Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Something Unspeakable This Way Comes


Yes, you may be sick of Lawrence Auster. I know I am. I consider here some previous statements which I have only just become aware, and which I find relevant to the critique of his ideas I have already invested quite some effort in. This is also connected to and motivated by the realization I first made and began to explore in September: that it is not possible to forthrightly discuss political correctness, cultural marxism, liberalism, immigration, or White genocide without locking horns with jews. I am still only beginning to absorb the staggering disproportion of their involvement and aggressive and unapologetic pursuit of their own group interests over a very long period of time.

I can see that anyone who comes to such conclusions and speaks out honestly about them is smeared as a lunatic driven to irrational hate by a supposed congenital defect that makes them believe jews are to blame for everything. There is virtually nobody to cite in support who themselves has not already been similarly smeared, even though most do not fit the evil and demented caricature they are slandered with. Thus I continue to focus on and criticize Auster, who has long analyzed and argued against liberalism - an ideology he seems well aware jews helped construct, that most adhere to, and that has empirically served their interests - but when faced with the unpleasant implications of his own arguments would literally rather abandon them than see any responsibility fall on jews.

A few days ago Auster noted a post of his from 14 Nov 2003 where he comments on a quote from Nietzsche's Human, All-Too-Human:
"... [T]he whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred."

Now this is amazing as a very early, remarkably incisive expression of the Jewish problem. Think of it--this was written in the 1870s, 20 years before Theodore Hertzl's blinding revelation that the Jews could never be safe as a minority in Europe and needed their own country. (In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions. This was a new and disturbing idea to me at the time. Little did I know that Nietzsche had said exactly the same thing 120 years earlier.)

But the passage is also amazing in the context of the Jack Wheeler article I posted yesterday. Wheeler argues that liberal guilt is aimed at neutralizing the envy being directed at the liberal from those at the bottom. Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal--and famous for its liberal guilt--of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.
Auster then links to a post from 12 Nov 2003 where he writes:
Susie is correct about Nietzsche's idea that the slave mentality or _ressentiment_ against the strong originated largely among the Jews, and about his view that this same mentality was expanded through its embodiment in Christianity to the detriment of the world. (However, it's important to point out that Nietzsche's hatred, especially in his almost insane late book The Anti-Christ, was directed against Christianity, not against the Jews; Nietzsche was never an anti-Semite.) She's also correct to point out the connection between the slave mentality and modern liberalism; and also that Jewish neoconservatives differ from liberal Jews in being determinedly pro-American.

However, this doesn't mean that the neoconservatives are free from all forms of that resentment. In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an "oppressive" majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority's demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.

My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn't mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority. But it does mean that the minority, insofar as it is a minority, should not be able to speak authoritatively for the society as a whole. That indeed is the state we're in now, with advanced liberalism and multiculturalism, in which the minorities express themselves as groups and are given importance as groups, while the members of the majority only express themselves as individuals. An ordered state of society is one in which the majority is the majority, and the minorities are minorities.
Wheeler link and emphasis added.

Let's review. In Nov 2007 Auster summed up his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society like so: "the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated". I noted a corollary: that jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous. Auster rejected this because jews are not "perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile", except by anti-semites. I then pointed out that even his ad hoc qualifications are arguably satisfied, and that his anti-semitism trump card does nothing but lend credence to my point. Auster responded by making insinuations about my pseudonym, complaining about my blog's color and typeface, and exploring the various ways in which I have sinned against jews - for instance by being indifferent to being labeled an anti-semite.

Far from being indifferent I recognize the hostility and hypocrisy behind that label and the distraction and intimidation it is intended to produce. I condemn and reject it all. I understand and accept Auster's affinity for jews, and thus I understand his anti-anti-semitic bigotry. What I don't understand, and can't abide, is his inconsistency and hypocrisy.

As the blockquotes above show, in 2003 Auster expressed thoughts similar to my own. Consider for example his analysis of the fears motivating jewish neoconservatives. He knows the root of those fears is not their neoconservatism, it is their self-discriminating jewish identity and their self-serving liberal values. The quotes above imply that this "self-conscious minority" helped put "the majority" "on the path to extinction". So as I read it, Auster makes the argument that jews by their own volition have been both unassimilable and hostile to "the majority".

The tact Auster has consistently taken, and the out he would probably take here, is to place all blame and responsibility on "the majority". As he literally phrases it "the majority" weakened "itself", put "itself" on the path to extinction, and the cure is to re-discover "itself". This thinking is of course just as simplistic and one-sided as he imagines everyone he calls an anti-semite is guilty of, except in the opposite direction. His own standard, expressed for instance here, is that it is an error to make judgments about jews as jews. This for some reason does not keep him from asserting "that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top", nor does it keep him from passing judgments on "the majority" as "the majority".

Beside revealing a fallacious double standard, Auster's advice for "the majority" is both dubious and disingenuous. When individuals in "the majority" notice that jews express collective interests, interests which are more cohesive and identifiable and monolithically pursued (eg. civil rights, open borders) than those of "the majority", and point out that such interests harm "the majority", Auster is just as quick as anyone to denounce and call for the offender to be excluded from any further discussion. His proscription of anyone who opposes jews (most of whom are liberal) undermines his prescription that "the majority" should oppose liberals (many of whom are jews). The assertiveness he recommends has already failed, and it was defeated by generations of the kind of divide-and-conquer ostracization he supports.

It's easy to imagine the reverse - a world in which liberal jews or other minorities are denounced and excluded. Liberal jews and their comrades in "the majority" are for all practical purposes driven by just such an imaginative reversal. They constantly breathe life into this fear with their movies, reporting, scholarship, and politics, and insist that everyone else be animated by it too. Their fear of potential repression by "the majority" is used to justify pushing "the majority" toward extinction. If you reject their utopian vision because you can see that it is in fact producing chaos and dystopia, well then you are obviously a neo-nazi who validates all their fears. It is sheer tautological madness.

Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of liberalism. They are the key tools with which liberals have rendered "the majority" powerless and are actively reducing it to a minority. Not one in a hundred people know that this is happening or why. That is not an excuse Lawrence Auster can hide behind. He sees. He knows. And yet he dissimulates.

A quote left on my previous post by Desmond Jones:
‘The Jews,’ he says, ‘will be compelled by anti-Semitism to destroy among all peoples the idea of a fatherland.’ Or, I secretly thought to myself, to create a fatherland of their own."—Theodor Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 196.
Kevin MacDonald quotes Earl Raab:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Auster:
Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea (which I've proposed at FrontPage Magazine) that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. "It's frightening, it's scary," he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews' best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.
The deeper I dig the awfuller the truth gets.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: Auster replies:
Another person on the warpath against me today is the anti-Semite "Tanstaafl." He has found and quotes at length various statements of mine about the Jews, including my 2004 FrontPage Magazine article, "Why Jews Welcome Moslems," and concludes that I'm an anti-Semite just like him, and therefore I'm a lousy hypocrite for condemning him and refusing to have anything to do with him. It is the case that anti-Semites, whose intellects are pathologically distorted, are unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews. By the way, Tanstaafl, unable to resist for a second showing us where he's really coming from, consistently spells the word "Jews" as "jews," lower case.
My real conclusion is that Auster is the opposite of an anti-semite - he is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a jewish bigot. He is indeed a hypocrite, which he illustrates here once again. His intellect is "pathologically distorted" and "unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews". My point in this post, and the previous one concerning him, is that he has all the intellectual ability required to engage my arguments, which are after all based on his own words and lines of reasoning. Yet he refuses to do so, apparently because he reserves a higher pedestal for jews, a pedestal from which they can slander and dehumanize and ostracize anyone they choose to label "anti-Semite".

To Auster's credit, and despite his deliberate distortions of my thoughts and desires, he does provide links here. Thus his readers can judge for themselves who is rational. I have no hope or desire to change the anti-anti-semites (like Auster, or my commenter Adam, who corresponds with Auster as Paul T.), my hope is that his non-jewish readers, unaware they are being assimilated, will become more aware of the inversion and inherent bigotry contained in the anti-semite slur. I hope they think of this every time Auster uses it, and every time he quotes his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. A law from which he exempts the powerful jewish minority based on the circular (and self-nullifying) logic that to argue they have been unassimilable or hostile to "the majority" is forbidden.

UPDATE 6 Mar 2008: Added missing link to Auster's 12 Nov 2003 comment above.

Labels: , , , ,

white

76 Comments:

Blogger flippityflopitty said...

"My solution to this dilemma is that the majority ...." and
"An ordered state of society is one in which the majority is the majority, ...."

What majority is he referring to? Whites? Christians? Conservatives?

An "ordered" state of society? What is this a caucus?

The "group interests" you refer to are crystal clear - if you do not drink the kool-aid - you are an outsider and receive a label (liberal, anti-semite, etc).

"Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of liberalism." Obviously the conservatives (like Auster) have learned well from the liberal "minority". Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of those without the ability, evidence or desire to further argue their point. We are immersed in smears and inversion from all sides.

We can point out inconsistency and hypocrisy throughout the blogosphere (in similar fashion to MSM) - ultimately we are at the mercy of the reader's interest and desire to weed this out. Whether uncovering i&h is a worthwhile endeavor needs to be seen.

1/22/2008 08:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Bad Eyes said...

I agree with Auster about your blog's color.

1/22/2008 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger New Sisyphus said...

Tantaafl -

I've followed this debate closely and am left wondering what to say. Since I've written about 10 comments and have not posted one of them, I'm going to turn off the internal editor that demands written perfection and just tell you how I feel about this.

Maybe it's because I'm from Los Angeles, but I gotta tell you man that even if I bought your entire position with regard to the Jews I still wouldn't give a rat's ass about their agenda as compared to, say, the Catholic Church.

An endless promoter of open borders, whose leadership sits on almost all the important pro-open borders NGOs and charities, whose leaders actively lobby government officials at all levels for open borders, whose foreign leaders petition our government officials to make official complaints about our criminal justice system, whose domestic political leaders just happen to have been THE PRIME MOVERS in the Immigration Act of 1965?

The problem with this type of Jewish stereotyping is that it ignores the reality that, yes, some Jewish liberals are our enemies, but others aren't. Even the British National Party has taken that position, and they even have some prominent Jewish members.

And MacDonald? Give me a break. I didn't even buy the whole "woe is me, poor, pity for the Palestinian" line when I was a left-winger and I'm certainly not buying it now.

Yes, there is such a thing as Jewish interest and, yes, it may not align with White interests in all or some cases (then again, has it occurred to you that sometimes it might?) but when I've got Cardinal Mahoney on TV telling me that the further Central Americanization of my hometown is a moral imperitive, I've got a bigger fucking problem.

I don't see any rabbi on TV telling me that!

Or am I just too stupid to detect the ultra-secret Jew powers?

Listen, I'm not stupid about differences: they are real. I've had Jewish friends who have let me know that I'm forever an outsider to them and I've seen Jewish friends assign the US blame for the holocaust due to our earlier immigration policies.

But it's a pretty far leap from the Jews usually do pretty well for themselves to getting me to believe that 2% of the population is a bigger threat than the hordes of real-live Catholics insisting that my nation become a refuge for all of Latin America.

White, European, Catholics. With names like Mahoney and Kennedy.

1/22/2008 02:14:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

The problem with this type of Jewish stereotyping is that it ignores the reality that, yes, some Jewish liberals are our enemies, but others aren't.

What stereotyping? It's not about "individual" Jews and their personal characteristics.

It's about the organized Jewish community.

1/22/2008 03:26:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

And MacDonald? Give me a break. I didn't even buy the whole "woe is me, poor, pity for the Palestinian" line when I was a left-winger and I'm certainly not buying it now.

But you haven't read MacDonald. Can you dismiss his theories without knowing what they are?

1/22/2008 03:30:00 PM  
Blogger New Sisyphus said...

Tillman -

I don't see any organized Jewish community in my face in Los Angeles. I do see organized Catholics.

Here are the executive directors of the National Council of La Raza (The Race):

Monica Lozano, La Opinión, Los Angeles, CA

Andrea Bazán-Manson, Triangle Community Foundation, Raleigh, NC

Daniel Ortega, Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega, Pheonix, AZ

Dorene Dominguez, Vanir Construction Management, Sacramento, CA

Janet Murguía, National Council of La Raza, Washington, DC

Salvador Balcorta, Centro de Salud Familiar La Fe, El Paso, TX

Herminio Martínez, Bronx Institute, Bronx, NY

Elba I. Montalvo, Committee for Hispanic Children and Families, New York, NY

Maria Pesqueira, Mujeres Latinas en Acción, Chicago, IL

Arturo Valenzuela, Georgetown University, Washington, DC


Is Georgetown a famous Jewish university?

No, it's not. It's Catholic. But change that name to Hershel Schlomo, Yeshiva University and, magically, your thesis is confirmed!

Now, let's turn to the Islamic Society of Boston, recently caught out in a sweetheart deal with the City of Boston for the construction of a mosque, a giant friggin mosque, on what was public land.

Jihad Watch reported:

At the groundbreaking in November 2002, local politicians hailed the planned construction of an Islamic Center by the Islamic Society of Boston as a bridge between Islam and Boston's other religions, the Boston Herald recounted yesterday in the first of a major two-part investigative series. Mayor Thomas M. Menino hailed the center for "creating a space for inter-faith dialog," and thereby bringing "both the Muslim community and the community at large closer together." U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (Democrat) predicted the center would "help to create a dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims so we may learn more about each others' traditions." The Boston Redevelopment Authority, a public agency, was no less enthusiastic about the project and sold a 1.9-acre lot to the Islamic Society of Boston for $175,000, or well under the property's market value.

Hmmm..don't see any Jews there either.

And who sits on the Boston Redevelopment Authority?

That's right: Irish and Latino Catholics.

You see my point. If you go looking for "evidence" to back up a group agenda, well, there you go: Whites are being hunted to death by Catholic extremists with an agenda to transform the US into a much more Latino-centric, Catholic-friendly nation.

As for MacDonald, yes, I've read him. His papers and his blog, available at his site. It seems to me that he makes the same mistake most do in this area: he jumps to unwarranted conclusions from actual data.

Thus, Jews are responsible for capitalist exploitation and communism at the same time, for example.

It's reaching and you can tell his agenda with the use of loaded language couched in scientific jargon so as to obscure it. The problem isn't that he is outright wrong--he's not totally, and he has identified some interesting phenomena--but rather his findings do not, in my view, support his conclusions. Not by a long shot.

1/22/2008 04:00:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

...but I gotta tell you man that even if I bought your entire position with regard to the Jews I still wouldn't give a rat's ass about their agenda as compared to, say, the Catholic Church.

And the Church's position on immigration (and its general liveralization) is due to Jewish influence, (1) through Jewish propagation of liberalism in general, (2) through Jewish efforts to reform Catholic doctrine in specific, and (3) through specific efforts to get the Church on board with the Jewish program for immigration reform back in the '50s.

Regarding (2), see this article, "How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking" published in Look Magazine in 1966 (when its circulation was over 7 million):

http://johnthebaptist.us/sbw/articles/other%20articles/ao1_jews_changed_catholics.htm

Regarding (3), here we see Jews giving the Jewish community credit for the 1965 immigration reform:
http://www.ajcop.org/member.htm

"...the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, ADL and NCRAC jointly played lead roles in establishing the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference in the 1950s (also a difficult period). That broad coalition (still in existence) spearheaded the campaign that ultimately led to the repeal of the national origins quota system in 1965."

And from page 127 of J.J. Goldberg's book, "Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment":

"Typical of Minkoff's methods was his response to the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Popularly known as the McCarran Act, it grew out of a three-year Senate study of the immigration quota system, launsched in 1947. The American Jewish Committee had been pressing the lawmakers to scrap the system as racist. Instead, Congress did the reverse.... NCRAC convened a meeting of Jewish defense agencies to review the McCarran Act and consider what to do next. Everyone agreed that the Jewish community must undertake a massive effort to repeal the quota system, but the ADL and the American Jewish Committee refused to join an operation under NCRAC auspices. Instead, Minkoff put NCRAC immigration specialist Jules Cohen in charge of a 'non-auspices committee,' operated by NCRAC under its 'non-auspices.' In 1955, this committee spearheaded the formation of a broad coalition for immigration reform, made up of civic associations, labor groups, and Protestant and Catholic groups. For a decade the coalition lobbied, leafleted, planted articles in magazines, and held public meetings on the racist nature of the immigration quota system. The entire operation was run by a steering committee of the 'non-auspices committee,' made up of four staffers from the three defense agencies and NCRAC. The quotas were finally repealed by the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, passed by Congress during the civil rights surge of President Lyndon Johnson's early years."

White, European, Catholics. With names like Mahoney and Kennedy.

But there's nothing in it for such people in evolutionary terms. It stands to reason that they are probably being manipulated by other living things whose interests are being served by their immigration activism.

1/22/2008 04:20:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

...but I gotta tell you man that even if I bought your entire position with regard to the Jews I still wouldn't give a rat's ass about their agenda as compared to, say, the Catholic Church.

And the Church's position on immigration (and its general liveralization) is due to Jewish influence, (1) through Jewish propagation of liberalism in general, (2) through Jewish efforts to reform Catholic doctrine in specific, and (3) through specific efforts to get the Church on board with the Jewish program for immigration reform back in the '50s.

Regarding (2), see this article, "How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking" published in Look Magazine in 1966 (when its circulation was over 7 million):

http://johnthebaptist.us/sbw/articles/other%20articles/ao1_jews_changed_catholics.htm

Regarding (3), here we see Jews giving the Jewish community credit for the 1965 immigration reform:
http://www.ajcop.org/member.htm

"...the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, ADL and NCRAC jointly played lead roles in establishing the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference in the 1950s (also a difficult period). That broad coalition (still in existence) spearheaded the campaign that ultimately led to the repeal of the national origins quota system in 1965."

And from page 127 of J.J. Goldberg's book, "Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment":

"Typical of Minkoff's methods was his response to the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Popularly known as the McCarran Act, it grew out of a three-year Senate study of the immigration quota system, launsched in 1947. The American Jewish Committee had been pressing the lawmakers to scrap the system as racist. Instead, Congress did the reverse.... NCRAC convened a meeting of Jewish defense agencies to review the McCarran Act and consider what to do next. Everyone agreed that the Jewish community must undertake a massive effort to repeal the quota system, but the ADL and the American Jewish Committee refused to join an operation under NCRAC auspices. Instead, Minkoff put NCRAC immigration specialist Jules Cohen in charge of a 'non-auspices committee,' operated by NCRAC under its 'non-auspices.' In 1955, this committee spearheaded the formation of a broad coalition for immigration reform, made up of civic associations, labor groups, and Protestant and Catholic groups. For a decade the coalition lobbied, leafleted, planted articles in magazines, and held public meetings on the racist nature of the immigration quota system. The entire operation was run by a steering committee of the 'non-auspices committee,' made up of four staffers from the three defense agencies and NCRAC. The quotas were finally repealed by the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, passed by Congress during the civil rights surge of President Lyndon Johnson's early years."

White, European, Catholics. With names like Mahoney and Kennedy.

But there's nothing in it for such people in evolutionary terms. It stands to reason that they are probably being manipulated by other living things whose interests are being served by their immigration activism.

1/22/2008 04:21:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

I don't see any organized Jewish community in my face in Los Angeles. I do see organized Catholics.

Here are the executive directors of the National Council of La Raza (The Race):


You were talking about the Catholic Church, and now you've changed over to La Raza. That doesn't work.

Even if all the La Raza people you named were Catholics, it wouldn't make matter. They're not acting on behalf of the Church; they're not acting as Catholics. They're acting as members of a race. The name "La Raza" ought to clue you in on that.

And we have no reason to think that the people you named are exclusively Catholic, by the way. In Texas, almost all the intelligent or successful Mexicans I encounter have Sephardic Jewish ancestry. They may practics Catholic rituals, but many also retain legacies of their Jewish religious past and, especially, Jewish associational patterns in which they tend to marry and engage in ethnic nepotism with other members of their historical community.

In the list of names you produced, I didn't see many apparently Sephardic names, though Andrea Bazan-Manson looked likely. She looks pretty Jewish to me:

http://www.boardwalkconsulting.com/Docs/Images/Andrea%20Bazan%20Manson.jpg

1/22/2008 05:33:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

As for MacDonald, yes, I've read him. His papers and his blog, available at his site.

MacDonald is the author of three books on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Reading MacDonald means reading those books, especially the first and the third.

It seems to me that he makes the same mistake most do in this area: he jumps to unwarranted conclusions from actual data.

Except that you don't know what his conclusions are because you haven't read his books, and you don't know what the data are for the same reason.

Until you understand MacDonald's theories, you can't argue that they're wrong.

1/22/2008 06:55:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

Thus, Jews are responsible for capitalist exploitation and communism at the same time, for example.

But there's no inconsistency there. Exploitative capitalism and communism are both examples of hyperindividualistic milieux in which a relatively cohesive group like the Jews can be expected to flourish.

1/22/2008 07:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Train Spotter said...

Auster always does that. If anyone notices and points out that Jews are at the controls of a sinking ship, then that person is automatically branded an "anti-Semite." Meaning he is effectively a non-person, a heretic, a hater, a racist. But then, what do you expect? He's Jewish; they all do that.

Whites will never be free until they lose their fear of being called stupid and false names like "anti-Semite," "racist," and "White Supermacist." And Whites will never be free from Jewish manipulation until they can separate themselves from Jews. Good blog, thank you for daring to speak out.

1/22/2008 07:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Immer Mehr said...

To anyone wanting the bald truth about Jews and how powerful and corrupt they are and how much they lie, read MacDonald's and David Duke's books. You couldn't ask for better documentation.

And just look at Vanity Fair's latest list of the 100 most powerful people: well over half are verifiably Jewish and many of the others depend on Jewish-run companies for their business. The Jerusalem Post even brags about how powerful Jews are. They own Hollywood, they own all of the major media -- ask Ted Turner how he liked being the only Gentile in the biz and how he got screwed by the other media moguls.

Jews have always been the leaders in communism, and open borders, and miscegenation. They are very rich, very powerful, and very influential.

Remember the "Oligarchs" who worked with the crooks at Harvard to steal 100's of billions of dollars from the WTO and Russia? Guess what tribe these "oligarchs" and Harvard profs belonged to?

Did you know most of the neo-con (neo-Marxist) leadership is Jewish, and that the main leaders are Eastern European Jews, former Trotskyists? Christian Science Monitor has a great article on these Jew-scumbags entitled, "Empire Builders."

It goes on and on. Check it out for yourself. Jews, as a group, are big-time parasites. It's time for a purge before they kill the host, just like they killed 10's of millions in Ukraine and the Soviet Union (Yes, they were the leaders there, too).

Holyhoax, terrorism, Iraq, 9-11; lies, lies, and more lies. Their father really is the devil, and the truth is nowhere in them.

1/22/2008 07:19:00 PM  
Anonymous jim jones said...

I agree with New Sisyphus that the Catholic Church (and many Protestant sects for that matter) are playing key roles in flooding the US with Third World peasants. With respect to encouraging Hispanic immigration, I have no doubt the Catholic bishops encourage this out of a sort of religious tribalism.

That said, Jews are just as active, if not more so, in the open borders movement, and more importantly, the effects of Jewish involvement are more malignant because the influence of Jews is stronger that that of the Catholic Church. Google the Lautenberg Amendment, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for starters. Do you ever wonder why the leading environmental group, the Sierra Club, does not oppose Open Borders, even though the increasing population of the U.S. is due almost soley to immigrants and their children? It's because their largest donor, a Jew, has threatened to cut off all donations if the Sierra Club agitates for immigration restrictionsim. Saving the environoment is good, but destroying white America is even better. Finally, it's worth noting that topics which are relevant to, but distinct from, open borders (e.g., awakening of white racial consciousness, minority-on-white crime) are monitored and kept in check by Jews, not Catholics.

1/22/2008 10:56:00 PM  
Anonymous jim jones said...

Tanstafl,

Here is a link on the Jewish role in immigration. Along with MacDonald's short piece on the role Jews played in the immigration battles up to 1965, it is one of the most damning pieces out there, as it comes from the horse's mouth (a former director with the American Jewish Committee).

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html

Keep up the good work. Oh, and I like your blog's appearance.

1/22/2008 11:11:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

flippityflopitty, for Auster "the majority" means the traditional White European Christian core of the US. The problem with the term is that it invokes the relatively cohesive 90% white, 10% black mix of the early 1960s. Those days and that cohesiveness are gone. These days, even with a looser definition, whites amount to 66% and falling. The demographic changes are due almost entirely to post-1965 immigration.

Exposing inconsistency and hypocrisy has played an essential role in my deprogramming. Over the past few years writing this blog I can see now that I've been noticing pieces of a bigger picture, glitches in the matrix, for a long time. The more pieces we uncover and share, the faster and more thoroughly we can root out the rot.


New Sisyphus, I understand what you're saying. Let me see if I can address two of your concerns I think are misplaced.

First, I am well aware of Catholic support for open borders. I have not written about it and do not dwell on it for the simple reason that many others do. Political correctness does not hamper anyone from criticizing Catholics, or Irish, or Italians, whether it's for their preponderence of support for immigration or for anything else. Nobody is going to show up here to label you a horrible anti-suchandsuch and say you're expressing crazy neo-crapzi theories that blame everything on the Catholics/Irish/Italians because you not-so-secretly hope to gas them all and therefore you should be silenced and cast out from polite society.

But that is what happens when you criticize jews.

Second, concerning jews. You can find exceptions to any sterotype. That does not invalidate them. Jewish support for open borders is at least as strong and monolithic as for Catholics. I can count on one hand the jews I know of who oppose immigration. I know of at least 10 times as many on the other side. I know exactly zero jews who reject the PC-based truth-suppressing smear tactics of crying "anti-semitism" and "Holocaust denial". Almost all oppose White nationalism. Does this differ from your experience?

Consider also their disproportionate power and numbers in media, education, business, and politics. Perhaps you have not seen the Vanity Fair story referred to by Immer Mehr? Or this? I can assure you that most Whites are not conscious of this dominance.

I, like you, haven't read MacDonald's books, only his blog and a few papers. I don't get the same negative impression you do. I don't sense he has any agenda other than to understand and explain the interplay of jewish and European group interests. I find his writing clear and sometimes technical, but not usually obscured by jargon. Overall it stands in welcome contrast to academia's postmodern babble norm. What I find most useful and informative are the plain facts MacDonald provides; the names, quotes, and history. If he scrubbed toilets for a living what he writes would be just as interesting to me - and just as valid.

As for "ultra-secret Jew powers", the main power I think jews have, and one that suffices to explain their success, is their belief that "good is what's good for jews". This is an insight, by the way, I first heard from Kevin MacDonald.


Ben Tillman, thanks for your detailed rebuttals. Much of the information was new to me.

1/23/2008 04:54:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Jim Jones, thanks. Steinlight is one of those few jews who oppose immigration. And in that paper he is refreshingly frank about jewish support for open borders.

1/23/2008 05:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Roach said...

It's funny he made fun of your name and typeface. He often resorts to such topic-changing tactics that are transparent to intelligent people whenever he is feeling the heat.

He once knocked John Kerry's courage in Vietnam for having left after sustaining three wounds. I responded by saying that he was awarded these by the military, its processes deserve some deference, and that someone who has not served in Vietnam who is the same age as Kerry probably does not have standing to question Kerry's courage. He of course flipped out.

Auster has a very wordy, Jewish way about him that is the reason frustrated Slavs used to sometimes just punch them in the face when they kept yapping.

1/23/2008 07:09:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

Tanstaafl wrote: "The deeper I dig the awfuller the truth gets".

Indeed. And the more that one looks through the lens of, say, Scientology or Swedenborgianism, the more they seem to explain the world. That's what cults are like. I predicted that Tanstaafl would continue his descent towards the Stormfront level. Now I see he's spelling "Jews" as "jews", in the preferred neo-Nazi style. One wonders how those closest to him regard his ongoing transformation...

1/23/2008 07:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And the more that one looks through the lens of, say, Scientology or Swedenborgianism, the more they [sic] seem to explain the world."

Sort of like a cult that views every single solitary expression of true Christianity or white solidarity as a sign of impending Holocaust. Talk about nuts!

1/23/2008 08:12:00 AM  
Anonymous adam said...

Anonymous said...
"And the more that one looks through the lens of, say, Scientology or Swedenborgianism, the more they [sic] seem to explain the world."

Sort of like a cult that views every single solitary expression of true Christianity or white solidarity as a sign of impending Holocaust. Talk about nuts!"

--Exactly! All these cults are nuts...

1/23/2008 10:35:00 AM  
Anonymous jim jones said...

Hey you bigots out there, capitalize that "j." The only thing worse than the "N-word" is the "small j- word."

1/23/2008 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Adam/Paul T.,

How do you reconcile your "descent", from a seemingly rational position...

Paul T. writes:

You (Auster) wrote: “If America had known when admitting Jewish immigrants between 1880 and 1920 that the descendants of those immigrants would oppose America’s right to have any future control over immigration, would America have admitted those immigrants in the first place?”

Beautifully put. My grandparents were Russian and Polish Jews who came here (i.e., to Toronto, Canada) between 1908-1923, and I’ve often found myself asking the same thing. In fact, awkward as this is to confess, I’ve increasingly asked myself whether Jewish immigration was on the whole a good or bad thing for Canada and the U.S., and I am coming around to the view that the negatives have outweighed the positives. Is there really any other way of seeing it? Another question which might appeal to alternate-history buffs is: if we hadn’t been allowed in, would North America be a liberal society today?


to calling T. a neo-Nazi?

Why not be constructive? How do Jews get past this...

"It's frightening, it's scary," he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up."

1/23/2008 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Hmmmmm ... "j" instead of "J" for jew. I hadn't noticed that before....

I see he also mixes his capital and lower case "w's" in white for effect.

And he purposely doesnt capitalize the "f" in flippityflopitty even though it starts a sentence....

Hmmmm ... there maybe something to all this.

1/23/2008 01:48:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Adam, I deliberately capitalize White and not any other group's name both to call attention to and to explicitly counter the anti-White norm. It's something I've only settled on recently, and I'm still not perfectly consistent, but thanks for noticing.

Neo-nazi is just another smear. I am a nationalist (as opposed to globalist) but I am most certainly not a socialist. I am not affiliated with any organization or even loosely organized "cult" that could be described as nazi-like. If you want to label me accurately you could call me White, or even a White separatist.

1/23/2008 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous jim jones said...

I just saw this on Majority Rights:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060707065055/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/730443.html

Look for the quote about cultivating ties with China and India. Bastards! After ruining the US, moving on to a new host to leech off of.

1/23/2008 05:30:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

With due respect to the learned Texan, Councillor Tillman, a true Southern gentleman, New Sisyphus, does have a point.

From Auster:

Religious breakdown of the vote on S.2611

VFR reader James R. has put together some fascinating information on how senators voted for the immigration bill by religious affiliation. He writes:

I found that Catholics voted 19-4 yes, with Bunning, Santorum, Sununu and Vitter voting no (Salazar did not vote). Jews voted 11-0 yes. The combined Catholic-Jewish vote was 30-4 in favor. Subtracting those 30 yes votes and 4 no votes from the 62-36 vote of the entire Senate leaves the remaining Senators voting 32-32.

Here is a list of just the Catholics and Jews:

Catholics—Yes (19)

Biden
Brownback
Cantwell
Collins
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Harkin
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Martinez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Voinovich

Catholics—No (4)

Bunning
Santorum
Sununu
Vitter

(Ken Salazar did not vote. Why not? It would have been yes)

Jews—All yes (11)

Boxer
Coleman
Feingold
Feinstein
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Schumer
Specter
Wyden


Unlike Jews, though, European Catholics do have an ethnic interest in keeping the borders open. Overwhelmingly the immigrant population in the US, whether originating in the Americas or Europe is Catholic. Mexicans dominate, in sheer numbers, however, there are still almost 900,000 Russians; 480,000 Poles, and 473,000 Italians of foreign birth residing in the US. Of the over 5 million European immigrants residing in the US, the majority are of southern and eastern European origin and Catholic.

The Inductivist wrote:

The General Social Survey asked respondents if they think about social and political issues as Americans or as members of an ethnic group. The obvious choice is blacks, right? Well yeah, there’s no news there. Listed below are the percent who answered ethnic group:

1. Blacks 43.5%
2. Mexicans 21.9
3. Jews 15.8
4. Italians 12.0
5. American Indians 7.8
6. Irish 5.1
7. Scots 4.8
8. English/Welsh 2.5
9. Germans .9


Auster then wrote at MR, June 1, 2006 at 06:04 AM :

What does this mean? It means that Catholics have become like Jews. Jews don’t favor open borders to get more Jewish immigrants; there are no Jewish immigrants to speak of. Jews favor open borders because they regard it as a moral obligation. It’s the same with the Catholics.

Which fundamentally contradicts what he wrote at Frontpage, June 22, 2004,

The real object of Jewish fears

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.


Both Catholics, overwhelmingly, and Jews unanimously, support open borders. The Catholics, even European Catholics, support o/b because it means more of their people in the US. The Jews, disproportionately represented in the Senate, support o/b not because they hope more Jews will emigrate, but because they fear and despise a monolithic European US.

1/23/2008 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009734.html

Mark A. asks (after Auster shoots off):

"I noticed you mentioned that he spells Jew in the lowercase "jew." He clearly is writing this to express a dehumanization of Jews. I agree. However, I must ask this: Why do I always see Gentile written in lowercase "gentile?" I have a liberal Jewish friend who writes to me and constantly capitalizes Jew and writes Gentile in the lowercase "gentile." I also see this in many publications. I thought Gentile was capitalized in the New Testament, yet I always see it written today in lowercase. Why is this?"

Auster replies:

"I think I generally capitalize Gentiles, but I'm not sure that it's a rule. After all, it's not strictly speaking a proper name, the name of a particular group. Gentiles comes from the Latin word for the Hebrew word goyim, meaning the nations, which in the Bible means the nations other than Israel. Goy is nation, goyim is nations. Israel is also a goy..."

He can read so much into you for not capitalizing "jew"; Gentile and "goyim" (I don't buy his explanation; perhaps not originally offensive, "goyim" has certainly become an insult) don't necessarily need to be capitalized, you see. Not that there's any offense meant in calling Whites "goyim" with a little g!

1/24/2008 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.amnation.com/
vfr/archives/009734.html

Link was cut off.

1/24/2008 10:50:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I tacked an update on the original post regarding Auster's "reply".

Thanks for the link anonymous.

Capitalization. Just another little glitch in the anti-White matrix.

1/24/2008 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

There are some different lines of thought emitting from your recent PC blogs. 1) The j-J-ewish influence on immigration (legal and illegal). Of which your point has been that they (the j-J-ews as a group) share in the blame for the current debacle. The contributions by this group are meaningless (based on the inapplicability to the argument not on the contribution); the history of prejudice against this group is meaningless (again with regards to applicability) and one of the real defining factors being the use of PC - by establishing and reinforcing the argument that they are an oppressed minority - creates the application of the "non-white" (aka minority) status. This status is further justified by the group's continued envelopment of this veil of PC despite the group's obvious success within American society.

As far as any minority abuse of PC, I agree the j-J-ews are as guilty as any other minority and we need to put a ray of sunshine on this issue.

2) White separatism, austeresque majority recognition and racial division. What I find disturbing is the clarity of racism (non-white on white) increasing in concert with illegal immigration (which makes perfect sense), the working of the system (both political and legal)and the subsequent (and anticipated) rise in white on non-white racism.

The w-nw racism will only further the goals of nw racism. How so? Through our own legal and political system. You will note there is never a law firm who will defend a municipality pro bono against illegal aliens but legal defense "groups" for the aliens pop out of the woodwork like cockroaches in the south bronx. And municipalities fold when they realize bowing to the aliens is far cheaper for the taxpayers than fighting.

SO concentrate on blame and hate. Get tribal. Hopefully the economy will continue to go in the shitter and our illegal aliens will be looking towards the strong euro next.

1/24/2008 02:17:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

Those "legal defense groups" aren't volunteering their time. They intend to get paid by the defendants. I read the fee applications in the Hazelton case, and they were outrageous. None of the lawyers even bothered to address the most fundamental predicate -- that they were hired by the plaintiffs. They just sort of show up and start running up a tab to be paid not by any client but by the taxpayer. I really should check on the status of those applications. I am a fee auditor by trade, or at least that's one of my practice areas.

1/24/2008 03:32:00 PM  
Anonymous WASPs are buggy said...

Ah yes. Wherever D Jones hangs his hat, one can certainly expect his stock railings against Catholics, Ukrainians and southern Europeans. When discussing these groups, Jews get a pass. When discussing WASPs and northern Europeans, well then, Jews are the culprits with their dastardly deceptions of God's children. LOL

Poor Jones and his band of merry WASPs. Attacked from all angles and always the innocent. Hypocrite is in the English dictionary, is not, Jones? Hahaha

1/24/2008 04:29:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925

Book by John Higham; Rutgers University Press, 1955

"Of all the groups who, through confidence or conviction, helped to turn back the tide of nativism, none was as resolute as the immigrants themselves. Already they had taken an active part in defeating the literacy test in 1897 and 1898, at the outset of the new era. In the twentieth century the immigrants stood out more and more among the forces mobilized against the returning currents of anti-foreign sentiment. In time, the general public assurance nourished by internal well-being and external conquest deteriorated, and large numbers of progressives renounced their jaunty optimism. Eventually, even the business support of immigration lost much of its vitality. But for the immigrants it was a matter of self-defense. Every symptom of reviving nativism aroused a fiercer, more militant immigrant opposition. Through individual appeals to public opinion, through organizations, and through political pressure, the immigrants fought back.

The burden of defense fell chiefly on the new immigrants. In contrast to the general anti-foreignism prevalent in the late nineteenth century, the attack now centered overwhelmingly on the peoples of southern and eastern Europe. The ties of common interest which elicited a united immigrant protest against restriction in 1897 were loose at best, and in the process of assimilation increasing numbers of old immigrants and their descendants were adopting the nativist distinction between themselves and the newer nationalities.

The rupture was not absolute, for some elements of the old immigration remained active in the resistance to nativism. The German-American Alliance, representing more than a million and a half members, signed an agreement with the Ancient Order of Hibernians in 1907 to oppose all immigration restriction. The Irish leaders who dominated the Catholic Church and in some sections bossed the Democratic party championed the interests of their southern and eastern European followers. 55 But the main effort had to come from the Slavic nationalities, the Magyars, the Italians, and the Jews. Of these, the Jews played by far the most significant role. Alone among all of the new nationalities, the Jews had an intelligentsia capable of reaching the American public and wealthy leaders well established in American life. They had also a keen sensitivity to slights and injuries and a tradition of fighting for their rights. They could supply much of the leadership and driving force for the immigrants' cause."

1/24/2008 11:44:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

KMac:

The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

1/24/2008 11:48:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

wab- If youre concerned that blame isnt being circulated fairly, lets flashfoward to the current immigration problem and see what some of our religious institutions think:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3687_77292_ENG_HTM.htm

"We call upon our elected officials to enact legislation that includes the following:

An opportunity for hard-working immigrants who are already contributing to this country to come out of the shadows, regularize their status upon satisfaction of reasonable criteria and, over time, pursue an option to become lawful permanent residents and eventually United States citizens;

Reforms in our family-based immigration system to significantly reduce waiting times for separated families who currently wait many years to be reunited;

The creation of legal avenues for workers and their families who wish to migrate to the U.S. to enter our country and work in a safe, legal, and orderly manner with their rights fully protected; and

Border protection policies that are consistent with humanitarian values and with the need to treat all individuals with respect, while allowing the authorities to carry out the critical task of identifying and preventing entry of terrorists and dangerous criminals, as well as pursuing the legitimate task of implementing American immigration policy."

So the WASPs are in on it too. Woop-dee-doo.

DJ - "If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves."

... and we have ourselves (and elected officials) to blame.

From 1965 thru 1995 we increased by app. 18 million legal immigrants. (app. 8 million from 1985 thru 2005) Then there is the 10 to 20 million illegals in the last 20 years (2x the legal number). We have ourselves to blame.

1/25/2008 12:02:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Blame ourselves? No. The responsibility for our shitstem isn't collective. Obviously at the very least there are those who protect it and those who oppose it, and they deserve distinction.

I'll admit I was a fool for lending a hand to this craptaculous anti-White system by studying and working while being oblivious to the anti-Whiteness of it all. For believing what I was taught in school about how our system of government and economy worked. For swallowing the lies of multiculturalism and diversity and anti-racism.

What I will not do is morally equivocate in any way these failures, which at worst could be characterized as a dereliction of duty, with willfully destructive acts such as duplicity, fraud, slander, and treason.

There are shades of gray. That doesn't mean there is no white or black.

1/25/2008 12:44:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

So you were the dope doing nothing in the car when your friends decided to rob the liquor store. I hope you dont plan on going the public defender route. It was (and is) our responsibility, there was (and is) a dereliction in duty and we must share blame AND take action. Pointing out hypocrisy and who to blame is great for shits and giggles but that "craptaculous anti-White system" is the one we have to work with.

BT - i agree with the clarification - it is contingency-based, yes? If they lose they get squat?

The point Im making is that such law firms do not exist for the typical municipal defendant aka the ultimate refillable cup of Joe (taxpayer). The muni in response to the mounting legal fees (and risk) settles or accepts lower court decisions. For example the Town of Mamaroneck (daylaborer lawsuit)and the City of Portchester (voting rights) both failed to take cases to the next level due to mounting legal fees. (Portchester is still deciding but the writing is on the wall - Thanks DOJ!)

The judicial deck is stacked.

1/25/2008 01:37:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Pointing out hypocrisy and who to blame is great for shits and giggles but that "craptaculous anti-White system" is the one we have to work with.

Nothing grows in an unfertilized garden. Some one is still spreading the manure.

1/25/2008 03:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Wasps are buggy said...

Eternally innocent and always victimized Jones states:

Nothing grows in an unfertilized garden. Some one is still spreading the manure.

Yes. And when you peel away all those villainous, non-northern Euro layers to get to the culprits that benefit the most from this monstrosity that is "multiculturalism", you see a f**king white WASP face along with his Jew buddies. It sure isn't the Wop, Spic, of Nog that reaps major power and untold fortune from this race traitor mentality that has seeped into the psyche of the WASP.

It is the WASP that has sold his own people down the river for fame and fortune. Why is that, Jones?

1/25/2008 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

While we're all busy spreading manure, who is going to sow seeds?

1/25/2008 05:28:00 PM  
Blogger Hibernia Girl said...

flippityfloppity: So you were the dope doing nothing in the car when your friends decided to rob the liquor store.

The analogy is not an apt one.

It would've been better to say:

"So you were the dope doing nothing in the car when your friends -- despite telling you repeatedly that they were going into the store merely to purchase some items -- decided to rob the liquor store."

1/25/2008 11:35:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Nooooo...Italian-American CEO Charlie Fote or his I/A replacement Michael Capellas didn't benefit at all from their deal with the Jews at KKR, did they Guido? An ol'Charlie and Western Union didn't benefit at all from that $10,000,000 immigrant fund.

And all those Catholic senators who voted for o/b never received any Jewish money, did they Guido?

If you and your people hate WASPs so much, why were millions of your countrymen so anxious to move to the Anglo world? No one held a gun to your head.

[t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth.

I hate you WASPs, now let us in your country you bastard. Sounds familiar somehow.

1/26/2008 05:15:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

While we're all busy spreading manure, who is going to sow seeds?

So you're saying the effort by MacDonald et al, is just a load of manure? Or is it that you have the seed franchise?

1/26/2008 05:23:00 PM  
Blogger New Sisyphus said...

Hey, here's a way to resolve this conflict and difference of opinion, conlusively.

As we all know, Hibernia Girl has been providing detailed, devastating reports of the on-going campaign to transform Ireland from an Irish nation to yet another multi-cultural wonderland.

So, Tanstaafl, all you have to do is to get HG to ring up the Irish Jews--all 14 of them--and ask them what they think they're up to in Ireland.

That sould resolve it.

1/26/2008 07:11:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

Where's the link between Ireland and the US? How does it prove Jews were not disproportionately involved in opposing US restrictionists?

1/26/2008 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

New Sisyphus,

So, Tanstaafl, all you have to do is to get HG to ring up the Irish Jews--all 14 of them--and ask them what they think they're up to in Ireland.

When you wrote that you've followed this debate closely I thought you meant more than you apparently did. I suggest you go back over my last half dozen posts.

Your first comment was good. This you-think-jews-control-the-world strawman is not. I think I understand your discomfort with the ideas here. We are all conditioned to detect and react negatively to any criticism of jews. We are also conditioned to exaggerate such criticism, which makes it easier to ridicule and ignore. I've read your blog. You seem an independent thinker. I don't mind if you disagree. Just please expend the energy to make more substantial arguments.

I don't know the causes of the immigration invasion in Ireland as well as I know them in the US. But certainly it involves what Auster calls liberalism, or what I have come to see as Universalism - an ideological partnership between progressivists and globalists. The former you might think of as the liberals, or communists. The other half is what many conservatives fail to see: the global capitalists. What these two supposedly antithetical ideologies share, each for their own reasons, is a penchant for upheaval. The progressives to achieve social change, the globalists to profit from economic churn. This is why both support mass immigration.

Ideologies are based on ideas, which know no borders. How many jews there are in Ireland is irrelevant. The Irish have become convinced by their Universalist elite that "diversity is a strength" and "immigration is good for the economy". That is all that is required.

1/26/2008 11:43:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

Sisyphus, there are more than 14 Jews in Ireland, but why would there need to be any for the "suicidal" immigration policy to be a result of Jewish efforts to advance their interests?

How many Americans were in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945?

Did, or did not, NATO's supreme commander General Wesley Clark say, "There is no place in Europe for ethnically pure states... That's a nineteenth century idea...."?

1/27/2008 12:06:00 AM  
Blogger Hibernia Girl said...

new sisyphus: So, Tanstaafl, all you have to do is to get HG to ring up the Irish Jews--all 14 of them--and ask them what they think they're up to in Ireland.

You're looking in the wrong place, NS. It's not the board members of La Raza or whatever pro-immigrant group that you need to scrutinize.

You need to be looking for who has been creating and promoting the major memes of our modern society. Who's forging the PC ideas that people everywhere -- including the masses in Ireland -- are swallowing without any critical thinking.

For that you need to look at the media -- newspapers, television, movies (which all have a global reach, now -- all the way to Kiltimagh even), the social sciences (Boas, Gould, Pinker as examples), not to mention economists.

The Jewish evolutionary "strategy" as suggested by MacDonald (a largely unconscious set of behaviours that have been selected for in an evolutionary sense because they benefit this particular group of people) is more subtle than you're imagining.

See also my comment in the next post for more on this.

(Note that Jewish people are not the only ones who have such sets of behaviours -- ALL groups exhibit such strategies -- they just differ from group to group.)

1/27/2008 12:37:00 AM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

Desmond, you have a point regarding the Irish in general, but they are an especially trusting people, susceptible to being taken advantage of by the driving force behind this phenomenon.

In “Jews and American Politics” by Stephen D. Isaacs (Doubleday 1974), the author reports the findings of a survey
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for Dr. Melvin Kohn of the National Institute of Mental Health. The survey attempted to assess various American ethnic groups’ comparable levels of distrust. The scale went from Plus 4 — most trusting — to Minus 4 — least trusting:

GROUP ORDER AND SCORE

+2.506 Irish Catholic
+1.583 Scandinavian Protestant
+1.481 Slavic Catholic
+0.767 German Protestant
+0.757 German Catholic
+0.502 Italian Catholic
+0.242 White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant
-3.106 Jewish

Thus, they tend to make excellent useful idiots (HiberniaGirl notwithstanding). Moreover, even the historical grievance against the English derives largely from the actions of a Cromwell acting under substantial Jewish influence.

http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzD.rtf

1/27/2008 01:00:00 AM  
Blogger Hibernia Girl said...

ben tillman: ...there are more than 14 Jews in Ireland....

Yes there are -- but there are not very many. According to the 2006 Irish census, there are 1,930 Jewish people in Ireland (total pop ca. 4.34M).

I don't know by what criteria Irish Jews judge themselves to be Jewish or not -- by ethnic background or religion or both?

The interesting thing is, even in Ireland (or perhaps because they are in Ireland where the average IQ is only 93) they still manage to rise to the top.

Despite Jews in Ireland being something like only 0.045% of the population, we nevertheless have a (at least partially ethnic) Jewish Minister of Finance -- Brian Cowen (i.e. Cohen). ;-)

1/27/2008 01:10:00 AM  
Anonymous wasps are buggy said...

Hahaha

Jones again plays the idiot while utilizing a strawman.

Nooooo...Italian-American CEO Charlie Fote or his I/A replacement Michael Capellas didn't benefit at all from their deal with the Jews at KKR, did they Guido? An ol'Charlie and Western Union didn't benefit at all from that $10,000,000 immigrant fund.

And all those Catholic senators who voted for o/b never received any Jewish money, did they Guido?

If you and your people hate WASPs so much, why were millions of your countrymen so anxious to move to the Anglo world? No one held a gun to your head.
.

Sorry Jones. You seemed to have missed the point. I never said I hated WASPS. I thought I made it clear that I hate your bigotry, ignorance and repeated nonsensical ramblings. You just happen to be an idiot WASP. Doesn't mean I hate all WASPS. Just idiots like you.

You see, it is your blind hatred of non WASPS that fog your shit filled eyes. It is the WASP who opened their borders for profit. It is the WASP who hated their lower class citizens. It is the WASP who sold their countrymen down the river for power and fortune. It is the WASP who brokered deals with Jews to attain their selfish goals. You seem to have missed these critical points in your frenzied pursuit to rid your dominion of non-WASPS. WASPS have their fare share of the blame and are not innocent "victims" at the hands of the Jew or the non-WASPS.

THAT is the point, stupid.

1/27/2008 07:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I’ll come straight to the point – I am originally from Israel, although, as I have pointed out elsewhere on this site, I consider myself first and foremost a Westerner. I will grant many of you this much: there has been very strong, disproportional involvement of Jews (but not all Jews) with the Left (by which expression I mean not just “classic” Communism and Socialism, but also the modern perversion, Ethno-Marxism/Multiculturalism). There was reason for this. It was perhaps excusable in the first part of the 20th century. It is no longer, and, in fact, the policy adopted by those certain Jews against which you protest has, in my opinion, been disastrous for Jews and Israel (yes, you read right). If anything, it has made the Jewish state a vassal state, incapable of taking of its national interests and, it seems, destined to die the death of thousand cuts.

But – to return into the example of Ireland – you see everything from a US point of view, where there is a very unique Jew-Gentile situation. It is not applicable to the EU. The Europeans have threaded the path leading to Multiculturalism for at least 60 years, way before there was a Jewish lobby in Washington DC. In fact, the ideas which have been behind the European Union can be traced back to Immanuel Kant and Grotius (no doubt, the more paranoid correspondents will succeed in finding some shady Jew behind these two. After all, someone here claimed Cromwell – Cromwell! – was a Jewish puppet). Most EU countries are hostile to Israel and friendly to the Arabs. The reasons for third-world immigration into the EU have nothing to do with those leading to the enactment of the 1965 legislation in the USA (no Jewish interests involved in pushing this type of immigration in Europe). Stop finding a role for Jews everywhere. The world is not America. You will be surprised how many Israelis understand why Europeans have had to create nationalistic parties as of late (go here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3498940,00.html seeing as you are obsessed with Jews, I am sure one of you will be able to read Hebrew. Check out the comments – do not fall of your seat). I certainly do.

Some Israeli

1/27/2008 09:17:00 AM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

I thought I made it clear that I hate your bigotry, ignorance and repeated nonsensical ramblings.

You sound like Auster, Guido. No way Tanstaafl can exclude Jews!!!

The beauty of the WASP evolved notion of freedom of association is that it doesn't matter a damn what you think. People should be free to associate or not for any reason they please. Your blessings are not required.

1/27/2008 05:02:00 PM  
Anonymous wab said...

Your blessings are not required.

Neither are your lies...or strawmen for that matter, stupid. ;)

Say, for a WASP, you sure don't read too good, does ya?

1/27/2008 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Some Israeli,

Stop finding a role for Jews everywhere. The world is not America.

Stop using this hackneyed tactic. It distracts from the bulk of your message, which concerns only what's good or bad for jews.

BTW, the world is not Israel or the EU either.

1/27/2008 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger Hibernia Girl said...

Some Israeli: The world is not America.

Oh no? Let's see what's on Irish telly today:

Judge Joe Brown
Dr. Phil
Sabrina, the Teenage Witch
King of Queens
Day Break
8 Simple Rules
South Park
One Tree Hill
Nip/Tuck
The Wire
Oprah
Judge Judy
Damages
Everybody Loves Raymond
Just Shoot Me
Frasier
Will and Grace
The Simpsons
Malcom in the Middle
Prison Break
Dawson's Creek
That 70s Show
Rachael Ray
Seinfeld
Party of Five
Buffy
Charmed
Friends
The Unit
Sopranos
CSI
Law and Order
Scrubs
Switched

And that's just from today's listings.

1/27/2008 11:07:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

BT - Ive worked with alot of Irish immigrants in the last twenty years and I would consider everyone of them a -3.0 to -4.0. They hate whats happening "back home" and they trust no one especially their govt and the EU. And that includes the illegal one's as well.

DJ - the agricultural remark appears to be confusing. All manure aside, my point is that you cant grow much (of value) with just manure. Now if you're suggesting manure (aka fertilizer to assist growth - not BS) is a fundamental part to this equation (ie, we need the MacDonald's of the world) - I agree with you. But you are not going to rid the USA of every non-anglo and at some point you will need to deal with them.

HG - How much of this change occurred after the "tech revolution"? Yet another example of western society "cost of living" itself out of the global market. Ireland is predominantly legal immigration as opposed to the US which is app. 50/50. Appears the corporatists feel the white-Irish-catholic labor pool is too pricey.

Unless of course the immigrants are doing jobs the Irish wont do.

1/28/2008 07:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tanstaafl said:

"Stop using this hackneyed tactic. It distracts from the bulk of your message, which concerns only what's good or bad for jews."

I hear what you say. To avoid a misunderstanding, let me state here I do not care a hoot what is good or bad for the Jews except in so far as they are – whether you like it or not – a part of the West. The use of the “hackneyed tactic“ was driven perhaps by my frustration with the stupidity of following a certain path by any people and the even greater stupidity of those thinking there is some wonderfully devious “secret plan” behind this (which is about as devious as the plan lemmings execute every few years. The elders cannot be as clever as you seem to think).

My main point was that – regardless of what has been happening in the US in the last 60 years – there was a similar process taking place in the EU, said process not having been driven by Jewish 5th column or their willing helpers, the Simpsons and Buffy the vampire slayer (as HG would have us believe).

On the assumption that you believe me when I say I did not come here to taunt you or cause confusion amongst your followers, may I ask you the following questions:

- Do you believe Jews are genetically incorrigible? Or is it confined to some of them?
- If the first, what would you do with Jews living amongst you?
- Would you make the same rule for IRA-supporting Irish? Italian Mafiosi? Any descendent of Europeans who professes to have a “soft spot” for the old country?
- How would you treat members of the lobby you do not mention (the pro-Saudi one: you know, the oil companies. Far more powerful than IPAC, SPLC and the rest of them)?

Those are serious questions, no tricks or Mossad agents involved.

Thanks.

Some Israeli

1/28/2008 10:24:00 AM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

"But you are not going to rid the USA of every non-anglo and at some point you will need to deal with them."

Agreed. However, it is just as likely that you will not rid the US of every Jew, or non-white. Again the issue must be dealt with and the suggestion is freedom of association. Currently the US is more or less segregated on an ethnic/racial basis; the Jews live together, the blacks, Mexicans and Italians are basically self-segregated. Make that which is de facto de jure. It's not everything, but it's a starting point.

1/28/2008 03:31:00 PM  
Anonymous desmond jones said...

"My main point was that – regardless of what has been happening in the US in the last 60 years – there was a similar process taking place in the EU, said process not having been driven by Jewish 5th column or their willing helpers, the Simpsons and Buffy the vampire slayer (as HG would have us believe)."

But there was of course. The military forces of the government of the USA. Why do you think US troops are still in Europe sixty plus years since the conflagration ended? Do you actually believe that the US governing elites, in some cases disproportionately Jewish, will allow the rising of an ethnic nationalism in Europe?

If so why Serbia? Master Tillman alluded to the words of Wesley Clark, part Jewish, although it may not matter,

"There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th-century idea, and we're trying to transition into the 21st century, and we're going to do it with multi-ethnic states."

-- General Wesley K. Clark, Supreme Commander of NATO, interview with CNN, April 1999

1/28/2008 03:40:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Some Israeli,

The use of the “hackneyed tactic“ was driven perhaps by my frustration with the stupidity of following a certain path by any people and the even greater stupidity of those thinking there is some wonderfully devious “secret plan” behind this

The number of people who believe in "some wonderfully devious “secret plan”" is, in my experience, extremely small. It certainly doesn't justify the much larger number or the great frustration of the people who claim to oppose such stupidity. If it is so stupid why must it be so vigorously opposed?

Your disproportionate frustration and exaggeration reveal your own extremely strong ethnic/racial interests. Good for jews. Not so good for anyone who isn't.

Here and many other places that hackneyed tactic is deployed the actual argument is over the damage jews as a group have done to other groups. I am particularly interested in the negative effects upon Whites. Anyone can talk all they want about how Whites have ruined the planet or exploited other groups or are ignorant rednecks. Jews in general do not oppose this, on the contrary they are prominent in such criticism. But nobody can mention this or any other involvement of jews in harming Whites, at all, without being attacked as a crazy imbecile who thinks the world is controlled by jews.

I find this reaction revealing, and the usual justifications for it (for example yours) to be where stupidity comes into play.

For answers to your questions you can read what I've previously written and stick around to read what I have yet to write.

Here's a question for you:

In what ways do you think jews have harmed Whites, and what do you think jews should do about it?

1/28/2008 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Desmond, I agree, freedom of association is a "fundamental human right", as liberals might call it - if they actually believed in rights.

I simply recognize it as a biological imperative. Humans cannot control what attracts or revulses them. I don't expect or desire to associate with someone who pretends they can.

1/28/2008 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

DJ - "Freedom of association." Is anyone stopping you from sitting in your home refusing to associate with society?

"Currently the US is more or less segregated on an ethnic/racial basis" - everywhere except here in New York Shitty. SO you have your self-segregated society and your "freedom to associate" is hindered by what - the neighbor's mexican landscaper, the pizza delivery guy, the 7/11 far easterner? Or dare I say the post-1960 school desegregation? So how do we segregate you from the 100 million non-whites in America? There are a heckuva lot more of them than you (plural) - it would be easier to round-up and relocate your people. We can start out with voluntary relocation followed by forced removal for the hardliners. (envisioning of the Holy Land)

In any event the result you want is already occurring - the latinos are pushing the whites out of the southwest - some are leaving voluntarily, some are hardliners. If we let the de facto continue, the southwest will be the los estados no blancos. But that's ok - nature runs its course and our natural affinity to segregate takes hold.

And we can repeat this practice in every major metropolis - but, lo and behold - it already happened once (ie, white flight) but the GAYS followed by the liberal hipsters screwed that up by investing in the shitty neighborhoods and displaced the minorities out into the suburbs.

So the j-J-ews are actually HELPING the process along - those on the front lines need to move out of the way of "progress". Gotta break a few eggs ...

Oh what a tangled web ...

1/29/2008 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

"In what ways do you think jews have harmed Whites, and what do you think jews should do about it?"

In the anti-kumbaya worldview you present - absolutely nothing and absolutely nothing. Deny you've harmed anyone and/or say the past is meaningless. And state there is nothing to be done - its the natural state of being - j-J-ews are at the top of the food chain - you watered-down genetically inferior whites need to accept your place. j-J-ews have the current advantage of being in power with PC privileges. Its like the next president getting into office and saying "Hey, let's take away all the executive powers GWB worked so hard to get." Can you say - "not gonna happen?".

If its every group for themselves, why would YOU give an inch back?

1/29/2008 02:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

Is anyone stopping you from sitting in your home refusing to associate with society?

No, however, that's not the point.

This is the point:

When London, Ont. lawyer Edward Richmond died in January at the age of 80, he left behind a legacy which ensures to this day that no resident of Ontario will ever be prevented from buying a home by reason of race, creed or colour.

It all started out in April, 1948, when Bernard Wolf, the owner of a successful ladies wear store in London, Ont., signed an agreement to buy a cottage property in the exclusive Beach O' Pines subdivision on the shores of Lake Huron near Grand Bend.

He hired young Ted Richmond, fresh out of law school, to handle the $6,800 purchase.

Richmond thought it was going to be an ordinary real estate transaction until he searched the title.

Examining the historical documents, he discovered a registered restriction or "covenant" in a 1933 deed. It provided that the land could never be sold, used, occupied or rented "by any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, Semitic, Negro or coloured race or blood."

The document's stated intention was to restrict the use, ownership and enjoyment of the whole recreational development "to persons of the white or Caucasian race" not otherwise excluded by the prohibition.

1/29/2008 06:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

According to Bob Aaron, a Jewish real estate lawyer in Toronto, it was the Canadian Jewish Congress that financed the appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the same time, the Canadian Jewish Congress formed a behind-the-scenes committee to monitor the proceedings, provide advice and, eventually, financial assistance. Heading the committee was law professor Bora Laskin ,( later to become Chief Justice of Canada).

The Supeme's voided the covenant based on a technicality.

The Beach O' Pines case exploded when one justice asked the association's counsel what would happen if a gentile man [small "g"] bought a cottage, married a Jew, and then died.

The Jewish widow would inherit the cottage, but the Supreme Court justice wanted to know whether the covenant would be enforceable in this circumstance.


However, the Court did leave intact racial restrictions declaring them not contrary to public policy.

While the parties were waiting for the Supreme Court to hand down its decision, the Ontario government bowed to public pressure as a result of the Wolf and Noble case.

It passed a law voiding restrictive covenants entered into after March 24, 1950, but it did not cancel out the old ones.

1/29/2008 07:43:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

DJ - I am by no means an expert on law (let alone Canadian law). But the few "summaries" Ive read indicate there are additional precedents ( '40s & '50s) by which the court (specifically the Mackay court) considered the restriction on the basis of race (objectionable or otherwise) to violate agreements (international - which I dont believe carries much weight) and Canadian law - Racial Discrimination Act & Insurance Act of 1944 (Which regardless of the looseness of the legislation carries weight).

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q5telT6zFRUC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=beach+pines+canada+case&source=web&ots=a4AzuHn0Dj&sig=j70KK0RgoXARxrE_AE0P0RyipZg#PPA303,M1

This is just another example of how white nationalists missed the memo on the PC-based racist tactics. You dont put in writing "No j-Jews, niggers or guidos ..." - you form collective real estate associations that require the transfer of any association property back to the association and the association then sells the property. This is done everywhere people want to restrict the buyers - for example, in sections of NYC, there are j-Jewish properties that are sold back to the community or their "representative" and the cost to buy it is so out of whack with real estate values the only one who can afford it are those who can get "financing" from the another community member. Basically, they use monopoly money to "put the fix in" and keep the community in the hands of their own. I found out from co-workers who refused to buy into the program.

"Is anyone stopping you from sitting in your home refusing to associate with society? " & "But you are not going to rid the ..."

That is the point - it's not 1949, the demographics have changed significantly and the laws or interpretations have changed to reflect no discrimination. Having a j-Jew inherit or freely purchase a property is a far cry from forced integration (ie, City of Yonkers v. Unitede States). In which case a judge mandated the City of Yonkers "sprinkle" minority housing units throughout the city to ensure even distribution throughout the school district.

If you dont like your neighbors (today) - move. But keep in mind, you may not like your new neighbors tomorrow. Deomgraphics change.

Canada has what 15-20% non-white and about 5% j-Jew total pop? You cant find a place to live?

1/31/2008 07:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

Yea, 15-20% on average, however, Toronto is at least 50% non-white and Anglos are maybe 12% of the city population down from 90% in 1970. Sure you can find a place to live if you want to sacrifice your income, services, hospitals, education for your kids etc.

The current federal gov't did not offer amnesty and did deport some illegals, however, for WNs it was a big joke because many/most of the illegals are Portuguese.

If demographics have changed forever, and anti-discrimination laws can never be revoked, then what's next? Separation? Maybe in Quebec, but that a fight that's over three centuries old and is looking less winnable all the time.

Already the ethnics are excluding whites from employment opportunities in hospitals; can't work here because the population we serve speaks Punjabi and you don't. Muslim only communities, every home with a mosque-view, that welcomes everyone, however, you know no one but Muslims will buy there.

What do you suggest Flip?

1/31/2008 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

If the ethnic situation is bad - ie, lost job/wages, reduction in services, quality of life, schools underperforming - it seems like moving is a realistic consideration. For many of us this means a significant sacrifice - costs, kids, family - weighed against the greater "risk" of staying.

I consider myself lucky that (currently) my kid's schools are the pressing problem. I dont know what I would do if I couldnt sell my house or worse yet not afford to buy a house where I want to live. Currently I have the option of starting college tuition payments for my kids' grammar school.

If you are inundated, its not going to change, so get your exit strategy going. If its impending, prepare your parachute.

Portuguese - that is a bad joke. Keep in mind - you are being outbred as well. Even if the govt shuts the door, the existing "legal" population is outbreeding the "native" populations (another 3rd World attribute).

You can always be noble and just put your kids on the right path. Some day they might come back and relocate you.

1/31/2008 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

The Canuck buck is pretty strong. Move to Vermont.

1/31/2008 01:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Some Israeli said...

Tanstaafl sasked:

“In what ways do you think jews have harmed Whites, and what do you think jews should do about it?”

If you expect me to deny the bad things certain Jews have promoted, such as the Immigration Act 1965, and the disproportionate amount of leftist Jews involved in this, I have to disappoint you. This is all too well documented to be denied by any honest person. However, where we depart is as follows:

1. The Jews in question acted not for the “tribe” but for their own ideological reasons (they were very good in obtaining support from many of their co-religionists by making sure no one forgot the closing of the gates during the 1920s and the 1930s), namely, the destruction of the West from within. This was never a Jewish strategy and only became possible because of:

- The rise of the ideas of Socialism and Communism which were by no means latched unto by Jews exclusively (don’t start mentioning Marx, please. He was as Jewish as Chomski. Moreover, his ideology was merely the logical conclusion of the ideas of the French revolution).
- Adolf Hitler, who, by taking to extreme things which were accepted as the normal results of ethnic conflict, ensured that those who wished to castrate the West (Jews and Gentiles) obtained respectfulness – even if their ideas were just as crazy as Hitler’s (but in the other direction).

2. You conveniently forget that those leftist Jews were not alone, or even the most influential. Antonio Gramsci was no more a Jewish puppet than Robert Kennedy, and those are just two. In this, you are not being honest. You also fail to mention prominent right wing, patriotic Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Rickover or http://people.sinclair.edu/thomasmartin/knights/ I have many more examples). Your portray of Jews is one sided and – although you may say I am patronizing – is counterproductive to your cause.

3. Again, in connection with the previous point, if Jews had any influence, this was more in the US than anywhere else. To the poster who thinks the US forces and NATO were created to defend Jew –promoted multiculturalism, well, it was not the Jew-controlled US who made the Germans, the Austrians, the French and the English to invite hordes of Turks, Arabs and Pakistanis into their countries.

Most Jews were not involved in this. They, just like everyone else, got along with living their lives, getting married, were having children and so on. To the extent that they supported these ideologues, they were (and are) in my opinion, useful idiots and dupes. They are as victims of this state of affairs as you are.

What should Jews do? Well, if you accept my thesis, my prediction is that they, just like most Gentiles, will do nothing until the horrors of diversity start hurting, which, going by the example of South Africa, will happen sooner or later. In so far as people who have woken up manage to shake them from their stuppor, the damage will be more confined. I doubt however, that your line of reasoning will have much success with any Jews.

Lastly, as for Serbia, see just these two links showing, quite demonstratively, what I have said – there is no unified Jewish policy.

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jfr990401_02_n.shtml
http://byzantinesacredart.com/blog/2006/11/israel-supports-serbia.html

2/03/2008 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Some Israeli,

1. The Jews in question acted not for the “tribe” but for their own ideological reasons (they were very good in obtaining support from many of their co-religionists by making sure no one forgot the closing of the gates during the 1920s and the 1930s), namely, the destruction of the West from within.

They most certainly do act for the benefit of their group. Both those who want the borders open so that jews from anywhere can enter, and also those who do not like a White Christian majority (quoted in the original post), ostentiably because the goyim might at any moment lose their collective mind and suddenly start oppressing jews - for no reason at all of course. Note that I use the present tense because jewish advocacy for open borders has not diminished. Perhaps half of it will as the White Christian majority is reduced to a minority.

2. You conveniently forget that those leftist Jews were not alone, or even the most influential. Antonio Gramsci was no more a Jewish puppet than Robert Kennedy, and those are just two. In this, you are not being honest. You also fail to mention prominent right wing, patriotic Jews

Yes, let's be honest and admit that jews are not the only liberals, but they are grossly overrepresented. Let's be honest and admit that much of what we call liberalism today - especially the multiculturalism, race-denial, identity politics, feminism - are monolithic jewish priorities, founded, funded, and proselytized in large part by jews. Let's be really honest and admit that you will never hear that said in any major newspaper, TV channel, or movie in the US. Saying it in many European countries would be a crime. Can you be that honest?

Most Jews were not involved in this.

Again, let's be honest. The point is not absolute numbers or even the proportion of jews, it's a question of proportion and power relative to everyone else. Considering their own morals and hypersensitivity to genocide I expect the majority of jews to be more sympathetic to the plight of Whites than they appear to be. Instead most are indifferent, or worse. When Susan Sontag said "the white race is the cancer of human history" why did jewish leaders and ordinary folk alike not overwhelmingly repudiate her? Why was she not banished forever from "polite society" as people who say even less extreme things about jews are?

Likewise Noel "Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed" Ignatiev. He's still alive and spewing his hate but the SPLC hasn't even noticed him, much less brought suit to silence him.

2/04/2008 02:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Some Israeli said...

Tanstaafl,

Listen, I have no time to lecture to you about the full history of the Jews in the last 120 years (this is the period in which Jews came to prominence in the West. I will not have a discussion with anyone who thinks, for example, Jews controlled Oliver Cromwell. This is just too stupid), so it’s a question of you taking my word for it: I am not denying that, by and large, Jews were more susceptible to the siren-song of Left-wing liberalism which, as Laurence Auster so correctly explains, has spawned the current suicidal creed of Ethno-Marxism. I maintain however that in this they were duped by a minority who used the “survival of the tribe” argument very well. Notwithstanding the persecution Jews suffered during the generations, convincing large swaths of the “tribe” in the correctness of this approach was like taking candies from a child. I further maintain this was not done with a view to benefit Jews as a whole but to promote the (ultimately) insane ideology of these people. My proof is that the same ideology, which is the ideology of the ruling establishment in Israel (FYI, Ariel Sharon and the Likud party, the favourite targets of all Paleo-Conservatives in the US are, in my eyes, centre-Left), is leading to the certain destruction of the only Jewish state. Please think on this for a moment: a “divide and rule” tactic is used with the sole aim of dividing your enemy, not your OWN people.

I am very, very glad, you mentioned that harpy Sontag, the same Sontag who, in 2000 and in the midst of suicide bombers wreaking havoc on the buses and the shopping malls of Israel, had the temerity of telling Israelis they should not do anything to stop the carnage, and simply capitulate to all of Arafat and his cronies’ demands. In case you do not understand: she expected Israel to commit suicide to please the “Other” well, because the Other is always right. She was making no difference between the fate she had in mind for her fellow Jews and that she has in mind for Whites in America.

Tanstaafl, if you think a Feminist Sontag, an old Maoist like Ignatiev or the SPLC (plague on their heads all) care about Jews, you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about. These people are nominally Jews, but in fact, they hate classical Jewish beliefs with passion and as much as they loath the classical Western culture.

As I see it, the only argument one may have is that yes, Jews have disproportionably followed Leftist ideas, but to the extent that these ideas are ruining the West, this did not take place because Jews are so genetically inclined (as Prof. Macdonald proposes). Rather, they were susceptible to propaganda which, ultimately, was also used against Whites in the US (I am leaving the EU for another day, because I do not think the same conditions prevailed here at all).

I am waiting to see how you propose a solution to this problem which does not involve following the same route taken by A. Hitler. FYI, I too have a position on this but I will wait until I hear what your thoughts are.

2/10/2008 02:07:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I have read enough history to know that jews are not so much susceptible to collectivist leftist-liberalism as they are it's source, it's torch bearers through the ages. And proud of it. Whether or not it is good for jews is your concern, not mine. Likewise Sontag, Ignatiev, SPLC, and all the other secular jews gnawing away at the foundations of Western civilization. The reason I oppose what they're doing is because it harms me, my family, and other Whites.

It is less important to me to know precisely why they harm Whites as it is to recognize, denounce, and stop them from doing so.

You seem to realize all this but still can't help trying to tell me what I can and can't think. Shove it.

2/16/2008 06:55:00 PM  
Anonymous ben tillman said...

As I see it, the only argument one may have is that yes, Jews have disproportionably followed Leftist ideas, but to the extent that these ideas are ruining the West, this did not take place because Jews are so genetically inclined (as Prof. Macdonald proposes).

Actually, he proposes no such thing.

Rather, they were susceptible to propaganda which, ultimately, was also used against Whites....

Propaganda emanating from what source, for what purpose? This sort of apologia makes no sense.

2/19/2008 01:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home