The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Gottfried ArchiveBlogview
“Becoming Who We Are”
An Immigration-Critical Jew Reflects On NPI’s Conference
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Speakers at the NPI Conference.  Credit: VDare.com.
Speakers at the NPI Conference. Credit: VDare.com.
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

An article in the decidedly Leftist Huffington Post by the unmistakably Leftist reporter Samantha Lachman described the just-concluded conference of the National Policy Institute that I attended at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on October 31 in a way that bore little resemblance to what I heard there [White Nationalists Gather On Halloween To Discuss How Oppressed They Are, October 31, 2015]. On the basis of an interview with the speakers, Samantha, who reveals she is Jewish, is sure that they, plus their audience, are working to create an American ”white ethno-state” and all think Jews have “rigged the American political system” to favor the immigration of non-Euro-Americans. Samantha also claimed that the conference was pushing the unspeakably outrageous idea of forcing “women back in the kitchen, 1950s style.” In her fevered imagination, America in the 1950s was equivalent to a Taliban society.

For the record, I am writing as an immigration-critical Jew, who is sick of the Leftist bigotry I regularly encounter in Samantha’s publication and others of its ilk. I readily confess to loving the 1950s America I grew up in, but I have no intention (nor did anyone I heard at the conference) of “forcing” women back into anything.

It’s not even that I think the sentiments or views in question are evil or even essentially wrong. I just didn’t hear them articulated in the talks or in the ensuing Q/A sessions.

One of the participants whom Samantha point-and-spluttered at, Professor Kevin MacDonald, has written about the extensive, lavish Jewish involvement in immigration expansion over the last hundred years. But this seems to be a matter of record rather than a sign of hating Jews. (See my critique of Professor MacDonald’s work as proof that I am not his lackey). It is also understandable that someone who deplores the political and social effects of immigration, particularly since 1965, would deplore the undeniable Jewish organizational support for this transformative process. And this would include Jewish as well as Christian opponents of this metamorphosis.

At the NPI gathering, on the theme “Become Who We Are,” no muzzles were placed on the speakers’ mouths in a way that Samantha and the increasingly repressive Main Stream Media want. But the most stimulating part of the experience for me was meeting dignitaries whom I’ve been reading for decades, e.g. MacDonald, whom I had previously known only through his writings and very occasional email messages; and the fiery French critic of Muslim immigration and (along with Alain de Benoist) a Grey Eminence of the French New Right, Guillaume Faye.

ORDER IT NOW

Kevin turned out to be as soft-spoken in person as he is fearless as a writer. Further, his talk on the origins of the white race was a model of scientifically-detached lecturing. He discussed two major components of European origins: aristocratic individualism deriving from Indo-European settlers, and egalitarian individualism stemming from Northern hunter-gatherers. The latter has been increasingly dominant since the 17th century and, he argues, is a critical component of contemporary Political Correctness. Notwithstanding Samantha, he did not mention Jews.

Faye by contrast was the ultimate in Gallic animation. Whether speaking in French or in his colorful Franglais, this visitor from the Old World never hid how he felt about “the Muslim invasion of my continent.”

I thought most of the speakers, and certainly the audience, less engaged in a racially-based ethnostate project than NPI’s spirited President, Richard Spencer, and his companion in arms Jack Donovan. To my delight, Richard in his opening remarks quoted or paraphrased Nietzsche, Heidegger, Spengler and Carl Schmitt—all authors on whom I have written. But I’m not sure that white nationalism would have made much sense to the German thinkers cited, given their time and circumstances.

Europeans think differently about such matters than Americans. Like most of the traditional French Right, Faye identified the oppositional “race” that Western Europeans have failed to take sufficiently into account as Asian and North African Muslims. Richard himself used the phrase “we Europeans,” but the problem of context remains. Once we step out of an American culture, racial antagonisms are not between whites and blacks but between civilizational enemies. In Israel, Jews refer to their Palestinian fellow-Semites in the way that Southern segregationists once used in referring to the Negro. The English and Irish show much of the same genetic make-up and share overlapping culture, but until quite recently (like Serbs and Croatians or Russians and Ukrainians) spoke of each other as ethnic antagonists.

This provocative, well-attended conference was supposed on focus on “becoming who we are,” and most of the speakers agreed there is a Euro-American identity that we should be trying to hold on to. There was also consensus that this identity has something to do with “European intelligence” and a “religious tradition,” even if the speakers were not always on the same page as to whether Christianity still belonged to that “tradition” or whether it had become like a maiden aunt who begins to rave at inconvenient times.

But discussions of this type necessarily become complicated when we get into “the other” as in Carl Schmitt’s friend/enemy relation. Different thinkers may list different “others” in telling us who are hostile to their communities. The conference I attended was no different in that respect—but it focused largely on the danger posed by the American Empire and its cult of “diversity.” Most of the presentations, for example, Keith Preston’s criticism of American liberal internationalist imperialism, and Sam Dickson’s remarks on the Confederate Battle Flag, approached the theme of “being who we are” by stressing who we are not.

Dickson, an extremely eloquent lawyer from Atlanta, observed that the slogan of well-meaning Southern whites that their flag is “about heritage, not hate” is a pitiful defense. As Dickson pointed out, since the “Southern heritage” has now been defined by the MSM and public educators as “hate”, someone who contrasts the “Southern heritage” to “hate” will be seen as talking nonsense.

Like Preston, Dickson considered his principal enemy, or that of the “Southern nation,” to be “American imperialism.” Southerners were early victims of this evil, even before it was turned into a means of delivering the rest of the world from who they are.

ORDER IT NOW

Preston, Dickson, and some of the other participants identified “American imperialism” with political and ideological centralization from the left together with a neoconservative foreign policy. Explicitly or implicitly these critics lean toward a secessionist solution, presuming they can find a critical mass to join their resistance.

Needless to say, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page staff would not have felt comfortable in such company.

The keynote speaker, Faye, dealt with multicultural policies and their effects in European societies. Faye graphically and with appropriate facial contortions highlighted the “Muslim invasion” of Western Europe, and the receptiveness of the French and German Establishment to reconstruction by those whose heritage was different and openly antagonistic to European traditions.

But he was also (from my point of view) strangely confident that his fellow-Europeans would rise to the challenge. This would only happen, however, if “les plus forts” (the strongest—Faye employed the French phrase) assume leadership positions, and such self-hating European promoters of the “anti-European” European Community as Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel could be replaced.

Still, Faye was pessimistic about the possibility of Marine Le Pen, who heads the immigration-critical National Front, winning next year’s French presidential race. Marine, said Faye, can only count on the votes of about 30% of the French electorate and the other major parties, which are like our Democrats and Republicans, would band together behind a rival candidate to prevent someone on the non-approved right from gaining the French presidency.

Anti-white ethnomasochism and what Faye described as the “cult of xenophilia” were given appropriate attention at the conference. And all of the speakers and those among the attendees I conversed with had no trouble recognizing the core problems discussed.

In other Western countries, for example Germany, the dangerous tendencies highlighted at the conference are even more advanced than they are here. In Germany, political leaders gleefully prophesy the death of their historic nation and rejoice at the prospect of replacing the indigenous population with new settlers (Neusiedler), mostly from the Third World. Former German foreign minister and a radical cultural leftist who had been involved in revolutionary violence, Joschka Fischer, , is an immigration enthusiast who has insisted that “Europeans should stop treating migrants as a threat and start viewing them as an opportunity.” [Europe’s Migration Paralysis, August 24, 2015]Fischer’s admirer Jurgen Trittin, who now heads the German Green Party, is already ecstatic that his country is being overwhelmed by Asian Muslim migrants: “Each day Germany is disappearing more and more; and this is a truly wonderful thing!” exults Trittin, [YouTube] who heads one of the largest parties in the country that he hopes will soon vanish.

Despite my longtime interest in the entrenched lunacy represented by Trittin and his American counterparts, I still haven’t come up with anything more than provisional, limited explanations as to why we’re destroying our inherited culture and subjecting the settled populations to what the French call le Grand Remplacement. And Conservatism, Inc. may be among the last places where we should look for enlightenment on Political Correctness, multiculturalism and immigrant invasions. At NPI’s “Becoming Who We Are” conference, by contrast, open discussion about such things was the order of the day.

ORDER IT NOW

At least some of those who were at NPI will attend the gathering of the H.L. Mencken Club in the D.C. area this weekend (November 6-7). Unlike NPI, HLMC, of which I am President (for Life, reluctantly), does not promote political activism, and we attract members who on average are considerably more mature a.k.a. older and more likely to come from academic backgrounds. We are also less focused than NPI on the genetic and racial components of the crisis confronting Western civilization. There is a division of work (and obvious difference in age!) that distinguish our two organizations. But there are also shared features. Among them, hostility toward the victim industry and the immigration lobby, a deep-seated repugnance for the GOP as the fat-cat enablers of the Left, and a view that the entire West is now engulfed by the same struggle. Our groups duly acknowledge these overlaps, as we do with other the institutions of the Dissident Right.

Oh, and lest I forget, the members of both organizations read VDARE.com with effusive approval—and despise the Huffington Post!

Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Trumped says:

    Another excellent article from Gottfried. Should be front page on Unz.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgottfried/becoming-who-we-are/#comment-1212494
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Tom_R says:

    3rd WORLD IMMIGRATION—AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO WHITES.
    A SIMPLE PROBLEM WITH A SIMPLE SOLUTION–SO WHY CAN’T WHITES SOLVE IT?

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. Whites are facing the biggest problem from 3rd world immigration in white nations that whites have ever faced—it is not a problem of the century, but the biggest problem—ever.

    Sadly, this failure to solve what should be an easy problem to solve (totally ban immigration, expel all illegal aliens, do not vote for alienist politicians) and has been easily solved by even 3rd world countries exposes a very serious problem with whites—that they are unable to ban immigration into their countries.

    If you go to any 3rd world country and ask even uneducated people if they will would let in their poorer (and more violent and worse looking) neighbors into their home, they will look at you like you are insane, because it is common-sense not to let in people who are worse looking, poorer and more violent than you into their home or nations.

    So what is the problem? Are whites mentally retarded or mentally ill? I do not mean this in a pejorative manner, but to simply point out that when a race of people is unable to solve a simple basic problem, whose awareness and solution are both simple and common-sense, something is deeply wrong. My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites. A full explanation of how and why that is is beyond the time and space limits here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan D Mute

    My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites.
     
    To the extent that this includes the Jewish cult of Marxism, I agree completely. And it's the reason we cannot make any progress. The US has a hundred million evangelicals who are more Zionist than any Jew. The Christians insist we must "love" those who will enslave our children. And both the Christians and Marxists pale at the notion that the stupid and incompetent may enjoy a lower standard of living than those who enrich themselves by enriching the lives of others. Pile the woman's instinct to "help" the endless line of "victims" atop that mess and we are in far too deep for any hope of escape. For example, look at what we allow them to do to our sons. Our own sons! Drug them, feminize them, abuse the testosterone out of them. If we won't take up arms to protect our own sons, we are too demoralized to recover.

    As disturbing as it is to even think this, let alone type it, I wonder if Islam may not be our only hope. It is unarguably a masculine cult. Would an Islamic nation allow itself to be invaded and overrun by unarmed military aged males? Or allow its men and women to use the same bathrooms and showers together? Or allow homosexuals superior status? How would the Saudis deal with a problem like the American negroes? I find all religion deeply disturbing, but I cannot argue that if whites were Muslim and not Christian/Jewish we wouldn't be in this mess. Even our national debt would be impossible under the Mohammedan dogma.
    , @GW
    Great theory, especially considering how the de-Christianization of the West has paralleled the decline of White demographics and advance of cultural Marxism.
  3. Great article. I wish there were more I could do as a non academic to help this cause.

    Read More
  4. Curle says:

    I started watching your Youtube videos after reading you here for the first time. I’ve shared them with others. The reaction is always the same; people can’t believe how much clarity you bring to matters that have frustrated them but where the causes seemed obscure. I shared your video on the Jewish Lobby with a former roommate who is Jewish and asked for an opinion. He allowed that many of your observations were spot on.

    Read More
  5. I thought the HuffPost article was reasonably fair (and so was this post). I don’t see what Gottfried objects to in the reporter’s description regarding the speakers’ advocating a white ethnostate and saying that Jews rigged immigration reform. That’s what some of the more prominent speakers claim!

    This from the report was interesting:

    Most Jews would respond that they were forced into ghettos in Europe because of anti-Semitism. The conference’s participants think it’s the reverse: Anti-Semitism arose because Jews evolved separately and achieved economic and political success that has, understandably, inspired envy. It’s a chicken and egg non-dispute we’re not going to resolve here.

    Actually, mainstream Jewish historiography has long since moved beyond the “lachrymose” phase. Many of Kevin MacDonald’s points about Jewish-gentile competition are considered truisms among Jewish historians; he just exaggerates them in tendentious ways.

    Look at the very positive reception among historians for Esau’s Tears. This is another example of the disconnect between mainstream scholarly opinion, and what journalists and the public believe that opinion to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nglaer
    "Look at the very positive reception among historians for Esau’s Tears. This is another example of the disconnect between mainstream scholarly opinion, and what journalists and the public believe that opinion to be.

    Esau's Tearsis a great book. It doesn't have hostile toward Jews tone of some of McDonald's work, but is enormously rich and informative. I read it, found it fresh and interesting and then discovered to great surprise that Commentary, a magazine I actually wrote for at the time, said it shouldn't even have been published! That was quite a revelation.

    Thanks Paul for the informative description of the NPI event.
  6. nglaer says:
    @Aaron Gross
    I thought the HuffPost article was reasonably fair (and so was this post). I don't see what Gottfried objects to in the reporter's description regarding the speakers' advocating a white ethnostate and saying that Jews rigged immigration reform. That's what some of the more prominent speakers claim!

    This from the report was interesting:

    Most Jews would respond that they were forced into ghettos in Europe because of anti-Semitism. The conference’s participants think it’s the reverse: Anti-Semitism arose because Jews evolved separately and achieved economic and political success that has, understandably, inspired envy. It’s a chicken and egg non-dispute we’re not going to resolve here.
     
    Actually, mainstream Jewish historiography has long since moved beyond the "lachrymose" phase. Many of Kevin MacDonald's points about Jewish-gentile competition are considered truisms among Jewish historians; he just exaggerates them in tendentious ways.

    Look at the very positive reception among historians for Esau's Tears. This is another example of the disconnect between mainstream scholarly opinion, and what journalists and the public believe that opinion to be.

    Look at the very positive reception among historians for Esau’s Tears. This is another example of the disconnect between mainstream scholarly opinion, and what journalists and the public believe that opinion to be.

    Esau’s Tearsis a great book. It doesn’t have hostile toward Jews tone of some of McDonald’s work, but is enormously rich and informative. I read it, found it fresh and interesting and then discovered to great surprise that Commentary, a magazine I actually wrote for at the time, said it shouldn’t even have been published! That was quite a revelation.

    Thanks Paul for the informative description of the NPI event.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    I'm surprised that you were surprised that Commentary panned the book. Commentary is maybe the last remaining instance of the "lachrymose conception of Jewish history" in the intellectual world. The Podhoretzes view anti-Semitism as some kind of mysterious, uncaused madness that sometimes descends upon peoples like a magic fog.

    That's still the popular view of the history of anti-Semitism, but actual, mainstream Jewish historians seem to be much closer to MacDonald than to that version. (I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the field, that's just from what I've read.)

    I did read the Commentary review, and while it was written by a respected historian, it was really a smear of the book. Very tendentious misreadings. I think that might have been the only negative review the book received.

    And speaking of tendentious, Kevin MacDonald also reviewed the book, very positively of course. But his review was, typically for him, misleading to the point of being dishonest. I read his review right after reading the book, so that was obvious, but someone who'd never read the book would have no idea that MacDonald's review was so biased.
  7. J1234 says:

    Thanks for the great article, Paul. That Huff article was one of their worst.

    . Samantha also claimed that the conference was pushing the unspeakably outrageous idea of forcing “women back in the kitchen, 1950s style.” In her fevered imagination, America in the 1950s was equivalent to a Taliban society.

    The left always says conservatives wish it was 1957 again. But, in fact, the left seems to wish it was 1957 BC again. Before there was an evil Christian church. Before there was pollution. Yeah, those were the days.

    Read More
  8. nickels says:

    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my ‘what the hell is wrong with the west’ tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it ‘Just as well’ or ‘About time’.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my ‘what the hell is wrong with the west’ tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it ‘Just as well’ or ‘About time’.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.
     

    The Serenity Prayer says, grant me courage to change what I can and accept what I can't. I suspect many people you spoke to are taking the latter route. It's hard to identify action to take.

    I'm not capitulating and I'm definitely not accepting defeat. I'm also not just posturing. I have a few ideas to contribute in my own small but significant way.

    You can always have many children and convince your immediate circle of people to have lots of kids. That will guarantee that you and your circle will grow in the present.

    , @Wally
    The historically based response to such thinking is:

    'Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do.'

    , @This Is Our Home

    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my ‘what the hell is wrong with the west’ tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it ‘Just as well’ or ‘About time’.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.
     
    They are not zombies, they are narcissists, little tantrum prone tweens in adult bodies.
  9. Biff says:

    The entire human race is not meant to last, so what’s the point of worrying about whitey?

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Why worry about people you care about? What an infantile question. I used to say such things when I was 12 and I wanted people to think I was special.
  10. @Tom_R
    3rd WORLD IMMIGRATION—AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO WHITES.
    A SIMPLE PROBLEM WITH A SIMPLE SOLUTION--SO WHY CAN'T WHITES SOLVE IT?

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. Whites are facing the biggest problem from 3rd world immigration in white nations that whites have ever faced—it is not a problem of the century, but the biggest problem—ever.

    Sadly, this failure to solve what should be an easy problem to solve (totally ban immigration, expel all illegal aliens, do not vote for alienist politicians) and has been easily solved by even 3rd world countries exposes a very serious problem with whites—that they are unable to ban immigration into their countries.

    If you go to any 3rd world country and ask even uneducated people if they will would let in their poorer (and more violent and worse looking) neighbors into their home, they will look at you like you are insane, because it is common-sense not to let in people who are worse looking, poorer and more violent than you into their home or nations.

    So what is the problem? Are whites mentally retarded or mentally ill? I do not mean this in a pejorative manner, but to simply point out that when a race of people is unable to solve a simple basic problem, whose awareness and solution are both simple and common-sense, something is deeply wrong. My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites. A full explanation of how and why that is is beyond the time and space limits here.

    My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites.

    To the extent that this includes the Jewish cult of Marxism, I agree completely. And it’s the reason we cannot make any progress. The US has a hundred million evangelicals who are more Zionist than any Jew. The Christians insist we must “love” those who will enslave our children. And both the Christians and Marxists pale at the notion that the stupid and incompetent may enjoy a lower standard of living than those who enrich themselves by enriching the lives of others. Pile the woman’s instinct to “help” the endless line of “victims” atop that mess and we are in far too deep for any hope of escape. For example, look at what we allow them to do to our sons. Our own sons! Drug them, feminize them, abuse the testosterone out of them. If we won’t take up arms to protect our own sons, we are too demoralized to recover.

    As disturbing as it is to even think this, let alone type it, I wonder if Islam may not be our only hope. It is unarguably a masculine cult. Would an Islamic nation allow itself to be invaded and overrun by unarmed military aged males? Or allow its men and women to use the same bathrooms and showers together? Or allow homosexuals superior status? How would the Saudis deal with a problem like the American negroes? I find all religion deeply disturbing, but I cannot argue that if whites were Muslim and not Christian/Jewish we wouldn’t be in this mess. Even our national debt would be impossible under the Mohammedan dogma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    >>> Even our national debt would be impossible under the Mohammedan dogma.

    don't listen to what Islamic bankers ==say== they are doing....... watch the actual cash flows. And read the fine print in their actual offered instruments of contract.

    the basic concept of Islamic banking is: we will outlaw the renting of money; instead, we will offer contracts for future delivery, where the final price takes notice of the amount of time.

    Islam can't outlaw the laws of gravity; and it cannot outlaw the fact that money has a time value. Some of its adherents have learned bit of sleight-of-hand; but that is all it is. You will not be able to rent money for free, from any Islamic bank.

    Islamic insurance is somewhat fuzzier. The four different schools of Islamic jurisprudence have different demands about camaflauging the fact that a specified risk is being hedged. But again: it's all a charade. You can hedge your risks all day, but in the end, you will have to write a check to accomplish it.
    , @AndrewR
    The implementation of Sharia across western Europe within the next two to three generations is inevitable. North America and Eastern Europe will likely not be far off if the US hasn't. essentially become a cross between Mexico and Brazil
  11. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    I think we should stop calling the enemy the ‘left’. The real left is deader than the real right. It is totally gone. Sure, there are some Marxists in colleges, but no one listens to communist stuff anymore. It’s just for dummies, and they will never gain any power.

    The ‘left’ is now just a label. It is about power and privilege of Jews and white Libs who use homos to favor minority elite domination over others. It is a form of neo-aristocracy. The ‘left’ has become what Christianity became to the aristocrats of Europe: handy moral formula to justify its rule with slogans, mantras, rallies, and rituals.

    We should always judge people by what they do, not what they say. Despite all the mantras about ‘equality’ and ‘universalism’, today’s so-called ‘leftism’ is, in actual practice, about urban elites hogging everything for themselves and sneering at everyone else. The only thing universalist about this is the notion that elite cosmopolitan rich around the world identify with one another and look down on the rest of us. It’s like the movie Elysium. Bad movie but illustrates a good point.

    There is a way to moralize the right and put forth a suitable justification.

    But all moral sense has to be about victimology to some extent. After all, morality is about right and wrong, and that means it is about righting certain wrongs. A people who can’t make a case that they’ve been wronged don’t have anything to right.

    PS. We shouldn’t call the barking dogs of the globo-elites the ‘social justice warriors’. They should just be called Minions, like the twinkie-like characters in DESPICABLE.

    They are Teacher’s Pets. Or Teacher’s Pests.

    PSS. Minions in colleges call for ‘safe spaces’. This concept in the current setting is ridiculous as no one is getting hurt in college campuses. But in a general way, it is a decent concept because white nations and white communities should demand SAFE SPACES so that they can live in peace and harmony away from the savagery of black thugs who are more aggressive and stronger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    The ‘left’ has become what Christianity became to the aristocrats of Europe: handy moral formula to justify its rule with slogans, mantras, rallies, and rituals.
     
    Amen. However, the fact that Cultural Marxism is just a tool in elite intentions doesn't mean that it is just a tool. The state religion affects the conduct of the state and of the society the state lives off of. Christianity affected the conduct of Christian states. Cultural Marxism affects the conduct of Culturally Marxist states. The effects are slower and more subtle than the orders of a ruler, but they are no less real for that.
    , @dfordoom

    I think we should stop calling the enemy the ‘left’. The real left is deader than the real right. It is totally gone. Sure, there are some Marxists in colleges, but no one listens to communist stuff anymore. It’s just for dummies, and they will never gain any power.

    The ‘left’ is now just a label.
     
    These days "leftists" are pretty much identical to the neocons. On the surface they appear to be warmer and cuddlier and more caring but underneath they're just as vicious and venal and ruthless and cold-blooded. Today's "leftists" and Social Justice Warriors are on the right-wing end of the political spectrum.
  12. @nglaer
    "Look at the very positive reception among historians for Esau’s Tears. This is another example of the disconnect between mainstream scholarly opinion, and what journalists and the public believe that opinion to be.

    Esau's Tearsis a great book. It doesn't have hostile toward Jews tone of some of McDonald's work, but is enormously rich and informative. I read it, found it fresh and interesting and then discovered to great surprise that Commentary, a magazine I actually wrote for at the time, said it shouldn't even have been published! That was quite a revelation.

    Thanks Paul for the informative description of the NPI event.

    I’m surprised that you were surprised that Commentary panned the book. Commentary is maybe the last remaining instance of the “lachrymose conception of Jewish history” in the intellectual world. The Podhoretzes view anti-Semitism as some kind of mysterious, uncaused madness that sometimes descends upon peoples like a magic fog.

    That’s still the popular view of the history of anti-Semitism, but actual, mainstream Jewish historians seem to be much closer to MacDonald than to that version. (I’m not claiming any special knowledge of the field, that’s just from what I’ve read.)

    I did read the Commentary review, and while it was written by a respected historian, it was really a smear of the book. Very tendentious misreadings. I think that might have been the only negative review the book received.

    And speaking of tendentious, Kevin MacDonald also reviewed the book, very positively of course. But his review was, typically for him, misleading to the point of being dishonest. I read his review right after reading the book, so that was obvious, but someone who’d never read the book would have no idea that MacDonald’s review was so biased.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I am interested in how seriously to take Kevin Macdonald and how far one can rely on him. I have just read his review of Esau's Tears but I sm not well enough informed to know where he may be exaggerating or misrepresenting the truth as you imply he is.

    Would you please spell out his important errors with particular reference to those that cause you to criricise his honesty.
  13. nickels says:

    The West has always look the Jewish element for moral and intellectual influence since the dawn of Christianity.

    Upon the Jewish Emancipation ensued the Jewish Reformation. Not a few years later the secular Jewish element invented the secular Messianic religion of Critical Theory.

    I am convince that Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt only paints a partial picture. I believe a similar secularization of Judaism occurred with the Frankfurt school and the general tendency of Western intellects to look to to the Jewish element for ideas has at the same time propelled the post-Calvinist secular theocracy into a sort of ‘One-World’ messianism and the university secularists into a ‘One-World’ Post-Marxist delusion.

    In that regard I don’t really buy K. MacDonald’s ingroup/outgroup theory of Jewish antagonism to the west as much as I see the long held pattern of Western intellectuals looking to a more and more ‘off the rails’ form of secular messianic Judaism.

    But I might be whacked.

    Read More
  14. annamaria says:

    Nice report, “Leaked Emails From Pro-Clinton Group Reveal Censorship of Staff on Israel, AIPAC Pandering, Warped Militarism,” by Glen Greenwald. The US are under occupation, the Zionist one: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/05/leaked-emails-from-pro-clinton-group-reveal-censorship-of-staff-on-israel-aipac-pandering-warped-militarism/?comments=1#comments

    Read More
  15. Art says:

    “Jewish Samantha Lachman: In her fevered imagination, America in the 1950s was equivalent to a Taliban society.”

    The 50’s were the best time to be an American. A man could economically support his family – children came home to their mothers – and love was in every song. We were universally admired around the world.

    Debt was not a huge problem. Our government was functional. Except for black folks – we were not at each other’s throats. Perfect – of course not.

    Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews.

    Look at us now – family life in a shambles – devilishly divided – and hated around the world.

    How sad!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    >>> Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews


    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?

    Next, you will be telling us that feminism is almost perfect, except that its getting screwed up by weak men.
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    In 1945 Americans and the British had turned all cultural important German cities into rubble, killing millions. 70 years later the occupiers demand a final destruction of Europe’s Germanic population.

    When you rip out the heart of Europe, what do you have left?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    "The West must decide what to do. In the aftermath of last week's peace talks in Vienna, which convened the United States, Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and key European Union members, that question becomes increasingly difficult. Should we equip what remains of the Free Syrian Army? Should we deal with the few remaining Alawite leaders whose hands are not stained with blood, or those members of Assad's clan who chose exile early and thus were not involved in the massacres?

    Perhaps there is still be time to bring together, on neutral ground, some of the elements that comprised the old Syria. Or perhaps more radical solutions -- of the type implemented in Germany and Japan after World War II -- are now required."
     
    Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher and writer. [his credits include destruction of Libya and rape=murder of Qadaffi]

    Why Obama and Hollande Are Right on Syria
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/why-obama-and-hollande-ar_b_8479548.html

    What does the French philosopher's reference to the "more radical German solution" tell us?
    Is he implying that the destruction of Germany was deliberately planned, by people like himself, with the goal of de-Christianizing the heart of Europe; committing cultural and demographic genocide against Christian Europe?

    Jewish Zionist mission accomplished in Europe; next stop, Middle East.

    And after that, complete the in-gathering of Jews to Israel and destroy USA on the way out.

    Just like Egypt.
    Just like Germany.
  17. GW says:
    @Tom_R
    3rd WORLD IMMIGRATION—AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO WHITES.
    A SIMPLE PROBLEM WITH A SIMPLE SOLUTION--SO WHY CAN'T WHITES SOLVE IT?

    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. Whites are facing the biggest problem from 3rd world immigration in white nations that whites have ever faced—it is not a problem of the century, but the biggest problem—ever.

    Sadly, this failure to solve what should be an easy problem to solve (totally ban immigration, expel all illegal aliens, do not vote for alienist politicians) and has been easily solved by even 3rd world countries exposes a very serious problem with whites—that they are unable to ban immigration into their countries.

    If you go to any 3rd world country and ask even uneducated people if they will would let in their poorer (and more violent and worse looking) neighbors into their home, they will look at you like you are insane, because it is common-sense not to let in people who are worse looking, poorer and more violent than you into their home or nations.

    So what is the problem? Are whites mentally retarded or mentally ill? I do not mean this in a pejorative manner, but to simply point out that when a race of people is unable to solve a simple basic problem, whose awareness and solution are both simple and common-sense, something is deeply wrong. My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites. A full explanation of how and why that is is beyond the time and space limits here.

    Great theory, especially considering how the de-Christianization of the West has paralleled the decline of White demographics and advance of cultural Marxism.

    Read More
  18. robt says:

    My observation, growing up in the ’40s and ’50s was that women were tired of working in bomb factories and driving buses and streetcars (or maybe in the ‘service’, while all the men were away at war and were glad to ‘get back in the kitchen’ (not ‘forced’) and actually be able to raise kids and take care of them when they Walked Home From School For Lunch (remember that, instead of the ‘equal-opportunity’ buses?). More irony again: Black people wanting segregated Ebonics schools.
    The other option was to work if they wanted to, which option was always available, unlike today when both partners have to work just to pay the taxes – basically, the woman works for government in many or most non-welfare families, and any money left over goes to often government or government-sponsored child ‘care’ ‘services’.
    Sorry about all the ironic quotes, but it’s hard to write anything today without them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "basically, the woman works for government"

    Basically this is 100% true. Liberal society has traded stable family motherhood for more and more government. Mom has been turned into a money machine for the expansion of government.

    For the last 50 years, the Jew led liberal media has told women that they should be ashamed if they do not go to work – they assert, that women must abandon their children to be fully human.

    It gets worse, the liberal Jews are now crying for children to start government school at 3 & 4 years old.

    Who says that the Jews are not responsible for most all that is wrong in America?
  19. Yes, but the central question remains unanswered: why various Western European electorates don’t, finally, give their votes to *real* national parties ? As is the case in parts of Eastern or SE Europe ?

    Decades’ long brainwashing is not sufficient to explain this paralyzed, suicidal behavior. Understandably, you couldn’t do anything against ruling elites during, say, Soviet purges in 1937-38 or in Cambodia’s killing fields. But here, all you have to do is to vote with your reptile brain. And even that is so hard to achieve.

    Wackos & lunatics can become suicidal (Joschka Fischer & comp.). But, what about ordinary people ?

    By the way, I’m a Croat, so I can be accused of partiality. Just, Steve Sailer’s old article (hyperlinked in the article) on pre-war Yugoslavia is weak; Steve is clueless re Tito & ex- Yu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Bardon (if I may be so familiar), which authors would you recommend for reading up on late 20th century Balkan doings?
  20. @nickels
    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my 'what the hell is wrong with the west' tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it 'Just as well' or 'About time'.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.

    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my ‘what the hell is wrong with the west’ tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it ‘Just as well’ or ‘About time’.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.

    The Serenity Prayer says, grant me courage to change what I can and accept what I can’t. I suspect many people you spoke to are taking the latter route. It’s hard to identify action to take.

    I’m not capitulating and I’m definitely not accepting defeat. I’m also not just posturing. I have a few ideas to contribute in my own small but significant way.

    You can always have many children and convince your immediate circle of people to have lots of kids. That will guarantee that you and your circle will grow in the present.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    The Serenity Prayer says, grant me courage to change what I can and accept what I can’t. I suspect many people you spoke to are taking the latter route. It’s hard to identify action to take.

    I’m not capitulating and I’m definitely not accepting defeat. I’m also not just posturing. I have a few ideas to contribute in my own small but significant way.
     
    It is only hard to identify action to take if you're narcissistic enough to think that you are the complete solution. Or borderline enough to not be able to think in shades of grey. Or both.
  21. Wally says: • Website
    @nickels
    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my 'what the hell is wrong with the west' tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it 'Just as well' or 'About time'.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.

    The historically based response to such thinking is:

    ‘Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant
    ‘Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do."

    Exactly. I don't want to defend "Cultural Marxists" or open borders advocates - Jewish or Gentile - but you have to wonder why the average White person is so enthusiastic about his own suicide.

    Sometimes, the Jew haters go way too far. For example, some have mentioned that Sweden's problems relate to its small Jewish minority - less than 1 percent. LoL. Yeah, its not the Swedish 99% that favors open borders - its all because of those dastardly 20,000 Swedish Jews!

  22. Art says:
    @robt
    My observation, growing up in the '40s and '50s was that women were tired of working in bomb factories and driving buses and streetcars (or maybe in the 'service', while all the men were away at war and were glad to 'get back in the kitchen' (not 'forced') and actually be able to raise kids and take care of them when they Walked Home From School For Lunch (remember that, instead of the 'equal-opportunity' buses?). More irony again: Black people wanting segregated Ebonics schools.
    The other option was to work if they wanted to, which option was always available, unlike today when both partners have to work just to pay the taxes - basically, the woman works for government in many or most non-welfare families, and any money left over goes to often government or government-sponsored child 'care' 'services'.
    Sorry about all the ironic quotes, but it's hard to write anything today without them.

    “basically, the woman works for government”

    Basically this is 100% true. Liberal society has traded stable family motherhood for more and more government. Mom has been turned into a money machine for the expansion of government.

    For the last 50 years, the Jew led liberal media has told women that they should be ashamed if they do not go to work – they assert, that women must abandon their children to be fully human.

    It gets worse, the liberal Jews are now crying for children to start government school at 3 & 4 years old.

    Who says that the Jews are not responsible for most all that is wrong in America?

    Read More
  23. Hunsdon says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Yes, but the central question remains unanswered: why various Western European electorates don't, finally, give their votes to *real* national parties ? As is the case in parts of Eastern or SE Europe ?

    Decades' long brainwashing is not sufficient to explain this paralyzed, suicidal behavior. Understandably, you couldn't do anything against ruling elites during, say, Soviet purges in 1937-38 or in Cambodia's killing fields. But here, all you have to do is to vote with your reptile brain. And even that is so hard to achieve.

    Wackos & lunatics can become suicidal (Joschka Fischer & comp.). But, what about ordinary people ?

    By the way, I'm a Croat, so I can be accused of partiality. Just, Steve Sailer's old article (hyperlinked in the article) on pre-war Yugoslavia is weak; Steve is clueless re Tito & ex- Yu.

    Bardon (if I may be so familiar), which authors would you recommend for reading up on late 20th century Balkan doings?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Hello;
    well, I don't know of a single book in English that could be useful. If you are interested in a broad picture, a historical masterpiece is Ivo Banac: The National Question in Yugoslavia, but it ends in 1920s.
    From Croatian POV, the best is British journalist Marcus Tanner's: Croatia- Nation Forged in War

    Also, you may download a few (pro-Croatian, I must admit) books or articles here: http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/download.html

    A pro-Bosnian Muslim work, but not extremely, is Noel Malcolm: Bosnia- A Short History

    I guess pro- Albanian is his book on Kosovo (haven't read it).

    Some think that Tim Judah books on Serbs are anti- Serbian, some: pro-Serbian.

    If you go to foreigners (that is- no Croats, Muslims, Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians,..) you'll see that most have been written by frequently tendentious journalists or propagandists (Misha Glenny, Caplan, Michael Sells ..), while expert historians were absent.

    So, try, if you want, some of the works- I would recommend the Banac book- but you won't get nuances, that's my opinion. As a summary, I'd offer a brief review on partial history from the Croatian Bosnian site that was criticized from both right & left.
    http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/bihist.html

    Sailer's mistake was his claim that ex-Yu ruler Tito, of Croatian-Slovene origin, has drawn internal borders against Serbian wishes. This is not true, because most internal borders have remained the same in past 300 years, with only marginal corrections.

    The real reason of YU breakup was: you can't have so many different nations, cultures
    & nationalisms on a rather small territory. These were very different nations- for instance, Slovenes are similar to Austrians and Albanians to Turks. And when parting time comes, there will be
    at least some level of fighting for disputed territories.
  24. Rehmat says:

    The Jewish switch-over from pro-immigration to anti-immigration is explained by Israeli-born Jewish author and blogger, Gilad Atzmon.

    “Jewish passion for immigration is clearly fading away these days. It is not a secret that mass immigration of Muslims and Arabs made many Western Jews feel uncomfortable to say the least. In recent years we have been monitoring rapid surge of Jewish involvement in anti-immigration political and intellectual activity. Some so-called ‘progressive’ Jews fight the veil in the name of ‘feminism,’ others insist on eradicating Islamic symbolic identifiers in the name of ‘secularism.’ I guess that even Jewish ‘progressive tolerance’ has its limits, especially when it comes to Muslims. However, Zionists are actually slightly more consistent in that regard: they openly ally themselves with ultra-nationalist groups. Anti-Islam positions are often promoted by Hasbara, interventionist and neocon outlets. The xenophobic message is also disseminated via literature, academia and general media,” says Atzmon.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/22/jewish-lobby-against-muslim-immigration/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    historically, the children of the most rhetorically-fervant Leftist kibbutzim, were the mainstay of the elite units in IDF.
  25. @Anonymous
    In 1945 Americans and the British had turned all cultural important German cities into rubble, killing millions. 70 years later the occupiers demand a final destruction of Europe's Germanic population.

    When you rip out the heart of Europe, what do you have left?

    “The West must decide what to do. In the aftermath of last week’s peace talks in Vienna, which convened the United States, Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and key European Union members, that question becomes increasingly difficult. Should we equip what remains of the Free Syrian Army? Should we deal with the few remaining Alawite leaders whose hands are not stained with blood, or those members of Assad’s clan who chose exile early and thus were not involved in the massacres?

    Perhaps there is still be time to bring together, on neutral ground, some of the elements that comprised the old Syria. Or perhaps more radical solutions — of the type implemented in Germany and Japan after World War II — are now required.”

    Bernard-Henri Lévy French philosopher and writer. [his credits include destruction of Libya and rape=murder of Qadaffi]

    Why Obama and Hollande Are Right on Syria

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/why-obama-and-hollande-ar_b_8479548.html

    What does the French philosopher’s reference to the “more radical German solution” tell us?
    Is he implying that the destruction of Germany was deliberately planned, by people like himself, with the goal of de-Christianizing the heart of Europe; committing cultural and demographic genocide against Christian Europe?

    Jewish Zionist mission accomplished in Europe; next stop, Middle East.

    And after that, complete the in-gathering of Jews to Israel and destroy USA on the way out.

    Just like Egypt.
    Just like Germany.

    Read More
  26. Karl says:
    @Art
    "Jewish Samantha Lachman: In her fevered imagination, America in the 1950s was equivalent to a Taliban society."

    The 50’s were the best time to be an American. A man could economically support his family – children came home to their mothers – and love was in every song. We were universally admired around the world.

    Debt was not a huge problem. Our government was functional. Except for black folks – we were not at each other’s throats. Perfect – of course not.

    Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews.

    Look at us now – family life in a shambles - devilishly divided – and hated around the world.

    How sad!

    >>> Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews

    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?

    Next, you will be telling us that feminism is almost perfect, except that its getting screwed up by weak men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Biff

    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?
     
    The superpower was always there, and still is..
    , @Art
    Art: "Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews

    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?"

    So when did it happen - you give us a date - when did the Jews start their takeover?

    p.s. You can't be saying that they haven't done that - no one can be that dishonest.
  27. Karl says:
    @Stan D Mute

    My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites.
     
    To the extent that this includes the Jewish cult of Marxism, I agree completely. And it's the reason we cannot make any progress. The US has a hundred million evangelicals who are more Zionist than any Jew. The Christians insist we must "love" those who will enslave our children. And both the Christians and Marxists pale at the notion that the stupid and incompetent may enjoy a lower standard of living than those who enrich themselves by enriching the lives of others. Pile the woman's instinct to "help" the endless line of "victims" atop that mess and we are in far too deep for any hope of escape. For example, look at what we allow them to do to our sons. Our own sons! Drug them, feminize them, abuse the testosterone out of them. If we won't take up arms to protect our own sons, we are too demoralized to recover.

    As disturbing as it is to even think this, let alone type it, I wonder if Islam may not be our only hope. It is unarguably a masculine cult. Would an Islamic nation allow itself to be invaded and overrun by unarmed military aged males? Or allow its men and women to use the same bathrooms and showers together? Or allow homosexuals superior status? How would the Saudis deal with a problem like the American negroes? I find all religion deeply disturbing, but I cannot argue that if whites were Muslim and not Christian/Jewish we wouldn't be in this mess. Even our national debt would be impossible under the Mohammedan dogma.

    >>> Even our national debt would be impossible under the Mohammedan dogma.

    don’t listen to what Islamic bankers ==say== they are doing……. watch the actual cash flows. And read the fine print in their actual offered instruments of contract.

    the basic concept of Islamic banking is: we will outlaw the renting of money; instead, we will offer contracts for future delivery, where the final price takes notice of the amount of time.

    Islam can’t outlaw the laws of gravity; and it cannot outlaw the fact that money has a time value. Some of its adherents have learned bit of sleight-of-hand; but that is all it is. You will not be able to rent money for free, from any Islamic bank.

    Islamic insurance is somewhat fuzzier. The four different schools of Islamic jurisprudence have different demands about camaflauging the fact that a specified risk is being hedged. But again: it’s all a charade. You can hedge your risks all day, but in the end, you will have to write a check to accomplish it.

    Read More
  28. Karl says:
    @Rehmat
    The Jewish switch-over from pro-immigration to anti-immigration is explained by Israeli-born Jewish author and blogger, Gilad Atzmon.

    “Jewish passion for immigration is clearly fading away these days. It is not a secret that mass immigration of Muslims and Arabs made many Western Jews feel uncomfortable to say the least. In recent years we have been monitoring rapid surge of Jewish involvement in anti-immigration political and intellectual activity. Some so-called ‘progressive’ Jews fight the veil in the name of ‘feminism,’ others insist on eradicating Islamic symbolic identifiers in the name of ‘secularism.’ I guess that even Jewish ‘progressive tolerance’ has its limits, especially when it comes to Muslims. However, Zionists are actually slightly more consistent in that regard: they openly ally themselves with ultra-nationalist groups. Anti-Islam positions are often promoted by Hasbara, interventionist and neocon outlets. The xenophobic message is also disseminated via literature, academia and general media,” says Atzmon.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/22/jewish-lobby-against-muslim-immigration/

    historically, the children of the most rhetorically-fervant Leftist kibbutzim, were the mainstay of the elite units in IDF.

    Read More
  29. Biff says:
    @Karl
    >>> Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews


    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?

    Next, you will be telling us that feminism is almost perfect, except that its getting screwed up by weak men.

    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?

    The superpower was always there, and still is..

    Read More
  30. “I am writing as an immigration-critical Jew”

    How do you define “Jew”?

    Read More
  31. @Hunsdon
    Bardon (if I may be so familiar), which authors would you recommend for reading up on late 20th century Balkan doings?

    Hello;
    well, I don’t know of a single book in English that could be useful. If you are interested in a broad picture, a historical masterpiece is Ivo Banac: The National Question in Yugoslavia, but it ends in 1920s.
    From Croatian POV, the best is British journalist Marcus Tanner’s: Croatia- Nation Forged in War

    Also, you may download a few (pro-Croatian, I must admit) books or articles here: http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/download.html

    A pro-Bosnian Muslim work, but not extremely, is Noel Malcolm: Bosnia- A Short History

    I guess pro- Albanian is his book on Kosovo (haven’t read it).

    Some think that Tim Judah books on Serbs are anti- Serbian, some: pro-Serbian.

    If you go to foreigners (that is- no Croats, Muslims, Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians,..) you’ll see that most have been written by frequently tendentious journalists or propagandists (Misha Glenny, Caplan, Michael Sells ..), while expert historians were absent.

    So, try, if you want, some of the works- I would recommend the Banac book- but you won’t get nuances, that’s my opinion. As a summary, I’d offer a brief review on partial history from the Croatian Bosnian site that was criticized from both right & left.

    http://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/bihist.html

    Sailer’s mistake was his claim that ex-Yu ruler Tito, of Croatian-Slovene origin, has drawn internal borders against Serbian wishes. This is not true, because most internal borders have remained the same in past 300 years, with only marginal corrections.

    The real reason of YU breakup was: you can’t have so many different nations, cultures
    & nationalisms on a rather small territory. These were very different nations- for instance, Slovenes are similar to Austrians and Albanians to Turks. And when parting time comes, there will be
    at least some level of fighting for disputed territories.

    Read More
  32. @Aaron Gross
    I'm surprised that you were surprised that Commentary panned the book. Commentary is maybe the last remaining instance of the "lachrymose conception of Jewish history" in the intellectual world. The Podhoretzes view anti-Semitism as some kind of mysterious, uncaused madness that sometimes descends upon peoples like a magic fog.

    That's still the popular view of the history of anti-Semitism, but actual, mainstream Jewish historians seem to be much closer to MacDonald than to that version. (I'm not claiming any special knowledge of the field, that's just from what I've read.)

    I did read the Commentary review, and while it was written by a respected historian, it was really a smear of the book. Very tendentious misreadings. I think that might have been the only negative review the book received.

    And speaking of tendentious, Kevin MacDonald also reviewed the book, very positively of course. But his review was, typically for him, misleading to the point of being dishonest. I read his review right after reading the book, so that was obvious, but someone who'd never read the book would have no idea that MacDonald's review was so biased.

    I am interested in how seriously to take Kevin Macdonald and how far one can rely on him. I have just read his review of Esau’s Tears but I sm not well enough informed to know where he may be exaggerating or misrepresenting the truth as you imply he is.

    Would you please spell out his important errors with particular reference to those that cause you to criricise his honesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Aaron Gross
    Sure, but first of all a big disclaimer: It's been years since I've read Esau's Tears and MacDonald's review, and this is all from memory, which may be faulty.

    Anyway, as I remember, MacDonald's review focused mostly on Leon Trotsky. Lindemann's description of Trotsky was very balanced. Among other things, Lindemann wrote that if some gentiles could be considered "Jewified," as he'd described certain people earlier in the book, then Trotsky could be considered "gentilized." (I don't even remember if those words are exact quotes, but that was the meaning.) The idea was that while Trotsky was Jewish in name, he was in some important ways more "gentile" than "Jewish."

    MacDonald ignored that part, and implicitly presented Trotsky as a Jewish type. He cherry-picked all the negative things and ignored everything else. I don't remember more details than that, sorry; but that was my conclusion at the time. I don't think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture. You might want to read just that part of ET about Trotsky and then re-read MacDonald's review.

    It might interest you that in the past, some historians have accused MacDonald of misrepresenting certain secondary sources, in at least one case their own writings. MacDonald vigorously denied those charges. I have no idea who was right, but that's something you might want to check.

    In historiography, balance is everything. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to show whatever he wants. That's exactly what Kevin MacDonald does. By the way, this is Gottfried's criticism of MacDonald also, as I remember (again, from what I've read years ago!). Basically, MacDonald writes history like a prosecutor in a court of law trying to convict a defendant. You can't trust it as history.

    In his Occidental Observer blog, MacDonald's been intentionally deceptive about facts without technically lying about them. (I once pointed out a case of that in a comment on his blog, and to his credit he posted my comment; he didn't reply to it.) And he does publish (or at least has published) other contributors on that blog who just outright lie.

    Also, a personal comment: MacDonald has strongly influenced my thinking, and I've defended his claims in internet arguments in the past. But I think that the arguments of his that influenced me are exactly those truisms that are accepted in mainstream Jewish historiography: that Jewish and non-Jewish groups are in competition over resources and hence have conflicting group interests, that anti-Semitism is often caused by gentile and Jewish behavior, that conflicts between Jews and gentiles are a two-way street rather than simply persecutor/victim, etc. I just happened to come across these mainstream ideas via MacDonald, because I read him (on the internet) before reading mainstream historiography like Esau's Tears. As I've said, the public is unaware that mainstream Jewish historians hold "anti-Semitic" beliefs, just as, by analogy, they're unaware that mainstream researchers in personality and intelligence hold "racist" beliefs.

    Bottom line, I'd say read good Jewish historiography like Esau's Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting.
  33. Sean says:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections-blog-2013/2013/sep/16/german-green-jurgen-trittin-regret-paedophilia-pamphlet

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/10312930/Germanys-Green-Party-leader-regrets-campaign-to-legalise-paedophilia.html
    Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a student leader in the 1968 unrest in Paris, claimed in a 1975 book that he interacted sexually with children while working at a kindergarten. The remarks came to light again this year when he was awarded a prize by the Theodor Heuss Foundation, which honours West Germany’s first president.

    Read More
  34. AmericanaCON [AKA "Julies Yost"] says:

    American Jews vote disproportionally for Democratic Party and hold liberal political views. We find similar patterns in Western Europe. Jews in United States and Western Europe are nevertheless not unique. All ethnic minorities tend to vote on liberal parties which include very white and very Christians of various nationalities living in the Diaspora. An example is ethnic Swedes in Finland which constantly promote multiculturalism, open borders and minority rights or French Canadians in Canada.

    There are three reasons why I reject white nationalism. Firstly, their constant focuses on Jewish identity politics when they ought to be focusing on why white people allow radical ideas to be a part of political decision-making. The cause of why the Western world has adopted open borders, multiculturalism and internationalism seem not to stem from the Jews but the very western civilization itself. Even if Jews had some collective agenda to deconstruct western nations it cannot be done without the support of the very white Christian masses. Secondly, White nationalism just as pan-Africanism disregards ethnic differences among westerners. It may be so that White Americans is a “mix of everything” but is not the case in Europe.

    In Europe whiteness is second to ethnicity. European nations are not turning “white nationalists” they are turning ethno-nationalists. There is of course a sense of shared identity being white and members of the west but it does not supersede their ethnic identity. Thirdly, the world has not only become globalized because of politics but also because of technology. In such world people will marry and connect over ethnic, cultural, religious and racial borders. You cannot stop people doing so. I really hate to read about white nationalists badmouthing interracial marriage and biracial children.

    Western societies (not including colonies) have always been inclusive enough to allow people make their own decisions. There is a vast difference between advocating for controlled borders and interfere with domestic freedoms such as marriage. Further, African-Americans ought to be included in the US narrative. Their ancestors may have come in chains but taking their rights away or deport them is morally wrong. I cannot say I’m keen on NPI and their political goals. Still, they sometimes produce thought provocative and intelligent analysis which I as libertarian-Conservative find useful so merit should be given where it belongs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Even if Jews had some collective agenda to deconstruct western nations it cannot be done without the support of the very white Christian masses."

    Of course this a concocted lie – there is no free press when it comes to Jews. Americans cannot openly and publically interact with each other about the problem of aggressive tribal Jews. No one can attack Jews as a group in any mainstream publication or association of any type. The Gentiles in American cannot criticize Jews without personally and economically being attacked.

    This we all know to be true – as a tribal group, manipulative Jews have used what they say happened to them in WWII to take over our culture and our nation. Of course what they say happened is questionable.
    , @Hugo
    We're glad you reject WN as by reading your post you're either a woman or a cuck. At this late point, we can't be wasting time with small thinkers.
  35. Art says:
    @AmericanaCON
    American Jews vote disproportionally for Democratic Party and hold liberal political views. We find similar patterns in Western Europe. Jews in United States and Western Europe are nevertheless not unique. All ethnic minorities tend to vote on liberal parties which include very white and very Christians of various nationalities living in the Diaspora. An example is ethnic Swedes in Finland which constantly promote multiculturalism, open borders and minority rights or French Canadians in Canada.

    There are three reasons why I reject white nationalism. Firstly, their constant focuses on Jewish identity politics when they ought to be focusing on why white people allow radical ideas to be a part of political decision-making. The cause of why the Western world has adopted open borders, multiculturalism and internationalism seem not to stem from the Jews but the very western civilization itself. Even if Jews had some collective agenda to deconstruct western nations it cannot be done without the support of the very white Christian masses. Secondly, White nationalism just as pan-Africanism disregards ethnic differences among westerners. It may be so that White Americans is a “mix of everything” but is not the case in Europe.

    In Europe whiteness is second to ethnicity. European nations are not turning “white nationalists” they are turning ethno-nationalists. There is of course a sense of shared identity being white and members of the west but it does not supersede their ethnic identity. Thirdly, the world has not only become globalized because of politics but also because of technology. In such world people will marry and connect over ethnic, cultural, religious and racial borders. You cannot stop people doing so. I really hate to read about white nationalists badmouthing interracial marriage and biracial children.

    Western societies (not including colonies) have always been inclusive enough to allow people make their own decisions. There is a vast difference between advocating for controlled borders and interfere with domestic freedoms such as marriage. Further, African-Americans ought to be included in the US narrative. Their ancestors may have come in chains but taking their rights away or deport them is morally wrong. I cannot say I’m keen on NPI and their political goals. Still, they sometimes produce thought provocative and intelligent analysis which I as libertarian-Conservative find useful so merit should be given where it belongs.

    “Even if Jews had some collective agenda to deconstruct western nations it cannot be done without the support of the very white Christian masses.”

    Of course this a concocted lie – there is no free press when it comes to Jews. Americans cannot openly and publically interact with each other about the problem of aggressive tribal Jews. No one can attack Jews as a group in any mainstream publication or association of any type. The Gentiles in American cannot criticize Jews without personally and economically being attacked.

    This we all know to be true – as a tribal group, manipulative Jews have used what they say happened to them in WWII to take over our culture and our nation. Of course what they say happened is questionable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    Well, my point is that Jews are really no different from any other minority or a majority. When it comes to multiculturalism it seems like Christian whites are the ones which are the most viral supporters of multiculturalism. I don’t think Jews should be hold responsibility for something which ought to be blamed (or cherished depending on how you see it) on the majority. In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything.

    Elites are a different matter. The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe. It is true that many Jewish groups also advocating it but so what? The same goes for the white Christians groups. We still live in a free society so if you dislike Christian, Jewish, Hindu, African-American or whatever elite you can vote them out office or just don’t buy their newspapers. I don’t blame migrants because they are coming to America or Europe. They are looking for a better life. Do I support uncontrolled borders? No, I don’t but I don’t blame migrants for them. I don’t blame regular Muslims for what Muslims fundamentalist advocate. Am I positive to everything Islamic? No, I’m not.

    What I dislike with NPI and other far-right anti-Semitic organizations is that they cannot distinct Jews with no power from Jewish elites. They have the same amoral horizon as Jewish or African-American far-left groups blaming white Christians for “hate” just because they are white Christians. I agree with you that the current elites (Jewish or white Christian) use their power to destroy careers when people go against their political believes instead defending their political positions.

    I think it is despicable. It should be dealt with although I don’t know how because of their resources. In general I think the elites should either alter their views to become more inclusive to political ideas (which has been done in Denmark) or “we” regardless if we are Jews, Christians, Whites, Blacks and whatever our political believes get rid of our elites and replace them with an elite which cherish freedom of speech and respect and tolerance for people’s opinions.
  36. Art says:
    @Karl
    >>> Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews


    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?

    Next, you will be telling us that feminism is almost perfect, except that its getting screwed up by weak men.

    Art: “Then came the assassination of JFK and the 50 year takeover of America’s culture and government by the Jews

    wow, three bullets turned a superpower upside down?”

    So when did it happen – you give us a date – when did the Jews start their takeover?

    p.s. You can’t be saying that they haven’t done that – no one can be that dishonest.

    Read More
  37. @Wally
    The historically based response to such thinking is:

    'Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do.'

    ‘Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do.”

    Exactly. I don’t want to defend “Cultural Marxists” or open borders advocates – Jewish or Gentile – but you have to wonder why the average White person is so enthusiastic about his own suicide.

    Sometimes, the Jew haters go way too far. For example, some have mentioned that Sweden’s problems relate to its small Jewish minority – less than 1 percent. LoL. Yeah, its not the Swedish 99% that favors open borders – its all because of those dastardly 20,000 Swedish Jews!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    Sweden is an interesting example. There are maybe 1-2 million Jews in the entire European Union and the Jewish Swedish population is somewhere between 15,000-25,000 and are less than 0.1-0.2 percent of the population. In United States there are 6-7 million Jews and closer to 2 percent. Of course, Jews as an ethnic group has a much larger role to play in politics and public life because they are a much larger minority and are therefore more visible. In European politics and public life Jews are rare other than in United Kingdom, France, Hungary and Germany. I would go so far to say that majority of Europeans not living in a major city have never spoke with a Jew or can remember he/she has seen a Jew in real life. The only European cities I have been to which has a visible Jewish population is London, Paris, Prague, Budapest and somewhat in Berlin. New York is an all different matter.

    I have thought about it. In Iceland, one of the most ethnic homogenous countries on the planet it is not Jews whom argue for multiculturalism and an open border policy. It is ethnic Icelanders. There are just 30 Jews on Iceland and almost all of them are non religious and if they are not there on a temporary contract they are married to an Icelander. When their banks collapsed it was not Jewish bankers and politicians which were involved but ethnic Icelandic bankers and politicians. Jews are not some metaphysical power nor are they involved in everything - bad or good. They are just people just as whites, blacks, indians and hispanics.
    , @nickels
    The West seems to have no moral imagination of its own. It always looks to the Jews for such guidance.
    This brought us Christianity, which worked for several millennia.

    Well, something happened in Germany and the Jewish Messianic caste went secular.
    At the same time, so did Christianity, as it turned into our current 'do goody, sensitive' multiculturalism.

    It is secular West's failing that it is still looking to the Jewish element for guidance. And today's guidance comes from the secular, Marxist idiot who puhses for open borders, mass immigration and atheism, i.e. destruction.

    It is our own failing (the West).
  38. AmericanaCON [AKA "Julies Yost"] says:
    @Art
    "Even if Jews had some collective agenda to deconstruct western nations it cannot be done without the support of the very white Christian masses."

    Of course this a concocted lie – there is no free press when it comes to Jews. Americans cannot openly and publically interact with each other about the problem of aggressive tribal Jews. No one can attack Jews as a group in any mainstream publication or association of any type. The Gentiles in American cannot criticize Jews without personally and economically being attacked.

    This we all know to be true – as a tribal group, manipulative Jews have used what they say happened to them in WWII to take over our culture and our nation. Of course what they say happened is questionable.

    Well, my point is that Jews are really no different from any other minority or a majority. When it comes to multiculturalism it seems like Christian whites are the ones which are the most viral supporters of multiculturalism. I don’t think Jews should be hold responsibility for something which ought to be blamed (or cherished depending on how you see it) on the majority. In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything.

    Elites are a different matter. The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe. It is true that many Jewish groups also advocating it but so what? The same goes for the white Christians groups. We still live in a free society so if you dislike Christian, Jewish, Hindu, African-American or whatever elite you can vote them out office or just don’t buy their newspapers. I don’t blame migrants because they are coming to America or Europe. They are looking for a better life. Do I support uncontrolled borders? No, I don’t but I don’t blame migrants for them. I don’t blame regular Muslims for what Muslims fundamentalist advocate. Am I positive to everything Islamic? No, I’m not.

    What I dislike with NPI and other far-right anti-Semitic organizations is that they cannot distinct Jews with no power from Jewish elites. They have the same amoral horizon as Jewish or African-American far-left groups blaming white Christians for “hate” just because they are white Christians. I agree with you that the current elites (Jewish or white Christian) use their power to destroy careers when people go against their political believes instead defending their political positions.

    I think it is despicable. It should be dealt with although I don’t know how because of their resources. In general I think the elites should either alter their views to become more inclusive to political ideas (which has been done in Denmark) or “we” regardless if we are Jews, Christians, Whites, Blacks and whatever our political believes get rid of our elites and replace them with an elite which cherish freedom of speech and respect and tolerance for people’s opinions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything."

    My god - that is an absurd statement.

    From the very beginning, the human species has been tribal. Next to biological disease – our tribalness is the bane of humanity. Human individuals are born tribal – it is part of our genetic nature. Many of our genetic based emotions hardwire us to be tribal. Group on group, gang destructiveness and emotional hate is the heartbreaking part of our human history.

    With all that said, we do have the intellectual capability to override our hardwired negative emotions. We are also blessed with positive non-violent emotions – we can and must chose to act on those positive emotions.

    Not to hold the individual group member responsible for his gang actions assures an endless violent future for humanity.
    , @Bill

    The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe
     
    If you go back a century, the US elite was dominated by irreligious WASPs---that was true from the founding of the country up until sometime just after WWII. From sometime just after WWII to the present, it has been the Jews. They are not an absolute majority of the elite, but they don't have to be. They are more cohesive, at least on their key distinguishing issues, than are any of their opponents. So, on the stuff they agree on (basically, Cultural Marxism and Israel worship), they get their way. Denying this just makes you look like an idiot. Or like someone who wants applause from readers of Commentary.

    Western Europe is not an independent actor, nor are the component countries independent actors. They are puppets of the US.

    We still live in a free society
     
    This is not true. If you openly express disagreement with the state religion, you can't be employed in any sort of managerial role and professional roles are dicey. Read about James Watson and think about what that example means.
  39. AmericanaCON [AKA "Julies Yost"] says:
    @Honesthughgrant
    ‘Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do."

    Exactly. I don't want to defend "Cultural Marxists" or open borders advocates - Jewish or Gentile - but you have to wonder why the average White person is so enthusiastic about his own suicide.

    Sometimes, the Jew haters go way too far. For example, some have mentioned that Sweden's problems relate to its small Jewish minority - less than 1 percent. LoL. Yeah, its not the Swedish 99% that favors open borders - its all because of those dastardly 20,000 Swedish Jews!

    Sweden is an interesting example. There are maybe 1-2 million Jews in the entire European Union and the Jewish Swedish population is somewhere between 15,000-25,000 and are less than 0.1-0.2 percent of the population. In United States there are 6-7 million Jews and closer to 2 percent. Of course, Jews as an ethnic group has a much larger role to play in politics and public life because they are a much larger minority and are therefore more visible. In European politics and public life Jews are rare other than in United Kingdom, France, Hungary and Germany. I would go so far to say that majority of Europeans not living in a major city have never spoke with a Jew or can remember he/she has seen a Jew in real life. The only European cities I have been to which has a visible Jewish population is London, Paris, Prague, Budapest and somewhat in Berlin. New York is an all different matter.

    I have thought about it. In Iceland, one of the most ethnic homogenous countries on the planet it is not Jews whom argue for multiculturalism and an open border policy. It is ethnic Icelanders. There are just 30 Jews on Iceland and almost all of them are non religious and if they are not there on a temporary contract they are married to an Icelander. When their banks collapsed it was not Jewish bankers and politicians which were involved but ethnic Icelandic bankers and politicians. Jews are not some metaphysical power nor are they involved in everything – bad or good. They are just people just as whites, blacks, indians and hispanics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Jews are not some metaphysical power nor are they involved in everything – bad or good. They are just people just as whites, blacks, indians and hispanics.
     
    Thanks for that news flash. According to you, we shouldn't take notice of the Israel Lobby's efforts (in the US and other capitals) to enhance the security of the "villa in the jungle" by remaking the ME by destabilizing (I mean bringing democracy) to those regimes that resist the Zionist project's oppression of the Pals.

    Nice try.
  40. Further, African-Americans ought to be included in the US narrative. Their ancestors may have come in chains but taking their rights away or deport them is morally wrong.

    Mr. Yost, please tell us who is trying to take rights away from African-Americans in this year of our Lord, 2015? Give some specific examples of such attempts.

    Read More
  41. @Wizard of Oz
    I am interested in how seriously to take Kevin Macdonald and how far one can rely on him. I have just read his review of Esau's Tears but I sm not well enough informed to know where he may be exaggerating or misrepresenting the truth as you imply he is.

    Would you please spell out his important errors with particular reference to those that cause you to criricise his honesty.

    Sure, but first of all a big disclaimer: It’s been years since I’ve read Esau’s Tears and MacDonald’s review, and this is all from memory, which may be faulty.

    Anyway, as I remember, MacDonald’s review focused mostly on Leon Trotsky. Lindemann’s description of Trotsky was very balanced. Among other things, Lindemann wrote that if some gentiles could be considered “Jewified,” as he’d described certain people earlier in the book, then Trotsky could be considered “gentilized.” (I don’t even remember if those words are exact quotes, but that was the meaning.) The idea was that while Trotsky was Jewish in name, he was in some important ways more “gentile” than “Jewish.”

    MacDonald ignored that part, and implicitly presented Trotsky as a Jewish type. He cherry-picked all the negative things and ignored everything else. I don’t remember more details than that, sorry; but that was my conclusion at the time. I don’t think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture. You might want to read just that part of ET about Trotsky and then re-read MacDonald’s review.

    It might interest you that in the past, some historians have accused MacDonald of misrepresenting certain secondary sources, in at least one case their own writings. MacDonald vigorously denied those charges. I have no idea who was right, but that’s something you might want to check.

    In historiography, balance is everything. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to show whatever he wants. That’s exactly what Kevin MacDonald does. By the way, this is Gottfried’s criticism of MacDonald also, as I remember (again, from what I’ve read years ago!). Basically, MacDonald writes history like a prosecutor in a court of law trying to convict a defendant. You can’t trust it as history.

    In his Occidental Observer blog, MacDonald’s been intentionally deceptive about facts without technically lying about them. (I once pointed out a case of that in a comment on his blog, and to his credit he posted my comment; he didn’t reply to it.) And he does publish (or at least has published) other contributors on that blog who just outright lie.

    Also, a personal comment: MacDonald has strongly influenced my thinking, and I’ve defended his claims in internet arguments in the past. But I think that the arguments of his that influenced me are exactly those truisms that are accepted in mainstream Jewish historiography: that Jewish and non-Jewish groups are in competition over resources and hence have conflicting group interests, that anti-Semitism is often caused by gentile and Jewish behavior, that conflicts between Jews and gentiles are a two-way street rather than simply persecutor/victim, etc. I just happened to come across these mainstream ideas via MacDonald, because I read him (on the internet) before reading mainstream historiography like Esau’s Tears. As I’ve said, the public is unaware that mainstream Jewish historians hold “anti-Semitic” beliefs, just as, by analogy, they’re unaware that mainstream researchers in personality and intelligence hold “racist” beliefs.

    Bottom line, I’d say read good Jewish historiography like Esau’s Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    I haven't read Esau's Tears, but your soft take-down of Kevin MacDonald seems also to 'lack balance'. Even your faint praise of Kevin MacDonald comes across as disingenuous.

    Now an arch-Zionist like Alan Dershowitz does write like a prosecutor. And a brilliant one. But Kevin MacDonald has a very different style, not prosecutorial in any overriding sense. Why would you make such a discordant claim?

    I know MacDonald's blog (Occidental Observer) extremely well. MacDonald writes in an fairly unemotional style. He just makes his points very persuasively. He's highly intelligent. MacDonald's blog does not publish "lies". That allegation is a lie.

    MacDonald presents a controversial world view. He fortifies his paradigm via fact and anecdote. Stylistically, he's a professional journalist and follows the rules accordingly.

    The only thing 'emotional' about MacDonald is his explosive thesis. Indeed, MacDonald does not denounce or defame like his detractors invariably do. MacDonald has in fact taught me a lot about writing on this super-hot subject. And I'm a trained journalist.

    In plain fact, Kevin MacDonald is an outstanding communicator and brilliant thinker. How have you gotten him so wrong? Are you secretly a detractor?--on a mission to undermine Kevin MacDonald and his potent ideas? That is the impression I get from you.

    I ask this question because you claim that Kevin MacDonald has "strongly affected [your] thinking"? Truly? I don't believe it.

    You pretend to be something of an admirer of MacDonald's. That pose rings very false. If I am wrong about this, then surely you agree with MacDonald that Judaism is a 'group evolutionary strategy'? Correct? After all, it's his central thesis. Please confirm.

    And why is Lindmann's description of Trotsky so 'balanced' and MacDonald's so 'misleading'? Leon Trotsky thinks like a 'gentile' and not a Jew? Preposterous. How would you possibly know for certain since crypto-Judaism (deception) has been the hallmark of so many Jewish-lead intellectual movements, including communism. Mr. Gross, you are yourself acting rather 'Jewish', i.e. strategically dishonest.

    Trotsky helped launch a global revolution that targeted the (anti-Semitic) Tsar and Russia's Old Guard. MacDonald is not the first to note that the leadership of this bloody movement was enormously over-represented by ethnic Jews, including Trotsky. Does that fact not interest you?

    And you claim to read Kevin MacDonald for "emotional venting". Really? Aaron Gross, I find your words hard to believe. You can't resist criticizing Kevin MacDonald at every turn.

    Kevin MacDonald--like no psychologist or historian before him--successfully tore away the veneer of victimhood, innocence and assimilation to which tribal, secular Judaism has strategically attached itself. What MacDonald reveals is a pattern of Jewish parasitism and Jewish exploitation using various intellectual movements as cover. This includes Marxism and the political deeds of Leon Trotsky.

    MacDonald brings attention and understanding to the extraordinary Jewish role in shaping modern anthropology, Freudian psychology, Third World immigration into the West, the Frankfurt School, communism and more. His insightful and critical books on Judaism pose a real threat to the political power of world Jewry going forward. Surely, many 'neoconservatives'--especially Jewish ones--understand this very well.

    This is why MacDonald is a prime target now and will always be a prime target by virtually all self-identified Jews and their minions. MacDonald's explosive paradigm is an assault on the myth that Zionism and Jewish tribalism are compatible with Western peoples and even Christianity.

    And --As any honest historian or psychologist knows (or suspects), anti-Semitism is one face of a two-sided coin. Anti-Semitic theory is a self-serving paradigm constructed by Jewish intellectuals; not unlike the dominant historiography involving The Holocaust (WWII) and virtually all Jewish/gentile flashpoints, as they invariably depict Jews as blameless victims. America's 'War on Terror' is a continuation of this dishonest fairy tale.

    Indeed, there is still no simple word or phrase to describe the (sometimes) destructive, group strategy used by countless Jews in their competition against the Gentile world.

    Kevin MacDonald properly described it as a 'group evolutionary strategy', and it involves, among other things, massive levels of deception, ethnocentrism, and secret ethnic-based teamwork.

    There's a lot to this story. So let's agree to keep the conversation going.

    In the meantime, I am very grateful for the bold and brilliant work of Kevin MacDonald.
    , @Art
    "I don’t think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture."

    This is Jew propaganda 101 - whenever a wayward Israeli is challenged about his actions – he retorts that the challenge is “unbalanced.” “The Jew is only reacting.” We see this false claim over and over. After 60 years of hellish terror put to the Palestinians – the Jew is still always the victim.

    This way the Jew can never be held responsible for what he does – somebody else always started the trouble. That is total BS.

    We must always call the Jew on this “balanced” lie.
    , @nickels
    "Bottom line, I’d say read good Jewish historiography like Esau’s Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting."

    I personally feel like Kevin MacDonald's examples are excellent.
    I do not buy his theory, however, as it is too complex and relies on dubious notions such as Jews fooling themselves, etc....

    I prefer to view the radical not as one in cultural competition with the gentile so much as one who arrogantly presumes their particular brand of messianic 'one world, one love' is anything other than massively stupid.

    Now with the various lobbies, the ADL, etc... I think a theory of simple Jewish supremacy is sufficient to explain these institutions and their actions.
  42. geokat62 says:
    @AmericanaCON
    Sweden is an interesting example. There are maybe 1-2 million Jews in the entire European Union and the Jewish Swedish population is somewhere between 15,000-25,000 and are less than 0.1-0.2 percent of the population. In United States there are 6-7 million Jews and closer to 2 percent. Of course, Jews as an ethnic group has a much larger role to play in politics and public life because they are a much larger minority and are therefore more visible. In European politics and public life Jews are rare other than in United Kingdom, France, Hungary and Germany. I would go so far to say that majority of Europeans not living in a major city have never spoke with a Jew or can remember he/she has seen a Jew in real life. The only European cities I have been to which has a visible Jewish population is London, Paris, Prague, Budapest and somewhat in Berlin. New York is an all different matter.

    I have thought about it. In Iceland, one of the most ethnic homogenous countries on the planet it is not Jews whom argue for multiculturalism and an open border policy. It is ethnic Icelanders. There are just 30 Jews on Iceland and almost all of them are non religious and if they are not there on a temporary contract they are married to an Icelander. When their banks collapsed it was not Jewish bankers and politicians which were involved but ethnic Icelandic bankers and politicians. Jews are not some metaphysical power nor are they involved in everything - bad or good. They are just people just as whites, blacks, indians and hispanics.

    Jews are not some metaphysical power nor are they involved in everything – bad or good. They are just people just as whites, blacks, indians and hispanics.

    Thanks for that news flash. According to you, we shouldn’t take notice of the Israel Lobby’s efforts (in the US and other capitals) to enhance the security of the “villa in the jungle” by remaking the ME by destabilizing (I mean bringing democracy) to those regimes that resist the Zionist project’s oppression of the Pals.

    Nice try.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    Actually, I don’t think United States or the European Union should be involved in Israel. Israel is part of the Middle East and a Middle Eastern problem not a problem for the western civilization. I don’t support the “Israeli Lobby” or any lobbying arguing for more foreign intervention or involvement in conflict which nothing good can come from. Although, I don’t think the Israel is the only reason why United States is involved foreign affairs which is none of their business. American exceptionalism is a form of supremacism and it is deeply problematic that neo-conservatives continue to argue for democracy spreading. I believe Israel like any other nation has the right to defend its borders. What Israel does in Gaza and the West bank is wrong. They ought to adopt a more sensible position.
  43. Hugo says:
    @AmericanaCON
    American Jews vote disproportionally for Democratic Party and hold liberal political views. We find similar patterns in Western Europe. Jews in United States and Western Europe are nevertheless not unique. All ethnic minorities tend to vote on liberal parties which include very white and very Christians of various nationalities living in the Diaspora. An example is ethnic Swedes in Finland which constantly promote multiculturalism, open borders and minority rights or French Canadians in Canada.

    There are three reasons why I reject white nationalism. Firstly, their constant focuses on Jewish identity politics when they ought to be focusing on why white people allow radical ideas to be a part of political decision-making. The cause of why the Western world has adopted open borders, multiculturalism and internationalism seem not to stem from the Jews but the very western civilization itself. Even if Jews had some collective agenda to deconstruct western nations it cannot be done without the support of the very white Christian masses. Secondly, White nationalism just as pan-Africanism disregards ethnic differences among westerners. It may be so that White Americans is a “mix of everything” but is not the case in Europe.

    In Europe whiteness is second to ethnicity. European nations are not turning “white nationalists” they are turning ethno-nationalists. There is of course a sense of shared identity being white and members of the west but it does not supersede their ethnic identity. Thirdly, the world has not only become globalized because of politics but also because of technology. In such world people will marry and connect over ethnic, cultural, religious and racial borders. You cannot stop people doing so. I really hate to read about white nationalists badmouthing interracial marriage and biracial children.

    Western societies (not including colonies) have always been inclusive enough to allow people make their own decisions. There is a vast difference between advocating for controlled borders and interfere with domestic freedoms such as marriage. Further, African-Americans ought to be included in the US narrative. Their ancestors may have come in chains but taking their rights away or deport them is morally wrong. I cannot say I’m keen on NPI and their political goals. Still, they sometimes produce thought provocative and intelligent analysis which I as libertarian-Conservative find useful so merit should be given where it belongs.

    We’re glad you reject WN as by reading your post you’re either a woman or a cuck. At this late point, we can’t be wasting time with small thinkers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful. Yes, I’m a woman but it does not make me weak? I would not be unfaithful to my husband because he is “weak” whatever the meaning is. My husband (an accountant) had an abusive and incompetent supervisor climbing the corporate ladder. It was my husband first job after college; we had our daughter on the way, I was in graduate school and we had just bought a too expensive apartment. If he would have gone against her he could have been fired or not received a recommendation. We needed his job. Instead he worked hard and when the opportunity was given for a similar position with slightly higher pay he left. He was not alone. Was he “weak” in front of his supervisor? Yes, but he had no choice. Sometimes you have to take responsibility for a family even if it hurts your personal pride and what you believe in.

    I’m not a white nationalist because it is irrational. It is not applicable to European conditions which identity is based on ethnicity and not race. It is not workable in Untied States even if we went back to the 1950 when 90 percent was white. African-Americans and Native Americans are just as entitled to United States as any white person. I grew up in both in Copenhagen and Chicago and have a dual citizenship. My mother is mixed Hispanic-American and my father is ethnic Danish. My husband is Danish. I’m not white but I’m not white either. I feel very much culturally and religiously attached to very white protestant Denmark but also attached to United States. I’m just as concerned with uncontrolled immigration and with the awkward internationalist post-liberalism in both Denmark and United States.

    However I don’t believe a government should give preferences to people based on the color of their skin. There are plenty of people of color, biracial and adopted people whom feel much love for the west just like white people. They have the same concern as many white people. Do I think conservatives should stand up for themselves? Yes, I think they should and I do think they should reject the donor class. I will vote for Trump, Cruz or Rand - all whom are on the right in the Republican Party. When it comes to Jews I don’t believe they “run the world” or feel any animosity towards them. I don’t feel animosity towards anybody based on ethnicity, religion or race. Is there certain problematic aspects when it comes to Jewish (or other minorities) identity politics. Yes, of course, but it cannot justify hatred.
  44. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @nickels
    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my 'what the hell is wrong with the west' tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it 'Just as well' or 'About time'.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.

    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my ‘what the hell is wrong with the west’ tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it ‘Just as well’ or ‘About time’.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.

    They are not zombies, they are narcissists, little tantrum prone tweens in adult bodies.

    Read More
  45. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Biff
    The entire human race is not meant to last, so what’s the point of worrying about whitey?

    Why worry about people you care about? What an infantile question. I used to say such things when I was 12 and I wanted people to think I was special.

    Read More
  46. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Massimo Heitor

    Many of my intelligent, hard working, well educated friends of European descent commonly answer my ‘what the hell is wrong with the west’ tirade with a simple acknowledgement that they think it is good that Western Civilization and Christianity are dying, they consider it ‘Just as well’ or ‘About time’.

    We live in an age of Zombies, dead except for their doddering and shuffling about.
     

    The Serenity Prayer says, grant me courage to change what I can and accept what I can't. I suspect many people you spoke to are taking the latter route. It's hard to identify action to take.

    I'm not capitulating and I'm definitely not accepting defeat. I'm also not just posturing. I have a few ideas to contribute in my own small but significant way.

    You can always have many children and convince your immediate circle of people to have lots of kids. That will guarantee that you and your circle will grow in the present.

    The Serenity Prayer says, grant me courage to change what I can and accept what I can’t. I suspect many people you spoke to are taking the latter route. It’s hard to identify action to take.

    I’m not capitulating and I’m definitely not accepting defeat. I’m also not just posturing. I have a few ideas to contribute in my own small but significant way.

    It is only hard to identify action to take if you’re narcissistic enough to think that you are the complete solution. Or borderline enough to not be able to think in shades of grey. Or both.

    Read More
  47. AndrewR says:
    @Stan D Mute

    My personal belief is that it is in large part to the adoption of the African/Middle eastern cults of Judaism and Christianity by whites.
     
    To the extent that this includes the Jewish cult of Marxism, I agree completely. And it's the reason we cannot make any progress. The US has a hundred million evangelicals who are more Zionist than any Jew. The Christians insist we must "love" those who will enslave our children. And both the Christians and Marxists pale at the notion that the stupid and incompetent may enjoy a lower standard of living than those who enrich themselves by enriching the lives of others. Pile the woman's instinct to "help" the endless line of "victims" atop that mess and we are in far too deep for any hope of escape. For example, look at what we allow them to do to our sons. Our own sons! Drug them, feminize them, abuse the testosterone out of them. If we won't take up arms to protect our own sons, we are too demoralized to recover.

    As disturbing as it is to even think this, let alone type it, I wonder if Islam may not be our only hope. It is unarguably a masculine cult. Would an Islamic nation allow itself to be invaded and overrun by unarmed military aged males? Or allow its men and women to use the same bathrooms and showers together? Or allow homosexuals superior status? How would the Saudis deal with a problem like the American negroes? I find all religion deeply disturbing, but I cannot argue that if whites were Muslim and not Christian/Jewish we wouldn't be in this mess. Even our national debt would be impossible under the Mohammedan dogma.

    The implementation of Sharia across western Europe within the next two to three generations is inevitable. North America and Eastern Europe will likely not be far off if the US hasn’t. essentially become a cross between Mexico and Brazil

    Read More
  48. Art says:
    @AmericanaCON
    Well, my point is that Jews are really no different from any other minority or a majority. When it comes to multiculturalism it seems like Christian whites are the ones which are the most viral supporters of multiculturalism. I don’t think Jews should be hold responsibility for something which ought to be blamed (or cherished depending on how you see it) on the majority. In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything.

    Elites are a different matter. The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe. It is true that many Jewish groups also advocating it but so what? The same goes for the white Christians groups. We still live in a free society so if you dislike Christian, Jewish, Hindu, African-American or whatever elite you can vote them out office or just don’t buy their newspapers. I don’t blame migrants because they are coming to America or Europe. They are looking for a better life. Do I support uncontrolled borders? No, I don’t but I don’t blame migrants for them. I don’t blame regular Muslims for what Muslims fundamentalist advocate. Am I positive to everything Islamic? No, I’m not.

    What I dislike with NPI and other far-right anti-Semitic organizations is that they cannot distinct Jews with no power from Jewish elites. They have the same amoral horizon as Jewish or African-American far-left groups blaming white Christians for “hate” just because they are white Christians. I agree with you that the current elites (Jewish or white Christian) use their power to destroy careers when people go against their political believes instead defending their political positions.

    I think it is despicable. It should be dealt with although I don’t know how because of their resources. In general I think the elites should either alter their views to become more inclusive to political ideas (which has been done in Denmark) or “we” regardless if we are Jews, Christians, Whites, Blacks and whatever our political believes get rid of our elites and replace them with an elite which cherish freedom of speech and respect and tolerance for people’s opinions.

    “In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything.”

    My god – that is an absurd statement.

    From the very beginning, the human species has been tribal. Next to biological disease – our tribalness is the bane of humanity. Human individuals are born tribal – it is part of our genetic nature. Many of our genetic based emotions hardwire us to be tribal. Group on group, gang destructiveness and emotional hate is the heartbreaking part of our human history.

    With all that said, we do have the intellectual capability to override our hardwired negative emotions. We are also blessed with positive non-violent emotions – we can and must chose to act on those positive emotions.

    Not to hold the individual group member responsible for his gang actions assures an endless violent future for humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    My god – that is an absurd statement.

    From the very beginning, the human species has been tribal. Next to biological disease – our tribalness is the bane of humanity. Human individuals are born tribal – it is part of our genetic nature. Many of our genetic based emotions hardwire us to be tribal. Group on group, gang destructiveness and emotional hate is the heartbreaking part of our human history.

    With all that said, we do have the intellectual capability to override our hardwired negative emotions. We are also blessed with positive non-violent emotions – we can and must chose to act on those positive emotions.

    Not to hold the individual group member responsible for his gang actions assures an endless violent future for humanity.
     
    You write substanceless emotive nonsense.

    Humans often share the same ecological niche as each other. This means that with scarce resources they have had to compete to survive. Groups gives a competitive advantage; hence tribalism.

    It is not the bane of humanity and other emo pablum but a result of scarce resources and social intelligence.

    Stop broadcasting your stupidity.
  49. AmericanaCON [AKA "Julies Yost"] says:
    @Hugo
    We're glad you reject WN as by reading your post you're either a woman or a cuck. At this late point, we can't be wasting time with small thinkers.

    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful. Yes, I’m a woman but it does not make me weak? I would not be unfaithful to my husband because he is “weak” whatever the meaning is. My husband (an accountant) had an abusive and incompetent supervisor climbing the corporate ladder. It was my husband first job after college; we had our daughter on the way, I was in graduate school and we had just bought a too expensive apartment. If he would have gone against her he could have been fired or not received a recommendation. We needed his job. Instead he worked hard and when the opportunity was given for a similar position with slightly higher pay he left. He was not alone. Was he “weak” in front of his supervisor? Yes, but he had no choice. Sometimes you have to take responsibility for a family even if it hurts your personal pride and what you believe in.

    I’m not a white nationalist because it is irrational. It is not applicable to European conditions which identity is based on ethnicity and not race. It is not workable in Untied States even if we went back to the 1950 when 90 percent was white. African-Americans and Native Americans are just as entitled to United States as any white person. I grew up in both in Copenhagen and Chicago and have a dual citizenship. My mother is mixed Hispanic-American and my father is ethnic Danish. My husband is Danish. I’m not white but I’m not white either. I feel very much culturally and religiously attached to very white protestant Denmark but also attached to United States. I’m just as concerned with uncontrolled immigration and with the awkward internationalist post-liberalism in both Denmark and United States.

    However I don’t believe a government should give preferences to people based on the color of their skin. There are plenty of people of color, biracial and adopted people whom feel much love for the west just like white people. They have the same concern as many white people. Do I think conservatives should stand up for themselves? Yes, I think they should and I do think they should reject the donor class. I will vote for Trump, Cruz or Rand – all whom are on the right in the Republican Party. When it comes to Jews I don’t believe they “run the world” or feel any animosity towards them. I don’t feel animosity towards anybody based on ethnicity, religion or race. Is there certain problematic aspects when it comes to Jewish (or other minorities) identity politics. Yes, of course, but it cannot justify hatred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful.
     
    You misunderstand the term. Cucks, in this context, are men who have a sexual fetish in which they wish to witness their wives being unfaithful to them and/or in which they wish to participate in making their wives unfaithful to them. Go to a porn site and search. You will have no trouble dredging up material in this vein. It is very much about male weakness. It is about men wallowing and delighting in their own weakness and humiliation. "Cuckservative" has caught on because it so aptly describes scum like Nick Lowry or John Hagee.
    , @Hugo
    You're a woman and you're entitled to your feelings. But, the truth is that I don't care about your feelings and much of our current malaise is due to men giving in to women's feelings. Much of what you wrote was nice and made me me feel warm inside but, it wasn't logical.

    Blacks, Native Americans, etc.. Do not have as much "right" as you put it to America as Whites do. Whites built this country, the others were ride alongs. And Jews do not fit into this as Jews have been a subversive group since early days. It is the core of their core culture and they cannot change.

    While currently there are some very upstanding non White people who care about European based culture, they are not our primary concern. They can ride along with us to some degree but, it is time for Whites to start being tribal and nationalistic again. Put race and culture first and the rest will fall in place.

  50. AmericanaCON [AKA "Julies Yost"] says:
    @geokat62

    Jews are not some metaphysical power nor are they involved in everything – bad or good. They are just people just as whites, blacks, indians and hispanics.
     
    Thanks for that news flash. According to you, we shouldn't take notice of the Israel Lobby's efforts (in the US and other capitals) to enhance the security of the "villa in the jungle" by remaking the ME by destabilizing (I mean bringing democracy) to those regimes that resist the Zionist project's oppression of the Pals.

    Nice try.

    Actually, I don’t think United States or the European Union should be involved in Israel. Israel is part of the Middle East and a Middle Eastern problem not a problem for the western civilization. I don’t support the “Israeli Lobby” or any lobbying arguing for more foreign intervention or involvement in conflict which nothing good can come from. Although, I don’t think the Israel is the only reason why United States is involved foreign affairs which is none of their business. American exceptionalism is a form of supremacism and it is deeply problematic that neo-conservatives continue to argue for democracy spreading. I believe Israel like any other nation has the right to defend its borders. What Israel does in Gaza and the West bank is wrong. They ought to adopt a more sensible position.

    Read More
  51. Pat Casey says:

    Prof. Gottfried’s legacy is safe and sound: he will be read in a hundred years, of course he will. But I have a big problem with Kevin Macdonald’s fearless writing. He writes in an angry frenzy online and wastes his own energy doing so. Would that all those words were in the measured style of his books with an occasional well-placed barb and impressionable young minds disposed to hate him would simply have to take note. I detest bad writing from smart and important men the most, and he is doing a disservice to his cause as long as he attitudinizes like a fanatic from the fever swamp. Leave that vein to backyard junkies like me. Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    When no one but outlaws can say something, no one but outlaws will say it.

    Or: when a position is marginalized, only people with personalities unconcerned of the opinion of others and given to making extreme statements will express it.
  52. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Art
    "In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything."

    My god - that is an absurd statement.

    From the very beginning, the human species has been tribal. Next to biological disease – our tribalness is the bane of humanity. Human individuals are born tribal – it is part of our genetic nature. Many of our genetic based emotions hardwire us to be tribal. Group on group, gang destructiveness and emotional hate is the heartbreaking part of our human history.

    With all that said, we do have the intellectual capability to override our hardwired negative emotions. We are also blessed with positive non-violent emotions – we can and must chose to act on those positive emotions.

    Not to hold the individual group member responsible for his gang actions assures an endless violent future for humanity.

    My god – that is an absurd statement.

    From the very beginning, the human species has been tribal. Next to biological disease – our tribalness is the bane of humanity. Human individuals are born tribal – it is part of our genetic nature. Many of our genetic based emotions hardwire us to be tribal. Group on group, gang destructiveness and emotional hate is the heartbreaking part of our human history.

    With all that said, we do have the intellectual capability to override our hardwired negative emotions. We are also blessed with positive non-violent emotions – we can and must chose to act on those positive emotions.

    Not to hold the individual group member responsible for his gang actions assures an endless violent future for humanity.

    You write substanceless emotive nonsense.

    Humans often share the same ecological niche as each other. This means that with scarce resources they have had to compete to survive. Groups gives a competitive advantage; hence tribalism.

    It is not the bane of humanity and other emo pablum but a result of scarce resources and social intelligence.

    Stop broadcasting your stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Humans often share the same ecological niche as each other. This means that with scarce resources they have had to compete to survive. Groups gives a competitive advantage; hence tribalism"

    Mr Rediger,

    Is there not a difference between a creative group of people and a destructive group of people?

    Could you set aside your all consuming bloodthirsty little tribal mindset for a minute and think about this?

    Looking at world history - there are some cultures that have win-win creative cooperative economies – where individual cooperative groups create a viable living for most everyone? There have also been backwards cultures where hunter gather tribes eke out a zero-sum existence – fighting their neighbor tribes for resources? Cooperate creative or destructive fight – it is our choice – what should we chose? Should we not put our human energy and brain power to further the first and not the second?

    Ok – you can go back and commune with the cave man now.

    Art

    p.s. Backwards thinking people like you are the bane of humanity. Always guarded - never hopeful – always seeing the mean side – only self interested – never willing to extend grace to others. Boastful of your zero-sum prowess. Sad sad you! Life is better than that.

  53. SFG says:
    @Pat Casey
    Prof. Gottfried's legacy is safe and sound: he will be read in a hundred years, of course he will. But I have a big problem with Kevin Macdonald's fearless writing. He writes in an angry frenzy online and wastes his own energy doing so. Would that all those words were in the measured style of his books with an occasional well-placed barb and impressionable young minds disposed to hate him would simply have to take note. I detest bad writing from smart and important men the most, and he is doing a disservice to his cause as long as he attitudinizes like a fanatic from the fever swamp. Leave that vein to backyard junkies like me. Please.

    When no one but outlaws can say something, no one but outlaws will say it.

    Or: when a position is marginalized, only people with personalities unconcerned of the opinion of others and given to making extreme statements will express it.

    Read More
    • Agree: This Is Our Home
    • Replies: @Pat Casey
    Actually I should say pardon me, as I appear to be lately wrong about that; he's ceased the snarling since I found his haunt last and can't peg a fresh example. That rather makes my day actually, because Kevin Macdonald's scholarship is luminous to me. Perhaps I was thinking of when he was having a bad day.

    To your point of course that is generally true, but not so much to bear resignation. Joe Sobran never snarled, was only an outlaw regarding a wonderful incident with a toy gun, and was ever the most enjoyable conversationalist. But then an outlaw with talent may snarl because of a graceful style and lucid wit that saves him from fevers from swamps. I suppose the obvious example is Roissy.
  54. > “Each day Germany is disappearing more and more;
    > and this is a truly wonderful thing!” exults Trittin, [YouTube]

    German speaker here–Trittin certainly thinks so, as do all his cronies, but he never said so, at least publicly. That he did is widely circulated in German blogs, too, but there’s never any proof. I forced myself to listen to the linked youtube video: 4m of corrupt, mendacious blather, but nothing that could even be remotely interpreted that way. He’s a swine, but smart, he’s not likely to ever let his guard down. alt-right bloggers need to beware of false positives…

    Read More
  55. Pat Casey says:
    @SFG
    When no one but outlaws can say something, no one but outlaws will say it.

    Or: when a position is marginalized, only people with personalities unconcerned of the opinion of others and given to making extreme statements will express it.

    Actually I should say pardon me, as I appear to be lately wrong about that; he’s ceased the snarling since I found his haunt last and can’t peg a fresh example. That rather makes my day actually, because Kevin Macdonald’s scholarship is luminous to me. Perhaps I was thinking of when he was having a bad day.

    To your point of course that is generally true, but not so much to bear resignation. Joe Sobran never snarled, was only an outlaw regarding a wonderful incident with a toy gun, and was ever the most enjoyable conversationalist. But then an outlaw with talent may snarl because of a graceful style and lucid wit that saves him from fevers from swamps. I suppose the obvious example is Roissy.

    Read More
  56. Mark Green says: • Website
    @Aaron Gross
    Sure, but first of all a big disclaimer: It's been years since I've read Esau's Tears and MacDonald's review, and this is all from memory, which may be faulty.

    Anyway, as I remember, MacDonald's review focused mostly on Leon Trotsky. Lindemann's description of Trotsky was very balanced. Among other things, Lindemann wrote that if some gentiles could be considered "Jewified," as he'd described certain people earlier in the book, then Trotsky could be considered "gentilized." (I don't even remember if those words are exact quotes, but that was the meaning.) The idea was that while Trotsky was Jewish in name, he was in some important ways more "gentile" than "Jewish."

    MacDonald ignored that part, and implicitly presented Trotsky as a Jewish type. He cherry-picked all the negative things and ignored everything else. I don't remember more details than that, sorry; but that was my conclusion at the time. I don't think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture. You might want to read just that part of ET about Trotsky and then re-read MacDonald's review.

    It might interest you that in the past, some historians have accused MacDonald of misrepresenting certain secondary sources, in at least one case their own writings. MacDonald vigorously denied those charges. I have no idea who was right, but that's something you might want to check.

    In historiography, balance is everything. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to show whatever he wants. That's exactly what Kevin MacDonald does. By the way, this is Gottfried's criticism of MacDonald also, as I remember (again, from what I've read years ago!). Basically, MacDonald writes history like a prosecutor in a court of law trying to convict a defendant. You can't trust it as history.

    In his Occidental Observer blog, MacDonald's been intentionally deceptive about facts without technically lying about them. (I once pointed out a case of that in a comment on his blog, and to his credit he posted my comment; he didn't reply to it.) And he does publish (or at least has published) other contributors on that blog who just outright lie.

    Also, a personal comment: MacDonald has strongly influenced my thinking, and I've defended his claims in internet arguments in the past. But I think that the arguments of his that influenced me are exactly those truisms that are accepted in mainstream Jewish historiography: that Jewish and non-Jewish groups are in competition over resources and hence have conflicting group interests, that anti-Semitism is often caused by gentile and Jewish behavior, that conflicts between Jews and gentiles are a two-way street rather than simply persecutor/victim, etc. I just happened to come across these mainstream ideas via MacDonald, because I read him (on the internet) before reading mainstream historiography like Esau's Tears. As I've said, the public is unaware that mainstream Jewish historians hold "anti-Semitic" beliefs, just as, by analogy, they're unaware that mainstream researchers in personality and intelligence hold "racist" beliefs.

    Bottom line, I'd say read good Jewish historiography like Esau's Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting.

    I haven’t read Esau’s Tears, but your soft take-down of Kevin MacDonald seems also to ‘lack balance’. Even your faint praise of Kevin MacDonald comes across as disingenuous.

    Now an arch-Zionist like Alan Dershowitz does write like a prosecutor. And a brilliant one. But Kevin MacDonald has a very different style, not prosecutorial in any overriding sense. Why would you make such a discordant claim?

    I know MacDonald’s blog (Occidental Observer) extremely well. MacDonald writes in an fairly unemotional style. He just makes his points very persuasively. He’s highly intelligent. MacDonald’s blog does not publish “lies”. That allegation is a lie.

    MacDonald presents a controversial world view. He fortifies his paradigm via fact and anecdote. Stylistically, he’s a professional journalist and follows the rules accordingly.

    The only thing ‘emotional’ about MacDonald is his explosive thesis. Indeed, MacDonald does not denounce or defame like his detractors invariably do. MacDonald has in fact taught me a lot about writing on this super-hot subject. And I’m a trained journalist.

    In plain fact, Kevin MacDonald is an outstanding communicator and brilliant thinker. How have you gotten him so wrong? Are you secretly a detractor?–on a mission to undermine Kevin MacDonald and his potent ideas? That is the impression I get from you.

    I ask this question because you claim that Kevin MacDonald has “strongly affected [your] thinking”? Truly? I don’t believe it.

    You pretend to be something of an admirer of MacDonald’s. That pose rings very false. If I am wrong about this, then surely you agree with MacDonald that Judaism is a ‘group evolutionary strategy’? Correct? After all, it’s his central thesis. Please confirm.

    And why is Lindmann’s description of Trotsky so ‘balanced’ and MacDonald’s so ‘misleading’? Leon Trotsky thinks like a ‘gentile’ and not a Jew? Preposterous. How would you possibly know for certain since crypto-Judaism (deception) has been the hallmark of so many Jewish-lead intellectual movements, including communism. Mr. Gross, you are yourself acting rather ‘Jewish’, i.e. strategically dishonest.

    Trotsky helped launch a global revolution that targeted the (anti-Semitic) Tsar and Russia’s Old Guard. MacDonald is not the first to note that the leadership of this bloody movement was enormously over-represented by ethnic Jews, including Trotsky. Does that fact not interest you?

    And you claim to read Kevin MacDonald for “emotional venting”. Really? Aaron Gross, I find your words hard to believe. You can’t resist criticizing Kevin MacDonald at every turn.

    Kevin MacDonald–like no psychologist or historian before him–successfully tore away the veneer of victimhood, innocence and assimilation to which tribal, secular Judaism has strategically attached itself. What MacDonald reveals is a pattern of Jewish parasitism and Jewish exploitation using various intellectual movements as cover. This includes Marxism and the political deeds of Leon Trotsky.

    MacDonald brings attention and understanding to the extraordinary Jewish role in shaping modern anthropology, Freudian psychology, Third World immigration into the West, the Frankfurt School, communism and more. His insightful and critical books on Judaism pose a real threat to the political power of world Jewry going forward. Surely, many ‘neoconservatives’–especially Jewish ones–understand this very well.

    This is why MacDonald is a prime target now and will always be a prime target by virtually all self-identified Jews and their minions. MacDonald’s explosive paradigm is an assault on the myth that Zionism and Jewish tribalism are compatible with Western peoples and even Christianity.

    And –As any honest historian or psychologist knows (or suspects), anti-Semitism is one face of a two-sided coin. Anti-Semitic theory is a self-serving paradigm constructed by Jewish intellectuals; not unlike the dominant historiography involving The Holocaust (WWII) and virtually all Jewish/gentile flashpoints, as they invariably depict Jews as blameless victims. America’s ‘War on Terror’ is a continuation of this dishonest fairy tale.

    Indeed, there is still no simple word or phrase to describe the (sometimes) destructive, group strategy used by countless Jews in their competition against the Gentile world.

    Kevin MacDonald properly described it as a ‘group evolutionary strategy’, and it involves, among other things, massive levels of deception, ethnocentrism, and secret ethnic-based teamwork.

    There’s a lot to this story. So let’s agree to keep the conversation going.

    In the meantime, I am very grateful for the bold and brilliant work of Kevin MacDonald.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Excellent comment.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Dershowitz is a lawyer and a known advocate. No one considers him to be a scientist. MacDonald wants to be taken seriously as a social scientist. He certainly doesn't consider Jews to be blameless victims of the Holocaust. He thinks they provoked it. (See the coverage of his testimony in the David Irving/Lipstadt case.)
  57. Art says:
    @This Is Our Home

    My god – that is an absurd statement.

    From the very beginning, the human species has been tribal. Next to biological disease – our tribalness is the bane of humanity. Human individuals are born tribal – it is part of our genetic nature. Many of our genetic based emotions hardwire us to be tribal. Group on group, gang destructiveness and emotional hate is the heartbreaking part of our human history.

    With all that said, we do have the intellectual capability to override our hardwired negative emotions. We are also blessed with positive non-violent emotions – we can and must chose to act on those positive emotions.

    Not to hold the individual group member responsible for his gang actions assures an endless violent future for humanity.
     
    You write substanceless emotive nonsense.

    Humans often share the same ecological niche as each other. This means that with scarce resources they have had to compete to survive. Groups gives a competitive advantage; hence tribalism.

    It is not the bane of humanity and other emo pablum but a result of scarce resources and social intelligence.

    Stop broadcasting your stupidity.

    “Humans often share the same ecological niche as each other. This means that with scarce resources they have had to compete to survive. Groups gives a competitive advantage; hence tribalism”

    Mr Rediger,

    Is there not a difference between a creative group of people and a destructive group of people?

    Could you set aside your all consuming bloodthirsty little tribal mindset for a minute and think about this?

    Looking at world history – there are some cultures that have win-win creative cooperative economies – where individual cooperative groups create a viable living for most everyone? There have also been backwards cultures where hunter gather tribes eke out a zero-sum existence – fighting their neighbor tribes for resources? Cooperate creative or destructive fight – it is our choice – what should we chose? Should we not put our human energy and brain power to further the first and not the second?

    Ok – you can go back and commune with the cave man now.

    Art

    p.s. Backwards thinking people like you are the bane of humanity. Always guarded – never hopeful – always seeing the mean side – only self interested – never willing to extend grace to others. Boastful of your zero-sum prowess. Sad sad you! Life is better than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Black or white. That's all you see. And your own emotions I suppose.

    I'm guessing that your personal life is marked by horrible nasty people always being out to get you and conspiring to bring you down.

    While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment.

    Of course, this actually describes no-one, only the way severely deficient personalities see themselves.

    I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all. Which is bizarre.

  58. Art says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Sure, but first of all a big disclaimer: It's been years since I've read Esau's Tears and MacDonald's review, and this is all from memory, which may be faulty.

    Anyway, as I remember, MacDonald's review focused mostly on Leon Trotsky. Lindemann's description of Trotsky was very balanced. Among other things, Lindemann wrote that if some gentiles could be considered "Jewified," as he'd described certain people earlier in the book, then Trotsky could be considered "gentilized." (I don't even remember if those words are exact quotes, but that was the meaning.) The idea was that while Trotsky was Jewish in name, he was in some important ways more "gentile" than "Jewish."

    MacDonald ignored that part, and implicitly presented Trotsky as a Jewish type. He cherry-picked all the negative things and ignored everything else. I don't remember more details than that, sorry; but that was my conclusion at the time. I don't think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture. You might want to read just that part of ET about Trotsky and then re-read MacDonald's review.

    It might interest you that in the past, some historians have accused MacDonald of misrepresenting certain secondary sources, in at least one case their own writings. MacDonald vigorously denied those charges. I have no idea who was right, but that's something you might want to check.

    In historiography, balance is everything. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to show whatever he wants. That's exactly what Kevin MacDonald does. By the way, this is Gottfried's criticism of MacDonald also, as I remember (again, from what I've read years ago!). Basically, MacDonald writes history like a prosecutor in a court of law trying to convict a defendant. You can't trust it as history.

    In his Occidental Observer blog, MacDonald's been intentionally deceptive about facts without technically lying about them. (I once pointed out a case of that in a comment on his blog, and to his credit he posted my comment; he didn't reply to it.) And he does publish (or at least has published) other contributors on that blog who just outright lie.

    Also, a personal comment: MacDonald has strongly influenced my thinking, and I've defended his claims in internet arguments in the past. But I think that the arguments of his that influenced me are exactly those truisms that are accepted in mainstream Jewish historiography: that Jewish and non-Jewish groups are in competition over resources and hence have conflicting group interests, that anti-Semitism is often caused by gentile and Jewish behavior, that conflicts between Jews and gentiles are a two-way street rather than simply persecutor/victim, etc. I just happened to come across these mainstream ideas via MacDonald, because I read him (on the internet) before reading mainstream historiography like Esau's Tears. As I've said, the public is unaware that mainstream Jewish historians hold "anti-Semitic" beliefs, just as, by analogy, they're unaware that mainstream researchers in personality and intelligence hold "racist" beliefs.

    Bottom line, I'd say read good Jewish historiography like Esau's Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting.

    “I don’t think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture.”

    This is Jew propaganda 101 – whenever a wayward Israeli is challenged about his actions – he retorts that the challenge is “unbalanced.” “The Jew is only reacting.” We see this false claim over and over. After 60 years of hellish terror put to the Palestinians – the Jew is still always the victim.

    This way the Jew can never be held responsible for what he does – somebody else always started the trouble. That is total BS.

    We must always call the Jew on this “balanced” lie.

    Read More
  59. geokat62 says:
    @Mark Green
    I haven't read Esau's Tears, but your soft take-down of Kevin MacDonald seems also to 'lack balance'. Even your faint praise of Kevin MacDonald comes across as disingenuous.

    Now an arch-Zionist like Alan Dershowitz does write like a prosecutor. And a brilliant one. But Kevin MacDonald has a very different style, not prosecutorial in any overriding sense. Why would you make such a discordant claim?

    I know MacDonald's blog (Occidental Observer) extremely well. MacDonald writes in an fairly unemotional style. He just makes his points very persuasively. He's highly intelligent. MacDonald's blog does not publish "lies". That allegation is a lie.

    MacDonald presents a controversial world view. He fortifies his paradigm via fact and anecdote. Stylistically, he's a professional journalist and follows the rules accordingly.

    The only thing 'emotional' about MacDonald is his explosive thesis. Indeed, MacDonald does not denounce or defame like his detractors invariably do. MacDonald has in fact taught me a lot about writing on this super-hot subject. And I'm a trained journalist.

    In plain fact, Kevin MacDonald is an outstanding communicator and brilliant thinker. How have you gotten him so wrong? Are you secretly a detractor?--on a mission to undermine Kevin MacDonald and his potent ideas? That is the impression I get from you.

    I ask this question because you claim that Kevin MacDonald has "strongly affected [your] thinking"? Truly? I don't believe it.

    You pretend to be something of an admirer of MacDonald's. That pose rings very false. If I am wrong about this, then surely you agree with MacDonald that Judaism is a 'group evolutionary strategy'? Correct? After all, it's his central thesis. Please confirm.

    And why is Lindmann's description of Trotsky so 'balanced' and MacDonald's so 'misleading'? Leon Trotsky thinks like a 'gentile' and not a Jew? Preposterous. How would you possibly know for certain since crypto-Judaism (deception) has been the hallmark of so many Jewish-lead intellectual movements, including communism. Mr. Gross, you are yourself acting rather 'Jewish', i.e. strategically dishonest.

    Trotsky helped launch a global revolution that targeted the (anti-Semitic) Tsar and Russia's Old Guard. MacDonald is not the first to note that the leadership of this bloody movement was enormously over-represented by ethnic Jews, including Trotsky. Does that fact not interest you?

    And you claim to read Kevin MacDonald for "emotional venting". Really? Aaron Gross, I find your words hard to believe. You can't resist criticizing Kevin MacDonald at every turn.

    Kevin MacDonald--like no psychologist or historian before him--successfully tore away the veneer of victimhood, innocence and assimilation to which tribal, secular Judaism has strategically attached itself. What MacDonald reveals is a pattern of Jewish parasitism and Jewish exploitation using various intellectual movements as cover. This includes Marxism and the political deeds of Leon Trotsky.

    MacDonald brings attention and understanding to the extraordinary Jewish role in shaping modern anthropology, Freudian psychology, Third World immigration into the West, the Frankfurt School, communism and more. His insightful and critical books on Judaism pose a real threat to the political power of world Jewry going forward. Surely, many 'neoconservatives'--especially Jewish ones--understand this very well.

    This is why MacDonald is a prime target now and will always be a prime target by virtually all self-identified Jews and their minions. MacDonald's explosive paradigm is an assault on the myth that Zionism and Jewish tribalism are compatible with Western peoples and even Christianity.

    And --As any honest historian or psychologist knows (or suspects), anti-Semitism is one face of a two-sided coin. Anti-Semitic theory is a self-serving paradigm constructed by Jewish intellectuals; not unlike the dominant historiography involving The Holocaust (WWII) and virtually all Jewish/gentile flashpoints, as they invariably depict Jews as blameless victims. America's 'War on Terror' is a continuation of this dishonest fairy tale.

    Indeed, there is still no simple word or phrase to describe the (sometimes) destructive, group strategy used by countless Jews in their competition against the Gentile world.

    Kevin MacDonald properly described it as a 'group evolutionary strategy', and it involves, among other things, massive levels of deception, ethnocentrism, and secret ethnic-based teamwork.

    There's a lot to this story. So let's agree to keep the conversation going.

    In the meantime, I am very grateful for the bold and brilliant work of Kevin MacDonald.

    Excellent comment.

    Read More
  60. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Art
    "Humans often share the same ecological niche as each other. This means that with scarce resources they have had to compete to survive. Groups gives a competitive advantage; hence tribalism"

    Mr Rediger,

    Is there not a difference between a creative group of people and a destructive group of people?

    Could you set aside your all consuming bloodthirsty little tribal mindset for a minute and think about this?

    Looking at world history - there are some cultures that have win-win creative cooperative economies – where individual cooperative groups create a viable living for most everyone? There have also been backwards cultures where hunter gather tribes eke out a zero-sum existence – fighting their neighbor tribes for resources? Cooperate creative or destructive fight – it is our choice – what should we chose? Should we not put our human energy and brain power to further the first and not the second?

    Ok – you can go back and commune with the cave man now.

    Art

    p.s. Backwards thinking people like you are the bane of humanity. Always guarded - never hopeful – always seeing the mean side – only self interested – never willing to extend grace to others. Boastful of your zero-sum prowess. Sad sad you! Life is better than that.

    Black or white. That’s all you see. And your own emotions I suppose.

    I’m guessing that your personal life is marked by horrible nasty people always being out to get you and conspiring to bring you down.

    While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment.

    Of course, this actually describes no-one, only the way severely deficient personalities see themselves.

    I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all. Which is bizarre.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment."

    Mr Rediger,

    That is too funny – you describe a milk toast goody-two-shoes, afraid to offend personality. I doubt that the Zionist Jews would agree with that.

    "I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all."

    Again, too funny. Isn’t being unambiguous an asset? This is a forum where ideas are discussed – don’t we strive to convey our ideas in the clearest way possible? I think your statement is a complement – thank you!

    Art

    p.s. The word “complex” is often used by the pseudo-intellectual elite as either an intellectual cop out, or a putdown snow job. It means that they do not have the intellectual prowess to sufficiently explain something - or it is a put down, that you are too stupid to understand, what only they the elite can know.

    p.s. With your love of tribalism – Cheney and Rumsfeld must be your heroes. Just look at all the tribalism and death and destruction they have fostered. They have hundreds of millions of people at each others throats. Doesn’t your heart just swell when you think of them?

    , @annamaria
    "I’m guessing that your personal life ...."

    What a strange obsession with other peoples' personal lives! (And the apparently negative attitude to others).
    With regard to your ethnicity, Jewish people prefer to live among the tolerant and educated citizens of other nationality (ethnicity). - Which is actually very smart! The flower of Jewish achievements during last thousands years has been produced mostly within the confines of European nation-states; the outstanding Jewish artists, scientists, philosophers (be it Spinoza or Einstein or Chaplin) spoke the languages of other ethnic groups, while adjusting to these groups' customs and absorbing the achievements of European civilization.
    The unhealthy (if not parasitic) phenomenon of "Israel-firsters" presents the instance of tribal behavior. A tolerance towards this phenomenon is not without its limit.
  61. nickels says:
    @Honesthughgrant
    ‘Those who do not protect their own culture are destined to be ruled by those who do."

    Exactly. I don't want to defend "Cultural Marxists" or open borders advocates - Jewish or Gentile - but you have to wonder why the average White person is so enthusiastic about his own suicide.

    Sometimes, the Jew haters go way too far. For example, some have mentioned that Sweden's problems relate to its small Jewish minority - less than 1 percent. LoL. Yeah, its not the Swedish 99% that favors open borders - its all because of those dastardly 20,000 Swedish Jews!

    The West seems to have no moral imagination of its own. It always looks to the Jews for such guidance.
    This brought us Christianity, which worked for several millennia.

    Well, something happened in Germany and the Jewish Messianic caste went secular.
    At the same time, so did Christianity, as it turned into our current ‘do goody, sensitive’ multiculturalism.

    It is secular West’s failing that it is still looking to the Jewish element for guidance. And today’s guidance comes from the secular, Marxist idiot who puhses for open borders, mass immigration and atheism, i.e. destruction.

    It is our own failing (the West).

    Read More
  62. nickels says:
    @Aaron Gross
    Sure, but first of all a big disclaimer: It's been years since I've read Esau's Tears and MacDonald's review, and this is all from memory, which may be faulty.

    Anyway, as I remember, MacDonald's review focused mostly on Leon Trotsky. Lindemann's description of Trotsky was very balanced. Among other things, Lindemann wrote that if some gentiles could be considered "Jewified," as he'd described certain people earlier in the book, then Trotsky could be considered "gentilized." (I don't even remember if those words are exact quotes, but that was the meaning.) The idea was that while Trotsky was Jewish in name, he was in some important ways more "gentile" than "Jewish."

    MacDonald ignored that part, and implicitly presented Trotsky as a Jewish type. He cherry-picked all the negative things and ignored everything else. I don't remember more details than that, sorry; but that was my conclusion at the time. I don't think MacDonald falsified any particular fact, but he gave a very misleading and unbalanced picture. You might want to read just that part of ET about Trotsky and then re-read MacDonald's review.

    It might interest you that in the past, some historians have accused MacDonald of misrepresenting certain secondary sources, in at least one case their own writings. MacDonald vigorously denied those charges. I have no idea who was right, but that's something you might want to check.

    In historiography, balance is everything. Anyone can cherry-pick facts to show whatever he wants. That's exactly what Kevin MacDonald does. By the way, this is Gottfried's criticism of MacDonald also, as I remember (again, from what I've read years ago!). Basically, MacDonald writes history like a prosecutor in a court of law trying to convict a defendant. You can't trust it as history.

    In his Occidental Observer blog, MacDonald's been intentionally deceptive about facts without technically lying about them. (I once pointed out a case of that in a comment on his blog, and to his credit he posted my comment; he didn't reply to it.) And he does publish (or at least has published) other contributors on that blog who just outright lie.

    Also, a personal comment: MacDonald has strongly influenced my thinking, and I've defended his claims in internet arguments in the past. But I think that the arguments of his that influenced me are exactly those truisms that are accepted in mainstream Jewish historiography: that Jewish and non-Jewish groups are in competition over resources and hence have conflicting group interests, that anti-Semitism is often caused by gentile and Jewish behavior, that conflicts between Jews and gentiles are a two-way street rather than simply persecutor/victim, etc. I just happened to come across these mainstream ideas via MacDonald, because I read him (on the internet) before reading mainstream historiography like Esau's Tears. As I've said, the public is unaware that mainstream Jewish historians hold "anti-Semitic" beliefs, just as, by analogy, they're unaware that mainstream researchers in personality and intelligence hold "racist" beliefs.

    Bottom line, I'd say read good Jewish historiography like Esau's Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting.

    “Bottom line, I’d say read good Jewish historiography like Esau’s Tears for knowledge; and read Kevin MacDonald, if at all, for emotional venting.”

    I personally feel like Kevin MacDonald’s examples are excellent.
    I do not buy his theory, however, as it is too complex and relies on dubious notions such as Jews fooling themselves, etc….

    I prefer to view the radical not as one in cultural competition with the gentile so much as one who arrogantly presumes their particular brand of messianic ‘one world, one love’ is anything other than massively stupid.

    Now with the various lobbies, the ADL, etc… I think a theory of simple Jewish supremacy is sufficient to explain these institutions and their actions.

    Read More
  63. joe webb says:

    if you read MacDonald’s piece referenced in Gottfried’s article ( components of European origins) which is in blue, you will see that KM discusses the Catholic church’s long campaign to end polygyny and enforce monogamy/marriage which became one of the moral straits that contributed to Europe’s cultural and material development.

    He also describes the evolutionary development of northern European’s tendency to leave clan and extended kinship social relations behind in favor of the nuclear family which again tended toward Individualism and consequent personal moral thinking that resulted in a more rational European world and of course, the now pathological altruism with regard to immigration and race equality ideology.

    In the earlier phase this Individualism served us well, by breaking down extended kinship ties in favor of rationality in political organization, etc.

    KM accounts for the evolutionary origins of White Individualism, something that no other race possesses. It is as profoundly simple as that. Whites are the only race that has compounded this Individualism into every advance both in science and in society….like Free Speech, etc.

    Every other race is sullied by collectivism, from which they will never escape.

    So, KM is not just a jews, jews , jews guy, like that other writer here keeps on yelping about.
    KM is simply blowing the whistle on the jews which almost nobody else is willing to do since the jews, jews, jews, are killers of anybody who writes about jews, jews, jews in an historical and evolutionarily way.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  64. Art says:
    @This Is Our Home
    Black or white. That's all you see. And your own emotions I suppose.

    I'm guessing that your personal life is marked by horrible nasty people always being out to get you and conspiring to bring you down.

    While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment.

    Of course, this actually describes no-one, only the way severely deficient personalities see themselves.

    I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all. Which is bizarre.

    “While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment.”

    Mr Rediger,

    That is too funny – you describe a milk toast goody-two-shoes, afraid to offend personality. I doubt that the Zionist Jews would agree with that.

    “I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all.”

    Again, too funny. Isn’t being unambiguous an asset? This is a forum where ideas are discussed – don’t we strive to convey our ideas in the clearest way possible? I think your statement is a complement – thank you!

    Art

    p.s. The word “complex” is often used by the pseudo-intellectual elite as either an intellectual cop out, or a putdown snow job. It means that they do not have the intellectual prowess to sufficiently explain something – or it is a put down, that you are too stupid to understand, what only they the elite can know.

    p.s. With your love of tribalism – Cheney and Rumsfeld must be your heroes. Just look at all the tribalism and death and destruction they have fostered. They have hundreds of millions of people at each others throats. Doesn’t your heart just swell when you think of them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post.

    Do you constantly perceive that you are victimised? Please just answer that. Or maybe just give an anecdote of when you have done bad. After all, everyone has done bad so the ones who can't name times are just borderline psychopaths.

    Go on, prove me wrong. It should be easy.

  65. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Art
    "While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment."

    Mr Rediger,

    That is too funny – you describe a milk toast goody-two-shoes, afraid to offend personality. I doubt that the Zionist Jews would agree with that.

    "I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all."

    Again, too funny. Isn’t being unambiguous an asset? This is a forum where ideas are discussed – don’t we strive to convey our ideas in the clearest way possible? I think your statement is a complement – thank you!

    Art

    p.s. The word “complex” is often used by the pseudo-intellectual elite as either an intellectual cop out, or a putdown snow job. It means that they do not have the intellectual prowess to sufficiently explain something - or it is a put down, that you are too stupid to understand, what only they the elite can know.

    p.s. With your love of tribalism – Cheney and Rumsfeld must be your heroes. Just look at all the tribalism and death and destruction they have fostered. They have hundreds of millions of people at each others throats. Doesn’t your heart just swell when you think of them?

    Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post.

    Do you constantly perceive that you are victimised? Please just answer that. Or maybe just give an anecdote of when you have done bad. After all, everyone has done bad so the ones who can’t name times are just borderline psychopaths.

    Go on, prove me wrong. It should be easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post."

    Dear Mr. Rediger,

    Sorry, but I do not have a clue as what your are talking about – your psycho-babble is a waste of time.

    On the other hand, your love for ancient tribalism in the 21st century is a curious thing. How can a Western man be so addicted to humanity’s primordial destructive tribal instincts. What drives you to promote tribal evil over Western idealism?

    Look at the ME – your heroes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mufti Netanyahu, and all the Zionist neocon tribal bastards are making the world more unsafe by the day. Can you not see this?

    Is your self image so low that your only self worth, is found in waving a bloody tribal flag of some nation?

    Art

    p.s. But yes - I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.
  66. Art says:
    @This Is Our Home
    Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post.

    Do you constantly perceive that you are victimised? Please just answer that. Or maybe just give an anecdote of when you have done bad. After all, everyone has done bad so the ones who can't name times are just borderline psychopaths.

    Go on, prove me wrong. It should be easy.

    “Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post.”

    Dear Mr. Rediger,

    Sorry, but I do not have a clue as what your are talking about – your psycho-babble is a waste of time.

    On the other hand, your love for ancient tribalism in the 21st century is a curious thing. How can a Western man be so addicted to humanity’s primordial destructive tribal instincts. What drives you to promote tribal evil over Western idealism?

    Look at the ME – your heroes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mufti Netanyahu, and all the Zionist neocon tribal bastards are making the world more unsafe by the day. Can you not see this?

    Is your self image so low that your only self worth, is found in waving a bloody tribal flag of some nation?

    Art

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.
     
    No, you're only willing to engage with the world in the most superficial manner, as shown in your quote above, because that is all you can.

    Aren't so many people just nasty, nasty, nasty and out to get you? Aren't you a special pure hearted lovely snowflake?

    If you were a woman I'd put good money down that you had already falsely accused at least one man of rape, although, you would probably mostly believe it.

    You'll never admit this to yourself, because that's your nature, but you should seek out a CBT qualified therapist immediately. Of course,you'll still to have to be honest with them and since being honest with yourself is impossible then really it's all hopeless anyway.

    Unless, you really are a perfect, never had a bad intention, always put everyone's interests above your own, super lovely snowflake?

    Lol

    , @geokat62

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something...
     
    Art, I happen to be guilty of the same thing.

    After observing human behaviour for a few decades, I believe human beings can be placed into one of three categories:

    1. Those who care mostly about their world - the selfish who are cynical about the possibility of ever improving the human condition.

    2. Those who care mostly about the next world - the religious who believe it is a waste of time to try and improve the human condition in this world and are more concerned about making it to the next world.

    3. Those who care mostly about this world - the idealists or what Sibel Edmonds calls the irate minority who realize that anything is possible.

    Art, I think you and I and a few others belong to the third category of people.
  67. annamaria says:
    @This Is Our Home
    Black or white. That's all you see. And your own emotions I suppose.

    I'm guessing that your personal life is marked by horrible nasty people always being out to get you and conspiring to bring you down.

    While you never do anything wrong. Indeed you always put everyone before yourself and have only the purest of intentions, even to your own detriment.

    Of course, this actually describes no-one, only the way severely deficient personalities see themselves.

    I went through your posts and could find no subtleties, no ability to deal with complexity and no shades of grey at all. Which is bizarre.

    “I’m guessing that your personal life ….”

    What a strange obsession with other peoples’ personal lives! (And the apparently negative attitude to others).
    With regard to your ethnicity, Jewish people prefer to live among the tolerant and educated citizens of other nationality (ethnicity). – Which is actually very smart! The flower of Jewish achievements during last thousands years has been produced mostly within the confines of European nation-states; the outstanding Jewish artists, scientists, philosophers (be it Spinoza or Einstein or Chaplin) spoke the languages of other ethnic groups, while adjusting to these groups’ customs and absorbing the achievements of European civilization.
    The unhealthy (if not parasitic) phenomenon of “Israel-firsters” presents the instance of tribal behavior. A tolerance towards this phenomenon is not without its limit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    What a strange obsession with other peoples’ personal lives
     
    Everything I have written applies to you too. To be honest, your name is a great indication of your borderline personality disorder in itself.
  68. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Art
    "Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post."

    Dear Mr. Rediger,

    Sorry, but I do not have a clue as what your are talking about – your psycho-babble is a waste of time.

    On the other hand, your love for ancient tribalism in the 21st century is a curious thing. How can a Western man be so addicted to humanity’s primordial destructive tribal instincts. What drives you to promote tribal evil over Western idealism?

    Look at the ME – your heroes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mufti Netanyahu, and all the Zionist neocon tribal bastards are making the world more unsafe by the day. Can you not see this?

    Is your self image so low that your only self worth, is found in waving a bloody tribal flag of some nation?

    Art

    p.s. But yes - I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.

    No, you’re only willing to engage with the world in the most superficial manner, as shown in your quote above, because that is all you can.

    Aren’t so many people just nasty, nasty, nasty and out to get you? Aren’t you a special pure hearted lovely snowflake?

    If you were a woman I’d put good money down that you had already falsely accused at least one man of rape, although, you would probably mostly believe it.

    You’ll never admit this to yourself, because that’s your nature, but you should seek out a CBT qualified therapist immediately. Of course,you’ll still to have to be honest with them and since being honest with yourself is impossible then really it’s all hopeless anyway.

    Unless, you really are a perfect, never had a bad intention, always put everyone’s interests above your own, super lovely snowflake?

    Lol

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Hi Bobbie boy,

    How is our little knuckle dragger today? What’s happening with the hasbara troop today? Are they enjoying themselves as they screech on and on going from tree to tree? Are the big knuckle draggers letting you play with them?

    Truth be known, they should be pissed with you little one. All your psycho-babble posts are just not hitting their mark – modern people (unlike you’ll) are belly laughing at them. (We do thank you for the humor.)

    Tell you what – I am a nice man – I will try and mentor you into the 21st century.

    Your first lesson is to knock off the smirks – it is off putting for a little knuckle headed knuckle dragger such as yourself, to make those faces.

    Your mentor – Art

    p.s. Tribalness is for backwards losers – period.

    p.s. Good people have the internal strength, courage, and wisdom to be personally hopeful and to love their neighbors as they love themselves.
  69. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @annamaria
    "I’m guessing that your personal life ...."

    What a strange obsession with other peoples' personal lives! (And the apparently negative attitude to others).
    With regard to your ethnicity, Jewish people prefer to live among the tolerant and educated citizens of other nationality (ethnicity). - Which is actually very smart! The flower of Jewish achievements during last thousands years has been produced mostly within the confines of European nation-states; the outstanding Jewish artists, scientists, philosophers (be it Spinoza or Einstein or Chaplin) spoke the languages of other ethnic groups, while adjusting to these groups' customs and absorbing the achievements of European civilization.
    The unhealthy (if not parasitic) phenomenon of "Israel-firsters" presents the instance of tribal behavior. A tolerance towards this phenomenon is not without its limit.

    What a strange obsession with other peoples’ personal lives

    Everything I have written applies to you too. To be honest, your name is a great indication of your borderline personality disorder in itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The flow of insulting posts towards various commenters could belong to either a thin-skinned and arrogant person unhappy with the course of the discussions (particularly when related to Israel) or a committed hasbarist that is intentionally poisoning the site with fantastic psychological "insights." Though it is quite possible that a hasbarist could have a narcissistic personality.
  70. geokat62 says:
    @Art
    "Wow, you proved my personality disorder diagnosis right when you failed to show the human understanding to actually get my post."

    Dear Mr. Rediger,

    Sorry, but I do not have a clue as what your are talking about – your psycho-babble is a waste of time.

    On the other hand, your love for ancient tribalism in the 21st century is a curious thing. How can a Western man be so addicted to humanity’s primordial destructive tribal instincts. What drives you to promote tribal evil over Western idealism?

    Look at the ME – your heroes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mufti Netanyahu, and all the Zionist neocon tribal bastards are making the world more unsafe by the day. Can you not see this?

    Is your self image so low that your only self worth, is found in waving a bloody tribal flag of some nation?

    Art

    p.s. But yes - I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something…

    Art, I happen to be guilty of the same thing.

    After observing human behaviour for a few decades, I believe human beings can be placed into one of three categories:

    1. Those who care mostly about their world – the selfish who are cynical about the possibility of ever improving the human condition.

    2. Those who care mostly about the next world – the religious who believe it is a waste of time to try and improve the human condition in this world and are more concerned about making it to the next world.

    3. Those who care mostly about this world – the idealists or what Sibel Edmonds calls the irate minority who realize that anything is possible.

    Art, I think you and I and a few others belong to the third category of people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD rely on others for their feelings of worth and emotional caretaking. So fearful are they of feeling alone that they may act in desperate ways that quite frequently bring about the very abandonment and rejection they're trying to avoid.

    The thing is that a defined sense of self can neither be wholly negative nor wholly positive.

    No wonder you three gals flock together.
  71. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @geokat62

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something...
     
    Art, I happen to be guilty of the same thing.

    After observing human behaviour for a few decades, I believe human beings can be placed into one of three categories:

    1. Those who care mostly about their world - the selfish who are cynical about the possibility of ever improving the human condition.

    2. Those who care mostly about the next world - the religious who believe it is a waste of time to try and improve the human condition in this world and are more concerned about making it to the next world.

    3. Those who care mostly about this world - the idealists or what Sibel Edmonds calls the irate minority who realize that anything is possible.

    Art, I think you and I and a few others belong to the third category of people.

    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD rely on others for their feelings of worth and emotional caretaking. So fearful are they of feeling alone that they may act in desperate ways that quite frequently bring about the very abandonment and rejection they’re trying to avoid.

    The thing is that a defined sense of self can neither be wholly negative nor wholly positive.

    No wonder you three gals flock together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD...
     
    Robert, are you suggesting that anyone who belongs to the third category of people suffers from Borderline personality disorder?
    , @Art
    "No wonder you three gals flock together."

    Oh Bobbie boy,

    My little knuckle dragger – you are an even a bigger loser then I thought.

    Having to play the sex card, means that you have already lost the argument. Poor poor you.

    Gee - you do not have to always be a knuckle headed knuckle dragger.

    That is your second lesson on your path to a tribal free 21st century maturity.

    Buck up little hasbara knuckle boy – you will make it – your mentor – Art

    p.s. Isn’t hope great!
  72. geokat62 says:
    @This Is Our Home
    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD rely on others for their feelings of worth and emotional caretaking. So fearful are they of feeling alone that they may act in desperate ways that quite frequently bring about the very abandonment and rejection they're trying to avoid.

    The thing is that a defined sense of self can neither be wholly negative nor wholly positive.

    No wonder you three gals flock together.

    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD…

    Robert, are you suggesting that anyone who belongs to the third category of people suffers from Borderline personality disorder?

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Robert, are you suggesting that anyone who belongs to the third category of people suffers from Borderline personality disorder
     
    I'm saying that you three require clinical help, and I can only imagine what a mess your personal lives are if you cannot even conceal your personality disorders on the internet.

    To be honest, I am not sure if it is fair for me to lump you in with them, but I'm sort of assuming that you're all the same person.
  73. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @geokat62

    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD...
     
    Robert, are you suggesting that anyone who belongs to the third category of people suffers from Borderline personality disorder?

    Robert, are you suggesting that anyone who belongs to the third category of people suffers from Borderline personality disorder

    I’m saying that you three require clinical help, and I can only imagine what a mess your personal lives are if you cannot even conceal your personality disorders on the internet.

    To be honest, I am not sure if it is fair for me to lump you in with them, but I’m sort of assuming that you’re all the same person.

    Read More
  74. Bill says:
    @Priss Factor
    I think we should stop calling the enemy the 'left'. The real left is deader than the real right. It is totally gone. Sure, there are some Marxists in colleges, but no one listens to communist stuff anymore. It's just for dummies, and they will never gain any power.

    The 'left' is now just a label. It is about power and privilege of Jews and white Libs who use homos to favor minority elite domination over others. It is a form of neo-aristocracy. The 'left' has become what Christianity became to the aristocrats of Europe: handy moral formula to justify its rule with slogans, mantras, rallies, and rituals.

    We should always judge people by what they do, not what they say. Despite all the mantras about 'equality' and 'universalism', today's so-called 'leftism' is, in actual practice, about urban elites hogging everything for themselves and sneering at everyone else. The only thing universalist about this is the notion that elite cosmopolitan rich around the world identify with one another and look down on the rest of us. It's like the movie Elysium. Bad movie but illustrates a good point.

    There is a way to moralize the right and put forth a suitable justification.

    But all moral sense has to be about victimology to some extent. After all, morality is about right and wrong, and that means it is about righting certain wrongs. A people who can't make a case that they've been wronged don't have anything to right.

    PS. We shouldn't call the barking dogs of the globo-elites the 'social justice warriors'. They should just be called Minions, like the twinkie-like characters in DESPICABLE.

    They are Teacher's Pets. Or Teacher's Pests.

    PSS. Minions in colleges call for 'safe spaces'. This concept in the current setting is ridiculous as no one is getting hurt in college campuses. But in a general way, it is a decent concept because white nations and white communities should demand SAFE SPACES so that they can live in peace and harmony away from the savagery of black thugs who are more aggressive and stronger.

    The ‘left’ has become what Christianity became to the aristocrats of Europe: handy moral formula to justify its rule with slogans, mantras, rallies, and rituals.

    Amen. However, the fact that Cultural Marxism is just a tool in elite intentions doesn’t mean that it is just a tool. The state religion affects the conduct of the state and of the society the state lives off of. Christianity affected the conduct of Christian states. Cultural Marxism affects the conduct of Culturally Marxist states. The effects are slower and more subtle than the orders of a ruler, but they are no less real for that.

    Read More
  75. annamaria says:
    @This Is Our Home

    What a strange obsession with other peoples’ personal lives
     
    Everything I have written applies to you too. To be honest, your name is a great indication of your borderline personality disorder in itself.

    The flow of insulting posts towards various commenters could belong to either a thin-skinned and arrogant person unhappy with the course of the discussions (particularly when related to Israel) or a committed hasbarist that is intentionally poisoning the site with fantastic psychological “insights.” Though it is quite possible that a hasbarist could have a narcissistic personality.

    Read More
  76. Bill says:
    @AmericanaCON
    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful. Yes, I’m a woman but it does not make me weak? I would not be unfaithful to my husband because he is “weak” whatever the meaning is. My husband (an accountant) had an abusive and incompetent supervisor climbing the corporate ladder. It was my husband first job after college; we had our daughter on the way, I was in graduate school and we had just bought a too expensive apartment. If he would have gone against her he could have been fired or not received a recommendation. We needed his job. Instead he worked hard and when the opportunity was given for a similar position with slightly higher pay he left. He was not alone. Was he “weak” in front of his supervisor? Yes, but he had no choice. Sometimes you have to take responsibility for a family even if it hurts your personal pride and what you believe in.

    I’m not a white nationalist because it is irrational. It is not applicable to European conditions which identity is based on ethnicity and not race. It is not workable in Untied States even if we went back to the 1950 when 90 percent was white. African-Americans and Native Americans are just as entitled to United States as any white person. I grew up in both in Copenhagen and Chicago and have a dual citizenship. My mother is mixed Hispanic-American and my father is ethnic Danish. My husband is Danish. I’m not white but I’m not white either. I feel very much culturally and religiously attached to very white protestant Denmark but also attached to United States. I’m just as concerned with uncontrolled immigration and with the awkward internationalist post-liberalism in both Denmark and United States.

    However I don’t believe a government should give preferences to people based on the color of their skin. There are plenty of people of color, biracial and adopted people whom feel much love for the west just like white people. They have the same concern as many white people. Do I think conservatives should stand up for themselves? Yes, I think they should and I do think they should reject the donor class. I will vote for Trump, Cruz or Rand - all whom are on the right in the Republican Party. When it comes to Jews I don’t believe they “run the world” or feel any animosity towards them. I don’t feel animosity towards anybody based on ethnicity, religion or race. Is there certain problematic aspects when it comes to Jewish (or other minorities) identity politics. Yes, of course, but it cannot justify hatred.

    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful.

    You misunderstand the term. Cucks, in this context, are men who have a sexual fetish in which they wish to witness their wives being unfaithful to them and/or in which they wish to participate in making their wives unfaithful to them. Go to a porn site and search. You will have no trouble dredging up material in this vein. It is very much about male weakness. It is about men wallowing and delighting in their own weakness and humiliation. “Cuckservative” has caught on because it so aptly describes scum like Nick Lowry or John Hagee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    I don’t watch porn although I researched it. Weakness and sexual fetishes are different things. A man who is satisfied through seeing his wife having sex with someone else is not “weak”. A cuckold (in porn) seems to be a person who use is wife for his own sexual desires. It is a form of sadomasochism were these men enjoy being submissive and humiliated - not in the sense that they themselves engage in the sexual act but their spouse. It seems to be some variation among those whom engage in it. Still, the core seems to be consistent – meaning a man can only live out his sexual desires through his wife and the man which she engage in sexual activities with. Hence, it seems to be a form of sexual exploitation.

    Oh, my God…

    In politics it ought to be a politician (husband) who let his people (wife) being hurt (sexual activity) by a third part (second man). He feels politically and emotionally satisfied watching it happen. He should have protected his people but he has allowed and even encourages the third part to use his people. The politician is shielded. His people are not shielded for what he has allowed to happen to them. Is he weak? No, he is not but he has broken the social contract he had to his nation.

    John Hagee has spent his career promoting a far-right version of Zionism among evangelicals. Hagee uses a Christian framework appealing to universalism but his messages within framework do not promote universalism. He tells them that they can only redeem themselves if they act submissive towards Israel and far-right Jewish identity politics. His positions go against the intrest of Americans. Israel is of little geopolitical or economic intrest of United States. Rather, the continuation of unreasonable support for Israel is dangerous (for both countries) and will invoke even more detestation among Arabs.

    A sensible foreign policy is based on neutrality and protecting borders not spreading democracy or protect borders of other countries. Is Hagee a “Cuckservative”? Well, he has little concern of those people he ought to protect. Is he weak? Well, he had to make a poodle when the Catholic Church and Lutheran churches said they would reject McCain if he didn’t reject Hagees endorsement in the 2008 presidential election. Is this a sign of weakness in Hagee and McCain? Well, it is a sign that principle do not matter for them. I understand that people have written and said things in the past which they regret. Hagee on the other hand has made a career of smearing all churches which do not support his positions on Israel.

    I personally like to use the term RINO. It is much easier to digest. A RINO is simply a liberal or leftist posing as a conservative.
  77. Bill says:
    @AmericanaCON
    Well, my point is that Jews are really no different from any other minority or a majority. When it comes to multiculturalism it seems like Christian whites are the ones which are the most viral supporters of multiculturalism. I don’t think Jews should be hold responsibility for something which ought to be blamed (or cherished depending on how you see it) on the majority. In fact – I don’t think any ethnic group should be hold responsibility for anything.

    Elites are a different matter. The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe. It is true that many Jewish groups also advocating it but so what? The same goes for the white Christians groups. We still live in a free society so if you dislike Christian, Jewish, Hindu, African-American or whatever elite you can vote them out office or just don’t buy their newspapers. I don’t blame migrants because they are coming to America or Europe. They are looking for a better life. Do I support uncontrolled borders? No, I don’t but I don’t blame migrants for them. I don’t blame regular Muslims for what Muslims fundamentalist advocate. Am I positive to everything Islamic? No, I’m not.

    What I dislike with NPI and other far-right anti-Semitic organizations is that they cannot distinct Jews with no power from Jewish elites. They have the same amoral horizon as Jewish or African-American far-left groups blaming white Christians for “hate” just because they are white Christians. I agree with you that the current elites (Jewish or white Christian) use their power to destroy careers when people go against their political believes instead defending their political positions.

    I think it is despicable. It should be dealt with although I don’t know how because of their resources. In general I think the elites should either alter their views to become more inclusive to political ideas (which has been done in Denmark) or “we” regardless if we are Jews, Christians, Whites, Blacks and whatever our political believes get rid of our elites and replace them with an elite which cherish freedom of speech and respect and tolerance for people’s opinions.

    The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe

    If you go back a century, the US elite was dominated by irreligious WASPs—that was true from the founding of the country up until sometime just after WWII. From sometime just after WWII to the present, it has been the Jews. They are not an absolute majority of the elite, but they don’t have to be. They are more cohesive, at least on their key distinguishing issues, than are any of their opponents. So, on the stuff they agree on (basically, Cultural Marxism and Israel worship), they get their way. Denying this just makes you look like an idiot. Or like someone who wants applause from readers of Commentary.

    Western Europe is not an independent actor, nor are the component countries independent actors. They are puppets of the US.

    We still live in a free society

    This is not true. If you openly express disagreement with the state religion, you can’t be employed in any sort of managerial role and professional roles are dicey. Read about James Watson and think about what that example means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Western Europe is not an independent actor, nor are the component countries independent actors. They are puppets of the US.
     
    I know that this has to be right for your grand theory to be right but do you have any evidence or non-circular logic justifying this belief?

    Like a mechanism by which those in the US government might exert genuine control over Angela Merkel? What would they actually do to Germany if she didn't toe their line?

    The EU is a bigger economy and has a bigger population than the US. It is also stronger diplomatically, has fewer enemies and has more UN votes and security council seats. Its combined forces would easily defeat the US in a defensive war, not that US public opinion would ever permit it anyway.

    What world do you live in?

    , @AmericanaCON
    Well, I don’t see ethnic groups as actors which do not mean I disregard ethnicity in political analysis. I see elites which represent (or control) an ethnic group as actors. Do the Jewish elite have influence in US politics? Yes, of course because they are an elite. White Christians have also their elite which hold power in the United States. I don’t believe United States is controlled by Jews - but the Jewish elites do share power with elites from other ethnic groups. Do organizations such as AIPAC have too much influence over US foreign policy? Yes, I tend to believe so but all Jews are not supportive of AIPAC. You have Jewish Voices for Peace which is very critical of AIPAC. Philip Weiss (which I enjoy reading) is critical of AIPAC. Paul Gottfried is a (paleo) conservative and he seems also to be critical of AIPAC.

    You mention Jews as a cohesive group. Well, I agree with. Evangelical are also a cohesive religious group but it is not Evangelicals which push for unreasonable support for Israel but the elite within the Evangelical community such as John Hagee. What you see is more and more evangelicals taking a step away from the elite. You see the same trend in politics in United States. This is why the Trump campaign is going well. It is also why politicians such a Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders which has one foot in the realm of the voters and one foot within the elite donor class have been successful.

    I think all states are free. Europe is not a puppet to United States although I do believe the US has influences over some of the elites in Europe. Lastly, I do agree with you that political correctness is terrible and destroy careers. There are a lot of things you cannot talk openly about without losing your career. I think Denmark has a come a long way compared to United States. There is a sense of freedom of speech and diversity in opinions. I have somewhat easier than others to talk about issues regarding ethnicity because I have a darker (through my U.S born mother) skin color than ethnic Danes. I’m not burden by constantly telling others that I’m not a racist which Danes sometimes have to. Although it has become less and less important since the DF (Danish People Party) became part of the mainstream and rejected the leftist definition of “racism”. Currently, the speaker of the house is the former leader of DF.

    Can you talk about Jewish overrepresentation in leading posts in US government without being accused of anti-Semitism or losing your job? Well, I think you can so long you don’t advocate genocide. I will say there is some political correctness in Denmark favoring the right and which I don’t agree with. Muslims are often vilified in the mainstream media and women from non-European cultures are often described as oppressed. If you have a different opinion you will be harshly treated although not as harshly as the hard-right (Danish Peoples Party) was before they became part of the mainstream. Although, I do like the liberals and socialists are constantly under pressure (being a Conservative) I don’t agree with everything currently promoted by the Danish right. I do not hate of feel animosity towards foreigners. Although I agree that Denmark and western countries ought to have a strict migration policy.
  78. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Bill

    The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe
     
    If you go back a century, the US elite was dominated by irreligious WASPs---that was true from the founding of the country up until sometime just after WWII. From sometime just after WWII to the present, it has been the Jews. They are not an absolute majority of the elite, but they don't have to be. They are more cohesive, at least on their key distinguishing issues, than are any of their opponents. So, on the stuff they agree on (basically, Cultural Marxism and Israel worship), they get their way. Denying this just makes you look like an idiot. Or like someone who wants applause from readers of Commentary.

    Western Europe is not an independent actor, nor are the component countries independent actors. They are puppets of the US.

    We still live in a free society
     
    This is not true. If you openly express disagreement with the state religion, you can't be employed in any sort of managerial role and professional roles are dicey. Read about James Watson and think about what that example means.

    Western Europe is not an independent actor, nor are the component countries independent actors. They are puppets of the US.

    I know that this has to be right for your grand theory to be right but do you have any evidence or non-circular logic justifying this belief?

    Like a mechanism by which those in the US government might exert genuine control over Angela Merkel? What would they actually do to Germany if she didn’t toe their line?

    The EU is a bigger economy and has a bigger population than the US. It is also stronger diplomatically, has fewer enemies and has more UN votes and security council seats. Its combined forces would easily defeat the US in a defensive war, not that US public opinion would ever permit it anyway.

    What world do you live in?

    Read More
  79. Art says:
    @This Is Our Home

    p.s. But yes – I am guilty of something – I am guilty of hoping for a better safer kinder peaceful world. And I am willing to uncompromisingly write about it.
     
    No, you're only willing to engage with the world in the most superficial manner, as shown in your quote above, because that is all you can.

    Aren't so many people just nasty, nasty, nasty and out to get you? Aren't you a special pure hearted lovely snowflake?

    If you were a woman I'd put good money down that you had already falsely accused at least one man of rape, although, you would probably mostly believe it.

    You'll never admit this to yourself, because that's your nature, but you should seek out a CBT qualified therapist immediately. Of course,you'll still to have to be honest with them and since being honest with yourself is impossible then really it's all hopeless anyway.

    Unless, you really are a perfect, never had a bad intention, always put everyone's interests above your own, super lovely snowflake?

    Lol

    Hi Bobbie boy,

    How is our little knuckle dragger today? What’s happening with the hasbara troop today? Are they enjoying themselves as they screech on and on going from tree to tree? Are the big knuckle draggers letting you play with them?

    Truth be known, they should be pissed with you little one. All your psycho-babble posts are just not hitting their mark – modern people (unlike you’ll) are belly laughing at them. (We do thank you for the humor.)

    Tell you what – I am a nice man – I will try and mentor you into the 21st century.

    Your first lesson is to knock off the smirks – it is off putting for a little knuckle headed knuckle dragger such as yourself, to make those faces.

    Your mentor – Art

    p.s. Tribalness is for backwards losers – period.

    p.s. Good people have the internal strength, courage, and wisdom to be personally hopeful and to love their neighbors as they love themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    And so you leave yet another post signalling nothing but your own borderline personality.

    Nuance is not your friend. Complexity is not your friend.

    I always thought that borderlines should really be women, young feminists with blue hair or maiden aunts with cats. Oh well, I am wrong about that, although lots of men are quite womanly I suppose.

  80. Art says:
    @This Is Our Home
    Owing to a poorly defined sense of self, people with BPD rely on others for their feelings of worth and emotional caretaking. So fearful are they of feeling alone that they may act in desperate ways that quite frequently bring about the very abandonment and rejection they're trying to avoid.

    The thing is that a defined sense of self can neither be wholly negative nor wholly positive.

    No wonder you three gals flock together.

    “No wonder you three gals flock together.”

    Oh Bobbie boy,

    My little knuckle dragger – you are an even a bigger loser then I thought.

    Having to play the sex card, means that you have already lost the argument. Poor poor you.

    Gee – you do not have to always be a knuckle headed knuckle dragger.

    That is your second lesson on your path to a tribal free 21st century maturity.

    Buck up little hasbara knuckle boy – you will make it – your mentor – Art

    p.s. Isn’t hope great!

    Read More
  81. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Art
    Hi Bobbie boy,

    How is our little knuckle dragger today? What’s happening with the hasbara troop today? Are they enjoying themselves as they screech on and on going from tree to tree? Are the big knuckle draggers letting you play with them?

    Truth be known, they should be pissed with you little one. All your psycho-babble posts are just not hitting their mark – modern people (unlike you’ll) are belly laughing at them. (We do thank you for the humor.)

    Tell you what – I am a nice man – I will try and mentor you into the 21st century.

    Your first lesson is to knock off the smirks – it is off putting for a little knuckle headed knuckle dragger such as yourself, to make those faces.

    Your mentor – Art

    p.s. Tribalness is for backwards losers – period.

    p.s. Good people have the internal strength, courage, and wisdom to be personally hopeful and to love their neighbors as they love themselves.

    And so you leave yet another post signalling nothing but your own borderline personality.

    Nuance is not your friend. Complexity is not your friend.

    I always thought that borderlines should really be women, young feminists with blue hair or maiden aunts with cats. Oh well, I am wrong about that, although lots of men are quite womanly I suppose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Hi Bobbie boy,

    So knuckle dragging knuckle head - calling me a woman means you disrespect half the human race. I guess you are being true to form - we all know your knuckle dragging tribe disrespects women. When you finally grow up, are you going to club a women over the head and take her to your tree for the night?

    Little Bobbie boy – you really need to evolve you viewpoints – you need to find the strength to love your fellow beings.

    I know it is very hard for you to change, especially coming from that backwards ungracious upbringing you received.

    But I am with you – your mentor – Art.

    p.s. You can find happiness – you can – you can -- I know you can!

    p.s. You do not have to be endlessly mean and antagonistic to prove yourself in some evil pyramid tribal structure.
  82. Art says:
    @This Is Our Home
    And so you leave yet another post signalling nothing but your own borderline personality.

    Nuance is not your friend. Complexity is not your friend.

    I always thought that borderlines should really be women, young feminists with blue hair or maiden aunts with cats. Oh well, I am wrong about that, although lots of men are quite womanly I suppose.

    Hi Bobbie boy,

    So knuckle dragging knuckle head – calling me a woman means you disrespect half the human race. I guess you are being true to form – we all know your knuckle dragging tribe disrespects women. When you finally grow up, are you going to club a women over the head and take her to your tree for the night?

    Little Bobbie boy – you really need to evolve you viewpoints – you need to find the strength to love your fellow beings.

    I know it is very hard for you to change, especially coming from that backwards ungracious upbringing you received.

    But I am with you – your mentor – Art.

    p.s. You can find happiness – you can – you can — I know you can!

    p.s. You do not have to be endlessly mean and antagonistic to prove yourself in some evil pyramid tribal structure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    from Robert Rediger: "...you leave yet another post signalling nothing but your own borderline personality."
    There is something rather strange about his generous use of "your own borderline personality" for characterizing other commenters. Perhaps you need to go easier on "Robert Rediger," for he shows some really unusual signs of behavior. Might be that the words "your own borderline personality" had traumatized him to the point that he began using these words indiscriminately towards the others.
  83. annamaria says:
    @Art
    Hi Bobbie boy,

    So knuckle dragging knuckle head - calling me a woman means you disrespect half the human race. I guess you are being true to form - we all know your knuckle dragging tribe disrespects women. When you finally grow up, are you going to club a women over the head and take her to your tree for the night?

    Little Bobbie boy – you really need to evolve you viewpoints – you need to find the strength to love your fellow beings.

    I know it is very hard for you to change, especially coming from that backwards ungracious upbringing you received.

    But I am with you – your mentor – Art.

    p.s. You can find happiness – you can – you can -- I know you can!

    p.s. You do not have to be endlessly mean and antagonistic to prove yourself in some evil pyramid tribal structure.

    from Robert Rediger: “…you leave yet another post signalling nothing but your own borderline personality.”
    There is something rather strange about his generous use of “your own borderline personality” for characterizing other commenters. Perhaps you need to go easier on “Robert Rediger,” for he shows some really unusual signs of behavior. Might be that the words “your own borderline personality” had traumatized him to the point that he began using these words indiscriminately towards the others.

    Read More
  84. Art says:

    There is something rather strange about his generous use of “your own borderline personality” for characterizing other commenters. Perhaps you need to go easier on “Robert Rediger,” for he shows some really unusual signs of behavior. Might be that the words “your own borderline personality” had traumatized him to the point that he began using these words indiscriminately towards the others.

    Poor little Bobbie – he may have a short circuit when it comes to psycho-babble – he keeps repeating the same things day after day.

    Perhaps he has no imagination – maybe he has regurgitated all that he has within him – maybe he has nothing more to say?

    Read More
  85. Matra says:

    Aaron Gross:

    Anyway, as I remember, MacDonald’s review focused mostly on Leon Trotsky. Lindemann’s description of Trotsky was very balanced. Among other things, Lindemann wrote that if some gentiles could be considered “Jewified,” as he’d described certain people earlier in the book, then Trotsky could be considered “gentilized.” (I don’t even remember if those words are exact quotes, but that was the meaning.) The idea was that while Trotsky was Jewish in name, he was in some important ways more “gentile” than “Jewish.”

    I’m not so sure about that. I just picked up my copy of Esau’s Tears, went straight to chapter 13 (Jews and Revolution 1917-1935) and found the following:

    On p450 Lindemann on Stalin & Trotsky suggests Gentile v Jewish characteristics including “Trotsky was uncompromising and ferocious in polemic” compared to “Stalin, the unassuming, hardworking party secretary” who often played the role of mediator.

    On the next page Lindemann referring to Trotsky’s autobiography: “Trotsky did not mention the extent to which tactlessness, arrogance, unshakeable self-confidence, rigid moralism, and fanatical idealism fit into anti-Semitic stereotypes.” Characteristics attached to Trotsky throughout his life.

    Lindemann does mention that Trotsky himself claimed that Jews were unrevolutionary and even Tsarist collaborators. Since Trotsky was a revolutionary does that mean he was more Gentile than Jewish? No way. A bit more plausible is Lindemann’s claim that Trotsky was different from over 99% of Jews in that he came from a non-Yiddish-speaking non-believing background and also, like many other contemporary Jewish revolutionaries, had lived mostly outside the Pale of Settlement.

    Based on my admittedly short and incomplete skimming of Trotsky references in Esau’s Tears I don’t see Lindemann coming anywhere close to suggesting Trotsky was “gentilized”.

    Read More
  86. AmericanaCON [AKA "J. Yost"] says:
    @Bill

    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful.
     
    You misunderstand the term. Cucks, in this context, are men who have a sexual fetish in which they wish to witness their wives being unfaithful to them and/or in which they wish to participate in making their wives unfaithful to them. Go to a porn site and search. You will have no trouble dredging up material in this vein. It is very much about male weakness. It is about men wallowing and delighting in their own weakness and humiliation. "Cuckservative" has caught on because it so aptly describes scum like Nick Lowry or John Hagee.

    I don’t watch porn although I researched it. Weakness and sexual fetishes are different things. A man who is satisfied through seeing his wife having sex with someone else is not “weak”. A cuckold (in porn) seems to be a person who use is wife for his own sexual desires. It is a form of sadomasochism were these men enjoy being submissive and humiliated – not in the sense that they themselves engage in the sexual act but their spouse. It seems to be some variation among those whom engage in it. Still, the core seems to be consistent – meaning a man can only live out his sexual desires through his wife and the man which she engage in sexual activities with. Hence, it seems to be a form of sexual exploitation.

    Oh, my God…

    In politics it ought to be a politician (husband) who let his people (wife) being hurt (sexual activity) by a third part (second man). He feels politically and emotionally satisfied watching it happen. He should have protected his people but he has allowed and even encourages the third part to use his people. The politician is shielded. His people are not shielded for what he has allowed to happen to them. Is he weak? No, he is not but he has broken the social contract he had to his nation.

    John Hagee has spent his career promoting a far-right version of Zionism among evangelicals. Hagee uses a Christian framework appealing to universalism but his messages within framework do not promote universalism. He tells them that they can only redeem themselves if they act submissive towards Israel and far-right Jewish identity politics. His positions go against the intrest of Americans. Israel is of little geopolitical or economic intrest of United States. Rather, the continuation of unreasonable support for Israel is dangerous (for both countries) and will invoke even more detestation among Arabs.

    A sensible foreign policy is based on neutrality and protecting borders not spreading democracy or protect borders of other countries. Is Hagee a “Cuckservative”? Well, he has little concern of those people he ought to protect. Is he weak? Well, he had to make a poodle when the Catholic Church and Lutheran churches said they would reject McCain if he didn’t reject Hagees endorsement in the 2008 presidential election. Is this a sign of weakness in Hagee and McCain? Well, it is a sign that principle do not matter for them. I understand that people have written and said things in the past which they regret. Hagee on the other hand has made a career of smearing all churches which do not support his positions on Israel.

    I personally like to use the term RINO. It is much easier to digest. A RINO is simply a liberal or leftist posing as a conservative.

    Read More
  87. AmericanaCON [AKA "J. Yost"] says:
    @Bill

    The financial and political power is still in the very Christian white elites hands and is the strongest political elite in United States and in Europe
     
    If you go back a century, the US elite was dominated by irreligious WASPs---that was true from the founding of the country up until sometime just after WWII. From sometime just after WWII to the present, it has been the Jews. They are not an absolute majority of the elite, but they don't have to be. They are more cohesive, at least on their key distinguishing issues, than are any of their opponents. So, on the stuff they agree on (basically, Cultural Marxism and Israel worship), they get their way. Denying this just makes you look like an idiot. Or like someone who wants applause from readers of Commentary.

    Western Europe is not an independent actor, nor are the component countries independent actors. They are puppets of the US.

    We still live in a free society
     
    This is not true. If you openly express disagreement with the state religion, you can't be employed in any sort of managerial role and professional roles are dicey. Read about James Watson and think about what that example means.

    Well, I don’t see ethnic groups as actors which do not mean I disregard ethnicity in political analysis. I see elites which represent (or control) an ethnic group as actors. Do the Jewish elite have influence in US politics? Yes, of course because they are an elite. White Christians have also their elite which hold power in the United States. I don’t believe United States is controlled by Jews – but the Jewish elites do share power with elites from other ethnic groups. Do organizations such as AIPAC have too much influence over US foreign policy? Yes, I tend to believe so but all Jews are not supportive of AIPAC. You have Jewish Voices for Peace which is very critical of AIPAC. Philip Weiss (which I enjoy reading) is critical of AIPAC. Paul Gottfried is a (paleo) conservative and he seems also to be critical of AIPAC.

    You mention Jews as a cohesive group. Well, I agree with. Evangelical are also a cohesive religious group but it is not Evangelicals which push for unreasonable support for Israel but the elite within the Evangelical community such as John Hagee. What you see is more and more evangelicals taking a step away from the elite. You see the same trend in politics in United States. This is why the Trump campaign is going well. It is also why politicians such a Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders which has one foot in the realm of the voters and one foot within the elite donor class have been successful.

    I think all states are free. Europe is not a puppet to United States although I do believe the US has influences over some of the elites in Europe. Lastly, I do agree with you that political correctness is terrible and destroy careers. There are a lot of things you cannot talk openly about without losing your career. I think Denmark has a come a long way compared to United States. There is a sense of freedom of speech and diversity in opinions. I have somewhat easier than others to talk about issues regarding ethnicity because I have a darker (through my U.S born mother) skin color than ethnic Danes. I’m not burden by constantly telling others that I’m not a racist which Danes sometimes have to. Although it has become less and less important since the DF (Danish People Party) became part of the mainstream and rejected the leftist definition of “racism”. Currently, the speaker of the house is the former leader of DF.

    Can you talk about Jewish overrepresentation in leading posts in US government without being accused of anti-Semitism or losing your job? Well, I think you can so long you don’t advocate genocide. I will say there is some political correctness in Denmark favoring the right and which I don’t agree with. Muslims are often vilified in the mainstream media and women from non-European cultures are often described as oppressed. If you have a different opinion you will be harshly treated although not as harshly as the hard-right (Danish Peoples Party) was before they became part of the mainstream. Although, I do like the liberals and socialists are constantly under pressure (being a Conservative) I don’t agree with everything currently promoted by the Danish right. I do not hate of feel animosity towards foreigners. Although I agree that Denmark and western countries ought to have a strict migration policy.

    Read More
  88. annamaria says:

    Old news on who needs the permanent war:
    “In 2011, the final report of the congressionally mandated Commission on Wartime Contracting estimated that somewhere between $31 billion and $60 billion taxpayer dollars had been lost to fraud and waste in the American “reconstruction” of Iraq and Afghanistan.” http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176068/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_roads_to_nowhere%2C_ghost_soldiers%2C_and_a_%2443_million_gas_station_in_afghanistan/

    Meanwhile, the newer news:
    “The Israelis will be looking for a big increase to the annual US military aid budget to Israel – from $3bn to $4bn” annually. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34729243
    “$100 Billion Gift to Israel — $83 Billion Cut To American Families” http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/09/100-billion-gift-to-israel-83-billion-cut-to-american-families/

    Read More
  89. WhatEvvs [AKA "Internet Addict"] says:
    @Mark Green
    I haven't read Esau's Tears, but your soft take-down of Kevin MacDonald seems also to 'lack balance'. Even your faint praise of Kevin MacDonald comes across as disingenuous.

    Now an arch-Zionist like Alan Dershowitz does write like a prosecutor. And a brilliant one. But Kevin MacDonald has a very different style, not prosecutorial in any overriding sense. Why would you make such a discordant claim?

    I know MacDonald's blog (Occidental Observer) extremely well. MacDonald writes in an fairly unemotional style. He just makes his points very persuasively. He's highly intelligent. MacDonald's blog does not publish "lies". That allegation is a lie.

    MacDonald presents a controversial world view. He fortifies his paradigm via fact and anecdote. Stylistically, he's a professional journalist and follows the rules accordingly.

    The only thing 'emotional' about MacDonald is his explosive thesis. Indeed, MacDonald does not denounce or defame like his detractors invariably do. MacDonald has in fact taught me a lot about writing on this super-hot subject. And I'm a trained journalist.

    In plain fact, Kevin MacDonald is an outstanding communicator and brilliant thinker. How have you gotten him so wrong? Are you secretly a detractor?--on a mission to undermine Kevin MacDonald and his potent ideas? That is the impression I get from you.

    I ask this question because you claim that Kevin MacDonald has "strongly affected [your] thinking"? Truly? I don't believe it.

    You pretend to be something of an admirer of MacDonald's. That pose rings very false. If I am wrong about this, then surely you agree with MacDonald that Judaism is a 'group evolutionary strategy'? Correct? After all, it's his central thesis. Please confirm.

    And why is Lindmann's description of Trotsky so 'balanced' and MacDonald's so 'misleading'? Leon Trotsky thinks like a 'gentile' and not a Jew? Preposterous. How would you possibly know for certain since crypto-Judaism (deception) has been the hallmark of so many Jewish-lead intellectual movements, including communism. Mr. Gross, you are yourself acting rather 'Jewish', i.e. strategically dishonest.

    Trotsky helped launch a global revolution that targeted the (anti-Semitic) Tsar and Russia's Old Guard. MacDonald is not the first to note that the leadership of this bloody movement was enormously over-represented by ethnic Jews, including Trotsky. Does that fact not interest you?

    And you claim to read Kevin MacDonald for "emotional venting". Really? Aaron Gross, I find your words hard to believe. You can't resist criticizing Kevin MacDonald at every turn.

    Kevin MacDonald--like no psychologist or historian before him--successfully tore away the veneer of victimhood, innocence and assimilation to which tribal, secular Judaism has strategically attached itself. What MacDonald reveals is a pattern of Jewish parasitism and Jewish exploitation using various intellectual movements as cover. This includes Marxism and the political deeds of Leon Trotsky.

    MacDonald brings attention and understanding to the extraordinary Jewish role in shaping modern anthropology, Freudian psychology, Third World immigration into the West, the Frankfurt School, communism and more. His insightful and critical books on Judaism pose a real threat to the political power of world Jewry going forward. Surely, many 'neoconservatives'--especially Jewish ones--understand this very well.

    This is why MacDonald is a prime target now and will always be a prime target by virtually all self-identified Jews and their minions. MacDonald's explosive paradigm is an assault on the myth that Zionism and Jewish tribalism are compatible with Western peoples and even Christianity.

    And --As any honest historian or psychologist knows (or suspects), anti-Semitism is one face of a two-sided coin. Anti-Semitic theory is a self-serving paradigm constructed by Jewish intellectuals; not unlike the dominant historiography involving The Holocaust (WWII) and virtually all Jewish/gentile flashpoints, as they invariably depict Jews as blameless victims. America's 'War on Terror' is a continuation of this dishonest fairy tale.

    Indeed, there is still no simple word or phrase to describe the (sometimes) destructive, group strategy used by countless Jews in their competition against the Gentile world.

    Kevin MacDonald properly described it as a 'group evolutionary strategy', and it involves, among other things, massive levels of deception, ethnocentrism, and secret ethnic-based teamwork.

    There's a lot to this story. So let's agree to keep the conversation going.

    In the meantime, I am very grateful for the bold and brilliant work of Kevin MacDonald.

    Dershowitz is a lawyer and a known advocate. No one considers him to be a scientist. MacDonald wants to be taken seriously as a social scientist. He certainly doesn’t consider Jews to be blameless victims of the Holocaust. He thinks they provoked it. (See the coverage of his testimony in the David Irving/Lipstadt case.)

    Read More
  90. Hugo says:
    @AmericanaCON
    I don’t like the term “Cuckservative”. A man does not have to be weak because his wife is unfaithful. Yes, I’m a woman but it does not make me weak? I would not be unfaithful to my husband because he is “weak” whatever the meaning is. My husband (an accountant) had an abusive and incompetent supervisor climbing the corporate ladder. It was my husband first job after college; we had our daughter on the way, I was in graduate school and we had just bought a too expensive apartment. If he would have gone against her he could have been fired or not received a recommendation. We needed his job. Instead he worked hard and when the opportunity was given for a similar position with slightly higher pay he left. He was not alone. Was he “weak” in front of his supervisor? Yes, but he had no choice. Sometimes you have to take responsibility for a family even if it hurts your personal pride and what you believe in.

    I’m not a white nationalist because it is irrational. It is not applicable to European conditions which identity is based on ethnicity and not race. It is not workable in Untied States even if we went back to the 1950 when 90 percent was white. African-Americans and Native Americans are just as entitled to United States as any white person. I grew up in both in Copenhagen and Chicago and have a dual citizenship. My mother is mixed Hispanic-American and my father is ethnic Danish. My husband is Danish. I’m not white but I’m not white either. I feel very much culturally and religiously attached to very white protestant Denmark but also attached to United States. I’m just as concerned with uncontrolled immigration and with the awkward internationalist post-liberalism in both Denmark and United States.

    However I don’t believe a government should give preferences to people based on the color of their skin. There are plenty of people of color, biracial and adopted people whom feel much love for the west just like white people. They have the same concern as many white people. Do I think conservatives should stand up for themselves? Yes, I think they should and I do think they should reject the donor class. I will vote for Trump, Cruz or Rand - all whom are on the right in the Republican Party. When it comes to Jews I don’t believe they “run the world” or feel any animosity towards them. I don’t feel animosity towards anybody based on ethnicity, religion or race. Is there certain problematic aspects when it comes to Jewish (or other minorities) identity politics. Yes, of course, but it cannot justify hatred.

    You’re a woman and you’re entitled to your feelings. But, the truth is that I don’t care about your feelings and much of our current malaise is due to men giving in to women’s feelings. Much of what you wrote was nice and made me me feel warm inside but, it wasn’t logical.

    Blacks, Native Americans, etc.. Do not have as much “right” as you put it to America as Whites do. Whites built this country, the others were ride alongs. And Jews do not fit into this as Jews have been a subversive group since early days. It is the core of their core culture and they cannot change.

    While currently there are some very upstanding non White people who care about European based culture, they are not our primary concern. They can ride along with us to some degree but, it is time for Whites to start being tribal and nationalistic again. Put race and culture first and the rest will fall in place.

    Read More
  91. MacDonald has a demonstrated consistent history of lying about what his sources say; an act which I’m not sure even Holocaust revisionists have resorted to.

    Nothing he’s written should be trusted without looking back at the sources he uses to build his case.

    For example:

    page 199 of the Culture of Critique. MacDonald cites a quote from Michel Foucault (gentile Frenchman) that supposedly as proof the Frankfurt School exerted influence on Foucault’s ideas.

    The actual 1983 interview with Foucault states that Frankfurt School was unknown to him and had little influence on French liberalism. Then, in a comment that undermines the whole thesis of MacDonald’s chapter on the Frankfurt School, Foucault mentions his surprise that he came to “very similar” conclusions to those of the Frankfurt: This suggests the Frankfurt School ideology was not a “Jewish” ideology because a French gentile reached very similar conclusions:

    Another indication of MacDonald being deceptive:

    [MORE]

    The Culture of Critique, pg 199

    Reflecting the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary
    postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault
    stated, “If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been
    saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense
    and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the
    Frankfurt School had already cleared the way” (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4).
    Whereas the strategy of the Frankfurt School was to deconstruct universalist,
    scientific thinking by the use of “critical reason,” postmodernism has opted for
    complete relativism and the lack of objective standards of any kind in the
    interests of preventing any general theories of society or universally valid
    philosophical or moral systems (Norris 1993, 287ff). 145

    Contemporary postmodernism and multiculturalist ideology (see, e.g., Gless
    & Hermstein Smith 1992) have adopted several central pillars of the Frankfurt
    School: the fundamental priority of ethics and values in approaching education
    and the social sciences; empirical science as oppressive and an aspect of social
    domination; a rejection of the possibility of shared values or any sense of
    universalism or national culture (see also Jacoby’s [1995, 35] discussion of
    “post-colonial theory” — another intellectual descendant of the Frankfurt School);
    a “hermeneutics of suspicion” in which any attempt to construct such universals
    or a national culture is energetically resisted and “deconstructed” — essentially
    the same activity termed by Adorno “negative dialectics.” There is an implicit
    acceptance of a Balkanized model of society in which certain groups and their
    interests have a priori moral value and there is no possibility of developing a
    scientific, rational theory of any particular group, much less a theory of pan-
    human universals. Both the Frankfurt School and postmodernism implicitly
    accept a model in which there is competition among antagonistic groups and no
    rational way of reaching consensus, although there is also an implicit double
    standard in which cohesive groups formed by majorities are viewed as
    pathological and subject to radical criticism.

    http://stunlaw.blogspot.de/2013/07/foucault-and-frankfurt-school.html

    Excerpt from an Interview conducted by Gerard Raulet in 1983 and published as “Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: An Interview with Michel Foucault,” in Telos 55 (Spring 1983), 7, 95-217, reproduced in Kritzman (1990: 17-47).

    Now, the striking thing is that France knew absolutely nothing – or only vaguely, only very indirectly – about the current of Weberian thought. Critical Theory was hardly known in France and the Frankfurt School was practically unheard of. This, by the way, raises a minor historical problem which fascinates me and which I have not been able to resolve at all. It is common knowledge that many representatives of the Frankfurt School came to Paris in 1935, seeking refuge, and left very hastily, sickened presumably – some even said as much – but saddened anyhow not to have found more of an echo. Then came 1940, but they had already left for England and the U.S., where they were actually much better received. The understanding that might have been established between the Frankfurt School and French philosophical thought – by way of the history of science and therefore the question of the history of rationality – never occurred. And when I was a student, I can assure you that I never once heard the name ofthe Frankfurt School mentioned by any of my professors.

    FOUCAULT: Now, obviously, if I had been familiar with the Frankfurt School, if I had been aware of it at the time, I would not have said a number of stupid things that I did say and I would have avoided many of the detours which I made while trying to pursue my own humble path – when, meanwhile, avenues had been opened up by the Frankfurt School. It is a strange case of non-penetration between two very similar types of thinking which is explained, perhaps, by that very similarity. Nothing hides the fact of a problem in common better than two similar ways of approaching it.

    Read More
  92. Another obvious case of fraud on MacDonald’s part:

    For example, in CofC, MacDonald uses a study to show Jews are highly authoritarian, while the actual study shows Jews scored among the least authoritarian of any ethnic/religious group.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20090411051702/http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

    [MORE]

    Kevin MacDonald:

    Altemeyer (1988, 2) defines “right-wing authoritarianism” as involving three central attributes: submission to legitimate authority; aggression toward individuals that is sanctioned by the authorities; adherence to social conventions. Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within – group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high scorers on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) tend to be highly religious; they tend to be the most orthodox members of their denomination; they believe in group cohesiveness, group loyalty, and identify strongly with ingroups

    (Altemeyer 1994, 134; 1996, 84). Without question, traditional Jewish society and contemporary Jewish

    Orthodox and fundamentalist groups are highly authoritarian by any measure. Indeed, Rubenstein (1996) found that Orthodox Jews were higher on RWA than “traditional Jews,” and both of these groups were higher than secular Jews.59

    The real study:

    [A]re “very accepting” subjects equally authoritarian in all religions? Or do different denominations (as argued earlier) produce different levels of authoritarianism even among the strongly committed? If we examine just those subjects who answered the (0-5) “still accept” question with either a “4” or a “5” (that is, they indicated they “nearly completely” or “completely” accepted the religious beliefs taught them in childhood), who do you think were the most authoritarian of all these “true believers”? Fundamentalists (185.1) and Mennonites (185.3) among the students, Mennonites (202.1) and Fundamentalists (208.5) among the parents. The (rarer) United Church members, Anglicans, and Jews who were just as accepting of their religions scored about 25 points lower. True-believing Catholics and Lutherans lay somewhere in between. 61

    So not only are Jews among the least authoritarian of religious groups, according to Altemeyer highly religious Jews are among the least authoritarian of the highly religious.

    Read More
  93. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    I think we should stop calling the enemy the 'left'. The real left is deader than the real right. It is totally gone. Sure, there are some Marxists in colleges, but no one listens to communist stuff anymore. It's just for dummies, and they will never gain any power.

    The 'left' is now just a label. It is about power and privilege of Jews and white Libs who use homos to favor minority elite domination over others. It is a form of neo-aristocracy. The 'left' has become what Christianity became to the aristocrats of Europe: handy moral formula to justify its rule with slogans, mantras, rallies, and rituals.

    We should always judge people by what they do, not what they say. Despite all the mantras about 'equality' and 'universalism', today's so-called 'leftism' is, in actual practice, about urban elites hogging everything for themselves and sneering at everyone else. The only thing universalist about this is the notion that elite cosmopolitan rich around the world identify with one another and look down on the rest of us. It's like the movie Elysium. Bad movie but illustrates a good point.

    There is a way to moralize the right and put forth a suitable justification.

    But all moral sense has to be about victimology to some extent. After all, morality is about right and wrong, and that means it is about righting certain wrongs. A people who can't make a case that they've been wronged don't have anything to right.

    PS. We shouldn't call the barking dogs of the globo-elites the 'social justice warriors'. They should just be called Minions, like the twinkie-like characters in DESPICABLE.

    They are Teacher's Pets. Or Teacher's Pests.

    PSS. Minions in colleges call for 'safe spaces'. This concept in the current setting is ridiculous as no one is getting hurt in college campuses. But in a general way, it is a decent concept because white nations and white communities should demand SAFE SPACES so that they can live in peace and harmony away from the savagery of black thugs who are more aggressive and stronger.

    I think we should stop calling the enemy the ‘left’. The real left is deader than the real right. It is totally gone. Sure, there are some Marxists in colleges, but no one listens to communist stuff anymore. It’s just for dummies, and they will never gain any power.

    The ‘left’ is now just a label.

    These days “leftists” are pretty much identical to the neocons. On the surface they appear to be warmer and cuddlier and more caring but underneath they’re just as vicious and venal and ruthless and cold-blooded. Today’s “leftists” and Social Justice Warriors are on the right-wing end of the political spectrum.

    Read More
  94. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    I did not know Gottfreid was a Juden until just recently. In any case, J00 or Gentile, he’s one of the best writers on intellectual history and ideological politics in the game. The fact that he’s been banished to the Outer Darkness just shows what a bunch of fools we have calling themselves ‘conservatives’.

    Read More
  95. kikz says:

    “As Dickson pointed out, since the “Southern heritage” has now been defined by the MSM and public educators as “hate”, someone who contrasts the “Southern heritage” to “hate” will be seen as talking nonsense.”

    Just now you say? Try for 150+years…. Your agreement with Dickson precludes anyone knowing any of their real history. Your assumptions are laughable. All we Southrons and not as simple minded as you NON’s are prone to believe. Not all of us are drooling, mindlessly absorbing the crap-droning hand puppets of cultural marxists in the LameStreamMuck or academia.

    Sod off, the MSM and academia don’t get to control our language nor our narrative any more, and neither do you or Dick.

    Read More
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 Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS