Zionist narrative.

Many have noted that the passage condemning “claims of Jews killing Jesus” would turn the entire New Testament into “hate speech.” An essay in Zero Hedge points out the irony that since part of the Talmud claims that Jews killed Jesus, the new law would reclassify Judaism itself as an anti-Semitic doctrine.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 320-91. Only 21 Republicans voted “No.”

Is there any question that the most powerful state in the USA is the State of Israel?

Informal TikTok Poll: Most Women Would Rather Be Trapped in the Woods with a Bear Than with a Man

Joe Biden signed a foreign-aid bill in late April that included $26 billion for our longsuffering and deeply impoverished Greatest Ally to aid in its noble mission to make the Middle East safe for international bankers and to make the West more receptive toward non-white incursions. Included in the bill was a provision that forced the Chinese-based company which owns the massively successful video-sharing website TikTok — which is essentially YouTube, but for people who are much vainer and have far shorter attention spans — to sell off its assets or face an outright ban in the United States.

Although Biden isn’t quite senile enough yet to admit it publicly, it’s suspected that one reason the feds finally put the screws on TikTok was that its youthful-skewing audience has also been tilting heavily in favor of Palestinians and against Our Greatest Ally in recent pre-game coverage of World War III, and we can’t afford to tolerate such impudence if we’re going to send the nation plunging head-first into a global suicide mission so that Israel can live to see another sunrise.

For the time being, TikTok survives and thrives as the sort of place where brain-dead political memes are born. Last September, a topic that caught fire revolved around how often men think about the Roman Empire.

The burning question last week was whether women would rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear. Based on everyone’s accents, the 29-second video that set the big-brained nibbas of TikTok a-buzzin’ appears to have been filmed in Australia. A man poses the question to eight young women on the streets, and all but one of them say they’d rather be stuck with a bear than a man:

Male Interviewer: Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?

Woman #1: Bear. Men are scary.

Woman #2: Um, with a bear.

Woman #3: What I’ve heard about bears, they don’t always attack you, right? Unless you like fuck with them. So maybe a bear.

Woman #4: Depends what man, but probably a bear.

Woman #5: 100% a bear, which is like terrifying to say, but . . .

Woman #6: Definitely a bear. Some men are very scary out there.

Woman #7: A bear [giggles].

Woman #8: I would say, I would say a man.

A tight-lipped woman followed up by posting a TikTok video where she recited a litany of comments from women who’d viewed the initial video and explained why they’d rather confront a bear in the wild than a male human:

If I survive the bear attack I won’t have to see the bear at family reunions.

The worst thing the bear can do is kill me.

The bear sees me as a human being.

After what those men did to that monitor lizard, the bears are not safe with men, either.

The bear doesn’t get enjoyment out of it.

The bear didn’t pretend to be my friend for months beforehand.

No one will say that I liked the bear attack.

No one will talk about the bear’s bright future.

If the bear and the man both want to hurt me and I scream loud enough, there’s a better chance that the bear will actually run away.

A bear wouldn’t film it and send it to all his friends.

The men getting angry at this don’t realize that there are fates worse than death. Ask Junko Furuta, Sade Robinson, Shanann Watts if they would choose the man or the bear.

I tried researching whether a bear has ever raped a human woman, but all I could find was an apparent urban legend about Leonardo DiCaprio being raped by an 800-pound grizzly bear while filming a scene in British Columbia. Notably, most of the videos I could find on YouTube about bears brutalizing human women involved female bears encroaching upon human turf.

In an article titled “Why women would prefer to be alone in the woods with a bear than a man,” writer Lisa Sugiura from the University of Portsmouth subtly shifts the nexus of the discussion, because the original question involved being “stuck” in the woods with a bear rather than the more intimate and possibly even romantic “alone.” Sugiura takes great pains to inform us that bears are not part of a global patriarchal conspiracy:

Women’s view of men is also coloured by their non-violent actions that harm women. Clearly, bears also do not contribute to or uphold systemic sexism and misogyny, but most men do. . . . This culture props up the men who are silent bystanders, observing sexism, harassment or abuse but doing nothing, the men who make or laugh along with the sexist or rape jokes, those who are rape apologists and blame women for their sexual victimisation, those who become aggressive when women turn them down, those who stalk, control and abuse women, and those who are rapists, sexual harassers and murderers. This continuum of misogyny is women’s everyday reality — and at no point do bears feature.

I can confidently state, and would be willing to testify in court without fear of perjuring myself, that I’ve never heard a bear tell a rape joke.

It’s a statistical fact that far more women are killed by men than by bears, but it’s also true that far more men are killed by women than by bears. Because human/bear encounters in the wild are so rare relative to human-on-human encounters in the developed world, it’s nearly impossible to get a bead on whether it’d more dangerous for a woman to randomly encounter a bear — male or female — in the woods than to chance upon a human male in the woods.

Many men who scoffed at the poll’s results cited it as evidence that modern women have been so brainwashed by overblown feminist dogma about white-male patriarchal maleficence that they’re utterly clueless about the dangers of encountering a wild beast in its own habitat.

But what if something even more sinister was afoot? What if many women have been so suckered into believing that white males are the fount of all evil that they’d deem any male mammal beyond a white human as not only safer, but potentially more arousing? After all, the women weren’t asked whether they’d rather encounter a bear or a black man in the woods.

In a section of my book The Redneck Manifesto where I scrutinized Bigfoot-related lore, I cite an intensely odd female-penned novel called Children of a Lost Spirit that features a lonely Caucasian housewife who wanders into the Pacific Northwest’s tall timber, is raped by a Sasquatch, likes the experience, and abandons city life to become a member of a local Bigfoot clan.

A disturbingly similar story arc plays out in the 1976 novel Bear by Canadian author Marian Engel, which spotlights a female protagonist who escapes “a dreary and unfulfilling life in Toronto” to work alone at a nearby island, where she develops a sexual relationship with the island’s resident bear. Sample passages:

“Oh, Bear!” she said, rubbing his neck. She got up and took her clothes off, because she was hot. She lay down on the far side of the bear, away from the fire, and a little away from him, and began in her desolation to make love to herself. The bear roused himself from his somnolence, shifted, and turned. . . . He began to lick her. A fat, freckled, pink and black tongue. It licked. It rasped, to a degree. It probed. It felt very warm and good and strange. . . . He licked. He probed. She might have been a flea he was searching for. He licked her nipple stiff and scoured her navel. With little nickerings, she moved him south. She swung her hips to make it easy for him. Bear! Bear! she whispered, playing with his ears. The tongue that was muscular but also capable of lengthening itself like an eel found all her secret places. And like no human being she had ever known, it persevered in her pleasure. When she came, she whimpered, and the bear licked away her tears.

A 2018 tome called Animal Intimacies features a chapter called “The Bear Who Loved a Woman” that fairly celebrates woman/bear sex as a way of transcending “anthropocentric hierarchies” and the “gendered division of labor”:

This chapter examines a genre of narratives about black bears who are believed to abduct and have sex with women. The transgressive desires celebrated by women in their accounts of these interspecies sexual encounters call into question not just patriarchal but also anthropocentric hierarchies in which the boundary between humans and nonhumans is drawn on the terrain of desire. What makes this talk about bear-human sex so compelling is the fact that women come to know and relate to these animals differently than men on account of the gendered division of labor involved in creating and sustaining interspecies relationships.

Clearly this informal “poll” needs to be conducted again. Women need to be specifically asked whether they’d prefer being stuck in the woods with a bear or a black man. They also should be asked whether, in the event that they were to be raped in the woods by a bear or a black man, would the black man “persevere in her pleasure” with as much tender attentiveness as the bear would?

Whether or not humans are safer than bears, it’s hard to argue that they aren’t weirder.