An Unamusing Mischling Meltdown
(Unamused's first comment on this blog was made back in July:Warning: Unamused is a sneaky half-Jew and does not believe in conspiracy theories, Jew-related or otherwise. He thinks the problem is liberal Jews, and liberals in general; not liberal Jews, and Jews in general. He does however prefer Nazi neighbors to black neighbors.In September he came up again in the comments at Svigor's.)
Svigor's Half Sigma: Female Jewish race-realist, Jewish Supremacy prompts Unamused to protest:
"Ashkenazis are born to Jewish Supremacy."
I'm half Ashkenazi, and therefore a "Jew" according to the WN types. I didn't know I was until I was a teenager, and I've never cared since. Was I born to Jewish supremacy or not?
"Ashkenazis aren't overrepresented among pro-White movements or organizations — they're totally absent."Responding to Porter, Unamused continues:
This is, and always has been, nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter what a "Jew" does, as soon as the supposedly pro-White types find out about his "Jew blood," they reject him. Then they point to the lack of "Jews" as evidence of how bad the "Jews" are. The other "Jews" keep their mouths shut and so they, too, are not counted.
Again, my ban from Stormfront provides a clear example. When they were judging me by what I do and what I write, the Stormfronters believed I was thoroughly pro-White and therefore not a "Jew," joking that my flyer on race differences in intelligence could not have been written by a "Jew." Somehow my work magically become Jew propaganda when they found out I'm a "Jew."
That is not race realism, or realism of any other kind. It is irrational hatred of all "Jews," no matter what they do. That is why "Jew"-hating WNs are not taken seriously. It doesn't matter how much of Kevin MacDonald's research they cite; the unbiased observer notes that their hatred of "Jews" is actually independent of what "Jews" may or may not do.
"... your 'irrational hatred' of blacks..."So Unamused's point is that he isn't a jew. If he hates you it's only because you're an indulgent, irrational hater of jews. His bugaboo about "jew"-hate has nothing to do with him. It's all your fault.
I harbor no irrational hatreds. I hate the people who deserve to be hated, and blacks are over-represented among them. This is quite different from hating every single black person. Do you see the difference? That's why I'm a race realist, and you're just a Jew-hater.
"Whites are suspect of jews as time immemorial has proven they are well advised to be. This is hardly irrational."
No, actually, it is irrational.
Go ahead, cite your God, Kevin MacDonald.
"Odd behavior for such irrational actors whose hatred exists independent of what jews actually say or do. Don’t you think?"
I've learned to expect odd behavior from Jew-haters.
"... both white and jewish interests..."
The fact that you have detected any "Jewish interests" on my part indicates, yet again, that you are indulging in irrational thinking. Basically, I'm an evil Jew with Jew interests because... I fail to be sufficiently genocidally anti-Semitic.
Two days later Unamused was still kvetching about the rejection and other indignities he and the jews he supposedly doesn't care about have suffered at the hands of "the WN types", "the supposedly pro-White types", "the Stormfronters" and that god of irrationality, Kevin MacDonald. Oh woe. Why? (A question for the reader):
Why would I keep doing this? What exactly is my motivation?As context he cites a list of quotes he describes as "anti-jewish racism".
The first commenter makes a rather obvious observation:
Most Internet comments are pretty juvenile. Unamused, you do have something of a sardonic writing style that would come off as rather mean-spirited and hateful to those not in agreement with your world-view, so it would seem rather petty to complain about others being insensitive towards the Jews.Sardonic Unamused goes hyperbolic where jewish interests are concerned:
“Insensitive towards the Jews,” in this case, means genocidal anti-Semitism.Not being a frequent reader of his I would appreciate it if someone who is could point out where Unamused has expressed such concern about genocidal anti-Whitism. Or perhaps where he explains that it's actually suicidal.
Jewish conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish racism (basically, any time you make a claim about all Jews) are no longer permitted on Unamusement Park. An upcoming post will clarify our position.This seems to have caught at least a few regular consumers of Unamused's black "conspiracy theories" and anti-black "racism" by surprise. Others are delighted. The bashing of Whites Unamused hates will continue unabated.
Svigor made a good point about the comments Unamused cited:
Personally, I consider arguing with your worst your opponents can offer, and ignoring the best, is a form of the straw man argument. It’s doubly bad when you pretend that’s what your best opponents are saying, as you do.Unamused's response was more of his unamusing schtick:
Oh, don't think I'm arguing with the Jew-haters. I'm merely demonstrating how diseased are their minds.Responding to another comment from someone who pointed out that he had claimed he wasn't a "racist" at Svigor's, Unamused writes:
The ideas I quoted can be dismissed out of hand. They do not qualify as race realism; they are in fact simply racism. You know anti-white racism? Well... see above for some anti-Jewish racism.
Someone who wants to exterminate the Jews, won't let any Jew "redeem" himself by participating in pro-white activities, or believes the Nazi genocide of Jews never happened, has disqualified himself from any serious, or even sane, discussion. I'm not interested in "the best" someone has to offer, when he's so obviously fucked in the head.
Don't make a fool of yourself by forgetting that just because liberals misuse the term, that doesn't mean actual racism doesn't exist. Have you not noticed my many posts addressing anti-white racism? Now, I am not a racist, as will be made clear in my next post. But attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews is racism.This is all very Austeresque. The ambiguous jewish identity. The hostility to anyone put off by that ambiguity. The inability to accept Whites as distinct from jews even while taking for granted that jews are distinct from Whites. The self-righteous "white" advocacy. Hinging that advocacy on unfettered criticism of blacks while condemning Whites for criticizing jews. The histrionics. The hypocrisy. The projection. The rationalizations. The talmudic hairsplitting. The acceptance of jews and subordination of non-jewish interests as a moral litmus test. The irrational hatred of Kevin MacDonald. The dishonest "liberal" rhetoric. The control-freak need to edit and censor other people's comments. I could go on.
Having already picked through this kind of jew-first dissembling and dissimulation with Lawrence Auster (and to a similar but less thorough extent with Ian Jobling, Guy White, Fjordman, and several others) I see hardly anything new here. Yet I'm fascinated by the situation and dismayed by how Unamused faces it. On the surface I see a conflicted man I'm inclined at first blush to feel some sympathy for - a part-jew/part-White who wants to "redeem" his jewish half and prove himself pro-White. Unfortunately I can't help noticing his deception and duplicity. How he goes about trying to achieve his goal by attacking Whites. How he's not simply trying to redeem himself, or half-jews, but all jews because they are jews.
Attacking and excluding "racists" for "attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews" is in fact the quintessential jewish conceit. It is the epitome of jewish privilege and supremacy that jews as a group feel free to attack or exclude whomever they wish, which just makes them good jews, and at the same time painting Whites who attack or exclude jews, or by "liberal" extension any other "minority", as the most stupid/crazy/evil people ever.
Svigor critiqued Unamused's post in Because it's good for the Whites. His conclusion:
No amount of arguing about tactics or "respectability" is going to convince me that Ashkenazis should have a right to ethno-states, and Whites should not. And this is the status quo we're facing. Ashkenazi Supremacy. "White Advocates" who are okay with this are wrong-headed. "White Advocates" who put this problem on the back burner are wrong-headed.Well said. I agree.
One final note, about the less-capable ANTI-SEMITES!!! Sure, they're a burden in the sense that the average person isn't bright enough to separate the wheat from the chaff and forgo the guilt by association fallacy, given enough reason (nobody seems to apply these standards to leftoid values like blank-slatism and equalitarianism; mouth-breathers supporting these things abound). But there are plenty of idiots who criticize Blacks. I don't see any HBD-ers, Race Realists, or White Advocates bemoaning the burden they create.
I'd rather share a foxhole with a mouth-breathing ANTI-SEMITE!!! than a philo-Semitic "White Advocate" any day. At least I know whose side he's on.
In the comments Svigor referred indirectly to my A Personal Disclosure:
E.g., I love TAN and think the world of him, but I don't think he "came clean" for anyone's sake but his own; he felt like he'd be deceiving people if he didn't come out with it. The rest of us didn't give a damn either way.He is correct. I disclosed it because it pained me not to. I realized that it was important and that it would only reflect more negatively on my character and motives the longer I put it off.
The relevance here is twofold. For one thing I have at least a second-hand appreciation for Unamused's situation. I understand that jewishness, like Whiteness, is part inborn and part mindset. The personality traits are more inborn, while the hostility toward Whites comes more from indoctrination - being taught that to be a jew is to be a victim, primarily of the supposedly senseless hate and oppression of Whites. Second, I recognize that Unamused exaggerates his case, and that he consistently does so in favor of his jewish half and at the expense of his White half. He's obsessed with putting down Whites who in his own estimation have no real power or importance. He makes a self-righteous stink about "racist" Whites rejecting him, while the jews who reject him, or would if he tried to pass himself off as an advocate for jews, get a pass. The jews who hate him for being a "racist" also get a pass. You see, he's not really a "racist", he's a "race realist", and they're not really jews, they're "liberals". Finally, I think what Unamused sees as genocidal jew-hate pales in comparison to the harsh, unrelenting criticism aimed at Whites because they are White. That Whites are born stupid/crazy/evil "racists" is a foregone conclusion broadcast by the MSM, taught in the schools, and codified in the law. The last thing Whites need are faux-"whites" who spout the same poisonous message.
By the way, a recent German translation of my personal disclosure post can be found at As der Schwerter - Tanstaafl: Eine persönliche Enthüllung (Google Translate). I'm sorry to have caused my comrades there, and here, any concern over my long break from writing.
posted by Tanstaafl at 12/20/2011 12:10:00 AM
36 Comments:
Tan, as I said on my blog, glad to see you're okay (and glad to see another post from you).
I think it makes sense for Whites to CATEGORICALLY distrust Jews,even those who avert to be pro-White.
Of course it does. More to the point, it's within our rights. That White Advocates even wring their hands about this in significant numbers is telling (though I'm inventing a problem here, to an extent; people who wring their hands about excluding Ashkenazis are not White Advocates).
The inclusion/exclusion question is a false dichotomy. As usual, Ashkenazis worked up a solution centuries ago. Just as they label some outgroup members "Righteous Gentiles," we can label qualified Ashkenazis as "Righteous Jews" or "Righteous Ashkenazis." Being a "Righteous Ashkenazi" or "Righteous Jew" makes someone White no more than being a "Righteous gentile" makes someone a Jew or an Ashkenazi.
Essentially, we need to allow for allied non-Whites without bringing them into the tribe.
Sure, they can still wail about ANTI-SEMITISM!!! of the refusal to bring them into our tribe. If they do, they get stripped of the "Righteous" status; nobody tells us who We are but Us.
Is there something genetic about being able to ignore the question I keep asking Ashkenazis? That being:
Do Whites have the same right to decide their own membership and determine their own future that Ashkenazis have to determine theirs (Israel, who's a Jew, etc.)?
This is the elephant in the room, guys. Un seems to be ignoring the question (correct me if I'm wrong).
Ignoring the question is a vote for the status quo; i.e., it's a "no."
Excluding Jews from joining the Non-Jewish Club isn’t racist; it’s freedom of association and an expression of racial identity (although it could very well be motivated by racism). I believe Rand Paul said something along those lines once.
Ah, okay, so that is an answer, sorta. Congratulations, Un, for answering.
So, I guess we know he has no problem with Whites excluding Ashkenazis from their groups. Which would seem to contradict a lot of the things he's said previously. Let's hope we get a more extensive clarification going forward.
I admit it’s complicated.
No, it's not complicated. All this talk of "majorities" and "racism" seems like an attempt to make it complicated.
Humans have the right to self-determination and free association. That means they have the right to form neighborhoods, communities, businesses, schools, institutions, and associations of any kind as they see fit. That includes who to include as eligible for membership (for whatever reason), and who to exclude (for whatever reason).
I'm wondering, why would someone like Un even parse "racist" and "not racism" so carefully? What's the point? I smell a rat. I know, I know, that means I'm an ANTI-SEMITE!!! Naziwhowantstokill6millionJews, but I do smell a rat. I hope future clarification dispels the odor.
In a weird way, this "mischling meltdown" helps, because it forces the reader to choose sides. Do I care what some mouth-breather writes in an internet comment thread? Not particularly. Do I care if people ignore the Jewish role? Yes, because it prevents clear thought and effective action. Gee, that was easy!
Also, on some level it comes down to: which are you more bothered by? Genocide of Jews or genocide of Whites? Not saying you have to choose one or the other, or that you'd view either one as positive, but which would be more objectionable to you on an emotional level?
As long as this is anonymous, I should confess to feeling a bit of sympathy for Unamused. He doesn't have a place among SWPLs or Jews, both of whom would accept him if his beliefs were different. But a majority of pro-White Whites don't see him as their own. Even with a perfect track record, an element of "respect but suspect" would pervade their interactions with him.
The "genocidal anti-semitism" is a red herring. As, I think, Pat Hannagan said, if Unamused didn't know he was 1/2 Jewish he would probably be a Stormfronter. Jewish looks can be pretty recessive after all. But because he knows, he has to face the fact that, if the ideas he champions really took off, so would some form of White exclusivity which wouldn't include him.
This is especially true now, though. As TAN said, his mischy melt is very Auster-esque. "Jews aren't White" somehow magically becomes "Jews aren't human." Whatever. A quote from Mencken is in order:
The fact that what are commonly spoken of as rights are often really privileges is demonstrated in the case of the Jews. They resent bitterly their exclusion from certain hotels, resorts and other places of gathering, and make determined efforts to horn in. But the moment any considerable number of them horns in, the attractions of the place diminish, and the more pushful Jews turn to one where they are still nicht gewuenscht [not required].
A lot of semitic-inclusive White Advocates are in a transitional stage. It can take a while to sink in, not just intellectually but emotionally. Perhaps this incident will help speed up the transition for some.
People who really care about what's happening to Whites will be interested enough in figuring out the root cause of it that they will eventually figure out that Jews are responsible. It's not that hard to understand. People who "don't get it" don't want to get it. That's certainly true of Unamused.
Keeping the focus exclusively on Blacks seems to be one of the major strategies of the pro-Jew phony opposition. See also SBPDL and Occidental Dissent with their idiotic "Black Run America" meme.
In a weird way, this "mischling meltdown" helps, because it forces the reader to choose sides.
I was thinking the same thing, but in a broader sense. If you balk at ANTI-SEMITISM!!!, you're not really a White Advocate. You're a conservative.
Shrieking about "hate" and "racism", treating those words as some kind of magic trump card, makes you sound more like a "liberal". Doing it in defense of jews makes you sound more like a jew. In Unamused's case it completely undermines his assertion that "the problem is liberal Jews, and liberals in general; not liberal Jews, and Jews in general". Here we have a kind of hard-core "conservative", a self-described "race realist" who claims "liberalism" is the problem, not jews - and to "prove" his point he's willing to use whatever "liberal" tactics he has to.
He's made it perfectly clear now that a good portion of the motivation for his pro-"white" activism is to "redeem" all jews; that he considers Whites who would exclude jews, in spite of his efforts, to be the real problem he's interested in solving; and that his final solution to that problem is to exclude those Whites.
Look, if he honestly thought of himself as Aryan, he'd say "yes, I'm part Jew. There are conflicts of interest but I am on your side."
Instead, he denies these things. The conspiracy theorist in me says he focuses on blacks because they are a relatively benign problem compared to enemies within.
I'm glad you guys can see this. We outed him from our site as well. Pulled the same stunt, was shocked he didn't yell "6 million! Holocaust" or something.
I've read through all of Unamused's posts and ripostes and others' comments, and it essentially boils down to what you wrote, Tan. He's gone the Auster route and criticism of Jews as liberals is the only criticism allowed. It's too bad; his various posters about black crime or black intelligence are handy compendiums of stats. He takes pains to claim he's never identified as Jewish or thought of himself as such, yet then goes to extreme contortions to rationalize why they are exempt from criticism. The end result is that Unamused joins the ranks of Jewish HBD proponents whose primary motivation is to prove their own superiority.
This is a quote from today's thread at SBPDL. One day only to post comments on the "JQ."
"This will be the ONLY time in SBPDL history were those who want to make a case why I'm wrong will be allowed to be published on this issue.
There's too much going on that needs to be accomplished. You can talk about the JQ at other sites, but for one day only, make your case why I'm wrong."
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/12/those-ron-paul-newsletters-proving-once.html
Excellent work as usual Tan, your stuff is always worth the wait :)
Merry Christmas to you and yours (and everyone else that posts here, I appreciate yaz, one and all) May 2012 bring you many blessings.
Btw:
http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2011/12/belated-response.html
This will be of interest to many here I think. Small excerpt:
Over at the recommended Jew Among You blog I was gently taken to task some time ago and I'm only now responding. He correctly states that blacks see whites as controlling everything, ipso facto, they're responsible for the manifold failings of blacks. Which is convenient nonsense on their part of course. When I impute responsibility to Jews for the things that are destroying the west (mass immigration, AA, desegregation, neocon wars, 'hate' legislation etc. etc.) he believes that I'm falling into the same trap.
More fun at source ;)
The anti-jihadists and anti-BRA have a lot in common.
You are allowed to bash blacks/muslims all day long at their sites but if you dare touch the jew you get banned. Neither the anti-jihadists or the anti-BRA recognize their hipocracy. For them it's perfectly acceptable to be anti-muslim or anti-black but they won't hesitate to call you an evil racist nazi and ban you if you criticize jews.
"on some level it comes down to: which are you more bothered by? Genocide of Jews or genocide of Whites? Not saying you have to choose one or the other, or that you'd view either one as positive, but which would be more objectionable to you on an emotional level?"
Sadly, even some self-named "conservatives" whose blog I had the pleasure of trolling, er, conducting a debate at (yes, I was conducting) were brought to near foaming outrage at my humble suggestion that Whites have every bit as much the right to preservation of themselves via ethnic/racial nationalism as Zionist Jews do. These "conservatives" were gentiles as far as I could discern; and particularly earnest and unaffected in their near mindless delivery of GOP talking points and support of Zionism bordering on the religiously fervent - that and very little else (there was a post about what a bad little implicit Auntie Semite Ron Paul was - you get the picture). I informed them that the slow march of miscegenation through the bedchambers of our people is nothing less than the total destruction of all that we are if taken to its logical conclusion. Their glib response was that this was a positive developement in their opinion. I did get the impression, however, that after a few well-placed blows by me a few of my more cerebral interlocutors (punching bags) were at least mildly chastened in their slack-jawed and casual genocidalism. This was I take it short-lived as I was banned not long after.
This Jewish brainwashing is a fucking doozy.
"'Jews aren't White' somehow magically becomes 'Jews aren't human.'"
Eh, depends on how low you want to set the bar for qualifying as "human". Just kidding. Of course we all know that Jews too would weep for their children with heart-rending agony were the lives of their children snuffed out before their eyes - to take directly by the horns the bull of the lavishly lacyrmose imagined visuals by which Jews whip themselves and their pathetic dupes into such a defensive frenzy. We could never do that as we are not ourselves leather-clad, revolver-gripping kikes.
"Whatever. A quote from Mencken is in order"
A well-timed and erudite quote, all but a signature. What, no Pound? Whatever.
"This is a quote from today's thread at SBPDL. One day only to post comments on the "JQ."
"This will be the ONLY time in SBPDL history were those who want to make a case why I'm wrong will be allowed to be published on this issue.
There's too much going on that needs to be accomplished. You can talk about the JQ at other sites, but for one day only, make your case why I'm wrong."
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/12/those-ron-paul-newsletters-proving-once.html"
A lie, btw. Or at least just not true. I attempted to post a rather mild critique of Jews and it didn't get through.
Tan, have you seen this post today by Justin? http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/jewish-hostility-to-christians.html
In it he links to a Telegraph article broaching the great taboo re Jewish hostility to Christians.
It is not irrational for people of European ancestry to hate Jews since Jews and Europeans are genetically different. The reason why people favor their own children over those of their neighbors is that their own children are more genetically similar to them. The greater the genetic difference between two organisms, the more likely they are to be in conflict with each other. This also explains why whites and blacks hate each other.
Sheila wrote:
"The end result is that Unamused joins the ranks of Jewish HBD proponents whose primary motivation is to prove their own superiority."
I wouldn't go that far.
It is clear, though, that Unamused is not a true racialist. A wildly-philosemitic white-racialist cannot exist. The former precludes the latter.
A commenter on Unamused's site has the pulse of his commentariat, which is mostly against him on this:
[quote] Comment
What is this nonsense?
“Jews are fine by me, except insofar as they actually say and do things that are not fine by me.”
Uh huh. So are blacks, yes? Except the whole premise of this site is that blacks are predisposed to habitually say and do things that are not fine by you.
That’s your contradiction if you can keep it! [end quote]
Unamused replies:" Wow, still not getting it. It's what they say and do that makes them fine or not-fine by me." He forgot to add the caveat, "excluding what Jews say and do, who have a free pass."
He couldn't deal with all the criticisms of his labyrinthine definition of 'racism' so he shut down the thread.
lol. F*ck him. There are a number of others doing the same thing he does, so who needs him?
I can understand why a man in his position would become an anti-anti-Semite, but why did he have to suddenly become such a STUPID anti-anti-Semite?
The least little criticism of harmful tendancies among the Jewish people is a "conspiracy theory" which can only spring from incomprehensible "irrational Jew-hatred" and can only lead to "genocide".
This meltdown should make you appreciate Steve Sailer, Tan. Like Unamused, Steve has Ashkenazi ancestry he didn't find out about until after his childhood was over. Unlike Unamused, Steve is able to carry on a rational discussion about tendancies among the Jewish people. Steve is the perfect role model for pro-white mischlings.
If I had to guess, I'd say Unamused's basic problem is that he was never pro-European, he's anti-Black. This is common among "race realists". Likewise, counter jihad types tend to be anti-Muslim, without necessarily being pro-European.
The take home lesson is, love the people you love more than you hate the people you hate. Otherwise, you'll melt down someday when your hoped for anti-Black or anti-Muslim coalition fails to materialize.
"Unamused's basic problem is that he was never pro-European, he's anti-Black. This is common among "race realists". Likewise, counter jihad types tend to be anti-Muslim, without necessarily being pro-European."
Excellent point.
Humans have the right to self-determination and free association. That means they have the right to form neighborhoods, communities, businesses, schools, institutions, and associations of any kind as they see fit.
It seems such a simple concept but it elicits a fundamentally outrageous response from those who may be excluded, whether it's Jews or other white ethnics.
No mate, it’s ‘generously’ called hypocrisy. You wouldn’t treat the dago as fellow European in North America in your two seconds in the limelight, every European is inferior. There’s not one stone in five in Britain without Italian craft in it, not one book, not one of anything….you were a naked paint covered savage chasing rabbits when they were the world’s civilization…yet you have the balls to pretend your superior….on top of this, you’re not just deluded enough to be prejudiced…you blame the Mediterranean for your own stupidity.
It makes one wonder whether Unamused's response is really founded in his Jewishness or whether it stems from this primeval disdain that explodes from those who may be excluded, whatever their origin. It appears that freedom of association is an ugly, vile, bigoted, supremacist contempt for who were once our betters. It may all be true but it does not negate the notion that if freedom is to exist it must be founded upon a bedrock of discrimination. And yet never, it appears, has such a visceral scornful response been eschewed in hatred for such a simple concept.
The reason no one thoroughgoingly respects freedom of association is because ultimately it is not in anyone's interest to respect freedom of association. Even our host does not respect as inviolate principle freedom of association. If he did, he could not with logical consistency support the exclusion of Jews from a large enough land mass to form a geopolitically viable polity. An invidious statement, but so what? Such is the way Life ekes out its existence - invidiously.
Possibly freedom of association must be rejected then as morally untenable. What is the moral difference between segregation, which denies freedom of association and integration which also denies freedom of association? If freedom of association is denied by segregation, integration forces a solution upon those that find it repugnant. However, granting integration to those who wish it is also equally morally repugnant. Even if Jews are excluded, how then are association issues, like homosexuals, dealt with? Possibly repudiate homosexuality as a social construct and deal with it on the level of an act, sodomy, not a personal and collective identity built upon what has historically been categorized as a deviant sexual act. How might this be utilized in a frame work of mutualism so that mischlings like Unamused might be integrated into white society? Did not the Nuremberg laws offer a path to integration for some mischlings?
Group exclusion would be consistent in a nation state if freedom of association was viewed as the ascendancy of contract rather than the ascendancy of the individual. In other words membership in the state runs like a realty covenant. Purchase of the property or right of citizenship can only arise if the individual promises to uphold the contractual caveat.
I do not know much about Jews or for that matter whites either (as I am neither!). I am an east-Indian. I guess as individuals many rather most amongst either of these must be nice amiable people.
So I will write only from impressions I have about both. While I notice that Jews keep claiming that Whites hate Jews, they fail to acknowledge that Jews seem to hate Whites as well, equally deeply if not deeper.
As often pointed out here by tanstaafl, Jews practice one thing in Israel while preach some thing else for the West (White). Also Jews consider themselves sometimes as a part of Whites or at other times separate from Whites. The term Judeo-Christian West is also often used in a confusing manner. Criticizing Christianity is to be tolerated but criticizing Judaism is not to be tolerated.
Then I read the 613 laws of Jews. Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
This clearly shows that Jews, in as much as they believe in Judaism (like Muslims believing in Islam) must practice exclusion (of the other), racism, fee inherent superiority (being the chosen people) and so on. This is completely contrary to what they preach to the rest of the world through media.
Most Whites, when they start digging for their own roots realize these problems. Whites were historically pagans who converted to Christianity.
The message in the gospels (Mark, Luke, etc.) often appears so different from
the rest of the holy bible (especially the old testament) that it looks that someone Jewified the message of Jesus Christ.
Jews, being "intelligent" and "industrious" can grab a larger piece of land for Israel and could stay there "separately" from the rest of the people, who the Jews think hate Jews. Then they will have nobody to blame for their failure and no one else to be grateful to for their success.
Instead of blaming Whites for hating Jews, Jews can take their money and migrate to Israel.
Otherwise the insistence that Jews must be allowed (equal opportunity) in other countries while Jews DO NOT allow reciprocal opportunity to others in Israel seems to be nothing but sheer hypocrisy.
I have summarized my views and possibly they are too simplistic. I am open to changing them. But I do not want to be swayed by sentimental arguments (usually involving holocaust and so on).
I would like to quote Robert Svoboda whose mentor Aghora Vimalananda is supposed to have said once: "Robert, you must learn to live with reality, otherwise for sure reality will come and live with you."
Interesting how your first (and second and third) impressions can sometimes be so wrong. I initially thought of young Unamused as a good-natured and mischievous quipster. Sort of like a Phalluster…without the foreskin.
Though his recent jewish epiphany has had quite a moderating effect on that opinion. I think a fairly accurate description of him at this point would be a brittle, disingenuous, pedantic, Humpty Dumpty.
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
I think I shall begin applying this principle myself in future debates with our Ancient Friends.
A belated Merry Christmas to all.
Merry Christmas and God bless us (not them) all!
I am forever impressed by the gaping absence of ad hominem attacks from our Serious Conservative Thinkers (a nomenclature I co-opted from Larry Auster). Because I was a good little boy this Christmas, and since the next day of judgment seems so far off, I will indulge in a bit of Freudian role-playing: psycho-analyzation.
To discover your own impure racial admixture late in your teen years (as I believe has been asserted) requires a specific set of circumstances. Surely one's biological father does not withhold this disclosure until some days after your Bar Mitzvah. I suppose it is possible that a pair of lesbians brought a semi-anonymous sperm donation to term, or that a transient jewish gadfly gifted one of his otherwise-grounded shiksa mistresses with his Chosen seed. But these aren't particularly likely.
Rather, Unamused is likely adopted. It's ok: so was Steve Sailer, and he seems to have turned out alright. Presuming this likely scenario, which I've inferred simply by way of his own casual admission, we can draw upon some bigger generalities. These won't necessarily be true - it's like the FBI profiling a serial killer, for example.
Unamused was (likely) raised by a couple of white liberals. He (likely) was not a perfect fit in their household, despite their magnanimous overtures. To raise another's child as one's own? How very White! But Unamused, perhaps having inherited a foreign acumen, saw past that foolish benevolence. Perhaps his public school was too multicultural. Perhaps he grew to question the dogma that acted against his interests, exploring a thought experiment that could never be encouraged within his proud, obtuse foster home.
These pressures all (perhaps) culminated during his teen years, when his yearning for a definitive identity insisted that he backtrace the signatures at Planned Parenthood. So then, the Ashkenazi catharsis occurred, and the existential personality crisis was subverted. The Jewish Gene explained away all the discomfort, all the rebellion, all the abstraction. It was, to be sure, a justifying discovery. Unamused's self-measured distinction was therefore a credit to his half-jew parents. Sure, he was still "white" and raised by whites for whites, but here was something that made him unique!
The ensuing rejection of liberalism as a "white" value system, and the perception of critical thinking as a tangential, jewish trait were quite predictable. You could see it coming from a mile away (further than my own acute jewdar's usual capabilities). Inevitably, dual loyalties will press for an allegiance at some point down the road. As a "black conservative", would Herman Cain stump for blacks or conservatives? As an "alcoholic conservative", would I insist on my rights as an alcoholic individual, in the face of conservative temperance? One can only wear both badges for so long.
My presumption is maybe two-thirds likely to be two-thirds accurate. Suppose I see a 20-something nigger buck on the subway at 8am in a shirt and tie, listening to some ghetto trash anthem so loudly that his headphones share the cacophony with the rest of the cabin. If I assume he is a feral savage, stationed above his means by way of quotas and charity, I might only be two-thirds likely to be two-thirds accurate. I'll take that chance (and I always do).
Overall, I am surprised to see so many of our heavyweights pounce on this frail gazelle. I don't believe Unamused has finished refining his worldview, but in any case it's not important (to "win him over", or to write him off). Maybe he is a tooth-sharpener for our apex predators, or maybe the internet dissidents have finally unpacked the jewish bullshit at the top of food chain, and can work their way down. When a smarmy quipster like myself can come down so harshly, you can be sure that we're in an era of decadence. Whether I am feasting on the largesse, or simply part of the gristle and fat... well, who can say?
While we're dogpiling on Unamused, I will offer that his writing style immediately struck me as similar to Ferdinand Bardamu. It's not something blatant, just an injection of emotional appeal every so often. Also, a faux-humble hubris when acknowledging his Sycophant Squad.
He's probably about the same age as FB back when FB decided his comments were too important to be buried in threads at the Roissy blog. Maybe we'll see his direction flounder about in the same manner in the coming years, teetering on the crutch of an unsustainable, defeated attitude. Or not - who knows!
Like that celebrated Republican famously declared: I can't define "fairy", but I know one when I see one.
Phalluster, I think it's more like everyone was gathered at a Klan Rally put on by the producers of Revenge of the Nerds and Animal House unknown to those gathered there.
Everyone was doing their thing, Unamused the megaphone guy sayin "Look at the niggers! Check out their wily negro ways, lynch tha niggas!!!" "Yahhhhh!" everyone screams in delighted rage.
Someone pipes in from the back "And the Kikes, those pricks are the ones that started this thing" A few join in at first which becomes a rolling cacophanous ball of denunciation, as the crowd chants "Get the kikes, get the kikes."
Suddenly Unamused trumps the crowd over his megaphone "Now there'll be no-talk of kikes at this rally. That sort of talk is for nothing but racists, anti-semitical homicidalists who won't let me join internet forums when I mention in passing that I'm a Joo but don't let that worry ya"
Well, you can imagine the scene. Or not, no in fact imagination is not required. That's what happened.
Right, back to Caddyshack 5 where the adopted Jewboy son of WASPs educates the would be racists what is and isn't racist. Everyone lives happily ever after and Unamused marries a shiksa.
Thanks for the laughs fellas.
So does it mean that we could say Jews are "Muslims masquerading as Christians"? A wolf in sheep's clothing? Equally dangerous, if not more, to the sheep?
The other aspect is that they are trying to clothe the sheep in wolf's clothing so that unsuspecting sheep suspect fellow sheep more than the wolf itself!
Sounds funny. But is it plausible?
The thing about Unamused is that he is not an individual. A jewish Unamused pretends to be, just as other jews do.
The Myth of the "Individual Jew".
http://www.theforbiddentruth.net/blog.php?b=540
Flanders
Post a Comment
<< Home