From the Bastille to the boulevard: The long history of Jewish revolt, by Shuki Sadeh, Ido Efrati, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, 2 Sept 2011:
One hot day in the summer of 1967, a young, frizzy-haired guy named Abbie Hoffman tried to go into the visitors’ entrance of the building in which the New York Stock Exchange is located. When the guard stopped him, Hoffman said: “We are Jews and you are an anti-Semite who is not letting us in.” The disconcerted guard let Hoffman and his hippie-friends go up to the visitors’ gallery.
Jews have traditionally taken a particular interest in the successes of their people in every generation and in every field of endeavor. This Jewish “bookkeeping” is mostly tendentious and usually ignores the circumstantial and environmental conditions that made these success stories possible. Indeed, for the most part, it prefers to attribute these achievements to the genetic makeup of the Chosen People.
“The list of Jews who have been involved in leading revolutions [since the middle of the 19th century] is very long,” explains Prof. Moshe Zimmermann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s history department. “When a social group is not satisfied with its situation and feels it cannot change it – it will support a revolution. The Jews were not satisfied because they did not have privileges granted to other sectors and therefore the idea of revolution – whether communist or liberal – was attractive to them.
According to Prof. Moshe Zuckermann, a historian at Tel Aviv University, revolution was not the only option for Jews. They had least two other options.
“One was assimilation,” he explains, “as happened in Germany in the 19th century, and the other was going in the Zionist direction, a possibility that arose at the end of that century. If a Jew did not choose one of those two directions, his remaining alternative was to change the society at large – and therefore became a revolutionary.”
Trotsky was surrounded by quite a number of Jews, among whom his brother-in-law, Lev Kamenev, and Grigory Zinoviev stood out. “It is said jokingly,” comments Miron, “that when Lenin would leave the room, Trotsky was able to organize a minyan [prayer quorum].”
In Hungary, in another example, Bela Kun, a young man in his 30s, was among the founders of the Soviet Republic in Hungary in 1919. When it collapsed after 133 days, Kun went into exile in Russia, and was killed in one of Stalin’s purges at the end of the ’30s.
“Kun operated within a reality in ferment: Nearly half of the Hungarian journalists were Jewish, as well as the lawyers and doctors – even though they constituted only 5 percent of the population,” Silber explains. “At the end of World War I, Kun seized power in Hungary. He headed a government of 35 commissars, nearly all of them Jewish, and the impression was that a Jewish government really had been created. This led to a wave of anti-Semitism and terror against Jews.”
“In Germany there were various revolutionary ‘focal points’ dominated by Jews,” says Miron. “Kurt Eisner led the ‘Bavarian Soviet Republic,’ which briefly ruled in Bavaria. In Munich, there were three attempts at a revolution, all of them were led by Jews and all of them failed.”
Rosa Luxemburg, a Polish-born Jewess, was one of the founders of the Communist Party in Germany.
“Jewish revolutionaries for the most part live on the margins of Jewish society and sometimes cut off ties with the community,” notes Prof. Avi Saguy, head of the program for hermeneutics and a lecturer in philosophy at Bar-Ilan University. According to him, tikkun olam (repairing the world ) is a profound Jewish ethos – but a conservative rather than a revolutionary one.
“To say that in the Jewish genes there is a revolutionary element is utter nonsense,” says Prof. Zimmermann. “The Jews, by virtue of being a minority and because they were a religious group, adopted various types of behavior – which also explains the support for revolutions. The origin of the demand for social justice is indeed rooted in Jewish tradition, but in modern conditions, it can be said that it lies in revolutionary tendencies.”
Zuckermann, too, says there is no connection between the revolutionaries’ Jewishness and their political choices: “The discourse did not revolve around ultra-Orthodox religious Judaism, but rather around the Judaism that emerged in the period of the Enlightenment. From the moment the Jews integrated into the civil society of the 19th century – which, although it declared that they were emancipated, in fact did not accept them – they had a collective interest in changing society. Bourgeois civil society perceived the Jews in a new light: not only in a religious context, but also in socioeconomic one.”
Emanicipation of society
The most significant expression of the separation between the Jew’s social status and his tradition is found in the writings of Karl Marx, whose philosophy had a crucial influence on the revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries. Born in Germany in 1818, Marx came from a family of rabbis but his father converted and became a Lutheran.
In his 1844 essay “On the Jewish Question,” one of his early writings, Marx related to the secular status of the Jews in society and characterized them as a people identified with commerce and the accumulation of wealth.
“Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion,” he wrote, “but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time. An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society …
“We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” There are those who saw in Marx’s sharp words an expression of anti-Semitism and a denial of his Jewish past. However, in general he is perceived as a serious social theoretician, who called for the elimination of religious separatism of any kind and for abolishing economic commerce, on the way to creating an egalitarian, classless civil society.
“Most of the great revolutionaries,” says Zuckermann, “did not relate to their Judaism. People like Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg did not talk about emancipating the Jews from their Judaism, but rather about human emancipation, whereby people need to liberate themselves from social structures that create the oppression of various groups in the society, among them the Jews.”
Jews, jews, jews. Jews are so obsessed with themselves that they write stories bragging even about the mass murder and mayhem their tribemates have caused, turning European society upside down, spinning it as good and righteous. Then, perhaps realizing that this story may not fly, they hedge somewhat by lamely claiming it wasn’t really jews as jews.
But of course the story is about jews as jews. That’s what 9/10ths of it is about and that’s why it was published by Haaretz.
Excellent post and excellent summation. It’s the same old, same old . . . “They were victims of discrimination; that’s why they were revolutionaries. Their being Jewish had nothing to do with their destructive tendencies; Jews are destined to fix the world!” In many ways, this is an addendum to Auster’s constant iteration that criticism of Jews as liberals is the only criticism permitted. According to Haaretz, criticism of Jews as revolutionaries is only permitted if it is duly noted they a) separated from their Jewishness and b) became revolutionaries due to discrimination due to the Jewishness they rejected. Age of Treason, indeed.
You have to ask yourself:is there ANY form in which Jews have NOT been destructive?Revolutionaries,yes.Conservatives,yes(neo-cons).Seculars,yes (promotors of moral degeneration). Religious,yes(O.T.,modern orthodox).Their destructiveness is not explainable as a reaction to discrimination or persecution ,they are destructive even in their absence.In the US they never were persecuted and only slightly discriminated against,yet they have nearly totally ruined the country.Need I mention their communist rule in Russia with its massive oppression and genocide?Destructiveness is their essence and it is incurable.
A question for the Jews is: If you turned revolutionary because of discrimination and “oppression” why were you discriminated against and “oppressed” in the first place?
You should read E Michael Jones “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.”
If someone expresses his unhappiness at the enormous political/ cultural changes of the 20th century, we tend to consider him a conservative and therefore a “friend.” The wiser position, however, is to start with the unavoidable fact that the 20th Century was the Jewish Century. Thus, someone who, for all his grumbling, refuses to discuss questions of jewish qua jewish culpability– someone who, for example, refuses on “principle” to engage the argument that separation from the jews could have been beneficial for Europe in the past (and therefore might be beneficial in the future) — he betrays a profound unserious precisely where the utmost seriousness is called for. He is probably better regarded as an enemy.
Publisher’s Weekly on the linked book:
the 20th century is the Jewish Age because “modernization is about everyone becoming urban, mobile, literate, articulate, intellectually intricate…. Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.”
Until it is generally understood that the answer to the question “Who won WWI and WWII” is the jews, things will only get worse. That seems obvious to me, though I hope I’m wrong.
I concur with Sheila. Another excellent post.
Meanwhile at OneSTDV’s, Race Realism and Intellectuals:
…I hesitate in championing a fully populist message of race realism, at least until the message reaches critical mass amongst the intellectual class.
Why must “the message” reach a “critical mass amongst the intellectual class.”?
In sum, anti-PC opinions are best promoted by individuals who have public authority independent of their political views, such as Nobel Prize winner William Shockley and brilliant sci-fi writer Michael Crichton.
…
But what happens when the message of race realism gets to individuals who lack the intellectual acumen of my readers (you’re welcome again). Will the message get lost amongst slurs and illogical arguments? Will the message be undermined before it can even start spreading amongst the intellectual class, a process undoubtedly underway due to the existence of websites like this one and growing college groups like Youth for Western Civilization? Race realism, once an axiomatic fact of humanity, needs a renaissance. It literally needs to be reborn in the cultural and intellectual sphere. Is it better to incubate the “movement” amongst academics and highly educated individuals, like JP Rushton, Michael Levin, and Richard Lynn, in order to legitimize it before spreading it to the public? While some will dismiss my misgivings, I know that HBD statistics and arguments can be misused or combined with uncouth rhetoric that just has no place in a dignified (majority-white) America.
Hmmmm, seems to me the one constant theme here is that the intellectual class of “race realists” include Jews as White and further like all HBDers, fundamentally have no allegiance to race as such but IQ. And if Ashkenazi’s have the highest IQs then ipso facto Jews are good for us! Better than “us” in fact, a point that is lost on the “uncouth” and will “get lost amongst [their/our]slurs and illogical arguments”.
If people like Sailer and Taylor that “One” champions asserted that Jews had interests that were separate to, and not always compatible with White interests, then I wonder how much longer “One” would champion these heroes?
Ha, we know the answer to that. As Auster fully agrees, what caused Shoa Business was:
…a vicious, materialist, anti-Semitic racialism that caused the Shoah…
Let’s face it. If you took out the “anti-Semitic” from the “racialism” then they’d have had no problems with Nazism. After all the Nazis killed more Whites than Jews just as the Communists did. I don’t recall an ongoing campaign by “One” Auster, Jews et al against Stalin’s Russia like – “never forget what the Communists did to Whites!”.
As always – it’s all about the Jews and never about the Whites. Unless of course what’s good for Whites is good for Jews.
Note, for Auster et al it was because the “racialism” was viciously anti-Semitic NOT because it was racialism nor materialistic.
If it was a vicious White racialism that was materialist but included Whites as Jews would Auster have a problem with it?
He doesn’t have a problem with Israel (which in Judeo-America’s eyes is cast as Whites vs Muslims), in fact Israel is the paragon of all virtue so, the answer is unequivocally no.
Jewish history ALWAYS starts with the RESPONSE to jewish behavior.
Jewish history NEVER deals with the stimulus which led to the response.
Pat: “Let’s face it. If you took out the “anti-Semitic” from the “racialism” then they’d have had no problems with Nazism.”
From what I understand, Auster is a Jewish activist who doesn’t want non-Jewish White people to disappear through miscegenation with the third-world. But most Jewish activists want White women to marry Africans, no matter whether White people are anti or pro-Semitic. It means that they necessarily have a problem with national-socialism.
National-socialism opposed miscegenation and the Jewish inversion of values. It means that it could only be opposed to Jewish activists, even if Jews had not been seen as non-Europeans.
Most of us oppose Jews, not because they are themselves racial aliens, but mainly because they push for race-replacement and miscegenation between Whites and Blacks. Even so, from what I have read here, I know that Auster is taking sides with his fellow Jews against us.
“If it was a vicious White racialism that was materialist but included Whites as Jews would Auster have a problem with it?”
He would have a problem with it because most Jewish activists want Blacks and Whites to intermarry, and this creates hostility from White Nationalists, and Auster will not take sides with White Nationalists against Jewish activists.
All of the above makes it abundantly clear that Jews can never be our allies. They are selfish and destructive, even if – temporarily – they say they are on our side,ultimately they are against us and want our destruction.Simple rule: never trust Jews.We don’t need them.We can think and act for ourselves.We have our David Dukes and our Kevin MacDonalds,we don’t need their Lawrence Austers or others.
Especially when the Austers are so dedicated to tearing down our Dukes and MacDonalds.
“Destructiveness is their essence and it is incurable.”
War is the best tribal unifier. I think their destructiveness is a by-product of their strategy of convincing themselves “the world dances in the blood of the Jews” which acts to put them in a permanent state of undeclared war which then gives them superior group cohesion when competing with other groups.
So i think it’s curable in theory but not likely in practise simply because the strategy is always self-fulfilling. The destructiveness caused by this permanent state of undeclared war will always lead to a backlash or a collapse followed by a backlash and the vicious cycle continues.
History of Zionism, 1600-1918, Volume 2
By Nahum Sokolow
http://books.google.com/books?id=L7pJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
The downfall of the Czardom in Russia was undoubtedly one of the greatest events in the world’s history. Russia entered into a period of revolution which seemed to bring with it all the blessings of right and liberty. The restrictions affecting nationalities and creeds were removed. But far from destroying Zionism, the new liberty gave it an immense stimulus.
In Moscow a Zionist District Committee was formed, comprising many Provinces : Astrakhan, Vladimir, Vologda, Voronesh, Kazan, Kaluga, Kostrooma, Kursk, Moscow, Nijni-Novgorod, Simbirsk, Smolensk, Tambov, Tula, Ufa, Jaroslav, and the Don District.
At Odessa, a Zionist demonstration took place. Entire battalions of Zionist soldiers bore through the town blue and white banners, with the motto : —
“Liberty in Russia, Land and Liberty in Palestine.”
A hundred and fifty thousand men followed these banners, to which the Military Governor of Odessa insisted on showing honour publicly.
Zionist meetings were also held at Minsk, Saratov, Juriev, Kharkov, Nijni-Novgorod, Ekaterinburg, Homel, Proskurov, Baku Dubrovno, Riazan, Ekaterinoslav, Moscow, etc.
At Kieff [Kiev], when the procession approached the Town Hall, the Zionist flag was hoisted on the balcony, where the “Hatikvah” was played by the municipal orchestra.
At Berdicheff fifteen thousand Jews marched through the principal streets carrying Zionist banners. The Municipality, the Administration Executive of the town, and the chiefs of Ukraine National Organizations, greeted the Zionist demonstrators.
In Turkestan and Bokhara the Zionist movement made remarkable progress. The entire Sephardi element has adhered to the movement. The Ashkenazim and Sephardim worked together peacefully at the great Zionist Conference held at Samarcand. A meeting of five thousand Jews was held there, and a resolution adopted in favour of a Jewish Palestine.
In Moscow, in the Great Hall, a Jewish Mass Meeting took place. Dr. E. W. Tschlenow was elected president.
The following resolution was adopted : —
“The Jewish Mass Meeting in Moscow salutes freedom with great joy. We are firmly convinced that the Constituent Assembly, which is to be elected by universal suffrage, will establish in Russia a thoroughly democratic administration, and that not only civil rights, but also national rights, national autonomy, and a free national evolution, will be secured to the Jewish as well as to all other peoples of Russia. The Meeting resolves to convoke a general Jewish Congress in Russia.”
Auster is continuing his Chechar bashing.
…I pointed to Cesar Tort’s … conversion to anti-Semitism a couple of years ago…
I’m hoping that Cesar/Cechar might explain how the “conversion” process works or even better yet, Auster might explain how the “conversion” process works.
What is the Church of Anti-Semitism, where is it, who runs it, and how do I sign up?
Funny thing about these “It’s the Jooooooooooooos!” dissemblers from OneSTDV to Auster is how they decry simplistic answers to our problems in the form of conspiratorial thinking (something Chechar himself is getting hung up on lately) and simultaneously do exactly what they “amusingly” point out is that very flaw by claiming things like “conversion to anti-Semitism”.
As Tan has pointed out numerous times, being pro-ourselves is to be pro-White. And if someone identifies that your being pro-yourself and thus being pro-White is “anti-Semitism” then that doesn’t really say so much about US but a hell of a lot about the person throwing around the term “anti-Semitism”. They are essentially saying “I am pro-me, I am pro-Jewish. Anyone who is does not identify my interests as their highest priority is anti me.” But sadly in our world so confused has Jewish identity become with White identity that on the one hand we have no identity that excludes Jews and on the other we must recognise Jewish identity as unique by criminally prosecuting ourselves with “anti-Semitism” laws.
And so we see how Auster plays on each side of the fence. He’s White, he’s Western and he wants to punish you for not admitting that Jews are unique and separate to Whites/white goys.
Thus the confusion, no matter whether real or feigned, over Buchanan’s “our friends.” re Israel.
Can Buchanan have a racial identity that doesn’t include Jews and at the same time regard Israelis as “our friends”? Not to Auster, not to Jews.
White people must have no racial identity that doesn’t include Jews and Jewish interests and at the same time White people must recognise Jewish racial identity as unique and separate to our identity.
In other words: serve the Jews at all times. Serve yourself, make yourself your highest priority and we will prosecute you as an anti-Semite.
Thus all White identity which is exclusive of Jews belongs to reductionist Church of “anti-Semitism”. That identifying our interests might incorporate a whole gamut of opinion and expression from the “exterminationst” of our perceived foes whether Islamic, Communist, Jewish etc as exampled in Lindner to an academic political type like Buchanan is not to be comprehended.
That we have interests and identity, that we ask “what’s good for Whites?” is to be never allowed. We are all converts to “anti-Semitism” once we ask that question. Which once again, as Joe Sobran said, is to tell you what anti-Semitism really is.
Pat,
Thanks for the heads up. I still haven’t looked at Auster’s.
I believe that Linder is a brilliant guy. I especially like his brutal honesty, even if we don’t have to agree with everything he says (exterminating all die Juden, etc).
By the way, talking about conspiracy theories, the reason I didn’t link my last blog entry with Majority Rights, the original source of the Linder material, is because the author of a 9/11 article claimed witin the main MR article that since I don’t believe his theory… I must be a Jew! (See Matt Parrot’s criticism of GW’s allowing such nonsense in the original thread.)
“White people must have no racial identity that doesn’t include Jews and Jewish interests and at the same time White people must recognise Jewish racial identity as unique and separate to our identity.”
That’s it.
I think it’s great that Auster appears so bothered by Chechar’s postings that he has devoted so much of his precious time trying to mock him. Free publicity if ya ask me ;)
Anon gets at the heart of the matter:
“Destructiveness is their essence and it is incurable.”
War is the best tribal unifier. I think their destructiveness is a by-product of their strategy of convincing themselves “the world dances in the blood of the Jews” which acts to put them in a permanent state of undeclared war which then gives them superior group cohesion when competing with other groups.
So i think it’s curable in theory but not likely in practise simply because the strategy is always self-fulfilling. The destructiveness caused by this permanent state of undeclared war will always lead to a backlash or a collapse followed by a backlash and the vicious cycle continues.
Now go a bit further; start with the premise that Jews put tribe above all else. Everything follows from that. It’s inevitable that a group that set out to always survive, and thus never assimilate, would have to stay on a war footing. Combine this with the natural human need to be “the good guys” and it’s inevitable that Jews would choose pre-emptive victimhood – a permanent siege mentality. Otherwise, they’d settle down and screw themselves into the rest of humanity.
Jewry’s most salient and essential characteristic is racism. That’s the secret of Jewish success. That’s what’s really unique about them.
During the mid-1990s, a wealthy California environmentalist, David Gelbaum, himself the grandson of Jewish immigrants from Europe and with a Mexican-American wife, grew outraged over the nasty racial tone of the political battle unleashed by Pete Wilson and Proposition 187 and privately pledged $100 million to the Sierra Club on the condition that it never turn anti-immigration. Quote from Ron Unz. You can bet Gelbaum doesn’t support mass non-Jewish immigration to Israel.
The destructiveness caused by this permanent state of undeclared war will always lead to a backlash or a collapse followed by a backlash and the vicious cycle continues.
They see themselves as destined for persecution until they achieve their self-prophesied position as rulers of the world. The “vicious cycle” is supposed to continue until they’re in and in control of every significant nation and thus the world. Their religion does this by proxy. Their memes “code” for this behavior or “plan” through religious language and allegory.
“Jewry’s most salient and essential characteristic is racism. That’s the secret of Jewish success. That’s what’s really unique about them.“
Yes. Their own expertise in bigotry is why jews are A) so hypersensitive to it and B) instinctively swarm and attack any sign of it in those they regard as enemies.
Auster provides the definitive description of himself:
“I am a fifth columnist carrying out a Jewish agenda to destroy the white race.“
I posed the following questions to Mangan at his blog:
“Mangan, why do YOU suppose Troost and Unz, for all their alleged intelligence, wish to squander the most precious commodity humanity has – the genetic capital of the White race?
By answering that question directly you will cease to beat around the bush and arrive at the crux of the matter. You do want to (explicitly) arrive at the crux of the matter, don’t you?”
And provided my own answer:
“Unz believes that in order for the Jewish people to live the White race must perish. Simple as that. Or alternatively, were the White giant to be awakened from its slumber and mete out a collective punishment to Jews no more severe than their permanent banishment from our midsts, this would be to Unz’s eyes a kind of ‘death’ to the Jewish people all its own as Jews would be forever denied the station in life consonant with their millenarian self-conception that can only come whilst they ride atop the back of a great people.”
Er, what I meant to say is that Unz is pro-jew and anti-White. Just not much for shorthand, I guess.
A few days ago I posted the following comment at Mangan’s but Mangan deleted it:
“Hey Mangan, did you hear that Fjordman is half-Jewish? Next we will be informed that Troost’s father was a Golden Retriever. LOL!”
No funny allowed at Mangan’s, yet Troost’s mind-numbingly boring bloviating is kosher. Wtf?!
I stopped commenting at Mangan’s after he deleted, and said he will continue to delete, any comments about WW2 and the H man that were not PC according to his “reactionary” view of PCness. Dennis Mangan is a perfect example of what, according to Linder, should become our punching bags: conservatives. “Attack the conservatives, don’t fawn after them—that’s the idea that will bear sweet, sweet fruit.”
CC, perhaps Mangan deleted your comment because it impugns Troost’s motives. Maybe it would have been allowed if you had focused on Unz alone, or picked out something in particular Troost wrote to take issue with.
Chechar, whatever impact my own outreach to you had, it didn’t come from attacking. I wasn’t moved by attacks on me either. I think attacks are best aimed at enemies, not people who are simply not where I am, and especially not those actively moving in my direction and not attacking me.
Tan, your last comment encapsulates why I appreciate your blog and your allowing me the privilege to comment here when the spirit moves me.
The quoted paragraph from Marx, starting with “Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion” is actually, quite…dare I say it!, anti-Semitic.
The basis of Jewry is not Judaism, but Swindling.
Sounds like Luther’s scathing attack on Jews that Hunter Wallace has been quoting a lot in recent times. (When he takes a break from gossiping and other time-wasting, that is). I note with interest HW’s growing interest in Radical-Nationalistic-Protestantism. But that’s another story.
HW on Protestantism:
“There is a lot of empty talk on the internet about the need to preserve our [American] culture. Just what is our culture though? It is Protestantism.”
“By 1700, the “American” has emerged into full blossom in Massachusetts and Virginia: he is an English speaker, a Protestant, and now he is a White man. There is something like an American national identity taking shape around a racialized version of Protestantism.”
“By 1800, the United States had become an independent country, and the “Americans” were now English speakers, Anglo-Protestants, and White men who subscribed to republican political principles.”
“By 1900…The Americans were White Christians (there was some confusion on this point given the unresolved and contested status of blacks, Asians, and Indians) who subscribed to an ideological version of republicanism.
“In the South [by 1900], the Americans were still English speakers, Protestants, and White men who subscribed to a conservative version of republicanism.”
“By the 1950s, the traditional WASP elite in the North (i.e., the Madison Grants, the Henry Adams, the Charles Davenports, the Henry Cabot Lodges, etc) was being overthrown by the present day multiethnic elite [of] Jews and their non-WASP allies”
“By 1970, the ‘Americans’ were people who subscribed to a perverted strain of liberal ideology which was heavily influenced by European intellectual trends like Marxism and postmodernism. For the first time in American history, there was no longer any racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural basis to Americanism.”
More from HW:
“The very essence of Protestantism, which is the foundation of American culture, is that the individual answers only to God, that the individual is supposed to follow his reason and conscience, that the individual Christian is as good as any fallible Pope or “Human Rights Commission,” and has the right, the freedom, and the duty to question the New York Times, NPR, and President Barack Hussein Obama if they are abusing the faithful and steering them down a disastrous course.”
“That is precisely what has been undone in the United States and Northern Europe by the secular liberal establishment since 1945. Nowhere has Protestantism been undone more than in Britain, Sweden, Canada, and Germany where ordinary people live in mortal terror of the thought police.”
“If Martin Luther were published in the Federal Republic of Germany in the year 2011, he would be thrown in prison for all sorts of heresies. No one who is familiar with John Calvin’s Geneva can possibly lay American and Dutch degeneracy at the doorstep of Calvinism.”
“Insofar as American Catholics are opposed to the racial status quo in the United States, it is because they are marinated in America’s Protestant culture, which inspires them to dissent from the Roman Catholic Church and make up their own minds about this issue.”
“Whiteness has been transformed into the Original Sin. There is now a shrine to the divine MLK on the National Mall in Washington, DC.”
Interesting how “hail” is always promoting and defending the known liar, phisher, and all around scumbag and troublemaker “Hunter Wallace”. Even when HW’s ideology of the month is something particularly idiotic, like this God-fearing conservative bullshit.
I personally believe that we are engaged in a 2,000 year long spiritual battle with the “Sons of Satan” and until we realise that we are impotent.
Protestantism is a form of Christianity that is acceptable to Jews; no images,no authority, concentrates on the Old Testament etc.
Cromwell bought the Jews back to England after they had been expelled for 400 years.
Has any Protestant country succesfully expelled the Jews?
As far as I’m aware, the only country that has managed to reclaim their country from the Moslems, expel jews and defeat the Bolshevik jews (at great cost) was Catholic Spain.
The Catholic Church, the only organisation that has a solid history of smoking out the Jews ( the reason for the Inquisitions)and expelling them, has now been infiltrated and taken over by crypto Jews,Masons and Communists. We have been left defenceless.
You are right JMR. And very few WNsts are conscious of the fact that, from 1521 to 1821, the viceroyalty known as New Spain was an extensive region that comprised much of what today is the States and was governed by a caste system with Iberian whites at the top. More importantly, New Spain was strictly Judenfrei. Many jews were liquidated by the Inquisition in the town where I live today (incidentally, one of my forefathers lived in front of the Palace of the Inquisition). After New Spain was betrayed by some criollos, jews were introduced again and, thru Freemasonry, they undermined what was left of the old Spanish regime (if you know a little Spanish, see my blog Nacionalismo criollo).
But the important thing to remember is that thru 300 years jews were forbidden to practice their stuff in great part of North America. Only thus could the Spaniards thrive.
England also thrived in the absence of Jews. Indeed, they say that the reason England was the first European country to develop a middle class was because there were no Jews to turn them into debt slaves.
I find it interesting that it was the Jew run Protestant countries that instigated the war aginst Hitler. The Catholic countries such as Portugal, Spain and Ireland chose neutrality.
If you’re not reading Auster everyday, you’re missing out on a terrific (unintentional) resource for understanding the cancer of (judaeo-)liberalism. His latest meditation is a twofold attack on the prolific advertisements for an obscene show called “Hung” and the modern idea that “freedom” (defined as the “mindless acceptance of systematic decadence”) is more important than civilizational survival and integrity. Whose interests have been served by both these phenomena he leaves as an exercise for the reader.
For the record, Hung was created by a Russian jewish immigrant named Dmitry Lipkin, and very similar to another recent show aimed at high school kids, created by two jews, David Katzenberg and Seth Grahame-Smith, called Hard Times of RJ Berger”.
Tan,
“perhaps Mangan deleted your comment because it impugns Troost’s motives.”
Of course my jocular barb was intended to achieve that effect. But additionally, to make Fjordman and Troost objects of contemptuous ridicule because of their (I assume) ethnically motivated opposition to conditions necessary for the survival of our race. You of all people should know that each of Troost’s comments is designed with malice aforethought to achieve at least two things: to pathologize White racial preservation and to defend Jews. Assuming you have taken the trouble to read even a few scentences of Troost’s voluminous scribblings, that is. It is totally within my power, given a free hand, to annihilate Troost’s credibility on matters racial at any level he cares to oppose that, intellectually, verbally…what have you. And it is not as if this isn’t richly deserved. Yet Mangan remains in opposition. Why? I hear the clucking of chickens.
Oh hell, and plus I’d just like to horse-whip (figuratively speaking, mind you) Troost in front of a live audience for the sheer bloody ego gratification of doing it. lol