Hart Attack

Since Lawrence Auster has, from his own particular perspective, already discussed the recent American Renaissance conference, I thought it may be useful to briefly examine that issue here.

There are a couple of points before I begin. First, I was not at the meeting. If any blogger or commentator here was present and is able to tell us exactly what happened, and what their impressions were of it, that would be most welcome. For the purpose of this post I am going to assume that, essentially, Auster’s facts are correct, and go on from there. I have heard from other sources that something to this effect did, in fact, take place.

Second, I have always had a high opinion of AR, and I believe it does much good. Of course there are areas of disagreement, but I see Jared Taylor as a fine ambassador for the movement. He is also the only prominent WN leader who has promoted the work of Dr Frank Salter - and has been selling On Genetic Interests from the AR site. I don’t know why others in positions of similar prominence have heretofore basically ignored Salter. Maybe they just don’t understand it. Maybe they fear their followers, such as they are, won’t understand it. Maybe they think it is too technical (God forbid!). Or perhaps they are just too stubborn to accept new ways of looking at racial issues, or are jealous of Salter’s accomplishment. I really don’t know. All I do know is that the lack of attention to Salter’s work is a travesty and a tragic lost opportunity to inject some academic rigor into nationalist theses. That Taylor has supported Salterism is, therefore, highly commendable.

Now to Auster …

Unfortunately, the main attention-getting thing about this conference, as far as the mainstream media were concerned, was that David Duke was in the audience and made himself a visible presence throughout the weekend, culminating in a three-minute harangue by him from the floor during the question period on the last day, in which, according to someone at the conference, he expatiated on the only subject that is of interest to him, the supposedly alien and illegitimate presence of the Jews in America. Of course, as far as Duke is concerned, Jews are an alien and illegitimate presence in Israel as well; he doesn’t want Jews to live anywhere. During Duke’s remarks, Michael Hart, who had spoken at the 1996 AR conference, stood up and said, “Your’re a f——-g Nazi. You have disgraced this meeting,” and stormed out. Apparently, Jared Taylor, editor of the American Renaissance newsletter and host of the conference, was mightily upset by Duke’s acting out. But what did he expect? Duke is a major Jew-hater and an attention hog. How could Taylor have been so naïve as to allow Duke to attend at all, especially as he had rigorously excluded him from every AR conference since the first AR meeting in 1994, which Duke famously crashed? Let’s hope that Taylor has—finally—learned his lesson.

And add to that the follow-up comments from Auster’s readers here.

If this sad event took place I’m sorry in one sense to have missed the fireworks, but I can understand why Mr. Taylor would be upset. It can hardly be the kind of thing he wishes to see at his meetings.

Perhaps we can disregard some of Auster’s hysterics as ethnic self-interest. With respect to Michael Hart, his behavior – regardless of the provocation and of his Jewishness – was simply inexcusable. If he wants to make his point by a dignified walk-out, fine. If he wishes to debate Duke vigorously, again fine. But Hart is an academic, a professor. It is to men of his intellectual calibre that the WN movement looks to model seriousness and a high moral tone. Duke, for all his apparent support in the hall, provided Hart with precisely such an opportunity. Such a vulgar response merely lowered the tone that Taylor strives to achieve at his meetings - and lowered it even further than Duke had. Hart should known better. For me he let down Taylor and “disgraced this meeting” just as he accused Duke of doing (always assuming, of course, that Auster’s facts are correct).

What about Duke? Again, I wasn’t there, and the best person to evaluate this angle is Jared Taylor himself. I believe strongly in freedom of speech, but it is also part of the Western tradition to be a good guest and respect the wishes of your host. It has always been quite clear that Taylor is not comfortable with the so-called “Jewish Question”. It does not fall within the scope of AR. Taylor focusses on race - on the white vs non-white perspective - and identifies (Ashkenazi) Jews as white. We may disagree. But he, not Duke, has the right to define his journal and his conferences as he sees fit. Duke could perfectly easily have saved some of his comments for a meeting of his own. Maybe he was simply not disposed to be so tactful.

There is, of course, an alternative view. The JQ does somewhat rumble volcanically below the surface at AR. No debate at all is hardly less troubling than debating absolutely nothing else. Doubtless Duke, mightily frustrated, felt justified in trying to force the issue onto the conference.

But the resultant public clash of these two irreconcilable positions was never in the movement’s interests. It would have been far better, I believe, if Mr. Taylor and Mr. Duke had acknowledged the potential for disagreement and aired the matter in private before the meeting. Thereafter, Duke should have abided by Taylor’s wishes.

What about the issue itself? Personally, I disagree with Taylor (and, obviously, Auster) on the place of the JQ in WN debate. I can see Taylor’s point in focusing attention on race. I am sure he sincerely believes that the Ashkenazim are part of his group, and is completely sincere in his desire to convince Jews to “come to their senses on race”. He may also be profoundly wrong, and I and many others argue that he is wrong. Still, he is entitled to follow whichever course he thinks best.

In the end, though, the real problem is the fatal uncertainty of Taylor’s conference management. On the one hand, we have him and AR accepting Jews into the fold and explicitly rejecting all so-called anti-Semitism. On the other hand, if we are to believe Auster and friends, a large fraction – maybe even a majority - of the attendees at AR conferences are distinctly hostile to Jews and do not, not accept them into the fold. Then, in the midst of this anti-Jewish feeling, there are a dozen or two guys like Hart in the audience. Up jumps Duke and gleefully strikes a match.

Taylor attempts to appeal to both “white racialist Jews” (I assume Hart considers himself such) and “white racialist anti-Semitic gentiles.” That such a mix is unstable surpasses the obvious. I am only surprised something like this incident hasn’t happened before.

I am firmly of the opinion that people, and especially leaders, need to be clear about issues such as this. The defining characteristic of any group is: “who is in and who is out”. On this most fundamental issue there seems to be a disconnect between, on the one hand, Mr. Taylor and some fraction of AR’s supporters (including, obviously, Michael Hart) and, on the other, perhaps a majority of the rest.

This issue is going to come up again and again until it is resolved one way or another. It is my opinion that over the next two years, until the next AR meeting, some resolution is essential. Either guys like Michael Hart belong at the meeting or they do not. Some gray, middle-ground position in which Jews are “sort of in” is, I believe, untenable over the long haul.

It is a difficult problem and my purpose here is not to proselytize for one position or the other. It is simply to point out that something eventually needs to be done. Just drifting along without forcing things to a conclusion may be easier and more comfortable in the short term. But neither ease nor comfort will, over time, contribute to the survival of the West – which is, of course, what must always drive debate.

Posted by JW Holliday on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 06:54 PM in White Nationalism
Comments (169) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 01, 2006, 07:36 PM | #

Taylor… ah, those persistent rumors of him being a CIA asset. The CIA does heavily recruit from his own school.

It has also been reported that Taylor has read Kevin MacDonald’s work, and met him, yet he continues to profess that Jews are white Americans of European descent, or of the same EGI in JW’s parlance. I laughable notion to all but the naive.

Don’t know what to make of all that. Well, at least he tells the truth about the Blacks & Mexicans.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 01, 2006, 08:26 PM | #

Taylor is friendly with Mark Weber of IHR (the Revisionist outfit)...I take it therefore that he’s familiar with Revisionist research and scholarship as well. The fact that he doesn’t “name the Jew” in AR on a regular basis is understandable if one considers that you first need to build or establish a sense of racial consciousness among Whites in the US (and elswhere), if you want to move forward with a racialist agenda. Taylor has done some good work on the question of race and should be commended for it. Perhaps he views a direct approach to the Jewish Problem as inappriopriate at this junction.

However, everything that I’ve read on this issue leads me to believe that Taylor is aware of the JQ. He’s no fool.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 01, 2006, 08:35 PM | #

Taylor… ah, those persistent rumors of him being a CIA asset. The CIA does heavily recruit from his own school.

What crap… the idea that Taylor is a CIA asset was first hatched by Willis Carto, who has been on a vendetta over the past few years against Mark Weber and those who associate with him, like Taylor, after they took control of his company, the Legion for the Survival of Freedom (which runs the Institute of Historical Review, Noontide Press, and the now-defunct Liberty Lobby) after he mismanaged the company’s financial assets and stole a good deal of money. A good portion of Willis’ work in his publications, American Free Press and The Barnes Review, is devoted to attacking and smearing white nationalists, like Taylor and Weber, who disagree with him.

Taylor is one of the directors of the National Policy Institute (NPI) and is on the advisory committee of The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ). NPI has on its advisory board Kevin MacDonald and MacDonald is published on a regular basis in TOQ. So, he is obviously friends with MacDonald…

Posted by friedrich braun on March 01, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=273131

A thread on SF conference on SF

Posted by friedrich braun on March 01, 2006, 09:42 PM | #

Good posts

Too much obsessions with “THE JEWS”.

Jews are at most 2% of the US population. Jews who support some or many of our positions should just try to work on their own community - they shouldn’t be trying to be included or take leadership of WN in America or anywhere else. Otherwise it will be just like the Jewish conversion to “Conservative politics” - neo conservatism - invade the world (for Israel) and invite the world, open borders immigration and slander any White person who objects to either policy as a Nazi, anti Semite, Isolationist etc.

Jews have as much business trying to impact a WN conference as they had trying to lead the NAACP or lead a “RUSSIAN Revolution” of Russian workers. The Jews aren’t Russian, they aren’t workers, they aren’t Black “colored people” and they aren’t White Nationalists.

No, WN shouldn’t hate Jews or be obsessed with the them, but come on, why do we want Jews at WN events? Do we want Black Haitians with AIDS to co host our events? How about Turko Mongolian Muslim terrorists? Central American Mestizo gang bangers - I am sure you could train one to support the tenants of American Renaissance Magazine or to deny the 6 million - but these people are not of our White kindred.

Kindness - it means loving your own kind.

Jews please work on your own people and I at least will work to leave your people alone…..

Jews please do something about Jerry Springer, Geraldo, Adam Sandler etc.

Have a nice day.

As another member has pointed out, Jewish participation is likely to lead American Renaissance down the same road as National Review.

Over there, we now see Brahmins, writing for the Jewish editors, lecturing us on American patriotism and using their influence to have racialist conservatives fired from other publications like the Washington Times and Human Events. We see Goldberg’s National Review, still considered the conservative flagship, scolding the French for racism and recommending affirmative action programs in response to the recent muslim rioting. True conservatives have always opposed foreign intervention and military adventurism but the National Review now condemns them as traitors, a la David Frum. We see Krauthammer lauded as a conservative luminary while he giggles enthusiastically about Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and argues in favor of secret prisons and torture.

And now we have also seen David Duke, the pre-eminent American racialist leader of our times, cursed at a conservative convocation. By a Jew.

I could go on and on and on and on. This is what happens when Jews become influential. It is the Jewish effect.

Good Jew? Conservative Jew? Libertarian Jew? Nationalist Jew?

It doesn’t matter.

Posted by JW Holliday on March 02, 2006, 03:25 AM | #

Geoff,

I am a supporter of Jared Taylor, despite my disagreement with him on this ONE issue. I believe he is an honorable man. He could have made lots more money, and had an easier life, if he would have eschewed racialism and instead stuck to the business world. He has made sacrifices for his people, and that is to be commended. He promotes Salter, which is more than I can say for all the more radical people out there.

Now, I’ll agree with you if you believe that Mr. Taylor’s approach on this one issue is wrong. But the man does not deserve ad hominem attacks. Is there any proof that he is a “CIA asset” other than the fact that there are rumors? Rumors are a dime a dozen.

I do not want this essay to be construed in any way as an “attack” on either Taylor or Duke. The main criticism I can make is that they should have discussed this privately before the conference and then followed through on their agreement.

The whole Hart-Duke exchange made the conference look bad. I’m not even going to come down too hard on Hart either, as he was protecting his ethnic interests.

Maybe there needs to be, in addition to these public conferences, more high-level conferences where guys like Taylor, Duke, Hart, etc. can put their cards on the table and honestly discuss ethnic interests and where their interests coincide and conflict.

Airing the “dirty laundry” in public to the delight of anti-racists is not good.

Posted by Stanley Womack on March 02, 2006, 09:02 AM | #

Auster, Sailer & Steyn…

What would you expect from any of the members of the Auster, Sailer & Steyn firm than that any one of them would seek to place their issues at the center of reports about a conference like this? Or in developing agendas for us to live by? Or in arguing for memes that allow their particularist interests? Or in presenting the correct way for us to think?

This is not a dig at Jared Taylor, but it is an expression of surprise that anyone would expect any one of these three guys to place the interests of the descendants of the indigenous Europeans above the interests of their narrower agenda. Nothing wrong with their emphasis, but it’s silly to expect any other outcome.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 02, 2006, 10:58 AM | #

JW,

Who let the third world into America: it was the Jews and their influence. Not to acknowledge that is folly.

And I’d bet $100 dollar that Jew’s were the driving force behind Europes immigration invasion.

Oh, speaking of Jewish influence, at least “a” Muslims isn’t being allowed into Europe.

Iran: Jewish Groups Want President Barred From Europe

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/03/70498038-a8b2-476f-af1e-b740769e32d1.html

I guess we see what hand is on the lever?

Posted by who on March 02, 2006, 12:09 PM | #

“The Jewish Question?” I think you need to replace the map of Europe with a swastika.

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 02, 2006, 12:54 PM | #

Wonder never ceases, God moves in mysterious ways, and his prophet on this Earth, Prophet Freddy Braun, follows.

they [Jews] aren’t workers-freddy

Many Jews arrived in the US penny-less, and built up a fortune. By work, donchaknow.

Do we want Black Haitians with AIDS to co host our events? How about Turko Mongolian Muslim terrorists? Central American Mestizo gang bangers -freddy, comparing the above to letting in Jews

Because Jews are notorious for having AIDS, being terrorists, and indulging in communal sexual recreation. Besides, didn’t you quite recently excoriate JT for printing far less scurillous things about the very same Blacks+Arabs? Thing is, based on your recent comments arguing for an Islamic Europe, I’m not sure you wouldn’t welcome all these “terrorist gang-bangers” yourself.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 02, 2006, 06:39 PM | #

Here are my thoughts on this issue:

I hope the “Jews are the root of all evil” part of the WN movement leave the others alone (and vice versa). The former think that they need to ramrod this into everyone’s brain or else the world will turn to cheese. The latter disagree.

Why can’t David Duke, Carto or any of the other nutcases simply leave the others (like Taylor) who disagree with them, alone? Why should they try to highjack Taylor’s magazine, his publication and his conference?

I am sorry but I have little sympathy left for these kooks. It is not as if they do not have an outlet for their views. There are scores of sites on the internet that do just this. So why isn’t that enough? Why should these messages be rammed down the throats of people in a private conference?

Unfortunately, the more I see of this the more it convinces me that the “Jews are root of all evil” crowd lost its marbles when it began to infer super-natural powers in a people who are only too human (and as a result lost all perspective on politics).

I personally think Taylor is deluded in trying to win Jewry over to his side. They will never be won over and he is wasting his time. But there are also perfectly logical reasons for not obsessing about Jews 24/7 despite the obvious anti-White campaign of Jewish organizations for more than a century in the North America and Europe. And one perfectly logical reason for this is that if the movement wishes to win new recruits, it cannot turn itself into a swastika clad cartoon job.

If honest, apolitical people (who form the majority of white people in any country in Europe or North America) are to be won over, they will need to be won over by sensible political canvassing. Not this sort of rubbish.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 02, 2006, 08:08 PM | #

Wonder never ceases, God moves in mysterious ways, and his prophet on this Earth, Prophet Freddy Braun, follows.

You’re hilarious.

they [Jews] aren’t workers-freddy
Many Jews arrived in the US penny-less, and built up a fortune. By work, donchaknow.

Your philosemitism is touching…never mind that the author of the post I quoted obviously referred to the Russian Revolution and the preponderating role played by your yids in that happy adventure.

Do we want Black Haitians with AIDS to co host our events? How about Turko Mongolian Muslim terrorists? Central American Mestizo gang bangers -freddy, comparing the above to letting in Jews
Because Jews are notorious for having AIDS, being terrorists, and indulging in communal sexual recreation.

One seldom sees so much bad faith…you’re wilfully misconstruing the author’s original post and playing dumb. The author believes that Jews have no business infiltrating WN organizations; and the idea of including Jews is as ludicrous and counterpoductive (and dangerous) as including Haitians or the Chinese…only the Jews’ potential for mischief is far greater.

Besides, didn’t you quite recently excoriate JT for printing far less scurillous things about the very same Blacks+Arabs? Thing is, based on your recent comments arguing for an Islamic Europe, I’m not sure you wouldn’t welcome all these “terrorist gang-bangers” yourself.

Just shut up. I won’t even comment on your bullshit.

Posted by L'Etat c'est moi on March 02, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

Michael Regan fired from prosecutor job; ADL gloats. Efforts also underway to get him fired from his university job.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Prosecutor-Fired.html

Posted by Voice on March 02, 2006, 11:04 PM | #

Fred,

I agree with your Jewish accessment with reference to them being allowed in pro-white movements. I have written about it before so I won’t bore everyone again

[url=http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/hate_crime_victims_young_poor_white/#comments]

Duke was out of line at the recent AR conference and he should have more respect for JT. Taylor is on the verge of taking WN mainstream and has the vision to understand that arguing the number of dead during the Jewish holocaust and specifying complete Jewish guilt for our predicament won’t move this movement forward one bit.

The first stage of this is a battle amongst the elites because this is why and where we lost in the first place. Whether the WN movement ever captures the Jewish intellectual elite is open to dispute, but DD may take a page from the oldest play in the book

“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”

Maybe this should read potential enemies but as long as Jews view themselves as White before Jewish they can be on my team.

Posted by ben tillman on March 03, 2006, 03:47 AM | #

Maybe this is awkward, but I don’t see why Jews who question race-replacement shouldn’t be completely welcome in Taylor’s organizations or elsewhere.

I readily accept criticism of lawyers or Southerners or Yankees or Americans or Texans or Germans or Ivy-Leaguers or men or philosophers or the members of any other category to which I belong or may have belonged—if that criticism is just.

I have many Louisiana contacts, and David Duke has his peccadilloes, but his criticism of Jewry is just. To object to those criticisms is to demonstrate that one does not share our conceptions of justice; i.e., it is to demonstrate that one is not part of our moral community.

Schopenhauer famously referred to the Jews as “große Meister im Lügen”. And the lie has always been that they are “us”—that they are part of our moral community. Hart’s reaction betrayed the fact that he is not one of us.

It also indicates that he feels threatened by (or considers himself vacariously liable for the wrongful acts that result in) the criticism of the members of the category in which he is classified. But I speak disingenuously; to be Jewish is not to be one of a number of similarly classifiable humans. It is to be part of an organization, indeed an organism. This explains “the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.” See Salo Wittmaier Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews: Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952).

When Hart objects to Duke’s criticism of Jewry, he is confirming that he cannot separate himself from the Jewish group. Though he may wish that the group would act differently, he implicitly accepts responsibility, and expects punishment, for its actions.

Fred, with his two Jewish grandparents, criticizes Jewish race-replacement activity without feeling responsible for it. Murray Rothbard had, as far as I know, four Jewish grandparents, but still had no problem with Duke’s candidacies in the early 1990’s. (Just last night, when I was among a bunch of 30-something women who straddle the Jew-gentile divide, one Louisiana woman recounted the “Vote for the Crook; It’s Important” bumper-sticker, as if the rest of us had never heard of it). People like Fred and Murray Rothbard should be welcomed at the AmRen conference, but Hart’s actions revealed that he has an incompatible agenda.

Posted by ben tillman on March 03, 2006, 03:58 AM | #

Michael Regan fired from prosecutor job

A patently illegal firing, of course.

Posted by who on March 03, 2006, 08:57 AM | #

Surrender! The Jews will win in the end. You all know it. Given in now and embrace you inner Jew.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 03, 2006, 09:53 AM | #

Since Dr. Duke is the focus of this thread, I think it’s fair to give Dr. Duke’s version of what happened at the conference.
...

On the last day of the conference, the wonderful French writer/philosopher Guillaume Faye spoke about the “Threat to the West.” In an excellent presentation he focused on the internal and external threat of fundamentalist Islam to Europe. It is my belief that we must stop the non-European immigration into our homelands, but I also firmly believe that supporting the Jewish extremist, Neocon ”Clash of Civilizations” external war is disastrous. The Iraq War and adventurism elsewhere are taking our focus from the real threats here at home. And the so-called war on terrorism has spawned the means they use to suppress our freedoms here at home. As all of you have heard me say repeatedly: “It is not the Iraqi borders that we should be concerned with, but the Mexican-American border.”

It is also my belief that the immigration problem itself and perhaps even more importantly, the destruction of European American consciousness and traditions, the advance of egalitarianism, feminism and multiculturalism, globalism — all have been driven by Jewish extremists in their relentless quest for supremacy. It was not the Arabs who opened our immigration floodgates, who took over our anthropological sciences, who led the multicultural and diversity march, who weakened us with Marxism, Freudianism, Feminism, pornography, abortion and acceptance of non-reproductive sexual deviance and every sort of debilitating cultural , physical and spiritual nihilism. Even more important, it has not been the Arabs who have seized the control points of mass media as well as the sources of political finance and influence that have led to the ethnic cleansing of our people across the European World. Although we must oppose massive immigration with all our ability, it is not Arabs or Muslims who have led the attack on our people. In fact, they weren’t even the ones who changed our immigration laws.

In short, the West, has not simply succumbed to an external or even a natural phenomenon among us. We have been subverted by extremists who have destroyed our own ethnic consciousness and ethnic dominance while they have relentlessly worked for their own genetic and political supremacy. While they have opened our gates in America and Europe, Israel’s own Jewish demographic mastery is foremost in all their considerations.

So I became concerned listening to a subtle message that we should be happy because the Zionists were now going to be our friends and allies, something that I think is a dangerous notion to our ultimate survival. There are certainly Jewish supremacists who fear the rising Muslim clout in Europe in America as a competing political interest group, but even that minority of Jews bemoan and admit the fact that the overwhelming Jewish extremist establishment supports open borders in the West. They believe that their control can be maintained the multiculturalism of the West under a Jewish cultural, media, music, and political umbrella. They think that they can thrive in what Jewish activist Stephen Steinlight calls their policy of “divide and conquer.” In my opinion, although Arab power is an important problem to them, the powers of Jewish supremacism still fear the European far more than the Arab. They believe that they can with their copious talents, subvert and eventually control the “Muslim problem.”

As a side note, their clever subversion of their enemies can be seen in the recent sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims of Iraq. It is exactly what Israel has historically sought among its Arab neighbors. In Jewish Supremacism, I note the diaries of Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in discussing how Israel did everything it could in false flag operations to foster and promote the Lebanese Civil War. Even Ariel Sharon’s facilitation of the Sabre and Shatila massacre in Beirut can be seen as expressions of that divide and conquer policy. Israel cannot afford an “American liberated Iraq” to now be dominated by a Shiite, pro-Iran, anti-Israel, American refurbished state. How elementally easy it would have been for the Mossad to have perpetrated the Askariya mosque bombing either directly through their own agents or their steering of Mossad-infiltrated Arab organizations. It is in their interest to destabilize the country, for such offers no danger to Israel.

During the Amren convention it seemed some speakers were practically cheer leading for the Neocon foreign adventurism. Perle, Wolfowitz, Crystal, Feith, Abrams, Libby and their ilk would have loved to hear our leaders enlisted in their proposed World War IV for Israel. I need not remind you that almost all these men in the Neoconservative movement are in fact former Trotskyites who subverted traditional conservatives and have been for open immigration as well as every kind of movement destructive of European American heritage and rights. These facts are abundantly clear.

It was in that context that I asked the question of Guillaume Faye, I praised his stirring speech, and asked as politely as I could, that in regard to the old Islamic invasions of hundreds of years ago, another middle eastern group in Western society worked to undermine our defenses. That historic fact shows them to have opened the gates at both Constantinople and at Grenada to the invaders, and that they have been the primary force that has opened the immigration gates of the West in the last 50 years. I asked him what suggestions he had in dealing with the internal part of our problem, the subversion of our means and our will?

I let the question be open-ended, I didn’t want to disrupt or debate with him, and I proceeded to sit down and let him answer unimpeded and unchallenged. But, when I finished my question, Mr. Michael Hart rose up in an almost perfect Jewish caricature, and started to scream at me,

This is how the Jewish publication The Forward reported it.

But Michael Hart, a squat, balding Jewish astrophysicist from Maryland, was not amused. He rose from his seat, strode toward Duke (who loomed over him like an Aryan giant), spit out a curse — “You f…ing Nazi, you’ve disgraced this meeting” — and exited.

Still, I did not debate with him, or even attempt to defend myself from his vile attack; I just sat down so that Faye could answer the question.

I had no intention, or purpose of disruption, just wanted to see what ideas Guillaume had on the issue. He could take it as softly or rigorously as he chose.

My question was rather mild, in fact, far less stringent that the strong remarks of Amren’s recently featured Conference speaker, Joseph Sobran. Faye responded by saying “The danger of the Jews is not the same as danger of the Arabs,’’ he said. He continued: “The Jew is” — and here he had to have Taylor interpret a French expression — “the hole in the dike.”

“The water is immigration,” he continued. “We must fight on two fronts, but not by the same means. We must be very acute in our strategy. The best thing is to not speak about the Jews. They don’t exist. For me, they are like Eskimos.”

I could have responded that the ocean will be out there no matter what. That we can do little about the level of the ocean but we can maintain our dikes. And, if indeed extremist Jews are “the hole in the dike,” how do we address this hole in our dike if we not even allowed to speak or even know of it?

Still, I regret the incident, for it wasn’t my intention to foment any disruption among men I both admire and respect. If I had any idea that there were such hate-filled, Jewish extremists present who would have made such a scene, I would have remained silent in respect for the decorum of the conference. After, all it wasn’t my meeting.

Yet, in the end it should be clear that Michael Hart was the one who chose to make a disruption in a reptilian response to my rather mild question. It was he that acted in a stereotypical Jewish way and screamed obscenities at someone asking a perfectly legitimate question. He should apologize to Jared Taylor, all the participants of the conference, and frankly, to me as well. I don’t expect such as our major opponents have never been gentlemen or should I say, gentile-men.

http://www.davidduke.com/?p=496#more-496

Posted by friedrich braun on March 03, 2006, 02:13 PM | #

Yggrasil has some inside information on Jews and AR. Only a couple of years ago Yggrasil’s attitude was the same as that of Taylor…however, he has since repudiated his former stance in favour of a confrontational one as far as Jewish influence…it’s an interesting development.

As many of you know, I am willing to accept reliable allies where ever I can find them - which makes me, in Alex Linder’s eyes, a squishy soft WN.

I am also very well aware of the impracticability of using the Jewish issue as the opening salvo when attempting to convert fellow whites who are still attached to the human equality matrix.

But the accent must always remain on the word “reliable”, and in that context I find it passing strange that racialist Jews would be wasting their time preaching about racial differences to a bunch of goys. Racialist White gentiles are pariahs in our society with zero power to impact public policy. To the extent that this tiny minority of racialist Jews feels threatened by blacks and browns, their safety is to be found by convincing their own group - the group with real power - not us.

All of which gives rise to a justified suspicion that their primary concern in attending the Amren conference is the safety of Jews. They wish to prevent the racial separatist movement from recognizing the huge role of Jews in the subordination of our race - as well as the enormous power they have to continue and enforce that subordination.

Recently, Byron Jost, the producer of the movie “The Line in the Sand” offered to purchase an advertisement for his movie in the American Rennaisance magazine. The ad said nothing about Jews. The staff at AmRen insisted on watching the movie first, and then refused to take Byron’s money and publish the ad - because of Professor MacDonald’s comments in the movie.

It is well understood in the journalism trade in America that the publication of an ad by a Newspaper or magazine does not imply an endorsement of the product or service being advertised.

AmRen’s refusal to accept Byron’s money is powerful circumstantial evidence that Amren is dependent upon Jewish financial support and has been told in no uncertain terms that such support will be withdrawn if Amren utters or endorses, even indirectly, the slightest criticism of Jewish power.

Thus, it is quite clear that there is much more to Jared’s decision to avoid mention of the role of Jewish power in our subordination than the mere complexity of explaining it all to uninformed whites.

But I would suggest that if Jews want to fund AmRen’s good works for the cause, including its litterature and the conference - both of which have considerable value to us - that should be fine with us so long as we understand the source and the motives for their involvement.

The Jews are using Jared and we are using Jared. And like Cheney, Rumsfeld and our Congress, poor Jared is living on his knees in expectation of the “quo” which never seems to arrive in this quid pro quo bargain they have all made in exchange for the sensation of power and some face time in the public eye.

But now that you know what is going on, there seems to be little purpose in continuing the discussion and beating this dead horse. We are all very safe with AmRen as long as we know what is going on.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 03, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

This is totally misplaced.

The Jews who were at the AR conference are pariahs in their own society just as the white gentiles who were at the AR conference are pariahs in theirs. There is no difference.

I don’t think Taylor must be beholden to Jewish money in order to not rake up the Jewish issue. It is astonishing how obtuse some WNs tend to be. They simply do not understand how easily many people are terrified of what we would consider open minded (and fair) criticism of Jewry.

But this is all bsides the point. If they think Taylor is a Jewish stooge, why don’t they just leave him alone? They should stay away from him.

And if Taylor is a Jewish stooge, it is certainly bizarre behaviour on his part to have let the likes of David Duke into the conference. Amazingly, no one seems to have noticed this obvious fact.

I think Taylor was simply trying to pitch as broad a tent as possible and in good faith invited “both sides” to make a point that AR was a wider forum and had wider ambitions than the kooks and cranks who have traditionally characterised the WN movement.

Unfortunately for him, there are so many who seem to be totally obsessed with Jewish conspiracies that even the best intentions seem to acquire sinister tones in their minds.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 03, 2006, 04:15 PM | #

I should also add that Hart’s behaviour was disgraceful and it underscores my point that trying to win Jews over to the WN movement is a high investment, high maintenance, low returns (or should that be negative returns??) excercise.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 03, 2006, 04:17 PM | #

This appears to be the crux of the issue (and our disagreement). Jews played a part in those things but it is a serious error to assume that none of those movements would have occured without their involvement.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 03, 2006, 04:34 PM | #

Maybe this is awkward, but I don’t see why Jews who question race-replacement shouldn’t be completely welcome in Taylor’s organizations or elsewhere. There’s work to be done. Let’s get down to doing it.

Fred,

This is an interesting point. But one parallel I can think of is National Review which until the 1960s was a voice of sanity on racial issues. Things changed very dramatically when the Jewish Trotskyists (Pohoretz and Co) switched to the right.

There is an interesting article by Scott McConnell about the entire episode. He recalls his early encounters with Norman Podhoretz for whom he had nothing but the highest regard. But he soon began to realise that Podhoretz was completely obsessed with neutering the right on immigration.

Excerpts:

Two new issues broke apart the 1980s Reaganite conservative consensus. The first was immigration. By the late 1980s, the impact of the 1965 immigration law had begun greatly to accelerate the pace of immigration. Younger readers may not recall the vital role National Review began to play in analyzing that law and the social, environmental, and political consequences it brought about. The battle was joined when John O’Sullivan (NR’s editor since 1988) published in 1992 Peter Brimelow’s explosive “Time to Rethink Immigration,” which quickly became the most debated conservative magazine article of the year. The piece forced the immigration debate into the open within the conservative movement, where it fused with the populist revolt breaking out in California over Proposition 187, an anti-illegal-alien measure. For the next five years, the magazine put what it called “The National Question” in the spotlight, publishing cover stories by Brimelow, Fred Iklé, O’Sullivan, and eventually (as I was won over to the magazine’s position) one by me.

The neoconservatives, to my complete surprise, were not pleased.

In the summer of 1995, Neal Kozodoy gave me a copy of a letter. Written by Irwin Steltzer to the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, it was making its way around the upper echelons of the neocon magazines and think tanks. Steltzer is a Bronx-born economist and Weekly Standard editor who lives part-time in London. While a gifted economic essayist, his most important function is surely as the ideological gendarme for Rupert Murdoch’s American media properties.

Steltzer wrote to Kristol (and the wider world) that he was canceling his subscription to National Review because of its “increasingly offensive positions on such topics as immigration.”..............

If National Review did not entirely drop the issue of immigration, in the post-O’Sullivan era it addressed it with markedly diminished zest. Mark Krikorian contributed some solid but uncontroversial pieces. John Miller, who had written a book that attacked several immigration reformers while calling for a renewed effort to “assimilate” an ever-growing number of new immigrants, replaced Brimelow on the masthead. The flame of “nativism” in the nation’s leading conservative publication was safely extinguished, and the neocons breathed more easily as 1.5 million new immigrants entered the country every year….......

At roughly the same time that O’Sullivan was pushed from the helm of National Review, I was fired as editorial page editor of the New York Post, ostensibly for publishing an editorial opposing statehood for Puerto Rico and standing by it after the pressure started. The morning I was sacked, the Post’s editor pointed out to me an op-ed in that day’s paper by Mark Krikorian (the most measured of immigration-reform writers). He said accusingly, “You keep putting things in the paper like that.”............

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya,sly on March 03, 2006, 05:19 PM | #

The Regan case underscores MacDonald’s comments about “social pricing” cited by JW in the “Citizen Sailer” post. One wonders how Sailer can, with a straight face, talk about “white Americans want to act like white Americans”, and how “white professionals are not threatened by non-whites” when white professionals like Regan are actually fired from their job for merely attending an Amren conference! The fact that Sailer does not acknowledge this seems to me to reek of intellectual dishonesty, and a good reason not to contribute to his “panhandling” campaign, and to dissuade others from doing so as well.

The comparison made here between Regan and Elliot Abrams is very striking: Abrams is a successful public figure who has gone even further than Regan, with his outspoken aversion to intermarriage.

With respect to the illegality of Regan’s firing, all I can say is that if a lawyer like Regan is unwilling or unable to address this issue in a court of law, the relative legality is superfluous: the other side has the power, and guys like Regan just take it. He should sue. But, will he?

And then we have this:
http://www.forward.com/articles/7430

Hart’s chutzpah is amazing; he thinks that Amren should sacrifice a group that makes up maybe half their conference attendees for a group that makes up 5% of the attendance. Or, does Hart believe that one Jew is more valuable than 10 gentiles?

Aren’t comments like Taylor’s “white Jews are white” an example of circular reasoning? Yes, if they are “white”, then they are, indeed, “white”, but that sort of begs the question, doesn’t it?

Posted by JB on March 03, 2006, 05:24 PM | #

ben tillman:

When Hart objects to Duke’s criticism of Jewry, he is confirming that he cannot separate himself from the Jewish group.

exactly. Do we need anyone who refuses to acknowledge that jewish groups played a major role in opening the borders of the US (ref: chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique) and that jews in the entertainment business played a major role in the demise of the white mind. Why should we care about a handful of supposedly pro-white jews when AIPAC and other jewish groups grease the Congress, the Senate, the RP and the DP, when jewish TV promote miscegenation and wiggerism, when Hollywood churns out fiction movies in which kind noble african-americans are featured ?

according to one poster on AmRen.com Duke’s question was “Did Jewish organizations play as large a role in opening Europe to non-White immigration as they did in the US?”

that is a legitimate question. The situation in Europe may not be the same as in North America.

Geoff Beck:

It has also been reported that Taylor has read Kevin MacDonald’s work,

CofC was reviewed positively in AmRen a few years ago

http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html#article3

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 03, 2006, 05:27 PM | #

Yes, if they are “white”, then they are, indeed, “white”, but that sort of begs the question, doesn’t it?

Whether they are white or not is irrelevant and for the same reason that would apply to white Muslims.

It isn’t an issue of only who is white and who isn’t. It is an issue of who will serve a cause best, create the fewest problems and help in expanding the base the greatest.

I cannot see the logic of trying to engage in “outreach” towards Jews by WNs. Jews as a group will always be overwhelmingly represented on the far left on issues such as race, multiculturalism, immigration, homosexual marriage, church and state etc.

George W Bush has the most pro-Israeli foreign policy of any American President in history and he cannot pull in more than 22 percent of the Jewish vote. So what hope is there for the likes of Taylor?

I get the feeling that Taylor is a philo-semite at heart and would like everyone to get along. But it isn’t going to work and his hopes of Jewish support and extremely deluded.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 03, 2006, 05:31 PM | #

CofC was reviewed positively in AmRen a few years ago

It was after reading that review that I decided to buy the book.

Posted by J Richards on March 03, 2006, 06:19 PM | #

slinker, sailer, toldya,sly,

Steve Sailer is a businessman, and by all means it appears that money comes first to him. It is not clear whether his absurdities on “citizenism” and race mixing are things that he genuinely believes in or positions that he maintains to maximize contributions to his panhandling campaign, but I would not expect reasonable stances from him on these issues because I have good reasons to believe that money is paramount to him. Besides, note that he does not allow comments on his blog. So much for the strength of conviction that one is right! I don?t see why anyone should donate to him when the donation would be well utilized by Jared Taylor.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 03, 2006, 08:14 PM | #

About the AR review of CofC: did anyone else notice the picture of Mao with the caption: “The Great Helmsman..Not very Jewish.”

Hmmm. By that logic, the SPLC can run a critique of “the Color of Crime” and put a picture of Ted Bundy with the caption: “Killer Ted…not very Negro.”

About Sailer, too bad Brimelow gives him an extra forum, and helps Sailer raise money for a new “project.”

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 03, 2006, 09:16 PM | #

Being that:

a) Jews make up 1.5% of the American populace
b) 1 out of every 5 people in the USA with an IQ of 160 or higher (stratospheric) is a Jew
c) 1 in 70 Jews score above 145 on IQ tests, while only 1 in 700 non-Jewish caucasians make that score
d) 40% of American Nobel Prize winners are Jewish and 1/5 of total Nobel Prize winners are Jewish
e) 1 in 3 students at Harvard are Jewish
f) 45% of the 64 best chess players of all time are Jewish, according to Warriors of the Mind
g) Jews make up 40% of the divisions of physics, computer science, and applied physical sciences of the National Academy of Sciences
h) In the Middle Ages Jews made up about 1% of the European population but over 50% of European doctors were Jewish

...winning over Jews would bring significant intellectual resources to the movement.

Posted by James Bowery on March 03, 2006, 10:04 PM | #

There are two major inadequacies with Salterism:

1) No accounting for genetic correlation structure (ie: Lewontin’s fallacy within Hamilton’s rule).

2) Underestimation of the degree to which those genetic correlation structures can support an immune-suppressive form of parasitic virulence that may now be called “vectorism” or the tendency to promote horizontal transmission of parasites.

Both of these flaws make it virtually impossible to rationally address Jews within Salterism.

Taylor’s organization is the most obvious victims of this failure of theory.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 12:24 AM | #

> George W Bush has the most pro-Israeli foreign policy of any American President in history and he cannot pull in more than 22 percent of the Jewish vote. So what hope is there for the likes of Taylor?

Has George W Bush been any more or less pro-Jew than Nixon, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II? Well, perhaps in degree, yes.

However, no president or politician above dog catcher can get elected and stay elected in the United States by opposing the Jews.

Can anyone name a politician in this “diverse” democracy that is a hard liner on Israel? (Silence)

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 04, 2006, 01:43 AM | #

John Conyers (D-MI), Diane Watson (D-CA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) .

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:36 AM | #

Has George W Bush been any more or less pro-Jew than Nixon, Reagan, Bush I or Bush II? Well, perhaps in degree, yes.

Bush I was actually seen as indifferent or mildly hostile to Israel. In fact, one of the reasons he lost the 1992 election is because he was about to cut off aid to Israel on the basis that the Israelis were unwilling to stop the construction of settlements on the West Bank.

Most of his cabinet at that time were not known for being pro-Israel. James Baker while in a meeting with Republican campaign managers for the 1992 election was a little irritated at the constant badgering by some to find a strategy to get a higher percentage of the Jewish vote. To that, Baker replied, “F*** the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway”.

He later denied saying it although the story got leaked to the Press. The stereotype of Bush Sr and cabinet as being composed of snobbish upper class WASPs who didn’t care about Jews was firmly established.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:41 AM | #

However, no president or politician above dog catcher can get elected and stay elected in the United States by opposing the Jews.

This is true although this is also partly due to the Christian right with its pro-Israel agenda.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:48 AM | #

However, no president or politician above dog catcher can get elected and stay elected in the United States by opposing the Jews.

This will change if America’s current immigration policies continue. And at some point in the future, it is conceivable that the US may even become anti-Israel.

These things are fluid and demographics is what governs it. The most pro-Israel people in America are white Protestants. But as their numbers shrink relative to the size of the population, so will support for the policies that they favour most.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 04, 2006, 06:58 AM | #

James, you are correct, with point 1 being stressed by JW. I wonder if point 2 will be, indirectly, addressed by Salter’s forthcoming work on “elite ethnic competition” although I assume he will not get into the genetic analysis of parasitism.

Casual, well, then how have Jews so far helped AR? Hart did what he did in 2006, and in 1996 proposed an absurd separation plan that managed to unite the most disparate elements of WN in opposition. Weissberg promotes affirmative action and the “status quo” with respect to race. Levin I guess has been more or less OK. Auster recently has been attempting to justify persecution of “Holocaust deniers” on his site, well, maybe they should be “fined rather than jailed.” Very good, Larry. Schiller stopped attending after he was told by his Yeshiva not to, and he has on his record - if you can believe an article about him - breaking up a UK nationalist group over “anti-Semitism.” On the AR discussion list, Jewish members caused a lot of turmoil.

The track record so far has not been good.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 04, 2006, 07:49 AM | #

according to one poster on AmRen.com Duke’s question was “Did Jewish organizations play as large a role in opening Europe to non-White immigration as they did in the US?”

I have personally asked Dr. Duke this question…and what follows are his own thoughts on the matter:

...I have done no scientific survey, but have run across a great deal of anecdotal evidence. For instance it is no secret that most Jewish organizations in Europe supported reform of European immigration laws, the considerable influence of Jews in the media supported it. In addition, the Hollywood, NY Jewish influence on European media and publishing continued the same thrust toward open borders .

Posted by friedrich braun on March 04, 2006, 08:05 AM | #

I guess it is an area of our disagreement. How would such markedly Jewish phenomena as Freudianism, Marxism, Feminisim, and so on and so forth have occurred without the Jews being the vanguard and driving engine? The Jews are the “but for” ingredient…but for the Jewish involvement such movements would have remained at best marginal and without influence…even if by some miracle they would seen the light of day witout the omnipresent Jewish impetus.

As an example, let’s take the overwhelming Jewish role in pornography.

What follows is a very good article on the prevalence of jews in the porn industry…another area where they dominate.

The Jew

The Jew never tires of telling anyone willing to listen that he has made many valuable contributions to civilisation. Lately, many people have been asking, “What contributions? When? Where?” Can anyone name just one Jew to whom children ever looked up to as a hero? To be fair, there is one field in which the Jew has made such a wonderful “contribution” that it must be admitted that this field has become a Jewish monopoly. For lack of a worse term, this category is often referred to as “Jewish Family Values.” Below are listed some Jewish heroes and heroines and brief details of their valuable “contributions” to society.

According to Time magazine of 9 May 1983, the inventor of telephone sex lines is Gloria Leonard. Miss Leonard was one of 21 lucky winners in New York Telephone’s lottery for Dial-It services. She used this opportunity to profit from her experience as a star of countless hard core pornographic films and as the founder and editor of the hard core porn magazine High Society. Miss Leonard often refers to herself as “A nice Jewish girl from the Bronx.”

Time Out magazine of 6-12 May 1983 reported the visit to Britain of Al Goldstein, who is the founder and editor of Screw magazine and the host of the cable television chat show ‘Midnight Blue.’ Journalist Steve Grant noted Goldstein’s “Brooklyn-Jewish forthrightness” and described him as looking like “an oddball Israeli ambassador.” Said Goldstein: “British Customs raided me again. They ripped up the magazine. If they do it again I’m gonna move here permanently. How would that effect your neighbourhood? Boy, you thought the Indians were bad, wait until a Jewish pornographer turns up. I’ll probably start a cartoon strip with Margaret Thatcher and Reagan f—-ing. Wow!”

On the 13th of October 1982, the National Film Theatre presented “Sluts and Goddesses – Annie Sprinkle”, a series of films described in the NFI brochure as “shocking but true videos… an absurd, heartfelt and worshipful look at sex, challenging the boundaries of femininity and myths of sexual norms.” Annie Sprinkle often refers to herself as “A nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn.” Sprinkle’s real name is Ellen Steinberg.

The Sunday Express of 6 December 1992 reported that the Ann Summers chain of sex shops is owned by the Gold brothers, Ralph and David. They also own 50% of Sullivan’s Sport Newspapers and publish Bite, a soft porn magazine for women. The managing director of Ann Summers is David Gold’s daughter, Jacqueline. Ms. London magazine of 4 October 1993 reported that Miss Gold, now 33 “came into daddy’s company… when she was 19.” She is “the astute businesswoman who created the Ann Summers parties based on the Tupperware parties.” Said Miss Gold: “When I first started, the business was male oriented. The parties excited me so much because I saw a whole new avenue for women.”

The February 1992 issue of Harper’s and Queen reported on the family values of Sigmund Freud’s descendants. Grandson Lucian is a painter who “lays bare his wives, his lovers and his children in his portraits.” Journalist Raffaella Barker commented: “No artist in the world has painted his daughters naked as many times as Lucian Freud.” His daughter Esther has written a novel based on life with her sister, Bella, and their unmarried parents. The title of the novel is Hideous Kinky.

Evelyn Kaye has made a special study of “Jewish Family Values” in her book The Hole in The Sheet: A Modern Woman Looks at Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism, Lyle Stuart Publishers, 1987. Mrs Kaye describes “The Doctrine of Anti-Goyism” as being “The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy.” The book’s title is based on the following Jewish law: “In order to protect the modesty of the wife during intercourse, a sheet is kept between her and her husband, with a hole at the appropriate place for the correct connection to be made.”

Chaim Bermant, writing in the Jewish Chronicle of 15 January 1993, drew attention to the cemeteries for Jewish prostitutes in Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aries. Apparently, these are the only Jewish cemeteries which “anti-Nazi” Jewish vandals have failed to desecrate. Bermant also noted the contributions the Jew made to English society at the beginning of this century: “In the same period (1903-1909), 151 aliens, most of them Jewish, were convicted for keeping brothels, and 521 for soliciting… Rabbi Avigdor Schonfeld… protested that to draw attention to the existence of Jewish prostitutes harmed the good name of the Jewish people.”

Another painter who has applied Jewish family values to his “art” is Robert Lenkiewicz, who was profiled by Paul Pickering in the Sunday Telegraph of 28 November 1993. Reported Pickering: “Lenkiewicz was born in 1943 of Jewish parents… Some of his best work comes within a skinfold of Lucian Freud… His Jewish upbringing and the Holocaust are the continuing motivation for his interest in obsessive behaviour. In particular, Nazism… ‘That is one of my themes. In all I’ve done 18 projects to date which are an attempt to define obsessive behaviour.’... Lenkiewicz appears prominently in his paintings. On occasions a little too prominently: in one picture he is seen copulating with a goat… He came west (to Plymouth) 20 years ago after the police threw him out of Hampstead. ‘They were quite right. I seemed to be a focus for the wrong sort of people. They told me to get out of town and not come back.’” Perhaps because Lenkiewicz has sired at least 15 illegitimate children with several women, Pickering concludes, “Robert is exactly the sort of artist that fathers warn their daughters about.”

Robert J. Stoller, M.D. in his 1991 book, Porn: Myths for the Twentieth Century, sought to understand the mentality of the people involved in the hard core pornography business, which is centred in California’s San Fernando Valley. Whilst interviewing some of the actors and actresses, he was told, “If you’re welcomed into the porn scene, it’s unbelievable. It’s an extended family… In fact, she almost feels like she’s going to an X-rated country club. So many Jewish people involved with it.”

The Guardian’s New York correspondent Mark Iran reported on 4 January 1994 in an article entitled ‘Mean Streets of New York Become Cleaner’, “In Chelsea, lower Manhattan, Israelis run the porn business…”

...

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/jewporn.html

Posted by Guessedworker on March 04, 2006, 08:13 AM | #

David Duke’s is a good question. But his “thoughts” on the immifration matter are not enough, are they, Friedrich? The smoking Jewish gun is not to be found. Very probably, the aggregate of the cheering Jewish onlookers in the media, the political left and Jewish ethnic-interest groups amount to the same thing. But a real smoking gun, no.

How interesting it would be if some helpful, historically-minded soul was to gather together all the available evidence in post-war Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium and the rest, and sift the clues for the perpetrators’ identity.

I cleave to the view that Western liberalism - by it’s nature a shifting and unstable thing - is the facilitator. The “invisible” advocacy of Jewish self-interest acted in the manner of a schwerpunckt, refining and focussing the shifting thrust of liberalism as required.

But to have proof in the form of a documented history would be something else.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 04, 2006, 08:25 AM | #

Dogone, there I am going on about a Jewish “smoking gun” and there you go, posting on porn! Can’t we keep to one subject at a time!

Posted by friedrich braun on March 04, 2006, 08:51 AM | #

I guess it’s time for wintermute and I to get our own blog so that we can post whatever we find interesting…haha..

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 10:49 AM | #

As an example, let’s take the overwhelming Jewish role in pornography.

It is an undeniable fact that the American porn industry is dominated by Jews as “organizers” of the industry - owners of studios, actors, directors, producers of porn etc.

However, to take a counter example, you can check the facts for South Korea, Japan and Taiwan in East Asia. All three countries (and China will join them too once the vice like grip (no pun intended) of the Chicoms begins to weaken) have large indigenous porn industries. East Asian porn (which would certainly appeal to a certain kind of white male – the ones with a thing for mongoloid women) is now a phenomenon by itself. Note that not only are there few or no Jews in East Asia, there are almost no significant racial minorities in those countries either.

Porn is a by-product of individual and sexual freedom, which is ultimately a product of liberalism itself. So that is another example of some WNs mistaking the Jewish involvement in porn to mean porn wouldn’t exist without Jews (or wouldn’t be easily accessible).

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 11:14 AM | #

Additionally, Friedrich, your self-contraditions are amusing.

The other day I linked to a comment by you that the Western world had a pathetically low birthrate because of “taboos” about sex imposed by Christianity. Now you go bashing the Jews for breaking those hated taboos with their involvement in porn. What gives?

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 12:33 PM | #

> Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) .

McKinney, though Black, was ousted by Jewish money in 2002 when she named the Jew and said 911 was a setup job.

As for the other two they are also black, and mostly get a free pass because they follow a PC line in 99.9% of cases.

A few renegade Blacks can be ignored, after the can’t be Nazi’s.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 04, 2006, 01:44 PM | #

Phil, I’ll defer to your obviously wide expertise as far as porn is concerned. But I just don’t care what happens in Asiatic societies or who controls their porn.

Breaking sexual taboos is not about producing perverted, filthy, deranged, exploitative Jewish porn, Phil.

I have nothing against artistic nudity or even erotica (done in a tasteful and respectful manner) or sex outside of marriage…if we’re speaking of constenting and healthy and racially and genetically suitable White adults. I would actually favour the best racial elements procreating…in marriage or outside. Doesn’t matter. Something like an updated Lebensborn programme but improved by our current knowledge of genetics.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 04, 2006, 01:55 PM | #

Lebensborn—Popular History as Sex Fantasy
By Siegfried Egel

A nice little article of Lebensborn:

http://www.barnesreview.org/lebensborn.htm

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 02:04 PM | #

Phil, I’ll defer to your obviously wide expertise as far as porn is concerned. But I just don’t care what happens in Asiatic societies or who controls their porn.

You don’t need “expertise” in porn to know that porn is now a global phenomenon that goes far beyond the West.

But I just don’t care what happens in Asiatic societies or who controls their porn.

The fact that these countries are awash with (indigenous) porn indicates that you don’t need Jews to have a porn industry.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 02:25 PM | #

Phil,

Jews dominate the porn business in the USA, and therefore the world.

BTW… have you been seeing a lot of big black bucks screwing White girls in porn?

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 03:47 PM | #

Jews dominate the porn business in the USA, and therefore the world.

In this day and age anyone with a camcorder and access to the internet can produce porn. No one really “controls” it because control is impossible.

BTW… have you been seeing a lot of big black bucks screwing White girls in porn?

LOL!!

I have better things to do with my time than watch such coarse garbage. Why do you ask?

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 04:10 PM | #

> In this day and age anyone with a camcorder and access to the internet can produce porn. No one really “controls” it because control is impossible.

Sure, shoot your porn. Then tell me how you can distribute your porn. Tell me how you can market your porn. How are you going to finance your porn?

Such a remark is quite is wishful thinking, Phil.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 04, 2006, 04:16 PM | #

Jews want to eradicate the White race (and I’m not only referring to vocal folks like Ignatiev who make their agenda known) and what better way to achieve this end than by promoting interracial sex and humiliate and abuse White women (and thereby White men as well)?

In this day and age anyone with a camcorder and access to the internet can produce porn. No one really “controls” it because control is impossible.

Are you for real? Jews run the porn industry in the US (hence, the world) in the same way that they dominate Hollywood…sometimes it’s frankly difficult to tell the two apart with all the Jew-produced filth that comes out of that godawful town.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 04:17 PM | #

There is at least one Englishman not afraid to say - in concrete terms - what is going on today. Rather than muddy the waters with some abstract term like advanced liberalism or any other indefinable and historically contentious phrase, that can be endlessly debated but never defined.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/jewporn.html

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:25 PM | #

Sure, shoot your porn. Then tell me how you can distribute your porn. Tell me how you can market your porn. How are you going to finance your porn?

Here’s one example.

Posted by ben tillman on March 04, 2006, 04:26 PM | #

I wonder if point 2 will be, indirectly, addressed by Salter’s forthcoming work on “elite ethnic competition”....

I think it’s safe to say that this project has been permanently shelved.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:30 PM | #

Are you for real? Jews run the porn industry in the US

Freddie ol boy,

Did you forget your high blood pressure tabs? You seem to get a little too excited to read before responding.

Here’s what I wrote above:

It is an undeniable fact that the American porn industry is dominated by Jews as “organizers” of the industry - owners of studios, actors, directors, producers of porn etc.

and what better way to achieve this end than by promoting interracial sex and humiliate and abuse White women (and thereby White men as well)?

Sure. But you can only do this in a time when women can do as they please, when sexual “liberation” has reached its nadir, when control can no longer be exercised over women’s behaviour.

Can you imagine women in 19th century Britain or America signing up to do this?

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:42 PM | #

Adding to my argument about people with camcorders and internet access making large amounts of money from porn:

Bethesda Maryland : you are awesome Danni! I am amazed that you started this website by yourself. How much money and time did you invest in this before it got up and running? Thanks.

Danni Ashe: Thanks! I actually started it out of my spare bedroom, and early on I invested $8000 for the machines and scanner. I made that money back in a couple of weeks.

Source

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

Phil,

Ashe is a public company, have you check their books?

I wonder what their bottom is compared to Goldstein, Caballero, Paul Fishbein, Herbert Feinberg a.k.a. Mickey Fine, Lenny Friedlander, Bobby Hollander, Rubin Gottesman, Fred Hirsch and his children Steve and Marjorie, Paul “Norman” Apstein, Steve Orenstein, Theodore Rothstein, Reuben and David Sturman, Ron Sullivan, Sam and Mitch Weston (Spinelli).

I understand that discussing Jews and thier defilement and degradation of the White race is not a respectable topic, but really. Pointing to some mom & pop operation and comparing it to the international Jewish porn industry…

Hey, how about a reality check, Phil.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 04:56 PM | #

Geoff,

Ashe started on her own. She didn’t start out as a public company. She started as a one woman operation and made a fortune, which indicates to me that the whole idea of needing greasy financiers itself is out of date.

Porn is facilitated by the internet. There is no need for distribution networks any more because anyone with access to it can upload material and make money from it.

You seem to be confusing two separate things - the existence of Jewish Porn mega-millionaires with “control” over porn. Those mega millionaires have no control over people who choose to make porn on their own and distribute it. I also think you underestimate the extent to which porn in much of the world outside America is totally home grown.

The Swedes (yes those Swedes again) were famous as pioneers in porn. In Britain there was a time when references to Sweden meant either cheesy pop music, Saabs, Volvos and (Swedish) Porn. And as far as I know there were no Goldsteins sitting around in the Swedish countryside making young couples copulate so that the footage could be watched by thousands of people. It was indigenous.

And now with the internet, you cannot “control” the porn “industry” because it is so diffused. Yes, the biggest studios in America that produce porn are owned by Jews. There is no denying that. But if they were to stop producing porn tomorrow miraculously, there would be a thousand others who would take their space in the market instantaneously.

The simple fact is that sexual mores have changed utterly (especially after the coming of the birth control pill) and the whole approach to sex has changed from one that is confined to marriage and procreation to one that sees it as a form of entertainment. And this has occured everywhere in the 1st world including Japan and Korea.

Once sex becomes “entertainment”, porn follows. It is that simple. To bring the whole issue down to the existence of Jews as the sole cause (and therefore assume that porn would disappear if Jews disappeared) is silly.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

I understand that discussing Jews and thier defilement and degradation of the White race is not a respectable topic, but really.

Geoff,

I apologise. I have really underestimated your capacity for obtuseness.

You seem to be living in a cave. Try asking the “average Joe” if he finds this site “respectable”. Most would disagree with you. Racialism in any form is not “respetcable”. If it was I wouldn’t be writing under a pseudonym.

If repectability is what we wanted, we would be sharing a drink with David Cameron in his parties rather than write about White Ethnic Genetic Interests, Black crime rates and so on.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 05:25 PM | #

Phil,

You seem to go to great lengths to exonnerate a people that even Chaucer described as a group a child killers, and which your own king expelled from England.

But of course, that is just senseless anti-Semitism at work. We are so much smarter than our forebearers.

Your right Phil, thanks for setting me straight. Now, I’ll get rid of Chaucer. Its probably not read in the schools today, anyway.

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 04, 2006, 05:28 PM | #

BTW, oh, there is now link between Jews and the porn industry.

Sorry.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 04, 2006, 05:36 PM | #

You seem to go to great lengths to exonnerate a people that even Chaucer described as a group a child killers, and which your own king expelled from England.

But of course, that is just senseless anti-Semitism at work. We are so much smarter than our forebearers.

Your right Phil, thanks for setting me straight. Now, I’ll get rid of Chaucer. Its probably not read in the schools today, anyway.

Sorry mate. You’ve lost your marbles.

I have as much as possible tried to argue rationally with you but that is impossible. Your mind if hooked onto something that you regard as the masterkey to everything in this world and you will refuse to countenance another argument.

I never exonerated anyone. If anything, you can plumb through this site for my opinions of which you are well aware.

It is one thing to accept the negative Jewish role in modern society (which I wholeheartedly do), it is another to trace every evil that exists on earth to one source. I have no time for that kind of rubbish. My time is better spent looking at things in the round than ranting about Jews, Jews and Jews day and night.

You are wasting your time, Geoff. VNN is your home. The same applies to Friedrich too.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 04, 2006, 07:32 PM | #

With all this talk of pornography, an important point is being missed.

American Renaissance is an experiment in progress and the experiment is this: what happens when the leadership of a WN project allows - and even encourages - Jewish involvement in the project.

The experiment, as stated, is ongoing, but the preliminary data are not encouraging, with the Hart-Duke fiasco, followed by Hart’s “suggestions” to Jared Taylor, being the latest results to be analyzed.

Weissberg’s work - both written and oral - have been ill received by followers of AR. Levin has been OK, as has Gottfried, but Hart and Weissberg have been disasters, as has been the situation with the AR yahoo group discussion list. Schiller has been at best fair, and no longer contributes to AR; the same for Auster.

And the situation appears to have the potential to significantly damage AR - given that comments on the AR website discussion list seems divided and then going back to the tensions and problems at the conference.

Like George Bush, Jared Taylor has been attempting to reach out to Jews and, like Bush, he is unlikely to reap much of a benefit by doing so.

I don’t understand guys like Hart. They have to understand the situation, and the only way to break through the hostility is through honesty and by putting racial interests (assuming the identification with whites is sincere) above narrow Jewish interests. These guys need to admit that guys like Duke have, at least up to a point, some validity in their beliefs. They need to openly denounce groups like the ADL, and they need to strongly promote a pro-white program - and one that does not have a transparent Jewish agenda.

If Hart and the others want Jews accepted by their fellow ARers, they need to do more than curse at Duke and storm out of the room, or make “suggestions” to Taylor to purge half of his followers.

Guys like Hart need to demonstrate how he and his co-ethnics can be a positive force for white interests.

We are awaiting this demonstration.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 04, 2006, 09:17 PM | #

McKinney, though Black, was ousted by Jewish money in 2002 when she named the Jew and said 911 was a setup job.

As for the other two they are also black, and mostly get a free pass because they follow a PC line in 99.9% of cases.

A few renegade Blacks can be ignored, after the can’t be Nazi’s.

According to the ADL, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is found much more among black and brown Americans than white ones. If anything, blacks and browns are the allies of Jew-haters. From here.

Regarding one of the most significant and fastest growing segments of the American population, Hispanics, there continues to be an extraordinary gap between those born in the United States and those born abroad, though somewhat less than in 2002. The survey revealed that 35 % of foreign-born Hispanics hold hardcore anti-Semitic beliefs, (down from 44%) while 19 % of Hispanics born in the U.S. fall into the same category (down from 20%). The anti-Semitic propensities of Hispanics were significantly above the national average —29% for Hispanics; 14% for all Americans.

...

The number of African-Americans with strong anti-Semitic beliefs continued to remain high and stable since 1992. The 2005 survey found that 36% of African-Americans hold strong anti-Semitic beliefs, four times more than the 9% for whites. In 1992 it was 37%; 1998 – 34%; 2002- 35%.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 12:23 AM | #

I take no responsibility for the idiocy of liberal Jews like Abe Foxman. You’d think that polling data like this would convince Jews that Taylor has a damn good point…

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 12:24 AM | #

In fact, I wonder why Taylor hasn’t started a propaganda campaign utilizing this data…

Posted by JB on March 05, 2006, 12:59 AM | #

Phil Peterson:

The fact that these countries are awash with (indigenous) porn indicates that you don’t need Jews to have a porn industry.

but there’s probably zero interracial porn in Japan/SKorea/Taiwan/HK.

the jewish porn industry runs parrallel to Hollywood and the TV channels but they all push in the same direction : the news channels cover up the crimes of the non-white population and underline white ‘racism’ whenever they can, Hollywood produces movies in which blacks are noble heroes, MTV broadcasts ‘cool’ black music and videos, the porn industry produces lots of interracial movies. How many white consumers of interracial porn movies are also wiggers and consumers of MTV and rap ? Presumably a lot. I don’t think all of these things can be taken separately.

Posted by phil on March 05, 2006, 04:15 AM | #

slinker, sailer, toldya, sly,

I totally agree with your comment. Taylor is trying to build an artificial consensus which will collapse on its own. It cannot sustain itself.

The simple fact is that 90 percent of WNs are aware of the damage Jewish organizations have done (and continue to do), are aware of Jewish dominance of the US media (and its obvious consequences) and know where Jewish interests lie. The small number of Jews who will try to become a part of this movement will sit uncomfortably in such a group.

And in any case, as I said earlier, if a harmless pseudo-conservative like Bush can’t get the Jews to tilt even remotely rightwards, Taylor’s got no chance. If anything the way the ADL acted immediately after this conference and got Michael Regan fired should send alarm bells ringing in Taylor’s mind.

JB,

Yes you are absolutely right. This is also my understanding. Jewish owned media outfits whether “mainstream” (such as MTV) or on the fringes (porn studios) are much more likely to promote inter-racial mixing.

And you are probably right about East Asia too.

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 04:20 AM | #

According to the ADL, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are found much more among black and brown Americans than white ones. If anything, blacks and browns are the allies of Jew-haters.

People take this example to mean that Jews are insane liberals because they live in fear of a white Christian majority while ignoring non-white anti-semitism.

I think this has a perfectly logical explanation. Jews fear white anti-semitism because whites are capable of organzation in a way that Blacks and Mexicans (or Arabs) simply are not. In the Jewish mind, white anti-semitism is the most dangerous thing on this earth (even when the white Christians in questions are actually friendly to Jews).

Weissberg himself has made the same point in AR conferences before. Jewish prejudices are not going to change, as a result. Trying to win them over is a fruitless exercise.

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 04:26 AM | #

These guys need to admit that guys like Duke have, at least up to a point, some validity in their beliefs.

Good point. There is no smoke without a fire.

The problem for us of course is that people like Duke will then make it the end all and be all of the entire movement. If you look at his website, almost every single entry traces itself to a Jew angle. Its almost as if he cannot see anything happening without evil Jewish motives behind it. That sort of thinking becomes pathological and self-destructive.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 06:32 AM | #

Unless I missed something, it seems that the moderator of the AR online discussion threads censored a comment post concerning about the claim made by another commentator that Jews are as European (biologically speaking) as any other Euro-Americans.

The request was made for evidence for that claim. What’s wrong with that?

Posted by friedrich braun on March 05, 2006, 07:30 AM | #

Immigration and Jews in Western countries.

An email from Professor MacDonald:

“At the end of the immigration chapter in Culture of Critique I discuss Jewish support for immigration other countries. There is no question that they supported open immigration, but it’s usually unclear how important they were.”

CoC is one of the last books I bought before leaving for Europe and I don’t have it with me now…maybe someone who’s read it can further comment on its content in that regard.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 05, 2006, 07:33 AM | #

The request was made for evidence for that claim. What’s wrong with that?

Here’s some persuasive genetic data to the effect that Jews are indeed distinct from Whites:

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/2.html

Posted by friedrich braun on March 05, 2006, 09:01 AM | #

You are wasting your time, Geoff. VNN is your home. The same applies to Friedrich too.

And I suggest that you move to Free Republic.

You’re an arrogant little twerp. I’ll take my cues from GW and not from you.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 09:21 AM | #

Friedrich, thank you for that information.

One of the bloggers here (JW) has commented extensively on the DNAPrint tests. Thus, I may point out that a while back it came to my attention that the “pie chart” covering Israel here (scroll down to you get to the pie chart map):
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/productsandservices/eurodna/manual/

represents a (albeit small) Ashkenazi sample. Plugging the appropriate Euro 1.0 values into the ABD2.5 values for Ashkenazim, put the Ashkenazim in between Iberians and Arabs on this chart of “native European ancestry”:

http://nusapiens.blogspot.com/2005/03/ranking-native-european-ancestry.html

And note that the Iberian results are likely sampling error, as that they are from a tiny sample and do not well match other studies. On the other hand, the Ashkenazi results, particularly the elevated Middle Eastern proportion, fit in VERY well with other studies of Ashkenazi genetics, including those cited in Friedrich’s link.

Here’s a thought. Why doesn’t AR sponsor a “blind test challenge” – sending “blinded” samples to DNAPrint (the company has processed blinded samples before as part of their validation process, which JW has already commented on). Both the ABD and Euro tests would be performed. Included in these anonymous samples would be David Duke and Michael Hart. Results could be sent back to Mr. Taylor (or any other trustworthy holder of the “key” to the sample identities), and we can then see which of these two men fall within - or exceed - the empirically determined (current) European range of “native European” ancestry, which, given that the Iberian sample is likely aberrant, can be reasonably be seen as extending from the high 60s through the mid 80s, in percentage.

All necessary steps need be taken to protect the identity of the samples (so that no one needs to be given the temptation to “screw Duke” via such testing. His anonymous, coded samples would be one of several, including Hart’s, submitted).

I know that this is a pipedream, but, theoretically, it could be an amusing exercise.

With respect to phenotype, we all know what Duke looks like. Those who have the Americans for Self-Determination VCR tape, which includes a speech by Hart, or who have attended an AR conference, knows that Professor Hart looks very “Jewish”, and has an “Armenoid”-type physical appearance. Therefore, Duke looks “more European” than does Hart. I make no comments about cultural affiliation, because I do not personally know either man; with respect to behavior, Hart’s explosion at the conference and his ‘warnings’ to Taylor about ‘purging’ the Nazis, seem consistent with some of the things that Kevin MacDonald has written about.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 11:19 AM | #

I see. Now, Auster joins Hart in dictating to Taylor who he is ‘allowed’ to invite to his conference. And, of course, all the ‘real haters’ are Stormfronters sleeping four to a room (conjuring an image of lowbrow ‘anti-Semites’ behaving like Mexican immigrants).

How about we invite Larry to join the Dave and Mike DNAPrint test follies?

Or, is that “biological reductionism?”

One wonders if any of these guys like Auster and Hart have been in direct contact with Taylor since the conference and, if so, what they’ve been saying.

Is it more likely that Duke or Hart will be attending the next AR conference?

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 01:03 PM | #

You’re an arrogant little twerp. I’ll take my cues from GW and not from you.

You better watch your mouth little Nazi twat. You are a guest here. We have been quite lenient with you so far. Don’t test our tolerance.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 05, 2006, 01:49 PM | #

[deleted]

[Friedrich Braun has now been banned from this blog. - Admin]

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 05, 2006, 03:49 PM | #

In my experience, it is possible to convince Jews to be at least fellow travellers. I know several Jews, and occasionally discuss politics with them.They’ve come round to my way of seeing things, especially after the recent Muslim protest against Western civilization.

As for pornography, even if a greater proportion of Jews then gentiles are involved in it, the vast majority of Jews are not. For that matter, most Jews are not liberal journalists, Hollywood mal vivants or social service commissars. Most are normal, and ever more terrified of the fruits of a multicultural polity.

Jews might never be WNs, but if a modus vivendi can be achieved with any group, it can be achieved with the Jews.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 03:50 PM | #

Whatever the provocation, Michael Hart publicly showed disrespect to David Duke. Hart though would argue that Duke’s attitude was disrespectful to him. Dueling is of course illegal, so, unlike the Burr-Hamilton feud, this will need to be decided via another method.

My tongue-in-cheek suggestion of a genetic duel sounds a bit better to me now. Hey, why not? Since it is virtually a foregone conclusion that Duke would have a higher percent ‘native European ancestry’ than Hart, the duel instead can be based on a “points spread” gamble.

So, say, if Hart is within 20 percentage points (or whatver other reasonable number agreed upon by the principles) of Duke’s native European rating, then Hart wins and Duke is banned from the next AR conference. If, however, Hart is more than 20 percentage points (or whatever other numerical standard used) “less European” than Duke, then Hart is banned and Duke can attend.

Note that this is solely for resolving the individual Duke-Hart feud - of course, the large question of Jewish involvement in AR would need to be resolved through argumentation, analysis, activism, etc.

But for Hart vs. Duke - why doesn’t AR set up a fund to which people can contribute in order to pay for ABD-Euro tests for Hart, Duke, maybe Auster (who has been attacking Duke as well), etc?

Let the duel begin! Gentlemen, pick up your cheek swabbers…..

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 05, 2006, 03:55 PM | #

[deleted] -Friedrich Braun

The comment’s been deleted? For shame! I was looking forward to hearing about how the prophet freddy worships a tomato fourteen times a day.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 04:33 PM | #

[Friedrich Braun has now been banned from this blog. - Admin]

YAY! The Nazi’s gone!

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 04:47 PM | #

The comment’s been deleted? For shame! I was looking forward to hearing about how the prophet freddy worships a tomato fourteen times a day.

We indulged him too much, allowed him to get away with far too many outrageous comments and insults on the basis that we believe in Free Speech. But we will not allow these characters to abuse the blog in this way.

In my experience, you cannot disagree with Braun consistently and have a thread that does not descend to abuse or insults. I regret using an obscenity (although it was in retaliation) but its good riddance.

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 04:53 PM | #

Alex,

I think there is a significant difference between American and British Jews. British Jews (if compared only with their American counterparts) are not as aggressive on left-liberal stuff. American Jews are in a class of their own.

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 04:57 PM | #

As for pornography, even if a greater proportion of Jews then gentiles are involved in it, the vast majority of Jews are not.

But Alex, how can a people who only form 2 percent of the US population, control 90 percent of the big Porn studios?

That tells me that there is something pathological at work. MacDonald may say that its done because of an intent to weaken the host society (which could be possibly true). But in any case, its not just a cse of Jews having higher numbers in the porn trade than gentiles, its a case of Jews being overrepresented 10 or 20 fold. Some would say that Jews were the pioneers of pronography in America.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

Higher IQs = more likely to rise to top corporate positions in the porn industry.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 05:30 PM | #

No, I am not Jewish… *rolls eyes*

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 05:41 PM | #

“Higher IQs = more likely to rise to top corporate positions in the porn industry. “

That’s certainly an innovative interpretation.

Well, then. Perhaps ostensibly ‘white racialist’ Jews like Michael Hart - who after all is, I believe, an astrophysicist - can use their higher IQs to formulate a position for Jews within WN that does not harm the interests of white gentiles and would be acceptable to activists who, while they may be skeptical, are not knee-jerk anti-Semites.

Yelling: “You’re a f—king Nazi” does not constitute the sort of formulation to which I refer.

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 05:42 PM | #

Higher IQs = more likely to rise to top corporate positions in the porn industry

Well what does IQ have to do with becoming a Porn stud or a Porn actress?

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 05:51 PM | #

Yelling: “You’re a f—king Nazi” does not constitute the sort of formulation to which I refer.

Well, David Duke is a f**cking Nazi.

Well what does IQ have to do with becoming a Porn stud or a Porn actress?

There are thousands upon thousands of porn actors. That site you link to does not give any statistics as to what percentage of those actors / actresses are Jewish.

Why are so many of the actresses blondes with blue eyes? Do Nordic women have a natural propensity towards participating in culturally degrading activities?

Your reasoning is so very simplistic that you rule out the role that market forces play in determining the actors and actresses. There are a lot of hot Jewish women out there.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 05:53 PM | #

Furthermore, if Duke would challenge Hart to a DNAPrint duel, would Hart reject the challenge?

Let us assume the ‘duel’ would be funded by contributions and would not cost the participants a single penny. Let us further assume safeguards are put into play to ensure that the samples would be “read” objectively, free of personal identification.

“high IQ” or not, cursing at someone in front of a crowd of 300 people seems to me to be grounds for a honorable challenge to, as James would put it, engage in ‘dispute processing.’

Indeed, isn’t Hart’s contention that Duke has offended Hart and Hart’s ethnic group? Wouldn’t Hart wish to rise to the challenge?

A boxing match would favor the younger and larger Duke; a mathematical contest would favor Hart. By giving Hart a 20 point-spread, a genetic dispute processing engagement would be reasonable, objective, and biologically relevant.

OR…how about Taylor ‘bites the bullet’ with this controversy and invites some guys to write in AR about this subject the same way a bunch of authors debated Christianity in AR?

Let’s say Hart and Auster write from the pro-Jewish side, while Duke and someone else (MacDonald?) write why white gentiles need their own group without Jewish inclusion.

To me, the spectacle of a DNA duel is more amusing - and I still hold it necessary to resolve the personal Duke-Hart conflict.

But per the larger issue, why doesn’t AR commit one or two issues debating this point?

Thomas Jefferson would approve I think.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 05:53 PM | #

From the site you linked to:

In fact, the pornography industry is controlled by consumers of pornography through the market place, which is 98% gentile.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 05:56 PM | #

slinker,

Are you saying that the person who is more genetically pure is automatically the most truthful?

WTF are you talking about?

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 05:57 PM | #

For some reason this is eating my comments…

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 05:58 PM | #

“Well, David Duke is a f**cking Nazi. “

My, my..what an effective argument.

Ad hominem doesn’t cut it. As per the larger issue, why doesn’t Hart defend his position vs. Duke in an AR debate?

And if Hart is, as he states in the ASD tape, “a white man”, he certainly shouldn’t have any problem with the dispute processing engagement I propose.

Very easy to call Duke names. More difficult to refute his positions, or meet a honorable challenge to deal with public verbal abuse, such as what Hart inflicted on Duke.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 06:03 PM | #

Casual

I am NOT saying that at all. The larger issue of Jews in AR needs to be debated, using logic and facts, as I have stated.

However, there is a personal issue of honor between Hart and Duke. Hart publicly insulted Duke and suggests that “Nazis” (like Duke) should not be allowed at AR meetings.

All I am saying is how to resolve this personal disagreement? I suggest the “DNA duel.” It is not a matter of Duke being “more pure”, the form of the duel would allow Hart to win as long as he is within “X” percentage points of Duke’s own rating.

“WTF” don’t you understand? This is a personal issue.

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 06:41 PM | #

I suggest the “DNA duel.” It is not a matter of Duke being “more pure”, the form of the duel would allow Hart to win as long as he is within “X” percentage points of Duke’s own rating.

So again, the person who is more “pure” (ie, Northern European) wins?

David Duke at a younger age…
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/images/David-Duke-pix-2.jpg

Not only that, Duke goes around the world speaking to Arab and Islamic audiences (where he is easily the whitest person around) denouncing the US at every turn. So he’s anti-American, too! He’s like Braun… he hates Jews more than he loves the West, and will happily promote the Islamist cause.

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 06:55 PM | #

There are thousands upon thousands of porn actors. That site you link to does not give any statistics as to what percentage of those actors / actresses are Jewish.

Why are so many of the actresses blondes with blue eyes? Do Nordic women have a natural propensity towards participating in culturally degrading activities?

Your reasoning is so very simplistic that you rule out the role that market forces play in determining the actors and actresses. There are a lot of hot Jewish women out there.

That’s a lot of squid ink mate. If you read that article carefully, it is obvious that Jews were the pioneers of porn in America. And there is no shortage of Jewish owned porn outfits in Britain too.

And in any case, if IQ is the sole criterion, why aren’t there scores of Asian Americans also running porn Studios (by all acounts Asians are over-represented in places like Harvard - an IQ rich institution)? But we don’t see High IQ WASPs, Asians etc in porn but a disproportionate number of Jews.

I am also not endorsing the facile justifications that article gives for this kind of Jewish behaviour - “the world doesn’t like changing” (with good reason perhaps, Communism wasn’t such a good change as we can all agree?). But the article provides concrete evidence that Jews are over-represented in the porn trade.

And as for your “consumer” justification, would you also apply the same to people who sell crack cocaine? (After all its the consumers who “control” the market!)

Sorry mate. Where fault lies it needs to be acknowledged. I am not a Jew hater. If you read this thread carefully, you will see that I do not assign more blame than is justified. But where blame lies it needs to be acknowledged. Facile justifications and evasion don’t wash. In my experience, Jews are probably the last people to ever acknowledge their own faults while lecturing the earth on every one else’s faults.

100

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 06:58 PM | #

Casual,

The best argument about Jewish behaviour comes not from the troublesome Duke but from Kevin MacDonald (even if I don’t totally buy into the “evolutionary” biology bit).

Jews who join WNs will need to acknowledge that their community has been at the forefront of some of the most destructive movements in the western world in the past century. If you cannot even acknowledge that, then there is little hope of there ever being an “alliance” between Jews and WN Gentiles.

101

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 07:03 PM | #

Why are so many of the actresses blondes with blue eyes? Do Nordic women have a natural propensity towards participating in culturally degrading activities?

Superificial blonde hair means nothing these days because most of the “blondes” are bottle blondes. And I haven’t done a “survey” on blue eyes or even seen anecdotal evidence because I don’t watch porn.

It is a fact that large Jewish owned media outfits like MTV are absolutely at the forefront in promoting the grossest and vilest forms of “popular culture” imaginable (with a particular emphasis on race mixing).

Why is it so hard to acknowledge this fact?

102

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 07:07 PM | #

Lastly, before I go to bed, there are a tiny minority of Jews who do acknowledge some of these things.

Their number needs to grow.

103

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 07:13 PM | #

Jewish role in the 1960s counterculture

Jewish involvement in shaping US immigration policy

The Culture of Critique

Lots more material if you care to read.

104

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 07:20 PM | #

“So again, the person who is more “pure” (ie, Northern European) wins? “

Are you stupid, or just illiterate?

First, I just stated that the duel would not be “who is purer”, but whether Hart is within a certain range of Duke. Even if Duke is “purer”, Hart could still win, if his percentages are within a range agreed upon before commencing the contest. Thus, if the point spread is 20 and Duke’s rating is 0.92, then Hart wins with anything above 0.72.

Second, if you’d bother to see the original link, “native European ancestry” consists of both the ‘Northern European’ and ‘Southeastern European’ sections of “Indo-European” - these categories being empirically determined by the data.

What’s the problem, that Hart would be unable to gamble that his European genetic percentages would be within a certain predetermined range from Duke?

One could “sweeten the pot” by correlating the agreed upon range with outcome. If Hart is brave enough to pick a ten point spread, then if he won, Duke would be permanently barred from AR conferences. If Hart is less optimistic about his ancestry, and picks 25 points (which approaches the practical upper limit for this contest), then if he wins, Duke would be barred from only the next AR conference.

To compensate Duke for letting Hart have the point spread, any victory for Duke would mean a permanent bar to Hart. Of course, while Hart would have first choice as per the point spread, Duke would need to agree. We need to be fair.

By the way, ADL pictures of Duke are not relevant to the outcome of this contest. Yes, I have heard the rumors about Duke and his alleged plastic surgery.

Such surgery would not change his DNA markers.

105

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 07:25 PM | #

And in any case, if IQ is the sole criterion, why aren’t there scores of Asian Americans also running porn Studios .... But the article provides concrete evidence that Jews are over-represented in the porn trade. The best argument about Jewish behaviour comes not from the troublesome Duke but from Kevin MacDonald…

Your reasoning behind these statements is based on what you see as evidence of some sort of Jewish conspiracy to promote things that undermine what you see as non-Jewish culture… by that very same reasoning, I could say that there is a Jewish conspiracy to promote chess, win Nobel Prizes, make amazing scientific discoveries, promote the fields of physics and chemistry, etc. Why do you focus on porn but ignore all of these? Does it not fit your ideological agenda to do so?

Jews who join WNs will need to acknowledge that their community has been at the forefront of some of the most destructive movements in the western world in the past century.

Was Stalin a Jew? Hitler? Pol Pot? Mao? Mussolini? Codreanu? Ceaucescu? Hirohito? Mugabe? All of these individuals were non-Jewish, yet they led the most murderous movements in all of history.

By your logic, the only way you will ever accept a Jew is for him to go, “It’s my fault as a Jew for what some Jews have promoted and I apologize for everything my people may or may not have done.” So, by that very own logic, you should be saying, “It’s my fault as a white gentile for what other white gentiles, such as Stalin, Codreanu, Mussolini, Hitler, Ceaucescu, etc. may or may not have done.”

In your world these is no room for the roles of individuals and markets. It’s either the group or nothing. This blinds you.

And I haven’t done a “survey” on blue eyes or even seen anecdotal evidence because I don’t watch porn.

Ask J Richards, since he gets most of his pictures that he uses off this site from porn sites, as he has admitted.

Superificial blonde hair means nothing these days because most of the “blondes” are bottle blondes.

Alright, then since white people make up the vast majority of actors and actresses in porn films, does this mean that white people have a natural propensity towards participating in culturally degrading activities?

In your world, the white can no evil. In your world, the Jew can do no good. I don’t even know why I’m trying to reason with you.

106

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 07:28 PM | #

By the way, ADL pictures of Duke are not relevant to the outcome of this contest. Yes, I have heard the rumors about Duke and his alleged plastic surgery.

The picture was of him walking around in a Nazi uniform. But that doesn’t matter to you, because you love the guy. Heil Duke!

107

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 07:35 PM | #

Casual,

That ends the argument.

It is obvious that you cannot acknowledge even the most commonly accepted things. For your information, a majority of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jews. Majority. Do you want proof of that? I’ll give that too.

But it seems that whenever there are Jews involved (either in distorting the news through the media) or their endless activism and funding of the SPLC and the ADL with its limitless anti-white, anti-Christian agenda, we must only see individuals. But when Jews win nobel prizes in physics, we should see Jews.

Sorry mate. Your comments prove everything I wrote about the futility of Taylor and all the other deluded WNs trying to win over Jews. You’ve proved everything I wrote.

Thanks for dropping by.

108

Posted by Phil on March 05, 2006, 07:39 PM | #

Btw, before shooting your mouth off, read the links I gave above especially the one that deals with US immigration policy.

Even Jews like Steinlight openly admit that Jews have promoted open borders out of self interest. So if Stenlight can acknowledge that, why can’t you?

I guess we are all Nazis here. That’s why I banned Braun.

109

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 07:42 PM | #

For your information, a majority of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jews

Actually, the majority of Jews were in the other more moderate wing, the Mensheviks.

But just for your information, the majority of Nazis were non-gentiles. I guess that means that non-gentiles are all Nazis. LOL I would that very offensive, and have found it offensive before. But it’s your logic, not mine.

Hmm, I never said that. Oh yeah, that’s right, you’re putting words in my mouth! NM!

Sorry mate. Your comments prove everything I wrote about the futility of Taylor and all the other deluded WNs trying to win over Jews. You’ve proved everything I wrote.

Actually, Taylor has been succeeding, unfortunately people like you like to undermine him. Duke loves it. He wants to destroy every WNist who disagrees with him on the “Jewish Question.” He’s like Willis Carto… Taylor is a threat to both of them, so they take every opportunity to undermine them. Here Taylor is, close to mainstreaming WNism… but if he did that, Duke and Carto would be left behind… so, what do they do? Undermine him.

It’s sad that you can’t see that.

110

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 07:44 PM | #

Excuse me, I meant to say that the majority of Nazis were non-Jews.

111

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 07:44 PM | #

Casual…writing “Heil Duke” is as effective an argument as Hart’s rant. Very mature.

Your comments about “by that very same reasoning, I could say that there is a Jewish conspiracy to promote chess, win Nobel Prizes, make amazing scientific discoveries, promote the fields of physics and chemistry, etc.”...make no sense.

Those issues are not directly relevant to ethnic group competition. Whether or not Jews are good at chess does not really impact gentile interests. That Jews are good at promoting non-white immigration, the civil rights movement, Marxism, etc. are issues related to gentile interests.

Likewise, Hart’s interests in astrophysics need not concern us here, his views about American Renaissance and race do.

Citing examples of certain gentiles who have caused violent upheavels in history does not change the argument. The argument is whether the interests of Jews and white gentiles are incompatible to the point that the inclusion of Jews in WN would be untenable.

The antics of Hart and Weissberg are such that one can be skeptical of the benefits of their inclusion.

Your comments about “individuals and markets” may appeal to John Ray and Martin, but the focus of most others at Majority Rights is, as the name suggests, the rights of the majority GROUP in western nations.

Since that is our focus, that is how we are judging this issue.

112

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 07:50 PM | #

Whether or not Jews are good at chess does not really impact gentile interests.

So being good at medicine, physics, and chemisty has no impact on gentile interests in gentile countries?

113

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 07:57 PM | #

a) Jews make up 1.5% of the American populace
b) 1 out of every 5 people in the USA with an IQ of 160 or higher (stratospheric) is a Jew
c) 1 in 70 Jews score above 145 on IQ tests, while only 1 in 700 non-Jewish caucasians make that score
d) 40% of American Nobel Prize winners are Jewish and 1/5 of total Nobel Prize winners are Jewish
e) 1 in 3 students at Harvard are Jewish
f) 45% of the 64 best chess players of all time are Jewish, according to Warriors of the Mind
g) Jews make up 40% of the divisions of physics, computer science, and applied physical sciences of the National Academy of Sciences
h) In the Middle Ages Jews made up about 1% of the European population but over 50% of European doctors were Jewish

If you continue to discriminate against Jews (and work to ban them and eventually deport them, as many of you I’m sure want to happen), you will cause an incredible amount of damage to the intellectual fabric of the West. Do you care more about theoretical physics and nuclear bombs, or do you care more about pornography?

114

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 08:02 PM | #

Overall interests, yes, there is an impact. Just as the genocidal impact of the immigration changes and civil rights movement has an impact. One is weighted against the other.

My point was and is that the accomplishments in chess or medicine are not done as a form of ethnic conflict, but the other matters are. Maybe Jews are so ethnocentric that they wish to make medical discoveries to boost the status of their group (is that an argument you really wish to make?), but since I am NOT as anti-Semitic as YOU obviously are, I am not implying that. Rather, I think that those accomplishments are done independent of ethnicity.

But the sociopolitical issues are done with an ethnic agenda, which guys like Earl Raab so gleefully admit.

The Hart analogy - which you conveniently ignore - makes the point. Hart’s work on astrophysics may benefit gentiles, but I doubt that work is done for an ethnic agenda. On the other hand, he attacked Duke specifically because, as a Jew, Hart felt threatened by Duke’s comments.

I assume you see the difference.

115

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 08:06 PM | #

Yes, Casual, no one denies the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews. Too bad they have used that intelligence in ways chronicled in MacDonald’s Culture of Critique.

Then, when given a forum in AR, we get:
http://www.amren.com/993issue/993issue.html

which even Taylor denounces as destructive “advice.” As I have said, AR is an experiment. So far, it is going as Phil predicts.

116

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 08:08 PM | #

My point was and is that the accomplishments in chess or medicine are not done as a form of ethnic conflict, but the other matters are.

So, let me get this straight… you’d have no problems plunging the West decades behind the rest of the world scientifically, with no chance of ever catching up with China again, by discriminating against and even going about deporting Jews? You hate the Jews so much that you have absolutely no regard as to what effect it will have on the West intellectually?

117

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 08:09 PM | #

I agree with that AmRen review. Read it before. I also have a copy of CoC here on my computer.

118

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 08:20 PM | #

I see. You agree with Weissberg that whites should do nothing to defend their racial interests and must grovel before minorities, so as not to get them mad at us. Very interesting. Taylor completely disagrees with this approach, but then you tell us that we should accept Hart and reject Duke because that will help Taylor mainstream WN.

But, you then accept Weissberg when he essentially says that WN is wrong and everything Taylor is doing is a waste of time and/or destructive. Very interesting, indeed.

Which is it then? If you agree with Weissberg than you are hostile to WN and thus why pretend you have an interest in Taylor mainstreaming WN? On the other hand, if you are truly concerned with the success of WN, you should reject Weissberg who (surprise!) tells us that whites should ignore all group interests and racial activities, appease blacks, and just try to avoid minorities in their own private lives.

I am skeptical of your sincerity, sir.

And how is the “west” going to “compete with China” when the “west” is being destroyed by the immigration and liberalism promoted by the very group you think is going to save us?

119

Posted by ben tillman on March 05, 2006, 08:37 PM | #

Casual -

You are arguing in bad faith. Right here in this thread I have already noted that JEWISH LAW ITSELF posits that all Jews are responsible for the actions of any. That reflects a recognition of a qualitative difference between Jews and Europeans.

You insult our intelligence. We wish to stay alive. If our survival comes at a cost, we must pay it. The price is irrelevant.

Regarding (a), Jews (excluding Sephardic Jews from Mexico) make up about 3% of the US population. Regarding (b) and (c), I must point out that the two assertions contradict each other.

120

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 08:37 PM | #

First of all, I thought you were referring to the review of MacDonald’s book in that AmRen piece you linked to.

You agree with Weissberg that whites should do nothing to defend their racial interests and must grovel before minorities, so as not to get them mad at us.

Wait a second, I think Jews are white. They are not minorities we must grovel to, they are our kin whom we must embrace. So, don’t use that approach with me. I never endorsed Weissberg’s approach.

Taylor completely disagrees with this approach, but then you tell us that we should accept Hart and reject Duke because that will help Taylor mainstream WN.

Taylor wants to embrace Hart and reject Duke, just like me. I have no time for individuals like Duke who hate Jews more than they love the West and are willing to ally themselves with insane Muslims in order to achieve their objective of eradicating the Jews. Duke could care less if the West survives or if it becomes Muslim, as long as the Jews are eliminated.

But, you then accept Weissberg when he essentially says that WN is wrong and everything Taylor is doing is a waste of time and/or destructive.

Weissberg is advocating what Steve Sailer calls “citizenism,” an approach I am somewhat interested in. But then, you think what Taylor is doing is a waste of time, too, so aren’t you in the same boat as Weissberg?

Which is it then? If you agree with Weissberg than you are hostile to WN and thus why pretend you have an interest in Taylor mainstreaming WN?

I am interested in mainstreaming a form of white nationalism that is inclusive of whites whom you don’t consider to be white: Jews. So, yes, I have an interest in mainstreaming Taylor. I have no interest whatsoever in Duke’s EURO, Gliebe’s NA, Strom’s NV, Black’s SF, etc. They can, and should, remain on the fringes.

On the other hand, if you are truly concerned with the success of WN, you should reject Weissberg who (surprise!) tells us that whites should ignore all group interests and racial activities, appease blacks, and just try to avoid minorities in their own private lives.

I guess it depends what WN you’re talking about… Taylor’s or Duke’s.

I am skeptical of your sincerity, sir.

Whatever dude.

And how is the “west” going to “compete with China” when the “west” is being destroyed by the immigration and liberalism promoted by the very group you think is going to save us?

If you had read my other comments, you would see that all Taylor has to do is emphasize that the more non-whites there are in the West, the more anti-Semitism there will be. Vlaams Belang has been successful in this approach and it should be promoted here.

BTW, why do you put the West in quotation marks? Are you not fond of Western Civilization? Are you not worried about Chinese global domination?

121

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 08:39 PM | #

I wish to quote Jared Taylor in his response to Weissberg:

“From a nation-building perspective Prof. Weissberg’s argument is defeatist in the short term and suicidal in the long term. He suggests that we have to resign ourselves to a United States that officially proclaims false, egalitarian principles that few people believe. This not only sets in motion a large and increasingly cynical “civil rights” industry, but it also makes it difficult to oppose Third-World immigration. And although as Prof. Weissberg points out, honorable choices still remain open to individual whites, those choices will be swept away if the United States becomes a Third World country. “

A “nation-building perspective” is exactly what WN is about. Thus, to support Weissberg is to oppose WN. If you oppose WN, why should WNs listen to your “advice?” Why do you care about Taylor’s success? The whole point of the bloggers (except John Ray) and most commentors here is that the status quo is unacceptable and we are attempting to formulate a response.

By the way, Michael Hart, who you are allegedly defending, also disagress with Weissberg. Thus, if you support Weissberg, you also oppose Hart as well.

Fascinating.

122

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 08:40 PM | #

You insult our intelligence. We wish to stay alive. If our survival comes at a cost, we must pay it. The price is irrelevant.

This ben, is why I will not respond to any of your comments. You’re already prepared to do whatever is necessary (ie, Islamification of the West, allowing China to become a global hegemon, letting the West become like the third world intellectually) in order to stop [and eradicate?] Jews.

123

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 08:43 PM | #

By the way, Michael Hart, who you are allegedly defending, also disagress with Weissberg. Thus, if you support Weissberg, you also oppose Hart as well.

Please read my comments. I did not say anywhere that I agreed with Weissberg and said that I agreed with Hart. When you sent me that link I thought you were referring to the review of CoC located on that same page, since it has been brought up numerous times in this thread.

124

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 08:49 PM | #

Casual, if you believe Jews are white, and our kin, then you should therefore have no objection to my proposed DNA duel between Duke and Hart. Hart should be right up there in the mainstream of European genetics, so he should win for sure!

I put “west” in quotation marks because the multiracial garbage heap of Europe and the USA is not the West, but a pathetic mockery of it. Yes, indeed, I am concerned about Chinese global domination. However, it are the events of the last 40 years which have damaged the “west” in relation to China, and, if you really have CoC on your computer, you may wish to read it, to discern why exactly we are in the position we are in.

I am not surprised you are interested in Sailer’s citizenism, which is of course opposed to Taylor’s WN, once again pointing out your “sincerity” in your alleged support of Taylor.

Weissberg is not in fact promoting citizenism. He is in fact openly supporting the current status quo - which even Sailer opposes. Can you read? Weissberg says we must leave everything the way it is right now. So glad Taylor is embracing him!

125

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 05, 2006, 08:59 PM | #

Casual, you are distorting Ben’s comments. Ben says we must do whatever it takes to survive, you twist that to say eliminate Jews.

In fact, by the way, I am not even saying that Taylor should support Duke over Hart. Nor do I say that I like, or even admire, Duke. That’s you putting words in my mouth.

My position is:
1) The Duke-Hart personal feud should be resolved in the manner I suggested

2) AR should have a healthy debate on this topic

3) If the presence of Jews is good for AR, we should be able to see some evidence of this. It has been 10 years since Hart spoke at the 1996 conference. Since then, we’ve had what? - Weissberg writing that we should surrender and making an AR speech blaming the friction between Jews and Gentiles on gentile actions and the (justified in his opinion) fear of those actions.

4) Some of Duke’s points make sense and should be considered in this debate.

Those are my positions. Stop twisting things to make it that we “hate Jews.” YOU are the only one to use the words “hate” and “Jews” in the same sentence.

Do YOU hate Jews? In fact, I’ve never had a problem with Levin, and Gottfried usually makes sense.

But I’m not going to fall into the trap of “Duke’s a nazi, so everything he says is wrong.”

I want to keep an open mind.

126

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 09:04 PM | #

I have answered already every single question that you wrote in these last two posts. Go back and reread my comments and you will see my answers jump right out at you. I don’t like repeating myself over and over again. I think I made my point.

There is one question that I have that I have not asked, nor has anyone in this thread asked, and I think it is critical to this issue. What do you want done about Jews? What policies would you enact?

127

Posted by ben tillman on March 05, 2006, 09:12 PM | #

I am interested in mainstreaming a form of white nationalism that is inclusive of whites whom you don’t consider to be white: Jews.

Why?

This ben, is why I will not respond to any of your comments.

Whites have only one external enemy with the capacity to harm us. David Duke is smart enough and healthy enough and white enough to recognize that fact. You are not.

Your rantings about Islam are preposterous. The only way the West can be Islamised is through Jewish manipulation of the West. Our societies have been disorganized, and our societal immune systems have been disarmed, which is why Muslims are present among us.

128

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 05, 2006, 09:21 PM | #

Casual, are you Arcane?

Hahahahaha… first you think I’m a Jew, now you think I’m Arcane. WTF?

Why?

I already explained this. Go back and read my other comments.

129

Posted by Al Ross on March 05, 2006, 09:28 PM | #

Would there be any possibility of rescinding the ban on Friedrich Braun? He brings to the comments section a powerful intellectual rigour together with a prodigious knowledge of our race’s perilous plight.

130

Posted by l'Etat on March 06, 2006, 12:41 AM | #

I too, have learned much from Friedrich’s comments/links. He’s got to somehow cut out the petty stuff though.

131

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 06, 2006, 01:04 AM | #

Petty stuff… advocating national socialism is not petty stuff.

132

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 06, 2006, 03:29 AM | #

Even if Duke or national socialism were removed from the picture, do Jews really wish to become white nationalists? KMac in is book, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, discusses the issue of emancipation of the Jews and both gentile and Jewish attitudes. Certainly gentiles, especially German gentiles expected the Jews to assimilate, becoming Germans. However, in the end, this notion was abandoned with the realization that Jews were “by nature incapable of honoring the contract, of becoming good Germans”.

For the Jews, according to KMac, there never was any intention of becoming German:

On the other hand, for Jews the main concern was the continued existence of Jewish identity ( Schorsch 1972, 100). Concerns about the continuation of Jewish identity became more common later in the century. As Katz ( 1985) notes, the 19th century began with the official blessing of the Jewish assimilationists at the Parisian Sanhedrin convened by Napoleon in 1807 and ended with the first Zionist Congress in Zurich in 1897.

Assimilation did not occur at any level of the Jewish community, including the movement of Reform Judaism, and it was never intended by any significant segment of the Jewish community ( PTSDA, Ch. 4).

The predicament of emancipated Jewry, and ultimately the cause of its tragic end, was rooted not in one or another ideology but in the fact that Jewish Emancipation had been tacitly tied to an illusory expectation—the disappearance of the Jewish community of its own volition. When this failed to happen, and the Jews, despite Emancipation and acculturation, continued to be conspicuously evident, a certain uneasiness, not to say a sense of outright scandal, was experienced by Gentiles. . .

133

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 06, 2006, 04:08 AM | #

How will a modern day white hellenizing Judaism reconcile Hanukkah and its Maccabean traditionalism? It appears to be a position as fundamentally irreconcilable today as it was during the days of Alexander’s empire.

The dominance of the West was long established before the unleashing of Jewish intellectual power. Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Aristotle, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Darwin…Dead White European Christian Males make up the lion’s share of Charles Murray’s 4,002 significant figures in his ‘On Human Accomplishment’. Jewish intellectual power is significant, but as Murray asserts, it does not dominate. It’s disingenuous to suggest white intellectual capability will fall to third world levels sans Jewish genius. It is not only high intellect that made Western society dominant.

La Griffe has debunked the myth of potential Chinese dominance over Western man in his post assessing ‘Why Asians lag?’

Their IQ is bifurcated. NE Asians have the highest IQ of all peoples other than Ashkenazim. They owe that superior IQ, however, to extraordinary visuospatial ability, which, despite verbal shortcomings, lifts their IQ above that of Europeans.

The bifurcation is evident in the workplace where, for example, fully-assimilated second and third generation NE Asian Americans are overrepresented in science, medicine and engineering, and underrepresented in law, social science and the humanities. According to the 1999 National Science Foundation survey of PhDs awarded to US citizens and permanent residents, Asian Americans earned 11% of the science and engineering PhDs but less than 5% of other PhDs.
[...]
But the spectacular visuospatial ability of NE Asians, while accounting for their high IQ scores, does not necessarily make them good capitalists. Hunting strategies have little to do with wealth production. And a new tool, irrespective of point of origin, is now soon available worldwide. The structure of NE Asian intelligence did not come about in response to pressures to be attorneys or editors or production managers or copywriters or salesmen or programmers or systems analysts or insurance adjusters or purchasing agents or account executives. The harsh prehistoric Siberian climate did not select for capitalist alleles.

The issue of Islam, fallen intellectual prowess or Asian dominance are straw men. They do not hold up under scrutiny.

The fundamental issue is do Jews, traditionally Maccabean, highly ethnocentric and hostile to outgroups, really want to be white?

134

Posted by Guessedworker on March 06, 2006, 04:12 AM | #

I would never expect anybody to go against his own EGI, nor think it fair to demand that of him. The basis of Jewish participation in any anti-immigration or WN movements has to be cultural. Said Jew must value Western culture most profoundly, acknowledge that it is, in fact, nothing more than the white Europeans act of living, see the grave danger facing it and determine to fight on the side of light.

The minimum test of sincerity in this regard is: can the candidate discourse openly on the nature and effects of Jewry in Western societies. Michael Hart failed it spectactularly.

There are Jews who can pass this test and I, for one, would always be interested in hearing them speak. I would not, however, follow JT’s path and try to build a movement to effect rapprochement. Such Jews as passed the test would be very few in number and speak only for themselves. Their words will never penetrate the thick carapice of Jewish EGI. Rapprochement is not possible.

Regarding Friedrich Braun, I am aware that he is planning a multi-contributor blog if he can find enough writers. I think he has two committed thusfar but it’s early days. So in a few months, no doubt, he is going to have his hands pretty full anyway.

Personally, I was dismayed to have to close the door to Friedrich. We try to be open to all opinion expressed in a cogent and civil manner. Friedrich understands that perfectly well. I don’t think we have heard the last of him.

135

Posted by l'Etat on March 06, 2006, 05:30 AM | #

For Jews to truly assimilate into European society they must jettison Judaism, which is irreconcilably hostile to non-Jews. Ain’t happening.

Too bad about Friedrich, though he and Geoff and Alex would make a fine triumvirate at VNN’s blog (unlike Phil I mean that as a compliment).

136

Posted by Guessedworker on March 06, 2006, 06:09 AM | #

Actually, l’Etat, I think you are missing the gradations of opinion and, indeed, principle in what in general usage is termed “the far right”. Friedrich stands closer, I think, to wintermute than to Alex Linder. I am fairly confident that both regard Alex as a tragic case, a grave loss of a very talented individual to the movement for survival of the West.

There is a principled and academically learned position in revisionism and the understanding of Jewry which is unsoiled by anti-semitic hatred. Wintermute is as much a component in that as is Professor MacDonald.

However, the continuing prevalence of Jew-hatred on the fringes gives our opponents all they need to smear anyone who speaks from the interests of our people. It is, therefore, very necessary for the correct distinctions to be made.

137

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 06:36 AM | #

“For Jews to truly assimilate into European society they must jettison Judaism, which is irreconcilably hostile to non-Jews. Ain’t happening.”

This is a telling point. If we are to - as Casual tells us - embrace Jews as part of “us”, will that embrace be reciprocated?

Will the Jews we embrace consider their white gentile ‘comrades’ at the level of Jews? If we make them part of our ingroup, will they make us part of theirs?

Furthermore, since the word “kin” suggests a biological relationship, perhaps the question censored at AR can be brought to the attention of Casual - what evidence do you have that the Jewish people (or, even just the Ashkenazim if you wish) are actually kin to European gentiles?

138

Posted by karlmagnus on March 06, 2006, 09:52 AM | #

The central problem in this entire debate has been the focus on the group, an essentially Marxist concept that I utterly reject. Achievements, good and bad, are individual, not group. Jewish domination of the porn industry occurred for the same reason as Jewish domination of Hollywood; it is an outside industry, without huge capital requirements, where entrepreneurship, a good artistic “eye” and a talent for hustling deals can make you rich. I dislike Jewish neocons and Jewish leftists as much as anyone, but my South African Jewish ex-wife is probably closer to a WN position than I am (being brought up in Jo’burg does that to you) and I refuse to condemn the Jewish race as a whole, which has produced all those Nobelists, incluidng Friedman and Hayek who are heroes of mine.

The stuff about John O’Sullivan, who is a good friend, was fascinating and has the ring of truth (I was out of the country at the time, and never got the details of his departure from NR.) Buckley in my view has never been entirely a Conservative; too much Catholicism, too little understanding of how an economy works (Whitaker Chambers’ review of Ayn Rand was a disgrace that NR should not have printed; Rand is just as much a Conservative as Buckley, both about 70% and Whitaker Chambers never really lost his Commie thought patterns.)

139

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 10:33 AM | #

Boo hoo, “Karl” called us Marxists! I’ve not yet recovered from John Ray calling us leftists! Boo hoo, I’m so crushed!

People have been activing collectively in groups (tribes, ethnic groups, and so on) for tens of thousands of years before Karl Marx spewed forth his alien creed. To say that a focus on the group is “Marxist” is, probably, the single most stupid thing I’ve ever read on this blog.

Congratulations, you’ve out-did John. Bravo!

“being brought up in Jo’burg does that to you”

Are you judging blacks as a group? What exactly do you mean by that? Why should be brought up in “Jo’burg” do “that” to you? Please explain. I guess there just happens to be a lot of bad African individuals there. Hey, move to Detroit, maybe the subset of African individuals are better.

Organized groups outcompete individuals. How about this, in the next war, we’ll have one side organized an an army, and the other just a bunch of individuals all doing their own thing. Very good!

And what’s this:
“Jewish domination of the porn industry occurred for the same reason as Jewish domination of Hollywood; it is an outside industry, without huge capital requirements, where entrepreneurship, a good artistic “eye” and a talent for hustling deals can make you rich”

Are you implying that Jewish individuals tend to have traits that make them successful in business? Therefore, you are suggesting that members of an ethnic GROUP have a set of GROUP traits that just happen to allow members of their GROUP to be more successful then members of other GROUPS.

Whatareya, a Marxist, or somethin?

And, isn’t this blog called “Majority Rights?” Isn’t the majority/minority distinction one of groups? Isn’t this blog about defending the rights of the majority GROUP?

Guessedworker seems to think so. Is he a Marxist?

140

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 10:37 AM | #

correction: “acting collectively.”

I get so excited by my Marxist group-think, I can’t even type correctly. For shame!

The next time there is a race riot, “Karl” can be dropped in the middle of the rampaging blacks and explain how all this group-think is Marxist and, of course, he judges people as individuals.

That’ll work quite well.

141

Posted by ben tillman on March 06, 2006, 11:18 AM | #

The central problem in this entire debate has been the focus on the group, an essentially Marxist concept that I utterly reject. Achievements, good and bad, are individual, not group.

No, the focus on the group is a Jewish concept. Here is an example of the expression of this concept:

http://www.aish.com/torahportion/kolyaakov/-_Cells_of_One_Organism_-.asp

A soul cannot sin alone. A body cannot be kind alone. Reward and punishment can only apply to an entity that is the entire person, the body and soul together. Only the body and soul together has free will and is an image of God. And therefore, only a body and a soul together can accept oaths, especially as grandiose as the entire Torah.

So, how are we to understand the Midrash and the Rashi who claim that all of the generations were at Sinai and accepted the Torah?

Here we become aware of a fundamental concept of Jewish living. The Midrash does not mean that we are bound to the Torah because we personally made an oath to God at Sinai. While it may be true that our souls were there in some mystical way, our souls could not have accepted anything that would be binding. Rather, the Midrash means that our generation was at Sinai by dint of the entire original generation of Jews being at Sinai and accepting the Torah. The Jewish nation is one continuous entity that exists throughout history. Each generation may be comprised of new individual people but the continuous entity remains.

If you were to scientifically break down any living organism into individual cells, you would discover that after a period of years, there is not one cell left with which the organism was born. Yet, do we look at an older cow, with its brand new and different group of cells from when it was a calf, as a different cow than it was many years ago? Of course not. It is the same cow even though its cells have been regenerated.

The same is true of the Jewish nation. Individual generations of Jews die, just as cells of an organism do, but they are replaced with new generations. The Jewish nation, like the organism, remains intact. The Jewish nation of today’s times is the same nation that existed at Sinai. Therefore, it is as if our generation was present at Sinai as well. The question of our personal acceptance of God’s laws is only a question if we view ourselves as individuals. But we are not individuals. Each of us is a cell in the grand organism that is the Jewish people.

We must not relate to God as individuals. Rather, we come to God as part of Klal Yisrael, the Jewish nation. Rambam writes: (Laws of Repentance 3:11) “Whoever separates himself from the community, even though he does not commit transgressions, but merely divides himself from the congregation of Israel, does not perform the commandments with them, doesn’t feel their pain, doesn’t fast when they face tragedies, but lives his life in his own individual way as if he were not part of the nation, loses his portion in the World to Come.”

Living our individual lives while always having the nation in mind is not a simple task, but it is the very lifeblood of being a Jew.

142

Posted by ben tillman on March 06, 2006, 11:31 AM | #

The central problem in this entire debate has been the focus on the group, an essentially Marxist concept that I utterly reject.

Actually, Marxism is a quintessentially individualist ideology, dependent on the reduction of man to homo economicus. Each individual is to decide that his utterly individualistic economic interests would be best served by allying himself with similarly situated members of his “class”. The good of the group never enters into the equation.

143

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 11:57 AM | #

Thank you Ben for that very remarkable link. I wonder: would Jared Taylor be included as a “cell” in the “Jewish organism?” I am skeptical.

Thus, it seems “inclusion” is a one-way street?

Of course, the group orientation has served Jews well. Of course Weissberg and Rand wish us to be atomized individualists. More “fair competition” I gather - the collectivist group vs. the individual.

Speaking of “Marxism”, looking at Eastern European demographics as well as immigration pressures on places like Russia, it would seem that, in a relative sense, the ethnic interests of Eastern Europeans were better served with “Marxism” than with today’s “capitalist democracy.”

This does not mean that Marxism is a good system for ethnic interests, far from it. Simply that “capitalist democracy” imported from “the west” is worse.

Let’s not get bogged down with “bogey-men” like “leftist” and “Marxist.” Every concept must be critically examined for its inherent worth.

That’s how I really disagree with “casual observer.” It is NOT that I like, admire, or support Duke. It is simply that his concepts need to be included in the marketplace of ideas, along with those of Hart. Simply dismissing Duke as a “f—king Nazi” does not suffice as an argument. If Duke is wrong, then let us examine his errors. Let’s see Michael Hart debate David Duke, either in print, or in person.

What’s wrong with that? Hart is an intellect, an astrophyicist, and a best-selling author. Surely he can debate Duke.

That’s ALL I am asking for. Let’s get the issue on the table, and give Duke and Hart an equal chance to explain how their vision of American Renaissance is the correct one.

I cannot understand why anyone would object to such a debate.

144

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 12:09 PM | #

Another point. Actually, I think it - in the long run - a good idea to SUPPORT Hart and Casual Observer in their agenda to make AR inclusive to persons of Jewish heritage.

The best way to examine this issue is through experiment. AR can represent an experiment in which people like Hart, Weissberg, Auster, etc. are allowed to participate. Let us give Hart, Weissberg, and Auster a full forum at AR meetings and in the journal. Let them tell us what they think and what their vision is. So far, what they have told us - particularly Hart and Weissberg - has been quite enlightening.

We need to hear more.

Although this may be a waste of Mr. Taylor’s talents and resources, it is his choice; he has stated that he wants people like Hart included. We should support this experiment, as long as we have an alternate experiment or experiments to compare it to.

We can then evaluate - will AR prosper by giving Hart and Weissberg a strong voice? Will AR prosper by barring Duke and his followers? Will AR be able to defend these positions in debate? Will gentile followers of AR embrace or reject this direction?

Better to find these things out now, then later. I think that therefore the next AR meeting should have Hart and Weissberg as speakers, maybe Auster, Gottfried, and Levin as well.

Hart should participate. This is a problem. If he wants a voice, it has to be more than just exercising a veto over the opinions of others. Perhaps Hart can expand on his vision of a white national state that would include all racial groups except for blacks. I’m sure the rank and file of AR would just love to hear more about that, just like I’m sure they’ll love to hear more from Weissberg about how the correct response to America’s problems are surrender and appeasement.

These voices must be heard.

145

Posted by Guessedworker on March 06, 2006, 12:38 PM | #

Sometime I should have a crack at analysing individualism from a Conservative perspective. The notion that the individual may sally forth in the freedoms attenuated from wise governance and social stability is the whole dynamic of traditional Conservatism. And yet, so often today the individual considers himself and his freedom to be the focus of this dynamic, rather than just its product.

By dint of the desertion of his racial and national allegiance, however, he has cut at his own roots and floated off towards right liberalism. There, bereft of any direction, he seems to feel so free he vehemently condemns the evil of “collectivism” and even his own kith and kin. And this curious, common state of mind he calls by some name. If he likes to be politically chic and cutting-edge, it will be Kritarchy, Minarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism ... if he’s not so minded, it will be plain Conservatism or perhaps Thatcherism.

No matter, it is all right liberalism. Conservatism is not solely individualist. It is social stable-ist! Without social stability at the heart of it all, freedoms will be only for some, and will be counterbalanced by lets upon others. How could it be otherwise? Liberalism, right or left, analyses on the basis of the ubermensch vs the untermensch. That Marxism does so merely demonstrates that Marx stands, as he himself claimed, in the philosophical line of transmission from Hobbes.

By my poor understanding, Conservatism is rooted in race and in love of one’s land, for these are the vessels in which social stability can be engendered. There are no others.

It must be blindingly obvious to all MR regulars by now that I am content with and support our genetic interests and our racial awareness. I see no special dangers attached to them, nor any conflict with my Conservatism. I know all modern, “decent” Conservatives are embarrassed by their rootedness in these things. They are weak and wrong-headed, and in need of some pride and some Party history that pre-dates Disraeli.

If we don’t right the Conservative ship we will drown or have to scramble aboard another ship that isn’t Conservative at all.

Ben - will you please mail me? I’ve been unable to contact you on the address in my file.

146

Posted by karlmagnus on March 06, 2006, 12:57 PM | #

GW, there’s a perfectly good further vessel on which social stability can be built and that’s a well functioning class system. Put in a social structure that rewards intellect, culture and by all means financial success, but requires the financially successful to assimilate to a strong cultural norm in order to be accepted, and you have a Conservative society. Race is not wholly irrleevant in such a society, but it is a minor factor, as are group norms in general.

Lord Liverpool was not a WN, nor anything close, nor was he a radical individualist (that’s a Whig aberration, not a Conservative one.) He was a Conservative and class more than race was his social adhesive.

147

Posted by Guessedworker on March 06, 2006, 01:18 PM | #

Race is everything to life and, when allied with love of the homeland, to Conservatism. It is absolutely fundamental. No multi-racial society can be stable and produce the British model of Conservatism. It is beyond all reason to believe that a class structure in a multi-racial society, most especially one blessed with such diverse delights as we now have, can be socially stable.

Only racial homogeneity lends stability to our social organisation.

148

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 01:51 PM | #

Gee Karl, don’t you think it may be a bit easier to base ‘social stability’ on class in a racially homogenous society than one that is multiracial? Gee again, Karl, don’t you think it unlikely that a politician in a racially homogenous country, one that is a powerful world empire, in an environment where the race is not threatened, would be a racial nationalist? What would be the motivation?

And, gee, for the third time, don’t you think it a wee bit possible that the situation facing guys like Guessedworker and Phil Peterson is at least a little different than that faced by our good Lord Liverpool?

Let’s imagine what our good Lord would think of West Indians and South Asians as ‘high-class Britons’, and the idea of familial intermarriage with them.

Here’s a point for third party observers to ponder: why is it that the arguments made here by racialists are usually logical, mature, and coherent, and those made by the ‘aracial conservatives’ (never mind the ‘antis’) are shallow, childish, and as easy to pop as an over-inflated balloon?

Something to consider, indeed.

149

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 06, 2006, 04:57 PM | #

While discussing the manyfold failings of organised Jewry, we should remember that far from all Jews follow the leadership of their suppossed betters. Those attending an AR conference most certainly don’t.

Nowadays, all elites are a mixture of socialist, anrcho-libertine and anti-nation. Not just Jewish ones, white ones aswell. It is as unfair to ascribe to all Jews the faults of Soros, Hari et. al., as it would be to ascribe to ourselves the faults of Blair and Brown.

150

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 06, 2006, 06:22 PM | #

One problem Alex is that some of these AR Jews are a bad lot as well. As I said, I really don’t have a big problem with Levin or Gottfried. Hart and Weissberg, however, are a different story.

I’m not ascribing to Hart and Weissberg the faults of Soros; I ascribe to them their own faults.

When those guys promote destructive ideas in the context of AR meetings of AR essays, the rest of us wonder, why.

Particularly when the content of their ideas seem ethnically self-serving.

It’s like that Professor Rubin whose book MacDonald and Salter critiqued. Salter said something to the effect that Rubin’s anti-majoritarian proposals were fine-tuned to serve the interests of competitive minorities, and Salter is correct.

I wonder what competitive minority may be well-served by Rubin’s proposals?

151

Posted by A Casual Observer on March 07, 2006, 12:14 AM | #

I agree with these comments.

I think everyone sees where I stand on this and I see no point in further pressing the issue. Normally I don’t comment and I do as my name implies, I casually observe; however, I felt that I needed to voice my opinion on this. I’m grateful that I was not censored in any way and, for now, will go back to the passive state that I’m normally in when I visit this site.

Good discussion.

152

Posted by Guessedworker on March 07, 2006, 07:47 PM | #

Casual, you will not be censored here.

153

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 08, 2006, 11:12 AM | #

It seems that Auster has confirmed himself in the suspicious ethnic self-interest category:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005200.html

He cherry-picks extreme cases (Pierce, Pringle) to make the fallacious equation that criticism of Jews = wish to exterminate Jews.

What nonsense.

So, if the Englishmen here critique the IRA, does that mean they wish to exterminate the Irish?

Let us ignore the P-P boys, and concentrate on MacDonald, for example. Auster disagrees with MacDonald as well - I wonder if Auster ascribes genocidal tendencies to KMacD also?. How about Sailer and his critiques of neo-conservatives?

Also of interest is Auster saying he “broke” with AR in 1996; that is when Michael Hart was a featured speaker. Auster must certainly have an exquisite sense of ethnic sensitivity if the Hartian year 0f 1996 was sufficient to turn him off to AR’s potential for anti-Semitism.

When are guys like Hart and Auster going to, for example, critique the ADL (publicly and loudly) for constantly attacking Taylor and AR as “haters”, as well as for the Regan incident.

We’re waiting.

154

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 10, 2006, 05:56 PM | #

I have been AWOL for the last four days due to work.

I note that our old friend Arcane has made another return to this blog.

The style is typical - the screaming teenager like antics, the usual shouting, the uncompromising defense of Jews at all costs (Arcane is himself Jewish), the twisting of arguments to suit one’s own purposes, the usual “don’t put words in my mouth” and the usual “dude!” in atypical teenager fashion. It is all there.

It is obvious that Arcane has no interest in actually promoting white interets (which is the sole purpose of Taylor’s project). His sole pre-occupation is to fight Nazis (real and imagined).

One must marvel at the courage of this living room soldier - he was supposed to be enlisting in the US Air Force like all good Neocons say they would (if given the chance). Funny what happened there? I don’t think the US has an oversupply of volunteers in that living hell that the Jewish Neocons and their minions have created for the world’s only superpower.

It was of course just a fraud. We know Arcane never had any intentions of joining the military. Scraming at Nazis (real and imagined) from the confines of one’s bedroom on the internet is the sign of real courage.

Welcome aboard Patriot. We have missed you all these months. Where were you?

And where is that tome “rebuffing” MacDonald’s arguments that you were going to present? We aren’t holding our breath.

155

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 10, 2006, 06:08 PM | #

The same logic could be applied to intelligent South Asians, intelligent Arabs and intelligent East Asians.

Which brings us to the fundamental point that you are really not interested in promoting white interests but defending Jewish interests anywhere and everywhere.

Next you will propose that Taylor should not discriminate against anybody. That is basically what happened to National Review. It changed 180 degrees from a pro-white publication to a neo-con publication that now toes the leftist line on everything.

Lastly, I find the idea that the West would shrivel up and die without Jews nothing short of laughable. It shows the level of contempt you actually have for white gentiles to think that they could be incapable of running a modern economy without Jewish intelligence.

There are many countries in Europe with almost no Jews or very few Jews and they are all in the first world.

A sensible debate requires that people put their cards on the table first - which you of course won’t do. But we are used to that.

Why are you wasting your time here anyway? Go back to GNXP. To watch interracial porn with your buddy Razib and discuss dhimmitude with that flaming Homosexual Randy. That place suits you much better than this.

156

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 10, 2006, 06:26 PM | #

Alex,

Arcane’s (A Casual Observer that is) comments suggest that I am arguing that Jews be “removed” from the West. It is of course typical of the way he argues. You can go back to the archives and look at comments by “Arcane” and “Ark” to verify this.

My only argument is that Taylor’s whole “outreach” policy towards Jews to win them over to the WN side is based on delusion.

Jews will always be, in overwhelming numbers, creatures of the Left and even those who move to the right (as the Neoconservatives did) will actually smuggle a fundamentally left-wing agenda into an organ of the right. I hope you read that Scott McConnell article I linked to. It is telling.

I don’t wish anyone any harm as I have tired of saying on this blog so often. I don’t wish Jews any harm. In my own industry I have worked and still work with countless Jewish people many of whom were among the nicest people I know.

However, I recognise that their interests and our interests are not the same. In the same way that the interests of Israel and the US (or Britain) are not the same. Not trying to create an artifical alliance with Jews is based on recognition of this fact.

One does not become a Nazi by recognising this. In Arcane’s imagination of course, there are Nazis swimming around everywhere. He has of course accused me of being a Nazi too countless numbers of times. So we are used to this.

Funnily enough, while he comes here and attacks everyone while we never ban him, at his own blog GNXP, Razib bans people and deletes comments with impunity. And of course Razib redirects all links from MR to his site to an interracial porn page.

That is our patriot Arcane for you. White Nationalist down to the last bone.

157

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 10, 2006, 07:17 PM | #

He cherry-picks extreme cases (Pierce, Pringle) to make the fallacious equation that criticism of Jews = wish to exterminate Jews.

MacDonald is frequently cited, but few have grasped the import of his work. The fundamental point is that Jews have coalesced into an organism at a higher level of organization. Jews are the constituent parts of that organism, and as such they conceive of the Jewish community as essentially indivisible. It would appear that Jews, like us, are prone to egomorphism. While we see and judge single Jews because of our singularism (a better term than “individualism”), Jews see both themselves and us as collectives because of their organism (or “collectivism”). This is the reason why (and I mention this for the fourth time in this thread):

To this day orthodox Jewish ethics has remained in its essence national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.

S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, v. 1, p. 10 (italics in original). For the legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each, see the Babylonian Talmud, Shavuot 39a. A Social and Religious History of the Jews by Salo Baron[10] – perhaps the most comprehensive history of the Jewish people ever written – extends over 18 volumes, and it ends at 1650; how many volumes would Baron need to present an account of the last 350 years of Jewish history, had he lived to complete his project, can only be guessed. See:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jewish_survival.cfm

158

Posted by ben tillman on March 10, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

...why in the world didn’t you simply say so when I asked?

And what was “I take no responsibility for Abe Foxman” supposed to mean?

159

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 11, 2006, 01:22 AM | #

As well as a moratorium on immigration, it is necessary to re-invigorate freedom of association laws and enforcement of racially restrictive covenants like that upheld by the US Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer and in reality struck down in Canada in Noble and Wolf v. Alley.

It never fails to amaze, that those who view whites as fuckng Nazis, retain a fervent desire the live amongst them. The Barry Bonds case is another prime example. He pronounced the vilest hatred of whites to his *white* girlfriend despite the fact that

“He had grown up in an affluent white suburb of San Francisco, and his best boyhood friend, his first wife and his present girlfriend all were white.”

It also begets the question, if his father Bobby Bonds, and his godfather, the great Willie Mays, had experienced such virulent racism in their playing days and their experience with the white man was so demeaning; Why the hell were they living in a white neighbourhood?

The above question got this reply:

They could be called black limousine liberals . I will tell you what you need to know , but since I am an exception to the rule , this advice does not apply to me.

It is oh so fashionable to slam whitey and play the wannabe black panther bit as circumstances dictate. That way you get to be rich and hang with whitey [ and bang his women ] and act cool at the same time. The same driving principle benhind [sic] hip hop ‘ culture ‘ .

Is it really that simple?

160

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 11, 2006, 03:45 AM | #

And what was “I take no responsibility for Abe Foxman” supposed to mean?

A dead giveaway, Ben.

161

Posted by Arcane on March 12, 2006, 04:10 PM | #

Casual Observer, if you’re Arcane and also Jewish (I join Phil in suspecting you are both) why in the world didn’t you simply say so when I asked?

Casual Observer is not me, even though he has a very similar style of writing and raises many points that I wholly agree with, along with the link to the ADL polling data, which is pretty tight. And, no, I’m not a Jew; I’m WASp (a small ‘p’ because I’m only nominally a Christian).

Taylor doesn’t interest me much, especially after I heard a while back that he’s a fan of IHR. The Color of Crime is good.

162

Posted by Arcane on March 12, 2006, 04:54 PM | #

Mentioned earlier in the thread… Institute for Historical Review: Weber’s operation.

163

Posted by Phil on March 12, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

Fred,

IHR = Holocaust Revisionism

The characterisation of Jared Taylor as some kind of IHR sympathiser is quite ridiculous. Taylor has never published any of IHR’s material, linked to it or even recommended it.

Unless one’s tolerance level ends with even seeing blokes share a cup of tea in a party somewhere. That kind of touchiness is something of a unqiue ethnic characteristic.

164

Posted by Arcane on March 12, 2006, 05:20 PM | #

The characterisation of Jared Taylor as some kind of IHR sympathiser is quite ridiculous. Taylor has never published any of IHR’s material, linked to it or even recommended it.

It is true that he has never published any IHR material or linked to any of it, however my source on this issue, an individual who used to write for AmRen, has mentioned to me more than once that one of the reasons he quit writing for them is because Taylor was associating with Weber in a non-public manner and sympathized with him.

That kind of touchiness is something of a unqiue ethnic characteristic.

It’s He’s-a-Rotten-Jew-Time (music plays)... I remember now why I quit commenting.

165

Posted by Arcane on March 12, 2006, 05:23 PM | #

Almost forgot… and then there’s the time that Taylor allowed John Tyndall, a national socialist, to stay in his house. And he is one of the leaders of NPI and an editor at TOQ, which shows that he has absolutely no issue with associating himself with Kevin MacDonald.

166

Posted by Arcane on March 12, 2006, 05:29 PM | #

Oh yeah, and as an editor of TOQ, he has no problems associating with Theodore O’Keefe (editor of the Journal of Historical Review, IHR’s publication), Michael O’Meara (a pseudonym for Michael Torigian, who does work for National Vanguard, a national socialist organization and offshoot of the National Alliance), Robert S. Griffin (a prominent National Alliance activist and author of a biography of William Pierce), M. Raphael Johnson (editor of Willis Carto’s Barnes Review, a national socialist publication), etc. etc. etc. You get my point.

167

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 12, 2006, 05:43 PM | #

Why does Kevin MacDonald bother you so much? If he’s wrong, he’s got it all wrong. End of story.

But clearly, he’s got under the skin of a lot of people. So he’s obviously got a point which some would rather not see addressed.

168

Posted by Arcane on March 12, 2006, 06:19 PM | #

I’m not getting into this again. Have a good day.

169

Posted by rustymason on June 01, 2006, 06:38 PM | #

Desmond Jones wrote:
“As well as a moratorium on immigration, it is necessary to re-invigorate freedom of association laws…”

A very good idea, an excellent starting point. I think the main-stream could buy into this immediately. Does this idea have a current champion?

Next entry: Hey! Fathers matter after all!

Previous entry: Wednesday Riddle

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

Hart Attack

Comments:

Post a Comment:

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Links