The Inverted World

Posted by Steven Palese on December 18, 2006, 11:36 PM | #

“Mr. Igorevich and Mr. Palese both seem to indicate that the “ALL JEWS” thing is something that I’ve seen in a few places here and by commentors not authors, etc. ... Rest assured that regular (not fly-by) contributors to this site make ALL encompassing statements about Jews (manifested in various forms such as ALL jews want race-replacement of whites or jews COMPLETELY control the government or media,”

I agree that it is inaccurate to say that “jews COMPLETELY control the government or media”.

Government: US Congress - House of Representatives

As we saw with the Lebanon resolution, where the US House of Representatives voted 410-8 to support Israel, there are eight dissidents in the House. I can’t understand how anyone can honestly say that the Jewish Lobby “COMPLETELY controls” the House when 2% of its members are clearly not controlled. It’s ludicrous. At best you could say the Jewish Lobbies control 98% of the House. However, that’s far from COMPLETE control.

Government: US Congress - Senate

Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker explains the absence of COMPLETE control in the US Senate:

“aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”—Clinton’s—“headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact

So AIPAC can get 70 Senators to sign onto a blank check in 24 hours? Ok but what about the remaining 30 Senators? They clearly aren’t controlled so saying the Senate is under COMPLETE control is also ludicrous.

Government: US Presidency

The Nixon-Graham tapes reveal a hidden power capable of intimidating sitting presidents into behaving like frightened children:

[U.S. President Richard] Nixon cites Paul Keyes, a political conservative who is executive producer of the NBC hit, “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In,” as telling him that “11 of the 12 writers are Jews.” “That right?” says Billy Graham, America’s best known preacher of the time, prompting Nixon to claim that Life magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others, are “totally dominated by Jews.” Nixon says network TV anchors Howard K. Smith, David Brinkley and Walter Cronkite “front men who may not be of that persuasion,” but that their writers are “95 percent Jews.”

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declares “You believe that?” Nixon says. “Yes, sir,” Graham says. “Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.” Nixon-Graham tapes - 1972. (http://www.counterpunch.org/alexgraham.htm ).

Again, the fact that Nixon could find the time to complain says it all: it’s not 100% control. Someone controlled 100% doesn’t complain. As usual, no COMPLETE control.

Media:

“Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout—however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.”
(Los Angeles Jewish Times, ‘Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media,’ Oct. 29-Nov. 11, 1999 p. 14)

Again, no COMPLETE control here either. It has been scientifically established that 4/5 is not 100%. Don’t blame me, blame mathematicians.

So yes, as you can see the facts clearly demonstrate that there is no COMPLETE control of either government or media. I agree with that.

It’s the need to censor those who make these mistakes that I don’t understand. Can’t you just copy/paste a few quotes like I just did and show them that they’re wrong? In doing so you’d teach them to say “control 98% of the House” or “control 70 Senators” etc. instead of making wild generalizations. The problem would then auto-correct itself.

All it takes is a small effort by commenters like you.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 12:38 AM | #

Lol, funny stuff (and true) Steven.

I have a question for Auster & co., one I doubt will get a straight answer.

Do we (EuroChristians, whites, whatever) have the right to form societies that exclude non-Arab Semites (inter alia)?

One ubiquitous assumption I perceive to be underpinning Auster & co.’s comments is that we do not.* Is that perception accurate?

* (and I see huge hostility toward any expressed desire to do so)

Posted by bats-man on December 19, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

“Do we have the right to form societies that exclude non-Arab Semites?”

It’s kind of a theoetical question since we don’t just form societies as casually as we do clubs. Societies involve territory and demographics. The theoretical answer is yes, we have a right to form societies composed of “us” and to define “us” as restrictively as we please.

In practice, were not forming societies from the ground up right now but working with what we have. If it can be established beyond doubt that we cannot live together without destructive Jewish leftism, then my answer to your question “yes.” However, I’m not convinced that we cannot live together with Jews as a visible minority in our midst. Jews represent a small group demographically. A self confident white majority needs to b__ch slap (figuratively speaking) the Abe Foxmans back into reality (I say that as a person who sees dishonest Abe’s actions as the rantings of a nutcase and not as a warrior for a sociobiologically driven organism).

I believe Jews can exist AS Jews and as members of Western Civilization without being destructive, and indeed, as disproportionately constructive members of our societies. WE need to act like it’s OUR countries and remind them of our generosity in letting THEM join.

We also have a right to form a society without blacks, latinos, muslims, etc. particuarly if they want to whine constantly and behave aggressively toward us despite our generosity to them (American blacks are lucky their ancestors were enslaved, they’d be living in mud huts and brushing flys off their eyelids like in the Sally Struthers commericals if Kunta Kinte hadn’t been kidnapped).

But we can’t just form socieities the way we form clubs. How can we exclude these people who are already among us without ethnic cleansing? Move to Montana and secede?

My answer to your (theoretical) question is yes. We have a right to live with who we want to live with. I don’t know how we form such a society, though.  Also, our relationship to jews is different. They aren’t threatening to swamp us demographically. There’s no reason why we couldn’t assert ourselves no matter how many tv stations and newspapers they own.

Posted by bats-man on December 19, 2006, 01:57 PM | #

Also, I’m confused about your email to Auster. You wrote: “I see we’re all talking about one another!” but its not clear to me he was talking about you or your one post I saw on IW. It seems like you might have presumptuously injected yourself into a debate that wasn’t about you.  It’s not clear to me that you approached Auster in good faith.
(I may be missing something. If so, please correct).

My impression is AmRen was more on his mind. In particular, he was bothered by the fact that Taylor let in a bunch of folks who clapped and cheered when a speaker said Israel would not exist in 100 years. Those people don’t just want jews out of their societies.

Posted by bats-man on December 19, 2006, 02:41 PM | #

Mr. Palese,

Given that 1. Israel was warring with a Muslim terrorist organization (regardless of how you feel about the rightness of Israel) and 2. the degree of conciousness of Muslim terrorism in the minds of the American public, its hard to calculate the extent to which the Israeli lobby influenced congress (specifically, how many voted for moral reasons vs how many voted because of Jewish intimidation or control of congress). It’s hard for me to imagine very many Congressman not supporting Israel over Hezbollah.

But, lets assume that you’re right. “Supporting Israel” is only one small part of Congress’ actions. By saying things like Jews control all or 90%, or whatever, of Congress or the White House, you leave the impression that Jews exert their total or NEAR-TOTAL influence over everything not just issues involving Israel.

In fact, its often the implications of people’s arguments that are too strong for my stomach. To show “good faith” to Mr. O’Halloran, I did a google on “anti-semitism” and “all jews.” Here’s a nice example of the ALL JEWS mentality:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/not_all_majority_rights_advocates_are_antisemites/

“ALL JEWS” comments are followed by a listing of a few promient white-interested Jews but one is still left with the impression that the average “Saul, Herschel, and Shlomo” on the street lusts for the destruction of the white race.

I’m not denying the destructiveness of the Jewish left (or for that matter the jewish neocons, although I have been left with the impression that there are also post-vatican 2 Catholics among the founding neocons). I’m not arguing that nothing needs to be done. I’m merely arguing that a difficult topic needs to be approached reasonably carefully.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 08:13 PM | #

“Do we have the right to form societies that exclude non-Arab Semites?”

It’s kind of a theoetical question since we don’t just form societies as casually as we do clubs. Societies involve territory and demographics. The theoretical answer is yes, we have a right to form societies composed of “us” and to define “us” as restrictively as we please.

In practice, were not forming societies from the ground up right now but working with what we have. If it can be established beyond doubt that we cannot live together without destructive Jewish leftism, then my answer to your question “yes.” However, I’m not convinced that we cannot live together with Jews as a visible minority in our midst. Jews represent a small group demographically. A self confident white majority needs to b__ch slap (figuratively speaking) the Abe Foxmans back into reality (I say that as a person who sees dishonest Abe’s actions as the rantings of a nutcase and not as a warrior for a sociobiologically driven organism).

The question does not require two paragraphs of hemming and hawing and qualifications to answer.  It requires a yes or a no.  I take your answer as no, because you qualify it with nonsense about justification, but later you seem to give an unqualified yes; maybe you could clarify?

But we can’t just form socieities the way we form clubs. How can we exclude these people who are already among us without ethnic cleansing? Move to Montana and secede?

Eminent Domain.  More to the point, the right to form organizations and the right to form societies and the right to form states all flow from the same general right, the collective right to free association.  The arguments for defending the creation and maintenance of exclusive organizations, societies, and states are essentially the same.  Non-Arab Semites will squeal when they’re excluded from any of these.

My answer to your (theoretical) question is yes. We have a right to live with who we want to live with. I don’t know how we form such a society, though.  Also, our relationship to jews is different. They aren’t threatening to swamp us demographically. There’s no reason why we couldn’t assert ourselves no matter how many tv stations and newspapers they own.

I just wanted to see your reaction. 

Also, I’m confused about your email to Auster. You wrote: “I see we’re all talking about one another!” but its not clear to me he was talking about you or your one post I saw on IW. It seems like you might have presumptuously injected yourself into a debate that wasn’t about you.  It’s not clear to me that you approached Auster in good faith.
(I may be missing something. If so, please correct).

IIRC, I was referring to the fact that Realist was talking about “anti-Semites,” and we were talking about Realist and Auster, and I went to Auster’s site for his email and saw he was talking about “anti-Semites"…

I hope this clarifies my good faith vis-a-vis this triviality.

My impression is AmRen was more on his mind. In particular, he was bothered by the fact that Taylor let in a bunch of folks who clapped and cheered when a speaker said Israel would not exist in 100 years. Those people don’t just want jews out of their societies.

I don’t even necessarily want that.  Yes, I believe that Europeans will ultimately be best served in states for themselves (I wish I could say the same for NAS, but I think at this point they’ve more-or-less permanently adapted to needing an “other” around to maintain their cohesion), not non-Arab Semites, but for that to happen will require a change in consciousness among Euros that will mostly obviate this need.  A frank assessment of non-Arab Semitry will have to enter the mass consciousness, and if that happens non-Arab Semitic power within that consciousness will be destroyed.  Their reputation will be irrevocably mauled, and they’ll become personas non gratas.  Their entire power base is built on deception (as per Mossad’s motto), and without its foundation of mass ignorance it will collapse.

You mention ethnic cleansing.  There are many ways to skin a cat.  All that’s really required is the will to get the job done, and it can easily be done without unseemly violence or force.  All that is needed is a bit of touch on the equilibrium - make a pasture greener, and the cows will graze there.  Tax laws, for example, would probably suffice for successful minorities; welfare laws might do for the unsuccessful ones.  This is a big part of why I’m not only in favor of ethnostates, but also the continued existence of multiracial ones; I want someplace around to attract all these people (not to mention control groups so we can see who can get more done).

Posted by bats-brute on December 19, 2006, 08:48 PM | #

bats-man, haven’t you considered the possibility that at least part of the anti-Israel sentiment at the AR meeting was triggered by the sort of hypocrisy that Gottfried, himself Jewish and a supporter of Israel discusses here:

http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/zionists.htm

And this goes beyond just Israel, I remember a TOQ article on Steinlight, the Jewish professor who is questioning immigration because of its threat to American Jewry, and his attitude that Jews have the right to engage in identity politics, but not white gentiles.

So, the rage over the hypocrisy and the dual morality finds an outlet in Israel, something Jews care passionately about. 

Contrary to what The Realist and Lawrence Auster may think, it is not “insanity” or “genocidal hate.” It may not even be emotionally irrational, if white nationalists use Israel as a bargaining chip to attempt a change in Jewish behavior to the west (I talk hypothetically, since WNs have zero leverage to influence Jewish behavior in a generalized sense).

If you want to look carefully at issues, the consider the reasons why Israel is hated by many AR attendees.

Further, you need to take a close look at the “mickey o’brute” post in the “View from the couch” thread, which was partially addressed to you (and Realist and Auster).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

Yes, I criticize Israel, but far from wanting her destroyed, I want her continued existence and health.

Auster can rant about how I want Israel destroyed, and non-Arab Semites killed, all he wants.  All he does is embarrass himself.  The truth is I support Israel because:

1) her destruction would be a blow to WNism in three obvious senses:
a) we’d lose the sole extant proof that ethnostates are doable
b) so-called “anti-racists” would have an answer to my “why does Israel get a pass?” question.
c) it would mean more non-Arab Semites in the west.
2) this support can be predicated on reciprocity; as brute notes we have no leverage, but in the meantime it’s one hell of a rhetorical weapon (it’s hardly possible to overemphasize this point, how Israel makes a bald-faced lie out of the entire western zeitgeist, and bald-faced liars out of non-Arab Semitry).
3) it gives non-Arab Semites a place to go besides amongst us.

If anything, I love Israel, gangster-state warts and all.

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

bats-man,

“I believe Jews can exist AS Jews and as members of Western Civilization without being destructive, and indeed, as disproportionately constructive members of our societies. WE need to act like it’s OUR countries and remind them of our generosity in letting THEM join.”

Their numbers are so small that if we break down their tri-millenial cultural barrier to assimilation, we destroy them as an autonomous civilization (including the Israeli ones as they cannot survive without diaspora support). We would wipe them out in two, maybe three generations of interbreeding.

However, if you think you can break their barrier adorno-style, I have news for you - it’s way harder than you think. Here is a glimpse of what this cultural barrier reef is and how it forms:

TAL had a segment where listeners could call and leave messages about their camp experience as children. One woman called and told her story about attending a left-wing Zionist camp in Wisconsin. One night in the dining hall a rock came through the window and landed in her soup. A note tied to the rock said “no Jews in Wisconsin!” The counselors and campers started blackening their faces and posting sentries around the camp. One night they were in the hall when suddenly a cross was set ablaze on the campground. Men dressed in white hoods came out of the woods and made the campers come outside. They told the campers they shouldn’t try to contact the authorities because they were the authorities in this neck of the woods. Again they said they didn’t want Jews in Wisconsin and when one of the counselors spoke up and said, “I’m an American, you can’t treat me this way,” he was taken away by one of the hooded men. Over and over the counselors spoke up and each on was taken away. The woman telling the story said she was afraid to stay behind so she said, “I’m an American…” and she was taken by the arm and walked down to the lake. On the way the hooded person called her by her name and said, “Why can’t you keep your mouth shut…” It was a counselor/adult involved with the camp. They were trying to teach the kids a “lesson.” http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ethno.htm

Now just imagine what white society would be like if we sent our kids to summer camps where they are subjected to controlled trauma in order to induce artificial paranoia of black gangbangers. What would that generation grow up into and how would they relate to blacks? But wait! Before you envision burning crosses on every street corner, let’s suppose these whites were a 2% minority in a black country. What would they be like and how would they relate to blacks in this second scenario? That’s the question. Answer it and you’ll understand non-Arab Semitic culture.

I’ll add Israel Shamir’s thoughts on the subject:

In 1991, when Iraqi Scuds landed in Israel, and the gas warfare alarm sounded, a dozen Israelis suffocated in their gas masks and died. There was no poisonous gas outside, just the fresh and fragrant air of the Judean hills, but they would not breathe it. They thought they would die the moment they took their masks off. Instead, they suffocated in their masks. This is the paradigm of modern Jewish existence in the shadow of fear.

[...]

Yossi Klein Halevi, an Israeli-American journalist, wrote about his childhood: “We lived on the border of Borough Park. Beyond our Brooklyn enclave,.. were Italians, Puerto Ricans, and Scandinavians. They evoked no curiosity in us, only fear. We saw them all as members of the same ethnic group: Jew-haters. Goyim we called them, a Hebrew word that literally means ‘the nations’ but that we understood to mean the enemy. We lived in a sealed Jewish world.... had it been possible, we would have surrounded Borough park with a moat..... Borough Park’s interests were limited to its own borders, and leapt over the Christian neighborhoods to embrace other Jewish enclaves - as if the only civilized parts of the world were Jewish, the rest being inhabited by rabid creatures capable at any moment of unprovoked violence. ‘The world’ existed only insofar as it affected Jews. The Jews and ‘the world’ could never coexist; at best we would endure each other from a distance. Some of our religious laws seemed meant not to bring us closer to God but to separate us from the goyim, and I accepted that estrangement as self-evident».

Keep in mind, he was writing of modern New York with its large Jewish population, not of some medieval town. It is not strange that Halevi, brainwashed in his youth, became an activist of the goy-hating Nazi group, Meyer Kahane’s Jewish Defence League. He moved on, but even now, this correspondent for the New Republic in Israel supports settlers, who behave “as if the only civilized parts of Palestine were Jewish, the rest being inhabited by rabid creatures capable at any moment of unprovoked violence”. A few generations ago, all the Jews lived in such enclaves, subservient to the Jewish elite of wealth and learning. The rule of the elite was based on patronage and on our fathers’ fear of anti-Semitism. The Jewish aristocracy has adapted to new conditions and continues to reinforce this fear in order to control us.

The ‘mutual support’ of the Jewish community is immoral. If an Irishman or an Italian steals, he goes to jail, and his parish priest might send him a Christmas pie. If an influential Jew steals, be it Vladimir Gusinsky or Mark Rich, the Jewish community demands his impunity. If the Jewish state commits war crimes, the Jewish community supports it without reservations. This is abnormal behaviour for an ethnic community, a shameful remnant of our habit of dealing with the outside world as if we were members of a medieval guild. http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Third_Dove.htm

Ok now that you can see their cultural underpinnings more clearly, I hope your assessment of them as “members of Western Civilization without being destructive” flexes to accomodate the new information.

As to the second issue, in order to “remind them” that we’re the hosts and they’re the guests, we need to first and foremost get them to dissolve their neo-McCarthyite persecution networks (which I’ve already covered in previous posts on this thread), or at least promise not to use them ever again against whites who express or defend white group interests even when these conflict with theirs. In other words, fair play & competition on equal terms from now on.

Now, honestly, you really think they’ll consent to the drop in power, status, money and privilege that would come from having to compete on an even playing field? How? Not spontaneously that’s for sure; no group in history has ever done so without a fight. So if you’re serious, you’re advocating a fight. In this case, how far are you from our position?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2006, 01:53 AM | #

Bats-man, was it posts of mine you were questioning in referring here to the other comments thread for which you give the URL?  If so my reply to you is yes, we’re justified in speaking loosely of “all” of a particular ethnicity if from everything we see around us something like 99.99999999999999999999999 percent of them consistently support a policy and 0.000000000000000000000001 percent don’t.  Those are roughly the proportions for the case in question — give or take a few dodecadrillionths of a dodecadrillionth of a percent either way, I admit ...  Do you have any questions for me?

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 02:10 AM | #

bats-man,

“My answer to your (theoretical) question is yes. We have a right to live with who we want to live with. I don’t know how we form such a society, though.”

How do we form such a society? What a silly question! The answer is obvious - we look to Africa for guidance and inspiration! What else?

Specifically, we look at market-based repatriation schemes for whites. Whites, after all weren’t wanted by the majority of the black population, so why are they there and how can blacks get rid of them? Kind of the same question we’re asking isn’t it?

Rhodesia, as Viewed From Kenya
Dec. 10, 1976 Wall Street Journal P14 C4

“The settler whites who took Kenyan citizenship are aware that their numbers are aging, and dwindling. “There are opportunities for older men here,” says Mr. Tayleur, who has become office manager for the area’s biggest law firm, “but this is no place for a young white African male.”

A prime reason for that is Kenyanization, the pressure to turn over jobs held by whites to trained Africans. The older men, who have specialties, find niches to fill. Not so for many just out of college. Mr. Tayleur notes another social fact: There seem to be few “lower class” whites living here; all the jobs they might take are held by blacks.

Kenyanization’s Goals

The government’s Kenyanization Bureau scrutinizes each white-held job yearly, and requires the employer to justify keeping it in white hands rather than turning it over to a black understudy. Also, the yearly fee for most “expatriate” work permits has been raised to about $1,000 a year from the previous $50, says Mr. Wood. ”

Our subordinate relationship to the dominant group
“Also, our relationship to jews is different. They aren’t threatening to swamp us demographically. There’s no reason why we couldn’t assert ourselves no matter how many tv stations and newspapers they own.”

There is a reason we cannot assert ourselves: Their neo-McCarthyite persecution networks. These are aimed at the elites. If a member of the elite asserts himself/herself it’s bye bye job & influence. They can then assert themselves all they like. Too bad nobody gives a damn what Joe the gas station attendant thinks. It’s only the elites that count and they’re all scared shitless.

That’s why white elites have a 100% coherent position regarding whites asserting white group interests - no sir, 100% of us are 100% against sir! Kind of like asking intellectuals under communism whether they agreed with capitalism - no sir, 100% of us are 100% against sir! And exactly like asking black uncle Toms (coconuts) in apartheid SA what they thought of blacks asserting black group interests - no sir, 100% of us are 100% against sir! See the pattern? 100% indicates coercion, not choice.

The social norms of supremacism & the linguistic whips that enforce them
Another point. In order to remain stable, racial supremacist systems demonize rebellious members of the subordinate group. In the above contrast, the whites who assert white group interests are commonly called racists, which means “stay in your place white boy” whereas blacks who assert black group interests were commonly called niggers, which meant “stay in your place black boy”. You really think we can develop a supremacist relationship with non-Arab Semites wherein we call them kikes all day but their mere utterance of the dreaded “R” word gets them blackballed? That would be hilarious: “Oh my god this is outrageous! Did you hear this kike say “racist”!? I heard that you kike!! I have witnesses!! You said “racist” you kike!! Go back to Communist Russia you kike!! I lost family in the Bolshevik genocide because of kikes like you!! You’ve reopened the wounds you kike!!” - I’d pay big bucks to see that, wouldn’t you? (And of course if I’m paying money I expect the non-Arab Semitic actor to flap around on the floor squealing for mercy & doing all the other things they make us do, like sensitivity training, psychiatric counseling etc etc.)

Intimidation is the key - control via ownership, staffing or funding is secondary
“By saying things like Jews control all or 90%, or whatever, of Congress or the White House, you leave the impression that Jews exert their total or NEAR-TOTAL influence over everything not just issues involving Israel.”

As you’ll notice from the The Racism and Anti-Semitism Word Games proto-article I posted earlier, the source of non-Arab Semitic power are the neo-McCarthyite persecution networks. It does not say the source is control of either the media or government, or even that they are controlled. What it says is that these networks INTIMIDATE the government and media. This is a much more accurate way of describing the phenomenon; it’s also far more aggressive and forceful. Control can be legitimate, intimidation never. What I listed in terms of congressional, senatorial, presidential and media “control” are the fruits, the practical expression of the intimidation. They’re what the shakedowns yield.

I’m not playing semantics. That’s a very important distinction. Someone who thinks it’s all about media control - intended as ownership or staffing - instead of persection and intimidation is dead wrong and going down the wrong path. Look at this example:

They want to “win the war of ideas on its merits”? Tell that to Jean Ryan, former managing editor of the Oneida (NY) Daily Dispatch, and city editor Dale Seth (a 15-year veteran of the paper), who were both fired when a delegation of Israel Firsters approached the editor and then the owner demanding the paper retract an allegedly “anti-Semitic” post-9/11 editorial written by Seth. Seth’s crime was to recall the terrorist origins of the Jewish state – as if no one had ever heard of the Irgun and the Stern Gang, both of which waged war on the Arab civilian population – and without which the state of Israel would never have come into existence. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j122801.html

Control is exerted by the neo-McCarthyite persecution networks always, ownership or staffing sometimes. So even if, in your dreams, you were to extend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to cover ethnic media cartels - you’d achieve.. exactly nothing. All your new non-semitic media companies would be treated like the Oneida Daily Dispatch: “What!? Someone stepped out of line!? Bring me their head!! And their editor’s too!!” And every reporter within 1000 miles would hear the message loud and clear: Thou shalt not raise thy doggie leg near the Holy Menorah. Thus, you’d be back to square one. Makes no difference who the owner is because they ALL fear neo-McCarthyite economic strangulation of dissidents (advertising boycotts).

Finally, your last point, “influence over everything not just issues involving Israel”.  Again check the proto-article and you’ll notice I isolate their policy influence to three areas: Israel (Zionism), racial engineering (immigration, multiculturalism and diversity), and censorship (political correctness and hate speech legislation). These are also the three areas their own orgnizations keep stressing. The whole push to get hate speech legislation on the books, for example, has been driven by the ADL.

Long live Israel & may the native Semites have a few rights too
“Taylor let in a bunch of folks who clapped and cheered when a speaker said Israel would not exist in 100 years. Those people don’t just want jews out of their societies.”

Yeah that’s a problem. Too many pro-whites want revenge. They believe that since non-Arab Semites destroyed their homelands with racial engineering, it’s time to feed them the same medicine. This is totally emotional and therefore totally irrational. If Israel goes down, the resident non-Arab Semites are NOT going to be “driven into the sea”, they’ll be driven HERE!!! We already have 6 million of them and we’re hoping to double that!? Talk about completely losing your mind.

The proper approach is to use Israel and anti-zionism as a device to open minds to the reality of non-Arab Semitic power here in the US (or UK), to break their we-are-innocent-blushing-virgins spell and to throw them on the defensive with proxy attacks from multiple directions. After all, it’s almost all proxy from them - they never do frontal attacks along the white-semite axis so why should we? Is it some kind of braindead concept of “Aryan honor” or something? Dammit! When you fight outside the extended family (race), you fight DIRTY! That’s rule of multicultural survival #1. Honor is for losers. Literally.

Having said this, short term tactical convenience cannot override long term strategy: Israel must stay. So go ahead and push the Palestine button - but not too hard.

Finally, a riddle & a turn toward pro-white basics
OK I hope you found these answers satisfactory. Please check out the proto-article I posted for you earlier. I’m still hoping you subjected it to extreme critique.

Now, onto generic pro-white matters (no Semites). I came up with a neat riddle this morning. I’m still test driving it so I’d appreciate it if you tried answering it:

“All white haters agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All white haters also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is a white hater?”

(Feel free to use it on your site if you want - all my stuff is public domain)

Posted by Steven Palese on December 20, 2006, 02:29 AM | #

Bats-man,

Finally, let me make a point regarding generalizations. We whites have been brainwashed by the media and educational establishment into believing ALL whites are responsible for slavery, hence affirmative racism etc. We’ve also been brainwashed into believing ALL Germans are responsible for the holocaust (not to mention all other whites for not hurrying the rescue even faster), hence today’s German taxpayer is paying Israel reparations. We’ve also been brainwashed into believing that our heritage is the product of dead white males, that’s a generalization too. And I could continue all night.

You won’t notice much of a concern from pro-whites regarding these anti-white generalizations because, quite frankly, our plate is full enough with serious grievances. Anti-white generalizations are just too far down the list for them to be mentioned much. This is a problem area we’re neglecting and one I think you can help with.

Since you’re pro-white and clearly specialized in the field, why don’t you become our point man in the fight against anti-white generalizations? Later, when we’ve made some headway and whites begin to see that our right not to be generalized against is being respected too, I guarantee that everyone will become far far more amenable toward the issue of generalizations directed at non-Arab Semites.

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 12:48 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

My answer to your question was overly long so I’ll reanswer and say “yes.” Example: I deeply resent the fact that I can’t decide who I do and don’t want to rent my house to. People have a right to associate with who they want, I’ve never questioned this. However, it does require substantial justification if you are going to use coersion (which as you noted, doesn’t have to involve violence) to re-enginner demographics, which involves expelling (even if slowly and non-violently) some people.  So you may take this as too qualified to be a “yes.”

I’m not sure the origins of this thread are trivial. I think he was writing about people (his focus on AmRen has been on the people who cheer on Israel’s death) who are hard-core antisemites, you showed up and said “we’re talking about each other”, finished your email with “your tender Jewish parts” and you now think he’s engaged in suppression of valid debate. If he thought you were there in good faith, I don’t believe he’d back down from a debate (I don’t think he’d back down from a debate with anyone). I like his writing, but one thing he’s not is tender. He is a decent man who believes in something beyond himself and ourselves, but doesn’t back down from reality and what’s needed to save our civilization (you’ll disagree with this last point). In contrast, this site seems to be a WN mirror-image of GNXP. Why would you want your site to be like GC and Razib’s ?

Also, I think I have noted examples of stuff at this site that borders on hard-core antisemitism. Jews as a collective organism that sends out secret plants, Jews completely control congress, white house (to be fair, not Mr Palese’s words), etc. I think it is incumbent upon you to provide corrections or admonitions when this happens at your site (or, alternatively, not to be surprised or offended when he percieves this site to be antisemitic and won’t engage you). Of course, his thinking is conditioned by the fact that he is of Jewish ancestry. If you told him this (some have) he’d say “duh.”

I have two questions for you. Do you acknowlege the existence of those on the far right who literally don’t want Jews to exist in this world? If so, don’t you think that it is incumbent upon WNs to maintain a safe seperation distance from them?

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 12:50 PM | #

Re-reading it, yes I guess it was primarily your comments.  Some comments (with one question nested in there for you).

WRT Jews you are speaking primarily of the Jewish leadership.  I have argued elsewhere that blacks bear considerable responsibility for their mainstream leaders (e.g. Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson) because they are the representatives of the average black. So the same, logically, should hold true for Jews and I don’t absolve them of responsibility for Foxman, et al.  But you imply that the average Saul, Hershel, and Sholomo on the street lusts for the death of the white race. You note that a majority (and maybe a vast majority although not as many Jews vote democratic as blacks do, not that republicans are very useful either) of Jews support policies that will lead to the displacement or marginalization of whites in their own countries. But what makes you think that the average Saul, Hershel, and Sholomo are aware of the implications of these policies? After all, whites don’t seem to be aware of the implications of these policies. People will quote polls showing majority white support of border control, but as Guessed Worker recently pointed out, most regular whites oppose ILLEGALS but support non-white LEGALS and are still are in love with the nation of immigrants myth and it’s implications for displacing whites.

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 12:58 PM | #

The above post was for Mr. Scrooby. Forgot to address it to him.

Mr. Palese,

I don’t have a website and (as Mr. Igorevich undoubted noticed) am a reader not a writer. I’m not specialized, I just read and respond as best I can (and usually I read and don’t comment at all - here or elsewhere).

“Therefore, what is a white hater?” A hypocrite.

“Ok now that you can see their cultural underpinnings more clearly” Yes. That’s one of my points. Their (irrational I think) behavior is cultural and best seen in light of their history as a. monotheists among pagans b. diaspora population among Christians c. demonized population nearly wiped out by the Nazis.  What Israel Shamir describes is an irrational and unwarranted fear (indeed, near paranoia) not a collectivist sociobiological drive. Recognizing this doesn’t require us to put up with ADL style witch hunts or bow to the holocaust card.

“So if you’re serious, you’re advocating a fight. In this case, how far are you from our position?”
Somewhere I think I used the (figurative) phrase “slap” the Abe Foxmans back into reality. So I’m not advocating a Mr. Roger’s style approach. Unlike a liberal white, I think most adversaries (and Foxman is definitely an adversary) respond to “sweetness” (weakness) with aggressiveness, contempt, etc. It doesn’t make them see the light, it empowers them.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 02:29 PM | #

I have argued elsewhere that blacks bear considerable responsibility for their mainstream leaders (e.g. Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson) because they are the representatives of the average black.

But that’s not true.  They present themselves—and the media present them—as representatives of the average black, but they are not in any meaningful sense.  Are they chosen by an organized black community?  The black population is even more disorganized than the white.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2006, 02:34 PM | #

You note that a majority (and maybe a vast majority although not as many Jews vote democratic as blacks do, not that republicans are very useful either) of Jews support policies that will lead to the displacement or marginalization of whites in their own countries. But what makes you think that the average Saul, Hershel, and Sholomo are aware of the implications of these policies?

Whether they are aware of the implications of the policies is irrelevant—as is speaking of “a majority of Jews” or specific Jews.  What is relevant is the activity of the organized Jewish community.

The organized Jewish community is the agent whose actions we evaluate and respond to.

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 03:25 PM | #

Sorry. I didn’t write that very well. What I meant was blacks must accept some level of responsibility for the actions of those men because they are representatives from the black community whether or not they are typical. Ditto Jews.

But if Tom, Dick, and Harry are oblivious to the implications of current policies why shouldn’t I assume that Saul, Herschel and Sholomo are too? “All Jews lust for this” isn’t just responding to the organized Jewish leadership.

Posted by wjg on December 20, 2006, 03:31 PM | #

“Whether they are aware of the implications of the policies is irrelevant—as is speaking of “a majority of Jews” or specific Jews.  What is relevant is the activity of the organized Jewish community.”

But Mr. Tillman don’t you know that this rule of racial realism is never applied to the chosen ones?  They must be evaluated person by person.  To hold them to the same rules as everyone else is hate.  Wasn’t 6,000,000 enough?  That fine patriot Jared Taylor knows this rule as does the Realist and VDare and Mr. Auster and…

We should bow down before Abe Foxman and praise him for even being allowed to take our next breath.  Dogs can only hope for crumbs from the dinner table not to actually sit at it.  That is the reality of the Realist and we should get used to it.

Unless..., unless, we want to live as free Men of the West.  Nah.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 08:32 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

My answer to your question was overly long so I’ll reanswer and say “yes.” Example: I deeply resent the fact that I can’t decide who I do and don’t want to rent my house to. People have a right to associate with who they want, I’ve never questioned this.

Okay - btw I know you never questioned this, but it’s nice to have things out in the open.  Now, don’t you think it obvious that in a pluralistic society the tendency will axiomatically be towards the erosion of these rights, and that tendency will correlate with “diversity”?

However, it does require substantial justification if you are going to use coersion (which as you noted, doesn’t have to involve violence) to re-enginner demographics, which involves expelling (even if slowly and non-violently) some people.  So you may take this as too qualified to be a “yes.”

Doesn’t the above axiom qualify as substantial?  Don’t you think MR’s argument in general far exceeds “substantial”?  Btw, I wasn’t talking about expulsion, I was talking about making the grass brown enough for people to want to move.

I don’t agree that the right itself requires substantial justification, and I don’t think you do either.  I do think getting people to exercise these rights requires that, and I suspect you’d agree to this distinction.  I think where we disagree is whether the criterion has been met.  I also suspect that you’ll come around eventually (if my assumption as to your interests is accurate)

I’m not sure the origins of this thread are trivial. I think he was writing about people (his focus on AmRen has been on the people who cheer on Israel’s death) who are hard-core antisemites, you showed up and said “we’re talking about each other”, finished your email with “your tender Jewish parts” and you now think he’s engaged in suppression of valid debate.

I don’t think he’s interested in valid debate.

If he thought you were there in good faith, I don’t believe he’d back down from a debate (I don’t think he’d back down from a debate with anyone).

He already has, in spades.  Do you think I’m arguing in good faith?  If so, why have you been able to determine that, but Auster has not?

I like his writing, but one thing he’s not is tender. He is a decent man who believes in something beyond himself and ourselves, but doesn’t back down from reality and what’s needed to save our civilization (you’ll disagree with this last point). In contrast, this site seems to be a WN mirror-image of GNXP. Why would you want your site to be like GC and Razib’s ?

In what ways is this site like GNXP?

Also, I think I have noted examples of stuff at this site that borders on hard-core antisemitism. Jews as a collective organism that sends out secret plants, Jews completely control congress, white house (to be fair, not Mr Palese’s words), etc. I think it is incumbent upon you to provide corrections or admonitions when this happens at your site (or, alternatively, not to be surprised or offended when he percieves this site to be antisemitic and won’t engage you). Of course, his thinking is conditioned by the fact that he is of Jewish ancestry. If you told him this (some have) he’d say “duh.”

The error is your assertion that Auster is justified in not engaging “anti-Semites,” beyond the justification anyone has in refusing to engage anyone.  Auster doesn’t want to engage us, fine, but his supposed cloak of moral superiority for doing so is transparent.  He’s pretending avoiding engaging us is moral, and that engaging us would be immoral.  He’s embarrassing himself.

You also have examples from that idiot interracialist, and the other johnny-latelies, of a quite different set of objectionable posts.  I haven’t gotten around to refuting their idiocy, either, and I probably never will.  Doesn’t mean I agree with those turds, does it?

A final note on the subject - as KMac so rightly points out (and a MRnik - Ben Tillman? - has properly named for me), type I errors are far less dangerous than type II errors in identifying threats.  Type I errors - “oops!  Sorry pal, thought you were trying to kill me, no harm, no foul, here, I’ll put my knife away.” Type II errors - no quote...you’re dying in the gutter and don’t get to say anything.

See my point?  Those who exaggerate the non-Arab Semite threat are guilty of exaggerating a threat.  Those who deny it (who outnumber the former by how many orders of magnitude?) are guilty of being useful idiots, Uncle Toms, boobs in service of their enemies against their own kind.  I know which error I’d rather make, if I had to choose…

I have two questions for you. Do you acknowlege the existence of those on the far right who literally don’t want Jews to exist in this world?

Of course!

If so, don’t you think that it is incumbent upon WNs to maintain a safe seperation distance from them?

For example, if you mean staying away from boards frequented by such people, then no.  Why should I hide from them?

If you mean staying out of organizations frequented by them, then no.  Again, why let them dictate?

If you mean staying out of organizations which invite such people, or which have similar statements of purpose, then yes.

If you mean following up every idiotic comment by these people, in real life or cyberspace, with repudiations, then no.  Why should I let cranks, or paid agents provocatuer, dictate my life?  I make my positions on such matters plain and I refuse to let them (or Auster and his straw men) dictate my actions and positions, or spend my life mouthing caveats.

Incidentally, it just struck me oddly, how you seem to gloss over Auster and his inexcusable hordes of straw men.  Don’t they elicit any opprobrium from you?  You’re all for ritualistic announcements of such opprobrium, so by all means speak up (and forgive me if you’ve already done so and I don’t recall).

Posted by J.P. on December 20, 2006, 09:38 PM | #

I’m not sure the origins of this thread are trivial. I think he was writing about people (his focus on AmRen has been on the people who cheer on Israel’s death) who are hard-core antisemites, you showed up and said “we’re talking about each other”, finished your email with “your tender Jewish parts” and you now think he’s engaged in suppression of valid debate.

I don’t think he’s interested in valid debate.

I think it’s clear that he isn’t. I am the reader “JM” that Auster quoted in the “anti-Semite issues me a challenge” post. If you go back and read that post, I think you’ll agree that this e-mail was about as friendly and polite as a letter of disagreement can be. Auster claimed my reading of Guessedworker was too “superficial” because I failed to see the aggressive anti-Semitism that Auster thought was manifest in GW’s letter to him. 
After seeing Auster’s response to my initial e-mail, I sent him a follow up. Again, I think you’ll agree that I was exceedingly polite.  Auster didn’t post my response (or even reply to me at all) so I’ll post it here. 

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

Mr. Auster,

I appreciate your response to my e-mail. 

I may have been incorrect in assuming that you were misrepresenting Guessedworker’s position.  Perhaps you merely misunderstand it.  The paragraphs you quote do not say what you claim they do.  You write that I “ignore his later paragraphs that make the Jews the whole problem—Jews, the authors of liberalism, Jews, the ethnic group that is at war with European Caucasians, Jews, the group that must be dispensed with for European Caucasians to survive.”

I examined the paragraph you quoted. Guessedworker wrote:

Notwithstanding all the familiar hogwash fed daily to European Caucasians to negate our instincts and make us blind to one another we, too, are possessed of natural ethnic interests. And so are Jews, and those unidirectional Jewish-authored liberal philosophies, Jewish political activism and Jewish largesse that I mentioned are transparent expressions of that. One can see straight away from their divergent purpose that there is an unfathomably deep conflict with EC interests here. It is a conflict that Jewry has been winning hands down since the end of WW2, and that is not without the most profound consequences for the fate of the European world. 


He doesn’t claim that Jews “authored liberalism”, merely that they have authored some liberal philosophies, a claim which should be uncontroversial.  He mentions this in claiming that these liberal philosophies have served perceived Jewish self-interest.  I fail to see a meaningful difference between this claim and your claim that “Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.” You describe this phenomenon as “The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population”.  He then states that this “instinct to divide and weaken”, as you label it, runs counter to white interests.  I don’t think that this claim should be controversial either. 

The second paragraph you quoted:

Now we arrive at the first of two vital questions, Lawrence. Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them? Your whole worldview argues a “Yes” to that question because you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour. That’s why I say you are painting yourself into a corner. Because, of course, the correct answer is “No.”


Here is the way I interpret this paragraph.  Whites have ethnic interests, just as Jews do.  To save Western Civilization from liberalism, it will take whites acting in much the same manner as your Jewish leftist friend, who looked at third-world immigration through the lens of “Is it good for my co-ethnics and I?” This is what I presume Guessedworker to mean in asking “Can the creator peoples of Western Civ be pulled out of their liberal delusions sufficiently to save themselves and the Civ while their natural ethnic interests are denied them?” He seems to believe that the west cannot be saved any other way. 
Whatever the merits of this position, it should be clear by now that your original interpretation of it was wrong.  He’s not claiming that Jews are the entire problem, or even the main problem.  Furthermore, he doesn’t claim or imply that Jews must be removed from the West for the West to survive.  Your claim that Guessedworker contends that Jews are “at war with European Caucasians” is hardly a fair one.  I would hardly say that a “conflict of interests” (as he describes it) constitutes a war.  The crux of his argument is merely that the conflict of interests between Jews of the “divide and weaken” persuasion on the one hand and those who would defend our civilization on the other hand must be resolved in favor of the latter. 

I apologize for the great length of this e-mail. 

Best regards,

J.P.

What excuse will you (bats-man) make for Auster’s failure to respond to me?

Posted by bats-man on December 20, 2006, 10:47 PM | #

“if my assumption as to your interests is accurate”
I am not Jewish (neither is anyone in my family) if that’s what you’re getting at. I’m not arguing from an ethnic bias.

Type I errors can be very serious errors (your pulling a knife on someone metaphor). Also, you seem to see this as black and white: either Jews are a civilzationally lethal threat or they are not. Isn’t reality more complicated than this?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 11:13 PM | #

I am not Jewish (neither is anyone in my family) if that’s what you’re getting at. I’m not arguing from an ethnic bias.

No, I’m assuming you’re European racially, and consider yourself such.

Type I errors can be very serious errors (your pulling a knife on someone metaphor).

The point stands - in dealing with threats, type I errors are far better than type II errors.  Specifically, exaggerating the threat posed by non-Arab Semites is far more adaptive (ceteris paribus) than failing to recgonize it as a threat at all.

Also, you seem to see this as black and white

What, whether non-Arab Semitry is enemy or friend to us?  Yes, of course it’s black and white.  They’re enemy.  They have control of this situation, not I.

either Jews are a civilzationally lethal threat or they are not. Isn’t reality more complicated than this?

Compound question (fallacy).  Whether NA Semitry is a threat (or enemy) or not is one question (and the answer is black and white, not because of the nature of the question but because of the nature of the answer), how big a threat is another (there is far more room for disagreement on this question IMO).

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 09:53 AM | #

JP/JM,

I am much indebted for your “honest broker” approach to Mr Auster.  Your reading of that mail of mine was completely accurate.  I did not write it to praise him, of course.  In my thinking-thug way I was attempting to put his ethnic back up against the wall ... to force him to confront his own hypocrisy.  He writes prettily enough on all the issues in which we are interested bar one ... the vital one that alone would raise our eyes from the bare ground at our feet.  He cannot grant us our own ethnic interests because he requires that we pursue the interests of his people.

His best rejoinder to this little challenge, as he called it, was just wild shouts and arm-waving.  We know this response well.  It is pure, uncomplicated racism.

I hope the episode has been noted by his non-Jewish readers.  They belong with us, and if they find us today perhaps too strong in our advocacy they are very welcome to air that view (as bats-man has), and to lend their talents to the getting of a better understanding.

Posted by bats-man on December 21, 2006, 02:00 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

“They’re enemy.”

You played your hand here. Let’s go back to the beginning of the post. You accused him of “smearing” and labeling you “anti-semite.” Is one who considers Jews “enemies” not an anti-semite by definition? Of course he isn’t going to be amiable towards or even engage someone who considers him the “enemy” (as opposed to someone just disagreeing with him).

“Auster is a hypocrite; he doesn’t really allow Europeans to criticize non-Arab Semite behavior, he just wants to be on record as doing so.”
You want to be able to criticize Jewish behavior, presumably either in an email exchange and/or on his blog and his not giving your ideas a hearing exposes him a “hypocrite.” But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing? Does he not engage Euros who criticize Jews or does he not engage Euros who consider Jews to be the enemy?

He does not see Jews and Euros as enemies with irreconcilable competing interests . I think this means that his view and your view are mutually exclusive and there’s little to gain from “ecumenical” dialogue. I don’t think this makes him a hypocrite.

J.P./J.M.,
In your initial letter you wrote to you wrote “I also believe that you are in the right on this particular debate.”
So why haven’t you been arguing any of the points that I have over here at MR? Why has your only post been a post that is harmonious with the view of the MR editors? It would seem that your letter to him (however “polite") was disingenuous and two-faced.

Would you care to argue your point about his being “in the right over here?”

Posted by bats-brute on December 21, 2006, 02:13 PM | #

“He does not see Jews and Euros as enemies with irreconcilable competing interests .”

Do you?

Any reason you ignore my request to look at the mickey o’brute comment in the “on the couch” thread, which was partially addressed to you?

And, what do you make of The Realist stating that he will delete certain comments by Svigor, concerning European history, because such comments are “insane?”

Further, what does anyone here make of “Arcane”, that enemy of white nationalism, defending The Realist’s agenda, in the context of a pro-Jewish form of pro-white racialism?

But, the key point: mickey o’brute.

Posted by bats-man on December 21, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

“Do you?” No. I guess that makes me a “philo-semite.”

I did see your post asking me to look at your earlier post on Salter and group types. I just haven’t had time. I’ll try to make that my next priority. I also haven’t tried to critique Mr. Palese’s article. I’m not avoiding or being rude though I don’t know how well I can respond to the work of someone (Salter) whom I haven’t read.

I know very little of the Realist. I know Auster’s writing much better. I’m also don’t have knowledge of who’s who in these circles (i.e. comments about commenters and Editors at AmRen, or the Realist might be this or that person, etc.  so forgive if I don’t get these references).

Not to make excuses but I have an unstable computer and dreadful dial-up and having a heck of a time even trying to get my brief posts up. I’ll try to answer you re your post.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 03:32 PM | #

brute,

Pretty much all the friends of TIW seem to be people who reach first for the Nazi epithet.  They are either too lazy, too stupid, too malignant or too ethnically competitive to employ proper argumentation.

My clear impression so far is that TIW will be without heft and may even do the movement a favour by draining off and maginalising harmful influences.

The Realist seems rather pleased that Jared Taylor has decided to link to him.  If Taylor is thinking like me he has figured that a way home has to be provided for WNs who, suddenly surrounded by Judeophilia in concentrate form, want to get back to the real thing

Posted by extreme right brute on December 21, 2006, 04:02 PM | #

GW, of interest:
http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2006/12/neo-nazis-are-most-hated-group-in-world.html

Now, I’m sure that most would consider this blog “far right”, and from a certain perspective, I guess it is.

It certainly is not a “neo Nazi” blog, although, once again, if the ADL or The Realist decided to label it as such, I’m sure that the common coach potato would agree.

If “neo nazi/extreme right” really is, in practical terms, “shorthand” for “pro-white”, we begin to see the enormity of the problem and the power of the establishment propaganda machine.

Think about it.  People holding a particular political opinion, and one which, in practical terms, can be consistent with a “live and let live” attitude toward racial co-existence in separate ethnostates, are “hated” more than criminals, who may kill for profit or “fun.”

The world certainly is inverted.  If we agree with the Realist and say the world is inverted, then what do we make of the top and bottom of the “most hated group” list?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 21, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

Mr. Igorevich,

“They’re enemy.”

You played your hand here. Let’s go back to the beginning of the post. You accused him of “smearing” and labeling you “anti-semite.” Is one who considers Jews “enemies” not an anti-semite by definition? Of course he isn’t going to be amiable towards or even engage someone who considers him the “enemy” (as opposed to someone just disagreeing with him).

“Svi“‘s quicker you know.  It’s just a pseudonym.

I figured I should’ve said “its enemy” but it sounded awkward so I didn’t.  I was talking about non-Arab Semites as a group.  The Hartung quote again:

http://members.aol.com/toexist/Shiksa11.html

In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely symapthetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them.

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

Again, it’s not about non-Arab Semites per se.  If someone is a non-Arab Semite and works against this group (a.k.a. “organized jewry,” etc.), I respect that and I acknowledge it; there is no stigma attached to him as a non-Arab Semite per se.  Similarly, if I meet some random non-Arab Semite on the street, I don’t assume he’s an enemy (though I do acknowledge the overwhelming likelihood that he falls somewhere on Hartung’s scale).

The trouble with the “anti-Semite” label is it pretends to absolve non-Arab Semites of responsibility for their behavior; “anti-Semites will hate us no matter what we do; their animus is pre-existing and about them, not us; they hate us first and find reasons later.”

That is the reverse of the truth - who chooses the world’s most gifted and cohesive group as enemy without cause?  I don’t have much choice if the Mafia decides to mark me for death.  I didn’t make them enemy, and I don’t much see the point of quibbling over whether I’m anti-Mafia
or whether all of the Don’s employees hate my guts, or like their jobs, or will end up doing me in.

No, if non-Arab Semites woke up tomorrow doing the opposite of what they’ve been doing to Europeans for the last century and more, my ideas about them most certainly would not remain unchanged.  They’d reverse too, in the relevant ways.  I’d jump for joy to learn that non-Arab Semitry had suddenly, miraculously ceased hostilities and reciprocated Euro acknowledgement of the right to secure their future and maintain ethnostates.  Who could ask for a stronger ally?

“Auster is a hypocrite; he doesn’t really allow Europeans to criticize non-Arab Semite behavior, he just wants to be on record as doing so.”
You want to be able to criticize Jewish behavior, presumably either in an email exchange and/or on his blog and his not giving your ideas a hearing exposes him a “hypocrite.” But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing? Does he not engage Euros who criticize Jews or does he not engage Euros who consider Jews to be the enemy?

Hopefully I’ve cleared this up by now?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 06:02 PM | #

Fashion, brute.  Fashion.

A point I repeatedy make is that Man is highly suggestible.  His opinions and his loyalies can easily be owned, and normally are.

To begin to be free, he first has to realise his condition.  This is hard when his identity is built around upper-cortex story-telling.  However, way down in the machinery there is kinship ... there are ethnic genetic interests (which - you never know - we might occasionally need to, I admit, bowdlerise as natural ethnic or just ethnic interests) ... there are evolved behavioural patterns.  These things tug away at his consciousness all day because they belong to Nature.  So the message of “far right” racial survivalists is not without resonance inside Joe’s skull, and it isn’t a straight battle between our little voices and the power and grandeur of the world at large.

Come what may, we have to stand up and outlast Gargantulus.  We have to be there when he falls, which he will.

Posted by ben tillman on December 27, 2006, 04:19 PM | #

But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing?

He’s a convert.  He’s not supposed to be Jewish.

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 04:36 AM | #

Svigor:

The truth is I support Israel because:(...)

good points. Tell that to the next pro-Israel Freepette you meet.

“So we should support Israel ...but not imitate Israel ??

Can you explain why ?”

you should make a thread on the blog with that post

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 04:46 AM | #

bats-man:

The problem with “blame the Jew” is that it keeps us from looking within ourselves.  What the hell is wrong with us if such a small minority can cause us to commit suicide?

that small minority has a reality filter known as the news media and a propaganda machine known as Hollywood. That’s where the real problem is.

in this ADV broadcast William Pierce explains what is wrong with the media and the consequences of the censorship of news that doesn’t fit the agenda. Everybody should listen to it or read it :

http://www.natall.com/internet-radio/ts/020202.mp3

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs0203a.html

Why did the media bosses decide to make an enormous hullabaloo--a real media circus --out of the first Jasper killing and to ignore the second one? Obviously because of the one significant difference in the two cases: in the first case the killers were White, and the victim was Black; and in the second case the killers were Black, and the victim was White.

in 1997 Steve Grossman went from being head of the Israeli lobby AIPAC to being head of the Democratic Party. And I bet you didn’t know that just like 99 % of the american population.

Grossman did this without anyone in the media asking “hey wait, why is the head of a foreign lobby now the head of the Democratic Party ? there’s something wrong here”. None of the RihGT WiNg blowhards made a bid deal out of this.

are you beginning to understand the power of the media ?

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 04:50 AM | #

Jobling/Realist:

If you bothered to go to the link to Auster’s article “Why Jews Welcome Muslims,” you would see that what he’s saying there is that Jews’ sense of their own ethnic interests results in harm to America. And then you have the gall to say that he‘s setting up a straw man!

well dduuuuhhhh, that’s also what we are saying. 

Take Auster’s articles in which he says jews are doing bad things, see quotes here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_inverted_world/#c36814

change “Larry Auster” for “Kevin MacDonald” or “William Sean MacGregor” or “Gregory MacWallace” and you’ll have Auster calling him a vile antisemite.

BBoooorrrrrrrrrriiiiinnnggggg

Auster wants to be free to criticize jews but he doesn’t want the goyim to do the same.

Yawn. Next.

Posted by JB on January 02, 2007, 05:04 AM | #

We should be doing more productive things than annoy Larry Auster or Ian Jobling.

How about creating a ‘Activism’ section ? Debating and talking among ourselves is alright but we have to expand and bring more of our people to the cause.

How about making a movie reviews section ? It would probably bring more traffic to the site

Is there anything we can do to help you get that radio/podcasting station done ? Will Steven Palese be a regular ?

Posted by Lurker on January 02, 2007, 05:41 AM | #

Its been said before - do movie reviews on imdb dot com and vote for those you approve of. Reviews that more people ‘find useful’ in imdb parlance get pushed up the ranks, just like on Amazon (who own im db). They could be cross posted here too. If we knew they were there (on im db) we could then vote for them if we felt like it.

Posted by J.P. on January 02, 2007, 07:27 PM | #

“Would you care to argue your point about his being “in the right over here?””

You’ve picked out an entirely irrelevant aspect of my e-mails to Auster and responded to that in lieu of addressing any of my actual arguments.  How very Austerian of you. 

I’ll admit it. I was lying to Auster when I said I supported his position.  Does that make anything I wrote to Auster any less true? Does that make Auster’s failure to address these points (and your failure as well) any less damning? I attempted to disagree with Auster in as friendly a manner as is possible, in the hope of eliciting an actual response from him.  I think it’s pretty clear that he does not give anyone that he considers to be an “anti-Semite” anything remotely resembling a fair hearing.

I was genuinely curious as to how Auster came up with such a wildly incorrect interpretation of a straightforward letter.  When it comes to “anti-Semitism”, Auster seems to be guilty of the same sort of gnostic conspiracy-mongering he accuses “anti-Semites” of.  No matter how much an “anti-Semite” denies that he wants to kill all Jews, no matter how many times he argues that Jews aren’t the only, or even the primary source of the West’s ills, Auster claims his *true* beliefs are something else entirely. 

“You want to be able to criticize Jewish behavior, presumably either in an email exchange and/or on his blog and his not giving your ideas a hearing exposes him a “hypocrite.” But since you consider Jews the enemy why would you expect him to give you a hearing? Does he not engage Euros who criticize Jews or does he not engage Euros who consider Jews to be the enemy?

He does not see Jews and Euros as enemies with irreconcilable competing interests . I think this means that his view and your view are mutually exclusive and there’s little to gain from “ecumenical” dialoge. I don’t think this makes him a hypocrite.”

It’s not simply a matter of being given a fair hearing on Auster’s blog.  It’s the fact that Auster smears all white criticism of Jews as “anti-Semitism”, a crime that makes one a “poisonous sub-human”.  Anti-Semitism is irrational *and* evil, and automatically invalidates all other positions that the anti-Semite holds.  This is not an exaggeration of Auster’s stated beliefs on the matter. 

Do you agree with Auster’s reading of Guessedworker’s letter?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 02, 2007, 10:21 PM | #

JB,

I mailed Steven recently and didn’t get a reply.  Spam filter, maybe.  Anyhow, I will mail him again.  I am about to put up a post covering Lurker’s and your suggestions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 02, 2007, 10:56 PM | #

Steven Palese’s posts at MR.com include copious amounts of some of the best commentary I’ve seen anywhere.  He’s got an extremely good grasp of what’s going on and communicates his perceptions to others with such sparkling clarity.  I’ve learned a lot from his posts.  I count myself among his very appreciative fans.

Posted by bats-man on January 06, 2007, 12:52 PM | #

“Do you agree with Auster’s reading of Guessedworker’s letter?”
I think GW’s letter (and worldview) is Jew-hostile at a fundamental level. I’ll refrain from using the phrase “anti-semitic” because it’s been abused so much by Foxman types and it’s hard to say what it means anymore. Yes, GW’s letter is ambiguous. He names Jews as third on the list (which still gives them a very prominent place on the list of the West’s ills) which indicates that they are not the ONLY problem.  On the other hand, he writes: “there is an UNFATHOMABLY DEEP (MY EMPHASIS) conflict with EC interests here.” It seems that he has concluded before any debate has even occurred, that there are irreconcilable, conflicting genetic differences at work here. This and GW’s admission that “I’m a K-Mac man” indicate an anti-Jewish worldview and there’s nothing to be gained by ecumenical dialogue.
The notion that Jews have to be expelled or removed or murdered is implicit in this worldview. So, yes, you can argue that when he drags this out he’s dragging out (especially when he writes “murder") an emotive “strawman.”
I do think that there is a terminal case of “Jew on the brain” here at MR. Look at J.B.’s post right after the LA posts about the name Muhammad vs George in the U.K. (LA also posted a piece on this news item). The very title of the entry is Jew-hostile and reinforces Auster’s position that this weblog is antisemitic. Are Jews 3rd on J.B.’s list? His entry doesn’t indicate so.
GW wrote: “you can’t quite bring yourself to resolve that conflict of interests in our favour”
Again, in his worldview, he doesn’t have to chose either/or because those interests aren’t as incongruent as you would have us believe.