Tactics vs. a good night’s sleep

Posted by Don Miller on April 15, 2006, 05:11 AM | #

Maybe renaming the problem will help. Forget “Jewish question” and embrace the “European question” or, if you prefer, the “Christendom question.” That sounds simplistic but it can clarify what the proper frame is.

We need to stop referring to ourselves and our problems in a Jewish frame. They have bedeviled us for centuries, but we need not embrace their names for us, their attitudes toward us, or their frames for our issues. We need not be judeocentric.

Our organizations must NOT rip themselves apart over whether Jews should or should not be members. Those in the know understand how to handle such situations on a practical and day-to-day basis. Teaching the next generation, already brainwashed in government schools, is the hard part.

Beginners will need to be carefully handled, but those of us around for ten years are certainly aware of the delicacy of Jewish participation and, indeed, that of philo-Jews as much as that of judeophobes.

I don’t think devious maneuvering is necessary, either. We first have to learn to speak up for ourselves everywhere without apology. And fold in a little restraint, a pinch of courtesy, and a ladle (rhymes with ADL) of tact.

Posted by Al Ross on April 15, 2006, 06:39 AM | #

Earlier this week, a Canadian media giant, Can-West, purchased a number of properties, including major radio stations, in Turkey. The Asper family, which controls Can-West, is Jewish and I emailed the biz.yahoo link to KMac, with a comment about the Muslims’ being very ill-advised in allowing this deal.

He replied and opined that this transaction would probably help Turkey’s EU membership bid.

The last thing the EU needs is Turkey but that doesnt matter as long as Israel’s nefarious interests are served.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on April 15, 2006, 08:25 AM | #

That same company of course own the Ultimo (NSW) based television station Channel Ten which has been heavily promoting the singer Ben Lee.

Posted by Charles Copeland on April 15, 2006, 10:01 AM | #

Accepting input like Igorevitch’s judeophobic ravings puts Majority Rights not just in the leper colony, but in the leper colony within the leper colony.

No wonder there is hardly any other website that links with you (possible Stormfront, I haven’t checked).

Moderator, please remove Igorevitch, once and for all.

Posted by john on April 15, 2006, 10:46 AM | #

Sounds like Igorevitch is doing something right.  I agree with Don Miller, let cooler heads prevail. In a movement and a little discipline
is needed.

Posted by Al Ross on April 15, 2006, 11:19 AM | #

“Please remove Igorevitch once and for all”.

I trust there’ll be skiing on the hills of Hell when that happens.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 12:07 PM | #

If what Taylor is saying is that criticism of Jews will not be allowed in AR and the question should never be brought up, that is fine. I think there are many people who are critical of Jewish activism who may also agree with that (for tactical reasons) and I certainly do.

There is however a larger question of what else this is going to achieve. The tiny number of Jews who agree with us are pariahs in their own community (much more so than the growing minority of white Gentiles who are likely to agree openly or at least in private with what we say). A recent US survey revealed that while 52 percent of Protestants thought immigration was good and 61 percent of Catholics felt that way, 90 percent of Jews felt it was good.

Jews are, as a block, further to the left than any ethnic group in the US (with the possible exception of blacks - and even here blacks probably have more “right wing” views on things like homosexuality, Gay “marriage” etc.).

I believe in non-interference. Those who wish to work with AR need to remember what the rules are for engagement. Those who disagree have hundreds of other forums and web sites in which to discuss their views.

I take Taylor’s point that if his organisation is to continue to grow and focusing on Jews turns a lot of people off, then it is prudent not to go there at all. And that’s fine. But I can only hope that he is not deluded about a serious degree of support from Jews in general (compared to the much higher levels he is likely to receive from white Gentiles). Too many Jewish people still think in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?” first and foremost and if that question is answered in a manner that is prejudicial to the interests of whites generally, they stick with it. Unfortunately, their liberalism and extreme leftism is often associated with their own notions of “Is it good for the Jews?”.

This problem is not going anywhere. As long as Jews in overhwleming numbers finance and support open borders and cultural Marxism, they will be heavily criticised ny nationalists.

Lawrence Auster wrote earlier on his web site:

The fact remains, however, that the Jewish people, far out of proportion with any other ethnic group, keep producing a fantastic number of leftists, whether they are “Jewish” or not. Any gentile country with a significant Jewish population needs to consider honestly this Jewish tendency and find responsible ways of restraining it. Ignoring it will only allow it to become more and more destructive (just as the Jewish left is destructive of Israel itself), leading ultimately to the growth of serious anti-Semitism on the part of the majority population.

In some ways what Auster is saying is more “judeophobic” (to use Charles’ hyper-sensitive terminology, and my apologies to Mr. Auster for suggesting that it is “judeophobic in any way, which it obviously isn’t) than Taylor’s position. Auster’s point is that Jews should be criticised where it is justified. Taylor says we should not even broach the subject.

As for this site, we do not consider any question verboten. The fact of relentless Jewish activism (past and present) in the cause of open borders and cultural Marxism is an established fact. If mere mention of these things on MR makes some people uncomfortable, then so be it.

Posted by EV, EF, ER on April 15, 2006, 12:35 PM | #

Jared Taylor occupies an important centrist niche. Of course jews won’t remain in his organization given the growing stormfront contingent, but choosing not to “name the Jew” allows Amren to provide a respectable platform (from the pov of the uninitiated masses) for academics such as Rushton, Richard Lynn or Andrew Frasier for the fight on other critical fronts. He’s been very effective in that niche, and WNs should recognize this and not tear him in two.  Why ask him to become another NA or NV or SF when such groups already exist?

Posted by James Bowery on April 15, 2006, 01:15 PM | #

I recently heard that Rabbi Mayer Schiller came out against Jewish “subversion”.

Well… this is new and a welcome development.

It was a long time coming but it is the kind of statement that could resolve this problem correctly.

I think if men like David Duke can’t accept men like Mayer Schiller in an organization like Amren, then Duke should be excluded and Schiller accepted.  But has Duke been given a chance to respond directly to men like Schiller and vis versa?  This seems to be a good niche for Amren but it doesn’t look like it will serve that niche.

Posted by lothar on April 15, 2006, 04:12 PM | #

American Renaissance claims to be a race realist organization.

The Jews are a race.

The Jews are not White.

These are facts.

They are true however much some Jews have contributed to philosophy or the sciences or the arts and however much some Jews are pro-West, pro-European or pro-White.

To be a race realist means acknowledging these facts.

American Renaissance and Jared Taylor can not honestly claim to be race realists without doing so.

Jews can be allies - but they can not be “us”.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 15, 2006, 04:37 PM | #

> Jews can be allies - but they can not be “us”.

You think so, eh? I don’t.

Furthermore, they claim WE tried to extirminate the in WWII. Why would they trust us? Would you?

Posted by rabbit on April 15, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

In “The High Priests of War” by Michael Collins Piper there is a chapter on Amren and Mr. Jared Taylor
(p.88 - p.91) alleging Mr. Taylor ‘to be an asset of the CIA’ with strong connections to Pro-Zionists and neo-cons.
It would be very sad if Amren is just another “infiltrate, spoil and destroy” operations of ZOG and their puppets.

Posted by Søren Renner on April 15, 2006, 05:13 PM | #

Moderator, please remove Igorevitch, once and for all.
Posted by Charles Copeland

I never cared for Aaron Copeland and Errant Copeland’s tune is even more sickening.

Posted by Ben Tillman on April 15, 2006, 05:20 PM | #

Accepting input like Igorevitch’s judeophobic ravings....

Did I miss something?

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 15, 2006, 05:30 PM | #

> Moderator, please remove Igorevitch, once and for all.

If he is not removed, Charles, what are you going to do? Not post on MR anymore?

Posted by Matra on April 15, 2006, 05:32 PM | #

James Bowery:I recently heard that Rabbi Mayer Schiller came out against Jewish “subversion”.

An interview with Rabbi Mayer Schiller from 2000. He seems to be sound. Here he is on the American South:

The collapse of the Southern resistance has always been a fascinating topic to me.  Here were people who in the mid-fifties were saying that they would never abandon their way of life.  Ten years later it was all over.

The Supreme Court decision was in 1954 and by 1967 or so they had lost every battle.  There is integration of public accommodation, schooling, everything.  Now you don’t hear any of their previous ideas mentioned by the same politicians by and large.  There was a lot of bluff and bluster, a lot of angry rhetoric and when push came to shove there was surrender and a complete turning of their collective backs on their own people and their own traditions.  It was similar, I think, with the National Party in South Africa, which was founded to protect the Afrikaner and which became the vehicle for the destruction of Afrikanerdom.

There seems to be a dangerous tendency to confuse romantic rhetoric, imagery of verbal firmness with the reality of clear strategy and tactics.  When you think that in the fifties they had all these rallies and they played Dixie, they waved thousands of Confederate flags and the politicians would say, ‘Never, never, never!’ and ten years later there were no more flags, no more Dixie, no more rallies.  It was the substitution of a kind of psychological soothing ritual of defiance for the reality of how one could actually accomplish something.

Posted by Williams the Plumber on April 15, 2006, 06:01 PM | #

I think what Mr. Taylor is attempting to do is keep himself and his organization out of the main stream media spotlight. I’m pretty sure we all recognize the consequences associated with labels and if CNN picked up on Jew-baiting by a self promoting non-minority organization, then Ma and Pa Kettle will always link AmRen with race hating, Neo-Nazi, White Nationalists that rob banks and drag negroes behind their beat up pickup trucks.

The issue at the AmRen conference which sparked Mr. Taylor’s essay apparently stemmed from statements made by Rep. Duke and refuted with crude expletives by a Jewish attendee. Did Rep. Duke actually say to this Jewish member that he was not welcome based on his ethnicity? If so, I should point out it was Mr. Taylor’s organization and not Rep. Duke’s and thus out of the latter’s responsibility in accepting or denying participants - but then I wasn’t there and this is only conjecture.

Regardless, Rep. Duke’s opinions are quite well known and due to the politics of the situation Mr. Taylor could neither not invite Rep. Duke nor deny him entrance. I think Mr. Taylor is making the best of an extremely bad situation foistered upon him in a probable private conversation that became public, again, I don’t know.

I still stand behind Mr. Taylor and his “centrist” White nationalist views, for any outlet that doesn’t brand our cause with bigotry from the long line of abbreviations is in itself a triumph.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 07:01 PM | #

Williams,

Very well said. I agree with almost all of it.

rabbit,

I don’t know why WNs get sucked into believing every kooky conspiracy theory there is. The CIA is one of the most incompetent organisations on the planet. Let us not get carried away here.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 15, 2006, 07:22 PM | #

I don’t know why WNs get sucked into believing every kooky conspiracy theory there is. The CIA is one of the most incompetent organisations on the planet.

Phil, do you know the history of Encounter Magazine?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 07:47 PM | #

I think what Mr. Taylor is attempting to do is keep himself and his organization out of the main stream media spotlight.
[...]

I think he’s weighed the JQ and found it wanting in terms of risk-reward.  I respect that.  But, reading the sort of mental gymnastics he goes through in that article, and the sort of silliness coming from the commenters in response, I personally cannot stand the stink.  That’s pretty much my point.  If he can, I say more power to him (no sarcasm intended).

Just look at the posts of “White, Jewish, and Proud.” They’re typical of his style; he baits “anti-Semites” with his nonsense in threads that have nothing to do with jews.

That’s what you get when you stifle criticism of jews and allow free reign to philo-Semites (which isn’t quite the same thing as enforcing a taboo on the JQ, now is it?): jews behaving badly.

Did Rep. Duke actually say to this Jewish member that he was not welcome based on his ethnicity?

No.  In fact as far as I know he didn’t say word one to the fellow (can’t recall his name).  The man that said he wasn’t welcome or whatever has sounded off in the Amren thread; his name escapes me as well.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 07:48 PM | #

Accepting input like Igorevitch’s judeophobic ravings puts Majority Rights not just in the leper colony, but in the leper colony within the leper colony.

I’d honestly like to know what you consider to be my “judeophobic rantings”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 07:49 PM | #

Oh, sorry, make that “ravings” not “rantings”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

If Amren is an example of a CIA front, then I say we can use more CIA fronts in the ranks.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 07:59 PM | #

Vis-a-vis Don Miller’s comment above, and many comments in the Amren thread:

I don’t frame European man’s problems in a jewish light.  I don’t attribute all of our problems to jews, not by a long shot.  If I’ve given that impression then I apologize for whatever role I had in that erroneous exchange.

I feel that my position is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

Globalists, Anglos, Irish...they all fall under my sights.  The jews are the only ones I see with defenders popping up constantly, in certain circles.

Let’s face it: whites are frightened of jews, and white philo-Semites.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 15, 2006, 08:23 PM | #

> Let’s face it: whites are frightened of jews, and white philo-Semites.

Based upon past history there is very good reason to be frightend of the Jew.  Historians like Paul Johnson to scholars like Kevin MacDonald would agree with the statement.

Yet, there are some Whites that are not afraid to “Name The Jew:” those are the one villified; those are the ones called racists; those are the ones smeared and arrested.

Who gets arrested in the West for thought crimes: David Irving, Luke O’Farrell, Ersnt Zundel, Gemar Rudolf, and etc…

Imagine that, people being arrested for crimes such as this in the West.

Posted by superace on April 15, 2006, 08:33 PM | #

Change of subject.
Has anyone read this article..  Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: East Asian DNA in Europe (and how it ...
dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000208.html )… kind of wild.  Have we all had our DNA background tested lately?

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 08:49 PM | #

If Amren is an example of a CIA front, then I say we can use more CIA fronts in the ranks.

Exactly (chuckle)

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 08:50 PM | #

Phil, do you know the history of Encounter Magazine?

No.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 08:58 PM | #

“I don’t attribute all of our problems to jews, not by a long shot.” [link added]

Lol, I read that last night.  What a lying, worthless Mick (I won’t hold my breath waiting for “philo-Celtics” (a more accurate name would be the oft-misapplied “Judeophobe") to swarm in here and condemn me for my “anti-Celticism").

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 08:59 PM | #

whites are frightened of jews, and white philo-Semites

There is truth to this. And this has less to do with Jewish power (as considerable as it might appear) and more to do with what happened during World War II.

Some American Jews have exploited this ruthlessly. For example, the Neoconservatives calling retired General Zinni an “Anti-Semite”. The ease with which “anti-Semite” is used these days parallels the use of the word “racist”.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 09:04 PM | #

Svigor,

Are you Scotch-Irish?

Posted by rabbit on April 15, 2006, 09:12 PM | #

When the reference to �The High Priests of War� was posted
to Amren site, it was not published there.

Does it mean that it’s true, and Mr.Taylor is just another kiss-jewass stooge?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:21 PM | #

Svigor,

Are you Scotch-Irish?

On my father’s side my race is best descrbed as “American” or simply white.  The name is English, but they’ve been here since the late 17th/early 18th century.

My mom’s side is Dutch-Irish.  I’m not sure when they came over but it was at least 3 generations ago.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:25 PM | #

But as far as my genotype goes, I could easily pass for Scots-Irish (fairly pink skin, blonde, blue-green eyes, etc.).  Then again I could pass for German too (I’d pass for Kiefer Sutherland’s brother without objection, for whatever that’s worth).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

When the reference to �The High Priests of War� was posted
to Amren site, it was not published there.

Does it mean that it’s true, and Mr.Taylor is just another kiss-jewass stooge?

There’s a long time-delay for approval of Amren posts.

In my experience, the philo-Semitic censoring policy at Amren is relaxed considerably (but not completely) in threads dealing explicitly with the JQ.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 09:30 PM | #

Svigor,

Thanks. That is quite remarkable.

I sense that the immigration debate in the US is roughly breaking up along ethnic lines with Jewish and Irish Catholics in the forefront for open borders since they have so much recent immigrant mythology to fall back on. At the other end, it seems most “Old Stock Americans” (of which I guess you’d consider yourself one) are more on the restrictionist side (relatively speaking).

Is this an accurate description? (Granted that there are exceptions to this. Tancredo is obviously of Italian origin but he is on the restrictionist side)

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:33 PM | #

No wonder there is hardly any other website that links with you (possible Stormfront, I haven’t checked).

Lol.  Amren is one of the notable exceptions (at least it was last time I checked, their site is down right now).

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 09:36 PM | #

One thing that keeps puzzling me is why the Irish who moved to America more than a century and a half ago (the majority after the Potato famine in the 1840s) still cling on to the immigrant mythology. A century and a half is very a long time. You’ve got to stop thinking like an immigrant at some point! 

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:36 PM | #

Is this an accurate description?

Yes.  I loathe the “nation of immigrants” pap and consider myself a native, not an immigrant or the son of an immigrant.

That isn’t to say I draw a line between myself and those whose ancestors may have immigrated more recently than some of mine; at some point it becomes absurd to think of oneself as “of immigrant stock”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:37 PM | #

You’ve got to stop thinking like an immigrant at some point!

Exactly, but as you said the Irish are allowed to have “cache” because theirs is anti-Anglo.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 09:41 PM | #

I sense that the immigration debate in the US is roughly breaking up along ethnic lines with Jewish and Irish Catholics in the forefront for open borders since they have so much recent immigrant mythology to fall back on.

Also consider Ben Tillman’s frequent citation, which shows jews as the least trusting “white” group and Irish Catholics as the most trusting.

...Hmmmmmmm.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 09:47 PM | #

Svy,

If most of your family moved in the 17th century, they were not “immigrants” in any sense because they were settling a wilderness - they were carving out a new country from nothing.

I have always believed that there is a very strong and justificable distinction to be made between “immigrant” and “Colonist/Settler”. The latter create a new country (the Puritans and subsequent pioneers of mostly British stock in North America, The Dutch in South Africa). By contrast, the former arrive in what is already a settled country.

The distinction is, I think, quite important. There is a certain pride associated with being the first colonizer/settler which is not be found in being an immigrant. But having said that, Germans also migrated to America in vast numbers (probably even greater numbers than the Irish) and they don’t think this way. So it depends I guess.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 09:54 PM | #

but as you said the Irish are allowed to have “cache” because theirs is anti-Anglo.

Well, you can blame us for that to some extent (with or without justification). I have never read the subject of British policy in Ireland with great interest. The subject depresses me no end.

The Potato Famine is a blight on our record. There is no escaping that.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 15, 2006, 10:25 PM | #

If most of your family moved in the 17th century, they were not “immigrants” in any sense because they were settling a wilderness - they were carving out a new country from nothing.

Well, that’s my father’s side, and yes they are best referred to as settlers or colonists.  One cannot immigrate to a nation one has yet to create.

I’ve sometimes wondered if my ancestors were Puritans.  The only clue I have is their names, they read like Old Testament genealogies, but I don’t know how that compares to the Puritans.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 10:37 PM | #

I’ve sometimes wondered if my ancestors were Puritans.  The only clue I have is their names, they read like Old Testament genealogies, but I don’t know how that compares to the Puritans.

You could do some very interesting research in this area.

It is possible that most of them were actually from England. English colonists/settlers were the largest group pre-war of independence.

Btw, have you read Albion’s seed? that book has always fascinated me but I have never got around to reading/ordering it. My crazy working hours make it hard to do that.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 10:51 PM | #

Well said Scroob.

It is hilarious that Peter gets referred to as an “immigrant”. That would be like me calling my boss (who is Welsh), an immigrant! 

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 15, 2006, 11:02 PM | #

Rabbi Schiller is so good that I have even doubted his authenticity. Just read this piece Bigotry and Racism - Beyond the Cliches - from 2000.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 15, 2006, 11:14 PM | #

The impressive thing about Rabbi Schiller is that he maintains a Jewish ethnic identity but without the double standard.

He values the ethnic identity of his own group, sees it as an important aspect of life, and concludes that it is therefore important for all men to enjoy - not just his own.

Even more startling is that he recognises that gentile Europeans are the most disadvantaged when it comes to asserting their own ethnic identity.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 15, 2006, 11:19 PM | #

Mark,

Schiller is an oddity for a Jew.

Posted by Andrew on April 15, 2006, 11:45 PM | #

In religious texts of many days gone by; End of Days appears frequently, but it was not the cataclysmic or apocalyptic event as envisaged, quit the opposite.
It ended the Jewish Idealism, as it had become totally fractured and hundreds of sects strayed off the Orthodox position, Thus , a total reformation and the; “End of Days” so Christianity was born.
The same problem then as it is now: Human psychology and ego, thus: Socialism- Communism- Fascism- Islamism: All of which compiled, sound like a left wing Jewish conspiracy using the J Q. That is becaus they are: Agnostics interpritation(Psychobable)
Simple military knowledge, Look through the landscape, not at it.
Yes, a new end of days is on the horizon, as the same Psychology and Ego have overtaken common sense.
Ancient history repeating it self.
There is a link on the M R Forums: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/99/
Boring as, but necessary; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/96/
Babylonian Talmud. Now where have I heard that? 

Ok , I’m In the Bomb shelter now.

Posted by ben tillman on April 15, 2006, 11:45 PM | #

Btw, have you read Albion’s seed? that book has always fascinated me but I have never got around to reading/ordering it.

Highly recommended.

Posted by ummjack on April 16, 2006, 12:30 AM | #

Don’t confuse the opinions of the American bishops with the opinions of ordinary American Catholics.  American Catholics know that illegal immigration is no good, but they also tend to have jobs where they can’t state what they know.  Another thing American Catholics know is that the incoming Mexicans aren’t necessarily Catholic; more and more of them are Pentacostal, since the loosey-goosey American Church isn’t going to provide them with structure the pre-Vatican II Church provided European Catholic immigrants.  The bishops are ignoring this easily ascertainable fact for mysterious bishopy reasons I am not privy too.

This site is a very good, if crude, example of American Catholic thinking on race:

http://www.moynihaninstitute.com/

There’s a thin veneer of PC indoctrination on some highly educated American Catholics but the pesky thing is, for a white person to really swallow the PC lie he has to identify with the oppressor.  That’s a hard thing for someone with an illiterate Sicilian grandmother to do.

Posted by Søren Renner on April 16, 2006, 12:37 AM | #

Firefox can’t find the server at http://www.amren.com.

Gosh, isn’t that interesting? Amren is kiboshed.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 16, 2006, 12:56 AM | #

Btw, have you read Albion’s seed? that book has always fascinated me but I have never got around to reading/ordering it.

No, and your feelings are similar to mine on the matter.  I bought it for a friend and haven’t borrowed it yet.

The impressive thing about Rabbi Schiller is that he maintains a Jewish ethnic identity but without the double standard.

That’s rarer than hen’s teeth (and for all the Judeophobes out there, I regard it as a very good thing).  Did I miss the link to the piece by Schiller, the one first mentioned early on?  I’d like to read it.

Posted by Matra on April 16, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

Phil:“The Potato Famine is a blight on our record. There is no escaping that”.

I hope you are not suggesting (like the scumbag Gov. Pataki of New York) that it was deliberate. The British government of the time seriously tried to find solutions to the famine but was unsuccessful. Unfortunately Tony Blair’s disgraceful apology has contributed to Irish Republican propaganda becoming the dominant interpretation of the tragedy.

Posted by James Bowery on April 16, 2006, 05:10 AM | #

I’m not so impressed with a Jew who merely talks the talk or even walks to walk of white nationalism.  What I’m impressed with is a Jew who retains Jewish identity and recognizes the profoundly destructive aspects of what I would call Jewish virulence that takes the form of subverting the host culture.  I can talk to these men.

The following article is no longer available at the following URL and http://www.archive.org isn’t producing the original either.  It is the only instance I’ve seen of this sort of self-criticism by a Jewish authority who retains his Jewish identity.

http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=116970

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbi says Jews should abandon ‘subversions’
Tuesday, 12 September 2000 2:39 (ET)

Rabbi says Jews should abandon ‘subversions’
By LOU MARANO

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) ...

Schiller said that the absence of a politically viable movement opposed to
“the utter eradication of religion, morality and civility from the public
square, the legitimization of infant murder and sexual perversion and the
legalized discrimination and defamation of white people” raises the question
of what role, if any, Jews should have in the public arena.
....
The advocacy of secular Jews, both as a group and as individuals, is “to
break down standards of discipline in American schooling and social life.
Anything which seems homogenizing might in some small way discomfort the
Jews. The needs of the realm and its people are secondary, to the extent
that they exist at all,” he said.
...
Schiller said that this means not only fulfilling all of the duties that
the laws of the land explicitly lay down “but over and above that to do in
thought and word and deed anything that can contribute to the welfare of the
nation.” The Chassidic leader said that Jewish law, at its most elementary
level that Jewish law laid down at Sinai, says that men “may not be in a
place or among the group and subvert and ignore their needs. It is immoral,”
the rabbi said.

In what may be taken as a controversial statement, Schiller said that “the
selfish and shortsighted politics of Jewish tribalism have brought great
damage to European civilization.” Referring to what he called Pope John Paul
II’s “bizarre grovelings” in March, when the pontiff asked for God’s
forgiveness for sins of the Catholic Church, the rabbi said, “Perhaps...we
could issue an apology for collective Jewish havoc created by our
coreligionists’ subversions.”
...

Posted by Guessedworker on April 16, 2006, 08:46 AM | #

Just a quick respone to Charles Copeland’s comment.

What Schiller calls his “coreligionists’ subversions” cannot go unanswered on a site like this devoted to “the discussion of issues affecting Western societies.”

The trick is NOT to discuss it through the prism of coarse thinking and negative emotion.  That’s what both the seriousness of the subject and its sensitivity requires of us.

When and where we fall short of that we must improve, certainly.  But let there be no doubt that Svi was correct when, many months ago, he commented on an MR thread something to the effect that Europeans discussing the issue soberly and at a high level were organised Jewry’s worst nightmare.

We have, by the way, already pissed off Steve Sailer.  I readily acknowledge that Steve is a useful guy and a good writer.  But we can’t be beholden to his squeamishness on the JQ - or to Peter Brimelow’s more emotionally detached and calculated strategy.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 16, 2006, 09:21 AM | #

I hope you are not suggesting (like the scumbag Gov. Pataki of New York) that it was deliberate.

No it wasn’t deliberate. But there was a lot of incompetence involved. It is a blight in that sense.

There are loony academics and politicians calling it genocide which is utter rubbish.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 16, 2006, 09:53 AM | #

We have, by the way, already pissed off Steve Sailer.  I readily acknowledge that Steve is a useful guy and a good writer.  But we can’t be beholden to his squeamishness on the JQ - or to Peter Brimelow’s more emotionally detached and calculated strategy.

I respect Sailer’s decision. He writes for mainstream publications and there is a stricter limit on what he can say than there is for us.

In the most important senses, he is on the right side of the issues generally speaking even if he doesn’t take the same position as us on everything.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 16, 2006, 04:04 PM | #

> We have, by the way, already pissed off Steve Sailer

Considering the utter domination of all significant opinion forming media, and less importantly government itself, by agents expressly seeking our ruin I say this: if you are not being denouced and villified then you aren’t saying anything meaningful.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 16, 2006, 06:33 PM | #

Sailer has a family to bring up. He has been appealing for donations so he can work on a bigger project. There is obviously no percentage for him in antagonising the Traditional Enemies of the Truth needlessly just now.

But in other ways Sailer has become tougher: for instance, in opposing America’s lunatic interventionist foreign policy and in naming which ethnic group’s spokesmen are keenest on it. Look at the way he covered Mearsheimer & Walt, for instance.

Sailer has to walk a line, but compared with the glib, trashy likes of Mark Steyn or the half-crazy Islamophobe Lawrence Auster, he keeps a level head as well as a fairly ready tongue. Besides, nobody is better at converting current ev-psych and science into lively, vivid pictures of why people are acting, thinking and looking the way they are. He is a highly valuable resource.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 16, 2006, 11:11 PM | #

The half-crazy Islamophobe Lawrence Auster????

This is not a balanced assessment of the politics of Lawrence Auster, who is arguably the most intelligent and hard-hitting writer of today defending the survival of the historic West.

I suggest readers decide for themselves at View from the Right.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 16, 2006, 11:26 PM | #

I was disappointed at Auster’s handling of the Irving heresy trial and the Amren Jew-flap, but I cautiously agree with Mark.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 17, 2006, 02:49 AM | #

> who is arguably the most intelligent and hard-hitting writer of today defending the survival of the historic West.

and Israel.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 17, 2006, 10:13 AM | #

Geoff, what do you want more, anyway? To save the West or to destroy Israel?

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 17, 2006, 10:42 AM | #

Mark: The ‘historic west’ has no quarrel with Islam if we mind our own business and let Islam mind its own business. Besides, there is no West to speak of. I find many aspects of the Demented States of Moronica far more distasteful than Saudi Arabia, and refuse to be lumped in with that galere.

Auster wants to provoke a confrontation. He is an American Jew turned RC: a dangerously messianic combination. The language he habitually uses to denounce all followers of the Prophet indiscriminately is as bad as anything one finds among the neocons and chickenhawks from whom he tries to distance himself.  He is their de facto ally in objurgation. And his latest two posts on ‘View from the Right’ are whingeing about Nick Griffin and Jared Taylor not doing enough to distance themselves from ‘anti-Semitism’. That’s the genes talking. I glimpse a false flag fluttering.

I, however, am a don’t-care quietist, in politics, religion and everything else. As a conservative Christian race-realist who is far more concerned about the next world than this vale of tears, I do not believe one civilisation has a monopoly of any desirable qualities, or anywhere near it. Ethical triumphalism is as fallacious as the biological sort. As long as Muslims and Jews do not get the upper hand in my country, either in influence or numbers, it matters not one jot to me what they do elsewhere.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 17, 2006, 10:55 AM | #

Mark: The ‘historic west’ has no quarrel with Islam if we mind our own business and let Islam mind its own business.

Amalek/Matt O’Halloran/Effra/WJ Phillips,

What about the Battle of Vienna and Charles Martel before that?

I agree that we should stay away from the Middle East but I don’t see why we need to sugar-coat the extremism that is endemic to the Islamic world as something very palatable. The Islamic menace will always be on our shores. We let our guard down once and we have let in millions into Europe. This should never be allowed to occur again. But the only way to prevent it is to let people have the truth about Islam.

I see no reason why being a critic of Jewish leftism means we have to embrace the most brutal religion ever devised?

Besides, there is no West to speak of. I find many aspects of the Demented States of Moronica far more distasteful than Saudi Arabia, and refuse to be lumped in with that galere.

If there is no West to speak of, what are you fighting for? Why are you here at all? If there is nothing left to save, we can go back to guzzling beer and watching Big Brother.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 17, 2006, 11:00 AM | #

As long as Muslims and Jews do not get the upper hand in my country, either in influence or numbers, it matters not one jot to me what they do elsewhere.

True. I agree with that.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 17, 2006, 11:03 AM | #

Islamophobe Lawrence Auster

The word “Islamophobe”, like “Judeophobe”, “Racist” etc is an overused and meaningless term which conveys nothing. It belongs to the language of the Left. Why are we using the language of the Left?

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 17, 2006, 11:22 AM | #

Matt, I don’t think you’re right about Auster wanting to provoke a confrontation.

In fact, Auster has criticised the policy of invading Islamic countries to impose democracy. He prefers the West to maintain, from a position of strength, a policy of containment.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 17, 2006, 12:10 PM | #

“Mark: The ‘historic west’ has no quarrel with Islam if we mind our own business and let Islam mind its own business.”

Indeed, but we only enjoy this luxury because we hold full spectrum dominance. Islam has shown repeatedly that it is downright hostile to the existence of the West, and damn near came close to achieving its goal of destroying Europe, and should Islam ever regain its historical strength we have every reason to believe there will be a repeat of its past behaviour.

Posted by Donald on April 17, 2006, 07:33 PM | #

Mention above was made about the Potato Famine which provides an excellent example of how history has been slowly tampered with over the decades.

While the potato blight was the proximate cause of 2M Irish leaving Ireland and 2M Irish starving to death back in the 1840s, the ultimate cause was the iron control over the Irish economy by “The City” which was not under the control of the monarchy, the parliament, or any British or English peoples.

The decision to export the bountiful agricultural products out of Ireland during the Great Starvation was purely a bankers’ decision to generate profits rather that save lives.

Don’t blame the British or English people or their institutions for the Great Starvation. Check out the history of the bankers’ colony in “The City.”

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 17, 2006, 07:38 PM | #

Mr. Zeka:

> Geoff, what do you want more, anyway? To save the West or to destroy Israel?

Rather sophomoric question, Zeka. But do consider this.

Are you aware of any Muslim countries that have targeted European capitals for bombardment?

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. . . . Our armed forces . . . are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under”.

--Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld, January 30, 2003

Israel is a terror state, always has been.

Posted by Matra on April 18, 2006, 05:02 AM | #

I’ve just read Lawrence Auster’s piece on Jared Taylor. Jeez! It’s as if Taylor had asked Duke to run AR. Here are excerpts: “anti-Semitic diatribe...America’s most outspoken Jew-hater...Duke’s anti-Semitic diatribe...serious anti-Semites...fierce anti-Semitism...Jew-haters...Virulent anti-Semites...rabid anti-Semites...moronic anti-Semitic place that they were coming from...extreme anti-Semites...insane anti-Semites...low-level, hate-filled anti-Semites...”

Well, I’m glad he got that off his chest! I can understand him not wanting to be associated with David Duke but Auster should also understand why less extreme whites are also suspicious of Jews.

Auster:"These are people so bent out of shape about the Jews they’d rather spend all their time attacking Jews than do anything about immigration or racial quotas or the other problems that they blame on the Jews”.

I agree there are people like that around but how much time does Auster himself spend on racial quotas? Not much I’d say. Until recently he didn’t mention non-Muslim immigration all that much either - though his recent Mexican write-ups have been very good.

Even when he’s going on about Muslims it’s always about those of Middle Eastern origins. What about those in Kosovo who are ethnically cleansing Serbian Christians and destroying historic churches? Are Croatian Catholics in Bosnia in decline because of Muslim bullying? Who knows but we won’t find out at Auster’s blog where Ariel Sharon is selling out Gaza, liberal Israelis have a death wish, and it’s Middle Eastern Muslims 24/7. He may have converted to Christianity but he spends more time on Israel and Arabs than most Jewish pundits.

Auster’s good at dissecting liberalism and mainstream conservatism. His booklet The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism is also worth picking up. “Islamophobia” is fine as far as I’m concerned - I agree with Phil on Islam. But unless he lives in Dearborn an American should be more concerned with Mexicans, blacks, and possibly East Asian immigrants than with those Muslims residing in the ME and even Europe.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 18, 2006, 10:10 AM | #

Matra-- My point precisely. Although Auster likes to portray himself as a volunteer adoptee of the West and Christendom, his phenotype is betrayed by this morbid obsession with the evils of Middle Eastern Muslims, whose numbers in the USA are negligible. Auster goes beyond even Daniel Pipes in insisting that all Muslims are potential threats (cf ‘The only good commie is a dead commie’ in the last epoch of American political paranoia.)

Likewise, Auster’s noisy attacks on Jewish predilections for bad ideas such as Marxism and neoconservatism never get pulled together into a coherent, Macdonaldesque explanation of why Jews should be so peculiarly prone to incubate and disseminate such toxins. You get the feeling that Auster is a kind of messianic Jew: he wants his people to come over to the majority side so they can rise to the top, instead of just putting spokes in the wheel to protect themselves as a minority.

Despite his huffing and puffing for ‘our side’ (as a relativist and multilateralist I acknowledge no such Manichaean duality) he never sheds the air of an infiltrator, whose ultimate goal is not assimilation but conquest. The latest spasms of rage against ‘anti-semitism’ rather gives the double game away, but it was always there if you peeped below the more-catholic-than-the-Pope stuff about our wonderful western traditions. Anyone who talks about ‘Judaeo-Christian’ this and that is showing his hand: it is a postwar neologism.

It is a pity that MR people should be, understandably, so anxious to find sympathisers that they cut Auster too much slack. It is also a pity that they cannot acknowledge not only that there is a great deal wrong about the way ‘the West’ has steered the world since 1492 (or 1789), but that there is a great deal to prefer in the way Muslim Arabs order their lives-- yes, and Soviet communists too.

No one race or age has a monopoly of wisdom or common sense, and nobody who calls himself a conservative in the spirit of Burke could possibly think so. But this is academic: the real distinction is between we who wish to be let alone, and those who won’t let others alone.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 10:36 AM | #

but that there is a great deal to prefer in the way Muslim Arabs order their lives-- yes, and Soviet communists too.

I can’t think of one redeeming feature about Soviet Communism. Not one. And as for Islam, the redeeming features that most conservatives sick of the post-Christian West are looking for were also to be found in an earlier time when the West was Christian. So it would appear that if we wish to return to a more normal and healthy society, a return of pre-WWII Christianity is what is needed (without the Sodomites working as Bishops and other abominations of our time).

It is true that no one has a monopoly on common sense but it does not then follow that every regime also has redeeming features no matter how horrible.

It is a pity that MR people should be, understandably, so anxious to find sympathisers that they cut Auster too much slack.

Where he is right, we have acknowledged that he is. Where we disagree we have pointed that out too - as Svigor did on this thread. I don’t think anyone at MR harbours illusions about Auster or any other Jewish conservative writers being our “sympathisers”. Auster would probably regard this place as a hotbed of Jew-hatred (even though most discussions here are very measured in tone and to the point).

But that is besides the point. We are in the realm of ideas.

Lastly, at a time when young white boys get beaten up by Muslim gangs in Britain, France, Sweden, Holland and Australia (to name just a few) and young white girls get regularly molested and gang-raped, I fail to see what benefits political or otherwise Islamophilia brings.

We are ultimately in the realm of political battles. And the BNP’s decision to focus on the growth of Islam in Europe well before 9-11 was in hindsight a masterstroke.

The multitudes who are asleep in their comforts and their distractions will not have time for such Burkean fine nuances, Amalek. But the multitudes do understand simple, clear messages. And those messages strike a chord when they reflect what they see every day - criticising Islam makes sense when you are canvassing in Oldham and Burnley.

Lastly, I can only think of one reason why you would wish to go soft on Islam and that is because Islam is an enemy of Jewry. It is a common thread that runs through much of America’s “Judeocritical” right. And that is why Griffin had to spend an hour in New Orleans last May explaining why the focus is now on Islam in Britain, not Jews.

Pragmatism is alway the best principle. You deal with the challenges and the problems presented on the day. Letting centuries old resentments affect our political judgement is not a good idea in my opinion.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 18, 2006, 10:50 AM | #

Geoff, “And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under” is the crucial part of the quote. Here, he claims that Israel will use its military capabilities if threatened with destruction. What healthy country, pray tell, wouldn’t?

Moreover, whilst it is true that no Muslim nation has missiles pointed at our capitals, that is only because no Islamist nation has yet gotten its mites on them. 7/11 and 7/7 have shown just what the Muslim world would do with the West if it had the chance.

If we look at atrocities that have occurred, not at those that some hothead has threatened us with, it should be clear that Islamists are far more hostile to the West than Jews.

Anyway, returning to what you wrote originally, if he also argues for the preservation of the West, how is it critical that Auster supports Israel’s continued existence? Can both the West and Israel not survive?

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 11:15 AM | #

From Griffin’s speech in the States last year:

So, a little more about Europe before I move on. I want you to understand about Europe . I know that many of you look at our web-site, but I want you to understand that Europe is very different in many ways. First of all, there is this question of Islam, which many people have said to me - ‘why are you so fixated on that? You know their only in Europe , because other people have brought them into Europe , for the reasons we all know, so what’s the fuss, we can make alliances with these people!’ On one level we can, iv’e talked to many of these radical muslims, and iv’e said, ‘look we don’t have any quarrel with you people at all’, ‘we do not want to westernise the middle east, we don’t want to democratise the islamic world, we are happy to leave you as you are. It’s your right and its wrong for us to interfere, But equally we don’t want our masters using you to islamify our Europe .’

And i’m sure coming from a place where you havn’t really got any of these people, and they’re the enemy of another enemy, so its easy to think perhaps they’re OK. I can tell you, that you have got to imagine, the mexicans who are flooding into your country, having a religion which tells them its good to beat non-mexicans. Having a religion which tells them to go out and use non-mexican girls as sex slaves. Having a religion which states that non-mexicans are worse than second class citizens, and that they are the scum of the earth. That’s how you’ve got imagine the muslim population in Britain . Their mexicans with a huge-huge chip on their shoulder. They are an appalling people, some of them are decent, but as a block, they are an appalling, insufferable people to have to live with.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 11:31 AM | #

Can both the West and Israel not survive?

The Neocons wish that the former die out and the latter survive.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 18, 2006, 11:59 AM | #

Matt, you are too obsessed with Auster’s Jewish background in examining his politics.

Auster is a traditionalist conservative. His views are therefore very similar to other traditionalists, most of whom have no Jewish ancestry.

Unlike what you claim in your comments, we traditionalists most certainly do not see the modern West as being perfect in its attainments. Our basic argument, in fact, is that liberalism has corrupted the course of development of the West and imperilled its future existence.

This does not mean that we don’t recognise the disproportionate role played by some groups, such as the Jews, in carrying forward a liberal politics - Auster himself has acknowledged this clearly enough.

If you don’t like the way we traditionalists explain things - fair enough. But see if you can find fault with the politics - this will help focus things on central issues.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 18, 2006, 01:41 PM | #

The Neocons wish that the former die out and the latter survive

Phil, but Auster doesn’t. My question to Geoff was whether Israel’s and the West’s continued survival are mutually exclusive or not. If no, then how is it a black mark on Auster’s record to be a proponent of Israel defending itself?

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 18, 2006, 01:43 PM | #

Zeka,

Israel is not our friend. Isreal exists because it is a parasite on the taxpayers of the United States and Germany.

Israel uses the US to fight its enemies.

My God, didn’t you read the Walt & Mearscheimer report? The Jews have no friends, and are enemies to all nations. That is what Tacitus said in the 1st Century.

This propaganda myth that Isreal is a defender of the West is one of the biggest lies of the century.

I want BOTH SEMITES gone.

Tell me Zeka, who threw open the gates of Spain to Moors?
Tell me Zeka, who worked for the Pasha in the Turkish empire?

Jews are satanic.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 02:56 PM | #

Phil, but Auster doesn’t. My question to Geoff was whether Israel’s and the West’s continued survival are mutually exclusive or not. If no, then how is it a black mark on Auster’s record to be a proponent of Israel defending itself?

True. I wasn’t suggesting that it is a blackmark on Auster’s record.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 18, 2006, 03:00 PM | #

Matt, you are too obsessed with Auster’s Jewish background in examining his politics

No, *he* is. I merely detect it.

Auster is a traditionalist conservative. His views are therefore very similar to other traditionalists, most of whom have no Jewish ancestry.

There is no such thing as a ‘traditionalist’ conservative. The term is pleonastic. Traditionalism IS conservatism.

A wandering Jew, a stranger in a strange land embracing a religion which is not in his ancestry, can never be a real conservative. It’s in the bones, not in the head or on the tip of a facile pen which eventually runs away with itself and betrays itself-- as Auster’s has done over ‘antisemitism’.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2006, 03:23 PM | #

Geoff,

No people are satanic.  Even with a lower-case “s”.  Jews are hyper-ethnocentric.  They are taught from infancy, as Steinlight observed, to regard themselves as people of unique value.  They are, as Auster observed, paranoid about the feelings and intentions of their hosts.  They, or at least the Ashkenazim, are very astute in their devotion to their cause.  Some of the cultural and political concoctions which have arisen from among their number might be described as satanic: the two Marxisms being the obvious candidates.  But satanic as a people, all of them without exception?  I am sorry, but that is pure emotionalism and, inevitably, it leads straight to extremism.

I do not wish to bring harm to any people, merely to protect and preserve my own.  That is what divides me from the worst of Jewry.  That is what I value in the “light English model”, to borrow a successful Linderism.  I am, therefore, bound to observe certain standards which, whilst they might make life harder for me, also make it if not virtuous at least not imbued with too many sins.  Therefore, the “LEM” makes a broader appeal to the sleeping and, accordingly, has greater utility than its corresponding “HGM” - which you seem to be alarmingly close to commending.

Posted by Matra on April 18, 2006, 04:07 PM | #

At a time when world powers are planning to recognise the Albanian conquest of Christian Kosovo (Greater Albania is on the way!) after already helping establish Bosnia, a Muslim state in the heart of Europe, I find it revealing that Lawrence Auster cares more about the Israeli pullout from Gaza. Even Israelis themselves wanted out of wretched Gaza!

Here’s Auster on paleocon Thomas Fleming’s (admittedly poor response) to 9/11: “One wonders how Fleming would have covered it if he were running a news network. Maybe devote all the coverage to the Serb angle?”

In the intro to the same article he also refers to “Fleming’s weird Serbo-centric view of the world”. This is reminiscent of David Frum’s famous NR article on “Unpatriotic Conservatives” in which he scoffed at the “Serbian fifth column” among paleocons.

I suspect some paleocons are interested in Serbia for the same reasons I am. I see a European Christian country that was willing to fight back against Muslim aggressors, at one point rolling back decades, perhaps centuries, of Muslim gains in Bosnia and Kosovo, only to have the West gang up on it. The more libertarian-minded paleos may also see a NWO aspect. We also see right there in Europe the descendants of Turkish collaborators being rewarded with the destruction of their historical Christian enemies, establishing a Muslim foothold in Europe, then inviting Jihadis from the Middle East. Today in Sarajevo schools a Muslim genocide mythology is being developed, often with the help of Arab money, and so any moderation the European Muslims may display today may well make way for something more aggressive.

Shouldn’t all white Christians care more about these events in the heart of Europe than the distant quarrel over Israel/Palestine? The Holy land doesn’t even have oil and Israel is of little use to the West from a strategic standpoint. It is hard not to conclude that Auster’s interest in Israel and obsession with Middle Eastern (but not white European) Muslims is due to his Jewish background. I don’t blame him for that and I believe he is sincere when he talks about the multicultural threat to the US but let’s not pretend his ethnicity does not impact his worldview.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 18, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

“I wasn’t suggesting that it is a black mark on Auster’s record [to be a proponent of Israel defending itself].” (—Phil)

I agree with Phil and Alex here:  I don’t see why some paleos who understand nationalism( * ) attack Israel for wanting to live and trying to defend itself.  Pat Buchanan and The American Conservative Magazine strike me as examples.  I have the highest regard for both Pat and the magazine of course, but I wish they’d be more even-handed where Israel is concerned.  People on our side are mad at Israel because of the harm diaspora Jews try to inflict on us, but Israel isn’t the diaspora Jews and isn’t responsible for the diaspora Jews.  On the contrary, it’s a nation like Armenia, Greece, Germany, Korea, and France.

There’s no reason anyone has to like Israel, and more than there’s a reason anyone has to like Japan, Papua-New Guinea, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, or Paraguay.  But if Japan, Papua-New Guinea, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, or Paraguay were trying to defend themselves and trying to live, I don’t see on what gounds that would be condemnable.  That’s not to say their dirty tricks, in the event they pull any, shouldn’t be condemned.  Israel should be condemned and punished by the U.S. for selling top-secret military technology we shared with them to China and Russia. 

But trying to live isn’t a dirty trick.

It’s none of anyone else’s business if any particular paleos hate Israel, any more than it’s anyone’s business if they hate France, Germany, England, Russia, Canada, Mexico, or the Principality of Monaco.  Let them go on hating it—that’s fine:  we all have countries we like and ones we hate.  But on what grounds do they question its desire to live, and its taking steps to defend itself?  How does questioning that square with paleoism?  I sincerely don’t get it. 
______

( * which is in a way redundant to add, since understanding nationalism is nearly part of the definition of paleo)

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 18, 2006, 05:28 PM | #

> Satanic

I’ll tell you what is also Satanic, that is your so called “Light English Model?” So what has your Light English Model got you?

1) First your nobility sold its titles to the Jews, now the Jews have so squeezed their blood into your Lords one can’t distinquish English from Jew. But they both serve the same master. Say that to your Lord Levy, your Lord Goldsmith, Your Lord Saatchi and your Minister Straw if you dare.

2) Your Light English Model bombed Europe into rubble, and killed far too many Boer farmers for the love of Gold.

3) Your Light English Model has led to the utter domination and or ownership of all significant media in Britain being owned by the Jews.

What’s more your Light English Model has allowed the construction of numerous hate and racial villification laws so that you can’t even name the cancer that is eating your once proud little country.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2006, 06:02 PM | #

Geoff,

The Light English Model is, IMHO, a tactically intelligent (ie sustainable) modus operandum for the reclamation of our homelands.  In contrast, the Heavy German Model is suicidal, since it can never carry the support of a sufficient number of our people.  All the evidence screams out that this is so.  Look no further than America, where no party of the nationalist right yet exists - nor will if the HGM is the only path followed.

You are blogging up a dead end with VNN.  Change will not come that way, but through the agency of cautious, intelligent and, yes, respectable activism.

Posted by Geoff Beck on April 18, 2006, 06:03 PM | #

Truth is painful to confront, GW.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2006, 06:20 PM | #

There is no “truth” in VNN.  There is only psychopathy.

Posted by karlmagnus on April 18, 2006, 06:54 PM | #

The Irish potato famine wasn’t the bankers (who by and large weren’t in the potato dealing business—too small scale for High Finance by 1847) it was the idiot Whigs, the idiot Peel and Repeal of the Corn Laws. It WASN’T the Jews, it was addle-brained leftists, a much more dangerous bunch.

Conservatism isn’t traditionalism, it’s the policies followed by the Pitt/Liverpool governments of 1783-1830. That’s how it was originally defined, and using that definition enables us to make much more sense of the world around us than most do.

Islam like China has spawned some high level civilisations in the past.  That doesn’t mean one has to like every moronic jihadist nutter in Finsbury Park. The main mistake was letting them get their mitts on the oil revenues in ‘73—a poor government is an honest government.

I’m an immigrant to the US, but I prefer to think of myself as a delayed colonizer.

“Hispanic” civilisation is at least as far from ours as Islamic civilisation, as is evidenced by the appalling performence of Latin America in the last century, once the old oligarchies were ousted. These guys aren’t Spanish (on the whole an admirable lot) they’re Amerind, a people who have given the human race nothing of cultural, artistic or scientific value beyond some refined techniques of human sacrifice. In 25 years time, the Middle East will be seen as much less of a threat than it is now, Latin America as much more of one.  If I had to guess the origin of the first terror nuke in New York, I’d guess Venezuela, not Iran.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 06:57 PM | #

Geoff,

If you keep that up, you will kill yourself with high blood pressure and stress. And in addition, your tactics will achieve nothing. Most people will ignore you as a raving hate-filled bigot.

If you want to be successful, you have to be able to get your message across to people. What you and the VNN boys do is basically attract a limited bunch of Neo-Nazis who do little more than preach to the choir. But their actions tar every nationalist and also achieve nothing politically.

If anything, stuff like VNN, makes it ten times harder for even reasonable nationalists to be successful. Being moderate in one’s rhetoric is essential if you are going to get your message across to the generation that votes today. If your messages fall on deaf ears, what is the point?

Are you blogging to win a political battle or to simple let out all the hatred that is filled inside you and yearns for an outlet? The choice is yours. You cannot have it both ways. Either you change with a desire to win or you can continue this way to a dead end. Trust me, this kind of obsession with the JQ is a dead end.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 07:02 PM | #

Conservatism isn’t traditionalism, it’s the policies followed by the Pitt/Liverpool governments of 1783-1830.

But Martin, this isn’t 1830. There was no mass immigration in 1830, women couldn’t vote and there was no cultural marxism in our universities and our media. 

Pitt/Liverpool “conservatism” will not address our problems of today unless it is modified.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 07:22 PM | #

Islam like China has spawned some high level civilisations in the past.

Aside from the Ottmans, I can’t think of any other “high” Islamic civilizations. The Chinese were, until the enlightenment, roughly at par with the West or slightly ahead. And in the ancient world, Chinese discoveries are disproportionately high among the inventions of that period.

The Islamics have invented little or nothing. They have conquered and plundered, yes. But not invented anything other than their religion.

they’re Amerind, a people who have given the human race nothing of cultural, artistic or scientific value beyond some refined techniques of human sacrifice.

LOL!! You need tell John Ray this. He says there are some “high quality” genes coming from across America’s southern border. (chuckle)

Posted by Dresden -- Never Again on April 18, 2006, 07:52 PM | #

GB:

MR’s is not that of the LEM condemned by Linder. The MR of a year ago was, but the main bloggers/commentators are now aboard the JQ boat, and the issue forthrightly discussed.

Keep in mind that the “HGM” succeeded only once: In an ethnically homogenous and extremely nationalistic/militaristic nation, just several years removed from the stab-in-the-back by you-know-who, having been stripped of Alsace Lorraine, the Memel strip, Schleswig-Holstein, South Tyrol, and portions of Silesia/West Prussia, prostrate under the Versailles treaty, and with an economy newly alien-owned and undergoing convulsions. (Plus the NSDAP was blessed with a once-a-century talent. )

Posted by karlmagnus on April 18, 2006, 07:59 PM | #

The Young Master is currently rehearsing for his part in Aladdin, just one of the significant Islamic contributions to literature (OK, this is the Disney version) And I will NOT be without my copy of Fitzgerald’s Rubaiyat. 10th century Baghdad was a lot pleasanter than anywhere in Europe at that time. As a good Enlightenment sceptic, I regard all extreme versions of religion with deep suspicion, but Islamism no more than any other. Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes—it is one of the many cardinal errors of the GWB administration to invent this nonsensical concept of “Islamofascism” when they’re basically just the same bunch of destructive nutcases as the Commies and the
Jacobins.

Liverpool’s policy towards mass immigration is pretty obvious; he regarded Britain as already being too heavily populated for the welfare of its people. Unless any immigrants joined the Church of England and acquired property, they would not have had the vote, so their chance of influencing policy was minimal.

Pitt/Liverpool had the majority of our problems, and usefully set out the principles of how to deal with them (not true if you wanted to go back to e.g. feudalism, but they had industry and free market economics, unlike earlier eras.) Even for such areas as telecom policy, their protectionism over the intellectual property of textile machinery shows pretty clearly what their policy tendency would have been.

It’s not an ideal solution to the “what is Conservatism” question, and you can usefully read later writers such as Salisbury for further elucidation, but it does at least give you a firm basis to fight off neocons, paleocons, and National Review’s absurd claim that it invented Conservatism in 1955.

Posted by Svigor on April 18, 2006, 08:13 PM | #

I can’t think of one redeeming feature about Soviet Communism.

It didn’t turn Russians into deracinated pussies.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 08:20 PM | #

Martin,

To say that 10th century Baghdad was a slightly more pleasant place than 10th century Europe isn’t saying very much.

It is true that religious insanity can come in various forms - Islamic, Christian, Judaic or Pagan. But the point is, Christianity was altered in fundamental ways by the enlightenment. No similar change ever occured with Islam where even today scholars routinely revert back to what Mohammed would have done in this or that situation.

As a religion, it is therefore more barbaric and more fanatical than any other because other religions changed in fundamental ways (for better or worse). I am willing to concede that pre-Enlightenment Christianity was capable of being every bit as fanatical. But we haven’t had that for centuries.

As for Bush, you might find this interesting.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 08:25 PM | #

It didn’t turn Russians into deracinated pussies.

True. But this has only happened because Russia remained economically poor and life was harsh. As I have said before, the problems we face are the problems of an indifferent people living in a time of unparalelled prosperity. So in effect what we are saying is that prosperity can soften a people.

There is no arguing with that.