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.”
* 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 inAlt Right|Comments Off on Joshua Seidel & The Alt-Right
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 inAmerica, Nationalism|Comments Off on White Nationalism: The Principle And The Practice
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
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 inBlacks, 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
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 inAnti-Semitism, Blacks, BLM, Jews|Comments Off on ‘Let’s choose our Jewishness over Whiteness this time. Let’s choose life.’
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.
* You are not part of the Alt-Right. You are not wanted. You are not welcome. If you’d like to help the Alt-Right, live out your days in Israel, convince as many of your people to go with you, and stay out of The West’s affairs.
* We want OUR Nationalism. Our Gentile ancestors built this Nation (read the 1790 Naturalization Act). Josh, you’re welcome to be Nationalists as well… in Israel as they already are there.
* It’s peak irony that your main motivation for being “alt-right” is the fact you think our counter-semitism is less of a threat to your Tribe and ethnostate than anti-Zionist nonwhites who think Jews are white and therefore see Israel as simply another manifestation of the evil white colonialism meme (that, of course, jews promoted in the first place). Do you ever stop to think how incredibly neurotic your people are, yourself included? Inbreeding + vanity is a helluva drug.
* There is no such thing as a Jewish “alt righter” as the alt right is centered around the fundamental truth that Jews have been a cancer upon European civilization since the classical era. We are a White nationalist/ethno-nationalist movement. So far as preserving “western civilization” is concerned, we correctly see that there is no such thing without the indigenous European people.
* Jews are not welcome in the alt-right, counter-semitism is one of our core values. There are plenty of other movements you are free to join and express your ideas in, and plenty who advocate for jewish ethnic interests. Whites only. Gentiles only.
* JS: The problem with that is that I was “alt right” before it was even called that, then you showed up and claimed this was an “all white” movement. It’s a pro-white movement, absolutely, but more diverse than the Huffpo’s editorial staff any day.
You can’t get rid of me, anyway, so might as well get used to it.
* The problem is that you’re only doing whatever you think is good for the jews, which you clearly stated in your article. Your ethnic interest is your number one priority. You’re not us. You have shown the same type of behavior since ancient times and it’s not gonna change anytime soon. You can go and be “alt-right” in Israel.
* JS: This is nonsense. This article was written for the Jewish Daily Forward so of course I’m trying to speak to Jews, but to say it means I’m not genuinely pro-American is just not true. You’re wasting your time shitposting here when you could actually be attacking the enemy.
* There is no way of knowing your true intentions or loyalties. And there is zero reasons for us to even care. You have your ethnostate already, now let us have ours.
* JS: “Let us”.
This is your problem. Do you think “let us” is going to save a country like Sweden? Jews didn’t force anyone to open their borders.
* No, you weaseled your way in and lobbied laws in line with your ethnic interests, like always. Gentiles didn’t force jews to come to our countries, and we keep kicking you out again and again, yet you always come back and kvetch about the evil goyim. You are not us.
* Yes. Accept that you are not welcome in this movement and leave us to make our own decisions without the presumptious neuroticism typical of Jews stepping in to say, ‘No, goy. You can’t do it without us. We won’t let you’.
Jewish intervention and subversion of Gentile culture and society has been thoroughly documented most excellently by your own people. For instance,
“The most important Jewish literary figure who wrote in French before the Revolution, Isacc de Pinto, also made his debut in print with a pamplet in defense of his people. This was the first version of his Apologie, which appeared in 1762. The fame of Pinto’s Apologie has tended to obscure the importance of his considerable body of writing on economics, politics, and contemporary cultural questions”.
further…
“Adam Smith was indeed the only major economist to react at all to Pinto’s views and he censured an author, who he did not name, for holding that ‘insane view’ that credit was a social good and that the stock market was good for the economy. Pinto began his treatise by defending the national debt as an economic good against all its critics”.
The French Enlightenment and the Jews, Arthur Hertzberg 1968
* Ingrid Lomfors, Barbara Spectre, and countless others have done exactly that, playing on Swedes’ naive trust and decency to swarm them with Somalis and others. In so doing, they’re destroying the Swedes’ ethnic bonds and traits that allowed them to be such a desirable target for swindlers and the brown hordes who disguise them to enter and destroy Sweden, as both are currently doing. Symptoms come from diseases, quibbling about whether the disease “forced” anyone to do anything is irrelevant, because it would not be occurring without the presence of the disease. As your people learned from the Cheka and the NKVD, and fleeing from the USSR once Stalin realized he’d been duped, it’s better to switch from the Old Left to the New Left and use the fictional sainthoods of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, or Betty Friedan against us by co-opting Enlightenment values than it is to put a gun at someone’s back and force them to march. It’s more profitable, it’s more subversive, and it’s infinitely more destructive.
* JS: Explicitly pro-white American. This country can surely integrate minorities and has better than any in history, but the outbreak of anti-white identity politics requires a direct response. The left opened this door, and I’m happy to walk through it.
* Integration of minorities is the absolute worst thing possible for Whites. It acts as a soporific until we are outnumbered and replaced. As loathsome as Moslems’ spontaneous combustions across Europe are, they’re the only things that can wake up enough Europeans before it’s too late. Otherwise, I assume, you are aware that given the breeding rates of non-Whites in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the U.S., and their continued influx, Whites will simply become swarmed if the status quo continues. Nothing ensures continuance of the status quo like peaceful integration.
Smarter Moslems will continue to come, hijab in hand, continuing the narrative that they are the moderate, peaceful ones, until they’re strong enough to prove that they aren’t anymore. Even if they were, the trend is that they become 1, 2, 5, 10, 20% of the population and upward. Even friendly Moslems being every face you see in a crowd in Paris, London, etc. is a despicable outcome that no healthy group, unpoisoned by mass media and subversive ideology, would tolerate. A nation is nothing if not its people. It simply works out in Jews and brown people’s favor for Whites to open their societies up for plundering. The “diversity” ideology is a wedge to do so, and nothing more.
Jews insist on continuing to bring these people into the West, regardless, apparently unaware that Hispanics, Moslems, and others are far less friendly to Jewish interests, and completely apathetic about the six trillion whom the Nazis turned into lampshades for no apparent reason. Kallen, Lazarus, Boas and the rest believed that Jews would only be safe in a “vibrant” world where any and every group was tolerated, but Jews were already safe in America. They will NOT be safe once the dusky hordes they love to subvert the European goyim with start using Jews’ own rhetoric of “privilege” to come after them. You can kiss all the massive over-representation in lucrative fields, ethnic nepotism, and aid to Israel goodbye once the forces that Jews unleashed finally come knocking on your door.
You could’ve been normal people, you could’ve relaxed and respected your host countries, but you had to push Hart-Celler, you had to swindle on Wall Street, you had to subvert the goyim through Hollywood, you had to wring Israel out of the blood of continuing World War I for a “victory” that ensured the Third Reich. This boundless social energy for changing friendly, prosperous host countries into hostile, “diverse” societies of mindless miscegenated consumers is going to backfire, and that is the inevitable result of meddlesome troublemakers who have repeated this cycle time and again, intelligent enough to rise to the top with clannishness, but never wise enough to learn the lesson that Jews should just chill out and be normal people. They can’t do it, and they’ve unleashed a multi-billion horde that will destroy the entire planet just to keep this obnoxious pattern going. You may well be sincere, but you are not us, you do not put our interests first, thus you belong with your people in the same way that we belong with ours. That is what every group wants, and no group in as bad a position as Whites currently are needs to have a small movement coalescing to fight for its interests being co-opted by people with other interests in mind.
* “This country can surely integrate minorities”
But that is bad for Whites, so it will end. Because that is what is in the interests of Whites. Since you’re not White, you object to this. Well, you’ll have to sell it somewhere else, hooknose. No one in the alt-right is buying your subversive bullshit.
* You’re not Alt-Right in any meaningful sense. Just another Middle-eastern parasite. You’re not welcome in the West.
Stop pretending you’re Alt-Right. The rank and file of the Alt-Right want to pop you in an oven.
* “You can’t get rid of me, anyway, so might as well get used to it.”
-quote by some jew in Germany circa 1933.
* “I was ‘alt right’ before it was even called that”
Nope. Philosemitic paleoLARPing is not the alt-right. The alt-right was created by a White Nationalist counter-semite who wears his hair like an SS officer.
* This is ridiculous. There are no membership requirements for the alt-right. In any case, why would you want to alienate an obvious ally? It seems like there are two camps in the alt-right: civic nationalists with a healthy dose of demographic realism (essentially pro-white Trumpists) vs white nationalists who see everything through race.
* I have news for you. The Alt Right is the “crazies.” You Trumpists are tourists who need shaping up.
* Many of these normies are ripe for the picking. As cucked as people like Glenn Beck are, they helped lay the groundwork for the association of jews with the communist left. They heard the names (((Alinsky))), (((Marx))), (((Chomsky))), etc, and they see them on tv. We just gotta light the fuses in their heads so they finalize the association of COMMUNIST=JEW.
* The Jewish motto seems to be “Wherever I go, I must also subvert.” Be a Zionist. Go live in Israel. Be happy. But leave us alone, you odious kayak.
* Always remember that the Daily Stormer is the biggest Alt-right website.
* An interesting perspective, Joshua, are you familiar with Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique”?
* JS: Yes, and I don’t think he’s entirely wrong, far from it. But I don’t think he’s figured out the “human equation” perfectly anymore than the white-haters have.
* I was recently having an exchange with an Israeli who told me that Tel Aviv liberals were actively promoting destructive policies similar to our progressives in the West. I realize that you’re an American Jew, but do you have any perspective on this? I’ll include a screen cap of the conversation. I’d also like to give The Forward Kudos for publishing this article, they are usually unbearably liberal.
* “Why the Jews support Muslim immigration is something I will never understand.”
It is suicidal. Hopefully American Jews (along with some other white Americans) wake up before it’s too late. It truly is the most unbelievable thing.
* Because they view us whites as a more dangerous threat since we have agency, unlike the inbred, 85 IQ goat screwers. They were the biggest supporters of Muslim migration into the Iberian peninsula from 700-1400, capitalizing greatly upon the Muslims during Reconquista (Christian Whites re-concouring Spain and Portugal from the Muslims). That is the reason why after we regained control that we implemented the inquisition to rid ourselves of those who pushed Multiculturalism on us.
* JS: I would like to say this surprises me, but it really doesn’t. This insanity seems to be penetrating places where there’s simply no doubt it will lead to suicide. Luckily, most Israelis will reject it.
* You do realize that the Alt-Right is White identity politics right? Your version of this already exists. It’s called Zionism.
* The problem with that, of course, is that Israel would collapse in an instant if Jews all went there, and our aid to them was cut off (God forbid them actually paying us back). That’s why he writes this “hey, some of us sympathize with you, so…keep us around, hehehe” article. The tapeworm needs a host, it can not live on other tapeworms, even in a parasite state like Israel that has received so much assistance.
* ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▀▀██▀▄▄▒
░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▀░▄▀▀░░░▒▒▀▀▄
░░░░░░░░░░░▐░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░▌▌▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░▄▄▄░▐▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▄▄▄▄░▄░░▌
░░░░▄▀░▄░▐▐▒▒▒▒▒░░░▀░░░░▀░▄▀▐
░░░█░▌░░▌░▐▐▀▄▒▒░░░▒▌██▐░░▌▄▐
░░▐░▐░░░▐░▌▐▐░▒░░░░░░▀▀░░░░░▀▌
░░▌░▌░░░░▌▐▄▀░▒▒▒░░░░░░░▄▀▄░░▐
░▐▐░▌░░░░▐▐░▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▄▄▄░░░▌
░▌░░▌▌░░░░▌░▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▀
░▐░░▌▌░░░░▐░░▌▒▒▒▒▒▄▀█▄▄▄▄▀
░▌▌░▌▌░░░░░▌░▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▄▀▀▀▄ DONATE TO MY NEW ALT-RIGHT THINKTANK
▐░░░▐▐░░░░░▐▐░▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▀▀░▄▀█
▌▌░░░▌▌░░░░░█▐░▌▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▄▀░▄▐▄▄
▌░░░░▐▐░░░░░░▀░▐▒▒▒▒▒▄▀░░░▀▀▄▀▌
░░░░░░▌░░░░░▄▀█▄█▄▀▀░▀▄░░░░▀░▀▐
░░░░░░▐░░░░░░░▌░░░░░░▐▐░▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
░░░░░░░█░░░░░▐░░░▌░░░█▀▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
* A Jew who claims to be “Alt-Right” has no skin in the game because: 1. They identify as a Jew, not white. 2. They’re Jewish. 3. Ashkenazi will never be “white.”
If a white person comes out as Alt-Right with their real name they will pay for it.
You and Milo need to get bent. You’re tourists and subverters.
* A Jewish Alt-Right person, nice! Since you’re versed in the alt-right I assume you’re going to put yourself in the oven?
* First they hate you, then they pretend to ignore you, then they fight you, then (((they))) try to join your ranks to subvert you from within, just like (((they))) did to conservatism, libertarianism, and even European socialism.
But that’s the thing about the alt-right. We have the only defense against you subversive parasites: we never allow you in our ranks. No Jews, just right.
* Never forget what the Jew really thinks of you.
* If you were an ally of the alt-right, you wouldn’t be telling us what to do. The alt-right explicitly and without compromise rejects the claim that Jews have any place ordering Whites around. I don’t come into your synagogue and shove pork down your throat, Moshe. Stop trying to shove your Jewish poison down ours.
* No you are not. Alt-right is explicitly ethno-nationalist, anti-semitic, racialist and anti-egalitarian.
* You cannot be alt-right unless you put yourself into an oven.
Have your heirs send me your ashes and I’ll sanctify them as 100% alt-right ashes.
* I loved this article. I feel the same way as the author. A few comments:
1) White American Christians are the best friends Jews ever had. Even if they didn’t let Grandpa into the Country Club or they thought Jewish theology incomplete. Who cares. It just doesn’t matter. Jews can be a major part of America and shouldn’t feel the need to call for the open immigration and multiculturalism that kills the country and of course ends up threatening Jews
2) One thing the author didn’t touch on is just how secular American Jewry has become and why that matters. For better or worse, on average, seculars are hostile to actual Biblical Judaism, Christianity and lets just call it, pre-1965 America. While even some Modern Orthodox Jews are politically stupid, the percent of American Jewry that is secular makes it very different than every other Jewish community (Israel, Australia, Canada, Britain) that leans right.
3) The most shocking thing to me is that American Jews cannot look across the pond in Europe and learn the right lessons from it. We see daily reports of European Jewish life literally ending – solely due to Muslim immigration. You would think that for a people so smart, we would say, maybe Muslim (and other third world) immigration isn’t such a good deal. Alas, American Jews seem to be more concerned with the feelings of those who hate them. It is truly unbelievable to me.
4) Too many American Jews have the silliest, most suicidal view of immigration. As soon as one becomes an American, one’s loyalty should be to America. Not to immigrants. Not to outsiders. But to the people who let you into the country. If wages are flat, should we be letting in a million third world immigrants per year? No. It’s bad for America and the American people.Too many American Jews seem to feel otherwise and this is a shame. Third world mass immigration is bad for America and bad for American Jews. It’s like the author says: What Do You Think The Endgame Is?
5) This brings us to Trump. Here we have a guy surrounded by Jews with a Jewish daughter and grandchildren. This man is all that stands between US Jewry turning into European Jewry. All that stands between American Jewish life literally ending. For that, American Jews should have unbelievable gratitude to him. Without him, as anyone with foresight (ie. just looking at Europe) can see, American Jewry is in big, big trouble.
Pretty much everything said about American Jews applies to other white Americans as well. Western Civilization and America in particular is good. Keep it.
* As a philo-Semitic hate thinker, I’m a bit surprised to see this in the Forward, which may be the most ironically name publication on the web. Still, good for the commissars of this site for posting this piece.
The alt-right is getting a bad rap, but that’s to be expected. That’s the nature of revolts. To those in the status quo, the people in revolt are always revolting. The managerial class considers racism to be the only mortal sin so they accuse their enemies of being racists. Dehumanizing the enemy is what the combatants always do.
Enjoy the hate Josh.
* Great article. You are a rare bread. We need more free thinking people like you with the courage and intellectual honesty to follow the data wherever it leads. Thank you for being a voice of sanity.
* As a member of the Alt-Right, let me explain why we dislike jews (in general). For most of western civilization’s history, Judaism and Jewish people have been at worst adversarial and at best outsiders within our society, never fully integrating as “whites” within our society. Whether it be the jews and the Romans fighting wars, the jewish role in the muslim invasion of the Iberian peninsula, etc. Fast forward to about the last 150 years, jews have been at the spearhead of far left wing politics in the west, making up the kings share of the leadership of communist movements in Spain, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Even Putin himself admitted that the communist government of the early USSR was 80% jewish run. While I do not hate every and all jews, I do hate the marxist jews and the neo-cons, who make up 90% of jewish people. The best solution would be for the jews to have and expand their land in Israel and leave western society alone, as they are not us.
* Even this guy, who would identify as neither a Marxist nor a neo-con, and is in a tiny minority of Jews who even profess not to be committed to working against European interests, is motivated solely by his tribal interests, i.e. protecting other Jews from “discrimination.” Regardless of how convincing it may sound, he is committed to his people primarily if not exclusively, and thus can and will take a stand for them if it goes against European interests, even if he is “pro-White” as he claims. The potential benefits of including such people in our projects are very low, while the risk of subversion and co-option is historically proven to be right around 100%. I don’t blame him, he’s working for his people’s interests, but we need to work in ours in the same way that Jews and every other group does and has always done. We don’t need them, their own people need them and they can serve their people in their land, Israel, which the British provided for them despite being murdered by Lehi and Irgun along the way.
* The Alt-Right is just Zionism for white people.
* Some of the things you laid out in this article are admirable, you clearly have thicker skin than most of your tribe, however we are a strictly White-Gentile movement, if you want to be part of our movement you have to keep your ethnic identity to yourself and attempt to extricate it from many of your beliefs. In other words, the only way a Jew could ever be part of our movement is if all true “Jewish” ways of thinking are entirely sublimated or eliminated, it can not effect your thinking in the slightest. Our J-dar is strong, tread carefully.
* I’ve always been confused, when Jews say they are part of the alt-right, do they mean that they are going to throw themselves into the oven voluntarily? Because the only other option is a hostile take-over.
* You do understand that we would literally kill all of you, given the chance, right?
* JS: Yes, the memes can be silly but I put them in context. A Jewish person like Sarah Silverman can get on national television and openly insult white Christians. A white Christian has to use an anonymous online handle to do the same back. I wouldn’t trade places.
* One of the most important aspects of the alt-right, as I am sure you’ve discovered, is the Jewish Question. Why is this important? Well, as history continues to re-create itself, we’re facing a particular influence in our society with huge amounts of leftist radical impositions. Radical impositions, just to be kept in check, many times as history would tell it is met by radical oppositions.
Currently, western civilization has jewish influences on both political levels. You already understand the neo-con, and the mentality of the jews that are in direct support of that political movement. but the JQ goes further than that.
The left is highly saturated with predominately secular jews, that plays only and exclusively the jew-identity card, while pushing leftist politics, ranging from movements such as LGBT, BLM, FEMEN, Trannies, well, you get the point. Identity politics-
The things is, and is the most elaborate part of the JQ in this regards, is how do they posses such powerful movements? Well, that is simple. Nepotism, cronyism, (something jews have been confronted on for centuries about in previous and current societies) is on a full on scale too big to bring down.
Monopolies in Hollywood, journalism, and mainstream media is an influential factor that pushes the subversive nature into the minds of gentiles. Not in a way to push Judiac religious vales, but a way to push jew-identity vales, and secular traditions.
Over representation in politics fuels the movement by passing laws that support the subversive trends, and of course, liberal predominate jews in psychology (somehow getting “leading” titles) being the sounding board for changing the concept of educational values.
What is the motivation behind jews- as a collective, in all facets of our society being so subversive? It’s their traditional nature to always be the “outsiders” the revolutionists, the ones that bring a level of change to support their own comforts.
The mass immigration is just another ploy, to fit them into a sea of “strange” people, because they collectively want to remain strangers themselves. If they can be strange, along side many other strange groups, they will never be a direct target. The secular, and predominately leftist jew- wants a degenerate society that they can act out in, without scrutiny, and or criticism..
This, like all cultures, are instilled into the minds of child rearing. The secular jews- are extremely liberal in their child up-bringing, and that is why they grow to become the very people they are, just even further cemented with the “jew complex”
This is nothing new- Theodor Herzl even said himself- The jews will always be a nation of peoples, that will never accept the nations they reside in.
But to close- I don’t find “jew” as much a racial identity, as I do a ethno-political one. I think Jews can shed themselves the culture that has augmented itself to their lineage.
* The sad irony is that Seidel’s piece reveals the failure of the American Jewish establishment to instill any real form of identity politics, such as an understanding of our own history and sympathy with other oppressed groups (the extent to which Seidel can be proud to be Jewish while being an Islamophobe and racist is between him and God).
Why shouldn’t Americans fight to preserve their culture? All of us have a place that we think of as home. . . . Other people are allowed to have a home.
Of all the places in the history of the world, this is the culture that gleams and works the best. There’s a reason the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution happened where they happened. And that the Declaration of Independence was written in a British colony. […..] That’s why the socialist left finally gave up on traditional Americans and pinned their hopes on immigrants, who bring their socialism with them.
Conservationists correctly point out that once a species is gone, it’s gone. There’s no getting it back. As Western Europe is discovering, the same is true of countries. If Trump loses, at least we’ll finally know: it was too late.
It was as if all the Republican candidates got together and agreed to never use steroids. No one would be at a competitive disadvantage, because none of them would have popular positions. Then Trump came along and said, I don’t care, I’m taking steroids. That made him much better than all the other candidates. When he didn’t back down in the face of wall-to-wall hysteria, it showed his courage and toughness…
Liberals compulsively demand the importation of foreigners because of their seething hatred of the historic American nation. They won’t be happy until the DAR-eligible population is a tiny minority. Any culture that replaces American culture is an improvement, as far as they are concerned.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on In Trump We Trust
When I started to read for the sake of enjoying good writing, my father gave me a book, an anthology of essays, and said, “I’d give my right arm to write like him.” I’ll never forget that, because I’ll never forget enjoying for the first time the perfectly brilliant word-joinery of a literary master. The book was titled Single Issues—two hundred pages of social commentary—and it’s a real rarity to find these days, even on Amazon. My copy, the one dad gave me, is worn and tattered, but most of all it is treasured. I got to get it signed by the author, a man whom, I’m proud to say, became my friend. His name was Joe Sobran.
*
When Robert Taft died in 1953, his death seemed to mark the end of a political opinion, one which his allies dated back to Jefferson. The fact that that opinion had come to be called “conservatism” is enough to let one know it was considered a dying idea anyways. Taft had called The New Deal, “a revolution within the form”—and that seemed to encapsulate the program’s stability. No one was asked to do more than pay a little more in taxes, and the ones who didn’t even have to do that were just given jobs doing what Roosevelt thought ought to be done. And yet, suddenly the State had transmogrified, and no one in Congress shouted louder about it than Robert Taft. With him gone, America seemed to have simply moved on.
Then, an urbane firebrand, unlike anything America had ever quite had before, appeared on the scene, just as television was changing the media landscape. When William F. Buckley Jr founded National Review in 1955, a conformism of political opinion in style as much as substance in that middle decade was given a jolt, rather electrified. As George Will said, “For conservatives, happy days were here again.” Suddenly, the Right had a voice that could not be called dumb or styled retrograde. Around National Review, Buckley formed a phalanx of intellectuals that grew into a movement, which began setting the agenda for the Republican Party when it gave Barry Goldwater the momentum he needed to win the nomination in 1964. Aside from making a guy named Reagan relevant, Buckley introduced Kissinger to Nixon, hosted the longest running public affairs show in TV history, wrote a thrice weekly syndicated column and over fifty books, all the while editing National Review for forty years. He is arguably the most consequential opinion journalist in American history. And in 1972, he discovered Joe Sobran.
*
Joe was an old friend of my father’s when I met him in 2006, and for about the next three years I hung pretty close to his side. It was an incredibly lucky relationship, more than a privilege really; and that isn’t modest speaking—it’s conscience: I owe a debt to the man.
There is no evidence that he ever wrote an inelegant sentence in his life, and the first thing a person would say about Joe after meeting him was that he never spoke one either. In an era when our discourse is mostly sound bytes of stuttering platitudes, Joe’s spoken eloquence may have been his most impressive quality. A man who worked next to the likes of Bill Buckley and James Burnham wrote in a history of the modern conservative movement that the finest conversationalist he had ever known was Joe Sobran. When Joe died, all who wrote personal remembrances of him basically restated that point. The National Review editorial on Joe’s death aptly compared his talent in this regard to Milton’s, whose blindness made writing a matter of dictating.
Most of us hope to speak half as well as we write, and when you’re nineteen sitting next to an idol, well, I could only hope to speak in complete sentences at all. To say the least, I was shaky the first time I met Joe. So mostly I just listened. And that night Joe wanted to talk about baseball. His favorite player was Sandy Koufax: “Short, but peerless. He had to quit pitching at age 30 in 1966, his arm destroyed by its own cruel power, and I never really followed major-league baseball after that.” And Ted Williams? “He began his autobiography by saying that when he was a kid, his only ambition was to have people say, as he walked down the street, “There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.” My own autobiography could start the same way. It would end a little differently, though.”
Soon after that first evening, we took Joe to a Nationals game, the first time he’d been to a baseball stadium in years. We also took along a friend of my father’s from England, to whom Joe jested, “You should stay long enough to learn our language—it’s often mistaken for English.” The Englishman’s estimation of Joe was this: “I’ve never met someone who speaks in sentences you would only expect to read.” He brought to the game some fancy camera you can’t buy in England, and snapped a picture of Joe sitting in the stands, and he looks so perfectly himself in it that it’s hard to describe. Others have called his an “impish grin,” but in this picture it is softer than that, and endearing to the point of being poignant. I look at it and see an innocent old man with secret wisdom, but I suppose I’m biased.
*
Bill Buckley recalled detecting “singular powers” the first time he read something by Joe, and Pat Buchanan called him “the greatest columnist of our generation.” Hugh Kenner, the preeminent critic of literary modernism, was a contributing editor at National Review when Joe came aboard, and they became fast friends. I’ve always liked Kenner’s compliment of Joe’s writing the best: “The product of a mind in exemplary action.” It makes sense that a surveyor of literature should peg Joe so perfectly, because Joe was only accidentally a political commentator; his true passion, from start to finish, was Shakespeare.
He liked to quote Kenner’s maxim that we are always blind to the styles of our time, but because his mind was most alive when he was thrilling to Shakespeare, you might say that Joe’s mind belonged more to Shakespeare’s age than our own, and it was this that gave his writing on other topics its unique tone: bemused where others were angry; intimate yet detached and never self-righteous. Like a time-traveler who finds the future a bizarre tragic-comedy, Joe could see the styles of our time.
*
To know Joe was to love him, partly because to know him was to entirely understand him, which is to say, if you ever made it into his house, you immediately understood him—and felt for him. There was always, according to my dad, a touch of dysfunction in his psyche, which was only amplified with age. Not too long after I met Joe, he was evicted from the townhouse he’d been living in for a decade, as it had come to resemble the home of a hoarder who lives on books, and who never bothered to clean up the milk he spilled a decade ago. Of course, he was not insane, not even a real hoarder. His life, like his writing, contained no a hint of artifice. He was an exemplar of the dysfunctional genius: Beethoven’s home looked the same.
Anyways, that’s how Joe came to live with me and my family. He had no place else to go at that point, and I lobbied my mom hard. Up until then, Joe had been my dad’s friend whom I tried to tag along with; living with him made him my friend. He would sit on the front porch pretty much all day—the sedentary sage—accumulating a mess of newspapers and magazines and books around him. He would chain smoke cheap cigars. And I would sit with him, and we would talk about everything under the sun. Dad always said that Joe needed a Boswell, and I regret that I lacked the confidence at the time to make a project out of our relationship. I should have been writing his talk down, because when the rivers of his mind were really flowing, Joe was just peerless.
At that time, he was writing a commentary on some of Shakespeare for a publisher who, for reasons I’ll get to, didn’t want Joe’s name attached to it. While he was writing them, my father and I attended with Joe a Kennedy Center production of Titus Andronicus, and this story is worth telling: I was in line with Joe at the gift shop before the show behind a man buying a book of the play. Joe was never more comfortable than amidst the company perfect strangers, and he said to the man ahead of us that he would have recited the play to him for free. Now, you have to understand what a eulogizer of Joe’s called the “childlike innocence” in his desire to please other people to see that he was not in such instances being an annoying braggart. The stranger shrugged with an incredulous smile and said something polite to Joe that I can’t now remember.
Another point to bear in mind about Joe, and which will help you appreciate the strangeness of the situation from the stranger’s perspective, is that he usually wore pieces of a sort of otherworldly wardrobe out in public. He had this bright purple pair of glasses—the color helped him keep track of them—that he would wear, say, to the drugstore or out to the theater. His shirt and pants were primarily something comfortable and sometimes colorful. His beard was spotty and his shoes were usually slippers.
To look at him you might find such exquisite uniqueness off-putting, until, of course, Joe spoke to you. Then you would recognize that the man matched the clothes in a profound way; that his mind was as otherworldly as his wardrobe. So imagine what the stranger of this story thought when this odd-looking and oddly personable man wound up sitting behind him, where Joe softly recited the entire play.
*
By the mid 80s, with conservatism officially ascendant under Reagan, Joe had become the most popular writer for National Review, and had one of the most widely syndicated columns in the country, as well as a weekly program on CBS radio. And he wasn’t typically popular either, as he had engendered an incredibly loyal, even tribal I would say, base of conservative Catholic readers. All this is just to say that in the world of opinion journalism, Joe Sobran was a force to be reckoned with. So, in 1986, when Joe began criticizing Israel and America’s relationship with the Jewish State, his stature was such that he couldn’t just be shoved down the memory-hole or simply ignored.
What ensued was a particularly nasty campaign of character assassination against Joe carried out by Jewish intellectuals who had lately become an influential faction in the conservative movement. The controversy intermittently persisted for five years, then reached a boiling point in the run-up to the first Gulf War, which Joe said he hated with a “murderous fury,” and spared no expense in attacking Israel’s role in bringing it about. The debate was so pivotal that Bill Buckley felt the need to write an entire book about it, In Search of Anti-Semitism, where he examined at painstaking lengths the opinions of Joe and Pat Buchanan, with less sympathy than either probably deserved.
Suffice to say, all the while Joe refused to lie down, and eventually had a very public falling out with Buckley. He was fired from National Review, lost his syndicated column and his radio show, and became a pariah.
*
I knew all about Joe’s troubles before I met him, and because I agreed with his opinions and disagreed with the way his career was devastated due to them, I admired him even more. He had the courage of his convictions. Losing your job is one thing, being blackballed from that industry another, but losing your friends is the worst thing of all. Given his functional limitations, Joe’s life was kind of in shambles when I met him. I couldn’t help but profoundly feel that I needed to do whatever I could to help him. So after he lived with us for a time, I moved him into another place, and then another, and then another, and I think there was one more after that.
For almost three years I was his chauffeur, his assistant, his at-large caregiver. His health was failing and he needed the help. My efforts were supplemented by donations from magnanimous men you can read around the web, like Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodorocopulous, and Lew Rockwell. Still, his income was precarious. Even then, long after he’d been beaten, he remained at the mercy of Jewish activists hell-bent on preventing him from speaking in public for a fee, hounding any one who dared invite him to do so with determined threats. The only thing worse in journalism than being associated with an anti-Semite is being labeled one yourself. As Joe said, “These days an anti-Semite is less likely to be someone who hates Jews than someone who is hated by Jews.”
More than once, he said to me that he had no regrets, and even though the sentiment came from the wilderness while living in poverty, I actually had to believe him. He never lost his sense of humor: “Being a full-time Jew-hater is hard work, much too hard for me”; “I’m not anti-Semitic, but I admit that I’m anti-semantic”; “I said when Barry Bonds breaks the home-run record I was going to send him a racist letter even worse than the one I sent Aaron forty years ago.” That last one was pure Joe, but you had to really know him to appreciate how funny it was: “The idea of someone sitting down and writing such a letter, and then actually walking it to the mailbox…”—and the notion then drowned in his own deep laughter.
But truth be told, by the time I had to go away to college in Williamsburg, I wasn’t entirely unhappy to leave Joe behind. It had become obvious that his troubles were worse than they needed to be, due to bad habits aside from a dysfunction. Looking after him had taken a toll on me. We talked over the phone, and slowly lost touch. I heard toward the end that he finally wound up exactly where he belonged, teaching Shakespeare at a tiny, uniquely conservative Catholic school called Christendom College in Front Royal, Va.
Then, in late September, 2010, I got a call from dad: “You need to come home, Joe is dying.” He was laid up in a hospice—complications from diabetes—and when I entered the place I was shocked and appalled to see nodding seniors literally lining the walls of the hallway in wheelchairs. This is how poor people die, I thought to myself. My father and I met Joe’s dogged long-time publisher Fran Griffin in Joe’s room, clutching a rosary. Joe was conscious but could neither open his eyes nor speak. The greatest conversationalist in the country had lost his voice. And I was back where I was the first time we met, unable to summon the right words. My tears were too heavy. I wanted to tell him how sorry I was for losing touch, for not being able to do more. Most of all I wanted to thank him for being my friend. Fran sat bedside with me and we prayed the rosary. Afterward, I just squeezed Joe’s hand for what must have been an hour, crying. He passed the next day.
*
The great political philosopher Paul Gottfried wrote a remembrance of Joe, in which he called him a hero. The much-lauded Presidential speech writer Matthew Scully called him our era’s master of plain-English prose. The always eloquent Jared Taylor doubted he would ever meet a man of such gifts again. And National Review compared him to Milton. And to think I knew this man as my friend…what can I say? Only that I’ll never forget him.
Posted inJoe Sobran|Comments Off on Getting To Know Joe
Ernst Nolte, a German revisionist historian who broke academic taboos by equating Nazism with Bolshevism and who was denounced as an apologist for Hitler and even the Holocaust, died on Thursday in Berlin. He was 93.
His family told the daily newspaper Der Tagesspiegel that he had died in a hospital.
Professor Nolte, a respected scholar of fascism, provoked an ideological uproar in 1986 by suggesting in an essay that Nazisim had been a logical response in Germany to an “existential threat” posed by the Russian Revolution and its aftermath. He also argued that Hitler’s extermination of Jews and other minorities was comparable to the mass murders engineered by Stalin in the Soviet Union, where victims were singled out by economic and social class as enemies of the Communist state.
“Did the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ not exist before Auschwitz?” Professor Nolte wrote in the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “Was Bolshevik ‘class murder’ not the logical and factual predecessor to the Nazi ‘racial murder’?” he continued. “Did Auschwitz not, perhaps, originate in a past that would not pass away?”
…Professor Nolte’s reasoning in the 1986 essay, “The Past That Won’t Go Away,” was embraced by Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. He maintained that by interning Jews, Hitler was responding to what he viewed as a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and to a 1939 Zionist “declaration of war” urging all Jews to support Britain.
Professor Nolte had condemned Nazism and acknowledged that there had been “widespread liquidation” during the Holocaust, although he also referred to the “so-called” annihilation of the Jews and the bias of Jewish historians. In the essay, though, he argued that only “the technical process of gassing” was unique to the Nazis, that most Germans had been noncomplicit and that the moral line between the “social extermination” of the Soviet gulags and the “biological extermination” at Auschwitz was blurry…
In his book “Three Faces of Fascism,” published in English in 1965, Professor Nolte defined fascism as a backlash to modernity. After his 1986 essay was published, he told The Journal of Historical Review, widely considered an organ for Holocaust deniers, that to name Stalin and Hitler “in the same sentence was to break a taboo of the time.” He characterized it as “more a matter of courage, let us say, than of insight.”
In his 1991 book “Historical Thinking in the 20th Century,” he described Israel as one of three “extraordinary states” produced during the 20th century, along with Germany and the Soviet Union, but warned that it could become fascist and commit genocide against Palestinians. In 2006, he called Islamic fundamentalism a “third variant,” after communism and National Socialism, of “the resistance to transcendence” that characterizes fascism.
Posted inAdolf Hitler, Germany, Holocaust|Comments Off on Ernst Nolte, Historian Whose Views on Hitler Caused an Uproar, Dies at 93
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
