It began with the usual judeo-liberal media attempts to ignore or at least downplay the scandal as it was first starting to swirl around one of their rising stars. When it was clear the controversy could not be snuffed out with silence Weiner himself went on the attack, calling an interviewer’s implication that he had done anything inappropriate outrageous. As we know now Weiner was bluffing, but at the time he seemed to think customary jewish tactics of argument – playing the victim with bombastic bluster while he berates his interlocutor – could serve more broadly as a long-term strategy.
Of course the fact that Anthony Weiner is a jew, or as Debbie Wasserman Schultz might put it, a proud pro-Israel jewish member of Congress, has gone mostly unremarked upon in mainstream coverage. As with the DSK affair, a powerful political figure can be a proud jew, a representative of their very distinct community, right up until they do something embarassing or criminal, at which point, oh yeah, they just happen to be jewish, no different than anybody else, and anyway, so what?
A fleeting glimpse of the significance of Weiner’s jewishness came to light in a Radar Online article titled Weiner Used Jewish Sexual Stereotype To Facebook Sexting Partner, by Dylan Howard, 6 June 2011. Oh my. Howard says Weiner’s “reference to a stereotype of Jewish women’s aversion to the sex act is sure to create more heat under a scandal that is already red hot.” Actually, it was the opposite of aversion:
“You give good head?” the embattled and married New York congressman asked the woman on March 16, this year.
She responded: “I’ve been told really good…and i love doing it.”
At that point, 46-year-old Weiner declared: “wow a jewish girl who sucks (bleep)! this thing is ready to do damage.”
So the problem, according to Howard, isn’t Weiner’s lying, or infidelity, or obsession with sex. The problem is that Weiner thinks negative thoughts about jewish women. In private.
This is an absurd excuse for a more direct and plausible understanding of the exchange, which is that Weiner is not only happy to have found an eager virtual sex partner, but that he is delighted that she is jewish – that he finds her jewishness especially exciting. Such an understanding is bound to create cognitive dissonance in the minds of deracinated Whites, lectured relentlessly for decades now, most especially by jews, that any preference for our own kind is peculiar and wrong. So better to invert reality and pretend that Weiner holds a dim view of jewish women.
There’s more on this stereotyping excuse below, but first let’s take a brief detour. The Radar Online article contained a link to a May/June 2011 Moment Magazine article which provides some background on Weiner and specifically his jewish bona fides. Live from New York, It’s Anthony Weiner, by Daphna Berman:
A Master Of Political Theater, Congressman Anthony Weiner Has Leveraged His Strong Liberal Opinions, New York Attitude And Willingness To Go Head-To-Head With Republicans On Cable TV To Fill A Void In The Democratic Party.
Weiner, whose ninth district includes parts of Queens and Brooklyn, represents what is arguably the most Jewish congressional district in the U.S. Raised in Park Slope, Brooklyn, in a middle-class Jewish family, he now lives in Forest Hills, Queens, and is—as he likes to remind people—a true New Yorker. His parents are divorced: His father, Morton, is a lawyer, and his mother, Frances, a retired public school teacher. He had two brothers, Jason and Seth (who was killed in a 2000 hit-and-run accident). Weiner and his mother are close, and she has accompanied him on campaigns—though he refused to have his mother answer questions directly. “She’s completely out of control,” he tells me. “You have no idea what she’s going to say.”
Weiner attended New York public schools, from Brooklyn Technical High School to SUNY Plattsburgh, where he graduated in 1985 with a degree in political science. He went to work for then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and became something of a protégé; he reportedly said to his boss, “I’m going to take your job some day.” He learned quite a bit from his mentor—also Jewish, and now the senior senator from New York—and, most notably, has absorbed much of the media acumen for which Schumer is known. “As a staff member to Schumer, he learned how to take advantage of the electronic media and how to get on television,” says Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Former Republican Senator Bob Dole once said the most dangerous place in Washington was the space between Schumer and a camera, and critics could say the same of Weiner.
[Congressman Jason] Chaffetz [(R-Utah)], who has worked with Weiner on other bipartisan issues, concedes that Weiner can be “over-the-top,” adding that “his style offends a lot of people and he sometimes makes issues a little too personal. He’s aggressive, which works for some people. When we’re on the same side, it can be helpful.”
Jousting with conservatives can sometimes come across as a sport for Weiner, although he insists otherwise. “It’s a necessary thing to do,” he says. “I have a choice: I can shout at my television or shout at the host directly. I’m not afraid of having a debate about these issues. And some of these programs are so deep in lies and demagoguery that someone needs to be there to correct the record.” Then, with a smile, he adds: “It allows me to burn off bile.”
One of his colleagues is Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, who serves with him on the Judiciary Committee and is a personal friend. “Anthony is one of the most quick-witted legislators there is, and once he gets hold of an issue, there’s no letting go,” she says. “He’s very well-spoken and knows how to get a point across succinctly and effectively. He’s an excellent debater, and when a back and forth is necessary, he’s someone you can call on to be the standard-bearer.”
Weiner has always been assertive about his Jewishness. In his own words, he’s spent “more time at melaveh malkahs [post-Shabbat gatherings], a lot more time at shul, at sisterhood breakfasts, and at bond breakfasts than probably just about anybody else.” He doesn’t belong to a synagogue or consider himself close to a single rabbi—except to say, consummate politician that he is, “all the shuls in my district are my home shuls.” Says Warren Hecht, president of the Queens Jewish Community Council: “He’s a Jewish official who hasn’t forgotten” his roots or his district.
Weiner, whose middle name is David, had his bar mitzvah at Union Temple in Park Slope, Brooklyn. As part of a promise to his Twitter followers, he recently released a photo of himself on his big day as an awkward-looking 13-year-old boy, complete with a self-described 1970s Jewfro. “We weren’t a very religious household, but we had a very strong sense of our Judaism,” Weiner says of his upbringing.
He came by his solid Zionist inclinations early on. “Support for Israel was always a very big focus in my household growing up,” says Weiner, who has been to the Jewish state more than a half-dozen times. He remembers wearing a homemade pin to Sunday school that read, “I am a Zionist.”
As a congressman, he has consistently pushed pro-Israel legislation, and Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), counts him among the “top 10 congressmen” in terms of Israel issues.
From the outside, Weiner’s hawkish Israel views appear to have collided with his personal life. His wife, Huma Abedin, was born in Michigan to a Pakistani mother and an Indian father, and raised in Saudi Arabia. Her late father, an Islamic scholar, established an institute there that aimed to deepen religious tolerance, while her mother, who is a sociology professor in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, helped create one of the first women’s colleges in the country.
The pair dated for two years before announcing their engagement, and Weiner was uncharacteristically tight-lipped about their courtship. In a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board in 2008, Weiner dodged a number of personal questions but was adamant when asked if his relationship posed a potential risk to his political ambitions. “I’m certain that the relationship was not the product of a political calculation,” he said. Later, he also refused to answer what his Jewish mom thought of his girlfriend. “It’s not something I want to talk about.”
The July 2010 wedding was covered widely. The reports were gushing, accompanied by photos of the couple with the beautiful bride in a white Oscar de la Renta gown. Response in the Jewish community was tepid: “Christian President Marries Jewish Congressman to Moslem Political Aide on Shabbos,” read the headline on The Yeshiva World News after the Saturday nuptials.
The ZOA’s Klein is more direct: “People I’ve spoken to in his district said they wouldn’t support him because he intermarried.” In fact, before Weiner came to the ZOA dinner in December, Klein warned him that his marriage to a Muslim might elicit jeers from the crowd.
Whoops. More cognitive dissonance, this time for jews. How to reconcile Weiner’s assertive jewish identity with his choice of a non-jewish spouse? Hmmm. As Moment is written by jews, for jews, at least the readers who are unhappy about “intermarriage” (wink, wink, it’s about “religion”) aren’t subjected to any insinuations that they’re ignorant xenophobic bigots.
The article also discusses Weiner’s aspirations to become mayor of New York City:
It’s unclear what Weiner’s chances may be. At the 2011 Congressional Correspondents’ Dinner, noting the absence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Weiner, one of the event’s headliners, said: “Who knew that what it takes to be mayor of a big city is to be a hot-tempered, arrogant, loud Jew with nine and a half fingers. Who knew? And in other news, I’ve taken a job as a meat cutter at Arby’s.”
But changing demographics, as well as a shifting political reality, may present something of a challenge to what until now has been a meteoric rise. Political strategist Hank Sheinkopf says, “New York is less white than ever and less Jewish than ever, and traditional social class lines don’t hold.” Weiner’s only chance, he says, “is to position himself as a non-billionaire from the outer boroughs. He can do it, but it will be difficult.”
The article’s conclusion contains a bit of unintended prophesy:
“He’s passionate—people respect that and respond to that,” says Queens Jewish Community Council President Hecht. “If he was a phony, people would see right through him.
Tablet Magazine (by jews, for jews) expanded on Radar Online’s quick bit of damage control. Understanding Weinergate, by Marc Tracy, 7 June 2011:
How social media felled a rising star, and how his Jewishness was involved
That about sums it up. Half of Tracy’s article is spent floating the implausible notion that Weiner doesn’t understand the internet. He’s an idiot savant. No mention of the more plausible notion that Weiner’s incredible arrogance and lust had something to do with his assertive self-image as a “rising star”, an unassailable zionist soldier for judeo-liberal interests.
Expanding on the Radar Online article quoted above, the second half of Tracy’s excuse-making consists of a deeper examination of jewish identity, group-pity, and navel-gazing about stereotypes:
There is one more thing to discuss, though if my mom wanted to stop reading this post now, I wouldn’t mind. A Nevada woman Weiner flirted with on Facebook told him that she understood herself to be good at giving oral sex and added, “i love doing it.” To which the congressman from Queens responded: “Wow a jewish girl who sucks []! this thing is ready to do damage.”
I’ll pause for your laughter. But this is also, believe it or not, yet another manifestation of a generation gap! Weiner is old enough to be of the generation that, brought up on Portnoy’s Complaint and its spawn, generalizes Jewish women as sexually cold, and specifically unwilling to perform blow jobs and inept at them when they can be reluctantly coaxed. But a younger generation has almost the exact opposite conception of Jewish women: They (again generalizing) see Jewish women as more willing than the average woman to give blow jobs and as especially skilled at the task. Contributing editor Rachel Shukert has written the definitive article about this (she discusses it here); the new stereotype became especially pronounced in the public consciousness, she argues, thanks to Monica Lewinsky. When that scandal broke, Weiner was almost 30.
Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that the single journalist most responsible for forcing this scandal into the open—who briefly hijacked Weiner’s press conference yesterday demanding an apology—is the conservative impresario Andrew Breitbart, who, yeah. Can you imagine if they had had Twitter in the shtetls?
When jewish stereotypes are discussed in scandal rags like Radar Online, intended for consumption by the hoi polloi, there is a pretense that jews are scandalized by such things. Amongst jews themselves such things inspire laughter. Listening in on their conversation what one actually finds is a seemingly inexhaustible capacity to argue about how they perceive themselves and how they are perceived by others, coupled with strong desires and active efforts to shape those perceptions.
If Weiner’s private lewd flirtations make you queasy, you don’t want to click the “here” link in the text above. It takes you to Interview with Rachel Shukert on Jewish girls and blowjobs at Best Sex Writing 2008. Here’s the most relevant portion of this irrelevant sideshow:
Why do you think the stereotypes about Jewish women and sex are so pervasive? What do you make of the contrast between the older stereotype of the frigid Jewish woman vs. the newer one of the oversexed one?
Well, I think it’s important to stress that most of the factors in the culture that have made Jewish women seem unattractive–whether it’s being frigid, or physically unappealing, demanding, spoiled, etc.–have been created by Jewish men. Now, I love Jewish men. The men I love most in the world–my husband, my father, my grandfather–are Jewish men. But it’s not Gentiles who invented the “shikse goddess” or wrote all the JAP jokes. Who knows why? Frustration, mostly, I think. All that self-loathing and insecurity.
I’m going to speak in incredible generalizations here for a minute, so just bear with me. I think that Jewish men in the past 30 or 40 years have been extremely invested in making themselves sexy and attractive to the culture-at-large–and they are, they seem smart, sensitive, generous, etc. But with it comes this sense of fear, this kind of atavistic fear, I think, that at any moment they’ll be found out. And if anyone can call a Jewish man on his bullshit, it’s a Jewish woman. So they rationalize why they shouldn’t be involved with Jewish girls–all of these reasons. Jewish women are left open to constant criticism. And since Jews have been such an intrinsic part of popular culture, all this stuff disseminates and becomes conventional wisdom.
Now, I think this is changing, hugely. I think Jews have become more and more of an accepted part of mainstream culture, and this generation of Jewish men are more comfortable with themselves than ever before, and no longer feel like they’re straddling two worlds and trying to leave one of them behind. They can look on their Jewishness as something comforting instead of something constricting. But in the meantime, I think Jewish women have been like, “You know what? We’re sick of waiting for you,” and started on their own project of who they are, which is extremely interesting. And that’s what’s ascendant right now, I believe, which is very exciting for me. So that’s the split, I think, that the old Jewish stereotypes were disseminated by men, and the new ones by women. And the mainstream picking up on it.
Judeo-centric views like this were discussed in Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame. I find it refreshing to read such criticisms of jewish media influence, cited approvingly by jews without the usual denials and personal attacks in response. It’s refreshing because critiques from any point of view sympathetic to “shiksas” or their men is painted as “hate” and greeted with howls of real hate from jews.
The nonchalant “yeah” link in the Tablet article above tugs on another interesting jewish thread. You may have noticed how the judeo-liberal media makes judeo-conservative media mogul Andrew Breitbart out to be the devil incarnate. Breitbart broke the Weiner story and wouldn’t let it die. Maybe you wonder why. Tablet relates the jewish view in Being Andrew Breitbart, by Allison Hoffman, 21 May 2010:
But who is Breitbart? The New Yorker sent Rebecca Mead to find out, and it turns out that Breitbart, who was adopted, is a Jewish boy from L.A.’s Westside, specifically in Brentwood. There he attended the exclusive Brentwood School, which is the kind of place that turns out the people who run Hollywood’s machinery—the Ari Golds and the producers and the lawyers and the managers. But Breitbart tells Mead he was, even as a high-schooler, turned off by “the industry” and instead fascinated by the theatrics of Washington, D.C. His politics, he reports, emerged from his exasperation with the “deconstructive semiotic bullshit” first introduced to the American cultural scene by emigré members of the Frankfurt School—radicals, almost all of them Jews, exiled by the Nazis in the 1930s.
The article Hoffman links provides more insight into Breitbart’s background and motives. Rage Machine – Andrew Breitbart’s empire of bluster, by Rebecca Mead, 24 May 2010:
Breitbart is the founder of Breitbart.com, which, since 2005, has aggregated news from the Associated Press, Reuters, and other wire services. He is also the proprietor of several newer Web sites—Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism—that provide right-leaning commentary and original reporting. Their content is largely supplied by unpaid bloggers, who are given a more prominent platform than they might otherwise attain. The Big sites are dedicated to countering what Breitbart believes is the leftist bias of American cultural and media institutions.
Breitbart, who is Jewish, grew up in Brentwood, an affluent part of Los Angeles. He seems a familiar bicoastal type until he starts explaining his conviction that President Barack Obama’s election was the culmination of a plot, set in place in the nineteen-thirties by émigré members of the Frankfurt School, to take over Hollywood, the media, the academy, and the government, with the aim of imposing socialism.
Breitbart is tall and burly, with eyes the color of Windex, silver hair that he sometimes forgets is no longer blond, and jowls that he wobbles for emphasis when he wishes to express outrage. He is fond of saying that he has two modes of discourse: righteous indignation and puerile jocularity. “I like to call someone a raving cunt every now and then, when it’s appropriate, for effect,” he informed me. “ ‘You cocksucker.’ I love that kind of language.”
Breitbart considers himself an accidental cultural warrior. “I am not as partisan as people think I am,” he told me, calling himself eighty-five per cent conservative and fifteen per cent libertarian. His conservatism fails him on issues such as the legalization of prostitution, and he sometimes tilts toward favoring gay marriage. “But, when the entire media is structured to attack conservatives and Republicans, there is a huge business model to come in and counterbalance that,” he said.
He does not pretend to be an expert in policy, or to be particularly interested in it. “Just because I am paying attention to politics and culture doesn’t mean that I should be talking about the health-care bill, talking about the minutiae,” he told me. Instead, Breitbart is obsessed with wresting control of the political narrative from the established media organizations. If the wire services that Breitbart aggregates, and the bloggers he recruits, serve as his content providers, then Breitbart might be called a malcontent provider—giving seething, sneering voice to what he characterizes as a silenced majority.
Breitbart frequently decries racism, and likes to point out that he was adopted, as was his younger sister, who is of Mexican descent. “I hold in great disregard the idea that somehow her blood and my blood separate us,” he told me. “I grew up resenting people who would look at us at the table and would go, ‘Why are those people together?’ ” He likes to say that he is “pro-miscegenation.” As a result, Breitbart says, he is outraged when charges of racism are cynically made. Last year, he appeared on “Real Time with Bill Maher” and sounded this theme: “There’s nothing in this country that is a worse accusation—in America, if you accuse somebody of racism, that person has to disprove that.”
“I just feel like I am one of these Idaho guys saying, ‘You’re not taking my land’—with a gun, on my porch,” Breitbart told me one evening. He was sitting in the bar of the Bowery Hotel, in Manhattan, drinking white wine from a glass that was being refilled by a slim waitress in a black wrap dress. His companions were similarly urbane.
Breitbart’s image of himself as a Western survivalist, he was explaining, referred to the sense of siege he felt in Los Angeles, which, he contends, has become egregiously radical since September 11, 2001. “There are people there that are aggressors,” he said. As the evening progressed, it emerged that the closest Breitbart had ever come to the real Idaho was on the Internet. He’d been looking online at properties in Coeur d’Alene, a resort town, while fantasizing about life elsewhere. “I saw the golf course there, and it had a really cool island,” Breitbart said.
Breitbart’s parents were quietly conservative. His father was a restaurateur and, later, a lobbyist for the food-service industry; his mother was a bank executive. But their son, who attended the prestigious Brentwood School, was reflexively liberal. “It was like the water I was in,” he told me. Gary Hewson, a classmate, who is now a real-estate developer, recalls Breitbart as “a bit of a class clown, a rabble-rouser.” Breitbart says, “That was my only discernible skill.”
For college, Breitbart went to Tulane University, in New Orleans, a period that he now regards with a mixture of shame and nostalgia. “It was four hideous years of debauchery of a level that was incomprehensible to me,” he told me. “I remember rationalizing my misbehavior. I remember giving my dad a book on the chemical structure of MDMA”—Ecstasy—“and I was, like, ‘Dad, what do you think of this?’ ”
“I was so excruciatingly bored after college—it was like going home to Pittsburgh to get into the steel industry, then realizing that you hate steel,” he says. “I hated Hollywood. I hated being at parties and hearing people say, ‘I work at “Mad About You,” I work in the clothing room.’ ”
Breitbart also began to reconsider the education that he had received in Tulane’s American Studies department, where, in his off-hours from partying, he had been exposed to critical theory. “I wanted to read Mark Twain and Emerson and Thoreau,” he says. “And I remember moments in class where I thought my head was going to explode, going, What the fuck are these people talking about? I don’t understand what this deconstructive semiotic bullshit is. Who the fuck is Michel Foucault?” He came across the work of Camille Paglia, and was captivated by her analysis of the takeover of academia by the left.
“A lot of these guys I was reading about in my American Studies class were German and Italian social scientists from the University of Frankfurt,” he says. “Once you see what their plan was, you realize that it was implemented. It was taking over the cultural institutions. The left is smart enough to understand that the way to change a political system is through its cultural systems. So you look at the conservative movement—working the levers of power, creating think tanks, and trying to get people elected in different places—while the left is taking over Hollywood, the music industry, the churches. They did it through academia; they did it with K-12. You look back at the last forty years, and people didn’t put up a fight.”
But of course many people put up a fight, and still do. The inconvient truth for judeo-conservatives like Breitbart is that most of those people are demonized as “racists” and “anti-semites” – shoved down the memory hole as if they never existed, never resisted. Judeo-conservatives join judeo-liberals in doing this. They are two faces of a jewish hegemony over politics, media and culture. Breitbart may feel some small measure of compassion for the Whites who never resisted, especially because he knows just how much judeo-liberals detest us anyway, but it’s only relative. Judeo-conservatives find White conservatives (which is to say most Whites) useful, for the moment at least. For them the judeo-liberal takeover doesn’t represent a tragedy, much less a crime. But it does present a “huge business model” selling a white-washed view of the ongoing jewish aggression and hegemony. Judeo-conservatives are just as fond of vulgarity and deviance as their judeo-liberal comrades. Sure, they disagree about some things, vehemently some times. What they agree on is that Whites must defend or at least defer to jewish interests, while the idea of Whites defending White interests fills them all – from Weiner to Breitbart – with fear and loathing.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Yale-C-123455979.html
“Yale Pulls the Plug on Anti-Semitism Institute
Anti-Defamation League is upset about the decision.”
Roger Simon on Pajamas Media thinks Weiner, Strauss-Kahn and other recent scandals are Bad for the Jews.
When my grandmother was still alive, when some domestic or international conflict came to her attention, she would ask, “Is it good for the Jews?”
Many friends have told me they heard the same thing from their grandmothers, because this was a natural reaction for people of that generation after years and years of pogroms and finally the Holocaust.
So somewhere in the subconscious of almost all Jews there is that inner grandmother talking to us
We all know that’s how they think but it’s good to have it confirmed from the horse’s mouth.
Unfortunately, anti-white, whites won’t allow you to divorce the Jews no matter how much evidence you provide.
WEINERGATE: DISGRACING THE FAMILY JEWS, by Jackie Singer:
“If the world hates us, let’s not give them any reason to despise us more. If we didn’t worship the golden calf back then, why should we now? Because then is as real as now. I grew up hearing things like “it could happen again”. It might refer to a multitude of persecutions. Our enslavement in Egypt, the Spanish Inquisition, Kristallnacht–all these historic atrocities happened tous. So we better walk around like grateful survivors–a people whose history is our present. A gift.“
Woo boy.
“But a younger generation has almost the exact opposite conception of Jewish women:”
Exactly. I guess Jewish women maybe don’t suck Jewish dick but they’re eager to suck other dick.
This comment at Simon’s Bad for the Jews presents the common jewish view of their time amongst Europeans. It’s completely one-sided, portraying jews as eternal victims and Europeans as their eternal victimizers:
Clare Spark
It matters not what Jews do or don’t do. For antisemites, our virtues are non-existent. Many PJ readers do not know the tropes that matter. I listed them in several blogs: http://clarespark.com/2010/11/16/good-jews-bad-jews-and-wandering-jews/, and, with even more detail, http://clarespark.com/2010/11/14/the-abcs-of-antisemitism/. Or if you have the stomach for it, http://clarespark.com/2010/08/15/nazis-exhibit-der-ewige-jude-1937/. These are thematically related. Notwithstanding my research on the subject of antisemitism in the West, I understand Roger’s wincing. The men he lists as a shanda all fit the stereotype of the carnal or money-mad Jew.
June 7, 2011 – 7:41 am
– – –
Yes, if you have the stomach for it, read her last link. Here’s a bit that should cause some heartburn for proponents of the contemporary myth of judeo-Christian kumbaya:
“No European myth is benign or even neutral with regard to Jews or to the liberal values that Sharf wants to defend, nor can it be otherwise. All Jews, including the “eternal” ones, are “bad”; the antithesis of Christian and Jew corresponds to the antipodes of Christian [organic] conservatism* and Jewish [classical] liberalism“
The dirty trick that launched Anthony Weiner’s career, via Diversity is Chaos.
Note how Weiner’s district is initially described as “heavily jewish” but by the time his “race-baiting” flyer is described the voters suddenly turn into Whites.
I searched a bit and couldn’t find a picture of the flyer.
I have thought for a long time that Jewish traits had been crowding out what we might think of as more “american” values.
The most lucrative and powerful industries? Usury and gaudy, vulgar, shocking entertainment. Passtime of choice? Creating and rationalizing guilt. Dominant humor? Sarcasm, snark. Neurosis? Widespread
What makes you think the media are distinctively Jewish?
That post and thread at Roger Simon’s is a great find Matra. It should be recommended reading for all Whites who think that Jews are just like them and only have our common interests at heart.
I haven’t given the entire thread the sort of Austerian “close reading” it requires yet but one thing I thought I’d mention is that one of the commenters goes by the alias “tanstaafl”.
Seems like you’ve hit a nerve in the “is it good for the jews-ophere” Tan. Well done :-)
Seriously though, there is so much in that thread it warrants archiving, dissection and dissemination. One other thing, it’s striking that more and more Jews are now quite confident in coming out and stating who and what they are, repeating all the “stereotypes” that they dismiss in others as mental illness anti-semitism. Pride comes before a fall.
Let’s hope there’s more honest and open posts like this one from Simon.
Note how, in the last sentence, Israel and his “heritage” come before America.
He may not realise it but he is also “bad for the Jews”.
Recommended reading, indeed. The tanstaafl commenting over there isn’t me.
Andrew Breitbart is a Zionist shill: he is Hasbara. The entire conservative movement serves the ends of our AshkeNAZI elites.
Auster is blowing his usual smoke about “liberalism”.
Why is Weiner’s behavior wrong?:
“Again we see the enormous power of the Unprincipled Exception. Liberals happily go along with and approve every kind of disgusting sexual and expressive behavior, both in media and in real life, under the liberal principle that people are free to engage in any behavior they like, so long as they don’t use force or coercion. But then, on the occasion of some other behavior which for some unaccountable reason offends them terribly, the liberals suddenly go “Yechh!!” and demand that that the person who did this disgusting thing be brought to account. There is no rationale to it at all.
. . .
To illustrate my point, notice that none of the people who have condemned Weiner has stated why his behavior was wrong. They just assume that everyone shares the conviction that it was wrong. That’s the way the Unprincipled Exception works–by instinct and mob consensus.“
The unprincipled exception: a key to understanding liberalism:
“The unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that liberals use to escape the suicidal consequences of their own liberalism without questioning liberalism itself.
Alternatively, the unprincipled exception is a non-liberal value or assertion, not explicitly identified as non-liberal, that conservatives use to slow the advance of liberalism or to challenge some aspect of liberalism without challenging liberalism itself.“
The symptoms Auster ascribes to “liberalism” are more accurately described as judeo-liberalism. What he occasionally calls “right-liberalism” is judeo-conservatism. All aspects of Western politics, media and culture have become steadily more judaized, to the point where they are now dominated by jews and pro-jewish concerns, though not completely controlled.
Just as Auster’s Law of Majority Minority Relations in Liberal Society is his way of providing cover for The First Law of Jewish Influence, his “Unprincipled Exception” is a way of explaining away those occasions when there is a direct clash between jew and non-jew values, and the mores of the non-jewish masses prevail momentarily.
A good example of judeo-liberal “unprincipled exception” is how “the jews” are exempted from anti-White anti-“racism”, the very core principle of judeo-liberalism.
A good example of judeo-conservative “unprincipled exception” is how Israel is openly defended as an ethnostate for “the jews”, whatever the cost to us, while we must have open borders for the good of the holy global economy.
People have stated why Weiner’s behavior is wrong. Radar Online and Tablet say it’s because he insulted jewish women. Roger Simon and friends think it’s bad for “the jews”. For the rest of us – “Puritans” is the code-word used to describe us in jew/non-jew conflicts such as this – it’s some combination of lying, infidelity, and abuse of power.
Hey Anglo-boy, quit your blubbering and try to go a little easier on that jug of hooch. Now run along.
Before jews became “mainstreamed” – they were still “just like us”:
http://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/dreamlandfreakshow.png
Now the jewish Ringmaster has turned into a PR and press promoter:
http://www.prconsultantsgroup.com/storage/weiner-mobile.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1294354977347
Flanders
The “jousting with conservatives” performed by jews such as Weiner is done knowing that there is a support mechanism in place to defend the indefensible and the “simply” morally corrupt.
The jewish press are masters at such a game for broader strategic values. They use the strategy of portraying activities as simple moral indiscretions, and minimize those on which they do report, but these lend support to a broader corruption, one which undermines societal structure. The Other McCain covers one instance of “simple mistranslating” involving Weiner.
http://theothermccain.com/2011/05/30/the-curious-case-of-the-weiner-following-and-weiner-followed-teenage-girl/
The aspect of criticism of jewry, or individual jews, that I find most troublesome is that some people try to confine issues of treason to Israel as if the same duplicities and treachery are not well-emplaced among the general population of “american”-jewry. Scandals are used to diffuse the attention which should be given to vitally serious issues.
Most jews, I’m sure, are aware of that, but play along with the games conducted in the jewish MSM.
“To be a chump, or to not be one…that is the question. The bad guys have already placed their bets. We sense a whiff of change coming in the air. The Intel community is ready and waiting to come forward to put a trainload of people in jail. The only thing holding the process up is that there is literally no place to go for prosecution. Nowhere…that the fix is not already in.”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/08/phil-giraldi-spills-the-beans-on-israeli-espionage-in-america/
It is not a matter simply of “moral lapses”, portrayed as such by the jewish media, which are the problem. It is the jewish values which are not on display. The problem is societal treason. The support (or even the controversies) for the various moral indiscretions become merely a tactical cover for the mindset and activities which prevail in the jewish realm for conducting full and open treachery against America and Americans. The moral corruption becomes merely a game which is used by the jewish media in order to hide broader jewish corruptions and treachery.
That game has the effect of placing nation-threatening activities within a maze which is used to diffuse public attention and opinion. The effect that it has on the general consciousness is that the seriously significant becomes only one aspect of many lesser insignificancies. The well-publicized scandals hide the deadly duplicities. Those “minor” scandals do (and have become) institutionalized in public thought as being simply “everyday matters”. As such, the minor scandals become an intergal but tactical part of the overall jewish strategy of concealing more harmful and treasonous duplicity.
Flanders
Liberalism, as we have it today, is the end product of the Enlightenment.
David Stove in his essay ‘D’Holbach’s dream: the central claim of the Enlightenment’ states that that central claim of the Enlightenment was that knowledge “…improves human life” and uses as a source to build his argument around, ‘D’Holbach’s claim in his “The System of Nature” that “The source of man’s misery is his ignorance of nature”. Stove goes on to note that at the time of the Enlightenment there was no evidence that increased knowledge would improve human life, that things were still, even given the vast improvement in knowledge to that time, much as they had been for all human history.
But all this new knowledge gave rise to not one useful application of any importance. Human misery was not notably increased by it; but neither was human happiness.
Labour was not lightened. How could it have been? The only forms of energy available in 1770 AD were those which had been available in 1770 BC: that is, (nearly enough), just wind, water, and muscle, with muscle doing most of the work. Though physiology and anatomy made great advances between 1570 and 1770, medicine made none. Productivity was not increased: when the Encyclopoedia published its detailed accounts of trades and manufactures as they stood circa 1750, the chemistry and physics which were to make possible modern industry and agriculture were unborn and unimagimed.”
So on what basis then could the proponents of the Englightenment make their claim that increased knowledge would decrease human misery? The answer was with religion, specifically at that time, Christianity in all its various forms. And so the Englightenment extended its project by way of its justification in attacking religion as the base cause of mankind’s unhappiness. But further, since this was the only tangible basis for their claims of human advancement, the negative impact of religion (Christianity) was exaggerated, “…even at the time.”
Without going into the rest of Stove’s argument countering the Englightenment’s claim, that:
The Enlightenment, then, both exaggerated the misery which arises from religion, and partly concealed, and partly did not know, the misery that arises from the absence of religion.”
we can note that what Stove says of the Enlightenment we can see today ever more so with regard liberalism. Unlike the Enlightened, the project has ceased to regard race and nationalism as a natural extension of the knowledge we have aquired and the scientific basis for any nation or country but rather, with the conclusion of the Second World War, race and nationalism themselves have been condemened as equally ruinous of happiness and only increasing human misery. Let alone that the history of the 20th C was demonstrably one of atheistic liberalism in all its forms.
Cont’d:
So today we have HBD, IQ, race etc banished from “science” and replaced with utilitarianism. And it is apt at this point to note that the major proponent in the world today for Utilitarianism is the Jew Peter Singer.
Apt to note since, concomitant with the abolishment of religion (actually Christianity) from the circles of the cognoscenti, we had and have the rise to power of that ethnocentric irreligious/religious people: the Jews. For what people have the greatest animus towards Christianity today than the Jews?
No wonder than that liberalism has become the bastard child of the Enlightenment. That the Jews have extended the initial justification for the Enlightenment into opposing anything White, Christian, nationalistic or racial is simply the outgrowth of the inherent justification that our forebears made.
It was not from the Jews that the Englightenment came (further evidence, as if it was needed, against that absurd claim of the West as a “Judeo-Christian” heritage), but from the West: White Christians (Protestants mostly).
Out of this came liberalism: liberty and equal rights, and classical liberalism: limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. But, during the 20th C when the fruits of the Enlightenment became known, atheistic wars of destruction never before even thought of in scale, let alone brought to reality, we have the rise to dominace and power in the West of one rigid ethnicity and ideaology: the Jews. Their rise built upon their own inverted Christ by whose death we were saved. For it is with “The Holocaust” that all our history now revolves, so much so that our history is no more BC/AD but BH/AH. By the Holocaust we are not saved but cast to eteranl damnation and on this rock the Jews have built their church.
The ideaology is, as Tan states it, Judeo-Liberalism: no longer on a quest for knowledge to lighten the loads of all men but a crushing of all knowledge that opposes the Jewish mandate of eternal Holocaustianity.
And on board this project is not the liberals of the Englightenment but all those White liberals who stick by their own hatred of all things White, all things Christian.
For them they join with the Jews and decry us the most: the Rednecks, the Bogans, the Crackers, the Skinheads, the White Scum of all their enlightenment.
Ha, nice one Cromwell. Here’s a clip for my Anglo brothers.
I felt a great affinity, a huge loving bond with this Anglo, thrown out of the establishment for transgressing the bounds of civil society, stoically trotting uncaring through the cobble stoned ancient streets of London.
Note though, the footage was captured by the ever growing, observing, ever watching, CCTV eye of the enlightened.
In an effort to make up for my past transgressions, today I pledge to start the session with a salute to all things Anglo and what was once great, with 500 mls of Adnams Broadside, commemorating the Battle of Solebay in 1672.
As the label says:
The English fleet was moored in Southwold with Admiral Edward Montagu & most of his sailors drinking in local ale houses when called to action!
Ah, if only we had that type of man today instead of the Judeo-Obsequious one we have today.
I’d follow it up with a bottle of Old Growler but sadly, I’ve run out.
Here’s to the men who drank and fought, all for Nation, Civilisation and most of all…Us!
Cheers
Damn, copyright infringement.
You can see some of the action and read the background story here.
One of the many good things about 1672 was that a man could get drunk and not have the internet to publish his ravings for perpetuity and posterity. And no CCTV to capture it all, completely unwares.
[Auster’s] “Unprincipled Exception” is a way of explaining away those occasions when there is a direct clash between jew and non-jew values, and the mores of the non-jewish masses prevail momentarily.
Fantastic. What, really, does Auster mean by “unprincipled exception”?
Does he mean by it “an exception to one’s principles not guided by those principles?” He can’t mean that. How can one possibly make an exception to one’s principles guided by those excepted-from principles? Every exception to one’s principles is unprincipled with respect to those principles.
The only other thing “unprincipled exception” can mean, then, is “an exception to those principles not guided by any set of principles.” But, then the behavior is just “unprincipled.” No need to coin a special term.
Auster feels the need to coin a new term for a concept that’s been around for millennia: “acting contrary to one’s principles,” or “unprincipled behavior.” Why?
“Why?“
Scroll up. I quoted Auster’s definition. It is his way of explaining away the judeo portion of judeo-liberalism.
Good point Scott. Auster makes a lot of these statements that defy sense, as you have pointed out.
Another is where he quotes this or that person on a point or points he agrees with and then says “Why am I the only one making this point?” (words to that effect).
Nothing is valid unless Auster himself says it, then he wails that he’s the only one saying these things, simultaneously citing many who have said those exact things, most long before Auster ever enunciated them.
Yes, thinking about it, I realize it has to do with Auster’s need to present the malaise of the West as a battle between philosophies, not interests.
Here’s the clue: the behavior Auster is calling an “unprincipled exception,” and which he should simply call “unprincipled,”is in fact principled: namely, “We should shame and reproach those who manifest perversion and incontinence for the greater good.” Depending on circumstances, that principle can supersede the liberal principle “We must tolerate perversion and incontinence for the greater good” (e.g. vs. Taliban-like conditions). Conflicts of two good principles of course happen all the time. I have a principle not to eat unhealthy junk, but if I’m home for vacation and my mother serves me a dessert she worked hard to make, I’ll eat it gladly and without hesitation. My desire to please my mother supersedes my desire to have a nice physique. If I didn’t eat her dessert, that would be principled. If I do eat it, that is also principled. Different goals come into conflict, and the higher one carries the day.
But Auster doesn’t present it that way. When a “liberal” acts intolerantly, Auster immediately deems his behavior unprincipled. Why? Only if you believe that acting tolerantly is the greatest good does all intolerant behavior become unprincipled. E.g. if I considered my physique the greatest good, then eating dessert under any ciurcumstances would be unprincipled. There could be no principled exceptions.
But the idea that tolerance is the “greatest good” is Auster’s own cartoonish definition of “liberalism.” No-one believes that. It’s an Austerian strawnman.
In the real world, everyone has his own “preference curve” for tolerance vs. social chaos (i.e. how much social chaos we are willing to accept as a trade off for living in a free society). This preference curve informs our decisions regarding when the principle of punishing deviancy should supersede the principle of tolerance.
The character and level of social chaos in a given society, whether manageable or crushing, reflects, more than anything else, the preference curve of those in power. If the society is extremely tolerant of pornography and sexual deviancy, but extremely intolerant of, say, blond, blue-eyed iconography, that falls squarely at the feet of the ruling class, who have the power to impose their principles (which, like all principles, are epiphenomena of their goals).
Auster does not want the debate framed in those terms, of course. As such, he is the typical jewish dialectician (cf. Nietzsche: “dialectics as a weapon.”) The dialectician devitalizes his opponent’s intellect.” By introducing confounding pseudo-concepts, for example.
“If the world hates us…all these historic atrocities happened tous. So we better walk around like grateful survivors–a people whose history is our present. A gift.”
Enhanced group cohesion through inducing a permanent state of war.
I don’t know the lady who is mentioned in this post, but it sounds like she could stand some good luck for a change. Her link is given in this one.
http://keepitsimplesurvival.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/a-little-help-for-our-friends/#comment-1564
Flanders
Scott, that is an excellent analysis of not just Auster but the situation in general.
That’s a comment well worth re-reading, several times. Sincerely, thanks.
It was not from the Jews that the Englightenment came (further evidence, as if it was needed, against that absurd claim of the West as a “Judeo-Christian” heritage), but from the West: White Christians (Protestants mostly).
That’s not really true about the Enlightenment. See my comments here:
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-israel-lobby-pushed-iraq-war.html
Thank you, Pat. I feel likewise – I always learn from your comments.
For those of us who want to actually do something about Auster’s beloved “White Majority” and therefore need to pull the wool from people’s eyes, Auster is liek a canary in a coal mine: he will spot any cracks before any of us possibly can, and spin the points of confusion in favor of his tribe. The reason being, of course, that the one sine qua non of saving Auster’s beloved Western civilization is to speak openly about jewish influence, malfeasance, and subterfuge and ideally, reduce that influence by any means necessary, whereas Auster’s sine qua non is that jews maintain their stranglehold on positions of influence, since they’re just there owing to their smarts and talent, and don’t change the fundamental character of the culture at all.
I haven’t read Sutcliffe’s work Ben, but reading your reference’s it appears that Spinoza though Jewish, was anathema to the Jews and Christians.
But Spinoza was not the Enlightenment. The list here is quite lengthy and the Jewish involvement is next to nil, save Spinoza.
The Enlightenment was overwhelmingly a White (not Jewish) revolution.
Hey guys: don’t miss the current JQ debate at Gates of Vienna (here). Fjordman and Takuan Seiyo are really pissed off against me and Tan because they are no match for our arguments. Cheers!
Well, it seems that even Mangan worries about whether or not “it is good for the Jews”?
I tried twice to post a comment suggesting that Weiner’s behavior was an example of Jewish Entitlement and he deleted them. He even deleted my comment pointing out that he deletes comments critical of the Jews.
Chechar, I read the thread at GOV.
Fjordman is a jew though I doubt he’ll ever come right out and admit it. He had two of Tan’s posts deleted then attacked him (and you) when he’s not there to defend himself.
At least your posts got through. Good work.
Comment on Fjordman, Seiyo, etc here: White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad.
I used to have a jewish girlfriend, she gave pretty good blowjobs. Not the best Ive had but certainly not the worst.
What she would have done with a jewish boyfriend I dont know though.
My parting comment will be an argument against Nazism that need not rely on squishy sentimentality.
It is simple: those you will encounter on the ‘Net who implicitly or explicity advocate for National Socialism are often to a man the type of guy who likes to do his own thinking and has a hard time keeping his mouth shut about it. Just the type of guy who would be the first to be put up against the wall or bundled off to a concentration camp for offering his two pfennigs gainsaying the NS political religion.
Clearly individuals who have no earthy grasp of their own self-interest and should be careful what they wish for because their asses just might get it. Friggin’ kooks.
That is a sensible comment, Jason. In fact I made it myself over at GoV and you copied and pasted it for posting here. To repeat: you posted it here and not myself. Though I freely admit I orginally authored it.
My point was and is that no sensible man who wishes to preserve his race would yet wish to live his life out under a totalitarian regime; for those he cares for to live their lives out under a totalitarian regime. If you wish to contradict me, then you explain to me why you would wish that for you and your loved ones? You won’t be able to do it convincingly, I can assure you.
The implicit contention that racial preservation must be synonymous with National Socialism, and well, if you don’t like that then you must be a “Jew”, is both moronic and morally bankrupt.
Does that about cover it, Jason?
That is a sensible comment, Jason. In fact I made it myself over at GoV and you copied and pasted it for posting here. To repeat: you posted it here and not myself. Though I freely admit I orginally authored it.
Interesting, when you consider that “Captainchaos’s” name IRL is also Jason.
“Interesting, when you consider that ‘Captainchaos’s’ name IRL is also Jason.”
Is there some disagreement you have with me, Anonymous, that you would care to voice at this time?
Perhaps that you are apparently on a first name basis with me (though not I with you) will facilitate a fruitful dialogue free of acrimony. Let us begin, if you care to, with you addressing me with your usual pseudonym – if you have one.
I love how DSK is a “horny Frenchman,” and Weiner is a “politician.” Maybe they’re both just horny Jews. No, that can’t be it. “French” Jew DSK says something about “Frenchmen,” but not Jews. “Politician” Jew Weiner says something about “politicians,” but not Jews. “Swindler” Jew Madoff says something about swindlers, but not Jews (except insofar as he preyed on other Jews).
We all know that’s how they think but it’s good to have it confirmed from the horse’s mouth.
Note the special pleading – whites mustn’t ask “is it good for us?”, but Jews get a pass because of their perception of their own history. What arrogance!
Jews have absolutely no shame…they’ll hump their own daughters if the need so arises. I think we’ll see that coming next. The Jews have an open textbook on sex. So anything goes. This alone is their culture. And this is exactly why no country wants them. They grow like weeds in a foreign country….till the country is completely destroyed and gutted!
The way Weiner acted was flawed from a Jewish point of view.
YETZERHARA: How Weiner should have acted.
“I’m not going to talk about policy or political substance here. I’m going to talk about style.”
…
“I hate a lot of people, white middle class Americans probably most of all. Your cowardly milquetoast bourgeois sensibilities and voting patterns are what got us in this mess in the first place. White middle class Americans being a dominant group in this society politics is mostly conducted with their expectations in mind. More than anything these people are fucking pussies. They want “non threatening” politicians. They want “moral” politicians or at least politicians who appear moral so they can pull a lever on election day then go back to obliviously gorging themselves on the great American consumer plantation like the cattle they are with a clear conscience.”
…
“Weiner basically played his part. He cried, apologized, and bit his lower lip in the classic sign of a shamed politician…and he was forced to resign for his trouble.”
…
“If Anthony Weiner said, “Hell yeah I sent bitches cock pictures and I’d do it again” the media would cry for a week then drop it. He’d be speaker of the house in a few decades easily. Hell it wasn’t as if he was really cheating…everybody knows his wife is Hillary Clinton’s lesbian mistress. It was a sham marriage from the beginning, the 21st century equivalent of some peasant marrying the bishop’s mistress to squelch suspicion.”
…
“All politicians are the fucking scum of the Earth. If you don’t know it then your IQ is too low to be voting. I don’t care about that. I have no problem with a little graft and bribery. I just resent the fact that the god damn media narrative has to pretend as if anybody in Washington DC has a political compass to begin with to cater to notions of bourgeois propriety. The mendacity of it all is staggering. The media actually expects us to believe that leering sodomites like Rick Santorum and power mad bull dyke lesbians like Hillary Clinton actually live their lives in accordance with middle American values. It is disgusting. I want some honesty. I don’t mean political honesty…we all know the politicians are going to sell this country out the highest bidder. I want personal honesty. Don’t apologize for living the way you do. Have a god damn spine.”
…
“Thankfully demographic shift is occurring and politicians won’t have to pretend to be boring suburban family values types much longer.”
There’s many a truth spoken in jest. Jewish values on display…
You don’t have to be a jew to know Hebrew you know…
Yetzer hara:
“In Judaism, yetzer hara (Hebrew: יצר הרע for the definite “the evil inclination”), … refers to the inclination to do evil, by violating the will of God.“
At the link provided by Daybreaker YH writes:
“Any politician who offends the delicate self image of these voters must bow and scrape and plead for forgiveness in front of them like this was puritan New England and public confession of sins was still the norm…because it more or less is. The entire American system of public morals is puritan in nature but that is a subject for another time.“
. . .
“Thankfully demographic shift is occurring and politicians won’t have to pretend to be boring suburban family values types much longer. Pretty soon political dialogue is going to devolve to the level of a freestyle rap battle. I for one welcome this change.“
Anti-White jew markers galore, including the coy non-denial.
Is there a group anywhere on earth that has a more delicate self image than “the jews”?
Castigating white people for their failings does not a jew make.
Di ist knobfrescher, ja? Not all they the Jew who seem it. Only is Jew by gene and propensity the beak nose and avarice. Yetzerhara is Christian boy I vouch.
Castigating Whites is a jewish specialty, especially when our “failing” is described as a “puritan” reaction to the scandalous misbehavior of some jew. Eg. Weiner, DSK, Polanski. It’s a template of inversion and dissembling that was perfected by Freud about a hundred years ago.
If you don’t like being taken for a jew then stop behaving like one. Cryin to your he-man buttbuddies about it doesn’t help.
Jews are the racists par excellence. As such, they cannot abide so fine and self benefiting a thing as racism to rest in any hands but their own. This, in a nut shell, explains why Jews criticize others for what they themselves do: it is in their interest to have all the guns and their competitors left with not even a tooth pick.
One can almost hear “Yetzer Hara” cackle at the stupidity of those he calls “cattle” who are gullible enough to fall for it. And what will he do when they wise up? Scream “Nazi!” of course. You see, those witless enough to accept Jewish rule deserve the degradation that flows inevitably from Jewish rule as the just deserts of their naivety. And those that cast off the yoke of Jewish rule deserve destruction as evil incarnate. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. At least so goes the implicit reasoning of the kike.
Did I miss anything, “Yetzer”?
The moral truth of the matter is somewhat more subtle than I fear cretins such as “Yetzer Hara”, who cannot help but that vileness oozes out their every pore, could be expected to grasp. It is this eternally: virtue is its own reward and vice its own punishment.
Contra Michele Bachmann, there is no Jewish tribal deity sitting aloft some celestial throne to wreak a vengeance on those that do not do as is good for Jews. Jewish interests either align with the interests of their host populations or they don’t; and when the interests of populations which play host to Jews are at odds with Jewish interests it would be self-evidently injurious for those host populations to yet act in the interests of Jews to the detriment of their own interests.
On the other hand, and this is a mistake I fear many fine comrades on our own side make (it is a mistake I have made myself), there is the temptation to unwittingly internalize in inverted fashion the grandiose stature of ultimate importance Jews claim for themselves, to the effect that where before Jews were angels they are now devils. What would one not do, to what lengths would one not have to go, to defeat the devil? One might have to, oh, pledge blind obedience to a dictator for the alleged benefit of a thousand years of greatness to follow. One’s actual reward would surely be to be rid of Jews, who were not really devils anyway and were thus much more easily dispensed with than was advertised. Yet, also as part of one’s actual reward, one would receive not a thousand years of greatness but a life regimented under the totalitarianism of party bosses of every increasing mediocrity and venality. Hardly a price worth paying to be rid of Jews when those Jews, who are not omnipotent, could have been removed from one’s life in a manner much less self-injurious.
The object is to remove Jews from the life of our people to the degree that Jews need no longer form a part of the moral calculus by which we regulate the internal affairs of our people. Jews added to the equation can only produce the end result of moral deformation (witness the sad spectacle at TOO where Parrott and Johnson aver that the millenarian dreams dancing in their heads are to enjoy pride of place over the preservation of our blood).
What power the Jews have is only the power we allow them to have. It is we who are in actuality powerful, the Jews are merely made powerful by co-opting our strength. If we separate from the Jews they will be powerless indeed. And let that, mercifully, be an end of it.
To say that one is for the “self-determination” of White peoples with no further clarification or caveat rings hollow as obviously in the real world it is those with power who do the determining. And who is to have that power; who is to do the determining of the shape of our lives going forward? Hopefully not the likes of Parrott and Johnson.
I asked Parrott why he cares for the survival of his race? He answered that he so cares not because it is the flesh of his flesh, blood of his blood, but because it is a highly creative race. In other words, because his race is capable of providing him with titillation.
I asked Parrott what political form he would care to live under? A theocracy, he replied.
Parrott instructed me that once I realized the race-destroying abstractions to which our race is seemingly attracted is a result of our race’s genetic constitution I would become less enamoured of preserving our race’s genetic constitution – as if his preferred millenarian totalitarianism would not depend upon, and in fact probably act as a selective pressure for, precisely the same affinity for idealistic abstractions rooted in the genetic constitution of our race.
He credits these new-found conclusions to Johnson’s influence.
Someone, please, get the hook and drag those clowns off stage. With moral reasoning like that, who needs Jews? When one thinks like Jews – in the form of millenarian twaddle blissfully divorced from or indifferent to the actual consequences as affects the life lived – one can only expect Jewish results: bad for our race.
“When one thinks like Jews – in the form of millenarian twaddle blissfully divorced from or indifferent to the actual consequences as affects the life lived – one can only expect Jewish results: bad for our race.”
Indeed. The extant Jewish ruling caste thinks of White people as sheep to be sheered as suits their purposes. Our would be ruling caste (the literary fascists) thinks of the existence of White people not in its own right as an end unto itself but as clay to be molded for their purposes. Any similarities, ya think?
Point taken, I hope.
Captainchaos: “I asked Parrott why he cares for the survival of his race”
Matt Parrott usually says the same thing as Jared Taylor. For example :
“I love my people because they’re my people, not because they’re the best people. I don’t love my kids because they’re the smartest and prettiest. If some random neighborhood kid barged into my house uninvited with perfect SAT scores and a modeling contract, and tried to tell me that she had more of a right to my groceries than my own kids, I would send her packing.”
Jared Taylor says it is natural to like our children because they are our children, but he still publishes IQ and crime statistics by race.
Pix of a young Weiner cross-dressing and oiled up are old news by now, but they were only just recently thrust upon my eyes from the front page of a non-“puritan” values rag prominently displayed for sale at my local market.
CC, you should direct your complaints about Parrot and Johnson to them, at your own blog or a venue where they are saying what you wish to take issue with.
This blog isn’t the place for it, especially not on an older post focused on Weinergate and jewish values.
I asked Parrott what political form he would care to live under? A theocracy, he replied.
A nominal theocracy like England is supposed to be.
You make it sound like he wants something like Saudi Arabia!
“If I had my druthers, it would be structured much the way England’s supposed to be structured, as a nominal theocracy with an elite entrenched at the helm which tolerates a variety of religious and political perspectives, employs a balanced blend of republican and democratic strategies for handling the problems of governing, and economically balances the need to be merciful with the weak and poor with the need to cultivate a dynamic and creative market.”
Tan, I respect your desire to not be embroiled in controversies extraneous to, and which in fact impinge upon, the purity of your method for bringing the non-racialist to racialism. So I shall respect your wishes and not introduce such in future (with the brief and final exception of answering Anonymous’ implied query).
As Wintermute once said, yours is an indispensably important voice for our people going forward. May your voice remain strong, and godspeed.
Anonymous, “theocracy” has a certain connotation, as well as characteristics inherent to the thing itself, which cannot be convincingly softened for the sake of sensitive ears with however many well-feathered qualifications. Add to that the modern technological context in which it is proposed to be enacted. Abundant technology…unobstructed by the theocrat which would provide many an opportunity for the theo-demos to ‘opt out’ and gainsay the theocrat. Obviously the theocrat could not, indeed would not (due to his by definition faithful confidence in his received truths and the legitimacy of rule by and for those received truths), tolerate over much resistance to his preferred ways.
Perhaps impolitic to say, but I don’t believe a too vigorous application of the dialectician’s scalpel applied to the preferred truths of certain personalities would be tolerated by them at their forums (this goes back to the theocratic impulse – though I won’t expound as that would be gratuitously impolitic). (This is not to imply I am without respect for those – in this comment – unnamed personalities. I do respect them.) Which is a reason I did (a little) of that here. (Although I won’t again as Tan has asked that I not and I have given my word that I will not.)
“Pro-White” must mean that we wish only the best for our people.
Best regards.
You’re not living the good life without a blond shiksa – and a former cheerleading coach, apparently. But to really live the good life, you’ve got to be open to experience.
Modern values in action.
“I’m not really talking about other chicks… How about with another guy?” Weiner asked Nobles.
“Hmmmm, haven’t done it before,” Nobles said.
“It can be hot,” Weiner replies.
“Are you turned on by other guys?” Nobles asked.
“Well it depends on the guy, but generally yes,” Weiner divulges.
…
“Anthony’s not gay though,” an insider told RadarOnline.com.
“He’s just very open sexually.”