The Urge to Purge
There is a blog dedicated to documenting Charles Johnson's purge of commenters at Little Green Footballs.The post titled Levi from Queens and the Great Discarded Lizard Chainsaw Massacre of 2008 - Case Study #24 - LGF BANNED AND BLOCKED concerns the banning of several "racists" and "fascists" who dared to speak in favor of "race realists" Lawrence Auster and Ian Jobling.
I left a comment that compared Charles to Auster, noting that they disagree on ethnic European nationalism, but agree on jewish nationalism (it's good), muslim nationalism (it's bad), and silencing anyone who vexes them.
Then Ian Jobling dropped by. He linked an ostensibly pro-"white" manifesto in which he writes:
Carrying on the dismal tradition of American white supremacism, most pro-whites today believe our current racial dispossession is due to Jewish influence on the West, if not actual Jewish conspiracies against whites. However, these tired lies conceal the real dynamics of white dispossession, which has been inflicted by white Gentiles on themselves. While it is true that Jews have been inclined towards highly liberal—that is, leukophobic—beliefs, nevertheless more than 90 percent of white racial liberals are Gentiles. Moreover, that Jewish leukophobia could thrive in America suggests that it was a mere extension of something in our national character. For these reasons, the pro-white movement repudiates anti-Semitism and will resolutely oppose the obsession with Jews that poisons and discredits our cause.Jobling unequivocally blames Whites and absolves jews for any animosity between us. His is a pro-jewish manifesto cloaking itself in "white". It is cut from the same cloth as Auster's blame-for-the-"majority" protection-for-the-"minority" double-talk:
In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an "oppressive" majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority's demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.With "allies" like Jobling and Auster Whites don't need enemies.
My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn't mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority.
UPDATE 24 Oct 2008: Thanks to Guessedworker I see Jobling has answered, after a fashion. In Anti-Semites Stink Up Another Discussion Thread he writes:
I left a comment linking to my blog post on the incident and explaining why I’m not a fascist, hoping I might get a decent discussion of race realism going with the moderates who traffic the site. However, it was not to be: I was immediately set upon by a couple of professional anti-Semites named tanstaafl, who runs the blog Age of Treason, and Greg Polden.Jobling either doesn't care or is counting on the LGF BANNED thread disappearing, because anyone who's interested can read for themselves who said what and who set upon who.
Jobling adds very little to what's already been said. All he presents here is essentially point-and-sputter. He seems to be hoping LGF BANNED will delete the offending thread now that he has declared it "stinked up". His modus operandus is just like Auster's. What a coincidence.
I will continue to purge my comment queue of all dire ruminations sent in by tanstaafl and his like.The urge to purge is strong in this one. I consider myself forewarned and thus will only waste time responding here.
The most substantial thing he wrote was in a comment:
Tanstaafl is referring to the fact that moderates like Johnson support Israel, but neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism. Since all that tanstaafl can see in politics is conflicts between different ethnic interests, or nationalisms, Johnson’s attitude seems completely nonsensical to him and can only be explained as a result of Jewish brainwashing.I'm glad to see I got my point across. Yes, I think ethnic/racial interests are important. More important than class or political ideology. Jews are a perfect example. Despite their class, politics, country of residence, or how much Jobling denies being able to notice - jews just can't seem to set aside their ethnocentrism.
However, once you go outside this absurdly narrow view of human motivations and realize that people’s political views are motivated by many different factors, then Johnson’s views make sense, even if you think they are mistaken. What matters most to moderates like Johnson is democratic, Western values. Since they think Israel exemplifies these values, they are pro-Israel. Since they think neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism are democratic ideologies, moderates are against them. Nationalism really has nothing to do with this preference; values explain them.
Bottom line: A person’s political outlook is rooted in many different factors, such as political ideology, ethnicity, class, and so forth. If you take a simplistic view of human motivations, the world makes no sense to you and leads you to make an ass of yourself in public.
I am simplistic. I say flat out that I'm pro-White. Jobling and Auster are more complicated, but in a deceptive way. They present themselves as pro-"white", as "race realists". But they refuse to distinguish between Whites and jews. And they attack Whites who do distinguish, but not jews.
Going on about "democratic, Western values" while calling for political opponents to be silenced is a good way to make an ass of yourself. If Johnson and Jobling think the jewish ethnostate represents "democratic, Western values" then why do they oppose White ethnostates? If jews do not differ from Whites "in any important respect" then I should be able to move to israel and collect welfare, right? What's that? My mother has to be jewish? I don't object. But to demonstrate his consistent values Charles Johnson should either denounce zionists as racists, or he should support White ethno-nationalism like he supports zionism. The latter is especially sensible if he cares for "the West".
I’ve been deleting a lot of pro-MacDonald comments because their authors show no sign of having read the Lieberman article and are thus incapable of expressing an informed opinion. Anti-Semites show their typical dogmatism by leaping to the defense of MacDonald before they even know what the argument against him is.Jobling seem to realize at some level that the urge to purge is not right. Thus he tries to transfer responsibility for the problem to those expressing the opinions he wishes to suppress. He makes repeated appeals to psychology...say doctor, heal thyself.
I didn't mention MacDonald until Jobling did. I agree with and respect much of what MacDonald has written, but what I think and write doesn't hinge on the truth or falseness of MacDonald's positions.
Yes, trying to convince the Age of Treason types to take a reasonable view of this issue is like trying to teach a monkey table manners. All you’ll get for your pains is faeces thrown at you.I've taken pains to understand Jobling's arguments and to use his own logic and phraseology in answering and critcizing him. He can call that feces if he likes.
Labels: censorship, charles johnson, ian jobling, jewish influence, kevin macdonald, lawrence auster
posted by Tanstaafl at 10/20/2008 01:37:00 AM
31 Comments:
So let's say for example that we Whites "rediscover" ourselves by seizing control of our entire media apparatus by force if necessary in order to begin to re-educate Whites in their rediscovery process. Would Auster go along with this and see this as a good thing?
I seriously doubt it.
All of this double talk about the White race rediscovering itself is all fine and dandy for jews as long as they control all outlets to prevent White realists from actually accomplishing it. Auster wants us to play by the jewish rules of the democratic process so that all hope is lost for us. Is Auster ready and willing to have jews stripped of their control of the media, education etc. for the better of Whites? Somehow I doubt it.
It's the ole' keep telling us what we need to do without any real solutions that can truly make it happen. It sounds all good to tell whites to rediscover themselves until one tries to actually do it. It's all debate and endless chatter so that these self-important people can continue pulling their card tricks on unsuspecting Whites. It's good for business.
re: zog nation
You're right, there's no real reason for jews to be pro-white. Someone like Auster sees it as more of a matter of principle, I think it has to do with his traditionalism as opposed to a real genuine white-nationalism which he can't understand since he isn't white in the first place.
You can see that in the Horowitz/JTF (jewish task force) types as well who may seem pro-white, but only in the sense of them still ruling over white nations. It's more like them telling whites they can have racial consciousness than whites doing it themselves.
Auster and Jobling are "white" advocates, troubled by White decline, because as race realists they believe the kind of society they prefer will disappear with Whites. However they both subordinate their race realism and their concern for Whites to a greater concern for jews. Each man reveals this bias by insisting that Whites and jews form a single inseparable "white", by excusing and diminishing the outright hostility of many jews towards Whites, and by demonizing any White who considers the two groups distinct.
A good example is a recent essay on Howard Zinn Jobling cites. In it he makes no mention of Zinn's jewishness, at least until criticism at Digg compels him to address the point:
In response I, under my Digg handle “Realist3,” referred them to my article Jews Are Not Hyperethnocentric. I admit that there is a coterie of Jewish leftists who are intensely leukophobic. But, if MacDonald’s interpretation of Jewish leukophobia were correct, you would expect that the Jewish left would be strong supporters of Jewish ethnocentrism, which they are not. Zinn is a case in point. As you can see in pieces of his like this and this, Zinn is highly critical of Jewish ethnocentrism.
Of course, the MacDonaldites have already started regurgitating the standard party line without having shown any attempt to comprehend my argument. This is why I usually don’t let them comment on my site: anti-Semites are caught in such an obsessive, hermetic interpretive world that they simply cannot hear any argument against their position.
As with Auster, on this issue Jobling apparently simply cannot hear any arguments against his position. Besides silencing those who disagree with him (when he can) he assumes they are stupid and/or "judeo-obsessive" (his preferred smear on the LGF thread). This is just a regurgitation of the standard line of anti-anti-semites - that any conflict between jews and non-jews can only and must entirely be attributed to non-jewish insanity. This is anti-semitism - and any deviation from this definition is also by definition anti-semitism.
After writing a lengthy indictment of Zinn's "leukophobia" it would be reasonable for readers to expect Jobling to plainly acknowledge that Zinn is among the "coterie of Jewish leftists who are intensely leukophobic". But after failing to make this connection in his essay Jobling instead vents his frustration at the readers who would say out loud the whole truth that he can only grudgingly say in pieces. In excusing Zinn Jobling unwittingly or disingenuously fails to notice that the two examples he cites of Zinn's criticism of jews are made with the best interests of jews in mind - if anything the examples demonstrate a mild jewish ethnocentrism, not disregard.
Jobling might also have noted that Zinn sits/sat on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace, an organization which describes itself as "a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition".
On a side note, in the LGF thread Jobling links this Zinn/leukophobia essay and crows:
I've answered judeo-obsessives like yourselves many times, as you would see if you read the links in the section of the Principles of the Pro-White Movement that you cite. Furthermore, the whole theoretical framework that judeo-obsessives are working from has now been proven bogus by David I. Lieberman. Contra Kevin MacDonald and the rest of the proponents of the great Jewish subversion theory, Jews are not a hyperethnocentric, hyperauthoritarian lot scheming to do the white man ill.
Jobling denies jews are ethnocentric, and now Lieberman has proven it! In your face MacDonaldites!
LOL
Something tells me Jobling keeps having to answer "judeo-obsessives" because he's the one making bogus arguments. Oh, and because "you're crazy" isn't really an answer.
Here's a revelation from Jobling's latest, The Great Silencing:
"Whites are terrified of criticizing minorities."
Hmmm. Perhaps it has something to do with the typical response we get. "You're a crazy hater!" "Silence him!" "Fire him!" "Jail him!"
Sound familiar?
"Hmmm. Perhaps it has something to do with the typical response we get. "You're a crazy hater!" "Silence him!" "Fire him!" "Jail him!"
Sound familiar?"
Sure does. Just got banned again from yet another message board today. I'm losing count. The last straw it seems, was posting a portions of a blog by Patrick Grimm that identified who was behind the immigration act of 1965 to the open immigration policies presently in play, and also explained what group of people led the charge to pass the the civil rights act. The charges levelled at me for my "posting indiscressions" were that it was against the rules to indulge in "racial slurs", which must mean talking about other racial groups from a white perspective and "verbal attacks on ethnic groups" which must mean the same thing. It's just so strange that fellow white gentiles bend over backwards to protect and defend these SOBs who are destroying America. They refuse to open their eyes and see. It's so obvious, and unfortunately, so late in the game.
Does everyone know Jobling was the sneaky little kosher commissar behind American Renaissance? If you ever tried posting anything daring to challenge the Master Race in the most temperate and measured of language in that forum it would not go through due to some weasel wording about "unacceptable language". I remember one time thinking that the word "crap" - which was the strongest word I used - had blocked a post. The god damned sneak would never come out and say the Master Race was unimpeachable. That was speculated at the time by many like me but didn't become obvious until the tool got his own site to make sure even the antibodies of our race turn a blind eye to our worst disease.
It is so flamingly obvious to anyone who is a real awakened White Man what the role of Judah is and has been but the tribe and their poodles keep up their redirect campaign to pick off some who are in the process of awakening. Looks like Jobling's methods are being adopted in this supposed land of freedom of speech based on the current inaccessibility of two of the Master Race's most eloquent critics: Curt Maynard and Patrick Grimm. The Heretical Two sitting in the slammer in LA for the same reason. That's Foxman's & Dershowitz' New America that Jobling is eagerly ushering in.
Ironically in my case this tool's sneaky censorship is what moved me from a modest to a strong advocate of Judah as our primary enemy. No more Little Green Footballs and other vent holes that use the White Man as cattle in their schemes.
Whether this commissar is or isn't a member of the tribe is really the only thing of minor interest. If so it's just par for the course, if not there is a special place in hell for traitors.
One cannot serve Judah and Euro Man. It's better to face clear cut enemy's like Noel Ignatiev than have the likes of Jobling in the same "cause".
Well said wjg.
I knew Jobling split from AR, I didn't realize he had had control over its discourse.
I'm also polarized by the tactics of Auster and Jobling. It's one thing to face the brainwashed who think Whites should pretend there is no such thing as race - it's quite another to face these hypocritical race-realist tribal-deniers. First they overlook, then they deny, and finally they blame and cry shame on YOU for noticing the gaping White-jewish fault line that explains much of what they are complaining about.
No honest man can examine anti-White anti-racism in any depth and not see it springs primarily from that fault line. It does not help Whites to pretend that this fault line is not significant, and the anti-racist-style tactics these pro-jewish "race-realist" "whites" resort to makes it even more flamingly obvious, just as you say.
Tanstaafl,
You've hit the nail right on the head.
If White Nationalist and philo-White jews like Auster (the .001% of them out there) could keep an arms length relationship it would be in all our interests. As you have documented well Auster errs on the side of Judah whenever his White advocacy in any way starts to cross with the interests of the tribe.
If Jobling is a jew he fits in the same boat. If he's not then he's just pathetic.
.....If he's not then he's just pathetic.
He's a slave, like Greg Polden says. Steven Palese calls that type White Uncle Toms.
Jobling is worse than an Uncle Tom. He isn't satisfied with simply tolerating or even apologizing for jews who attack Whites...he actively joins them in attacking. All while claiming there is no important respect in which jews and Whites differ.
Note how the crowing quoted above continues (my emphasis):
MacDonald fraudulently distorts the academic record on the nature of Jewish society in order to concoct his anti-Semitic chimera. Yes, there are a lot of obnoxious Jewish leukophobes who ought to be opposed, but there is no evidence that Jewish leukophobia is a strategy for Jewish power or that Jews differ from Gentile whites in any important respect.
At best an objective person might say that MacDonald's positions are A) distorted by Jobling's caricature, and B) "proving" any or all of those positions incorrect does not justify the claims Jobling makes.
Jobling is not being objective.
Jobling pays lip service to "leukophobia" while making the suppression of "judeo-obsession" his real priority. If his priorities were reversed then he might have wormed his way into some PC organ where he could pay lip service to "judeo-obsession" while suppressing "leukophobia".
Consider also the mentality behind the terms Jobling coins. "Leukophobia" helps disguise the nature of what it describes. How many people know what "leuko" means? As I wrote on the LGF BANNED thread, we already have the term anti-racism. Because anti-racist hostility is aimed specifically at Whites, not jews, "anti-Whitism" is a more clear term. If you care about clarity.
Now consider "judeo-obsession". This is actually an improvement on "anti-semitism". (From a pro-jew point of view.) The core of every anti-anti-semite's argument is that anti-semitism is insanity. Putting that implication directly in the slur only improves its effectiveness - even more so considering that anyone who protests fulfills the self-fulfilling "obsession" portion.
Suppose one concedes that Jews are the chief enemies of whites, they control the media, they are hyper-ethnocentric, and so on. What then is the solution? Laws against them? That is, should Jews not be allowed to own businesses, get college degrees -- or what? And what about the state of Israel. Should we stop all aid and help the Arabs dismantle the country?
Furthermore, the whole theoretical framework that judeo-obsessives are working from has now been proven bogus by David I. Lieberman.
Jobling's out of his mind. Lieberman quibbled about MacDonald's interpretation of a book by Jaff Schatz - a Jew who flatly states that the truth or falisty of the "facts" in his book depends on who states them.
Nothing in Lieberman's efforts has anything to do with MacDonald's "theoretical framework". It relates soley to a superfluous example of his theory in action AFTER THE THEORY HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN.
hc,
Feel free to suggest a "solution". What would jews do if they decided Whites were their "chief enemies ... and so on". Might they try to flood White countries with third worlders and miscegenate us out of existence while they scream "NAZI" at anyone who protests? You should be able to tell us, right?
If you don't mind I'm still trying to convince the jury, and myself, to prosecute. We'll have to get back to you about sentencing. By all means keep working on your hate laws. If you work really hard you'll get shove some more of us in prison first.
hc, how do you feel about Greg Bollen's request for political equality? If the Jews can have their country apart from us, aren't we entitled to our country free of them?
Seems like an answer to me.
hc,
You can't solve problems until the causes are well understood. You can't solve social problems, like say immigration, without a broad, generally agreed understanding.
First off not enough Whites see immigration as a problem, or at least they think not many others do. This is because the media and our politicians actively demonize that position. Jews are a disproportionate part of the immigration problem - in prying open the borders, in pretending that it's good for us, and in demonizing anyone opposed to it. That isn't generally known. Every time somebody tries to talk about any of this some heckler shows up to derail the conversation. In more noisy, popular forums they simply shriek "racism". Knowing that wouldn't work in forums like this they instead make pointed inquiries and insinuations about "solutions".
I care about White interests first and foremost, and explicitly distinguish these interests from those of "whites" and jews. That really bugs you doesn't it? Why should it? What group's interests are prime in your mind?
"Why try to convince whites that Jews are the problem?"
Uh, because they are the primary (though not only) problem.
"Why not just convince them that the white race should be preserved and defended -- which means stopping immigration, repatriating large numbers of recent immigrants, putting a fence on the border with Mexico, etc."
Because whenever this is tried the advocate is eviscerated by people and groups that 'just happen' to be either jews physically or Gentiles who have been indoctrinated by the judeo-liberal matrix to think that way.
When one is being pummeled by the same enemy over and over again there comes a time to acknowledge this enemy and fight back.
"If we convinced whites of the latter, then Jews do not matter."
Based on a few thousand years of history saying that Jews do not matter - even if temporarily neutralized - is a death wish. The lion never considers the hyena irrelevant.
"It is just as hard (if not impossible) to convince whites that Jews are the problem."
This is true especially when Jews and their slaves control the sensory stimuli of the society and only allow kosher themes. The options are to try - and have a chance - or die for sure.
"So why not concentrate on convincing them to defend their own ethnic identity."
The philo-semitic pro-White racialism of early 20th century America was destroyed by who? (If you are not aware the answer is about as obvious as 2 + 2 if you look). Is it wise to try and resurrect it when we are much weaker and they - and their tools - are much stronger?
"You appear to care more about the Jews than the white race itself."
If the greatest threat to a body is a particular disease does a focus on the disease in any way minimize love for the body? Just the opposite.
For the sake of argument, let’s grant that Jewish influence has been decisive in the promotion of multiculturalism, equalitarianism, and cultural degeneracy. What is the purpose of charging the Jews with instigating the Civil Rights movement when it is regarded as one of the great achievements of American history? What is the point of telling Howard Stern fans or Jerry Seinfeld fans that these individuals are Jews; something everyone knows? Why should white people care about the machinations of the Jews unless they already have an awareness of themselves as a race with its own distinct interests?
First whites must accept the fact that race is the foundation on which our social, cultural, and intellectual life is built. Any profound shift in the racial foundation of society will lead inevitably to the transformation of the immense sociocultural superstructure that we call Western civilisation. So long as whites accept the notion that culture may be divorced from its organic foundation, they have no reason to oppose anything that the Jews are allegedly plotting.
If antisemites truly cared about the white race, they would focus more on promoting race realism than inciting antisemitism. As it stand, they perform a great service to the liberal-minority coalition by lending credence to the false notion that pro-whites are a bunch of cranks and neo-Nazis.
If antisemites truly cared about the white race, they would focus more on promoting race realism than inciting antisemitism. As it stand, they perform a great service to the liberal-minority coalition by lending credence to the false notion that pro-whites are a bunch of cranks and neo-Nazis.
Don't tell us what to do or how to think.
Semitism incites anti-semitism.
Any "race realism" that denies the distinction between Whites and jews is a lie.
Lies + insults = classic anti-anti-semitism. Got anything else?
Oh. Please do keep preening about your "great achievements". Perhaps you could jot down a quick list here...
If antisemites truly cared about the white race, they would focus more on promoting race realism than inciting antisemitism.
Where' the evidence this will work? It's the same old song and dance Nordicists get from WNs; if they'd only shut up everything will be peachy keen. There's absolutely no evidence to support it.
Then you get the example of Bachman, or the Republican convention that is slurred as neo-Nazi(s) (see Ventura, D.L. Hughley on Larry King) just for being white Republicans.
I made a largish update to the original post concerning Jobling's response.
I have been following this discussion with great interest, and I agree with Jewish Race Realist. Since it is impossible under the circumstances to state my objections to antisemitism on philosophic grounds--for it is a wide topic, as diverse in its ramifications as the crimes and abuses with which the Jews have been charged--I shall content myself with a brief description of its political consequences:
* It is divisive - witness the present discourse!
* It turns people away. People otherwise receptive to nationalism and race realism are repelled by its association with antisemitism;
* It makes coalition-building extremely difficult, if not impossible. If we ever reverse the tide of Third World immigration, it will be for a great plurality of reasons, not strictly racial. Nationalists will have to make their voices heard amongst the clamor of other interest groups, and align themselves, as much as possible without sacrificing their core principles, with mainstream forces whose interests overlap with their own.
* It diverts our attention from activities, more fruitful in their issue, with which the public are broadly sympathic. Examples include immigration restriction, opposition to affirmative action policies, and the promotion of white culture. It tarnishes those same activities by way of association.
Even if we grant the Jewish Question as it is here treated a certain academic interest, yet as an article of faith to be signed, as a doctrine to be professed, its consquences have been utterly disastrous for the pro-white movement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There is no pro-White movement and consequently one cannot damage the non-existent movement.
Raciometrics and Israeli White Nationalist sing the same tired song the West has heard since the beginning of jewish emancipation:
"Trust us, you're the problem."
Most Whites today are disgusted by racism and anti-semitism but celebrate jewishness because that's what we're told is normal. But favoring more distant others over those closer to yourself is not normal. The jewish influence in education and media only makes it appear normal by resorting to propaganda. In politics and business the jewish influence enforces severe penalties for objecting to or dissenting from this propaganda.
From a pro-White perspective the difference between anti-racists and pro-jewish race realists is less relevant than their similarity. The former demand Whites sacrifice our interests for the benefit of everyone else. The latter demand it for the benefit of jews.
I oppose both ideas, regardless of how many people hold them, and certainly not because my dissenting position is punished or absurdly criticized as divisive.
Commenter Diamed said on the MR thread:
I’m with Thomas Jefferson, there is not one truth I am afraid of or wish not to be known. And if the truth cannot win an argument, then the people don’t deserve to be saved. Let them perish in their web of lies and to hell with them. All people have a right to is the opportunity to learn the truth and defend their race, they cannot be made to drink.
I'm with Jefferson, and Diamed.
It should be apparent to anyone that matters of national importance like our media, schools, politics, courts, etc cannot be allowed to fall into the hands of an alien race who cares nothing for the nation it rules. The combination of high IQ that allows them to reach all these positions of power, and non-white anti-white hatred that ensures they will abuse it, is a poison we cannot survive and must throw off.
In retrospect this has been apparent to many men over the course of this country's history - the list of men I mentioned in this post for instance. It also clearly has happened many times throughout history in other countries.
Before I ever considered questioning jews it dawned on me that our leaders - those at the highest places in media, academia, politics, finance, and business - were acting like aliens.
At first this puzzled me greatly, because the purely politically correct aracial explanations fail to explain the hostility of the ruling class toward Whites and the illegitimate methods by which they govern. Once I began looking into heretical opinions and seeing history and current events from a racialist angle a great deal of the sorry mess became much more understandable.
If I ever abandon this understanding it will be because I've replaced it with one that does an even better job. So far what I've heard from the pro-jew race realists amounts to insults and threats. They're acting just like anti-racists. "Shut up you stupid crazy hater, or else." That tactic has not only lost it's power over me - it helps me distinguish friend from foe.
What is absurd about criticizing divisiveness?
The word divisive isn't absurd. That criticism of my position coming from a pro-jewish "race realist" is.
The absurdity is a crusader against "judeo-obsession" who engages in "negro-obsession" (to coin a phrase) lecturing me about "political consequences".
Jobling, Jewish Race Realist, and Raciometrics are not less divisive than me. They are just divisive in a different way.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Absurd.
Remove "jews" from the equation and you still have the same aristocratic leadership "acting like aliens".
Not in its (aristocratic) entirety.
"The continuing fight for an "open door" was widely understood to be a match up at the very top between Jews and Boston patrician anti-Semites."
The Jews in America
By Arthur Hertzberg
DJ: is that book by Hertzberg at all an apologetic for Jews? I'd be amazed if it isn't.
Is it possible, too, that the 'wide understanding' resulted from a great deal of Jewish efforts at influencing the debate and the way it was perceived? Amaze me again.
Here's a contemporary "Boston patrician":
Until the Globe reporters investigated his background, Kerry had believed that his paternal grandmother was probably Jewish and his paternal grandfather came from an Austrian line of Kerrys. Last year he learned that both his paternal grandparents were Jewish.
Massachusetts voters took it for granted that their Catholic senator with the Celtic-sounding name had an Irish background. Even Kerry's friends assumed that he was Irish on his father's side and Boston Brahmin on his mother's side. Kerry never claimed that he was Irish, and on the rare occasions that he was directly asked about it he acknowledged that his father came from Austria. But he benefited politically from the impression that he was a cross between the Irish-American Kennedys and the Yankee Brahmins, and he did not go out of his way to correct it, especially not at the St. Patrick's Day breakfasts he attended.
In his The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson documents the special role played by unassimilated white minorities in the subversion and cultural degeneration of America. The Irish, the Italians, French Canadians, and the Jews are subjected to criticism, some of it merited. In my opinion, if one group must be singled out for especial criticism, it would be due to the decisiveness of its influence in the equalitarian subversion of the West. But no group has been especially decisive.
I don’t subscribe to the idea that all Caucaoids are ‘white’. But it should still be understood that Europeans and Near Easterners cannot be distinguished from one another as belonging to altogether different races; only a different distribution of subraces are represented in Europe and the Near East. Jews are derived from a subtype in the Near East which of all non-European populations most closely approximates the European type; Syrians and the Lebanese may be given as other examples, also originating in the same area. Moreover, the Jews, even before settling in Europe, were subjected to selective influences favouring intelligence, distinguishing them from neighbouring peoples. Subsequently they migrated to Europe where they were subjected to further selective pressures favouring intelligence. They also practiced a certain amount of outbreeding, low in frequency but significant in its accumulated genetic effects. The result is a group of a people racially indistinguishible from other Europeans.
But no group has been especially decisive.
It's fundamentally untrue. Besides KMac, both Hertzberg, Jews in America, and James W.St.G. Walker, The "Jewish Phase" in the movement for Racial equality in Canada show official Jewry being the driving force in "The continuing fight for an "open door" and the disenfranchisement of the freedoms of the founding people.
But it should still be understood that Europeans and Near Easterners cannot be distinguished from one another as belonging to altogether different races; only a different distribution of subraces are represented in Europe and the Near East.
B.S. What is a sub-race but a distinct biological entity?
"The realization that not only major continental races, but also ethnic groups are biological entities goes against the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. According to this orthodoxy, European nations are artificial cultural constructions whose members share a “myth” of common origins; they are “constructed” products of the last few centuries; ethnic identification is a subjective notion of self-identity, rather than an objective notion of ancestry and homeland.
It now appears that while European nations are not races, (semantics, what is a biological population if not a race?)they are, nonetheless, biological populations, occupying specific positions along the Caucasoid genetic continuum, and distinguishable from most other European nations, if not always their immediate neighbors."
Post a Comment
<< Home