Greg Johnson: Our Fault?
In Our Fault?, Greg Johnson groks the suicide meme:
Most of the time, the claim that white dispossession is “our fault” really means one thing: that it is not the fault of the organized Jewish community. The primary purpose of blaming whites is merely to avoid blaming Jews.He takes the next logical step, addressing those who would defend Whites rather than blame them:
But once one knows understands one’s mistakes and learns how to avoid them in the future, there is no point in dwelling on the past. Our goal as White Nationalists should be to bear no further culpability for our ongoing genocide. And the way to do that is: (1) to understand the problem to its roots, (2) to reject all the causes of our predicament, and (3) to actively work for our race’s salvation. Until you do that, you remain part of the problem.The cost attached to any such understanding is one of the many forces discouraging Whites from from accepting it. Far easier, at least for the time being, to continue in willful blindness, or even by pretending you can join the Other in their multicult paradise. The genocidal anti-White nature of the regime will make itself increasingly difficult for Whites to simply wish otherwise.
Labels: greg johnson, suicide meme
posted by Tanstaafl at 4/14/2012 11:38:00 AM
46 Comments:
I had a run in with Greg over his article. I tried to post this but he refused it...
I suppose you could blame the Spanish for Spain pre 1492 but how did Spain fare post 1492? I suppose you could blame the English pre 1290 but how did the English fare post 1290. How did Russia fare after Catherine the Great created the Settlement of Pale? The Russian Enlightenment. I suppose you could blame the Germans for Germany in the 1920s but after 1933 Germany had the highest standard of living in Europe. They had self-confidence and a sense of who they were. What Changed????
I plead guilty only to kindness.
His comment on my site was that it didn't make sense.
http://helvena.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/counter-current-publishing/#comments
Helvena
I guess I am biased somewhat, but I find your work on this subject (thank God he linked you at least!) simply brilliant. I am not aware of the difference in readership levels between here and CC, but judging by the amount of comments posted on his article so far, there is a lot.
So I guess it's all good as far as getting the message out is concerned, but like Helvena says above " I am guilty only of kindness" and it is in the learning to LOVE our own people (once 'we' realize 'we' are a people, that is )that I think matters most. This site has helped me immeasurably in that regard, especially when I see that there is so much Good in Whites, that, when thrown back in our faces by those who pretend to be our friends, unfortunately becomes a deadly weapon against us.
I share the sentiment that Greg Johnson is late to the party in calling for a Jew-free White society, but, as is so often the case, he is being hailed by his readers as the first one to do so.
This might be explained by noticing that those who are the first to "come out" with bold, true ideas are shunned by the majority as being "fringe" or not to be taken seriously. When the value of the idea(s) becomes impossible to deny, usually because it is becoming more acceptable because of the work of the "fringers", the more trustworthy-appearing establishment types ("establishment" being relative) come out with it and are given credit by their larger following as being the first to do so! Happens all the time. Look at the Einstein story. It's frustrating, but what can you do.
At least, Greg Johnson is a sincere White Nationalist whose ambition is not a bad thing. I fault him, though, for linking to Tan's blog written *after* Greg's own and about Greg, rather than one of Tan's earlier, much earlier blogs on the subject.
In fact, Greg Johnson didn't link to a particular article. Instead he linked to all the articles with the label "suicide meme". That's why I was surprised to get back to this blog article when I clicked on his link. But I just had to scroll down to find the earlier articles, including the one with the picture of a hooded man holding a knife to a woman's neck (with murderous intent).
Mary: "learning to LOVE our own people"
Personally, I feel stupid saying that I LOVE my people. I don't really like every one who belongs to my people. I would simply say that I feel loyalty to my people.
Armor said...
In fact, Greg Johnson didn't link to a particular article. Instead he linked to all the articles with the label "suicide meme". That's why I was surprised to get back to this blog article when I clicked on his link.
* * * *
You are right. Thanks for pointing it out. Johnson did better than I gave him credit for, but just a little bit.
This might be explained by noticing that those who are the first to "come out" with bold, true ideas are shunned by the majority as being "fringe" or not to be taken seriously. When the value of the idea(s) becomes impossible to deny, usually because it is becoming more acceptable because of the work of the "fringers", the more trustworthy-appearing establishment types ("establishment" being relative) come out with it and are given credit by their larger following as being the first to do so! Happens all the time. Look at the Einstein story. It's frustrating, but what can you do.
Maybe. Though I can't help but notice that WN has just gotten a lot softer and more watered down intellectually, a trend which Greg Johnson is certainly part of. Read William Pierce, Revilo Oliver, and Wilmot Robertson, and then compare to the crap that's out there today. I don't really see anything that's not essentially a bastardized, deteriorated form of what was produced before the mid-90's or so. Now, we've got Mark Weber saying that gas chambers were real, Kevin MacDonald saying we should support Zionists against Muslims, and Greg Johnson is a hardliner for saying that jews have played any role in our troubles at all. And of course all these people are personal friends of Jared Taylor, who will tolerate pretty much anything except for criticism of jews.
The Amrenization of White nationalism is essentially complete. Nobody used to think that "it's all our fault" and "we're doing it to ourselves", but now Greg Johnson's position that this is only a partially correct view is considered extreme. We're going backwards, not forwards here.
I think ya'll are kind of getting worked up here.
I take Greg's position to be a milder variant of my own. I wouldn't say that it's all the jews even though there is a jew under pretty much every rock.
I will say there is *no way out except thru the jews* They are holding us down. But, we still need to address our own fundamental and constitutional weaknesses to ensure that we don't just have another paroxysm and expulsion that results in the same situation a hundred years later.
The final solution needs to be final. This requires knowing how to keep the boot of David off our collective throat. Like my advice to young women, it means not getting intoxicated and walking down dark alleys.
The jews are to blame for what they have done and deserve collective punishment but we need collective self-flagellation to permanently imprint this on our memory.
Greg stands for the *professionalization* of radicalism and not the Amrenization as far as I can determine. He is trying to drive the mentally unstable out of the limelight.
Personally, I feel stupid saying that I LOVE my people. I don't really like every one who belongs to my people. I would simply say that I feel loyalty to my people.
Maybe this is down to a female thing, but I have never felt better since I began to understand what has happened to us, and why...and it has helped me to forgive and understand my fellow Whites with a tolerance and sense of compassion I previously could not.
I don't really like every one who belongs to my people. I would simply say that I feel loyalty to my people.
Oh, I definitely don't LIKE a lot of them, lol, but I do LOVE them...kinda like certain members of my family ;)
@Carolyn
Just wanted to say how much I admire you and your work (work I only became aware of through this very site I might add!).
This is in no way a bash on Greg Johnson as I am in no position to do so, having read very little of his work overall, but I sincerely think he is a bit off track in treating Revisionism as a kinda 'not important' subject for us/WN in general. I find the content of your shows overall to be very relevant and important (fascinating too) and collectively they have made a strong impact on me so far. I still have a lot to learn, obviously, but between yourself and Tan (and a few others around the blogosphere) I am making headway.
Thanks :)
Mary,
Thank you. That is really kind. I think I was a little hard on Greg ... mostly reacting to what you said, LOL!
I can agree with danielj that Greg wants a professional-appearing and literate White Nationalism. I think Our Fault? is an important piece of work from him and maybe kind of a milestone. He did say 'we have to excise the cancer' and other "no-going back" type statements. He's placing himself firmly in the "Jews are not White camp." That's great. I think he's been influenced by Tan; maybe given that extra bit of courage by Tan's good writing.
I don't think he's too soft ... at least I hope he follows through.
The sense one gets from all these WN leaders is that they are all trying to push the envelope in the wrong direction. It's like they're looking at their readership and asking themselves: "Okay, how much shit are these fuckers willing to take? How pro-jew can I get away with being?"
The line pretty much all these guys are pushing now, is that explicit WN and explicitly naming the jew must be abandoned altogether. You've got Jared Taylor promoting Robert Weissberg, who says explicit racialism can never work. You've got Kevin MacDonald saying that Glenn Beck is an "implicit anti-semite" who just does all the pro-Israel stuff for cover. You've got shit like Alt Right and A3P that isn't pro-White at all, yet for some reason we're supposed to view it as such, and if we don't then we're "extremists", or we don't realize that it's all a brilliant "strategy". All of this is tantamount to surrender, and the people pushing it know what they are doing.
"The sense one gets from all these WN leaders is that they are all trying to push the envelope in the wrong direction."
They are trying to appeal to the middle class for whom status-chasing and money-grubbing in more important than race. How else would you suggest such people should be approached?
I think Glenn Beck understand the Jewish Question...
But he decided to target just Marxist/Liberal/Multiculti Jews like Soros expecting that the Neocon/zionist Jews at Fox would be covering his back...
We now what happened after that...
The positive side is that he became rich...
@ Capt. "How else would you suggest such people should be approached?" I'd suggest honesty. It worked on me.
@Danielj. You very eloquently said nothing which allowed you to skirt the issue of "What changed in the national character of the nations which were successful after the jewish expulsion". Greg Johnson doesn't want to deal with people who poke holes in his argument especially when he doesn't have a comeback. Your pathologizing of difference is a common jewish ploy and one no thinking person takes seriously.
There is NOTHING wrong with us.
The Occidental Observer is the most effective counter-semitic blog of it's kind on the internet. I don't say this because I'm a fan of Kevin. His books have only gathered digital dust in my hard drive. Who cares if he is slightly hopeful about the Glen Beck phenomenon? It is after all significant that he has a gigantic listenership and that he still does even after mainstream media firing him. Imagine if K-Mac, James Edwards and Pat Buchanan could get on his network or pull off a similarly feat?
I hate Amren. I never spent much time there after realizing they were jews and jew lovers but Greg and Kevin aren't Amren.
Greg is just a Californian. As a fellow Californian who has lived all over the country, I can tell you there are real differences and that a White republic in Cali won't look like one in the Midwest.
GREG JOHNSON WANTS TANSTAAFL'S CHILDREN DEAD
Greg Johnson says that he would make it mandatory that mothers of Half-Breeds should be forced to have abortions. (Voice of Reason Radio, 2012.03.21)
Greg Johnson says Jews are not White.
Tanstaafl says his wife, the mother of his children, is a Jew.
Therefore, if he could have, Greg Johnson would have had Tantaafl's children sliced into pieces and thrown in the garbage.
That was a typical Jewey attempt at an ad hominem attack in response to FACTS.
FACT: Greg Johnson says your wife and kids aren't White but are Half-Breeds.
FACT: Greg Johnson says that if he had the power to do so, he would have forced your wife and her mother to undergo abortions.
These are FACTS that have brought to your attention. Do or say what you like about these FACTS.
What is your problem with FACTS being stated?
Helvena,
Come again?
Tanstaafl's family is not really the issue.
The point is what Greg Johnson said about them and people like them.
He said that if he could, he would make the abortion of the half-breeds "mandatory".
It is simply a FACT that has been brought to the attention of the readers of this blog. Do what you like with this FACT.
Logic and facts seem to not be held in regard here and on similar blogs.
You seem confused.
I am not the one who said your wife and children should have been put to death.
Greg Johnson is the one who said that.
"What is your problem with FACTS being stated?"
What you state are bald assertions. If you want to state FACTS then you could start by quoting me or Johnson verbatim.
Here's a FACT for you: If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise, I will gladly delete your comments.
I never saw that before. My eugenics plan doesn't include abortion.
I'll have to listen to the show and question Greg about it.
Greg Johnson, on "The Stark Truth" ("Greg Johnson on Political Strategies"), Voice of Reason Radio, 2012.03.21, in the 42nd minute:
"I think that some abortions should be illegal. I think other abortions should be mandatory. ... Any miscegenated baby, I would encourage an abortion in that case. I wouldn't go so far as to make it mandatory, but -- Hell yeah, I would make that mandatory!"
GREG JOHNSON WOULD MAKE ABORTION OF HALF-BREEDS MANDATORY [2012.03.21]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yh6RzRWWDk
He said that if he could, he would make the abortion of the half-breeds "mandatory".
Is there a source for that?
In any case, if one is a proponent of abortion in principle then what difference does it matter what reasons one has for aborting?
The reasons would though determine one's world view, one's culture. Eg, the Spartan exposing of children at birth was part of a value system: they valued physical health over and above human life as such.
Today though, proponents of abortion do not value life in principle but judge its value according to utility.
What is GJ's position?
Vis all this, if one is a proponent of abortion I'd very much doubt that one will be about propagating the race as such. Well, one needs at least understand within what philosophy one's attitude to life extends from.
Enough to observe that those who are proponents of abortion in principle rarely have children, White or anything else. Matter of fact, the rise in abortion practices and ideology seems to be in lock step with the decline of White nations.
Something to think about.
Stark asked me what I think abortion policy should be in a white nationalist society. I said some abortions should be illegal (e.g. of healthy babies) and others should be mandatory. But under no circumstances should they be merely a matter of "choice" of the mother and the mother alone.
As examples of mandatory abortions, I gave racially mixed and, if I recall rightly, severely retarded or deformed babies.
Of course in an all-white society, chances for race-mixing would not exist. But if a woman were to return from vacation with a non-white baby in her womb, what would you propose we do? Just chuck our new society out the window? Obviously not. Either she does not come home at all, or she comes home, has an abortion, and does some penance to be readmitted into white society.
This is, by the way, a moderate position compared to the views of Pierce and Covington.
As for miscegenation that is "under the bridge," see my essay "Is Racial Purism Decadent?" http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/07/is-racial-purism-decadent/
Greg Johnson:
"I said some abortions should be...mandatory. ... As examples of mandatory abortions, I gave racially mixed...babies." such as Tanstaafl's family.
Yeah, everybody can hear what you said. No need to repeat it.
You said that people like Tanstaafl's wife and kids should be killed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yh6RzRWWDk
Also, obviously you'd ban them from entering your fantasy White "Nation".
@ little danielj - crude sexual remarks are also a jewish ploy when they can't think of anything better to say. Did someone phone it to you? It certainly took you a long time to respond given your response was so simple.
"Also, obviously you'd ban them from entering your fantasy White "Nation"."
You're oddly worked up about something you see as a fantasy.
I've deleted your most recent comment. Argue without putting words in other peoples' mouths or repeating yourself over and over in ALL CAPS, or go away.
Alright Danielj I'll take you at your word that you couldn't understand what I was saying and that you, a young man, didn't mean in anyway your phrase "come again" to be provocative.
What I am saying is that our collective attitudes are a product of our nature and our nature is EXACTLY what it should be. So to blame Whites for our present situation is the same as to blame Whites for being White. I do NOT accept this and therefore I strongly disagree with Greg Johnson. I believe this trend to find fault in ourselves is a backdoor way of allowing the jews into the WN camp.
If you don't understand the pathologicalizing of beliefs or actions look at Tanstaafl's post IREHR.
I didn't mean anything by it. If I did I would have spelled it cum. I'm not young. I'm almost 30.
We have a disagreement then, about human nature and about the nature of White people. That don't men you need to get excessively hostile. Relax. I'll try and write an essay on the subject and post it on my blog in the next couple days.
I would encourage restraint but that is up to you. I don't want to continue the debate in this fashion on Tan's blog. It's distracting.
@Greg Johnson
"severely retarded"
Admirable self sacrifice on your part.
I'd like to say here that a friend of mine made a comment on Greg Johnson's article "Our Fault?" which was censored. Why? Because of the content, of course, which criticized Greg's attempts to reduce our problems to merely Jews. The fact is that while Jews are very problematic and are influential in spreading Liberalism, it is simply incorrect to view them as the sole problem. As a matter of fact, anyone who takes the time to reflect on the matter will soon realize that more problematic than the Jews themselves is the ideology they (or at least a portion of them) have helped spread among White Gentiles. We are never going to get anywhere if we continue directing our efforts at attacking Jews while putting little to no effort into mounting a successful intellectual-philosophical challenge to Liberalism, humanism, universalism, and the rest of the crap which plagues our world today. Here's a good starting point:
http://neweuropeanconservative.wordpress.com
Anyway, this is why neither I nor my friend felt Johnson was being productive, even though Jews are part of the problem.
"attempts to reduce our problems to merely Jews"
Who is us?
The only time I have ever seen anyone "reduce our problems to merely jews" is to use it as a strawman, as you do. Their point, like yours, is that jews aren't the real problem, the real problem is X, Y or Z.
My concern is what's best for Whites, not jews. If you agree, then it makes sense for us to argue about X, Y or Z. If you don't, then the problem between you and I starts with jews. The problem with "liberalism" and "universalism" is they inhibit exactly this kind of distinction.
About the idea that the West is committing suicide: Most White people can’t even believe that their government wants to kill them. If they can’t believe that, then they can’t be accused of agreeing with the policy. Most people who tell us that the West is committing suicide would disagree with the idea that Western governments want to kill White people. They would say that it is a preposterous exaggeration. Why would the government try to kill us? They think it's okay to talk about suicide, but over the top and in poor taste to use words like murder and killing. By having that attitude, they participate in the suicide of the West, except that they are not suicidal at all. They are right that the government is not killing individual White people. But it is killing us collectively.
In France, Sarkozy has shot himself in the foot. He wasn't reelected last Sunday. The reason is that he let in more than a million new legal immigrants in his five years as president. As a result, he lost the support of a large number of right-wing voters. Moreover, 93% of Muslim voters voted for Hollande in Sunday's election. It wasn't really a political suicide on the part of Sarkozy, though. He still hoped to be reelected. Right-wing voters who refused to vote for him contributed to the victory of the socialist Hollande, whom they expect to be even worse than Sarkozy. But they were not suicidal either. They had no other option to get rid of Sarkozy's false opposition.
It's the same in the USA. The Republican Party is committing suicide by mass immigration, even though it isn't suicidal at all. The problem is that the voters are short-circuited by the immigration lobby, which is able to interfere in the selection of the candidates and to put pressure on them so they won't change their minds later on immigration.
The problem is that O'Meara defines liberalism improperly. Yes it is an ideology that emphasizes freedom of the individual, however, it does not disconnect the individual from the group. Freedom of association or the right to discriminate is liberalism's paramount freedom. Discrimination is defined as "excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group." Discrimination is thus practiced by an individual in accordance with their group bias. This is the revolution, the demonizing the individual right in order to protect the group that was advanced, financed and led by Jewish interests.
"Jewry explained antisemitism as an aspect of racial prejudice in general, a problem attributable to pathological individuals who engaged in discrimination and whose behaviour influenced the attitudes and prejudices of the public. This interpretation suggested an appropriate strategy: interrupt the syndrome of prejudice through the force of law, thus prohibiting discriminatory practices and, at the same time, setting a standard of non-discrimination for the law-abiding population. A universalist philosophy led to tactical alliances with other minority and liberal organizations, designed to confront discrimination against any...group and to generate a constituency for legal reform.
Previously, the role of the state had been to protect the rights of the discriminator: traditional rights like freedom of speech and freedom of association were interpreted to mean the right to declare prejudices openly, to refuse to associate with members of certain groups, including refusing to hire them or to serve them... It represented a fundamental shift, a reversal, of the traditional notion of citizens' rights to enrol the state as the protector of the right of the victim to freedom from discrimination. It was, in fact, a revolutionary change in the definition of individual freedom."
Re-establishing the state as the protector of the discriminator allows groups to exclude those they feel do not share their interests. Who is the most prominent opposition to re-affirming individual freedom?
To Tanstaafl; you said:
"The only time I have ever seen anyone 'reduce our problems to merely jews' is to use it as a strawman, as you do. Their point, like yours, is that jews aren't the real problem, the real problem is X, Y or Z. My concern is what's best for Whites, not jews. If you agree, then it makes sense for us to argue about X, Y or Z."
Of course my concern is with what is best for Whites; I really don't give a damn about the welfare of Jews. They are an alien people who should have never been in Europe to begin with.
You misinterpret me if you think that I do not realize Jews are a problem. What I am saying is that they are only a fraction of the problem, not the whole problem itself. What of the thousands upon thousands of idiotic Gentiles who support Liberalism? What of the hundreds of Gentile intellectuals in various universities and organizations trying to give Liberalism strong intellectual foundations and poisoning others' minds with it? These are not all Jews, as anyone can see, even if Jewish intellectuals (i.e. things like the Frankfurt School) themselves played a major role in creating this situation.
As I said, anyone who takes the time to reflect upon the issue will realize it is not limited to Jews. If all the Jews in America, England, France, and Canada suddenly dropped dead, we would still have the same problems we have now. This is self-evident when you realize just how many white Gentiles - intellectuals, politicians, etc. - are a bunch of Liberals who think Liberalism and "anti-racism" will bring the world some kind of univeralist utopia.
Even more problematic is the fact that even if Jews were the sole cause of the dominance of Liberalism (which they are not, as anyone who has studied its history carefully will see), then you still have to successfully combat Liberalism. It is not hard to realize this. As soon as you can successfully challenge Liberalism and convert people, the Jews who originally worked to spread it will be unable to keep it going.
So, as everyone puts all their energy and thought into the Jewish problem, they put very little into the Liberal problem. It takes intellectual effort to fight Liberalism, and this is something I am not seeing from most people who are focused mainly on Jews. This is what concerns me.
To the anonymous poster who said: "The problem is that O'Meara defines liberalism improperly. Yes it is an ideology that emphasizes freedom of the individual, however, it does not disconnect the individual from the group..."
No, he has the right general idea as to what Liberalism is, at least what is known as "Social Liberalism," which is the dominant form in the West today. You're trying to argue that Liberalism is supposed to allow discrimination, but what of the fact that a defining feature of Liberalism is now to be anti-discrimination? For Liberalism now, "freedom" and "human rights" are more important than any group interests and thus since any discrimination or separatism gets in the way of everyone of every group having "equal rights and freedom" which will lead to some kind of universalist-humanist utopia, the Liberal feels he must fight racialism, nationalism, etc.
Simply trying to distort the meaning of Liberalism to make it fit what you would like to see is not really helpful. If we're just going to play word games, we're not going to get anywhere. We need to have a clear, defined ideological enemy. This is what calls itself "Liberalism," regardless of what the true meaning of Liberalism is supposed to be. Perhaps you might want to call it humanism instead? Whatever, it's the same enemy worldview.
Anon: Greg's attempts to reduce our problems to merely Jews.
Tan: The only time I have ever seen anyone "reduce our problems to merely jews" is to use it as a strawman, as you do.
Anon: I am still not convinced that Jews are the sole problem.
It reminds me of the discussion between Lucy and Charlie Brown, about how it feels to stand on the pitcher's mound in a baseball game :
"Charlie Brown stands on the pitcher's mound and discusses with Lucy the feeling of being up on that mound. Lucy insists it is a feeling of power. Charlie disagrees and describes the feeling in a myriad of ways, whereas Lucy responds each time with certitude that it must be a feeling of power. Charlie says "I think it's something that has to be experienced", so Lucy tromps up to the mound. Standing there, she asserts "Oh yes, Charlie Brown...I see what you mean! It gives you a feeling of power!" Charlie Brown sighs."
There is no evidence of liberalism, in the classical sense, attributing a pathology to individual rights, such as freedom of association. It was tried after the civil war but was struck down by the courts. Again the revolutionary change came when the syndrome of prejudice was interrupted through the force of law. In other words if you owned a restaurant and did not wish to serve a member of group A, and that member refused to leave your premises, the power of the state could be invoked to remove him. The state (or constitution) protected the right of the individual to discriminate. This is liberalism. Protecting the right of the individual to discriminate. Denying the individuals right in order to protect the group is universalism. The distinction is important. Minority groups, not just Jews (although Jews led it, planned it and financed it)bristling against the perceived "injustice" of discrimination, joined together to attribute the practice of individual freedom to the realm of a pathology. Anyone who discriminated was a potentially metastasizing cancer that may infect the entire population if not extirpated by the full force of the state. This is not liberalism. It is a meme that will potentially survive its originators and may even infect them. However to believe that this meme is continually not re-enforced and serviced, in the main, by a particular group interest, is to deny the bounty of evidence readily viewable by all who have eyes to see.
"The state (or constitution) protected the right of the individual to discriminate. This is liberalism."
No, that is only a certain type of Liberalism, which is more like Libertarianism today. People need to understand that the ideals of Liberalism have been are interpreted and formaluted in many different and even contradictory ways. There is no one Liberalism, there are many Liberalisms.
However, it is very important to note that what is known as Liberalism today is a specific type of Liberalism: "Social Liberalism." It still places value on liberty, equality, and individual rights, as any form of Liberalism does. What is more conspicious though, is that it uses these ideas to deny racial, ethnic, or religious groups the right to discriminate and exclude members of other groups from their presence. It does this on the premises that all "human beings," regardless of race or culture, are equal and have an equal right to the same individual rights Liberalism promises. If anyone does otherwise (i.e. nationalists, racialists, etc.), then they are violating other peoples' freedom, equality, and rights.
This is the whole idea behind modern "social Liberalism"; it is classical Liberalism merged with universalism and humanism. Of course, this sort of Liberalism was already present among some of the key figures associated with the French Revolution. But anyway, it is exactly what we are trying to combat today, and while it helps to discuss the origins of ideological terms and their various meanings, we should not fail to realize that it is still a form of Liberalism.
There is an interesting thread on VNN forum created by Sandor Petofi called "Being locked up for racist speech? It's not as novel an idea as you might think." Right here:
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=101514
He comments "Those Jacobins were at it in 1793" and provides evidence using a large excerpt from Stoddard showing that the Jacobins worked towards establishing laws providing "equality between all citizens regardless of color" and related things.
Just one bit of evidence - although certainly not all - showing the origins of our modern "anti-racist" Liberalism.
Anon: a large excerpt from Stoddard showing that the Jacobins worked towards establishing laws providing "equality between all citizens regardless of color"
I guess the reason why Anon reminds us of that episode is to counter Tan's claim that the Jews are the one and only problem in the whole universe.
How did the Jacobins attribute a pathology to individual rights in the early 20th century? How does it disprove the fact that post WWII organised Jewry, in alliance with other minority groups, came to convince the state to favor protecting the group over the rights of the individual? Are Jacobins the major influence in the construction of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
The point about not dwelling on the past is false. We need to remember the past in order to protect ourselves in the future.
Gulag video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqfV0XCySZU
We cannot defend our future, if we don't know the threats proven in the past.
Post a Comment
<< Home