The “Searchlight”  Trots

Posted by Guessedworker on July 21, 2005, 07:06 AM | #

John,

I wouldn’t agree that many Jewish conspiracy theorists visit the site.  None write for it.

The dividing line here is that word “conspiracy” - a conscious plan.  This side of it is the non-conspiratorial view that Jews overwhelmingly pursue their ethnic genetic interests (Salterism) - or evolutionary interests (KMD) - by actively degrading the corresponding interests of their hosts.  Their cleavage to everything from uber-libertarianism to outright Trotskyism demonstrates a difference in opinion as to how their EGI can best be served.  But the degradation visited upon host interests proceeds in the same direction regardless of the political vehicle chosen.

Only very, very rarely will one find a Jewish soul courageous enough to cleave to the outright truth of the matter, regardless of all EGI.  Paul Gottfreid is such a man.  Another writer of honesty but, perhaps, less outright integrity - which is no criticism of him, because Gottfried is exceptional - is Larry Auster.  Stephen Steinlight has also spoken truthfully.

I see no reason to disbelieve what Auster and Steinlight have freely told us.  To do so is not to enter upon conspiracy theory.  In that sense, John, you are setting ablaze a strawman.

Posted by friedrich braun on July 21, 2005, 07:44 AM | #

“Only very, very rarely will one find a Jewish soul courageous enough to cleave to the outright truth of the matter, regardless of all EGI.  Paul Gottfreid is such a man.”

Jew Gottfried is much less excpetional than you think, as the following review of his book The Conservative Movement illustrates.

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index5.htm

Posted by Arkadian on July 21, 2005, 07:53 AM | #

Comparing certain heretical representatives of the supposed pre-war “Left” with the bogeyman of Hitler in tabloid manner as a psychological scare tactic is ridiculous. Was Teddy Roosevelt an evil fascist too? What is your agenda?

Counsel:  Transcend the 1) self-infatuation, 2) mental linearism, and 3) effeminate moralism.

I don’t think you get it, jonjayray. Your kosher, bourgeois conservatism of the Anglo-Judaic type is unneeded and historically doomed. Most of us are not dupes here, and don’t share the taboos you’ve internalized from modern society. Bringing up Hitler as consensually assumed Evil Incarnate we find laughable. When conservatism degenerates into idolatry of symbols instead of what the symbols represent, then revolutionary conservatism must appear. The trader and petty-managerialist mentalities have failed the Western world, and thus conservatives worthy of the name must arm themselves ideologically and spiritually as warriors heedful of the most ancient and functional principles, principles wholly hostile to the democratic modernist mind-set and the universal reign of the promiscuous rabblement which contemporary conservatism supinely tolerates. At this point of extreme and utter decadence in history, when ‘porno stars’ and their victimizers are invited to Republican fund-raisers, all genuine conservatives must become revolutionary. The simplistic right/left dichotomy is worse than useless.

Posted by no one on July 21, 2005, 08:13 AM | #

kosher judaic jew jew jooby joo

joo joo bees!

judy judy ju jooby joo

joo joo bees!

Posted by Guessedworker on July 21, 2005, 08:35 AM | #

Yes, well, “no one” ... if you would care to return to the thread and argue on the substance of the Jewish contribution to Western political life I’m sure we would all be fascinated.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 21, 2005, 09:25 AM | #

> conservatives worthy of the name must arm themselves ideologically

Ideology has sent millions of Europeans to their graves. I think we’ve had enough ideology.

But I understand the larger point you make.

Posted by sr on July 21, 2005, 10:33 AM | #

Roger Griffin defines fascism as “palingenetic ultranationalist populism”.  (Palingenesis is rebirth, recapitulation, or metempsychosis—remember Molly Bloom reading “met him pike hoses”?) Notice that the word “evil” does not appear in the definition.
Is the Subject Without Confines drawing near?

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 12:06 PM | #

Sometimes I can’t figure out who sounds more nuts, the ‘no ones’ of the world or the rabid anti-Semites.

Actually, strike that, I know who sounds more nuts, given the truth that threat-exaggeration is safer than threat-ignorance.

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 12:58 PM | #

Since I am notable on this blog for mocking antisemitic and Nazi views, that must come as some surprise to readers here.

In my opinion your mockery (accompanied as it is by nothing else) amounts to soft-peddling.

Posted by AD on July 21, 2005, 03:01 PM | #

I don’t think you get it, jonjayray. Your kosher, bourgeois conservatism of the Anglo-Judaic type is unneeded and historically doomed.

It’s called Anglo conceit.Usually goes a bit like:

“Threaten us?They love us!They want to imitate us and assimilate.Just add Christian ethics and a love of the free market and you’ve got an Anglo!It is beneath us brilliant Anglo-Saxons to assert ourselves too much,how primitive.Come one,come all,move in next door to the Anglo.Hell,outnumber us in our homeland for all we care.Come see us live,debauch our open minded daughters,excite our pallets with your exotic cuisine.Could we be any more outward-looking?Tell us how impressed you are….huh?huh?”

This really is disguised petty racism and supremacism, when what we really need is defensive racism,like any sane culture has.

Posted by jonjayray on July 21, 2005, 03:54 PM | #

“certain heretical representatives of the supposed pre-war “Left””

They were mainstream, not heretical.  Read the linked articles where I document that

“The trader and petty-managerialist mentalities have failed the Western world”

That is almost exactly what Marx said

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 04:26 PM | #

That is almost exactly what Marx said

That is almost exactly what Hitler said.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 21, 2005, 04:29 PM | #

The problem with Linder’s piece and to some extent MacDonald’s work is how does one quantify how much influence Jews have had influencing Western governments in their policies of multiracialism? Why did the US allow vast numbers of Irish/German Catholics to immigrate after 1840? A source of cheap labour? How much of the current mongrelization of Western societies is attributable the likes of Walmart and Pilgrim’s Pride versus the Jews?

Posted by john rackell on July 21, 2005, 05:25 PM | #

Slightly off-topic but since we’re talking about Searchlight “no bloodstains on our fingers” Trots, someone here might be interested in Thomas E. Wood’s interview with Humberto Fontova regarding Fidel Castro. It’s hilarious in a sick sort of way to see how racist the anti-racists are. Here’s a sampler:

“In fact, a high proportion of Batista’s army was black and mulatto, especially the officer corps. Castro and Che murdered 600 of them without trial in the first three months of 1959. Even the New York Times admits it. Had these massacres taken place anyplace else, they’d be called lynchings and the United Nations, NAACP, etc., would raise holy hell.  Imagine, in any other setting, a lily white regime (like Castro’s) lynching several hundred blacks, dumping them in mass graves, then getting a standing ovation by the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and Hollywood! Tom, compared to what Cuban-Americans see in the news every day, what Alice found on the other side of the looking glass seems perfectly logical.”

Actions unconscionable at any time and only goes to show that anti-racism is a fig-leaf by the left to hide their true intentions.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods47.html

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 06:00 PM | #

Desmond: I think your perspective is a bit off.  That’s hardly a problem of KMac’s.  He’s written practically the only work in its field and that’s his fault?

No, the cowardice of academia isn’t KMac or Linder’s problem, it’s our problem.

Maybe all this is symptomatic of the automatically-higher bar set for folks like KMac and Salter, neither of whom present their work as a theory of everything if I recall correctly.

I know for certain KMac has referred to his Judaism trilogy as (paraphrasing) a call for more research and discussion.

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 06:01 PM | #

I remember the same about TBC.  Never mind that rot, let’s just all piss on them from a very great height, they says.

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 06:05 PM | #

Actions unconscionable at any time and only goes to show that anti-racism is a fig-leaf by the left to hide their true intentions.
Well, in a broad rhetorical sense yes, but I think lots of leftists are relatively sincere, at least self-deceived to that effect.  We know the hypnotized never lie.

I think the Amren writer who theorized about “competitive altruism” has offered the best explanation for the x-factor of white racial behavior.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 21, 2005, 06:51 PM | #

“I think the Amren writer who theorized about ‘competitive altruism’ has offered the best explanation for the x-factor of white racial behavior.”

Svigor you didn’t happen to save the link for that, did you?

Posted by ben tillman on July 21, 2005, 07:30 PM | #

How much of the current mongrelization of Western societies is attributable the likes of Walmart and Pilgrim’s Pride versus the Jews?

They keep it going, but they had nothing to do with getting it started.  When cheap labor is available, one must avail oneself of it; otherwise one is at a competitive disadvantage.  The mass immigration that followed the 1965 Act (and the government’s decision not to enforce the limits on immigration from the Southern Hemisphere) produced a “race to the bottom”.

As for Sam Walton and Bo Pilgrim, I’m not sure what to say.  I’ve spent time in Bo’s hometown of Pittsburg, Texas, and I can assure you that the “mongrelization” that he participates is not due to any ideology cooked up in that milieu.

Posted by john rackell on July 21, 2005, 07:41 PM | #

I think the Amren writer who theorized about “competitive altruism” has offered the best explanation for the x-factor of white racial behavior.

Yes, Steve Sailer often ascribes white racial behavior to a competitive moral one upmanship among whites. Competitive altruism sounds compelling but I haven’t seen a full explanation of what it is.

Maybe the reasons are more mundane:  they are ultimately economic. If you graduate from an ivy league with a useless liberal arts degree and you want to work in non-profits, you will have the ethos of that leftist anti-white non profit. You have to go along to get along.

The same goes for newsrooms. There’s some diversity (eg WSJ vs NYT) but you can be made to follow the editor’s and newspaper’s viewpoint - lots of leftists at the WSJ but the tenor of the paper is not.

It’s the drawback of the division of labor (from another thread). People delegate to the MSM what issues society discusses at any given time. We don’t have much choice, just keeping up with the tax code is a full time job. So control the head you control the heart (and soul). But there is the ‘agency problem’: how do you know the guy you delegate to is doing your bidding or representing you. Look at the BBC, their hear-no-evil, see-no-evil of anti-white racism (like listing the dead of the tube bombing ethnic minorities first, to dupe people thinking the targets weren’t really whites) is propaganda against the British public: a failure of delegation.

Whoever controls the levers of power of these powerful institutions can shape society fundamentally. Trotskyists seem to understand this and have infiltrated and perverted British Trades Unions to the point that these unions don’t even object to outsourcing.

Anti-white attitudes, and any attitude, custom or belief, once ensconced in institutions can perpetuate indefinitely.

WNs have few (or none) competing institutions. It is unlikely they will duplicate the Trotskyist infiltration, so they should start creating their own (and create inefficiencies from a fundamentalist economic point of view) just as Fundamentalist Christians have done.

We made a bargain with the devil when we opted for this extreme division of labor. Economic considerations are as important as purely ethnic ones for an effective nationalism.

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 08:59 PM | #

Svigor you didn’t happen to save the link for that, did you?

http://www.amren.com/compaltruism/compaltruism.html

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 09:00 PM | #

It’s essentially what I refer to as “liberal white supremacy.”

Posted by Svigor on July 21, 2005, 09:05 PM | #

How much of the current mongrelization of Western societies is attributable the likes of Walmart and Pilgrim’s Pride versus the Jews?

I don’t downplay either one.  Rampant capitalism has causes its share of problems, in fact I’ll admit they might be the greater portion.

Posted by ben tillman on July 21, 2005, 10:15 PM | #

Yes, Steve Sailer often ascribes white racial behavior to a competitive moral one upmanship among whites.  Competitive altruism sounds compelling but I haven’t seen a full explanation of what it is.

“Yggdrasil” discusses something along these lines here:

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ms/ms-29.htm

Another perspective is that afforded by a study of Boyd & Richerson’s “Culture and the Evolutionary Process”.  Boyd & Richerson focus on “cultural transmission” (and, incidentally, believe that “cultural group selection” can produce what they call a “superorganism”).  One basic concept is that it makes sense for naive individuals to choose successful individuals as models for behavior.  It’s a bit complicated, but essentially Boyd & Richerson conclude that cultural transmission can produce a “runaway” effect like that noted by Fisher (1930) with respect to sexual selection.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 21, 2005, 10:59 PM | #

Thanks for the Amren link, Svigor.

Posted by arcadyian on July 22, 2005, 02:51 AM | #

johnjayray, would you categorize as ‘proto-marxist’ the great counterrevolutionary conservatives of the 18-19th centuries who viewed capitalism and collectivism as equal dangers to liberty?

Is not conservatism the upholding of unfading principles of order and health, instead of apriori worship of the status quo?

How can a civilization that rewards disease (e.g. the ‘sturdy capitalist enterprises’ of the carcinogenic fast-food industry and Levantine-dominated pornography) be anything but pestilentially subversive?

Conservatives must invoke something nobler within themselves than plebeian infatuation with ‘market principles’.

Nothing is more evident than that modern capitalism is just as subversive as Marxism. Americanism is soft Bolshevism.

In traditional Indo-European society, the money-oriented caste is always subordinate to the aristocratic and sacerdotal castes.

In ancient Ireland we see the Druides at the top of the hierarchy, then the Flyith or warriors, and finally the Bo-irig – owners of cattle.

Medieval society was structured around those who work (peasantry-bourgeoisie), those who fight (aristocracy), and those who pray (clergy).

The Third-Estate revolution (plebeian capitalism) merely prepares for the Fourth-Estate revolution (proletarian collectivism). The materialistic view of life on which both systems are based is identical. A civilization dominated by turnip-peasants and vendors is painfully acephalous, and that is why the modern world is inevitably headed toward entropy and nothingness.

Reflect: Where is the true subversion?

Posted by Svigor on July 22, 2005, 04:14 PM | #

You’re welcome Fred.  The stuff Ben T. posted from KMac in the other thread is a good read too.

Posted by jonjayray on July 22, 2005, 09:47 PM | #

“johnjayray, would you categorize as ‘proto-marxist’ the great counterrevolutionary conservatives of the 18-19th centuries who viewed capitalism and collectivism as equal dangers to liberty?

Is not conservatism the upholding of unfading principles of order and health, instead of apriori worship of the status quo?”

That’s a pretty confused question as it was the reactionary Tories who supported the status quo

Reactionaries and conservatives do tend to get mixed up as both respect the past—but to very different dregees and for somewhat different reasons.  But from Burke on, conservatives have never rejected change per se

Posted by Guessedworker on July 24, 2005, 06:07 AM | #

Conservatives do not reject change per se.  But change is apt to be an entirely promiscuous lover, and takes no heed of consequence.  Therefore, Conservatives discriminate for change as growth out of what is permanent and true.