Joshua Seidel & The Alt-Right

A Jewish friend says: “I agree that Jews can’t be a part of White Nationalism (unless they have white parents) but they can certainly be alt-right influenced.”

Another Jewish friend says: “I am beyond such concerns. Time to think of how to form shifting coalitions with various racial groups to divide them so that they do not unite against the White Race.”

Joshua Seidel published a piece in the Forward last week: “I’m a Jew, and I’m a Member of the Alt-Right.

He got some responses on Twitter:

* Jews are the enemy and will never be accepted

* JS: By who? A few kids on the internet? You need to step up or you won’t be a real part of this.

* Did you miss all of Dr. MacDonald’s appearances at our conferences?

* JS: Let’s say Macdonald is 100% right, doesn’t mean a person can’t be an outlier, or overcome “genetics”.

* Sure, but the fact that a Jew wants to join an overwhelmingly anti-Jewish movement is a little suspect, don’t you think?

* JS: Of course, but I don’t really want to “join”, anything. I just want to tell the truth. It doesn’t matter if I “join”.

* If you don’t want to “join” anything then why use #AltRight and #Altjew in your bio?

* JS: It’s what I am ideologically. Many altright may hate Jews, but it’s not a necessary part of alt right ideology.

* The overwhelming majority of the Alt-Right is Anti-Semitic. You’re delusional if you think otherwise.

* JS: Even if that’s true it doesn’t matter, and it’s always what they say about right wing movements.

* It matters for you. Now that you’ve identified as a Jew everything you say will be suspect… Nobody wants a lecture from a kike.

* Fuck off and subvert some other burgeoning political movement. You aren’t welcome here oven dodger. Why associate with one of the few existing political movements that wants nothing better than to throw you into an oven?

* JS: Because I understand why they would be so angry. Look, more Muslims hate Jews than any other group, are they altright? If you simply define it by hating Jews, than a lot of the top people aren’t members.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Joshua Seidel & The Alt-Right

White Nationalism: The Principle And The Practice

From the Chateau:

In honor of Hillary’s schoolmarm harangue against the alt-right today, I’ll jot down a few of my thoughts on the idea of White Nationalism (as a principle and as it would work in practice).

First, a word on vanilla (heh) nationalism.

Nationalism ultimately distills to racial nationalism, though the latter isn’t required to prompt the former (or to sustain it for a while). A polyglot, Babelized citizenry corrodes nationalist principles and practices. A multicultural nationalism is an oxymoron over a long enough timeline. This is self-evident once we take it as a given that culture (aka nation) is inherited from the genetic legacy of its people.

So in principle, White Nationalism is effectively a synonym for garden-variety nationalism, because a numerical onslaught of nonWhites would irretrievably alter the characteristics of a White-majority nation that followed a theoretically race-blind nationalist ideology (similar to Steve Sailer’s Citizenism).

In practice, though, avowed White Nationalism is a non-starter. Whites aren’t a monolith. Italy looks and operates differently than England which looks and operates differently than Ukraine. There are four primary continental scale races — White, asian, amerind, black — and a nationalism ideology that attempted to place those races under an all-encompassing umbrella term would be viciously mocked and rebuked by popular revolt. There can be no Black Nationalism or Asian Nationalism or Amerind Nationalism. Try telling a Mexican he’s indistinguishable from an El Salvadoran.

Likewise, a White Nationalism movement will fail.

Although I will say this in contradiction: If White Nationalism can work anywhere, it’s most likely to find purchase in a Euro-mixed nation like America, and at a point when American Whites fall below 50% of the total population. (Spot the irony.)

I’ll have more to say on this subject in future posts, but for now my conclusion is to leave White Nationalism alone in favor of regular Nationalism. The White part will work itself out organically as the nation becomes less globalist and more nationalist.

COMMENTS:

* I can say that, overall, CH is correct, when one lumps all Whites together. I really do not favor the term, “White Nationalism”. The problem with White Nationalism is that, even if you remove the non-Whites from your midst, you can still end up with a high likelihood of nasty little fights like WWI and WWII, where nationalistic Whites (choosing their nations over the commonality that should have bound them together) decided to slaughter each other.

Instead, I prefer the term “Racially Conscious Whites”, or some related term, to point out our common genes and culture, instead of the differences that separate us due to indiscriminate boundary lines on some map.

As such, when I meet racially proud White brothers and sisters, anywhere in the world, who are not blinded, or held back, by national boundaries, I have more in common with them than the middle-of-the-road White neighbors on my street.

Nationalism made these White brothers fight each other (and likely die). Let’s not raise flags blindly.

* Is obvious that all whites are not equal. More in behavior than in intelligence, (except germans/north italians) very creative people luckily I have fresh blood of both.
Nationalism can’t back to Europe. Not only the 2 WWs but a lot of big pre world wars conflicts. I guess what you don’t like from other whites because is the same I don’t like:
Spaniards: collectivism/ difficulties with abstract thought
Italians: corrupt,low law abiding
EE: extremely violent/collectivism
Irish: don’t know, anti individualism?
Scots : ?
Let me tell now what the rest europeans don’t like of you:
Hardcore capitalism, loser/winner mindset and the most important puritan moral collectivism/too much rule abiding far away from the logical point.

* It is worse than you describe.

If a black man abandons Christianity for Islam, he is praised.
If a black man associates with the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, or NAACP, he may be promoted for his community participation.

If a white man, a descendent of a Confederate soldier, joins Sons of the Confederacy, he may be fired for hate speech.

* Respectfully, what CH is missing is that, what is unique about America, is it was the first nation or even first political organization of people NOT built on race or ethnicity, but on an ideal. Alt-Right/ethno-racial nationalism is based on European political thinking. The latter is a way of thinking that goes back to the beginning of Human history. America made a break from this. It showed that it was possible, even ideal.

Leftism, another European ideological import, exploits ethnic and racial groups for it’s benefit, seeking to be in power. The Alt-Right, being an ethno-racial ideology also, reacts to such, and fights back, also seeking to be in power. Both however are ethno-racial based, even more so the latter however.

America doesn’t deny the influences of bio-mechanics and race and ethnicity. It developed a new way to organize and benefit from such influences. We need Constitutionalism more than we need White Nationalism. The latter is just a European leftist ideology based on race, ethnicity and bio-mechanics. It’s a watered down Nazi Germany.

* Racism arises from our need for self defense. We cannot defend ourselves as individuals, that’s basic, so we have to join a group. Then, by defending the group we defend ourselves.

But what group should we join? The problem is that of reciprocation. If we are going to join a group and risk our lives for it, other group members must also be willing to sacrifice for us or what’s the point?

But how can we know if others in the group will reciprocate? Well, to judge that we can only try to understand the mentality of others in our group, to know, in particular, how reliable they are or if they tend to be free riders.

Every member of a racial/family group expects others in the group to broadly think and act like himself. I broadly understand other North West European whites. They are generally kind of like me. So I am willing to take the chance of standing by them. A black, a Chinaman, or an Indian? By experience I know they are all free riders, see me as an outsider, and will never show loyalty to me or do their duty towards me.

So I must side with my closest racial relatives.

* White Nationalism is best and most reliable when it’s situational: like during Katrina when lower class White locals and Euro tourists all circled together at the Superdome. Let our idealism follow the notion that we’d better hang together or hang separately.

* Difference between racial nationalism and plain nationalism:

Racial nationalism – The state exists for the explicit benefit of a particular racial or ethnic group.

Plain nationalism – The state exists for the benefit of all of its citizens, but still takes steps to prevent its core ethnic group from becoming diluted or outnumbered, because it relies on that group to function well.

American nationalists should consider the old-school multi-ethnic empire model represented by Russia. A core ethnic group and various “confederated” minority groups that are subordinated to it. The United States actually has a similar relationship with its Native American population. I think one of the tragedies of US history is that the African-American model for race relations has dominated while the Native American model is all but forgotten.

* The problem with White Nationalism is that White people basically don’t care about being White. “People are people.” This is our tendency because of our genetic heritage, individualism borne of evolving with low population density, and relentless jewish propaganda that tamps down any possible racialist reaction even in the face of blatant genocide.

For White Nationalism to take off would require two things: 1) serious fucking economic pain. Like having to go hungry, not just being demoralized and 2) a religious awakening that has a racial component. Ben Klassen tried, but despite his well-thought-out arguments, it went precisely nowhere. You need 1 in order to have 2.

Look at Islam, especially in the early days– “I wish I could fight and die and be brought back again so I could fight and die and be brought back again, etc.” Vikings and Valhalla. Crusades Era Christianity. The Empire of Japan– Emperor worship and kamikazes. The Third Reich– Aryans, Blut und Boden, Blut und Ehre. (((judaism))).

Ideologies are weak. “Conservatism” is weak. Communism was weak; it lasted barely 70 years in Russia. Even White Nationalism is weak. The intellectual arguments of Dr. Pierce, Dr. Duke, and Dr. MacDonald don’t mean a thing to the vast majority of Whites. It’s sad and I hate it, but it’s true.

The White race needs a transcendental spiritual awakening of some kind.

* Wyndham Lewis wrote a travelogue of his time in America called “America and Cosmic Man” in which he observed how well the same people who were at each others’ throats in Europe got along in America, so it can be done.

* White nationalism is really just Germano-Celtic/Anglo-Celtic nationalism. I’m sure all the forms of government and culture most white nationalists would want would be Anglo in origin and most of those supporting it would be of Anglo-Celtic descent (Anglo-Celtic = British Isles) or if not Anglo Celtic than Germano-Celtic (think the northwestern part of europe.)

* Whatever the WN reflex becomes, I hope it’s something more enduring than what it replaces. as some of the commenters noted above, a spiritual foundation is essential. otherwise our lower human nature will ensure that whatever lives are spent in the pursuit of something better will inevitably be wasted, and the fruits of our labor will be taken for granted again by our children and grandchildren.

(Even if it’s all one giant cosmic folly, it still beats accepting your fate lying down and feeling like shit.)

* Yes, unfortunately, to be a Xtian these days in any mainline religion, one has to worship a Jew as their savior, and accept his message of weakness. The price of admission. Xtians in offshoot branches are only fooling themselves about the foundation of Xtianity.

* I can take that message out on a sit tonight and convert 15 soldiers for Christ…

Can you? Can any of you?

You children… you company men… you fairies.

* And what will you reward those soldiers with when they return home, after risking their lives in battle? a tatted up hypergamous slut and a house with a white picket barbed wire fence next to section 8 housing?

* Even soldiers for Christ expect their earthly rewards for doing their duty. how’s that supposed to work in the post-birth control world where sluttery is considered a woman’s birthright?

* First prize is a Cadillac… runner up gets a set of steak knives.

All seriousness aside, like all worthy endeavors in life, you do ’em ’cause it’s right… just right… and you have to look at yourself in the mirror each morning.

Rewards are a collateral occurrence… not a raison d’etre.

I can’t do much for a man whose only outlook is what happens in matters material.

Further, if the outlook is as bleak as you describe, then what philosophy, belief, or goal would ANYONE have for carrying on… let alone keep waging the good fight?

* For those of us of strong moral fiber, doing what’s right is reward in itself. I’m just not sure you can build an army of 18-20 year olds with that carrot.

I don’t think you could find 15 good, pretty, m@rriage worthy girls in this entire country, which means your soldiers for Christ will either have to share or fight each other for the meager spoils.

* White conservative instincts include the five moral spheres and Jacksonian code of honor. And white girls are magic and so motivating, but also of the Earth and do not belong on pedestals. And Christianity built Western Civ, since by definition what we have now was made by winners, like the Crusaders. Deus vult!

* Jared Taylor suggests approaching such a policy from an environmental viewpoint, as the environmentalists are constantly haranguing about overpopulation anyway. How is adding more and more population going to help our environment in North America?

It’s time for a Convergence, this time by the Alt-Right into the environmental movement, just like the SJWs took over science fiction publishing. What goes around, comes around.

Aborting immigration is a treehugger’s right!

* Environmental protection shows how disjointed the brains of liberals are. On the one hand many (rightfully so, as do many right-wing conservatives) want to protect the environment, including endangered species. At the same time, the Left (and not us right-wing conservatives) have no problem sending money and aid (including insane christard missionaries) to Africa and other third world nations that result in their birth rates going up, and death rates going down, resulting in incredible death and destruction of the environment and animal species. Such is the disjointed working of the liberal mind!

* The enemy is willing to die because he thinks God is on his side…

You’re going to fight that with tree-hugging and a mjolner pendant around your neck?

You guys think Christ is immaterial, then choose this day who or what you would worship…

… as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.

Get wise, and read up on how He delivers His (and your) enemies under your foot. We conquered peoples and continents in the name of Christ, and became the envy of the world.

Now that we’ve driven Him from the schools, the town squares, and indeed, our very national fabric, well… how’s THAT going for ya?

* There’s an interesting little war of innuendo going on via Jimmie Kimmel between Hillary and Alex Jones. Jimmie shot a pickle jar and said the NWO was out for AJ in a comedy skit. This is how they warn you. Alex just told Hillary she could still save her soul if she repents. Its classic trolling. Alex must have good security. That one ex SF man he hired is probably their Team Chief.

* “Likewise, a White Nationalism movement will fail.”

It’s a mistake to assess the prospects by looking backward, though (in history).

Does the average Scotsman today consider himself more Scottish, or more MacDougall, MacDonald, Campbell? (and what did they do to each other when the answer was ‘MacDougall, MacDonald, or Campbell’?)

Does a German feel more German, or Bavarian, Prussian, or Saxon? Chinese or Fujianese, Cantonese, Manchu? Does the average African American have any idea which of the mulltitude of West African tribes his ancestors were pulled out of?

(or for that matter, does a Jew feel more Jewish, or Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi? (a weaker example)).

Of course, the answer in most cases is some of both, but which is dominant, and why?.

The driving forces here are not really even under our conscious control. They’re basically twofold: the fact that natural selection acts on the individual, not the group (sorry, but true), and the equally true condition that we’re fundamentally wired to form groups in which to compete with each other (to maximize the chances our ‘selfish genes’ will propagate). There’s no contradiction between the two.

We group up (and will ultimately do virtually anything to the ‘out-group’ for victory) because it improves our chances vs going it alone.

But, undeniably, the boundaries between ‘us’ vs ‘them’ have been pretty fluid, historically. The common denominator seems to be – smaller than whatever is ‘the whole’. Because if our group is ‘the whole’, while victory is assured, it’s over-assured, and our share of the spoils is diluted more than it needs to be. Too small, of course, and we may lose.

It runs in both directions. When our perception of ‘the whole’ expands, so do the boundaries of what we consider our group (eventually). We unite, and convince ourselves that we’re Scottish nationalists (vs those nasty English). And when it contracts, we break apart into squabbling, even warring, factions.

Such as we see happening before our eyes in America. The country truly is devolving into increasingly bitter, mutually antagonistic teams. It’s a re-drawing downward of the boundaries of ‘in’ vs ‘out’ group, and it was a natural, even inevitable outcome of America emerging undisputed world champion – from the Cold War, the ‘Japan-as-number-1’ bubble, etc.

No serious rivals, culturally, militarily, economically = ‘look out below’.

This is what SWPLs are really doing, by the way. Their seemingly ridiculous posturing is simply the proximate means (of shrinking the in-group). But it doesn’t matter what the means are. They’re not wrong. They’re not ‘stupid, self-hating, or pathologically altruistic (sorry, but true). They’re just pushing you out of the dominant in-group, to maximise the spoils.

The same dynamic is everywhere, at all levels of human groups. In families (Isolate a large family and watch them factionalise, squabble, even worse. Attack from the outside, and they close ranks). In politics (Labour trounces Conservatives = Labour splits apart. Blair and Brown couldn’t be in the same room together in the end.)

History is full of this process. History is a (very dynamic) optimization process.

So, serious white nationalism in America (in large numbers) will come when and only when the selfish, individual prospects for most whites clearly suffer for being white. (Obviously, we’re moving in that direction, but it’s early days).

If it continues, the response will be literally inevitable. And if it doesn’t, all but impossible.

And American nationalism and national cohesion will return when and only when Americans perceive a clear and pressing threat ‘from without’.

China? Muslims? (Or for that matter, AI and robots)?

If that doesn’t come, though – look out below!

* National Socialism is not the same as Soviet Socialism. Eugenics is built into the system. Dysgenic unions are discouraged and the natural hierarchy of Natural Selection is applied to Man. Man may not be just an animal, but breeding works for horses and dogs, and there is no reason such breeding cannot lead to better Men. Ubermensch is the goal of Fascism. That sad sack charity nonsense that breed the Untermensch and lead to Idiocracy must be outlawed and crushed. Sentimentality is for women or girly men. Fascists have hearts but believe in Tough Love. We want our sons to be Men. We want them to succeed and thrive and make us proud. To wear wings on their chests and Triumph through Their Will. One Nation, One People, One Leader. Western Civilization was not built by Capitalism, It Was Built on Industry. Henry Ford, Nicola Tesla, Thomas Edison: yes. Greed is good: NO, HELL NO!

Posted in America, Nationalism | Comments Off on White Nationalism: The Principle And The Practice

‘I was second white’: Polish runner sorry for uproar over her claims she was ‘white silver medallist’ in Olympic 800m final won by Caster Semenya

Daily Mail:

Polish runner Joanna Jozwik said she was true ‘silver medallist’ in Rio
Added she was happy to be ‘second white’ after Canadian Melissa Bishop
Her comments prompted by gender row over ‘hyperandrogenous’ runner Caster Semenya
Jozwik apologised on Facebook for offence caused but added that she was ‘entitled’ to an opinion on the debate
She claimed all three African medallists had ‘very high testosterone’ despite only Semenya having a known condition

3772530900000578-3756509-image-a-1_1472053186735

A Polish runner who finished fifth in the Olympic women’s 800m final won by Caster Semenya has said sorry for causing uproar by claiming she was the ‘second white’ in the race.
Sprinter Joanna Jozwik sparked outrage when she bizarrely said she felt like the true ‘silver medallist’ for being the second white runner to finish.
The 25-year-old took to her Facebook page to apologise to those offended by her comments that appeared to dismiss Semenya and the two other black medal winners. She even said the fourth-placed Canadian runner should have won gold.
But she insisted she was ‘entitled’ to an opinion on the gender row debate, sparked by Semenya’s presence in the race.

Posted in Blacks, Olympics | Comments Off on ‘I was second white’: Polish runner sorry for uproar over her claims she was ‘white silver medallist’ in Olympic 800m final won by Caster Semenya

‘Let’s choose our Jewishness over Whiteness this time. Let’s choose life.’

What’s going on in this piece? Is the rabbi a self-hating Jew? I don’t think so. I just think the rabbi puts his leftism above Judaism. There’s not much in Judaism about how Jews should try to influence public policy in gentile states. There is no longer historical record (beyond a century) of Jews fighting for the oppressed or for blacks in particular. Rather, Jews have found “fighting for the oppressed” and “fighting for civil rights” convenient causes to make their own situation more comfortable.

Jeffrey Wendt writes: “I sometimes wonder what Jews who enthusiastically go on about “white privilege” think the endgame is. They seem to think this concept will serve to shut the mouths of middle and working class whites in flyover country, while liberal Jews hold the clipboards and direct victorious POC in a dismantling of “whiteness.” Privileges will be checked, and all will be well in the world. I don’t see it.”

Martin Friedman writes for the social justice rabbinic website RabbiBrant.com (“This blog explores the intersection between Judaism and social justice, with a particular emphasis on Israel/Palestine”):

For the purpose of this piece I will be referring to Blacks who are for the most part gentile and white Jews (Jews who have come to get the racial designation of White in the context of the US regardless of self identification).

This particular piece is really written for Jews who have come to be called White. Jews who are also people of color are writing excellent pieces from their unique perspective. I will not attempt to speak from that perspective.

What a(nother) crucial time for relationships between “Blacks” and “Jews”! What will we choose? Will we, as we have done so many times in the past, choose whiteness and the perceived safety that we feel goes with that in the US or will we choose to align ourselves with those that are most oppressed in a given society? This is a very familiar spot for the Ashkenazi (and occasionally Sephardi) Jew who now gets a racial designation as white in the US.

Let’s get this out of the way right now. Jewish, in the United States, isn’t a race. It is a culture that includes both spirituality and religion and also includes non religious ways of life. Jewish is also, arguably, an ethnicity based on being a cultural marker that has traveled with us and defined us. In this country Jewish is not a race.

So please, Ashkenazi Jews, just stop saying, “I’m not white. I’m Jewish.” Yes we are Jewish and we will also be assigned a race based on how we are commonly perceived by institutions and systems. How we see ourselves or how we self identify does not matter in this race-constructed and race-constitutionalized country. A Jewish person who is also Black, Latino, Asian, Native American or mixed race will be identified first by their race even as they self identify as a Jew.

OK, let’s get something else out of the way too. I am a self loving Jew (who is also white). I love my Jewishness. I am unapologetically Jewish. So let’s just wipe out the whole, “Oh, he must be a self hating Jew because he isn’t mortally offended that the Movement for Black Lives platform used the terminology of genocidal and apartheid policies in relationship to Israel.” Or, “Oh, we don’t have to listen to Martin because he went to Israel and visited the West Bank and East Jerusalem and has been critical of Israeli policy on his Facebook page”. Not true! On my grand and great grandparents! On my great Aunt Leah from whom I got my middle name. I love my Jewishness! I love the connection I feel to my Eastern European Jewish heritage.

I am also in love with an ideal of Jewishness that isn’t rooted in whiteness and domination. A Jewish ideal of true Tikkun Olam; of Repairing the world. All the world! Not just a world defined by whiteness or Europeanness. Not a world where we get to control the conversation.

The world is broken. Does our refusing to engage with BLM help repair it? Can we repair it if we don’t engage with people who criticize current Israeli policy and US financial and Military support for the government that developed and enforces those policies?

It’s time for White Jews to stop choosing whiteness and align ourselves with those most oppressed in the US because that is what true Jewishness is about. And why wouldn’t we? The point of the Movement for Black Lives Platform was to speak truth to all power, not to use pleasing language. It is our duty to sit across the table from people who have been most oppressed in our country and hear what they have to say about what they perceive to be genocidal policy that’s connected to Institutional, Systemic and Structural Racism in the US.

What are we afraid of? Why are we, of all people, afraid of conversation about oppression? If the policies of the Israeli government really are leading to a fair two or one state solution, why can’t we sit at a table and discuss it? Remember, the one piece of the platform we are so hyped up about is about governmental policy both here and in Israel not about hating or oppressing Jews? Remember that Egypt was mentioned at the same time as Israel? I hope we are not forgetting those things because this is just an easy reason to disengage.

We are a people who have such a long history of debate and multiple interpretations of the same text (or in this case policies) so why are we shutting this conversation down? Because of multigenerational historical trauma from the European Holocaust? All the more reason to sit down with people who have multigenerational historical trauma from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and US chattel slavery. Multigenerational trauma from lynchings and Jim Crow. From a Eugenics narrative that was studied here in the US by German Nazis. My people, we share roots in our historical trauma.

We, White Jews, have confused comfort with safety. And the root of that confusion is the root of the problem, power. Power is defined (by the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond) as legitimate access to institutions and systems sanctioned by the state. Power that is equivalent to Whiteness. People that have strong access to institutional and systemic power confuse discomfort with safety all the time.

I put forth, vehemently, that the wording of one section of the Movement for Black Lives platform makes us uncomfortable, not unsafe. We must be willing to engage. It’s pure privilege to get to pick and choose when and with whom we engage on this subject. It’s extreme privilege to just say no, I’m done. Extreme privilege to be able to shut someone down.

This is another in a long line of moments in history where we as white Jews get to chose alignment with whiteness or with People of Color. And what’s even crazier this time is that it feels like it’s our Jewishness that is at stake. It’s even crazier because it feels like this is anti Semitism. Again, being anti-Israeli policy and anti-US government policy is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic.

Historically, we’ve chosen the perceived safety of whiteness. Our ability to become fully White was due to governmental policy, the GI bill plus redlining which gave us our whiteness while excluding Blacks and Latinos who such a short time earlier had been our partners and friends. But they couldn’t access it in the same way as we could due to racism.

Yes, many of us were in the civil rights movement. Yes, many of us marched side by side. But we let ourselves get coopted so soon after. We chose whiteness because it got us out of the ghetto (named because of us by the way!) It was our literal ghetto pass. We need to understand that we left our brothers and sisters behind.

What are the costs of choosing Whiteness over Jewishness? One of the costs of our comfort and our privilege is Black and Brown lives. As long as we align ourselves with whiteness we contribute to the deaths of Black and Brown people at the hands of institutions. Their deaths are part of the the cost of our comfort, safety and privilege.

The other loss is the loss of what it really means to be Jewish. That it means to not stand idly by our neighbor’s blood. That it means true Tikkun Olam. We are at such a(nother) crucial time of choice.

Let’s choose our Jewishness over Whiteness this time. Let’s choose life.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Blacks, BLM, Jews | Comments Off on ‘Let’s choose our Jewishness over Whiteness this time. Let’s choose life.’

Who Is My Brother?

I have two main intellectual interests at the moment — the political theology of Carl Schmitt and the Talmudic tractate Bava Kamma.

Bava Kamma 88A translated into English reads:

R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT NO DEGRADATION IS PAID IN THE CASE OF [CANAANITE] SLAVES. What is the reason of R. Judah? — As Scripture says:2 ‘When men strive together one with another’ the law applies to one who can claim brotherhood and thus excludes a slave who cannot claim brotherhood.3 And the Rabbis?4 — They would say that even a slave is a brother in so far as he is subject to commandments. If this is so, would you say that according to R. Judah witnesses proved zomemim5 in a capital accusation against a slave would not be subject to be put to death in virtue of the words:6 ‘Then shall ye do unto him as he had purposed to do unto his brother’?7 — Raba said that R. Shesheth stated: The verse concludes:6 ‘So shalt thou put away the evil from among you’, implying ‘on all accounts’ — Would you say that according to the Rabbis8 a slave would be eligible to be chosen as king?9 — I would reply: According to your reasoning would the same difficulty not arise regarding a proselyte, whichever view we accept10 unless we suppose that when Scripture says ‘One from among thy brethren’,11 it implies ‘one of the choicest of thy brethren’?12 — But again would you now also say that according to the Rabbis, a slave would be eligible to give evidence,13 since it says, And behold, if the witness be a false witness and hath testified falsely against his brother?14 — ‘Ulla replied: Regarding evidence you can surely not argue thus. For that he15 is disqualified from giving evidence can be learnt by means of an a fortiori from the law in the case of Woman: for if Woman who is eligible to enter [by marriage] into the congregation [of Israel] is yet ineligible to give evidence,16 how much more must a slave who is not eligible to enter [by marriage] into the congregation [of Israel] be ineligible to give evidence? But why is Woman disqualified if not perhaps because she is not subject to the law of circumcision? How then can you assert the same In the case of a slave who is subject to circumcision?17 — The case of a [male] minor will meet this objection, for in spite of his being subject to circumcision he is disqualified from giving evidence.18 But why is a minor disqualified if not perhaps because he is not subject to commandments?19 How then can you assert the same in the case of a slave who is subject to commandments?20 — The case of Woman will meet this objection, for though she is subject to commandments she is disqualified from giving evidence. The argument is thus endlessly reversible. There are features in the one instance which are not found in the other, and vice versa. The features common to both21 are that they are not subject to all the commandments22 and that they are disqualified from giving evidence. I will therefore include with them a slave who also is not subject to all the commandments and should therefore also be disqualified from giving evidence. But why [I may ask] is the feature common to them21 that they are disqualified from giving evidence if not perhaps because neither of them is a man?23 How then can you assert the same in the case of a slave who is a man? — You must therefore deduce the disqualification of a slave from the law applicable in the case of a robber.24 But why is there this disqualification in the case of a robber if not because his own deeds caused it? How then can you assert the same in the case of a slave whose own deeds could surely not cause it?25 — You must therefore deduce the disqualification of a slave from both the law applicable to a robber and the law applicable to either of these [referred to above].26 Mar, the son of Rabina, however, said: Scripture says: ‘The fathers shall not be put to death through27 the children’;28 from this it could be inferred that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [persons who if they were to be] fathers would have no legal paternity over their children.29 For if you assume that the verse is to be taken literally, ‘fathers shall not be put to death through children’, meaning, ‘through the evidence of children’, the Divine Law should have written ‘Fathers shall not be put to death through their children’. Why then is it written ‘children’, unless to indicate that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [persons who if they were to be] fathers would have no legal paternity over their children? If that is so, would you also say that the concluding clause ‘neither shall the children be put to death through the fathers’ similarly implies that no sentence of capital punishment should be passed on [the evidence of] the mouth of [witnesses who as] children would have no legal filiation with respect to their fathers, and therefore argue that a proselyte30 should similarly be disqualified from giving evidence?

According to this thought, a Canaanite can never be a brother to a Jew. Not all men are brothers. Jews have enemies and their enemies are not brothers.

Like all tribal systems, Judaism has a dual morality. There’s one standard for how you treat your bother, your fellow Jew, and there is another standard for how you treat non-Jews. Christianity, by contrast, believes in one universal morality for how you treat everyone.

Judaism is based on kinship. WASP civilization is based upon reputation.

From a Jewish perspective, the idea that all men are brothers gets many beautiful evocations in the aggadic (stories) writings, but when it comes to Jewish law, there are two standards — one for your fellow Jew and one for the goyim. For instance, you may not lend at interest to your fellow Jew, but you can lend at interest to a goy.

From the above quoted practical perspective of Judaism (as opposed to its more flowery evocations of the brotherhood of man), not every person you meet is your brother. In fact, many peoples cannot be your brother. This seems like commonsense to me.

When it comes to the creation and maintenance of the present state of Israel, Muslims are not your brother. They are the enemy. On the other hand, in different circumstances, such as in domestic politics in the diaspora, organized Jewry and organized Islam usually want the same things — anti-Christianity, a maximum of immigration, lots of welfare, a multi-cultural society where minorities increase their power at the expense of the native majority, and stigmatization of the goyim (whites of Europeans ancestry) strengthening their racial, religious and national identity.

Judaism is profoundly rooted in this world whereas Christianity places more attention on the next world. Judaism understands the friend-enemy distinction is essential for national identity.

There’s a gentile thinker who also saw the importance of the friend-enemy distinction for organizing a nation — Carl Schmitt.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Carl Schmitt, Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off on Who Is My Brother?