Responsibility is often collective responsibility.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 11, 2006, 07:40 PM | #

Matt, I don’t buy this. You’re arguing that gentile Westerners and Muslims are clueless and therefore not individually accountable for what the group does, but Jews are some kind of powerful ubergroup and therefore highly accountable as individuals for whatever wrong the group does.

You’re going to have a hard time selling a double standard like this one.

I wish people wouldn’t overestimate the power of the Jews. They only seem so powerful because the gentile Westerners who should be defending the mainstream, i.e. the intelligent, masculine right-wingers, have fallen into such a self-destructive political ideology of free markets and radical individualism.

That’s something we have to fix for ourselves.

In the meantime, there’s no way I’m going to waste sympathy on Palestinians when they commit atrocities not just against military targets, but against young civilians.

They have a case in terms of their original complaint of losing territory (though I wish we Westerners still had 95% of the territory we had in 1945, as the Arabs still have today).

But I’m going to side with a more civilised people, against those who drag pregnant women out of cars and murder them.

Posted by John S Bolton on June 11, 2006, 08:02 PM | #

There seems to be a rather bad equivocation of peace and war, going on here. In the war context, no one argues for individualism, as if one might have said, during WWII, what about the good Japanese?
This also means that the concept of collective responsibility for atrocities is moot in a a way; in the war context, we’re not trying to assign blame, but to do all murderous acts needed to stop the enemy.
With Islam, we have declared enemies. Their condition of knowledge, and of facility to acquire it, is not morally significant, in comparison to their status as enemies waging war on civilization.

Posted by Matt Nuenke on June 11, 2006, 08:14 PM | #

Mark, I think you take offense too easily. I am arguing with Dershowitz’s claim that there is a continuum of “collective responsibility.” Before you try to critique what I have written, please, take the time to read what Dershowitz is claiming. If you are ignorant of your enemies, they will destroy you. Whites, I agree, are at fault for their tolerance. But we do not act alone in the world—many races have an input in how the world is ordered. I merely want to understand what forces direct us to be the way we are. Dershowitz is an influential party to the propaganda machines that form the views of Whites. We allow them in our midst.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 11, 2006, 08:33 PM | #

Matt, an excellent essay, if somewhat overly complex. What this essay describes is what Jews have always done. I suppose that is how it is done here.

Yet, no matter how many footnotes you provide and no matter how many historical examples you supply Ashkanazi appeasers like Mark Richards will never accept the evidence.

For a Christian like Mark, seeing what the Jews did to his saviour, I find that remarkable.

Now in response to this quote by Dershowitz…

[I]t was right for the entire German people to suffer for what their elected leader had unleashed on the world…. [T]he vast majority of Germans should have been held accountable for their complicity with evil. . . . That is part of what it means to be a nation or a people.

I’m ready for the world to hold the Jewish Bolsheviks responsible for overthrowing the Christian Russian Government in 1917.  When will Jews as a collective agency pay for that crime!

When will they be held accountable for their role in subverting this country’s apocalypes, the 1965 immigration act?

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 11, 2006, 09:40 PM | #

Matt, one thing I’ll concede. Your article was intended to be read, more than I realized, as an effort to rebut Derschowitz’s claims about the moral culpability of ordinary Germans in WWII by applying the same criteria to the Middle East conflict.

In other words, you were applying the logic of his criteria rather than necessarily setting out your own views.

Even so, in the way you lay out this argument you come across as quite soft on, or understanding of, Muslim terrorism, and you emphasise strongly the power of Jews as a group.

It’s an odd thing. The Jews often portray themselves as a vulnerable, victimised, discriminated against group, whereas there are white nationalists who see them at the opposite extreme of being a superman type group.

Neither stance has much to do with the reality of things. And though you were careful in how you described the advantages Jews have as an ethnic group, I still dislike anything which feeds into the “superman” image of Jews.

Geoff, are there really any Christians who hold a grudge against the Jews of today for the crucifixion of Christ? I certainly don’t.

Nor am I an Ashkanazi appeazer. I understand perfectly well that Jewish community groups have set themselves against the existence of the white, gentile majority out of perceived ethnic self-interest. I understand perfectly well the double standards often perpetrated by such organisations.

But what I don’t understand is why (some) white nationalists aren’t more focused on the real source of our weakness.

It’s not as if there are intelligent gentiles struggling to uphold their own tradition, but being defeated by the power of Jewish organisations.

Jewish organisations rarely have to bother, as there are few such gentiles.

The kind of white gentiles who should be acting to preserve their own tradition, the intelligent, masculine, politically minded ones, have this bloody-minded ultra liberalism, which refuses to even recognise ethnic loyalty as a human reality.

I wish I could introduce you to some of these types. I know personally a number of Australian Liberal Party and British Conservative Party intellectuals.

Typically all they believe in is individualism and the free market. They think that open borders is a necessary part of the free market, as it allows the free movement of labour.

They believe that we are at the dawn of a great democratic age, and are very happy with the current state of affairs.

They believe that people are essentially blank slates, and are infinitely adaptable or malleable to whatever individualism and the free market requires of them.

If some “others” don’t seem to be doing well, like the Muslims in the suburbs of Paris, then logically it must be because they are being irrationally excluded by the Western, liberal host.

The men who hold these views are not easily suggestible types. They are not the dumb puppets of a background Jewish master. They are intelligent, strong-willed, well-read and have forceful personalities.

But they are locked into a politics, a worldview, which doesn’t even begin to recognise an ethnic “us”.

It is our very own right-wing, our right-wing liberalism, which is our gravest flaw.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 11, 2006, 10:17 PM | #

Geoff, are there really any Christians who hold a grudge against the Jews of today for the crucifixion of Christ? I certainly don’t

Christianity has been totally subverted. Did you notice the Pope prostrating himself at Auschwitz recently? I’d expect that from demotic American Protestants, but the Pope? Well, nothing surprise me these days when it comes to organized Jewry.

Today’s Christians have become the Jew’s proletariat.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 12, 2006, 12:20 AM | #

It’s not as if there are intelligent gentiles struggling to uphold their own tradition, but being defeated by the power of Jewish organisations.

However there were such gentiles, Mark, who struggled to uphold their tradition and their ethny, only to be defeated by organised Jewry.

Among these Anglo-Canadian activists, revulsion against gross violations of human rights, such as the murderous anti-Semitism of the Nazis, could not eradicate overnight age-old prejudices against particular ‘racial’ or ethnic minorities or notions of Anglo-Saxon superiority and the need to maintain the British character of Canada. Moral outrage against violent and extreme forms of discrimination may have prevented some of these well-intentioned individuals from thinking about the existence of - and hence the need to combat - subtler forms of discrimination in Canada. Many human rights activists, however, continued to believe that there were inherent differences among people based on ‘race.’ In effect, this meant that they sometimes endorsed discriminatory policies, especially concerning immigration.

Given these limitations, the intervention of minority groups was necessary to reveal the forms and extent of prejudice and discrimination in Canada and to mobilize interested groups to fight for legal safeguards for human rights. Although activists from minority groups were not necessarily free of certain forms of prejudice themselves, they were of-ten more aware of the problems various groups faced, and they were often more far-reaching in their analysis of prejudice and discrimination. Yet not all minorities subject to discrimination became engaged in fighting against it. As we shall see, African Canadians, Japanese Canadians, and especially Jews led the struggle against discrimination in Canada.

The attitudes of the Reverend Claris Silcox illustrate the restrictive notions of human rights among Anglo-Canadian activists. Deemed the ‘United Church’s most vigorous and effective foe of anti-Semitism,’ Silcox wrote articles condemning anti-Semitism in the 1930s. He even supported the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, at a time when this stance was highly unpopular in Canada. Between 1940 and 1945 he served as the director of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. Yet Silcox also stated in 1941 that Canadians were justified in seeking to keep their country ‘dominantly and overwhelmingly European.’

Silcox’s arguments for keeping out ‘Negroes,’ ‘Orientals,’ and ‘southern Europeans’ reveal the influence of racialist notions. Although the ‘Negro’ could become accustomed to the rigours of the Canadian climate, he was allegedly much better adapted to ‘a more tropical environment.’ Since there were still vast, empty areas of the world suitable for ‘Negro settlement,’ but in which white men could not survive, Canada should be reserved for whites, such as refugees from Nazi Europe, who, as a ‘race,’ had demonstrated their ability to attain a ‘far more advanced level of culture’ than had ‘Negroes.’ Silcox also argued that the ‘Oriental’ (e.g., the Japanese immigrant) would threaten the standard of living of Canadians, since he ‘has learned out of long experience how to adjust himself to a situation of relative population saturation, and this has affected not alone his capacity to survive on a fairly low general standard of living such as the white man would be unwilling to endure, but also his psychological reactions to life and its meaning.’ Silcox believed that southern Europeans should also be kept out of Canada, since by virtue of the climate, religion, and language, they were more suited for Latin America, where, again, northern Europeans would find it difficult to survive.

Such ethnocentric views were endorsed by other clergymen, such as Canon W.W. Judd, the Church of England’s leading anti-prejudice crusader. Intent on preserving the dominance of the British ‘race’ and British ideals in Canada, Judd urged Anglo-Saxons to have large families while also ‘infusing ... British ideals into ... European compatriots.’ The Reverend J.R. Mutchmor, secretary of the Board of Evangelism and Social Service of the United Church, who saw human rights and freedoms as a chief concern of the church, also exhibited at least implicitly racist assumptions. Without fully endorsing charges that Canadian Jews pushed for the admission of Jewish refugees to enhance their own political prestige and economic power, Mutchmor conceded that ‘organized Jewry’ was busy and ‘will need watching.’ Such beliefs in inherent racial characteristics that made Jews pushy and self-serving, and ‘Negroes’ and ‘Orientals’ ill-suited for adaptation to Canada, inevitably served to obscure prejudice and discrimination as causes of the difficulties that members of these groups encountered in Canadian society.

By their own admission, Jews led the charge on a legal, political and financial level to expunge the evil of ethnocentrism. The author, Prof. Ruth Fragar, a Jew and Professor of History at McMaster University, continues to celebrate the victory. Even, if you exclude KMac’s work, the evidence is so overwhelming, from the hand of liberal Jewry itself, as to be impossible to ignore.

Posted by ben tillman on June 12, 2006, 12:33 AM | #

The men who hold these views are not easily suggestible types. They are not the dumb puppets of a background Jewish master. They are intelligent, strong-willed, well-read and have forceful personalities.

They are not stupid, but they must be “puppets”.  There is no other explanation.  How can a living thing support its own demise without having been duped by a competitor?

Posted by ben tillman on June 12, 2006, 12:39 AM | #

In a nutshell, Dershowitz claims that the whole collective is responsible, and that one group has a right to attack any other group depending on a continuum of responsibility in the members support of the actions of the group’s representatives, armies, etc. He states, “[I]t was right for the entire German people to suffer for what their elected leader had unleashed on the world…. [T]he vast majority of Germans should have been held accountable for their complicity with evil. . . . That is part of what it means to be a nation or a people. Those who start wars and lose them often bring suffering to their people. That is rough justice.”

Of course, the delusional Dershowitz can’t recognize that he has just justified the Shoah, whether or not the death toll totalled the alleged 5 million.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 12:44 AM | #

Interesting, Desmond. The Australian political situation of the time appears to have been different, without any Judds or Silcoxes.

But even given your evidence for Canada, why was it that the political class accepted the efforts of minority ethnies rather than the arguments of the Anglo-Canadians? If the average Anglo-Canadian intellectual had been a defender of his own ethny, surely the intervention of Jewish, Japanese or African activists wouldn’t have mattered.

In what way did the Jewish activists prevent the Anglo-Canadians from defending themselves?

And who was in charge at the time? Who was the Prime Minister? Who were the cabinet ministers? Were they not mostly Anglo-Canadian gentiles?

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 12, 2006, 12:49 AM | #

This is simply group evolutionary strategy, and it undoubtedly has a selective outcome if the two warring groups differ in any way genetically, no matter how slight.

This runs against Darwinian evolutionary theory that outgroup sympathy enhances survival. Sir Arthur Bryant examines Alfred’s great victory over the Danes at Edington in his epic Set in A Silver Sea. Arthur, despite the constant treachery of the Danes in past encounters took pity on his foe and offered them food, peace and Christian virtue. The great King’s display of altruism aided in civilizing the Danes and enabled English and Dane to live together in peace. This display of outgroup sympathy enhanced the survival of his people.

The question Darwin appears not to have answered is what happens when you run up against an unassimilable group, ‘a people that shall dwell alone’.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 12:59 AM | #

How can a living thing support its own demise without having been duped by a competitor?

Ben, I get the feeling when you write this that you are reducing humans to the level of biological organisms programmed for survival.

Humans are this, but more as well. We have instincts, including instincts to propagate our own kind, but we also have intellects capable of overriding instincts.

Unfortunately, our political class has set the intellectual against the instinctive. They believe it is a proof of our humanity to do so - something that sets us above a mere animal existence.

Our intellectuals explicitly reject the idea of a “biological destiny”. They believe this to be a limitation on the freedom of their own will and their own reason to determine the course of their own lives.

This way of thinking has taken on an almost religious status amongst Western intellectuals. It provides meaning, status and acceptance amongst the class of intellectuals.

It’s so entrenched that the sense of a larger entity than their own individual existence has been long repressed. So “survival” for them means only their own individual freedom to do as they will for the course of their own life, or perhaps the survival of the democratic politics they identify with as the vehicle of a larger human progress.

So they are dancing to the tune of their own long-standing “value system”, a system which is relatively easy for other ethnies to exploit.

Posted by ben tillman on June 12, 2006, 12:59 AM | #

The Yale University Press’s description of Salo Wittmaier Baron:

...Salo Wittmayer Baron (1895–1989), a preeminent scholar who revolutionized the study of Jewish history during his lengthy tenure at Columbia University.

Baron:

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.

Morality is a matter of reciprocity.

Posted by ben tillman on June 12, 2006, 01:16 AM | #

Ben, I get the feeling when you write this that you are reducing humans to the level of biological organisms programmed for survival.

Humans are this, but more as well. We have instincts, including instincts to propagate our own kind, but we also have intellects capable of overriding instincts.

We do indeed have intellects in addition to instincts, but the value of our intellects is that they can correct our instincts when they point us in the wrong direction.  When our intellects carry us in the wrong direction, we should expect to find that the misdirection is due to the influence of others.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 01:36 AM | #

the value of our intellects is that they can correct our instincts when they point us in the wrong direction

Ben, agreed.

When our intellects carry us in the wrong direction, we should expect to find that the misdirection is due to the influence of others.

This I don’t get. The human intellect is not such a fine instrument. It often goes wrong. It doesn’t require external manipulation to go wrong.

And where external influence does exist, it is not always from self-conscious, predatory outsiders. What if the external influence is simply an entrenched intellectual orthodoxy, whose first principles no-one dares question? What if the “influence of others” is therefore the influence of our own intellectual forebears, who did not foresee the ultimately destructive consequences of the intellectual principles they set in motion?

Posted by Calvin on June 12, 2006, 04:04 AM | #

Dershowitz is just another thicko “intellectual”. He is incapable of understanding an issue without reducing it to kindergarten simplicity.

In Dershowitz’s nursery intellectual world, responsibility is either “collective” or “individual”.  This is of course the well known “either, either” fallacy. In the real world there are degrees of responsibility.

The Russian people, for example, are not responsible to any great degree for the depridations of Stalin, because their complicity was forced. The German people, on the other hand, are responsible to a great degree for the things that happened under Hitlers regime, because the German people voted for Hitler in a free and open election and gave him overwhelming backing in a follow up referendum.

Deshowitz has to invent an esoteric reason to justify his accusation of collective responsibility because he can’t admit the truth. The truth being that Hitler was freely supported by the German people because life was better under Hitler. This doesn’t fit in to the “evil dictator” stereotype though does it?
Dershowitz is right, but for the wrong reasons.

The problem for Dershowitz is that, in this case, “collective responsibility” means collective responsibility for the extermination of three million of his people by cyanide gas. I’m not saying that this didn’t happen, but the fact that people who claim that it didn’t happen are imprisoned in Europe and deported to Europe to be imprisoned there if they are American, means that the holocaust is an article of faith, not a “fact” of history. When I went to school “facts” were established through free and open debate.

So Dershowitz, the great intellectual, turns out to be little more than a rabid religious fanatic supporting a catechism with a fallacy.

The other problem with Dershowitz is that he seems to only apply his principle of collective responsibility to gentiles, Muslims and other non-members of his ethnic group. If this is the case it would make Deshowitz a racist and a hypocrite as well as a fanatic.

Drop the veneer of academic jargon and we have one ugly and pathetic individual.

Posted by Sigurd on June 12, 2006, 05:04 AM | #

Dershowitz has become a caricature of that great paradox: the liberal American Zionist (more popularly: Neo Con.)  It’s quite surreal, actually, watching a man whose mannerism are most similar to Woody Allen’s advocate legal torture and the sort of identification cards one might only find in a totalitarian society.  He’s the power hungry nebbish. This is the wizard of Oz?  Perhaps he would be, if he had the sense to stay behind the curtain.

Posted by Sigurd on June 12, 2006, 05:45 AM | #

“They are not stupid, but they must be “puppets”.  There is no other explanation.  How can a living thing support its own demise without having been duped by a competitor?”

The other possibility is simply greed and personal ambition, whilst their grand humanist values merely the means by which they convince themselves and others it isn’t simply this.  They either refuse, out of pure selfishness and cowardice, to accept a long view of society or such a view is not available to them.  In any case, however you slice it; it is a symptom of decline: the triumph of money over race.

Posted by George Walker Shrub on June 12, 2006, 06:34 AM | #

The holocaust has propagandized Jews to secretly and seethingly hate non-Jews, plain and simple. Anyone who pictures their kinsmen being herded into gas chambers and gassed will feel that seething, burning lifelong hatred.

Posted by perroazul del norte on June 12, 2006, 01:11 PM | #

The German people, on the other hand, are responsible to a great degree for the things that happened under Hitlers regime, because the German people voted for Hitler in a free and open election and gave him overwhelming backing in a follow up referendum.

-Cavin
What “things” are you referring to? The shoah was a state secret. If you are referring to the charge of “waging aggressive war” how many times in history have the US and Britain been guilty of this crime?

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 12, 2006, 03:08 PM | #

And who was in charge at the time? Who was the Prime Minister? Who were the cabinet ministers? Were they not mostly Anglo-Canadian gentiles?

Yes, they were Mark.

In 1947 Prime Minister Mackenzie King spoke for most Canadians when he observed that “the people of Canada do not wish to make a fundamental alteration in the character of their population through mass immigration.”

“Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a fundamental human right’ of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy.”

The straw that eventually broke the camel’s back was the massive post-WWII refugee or ‘displaced persons’ crisis in Europe.

Only late in 1947, as the immigration of Displaced Persons into Canada was quickly building up a massive head of steam and the Canadian labour market showed no signs of cooling down, did the government begin to relent on its opposition to Jews. After much negotiation with the Canadian Jewish community, the government agreed to permit one thousand Jewish orphan children - survivors of the Holocaust - into Canada for placement with Canadian Jewish families.23 The government also moved to enlarge the circle of those eligible for reunification with family in Canada, a move that increased immigration of Jews who could be sponsored by Canadian family. What about those Jews with no family in Canada? At the behest of the largely Jewish-owned Canadian clothing industry, which pleaded a shortage of skilled labour, the government allowed the recruitment of several thousand Jewish clothing and fur workers in Europe. But the recruitment of Jewish workers was not unconditional. In this particular labour recruitment scheme - unlike any other approved labour scheme - federal authorities demanded that for every Jew recruited, a non-Jew must also be recruited. With so many other labour schemes open to non-Jews wanting to come to Canada, it was difficult for those administering the clothing workers scheme to find enough non-Jews to fill the 50:50 quota.24

For all the barriers and restrictions, a trickle of Jewish DPs gradually began arriving in Canada. As the general flow of immigrants from Europe - regular immigrants, Displaced Person labourers, family members of those who were already in Canada - grew to more than 100,000, the slowly increasing number of Jews among them was hardly noticed.
[...]
And what became of the bedrock of vitriolic and politically acidic racism that so dominated Canadian attitudes toward immigrants only a few years earlier? What of that mainstream certitude that, as if it was some kind of sacred trust, Canadian cities must stand guard over British civility in North America? How was it that in less than one generation, the Canadian mindset, especially in urban Canada, shifted from a defence of Anglo-conformity to the current celebration of the mosaic?

Put simply, the past was cut loose, made dysfunctional both by the onslaught of urban-bound immigrants and the mediating force of a government increasingly caught up with a new civic agenda. The result was something of a revolution of mind. It can be seen in the enlarged circle of human-rights legislation that came to define the decades after the war. A package of human-rights protections was long the goal of a coalition of organized labour, liberal churches, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), and older Canadian ethnic communities that had embraced the Canadian war effort, enlisted in the military in disproportionate numbers, and, in the aftermath of war, refused to accept second-class status for themselves or their children. The coalition was also buoyed by widespread revulsion at the racial excesses of Nazism, an academic-led assault on the scientific foundations of racism, a gradual withering away of Anglo-centricity rendered an anachronism by the collapse of the British imperial dream, and, of major importance, a need to clear away encumbrances to the smooth social and economic integration of the immigrants who were then moving in large numbers into Canadian cities.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on June 12, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Mark, are you an apologist for the Jews because you are a deluded dispensationalist Christian, or because you know a few Jews who seem to be decent people? 

Whatever the primary reason for your seeming naivete, it could be easily rectified by reading “The Culture of Critique”. 

Here’s another mild example of an ubiquitous Jewish attitude: (excerpt from “60 Minutes” interview with Mel Brooks).

“There are still vestiges of that little Jewish kid, born Melvin Kaminsky in 1926, who grew up during the Depression, telling jokes to the kids on street corners, later entertaining the guests at Catskill Mountain resorts, drawing on his absurd view of the world — and, he says, his sense that Jews were outside the mainstream of American life.

“Asked why he invokes [Jewishness] as much as he does, Brooks said, “Maybe because I’m angry. Who knows? It may be a deep-seated anger at anti-Semitism. Yes, I am a Jew. I am a Jew.

“What about it? What about it? What’s so wrong? What’s the matter with being a Jew? I think there’s a lot of that way down deep beneath all the quick Jewish jokes that I do,” Brooks said.

“You’ve never suffered for being Jewish?” Wallace asked.

“Oh, and I was in the Army. ‘Jew boy, out of my way. Out of my face, Jew boy.’ This guy called me Jew-something and I walked over to him,” Brooks remembered. “I took his helmet off. I said, ‘I don’t want to hurt your helmet, ‘cause it’s GI issue.’ And I smashed him in the head with my mess kit.”

Just reading this doesn’t do justice to the noxious aggressiveness Books exhibited in the interview. 

He’s clearly holding all of mainstream America collectively responsible for whatever imagined slights he’s suffered.

Posted by Calvin on June 12, 2006, 04:11 PM | #

“What “things” are you referring to? The shoah was a state secret”

Perroazul, I never discuss the “shoah”, formerly known as the “holocaust”, formerly known as the “genocide” of the Jews. There is no point in discussing a faith based belief. Jewish agitators have silenced European historians who have questioned details of the holocaust. My feeling is that it is therefore incumbent upon the Jewish community to practice what it preaches (ha, ha, ha!) and shut its collective mouth about events affecting Jews during WWII.

The “things” I was talking about are all open to free and frank debate. The economic miracle, the salvation of Germany from communist revolution, the prevention of the communist conquest of Western Europe.

Hitler saved at least half of Germany from communist conquest by internal revolutionaries. Anyone who thinks that that’s a bad thing can piss off to Cuba and enjoy a lifetime of grinding poverty and quashed ambition.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 04:20 PM | #

Desmond, your quote shows up all the usual suspects: liberal Christians churches, academics, the labour movement, employer organisations, certain ethnic groups including Jewish organisations.

The timing was quite similar to what occurred in Australia, except perhaps that the Australian decision had been taken by 1943 rather than 1947.

It’s my view that the agitation by other ethnic groups wasn’t the critical thing, as this was a given and had occurred earlier.

The first critical change was the turning of the labour movement from a left-wing nationalism to a Marxist internationalism in the 1930s. In Australia, at least, it was the organised labour movement which had been the most active and effective in protesting open borders.

The second change was the decline of British military and economic power, which led the establishment liberal types to look elsewhere - to America and Asia - for economic and diplomatic “greatness”.

A third change, perhaps, was the establishment of international organisations to which Western countries became bound as signatories.

The “revolution of mind” the article talks of took place in the political class, rather than the rank and file population. Both the left (the labour movement leadership) and the right (employer organisation types) did cut themselves loose from the past, leaving the ordinary, non-political person without effective representation for their views.

What also needs to be remembered is that this “revolution of mind” could only have taken place within a society dominated by liberalism. Liberalism made the older ethnic nationalism vulnerable, by stressing the idea that what matters is a purely individual freedom to choose, rather than the meaning we find within a traditional community.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 04:44 PM | #

Luke, why grouch about the Jews so much? If you were really serious in your politics, you would want to achieve something positive. And this means getting your own community’s act together. Which means persuading your co-ethnics to once again support their own ethnic interests and existence. Which means persuading them to drop the liberal politics which dominates their thought processes.

Spending all your time in complaint about the Jews is a way of giving up. You might as well be fishing or watching football.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 12, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

Spending all your time in complaint about the Jews is a way of giving up. You might as well be fishing or watching football.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your inane comment.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 12, 2006, 04:48 PM | #

Mark Richardson:

Matt, I don’t buy this. You’re arguing that gentile Westerners and Muslims are clueless and therefore not individually accountable for what the group does, but Jews are some kind of powerful ubergroup and therefore highly accountable as individuals for whatever wrong the group does.

You’re going to have a hard time selling a double standard like this one.

What’s wrong with double standards?  There’s something to be said for the idea that a group’s responsibility is proportional to its “groupness”, which doesn’t smack of a double standard to me at all.

That’s something we have to fix for ourselves.

Yes, and we’re going to have to go through the jews (inter alia) to do so.

In the meantime, there’s no way I’m going to waste sympathy on Palestinians when they commit atrocities not just against military targets, but against young civilians.

It can be hard to tell the difference, given the press; “suicide bomber blows up bus” is often actually “suicide bomber blows up bus carrying Israeli military personnel”.  Even the term “young civilians” is misleading, given that military service is compulsory in Israel.

But I’m going to side with a more civilised people, against those who drag pregnant women out of cars and murder them.

I’m not going to side with either.  The Israelis have their civilized barbarities that they carry out against the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have their crude barbarities that they carry out against the Israelis.

On the other hand, I will continue to point out the sins of the Israelis because they get a pass from jewry, a pass South Africa in particular and whites in general do not; I’ll also continue to support Israel as an ethnostate.

It’s an odd thing. The Jews often portray themselves as a vulnerable, victimised, discriminated against group, whereas there are white nationalists who see them at the opposite extreme of being a superman type group.

Neither stance has much to do with the reality of things. And though you were careful in how you described the advantages Jews have as an ethnic group, I still dislike anything which feeds into the “superman” image of Jews.

Nothing odd about it.  Jewry’s reputation in the west as weak, harmless, nebbishy victims is a manifestation of jewish power.  Sure, neither group’s stance is accurate, but the latter have a stance that is a) far closer to reality and b) far more healthy for it’s own interests than the former’s.

It’s not as if there are intelligent gentiles struggling to uphold their own tradition, but being defeated by the power of Jewish organisations.

Jewish organisations rarely have to bother, as there are few such gentiles.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard something like this.  Ray wrote something similar recently.

We really do exist in a media vacuum for some, I suppose.

Ben Tillman:

Of course, the delusional Dershowitz can’t recognize that he has just justified the Shoah, whether or not the death toll totalled the alleged 5 million.

Oh, I think he does, but like jewish scribblers everywhere relies on his misdirection to carry the day.  He knows critical thinking about jews is verboten.

I heard an analogy at SF recently that I’ve been wanting to use but haven’t had an opportunity.  This may not be the best opportunity but I’ll shoehorn it anyways.

We keep hearing that “no one’s stopping whites” from this or that.

No one’s stopping Pandas from breeding in captivity, either.

Like I said, not the best opportunity, but there’s much to think about in the comparison.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 12, 2006, 05:12 PM | #

Desmond, your quote shows up all the usual suspects: liberal Christians churches, academics, the labour movement, employer organisations, certain ethnic groups including Jewish organisations.

True Mark, but look who was driving the agenda. Liberal Christian church leaders, ‘vigorous and effective foe[s] of anti-Semitism’, still staunchly advocated for an overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon Canada. Academics led assault on racism, by the likes of Franz Boas, was Jewish led. The labout movement was heavily influenced and financed by the Canadian Jewish Congress, employer organisations, the largely Jewish-owned Canadian clothing industry, led the charge for foreign labour, especially European refugees who were in large part Jews. And while other ethnic groups did participate as Prof. Fragar shows quite clearly in her article, Jews dominated the effort.

The “revolution of mind” the article talks of took place in the political class, rather than the rank and file population. Both the left (the labour movement leadership) and the right (employer organisation types) did cut themselves loose from the past, leaving the ordinary, non-political person without effective representation for their views.

Again, both were heavily influenced by Jewish leadership, Jewish lobby and Jewish finances.

What also needs to be remembered is that this “revolution of mind” could only have taken place within a society dominated by liberalism.

That statement doesn’t ring true, Mark, at least in the Cdn context. In 1947, the Canadian PM states emphatically, “the people of Canada do not wish to make a fundamental alteration in the character of their population through mass immigration.” At least from an immigration stand point, how much more conservative can a position be?

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 05:15 PM | #

We really do exist in a media vacuum for some

Svy, here’s a test for you. It’s possible to join in internet discussion threads anonymously, without much fear of retribution.

Therefore, when young white gentiles join in such threads, they are perfectly free to express support for their own ethny.

But what percentage do? Is it 1%? Possibly 2%? It’s not very many, is it?

So what kind of politics do most of these young people express? The short answer: the two traditional ones. They are either left-liberals, or else they fall into the broad category of right-wing, classical, free market liberalism.

The monopoly enjoyed by such politics hasn’t really been broken through yet. Nor will it be if no-one ever bothers to make intelligent arguments against it.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 05:33 PM | #

Desmond, I don’t claim to be an expert on Canadian political history, but I doubt if the changes were driven by Jews. As I wrote earlier, Australia had taken the same decision 4 years earlier, and there were hardly any influential Jews in our country at the time.

Nor does the statement by your PM of the time stand for much. Australian Prime Ministers of the 1940s and 50s said similar things. They were lying. At cabinet meetings in 1943 it was agreed to make Australia a multicultural country like America. Yet the public was told after the war that the immigration programme wouldn’t change the existing ethnic character of the nation.

Similarly, when the immigration programme shifted away from traditional sources the excuse given was that it was because of an insufficient supply of migrants. Another lie. The Government had actually rejected offers of more migrants from traditional source countries.

I’ll read up on Canadian politics when I get the chance, but if there was any non-liberal political tradition in your country, then it would have been the only one existing at the time in the Anglosphere.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 12, 2006, 05:53 PM | #

We really do exist in a media vacuum for some

Svy, here’s a test for you.

I don’t see how any of that is germane.

~~~

Yes, white elites have sold out en masse to globalism.  I don’t know many WNs who deny that.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on June 12, 2006, 06:15 PM | #

Mark Richardson says: If you were really serious in your politics, you would want to achieve something positive. And this means getting your own community’s act together. Which means persuading your co-ethnics to once again support their own ethnic interests and existence. Which means persuading them to drop the liberal politics which dominates their thought processes.
Spending all your time in complaint about the Jews is a way of giving up. You might as well be fishing or watching football.

A shared enemy is an extremely effective unifier and motivator.  Conveniently enough, whites have a deadly enemy not on just on our doorstep, but in every room of our house.  Our biggest problem is that most of us are not cognizant of this fact. 

I believe that the quickest way to achieve the goals you enumerate is to awaken whites to the enemy within.  You may view that as a negative objective, but in actual fact it is the most positive step we can take.

By the way, spending all your time defending the Jews and excoriating whites for falling victim to the Jewish manipulation of our genetic predispositions is not only giving up, it is aiding and abetting the enemy. 

Am I correct in assuming that you have not read “The Culture of Critique”?  If so, please read it.  It is the most revelatory book I have ever read. 

Still wondering if you are a dispensationalist Christian, a some-of-my-best-friends-are-Jews philosemite, or both. 

Having recently sat through a televised sermon in which John Hagee flogs his newest book, I’m convinced that anyone who follows the dispensationalist creed is absolutely nuts.

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2006, 06:27 PM | #

Luke, I was raised a Catholic. I’ve never met a dispensationalist Christian. I’m not sure there are any in Australia. Nor are there many Jews here, though I have met a few.

Luke, there have been many groups in the past basing their politics on an anti-semitism. The fate of nearly all is to be relegated to the fringe. It is an old, tired, failed politics and not the “effective unifier” you speak of.

Finally, let me repeat my main point. The people we need to attract to get anywhere at all are not held back by the idea that “I can’t support my ethny because it will upset the Jews”. This is not the idea which needs to be tackled.

They are held back because they fall into an established politics in which ethnic existence is simply not recognised as part of a value system.

So the point is not to “excoriate whites” as you put it, but to recognise that the politics adopted by the white political class is a damaging one which needs to be “repented” from.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on June 12, 2006, 06:52 PM | #

Mark- The jews base their politics (and almost everything else they do) on anti-“Otherism”, and it’s been quite successful for them, albeit on a cyclical basis. 

Why shouldn’t anti-“Otherism” work for us as well?  Are Caucasians so genteel that we can’t hate another group?  Are Jews so special that no one can plausibly hate them? 

In point of fact, anti-“Otherism” is probably the most widespread and successful organizing principal in political history. 

More specifically, it is impossible to claim that anti-Semitism per se has not been a successful national policy on a very frequent, though impermanent, historical basis.  (Not to imply that the policy is inevitably impermanent). 

You are failing to recognize that the white failures you point out are strongly encouraged, if not actually caused, by the conduct of Jews.  Have you read “The Culture of Critique”?

Posted by ben tillman on June 12, 2006, 07:27 PM | #

This I don’t get. The human intellect is not such a fine instrument. It often goes wrong. It doesn’t require external manipulation to go wrong.

The problem is not the intellect; it is the input.  When the intellect analyzes false data, it reaches false conclusions. 

On such a fundamental a point as “should I attempt to survive?” it most certainly does require manipulation from the outside.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 12, 2006, 07:29 PM | #

This question of what works has been thought about and answered in Europe.  Overt truth-telling about the JQ is a political encumbrance.  European nationalists have filed it firmly under Pending, and got on with the job of courting electoral respectability.

Posted by ben tillman on June 12, 2006, 07:47 PM | #

What’s wrong with double standards?  There’s something to be said for the idea that a group’s responsibility is proportional to its “groupness”, which doesn’t smack of a double standard to me at all.

Exactly.  Jews, who have excelled all others in the West in their degree of “groupness”, explicitly recognize the concept of collective responsibility, as Salo Wittmaier Baron acknowledged.

And The Jewish community applies this concept in its dealings WITH US.  It is not a double standard for us to apply the same principle; it is the application of a reciprocal standard.

Posted by allotmentkeeper on June 12, 2006, 08:33 PM | #

Mark, your patience in this thread is appreciated. I don’t necessarily disagree with everything your antagonists posted, but you alone were right about everything.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 12, 2006, 09:38 PM | #

European nationalists have filed it firmly under Pending, and got on with the job of courting electoral respectability.

Not so much European, as Jewified non-Jews.

Posted by Sigurd on June 12, 2006, 10:44 PM | #

That Jews are at the head of every degenerate movement is beyond dispute, and so we should recognize this tendency, undeceived.  Perhaps the real helpfulness of these relatively anonymous forums is to gain consensus on this.

Still the sickness is ours.  And a man doesn’t get sick without first being weak or prone to it. Then again he doesn’t get sick without the sickness. It is a bit of circular argument we are engaged in here.

Though to those who think it is useful, outside of forums like this, in public, in politics, at this moment, to lay the blame at the Jew’s feet, I think that perhaps you’ve romanticized this idea of the European’ s chivalric forthrightness and singular sense of truth, and may even have begun to believe that truth is as important as life, that truth is life.

As Nietzsche counseled: the tree of knowledge and the tree of life are not the same.  Who honestly believes it is politically expedient to blame the Jews? And likewise, who honestly believes Le Pen and Griffin and every effective nationalist is deceived as to the source of our problems?  The lie-even the lie of omission-is a terrible weapon to allow ones enemy but deprive oneself. Even our proudest ancestors weren’t too “noble” for the Trojan Horse.  They preferred victory.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on June 12, 2006, 11:32 PM | #

Good points, and I agree with you, Sigurd.  I’m not saying that WN politicians who want to be elected rather than simply garner publicity should extol anti-semitism during their campaigns. 

I just thought it might be fruitful to try to convince Mark to reconsider his beliefs.

For what it’s worth, I’ve begun to broach the topic with family, neighbors, and friends.  It ain’t much, but it’s better than doing nothing.  If I truly had the courage of my convictions, I’d take a more public stand, but I too have to be pragmatic.  Depressingly, even with friends and acquaintances it’s difficult to win converts. 

I have no doubt that anti-Semitism will at some point in the future return as a powerful unifying and motivating force in Western societies.  In the interim, it could and probably does serve the same purpose among an unfortunately small cadre of clear-thinking individuals.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 13, 2006, 10:13 AM | #

Read this quote carefully:

Guardian
Jews mark 350 years since UK return
Tuesday June 13, 2006 6:23 AM

Mr Grunwald said: “This is an opportunity for us to look back on what we have achieved while we have been here, and also to show just what it is possible to do as an immigrant community, which is to integrate fully into the life of this country without losing our distinctive identity.”

O’Farrell sums up well what has been achieved.
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/punch.html

Posted by Alex Zeka on June 14, 2006, 10:09 AM | #

They believe that people are essentially blank slates, and are infinitely adaptable or malleable to whatever individualism and the free market requires of them

If we are all identical, then what price individualism? In other words, how can anyone be a believer in the blank slate and an “individualist”?

Libbos are just confused.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 14, 2006, 12:52 PM | #

As a natural conservative, Alex, you understand individualism to be the realisation of one’s nature.  Liberalism has it that freedom is the means to individualism.  The “way” is necessarily political.  For a conservative, however, freedom is a psychological attribute of the realised individual - which means of attainment is far more interesting and resistant to explanation than mere politics.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 14, 2006, 04:52 PM | #

As a natural conservative, Alex, you understand individualism to be the realisation of one’s nature.  Liberalism has it that freedom is the means to individualism.  The “way” is necessarily political.  For a conservative, however, freedom is a psychological attribute of the realised individual - which means of attainment is far more interesting and resistant to explanation than mere politics.

Are you sure you aren’t from California?

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 14, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

If we are all identical, then what price individualism? In other words, how can anyone be a believer in the blank slate and an “individualist”?

Well put Alex! I have met liberals whose fall back argument was that “people are adaptable and will eventually fall in line with what a liberal society requires”.

Which hardly makes people sturdy “individualists” does it? If we can all be “whatever” then we can all be made compliant with the requirements of the ruling state/economic system/political ideology.

If, on the other hand, we are made to be something more definite, and to recognise what is worthy in ourselves and in what is external to us, then the individual can find a place and assert something about himself and his society.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 16, 2006, 06:36 AM | #

Are you sure you aren’t from California?

Geoff, it’s not good enough to leave freedom in the charge of liberals and liberalism.  We have to be able to account for it if we are to turn our own people from their present political addiction.  Being a Jeremiah, even a correct Jeremiah, won’t do it.

So, then, what is freedom (beyond self-indulgence and irresponsibility, of course)?  Why are we becoming less free when, after three and half-centuries of liberalism, we should be gods in Elysia?  What is it about the pursuit of the unfettered will that is so manifestly mistaken and untrue?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 16, 2006, 09:00 AM | #

“Seize upon the subject, and the words will follow” (Jim Kalb) “especially if you are Ashkenazik” (me)!!

The point being that Jim is capable of religious faith and can write, “If you don’t have the transcendent as a social presence then people go for fake transcendence — sex, drugs, transgressive behavior, whatnot. Will it always be possible to domesticate the impulse?”  I’m not ... not at all capable of that sort of statement, can’t think like that, and needs must mine my way to a different place in the “reme” from whence no worshipfulness proceeds.  Freedom of the human spirit is, for me, neither a gift of the Christian God nor of politics but of presence - and I don’t mean “social presence”.

That said, I don’t buy the “fake transcendence” that drugged-up, liberal half-wits lapse into, and which Jim happily excoriates.  Not for everyone.  The transcendence before which Jim makes his oblation is half-fake too, to me.  Without that fleeting thing, intentional self-consciousness, prayer has no meaning, and nor does faith, nor God Himself (except, in the latter Case(!), as a social support system for “His children” - the religiously susceptible).

So, faith-free liberal freedom-chasers deserve to be understood in their own terms ... and not merely as unfortunates of a faithless age.  The faith-filled cannot judge them aright, and nor can their God.

What, then, in a non-religious framework, is this domesticated impulse Jim mentions ... this wonderfully human desire to strive upwards towards wholeness, wisdom and autonomy?  A large question.  Suffice it for the moment to say that liberalism’s current answer - to make said striving a matter of, respectively, non-judgementalism, politically correct utterance and group rights - is much, much more than half-fake.  It’s wholly, completely, very definitely fake.

We live in an age of no true answer to the mystery of life.  How we need one.

Posted by Alex Zeka on June 16, 2006, 10:07 AM | #

Freedom and actual individualism (and individuality) can be facilitated through politics- a politics that takes into account our nature and ultimate inequality.

A politics based on mistaken beliefs requires us to be other than what our instincts and traditions tell us we should be: and that requires coercion (non-freedom). Libbos have simply grabbed the word freedom, and defined to mean whatever they please it to mean. Or, perhaps, they have defined freedom as the state they (and they alone) wish to be in. Drugged up, mostly.