An honest defence of Israel

Posted by Søren Renner on August 02, 2006, 10:26 AM | #

I got as far as “Alan Dershowitz, in his interesting book ‘The Case for Israel’ . . .” before deciding I had read enough. Is this Peter Hitchens related to Christopher Hitchens?

Posted by Andy on August 02, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

Israel is an ethno-state. I think that is reason enough to offer moral support.

  Isn’t that worthy of commendation from anyone concerned with majority rights?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 02, 2006, 03:38 PM | #

As I have said several times before, Isreal is America’s pit-bull in the mid-east. It is in OUR interests to continue feeding it.Semper Fi.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 02, 2006, 03:59 PM | #

According to the pragmatists at the BNP it’s the only nationalist state in the West:

Israel is the only living organic nationalist state on the planet. They live only as they still have the will to fight and wage war. The West is now a senile culture, it sleeps in dreams of its former glory whilst a new generation of barbarians is beseiging its gates. In its quest for gold it has ignored the real dangers it has created for us all.

Those nationalists that attack Israel no longer understand that nations such as Israel are the only true nationalists left on the planet. They place the interests of the people at the heart of their politics. That is the true nature of nationalism.

It is clear that Israel and the UK face the same enemy—suicide bombers on the streets of Tel Aviv have been British Muslims.

And the choice is obvious for Auster:

Here’s another reason why it matters that the BNP is saying things like this. Right now the respectable parties in Europe are into tolerance, surrender, and retreat, and lack the civilizational loyalty and courage to defend Europe from the jihadists. At the same time, the far right, the nationalist right, has been rife with pathologies, particularly anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, so that, as I wrote once about Patrick Buchanan at FrontPage Magazine, they hate Israel and Israel’s supporters more than they love the West. In short, they’re crazy and evil.

So, if the West is to have any chance of defending itself from expansionist Islam, one of two things must happen. Either the mainstream develops civilizational courage, or the far right becomes rational and good. What is remarkable about this BNP article is that it suggests that the latter is what is happening.

Crazy and evil.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 02, 2006, 05:03 PM | #

Israel is an ethno-state. I think that is reason enough to offer moral support.

Isn’t that worthy of commendation from anyone concerned with majority rights?

That’s the kernel of my love of Israel too.  I like to take a nuanced stance on Israel:

It’s fun to point out that jews are the only people chosen enough to get an exception to the “no western ethnostates” rule.  It doesn’t matter if Israel is “western” or not, because that’s the perception.

It’s fun to point out that jews are the only people chosen enough to get an exception to the “no western ethnocentrism” rule.

It’s fun to point out that Israel shows “it’s too late for ethnostates” for the absurd lie that it is; 19 centuries is pretty late, folks.

It’s fun to point out that Israel proves border barriers work and are feasible.

If Israel went down the tubes, the world’s anti-humanists would be in full throat, strutting around like peacocks, until doomsday.

My problem’s with diaspora jewry, not Israel.  I love holding Israel up as a mirror for the west, it shows hypocrisy like nothing else.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 02, 2006, 11:03 PM | #

“If Israel went down the tubes, the world’s anti-humanists would be in full throat, strutting around like peacocks, until doomsday. “

Words of prophecy;but we do have a dog in the fight-Israel-and fortunately for us it’s a pit-bull.Jews in American media and entertainment are of less concern than those endevoring to wipe out the maniac Islamic Jihads.When will Briton,Australia,Canada,and the USA wake up to the reality that Islam will NEVER be assimilated into any social system not of THEIR precepts.Sort of like a woman forming a relationship with a paroled rapist,child molester,and wife murderer,saying “BUT I CAN CHANGE HIM ” Christ, how fucking stupid can we get!

Posted by JB on August 02, 2006, 11:24 PM | #

Israel is an ethno-state. I think that is reason enough to offer moral support.

Isn’t that worthy of commendation from anyone concerned with majority rights?

jews will never support pro-majority movements/ideas in the West. You know that

Lee Barnes:

Those nationalists that attack Israel no longer understand that nations such as Israel are the only true nationalists left on the planet. They place the interests of the people at the heart of their politics. That is the true nature of nationalism.

It is clear that Israel and the UK face the same enemy—suicide bombers on the streets of Tel Aviv have been British Muslims.

a true nationalist wouldn’t be afraid of pointing out the jews’ double standards when it comes to nationalism. Grow some balls Barnes

Lawrence Auster:

So, if the West is to have any chance of defending itself from expansionist Islam, one of two things must happen. Either the mainstream develops civilizational courage, or the far right becomes rational and good. What is remarkable about this BNP article is that it suggests that the latter is what is happening.

there won’t be any civilizational shield worth picking up if we don’t have ‘racial courage’ first.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 03, 2006, 12:47 AM | #

Yep,JB; you made some good points-how about Rhodesia and S.Africa? Another series of white abbrogation of their duties to their race and responsibility to their progeny.Whites cant get asylem from Zimbabwe,but niggers can?Blacks from S.Africa are welcomed into the UK,while Whites wishing to emirgrate are placed in a 2-3 year line;during which time ,they might well be murdered .All the while,Muslim Immans and coterie are given free access to the political system,and the dick-head politicos kneel on the prayer-rug of Islam.YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETIC.

Posted by Rnl on August 03, 2006, 02:44 AM | #

I’d call Hitchens’ article, which echoes arguments often made by American Zionists, “A Dishonest Defense of Israel.” Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with anti-Zionism on the Left, and it must require massive self-deception for Hitchens to claim the contrary.

Let’s imagine ourselves for a moment as anti-racists, and since this article appeared in a British publication, we’ll be anti-racists working in Britain’s anti-racist MSM.

We’ve now become the sort of people who are shocked by racial stereotyping in old movies and saddened by the scarcity of racial diversity in Jane Austen novels. We probably don’t live among Britain’s burgeoning non-White population, but we’re glad that they’re there burgeoning away, though hopefully at some distance from our own homes.

As we look at Britain today, we’re horrified by the growth of a racist political party like the BNP, a gang of neo-fascist thugs filled with atavistic hatreds and a primitive allegiance to the archaic nation-state. We know that there can be no moral justification for a race-based immigration policy that preserves Britain’s traditional racial composition and cultural character, since such a policy, among its many sins, would unfairly exclude prospective immigrants on the basis of such trivial characteristics as skin color. We also know that any nation is enriched by a multiplicity of cultures and peoples, and we say so whenever the opportunity arises. We vow that in the writing of our newspaper articles and in the delivery of our television news reports we will make no attempt at objective balance in our coverage of the growing xenophobia that threatens multicultural Britain, since in a conflict between good and evil one must take sides. 

When we turn our gaze upon the Middle East, we see a xenophobic Jewish ethnostate that represents everything we have rejected in our own multicultural nation. This Jewish ethnostate, an intrusive colonial enterprise, was founded on ethnic cleansing. It is an explicitly Jewish state with a Jews-only immigration policy. The non-Jews living within this Jewish state are by definition second-class citizens whose very presence is cited by mainstream Israeli leaders as a demographic threat to Israel’s Jewishness. An Israeli politician could call these non-Jews “cockroaches” and still earn a place in Israel’s cabinet.

This state is racist by any reasonable definition of the word. The victims of its racism and its frequent violence—those “cockroaches”—are brown-skinned Arabs and the majority of their victimizers are, in appearance at least, white-skinned Europeans, who on an almost daily basis kill rather than embrace the racial diversity that surrounds them. The color-coding of the Arab-Israeli conflict carries, for us, its own unmistakable moral imperative. We’re anti-racists, so we know whose side we should be on. We took sides against South African apartheid, so now we’ll take sides against the violence of Israeli Zionism. We may be idiots, but we’re consistent in our idiocy.

My analysis above is as close to a fact as any attempt at group mind-reading could be. It’s far more convincing than Peter Hitchens’ attempt. British multiracialists are often critical of Israel because Israel is a racialist state dedicated to the preservation and betterment of a single Volk. Anti-racism, not anti-Semitism, is their guiding principle. Journalists are hostile to racialism, so they’re critical of the only openly racialist state on the planet. That this Jewish state claims to be an island of Western civilization amidst a sea of Third World barbarism only makes its trespass against the dictates of anti-racism even greater in the eyes of liberal journalists. Their _principles_ lead them to sympathize more with brown-skinned Muslims than with light-skinned Israeli Jews. That shouldn’t surprise anyone.

It does surprise Peter Hitchens, but that’s because he suffers from a mental limitation that often characterizes his tribe. Jews have great difficulty recognizing that non-Jews can arrive at anti-Israeli positions on the basis of sincerely held convictions. In fact, Jews have great difficulty recognizing that Gentiles have any legitimate convictions at all if they conflict with some Jewish ambition close to their hearts. We don’t reason. We just ventilate our hatreds, and we’re at our most dangerous when we can layer over these raw hatreds with some semblance of rational argument, which leaves Jews with the task of digging up the hatreds beneath.

The proposition that BBC journalists are secretly anti-Semites or unwittingly influenced by lingering anti-Semitism should be too bizarre for any reasonable person to entertain, but that doesn’t stop Hitchens et al. Criticism of Israel, Hitchens has convinced himself, must be the expression of an old hatred against Jews. Hence his silly examination of genteel anti-Semitism in old White Britain. Somehow, as if an ancient poison were still floating about in the air, these critics of Israel most have inhaled some of the old anti-Semitism. Perhaps they have read a few musty Graham Greene novels or have attended performances of _The Merchant of Venice_ once too often.

The plain truth is that Israel gets off easily, even in Europe. Anti-Semitism doesn’t in any way motivate left-wing criticism of Israel, but charges of anti-Semitism do help sustain it. If Israel had been founded by White South Africans, it would have been embargoed decades ago and media criticism of its routine violence would be immensely more hostile. Israel benefits, beyond any doubt, from the general reluctance on the part of Whites to speak ill of Jews or to express any opinion that they know Jews will resent. No one but fool (or a Jew) would deny it.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 03, 2006, 05:00 AM | #

Rnl, Equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism must strike those on the left as absurd. We are not, however, on the left, and nor are many people whose minds haven’t been warped by the l’Uni bins and idiot boxes.

Zionism being Jewish nationalism, anti-Zionism must mean the belief that an autonomous Jewish nation-state should not exist. However, without an independently acting state - without the security barriers it erects, against international opinion; without the army it maintains - Israeli Jews would get conquered and dominated by their Muslim neighbours.

Of course, they could simply flee from the Middle East, but to where? Unless Europe rediscovers its national confidence (something a consistent anti-Zionist, i.e. anti-nationalist, would oppose) it too will come under dar-al Islam. Besides, even if European self-preservation is allowed, how welcome will the horde of “rootless cosmopolitan” Jews feel in a nationalist Europe?

As such, without an independent Jewish nation-state, without Jewish nationalism or Zionism, the Jews themselves will probably be hounded to the ends of the Earth. So, anti-Zionism is objectively the ally of anti-Semitism. Note that a similar logic can and should be extended to other peoples, e.g. opposition to French nationalism is objectively opposition to the existence of the French at all.

Posted by Rnl on August 03, 2006, 04:41 PM | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

anti-Zionism is objectively the ally of anti-Semitism.

But left-wing criticism of Israel is not an expression of anti-Semitism, which is what Hitchens argues, following the model of a host of neoconservative commentators in the US.

An especially outrageous example:
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1109

The BBC journalists Hitchens is complaining about don’t dislike Jews; they’re just more sympathetic to brown-skinned Arabs than they are to Israel. And we would expect them to be sympathetic to brown-skinned Arabs given their anti-racist convictions. Hitchens is unwilling or unable to acknowledge that they could have socially acceptable (i.e. anti-racist) reasons for their position.

Instead he takes his readers, following a venerable Jewish tradition, down a long memory lane of White guilt. His tactic—and I’m assuming here that it reflects his genuine beliefs—is to dig up old tales of British anti-Semitism. You Britons are not, of course, as guilty of anti-Semitism as the Germans, but you’re still guilty. You should hang your heads in shame once a week rather than once a day. And while you’re doing it you should reflect on the “moral debt” you owe Jews for failing to prevent the Jewish Holocaust:

Hitchens:

For another element in all this is a rather disgraceful attempt by both Europeans and Arabs to argue that the moral debt to Jews, owed by the world because of the German massacre of Europe’s Jews, and our failure to take them in or save them, has either been paid in full already or cancelled out by later events.

The our failure here is of course a conscious deception. He means your failure.

without an independently acting state - without the security barriers it erects, against international opinion; without the army it maintains - Israeli Jews would get conquered and dominated by their Muslim neighbours.

I agree. But that’s not the argument Hitchens is addressing. Israel can have “an independently acting state” and it can have whatever security barriers it chooses to erect. But it must do so within its legally recognized borders: “The pre-1967 borders of Israel [liberal commentators in the UK argue] are the correct borders and a withdrawal to those borders would bring about peace.” Now I wouldn’t dispute Hitchens’ implicit claim that this belief is foolish, but the liberal journalists he is describing hold the view in question because they’re fools, not because they’re anti-Semites. I’d think more of them if they were, but they’re not. They also believe, let’s keep in mind, that Britain is enriched by Muslim immigration.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 03, 2006, 06:20 PM | #

Very good exchange there between Rnl and Alex Zeka.  Outstanding. 

Rnl’s description of the prevailing anti-racist mentality is first-rate:

Let’s imagine ourselves for a moment as anti-racists, and since this article appeared in a British publication, we’ll be anti-racists working in Britain’s anti-racist MSM.

We’ve now become the sort of people who are shocked by racial stereotyping in old movies and saddened by the scarcity of racial diversity in Jane Austen novels. We probably don’t live among Britain’s burgeoning non-White population, but we’re glad that they’re there burgeoning away, though hopefully at some distance from our own homes.

As we look at Britain today we’re horrified by the growth of a racist political party like the BNP, a gang of neo-fascist thugs filled with atavistic hatreds and a primitive allegiance to the archaic nation-state. We know that there can be no moral justification for a race-based immigration policy that preserves Britain’s traditional racial composition and cultural character, since such a policy, among its many sins, would unfairly exclude prospective immigrants on the basis of such trivial characteristics as skin color. We also know that any nation is enriched by a multiplicity of cultures and peoples, and we say so whenever the opportunity arises. We vow that in the writing of our newspaper articles and in the delivery of our television news reports we will make no attempt at objective balance in our coverage of the growing xenophobia that threatens multicultural Britain, since in a conflict between good and evil one must take sides.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 03, 2006, 07:13 PM | #

Fred Scrooby-you can take your tongue out of your cheek-nice response. Now if Rnl will take his head out of his ass——???

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 03, 2006, 08:43 PM | #

Err, Rnl is right imo.  Really there’s not much distance between the two opinions, seems more semantics than anything.

Posted by Steve Edwards on August 04, 2006, 01:55 AM | #

I have defended Israel as a strategic ethno-state here:

http://ravingwingnut.blogspot.com/2006/07/national-union-of-students-calls-for.html

Posted by Al Ross on August 04, 2006, 04:39 AM | #

More semantics and fewer Semitics would seem the preferred option.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 04, 2006, 05:23 AM | #

Rnl, You are right to point out that the argument made by Hitchens is not identical to the one made by me. However, please remember that he is writing for an MSM publication, and so simply cannot say some things.

You wrote:
Instead he takes his readers, following a venerable Jewish tradition, down a long memory lane of White guilt. His tactic—and I’m assuming here that it reflects his genuine beliefs—is to dig up old tales of British anti-Semitism. You Britons are not, of course, as guilty of anti-Semitism as the Germans, but you’re still guilty.

Hitchens is himself a Brit Gentile. As such, given his general beliefs, this is most probably simply an attempt to cover his tracks and to give a passing nod to the Holocaust story. Remember that he is writing about the present situation, not about the past, and so any attempt at revisionism would simply distract readers from his main point.

Finally, you accuse Hitchens of kowtowing to the neocons. He is right to seek allies wherever he can find them, and I would advice you to consider doing the same.

Posted by On Holliday on August 04, 2006, 09:00 AM | #

“Israel is an ethno-state. I think that is reason enough to offer moral support.

Isn’t that worthy of commendation from anyone concerned with majority rights?”

Paul Gottfried, who is Jewish and a supporter of Israel, has written about Jewish (*) hypocrisy in supporting Zionism/Jewish nationalism while attacking Western nationalism.

However, Gottfried claims we should not punish Israel for this. 

I disagree.  In the struggle for survival, we need to use what we have.  If Israel is so important to Diaspora Jews, then we should with-hold support for that state until such time that Disapora Jews stop their antics with regard to our rights.  If the Israelis don’t like that, they can intercede with their overseas brethren.

*Mostly Diaspora Jews, but the Israelis sometimes have the chutzpah to talk about racism and xenophobia and extremists as well.  More to the point - are any Israeli politicians, even just those on the “extremist Israeli right” going to come out and support the BNP, and urge Jews in the UK to do the same?  I’m waiting…

Posted by Rnl on August 04, 2006, 10:27 AM | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

Hitchens is himself a Brit Gentile.

Sunday April 14, 2002
The Observer

[...]

Surprisingly—given how much he writes—Christopher Hitchens has written only one autobiographical piece, the title essay of Prepared for the Worst (1988). It is self-revealing as far as it goes, but it covers only one small aspect of his life, the discovery of his Jewishness when he was 38. It happened when his brother Peter took his new bride to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her nineties, and Dodo said, ‘She’s Jewish, isn’t she?’ and then announced: ‘Well, I’ve got something to tell you. So are you.’ She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, and that her ancestors were Blumenthals from Poland.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,683899,00.html

I assumed the Jewishness of the Hitchens clan would be well known to British nationalists. Tyndall commented on it years ago, though it didn’t prevent him from congratulating Peter when he wrote anything valuable, which he often does.

Christopher Hitchens’ repudiatiation of his old criticism of Israel, along with his new role as an apologist for bombing Arabs and fighting Islamic terror where it doesn’t exist, is hardly unrelated to his Jewish roots.

Posted by James Bowery on August 04, 2006, 10:33 AM | #

Holliday, there is a big differene between withholding support and opposing.  Gottfried has a point.  Jews are _essentially_ our enemies only insofaras they demand admittance to all sovereignties as part of their identity.  The existence of Israel is a strategic asset for all who wish to minimize virulence by minimizing horizontal transmission of pathogens. 

The politics of the middle east are too Byzantine for Western involvement there.  The argument applies to an even greater extent to Africa. 

Having said that, the Iranian president has a point that Jews have become Europeanized to the point that it may make sense for their ethnostate to occupy some portion of land closer to Europe.  Jews seem to support the admission of Turkey to the European Union and there does seem to be some sort of cooperation between Turkey and Jews toward this end.  Perhaps the Turkish muslims would consider allocating territory for Jews in exchange for monetary compensation.  If Jews and Turks get along so well perhaps they should form an Anatolian Union and show the rest of the world there is no basic conflict between branches of the Abrahamic religions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2006, 11:04 AM | #

Rnl, I don’t see how the discovery that his grandmother was Jewish makes him Jewish who had three English grandparents and one Jewish one and wasn’t raised Jewish at all.  Peter and Christopher Hitchens are not Jewish:  one grandmother does not make you Jewish.  You’re right, though, that Christopher Hitchens reacted to the discovery, around age thirty I think it was, that his grandmother was Jewish by bizarrely going around saying he was Jewish, having intense mystical religio-cultural feelings of Jewishness when visiting Israel (he who previously for his entire professional life had done nothing but savagely denounce and belittle all religions and especially anything mystical associated with religion and religious or national identification) and generally acting weird about the whole thing, and he still does.  I think Christopher Hitchens is mentally unbalanced, number one, and number two, someone who fawns over Jews for some unfathomable reason, hard as that may be to believe considering the appearance he gives of total intellectual independence and supreme self-confidence.  For a few reasons I never read him any more, I who used to read everything of his I came across.  There is something deeply wrong with the man morally, intellectually, and from the point of view of honesty—he’s dishonest, I’ve come to see. 

I like Peter’s stuff.

Posted by Matra on August 04, 2006, 11:37 AM | #

one grandmother does not make you Jewish

It means the Hitchens brothers are part-Jewish. Being Jewish means being part of an ethnic group.  In my experience those who are part Jewish (though usually one parent, not grandparent) are just as wedded to destructive anti-national pro-cosmopolitian values as any other Jew.

Posted by On Holliday on August 04, 2006, 12:28 PM | #

“Holliday, there is a big differene between withholding support and opposing.  Gottfried has a point.  Jews are _essentially_ our enemies only insofaras they demand admittance to all sovereignties as part of their identity.  The existence of Israel is a strategic asset for all who wish to minimize virulence by minimizing horizontal transmission of pathogens.”

James, I agree, which is why I stressed with-holding support.  I think the stress on Israel by National Vanguard and Duke is a waste of time and energy.

Of course, eventual support for Israel or any other Jewish ethnostate would require both Jewish willingness to move there as well as, before then, an end to Diaspora Jewish hostility to western nationalism.

The Turkish idea is interesting, though I wonder if the Turks would really want a mass of Jews that close by.

Posted by ben tillman on August 04, 2006, 01:14 PM | #

Rnl, I don’t see how the discovery that his grandmother was Jewish makes him Jewish who had three English grandparents and one Jewish one and wasn’t raised Jewish at all.

Both maternal grandparents were Jewish.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2006, 01:15 PM | #

(Nick, by the way, my comment was not tongue-in-cheek.  I’m not sure why it gave that impression—it wasn’t meant to.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2006, 01:16 PM | #

Are you sure, Ben?  I seem to recall it was only the grandmother.  Anyway, that still doesn’t make him Jewish.

Posted by ben tillman on August 04, 2006, 01:20 PM | #

Excuse me, I may have been mistaken.

Here Christopher Hitchens discusses the matter in The Forward:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.01.26/arts1.html

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 04, 2006, 01:30 PM | #

Peter Hitchens clearly does not allow his ethny to dictate his political views. He supports traditional morality, Western nationalism and freedom of speech (even to say unhelpful things about the racial situation). His support for Israeli nationalism is fully consistent with his support for Western nationalism. Moreover, his equating of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is legitimate, as he has also suggested Western anti-racists are simply anti-white racists.

In short, he does not noticeably demonstrate the usual Jewish qualities which make them so politically pernicious. As such, I do not see how his Jewish ancestry way back when is at all relevant. After all, even the Nazis accepted quarter-Jews (I think, or was it 1/8th?).

Posted by On Holliday on August 04, 2006, 01:38 PM | #

James, your ideas about (Jewish) virulence and transmission are interesting.

I don’t remember if you addressed it in your essay on that topic - and I’ll look it up - but just in general, I’m wondering about timelines here, and the genetic vs. cultural aspect.

(and if I am misunderstanding your basic idea by what I write below, let me know, I’m trying to get a handle on it with respect to the genetic/memetic issue, and I don’t want to misrepresent your original position).

If the idea is that Jewish virulence is predominantly cultural/memetic in form, then one can expect reasonably rapid changes in Jewish behavior if they are deprived of the mobility and forced to “sleep in the bed they have made”, so to speak. 

If however, Jewish behavioral patterns that are destructive to the host are predominantly genetic, and have evolved in response to the mobile Diaspora life history of this ethny over the last 2000 years, then behavorial changes would not occur fast enough to be of benefit.

Of course, it is likely a mixture of the two, and one can speculate the sufficient pressure on the memetic/cultural side could at least attenuate virulence to more acceptable levels.

It would seem then that it is important to determine the memetic/genetic balance in Jewish behavior and the extent this would be malleable given an emphasis on “vertical transmission.”

Another factor is, given the attachment Jews have to their culture, which now includes memes of hyper-liberalism for the host culture, even if memes predominate, can it be changed?

Posted by Getafix on August 04, 2006, 03:45 PM | #

[As such, without an independent Jewish nation-state, without Jewish nationalism or Zionism, the Jews themselves will probably be hounded to the ends of the Earth.]

Well, no, they will be hounded all the way to…New York, LA, Miami, Chicago and a few other American cities.

Personally, I would be not at all surprised if there haven’t been cast-iron agreements made at the highest level between the US and Israeli governments that if Israel is finally overrun America will finance a mass evacuation of Israeli Jews.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2006, 04:46 PM | #

“According to [...] the Nuremburg Laws, I am a Jew.”  (—C. Hitchens, opening of the article linked by Ben)

Wrong.  According to the Nuremberg Laws Hitchens would be a mixed individual (as would I, incidentally).  A Jew was someone with three Jewish grandparents.

Hitchens is being a complete nincompoop in that article.  I’ve read it a couple of times in the past; I just can’t stomach reading it again.

Israel has its own equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws, including laws forbidding sexual relations between Jewish women and members of certain other races.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2006, 05:06 PM | #

“Peter Hitchens clearly does not allow his ethny to dictate his political views.”  (—Alex)

His ethny’s the same as yours, Alex.  He’s English.  (—Unless you’re talking about “ethnie” in some technical Salterian terms, in which case forgive me.)

Posted by Andrew on August 04, 2006, 05:17 PM | #

“Israel is the most important foreign policy issue of our time.”
So was Poland before WW11, and what happened there?
Even if the Arabs got their way and totally destroyed Israel; does any person here really think the world problems will end there?
If you do, then you might qualify for a job as the Secretary General at the UN. You have 1 and a half billion + Cult subservient ready to rip your head off. Our Left and the Moslems; Why would you want to defend those that wish to kill you?
Poland is one of the more genuine allies of the west, it shrugged its monkey off its back by it self.

Posted by James Bowery on August 04, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

Holliday,

Certainly the long history of Jewish Diaspora evolution has created group organism genetic predispositions—sometimes strong—toward suppression of the immune responses of host nations.  The bulk of the Jewish population doesn’t express these predispositions so strongly that they can’t be dealt with.  The problem is what might be best thought of as group metabolism expressing virulence.  The distinction is critical for practical resolution of the problem.  Think of it as a disease organism that has various metabolic pathways—some of which are virulent.  These metabolic pathways do depend on symbiotic memes although as Dawkins points out, memetic evolution is driven by psychological appeal which itself (although not admitted by Dawkins) can be rooted in the genetic predispositions of a people.

In a situation like this, where it is not practical to exclude the entire strain, the evolutionary medical approach is to vaccinate against virulence itself thereby favoring less virulent.  Obviously if memes are critical to the virulent metabolic pathways of the group organism, it may be profitable to try to disrupt those stages of the group metabolism.

I’ve alluded to the analogy between Jews and HIV before—a pathogen that has, via horizontal transmission, evolved high virulence to the point that it directly attacks the immune system of the host—and the “amazing coincidence” that the top 2 demographic determinants of the USA (the demographic variables that correlate most strongly with all other demographic variables of interest) are HIV-positive status and recent Jewish immigrants (Russian) respectively.

Not to discount the HIV analogy here but there is another, perhaps more pragmatically analogous pathogen—particularly given horizontal transmission between nations that are rooted in soil and hence immobile.  There are some diseases that are so mutable that not only antibiotics, but vaccines cannot be effective against them over the long term.  Among these are the diseases caused by sexually reproducing pathogens which, by recombining genes, rapidly adapt to any attempt to stop them via vaccines.  Memes can be thrown into the mix for human group organisms as well.  Paul Ewald’s book, “Plague Time: How Stealth Infections Cause Cancer, Heart Disease, and Other Deadly Ailments”, chapter “The Protean Opponents” describes malaria thus:

Malaria is another protean opponent.  It’s flexibility arises from its sexual reproduction.  The malaria organism’s version of sperm and egg come together in the mosquito, reshuffling the genetic deck before each round of human infection… Ever since the antimalaria campaign fell apart in the 1960s, master planners have been dangling the prospects of an effective vaccine that could eradicate malaria.  It is a desperate hope of last resort.  Humans have never controlled a sexually reproducing protozoal parasite by vaccination… a vaccine that is moderately effective in the short run will probably be developed. But after introduction, such a vaccine is bound to become steadily less effective as the variants that are not suppressed by the vaccine take over…

      The general solution for acute infectious diseases is to invest in interventions that reduce transmission from the sickest people.  This investment should make the pathogens evolve toward benignity because the sickest people tend to house the nastiest pathogens.  The particular solution depends on the particular category of disease.

      For diseases transmitted by vectors such as mosquitos, mosquito-proof housing should push the host-parasite relationship toward benignity.  When houses and hospitals do not restrict entry of mosquitos, very sick individuals are particularly vulnerable to mosquito bites.  When houses and hospitals are mosquito-proof, mosquitos do not have access to a person sick in bed.  The parasites in that person are therefore taken out of the competition.  Transmission occurs instead from people who are sufficiently healthy to walk around outside.  Becase these people tend to be infected with more benign parasites than are severely ill people, mosquito-proof housing should tip the competitive balance in favor of the milder strains.

      Mosquito-proof netting might seem like a reasonable and cheaper way to accomplish the same thing.  But it is bound to be less effective because it demands more of the sick person and those who care for the sick… People generally use mosquito netting to avoid being infected rather than to avoid infecting others.  Caregivers too tend to be focused on the patient rather than the long-term well-being of the society.  They may be less inclined to be careful about mosquito netting if the person already has malaria.

      Mosquito-proof housing obviates these problems because a sick person needs to do only what that person feels like doing: lying down and taking it easy.  Similarly, the caregivers need focus only on their patients…

Think of technologies that enhance international transportation (starting as far back as the wheel or even horse but clearly advancing to apocalyptic proportions during the 20th century’s advent of air transportation technology), of humans, as analogous to mosquitoes and think of nations as houses whose residents are their human ecologies consisting of coevolved populations of genes and memes.  Finally think of genes and memes as to potentially hitch-hiking organisms varying in virulence from benign symbionts to vicious pathogens.

The technique of building mosquito-proof houses has proven effective against malarial virulence in developed countries, most dramatically in the Tennessee Valley when dams were constructed providing vast mosquito breeding grounds and an ensuing malaria epidemic.  Ewald’s contention is that control of the malaria epidemic caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority’s projects resulted less from the control of these breeding grounds than the control of construction of new housing via standards that made it difficult for mosquitoes to access very sick people and pick up their virulent pathogens for further horizontal transmission-driven virulence evolution.  Likewise globalization has produced a vast “population” of intercontinental jets transporting legions from nation to nation.  Moreover, far from building “jet-proof nations” globalization has opened up nations to spreading virulence—with barriers to only the most obviously virulent of people.  In this respect, Ewald’s focus on “stealth infections” is particularly appropriate.

Jews are not obviously virulent.  Indeed, as apologists (most recently represented by Charles Murry, Gregory Cochrane, Jason Hardy and Harry Harpending) go to great lengths to point out, there are many Jews that operate as symbionts and indeed many appear to operate as such profoundly beneficial symbionts that these apologists make the implicit (by not referring to the other side of the ledger) case that Jews are a net benefit to their host societies.  Within Ewald’s theory of evolutionary medicine, such symbionts are the key to one of the two major means of favoring the evolution of symbiosis over virulence (the other of which has already been presented to as the prevention of horizontal transmission):  the vaccination against virulence itself that I referred to previously.  An example Ewald discusses is a bacteria whose virulent variants make an investment of 5% of their metabolism to create a protein that digests the lining of the respiratory tract of their hosts.  These virulent variants reap enormous benefits from digesting this easily available source of food from their hosts—at the cost of pneumonia in the host—thereby out-competing their benign variants.  Vaccination against that specific protein destroys the payoff of that 5% investment creating a 5% handicap favoring the nonvirulent variants in their competition for the ecological niche within the host.  Moreover, these nonvirulent variants give the immune system the information it needs to create antibodies to the species as a whole if a virulent mutation starts proliferating.  Pneumonia is an obvious disease but the principle holds for more stealthy competitors so long as the stealth virulence can be identified and vaccinated against.

So there are two levels at which Jewish virulence may be attacked:  1) prevention of horizontal transmission, and failing that 2) favoring symbionts by neutralizing the payoffs for virulence.  Unfortunately, nay disastrously, Jewish virulence as evolved to the point that it now directly attacks any attempt to prevent horizontal transmission.  The most profound, and stealthy, virulence expressed by Jews during recent times was the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 the critical Jewish political support for which Kevin MacDonald describes in Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review.  So we are left with the alternative as a near term measure:  favoring symbionts by neutralizing the payoffs for virulence.

The recommended approach for this is vaccination, but as Ewald notes, protean opponents—opponents who quickly adapt to new methods of preventing their payoff from virulence—cannot be fought for long using the remedial measure of neutralizing virulence.

How, then, are we to resolve this conundrum in the case of the protean Jewish virulence?

The answer may be a hybrid strategy that faces the stark fact that any attempt to neutralize the payoff of Jewish virulence is merely a stopgap measure which Jews will rapidly overcome.  Therefore, the hiatus of virulence between adaptations must be used to shore up the institutions that prevent horizontal transmission.

What form would this hybrid strategy take?  The answer cannot be known until the structure of Jewish virulence is better known.  There are many theories of the way Jewish virulence achieves its payoff I’m not going to, here, take sides.  Whatever the answer, the payoff that must be prevented for long enough to enable the prevention of horizontal transmission—and this period of time cannot be expected to be very long due to the protean nature of Jewish virulence.

Posted by JJR Apologist on August 04, 2006, 06:11 PM | #

if Israel is finally overrun

This and the silly theme of Global Islamic Caliphate repeat themselves. Can any of its proponents explain how Arabs might ovverrn a nation with 400 nukes and conventional superiority? And that with a Zionist-controlled USA behind it? This implausible scenario is either Israeli propaganda designed to elicit sympathy from gentiles and fortify ingroup solidarity among its own; or perhaps that of powerless “anti-semites” reduced to hallucinating revenge. The notion of a global Islamic Caliphate isn’t less ridiculous, and certainly is 100% Israeli propaganda.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 04, 2006, 06:55 PM | #

After all, even the Nazis accepted quarter-Jews (I think, or was it 1/8th?).

I think it was 1/4.  It’s funny to hear the “hard-liners” at SF and elsewhere screech about “one DROP of jewish blood makes you non-white!”  A huge number of them are far more Catholic than their dead pope.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on August 04, 2006, 06:59 PM | #

James, I actually managed to grok some of that, so I’m going to go back and reread your posts on pathogens and see if I can make heads or tails of them this time.

Are there any comments on threads by different authors I should know about too, or is everything in your posts?

I suspect that the pathogen analogy is of limited usefulness, since we’re hugely complex intelligent flexible strategizers, not germs, but limited!=no.

Posted by Andrew on August 04, 2006, 09:18 PM | #

“Arabs might overrun a nation with 400 nukes and conventional superiority”?

JJR apologyst,
You answered your own question indirectly,
How much do you pay for Gas/ Petrol now? And do you know who sets world parity price?
Are you aware of the financial stake in the USA which is held by Saudi Arabia? When you find out, make sure you are near a Hospital.
What do you think is happening to Europe? And why?
What do you think is happening to USA
What do you think is happening to Australia.
What do you think is happening to Canada
Etc, etc, etc.
Your continuation of the Jewish question and some others seems to have created a Paradigm Shift that has the tendency to obscure the bleeding obvious.
Creating a Ghost figurine that we can not find, Unless that is the full intention?

Posted by James Bowery on August 04, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

Svyatoslav, I agree with the idea that we need to be careful about the analogies but the problem is the virulence has so corrupted our research faculties that there is little we can do but appeal to analogies to relatively uncorrupted areas.  The importance of horizontal transmission is very general and highly applicable.  The precise features of group organism metabolism is the main weakness.  These group organisms are very amorphous compared to normal pathogens but it is a much better analogy than to conspiratorial organizations.  Conspiratorial organizations are made up of individuals who consciously pursue their group interests.  I don’t think the vast majority of Jews could live with themselves if they thought they were doing what they are actually doing as a group.  There may be some Jews that are nearly as sociopathic and Machiavellian as the group organism itself but I don’t think they are nearly as important as most “antisemitic” people think.  The overall pattern is evolutionary rather than conscious and therefore much more destructive.

Posted by Rnl on August 05, 2006, 01:01 AM | #

Re: Peter Hitchens

(i) his mother was Jewish; (ii) he married a Jewish woman; (iii) he claims that the British people owe a “moral debt” to Jews for failing to prevent the Jewish Holocaust; (iv) he claims that left-wing critics of Israel are anti-Semites. My argument is that (i) and (ii) have much to do with (iii) and (iv).

But let’s say I’m wrong. Both (iii) and (iv) remain false in any case, and (iii) is an especially contemptible Jewish libel. If Peter Hitchens is indeed a good British conservative, that doesn’t say much good about good British conservatives.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 05, 2006, 04:45 AM | #

Well, no, they will be hounded all the way to…New York, LA, Miami, Chicago and a few other American cities. -Getafix

So, Chicago, Miami, NY and LA get a huge number of rootless cosmopolitans! NY and LA are unsaveable, but I dare say the residents of Chicago and Miami might object to that quite a bit.

As to how Israel might get overrun, the answer is simple enough: attrition. The Israelis simply will not be either able or willing to tolerate the sort of casualties the Arabs will tolerate. Most crucially, an unnationalistic Israeli populace will not be prepared to fight for their country.

Rnl, as I wrote above, how do you know those are Hitchens’ actually views, rather than simply nods in the direction of the Holocaust story? He isn’t a revisionist, and indeed is in no way qualified to pronounce on the events of the 2nd WW.

Posted by On Holliday on August 05, 2006, 05:51 AM | #

James, thank you for that analysis.  I’ll have some thinking to do about that.

KMacD may be the person well situated to assist in an analysis of Jewish virulence.

Posted by On Holliday on August 05, 2006, 06:10 AM | #

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006177.html
“Their happiness, the happiness of the handsome, beautiful, graceful Christians, is built on the ruin and expulsion of the evil Jew.”

Am I the only one who sees this as an underlying expression of Jewish attitudes toward white gentiles?

If someone like Auster - a practicing Christian who supports the west - writes this, imagine what goes on in the minds of more, let us say traditional, Jews.

“the handsome, beautiful, graceful Christians”

Consider that carefully.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 05, 2006, 07:42 AM | #

”(i) his mother was Jewish”  (—Rnl)

His grandmother was Jewish, not his mother.  He only learned that about his grandmother when he was around thirty.  So, he was raised as a Christian Englishman by Christian English parents and when he was thirty or so, learned his grandmother was Jewish.  Suddenly he becomes Jewish?  I don’t think so.  He’s a Christian Englishman.  So’s his brother Christopher but Christopher is a little ... special, shall we say?  Unbalanced?  Strange?  He has a need after having spat on religion his whole adult life to run around saying he’s Jewish so let’s just let him do that if through that means he’s able to exorcise whatever inner demons he feels he has to exorcise ... Better that than drinking himself into an early grave or something (which, according to Alexander Cockburn and one or two others in a position to know, he’s doing anyway, but he denies it ...).

Posted by Rnl on August 05, 2006, 04:34 PM | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

Rnl, as I wrote above, how do you know those are Hitchens’ actual views, rather than simply nods in the direction of the Holocaust story? He isn’t a revisionist, and indeed is in no way qualified to pronounce on the events of the 2nd WW.

You’re missing the point.

No one should dispute that millions of Jews were killed by Germans or died while interned by Germans during World War II. Not even Ernst Zuendel denies grotesque German medical experiments at Auschwitz. German mistreatment of Jews during the war is a fact and I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that Peter Hitchens should deny it, even if he felt the inclination to do so.

Hitchens’ claim is that the world in general and the British people in particular owe Jews a great “moral debt” because Germans killed Jews during World War II. It’s “disgraceful,” he says, that some non-Jews believe this moral debt has “either been paid in full already or cancelled out by later events”:

For another element in all this is a rather disgraceful attempt by both Europeans and Arabs to argue that the moral debt to Jews, owed by the world because of the German massacre of Europe’s Jews, and our failure to take them in or save them, has either been paid in full already or cancelled out by later events.

That this claim is a Jewish commonplace shouldn’t obscure the preposterous defamation it explicitly alleges. Although we’ve all encountered it often, we should still be angered whenever we see it.

Does Alex Zeka owe a deep “moral debt” to Ukrainians living today because Alex Zeka’s great-grandfather failed to prevent the Ukrainian ethnocide seventy years ago? I don’t think so. But if Alex Zeka had seen a hundred Hollywood films on the subject of the Holodomor, and if he had been reminded in the mainstream press on almost daily basis that his great-grandfather did nothing to prevent it, he might very well come to believe he owes a great moral debt to the Ukrainian people. But if he did draw that conclusion, he would be wrong, and only a thoroughly unscrupulous Ukrainian would exploit his patently false sense of moral responsibility.

My analogy understates the defamation in question, for the obvious reason that Alex Zeka’s nation actually did fight against Germans during World War II, heroically by most accounts. If a Martian, unfamiliar with European history, had read Peter Hitchens’ explanation of Britain’s moral debt to the Jews, he might have drawn the opposite conclusion.

When we speak of moral debts we are borrowing vocabulary from the language of commerce. So I’ll point out that Americans at least have paid down enormous sums in hard cash to retire this bogus moral debt. According to the economist Thomas Stauffer, since 1973 the cost of Israel to the American taxpayer has been about $1.6 trillion. Will our debt, incurred through America’s failure to prevent the Jewish Holocaust, go away after we reach, say, $3 trillion? Let’s hope so, but it won’t if men like Hitchens are doing the calculating.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 06, 2006, 06:06 AM | #

Rnl, your perspective on all this is, unfortunately, precisely that of a Martian. If you were British you’d realise:
a. That Peter Hitchens does not generally go on about the Holocaust.
b. That any discussion of Israel needs to mention the Holocaust, unless the author wishes to get excommunicated from the human race by the Guardian and Independent.
c. The debt Britain owes to Israel isn’t monetary but promisary. Inter-war British gov’ts had promised a secure Jewish state in the mandate territory of Palestine. Such a promise isn’t carried out, unless Britain takes steps to oppose any aggressors against the Israelis.

Finally, on which side do we, as conservative Western nationists, stand? On the side of the Islamic invaders or on the side of those protecting their own land? In this sense, if we wish to protect our own land from invasion, we owe it to the Israelis to support them when they are protecting their’s.

Posted by Rnl on August 06, 2006, 02:19 PM | #

On Holliday wrote:

If someone like Auster - a practicing Christian who supports the west - writes this, imagine what goes on in the minds of more, let us say traditional, Jews.

Auster on Shakespeare’s Anti-Semitism:

The Merchant of Venice, in conclusion, is a deeply anti-Semitic work. I get no pleasure from saying this,—indeed it makes me feel a tremendous sense of loss because I’ve been fond of the play for so long—but I am forced to this view by the play itself.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006177.html 

Anti-Semites, Auster believes, are “the scum of the earth.” So when he calls Shakespeare’s _Merchant_ an anti-Semitic work, he is not using the term in any neutral sense. He means the play is very wicked.

We can ask, however, whether it’s inaccurate. Is it true that Jews have historically been insular and hostile toward non-Jews? That’s the essence of Shakespeare’s presentation of Shylock as a representative Jew. If they have indeed been insular and hostile toward non-Jews, then Shakespeare’s anti-Semitism is nothing more than an accurate social observation placed in a dramatic context. Jews today can either openly acknowledge the truth of Shakespeare’s social observation or deceptively blame him for propagating hateful anti-Semitic stereotypes.

Auster prefers the second choice. He does so in the knowledge that few non-Jews will dare respond publicly, since to do so would require opening themselves to charges of anti-Semitism. In order to exculpate Shakespeare, you have to make unpleasant (anti-Semitic) generalizations about Jews.

“I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you” (Merchant of Venice 1.3.29-32).

Which can be compared with the following:

Philostratus, an ancient Greek author, believed that Jews “have long since risen against humanity itself. They are men who have devised a misanthropic life, who share neither food nor drink with others.” The great Roman historian Tacitus (A.D. 56-120) declared that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and are always ready to show compassion [for their fellow Jews], but toward other people they feel only hate and enmity.”

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm

Are these just baseless stereotypes circulated by hate-filled anti-Semites? The text below, compiled and edited from the invaluable Jewish Tribal Review, gives an answer, while offering some insight into the minds of traditional Jews. (It may be somewhat truncated, and the title has been added.)

Posted by Rnl on August 06, 2006, 02:25 PM | #

Shylock and Classical Judaism
by JTR

In his Introduction to a reissue of Charles Dickens’ classic novel _Oliver Twist_, published by Bantam Books in 1981, Jewish author Irving Howe directs the reader’s attention, for nearly four pages, to modern Jewish polemics surrounding Dickens’ Fagin, an archetypical Jewish villain. As preface to the novel, readers are served a mini-history of Jewish objections to the Fagin character—a Jewish woman, it seems, had even written a complaint to Dickens that the character was too negatively stereotypical. Dickens actually wrote back to her, saying, “Fagin is a Jew because it is unfortunately true, of the time to which the story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was Jewish.” (A real life model for Dickens may have been Ikey Solomon who had undergone a much publicized trial in England a few years before the book was written.)

Of course the disturbing precedent Howe’s framing of the novel sets (for those who have the power to enforce such things) is that any literature must be subject to polemical rebuttal in a kind of aggrieved “class action” to _begin_ (and essentially merge with, and _reframe_) the original writing itself. Hence, a major literary work becomes—first and foremost—a polemical lecture on Jewish history and identity.

One of the most famous negative portrayals of Jews in English literature is the avaricious moneylender Shylock in Shakespeare’s _Merchant of Venice_. Written sometime during the late 1590s, Shylock reflects the prevailing Christian perception of Jews: he is usurious, villainous, fraudulent, exploitive, and cruel.

“The most effective way of making the play acceptable to post-Holocaust sensibilities,” notes Jewish critic John Gross, “in the view of many directors, is to underscore the prejudices of the Christian characters, and generally show them in an ugly light.” In some productions of the play, Shylock is even completely reconstituted, as in Arnold Wesker’s version, where Shylock becomes “scholarly, impetuous, and warm-hearted.” One French critic, Pierre Spriet, has even gone so far as to dismiss the play entirely, suggesting the work is so anti-Semitic that “it must be abandoned.” In 1999, an actor on tour from South Africa, Percy Sieff, portrayed Shylock as “a worldly, successful businessman who has become embittered by discrimination and compensated by focusing on money.”

[...]

In 1980s the Canadian Jewish Congress intervened in a planned performance of the _Merchant of Venice_ by the Stratford Festival. The play was finally performed, but only, notes Jewish activist Sol Littman, after it was agreed that “care would be taken to make sure that the representation of Shylock steered clear of crude stereotyping and—best of all—that the festival would arrange seminars for young theater-goers to explain the historical context of the play and the social prejudices of the period.” Similarly, in 1994 Rabbi Richard Litvak spearheaded a protest of a performance of the _Merchant_ by a Shakespearean theater group in Santa Cruz, California. Jewish lobbying resulted in a plan for “discussion groups” and “program notes” to express Jewish concerns about the Shylock character. Rabbi Litvak noted the effect of Jewish protest, turning the performance of a Shakespeare play into something else: “The director and the festival have expressed a commitment to try to make the play a vehicle for raising awareness of anti-Semitism.”

Shakespeare’s Shylock incarnates a number of stereotypical traits that Christian Europe attributed to Jews: exclusiveness and self-imposed ethnic separation, fueled by a powerful ethnocentrism, from the larger society around them; exploitation and manipulation of Gentiles; communal resistance to defense obligations to the country in which they live; ethical dualism, double moral standards for Jews and non-Jews, etc. Nowadays to impute these traits to Jews is deemed “anti-Semitic,” which is tantamount to declaring them false and groundless. Shakespeare’s Shylock is therefore simply a false character based on mere bigotry and prejudice, a racial libel having no basis in historical reality.

The closest parallels in our own time to the Orthodox Jews of Elizabethan England are the black-clad, self-cloistered Orthodox Hasidim of which there are today hundreds of thousands in Israel and America. (Eventually, the ultra-Orthodox Hasidic movement, which was created in the 1700s and represents a particular back-to-basics strand of Judaism, numbered about half of the Eastern European Jewish population. David Berger notes that “with the dawn of the 19th century, Hasidism ... became the dominant form of Judaism in much of Eastern Europe, the heartland of 19th-century Jewry.” Jewish scholar Solomon Poll even notes, for example, that, according to a Hungarian government report in 1914, Orthodox Judaism dominated the Jewish community in that country. And the attitude of Hungarian Jews not part of this traditional community? “Among the less observant and nonobservant Jews,” says Poll, “... they considered the observant Jews “old-fashioned,” “bigoted,” and “unreasonable.”)

Not surprisingly, the perception by many secular Jews today—most particularly in Israel—of the self-segregated Hasidim (also called Haredi) communities is extremely similar to the classical anti-Jewish stereotype that Shakespeare embodied in Shylock. Menachem Friedman, an Israeli professor, notes the characterization of these Ultra-Orthodox talmudists by secular fellow Jews in Israel: “The alienation and isolation of the Haredim, their eagerness to claim exemption from service in the Israeli army, their demands for increasing allocations for their society of scholars and sometimes unrestrained use of political power arouses resentment and even hatred among large sections of the Israeli public.”

“Hatred of the ultra-Orthodox has deep roots [in Israel],” noted Israeli critic Laor Yitzhak in 1998. “There is no offense so great that one cannot tag it on the Haredim—especially the guy with the black hat, frock coat, and side curls beloved of modern anti-Semites ... ‘Death to the black hatters’ is scribbled on toilet doors at the Tel Aviv School of Humanities; if fliers showing Haredi children and screaming ‘Kill them while they’re young!’ are being distributed in Kfar Saba, then it is those who participate in fomenting hatred against the Haredi minority who must prove there is not something behind their behavior frighteningly like anti-Semitism.”

Israeli scholar Yeshayahu Leibowitz notes the conflicts between secular Jews and the Ultra-Orthodox: “Perhaps we will reluctantly arrive at a separation into two nations [in Israel], with a differentiation not only from the aspect of marriage, but also with each going his historic way imbued by intense hatred [of the other].”

In 1986 the _Jerusalem Post_ reported an Israeli poll that found one-fourth of its secular Jewish respondents called the Ultra-Orthodox—who like their ancestral counterparts have retreated into self-created ghettos, even in Israel—“opportunists, liars, and charlatans.” “There is much hostility to the Orthodox rabbinate among the majority (about 70% of the Jewish population) of secular Israeli Jews,” says Adam Garfinkel, “They see the rabbis as coercive and intolerant ... excessively political and unspiritual ... seeming never to have a word to say about kindness, humility, and God’s love for humanity ... To be blunt, some secular Israelis see the haredim as fanatical atavistic freeloaders who have yet to discover modern hygiene.”

In 2000, the results of study by Jerusalem’s Hebrew University about “hate” in 168 secular Israeli schools indicated that “47% of the [secular] Jewish students hate haredim.” A Jewish religious organization, Ahavat Israel, has even posted an entire section at its Internet site about what it calls “anti-Semitism in Israel”:

[Quote] Today, the attack upon the religious Jewish population is most heavily felt in the Israeli media, including newspapers, radio and TV ... In a recent 9 (Dec 98) column, Israel Eichler charges that many of the stereotypes used by the Nazis against Jews have been translated into Hebrew and employed to delegitimize the haredi (religious) public ... [Meretz political party founder] Shulamit Aloni described the haredi population as “suck[ing] from the same sinister passions which nurtured the Nazis” ... “We have to storm Mea She’arim [a famous Jerusalem ultra-Orthodox enclave] with machine guns and mow them down,” recommends left-wing darling Uri Avneri. “I would take all those weird people from Shas, Aguda, and Degel Hatorah and tie all their beards together and light a match,” says Popolitika’s Amnon Danker. Yonaten Gefen announces his willingness to cast the first stone in the intifada [uprising] against haredim, and Prof. Uri Arnon tells a Kol Ha’ir interviewer, “Haredim should be suspended on an electricity pole” ... Today ‘bloodsucker’ is a favored term for haredim ... “Parasite” has become used so frequently in connection with haredim that the two have become virtually synonymous ... “When I see the haredim surrounded by their large families, I understand the Nazis,” wrote sculptor Yigal Tumarkin—a statement which did not prevent him from being honored by Yad Vashem [Israel’s Holocaust memorial center]. And Tommy Lapid sees the haredim as having usurped the traditional Jewish role of “taking advantage of the gentile, trading in his blood, and laughing at him,” only this time with the secular [Jewish] public in the role of the gentile. [End Quote]

In 2000, the _Cleveland Jewish News_ reported that, in Israel, “there have been many instances of anti-haredi graffiti on haredi synagogues, and even, in 1998, the torching of two haredi classrooms in Pardess Hanna, where local secular [Jewish] residents tried to keep haredim from moving into their neighborhood.”

[...]

In the 1990s, secular Jewish professor Stephen Bloom tried to connect to his Jewish heritage via a Chabad Lubavitcher (ultra-Orthodox/Hasidic) community in the little town of Postville, Iowa. He went there with the legends of Jewish historic identity and was stunned with what he found. Jews in the Iowa town, Bloom observed [in his book _Postville_], don’t want to touch Gentiles, they resist eye contact with them as they walk down the street, they have no knowledge or interest in Gentile life around them, they appeared “obnoxious and imperial” to local people, they cheat local merchants, and they use oil in their candelabras because oil, which doesn’t mix with other liquid, symbolizes Jewish separateness from all others. “Wherever we go,” one Chabad leader said, “we don’t adapt to the place or the people. It’s always been like that and always will be like that. It’s the place and the people who have to adapt to us.”

“Postville people, by and large, were tolerant,” says Bloom, “... [but the Hasidic Jews] were downright rude. They seemed to go out of their way to be obnoxious, especially when it came to business dealings ... At first, the locals welcomed the Jews, but even the simplest offer—a handshake, an invitation to afternoon tea—was spurned. The locals quickly discovered that the Jews wouldn’t even look at them. They refused to acknowledge even the presence of anyone not Jewish.”

Bloom’s book explored taboo topics such as bargaining, poor hygiene, atrocious manners, disrepair of homes, Jewish elitism, sexism, crime and prejudice directed at gentiles. Bloom writes:

[Quote] In response, I’ve received dozens of hate letters, all from Orthodox Jewish readers ... To these readers, to criticize any aspect of Judaism is patently unacceptable. To them, I wasn’t a journalist doing my job. I was a self-loathing Jew, the worst kind of anti-Semite. I was embarrassing the family ... When journalists parachuted into Postville, if the locals said anything bad—or even neutral—about the Hasidic Jews, the response was swift and to the point. Mayor John Hyman was labeled an anti-Semite when he told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that the Jews in Postville don’t pay their bills on time [which Bloom found to be a true assessment]. [End Quote]

What does all this mean? The foundation of animosity (labeled as “anti-Semitism”) towards “traditional” Jewish behavior, as most clearly manifested today by the cloistered, seclusionist, Jewish haredim/hasidic communities—a behavior that was a mainstay for centuries for all Jews in Europe—is so great that even other (secularized) Jews today express vehement disdain and outrage towards their obsessively “particularist” and exploitive fellows. And this is crucial: today’s haredim merely reflect meticulous attention to the ages-old religious laws of Jewish orthodoxy. As Michael Govrin notes, living under the Halacha—Jewish religious law - - “until two hundred years ago was the only way a Jew could define him or herself.”

Posted by Rnl on August 06, 2006, 02:41 PM | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

b. That any discussion of Israel needs to mention the Holocaust, unless the author wishes to get excommunicated from the human race by the Guardian and Independent.

I don’t see how that can be correct. One of Hitchens’ claims is, after all, that left-wing publications like the Guardian and Independent have disgracefully forgotten the immense moral debt the world owes Jews for the world’s failure to prevent the Holocaust. Should he neglect to mention the Jewish Holocaust in a discussion of Israel, he would, by his own account, join the same company as the people he is criticizing. His complaint is that the number of these Holocaust-forgetting British journalists is disturbingly large. He would join the mainstream of the British media if he followed their example.

c. The debt Britain owes to Israel isn’t monetary but promisary. Inter-war British gov’ts had promised a secure Jewish state in the mandate territory of Palestine. Such a promise isn’t carried out, unless Britain takes steps to oppose any aggressors against the Israelis.

I’ll simply point out that present-day Israel, including the illegally occupied West Bank, is larger than the national home for the Jews which the British envisioned. The liberal journalists Hitchens is criticizing argue that Israel should withdraw to its internationally recognized borders, thereby enabling a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. They do not argue that Israel should cease to exist. They are doubtless naive, but they don’t oppose “a secure Jewish state in the mandate territory of Palestine.”

Finally, on which side do we, as conservative Western nationists, stand? On the side of the Islamic invaders or on the side of those protecting their own land? In this sense, if we wish to protect our own land from invasion, we owe it to the Israelis to support them when they are protecting their’s.

Again, you’re making a reasonable observation. Hitchens isn’t. He is instructing you in the guilt of your nation.

Readers familiar with interwar history in Palestine should take a look at Hitchens’ paragraphs on Amin al-Husayni. His great crime, in Zionist historiography, was a lack of enthusiasm for having hordes of Jews occupy his country, and his tactical alliance with NS Germany during the war is commonly exploited to characterize Palestinian nationalism as nazi-like. Hitchens has come up with a novel device for pinning his nazi-like guilt on the British as well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 06, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Rnl, that comment on the tensions and frank hatreds between Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and secular Jewish citizens was an eye-opener.  I had heard very brief mention in a TV report around a year ago that tensions between the ultra-Orthodox and the rest of the Jewish population were building to the point where guns might conceivably be used and the country might split.  That sounded pretty grave but it was a two-sentence observation in a report about something else and I never heard anything more about it, and forgot about it.  I for one had no idea things there were to the point described in your comment.  Thanks for that information.

Posted by On Holliday on August 07, 2006, 05:15 AM | #

“Finally, on which side do we, as conservative Western nationists, stand?”

We are not all “conservatives.”  Or, is the blog really restricted to “conservatives?”

“On the side of the Islamic invaders or on the side of those protecting their own land? In this sense, if we wish to protect our own land from invasion, we owe it to the Israelis to support them when they are protecting their’s.”

The point is that this can be reversed.

I await Israeli support for the BNP.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 07, 2006, 05:20 AM | #

I don’t see how that can be correct. One of Hitchens’ claims is, after all, that left-wing publications like the Guardian and Independent have disgracefully forgotten the immense moral debt the world owes Jews for the world’s failure to prevent the Holocaust. Should he neglect to mention the Jewish Holocaust in a discussion of Israel, he would, by his own account, join the same company as the people he is criticizing. His complaint is that the number of these Holocaust-forgetting British journalists is disturbingly large. He would join the mainstream of the British media if he followed their example.

My point was that the UK’s left papers are liable to seize upon any criticism of themselves by invoking the Holocaust (i.e. comparing the defenders of Israel to Nazi-apologists). Here, Hitchens pre-empts them by using the Holocaust comparison for his own ends.

I’ll simply point out that present-day Israel, including the illegally occupied West Bank, is larger than the national home for the Jews which the British envisioned. The liberal journalists Hitchens is criticizing argue that Israel should withdraw to its internationally recognized borders, thereby enabling a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. They do not argue that Israel should cease to exist. They are doubtless naive, but they don’t oppose “a secure Jewish state in the mandate territory of Palestine.”

Have you never heard of the spoils of war, or even of reparations and war compensations? If Israel was forced to give back land won by it when defending itself from Islamist aggression, this would be a clear signal that Arab countries could attack it without fear of territorial lose as a result of losing. Hence, Israel would not be able to present a deterring show of force to prevent Arab aggression. Yep, the liberals don’t ‘oppose a secure Jewish state in the mandate territory of Palestine’, they just happen to oppose any measure which might make it secure!

Again, you’re making a reasonable observation. Hitchens isn’t. He is instructing you in the guilt of your nation.

I am also an impoverished student writing under a pseudonym on-line. I can write precisely what I think, whilst Hitchens cannot. The instruction in the guilt of the UK has already been carried out by the lefties. Hitchens is merely turning the tables on them, accusing them of what they accuse him.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 07, 2006, 05:22 AM | #

Holliday, we’re not going to get Israeli or Jewish support for the BNP by glorifying Islamists or professing complete neutrality over events in the Middle East.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2006, 05:33 AM | #

I don’t know what “nationists” are.  Something very like citizenists, I expect ... veins full of values where blood should be.

Anyway, the only reason for a nationalist to support Israel is self-interest.  It provides somewhere for Jews currently domiciled in the West to go and live.

Same is true for Conservatives - though not, of course, right liberals.

Posted by On Holliday on August 07, 2006, 05:38 AM | #

“Holliday, we’re not going to get Israeli or Jewish support for the BNP by glorifying Islamists or professing complete neutrality over events in the Middle East”

I thought there was a BNP editorial, albeit not by Griffin, that Auster was crowing about, supporting Israel.

Reciprocation?

And, gee, if we cannot get Jewish support, how about at least complete neutrality?  The point is that Jews are extremely hostile to all manifestations of western nationalism, why we are expected to be good lap dogs and support Israel?

Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2006, 05:41 AM | #

Alex,

We’re not going to get Jewish support for the BNP.  Hell, if they won’t, through all the machinery available to them, bring to heel their culture-warring pornographers, why would they lend political support to a British nationalist entity?

There will be NO lessening of the Jewish pursuit of Jewish interests, and no change in their identification of what those interests are.  The best nationalists can do is to put the problem on ice, and deal with the most immediate issues of survival.  The rest will come to pass only if and when that survival is secured and the popular focus and sense of common purpose is strengthened as a result.

Posted by On Holliday on August 07, 2006, 06:57 AM | #

The BNP, it seems, is not doing eough:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006186.html

Of course, it will *never* be enough.

Posted by Phillip Atkins on August 07, 2006, 08:20 AM | #

Lest we forget the true nature of the beast, (which is all too easy now since ‘the boot is one the other foot’ and whines about the ‘holocaust’ and ‘French and European complicity’ in ‘modern times’ are already starting to be heard), let us keep a cool head and reflect:
The NAACP
The SPLC
The ADL
The so-called ‘civil-rights’ bull-shit that initiated the destruction of America in the Kennedy-Johnson years.
The Hart-Celler Act.

The rape of Russia after the disatrous Gorbachev-Yeltsin years, and the strange fact that asstes supposedly held in common ended up exclusively in the hands of a certain group, while the majority ate dirt.

Cuurency manipulation in Berlin in the late ‘20s in which a certain group reaped vast fortunes while the majority starved.

The list can go on and on….....

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 07, 2006, 08:57 AM | #

GW,

Far from all Jews are culture warriors or pornographers. Gottfried and Levin are certainly neither (unless they’ve got a secret shag-pad hidden away somewhere ), and are indeed very much pro-white in all their political efforts. At the same time, we should bear in mind that our own ethny is far from faultless in this regard, and that certain whites advanced the pc agenda through their own artifices.

Holliday,

Auster was crowing about it, as you yourself say. What happened to no amount of reprechament being enough?

Finally, let me reiterate that we should support Israel because it is an ethno-state, and hence because its existence proves that our own desires are not a pipe-dream.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 07, 2006, 09:31 AM | #

Alex,

There are scores of ethno-states besides Israel.  The only exemplary value which attaches to it is that it is currently the home of people who don’t think we should have a home.  It has a function in pointing out Jewish hypocrisy.  But we don’t need it to prove our right to our homelands.  And, anyway, I think that the most important thing about the Jewish State is it’s Jewish and a place to which emigrating Jews can go.  I would prefer them to emigrate.

Gottfried and Levin are good men.  But they are two swallows that don’t make a smiling Jewish summer.  Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein are two other Jews.  Do you know the famous case of The People Versus Larry Flynt.  You should.  It was the vehicle by which the right to crash porn on the world was legally categorised as “freedom of expression”.

Yet the true purpose of porn was made perfectly clear by the Israeli military in the days just prior to Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002.  According to the Aidelaide newspaper, The Advertiser, the IDF took over Al-Watan TV station in Ramallah and began broadcasting “action” movies to bemused Palestinian families.  The IDF then extended their entertainment activities to two other local channels, Al-Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq.  (The Advertiser’s original story seems to have been memory-holed, btw.  An archive search for Ramallah brings up this, for example, but not a word on the porn offensive).

Armies use weapons.  It is safe to assume, I think, that the Israeli military is predicated on that same principle.  Or, as the financial as well as moral bankrupt and, nowadays, blogger Al Goldstein told journalist and blogger Luke Ford back in 1998:-

Now where were you born, Luke?  Australia?  You don’t know a flying fuck about anything.  You’re an ex-felon.  If you weren’t, your father was.  You’re a bunch of refugees from a penal colony.  The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks.  Catholicism sucks.  We don’t believe in authoritarianism.  We know that the anti-porn stuff is a bunch of claptrap to make us feel guilty.  We have a clean slate when we look at the world.  We see opportunities …

Posted by Matra on August 07, 2006, 10:32 AM | #

I didn’t think public neutrality on Israel or the JQ had anything to do with getting Jews on board. I thought it was about making whites feel comfortable. The vast majority of whites are completely baffled by the idea that Jews are the driving force behind a lot of the anti-white agenda. As Nick Griffin said in his piece a few months ago tell your white work colleagues and family your ideas on the JQ. You might as well tell them you believe you were abducted by a flying saucer as their reaction will be the same. We can hope that the internet allows different ideas to get a hearing and eventually spread beyond cyberspace but on the JQ that will take many decades whereas animosity towards blacks, Muslims, and to a lesser extent, South Asians is already present.

Posted by On Holliday on August 07, 2006, 10:39 AM | #

“What happened to no amount of reprechament being enough?”

VFR reader “Justin” is unsatisfied with the BNP, and it seems that Auster doesn’t give them a complete endorsement either.

And then there is Auster’s sniping at Jared Taylor.

I suppose that, according to Larry and Justin, Mr. Griffin and Mr. Taylor should attack, denounce, and disassociate themselves from friends and allies, as well as from academics such as Dr. Kevin MacDonald.

And, in exchange, what?

Will Jews become supporters of Taylor then, or will they continue donating to the ADL and SPLC that attack Taylor?

If Griffin supports Israel, with the Israeli “right” support the BNP?  Will they pressure the Diasporites the lay off attacking western nationalism?

Posted by Al Ross on August 07, 2006, 10:53 AM | #

Larry Flynt isnt a Jew.

Posted by Bo Sears on August 07, 2006, 02:46 PM | #

Regarding Matra’s statement, “The vast majority of whites are completely baffled by the idea that Jews are the driving force behind a lot of the anti-white agenda. As Nick Griffin said in his piece a few months ago tell your white work colleagues and family your ideas on the JQ. You might as well tell them you believe you were abducted by a flying saucer as their reaction will be the same.”

There are a number of ways to educate, and we stumbled on one that was a big surprise to us back in the 1990’s.

Our group, Resisting Defamation, undertook a three-year longitudinal study of anti-Irish slanders. (In fact, our predecessor organization was the “Irish Task Force” which had grown concerned about anti-Irish bigotry in local media which indulged in terms like “mick” and “paddy” and asserted all Irish were drunks, etc. Seriously, I kid you not.)

One of the things that surprised us when we came to analyze the examples that we found and collected was that all but two public slanders out of several dozens were by members of one ethnic group. We never have to spell it out, people know intuitively what group we are talking about when we explain the outcome.

But an exercise like this can be a real eye-opener, and you don’t even have to say anything about the slander-mongers, just collect the examples and show them around. It is a quiet but powerful message. There are many ways to educate the Majority. The direct, logical approach rarely works.

(This is all reported in our syllabus.)

Posted by rustymason on August 07, 2006, 02:50 PM | #

Once again, Nick cuts through the BS: 

“As I have said several times before, Isreal is America’s pit-bull in the mid-east. It is in OUR interests to continue feeding it.”

Nick for president.

Posted by ben tillman on August 07, 2006, 07:12 PM | #

Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein are two other Jews.  Do you know the famous case of The People Versus Larry Flynt.  You should.  It was the vehicle by which the right to crash porn on the world was legally categorised as “freedom of expression”.

As Al Ross said, I don’t think Flynt is a Jew, though I never got a good look at him as he was wheelchair-bound and well in front of me during argument. 

Another minor point, the legal issue in the lawsuit alluded to—Falwell v. Flynt et al.— was whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress could be used to circumvent the actual-malice standard for defamation of public figures under New York Times v. Sullivan.  It was tangentially related to pornography inasmuch as the defamatory parody appeared in Flynt’s Hustler magazine.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 07, 2006, 07:23 PM | #

Bo Sears-just what the hell are you trying to say-4/5 paragraphs with no subjective substance,obscure allusions to unknown peoples,and a lawyers veil of obfuscation.Why can’t people just call it the way they REALLY see it,instead of dancing on the head of a pin.How will the masses ever be educated/informed if the knowledgeable resort to jargon totally foreign to the average mick[or wasp,cracker,greaseball,polack,or wetback]BTW-I rescind my resignation from posting on MR-Thanks for the E-mail GW!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 07, 2006, 08:42 PM | #

“Nick for president.”  (—Rusty Mason)

He’s certainly got my vote!  I couldn’t imagine a better man for the job!  I can think of a number of individuals who’d be as good as, yes—but none better!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 07, 2006, 08:49 PM | #

“I never got a good look at him as he was wheelchair-bound and well in front of me during argument.”  (—Ben)

You were in the courtroom, Ben?  Were you involved in arguing the case?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 07, 2006, 10:50 PM | #

“Nick for president.” (—Rusty Mason)

He’s certainly got my vote!  I couldn’t imagine a better man for the job!  I can think of a number of individuals who’d be as good as, yes—but none better!

Thank you much Rusty and Fred-but I would perfer Dictator,so I don’t have to put up with the inanities of a congress so full of its self,a bureaucratic system that stifeles individual freedoms,a tort system that makes"attorneys” the largest segment in the yellow pages,and law enforcement that is disabled by PC.Hitler,in the 30’s,was not completely wrong-he saved his country at that time-and tough shit if you don’t agree.

Posted by ben tillman on August 07, 2006, 11:13 PM | #

“Christopher is a little ... special, shall we say?  Unbalanced?”

I hope you realize that Sailer (who has been very good lately) is talking about C. Hitchens, coincidentally enough, today:

A reader who was an old drinking buddy of Christopher Hitchens points out that Hitch regularly had his own Mel Gibson Moments after a dozen scotches:

When I knew him, he claimed to be the “world’s biggest anti-Semite” and a great friend of the Palestinians. Then he “discovered” a Jewish great-aunt and began a reassessment of his antecedents, or just decided to give the flip-side a spin or two.

I wrote on my blog in 2005, in commenting on a remarkable dialogue between the long-estranged Hitchens brothers over their bizarrely intense sibling rivalry:

I’ve pointed out that what might look like ideological clashes on the surface are often actually just rationalizations for ethnic clashes between extended families, but the Hitchens Brothers represent an interesting case of an ethnic clash between brothers within a nuclear family. [Tory] Peter was the favorite of their English father, [Trotskyite] Christopher of their [possibly] Jewish mother [who committed suicide]. Christopher is still an atheist, but as Paul Johnson pointed out in his “History of the Jews,” it’s been common down through the centuries for young atheist intellectuals to become more focused on Jewish ethnic interests as they age, without necessarily becoming theists. The conversion to the ideology of neoconism of Christopher, who, despite his hatred of religion, has taken to dropping in to synagogues as he travels to express his ethnic solidarity, is a good example of this venerable tendency toward gerontocratic ethnocentrism.
I suspect that Christopher Hitchens used to love Trotsky for being a Communist mass murderer, but now loves Trotsky more for being a Jewish mass murderer.

What a classic line!

Posted by ben tillman on August 07, 2006, 11:14 PM | #

Damn it!  I screwed up the formatting.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 07, 2006, 11:45 PM | #

HOW can one imbibe into the mind of another individual,without knowing them personally,and describe their thought processes?In my mind,you are what you say you are,until proven incorrect.Governments,Dynastys,and Economic powers have been brought down by the lowlyest of indivualist morons .

Posted by ben tillman on August 08, 2006, 12:30 AM | #

So we are talking about Auster again—and in the context of virulence and horizontal transmission, no less.

We have had controversy about Auster; he is willing to tell truths that he forbids others to tell, and he noted a particularly important truth in response to something else that Mr Peter Hitchens wrote.  Here:

An inadequate critique of Britain’s immigration woes—and of the BNP

The salient point is this:  “Unfortunately, Hitchens’s own analysis of the immigration issue is overly complicated and not terribly useful. Instead of getting at the core of the problem, which is non-discrimination as the guiding philosophy of the modern West, as expressed in the mass immigration of unassimilable peoples, he launches into a rather complex economic explanation.”

Auster is exactly right.  Ignoring the cause of the problem, he precisely identifies the problem itself.  Non-discrimination.  The way that an organism stays alive is by discriminating between self and non-self in the allocation of the resources that it has assembled.

The discrimination between self and non-self is the basic function of the immune system.  For confirmation of this point, feel free to go to Google.com and type in nothing more than “self” and “non-self”.  Most of the top hits will relate to the immune system. 

James Bowery is quite right to analogize to HIV or, still better, AIDS.  Our societies are indeed experiencing an immune malfunction, and the germ theory of disease tells us we should expect it to be caused by a pathogen. 

But the malfunction is worse than mere immunodeficiency.  We know of diseases like arthritis in which the immune system attacks the self.  And we are familiar with AIDS, in which the immune system fails to attack non-self.  We now have the worst of both worlds; our societies discriminate against the self and in favor of the non-self.  This is what I term inversion of the societal immune system (ISIS). 

Auster essentially states this truth—the MOST IMPORTANT truth there is for us to know ... other than any further truths that must be known in order for us to be able to disseminate and remember this truth.  And of course the salient further truth is that this state of inverted discrimination is the result of a pathogen, precisely as James has suggested.  Auster sometimes suggests as much:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005425.html

The fact remains, however, that the Jewish people, far out of proportion with any other ethnic group, keep producing a fantastic number of leftists, whether they are “Jewish” or not. Any gentile country with a significant Jewish population needs to consider honestly this Jewish tendency and find responsible ways of restraining it.

But when gentiles actually begin discussing such “restraint”, he draws the line.  He wants to control the process of “restraint” in order to ensure that Jews may continue to live among us gentiles, but he admonishes Jews to ratchet down the virulence.  In short, Auster is pushing the notion of vertical transmission.

Posted by ben tillman on August 08, 2006, 01:05 AM | #

“You were in the courtroom, Ben?”

Yes.

“Were you involved in arguing the case?”

No.  But the firm I worked for was.

Posted by ben tillman on August 08, 2006, 01:20 AM | #

I suspect that the pathogen analogy is of limited usefulness, since we’re hugely complex intelligent flexible strategizers, not germs….

The fact that humans are “hugely complex intelligent flexible strategizers” actually adds to the usefulness of the pathogen “analogy”.  No cultural or genetic change is necessary for pathogens to change their virulence or the manner of expression of that virulence.

Posted by Al Ross on August 08, 2006, 03:12 AM | #

In the matter of race replacement, going into battle with a Jew like Auster at your side would be a lot like going into battle alone.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 08, 2006, 04:02 AM | #

Al Ross-A very cogent and salient point-and if Larry Flynt isn’t a Jew,then Wheaties are made from corn.Google up his lineage.Auster is nothing more than an apoligist for one-world,race mixing,anti- anything European crowd of elites who “feel” for the minorities who are constantly trying to kill us. Semper Fi!

Posted by Al Ross on August 08, 2006, 04:27 AM | #

Nick, Flynt isnt a Jew according to the sensibly porno-hating and Jew-reviling National Vanguard.

See : http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2866

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 08, 2006, 04:31 AM | #

GW,

I think we are agreed on the relevancy of Israel to our ends: as a means of holding Diaspora Jewry to account. I would add that, in order to maintain the moral high ground and thus gain as wide-ranging a support as possible, we must support other ethno-states even if they have no wish or inclination to support us. Nationalists are easy enough to dismiss; consistent nationalists are an entirely different matter.

Moreover, I remain optimistic about the possibility of converting non-elite Jews to the cause of Western preservation. Or, atleast, I do not give up on such a project completely.

Being a Brit, I don’t know that much about US law. Was Flynt’s argument that pornography, as a form of expression, was protected by the 1st amendment?

Posted by On Holliday on August 08, 2006, 08:39 AM | #

Auster’s definition of the West:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006142.html

Spiritual, and not at all ethnological.  Well.

It’s not that what he says is wrong per se, merely incomplete, leaving out as it does the ethnological and historical components of western identity.

More to the point is how well Israel matches on even Auster’s criteria; one can read Samuel’s “You Gentiles” for a moving description, from a Jewish standpoint, of the wide and incompatible spiritual and psychological gulf between Jews and Gentiles.  Of course, KMacD would say the same, in a more academic fashion, but then we all know he is an “anti-semite.”

With respect to “Ed”, one wonders at his description of Israelis as being originally from Russia and Eastern Europe.  Really?  Putting aside that half the population of Israel are Sephardic/“oriental” Jews who have never had any connection whatsoever with “Russia and Eastern Europe”, one can assure Ed that the Ashkenazim are not originally from Eastern Europe, as historical and genetic data make plain.

Even more to the point: regardless of what we, or Auster, think, one can wonder if the Israelis themselves think of themselves as a western nation, no different from the nations of Europe.  What do the “right-wing: religious settler organizations think of that designation?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 08, 2006, 11:58 AM | #

Alex Z-Yes ,and it went all the way to the Supreme Court,and I believe Justice Brennen wrote the majority decision.Since then the issue of frontal nudity has become passe’.There are more “hard’porn sites on the web than news outlets and blogs combined.  AND YES,LARRY FLYNT IS A JEW!

Posted by Guessedworker on August 08, 2006, 01:17 PM | #

Alex,

I will leave ben tillman to detail Mr Flynt’s defence.  As for Israel, it is of little moment to me.  I care neither to attack or defend it.  In each case I would be a fool, the first for opening myself up to the usual accusations, the second for giving without hope of receiving in return.

JW,

Of course Larry Austler cannot define the West ethnographically since he would exclude himself thereby.  It is also worth noting, amid the flurry of gratuitous high-mindedness on that VFTR thread (“What makes the West the West is a shared spiritual experience.”), that having once made the observation that Hebreic and Greek strains intertwined to form the Western philosophical canon, no further effort is invested in identifying the Hebreic contributions to the “decadent or hypertrophied form of Westernness that has taken over the West”.  Thus the great cultural Marxisation of modern politics and all the secondary gifts of Jewish political philosophy that have similarly worked themselves out in our communal life go unidentified for what they are.

If one aspires to tell the truth, as I think Larry Auster wishes us to believe he does, then one must tell the whole truth.  Partiality, however it arises, does not facilitate that.  Larry Auster is, as you say, extremely partial in his definition of the West - producing a version which dismisses European ethnicities in order to accomodate one non-European one - his.  But he is also partial in his treatment of the post-war Jewish philosophical contribution, which has wrought such vast damage to Western liberalism.  It is impossible for an honest Conservative to consider the subject matter in that thread without noting that, with the exception of the mini-Frankfurter Habermas and the homosexual Frog, pretty much everything ideologically harmful has arisen from one critical quarter.  But Larry manages that, too.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 08, 2006, 02:29 PM | #

GW,

May I just repeat what I’ve said above:
I would add that, in order to maintain the moral high ground and thus gain as wide-ranging a support as possible, we must support other ethno-states even if they have no wish or inclination to support us.

To throw out yet another WW2 analogy*, just as we needed to give Hitler every benefit of the doubt in order to gain as widespread a support as possible, in this war we need to give Jewry every single chance before pronouncing them our eternal enemies.

*I’d like to apologise for doing this, as I am as sick of them as you no doubt are.

Posted by James Bowery on August 08, 2006, 03:27 PM | #

I wrote: There are many theories of the way Jewish virulence achieves its payoff I’m not going to, here, take sides.  Whatever the answer, the payoff that must be prevented for long enough to enable the prevention of horizontal transmission—and this period of time cannot be expected to be very long due to the protean nature of Jewish virulence.

On Holiday wrote: KMacD may be the person well situated to assist in an analysis of Jewish virulence.

Yes.  My main criticism of KMacD’s theory isn’t the analysis of the structure of Jewish virulence but what I see as an inadequatly developed theory of the etiology of that structure.  He does point to “diaspora peoples” as a general class worthy of study but consiliating that viewpoint with epidemology is very important.

Posted by On Holliday on August 08, 2006, 05:08 PM | #

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006191.html

“…articles in BNP publications such as the one I recently discussed about Israel point toward a key component in the possible salvation of the West, namely the possibility of race-conscious white Westerners defending Jews and Israel, and of Jews realizing they are on the same side as white Westerners.”

To which I have only one question for Larry: where is Moe and Curly?

Seriously though, interesting how western survival revolves around “race-conscious white Westerners defending Jews and Israel.”  Note, not merely accepting guys like Michael Hart at AmRen meetings, but actually *defending* Jews and Israel.  In exchange = “Jews realizing they are on the same side as white Westerners.”

How is this, exactly, going to occur?  If Jared Taylor were to do everything Auster wishes, and conduct a Stalinist purge of AR ‘anti-semites”, would Jews then flock to AR?  Would the ADL drop its opposition to Taylor’s message?  Will high-level Israeli officials and politicians come out and support the BNP and AR? 

And, are Jews *really* on the same side as “white Westerners?”  Auster takes this for granted, but if the Jewish Diaspora strategy is to be a non-assimilating minority, and if influential Jews consider assimilation to be “worse than Hitler” (a Rabbi’s quote, not mine), and if Jews continue to view “diversity” as being beneficial in diluting the influence of the majority – a majority they do not identify with nor wish to assimilate into – I don’t see how Auster’s view holds.

The trouble is none of these guys actually addresses the views of ‘anti-semites’ like KMacD, they are dismissed with ‘dignified scorn.’

With respect to “Sam” and his criticisms of the BNP, I can leave the details to our English friends here.  From what I know, English “conservatives” among the Tories are the same as their American Republican counterparts: worse than useless.  “Reform”, “taking back the mainstream”, yes, indeed.  Why not attempt to “take back” the Labour party, or the Democrats in America, for there is not a dimes worth of difference among the “mainstream” parties in either the UK or in America, no doubt there.

James, it would be useful to have a memetic comparison of:
a)Jews, Gypsies, and Overseas Chinese
b)Gypsies and Overseas Chinese vs. Indians and Chinese living in their own nations

KMacD does compare these groups with respect to group evolutionary strategies; however, what I have in mind is a study focusing on group virulence, and shifts in group memetic (and genetic) strategies.

Posted by James Bowery on August 08, 2006, 06:07 PM | #

We shouldn’t expect to see very high degrees of virulence among relatively recent diaspora peoples.  Genetic evolution probably requires approximately 50 generations (ref: E. O. Wilson “Oh Human Nature”).  In the case of virulence evolved via horizontal transmission that means 50 generations of repeated migration under conditions that bring about expulsion or “persecution”.  Memetic evolution may be faster but the problem with the Jewish group organism isn’t primarily memetic—it is a genetic predisposition toward finding virulent memes psychologically appealing in conditions of diaspora.  This may apply to humans generally to some extent but the lack of history of this sort of selection among most human groups leads me to suspect you will find very much lower psychological appeal for virulent memes among groups not having undergone the genetic selection during several tens of generations of horizontal transmission.  Perhaps gypsies would qualify.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 08, 2006, 11:35 PM | #

CRAP!-All of this long-winded BS about memes and dispora,ethnic hereitity,etc.,usually disapears within one or two generations,unless you live and work in an enclave of like peoples-not exactly assimilation!We do not need Warsaw ghettos,little Mexico Cities,Moscow on the Hudson,or Bagdad in Detroit.If you’re in this country,you have three choices-assimilate,become a CITIZEN,or get the fuck out.Some of you knot-heads need to start thinking in real-world terms,instead of trying to impress each other with your references and vocabulary,and attack OUR problems DIRECTLY,using your attributes.  JJR-Are you listening??

Posted by Rnl on August 09, 2006, 01:59 AM | #

Al Ross wrote:

In the matter of race replacement, going into battle with a Jew like Auster at your side would be a lot like going into battle alone.

I wouldn’t go that far.

On most issues Auster is a White nationalist. He opposes Third World immigration on race-cultural grounds. He recognizes and describes the threat of colonizing Islam. He doesn’t believe that White nations are under a moral obligation to dissolve themselves. He understands the reality of significant racial differences. He acknowledges (once in a while) Diaspora Jewry’s hostility to the Western nation-state.

In a saner world those positions would be part of the political mainstream. In our world they make him a radical, and we should congratulate him for expressing them so persuasively.

On the other hand, his angry denunciations of racialists who make exactly the same objections to Jewish misbehavior that he does are unscrupulous and deliberately inconsistent. They suggest how difficult it must be for any Jew to overcome his Jewishness.

Still, his website is objectively an asset to the cause of racial sanity, and I’m glad he is there fulminating away, warts and all. Think of him not as an obnoxious guy shouting insults but as an unattractive inanimate object that often serves a useful purpose.

Posted by Rnl on August 09, 2006, 02:03 AM | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

The instruction in the guilt of the UK has already been carried out by the lefties. Hitchens is merely turning the tables on them, accusing them of what they accuse him.

I’m not sure whether it’s possible to kick someone in the head politely, but if it is, that would be a good metaphor for what Hitchens is up to. He is kicking Britain in the head, but so politely that many of his British readers don’t notice the assault.

Posted by Rnl on August 09, 2006, 02:21 AM | #

On Holliday wrote:

Even more to the point: regardless of what we, or Auster, think, one can wonder if the Israelis themselves think of themselves as a western nation, no different from the nations of Europe. What do the right-wing: religious settler organizations think of that designation?

Because of the covenant Jehovah made with Israel at Mount Sinai, Jews are a special people and their state cannot, according to the settler movement, be a normal Western nation “considered by Locke, Rousseau, and others” (Rabbi Kook the younger). Rabbi Aviner, a Gush Emunim leader, states the distinction clearly: “While God requires other normal nations to abide by abstract codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews” (quoted in Shahak & Mezvinsky, _Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel_ [London: Pluto Press, 1999], 69, 71).

Among the Haredim there is a bitter dispute over when Christians should be ejected from Israel and all Christian churches demolished. (Many fundamentalist Jews regard Christian churches as sites of idolatry.) Those Haredim who believe Israel is in or entering the messianic age argue that Christians should be ejected and Christian churches demolished right away, because in the messianic age Gentiles will lose their power to retaliate against Jews. Those Haredim who don’t believe Israel is in the messianic age urge caution, arguing that since Gentiles still possess the power of retaliation, the ejection of Christians from Israel and the demolition of their churches would put Jewish lives at risk. Neither side has any moral objection to ejecting Christians and demolishing their churches. The only question is whether Jews can get away with it yet.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 09, 2006, 04:36 AM | #

Rnl,

Indeed, a kick so polite that no conservative politician, nor journalist, nor any sort of activist has noticed it. Nor, for that matter, has any leftist notice it. Infact, nobody but you has noticed it! Boy, you must be proud!

No, Hitchens is not propogating the fantasy that the British are resposnible for the Holocaust. That fantasy is already too deeply imbedded in the fabric of British public debate to be easily dislodged. Hitchens realises that he has play by these rules, whilst showing to their progenitors that these rules can potentially be turned against them. That is the essence of (first generation) neoconservatism: using liberal arguments for conservative conclusions. (e.g. proving that welfare perpetuates poverty).

As to your description of the Haredim, I would like to make two points:
a. Many fundy Christians hold similarely bizarre views. The sources from which such beliefs are derived are not canonical, to say the least.
b. Whether Israel is Western or not isn’t ultimately relevant. It is an ethnostate, much like Japan, S. Korea and a number of other 1st world ethnostates. In order to gain the moral high ground, we must constantly support the continued existence of all ethnostates. Then we can ask, “why not us?”

Posted by On Holliday on August 09, 2006, 05:26 AM | #

James, yes, I’m thinking that Gypsies have the same ingroup/outgroup mentality and dual morality.  Overseas Chinese are a separate case; East Asians are so naturally ethnocentric that there may be less selective pressure for required virulence, besides which, as you note, they are a much more recent phenomenon.

In my experience however, overseas Chinese do not have the slightest understanding that white Americans have any rights whatsoever, with respect to demographics. 

Nick, I’m sorry you don’t like our analysis (and I can understand where you would prefer what passes for ‘analysis’ by a certain other blogger), but I do want to know James’ opinion on these matters.  I consider diaspora group virulence to be an important matter.

Posted by On Holliday on August 09, 2006, 08:52 AM | #

I wonder if Lawrence Auster agrees with John Bean’s characterization of the Jews as a “foreign people” who are “different than us”, and that gentiles have a right to pursue their own interests and not surrender to Jewish interests?

When people like KMacD says this, then Auster believes they are “anti-Semites”, but I guess Larry is so thrilled with the BNP’s “nuanced” approach that he overlooks that what Bean is saying is not really different from what people Auster would consider “anti-Semites” say: Jews are a different and foreign people, even after many centuries of living in the west and they have their own set of interests, which often are different from ours - and these differences are sometimes profoundly destructive.

Bean says we shouldn’t be obsessive on the topic, and most here would agree.  The idea that the nationalists at MR are “foaming-at-the-mouth rabid irrational judeophobes” is a strawman creation of those who are incapable of sustaining a mature, adult argument.

I find nothing really objectionable about Bean’s essay, although it does understate the conflict of interests that exist and the fundamental importance of that.

I don’t really see though Bean saying that, for example, British Jews are the same as, and have the same interests as, native Britons.

Posted by Matra on August 18, 2006, 11:55 AM | #

Earlier the subject of Peter Hitchens and his Jewishness came up. In the Daily Mail he wrote:

On Israel, I must first deal with the correspondent who wrote to say that I have Jewish ancestry and therefore am not independent in what I say about Israel. Others may draw their conclusions about what prompted this intervention. I could not possibly say. But since we are in the zone of checking whether our grandmothers are in order, and measuring noses, my own estimate is that I am about one thirty-second Jewish by descent. I wasn’t aware of this fact until I was well into my Thirties, and don’t consider myself anything other than English or Christian by culture, upbringing or religion. My name is Cornish in origin.

There’s an interesting comment below about his brother Christopher (whom he does not get a long with):

When I was a teenage Trotskyist, with the same genes as I have now, I was as pro-Palestinian as all the other comrades. I hope my left-wing brother (who shares my ancestry precisely and views himself as more Jewish than I do) will forgive me for dragging him briefly into this conversation. But he has for many years been a trenchant critic of Israel and a supporter of the Palestinian cause, and when I informed him of his Jewish ancestors he became, if anything, rather more so. This view has even survived his recent recruitment to the ranks of the Iraq war supporters in the ‘Global War on Terror’.

http://tinyurl.com/ebrvx

I predict Christopher will become pro-Israel.