Judaism: Last Stop for American Protestants

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on December 27, 2004, 08:20 PM | #

I have to admit I can see where he is coming from…and have been able to for a very long time.

Posted by Braveheart on December 28, 2004, 04:11 AM | #

I myself like to read the bible so I consider myself as an evangelical Christian (from Flanders). And the message that God gives a home territory to a particular people, under condition that they stick to the holy message, is sympathetic to me. But in opposition to Jews,  Flemish “nationalistic religion/mythology” has been replaced by more politico-economical arguments to want independence.

Although personally I still belief that with the help of the Almighty, we shall succeed, I suppose the number of Flemish who still know that at the decisive battle of Courtrai, such as with the Scottish, “miraculous” apparitions of St. George’s cross gave the Flemish defenders the courage to repel the French cavalry is very small. The same about those who may remind that at the battle of Pevelen Mountain (72.000 French under their king against 80.000 Anglo-Flemish under the Flemish Guardian) the Flemish Guardian, who led the attack, was “lost in action”, so that there was afterwards a popular belief that he would come back “if Flanders would need him most”.

Posted by Braveheart on December 28, 2004, 05:26 AM | #

Little remark about the relativism of historical interpretation: French propaganda/diplomacy has meanwhile succeeded in convincing most historians that the Anglo-Flemish lost the battle at Pevelen Mountain (because the next day the French were masters of the battlefield), but how can you then explain that even today each year there is a procession in Bruges that commemorates the “Flemish victory”?

In fact the Anglo-Flemish were in majority composed out of the famous skilled Flemish workers organised in city militias and this in contradiction to the French, who apart from the nobility on horseback and some well-trained staff, were in majority spongers with only a basic military training. So after a day of fierce battling, wounding the king of France and taking the French standard, the Anglo-Flemish decided to break off the fight and stop the bleeding of their most profitable employees.

Offering the formal “victory” to France was also instrumental in starting negotiations that preserved Flanders independence…

Posted by a_reader on December 29, 2004, 10:46 AM | #

It never ceases to amaze me how Jewish groups like ADL feel they can tell that Catholic Church that they should not make someone a saint….something I don’t even think other Christian demoniations have done.
In the past few years they have demanded that the RCC not make Edith Stein a saint because she was born jewish, and the name escapes me, but the 19th century nun whose visions inspired mel gibson’s ‘the passion’
Likewise, they have also said that parts of the gospel are antisemitic and should be intrepeted in a certain way, and some have demanded that they be dropped from Christian teaching altogether (Daniel Goldhagen comes to mind). Could you imagine their reaction if we said similar things about the Talmud!

Posted by wintermute on December 29, 2004, 10:47 PM | #

Could you imagine their reaction if we said similar things about the Talmud!

Sadly, our response is limited to imagination, as nobody is going to discuss the contents of the Talmud in public any time soon.

As for the main post, yes, the massive devolution of American Protestantism into rabidly philosemitic variants, like Christian Zionism, or outright Judaic forms, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, Sacred Name, Hebrew Roots, Messianic Yahvists, Dominion Theonomists, and so forth, must be accounted as one of the greatest religious failures in history.

Given such a broad front of Judaizers, the slippage of many Protestants back into Judaism is not surprising at all.

It’s not like Catholicism is much better, of course. On many occasions, the Church has confirmed that the original covenant - foreskins for land, in case any have forgotten - is still in full force. This, in the teeth of abundant scriptural evidence to the contrary. Really, given the steadfastness with which Catholics and Protestants have held the line against Judaizers, Jesus might as well not have bothered coming at all.

Posted by Geoff Beck on December 29, 2004, 10:56 PM | #

Wintermute is up to date on American Protestantism trends. I agree entirely.

Furthermore American Protestants are sloughing-off any attachment to culture & soil and focusing in on: language, apologetics, and scriptural codes and such. This is pure Judaism, in my opinion.

Since I am somewhat anonymous, I must confess, I’ve entertained the idea of being RC. There is a Latin Mass, pre-Vatican II bunch in my town.  Oh, but my family - both sides - have always been Protestant.

Posted by wintermute on December 30, 2004, 12:43 AM | #

Since I am somewhat anonymous, I must confess, I’ve entertained the idea of being RC.

You really might want to look at Orthodoxy, Geoff. They have done a much better job at holding the line than either Catholics or Protestants.

Excellent resource from an Orthodox source against the worst of the Judaizers, the Noachides,  here.

A representative quote:

Now let’s say that the Talmudic Jews are right and salvation does mean Jewish hegemony and animal sacrifice. Is such a god worthy of our worship? I think not. Personally I would prefer to have my soul extinguished (the ultimate Jewish hell - all others are temporary) rather than serve such a tyranical god. God can be a tyrant in Judaism because he authors good and evil alike. The Talmudic Jewish god and the god of John Calvin are very similar and it is not hard to see why some who follow in these traditions are easy prey for the B’nei Noach. A good life on earth with an end here and now is preferable to eternity under the author of evil. Humanity itself can be greater than this false god. It is precicely the Calvinistic revival of the false Talmudic god that has been the cause of such irreligion in society. It is the abandonment of real Christianity which has led to society’s decline. Intuitively one knows such a god is not worthy of reverence and worship. Without an alternative, man has fallen into materialism.

Take the above quote and article as a sort of spiritual yardstick. If some group can match it, then they might be trustworthy. Otherwise, they’re probably headed in the direction of complete Judaization.

Good luck.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on December 30, 2004, 07:15 AM | #

Russian Orthodox?

I love Dostoevsky, especially Alyosha in “The Brothers Karmazov”.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 30, 2004, 12:54 PM | #

Off-topic but Karamazov is on-line here:-
http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/library/karamazov.txt

Alyosha’s book is Book V11.

The website is the leading Dostoevsky resource on the net:-
http://www.kiosek.com/dostoevsky/index.html

I enjoyed The Devils more than Karamazov.  I still consider Dostoevsky the finest psychologist, in a natural sense, that ever wrote fiction.

Posted by wintermute on December 30, 2004, 04:06 PM | #

I enjoyed The Devils more than Karamazov

Agreed. The Devils is incandescent. Its study of the psychological type of our opponent is matchless.

We ignore Dostoevsky the prophet at our peril, just as he was ignored in his time.

What do I mean by this? Here are some excerpts from his writing on the world situation, 30 years prior to the revolution:

A familiar complaint:

“I know that in the world there is certainly no other people who would be complaining as much about their lot, incessantly, after each step and word of theirs—about their humiliation, their suffering, their martyrdom. One might think that it is not they who are reigning in Europe, who are directing there at least the stock exchanges and, therefore, politics, domestic affairs, the morality of the states…”

A precise prediction:

“...Now, how would it be if in Russia there were not three million Jews, but three million Russians and there were eighty million Jews—well, into what would they convert the Russians, and how would they treat them? Would they permit them to acquire equal rights? Would they permit them to worship freely in their midst? Wouldn’t they instead convert them into slaves? Worse than that: wouldn’t they skin them altogether? Wouldn’t they slaughter the Russians down to the last man, to the point of complete extermination, as they used to do with alien peoples in ancient times, during their ancient history?”

A penetrating diagnosis:

“And instead of raising, by its influence, the level of education, instead of increasing knowledge, generating economic fitness in the native population—instead of this the Jew, where he has settled, has still more humiliated and debauched the people; there humaneness was still more debased and the educational level fell still lower; there inescapable, inhuman misery, and with it despair, spread still more disgustingly. Ask the native population in our border regions: What is propelling the Jew—and hasd been propelling him for centuries? You will receive a unanimous answer: mercilessness. ‘He has been prompted so many centuries only by pitilessness for us, only by the thirst for our sweat and blood.’”

The pronouncement of doom:

“Now, what if somehow, for some reason, our rural society should disintegrate, the society that is protecting our poor native peasant against so many ills; what if, straightaway, the Jew and his whole kehillah should fall upon that liberated peasant—so inexperienced, so incapable of resisting temptation, and who up to this time has been guarded precisely by society? Why, of course, instantly this would be his end; his entire property, his whole strength, the very next day would come under the power of the Jew, and there would ensue such an era as could be compared not only with the era of serfdom but even with that of the Tartar yoke.”

When a true prophet speaks, we are always astonished by the precision of the prophecy. Exactly what described above did not occur under the brutal Jewish reign in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary? And can we blame Jews for hiding their actions, when “conservatives” seem more than eager to shush up victims and prophets alike? It seems plain that the villian in our little drama has recieved more than his share of aid from within our own encampment . . .

Does anyone besides myself think it odd that Jesus, Tacitus, Cicero, Kant, Voltaire, Goethe, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky . . . indeed, almost every great mind in our tradition, thinks and speaks the same doctrine concerning the Jews? Why do conservatives bother impressing the Canon on us if we are to ignore its most urgent and desperate warnings?

Posted by Guessedworker on December 30, 2004, 05:43 PM | #

Surely, the point is that Shakespeare’s art is timeless but his politics are temporal.  Why else is Richard III a hump-backed black-heart?

Shakespeare’s only gift to your argument is also an equivocal one, since the character develops as a suffering individual whose implacable hatred of Antonio is, in the event, more destructive of himself.  The audience knows that this is not a one-dimensional figure to whom they can respond in traditional yah-boo fashion.  And indeed Shylock is motivated not by ancient racial ambitions but by personal antipathy to Antonio and by the elopement of his only child with Lorenzo.

He does not support the weight of your argument.

With Dostoievsky you are on firmer ground.  Still, there are parallels.  Nineteenth-century Russia would become Lenin’s Judaized Soviet (until the nationalist Stalin got involved).  I consider it possible, even likely that Dostoievsky, writing four decades before the great upheaval, was swept away by the extraordinary currents of his own time - the temporality of politics again.

The truth is that most intelligent readers simply do not profit from dire assertions of the Dostoievsky/Pound variety.  They desire the space to think for themselves.  Probably, a few visits to Melanie Phillips Diary would achieve more than you ever dreamt in your wildest and most racially pure dreams.  Try any of these links.  Try them all.  I think you’ll agree Mel’s a lady with less temporality to her politics than a distinct hankering after the timeless.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000339.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000848.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000386.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000174.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000340.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000497.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000626.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000339.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000232.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000387.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000295.html

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000387.html

Now, Wintermute, any chance of sticking to the subject of the post from here on?

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on December 30, 2004, 05:55 PM | #

Wintermute does a wonderful line in judenhass drivel. I am amazed that he tries to defend his hatred of jews in such a wonderful pseudo intellectual style. I am sure Nazi theorists would have approved.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 30, 2004, 06:35 PM | #

Still, Andrew, there is an extraordinarily serious issue to consider in amongst all this.  You use the phrase Judenhass.  But Jews tend to a powerful abhorrence of Christianity.  The Talmud says what the Talmud says about Christ and about gentiles (who are fools to buy the Judenhass line - it’s a two-way street).

I’m puzzled by your reverence for Jewishness and/or Judaism.  Are you a convert by any chance?  You drop many small hints - sometimes you are positively anti-gentile.  Whats the score?

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on December 30, 2004, 06:39 PM | #

Um, actually no, I am neither Christian nor Jew. I believe I could be described as either a heathen or a pagan or better yet a deist. That does not mean that I cannot see judenhassery (sic) when it exists. I am not, nor ever have been “anti-gentile”. How dare you suggest such a thing.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 30, 2004, 06:58 PM | #

Certainly didn’t mean to offend a fellow RWB!  But I’ve only ever seen you work one side of the street.  Me, too, of course but it’s the opposite side.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on December 30, 2004, 07:03 PM | #

I could be described as either a heathen or a pagan or better yet a deist.

I think your not being honest, Mr. Dodge. I’ve yet to meet any self-described pagan or deist that has seriously explored epistemology, most are lapsed Christians that want to escape from the burdon of their history and their ancestor’s faith.

Now, in this post, I was critical of the trend in American Protestantism to logochamy, or what Matthew Arnold called “Hebraicism”.

But these Protestants are justifying their faith and seeking God. I respect them for that, similarly for Jews ( though I am very suspicious of that class).

These so-called pagans are just phoneys.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on December 30, 2004, 07:08 PM | #

Ah so I am a phone,y because I dont describe myself as Christian or Jew. I am neither, in fact I describe myself generally as a deist (in fact it is my bio for my book(s)) however most people do not know what that means.

I think its fairly certain that I am not a Christian as I deny the divinity of Christ…rather a main tenet of Christianity wouldn’t you say?

Posted by wintermute on December 30, 2004, 07:38 PM | #

And indeed Shylock is motivated not by ancient racial ambitions but by personal antipathy . . .

SHYLOCK: I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,
Even there where merchants most do congregate.

The Merchant of Venice. Act i. Sc. 3

GW,

We must be careful not to let our personal desires to exonerate the Jews to lead us into false witness regarding the Bard. May I recommed Harold Bloom’s (a Jew, if you’re wondering) discussion of the play to you. He seems more clear on S’s meaning than you are.

I will reply to the rest of your erudite and elegant avoidances of the situation at hand as time allows. I am sorry you find my amplification of The Devils to be insufficiently topical. I think collapsing Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Dostoevsky all do have a relevant nexus, and that your mention of D’s fine study of the “ogres of subversion” did in fact lend itself to exactly to the sort of supplementation which I provided.

Andrew -

You are using insults which you don’t understand. Did you have some substantial disagreement with Dostoevsky’s assessment of your people? Or with his accurate prediction of what they would do after they successfully wrenched power from Whites?

I thought not. All that is left you is hand waving, as no reasoned objection is possible.

If you intend to persue hand waving as discourse, may I suggest a more careful study of guessedoworker? His diversions are at least artful, while your own dodges are sorely wanting . . .

Finally, Judenhass and telling the truth about your obnoxious race are two entirely different things, though your Tribe is busy trying to conflate them through the imposition of “hate” laws, like the ones that gw is currently suffering under.

Here is a member of your Tribe agitating for the destruction of free speech forever, just yesterday in the Washington Times.

Your landsmen have already silenced the speech of Europeans, as a sort of halfway house on the way to their complete eradication. Not only will you not succeed here, but open discussion of what you are attempting here, and what you have succeded in enacting elsewhere, will be your undoing.

Posted by Geoff M. Beck on December 30, 2004, 09:31 PM | #

Andrew Dodge:

Deist? The last man that was thought, by some, to be a deist was Thomas Jefferson, though even that is disputed.

Really, you are a deist? Isn’t that like saying you’re a Copernican, or something like that?

Well, ok, you’re deist. That’s fine. No harm done.

Posted by DissidentMan on December 31, 2004, 01:11 AM | #

Wintermute,
some creepy ideas expressed in that column you found. Although it is typical for newspaper writers not to choose their headlines, the headline seems to suggest that the “root cause of terrorism” is free speech. Obviously Mr. Fein isn’t *that* worried about middle eastern terrorists because how would the institution of hate speech laws in America effect Saudi Arabians and Egyptians entering america with visas? (that’s how the 9/11 hijackers got in). In the past much hay was made of Nazi book-burnings and Nazi scorn of free speech, but one hardly ever hears about that now, because that hay-making was just opportunism. The hay-makers either approve or disapprove of free speech depending on how whether it supports or conflicts with their mostly unspoken agenda. It reminds me of how, it became illegal for publicly funded universities to fire openly Marxist proffessors. The constitution says nothing about
requirements for public employees since it was understood that elected officials, once elected by the electorate, were to choose employees in accordance with the wishes of the public. This practice does not infringe on the first ammendment at all because it has nothing to do with the passage of any laws (at all). The idea is if that the public is supplying the gold, then the public gets to make the rules. But the constitition was since intepreted to mean that publicly funded universities could not fire people who were openly Marxist or even expell openly Marxist or anti-American students. This notion of having the public pay for people to spout Marxist hatred is the sort of “free speech” that Mr. Fein probably approves of, but it was not what Jefferson had in mind when he was talking about free speech. What Jefferson had in mind was the freedom of persons to enunciate political opinions without fear of legal retribution, and that’s exactly what Mr. Fein wants to do away with.

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on December 31, 2004, 01:46 AM | #

Could you imagine their reaction if we said similar things about the Talmud!
You do say similar things about the Talmud.

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on December 31, 2004, 02:07 AM | #

Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Messiah is supposed to take over the world and put it under Jewish authority.

So if Christians were to convert to Judaism, that would put enough of the world under Jewish authority that the prophecies Christians claim to believe in would be fulfilled.

Of course, we would then insist that the lion lie down with the lamb…

Posted by wintermute on December 31, 2004, 05:30 AM | #

Of course, we would then insist that the lion lie down with the lamb…

Is this a reference to the prophecies of Isaiah? How revealing for you to try to pass one of your people’s viler fantasies of psychotic hatred as an image of “world peace”: revealing and typical.

An expanded version of the promises in that book, as recounted by John Hartung in his important essay Love Thy Neighbor: The Evolution of In-Group Morality

Isaiah 14:2 And the [the Jewish] peoples will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them in the LORD’s land as male and female slaves...

Isaiah 45:14 Thus says the LORD: “The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over to you and be yours, they shall follow you; they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying: ‘God is with you only, and there is no other, no god besides him

Isaiah 60:1-12 Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you your gates shall be open continually; day and night they shall not be shut; that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, with their kings led in procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste

The enslavement of the whole wide world and “merchandise” besides: what could be more prototypically Jewish?

Other than your attempt to pass off the above as an example of Jewish large-heartedness and good intentions, I mean.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 31, 2004, 06:53 AM | #

Wintermute,

Whilst I am an advocate of free speech, and this is a blog where anyone can advance a reasoned case, I am also an upholder of the common standards of civility.  Talk of an “obnoxious race” and “psychotic hatred” does not advance your argument in the eyes of reasonable men and, obviously, does not meet the standards of civility to which reasonable men aspire.

Your contributions here are welcome - indeed, your offering on the “Bored Educators” thread was as good as any comment I have read anywhere.  But you will help us both if you can keep sight of that one simply rule.

Just a word on the Bard in Venice ...

Shylock is most pointedly not drawn as the archetypal villainous Jew of popular medieval supposition.  The Merchant is a work of deep ambiguity, and accordingly Shylock is sinned against as much as sins, and emerges as a man of flesh and blood - though as you point out, still a Jew.

Consider for a moment Shakespeare’s exploration of perfectly motiveless malignity in Iago.  A playwright who can sustain the belief of the audience thus has no need to draw a second Barabus, a propos his dramatic predecessor’s creation.  Shylock was a challenge to Elizabethan audiences as he is to us today precisely because he is more than our mechanical nature will easily permit.

Last point: Andrew Ian Dodge has informed us that he is not Jewish, which is all I need to know on the matter.  I am yet to get a handle on Andrew’s apparent anti-racism.  When earlier this year I was IP-banned (along with Charles Copeland) by Perry de Havilland at Samizdata, Andrew was one of the twenty or so commenters who took it upon themselves to pour scorn on my head.

However, Andrew is as welcome here as you.  I just wish he would take the time to explain himself more fully - as I wish you would explain yourself more cautiously.

Posted by Mark Richardson on December 31, 2004, 07:47 PM | #

This kind of focus on the Jewish influence would only begin to make sense if Gentile whites were healthy-minded conservatives wanting to defend their own traditions and were being held back by other ethnic groups.

But this is clearly not the case. It is our very own political class which is committed to the tenets of liberalism. This is our great problem, rather than the influence of other groups.

We aren’t innocent victims in any of this. It’s we who have to repent of what we have done. We have to break with our own unhealthy political orthodoxy.

Somehow, we keep avoiding this task. We pretend that the problems are caused by some other form of liberalism rather than our own, or we think there are non-political forces conspiring against us.

When there are so few genuine conservatives in our midst, how could we expect things to be anything other than what they are?

Posted by Geoff Beck on January 01, 2005, 05:16 PM | #

This post is being commented on by a Jewish Newsgroup. The comments are few, but interesting.

While looking over the group, I noticed an advertisement - not affiliated with the newsgroup - a “Christian” pastor is encouraging Jews to remain faithful to their heritage.

More dispensationalist non-sense.

http://www.israelsdestiny.com/free_book.cfm

The newsgroup is here

Posted by Svigor on January 01, 2005, 05:55 PM | #

I think its fairly certain that I am not a Christian as I deny the divinity of Christ…rather a main tenet of Christianity wouldn’t you say?

So did Arius, but I don’t think Arian Christianity is an oxymoron.

In the past much hay was made of Nazi book-burnings and Nazi scorn of free speech, but one hardly ever hears about that now, because that hay-making was just opportunism.

As I understand it, the Nazi-book burning occured what, once?  Funny that Indy and Dad should happen along just then…

You do say similar things about the Talmud.

He meant in public discourse, in politics, institutions, and academia - obviously.

Talk of an “obnoxious race” and “psychotic hatred” does not advance your argument in the eyes of reasonable men and, obviously, does not meet the standards of civility to which reasonable men aspire.

I agree with your characterization of the term “obnoxious race,” and disagree with that of “psychotic hatred.”  WM perhaps misattributed it (to modern Jewry rather than Judaism itself), but the term is accurate.  It’s an apt description of Classical Judaism’s mores towards the other.

This kind of focus on the Jewish influence would only begin to make sense if Gentile whites were healthy-minded conservatives wanting to defend their own traditions and were being held back by other ethnic groups.

That’s nonsense.  A focus on the JQ is in no way dependent on it being the only problem.  Part of the problem is itself a taboo on the JQ and a non-Jewish (I despise that word, given its derogatory meaning) inability to criticize Jewry, at all, on any level.

It is our very own political class which is committed to the tenets of liberalism. This is our great problem, rather than the influence of other groups.

Again, part of the problem is the intellectual death penalty that looms over any discussion of the issue.  On one hand we have those who feel free to blame the Jews, and consequently they are free to go too far.  On the other we have the rest, who are unable to blame Jews for anything, even when they’re obviously guilty.  The problem is that the latter are forbidden from honestly examining the issues raised by the former, which is no doubt the way Jews (in the main) prefer things.  I’m of the mind each camp has it partly right.  The question is not “if,” but “how much,” “why,” etc.

We aren’t innocent victims in any of this. It’s we who have to repent of what we have done. We have to break with our own unhealthy political orthodoxy.
This is true, as is much of your post with the exception of your central point.  I fail to see why we must be perfect before we can criticize Jews.

Somehow, we keep avoiding this task. We pretend that the problems are caused by some other form of liberalism rather than our own, or we think there are non-political forces conspiring against us.

When there are so few genuine conservatives in our midst, how could we expect things to be anything other than what they are?

The point many critics of Jewry (like me) would like understood is that Jewry is a force contributing to the problem to which you refer.  Again, “how much” becomes the question, but it’s verboten to answer or ask.

Posted by Svigor on January 01, 2005, 05:57 PM | #

(I despise that word, given its derogatory meaning)
That should read, ” (I despise word “gentile,” given its derogatory meaning)

Posted by Guessedworker on January 01, 2005, 06:39 PM | #

Svigor,

The point about many critics such as you - but not, I hasten to say, you yourself - is that the restorative balance is too often taken too far.  I understand that it galls WN’s when Conservatives hang everything on the left.  Equally, it galls Conservatives when WN’s hang everything on Jewry.

The middle way which you propose is a good way.  But it is not yet serviceable and must be made wider.  At present too many Conservatives cannot pass down it on grounds of taste and/or self-censorship.  Too many WN’s cannot or will not do so either - in many of the latter cases, I suspect, because they are German-Americans attempting, first and foremost, to overthrow the national shame of their ancient homeland.  They admit of no compromise, are aggressively anti-English and, by extention, anti-Conservative.

I believe that open discussion will tend to resolve the Conservatives’ dilemmas, particularly self-censorship.  But the Linderian Teuts look to me as though they are already getting out of this what they want, which is to vent their anger.

Posted by Svigor on January 01, 2005, 09:17 PM | #

The point about many critics such as you - but not, I hasten to say, you yourself - is that the restorative balance is too often taken too far.

I agree. 

I understand that it galls WN’s when Conservatives hang everything on the left.  Equally, it galls Conservatives when WN’s hang everything on Jewry.

To harp further on the Zeitgeist; Conservatives get to vent their spleens about what galls them from on high, while WNs are condemned to the fringes of the Internet.

The middle way which you propose is a good way.  But it is not yet serviceable and must be made wider.  At present too many Conservatives cannot pass down it on grounds of taste and/or self-censorship.  Too many WN’s cannot do so either - in many cases, I suspect, because they are German-Americans attempting, first and foremost, to overthrow the national shame of their ancient homeland.  They admit of no compromise, are aggressively anti-English and, by extention, anti-Conservative.

I believe that open discussion will tend to resolve the Conservatives’ dilemmas, particularly self-censorship.  But the Linderian Teuts look to me as though they are already getting out of this what they want, which is to vent their anger.

One thing you may be overlooking is the fact that the nature of the taboo is such that the population willing to forego it (or any taboo) naturally tends to be disproportionately anti-social. 

(Digression: this is a huge part of why I take such exception to the incessant guilt-by-association arguments vs. my WNism.  What’s worse is that there’s such an obvious double-standard involved - Democrats don’t have to answer for dead Vietnamese babies or slavery)

Conversely, Conservatives are without a doubt unwilling to express publicly whatever critical feelings about Jewry they almost certainly have.

Thus, we are left with a narrow middle road.

Maybe the fact that I am an American of distant English extraction (even if racially Germanic, like many) contributes to my insistence on the middle road.  (more likely it’s my insistence on strictly adhering to factual bases) That isn’t to say that I don’t champion the shamelessly, incessantly, tiresomely demonized Germans from time to time.

By the way, any site owners reading this might want to correct a minor issue with the PHP code regarding posting; when previewing, there is no field in which to “submit the word you see below,” and I don’t think it carries over if filled in on the previous page.  So, a poster has to use his back button and so on.

Posted by Default User on January 03, 2005, 02:54 AM | #

That isn’t to say that I don’t champion the shamelessly, incessantly, tiresomely demonized Germans from time to time.

The Germans are big enough to take care of themselves - they don’t need foreign “champions” to patronize them