Usurp This
Kevin MacDonald is a White advocate who has been condemned for expressing politically incorrect thoughts:I am morally certain that Jewish involvement in the radical left in the early to middle part of the last century was a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for many of the horrific events in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. (About this, of course, one can disagree. I am simply saying that I find the evidence compelling.) But the main point is that I came to see Jewish groups as competitors with the European majority of the U.S., as powerful facilitators of the enormous changes that have been unleashed in this country, particularly via the successful advocacy of massive non-European immigration into the U.S. I found that I was being transformed in this process from a semi-conservative academic who had little or no identification with his own people into an ethnically conscious person -- exactly as predicted by the theory of social identity processes that forms the basis of my theory of anti-Semitism (see MacDonald 1998a). In fact, if one wants to date when I dared cross the line into what some see as proof that I am an 'anti-Semite,' the best guess would probably be when I started reading on the involvement of all the powerful Jewish organizations in advocating massive non-European immigration. My awareness began with my reading a short section in a standard history of American Jews well after the first book was published. The other influences that I attributed to Jewish activities were either benign (psychoanalysis?) or reversible -- even radical leftism, so they didn't much bother me. I could perhaps even ignore the towering hypocrisy of Jewish ethnocentrism coinciding as it does with Jewish activism against the ethnocentrism of non-Jewish Europeans. But the long-term effects of immigration will be essentially irreversible barring some enormous cataclysm.The immigration invasion clearly enriches and delights a small number of people even as it produces disastrous consequences for most natives and our progeny.
For a long while it puzzled me why the ruling class would tax, prosecute, and demonize citizens while they simultaneously excuse, forgive, and sanctify immigrants. Why do they not sympathize with their own people?
Polite society has no answers. If you ask the only answer you get is, "shut up racist". Why? Because it is all about race.
The rulers consider themselves distinct and superior. They are outsiders and natives blinded by greed who have thrown in with the outsiders - adopting their rootless cosmopolitan values, fraudulent tactics, and totalitarian goals.
As their power has increased they have grown ever more explicitly and viciously anti-White. Nowadays they openly mock "flyover country" and the "rednecks" who inhabit it. They no longer feel constrained by the votes, laws, traditions, or heros of the "xenophobic" "hill-billies". They're importing new citizens. For the deracinated native collaborators it's just business. The labor is cheap, the profit great. For the true outsiders it's more than business. It's also hypocritical hyper-racist payback for what they see as millenia of unrelenting and undeserved persecution at the hands of an ungrateful European "host". The non-white hordes will end that most horrible jewish nightmare, White nationalism, and present a final solution to the White cancer - by destroying the White race.
Is it clear now why the shysters at the SPLC hound MacDonald but have precious little to say about Sontag or Ignatiev? They are anti-White. With every victory in the culture war the scapegoating and dehumanization of powerless Whites as "neo-Nazis" and "White supremacists" becomes ever more absurd. Does Kevin MacDonald or any of the other people that anti-anti-semites demonize wield anywhere near the social, economic, or political power they do?
Since when has a pro-White leader had any influence on public policy?
It was before our military became the world's police. Before forced integration. Before our women and college kids freaked out. Before our borders were erased. Before our government sold its citizens to Wall Street, who sold them to the Arabs and Chinese. Before it became a requirement for US politicians to don a yarmulke and pray at the Wailing Wall. Before scatology became prime time humor and perversion became the norm. Before pro-White speech became hate speech, and pro-White thoughts became thought crimes.
Everything went to hell when the parasitical, traitorous usurpers took over. They profit from and celebrate the disowning, disenfranchisement, and displacement of my people. For the moment they still fear having to answer for it. This is why anything but celebration is very strictly discouraged.
Our rulers do not believe in civil rights or free speech. That is but cud for their cattle. In their minds they are our superiors and we have no right to indict them. I think otherwise. I support men like Kevin MacDonald who dig up evidence and supply the indictment.
Labels: jewish influence, kevin macdonald, noel ignatiev, susan sontag, white nationalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 4/14/2008 01:15:00 AM
57 Comments:
How common is this knowledge now, do you think? I've known these things for a few years now, thanks to writers like Prof. MscDonald and bloggers like you. I'm glad more people are discovering the truth of the situation, but I'd like to see more action. Where is the leadership?
Rusty, clearly these issues are not commonly known, which is why anti-racists, anti-anti-semites, and invasion supporters are able to sound plausible when they call their opponents "extremists" who believe in "conspiracy theories". There are indeed few who see clearly and speak openly against anti-Whites.
The main reason for this is because the anti-Whites have used their economic and political power to make speaking out against them costly. While academia is full of pro-black, pro-latino, pro-asian, and pro-jew professors - who all happily celebrate each other - there are precious few pro-Whites, and those few, like Kevin MacDonald and Robert Griffin, are constantly defamed, threatened, and abused.
The media is part of the problem. They regularly celebrate the "undocumented migrant" and bash the "racist nativist". They echo and amplify the SPLC's anti-White slander.
The underlying assumption that is the basis for both the academic and media propaganda is that pro-White is evil. It manifests itself as racist demonization of Whites as Whites. The idea is that Whites aware of themselves as a group and pursuing their interests as a group must inevitably harm every other group, but especially jews. This idea is a terrible hypocrisy coming from jews. They have literally hundreds if not thousands of organizations that exist for the sole purpose of advancing their group interests. They survived and even thrived as one after another of their European hosts dissolved and disappeared. They have their own nation that defines itself in racial terms. Yet they show their hostility toward Whites by supporting organizations like NAACP and NCLR while opposing and defaming pro-White organizations.
Before Whites can expect action or leadership they must be aware of what is happening. Instead we are fed such a steady diet of anti-White propaganda that it seems normal, and many suicidally join the anti-White chorus. Some perhaps think this will benefit them. What they fail to realize is that the non-whites who disingenuously accuse Whites of equating race with skin color have no qualms themselves about acting against Whites based purely on skin color. It doesn't matter in the end how anti-racist Whites act. Consult, for example, the case of Geraldine Ferraro's criticism of Obama.
The assholes who insult Whites generally, and especially those who attack White advocates, are enemies. Mortal enemies. They project their own destructive desires and ruthless behavior onto Whites. It is an inversion of reality. Non-whites, foremost among them jews, are the ones in the advantaged position, and they are the ones using that advantage to harm us.
Thank you. Have you thought about publishing articles on some sites that carry more traffic? Your thinking on these matters seems clear and thorough, and your passion shows clearly. Where do you go from here? If spreading the word is capital, then how do you propose to widen your audience? I wonder if KMac might have any suggestions for you. Anyway, still a good blog you have here -- very interesting and helpful.
Tanstaafl,
I am not entirely sure that I disagree with you but I think that I might. To name several Jews that promote mass immigration is fine as far as it goes, but it seems to me that you and MacDonald impute to Jews as an American ethny power they do not have. I can plainly see with my own eyes the threat blacks as a race pose to American society, but I guess that I am too dim to see the threat Jews as a race pose. I just don't see it. The Jews I have known in my own life simply do not fit your description, which seems more myth than truth to me. Maybe I just don't see, but if I don't see, I would not pretend that I do see.
Many white Gentiles support mass immigration, especially among our elites. Are we really that stupid, to be manipulated so easily by Jewish opinion? Somehow I don't think so; I think that we white Gentiles must independently shoulder our share of the blame.
I am not Auster. I am open to education in the matter. But I simply do not yet believe that our problems are essentially Jewish in nature. Blacks and to a lesser extent some other minorities are the visible social irritants. You will perhaps respond that that is precisely the point, that the Jewish influence is insidious, invisible. But then you will forgive me for skepticism regarding the existence of a conspiracy I cannot really see.
Howard
Howard wrote,
To name several Jews that promote mass immigration is fine as far as it goes..."
"The Jews I have known in my own life simply do not fit your description, which seems more myth than truth to me. Maybe I just don't see, but if I don't see, I would not pretend that I do see."
Howard, I know many liberals, some downright commies, and they are all very nice people. But they still work tirelessly to destroy my country. Even the Devil is nice to you. You are confusing individual with group behavior, and nice with good.
Howard wrote:
"Many white Gentiles support mass immigration, especially among our elites. Are we really that stupid, to be manipulated so easily by Jewish opinion?"
Howard, if my tribe controlled all of the major media, the largest publishing houses, most of higher academia, the largest brokerage houses, the central bank, and was by far the largest contributor to both political parties, we could get you to believe anything at all. Haven't you researched anything at all on this?
Howard wrote:
"I am open to education in the matter."
Ya, right. How many times do we hear that? If you are indeed sincere (which I doubt), then stop the ignorant criticism and actually read MacDonald's work.
Howard wrote:
"But I simply do not yet believe that our problems are essentially Jewish in nature."
Yes and no. Yes, Whites have gotten lazy. But how can people function normally when the people in charge hold the reins of information and power?
Tanstaafl has given you all the leads you need to start investigating his comments. So far, you have chosen to ignore the facts and just lauch into criticism. One cannot help those who chose to remain ignorant.
Not to derail the discussion, but Auster is getting a dose of his own medicine. A Jewish commenter has charged that Auster isn't anti-anti-Semitic enough! (Of course, Auster has tremendous patience with this person, unlike with us.)
This message replies to Anonymous and Flippityflopitty.
Anon:
If you are indeed sincere (which I doubt), ...
It is perhaps too much for me to expect a warm welcome from all of Age of Treason's readers, who quite properly seek such places of refuge as this blog from the suffocation of Political Correctness. I cannot help it if you doubt my sincerity. I just don't grasp the anti-Semitic thing. A dim bulb I may be, but a sincere one I remain.
... then stop the ignorant criticism and actually read MacDonald's work.
I read one MacDonald article about two years ago. I remember thinking that MacDonald's points seemed valid as far as they went but that there was an overall lack of a sense of perspective. I bear no animus toward MacDonald, but neither have I read his work since that time---until today, when on your invitation I have followed the link.
Unlike Tanstaafl, MacDonald admittedly comes across to me as a strident, inflexible, difficult person. Now, I don't know the man, but if you cannot find a way to get along with people and if, at the same time, you publicly promote unpopular views, then folks are going to turn their shoulders against you when the anti-American, Jewish moles at SLPC come to persecute you. That is the way of the world and always has been. Nothing you or I will say or do can change that.
If I am wrong about MacDonald, if it turns out that he is an unimpeachable gentleman whose neighbors, golf partners and grandchildren love him, then I will gladly take it all back. But if I am not wrong... Look, I have seen MacDonald's apparent type before. The problem usually isn't in their views as such; it's in their personalities and in their lack of respect for the feelings and sensibilities of the people around them. If you're going to make yourself a target, then you will need friends who won't desert you when the time comes. Where are MacDonald's friends? Does he have any? Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, had friends; why not MacDonald?
I misspoke about the Jewish conspiracy, incidentally. I do believe that there exists a Jewish media conspiracy of sorts. I just don't think that we white Gentiles can rightly blame our own, dysfunctional opinions on it.
FF:
You sound like you are half in the camp and half out.
Good diagnosis. I think that you are right.
You hold onto the individual successes you are familiar with.
I do not know how else to judge.
Fighting anti-white racism with racism is not a solution.
Though I prefer my own kind, it's not people of other races per se that I dislike. What I dislike is hypocrisy. I dislike the conspiracy of silence against sincere people like Tanstaafl who cite real facts to draw attention to real problems. I am not certain that America suffers today from a lack of white Gentile solidarity, but I am certain that America suffers today from a severe lack of truth. We lie, lie, lie to ourselves and to one another all day long about the deleterious effects of ethnic diversity in America. I've had it with the lies. (And, yes, I know: many of the peddlers of the lies have been Jews, but I am not talking about the peddlers. I am talking about my neighbors and business associates. I am talking about ordinary folks who should know how to call a spade a spade.)
The first step in solving America's ethnic problem is for us to stop lying. The second step is to seal the border against non-white immigration, legal and illegal. I don't know what the third step is, but I suppose that if we take the first two steps then we can find a way to get along with one another, or to buy out some of the recent immigrants at a fair price and return them to their old homelands, or---I don't know---to reinstitute some aspects of pre-1950s Segregation, to separate North America into ethnic homelands. I don't know. First things first. Let's do the first things, then see what works and what doesn't.
What I want for my posterity is a happy country where their liberty and property are secure. If there is more than one way to re-establish such a country, then I am open to discussion on the matter.
But generalizing about a group (constituting millions) on the basis of even a majority of opinions provides what solution?
I don't know. This is the same question I have. Things would have to get much, much worse before I would support a Nazi-style Final Solution. Absent that, maybe we can rid ourselves of a few of the most recent, most insular outsiders like the Muslims, but otherwise we are probably going to have to find a way to coexist in North America with most of these other racial groups.
JS
Nice update. i particularly enjoyed the way Auster defends his anti-anti-semitism with:
"Once the point is made to Jews that the universal liberalism to which they passionately adhere is what has brought on this crisis, and that their lack of identification with the West (meaning the concrete West) is a problem, I think most of them will see these problem and correct it."
Based on his extensive writings on his anti-liberalism, how could one not connect the dots? I guess the "see these problem and correct it" passes the anti-anti-semitism mustard.
HJH
I would change non-white immigration to ALL immigration. Once we fix the mess behind and at the golden door we can open it again.
If wages increase dramatically due to lack of workers we can rethink the issue as long as we have attack dogs and black-booted thugs at the door greeting the entrants.
...but otherwise we are probably going to have to find a way to coexist in North America with most of these other racial groups.
The question that should be asked is whether these groups wish to co-exist with you? How do you co-exist with La Raza? There are no white churches preaching Euro fundamentalism. There is no white Rev. Wright.
You think the problems all vanish
The issue isn't "problems". The issue is survival.
Should we laud their efforts as fellow racists and compete with them in the games?
It is Anglo racists who founded and built the US for their "posterity". The game is survival. History is replete with examples of genocide suffered by minorities that are without a defensible homeland. Unless that is your wish, you should get down on bended knee and kiss the lily white feet of the great Anglo racists who founded the USA.
My problem is similar to HJH's. A difference is that I am aware to some growing degree as to the amounts of influence arising in support for the institutions of control, including media, by a sizeable segment of the community (especially among the communist and activist leftists) who identify as jewish.
I have become aware, too, that top levels of control institutions, such as CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral seem to be within the financial grip of Rothschild/Rockefeller segments (although not entirely), in adoption of policies filtered down to the Western politicos. Those policies are accepted, and passed into our Western societies, by representatives who should be representing the general public's interests. They are not. They are instead representing the interests of an oligarchy of primarily corporate and financial interests who seem intent on establishing a new world order.
Neither are they representing the interests of the vast community of Jews, in that they do not firmly establish the State of Israel with defensible borders. The broad Jewish community continues to support the leftist structure for control of populations, but are receiving nothing in return except the priviledge of being ruled by the same people who are intent on ruling all of us (and perhaps increased financial reward).
I suspect they are using racial, religious and other discord to split effective resistence. I think they have infiltrated most top-level religious and racial organizations as well as many thought to be fraternal. Some of these are, (including supremist groups) I'm convinced, controlled by them.
My concern with the unthinking Jew hater is that they seem willing to condemn those who have the same problem the rest of us have. They also do not direct their resources to combatting what in my view is the primary problem. That problem is the institutions taking our ways of life and liberties from us and stealing the resources, labor and honor of those who should be free people.
The following article,
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wallace/andrew7.htm
is excellent at presenting the problem as I view it and arguing about other aspects is counterproductive. All of these people (without regard to their creed, color, sex, ethnic identity or sexual deviation) need to be identified and something done with them to prosecute them and to restore our societies and ways of life.
{I have not been able to find information on the beliefs and practices of the Rothschild Families, but from what I have read it is a closely held structure with a propensity for inbreeding. Financial control exerted with a system of finanicial reward and penalty exercised by a network of informants seems to be how it was established and I suspect that it is this influence which gives much direction to the communities it supports}.
Does it not occur to you, Desmond, that there may be a group which hates all people who are not a part of that group and who will not submit willingly to their rule?
Within that group there may be influential "goy" haters. The idea is to rid ourselves of the control of that group and take back our traditional freedoms. Then, we can concentrate on who intentionally participated to take away our rights as free men.
Concentration on the aspect you propose limits our vision on how to deal with the institutions which have the power to hurt us.
Does it not occur to you, Desmond, that there may be a group which hates all people who are not a part of that group and who will not submit willingly to their rule?
It appears there is a very important point here, FF, however, for the life of me, I have no idea what you're talking about?
Desmond, my use of the phrase "hates all people..." was the confusing part and it should have been reworded.
Many members of the upper level groups are followers of philosophies espousing eugenics and euthanasia. Many of them also think that world population is non-sustainable and that natural causes will not eliminate sufficient population.
They want to impose communistic totalitarianism on all people and a merger of the ethnic, national or racial identities of the masses would be ideal for their control. Religion (of all types) being stamped out by their secularism would leave people with no belief in a power greater than the power of the state (them). Those resisting would be considered expendable for the "greater good".
We should exercise our God-given and natural rights to self defense. There should be no question on that point. All freedom loving people should work together to do that. The groups which control our politics has placed our lives, traditions and resources into questionable status and it is they who should either represent and defend us or get out of the way while we defend ourselves.
They should be resisted, defeated and tried for their treason if they do not.
Tanstaafl,
Bravo! You do an excellent job of articulating what we have lost and how we are badly losing a cultural war. The very existence of our people is in doubt, do the stakes get any higher than that?
FYI, I can literally feel your passion through my laptop screen. Perhaps one day men like you and me will have the freedom to set things to rights. I'm sure you'll be up for the task.
FF,
Presumably the reference is to the Illuminati. It is an interesting subject.
Europe in the 1700s, particularly the Continent, lacked the types of political organizations where opposition to existing authority could find expression. Even universities, often controlled by Jesuit administrations, were mere hand-maidens to the aristocracy. It was only natural, then, that secret societies and salons, lodges of the Freemasons and private reading clubs would become the focal points for the sedicious and "impious" activists of the Enlightenment. Masonry required that novitiates pass through a series of degrees, accompanied by symbolic ritual, whereupon the secrets of the craft were gradually unfolded; the metaphors of masonry, the remaking of humanity as early masons had remade rough stone, soon served as a revolutionary allegory. This became the new model of revolutionary organization � lodges of brothers, all seeking to reconstruct within their own circle an "inner light" to radiate forth wisdom into the world, to "illuminate" the sagacity of the Enlightenment.
Freemason, deist and atheist all advocated against the "old order", represented by the Christian church. The origin of the Enlightenment is founded upon the publications from the printing press of Venice's Aldus Manutius.
Aldus Manutius was born as Teobaldo Mannuci at Sermoneta in the Papal States. After studying in Rome and Ferrara, he moved to Mirandola in 1482 to stay with his friend, the cabbalist Giovanni Pico. Pico’s nephew Alberto Pio, the prince of Carpi, granted Aldus the money to set up a printing press for the promotion of Greek scholarship.
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola is the father of Christian humanism. Pico was a genius yet was considered a heretic by the Catholic church. Pico was the originator of the Christian Cabbala, used by the Free Masons.
Moreover, he managed to prove how the three Platonic ways to the divine idea of being (the ways most clearly described in Platos Phaedrus and Plotinus Ennead I) meet the fourth way—the way of the cabala, by which he understands the Jewish mystical and intellectual traditions of reading and interpreting the Bible, a way unbelievably bountiful and creative, limited, however, to the Hebrew language. Pico collaborated with eminent Jewish philosophers such as Elia del Medigo, Flavius Mithridates, Leo Hebraeus and Johanon Alemanno, so as to produce in the end, and in his own way, a Christian cabala.
Is it now visible. Can you now see that the effort to undermine Christianity and the doctrine of faith and tradition, supplanting it with a characterisation of European Christianity as pernicious, sordid and darkly ignorant was initiated by Jewish Kabbala philosophers and serves the Jewish interest?
Desmond,
Actually, I was not referring to the illuminata as such, and I'm not familiar with the material you have provided, which seems interesting, perhaps even persuasive. I will have to have some time to study it further.
I'm glad to see that you have considered the background, which does come into play in the historical sense, and in providing vehicles for expansion of modern control. My interest revolves more around the Fabian Socialists who are the primary initiators of our modern problems, beginning around the time of Cecil John Rhodes. The controllers of CFR, RIIA and offshoot organizations which establish and guide organizations such as the Federal Reserve Board, other central banks and the IRS and other controlling institutions is more relevant to the situation we actually face.
I'm aware of the efforts of Albert Pike, who in concert with "Giusseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), a 33rd degree Mason, was selected by the Illuminati to head their worldwide operations in 1834. (Mazzini also founded the Mafia in 1860).", and I am interested in learning the tentacles of corporate and financial power reaching from "British, French, German, and American international bankers; all of them dominated by the House of Rothschild", and how they plan to control the world's populations.
Source: http://threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm
and:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1068
I do know that information exists which names every group imaginable as being either controllers or assisting the controllers, and all seem to have good arguments. They tend to blame each other without admitting to the historical facts showing involvement (usually unwittingly) by all. I'm of the opinion that all movements of significant size and power, including Catholic, masonic, racial and conspiracy followers, are already either infiltrated or used as a pawn by the actual controllers. I'm not saying that any of them are wrong, including your views, but only that I think our efforts should go against the institutions giving this cabal their power.
The institutions are what should be our present concern. They are identifiable and vulnerable to concerted opinion. The participants within those organizations are also identifiable. They are the ones who oppress the people on a daily basis. The facts of other matters can be determined once the power of the organizations are brought back within control of our traditional system of justice.
I think divisions of our power are one of the keys to their continuing success. I favor arguments based on generic terms, much as is described in the following article, while keeping in mind that other factors come into play:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/19256
---
Rusty, thank you. I have not considered publishing elsewhere. I used to think I knew what I believed in and why. For the moment I'm still getting used to my new understanding, absorbing what I've been learning on the other side of the politically correct membrane. I'm trying to understand what others who came before had to say, and what those here now are saying.
Where to go? I don't know. The White race is seriously threatened - our homelands are invaded and our rulers want us to celebrate it. I've decided I definitely don't like that. I want to stop it. I don't care who that offends. Change for the better appears unlikely. I will stay fit, informed, and armed. I will get my family out of Aztlan ASAP.
Howard, this part of what MacDonald wrote really resonates with me:
But the main point is that I came to see Jewish groups as competitors with the European majority of the U.S., as powerful facilitators of the enormous changes that have been unleashed in this country, particularly via the successful advocacy of massive non-European immigration into the U.S. I found that I was being transformed in this process from a semi-conservative academic who had little or no identification with his own people into an ethnically conscious person
If you wish to understand this reaction you should read more of what he has written. I suggest you start with Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review.
You ask: Are we really that stupid, to be manipulated so easily by Jewish opinion? The answer is yes, as long as we give them a free pass from criticism and act as if we're all one happy, inseparable judeo-christian family. Many jews don't think that, that much is clear from the Auster link John Savage provided.
After reading the MacDonald paper linked above I started to pay much closer attention to the ethnic backgrounds of the people I read and heard giving their pro-invasion pro-diversity anti-"nativist" opinions in the media. I suggest everyone do so. Jews certainly know who is a jew and who isn't - and they adapt their judgement of what is being said accordingly. Whites should do the same.
Flip, Whites are the only race that has set aside our racism. It was a noble gesture, but foolish. We can acknowledge who we are and what we want, or we will be shoved aside and replaced. It's that simple. We don't have to be "WN", but we should not bash those who are. We should defend them from bashing. By anybody. Pro-White is not a disease or psychosis any more than pro-latino or pro-black or pro-jew is. Race is normal and healthy. Deracination is abnormal and terminal. Yockey had an interesting view.
John Savage, thanks for that link. It is very relevant to Howard's query. We see there philo-semites discussing how some jews think and act in ways that clearly set themselves apart. Gintas wrote: Should I be amazed how much Sam H could find in my short statement? But of course. That's the nature of anti-anti-semitism. It's talmudic. Never mind what you say. It's all about what the anti-anti-semite claims you mean.
Flanders, I don't think MacDonald's thesis (that jews and Euro-Americans are in competition) and your CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral thesis are mutually exclusive. The evidence supports both. When I speak against the progressivist-globalists it's not a code word for jews.
I don't know or listen to any unthinking jew-haters. I accept that they exist but I think their numbers and influence are deliberately inflated by the SPLC and media. What everyone really seems to fear is non-conformist thinkers. Kevin MacDonald makes thoughtful criticism. For that matter so does David Duke. Why then are these men smeared? It seems to me it is because they dare to say: Whites and jews are not the same. Each group has their own interests. These interests do not always coincide.
Jews openly discuss which candidate is better for them. You support Israel or you're a "kook", as Bill Kristol would say. And anybody who might complain about this is an anti-semite, ie. an unthinking jew-hater. At the same time if Whites pine for a candidate that has a tough immigration policy they are derided as xenophobes, nativists, bigots, and racists. What sense does this double-standard make except as evidence that the interests of jews take precedence over the interests of Whites?
And the globalists treat us like cattle.
FF - The only problem with resistance is to ensure the majority speaks as one. Since $$$ equals free speech, the people with the money control the majority, hence the oligarchy's stranglehold on the masses.
DJ - The issue is neither problems nor survival, the issue is practicality. If you close the borders and forcibly evict the invaders (as I have advocated in past posts) or you limit the movement to "separate but equal", the white race becomes a dwindling minority over time [and if you maintain the racial aspects] the fate you describe is plausible to probable. If you attempt to empower WN and forcibly evict all non-whites, you will be met not only by resistance but the opposition of your own government wrapped in the Constitution.
Since the white race is a dwindling minority world-wide (and appears to face the same challenge down the road in the USA) the decision to circle the wagons will lead to eventual extinction. Furthermore, since we will not be removing non-whites from US soil [I gather it is similar in Canada and UK], I suggest you consider moving to northern European climes in a nation run by white racist strongmen.
Tan - whites never "set aside" their racism. Under pressure from our "wise" representatives in govt, racism was rendered a bad word, PC prevailed and govt-sponsored non-white racist programs were put into place. This "wisdom" was knee-jerk legislation in response to episodes of historical racism with no consideration for the impact of promoting and artificially propping race equality.
This is a symptom of disease in our government and society. We are still dividing ourselves in groups and picking at the carcass for our sinewy pieces.
The practicality of Benedict Arnold;
"Neglected by Congress below, distressed with the small-pox(abortion, miscegenation); want of Generals (leaders) and discipline in our Army (people), which may rather be called a great rabble, our credit and reputation lost, and great part of the country; and a powerful foreign enemy advancing upon us, are so many difficulties we cannot surmount them."
DJ - Duly noted.
So are you the British holding on to the past or the rebel Americans invoking invoking change for the future.
The practicality of Winston Churchill:
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight withall the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."
FF,
Again, the, according to Wiki, "core of the Fabian Society were Sidney and Beatrice Webb."
Sidney, 1st Baron Passfield, was a Jew.
1) Beatrice Potter recorded in her diary her first meeting with Sidney Webb (14th February, 1890)
Sidney Webb, the socialist, dined here to meet Charles and Mary Booth. A remarkable little man with a huge head on a very tiny body, a breadth of forehead quite sufficient to account for the encyclopaedic character of his knowledge, a Jewish nose, prominent eyes and mouth, black hair, somewhat unkept, spectacles and a most bourgeois black coat shiny with wear.
In 1932 the Webbs visited the Soviet Union. Although unhappy with the lack of political freedom in the country they were impressed with the rapid improvement in the health and educational services and the changes that had taken place to ensure economic and political equality for women. When they returned to Britain they wrote a book on the economic experiments taking place in the Soviet Union called Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? (1935). In the book the Webbs predicted that "the social and economic system of planned production for community consumption" of the Soviet Union would eventually spread to the rest of the world. They added that they hoped this would happen through reform rather than revolution.
Despite the Stalinist purges and the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Webbs continued to support the Soviet economic experiment and in 1942 published The Truth About Soviet Russia (1942).
In addition, Ramsay MacDonald, the Uk's first Labour Prime Minister was a member of the Fabian Society. Why does that matter, because Canada's famous "Persons" case was referred to the British Privy Council, to a judge appointed by Macdonald. The decision allowed women to sit in the Canadian Senate, although, if you read the legislation, clearly, the intent was that only men could be senators. The SC of Canada's decision was overturned, women were declared 'persons' and sat in the Senate. The British North America Act was declared a "living document", ever evolving ever changing. It was the precedent used to entrench gay rights and later gay marriage in the current Canadian charter.
Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People
Winston Churchill
"Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and successful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
The Vexing 'Jewish Question': A Nineteenth-Century Scholar's View
Professor Goldwin Smith:
"In 1880, anti-Semitic disturbances broke out in Russia. A narrative of them entitled "The Persecution of the Jews in Russia," was put forth (in 1881) by the Jewish community in England as an appeal to the British heart. In that narrative the Russian Christians were charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. A tract of country equal in area to the British Islands and France combined had, it was averred, been the scene of horrors theretofore perpetrated only in times of war. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the stones or roasted alive in their own homes, married women had been made the prey of a brutal lust which had in many cases caused their death, and young girls had been violated in sight of their relatives by soldiers who should have been guardians of their honor. Whole streets inhabited by Jews had been razed, and the Jewish quarters of towns had been systematically fired. [...]
The British heart responded to the appeal. Great public meetings were held, at one of which the Archbishop of Canterbury, with a Roman Cardinal, as the representative of religious liberty in general, and especially of opposition to Jew-burning, at his side, denounced the persecuting bigotry of the Russian Christians. Indignant addresses were largely signed. Russia was accused of re-enacting the worst crimes of the Middle Ages. It was taken for granted on all sides that religious fanaticism was the cause of the riots.
Russia, as usual, was silent. But the British government directed its consuls at the different points to report upon the facts. The reports composed two Blue Books, in which, as very few probably took the pains to look into them, the unpopular truth lies buried (Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2, 1882, 1883).
Those who did read them learned, in the first place, that though the riots were deplorable and criminal, the Jewish account was in most cases exaggerated, and in some to an extravagant extent. The damage to Jewish property at Odessa, rated in the Jewish account at 1,137,381 rubles, or, according to their higher estimates, 3,000,000 rubles, was rated, Consul-General Stanley tells us, by a respectable Jew on the spot at 50,000 rubles, while the Consul-General himself rates it at 20,000. At Elizabethgrad, instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, only one hut had been unroofed. It appeared that few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of injuries received in the riots. There were conflicts between the Jews who defended their houses and the rioters."
A rebuttal to Smith's "Jew Baiting".
"DJ - The issue is neither problems nor survival, the issue is practicality. If you close the borders and forcibly evict the invaders (as I have advocated in past posts) or you limit the movement to "separate but equal", the white race becomes a dwindling minority over time [and if you maintain the racial aspects] the fate you describe is plausible to probable. If you attempt to empower WN and forcibly evict all non-whites, you will be met not only by resistance but the opposition of your own government wrapped in the Constitution.
Since the white race is a dwindling minority world-wide (and appears to face the same challenge down the road in the USA) the decision to circle the wagons will lead to eventual extinction. Furthermore, since we will not be removing non-whites from US soil [I gather it is similar in Canada and UK], I suggest you consider moving to northern European climes in a nation run by white racist strongmen."
FF, I agree that practicality is the ultimate concern with WNism. I think if immigration were ended, and welfare programs were cut back, the Mexican and black birthrates would stabilize within a generation. That in turn would ensure than America's white majority remains for a very long time. As things exist now, blacks and especially Mexicans can have 8 kids if they wish and what amounts to free medical care on the taxpayer dime.
Alternatively, a return to the old national origins quotas in immigration is also possible. This depends on the masses of whites being awakened at some point while they still wield electoral quote. But that may be for some time. While they are only 65% or so of the population, whites still comprise over 3/4 of the electorate, I believe. As things like the OJ trial, Katrina, Jeremiah Wright become more common, whites will awaken. The only question is whether it will be too late.
More radically, there is always secession. I often wonder whether the US, or more accurately, US citizens, would tolerate the use of force by the US government if a state like Montana seceded. Or dissolution- I think one can seriously ask whether the US will exist in 40 or so years, in light of its impending problems.
Finally, and most radically, if the white population is indeed swamped in its own countries, I wouldn't discount the possiblity of cloning mass numbers of them. Admittedly, I don't like that idea, but I would advocate it if there is no alternative. That may sound crackpot-ish now, but scientifc advances in that field are occurring by leaps and bounds every year. Who knows what 30 or 40 years will be bring? Sure, other races might clone themselves too if whites did, but as long as the white population is above a certain absolute number, and there is a way to ensure maintenance of that number, I'll rest a lot easier.
My point is: to imply that an increase in the racial consciousness of whites won't help them escape their current demographic problems is to overstate matters (I hope I'm not overstating your position). On the contrary, increasing white consciousness is a necessary condition for solving those problems.
Thanks to Desmond for providing some very interesting links. I am in the process of checking through some of the materials.
I think what you may find is that many people have not had contact with "jewishness" to a sufficient degree to form an independent impression. I know that is one reason why I have not given more credence to information I've previously run across, in that I felt I had no basis from which to make proper judgments. We have all had contact with the drumbeat of "jewish oppression" and that contributes to dissuading one from making judgements which might otherwise be obvious.
It takes some time to form opinions which can be said to be independent and not based on rhectoric, and to become aware of what may be available which is not provided by the mainstream media and press.
I suppose my next question is, what do we do with the information?
If there is one point which I think we can all agree on, I think it is related to Flippity's statement below:
"La Raza and Wright are racists. Should we laud their efforts as fellow racists and compete with them in the games? I say screw them and the govt sponsored programs that keep them going. They are not Americans, they are latino/black Americans - there's a huge difference."
Hyphenated Americans are not Americans, and that doesn't change regardless of skin color, national origin, sex, or anscestry. I have no tolerance for anyone who places their views or race above that of the vital interests of the USA, whether they are black-American, latino-American, jewish-American or just plain white anti-American.
I have come to see that most of what we see as anti and hyphenated American is largely due to the concerted efforts of media, along with numerous other organizations (which tend to be top-heavy with those who would describe themselves with such hypenated terms). Hyphenated Americans do not belong in America. White culture is a vital American interest and inseparable from American interests. Media should be replaced with American media.
American messages are not racist. It is anti-American messages which are treacherous and racist. We can't allow ourselves to become just another hyphen.
"The Dresden Story": Racism, Human
Rights, and the Jewish Labour
Committee of Canada
Here's one more Flanders. Check out the pictures. It pretty much parallels KMac's work.
"Until the 1940s, Canada had been a poor country, with much of the meanness poverty tends to produce. Pre-war Canadians often knew little beyond their own distractions and neighbourhoods, which were small, largely homogeneous, and exclusive. There was usually no room in them for Japanese or Chinese Canadians, and scant tolerance for Jews or blacks or those with ‘different’ attitudes or beliefs."
This from Morton & Granatstein, both are premier Canadian historians. Granatstein is Jewish.
Granatstein has changed some since then, showing criticism of his people.
"The Second World War representation of other ethnicities in the CF (Canadian Forces) was better than in the Great War, but still below standard. Every ethnic group has carefully massaged data to show that it sent the highest percentage etc, etc; this is all nonsense, in my view, because it includes conscripts and fails to differentiate between combat arms and services: Jews, who might have been expected to be especially concerned with the Second World War, e.g., had a lower percentage than their population share in volunteer enlistments and a higher percentage among conscripts; they also had a lower casualty rate than the norm which suggests a low combat arms representation."
It would be interesting to see the US numbers.
Just the links, ma’am
On an unrelated note (other than perhaps a connection to MacDonald’s anti-semitism)...I also couldn’t resist this attack on Spengler from Daniel Larison at Taki’s where commenter James Cantrell seems to have independently discovered the Mencius Moldbug take on the Jews.
Jimmy Cantrell, a lively & impassioned Southern writer, developed (or at least holds dearly to) his Celtic South theory. Southern historian Grady McWhiney popularised the theory.
"His "Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South" (University of Alabama, 1988) most fully expressed his theory. He traced "cracker" to the Gaelic word craic — still used in Ireland and anglicized in spelling to "crack" — and said it meant "entertaining conversation." (Folk etymology had had it that cracker came from cracking or pounding corn, or using whips to drive cattle.)"
Through this lens Cantrell argues ..."The source of Neocon moral and political philosophy is not Jews; it is the Puritan revolution and Oliver Cromwell."
His argument proceeds as such...Those who know anything about English (not simply restricted to the Puritan era) activities in Ireland know that there is an old pattern blaming the slaughtered for having deserved it. It runs this way: our nation is godly, and therefore any rebellion against it is virtually Satanic; the fact that you resisted our violence to force you to accept the peace and superior rule we bring you at gunpoint proves that everything we did you – all deaths and all property destruction and all cultural. Genocide – were justified.
In this way Cantrell depicts the Puritan-American Northern War of Aggression as simply a continuation of the Puritan imperialism against the Irish. And once establishing that link can diminish the influence of Jewish neocons upon influencing the current war/s in the Middle East et al.
The problem with the theory, IMO is that Cromwell's "aggression" in Ireland was simply a extension of the Anglo-Norman intervention many years earlier, at the behest of the Pope and an Irish Chieftain, and financed by Jews who accompanied William the conqueror to England.
Strongbow's conquest of Ireland (1170) was financed by Josce, a Jew of Gloucester; and the king accordingly fined Josce for having lent money to those under his displeasure. As a rule, however, Henry II does not appear to have limited in any way the financial activity of Jews. The favorable position of English Jews was shown, among other things, by the visit of Abraham ibn Ezra in 1158, by that of Isaac of Chernigov in 1181, and by the resort to England of Jews who were exiled from France by Philip Augustus in 1182, among them probably being Judah Sir Leon of Paris.
In 1168, when concluding an alliance with Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II seized the chief representatives of Jews and sent them over into Normandy, while tallaging the rest 5,000. marks[2] When, however, he asked the rest of the country to pay a tithe for the crusade against Saladin in 1188, he demanded a quarter of Jewish chattels. The so-called "Saladin tithe" was reckoned at £70,000, the quarter at £60,000. In other words, the value of the personal property of Jews was regarded as one-fourth that of the whole country. It is improbable, however, that the whole amount was paid at once, as for many years after the imposition of the tallage arrears were demanded from the recalcitrant Jews.
The king had probably been led to make this large demand on English Jewry by the surprising windfall which came to his treasury at the death of Aaron of Lincoln. All property obtained by usury, whether by Jew or by Christian, fell into the king's hands on the death of the usurer; Aaron of Lincoln's estate included £15,000 of debts owed to him. Besides this, a large treasure came into the king's hands, which, however, was lost on being sent over to Normandy. A special branch of the treasury, constituted in order to deal with this large account, was known as "Aaron's Exchequer".
In this era, Jews lived on good terms with their non-Jewish neighbors, including the clergy. They entered churches freely, and took refuge in the abbeys in times of commotion. Some Jews lived in opulent houses, and helped to build a large number of the abbeys and monasteries of the country. However, by the end of Henry's reign they had incurred the ill will of the upper classes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, fostered by the crusades, during the latter part of the reign of Henry, spread throughout the nation.
It's not to argue that Jews are at the heart of every invidious event in the history of Western man, it is simply an attempt to refute the omnipresent notion of Jewish victomology. Jews, like others are victims and victimizers.
Sever Plocker writes,
"The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.
Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin."
Through this lens Cantrell argues ..."The source of Neocon moral and political philosophy is not Jews; it is the Puritan revolution and Oliver Cromwell."
The Puritan revolution and Oliver Cromwell, however, were greatly influenced by the Jewish community in Holland.
"Now we are in a state of war which will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution, into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though I recognize no necessity for the state of things, and would have forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native State.
With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relative, my children, my home. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed) I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."
Robert E. Lee
How did that work out?
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans... The one
absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." Theodore Roosevelt, October 12, 1915
Auster has followed up with A proposal to achieve Jewish-Christian cooperation in defense of the West. As usual the dishonesty starts in the title.
The conversation begins with the absurd assertion by "Ezra F." that "many Jews might feel an intense loyalty to a West that explicitly endorses" that "The West is founded upon and principally nourished by Christian beliefs and practices" and "Christian beliefs and practices obligate Westerners to love and protect the Jews AS JEWS", otherwise "Jews might suspect that they will protected only so long as they don't annoy their protectors".
Is this cooperation? Jews might be loyal if Westerners declare themselves obligated to protect them? Note that Ezra presumes jews are separate, not Westerners, and more, that they deserve special protection. Even then Westerners can only hope that jews "might" be loyal. This sounds more like plea bargaining than cooperation, and comes across as more guilty than innocent.
Paul Gottfried then confesses that "[m]ost Jews I have known detest Christians and Christianity" and "[w]hat drives Jewish liberalism more than anything else is the overriding passion to neutralize Christian influence as quickly as possible". He suggests "[t]he problem is the WASP majority take the antiquated hostilities of aggrieved minorities too seriously" and that the solution is to "[s]imply ignore Jewish malice".
Is this cooperation? One group detests, the other ignores. So why don't jews handle anti-semites this way?
Trying to synthesize Ezra and Gottfried's conflicting ideas Auster concocts an even bigger whopper: "But the good news that I see is this: if the majority culture just goes ahead and begins to defend itself, many members of minorities such as the Jews will go along. In other words, the majority culture will get minorities' cooperation and even their loyalty, not by seeking it, but by leading. Which relates to my long-time view that minorities' disenchantment with the majority has not been due to the majority's being oppressive, but to its giving up its belief in itself and its authority."
Once again, where is the cooperation? Auster says "the majority" is to blame. It has failed by not leading. Nothing is expected of "minorities" (hey, weren't we just talking about jews?) except to criticize and complain. To redeem itself "the majority" must assert its "authority". This is unilateralism. It is the opposite of "cooperation".
More important, we know that anyone who actually tries to assert the authority of "the majority" is immediately denounced as a neo-nazi, a racist, a White supremacist, an anti-semite, with Auster and Gottfried among those doing the denouncing. Right at this point in the discussion in fact Auster sarcastically smears David Duke without the slightest hint of irony.
The discussion goes on through more such sophistry. At no point does anyone suggest any "obligations" for jews. Nothing for them to change or promise. Exactly the opposite. We can only hope for...nothing. So in the end Auster reiterates his proposal for Jewish-Christian "cooperation" in defense of the West:
Active support for Western patriots by the left and most Jews may be unattainable, but it doesn't matter, because it's also unnecessary. All that's needed is that they get out of the way.
Jews who detest the West's "majority" dominate Western media, academia, finance, and politics. This might have something to do with "the majority" being sent to fight overseas while our countries are flooded with so many aliens that we are no longer "the majority". But never mind that. Auster blames "inadequate conservatives". But then he says never mind them either. "We" must "take the lead and create an effective conservatism". Judging by his distorted view of "cooperation" it's impossible to be sure what he means by either "effective" or "conservatism".
I have a better idea, Auster: follow your own advice and get yourself, your delusions of godhood, and your deceptive, disingenuous, dipshit ideas the out of the way. Stop denouncing pro-White leaders, stop euphemizing Whites as "Christians" or "the majority", and stop telling us what to do.
TR believed in the superiority of the "Nordic" race, social Darwinism and racialism.
It, the Civil War, turned out badly, just like Apartheid turned out badly for SA, because the white elite, including the Jewish elite, did not wish to relinquish their investment in cheap labour in favour of a separate white homeland. Even Lincoln proposed repatriation and England's Wilberforce lobbied to end slavery in the British Empire with the proposal to repatriate.Ten thousand blacks were repatriated from Canada alone.
However, Sam Francis also advocated against white separatism as well.
DJ - TR was also an advocate for "equality" based upon his political track record including advocating desegregation in NY schools and supporting (amidst significant scorn) personnel placement independent of race (including blacks and Jews).
REL made a decision to place "kin" before country despite his personal conviction to the Union and his disbelief in the longevity of slavery.
The Sam Francis piece was interesting but there are holes in his alternative solutions. As we've pointed out, the racism is not one sided and to overcome the continued non-white racism is as difficult as the separatism problem.
REL made a decision to place "kin" before country despite his personal conviction to the Union and his disbelief in the longevity of slavery.
No, he didn't. Virginia was his country.
TR was also an advocate for "equality" based upon his political track record including advocating desegregation in NY schools and supporting (amidst significant scorn) personnel placement independent of race (including blacks and Jews).
Political expediency makes for strange bedfellows. Oscar Strauss was a Roosevelt appointee. Rabbi Wise's contempt is enlightening yet not unexpected.
dj, thanks for those two very relevant examples of jewish hyper-awareness and relentless pursuit of their own interests.
From Jacob Schiff's letter in the NYT article we can see the core pro-invasion arguments haven't changed:
This country is not yet overpopulated, or even settled to its reasonable possibilities. Except at times, in the congested seaport towns, and in the country during limited periods of passing depression, the demand for workers of every kind continues, and if we desire the growth and development of our country to increase, we had better be careful not to adopt a course which would be the reverse of the policy that has existed ever since the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, and that has made our country supreme and its people happy.
Translation, then as now: Our economy is a pyramid scheme! We're a nation of undocumented migrant workers!
Rabbi "I am not talking as a Jew" Wise, opposes the literacy test not because he thinks it will have an impact on jews, but because it is "wrong". He would fit right in with today's AJC or ADL. Law enforcers doing their job, checking immigration status and deporting invaders, has a negligible impact on jews - but that doesn't keep their ethnocentric organizations from mobilizing against the interests of the citizenry.
BT - I am not well versed in all of REL's writings and speeches but from what Ive read he's consistently stated Virginia as home or native State ("State" having a significantly greater meaning then than now) and up until secession recognizing the United States - the Union - as country. He was against secession and when faced with choosing between "raising his sword" against Virgina - he resigned: "loyalty to Virginia ought to take precedence over that which is due to the Federal government".
Had Virginia not chosen secession (passed 88-55), one can only speculate whether Lee would have "raised his sword" against the South, but my guess is he would.
There are also references to Lee's superintendant days at West point (1852) and emphasizing to the cadets "we're all Americans".
I look foward to more research on this great figure and this period.
An exchange with Auster, on his No Darwin, no Hitler thread and Ben Stein's new movie.
Q: Do Stein, Klinghoffer, Arendt and Auster suggest a link between Darwinism and David's sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites.? Was David's belief founded on an underlying, crude, might-makes-right, social Darwinism?
No Darwin, no David?
A: Another pathetic anti-Semite loser, unable to grasp any argument, or to rise above yourself and do anything to protect your country from the vast forces that threaten it, because all you can see is the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.
Don't waste your time writing to me again, because your e-mail won't get to me.
Tan:
Re: Rabbi Wise...It's especially enlightening to see the Jewish racial supremacy on display. My ancestors were "scribes and scholars and authors of the greatest literature" at a time when the forefathers of the men promoting this bill could not even speak "a civilized language". It's right out of Disraeli's Tancred. MacDonald in his Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism puts forth the proposition that Aryan supremacy themes, in Germany, arose in reflection of Jewish supremacy themes, like those advocated by Rabbi Wise.
It would make a great movie, but of course you'd never get it in the cinemas.
Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who are obsessed with nazism are hyper-ethnocentric jewish supremacists, who argue that anyone who points this out must be a pathetic loser obsessed with jews?
Tanstaafl:
Thank you for the link. As it happens, I have read the MacDonald article you link to before. On your recommendation I have reviewed it again.
I admit that I do not really have much to say about it. Clearly, MacDonald has an impressive array of facts on his side, nor am I aware that anyone disputes the facts. That many Jews have argued, in effect, that American and Jewish interests do not coincide (or, rather, that they have redefined "American" interests to be something other than they really are) is interesting and useful information; but I don't know what one does with this information. Adult white Gentiles are supposed to be grown-up people. If some Jews argue for something against our interests, and we respond by promoting the same bad arguments enthusiatically ourselves, then who is to blame? The Jews?
Well, yes, of course, the Jews are indeed to blame. But then we white Gentiles are to blame even more. It is our country, after all.
Sorry to frustrate you. I like your work even when I am not fully on board. Thanks for the article.
HJH
Howard,
Adult white Gentiles are supposed to be grown-up people. If some Jews argue for something against our interests, and we respond by promoting the same bad arguments enthusiatically ourselves, then who is to blame? The Jews?
Until about six months ago I rarely thought about who was or wasn't a jew, and was in no way conscious of the very real difference in their interests versus mine. This was largely my fault, but not entirely.
Western media - very disproportionately owned, staffed, and influenced by jews - constantly repeats two important themes (among others): 1) jews are special, 2) jews are just like everyone else. These are contradictory themes, both of which are beneficial to jews in different circumstances.
The first theme provides the basis for ostracizing or criminalizing anyone who criticizes jews. It keeps most Whites from questioning the second theme. But the second theme, if you examine it closely, or know something of history, is patently false. Jews are distinct from Europeans. Many do not like Europeans. In the past their behavior has been interpreted as predation or parasitism and was suppressed and resisted. This was specifically because both jews and Europeans recognized themselves as distinct. The "emancipation" of jews in the wake of the French revolution began to change this. Europeans began to forget and overlook the differences. Jews did not, or at least not nearly to the same degree.
Today openly antagonistic jews like Sontag or Ignatiev say the most hateful nasty things about Whites and, because they are just as clueless as I was, most Whites can only wonder where the "self"-hatred comes from. Likewise the general academic hostility toward "the West".
Then there are the judeo-con charlatans who promote a distorted history of judeo-Christian alliance and cooperation. Take Bill Kristol, Michael Savage, or Larry Auster for example. These pundits are always in one way or another arguing (on the basis of theme 2) what "the West" should do, or must do - from who to elect, to who to bomb. Ron Paul is a "kook" (says Kristol) or "anti-American" (says Auster) because he does not favor bankrupting America even if it would help Israel. Jimmy Carter is a "jew-hater" (says Savage) because he is fool enough to talk with Hamas. We have to bomb Iran because otherwise Israel will be wiped off the map (Savage). We have to import Latinos because our economy would collapse without them (Kristol). We have to stop Muslim immigration because they're horrible anti-semites (Auster). The typical White who watches, listens, and reads this judeo-con poison very likely believe these opinions come from Whites and are intended to benefit Whites.
Whites don't have an immaturity problem. We have an ignorance problem, compounded by a dissimulation problem, perpetuated by a "hate speech" problem.
Unlike Whites jews are hyper-sensitive to who a message is coming from and how it might affect them. They are not as ignorant of history nor as blind to their ethnic genetic interests. They are not afraid anyone will call them names, even though they are more bigoted and racist. Any name caller will simply be smeared as an "anti-semite". In our jew-dominated culture today they know that charge trumps all other concerns, including the immigration invasion and the consequent disenfranchisement, dispossession, and displacement of the deracinated White "majority". This is why the invasion continues and even accelerates, no matter the opposition of Whites.
Well, yes, of course, the Jews are indeed to blame. But then we white Gentiles are to blame even more. It is our country, after all.
How can you say this is "our" country when the regime so clearly favors and benefits jews while it scorns and harms Whites?
Tanstaafl,
Accept my thanks for your courteous debate and unusually detailed replies. They are appreciated.
(On your blog, I ought to comply with your evident editorial policy regarding capitalization and the naming of ethnies. Sorry for not doing that heretofore.)
How can you say this is "our" country when the regime so clearly favors and benefits jews while it scorns and harms Whites?
Because I am not a reductionist, and because I sense a movement to blame jews for Whites' own failings. Life does not fit neat patterns. I sense very little actual malice among jews, as jews, against Whites. That their interests diverge significantly from ours, you have convincingly established; but you have not convinced me that we cannot deal with these mild people.
You will not find my answer persuasive, I think. This is fine, but such is my answer to your question.
Jews made a serious mistake regarding civil rights for blacks in America. They were wrong, but I think that the reasons they made the mistake are understandable. The mistake had consequences because we, not they, chose to implement it.
Tanstaafl, I don't know how else to say it. Excepting an evil, areligious judaic rump that we unwisely allow to congregate in some of our leading cultural institutions, American jews as an ethny are not hostile to us. You cannot learn this by watching television, but you can learn it by getting to know your jewish neighbors if you happen to live in an area with a jewish presence. They do believe that they are the Chosen People, but they have always believed this. The belief is not new.
If you want to see how mild the jews truly are, look at the insanity by which the jews in the state of Israel actually continue to allow the state's Muslim Arab citizens to vote. This makes no sense, inasmuch as the Muslim Arabs are outbreeding the Israeli jews and must soon overrun them there; but the jews are so unwisely attached to ideas of democracy and human rights that, even with their own survival transparently in the balance, still they hesitate.
My nationalistic judgment suggests that it is far better to make allies of these particular people than to antagonize them. I say this, not because I believe that everybody is a natural ally, but because I believe that the jews in particular are natural allies. In short, though I strongly prefer your style and manganimity to Auster's, in substance, I tend to feel that Auster is more nearly right.
I do realize that my argument admits the weakness that, if not for jews in America, there would be no evil, areligious jewish rump to afflict us. However, I feel that the reaction promoted by some nationalists is badly out of balance. We can deal with our jewish minority, for in the age of Jihad they are natural allies. The problem is that we aren't trying.
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Howard
"Jews made a serious mistake regarding civil rights for blacks in America. They were wrong, but I think that the reasons they made the mistake are understandable. The mistake had consequences because we, not they, chose to implement it."
Quite to the contrary, Jewish bureaucrats implemented the civil rights laws in a manner designed to maximize the harm to whites:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/af07a4e445077db2
Ben, thank you for the informative link.
"If you want to see how mild the jews truly are, look at the insanity by which the jews in the state of Israel actually continue to allow the state's Muslim Arab citizens to vote."
Once the surface is scratched, how much of a commitment to Arab rights there is within Israel is debatable.
The poll asked participants whether as part of an agreement to establish a Palestinian state there would be justification to demand that Arabs with Israeli citizenship relocate to Palestinian territory.
Only 24% were totally against the idea.
Security around MK Eitam boosted after anti-Arab speech
"Bodyguard assigned to rightist lawmaker a few weeks after he told Arab MKs 'day will come when we will banish you'"
How do nationalists deal with the massive double standard. Nationalism in Israel is supportable. However, nationalism in the US is not supportable. Why? It clearly does not serve Jewish interests. How many of Howard's neighbours give generously to the ADL, AJC, B'nai Brith or other Judeo-centric organizations that lobby to advance Jewish interests?
This has been a clarifying conversation for me, which I appreciate. For those whom it interests, I think that I can now summarize my dissent in the following words, in this blog's usage of the language:
The interests of jews in America diverge from those of Whites. American jews pursue their interests sometimes at our expense. As a people, have we tried simply telling the jews, "no"?
There are a lot more of us than of them. Blessed are the peacemakers. A firm "no," without malice but sincerely meant, might be worth a try, for I do not think that such has been tried in a very long time.
"Just Say No" - US Foreign Aid to Israel and the anti-Zionist Lobby
As Mearsheimer and Walt discovered, just saying "no" is easier said than done.
MacDonald:
However, the costs of banning discussions of group differences are even more apparent in discussions of Jewish influence. Any suggestion that Jews are influential or sometimes pursue interests that diverge from American national interests or the interests of other American groups is sure to bring charges of anti-Semitism — the ultimate silencer of public discussion. Abe Foxman’s recent book on Mearsheimer and Walt says it all: The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control. Keeping discussions of Jewish influence, the traits that make it possible and determine its character out of the mainstream media certainly is in the interests of Jews.
A film I happened to catch on television just finished, "Liberty Heights." (Channel 9, Australia.) By remarkable coincidence, it deals with many of the topics raised here.
It is set in 50s Baltimore and the plot revolves around the mild vexations of some Jewish high schoolers as they negotiate the racial climate of the day. The plot itself is pointless; the film's real goal is to showcase exquisite Jewish sensitivy. From this standpoint, it has everything an antisemite would expect. The Jewish kids are endlessly sensitive; their puzzlement over certain mores of Anglo society eminently reasonable (and today self-evident) and the sniggering disdain with which they deal with them cheeky but understandable; Nazi and Hitler references; "No Jews" signs; and much, much more.
The casting director might have been an Iceman (of Odessa Synd) fan, since a very "Med" Joe Mantegna is cast as the Jewish father of a very Ashkenazi Ben Foster. The film has one of the Jewish boys falling for a negro girl, so naturally the role went to the pasty white Foster. On the other hand, it's hook-nosed Sephardi Adrien Brody who gets to charm Aryan goddess Carolyn Murphy (and who, hilariously, is aided in his quest by the girl's recent ex, white boy Shane West).
Wikipedia says the film was a semi-biographical account of writer-director Barry Levinson. As a child of immigrants myself, I can relate a great deal to what Levinson probably experienced.
This how individual, intelligent and accomplished anti-white arsonists are made. The whites view you as different and comment on your difference. They mispronounce your name and ridicule your parents' accents. They mock your phsyical appearance and exclude you from their social world. In the meantime, you are smarter than all of them and know more about their history than they do. You burn to outshine these arrogant bastards. This is the truth that few Jews or "white ethnics" will ever admit to.
The anti-racism, however, isn't a plot; it's real and deeply felt. We know what discrimination is like and we are determined that others should not have to suffer it. One of my first (puppy)loves was a Filipina girl, and while pretty in her own right, the added attraction was that I "knew" (or thought so) what she must have gone through, being even more different than myself. There isn't any thought about the long-term consequences here -- there's no plot to "race-replace" anyone. It's simply a way to deal with what hurts now.
But then there's that burning resentment, also; the resentment that clouds better judgement. My father is perfect example. He is appalled by the growing numbers of blacks; he has a niece married to one and considers it an unmitigated disaster. Yet in the same breath, with nary a pause to consider the contradiction, he can sneer, "Good, let 'em bring them more blacks. When we came here they called us wogs ["vogs"], now they can eat shit."
Harrison, the Jews work subtely and quietly to undermine you. They are not stupid enough to confront you head-on like Arabs or Mexicans, beating you up in your own streets, openly calling for your overthrow. They master your culture and perfect your language; the smarter ones mimic your accent, its timbre and enunciation, so that when you speak with one it as though you are speaking with one of your own. Slowly, slowly they turn and subvert you, until you believe your interests and theirs are one and the same. Not all of this is conscious, mind you. Often I don't doubt they have even convinced themselves of the purity of their motives, and Kevin McDonald provides much evidence that this is so.
Are they a brood of vipers? That determination I cannot make. Forgive them for they know not what they do? That you will have to decide.
"Those who tell the stories rule society." - Plato
I don't know where else to post this so here goes...
Does anybody know why Auster respects the ridiculous 'G-d' spelling but can't stand our 'jew' spelling?
Because he's a neo-marrano.
I guess that gets at the heart of the issue.
At first I assumed genuine conversion and simple genetic hang-ups as the cause of his irrational behavior but perhaps it is more sinister as you imply.
Hello,
I just discovered your blogspot. I'm wondering why you have a link to Hersi Ali. Isn't she at the American Enterprise Institute working for them now? And isn't AEI a neocon outfit? And aren't neocons the enemies of White nationalists? Why have you given this Somali feminist "change agent" a pass?
-whodareswings
Seattle USA
Welcome whodareswings, good question. I've tried to provide an answer in a new post.
Post a Comment
<< Home