The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Peter Brimelow Archive
"East Is East and West Is West"
What The Hazony/Brog Heresy Hunt Says About July’s “National Conservative Conference”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This personal invitation arrived in my email inbox recently:

Naturally, I was delighted. I had been very impressed with the Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony’s book The Virtue Of Nationalism and had even had an affable exchange with him via Twitter Direct Message about his publisher’s curious failure to release the book in audio form:

So Lydia and I duly paid our $285 fee (each) to register. But we got this response:

It’s a form letter. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who tried in his frugal way to get press credentials, got exactly the same thing.

Jared very reasonably wrote back to ask if would he be denied press credentials if he were “a socialist or Open-Borders advocate” a.k.a. a typical member of the Main Stream Media.

Needless to say, Hazony and Brog did not have the courtesy to reply.

But the answer to Jared’s question, of course, is “NO!”—cuckservatives are always desperate for MSM attention. And Hazony (alas) and Brog turn out to be cuckservatives—although not, I think, for the reasons (stupidity, cowardice, careerism) that motivate the typical American cuck.

I’m pretty battle-scarred after nearly three decades in the Immigration Wars. But I must admit I felt a twinge of sadness about Hazony. Apart from his book, I think his tweets display a really interesting, and I had thought fair, mind.

Thus as Editor of a website that for nearly twenty years has focused on “The National Question”— defined as “the viability of the US as a nation-state”—I was naturally delighted by this:

And of course I agreed with him about the Democrats’ extraordinary refusal to accept the results of the 2016 election—now definitively discredited by the Mueller Report’s finding that the Trump campaign did not, despite all the hype, “collude” with Russia:

And I think he’s exactly right that some deep cause underlies both Trump Derangement Syndrome in the U.S. and the post-Brexit elite tantrum in the U.K.:

And, as a British-American, I found his incisive take on the virtues of a No Deal Brexit distinctly affecting:

And, given my long-standing interest in the War On Christmas, I was affected by his wise and judicious response to Julia Ioffe’s arrogant attempt to bully her adopted country out of celebrating its majority’s main festival:

Sigh.

Hazony opened The Virtue Of Nationalismwith a bracing challenge to Anglo-American conventional political wisdom:

Politics in Britain and America have taken a turn toward nationalism. This has been troubling to many, especially in educated circles, where global integration has long been viewed as a requirement of sound policy and moral decency. From this perspective, Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and the “America first” rhetoric coming out of Washington seem to herald a reversion to a more primitive stage in history, when war-mongering and racism were voiced openly and permitted to set the political agenda of nations. Fearing the worst, public figures, journalists, and academics have deplored the return of nationalism to American and British public life in the harshest terms…

[But s]urely, the many statesmen and intellectuals who embraced nationalism a few generations ago knew something about this subject, and were not simply trying to drag us back to a more primitive stage in our history, to war-mongering and racism. What, then, did they see in nationalism?…

My own background allows me some insight into the subject. I have been a Jewish nationalist, a Zionist, all my life….I have lived most of my life in a country that was established by nationalists, and has been governed largely by nationalists to this day…Among them, nationalism is not some unfathomable political illness that periodically takes over countries for no good reason and to no good end, as many in America and Britain seem to think these days. It is instead a familiar political theory on which they were raised, a theory of how the political world should be ordered.

…The nationalism I grew up with is a principled standpoint that regards the world as governed best when nations are able to chart their own independent course, cultivating their own traditions and pursuing their own interests without interference. This is opposed to imperialism, which seeks to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind, as much as possible, under a single political regime.

Of course, I think this is wonderful. It sounds exactly like positions we have argued for years. And, of course, it fits right into VDARE.com’s documentation of the emergence of National Conservatism before Trump through his use of it to win the nomination and the Presidential election.

Note here that that Hazony ingeniously defines the European Union, and global “integration” generally, as examples of “imperialism”—he calls it “liberal imperialism” because of its common assumptions about free trade, free markets, equal atomized interchangeable individuals etc.

And note also that Hazony is fully aware that, notwithstanding its name, this modern form of “liberalism” is actually increasingly repressive (now a huge problem for VDARE.com):

[L]iberal-imperialist political ideals have become among the most powerful agents fomenting intolerance and hate in the Western world today…

One of the most striking features of public life in contemporary America and Europe is the way that the Western nations are now afflicted by public shaming campaigns and heresy hunts whose purpose is to stigmatize and render illegitimate one or another person or group of people, opinion or policy, that is perceived as having the ability to mount any kind of meaningful resistance to liberal doctrine.

Much of what has been written about these campaigns has concentrated on the deterioration of free discourse in the universities, where official and unofficial censorship of the professorate’s opinions—including their views about Islam, homosexuality, immigration [my emphasis—PB], and a host of other subjects—has become commonplace. But…much of the public sphere is now regularly visited by the same kinds of campaigns of vilification…

(Interestingly, London University professor Eric P. Kaufmann, in his incisive new book WHITESHIFT: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities, also makes the point that liberalism, which he calls “left-modernism,” relies increasingly on Swedish New Totalitarian-type repression in what were previously open, Anglo-Saxon societies. So it seems that political scientists have now extended diplomatic recognition to this disgusting phenomenon. Perhaps next it will occur to conservative politicians).

All good stuff—if pretty ironic, given that this sort of “heresy hunt” is precisely what Hazony and his colleagues are doing to completely harmless, law-abiding American patriots like American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor and VDARE.com’s us.

Another victim of the Hazony/ Brog “heresy hunt”: Patrick Casey, the young leader of the American Identity Movement activist group. Casey got exactly the same form letter, but responded more brutally on Twitter:

A complex, multi-thread twitter row ensued. It ended with Hazony, despite his heart-warming (to me) professed admiration for Britain’s civil political tradition and the non-authoritarian “Protestant Construction” of Western freedoms, refusing to debate Casey in public and eventually blocking him on Twitter. Here’s Casey’s post-block concluding thread:

I think any fair-minded reader of their exchange must conclude that Casey hurt Hazony very badly—remarkable, given their differences in age and elite educational qualifications.

Thus Hazony was immediately forced to reveal that, just like all the neoconservatives, he in fact believes America is a Proposition Nation:

This bone-headed, ahistorical denial of any ethnic component to the American nation was of course greeted by derisive allegations of hypocrisy by Casey’s articulate Twitter supporters, further forcing Hazony to make the ridiculous claim that Israel itself is a sort of Proposition Nation:

And what Israelis (and Jews) mean by “nation,” it materializes, is purely credal:

“He’s lying,” said a Jewish friend—previously a great fan of Hazony’s—to whom I showed this tweet. (Yes, some of my best friends etc.) “Every Jew thinks they’re part of special race.”

The plain fact is Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion, conversion is very difficult, and Jewish law historically required matrilineal descent as a condition of Jewishness. The inexorable result: Jews, generally although not exclusively, have developed characteristic genetic markers. (Which is not that unusual in long-established nation-states. Some 60% of English men, and 80% of Irish men, carry the R1b haplogroup, as I do myself). So it’s not unreasonable to regard Israel as, if not a “race state,” at the very least an ethnostate with both a cultural and an ethnic component.

So what? Has Hazony got a problem with that?

Well, yes, apparently he does, as it turns out. But it’s not obvious from The Virtue Of Nationalism. Steve Sailer in his review shrewdly picked up that

…Hazony barely mentions immigration, a topic upon which American Jews have sentimentally whipped themselves into a schmaltzy frenzy while Israeli Jews have remained hardheaded.

But I have to admit I didn’t really notice that anomaly, although Israel’s exemplary immigration policy, especially as regards illegals, has been a source of delight to VDARE.com for years.

Looked at more closely, however, I see that Hazony never actually says that there is an ethnic element to nationalism, although he regularly seems to imply it, e.g.:

By nation, I mean a number of tribes with a common language or religion, and a past history of acting as a body for the common defense and other large-scale enterprises. The Bible systematically promotes the idea that the members of a nation should regard one another as “brothers,” and Mosaic law offered the Israelites a constitution that would bring them together in what would today be called a national state. The king of such a state would be drawn “from among your brothers.” Its prophets, too, would be “from among you, from among your brothers.” And so would its priests, appointed to guard the traditional laws of the nation and teach them to the king “so that his thoughts should not be lifted above his brothers.” [Emphasis in original]

“Tribe”? So Hazony really just meant it the way Lydia tells me the #findyourtribe girls do?

“Brothers”? And Hazony really just meant non-literally, the way Kanye West does?

And there’s also this, where Hazony opposes John Locke’s concept of the rationalistic Social Contract:

Most of us suppose that brothers and sisters born to the same parents have a special responsibility to help one another in a time of need that takes precedence over other obligations. In the same way, we would suppose that grandparents have obligations toward their grandchildren, and that grandchildren have obligations toward their grandparents. But none of these family relationships are the result of consent: One does not choose one’s brothers or one’s grandchildren. And so these obligations must derive from other sources. Locke’s model, however, which seeks to found the family on free choice and consent, generates no such obligations.

I agree, but I don’t see anything about going “to a rabbinical court” here. Hazony is clearly implying blood.

Hazony even quotes Herder approvingly:

The most natural state is, therefore, one nation, an extended family with one national character.

An “extended family”—essentially Steve Sailer’s definition of a “race.” But I don’t see anything about “rabbinical courts” here either.

It’s true that Hazony says at one point of the ancient Israelites:

It is important to notice that the Israelites’ conception of the nation has nothing to do with biology, or what we call race. For biblical nations, everything depends on a shared understanding of history, language, and religion that is passed from parents to children, but which outsiders can join as well. Thus the book of Exodus teaches that there were many Egyptians who attached themselves to the Hebrew slaves in fleeing Egypt, and that they received the Ten Commandments (more accurately translated as the “Ten Precepts”) at Sinai with the rest of Israel. Similarly, Moses invites the Midianite sheikh Jethro to join the Jewish people. And Ruth the Moabite becomes part of Israel when she is ready to tell Naomi “your people is my people and your God is my God,” her son being the forefather of King David himself.

But I had dismissed this as just a quick bow to Political Correctness, one of several that even Hazony (as also Whiteshift’s similarly heroic Eric P. Kaufmann) apparently felt compelled to make throughout this book. Quite obviously, occasional converts to Judaism cannot outweigh the effect of Jewish law’s insistence on matrilineal descent for scores of generations.

Now I come to look more carefully, however, I see that Hazony mentioned the fact that Jewish law insists on matrilineal descent nowhere—in a book of 304 pages.

In The Virtue Of Nationalism, Hazony made some strained arguments, for example that Hitler was not really a nationalist, that I put down to understandable human weakness. But in this case, I have to conclude with great sorrow that he is indeed deliberately lying—he wants to deceive his readers about the ethnic dimension of Israel and of successful nation-states in general.

Maybe Hazony does not really want “nationalism for his people but not for yours,” as AIM’s Patrick Casey alleged. But it very much looks like he wants ethnicity for Israel but not for America.

This is why I say that Hazony and his sidekick Brog are not typical American cucks—they want to suppress debate, but for their own ethnic reasons.

Which brings us to the National Conservatism Conference. Philip Giraldi savagely describes its sponsor, the Edmund Burke Foundation, as “just another pro-Israel puppet.” He denounces

…the inclusion as speakers of some genuine conservatives among the crowd of usual Zionist hacks…[they] are invited to give the event credibility, should know better and ought to avoid the Edmund Burke Foundation like the plague.

[Edmund Burke Rides Again| But this time the horse is paid for by Israel, The Unz Review, June 4 2019]

Giraldi, of course, is a controversial foreign policy intellectual. He is especially concerned that the National Conservative energy that elected Trump will be co-opted and steered away from a focus on American national interests and into a focus on Israel national interests, which is what he thinks happened to the Conservative Movement after it elected Ronald Reagan, won the Cold War, and degenerated into the corrupt racket Conservatism Inc.

But the concern of immigration patriots is slightly different: is the conference designed to co-opt National Conservative energy and steer it into safe Proposition-Nation abstraction shallows—above all, to avoid any appeal to the ethnic interests of the Historic American Nation?

In other words, will this be a catastrophe similar to the 1990s, when the neoconservatives (with honorable exceptions) stabbed immigration patriots in the back, frustrated patriotic immigration reform and set the GOP/GAP on a course to demographic disaster because of their selfish and irrational ethnic hang-ups?

The tragedy of all this, of course, is that it was (and is) so unnecessary. I have never come across an American immigration patriot who worries about whether Jews are a superior race, or has a definition of the American nation so strict that it would exclude Jews.

At least, not yet.

But in terms of the direction of Hazony’s National Conservatism conference, I have to say it doesn’t look good. It’s bad enough that the great MSM-acknowledged precursor of Trumpism, Patrick J. Buchanan, the key theorist of America as a nation-state in his books A Republic, Not an Empire, State of Emergency, and Suicide of a Superpower, is not speaking. It’s much worse that Edmund Burke Foundation’s “conference presidium” feels empowered to decree who is “incompatible with national conservatism as we understand it,” especially given that one of them (at least) is a foreign citizen presuming to act as a gatekeeper in American debate.

Remember, we’re not talking here about speaking at the conference. We’re talking about paying to attend the damned thing.

Moreover, on a personal note: at least AIM’s Patrick Casey is a political activist, albeit perfectly civilized (and to Hazony’s discomfort fatally well-versed in the arguments). At least American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor focuses on journalism about the implications of IQ differences that should have flowed out of The Bell Curve, but didn’t, because of the resurgent Reign Of Terror.

But VDARE.com is merely a single-issue forum website open to anyone, of any race or creed, who opposes America’s post-1965 immigration disaster—and our long-advocated positions are those that candidate Donald J. Trump outlined in his August 2015 position paper and that subsequently won him the Presidency.

And we have been writing about “National Conservatism” since 2000:

  1. Social Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Paleoconservatives—and National Conservatives (a.k.a. Patriots), by Peter Brimelow, September 3, 2000
  2. “I call these questions —Affirmative Action, immigration, language, America versus trade and finance—I call them ‘The National Question’. They all go to the issue of whether or not America is a nation, a political community that looks after its own people, or whether it has become a sort of global supermarket. And I think that people who are interested in these questions are what I call Nationalists—National Conservatives.”
    Building the New Majority—Peter Brimelow`s Speech To The American Cause, July 22, 2009
  3. “As the battle on the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill moves to its climax, it’s crucial to understand why ‘national conservatism,’ a conservatism that values national and cultural identity, is essentially unspoken in the US. The answer is (partly) ideological. American political debate has historically been liberal, in the classical sense. But with ethnopolitics becoming the driving force in much of the Western world, liberalism, classical or otherwise, is increasingly irrelevant.”
    Europe’s Immigration Crises Point To America’s Future by James Kirkpatrick, May 30, 2013
  4. John Derbyshire Asks: Will “National Conservatism” Come To The U.S.A.?, March 6, 2014
  5. The Left Understands Brat Has Blazed A Trail To “National Conservatism”—But Conservatism Inc. Doesn’t Want To Know, by James Kirkpatrick, June 17, 2014,
  6. Sen. Jeff Sessions Winning Fight To Make GOP A “National Conservative” Party, by James Kirkpatrick, February 6, 2014,
  7. Did Victorious GOP “Turn Left”—Or Towards Jeff Sessions-Style “National Conservatism”? by James Kirkpatrick, November 4, 2014
  8. #NRORevolt Proves National Conservatism The Only Way Forward, by James Kirkpatrick, September14,2015
  9. Whither the American Right: Cruz And “Movement Conservatism”—Or Trump And National Conservatism? by James Kirkpatrick, December 20, 2015
  10. Trump Triumphs In South Carolina—SALON’S “Digby” Concedes Democrats Can’t Handle His National Conservatism, by Peter Brimelow, February 20, 2016
  11. Trump Victorious As GOP Transformed Into A National Conservative Party, by James Kirkpatrick, May 3, 2016
  12. Charles (THE BELL CURVE) Murray Inches Towards National Conservatism, John Derbyshire, September14, 2016
  13. British Election Showing National Conservatism Is Logic Of History—Even If GOP Doesn’t Get It (Yet), by James Kirkpatrick, March 30,2017

I may say, furthermore, that I count no less than twelve of the conference speakers listed are personally well known to me. I’ve had long conversations with some of them on exactly this subject dating back as much as thirty years and I believe they would acknowledge I have influenced them—except for the fact that it might expose them too to a “heresy hunt.” So, like Giraldi, I’m not going to blame them—but I am going to urge them to consider the unspoken agenda on the part of the “conference presidium” that my/ our exclusion reveals.

Unlike Hazony’s Virtue Of Nationalism, the National Conservatism conference does address immigration, although not to my eye in a sufficiently urgent way.

But on the matter of immigration, however, note the presence Edmund Burke Foundation President David Brog, who in Giraldi’s words

…is also the executive director of the Maccabee Task Force, “an effort launched in 2015 to combat the anti-Israel BDS movement. He also sits on the Board of Directors of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), were he served as executive director for its first ten years. Before CUFI, Brog worked in the United States Senate for seven years, rising to be chief of staff to Senator Arlen Specter and staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Links in original, emphasis added]

The part of this that concerns me: Arlen Specter, who represented Pennsylvania as a Republican for 30 years before switching to Democrat in an unprincipled but thankfully vain attempt to evade his enraged constituents, was utterly awful on immigration.

Brog could not have been unaware of this. Did he not care?

Finally, I’m going to quote me on the nation-state, from my “Time To Rethink Immigration?” National Review cover story, published June 5, 1992, when Hazony was still working on his Ph.D., at Rutgers:

“We are a nation of immigrants.” No discussion of U.S. immigration policy gets far without someone making this helpful remark. As an immigrant myself, I always pause respectfully. You never know. Maybe this is what they’re taught to chant in schools nowadays, a sort of multicultural Pledge of Allegiance.

But it secretly amuses me. Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground? (“Autochthonous” is the classical Greek word.) The truth is that all nations are nations of immigrants. But the process is usually so slow and historic that people overlook it….

SO ALL NATIONS are made up of immigrants. But what is a nation—the end-product of all this merging? This brings us into a territory where words are weapons, exactly as George Orwell pointed out years ago. “Nation”—as suggested by its Latin root nascere, to be born, intrinsically implies a link by blood. A nation is an extended family. The merging process through which all nations pass is not merely cultural, but to a considerable extent biological, through intermarriage.

Liberal commentators, for various reasons, find this deeply distressing. They regularly denounce appeals to common ethnicity as “nativism” or “tribalism.” Ironically, when I studied African history in college, my politically correct tutor deprecated any reference to “tribes.” These small, primitive, and incoherent groupings should, he said, be dignified as “nations.” Which suggests a useful definition: tribalism/nativism is nationalism of which liberals disapprove.

American political debate on this point is hampered by a peculiar difficulty. American editors are convinced that the term “state” will confuse readers unless reserved exclusively for the component parts of the United States—New York, California, etc. So when talking about sovereign political structures, where the British would use “state,” the Germans “Staat,” and the French “l’etat,” journalists here are compelled to use the word “nation.”

Thus in the late 1980s it was common to see references to “the nation of Yugoslavia,” when Yugoslavia’s problem was precisely that it was not a nation at all, but a state that contained several different small but fierce nations—Croats, Serbs etc. (In my constructive way, I’ve been trying to introduce, as an alternative to “state,” the word “polity”—defined by Webster as “a politically organized unit.” But it’s quite hopeless. Editors always confuse it with “policy.”)

This definitional difficulty explains one of the regular entertainments of U.S. politics: uproar because someone has unguardedly described America as a “Christian nation.” Of course, in the sense that the vast majority of Americans are Christians, this is nothing less than the plain truth. It is not in the least incompatible with a secular state (polity).

But the difficulty over the N-word has a more serious consequence: it means that American commentators are losing sight of the concept of the “nation-state”—a sovereign structure that is the political expression of a specific ethno-cultural group. Yet the nation-state was one of the crucial inventions of the modern age. Mass literacy, education, and mobility put a premium on the unifying effect of cultural and ethnic homogeneity. None of the great pre-modern multinational empires have survived. (The Brussels bureaucracy may be trying to create another, but it has a long way to go.)

This is why Ben Wattenberg is able to get away with talking about a “Universal Nation.” On its face, this is a contradiction in terms. It’s possible, as Wattenberg variously implies, that he means the diverse immigrant groups will eventually intermarry, producing what he calls, quoting the English poet John Masefield, a “wondrous race.” Or that they will at least be assimilated by American culture, which, while globally dominant, is hardly “universal.” But meanwhile there are hard questions. What language is this “universal nation” going to speak? How is it going to avoid ethnic strife? dual loyalties? collapsing like the Tower of Babel? Wattenberg is not asked to reconcile these questions, although he is not unaware of them, because in American political discourse the ideal of an American nation-state is in eclipse.

I will say that I believe I anticipated here Hazony’s key themes—with the exception that I was more honest, albeit in a perfectly non-rabid way, about the role of ethnicity in the nation-state.

I am sorry that apparently he doesn’t want to discuss these interesting topics with me in Washington D.C.

But I will survive. My conclusion about Yoram Hazony, in the words of a poet whom I have no doubt he adores:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, is now available in Kindle format.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 203 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. A long article to get to the truth: Yoram Hazony is just another example of what Zman calls “a right-wing grifer.”

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Richard B
  2. Rational says:

    PER JUDAISTS, ALIENS FOR THEE, NOT FOR ME.

    This is another example of Jewish conmen promoting the alien invasion for US/EU/AUS (white nations) to exterminate and destroy the goyim, by proxy, but want to keep Israel pure.

    They want us to open our borders to all the global trash, who have no right to be even here, but, in Israel, they steal land from the Palis, steal their water, shoot Palestinian children, call aliens infiltrators.

    They use all kinds of mumbo jumbo, lies and scams, to cover up this duplicity and depravity.

    Savages in suits, these Judaists. We must work harder to civilize these barbarians.

    • Replies: @Richard B
  3. It’s a bit of a cheek to call it the “Edmund Burke Foundation”. Perhaps American Gentiles should start a “Theodor Herzl Foundation” with the goal of creating a national homeland for Americans.

    The “Proposition Nation” idea is baloney too. There is no reason why a “Proposition Nation” cannot also be an ethnostate. France is a Proposition Nation (the proposition being Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité), but it is, or was, undoubtedly also the home of the French.

    It is particularly reprehensible when the idea of a Proposition Nation is used to justify immigration by anyone who assents to the proposition – then used in practice for mass immigration of people whether they assent to the proposition or not.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief, Richard B
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  4. So the Edmund Burke Foundation thinks Brimelow’s some kind of Nazi? What a bunch of contemptible cowards!

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  5. Dutch Boy says:

    Giraldi is correct that the conference will be attempt to divert national conservatism from America First to Israel First. One of the tools to do so will be the America as a proposition nation ploy (one strategy goes with the other). Both are staples of Neo-Conservatism.

  6. Good thing I didn’t waste time on his book. Just another Zionist impudently trying to impose his MIGA agenda onto other peoples’ nationalisms, after greasing them up with his “Based Jew” shtick.

  7. Hail says: • Website

    Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground? …. The truth is that all nations are nations of immigrants.

    This is a great point which, unfortunately, I seldom hear made.

    All nations begin with settlers from somewhere else (“immigrants,” if you must), but the population stabilizes and soon enough a new, recognizable ethno-political unit is ‘born.’ This process was no different in North America during the era of White settlement than it has been in any part of the old world in centuries past.

    The “nation of immigrants” line is a trump card they use to shut down debate, demoralize ‘heritage’ Americans, and take and hold the moral high ground. But it’s more even than that:

    The Jewish narrative about the USA is that somehow the USA belongs primarily to ‘any random foreigners who happen to show up, who are, we often hear implicitly (sometimes explicitly) “more American” than those of us with many generations of American origin on most/all their ancestral lines. True Believers in the Nation of Immigrants swindle would thus be weaponized to push their own replacement, the destruction of their own people.

    “Nation of Immigrants”: A long-running, successful anti-American meme.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  8. Hail says: • Website
    @Diversity Heretic

    “Grifter” would seem to be a charitable description.

    More like a kind of political commissar, enforcing Zionism and aggressive Jewish nationalism at the expense of White-Christian interests. Reading Brimelow’s article, he does come off that way, sliding into the caricature.

  9. @Anatoly Karlin

    Instead of spending money on their books a good rule of thumb is to assume that all “Jewish conservatives” are like this.

    • Agree: Kent Nationalist
  10. AaronB says:

    Lol, its amusing to see an Enlightenment thinker – used to abstract, clearly defined ideas – grapple with an organic idea that refuses to limit itself to sharp categories.

    Its true that Judaism has an ethnic component – but this is light years away from being racially based, and indeed this ethnic component is quite flexible.

    When a full 50% of one’s ancestry may be of any race whatsoever, and a conduit is available for 100% racially different people to join, this idea must be clearly be hostile to white racialism.

    Did you really think Hazony, who loves a nation that is composed of blond l light skinned people and brown skinned dark haired people, of blacks and Asians, would be sympathetic to white racialiasm?

    It’s really interesting that you did not understand this.

    And no, Judaism is not merely “creedal” either – it is existential – conversion involves a transformation of the way one lives and feels, and not mere assent to some feeble formula. It is an organic phenomenon that fuses disparate elements – but this is hard for an Enlightenment mind to understand.

    Why not learn from this what a true, healthy, organic, soil based nationalism is – rather than stick to an untenable uni-dimensional insistence on pure biological criteria, which no healthy traditional culture has ever maintained?

    If Hazony isn’t sympathetic to you, maybe you’re not on the right path? And if your ideas derive from abstract Enlightenment ideas, and privilege solely material categories, just like the modern Left – aren’t you a bit suspicious?

  11. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin

    In partial defense of Hazony, as Luke Ford has pointed out, he’s got like ten kids, and, AFAIK, isn’t independently wealthy. So there appears to be a limit in how far he can go. I pushed back against him about this on Twitter on Saturday (see below), but now I think the reason he dis-invited Peter and Jared Taylor isn’t because their ideas are beyond the pale, but because there’s little if any daylight between his ideas and theirs, and if they all end up mostly agreeing with each other at the conference, the powers that be are going to do to Hazony what they’ve done to Taylor, Derb, etc.

  12. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @James N. Kennett

    A Herzl Foundation for nationalism is actually a brilliant idea, and Peter and friends should start one. They could almost certainly get an orthodox Jews to speak, which would give them some cover from the usual accusations. I’d try to get someone like Paul Kagame to speak too, which would counter the other usual accusations. Maybe schedule it immediately before or after UN week to increase the chances of getting foreign dignitaries.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  13. @AaronB

    AaronB—Why not learn from this what a true, healthy, organic, soil based nationalism is

    In Chapter 1 of Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Israel Shahak writes: ‘By this official definition, Israel “belongs” to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as “Jewish”, irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn’t officially “belong” to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even officially as inferior.’

    He then considers the probable Jewish reaction if other countries did indeed ‘learn from’ Israel’s brand of ‘healthy nationalism’: ‘I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain would regard it as antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a “Christian state”, belonging only to citizens officially defined as “Christians”’, and where Jews were officially inferior.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  14. AaronB says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Yes, many Jews in the USA are hypocritical and inconsistent – this is true.

    But I suspect Yoram Hazony would be sympathetic if Christianity was highly privileged within America and Britain.

    But my point is simply that white racialism is a very different beast than the kind of healthy organic nationalism that has existed in the past, which has a flexible ethnic and racial component, and strong cultural and religious dimensions of identity.

    And what Brimelow is trying to do has very little in common with Israeli nationalism, and he was foolish to think it did.

    White racialism is an abstract Enlightenment idea – it is one dimensional, and entirely biological.

  15. @AaronB

    AaronB—I cannot think of any successful nations which had, or have, flexible ethnic and racial components. Indeed, the deterioration of white nations is directly linked to the arrival of alien races and religions.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  16. @AaronB

    How are Jewish Americans, as an ethnic group, any different than Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Hispanic Americans, Arab Americans, Chinese Americans or any other distinctive American ethnic group?

    Most of them are not religious. They often define themselves, as an ethnic group, in contradistinction to those other ethnic groups — of the same type of recognizable tribe, but with their own distinctive physical, temperamental and cultural traits.

    That is one question.

    The other question is, would Jews permit non-Jews to become a demographic majority in Israel? If not, why not?

    The issue is not religion per se: again, many Jews are not religious but still consider themselves to be proud ethnic and nationalist Jews. Zionism itself from the start was a secularist movement which defined Jews explicitly as a “race.”

    The intellectual muddle and confusion around these issues is really quite extraordinary.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @joeshittheragman
  17. AaronB says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough

    Umm, the Jews, as I pointed out?

    But indeed every nation is composed of the fusion of disparate ethnic elements. The whitest European nations are mixes.

    But you’re thinking in too absolutist and maximalist a way, in abstract principles.

    Maximum flexibility would mean there was no ethnic component whatsoever – and I did not advocate that. One cannot be infinitely flexible.

    For instance, Israel brought the Ethiopian Jews to Israel, at great risk and expense, but I don’t think they would have done so if they would have numbered in the millions, at risk of becoming a racial majority.

    Flexibility is the opposite of maximalism – the opposite of rigid abstract ideas of the kind favored by Enlightenment thinking. It is organic and deals flexibly with specific contingencies.

    So yes, have an ethnic component at your core – but to define your national identity as solely racial has no precedent in any traditional society.

    What’s more, a vital national identity must have a cultural and religious dimension – it cannot be merely biological, as you are attempting to do. It must also be a commitment to a shared fate – this is existential, not “creedal”, not mere abstract belief, but trust, loyalty, and willingness to share good and bad, to die together, and flourish together, whatever happens.

    Members of other races who make this kind of existential commitment have always been accepted into the group, within limits. This is not the American notion of assent to some abstract principles like human rights.

    A nation cannot be built on abstract Enlightenment ideas as Peter Brimelow is trying to do – it is a full existential phenomenon.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @vinteuil
    , @Anon
  18. AaronB says:
    @Sean McBride

    Jewish identity is “existential” – it has multiple dimensions.

    Secular Jews have, first of all, residual spiritual beliefs – true secular Jews fully assimilate. Commitment to the Jewish people is a residual spiritual belief (cannot be defended by materialist values).

    Second, they have cultural commitments to Judaism. Third, they have an existential commitment to the Jewish people – they willingly bind themselves to its fate, a loyalty beyond materialist and genetic considerations.

    In this way, the entire man is involved, and one cannot point to weakness in any one dimension as definitive.

    Israel would not permit non Jews to become a majority – but Jewihness is not primarily a racial category, although it has an ethnic component.

    Zionism did not define Jews as a race – but as a people. And in fact, explicitly made people with one Jewish grandparent eligible for membership in this people. Again this illustrates the ethnic component as well as flexibility.

    The intellectual muddle and confusion around these issues is really quite extraordinary.

    A certain amount of clarity is certainly possible, but this is an area with fuzzy boundaries, compromises, and multiple overlapping categories – because it is an organic phenomenon, not an abstract Enlightenment idea.

  19. @AaronB

    What you are really saying is that there are no essential differences between Jewish ethnic nationalism and all other expressions of ethnic nationalism — white, black, Asian, Arab, etc. — and their more fine-grained manifestations — German, French, English, Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, etc. In fact, Zionism modeled itself on late-19th century European ethnic nationalist sentiment (combined with Old Testament/Torah Jewish nationalist memes).

    All of these varieties of ethnic nationalism package their programs with high-minded religious or pseudo-religious symbolism and messianic idealism. Zionism and Jewish nationalism are not unique in this — they fit the mold to a T.

    If ethnic nationalism is legitimate for one ethnic group, it is legitimate for all ethnic groups. One can’t pick and choose without engaging in twisty intellectual sophistry of the type that Yoram Hazony displayed. If ethnic nationalism is good for me, it is good for thee. If it is bad for thee, it is bad for me.

    Notice that “white” nations, like the United States and European nations, have been far more generous in their immigration policies, especially with regard to political refugees, than Israel.

    All ethnic nationalist polities have some degree of flexibility in accepting the presence of ethnic outsiders in their cultures. It all depends on the numbers and degree of influence of ethnic outsiders. No ethnic nationalist polity anywhere is likely to accept being overwhelmed and dominated by hostile ethnic groups that seek to eradicate it. Israel is hardly an exception to this rule.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  20. Big league prediction/prophecy: in order to survive, Israel will not only need to accept the existence of “white” ethnic nationalist movements in the West, it will need to embrace, encourage and help enable them — to join forces with them.

    The logical basis for this prediction should be obvious: much of the contemporary left is motivated by a fierce hatred of whites, males, heterosexuals, Christians, free speech, meritocracy, Western values in general — and — Israelis and Jews. Many progressives and intersectionalists now define Israelis and Jews as core components of the “white” evil empire that needs to be eradicated and replaced by people of color, feminists, LGBTQ activists, Muslims and other “marginalized” groups. Linda Sarsour, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are just the tip of the spear, an early warning indicator.

    Do the political math when thinking ahead. One wonders if Hazony has done it.

    (I neither support nor oppose this scenario — I am just objectively trying to figure out what is likely to happen in Western politics moving forward. I am generally a classical liberal in my basic political instincts, pro-individualism and talentocracy. But the contemporary left has effectively wiped out classical liberalism and replaced it with fanatical identity politics.)

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  21. Not Raul says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    I agree. A Herzl Foundation for nationalism is a brilliant idea. It should be set up.

  22. Not Raul says:

    Hazony is a slippery snake; but he’s not as clever as he thinks he is.

    An occasional marriage of a Gentile in to Judaism isn’t proof of Israel being a Proposition Nation; in fact, it’s evidence of the opposite. People occasionally marry in to extended families. If that’s the best Hazony can do . . .

    To give just one example of intermarriage being consistent with ethnic nationhood, the German nation has added members through intermarriage for thousands of years. Some prominent German families have names with obvious Slavic, French, or other origin.

  23. Not Raul says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Have you seen the list of speakers? It’s more Bolton than Burke.

  24. @Dave Pinsen

    Well sure, but as I understand, Hazony has secure tenure in Israel, where views like his are hardly controversial (there are rabbis who praise Hitler there), so I would think that his chances of incurring negative repercussions from having the likes of Casey or Brimelow around – as ordinary guests, not speakers! – is extremely low.

    @Felix,

    Wherever did you get the idea I was going to buy Hazony’s book.

  25. dfordoom says: • Website

    I get the impression that American white nationalists are so obsessed by race because that’s all they have. You can’t base American nationalism on a shared religion because it’s a post-religious society. You can’t base American nationalism on a shared culture because American culture is just a mishmash of European, Jewish and black culture. You can’t base American nationalism on the proposition nation thing because there aren’t any propositions that everyone agrees on.

    There’s nothing at all on which to base American nationalism.

    That’s why the concept of America as an empire is much more popular. Empires don’t have to be united by anything other than the desire for war and imperial expansion.

    • Agree: AaronB, utu
    • LOL: eah
  26. The ‘Edmund Burke Foundation’ is just another Zionist front group, isn’t it?

  27. White Racial Nationalism is c0mpletely incompatible with the worship of Corporate Oligarchs and rule by Mega-Corporati0ns….

    Corporate Oligarchs deserve to be thrown into a vat of sulfuric acid….

    The National Review=The Cuckservative Pederast Homosexual Review…..

  28. Well, Hazony is either a phony, and/or Brog’s slave.

  29. @Sean McBride

    ‘What you are really saying is that there are no essential differences between Jewish ethnic nationalism and all other expressions of ethnic nationalism — white, black, Asian, Arab, etc. — and their more fine-grained manifestations — German, French, English, Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, etc…”

    There are three important differences.

    The first is that other nationalities more or less have their own land — sometimes the borders are murky, and much grief flows from that — but there is a Holland, a France, a Catalonia, etc.

    Jews need to take someone else’s land — and they have. They just won’t admit it.

    The second difference is that other nationalities, by and large, have fought their own wars. Turkey took on Greece to establish the modern Republic of Turkey. France eventually prevailed in the Hundred Years War. Etc.

    Jewish nationalists relied on the United States to create their nation and have come to rely on the United States to nurture it, to protect it, to arm it, and to fight wars for it. Witness current events.

    The third difference is that there is no single Jewish people. Yemeni Jews have about as much in common with Polish Jews as Irish Catholics have in common with Filipino Catholics. However, no one has tried to make a single nation called ‘Catholic Land’ and make it work. It wouldn’t work. Neither does the Jewish ‘nation.’

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  30. @AaronB

    ‘Umm, the Jews, as I pointed out?

    But indeed every nation is composed of the fusion of disparate ethnic elements. The whitest European nations are mixes…’

    But the Jews haven’t fused. Israel is a congerie of disparate elements, most of whom hate each other, and who remain divided along ethnic lines.

    The only thing binding them together is the continuous threat of ‘the enemy at the gates’ — a threat they take good care to keep in being by more or less continuously baiting and provoking somebody.

    Witness current events.

  31. ‘…My own background allows me some insight into the subject. I have been a Jewish nationalist, a Zionist, all my life….

    …The nationalism I grew up with is a principled standpoint that regards the world as governed best when nations are able to chart their own independent course, cultivating their own traditions and pursuing their own interests without interference. This is opposed to imperialism, which seeks to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind, as much as possible, under a single political regime.

    ‘And…oh yeah. My nationalism also allows me to endlessly grind my boot into the face of a race of captive untermenschen, caged in their own land, for all time. It’s pretty cool.’

  32. I don’t see here a chameleon-like behavior often attributed to Jews: they simply are an anomalous nation. For the, “race” means something different than to other people, east & west. You’re Jewish if your mother is, technically, and she may be black,brown, yellow,…whatever.

    It’s just an unsolvable clash of world-views, no essentially a hypocrisy. They are ethnic nationalists, but not with classic “racial” element of phenotype etc. most people identify with in Europe & (east)Asia. To me, their conception of “nation” is more like Indian caste (which did have racial element thousands years ago,but it got diluted).

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  33. @dfordoom

    There’s nothing at all on which to base American nationalism.

    When I was a lad in the 1950s I recognized American nationalism, even if I never thought about it much. I understood that I was part of something larger than my immediate family, my other relatives, my neighborhood, etc. It extended backward in time through a history that was partly mine even though I had played no personal part in it, and would (I expected) carry on into the future.

    That nationalism was partly ethnic and racial (and what’s wrong with that?). Most people around me were white. Most people I saw on TV and in the movies were white; no Negroes pretending onscreen to be brilliant detectives, head-of-department physicians, captains of industry, figures of magic.

    But the ethnic component wasn’t total and absolute. Lots of Jews where I grew up, and I never doubted for a minute they shared my nationality (maybe I should have doubted it). I encountered real-life black people doing various jobs in my surroundings, and accepted them for who they were without imagining they secretly hated me. The TV showed old movies of World War II vintage with the usual mixed Navy unit or bomber crew — a New York Italian, a Texan stud, a Jew, possibly a hispanic or Chinese, maybe an American Indian.

    You could say that we were something of a proposition nation in those days: one felt that the Italian, Texan, etc. believed in the United States of America and understood it in basically the same terms as I did. But it would never have occurred to me that I would one day visit a government bureau where every face behind the counter was black or Asian, shop in stores where almost all conversation around me was in Spanish and Chinese, go to an office where half the employees were natives of India.

    We had, once, quite a bit on which to base American nationalism.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    , @dfordoom
  34. There is silliness and then there us the ridiculous. The reason the issue of race is not embroil;ed throughout the Constitution is because the founders had repeatedly had these discussions and knew by history they wanted a nation founded on principles and not race or even ethnicity.

    Now clearly the founders as whites functioned in said manner, but what is clear is that they knew national identity would not be predicated on “race” because it had proven to be a foundation that would contradicted the principles upon which they were forging a “new nation”. And that is why the black experience matters because no other peoples in the US have an ideological history that is forged soly on the principles of the US – none. The stories about ties to the old world are but nearly all imagined and constructed. Because the continent as was Europe and Asia was comprised of multitudes of civilizations who may have shared a common skin tone in varying degrees, but differed in culture and civilization. One of the tragedies and blessings is that the heritage of the old world were gone and blacks as slaves and then as citizens had o forger their own. Even the calls for a black african diaspora are but thin shades of African reality.

    The argument that nationality is not about race, especially in the US is correct. No one need deny the ethnic differences and who by numbers contributed what, but race is no barrier to the existence and practice of being a US citizen. All citizens look to the Constitutional frame for issues about citizenship, regardless of color, height, weight . . . etc.

    And it would be false that one cannot recognize issues of ethnic inheritances and differences, even to biology — and enhance one’s citizenship. In fact the founders sought to limit and diffuse if not altogether remove those levels of class distinctions to any superior condition of citizenship. neither wealth nor birth make anyone more a citizen than any other. Though clearly there are plenty ho think so and even engage as if that were the case. One is not more a citizen because of their skin color, though whites have used skin color to deny and limit citizenship and the access to all that citizenship offers.

    It would be an error to adopt or defend such practices as helping to build a strong and healthy nation.

    ———————

    Those concerned that they have nothing left . . . might want to rely on what the founders left concerning nation and intended to be used for the same. And it was not skin color.

  35. In a word, Metzitzah~B’peh.
    The Jewish rite, male circumcision via the Rabbi sucking off the foreskin, not just essential hormones are stolen. The psychotic/psychosis, of the Jews, is not going to heal, until the paedophilia stops.

  36. Jason Liu says:

    I find his book to be a long-winded way of saying “turn the clock back to the 50s”, which he has no plan on how to do. Like many right wing daydreams, it doesn’t explain how to defeat the liberal opposition, meaning it’s not a solution at all.

  37. @Hail

    “…Do they really think other nations sprouted up out of the ground? …. The truth is that all nations are nations of immigrants…”

    True, but you have to ask yourself what kind of immigrants?
    True nations were formed by immigrants that were closely related in terms of race and culture, so in the course of history they could melt into an organic whole. If the racial and cultural differences are too great, no such organic whole can ever be formed. This is a point wilfully omitted by the open borders enthusiasts. They often mention that in the US the Irish and the Italian immigrants had difficulty to integrate, but eventually did so successfully. Therefore Chinese, Indians, Arabs and Africans will eventually also integrate and become part of the organic whole, wilfully ignoring the fact that the racial and cultural differences between these groups and the core white Americans are far greater than that of the Irish or Italians. But it is of course “racist” to mention this fact. We cannot get around the fact that race is a basic element of group identity and ignoring it will be disastrous.

    Yoram Hazony and his tribal brothers only want to use American conservatives for their own tribal interests, while not allowing them to pursue their own. This is the age old Jewish dual strategy of “strengthening Jews, while weakening Goyim”.

  38. vinteuil says:
    @AaronB

    …what Brimelow is trying to do has very little in common with Israeli nationalism, and he was foolish to think it did.

    So what, according to you, is Brimelow “trying to do?” You seem to imply that his version of nationalism is based purely on racial identity – but there are passages in Brimelow’s article that directly contradict this:

    …VDARE.com is merely a single-issue forum website open to anyone, of any race or creed, who opposes America’s post-1965 immigration disaster…

    Frankly, your criticisms of Brimelow seem to rely not on anything he has actually said or written, but on your own woozy misrepresentations thereof. Since you are evidently incapable of paraphrasing him accurately, why not just quote him, and say what you think is wrong with what he actually said or wrote?

  39. vinteuil says:
    @AaronB

    Oh, and, AaronB, every time you start carrying on about “rigid abstract ideas of the kind favored by Enlightenment thinking” I blush for you. Were Descartes, & Spinoza, & Leibniz, & Locke, & Hume, & Kant, somehow more inclined to “rigid abstract ideas” than Plato, & Aristotle, & Augustine, & Averroes, & Avicenna, & St Thomas? Do you have any idea?

  40. @AaronB

    Politics is downstream from culture/religion which is downstream from ethnicity.

    A nation is an essential hierarchy with an extended hereditary family at its core. Nebulous ramblings about “multiple dimensions” are simply feeble attempts to muddy the waters and deny any hierarchy , as if every aspect were of equal importance (all hail the great God of Equality as mandated in the Zero’th Commandment, you know, the one Satan added while nobody was looking). This is spurious at best, and deviously disingenuous at its worst. In addition, it eliminates any responsibility to ever define quantifiable percentages and limits on any aspect whatsoever.

    In summation, it is just another slightly more sophisticated spew of sophistry, in order to gull the ignorant, and perpetuate the usual double standard in support of what is in the best interests of the Chosen Tribe at any given point in history.

  41. @Sean McBride

    How are Jewish Americans, as an ethnic group, any different than Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Hispanic Americans, Arab Americans, Chinese Americans or any other distinctive American ethnic group?
    ———————————————————————————
    The difference is all jews are known to be traitors to the nation they reside in other than israel.

    • Agree: neutral
  42. Alfred says:

    It is amazing how the Jews seem to infiltrate every conceivable political organisation and then proceed to turn it in the direction that they consider to be to their advantage. It is a very clever strategy but it risks them getting thrown out of politics altogether.

  43. @AaronB

    Over 60% of your comment is coherent & rational, but you lost it when you started “offering” Jewish model to others.

    As I said, Jews are something of an anomaly. I don’t know about this man, whether he’s sincere or not….but this is not the point.

    The point is virtually all “real” peoples with roots are: more or less similar phenotype + language & historical culture, often religion, identity myths, tales, emotional foci…. + their land. This is so with Slovak, French, Russian, English, Norwegians, Mongols, Chinese.

    For new peoples like Americans, which does not exist, I think, anymore (but it did from 1790s to 1960s) it was: Euro-phenotype + English language + Western culture (so- no Muslims, Hindus,..) + American historical identity (Washington, Jefferson etc.). So, an Italian or Hungarian immigrant’s child could say “we” & think of being American because he was: white, spoke English, belonged to Christianity (i.e. Western culture) & could consider Jefferson or Lincoln as his national heroes (without having ancestral connections with their ethnic, WASP group).

    But, the Japanese immigrant child was something different; even if he spoke English & admired Lincoln, he was not of Euro-phenotype nor did belong to the Western culture. Sorry, but that’s the way it would work in 1930s, 1960s & some times later. This guy could have all the rights, but was not, by most Americans & most foreigners considered to be “an American”.

    As for Jews, those who looked white, spoke English, belonged to some diluted form of Judaism (although not Christianity, it somewhat uneasily assimilated into broad Western culture) & cherished historical American identity- he could be considered to belong to the American people, although with some reservations.

    When we analyze Jews in Israel, we see that they follow their traditional ethnic lore: those born of Jewish mother are Jews. So, father could be African, Australian Abo, Eskimo, Mongol, Maori, Bushman, Japanese,… and the progeny is still- a Jew.

    So, their concept of national identity is incompatible not only with white “racial” identity, but with any racialist, or better- with any normal traditional. They- at least in theory- do not feel threatened by presence of an “alien blood”; they define themselves, apart from culture & history, with presence of “their blood”.

    Needless to say, such a notion of peoplehood runs contrary to all traditional notions of national identity: you can’t have Czech nation which is, say, 30% visually Chinese; you can’t have Chinese nation which is, visually, 30% black African.

    So, in the case of the US- you basically can’t trust Jews when it comes to race matters. Not because of some grand conspiracy, but simply because they view world through different lens. In the US, there is, I think, a non-negligible level of race mixing of Jewish females & non-white (not only non-Jewish, but even African, Asian,..) men & their children are, at least technically- Jews.

    Which simply is not the way most Euro-Americans view their identity.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @awry
  44. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    White racialism is an abstract Enlightenment idea – it is one dimensional, and entirely biological.

    Not if white is a package deal, and we don’t “know” for sure that it is not.

    I think that I am beginning to see the substance of RT’s complaint about you.

  45. RVBlake says:

    It’s interesting that in his book, Hazony lauds the nationalistic impulse of nations to chart their course without interference. He must regard AIPAC and his co-ethnics’ neocon manipulation of U. S. foreign policy in service to our Greatest Ally in the Mideast to be non-interfering. This illustrates the truth of Patrick Casey’s “for thee not for me” response to Hazony.

  46. AWM says:

    East is East and West is West is such an old concept.
    Anybody can see the planet is divided into North and South.

    And as far as all this “racialization” or “tribalism” I would like to remind everyone that “whites” eat real good, and without them it seems almost everybody else except for their Marxist Masters wouldn’t.

  47. I would just add that the title, from Kipling, is misleading. In both “East” & “West”, phenotype plus language-culture/history is the norm. The same with Danes & Portuguese as with Koreans & Japanese. Europe & far East are, in this respect, the same.

    “Multiracial” mess is the norm only in mid-East (Arabs & Jews), India, Indonesia & similar places (African tribes & peoples I don’t know much about).

    But if we take into account only historical, literate peoples- then we can conclude that axis joining Arab-Islamic world & Indonesia, going through India, is radically different in their conception of nationhood.

  48. “True nations were formed by immigrants that were closely related in terms of race and culture, so in the course of history they could melt into an organic whole. If the racial and cultural differences are too great, no such organic whole can ever be formed.”

    If this were accurate there would be no need to write a Constitution. Nationality is not the same as race. And one need not dismiss the role of biology (if one chooses) to the national character. But a heavy lean is why we have debate concerning “political correctness”.

    It’s like saying, the “indian nation” in today’s parlance — the fact is there are several indian nations that we as a country have attempted to mold into one based on biology.

    ————————————————

    Acknowledging that nationalism is not by definition biology does not bar the critique regarding how Israel defines itself — which ought to be one vested in the orientation to belief in a single or the single God and one’s relationship to the same as understood in the OT.

  49. mp says:

    …—cuckservatives are always desperate for MSM attention. And Hazony (alas) and Brog turn out to be cuckservative…

    Are Hazony and Brog Jews? Not sure about the latter. But Jews are not ‘cucks’. They fully support their race. It is goyim fellow travelers that are the cucks. They are the ones ‘selling out’ their racial interests. Get this straight.

    That’s a big problem with guys like Brimelow and Taylor, who misuse the language. Politically they are hooked into this ‘conservative-liberal’ dichotomy, a schematic that has no meaning to Jews, who work both ends against European folk. Brim and Taylor really need to understand this. What’s the odds that will happen?

  50. Hazony is a HYPOCRITE JEW when it comes to nationalism and identity politics — is there any other kind?

    Peter Brimelow has fought for the historic American nation for decades. But Brimelow is up against billionaire Jew GOP donors such as Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer.

    Adelson and Singer want to continue to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the USA using mass legal immigration and illegal immigration as demographic weapons. Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer DO NOT push mass legal immigration and illegal immigration for Israel.

    The Republican Party has been captured by JEW BILLIONAIRES and the GOP Cheap Labor Faction and by various and assorted other GOP globalizers who all push mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and multicultural mayhem. The JEW BILLIONAIRES and the GOP Cheap Labor Faction and the GOP globalizers must be removed from power in the USA.

    Tweets from 2015:

  51. @Colin Wright

    All lands are acquired by peoples by force, right? Nation-building has always been a messy business — a struggle for control of territory by competing tribes and cultural groups. Some tribes win, some tribes lose.

    Israeli Jewish culture at this point seems to be as uniform as that of most other ethnostates.

    Don’t get me wrong: I understand all the arguments, moral and pragmatic, against Zionism.

    Mainly I am making this observation: the post-Obama left seems to be engaged in a holy war by “people of color,” feminists, Muslims, intersectionalists and associated groups against the West in all its aspects: whites, males, Europeans, traditional Americans, classical liberals, Christians, free speech, free thought, heterosexuals, meritocracy, science, comedy — AND Israelis and Jews.

    In the current climate, I wouldn’t be surprised to see white cultural groups and Jewish nationalists put aside their differences and circle the wagons in defense of basic Western values and interests.

    What has been striking since 2016 is that attacks by the left on the West and classical liberalism have been increasingly shrill, belligerent, confrontational, bullying and threatening. It really looks like they want an all-out war to the death.

    What has bothered many independent thinkers most about “progressives” during the last few years is their relentless assault on free thought and free speech. I consider myself in important respects to be progressive, but free speech is a red line for me. Whatever group most strongly opposes free speech I will tend to most strongly oppose. I am allergic to authoritarians and totalitarians.

    Notice that most contemporary leftists and “people of color” don’t seem to be interested in eradicating ethnic “privilege” in African, Arab and Asian states. Enlightenment universalists they are not. They have a single target: the West.

  52. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    Just as there are individual Black African Americans who are decent good people, good neighbors and good friends, there are individual Jewish Americans/dual citizenship Israeli Americans who are decent good people, good neighbors (when they stay put in an American neighborhoods and don’t have posh homes in 6 different countries) good friends.

    That said, in national politics both groups tend to really really suck

    They will always fall 80% + in the anti White, hard core Lib Dem side. Both groups will overwhelming support open borders mass 3rd world immigration to the USA, Europe, Australia – they will support open borders immigration even if it directly hurts a lot of their own people – Jews supporting mass Muslim immigration, mass Arab immigration, the Black Congressional Caucus supporting replacing low wage Black and White American workers with lower wage Hispanic migrant workers.

    Why do both groups do this?

    A: They hate us – want to stick it to White people as revenge for some supposed past sins by White European people. White European American people against their people.

    Another part of the answer is that mass 3rd world immigration to the USA/the West, even mass Arab/Pakistani/Muslim immigration hasn’t (yet) significantly hurt the Black AA or the Jewish American elite in places like academia, the media, high finance or the top of the Lib Democrat party or at the top of Conservative Inc.

    And even in Middle Eastern foreign policy, the strange alliance between Arab Muslim immigrants and American Zionist/Liberal Dem Jews is in place. This strange alliance is best represented by the sham marriage of New Yawk sexting pervert anthony Wiener and Hillary’s Chief of Staff Huma Abedin – strong case for birth control on that union.

  53. Peter Brimelow saw the nation-wrecking immigration attack on the historic American nation in the 1980s and 1990s and maybe even before that. I saw it and so did millions of other Americans. The push for mass legal immigration and illegal immigration has always been an attack on the historic American nation.

    The evil treasonous rat scum in the globalizer GOP has been using mass legal immigration and illegal immigration as demographic weapons to attack and destroy the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    Treasonous rat globalizer filth such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush and George W Bush did everything in their power to use mass legal immigration and illegal immigration as demographic weapons to transform the United States into a Third World rat hole.

    Trump has now continued the evil anti-White policy of pushing mass legal immigration and illegal immigration. Trump wants to flood the USA with mass legal immigration foreigners in the “largest numbers ever.”

    Trump refuses to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    The Republican Party must be destroyed so as to make space for a new political party that explicitly advances the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States of America.

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING!

    Tweets from 2014:

    • Agree: Sick of Orcs
  54. Mad Dog Englishman Brimelow Has A Bone To Chew With Jew Hypocrite Hazony

  55. Sean says:

    The United States and the British Empire as they were actually founded were models for Hitler: appropriation of land, racism and violence. But the realities were not acknowledged, and a virtue signalling arms race in Anglo polite society produced the abolitionist movement and prohibition.

    Nationalism is a political movement that puts first the wellbeing of the whole population and its conservation. But you cannot run a state like that. Liberal internationalist states expand in population, mobilise more resources and win wars, which being what states are there to do is a consideration they always put first. Foreign policy is a primary and decisive consideration for the state and any regieme that leads it. In a nutshell, states are similar to individuals, who want to be seen as kind, caring, and contributing to the wider society, but never do anything against their own interests if they can help it. States must talk humanitarianism, but act according to the calculus of realpolitik . Why expect individual public intellectuals or institutions to be able to do what countries cannot?

  56. Richard B says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    “A long article to get to the truth”

    “Superficiality and impatience are the two psychic diseases of the modern age.” Solzhenitsyn

    Truth needs elaboration and doesn’t come in the form of a sound bite, slogan or cliche.

    Where did you study, University of SparksNotes?

  57. Richard B says:
    @Rational

    Bravo! And On Target! btw, anyone reading this comment who hasn’t read Unz’s publication of The Iron Curtain Over America should do so. You want to talk about being On Target. Important book.
    Very grateful to this site for its publication.

    • Replies: @surly
  58. @Sean McBride

    ‘…Israeli Jewish culture at this point seems to be as uniform as that of most other ethnostates…’

    That statement is motivated by nothing other than wishful thinking. Israel — even omitting its gentile untermenschen — is one of the most fragmented, heterogeneous, internally riven congeries of disparate groups ever assembled. It really is as if we attempted to make a ‘Christian Republic’ out of Norwegian Lutherans, Filipino Catholics, and Peruvian Mestizos. There would be virtually nothing to bind them — and the same applies to modern Israel.

    ‘…Don’t get me wrong: I understand all the arguments, moral and pragmatic, against Zionism…

    ‘I’m not a Zionist but…’ Gee. I’ve never heard that before.

    ‘…Notice that most contemporary leftists and “people of color” don’t seem to be interested in eradicating ethnic “privilege” in African, Arab and Asian states. Enlightenment universalists they are not. They have a single target: the West…’

    We weren’t discussing ‘the West.’ We were discussing Israel — a state that is not part of ‘the West,’ whether you view it ethnically, geographically, spiritually, linguistically, or morally. It’s a predominantly African and Asian state located in the Levant that practices a doctrine of racial supremacy, speaks an artificially revived Semitic language, and has the morality of a negro tribe setting about slaughtering its neighbor.

    Amusingly, in addressing Israel, we are eradicating ethnic privilege in an African and Asian state. You must be all for it.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  59. @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘…It’s just an unsolvable clash of world-views, no essentially a hypocrisy. They are ethnic nationalists, but not with classic “racial” element of phenotype etc. most people identify with in Europe & (east)Asia…’

    No doubt. However, the difficulty doesn’t lie in that. The difficulty lies in the fact that they think their ethnic identity confers rights on them that supersede those whom they have conquered and expelled. It’s identical to the ethical position of the Nazis with respect to the Poles.

    Worse, unlike the Nazis, they have suborned us and corrupted our political system so that we find ourselves forced to sponsor and support their activities. Nazi Germany, at least, didn’t seek billions of dollars every year from the American government, manage to suppress all criticism in the mainstream American press, etc. They committed their own crimes, without asking us for our help.

    Finally, of course, there is the distinction that Nazi Germany is dead and gone, but Israel is still very much with us. It’s a real, living evil, that we have an obligation to fight — the more so as without us it couldn’t last another decade.

  60. Jake says:

    A good deal of what is wrong about VDARE can be seen in this quote from Harzony that Brimelow swallows whole hog: “My own background allows me some insight into the subject. I have been a Jewish nationalist, a Zionist, all my life….I have lived most of my life in a country that was established by nationalists, and has been governed largely by nationalists to this day.”

    Israel was founded out of and because of the Brit WASP Empire. Israel was founded also because Jews in the US and other countries who had no intention of living there, but demanded that the land be given to other Jews who would live there. Israel is and always had been an exercise in the most hypocritical form of imperialism. There is no nationalism of any non-Jewish people that Zionists, wherever they live, will not trample in order to promote Zionism.

    Anglo-Zionist Empire

    Brimelow, Derbyshire and crowd are not stupid, and they certainly are not ignorant, but being proud WASPs they are blind to the fact the Jewish part of that equation is not happy to just help the English part shit on the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, the French, the Spanish, the Italians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Poles, the Huns, the Russians, etc. The Jewish part also takes delight in shitting on even WASPs who suck up to them when those specific WASPs are not needed by Jews.

    Anglo-Saxon Puritans made the deal with the Devil that had been arranged by Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, and Thomas Cranmer, and the Devil always devours those who made a deal and benefitted from it for a time.

  61. bjondo says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Most of the time need go no further than name (if name real).

    Ten kids?

    Invading Palestine all by himself and wifey.

  62. bjondo says:

    David Brog is the former Executive Director of Christians United for Israel – CUFI. Hagee’s boss?

  63. I am one of those who thinks EU is infinately better off without Britain, the turdstick. Maybe EU will finally have a chance at becoming a real union. Becoming a 4th major power along side USA, Russia, and China.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  64. I will not be surprised to see more people like Hazony pop up all over the place in the near future. Conservatism a la Bill Buckley is a very dead horse that thinks its still alive. Jews in the Diaspora are finding themselves in more and more of a conundrum. Their knee jerk loyalty to the left is beginning to turn on them. Jews in Israel have been practicing a hard-core nationalism for a good while. I think they are very aware of the possible situation that could coagulate — namely “We really don’t want the white goyim to get really pissed off and turn on us.” So what is this entail? It entails Zionist Jews in both Israel and the Diaspora putting their lot in with the emerging nationalist white right. In their minds, if the doo doo hits the fan and the white people get very very angry, the Jews will not be blamed and Israel will as it is will remain safe– also Jewish power will remain intact. On the other hand, this will cause an immense rift in the Jewish Diaspora, especially in the US. Those who have been wedded to Marxism, or Marxism-lite for generations will not easily abandon that ideology. Do Jews really want to risk their community experiencing such a visceral split because of the possibility that white goyim may go fashy and turn on them? (I believe that we’re a good bit from that point because most most of the goyim are still asleep) All I can say about Mr. Hazony is that I am amused by the gaseous emissions emanating from his cerebellum.

  65. Zumbuddi says:

    What you are saying is that Hazony, a Jewish Israeli zionist, is an exemplar of Jewish blood-and-soil nationalism.

    Just like the Germans in the Third Reich era.

    BLUT und BODEN

    I wonder if Hazony celebrates Purim?

    Because the crucial question for Esther is wtf was she doing in Persia when she had every opportunity to return to. uber holy zion.

  66. Matra says:

    Edmund Burke Foundation

    Jeez. Conservatives are so unimaginative.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  67. Corvinus says:

    “And Hazony (alas) and Brog turn out to be cuckservatives…”

    That would be a false characterization. Regardless, cuck and cuckservative have been rendered impotent by its repeated use. It literally means nothing to anyone anymore.

    …”he in fact believes America is a Proposition Nation”.

    Posterity to the founding fathers meant the creation of an independent nation, with a vigorous and adaptable form of government, with a body of liberties that were malleable to the times. Thomas Jefferson bore witness to the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. While he was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government MIGHT undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers, he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants”.

    Preserving rights “for one’s posterity” repudiated feudalistic notions. Similar wording exists in the Federalist Papers and American law rooted in British traditions. Even accepting “Our posterity,” means the descendants of those citizens only at the time of ratification, given the healthy dose of non-British in the United States who were among the ratifiers, the concept simply cannot be granted to the British exclusively. And, of course there is the naturalization clause, which assuredly had no ethnocentric provision. One could argue the slave trade clause had such had such an ethnocentric position, but it is clear it was not aimed at non-British or non-whites.

    Furthermore, posterity does NOT refer only to one’s own children, but as with the synonymous “legacy” also has the broader meaning of what we leave behind. The Founding Fathers were self-consciously leaving behind other than a genetic legacy. The motto “Novus Ordo Seclorum” reflects their legacy, setting up the mechanisms of government they invented to secure liberty against tyranny. Recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: “The Congress shall have Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to an outsider, that is, someone not the posterity of a signer of the document. The Founding Fathers clearly desired “to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” Indeed, the intention was whites and Europeans, but who imagined at that time non-whites and women would be able to embrace these principles? But there is no racial or gender criteria to adhering to republican ideals in the Constitution.

    Even accepting “Our posterity,” means the descendants of those citizens only at the time of ratification, given the healthy dose of non-British in the United States who were among the ratifiers, the concept simply cannot be granted to the British exclusively. Moreover, the events leading up to the war, the war itself, and the failure of the Articles of Confederation constitute our early legislative history. In none of the seven uses of the word, therein, is posterity used in any obviously restrictive fashion during this time frame. And, of course there is the naturalization clause, which assuredly had no ethnocentric provision. One could argue the slave trade clause had such had such an ethnocentric position, but it is clear it was not aimed at non-British or non-whites. And then there is the naturalization clause, which certainly had no ethnocentric provision to it. About the only such provision you can find is the slave trade clause, and that was fairly obviously not aimed at Swedes.

    Now, assuming the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be a limitation on the power of government, as to themselves and their posterity, defined as descendants in their own personal blood-lines, by intentionally excluding those other people from the protections of the Constitution, and by failing to make a different provision for their protection from government, the Founding Fathers left them completely unprotected from government, granting the Founding Fathers even broader authority enjoyed by the British monarchy, which was restricted by the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. In effect, the Founders and their blood-lines set themselves up as “nobility”, with unfettered rights, with all others designated as “peasants”, having no rights.

    Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious domestic and valuable workmen who by expatriating from Europe improved their condition, and add to the industry and wealth of the United States”. Indeed, American economic growth required a massive influx of foreign labor! In Common Sense, Thomas Paine upheld “this new world” as “the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty”–which in essence refers to any and all groups of people, whether it be European or non-European. Jefferson argued for “a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them.” James Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is “always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult,” so “the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change”.

    Hence, the Founding Fathers enabled Congress to set the criteria for immigration with those newcomers blending in and articulating what is posterity from that new baseline. In other words, future generations of Americans were given the liberty to decide what is and what is not “an American”. At the time of the Founding Fathers, their worldview was European, which is other than surprising. However, as we have seen throughout the course of human history, perspectives change over time due to a host of factors. Of course, that does not mean foreigners have the right to enter our shores, as Congress sets the standards for immigration. But the proposition remains that there are hoops for newcomers to jump through.

    Americans in the past and at present identify with American civilization, with its under-pinnings of representative democracy and capitalism. Certainly, political and economic concepts from Western Civilization played a major role in the development of American institutions, but the Founding Fathers granted liberty to its citizens to set the course for its own future. While posterity originally referred to those who founded the nation, the die was NOT set, as evident by the power of the people to set immigration criteria, which has noticeably changed since the inaugural 1790 law.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Malla
  68. That was a long article with a lot of pseudo mumbo jumbo gobble thrown in. I believe in plain simple English.
    Orwell advised writers to always choose the shorter word when it could do the same job.
    If we go by the definition of ‘intellectuals’ in the 60’s China, it included most that were literate.
    I refuse to read your ‘gobble de gook’ I dont trust you; come out and state your position in plain English or Fuck You!!!

  69. Corvinus says:
    @Jake

    “The Jewish part also takes delight in shitting on even WASPs who suck up to them when those specific WASPs are not needed by Jews.”

    Actually, the WASPs did just fine sh—— on the groups you mentioned all by themselves.

    Imagine how the stout English, Scots, Scots-Irish, and Welsh felt when the nation they helped create–the United States of America–became overrun by first the Irish and Germans (drunks and Catholics), and later on the Italians (swarthy Catholics with a mafia mean streak) and Poles (dullard Catholics). Between 1880 and 1930, the foreign-born population represented between 12 and 15 percent of the total population. We are talking about flipping a nation that was predominately Anglo-Saxon to one that now contained a heavy Eastern and Southern European influence, altering a country to the point that it became unrecognizable. It’s not about “whiteness” or “being European”, but it’s about “remaining Anglo-Saxon”!

    Novelist John Dos Passos, a freaking halfbreed! (Portuguese and English), characterized the period well–“The people of this country are too tolerant. There’s no other country in the world where they’d allow it… After all we built up this country and then we allow a lot of foreigners, the scum of Europe, the offscourings of Polish ghettos to come and run it for us.”

    Did not our Founding Fathers, most notably Benjamin Franklin, warn u.s. about future invaders…

    “They [the Germans] weren’t as smart as the people already living in the colonies. Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it.”

    and endangering New England’s whiteness?

    “[T]he Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.”

    The fact of the matter is that, historically, even well intentioned European immigrants had major difficulties assimilating. Their background is too different to internalize the Constitution. These groups balkanize, undermine the natives, and either drive them off, kill them, or kill the men and interbreed with the women. That is what exactly happened to the Anglo-Saxon, that once proud, sturdy stock that succumbed to the hordes of Southern and Eastern Europeans.

    Yet, by magic dirt, today’s Alt Right leaders and acolytes who are able to trace their ancestors from Poland, Italy, and Serbia believe their forefathers successfully integrated and (poof), as a result of that hard work, they today are somehow better than recent immigrant groups. Do they not understand that their own great, great-grandparents wanted to make a better there by coming here? I mean, seriously, the IQ of Southern and Eastern European immigrants in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s was decidedly low. Exactly why the literacy test imposed on this group in the early 1900’s at least tested for their ability to comprehend WASP values.

    It is other than surprising that some on the Alt Right, whose own ancestors were deemed ethnically incompatible by nativists, are using magic dirt to justify their seat at the American table at the expense of those newcomers. Of course, even in the illusory peaceful coexistence stage preceding balkanization, i.e. Europeans share common biological and cultural traits, they naturally push for their own interests rather than the interests of the natives. Have whites truly been united as the Alt Right pushes?

    And then there is this attitude from Alt Right leader Vox Day…”The Italians and the Irish were the original problem. They could have, and should have, been handled like the Chinese were. But they laid the groundwork for the Jews, the Germans, and the Scandinavians, who made things even worse. And they paved the way for the Mexicans, the Africans, and the Muslims. At this point, the USA probably can’t get back to 1986, let alone 1965.” Interesting. Basically, a specific group of whites, in this case European, who were deemed undesirable, which then opened up the floodgates to other “alien” Europeans and non-Europeans to invade our shores.

  70. @Astuteobservor II

    The EU is evil and it must be killed immediately.

    The ECB is evil and it must be killed immediately.

    The euro currency is evil and it must be killed immediately.

    German government bonds have a negative yield — Germany must go back to the Deutschmark immediately. The Germans must turn a screw or turn the screw and get a nuke and then screw out from beneath the American Empire.

    German Patriots to Mass Immigration Extremist Angela Merkel: SCREW YOU!

    Nigel Farage’s mother made like Judy Dench and posed nude — has Boris Johnson’s mother posed nude yet? Nigel Farage’s mother has nice legs is a good name for a punk band.

    The American Empire is a clear and present threat to the safety, security and sovereignty of the United States.

    Raise the federal funds rate to 20 percent like it was in 1981.

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS NOW!

    Brimelow is of English ancestry and I have some English ancestry — I am damn pleased that the English voted to leave the prison house of nations called the EU.

    Is Jean-Claude Juncker drunker than a skunk at this moment? When was the last time that Juncker was sober?

  71. anon[141] • Disclaimer says:

    Hazony probably doesn’t want to pay Brimelow and Taylor.

  72. Anon[141] • Disclaimer says:

    Moron, every one of the signers was British which at the time included Scotland & Ireland;
    the United Kingdom of England and Scotland since the Act of Unification 1706?? Ireland was already considered part of Britain and ruled by an English king English administrators and English laws.

    Typical Jew idiot intellectual, you think you’re the only person who ever read a history book.

  73. @Sean McBride

    First- there is no Grand Jewish Conspiracy against white race or Christianity, this is rubbish. Most people here are deluded conspiracy aficionados.

    Jews in the US are generally correctly described by Lawrence Auster, and I think he got them right 80-90% (where I disagree with him are some subtle points where I’m “softer” to them than he was): http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html

    Then- I don’t think that attacks on Jews in the US & Europe by coalition of various fringe-coloreds-and-lunatics will change their attitudes. The reason is not that some big Jewish moneyed elites don’t care for little Shlomo, but in, mostly, two factors:

    a) modern Western Jews are more progressives than Jews. They’ll die taking selfies with Afro-Muslims bludgeoning them to death, cuz it’s kewl.

    b) ethnically aware Jews are still in thrall of Nazi blonde beast & Auschwitz, so they coined the term Islamo-Fascism which is a laughable nonsense, if only because European right wingers & blood-and-soil extremists viscerally hate all blacks & browns, even more than their relatively bleached & integrated Semitic cousins of yore. So, out of cognitive dissonance- and not from some grand strategic plan- most Jews in Europe & North America are still hypnotized by imaginary Nazi Aryan threat & refuse to see growing hatred among blacks, browns & Muslims even when it happens before their eyes.

    They remind me of a story about an oncologist who got terminal cancer (a true story, not an anecdote). He knew his diagnosis & prognosis, but some of his colleagues tried to dissuade him, claiming that he had only benign tumor. So they tried a trick: they switched his tissue with some benign tumor specimen & invited him to see it under microscope to see for himself he’s not terminally ill.

    Yet, they bungled the whole operation & put his real tissue under the microscope.

    After looking at it, he, the specialist & soon to be a corpse, turned in his chair, beaming: You were right. It’s benign.

    Such is the power of self-deception.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
    , @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  74. @Jake

    How do you know Brimelow and Derbyshire don’t have some Norman ancestry?

    I have some Norman and Saxon ancestry on my father’s side, it doesn’t make me a bad person.

    The Puritans weren’t Christians, they were and are Mammonites — just like the Mormons. Those Young people of which one threw a football and another was prominent in the retreat to Utah were from Massachusetts, were they not? Massachusetts to upstate New York to Ohio to Illinois to Utah and not a minute too soon or they would have been dealt with harshly.

    Unfortunately, the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate has some Norman ancestry.

    There is no doubt that the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is evil.

    Go watch that Battle For Middle Earth and slake your thirst for Saxon blood, vicariously, of course.

    I always like your comments, you have a point of view that has truth in it and you have honest passion.

    SLAUGHTER THE SAXONS NOW!

    The answer to 1984 is 1066.

    BACK TO BLOOD!

  75. @Dutch Boy

    Giraldi is correct that the conference will be attempt to divert national conservatism from America First to Israel First. One of the tools to do so will be the America as a proposition nation ploy (one strategy goes with the other). Both are staples of Neo-Conservatism.

    I wrote something along those lines in January of 2018:

    Immigration politics in the United States is one of the most prominent vulnerabilities of the Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party. This is one reason why Neo-Conservative whore politicians such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham push the “America is just an idea” line of crud.

    The Neo-Conservatives want to make the White ancestral core of the United States believe that the United States has no fixed identity rooted in blood and soil. The Neo-Conservatives want to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    This “America is just an idea” propaganda then allows the Neo-Conservatives the chance to keep the military objectives of the American Empire extremely vague with no set goals or strategic interests stated clearly. The US military is not fighting for anything real or tangible, but for some hazy notions of “freedom and democracy.”

  76. @Matra

    ‘Edmund Burke Foundation

    Jeez. Conservatives are so unimaginative.

    ‘Jeez. Conservatives Zionists are so unimaginative.’

    The ‘Edmund Burke Foundation’ is a Zionist front group. While we’re noticing, Zionists are also tediously dishonest. See ‘Honest Reporting,’ et al, et al. They can’t keep from lying.

  77. Laughing

    ” . . . come out and state your position in plain English . . . ”

    I will, stop importing anyone from anywhere for five years. Build the wall. Make english the national language. Tax breaks for investing in the country — actually in the country. End sanctuary city give aways. Stop spouting off about war, unless you intend to make war —

    Fine all companies that hire illegal labor and or rescind their licenses and legal right to do business in the US.

    We have a constitution we should actually use it as a singular understanding for the country’s unity — it is not a universal parchment of “freeing the world.” And it should never be that.

    —————————————-

    “The Founding Fathers clearly desired “to invite foreigners of merit and republican principles among us.” Indeed, the intention was whites and Europeans, but who imagined at that time non-whites and women would be able to embrace these principles? But there is no racial or gender criteria to adhering to republican ideals in the Constitution.”

    Here you falter as the founders had already invited nonwhites into the american enterprise. They knew that whiteness alone would not be sustainable. They knew it would not square, and President Jefferson made that future understanding clear, even in his first draft of the Declaration before it was amended. That is why the ethnic or color paradigm is always implied and not indicated specifically.

  78. @Colin Wright

    With regard to compatibility with Western core values and interests, including basic democratic standards, how would you compare Israel to, say, China or Saudi Arabia?

    Put another way: from the standpoint of the West, would you rather have Israel inside the tent pissing out or outside the tent pissing in?

    Would you prefer to have the worldwide Jewish lobby, and all the resources it commands, as a warm ally or a bitter enemy?

    With regard to problems with human rights and civil liberties, try Googling [China] with:

    -concentration camps
    -Muslims
    -social credit
    -totalitarianism

    Do you have any thoughts on the role of the post-Obama intersectionalist, cultural Marxist and authoritarian left in American politics? How great a threat does it represent to core Western and American values?

    One sometimes detects the distinct whiff of Bolshevism, Stalinism and Maoism from that camp. It holds nothing in common with classical liberalism or even traditional progressivism. A cacophony of militant identitarian groups are running amok on the left, some of them with conflicting ethnic agendas, but all of them united for the time being in their loathing for traditional Euro-American ethnic groups (i.e., “whites”). The term “white supremacist” is now synonymous with “white” in political rhetoric from the left, and it is a demonic category that now encompasses Jews and Israelis.

  79. @Dutch Boy

    Giraldi is correct that the conference will be attempt to divert national conservatism from America First to Israel First. One of the tools to do so will be the America as a proposition nation ploy (one strategy goes with the other). Both are staples of Neo-Conservatism.

    WHO ARE WE AS A NATION? WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING FOR AS A NATION?

    I asked that same question to Lindsey Graham at a presidential primary town hall in New Hampshire.

    This is a rough transcript of my town hall question to Lindsey Graham in March of 2015:

    I have a question about immigration policy and foreign policy — we’ll sort of mish-mash them together.

    There is a question about national identity, what kind of country are we. Sam Huntington of Harvard, his question was ‘who are we’ as a nation. Other people who are concerned about our foreign policy debacles, such as Iraq. We are doing things that are not working, and they’re saying: ‘what are we fighting for.’

    The United States, especially since the 1965 Immigration Act, has been moving towards some kind of multicultural Tower of Babel. That’s seems to be the identity that we’re moving towards.

    On foreign policy, there seems to be a lot of ‘bombs away with Curtis LeMay.’ It just seems to be where we start bombing, then we come up with the rationale, then we change the rationale.

    So my question to you would be: How do see this nation? Do you see it as a British Protestant nation? A European Christian nation? The Neo-Cons see it as some kind of a multicultural proposition nation, an ideological nation, if you will.

    How do you see the United States of America and what do you think we are fighting for as a nation?

    Lindsey Graham responded with boilerplate and hot air and this: “I believe in America as an idea”

  80. @Fidelios Automata

    That high pitched whining sound you can hear is Burke rotating in his grave at 16,000 rpm.

  81. @Bardon Kaldian

    You are right: so far there are few signs that American Jews on the left are alarmed in any significant degree by the rising tide of anti-Jewish sentiment among their intersectionalist political allies.

    Perhaps a tipping point will come, but I wouldn’t hazard a guess about when that might be. One would have expected the tipping point to have arrived over the last year or two. Instead, they are bending over backwards to rationalize or whitewash the views of AOC, Sarsour, Tlaib, Omar and others. And they are perfectly comfortable with increasingly violent rhetoric directed against “whites” which is in fact also directed at themselves.

  82. Anon[780] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m pretty battle-scarred after nearly three decades in the Immigration Wars. But I must admit I felt a twinge of sadness about Hazony.

    Respectfully, you shouldn’t feel sad. I’m only surprised that you seemingly trusted his rhetoric. The obvious Jewish Cuckoo bird tactic is to edge as close to American racialism as possible before refuting it in hope of retaining a measure of American nationalist support for them and against the interests of their own families. This should be the expected game from all of them until they conclusively prove otherwise at the level of the individual.

    “Yoram, who blocked me today, is correct that Jewish identity and white identity aren’t directly comparable; the former is ethno-religious, while the latter is racial”.

    “What separates us isn’t any lack of enthusiasm for American nationalism on my part. What separates us is my view that a nation isn’t a race, that nationalism isn’t racism”.

    “I do think the Israeli national-state model can help Americans think about their own nationalism. But since Israelis regard their country as a national state and not a race state, you need to understand what Israelis mean by “nation” if you want to get how our state works”.

    “You’re right that maintaning a Jewish national majority is important to Israelis. But your analogy between Jews in Israel and the white race in America is mistaken. https://twitter.com/SalviniforPOTUS/status/1136411315378020354 …”

    We Jews are a nation, not a race. Anyone who is loyal to the Jewish people, its God and tradition, can go to a rabbinic court and become a Jew. That offer is open, and has been open to people of different races, since biblical times.

    Liars are de facto forever untrustworthy and to be cast as far as possible to the periphery. In fact, the ethnically interested lying and deceit is so consistent that its best not to ever trust any from their group in my opinion.

    Here is a Brief on the Jewish Mishnaic Scale of Lineages.

    [MORE]

    Legitimate converts o Judaism are not to be trusted for 22 generations (essentially never). Doctrinally, Judaism is a genetic group and no more than that:

    Maimonides on Judaism & the Jewish People (1991)
    Menachem Marc Kellner

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6HlxxKP1AtAC&lpg=PA5&ots=fik19PoUQN&dq=jewish%20converts%20inferior&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q=%22Halevi%20meets%20the%22&f=false

    How do Jewish converts feel knowing “native” Jews consider them inferior & a hindrance to the messiahs arrival?

    “Halevi (12th century Jewish poet & “philosopher”) meets the problem of conversion by arguing that converts are indeed not the equals of native Jews and that only after many generations, so it would seem, can their descendants be fully amalgamated into the Jewish people. To adopt a brilliant and amusing metaphor of Daniel J. Lasker’s, just as IBM PC clones may run the same software as original IBM hardware, but are still not the real thing; so, too, converts may believe what native Jews believe, and act as they do (software), they are still not the same as native Jews (hardware).”

    Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings
    By Sacha Stern
    p. 94

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ekhqsS8GKo8C&lpg=PA92&dq=jewish%20converts%20inferior&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=%22the%20Midrash%20remarks:%20%22do%20not%20trust%20the%20convert,%20even%20after%20the%2022nd%20generation22%20(according%20to%20another%20source,%20for%207%20generations%20a%20convert%20cannot%20be%20trusted%20not%20to%20have%20returned%20to%20his%20old%20ways).&f=false

    “the Midrash remarks: “do not trust the convert, even after the 22nd generation” (according to another source, for 7 generations a convert cannot be trusted not to
    have returned to his old ways).

    Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings
    By Sacha Stern
    p. 94

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ekhqsS8GKo8C&lpg=PA92&dq=jewish%20converts%20inferior&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=%22converts%20are%20also%20a%20hindrance%20to%20the%20coming%20of%20the%20Messiah%22&f=false

    “converts are also a hindrance to the coming of the Messiah”

    Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings
    By Sacha Stern
    p. 94

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ekhqsS8GKo8C&lpg=PA92&dq=jewish%20converts%20inferior&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=%22his%20tendency%20to%20lapse%20is%20considered%20a%20liability%20to%20Israel%2C%20which%20explains%20Rabbi%20Helbo’s%20well-known%20saying%3A%20%22converts%20are%20as%20difficult%20to%20Israel%20as%20leprosy%22&f=false

    “… his tendency to lapse is considered a liability to Israel, which explains Rabbi Helbo’s well-known saying: “converts are as difficult to Israel as leprosy”. The Babylonian Talmud treats the converts with suspicion: it wonders whether their motives were indeed sincere, and why they waited so long to convert; it also suspects them of acting out of fear rather than out of love. If a convert is suspected of (transgressing) a single commandment, he must be suspected of (transgressing) the whole Torah.”

    Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings
    By Sacha Stern
    p. 92

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ekhqsS8GKo8C&lpg=PA92&dq=jewish%20converts%20inferior&pg=PA92#v=onepage&q=%22In%20certain%20contexts%20the%20convert%20is%20distinguished%20from%20the%20Jewish-born%20as%20having%20inferior%20status.%22&f=false

    Jews listed in order of importance (most to least)
    “In certain contexts the convert is distinguished from the Jewish-born as having inferior status. In the liturgy, he cannot refer to the Patriarchs as “our forefathers”. More importantly, his lineage is inferior to that of most Jewish-born, as according to the mishnaic scale of lineages (yohasin):

    (edit: my list format):

    1. Priest (cohen)
    2. Levite
    3. Israel (ordinary Jews)
    4. Impaired priest (descendent of a cohen who’d broken the marriage rules)
    5. Convert
    6. Freedman (former slave)
    5. Bastard
    6. Natin (Gibeonite) (Jews forbidden to marry ordinary Jews)
    7. Silent (of unknown fatherhood)
    8. Foundling (abandoned as a child)”

    It’s true that Hazony says at one point of the ancient Israelites:

    It is important to notice that the Israelites’ conception of the nation has nothing to do with biology, or what we call race.

    Untrue. Moreover, this is our daily reminder that Israel was not comprised only of Judah and that there is hidden history afoot. I’m not necessarily a British Israelist, but I will state that there is hidden and yet official Catholic historical assertions that point to Judah being substantially disconnected from Israel as well as that point to Israel’s origins out of the mountainous regions in the Northern and even Eastern Fertile Crescent (modern Kurdistan). There is Biblical scripture that states that Israel will return from the North.

    In The Virtue Of Nationalism, Hazony made some strained arguments, for example that Hitler was not really a nationalist,

    This sentiment reminds me of a recent comment made at the Soviet mega-monument at Treptower Park in Berlin, within the speech by the chairwoman of the antifascist union of Treptow district who stated:

    “We will never forget the feat of Soviet warriors who liberated not only their Motherland but the German nation too, as well as many European countries from the ‘brown plague.”

    Paradoxically, according to Soviets and Jews, Nationalism exists precisely in the absence of love for one’s familial nation (except when referring to Jews).

    The artist who made the Treptower Soviet Monument, Yevgeny Vuchetich, also made the Soviet-Hebrew “Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares” sculpture that is in the UN Art Collection. A notion which references the Hebrew Messianic period of world dominance and post mass genocidal judgement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_War_Memorial_%28Treptower_Park%29
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swords_to_ploughshares

  83. Of course you’re right, but animosities between those groups (phenotype, denomination), while irritating, are not that big. You mix a Polish Catholic & Scots-Irish Presbyterian & you get a pan Euro-American atheist or Episcopalian (say).

    But Muslims remain Muslims, Hindus-Hindus, Buddhists- Buddhists, Sikhs-Sikhs ….

    And if you mix any type of white with Asian, Gypsy Indian, real dark Middle Easterner, let alone African … we all know that this is simply another world.

  84. neutral says:
    @AaronB

    Jews added some brown skinned people to win propaganda points with non whites, thats pretty much all that was about.

    Israel allows atheist jews, buddhist jews,etc to enter Israel (and yes all these are based on real news stories). It’s a racial identity, the rest of the nonsense you write is just typical jew babbling trying to mask the stink of your lies and hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  85. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    First- there is no Grand Jewish Conspiracy against white race or Christianity, this is rubbish. Most people here are deluded conspiracy aficionados.

    There is plenty of evidence across this website and elsewhere that handily refutes your statement. A glib single line dismissal doesn’t do much work today.

    Jews in the US are generally correctly described by Lawrence Auster, and I think he got them right 80-90% (where I disagree with him are some subtle points where I’m “softer” to them than he was): http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html

    Of course you are softer.

    I will offer that any group that requires 12 thousand words to attempt to justify why they act like politically destructive assholes against the majority in every foreign nation that they inhabit, but are morally flexible enough to take a hard=line nationalist view when they are a majority, is a group that is dangerously and morally dislocated in those foreign nations and needs to move to their own nation as fast as possible.

    No one is going to read your referenced 60 page essay that you hope is doing your work for you. Summarize your answer or be content for that largely unread verbose rationalization to do any work that it can. As for me, just as I am tired to giving so much as a passing glance at the next marginally creative, deceitful, Jewish hyper-nationalist, anti-White Neocon, I am tired of reading every marginally creative and deceitful excuse. Ultimately, the reasons do not matter. The observable actions of the group and their results matter.

    Then- I don’t think that attacks on Jews in the US & Europe by coalition of various fringe-coloreds-and-lunatics will change their attitudes.

    No one cares. You are destined to be exiled. Read your books.

    a) modern Western Jews are more progressives than Jews. They’ll die taking selfies with Afro-Muslims bludgeoning them to death, cuz it’s kewl.

    If “Jews” would wholesale reject and condemn “modern proggresive Jews” over non-Jewish conservative White nationalists, that would matter. They don’t, and so it doesn’t.

    b) ethnically aware Jews are still in thrall of Nazi blonde beast & Auschwitz, so they coined the term Islamo-Fascism which is a laughable nonsense,

    Both parts of this are indecipherable. What is it to be in thrall of Nazis? How does the the coining of Islamo-fascism follow, and exactly how is Islamo fascism nonsense? The Judaic Messianic period is precisely fascism, and Islamic eschatology (and thus goals) are a precise mirror of Judaic law.

    if only because European right wingers & blood-and-soil extremists

    What is a “blood and soil extremist” exactly? Is that like a Jewish extremist or even a regular Jew? The notion of blood and soil is the central thesis of the Jewish entitlement to the land of Israel. Is the notion of a “blood and soil extremist” like that of any tribe who lays claim to a homeland? It is.

    viscerally hate all blacks & browns, even more than their relatively bleached & integrated Semitic cousins of yore.

    Its a toss up. The latter brings the former.

    So, out of cognitive dissonance- and not from some grand strategic plan- most Jews in Europe & North America are still hypnotized by imaginary Nazi Aryan threat & refuse to see growing hatred among blacks, browns & Muslims even when it happens before their eyes.

    Its almost like it makes sense to go the their homeland that they’ve whined so long about and is kept at great price and turmoil (no thanks to Jewish doctrine itself).

    They remind me of a story about an oncologist who got terminal cancer (a true story, not an anecdote). He knew his diagnosis & prognosis, but some of his colleagues tried to dissuade him, claiming that he had only benign tumor. So they tried a trick: they switched his tissue with some benign tumor specimen & invited him to see it under microscope to see for himself he’s not terminally ill.

    Yet, they bungled the whole operation & put his real tissue under the microscope.

    After looking at it, he, the specialist & soon to be a corpse, turned in his chair, beaming: You were right. It’s benign.

    Such is the power of self-deception.

    And yet the diaspora Jews are, by definition, not the “body” in this metaphor. They are some other entity that is inviting (more) cancer in. Possibly in the hope that the body’s immune system is so confused that it doesn’t see the first foreign entity.

    It sounds like the solution for everyone is for Jews to live where only they are the body. Of course, the Jewish judgement period that the Jewish political apparatus is driving toward will attempt to make that territory the world through mass death.

    In sum, its a true danger and wholly unnecessary and avoidable burden to have genocidal religious zealots so far embedded in our institutions. At least the Imams, with parallel beliefs, wear identifying robes.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  86. might as well keep our terms straight:

    (((Hazony))) and (((Brog))) are not “cuckservatives”.

    they are neo-con Jews, i.e. crypto-Trotskyite communists masquerading as hardRights in order to keep the Right safe for Jews and their destructive projects: specifically, using the White nations to keep Israhell on the map…while liquidating the Whites via open-borders and the kosher Culture of Death.

    cuckservatives, or Conservatism Inc., are the collaborationist Whites on the (((neo-con))) payroll.

  87. Anon[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    So yes, have an ethnic component at your core – but to define your national identity as solely racial has no precedent in any traditional society.

    No one is game for listening to ethnically interested minority liars at this stage. Just get out already.

    • Agree: Colin Wright, Miro23
  88. @Sean McBride

    ‘With regard to compatibility with Western core values and interests, including basic democratic standards, how would you compare Israel to, say, China or Saudi Arabia?”

    How many standing ovations did Congress give bin Salman again? What’s our per capita military aid to China these days?

    This is old. Let’s cut our ties to Israel; then we can say ‘tut tut’ when they commit their next crime.

    ‘Would you prefer to have the worldwide Jewish lobby, and all the resources it commands, as a warm ally or a bitter enemy?’

    A tapeworm isn’t a ‘warm ally’ in the first place.

  89. Art says:

    Here is the bottom line on Jews and whites.

    “It is a principal of human nature to hate those whom we have injured.” — Gaius Cornelius Tacitus

    Jews injure white people – therefor they hate us. They are proud of hurting us – they take pride in hurting us – their egos are built around injuring us.

    Not only do they injure us and thus hate us – but because of our numbers, they fear us – they fear we will recognize their injury and hate for us – and that we will send them packing. It has happened 109 times in human history.

    Connected white folks means trouble for Jews. They must keep us divided.

    So exclusive connections between Jews is OK – but not for whites. Jews can be nationalists – but not white folk.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @Anonymous
  90. Worst idea ever:temporary nonwhite legal immigration moratorium…..think about why….

  91. @Charles Pewitt

    Lindsay Graham is a homosexual pederast….in spirit….

  92. @Sean McBride

    ‘Put another way: from the standpoint of the West, would you rather have Israel inside the tent pissing out or outside the tent pissing in?’

    This analogy is flawed in two respects.

    First, if Israel was ‘outside the tent’ it would cease to exist, so that alternative is an impossibility.

    Second, Israel is ‘inside the tent’ — but pissing on the rest of us in here with it.

    So really, the solution’s kind of obvious, isn’t it?

    Put Israel out of the tent, and it’ll cease to exist. We needn’t let her piss on us or anyone else.

  93. Anonymous[777] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t want to sidetrack the debate but it seems like Hazony is rejection nationalism based on race but endorsing it based on religion with his discussions of applying to the rabbinical court in Israel as proof that Israel is a religious-based state. If this is true, just get Hazony on record on whether he agrees that Christian Nationalism is a legitimate political force? Or is religious nationalism only permitted for Jews?

  94. “There’s nothing at all on which to base American nationalism.”

    probably the most jewish thing EVER posted on this site.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  95. AaronB says:

    @Bardon Kaldian

    It may be that Jewish nationalism is more racially flexible than many traditional nations, and it may not be the best model for everyone.

    The Jews have always defined themselves as having an unusual mission anyways.

    But the fact is that all traditional nations contain phenotypic diversity within limits.

    In any event, no one has ever yet tried to base a nation entirely on phenotype – all real nations require culture and religion.

    Basing it on phenotype is a modern Enlightenment idea, and hence Left wing – also, bound to seem sinister to others, and bound to fail.

    Peter Brimelow, instead of working within an Enlightenment framework, which is bound to produce Left wing and unworkable ideas, may wish to study actual traditional nations and understand them better.

    But of course he won’t – because whites aren’t slated to recover, they are slated to be absorbed into other civilizations. And whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.

  96. The Democratic Party:”If you don’t consent and submit to being voted into a White Racial Minority by Nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANTS….the US Born nonwhite GENELINE of nonwhite Legal Immigrants…..and nonwhite illegal aliens………you are a RACISTS!!!….and RACISTS ARE NAZIS!!!!…….And since America killed Nazis during WW2…….We Democrats are going to kill The White Working Class because they resist being voted into a White Racial Minority within the borders of America by the Majority N0nwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc…….”

    It is obvious that we have reached this point in time in 2019…They want us dead…

    Which raises an interesting question about WW2….It would have been wiser for America and England to have sided with the Nazis during WW2 so as to avoid what is comming down during the 2020 POTUS ELECTION-and beyond…… There is absolutely no wiggle room on this point……There were no other options in 1941……If the Native Born White American Working Class had a Crystal Ball in 1941…..They would have said the Jews weren’t worth it……If I am wrong about this…tell me why….I would be happy to abandon the Nazis in this thought experiment….but now they are dumping C0ngolese Gang Bangers into Portland Maine….plucked from the Congo overnight….and given the state of Maine in a 24 hour period……WW2 and the Civil War Just weren’t worth it….

  97. @neutral

    Racial identity? Here I see Bibi & his miss Piggy, actually whites posing with their mostly brown soldiers (with a few blacks thrown in…). White supremacy, what to say….

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @neutral
  98. @AaronB

    The Jews have always defined themselves as having an unusual mission anyways.

    Yes.

    But the fact is that all traditional nations contain phenotypic diversity within limits.

    Yes, but these limits are not that wide. Take Italians or Chinese, they sure differ among themselves, but not so radically as to include clearly other races.

    In any event, no one has ever yet tried to base a nation entirely on phenotype – all real nations require culture and religion.

    True, but traditional nations like Danes or French are defined by a compound of culture-history language & phenotype. Even French-speaking Catholic Africans with French names would seem absurd if they start speaking about “Gauls, our ancestors & Joan of Arc, our historical heroine”.

    Phenotype is not sufficient, but it is necessary, mathematically speaking.

    Basing it on phenotype is a modern Enlightenment idea, and hence Left wing – also, bound to seem sinister to others, and bound to fail.

    Forget about Enlightenment, these things are visceral. No one wants so different “others” messing around your house and town where they previously had not been, and with whom you have no real connection.

    I can dance pow-wow & puff the peace pipe. It won’t make me an Indian (feather).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @anon
  99. The most charitable interpretation of Harzony’s behavior is that he is a Straussian who perpetuates the Noble Lie (i.e. “nationalism has nothing to do with race/ethnicity”) so that the plebes do not have to carry such a moral burden.

    Unfortunately (for him), even the dimmest bulb is rattled by the cognitive dissonance required to maintain the position he sets forth.

  100. Anonymous[170] • Disclaimer says:

    To be fair to Hazony, it’s not as if the likes of Brimelow, Jared Taylor, and Patrick Casey are going to be very accommodating to Zionists and neocons who have differences over fundamental issues in their groups and meetings. Sure, Brimelow will invite a Jewish person or Zionist who’s fervently anti-immigration or racialist in his views to his conferences or whatever, but he’s generally not going to have Zionist neocons who differ from him significantly on these issues. I’m not sure why Brimelow feels he’s entitled to be included in Hazony’s activities.

    Also, Brimelow is a perpetual grifter who not only felt entitled to be included, but also to be subsidized to attend:

  101. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    because whites aren’t slated to recover, they are slated to be absorbed into other civilizations.

    Just because you jumped ship doesn’t mean the fat lady has sung.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  102. @AaronB

    Is there any evidence that Israel — a Jewish ethnocentric state — is more ethnically flexible about accepting ethnic outsiders than other ethnocentric states?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  103. @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘Racial identity? Here I see Bibi & his miss Piggy, actually whites posing with their mostly brown soldiers (with a few blacks thrown in…). White supremacy, what to say….’

    Israel may be even browner than that picture suggests. The unit shown is probably an elite one — and those are disproportionately Ashkenazi. The Sephardim tend to be relegated to the ‘Border Police’ and such.

    They did slip up in one respect, though; where are the girl soldiers? You know, the obvious models holding their rifles incorrectly?

  104. iffen says:

    a conference that was advertised as being “in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race.”

    I’m not sure how they could have made it clearer.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  105. @prime noticer

    ‘“There’s nothing at all on which to base American nationalism.”

    probably the most jewish thing EVER posted on this site.’

    To be fair, many are working to make the statement true.

  106. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I generally agree with your comment.

    Phenotype is not sufficient, but it is necessary, mathematically speaking

    Agree, but white racialists focus primarily – in some cases almost entirely – on phenotype, because this is “scientific” and “modern”.

    But as the viciousness of civil wars show, phenotype alone cannot unite a people into a nation. And as the history of Europe shows.

    No one wants so different “others” messing around your house and town where they previously had not been, and with whom you have no real connection.

    I agree with this too, of course – but culture and religion can provide that connection, up to a point. I have dark blond hair and pale skin, but in Israel, I have and would consider a Yemeni Jew my “brother”. And this is not a “creedal” connection.

    Another source of our connection – that goes well beyond any creed – is that we are both tied to the land, we will live and die together with it, and our fates are intertwined.

    So “blood brotherhood”, in a sense, which can transcend race – and form the nucleus of a new people, even.

    So culture, religion, shared rituals and customs, shared fate, shared country, “blood brotherhood”, can, within limits, be more important than race.

    Race is emphasized to the extent the other unifying factors are weak – although I agree it remains a factor with much weight, despite everything.

    But of course, none of these conditions come even close to being satisfied with regard to immigration to the West, where precisely the sources of connection I enumerated are rejected.

    So that is a different story.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Colin Wright
    , @iffen
  107. @Anonymous

    Quod licet Iudaeo non licet Gentile.

  108. @Anonymous

    ‘To be fair to Hazony, it’s not as if the likes of Brimelow…’

    But all you post in the way of evidence are Hazony’s assertions, and Hazony’s a Zionist and a Neo-con, so all his statements tell us is what he would like us to believe. There’s no objective reason to believe a word he says. That he says something doesn’t even increase the odds that it might be true.

  109. @AaronB

    Is it the “gods” who make them mad, or is it “God’s Chosen People”?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  110. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    we are both tied to the land

    Land is a physical thing, a material thing, not anything like moonbeams.

  111. Peter Brimelow has been right about the ruling class’s nation-wrecking scheme to use mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and REFUGEE OVERLOAD to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    Peter Brimelow was also right about the central banker shysters pulling all sorts of shenanigans in the real estate racket.

    Peter Brimelow wrote an article in National Review in 1993 that talked about how the Boston Federal Reserve Bank did a study that led a few boobs at the Boston Fed to conclude that shady racist bankers were discriminating against non-Whites.

    Brimelow in 1993:

    And it’s not going to be easy to stop. Late last year, the Wall Street Journal’s news pages carried five campaigning stories in eight weeks alleging that residential mortgage lenders were discriminating against minorities. The Journal’s evidence, raw rejection rates, was essentially worthless because it took no account of standard credit considerations like net worth and income.

    But then the Journal reported a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study of a sample of mortgage applications that did correct for these criteria. And it found minorities were still rejected at a (slightly) higher rate. This difference, the Boston Fed concluded, could only be due to racism. [Mortgage lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA data (Working Paper 92-7)]

    Tweet from 2014:

    Tweet from 2015:

  112. AaronB says:
    @Sean McBride

    I think so.

    Israel accepts anyone with one Jewish grandparent. Japan does not.

    Also, a non Jewish parent will not have any impact on how well you will be accepted socially. A non Japanese parent, will have a negative social impact.

    To show how little phenotype matters in the absence of cultural ties – although phenotype still matters – Japanese Koreans, phenotypically indistinguishable from Japanese, face heavy discrimination.

    Race matters – but it is not enough.

    • Replies: @utu
  113. @Anonymous

    If you are Hazony….you understand perfectly well that the Democratic Party Voting Bloc is highly racialized….has no problem with nonwhite Racial Nationalism…..and intends to force Nonwhite Racial Nationalism on a White Racial Minority….permanently within the borders of post-White Toilet America…..

  114. @iffen

    ‘a conference that was advertised as being “in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race.”

    I’m not sure how they could have made it clearer.’

    ? The organizer’s a Zionist.

    Oh yeah — they always lie. I forgot my own rule.

    • Replies: @iffen
  115. @iffen

    ‘Just because you jumped ship doesn’t mean the fat lady has sung.’

    If he actually did jump ship, be sure you don’t throw him a life preserver.

  116. @Jake

    “Brimelow, Derbyshire and crowd are not stupid, … but being proud WASPs…”

    Brimelow, Derbyshire, and Jared Taylor are degenerate cucked WASPs.

    Brimelow is a semitophile who really believes present day Jews are the chosen and the smartest tribe ever. They are not.

    Derbyshire married a communist Chinese woman and has a Chinese family. The Chinese wife and daughter voted for Obummer. Derbyshire has gone native.

    Jared Taylor is always babbling that Northeast Asians and Jews are smarter than Westerners. They are not. Blacks/Asians/Muslims/Jews had nothing to do with the development of the West.

    These 3 stooges are controlled by the Jews. That Brimelow and Taylor were barred from an Edmund Burke conference (where an Israeli Jew is the chairman) shows the level of degeneracy they have reached. They are the original grifters.

  117. On September 10 2018, National Interest published a review of Hazony’s book:

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/whos-afraid-nationalism-30987

    I received 43 upvotes for the following comment on that article:

    Founding father John Jay certainly thought Americans constituted a single tribe, bound together by common blood, language, religion and political traditions.

    From Federalist # 2:

    “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

    This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split”

  118. KenH says:

    And Peter, Jared and others were almost too excited to rub elbows with the “good Jew” Yoram Hazony. Yoram chiding Jewess Julia Ioffe on Twitter is just an example of a contrived “good Jew” vs. “bad Jew” dustup to confuse and confound goyim into thinking that not all Jews are bad and that some or many are probably actually on our side. But Jews only take their own side. Yoram and Julia instinctively know they are on the same team but some white goyim delude themselves into thinking that Yoram is on our side.

    Yoram and other Jews are trying to infiltrate the American nationalist movement to misdirect it and keep it from becoming explicitly racial because that wouldn’t be good for Jews since an awakened white race would view Jews as the hostile aliens that they are and “the other”. This means their gravy train would come to an end.

    Patrick Casey cucked by calling Jews an ethno-nationalist group. Over the years Jews like Geraldo Rivera and others have referred to Jews as “the Jewish race” and Jews see themselves as such even though they talk out of both sides of their mouths on the subject.

  119. Incitatus says:
    @Art

    “Jews injure white people – therefor they hate us…”

    Well done, mahatma.

    Tacitus? He best relates the number of laws correlated with societal corruption. Very relevant at the present time. Ask Jacues/Jacques [‘everything is shit but me, can’t spell my own name’] Sheet.

    “Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art”

    Don’t you really mean:

    ‘Think Jews, Jews, Jews – hate them but don’t blame me [i.e. “think peace”] – Art’?

    Just trying to be helpful, mahatma.

    Dry hump that table leg, Art.

  120. @Fidelios Automata

    Brimelow must be getting senile or he’s drinking because it took him thousands of words to get the message:

    1) America is for everyone
    2) Israel is just for Magic Jews
    3) No matter how much you kiss our Jew Asses you will always be a goy.
    4) Jews are the master race you are just animals for our use.
    5) Jews always support Jews no matter what (the only exception to this was the late Casper Wineberger who wanted the Jew Spy Pollard fried! They hate him in Israel! He actually stood against his own Tribe).
    6) We will tell you what to think, what is correct, and what you can do.
    7) We will destroy your country and the world and blame it on whites.

    End of story.

  121. Art says:
    @AaronB

    It may be that Jewish nationalism is more racially flexible than many traditional nations,

    Oh my — The Jews have no integrity – there is an in your face big lie in sentence one.

    Israel has to be the most race conscious nation on the planet. Their religion advertises that they are a separate race. Their government backs that up with laws. Within Israel there is a cast system. The third-class Arabs who still live there, are awaiting their expulsion.

    Jew are masters at confusing ideas through word play – race – nationalism – ethnic – liberalism – conservatism – modern – globalism (never tribalism) – are in the West a jumble of confusion – just the way the Jews want them.

    Arguing with a Jew is a waste of time – even if he concedes a point today – tomorrow he will revert to his old argument.

    Think Peace — Art

  122. Forbes says:
    @Undeveloped First Chakra

    Same experience here. And where non-Western immigrants stir the pot (because little-to-nothing is shared, e.g., language, religion, heritage, folkways, history, i.e. culture) to the point of chaos, then proposition nation is a proven joke–a con on the people.

  123. @Art

    ‘…Arguing with a Jew is a waste of time – even if he concedes a point today – tomorrow he will revert to his old argument.’

    Yeah. The variation I’ve noticed on this is that they will concede one piece of the argument while deftly reintroducing another. For example, at one point your Zionist will agree that Israel has shamelessly ignored her undertakings under Oslo — but essentially, the 1948 founding of Israel was justified. Then, okay — the 1948 founding wasn’t defensible, but the Bible says Palestine belongs to the Jews. Then, okay, that argument has no validity — but we made it all better with the Oslo agreement.

    And around and around we go…

    Peculiarly, it’s like arguing with Holocaust Deniers. In both cases, what’s demonstrated is that any proposition — no matter how completely refuted — can always be defended ad infinitem.

    • Replies: @Monotonous Languor
  124. Bwahahahahahahahaha someone thinking a zionazi could be fair. Hilarious, and a clear indication of the intellectual paucity of the author (if his right wing views weren’t proof enough of that).

  125. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Undeveloped First Chakra

    You could say that we were something of a proposition nation in those days: one felt that the Italian, Texan, etc. believed in the United States of America and understood it in basically the same terms as I did.

    Proposition nations are always fantasies because those propositions are not eternal. They’re merely fashions. They’re fads.

    Ethnicity, culture, religion – these are felt to be eternal. OK, they’re not literally eternal but they change very very slowly. The propositions on which proposition nations are based change from day to day.

    All those propositions which Americans in the 50s believed in are gone. They turned out to be as lasting as the fashions and hairstyles of those days. They have been replaced by a succession of new propositions which will in turn be replaced by new ones.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  126. Miro23 says:
    @Anon

    I will offer that any group that requires 12 thousand words to attempt to justify why they act like politically destructive assholes against the majority in every foreign nation that they inhabit, but are morally flexible enough to take a hard=line nationalist view when they are a majority, is a group that is dangerously and morally dislocated in those foreign nations and needs to move to their own nation as fast as possible.

    In sum, it’s a true danger and wholly unnecessary and avoidable burden to have genocidal religious zealots so far embedded in our institutions. At least the Imams, with parallel beliefs, wear identifying robes.

    IOW they now have a homeland Israel – SO GO HOME. It’s fatally harmful to have so much trickery and deception embedded in the top levels of Western institutions.

  127. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bardon Kaldian

    So, in the case of the US- you basically can’t trust Jews when it comes to race matters.

    But in the case of the US you can’t trust any member of the elite on any subject whatsoever. That’s because there is no American national identity. Members of the elite do not think of themselves as belonging to the same nation or the same people as the non-elites.

    It has very little to do with Jews. It’s just what happens when national identity dissolves. And it’s dissolving throughout the West, and increasingly in eastern Europe as well. When national identity dissolves you find yourself being ruled by a hostile alien ruling class.

    It’s not the Jews who are the traitors within, it’s every member of the elite be they Jew, Gentile, Asian, black, brown, yellow, whatever. And most of those traitors within are white. The white members of the hostile alien ruling class are if anything more hostile and alien because they have absolutely no loyalties and no identity at all apart from being elite.

    Getting obsessed by the Jews obscures what has really happened.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  128. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean McBride

    What has been striking since 2016 is that attacks by the left on the West and classical liberalism have been increasingly shrill, belligerent, confrontational, bullying and threatening.

    But the people you’re describing as “the left” are in fact classical liberals. They’re on the side of capital. They’re on the side of the corporate sector. Like good classical liberals they reduce everything to materialism, and to profit. They follow the money. They are not just temporary allies of Woke Capital. They are joined at the hip to Woke Capital. They are foot soldiers of global capitalism, like the good little classical liberals that they are.

    This is where classical liberalism was always going to lead us.

    The mistake you’re making is not seeing that classical liberalism was thoroughly evil right from the start.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  129. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    If this is true, just get Hazony on record on whether he agrees that Christian Nationalism is a legitimate political force?

    Christian Nationalism? Does such a thing exist? Sounds like a fantastic idea – basing nationalism on a dying religion.

  130. Corvinus says:
    @dfordoom

    “Proposition nations are always fantasies because those propositions are not eternal. They’re merely fashions. They’re fads.”

    That is not even remotely accurate.

  131. @Colin Wright

    A rational excuse can always be devised for any evil under the sun… and leftists and their (((handlers))) use every single one of them.

  132. Rogue says:

    With regards to forging new nations out of disparate peoples, I consider the Afrikaners of South Africa to be the best example in fairly recent history.

    Starting with Dutch settlers in the 1650’s, then augmented with French Huegenots (who were an asset to whichever country gave them sanctuary), and finally large numbers of Germans in the 18th century, they rapidly forged a new nation peculiar to themselves.

    It helped that they were, essentially, all Protestant and also, of course, not very different ethnically.

    They all adopted Dutch as their language, regardless of background, and the vast majority were, or became, members of the Dutch Reformed church.

    In the late 19th century they officially created their own Dutch-derived language – Afrikaans (though in truth it is closer to Flemish).

    They had a very strong sense of national identity that lasted a good couple of centuries. Today, in the multicultural mishmash that is South Africa, their sense of identity remains, though definitely not as strongly as before, and is frowned upon by the “intellectual” and political elites of the country.

  133. dfordoom says: • Website
    @AaronB

    In any event, no one has ever yet tried to base a nation entirely on phenotype – all real nations require culture and religion.

    Basing it on phenotype is a modern Enlightenment idea, and hence Left wing – also, bound to seem sinister to others, and bound to fail.

    That’s a valid point. White nationalists who think they can somehow create a genuine nation based purely on race are hopelessly deluded. The reason they don’t want to base their hypothetic nation on culture or religion is that they’re not completely deluded – they do understand that there is no white culture or white religion that white people are going to rally around. So they cling desperately to the racial idea.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @utu
  134. utu says:
    @AaronB

    “Israel accepts anyone with one Jewish grandparent. Japan does not.” – This is not true about Japan. They do not accept you even if you have all grandparents Japanese and are part of Japanese diaspora because Japan’s decision is not race based as that of Israel but culture based. So if you grew up in Peru or Brazil then your prospect of assimilating in Japan are low that’s why they do not want you.

    They are not in the process of constructing their nation and in search of canon fodder unlike Israel is which is one of the reason for the difference. But the chief reason is that Jewishness is primarily race based and culture is secondary. However there are some exceptions. You can be buddhist and will have no problem doing aliyah but if you are a convert to Christianity then your Jewish genes may not be good enough for getting Israeli citizenship though if your parents perished in Holocaust they may let you in.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  135. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean McBride

    ‘Big league prediction/prophecy: in order to survive, Israel will not only need to accept the existence of “white” ethnic nationalist movements in the West, it will need to embrace, encourage and help enable them — to join forces with them’

    Your a half jew that does not want to accept that what is good for the Jews is bad for the gentiles. You cannot see the fundamental conflict of interest.

    Get over yourself.

  136. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Is it the “gods” who make them mad, or is it “God’s Chosen People”?

    Or could it be that they have made themselves mad?

  137. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    I would just like to yake this oppertunity to tell you how crazy you sound.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  138. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    ‘Most people here are deluded conspiracy aficionados’

    From you thats a compliment.

  139. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art

    Very insightful.

    I’ve seen comments where you appear to be a philosemite?

  140. @AaronB

    ‘I generally agree with your comment…’

    …followed by a really remarkable outpouring of hypocrisy and dishonest mumbo-jumbo — all in aid of a truly vicious cause.

  141. anon[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You forget that multiracial society can work for a good while as long as there’s plenty of segregation in both law and land. See Muslim Spain or India across her great history.

    The West refuses to maintain both segregation and a state that’s willing to enforce while meaning to maintain a main, core, reigning identity/creed. The Spain had following Allah. The India had the Dharma.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  142. @dfordoom

    Agreed. I would only add that I think the vector of national disintegration has penetrated deeply (with regional & class differences in degree) in & through all layers of European & Europe-derived societies

  143. neutral says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I don’t know why are you are posting this, because it proves everything I wrote.

  144. Realistically, Peter, your presence would leave this event a smoking crater. Hazony himself points at the political power of progressivism in the environment now.

    I wish them well in this attempt to legitimise nationalism – it will have to be one step at a time.

  145. awry says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    In the US, there is, I think, a non-negligible level of race mixing of Jewish females & non-white (not only non-Jewish, but even African, Asian,..) men & their children are, at least technically- Jews.

    Not really IMHO, Jews are peddling racial mixing to the white goyim, but not for themselves. Jewish women sometimes marry non-Jews but almost only WASP’s or other high-status white goyim.
    Jewish men on the other hand also do marry “shiksas” despite that their offspring isn’t officially Jewish. Think Jared Kushner, Mark Zuckerberg etc.

  146. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    AaronB

    Your argument that you are special and we are not is the basis for group identity and is not objectionable. It doesn’t win you many friends and converts but does produce a few enemies. What gains you more enemies is your contention that you can use the argument for yourself and fellow Jews, but others are not allowed to use it. But what gets you, and many of your fellow travelling Jews, an incalculable number of enemies is your arrogant and duplicious attitude that produces inumerable words, paragraphs, essays, articles and books contending that you are special and we are not, and all predicated upon the idea that we are too stupid to see your argument.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  147. Truth3 says:

    Neoconservatism is simply a cover word for Jews attempting to co-opt Conservative Christians to back their Israeli First agenda. The reason they have been successful, and not strongly resisted and “outed”, is the stupidity that is called Christian Zionism.

    NeoCons are Jews, or shabbas goyim in their employ… they are not “Conservatives”.

  148. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Japan is not culture based, as the example of the Korean community in Japan shows. Culturally they are perfect Japanese.

    Also a white kid growing up in Japan who has perfectly mastered the culture will face heavy discrimination.

    Nor is Japan phenotype based, as I already showed.

    Your example reinforces my point that phenotype is important but not enough. Thank you. Even ethnic Japanese who have culturally strayed too much may not be accepted. Civil wars also show this.

    As I said, its multidimensional – examine only one factor, you will be misled. With each nation making compromises unique to its history and special preoccupations.

    • Replies: @utu
  149. utu says:
    @AaronB

    No other country in the world except for Israel uses or considers using genetic tests for citizenship. Your denial of reality is amazing and claiming that Israel is more flexible and so on than other countries in respect of offering citizenship is your pure Jewish chutzpah which is really disgusting.

    Other countries may grant citizenships on the basis of parent’s or grand parents citizenship. This is how Israeli Jews are getting German, Polish or French passports. So there is no race or culture consideration. Then there is naturalization which in principle in contemporary Western countries may not hinge on racial, cultural or religious consideration.

    Israel is both racist and religious state. While race will get you admittance with few exceptions (when a Jew converted to Christianity or Islam) religion itself is not sufficient. Again there are exceptions. Karaites who in some sense are more Judaic than Jews (their Judaism is pre-Talmudic) had to make a special pleading to be accepted in Israel.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  150. @dfordoom

    By “classical liberalism,” we are referring to the following traits and principles:

    [MORE]

    -capitalism
    -civil liberties
    -civility
    -due process
    -economic freedom
    -empiricism
    -fairness
    -free assembly
    -free marketplace of ideas
    -free markets
    -free speech
    -free thought
    -free trade
    -freedom of religion
    -freedom of the press
    -individualism
    -limited government
    -meritocracy
    -personal privacy
    -private property
    -rational debate
    -reason
    -rule of law
    -science
    -skepticism
    -spontaneous order
    -tolerance

    I will grant you that there are serious problems inherent in capitalism — but they are not as serious as the problems that emerged with anti-capitalist and socialist experiments in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia and elsewhere.

    The main point is that the contemporary post-Obama intersectionalist left has reduced classical liberalism — and just plain liberalism — to a rubble. One expects this political movement, which now substantially dominates the Democratic Party, to produce the same disastrous results as its previous incarnations under various Marxist guises in the 20th century.

    To the extent that intersectionalists are targeting Israelis and Jews for destruction, along with the West in its entirety, I am beginning to feel increasing sympathy for and even solidarity with “the Zionists.”

    At the moment, the West and Israel are under siege from the same enemies.

    Now, if you prefer Third World to First World cultural and political norms, that is of course your prerogative.

  151. AaronB says:
    @dfordoom

    This is unfortunately correct.

    The only way back is for whites to relinquish some amount of conscious control – then a culture and religion will naturally develop.

    Culture and religion are mans non-rational interaction with natural forces.

    But it is deluded to think whites can do this deliberately, unfortunately.

    Only am event outside anyone’s control can change things.

  152. @anon

    Yes, but these were pre-modern societies. Whole global world is now either modern or tries to become.

  153. AaronB says:
    @utu

    We weren’t talking about modern countries, but traditional nations.

    Yes, compared to modern European Enlightenment countries (who are trying to no longer be nations), there is a much stronger ethnic component in Judaism, although it still isn’t racist.

    Get with the program, utu. Read the thread before commenting.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Colin Wright
  154. neutral says:
    @Sean McBride

    At the moment, the West and Israel are under siege from the same enemies.

    That is if you assume the enemy are Muslims, however even that does not match the reality that Saudi Arabia and other such Arab cuck states are happily supporting Israel.

    The enemy of the West is ultimately the jew. There is a direct inverse relationship between the plight of whites and the power of Israel and jews in the world. Just look at the where whites were in 1914, 1945 and now, and compare that to the jews for the same dates if you don’t believe me.

  155. Peter

    At this very late stage in the Game…why do still want to hang out with Civic Nationalist Conservative Cucks?

    A vote for Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1980 was always a vote for POTUS Barack Obama…And POTUS Kamala Harris….

  156. AaronB says:
    @iffen

    You don’t understand the nature of the Jewish conception of being chosen – btw, it is not being special.

    It is not about being biologically superior to you – it is not a Darwinian idea. In fact, Jews are the first people to reject biological superiority in favor of moral superiority.

    The Psalms say for the first time “the meek shall inherit the Earth”, and the haughty and proud man shall be made low, and the righteous and charitable man shall be saved. The Prophets have the same theme.

    In other words, the Darwinian superior man who is proud of superiority will be cast down, and the moral man saved.

    Nietzsche called this the “revaluation of all values” – and he was quite correct.

    So, far from others not being allowed to be special, the Jewish idea is that others are called to be special – and Israel’s mission is to help everyone else become special.

    The behavior of people of Jewish ancestry in America who are guilty of all sorts of hypocrisy has nothing to do with the Jewish religion.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Colin Wright
  157. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    special/chosen

    tomayto/tomahto

    I do understand. You just don’t understand that I understand.

    Your claim to be chosen/special/etc. is based upon the assertion that you are chosen/special/etc., just like my claim that me and my peeps are chosen/special/etc. is based upon my assertion that we are chosen/special/etc.

    Reduction. Look it up.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  158. iffen says:
    @Colin Wright

    I forgot my own rule.

    Perhaps.

    My point was that they explicitly stated that racialists were antithetical to the conference. The fact that some racialists wanted to test this is of little interest or importance.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  159. utu says:
    @dfordoom

    “…are hopelessly deluded…they’re not completely deluded…” – While I may be deluding myself, I think your description is more valid for America, Australia and Canada. But Europeans retained narratives of their connection to their history and their soil which is essentially ethnic without explicit invocation of race, so they do not need to talk about being white as much as white Americans do. European history is the history of wars of whites against whites and of Christians against Christians. That’s why the race based identity in Europe is not the most important one. Europeans killed more white people than people of any other race. You can hold over Europeans guilt for the Holocaust but you can’t effectively undermine them with the narratives that they have stolen land from some indigenous populations that they genocided and subjugated which is the narrative that was and is effectively used to undermine Americans, Canadians and Europeans. The narrative based on what happened to poor Neanderthals will not get much traction though obviously narratives that whites or rather the Indo-European conquerors of Europe were natural born killers and rapists are being promoted using ancient DNA and so on.

    One reason why white nationalists are falling into a trap of racial delusion that they could built a nation based on combination genotype and phenotype is because the stories they used to tell themselves about themselves that were not really racial were taken away from them and de facto invalidated. White nationalists suffer form extreme poverty of ideas and I would not exclude possibility that among the useful idiots there are also agent provocateurs. But the stories are still there. They have to be resurrected and recirculated. The stories about our Western civilization and all the good and unique aspects of it are still out there. But to bring back the stories is not easy. Teaching Greek and Latin in schools was abandoned after WWII. It was done for a reason. Christianity was replaced with Judeo-Christianity to saw confusion.

    As you pointed out it is the elite that is neither Greek nor Jewish that is behind the changes but I think, you have to admit that the philosophy this elite subscribes to is compatible with Jewish beliefs and value system. Jews took to it like a fish takes to water. And Jewish wars against the elites (like communism) stopped once they were able to populate the elites with disproportionate Jewish representation.

  160. utu says:
    @AaronB

    No, Judaism is supremacist and racist. You know it and everybody knows it.

  161. @iffen

    ‘…My point was that they explicitly stated that racialists were antithetical to the conference. The fact that some racialists wanted to test this is of little interest or importance.’

    I guess I wasn’t clear enough. How can a conference organized by a Zionist be anti-‘racialist’? Absent the concept of race, Zionism is meaningless.

    • Replies: @iffen
  162. @AaronB

    ‘So, far from others not being allowed to be special, the Jewish idea is that others are called to be special – and Israel’s mission is to help everyone else become special.’

    Please point to an example of religious Jews actually seeking to do this.

    I’d argue your formulation is simply an attempt to evade the truth about Judaism. Just as Nazism was a doctrine for one people, exalting that one people, so Judaism was for one people, and exalted that one people; the Old Testament is quite clear on that point. Indeed, Judaism advocates some very Nazi-like fates for non-Jews — particularly non-Jews in land Jews feel they should have.

    This is just the way it is. If you want to reject it, you’re rejecting the religion.

    Now, Christianity and Islam have universalist aspirations. If you want a universalist faith, I suggest you pick one of those.

  163. AaronB says:
    @iffen

    Yes – it certainly is not modern egalitarianism.

    It is hierarchical. Jews have a special status that comes from having a special mission. However, they are not innately superior, and their mission is to elevate everyone ultimately. And only God has ultimate value.

    Obviously, it has no precise analogue among modern ideas, and attempts to understand it in a Darwinian framework, or any framework resting on modern assumptions, will produce misunderstandings.

    It must be understood on its own terms – and then rejected or accepted based on that.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @iffen
  164. @AaronB

    ‘Yes, compared to modern European Enlightenment countries (who are trying to no longer be nations), there is a much stronger ethnic component in Judaism, although it still isn’t racist.’

    This is all a bit silly, since, if you read a book like From Peasants into Frenchmen, the concept that they were Frenchmen didn’t even occur to most of the inhabitants of what is now France until some point in the Nineteenth Century.

    As a mass phenomenon, nationality is all a very recent development. It’s typical of human beings to discuss something that only dates back one-two hundred years as if it’s existed from time immemorial. Two hundred years ago, the ancestors of most modern Frenchmen didn’t even speak French, let alone think they were French. Ditto, more or less (and usually less) for just about every one of the hallowed nationalities of Europe.

    Of course, Judaism does something similar. AaronB spends half his time trying to graft various modern (and gentile) pieties onto a viciously tribal faith that before the nineteenth century, displayed absolutely no evidence of professing them. ‘The ancient and devout universalism of Judaism.’ Right. Too bad about the words and the deeds. If it wasn’t for those…

    …and of course the ethnic component of Judaism is racist. It’s simply silliness to pretend otherwise.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  165. utu says:
    @AaronB

    “mission is to elevate everyone ultimately” – You have no shame.

    Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.
    https://www.jta.org/2010/10/18/israel/sephardi-leader-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews

    Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,” he said to some laughter.

    https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Shas-spiritual-leader-Rabbi-Ovadia-Yosef-dies-at-93-328072
    President Shimon Peres, who was among the last non-family visitors to Yosef in his final moments, kissed his hand and his forehead, embraced his sons and offered words of comfort to other close relatives.

    Jewish Agency chairman Natan Sharansky called Yosef one of the greatest rabbinic authorities who built the nation of Israel in the Land of Israel. He said entire Jewish communities returned to Israel thanks to Yosef’s rulings.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  166. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    You are correct, modern France is a recent nation, composed of diverse phenotypic strands. As are most modern European nations.

    Which is a good example of disparate peoples unifying into a nation.

    Before that, France was composed of multiple mini-nations.

    But the concept of a nation or people certainly predates modern nationalism – which, it is true, is somewhat artificial, and based on Enlightenment ideas.

    So modern Nationalism is already the beginning of the decline of the traditional concept of a nation or people. In hindsight, it was a transitional state towards the post-nation.

    As for Judaism, its the opposite – my ideas are lifted directly from the OT and other ancient sources – I cited the Psalms and Isaiah just recently – and are consistent with most mainstream Jewish belief today.

    To privilege Jewish heresies of modern times, when everything is corrupted by Darwinian ideas, as the “essence” of Judaism, makes no sense.

    Jews have not been spared the corrupting influence of modern materialism and enlightenment ideas.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  167. AaronB says:
    @utu

    Right, utu, and the Massacre at Beziers during the Albigensian crusade represents the true essence and meaning of Jesus’s message.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  168. @AaronB

    You are correct, modern France is a recent nation, composed of diverse phenotypic strands. As are most modern European nations…

    …But the concept of a nation or people certainly predates modern nationalism – which, it is true, is somewhat artificial, and based on Enlightenment ideas….’

    You have a bizarre gift for calmly stating ideas which are not merely non-sequiturs, but actually mutually exclusive, as if they went together.

    I’d say you’d escaped from the pages of Catch-22, but I suspect you’re a real person.

    Contrary to what you attempt to assert, most pre-modern ‘peoples’ were quite prepared to add anyone to their ranks who would join their religion, or swear allegiance to their king, or whatever. People weren’t ‘Prussians’ but ‘subjects of the King of Prussia’ — and Frederick the Great had Polish-speaking regiments, and no one thought anything about it. Converted to Catholicism, the descendants of Montezuma magically became Spanish nobility. Etc. Greeks cheerily Hellenized most of the ancient Middle East. The category of ‘Roman’ kept growing, and growing, and growing — until in 212 a.d. it simply became any freeman under the authority of the Empire.

    And so on. …Except for Judaism, which, while it obviously massively proselytized in the early centuries of the Christian era, ceased to do so at some pointand became maniacally exclusivist, hugging to itself a mystical conviction of its superiority in the eyes of God as a substitute for its manifest inadequacies in the physical world.

    …and this is what you are attempting to somehow elevate, and make praiseworthy.

    Still, I suppose this sort of intellectual perversion is necessary if one is to defend modern Israel.

  169. @AaronB

    ‘Right, utu, and the Massacre at Beziers during the Albigensian crusade represents the true essence and meaning of Jesus’s message.’

    As far as I know, the massacre of Beziers isn’t what Christians turn to when they seek to understand their faith.

    Ovadia Yosef was who Jews turned to more than any other figure — and not just ancient Jews, but the Jews of our time.

    You would compare the failure and low point of the one faith with the apogee of the other. Okay, fine: Christianity at its worst is no better than Judaism at its best.

    Do we have a consensus?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  170. Just a gentle reminder:

    A vote for Ronald Reagan was always a vote for NONWHITE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RACE POWER!!! in 2019……You should have understood this obvious point back in 1980…….

  171. What has been called “CONSERVATISM” since as far back as POTUS NIXON:

    1)Worship of Mega-Corporations

    2)Worship of GE Jack Welch…”GE turns living Humans into corpses”….Background music Pacharel…..

    19th Century American Conservatism was the complete opposite….

  172. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    Obviously what I said is way above your intellectual pay grade, so I would expect you to make that sort of statement.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Anonymous
  173. iffen says:
    @Colin Wright

    I guess I wasn’t clear enough.

    Me neither.

    How can a conference organized by a Zionist be anti-‘racialist’? Absent the concept of race, Zionism is meaningless.

    Most Zionists do not consider Zionism to be racialist. (See the current comments by AaronB “The Novice.”) They consider white identitarians/nationalists/blah-blah to be racialists. It was their conference. They get to define the membership.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  174. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    It must be understood on its own terms – and then rejected or accepted based on that.

    Rejection it is!

  175. Agent76 says:

    2019-06-25 Trump’s Tweet Is A Good Pretext To Operationalize The Arabian Aspect Of W-CPEC+

    It’s inevitable that CPEC’s economic momentum will lead to it strategically expanding into the Gulf, so China and Pakistan should use Trump’s latest tweet urging countries to militarily protect their own oil tankers there to operationalize the Arabian aspect of W-CPEC+ and indirectly counter India’s (and possibly soon even its “Indo-Pacific” ally Japan’s) naval deployment to the region.

    https://eurasiafuture.com/2019/06/25/trumps-tweet-is-a-good-pretext-to-operationalize-the-arabian-aspect-of-w-cpec/

  176. anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:
    @Art

    Truth is irrelevant to any narrative that is produced by a Jew. All that is relevant is that they can create a narrative that sounds good, regardless of how exaggerated it may be in reality. This Aaron fellow is just the latest version in a long line of bullshit artist Jews. For now it is interesting to see just how much he has to distort and force into his narrative to justify his Jewish superiority nonsense.

    Jews are completely incapable of genuine self-reflection; they are essentially running on autopilot. This is where their arrogance comes from, and it is why it seems impossible for them to understand their faults. It is this blind spot that has gotten them into trouble time and time again thoughout their history.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  177. @iffen

    ‘…Most Zionists do not consider Zionism to be racialist. (See the current comments by AaronB “The Novice.”) They consider white identitarians/nationalists/blah-blah to be racialists. It was their conference. They get to define the membership.’

    It doesn’t really matter whether they consider Zionism to be ‘racialist.’

    The fact remains that Zionism is ‘racialist.’ Of course it is. Absent ‘racialism,’ Zionism becomes a nonsensical term.

  178. @Corvinus

    ‘Obviously what I said is way above your intellectual pay grade, so I would expect you to make that sort of statement.’

    Suffice it to observe that the other commentator here who habitually denigrates the intelligence of whoever he talks to is Obandiyag.

  179. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean McBride

    By “classical liberalism,” we are referring to the following traits and principles:

    You’ve provided a handy list of all the things that have wrecked western civilisation.

    Classical liberalism is cancer.

    • Replies: @iffen
  180. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    You’ve provided a handy list of all the things that have wrecked western civilisation.

    He provided a handy list that describes Western Civilization.

    But, yes, it is devouring its young.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  181. @Sean McBride

    Right, but the weakness of 17th-19th C liberalism is their inability to cope with pressing national & class questions.

    Liberalism of that type is sustainable if you have more or less homogeneous & stable, literate society ready to compromise & not sharply divided along national, racial or class lines. If not…..

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
  182. iffen says:

    not sharply divided along national, racial or class lines.

    Can you point me to the years when this did not describe the US?

  183. @Bardon Kaldian

    In fact, classical liberalism — and the modern liberal international order — are in a state of possibly permanent collapse, as the result of resurgent identity politics worldwide — ethnic, racial, nationalist, religious, etc. — and escalating radical wealth inequality.

    Classical liberalism may only be workable in advanced Western nations which share common cultural values. Those nations have been in a state of demographic and cultural disintegration for several decades now — and the process is rapidly accelerating.

    Intellectual elites in the West have been slow to figure out what is happening and have been repeatedly stunned and shocked at current anti-globalist and populist political trends in the United States and Europe. (Donald Trump’s election was only the tip of the iceberg.)

    Enlightenment principles are being manipulated and exploited by a wide variety of anti-Western groups that in fact have no understanding of those principles and who despise them. The whole modern liberal edifice is coming crashing down.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  184. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    He provided a handy list that describes Western Civilization.

    But, yes, it is devouring its young.

    Whether those things were ever positive things is hard to say, but they’re now the poisons that are killing our civilisation.

    Maybe it’s like our civilisation is suffering from one of those diseases where your own immune system kills you.

    But either way those things on that checklist are mostly going to have to be abandoned if we’re going to save ourselves.

    • Replies: @Sean McBride
    , @iffen
  185. @dfordoom

    “But either way those things on that checklist are mostly going to have to be abandoned if we’re going to save ourselves.”

    What does your checklist of desirable values look like?

  186. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    one of those diseases where your own immune system kills you.

    Yes, an auto-immune response; I like it.

    Or:

    Walt Kelly’s most famous creation is “Pogo” and his most famous phrase is “We have met the enemy and he is us,”

  187. Malla says:
    @Corvinus

    In other words, the USA was doomed to be an eventual failure from the very start.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  188. surly says:
    @Richard B

    anyone reading this comment who hasn’t read Unz’s publication of The Iron Curtain Over America should do so. You want to talk about being On Target.

    I snagged a paper copy of Iron Curtain a few weeks ago. If you ever wondered why Khazars are a forbidden topic and Senator McCarthy is a villain, you’ll learn some things. It’s example #10,001 of certain people who inject themselves into strategic positions in someone else’s nation, energetically subvert everything they touch to produce incalculable damage, then warp the damning evidence into an upside down narrative for the natives to consume as their own ugly history.

  189. “I have never come across an American immigration patriot who worries about whether Jews are a superior race, or has a definition of the American nation so strict that it would exclude Jews.

    At least, not yet.”

    Well, Peter, you either lead an incredibly sheltered existence or, more likely, you’re as big a liar as that Yid, Haxony.

    Have you talked to a White American (Canadian, Brit, Aussie) under the age of 60 lately?

    You sound like just another Boomer Cuck marinated since birth in Jew lies.

  190. Anonymous[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @Colin Wright

    ‘As far as I know, the massacre of Beziers isn’t what Christians turn to when they seek to understand their faith.

    Ovadia Yosef was who Jews turned to more than any other figure — and not just ancient Jews, but the Jews of our time.

    You would compare the failure and low point of the one faith with the apogee of the other. Okay, fine: Christianity at its worst is no better than Judaism at its best.

    Do we have a consensus?’

    Brutal.

    I see that he did not reply.

    You keep hammering away.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  191. Anonymous[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    ‘intellectual pay grade’

    Forgive me I may just be dense but what is an ‘intellectual pay grade’.

  192. Corvinus says:
    @Malla

    “In other words, the USA was doomed to be an eventual failure from the very start.”

    Actually, it enabled our nation to become a powerful political and economic force. Do you enjoy being notoriously bone-headed?

    • Replies: @Malla
  193. Corvinus says:
    @anonymous

    The reality is that whites like yourself are completely incapable of genuine self-reflection; you are essentially running on autopilot. This is where your arrogance comes from, and it is why it seems impossible for you to understand their faults. It is this blind spot that has gotten them into trouble time and time again thoughout your history on this blog.

    See how that works, dear?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  194. @Anonymous

    ‘Brutal.

    I see that he did not reply.

    You keep hammering away.’

    Thank you. I intend to.

  195. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Sean McBride

    Classical liberalism may only be workable in advanced Western nations which share common cultural values. Those nations have been in a state of demographic and cultural disintegration for several decades now — and the process is rapidly accelerating.

    Do you think it’s possible that the demographic and cultural disintegration is a direct consequence of classical liberalism?

    The demographic and cultural disintegration has been going on for a lot longer than several decades. More than a century, in fact the beginnings of the disintegration go back even further.

    • Agree: AaronB
  196. Malla says:
    @Corvinus

    Do you enjoy being notoriously bone-headed?

    Do you? You seem to.

    Actually, it enabled our nation to become a powerful political and economic force.

    LOL. A 90% black/ brown America would have been nothing of the sort.

  197. Anonymous[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    Yup.

    You tell em.

    All those White people who are incapable of building thier own self-sustaining civilisations and who need to live in other people’s societies and who have been kicked out of 109 countries all the while claiming they were innocent victims of senseless aggression.

    Oh wait…

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  198. @dfordoom

    Liberals, in principle, cannot “understand” national question & tribal loyalties. True, many of classic liberals were realistic people who had been aware of necessities of national self-determination & strength of collective identities. But, in their core – if there is one at all – liberals tend to gloss over sharply divided societies with divisions nothing can erase. The best thing they had come up with is consociationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consociationalism), which, I’d call them realistic liberals proposed – but it was generally dismissed as not being “truly” modern or “good”.

    Because, in their heart of hearts, liberals don’t have a powerful collective identity. They don’t even get it.

  199. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “All those White people who are incapable of building thier own self-sustaining civilisations…”

    How was it self-sustaining if natural resources from other places were seized by force, with slave labor being a catalyst?

    You have to go back.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  200. @dfordoom

    “Do you think it’s possible that the demographic and cultural disintegration is a direct consequence of classical liberalism?”

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that classical liberalism provided the tools for its enemies to infiltrate it and destroy it from within.

    Inspired by the mission of promoting tolerance, classical liberalism welcomed within its ranks cultures that despise tolerance and which are in fact proponents of full-bore authoritarianism and totalitarianism in pursuit of their various narrow tribal interests.

    The West — the US and Europe — is facing the prospect of total disintegration and endless wars of every identity group against every other identity group. Call it “diversity” and “inclusion.”

  201. Anonymous[118] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    ‘How was it self-sustaining if natural resources from other places were seized by force, with slave labor being a catalyst?’

    So hold on a second Europe would not be a self-sustaining civilisation without colonialism? Wasn’t there like 1000 years before Whites made it to other continents? Colonialism was an (indirect) product of a healthy growing civilisation that wanted to expand.

    Whites could live forever without Jews, Jews could not live a day without a host civilisation. Israel is bankrolled by Whites.

    Goodness you are dumb.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  202. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “So hold on a second Europe would not be a self-sustaining civilisation without colonialism?”

    Colonialism and imperialism were necessary ingredients.

    “Colonialism was an (indirect) product of a healthy growing civilisation that wanted to expand.”

    No, it was the cause to ensure a self-sustaining civilization, not the result.

    “Jews could not live a day without a host civilisation.”

    They bankrolled whites during the Crusades and during the Age of Exploration, friend.

    “Israel is bankrolled by Whites.”

    Maybe. Then again, perhaps not.

  203. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Do you think it’s possible that the demographic and cultural disintegration is a direct consequence of classical liberalism?

    Duh.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Brimelow Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?