Is Vox Day Anti-Semitic?

Posted on August 18, 2017 by Luke Ford

Rabbi B writes:

I have to confess, this one is a personal favorite. I am a Jew and I have been reading Vox Day’s blog since he left World Net Daily. Before that, I was reading his column at WND which, if I remember correctly, was featured on Mondays. His column was the one I looked forward to reading the most each week. If Vox Day is an anti-Semite, then I am the Pope.

Again, all you have to do is read what the man has written. Is Vox Day critical of the Jews? Yes. Has Vox Day criticized the politicization of the Holocaust? Certainly. Has Vox Day written on countless occasions how imperative it is for Jews all over the world to go home? Absolutely. Do any of these things make him an anti-Semite?

Well, before we answer that, maybe we should ask ourselves if any anti-Semite worth his salt would publish Jewish authors? Would an anti-Semite dare associate with the likes of a Mike Cernovich or a Milo Yianopolous or any other number of acquaintances who happen to be Jewish? Would an anti-Semite who believed in the annihilation of the Jewish people warn them time and time again to make aliyah, something which is in the absolute best interest of the Jewish people everywhere? In fact, for what it’s worth, you will find no mention of the Jews anywhere in the 16 points. (And yet it would not surprise me in the least little bit if I were to discover that there are some who have somehow managed to construe this omission as anti-Semitic as well).

There is a Proverb which states that the wounds of a friend are faithful and that the kisses of an enemy are deadly, most especially when that enemy is kissing your ass (OK, I may have embellished that last part). But, let me be clear: the Proverbs also speak of a friend who sticks closer than a brother and Vox Day is a loyal friend of the Jews. He is not afraid to speak the truth to his friends even though he may be rejected, branded a racist or an anti-Semite, vilified or disavowed, while being dismissed and ridiculed.

It doesn’t matter, because Vox speaks the truth to his friends and the truth is, more often than not, quite painful and few are capable of absorbing the truth, let alone of being transformed by it. Needless to say, the truth is the only thing in this world which will set us free, and I suspect that Vox knows and understands this better than most. When we reject the truth because we find it to be too painful or too uncomfortable for our taste and instead choose to remain in Egypt, we are telegraphing to the world just how much we love our servitude and just how content we really are to live and die as slaves rather than as free men.

Pharaoh was an anti-Semite, not Vox Day. Haman was an anti-Semite, not Vox Day. Antiochus Epiphanes was an anti-Semite, not Vox Day. If Vox is an anti-Semite, he’s doing it wrong. In my limited experience, I know that anti-Semites preach destruction of the Jewish people, not their preservation. I know what an anti-Semite looks like, and Vox Day does not fit the bill. How can I be so sure, you ask?

Because Vox Day has not remained silent. Because Vox Day is not lying to me. Because Vox Day is not afraid nor ashamed to tell me the truth, no matter how it makes me feel. All you have to do is read what he wrote. He has nothing to hide and even less to gain by hiding.

Posted in Vox Day | Comments Off on Is Vox Day Anti-Semitic?

White supremacist leader compares his ideology to Zionism on Israeli TV

Posted on August 18, 2017 by Luke Ford

From Times of Israel:

“As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identify, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me who has analogous feelings about whites,” Spencer told anchor Dany Cushmaro. “I mean, you could say that I’m a white Zionist in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that for us and ourselves just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.”

Cushmaro did not follow up on Spencer’s comparison, which is not uncommon in far-right circles, though it is widely rejected by Israelis and Israel supporters.

Earlier in the interview, Cushmaro pressed Spencer to explain why the far-right protestors’ chants of “Jews will not replace us” and other “anti-Jewish slogans” were not anti-Semitism. Spencer, a leader of the racist and anti-Semitic “alt-right” movement, justified the rhetoric, citing Americans’ right to free speech and Jews outsise role in left-wing American politics.

“The fact is, Jews, let’s be honest, Jews have been vastly overrepresented in the historical left. Jews are vastly overrepresented in the left right now. They’re vastly overrepresented in what you could call the establishment, that is, Ivy League-educated people who really determine policy, and white people are being disposed from this country,” he said. “So some in the crowd were making a statement. This is a free country. People are allowed to speak their mind.”

Asked how he would like to see President Donald Trump respond to Charlottesville, Spencer said he should investigate why the city’s mayor, Michael Signer, who is Jewish, and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe “allowed chaos to reign.” He claimed that he and the other protesters were “peaceful.”

Spencer also said both the alt-right and Trump are “symptoms of a greater cause, and that is the demographic dispossession of white people in the United States and around the world.”

Here is my favorite paragraph in the story: “Cushmaro did not follow up on Spencer’s comparison, which is not uncommon in far-right circles, though it is widely rejected by Israelis and Israel supporters.”

The author could not explain why Spencer was wrong. He had to fall back on saying the comparison was “widely rejected.”

Posted in Israel, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on White supremacist leader compares his ideology to Zionism on Israeli TV

Forward: ‘Richard Spencer Might Be The Worst Person In America. But He’s Right About Israel’

Posted on August 18, 2017 by Luke Ford

Naomi Dann (a media manager at Jews for Peace) writes:

The images of Nazis and white supremacists marching in the streets of Charlottesville with torches chanting “blood and soil” shook me to my core. But so did something else that happened this week. In the aftermath of these acts of blatant racism and anti-Semitism, one of the march’s leaders, Richard Spencer, was invited onto Israeli TV. His words were chilling, but not for the reason I expected.

The Israeli TV host asked Spencer how he, a Jew, should feel about Spencer’s platform. What Spencer said was shocking:

“As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me,” Spencer said. “I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel.” He told the Israeli host that he sees himself as “a white Zionist.”

This isn’t the first time Spencer has compared his disturbing white nationalist vision to the Zionist project. A few months ago, Spencer stunned a rabbi at an event in Texas when he said: “Do you really want radical inclusion into the State of Israel? And by that I mean radical inclusion. Maybe all of the Middle East could go move into Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Would you really want that?”

The rabbi didn’t have an answer and he’s not the only one. This is what’s so chilling about Spencer’s comparison of white supremacy to Israel – not its anti-Semitism but the kernel of truth at its core. Richard Spencer, whose racist views are rightfully abhorred by the majority of the Jewish community, is holding a mirror up to Zionism and the reflection isn’t pretty…

Looking at Israel today, we can see a state premised on the privileging of one group, and all too often perpetuating the erasure and displacement of another. We also see an obsession with demographics and the maintenance of an ethnic majority.

Then you have the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, the state sanctioning of Jewish settlers who seize Palestinian homes in Hebron, and the policy of seizing the property of “present absentees” after Palestinians were displaced during the war to establish the state of Israel are just some examples.

Then there’s the discrimination faced by Palestinian citizens of Israel (who should ostensibly have the same rights as Jewish Israelis), Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews, and African refugees seeking asylum.

Many of us see these policies as alarming violations of human and civil rights, indeed, of our Jewish values. And the proof is in the pudding: Richard Spencer sees this as inspiration for his white nationalist vision.

But we don’t have to rely on Richard Spencer to tell us that there are other disturbing places of intersection. There is a disturbing alliance between Zionists and white nationalists in the White House these days, and it doesn’t come from nowhere. There is a shared bedrock of anxiety about demographics and racist and Islamophobic fear of “Arabs” that goes hand in hand with both worldviews.

And just like there are fascists marching the streets of America, there are fascists marching the streets of Israel beating up leftists. The alt-right are not the only ones being vile online, either. My friends report that they regularly receive death threats as a consequence of their activism. During the Israeli assault on Gaza in the summer of 2014, leftist Israeli friends who opposed the war reported being chased by fascist mobs on the streets of Jerusalem.

Even ex-prime minister Ehud Barak said this week that the events in Charlottesville reminded him of fascism in Israel. He cited the example of Lehava, an anti-miscegenation gang that frequently attacks Palestinians.

Here is my favorite paragraph in the story: “Now, of course, the comparison is not literally true. For starters, we Jews have a recent history in which we really could have used a country willing to stand up for us. That’s the historical rationale for establishing a Jewish state and that distinguishes us fundamentally from white nationalists. White nationalists in the U.S. are not facing any kind of discrimination whatsoever, despite their belief that they are.”

The author can’t explain why Richard Spencer’s comparison is wrong. Arguing that Jews could have used a country to stand up for them only makes Richard Spencer’s point. The idea that white nationalists are not facing any kind of discrimination is absurd in a week where white nationalists were fired from jobs for participating in a lawful rally, and banned from Paypal, Uber, AirBnB, Blogger, Facebook, etc. To publicly identify as a white nationalist is to remove oneself from polite society.

Posted in Israel, Nationalism, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on Forward: ‘Richard Spencer Might Be The Worst Person In America. But He’s Right About Israel’

When The Nazis Ran Hollywood

Posted on August 18, 2017 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: “While Jason Bateman’s Ozark on Netflix is modeled in part on Breaking Bad, The Last Tycoon, Amazon’s golden age of Hollywood drama series based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s incomplete roman a clef novel about the MGM executive suite struggle between golden boy Irving Thalberg and his boss Louis B. Mayer, is inspired by Mad Men. The goal is to allow audiences to wallow in glittering Period Porn while cluck-clucking self-righteously about how the Nazis ran America back then.

Matt Bomer plays the hero, while Kelsey Grammer is bad guy Pat Brady, based on Louis B. Mayer if Louis B. Mayer had talked like Sideshow Bob.

The hero is depicted as a rare Jewish underdog in 1936 Hollywood, a time when, we learn, the Third Reich pulled the strings inside Hollywood studios.

Or at least that was what I saw in the first 20 minutes of the pilot before giving up. This one is really bad.”

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It must feel weird to be Jews in Hollywood.

If US were all Jewish and if Jews made movies for Jews, they would make honest movies about how things were and what they feel.

But Jews make movies for what is mostly a goy audience, so they are more mindful of the movies’ effect on the audience than on the movies themselves.

It’s like Jewish media for Jews in Israel is more honest. Fewer filters and condescension. In contrast, US news is always filtered through Jewish consideration of what WE should watch and should think.
Jews in Israel can’t get the ‘wrong idea’ since, no matter what happens, Israel will be about Jews for Jewish nation.
But in the US, what if goyim get the ‘wrong idea’ from the news and do stuff that Jews don’t like… like going populist and voting for Trump and noticing that Antifanissary attacked first?

So, there is fear, paranoia, propaganda, condescension, and anxiety running through all of Hollywood. This tension sort of makes things more interesting… even esoteric. Sometimes, this game of deception can make the work even more interesting. But sometimes, it can make things just STUPID, a dumb mind trick.

Imagine if a Christian minority had to produce books, movies, culture, and news for what is an overwhelmingly Muslim audience. They want to make profit and give Muslims what they want but what if Muslims think or do things that go against Christian interest? So, Christians must always distort things to make Muslims feel obedient or deferential to the Christians. A tightrope game.
Always, Christians would be more concerned about the effect than being honest. After all, what if Christians make honest movies that reveal how they feel about Christians or how they love having control over Muslims dummies. Muslims might wake up.

In China, there is censorship, but it’s about Chinese making stuff for Chinese. So, there is at least directness and connection between makers and consumers on that level.
In the US, so much of media are made by Jews for gentiles whom many Jews regard with fear, anxiety, and/or condescension.

* Should there be a revisionist reassessment of MadMen? I thought Draper & Company were settled science. It was a time when Jews were kept in their place, White men were expected to dress well, step up to the plate and they routinely built and did great things. It was also a time when women were women and homos, trannies and other mostly non-existent freaks that are so common today were parked in the closet where they belonged. Of course, then came the late Sixties and greatness ended.

* Ethno-monopoly of internet leads to Nakba-ing of Alternative Right by Nowicki and Liddell.

* If Nazis were running Hollywood, you’d think there would have been at least one pro-nazi movie in the 30s. Even vaguely so. There were plenty of pro-commie movies.

If America truly was a free country, with true freedom of speech, you might have expected that there would be at least one anti-war movie made after between 1939 and 1945. One, right? I can’t think of any. Can anyone?

Posted in Hollywood, Jews | Comments Off on When The Nazis Ran Hollywood

Would Americans Choose National Socialism If They Could?

Posted on August 17, 2017 by Luke Ford

National Socialism repels most Westerners today but the combination of nationalism and socialism is probably a winning electoral formula.

I’m trying to figure out the hysteria about neo-nazis. Their numbers are few and their influence is tiny. Yet a Google News search for the term shows 1,460,000 recent results.

Steve Sailer wrote: "Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms."

Sailer wrote:

To quantify the statement that "Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration," in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.

Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency's reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy.

Joel Stein of the LA Times found in 2007 that people of Jewish background hold a large majority of the most powerful positions in Hollywood.

This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.

John Derbyshire wrote: "I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT—not ever again—be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently."

I’ve argued previously that just as neo-conservatism is not conservative, and neo-hasidism is not hasidic, so too neo-nazis are not nazis. They’re ethno-nationalists just as most Jews are ethno-nationalists (as normative Judaism is ethno-nationalism with Zion its home, and according to Torah, there is no room for non-Jewish citizens in the Jewish state).

So would Americans choose nationalism if they could? I suspect yes. Would they choose nationalism combined with economic populism? I suspect yes. Would they choose national socialism if they had the choice? It is as likely a winner as any other ideology (so long as it disassociated itself from Nazism, which is uniquely German).

So why the hysteria about neo-nazis? People see a revival of Nazi Germany and that frightens them.

Until Donald Trump, Americans never had the option of voting for a nationalist for president.

Jews, like all groups, love nationalism for themselves, but fear it in others. Nationalism is a fantastic organizing principle and when people become nationalistic, they become more formidable competitors. Choices that were not possible before nationalism (such as excluding outsiders) become easy.

Peoples who don’t choose nationalism are cucks. They’re easy pickings. On the other hand, nationalism is dangerous. All nationalisms contain the capacity for genocide.

How many Americans watch The Man in the High Castle and see its portrayal of a white orderly America and yearn for it? I suspect half of the viewers feel that kind of tingle. The hero of the show so far is a Nazi – Obergrupenfuhrer John Smith.

According to Wikipedia:

Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism.[1] The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements.[2]

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is the incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.

Neo-Nazi activity is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries, as well as international networks. In some European and Latin American countries, laws have been enacted that prohibit the expression of pro-Nazi, racist, anti-Semitic or homophobic views. Many Nazi-related symbols are banned in European countries in an effort to curtail neo-Nazism.

Let’s take a closer look at the ideological foundations of neo-nazism according to Wikipedia. “Ultranationalism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Racism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Ableism” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Xeno-phobia” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. “Homophobia” is a natural and normal human reaction and in many cases, adaptive. Antiziganism (hatred of gypsies)and “Antisemitism” are part of the natural and normal human reaction to strangers. In some cases, some negative feelings of these outsiders might be adaptive, and in other circumstances, a more welcoming approach will be more adaptive.

Some of what is called “neo-nazism” is the natural human condition. Without the guardrails constructed by modernity, humanity’s natural default politics is something like “neo-nazism.” On the other hand, the common wisdom in America (and the West) prior to the 1960s, was ultra-nationalist, racist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-gypsy, and antisemitic. So was 1950s America neo-nazi? That’s ludicrous. Therefore, my earlier point holds — “neo-nazi” often lacks objective meaning except as a slur (and as a self-description for those non-Germans who like to dress up as real Nazis).

Let’s take a closer look at the ideological foundations of Nazism according to Wikipedia to determine if the Alt Right is Nazi-like or Nazi light. “Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism.” Anyone on the Alt Right has to be a race realist, has to understand that the different races have different gifts. This last phrase is different from Nazism’s racial hierarchy. Nazism apparently believes in superior and inferior races while the Alt Right agrees that the races have different gifts. The Nazis (and communists) hated IQ tests because Jews excelled Aryans. The Alt Right does not hate IQ tests. The Alt Right is dominantly a white thing and all white Alt Right intellectuals accept that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ of any group, and that east asians have higher average IQs than whites, more family stability and lower crime and STD rates. So the Alt Right feels no need to posit that whites are superior in anything including intelligence. The Alt Right does not need to claim superiority for their people to prefer their own kind and to want their people to live and have sovereignty in the countries they created (such as the United States, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc). Some segments of the Alt Right have a particular affinity with Nordics or Aryans over all other whites but they are a minority.

Like Nazism, some segments of the the Alt Right want to overcome social divisions and other segments don’t care about social divisions. The hardcore Alt Right are ethno-nationalists, but only a tiny number of the Alt Right are concerned with racial purity. Also, only a small number of the Alt Right want to unite all white people. Most members of the Alt Right would regard that as utopian and are more focused on the well-being of their particular nation. Unlike Nazism, the Alt Right is not expansionist. Few members of the Alt Right want to conquer and rule over other races. Like the Nazis, most members of the Alt Right have a developed group identity around race, prefer their own kind, and are willing to privilege their own race over other races. The Alt Right today has no particular economic policy, though the more hardcore Alt Right see such questions as determined by what is best for their particular race, which will be a combination of capitalism and socialism. Like Nazism, the Alt Right hates communism, opposes cosmopolitan internationalism, and generally agrees that individual happiness is less important than the common good (as does Judaism). Nazism was hostile to organized monotheist religion while the Alt Right is all over the place with regard to religion (though its leading intellectuals tend to be atheists).

In conclusion, the Alt Right has some things in common with the ideological foundations of Nazism in the same sense that 1950s America had some things in common with Nazism (Nazism got much of its racial policy from America).

Posted in America, Nationalism, Nazi | Comments Off on Would Americans Choose National Socialism If They Could?