O'Meara: The Anti-Semites Are Our Misfortune
Michael O'Meara sums up his latest essay, White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism, with this telling comment: The anti-Semites, though, are totally out of control and need a wake-up call; I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism. Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.William Buckley, Lawrence Auster, Peder Jensen (Fjordman), Guy White, and Ian Jobling have made similar calls in similar terms.
O'Meara projects his own ignorance, reductionism, and resentment onto the objects of his frustration. And who wouldn't be frustrated with the low, hateful group of losers he imagines; so obscure and crazy that he cannot name even one, and yet so critically important that he feels compelled to confront and vanquish them.
For my part I try to stay focused on real people who wield real power. If so many of them were eskimos or serving eskimo interests then naturally their regime (and O'Meara) would be scapegoating eskimo-obsessed crackpots. C'est la guerre.
Labels: white nationalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 10/06/2011 09:53:00 PM
80 Comments:
We will have to remain "Jew-obsessed" as long as the Jew is obsessed with us,and that means probably for ever.
"and that means probably for ever."
More likely until we are extinct and interbreeded away.
I took O'meara to mean those who consider themselves anti-semites first, and foremost, before White Nationalist. I agree with the implication that it is healthier to "for" something first, and before something you're "against."
But I could be FOS.
Mike
Good find TAN. I responded here:
http://svigor.blogspot.com/2011/10/omeara-white-nationalism-is-not-anti.html
A final comment from O'Meara:
"To my critics: Misread my piece and make me into a philo-Semite if you like — that way you won’t have to abandon your virtualist understanding of things (which, I realize, is the normal, comfortable de-Aryanized approach favored in America’s Low Culture — the real source of our predicament)."
O'Meara began by imagining himself a brazen provocateur. Now he plays the victim. He is the first in the CC thread to use the term philo-semite, lumping all his critics and their critiques together in that one strawman. The next step is to cry that the crazy/stupid/evil people are accusing him of being a jew.
The explanation he offers for his behavior is that he doesn't want to abandon his own virtualist understanding of "a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots" who are "totally out of control" and "a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism". The irony is that most everyone outside of White nationalists would describe him in his own venomous terms.
As examples of what he's attacking O'Meara has so far only invoked the names of two long-dead men - (Julius) Streicher, who was tortured and put to death for "anti-semitism" in 1946, and (George Lincoln) Rockwell, who was assassinated in 1967.
The last portion of O'Meara's comment seems intended as a coded sneer at rednecks, and yet another unjustified claim as to the "real source of our predicament".
O'Meara has never cared about the well-being of White Americans.
He hates us for our Anglo-Saxon blood, and he is hostile to the religious and political traditions that have defined us as a people since colonial times.
He is an unrepentant Marxist, an Anglo-Saxon hating IRA sympathizer, a Christianity hating gay rights activist, and an enthusiast for any and every weird idea which runs counter to traditional American values, such as Satanism, decadent post-modern art, or the creation of man-animal hybrid chimeras (just like 1920s Soviet Union attempted to breed Russian women and male chimps).
He equates White Nationalism with Hitler worship and plans for massive ethnic cleansing.
It is no wonder he has a positive regard for left wing secular Jews. He has so much in common with them!
As greatly as I admire the work of Kevin MacDonald and F. Roger Devlin, I will be not renew my Occidental Quarterly subscription if O'Meara is still on its editorial board.
How can Kevin MacDonald, in good conscience, criticise the Jews for the flaws which they share with his colleage O'Meara?
Tan,
I believe I used the term philo-semitism first. At least a variant of it.
Still, your comments here are golden. Your gift for cutting through the bullshit with logical judo is amazing. I've adopted your style more and more over the years.
"He is an unrepentant Marxist, an Anglo-Saxon hating IRA sympathizer, a Christianity hating gay rights activist, and an enthusiast for any and every weird idea which runs counter to traditional American values, such as Satanism, decadent post-modern art, or the creation of man-animal hybrid chimeras (just like 1920s Soviet Union attempted to breed Russian women and male chimps)."
Can I see some evidence for this, please?
So ... we aren't discreet enough for an Irishman?
lolz
-uh
@ "a Christianity hating gay rights activist..."
You must be confusing Michael O'Meara with James O'Meara.
Extended phenotype "O'Meara"
I think the criticisms in this post and thread are justified, but calling him an "extended phenotype" seems extreme considering that he does acknowledge the Jewish issue.
I think part of the reason guys like O'Meara feel this way is simply because they're bookish and into philosophy. They'd rather talk about and think in terms of abstract philosophical ideas. The kind of more empirical and materialistic thinking involved when seriously thinking about the Jewish issue tends to detract from more philosophical and idealistic thinking.
Look, being careful in deciding when and where to talk about the jews - and how much to say -- is advisable and praiseworthy.
Exculpating jews is not. But that's what he's doing, and he wouldn't do so without their influence.
It could be that he's motivated by wanting to blame Anglos more because of his Irish chip on the shoulder against Anglos/Brits thing.
This guy O'Meara is a nut job, plain and simple. Why even bother analyzing his insane rantings? You're either with us or against us, at this point, and O'Meara showed which side he's on.
We are on the cusp of taking the Jews down and this guy is calling out for defeat! Something's clearly wrong with him. It's clear to see why White Nationalism never gets anywhere with these types around. He has no conviction, unless he's just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
I see a lot of these so called leaders trying to rein in anti-Semitism lately, but it won't work. It's very suspicious. Also, wasn't it the intellectuals that got us to this horrible point in the first place with all their sophistry and high falutin 50 cent words.
Forget them, victory will be carried through on basic lines and basic ideas. The first being to eradicate the Jew completely. As far as I'm concerned, O'Meara just sunk himself and everyone associated with him, including Greg Johnson and Kevin MacDonald. Can't trust those guys if they take O'Meara seriously.
"As far as I'm concerned, O'Meara just sunk himself and everyone associated with him, including Greg Johnson and Kevin MacDonald. Can't trust those guys if they take O'Meara seriously."
Sure thing anonymous concern troll, we'll disband and distance ourselves from one another forthwith.
In my eyes O'Meara has discredited himself. How others react to his churlish provocation is up to them.
I don't trust intellectuals. They create divisions where there are none. It is also fertile ground for wolves in sheep's clothing.
Calling me a troll is a weak strategy. And anonymous even. Can't you discredit me any better than a child?
It would be a very good idea to distance yourself from these people(O'Meara, Greg Johnson, MacDonald, etc.). They are bad news.
In the world of action, these men will come to nothing. People have already tuned out the verbose, self indulgent rhetoric a long time ago.
More insight into what drives O'Meara:
"My disgust — and I’ve had it all my life — is with the middle class, especially with philistine middle-class intellectuals who seem as prominent in so-called WN ranks as they are in the Academy. Being Catholic and Irish in America has, for me, also been part of being working class in America. But in addition to my class loyalties, my experiences have given me a far higher opinion of trade union militants and working class Bolsheviks than I’ll probably ever have of American conservative or racialist intellectuals. I also know if any fighting is ever to be done, I can count on one rather than the other.
I think it’s significant that in the years I posted at VNN, I was less offended by the numbskull things said by obviously badly educated types there (who at least had the virtue of saying them with some wit), than I am by the numskull things said so often by so many middle class intellectuals associated with a site ostensively aimed at the higher IQ types.
Forget about the workers; they’ll be with us when the time comes. Now’s the time to start worrying about the sorry lot of intellectuals who represent us."
O'Meara's resort to broadly-aimed insults and belittling undermines the snobbish airs of moral and mental superiority he puts on. The value of his more delicately-worded prose is destroyed by the hostility and disgust he feels for the very people he deigns to speak for.
The idea that we can overestimate the Jews is LAUGHABLE. The surest way to lose an audience is to parrot such nonsense.
Let's see, what don't they control or haven't they infiltrated?
Seriously, any suggestion that we are paying too much attention to them sounds positively Jewed.
It's pretty easy to see where O'Meara is headed with his line of thought. He will next be saying that Jews are white!!!!!!!!
We follow these guys and there will definitely be no white race to speak of in the future.
"O'Meara's resort to broadly-aimed insults and belittling undermines the snobbish airs of moral and mental superiority he puts on."
That's exactly what offends me about O'Meara. He wants to pretend to be some kind of great thinker but he lacks anything of substance and generally dismisses people by using personal attacks and name-calling. If he wants to attack the "Main Jewish Theory" of our racial decline, he needs to do more than call it ignorant, dishonest, reductionist, etc.
This failure to address any points of substance is what marks the difference between those who deem "anti-Semitism" unworthy of them, and those who went through a long period of fact-finding and soul-searching before finally coming to grips with the underlying causes of our racial decline.
And it's really a joke how the "anti-anti-Semites" always use the same tricks. They accuse us of engaging in straw-man arguments, then go into name-calling, then urge all "reasonable" people to purge us from their ranks.
That last bit - the refusal to even allow others to listen to our arguments - proves that the "anti-anti-Semites" are interested in only one thing: protecting the Jews from criticism.
"We're sick because of a pathogen; that's elementary biology. And, you are right, there are mountains of evidence indicating the identity of that pathogen.'
Yep.
But Ben, I wonder if it might be productive for waking up our people suffering from philosemitism and the effects of the jewmedia implanted crimethink-stopper which causes their brain to go bzzzzzzt whenever Jews are criticized,
if we characterized it as an allergic reaction.
We could spin it like: look, we EuroWhites are allergic to you Jews. When you guys are in our society, we can't function. We aren't calling you evil or pathogenic, or anything like that, blah, blah, but like any allergy, we must get away from you or get you away from us so we can live. Our societies go into anaphylactic shock with yo around. It's not your fault, blah blah, but please leave.
Whaddya think?
"My disgust — and I’ve had it all my life — is with the middle class, especially with philistine middle-class intellectuals who seem as prominent in so-called WN ranks as they are in the Academy. Being Catholic and Irish in America has, for me, also been part of being working class in America. But in addition to my class loyalties, my experiences have given me a far higher opinion of trade union militants and working class Bolsheviks than I’ll probably ever have of American conservative or racialist intellectuals. I also know if any fighting is ever to be done, I can count on one rather than the other.
After Pat Hannigan's latest tribute to the IRA O'Meara replies: Aye, indeed: Said with the grace and the thought of your race.
That's not the white race he's referring to. Sounds like Ellis Island Syndrome to me. Gritty working class Irish Catholic doesn't want to be associated with unfashionable vanilla WASPs in the suburbs. Besides, their ancestors looked down on his.
Reading him brought to mind the Gene Siskel/Roger Ebert rant about Wasps. Starts at 1.50 link below.
Link
The Catholics and the Jews. We go way back together!
Winston Churchill said of the Irish conflict: "Every institution in the world was strained. Great Empires have been overturned. The whole map of Europe has been changed... But as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short, we see the dreary spires of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that has been unaltered in the cataclysm which has swept the world."
O'Meara's ancestors probably settled in the US before the 20th century yet his antipathy towards the WASPs remains fresh.
It doesn't MATTER if you Hate or Love the Joo. The Joo is the Enemy. As an avowed Enemy it seeks to Destroy you, whether you like it or not.
Identifying the Enemy is the First Step in Defeating it. You can't fight what you don't know.
We didn't Start this War, but believe me it is a War. A Total War of Annihilation. Its them, or US...
O'Meara certainly has stirred up a storm with this post.
My reading obviously differs to many here, including and especially Tan whose analysis and thoughts are always instructive to me. Tan is one of the foremost people who awoke me to Jewish involvement in so many destructive causes in our nations so I always listen to Tan.
The main objection to O'Meara's post it seems is that he doesn't specifically name names but is generalised in a condemnation of extreme anti-semites, i.e. those who see the Jews as the alpha and omega of all that has beset us.
Tan equates O'Meara with "William Buckley, Lawrence Auster, Peder Jensen (Fjordman), Guy White, and Ian Jobling..." who all wish to drive anti-semites out of the WNist movement. O'Meara's post doesn't make this demand to drive out anti-semites but his subsequent comment certainly implies that wish:
The anti-Semites, though, are totally out of control and need a wake-up call; I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism. Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.
Yet O'Meara's post doesn't make this call and is rather a plea that WNists set their own identity rather than be the anti-to everything Jewish.
So who are the anti-semites that O'Meara is referring to? Are they commenters at VNN or are they so called leaders in the movement?
I'd name Alex Linder as someone who typifies the type of anti-semite that O'Meara is referring to. Linder is a genocidalist, that is he makes calls to exterminate Jews. The interview with Hunter Wallace comes to mind where he put Wallace on the spot demanding some sort of categorical statement from him demanding extermination of Jews, all Jews.
And Linder is used by the likes of Auster to sully other WNists who do not share Linder's position eg Exterminationist anti-Semites
Auster pulls a 3 card trick: 1) Linder is demonstrably an exterminationist, 2) equates Linder with MacDonald who also now must be therefore an exterminationist 3) Brimelow and Spencer publish MacDonald, they must be exterminationists.
Now Auster is not a very good charlatan but it does demonstrate the power that extreme types of anti-semites have in being a source to undermine some of the leading lights in the movement.
Should Linder be purged? I don't think so. His views aren't mine, they are at odds with mine yet, as I say, we are a broad church and all can and should be accommodated. I have yet to see Jews go seeking out extreme anti-goys in their midst so it is hardly incumbent on us to seek out similar types in our movement.
Yet we can acknowledge the damage that some, like Linder, do to our cause.
Notes: I hate using the term anti-semite as it is the Jews' term for us. I don't care about so called anti-semitism and I scorn the term.
The movement: from what I see the WNist movement is an online phenomenon and not something replicated explicitly in politics throughout the West. Most of the leaders are online leaders and not leaders of a political party which gives me extra incentive to not be overly concerned with the negative effects of genocidalist types of anti-semites.
Yet, I take HAC's point that anyone who is agitating for death and destruction online is someone we should be wary, even should we be in agreement with them.
Re. WASPs. It is valuable and necessary to understand WASP history, evolution of thought and cultural practices for the very simple reason that it wasn't the Jews who smashed Germany instead of going after Stalin, it was nations lead by Churchill and Roosevelt that did that damage.
By noting this, studying this, does not exculpate Jews but focuses on other causes for our decline as White nations. And gaining our nations again as White nations is our cause so it is necessary to eliminate all blind spots which an inordinate focus on the Jews can lead to.
I've read from many WNists that the enlightenment itself was a Jewish project, which is an example of what O'Meara is referring. The Enlightenment, if it was anyone's project, was a WASP project through and through. And it is enlightenment thinking that has found its end point in the individualism run rampant that defines America and the American project of democracy uber alles.
The rise of evangelist religions in the USA is worrying and that rise was not facilitated by the Jews. The fact that so many Republican leaders like Bush, Bachmann, Perry have this bizarre Israel worship and democracy worship at their core is something that needs be addressed. It is a WASP phenomenon particular to the USA.
With Palin and her constant demonstrations of Israel love via a Star of David pendant or the like, an Israel flag situated here or there at her back, it isn't for fear of the Jews that she is motivated. It is for love of the Jews over and above her own people that she is motivated to do so. And that religious imperative of hers is not a Jew created religion it is a WASP creation. It needs to be addressed.
Something I can't stand is this idea that you can't just be against something, that you have to be for something. What an utterly stupid concept. "We spend too much time talking about being against jews, but we never talk about what we're for!" Okay, well then I'm FOR a world in which Whites are not ruled by jews. You happy now?
Some guy started talking to me about the Occupy Wall Street protests the other day. He used the same reasoning: "These people know what they're against, but they don't know what they're for." My response was, "well, if someone's beating you up, I think it's okay to be against them beating you up, and not necessarily be for something." He didn't know what to say to that.
Because finding out what they are for will determine whether "we" will join them in the fight.
We may both be being beaten up by the same aggressor but if I found out that should we join and beat the aggressor my new ally will then turn on me and administer his own beating on me, then I will have some misgivings about joining him in the fight.
Recently at my blog there was a poster who ostensibly is on "my side". But then I find that the ultimate victory for "us" will entail no music, no alcohol, no religion (specifically my religion), no Western style culture, no history etc etc and that we should hold Stalin in the highest of esteem.
One then starts to consider things in more detail than the Jews alone being my enemy.
And it quite often seems that rather than WNism being a broad church, a coalescence of many ethnicities, cultures and religions or lack thereof under the one broad banner there's always someone calling for year zero Pol Pot style as the future of the White race. Naturally I'll not join that fight and naturally so won't many others who would otherwise be on our side.
''We may both be being beaten up by the same aggressor but if I found out that should we join and beat the aggressor my new ally will then turn on me and administer his own beating on me, then I will have some misgivings about joining him in the fight.''
For some WASP/Protestant Americans, this presents a stumbling block because we are somehow declared to be the enemy as much as Jews, or to be working in tandem with Jews.
-VA
Reading him brought to mind the Gene Siskel/Roger Ebert rant about Wasps. Starts at 1.50 link below.
That's a great clip.
Ebert is German Catholic. You can tell he's more reluctant and hesitant though, and doesn't really join in on the tirade until Siskel's energy and force of personality drive him to.
Siskel's words and energy in that clip really reflect the Jewish revolutionary spirit and the competitive drive to occupy the elite niches, the "commanding heights" of the host society.
"Ebert is German Catholic."
According to wiki, his father's side is German, his mother's is Dutch and Irish-Catholic. He looks more like an Irish-Catholic.
He talked, in that clip, a lot more like that certain kind of Irish-Catholic -- you know the one, the formidable Ted Kennedy wing of Catholic-Irishry... of which M.O'Meara is a clear sympathizer.
So Hail, let's talk about WASPs and Linder in the same terms then shall we?
You want to blame anything and everyone for the fucked up White world devastation we live in yet none of you dare touch the WASPs.
@ “Stop picking on WASPs. The people you talk about have no real power. Most people just follow the money and do as they are told, if it makes sense to them.”
But that is precisely the problem, the traitors who sold their Christian souls for GOLD...
Quote:
Next come the Ring Wraiths, perhaps Tolkien’s finest invention. Enablers, Paul Gottfried has called them, and deems them worse than their criminal masters. Men and women who once possessed Christian souls and knew about the Power of Love, but sold both for thirty pieces of gold to forge their own insignificant rings.
/End quote
@ “O'Meara and his ilk won't be able to stop it. Maybe that's why he's freaking out.”
I don’t think his intention has anything to do with sparing the tribe. IMHO it looks like he’s merely sticking to the European POV and the French “New Right” (O’Meara’s the main translator of Guilleme Faye), where the perceived problem is believed to be the Muslims in Paris, etc.
5.0 out of 5 stars A Book of immense importance, September 16, 2011
By Heldenbaer1 (Minneapolis, MN. USA)
This review is from: The WASP Question (Paperback)
As we tumble down to the end of the 'One and done' presidency of our first 'post-racial' Prez, a book such as this might be looked upon as merely (using another's terms) 'racist rhetoric.' Except that this writer was a Professor of LAW at a major Australian University, and has so many quotes, and such prescient philosophical insights on a whole host of matters: historical, ethnobiological, religious, cultural, and sociological, that to use such a hackneyed term as that, would be merely to put one's self in the position of the anarchistic 'anti-fas' who are the true 'haters' out there.
Fraser's book is primarily a historical survey of what makes WASPS tick- both in England, as well as in 'New' England (i.e., America, and Oz/NZ to a lesser degree). He begins with prehistory, and the arrival of what were to become the "Anglo-Saxon" hordes that displaced (by and large) the native Britons, early on. He then goes through the history of Christendom, from the arrival of Augustine of Canterbury, to Henry VIII, Elizabeth and James, on to the early 19th Century, before changing his focus to the American Experiment, '... for us and for our Posterity.' Along the way, studies of ethnobioligical, and cultural, and religious insights are used to point out the things that once we knew intuitively about ourselves, that actually WERE 'innate' racial/national/ethnobiological characteristics, that should not- and now cannot- be ignored any longer.
Like Avdeyev's "Raciology" this book is one of immense importance to the minds awakening from the "Matrix" of Bolshevik/Alinskyite-like [foreign] racial thoughtmemes, that all but suffocated the real Americans of historic lineage, going back to our country's founding. Not that Fraser seeks to delineate or destroy the Marxist/Talmudic mindset, that has suffused all Administrations since at least Clinton, and even earlier. He doesn't need to. He assumes such a mindset to be antithetical to the WASP's best self-interests, and then proceeds to corroborate the WASP p.o.v as NORMATIVE for the West.
And therein lies the power of this book. While other authors pretend that religion's influence is either unwanted or immaterial, Fraser is a true 'Englishman' who knows that the "Ecclesia Anglicanae" is an absolutely VITAL part of any ethnobiological restoration. He steers a very gracious 'via media' between science, history, and the faith that is the 'glue' that holds it all together. And, from time to time, sentences that clearly implicate those to blame, astound one with their subtlety, while yet lacking no measure of blame, 'to whom blame belongs.'
The book is indexed, extensively footnoted (for minds closed to truth, this is an absolutely essential feature), and laid out very nicely. The book has a sold heft, yet is one that can be read on trains, at coffee shops, and in classrooms. Which it should be. It is not overdone, it is not incendiary (well, maybe to those anarchists I mentioned earlier!) and a very 'British' feel is present throughout, without making it 'untranslatable' to the American audience. But, I warn you. This is not a book for your average Joe six-pack or Suzie soccermom. Seminal books at the end of political/cultural eras never are (think of Augustine's City of God, written at the end of another era of Western societal collapse). But that does not make a book such as this unnecessary. Indeed, this book is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for the fight that is already here... the battle for Middle Earth, and the lands of Christendom.
Larry Auster converted to Anglicanism; would that make him a WASP?
I am sure Auster wouldn't touch the Catholic Church with a bargepole.
The Anglican Church has been meaningless for centuries. It was always a Church for the rural aristocracy and middle class and dominated by the aristocracy whose younger sons became vicars for the"Living".
Poor English people were left without a religion after the Reformation.A good book to read about the Reformation and it's deletrious consequences is William Cobbetts "The Protestant Reformation".It is virtually free on Kindle.Cobbett was a Protestant but he was damning is his analysis of the effects of the Reformation on rural England. Anglicanism is a joke.You only have to look at the present Archbishop. When Queen Elizabeth dies, Charles will become Head of the Anglican Church. The same Charles who was recorded as saying that he longed to be a tampon in his then mistress's vagina.The same Charles who is very sympthetic to Muslims.
"O'Meara's resort to broadly-aimed insults and belittling undermines the snobbish airs of moral and mental superiority he puts on."
This is a mindset intrinsic to the brand of literary fascism on offer at Counter Currents. The very same which insinuates that those only or primarily interested in mere racial preservation are "decadent". If you oppose the inclusion of Turks as "White" so as to inflate the gross number of "Whites" then you are "decadent" according to the literary fascists; as if the indiscriminate mixing of Turks with Northern Europeans under the banner of a generic "White" identity, with the expected outcome being a rebirth to racial power, is not itself decadence of the most sophomoric variety. What matters to the literary fascists is not the race (self-evidently so - they will compromise on racial preservation) but the fantasy of ruling over that race as "elites". The actual genetic constitution of those the literary fascists wish to rule is of secondary importance to the desire of the literary fascists to simply have someone to rule. In a word, they are elitists. A mindset not dissimilar to that of Jews.
I recall making a similar point here before but was told, more or less, to STFU.
The very reason, for a racialist, of insisting on "naming the Jew" in the first place is not that he delights in feelings of moral superiority as he points out the double standards and hypocrisies of the powerful, but that he realizes Jews are eternally a threat to racial preservation. Racial preservation is a higher interest than simply opposing Jewry is - for a racialist. Therefore, it seems logically unavoidable that a racialist would become more exercised over those who would compromise on racial preservation than over those who would not unflaggingly "name the Jew".
"Fraser's book is primarily a historical survey of what makes WASPS tick- both in England, as well as in 'New' England (i.e., America, and Oz/NZ to a lesser degree)"
It's a mistake, IMO, to conflate Colonial American whites ('WASPs') with other ex-British colonies' British-Protestant stock.
The American colonials were a different people from the beginning, and had moved further and further away from Britain by the mid-1700s, which is why the radicals like Samuel Adams in the 1760s and 1770s were so wildly successful at promoting open sedition, over quite minor issues (small tax increases). The race issue was a primary reason for this. Hunter Wallace has written some great essays on this in the past month. Protestantism and Racial Decline
Excerpt:
"By 1700, the “American” has emerged into full blossom in Massachusetts and Virginia: he is an English speaker, a Protestant, and now he is a White man. There is something like an American national identity taking shape around a racialized version of Protestantism." (--Hunter Wallace)
OD/HW has also done an excellent job in his comment threads documenting the roots of the modern race-blind liberal state, and how those roots are not Jewish in origin.
The plain fact is, even though Jews are disproportionately picking the side of evil, they aren't the primary original cause. White people screwing up is that. It's important not to lose sight of this fact, lest it happen again.
Anon@07:02
"We are on the cusp of taking the Jews down"
How so?
HW is being atypically myopic if he is denying the ENORMOUS influence of organized Jewry in the Civil Rights movement.
O'Meara still feels an outsider in America, which means that his dislike of Jews isn't any greater than of the WASP culture that preceded them.
We can also turn around the argument and claim that it was with the (minorites-sticking-together) help of even some white ethnic minorities, like the one he comes from, that the jews were able to rise to the top against the WASP majority. [As it was with the help of enemy indian tribes that the Conquistadors were able to conquer the Aztecs.]
Of course he would never touch that, since it was somehow all the "Yankee"'s fault.
This shows the limits of "white nationalism" in the american context.
Focusing on the jewish issue would be focusing on the common enemy, but no, O'Meara will take none of that. His main enemy is the WASP.
He is more of an Irish nationalist than a "white american nationalist" and would probably feel more at home in Ireland than in America.
"it wasn't the Jews who smashed Germany instead of going after Stalin, it was nations lead by Churchill and Roosevelt that did that damage."
Unbelievable! Hitler did not emphasize time and again the influence of high level Jews in the FDR admin and the existential threat that that influence posed to the German/Nordic race? It was Morgenthau's plan, initiated by Eisenhower (because he had been accused by the Jews in the FDR admin, in particular by M, of being soft on Nazis...the Vichy French) after the cessation of hostilities that led to the German holocaust.
So many ill informed people, so easily mislead.
Name three prominent Irish Catholics that stood with the restrictionists in 1924 in their effort to preserve the nation in the image of the founding people.
Edward A. Ross stated in his 1914 book, The Old World in the New:
"The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. From the paper before the commercial body or the scientific association to the heavy treatise produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains."
Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado:
"Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the 'Nordic' race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.
"What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.
"We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]
What matters to the literary fascists is not the race (self-evidently so - they will compromise on racial preservation) but the fantasy of ruling over that race as "elites".
Yes, it's the kind of personality that back in the day would've aspired to the Roman Catholic elite clergy when it was the dominant authority. These kind of people would've loved to have been elite rent-seekers wearing shiny dresses and jewels, getting paid to do nothing but scribble and pose, and be able to lord it over the serfs.
What of HW's fair-haired boy; Woodrow Wilson. What of the election of 1912 and the entry of Roosevelt to split the Republican vote? Who supported Wilson? Why did Wilson support the Fed? Why did Wilson enter WWI when he publicly demonstrated a strong neutrality? Jews played a disproportionate part in the establishment of the Weimar Republic.
"Jews played an important role in the first cabinet formed after the 1918 revolution (Hugo Hasse and Otto Landesberg),the Weimar Constitution was drafted by a Jew (Hugo Pruess), and Jews were
conspicuously present in the abortive attempts to create radical revolutionary regimes, especially in Bavaria. The revolutionary government in Munich was headed by a Jewish intellectual, Kurt Eisner, and after his assassination, two
other Jewish leaders, Gustav Landauer and Eugen Levine, assumed positions of major influence in the “Raterepublik” (“Soviet” Republic”). Rosa Luxemburg,
who was also assassinated, was a leader of the revolutionary Spartakusbund, which was one of the predecessors of the German Communist party.
In the following years as well, Jews held major political posts, primarily in the leadership of the democratic and socialist parties. The most prominent Jewish
Political figure was Walther Rathenau, who served first as minister for economic affairs and then as foreign minister."
HW also fails to mention the South's support for entry into WWII. FDR's lend-lease was down to the support of Southron senators. The South, as a region, was the strongest supporter of war with Germany. The America First Committee was founded in Yankeeland. It was the South that opposed it. It was the South who rebuffed Lindbergh and made him unwelcome. It was the South, in many ways, that was the author of its own demise. Even George Wallace sought and received the endorsement of the NAACP in his first gubernatorial race.
Michael O'Meara makes me think of Frenchman Alain de Benoist.
I don't read books, I only occasionally read book reviews on the internet. So, I don't know much about Alain de Benoist and the French New Right, apart from a few articles I read in English on the internet. But it seems to me that Benoist is somewhat conceited. He likes people to admire his intelligence. He is bitter that he wasn't given more public honors by the system, due to the fact that he is politically incorrect. Some of the time, he will criticize the Jews, but most of the time, he seems to be afraid of them. We'd like to know more about the French New Right, since they are supposed to oppose race-replacement. But actually, Alain de Benoist now says that we cannot possibly send the non-whites back to their home countries. So, we don't really need to know more about him. I would rather keep reading American anti-race-replacement websites, where there is still free-speech.
Michael O'Meara has the same problem as Alain de Benoist. He thinks that blaming Jewish anti-white activism is not a very intellectual activity. He's right about that. On the one hand, he would like to oppose race-replacement. On the other hand, he would like to indulge in intellectualism. The solution for us is to read only one half of O'Meara's articles. We have to remember that now and then he is apt to publish a very unhelpful article to vent his frustrations. Once in a while, Greg Johnson will also write an "intellectual" article about how having an interest in racial preservation is decadent. But the next day, he will come to his senses and explain convincingly on Voice of Reason that there is nothing barbaric in sending the Mexicans back to Mexico (or something like that).
In a different way, the anti-intellectual Hunter Wallace also sometimes comes up with a hare-brained theory: like the idea that America is run by Blacks! With intellectuals, we have to ignore the crazy stuff and read only what makes sense.
"The Anti-Semites Are Our Misfortune"
That's exactly the gist of O'Meara's article. For some reason, he doesn't think that the Anti-Blacks are our misfortune. I think it is useful to teach White people about "typical Black behavior", but even so, it is more embarrassing to criticize Blacks than Jews. Blacks cannot help being Black. On the other hand, the Jews could be made to stop their anti-White activism.
This passage from Meara's article made me think of the counter-jihad frauds :
"Knowing only their caricature of the inner enemy, [these blinkered anti-Semites] also either ignore the outer enemy (the colored world), treat it as a friend, or consider it a mere adversary. The West's 1400-year conflict with Islam and its various conflictual relations with the non-white world are thereby reduced to Jewish machinations, dismissed, in effect, as an actual danger to Europe's destiny and to the True America born of Europe."
In fact, the West's 1400-year conflict with Islam was simply a resistance to invasion. Islam was a problem for us only insofar as it encouraged Arabs to attack and invade us. But they no longer do military invasions. Today, they are being imported by Jewish activists, and are supposed to become contractual citizens, in replacement of White people. When a bathtub overflows, it makes sense to turn off the tap before you start mopping up the floor. In the same way, today's priority is not to bash Islam, but to remove the Jewish hand from the immigration tap.
Besides, there are ten times as many Muslims as Jews in France, and they mainly engage in street crime, not in subversion. They do not own the media or the politicians. They have little say on what is taught at school. They do not appear on TV to explain to French people what is the "French identity".
@ “So, it is natural to think that the anti-White policy is mainly due to Jewish activism. There is no reason to believe that the anti-White policy is the result of a mysterious, systemic problem that makes White people's institutions naturally turn against themselves.”
I agree with you that die Juden were the main instigators of this policy in the US, but what exactly happened in Europe? It is a pity that when David Duke dared to raise precisely this issue at an AmRen conference he was immediately shut up.
But the question remains…
The Jews have been using alien people to destroy European countries for years; for example the faciltation of the Muslim Conquest of Spain in the 9th century. It has ben their MO from the beginning of time.
The Frankfurt School, which preaches immigration as a way to destroy the nation state was established in Germany after the First World War and only went to the USA during the second WW where it restablished itself in Columbia university.
"HW is being atypically myopic if he is denying the ENORMOUS influence of organized Jewry in the Civil Rights movement."
He's not talking about the Civil Rights movement, but about anti-miscgenation laws, when and where they were passed and repealed, and similar matters - how the peoples of the various American states defined themselves and to what extent they chose to make it racial or heritable as opposed to propositional. The pattern for both North (race-blind) and South (racially defined) was set well before the large-scale Jewish immigration. You might argue that Jewish slave traders had a part to play in bringing the slaves to North America in the first place, but they weren't the ones defining how society reacted to that.
Of course Jews were woven all through the Civil Rights movement; it dovetails with their own goals (to ensure that there is never in any country a majority capable of imposing its possibly hostile will upon Jewish people). But what HW is pointing out is that the Civil Rights movement was a continuation of the same Yankee philosophy and attitudes behind Reconstruction, and even earlier political initiatives - and these things began at a time when there was no significant Jewish political influence.
"I agree with you that die Juden were the main instigators of this policy in the US, but what exactly happened in Europe?"
I believe what's happening in Europe has the same causes as the USA, but we don't have any documentation of it.
One of the few documents analyzing this is "Who are the mindbenders?" That was written by Nick Griffin (I think?) before he went silent on the Jewish Question.
The information is probably there, but nobody is gathering it. All we get are name-calling and rants about "reductionism."
"But what HW is pointing out is that the Civil Rights movement was a continuation of the same Yankee philosophy and attitudes behind Reconstruction..."
Where's the evidence of that position? Did Thaddeus Stevens teleport forward to 1964 to push for Title VII? The philosophical notion is entirely different. It's founded on the tactical strategy developed by organized Jewry that discrimination is a pathology and that it is the state's role to protect against any sort of discrimination. This was not the driving force behind the alleged de-racination of the South by Yankeeland. Yankees did not push for anti-discrimination laws to protect them from some pathology demonstrated by Southron's that did not serve their group interest. This is evident in the passing of Posse Comitatus. Organized Jewry was/is relentless in the effort to destroy this "illness". Yankees, after the typical post-war crowd had taken its fill of bounty from the South, let Jim Crow rise up and even aided and abetted the return by removing martial law. Even HW admits that it was Yankees, like Grant and the Immigration Restriction League that led the charge to end the transformation of the founding people. Yet, it was people of the Southwest, who, along with the Hebrews, stood in the way of closing the southern border.
"From 1926 to 1930, the House and Senate Immigration Committees held hearings on closing the back door. The usual Grantians (Richards M Bradley, Roy L. Garis, Francis
H. Kinnicutt, Demarest Lloyd, James H. Patten, and John B. Trevor) testified, and Harry
H. Laughlin submitted another one of his special reports, showing that ''Mexican immigrants
are making a reconquest of the Southwest/*99
Naturally, many of the same groups that testified in 1924 against European restriction also showed up to oppose Mexican restriction, including, as the Immigration Restriction League put it, "racial zealots ... of Hebrew origin" whose "racial interests and
prejudices warp their judgment as to the general interest." But unlike in 1924, the Jews were joined this time by a well-organized and well-funded coalition of sugar beet manufacturers, livestock representatives, produce farmers, railroad executives, and mining interests, who put up a formidable fight in Congress. Few of them denied that the Mexicans were racially inferior, but they all testified that further restrictions would result in economic disaster for the Southwest. And besides, they wanted Congress to understand that
the Mexicans were "timid" workers who always "knew their place" and were willing to work "all day or night and the next day without ever making a kick." Certainly the
"wetbacks" were less dangerous to society than the Negroes. The head of the American Cattle Raiser's Association, for instance, told the Senate that he always let his three daughters ride the range with Mexicans, and the girls were "just as safe as if they had been with me.... Do you suppose we would send them out with a bunch of negroes? We would never think of such a thing." 100
Patrician Racist: The Evolution of Madison Grant
by Jonathan Peter Spiro
B.A. (University of California, Los Angeles) 1982
MA. (Pepperdine University) 1994
"Where's the evidence of that position?"
This is one of the comment threads where he makes his argument.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/10/04/american-nations-first-impression/comment-page-1/#comments
If you want to argue against the points he presents in the comments, feel free to do so.
My last comment at WDH summarizes what I think about this affaire.
"I agree with you that die Juden were the main instigators of this policy in the US, but what exactly happened in Europe?"
Europe is occupied territory, occupied by a power whose military budget equals that of the rest of the world combined.
Circa 2003, Wesley Clark, the Supreme Commander of NATO, explained that “There is no room in today’s Europe for ethnically pure countries.” And he backed up that sentiment with bombs.
Tan, thought you'd find this of interest (you may have already known). I found it in a comment at Steve Sailer's site:
The new president of Univision News since late 2010 is Isaac Lee, a recent (2000) immigrant from Colombia, where he was a hard-charging magazine editor. He has studied at Universidad de los Andes and Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
According to Wiki,
"Isaac Lee, 40, is the President of News for Univision,[1] strategically and editorially overseeing programming and production across the Univision Networks, Univision Local Media and Univision Interactive Media. He was born in Bogota, Colombia - from Jewish immigrants - and has been a journalist and magazine editor Since the late 1990s. He currently lives in Miami, FL."
but even so, it is more embarrassing to criticize Blacks than Jews.
Indeed. For one thing, there are many eager hands carrying that water in our neck of the woods. For another, as you say, it feels like picking on the retard. I don't know if Ashkenazis can actually be persuaded to give up their war; I suppose it is so, but it is a possibility without precedent. But it's definitely true that criticizing Ashkenazi malfeasance does not feel like picking on the retard; it feels like speaking truth to power.
True. But ideological pedigree isn't what it's cracked up to be. The Chinese are big on testing. If they had our problems, they'd probably have people talking about "continuations of the same Confucian philosophy" and such. But they don't; the Han have no analog of the Ashkenazis. Now, obviously Whites emancipated Blacks on their own. But this is hell and gone from the Civil Rights movement. And yes, Yankees supported that movement. But could they have won without Ashkenazis?
I guess intuition is one of the reasons I stick to my guns; nobody seems to give a shit when I blame Yankees or the Enlightenment. They only get hostile when I blame Ashkenazis.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. And they're guilty, regardless of how much guilt we assign. And part of the remedy is reclaiming our right to live apart from them (or anyone else), regardless of Ashkenazi guilt.
After we sort all this out we can run some experiments to better suss out how much guilt to assign, and to whom. :)
I guess part of my problem with this "ideological pedigree" thing is I never know WTF the point is.
"Ashkenazis look enough like us to pass" is at least as big a "White weakness" as "we're liberal" is.
How come no one ever talks about that?
Great point Svigor.
Tanstaafl,
Thank you for maintaining this blog. It's a great resource.
Hey all you "anti-semites", here's an activism opportunity:
@ all the “anti-semites” at Counter-Currents
Here’s an “activism” opportunity:
On Saturday, Oct. 15, from 10:00am-noon Pacific Time, at http://www.ksco.com there will be a radio show, streamed live, with a chance to call in live and offer your opinion. This station is also a "real" radio station, and reaches a large audience.
This station is owned by rabid zionists, and they will try to make their case for why their radio station isn’t a blatant propaganda operation of the zionist entity. A while back one of their listeners accused them of distortion, spin, bias, etc. [correctly so], and now that listener will be on a show with the station owners. One example of their bias has been denying that Israel would ever have really attacked the USS Liberty, and that an “ally” wouldn’t attack the USA. Riiiiight.
If you want to “play” with this, go to http://www.ksco.com this Saturday morning, click the “listen live” button, and prepare for some fireworks, especially if some of us call. The time they usually open the lines for callers is 11:00am. The call-in number is 831-479-1080.
"this blog. It's a great resource."
Aye, it's that. A prime educational tool for the uninitiated and a great reminder that Jews are daily up to no good for those of us too lazy to follow the news and lacking the discipline to read every fucking book ever written (yes, me included, I admit it).
@ “…and lacking the discipline to read every fucking book ever written (yes, me included, I admit it)”
With heavy treatises such as KMD’s, the trick is to make discipline: What about reading a couple of pages per day?
If you open up MacDonald's books, you won't want to put them down.
t's not tough sledding at all.
Ben, a lot of people find the work dense. I did not. I find a lot of academic work too dense (Albion's Seed put me to sleep several times in a row before I put it down, I could never figure out WTF Marx was talking about in the few things of his I perused, and Michael Levin's race was too dense to be a pleasant read, etc.), but I really did find McDonald accessible. I had to reread the occasional passage (but then I was devouring them), and look up the occasional term, but I never had any real problems understanding it. So I call it very accessible academic work.
I found CofC political more than scientific so if they're interested in the politics involved it shouldn't be a stretch for anyone.
Levin's 'Why Race Matters' should have been titled 'Why IQ Matters.' I suspect it was actually an attempt to obscure the question of why race really matters.
I read CofC and around half of SaiD a few years ago near the beginning of my racial awakening, Chechar. I meant that I lack the discipline (and the time) to read as widely and consistently as a professional academic. The news I find drearily predictable - although of interest when contextualized as to its significance concerning race as found on blogs such as AofT, TOO and Majority Rights.
CofC is a critical read for those who wish to avail themselves of the textures and nuances of the long-standing, historical scope of Jewish ethnically-motivated, culture-subverting intellectual and political movements. Particularly blood-chilling and instructive is MacDonald's brief summation of the confluence of New York Jewish financiers and their revolutionary Bolshevik co-ethnics. It was never for them about capitalism vs. communism, but the seizure of power, no matter how high goyish skulls needed to be piled.
Chechar: "I agree with you that die Juden were the main instigators of this policy in the US, but what exactly happened in Europe?"
What happened to countries not run by Jews is that they were hit anyway by the international anti-White ideology.
Jewish anti-White activity works in two ways :
• DIRECT: participation in government and legislating, ownership of non-Jewish politicians, ownership of the media, ownership of whole university departments...
• INDIRECT: the Frankfurt school, defining the Zeitgeist, spreading anti-White ideas, manipulating left-wing agitators, building networks between the leftists, intimidating normal people... The thing to remember is that "ideas have consequences". The replacement of European intellectual life by a Jewish ersatz has disastrous consequences for us.
In France and the USA, the Jews do a lot of brainwashing but also take a direct part in running the country. In countries where Jews do not interfere directly with the cogs and wheels of the political machinery, the anti-white ideology is still felt, because it is an international ideology that doesn't stop at a country's borders. The anti-white ideology didn't spontaneously appear everywhere. It traveled from France and the USA to other countries. For example, traditional society in Spain and Ireland had remained protected from leftist degeneracy until the 1970s. The brutal change that happened later can only be explained by foreign influence.
If we pay attention, we see that leftist international ideologies have largely been shaped by Jews. At the top level, communism was largely organized by Jews, and so is immigrationism. In both cases, leftist non-Jews have been trying to subvert society, but they have largely been manipulated by Jews. Kevin MacDonald says that many Jews abandoned Marxism and the defense of the oppressed workers when they saw that National Socialism had been popular with German workers. What I find amazing is that non-Jewish leftists also gradually abandoned the defense of the working class in the 1970s and became immigration enthusiasts. It is especially true of university teachers.
In France, an element of explanation is that, in 1945, the Jews took back their former positions while right-wing intellectuals were fired from academia and from the newspapers. They never came back and had no successors. The Jewish domination became stronger and stronger, as real intellectuals became more and more excluded. I think the same thing happened in other countries.
Leftist ideologies easily spread across borders as leftist organizations always imitate what's done in other countries. At the same time, governments are put under pressure by international organizations like the European Union. The European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is at the center of the still recent EU "constitution", seems to be a Jewish creation. It is mainly about the rights of non-Whites to move to the European Union and never be expelled. Also, I think the Norwegian government, which isn't in the EU, would not have had the self-confidence to start replacing the Norwegians with third-world immigrants if the United States had not led the way.
I had already made this citation of Kevin MacDonald in another thread :
"For example, the academic world as producer and disseminator of knowledge and culture is a critical arena for creating the elite culture of the West. Importantly, ACADEMIC CULTURE IS INTERNATIONAL RATHER THAN NATIONAL. That is, all of the important academic societies are international in scope, so that a dissident academic culture in, say, Norway, is unthinkable. Once the academic world had become irredeemably liberal in the major cultural centers of the West—most importantly, the U.S. since WWII, it was inevitable that it would cast a huge influence on lesser centers of academic power. Indeed, it is critical for an academic in a small country such as Norway to develop a reputation beyond national borders—or effectively have no reputation at all. Similarly, as discussed in the previous link, in the U.S., academic culture is top-down, with the highest levels rigorously policed to prevent any deviations from multicultural orthodoxy and virtue;"
Jews are politically influential even in European countries where we are told that the Jewish community is very small, as in Norway. The fact is that Fjordman is Jewish, and that Anders Breivik was influenced by the Neocons. Oslo even has a holocaust center ! Norway's parliament had a Jewish president named Benkow (=Benkowitz) from 1985 until 1993. Wikipedia claims that he "experienced first-hand prejudice while growing up" in Norway, and that he is "a much sought-after lecturer on issues concerning the Middle East and anti-semitism". He has "served as president of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Right" and has written books about human rights, a typical Jewish activity. He wrote a book entitled "From Synagogue to Parliament" and another one that had an afterword by Elie Wiesel. Actually, his wikipedia entry looks like the description of a Jewish nationalist. It is completely wrong that a Jewish nationalist who is mainly interested in the Middle-East and who complains about Norwegian antisemitism would manage to get in an important political position in Norway. It would be very surprising if he didn't use his position to promote other Jews and organize third-world immigration.
Armor,
Can you please comment on this:
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2011/09/justice-intimidated.html#links
Very important info and conclusions, Armor. Thanks.
"Can you please comment"
When I want to make my mind about something that happened, I like to read blog comments. Commenters write what comes to their minds, and once you have read 50 comments, it becomes less likely that you have forgotten an important aspect of the story. I remember that I read about that particular story on FdeSouche.com. Unfortunately, it seems that reader comments are no longer available for old articles. They probably took that decision to avoid lawsuits, after they had repeatedly been attacked by the main stream media in recent months.
That article on Galliawatch is about the very lenient sentences rendered by a tribunal in the case of a 14 year old white girl who was abducted and gang raped for several days in CARPENTRAS by about 30 Arabs (well, I guess they were all Arabs), in April 2005. This is a real problem in France: not just immigrant crime, but the fact that, unlike in the USA, the criminals receive very little punishment. For example, here is today's front page article on FdeSouche :
Title: Murder of Thierry Simon: Selim Benkhedidja released from jail, Mohammed Amallou maybe released tomorrow - Published: October 19, 2011
Benkhedidja Selim, one of three men implicated in the death of Thierry Simon in May 2011, was released last Friday by order of a judge of the court of Avignon. The 40 year old man from Bollène had been found unconscious and bleeding near his car, in the Barry district in Bollène. He died minutes later. The autopsy revealed that a fall caused by two punches may have killed him. (...)
Back to the Carpentras story: The French version of the article published in English by Galliawatch appeared in Valeurs Actuelles which is supposed to be a right-wing magazine. It used to belong to the Jew Serge Dassault. Wikipedia says that the supervisory board is still chaired by his son. I no longer watch TV or read newspapers, but it seems that Valeurs Actuelles was the only media outlet that expressed outrage over the lenient sentences handed out to the Carpentras gang rapists.
Xavier Raufer, the author of the article, used the story to criticize the hypocritical feminists who keep silent when the rapists are immigrants. I think that is irrelevant. The real problem, apart from immigration and the ordeal imposed to the victim, was the leniency of the sentences. Raufer seems to say that the judges are afraid of Arab retaliation. Or maybe the government is afraid of infuriating the Arabs. He isn't very clear. But I think it is a larger problem than that. Crime is not really punished in France. For example, I've heard that jail sentences of less than two years are usually not enforced. They are replaced by something else.
What also seems incredible in that particular story is that the trial took place last June, 6 years after the facts. It took place in a juvenile court (Cour d'assises des mineurs) which means that there was no popular jury, even though some of the rapists were already adults in 2005. The lawyers for the gang rapists said that the victim "expresses herself with her ass". I don't know: maybe the victim was psychologically very weak and unable to resist much, but she was only 14 ! How she behaved should be irrelevant to the lawyers and judges.
"A genealogical study claims that Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, the father of Mexican Independence, had a "Converso" background. The same sources say that Bartolome De Las Casas, a Bishop who fought the colonial government, seeking to free slaves in Nueva Espagna, also had Jewish ancestors. The study is based on the Archivo General de la Nacion de Mexico and the Ramo de la Inquisition, both historical records. Two other publications, "The Inquisitors and the Jews in the New World," by Seymour B. Liebman, Univ. of Miami Press, 1974, and "Los Judeo Conversos en Espagne y America" by Antonio Dominguez, Madrid 1971, support these claims. Both these men left an indelible mark on the emerging society. Even if their families were sincere converts, it is at least plausible that the revolutionary ideas of both of them, stem from a Jewish background. Assuming these claims of Jewish ancestry to be true, even as they struggled to survive, Jews who settled in Mexico apparently made an impact on their new homeland out of all proportion to the scant numbers who arrived."
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/675
"The actual genetic constitution of those the literary fascists wish to rule is of secondary importance to the desire of the literary fascists to simply have someone to rule. In a word, they are elitists. A mindset not dissimilar to that of Jews.
I recall making a similar point here before but was told, more or less, to STFU."
That reminds me of the time Wintermute made his last appearance here to tell me my "pro-English/anti-Kraut" thing was only relevant at Majority Rights, and to keep it there. Only to proceed with an English-bashing secession all his own. Consistency is surely the hobgoblin of small minds. LOL
I’ll have to check the above claim, that Hidalgo and Las Casas, both Catholic priests, had Jewish blood. If true, the crux would be to ascertain how far in the genealogical tree was the purported J ancestor. Even the Nazis considered the J blood was cleansed after some generations of Aryans.
__________
Finally Ned May (“Baron Bodissey”) writes an article on why he is not a WN. Here there are some excerpts:
To me, race is not the important issue; immigration is. If we (the USA) or Australia or European countries stopped all immigration, or at least slowed it down to a trickle, in two or three generations race would no longer be an issue.
Black people were brought here against their will beginning four hundred years ago. In my area (Central Virginia), the ancestors of many of the black people arrived on this continent before the ancestors of the most of the white people who live here now. Thus they have at least as good a claim to the territory as the whites.
This means that radical ideas about racial separation — e.g. David Duke on the white side, Louis Farrakhan on the black — cannot be implemented in Central Virginia without massive, apocalyptic violence.
Therefore I don’t view “white nationalism” as a solution to our problems, at least not in my little corner of the world.
My neighborhood is mostly Black […] Yet these are my people; I was born among them. I will stand by them.
Ned is closer to neo-conservatism than Larry Auster or Takuan Seiyo, who are far more conscious that race matters. (See for example this exchange of Seiyo with Dymphna.)
Armor, this makes me think again in my current blog entry that you replied both there and here, which can be summarized thus: “Houston: We have a Christian problem!” (in addition to the JP). In this specific case I ask what ideology is worse, that by die Juden Auster and Taksei or the one by Catholic Ned May, and his wife who has written derisively “How monochromatic…!” would a 100% white America be? At least in this case (Auster/Taksei vs. May/Dymphna) I believe the Christians’ ideology is worse, since their blindness implies the worst form of treason: racial treason (“These are my people”).
If true, the crux would be to ascertain how far in the genealogical tree was the purported J ancestor. Even the Nazis considered the J blood was cleansed after some generations of Aryans.
Presumably all his ancestors were Jewish by blood. There are marranos in Nuevo Leon and Texas who have kept the line pure until this day. Some are still marrying first cousins.
Chechar,
As an American who has lived around blacks my entire life I have no trouble understanding the sentiments expressed in some of those Ned May quotes. However misguided he may be I can empathize with his feelings toward his black neighbors. If nothing else it's impossible to argue his historical points. In an imperfect way they really are "our people". That thought in of itself is not treasonous.
One thing I always must remind myself when faced with black misbehavior is that it really isn't their fault. Going back to my grand-parents generation and before I believe most decent white Americans held what could be considered a paternalistic attitude regarding their black countrymen.
There really isn't a contradiction with an American white nationalist feeling a kinship with slave descended blacks. We have a shared history. Furthermore I feel these people are our responsibilty.
It's fun for Americans to visit websites such as SBPDL,Un-Amusement Park and ChimpOut but those type of forums are distractions whether intentional or not. A confident and healthy people wouldn't be bitching and moaning about blacks anymore than they would be gushing over "model minorities".
Most of my life I’ve lived among a sea of Indian mestizos. Are they my people? Hell no. And IIRC Ned said in 2009 that he had miscegenated family. Now, that would be treason: You can imagine someone like Auster approving that sort of behavior among some of his relatives.
How did my town handle the Jews for centuries before so-called “mexico” became independent? See eight minutes of a 1973 film (incidentally, the actor that features the Grand Inquisitor, now deceased, lived a few of blocks from my home). It is a pity that the Inquisitor’s discourse has no English subtitles because it gives you the picture of the spirit of New Spain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E87MrO2Goeg&feature=related
After the Grand Inquisitor’s speech the other Dominican said (my translation): "We welcome this Auto de fe for punishment of some and an example to all. It punishes offenses against religion and morality. These Judaizers [crypto-Jews] will be delivered to the justice of the secular arm, to which we ask forgiveness and compassion."
Then the man richly dressed in a yellow suit noted the prisoners’ various offenses against morality and public order in New Spain. The Jews always got special treatment. The former would be punished with "flogging, banishment, galleys, imprisonment or confiscation of property. And the relapsed Judaizers present and absent are condemned to be burned in flames of fire, until they become ashes and nothing remains of them in the memory of this land. "
A confident and healthy people wouldn't be bitching and moaning about blacks anymore than they would be gushing over "model minorities".
Good point, but any serious observer of events from a WN perspective wouldnt take any account of the 'model minority' meme.
SBPDL is a form of false flag operation. It focuses all attention on the activities of blacks while entirely overlooking the misdeeds of a vastly more powerful, influential, rich minority. So much so that I assume the guy who runs SBPDL is either a memeber of said minority or works for them.
As we head into the crisis point they'll start to hammer more and more at the most obvious cracks. In the US that'll be Anglo vs Irish or the more general Catholic vs Protestant. It will work to some extent, hopefully not enough.
I imagine the O'Meara thing is an echo of the same shift in tectonic plates. As the crisis point gets closer, being pushed into an "us" with people he much prefers as a "them" gets closer too.
Just one of those things.
Armor
"With intellectuals, we have to ignore the crazy stuff and read only what makes sense."
"Blacks cannot help being Black. On the other hand, the Jews could be made to stop their anti-White activism."
Great points.
Chechar
"but what exactly happened in Europe? ...But the question remains…"
A lot of it is simply money. Blair was funded by a Lord Levy and an Abrams.
Post a Comment
<< Home