Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Roth and Weiss on What's Best for The Jews

Two years ago I wrote about jewish influence on Christmas music. Sometime later I ran across a passage from Philip Roth's Operation Shylock praising Irving Berlin for de-Christing Christmas (and Easter). What I didn't realize until today was that Roth's book frames jewish hostility toward Christmas in a much broader context of jewish hostility toward Christianity, Christians, and Whites in general.

Roth, like Berlin, is not some marginal, inconsequential jew. Roth is considered "one of the most honored authors of his generation":
His fiction, set frequently in Newark, New Jersey, is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its "supple, ingenious style," and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and American identity.
Actually, it's more accurate to describe Roth's work and it's fans as reflecting an all-consuming obsession with jewish identity. Roth is concerned about what it means to be a jew and how that contrasts with being Christian, American, or European. In Operation Shylock Roth weighs the differences between zionism and diasporism, two complementary jewish identities.

The portion excerpted here was not easy to find. In the end I transcribed it from Moshe Waldoks' The Best American Humor 1994. Though Roth's book is in Google Books, and precise searches will display snippets, I have not been able to find a link to freely viewable content.

Without further ado, here is Philip Roth, speaking through a character he named Philip Roth:
I heard myself next praising the greatest Diasporist of all, the father of the new Diasporist movement, Irving Berlin. "People ask where I got the idea. Well, I got it listening to the radio. The radio was playing 'Easter Parade' and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin 'Easter Parade' and 'White Christmas.' The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus. People always tell me Jesus is Jewish. I never believe them. It’s like when people used to tell me Cary Grant was Jewish. Bullshit. Jews don’t want to hear about Jesus. And can you blame them? So—Bing Crosby replaces Jesus as the beloved Son of God, and the Jews, the Jews, go around whistling about Easter! And is that so disgraceful a means of defusing the enmity of centuries? Is anyone really dishonored by this? If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Do you see my point?" I took more pride, I told them, in "Easter Parade" then in the victory of the Six Day War, found more security in "White Christmas" than in the Israeli nuclear reactor. I told them that if the Israelis ever reached a point where they believed their survival depended not merely on breaking hands but on dropping a nuclear bomb, that would be the end of Judaism, even if the state of Israel should survive. "Jews as Jews will simply disappear. A generation after Jews use nuclear weapons to save themselves from their enemies, there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews. The Israelis will have saved their state by destroying their people. They will never survive morally after that; and if they don't, why survive as Jews at all? They barely have the wherewithal to survive morally now. To put all these Jews in this tiny place, surrounded on all sides by tremendous hostility—how can you survive morally? Better to be marginal neurotics, anxious assimilationists, and everything else that the Zionists despise, better to lose the state than to lose your moral being by unleashing a nuclear war. Better Irving Berlin than the Wailing Wall. Better Irving Berlin than Holy Jerusalem! What does owning Jerusalem, of all places, have to do with being Jews in 1988? Jerusalem is by now the worst thing that could possibly have happened to us. Last year in Jerusalem! Next year in Warsaw! Next year in Bucharest! Next year in Vilna and Cracow! Look, I know people call Diasporism a revolutionary idea, but it's not a revolution that I'm proposing, it's a retroversion, a turning back, the very thing Zionism itself once was. You go back to the crossing point and cross back the other way. Zionism went back too far, that's what went wrong with Zionism. Zionism went back to the crossing point of the dispersion—Diasporism goes back to the crossing point of Zionism."
Roth's argument isn't complicated. First, he takes as a given that jews are a group, his group, distinct from everyone else. Second, he's advocating in favor of that group's best interests, regardless of what it means for anyone else. Roth subtitled his book A Confession. It is a jewish confession though, which means it's more of an arrogant celebration of jewish victimology and supremacy than an expression of humility or contrition. Roth revels in his enmity toward "the goyim" even as he projects his hate into their minds. That the Other are so clueless, even about their supposed hatred for jews, serves as just another excuse for jews to hate them.

Talking directly to his own people, Roth first reminds them how easily and completely the goyim can and have been manipulated by jews. Then he shames them with the notion that jewish nationalism isn't good enough for the jews. Why constrain yourself to live in one small country when you can thrive everywhere by manipulating the goyim? Then, finally, as a sort of trump card, Roth invokes morality. As with confession, morality means something different to jews than Christians. Christian morality is universalist - it refers to principles that apply equally to everyone, even their enemies. Jewish morality is particularist - "Is it good for the jews?" Working with this definition of morality Roth doesn't see anything wrong with jews manipulating the goyim to further jewish interests. If it's good for the jews then it's good. When Roth describes zionist jews nuking their enemies as immoral, it's not because of the harm it might cause those enemies. It's because he thinks it would cause "the end of Judaism", which to him means "there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews".

Scrolling back to the top of the page in the book where the quote above begins we find Roth elaborating on who the enemy is, and what he wants from them:
... call on Europe to purge itself of a thousand years of anti-Semitism and to make room in its midst for a vital Jewish presence to multiply and flourish there and, in anticipation of the third millenium of Christianity, to declare by proclamation in all its parliaments the right of the Jewish uprooted to resettle in their European homeland and to live as Jews there, free, secure, and welcome. But I have my doubts.
This is the jewish version of history, together with the jewish solution to their European problem. Roth makes it plain enough, and not nicely at all, that Europeans must be subordinated to jews so that jews can multiply and flourish. Roth wants Europeans (by which he means Whites everywhere) to admit collective guilt and abandon any collective identity or interests of our own. Meanwhile jews enjoy the opposite.

Roth is sometimes absurdly described as a "self-hating jew" because he clearly favors diasporism over zionism, rather than both. This "self-hating jew" bit also serves as a kind of cover - shoo away now goyim, this is private jew business being discussed here. The fact is that he's simply one particularly prominent example of the typical White-blaming, White-hating what's-good-for-the-jews jew. The less the goyim know about that the better for the jews.

The belief that zionism is somehow bad for the jews is not uncommon on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum - which is to say amongst the majority of jews outside Israel. Philip Weiss expressed a similar belief earlier this month in Israel isn't good for the Jews. Weiss, aiming non-fiction at a (slightly) more mixed audience than Roth, writes:
A feeling has taken root deep in the American Jewish community that Israel is hurting us, hurting our standing in the world and our future. The restrictions on democracy, the curbs on women, the intransigence vis-a-vis the Palestinians when Obama has demanded movement, the indifference to the Arab Spring-- Israel is a society we no longer recognize as Jewish like we're Jewish, and worst of all, its militarism is exposing American Jews to the accusation that we are dually loyal. And we don't like that: We're Americans.

The straw that broke the camel's back was clearly the oafish ad campaign that targeted Christmas and intermarriage-- the ad campaign that Netanyahu cancelled. Even rightwing Israel lobbyists were stunned by how clueless the ad campaign was. But it was an expression of genuine Israeli attitudes. And that is what's so scary: American Jews are waking up to the fact that Israeli society is nothing like ours. Hillary Clinton could only launch her criticism of religious restrictions on women in Israel because she knows that American Jews feel this way. Ambassador Howard Gutman was speaking for many sensible American Jews when he said that Israeli policies are hurting Jews by fostering anti-Semitism.

We are integrators. We live in America because we want to be Jews in a diverse society. That is the spirit of American Jewish life by and large. And now these Zionists--separatists whom we never completely trusted when we were arguing with them in Eastern Europe--are quietly understood to have hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place.
In conclusion Weiss writes:
Because more and more of us who care about Jewish life, as an integral part of western society, need to separate ourselves from an ethos of separation.
It's refreshing to hear a jew admit that powerful non-jews like Hillary Clinton are actually beholden to jewish will - able to do what they do only so long as jews approve. Howard Gutman is also only nominally a representative of American interests. What Gutman said was delivered at a conference of organized jewry that deserves a detailed examination and critique of its own. Suffice it here to say that Gutman drew a distinction between Whites and muslims vis-a-vis jews. Whites, he said, simply hate others, like jews, largely for the sake of hating, whereas muslims at least hate jews for somewhat more sensible reasons, namely jews in Israel acting like Whites. This was controversial to jews and non-jews seeking to serve them. They complained Gutman wasn't being fair to the jews.

Weiss, like Gutman, describes concerns that are clearly pinned to what he thinks best serves the interests of jews, or at least jews who live in the US. Not Americans. Not Palestinians. That's what the word integration means to him. He's so eager to defend his jews from exposure to (valid) accusations and yet so intellectually bankrupt that all he can do is spew blatant contradictions. We're jews AND we're Americans! That's NOT dual loyalty! We're integrators AND we continue separately as jews! We're not at all like those DARK, UGLY separatists over there! Oh, and by the way, THEY'RE NOT JEWS!

The bottom line is that Weiss, like Roth, thinks jewish interests are best served within subservient Western societies. Whereas Roth sees the jews in diaspora as living among hostile aliens and writes more or less frankly about defusing Christians, Weiss is more interested in playing the anti-"racist" liberal, defusing separatists and nationalists. Like Roth, Weiss seems confident that jews can and will continue to thrive, at least in diaspora. The problem, as Roth sees it, is that zionism is immoral. Weiss claims the problem is that "oafish" "clueless" zionists are making a mockery of his (jewish) moralizing.

Weiss says he's scared that jews are waking up and they're upset that zionists have "hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place". I couldn't care less, but I think what scares jews more, zionist and diasporist alike, is the fear that Whites will see through their double-talk. That enough of us will wake up and be upset to realize that jews, as a group, are only worried about the interests of jews. That we'll understand that they have always seen us as the Other, the enemy, regardless of how we regard them. That we'll see how diaspora jews, through calculated, coordinated, collective effort, have hijacked Western societies and taken us to a dark ugly place, turning our homelands into amusement parks in the interests of "minorities", first and foremost themselves. That we'll put together the various pieces of truth, left and right, and see how militarism (and corporatism and globalism) really figures into all this. How the lives and vitality of our people have been squandered stomping around, on ourselves as well as others, to keep the world safe for jews, diasporists AND zionists, while they take turns demonizing and exploiting us.

[The Philip Weiss image comes from Gilad Atzmon's Jews & Their Self Interest-An Interview with Philip Weiss.]

Labels: , , ,



Blogger Franklin Ryckaert said...

All their "morality" is nothing but TACTICAL SELFISHNESS:what is good for us,at this time ,in this situation?They have no principles,they have only opportunism.

12/29/2011 07:03:00 AM  
Blogger Franklin Ryckaert said...

As for the betrayal of their own,that is nothing new for them.They have quarrelled with each other and betrayed each other throughout history.The Zionists betrayed the Jews of Europe during WW11,caring only for their own project,now the Jews in the Diaspora are betraying the Israelis, caring only for themselves.In this they are no different from a Mafia whose's members cooperate with each other but also betray each other.

12/29/2011 07:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Scott said...

When Roth describes zionist jews nuking their enemies as immoral, it's not because of the harm it might cause those enemies. It's because he thinks it would cause "the end of Judaism"

This is fundamental. I bring it up first in any discussion with the neoconned. A Sailer quote on Roth that captures the phenomenon:

in the classic example of Jewish guilt, Portnoy's Complaint, Jewish guilt is the opposite of white guilt: Portnoy's feelings of Jewish guilt stem not from his ancestors being too ethnocentric (as in "white guilt") but from himself not being ethnocentric enough to please his ancestors.

I'm also reminded of your skewering of Auster here, in a letter to Melanie Phillips, where he says:

"I respectfully ask you to ask yourself if it's really true that anti-Semitism is the "single most important and defining issue of our time," and whether you are being helpful to the Jews, helpful to Israel, and helpful to the West [Tanstaafl: note the order], when you make the protection of the Jews and Israel the supreme issue of the world."

That the Other are so clueless, even about their supposed hatred for jews, serves as just another excuse for jews to hate them.

This is wonderfully put. It formulates why I have such utter contempt for Christian Zionists. Your last paragraph is also a tour de force worthy of memorization. Thanks for this blog, Tanstaafl, and happy new year to you.

12/29/2011 08:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Sheila said...

Tan, this is one of your most powerful posts in quite a while. Damning quote from Roth's book and excellent, spot-on analysis. I will be copying and forwarding this; many thanks for your work and research and analysis.

12/29/2011 09:35:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I missed a facet of Roth's morality:

"They barely have the wherewithal to survive morally now. To put all these Jews in this tiny place, surrounded on all sides by tremendous hostility—how can you survive morally?"

The immorality of Israel is that it endangers "all these jews".

Sailer's point about guilt was on my mind when I wrote about the different meanings for confession and morality. Thanks for linking it. I think the difference in morality - particularist vs universalist - is the root. The other double-meanings spring from the different views of morality.

Ben Tillman has put the point in biological terms:

"You misapprehend the essence of morality, which exists to further self-interest, specifically the self-interest of groups. It furthers group interests by mediating the conflicting self-interests of group members to allow the group to function as a cooperative unit. Read David Sloan Wilson."

And here:

"If we don’t put our interests first, who will? How can we hope to survive?"

The quotes that damn Roth from a White perspective are exactly the ones that earn him praise as a good jew from a jewish perspective.

12/29/2011 11:16:00 AM  
Blogger EYE OF HORUS said...

Don't be so sure that the Joo is Fooling ANYONE but themselves. The Truth is not hidden well enough to fool even the dullest dullard.
People go along with lies when they are well fed and affluent, but when times get tough the Truth begins to gain in Value like Gold.
When the Economy was growing and everyone that wanted a job had one, the Joo could LIE and CHEAT without being called out, but NOW that TSHTF the Joo will be BLAMED for Everything. From Teflon to Velcro, seemingly overnight! The Hatred has always been there beneath the surface, it only takes a drought to bring it up where it can be SEEN and HEARD!

The Eye of Horus sees All.

12/29/2011 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger Franklin Ryckaert said...

@ Eye of Horus,

This remark of yours will be typically debunked by the Jews that they are the eternal "scapegoats".

12/29/2011 02:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary said...

I watched the film "The King's Speech" tonight and noted from the start it had jewish producers. (I learned later the writer was jewish too :

If not for the writings here, I do not think I would have been able to pick out the places in the film where Whites (and Christianity in general) were being mocked and belittled. Admittedly, it was subtle in places, but there were many incidents of it.

I checked your blog after watching the film , read this post....and it completely gelled with what I had just seen -a film written, produced and set out for mass White consumption by a group who loathe us and everything we are. And then "we" reward them for it by bestowing upon them truckloads of money and awards for their trouble, lol!

It almost leaves one, well, speechless ;)

Happy New Year to all people of Good Will, and deepest gratitude to Tan for his continued sharing of his hard work here.

12/29/2011 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Pleased to be of service Mary.

A belated Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year everyone.

12/29/2011 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Roth wrote:

"If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock."

Roth reveals some truth here, ie. Christianity without jew-hatred IS schlock. Judaised or JUDEO-Christianity is much like a powerful animal that's been gelded, neutered, defanged, dehorned, declawed so it can't fight back.

12/29/2011 10:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, thanks Tan for your work which continues to amaze me. Best wishes right back at ya.

12/29/2011 10:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

Hey, Tan! Check this out:


12/30/2011 04:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"The problem, as Roth sees it, is that zionism is immoral."

On the face of it one is forced to conclude that if Zionism is immoral per se then a White nationalism worthy of the name is also immoral. However, looking deeper, it seems that Roth brushes up against the edges of a higher truth only to withdraw at the last moment, unwilling or unable to speak its name. It is not only the realization that Whites may be provoked to crush under the heel of a jackboot their Jewish antagonists as Jews do to Palestinians which causes Roth to shudder; it is the understanding that violence committed against the Other, however lamentably necessary to survival, is inevitably reflected back into the soul of the agent of that violence.

As Heinrich Himmler said: "One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the SS man: We must be honest, decent, loyal and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else."

Survival comes at a very real cost, and that cost can only be felt so much more acutely by the civilized man. That is to say, there ain't no free lunch.

12/30/2011 05:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Sheila said...

For the first time today, I checked out Half Sigma's blog (linked from OneSTDV) and read the typical Jewish whining about Christmas. Among the comment verbiage I found this gem:

"It seems to me that Christmas is now secular enough for anyone to celebrate. I live by many Asian Indians (who are mostly not Christian)and they put up lights and give their kids gifts.

I am an agnostic but still enjoy Christmas - mostly because I see the happiness of my son and nieces/nephews."

Other comments from Jews who have Christmas trees with "Star of David" toppers. This has always seemed the height of hypocrisy to me. They've taken some of the cultural off-shoots of Christianity (British and German cultural practices) and used them to twist Christmas into a giant, secular, winter extravaganzaa . . . NOT. Even before I was baptized, when I was initially drawn by the sense of family and community and good-will during the Christmas holidays, I knew something basic was missing. I used to spend the holidays with a friend's family and her fiancee went to church with me on Christmas because of my desire to do so.

These Jews feel so sorry for themselves (now that's something new, huh?) that they aren't front and center during a holiday with roots back to America's Christian origins. They'll co-opt and twist what they can, but still scream "Nazi!" if anyone calls them on it - all of this so well laid out in your post.

Sorry for a somewhat rambling comment, but I was really disgusted by the comment thread and overwhelmingly Jewish attitudes (entitlement, arrogance, victimhood, hubris) on display at Half Sigma.

12/30/2011 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

MacDonald on what Weiss misleadingly described as "the oafish ad campaign that targeted Christmas and intermarriage" - American Jews: “We can be racialists in the Diaspora”:

"The implicit message of the ADL and other Jews who objected to the ads is that Israeli endogamy is a wonderful thing, but it is an insult to American Jews to think that they can’t remain remain culturally separate and racially pure in the Diaspora.

I know that the Jewish double standard on endogamy is an old story around here, but it bears repeating again and again. Whites who are concerned about the future of their race and about retaining their culture are considered moral reprobates—psychiatric cases not fit to participate in civilized political discourse. But analogous Jewish concerns are absolutely mainstream, both in Israel and the Jewish Diaspora in the West.

12/30/2011 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Here's Jeffrey Goldberg's understanding of the intermarriage ads:

"These government-sponsored ads suggest that it is impossible for Jews to remain Jewish in America. How else are we supposed to understand the "Christmas" ad? Obviously, assimilation and intermarriage are issues in America in ways they aren't in Israel."

Goldberg is disturbed to recognize a narrower bigotry in Israelis than he himself supports for jews as a whole.

12/30/2011 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Here's how jewish nationalists handle subversive jewish "integrators".

12/30/2011 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Daybreaker said...

Sheila, de-Christianized Christmas works particularly badly if you live in the southern hemisphere, not far south of the equator, without air conditioning. When it's a hundred in the shade and brutal December heat melts the tarmac, what's the spirit of secular "Christmas"? "Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!"

It took me a long time to realize that Christians weren't responsible for the idiocy of a festival of snow, hearth fires, reindeer and red winter Santa costumes in mid-December, when the sun burns and everybody sags, soaked in sweat. It wasn't supposed to be about that, from their point of view.

"Oh the weather outside is frightful. But the fire is so delightful. And since we've no place to go. Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!"
- Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne, 1945

12/31/2011 02:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phillip Roth is more honest than Ape Lincoln. People like Lincoln in politics and Roth in literature have done their destruction and schlockification very well indeed.

12/31/2011 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger W.LindsayWheeler said...

One should read Karl Marx, in his Feuerbachian Criticism of Hegel.

Like Max Weber who called America a Jewish state; Karl Marx has done as well:

Indeed, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world in North America has achieved such clear and common expression that the very preaching of the Gospel, the Christian ministry, has become an article of commerce and the banrupt merchant takes to the Gospel while the minister who has become rich goes into buisness." ("Writings of the young Marx on Philosophy and Society", pg 244)

In his two letters, in order for the emancipation of the Jew, the Christian state and the hold of the Christian religion had to be dissolved. It is all very enlightening. As the Jews killed Christ, they must kill the Christian religion. They do that by destroying Europe.

I find it funny that Jurgen Habermas calls himself an "European" and he is busy dismantling it!

Jews think they are a "Part of Western culture"! They need to be suppressed. They are a danger to Western Culture and how an Eastern people think that they are part of Western Culture is absolutely hilarious! They are snakes. They are scorpions.

1/01/2012 06:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a page called "The Jews Who Wrote Christmas Songs." It is writen by a Jewish journalsit for

Writing Christmas songs also was a great money-maker for these composers, I'm sure.

1/02/2012 08:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About 10 years ago I used to listen to the Michael Medved show on the radio. At the time I was vaguely aware of the Jewish question, but not quite sure of it's depth. Nevertheless, as a Conservative, I would listen faithfully. He was speaking to Us, we wished to restore sanity and Conservative government to America.

One day he had Rabbi Schneerson on and they were discussing Christian/Jewish relations. Suddenly it got around to Michael Medved talking about "his" people. THEN it dawned on me. I WASN'T HIS PEOPLE! I had a sinking, incredulous feeling. He was never, ever, over the two or so years I listened to him many years ago, speaking as an American to Americans, (although I never sensed otherwise), he was speaking as a Jew to Americans! The bastard hoodwinked me!

When a Jew and a Christian agree on a certain tenet, it is not a real agreement. Because before you know it, you realize you're not one of "their people."

That's when Jews get expelled. Can you imagine Jews getting expelled from anywhere at this point?

It really is the end of history. Guess who lost?

1/02/2012 10:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quote of the Year:

Ben N Indiana said...

What we DON'T see is black flight escaping White racism. There is no underground railroad terminating in Zimbabwe.

January 2, 2012 9:32 PM

1/02/2012 11:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

I second that vote for the quote from Ben N Indiana.

I once went to Indiana. Stayed in a log cabin.

1/03/2012 03:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

But it doesn't remotely occur to any members of the majority to speak this way. Why?

What guff. Plenty of people say what Auster is saying, this site being one, yet he calls that anti-semitism.

Why, though, why? Because the majority don't own the media, that's why. The minority, the Jewish minority, own the media.

How would "mainstream, respected white gentiles began saying things like this" if they don't own the avenues of cultural and social discourse? Whites cannot speak to themselves via their own technological channels of communication.

Auster must know this. It's obvious, blindingly obvious.

Yet, in the new media, blogs and so forth, we have yet another Jew stopping any discussion of that minority Jews by crying out "anti-semitism!" all the whiles he derides them for not standing up for themselves.

1/03/2012 08:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Porter said...

I’m having a bit of fun with this in the latest SBPDL thread. It’s time someone finally called Auster out on his rancid anti-semitism.

1/04/2012 04:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Good work Porter but Kersey has given it the "move along, nothing to see here" treatment.

I posted a comment before Kersey's move-along but don't think it will get up.

It saddens and grieves me to say it but, I must concur with Porter, Auster is an anti-semite.

Auster's words speak for themselves as quoted by Robert in Arabia above.

Please people, turn away from this genocidal hatingness of mad hate against Jews. It's not their fault that they run Hollywood or the media in general. No one else would do that work so they selflessly do it for us. They are good hard working people, tireless in their efforts to promote justice, fairness and equity without even a whiff of nepotism.

No, I have had enough of Auster's blind and jaundiced raging hateful anti-semitism. I cannot remain silent on this topic anymore.

I urge you to read his words of shame again and think deeply on the subject. It is a far better thing for us to blame Catholics and the Irish in general, as our ever dedicated correspondent Whiskey ceaselessly, and impartially, brings to our attention.

Thank you for your time.

1/04/2012 07:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Kersey writes: Auster is one of my favorite writers.

Let's move on from the this discussion.

Must be like the Chinese with their "favoured nation" status.

If you're a favoured writer then you can't be anti-semitic, Q.E.D.

1/04/2012 07:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Mary said...

Plenty of people say what Auster is saying, this site being one, yet he calls that anti-semitism.

LOL! I just finished reading that thread and was heartened to see your posts made it through his ridiculous censorship (my own posts have been censored on SBPDL lately, a move that initially shocked me).
However, I think I now understand what is afoot. Seems to me our jewish "pals" are now set to infiltrate another White movement as "leaders" and run it straight into a brick wall (think of the pro multi-cult EDL in Britain and the big "controversy" over the supposed "antisemitism" in it's ranks).

God Bless those with eyes to see through all these mindgames.

Also--is Paul Kersey a jew? I can't remember if this was ever clarified before, although I do seem to remember it being brought up before somewhere?

1/04/2012 09:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Porter said...


I liked your response, especially the concluding riff on our reliable Scots-Irishman. Does he ever not appear in chivalrous defense of our eternally persecuted friends?

And even pre-emptively this time. He’s like the Deep Blue chess computer: he anticipates anti-semitism 17 moves in advance and is already blocking its rook with his anti-Irish catholic bishop.

Unfortunately it appears your comments have been shitcanned—though Mary’s response above seemed to indicate she could see them? Maybe my area of the Interwebs is slow to update today.

1/04/2012 10:27:00 AM  
Anonymous Brandon said...

@ Porter..."shitcanned"

You must be x navy/marine/coastguard.

Speaking of comments being shitcanned, see this...

1/04/2012 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Porter said...

I can't believe Paul posted Svigor’s 11:11 comment at SBPDL. I wouldn't have even bothered writing it, assuming it to be ether bound. I suspect that Auster's unexpected belching out of The Juice in response to Paul's earlier correspondence has caused him to feel a bit sheepish about his slightly slanted comment policy.

So he’s opened the gates barely while standing in the breach like Kevin Bacon in Animal House: Let’s all just move along…Remain calm…all is well…ALL IS WELL!

Tan, I apologize for using your forum as a backchannel. If you’d prefer I not, just let me know.

1/04/2012 01:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Whiskey's diversion came approximately an hour and a half after Sheila's comment Andrea Mitchell is hardly a DWL. She is a far-leftist Jew masquerading as an objective journalist, and her instinctive revulsion for a place like Iowa (White and Evangelical) is not feigned.

He's quick off the mark that Whiskey. Your analogy to the Deep Blue chess computer is spot-on. It's a simple diversionary programme, it's power relies on speed.

And anonymous commenter in that thread notes It's not just "DWL's". Mikey Medved, an alleged conservative, asked the same question on his radio program.

I looked up this Michael Medved ( and what do you know, "Medved was born into a Jewish family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and was raised in San Diego, California..."

So, the cited people asking if Iowa is too White are both Jews. The question itself was started, as cited by Kersey, by The New York Times, no doubt owned and operated by Irish Catholics.

For the record, I like Kersey's work and take my hat off to him for it. However, if one wants to consistently avoid mentioning the racial, cultural and religious type of the people who are enabling BRA then, there is not a hope in hell of stopping BRA.

That's three strikes for BRA in the one posts, and three home runs for JRA - Jew Run America.

1/04/2012 03:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...

"When a Jew and a Christian agree on a certain tenet, it is not a real agreement. Because before you know it, you realize you're not one of 'their people.'"

Mestizos and negroes are Christian, do you consider them to be "your people"?

"Can you imagine Jews getting expelled from anywhere at this point?

It really is the end of history. Guess who lost?"

It is indeed dubious that those for whom christing for Jebus is more important than blood would have the stones to expel the Jews.

1/04/2012 10:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Questions for Auster:

a) Given your position thatIf America had known that the descendants of the Jewish immigrants would change the rules in this manner, they would not have let those Jewish immigrants in. b) Given also that you agree that not letting in those Jews would have been the right thing to do, then...

...what is wrong with the descendants of those Americans punting those Jewish descendants out of the country today?

Why do you call any non-jew who proposes such a thing an anti-semite?

Further, I am not advocating some law,... why not?

Since self-respect [of Whites]... seems to have been almost wholly lacking since the mid-twentieth century. what do you think caused this loss of self-respect?

Did the Jewish descendants you mentioned prior have a major impact on that loss of self-respect? If so, how did they achieve this?

1/04/2012 11:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Phalluster said...

I can't remember ever not being published at SBPDL, since I always take caution to dance in step over there. Personally, I thought this was worthy of inclusion:

Andrea Mitchell has a daughter (by way of Alan Greenspan). She is a New York City debutante, though not particularly gorgeous. Well, let me tell you a little story.

Andrea Mitchell's daughter, who I will not name (for her own protection, and out of my own personal modesty), made my acquaintance at a Manhattan nightclub (the Buddha Bar, which no longer exists) in the 'meatpacking district' (not as gay as it sounds, sadly).

To all you paranoid anti-semites, let me tell you what happened so you can judge for yourself. Andrea Mitchell's daughter practically assaulted me (in a good way!) after a few too many drinks and literally demanded that I take her home with me. We arrived at my unkempt bachelor pad, and she gave herself to me generously. She sucked out my white seed with a remarkable inspiration, and I could tell she had rehearsed her performance many times before. My climax was her celebration! She was overjoyed!

I could tell that this particular altruism was in her genes, passed down from both parents. To those who would say that Andrea Mitchell is "anti-white"... I rebut you! In fact, she has passed down a culture of LOVE and ADORATION for whites/white people/white men! I have seen it with my own eyes!

Sadly, my night of passion with Andrea Mitchell's daughter did not catalyze anything substantial. My brunette belle returned to the night, where I'm certain she continued to proselytize my demographic with feats of physical philanthropy.

A true lover of whites!

Perhaps I shouldn't have immediately emailed Paul Kersey with the message, "APPROVE MY COMMENT NOW, GOY!!!"

1/05/2012 11:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Porter said...


I think I got shitcanned from an Army Ranger buddy.

And I got a kick out of that CNN video. The very composed young soldier: “It would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries…one like Iran. Israel is more than capable of…”


Our Ancient Friend Blitzer: “Oh, we just lost our connection there.”

Yes and what a shame about those technical difficulties. But we’ll return again soon to hear what this young man has to say about America not fighting Israel’s wars. You can see that interview right here on CNN: so mark your Mayan calendar for December 24, 2012.

1/05/2012 01:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Porter said...

Fucking hell...I laughed. Phall, you're just not right boy.

And to think I spent my itinerant youth traipsing about the South in pursuit of bosomy blonds and other attractive though uncharitable female gentiles. And while I was waiting sometimes multiple dates for my commission, all that JAP free love was right up there in Tel-Aviv…er, New York.

Almost makes me wish I had asked the JQ earlier in life.

1/05/2012 01:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Jake said...

Somewhat on topic, Whiskey goes all Doctor Strangelove on us - Mein Rebbe, I can walk!:

1/05/2012 10:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea Mitchell has a daughter (by way of Alan Greenspan). She is a New York City debutante, though not particularly gorgeous. Well, let me tell you a little story.

Andrea Mitchell doesn't have a daughter by Greenspan.

I don't think she has any daughters.

1/06/2012 03:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

More why?! oh whys?! from Auster (

If whites, particularly whites in prominent positions, would start publicly speaking the truth about race and race differences, half of America's white-black problems would be solved. But the whites will never do this. It is as though they have a structure implanted within their cerebral cortex that makes it absolutely impossible for them to say that blacks differ substantively from whites in any way, no matter how grossly manifest such differences are. Whites would rather die, and let their country die, than state the simple truth that blacks are significantly less capable than whites, and that this is the reason why blacks are behind whites in every indicator of intellectual and economic achievement.

Wonder what would happen if whites, particularly whites in prominent positions, would start publicly speaking the truth about race and race differences between Whites and Jews.

Gahhhh! You ANTI-SEMITE!!!

It's easier to say that "whites", meaning gentile whites, have psychological problems - "they have a structure implanted within their cerebral cortex" - than state the obvious: Whites have been indoctrinated since at least the end of WWII to think of themselves and their history as shameful and racist. None of which applies to Jews. To the contrary, their history is one of being victimised and genocided. Something which the Whites, who have cerebral cortex problems, did to them.

People think the alt-right is here to save us. People like OneSTDV, Auster, Half Sigma, Whiskey etc.

It seems to me it's just more of the same White shame and get out there and kill yourselves for Israel blather.

1/06/2012 03:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Scott said...

I had some fun with your idea, Pat, on a comment at Mangan's.

1/06/2012 08:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Cicatrizatic, thought provoking comment which I used in my subsequent thinking comment to Scott. Thank you.

Funny thing about Auster is that he says things about Jews that I agree with yet, I am an anti-semite for saying so. He, he's just holding up a mirror to help them see better.

When Jews van make a nation wherein they till the soil and fill the government, all of their own accord without interfering in other people's lives, then and only then will I respect them.

This is an observation and statement paraphrased of G. K. Chesterton from some 100 years ago. It holds today as much as it did then. Chesterton was called an anti-semite for it at the time, though with non of the criminal and economic sanctions we have today.

How much have times changed in light of that? Today a fella like Brendon O'Connell gets three years in gaol for "anti-semitism" in Oz, and the rest of us obsess nightly over Israel vs the Mid East, while flooding our nations with non-White scum.

1/06/2012 10:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Armor said...

** the Jewish takeover of academia and media, in which White people's reputations, careers, and respectability are torpedoed at the mere mention of race differences. Obviously its not brain deficiences but ethno-politics. **

If so, what is the solution? Do we really need to train a White intellectual elite? Do we need to invent a new mythology for the White masses? Do we need to know in advance what measures need to be taken when enough people rebel against the anti-White regime and it becomes possible again to influence the political process? Do we need to be ready with a well defined plan?

In fact, what is needed above all is publicly assumed racial solidarity. We must spread the information about the Jewish problem and how Jews are in control of our White nations but do not see themselves as part of them.

The Jews didn't know from the beginning what to do with us. What makes them successful against us is mainly their aggressive hidden racism, not a carefully followed plan. For White people, it may be useful to make preparations for the future, but what's needed most of all is racial affirmation, the open defense by all White people of their racial interests.

1/07/2012 12:22:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Excellent point Armor.

1/07/2012 11:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Robert Stark said...

Hello Tanstafl. I am interested in interviewing you on my radio show on VOR. Sorry about posting on this thread but I could not find your contact info.

my e-mail is

1/07/2012 09:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Rollory said...

OT - Svigor's blog is gone. Svigor, you here? Was that your doing or spontaneous action by Google?

1/08/2012 06:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"aggressive hidden racism"

Well said.

1/08/2012 06:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Roll, no, that was Jewgle. I just noticed it yesterday. I'm over at Wordpress now.

1/08/2012 12:47:00 PM  
Anonymous SK said...

Armor This is what Whitaker's Mantra is designed to do. Point out to all, the inconsistency of antiiracism over and over like advertizing. White people need a voice and an undeniable demand. Once we get that, we will be able to figure out what to do next. After all it's Whites who have always been very good at building things.

1/08/2012 03:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary said...

So he’s opened the gates barely while standing in the breach like Kevin Bacon in Animal House: Let’s all just move along…Remain calm…all is well…ALL IS WELL!

Porter, well done---I forgot to mention how much this made me laugh :)

1/09/2012 07:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...


At the outset I'll say that I have not read Sailer's thoughts on confession. I have no need as I already understand its essence.

That essence is this:

1. An act of supplication by one before another who is perceived as being dominant by dint of the latter's superiority.

2. As an expression of one's will to power in which one, with heedless courage, bordering on temerity, reveals all of one's perceived self (e.g., a Rousseauian "Confession").

This second variety is, I assume, the more common one with regard to kikes. You know, when they provide you with juicy nuggets for your blog, and so forth. Yes, pride goeth before the fall; or so one hopes.

P.S. Funny that "Daybreaker" should resurface just as confession is mentioned. Hmmm.

1/10/2012 11:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Captainchaos said...


"If so, what is the solution? Do we really need to train a White intellectual elite? Do we need to invent a new mythology for the White masses? Do we need to know in advance what measures need to be taken when enough people rebel against the anti-White regime and it becomes possible again to influence the political process? Do we need to be ready with a well defined plan?"

Interesting and apropos questions, though answering them with actual seriousness cannot be so easily dismissed as you imply by the rhetorical way in which you enumerated them. Even your favored solution in the stead of serious answers to those well-placed questions (a rather vague call for "racial affirmation") only stands to further beg the question: how much affirmation is appropriate? The German answer was of course to openly announce themselves a "Master Race" and thus arrogate to themselves the right to rule Europe.

You see, and as I adumbrated in a previous comment in this thread, for Jews to consider themselves a "Master Race" is nothing more than reflex and mother's milk. For Whites, on the other hand, an ad hoc political religion (I mean National Socialism, of course) needs be created (or, for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that it does) to get them to assert their fullest will to life.

1/11/2012 12:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Armor said...

@ Captainchaos,

** how much affirmation is appropriate? The German answer was of course to openly announce themselves a "Master Race" and thus arrogate to themselves the right to rule Europe.**

I don't think that's true. My own country is Brittany, where the German presence during the war coincided with a brief relaxing of the French anti-Breton policy. It became possible to have pro-Breton newspapers and teach Breton in public schools. Breton was even heard on the radio. An official structure was created to promote dialogue between the French administration and Breton nationalist intellectuals. So, as far as I am concerned, the problem was not the German master race, but the French master frogs.

Germany didn't declare war on France, France declared war on Germany. It's claimed that the Germans wanted to rule over the world, but that is precisely what the English (and the French) were doing, before the Americans took over from them. The invasion of Russia is often claimed as evidence of Hitler's madness. But in his latest broadcast at Voice of Reason, Mark Weber says that Stalin was about to invade the whole of Western Europe.

I don't think that Hitler really saw Slavs as sub-humans. The German population certainly didn't want their army to indefinitely occupy the whole of Europe.

** For Whites, on the other hand, an ad hoc political religion (I mean National Socialism, of course) needs be created (or, for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that it does) to get them to assert their fullest will to life. **

Hitler didn't create a political religion. He used state propaganda in order to support traditional views and promote a positive image of the German identity. The other day, I was looking for a brief sum-up of the main aims of National Socialism. I googled "National Socialism". The two first results were rubbish from Jewkipedia, and the third one was a document by Lyle Burkhead (about 40 pages). Here is his introduction :

" National Socialism is the opposite of international finance capitalism, i.e. the opposite of globalization. Under National Socialism, engineers would not lose their jobs to outsourcing, and great industrial cities would not be disintegrating and turning back to farmland. There would be no such thing as Goldman Sachs, or the Federal Reserve, or big box stores full of merchandise from China. If China were National Socialist too, the Chinese economy would not depend on exports. Instead of a globalized economy, there would be independent national economies. (...) International trade would still exist (you could still drive a Honda if that's what you want), but it would be a fraction of what it is now. The financial system would be simple and straightforward; there would be no such thing as "derivatives". The economy would be based on industry and education, not on finance, insurance, real estate, casinos, and prisons. "

If that is a good description of National Socialism, then I agree with it, but I would rather call it something else than National Socialism, as the word evokes something else for most people.

** how much affirmation is appropriate? **

It's interesting to speculate about that, but for the time being, the priorities are to create non-Jewish media, and explicitly pro-white organizations. In order to do that, you don't need to know what is the next step.

Ideally, racial affirmation would mainly consist of stopping the race-replacement and sending the non-whites back to their own nations, or giving them a separate piece of territory. After that, eugenic common sense measures will be needed. For example, it is important that the smartest people would no longer be prevented by their careers to have children.

1/11/2012 03:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there anything anyone could recommend reading regarding NS economic policy, banking, finance etc?

Like everyone else in the white world (UK in my case) Im having to unlearn a lifetime of anti-Nazi propaganda.

1/16/2012 03:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Zx said...

@Anonymous at 1/16/2012 03:11:00 AM

I am wondering the same thing, but I can provide some pointers-

I think one of the best "neutral" (well, non-PC anyway) books about NS economic policy is supposed to be The Economic Recovery of Germany from 1933 to the incorporation of Austria in March 1938 by C Guillebaud (published in 1939).

Steven Books in Britain has some short pamphlets about NS policy:

I have not read the Guillebaud book, so I cannot say if it mentions NS monetary policy, but I know that "How Germany Did It" by Kerry Bolton (available through Steven Books and elsewhere) does.

The main thing to note about NS monetary policy (as far as I can see) is that the NS government realised it could itself create and spend money debt-free into circulation rather than having to borrow money created by a central bank (just as with Lincoln and his greenbacks).

In Which Way Western Man (see - chapter 19, part C, section 8) after many pages explaining the rottenness of our current monetary system, William Gayley Simpson wrote...

"It has been proved that the proposed way of issuing money (government issued, debt-free)
works wonderfully well, on the scale both of the microcosm and of the macrocosm, both in
the very small, in the case of towns and villages, and in the case of a great modern nation.
Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale, writing when the great depression of the early
Thirties was at its worst, described how it had been resorted to first in the German mining
town Schwanenkirchen and in Woergl, a town of some 4,000 in Austria. And in both cases it
worked no less than a miracle...

It was to promote this movement and to guide it that Professor Fisher wrote his book Stamp Scrip. Perhaps it is not without significance that this book received no notice from the Book Review Digest, has long been out of print, and is now difficult to find.

But before the movement died out, or was stamped out, the idea it grew out of had amply
proved its soundness.

But the opponents of the idea, the supporters and hangers-on of the orthodox, Jewish
money system, would be quick to argue that though it might work very well as an emergency
measure, and on the small scale, for towns and villages and even perhaps for some cities, it
would never do as the money system for a nation, especially, a large and highly industrialized
nation. And in particular, how could debt be avoided when a nation did not have within its
borders all the resources and know-how essential to its existence?

Interestingly enough, and, I submit, very significantly, the antagonists of the idea, in defining
the nation where they believe it could not work, have rather exactly described a nation in
which, there’s no denying, it did work. The nation I have in mind is Nazi Germany. Hitler
began his rule by breaking with the international bankers. He believed that Germany could
never be a sovereign and really independent state so long as she had to live on borrowed
money. Instead of going to the bankers for money to buy what she had to procure from
abroad, she bartered (that is, swapped) some of her surplus to obtain what she needed from
the surplus of other nations—without debt being incurred on either side."

1/16/2012 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Zx said...

It might also be worth reading this extract ( from Ellen Hodgson Brown's Web of Debt if you have not seen it before (although the book as a whole is very confusing and a bit unreliable).

And in The New Unhappy Lords (, A.K. Chesterton wrote "The other danger inherent in the policy of the Third Reich concerned its firmly held belief that if goods were available for exchange between nations there was no need
for either party to resort to international lending houses to finance the deal. ... Had Hitler continued to develop Germany on an autarchical basis, bartering surplus production for needed imports, he might conceivably have conferred on mankind the
greatest gift since Prometheus stole the fire from Heaven."

1/16/2012 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for that Zx, I'll try and look into that stuff.

1/17/2012 03:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Pat Hannagan said...

Yes, thanks for that as well Zx.

Re: Im having to unlearn a lifetime of anti-Nazi propaganda.

That should be the goal of all WN sites.

1/17/2012 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to be so late on this one; you can read P. Roth's "Operation Shylock" here.

1/31/2012 08:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Majorityrights post relating to German economic policy here.

2/12/2012 05:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All comments must be approved by the blog author"
So, I will begin by acknowledging the censorship of opinion exercised by the author of this blog, and (like him) I will opt to remain anonymous.
I am currently reading Roth's "Operation Shylock" - an enterprise I would commend to the author of this blog.
As for my credentials, they don't get much more Anglo-Saxon than mine. How many who see themselves as being supremely 'white' can trace their ancestry back a thousand years and more?
Having said that, the Age of Treason would be given a failing grade by anyone who has actually taken the time to read the book in question.
For the record, Roth's book heaps more scorn on Jews than on Gentiles. Yes, those who have only referenced extracts might delight in thinking otherwise, but more the fool them.
Shakespeare's Shylock was confounded in attempting to exact his pound of flesh, and the Age of Treason's mischaracterization of the book's plot betrays a similarly flawed goal. It is the epitome of either deceit or stupidity to attempt to represent this book as "jewish(sic) hostility toward Christianity, Christians, and Whites in general."
Philip Roth does not hide his opinions behind anonymity. In "Operation Shylock", he has run riot with the multifold failings of Jews and Zionists alike.
But, I suppose, it is simpler to take passages of the book out of context and expound on their meaning. It's the very way too many so-called Christians demean the Bible.
And not to put too fine a turn on things, but wasn't it a Jew named Saul who promoted the message of a Jew named Jesus so that Gentiles could also embrace the Covenant God made with mankind?
Selective reading, like selective breeding, spreads all kinds of weakness, disease and foolishness.

3/06/2012 08:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

"Selective reading, like selective breeding, spreads all kinds of weakness, disease and foolishness."

The thrust of your argument is that I'm stupid or crazy - specifically because I didn't read Roth's entire book. Did you read every post on my blog before writing that?

The other point you make is that Roth is critical of jews, or zionists at least. It seems you didn't even read this blog post, because the point I made in it is that the basis for Roth's criticism is what's good for the jews. Would that Anglo Saxons, or Whites in general, torture themselves with criticism like that!

Your misreading of my critique as being all about Roth is itself selective. The "what's good for the jews" attitude is typical of jews, not just of Roth. It is probably why his books have been so popular with jews and why he is celebrated by them rather than shunned.

Finally, I can't help but wonder what unspoken circumstances motivate someone who purports to be an Anglo Saxon to take the time to respond to a pseudononymous critique of jewish behavior. If my opinion is so foolish then why must you even waste your time addressing it?

3/07/2012 05:21:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home