Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Jeet Heer, Afraid of Nazis

In my recent post about Sobran I linked Jeet Heer's Joseph Sobran: Far Worse than a Holocaust Skeptic. I left a few critical comments there which were greeted by Heer and his peanut gallery with the usual dehumanizing and intolerant attitude jews and their sympathizers so typically project onto others.

To Heer's credit, he let my comments stand. Last night I made a lengthy response to another comment and it got stuck in the moderation queue. Six hours later Heer announced that he was tired of letting "nazis" say "nazi" things and therefore, ACHTUNG!, he was closing the comments. I don't expect Heer will let my last remark through, so I'm posting it here instead. For context I encourage you to first read Heer's attack on Sobran and the thread of responses that followed.
PuffsPlus writes:

For those of you who don’t know, Tanstaafl is a blogger who wants a white-only ethnostate that excludes anyone with Jewish DNA. That would include his kids, because his wife’s father was a Jewish convert, IIRC. So Tanstaafl’s unreasonable hatred of Jews extends to the point of dreaming of a white-only country that would exclude his own children. Chew on that for a moment.

I realize I'm among enemies here, but I'm still chagrined to find such intellects overlooking the link in my name, and now acting like they've unmasked a stealthy boogeyman. Those who want something more than gossip and innuendo can chew on what I've actually written and decide for themselves if it's unreasonable:

Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites

A Personal Disclosure

It pleasures me to point out to my own kind (passing by or lurking here) the dishonesty of jewish partisans when facing non-jewish partisans. Regarding exclusion, my kids and I are excluded from Israel. Jewish hypocrisy rankles, but the exclusion from Israel not at all. You'd think those alienated by Whites would, of their own volition, not want to live among us. But no, the truth is they panic at the thought of being removed from their host. Claws and fangs come out because they much prefer to neutralize our partisans in order to lord over the rest. It reflects the jewish tendency toward totalitarianism which fully bloomed most recently and catastrophically as bolshevism. More recently it manifests as orwellian language, political correctness, and the criminalization of "hate", all while they project their own control-freak nature onto "nazis". As Chomsky put it, 98% control just isn't enough.

I see the norm here is to make grade school cases that rest on, for example, Sobran being "a fellow traveller to Nazism" and a "white nationalist defense of Sobran is far more damning". Never mind that Sobran's "nazism" is no more than the allergic reaction he causes jews, or the chauvinist jewish premise, unspoken and undefended, that Whites must not have what jews have (White nationalism) because it's bad for jews. The attack on Sobran and response to my counterpoints amounts to the presumption that anyone who will not accept that jewish interests outweigh their own is a heretic. Yes, such heresy is literally unthinkable for most jews, and most would make it unspeakable as well. No so the rest of us. So I ask again Heer, are you a jew, or a useful idiot?

The sad fact is that jew-firsters will have to keep repressing the rest of us, or get far away from us. I think the main reason more diaspora jews don't opt for the latter (beside not wanting to live among their own kind) is because they suspect when the lid comes off the precedents set by the Nuremberg trials and the later worldwide manhunts may repeat. As David Sachs worries, he and every jew he knows would all be forced (by "anti-semites" of course) to leap to every other jew's defense. The one thing that is virtually certain, evident in a millenia-long pattern, is that jews will continue to blame whatever goes wrong entirely on everybody else, especially those who reject their authority.
I went to Heer's latest post, Coren and Conservative Revisionism (wherein he denounces "conservative revisionism" as a defense of "nazism" and "fascism") and left another comment:
A comment of mine on the Sobran thread has been stuck in the moderation queue since six hours before you declared it closed.

Speaking of fascism, I'm wondering if you're going to let it through, or delete it.
I then read his post and watched the Michael Coren Show video he linked, to which I made the following comment:
Regarding the video you linked, the earnest disagreement about Vietnam-era US military demographics was interesting. Apparently, in cases like this, it's acceptable and important to argue about who was overrepresented, even though the whole enterprise is long past. What makes this part of the discussion so interesting is how it is interwoven with a non-debate of jewish overrepresentation in media today. Discussion of that disparity ended almost before it began, caricaturized and dismissed by Gordon as a "standard anti-semitic myth" that's "boring", and ultimately transformed by Coren into a red herring about how two jews can be counted on to have three opinions.

The point is that in the current mainstream media environment jews are free to argue out loud and at length about what's good for jews. Meanwhile, anyone who complains about this, or who tries to discuss what's good for their group (especially Whites), is pathologized and excluded with terminology such as "kook", "nazi", "fascist", "racist", "nativist", "xenophobe", "anti-semite", "denier", "minimizer", "revisionist", etc.

Whether this situation arises as a consequence of jewish disparities in ownership, control, employment, or just naive goyim favoritism for jews is really beside the point. The point is that there is a clear double-standard in how Whites and jews are treated - jews and their concerns strongly favored, Whites and our concerns strongly disfavored. This is no myth. Nor is it boring. But it is perfectly understandable why jews and their supporters try to deny or minimize it.
Upon posting this I noticed that my previous comment had been deleted. A few minutes later this last comment disappeared as well.

It's telling that reasoned and on-topic comments are deleted by someone who so hates "nazism" and "fascism". It's not pigeon-holing enemies or squelching dissent that disturbs Heer. He's a comic fanboy and culture critic. In those very jewish worlds dehumanization and censorship are only crimes when it happens to the nazi-fighting good-guys. Naturally I wonder if Heer is some kind of desi-jew. If not, then I wonder if he's ever wondered just how steeped in jewish thought he is.

Curiously, Heer has been critical of zionism and neocons, writing things like Israel's creation: Ethnic cleansing by any other name, The Jewish state and its enablers, and Operation Anglosphere. Perhaps he's trying to compensate for this by pathologizing other people's criticism of jews.

In Heer's Anglosphere piece he attaches significance to where someone is born. Why then his hostility to the notion that an identity conveyed by genes and upbringing can have significance? Is it only jewish identity which is exempt, or exempt from critique? He's not squeamish about attaching significance to "anti-semitism" and "nazism". What's that? Where does it come from? He doesn't seem to care. He uses the words as if they're magic.

Maybe he'll drop by and clear up some of these questions. Based on his lame response to challenges at his own blog, I doubt it.

Labels: , , ,



Blogger FeminizedWesternMale said...

"t's telling that reasoned and on-topic comments are deleted by someone who so hates "nazism" and "fascism". It's not pigeon-holing enemies or squelching dissent that disturbs Heer. He's a comic fanboy and culture critic. In those very jewish worlds dehumanization and censorship are only crimes when it happens to the nazi-fighting good-guys."

Did you see this Moldbug quote at VFR:
"The best way to uphold the Constitution is to burn it, for it has long since become a mockery of itself; its authors would tolerate no such fate. Your enemies believe in naked power. When they croak the Constitution at you, answer them with a gun butt to the jaw. It is their own secret language, which they understand perfectly."

I also read recently (sorry, forgot where), that hypocrisy, though rampant amongst our enemy, is an ineffective tool for us to use against them (but good for preaching to our choir) - it simply doesn't make any difference to the in-group with the cultural hegemony. I think this is true.

I fear I am arguing myself into concluding that there are few non-forceful arrows in our quiver.

Any thoughts. Thanks, Mike

10/14/2010 04:16:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

FWM, I haven't been tracking Ol Weird Larry of late, but you piqued my curiousity so I searched out that Moldbug statement and found it in Not in the mood. My curiousity was quickly quenched by the prospect of reading the lengthy dissembling of two spin-doctors whose blame-anything-and-anybody-but-"the-jews" diversions I'm already more than sick enough of.

I stopped reading before I even got to Moldbug's second sentence. I've heard it all before.

Let me just point out how odd it might seem to some that infamously prickly Larry would post 1000 words of florid hand-waving (assuming Moldbug is true to style) from a person he knows disagrees with and "misunderstands" him and without even reading it. It doesn't surprise me at all. That's because I know Larry's #1 concern is "anti-semitism" - not conservativism, liberalism, traditionalism, anti-Americanism, feminism, immigration, muslims, blacks, mestizos, or anything else he regularly uses for fodder. I also know that Larry knows that no matter how much he and Moldbug disagree about those other things they are completely on the same page about "anti-semitism". Which is why I'm not really all that interested in what either of them have to say about what's wrong or how to fix it. They don't really mean to accomplish anything. They're just trying to lay down a smokescreen for jewish interests, spinning whatever tall tales they must. Both appeal to desperate fed-up Whites by saying the darnedest un-PC things. And both frequently point fingers and lay ultimate blame on Christians/Puritans, ie. Whites.

I have to admit I thought of Larry when describing Heer's use of magic words. They have that in common. I'm much less familiar with Heer's, ahem, body of work, but he seems much more in the mold of a mainstream leftist anti-"racist". I imagine his reaction to Larry or Moldbug would be similar to his reaction to Marty Peretz - they're all "bigots" who have "many friends, people who don’t share [their] worldview but are willing to defend [them]", and it's all a big fat mystery why.

10/14/2010 05:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Heer's ethnic interests as a subcon are furthered by giving lip-service to the significantly Jewish, post-WWII anti-racist mythos that is the bedrock of multiracialism. It is the centerpiece of the anti-racist faith. If you wish to deny his co-ethnics unlimited access to Western nations then you are a "Nazi" who would do to them what was allegedly done to Jews by same. The aim is to morally disarm and thereby cow Whites.

10/14/2010 06:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Pete said...

Well done, Tan.

10/14/2010 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I got an email from Heer. He writes:

I'm sorry but your comments are all over-the-top in their racist Jew-hatred, so as a matter of policy we're going to delete any comments you make on our site. You have your own website to publish your writings on for those who want to read it.

Of course all kinds of nasty insinuations about White disproportions, and Whites in general, are made in the mainstream media, and the very same prigs who go over-the-top in their blind jew-defense have nary a peep to say about that.

I'd like to say I look forward to reading more of Heer's deeply insightful posts about the big mysteries of his life, like the one linked above, where he ponders why over-the-top "racist" jew Marty Peretz, who can't think or write, still has a gig at Harvard. But I don't want to lie.

I see Heer was on JournoList. I'm sure the disproportion of jews in that cabal's membership was a big fat mystery for him too.

10/15/2010 12:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your comments were as usual excellent.

Very telling he never answered your straight forward and twice repeated question.

The guy is a slithering hissing venomous snake. I hope he reads this.

10/15/2010 07:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10/15/2010 12:35:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Why would Jesus need a passport?

10/15/2010 02:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if PuffsPlus is Silver.

10/15/2010 04:17:00 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Occidental Dissent has a clique of comment deleters at work also.

10/15/2010 08:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

How does this "PuffsPlus" knows that "Tanstaafl" have a jewish wife and mischling kids?

The details are here: A Personal Disclosure

10/16/2010 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

John Tyndall: Why the BNP Does Not Need Jewish Candidates:

'The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation... Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.

'I became aware of a strange paradox. While Jews were to be found among the most ardent and committed opponents of British Nationalism and British race-loyalty, they were at the same time the most passionate champions of nationalism and race consciousness on the part of their own people...'

10/16/2010 09:28:00 PM  
Anonymous eh said...

An honest question: Who the fuck gives a damn about this cretin Jeet Heer? (And what kind of name is that, anyway?) All you have to know about him is contained in one of his comments:

I’ll just add that Tanstaafl’s white nationalist defense of Sobran is far more damning than anything I or Sobran’s other critics have said about the man.

Nothing but guilt by association of the most infantile variety.

His whole screed is just more proof -- as if any was needed -- that if you say anything at all critical of Jews, no matter how well reasoned, you'll be called an anti-Semite.

Ho hum.

10/19/2010 04:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Sheila Dikshit, Indian Minister for Sport said...

"Jeet Heer? (And what kind of name is that, anyway?)"

LOL. I know what a completely weird and ridiculous name! LOL

Tanstaafl at Sailer's:

"Have geneticists found the mutation for fraud and hypocrisy tolerance yet?"

That was brilliant. Feminised Mike and yourself have a wonderfully acerbic and penetrating wit which is indispensable when dealing with low equivocations from God's Chosen people or white liberal prats.

10/19/2010 05:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Svigor said...

Funny to see him hold forth on healthy skepticism and open inquiry as he deletes comments.

It takes an effeminate male to attack a position, then run from its defenders. He makes assertions about holocaust skeptics, but he'd almost certainly run from me screaming if I tried to have a conversation about holocaust skepticism.

Sorry, Heer, I just don't see what's so reprehensible about wondering where the remains are, about questioning the narrative of an extermination program which I topped in five minutes on the back of a paper napkin, about basing a body count on census data, etc.

MAYBE if everyone didn't turn into limp-wristed faggots at the prospect of the conversation, someone could set me straight. It's not like I'm even an amateur historian, especially not vis-a-vis THE holocaust; I've just got some very simple, common-sense problems with the story that people want to pretend are "beyond the Pale," as it were.

Well, then, don't act all shocked and surprised when someone says he's skeptical (Sailer, I'm looking at you).

10/20/2010 05:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Svigor said...

Ha! Wade through shit long enough and you might find a pearl:

There is a time for invective filled rants, and responding to anti-Semites is such a time.

Sooo true. I'll translate into goyspeak: when people criticize Ashkenazis, start screeching 'cuz you got nothin' else.

10/20/2010 05:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Svigor said...

This will be the last comment on this post. I will automatically delete any subsequent comment. When I wrote a critique of Joseph Sobran, I expected that I would get anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi comments, and I haven’t been disappointed. These comments reinforce the argument I made in my original post about the Nazi provenance of the ideas Sobran promulgated in the late part of his career. So I’ve allowed these anti-Semitic comments to stand, since they give a fair idea of what Sobran’s fan club is like. But I don’t think it serves any purpose to allow more anti-Semitic comments to appear on this blog, nor do I think it serves any useful purpose to argue with Holocaust deniers, since engaging them in debate creates the false impression that they are arguing in good faith and making arguments that are worthy of a rejoinder. So I hereby declare this discussion closed. Any subsequent comment on this matter will be automatically deleted.

The Desi bows before his masters, heh.

10/20/2010 05:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Svigor, I recommend Sobran's article linked by Jim Jones in the Sobran post by Tan. Here it is again.

On Shoa Business, and why he wouldn't refer to himself as a holocaust denier but rather stipulator, he says:

Besides, “Holocaust denial” is illegal in many countries I may want to visit someday. For me, that’s proof enough. One Israeli writer has expressed his amazement at the idea of criminalizing opinions about historical fact, and I find it puzzling too; but the state has spoken.

That for me is the key to any debate on the subject. Why on earth would a matter of history be criminalised?

Sure, the Muslims have a criminal code for blaspheming the Koran, but that is a religion whereas the holocaust is a matter of histo...hmmm, it does make one wonder doesn't it.

So much depends on the Jewish holocaust, as Sobran points out. I too don't doubt that the Jews were massacred, for being Jews, but I also don't doubt that over 50 million White people died in WWII, and that 60 million Russians died under Soviet Russia, which Jews were heavily complicit in instigating.

And I concur with David Stove's conclusion with regard racism and bigotry: What is common to both sides cannot justify the preferential treatment of one.

Just planting little mustard seeds that will one day, hopefully, grow into a large sheltering tree.

10/20/2010 05:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

This Joe Sobran's a classic. Why do I always find these great men only when they are dead? Sam Francis, David Stove and now Joe Sobran. Gives a new meaning to life after death, that's for sure.

Sobran on "The Church and Jewish Ideology

According to this modern myth, the Jews are in no way responsible for their own unpopularity from ancient times.

Man that's funny.

10/20/2010 06:23:00 AM  
Blogger Robert said...

Since I was targeted yesterday by a very nasty computer virus attack (Security Tool), I would like to share how to rescue your PC.
First, learn how to start your version of Windows in the safe mode.
Start system restore in the safe mode. Restore your computer to the day before. Voila!

10/20/2010 10:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Jim Jones said...

Not to hijack, but I just saw this over at Freerepublic. The NAACP is releasing a report on race in the Tea Party ("Tea Partiers are white people angry at losing their country blah blah." If only that were so . . . ). The author of the report is one Leonard Ziskind, a man who has written extensively on white nationalism and is a lifelong member of the NAACP. In his spare time, Leonard manages to work on behalf of the Kansas City Jewish Community Relations Bureau. On his web page, he says that "I am president of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which examines racism, anti-Semitism and far-right social movements; analyzes their intersection with civil society and social policy; educates the public; and assists in the protection and extensions of human rights." No word on whether Leonard has found time to analyze jewish ethnocentrism, its role in far-left movements, and the corrosive effects of such movements on the people who allowed jews into their country.

10/20/2010 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

A little history with humor, I hope.

10/23/2010 12:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeet Heer should give Osama bin Laden some stiff competition in "The World's least-good-looking Man" competition.

10/26/2010 01:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Jim Jones said...

Yes, he bears an uncanny resemblance to a MidEastern version of Shrek.

10/26/2010 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Politics and culture pundit Heer can't figure out the source of Saul Bellow's animosity for Hugh Kenner. Hmmm. Maybe it's Ezra Pound's fault.

It's just a guess, but I'll bet Bellow's tribal instincts had something to do with it. His tribemates Jeff Simon, Philip Roth, Karl Shapiro, Isaac Rosenfeld, and Delmore Schwartz could maybe explain.

10/29/2010 03:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home