Christopher Hitchens

Posted by Tournament of Champions on October 01, 2005, 02:14 PM | #

The best way to describe neoconservatives is Jewish Nationalists + gentile stooges. Their actions are easy to predict if one thinks of them as Jewish versions of David Duke or Matt Hale, except with the reins of an actual government.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 01, 2005, 02:24 PM | #

TOC

> Jewish versions of David Duke or Matt Hale, except with the reins of an actual government.

How does that work again?

Posted by Tournament of Champions on October 02, 2005, 05:40 AM | #

GB,

Neocon policies can be analyzed as many here like to of G**P’s positions- from an explicitly ethnic perspective...just place oneself in their Florsheims.
Take demographic policies, as Kevin MacDonald has spoken of. Demographic terraforming, after all, is a top WN priority- as it is for JNs.

A narrow example: we can deduce that unless stopped they shall pursue mass immigration at least until the point where the white gentile population is sufficiently panmixed or too few in frequency to ever threaten JN power. We can therefore predict perhaps another 20-40 years of mass immigration in the US, at which point they would likely gradually close it out.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 02, 2005, 03:42 PM | #

Both of ToC’s comments above are right apart from some details, one detail being not all white Christian neocons are stooges:  Christopher Hitchens, William F. Buckley, Jr., Karl Rove, President Bush (and probably Bush’s father), Vice President Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich (though no longer in power he spouts off from time to time in brief interviews and so on), Rush Limbaugh ... shall I go on? ... who are all radical neocons whether implicit or explicit, can’t be described as anyone’s stooges.  (The Rev. Pat Robertson would be in this group were it not for the fact that Jewish neocons loathe both white Christianity and white Southerners.  He supports Bush, supports the war to impose Po-Mo on the Moslem world, and has no problem whatsoever with race-replacement—and he is no one’s stooge.)

In the U.S. there’s a sense in which one could call all Country Club Republicans neocons:  they all seem to support the agenda.  Although the Jews are playing a big role, and their role needs to be continually brought out into the open just as anyone else’s role needs to be, they couldn’t get anywhere without the entire white Christian establishment acting as if the neocon project is the best thing to come down the pike since sliced bread. 

By “neocon” one refers of course not only to the absolutely insane and immoral undertaking of forcing cultural-Marxist post-modernism on the entire Moslem world by military conquest (radical women’s lib, radical diversity-worship, multiculturalism, the rooting-out of formal religion and time-honored national and community custom, tradition, and myth, the re-writing of the history books, the destruction of traditional morality, traditional marriage, and the traditional family, and so on), but also race-replacement.  If you consider race-replacement as separate from the forcing of po-mo on the Arabs and other Moslems, you get an even greater level of support for the neocon agenda (for that particular portion of it) among white Christians:  look at white Christians such as Jacques Chirac, Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Vatican Court, and so many others who oppose the neocon war project against Islam but fervently support race-replacement. 

That race-replacement is succeeding for reasons that go beyond JNs wanting to eliminate the WN rival is seen in the fact that white Christian élites who cannot be described as dupes or stooges want race-replacement.  Look at Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, worth fifty-five billion dollars:  he’s no stooge yet supports radical race-replacement.  We could go down the list of white Christian billionaires, none of them stooges, who want it—Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, the list is endless. 

Was the late Bob Bartley of the Wall Street Journal Jewish?  Not that I’ve heard.  Big race-replacement advocate ... and no one’s stooge. 

Look at John Ray, who blogs here:  by no stretch could he be described as a stooge, yet he sees no problem whatsoever with race-replacement of white Australians with yellows and Subcons (he does draw the line at replacing white Australians with Negroes). 

We’re up against way more than JNs pursuing JN interests.  JNs pursuring JN interests is of course a big part of it but there have been JN factions dwelling in white Christendom pursuing JN interests since 1880, since 1492, since the year one, and (judging by commentary hostile to the Jews in pre-Christian antiquity) since the BC era.  Why is it only catching on like wildfire now among the targeted group?  Because the targeted group’s own élites want it. 

That race-replacement isn’t a force of nature is shown by the fact it’s only happening to white-Euro populations, and that it isn’t inevitable among highly-developed first-world nation-states is proven by the example of Japan.  It’s stoppable. 

The role of JNs is only one of the many causes that need to be targeted.  Two other causes are contemporary highly-effeminate Christianity, and women’s suffrage and the role of women in politics.  Race-replacement is almost inevitable where women get into the voting booth and into politics and care isn’t taken to neutralize the effect of their blindness to the existence of race and nation-state. 

It’s no accident that Marxists bent on destroying Western Civilization have made the cultivating of an alliance with women against men a key strategy for a hundred-and-fifty years.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 02, 2005, 04:18 PM | #

ToC:

I remain unsatisfied with your analysis. Perhaps an argument can be made that WN’ists and Neocons are inversely related: WN’ism being a reaction to Neoconism(Trotskyism).

For example:

Neocon: Internationalist, Jewish Agenda, Centralizing, Cosmopolitan, Rootless

WN: Nationalist, Gentile, Regional, Particularist, Local.

But they are not simply one body, that can wear two different masks as you suggested (10/01 at 02:14 PM).

--------------------------------------
Note: Frankly, I know very little about Matt Hale, other than he was involved in a Christian Identity movement and was FRAMED by the US Secret Police, a shameful act by our authorities, regardless of how unsavory he may or may not be.

As for David Duke, I think he is much more clever and interesting character. He, in contrast to Hale, is a well known public figure with defects and talents. Though he maybe flawed I still wouldn’t trust anything written by the controlled media about him.

Posted by Phil on October 02, 2005, 04:59 PM | #

Both of ToC’s comments above are right apart from some details, one detail being not all white Christian neocons are stooges:  Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens is technically Jewish. His mother is Jewish.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 02, 2005, 05:59 PM | #

Phil, I recall reading his own account of that.  (I don’t have the link any more.) Around three or four years ago—something like that; might’ve been a little longer ago—he discovered completely out of the blue that his grandmother was Jewish.  I don’t remember the additional details, such as what her maiden name was, how she had come to Britain and met his grandfather, or whether she was his paternal or maternal grandmother.  Hitchens was never Jewish in any way.  It’s a little strange that he took such an interest in his Jewish heritage from the instant he discovered it, he who hates religion and tradition.  One would have expected him to disregard it with a big yawn.  But if I remember the article right, he made a trip to Israel, I think, as you might expect of someone whose sudden discovery about his ancestry causes him to yearn to get close to his roots:  why would this man whose ideal is the most absolute rootless cosmopolitanism suddenly be filled with yearning to discover his roots—and religious ones, at that?  The whole thing was bizarre coming from him, extremely bizarre.  But he’s a strange guy—and an odious one, too, a petty totalitarian at heart, really, underneath all the veneer of principle and Cambridge-educated (or was it Oxford?) urbane polish.  He’s an excellent writer and I always read his stuff.  But he’s a viper, a little snake in the grass, someone who, if he had power, would do mass murder without batting an eye as the communist mass murderers of the last century did, the basic trick being first to classify the political enemy as less than fully human then exterminate him as you would a less-than-fully-human insect with as little pang of conscience.  Hitchens is at bottom a very bad guy.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 02, 2005, 06:02 PM | #

With a bit of hunting around someplace that’s got his column archives one should find that piece he wrote.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 02, 2005, 06:10 PM | #

“He’s an excellent writer and I always read his stuff.”

I always read it when I happen across it, that is.  Good though he is as a writer, his typical subject matter isn’t such that I go round seeking his stuff out, so in fact I end up reading him only seldom.  (There was a period in the past when I did seek out his columns semi-regularly.  In understood less about his real nature then, by the way.  I’ve got him pegged more accurately now, in that regard:  he is in reality, underneath the veneer, extremely unsavory.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 02, 2005, 09:15 PM | #

Turns out he learned it not a few years ago, but in 1988:

“In the early days of December that my father was to die, my younger brother brought me the news that I was a Jew. I was then a transplanted Englishman in America, married, with one son, and, though unconsoled by any religion, a nonbelieving member of two Christian churches. On hearing the tidings, I was pleased to find I was pleased.” [More.]

By the way, I don’t get this business of considering himself “a Jew” on the basis of having a Jewish grandmother.  Yes I know about the Jewish view that being Jewish is inherited maternally but we’re not talking about pure mysticism here.  I do consider Jews a distinct race, just as I consider Flemings and Walloons, English and Welsh, Poles and Ukrainians, and Bavarians and Saxons all races and all distinct from each other.  But is anyone going to call someone who is one-quarter Welsh and three-quarters English, who was raised in England and lived all his life as an Englishman, a Welshman? 

I don’t really get it.  And I didn’t re-read the whole thing over again just now, so forgive me if Hitchens does satisfactorily address that issue in the piece—I can’t recall.

Posted by Phil on October 02, 2005, 09:19 PM | #

Fred,

I read some quotes by Hitchens once and then made a point never to waste my time on him again - he is envy, anger, resentment, hatred, cosmopilitan vanity combined with vices that have clearly caused him no end of agony (his drinking for example).

But he isn’t alone. There is no shortage of middle class leftists like him in this country.

A very unremarkable man. The only question is: why are supposed “conservatives” like Kristol entertaining him now and giving him a forum to air his odious opinions?

Posted by Phil on October 02, 2005, 09:22 PM | #

The only question is: why are supposed “conservatives” like Kristol entertaining him now and giving him a forum to air his odious opinions?

The question of course answers itself. If Stalin were to emerge from his grave and support the Iraq war, we would have the Weekly Standard running Joe’s weekly columns.

That is the nature of these so-called “Conservatives”.