Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:26 | #

I am glad to hear you have taken our grievances on board, GW, and I won’t bear any grudge against you for taking down my hit piece against John Ray. It achieved its desired result, at least for now. I don’t know what you said to John Ray, but if it has the practical effect of taking out the trash, then you have my unreserved gratitude.

Needless to say, I have saved a word document of that same hit piece (and, of course, I will gather more data, should the occasion ever require it), and should John Ray even look like abusing the integrity of this blog at any point in the future, particularly in such a disgraceful fashion, I’ll have no choice but to redeploy and reload. And there’ll be plenty more where that came from.

JJR, you have tested our patience very severely. We shall not warn you again.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:44 | #

Steve,

Don’t you keep an olive branch in your back pocket, or are all libertarians actually gun-toting hit-men? Yup, thought so.

Posted by john ray on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:59 | #

I rather liked Steve’s “Hit”.  It must have been a lot of work.  And Steve provided links so people could check the context so that is fair.

Put it on your own blog, Steve.  And perhaps you could also tell us there how you became an antisemite

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 02:15 | #

I was actually responding to that latest spam-and-run provocation but when I hit “preview” I got a blank screen. The post that I was putting up was quite venomous and now that it’s all over I’ve calmed down enough to realize it’s a good thing it never went through.

Anyway, let’s get back to business. You wrote

My correspondent wrote of the fringe and the mainstream, stating definitively that the motive drive to get the European people out of their present danger will come from the latter.

Indeed that is correct. However, he ignores the critical function carried out by the fringe in establishing where the mainstream actually is. I’ll let the brilliant radical left commentator Israel Shamir explain this concept by quoting from an essay of his:

One may doubt the inherent goodness of Traditionalists, Nationalists and Nativists. But should one exclude them from discourse? People often react to any reference to David Duke or Roger Garaudy or Abbe Pierre as our grandmothers to obscenity. This appears to be the good and correct approach to avoid causing undeserved distress to Jews. However, the equally extreme opinions of Jewish supremacists are being spread freely by the mainstream media. Thus, slanted discourse comes into being.

The problem is not only (not even mainly) in deflating the sacred freedom of speech. There are worse consequences. Joe Public, a silent participant in the discourse, is a sane, normal and good person. He does not choose one of the proposed extremes but seeks the middle ground on their spectrum. We all do it instinctively: when presented with differing tendencies, we try to capture the middle ground between the extremes. Good people slant discourse and pervert our judgment.

For instance, the media debates whether Iraq should be bombed right away, frisked first or left in peace. A good sane man, Joe Public, takes the middle ground and opts for the frisking. Our position - ‘stay out of Iraq for good and even forget its name’ - loses, for it is an extreme opinion, much like the ‘bombing’ one, and not the middle ground. In order for us to occupy the middle ground, discourse should include opinions as extreme as those of Muraviec and Perle, but together with their polar opposites.

It is very possible that these opinions will be as unpleasant to us as those of the Jewish chicken-hawks in the Pentagon. As an Israeli citizen, I wouldn’t enjoy an appeal to nuke Israel or to remove all Jews from positions of influence in the US. However, these unpleasant opinions would provide a much needed balance to the present assault of philo-Semitism. Joe Public, while exposed to these opinions, will take his middle ground. This good man will say: ‘Oh no, we should not nuke Israel! Maybe trade embargo and naval blockade will be sufficient’. Or: ‘Oh no, not our wonderful Jewish mayor, but Perle and Wolfawitz can go’.

An extreme position will usually lose. The adversary knows it and ensures the presence of his own extreme voices in discourse. David Duke is forever barred from participation in discourse for he was a KKK leader, but Yossi Halevy, an ex-member of the Kahane Band (surely racist) writes for the New Republic, and torture-promoting Dershowitz writes for the NY Times. In order to ensure they are not extremists, they bring in Nathan Lewin and Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni is a tenured professor at George Washington University and a friend of Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Abe Foxman. Lewin is a candidate for a federal judgeship. They call for the execution of the family members of suicide bombers.[1] After their prime appearance, Dershowitz comes in as a moderate and says, ‘the same level of deterrence could be achieved by levelling the villages of suicide bombers after the residents are given a chance to evacuate’, and the extremist Lewin disparagingly likens this to “using aspirin to treat brain cancer”). David Duke never reached this level of bestiality, but he is excluded from discourse while they are not.

Consider Israel. The full spectre of opinions in our country stretches from Jihad extremists who would like to expel all Jews to Marzel extremists who would like to expel and kill all Gentiles. In this spectre, my own position is but the middle ground: no expulsions, no killings, but peaceful life together for all the communities. In normal discourse, my position would win, and united free Palestine would come into being. But the discourse is slanted: at first, extreme Arab opinions are blocked. Then, moderate Arabs find themselves ‘extremists’ and are effectively blocked. Eventually the softest non-Jews - Ahmad Tibi and Azmi Bashara - take the place of extremists and are excluded from discourse.

The exclusion of one extreme causes the drift of the middle ground when the other extreme is not in place to plug it. Thus, instead of being in the dead middle, the supporters of equality for Jews and Palestinians find themselves at an extreme end. As extremists they are excluded from discourse. Though 30% of Israelis and Palestinians support the idea of one state with equal rights for all, according to a pre-Intifada survey by Haaretz, their opinion gets zero representation in discourse.

On the other hand, leaders of Jewish terrorist organisations regularly write for Haaretz.

[...]

Their Western counterparts, the Jewish chauvinists Conrad Black and Mort Zuckerman, are active participants in discourse by virtue of their ownership of a large chunk of media. But their mirror opposites, Horst Mahler or Nick Griffin, are excluded. Without these extremists, the moderate voices of the anti-globalisation and anti-Zionism are excluded as well, for they find themselves on the extreme. The founding fathers of American democracy were ready to die for the right of their opponents to express their opinion publicly, for they intuited that in order to promote one’s ideas one should ensure the presence of more radical voices on the spectrum.

[...]

Ingrid still does not understand the reason for German meekness. Otherwise she would call for true freedom of speech and full participation in discourse for the people she hates, the German extreme anti-Globalist right. The sheer presence of Horst Mahler in discourse would make the publication of my friend Michael Neumann’s well-thought piece the non-controversial intellectual exercise it was meant to be.

In France, Roger Garaudy is excluded and ostracised. The French sainted Abbe Pierre, who dared to express some modicum of support for the old ex-Communist, found himself excluded as well. For sure, the opinions of Garaudy are not to everybody’s liking; but his absence from discourse has turned very moderate people and friends of Palestine into extremists.

The post-WWII exclusion of the Nationalist Right was done for the best of reasons. But that was the case with the flies in China. The Jews always had strong influence in Europe, and in my opinion, not always a beneficial one. Still, before the war their influence was counteracted by the Church, by the non-elitist Left, by the Nationalist Right. The ‘no flies’ policy turned this strong Jewish influence into a decisive one, and the edifice of European and North American civilisation began to crumble like a house of cards. Globalisation, neo-liberalism and the withering of European culture are the results of lack of balance.

[...]

The problem is, good people are quite unable to stop the anti-Christian and pro-Jewish tendency, for the Jewish supremacists today control a major chunk of world media and wealth. Besides, the tendencies are unstoppable: they can only be counterbalanced. What good people can do is stop the opposite thought, and they do that very efficiently. In my essays I have frequently noted the advantages of Christian and Muslim universalism over Jewish particularism. The editor of La Fabrique, the good Jewish leftist Eric Hazan, refused to publish my essays, for “despite their literary qualities they include some ideas which are difficult to promote in France, namely, the superiority of Christianity”. I am sure Eric Hazan would not publish a treatise on the vast superiority of Judaism either, but it would be printed in millions of copies by the publishers of Goldhagen and Oriana Falacci. This has the look of job-sharing: Jewish supremacists promote Jewish supremacy, while the Leftists’ job is just to stop the balancing attempt by appealing to universal values. Thus good people participate in slanting discourse as much as bad ones.

The attempts to find anti-Semitism in the gentle writings of the friends of Palestine are enabled by the lack of real and explicit enemies of the Jewish paradigm in all its aspects from Soros to Sharon, from Judas to Maimonides, from Freud to Popper, from Podhoretz to Gusinsky, from Lubawitscher Rebbe to Sulzberger. Such people exist but their voices are silenced. We do not have to love them, or agree with them, but we need them as active participants in our discourse, as otherwise the middle ground of the Western world will remain somewhere between Peres and Soros.

For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists. If we accept their exclusion from discourse, Jewish bigotry will be tolerated while anti-Jewish bigotry is removed. Then, the middle ground for Joe Public will be ‘a little bit of Jewish bigotry’, or ‘Zionism lite’, in the words of my dear friend Bob Green.

Source: Discussions of Anti-Semitism

I strongly recommend you click on the link and read the essay in its entirety.

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 03:02 | #

And perhaps you could also tell us there how you became an antisemite

“Antisemite”?

JJR, you have the option of either accepting the olive branch gracefully or of starting all over again. You seem intent on the latter course. Before you proceed any further, I’ll remind you that you haven’t been able to deal with this:

First, that’s a disgustingly racist statement; you should be ashamed of yourself. To quote Israel Shamir,

The very emphasis on “anti-Semitism” is disgustingly racist, as if it were worse than racism against anyone else. People who decry “anti-Semitism,” instead of “racism” or “ethnic-prejudice,” are actually saying that there is something really special - and particularly bad - about discrimination against this one particular group. In other words, they are racists.

Second, how dare you presume we all share your racist view that Jews - and only Jews - are immune from group criticism. Next time you spout your racist filth remember to ALSO inform us of the racial theories that underlie such pathetic race-veneration. Is it because they’re “God’s chosen” or something? Unless you FIRST give us the racial theory AND we then agree with it, DONT presume we share your racist view.

Third, Jews account for 2% of the US population yet 33% of millionaires, 45% of billionaires, 50% of Wall Street executives etc. To suggest their agenda is not central to US politics is simply delusional. Arguing they should be ignored is as ludicrous as suggesting aristocrats should be ignored in an analysis of medieval politics or whites should be ignored in an analysis of apartheid South Africa. Get a grip already.

As I recall, you haven’t answered the first two points and your pathetic response to the third was sent flying out of the ballpark. I wouldn’t bluff if I held a hand that is so weak it’s composed entirely of strawmen and ad-hominems. I’m still amazed you chickened out of the last thread - one you made me waste a LOT of time on - by pulling a record five strawmen in a row:

There would be none of that rage except that what I say is recognized as seriously threatening that cosy Judeophobic delusion and its simple explanation for everything.  It would be much harder to admit that the problem lies within our own Volk.  Old Adolf used the same explanation for the same reason.

With that kind of performance, you really want to start again?

Think about it.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 03:07 | #

In fact Mort Zuckerman isnt the owner of USA Today. The rag is the property of the Gannett company whose news staff doubtless share the anti-White worldview of the Boston Properties Corp Chairman.

I think Zuckerman owns a lie-distributor rejoicing in the risible title of ‘US News and World Report’.

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:04 | #

Good catch. Yes Shamir must have typo’d there. Zuckerman is publisher and editor-in-chief of US News & World Report, not USA Today - which is indeed owned by Craig Dubow’s Gannett Co.

Anyway, his point is that the mainstream position is set by extremes on both sides and that by eliminating one extreme the mainstream shifts toward and ultimately becomes the other. The issues of Jewish media influence he raises are only illustrative to the main argument he’s advancing. I doubt he’d focus on such lightweights as USA Today if that was his main argument.

Posted by john ray on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:19 | #

I mostly use “Judeophobe” on this blog rather than “antisemite” as it is more precise.

But you are right, I WAS using “antisemite” to tease Steve.  It’s mild compared to what he said about me.

All my words are carefully considered with a view to impact and future defensibility.  My academic background helps with that.

And I do rather enjoy seeing my barbs hit their target.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:17 | #

Funny thing is, of all people here, I’ve probably written the LEAST about the Jews, because it’s simply something I haven’t given a great deal of thought to. Certainly, I haven’t gone so far to call them “politically pernicious”.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:22 | #

“Don’t you keep an olive branch in your back pocket, or are all libertarians actually gun-toting hit-men? Yup, thought so.”

Even “detente” involved several thousand nuclear warheads, GW.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:46 | #

But why can’t you see, John, that in your blanket application of the words “anti-semite” or “judeophobe” to us you are guilty of a most unacademic lack of enquiry?  You meekly adopt and internalise the self-serving attitudes and strategies of Jews, and do it, from what I can see, from no more considered motive than that these attitudes and strategies have been finessed into becoming the mainstream view.

Read the following article written by a Jew, David Klinghoffer, for Jews. It appeared in Forward on December 30th last year.  It falls into that category of supposed Jewish internal disputaciousness which you have reified on the blog a number of times, and which we have had to rebut by asking you to examine the always singular nature of the motive.

Last month, British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria for the crime of denying the Holocaust. When he goes on trial this February, facing up to a decade in prison, he could become a martyr for antisemitic kooks — kooks like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A couple of weeks ago, Ahmadinejad commented that, in Western nations, “if someone were to deny the existence of God… they would not bother him. However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews’ massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can.”

Last week the grotesque sentiment was seconded by Mohammed Mehdi Akef, head of the influential Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who said that “the most serious lie is the Jews’ Holocaust, which they have exploited in order to extort global solidarity.”

With Jew haters around the globe reaching for this particular slander, from among the ample palate of hurtful things people have said about Jews over the centuries, we might wonder why. Why this libel? Why now? The answer is simple.

Lately we Jews have displayed a weakness for a style of rhetorical overreach in which the Holocaust is deployed as a stick to threaten those whom some of us find objectionable. It should not startle anyone if Jew haters, seeing what a favorite weapon the Holocaust has become, seek to wrestle it out of our hands by denying it ever happened.

Some illustrations:

Last month in Houston, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the 1.5-million-member Reform movement, compared religious conservatives to Nazis for retaining the idea that marriage is a partnership of a man and woman. Yoffie said, “We cannot forget that when Hitler came to power in 1933, one of the first things that he did was ban gay organizations.”

Placing conservative Christians in the same tradition that brought us the Holocaust was a theme already familiar in the statements of prominent Jews. When Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” came out last year, even some usually perspicacious analysts couldn’t resist linking the traditionally Catholic Gibson with Hitler and the Holocaust.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer linked Gibson’s movie to the “blood libel that… led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre — 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years.”

In The Washington Post, Richard Cohen summarized his own view: “I thought the movie was tawdry, cartoonish, badly acted and antisemitic, maybe not purposely so but in the way portions of the New Testament are — an assignment of blame that culminated in the Holocaust.”

Walter Reich, former director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, found in Gibson’s “Passion” signs of “that kind of anger that became the seedbed in which the antisemitism that flourished in the last century, and the Holocaust it produced, took root.”

The Anti-Defamation League’s national director, Abraham Foxman, said that he is “always hesitant to make comparisons of today’s evils… to that of Adolf Hitler.” But that didn’t stop him from locating “The Passion” in the same vein of hate that led to the Holocaust. “The very reason that Jews have gone through so much is the thinking and viewpoint reflected in the Gibson film,” he explained to the New York Post. “For 1,950 plus years the accusation that the Jews killed Jesus has been the source of antisemitism — inquisitions, expulsions, pogroms and eventually the Holocaust.”

The fact that Gibson’s film led to no manifestation of increased antisemitism anywhere in the world has not, to my knowledge, resulted in any of these commentators retracting their statements.

It’s not only Christians, however, against whom we wield the ax of Hitler’s incomparable genocide. When Israel’s incomparably humane plan to evacuate Gaza of its Jewish residents was carried out, one found Jewish settlers comparing themselves to Holocaust victims — wearing orange Stars of David to recall the yellow star that Jews in the Nazi era were compelled to wear. An Israeli housing minister noted, “Unfortunately, I am no longer surprised when a Jew compares me and other Israeli officials to Nazis.”

At least the Gaza evacuation was a serious event worthy of anguished responses. There was no such quasi-justification for Rabbi Marvin Hier’s invocation of Auschwitz, on CNN, after England’s Prince Harry committed the stupid but trivial offense of showing up at a costume party in Nazi attire. Hier, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, urged that Harry “should visit Auschwitz to show the world that he can be serious, that he understands the great atrocity that occurred there.”

There we have an American filmmaker, Israeli government officials and a foolish young British royal all bludgeoned with Birkenau. The world is aware how jealously the Jewish community guards the Holocaust, both as a memory and as a weapon. That antisemites wish to cause us pain seems an unalterable fact of life. But how they do this, and what form of slander they choose, is something over which we have some influence.

Our enemies seek to torment us by denying history, even though there are countless other ways they could express their hate. That is so in part because of choices we make. For this, we can thank ourselves, our leaders and other Jews who speak for us.

Does talk of the holocaust as “a weapon” for “bludgeoning” “enemies” not ring any bells at all for you, John?  Is the anti-European group dynamic simply invisible to your eyes? Does the endemic paranoia go by without causing you to question where the balance really lays in this relationship between Jew and European?

I am in favour of informed judgement.  Judeophilia is an expression of the desire not to be informed, not to be disturbed.  It is far, far more dangerous to Europeans than genuine Judeophobia, which is rare and against which we are largely innoculated by our native sense of fairness.  Judeophilia disarms us and gives Jews a free rein to pursue all their interests, strategies and obsessions.

If you brought to bear upon the JQ a tenth of the critical enquiry you muster on leftism you could not be a judeophile.

Posted by john ray on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:52 | #

Of course I don’t agree with Foxman.  He is sometimes reasonable but often unreasonable.  But he is just a minor irritant—one of the many sources of political correctness in the USA.  And he certainly does not get his own way all the time.

Posted by Ray of Sunshine (Out of My Arse) on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:42 | #

Still talking about me? That’s the ticket!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:09 | #

KM,

The 1970’s mythification of the (capital H) Holocaust wasn’t leftist.  Left-wingers don’t bludgeon the right with it.  Jews do - that’s what Klinghoffer is saying, for pete’s sake.  He doesn’t object to the bludgeoning as such.  He’s just worried that they’ve been doing too much of it and the Gentile enemy might notice any time now.  His is a plea for not getting caught.

The “fascist” and “Nazi” slurs are leftist and Jewish, not least because, as in the case of Searchlight or SPLC, the users are often one and the same.  Other minorities have got into the act, for example Frank Ellis’s middle-East and Sub-Con persecutors at Unite Against Fascism.  They all like to pretend they on “the left” because it masks their racial motives.

The “hate Jews” thing is a mental prolapse.  How do you make the leap from David Klinghoffer exposing his own little secrets all the way to European people hating Jews.  There’s no connection, except that one is constantly taught to think in that way.

Posted by john ray on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:35 | #

It rather amazes me that Klinghoffer’s fine article is held against Jews.  A Jew protesting against Jewish hysteria in the leading Jewish Leftist magazine discredits Jews?

It shows precisely that Jews are NOT a monolithic conspiratorial bloc, I would have thought.

Jews are about as united in their goals as Anglos are—and you know how disunited Anglos are

Pointing to offensive Jewish Leftists like Foxman and using that to condemn Jews as a body is very similar to how a certain historical figure came to hate Jews.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:00 | #

No, John, you confuse method and application.  Klinghoffer absolutely supports the mythification of his “incomparable” holocaust and its use as a weapon against us.  He is only decrying the negative consequence for Jews if things are overdone.  He writes: “With Jew haters around the globe reaching for this particular slander, from among the ample palate of hurtful things people have said about Jews over the centuries, we might wonder why. Why this libel? Why now?”

Well, why isn’t it clear to you, John, that this man’s concerns are entirely ethnocentric?

And that’s the point.  You say “Jews are as about as united in their goals as Anglos are”.  But if you can’t see the singular direction of Klinghoffer’s concern when it’s put in front of you, then that must be because you won’t see it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:06 | #

As far as Uncle Abe is concerned, when his fellow Jews condemn his offensiveness, when the ADL is denied funding, when the media stop listening to him ... that’s when your point will have some meaning.

Posted by john ray on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:17 | #

Of course Klinghoffer believes in the absolute evil of the holocaust.  I do too.  And I believe in the absolute evil of the Armenian genocide and various other horrors.

But the Shoah IS unique.  I believe it is one of the greatest losses the human gene pool has suffered.

Hitler cut off the flower of the European intelligentsia—and he explains why by pointing to how many of them were in his view anti-German

Posted by Relativist on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:40 | #

There is no such thing as absolute evil.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:57 | #

Hitler cut off the flower of Jewish, not European, intelligentsia.  We are Europeans, the same race as Beethoven, Schiller and the men of the SS.

Politically and philosophically, the effect of the camps programme on the future of Europe is difficult, perhaps impossible to determine with any accuracy, and the basis for coming to any determination is fraught with moral difficulty.

Three million more left-inclined voters in 1940’s Europe, of which perhaps several hundred thousand may have been communists - and perhaps ten or twenty thousand of those hardened activists - would have been harmful in the extreme.  I don’t regret that their political adumbrations were never added to the left side of the scale.  But, of course, their removal from history is indefensible on any grounds.

As for the rest of the flower, well we only have to look at the actions and achievements of Jews in modern America to know what we lost.  Basically, one might compute that the power and prestige they hold today would have been reached very much earlier, and the power and prestige they will hold, all things being equal, tomorrow would have been reached today.

Technology would have been advanced quicker, though.

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:58 | #

Folks, very few people “hate Jews” or think they are “monolithic”. These two strawmen are getting tiresome. What we are dealing with here (in the US) is an imperialist phenomenon, i.e. where one people dominates another and feeds on their resources. I have no doubt whatsoever that during the anti-imperialist struggle against South African apartheid there were some blacks who were hostile to the white imperialist system on an emotional level, i.e. they “hated” whites. So what? And? The point being? Quite frankly, SA blacks couldn’t care less about the accusation. Attempts to deflect from SA black’s very real grievances by raising the “anti-white” canard failed there just as “anti-semitism” canards will fail here.

Here’s an example of the “anti-white” argument being used against black nationalists in an interview with PAC leader Sobukwe (From Protest to Challenge, v.3, pp. 507-8):

Q. What is your answer to the accusation that you are anti-white?

A. On the material level we just cannot see any possibility of co-operation. To say that we are prepared to accept anybody who subscribes to our Programme is but to state a condition that one knows cannot be fulfilled. From past history, not only of this country but of other countries as well, we know that a group in a privileged position never voluntarily relinquishes that position. If some members of the group appear to be sympathetic to the demands of the less-privileged, it is only in so far as those demands do not threaten the privileges of the favoured group. If they (the privileged) offer assistance, it is for the purpose of ‘directing’ and ‘controlling’ the struggle of the underprivileged and making sure that it does not become ‘dangerous.’

Q. But are you anti-white or not?

A. What is meant by anti-whiteism? Is it not merely an emotional term without a precise signification? Let me put it this way: In every struggle, whether national or class, the masses do not fight an abstraction. They do not hate oppression or capitalism. They concretise these and hate the oppressor, be he the Governor-General or a colonial power, the landlord or the factory-owner, or, in South Africa, the white man. But they hate these groups because they associate them with their oppression! Remove the association and you remove the hatred. In South Africa then, once white domination has been overthrown and the white man is no longer ‘white-man boss’ but is an individual member of society, there will be no reason to hate him and he will not be hated even by the masses.

We are not anti-white, therefore. We do not hate the European because he is white! We hate him because he is an oppressor. And it is plain dishonesty to say I hate the sjambok and not the one who wields it.

Q. Do you regard all whites as oppressors?

A. We regard them all as shareholders in the S.A. Oppressors Company (Pty.) Ltd. There are whites, of course, who are intellectually converted to our cause, but because of their position materially, they cannot fully identify themselves with the struggle of the African people. They want safeguards and check-points all along the way, with the result that the struggle of the people is blunted, stultified and crushed.

Fixating on “anti-whiteism” did a hell of a lot of good to SA whites, didn’t it?

Moreover, SA whites were not “monolithic” either. So what? And? The point being? I can’t even understand why people think there’s an argument somewhere in there. Let’s suppose SA whites had yelled out: “You can’t generalize about whites! That’s prejudice!” You really think blacks would have dropped their anti-imperialist banners in shame and crawled back home crying in humiliation and disgrace? Get a grip.

Besides one would think that on a blog dedicated to majority (i.e white) rights one would be concerned about anti-white race hatred, not how our masters feel about our opposition. Here’s a radical proposal: How about we focus on anti-white racism and oppression? Just an idea.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:16 | #

Rosenbaum, in his Is the Holocaust Unique?: Perspectives on Comparative Genocide, denies the uniqueness.

For years it was assumed in many quarters that the sheer size and scope of the mass killing of Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe were unprecedented, and that alone was sufficient to mark Jewish suffering during the Holocaust as unique. As time passed, however, an accumulating body of research began to show that this assumption was false. For example, within the Holocaust itself the Romani people—Gypsies—suffered the same inhuman death camp conditions and probably lost a proportion of their prewar European population equal to that taken from the Jews, a conclusion that now has been accepted by many Jewish students of the Holocaust, including Simon Wiesenthal.  13

In addition, in just two years between 1915 and 1917, the Armenian population of the Ottoman empire suffered near-obliteration from a Turkish genocide campaign, only two decades after suffering an earlier pogrom in which at least 100,000 Armenians, and probably closer to 200,000, were killed. No one knows for certain how many Armenians died in the second and far larger of these storms of mass killing, but estimates of the pre-genocide population of Armenians have ranged from 1.5 million to 3 million; the actual number of those killed has been put by some writers at under 1 million and by others as high as 2 million, with most serious scholars content to say that at least I million and probably closer to 1.5 million people died. 14

Whether those numbers constitute a proportionate death rate equal to that of Jews in the Holocaust will remain an open question until better statistics become available, but there is little doubt that at least half of the pre-genocide Armenian population was destroyed, and it may have been substantially higher than that. The estimate in one recent analysis—between 50 and 70 percent—is roughly commensurate with the 60 to 65 percent rate of destruction suffered by European Jews during World War II.
[...]
...Europe’s Jews themselves were far from totally exterminated by the Nazis, with at least 80,000 Jews surviving in Germany alone; since the worldwide population of Jews was “only” reduced by about one-third during the Holocaust; and since the deaths of Jews in Germany, Romania, Hungary, and the USSR, though totaling about 1.3 million people, represented less than 30 percent of those countries’ prewar Jewish populations

.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:47 | #

“The flower of European intelligentsia”?

  The flower of Semitic criminal intellect, more like.

  Anyway, that is purely academic as the ‘Holocaust’, which managed to escape the combined notice of Churchill, De Gaulle and Eisenhower in their voluminous memoirs totally 7061 pages, excluding introductions and published between 1948 and 1959, is a testimony to the prodigious Jewish powers of lies-promotion.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 21:28 | #

And at the other end, there’s a complete lack of hard forensic evidence for THE Holocaust.  Where are the remains of these 6 million dead jews, and 4-5 million bodies of lesser peoples?

Posted by allotmentkeeper on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 23:59 | #

Shamir:

Their Western counterparts, the Jewish chauvinists Conrad Black and Mort Zuckerman

I don’t think Black is Jewish.?

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:06 | #

I have no doubt whatsoever that during the anti-imperialist struggle against South African apartheid there were some blacks who were hostile to the white imperialist system on an emotional level, i.e. they “hated” whites. So what?

I would not characterize South African whites as imperialists.  They built something from scratch, and Africans migrated to take advantage of the infrastrusture and employment opportunities afforded by the white settlers.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:19 | #

I don’t think Black is Jewish.

His wife is.  I have seen Black described as a “Catholic convert” without mention of what he converted to or from.

Posted by allotmentkeeper on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:42 | #

Amiel certainly is, and I’ve noted the “Catholic convert” tag myself, but I’ve never seen reference to a Jewish start point or destination.

Certain sites also claim Rupert Murdoch’s mother was Orthodox Jewish, but confirmation is merely coincidental (however overwhelmingly so).

http://web.archive.org/web/20050211122636/http://www.wrmea.com/archives/june2003/0306024.html

But the field being so mined, I think it’s best to play safe rather than assume such a motive.

Murdoch and Black condemn themselves by their politics whether or not there’s any ethnic drive.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:27 | #

I’m no expert on the pedigree of the Greenes from whom Rupert Murdoch sprang, but for some reason Edgar Bronfman (longtime president of the World Jewish Congress) and other sources of Jewish money took a special interest in backing Murdoch’s career.

Posted by Steven Palese on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:04 | #

Yes, Conrad Black is not Jewish while his wife is. A recurring theme in Shamir’s writings is the concept that Judaism is a state of mind. Thus to Shamir he is a Jew due to his “Judaic thinking”

Posted by Steven Palese on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:12 | #

Ben Tillman, yes I agree.

However, the absolute ideological devastation one causes within left/progressive circles when pulling these South Africa analogies is truly an awesome sight to behold. I assure you that if you tried it just once you’d agree that no matter what the merits of SA white rule were, it’s often best to go along with the prevailing view for tactical reasons.

Posted by john ray on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:12 | #

“Hitler cut off the flower of Jewish, not European, intelligentsia”

All the Ashkenazim I know have blue eyes.  What does that tell you about their genetic group?

Posted by EC on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:20 | #

All the Ashkenazim I know have blue eyes.  What does that tell you about their genetic group?

Another in a long line of completely moronic statements.  Either JJR is a complete moron or a lying sack of crap. 

I’ve seen Blacks with blue eyes as well.  What does that tell us?  Nothing, you lying dimwit.

Posted by interzone on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:47 | #

“Where are the remains of these 6 million dead jews, and 4-5 million bodies of lesser peoples?”

Victims of the gas chambers were cremated.

http://remember.org/History.root.rev.html

Posted by EC on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:59 | #

Svy, I like my answer better.  You would think a “professor” would know things such as admixture and would not be in need of an explanation from the lowly masses.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 05:01 | #

We await the changes in JJR’s behaviour which will doubtless occur as soon as he has removed several idea-balls form the manatee tank.

Posted by john ray on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:18 | #

Blue eyes are recessive so there has to be a LOT of N. European ancestry there for such a low probability event to occur frequently in the phenotype.  And blue eyes are only one indicator of European ancestry.

The ashkenazim Hitler killed were overwhelmingly European

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:07 | #

JJR: “All the Ashkenazim I know have blue eyes.  What does that tell you about their genetic group?”

In the interests of “peace”, I’ll forego sarcasm and make a few points.

1. Most Ashkenazim do not have blue eyes.  Extrapolating from ” a few people I know” is not an argument that would pass muster in any academic setting, nor here.

2. Contrary to the opinion of some, race/ancestry cannot be determined by one, or a few, phenotypic traits.  Yes, blue eyes are recessive, and yes, some Ashkenazi have that trait (as do some Arabs, by the way).  To go from that fact (ignoring as well selective pressure) to ancestry is a bit weak.

3.There has been a substantial number of genetic studies showing a significant level of Middle Eastern ancestry in Ashkenazim, beyond that found in any European ethnic group.  Certainly their NRY and mtDNA profiles are most unlike any European group.  More to the point, it is probable that, in the future, autosomal DNA work will underscore these differences.

As previously mentioned on this blog (and no mention about how previous arguments are being ignored…oops, I just said it), preliminary data from DNAPrint on a small Ashkenazi sample (small, but perhaps larger than JJR’s “sample size”) yielded a percent “native European ancestry” that put that group of Ashkenazim midway between Turks and Saudi Arabians.

That’s a group average, and of course, maybe JJR’s friends have a higher percentage of European ancestry.  But, with respect to the group as a whole, there is no evidence for great similarity to any grouping/subgrouping of Europeans.

4. The presence of genetic disorders within the Ashkenazim essentially absent from the gentile population - as well as other, including historical, evidence - suggests that the Ashkenazim have been a highly inbred and separate population for many generations.  Thus, even given some degree of European ancestral influx at the founding of this group, and low level genetic exchanges thereafter, it is quite clear that this group has followed a separate genetic/evolutionary path from European gentiles for many generations.  Hence, a separate people.

5. The previous four arguments are for the general readership; I fully expect that the “I know blue-eyed Ashkenazim” ‘argument’ will be repeated without any regard for the genetic evidence.

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:16 | #

Some links of interest:
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/full/90/7/2654/F4

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/matrilineal-ancestry-of-ashkenazi-jews.html

http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9326232&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14740294&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10801975&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ancestrybydna.com (Euro 1.0 section pie chart)

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:53 | #

The following discusses a mechanism for selective pressure for “fairness” in an otherwise heavily Middle Eastern-derived Ashkenazi population.  The same mechanisms may have worked during Russian pogroms, etc:

Light eyes/hair and Holocaust Survival
Lethal stereotypes: Hair and eye color as survival characteristics during the Holocaust

Suedfeld, Peter et al.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol 32(11), Nov 2002, pp. 2368-2376

Abstract
Notes that in spite of many false negatives and false positives quite familiar to the people of Nazi-dominated Europe, dark hair and eyes were salient among the physical stereotypes of Jews that the Nazis promulgated along with psychosocial ones. Many narratives of the Holocaust refer to someone surviving because he or she “did not look Jewish,” and others being caught and killed because they did. A quantitative test of the validity and impact of this attribution showed that a higher proportion of Holocaust survivors than of a North American Jewish control group had light-colored hair, eyes, or both during the relevant period. The paper discusses possible reasons why these were survival characteristics under the conditions of the Holocaust, the possible short- and long-term effects of such selectivity, and implications for stereotyping in other situations of ethnic persecution and genocide.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:11 | #

Whatever the admixture, which obviously varied substantially from person to person, the “Askenazim Hitler killed” were “overwhelmingly” possessed of an ethnic interest that conflicted with German and every other true, no-nonsense European ethnic interest.

So here’s a defining question for John:  Historically, has the prosecution of that conflicting interest been bearable for Europeans or not.  Note, this is not a question about whether Europeans have a moral investment in kindness to out-groups.  Nor is it about whether the cultural and scientific gifts of Ashkenazic intelligence have been positive.  It is not even about whether those gifts outweigh the negative consequences of conflicting ethnic interests.  It is simply a question about whether the Ashkenazic pursuit of, for example, culture war through all the means we know so well is actually tolerable for us <u>in its own terms</u>.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:59 | #

Blue eyes are recessive so there has to be a LOT of N. European ancestry there for such a low probability event to occur frequently in the phenotype.

The phenotypic expression known as “blue eyes” is not a “low-probability event”.  Depending on the pool of available alleles, it may be a certainty. 

The introduction of the genetic material of just one blue-eyed (or heterozygous) European into the Jewish population would suffice to bring the trait of blue eyes to fixation in the Jewish population, if that population chose to select for that trait.

Moreover, there are quite a few theoretical reasons to expect the Jewish populations of places like Australia and Texas to have more blue-eyed Jews than do Jewish population centers like New York and Israel.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:04 | #

KM,

I am trying to elicit from John something suggestive of balance, rather than uncritical Judeophilia.  I am for balance in our assessment of the Jewish contribution to our lives.  But the (literal) lie of the political land is such that this is already a position open to attack.  Your immediate recourse to talk of “intolerance mixed with paranoia” is straight out of that box.

I feel it is important to understand that that there is a very broad intellectual field between Judeophilia and Judeophobia.  We have a duty to ourselves and to the Jews among us to be honest about Judeophobia, if and when it is encountered.  But we have a far, far greater duty (to ourselves alone) to be honest about the JQ.

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:10 | #

Karl: “To the extent that they want a society opener than you would like, that’s their right, as a minority, and you’d expect it.”

The problem Karl is that they deny to others the same right to strategize for group interests as they have.

Also: isn’t this blog MAJORITY rights?  GW is speaking from the perspective of effects of minority influence on majority interests - that minorities have their “right” to exercise their interests at our expense is a given.

Do we expect it from them?  Yes. So?  That is in fact the whole issue - ethnic competition.  How is it “intolerant” or “paranoid” for GW to point out the realities of this ethnic conflict and to demand that majority members have the same rights we are expected to provide to the minority?

No offense, but I often my scratch my head with bewilderment after reading JJR and KM contributions.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:31 | #

Svigor,

Many such studies (including those by Hammer et al., Bonne-Tamir et al., and Kobyliansky et al.) are catalogued in MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone, at p. 27.  A number of subsequent studies have made findings along the same line.

MacDonald’s conclusion:

“I conclude that these studies of genetic distances point to the
common genetic origins of all the Jewish populations pf the world (e.g., Kobyliansky et al. 1982) [Annals of Human Biology 9:1-34] They also indicate that, although there is some genetic admixture with surrounding populations as well as some natural selection toward the frequencies of local populations, all Jewish populations have a significant degree of communality with other Jewish groups derived from widely separated parts of the world.  Finally, the data support the proposal that, with the exception of non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations, all Jewish groups are more closely related to each other than to any non-Jewish group.”

Two studies by Bonne-Tamir et al. (cited in PTSDA) produced the following conclusions:

—In blood group data, two major studies, one in 1977 by
BonneTamir, Ashbel, and Kenett and one by Karlin, Kenett, and BonneTamir in 1979, found when using fourteen polymorphic loci, no significant difference in Jewish populations from Iraq, Libya, Germany, or Poland. They estimated that the genetic distance between Gentiles and Jews living in the same area is three to five times greater than for Jews living in the different nations studied. In the 1977 study, the researchers state “not much admixture has taken place between Ashkenazi Jews and their Gentile neighbors during the last 700 years or so.”

Matt Nuenke also summarizes other studies:

—Mille and Kobyliansky discovered in studies of
dermatologlyphic data that Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews) are much more similar to Shephardim (Middle-Eastern and European Jews) than they are to the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans.

—Kobyliansky and Livshits in using cluster analysis on 25
morphological characteristics, estimated that Jews in Russia were six times more distant from Russians than Russians were from Germans. They also found the Jews to be completely separate from the twenty-four other ethnic groups studied in Russia, Germany, and Poland.

—Another study compared modem Jews and those of 3,000-year-old Jewish skeletons discovered in the Middle East. Sofaer, Smith, and Kaye studied dental morphology from Morocco, Kurdish Iraq, and Eastern European countries. They found more likeness between the widely scattered Jewish populations than for the Gentile groups living near them. The ancient Jewish skeletal group turned out to be far more similar to the three Jewish populations than for every non-Jewish group studied except for one, an Arab Druse group from the 11th century.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:34 | #

Blue eyes are recessive so there has to be a LOT of N. European ancestry there for such a low probability event to occur frequently in the phenotype. 

More from Matt Nuenke:

Fritz Lenz suggested back in the 1930s that Jewish resemblance to the European populations did not mean that their genes were similar. He suggested that their similar external resemblance could have emerged from the natural selection of genes within the Jewish gene pool. These genes could simply be a small cluster of genes that lay dormant in the Jewish pool or that were introduced by limited genetic mixture with Gentiles, and which then were selectively favored by the social environment. Genes that caused a greater corporeal resemblance to that of the Gentile host could have favorable results in acceptance, wealth, and social advancement and thus on reproductive success. It is a similar process by which some distinct species of butterflies, not closely related, come to resemble one another without narrowing their genetic distance. Only a small set of genes influencing appearance within the Jewish population could thus be favored, causing a greater similarity of appearance to the Gentile population while not narrowing their overall genetic alienation from their host population. Over many generations the external resemblance to Gentiles could increase while the parts of the brain that affect behavioral tendencies and abilities could be unaffected.

According to evolutionary genetics, it is possible that Jews have come to more resemble their hosts in their external appearance while at the same time becoming even more distant in their mental and behavioral characteristics. Whatever the questions of physical appearance, there seemed little doubt that Jews are indeed very different from Europeans and that they had maintained that genetic difference for a very long time.

Posted by Steven Palese on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:09 | #

Out of respect for the truce, the offshoot debate between me and Daedalus has migrated to this thread at Daedalus’ own forum:

The Jewish Question and Racialism

My thesis is that the JQ is indeed substantial, that our predicament cannot be blamed on white uncle toms while ignoring the imperialist context and that forthrightness on the JQ is indeed feasible on a tactical level.

I believe Daedalus’ is the opposite. He is currently preparing a comprehensive response.

I have placed my arguments on the table and await his reply - which I am sure will be quite eloquent and devoid of logical fallacies. I very much look forward to this debate.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:54 | #

There is an incredible amount of time spent by posters on this blog arguing with JJR.  Is the purpose of this blog to debate someone who is so obviously dishonest and who clearly has interests opposed to the White majority?  Or is he here to remind us all of how Jews and Jew-lovers operate?  Both, what?

I’d like to find a blog that spends more time teaching us how to rebuild.  Maybe that’s not the purpose of this blog, but I would that it were.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:08 | #

Rusty

I agree 100%.  It wastes the considerable talents of the boards posters.

MR needs to dump JJR and give Stanley at Resisting Defamation a permanent seat at blogging table.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:24 | #

Rusty,

I take your comment to heart regarding the unwarrented concentration on JJR.  I think you probably realise what the purpose of the blog is, however.  Its tells you on the top bar of your browser.

I would just state the obvious that we can’t teach anybody to rebuild.  We can only talk to you about it, get your feedback and try, each of us, to profit from the interchange, and gain some energy and direction.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:52 | #

Sorry, GW, I shouldn’t have implied that the blog is without direction or purpose.  What I should’ve said was that I seriously wonder why people like JJR and people like him are allowed so much latitude here.  I’ve seen your posts about the subject, but I still don’t understand.  To me, having people like JJR and karlmagnus here is like trying to have a town hall or project meeting while also having a few oafs in attendance who constantly throw spitballs and make a nuisance of themselves.  It’s distracting.  One cannot simply ignore them—they make too much noise.

Posted by Amalek on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:28 | #

Guessedworker always defends Ray on the grounds that he whips up interest, but how many have been put off coming here by his self-obsessed ramblings?

Do an experiment. Exclude Ray for three months and see if the traffic rises.