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.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2006, 09:49 PM | #

The BNP website, commenting on the recent rash of scare-mongering MSM articles and on the fruits of the Cameron factor:-

Eight out of ten working class families in Barking are ‘tempted to vote BNP’ says Labour bigwig Margaret Hodge. 25% of all working class voters are considering voting BNP, says the left-liberal Joseph Rowntree Trust. Cue media hysteria all round but, with what little respect is due, they’re all missing the point.

Working AND middle class support

In the flood of calls and emails pouring in to our enquiry offices, we can see an unmistakable pattern: Rapidly growing middle class support for the BNP as well. Particularly well represented in this growing trend are former Conservative party activists and self-described die-hard Tory voters. These new recruits are not being won over to us primarily by the possibility of further electoral advances by the BNP, but rather by utter despair and disgust at their old party’s lurch to the left under Dave Cameron.

Some are coming to us via UKIP (further disgusted by their MEPs broken promises to hand their massive expenses over to their party), but a growing number are switching direct from the Conservatives to the British National Party.

The same trend is being picked up by our canvassing teams in the more affluent sections of our target wards, with Cameron already being a huge disappointment to traditional Tories. For several years now, some of our best local election results have come in largely Conservative wards in places as far afield as Burnley, Bradford and Hertfordshire. The Cameron factor is clearly going to boost this tendency further.

Meltdown

So while the chattering classes are worrying about the white working class deserting New Labour, the untold story is that the same seismic shift is occuring beneath the feet of the Conservatives. It is not one particular party that is in meltdown, but an entire political ‘elite’.

1930’s petty-socialist economics simply will not answer the needs of this slice of the electorate.  The BNP must change its policy to something that will work and doesn’t require the sweeping away of capitalism.

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 18, 2006, 10:04 PM | #

Matt, the term “traditionalist conservative” is no doubt clumsy. It seems to me inadvisable, though, just to use the term “conservative”, as this is often applied to men like Bush, Cameron and Howard.

These men are not traditionalists, and they do not wish to conserve their own historic communities and cultures - and yet the media apply the term ‘conservative’ to them, on the basis that they are economic liberals rather than social democrats.

So, for the time being, the term “traditionalist conservative” serves a useful function in distinguishing my own politics from those of mainstream conservatives/right liberals.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 18, 2006, 10:32 PM | #

GW,

I read that too.

The BNP does need some smart, sensible economic advice. And it needs responsible rhetoric. Chestertonian distributism isn’t going to cut it.

Posted by john rackell on April 18, 2006, 10:55 PM | #

1930’s petty-socialist economics simply will not answer the needs of this slice of the electorate.  The BNP must change its policy to something that will work and doesn’t require the sweeping away of capitalism.

Their election manifesto doesn’t sound so extreme:

Bad management; high taxation; workforces without a real stake in their companies; chronic under-investment (largely as a result of a taxation system that penalizes productivity and saving, and rewards spending); an education system and salary differentials that push most of the nation’s best brains into essentially parasitic professions such as the law, the management of bureaucracies and advertising, and a succession of governments with a positive aversion to anything which smacks of a patriotic procurement policy or even national pride in general.

Past nationalist proposals for reviving British industry have tended to begin and end with a plan to protect British industry by erecting tariff barriers, and then leaving conventional capitalist businesses to take advantage of the newly favourable trading conditions to rebuild our manufacturing base while making themselves huge profits.

Since we are not egalitarian socialists, it is not our intention to run around expropriating existing businesses, but we are determined to ensure that social justice is done, and the incentive value of personal ownership is built-in to as much of our rebuilt manufacturing economy as possible.

We have no intention of setting the disastrous precedent of expropriation of existing landowners – with the exception of speculators and such like who are actually guilty of crimes such as tax evasion and fraud against present laws. But we will undertake a series of measures intended to create the circumstances in which large numbers of young people can obtain the training, experience, land, homes and capital they need to return to the land of their ancestors as productive owner-farmers.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf10.htm

Devil’s in the details. Regarding expropriation - all the Western countries US & UK in particular are massively increasing their money supply which will lead to massive inflation - this is wealth expropriation from the working and middle classes to the elite - especially the bankocracy who get first dibs on the new money created. And incidentally one of the ways to mitigate this inflation is to import hoardes of immigrant workers who still think they’re on to a good deal - their naturalized kids don’t have quite the same work ethic - they work cheap and keep the cost of living down. This is typical of the elites inability to manage - just shove one problem under the rug with a solution that will bring a host more destructive problems down the road - OK, mixed metaphor time.

So Britain’s Middle Classes are being done out of a job and a patrimony.

The middle class are screwed as it is - no manufacturing and engineering jobs for them - and all the professional sinecures are now going to be reserved for ethnics under affirmative action policies. The BNP ran a letter from a white kid who’d been like the one of the few whites at a black/asian school in London - and when he goes to apply for a job at a German bank in London they tell him to run along since they are trying to diversify their workforces.

What is the alternative? If the Middle Class join the BNP they will have a chance to influence it while it is in its formative stages.

[Incidentally Dyson went to Malaysia not Korea - manufacturing only. Why he did that was interesting too, can’t blame him.]

Posted by john rackell on April 18, 2006, 11:11 PM | #

I think the BNP as a credit to them have a true pragmatic streak that is almost completely lacking in the multiculti addled elites, and this is shown by their support for nuclear energy. If you read some of their viewpoints they seem a bunch of greens but real (UK) greens don’t give a **** about the environment when stacked up against the multiculti joys of importing half the third world into England’s green and pleasant land.

If the BNP were pure ideological nutcases they would be championing windfarms to the exclusion of everything else. But at least one BNP commentator (not official policy) is championing nuclear.

These guys are pragmatists, they run their own small business (not a guarantee against close mindedness of course), they have to meet a payroll—to do stuff that requires integrity.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=74

The BNP plans to undertake building both state based nuclear plant projects and allow private financed plants like the Olkiluoto nuclear complex in western Finland. The new Olkiluoto reactor has not cost the Finnish government anything in relation to its building costs. The private investment group that is providing the €3bn (£2bn) for Olkiluoto 3’s construction is a project where Finnish businesses that each require cheap, reliable and long term energy supplies have all clubbed together to build the reactor and also signed long term supply contracts with the plant. These long term energy supply contracts with the station have ensured that the plant has a long term viable national energy market that is not threatened by cheap energy imports from foreign nations who represent national security threats to Finland, and that the costs of building the plant can be recouped by the businesses that invested in it.

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

John,

Those are excellent points. Thanks.

When I first read in detail about the BNP (and this was in the Tyndall days), I had the lowest opinion imaginable of them. Then sometime last year, Geoff linked me to a speech by Nick Griffin at the Euro Conference in Louisiana last year. And that changed my perception considerably.

I have to say that my opinion of Griffin has improved with every passing month. There is absolutely no doubt that he is a very bright man and I wouldn’t expect him to engage in any kind of economic stupidity should he get to the rungs of power (which is still a very long way off).

I hope the BNP can make serious gains in the elections in May. If they do, they will be well on the way to changing the course of British politics. 

Does Griffin have a good team of intelligent people behind him? At the moment the BNP look like a one man army running on the brain power of one man.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 18, 2006, 11:36 PM | #

John, I still think you should be blogging.

On the BNP’s economics, do you believe that protectionism and social justice can be sold to free market Thatcherites?  I don’t.

In my humble opinion, the BNP’s objective Conservative voter-wise should be to really hammer the state machinery, get out of Europe, repatriate aliens as fast as possible and incentivise the economy to invest on the basis of a smaller, more intellectually able workforce.

Posted by john rackell on April 19, 2006, 12:02 AM | #

Does Griffin have a good team of intelligent people behind him? At the moment the BNP look like a one man army running on the brain power of one man.

It does seem that way a bit - a one man army. But he has consultative groups working for and with him.

I wiki’d Blair’s career into PM - starting off as Barrister, then MP, then up the ranks. I remember the talk at the time when Labour had been out of power so long it was being asked if when their turn came if there would be any Labourites alive with real experience governing. Well Kaboom! Blair gets elected and inherents a CPS, police state security apparatus, nuclear armed forces, and getting legislation to ramrod any other legislation through parliament he needs ( Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - ).

Basically Blair had no experience in government (Shadow whatever doesn’t really cut it) and yet the multicult revolution is on. Whose interests do we serve by holding Griffin to a higher standard? He has a pedigree in his father of government. If he’s up to the task - well, what politician has been through the trial by fire he has? I just hope it doesn’t make him too embittered - it doesn’t seem to have done so.

A BNP victory does seem a long way off. And it’s quite possible that international money could put the stranglehold on a BNP government - considering how indebted Britain is with it’s negative current account deficits, net importer of oil, and non-productive financial economy - making the BNP look like economic chumps. So anything the BNP does economically would pale besides what the intl community could do to Britain as a form of retribution.

If we believe in some sort of genetic determinism and conservatism then may be we can put our faith in an English champion who is quintessentially British and trust in his tradition and respect for us and ours to do the right thing.

We’re not getting it now and at the rate of immigration and new crop of citizens (the annual number of new citizens in the UK is more than Labour’s margin of victory in the recent General Election ~ 100K each - granted after 3 years residence(?)) we’ll lose our chance forever.

Posted by john rackell on April 19, 2006, 12:59 AM | #

GW, thanks.

On the BNP’s economics, do you believe that protectionism and social justice can be sold to free market Thatcherites?  I don’t.

The news out of Britain is getting so appalling that your question almost seems quaint - eg this article highlighting violence against 2 middle class professionals leaving them brain damaged in what seems in net effect almost a state sanctioned pogrom against the Middle Class - considering the miniscule sentence the perpetrators received (a guy shouting outside a mosque in N. England got six months, almost equivalent to these perpetrators).

Dalrymple - It’s This Bad

Anyway people vote their self interest ultimately. True, journalists are playing their role to deprive most everybody of understanding where that really lies, but the truth will out.

So the Middle Class’ interest is not being served. Just let them wake up to that fact.  Anyway, besides a hardcore of free market ideologues how big a bloc are the free market Thatcherites?

And regard to free trade, what is that?

Protectionism has as much or as little meaning as free market does - they are almost duals of each other - protectionism is a canard basically.

China has 30% tariffs on auto parts to protect their auto industry, which they’ve agreed to lower by some small amount in the face of criticism. And they steal our intellectual property wholesale. Yet our capitalists extol the virtue of Chinese capitalism while undermining the productive capacity of their own countries. The same with Japan, Eammon Fingleton - -described how Japanese owners of foreign motorcycles - Harleys - were subjected to a driving test in the 80s fit only for Eval Knievel (driving the bike across a narrow plank a foot off the ground).

Ultimately there is no real free market and hence protectionism is really a moot point. And since protectionism may increase inflation the BNP would have to proceed cautiously which will hopefully act as a brake on their enthusiasms.

It would be nice if we could get some of the small manufacturers back that James Dyson talked about:

In the 1970s, when I was developing the Ballbarrow, I needed some bent metal tubing. I got in my car and went to Birmingham. In the space of a few streets, I found workshops and suppliers who between them could provide the tubing, cut it, bend it and coat it. It was an extraordinarily vital environment. And it was absolutely essential to the small engineering entrepreneur.

You might ask what happened to these British suppliers and subcontractors? Quite simply: we drove them out of existence. Employment and property laws made it difficult for them to take on extra staff and premises. They needed a tax regime that appreciated the volatile nature of their business. Instead, Governments imposed PAYE and hammered them with high interest rates, year after year. By the mid-1980s, most had gone to the wall.

Ultimately and hopefully we can trust in the BNPs pragmatism - improving law and order and education could be done to improve the economy just by removing the multiculti detritus without massive expenditures.

Well, exscuse the rambling - anyway I’d probably defer to you and Phil and others here in anything regarding British politics. And I agree with your remedies regarding getting out of Europe etc, and changing incentives, but none of that would seem very endearing to free market Thatcherites either.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 19, 2006, 09:05 AM | #

John,

I am not holding Griffin to a higher standard. It was just a thought that occured to me. If his party is to become a movement, then it will need good sound intelligent second string leaders who are capable.

But they have come a very long way in the last five years. They will need to keep up their impressive growth if this runaway multicult train is to be stopped from plunging us over the cliff.

Re Free Market Economics:

There has never been a really true Laissez Faire economy anywhere on earth. Britain and the US came close to that in the 19th century but even then America had high tarrif barriers, for example. I don’t fuss over Free Markets as much as over what is now happening to our society - slow irreversible, permanent destruction. Stopping that is paramount. We can argue about Taxes later. 

Btw, John do you live in the States? I think you mentioned it once and I forgot.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 19, 2006, 10:08 AM | #

I used to think Nick Griffin was a frothing nutcase, but it is quite clear that his intelligence has been extremely underrated. He has the Establishment on the ropes, and I think it is only a matter of time now.

Posted by Amalek on April 19, 2006, 10:24 AM | #

Fred: I don’t know about other ‘paleo’ or ‘traditionalist’ conservatives (i.e. conservatives), but I wouldn’t “attack Israel for wanting to live and trying to defend itself”. It simply does not concern me whether Israel lives or dies. I see no reason to strike impotent attitudes about any foreign entity; it’s hard enough getting my elected rulers to take any notice of what I and most of my fellow Britons prefer.

Americans such as Pat Buchanan object to the Israeli tail wagging the US foreign policy dog, that’s all.

Why is it so difficult for so many MR folk to get this? Just repeat six times a day before breakfast: ‘Our country for us, and the rest of the world can take care of its own business’.

That’s what the Founders said, and despite my natural preference for loyalty to the King, I can respect their conservatism in that respect. It is like the Country Party of early 18th century England: the solid, sensible squires who ran their own estates, enforced common law as justices of the peace, knew intimately and sympathised with the needs of their dependents, worshipped Almighty God in time-honoured English ways without enthusiasm, abhorred foreign adventurism for the profit of merchants and financiers and detested the taxes levied to support such folies de grandeur. They were the rooted men whose example inspired the greatest conservative political philosopher of modern times and created the most beautiful architecture and landscape on earth.

Happily the American people, judging by the polls, seem to have learned some lessons from the recent repetition of whiggish and Jacobin niaiseries by a self-styled conservative administration, and are reverting to type as Tories. On which, see today’s splendid column by the great Pat. I know he doesn’t like us English, but never mind:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/patbuchanan/2006/04/18/194006.html

Moreover, the lid is suddenly off the immigration can of worms, reinforcing Middle America’s swing back from gratuitous offensiveness abroad to practical defensiveness on its own frontiers. These are auspicious times for us isolationists! America First for you, Britain First for me, and foreigners anywhere they care to go. And that includes every dual citizen who lurks under our protection nipping our fingers.

Posted by Guessedworker on April 19, 2006, 11:40 AM | #

WJP,

Why on earth don’t you drop all this pseudonymous, footloose posturing and devote yourself to blogging with us.  Your instincts are too sound, your prose too good to cast upon the stony ground of liberal blogdom in the unsupported belief that Truth, the Almighty and Quietism are exportable to bohemians and chameleons.

We are believers in the theory of the schwerpunkt and local command, not in spreading one’s might thin across the comment threads and subject to the caprice of central command.  Join in.  MR is the one place you can freely develop your ideas ... and set an intellectual agenda instead of challenge one.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 19, 2006, 12:02 PM | #

I know he doesn’t like us English

I dunno to be honest. In his book “Death of the West”, he has a section on the decline of Britain.

He does not approve of British policy in Ireland. As an Irish Catholic, that is natural and he can be fogiven for it.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 19, 2006, 12:03 PM | #

MR is the one place you can freely develop your ideas ... and set an intellectual agenda instead of challenge one.

I second that.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 19, 2006, 12:08 PM | #

Why is it so difficult for so many MR folk to get this? Just repeat six times a day before breakfast: ‘Our country for us, and the rest of the world can take care of its own business’.

If you read every single piece I have written under “War on Terror”, you will note that I take the exact same position. 

Why are you accusing us of being Israel firsters? I believe Israel has a moral right to exist. But I don’t believe it has a right to exist on our money and our weapons. Where our interests conflict, our politicians should advocate positions that are in our interest not Israel’s.

How does this amount to being an Israel firster?

Fred was, however, making a different point. I think what he was saying was that the Paleos even criticise Israel when it is engaging in acts of self-defence. Saying that the US should stay away from the ME and saying that Israel should (effectively) not defend itself are two different things.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 19, 2006, 12:11 PM | #

I used to think Nick Griffin was a frothing nutcase

I thought so too. I think he was a bright guy who made a lot of immature decisions in his early political career. Most of it laced with irresponsibility.

But he has learnt his lessons very well. Wise men learn from their mistakes, fools repeat them.

Posted by Alex Zeka on April 19, 2006, 04:50 PM | #

Despite our differences in the past, I second the call for Amalek/WJP/Effra/Matt O’Halloran/… to join.

Posted by Rnl on April 23, 2006, 06:44 PM | #

Re: Matra’s Comments on Kosovo

Here’s a good quote from the globalist Thomas Friedman: “Jewish congressmen and commentators led the campaign for U.S. intervention to save the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo ....” In translation: American Jews led the campaign to bomb Yugoslavia into capitulation, with the terrible results we see in Kosovo today.

Friedman continues: “The truth is that Jewish commentators and lawmakers have probably been more outspoken in support of using American force to rescue Muslims in the last 15 years than any other group—including American Muslims.”

Full text:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/10/opinion/10FRIE.html

Friedman is no doubt correct. Wolfowitz and Perle, in addition to their successful work in orchestrating the invasion of Iraq, controlled the Balkan Action Committee, which campaigned aggressively for Western intervention on behalf of Yugoslavia’s Muslim terrorists. The list of anti-Serb necons is long.

Even I, a card-carrying anti-Semite, find neoconservative hostility to Serbs difficult to explain. Neocons like Frum should, if they valued consistency, see a parallel between Israel’s long war against Palestinian Muslims and the Serb attempt to preserve the heartland of their nation from Islam, but they don’t. Instead they affect (or perhaps genuinely feel) a troubled bewilderment at any opposition on the Right to the criminal bombing of a European people.

Some old news, but still worth remembering:

FAIR Media Advisory: June 2, 1999

[...]

Now, in the June 14 issue of the Nation, George Kenney, a former State Department Yugoslavia desk officer, reports:

An unimpeachable press source who regularly travels with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told this [writer] that, swearing reporters to deep-background confidentiality at the Rambouillet talks, a senior State Department official had bragged that the United States “deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept.” The Serbs needed, according to the official, a little bombing to see reason.

In other words, the plan for Kosovo autonomy drafted by State Department officials was intentionally crafted to provoke a rejection from Serb negotiators. In his Nation article, Kenney compares this plan to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Providing further confirmation of Kenney’s account, Jim Jatras, a foreign policy aide to Senate Republicans, reported in a May 18 speech at the Cato Institute in Washington that he had it “on good authority” that a “senior Administration official told media at Rambouillet, under embargo” the following:

“We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get.”

In interviews with FAIR, both Kenney and Jatras asserted that these are actual quotes transcribed by reporters who spoke with a U.S. official. They declined to give the names or affiliations of the reporters.

The revelation that American reporters knew about a U.S. strategy to create a pretext for NATO’s war on Yugoslavia—but did not report on it—raises serious questions about the independence of mainstream news organizations.

[...]

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 23, 2006, 08:45 PM | #

Even I, a card-carrying anti-Semite, find neoconservative hostility to Serbs difficult to explain.

It is easy to explain. They hate Christianity. At least the Jewish Neocons do. The gentile ones just like war for the heck of it and who gets bombed doesn’t really matter that much. 

If you look around the world, they never take a single position anywhere in which they side with Euro Christians over non-whites (Christian, Moslem or other).

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 23, 2006, 08:53 PM | #

During WWII, the Pro-Nazi regime in Yugoslavia, rounded up thousands of Yugoslav Jews and shipped them off to concentration camps where enormous numbers perished through disease and execution. In that period, the Muslims were on the Nazi side. You would think that the Jewish neocons would remember that. I suppose they do but their hatred of Christianity is too great for them to take a pro-Euro Christian position. 

Strangely enough the Serbs were also on the receiving end of Nazi brutality along with the Jews. They too got shipped off in vast numbers of concentration camps (presumably because the Nazis assumed the Serbs would side with the Russians). But that didn’t win them any neocon sympathy.

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 23, 2006, 09:01 PM | #

“If you look around the world, they never take a single position anywhere in which they side with Euro Christians over non-whites (Christian, Moslem or other).”

That could explain their bewildering support for Islamic fanatics in Chechnya.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 23, 2006, 09:15 PM | #

In Darfur, they side with the Christians but the Christians there are black and the Moslems Arab.

Posted by Matra on April 23, 2006, 10:58 PM | #

Rnl

The list of anti-Serb necons is long.

Even I, a card-carrying anti-Semite, find neoconservative hostility to Serbs difficult to explain. Neocons like Frum should, if they valued consistency, see a parallel between Israel’s long war against Palestinian Muslims and the Serb attempt to preserve the heartland of their nation from Islam, but they don’t.

Frum may have ridiculed paleocons for their pro-Serb sympathies but in fairness to him and other neocons like Charles Krauthammer he opposed the war against Serbia. Not that it was a major priority for him.

The list of neocons supporting the bombing may be long, as you say, but the list of liberals and leftists (many of them Jews, of course) is even longer. The Bianca Jagger’s and Ken Livingstone’s (a man recently defended by Jew-obsessive American Michael Hoffman, a Nick Griffin critic) were far more numerous in the anti-Christian jihad in the Balkans than the neocons.

Nevertheless the double standard of most neocons in supporting Israel whilst opposing the Serbs is illustrative. It tells us that for all the talk of democracy and freedom what it all really comes down to is ethnic identity.

Below is two lists of supporters and opponents of the war against the Serbs:

http://iraqwar.org/list-conservatives.htm

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 23, 2006, 11:58 PM | #

That’s fair.

I have a feeling and a preference that Israel should live.  No one need share that. 

I agree.  If Israel dies as a jewish state then there goes the world’s last “western” ethnostate.  That wouldn’t be a good thing, imo.

Sure, American jewry is monstrously hypocritical in its support for Israel and the war vs. white ethnocentrism (Serbia), inter alia, but I find that 99.99999% of all problems WNs typically trace to “Israel” are actually problems with American or international jewry.

I think it’s better to have the jewish ethnostate there for us to point at as evidence of diaspora jewry’s (and the west’s) blatant hypocrisy than it would be to have Israel disappear, whereupon our opponents would wheel upon us and sneer, “well, that’s the last of them!  Now you have no excuse.”

I find it laughable that so many WNs take up for the Palestinians, as though they gave a flying **** about the Pals.

Btw, what does the “WJP” handle attributed to Amalek stand for?

Posted by Lurker on April 24, 2006, 12:32 AM | #

WJP - WJ Phillips, sometimes William J Phillips.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 24, 2006, 02:03 AM | #

Ah, okay.  Many of many names.

Posted by ben tillman on April 24, 2006, 03:31 AM | #

I think it’s better to have the jewish ethnostate there for us to point at as evidence of diaspora jewry’s (and the west’s) blatant hypocrisy than it would be to have Israel disappear....

Yes, of course.

Posted by EV, EF, ER on April 24, 2006, 05:04 AM | #

I find it laughable that so many WNs take up for the Palestinians, as though they gave a flying **** about the Pals.

They do it the same way JNs used blacks against whites. Did Jews regard blacks as equals? Har har.

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 04:10 PM | #

my comments in “[]”

Jewish Groups Take Pro-Immigrant Stand

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15672

You didn’t see many Jews amid the sea of Mexican and American flags during the recent pro-immigrant rallies that filled city streets, but Jews and Jewish groups, in largely liberal Los Angeles, have been advocating on behalf of immigrants, mostly outside the view of television cameras.

Among local Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been leading the way: Its regional branch has been developing and disseminating a pro-immigrant resolution for roughly six months. The resulting declaration, recently approved by the Pacific Southwest Region of the ADL, calls for humane treatment of illegal immigrants, while also accepting the need for “security precautions ... necessary to protect the integrity of the United States border and the well-being of the American people.”

Sixteen local civil rights organizations and the Catholic church have signed on to the declaration, said Amanda Susskind, regional director of ADL. The declaration has been forwarded to L.A. City Council President Eric Garcetti, with the hope that the City Council, too, will endorse the nonbinding resolution. Signatories hope the declaration will work its way to other cities and to the state Legislature as well.

The ADL declaration is intentionally short on specifics. It does not get into details about the number of years or days per year an undocumented immigrant should work to get resident status or whether or not illegal immigrants should be required to learn English or submit to a criminal background check. Instead, the declaration condemns in broad terms “xenophobia and anti-immigrant bias as having no place in United States’ immigration policy” and also proposes the monitoring of extremist groups.[i.e. white americans who oppose the mexican invasion]

Other local Jewish organizations also have taken a pro-immigration stance, including the Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA). Two rabbis affiliated with the organization were part of a delegation of clergy who recently spoke to congressmen in Washington to “present a moral agenda,” PJA Executive Director Daniel Sokatch said.

A signatory to the ADL declaration, the alliance “takes the position further,” said Sokatch, urging community leaders “to take a stand substantially similar to Cardinal [Roger] Mahony’s.”

Mahony has spoken out adamantly against House and Senate bills that would define illegal immigration as a felony and would also criminalize the actions of those organizations and people who help these immigrants.

Sokatch says that the PJA would advocate civil disobedience against such provisions, which are part of legislation proposed by Wisconsin Representative James Sensenbrenner and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

“Any law that would cater to the worst, xenophobic elements,” Sokatch saus, “would require us to civilly disobey the law.”[how many americans reading this weblog wouldn’t like to be able to civilly disobey laws that cater to the worst albophobic elements of society ?]

Sokatch said that he did not attend the March 25 “Gran Marcha” because it was Shabbat, but he and his two daughters did attend another rally at UCLA, which included many non-Latinos, some Jews presumably among them.

The local branch of the American Jewish Congress also signed the ADL declaration. The national organization was expected to consider its own resolution on immigration at its national board meeting this week. Executive Director Neil Goldstein said that his organization is “strongly in favor of border controls,” but prefers the more pro-immigrant approach of legislation developed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“The historic position of Jews is that we are an immigrant people,” Goldstein says. “We support the idea of immigrants coming to America balanced with respect for the law and our border.”

Another local signatory to the ADL declaration is the legal aid group Bet Tzedek, which represents Latino immigrants through its employment-rights project. The organization aims to prevent discrimination against immigrants “whether they’re documented or not,” Bet Tzedek Executive Director Mitchell Kamin said.

An individual on the frontlines of a walkout was teacher Steve Zimmer, who runs intervention programs at Marshall High School. Zimmer, who is Jewish, marched with students to act as a “buffer” between the police and students. At the beginning of the day, he had no idea that he would end up walking with the students all the way from Silver Lake to City Hall, adding that he wore “wing tips much to my chagrin.”

Once the Marshall marchers, the vast majority of them Latino, reached the crest on Spring Street, they saw thousands of other students — estimates put the total at 40,000 — some from as far away as the San Gabriel Valley. Zimmer characterized the moment when his students spotted their peers as “jubilant.” Zimmer, who knows City Council President Garcetti, prevailed upon Garcetti to talk to the teens. Later, as widely reported, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa spoke to them as well.

The leadership of United Teachers Los Angeles, the L.A. Unified teachers union, has passed a motion calling on teachers to have conversations with their students on immigration and to support students’ constitutional rights[I didn’t know illegals had constitutional rights]. The motion was proposed by Andy Griggs, who is Jewish, and it passed overwhelmingly, UTLA Treasurer David Goldberg said.

“We want to make sure students are safe and don’t get beat up,” Goldberg said.

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 04:19 PM | #

I am a zionist, I think all jews should go live in Israel or some homeland somewhere else and that a 30” high security fence should surround the place so that they can’t get out easily. Those who want to stay in our countries and try to influence their institutions should be told “you have a jewish country now, get the hell out of here”.

They can be millionaires and financiers and whatever they want as long as they have zero influence on our societies.

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 05:50 PM | #

If Auster really believes what he wrote:

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.

then he should stop whining when David Duke or Kevin MacDonald points the finger at jews and jewish groups or when Jared Taylor refuses to make a big deal out of Stormfront members attending his American Renaissance conferences. I bet I could find a David Duke quote similar to this one. Perhaps he should send a letter to himself telling him not to associate with people like him.

How are we going to find “responsible ways of restraining” this jewish tendency if we can’t speak of it ? Or if when some of us do speak of it the usual chorus of indignation is heard from all sides including from the man who basically said the same thing the antisemites he dislikes have said ? This is again typical jewish behavior. When a white nationalist says jews run Hollywood well it’s antisemitic drivel of course, when Neil Gabler or Sharon Waxman says the same it’s not worth noticing because coming from their mouths it’s not ‘bad for the jews’.

And Kevin MacDonald’s work took care of my ignorance, the ignorance he says can only make things worse. KM’s conclusions may not apply to the whole of the West but it’s undeniable that jews and jewish groups have inflicted incalculable damages to the United States, probably enough to sink the ship before its real crew can take back the bridge and start repairing it, and considering the power of the US Governement and the US entertainement industry they don’t need to have as much power as they do here in North America to inflict a lot of damages to other white countries.

The hull of USS America is leaking badly but Lancelot Auster is worried about the antisemites he himself predicted would begin to see all the bad things that can be traced back to jews, the group that did all it could to make the country not only ignore the icebergs but to bribe the captains into sailing right into them, as if it was really ‘Good for the jews’. And I don’t see a lot of lifeboats for whites.

So get lost Auster. Go try to “find responsible ways of restraining” jews instead of whining like a girl because Jared Taylor doesn’t take orders from you (or anyone else) or because unlike you a lot of us sincere politically incorrect defenders of the West really want to find “responsible ways of restraining” jews and not just ponder the maybes and the perhaps. One responsible way to stop them from propagating their hatred of whites would be to have a law forbidding any jew from owning stock, managing or working even as a janitor in any media except their own little ethnic newspapers & radios. But to Auster I guess this would be like re-opening the gaz chambers and making soap out of them

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 25, 2006, 07:37 PM | #

Say, does anyone have a theory on John Bolton’s motivations? What’s up with that guy?

Posted by Steve Edwards on April 25, 2006, 07:40 PM | #

Interesting thing about the Kosovo War is how the pro-Arab and anti-Zionist partisans tended to oppose it, despite the fact it was a war on behalf of Muslims. Just read the list: Chomsky, Ali, Fisk, etc.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 25, 2006, 07:44 PM | #

I think Bolton is sort of evengelical.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 25, 2006, 07:47 PM | #

Actually that comment of mine makes no sense.

A better explanation: I think a lot of Neoconservatives are basically cold war liberals who still think in a cold war paradigm. You will note that during the Cold War, the term “free nations” and “free world” was used so casually as to include anyone who wasn’t a Soviet puppet.

So the cold war impulse to intervene anywhere and everywhere survived the Soviet Union’s collapse. As a result, cold war anti-communism morphed into post cold war aggressive Neoconservatism with an emphasis on spreading democracy.

Bolton strikes me as a cold war liberal. As is Rumsfeld.

Posted by RAY JAYJOHN on April 25, 2006, 07:48 PM | #

JB:

Jewish Groups Take Pro-Immigrant Stand
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=15672

oh wait they’re not real jews, they’re just Leftwingers who happen to be jewish - I mean pretend to. You know if real Jews, righteous Right-wing jews like… like… ummmm... you know, if they would stop allowing those phonies to speak in their name well things would be different. It’s just another one of those Left-Right issues folks don’t think it has anything to do with race, ethnicity or any of the things that brings un-respectability on those who speak about them not that it should because freedom of speech is one of the important Principles that separates the Right from the Left but speaking about race as if it mattered in a collective sense is very leftwingish and therefore diminishes our credibility and consistency as conservatives even if it annoys Leftists because Conservatism is of the Right and vice-versa. Don’t forget that Hitler was an antisemite and a Leftist (and a Green). I shouldn’t have to explain what that means.

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 07:51 PM | #

Rnl:

Even I, a card-carrying anti-Semite, find neoconservative hostility to Serbs difficult to explain.

their blond hair ? Maybe you give these guys too much credit, perhaps they don’t feel the need for a real reason to be hostile towards something or have a realistic long term strategy before they act. Is there a real difference between an editor of a paper no one reads who has probably never even fired a water pistol calling for the US government to “crush Serb skulls” and a NATO general saying “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states” while he crushes Serb skulls from 10,000 feet of distance with real bombs ?

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 08:17 PM | #

George Kenney:
“In other words, the plan for Kosovo autonomy drafted by State Department officials was intentionally crafted to provoke a rejection from Serb negotiators.”

it’s not a secret, you can read the Rambouillet agreement on the State Department’s website. Jump to Appendix B and you’ll see what Kenney means by ‘intentionally crafted to provoke a rejection’

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 08:26 PM | #

Matt O’Halloran:

the half-crazy Islamophobe Lawrence Auster

anyone who isn’t a muslim and a hermit has every right to be an islamophobe

Matt O’Halloran:

Despite his huffing and puffing for ‘our side’ (as a relativist and multilateralist I acknowledge no such Manichaean duality)…

A better term would be ‘Our Camp’ but I am not surprised that you are “far more concerned about the next world than this vale of tears” and that you “do not believe one civilisation has a monopoly of any desirable qualities, or anywhere near it.”. Muslims hear God’s voice telling them they fight for what is right, you hear God’s voice telling you nobody is right. I think you drank too much of that Jesus Kool-Aid

Phil Peterson:

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

those features were also to be found in even earlier times when the West wasn’t christian. What’s the worse of our situation, that most whites have abandoned the christian religion or that they have abandoned their race ? Did the former caused the latter ? Are ‘anti-racists’ christians somehow false christians ? Eventually there should be a debate on this weblog on this issue of christianity, why we should try to keep it or bring it back, how much of our culture and civilization can be attributed to it.

Fred Scrooby:

If the Euros all converted to Judaïsm there’d be no need to race-replace them with non-whites, in neocon eyes, because there’d be no more problem, no more Euro-Christianity.

come on if they really wanted us to join their Spiritual Team and end the “need” to race-replace us there would have been at least some kind of proselytization. No religious-minded jew has ever knocked on my door and told me that Y_hw_h needs me

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 25, 2006, 08:49 PM | #

JB,

Re: Christianity.

It is a part of our history, it is a part of our civilization, it redefined our culture (long before the multiculturalism pap became fashionable).

I am not a practising Christian or even a believing Christian. I do not go to Church, I do not pray and I don’t feel any Christian conviction. But an attack on Christianity is an attack on me and something I am a part of (however tenuously). The undermining of Christianity by homosexuals and the like is an assault on me, on my values and something I am a part of.

Whether we can bring Christianity in its “untainted” versions back is a difficult question to answer. We probably cannot. But we must have a deep appreciation for what the West created and accomplished when it was truly Christian (just as we have an appreciation for what the pagan Romans and Ancient Greeks accomplished).

If Christianity had never come to Europe, it would have been a rotting religion from Arabia that would have created very little. In Europe, we created some of the finest works of architecture in the history of mankind.

Have you been to the Vatican museum? Please do pay it a visit at some point. All white men and women should pay a visit to the Vatican museum (regardless of whether we are Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox or Atheists). It was after I saw the Vatican museum that I realised what our heritage truly is. Nothing more magnificent could ever be created by another people anywhere else in the world. That is a plain fact.

Posted by JB on April 25, 2006, 09:06 PM | #

now here’s a good Right-Wing Republican Patriotic American:

Jewish adviser becomes Bush chief of staff

http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=5060

When Josh Bolten walked into his first meeting as a member of President George W. Bush’s Cabinet in the summer of 2003, he was asked to lead the president and the Cabinet in prayer. He chose to pray for the welfare of the American government, both in Hebrew and English, a sign of his strong Jewish identity.

Bolten was named Tuesday as Bush’s second chief of staff. He succeeds Andrew Card, who served more than five years in the post. The move comes amid low approval ratings for the administration and calls from both parties for new leadership at the White House.

Bolten, 51, has been one of the senior Jewish officials in the White House through much of Bush’s administration. Before this week’s appointment, he served as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, a Cabinet-rank position, and as a domestic policy adviser.

Colleagues and friends say Bolten has been vocal about his religion and willing to participate in Jewish events at the White House. He frequently has been seen at White House Chanukah candlelightings, and participated in a Megillah reading at the White House during Purim this year.

In 2003, he helped light the giant menorah that American Friends of the Lubavitch puts near the White House.

He has also been a quiet advocate for Jewish concerns, say Jewish organizational officials, sometimes bringing issues past the White House bureaucracy and straight to influential leaders, like Karl Rove, the president’s deputy chief of staff and political adviser.

“Since the beginning of this administration, he has been a senior-level force for making sure the Jewish community had a voice at the very highest levels of the administration,” said William Daroff, vice president for public policy at United Jewish Communities, the umbrella organization of the North American federation system.
(...)

Posted by EV, EF, ER on April 26, 2006, 03:05 AM | #

Say, does anyone have a theory on John Bolton’s motivations?

Oh, I know, I know! John Bolton (Ambassador to the UN, hardline neocon) has been tasked with 1) arm-twisting other nations into toeing the neocon line, 2) changing the current semi-democractic structure of the UN into a corporate-style entity whereby the US would be in complete control of naming the CEO (i.e., UN Secretary, presently Kofi Annan), and setting the organization’s rules and agenda.

Success would make the UN into a tool of US policy, good only for rubber-stamping US attacks and sanctions on enemies of Israle and the US.

Posted by Rnl on April 26, 2006, 06:09 AM | #

Auster’s Defense of Anti-Semitism

On his website Lawrence Auster has made a number of posts on the subject of the “bottomless stupidity” of anti-Semites and the failure of Jared Taylor to condemn their errors.

Let’s stipulate briefly that Lawrence Auster is the voice of God, which might not be far from his own self-image. Would the views expressed in the following divine utterances, collected from his website, differ significantly from the views of the average anti-Semite? In other words, if everything below is absolutely true, it seems clear that the anti-Semitism Auster keeps complaining about is, to use his own term, a _justified_ response to Jewish misbehavior.

It hasn’t yet dawned on Auster that he can’t regularly report how various Jewish provocations might potentially provoke anti-Semitism without acknowledging that provocations like those he lists may have _already_ provoked the response he fears, which would imply that at least some anti-Semites are affected by evidence. If someone keeps kicking you, eventually you’ll figure out that he doesn’t like you.

***

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.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005425.html

***

Something is _happening_ in the Jewish (or the leftist Jewish) community, a new level of aggression against the majority culture is coming out.  I add that this is not different in kind from the aggression of leftists generally.

[...]

The fact remains, as I said recently, that the Jewish people keep producing a fantastic number of “non-Jewish” Jewish leftists whose shenanigans justify anti-Semitism.

[...]

If people calling themselves Jews, and accepted by the world as Jews, say that “as Jews” they believe in X, Y, or Z, then that effectively becomes a representation of the Jewish people before the world. That is political reality. If religious Jews feel that the first group of Jews are not legitimate Jews, then they must wage political war against them and deny their right to represent themselves before the world as Jews. As long as they fail to do that, the world will be justified as taking leftist Jewish statements such as “Our Jewish soul hinges on open borders,” as at least _an_ expression of the Jewish people.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005482.html

***

As I wrote in my article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” Jewish organizations and a significant number of American Jews are passionately devoted to the cause of large-scale Third-World immigration and the resulting ongoing disappearance of America’s historic cultural and national identity, the ultimate effect of which will be to transform America truly and completely into what so many Jews have always wanted it to be:  a majority-less collection of unrelated peoples forever divorced from its actual history as a nation and held together by nothing but an abstract belief in democracy and a desire for the good life.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005391.html

***

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances—in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world—it [is] both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13894

***

I’ve recently noted the increasingly strident advocacy of open borders by American Jews writing _as_ Jews, in which they speak of open borders for Third-Worlders as a requirement of their Jewish soul, as the “Jewish American civil religion,” and as “the very heart, for Jews, of what it means to be an American,” while they add that they support this position because “as a historical matter, nationalism has been Bad For The Jews.” Unabashed hostility toward the American nation and its majority culture, expressed by Jews purporting to speak _as_ Jews and _for_ Jews, has reached such a point that a Jewish college student, speaking as a Jew, feels free to write in the student newspaper of Northwestern University that he _hates_ Christianity....

A few years ago, Rabbi Daniel Lapin was the pre-eminent American Jewish leader trying to warn his fellow Jews against behaviors that seemed designed to produce anti-Semitism.  I don’t know if his efforts had any success at the time, but they certainly need renewal and reinforcement now.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005482.html

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 26, 2006, 10:04 AM | #

I have been criticised for calling Lawrence Auster a “half-crazy Islamophobe”. His performance over the past few days, however, strengthens my suspicion that he is also half-crazy on the subject of Judaeophobia, working himself into a frenzy of denunciation… and even sparing a few drops of spittle for yours truly.

Read his articles about ‘anti-Semitism’ since mid-month here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005456.html

and ask yourself if his choice of language. his reasoning, the standard of courtesy and good faith in his responses to correspondents, and the pride with which he pronounces anathemata… are they what we should expect from a ‘traditionalist conservative’ goy?

This exchange is specially revelatory of Auster’s temper:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005456.html

particularly in the very Jewish trait of thinking he dishes the worst insult out when he calls his opponents ‘stupid’. That old love of ‘learning’ again!

A conservative does not proclaim his intellectual superiority; he does not rant and rave; he does not swallow the line that one religion, race or epoch possesses a monopoly of wisdom and virtue; and he does not (pace JB, supra) indulge in silly generalisations such as “anyone who isn’t a muslim and a hermit has every right to be an islamophobe”, or “Muslims hear God’s voice telling them they fight for what is right, you hear God’s voice telling you nobody is right. “

A conservative judges people by their actions, or lack of them, rather than what they think they believe, or say they believe.  A conservative is instinctively doubtful about homogenising large groups of people perceptually into trends, masses and movements. A Talmudist is interested in juggling with words in the service of an end which is rarely disclosed.

As I wrote, Auster wants to pass for white so completely that he will become the high priest of his new tribe. He wags his rabbinical finger at the likes of Jared Taylor and Nick Griffin and demanding that they rise to ever greater heights of adoration of ‘good Jews’ such as himself. ‘Shame on you!’ if you don’t.

Auster’s monomania about all the world’s Muslims being a threat to the way of life of the white Christian folks has little relevance to American priorities, since Islam has few American adherents and almost no influence on US society. But it suits his burning desire to divide the world into goodies and baddies-- just as he would, fifty years ago, have been tub-thumping against evil Bolshevism. This sheep-and-goats instinct is Jewish, not Christian: it is about defending a tribe in which membership is fore-ordained, not about extending a gospel of salvation to all who will hear and believe.

In 2004 Auster wrote a piece about the ‘anti-war right’ in which he excoriated such as Justin Raimondo and Patrick Buchanan for daring to suggest that the Cold War had been a phoney confrontation stoked up to aggrandise the American military industrial complex. Auster thereby betrayed his ignorance of the very ‘traditonalist conservatism’ of which he would be a maven. For he appeared never to have heard of the American Old Right of Robert Taft, Garet Garrett, Harry Elmer Barnes, HL Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Smedley Butler and the like: the rich isolationist school of scepticism about war scares and threats which predominated in the Republican Party until Eisenhower retired, and even left traces in the ‘realism’ of Nixon and Reagan.

My relativism and quietism is based on the same indifference to foreigners and their quarrels as those men advocated for the USA; but in Auster’s view it makes me a ‘Christian anti-Semite’ who “says that he places no importance on this world compared to the world to come, and no importance on biology, yet who nevertheless sees Jews as the biological enemy.”

It’s called projection, Larry. You are obviously in dire need of enemies. Are you quite sure you wouldn’t be happier as a settler on the West Bank?

Posted by Mark Richardson on April 26, 2006, 12:54 PM | #

Matt, you can’t on the one hand claim that you as a conservative won’t “indulge in silly generalisations” and that you are “instinctively doubtful about homogenising large groups of people” and then criticise someone for “their very Jewish trait of thinking” and for a “sheep and goats’ instinct which is Jewish.

Nor can you talk about standards of courtesy and good faith whilst suggesting that Auster is half-crazy, wants to rise to heights of adoration and ought to move to the West Bank.

Nor can you position yourself as a relativist who doesn’t believe that any one group possesses a monopoly of wisdom and virtue and then join in a chorus of negative commentary toward Jews.

Auster is not a quietist. He is someone who really does want to turn things around, and when you read View From the Right you are struck by how seriously he tests political ideas for their consistency and their application to real world events.

Yet all that fixates you about Auster is his Jewish ancestry and how this supposedly must determine in the negative the influence and intent of his politics.

It is one thing to recognise realistically that most Jews are not on our side, for a variety of reasons, including perceived ethnic self-interest.

It’s another to become so fixated on this aspect of things, that everything becomes filtered mentally through the idea of Jewish culpability.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 26, 2006, 01:36 PM | #

Mark,

Superb reply. I agree with all of it.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 26, 2006, 01:51 PM | #

However, I do think that Auster’s very harsh criticism of “anti-Semites"/"Judeophobes" is completely inconsistent with his own criticisms of Jewry for the following reason:

If he says that Jews through their propensity for destructive cultural marxist politics take their host nations (America being the best example) down the wrong road or the road to destruction and that as a result it is natural for the non-Jewish majority to develop some degree of dislike/hostility towards Jews as a people, where does it leave his vitriolic denunciations of these “Judeophobes”?

And in any case, assuming that the “Judeophobes” (all of them without exception) are completely in the wrong, what measures could really be applied to counter destructive Jewish tendencies that Auster alludes to? Auster says that the majority needs to re-assert itself. But the moment it begins to do that, shrill cries of “anti-Semite” begin to be heard from Jews (case in point: Mearsheimer and Walt’s perfectly reasonable paper of American foreign policy and the Israel lobby). And in any case, this argument ignores that many “Judeophobes” such as MacDonald hold that the majority culture was itself undermined by Jews and it is not the case that Jews became more destructive and left-wing after the culture was undermined and that they had nothing to do with the underminging of it. If anything, MacDonald’s work demonstrates that ever since Jews were emancipated, there has been a constant struggle between Jews and the nationalists of the countries in which they live. In some countries this has not been very pronounced - Britain being the best example. In some others, it has led to violent reactions (Nazism being the most chilling example of that).

Auster needs to consider the Jewish “problem” (to use his own terminology) more seriously because at the moment his manner of dealing with the problem is quite superficial and sounds like wishful thinking. It is not easy for someone who is ethnically Jewish to deal with this. Most Jews would consider even basic criticism as an example of anti-Semitism (for example, the New Republic accusing John Derbyshire of being a Jew-hater). However, he has taken the first step in recognising that there is a Jewish tendency. I see it as a healthy development. Dennis Prager, Rabbi Schiller and a few other Jews also seem to be willing to do the same.

This is a good start. But there are still very difficult questions that need to be answered in a manner that is consistent with what we know about these issues.

Posted by Rnl on April 26, 2006, 05:01 PM | #

JB wrote:

it’s not a secret, you can read the Rambouillet agreement on the State Department’s website. Jump to Appendix B and you’ll see what Kenney means by ‘intentionally crafted to provoke a rejection’

http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html

It isn’t a secret now. That the Rambouillet diktat was crafted to ensure that the planned bombing campaign would follow was reported, well after the war on the Serbs had ended, on PBS Frontline, which is about as mainstream as a news source can be. It wasn’t, strictly speaking, a secret in 1999 either, since the Yugoslav negotiators accurately described the character of the accords to reporters. But it _was_ a secret, during and just prior to NATO’s intervention, for anyone relying on the American media for his information, because the MSM didn’t report what they knew. If they did, I never came across it, and I was looking. It was a highly significant fact that wasn’t widely reported but should have been, thus an important secret in practical terms.

In deceptive statecraft it is, as this and other recent deceptions illustrate, an elementary truth that if you can control your initial lies, preventing them from being widely exposed at the time of your deception, especially by television news, you’ll succeed, since hardly anyone will care when the lies are revealed years later. All of the NATO aggressors could, without fear of consequences, openly acknowledge today that they wanted all along to drop bombs on Serbs and orchestrated a pretext for that purpose.

Two Good Articles on the Hague Kangaroo Court:

http://slobodan-milosevic.org/news/spectator111905.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1730274,00.html

Posted by JB on April 26, 2006, 05:26 PM | #

Matt O’Halloran :

A conservative does not (...)

I’m not a conservative because I don’t ascribe any value to that term, like to these other shallow terms like Right, Left, Progressive, Liberal. And besides the word itself provokes flashbacks of John Jay Ray’s arguing about about how collectivist an un-conservative opposition to race replacement is

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 27, 2006, 12:43 AM | #

Matt, you can’t on the one hand claim that you as a conservative won’t “indulge in silly generalisations” and that you are “instinctively doubtful about homogenising large groups of people” and then criticise someone for “their very Jewish trait of thinking” and for a “sheep and goats’ instinct which is Jewish.

Yes, I can. To begin with, standards for one’s own group are different from those applied to alien interlopers. Only suckers who accept Auster at his own valuation as an honorary white will handle him with kid gloves, although I have been far more polite about him than vice versa. Besides, generalisations about race are not silly. They are scientifically valid; those about religion (1.2bn Muslims, for example) are not, unless the religion is a mere phenotypical expression of racial interests, as Judaism is and Islam is not.

Next, Jews are not a large but a very small (c. 20m), inbred population group, so generalisation works better with them than with Middle Eastern Muslims. But in any case I have not said that Auster is *typically* Jewish in his neuroticism and intemperateness; on the contrary, I have distinguished his mindset as that of a messianic renegade.

Nor can you talk about standards of courtesy and good faith whilst suggesting that Auster is half-crazy, wants to rise to heights of adoration and ought to move to the West Bank.

An honest appraisal of somebody’s traits based firmly on evidence furnished by his words is not discourteous. I speak as I find, without profanity.

Nor can you position yourself as a relativist who doesn’t believe that any one group possesses monopoly of wisdom and virtue and then join in a chorus of negative commentary toward Jews.

Not all Jews. Read my words with more care (show me more courtesy, in fact). To hold that no one group monopolises wisdom and virtue not only permits but obliges one to examine a Jew critically if he is having a malign effect on me and mine. To remain silent would be to betray my own people’s interests, which is all I care about.

when you read View From the Right you are struck by how seriously he tests political ideas for their consistency and their application to real world events.

That is precisely what I dispute. Auster’s agenda is skewed. His preoccupation with (i) indiscriminate attacks on a handful of Muslims in America and (ii) ‘anti-Semitism’ as the touchstone of his own brand of political correctness are at best irrelevant. In much else he writes, he simply belabours abstractions of his own devising (’liberals’, ‘leftists’) like Ann Coulter. His natural, and increasingly frequent, berth is among the witch-hunting neocon Zionists of David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine. Obviously they aren’t too bothered, or taken in, by Auster’s sporadic criticisms of their kind. Bashing ‘anti-Semites’ gets him back in the club.

Auster refuses to acknowledge the biological reality and obduracy of race even while saying that it matters. He now writes:

how should the rest of the American community regard and respond to Jews? I repeat my conviction that if other Americans began in a civilized but firm way to criticize these Jewish dispositions, that would force the Jews to pull back from their aggressive leftism. If the majority culture restored itself and its moral authority, then Jews would again become good members of it, as they had been prior to the shattering of the majority culture in the Sixties Revolution. Yet at the same time, honesty compels me to acknowledge that Prager’s article makes the problem of Jewish leftism seem more threatening, and harder to solve, than ever before.

Once again the historical ignorance, wilful or not. Jews are just victims of the dreadful Sixties-- not the main promoters of its bad features. They are dupes of leftism, not its vector since refugees from tsar and kaiser arrived on Ellis Island. They can be talked out of their predisposition to espousing and promulgating lousy ideas if only white Americans make them see sense ‘in a civilized but firm way’.

Hence Auster is not real about race. He implicitly endorses the social-constructionist view of racial identity as something that can be modified by conscious, concerted action. ‘I made myself into a white right-wing RC, why can’t all Jews?’ He is just another species of propositional ideas-monger, and so would be no true conservative even if his emotional temperature were flatter-- which is the hallmark of a real conservative.

One proper conservative in the States is Joseph Sobran. Like me, Sobran is too ready to see good in people who are not on Auster’s Christmas card list:

Sobran hates Israel—he is personally bent out of shape about Israel—as much as anyone in the world except maybe the Palestinian terrorists and the president of Iran. He is also indifferent to the ethnocultural survival of America. And a couple of years ago he abandoned his life-long devotion to the original Constitution and became a Rothbardian anarchist subscribing to the notion that the 1787 Constitutional Convention was a coup d’état. So, what does this guy believe in? My sense is that he’s a broken spirit who hates the world, doesn’t give a damn what happens to the world, and finds some kind of consolation in the Catholic Church.

Of all the people in America that one would not want to be in a fox hole with, Sobran would be at the top of the list.

Let’s just think about these deductions. Sobran ‘hates Israel as much as anyone in the world’, almost-- not that he says so, but Auster just knows so, because Sobran doesn’t see why Israel’s survival should be the central goal of US foreign policy. Sobran thinks the Constitutional Convention was a coup (which it was-- see Gary North’s writings, based on the Founders’ own admissions) and that it should not be fetishised because it is no bulwark against the things Auster and Sobran deplore. But dissing the Constitution proves that Sobran ‘hates’ not only Israel but ‘the world’, presumably because he is disrespectful to the two countries in it Auster reveres most.

Well, every Christian’s duty is to hate the world, so there is no sting in this barb. But again these ravings tell of a man who ought to show some respect for a fellow journalist who has suffered far more for his convictions than Larry, but who can be written off as a ‘hater’, a coward and ‘a total nihilist’ for not being USraeli enough.

This is sheer marxisant smearing. It is time MR people read Auster with as much care as I do, so they can see what sort of man he is. Listen to the endless shrilling of hysterical intolerance, and ask if this is someone we should want or need on our side.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 06:05 AM | #

One proper conservative in the States is Joseph Sobran.

Sobran has no problem with mass immigration. He has been on record saying, “I can’t imagine Jesus standing on the border to turn them back.”.

So in the sense that we understand the word “Conservative” (in terms of blood and nationality), he hasn’t got a conservative bone in his body. So what makes him a conservative?

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 27, 2006, 10:18 AM | #

From 2004:

I in no way endorse current U.S. immigration policy; I agree that it’s disastrous, flooding us with problems that are bound to get worse.

http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2004/w040729.shtml

but he takes the traditional American line that if immigrants were not greeted with a welfare ‘welcome wagon’ but had to sink or swim by their own efforts, most of the illegals would go home (as many would-be incomers did before 1924) and the USA has enough space for the rest.

It is possible to find that too starry-eyed, but not to infer that Sobran ‘hasn’t got a conservative bone in his body’ because he does not support a statist system of heavy-handed controls on everybody to sort out a few million illegals. It may be merely that he thinks a Washington War on lllegals would be as brilliantly effective as its wars on Drugs, Terror and Illiteracy, and with as many baleful side effects for civil liberties.

Sobran, it is true, no longer wishes to be *called* a conservative because in America the term has become so cheapened and perverted:

I can’t even call myself a conservative anymore. I don’t see much left to conserve. Most of today’s conservatives are to the left of yesterday’s liberals. They quote John Kennedy and Martin Luther King and they have plans to save Social Security and Medicare. They think a minor tax cut would cure the country’s ills.

It’s hard for me to get very interested in today’s political squabbles. I don’t have a dog in these fights; my dog died a long time ago. You know you’re politically homeless when you go to a John Birch Society dinner and you feel you’re surrounded by well-meaning liberals.

Looking at the Cameroonies, one recognises the feeling;-)

Sobran prefers ‘reactionary utopian’, and recently wrote:

The task of a reactionary utopian is simply to pull his head out of his immediate environment and look to religion, philosophy, history, and art for intimations of how social life ought to be. A decent man should always be somewhat alienated from the herd, from the age he lives in, from the dominant political gangs. When you feel at home in a world that has gone wrong, you’ve gone wrong too.

Amen. Those who noisily position themselves at the polar opposite of the artefacts known as ‘liberals’ or ‘left wingers’, or who think they must indiscriminately blackguard a billion people whose faith differs somewhat from their own (or, more often, their own faithlessness) are falling into the trap of taking politics too seriously, and taking this world too much at the Devil’s valuation. As a great English Tory said: ‘That’s cant, sir; public affairs vex no man’.

And yet I, who am instinct with the pessimism of the true conservative, fight the good fight among the enemy more than you clique of kvetchers!

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 11:56 AM | #

Sobran’s position on immigration is a nonsense and shows him to be an utter fool.

First of all, immigration will NOT stop even if you demolished the welfare state. The PRIMARY driver of immigration is wages, not welfare benefits. As long as minimum wage US workers get paid much more than those in Mexico or any place further south, millions will keep pouring into America. If anything it shows that Sobran lives in a fantasy land.

Secondly, no Conservative can ever condone breaking the law. What Sobran is essentially saying is that: (1) The US Government has no duty to protect the border or it shoukd disregard that duty - even when we have violent criminals coming through (I find that a nonsensical argument for anyone, “conservative” or not, to make); and (2) He would like the Government to NOT enforce the law. Even without getting into the question of race, one stands in opposition to illegal immigration on that ground alone.

Remember that immigration to the US from China and Japan in the 19th century and early 20th century had to stopped by government fiat. There was no welfare state in existence at that time. But immigrants kept pouring in and it didn’t stop until Government action was taken.

Sobran is living in an anarchist Utopia which is every bit as unlikely to exist in this world as Karl’s Marx’s worker paradise. The man needs a little dose of reality.

Those who noisily position themselves at the polar opposite of the artefacts known as ‘liberals’ or ‘left wingers’, or who think they must indiscriminately blackguard a billion people whose faith differs somewhat from their own (or, more often, their own faithlessness) are falling into the trap of taking politics too seriously, and taking this world too much at the Devil’s valuation.

Wonderful. Let’s go home then. Pray to God on Sundays and forget about this world. Who cares if this country or others go to the dogs? Why should one be vexed by these things? So long as one’s place in heaven in the afterlife is assured, why bother about anything at all?

Why have this blog at all for that matter? Why vote in elections? It’s all to “this-worldly” isn’t it?

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 12:02 PM | #

Finally, Matt, I find it astonishing that you hate Auster (who wants all illegals to be deported) and love Sobran (who has no problem with illegals).

I think this shows that all of us have our own priorities. For you, dislike of a certain tribe takes greater precedence over the survival of nations. For me it is the other way round.

Each to his own, I suppose. But it is good that we know where you stand and where we stand.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on April 27, 2006, 05:03 PM | #

Finally, Matt, I find it astonishing that you hate Auster (who wants all illegals to be deported) and love Sobran (who has no problem with illegals).

I don’t hate or love either of them. They are foreigners living thousands of miles away. Don’t be so ready to project your own over-zealousness on to me, whose usual reaction to events is just laughter. Hating and loving phantasms is what humourless radicals do.

Wonderful. Let’s go home then. Pray to God on Sundays and forget about this world. Who cares if this country or others go to the dogs? Why should one be vexed by these things? So long as one’s place in heaven in the afterlife is assured, why bother about anything at all?

You evidently know as little about the Christian faith as about other aspects of this western civilisation you are so anxious about. Getting things in proportion, dear lad, is not the same as being Buddhist about them. And you should pray without ceasing, not only on Sundays.

Why have this blog at all for that matter?

Good question.

Why vote in elections?

I never did.

Fred-- I agree with you about the inadequacies of Sobran’s position on immigration, and do not feel as despairing about the UK as he does about the USA. But it is well to be reminded now and again that strenuous efforts to defend a life-expired human artefact such as the America of Tyrant Lincoln can yield more harm than good. Better let it fall into its natural racial/geographic polities (after a few more decades of Latino and black self-segregation) and ensure that they do not have too much to do with each other.

Sobran obviously is teasing the dull mass of self-described conservatives when he calls himself an anarchist or a utopian, but irony is not their natural vein.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 27, 2006, 05:43 PM | #

“ ‘Why have this blog at all for that matter?’ Good question.” (—Matt O’Halloran)

That was unfair and uncalled for.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 07:40 PM | #

Matt O’Halloran/Effra/WJ Phillips/Amalek (and whatever else your schizophrenia produces next),

I don’t hate or love either of them. They are foreigners living thousands of miles away. Don’t be so ready to project your own over-zealousness on to me, whose usual reaction to events is just laughter. Hating and loving phantasms is what humourless radicals do.

Yes the terminology was inappropriate. I agree. But your approval of Sobran and denunciation of Auster makes little sense if one is concerned about the survival of the West, which you obviously are not (as is now apparent). 

You evidently know as little about the Christian faith as about other aspects of this western civilisation you are so anxious about. Getting things in proportion, dear lad, is not the same as being Buddhist about them. And you should pray without ceasing, not only on Sundays.

I certainly don’t need your haughty pontifications to tell me what the Christian faith requires of me and what it doesn’t. I shall confer with better authorities on such questions.

Furthermore, I am not a practising/believing Christian and I do not pray. Given the current condition of the Church of England I regard it as a reflection of healthy instinct to remain an agnostic than to sign on to something that is cultural marxism rather than Christianity (unless you think I ought not to have a problem with Sodomites acting as Bishops and so on). The majority of bloggers (and I would think commenters) here also fall under the same description.

So if your intention is to canvass your brand of Christian fatalism, you have chosen the wrong forum.

Lastly, your brand of Toryism and Christian pessimism is more suited to the early 19th century than the 21st. You often say that we kvetch a lot. But your entire philosophy appears to focus on kvetching (since we mustn’t be so vexed as to actually do something about anything - you don’t even vote). I do not believe in sitting around and twiddling my thumbs. 

By the way, how old are you? You seem like a sad and tired old man to me.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 27, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

But it is well to be reminded now and again that strenuous efforts to defend a life-expired human artefact such as the America of Tyrant Lincoln can yield more harm than good. Better let it fall into its natural racial/geographic polities (after a few more decades of Latino and black self-segregation) and ensure that they do not have too much to do with each other.

The consequence, for Americans, of not opposing the direction their country is taking is to become a party to the foundations of a coming tyranny (far worse than anything Lincoln ever put in place). Being complicit in the makings of a tyranny (which is precisely what mass immigration/multiculturalism will produce) is not an option that appeals to any one here.

Posted by Matra on April 27, 2006, 08:58 PM | #

Is Joe Sobran white? Seriously. When I saw a close up of him on TV (I think it was a CBC show about Shakespeare) something about his appearance made me wonder about his racial background even though his skin was fairly light in colour.

I think he’s from the Dearborn area of Michigan, which may have an Arab majority. Keep in mind most Arabs in the US are Christian. His support for Palestinians seems to go beyond the usual hostility to neocon influence. It could be the case that his lack of concern for the destruction of white America may be due to race as much as religion or ideology. I don’t actually know what his background is but if he is part Arab that is as important as knowing whether someone is Jewish or not.

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 28, 2006, 06:22 AM | #

I, for one, feel that Mr. O’Halloran, is wasting dear Philip’s time. He is clearly beyond his depth and is undeserving of a conscientious thoughtful reply. It is evident that Philip has disarmed the poor chap with his rapacious and cutting wit. He is worthy only of caterwauling and contempt. Undoubtedly he should be banished to the lunatic fringe with all the other serial mischief-makers.

Posted by Phil Peterson on April 28, 2006, 07:07 AM | #

Matra,

That is a very good question. I always thought he was Irish Catholic but I haven’t seen him on Television, so I had no way of knowing.

Posted by ben tillman on April 28, 2006, 03:17 PM | #

I believe Sobran has at least some Ukrainian ancestry.