(American Jews)
Vaguely philo-Semitic but mostly uninterested in Jews as such, I seldom care to write on Jewish topics. This however is a U.S. nationalist blog and, well, if you have not heard why a U.S. nationalist should be interested in Jews then you can just skip this article. I would.
For those of you still reading, it is supposed by some that American Jewry persistently, actively undermined the American nation. This notion has been advanced by one Kevin MacDonald, a courageous man and a careful scholar, as far as I am aware America’s leading exponent of suspicion of Jewish activity as such.
I have read long tracts of MacDonald. I would be less than truthful if I did not admit that I am not entirely sure that some of Dr. MacDonald’s conclusions are not partly right. Certainly, his facts do seem to be in order.
I do find however a lack of perspective in Dr. MacDonald’s point of view, a lack which fans what an unnamed friend of mine has called an “irrational, conspiracy-oriented animus” against the Jews. There is a certain tendency to blame someone, anyone but a white American gentile, for white American gentile failure; and there the Jew stands, and we have heard that he belongs to the ACLU, and his father has a lot of money, who knows from where? and his uncles all run Hollywood, so let’s just blame the Jew. Let us not take responsibility for our own self-destruction, eh? The Jews are supposed to have goaded us to it.
A white gentile people so easily goaded would probably deserve destruction, but that in my judgment is not what is going on here.
And when did a sense of proportion pass out of style?
Jews are white, they have lived among us a long time, they never steal your bicycle, and, yes, they routinely abuse the franchise. Too many of them abuse free speech. But we white American gentiles must take responsibility for our own, monstrous failures. We abuse free speech and the franchise, too. We may not shuffle responsibility off onto the Jews.
Though I have never lived in New York or Palm Beach (and have zero desire to do so) I personally have known too many Jews in my life, and have too consistently been treated far too well by them, ever to join the MacDonald line.
Nick Griffin and Geert Wilders seem rather to me to have got it right.
It has been said that it is impossible to prove a negative. There is little I can do to dissuade certain, honorable readers from following what they believe to be the elusive trail of Jewish conspiracy but, personally, I do not recommend it. In my subjective judgment, this trail leads nowhere worth going.
I would defer henceforth to the likes of Messrs. Griffin and Wilders to carry my side of the debate. Interested readers naturally are welcome to comment below but I admit that I really do not have much more to say on the topic.
HJH
November 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Jews are white, they have lived among us a long time, they never steal your bicycle
Never? Maybe because fraud and importing the third world to the American heartland is more profitable.
Let us not take responsibility for our own self-destruction, eh?
Let us not call it self-destruction when so much of it is done without our knowledge or against our will. To label it self-destruction is “irrational, conspiracy-oriented animus” against Whites.
A white gentile people so easily goaded would probably deserve destruction
Let’s test this hypothesis that jews are White. Beyond inverting your anti-White/anti-Gentile capitalization, allow me, for the sake of argument, to invert your bon mot:
A jewish people so easily gassed would probably deserve destruction
How does that sound?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Tanstaafl:
Sorry for the slow reply. The blog’s software, remarkable but imperfect, regrettably left your remark buried a few days under a pile of useless spam. I have instructed the software to pass future remarks of yours straight through.
I am somewhat familiar with your work. In some significant ways I admire it. A right-wing spirit of defiance against political correctness is a fine thing our beleaguered society needs much more of; so, before replying to your specific point, I would remark generally upon how uncommon it has grown to find folks with whom one can even have a rational conversation about the terrible elements that afflict our society. Your association is valued for this reason alone.
You and I have our differences, too, which is what your remark is about.
I have followed the hyperlink you have provided. Sholom Rubashkin? What a name! Even on so little information, it seems not unreasonable to hypothesize that Mr. Rubashkin might be less than truly loyal to the American nation, nor would it particularly come as a surprise if this disloyalty-hypothesis proved correct, American Jews being (for whatever reason) what they are. Stereotypes tend to run true, and the relevant stereotype here makes the likes of Mr. Rubashkin a particularly Jewish type of villain, does it not? On the other hand, the development that Mr. Rubashkin will not face immigration charges is only very slightly suggestive to my mind, I am afraid. The specter of conspiracy must try harder if he wants to haunt me.
Regarding the capitalization to which you refer, the English language is magnificent but remains imperfect. One fully respects your prerogative to capitalize unusually as a way of making a statement, especially since I myself will do likewise in other matters; but your capitalization remains eccentric for all that. You know this quite well, of course. I hope that you will not impute to me a debased motive of political correctness merely for using English in a way it was used (as far as I know) long before political correctness ever came on the scene. One can indulge a particular eccentricity in another without sharing it, after all. In other words, my standard style was not meant as a veiled attack on people like you.
A jewish people so easily gassed would probably deserve destruction.
How does that sound, you ask? Well, look, Tanstaafl, please. I don’t want to get into this. This was the whole point of my article: I don’t really care about the Jews; I don’t find them interesting; I have no idea whatsoever (but have little reason to doubt) whether six million of them died at the hands of the SS; etc. And I don’t think that a fair reading of the archives of the Economic Nationalist could leave you with the impression that I were muzzled by political correctness. I just do not see it as you do.
All that however is for me to avoid the question which, since you have asked the question clearly and moreover politely, I should not do. As far as I know, at the end of a centuries-long, historical process—a process with which I am not intimately familiar but which apparently, whether rationally or irrationally, had left millions of Germans with an extreme distaste for German Jewry—the Germans did not goad the Jews into the gas chambers; they clapped them in chains and shipped them there. In my mind, there is a difference.
Howard
December 8th, 2009 at 10:41 am
the Germans did not goad the Jews into the gas chambers; they clapped them in chains and shipped them there. In my mind, there is a difference
The difference is that the pogroms of yesteryear - which so many jews use as a race-based libel, assigning blame to everyone of European descent today - were spasmodic reactions to tangible jewish malfeasance that was surely of more consequence than bicycle theft, versus the much slower and deliberate genocide being perpetrated against us right now. It is the difference between the impulsive reaction that triggers a manslaughter, generations past, and the malice aforethought resulting in a murder whose meticulous plan is still unfolding.
Even if a murder is motivated by a manslaughter, what I want to know is, where’s the “self-destruction”? If a wife joins a burglar in killing her husband, how is that “self-destruction”?
December 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Tanstaafl:
The entire point of my article is that this sort of debate simply is not my kind of thing. I actually happen to like the Jews I have known, most of whom have treated me with marked kindness, none of whom has treated me with significant cruelty. I also reluctantly admit that Kevin MacDonald seems to be a careful scholar who may possibly, partially have a point.
I am not even a sensible bystander in the pro- versus anti-Semitic debate, much less an eager participant in it. However, if forced against my will to choose sides in this debate which does not interest me, I choose the pro-Semitic side.
There are at least two reasons to decline to debate an opponent. One is condescension for the opponent; the other is because one has nothing to contribute to the debate. If you are the opponent, then must I fall into the latter category. This is why your remark above (plus any text you might choose to add below) must stand as the final word in the present, abortive debate.
Howard
December 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
You’ve missed my point even while helping to demonstrate it. I’m not trying to debate you about jews. I’m pointing out and taking issue with you blaming Whites for “self-destruction”. You’ve responded by professing an explicit deference to jews that you will not extend to Whites even when the double standard is called to your attention.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Quran confirms Torah but attacks the Talmud:
http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html
Quran versus Sunnism
http://iran.whyweprotest.net/off-topic/1565-collapse-sunni-shia-koranist-rise.html
How about that for a nationalism?
December 12th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Tanstaafl:
If I’ve missed your point, then evidently I’ve a blind spot covering it. I fail see the deference to which you refer. Politically, on the whole, American Jews seem to me to be a bad influence, but nothing I can say will change that, I don’t know how to fix it, and my default position in such a circumstance is to let folks alone who have lived many generations in the U.S., even when the folks in question happen to be Jews.
To a lesser extent, American Catholics seem to me to be a bad influence, too. What should I do? Deport them? Does the rough analogy not more or less hold? Even were deporting Catholics wise, the prospect puts me personally in a hard spot when I happen to be Catholic. I should have to deport myself.
It is hard for me not to extend to Jews the same consideration I hope for myself. If this made me your enemy, I would not know what to say. Your enmity, I never sought. It were forced on me, unwilling.
Now, I never have had much respect for neurotic wimps who shut down debate by taking personal offense. I want you to know that I take none: I merely happen to be Catholic, as I said. Be that as it may, it seems that you demand of me something I stand in no position to give. I do not think that I can follow you down the path you tread.
In any event, as I said, I do not see the deference. To ignore Jews is not to defer to them, unless I am mistaken.
Howard
January 18th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Yes Whites have a lot to blame for bringing their own kind down and making their culture obsolete. But most Whites come from a Christian background and therefore they dot know Judaism and how its structured. Muslims have a similar religious framework and therefore know what Jews are upto just like Jews know what muslims are upto.
Christianity does not have dual revelations.
Remember there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian.
Its Judeo-Islamic. See for yourself:
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/isl_jud.htm
Quran is peace!
January 18th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Quranist:
Though I appreciate the courtesy with which you approach the present discussion, and wish you earnestly to know that your remarks are welcome here, now and in the future, I would have you understand that I am your foe. I will rally my people to crush the Caliphate. When my people are ready, when the Tenth Crusade is preached, I will march under arms for Christ.
After thirteen centuries of warfare between your people and mine, I am not gullible enough to believe that lasting peace between us is possible; and if not peace then I most ardently prefer victory to defeat. Moreover—though it is not for me to tell you what you personally believe—your murderous, false prophet Mohammed clearly and explicitly forbids you to make lasting peace with me on any other basis than my dhimmitude, whereas sad experience suggests that even dhimmitude would license your people to continue to kill mine off, a few at a time. I would die rather on the sword’s point in open battle.
Listen to me, my foe. I do not want you for a foe. I want you for a friend, but for the sake of your eternal soul you must renounce Islam and come to Christ. It were better for you to lose your life than to fail to do this necessary thing.
Otherwise, as a foe under arms, I solemnly salute you. En garde!
HJH
February 12th, 2010 at 3:40 am
Howard J Harrison:
“Moreover—though it is not for me to tell you what you personally believe—your murderous, false prophet Mohammed clearly and explicitly forbids you to make lasting peace with me on any other basis than my dhimmitude, ”
This is however an incorrect statement and based on non Quranic facts. You can not say that cause you have no facts to present. This is based on Sunni/Shia doctrine and not Qurnic.
You also seem to want to marginalyze the Quran when it comes to talking about Muhammad or Islam. So in that sense you and the Sects are equal. Both want to marginalyze the Quran from any topic concerning Muhammad and both rely on the same oral sources to make judgements about Muhammad.
Only the Quran speaks for Islam just like only the Gospel speaks for Jesus. Yes, we are adversraies, you are a Trinitarian Marxist trotskyist Neocon revolutionary and I am a follower of the Gospel.
Bid difference.
Torah, Gospel and Quran is from God and Talmud, Trinity and Sunnah is from man. So who do you trust?
Quran is peace!