Posted by realist on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:31 | #

I only asked what I should call this sort of dislike of Jews since “anti-semitism” is a label none of you wish to accept (and I earlier argued that such a label is appropriate for the kind of “mystical” hatred of Jews which sees them responsible for everything under the sun).

Normality?  Healthy behaviour?  Keen survival instincts?  Take your pick.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:14 | #

People given to the sort of blind outrage so evident on this thread (site?), however, are not worthy of debate

- rest52

Translation - I’ve got nothing to say, and now I’m going to run away.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:49 | #

“People given to the sort of blind outrage so evident on this thread (site?), however, are not worthy of debate,”  (—rest52)

The Jews aren’t genociding whites???  And genocide shouldn’t provoke outrage???  Even “blind” outrage???

Get real please.  What, will you be saying “race doesn’t exist” next?

By the way, I like Armor’s coinage of “Semito-skeptic” modeled on the British word for the anti-EU crowd “Euro-sceptic,” people who dislike what the EU is up to, don’t trust it, might agree to limited concessions to it but generally prefer keeping it strictly at arm’s length.  Good idea, Armor!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:01 | #

Regarding rest52’s dismissal of those Euros holding “mystical anti-Semitic” views:  do we also dismiss those Jews holding mystical anti-Eurochristian views, the most glaring prototypes being speciments like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel?  Be careful, if we agree to do that we’ll dismiss something close to a hundred percent of Jews.  OK, OK, OK, ... 90%.  (A hundred percent of Israeli Jews though.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:03 | #

Any diaspora Jew who strongly supports race-replacement immigration can be assumed to harbor the mystical anti-Eurochristian orientation of the world.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:05 | #

That includes one hundred percent of Jewish neocons by the way, not to mention the rest of the Jewish élites.

Any U.S. Jew who likes and regularly uses the term “fly-over country” can be assumed to harbor mystical anti-Eurochristianism.

Two can play the “mystical anti-” game.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:09 | #

“harbor the mystical anti-Eurochristian orientation of the world.”

orientation toward the world

(sorry for this and all the other mistakes, am going fast this morning and not proofreading)

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:15 | #

rest52: I’ll include in that now the desire to separate from Jews.

So you accept that an evidential basis for Jewish aggression is sufficient to commend us to defend ourselves by means of physical separation if necessary, and that does not imply any character defect (ie, the hate-charge of anti-Semitism) or unreasonableness on our part.

Good.  So now we come “Back to the conference ...”

“I have high hopes for it.  I expect it to be excellent.  Culture and civilization is the stuff of life.  Few people will care about race until they care about its connection to culture.  Hart, Auster and the rest may not have all the answers but there can be no question that what they do provide will be of far greater value than shaving one’s head and screaming “White Power” at people”.

This is a reductio ad absurdum, and you know it.  The challenges you have faced here, and which you have not been able to counter, constitute the considered and settled will of thoughtful White Nationalism.  So why are you flipping straight into a world of shaved heads and screaming fanatics?  Haven’t you noticed that this is MR, not VNN - or, as a VNNer once said here, “the head of White Nationalism”.  As far as I am aware, that’s an unshaven head (though I confess to my own follicle challenge - sadly a product of genes and time).

Wheeler’s charge is that this conference is a stepping stone to an enduring and wholly corrupting, leading Jewish role in white American advocacy.  You are a cheerleader for that.  We protest it.  There is no other path to tread, no Austerian middle way.

I am assuming that you are one of my people, so I am asking you as a brother to distance yourself from Jewish machination in our racial advocacy.  Do not help these people to insinuate themselves in our business.  Be discriminative, be mindful of the long history of Jew and European.  Do not stand with the Jew, for he does not stand with you.

Posted by JTaverner on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:46 | #

rest52 said:

I only asked what I should call this sort of dislike of Jews since “anti-semitism” is a label none of you wish to accept (and I earlier argued that such a label is appropriate for the kind of “mystical” hatred of Jews which sees them responsible for everything under the sun).

When Jewish interests usurped power in the West they assumed a position that makes them directly responsible for “everything under the sun”. One cannot have power without culpability. A ruler or ruling body that refuses to accept criticism from the ruled is inherently tyrannical.

The West is in full decay economically, culturally, and racially. Jews have been in power throughout our fall from grace. It’s time for a regime change, the first step of which is holding our Jewish “leaders” to account.

Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:50 | #

Wheeler’s charge is that this conference is a stepping stone to an enduring and wholly corrupting, leading Jewish role in white American advocacy.  You are a cheerleader for that.  We protest it.  There is no other path to tread, no Austerian middle way.  (—Guessedworker)

After 9/11, the network of neocon bloggers became very active on the internet. And after that, as Bush started putting pressure on Saddam Hussein and prepared for an invasion of Iraq, the anti-Bush leftists became crazier and crazier, and it gave something to do to the neocon bloggers: they would denounce the crazy leftists.
Looking back on it, I think both sides (both anti-American, and anti-leftist) were dominated by Jews anyway, and the neocons agreed with the lefties upon the policy of mass immigration. The neocons were frauds.

As a test, I have just googled the 3 words ‘association’,  ‘France’, ‘Amérique’, and I found there is indeed something called “Association France-Amériques”. It was founded in 1909, and the list of the founders and benefactors includes a few Jewish names at the top. I suspect a good part of that association’s activity must have taken place between Jews living in New York and Paris (or maybe not, I don’t know). Now, if I want to hear some anti-American propaganda (which is a variety of anti-White propaganda), I only need to turn on radio-france-culture, which is a mostly Jewish station. My conclusion is that the Jews take care of every aspect of everything. Now, they are organizing conferences to save the West from third-world immigration. I think they should go the whole hog and found a Jewish anti-Semitism organization for us. If it is headed by Jews, it will be more efficient. I suppose we shouldn’t stand in their way. Céline, the famous semitoskeptic writer already said so in 1937: When the French decide to set up an anti-Semitic league, the president, the secretary and the treasurer will be Jewish! He could have said the same about the USA.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:08 | #

Semitoskeptic.  Long may it sound across the digital vastness of the mainstream media.

I must try it at the Guardian.  Unfortunately, Humphjennings - named after Humphrey, my favourite and most English film-maker - has been banned at the Guardian.  But others shall arise in his place, pick up his weapons, gaze into the eyes of the enemy (who are mostly non-white moderators, I think) and prosecute the word-war with the same inexhaustable vigour.

Only now they can pick up one extra weapon.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:24 | #

rest52 writes:

I only asked what I should call this sort of dislike of Jews since “anti-semitism” is a label none of you wish to accept (and I earlier argued that such a label is appropriate for the kind of “mystical” hatred of Jews which sees them responsible for everything under the sun).

The list GW provided is quite damning. Unwilling or unable to dispute it you strawman it as “everything under the sun”. You seem to think that a “mystical” hatred of jews causes people to imagine negative things jews are responsible for, rather than the other way around. You think, whatever the cause, this deserves a special name.

Many jews find it perfectly acceptable to place collective blame on Whites for slavery, stealing non-White lands, and persecuting jews - even though much of it happened generations ago. What’s the special word for the “mystical” bottomless never-ending hatred that makes this acceptable? Why shouldn’t Whites reciprocate, at least partially, and blame jews collectively for the laundry list of acts of anti-White anti-civilizational vandalism they’ve engaged in - many coming to a head in our own generation, and most still going strong?

semitoskeptic

I prefer pro-White. Defining my acts of self-defense in judeo-centric terms, even when countering jewish aggression, is an inaccurate and unnecessary concession to their interests. I do what I do because I’m concerned with my interests, not theirs.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:02 | #

Race Realist:

I’m very impressed with that comment you posted at Roissy’s.  Good content, and a good, balanced tone.

Well done.

Posted by rest52 on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:01 | #

Guessedworker said:

This is a reductio ad absurdum, and you know it.  The challenges you have faced here, and which you have not been able to counter, constitute the considered and settled will of thoughtful White Nationalism.  So why are you flipping straight into a world of shaved heads and screaming fanatics?  Haven’t you noticed that this is MR, not VNN - or, as a VNNer once said here, “the head of White Nationalism”.  As far as I am aware, that’s an unshaven head (though I confess to my own follicle challenge - sadly a product of genes and time).

This “settled will” doesn’t seem much different, frankly (nor even settled, really).  I think we’ve seen examples of that on this very thread. 

Wheeler’s charge is that this conference is a stepping stone to an enduring and wholly corrupting, leading Jewish role in white American advocacy.  You are a cheerleader for that.  We protest it.  There is no other path to tread, no Austerian middle way.

I called it a “badly need dialectic palliative.”  I stand by that.  I don’t know why Larry Auster can’t come clean.  I don’t know enough about Michael Hart to accuse him of dissembling.  But their views provide a welcome addition to the corpus of racial conservatism.  Even though they are not saying all that should be said, they are saying what every unalloyed White should be saying, and I’ve asked you to welcome their saying it because they are not unalloyed Whites (or even White at all, according to the views of some). 

I am assuming that you are one of my people, so I am asking you as a brother to distance yourself from Jewish machination in our racial advocacy.  Do not help these people to insinuate themselves in our business.  Be discriminative, be mindful of the long history of Jew and European.  Do not stand with the Jew, for he does not stand with you.

I am afraid I will disappoint you, Guessedworker.  I am of partial Jewish descent.  I have no familiarity with the Jewish faith nor do I care for it, and the more I have come to learn of it (and its associated power structure) the more I have come to despise it—its interests I do not defend. 

Tanstaafl said:

The list GW provided is quite damning. Unwilling or unable to dispute it you strawman it as “everything under the sun”. You seem to think that a “mystical” hatred of jews causes people to imagine negative things jews are responsible for, rather than the other way around.

No.  It is, as you say, the other way around.  But it knows no limit: in it, Jews become uniquely immutably demonic.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:09 | #

rest52: “This ‘settled will’ doesn’t seem much different, frankly (nor even settled, really).”

So the ultimate legitimacy of our resistance to our genetic annihilation depends upon whether or not we conduct ourselves in a gentlemanly fashion?  The way in which we resist is not of no concern - our honor is of importance to us - but it is a proximate concern; our ultimate concern is for the genetic continuity of our people.

“I think we’ve seen examples of that on this very thread.”

Do you honestly believe an army of “skinheads” could manage route a wet paper back?  Of course not, you use stigmatizing imagery as a metaphor for the visceral rage that poor and working-class Whites feel as a result of the dispossession of their people in order to shame us into submission; to castrate the virility the looming backlash you see coming down the pike - which is why you are here.  It is the visceral rage that “skinheads” represent, channeled by White leaders of strong will and intellect, that you fear.

“I called it a “badly need dialectic palliative.” I stand by that.”

Should those of “settled will” be excluded from the debate?

“I don’t know why Larry Auster can’t come clean.”

It’s a great mystery.

“I don’t know enough about Michael Hart to accuse him of dissembling.”

There is a thin line between explicit dishonestly and an ulterior motivation.

“But their views provide a welcome addition to the corpus of racial conservatism.”

Michael Hart would certainly not debate David Duke.  Michael Hart believes Duke is part of a “mystical Nazism”.  An opinion which he has expressed to Duke personally, at the top of his lungs.

“Even though they are not saying all that should be said, they are saying what every unalloyed White should be saying, and I’ve asked you to welcome their saying it because they are not unalloyed Whites (or even White at all, according to the views of some).”

I would like to see Hart and Duke on the dais together, and then both shake hands. 

“I am afraid I will disappoint you, Guessedworker.  I am of partial Jewish descent.”

Well, some Whites are of partial Amerindian ancestry; but it ain’t the Ingins that are such a thorn in our side, you see.  If you had to do it, if you just had to, which side would you choose to place your loyalty with, Jews or Whites?  Side-stepping my direct question will not do, if those of “settled will” have their way, which they just might.

“I have no familiarity with the Jewish faith nor do I care for it, and the more I have come to learn of it (and its associated power structure) the more I have come to despise it—its interests I do not defend.”

Jewish culture and not Jewish genes make Jews do what they do - har har!  So does that mean you have no concern for the genetic continuity of the Jewish people?

“But it knows no limit: in it, Jews become uniquely immutably demonic.”

Would the resettlement of Jews out of the Eurosphere be a reactively disproportionate response in your opinion?

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:40 | #

Pardon the errors in spelling and missing words.

Posted by flemmard on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:00 | #

I am afraid I will disappoint you, Guessedworker.  I am of partial Jewish descent.

Case closed on that, I think.

Scroobage:
But I want to live under WASP hegemony, NOT Jewish hegemony. 

Careful, your new masters won’t all be as moderate as GW and the MR gang; they may send you up the Oder for that Yiddish-speaking grandmother (think how that would look to them, hundreds of miles away, in your file!). It is obvious that very many ordinary “whites” of insufficiently Nordic extraction will, even under the kindly tutelage of a GW, fare no better in the quite impossible scenario of white re-enfranchisement than Jewish postmodernity. I would say unavoidable even with the utmost consideration from those of “settled will” to ensure that ordinary Joes of brown hair and short stature—for example—will stand a better chance at nabbing a sane, pretty, second- or third-hand wife and furthering their genetic material with minimal fuss. But I suspect that deep down even the sages like GW, who are rare enough, think it’s best they don’t, and if not GW a dozen others who would have to be, in this impossible scenario, the “leaders”, i.e. the pricks deciding who gets shot and who gets the spoils. You wouldn’t be one of the latter, I’m afraid, and may well find yourself among the former.

There’s much more to this than clearing out non-whites and prying Jews off our backs. White majorities still exist; the trouble is they’re dreadfully boring to live among and probably would be even in the best circumstances (according to White Nationalists of any description). I hate saying that, I wish I could get excited about white neighborhoods, but I find I just cannot. Being white means being provident, and not everyone has the capacity or desire to be provident, to keep up the teeth-gritting against the cold, evolutionary pressure and all that fearsome rot. Whatever impossible scenario you envision for me, please rather shoot me than expect me to hang around to be a second-class non-Nordic who has to pretend to be inspired by Brekker statues, buy a car to get myself to work for a Northern European master, recite the Salterian ethno-anthem to my new gods of foreign race, and of course still be deprived of a decent white female of reproductive age. At some point in their late-night cogitations, the WN intellectual elite may want to consider that even if their impossible scenario came to pass, they would be faced with a question far more imperious than “Is it good for Jews?”, to wit: “What can you do for me, White Nationalist demagogue?” Unfortunately, “all-white neighborhoods” and securing the future of better-looking men’s white children will probably not be enough to guarantee the allegiance, much less the passion, of average disenfranchised white males. (Scrooby being an exception among exceptions.) If the white race is in danger of dying out, or under-breeds to a dangerous degree, the WN demagogues of the Impossible Scenario will sooner or later have to grapple with the matter of supplying their boys with the stuff of all their idealism: willing females. They won’t come magically flocking on or anytime soon after the revolution, friends. The revolution wouldn’t find us all huddling behind barricades, man and woman, as comrades; it would not be romantic. And if there be no romance ....

Unsettled still like haggards wild they range,
These gentle birds that fly from man to man;
Who would not scorn and shake them from the fist
And let them fly fair fools which way they list.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:03 | #

Jews become uniquely immutably demonic.

rest52

No, this a psychiatric view of human motivation, sure some people might think along those lines but it doesn’t account for the majority.

What lands Jews in trouble is behaviour, too many fingers in too many ethnocentric anti-European pies. Too many to be just coincidence.

In the UK many people in rural areas are very anti-gypsy/traveller. Urban people don’t ‘get’ it, thinking its just bigotry. Yet many travellers are of Irish descent, they are European unlike gypsies, they look European but they’ve adopted a clannish behaviour much like the gypsies which blatently exploits the majority, double standards are enforced by the left/liberal standard to a comical degree. Its the behaviour that gets them stick, not some mystical anti-traveller bias.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:10 | #

Flemmard - Oh its Silver mk2. Peddling crap.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:26 | #

rest52,

But it knows no limit: in it, Jews become uniquely immutably demonic.

The words you have chosen are apropos, but it seems your concern in this case should also be the other way around.

uniquely - Even according to themselves jews are unique, and they use unique terms (“anti-semite”, “gentile”, “goyim”, “amalek”) to describe their enemies and distinguish themselves from others.

immutably - Jews trace their history back four millenia, two amongst Europeans. They are both immutable in their ends (survival) and flexible in their means (torah, talmud, kabbalah, communism, capitalism, liberalism).

demonic - This word best summarizes how jews view their enemies (and to them every critic is an enemy). Auster typifies the rationale of anti-anti-semites. He invokes images of hell and Dante, using words like evil and sinister to literally demonize anyone he labels anti-semite.

no limit - Jews know no limit in seeking to limit the rights and freedom of their critics. See for example anti-hate laws and the ADL. Jews know no limit (not fairness, decency, or apparently even self-preservation) in their efforts to pathologize and deconstruct Whites and our culture. See for example Critical Theory.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:06 | #

“Flemmard - Oh its Silver mk2. Peddling crap.”  (—Lurker)

Right it’s he, Silver, come slinking back, up to his old tricks as he was also, recently, over at Proze’s.

“Jews know no limit (not fairness, decency, or apparently even self-preservation) in their efforts to pathologize and deconstruct Whites and our culture.”  (—Tanstaafl)

Correct:  no limits.

Posted by anonymous on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:31 | #

Posted by Guessedworker on January 20, 2009, 11:48 PM | #
Svi,
I don’t know eactly when I first used the “And Jew spake unto Jew” idea.  At least a year ago, I would think.
It is rather an obvious solution.  I mean, these guys like Hart and Auster seem terrible keen to, you know, talk, talk, talk.  And we don’t want to listen to them.  So it’s only right and proper to direct them to an audience that is very appreciative of words, especially when they are spoken by Jews.  Well, only when they are spoken by Jews, actually.
You’ve met your match then. You’re a gutless Joke Guessedworker. Your all talk, talk, talk. No balls. Your own looser.