All posts by Tanstaafl

Blog

Roth and Weiss on What’s Best for The Jews

72 Comments

Two years ago I wrote about jewish influence on Christmas music. Sometime later I ran across a passage from Philip Roth’s Operation Shylock praising Irving Berlin for de-Christing Christmas (and Easter). What I didn’t realize until today was that Roth’s book frames jewish hostility toward Christmas in a much broader context of jewish hostility toward Christianity, Christians, and Whites in general.

Roth, like Berlin, is not some marginal, inconsequential jew. Roth is considered “one of the most honored authors of his generation”:

His fiction, set frequently in Newark, New Jersey, is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its “supple, ingenious style,” and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and American identity.

Actually, it’s more accurate to describe Roth’s work and it’s fans as reflecting an all-consuming obsession with jewish identity. Roth is concerned about what it means to be a jew and how that contrasts with being Christian, American, or European. In Operation Shylock Roth weighs the differences between zionism and diasporism, two complementary jewish identities.

The portion excerpted here was not easy to find. In the end I transcribed it from Moshe Waldoks’ The Best American Humor 1994. Though Roth’s book is in Google Books, and precise searches will display snippets, I have not been able to find a link to freely viewable content.

Without further ado, here is Philip Roth, speaking through a character he named Philip Roth:

I heard myself next praising the greatest Diasporist of all, the father of the new Diasporist movement, Irving Berlin. “People ask where I got the idea. Well, I got it listening to the radio. The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus. People always tell me Jesus is Jewish. I never believe them. It’s like when people used to tell me Cary Grant was Jewish. Bullshit. Jews don’t want to hear about Jesus. And can you blame them? So—Bing Crosby replaces Jesus as the beloved Son of God, and the Jews, the Jews, go around whistling about Easter! And is that so disgraceful a means of defusing the enmity of centuries? Is anyone really dishonored by this? If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Do you see my point?” I took more pride, I told them, in “Easter Parade” then in the victory of the Six Day War, found more security in “White Christmas” than in the Israeli nuclear reactor. I told them that if the Israelis ever reached a point where they believed their survival depended not merely on breaking hands but on dropping a nuclear bomb, that would be the end of Judaism, even if the state of Israel should survive. “Jews as Jews will simply disappear. A generation after Jews use nuclear weapons to save themselves from their enemies, there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews. The Israelis will have saved their state by destroying their people. They will never survive morally after that; and if they don’t, why survive as Jews at all? They barely have the wherewithal to survive morally now. To put all these Jews in this tiny place, surrounded on all sides by tremendous hostility—how can you survive morally? Better to be marginal neurotics, anxious assimilationists, and everything else that the Zionists despise, better to lose the state than to lose your moral being by unleashing a nuclear war. Better Irving Berlin than the Wailing Wall. Better Irving Berlin than Holy Jerusalem! What does owning Jerusalem, of all places, have to do with being Jews in 1988? Jerusalem is by now the worst thing that could possibly have happened to us. Last year in Jerusalem! Next year in Warsaw! Next year in Bucharest! Next year in Vilna and Cracow! Look, I know people call Diasporism a revolutionary idea, but it’s not a revolution that I’m proposing, it’s a retroversion, a turning back, the very thing Zionism itself once was. You go back to the crossing point and cross back the other way. Zionism went back too far, that’s what went wrong with Zionism. Zionism went back to the crossing point of the dispersion—Diasporism goes back to the crossing point of Zionism.”

Roth’s argument isn’t complicated. First, he takes as a given that jews are a group, his group, distinct from everyone else. Second, he’s advocating in favor of that group’s best interests, regardless of what it means for anyone else. Roth subtitled his book A Confession. It is a jewish confession though, which means it’s more of an arrogant celebration of jewish victimology and supremacy than an expression of humility or contrition. Roth revels in his enmity toward “the goyim” even as he projects his hate into their minds. That the Other are so clueless, even about their supposed hatred for jews, serves as just another excuse for jews to hate them.

Talking directly to his own people, Roth first reminds them how easily and completely the goyim can and have been manipulated by jews. Then he shames them with the notion that jewish nationalism isn’t good enough for the jews. Why constrain yourself to live in one small country when you can thrive everywhere by manipulating the goyim? Then, finally, as a sort of trump card, Roth invokes morality. As with confession, morality means something different to jews than Christians. Christian morality is universalist – it refers to principles that apply equally to everyone, even their enemies. Jewish morality is particularist – “Is it good for the jews?” Working with this definition of morality Roth doesn’t see anything wrong with jews manipulating the goyim to further jewish interests. If it’s good for the jews then it’s good. When Roth describes zionist jews nuking their enemies as immoral, it’s not because of the harm it might cause those enemies. It’s because he thinks it would cause “the end of Judaism”, which to him means “there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews”.

Scrolling back to the top of the page in the book where the quote above begins we find Roth elaborating on who the enemy is, and what he wants from them:

… call on Europe to purge itself of a thousand years of anti-Semitism and to make room in its midst for a vital Jewish presence to multiply and flourish there and, in anticipation of the third millenium of Christianity, to declare by proclamation in all its parliaments the right of the Jewish uprooted to resettle in their European homeland and to live as Jews there, free, secure, and welcome. But I have my doubts.

This is the jewish version of history, together with the jewish solution to their European problem. Roth makes it plain enough, and not nicely at all, that Europeans must be subordinated to jews so that jews can multiply and flourish. Roth wants Europeans (by which he means Whites everywhere) to admit collective guilt and abandon any collective identity or interests of our own. Meanwhile jews enjoy the opposite.

Roth is sometimes absurdly described as a “self-hating jew” because he clearly favors diasporism over zionism, rather than both. This “self-hating jew” bit also serves as a kind of cover – shoo away now goyim, this is private jew business being discussed here. The fact is that he’s simply one particularly prominent example of the typical White-blaming, White-hating what’s-good-for-the-jews jew. The less the goyim know about that the better for the jews.

The belief that zionism is somehow bad for the jews is not uncommon on the “liberal” side of the political spectrum – which is to say amongst the majority of jews outside Israel. Philip Weiss expressed a similar belief earlier this month in Israel isn’t good for the Jews. Weiss, aiming non-fiction at a (slightly) more mixed audience than Roth, writes:

A feeling has taken root deep in the American Jewish community that Israel is hurting us, hurting our standing in the world and our future. The restrictions on democracy, the curbs on women, the intransigence vis-a-vis the Palestinians when Obama has demanded movement, the indifference to the Arab Spring– Israel is a society we no longer recognize as Jewish like we’re Jewish, and worst of all, its militarism is exposing American Jews to the accusation that we are dually loyal. And we don’t like that: We’re Americans.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was clearly the oafish ad campaign that targeted Christmas and intermarriage– the ad campaign that Netanyahu cancelled. Even rightwing Israel lobbyists were stunned by how clueless the ad campaign was. But it was an expression of genuine Israeli attitudes. And that is what’s so scary: American Jews are waking up to the fact that Israeli society is nothing like ours. Hillary Clinton could only launch her criticism of religious restrictions on women in Israel because she knows that American Jews feel this way. Ambassador Howard Gutman was speaking for many sensible American Jews when he said that Israeli policies are hurting Jews by fostering anti-Semitism.

We are integrators. We live in America because we want to be Jews in a diverse society. That is the spirit of American Jewish life by and large. And now these Zionists–separatists whom we never completely trusted when we were arguing with them in Eastern Europe–are quietly understood to have hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place.

In conclusion Weiss writes:

Because more and more of us who care about Jewish life, as an integral part of western society, need to separate ourselves from an ethos of separation.

It’s refreshing to hear a jew admit that powerful non-jews like Hillary Clinton are actually beholden to jewish will – able to do what they do only so long as jews approve. Howard Gutman is also only nominally a representative of American interests. What Gutman said was delivered at a conference of organized jewry that deserves a detailed examination and critique of its own. Suffice it here to say that Gutman drew a distinction between Whites and muslims vis-a-vis jews. Whites, he said, simply hate others, like jews, largely for the sake of hating, whereas muslims at least hate jews for somewhat more sensible reasons, namely jews in Israel acting like Whites. This was controversial to jews and non-jews seeking to serve them. They complained Gutman wasn’t being fair to the jews.

Weiss, like Gutman, describes concerns that are clearly pinned to what he thinks best serves the interests of jews, or at least jews who live in the US. Not Americans. Not Palestinians. That’s what the word integration means to him. He’s so eager to defend his jews from exposure to (valid) accusations and yet so intellectually bankrupt that all he can do is spew blatant contradictions. We’re jews AND we’re Americans! That’s NOT dual loyalty! We’re integrators AND we continue separately as jews! We’re not at all like those DARK, UGLY separatists over there! Oh, and by the way, THEY’RE NOT JEWS!

The bottom line is that Weiss, like Roth, thinks jewish interests are best served within subservient Western societies. Whereas Roth sees the jews in diaspora as living among hostile aliens and writes more or less frankly about defusing Christians, Weiss is more interested in playing the anti-“racist” liberal, defusing separatists and nationalists. Like Roth, Weiss seems confident that jews can and will continue to thrive, at least in diaspora. The problem, as Roth sees it, is that zionism is immoral. Weiss claims the problem is that “oafish” “clueless” zionists are making a mockery of his (jewish) moralizing.

Weiss says he’s scared that jews are waking up and they’re upset that zionists have “hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place”. I couldn’t care less, but I think what scares jews more, zionist and diasporist alike, is the fear that Whites will see through their double-talk. That enough of us will wake up and be upset to realize that jews, as a group, are only worried about the interests of jews. That we’ll understand that they have always seen us as the Other, the enemy, regardless of how we regard them. That we’ll see how diaspora jews, through calculated, coordinated, collective effort, have hijacked Western societies and taken us to a dark ugly place, turning our homelands into amusement parks in the interests of “minorities”, first and foremost themselves. That we’ll put together the various pieces of truth, left and right, and see how militarism (and corporatism and globalism) really figures into all this. How the lives and vitality of our people have been squandered stomping around, on ourselves as well as others, to keep the world safe for jews, diasporists AND zionists, while they take turns demonizing and exploiting us.

[The Philip Weiss image comes from Gilad Atzmon’s Jews & Their Self Interest-An Interview with Philip Weiss.]

Blog

An Unamusing Mischling Meltdown

44 Comments

(Unamused’s first comment on this blog was made back in July:

Warning: Unamused is a sneaky half-Jew and does not believe in conspiracy theories, Jew-related or otherwise. He thinks the problem is liberal Jews, and liberals in general; not liberal Jews, and Jews in general. He does however prefer Nazi neighbors to black neighbors.

In September he came up again in the comments at Svigor’s.)

Svigor’s Half Sigma: Female Jewish race-realist, Jewish Supremacy prompts Unamused to protest:

“Ashkenazis are born to Jewish Supremacy.”

I’m half Ashkenazi, and therefore a “Jew” according to the WN types. I didn’t know I was until I was a teenager, and I’ve never cared since. Was I born to Jewish supremacy or not?

“Ashkenazis aren’t overrepresented among pro-White movements or organizations — they’re totally absent.”

This is, and always has been, nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter what a “Jew” does, as soon as the supposedly pro-White types find out about his “Jew blood,” they reject him. Then they point to the lack of “Jews” as evidence of how bad the “Jews” are. The other “Jews” keep their mouths shut and so they, too, are not counted.

Again, my ban from Stormfront provides a clear example. When they were judging me by what I do and what I write, the Stormfronters believed I was thoroughly pro-White and therefore not a “Jew,” joking that my flyer on race differences in intelligence could not have been written by a “Jew.” Somehow my work magically become Jew propaganda when they found out I’m a “Jew.”

That is not race realism, or realism of any other kind. It is irrational hatred of all “Jews,” no matter what they do. That is why “Jew”-hating WNs are not taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how much of Kevin MacDonald’s research they cite; the unbiased observer notes that their hatred of “Jews” is actually independent of what “Jews” may or may not do.

Responding to Porter, Unamused continues:

“… your ‘irrational hatred’ of blacks…”

I harbor no irrational hatreds. I hate the people who deserve to be hated, and blacks are over-represented among them. This is quite different from hating every single black person. Do you see the difference? That’s why I’m a race realist, and you’re just a Jew-hater.

“Whites are suspect of jews as time immemorial has proven they are well advised to be. This is hardly irrational.”

No, actually, it is irrational.

Go ahead, cite your God, Kevin MacDonald.

“Odd behavior for such irrational actors whose hatred exists independent of what jews actually say or do. Don’t you think?”

I’ve learned to expect odd behavior from Jew-haters.

“… both white and jewish interests…”

The fact that you have detected any “Jewish interests” on my part indicates, yet again, that you are indulging in irrational thinking. Basically, I’m an evil Jew with Jew interests because… I fail to be sufficiently genocidally anti-Semitic.

So Unamused’s point is that he isn’t a jew. If he hates you it’s only because you’re an indulgent, irrational hater of jews. His bugaboo about “jew”-hate has nothing to do with him. It’s all your fault.

Two days later Unamused was still kvetching about the rejection and other indignities he and the jews he supposedly doesn’t care about have suffered at the hands of “the WN types”, “the supposedly pro-White types”, “the Stormfronters” and that god of irrationality, Kevin MacDonald. Oh woe. Why? (A question for the reader):

Why would I keep doing this? What exactly is my motivation?

As context he cites a list of quotes he describes as “anti-jewish racism”.

The first commenter makes a rather obvious observation:

Most Internet comments are pretty juvenile. Unamused, you do have something of a sardonic writing style that would come off as rather mean-spirited and hateful to those not in agreement with your world-view, so it would seem rather petty to complain about others being insensitive towards the Jews.

Sardonic Unamused goes hyperbolic where jewish interests are concerned:

“Insensitive towards the Jews,” in this case, means genocidal anti-Semitism.

Not being a frequent reader of his I would appreciate it if someone who is could point out where Unamused has expressed such concern about genocidal anti-Whitism. Or perhaps where he explains that it’s actually suicidal.

Jewish conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish racism (basically, any time you make a claim about all Jews) are no longer permitted on Unamusement Park. An upcoming post will clarify our position.

This seems to have caught at least a few regular consumers of Unamused’s black “conspiracy theories” and anti-black “racism” by surprise. Others are delighted. The bashing of Whites Unamused hates will continue unabated.

Svigor made a good point about the comments Unamused cited:

Personally, I consider arguing with your worst your opponents can offer, and ignoring the best, is a form of the straw man argument. It’s doubly bad when you pretend that’s what your best opponents are saying, as you do.

Unamused’s response was more of his unamusing schtick:

Oh, don’t think I’m arguing with the Jew-haters. I’m merely demonstrating how diseased are their minds.

The ideas I quoted can be dismissed out of hand. They do not qualify as race realism; they are in fact simply racism. You know anti-white racism? Well… see above for some anti-Jewish racism.

Someone who wants to exterminate the Jews, won’t let any Jew “redeem” himself by participating in pro-white activities, or believes the Nazi genocide of Jews never happened, has disqualified himself from any serious, or even sane, discussion. I’m not interested in “the best” someone has to offer, when he’s so obviously fucked in the head.

Responding to another comment from someone who pointed out that he had claimed he wasn’t a “racist” at Svigor’s, Unamused writes:

Don’t make a fool of yourself by forgetting that just because liberals misuse the term, that doesn’t mean actual racism doesn’t exist. Have you not noticed my many posts addressing anti-white racism? Now, I am not a racist, as will be made clear in my next post. But attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews is racism.

This is all very Austeresque. The ambiguous jewish identity. The hostility to anyone put off by that ambiguity. The inability to accept Whites as distinct from jews even while taking for granted that jews are distinct from Whites. The self-righteous “white” advocacy. Hinging that advocacy on unfettered criticism of blacks while condemning Whites for criticizing jews. The histrionics. The hypocrisy. The projection. The rationalizations. The talmudic hairsplitting. The acceptance of jews and subordination of non-jewish interests as a moral litmus test. The irrational hatred of Kevin MacDonald. The dishonest “liberal” rhetoric. The control-freak need to edit and censor other people’s comments. I could go on.

Having already picked through this kind of jew-first dissembling and dissimulation with Lawrence Auster (and to a similar but less thorough extent with Ian Jobling, Guy White, Fjordman, and several others) I see hardly anything new here. Yet I’m fascinated by the situation and dismayed by how Unamused faces it. On the surface I see a conflicted man I’m inclined at first blush to feel some sympathy for – a part-jew/part-White who wants to “redeem” his jewish half and prove himself pro-White. Unfortunately I can’t help noticing his deception and duplicity. How he goes about trying to achieve his goal by attacking Whites. How he’s not simply trying to redeem himself, or half-jews, but all jews because they are jews.

Attacking and excluding “racists” for “attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews” is in fact the quintessential jewish conceit. It is the epitome of jewish privilege and supremacy that jews as a group feel free to attack or exclude whomever they wish, which just makes them good jews, and at the same time painting Whites who attack or exclude jews, or by “liberal” extension any other “minority”, as the most stupid/crazy/evil people ever.

Svigor critiqued Unamused’s post in Because it’s good for the Whites. His conclusion:

No amount of arguing about tactics or “respectability” is going to convince me that Ashkenazis should have a right to ethno-states, and Whites should not. And this is the status quo we’re facing. Ashkenazi Supremacy. “White Advocates” who are okay with this are wrong-headed. “White Advocates” who put this problem on the back burner are wrong-headed.

One final note, about the less-capable ANTI-SEMITES!!! Sure, they’re a burden in the sense that the average person isn’t bright enough to separate the wheat from the chaff and forgo the guilt by association fallacy, given enough reason (nobody seems to apply these standards to leftoid values like blank-slatism and equalitarianism; mouth-breathers supporting these things abound). But there are plenty of idiots who criticize Blacks. I don’t see any HBD-ers, Race Realists, or White Advocates bemoaning the burden they create.

I’d rather share a foxhole with a mouth-breathing ANTI-SEMITE!!! than a philo-Semitic “White Advocate” any day. At least I know whose side he’s on.

Well said. I agree.

In the comments Svigor referred indirectly to my A Personal Disclosure:

E.g., I love TAN and think the world of him, but I don’t think he “came clean” for anyone’s sake but his own; he felt like he’d be deceiving people if he didn’t come out with it. The rest of us didn’t give a damn either way.

He is correct. I disclosed it because it pained me not to. I realized that it was important and that it would only reflect more negatively on my character and motives the longer I put it off.

The relevance here is twofold. For one thing I have at least a second-hand appreciation for Unamused’s situation. I understand that jewishness, like Whiteness, is part inborn and part mindset. The personality traits are more inborn, while the hostility toward Whites comes more from indoctrination – being taught that to be a jew is to be a victim, primarily of the supposedly senseless hate and oppression of Whites. Second, I recognize that Unamused exaggerates his case, and that he consistently does so in favor of his jewish half and at the expense of his White half. He’s obsessed with putting down Whites who in his own estimation have no real power or importance. He makes a self-righteous stink about “racist” Whites rejecting him, while the jews who reject him, or would if he tried to pass himself off as an advocate for jews, get a pass. The jews who hate him for being a “racist” also get a pass. You see, he’s not really a “racist”, he’s a “race realist”, and they’re not really jews, they’re “liberals”. Finally, I think what Unamused sees as genocidal jew-hate pales in comparison to the harsh, unrelenting criticism aimed at Whites because they are White. That Whites are born stupid/crazy/evil “racists” is a foregone conclusion broadcast by the MSM, taught in the schools, and codified in the law. The last thing Whites need are faux-“whites” who spout the same poisonous message.

By the way, a recent German translation of my personal disclosure post can be found at As der Schwerter – Tanstaafl: Eine persönliche Enthüllung (Google Translate). I’m sorry to have caused my comrades there, and here, any concern over my long break from writing.

Blog

Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree

73 Comments

Farha Khaled’s Caroline Glick Cited As One of Israeli American Tipsters By Gates of Vienna Where Fjordman Appears To Be Back surveys and connects a good portion of counterjihadist dots, linking names with pseudonyms, blogs and photos.

Khaled describes herself as:

Freelance writer. Columnist for the Saudi based Arab News. My op eds focus on exposing Islamophobia.

Khaled begins her article by asserting that Gates of Vienna is a “white supremacist blog which published ‘Fjordman'”, “regularly publishing essays promoting white supremacism”. The bulk of the article goes on to associate various counterjihadist ideologues with GoV.

Here is one of the more meaty, lucid portions (links preserved):

Far right Islamophobic activists have forged alliances of convenience with radical Zionists and regard Israel as an ally, not least because they see Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a role model for how Muslims should be treated. Hard line Zionists see it as an opportunity to lessen the growing Muslim influence in the USA or Europe which they see as detrimental to a greater Israel. Stooges like Geert Wilders are funded in the hope they can halt Muslim immigration and influence. Marginalised as they are, some European nationalist groups are willing to shed their traditional Jew hatred in an attempt to find allies, but as often happens in marriages of convenience, it doesn’t take much for cracks to appear.

Pamela Geller’s association with the EDL caused waves when Roberta Moore claimed they had Jew hating members and were not sufficiently pro Israel. In Europe, German newspaper Der Spiegel probed this alliance in ‘The Likud Connection‘ showing how some marginalized right wing populists are going the Geert Wilders way. This bizarre coupling has split the far right movement in Europe which has traditionally been anti-semitic.

The counterjihadist network Khaled analyzes is a jewish movement. It is dressed up as Westerners concerned with a defense of the West, but it is in fact dominated by jews and others whose first and foremost concerns are for the best interests of Israel and jews. There are no prominent counterjihadists who defend the best interests of Whites as a people, separate and apart from jews. While they readily distinguish jews and muslims for special consideration, positive and negative, they regard other distinctions between people as wrong, especially if race or “white” is involved. They regard any distinction of Whites from jews as roughly comparable to the threat to jews they see coming from islamization – unthinkably evil.

Khaled engages in similar doublethink, but to a different end. She blithely conflates counterjihadist bigotry in favor of jews with “white supremacism”. She carries on about “islamophobia” as if fearing or resenting being colonized and ruled by aliens is a mental disorder. Khaled has adopted and adapted characteristically jewish rhetoric. She paints her muslim Us as the helpless, blameless victims of a “hate”-filled Them, ascribing bizarre, pathological motives to Them, smearing Them collectively using guilt-by-association.

This rhetoric is fundamentally dishonest as well as bigoted. Counterjihadists see Us and Them as jews and their enemies, while Khaled sees the Us/Them divide being between muslims and their enemies. Both agree that Whites are not entitled to an identity of our own, much less to decide for ourselves who our enemies are.

Just as jews living amongst Europeans have done for centuries now, muslim intellectuals today excuse and direct attention away from their own group’s transgressions by finding fault instead in someone else. As with the apologists for jews, apologists for muslims zealously defend their own group identity and interests while moralizing against “hate” and “racism”, trying to guilt-trip Whites for expressing any kind of identity that excludes them.

Khaled finds it scandalous that Anders Breivik commented at Gates of Vienna. As it happens, Breivik took issue with Diana West’s “anti-sharia” strategy and more generally with the unwillingness of counterjihadists to face the demographic threat posed by immigration:

Why havent you or any of the other current authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe (Fjordman, Spencer, Ye`or, Bostom etc.) brought up the “D” word? I assume because it is considered a fascist method in nature, which would undermine your/their work? Why would it undermine their efforts when it is the only rational conclusion, based on the above argument? As far as I know, it’s not illegal in Europe to suggest deportation as a future method when discussing future hypothetical World Orders (correct me if im wrong though, Im not 100% sure, lol)!?

The answer, as unwilling as Breivik was to face it himself, is that counterjihadism is about serving the best interests of jews. Thus the concern to not appear “fascist”, meaning “nazi”, meaning anti-jew, takes priority over the identification with or concern for the best interests of Europeans as a people. Should Europe be lost, oh well, the struggle against islamic jihad (in defense of jews) will continue elsewhere.

When Baron Bodissey republished Breivik’s comments he also linked Daniel Pipe’s apologia, Norway’s Terrorism in Context. To distinguish his position from Breivik’s Pipes quotes a similar statement from Breivik’s book:

The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe — Fjordman, Spencer, [Bat] Ye’or, Bostom etc. aren’t actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). . . . If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.

The portion omitted by Pipes is telling:

This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe.

Indeed. Like the other leading lights of counterjihadism, Pipes doesn’t care as much about the devastating effect on Europeans as he does about what’s best for jews.

(Thanks to Flanders for the link.)

Blog

Trashtalking the Boss

11 Comments

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu ‘liar’ – Israel News, Ynetnews:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not “stand” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier “is a liar.”

. . .

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

Blog

Buchanan on the Passing of the White Race

48 Comments

Plugging his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Pat Buchanan concludes his 17 October column, A.D. 2041 – end of white America?, with this:

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind – slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide – may welcome its departure from history. Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.

Buchanan clearly sees the malevolent, external forces at work here – the “replacement by Third World immigrants” and “those who hold the White race responsible for the mortals sins of mankind”. He may as well drop the rhetorical tone and detached posture and clearly identify it as genocide. What we need are advocates, not mourners.

Of course he would be mocked and hated all the more for crying foul play. But that’s exactly the point. If it were suicide there wouldn’t be such venom and force directed against those who speak in favor of Whites. The hostility comes from those who discount our concerns or see them conflicting with their own. Many imagine their anti-“racism” only harms stupid/crazy/evil White “racists”, not themselves.

Joan Walsh’s review of Buchanan’s book provides a good example. Walsh ridicules Buchanan’s thesis as “silly, a crazy mashup of stereotypes and paranoia”, “he sees anti-white racism everywhere”. She makes it quite clear she doesn’t share his concerns:

The book mourns the decline not only of white Christian America, but of Europe, since we share a common white European heritage. But then he runs down the history of European wars and ethnic nationalism, which makes me wonder what constitutes a “European” heritage or identity, other than (some comparative shade of) white skin — and why it matters anyway, if Europeans fight so much.

Walsh claims to identify with Buchanan as a fellow political pundit, especially because they are fellow Irish Catholics, though she married out. Even in her criticism of Buchanan she clearly expresses a more sober concern for the well-being of jews than Whites:

In Buchanan’s dim view of civilization, it’s not only white Christian countries, or cultures, that are on the decline. “American Jews seem to be an endangered species,” he declares (a little comically, since he’s never been a particular friend of American Jews). In fact, the U.S. Jewish population is declining, in part because of intermarriage, and each younger generation getting progressively less observant in our overall less tribalist society. But Buchanan doesn’t mention any of that: he blames birth control and abortion, which is a form of karmic payback in his telling, since Jews tend to support reproductive rights. “How many of the 50 million abortions since 1973 were performed on Jewish girls or women?” Buchanan asks. “How many Jewish children were never conceived because of birth control?” It would be funny if it weren’t so creepy.

No, not funny at all. Walsh criticizes Buchanan for having and defending a European identity that she could share but does not value, and she does it while defending a jewish identity that she cannot share despite her own creepy “intermarriage”. Walsh isn’t suicidal. She just fancies herself on the other team.