Not all Majority Rights Advocates are Antisemites

Posted by JB on July 03, 2006, 10:01 PM | #

if you insist on turning the other cheek here’s more antisemitism for you:

White House to Chabad: Bush won’t press Israel

http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=3341

The Bush administration will not force Israel into unilateral concessions, top White House officials told representatives of the Lubavitch movement.

Chabad-Lubavitch culminated a two-day commemoration of the 12th anniversary of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s death with meetings Wednesday with Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff. Both men are Jewish.

Bolten and other White House officials assured Chabad representatives that President Bush would never force Israel to concede territory to the Palestinians without a quid pro quo, participants said.

Bolten said Bush would follow Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s lead in deciding what concessions to support.

Posted by JB on July 03, 2006, 10:03 PM | #

David Duke talks about this Chabad celebration at the WH :

http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/dukeradio060703.mp3

Posted by Sally on July 03, 2006, 10:57 PM | #

JJR, love your writings. But can you tie this essay and its theme into “majority rights”? What does your topic have to do with “majority rights”? Thanks.

Posted by AD on July 04, 2006, 12:36 AM | #

You’re not a Majority Rights advocate. Your positions on immigration and national identity are to the left of the average Australian. You can bang on about IQ all you like, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re still in favour of ethnically non-discriminatory immigration. This puts you at odds with mainstream thought. You might be “right wing” compared to the traitor class, but you’re still a raving lefty to Joe Blow on the street.

Regarding the “Jewish Question”(which you more than anyone else bring up), your illogical arguments make you the “antisemites” wet dream. This probably comes from all your years studying dress-up “Nazis”.....It’s not exactly ample preparation for going up against people who have read Kevin MacDonald. Laurence Auster actually has an argument against it. Your response to getting intellectually arse kicked is to fall back on Frankfurt School arguments about “group judgments”; then start new topics showing yourself to have a Christ complex whilst labelling your intellectual superiors “fruitcakes”.

Get this through your sunbaked Queenslander head: most organised Jewry is actively hostile to our ethnic interests. There are also some renegade Jews, who go against the grain of organised Jewry and are trying to lead it in a different direction. This isn’t an “opinion”, it is a demonstratable fact. It is acknowledged by everyone, including Jews themselves. If you can’t accept this first fact, every time you argue the issue you are legitimising the more extreme forms of “antisemitism”.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 12:47 AM | #

“...then start new topics showing yourself to have a Christ complex whilst labelling your intellectual superiors “fruitcakes”.”

Yes, I thought I just read JJR compare himself to Christ, but I didn’t trust my eyes without a second opinion.

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on July 04, 2006, 12:50 AM | #

I’ve been lurking on this thread until now, but I want to second the motion. Can Dr. Ray explain how his comments relate to the purpose of majority rights?

I’m a college student in Nebraska, but I’m able to follow logical reasoning, and I don’t see the connection.

Posted by Al Ross on July 04, 2006, 01:17 AM | #

JJR’s comparing himself to one third of old Yahweh reminded me of the Edinburgh advocate who, in the course of defending a political dissenter client before the Draconian judge Lord Braxfield, declaimed, “My Lord, please remember that our saviour Jesus was also a dissenter”.  To which Braxfield replied, “Aye, and much good it did him, He was hanged”.

Posted by Jon on July 04, 2006, 01:48 AM | #

Anti-Semitism is wrong. I know many people who are born Jewish or converted to Judaism. What are you going to do? Gas them?

Posted by James Bowery on July 04, 2006, 01:53 AM | #

I think I have JJR figured out:  He realizes that philosemitism is going to unravel all governments and institute anarchy once the US invades Iran, and this is the way to reset the political structure to enable libertarian principles take root once again.

Or maybe he thinks it is going to instigate Armageddon and enable the rule of the Messiah who, of course, will be a really powerful Jew who will patronize the philosemites.

Posted by AD on July 04, 2006, 02:29 AM | #

Anti-Semitism is wrong. I know many people who are born Jewish or converted to Judaism. What are you going to do? Gas them?

No, but when a group like the NSW Board of Jewish Deputies attempts to prosecute someone like Andrew Fraser(or Pauline Hanson), we shouldn’t be afraid to say that it is an act of ethnic hostility. We can’t say it’s a ‘political attack’, because the Board of Jewish Deputies has both right and left wingers.

Andrew Fraser is speaking out against race-replacement as a white Australian, the NSW Board of Jewish Deputies wants to shut him down; because they are for race-replacement as they have a perceived interest in reducing the percentage of whites in Australia’s ethnic make-up.

The same would apply to Islamic groups, ‘enriched’ Christian groups or whoever. And we wouldn’t want to “gas” them either.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand such a simple, straight forward, totally moderate position.

JJR isn’t interested in debunking wacky conspiracy theories, he just doesn’t want to call a spade a spade, even when it’s right in front of his face. His arguments do righteous Jews no favours.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 04, 2006, 02:30 AM | #

I very rarely use the term, “anti-semite”.  It is a slurring strategy designed to stop the host population from resisting Jewish ethnic interests.  Its use has become so widespread and so mechanical it has entered into the canon of presumed truths in Goebellesian fashion.

Actually, there is greater reason why we “majorityites” should fear philo-semites.  In matters of ethnic conflict it is judicious to err on the side of caution.  Philo-semitism is fatally uncritical.  It does not begin to recognise that a group strategy is at work among the objects of its regard, and completely consents to the central thrust of that strategy, namely that we should believe not only that we have no interests of our own but that Jewish interests are our interests.

Jewish interests are Jewish interests, and nobody else’s.

Here are some questions that John might like to consider:-

1) Can he identify any group interests of an ethnic nature pertaining to us?

2) Can he identify any group interests of said nature pertaining to Jews?

3) Can he identify any political or social movement or philosophy invented and evangelised by Jews which unequivocally serves our group interests?

4) Can he identify even one occasion on which Jews have argued through the offices of their activist organisations, politicians, journalists, etc for the selfless pursuit of our group interests?

It comes down to this: Genuine majorityites are philo-European first, second and always.  We don’t love or hate anybody else, and we don’t have to adopt their group interests to avoid being slurred.

Posted by On Holliday on July 04, 2006, 06:09 AM | #

Yes, John, I wonder how many of our participants and readers would judge your contributions against those of the “fruitcakes” that have left the blog.

Yes, indeed, the blog’s better than ever.  In fact, I invite the reader to compare the posts of today with those of a year ago, to observe with their own eyes this alleged increase in quality.

“that they were severing all contact with this blog as a result of my heresies.  A major claim was that I was driving “nationalist” readers away by my attacks on antisemitism.”

I’m still waiting for someone officially associated with this blog - apart from Steve Edwards who has shown admirable honesty - to have the honesty to state the reasons people leave. 

Of course though it fits into the pattern:  when those who leave openly state the reasons for leaving, their comments are completely ignored, and the lies are repeated.

Ironic, isn’t it?

“Despite my depredations, readership of this blog continues to increase.”

One reason for increased readership is that one of the “fruitcakes” advised Jared Taylor to link to this execrable blog from his own website - which I now heartily regret doing.

Maybe I should tell him to link to GNXP instead.

” And I have been talking to antisemites for over 40 years so I know the topic well.”

And informing on them, which you know well also.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 04, 2006, 08:07 AM | #

JW,

I know of very few MR regulars who could be fairly described as anti-semites.  Geoff would be proud to acknowledge the label, I am sure.  You, though, are not anti anything or anyone in the sense that it implies, and neither am I.  John is waving words around far too freely.  A little academic rigour would not go amiss.

I thought I had answered that question of yours, btw.  But you then went on to say, “It is the nature of the arguments, or what passes for them, the juvenile postings, the childish ‘logic’, and, perhaps worst of all, the tendency to completely ignore counter-arguments, with the endless repeating of the same factually incorrect and illogical comments over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.”

JJR himself has referred to the insubstantial and emotional arguments which pass for criticism on the left.  For me, criticising EC ethnic particularism from a libertarian individualist position is damned by the same lack of substance.  Before starting MR I commented on libertarian blogs, putting the arguments for race-realism in a respectful way and receiving in return disrespectful and empty replies.  We saw it again in the recent fun and games provoked by Alex’s visit to Samizdata.

There has to be an explanation somewhere for this interesting phenomenon, and I wonder whether it lies in the artificiality of individualist prescriptions.  In the face of Nature, of what is, all argument to the contrary is facile.  To put that another way, instinctualism is a royal basis for understanding life while reason, which is essentially unstable, is no more than the hand-maiden ... useful but not prime.

As a libertarian in a nest of ethnicity groupies the challenge facing JJR is to falsify the instinctual - and, if that can’t be done, to prove beyond question that reason is, as leftists always claim, the superior faculty for objectifying reality.

I am sad that you quit us, JW.  It wasn’t necessary to allow your frustrations with JJR - or Freidrich Braun, AA, Desmond and JR - to get in the way of what you were so successfully doing.  There is always opposition - some well-conceived, some not - and the job of talking our people out of collective suicide is never done.  It has to be re-stated a thousand times by each of us.  It is never just done the once.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 04, 2006, 08:40 AM | #

Many people who write to me ask why I blog on Majority Rights when MR is so rife with antisemitism.

First, that’s a disgustingly racist statement; you should be ashamed of yourself. To quote Israel Shamir,

The very emphasis on “anti-Semitism” is disgustingly racist, as if it were worse than racism against anyone else. People who decry “anti-Semitism,” instead of “racism” or “ethnic-prejudice,” are actually saying that there is something really special - and particularly bad - about discrimination against this one particular group. In other words, they are racists.

Second, how dare you presume we all share your racist view that Jews - and only Jews - are immune from group criticism. Next time you spout your racist filth remember to ALSO inform us of the racial theories that underlie such pathetic race-veneration. Is it because they’re “God’s chosen” or something? Unless you FIRST give us the racial theory AND we then agree with it, DONT presume we share your racist view.

Third, Jews account for 2% of the US population yet 33% of millionaires, 45% of billionaires, 50% of Wall Street executives etc. To suggest their agenda is not central to US politics is simply delusional. Arguing they should be ignored is as ludicrous as suggesting aristocrats should be ignored in an analysis of medieval politics or whites should be ignored in an analysis of apartheid South Africa. Get a grip already.

the Christian thing to do with those who err is not to ban them, jail them etc., but to talk and reason with them.

Lies. You studiously avoid responding to my rebuttals because they expose your anti-white race hatred as well as your sickening hatred toward your own children. You know EXACTLY what I’m talking about but here’s a sample reminder anyway:

Asians practice racial favoritism (ethnic solidarity) as well. If you object to it, you will be persecuted for “racism”. If you engage in it yourself in order to compete, you will be persecuted for “racism”. This systemic advantage means that at the end of the day your children will be mopping their floors and cleaning their toilets. (In both cases the persecutions would be led by Jewish organizations, something they openly take pride in.)

All we ask for is equal rights for our children - that either everyone be allowed to engage in racial favoritism (aka ethnic solidarity) or everyone be denied. Yet your sickening anti-white race hatred not only keeps you from acknowledging our equal rights demands but has you ignoring the effects it has on your own children. There is no other explanation for this but pathological hatred for them. None.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

And, as ever, there were many calls to ban me from posting on this blog.

I have defended your presence on this blog and will continue to do so. I believe it is important to have white uncle toms around whose simultaneous reverence for master and hatred for their own people and children can be highlighted and exposed. The issue the other posters have with you is your routine practice of running away like a chicken from well argued rebuttals only to play dumb and repost the same argument again while pretending that nothing has registered in your fact-impermeable mind. You are acting in bad faith - that’s the issue they have with you. If you lose the argument, admit it or shut up. That’s what we would do and that’s what we expect from you.

Some posters have asked me to stop holding back and that’s why my tone is becoming aggressive. If you don’t answer to any of my rebuttals YET AGAIN, I won’t play nice anymore. This is your last warning.

Posted by On Holliday on July 04, 2006, 08:57 AM | #

GW, to be honest, I don’t see how your latest comment addresses the issue at all.  The issue is that there be minimum standards for posts, comments (at least, comments by bloggers), and arguments here, and that, for example, John Ray routinely misses reaching those standards (which both Steves, E and P, agree with).

I personally have had enough, and it seems that the two Steves are very capable of addressing the John Ray problem themselves.

In my case, I simply wished to correct the misconception that dissent here is due to a close-minded intolerance to John Ray’s politics.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 09:25 AM | #

I wouldn’t actually care if we swapped John Ray for a leftist like Alexander Cockburn (obviously, AC wouldn’t take the gig, but this is just a hypothetical). At least Cockburn is an honest interlocutor. John Ray, on the other hand, is a wilful disinformer, a neo-con gatekeeper, and a redirect agent. That is to say, a snake oil salesman.

And don’t pretend this is about “ideology”. Nobody has a problem with Martin Hutchinson around here (someone I do wish would hang around more often), despite the fact he is often considered a tad “milque-toast”. You see, Martin is above all a superb writer, a first class thinker, and an honest operator - all qualities that John Ray does not possess.

So I think GW should cease objectively defending John Ray’s behaviour and take the necessary action to clean up the blog whenever he purposely soils it: John Ray is a dissembling shill, who has been repeatedly caught out for his deliberate dishonesty, and our patience for him is beginning to run out.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 04, 2006, 09:29 AM | #

That’s it, this is simply too much. How many posts have we had from JJR on precisely the same subject? I can see three on the sidebar, plus one by GW directly relating to them.

As for the arguments deployed!- First, we hear about JJR having been a dog breeder, but not working class or a smoker. This somehow proves that Jews cannot collectively have a negative influence on the West.

He then goes on to tell us that criticises blacks whilst respecting Sowell. Why he doesn’t approach Jews in the same way remains a mystery.

Finally, in the most bizarre argument to date, he tells us that, seeing us JC supped with sinners…um, ergo something or other. I suspect that the whole point of that argument was to impute Christ-like virtues to himself without seeming to. If so, it was an idiotic trick, fit perhaps for the polite, over-awed subcon students he usually has to deal with. The alternative, that he truly believes himself to be akin to the saviour and God’s (or G-d’s) son, well it simply blows my mind, atleast.

So, anyway, JJR, let me repeat my question to you and please answer it this time. Which of your posts (i.e. posts actually written by you) are serious?

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 09:38 AM | #

“I suspect that the whole point of that argument was to impute Christ-like virtues to himself without seeming to.”

He is deliberately insulting the intelligence of his audience. Which, in the world of written prose, is perhaps the lowest form of personal conduct.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 04, 2006, 09:54 AM | #

JW (to me): I simply wished to correct the misconception that dissent here is due to a close-minded intolerance to John Ray’s politics.

Alex (to JJR): Which of your posts (i.e. posts actually written by you) are serious?

Steve Edwards (to all): Nobody has a problem with Martin Hutchinson around here (someone I do wish would hang around more often), despite the fact he is often considered a tad “milque-toast”. You see, Martin is above all a superb writer, a first class thinker, and an honest operator - all qualities that John Ray does not possess.

Very well, three is a quorum.

Come on, John, the call is to give these guys respect and get beyond the labels, the received ideas, and produce original, penetrating analysis on the page.

It’s what we all aim for.  How about it?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 04, 2006, 10:33 AM | #

No, Fred, but John may say it is anti-semitic to impute to all individual Jews the qualities and motivations you ascribe to their group.  It then comes down to whether or not there are sufficient examples of Jews acting against their perceived ethnic interests for your collectivist precept to be invalid.  If the traffic is basically all heading along with ethnic interests, however, John’s individualist precept fails.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 04, 2006, 02:01 PM | #

As it happens, I think that, AS A GROUP, Jews are politically pernicious in the USA.  Their overwhelming Leftism shows that old fears overcome intelligence.

- John Ray, in this thread:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_joooos_and_the_folly_of_group_judgments/

So, JJR is himself an “anti-Semite” (according to those who matter), and this is simply a conversation amongst “anti-Semites” about the degree of their “anti-Semitism” (again, to those who matter).

Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on July 04, 2006, 02:33 PM | #

It seems to me that, as a matter of logic, Dr. Ray is engaged in one of two things.

First, he is merely baiting readers and posters with essays that do not have anything to do with majority rights. To respond to these essays is to play the ant while he plays the boy poking at the ant hill. Possibly he should just be shunned unless he has the courtesy to discuss how his concerns relate to majority rights.

Second, it may be that he is an idiot savant, a brilliant writer on one or two topics, and knows not how to insert his thoughts into an appropriate shape to conform to the dialectics of the discussion. In fact, he wrote an almost perfect postmodern essay at this head of this blog. Consider this, his essay was about his comments and his concerns only. It expressed a self-contained hermeneutically secure worldview existing only in reference to itself. That’s what professoring, real estate, judeocentrism, and an Asian spouse have driven him to. It’s not about us, his essay is about his essay. He lives in a hall of mirrors as do most postmodernists.

I’m holding back out of respect for the web master.

Posted by Josh on July 04, 2006, 05:04 PM | #

Hey guys.  Enjoy this site.  Fred Scrooby asked why all Jews (he italicised ‘all’, so it seems that he acknowledges no exceptions) want race-replacement of Euro’s.  I was wondering, what about Lawrence Auster, Michael Savage, and all the guys at the Jewish Task Force?  The JTF guys are very and explicitly pro-White Christian Gentile, for example, and are very energetic in defending us and our interests.  Auster is great too, IMHO.  Thanks.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 05:09 PM | #

It’s not about us, his essay is about his essay. He lives in a hall of mirrors as do most postmodernists.

I’m holding back out of respect for the web master.

LOL!

It’s the cold truth, but I ain’t holding back.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 05:17 PM | #

Can anyone imagine going to a place like Switzerland and saying to yourself, “What this place needs is to be forcibly transformed into a Negro country”?  Can any sane person imagine that?

It certainly is an advanced form of psychosis, to desire ethnic cleansing on a mere whim.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 05:28 PM | #

By the way - in case anybody seriously thinks John Ray is a “majority rights advocate”, read the following two posts:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/illegal_immigration/

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/illegality_may_be_a_good_way_to_filter_immigrants/

Posted by john ray on July 04, 2006, 05:37 PM | #

Minority group organizations do of course act primarily to support the interests of their group as they see it.  Jews are no different in that.  Majority groups have no similar organizations because MOST of the organizations in our society are their groups.

Asking minority groups to act in favour of some other group is loopy and Jewish groups do not usually do so.  Big suprise!

Jews are unusually influential by comparison with their numbers but that is because they are smarter and work harder—as their high achievements even in societies that discriminate against them shows

In objecting to Jewish influence you are objecting to intelligence and drive

Posted by Steven Palese on July 04, 2006, 05:51 PM | #

Majority groups have no similar organizations because MOST of the organizations in our society are their groups.

Nope. It’s because Jewish groups take the lead in PERSECUTING whites who express or defend white interests.

In objecting to Jewish influence you are objecting to intelligence and drive

Nope. We object to PERSECUTION:

According to The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger and Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment by J.J. Goldberg (currently the editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward), U.S. Jews represent 33% of millionaires, 45% of billionaires, 50% of Wall Street executives and so on thanks to their formidable ethnic solidarity.

This “formidable ethnic solidarity”, i.e. racial favoritism toward other Jews, is only one part of the Jewish success formula; the other part is preventing Whites from doing the same thing in order to avoid having to compete on equal terms.

The Walt and Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby documents the methods used by Jewish groups to persecute their opponents, including blacklists and co-ordinated campaigns of intimidation designed to destroy careers and reputations. ([url=http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011]http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011)[/URL]. There are over 300 national Jewish organizations and 4000 foundations with a combined annual budget of $6 billion that form part of this co-ordinated network of persecution. ([url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html)[/URL].

The publications of Jewish organizations proudly claim credit for their leading roles in the witch hunts against White solidarity activists and their websites proudly display the trophy scalps of dead White rights organizations. ([url=http://www.adl.org]http://www.adl.org)[/URL]. For example, recently an assistant district attorney expressed concern that White people were becoming an endangered species. In response, Jewish organizations immediately incited a “racism” witch hunt against him. He was fired the very next day. ([url=http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/prosecutor_fire.php]http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/prosecutor_fire.php)[/URL].

For detailed case studies see: Favoritism for Them, Persecution for Us - How Two Percent Eat Half the Pie by Dennis Pasquino. One of many case studies describes the Wall Street racial favoritism behind Michael Eisner’s appointment as CEO of the Disney media conglomerate, how he replaced senior management with fellow Jews within months and how his victims were paralysed into silence for fear of “anti-Semitism” witch hunts against themselves and their families. Of course, if White executives engaged in similar racial favoritism toward fellow Whites they’d be persecuted for “racism”. As media critic Michael Medved has pointed out, “The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions.” (“Jews Run Hollywood. So What?,” Moment magazine, August 1996.)

Jewish hyper-competitiveness is entirely based on this dual persecution strategy of a) inciting witch hunts against Whites who object to Jewish racial favoritism toward other Jews (persecutions for “anti-semitism”) and b) inciting witch hunts against Whites who get uppity and think they too can engage in racial favoritism toward other Whites (persecutions for “racism”). If the playing field were level, Jews would not be hyper-competitive.

Now try again.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 06:07 PM | #

“Asking minority groups to act in favour of some other group is loopy and Jewish groups do not usually do so.”

Nobody has ever asked or expected the Jews to do anything but stand up for their own interests - instead, the commentators here have demanded that the native gentile elites stand up for their own people and their people’s interests.

The fact that you tried to dredge up this utterly feeble bait-and-switch, suggests that you have learned absolutely nothing. You still persist to insult the intelligence of our blog, because you are a worthless shill for the Establishment, who, I might add, basically couldn’t care less for your rather transparent efforts on their behalf.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 06:17 PM | #

JJR:

In objecting to Jewish influence you are objecting to intelligence and drive.

Let’s play that one again:

In objecting to Jewish influence you are objecting to intelligence and drive.

Okay, so we’ll just see what you’ve written before:

As it happens, I think that, AS A GROUP, Jews are politically pernicious in the USA.

I can only conclude, then, that you affirm that Jews are politically pernicious because you see their influence as negative, and yet you also oppose any objections to their pernicious influence. In short, you embrace malevolence.

For about the thousandth time, JJR has been caught out on his transparent duplicity. Why should anyone with an IQ above the mean (let alone a standard deviation or more above, as most MR commenters are) have to put up with such behaviour on their own frickin’ blog?

Tell me, what is your opinion of this, GW?

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 04, 2006, 06:51 PM | #

Never mind GW. I’ll tell you my opinion.

John Ray is a selfish, amoral, megalomaniacal sociopath, whose personal mission is to bring about the destruction of this blog as a serious forum for the defense of European culture. On reflection, having just read over some of his earlier posts, and a few of the more memorable comments threads, the only consistent theme of John Ray’s “thought”, to say nothing of his demeanour, is malignance.

He is an utter embarrassment to his co-bloggers, he is now almost universally reviled among the broader MR community, such that it is, and if you don’t take some serious action now, that is to say, by deleting his posts whenever he spouts odious garbage (or casting him from this blog entirely), then you stand to lose a lot more people than you already have.

Posted by john on July 04, 2006, 07:29 PM | #

I also think ray is a sociopath.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 04, 2006, 07:35 PM | #

Fred, there’s also Steven Steinlight:

The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demography - Reconsidering a Misguided Immigration Policy

However, I suggest you also read Fallon’s exposure of his underlying motives before you get too excited about him. You’ll understand exactly where these so-called allies are coming from:

Wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Posted by Steven Palese on July 04, 2006, 11:50 PM | #

I can’t believe this whole fuss started by JJR is spinning so far out of control. I just posted my leaflet on that thread at the Civic Platform. That should dispose of the uncle tom nonsense over there too.

I also offered to do custom versions of the leaflet for them. Needless to say that offer is open to MR too.

As I said above, Jews account for 2% of the US population yet 33% of millionaires, 45% of billionaires, 50% of Wall Street executives etc. To suggest their agenda is not central to US politics is simply delusional. Arguing they should be ignored is as ludicrous as suggesting aristocrats should be ignored in an analysis of medieval politics or whites should be ignored in an analysis of apartheid South Africa.

Time for everyone to wake up and smell the Judeo-fascism.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 05, 2006, 12:03 AM | #

Besides Daedalus is quite articulate and if he disagrees I bet he’ll actually debate - unlike someone else I could mention who is clearly too testicularly challenged to defend his posts.

Posted by Daedalus on July 05, 2006, 12:18 AM | #

SP,

I don’t deny the existence of the JQ. I’m not saying that everyone concerned about the JQ is an idiot, a nutbar, a fruitcake anti-semite (although such people certainly do exist, unfortunately, as we all know). I just don’t see the logic of “naming the Jew” to people who don’t care about their race. That doesn’t make any sense. It seems more reasonable to try to racialize whites first, and let them work out the logic of racialism for themselves.

Posted by Daedalus on July 05, 2006, 12:26 AM | #

Many people who write to me ask why I blog on Majority Rights when MR is so rife with antisemitism.  My reply is usually:  “Even Christ supped with sinners”.

Most . . . tactless . . . post . . . ever.

Posted by AD on July 05, 2006, 01:15 AM | #

I just don’t see the logic of “naming the Jew” to people who don’t care about their race. -Daedalus

“Naming the jew” usually happens here when an event is discussed which has the explicit involvement of a Jewish group. Beyond that, it is JJR doing his jew-baiting. For example, even mentioning that an Australian Jewish group was at the forefront of going after Professor Andrew Fraser is “anti-semitic” to JJR…..even though he himself was the one to put the press release on this site which explicitly states the involvement of the NSW Board of Jewish Deputies.

If we mention their obvious role, JJR would say(as he did above): In objecting to Jewish influence you are objecting to intelligence and drive.

So not only can we not “name the jew to people who don’t care about their race”(which i broadly agree with), but we can’t “name the jew” when a Jewish group is directly attacking us.

If that isn’t “fruitcake” territory, i don’t know what is.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 02:14 AM | #

Fred, the question I had was…why are you defending John Ray’s behaviour?

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 03:21 AM | #

“He’s brilliant, it can’t be denied”

Oh yes it can - he gets torn to shreds whenever he tries to take on the readership.

“he’s a gentleman, he’s a man not a wimp, he’s highly moral”

You must be reading a different blog then. John Ray is a mendacious twit.

Posted by Al Ross on July 05, 2006, 03:36 AM | #

JJR : “The Christian thing to do is….”

This from someone who, on more than one occasion, has denied being in possession of any religious beliefs.

Add hypocrisy to the charge sheet.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 04:09 AM | #

John Ray has played the Christian card before, and in a particularly disgusting way to boot.

Posted by john ray on July 05, 2006, 04:09 AM | #

LOL

Lots of fun there.  There would be none of that rage except that what I say is recognized as seriously threatening that cosy Judeophobic delusion and its simple explanation for everything.  It would be much harder to admit that the problem lies within our own Volk.  Old Adolf used the same explanation for the same reason.

Fred

Re:  “John Ray, by the way, as I typed that last comment I was listening to “Sleepers Awake!”

Bach’s “Sleepers Awake” is my favourite cantata
And thank you for your courageous defence of my character.

To support Fred’s view of me, I will reiterate something I have noted before:  I voted for Pauline Hanson a couple of times.  I voted for her in our last senate election in fact.  As a Queenslander I had the privilege of doing that.  Work that one out.  Pauline is a bit like the BNP, for those who know nothing of political arcana.  Which reminds me:  I have donated to the BNP.  How many others here have done that? 

Which brings us back to the point of my post:  Having realistic views about majority/minority relationships does NOT imply antisemitism.

Posted by Daedalus on July 05, 2006, 04:33 AM | #

It would be much harder to admit that the problem lies within our own Volk.

The problem is more white individualism than it is anything else.

Posted by On Holliday on July 05, 2006, 05:47 AM | #

“John Ray is a selfish, amoral, megalomaniacal sociopath, whose personal mission is to bring about the destruction of this blog as a serious forum for the defense of European culture. On reflection, having just read over some of his earlier posts, and a few of the more memorable comments threads, the only consistent theme of John Ray’s “thought”, to say nothing of his demeanour, is malignance.

He is an utter embarrassment to his co-bloggers, he is now almost universally reviled among the broader MR community, such that it is, and if you don’t take some serious action now, that is to say, by deleting his posts whenever he spouts odious garbage (or casting him from this blog entirely), then you stand to lose a lot more people than you already have.”

Well said, Steve.  It is fairly clear what your next step should be, isn’t it?

Yes, Fred, JJR is certainly brilliant.  You know, a certain individual here accused us JJR critics of “not reading JJR’s studies” which is why we attacked his conclusions.  Wrong.  I have read them, including that “stereotypes” article, and it is hard to describe the tragicomic shallowness of JJR’s “thought” in them - the man is an intellectual mediocrity in both his “work” and in his blogging.

Yes, JJR, majority people have their own organizations.  Hmm.  Can you name ONE prominent, establishment-accepted organization in America that promotes the ethnic group interests of European-derived white gentiles?

You see, JJR’s shallow mind confuses the fact that “organization X” has most of its members being white gentiles - individualistic, aracial (or anti-racial) persons like JJR himself - with an organization explicitely for the purpose of defending group rights.

Perhaps the libertarian Ray can ask people like Michael Regan the reason why such groups do not exist.

With respect to donating to the BNP, wealthy Ray may understand that those of us less financially well off may instead contribute to causes in our own nations (and let the Englishmen here contribute to the BNP), and we are not interested in discussing details of our activism on a blog whose predominant contributor is a self-admitted police informant.

Posted by On Holliday on July 05, 2006, 05:58 AM | #

GW: “Come on, John, the call is to give these guys respect and get beyond the labels, the received ideas, and produce original, penetrating analysis on the page.

It’s what we all aim for.  How about it?”

JJR’s usual response, completely ignore the arguments against his position and simply restate the same comments again and again and again:

“There would be none of that rage except that what I say is recognized as seriously threatening that cosy Judeophobic delusion and its simple explanation for everything.”

We have reached a point - is Steve listening? - that it really doesn’t matter what happens on this blog at this point.  That this nonsense has been allowed to continue for so long is indicative of some sort of deep, underlying problem, the ongoing appeasement of the simpleton JJR being just its most obvious manifestation.

I believe it is the whole conservative mindset; perhaps Pierce was right when he asserted that “conservatives cannot win.”

Posted by AD on July 05, 2006, 06:23 AM | #

There would be none of that rage except that what I say is recognized as seriously threatening that cosy Judeophobic delusion and its simple explanation for everything.

Who has said it is the “explanation for everything”? Who are you directing your argument at? Which posters make this site “rife” with antisemitism? Is Pauline Hanson an antisemite? Is Fred Scrooby an antisemite? Is the bible antisemitic? Andrew Fraser? Frank Salter? If i’m pro-Israel but anti-ADL am i antisemitic? If i only think about Jews when you bring them up, does that make you a judeophobic propagandist? If i fantasise about Natalie Portman am i not antisemitic?

Can you please cite examples of “judeophobia”. Not from your “Nazi” mates of yore; but direct examples from MR that you consider antisemitic.

People are frustrated because you don’t even have an argument. You just say “judeophobia”(implying irrational fear) and don’t back it up. It’s like one of those leftists who screech “islamophobia” at Tim Blair’s site under different accounts then flee.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 06:28 AM | #

This is no longer a respectable blog - it is a spittoon. It has turned into a low-grade online tabloid which - although I used to respect it and was thoroughly honoured to be invited to join last year - is really beginning to approach its use-by-date. All I can really say is this - if you truly want to see MR become a total laughing stock, then don’t change a thing, GW; you’re doing a superb job.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 06:46 AM | #

Say, here’s an editorial idea for GW. How about we change the template of this blog to make it more relevant and up to date? I’m not saying the current design is bad, but I just think we could jazz it up a little.

We could, for example, place a picture of George W Bush in the top left hand corner of the front page of MR - how about that idea GW? It might not be aesthetically pleasing, but I think it would be the ideal symbol to encapsulate the political, ideological, and moral nature of this blog, and its editorial policies.

Posted by AD on July 05, 2006, 07:00 AM | #

By commenting, i know i’m encouraging the baiting. So from this moment on, i will stop. No arguing will make a difference. Hopefully the problem will self correct if enough people do the same. I also hope JJR will eventually focus on blogging endearing anecdotes about trips around town with the missus….which he does very well(no sarcasm).

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 07:11 AM | #

I don’t know about you, AD, but although the immediate victim of my abuse is John Ray, my true target is Guessedworker. This is actually all for GW’s consumption, and if he isn’t going to turn around this joke of an establishment by adopting the filtering measures we’ve suggested, then I’ll happily bid adieu.

Posted by Ray of Sunshine (out of my arse) on July 05, 2006, 07:17 AM | #

Once again I seem to have stirred up a hornets’ nest purportedly about Jews or Asiatics or something but not really… it’s really about me, isn’t it? You know: I, Ego, the Great Cham. You guys just can’t stop talking about me, can you?

Some of you don’t like Me. Others do. That’s cool, because it’s the traffic that counts, not the conclusions. Majorityrights. com, when all is said and done, ought to be and usually is about me. You know: the Great I Am, Mr Wonderful, the Guy for All Seasons. Admit it, that’s what you like to talk about best, isn’t it. Well, I do, and after all that’s what really matters: my unique and fascinating take on the Me Question.

So don’t be alarmed, just carry on reacting to me, complaining about me, defending me, talking among yourselves about me. I’ll come back regularly to make sure you haven’t changed the subject, in between tending my twelve other me-blogs and ego-sites.

The MQ is the most burning subject of this or any other age, isn’t it? Guessedworker clearly thinks so, that’s why he was granted the honour of being allowed to post anything I care to say about me, my preferences, my many successes in life, my fascinating tastes and interests, my tireless exposition of the political philosophy of ultraegotism. Feel free to join the John Jay Fray and enjoy being part of the non-mainstream Me-dia, suckers!

Posted by Guessedworker on July 05, 2006, 07:49 AM | #

Oh hilarious.  Actually, the underlying issue is the strategic value to majoritarians of tolerance.  If you have none you will not comprehend.

Posted by On Holliday on July 05, 2006, 08:06 AM | #

“This is actually all for GW’s consumption, and if he isn’t going to turn around this joke of an establishment by adopting the filtering measures we’ve suggested, then I’ll happily bid adieu.”

Steve, on second thought, I’d advise you to stay on this blog, at least for the time being.  It has crossed my mind that Mr. Ray may be attempting to purge the blog of its more ‘radical’ elements by his antics.  Your recent post about democracy was of great value.  Regardless of my own decision, your contributions here are of sufficient value - and do you really want JJR to win?  Thus, perhaps continue to post your good material, and completely ignore John Ray until such a time that he matures to a level worthy of response.

John Ray: I say this in all seriousness, your posts and comments are embarassing.  I assume you are capable of better, and if you really have the blog’s best interests at hear - and if you really are appreciative of GW’s tolerance - you’d do a better job.

The topic of the last post of yours GW deleted has come to my attention.  Ask yourself why it was necessary to have created such a post.  Do you think you make GW’s defense of your presence easier with such creations?

How about critiquing “leftists” for a while, instead of antagonizing the entire rest of the MR bloggers and commentators?

Thank you.

Posted by On Holliday on July 05, 2006, 08:54 AM | #

“I would ask “On Holliday” to develop a thicker skin vis-à-vis John Ray’s views”

His “views.”

Amazing.  After everything I have written, after all I have explained, my criticism is still being seen as about John Ray’s “views.”

Incredible.  Frankly, I’m speechless.

Although I begin to understand the support for JJR, in that context.

Posted by Daedalus on July 05, 2006, 09:08 AM | #

I’m still rather confused as to why JJR and Steve are clashing light sabers. Aren’t they both libertarians? I can understand JJR’s position that groups don’t have legitimate interests (collectivism, boo!) given his presuppositions, nothing really surprising there, but I am still wondering how Steve is able to reconcile the legitimacy of white ethnocentrism with the purest of all strains of liberalism.

Posted by EC on July 05, 2006, 09:11 AM | #

JW, I too think you should re-ignite your blogging here.  I despise JJR for his mendacity probably as much as you, though your contribution is immeasurable and truly missed.  I respectfully ask you to reconsider.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 05, 2006, 10:04 AM | #

I have to go now but I’ll be back later today. I’ll just respond to Daedalus on both fora real quick and deal with ALL other comments addressed to me when I return.

It’s bad enough that whites don’t care about the JQ. It’s even worse that they don’t care about their race. No one will ever care about the JQ until they are convinced that white racial preservation, or ”racism,” as it is pathologized today, is a moral duty that we owe to future generations of our own people. Rebuilding racial consciousness must be our top priority.

This is Daedalus’ objection to the JQ. It is a reasonable position that, unlike someone else I could mention, is not grounded in ad-hominem or strawman fallacies. Essentially Daedalus is arguing from a pragmatic perspective. He shares our objectives but disagrees with our tactics/methodology.

I have four arguments favoring forthrightness on the JQ. All of them are also found in the leaflet that I’ve been showing around hoping people criticize and seek flaws in it. See this post for pictures of the leaflet and this post for its text. You MUST read the leaflet in its entirety or you won’t be able to understand what follows. Read it now please.

The four arguments are:

1. The anti-fascism argument
2. The anti-racism argument
3. The anti-imperialism argument
4. The equal rights argument

THE ANTI-FASCISM ARGUMENT

The U.S. is a Judeo-fascist regime. We can oppose it on that basis alone. In doing so we can tap into the enourmous reservoirs of opposition to the middle east wars that are building throughout the US and seize the moral high ground to boot. If the lunatics succeed in getting us into Iran there will be a draft. Folks, this is not up for debate: Our military is stretched beyond breaking point in Iraq and any Iran adventure will require the draft, period. Thus, far from no one caring about the JQ, the JQ is the key to bringing pro-democracy as well as anti-war forces to our side. There are four arguments raised in the leaflet that make the anti-fascism case:

1. The electoral systems filters out all non-Zionist (anti-Israeli) candidates and routinely delivers a farcical choice between Zionist A and Zionist B.
2. Democracy is an integrated system relying on several institutions; a free media being perhaps the most important among them. The Jewish press has repeatedly boasted of their “control” of the media - their exact words. (Although this control is in reality based on persecution and not ownership, the fact that they boast of their ownership makes it easy to quote and damn them. The persecution issue is dealt with below)
3. The abject subservience of both Congress and White House to Judeo-fascist demands. This can be argued from multiple perpectives: AJC boasts of Jews financing 60% of Dems and 30% of Reps; AIPAC boasts of its legislative successes; the 90% vote approving Sharon’s belligerence toward Syria; the WRH argument that control of coverse infosys and amdocs enables systemic blackmail; various quotes from Findley and others; the Walt-Maersheimer Iraq war argument; and many more. I have chosen the Nixon-Graham tapes angle for the leaflet because of space constraints.
4. The immigration argument. For 40 years opinion polls have shown consistent opposition to immigration, legal or illegal. For 40 years the regime has been able to impose a program of racial re-engineering on the people against their will (and in constructive violation of Articles 1 and 2c of the Genocide Convention of 1948).

This last argument also addresses Daedalus’s concern that few people care about race. Not so, both the consistent opposition to immigration as well as the “white flight” phenomenon indicate the apparent consent favoring immigration is an ILLUSION and the consent is in fact AGAINST immigration. The immigration debate is a proxy for what Daedalus calls “racialism”.

See Immigration is Fascism on my blog for a monster list of opinion polls and for an ID of the regime collaborators (white uncle toms) that support it - these are called the “opinion elite”

Needless to say, if you’re white access to the “opinion elite” is strictly contingent on your adherence to the Universal Code Of The Uncle Tom:

Rule 1: I shall worship Master and His allies in the morning.
Rule 2: I shall degrade my own people in the evening.
Rule 3: In case of doubts I shall refer to Rules 1 and 2.

uncle toms are to imperialism what rat droppings are to rats. The two are absolutely inseperable. All imperialist systems have them, almost by definition. Where there aren’t enough the system is massively unstable - see contemporary Iraq for an example. Hundreds of thousands of heavily armed troops can’t keep a country of 20 million under control. In contrast, the British held India (250 million) with no more than 70,000 troops at their peak. The difference: uncle toms. Too few in Iraq - possibly because the resistance blows them up before they can even be hired.

By the way my blog needs updating badly and all of this will be posted as soon as I finish this debate on MR and Civic Platform.

THE ANTI-RACISM ARGUMENT

The vast and ever expanding structure of institutional racism and discrimination against whites (affirmative action, employment quotas, etc) is justified and legitimized on the strength of three racial theories. We can oppose the Judeo-fascist regime on an anti-racism basis alone. Thus, far from no one caring about the JQ, the JQ is the key to bringing anti-racism pro-equality forces to our side.

The three racial theories are:

1. Unique History of White Evil theory
2. Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory
3. Majority Deference theory

The Unique History of White Evil Theory
This racial theory holds that “whites cannot evade history”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against a group based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual participation or consent (in slavery, holocaust, etc.) and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

The Unearned White Skin-color Privilege Theory
This racial theory holds that “whites cannot evade responsibility”. It is a racial theory because it justifies discrimination against individuals based on their (Euro-Christian) ancestry alone irrespective of actual status or financial condition and therefore denies innocence as a defense.

The White Majority Deference Theory
This racial theory holds that “majorities must serve minorities unless the minority is white”. It is a racial theory because its discriminatory logic applies exclusively to whites. For example, suggesting the reverse, that white minorities in South Africa or Detroit should have not equal but superior rights is widely considered insane.

Theory 1 can be attacked on pure anti-racism grounds. (See this post). Theory 3 can easily be ridiculed. Theory 2 requires us to defeat its premise that the US is a white-supremacist society by demonstrating it is something else. Indeed, the leaflet is designed to demolish this theory in precisely this manner. Thus the JQ can be presented as a purely defensive anti-racism reaction to protect our children from anti-white race hatred. This gives us the moral high ground.

THE ANTI-IMPERIALISM ARGUMENT

The US is an imperialist system, i.e. a system where a people dominates another and feeds on their resources. Imperialism is driven by ethnocentrism directed outward toward aggression of another people. Its nemesis is nationalism (or liberationism). Nationalism is driven by ethnocentrism directed inward toward construction of ones own people. Nationalism is anti-imperialism and imperialism is anti-nationalism. Imperialism is always unethical and nationalism is always ethical; we can oppose the Judeo-fascist regime on this basis alone. Thus the JQ can be introduced as a way of seizing the moral high ground by making bold analogies to South African apartheid wherein we are the blacks and Jews are the whites; Far from no one caring about the JQ, the JQ is the key to bringing anti-imperialist pro-liberationist forces to our side.

The leaflet exposes the US as an imperialist system on three levels:

1. the dominant group controls the political process
2. the dominant group illegitimately feeds on our resources
3. the dominant group oppresses the subordinate group in order to achieve 1 and 2.

The key to the imperialist argument (besides demonstrating unequal opportunity and wealth between the dominant and subordinate groups) is demonstrating dominant-subordinate oppression. The Walt and Maersheimer report exposes the mechanics of the persecution networks and the leaflet (in its conclusion) demonstrates how discriminatory persecution is the key to the opportunity/wealth disparity.

continued below..

Posted by Steven Palese on July 05, 2006, 10:04 AM | #

THE EQUAL RIGHTS ARGUMENT

We have more equal rights issues than you can shake a stick at. Here’s a few off the top of my head pertaining to the campus struggle:

1. why cant we have our representatives lobbying for us in the admissions process?
2. why cant we have a white student union?
3. why cant we have white scholarships?
4. why cant we have a white studies department?
5. why cant we have immunity from group vilification?
6. why cant we have white history month?
7. why cant we have white pride?

Each and every one of these is met by objections grounded in the three racial theories listed above. In my direct (though admittedly anecdotal) experience it is ONLY Jewish groups (backed by campus administration) that oppose the above equal rights demands. Believe it or not, in my work with students at UCSD toward establishing the first white student union in the US, we actually have some measure of support from the black student union. All other groups are neutral with one exception: Jewish groups.

But let’s drop that insofar as it is anecdotal. As explained in the last part of the leaflet, the entire Judeo-fascist strategy revolves around promoting racial favoritism (aka ethnic solidarity) for the dominant group while denying it to the subordinate group. This is in and of itself an equal rights issue. Any progress on any of the above issues will necessarily counter this strategy. Opposition is therefore to be expected from that quarter. I’ll add that all imperialist systems must prevent the subordinate group from organizing to object; failure to do so leads to systemic instability.

Thus the JQ can be introduced as part of the equal rights struggle by focusing on this cardinal issue: “why can’t we organize to compete on equal terms? Everyone else can, why not us?” We can therefore oppose the Judeo-fascist regime on this equal rights basis alone. Far from no one caring about the JQ, the JQ is the key to bringing anti-discrimination pro-equal rights forces to our side.

OK I have to run now so I’ll quickly conclude with a tentative list of remedies we seek (which I may add to the leaflet if the extra space doesn’t get used up reinforcing existing arguments):

1) Democratization of media access and/or extension of the sherman anti-trust laws to cover ethnic cartels
2) Laws against organized political harassment and persecution as detailed in the Walt-Maershemier report
3) Prohibition on the teaching of religion (Political Correctness) in government financed schools. See what is political correctness?
4) Equal rights for whites in college admissions (i.e. either everyone can practice ethnic lobbying or nobody can)
5) Nationalization of converse infosys and amdocs.
6) Reparations from Israel for the $100bn odd so far extorted and for the costs of all Zionist wars. This is to include $10m compensation to each military family that suffered a loss
7) Genocide tribunals to investigate and prosecute all those responsible for the constructive violation of Articles 1 and 2c of the Genocide Convention of 1948 - the imposition of racial re-engineering on the people against their will

Also: please read this post describing the story behind the leaflet and why I need feedback on it really badly. Criticize it as harshly as you can please - even if you agree with it you can still play devil’s advocate. Please place all leaflet feedback on the pro-white victimology thread over here. Thanks.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 05, 2006, 01:04 PM | #

“Steve, on second thought, I’d advise you to stay on this blog, at least for the time being.”

JW - I think you underestimate me (but you’re not the only one). I might only be a young chap, but my tactical prowess is much more refined than you might give credit for. I’m not going to say anymore, because you already know what I am referring to, and my “victories” have already materialised, much sooner than even I could have thought.

Check mate, me lad!

Posted by allotmentkeeper on July 06, 2006, 08:35 PM | #

The simplest way to clear the air is for JJR to explain why he blogs here; and what he means by Majority Rights; and to square that with the views he’s expressed; and have the lot fit somewhat the view of other bloggers and readers.

I think good faith demands from JJR such an explanation and attempted olive branch. I’m pretty sure JJR’s view of Majority Rights is unusual, but I’m absolutely sure his willingness to debate Majority Rights honestly is unusually poor for this blog.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 07, 2006, 10:11 PM | #

Out of respect for the truce, the offshoot debate between me and Daedalus has migrated off this thread and onto Daedalus’ own forum:

The Jewish Question and Racialism

My thesis is that the JQ is indeed substantial, that our predicament cannot be blamed on white uncle toms while ignoring the imperialist context and that forthrightness on the JQ is indeed feasible on a tactical level.

I believe Daedalus’ is the opposite. He is currently preparing a comprehensive response.

I have placed my arguments on the table and await his reply - which I am sure will be quite eloquent and devoid of logical fallacies. I very much look forward to this debate.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on July 07, 2006, 11:21 PM | #

Steven there’s some brilliant stuff in that thread (and in your posts here).  You’re doing some excellent work.  I’m going to read up, give it some thought, absorb and implement what I can, and contribute if I come up with anything.  Kudos.

Posted by JB on July 08, 2006, 12:21 AM | #

hey JJR, look who’s praising Fox News’ Roger Ailes for his dedication to “peace in the Middle East” :

Jewish Group Honors Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes
http://forward.com/main/printer-friendly.php?ref=staff200506161036

Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive officer of Fox News, was the guest of honor last week at a gala dinner of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, held at The Plaza Hotel. The council is an umbrella body that coordinates some 60 local New York Jewish organizations and represents them to the government, and the feting of the combatively conservative media chief, a media adviser to presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., raised some eyebrows. One council member group, The Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring, protested the choice of Ailes as “very divisive.” But a host of luminaries from the left as well as the right turned out to applaud, including Miramax Films founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who bought a full-page ad in the dinner journal, and former president Bill Clinton, who prepared a video greeting that saluted “red-state Roger” for his concern for “security for the State of Israel and peace in the Middle East.” Ailes, in his own comments, defended his controversial network. “I sometimes get angry when the media doesn’t defend democracy,” he said. “We will represent the truth, but we don’t get up each morning assuming our country” is guilty. The event raised $1 million, a new record, according to JCRC executive vice president Michael Miller.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 08, 2006, 04:52 AM | #

Thanks Svyatoslav, I’ll be offline over the weekend so you’ll have to wait till monday for the debate to begin in earnest. Meantime, enjoy the World Cup final!

Posted by Daedalus on July 08, 2006, 09:05 PM | #

I posted my response earlier this afternoon. It’s good to see things back to normal around here, but the debate over the JQ that got started here continues to rage, albeit in other environs.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 11, 2006, 12:42 AM | #

As promised, it’s monday and the debate has started in earnest. My response to Daedalus’ is here.

One of the communication failures on my part was my not properly describing the underlying theoretical basis for the pro-white victimology model: counter-Gramscian theory. This has been corrected with this post.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2006, 01:53 AM | #

Steven P, that debate with Daedalus is brilliant.  Everyone should read it.

Posted by Steven Palese on July 11, 2006, 12:44 PM | #

Thanks Fred, that’s an important debate and Daedalus’ keen mind is helping me hammer out weak points and flaws in the pro-white victimology model by subjecting it to intense scrutiny.

Expect my position to flex and bend as it gets buffeted by Daedalus’ vigorous criticism. Although the debate has started on the wrong foot (due to several communication failures on my part) it is on track now.

In light of comments from Zach, Daedalus and others I might pull a sudden U-turn regarding my “Judeo-fascism” terminology. Not sure yet, still thinking.

That would be a shame because on google the term has increased from 557 references a month ago to almost 1000 now- it’s clearly taking off.

Meantime, I’ll relax by reading what the deep greens - forward units in the radical left vanguards - are up to by checking out a new U.S. oriented website of theirs. here.

If you think my analysis is good, you should check theirs. I give them 10 out of 10 based on what I’ve read so far. By the way, here’s a funny story about them:

When Gulf War I broke out and Saddam set fire to the wells, they prompty issued a statement praising Saddam because, according to their analysis, the move was good for the environment since that oil would have caused even more pollution had it been pumped out. Saddam then used their analysis in some press release and they wound up with the police at their doorstep. That whole episode was hilarious.

Posted by ben tillman on July 11, 2006, 01:16 PM | #

In light of comments from Zach, Daedalus and others I might pull a sudden U-turn regarding my “Judeo-fascism” terminology.

Something like “minority rule” might be better received.