Who's on Top?
John Savage wrote an interesting post titled The Leftist Social Pyramid. It was not my intent but in commenting there I upset him, and he closed the thread to further comment. He may withdraw the post, which is his perogative, but I hope he doesn't. It begins like so:This week, commenter Mark P. at VFR predicts a coming factionalization of the Left. This goes back to the question I keep asking: Why is the Left so monolithic, in the sense that we rarely hear of fights over whether one or another thing is a proper leftist principle? Whatever difficulties there have been in making the decisions, they seem to have been out of the public spotlight, and discontent among the losers seems to have done little damage to the overall movement.My emphasis.
I suggested last fall that there is a Hierarchy of Entitlement on the Left. To recap, non-Western immigrant groups seem to be at the top. The toleration of violence and even ethnic cleansing by these groups against native-born blacks demonstrates that these groups stand above blacks. The attempt to prosecute disabled whites for racist “hate speech” demonstrates that nonwhites still stand above the disabled, and the toleration of nonwhite violence against homosexuals demonstrates that nonwhites stand above homosexuals. The toleration of nonwhite rape of white women demonstrates that white women are considerably lower than any nonwhites, while white heterosexual men are at the very bottom.
At my prompting we exchanged a few comments concerning where jews fit in this hierarchy. I argued they're on the top. John discussed it, but I think he would really have preferred to leave them unmentioned. It's a common problem. It supports the point I was trying to make. Of all the elephants in the room the jewish elephant is the one everyone seems most eager to ignore. Thus when someone will not ignore it it's easy to paint them as abnormal, just as John eventually did to me.
Whether or not jews are on top, they certainly are one of the most prominent, powerful victim groups in the "Leftist Social Pyramid". Opinion on anti-semitism is more monolithic than any other social or political principle in the West. It transcends left and right.
The principle of anti-semitism is this: no matter the merits of what you say, if it is critical of jews then you are insane. It doesn't matter whether you are ancient egyptian, contemporary korean, amerindian, leftist former president (Jimmy Carter), or rightist former presidential candidate (Pat Buchanan).
In a presentation titled For Fear of The Jews Joe Sobran said:
What, exactly, is "anti-Semitism"? One standard dictionary definition is "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group." How this applies to me has never been explained. My "hostility" toward Israel is a desire not for war, but for neutrality -- out of a sense of betrayal, waste, and shame. Our venal politicians have aligned us with a foreign country that behaves dishonorably. Most alleged "anti-Semites" would wince if Jews anywhere were treated as Israel treats its Arab subjects. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly betrayed its only benefactor, the United States. I have already alluded to the place Dante reserves for those who betray their benefactors.Emphasis mine.
These are obvious moral facts. Yet it's not only politicians who are afraid to point them out; so are most journalists -- the people who are supposed to be independent enough to say the things politicians can't afford to say. In my thirty years in journalism, nothing has amazed me more than the prevalent fear in the profession of offending Jews, especially Zionist Jews.
I'm sorry if making this point upsets jews, or John Savage, or anyone else. I raise it because it's important. Not many people will discuss it calmly. John's accusation that I'm "unreasonable" and "see jews everywhere" is itself unreasonable - it imagines only two extremes: either jews are not worthy of mention, or they control everything. That's a false dichotomy. I reject it.
Labels: jewish influence, joe sobran, john savage, liberalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 6/02/2008 03:25:00 PM
83 Comments:
Elmasry on the Michael Coren Show
"On October 19, 2004 CIC President Elmasry appeared in a panel discussion on The Michael Coren Show to discuss the topic of "What is a terrorist?". During an exchange with the show's host, he stated that anyone in Israel over the age of 18 was a justifiable target of Palestinian attacks.[12] He also criticized the recent bombing of hotels in Taba, Egypt on the grounds that some of the victims there were not Israelis. These remarks prompted harshly-worded responses from representatives of the Canadian Jewish Congress and several prominent Canadian Muslims. At first, Elmasry defended his remarks by insisting that he was merely sharing the standard Palestinian point of view. This led to further charges from his critics, who accused him of using the Palestinians as a scapegoat. In a letter to the Toronto Star, he denied having said what he was reported to have said. [13]
Elmasry later apologized for his remarks calling them his "biggest mistake" in 30 years of public life and offered his resignation which was not accepted by the CIC's board.[14]
The Elmasry affair led to criticisms that the media focussed entirely on the comments of the CIC president while neglecting controversial comments made on the same program by a B'nai Brith official, Adam Aptowitzer who stated that "When Israel uses terror . . . to destroy a home and convince people . . . to be terrified of what the possible consequences are, I'd say that's an acceptable use to terrify somebody."[14] The remarks only received attention several weeks after the broadcast, and after Elmasry's apology and proffered resignation, when a press release by the Canadian Arab Federation highlighted them.[14] Following the CAF press release, Aptowitzer retracted his comments and resigned his position with the B'nai Brith. Toronto Star city editor John Ferri told the Toronto Star's ombud, Don Sellar, "we all had egg on our faces...[i]t was embarrassing for every paper in the city not to get the whole story from the outset."[14]
In a letter to the Toronto Star following Sellar's column, Elmasary complained about the affair:
Canadian news media - including the Star - launched a relentless and unfair attack against the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) and me while covering up for weeks the outrageous statements made on the same show by Adam Aptowitzer, then the Ontario chairman of the B'nai Brith Institute of International Affairs. While never referring to Aptowitzer's statements, the media used news stories, editorials, op-ed pieces, columns, photos, front-page coverage, cartoons, and radio and television commentaries to paint a negative picture of CIC and myself which seriously distorts and falsifies the truth. It was widely reported, for example, that "Elmasry said all Israelis over 18 were legitimate targets for suicide bombers." This is totally false.
The media never questioned the completeness or the accuracy of the radio show transcript that was given to them. Instead, they totally and completely relied on the heavily selective one provided to them, which was one-sided and referred only to my remarks, but not to those by Aptowitzer.[15]
Elmasry also criticized Canadian Jewish groups over this incident. In an article entitled "When Jews Target a Canadian Muslim," Elmasry accused the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and Bnai Brith Canada of "putting pressure on my university to fire me" and that his words were "mis-represented to the public exactly as the CJC wished." He also stated that "a Toronto Jewish businessman had threatened to withdraw his financial support for a chair of Jewish studies."
Tan,
I think that John is having a natural reaction and that you are, too. I think both of your opinions are due to something you had mentioned in one of your more recent posts, and that such reactions are planned by those who make up the leadership of the Left. That plan, which works against someone discussing Jews or other interest groups, is enforced by the framing given to the issue by the Left.
The public framing, as pointed out by Desmond's post, relies heavily on national and international media interests which are largely Jewish sympathetic if not Jewish controlled. Public framing is further reinforced by networks of a Jewish community disapora which operate, too, nationally and internationally. Most Jews probably do not have a conscious awareness that advancing Leftism is within their community's mission when it's activisim is advanced by their Leftist leaders.
My own view is that not all the individual members of the disapora, nor all the media members know about the consolidated action being taken by those who operate on the behalf of the monied and influential Leftists of the corporate and world monarchy class*. Most are aware to some extent of the benefits which accrue to the disapora from maintaining an allegiance to the Leftist portion of that leadership class.
Similar non-Jewish groups operate in much the same way, providing leadership to different segments of society, and their leadership is perceived in much the same way by those who are taken in by Leftist messages. Most community compliant Jews are loyal to Jewish interests first, although they may be loyal as well to either America or Israel, or to both. Non-community compliant Jews are independent, perhaps conservative, and loyal to their countries (though they tend to comply to a great extent with community-identified values).
The attempts to stifle free speech with terms such as racist and anti-semetic or other labels may not be aimed so much at protecting Jews as they are intended to prevent a clear and rational conversation about how to defeat Leftism. Those of us who are aware of the extent of involvement of those identifying themselves as jewish know that jewishness, as described above, is an intergal part of the institutionalized Leftist movement. We know, too, that they are only a part of the Leftist movement, though many think they are a controlling part.
That may very well be a provable case, but the argument is diffused, and cover is given to both the Left and the Jews, by the Leftist leadership having created a racial framing.
Mention Jews too often and you are automatically cast into a status as an outsider and viewed with suspicion.
Try engaging in an intelligent conversation about Leftism without mentioning the role of Jews and there is no intelligent conversation.
An intelligent conversation about the Left cannot be done without discussing the role of Jews both in the history and in the present structures of Leftist movements and organizations. This is true, too, about discussing those Jewish related segments in society which consistently support the Left, for example the media and MSM.
We are all aware of those jews who are not participants or supporters in the institutional Left who, nevertheless, identify with and support those jewish community trends which follow overtly Leftist goals or which present them to society as politically correct, although the goals or guidelines are actually set by the Left.
Not all Jews follow those community trends and some remain convinced and conspicuous conservatives. Most of those have American allegiance, sometimes with a secondary loyalty to the interests of Israel, while some favor Israeli interests over American interests.
The general public is aware that all jews do not fall into the Leftist category, and give the opionions and the views of all jews a validity equal to their own, largely because the general public are unaware of the extent of involvement by the Jewish community and don't realize how information is not made available to the general public (or to most Jews either) because of the framing.
The Left, of course, is made up of many different stratas of people and includes elements from academia, labor unions, business-oriented groups, Catholic, Protestant, Masonic, other interest groups and many representatives from differing non-racial categories of society.
Presenting issues as being only Jewish issues diffuses a unified opposition to the Left, and keeps everyone divided.
Whites are able to see the exceptions among those jews who, in fact, do oppose the philosophical Left - even as they join in the Jewish communities unified support for all things Leftist.
The jewish communities Leftist oriented support is not seen or understood by Whites in the general public. It is usually not understood, in the same sense, by those Jews who do oppose the Left. Those Jews, and Whites, view the broad jewish community as being Liberal. They cannot comprehend that the Liberals are following a lead which is set by the Jews acting in a capacity as leaders for the Left.
When the issue is framed as Jewish, the discussion becomes publicly prohibited.
When the issue is framed as Leftism, there can be no discussion of the Jewish elements which is a major element in providing the Left their main base and support.
This framing works to prevent all of us who are opposed to Leftism, as well as those who view Leftism as merely a result or extension of Jewishness, from being able to even discuss the issues with each other. This, even while we are otherwise in a unified opposition to the goals of the Left.
Leftists intentionally frame the issues so that a particular group, such as Jews (or another identity group), are seen to be responsible for the unpopular causes promoted by Leftists and their organizations. Responses blaming the identity groups throw the discussion into a limbo area since that there can be no rational discussion of Jewish (or other identity) involvement. The argument becomes an argument on the Jewish or ethnic vs. the rest of the world and the Left is shielded from the resulting divisions.
The main proponents and supporters of the Left are the ones who are publicly identified with, and who brandish that shield of racism/anti-semitism, while a discussion of them is publicly prohibited.
These distinctions in the framing give the arguments of the Leftists against "racism and anti-semitism" an appearance of reasonableness to the public. The framing prevents discussion of Jews in "polite or scholarly venues". At the same time discussions essential to understanding Leftism are prohibited in this way. The Leftists are given an appearance of reasonableness by an unaware public. As the support is gained openly, with full public knowledge, the framing gives cover for a continuing support from the Jewish (and other Leftists) communities.
John and others are placed in the quandry of staying within the frame in order to reach an audience which is more widespread and diverse, while following the guidelines mandated by the frame.
{I'd mention, too, that similar framing exists for other matters.}
*An example of the corporate Left attitudes (not directly Jewish related, but more related to the corporate and world monarchy Leftists), an older article by Pat Buchanan, probably written in 1994, gives some context:
"Nationalism v. Globalism" - { http://www.spearhead.com/0003-pb.html }.
The attempts to stifle free speech with terms such as racist and anti-semitic or other labels may not be aimed so much at protecting Jews as they are intended to prevent a clear and rational conversation about how to defeat Leftism.
Good piece Flan, but I'll disagree here. It's straight up tactics that serves the general strategy to further group self-interest, at least in the diaspora. You may have a point vis-a-vis Israelis and the diaspora.
"In the postwar era, North American Jewry tended to accept that racial prejudice was a psychological aberration, attributable to pathological individuals who acted out their internal problems in discriminatory behaviour. This aberrational behaviour, when left unchecked, not only damaged its direct victims, the racial minorities, it also affected the minds of the general population, setting an example of what was right and acceptable. Prejudice, therefore, was not just a disease but a contagious disease, and it set up a vicious circle ofprejudice leading to discrimination and ofdiscrimination leading to prejudice. Antisemitism was understood as an example of prejudice, as a special case but not a distinct phenomenon: discrimination against Jews was considered part of this general syndrome. (5)
Acting upon this definition, Jewish organizations in Canada designed a grand strategy to interrupt the syndrome. The goal was to enlist the force of the law to inhibit the behaviour of pathological individuals, both through test cases in the courts and through the introduction of protective legislation. (6) This would, with one stroke, prevent the most overt discriminatory practices, it would interrupt the syndrome and thus have an effect on the generation of the underlying prejudices, and it would set the educational example of the law before a generally law-abiding Canadian populace. Since antisemitism was regarded as one aspect of the problem of prejudice, universal laws against discrimination would address the specific problem of antisemitism. The method selected, the tactical approach to fulfil this grand strategy, was to forge alliances with other minority organizations and with liberal forces generally in Canadian society, to demonstrate to legislators that there existed a constituency supportive of re form. All instances of discrimination, not just those perpetrated against Jews, would be exposed in order to illustrate the need for legal protection. (7)
It is apparent that a universalist philosophy underlay this Jewish-led phase of the Canadian equality movement, that the selected tactics genuinely represented the prevailing interpretation of the problem. It should be added, however, that the specific tactics also bore the influence of Jewish experience with anti-discriminatory campaigns before 1945, and a growing understanding of the kind of resistance Jewish initiatives typically met from Canadian legislators. Experience had taught that if Jews created an impression that they were seeking to advance their own cause, they would match the stereotype of "pushy Jews," and their claims could be dismissed by the majority. (8) For both philosophical and tactical reasons, therefore, it was the case in the years immediately following World War II that Canadian Jewish organizations deliberately scouted opportunities to confront discriminatory practices against other, non-Jewish, minorities."
Another example is the case of Cynthia McKinney of the Black Democratic Caucus.
Stephen Zunes wrote;
"With the defeat of five-term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in the August 22 Democratic primary in Georgia, the U.S. House of Representatives will soon be losing one of its most outspoken progressive voices. This is very bad news for those of us who support peace, human rights, and social justice. It would be even worse news, however, if the blame for her defeat is placed primarily upon the Jewish community.
As has been pointed out by both the mainstream and progressive media, political action committees with close ties to the right-wing Israeli government of Ariel Sharon -- funded primarily by conservative American Jews -- poured in thousands of dollars worth of campaign contributions to her opponent, former state judge Denise Majette. Unlike most liberal Democrats, McKinney did not make an exception for Israel in her outspoken support for human rights and international law. As a result, she became a target of the so-called "Jewish lobby," which vigorously challenges elected officials who dare question U.S. military, financial and diplomatic support for Israel's occupation and repression of the Palestinians.
Despite this, it would be a big mistake to blame Jewish money for the defeat of this progressive African-American Congresswoman.[...]
Furthermore, her opponent's campaign coffers were enriched by contributions from individuals and PACs affiliated with big business and other special interests that surpassed that of the "pro-Israel" groups. Majette had the backing of such wealthy corporate donors as Home Depot founders Arthur Blank and Bernie Marcus, Georgia-Pacific's Pete Correll, Fidelity Bank's James Miller, Cousins Properties' Tom Cousins, Mirant Corporations's Bill Dahlberg, and Alston & Bird's Ben Johnson. Other leading business figures in the Majette camp included Marce Fuller, Virgil Williams, J.B. Fuqua and Inman Allen. Money to oust McKinney also came from donors associated with Wachovia Corporation, Equifax, SunTrust Banks, and other corporations. None of these donors are known to have any affiliation with groups supporting the Israeli government. A look at the records currently available show that Majette's top contributors include a sizable number of major Republican donors and very few names commonly associated with a Jewish ethnicity."
Bernard Marcus is Jewish.
Bernard Marcus Receives ADL's Highest Honor
American Jewish Committee's Atlanta Chapter Honors UPS with National Human Relations Award; Chairman and CEO Mike Eskew to Accept Prestigious Award
Past Honorees:
F. Duane Ackerman
Dr. Sanford S. Atwood
Governor Roy Barnes
Harold Brockey(a)
D.W. Brooks(a)
President Jimmy Carter
Anne Cox Chambers
John L. Clendenin
A.D. "Pete" Correll *
A.W. "Bill" Dahlberg *
Mary D. Gellerstedt
Harald R. Hansen
Ben F. Johnson, III*
Ingrid Saunders Jones
Blaine Kelley, Jr.
James C. Kennedy
Donald R. Keough
Bernard Marcus*
Justus C. Martin, Jr.(a)
John W. McIntyre
Senator Sam Nunn
John C. Portman, Jr.
G. Joseph Prendergast
D. Raymond Riddle
Jack Tarver
John A. Williams
THE ARTHUR M. BLANK FAMILY FOUNDATION
Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga.; $83,000 to support the Israel Emergency Fund.
"To honor Arthur Blank with our Humanitarian Award is actually our honor, said Rhonda Barad, Eastern Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. For years, he and his family have demonstrated a deep commitment to youth, the arts and the environment, and we are particularly grateful for their support of our traveling Friedl Dicker Brandeis exhibit.
Friedl Dicker Brandeis is the Simon Wiesenthal Centers landmark exhibition on the life and works of Bauhaus artist Friedl Dicker Brandeis who was incarcerated in Terezin and killed at Auschwitz. Without the vision of Arthur Blank and the support of The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the traveling exhibit of Friedl Dicker Brandeis work, which has reached millions around the world, would not have been possible, stated Regina Seidman Miller, International Project Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center."
"None of these donors are known to have any affiliation with groups supporting the Israeli government."
Anti-semitism begat racism begat sexism, nativism, homophobism, islamophobism, xenophobism, etc. Conservatives, or rightists, have become so distracted and confused fighting the latest isms that they cannot see the common thread, or refuse to trace it to its root.
The root of all these isms is the idea that to discriminate is pathological, rather than normal. This is the fundamental inversion of reality at the heart of all "leftism".
The explicit intent of many jewish leftists has been to divide and weaken the White majority so as to benefit jews.
The CJC proclaims on their home page:
Canadian Jewish Congress works to foster a Canada where Jews, as part of the multicultural fabric of this country, live in and contribute to an environment of opportunity and mutual respect.
That they couch this in politically correct language does not alter the fact that they openly say and do what they perceive to be in the interests of jews.
So where are the leftists objecting to this discrimination? Imagine a pro-White organization proclaimed:
Canadian White Congress works to foster a Canada where Whites, seeking to do what they think is good for Whites, might also say some flowery things that sound very nice.
Not only leftists, but also most rightists would attack any pro-White organization as discriminatory and racist.
The philo-semitic anti-White double standard transcends politics. It transcends class and wealth. "Leftism" is a lie, it is camouflage, and it is an irrational pile of contradictions only if you neglect its racially-motivated component. The attack on Whites is race-based and comes not only from the left. Non-whites, led by primarily by jews, are on one side; Whites, criticized most loudly and effectively by jews, are on the other.
Deracinated Whites, left and right, unable to make sense of what's going on, flail wildly at each other because they think it isn't acceptable to flail at anyone else.
The division is clear, and so is the direction the conflict is going. Anyone who can claim a non-white identity is doing so as desperately as they can. That's because Whites, far from running the world, have lost control so completely we cannot even defend our own homelands.
Desmond,
I make no pretense at being a scholar, especially on this issue, and you may be entirely correct. I was trying to place a scenerio based on my own observations and limited exposure to the issue, and had hoped that some useable answers might come about on how to open these speech and PC restrictions.
I am a little more knowledgeable on the Leftist side of this argument, but I cannot see that so many powerful ruling non-jewish Leftist leaders would willingly submit themselves and their countrymen to a tyranny of jewish origins. I still fail to see that.
I did run across another article which adds support to your views when I was looking for more information. That is "The B'nai Brith and the Origins of their Anti-Defamation League (ADL)", at:
- {Scroll down to Chapter 40, The Invasion of America}
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/zionistattackcanadianwriter16jan08.shtml
{zionist attack canadian writer 16jan08. shtml}
I couldn't get the link inside the article to work, but this explanation is consistent with explanations I have studied from the standpoint of communists in government and how they became effective. There seems to be little distinction between the activities used by each.
I would be interested in your views as to how those who hold views so similar in many ways might be able to communicate and do so without alienating each other and their readers.
Tan,
You submitted your post while I was working on my reply to Desmond. Looking at it initially, it makes a hell of a lot of sense, especially when you say:
"Conservatives, or rightists, have become so distracted and confused fighting the latest isms that they cannot see the common thread, or refuse to trace it to its root.
The root of all these isms is the idea that to discriminate is pathological, rather than normal. This is the fundamental inversion of reality at the heart of all "leftism"."
Actually, your whole post makes sense. I'll take some time to read it again and think through my preconceptions.
"I would be interested in your views as to how those who hold views so similar in many ways might be able to communicate and do so without alienating each other and their readers."
Flanders, Expand that thought for me, if and when you have a moment.
Tan,
Generally, I agree with small quibbles.
"It transcends class and wealth."
IMO, it partners with capital/wealth/class etc.
Zunes tried to argue that the corporate donors who money helped to oust McKinney had no "affiliation with groups supporting the Israeli government." In fact almost all had affiliation with ADL/BNai Brith/Simon Wiesenthal Center, groups that presumably support Israel. Home Depots activism regarding immigration is widely known. A benefit accrues to upper class wealthy whites, presumably Republicans, that ally with the "lobby". It's a win/win.
"The attack on Whites is race-based and comes not only from the left. Non-whites, led by primarily by jews, are on one side; Whites, criticized most loudly and effectively by jews, are on the other."
It's more than race based. The minorities referenced in the fighting antisemitism strategy article are also white minorities. At least in the Canadian experience, and arguably it differed in the US, white ethnics, some Ukrainians and Italians were interned in Canada during WWI & WWII, also allied with Jews and non-whites to target the "pathologies" of the WASP founding people. It's, fundamentally, why I eschew white nationalism. It's natural for white ethnics to pursue their own genetic interests even in competition with other white ethnics.
The formula is ethnic minorities, both white and non-white, WASP/Euro white elites and elite Jews intent upon disrupting the cycle of pathology imbued in the the Gergen/Obama uneducated, bitter, shotgun toting working class whites. And of course any minorities or Jews for that matter that step out of line will be harshly censored.
Desmond,
What I mean is that there are many people who know some or many details of what is happening, but who have not been exposed to a more complete factual background. They have not had the opportunity to develop fully feelings or opinions one way or other based on solid facts. Until they have had that chance they are not going to have the same firm convictions which those who are more familiar with the facts may have. Those who are supportive and trying to learn more are deserving of respect. It wouldn't be right to make their minds up for them.
"Those who are supportive and trying to learn more are deserving of respect."
Doesn't that door swing both ways, Flanders? It appears not. For instance any discussion of the "kosher tax" brings this response;
"...the ADL has produced a response to the "kosher tax" conspiracy theory - which, like many myths dreamed up by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, is now being promulgated by Islamists as well."
Is it a myth? Is it a conspiracy? It exists, according to the ADL, and the labeling on a multitude of packaging, however, you only become a neo-Nazi if you suggest the religious stipend exceeds a certain ceiling.
Thank you for the post. The illustration is quite appropriate.
The principle of anti-semitism is this: no matter the merits of what you say, if it is critical of jews then you are insane.
I am, as you will have observed, an anti-anti-Semite---but there is nothing unusual in this. Anti-anti-Semites in America are as common as gnats in June. As you say, "It transcends left and right."
The belief that the sun rises in the east also transcends left and right. This does not make the belief a conspiracy.
For my own part, for what the observation might be worth, I find jews very hard to dislike, and I find few if any substantive grounds to be an anti-Semite. One can of course find reasons to be an anti-Semite, as you do, but one can likewise find reasons to be anti-anybody if one looks hard enough. One has to put such things into their proper subjective perspective.
No jews are controlling my brain. Obviously, jews are powerless to prevent me from reading your blog! Personally, I think that the jews are a bogeyman threat. In other words, I do not think that the sudden decampment of all jews to Israel would do much to save Western civilization. I do not think that it would solve much of anything, really, except to deprive Americans of their most talented ethny. 1960's-style Western liberalism is not a jewish plot but rather a civilizational death pact between malicious lesbian hags who hate everybody, on the one hand, and wealthy middle-aged men who want to trade in their old wives for newer models, on the other. It is fueled by the birth-control pill, not by U.S. jews (whose ranks are decimated by the pill faster than anybody's).
"For my own part, for what the observation might be worth, I find jews very hard to dislike...."
You've failed to grasp something fundamental: anti-semitism isn't about Jews; it's about THE Jews, i.e., the organized Jewish community. The fact that Steve and Debbie are a fun couple has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You, personally, can have a profitable relationship with Jewish friends and business contacts. The point, however, is that the relationship between our group and their group is having disastrous consequences for our group.
Desmond,
I'm glad you have posted that link. I had found a similar one which was disconnected by the time I got back to it. The one I had used more symbols than just the circled U that looks like Underwriting Labs.
No, I don't find the responses there unusual. I think people need more exposure to different facts over a period of time, but not with an attitude that they have to accept the facts. It seems to me that the point should be to get them to want to investigate on their own and to provide them a means for doing so.
I'm sure as hell not going to accept something just because someone tells me to, unless I trust them based on previous dealings. I don't expect anyone to treat what I have to say any differently.
I think that there are a lot of ways to truth and that we are just getting enough access to come up with answers. We don't have a lot of time to get them, but the best we can do is spur people's interest in what we think they should know. We are not like our enemies who seek to silence and prevent people from coming to opinions based on fact.
HJH, I do think that you can benefit from more exploration and thought given to the matter. There may not be evidence of conspiracy, but there is evidence of influence in every area you touch. All the little "insignificancies" turn out to be a huge wave when every affected area is added together.
I have had more interest in the institutions which act to influence our behaviors and I have only begun to have awareness of how a virtual army of volunteers, such as the disapora is, can have a multiplier effect to influence institutions and the people within them. When it is backed by a seemingly unlimited financial base, it is extremely powerful.
It is also very easy for people scanning only the surface to overlook. PC, or as in my case, complete unawareness, prevents many from starting to find answers. Our attitude of trying to treat everyone fairly and equally, which is a natural trait to us, prevents examining some truthful things which at first may seem ridiculous.
"Obviously, jews are powerless to prevent me from reading your blog!"
In country's without a first amendment right, i.e. Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress is working for a change.
Sorry, check that.
"In countries..."
Howard: For my own part, for what the observation might be worth, I find jews very hard to dislike, and I find few if any substantive grounds to be an anti-Semite. One can of course find reasons to be an anti-Semite, as you do, but one can likewise find reasons to be anti-anybody if one looks hard enough. One has to put such things into their proper subjective perspective.
You speak of plots and conspiracies, which are on the same side of the false dichotomy as "seeing jews everywhere". I said I reject that. I also reject your suggestion that there are no valid reasons to criticize jews.
You speak of anecdotal experience. Here is mine.
Most anti-anti-semites, yourself excluded, are precisely what they ostensibly hate: hysterical irrational bigoted supremacists. For them jewish interests trump all other concerns. Most Whites smeared as anti-semites on the other hand, myself included, express reasonable, rational concerns that White interests have become increasingly subordinated to all others. That is my experience.
You blame "malicious lesbian hags who hate everybody, on the one hand, and wealthy middle-aged men who want to trade in their old wives for newer models, on the other". You think their "death pact" is why Western civilization is collapsing?
Don't you think it has more to do with the pathologization and subsequent decline of White racial consciousness? Or that this might have to do in part with jews who love multiculturalism so much that they smear oppoents of immigration and demonize Whites who document or discuss why?
It seems to me you're concerned with symptoms. I'm concerned with causes. I don't see jews everywhere, and I don't see them nowhere. I see them where they are.
Tan,
Off topic but it should be said:
That was a job well done when you commented on immigration at iSteve. Testing99 is the archtypical jew/notajew/iamajew/therearenojews game player. Pinning the jewish enthusiasm for open borders on the holocaust is one of his favored themes. Honestly though he had to give up his last handle of "Evil Neocon". Which was ironicly descriptive I must say, because he had earned a well deserved reputation for bad logic and mendacity.
My pleasure Happy Talk.
The comment is in response to The Reality-Based Community in action, a subject I had something to say about in my previous post. I just added two new links to Sailer there.
The arguments of most anti-anti-semites are so lacking in substance that they do their cause more harm than good. They consider words like "hitler" and "anti-semitism" argument enders exactly because they presume jewish interests override all others.
Tanstaafl,
I appreciate once again your courteous reply.
There are two kinds of fora, both valid. In the one kind, debate within reasonably broad bounds is welcome and encouraged. In the other kind, broad debate is not the purpose, but rather discussion among sympathetic fellows is sought. The American far right, viciously misused by what passes for mainstream U.S. conservatism, very much needs fora of the latter kind, for the purpose of maintaining morale among the troops as it were. Plainly, I am not fully sympathetic, though I feel strongly that the manner in which so-called conservatives routinely abuse the far right is cowardly. One or two of your readers seem to think my remarks out of bounds. If and when you also felt that my pro-jewish remarks were unhelpful or unwelcome, I trust that you would let me know. There would be no hard feelings; I would cordially restrict my remarks here to other topics.
I would assure your readers that I have not come to stifle discussion or to warp it into Politically Correct channels, even when I disagree. I am no PC wet blanket. If the jews were a genuine threat, then I do not know how we would determine this except by discussing the matter forthrightly in fora like this. Put another way, if I am right and the jews are not a genuine threat, then how are jews to clear their collective name unless squarely confronted by the charges against them? Such square confrontation is found here and hardly anywhere else.
It is something of a shock for me to fall in with such a group of Americans as your readers, among whom I---along with Flippityflopitty---am seen to occupy the relative left wing, but so it is here. No one ever thought me a leftist before this. Interesting, no?
Keep up the good work.
Howard
Howard Harrison wrote:
For my own part, for what the observation might be worth, I find jews very hard to dislike,
Mr. Harrison is in that very large group of people who will not make the distinction between a personal enemy, what the Latins called an "inimicus," and a national enemy, a "hostis". Unthinkingly, he believes that because Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein are nice to his face that they must also be “good” like him and have the same interests as him. Because a few Jews that he personally knows are nice to him, he will overlook all of their support and participation in groups which work for the promotion of Jews over Whites and which attack any and all attempts of Whites to organize for their own defense.
He has willingly let “nice" be confused with "good" because he believes that all people are equal and that all want the same things. As a good liberal, he is above racial conflict and believes in the brotherhood of all mankind. He believes that all people are born good, that it is culture (which springs up randomly, never based on inherent racial group characteristics, which could not exist anyway because all people are the same) that alters people into their present state. Based on his personal experience, he believes that everyone will eventually become as enlightened as he, and that everyone will eventually abandon their group affiliations and stop fighting amongst themselves.
[sing class=”heavenlyangels”]
He has a dream: That humanity will eventually perfect itself, just as he has done
[/sing]
And why shouldn’t he believe this? Isn’t his de-racinated state living proof of the correctness of his enlightenment? He still does fine. The MSM, academia, and the government are always saying how Whites have plenty of power to share. They also reassure him that once other racial groups have what they want, on-Whites will cease attacking Whites and Western Civilization, and we can all share [the stinking ruins] equally.
This misguided belief is not unusual in America today, where most White people, including most conservatives, have been radically individualized, completely unaware and uncaring that non-Whites still work in groups against Whites. Because they do not feel a connection or responsibility toward their own ethic or racial group, they cannot imagine that anyone else would either, or that group organization and group political activity really means anything. We see this clearly in many Whites who support the Obamassiah. They cannot believe that this nice Black man could be so friendly to them yet also be working to displace them and their children in their own country.
Also, Harrison has been writing here and on other blogs:
" ... and I find few if any substantive grounds to be an anti-Semite."
C’mon, Harrison, this Mr. Innocent act is getting old. Harrison has been given lots of information, yet has so far refused to read or consider any of it.
"... occupy the relative left wing"
All things are relative.
I dont know about begatting but:
"The explicit intent of many jewish leftists has been to divide and weaken the White majority so as to benefit jews."
The explicit intent of all minorities is to divide and conquer the majority. They do this through "-isms" (ie, conservatism, liberalism, progressivism) and the corresponding flux allows them the opportunity to influence the socio-political dynamic of the country.
DJ - In countries without a first amendment right, i.e. Canada - yeah, can't help ya there. Tht's why I love the good ole USA.
HJH - Tan's discourse has been charged as "anti-semitism" because he sees "jews everywhere" or "where they are" and although a false charge, his pro-white "mantra" offers the anti-anti-semite circumstantial evidence to try and judge his perspective without offering a snippet of fact [hitler card].
I would point out, however, that I recognize John Savage's frustration with Jews popping up everywhere in a dialogue that may or may not rely on the Jewish involvement. [How about those Mets? Well, if it wasnt for the damn Jewish PC-control over the media, Wilpon would be able to fire Willie Randolph, but he played the race card and now we're stuck with him - even if Jews are everywhere, do we need to point them out at every turn?]
Here's an updated version of the post above:
http://rustymason.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberals-superior-and-enlightened.html
FF said:
"I would point out, however, that I recognize John Savage's frustration with Jews popping up everywhere in a dialogue that may or may not rely on the Jewish involvement. [How about those Mets? Well, if it wasnt for the damn Jewish PC-control over the media, Wilpon would be able to fire Willie Randolph, but he played the race card and now we're stuck with him - even if Jews are everywhere, do we need to point them out at every turn?]"
C'mon FF, does that really happen? I've never seen it happen, and cannot imagine it happening in this blog-o-ring circuit.
John Savage's discomfort with discussing all the players should be discomforting to anyone seeking the real truth. For it is legitimate to point out relevant facts in any subject, especially when they are not reported elsewhere. That's what these discussions are all about.
And don't feel you must throw the leftists, Jewish groups, or wishy-washy conservatives a bone with comments like you just made, just to show how fair and balanced you are. Your enemies don't see your "fairness," they see only evidence that you have realized your guilt. They see further proof that they are right and that you are "in" with those evilwhiteswhowanttokillsixmillionjews. To them, the fact that you even bother posting here makes you a bad person.
Howard,
I have only ever invited one commenter to leave, and if he hadn't I may not have forced him out. Truly I thought all he had was disinformation. I said so, and he left because he realized his games would not work.
You and Flippity and any other earnest contrarian are welcome to comment here as long as you can face opposing opinion. I don't deem either of you as spreaders of misinformation. Rusty described your apparent mindset and motivation very well. I recognize that it is closer to the mainstream than many other points of view here. You provide the service of keeping the conversation here connected and contrasted to that mainstream.
Flippity,
Hasn't it ever struck you as odd that jews can constantly and publically obsess about their group interests? Or that a large part of that obsession has to do with stifling, smothering, or censoring any criticism of themselves?
Rosenfeld is surely right about one thing: It's astonishing that in the 60 years since the Nazi extermination camps were liberated, anti-Semitism has revived and thrived. Still, it hardly makes sense to fight it by promiscuously throwing around the word "anti-Semite" so that it loses its punch or to flay Jewish critics of Israel. I strongly disagree with some of these critics and find some of their views obnoxious, but if somehow an anti-Semite finds common ground with them, that is hardly their fault -- and certainly not their intent. After all, anti-Semites do not concern themselves merely with Israel. They hate all Jews no matter where they may be.
Isn't it odd that the "majority", which you agree is being attacked by minorities including jews, should just absorb these attacks without defending itself? You think this is proper? That the "majority" should not speak directly against this aggression because then we might have "jews popping up everywhere"?
That is why we are here. It is why the White "majority" has so completely lost control that it is on the bottom of the PC pyramid and jetting along toward "minority".
What's happening to Whites is a crime. You don't stop crime by turning a blind eye to it.
Thanks for the comment, Rusty, but I admit that I do not recognize the person you are describing. 'Tisn't I.
I cannot prove the nonexistence of a jewish conspiracy to overthrow Western civilization. I acknowledge that Kevin MacDonald is an excellent anecdotalist, and further that, where anecdotes are, a real trend can underlie. On the other hand, I happen to like jews and believe that there is such a thing as a judeo-Christian tradition which comprises the Catholic, the Orthodox, the Protestant, the evangelical, the Mormon and the jew. If you will cut the jew out, then why not the Mormon, and then why not further the Catholic? Then why stop with religion? Why not cut out the feminist and the Darwinist? Where does the cutting stop? Only once the whole body of Western civilization has been sliced to quivering shreds?
Unlike the Black, too many of whose people seem tragically incapable of any civilization, the jew is an integral part of Western civilization and has been for twenty centuries.
Your distinction between "nice" and "good" is merely a way of saying that my lifelong experience with "Goldstein" counts for nothing; that Mr. MacDonald's anecdotes are all that matter. But to a conservative traditionalist, real life is local. In my own life, it is Black people as a race that have afflicted me, my family and my White neighbors. Though no mestizo has ever done anything especially untoward to me and mine as far as I know, I have heard enough from others to have learned potentially to beware them as a race. But Goldstein? What has he done to me? Taken my boys out on Scout hikes? Tended my children when my wife was in the hospital? Helped me carry my furniture? Fed me on Thanksgiving? Yea, all of these and more. If I will not repay Goldstein evil for good on account of some MacDonaldian metaphysics, then this is a fault I must ask your pardon for.
It is true that most jews are antinationalists. They are wrong in this but the fault is easy to understand. Their weapons are not knives and guns but words and speech. When it comes to politics, we can tell them, "No." They won't shoot us in response; practically no jew ever has. The trouble is, too many of us agree with them---and I have a higher opinion of the White race than perhaps you have: I do not think that this is the result of brainwashing by jews; I think that our people can take responsibility for it, themselves. You don't run some jew out of your country because he disagrees with you on a question of politics. You just overrule him. That's all.
I am not sure quite what you want, Rusty. It may be that you dream of a blond-haired, blue-eyed, square-jawed Nordic homeland in North America. If so, then I do not disparage you for it in principle, for blond hair, blue eyes, square jaws and the Nordic character that go with them are very fine things, and we Americans could use more of them. But it is not the role of the darker races to clear out of the way to make this happen. The America of the 1950s though hardly perfect was the finest country that ever was. Jews were an integral and important part of that country.
I don't like all this reductionism, as though you could take everything to bits and reassemble it in arbitrary ways, and still expect things to work. Life isn't that way. "Goldstein" is part of life. He is a good part, not a bad, and the only reason I hesitate to defend him here is because, as Tanstaafl correctly observes, he is already, exaggeratedly defended practically everywhere else.
My only request to you, Rusty, is that you not make the mistake of branding me a heretic because I "almost get it" but fail to go all the way to the extreme. You can score easy points off me in this forum by doing so but, I ask you, what does this really help? I am generally on your side, I think. Tanstaafl has never found it necessary to belittle me or to treat my views with disrespect. Why do you?
Howard
As for just saying "no"... Did you miss Desmond's link above?
Nope. Saw it. Followed it. Didn't like the attitude or activity of the jew that wrote it.
Are you not aware that jewish activists relentlessly seek to criminalize "hate speech", where "hate" is defined by the ADL and SPLC?
I hadn't been aware, exactly, until people like you and MacDonald did the good service of bringing the fact to my attention.
Are you not aware that you cannot question holocaust orthodoxy in many Western countries without going to prison?
The David Irving affair is indeed disturbing. I am not sure whether jews are actually behind it, but I should not be very surprised to learn that jews were.
I am not propelled by an irrational hatred of all jews. I'm propelled by a healthy sense of self-defense to respond to those I perceive to be attacking me and my kind.
Fairly put.
What I want to know is why only positive things may be said about the judeo half,
This is not my rule.
while the Christian half - Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon - is regularly denounced and demonized?
It is interesting and, to me, unexpected, that you would include the Mormons among the Christians. Not that I dispute you, exactly; I just did not expect it from you.
Christianity (nor even Mormonism) is not demonized by me. I reserve my demonization for Islam, which is patently demonic.
The cutting you fear seems to be happening all on one side. What kind of tradition is that to defend?
I cannot defend any such tradition.
Howard wrote:
"On the other hand, I happen to like jews and believe that there is such a thing as a judeo-Christian tradition which comprises the Catholic, the Orthodox, the Protestant, the evangelical, the Mormon and the jew. If you will cut the jew out, then why not the Mormon, and then why not further the Catholic? Then why stop with religion? Why not cut out the feminist and the Darwinist? Where does the cutting stop? Only once the whole body of Western civilization has been sliced to quivering shreds?"
First off, "Judaeo-Christianity" is a fairly recently popularized term and is oxymoronic. It's like saying Mormon-Catholics or Judaeo-Islam. Christianity was not Judaism, and was never considered to be so, at least not until about 20-30 years ago. You are completely unaware of Christian history, apparently, or do not want to know this.
You also say that unless Christianity includes every other belief, i.e., unless it is a universally universal religion, then it is nothing at all, and Western tradition will be ripped to shreds.
It IS easy to pin a label on you, Howard. You are the liberal's liberal. No amount of reasoning will ever get through to you.
Flippity: What I find odd is your half-vitriolic, half-admiration for their racist behavior.
I feel neither vitriol nor admiration toward jews. I cite examples of their hypocrisy and the philo-semitic anti-White regime we live under because I don't like it. It's not fair. It's not right. I want it to change.
The idea that we can shame, cajole, or otherwise convince non-whites to adopt the same deracinated attitudes that most Whites have adopted is insane. Whites can and must change only one thing: how Whites think about themselves.
After four decades of insanity we find ourselves disrespected, dispossessed, and displaced. I've had enough. I'm not playing the colorblind game any more.
Flippity, I understand how odd you might feel thinking about race more than those around you. But I don't see how a true conservative can avoid it now because the topic is everywhere in this multiculti hell we have created. It's being deliberately shoved in our faces now, on the TV, radio, movies. We are attacked anywhere and everywhere because we are White. It's a very new, deliberate campaign to try to force us to obliterate ourselves, less than 5-10 years old. To try to ignore it and to not point it out to the young who think it has always been this way is, I think, irresponsible. I know that a few of the young people I have enlightened have changed their behavior as a result, and feel cheated by "the system" for having lied to them about PC/multiculturalism. I sleep fine.
You might feel the oddball around Whites. But race is not an uncomfortable subject with the other races, according to the Indians, Chinese, Koreans, etc. I've talked to. Which is one big reason they are able to continue advancing us and destroying us without a fight.
Leadership is a lonely business. One simply has to pick one's battles, places, and times correctly. Now that you know the truth, it is your duty to spread it. The young are seeking bold leadership.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It used to be normal for all Whites to make a distinction between ourselves and the other. It protected us, it promoted our interests inside our own country, something that is practically illegal today. The comments you might make today would have been considered, Yah, So What? only 20 or 30 years ago.
I think of something in the book and TV series, The Way We Live Now. Georgiana Longestaffe, a young lady of a poor landed gentle family, was being visited by one of her gentlelady friends from the city.
The friend, I don't remember which one, found out that Georgiana was having a Jew stay at her house for two weeks with her and her parants (all above aboard). The friend was mortified and terrified for Georgiana, and said that NO ONE was going to talk to Georgiana ever again if they found out. Georgiana, not a little embarassed, said, "We have visited with Jews before," whereupon the mortified friend replied strongly, "But not in ones own home!"
THAT was the normal, healthy attitude.
Flippity,
Here is an example of activities about which you say:
"Im pointing out that the "Jew-factor" in your statement is simply true of all minorities - its the friggin' minority play book."
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wiesenthal.html
There are many other playbooks by similar organizations. Guess which group voraciously writes the playbooks? I'm not disputing your right to your independent opinion, but giving a factor which may broaden the objectively factual basis for your opinion.
Howard,
I cannot presently find the link to one explanation on the divergence of facts from commonly held opinions on supposed Judeo/Christainty unity, but I will try to reproduce the gist of.
----
It was that Christains were taught that Christ died to show love for mankind and that they are to love one another for the benefit of their neighbors, with faith, hope and charity. God loves all the twelve tribes any of whom are subject to being saved by believing in him. No works are required, only the sincere faith in Christ and attempts to follow his guidance. The reward of any and all such believers is to rejoice in heaven alongside God.
Jewish religion, especially the Talmud, teaches that there is one superior tribe who still await the Messiahs return, which will be only for the benefit of the Jews. They are required to work ritually for a cleansing and to perform works for the community to make them acceptable to God. They are to hold the other tribes in contempt and are allowed to exploit them for their benefit until the Messiah's return. They are the one, and only, tribe favored and saved by God. The other tribes are consigned to hell.
----
I've not personally experienced any portion of the Jewish religion but a little examination of the underlying ideologies shows that those who identify as jewish, or with a culture and history based on those views are more likely to hold such "racist" viewpoints than a typical person in American society, and that makes it alright in their view to use those labels against others in order to advance themselves and their interests.
The following link shows that we may be less aware because there are reasons for the fact that we are less aware:
http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/readtalmudlately.html
Another link shows something which doesn't happen in the US, but which I was surprised at happening anywhere:
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/05/hundreds-of-new-testament-books-burned.html
As to Catholics and other groups, possible explanations exist:
http://heimbichner.tripod.com/BLOODALT.HTM
A commenter at my site had left me a link to an article which I haven't had time to read fully, but which seems to bear on this issue. The author says:
"Remember, folks, the point of my bringing this material to your attention is not to convince or to evangelise, it is to get you to begin to investigate."
The link is: http://www.iamanenglishman.com/page.php?iCategoryId=648&iParentId=647
I'm finding that just a little investigation shows something amiss in my recently held views, which were similar to yours.
----------
"It is interesting and, to me, unexpected, that you would include the Mormons among the Christians. Not that I dispute you, exactly; I just did not expect it from you."
Well, I will dispute it. I do this not because I enjoy "demonizing" Mormonism; rather, I do it because I feel the need to correct the record and defend my own faith. The Mormons worship an entirely different god, an entirely different Jesus, and simply by this fact alone they should not be presented as an accurate representation (denomination) of Christianity.
I have my problems with Catholicism as well, but at least they worship the same God (sort of). Mormons believe (even if they won't admit it) that their god used to be a man and that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan. From a true Christian perspective, this is blasphemy.
Step back from the theological pissing contests and realize that it is politically correct to fear and criticize Christians, including Mormons, but forbidden to fear or criticize jews. It is also unPC, though to a lesser degree, to criticize islam, hinduism, buddhism, or other religions exotic to the West.
One reasonable explanation is that religion serves as a proxy for race. Christianity and Mormonism are strongly associated with White, the rest are non-white.
"Step back from the theological pissing contests and realize that it is politically correct to fear and criticize Christians, including Mormons, but forbidden to fear or criticize jews."
Depends upon which circles you're traveling in. Among the neocon crowd -- especially that which is supportive of Mitt Romney -- it is extremely unPC to criticize Mormonism. Even the mere suggestion that Mormonism is not the same as Christianity will get you ostracized from most neocon blogs and message boards. Believe me, I have first-hand experience with this.
In no way am I suggesting that Mormons enjoy the same PC protection as the Jews, or even anything close to it. My point -- which was mostly unrelated to the topic at hand -- was simply that Mormonism is not Christianity.
I apologize for dragging the thread off-topic, but when I see such an error as Mormonism = Christianity, I often have a hard time letting it go.
I find it hard to believe that a learned white man, willing to converse with racists without denouncing them, could possibly be obtuse as Mr. Harrison. But then I have to remind myself that whites' predicament today is largely a result of whites like Mr. Harrison being such -- I have to say it -- suckers
I think I tried to explain to him once how I, as outsider ("white ethnic), experience living in a white (British/Teutonic/Nordic/ish) country and that it's very similar to how a Jew experiences it. Reams could be written about this, but one little point sums it up quite nicely. When we meet that nice, smiling, laughing white family, when we get along famously with them, concsciously or unconsciously we're thinking we've "got 'em" -- ie, they're "safe," they're on our side, they can be trusted. Achieving this requires the white family to remain completely mum about race/ethnicity, or at least about the problems multiracialism/multiethnicism causes, or that if the problems are to be discussed, it be in an aracial manner or one that presupposes solutions to such problems are only some social programming away. Racial/ethnic discussion that strays from this, unless it is discussion initiated by us, immediately rings our alarm bells.
It rings our alarm bells because we -- especially if we are Jews -- are so well aware of whither such discussion inexorably -- if sustained for long enough -- leads, intensely aware of the conclusions inexorably reached. If race matters, we are not of your race and we can only be disadvantaged by race mattering. Ipso facto contentions that race matters must be nipped in the bud.
This more than anything, I believe, explains why in a discussion about black crime, it's almost always the Jew in the group exhorting the others to remain calm, to not act like "David Duke." Jews, being far more intelligent than other so-called "white ethnics," and having a painful history of exclusion and persecution, are both the most attuned to racial conversation and the best positioned and most able to counter it.
The matter is further complicated by the Holocaust issue: Jews clearly have something to hide. They have invested so much into the gas chambers story and yet it is so frighteningly flimsy that they (probably correctly) figure that the position they've attained for themselves would be imperiled by the truth which surely surface in any frank discussion (see IHR, CODOH).
There are also, it should be noted, legions of peace-on-earth millenarians among the Jews for whom nasty facts about race only get in the way of their world-perfect fantasies.
For whites, the issue is actually quite simple: separation or extinction. Your race, Mr. Harrison, simply can't survive a multiracial environment. Mixing inevitably occurs and mixing will, given enough numbers and time (and with today's numbers only a few generations are needed), completely extinguish you, as surely as 2+2=4. If you wish to survive as a race, there is simply no other option but to separate. Black IQ, black crime, hispanic intransigence, Islamic megalomania and primitivism; all these issues simply serve to highlight how horrible a world it will be for the shrinking numbers of whites; not only will you be extinguished and replaced, but the people extinguishing and replacing you are, to speak plainly, quite horrible (towards yourselves, at any rate).
The idea that we can shame, cajole, or otherwise convince non-whites to adopt the same deracinated attitudes that most Whites have adopted is insane.
I don't think it's insane. I'd say the majority of Brazilians have a deracinated attitude, with the holdouts (with large numebrs) mainly being non-Iberian settler groups like the Italians or Sirio-Lebanese and unmixed or very dark Africans (who are recent target of Afrocentrist African-American activists). There's a great "middle-band" of deracinated Brazilians.
Furthermore, apart from Americanization efforts in the early 20th century, the rest of the Anglo world hasn't made any serious attempt to deracinate immigrant groups at all. On the contrary, groups are encouraged to maintain their identity and are supported by the state ($$$) in doing so. (They cynic could see this an attempt to simply pack as many non-whites into your countries as possible:when multiculturalism fails, as it of course only can do, they'll simply say, oh well, that was a mistake, the only thing we can do now is attempt to assimilate these groups -- the multiracialists/antiracists/antiwhiteracists win what they wanted in the first place. I repeat, this is the cynical view.)
One more thing, to address Desmond Jones' McDonaldian points about expanding group interests. Does the theory make any allowance for groups incorrectly calculating behavior that ostensibly helps their group interests?
Desmond is inclined to read my comments as an attempt to argue my own group interests. But Serbs are just as likely to outmarry as any other group and the same forces that will extinguish whites will also extinguish the Serbs in your territory; if it is group interests I/we are seeking to expand, our strategy is flawed since it will leave us without a group at all. Thus if you have to read interest into my (or similar) comments, then it would be an economic, not racial, interest you're detecting: even if my group is extinguished, my and my progeny's economic prosperity will remain safeguarded (at least as much as any others'). The same applies to Jews, only they appear to have an in-built failsafe since the inner core of Jewery, the Hasids and other ultra-orthodox, sire enough offspring to compensate for the significant numbers who drop out.
Tan - you have proposed behaving in the same manner that you have pointedly disdained. The minority "woe is me" play book whether based in fact, partial fact or fantasy is playable because they cite "woe" and the self-loathing, self-conscious whites buy into it. This is not time for the White Awareness Parade down 5th Avenue (Puerto Rican Day Parade was today), but it is the time to stop saying its white America's fault for every goddam problem that surfaces. If your a US citizen (or a legal resident - for the PC-policeman), we're all in this together, if not shut the FU and go home - we dont want you here.
Rusty - I'm no "true conservative" if I understand the term. Other "races" in the US share commonality in culture through exclusion. Those non-whites who are not exclusionary are just "suckers" like me. That bygone era is just that - its bygone. The minority is sizable and influences the direction of the country. There is no denying that. The fact that they (or at least their spokesmen) are racists does not inspire me to promote racism.
Again, I dont feel odd or guilty about anything, Im questioning it. I want to promote awareness (of PC and racism), not push people away.
FF - Thanks for the read(s). As far as the good Simon W, I would say we need a good Jewish lawyer in our pocket to protect our 1st Amendment rights (but I suspect the ACLU would jump at the chance to show they're fair and balanced).
As far as the others, I am not surprised by the actions of racists, but Im not going to judge the entire race by the actions of some or by the readings of their "laws". It would be like basing all Catholics on the reading of Canon Law or (reflecting on an earlier HJH comment) all Blacks on the basis of my experience in the South Bronx.
Silver - "For whites, the issue is actually quite simple: separation or extinction."
You are right. But even separation just adds some time to the clock - whites higher cost of living has lead to reduced propagation versus the turd-worlders advance en masse. It's already too late for the USA - for those of you who think we can return to a "White" nation, whites have lost their exclusive control of government.
Of course they could always buy it back.
FF: Tan - you have proposed behaving in the same manner that you have pointedly disdained. The minority "woe is me" play book whether based in fact, partial fact or fantasy is playable because they cite "woe" and the self-loathing, self-conscious whites buy into it.
FF, awareness of this phenom is not public knowledge, yet you maintain that we must not speak of it. Why not? Because some people might not be comfortable knowing the truth? A very strange attitude you have here.
FF: This is not time for the White Awareness Parade down 5th Avenue (Puerto Rican Day Parade was today),
Why not now? Our numbers are dimishing exceedingly rapidly at present. Would you like for us to wait until we are minorities before we say something? You won't have long to wait, about 20-30 years at most. THEN can we mention that we are now minorities in our own countries?
FF: ... but it is the time to stop saying its white America's fault for every goddam problem that surfaces. If your a US citizen (or a legal resident - for the PC-policeman), we're all in this together, if not shut the FU and go home - we dont want you here.
So, FF, are we a real nation with a real history and culture, or are we just as the neo-cons have proclaimed us, "a propositional country"? You are definitely leaning in the latter direction, just like every other mainstream conservative. This polite "inclusive" conservative position has been ever so worthless to date. Here, at the 11th hour, you, along with every other mainstream conservative, wish to continue it. Why?
This is not time for the White Awareness Parade down 5th Avenue (Puerto Rican Day Parade was today),
It's because there is no "white" awareness. Celebration falls at the ethnic group level, even if it's white. St. Patrick's Day Parade, the Italian Columbus Day Parade, and the Pulaski Day Parade for the Poles, to name a few. However, there is no old stock American Day Parade unless the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade celebrates the Puritan history of the US founders. Haha.
Rusty, I would like to comment on one point you made, which I realize was directed to Flippity. It is, "you maintain that we must not speak of it. Why not? Because some people might not be comfortable knowing the truth?".
Opinions should be spoken as you believe, but they should be spoken in a way which impart real information and which cause others to want to learn more.
One thing I have noticed is that too many discussions turn into genetic discussions, as if intelligence really has something to do with the issue and maybe it does on certain levels, but it still seems to be argued more in an attempt to show an authority than it is to impart useful information. That, or maybe I'm too dense to understand the issue.
Those arguments are fine among those with interest, but others shut down. Genetics arguments sound like a defense for holding views which one holds, and do not show what is happening to people in their life.
Media control and other dominance areas should be easier to discuss if facts are at hand. I rarely see those in public discussions. Maybe it is because there are few "authoritative" sources who won't be disparaged by others for being "racist" on their face. I think information and discussion on that and similar issues would draw more interest and encourage people to explore more.
Similar to the same point is that arguments are more difficult because the opposition has stacked volumes of "authority" and these cause regular people to view the opposition arguments more favorably.
One thing I have noticed is that too many discussions turn into genetic discussions, as if intelligence really has something to do with the issue and maybe it does on certain levels, but it still seems to be argued more in an attempt to show an authority than it is to impart useful information.
How else do you impart it, Flanders? Murray and Herrnstein received enormous criticism over the Bell Curve despite a very, IMO, genteel approach to the subject.
"Imagine several hundred families which face few of the usual problems that plague modern society. Unemployment is zero. Illegitimacy is zero. Divorce is rare and occurs only after the children's most formative years. Poverty is absent - indeed, none of the families is anywhere near the poverty level. Many are affluent and all have enough income to live in decent neighbourhoods with good schools and a low crime rate. If you have the good fortune to come from such a background, you will expect a bright future for your children. You will certainly have provided them with all the advantages society has to offer. But suppose we follow the children of these families into adulthood. How will they actually fare?
A few years ago the late Richard Herrnstein and I published a controversial book about IQ, The Bell Curve, in which we said that much would depend on IQ. On average, the bright children from such families will do well in life - and the dull children will do poorly. Unemployment, poverty and illegitimacy will be almost as great among the children from even these fortunate families as they are in society at large - not quite as great, because a positive family background does have some good effect, but almost, because IQ is such an important factor.
"Nonsense!" said the critics. "Have the good luck to be born to the privileged and the doors of life will open to you - including doors that will let you get a good score in an IQ test. Have the bad luck to be born to a single mother struggling on the dole and you will be held down in many ways - including your IQ test score." The Bell Curve's purported relationships between IQ and success are spurious, they insisted: nurture trumps nature; environment matters more than upbringing.
An arcane debate about statistical methods ensued. Then several American academics began using a powerful, simple way of testing who was right: instead of comparing individual children from different households, they compared sibling pairs with different IQs. How would brothers and sisters who were nurtured by the same parents, grew up in the same household and lived in the same neighbourhood, but had markedly different IQs, get on in life?
The research bears out what parents of children with unequal abilities already know - that try as they might to make Johnny as bright as Sarah, it is difficult, and even impossible, to close the gap between them."
Rusty:
You do post some interesting and informative things here from time to time, but I evidently cannot communicate with you. You seem to believe either that I am not listening or that I harbor a secret Zionist agenda. I cannot help what you believe. Sorry.
Silver:
Your race, Mr. Harrison, simply can't survive a multiracial environment.
I suspect that this is true.
For whites, the issue is actually quite simple: separation or extinction.
For whites, the issue was actually quite simple until the 1960s when we needlessly began to import great masses from the Third World. Forty years have passed since then. The issue is now quite complex in my view.
Silver, I am a conservative Christian traditionalist in whom runs a slight strain of fascism---the sort of fellow Pat Buchanan feels at home with and Engelbert Dollfuss would have approved of, but Hitler would have thought too soft. My intellectual heroes are Aristotle, Burke and Russell Kirk. People like me don't believe in swashbuckling solutions to great, messy problem. We believe in solving first things first, then re-evaluating matters from that point.
The obvious "first thing" for the United States to solve in my view is the immigration problem. It is not the last thing, for in this fallen world last things come on the Lord's timetable not yours or mine, but it is the first or next thing. So much is clear.
Excepting one or two special cases like that of the white South Africans, U.S. immigration must be stopped, legal and illegal. This alone will be problem enough for the present generation to attack. Questions like that of separation can more prudently be considered and addressed once we have seen where a halt to immigration has in fact left us.
Human affairs are too messy for swashbuckling solutions to prosper. So I believe.
Flanders:
I have followed each your links. The last one is interesting, I admit.
HJH
Therefore logic suggests the behaviour must be adaptive.
The whites who suck wealth out of their kin resemble cancer cells.
More plausibly, the behavior is induced by a manipulative outside party.
Flanders,
Desmond and Tan are exactly right. The only way to talk about these issues is openly and honestly. Discussion can be done tactfully but not through some kind of code, as in the Bell Curve, or using only euphemisms, such as "neo-cons" and "international bankers." This is because subtlety is lost on even a college-"educated" populace, which reads the equivalent of Stephen King and Harry Potter, if anything. The failed history of the conservative movement is absolute proof positive of this. They are only getting dumber by the minute. They only understand direct statements and must be approached directly, repeatedly. Given our many disadvantages, there is absolutely no other way.
"...yet you maintain that we must not speak of it."
Rusty - far from that. I despise PC as much as racism and will support anyone's 1st Amendment rights including the pornography and hate speech. PC, as has been pointed out directly and indirectly, undermines the very foundation of our freedom. I've been engaging the discussion openly and question the fruit of the labor. I understand racism exists, just as PC does. I understand they both serve a function - to whom and to what degree is up to the individual.
I am attacking racism where others are supporting it. I dont trust people - so when Im asked to support my kin in the great white way, I question whether to trust these leaders on the basis of skin pigment. No thanks.
DJ - you nailed a very important point. Ethnicity (and to a certain extent culture and nationality) play a great role in dividing us. Its like grouping all Asians - Koreans, Japanese and Chinese do not mingle (saw it first hand working in a Jap Bank); Dominicans and Haitians potato pota-ato, right? Not even close. How about Blacks, I mean its just kumbaya in the dark continent, yes? What is the glue that binds White Americans? Generations of intermingling.
"The whites who suck wealth out of their kin resemble cancer cells."
BT - They've done this since the beginning with or without manipulative third parties. If they can do it to family members, certainly they can do it to kin.
Even if it's assumed that the behavior is induced by a manipulative outside party, i.e the shift from nepotistic to meritocratic admission policies at Harvard, for example, the outcome still appears adaptive.
"Studies dating back to the 1940s show that the IQs of spouses correlate powerfully,almost as closely as that of siblings. More recent evidence suggests this "assortative mating" may be intensifying, as college graduates increasingly marry each other—rather than the boy or girl back home or someone met in church. No surprise, since the intelligent of both sexes are increasingly corralled together, on campuses and afterward in the "high-IQ professions."
The results are startling. The children of a typical Harvard-Radcliffe Class of '30 marriage, Herrnstein and Murray estimate, would have a mean IQ of 114; a third would be below 110—not even college material, by some definitions. But the children of a Harvard-Radcliffe Class of '64 marriage, after the admissions revolution, would have an estimated mean IQ of 124. Only 6% would fall below 110."
Desmond, I may have been reflecting my own aversion to the scientific aspects of such discussions. They may make sense in proper venues, but I still avoid them. I think most people who see them in general postings have instant eye glaze, and few become convinced of a problem or solution because of them. I don't intend to insult you or others. It's just that I think that is true of certain people no matter whether the discussion is on those or on the NWO (which is my favored topic). I will read the links you left when I get the time, and they do look interesting. Thanks.
HJH, There are some aspects of immigration which will not become solveable until we determine how to counter some jewish organizations who push it and pretty much an entire community who follow their lead. They, and others, were instrumental in creating the problem for the rest of us.
Rusty, I disagree with your logic in excluding those who undoubtedly control our political and financial systems, no matter what category you feel is most responsible. They are not euphenisms, though they clearly have what seems to be a controlling base from Rothschild and the associated international bankers. The system clearly has major Jewish connections, but there are clearly connections from every "religion" and category of people. I'm happy you have found answers which are clear to you, but the answers are still not that clear to me.
Flippity, I think you can use some of the information from the link I'm going to leave to BNNW.
Ben, We all hate traitors. Whether from outside our circles or from within, that is what, and who, I think we are all after. Whether we all become single minded or remain loosely aligned on our pursuits, I think that our main objective is to rid our country of traitors and to prevent them from being effective. Our main problem may be to stir the apathetic among us who would allow it to continue even were they to become aware.
I haven't read it yet, but I think John at BNWW has opened the forum for a wider discussion with a post, "No Racism Before “Racism”?", where he cites an Auster attempt to impose a racist standard where none exists. I think it may include even some genetic discussion.
Flip: far from that. I despise PC as much as racism and will support anyone's 1st Amendment rights including the pornography and hate speech.
Ethnicity (and to a certain extent culture and nationality) play a great role in dividing us.
I am attacking racism where others are supporting it. I dont trust people - so when Im asked to support my kin in the great white way, I question whether to trust these leaders on the basis of skin pigment. No thanks.
Only a liberal's liberal would believe that protecting porn is the intention of the First Amendment. Only such would advocate mixing all peoples together to achieve solidarity against one-worldism. Only such would think that the difference between peoples is only in their physical features. Flip, you should sue your school board, and every other person who was supposed to educate you; they have failed you so miserably you cannot now imagine. I know several such as you, who, once they were finally educated, were very angry at their schools and at their parents for not telling them the truth.
Word to the wise, or pearls before swine? Let us hear from you again in a year or two.
Flanders:I'm happy you have found answers which are clear to you, but the answers are still not that clear to me.
Don't mean to be rude but I don't know any better way to say it: Read more history and they will be.
For example, trace the development and propogation of communism and other non-Western revolutions throughout history and you will find them given life by one people. The facts are there, plain as day, irrefutable. The Church and great Western leaders had seen it for almost 2000 years, and had kept these neurotic, troublesome people in check, for very good reasons -- the same reasons we see manifest all around us today.
Search, for example, "What Famous Men" have said about them, then research to see if it was true. See the common thread that runs through it all. Read David Duke, MacDonald, Luther, even Larry Auster. All will tell you the same thing: communism/egalitarianism/radicalliberalism/PC/radicalfeminism all have been promoted tirelessly and made mainstream by one group.
Flanders, watch them in action at a social club / charity near you. Their M.O. is always the same.
They join, only one or two at a time at first. Then, after a year or two or three, you will suddenly see five or six of them (if you are watching). Soon they take over the key leadership positions (no one sees anything wrong in this) and, before you realize what's going on, your biggest, most important project will become the local Holocaust museum. Also, almost overnight, your org will fill with minorities, who have no idea in the world what they are doing there. Your healthy social club / charity will quickly become hopelessly useless, unable to organize for anything, unable to effectively give to anyone else. All the good people will quietly leave, and your community suffers as a result. It's heartbreaking.
It's also frustrating because no one, especially Whites, will discuss it. They know it, many of them, but they just won't talk about it. It's complete lunacy.
I have seen this myself several times. What I have read about these people and what I have observed matches perfectly. If you do not exclude them, they will always take over and destroy what you have built.
If conservatives cannot recognize who are the primary carriers of liberalism, they will never make any progress against it. They will continue lose ground, just as they have for the last several decades.
Rusty - if you are in the USA you must've noticed that the "mixing all peoples together" in this country is not just beginning. The eggs haven't just been broken, they've been scrambled. Race-based (more frequently ethnic-based) nations exist, but if they are economically successful they face the same omelet production we do.
If you can't grasp that the 1st amendment must include protection of types of "free speech" we may individually find repulsing or despise, then you may as well accept the PC drivel-bound society as your own. The Simon W Foundations, the religious right, the ethics and morality police will all have a piece in the destruction of free speech and you will stand by and applaud it.
There is legislation out there to eliminate "obscene" materials from the internet. Who will define "obscene"? Nine justices?
No thanks. I would rather personally filter what is available to me and my family. [Keeping in mind buyer beware].
Rusty, I think you are undoubtedly correct when you say:
"If conservatives cannot recognize who are the primary carriers of liberalism, they will never make any progress against it."
If any conservative will observe and pay attention, they will see that you are correct that the disapora are always supporters of "liberalism", even though they may talk as if they are not. The only exception is when they feel it will directly affect their interests.
The anti-jihad is an example of such. They expect loyalty to anti-jihad, but they expect everyone to follow politically correct standards and to avoid getting any support from potential allies, such as BNP or Vlaams belang, who may not fit the "safe for the disapora" mold, even though those are truly moderate parties. Americans and Whites from all countries would enjoy working with those groups to find solutions for common problems.
The internet is full of these politically savvy disapora workers who try to act as the gateway keepers for what is acceptable and what is not. They "run herd" by praising Whites who join with them, while actually giving their opinions little heed, but they are always checking to make sure that you stay "acceptable". Isolation from the "acceptable community" is the fate that the disapora seeks for those who do not.
They create "beehives" of politically correct groupies, which includes gullible others, who sting those who stray from the PC line. Those who are true conservatives and who run their sites on a commercial basis are targeted with campaigns or actions against their suppliers which will cause them commercial and financial ruin.
They aren't satisfied with MSM and media which is already controlled by the Left. They want to control the internet, too. I wonder if the little housewifes aren't being paid a salary while they flit about the web making pithy "cutsey" comments with little or no substance, but with the intent to promote the idea of a Judeo/Christain common cause, which somehow winds up being supportive of Leftism.
While those little "housewifes" are encouraging unity, it is not a unity against the Left which is who imported all the immigrants and Islamics, and which continue to do so. It is, too often, a unity which encourages Leftist control over the actions and thoughts of everyone in our societies which is promoted by them.
Those who operate in the manner which they do will never fit in with Americans. Their methods are too single-mindedly for them. Their ways of operating are too disruptive to the Whites in America and in other countries who are trying to cooperate to get our countries back.
That is not to say that all operators of Jewish sites operate in that way, but it is a way in which too many operate. Whites and Americans need to avoid being managed, and need to themselves not only to try to avoid managing others, but to prevent others from doing it to us and to others.
Tan,
I came across this by chance as I was doing a posting, and I don't have time to check it further. I don't know any background, but thought you and others would like to see it:
--------
From Mike James in Germany –
11 June 2008
"Please find below an invoice I sent to the B’nai Brith-related Central Council of Jews in Germany, a lobby group renowned for their vitriolic attacks on Christianity, which has, together with the efforts of the Marxist Frankfurt School of Social Sciences, turned almost all Europeans into Christ-hating atheists. Problem is, these Zionist non-Hebraic Jews and their feminist, Freemasonic and socialist allies among the deluded and highly remunerated Goyim elites decided to pick a fight with the wrong guy. Me.
They’re counting on an easy prosecution. They have no idea what’s coming to them, because if they fuck with me they’re about to enter a whole new world of pain. I like Jews, because at school I always used to beat them at chess.---"
Continues at: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8767
Mike James Sues German Jews for Incitement to Bear False Witness
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/10461?cp=1
Spot the comment which points out a glaring contradiction!
Thanks Flanders. Good luck to Mike James. He'll need it.
Louis, that link got cut off. Please either break it into pieces or type it as <a href="URL"&rt;description</a&rt;
Whoops. "&rt;" should actually be ">"
Tan,
All of us who posted here must have been mistaken:
---
"The world cannot be run at human whim. It needs an ultimate plan and a regulator who can determine whether it is progressing or regressing. This is the role of the Torah, the divine law, which puts each contribution into perspective. It organizes all human actions so that they coalesce into one supremely redeeming blueprint …
… There had to be one people whose supreme purpose was to reveal this master plan to the world. History required a nation whose entire purpose was to teach the world Godly ethics and the contribution the nation could make toward the perfection of the earth …
… The task of the Jews is to be a light unto the nations. Light is an apt metaphor because it shows the way and provides guidance. It allows us to clean the room and arrange the furniture so that the home becomes fit for human habitation. God, too, desires to reside among man. But we must first make the earth fit to be a royal residence."
---
Of course, someone disagrees with the statements above and says that:
----
"Unbeknownst to most Americans, the US Congress has been gradually changing the fundamentals of American law. The movement for change started as early as 1975, when Congress passed a resolution honoring the birthday of a prominent rabbi, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, ("the Rebbe") of the Chabad Lubavitch sect (sometimes this sect is called "ultra-Orthodox"). The movement ratcheted forward in 1991, when Congress coupled Rabbi Schneerson's happy birthday message with a declaration that the United States of America was founded on the seven Noahide Laws. (1)
The Noahide Laws promise deadly consequences for Christians."
http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html
----
The site goes on to illustrate and to identify the particulars on what is stated above, as well as citing an US Congressional declaration placing the US under such laws:
US Congress, HR 104 Public Law 102-14 (1)
"Despite this Congressional declaration, many Americans are still not aware that their country was founded on Talmudic laws. (70) It is still widely believed that America was founded on the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Anglo-Saxon law generally. Some of the Founding Fathers even thought they had been influenced by the writings of John Locke, a Scot. Help clear up this misunderstanding. A copy of that 1991 resolution, Joint House Resolution 104 Public Law 102-14, and prior Congressional Schneerson birthday resolutions are available for easy download and study."
-----
This tract also gives some insight into why Christains are considered heretics by Jews for considering themselves as Judeo-Christains while Jews are not under the same compunction when they advance the use of the term.
Oops...
Spot the Double Standard
“tribal identity”. Good for Israel. Why not good for France?
LOL. Yes, why not good for everybody?
Oh well, there go my ham cheese sandwiches.
http://headwideopen.blogspot.com/2005/09/secret-map-of-elders-of-zion.html
Ben's links to yet another philo-semitic "ridiculously implausible all-encompassing conspiracy" strawman.
Ben's deep thought:
I've sometimes wondered what the imagined Jewish-dominated world might look like.
No need to imagine Ben. Just take a good hard look at the exquisitely cosmopolitan, multicultural, diversity-is-our-strength jewtopias of NYC, Miami, and LA.
Thanks for clearing the link problem for me.
Would Moscow and Leningrad circa the 20s and 30s also be Jewtopias? If so, are Jewtopias drab, dreary metropolises of oppression or colourful, libertine dens of iniquity?
Is the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in east Russia a Jewtopia? If Stalin had put more effort into the idea it might have been. Fascinating topic.
Would Moscow and Leningrad circa the 20s and 30s also be Jewtopias?
Here are several relevant quotes, including this one:
'During the heyday of the Cold War, American Jewish publicists spent a lot of time denying that-as 1930s anti-Semites claimed-Jews played a disproportionately important role in Soviet and world Communism. The truth is until the early 1950s. Jews did play such a role, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. In time, Jews will learn to take pride in the record of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. It was a species of striking back." (The Jewish Experience, "Stalin's Jews", pp. 364, Norman F. Cantor, Castle Books, 1996. (Dr. Cantor is the author of several books on Jewish history and a professor of history at New York University.))
Would that make the States of Vermont and Iowas whitetopias?
Everything has been dumbed-down to economics. This one-dimensional view of society and government allows all manner of imbalance. Inferior, Economic Man easily replaces Superior Good Man.
Time to replace one tyranny for a potentially better one. I move we elect a new aristocracy, one more in line with the visions of T.Jefferson and A.Ludovici.
Of course Jews played a hugely disproportionate role in communism. There were many reasons for this: dissatisfaction with the stultifying religious traditionalism and elder-driven patriarchy of Pale life; a hatred of Tsarism due to harsh military conscription, quota restrictions and other measures implemented in the 19th century; a pathological desire for equality as full citizens in a new world fostered by an inferiority complex as Jews; high literacy and intellectual capacity as leaders of a new movement due to a book-centered cultural upbringing. Certainly Trotsky and the other Jewish Bolsheviks had distant or non-existent loyalties to Judaism compared to their adherence to Communism, but I of course do not deny their ethnic origins.
If we begin from the risky assumption that Jews are human, we can find a lot of human--and thus often flawed and contradictory--reasons for the course of modern European and Jewish history. This requires looking at history using the tools of sociology and psychology--not merely demonology. I suppose you believe in a sort of reverse Goldhagenism, wherein Jews were naturally predisposed to communism like Germans were naturally predisposed to Nazism. I find this sort of communal determinism a simplistic response to the vagaries of human nature, but I am not one to deny Believers the right to their creeds.
Here's a little of what Ludovici says about the subject, writing in 1938 (thanks Rusty):
[Israel] Zangwill himself recognises this "cosmopolitan habit" of mind in the Jews, 1 which, he says, "creates Socialism". But whether it creates Socialism or not, it certainly inspires in all those who possess it an attitude of indifference to the nationalism of the particular people among whom they may be living, and tends, therefore, to make the Jews set their own spiritual and ethnic unity above any merely local national striving or crisis which may stir the non-Jews of their particular environment. They do not appreciate what a territorial national feels about the home-country, because it is not in their blood or traditions to have these feelings.
Thus Dr. Joseph Dulbeeg, a Manchester Jew, writes: "Judaism is not a religion merely, like Catholicism or Protestantism; it is a brotherhood, a race if you like; and that it will remain as long as there are two Jews left in the world. Say what you will, no matter how an English Jew or a German Jew may love and feel for his English or German neighbours, he will have a greater love, a greater sympathy for another Jew, even if that Jew may come from the other end of the world."
It doesn't seem to me that very many of their critics (including Ludovici) think jews are not human. Today the situation is quite obviously the opposite. It is jewish bigots, the anti-anti-semites, who proclaim the subhuman status of anyone they label anti-semite. That is the norm.
Likewise "communal determinism". Seeing Whites as congenitally evil and ignorant "racists" is very much in vogue.
Benjamisti, I think you would find few people who would deny anyone their creed. Nor would most people question other people on thier motives so long as their loyalties were consistently trustworthy. When sufficient numbers of divergent loyalties or degrees of mistrust become manifest, it becomes stupidity not to question. Anyone who, individually, or who as a materially significant group, plays a hugely disproportionate role in the creation and advancement of communism is legitimately open to scrutiny. That is true without regard for the reasons they may have.
It is not just openly recognized communist and socialist movements which bring legitimate scrutiny. It is consistent and massive support for a host of behaviours by people and organizations which harm our society. You may argue that groups such as ACLU and SPLC are not harmful.
Why are the ACLU and the SPLC considered to be jewish? Why have so many Jewish organizations supported immigration and continue to do so?
Tell me what is a jew anyway? I have always wondered, but it doesn't seem to have an answer. I have looked diligently and I can't find the right answer. It seems to be whatever some unknown person (or maybe that is a group of people) wants it to be.
What are the Jews as a race?
Where did they come from?
What is the Jewish religion?
How would a person identify someone as being Jewish?
How does Semitism fit the definition of Jew? How does someone not commit anti-semitism?
Goldhagen seems a typical anti-anti-semite. He's a Harvard University political scientist, naturally. Here he spells out how
people who were perpetrators of atrocities against the Jews, or who were bystanders during nazi times, have much in common with people today who resist making restitution to families of Jewish victims: “They lie a lot.”
I see. It's not the fundamental dishonestly about biologically-based race or the pyramid scheme called The Economy that we should worry about. It's the clever lies nazi-Whites use to disguise their race-based guilt. That's what prevents us from achieving worldwide jewtopia. And no doubt the road there is studded with gulags filled with "liars".
Broadly speaking, there are two underlying intellectual flaws to the arguments presented:
1) Jews are treated as a homogenous mass. This may in fact be how certain Jewish media voices would like to present things, but it is as untrue as saying all Russians or Americans speak with the same voice. In fact Jewish tradition is particularly prone to internal squabbling, as a study of history will indicate.
2) Jews are equated with modernity, while Jews with an aversion to modernity (traditionalists) and Jews who existed before or outside modernity are ignored. All the characteristics ascribed to Jews--"cosmopolitans"--are characteristics of liberal modernity. While Jews were particularly successful in liberal modernity due to historical and sociological factors (trade networks, adaptability), your arguments ignore or misunderstand Jewish rejections of modernity (Orthodox Judaism) and internal Jewish reactions to the very trends you criticise (Zionism, assimilationism, militarist socialism) in seeking alternate modernities. A basic study of modern history (I can recommend books if you like) may help you give you the background information.
Now to specifics:
Israel Zangwill and Dr. Joseph Dulbeeg are individuals, not authorities. I'm sure xenophobic Hasidim greatly appreciate Zangwill's (if he really said that, there's no direct quote) description of them as cosmopolitan.
"They do not appreciate what a territorial national feels about the home-country, because it is not in their blood or traditions to have these feelings."
The disproportionate number of Jews who fought and died for their host countries in both World Wars speak otherwise, as does the Zionist movement, which is a direct internally Jewish reaction to this accusation. You're late to these debates by about a century, my friend.
You sideskirt the issue of inhumanity by diverting attention to other matters. By considering Jews to apparently possess a hive-mind, they are rendered un-human. Ironically, your very argument against this ("they do it too!") affirms my point. National socialism is a doctrine of collectivism; since it views its own nation as a collective with only one voice (the dictator) it views every other nation the same. This is an ideological attitude, not an empirical one.
Flanders Fields: You act vast questions, about which much has been written. I feel it superfluous to answer them when libraries are free to the public. Try borrowing books with footnotes and citations, and track down the primary sources themselves. You can then form your own judgments. Complex answers are not as easy as quick demonizations handed out by a blog, but I promise you will feel a more knowledgable person afterwards.
Friends, I cannot continue this argument indefinitely, as the emotional-spite basis of your argument (demonstrated by a pointed refusal to capitalize a proper noun) makes my attempts at reason futile. Nevertheless, I wish you well on your intellectual journeys. Who knows, you may find some Jewish minds to help you along the way. I certainly enjoy the works of avowedly anti-Semitic writers (Céline, Pound), so I don't see why you can't enjoy the fruits of the Semitic mind. You may find some disturbing similarities to your own!
Further research finds this anti-Zionist article:
http://racetraitor.org/massarttalk.html
And from Wikipedia:
"From 1986 until 1992, Ignatiev served as a tutor for Dunster House at Harvard University (ie., as an academic advisor for the undergraduate students that lived in Dunster). In the spring of 1992, Ignatiev vocally objected to the placement of a toaster in the Dunster House dining hall designated for kosher use only, and demanded that it be removed or paid for by private funds."
Sounds like quite an upstanding Jew.
"...it was not so long ago possible for Whites to argue about what's good for Whites without harassment, but no longer."
And at that moment (and prior) in the USA, non-whites received harassment.
"The disproportionate number of Jews who fought and died for their host countries in both World Wars speak otherwise..."
Really? Now that's interesting.
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.
J.L. Granatstein
"And at that moment (and prior) in the USA, non-whites received harassment."
But nothing like the low grade criminal war that has been perpetrated by blacks since the civil rights legislation. Jim Crow pales in comparison.
What you call the post-modernist Jew, Benji, as you state, is different from those whom you refer to as the Nationalist Jew. The public face put on by those whose policies seemingly have most influence on Jews and which causes most rightful resentment among Whites and other Nationalists is the face of that post-modernist. Not only is the face supported, but the actions of those post-modernists, whom Churchill called Internationalists, are the ones communally followed by so many. It couldn't, of course, be because the commune anticipates benefits to themselves from following the lead of this corporate directed transnational class. Of course not.
It is the anti-White attitudes expressed while having the cover as being "just anothor White" which are destestable, all while keeping a clear division between Whites (as being the "anti-semites"). The attempts to destroy Western national sovereignties, while encouraging class and cultural divisions to weaken our nations is detestable.
It is communists and the actions of communists, and the methods are those used by communists. More people are becoming aware of that connection and are beginning to see the destructive effects.
I think many Jews don't see what they are being led to support by those "Internationalist" leaders whose policies they choose to support. It is time they open their eyes. Those leaders are racists and they do seek destruction of our nations.
We are all finally opening our eyes to the actions of all transnationals, the "Internationalists" of all races, genders, and sexual orientations who engage in those activities and it is clear that it is not just Jews. We are watching our own and others, too.
Some Jews may have a defensive reaction which seeks refuge in communism, but Whites and freedom lovers of all races, including Jews, Western and American, have different reactions to communists.
The phenomenon you are castigating is called Postmodernism....
Not a chance. Postmodernism has no relevance to politics.
Tan, An article excerpt and a link to others which I think you will find most interesting is:
-------------
"The method selected by the Marxist social revolutionaries to control the American people is rather single. It is by dialectical stages of operant conditioning by words. Only instead of the bourgeois middle class being made to bear the brunt of all society's ills and thus merit the criminalisation of that class as Marx proposed, the modern cultural Marxists have substituted white heterosexual males as the class to be criminalized by charges of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia or xenophobia as the particular circumstance requires.
They have manipulated the federal government itself into passing laws and regulations against discrimination to keep white males in their psychic iron cage where they fear to challenge what is being done to the American nation. Then Hate Crimes were added to this cultural terrorism to keep white men in their place. This was an inversion of reality since those who originated the charge of Hate Crimes were ones who were guilty of attempting to destroy the white male structure of power. But this is what Frankfurt School Critical Theory has brought about."
http://www.seanbryson.com/articles/pc_history.html
Also, highly recommended are these articles:
It's A Wonderful Race !
http://www.seanbryson.com/articles/wonderful_race.html
The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html
---
¡Benjaminista! said...
Certainly Trotsky and the other Jewish Bolsheviks had distant or non-existent loyalties to Judaism compared to their adherence to Communism, but I of course do not deny their ethnic origins.
6/16/2008 12:46:00 PM
That's open to discussion
Post a Comment
<< Home