GUILLAUME FAYE AND THE HOLOCAUST

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 06:05.

GUILLAUME FAYE AND THE HOLOCAUST

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


I am against anti-free-speech laws. However, how would the situation change if people were free to speak about the Holocaust? Speaking about the Holocaust will not save Europe. In his latest book (THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION, published in France in July 2007), Guillaume Faye denounces Holocaust “revisionism” (or denial). Famous Holocaust “revisionist” Robert Faurrison already denounced Faye for that transgression against rightist dogma. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that Holocaust “revisionism” is utterly inconsequential and counterproductive to the cause of racial liberation. Naturally, Holocaust “revisionism” is mostly the home of raging anti-Semites (who try to downplay the anti-White policies of the Nazis). Faye is a progressive European nationalist and hence on our side. Most Holocaust “revisionists” are not on our side. Also, it is not “the Jews” who criminalized Holocaust “revisionism” but gentile officials of gentile countries.

From what I have heard, there have been no cases of people being persecuted in Israel for Holocaust “revisionism.” Nationalists might use Holocaust “revisionism” as a tool for the propagation of free speech but most of the time these nationalists bite themselves in the foot by also glorifying the Third Reich (which, let us admit it!, can hardly be considered a beacon of freedom of expression) and staying silent when certain Eastern European countries criminalize “denial” of Communist crimes. Most European nationalists openly practice a double standard.

Guillaume Faye most certainly supports Israel. He made this quite clear in many private conversations I had with him in Moscow. Also, in THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION, he makes his anti-anti-Semitic position quite clear. He even lambasts Holocaust “revisionists.” Faye has absolutely nothing in common with the “Jewish conspiracy” theorists which, unfortunately, still infest the New Right. Luckily, though, more and more people are realizing that this way of thinking is anachronistic, counterproductive and definitely not based in reality. Since Faye is possibly the most important thinker of the New Right, it seems fair to say that the New Right is not a monolithic anti-Zionist beast. Some rightists’ anti-Semitism leads them to embrace Islam as their new identity. Their obsession with the Jooooz leads them directly into the camp of Europe’s deadliest enemies.

Anti-Semitism is a form of paranoia. Paranoia is a mental disorder. Hence, anti-Semitism is a mental disorder.

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:17 | #

I support Israel.  I support Jews who make aliyah.  I would like Jewish ethnocentrism to lead every Jew to the Wailing Wall and the beaches of Eilat.  Let their people go.

It is, Constantin, wrong-headed beyond all belief to want a highly-ethnocentric, highly intelligent, anti-Christian competitor in one’s living space.  If you want that, you are wrong.  The Holocaust as history, whatever that history actually was, proves it.  The Holocaust as anti-European narrative proves it.

They who shall dwell apart really should dwell alone, for both our sakes.

Get real, Constantin.  Love your own kind and not another, who will only be too pleased to see you misunderstand the meanings of kinship.

I agree that the German and German-American desire to save the reputation of the Third Reich is counter-productive.  What salvation may be possible is best accepted as a gift of a changing, pro-European zeitgeist.  It is not a driver of change.

Now, Constantin, enough of the pro-Jewish error.  You cannot love each of two competing peoples, but must choose.


2

Posted by Rusty on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:10 | #

“Speaking about the Holocaust will not save Europe.”  CvH, who here said it would?

But truthful inquiries into our own history are not counterproductive.  Truth is what civilization needs, ours does anyway.  Just because many revisionists are nutballs does not make revisionism itself nutty.

And what do you mean by, “anti-Semites”?  Do you mean those who viciously hate all Jews, those who really don’t like them, those who just don’t want to be around them, those who are simply wary of them, or those who merely dislike some of them?  Don’t you see how nebulous this word is?  And you use—no, ‘hurl’ is a better word—it the same way the hatefilled Jews do, to silence inquiry.

” “Jewish conspiracy” theorists which, unfortunately, still infest the New Right. ... anti-Semitism is a mental disorder.” 

I cannot believe you think this. Your position seems so insane that I must be misunderstanding you.  Are you saying that everything that DD and KMac says makes them “Jewish conspiracy” theorists—nutcases?  Is that who you are talking about?  Or are you talking about people like Henry Ford, or Charles Lindburgh, or Nixon, or Billy Graham, or Popes past?  Or are you talking about those regular people, like me, who are simply interested in discovering and discussing the truth? 

Your language is not the language of a clear thinker.

“Faye is a progressive European nationalist and hence on our side.”  Really?  You had better check your position again; I doubt you are on my side.


3

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:42 | #

“The Holocaust as anti-European narrative proves it.”

How can an historical event be an “anti-European narrative”? Because it makes the Nazis appear in a bad light? Because the Nazis were pro-European? Please explain. Also, I do not see why I have to “choose” since most Jews and Israel are already on our side, meaning that they face the same enemy - namely militant and aggressive Islam. I do not think that legitimate criticism of Jews is crazy. However, it is clearly insane to think that Jews collectively are somehow conspiring to destroy our race. First of all, most European Jews are part of our race. Second, most Jews that hurt the interests of our race do so because they are after money and power and not because they are following some devilish plot, laid out by the Talmud. In this regard, those Jews are no different from White gentile race traitors. Why the need by the anti-Semitic nutcases to always single them out?

Constantin


4

Posted by John on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:07 | #

Noone could have possibly done more to encourge the radical elements among Muslims than the Zionists and Americans have since the end of World War II. There was no Islamic terrorism to speak of before then. Arabs, Persians and Turks were content to live in their homelands before then and not bother anyone.

An 80 IQ people who have difficulty developing a walkie talkie are no threat to the West militarily. Someone made the laws and international laws and EU directives to mass-import Miuslims into European homelands (and who was behind the lawmakers)? The people turn a deaf ear to the Arab nationalist, Palestinian and Persian grievances and do everything they can to encourage and provoke the little asymmetric warfare the Muslims are able to pull off (and help them out with it more than we know: Lavon affair, USS liberty, Mexican parliament plot, etc) are coincidentally the same ones who benefit from the countermeasures and increased state power and chaos, rioting and lawlessness their policies engender. Any stable, prosperous, orderly, polite and gentlemanly white nation is anathema to them—the closest you’re going to get these days is Switzerland and they are vilified in their efforts to keep it that way.


5

Posted by Matra on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:56 | #

staying silent when certain Eastern European countries criminalize “denial” of Communist crimes.

That’s the first I’ve heard of that. Which countries have outlawed denial of commie crimes?


6

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:20 | #

They who shall dwell apart really should dwell alone, for both our sakes.

Seconded.


7

Posted by Rusty on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:48 | #

“Why the need by the anti-Semitic nutcases to always single them out?”

CvH, Jews single themselves out.

Jews are not White; at least most do not really consider themselves White.  If they did they wouldn’t be so free with the anti-Semite label, which they throw at every White person who argues for White self-rule or White self-determination.  If they were part of the White race then the term anti-Semite (“racist”) wouldn’t carry the meaning it has today; no White person could be racist against Jews.  For how can a White be racist against another White?  Your argument is illogical.

CvH, you think you can partner with Jews and still maintain your autonomy.  You are dead wrong, just like the collaborators before you.  The communist movements here in the US, including the open-borders movement, were led and funded largely by Jews.  Organized Jewry worked very, very hard to bring the third world, including Muslims, into the US.  Organized Jewry worked very hard to break White control of the U.S. and it has largely succeeded, and is openly glad of it. 

Jews have always been the leaders in promoting communistic propaganda through government, academia, and the media.  They were the loudest and most indefatigable ones pushing Marxist, Trotskyist, and Freudian ideologies on us.  They were the leaders in the “civil rights” (communism) movement, where Blacks and Whites were forced to fight each other, both sides losing in big ways.  Some of their most powerful leaders are in the White House now, continuing their Marxist program under the label “neo-cons.”  They control the major opinion-making newspapers and magazines, viciously persecuting anyone who does not tow the PC (communist) party line.

Many of our schools now have yearly mandatory tours of their local Holyhoax museum (there are many of them).  They openly, boldly, unashamedly indoctrinate our children into their wacked out delusions.  And you don’t think we should say anything about it or ask any questions?

How can you ignore or not know these things?  For some mysterious reason, a few people here at MR have respect for your opinion.  I cannot see why.


8

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:49 | #

In his latest book (THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION, published in France in July 2007), Guillaume Faye denounces Holocaust “revisionism” (or denial).

As some of you may know, I have been emphatic that American racialists should nurture and rehabilitate our own traditions. This is but the latest example of my disappointment with the ‘European New Right’. A few years ago, de Benoist was complaining about how ‘materialism’ in America kills the soul (as if we have any shortage of religion here). Now, or so I have been told, he’s in favor Muslim inclusion in France.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that Holocaust “revisionism” is utterly inconsequential and counterproductive to the cause of racial liberation.

I don’t think Holocaust revisionism is of much relevance to the rehabilitation of racialism in North America. It’s something of a time waster. That said, I don’t see any reason to pile on the revisionists with the Jews, especially when the latter are pushing ‘hate speech’ legislation here in the United States and Canada.

Faye is a progressive European nationalist and hence on our side.

The Jews are not “on our side.” For that matter, neither is international Communism. This is a fancy of your own imagination that has no basis in reality.

Most Holocaust “revisionists” are not on our side. Also, it is not “the Jews” who criminalized Holocaust “revisionism” but gentile officials of gentile countries.

No, Jewish organizations have supported the criminalization of ‘Holocaust denial’ in Europe and North America. They have been in the vanguard of the anti-First Amendment movement here. That’s a good a reason as any to create a Trail of Tears for them all the way to Israel.

Guillaume Faye most certainly supports Israel. He made this quite clear in many private conversations I had with him in Moscow.

I have never read anything by Guillaume Faye. In light of what you have to say about him, I see no reason to. I’m somewhat prejudiced against the latest fashionable European intellectual trends. See my previous posts about the matter.

Also, in THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION, he makes his anti-anti-Semitic position quite clear. He even lambasts Holocaust “revisionists.”

Feel free to fax me when the Jewish community reciprocates his little olive branch.

Faye has absolutely nothing in common with the “Jewish conspiracy” theorists which, unfortunately, still infest the New Right.

I don’t believe in a “Jewish conspiracy” either. You make it sound as if there is something secretive about what Jews do. No, they lobby the government openly on Capitol Hill. They lobby state governments across America. I have seen them doing it with my own eyes. I have had to respond to letters, emails, and phone calls from Jews before.

Luckily, though, more and more people are realizing that this way of thinking is anachronistic, counterproductive and definitely not based in reality.

What has been said about the Jews that is not based in reality? Jews try to manipulate our foreign policy to benefit their co-ethnics abroad? That’s true. They were intimately involved in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa? That’s true as well.

Since Faye is possibly the most important thinker of the New Right, it seems fair to say that the New Right is not a monolithic anti-Zionist beast. Some rightists’ anti-Semitism leads them to embrace Islam as their new identity. Their obsession with the Jooooz leads them directly into the camp of Europe’s deadliest enemies.

I’m not part of the ‘New Right’. I don’t have much respect for weird European ideas either: Communism, Fascism, Postmodernism, Nazism, ‘National Futurism’ or whatever. It’s always something new - and a distraction from our own traditions.

Anti-Semitism is a form of paranoia. Paranoia is a mental disorder. Hence, anti-Semitism is a mental disorder.

*sigh*

You would think that here of all places we wouldn’t have to listen to Von recycle Adorno and Horkheimer.


9

Posted by William on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:26 | #

“First of all, most European Jews are part of our race.”

This would come as a surprise to geneticists. A rabbi in Chicago is genetically more similar to a rabbi in Bucharest then either is to their host population. Long residence in Europe no more makes a Jew an European than residence in a barn would make him a cow.

“Second, most Jews that hurt the interests of our race do so because they are after money and power and not because they are following some devilish plot, laid out by the Talmud. In this regard, those Jews are no different from White gentile race traitors.”

As the historian Christopher Dawson once noted, culture is derived from cults. The Talmud is the central historic document defining the Jewish religion and identity. It displays a horrendous hatred of non-Jews, which is made incarnate in the Jewish identity through Jewish culture. Since a man is more likely to abandon his principles than his prejudices, even if a Jew abandons belief in God and leaves the synagogue, that does not mean that he loses his antagonism against gentiles. The only thing that may change is the mode of its expression. Also, seriously do you really believe that the major Jewish organizations, such as the ADL and others, who hate white nationalism and work against white survival, are doing so simply to increase the individual wealth of their members?  Judging from the last sentence of this quote, in your view it is licit to hate “White gentile race traitors,” but not to do so to the Jews, who through their communal organizations are undermining and attempting to destroy European-American culture. Does not the distinction implied in this sentence of your reply between “white race traitors” and Jews logically also imply that Jews are not in fact part of our race?

“Why the need by the anti-Semitic nutcases to always single them out?”

As Kevin McDonald and others point out, though the Jews are not a sufficient cause to account for white decline, they are a necessary cause. The Jews form a malign elite in our countries and use their positions to further the decline of our societies and peoples by pathologizing the norms of European-American culture and existence. By their influence in the media, academia, show business, etc. the Jews have succeeded in creating a situation where, in the words of philo-semite Ernst van den Haag, “we are all Jews now.” Without the constant vigilance against Jewish influence provided by those, whom you call nutcases, such as Dr. David Duke, few would succeed in achieving the intellectual coherence and the clarity of vision to effectively act for our collective survival and the preservation of European-American genetic interests.


10

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:41 | #

Constantin,

You are still not clearing yourself sufficiently away from the subject at hand.  We are getting “your views” of WN and (the only occasional) NR anti-semitisim, as if the commenters here live in that house.  You haven’t caught up with us yet.  If you had you would find that your position is intellectually untenable and ours is morally unimpeachable.

Look, anti-semitism is the mirror of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in every respect save one: it is reactive.  The aggressor is not the European host.  So anti-semitism enjoys a (slight) moral advantage over its Jewish mirror.  Self-defense is defensible.

But that’s the totality of it.

The question then arises as whether rational thought about the Jewish contribution to the political and philosophical life of the West is permissible.  If it is, and the mere fact of acknowledging the existence of Jews as a group prosecuting their own ethnic interests is not in itself anti-semitic and, oh dear, therefore illegitimate, then we can progress to a position of enlightened debate on the matter.

Enlightened debate is not, I think, anything you would disparage.  But it is also not a stage for Constantin von Hoffmeister to model contentiousness.  Clear yourself away from the firing line, and debate others’ analysis - always assuming you have something of value to add.  Value, obviously, doesn’t stretch to always eye-catching but intelligence-insulting little gems about mental disorder.

Please be cautious about and aware of your environment.


11

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:23 | #

This would come as a surprise to geneticists. A rabbi in Chicago is genetically more similar to a rabbi in Bucharest then either is to their host population. Long residence in Europe no more makes a Jew an European than residence in a barn would make him a cow.

See the ‘Are the Jews White?’ thread by Robert Reis. We settled this question there. Jews are not ‘white’ in any meaningful sense of the word. They cluster at the genetic level with other Levantine populations. Generally speaking, Jews don’t think of themselves as ‘white’. They don’t act like they are ‘white’ either. Far from it.

Do ‘pro-white’ Jews exist? Sure, a handful. There are some Zionists who think opposing Muslim immigration to Europe is “bad for the Jews.” They are ‘pro-white’ to the extent that adopting that position is “good for the Jews.” There are Jews like Eugene Volokh who support some level of anti-Semitism because it is “good for the Jews.” Isn’t that comforting?

Let’s play the ‘good Jews’ vs. ‘bad Jews’ game. Do you know of a single Jew - just one - who would support the exclusion of his destructive co-ethnics from Western lands on purely moral grounds? I don’t.

When you peel the apple down to the core, you will find that there are really no ‘pro-white’ Jews after all. The ‘pro-white’ Jew will take the side of the ‘anti-white’ Jew, not the pro-white Gentile who would exclude the troublemaker.


12

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:27 | #

Jews have always been the leaders in promoting communistic propaganda through government, academia, and the media.  They were the loudest and most indefatigable ones pushing Marxist, Trotskyist, and Freudian ideologies on us.

Rusty,

Von is unlikely to be persuaded by this argument. After all, he is a Bolshevik himself.


13

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:39 | #

Look, anti-semitism is the mirror of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in every respect save one: it is reactive.  The aggressor is not the European host.  So anti-semitism enjoys a (slight) moral advantage over its Jewish mirror.  Self-defense is defensible.

But that’s the totality of it.

GW,

That’s a very important point. I’m pleased to see that you have brought it up. Let’s leave aside the whole question of Nazism. It is not really surprising that Jews would resent the Third Reich and seek its destruction, or Imperial Russia for that matter.

Ask yourself: who were the best friends of Jews in the world? 1.) the philo-Semitic Calvinists of the Jim Crow South and 2.) the philo-Semitic Calvinist Afrikaners of Apartheid South Africa. American Southerners and Afrikaners both fought in the Second World War against the Third Reich.

Now, how did the Jew repay the American Southerner and the Afrikaner? With the Freedom Riders of the 1960s in Alabama and Mississippi and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

The Jim Crow South and South Africa prove that the hostility of Jews to racialism has nothing to do with Gentile ‘anti-Semitism’. It’s nothing but cultural and racial hatred on their part.


14

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:44 | #

So, Constantin, would you say that CSULB Professor of Cognitive Psychology, Kevin MacDonald suffers from the mental disorder of anti-Semitism?

What are the criteria for diagnosis?


15

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:47 | #

Nelson Mandela standing with Jew Joe Slovo (former leader of the South African Communist Party), first raised, Red flag in the background.


16

Posted by Matra on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:16 | #

Though I agree with Scimitar’s remark about Jews undermining even philo-semitic peoples I’m not so sure the Afrikaners fit into that category.

Though Israel and SA eventually established good relations, for geopolitical reasons, Afrikaners were not anywhere near as philo-semitic as Southerners are today. During the Second World War most Afrikaner nationalists were sympathetic to Nazi Germany and the decision to enter the war caused bitter division between Afrikaners and Uitlanders. Their main cultural organisation, the Ossewabrandwag, banned Jews from membership. Prime Minister Verwoerd often raged about the Jews having too much influence. Pro-Nazi Afrikaner radio presenter Erik Holm was released early from his treason prison term when the Afrikaner Nationalists came to power and some Dutch Reform Church ministers raised money to bring his wife and children to SA from Germany. Many Afrikaners also believed Jews played a significant role in starting the Anglo-Boer War and the anti-Apartheid movement.


17

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:26 | #

Perhaps I have been misinformed. It is my understanding that Afrikaners are very philo-Semitic. I have been told this many times by Afrikaners online and people I know and trust who have lived in South Africa for many years. I have always been told this is related to their religion.


18

Posted by Matra on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:56 | #

They might have become more sympathetic to Jews in general from the 1970s on when both SA and Israel became hated by the same people.

Ulster Protestants, half of them Calvinists, are pro-Israel and have no history of anti-semitism. But they are pro-Israel because they see Israelis as fellow victims of terrorism and they admire the way they retaliated against their enemies, unlike the British. Perhaps more importantly Ulster Protestants are pro-Israel because they see that Irish Catholics are pro-Palestinian and conclude that they have the same enemies as Israel. I think that is more important than religion because this pattern can be seen throughout the last half century: Catholics were pro-Mandela and Mugabe, Protestants pro-Afrikaner and Ian Smith; Catholics celebrate MLK and the American Indian, Protestants fly the Confederate battle flag and consider the white cowboys to be ‘goodies’; even in the former Yugoslavia after initially sympathising with their fellow neutrals represented by the Yugoslav state most Irish Catholics with an opinion on the matter became more sympathetic to Croatia and Bosnia while most Protestants were pro-Serb.

Though Calvinism no doubt plays a role in the lack of hostility to Jews among Afrikaners, Southerners, and Ulstermen, I don’t think it is the main reason.


19

Posted by desmond jones on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:24 | #

Now, how did the Jew repay the American Southerner and the Afrikaner?

It’s a misleading position. Jews see nothing to repay. WWII was not fought to save the Jews. Jewish refugees were rejected by Canada and the US. The British mandate in Palestine limited migration of European Jewry to that territory. Neither the USAAF nor the RAF deemed it important enough to allocate resources to bomb Auschwitz or the rail feeder lines. Jews view, especially the Anglo-Saxon, as Nazi facilitators/enablers.

The excesses of WWII defanged scientific racism. Nostra Aetate opened the door for the anti-Christ to rule the Catholic church. The virility of KKK Protestantism fell upon fallow ground post-WWII. Currently, except in the few places where Christianity is powerful, NI/Eastern Europe, the only powerhouse that stands against Judeo/Liberalism is Islam.


20

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:34 | #

Very good comments thread!  The quality is outstanding.  Rusty, whom I haven’t seen in quite a while, has been posting some excellent comments lately, in this thread and others.


21

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:06 | #

It’s a misleading position. Jews see nothing to repay. WWII was not fought to save the Jews.

I agree. Jews did reap the dividends of our war effort against the Third Reich, though. Germany’s Führer had many hang ups, but softness on the Jewish Question was not amongst them.

The lesson that I take from that experience is that never again must nationalistic grievances between European states (and Diaspora nations, too) be allowed to get in the way of solving the Jewish Question. The Jew is an international problem and must be dealt with on that basis.

As for Christianity, we have plenty of that in America, every sect of it really, and it hasn’t provided an adequate defense.


22

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:08 | #

I think my question about KMac is fair and I demand a thorough answer from Constantine.


23

Posted by zusammen on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:23 | #

Some characteristically sober views written by Yggdrasil:

No subject enrages campus thought police more than holocaust revisionism. We debate every other great historical controversy as a matter of course, but influential pressure groups with private agendas have made the Jewish holocaust an exception. Elitist dogma manipulated by special interest groups has no place in academia. Students should be encouraged to investigate the holocaust story the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical event. This isn’t a radical point of view. The premises for it were worked out some time ago during a little something called the Enlightenment.

http://www.whitenationalism.com/ot/ot-08.htm

“Bigotry” and “intolerance” were code words invented by newly arriving Anglo-Saxons for the purpose of controlling the descendants of earlier Puritan and Celtic (Scotch-Irish) immigrants (many of whom settled in the South). Controlling these lesser “Anglo-Saxons” was a far more important task than maintaining dominance over blacks or Jews.

Viewed objectively, there is no evidence that the Jews arriving in the late 19th century did anything other than ape the social attitudes of the liberal wasp elites already here. Jews are quick studies. They saw the opportunity to become valuable allies to this firmly entrenched elite and they (naturally) took that opportunity.

http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-10.htm

In my view, Jews should have Israel and trouble us no more and the Zionist Gentile supporters go with them. The atheist liberals belong to North Africa, a classically multiracial region, where they may have a society of desired genetic consistency.


24

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:52 | #

Also, it is not “the Jews” who criminalized Holocaust “revisionism” but gentile officials of gentile countries.

Also, it is not “the Nazis” who perpetrated the “Holocaust” but bullets and carbon monoxide molecules. 

Or was it guns and diesel engines? 

Or Jewish skulls, rib cages, and lungs? 

I’m not sure, but you must agree it wasn’y the Nazis.


25

Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:05 | #

I think my question about KMac is fair and I demand a thorough answer from Constantine.

Several people here have noticed how Von doesn’t answer commentators. Marshall Lentini has an explanation for that. I reposted this from VNN Forum. Here are some of the most relevant excerpts:

http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/09/19/jew-realism-an-exchange-with-constantin-von-hoffmeister/

I’ve said it before, no doubt I’ll say it again and again: Big Von is just trying to get a rise out of you. He says it himself: he is here for amusement. He likes to play the ‘deep’ guy who knows better. Then, when he’s got you howling like cats, he adds to his conceit by limiting himself to a few stock one-line ripostes which give him (at least to himself and his buddies) the virtual appearance of haughty objectivity and tact; then he says hahaha a few times for effect. Every post by Big Von in this thread was reproduced a dozen times elsewhere, from VNN 1.0 to Skadi and back again. It’s an invariable routine he hits you with to make himself feel bigger, cooller, more aryan than you. Do yourselves a favor and ignore him.  . . .

Just as likely is it that Big Von will take all this demolition of his persona as no more than further occasion for preening, in fact I doubt he can do anything else at this point: for people like this, routine narcissistic self-deception is, as I’ve said, a defining trait, a psychological reflex they are usually not objective enough to identify and curb. And that is exactly what ails our boy Constantin. . . .

That’s how this game works. The narcissist, the solipsist thrives on attention: we are all damned for giving it to him, no matter how explicitly & exhaustively critical. In a way, the solipsist-narcissist pulls the entire world under his feet, reinterprets it as a reflex of his own imagined superiority, for though it is all an obvious charade put on for their own benefit, they still occasionally succeed in getting a rise out of someone, for they have inspired in them the feelings associated with being inferior, though the circumstances of such a relation have nothing to do with the exact, existing dynamic between them. . . .

Ideally every forum would have a sticky alerting newcomers to his eventual appearance, his nature and the rules of the game, so all can avoid indulging his tired, self-serving whimsy. (Too much organisation involved for WNs, unfo.) And you most certainly will not see him address any of this; he hasn’t before, and will never, for two reasons: first, he knows I am right, and doesn’t want to see himself bested in argument; second, somewhat related, is that to address this analysis would be a departure from his routine, which involves saying as little as possible to appear cool and discriminating. To actually defend himself would be to acknowledge the existence of a competing interpretation of his character. This is why he comes on sites like VNN when someone mentions his essays and acts out the routine: — he is safe when it is only WNs and himself. The WNs can throw their superficial accusations at him, he can delicately parry and feel like the bigger man swatting off so many incompetent fools. But add another voice, another line, another interpretation, and he’s lost; it breaks the rules of his game; and to play by the new rules is already to acknowledge defeat. The solipsist does not even want to think about being put on equal footing with someone else, and is actually incapable of considering that he has been shown up or proven wrong; their psychological condition is bound up with belief in their overriding superiority and correctness, and one would have to physically torture them to reduce them to a state of self-reflection.


26

Posted by desmond jones on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:23 | #

The answer is no, James, however, MacDonald is not a holocaust denier. The problem is that you cannot be a holocaust agnostic. Jared Taylor was excoriated by the Realist and Auster for essential taking an “I don’t know” position when askd by an e-mailer whether he thought six million Jews died in the Jewish holocaust. Being an agnostic is the equivalent of being a denier.

Views on the Holocaust

In April 2007, a correspondent asked Taylor, “the myth of the holocaust is a millstone around the neck of any nascent white nationalist movement. Where do you stand on this? Did the Nazis genocidally wipe out 6 million jews or did they not?” Taylor’s one line reply: “I’m not an expert on the subject, and it is not one into which I have looked.” Subsequent to this, the well-known paleoconservative Lawrence Auster learned of Taylor’s statement on the issue and an Internet debate ensued. Taylor further posted on the Internet that he did not have an opinion on the six million figure, in the same way that he did not know how many people died in the Armenian massacres or how many American soldiers died during World War II. Auster (who has spoken at an American Renaissance conference sponsored by Taylor) and his supporters argued that such a stance was akin to Holocaust denial, and that this was not surprising given Taylor’s close and longstanding friendship with Mark Weber, editor of the Holocaust-denial publication Journal of Historical Review and former editor of the neo-Nazi publication National Vanguard.[7]

American Renaissance posted a response on the matter, with Taylor stating, “I understand that estimates of the death toll range from four to six million”, and “to imply that I somehow doubted the Holocaust itself, is not only absurd but malicious.” [8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor


27

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:31 | #

“The question then arises as whether rational thought about the Jewish contribution to the political and philosophical life of the West is permissible.”

Of course this should be “permissible.” I thought I have made it clear by now that I do not think that LEGITIMATE criticism of SOME Jews is wrong. I merely object to the practice of lumping ALL Jews together, branding them collectively as enemies of the White race. This is clearly not true as there are many Jews who openly support Europe against its enemies. Kevin MacDonald conducts valuable studies. However, he neglects to mention all the non-Jews that are involved in the nefarious activities that he cites. If we should not be allowed to decide who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew, how come we are still allowed to decide who is a good White gentile and who is a bad White gentile? The majority of White gentile intellectuals are also actively working against the interests of Europe. Does that mean that ALL White gentiles are the enemy? Are we our own worst enemy? It is perfectly legitimate, in my opinion, to HATE White gentile AND Jewish race traitors. It is not legitimate, though, to argue that Jews AS A GROUP are out to get us as this is simply not the case. The Jewish Task Force openly supports a White CHRISTIAN AmeriKa. How are they out to get us? How are they, as a Jewish organization, working to undermine the Christian foundation of the West? Michael Levin, a Jew, wrote WHY RACE MATTERS. How can it possibly be construed that he is acting against our interests? And what about Rabbi Mayer Schiller? He is one of the most outspoken advocates for White solidarity. If European Jews are not White, does that mean that Heinrich Heine, Gustav Mahler and Baruch de Spinoza were not Europeans? I dare say they were GOOD Europeans.

Constantin


28

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:39 | #

“Now, how did the Jew repay the American Southerner and the Afrikaner? With the Freedom Riders of the 1960s in Alabama and Mississippi and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.”

That might be true. But what about the fact that many White gentiles also actively supported the Freedom Riders and the anti-apartheid movement? Many Afrikaners were heavily involved in the anti-apartheid movement! Again, why single out the Jews here? Also, what about the fact that Israel was one of the very few nations who OPENLY and ACTIVELY supported the apartheid regime in South Africa? How many White gentile nations supported it?

Constantin


29

Posted by agnostic on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:40 | #

I think GW’s approach is wise - re. the H, advocates for European interests ought to focus their attack on the criminal uses to which the H narrative is now put.

I do not think it wise or decent though for CvH to attack revisionists, or so carelessly throw around the terms rightist, denier, paranoia, conspiracy theorist, and so on. GW is right ... it’s as though he’s coming at these issues straight from high school.


30

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:44 | #

“After all, he is a Bolshevik himself.”

No, I am not, and I never said that I was. But think what you will.

Constantin


31

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:48 | #

“I do not think it wise or decent though for CvH to attack revisionists”

Why is not “decent”? After all, the “revisionists” also routinely attack everybody they disagree with as “exterminationists” (a ridiculous term). Is it “decent” for people to personally attack me because they disagree with some of my views?

Constantin


32

Posted by agnostic on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:48 | #

You think the Jews are us CvH, but do they think we are them?


33

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:50 | #

“the criminal uses to which the H narrative is now put”

Ey? Come again?

Constantin


34

Posted by agnostic on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:52 | #

CvH: Is it “decent” for people to personally attack me because they disagree with some of my views?

It’s indecent not to if your views pose a threat to them.


35

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:53 | #

“You think the Jews are us CvH, but do they think we are them?”

Counter questions: Does the majority of us think we are us? Do Catholics think Jews are Catholics?

Constantin


36

Posted by agnostic on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:05 | #

CvH: Counter questions: Does the majority of us think we are us? Do Catholics think Jews are Catholics?

The majority of us know we are not Jewish and that Jews see themselves as distinct from us. You are alone; your Jewish friends Auster, Levin, and Schiller, demand Israel for Jews alone, and the rest of the world for Jews and their lap-dogs.


37

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:32 | #

That might be true.

I would say that is a pretty damning indictment of the Jews.

But what about the fact that many White gentiles also actively supported the Freedom Riders and the anti-apartheid movement?

I’m well aware of that. It doesn’t really matter though how many whites are anti-racists. That doesn’t license or excuse destructive Jewish behavior. Moreover, it is non-responsive. If there were no Jews here, there would be no Jewish problem. It’s that simple.

All negroes are not violent criminals, but violent criminals are disproportionately negroes. If the negro was excluded on a racial basis, crime would be less of a burden and problem for whites. The fact that there are also white criminals is irrelevant.

Many Afrikaners were heavily involved in the anti-apartheid movement!

See here for more information on Jewish involvement in the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

http://forum.occidentaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=6838&postcount=16
http://forum.occidentaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=6839&postcount=17
http://forum.occidentaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=6840&postcount=18

Prominence of Jewish names continued to glare in periodically issued government gazettes listing persons banned or restricted in various ways for falling fould of the increasingly sweeping repressive legislation. Sensitive to the implications for the public image of the Jewish community, the Board of Deputies monitored and filed such lists as they appeared in official gazettes and the press. One example is a particularly comprehensive list issued in November 1962, containing 437 names of persons who were suspected of being former officeholders, members, or active supporters of the banned Communist Party. According to a Board of Deputies memorandum, gauging by names alone at least 62 of the 132 whites listed were Jews. A later gazette dated 25 August 1967 listed persons (all white) who had been officeholders, members, or active supporters of the banned Congress of Democrats. Of the 35 names, 18 were identifiably Jewish.

Shimoni, 60-61

Again, why single out the Jews here?

You know very well why we single them out. Jews are international mischief makers. They seem to cause problems for us wherever they congregate in large numbers: the U.S., Germany, Russia, Poland, Hungary, South Africa, etc.

What do the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and the Third Reich all have in common? They were the most prominent race regimes of the twentieth century. All had a Jewish problem. Jews played an important role in the demise of all three.

Also, what about the fact that Israel was one of the very few nations who OPENLY and ACTIVELY supported the apartheid regime in South Africa? How many White gentile nations supported it?

“Throughout the 1950s the foreign relations between Israel and South Africa developed cordially enough, although diplomatic representation remained low-key. Only Israel maintained a permanent diplomatic mission. Although by the late 1950s there were already signs that Israel was developing close relations with several African countries hostile to South Africa’s white regime, Prime Minister Verwoerd himself could comment in conversations with Israel’s minister plenipotentairy, Katriel Salmon, that he appreciated Israel’s restraint regarding the international crusade against South Africa. Verwoerd added pointedly that this contrasted with the difficulties he was experiencing with the Jewish community, whose members had disappointed him by mostly voting nay in the plebiscite on declaration of South Africa as a republic.

A crisis was precipitated in October 1961 when at the United Nations some African states launched an attack on the South African foreign minister unprecedented in its severity. He was none other than Eric Luow, well remembered by Jews as a foremost anti-Semite in the pre-1948 period. Amid the clamorous support of many of the African delegates, the Liberian representative moved that Luow’s speech be struck from the record. Although this did not pass, the General Assembly did roundly censure Luow, and Israel voted in favor of this censure. In white South Africa this news was received with much indignation. With the exception of Holland and Israel, all the Western states had abstained from voting or absented themselves from the debate. This made Israel’s offense against white South Africa particularly conspicuous.

Gideon Shimoni, Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa (Lebanon, NH 2003), 47

“Not long after the Eric Luow incident, Israel took another step toward alliance with white South Africa’s enemies at the United Nations. Whereas a clause calling for diplomatic and economic sanctions against South Africa met with the opposition of the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western States, Israel again conspicuously aligned itself with those who voted in favor.”

Ibid., 48

“What were the considerations that determined the Israel Foreign Ministry’s policy? There can be no doubt that Israel’s overriding motivation was to gain the diplomatic support of African states as counterbalance to the chronic international hostility it had to face from the Arab States and the Soviet Union and its satellites. This interest was reinforced by moral repugnance for the racism that apartheid signified.”

Ibid., 49

“When an anxious appeal was made to Minister of Finance Dr. Doenges, he commented sternly that after South Africa had gone to great lengths to be helpful to Israel, Israel had now “slapped South Africa in the face and ganged up with her enemies.”. . .

. . .Since Israel continued to vote with the Afro-Asian bloc against South Africa, reprecussions upon South African Jewry was exacerbated. Die Transvaler, for example, said that the hostile behaviour of Israel toward South Africa destroyed whatever compatibility had ever existed between the dual loyalties of the Jews in South Africa. “The Jews will thus now have to choose where they stand. . .with South Africa or with Israel. It can no longer be both.”

Ibid., 51


38

Posted by agnostic on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:45 | #

CvH: “the criminal uses to which the H narrative is now put”—Ey? Come again?

Today’s Daily Mail letters page:

Holocaust horrors

LABELLING events in Armenia, Serbia and elsewhere as ‘holocausts’ (Mail) detracts from the real Holocaust - the mass extermination in gas ovens during World War II of at least six million men, women and children, just for being Jewish.

The uniqueness of this genocide was not so much its industrialised cruelty or its historically unprecedented scale, but the fact that it formed part of a Nazi plan to destroy every Jew on Earth.

Some people - including the Armenian 812th Battalion and the Serbian State Guard - directly helped the Germans with their Holocaust.

Others, such as Italy and Japan, collaborated as allies. Many so-called neutrals did nothing to stop the Holocaust. Hardly any countries before or during the war were free from anti-Semitism, the Holocaust ‘rationale’.

The Muslim world is infected with it today and it is spreading throughout the internet.

Since every Jewish person alive today is ipso facto a survivor of Hitler’s extermination plan, he or she is entitled not only to consideration, but also reparation from a world of bystanders or collaborators to virulent anti-Semitism, past and present.

And the Promised Land of the Chosen People surely has first call on financial and military protection from a guilty Gentile world.

JUDY C. GOLD, Manchester


39

Posted by John on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:24 | #

Check out this article.  I nearly fell off my seat. http://digg.com/world_news/Stalin_responsible_for_WWII_according_to_Israeli_magazine_WTF I think something we might see something earth-shaking revealed to us soon.


40

Posted by Red Baron on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:24 | #

Dear Hoff:

Respectability, you see. It is respectability. Yes Yes the holocaust is a terrible exaggeration and the Germans have been drawn through the mud, but those revisionists… revisionists! Well the name alone is disreputable.

Hoff,  you Germans have never understood deference and respect, what with your old King prancing around Europe making an ass of himself… well he’s gone, Adolf is gone, so you see the power of respectability. Ho Hum, I suppose you dirty shirts will never understand that.

It is not about right or wrong. It is all about seeming. No come along.


41

Posted by Rusty on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:20 | #

Hoff is a sophisticated troll, a sociopathic miscreant of WN and racialist BB’s.  His addition here is most unfortunate.


42

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:29 | #

“What do the Jim Crow South, Apartheid South Africa, and the Third Reich all have in common? They were the most prominent race regimes of the twentieth century.”  (—Scimitar, 7:32 AM)

Scimitar left out the fourth member of this group:  Israel.  (In actual fact, every country on the planet outside the Eurosphere is a member:  Japan, China, the Subcon countries, every country.)

“Also, what about the fact that Israel was one of the very few nations who OPENLY and ACTIVELY supported the apartheid regime in South Africa?”

Israel is not a democracy in the sense in which that term is generally understood.  It’s a national socialist apartheid régime.  What we hear constantly about its being “a democracy” or “the only democracy in the Near East” is pro-Israel PR. 

(That was an excellent comment by Scim, by the way, as comments by him generally are.)


43

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:30 | #

Hoff is a sophisticated troll, a sociopathic miscreant of WN and racialist BB’s.

What makes me a “troll” and a “sociopath”? Please explain. Actually spare me. Considering that you are the one throwing personal insults around (probably because I do not worship at the altar of anti-Semitism/inverted Jew worship), it seems that you are the real troll here.

Constantin


44

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:30 | #

The great trick, Constantin, is not to make yourself the issue.  That way, your interlocutors can rely upon the normal corrective of sound argument ... that is, when you make a statement that is proven incorrect (for example “Anti-Semitism is a form of paranoia. Paranoia is a mental disorder. Hence, anti-Semitism is a mental disorder.”) they - your interlocutors - know that you will be gracious enough to acknowledge the fact and not make that mistake again.

Since we are all comrades in the fight for the survival of our peoples, this sense of respect and cooperation is necessary and valuable.  Someone who breaks it by NOT acknowledging really very basic error but, on the contrary, proceeds to engage in argument with protesters places himself outside the fold.

This does not mean that difference of opinion is impossible.  It means that when differences have been resolved with the victory of one side or the other, they really HAVE been resolved.  There is no room for the stubborn egoist here.

So, do you accept that, in so much as it is reactive, anti-semitism is not a form of paranoia?  Do you accept that Kevin MacDonald is not a paranoid?

It is, incidentally, important to you personally that you take this opportunity to disavow your past appetite for controversy, and lend yourself to the general effort.  Nobody will mind your critique if it transpires that you are right, and that the principle you are serving is the same one they are.  But if criticism is made for its own sake, that’s another matter.

For the record, I consider it beyond the obvious that revisionists are courageous people, and whether or not everything they say is right, they deserve more respect from us than your flippant charge of paranoia.


45

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:58 | #

these nationalists bite themselves in the foot

Best…mixed metaphor…ever.

Funny, I was just thinking about denial of THE holocaust, and reading the latest screeds at Wikipedia.  Funny stuff if you have a free hour.

No room for persons skeptical of the party line on THE holocaust.

Want more genocidal amusement?  Go to antiwar.com and read that Serb fella’s stuff about the emergent Balkan towelhead narrative.  The parallels are unmistakable.

From what I have heard, there have been no cases of people being persecuted in Israel for Holocaust “revisionism.”

Israel isn’t the scene of the crime.  In Israel, jews generally have no need to formalize their dominance in most cases.  Of course, I don’t mean this to refute your obviously true statement about European speech laws originating with “gentiles.”

But truthful inquiries into our own history are not counterproductive.  Truth is what civilization needs, ours does anyway.  Just because many revisionists are nutballs does not make revisionism itself nutty.

I really am agnostic on the matter.  I take shots at Holocaustianity whenever appropriate (because it’s so easy), but I’m absolutely open to persuasion on the matter.  No one seems interested AT ALL in persuasion though, just finger-pointing and status-jockeying.

As for counterproductivity, that question goes right to the heart of the matter, doesn’t it?  If the revisionists are more right than wrong, then their behavior is productive.  If the Holocaustians are more right than wrong, then revisionist behavior is counterproductive.  If revisionists are mostly right, then revisionism alone could utterly destroy Holocaustianity (in the broad sense).

Your language is not the language of a clear thinker.

Obviously it is not, since he makes no effort to explain himself.

most Jews and Israel are already on our side, meaning that they face the same enemy - namely militant and aggressive Islam

I’m guessing this is your political raison d’etre.  Yes?

However, it is clearly insane to think that Jews collectively are somehow conspiring to destroy our race.

What’s insane is being of European descent, shedding PC programming, looking around for a sufficient period, and then coming to the conclusions you have.  Which of those two endeavors have you not undertaken?

First of all, most European Jews are part of our race.

That’s like saying blacks and whites are incapable of divergent racial interests because they’re both members of the human race.  Back to race 101 with you.

Second, most Jews that hurt the interests of our race do so because they are after money and power and not because they are following some devilish plot, laid out by the Talmud.

Money is a secondary interest for the jewish elite (c.f. Hollywood & the gulags, Hollywood & Mel Gibson, Walt & Mearsheimer, etc. ) or at least, not the only primary interest.  In other words, there’s some money jews don’t want.  In other other words, money’s hard to spend when you’re dead.

In this regard, those Jews are no different from White gentile race traitors.

Nonsense.  Have you argued these matters before?  My guess is you haven’t.  Jews betray their group interests by acting in favor of white group interests (in specific contexts - see the excellent point about “good jews” vs. “bad jews” above; read it as many times as necessary); Europeans betray their group interests by acting against same.

Why the need by the anti-Semitic nutcases to always single them out?

Try the search functions here, or at Stormfront.  You’re asking first-day Jews 101 questions.

Kevin MacDonald conducts valuable studies. However, he neglects to mention all the non-Jews that are involved in the nefarious activities that he cites.

WTF?


46

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:31 | #

Constantine wrote:

How can an historical event be an “anti-European narrative”?

Events are interpreted. They can enter into narratives that carry political meanings as a consequence of how they are interpreted. Everyone knows that, including you.

The undisputed fact of Jewish suffering during World War II now carries political meanings. Many of those meanings - I would say most - are anti-White and anti-Western. Anyone who opposes the Holocaust’s anti-racialist meanings - e.g. everyone who reads this blog - therefore has an interest in opposing the vehicle that conveys them. No one here should defend the Jewish Holocaust.

Think of Jewish wartime suffering as a Rorschach test and the Jewish Holocaust as the results of the test. The results, as expressed in countless Holocaust films and Holocaust museums, enable us to understand what most Jews think of us. No one held a gun to their collective head and forced them to transform their wartime suffering at the hands of NS Germany into an anti-Western narrative, nor did their suffering bear that meaning on its face. They were not compelled to see anti-Western meanings in the fact of their wartime suffering. They incrementally created their Jewish Holocaust all by themselves. Our only contribution was keeping quiet while they worked, for fear that they might call us anti-Semites if we complained.

***

“I don’t blame Germany for the Holocaust; I blame Christendom for the Holocaust.” (Hyam Maccoby of the Leo Baeck Institute for Jewish Studies in London)

“The scale and terror of the Holocaust makes it clear that Jews are innocent and a wronged people, murdered and abandoned to their fate. This makes Christians, even Christians who were not in Europe at the time, a guilty people.” (Jewish novelist Ann Roiphe)

“We [Jews] remember that the food they [White Europeans] eat is grown from soil fertilized by 2,000 years of Jewish blood they have sprinkled onto it. Atavistic Jew-hatred lingers in the air into which the ashes rose from the crematoria.” (Rabbi Dov Fischer, vice-president of the Zionist Organization of America)

“In Europe, which bears the mark of Cain for its complicity in the Holocaust, the Arab-Israeli conflict has become a means of absolving guilt.” (Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism)

“The heart of every _authentic_ response to the Holocaust ... is a commitment to the autonomy and security of the State of Israel.” (Emil Fackenheim, Holocaust theologian)

“The guilt of Germany is the guilt of the West. The fall of Germany is the fall of the West. Not only six million Jews perished in the Holocaust. In it Western civilization lost its claim to dignity and respect.” (Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, another Holocaust theologian)

“It is clear that Christianity will not be able to overcome its legacy of guilt for the Holocaust without a major purging of its sources of Jew hatred ... The capacity for major development can come only from recognition that the Holocaust is an orientating event in Christian history.” (Rabbi Irving Greenberg, influential Holocaust promoter)

“What is needed [in the US] is a kind of denazification.” (Noam Chomsky, left-wing Zionist)

“In truth, Auschwitz signifies not only the failure of two thousand years of Christian civilization, but also the defeat of the intellect that wants to find a Meaning - with a capital M - in history.” (Elie Wiesel, professional survivor)

“The vast majority of the Serbs are animated by a particularly virulent variant of the nationalism characteristic of Western civilization.” (Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Harvard Holocaustologist)

“The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a nearly successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God himself.” (Abraham Foxman, ADL national director)

“The world is divided into two parts: those who actively participated with the Nazis and those who passively collaborated with them.” (Rabbi Shlomo Riskin)

“Merging Holocaust Studies into Jewish Studies is the wrong approach. It simply sends the wrong message. That the Holocaust is the most traumatic event in the death and life of the Jewish people since the destruction of the Second Temple goes without saying. But study of the Holocaust is also to study the pathology of Western civilization and its flawed structures. It must not be hidden away by false bracketing of courses.” (Dr. Marcia Sachs Littell, director of the National Academy for Holocaust and Genocide Teacher Training)

“Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed - not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.” (Noel Ignatiev, Jewish academic)

***

After a short explanation of how the tour [of the Tolerance Museum (aka “House of the Shoah”) in LA] would proceed, we were pointed toward two large doors. Above them, bright red neon signs designated one door “Not-Prejudiced,” the other, “Prejudiced.” On a nearby video, a rather sarcastic actor challenged the visitors to consider whether or not they were prejudiced. Then each of us was instructed to choose the door that matched our attitudes. As the already humbled mass ambled herd-like toward the “Prejudiced” portal, I opted to try the “Not-Prejudiced” door. It couldn’t be opened - it was fake. So began the brainwashing of yet another group of young Americans.

The first part of the tour is an emotional barrage of film clips and still photos showing racial strife, riots, and suffering Third World children. There may have been a European-American pictured without a Ku Klux Klan robe, but if there was I missed it.

At the Tolerance Museum
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p-7_Paine.html


47

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:47 | #

I merely object to the practice of lumping ALL Jews together, branding them collectively as enemies of the White race.

If all Jews were excluded, there would be no Jewish problem. The solution is a mere three words, a single meme, and a willingness to act upon it.

This is clearly not true as there are many Jews who openly support Europe against its enemies.

Is that because they consider Islamic immigration “bad for the Jews,” which it is, or because they sincerely identify with Western civilization?

Kevin MacDonald conducts valuable studies. However, he neglects to mention all the non-Jews that are involved in the nefarious activities that he cites.

That’s not the focus of his research. His topic is Jewish in-group/out-group behavior as seen through the lens of evolutionary psychology. There are other books that address this subject which arrive at similar conclusions.

If we should not be allowed to decide who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew, how come we are still allowed to decide who is a good White gentile and who is a bad White gentile?

I’m not interested in playing that shell game. I don’t believe in treating people as individuals. “Individuals” have group identities in addition to personal ones. Jews are motivated by salient in-group/out-group considerations like we are.

The answer to your question is that Jews are not white. They’re Jews. Jews are not a part of my in-group. They don’t think of themselves as white. A white co-ethnic of mine might be misguided, but he lacks a tribalistic animosity towards me rooted in history. I don’t have much in common - genetically or culturally - with these Levantine ghetto creatures.

The majority of White gentile intellectuals are also actively working against the interests of Europe.

This is a red herring. That’s true, but irrelevant.

Does that mean that ALL White gentiles are the enemy?

No, you are referring to traitors. The traitor, or enemy sympathizer, is not necessarily the enemy.

Are we our own worst enemy?

Yes, I would agree. We are ultimately to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today. There are aspects of our culture which enable parasites like the Jew and the negro. That’s another problem which needs to be addressed. Turning the spotlight from one problem to another in no way diminishes the seriousness of the former.

It is perfectly legitimate, in my opinion, to HATE White gentile AND Jewish race traitors.

You are arguing here that we should treat people as individuals, not as group members. No, I disagree. A misguided white anti-racist liberal doesn’t hate me - militate against me - because of my race or ethnicity. The Jew does. The negro does. The objection of the white liberal to racialism is usually moral and caused by discourse poisoning. With the Jew, it is tribal.

It is not legitimate, though, to argue that Jews AS A GROUP are out to get us as this is simply not the case.

Typology of Destructive Jews:

1.) An organized effort at the political level by the Jewish community to “fight anti-Semitism” and “fight racism” and promote what they perceive to be Jewish interests, in particular, slavish support for the Zionist project in Israel.

2.) The individual arsonist who, for whatever reason, dislikes whites and has a historical/tribal axe to grind. Their efforts are not really coordinated, but this is the largest part of the problem. These cultural arsonists would not be problematic if they were not at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and so on, at CBS, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times and Washington Post, in Hollywood, etc.

3.) The ideological fanatic, or true believer, who has the effect of bringing destruction in his wake in pursuit of his idolized abstraction, whatever it might be.

4.) The diverter who claims to be pro-white, but who skillfully works to harness the energy and enthusiasm of Gentiles behind Jewish causes like “supporting Israel” and “fighting anti-Semitism.”

5.) The peasant, or common Jew, who supports the Jewish war effort against racialism.

The Jewish Task Force openly supports a White CHRISTIAN AmeriKa. How are they out to get us?

The Jewish Task Force is for Jews. They are for whites, as a secondary concern, insofar as whites push Jewish interests.

How are they, as a Jewish organization, working to undermine the Christian foundation of the West?

Go to the Jewish Task Force forum. Ask them a single question and report back to me. Would the Jewish Task Force support the exclusion of ‘bad Jews’ from Europe and America?

Michael Levin, a Jew, wrote WHY RACE MATTERS. How can it possibly be construed that he is acting against our interests?

That’s true. Then again, if this country was still white, as it was for over three hundred years, we wouldn’t need Michael Levin to write Why Race Matters now would we?

And what about Rabbi Mayer Schiller? He is one of the most outspoken advocates for White solidarity. If European Jews are not White, does that mean that Heinrich Heine, Gustav Mahler and Baruch de Spinoza were not Europeans? I dare say they were GOOD Europeans.

Well, let them be GOOD Europeans in Israel. Oh, and they can take Hollywood and Seinfeld with them.


48

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:47 | #

Why the need by the anti-Semitic nutcases to always single them out?

Part of the answer is that philo-Semitic racialists keep defending the indefensible. If misguided racialists regularly defended Black criminals and Muslim terrorists, then we would be talking more about Black crime and Muslim terror.

Some rightists’ anti-Semitism leads them to embrace Islam as their new identity. Their obsession with the Jooooz leads them directly into the camp of Europe’s deadliest enemies.

That’s true.

On the other hand, Muslims _in Europe_ are Europe’s deadliest enemies. Muslims in Iraq and Saudi Arabia are not. Justified anger at neoconservative wars and projected wars explains, at least in part, some of the misguided sympathy for Islam.

the “revisionists” also routinely attack everybody they disagree with as “exterminationists” (a ridiculous term).

It is a perfectly sensible term. Orthodox Holocaustians believe that NS Germany planned to murder every Jew on the planet, thereby exterminating the Jewish people. That belief is false. Anyone who has seen Elie Wiesel on television, and has noticed that he is alive rather than dead, should know that the exterminationist thesis is untrue. The survivors who receive reparation payments from Germany are also not dead; their very existence, with hands still extended for compensation, is further disproof of the Holocaust’s central claim.

From the letter Agnostic posted:

The uniqueness of this genocide was not so much its industrialised cruelty or its historically unprecedented scale, but the fact that it formed part of a Nazi plan to destroy every Jew on Earth.

No one who thinks seriously about this statement of Holocaust uniqueness could possibly believe it.

Anne Frank was relocated from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen. She died there of typhus. Elie Wiesel was relocated from Auschwitz to Buchenwald. He is still alive. Neither Belsen nor Buchenwald is even alleged to have been an extermination camp. The German decision to move thousands of interned Jews from Auschwitz to internment camps in Germany is inconsistent with a plan to murder every Jew on earth.

Whether it is wise to challenge the Holocaust is another matter. Perhaps it isn’t. If you challenge the Holocaust you sound like a nut, and in Europe you might end up in jail. But respectability in this matter requires one’s passive acceptance of an obvious falsehood, a falsehood which is part of an anti-Western political structure, as many of its most vocal proponents openly acknowledge.


49

Posted by Proofreader on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:59 | #

Faye has some good ideas on inmigration (see his book: “La colonisation de l´Europe” 
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_colonisation_de_l’Europe), has coined a suseful term: “ethnomasochism”
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnomasochisme


but he also has had some rather bad and confused ideas (such as a his “archéo-futurisme” or “Eurosiberie”). I haven´t read his latest book, but from the sketch above, Faye seems to be willing to eschew the JQ for the greater good. I think he´s wrong. Not that I believe Jews are at the root of every evil in the West, but you can´t fix the West without coming to terms with the JQ, namely how Jews daily sabotage our societies and still play the victims.
What kind of “hespérial” would that be who ignores the enemies within the gate?

L’Hespérial, c’est l’Européen qui redevient conscient qu’il est Grec, et qui pour cela rejette l’Occident comme non-grec, en finit avec l’oubli de lui-même, aura “médité le désarroi du destin présent du monde”, et voudra consciemment accomplir la vue-du-monde grecque.

http://www.grece-fr.net/textes/_txtWeb.php?idArt=387


50

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:22 | #

A rather rare opportunity to comment, for now, in the MSM about the Holohoax :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1704480.0.0.php


51

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:59 | #

“So, do you accept that, in so much as it is reactive, anti-semitism is not a form of paranoia?  Do you accept that Kevin MacDonald is not a paranoid?”

Are you even reading my replies? I stated more than once that I think that Kevin MacDonald’s studies are valuable. No, he is not paranoid. His writings are solidly based on meticulous research. I do not consider MacDonald an anti-Semite. I consider anti-Semites those people that claim that Jews COLLECTIVELY are waging a silent war against the White race. Those people are clearly insane. Question: When did I ever make “myself the issue” (as you claimed)? I challenge this accusation. Furthermore, I will not concede defeat as I still think that I am right. And I will from now on ignore a large percentage of commentators here, especially the ones that deem it fitting to attack me on a personal level. I also refuse “to disavow my appetite for controversy.” Controversy stimulates reflection, if nothing else. I never make criticism for criticism’s sake. Even though I sometimes create art for art’s sake.

Constantin


52

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:05 | #

“Well, let them be GOOD Europeans in Israel. Oh, and they can take Hollywood and Seinfeld with them.”

Israel did not exist when Heine, Mahler and Spinoza were alive. That their contribution to European culture infinitely enriched our civilization is a fact. Cristopher Columbus would probably not have made his journey to the New World without the backing of Jewish financiers. Not to mention the theory that Columbus was probably of Jewish origin himself. Why are you so hell-bent on getting rid of constructive elements? Comparing Heine, Mahler and Spinoza to Seinfeld is beyond ridiculous.

Constantin


53

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:52 | #

“Art for art’s sake, money for God’s sake”,  10CC’s Lol Creme, a Jew pop music lyricist in a moment of racial frankness.

Jews have enriched Euro culture almost to death. How much more enrichment would this von Hoffmeister personage wish upon us? Enticement of Israelis to enter the EU and claim ‘citizenship by descent’?

There is no cure for stupidity so von Hoffmeister’s ailment will remain unamenable to treatment.


54

Posted by Daryl on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:58 | #

Faye seems to be a decent influence, I would say even a better influence than La Pen.  What does holocaust denial accomplish?  Nothing.  The people who do it are so obsessed with hatred of Jews that they are willing to say anything, no matter how they look.  These are the same people who claim Jews descend from Satan, and Jews are plotting to ruin their lives, the people who engage in the revisionism that Faye criticizes.  Israel should be supported both as a nationalist state (in theory) and as an ally against the unfortunate Islamic imperialism that the world faces.


55

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:42 | #

Satan, eh? Well perhaps some Americans believe that sort of guff but a lot more of the brainwashed (a blindingly swift process) idiots believe that Jews are God’s Chosen people.

Jews wont ruin your life if you continue to admire all the myriad benefits which their benign presence has brought to Euroland. Let me count the ways….


56

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:57 | #

Constantin,

Your use of the word “collectively” is too general.  MacDonald’s thesis is that all population groups occupying the same living space compete, and Jews in Diaspore have evolved a most particular survival strategy, involving critique and subversion, to that end.  It is a group-specific issue, not an individual-specific one.  It requires us to address it as a group phenomenon.

Now, there are plenty of otherwise right-minded people who suffer a ghastly reaction to the word Determinism.  But MacDonald is saying that Jewish group behaviour is biologically determined, not chosen and therefore not conspiratorial.  The culture of critique is not actually cultural at all.

So that leaves us with the question of whether Jewry can ever choose, as you claim, to behave differently at the group level from its behaviour in the past.  There is, sadly, no evidence that it can.  So most observers conclude, without a trace of irrationality, authoritarianism, paranoia or mental illness in their hearts, that physical separation is the best course for both parties.

Basically, to maintain your (not very hopeful) position to the contrary you have two options:-

1) Either you argue that MacDonald is an anti-semite, a paranoid and mentally ill, and the Jewish CoC, for want of a better term, is not biologically rooted and not therefore determined, and Jews can consciously choose behaviours coterminous with our natural rights and interests, or ...

2) You allow that MacDonald may be right, but the balance sheet for the Diaspore still shows more beneficial actions than harmful ones from the POV of our aforementioned rights and interests (obviously, we are not concerned here with faux-moral, feel-good liberal sensibilities - this is purely about our ethnic self-interest).

Either way, you have some serious work to do.  Simply waving Mahler and some Adorno-esque pathologisms in our direction does not cut it ... though it does get you attention, which is what bothers me.

Now, if you can’t make either of those arguments, have the good grace to examine your own position so we don’t have to revisit it again.


57

Posted by john on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:10 | #

There’s an online book by Georges Theil at: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/engl.html

John


58

Posted by Landulf II on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:25 | #

> Anti-Semitism is a form of paranoia. Paranoia is a mental disorder. Hence, anti-Semitism is a mental disorder.

WTF… I didn’t come here to get a dose of the Frankfurt School of Social Research.
What’s this, Little Green Bouncing Whackos?
It feels like I entered some kind of cyber time/space warp or something.

I guess I’m delusional…. oh well
Case in point: that Sarkozy cochon:

http://www.ejpress.org/article/16221
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2007/04/rebounding-and-assessing.html

I see a race-replacing crypto-Jew from Salonika !
Doktor, doktor! help me out!

What kind of idiot does this Hoffmeister guy think we are?
Even his germanic-sounding handle is fishy, sounds like a crypto.
Get lost, you’re a Judas Goat.


59

Posted by agnostic on Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:11 | #

Following Landulf II and Sarkozy, the Iran-hawkishness of Sarkozy’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, formerly of Medecins Sans Frontieres is suspicious. I mean why Iran? And why Iraq before that? Surely there are / were greater ‘humanitarian tragedies unfolding’ than in either of those relatively well-ordered and well-fed countries?

What can it be?


60

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:07 | #

I agree with Agnostic:  this morning I saw somewhere where Kouchner was warning that France might have to attack Iran.  As that stance bore no relation whatsoever to habitual French foreign policy positions, I said to myself, “What in the WORLD???  France might have to attack Iran???  What’s going on here???”  I looked at the guy’s name, which could be and probably is a French version of the Jewish name “Kushner,” and I said, “There it is, the guy’s Jewish, so that explains it.”  I then looked him up in Wikipedia:  his father was Jewish, his mother wasn’t.  OK, no more mystery — he’s very influenced by his father’s side of the family.  But wait ... how come there are all these Jews and half-Jews running things all of a sudden?  If they’re not actually in office they’re swarming around those who are, as their handlers and advisors.  Or am I seeing a pattern where none exists?


61

Posted by Name on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:38 | #

GuessedWorker wrote: “Look, anti-semitism is the mirror of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism in every respect save one: it is reactive.  The aggressor is not the European host.  So anti-semitism enjoys a (slight) moral advantage over its Jewish mirror.  Self-defense is defensible.”

Good point GuessedWorker, thinking as anti-Semitism as a form of defense that is. 

Anti-Semitism as a form of “genetic defense” might be a better phrase though, considering that nearly every single genetic group that has been infiltrated by Jews (especially the Ashkenazi Jews) have been virtually forced in to anti-Semitism in order to defend their genetic heritage and culture from this alien infiltration.


62

Posted by zusammen on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:01 | #

That their contribution to European culture infinitely enriched our civilization is a fact.

This is very similar to the “African slaves built the New World” argument. By the millions, they performed hard labor without compensation for centuries. Some corporations today exist by having first been founded in black slavery and its economic output. Thus, black Africans are an enriching presence in our civilization.


63

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:42 | #

Guessedworker,

since you do not feel the need to address any of the points I made, I neither feel addressing anything you mentioned. Your constant worship of Kevin MacDonald and Frank Salter does not convince me, no matter how often you might preach their theories. Actually, the current “discussion” bores the living daylights out of me (with all the tired cliches and all).

Cheers!

Constantin


64

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:37 | #

Constantin,

Let’s try to answer your “points” again, then.

First, you attach “paranoia” to those who perceive a collective conspiracy in Jewish ethno-aggression.  However, you exclude MacDonald because his work is sound.  That must mean you agree that Jewish ethnic-aggression exists, but is presumably an individual thing.  Except that isn’t what MacDonald - with whom you agree, don’t forget - actually says, is it?

Perhaps you would clarify what you think Jewish ethno-aggression actually is.  And perhaps you would clarify who these paranoid Euros who don’t agree with MacDonald but still see a collective force at work among Jewry actually are.

I don’t know one, off hand.

Second, you claim that Jews have contributed to the cultural wealth of the West, and cite one Enlightenment philosopher who was expelled from his own native community, one fully assimilated poet and one assimilated composer.  If the lesson to be drawn here is that assimilation is the only basis on which Jews are useful to us, all well and good ... do, please, say so.  It is an arguable point that assimilation restrains the impulse to critique.  It does not, of course, falsify that impulse.

But, in fact, you don’t claim that assimiliationism is the key.  You claim that cooperation is.  You claim that Jews generally are potential allies against Islam.

Let’s deal with the Islam issue.

First, Islam as a competitor culture ...

The plain, unavoidable truth is that if one takes the rather common view that Eurabia is a danger because of cultural aggression, one is being deflected elsewhere.  Muslims have scored no significant victories against Western culture, beyond a degree of government-inspired accomodationism.  The real culture war, which has had absolutely disastrous consequences for us, has been designed by Frankfurt School intellectuals and prosecuted for them by Jewish activists.

Now, Islam as a proxy for genetic invasion ...

Genes - children - are the most final issue.  We are defending our genes, our children ... not our tolerance for homosexuals or the equal respect we accord women.  No one calls the 893,000 mixed race “Britons” who declared themselves in the 2001 Census “Eurafrica”.  But the genocide of the bed chamber and the nightclub loo that SSAs inflict upon the English genepool seven nights a week is the worst fate that can befall us - absolute racial destruction.

So here’s a question for you, Constantin.  Do Jews generally want to stop the process of racial destruction?


65

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:51 | #

“Do Jews generally want to stop the process of racial destruction?”  (—GW, just above)

Any group aggressively promoting white-race-destruction-through-mulattoization-and/or-physical-displacement/replacement is a legitmate target for verbal counterattack, as a first step toward arriving at a solution to the whole mess:  any group, not just the most prominent.  Jews happen to be the most prominent, most aggressive single group promoting this stuff but we don’t have to prove that before we’re justified in verbally counterattacking them, only that they’re aggressively promoting it.  Someone who can’t already see Jews are one such group, someone who needs “proof” of that, is blind and you cannot spend all your time patiently explaining to a blind man the way things look.  You must finally leave him alone with his blindness and go talk to those who see, or you fritter away your own time, your own life, uselessly.


66

Posted by Tommy G on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:42 | #

Admittedly I’m one of the least knowledgeable people that posts at this site, but I think many here are giving Constantin a bad rap.

I just finished reading an article on his blog and he makes one heck of allot of sense. In fact, I find it very hard to disagree with him.

http://nationalfuturism.org/brideofthejews.html

Although I haven’t read all the entries Constantin contributed, I don’t believe he deserves most of the gratuitous and demeaning attacks directed towards him.

IMO, he has a legitimate point of view regarding the direction the white race should take for it’s ultimate preservation. Many vehemently disagree with him, but chasing him and others away that have divergent viewpoints from the regulars, would only serve to reduce this site to intellectual onanism.


67

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:53 | #

The ‘brideofthejews’ piece starts off claiming that the US controls Israel. The reverse is much more likely to be true.

Then we are invited to believe that the Jews’ Scripture-supported Zionist permanent theft of Palestine is somehow equivalent to Britain’s very temporary 19th Century colonial adventure in Rhodesia. In some British African territories, it was possible for a 4year-old relative of the tribal chief to have witnessed both his kinsman’s signing over control of tribal lands and the mid-twentieth Century Declaration of Independence from Britain.

Also, post-Ottoman Palestine did have modern property rights in place whereas the Africans would have experienced difficulty grasping the concept.

To paraphrase the witty Jewess, Dorothy Parker, “This article is not to be cast aside lightly - it should be hurled with great force.”


68

Posted by Kal Moses on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:20 | #

Sarkozy in the Jew York Times, [url=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/world/europe/24sarkozy.html?_r=1&hp;=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
“]here[/url]. We find the following:

1.  A man by the name of Jean-David Levitte now serves as France’s national security adviser.
2. Sarkozy favors returning France to NATO and aligning its foreign policy with Washington D.C.
3. Sarkozy favors sanctions on Iran.


69

Posted by Tommy G on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:27 | #

“The ‘brideofthejews’ piece starts off claiming that the US controls Israel. The reverse is much more likely to be true.”

Al, I believe you’re possitivly correct on that point. After that gem the reader must view everything that follows in the article with a degree of skepticism. But there was some thoughts expressed in that article worth serious reflection. Such as:

“Do White gentiles have no part in the destruction of Europe, is it ALL the Jews’ fault?I simply cannot relate to the sometimes absurd reasoning of White nationalists anymore. Basically, most (not all, fortunately) White nationalists live in a comic book world. They desperately need an enemy that is all-evil and all-powerful. They need a super villain on which they can pin ALL the blame. They refuse to see that shades of grey exist. The problem lies squarely with neoliberal capitalism and the accompanying multiculturalist and ultra-left-liberal agenda. While some Jews might be in on this, so are many White gentiles. Hence, it makes no sense to demonize an entire people, especially when one considers that many Jews are on the side of Europe and not her enemies.”

What he says sounds reasonable to me. I, myself, am very reluctant to conclude there is a Jew at the core of everything that is destructive towards Euro-Christians.

GW: states: “The real culture war, which has had absolutely disastrous consequences for us, has been designed by Frankfurt School intellectuals and prosecuted for them by Jewish activists.”

I can agree with the fact Frankfort school certainly had, and is no doubt having, a destructive effect on the moral fiber of Western Culture. But can a handful of Jews acually be the catalyst that set in motion the destruction Western civilization?

David Duke makes a convincing case that Jewish supremacism is causing the ethnic cleansing of people European decent all across the planet. After reading his books and web-site I am persuaded his evedence is undeniable. But then I read counter-arguments to Dukes’ that get my thinking going in a different direction. My mind is vacillating between the Jews are at fault, and the Jews are scapegoats.
When it comes to the JC, my thoughts are in a quagmire of ambivalence.

How can a small group of people have so much influence on hundreds of millions of Europeans and move their culture so so far to the left it is rejecting the will to reproduce itself? By use of the Hegelian dialectic perhaps?

http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic.htm

I believe something much more multidimensional, something that has many aspects to it. Something that is so illusive, cunning and slippery it’s seems impossible for mortal man to grasp onto.

I know this isn’t going to sit well with the atheists, but the atheist/Darwinists don’t set with with me. They expect me to believe a bunch of molecules got together out of nothing and from them out of it sprung man?!?!?

Yes, this is going to sound childish and simplistic to the sophisticates, but here goes:

It seems more likely that there are a group of evil Jews and gentiles conspiring together who are directed ‘somehow’ by a super intelligent higher metaphysical power (Satan). I believe Satan himself is orchestrating all this. He is working through his willing accomplices that are laying the false ideological groundwork that incite all the immorality and conflicts. Their primary goal is to rid the world of Christianity. Christ was and is their ultimate enemy….


70

Posted by Tommy G on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:42 | #

“When it comes to the JC, my thoughts are in a quagmire of ambivalence.”

Correction, should read:

When it comes to the JQ (Jewish Question), ...


71

Posted by Proofreader on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:32 | #

I´m on record saying that Zarkozy was a French version of the neocons and that Iran was next. That was on Steve Sailer´s blog.


72

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:02 | #

TG, you might consider the possibility that without much of modern Christianity’s veneration of the Chosenites, an abomination which makes possible the many Jewish references to those chimerical ‘Judeo-Christian values’, our cleverest foes would be hard-pressed to number all those literal Bible believing Zionists among their duped allies.

Of course, there are too many self-harming Aryans and they are not all Christians by any means. Many cultural Marxists are non-believers but are happy to labour side-by-side with Jews, secular or religious, in the fields of White destruction, but the training manual for the labourers is almost always Jew-authored, as KMac took pains to illustrate.

There is, in White racial awareness a quasi-Bell Curve effect, with a small minority (pro-Whites) on the curve’s right, a larger minority (auto-racist Whites) on left, with the middle consisting of those who don’t appear to care either way.


73

Posted by Tommy G on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:52 | #

“...but the training manual for the labourers is almost always Jew-authored, as KMac took pains to illustrate.”

I have to pick up a copy of “The Culture of Critique” by KMac.  I just bought copies of “The Dispossessed Majority” byWilmot Robertson, and “The Controversy of Zion” by Douglas Reed. I have my work cut out for me but when I’m through reading those two books, I plan to read KMac and Frank Salter’s, On Genetic Interests.

“There is, in White racial awareness a quasi-Bell Curve effect, with a small minority (pro-Whites) on the curve’s right, a larger minority (auto-racist Whites) on left, with the middle consisting of those who don’t appear to care either way.”

That’s probably the best, most concise, description I’ve ever read as to where we stand politically regarding racial attitudes. I’m going to “borrow” that from you.

Btw—I also agree much of what’s referred to as “Modern Christianity,” should be accurately called what it really is: Jeudeo-liberalism.


74

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 02:34 | #

“Do Jews generally want to stop the process of racial destruction?”

No, they do not. But neither do White gentiles. So what is the point? I am not going to follow your marching orders of treating Jews as a homogenous whole when they are clearly not.

Constantin


75

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:51 | #

“THE NEW JEWISH QUESTION,” OR THE END OF GUILLAUME FAYE

I would like to thank Fred Scrooby for translating Mr. Graf’s article.

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/11/20/the-new-jewish-question-or-the-end-of-guillaume-faye/



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: MR Radio: GW on “The poles of Helios”, Part 2
Previous entry: Brussels 9/11: the end of free speech

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Barcelona terror attack: 13 dead commented in entry 'Bastille Day terror on the French Riviera' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:47. (View)

Red Left beats Gary Cohn's worker's Disney commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:30. (View)

colored woman tears down statue commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 22:53. (View)

Gary Cohn disgusted by Trump, Bannon proud commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:18. (View)

Baltimore's Confederate monuments removed at night commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:09. (View)

Sarah Champion commented in entry 'Eighteen Convicted in Mostly Muslim Rape Gang, Police Paid Child Rapist Informant £10k' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:57. (View)

Cantwell: a new Hal Turner commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:19. (View)

Trump: "blame on all sides" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Wed, 16 Aug 2017 08:43. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:00. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:24. (View)

Unite Right Organizer, Kessler's poem White Devils commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 15:05. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:08. (View)

Baked Alaska may've been blinded commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:25. (View)

"couldn't just get out of the way" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:10. (View)

Robert E. Lee commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:02. (View)

Friendly Fire commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:18. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Mon, 14 Aug 2017 01:52. (View)

Alexander Baron commented in entry 'Melissa Barto's boyfriend kills her on suspicion that she was cheating on him' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 20:27. (View)

Didess42 commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:22. (View)

Reagan Tokes commented in entry 'Black hyper-assertiveness, lack of impulse control, predatory aggression & liberal natural fallacy' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:53. (View)

Fields' mother has Jewish name, "Bloom" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:12. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Next-level TRS: Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is actually Michael ‘Enoch’ ENOCKSON Peinovich-Sippel.' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 05:35. (View)

LeadEagle commented in entry 'Next-level TRS: Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich is actually Michael ‘Enoch’ ENOCKSON Peinovich-Sippel.' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 05:09. (View)

Heather Heyer commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 03:22. (View)

Alt-Right: Dubious headlines - "one Antifa dead" commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 02:28. (View)

photos of car attack commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 01:43. (View)

Faith Goldy on the spot commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sun, 13 Aug 2017 00:17. (View)

Red Ice hacked commented in entry 'Unite The Right? Let their instability emerge by contrast to our coordinated Left Nationalisms' on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 23:56. (View)

Italian employer won't hire her because.. commented in entry 'EUrAfrica: Whatever it is, it is worse than you might think.' on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:08. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:37. (View)

African zombie attack on Cueta, Spain commented in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 07:03. (View)

African invaders storm Cadiz, Spain commented in entry 'African Population Explosion - Augurs to Overwhelm Europe' on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 06:49. (View)

New Orleans: blacks commit 99% of homocides commented in entry '70% Black Baltimore: 1Yr sentences for illegal guns opposed b/c disproportionately impacts blacks' on Fri, 11 Aug 2017 05:14. (View)

2.66 BILLION dollar stadium for L.A. Rams commented in entry 'Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60's, 70's, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry' on Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:41. (View)

Dostoievsky on the J.Q. commented in entry 'BELARUSIAN NATIONALISM, A WHITE NATIONALISM' on Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:26. (View)

affection-tone