Quote:

@ “lol, you paleocons sure are paranoid about jews.”

It’s not so much Jews that I’m paranoid about, as non-Jews that are paranoid about anti-semitism.

If it was considered ok to criticize and look down on Jews the way some people criticize and look down on the French, this would simply not be an issue. Instead there is a deliberate unwillingness to be rational on the topic.

The Israeli politician in question here [a subject discussed at Mangan’s] is annoying, sure, even to the point of being a mortal enemy, but he’s protecting his people. The real problem is the hypocrisy when we’re told the rest of us can’t do the same.

Related:

With regard to GoV and the Geller/EDL mixup, I just want to note that, first, pointing out that a Jewish person trying to make the EDL focus on Jewish concerns makes that Jewish person look bad is now called “seeing Joos under the bed” and gets one’s comment deleted, and second, the EDL thing is about as clear an example as possible of “we stand with Israel” meaning “at the expense of anybody else, even our own people”.

Their little “counterjihad” is in fact nothing of the sort and has never amounted to more than drawing-room polite society talk. A counterjihad, if there is to be one, will involve semi-organized mobs in the streets, quite a lot of violence, and a philosophical commitment to the idea of, the permissibility of, exclusionary identity. Once that foundation is laid, alliances between groups will mean something, because each one will have something clear to gain from it. Until that foundation is laid, there is always the nearly explicit possibility that whatever gets won _must_ be shared with those that had no part in it.

/end quote

“And I will bless them that bless thee,
and curse him that curseth thee . . .”

“Disagreements about foreign policy are one thing. Jew-hating is something else. When someone says, “Zionists not welcome,” watch out.

Da Tech Guy informs us that some unpleasantness has developed among counter-jihad bloggers, requiring me to say: I’m with Pamela Geller.”

Oh-Kay.

Clearly Genesis 12:3 has become the Bible proof-text of choice for Republicans and anti-antisemites.

Quote:

So it seemed to me at the time that the EDL was a genuine anti-jihad group, strongly pro-Israel as every legitimate anti-jihad group must be, since Israel is at the front lines of the global jihad, and resolutely rejecting racism and any form of actual neofascism.

However, it has become increasingly clear that the EDL has morphed and diverged from its original course.

They now have clearly been infiltrated by the worst kind of influences, something that had successfully staved off for years, and they’re no longer staving it off…

And they are now unrecognizable to me… I was waiting to see if the forces of good would recapture the heart and soul of the group. Alas, it was not to be.

/end quote

With this definition of counter-jihad it is clear that they are my enemies.

Curiously, if anti-Semitic elements are indeed cropping out in the EDL this can only mean that they are a little more honest than Ned May, Fjordman, Con Swede and the other gentiles at GoV and Jihad Watch.

Scott: “About which the great defender of the White Majority, Larry Auster, wrote:

“Interesting. I thought that Kevin MacDonald’s thesis was that Jews are a mortal threat to the white race, and therefore must be expelled from the West or exterminated, because they are driven by a competitive Darwinian evolutionary program to destroy white society wherever they encounter it.””

That last part is wrong too. Kevin MacDonald has written straightforwardly on the smaller numbers of Sephardic Jews in America before the Eastern European Ashkenazi influx. They never became radically aggressive toward the White majority around them, and in his opinion they never would have.

“I thought that Kevin MacDonald’s thesis was that Jews are a mortal threat to the white race, and therefore must be expelled from the West or exterminated.”

The fucker is slanderously calling MacDonald an instigator to murder. And he’s doing it because if he left out the “exterminated” part, and just spoke of “expelled from the West” (and even that isn’t MacDonald’s position), well there’s nothing ipso facto unreasonable or immoral there, and so he must avoid that debate at all costs.