A Critic Replies to Paul Gottfried

Paul Gottfried Replies to His Critics

Paul Gottfried, professor of humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, raised the question of “white nationalism” in a thoughtful essay at Takimag.com. This produced a lively debate (see “Thinking About White Nationalists,” by Paul Gottfried, “The Sad Sorority of Skin,” by John Zmirak, and “Are Racialists Warm and Cuddly?” also by John Zmirak, on a site that is a staunch defender of Western Civilization but does not normally raise the question of race. The exchange at Takimag came to an end before Prof. Gottfried had written his reply, so his concluding observations appear below.

(I did not duplicate the hyperlinks to Zmirak’s pieces because they’re not worth my effort, or the time of racialists - Zmirak is triangulating, not engaging)

Contrary to the assertion of one of my respondents, it should not be expected that these people put themselves in harm’s way by telling the truth or by saying anything different from what is currently PC.

It shouldn’t be expected, but that doesn’t change the fact that they (collectively) would be better off in the long run if they did, the way we collectively are better off for the men who died fighting the redcoats, the way the inheritors of the South would be better off today for the men who died fighting the Blues, had they won. The point had nothing to do with expectations, and everything to do with the proper course of action for our collective good.

What is the advantage in speaking out?

There’s little advantage to be had in leading with one’s chin at this point (what was the point of all the martyrs down through history, by the way?). But there are degrees of speaking out. One can easily speak out anonymously on the Internet with no real fear of reprisal. One can, with a bit more difficulty, evangelize one’s family and friends. One can contribute anonymously to the right causes, few and far between though they may be. One can raise one’s children with the right values.

Most of my acquaintances, who are not associated with explicitly political websites, have no desire to hear politically incorrect truths, and are certainly not interested in expressing them at their peril.

That’s a bit of a non-sequitur; there’s a big difference between having no desire to speak out, and having the desire but fearing to do so.

I also find myself disagreeing with my respondents about the obviousness and immediacy of that danger faced by white Americans because of our present social policies.

Certainly they’re not obvious to the average Joe. Nothing that isn’t piped in through his television on a regular basis is. But to anyone who is curious and intellectually honest, they’re as plain as day, once he’s been exposed to the facts.

Note these policies are put into effect with the explicit or implicit consent of the white majority.

Nonsense. You cannot have it both ways - either one expresses these facts at one’s “peril,” or the majority agrees, but you can’t have both. That’s like saying the people living under Soviet rule were enamored with their masters. How can that be known, when dissent was punished? The analogy is apt; there’s no way of knowing the real degree of assent amongst Europeans for the genocidal race-replacement regime.

If our administrative and educational policies, which are often admittedly demeaning to white people, were perceived as injurious to those affected, one might expect to see the public rising up in anger.

“At their peril”? Even perceiving the race-replacement regime as injurious is out of bounds for the average Joe; that sort of thinking leads to cognitive dissonance, and that way lies social and financial ruin, or at least “peril.” Human nature clearly rewards individuals who avoid such cognitive dissonance.

But exactly the opposite is happening.

White flight is the opposite of rising up in anger? Defecting to the Republican party en masse (the not-quite-as-anti-white-as-the-evil-party party) is? Finagling the system and foregoing the busing paid for by their taxes in order to personally taxi their kids to the next school over is? An intermarriage rate of 3% is? Grass roots rebellion at the state level against mass immigration and anti-European racial quotas are?

Tens of millions of white Americans are eager to give their votes to a presidential candidate who spent 20 years ardently courting black nationalists.

Because they’re hoping his “post-racial” crap isn’t a big lie, hoping that MORE appeasement will finally get through to Africans (who they’re told are only failing due to European racism, of course), and hoping to send a message to the war party. Obviously many Europeans have drunk the Kool-Aid, and actually believe the multicult claptrap - to an extent; they’re not going to send their kids to public school or integrate their neighborhoods for Obama.

Then there’s the whole media-concocted Magic Negro effect, which is operating in spades if you’ll forgive the pun.

Obama’s wife, Michelle, who routinely targets whites as racists, enjoys far more enthusiastic affection among white Americans than do any or all of the white nationalists currently residing in the U.S.

Which only serves to highlight the power of the media.

While such behavior is bizarre,

No Paul, it isn’t bizarre at all. It’s to be expected. It’s bizarre knowing what we know, but how many people know that?

it seems that if white Americans felt as oppressed by racial minorities as white nationalists think they should, they would have noticed their plight and have tried to change it.

And water’s wet and the sky is blue.

The fact, however, is that those whom white nationalists consider white victims are not as numerous or as embittered as white nationalists would want us to believe.

Bait and switch; one need not know one is a victim in order to be one. By many accounts, African slaves were quite happy with their lot in America. Today, racially aware as they are, they’re content to let themselves be pushed aside by Mexicans, who are aided and abetted by African leaders and politicians! And we can always return to the analogy of the happy, content, homo Sovieticus.

But in the meantime I don’t see disaster around the corner, even if high energy prices mean that our disintegrating, feminized families make fewer trips to the mall or to the local fast-food provider. The descent of white Americans into a self-despising and self-indulgent minority would certainly suggest there are problems for us ahead, but these are problems that the majority—while it remains a majority—should be able to address before they occur. If whites ignore them, then whatever suffering will ensue is fully and richly deserved.

So, genocide is okay if a people is duped and intimidated into acquiesence. There’s some deep conservative thought for you.

To remain consistent, you should campaign to have fraud laws removed from the books. After all, fraud usually involves a victim unwilling or unable to perform due diligence. Where’s the crime in fleecing an idiot?

Then we could discuss rape laws. Was she asking for it? What was she thinking, turning down that alley, and wearing that dress? How many lovers has she had in the last year?

As should be apparent, I do not have much sympathy for most of the white majority

That much is obvious. Which makes me wonder at your judicious use of the word “we” previously, but we can get into that later.

nor do I think this majority is being unfairly discriminated against, given the fact that they themselves support parties and politicians who enact the discrimination against them.

So, if I treat you roughly, and credibly threaten much more of the same against you and your family if you resist, and you acquiesce to spare yourself and your family a dividend of pain, you think I’m treating you fairly? Sounds like Bizarro World morality to me.

You seem to imply that there are no media or financial gatekeepers in this country, that our political system is open, honest, representative and responsive, and that genocidal mass media indoctrination is fair play.

Unlike my Jewish relatives whom the Nazis booted out of Europe, white Americans are a majority who would be able to control their destinies, if they chose to.

So, presumably, European man’s sin is that he isn’t as ethnocentric as the Jew? Doesn’t stand up for himself the way Jews do?

If Jews could go back in time, to before the Jewish holocaust, would most try to change history in favor of Jewry, or would they just throw their hands up and proclaim “Jews just trudged into the camps like cattle, they deserved what they got”? Would they be persuaded by the kind of argument you’re making here? Or would they respond with hostility and righteous indignation?

That they behave differently is the result of two circumstances: one, they have not been abused to a point where they would notice or care what is happening to them

True, but given the short-circuiting of their social nervous system by hostile ethnies and their European Uncle Toms, is it anything less than understandable?

and two, the putative victims are too infantile and too eager to throw their ancestors under the bus in order to court liberal favor.

So, they’re infantile, but somehow they aren’t victims for not standing up for themselves “at their peril”?

This is simplistic, much as the entirety of your piece has been up to this point. They’re faced with bad and worse, and you’re blaming them for choosing bad.

I do not think that cognitive disparities are irrelevant to building civilizations or to the possibility of residing in a peaceful society.

Neither do I, but I know they’re irrelevant to the central question of racial nationalism. First you remove the armed intruder from your daughter’s room, and see that he’s locked up for his crimes so he can’t threaten your family. Then you help her with her homework or buy her braces or whatever. Self-improvement is secondary to self-defense.

Finally, unlike my interlocutor, I see no moral need to dwell on our supposed collective sins against minorities.

Here we agree; I’m more of a mind to present African America with a bill than anything else.

This confessional mode is growing wearisome; what is more, there is too much responsibility on the black side of race relations to justify the appeal to white guilt. The violence in our cities, the dysfunctional nature of American education, the venting of racial bigotry, and the poisoning of academic discourse have all accelerated with the triumph of the civil rights movement.

Africans can’t live up to European civilizational norms. So it’s a bit much to opine about their “responsibility.” Responsibility for what? Their ancestry? Their evolutionary history? Think these things through, Paul; I don’t think you have done. We can be plain with one another - African violence is overwhelmingly a result of African nature. The only blame to be had here is with those who peddle Africans as Europeans with differently-colored skin and invent lies to paper over this absurdity.

I’m amused by your reference to the poisoning of academic discourse. That’s quite the reversal of logic. One minute you have no sympathy for the European majority, the next you’re blaming Africans for poisoning academia. No Paul, your egghead friends (your class, which no doubt explains your reluctance to skewer them as you do the European majority) are responsible for that. They’ve done most of the poisoning themselves, and are responsible for the relatively little poisoning Africans have done, too.

Not only that, but they get tenure and still do nothing (with some notable exceptions), which is pretty shameful if you ask me.

In fact I cannot think of any group that has used its equality—which has in this case led to special privileges—more abusively than have American blacks.

How could you possibly expect anything else? It’s as natural as the sunset. To expect otherwise is to tacitly support egalitarianism and race-obscurantism.

Admittedly blacks were at one time victims of real discrimination but what they have done since does not indicate (with some notable exceptions) an individual or collective ability to exercise citizenship particularly well.

Now I’m confused. If you can state plainly that Africans cannot live up to European norms, then why not carry the logic through and acknowledge that they aren’t irresponsible, but incapable? Why blame them for their behavior at all, when the real problem is Europeans’ expectations of them?

Obviously Africans were better-behaved in the past, but that was when Europeans were willing to lean on them. That pressure and egalitarianism are mutually exclusive.

(and I should point out, since I’m defending WNism, not just my own viewpoint, that the foregoing take on Africans is a minority view in WNism in my experience; many WNs both blame Africans for failing to live up to European norms and point out their inability to do so)

And here too I would indict the brain-dead whites who have relentlessly abetted the politics of guilt, a situation that has done nothing to help blacks and everything to sap the forces of moral and social order.

If demerits for wrecking our society are to be given out, I am forced to assign most of them to white Americans.

Now you’re back to lambasting European Americans, having skipped neatly over your bowtie-wearing friends. While I agree with your statement, that’s only the beginning of the story. Europeans have been duped into carrying water for others’ interests, and against their own. That’s something they’d change if made aware, but since our social nervous system has been hijacked and short-circuited, we can’t do that.

That’s what slaves do; they whistle and sing in the fields, eat the food they’re fed, sleep on the hay they’re given, and go along to get along; they learn massa’s religion and kneel to his god. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t slaves, it doesn’t mean their lot is just or fair, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean that they’re pursuing the course of action best suited to their interests.

I’m not impressed with your latest missive on WNism. It’s facile, dismissive, and inconsistent, and I’m convinced you’re too smart and honest for that. An honest assessment of, and discourse with racial nationalism is going to take much more effort on your part.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 12:18 AM in
Comments (31) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 08, 2008, 01:02 AM | #

In fact I cannot think of any group that has used its equality—which has in this case led to special privileges—more abusively than have American blacks.

I can help you think of one, Paul.

Posted by Gregory on July 08, 2008, 02:20 AM | #

That group wouldn’t be (fill in the blank), would it Svigor? Nah, impossible!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 08, 2008, 03:29 AM | #

Outstanding job by Svigor. The main problem for Euros is the way the Jews have the mass media in pro-race-replacement lockdown and Jewish pit-bull NGOs such as the ACLU, the SPLC, and the ADL have the whole society in pro-race-replacement lockdown. The mayor of a tiny Pennsylvania town takes reasonable, extremely moderate steps to do something about the Mexican invasion and in less than a microsecond the Jewish pit bulls have filed three dozen fifteen-quintillion-dollar lawsuits against his town and him personally, gotten court injunctions paralyzing the town, and sparked major demonization of the town and mayor by the allied Jewish press and media consisting of every major media outfit in the country. Jews are organized for this by their nature. They’re sort of on a war footing from birth. Euros aren’t. Euros simply don’t think or act that way, they don’t expect the blindsiding the Jews are constantly giving them, and they even have trouble believing it when it’s pointed out, so unlike their natures is it. Why do Jews own all the communications media? Jews as an ethnic group make it their business to gain monopoly control of communications media not because they love being journalists but precisely because such control confers immense power to reward and punish — confers immense power on their ethnic group to influence society and to demonize enemies. There are certain societal avenues by which new leaders normally arise spontaneously, in response to new needs. The Jews have all such avenues covered and barricaded specifically against questioners of race-replacement so no new leadership can arise in response to this new need no matter how reasonable, moderate, Jew-friendly or non-Jew-threatening — the Jews instantly swarm out like bees out of a hive and sting him to death. It’s instantaneous. Poor guy never knew what hit him. Prof. Gottfried is wrong that Euros are acquiescing in it. It’s being methodically forced on Euros and the single biggest agent of force is the Jews. They keep leadership from arising through the normal channels or any channels short of armed revolt. (Which may come — pray God it doesn’t.)

Posted by Selous Scout on July 08, 2008, 02:26 PM | #

Pray God it does. We all know it’s coming. That’s why all this impassioned talk on websites and blogs is, in the end, pretty pointless.

Posted by Zsidozas on July 08, 2008, 02:41 PM | #

Fred Scrooby—I am constantly impressed by the high intellectual level of your comments regarding the Jewish Question on this website along with a few others. Do you have your own website or blog where you gather all of these excellent and important thoughts regarding Jews?

I am particularly intrigued by your comparison to Jews in Western societies (which I remember reading in another one of your posts) as a sort-of artificially introduced ‘invasive species’ which grows without being adequately checked by factors in the environment, eventually crowds out many of the native species, and is very harmful to the overall ecosystem. This truly is an excellent theory that, at least in my mind, explains the role of Jews in Western societies most accurately.

And just so you know, I’ve recently started a blog that deals solely with the Jewish Question and if you would like to read what I write there (and comment there too if you feel like it) I’d really appreciate it. My blog’s address is: http://zsidozas.wordpress.com/

I hope to be making more posts beginning now and in to the future regarding many aspects of the Jewish Question.

Keep writing Fred!

Posted by Sally on July 08, 2008, 02:45 PM | #

Professor Paul Gottfried’s remarks were completely predictable and may be summed up as three of the principal memes that he wants us to believe, each of which distract us from constructing a society to live in that we can enjoy. He missed some of the memes and themes like “Who Is White?” and “We’ve Already Lost” and “It’s Whites’ Fault They Lost,” but he hit another three pretty well with the clear intention of hammering them home as is done by so many propagandists on blogs.

1) “The tendency to understand truth and morality as having universal validity is not exclusively Western or Euro-American.”

The meme of “universality” is a widely praised value, but in practice it always serves to validate the speaker’s position based on his or her demographic, gender, nationality, or religion. The diverse white American peoples desperately need to rip the meme of “universality” from their plans and goals, and celebrate a free society of localism, independence, and truly popular culture, one arising from our people, not the corporate entertainment culture or the dominant media culture.

It is hard to overstate how critical a role this meme plays in silencing us as we seek to give voice to our own longings, cultures, and goals.

2) “The fact, however, is that those whom white nationalists consider white victims are not as numerous or as embittered as white nationalists would want us to believe.”

The labeling meme of “white nationalists” and “white victims” is an idea alien to our free expressions. These terms are called categories of discourse, and are divorced from how real people think and feel. These terms exist to muddy the waters and confuse us. I hope everyone noticed that his source for thinking that the white awareness movement was to claim victimhood....his source was the West Coast deceiver, David Horowitz. Horowitz doesn’t speak for us.

3) “Moreover, blacks almost always are found at the bottom of this list in terms of their real cultural accomplishments and their performance in building peaceful societies.”

And now we see the great meme of seeking our focusing on black Americans, a meme desperately designed to make us look the other way. Professor Gottfried might as well have said, “Move along, nothing here to see here, look at those people.”

If we can wipe those three memes from our minds, we will have made a giant step toward self-sufficiency, an honorable life, and a revived culture and civilization.

Posted by Zsidozas on July 08, 2008, 03:25 PM | #

Re: Fred

“The Jews have all such avenues covered and barricaded specifically against questioners of race-replacement so no new leadership can arise in response to this new need no matter how reasonable, moderate, Jew-friendly or non-Jew-threatening — the Jews instantly swarm out like bees out of a hive and sting him to death.”

I’ve noticed this as well in many societies where Jews dominate the media/press along with the economic structures, not only in America.

In all societies and cultures where they live, Jews constantly and persistently oppress the people who oppose them using all means necessary. For example, Tsar Nicholas II was murdered along with his family by a gang of Jewish Bolsheviks. Assassinations of opponents of Israel by Jewish/Israeli agents are a routine occurrence in the Middle East and elsewhere. Very early on the Jewish-dominated Soviet Union passed extremely strict laws against antisemitism and anti-Jewish activites—these were instituted by Lenin (he was himself partially Jewish) who was surrounded and influenced by fanatical Jews in the newly-formed Soviet government. More recently, in the Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko was no doubt poisoned (with the intent to kill him) and left permanently disfigured by Jewish/Zionist agents within the Ukrainian government who saw him as a threat to their hegemony there.

I’m not a Neo-Nazi or anything like that, but the Nazis were astute students of the Jewish Question and thus their ideas deserve to be considered. Certain passages which describe this phenomenon are found in Hitler’s Zweites Buch:

“...extirpation of the folkish intelligentsia and its replacement by the members of his own [Jewish] people.”—“The end of the Jewish world struggle therefore will always be a bloody Bolshevization. In truth this means the destruction of all the intellectual upper classes linked to their [non-Jewish] peoples so that he [Jews] can rise to become the master of a mankind become leaderless.”—“...the first attempts to extirpate the [non-Jewish] national intelligentsia were undertaken in the form of revolutions.”—“With the help of the Bolshevik revolution the Russian upper classes and also the Russian national intelligentsia were murdered and completely extirpated [by Jews] amid inhuman agonies and atrocities. For the Russian people the total number of victims of this Jewish struggle for hegemony in Russia amounted to 28-30 million people in number of dead.” - http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc5.html

Jews have a very long tradition of marginalizing and belittling their opponents through the mainstream media/press, we all know that. However, if this doesn’t work or if the opposition is too strong it seems that they attempt to overthrow anti-Jewish societies/cultures through revolutions and then seize power (either directly or indirectly), which eventually leads to the imprisonment and/or murder, execution, or assassination of prominent anti-Jewish people and leaders ("the national [native] intelligentsia") who naturally oppose their nefarious agenda.

Posted by Bo on July 08, 2008, 04:36 PM | #

Zsidozas says above, “Jews have a very long tradition of marginalizing and belittling their opponents through the mainstream media/press, we all know that.”

Let us moderate this slightly by saying that the revolutionary mainspring since at least the French revolution does include campaigns of defamation. We’re working on a hypothesis that revolutionary hopes can be tracked by which group is being defamed the most by our dominant media culture. Oddly enough, it’s not the group set up for the next revolution, it appears to be the last group to disappoint the revolutionary vanguard in its hopes of a spear-carring group for revolution.

For example, the Bolsheviks in America and Europe for a very long time pinned their hopes on, frankly, the white men making up the blue collar workers and union members. From the revolutionaries’ viewpoint, this category set to become the strong supporters of the vanguard spearpoint, utterly failed the revolution. Our hypothesis is that then we saw “All In The Family” and its numerous kindred, focused purely on defaming the earlier, much praised, would-be spear carriers. If true, this would turn some revolutionary theory on its head and create a new way of looking at the overall process of revolution and defamation.

Next we saw the capture of African-American groups to support a revolutionary spirit. But when earning enough to live in the suburbs, the African-American leadership has left the hard revolution plantation and its less skillful cousins to their fate in central cities. Their “punishment” is to be replaced in the media by Latinos, women, and gays to be the new spear carriers. This is particularly interesting because the Left Coast press has left black Americans out of its reporting compared to the attention this “oppressed” group received a mere 10 years ago to focus on Latinos. The old bleeding-heart, sob-sister columnists have forgotten black American grievances, and focus on Latino grievances now. It’s not defamation per se, it’s just disappearance.

The revolutionaries will soon discover that Latinos want the house & picket fence, too, and most especially so do the gays who perform the counter-revolutionary role of re-taking urban centers. The gays won’t last long as spear carriers for radical change when they abandon the revolutionaries.

Women are more problematic as they become the dominant force in academia and as they become more divorced from their biological underpinnings, but it is doubtful that they could put on a complete revolution.

All this shifting from spear-carrying group to new spear-carrying group is leaving a seriously flawed social order in its wake, but it is an interesting speculation that the most massive defamation is dumped on the heads, not of the natural leaders of our social order, but of those spear carriers who disapointed the spearhead vanguard of revolution.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 08, 2008, 09:57 PM | #

Presumably, to remain logically consistent, Gottfried:

1) wants suicide legalized
2) wants exhortation to suicide legalized
3) thinks suicide is okay
4) thinks suicides or would-be suicides deserve to die
5) has no sympathy for suicides
6) gives advice to would-be suicides and those who love them similar to the advice he gives WNs
7) et cetera

Posted by .357 on July 08, 2008, 10:45 PM | #

Re: Svyatoslav Igorevich on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 09:57 PM | #

Sounds like Gottfried and Dr. Jack Kevorkian have allot in common.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 08, 2008, 11:30 PM | #

And like some clowns in the comments thread, I’d ask Gottfried his position on fraud. To remain consistent, Gottfried:

1) wants fraud legalized
2) thinks fraud is okay
3) thinks victims of fraud deserve to be defrauded
4) has no sympathy for the defrauded
5) gives advice to fraud victims similar to the advice he gives WNs
6) refers to victims of fraud as “brain dead” and the like
7) et cetera

Presumably, Gottfried tells little old ladies who’ve had their life’s savings stolen from them by confidence men that they “deserve” it, that he has little sympathy for them, that they’re to blame for not protecting their assets, etc.

Which isn’t much of an analogy because little old ladies spent their lives being warned about confidence men, not indoctrinated from the cradle to give their life’s savings over to them, or threatened with “peril” for sending them packing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 08, 2008, 11:32 PM | #

Thank you for your support, Zsidozas.

No, I don’t have a blog. MajorityRights.com is my “home base.” I’m not a blogger here but comment often in the threads and have translated two or three articles for posting under “guest blogger.” As you know, I also post in the comments threads at TheCivicPlatform.com and was a semi-regular commenter at OdessaSyndicate before it closed.

Thanks for mentioning your blog, which I skimmed today and found highly interesting.

Posted by Prozium on July 09, 2008, 04:23 PM | #

I reverted to the Occidental Dissent domain, Scroob.

Posted by Matra on July 09, 2008, 08:29 PM | #

Gottfried:I also find myself disagreeing with my respondents about the obviousness and immediacy of that danger faced by white Americans because of our present social policies.

And with that he gives the game away. His future comments must all be considered with reference to the above statement. He does not see himself as a white American. That was to be expected. But after years of giving the impression that his interests lay with the preservation of white America he now sounds like any other Jewish neocon or liberal. Given that Samuel Francis’ last decade and a half of writing and activism was all about race one has to wonder what PG’s long friendship with Samuel Francis was all about. [Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?]

Vanishing American perhaps speaking a little too generally about those who make up the Ellis Islanders makes an excellent point:

The Ellis Islander sees us as ‘other’, as the privileged descendants of the colonists who made life hard for their immigrant great-grandparents. I cannot help but think there is almost always a lingering resentment and alienation, and at best, a sense of difference from us, a plain inability to see America as we see it.

Gottfried thinks we have brought this situation on ourselves—as if our system really allows any meaningful participation by us…

I suppose this piece should be seen as a necessary bit of cold water being dashed on us: now we can wake up from this dream that anybody who is not ‘of us’, by his own perception, cannot be counted on to be a voice or an advocate or a champion of our people. We have to speak for ourselves and stop this vain search for ‘others’ to side with us or speak for us.

It may be ‘xenophobic’ but I will assume that anybody who is not old-stock American has some other competing interest or agenda.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 09, 2008, 09:10 PM | #

Thanks, Proze, I was wondering where I could find you these days. I’ll check it out.

Posted by ben tillman on July 10, 2008, 06:11 PM | #

Unlike my Jewish relatives whom the Nazis booted out of Europe, white Americans are a majority who would be able to control their destinies, if they chose to.

Jews constituted an overwhelming majority at Auschwitz and could therefore have controlled their destinies, if they had chosen to.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 10, 2008, 10:31 PM | #

Jews constituted an overwhelming majority at Auschwitz and could therefore have controlled their destinies, if they had chosen to.

Perfect!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 10, 2008, 11:46 PM | #

I agree with Svi, that was a good point by Ben. We are in lockdown. All organs of mass communication are tightly controlled to exclude our points of view; all leadership espousing our views and possessed of mainstream potential is methodically nipped in the bud, aggressively marginalized, so that we remain leaderless as far as the mainstream goes; all election campaigns are carefully manipulated so that only candidates with views congenial to our masters can rise; all grassroots movements that spring up in counter-reaction to our overlords, ones such as the Promise Keepers, the John Birch Society, David Duke’s movement, or the state-by-state “Militias” popular some years ago, are destroyed by a combination of relentless media calumny, heavy governmental infiltrations and federal and NGO punishments and legal harrassments/law suits/social sanctions (as are being brought to bear on Prof. MacDonald right now by the Jews), etc.

The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, the East Germans in 1953, the Hungarians in 1956, the Czechs during the Prague Spring of 1968, the Tibetans today were/are all in lockdown too, and tried/are trying to do something about it — with the success we’ve all seen (the success of an orange being run over by the wheels of a ten ton truck).

Any realistic attempt right now at bursting our chains would involve a hysterical federal counter-reaction against us on the order of Waco, Hungary ‘56, and Tian An Men Square. Waco was clearly meant partly as a warning, a warning to us: they know very well we’re here, of course, and they were showing us what they’ll do to us if ever we try to extricate ourselves.

Posted by 2R on July 11, 2008, 05:53 AM | #

“Waco was clearly meant partly as a warning, a warning to us: they know very well we’re here, of course, and they were showing us what they’ll do to us if ever we try to extricate ourselves.” (-Fred Scrooby)

This is 100% correct. Even if the government was right regarding Koresh sleeping with under aged girls, or about having unregistered guns, there was no reason for that reaction. All the government had to do was starve them out, as eventually they would have ran out of supplies, water, or food. That incident came at the height of the Militia movement in the 90’s, and was as you pointed out, a warning to white people that basically said “IF YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT TRYING TO RESIST US, WE’LL FUCKING KILL YOU AND YOUR KIDS!!!!!!!”

If that had been a sect of Jews or Blacks behaving in the same way, I guarantee you the government would not have reacted in the same way. And what’s most disturbing about it, more white people would have been upset if the sect were black or Jews than they were over them being white.

Posted by Flanders Fields on July 11, 2008, 11:19 AM | #

“In fact I cannot think of any group that has used its equality—which has in this case led to special privileges—more abusively than have American blacks.”

Except perhaps those who empower blacks and every other minority, and who are key to the importation of even more minorities - not for the purpose of advancing American or other societies - but to use those minorities and immigrants for tools in a process for tearing those free societies apart. Empowering them illigitimately in alliances whereby their powers are used abusively and in the most treacherous of ways.
----

“During the 1950s and 1960s, Jews and African Americans were closely allied in the civil rights movement, and, indeed, Jews played a prominent role in the leadership of most, if not all, of the major civil rights organizations. As noted earlier, Stanley Levinson, a Jewish attorney, was Dr. Martin Luther King’s chief advisor. Kivie Kaplan, a retired Jewish businessman from Boston, served as president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and was, as well, one of Dr. King’s major fund-raisers and financial contributors. Marvin Rich, another Jewish attorney, was the chief fund-raiser and key speech writer for James Farmer, head

[p. 146] ... More than half the white lawyers who made their services available to civil rights demonstrators in the South were Jews. Between half and three-quarters of the contributors to civil rights organizations - including the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), CORE, and Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Con- ference (SCLC) - were Jews. More than half the white freedom riders were Jews. Almost two-thirds of the whites who went into the South during the Freedom Summer of 1964 were Jews including, of course, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman who, along with their black colleague James Chaney, were murdered by racist thugs in Mississippi.

Jewish intellectuals and the journals of opinion that they controlled, including Commentary, spoke out forcefully on issues of civil rights. Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League provided financial, legal, and organizational support for civil rights groups.

In the civil rights struggle, Jewish morality and Jewish interests pointed in the same direction. Morality dictated that Jews support the efforts of African Americans to free themselves from the apartheid system. To a generation of liberal Jews this was a supreme moral imperative. At the same time, however, many Jews and Jewish organizations, in particular, also recognized that they had an interest in supporting the civil rights movement. First, the goal of a society in which discrimination based on race was outlawed served the interests of Jews as much as - perhaps even more than - blacks. In the absence of discriminatory legislation and practices in such areas as education and employment, Jews had every reason to believe that they could compete successfully and rise to the very top of American society. By supporting African Americans in the cause of civil rights, Jews were eliminating the barriers that stood in their own way as well

Moreover, the political forces that the civil rights movement was attacking were forces in American society that were also enemies of the Jews.”
-----

“… Jews not only staff domestic social agencies but are ... extremely active in the public interest groups, think tanks, consulting firms, and universities that develop the domestic state’s policies and are funded by its grants.

Given this stake, Jews cannot afford to engage in or tolerate political tactics or public rhetoric that seriously threaten to discredit blacks. This is one of the major reasons that Jewish racism, often expressed privately, seldom manifests itself publicly. African Americans are simply too important to the legitimacy of the American domestic state. If Jews engage in attacks on blacks, or permit doubts to be raised about the merits of their political claims, then Jews are, in effect, undermining a major moral prop supporting the institutions from which they, themselves, derive enormous benefits and through which they exercise considerable power ... in a number of institutional contexts African Americans and Jews have been pitted against one another in competition for jobs, access to education, and control of public institutions and funds. ... especially true in urban service bureaucracies and in universities where blacks are seeking positions presently held by Jews ...”.
----

From: Jews Over Blacks Quotes from Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1993. Ginsberg, a prominent Jewish intellectual, is Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University.

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/j-over-b.html

-----

Posted by Flanders Fields on July 11, 2008, 01:12 PM | #

[quote

]"Gottfried:I also find myself disagreeing with my respondents about the obviousness and immediacy of that danger faced by white Americans because of our present social policies.

“And with that he gives the game away. His future comments must all be considered with reference to the above statement. He does not see himself as a white American. That was to be expected. But after years of giving the impression that his interests lay with the preservation of white America he now sounds like any other Jewish neocon or liberal."[/

quote]

VA said,

“It may be ‘xenophobic’ but I will assume that anybody who is not old-stock American has some other competing interest or agenda.”

My reply to VA follows.

VA,

What kind of mindset might cause some Ellis Islanders have a different viewpoint about the reason for being patriotic toward America, or at least be on a distinguishable plane of thought about giving unswerving loyalty to the country after assimilation which was different from others who came into our country?

I think many can remember when business in America was supportive of America, but it cannot be said to be that way today. What has caused the massive “wave of internationalism”, both in the mindset of the public and in the operational aspects of those formerly patriotic businesses which steadfastly supported traditional American principles?

The following may give some indication what some differences may be:

Quotes from The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews Volume One

Published by The Nation of Islam, Chicago, Illinois 1991

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/secret.html

“...the Dutch West India Company colonized and settled the Western Hemisphere solely to establish a steady flow of natural wealth back to its European investors, not to any national authority. This is a critical distinction and the source of much of the animosity against the Jews. The Gentiles were, for the most part, nationalists, owing their allegiance to the nation in whose territory they resided. They respected the edicts of their government particularly with regard to international relations. The Jews, on the other hand, considered themselves as Jews first, particularly in international commerce. They remained internationalists without the patriotic fervor of their Gentile countrymen. When their host country was at war with a trading partner of the Jews, and on whom an embargo had been placed, the Jews would continue trade by various methods including the changing the name of the ship and/or its owner to one suiting the law in the port where they desired entry. They did not see this smuggling as illegal or even harmful just business. These were, after all, private transactions among private businesses and individuals - not with any government....”.

---

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2008, 01:48 PM | #

Excellent, eye-opening points raised in both those comments by Flanders Fields!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 19, 2008, 08:10 PM | #

Posted at Turnabout:

Paul Gottfried makes some interesting points in a thinkpiece on white nationalists over at Takimag.

His basic argument:

“The rising generation cares even less than its parents about holding onto an inherited civilization. Most of my students in Western Civ courses have only the vaguest idea of the figures in the Bible (including Jesus) and their knowledge of modern history is usually confined to such inanities as ‘Hitler was a bad man because he was intolerant.’”

That being the case, the advantage of the white nationalist Right under present circumstances is that “it promotes a sense of belonging and elitism that does not depend on sustaining past traditions” that no longer exist.

The basic problem with the approach, of course, is that “whiteness” doesn’t have much to say about what life is about, so it can’t serve as the basis of social order. That’s why the extreme nationalists and racists of the last century relied so much on theatrics and on an ideology of infinite struggle for infinite dominion that made no sense and could only end in catastrophe. As Gottfried puts it in connection with the present situation:

“The materials that white nationalists bring into play seem inadequate for any serious war for civilization. The most they may end up producing is a fiercely defended critical perspective. And while that perspective can be directed against leftist and neoconservative assumptions, it is not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order.”

In addition to that point, which I agree with, and which suggests a welcome concern with visions of order, [Prof. Gottfried] makes another point that in the past he’s emphasized in a variety of ways:

“The majority in a multicultural society is encouraging others to trash its heritage and to practice discrimination against the majority. What is wrong ... is not oppression by others but the glorification of self-destructive behavior.”

I think here he’s taking too seriously the idea of the majority as an actor that deliberates and makes decisions that are attributable to the people in general. In fact, the active part of the “majority” that’s doing the encouraging is our ruling class of experts, managers, and functionaries, the heritage they want trashed is not their heritage of social rationalization but the competing incompatible heritage of classical antiquity, Jerusalem, the European middle ages, and normal life in general, and the “majority” targeted for discrimination is not experts, managers, and functionaries but normal white men, who are not as such our dominant class. (White male managers and experts are powerful because they are managers and experts, not because they are white males.)

“Public opinion” shouldn’t be understood as if it were a direct outcome of whatever the views the individuals making up the public happen to be, with the way the views are aggregated a secondary matter. In a mass society of 300,000,000 people dominated by huge institutions and by specialists there’s not much practical reason for any particular individual to put serious thought into political and social issues. It makes more sense for each to go with the flow, as the flow is represented to him by a system of public discussion and information dominated by expertise, large institutions, and money. If he comes up with a view at odds with the official view, people will call him names, he’ll have to come up with his own Theory of Everything to defend it, and nobody will understand him anyway. Why bother? And if you’re going to go along anyway, why not reduce friction and tell yourself it’s all for the best?

Modern society has a remarkable ability to separate man from his fellows and from his own identity and heritage, so that the only available principles of order and functioning are the ones formally laid down. That’s one reason modern society is able to combine tyranny with a manner of functioning that is usually comparatively nonviolent. Even when it turns to atrocity the atrocities are bureaucratic and orderly, with people standing quietly in line waiting to be murdered.

Modern inclusivist society represents that atomizing tendency on steroids. The tendency enables it to destroy whole peoples in a gentle and orderly manner. Under such circumstances, does it really make sense to represent that society and what it does as the people’s own choice? How can a disconnected aggregate like the present American people think or make choices? To my mind, rather than blaming the victim it makes more sense to investigate how accepted views are defined and propagated, what contrary impulses there are that might be the basis of something better, and how to disrupt what’s being propagated and give rationality and public presence to more hopeful principles now suppressed.

This Turnabout log entry has two parts, the first agreeing with Prof. Gottfried’s claim that WN suffers from the lack of a broader philosophy (a criticism I disagree with, in that WN is perfectly justified in resisting deliberate Euro-race genocide on the basis of existing European-civilizational philosophical traditions without being obliged to invent whole new ones), the second rightly pointing out what Prof. Gottfried seems not to believe, that the broad populations of whites are not asking for and don’t want race-replacement but it’s being forced on them by élites (Kalb of course doesn’t refer to “race-replacement” but I see the present crisis first and foremost as consisting of that, amounting furthermore to genocide: if that’s not genocide, nothing is).

(Jim Kalb’s eagerly-awaited book on liberalism and what’s gone wrong with modern Western society should be coming out in a few months.)

Posted by B.C. on August 05, 2008, 11:38 AM | #

“I also find myself disagreeing with my respondents about the obviousness and immediacy of that danger faced by white Americans because of our present social policies. Note these policies are put into effect with the explicit or implicit consent of the white majority.” - PG

He’s not making much sense. The “immediacy and danger faced by white Americans” isn’t a function of whether or not we consent or whether or not we can be fairly blamed.

Posted by B.C. on August 05, 2008, 12:33 PM | #

“While such behavior is bizarre, it seems that if white Americans felt as oppressed by racial minorities as white nationalists think they should, they would have noticed their plight and have tried to change it.”

I don’t feel “oppressed” by racial minorities (though my grandkids might be). I feel oppressed by the liberal elite.

White Nationalists want an end to white-destructive policies (mass immigration, etc) and white-destructive propaganda. It isn’t about feeling “oppressed” by minorities.

I like Gottfried but on rare occasions when he engages those to his right, he tends to set up strawmen.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 05, 2008, 01:14 PM | #

Excellent points by B.C. just above. We’re not being race-replaced by the Negroes or by the Mestizos or by the Subcons or by Chinamen or by all of them put together. We’re being race-replaced by our own governments which have been taken over by a group hostile to Eurochristians, hostile to the point of wanting us to go out of existence. Our governments under the control of this hostile group have managed to get us strapped down and helpless so they may go ahead with seeing to our slow but sure demographic annihilation. The main way this group succeeds is by controlling the mass media, on the principle of “if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a sound?” No, so just keep anyone from hearing anything that amounts to resistance and no “sound” will be made, and if so much as a peep does get through to innocent ears, sting the sound-maker to death instantly, so instantly it’ll be as if he never existed and any who might have heard the peep will soon forget all about it. If we were free men there’s not a non-white on Earth who could even dream of race-replacing us, but seeing how this alien group in control of our government, control assured partly by its control of the mass media, has got us strapped down and helpless, and perpetually leaderless by their careful design, all the non-whites from all the jungles, deserts, stinking fever swamps, pestilential hellholes, and exotic zoos on the planet come swarming in here in their trillions and, thanks to this group holding the doors wide-open and imposing an entire set-up here by which this assortment of anthropoids and mystery meat begins lording it over us the instant it steps off the cattle boat, actually begins race-replacing us before our astonished eyes.

This vaguely anthropoid material isn’t race-replacing us nor could it. Our own government is, using this other as the means to get rid of us. Look to see who’s controlling our own government in this particular regard, and you’ll be staring our race-replacer in the face.

Posted by B.C. on August 05, 2008, 02:31 PM | #

You made an important point, Fred.

Gottfired writes: “they would have noticed their plight and have tried to change it.”

They’re doing it to us SLOW enough so that it’s less noticeable. You don’t see them floating proposals to bring all of Bangladesh over here do you? They didn’t start out by normalizing interracial marriage, did they? It’s critical to their project that it’s done nice and slow.

Posted by B.C. on August 05, 2008, 02:35 PM | #

Just one objection: “mystery meat” and “vaguely anthropoid material.”

BTW, I noticed the company has blocked kinism.net. But I still get access to MR (for now).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2008, 12:52 AM | #

“Just one objection: ‘mystery meat’ and ‘vaguely anthropoid material.’ ” (—B.C.)

I hear ya. But as I see it, I have to be honest and up-front with the readership.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2008, 10:26 AM | #

I made the following comments in response to the comments of Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer, author of the below article:

National Review Purges Buckley!
Posted by Richard Spencer on October 15, 2008

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/national_review_purges_buckley/

Question: If Christopher Buckley is supporting Obama for what seem to be typically
leftist reasons and if he has continued his dad’s accommodation of the media-induced
Zeitgeist by wandering further to the left, why shouldn’t NR force him to resign? Note
I am no fan of NR and would be delighted if this enterprise went bankrupt. What I
question is whether it is blameworthy for our enemies to keep their mag from drifting
even further left by demoting an editor who has become a standard leftist. To offer a
parallel: although I dislike Communist regimes, I never criticized them for defending
bourgeois morality.

Posted by paul gottfried on Oct 16, 2008.

I think the absence of any rightwing strategic justification on Buckley’s part for
rallying to the radical leftist, erstwhile black nationalist candidate in the
presidential race says it all. In any case Chris is only acting on a wish that his dad
often expressed on Firing Line, that it would be good for us emotionally to have a black
president. Presumably any black candidate would do, as long as he enjoys the support
of the Buckleys’ New York social circle. In my view, I see no reason for any of us to
take his side in a battle among our enemies on the left. But if one forced me to take
sides, I would have to back Rich Lowry rather than the middle-aged rake who’s
now kissing up to the Obama Left.

Posted by paul gottfried on Oct 16, 2008.

Gottfried: “...why shouldn’t NR force him to resign?”

I can see you moving the Chess pieces.

“...dad’s accommodation of the media-induced Zeitgeist...”

And who is it that “induced” the “media” to change the “Zeitgeist”?

“To offer a
parallel: although I dislike Communist regimes, I never criticized them for defending
bourgeois morality.”

Very deft. How often and in what instances that you adduce did “Communist regimes” do said?

My guess is not often and not many - but that is not what you were going for.

It is “bourgeois morality” that would plausibly prevent the current management of NR from pushing out the founder’s son - “poor form, old chap”.

The Communists were noted for their purges, their ruthlessness. Current NR management pushed Chris Buckley out or, if I force the issue, ‘purged’ him. In asking why not do this you implicitly endorse said tactic whilst in the next breath implicitly defending “bourgeois morality” in saying that you did not criticize Communists for defending BM; yet, you are not an absolutist in your prescribed application of BM, as has been establised.

“In my view, I see no reason for any of us to
take his side in a battle among our enemies on the left.”

“Enemies,” that is a strong word to use - it is most appropriately used to describe ones opponents in a high-stakes contest, which this is, which you realize. That is, presumably, why you recommend the suspension of BM in this case and such cases.

But just who are our “enemies”?

“...Buckleys’ New York social circle.”

A euphemistic answer, sufficiently vague for ‘plausible deniability’s’ sake.

“I think the absence of any rightwing strategic justification on Buckley’s part for
rallying to the radical leftist, erstwhile black nationalist candidate in the
presidential race says it all.”

Whose “rightwing strateg[y]” should ‘we’ (who is ‘we’?) use? Yours? Paleoconservatisms? Is your strategy and that of paleoconservatism one and the same?

That goes to who ‘we’ are, what are ‘our’ true interests, and what is effective?

To my mind ‘we’ are those of Indo-European descent;’our’ interests are those that provide our people with a morally health, prosperous society that is predicated upon ensuring our genetic continuity; and paleoconservatism is ineffective because it refuses to explicitly address the necessity of ensuring our genetic continuity.

Re: Obama as “black nationalist”

Either Obama possesses a great degree of self-control in not exposing his “black nationalist” feelings in a Rev. Wright style outburst or the pronouncements made in his ghost written book are a pathetic attempt by a superficial, deracinated man to construct a defiant, ‘authentic’ identity (perhaps this is a false dichotomy, but I doubt it). Which is it?

For arguments sake, let’s say it is the former, as you assert. Is racial nationalism illegitimate across the board (i.e., for Whites)? It would seem that the fairness of Anglo-Saxon BM would dictate so; but we know, however, at times you are willing to dispense with BM. Is this such a case? Would you allow racial nationalism for Whites but not for blacks?

Should American citizens of all ancestries flock to the banner of paleoconservatism even though we have no reason to believe that would be effective in ensuring the genetic continuity of White Americans?

Do you even care if our people go extinct or are mongelized beyond recognition? If so, why won’t you say so explicitly? If you will not say so explicitly, why should we assume that you do? And if you do not, why should we listen to you?

Posted by Captainchaos on Oct 18, 2008.

Noel,
1) I’m using “Jewish” to describe an ethnic group--most anti-Semites hate Jews as an ethnic group, not as a religious community.
2) Ayn Rand very much did oppose the US entry into Vietnam (and Korea), and in _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_ actually talks about Vietnam being an “altruistic war.” She also opposed the draft and other good things. Her followers have been more hawkish, however.
3) NR could have been integral in Buchanan victories in ‘92 and ‘96 and you know.
So try again.

Posted by Richard Spencer on Oct 20, 2008.

“I’m using “Jewish” to describe an ethnic group--most anti-Semites hate Jews as an ethnic group, not as a religious community.” - Spencer

By my lights an anti-Semite is one who would deny the Jewish people the necessary means to ensure their genetic continuity - their ability to exist.

By that definition I am not an anti-Semite; all people have the right to exist and no less we.

Atheistic Jews such as Dershowitz who speak against inter-marriage yet pathologize White racial consciousness and solidarity are abject hypocrites.

They would deny to people of European descent the necessary means to ensure their genetic continuity. They are anti-White.

BTW, I’m still waiting on Gottfried’s response to my questions.

Posted by Captainchaos on Oct 20, 2008.

I am a manual laborer. I have experienced the ‘joys of diversity’ up-close and personal. I cannot afford to live in a gated community. In the final analysis, if someone is to defend me and mine from the depredations of non-Whites the buck stops with me - and those like me.

There are more, like me, waking up every day. We will never bend the knee, ever. We are willing to sacrifice our lives so that our people may live. We are White men; the only men worthy of that name.

Why has it fallen to me, and those like me, to be the indefatigable voice of our people?

Why not you, ‘the great and the good’?

Posted by Captainchaos on Oct 20, 2008.

And of course no response from Gottfried or Spencer (apparently Gottfried’s protege). Trenchant comments like these get deleted and get you IP-banned over at Takimag as some of my more recent comments have resulted in. I thought this should be a part of the record, lest it disappear down the memory-hole too. The faileo-cons, and Gottfried in particular, are no friends of our people, in my opinion.

Posted by Gudmund on November 01, 2008, 03:51 PM | #

CC,
Some posters at Takimag are sympathetic to our cause. The administration of the site is not. In fact, they seem to have (whether explicit or implicit) anti-White agendas in many cases (think Gottfrid, Zmirak, etc).