Jeffrey Goldberg writes in Is the Term ‘Israel-Firster’ Anti-Semitic?, at The Atlantic, on 19 Jan 2012:
There’s been a controversy raging over the past month or so that I’ve avoided writing about mainly because it has a Groundhog Day quality to it. It began with this very interesting Ben Smith piece, but lately it has become tiresome. Apparently, it is not tiresome to other pepole, because it just keeps going. The seemingly most urgent question to emerge from this controversy is whether or not the term “Israel-firster” is anti-Semitic. The term is used by Media Matters, the left-wing advocacy group, to describe American Jews with whom it disagrees on American Middle East policy, and it was also used by staffers of the Center for American Progress, the important liberal think tank, to describe same. CAP has disavowed the language, and apologized on behalf of the staffer who used the term; Media Matters doesn’t seem to care.
So, is “Israel-firster” anti-Semitic? Its origins are certainly anti-Semitic, and the idea that Jews are incapable of being loyal to the country of their citizenship and are only loyal to world Jewry, or the Jewish state, is an age-old anti-Semitic trope.
For non-jews the “controversy” has been tiresome all along – it’s just the latest episode of jews debating jews about what’s best for jews. The obsession with arguing about whether this or that is “anti-semitic” is symptomatic of a jew-first attitude. The trope here is the jewish conceit that they may freely exhibit such attitudes while everyone else must act as if they’re incapable of noticing.
The next day Goldberg had more to say. A Question From Glenn Greenwald, 20 Jan 2012:
I don’t think CAP is anti-Semitic (it’s pretty hostile to Israel, but it’s not as if it has called for the Jewish state’s destruction), but the term “Israel-Firster” is originally a neo-Nazi term (Willis Carto’s fascist Liberty Lobby was a big proponent of its use, as is David Duke), and it is meant to raise questions about a Jewish person’s willingness to be loyal to America (this is merely the local variant of an ancient anti-Semitic trope). CAP, to its credit, acknowledged the anti-Semitic nature of the term, and apologized. (I wrote about the controversy here.)
Obviously, use of the term “Israel-Firster” to describe someone with whom you disagree is not meant to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize your opponent. When Jews use it, as Joe Klein does, it is particularly unfortunate, because it is a term specifically designed to marginalize Jews in the American political discourse, and people like Joe Klein will eventually reap the whirlwind, in one form or another. The mainstreaming of hostility toward any group of Jews leads inevitably to the mainstreaming of hostility to Jews generally. And of course it’s probably a sound idea for Jews to avoid using neo-Nazi-derived slurs to describe other Jews.
This is why I’m taking the time to write about this latest tiresome episode of jew-firstiness. Did you catch what Goldberg did right there? Did you notice how he used the terms “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”, and “anti-semitic” to describe someone with whom he disagrees? How he indirectly explained that he doesn’t mean for it to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize his opponent?
Words are not the problem, it’s facing what they mean that Goldberg can’t handle. “Israel-firster” is literally more descriptive than any of the terms he uses to demonize his opponents. To the extent “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”, and “anti-semitic” mean anything it amounts to “anti-jew” – which is exactly the kind of thing a jew-firster would be concerned about. Jefferey Goldberg is both a jew-firster and an Israel-firster. Israel and jews literally come first in his mind.
A few days later Goldberg was happy to quote someone else regurgitating his jew-first views. A Straight Line From Lindbergh to ‘Israel-Firster’, 23 Jan 2012:
[C]urious minds want to know whether the Gingrich campaign will continue to reap the largesse of Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who seems an unlikely Gingrichian. To explain it, some critics have taken to calling Adelson an “Israel-firster.” That ugly term has been applied, not just to Adelson, but to other supporters of current U.S. policies regarding Israel, as Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg describes.
Bashing Jews for their supposed disloyalty to their nation is a crude maneuver that has been employed long before Israel existed. It has been a tactic of both the far-left and far-right, almost as though haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon.
Demonizing people in this way is always a nasty form of argumentation, but in our country it is particularly disquieting when this kind of discourse seeps into the mainstream of our major political parties. Lately, that seems to have happened within certain Democratic circles, as Ben Smith reported in Politico. In Charles Lindberg’s time, the intolerance on display by the “America-First” crowd was mostly (but not exclusively) Republican.
Yes, it is a crude maneuver to demonize people in this way, for example, as “haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon”.
The difference is that the America First “crowd”, including Charles Lindbergh, openly identified themselves and their interests, whereas jew- and Israel-firsters pretend they aren’t and intolerantly demonize anyone who calls them on their pretense.
Thanks again, Tan. Most of us are so used to Jewish double-talk that we don’t even notice it anymore, even take it as normal.
“their nation”
dual passports – which nation?
For another example of the double moral standard of this obnoxious Tribe, see how they treat Palestinian members of Knesset (“Palestine-firsters”) or the Palestinians in general, proposing they make a pledge of allegiance to Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.
Americans being “America-firsters” is of course “anti-Semitic” (or “neo-Nazi”), because the only task of GOYIM is to serve the Jews (that’s where they were created for). Not accepting this basic rule is a dangerous form of anti-Semitism that might lead to a new Holocaust. Fortunately we have people like JEFFREY GOLDBERG to notice the first symptoms of this phenomenon so that it can be fought tooth and nail!
P.S. What a beautiful picture of Jeffrey’s typical KHAZAR face. Now I understand why Jahweh chose this people!
There are a number of good posts on various websites about Israel-firsters . . . and the commenters aren’t quibbling about whether the term is anti-semitic (except for the usual Jews, always vigilant to ensure no thread goes unchallenged). I tried putting in links and I guess I’m doing it incorrectly. Sigh. Check out Steve Sailer’s site yesterday (isteve.blogspot.com, post on Dog vs. tail) and Vox Popoli (voxday.blogspot.com).
A commenter at Sailer’s had a quote I hadn’t seen before, which he attributed to Joe Sobran: “that those who accused Jewish Americans of having dual loyalties failed to realize that that would be an improvement.”
I hoestly believe that the terms “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”, and “anti-semitic” hitherto effective in closing debate, are increasingly falling into irrelevance, essentially from over-use and promiscuous use. In fact I believe that in due course their use will become counter-productive.
Damn you’re good!
He is the best :)
“Did you catch what Goldberg did right there? Did you notice how he used the terms “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”, and “anti-semitic” to describe someone with whom he disagrees? How he indirectly explained that he doesn’t mean for it to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize his opponent?”
The hyper-ethnocentric Jewish mind regards all other ethnocentrisms as a threat to its own ethnocentrism; that is, as an existential threat. As such, opponents of Jewish ethnocentrism, however defensive in nature this opposition may be, are naturally expected by Jews to ‘shut up and take it’.
It is indeed a rare and admirable Jew who can allow the coolness of reason to temper his overweaning passion in this regard. For him to recognize, and to the core of his being, that the European peoples are absolutely, non-negotiably entitled to life and to to be the masters of their own house.
“This is why I’m taking the time to write about this latest tiresome episode of jew-firstiness.”
Yes, I know. Saying the same thing, summoning the psychological intensity to hold in mind the same thing, year after year, cannot help at times but to produce a feeling of tedium and ennui. But we all appreciate the work you do and your special talent for it. Never forget that. It is for the very highest of stakes and nothing we ever do can be more important.
The hyper-ethnocentric Jewish mind regards all other ethnocentrisms as a threat to its own ethnocentrism
Recently France voted to punish deniers of the Aremenian genocide. Jews have got their knickers in a twist about that. Only their suffering counts, who do these uppity Armenians think they are?
Yet this also seems to a be form of jewish insanity. If they really want their holocaust brand to be taken seriously surely acknowledging another holocaust is shoring up the whole concept?
But no, apparently not.
As usual they want it both ways.
So, when encountered by an individual of jewish descent who self-describes his primary loyalty is to israel and secondary loyalty to his current residence – referring to him or her as an israel-firster is “anti-semitic”?
Would referring him or her as an american-seconder be semitic-neutral?
The hyper-ethnocentric Jewish mind regards all other ethnocentrisms as a threat to its own ethnocentrism….
This is the essence of montheism.
“This is the essence of monotheism”.
Exactly. Jewish monotheism was/is only a projection of their own arrogant ethnocentrism. “There is only one God and there are no gods besides Him” is code for “there is only one important people ( the people of Israel) and there are no other important peoples besides it”. Also the often mentioned idea in the O.T. that in the “endtime” all peoples of the world will come to Jerusalem to acknowledge Jahweh as the only God is code for the same idea. Their “piety” is nothing but concealed ethnic arrogance.
Anonymous: “Recently France voted to punish deniers of the Armenian genocide. Jews have got their knickers in a twist about that.”
It’s impossible to know what Jews really think. The French new law about Armenia seems very useful for them. It makes it seem that exception laws are not made only for Jews. But it’s obvious that the law about Armenia doesn’t have the same significance as the one about the Jewish holocaust. European people and Jewish activists don’t care what happened in Armenia a hundred years ago. If you’d like to be fined for contravening the new law, you will have to specifically say that “the Turks did not genocide the Armenians” (and you need to find an organization of Armenians who will pay attention to what you say and decide to sue you for damages).
But if the subject is WW2, it’s enough to say that the German occupation of France was “not particularly inhumane” in order to be heavily fined. In fact, the French law against WW2 revisionism, which was voted in 1990, doesn’t say what is the official truth. So, no one knows if the law has been broken until the fine or jail sentence is issued.
That law was promoted by Jewish prime minister Fabius. Officially, I think its most vocal opponents were Jewish activists too, but they were only a phony opposition. They were probably supporting the law behind the scene. The real opponents were not allowed to speak in the media. Today, the Jewish politician Robert Badinter likes to say that the 1990 law is unconstitutional. But he was actually the president of the French constitutional council in 1990, so he was certainly in a position to block it.
designed to marginalize Jews in the American political discourse
Is he kidding? Like they’re not 1000 times overrepresented in American political discourse. It would be funny if (a) if he actually didn’t believe it, and (b) the result wasn’t genocide and mass murder against the decent nation stupid enough to host him and his ilk.
The mainstreaming of hostility toward any group of Jews leads inevitably to the mainstreaming of hostility to Jews generally.
What goes around. . .
Remember, all this “anti-racism” and “anti-anti-semitism” is just a way for them to stay close to our wallets, otherwise why do they stay in the face of our awful “racism?” They are parasites who live of us.
Goldberg substitutes Jewish taboos for logic. Most Jews do the same, leaning their supposedly ginormous intellects on this grade-school crutch.
Mental midgets, I says. Soft, sheltered, weak.
His main crutch here is his risibly obvious conflation of individual Jews and all Jews. If we call one Jew an Israel-firster, we’re accusing all Jews of being incapable of loyalty. Jews whine when people conflate bad Jews with all Jews, then turn around and do it themselves to get bad Jews off the hook.
This is one of the more annoying things about Jews – how they use money and power to substitute for logic (and I’m setting the bar for logic very low here).
Like I said – spoiled, soft, and weak. And cowardly.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/georgia_ballot_challenge_obama_walks_on_by.html
“Did you notice how he used the terms “neo-Nazi”, “fascist”, and “anti-Semitic” to describe someone with whom he disagrees?”
But then, Willis Carto, the Liberty Lobby, and David Duke may indeed be neo-Nazi and/or anti-Semitic. I would call this site anti-Semitic, for instance, and that would be a fact, not a rhetorical device. There is a lot of neo-Nazism within the white nationalist or “pro-white” scene. You rarely find an organization or web site that is at once pro-white and not at least sympathetic to Nazism, Hiterism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or some combination thereof. A representative compendium of neo-Nazi ideas is found on the ‘Racial Nationalist Library’ site. When one encounters those ideas, it is accurate to give them the neo-Nazi label.
@oistros,
It is proper and normal to criticize Jewish anti-White activism. What is not proper and normal is that, by playing on ambiguous words, you would accuse us of plotting to kill 6 million Jews.
The demographics in Europe and US is going to really kickin’ by the end of this decade.
The jews have won, the ethnic disaster happened to Detroit and another American cities will go unpunished.
They can make War whenever they want. Hell, what awakened me to the jews is that even the liberals pro-immigrationist jews are also pro-war, even intellectuals doofus like Bernard-Henri Levy.
I would call this site anti-Semitic
Of the two groups only one is the victim of genocide and the other is a perpetrator. Only one is the supporter of racist mass-murder, mass-rape (including against children) and ethnic cleansing and the other is the victim of these war-crimes. One supports and gets its own racist ethno-state while working to destroy everyone elses. What do you call THEM?
“I would call this site anti-Semitic, for instance, and that would be a fact, not a rhetorical device. There is a lot of neo-Nazism within the white nationalist or “pro-white” scene. You rarely find an organization or web site that is at once pro-white and not at least sympathetic to Nazism, Hiterism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or some combination thereof.“
I would call you an anti-White jew-firster, and that would be a fact, not a rhetorical device. We’re sympathetic to White interests here, not yours.
Goldberg’s latest is More on Jewish McCarthyism and Neo-Nazi Smearing (Last Post, I Hope):
“Spencer Ackerman goes after Glenn Greenwald and others — rather successfully, I think — for using anti-Semitic rhetoric to smear (Glenn’s favorite word) Jews with whom they disagree“
McCarthy and neo-Nazis have nothing to do with this spat. That’s just a lame jew-firster attempt to excuse themselves while they argue about what’s best for the jews.
Goldberg finds this bit of Ackerman’s piece important:
“The left, I think, will win that debate on the merits, because it recognizes that if Israel is to survive as a Jewish democracy living in peace beside a free Palestine, an assertive United States has to pressure a recalcitrant Israel to come to its senses, especially about the insanity of attacking Iran.
But that debate will be shut down and sidetracked by using a term that Charles Lindbergh or Pat Buchanan would be comfortable using. I can’t co-sign that. The attempt to kosherize “Israel Firster” is an ugly rationalization.“
Forthright America-firsters like Charles Lindbergh and Pat Buchanan give these dissimulating jew-firsters the willies exactly because they are indeed jew-firsters.
Here’s Goldberg’s concern:
“The handful of Jews who use anti-Semitic terminology to demonize other Jews (and it really is a handful — I’m not sure they could fill a synagogue) do serve an important purpose, however: They open-up space for anti-Jewish invective in mainstream discourse.“
No concern is too small for jew-firsters to be concerned about. Or for The Atlantic to pay Goldberg to explore.
As an aside, here’s how Goldberg described what he did for the Israeli military:
“I saw after the culinary, hygiene and medical needs of the prisoners, but I also, on more than one occasion, actually did give advice to Palestinian prisoners on how to apply to college in America“
So let’s be fair. Goldberg is actually an Israel-firster, Palestinian-seconder, America-laster.
For Jews this hierarchy of preferences makes sense: Jews and Israel first, all Third Worlders second, especially if they can be used against Whites, and Whites third (if at all). Whites “deserve” the third place only if they obediently serve the two first preferences. Giving advice to Palestinians how to apply for college in America is of course code for immigration and that serves the “higher purpose” of White Genocide. Conclusion: Jeffrey Goldberg is a true Jew.
@Armor
“What is not proper and normal is that, by playing on ambiguous words, you would accuse us of plotting to kill 6 million Jews.”
Not even sure what that means.
“I would call you an anti-White jew-firster…”
If the white majority in Europe and America held my beliefs then this would be the consequence: 1. There would be no non-white immigration; 2. White Europeans would be making plans on the best way to repatriate the non-white population in Europe; 3. We (white Americans) would be discussing how best to form an American white ethnostate; 4. The Jews and Israel would be irrelevant to the discussion.
Does this mean I’m “anti-White”?
oistros: “Not even sure what that means.”
I can explain.
Nazi, racist and antisemite are ambiguous words :
• Racism usually means that you want to hurt non-whites.
But white people are called racists if they simply refuse to be race-replaced.
• National Socialism was the idea that German people should work for the common good of the German nation.
But the word nazism usually implies the idea of gassing 6 million Jews.
• Antisemitism means that you are a mad man who wants to hurt Jews.
But the same word is used against you if you rightfully complain about the domination of the media by anti-White Jews.
What you basically said in your previous comment is that people like us deserve to be called nazis, racists and antisemites. It was not a friendly comment.
“If the white majority in Europe and America held my beliefs then this would be the consequence: 1. There would be no non-white immigration”
The first step to stopping immigration is to complain about the domination of the media by anti-White Jews. That is precisely what you don’t want us to do. Stopping criticism of the Jews seems more important to you than stopping non-white immigration. Would you care to explain why?
How is it worse to complain about Jewish domination of the media than for Jews to dominate the media? If they resent criticism, then instead of asking “how dare you criticize the Jews?”, they should simply let go of their domination of the media.
“4. The Jews and Israel would be irrelevant to the discussion.”
That’s the thing, they can’t be irrelevant. If you try to pursue 1,2,3 they’ll come after you as a racist nazi anti-semite.
If you try to reciprocate their attacks, then you ‘ll just confirm to them that you are indeed a racist nazi anti-semite.
And then someone will come and innocently note: “I would call ‘oistros’ anti-Semitic, for instance, and that would be a fact, not a rhetorical device”, citing your responsive attacks on them.
If the white majority in Europe and America held my beliefs then this would be the consequence: 1. There would be no non-white immigration
But its highly likely that is what most whites do think. But for some curious reason no mainstream political party will pander to this.
“Nazi, racist and antisemite are ambiguous words”
I agree. But I pointed out a neo-Nazi web site: (library.flawlesslogic.com) The ideas/themes/issues on that site are what I mean by neo-Nazi.
“National Socialism was the idea that German people should work for the common good of the German nation.”
That is a way over-simplified and distorted description. The willful disregard for or mitigation of the evils of Nazi Germany is a feature of neo-Nazism.
“Antisemitism means that you are a mad man who wants to hurt Jews.”
I meant it in this way: an anti-Semite is someone who thinks the Jews are bad for white ethnic groups; maybe bad for any ethnic group where they live as an elite minority. But generally there is a bit of madness in it too. The anti-Semite sees Jews as essential or key to explaining things. He attributes too much power to the Jews. I’ve also noticed that anti-Semites don’t have any plan about what to do about the Jews. Talking about Jews and analyzing their behavior and influence is an end in itself.
@Kirk
“That’s the thing, they can’t be irrelevant. If you try to pursue 1,2,3 they’ll come after you as a racist nazi anti-semite.”
But if the white majority is pro-white, then the response is: “So what?” You seem to be saying that whites have no choice but to back down, or to follow what Jews say like automatons. The problem is how to convince white people to be pro-white, not to eliminate Jews as a causal agent.
“The anti-Semite sees Jews as essential or key to explaining things.“
You have it backward.
“He attributes too much power to the Jews.“
Backward again.
“I’ve also noticed…“
You’re not a very astute observer. Stopped reading there.
“The problem is how to convince white people to be pro-white, not to eliminate Jews as a causal agent.“
One of our problems is that wherever we gather to discuss our problems, jew-firsters inevitably stick their nose in to tell us what to think and do. Excluding them is the solution to that particular problem.
So, if you have a point, make it. Then move along.
[the idea that German people should work for the common good of the German nation] – “That is a way over-simplified and distorted description.”
That criticism comes from someone whose whole point is that it is legitimate to call us neo-nazis and antisemites!
The main thing we have in common with the National Socialists (and with the Jews, and with most people in the world) is our desire to preserve our racial existence. That is what the Jews are trying to pathologize and criminalize. Is that a proof of the Jewish moral superiority over White Nationalists?
“The willful disregard for or mitigation of the evils of Nazi Germany is a feature of neo-Nazism.”
I don’t know, I’ve never met someone who calls himself a neo-Nazi. What I know is that slandering the Germans, the WASPs, the hillbillies…, and White people by and large, is a feature of Jewish activism. Last month, it was the turn of the Hungarians.
– How can you tell that a White man is a racist ?
– He is in denial about it !
– How can you tell that someone is a neo-Nazi ?
– He doesn’t believe the gas chamber stories.
I think it is natural that a German would rather think that his grand-parents were decent people and not crazy psychopaths. That doesn’t make him a neo-nazi.
“Oistros”? What is that, the Hellenized version of Auster?
It sure reads like it could be.
Off topic:
Quote:
KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) — A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the “Great Famine” committed in the 1930s.
The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.
Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was “a farce” to press the case.
“All organizers of the Great Famine are dead,” he said…
/end quote
Read it all!
So we have hundreds of Holocaust films, documentaries and museums to demoralize Aryans but still zero of the Holodomor perpetrated by the Jews, right? (which even if we accept official stats, more civilians died at Ukraine than in Auschwitz).
This subject deserves an article of its own!
P.S.
What happened to Svigor’s blog?
@Chechar:
http://svigor.wordpress.com/
Chechar – the jewish overlords of google/blogger saw fit to delete it. He has set up shop at wordpress:
http://svigor.wordpress.com
Speaking of ot topics, can anyone please tell me if there is a way to change the look of this fine blog. I simply can’t take the black background. Thanks.
“It sure reads like it could be.“
Oistros certainly sounds like a fan of Auster’s schtick: “the majority” should “assert itself” and then the jews will be irrelevant (or fall into line). Meanwhile he works against that agenda by focusing his own efforts on sniffing out and condemning “anti-semites”.
Auster’s pro-“white” rhetoric appeals to the people who want their nice “white” society, minus blacks and/or muslims. To them “white” means Whites and jews and everything in between. In fact Auster seems to especially appeal to the in between. Most of them are in fact jew-firsters. For them the simple act of Whites distinguishing jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”. When they make a distinction between the two groups, it’s to blame Whites and excuse jews. As Oistros is trying to do here.
Anonymous,
The only blog with black background that doesn’t hurt my eyes is Scott Hadding’s. He used a type of white letters (Courier?) that, for reasons I cannot understand, makes my reading of *brief* posts less painful.
Now that Svigor has moved to WordPress, in case AoT will find it necessary to do the same move in the future, I’d welcome if our friend Tan would consider using a non-black background (now that this blog is getting due attention overseas it could use a color style as friendly as possible). Cheers.
“The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor”
Excellent.
###
Oistrus,
Anti-semitism is anti-Nazism.
“I’ve also noticed that anti-Semites don’t have any plan about what to do about the Jews.”
They should live in their own country with their own people and stop being a parasite. It would be better for them on balance and much better for us.
@ “I’ve also noticed that anti-Semites don’t have any plan about what to do about the Jews.”
We do have a plan. But it was precisely for advertizing it that my blog got deleted last year.
@Chechar
“We do have a plan. But it was precisely for advertizing it that my blog got deleted last year.”
Wow. Thanks. I’ll keep that as a reference. Really, you’ve made my point. That ‘discourse’ if you will, is in a whole other universe from the typical white man.
Tanstaafl: Any comment on that link?
In France, when a judge wants to stop the criminal career of immigrant “youths”, he sends them to a skiing or sailing camp to help their rehabilitation. I think Oystros would like the same thing for the Jews, if we ever manage to kick them out of the race-replacement business.
Speaking of ot topics, can anyone please tell me if there is a way to change the look of this fine blog. I simply can’t take the black background. Thanks.
This should work, at least in Firefox:
Favelet – make pages readable.
Note that I haven’t tested it. It just sounds like the bookmarklet I use for the same purpose. If that doesn’t work, let me know and I’ll find a way to get the code for mine to you.
@Armor
Yeah, I’m a softy. Nuking Jerusalem — lol… they’re joking, right? No? Jesus … — is just a hair over the top for my taste.
Actually I think that’s the exact code I’m using. Looks the same in my text editor anyway. Note, sometimes it makes bits of text the same color as the background, rendering it invisible, but this is rare.
You rarely find an organization or web site that is at once pro-white and not at least sympathetic to Nazism, Hiterism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or some combination thereof. A representative compendium of neo-Nazi ideas is found on the ‘Racial Nationalist Library’ site. When one encounters those ideas, it is accurate to give them the neo-Nazi label.
Nonsense. There are tons of pro-White sites and organizations that are not sympathetic to any of those things. Amren, SBPDL, CoCC (I assume, though I confess I don’t know much about their positions), Unamusement Park, OneSTDV, etc. The default pro-White position, I’d say.
No, it’s not really accurate to call someone a neo-Nazi, unless they’re National Socialist, any more than it’s accurate to label Democrats as Commies or Bolsheviks. I’m sympathetic to Nazism and “Holocaust denial,” for various reasons, but I’m not even remotely a Nazi, neo-Nazi, or National Socialist. And the term, “Holocaust denial” is objectionable IMO. Like not believing in something strongly enough is a valid source of criticism, LOL. Like accepting it is some kind of litmus test for full-humanity. Nope. Not believing is the rational default, in the absence of sufficient evidence. “Holocaust denial” is pretty obviously analogous to “heresy,” actually. Are atheists and agnostics “heretics”?
I don’t know what “Hitlerism” is, so I can’t claim that label. As for ANTI-SEMITISM!!!, OF COURSE I’m an ANTI-SEMITE!!! – I’ve criticized Jews as a group one or more times, after all.
What do you call THEM?
There’s a man who knows how to wield reciprocity. Yes, Oistros, what juicy words do you have for them?
@Armor
“What is not proper and normal is that, by playing on ambiguous words, you would accuse us of plotting to kill 6 million Jews.”
Not even sure what that means.
I’ll explain it for you; check inside the baggage you dropped in this thread.
“4. The Jews and Israel would be irrelevant to the discussion.”
That’s the thing, they can’t be irrelevant.
Bingo. He skipped over a step where some “magic” happens.
I meant it in this way: an anti-Semite is someone who thinks the Jews are bad for white ethnic groups
So, an ANTI-SEMITE!!! is simply a White man who can see?
But generally there is a bit of madness in it too. The anti-Semite sees Jews as essential or key to explaining things.
Well, they are. They hold a plurality of power in the USA. I’d call that essential, or key.
He attributes too much power to the Jews.
Nah, not generally. Besides, there’s really nothing “mad” about hating/fearing your enemy a bit too much. E.g., I doubt parachuting into Normandy on D-Day with a bit too much of a hate-on for Krauts hurt many G.I.s. I doubt anyone would think of that as “madness.”
I’ve also noticed that anti-Semites don’t have any plan about what to do about the Jews.
What’s your point?
Talking about Jews and analyzing their behavior and influence is an end in itself.
Yes, and?
The problem is how to convince white people to be pro-white, not to eliminate Jews as a causal agent.
They’re the same thing.
“The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor”
Excellent.
Couldn’t agree more. And it’s great to see Jews defending Jews who committed genocide against Whites for no other reason than the fact that they were Jews. Two thumbs up.
Below I simply replace reference to Islamic words in the original article as well as in the commentariat section.
Notice how Oistros pretty much ignored the facts and stuck to his talking points. “OMG you wanna nuke tha Jooz?” Whoosh! Right over his head, on multiple levels.
Real pro-Whites don’t argue with other pro-Whites more than they do with anti-Whites. Real pro-Whites will find themselves too busy attacking Jews (even if they don’t “name the Jew”) to defend Jews qua Jews.
Fake pro-Whites, on the other hand…
It’s actually impossible that I’m an ANTI-SEMITE!!!
Blacks can’t be racist because they don’t have any power. That’s leftoid boilerplate.
Well, pro-Whites can’t be ANTI-SEMITES!!!, because they don’t have any power.
@ Notice how Oistros pretty much ignored the facts [that my blog article merely paraphrases the counter-jihadists’ feelings toward the Muslims] and stuck to his talking points. “OMG you wanna nuke tha Jooz?” Whoosh! Right over his head, on multiple levels. —Svig
The psychological point of my article (my internal Jihad—see below) is how the virus of PC has infected every single cell of our brains and how a huge Pavlovian bell rings inside our skulls every time we dare to think of real solutions to the JP. Most words of my linked article way above were written by pious counter-jihadists, even by Israel-worshiping, self-righteous gentiles such as the “Baron”. Nuking Mecca for a final solution to the Muslim Problem (MP) is ok for these Jews (Auster), half-Jews (Fjordie) and gentile neo-neocons (the Baron; not sure if Con Swede is full gentile). But once you re-contextualize their proposed solutions to the MP over the solution to the JP, the mental virus in the white psyche is activated and the Orwellian “Crimethought” —what I would call an hypertrophy of the superego— takes over.
That’s why it’s important to re-contextualize and start thinking as our competitors think. It’s difficult at first with all of our Pavlonian conditioning acting like an inner Thought Police. But it is possible and we should learn from the Muslims on this point. As I said at As der Schwerter recently, the first jihad to be fought is the internal jihad, what Stefan Zweig called the struggle with the daimon (Der Kampf mit dem Dämon). In an age of treason such as ours, only when we have passed this jihad stage we are ready for the external phase.
In other words, the superego Ogre must be addressed internally, and slain there. As Kevin MacDonald said recently in the CC interview: “But we have these weaknesses, where we are now self-flagellating, this ethnomasochism as you say. We are destroying ourselves before our very eyes. We have to understand these psychological proclivities that we have.”
Perhaps reading my article, provocatively called “A final solution for the Jewish problem”, is one of the baby steps on the path to liberation?
“OMG you wanna nuke tha Jooz?”
Yeah, what a ninny. Here’s another link for Oiveystros to keep as a reference. Samson Option:
“In 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel’s existence.[19] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst’s “The Gun and the Olive Branch” (2003) as saying:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.“
Bravo Chechar.
Here’s another re-contextualization, care of Oiveystros:
“If the White majority in Europe and America held my beliefs then this would be the consequence: 1. There would be no non-White immigration; 2. White Europeans would be making plans on the best way to repatriate the non-White population in Europe; 3. We (White Americans) would be discussing how best to form an American White ethnostate; 4. The jews would be irrelevant because they’re not White.“
@svigor
“OF COURSE I’m an ANTI-SEMITE!!!”
Okay fine. But when I said AoT is anti-Semitic, Tan and Armor took umbrage. I was just stating what is obvious, no? I mean, you wouldn’t call this site Jew-neutral, would you? I think you get my point though, which is that Jewish influence is irrelevant (and of course you disagree).
Your argument implies that NumbersUSA, for instance, is useless because it doesn’t include anti-Semitism. We can’t advocate for white ethnic interests alone, we have to include the Jewish influence stuff. Obviously this is wrong, because NumbersUSA does just that (not explicitly, but de facto, yes).
“There are tons of pro-White sites and organizations that are not sympathetic to any of those things. Amren, SBPDL, CoCC…”
Okay: if these sites are not “sympathetic to any of those things”, their white advocacy is useless. They are useless because they don’t include anti-Semitism. That appears to be the argument here.
Yet you say that they are advocating for white interests. Thus you agree with my position. The part you don’t agree with, I suppose, is that the anti-Semitism is actually detrimental and counterproductive.
Back when the Jews had no nation they were criticized for being dualy loyal to their own tribe putting Jewish interests above and beyond those of the people they lived among.
This was normal for any nationless foreigners. Gypsies were also accused of it and today Muslims in Europe are accused of it. It’s not just the Jews singled out for it, although they were probably the worst at it.
The Jews get their own nation and they still get accused. In the USA of all places with all the different ethnic groups who immigrated here. So what does that tell you? Well it’s probably true that’s what. Except now you don’t have to blame the people, you can blame the Apartheid nation state many of them call theirs.
Christians, specifically the fundaMENTAList variety, also seem to have dual loyalty for Israel. They are big Israel Firsters.
The Jews can’t use the Antisemitic smear for this one because it reminds them of some old anti-Jew canard from medieval times (which you would think they wouldn’t remember, but they must have great memories if that holocaust is like yesterday to them, even if they are 12). It’s not just Jews who are Israel-firsters.
The Israel-firsters, Jews and goyim alike, are Anti-American. They should be expelled from our borders for being loyal to a foreign company over the one they are supposed to uphold loyalty too. This goes for anybody, any politician, any religious nutjob, the entire state of Florida, etc.
@Chechar
“Notice how Oistros pretty much ignored the facts and stuck to his talking points. “OMG you wanna nuke tha Jooz?” Whoosh! Right over his head, on multiple levels.”
Yep, I guess it was those deeply ingrained PC corpuscles that made me totally miss the point. Plus, I’m a Jew-lover.
But then, really, what was your point? That if it’s okay to contemplate nuking Mecca, we might as well consider nuking Tel Aviv?
“It’s difficult at first with all of our Pavlonian conditioning acting like an inner Thought Police.”
No, the idea of nuking Jerusalem does not provoke the thought “that’s totally frickin insane” because of some internal censor or thought police, but because it is, in fact, totally insane. So is nuking Mecca, by the way.
“In other words, the superego Ogre must be addressed internally, and slain there.”
You mean, we need to overcome our natural, human moral instinct so that we can contemplate the solution to the ‘JP’? That sounds ominous.
All comparisons with the ‘MP’ aside then, what is your solution to the putative Jewish problem?
Wandrin had a straight answer:
“They should live in their own country with their own people…”
Okay, that’s consistent with the everyone-to-their-own-ethnostate philosophy. However, I’m sensing that’s not what you, Svigor, or Tan would view as adequate. I’m not getting a ‘live and let live’ vibe.
“Thus you agree with my position…that the anti-Semitism is actually detrimental and counterproductive.“
Accounting for jews and their influence is explicatory – it has value. It produces more complete, more credible explanations of reality than pretending as if the jews don’t exist or their influence is irrelevant.
To counter this value jew-firsters expend a great deal of energy trying to pathologize and demonize anyone who discusses jews in anything but a positive light, and even blame them for bringing detrimental, counterproductive effects on themselves.
“I’m not getting a ‘live and let live’ vibe.“
Like most jew-firsters, you expect to get what you’re not willing to give.
re Svigor:
“Real pro-Whites don’t argue with other pro-Whites more than they do with anti-Whites. Real pro-Whites will find themselves too busy attacking Jews (even if they don’t “name the Jew”) to defend Jews qua Jews.
Fake pro-Whites, on the other hand…”
You know, I mentioned a web site two (2) times and whoosh! that went right over everyone’s head.
I’ll give it to you again:
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/
It’s a neo-Nazi site. Is there any dispute with that label?
Is there any dispute that the material on that site is the kiss of death to any pro-white argument?
If not, then again, whoosh! right over your heads on multiple levels.
In this whole discussion no one has had the slightest acknowledgement that anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc might not be palatable to the typical white person.
Whoosh!
If you want to get into depth psychology, then why don’t we try to explain how you all seem to have lost your sense of what’s normal.
The attitude seems to be: anything goes. No criticism allowed. If I point out what should be obvious (but there goes that whoosh! sound again) I’m an evil “jew-firster”. Please.
@svigor – Thank you. I tried the ‘favelet’ in both IE and Firefox but no dice. Perhaps I did something wrong?
Oistros, The site of Irmin Vinson is not the kiss of death to any pro-white argument, as you say. Quite the contrary. First, Vinson is not a “denier” in the sense that you use the word “holocaust” (which, if used in the sense of “The Holocaust”, it’s a Newspeaking term). Second, it’s the masses of peoples who are sleeping in the matrix of the post WW2 narrative, not us.
I would recommend you to educate yourself by reading this, this, this and this.
These articles and links within them could serve as a redpill for the honest seeker who really wants to be unplugged from the matrix of political correctness.
“Like most jew-firsters, you expect to get what you’re not willing to give.”
lol … “jew-firster”. I may need to change my moniker.
Here I thought I was a an advocate for anti-immigration, white ethnic interests, and white ethnostates. And to that end, pointing out what might be a massive turn-off to the majority of white Americans. But in fact I’m just a white-hating, fake pro-white, under the control of my PC, Jew-lovin’ superego. Thanks for setting me straight.
@ “Jew-lovin’ superego”
You don’t seem to understand the concept of “superego”.
Oysteros: ” what is your solution to the putative Jewish problem? “
Two important points must be discussed now :
1. The need to end the Jewish domination on government and the media
2. The need to protect the existence of White people
What options will be left for Jews once they are no longer in power doesn’t matter. How many of them will leave for Israel or stay in New York? Who cares? No one here is in a position to decide anything about that. Maybe White Americans will soon find themselves in the same situation as today’s White South Africans. So, the important thing is to resist the race-replacement. It means speaking up against the Jewish control on government and the media.
Well put. I would add:
0. Raise awareness of jewish hostility toward Whites, and that jews regard Whites as Other.
“But in fact I’m just a white-hating, fake pro-white, under the control of my PC, Jew-lovin’ superego.“
Jew-firsters have a tendency to act as if it’s a joke when they flatly state the truth. It may have to do with the psychological stress of pretending to be something they’re not.
@svigor – Thank you. I tried the ‘favelet’ in both IE and Firefox but no dice. Perhaps I did something wrong?
Hmm, yeah, that would be my first guess. It works for me, just tried it on Tan’s blog page. Not trying to imply you can’t follow directions or anything, but just to make sure we’re on the same page, all you have to do is: make a bookmark on the toolbar, right-click it and select properties, paste the code into the “location” field, and hit save. Then click it to make the page you’re viewing “readable.” If that doesn’t work, my guess would be either you’ve unintentionally included spaces or other stuff not actually part of the code, or some software on your computer is interfering. Sorry. :/
@svigor
“OF COURSE I’m an ANTI-SEMITE!!!”
Okay fine. But when I said AoT is anti-Semitic, Tan and Armor took umbrage. I was just stating what is obvious, no?
Sure. But either you’re stupid (which I doubt), or you’re disingenuous (probably), because we’re talking about two very different contexts here.
In other words, start spelling it ANTI-SEMITIC!!! and including the fact that criticizing the Jews one or more times makes you an ANTI-SEMITE!!! (and thus a Naziwhowantstokill6millionJooz, or you’re a disingenuous fuck. Which is okay, as long as you don’t take umbrage when we state the obvious: that that makes you a disingenuous fuck.
I mean, you wouldn’t call this site Jew-neutral, would you? I think you get my point though, which is that Jewish influence is irrelevant (and of course you disagree).
What’s “Jew-neutral”? Please give us a couple of “Jew-neutral” sites for reference. I submit there’s no such animal.
Your argument implies that NumbersUSA, for instance, is useless because it doesn’t include anti-Semitism.
*Looks around* You still talking to me? WTF are you talking about? Whic argument are you referring to, and how did it imply that?
We can’t advocate for white ethnic interests alone, we have to include the Jewish influence stuff.
I’ve never said any such thing. Here you go with the baggage again.
Obviously this is wrong, because NumbersUSA does just that (not explicitly, but de facto, yes).
Well, obviously your straw man was wrong, yes.
“There are tons of pro-White sites and organizations that are not sympathetic to any of those things. Amren, SBPDL, CoCC…”
Okay: if these sites are not “sympathetic to any of those things”, their white advocacy is useless. They are useless because they don’t include anti-Semitism. That appears to be the argument here.
Nope. But Pro-White advocacy that excludes ANTI-SEMITISM!!! can only ever be quasi-Pro-White advocacy. Kiddie-pool pro-White advocacy. Soft drugs, if you will. Once the kids are tall enough, they should move on to the more exciting rides. There is one legitimate, pro-White purposes for this: the average White is a racial pussy who needs a gateway drug. Unfortunately, it’s pretty easy for our enemies to take advantage of this, so we need to make sure they don’t. It’s also far too easy for the racial pussies to get stuck in the kiddie-pool and stay there forever.
Yet you say that they are advocating for white interests. Thus you agree with my position. The part you don’t agree with, I suppose, is that the anti-Semitism is actually detrimental and counterproductive.
Really, ANTI-SEMITISM!!! isn’t counterproductive. It’s the fear of ANTI-SEMITISM!!! that’s counterproductive. We have to eradicate that fear.
Word verification: loxing
Here I thought I was a an advocate for anti-immigration, white ethnic interests, and white ethnostates. And to that end, pointing out what might be a massive turn-off to the majority of white Americans.
Yeah, that’s it, that’s the problem, we anti-semites are turning off the majority of White Americans.
He we are over here, a tiny nub, of a miniscule movement, and it’s us you come to battle for doing PR ‘damage to the cause’.
Sure. Out there there are millions of negro-lovers, mestizo embracers and judeo-philes turning people ON to our displacement, but yet you focus on this tiny corner of the web for supposedly turning other Whites “off”.
All that target rich environment out there, but you’ve got your laser focused over here.
Okay fine. But when I said AoT is anti-Semitic, Tan and Armor took umbrage.
See, this is kinda what I’m getting at: pro-Whites should not be calling other pro-Whites “ANTI-SEMITIC!!!”
Pro-Whites don’t give a shit. It’s like a gun enthusiast calling another gun enthusiast a “gun nut.” Or a gun-grabber calling another gun-grabber a gun-grabber. It’s using the language of the opposition. Sends all the wrong signals.
Yep, I guess it was those deeply ingrained PC corpuscles that made me totally miss the point. Plus, I’m a Jew-lover.
But then, really, what was your point? That if it’s okay to contemplate nuking Mecca, we might as well consider nuking Tel Aviv?
Asshat, my point is that if you object to the thinking, go object to the people who cooked it up, who happen to be philo-Semitic Muzzie-haters. Chechar just changed the pronouns, and he made that obvious in the first couple of paragraphs. I barely scanned it and I noticed the fact. FFS, you don’t see how badly you screwed the pooch on this one?
No, the idea of nuking Jerusalem does not provoke the thought “that’s totally frickin insane” because of some internal censor or thought police, but because it is, in fact, totally insane. So is nuking Mecca, by the way.
What’s so insane about it? Nobody to the right of Kennedy really thinks nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “totally insane.” So what makes Mecca and Jerusalem so special?
Wandrin had a straight answer
I have a straight answer, too. Lots of them. I’m a flexible guy. I’d be satisfied with anything that gets us out from under the Jooz. My preference would be a Constitutional Amendment restoring to all Americans their right to Free Association and Self-Determination (thus nullifying all so-called “anti-discrimination” laws), backed by the full faith & power of the federal gov’t. That’d be a great start, anyway.
Of course, you get one guess as to who’d be in the vanguard of the opposition to that basic human right.
Okay, that’s consistent with the everyone-to-their-own-ethnostate philosophy. However, I’m sensing that’s not what you, Svigor, or Tan would view as adequate. I’m not getting a ‘live and let live’ vibe.
Live and let live, is that what you were on about when you broke out the “ANTI-SEMITISM!!!” “NAZISM!!!” “HITLERISM!!!” and “NEO-NAZISM!!!” cards, first thing? I suppose this is where I’m supposed to lay down all the caveats about what I don’t want to do to the Jews. Nope. I’m way past that. I don’t volunteer that stuff any more. I prefer to be treated with respect, and to receive the same assumptions about my basic humanity that everyone gets (unless they start criticizing Jooz, of course; ironic, since it wasn’t a pro-White who just published an editorial about assassinating Obama in pursuit of Israeli interests). If you want me to answer a question, you have to ask it first.
Here I thought I was a an advocate for anti-immigration, white ethnic interests, and white ethnostates. And to that end, pointing out what might be a massive turn-off to the majority of white Americans. But in fact I’m just a white-hating, fake pro-white, under the control of my PC, Jew-lovin’ superego. Thanks for setting me straight.
I don’t think you’re White-hating, I just doubt your pro-White bona-fides. A man cannot serve two masters. I think it’s reasonable to suppose that you’re a faux-pro-White, or a pro-White Uncle Tom; someone who may be pro-White, but only secondarily to being pro-Jew. I suppose that’s an improvement over the standard spineless pro-White, but it’s pretty weak tea. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to suggest you shit or get off the pot.
I suppose that’s an improvement over the standard spineless pro-White
Whoops, I meant standard spineless White, not “pro-White.”
“I don’t think you’re White-hating.”
Unlike the Jews, who say they can read hate in our minds, we are White people, not mind readers. We are concerned with what our enemies do to us, more than how they feel about us. Maybe the Jews really like us, even though they think there are too many of us? We don’t really care!
“So what makes Mecca and Jerusalem so special?”
And also, what makes it all right to bomb German cities in 1945, while it is a no-no to touch one hair of an anti-White Jewish activist’s head? Why is it correct to kill German civilians and military, and incorrect to incarcerate or expel anti-White militant Jews?
@svigor
“but just to make sure we’re on the same page, all you have to do is: make a bookmark on the toolbar, right-click it and select properties, paste the code into the “location” field, and hit save. Then click it to make the page you’re viewing “readable.” If that doesn’t work, my guess would be either you’ve unintentionally included spaces or other stuff not actually part of the code, or some software on your computer is interfering. Sorry. :/”
Yep, I did as you described above and tried a few times in Firefox and IE. All I get is ‘page not found.’ For what it is worth, I have Windows 7.
I do appreciate your help. I’m going to ask around for other solutions (‘Hey guys, there is this HATE!!!!!!! site…’) ;-)
Thanks again.
Oistros had a comment stuck in the spam filter that I just approved: 1/29/2012 11:14:00 PM
Can’t say I blame the filter as the content is somewhat repetitive. It concludes with:
“The attitude seems to be: anything goes. No criticism allowed.“
The attitude here is that White and jewish interests are distinct, and where they conflict White interests take precedence. That’s what pro-White means. Criticism of anyone is allowed, including jews. Oistros identifies himself as a jew-firster, or pro-jew, by the points he argues, by criticizing Whites in defense of jews. In spite of this his comments have been allowed.
“If I point out what should be obvious (but there goes that whoosh! sound again) I’m an evil “jew-firster”. Please.“
There’s that weird non-denial of the obvious again. Three times now.
Oyster: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/
” It’s a neo-Nazi site. Is there any dispute with that label? “
Yes. As you have already been told, by using those words, you deliberately say that our objective is to kill the Jews. In the real world, our objective is to stop the ongoing genocide of White people by race-replacement. The ring leaders of the race-replacement ideology are Jewish. The victims are White people by and large. So, what you say is the usual Jewish inversion of reality.
Statement 1: White people are under attack by hostile activists who push race-replacement. The same activists say that White Nationalists are ‘racist’ for trying to resist. That is an inversion of reality. White people are the victims and not the authors of a racial aggression.
You may agree with statement 1 as long as we don’t name the Jews. You may say that you share our goal of protecting the white population, including Jews.
But because you are a Jew, you can’t help attacking us and inverting reality: You say that we planning to kill the Jews. In the real world, we are resisting a mostly Jewish attack which has been going on for decades, and which is killing us as a race.
Oistros
“Okay, that’s consistent with the everyone-to-their-own-ethnostate philosophy. However, I’m sensing that’s not what you, Svigor, or Tan would view as adequate. I’m not getting a ‘live and let live’ vibe.”
You need to believe that because you want to use white people’s reaction to their atempted genocide as a rationalization for your support for that attempted genocide.
Jew1: We need to cut their throats while they sleep because one day they’ll turn on us.
Jew2: Won’t they turn on us because we’re cutting their throats while they sleep.
Jew1: What are you some kind of anti-semite?
I do appreciate your help. I’m going to ask around for other solutions (‘Hey guys, there is this HATE!!!!!!! site…’) ;-)
Thanks again.
Actually, the code is a bit different from the code I had, I think. It works fine, but I think the color scheme might be different.
Anyway, if the bookmarklet’s trying to take you somewhere when you click it, you’ve done something wrong. All it does is change the appearance of the page, it doesn’t take you anywhere (a bookmarklet or whatever you want to call it, is just a sneaky way of getting FF to execute javascript). In my version of FF (9.0.1), bookmarks have a “location” field, and that’s where the code goes. You using FF? Make sure you’re putting the code into the “location” field, and make sure there are no spaces before or after the code (put it into a text editor first so you can really see what you’re doing).
If that doesn’t work, then I give up. :)
javascript:(function(){var%20newSS,%20styles=’*%20{%20background:%20white%20!%20important;%20color:%20black%20!important%20}%20:link,%20:link%20*%20{%20color:%20#0000EE%20!important%20}%20:visited,%20:visited%20*%20{%20color:%20#551A8B%20!important%20}’;%20if(document.createStyleSheet)%20{%20document.createStyleSheet(%22javascript:’%22+styles+%22’%22);%20}%20else%20{%20newSS=document.createElement(‘link’);%20newSS.rel=’stylesheet’;%20newSS.href=’data:text/css,’+escape(styles);%20document.getElementsByTagName(%22head%22)[0].appendChild(newSS);%20}%20})();
That’s the code, maybe you’ll have an easier time with that (when I double-clicked the code on the original page, the scroll bar collapsed and truncated the code).
Fuck, I knew Blogspot was going to screw the pooch. Oh well, just make sure you’re getting the whole code in the first place. It’s like 4 lines on my widescreen monitor, and ends with “appendChild(newSS);%20}%20})();”
Now I give up. :|
I’m using FireFox 9.01 with Windows 7 and the original javascript code that Svigor linked to in this thread works just fine.
Thank you, Svigor.
— A different anonymous
Svigor, I (original anonymous on this question) was making a simple mistake. But it is working just fine now on Firefox. It still won’t work on IE, but no matter.
You are a gentleman and a scholar, thank you!
No sweat guys. I know how much a legible screen means to a net junkie. :)
P.S., I don’t think it’s supposed to work in IE.
Word verification: Poonses. Sounds like what Gollum goes looking for on a Friday night.
A simple method for any site that you find difficult to read, or want to simplify the view is:
Firefox 9: View – Page Style -> No Style
IE 8: Page -> Style -> No Style
All browsers should have that function.
“Spencer Ackerman goes after Glenn Greenwald and others — rather successfully, I think — for using anti-Semitic rhetoric to smear (Glenn’s favorite word) Jews with whom they disagree”
Progressive blogger Ackerman writes at the Tablet “Note to some of my fellow progressives: If we can’t argue about Israel without using anti-Semitic tropes, then the debate is lost before it even begins”.
The name Spencer Ackerman might sound familiar as he was a member of the infamous “JournoList”. The man now concerned about hate speech against Israel supporters made the following comment in one of the hacked J-List emails:
It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them–Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares–and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
“That [Armor’s greeting-cardesque rendition of NS] is a way over-simplified and distorted description. The willful disregard for or mitigation of the evils of Nazi Germany is a feature of neo-Nazism.”
National Socialism was a political religion designed to give full-vent to racially superior Germanic masculinity. It is not appropriate to evaluate NS through the lens of contemporary bourgeois morality if one truly wishes to understand it or be availed of its power.
“I’ve also noticed that anti-Semites don’t have any plan about what to do about the Jews.”
The plan is to expel Jews from our living space.
“Talking about Jews and analyzing their behavior and influence is an end in itself.”
Clearly intended as a provocation as this statement insinuates befuddlement and cowardice. The reason for pointing out Jewish double standards and race-destroying malice is to raise the requisite outrage in a critical mass of Whites so that they will act to…expel Jews from their lving space.
Hope that clears some shit up for ya.
Tan,
I just read an article from Ben O’Neill at LewRockwell.com and had to share this with you. Just as a special minority is exempt from the law of minorities, so anarchy is exempt from criticism of utopian schemes:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/oneill6.1.1.html#ref1
“Mises has observed that ‘the critics of the capitalistic order always seem to believe that the socialistic system of their dreams will do precisely what they think correct.’ Hence, when people talk about the importance of democracy, it is never democracy as it has ever actually functioned, with the politicians that have actually been elected, and the policies that have actually been implemented. It is always democracy as people imagine it will operate once they succeed in electing ‘the right people’ – by which they mean, people who agree almost completely with their own views, and who are consistent and incorruptible in their implementation of the resulting policies. This is what allows an intelligent group of people to espouse mob rule as a desirable principle, even as they simultaneously commit acts that brand them as criminals worthy of imprisonment under the very social system they maintain.”
Hello, Pot? Kettle calling!
It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them–Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares–and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
That’s actually a great propaganda lesson. Never apologise nor waste your time defending, always attack. Use the enemy’s tactics against them.
If you notice the above exchange with ‘oistros’, Tanstaafl applied this very effectively. Instead of responding to his accusations he correctly labeled him a jew-firster from the beginning and put the pressure on him to prove otherwise. In the end, he couldn’t do anything better than deny it in a semi-joking manner, in other words he got in the defensive position instead of Tan.
It’s not always obvious but once you get the grasp of it it’s pretty elementary: What they accuse you of doing, they’re doing it. What they accuse you of being, they are.
“What they accuse you of doing, they’re doing it. What they accuse you of being, they are.”
Point in a nutshell. They, and they is not only jews, accuse us of Genocide and they are pushing Genocide on Whites. They accuse us of being racist and naziwhowanttokillsixmillionjews while trying to impose Gencide on White kids.
Goldberg, back now on the attack, against Whites. An Epidemic of Racist Dog-Whistling (and Not Only by Gingrich):
“Does anyone doubt that we’re in the middle of one of the most race-poisoned elections in recent history?“
The same guy who just explained how “Israel-firster” an insult and a threat to the jews, has no qualms about pathologizing and demonizing Whites as “racists”, ie. White-firsters (never mind how ridiculous it is to pretend Newt Gingrinch is a White-firster).
Goldberg links and excerpts his article at Bloomberg How to Listen for Racism on the Campaign Trail. His main point is that Gingrich is a “racist” because he “has repeatedly referred to Obama as the country’s “food-stamp president.””
He adds:
“It is distressing to remember, in light of Reagan’s subsequent beatification, that he was to racial dog-whistling what Pat Buchanan has been to Jew-baiting; it was Reagan who also introduced the “welfare queen” into public discourse.“
Goldberg is distressed about furtive “racial dog-whistling” while shouting into an anti-White bullhorn about “racists” and “anti-semites”.
Some anti-White specialist from Harvard told Goldberg:
“If it takes more than two sentences for a critic to explain why a dog-whistle is a dog-whistle, the whistler wins.“
Ideas are important. Language is important. Goldberg realizes this. He makes his living on spin. He gets so distressed about phrases like “Israel-firster”, “food-stamp president”, and “welfare queen” because he understands exactly how effective they are.
It’s easy enough to explain Goldberg’s double-standards on race-poisoned discourse. All it takes is one sentence: He’s a jew.
Excellent quotes Matra:
It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them–Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares–and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
It’s nice to see how the Jooish Commissars have been running the country (or its elite, anyway, who in turn run the country) since the 60s, except in copy-paste-able form.
Kirk: “That’s actually a great propaganda lesson. Never apologise nor waste your time defending, always attack. / If you notice the above exchange with ‘oistros’, Tanstaafl applied this very effectively. Instead of responding to his accusations he correctly labeled him a jew-firster”
That’s not completely true. I think that Tanstaafl has been both attacking and answering accusations, using logic and common sense, and holding up a mirror to the Jews.
Everyone here has been replying to Oistros, but he just ignored our observations and kept repeating the same thing: “neo-nazi and antisemitic is an accurate description of what you are”. That’s what the Jews do, they ignore everything we say. In fact, their favorite tactic is to simply keep us out of the media. It they have to do an interview of David Duke, they will ask him why he is such a racist, won’t listen to his reply, will interrupt him to ask why he is such an antisemite, and so on.
What makes the value of a blog like this one is that we can use truth, logic and common sense. It’s not as if it was a debate on TV. Besides, we are decent people, it isn’t natural for us to use Jewish tactics.
A good example of the Jewish deviousness is that they rave on about how wonderful immigration is, but they never mention that White people, once they have become a minority, will soon become a tiny minority. I think it is our interest to go to the bottom of things, not to use shallow attacks like the Jews.
Armor said..
“White people, once they have become a minority, will soon become a tiny minority”
Can you flesh that out a bit? How will we go from a rather big minority to a tiny one soon after we become one? Thanks.
Clearly intended as a provocation as this statement insinuates befuddlement and cowardice.
Ah … good catch. Jews are truly gifted at subtle psychological aggression in this manner.
Now that I’m fully aware of their modus operandi I wouldn’t have any problem treating jew-firsters the way they treat us. In the judaized “mainstream” media and 99% of the internet this consists of mocking and condemning us specifically for being “white supremacists” (White-firsters), and then silencing us. I was tempted to simply delete Oistros’ comments, as it was clear from the start he was here only to attack and provoke, to make his detrimental, counterproductive wishes come true.
I didn’t do that because this blog is aimed at relative newbies, as well as old hands. While many of us have heard Oistros’ assertions before, others haven’t, and they stand to benefit from seeing how to deal with them. They might take it as a sign of fear or weakness if Oistros was simply silenced. While the righteousness of silencing “nazis” is inculcated in us all from birth, rebutting jew-firster “concern trolls” is something Whites have to learn the hard way.
To fuse and reconcile the points Kirk and Armor make above, I ignore anti-White/jew-firster accusations, except to turn them around. They are focused on other people’s interests, and they want us to put them first too. It’s perverse. We have every cause to be more concerned about our own interests. In advocating for our interests we have nothing to hide from, nothing to apologize for.
“Can you flesh that out a bit?”
Not really. I only meant to say that, if there is no rebellion, there is no reason to think that the proportion of White people will not continue to go down after they become a minority. I said they would soon become a tiny minority: in fact, I don’t really know what are the predictions and how fast it could go.
I was tempted to simply delete Oistros’ comments…They [White readers] might take it as a sign of fear or weakness if Oistros was simply silenced.
This reminds of the stereotype that Jews ‘love’ to argue, by which we might mean debate. Jon Stewart recently made sarcastic reference to this stereotype when commenting on the fact that Ron Paul was barred from debate (not invited) at the “Republican Jewish Coalition Debate”. Point being 1) Jews are well known to love to argue 2) here they were refusing to argue.
What is false about this stereotype is that it does not acknowledge another stereotype, that Jews are silencers and denouncers. What is true is that Jewish love for debate stems from arguing about, among themselves, “What’s best for the Jews?” This subject is not open to a) anyone who is not a Jew and b) those Jews who do not argue in good faith, that is take the premise “What’s best for the Jews?” as their first priority, are denounced and barred from debate. We have all heard the term “a self-hating Jew”.
As debate goes in the advancement of truth it can be seen that Jews do not love to argue per se. In actual fact, the love of debate is a White thing. As exampled by the writings of the Ancient Greeks, the love of debate in the advancement of “truth” is a White characteristic, a White stereotype that is true.
For Westerns, “Truth” is not subject to an ethnic basis but held as an ideal that applies to all humankind. This thinking stems from Plato.
So it is a Western thing, by which we mean White thing, to pursue “Truth” in the course of our debates as our objective, whilst for Jews the pursuit of “Truth” is not a primary consideration.
Two blog examples: 1) Mangan, 2) Auster. The former allows all sort of commentary, even close criticism of the author, only disbarring commentary when the subject breaches what could be regarded as illegality or defamation or vilification as determined by law.
The latter hand selects commentary from personal emails. Auster also interjects editorial parentheses in other’s rebuttals. As can be seen also, where commentary becomes too insistent and close to a core held belief, that commentator will be subjected to a final harangue by Auster and barred from further debate.
It can be seen that the pursuit of “Truth” is no longer a feature of Western debate, even within the field of science. We have “Global Warming” -> “Climate Change” advocates as ready example. Those who have opinions and facts that indicate the opposite of assertions are “deniers” and “skeptics”. Of course we can see what is being appealed to here, the dread spectre of the “Holocaust denier”.
So, it can be seen the arc of the Judeification of Western thinking, and as such the perversion of Western thinking, taking root in “The Holocaust”. We note not only the silencing of debate on what is an historical subject that we would never maintain be subject to what can or can’t be said of it but, rather, what is true of it, what can be cited in support from primary and secondary evidence.
We also note the reduction of so called opponents as “deniers”. The matter of debate in pursuit of “Truth” has turned into a religious, and even, a theological debate. Thus so the Talmudic way of thinking when it comes to debate.
It seems to me, from this distance, that Tanstaafl’s first instinct was not to silence, even though he knew the commentator was arguing in mala fide, but rather to argue the matter, on its merits. This is a White, Western, thing to do. It is habitual, instinctual.
However, given as above, that we all live in the age of Judeo-America and fall under her auspices, we should learn a trick or too, as Tanstaafl and others here have explained so well.
Tan, I’m just not sure you and Svigor and Chechar and others deal with the subject appropriately in the comments section. I dig logic and more dispassionate arguments. I’m not so into hyperbole, shock and awe, personal attacks and judgmentalism when you, for one, were right where Oistros was not too many years ago.
Me? I’m well into middle age. I was raised in a very committed pre-millenial, dispensationalist evangelical household. Obviously I was taught to be philo-Semitic at home and in church. My parents to this day are Hagee devotees. I attended an evangelical Bible college. I once attended a church with a messianic Jew pastor from New York. I’ve always been interested in Israeli affairs and have kept up with its leadership and politics.
I started taking peeks at your blog a few years back when you had your falling-out with Auster (who I can still appreciate on many subjects despite his tone-deafness on the Jew question). It was a process though. I instinctively (yes, Pavlovianly) recoiled initially at even logical arguments like those put forth by the likes of Kevin McDonald. But over time, I began to get it. I had swallowed the red pill.
What’s all this mean? Hell if I know. Perhaps just that you and the others should attack potential allies a bit less vociferously. I imagine that’s hard when you engage disingenuous Jewish Jew-firsters and those who are allied with them. Maybe I’ll be just as jaded in a couple of years. I’m already pissed that my three white sons are faced with Black Run, Anti-White America and the Jewish mendacious enabling thereof.
Pat, the jews have a saying regarding their tendency to argue: “Two jews, three opinions.” As you point out, the truth is: “Two jews, three opinions about what’s best for the jews.”
Anon, the zeal and aggression of the true-believer is what distinguishes them from the more passive and deferential useful idiot. Useful idiots may go along with the pathologization and demonization of targets designated by true-believers, but it’s usually the latter who seek out targets to attack.
So it is a Western thing, by which we mean White thing, to pursue “Truth” in the course of our debates as our objective, whilst for Jews the pursuit of “Truth” is not a primary consideration.
Great comment, Pat. I take it you are talking about philosophical truths (of which, e.g. moral and political concepts are mere offshoots). Jews, of course, are first-rate truth-seekers where the “truth” sought is independent of and removed from philosophy (e.g. math or physics). But, a talent for philosophy requires at very least the ability to recognize when one is arguing from personal advantage, and a “moral” impulse to be aboveboard about it. At a higher level, it demands the ability to suspend all considerations of personal advantage, perhaps indefinitely (for you know not in advance what you will find). Philosophy requires the will to understand nature as it is, even if the knowledge may be inexpedient at best, and destructive at worst. It requires the ability to consider in good faith multiple perspectives. Here, jews are woefully deficient.
Of course, not only jews are deficient herein – perhaps all non-White groups are. But because the jews have high IQ’s, they have come to fool others that they must also have talent for philosophical truth-seeking, e.g. for “ethics,” when, in fact, the redoubtable jewish gift for thinking has evolved in a very particular, streamlined direction over centuries: namely, to critique (here they can be useful for philosophers, but it doesn’t make them philosophers) and, quite perniciously, to exploit (a host), to seek individual advantage and tribal advantage (the two generally overlap), often by preying on the opposite instinct of their host. Any exceptions to this (there must be a few) can probably be attributed to the rare introgression of a fortuitous combination of European alleles in singular individuals.
@Anonymous
“I dig logic and more dispassionate arguments. I’m not so into hyperbole, shock and awe, personal attacks and judgmentalism when you, for one, were right where Oistros was not too many years ago.”
It depends who you think you’re arguing with. If you think you’re arguing with someone acting in good faith that’s one thing, if you think it’s the usual BS then just hit their raw nerves until they bug out. As Mr H. mentioned the purpose of debate is to reach the truth. If the person you’re debating is only interested in obscuring the truth there’s no point in playing nice with them.
Obviously it’s possible to make a mistake.
Pat has simply pointed out the weakness of Goy (aka White) thinking. This “let everyone be heard”; “lets just argue about about the “truth”; assumes we’re all disinterested parties seeking the “truth” – as opposed to covertly “selling” something or engaging in verbal “warfare”.
The Jews always have their “eyes on the prize” and start with the wanted result. They look at every discussion as “Is this good for the Jews?” and take it from there.
What’s all this mean? Hell if I know. Perhaps just that you and the others should attack potential allies a bit less vociferously. I imagine that’s hard when you engage disingenuous Jewish Jew-firsters and those who are allied with them. Maybe I’ll be just as jaded in a couple of years. I’m already pissed that my three white sons are faced with Black Run, Anti-White America and the Jewish mendacious enabling thereof.
Easy to say. Insanely difficult to do. White ethnopatriotism is a psychological, not just political, transformation. The further you go from the (pathological) norm, the less you can relate to it. At least, that’s been my experience.
Psychologically, I’m now more like the fella from the Journolist quote than I am a (pathologically) normal White person. I didn’t start out that way, but that’s where I am now.
C’est la vie.
It depends who you think you’re arguing with.
Absolutely. Other things get on my nerves too though, like excessive obtuseness, etc. I’ve never suffered fools gladly. If someone wants to have a good discussion with me, they come correct. If not, they can waste someone else’s time.
“As Mr H. mentioned the purpose of debate is to reach the truth.”
Personally, my purpose is to oppose race-replacement. The truth is just a tool. But unlike Jewish debaters, I don’t hold the truth in contempt.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/02/harvard-prof-dershowitz-says-media-matters-has-crossed-line-into-anti-semitism/l/
The professor directed his complaints at one staffer in particular, M.J. Rosenberg, for downplaying the Iranian nuclear threat and repeatedly employing the term “Israel firster” — an epithet that implies somebody’s loyalties are to Israel before America.
“When you accuse Jews of dual loyalty, you invoke a canard that goes back hundreds of years and falls into the category of anti-semitism,” Dershowitz said. “To the extent that Media Matters hired him to do that and is tolerating him, they have crossed the line into anti-semitism.”
Dershowitz called on Media Matters to fire Rosenberg, but also called on the White House to disassociate itself from Media Matters — warning that their cozy relationship would cause problems in the 2012 reelection campaign.
“The president should do to Media Matters what he did to Jeremiah Wright — totally disassociate, rebuke and say ‘I stand with Israel,'” he said.