The Insanity of David Duke

Most of my friends are liberals and I am a former liberal with regard to diversity/race issues. Therefore I know that the mention of Jewish conspiracy theories, such as the one you outline here, or the mention of theories about how Jews control the media, the U.S. Congress, etc., are the kiss of death to the typical liberal. Any idea or argument associated with Duke would be instantly dismissed. Yet these white liberals are the ones that must be convinced and converted. They are the majority. Therefore, Duke and others who are obsessed with Jews are, according to Duke’s own logic, agents of the Jews! I doubt Duke is sane enough to get this, but it is the truth.

“In your guts, you know he’s nuts” is similarly to the tagline from JTF.org - “in your gut, you know they’re nuts”. Is this site affiliated with JTF?

“The distinction I have made between sanity and insanity will be the basis of the comment moderation policy on this website in the future.”

Since your distinction is entirely tendentious and subjective, why not just admit you only want cheerleaders?

Life’s too short to waste on blogs with “moderated” comments presided over by a pious, pompous, PC prick. Leave that to the controlled MSM. I’m outta here, permanently.

nycjew—No, although I did talk to Chaim ben Pesach once over the phone. I like to listen to JTF shows every once in a while, and yes, that’s where I picked up that phrase.

Actually, I just found out the phrase comes from the Presidential election of 1964. Goldwater’s slogan was, “In your heart, you know I’m right,” so the Johnson campaign countered, “In your guts, you know he’s nuts.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

It’s kind of embarrassing to be using a phrase from the Johnson campaign. I’m very much a Goldwater man myself.

Farewell, Lurker! Happy lurking on other websites!

I call Duke and his followers “insane,” and they say, “You can’t just say that. You have to explain why you think we’re insane.” So I give them an explanation, and not a superficial, off-hand one either. Rather, I work hard for a few days to give them a thoughtful, philosophical and documented explanation. And then they call me a prick.

I’m not surprised, of course. This is the way insane people act when confronted with evidence of their insanity.

I am Jewish and no fan of David Duke, but you’re campaign against him and American Renaissance supporters is an incredible waste of time, and in fact probably damaging to the cause as a whole.

You say:”conventional wisdom is not obligated to defend itself against illegitimate challenges from the insane, and insults are a perfectly valid response.”

David Duke’s question was about Jewish involvement in promoting immigration, not Jewish involvement in 9-11 conspiracy theories. I agree the latter is “insane” but I don’t think the former is. Even if it were, then you should prove why it is, instead of changing the subject to 9-11 conspiracy theories. Even if it is true, since when was it “conventional wisdom” to make a scene whenever someone is insane in your presence. I don’t know where you’re from, but the polite and gentlemanly thing to do is politely distance yourself. Jared Taylor made it clear that he was visibly annoyed by duke, by politely, but perturbly asking him to wrap up. Hart, in contrast, made a scene for no good reason other than I can assume he could not control his emotions. I can understand that, but I would consider it a regrettabe rather than righteous act.

I once gave a speech on a subject completely unrelated to race or foreign policy and for some reason I was teamed up with one of, if not the, most prominent 9-11 conspiracy theorists on my panel. I similarly, very politely said I disagreed with his statements and had no desire to discuss them, as opposed to screaming at him, which would have been very uncalled for. I then, politely expressed my displeasure with the event organizers for putting myself on a panel with him.

If these people are truly “mentally ill” why are you so concerned with them. I do not take them that seriously, and that is why I don’t waste my time with them, and politely and quietly distance myself from them if the issue ever comes up. Duke is wrong on many issues, and he may very well be a nut, but he’s not the one passing anti-discrimination laws, pushing for open borders, affirmative action etc.
hran seems to suggest that he is the reason why liberals hold your views. If David Duke and Stormfront all magically dissapeared tomorrow, what would change? Do you really think liberals would start taking you more seriously and begin to agree with you?

If so, then maybe you’re the ones who need a bit of reality check.

Conventional wisdom can also change with a changing society. Not all con. wisdom is static especially when it comes to issues of race(s), ethnicities, and the dynamics between them.

Plus, people don’t even always agree on WHAT is the “conventional wisdom”; I don’t think referring to the Media’s version of it is a reliable source because they try too hard to create it instead of report it.

I’m no supporter of David Duke or conspiracy theories, but relying on sources not at all objective towards him doesn’t really prove anything.

I think you’re headed in the right direction with your praise of conventional wisdom.  However, you stumble when you qualify it:  the conventional wisdom of experts. There are any number of wise conservative critiques of such an arrangement.

Alexander Hart—I started this website because I believe that if white activism isn’t grounded in a sane, mature view of the world, it’s not going to succeed, nor should it. It is only when we prove to people that we’re not crazy that they will begin to give us a fair hearing.

The point of your comment seems to be, “We should be friends with everyone as long as they’re not liberals.” I think we should be more selective than that.

The general public associates pro-white activism with Nazism, and who can say they’re wrong? After all, most pro-white activists, including Duke, the most famous one, are also radical anti-Semites. This association immediately turns people off and makes them unwilling to listen to us.

The way to get through to them is to show them that we recognize their concerns are valid. We have to say, “Yes, we know there are a lot of creepy, sick people in our movement, and we despise them just as much as you do. In fact, even more so, because we’ve had to sit next to them at conferences and listen to their tiresome rants about the Jews’ eternal enmity to the white race. We want nothing to do with them and we have nothing in common with them. In fact, we have called them insane in our publication.”

You say this tactic won’t work, but has anyone ever tried it?

You say some of Duke’s views are insane, but others aren’t. That’s not how insanity works though. Insanity permeates every aspect of the lunatic’s view of the world. And once someone’s proved himself insane in one respect, reasonable people won’t trust him again and they’ll ignore him. After all, it’s difficult enough to keep up with what sane people are saying, why should we waste our time on lunatics? Of course, there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the effect of Jews on white societies, and Jews certainly have been active in immigration liberalization. But we don’t need to hear that from David Duke. There are much more trustworthy people who comment on these issues, and I’ll listen to them.

No, you don’t have to be polite to the insane. Saying “Shut up, you crazy freak!” has always been the natural response to insanity, and I believe very much in living in accord with nature.

Also, I’m not campaigning against American Renaissance. I wish it well and I hope it succeeds. I just don’t think it will. The AR website linked to us a few days ago, so I think Jared Taylor must recognize that I’m not motivated by malice against him and that I have a legitimate and defensible perspective.

If you want a first hand look at David Duke’s twisted mind, go to www.anu.org., website of the bizarre American Nationalist Union. This is a weird anti-Semitic site with colorful graphics that one, truly unfortuneatly, can link to via Amren. Scroll down the page just beyond half way until you see a picture of Dear Dr. David Duke.

Click on that and you can see a transcript of his recent interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and view the entire video. Here Duke comes across as the deranged asshole he is and absolutely loses it and ends up calling Wolf Blitzer an agent of Israel.

It’s priceless.

This exchange and Dukes’ insane charges truly demonstrate what a mono maniac, obsessive mind he has. To say it’s revelatory is to do it an injustice.

It brings to mind my all time favorite quote by Samuel Butler: “Either a man holds an opinion or his opinion holds him.”

While Duke is peddling the “Jews were responsible for 9/11” conspiracy, readers may be interested in the following sites which debunk 9/11 Conspiracy (an afflication which debilitates the far Left as well as the far Right):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/

http://www.debunking911.com/

http://www.jod911.com/

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

My comments on this column are here:

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

Comments will be subjected to no ideological or factual filters, and generally majorityrights doesn’t even censor hostile idiots.

I believe what David Duke does, is very harmful towards racially aware jews who already have a rough life as it is. He knows this hurts people, but he continues to do it anyways. If he is not a psychopath, he is at the very least a sociopath. He wants to smother all jewish voices out of race realism, and he knows exactly what he is doing when he constantly scapegoats jews. If this is not insanity, it is at least extremely corrupt.

Realist, you seem to have missed my point. I’m not saying “no enemies on the right,” I’m saying why waste your time focusing on David Duke.

Every movement has its extremists and oddballs, but that has not kept any of them succeeding. Look at the Left!

I agree some liberals need to be convinced, and sites like VDARE.com and American Renaissance do a great job at that, and i have gotten a lot of people to switch over their views through those outlets.

You say: “The way to get through to them is to show them that we recognize their concerns are valid. We have to say, “Yes, we know there are a lot of creepy, sick people in our movement, and we despise them just as much as you do. In fact, even more so, because we’ve had to sit next to them at conferences and listen to their tiresome rants about the Jews’ eternal enmity to the white race. We want nothing to do with them and we have nothing in common with them. In fact, we have called them insane in our publication.”

You say this tactic won’t work, but has anyone ever tried it? ”

In fact it has. This is what the conservative movement has done, and look where it has ended up?

“Of course, there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the effect of Jews on white societies, and Jews certainly have been active in immigration liberalization. But we don’t need to hear that from David Duke. There are much more trustworthy people who comment on these issues, and I’ll listen to them.”

Who are those people? Professor Kevin MacDonald?

“My comments on this column are here:

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

Comments will be subjected to no ideological or factual filters, and generally majorityrights doesn’t even censor hostile idiots.”

By Svigor on 12/19/06 at 5:24 pm

I read your comments and your insults, referring to Johm PM (an intelligent gentleman) as a “fag” and me as an “aggressive, loud mouthed non-Arab Semite” (I suppose you think that a very clever euphemism for Jew). You’re not handing anyone their asses, as you put it.

What are you doing here? You’re not welcome here or at Amren, which is why they don’t post most of your diatribes against Abraham’s tribe. You’re an obsessive Jew-hater like the rest of the barbarians you hang out with.

Go stink up Stormfront and Majorityrights. That’s where you and your ilk belong.

Alexander Hart—Within the context of the white activist movement, David Duke isn’t an oddball or an extremist. Rather, he’s the central figure. I know from experience that most white activists agree with him. He is regularly featured on Stormfront radio, and Stormfront is the largest white activist website. When certain beliefs are central to a movement, it’s necessary for people who want to take the movement in a new direction to repudiate them.

If conservatives just rejected Duke and his ilk, they’d be fine with me. My problem is that they reject people like me, too. It isn’t rejecting people that’s the problem. It’s rejecting the wrong people.

Desmond Jones—Kevin MacDonald is a thinker who is many orders of magnitude superior to David Duke. KM is certainly not insane. He is, however, unethical. His books focus one-sidedly the destructive aspects of Jewish culture, making Jews appear as a sort of disease rather than as human beings. Beyond this, KM’s books have done much to bolster the cause of radical anti-Semites like Duke, but he has never spoken out against this use of his work and clearly separated himself from the insanity people like Duke represent. He also strengthened the Holocaust denial movement by testifying on behalf of David Irving during the trial Irving brought against Deborah Lipstadt. I would find his support of Irving morally acceptable if he had ever stated that Holocaust denial was unfounded, but he has never done this. KM describes his role in the Irving trial here: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Irving.html

The best critic of Jewish influence in the US is Lawrence Auster. See my post on the previous column about Auster’s work.

The best critic of Jewish influence in the US is Lawrence Auster.

I agree that Lawrence’s writings on American Jewry are, not surprisingly, well informed, and his Jewishness enables WNs to voice truths that otherwise would incurr all the usual screachy hate tactics.

That, however, is pretty much the limit of Lawrence’s usefulness.  He is no different to Mo and Abe when the issue is the genuine rights and interests of European Americans.  His response over the last days to a rather gentle challenge from me was classic Jewish supremacist aggression.  It was a neurotic performance.  When, at the conclusion, the anti-semiticism with which he charged me was debunked and its inherent racism pinned on his chest, his response was a weary, “Go away”. If he had a killing riposte he would have used it. He had none because the moral high ground is ours, not Jewry’s.

When the chips are down Lawrence is just another Jewish soldier who likes to dish it out.  He can’t take it.

What Lawrence wants, of course, by “dishing it out” is to pathologise an expression of European solidarity that does not include him and his people.  And that’s what you want plainly too, is it not, Mr Realist?  Your, let us say, medically unfounded accusations here tell me much more about you than about Mr Duke.  I see a process of naked Austerian pathologisation of White Nationalism at work.  I don’t like it.  I don’t find it principled or realistic or helpful.  I find it insulting.

Leave the 9/11 nonsense where it is.  You are only using it and Duke to subsidise your otherwise bare argument for Judeocentric White Nationalism.  Answer me this, Mr Realist:  What are the genuine rights and interests of Europeans in America and in al their homelands?

It’s a big question. It should take up several of your posts. It should get you well beyond shilling for Jewish ethnic interests. Good luck with it.

Guessedworker, His response over the last days to a rather gentle challenge from me was classic Jewish supremacist aggression.

“Jewish supremacism”… you use Duke’s lingo and all. He even wrote a book titled that.

I don’t get this whole “non-Arab Semite” thing. You guys love rallying to the cause of non-European Arabs (their anti-Israeli cause, that is), but you absolutely despise distinctly European Askhenazic Jews (who make up the ruling class of Israel and of which is the ethnicity of most Jews residing in the West). Explain that contradiction…

Answer me this, Mr Realist: What are the genuine rights and interests of Europeans in America and in al their homelands?

Define “European.” Your definition seems to be very flexible, highly opinionated, and non-scientific in nature.

And tell me, what are the rights of Jews in their homeland? Do they have any?

Since we’re on this topic, you also regularly defend Afrikaners… that’s not their homeland, now is it? They’re the descendants of colonists and are a minority. I happen to think South Africa did pretty well under Afrikaner rule, and there is no question that the area comprising the state of Israel is way better off under European (ie, Ashkenazic) rule. Yet, you regularly support the South Africans, who are not in their homeland and are not a majority, and oppose the Israelis, who are the majority and is the homeland of the Jewish religion (although it’s a mixture of Semitic and Ashkenazic ethnicities with an Ashkenazic ruling class). Explain that contradiction, please.

“He is, however, unethical. His books focus one-sidedly the destructive aspects of Jewish culture, making Jews appear as a sort of disease rather than as human beings.”

I hope you write a column on MacDonald soon. Then your ethical criterion will require you to balance the sheet by writing about all the non-Arab Semites who have done the same (writing about the negative qualities of Europeans without your suggested due diligence). You’ll be busy with this for the rest of your life and won’t have any more time to criticize your allies.

More to the point, why is it unethical to fill a niche? Hundreds, thousands of books have been written about how wonderful non-Arab Semites are, but in writing one of the few works about them that can inspire hostility (depending on one’s point of view), he’s supposed to reinvent that worn wheel?

So, MacDonald has not written the definitive “everything about non-Arab Semites that can ever be said.” Oh, no! Tell me, are the great many “philo-Semitic” authors unethical for presenting their rosy portraits of same, sans “balance”?

How about non-Arab Semites in general, who not only fail to acknowledge their sins and the sins of their history, but aggressively attack and smear those who do? Tell us about their ethics.

MacDonald was presenting science, not self-help or coffee table fodder. Please explain this ethical lapse to me, it’s not as self-evident as you seem to think.

“Beyond this, KM’s books have done much to bolster the cause of radical anti-Semites like Duke, but he has never spoken out against this use of his work and clearly separated himself from the insanity people like Duke represent.”

He has stated he is not an anti-Semite, and numerous caveats that “some jews” are not “all jews,” etc. It’s obvious from his statements that he’d rather prevent progroms than stir them up. Why should he waste his time apologizing for things he hasn’t done? Let Duke apologize for Duke. MacDonald has no association with him so no need to separate what’s already separate.

“He also strengthened the Holocaust denial movement by testifying on behalf of David Irving during the trial Irving brought against Deborah Lipstadt.”

So what? Telling the truth is telling the truth. I suppose this is “unethical” too?

“I would find his support of Irving morally acceptable if he had ever stated that Holocaust denial was unfounded, but he has never done this.”

Can you show he has supported Irving? Perhaps he doesn’t state that “HOLOCAUST DENIAL (TM)” is unfounded because it isn’t his area of expertise, and he doesn’t know? What does one’s position on “HOLOCAUST DENIAL (TM),” or any other study of history or the revision thereof, have to do with ethics? He said he was agnostic on the issue because he doesn’t know enough about the subject. That seems perfectly reasonable and ethical to me.

Oh wait, but that’s heresy. One cannot simply say “I don’t know anything about witches.” One must assert one’s hatred for witches, and love for the Church. Sorry, I forgot.

“I don’t get this whole “non-Arab Semite” thing. You guys love rallying to the cause of non-European Arabs (their anti-Israeli cause, that is), but you absolutely despise distinctly European Askhenazic Jews (who make up the ruling class of Israel and of which is the ethnicity of most Jews residing in the West). Explain that contradiction…”

Ashkenazi “Europeanness”:

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346genetics.html <img>http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/pq1001159002.gif</img>

On that graph, non-Arab Semites are closer to Syrians than to Greeks.

I don’t despise non-Arab Semites. The NAS title is analogous to the non-Hispanic white title.

Answer me this, Mr Realist: What are the genuine rights and interests of Europeans in America and in al their homelands?

“Define “European.” Your definition seems to be very flexible, highly opinionated, and non-scientific in nature.”

In this context, it means (when I use it at least) descendant of European Christendom.

How flexible, opinionated, and scientific is the non-Arab Semite definition of its own, in your opinion? I assert it’s quite flexible, opinionated, and non-scientific.

“And tell me, what are the rights of Jews in their homeland? Do they have any?”

There’s nothing particular about them (i.e., same as what we claim for ourselves in ours).

“Since we’re on this topic, you also regularly defend Afrikaners… that’s not their homeland, now is it?”

No, but they can be said to have a greater claim than non-Arab Semites do in Israel. At some point a land becomes a homeland, something that manifestly has happened for a longer time in South Africa than it has in Palestine. Yet, the western world united against Apartheid, while it hems and haws over Israeli Apartheid (at best); here it’s illegal to boycott Israel. At least whites improved the natives’ lot in South Africa.

“They’re the descendants of colonists and are a minority. I happen to think South Africa did pretty well under Afrikaner rule, and there is no question that the area comprising the state of Israel is way better off under European (ie, Ashkenazic) rule.”

Do you include or exclude Gaza and the West Bank in that assessment?

“Yet, you regularly support the South Africans, who are not in their homeland and are not a majority, and oppose the Israelis, who are the majority and is the homeland of the Jewish religion (although it’s a mixture of Semitic and Ashkenazic ethnicities with an Ashkenazic ruling class). Explain that contradiction, please.”

I for one do not oppose the Israelis. I oppose hypocritical non-Arab Semite (and general western) opposition to South African Apartheid, to racial nationalism for whites in general, and support for Israel.

As an aside Arcane, could you explain why you denied your non-Arab Semite ethnicity for so long? Does it have anything to do with playing the shill under cover of disinterestedness? Just curious.

The MajorityRights crowd (Svigor, Guessedworker) is upset, because they will be “censored” over here.  Their pool over there is full of their turds.  And they’re upset that Realist won’t let them fill his pool with their turds.

“What does one’s position on “HOLOCAUST DENIAL (TM),” or any other study of history or the revision thereof, have to do with ethics?”

By Svigor on 12/20/06 at 2:44 pm

Everthing.

Ethics? You and your ilk have none. The Holocaust happened and everybody knows it. It was the greatest mass murder in recorded history.

The “arguments” of the Holocaust deniers are specious at best. And even that’s stretching it.

One of the hallmarks of Jew-haters such as yourself is the “revelation.” They’re always having revelations. Specifically “the” revelation.” Hitler had his in Spandau prison, Kevin Mac Donald had his writing Culture of Critique, David Duke had his “awakening” on the toilet, I suspect. Suddenly it’s all so clear. I’ve finally found the “one” answer, the “great” answer for all the ills of the entire history of the world.

It’s those pesky Jews!

Let’s see if I understand this. General Eisenhower was fooled when he visited the concentration camps. The films and pictures were all part of a great hoax. The prosecutors and witnesses at the Nuremburg Trial — actors and stagehands. The stacks of twisted bodies. Why, it was typhus, folks, not those nasty Nazis. The tatooed survivors — all liars. Every last one of them. The present day governments of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Ukraine, Romania, Russia, et al — all duped by those nefarious Zionists.

Only you have the answer. You and those 60 schmucks, er, “scholars” who went to Tehran to meet with that unshaven little Jew-Hater Ahmedinejad who runs that anachronism from the Middle Ages, Iran.

Do I have it right?

Ethics? You and the obsessive, deranged barbarians you feast with at the banquet table of manure have none.

Svigor—Kevin MacDonald should be confident that the Holocaust took place because (1) that’s the conventional wisdom rooted in the opinion of experts, (2) there is no good reason for them to be lying, and (3) the arguments Holocaust deniers use are weak. If you try to argue about this, I’ll have to delete your comment on the grounds that it is insane.

Yes, I agree with you that there is quite a glaring double standard in the way that the US and the rest of the West have treated South Africa and Israel, and yes, there are good grounds for calling Jews who support a Jewish state in Israel but not a white state in Africa hypocritical. By the way, Israelis improved the lot of West Bank Palestinians just as much as South Africans improved the lot of the blacks. Between 1967 and 1994, there was exponential growth in the Palestinian economy due to Israeli investment in it. Israelis invested enormous sums in modernizing the infrastructure of the West Bank and integrated the Palestinians into the Israeli economy. Palestinian self-rule since 1994 has managed to wreck the economy there, however: the West Bank’s GDP in 2003 was only one-tenth of what it was in 1992. (See http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf pp. 48-49.)

GuessedWorker—Auster’s answer to you seemed spot-on to me. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006940.html

I certainly plan to spend a lot of time talking about the rights of whites in their homelands. Criticizing David Duke and other insane white activists is not the primary purpose of this site.

“What are you doing here?  You’re not welcome here or at Amren, which is why they don’t post most of your diatribes against Abraham’s tribe.  You’re an obsessive Jew-hater like the rest of the barbarians you hang out with.”

That is pretty much the question, I would ask?

White Jewish and Proud, never try to figure out these Nazi guys…

After all, how could “fags” like us do that?

We don’t want to hang out with, big blond guys in tight black uniforms and jackboots?

Go figure?

Thanks for the compliment in the face of this stupidity,

John!

Whether the Holocaust happened or not is really irrelevant in this first decade of the 21st Century. At the same time, so-called Revisionist Historians should be supported on Free Speech grounds alone.No one should be prison anywhere for “denying” or questioning certain facets of the official version of The Holocaust. As far as “anti-semitism” in the Racialist scene is concerned, I would agree that there are a number of wackos totally obsessed with various conspiracy theories usually involving Jews, masons, The Illuminatti, etc. There is also much badly researched and rehashed anti-Jewish ideological baggage from certain early 20th century European Political Movements. While I’m very critical of Zionism and the power of the Israel Lobby in the United States, and would like to see The U.S. adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy in harmony with our best national traditions, I agree that the American White Nationalist Scene needs a thorough housecleaning. While rejecting The Realist’s contention that David Duke is insane, I will agree that much of his behavior in the past as well as recent public statments are harmful and counter-productive to many of our cherished long-term goals. At the same time, as Dr. Kevin MacDonald and others have pointed out, Jews have been disproportionately involved in cultural and political movements harmful to Western Civilization and its founding Race. I accept that most European Jews are “White” and have no problem with those who identify with European Civilization and its traditions and cultures. Those Jews who think of themselves as Jews first and foremost, should do the honorable thing and emigrate to Israel. It is not enough for the likes of The Realist, Lawrence Auster, and other “race-realist” Jews to demand an end to “anti-semitism.” There must also be a candid self-assessment on why such sentiments continue to persist, as well as efforts to remedy tendencies within the Jewish community which generate such ill feelings. Other than this, I like The Realist Site and wish it every success.

With regard to Prof. Hart’s denunciation of Duke, I think it was a great moment, but Hart undermined his own superior moral position with foul language. I’m not sure I agree with Realist’s endorsement of insults as such. Finally, I believe that a blanket endorsement of “natural” behavior is fraught with all sorts of problems.

However, I do agree that debating and consorting with the insane (rather than the merely wrong) is a waste of irretrievable time, and a threat to one’s own credibility, and that a firm and emphatic dismissal, and even an attitude of contempt, is necessary for obsessive crackpots.

I propose that for much of the English-speaking world, a major source of scorn of the “conventional wisdom” goes beyond modern-day liberalism and is a remnant of English Protestantism’s anti-Catholicism. It’s common to hear or read people boasting about how they are heretics who defy dogma and holy writ, braving an Inquisition’s rigid orthodoxy and high priests, and so on. (Other than perhaps the Star Chamber, the repressiveness of English Protestantism until Victorian times does not have such a rich and deeply rooted array of cultural touchstones).

One cultural observer of America, in what I believe is an exaggeration, said that Americans constantly imagine, usually unconsciously, that they are frontiersmen or cowboys. Perhaps natives of the Anglosphere also often imagine that they are Galileo in the dock.

How flexible, opinionated, and scientific is the non-Arab Semite definition of its own, in your opinion? I assert it’s quite flexible, opinionated, and non-scientific.

No, it’s quite simple… if you paraded around in a Nazi uniform when you were younger, wrote numerous books claiming that Jews are the root of all evil in the world, deny that the Holocaust happened, and supported any person or people who opposed the state of Israel, as David Duke has done for the past 40 years, then you might, just might, be a tad bit anti-Semitic.

No, but they can be said to have a greater claim than non-Arab Semites do in Israel. At some point a land becomes a homeland, something that manifestly has happened for a longer time in South Africa than it has in Palestine.

Ah, so Israel has to remain intact in its present form for about another hundred years or so, and wallah, it will be their homeland and you will defend it, right? LOL

Yet, the western world united against Apartheid, while it hems and haws over Israeli Apartheid (at best); here it’s illegal to boycott Israel. At least whites improved the natives’ lot in South Africa.

First of all, non-Jews living in Israel have very high standards of living and are way better off then their brethren in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Secondly, Israel is not an apartheid system, South Africa was. Palestinians living outside of Israel are not Israeli citizens in any way and are not under the control of the Israeli government; they are ruled by their own people. In South Africa, the black majority was within the borders and ruled by a white minority, with a distinct system codified into the law that gave a different set of rights and priorities to the black majority and had a negative system of affirmative action in place to ensure that whites received a disproportionate amount of jobs. Israel has no system even remotely comparable to this.

Do you include or exclude Gaza and the West Bank in that assessment?

No, they are not part of Israel. Is Zimbabwe part of South Africa? No. So it’s absurd to say that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are part of Israel.

I for one do not oppose the Israelis. I oppose hypocritical non-Arab Semite (and general western) opposition to South African Apartheid, to racial nationalism for whites in general, and support for Israel.

My opposition to apartheid was that it was completely unnecessary… simply put, all the white minority needed to do was create a meritocratic market-based system and they would have naturally risen to the top and taken a majority of the good jobs, simply due to the fact that they have a much higher average IQ than the black majority. Now, what they have is a system working against them via negative affirmative action, and against the interests of the entire country itself, due to black resentment that came about as a result of the white affirmative action system that was in place during apartheid.

And if you really don’t oppose the state of Israel and simply oppose people who support a monoethnic state of Israel and oppose a monoethnic Western state, then why don’t you ever say so in your posts on MR? It’s simple! Say, “I support the state of Israel and wish others who support the state of Israel would not be hypocrites by opposing a monoethnic European state.” I think Finland, Norway, Poland, or Sweden would be the best candidates for such a state.

As an aside Arcane, could you explain why you denied your non-Arab Semite ethnicity for so long? Does it have anything to do with playing the shill under cover of disinterestedness? Just curious.

OK, why are you saying that I’m a Jew? I’m not. My ancestry is northern European… my family, even though it has been in the US for many generations, doesn’t even have any Native American blood in it, unlike many white families here. I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with who is and who isn’t a Jew, but regardless, I am not one. I am curious as to where you got the idea that I am.

What does one’s position on “HOLOCAUST DENIAL (TM),” or any other study of history or the revision thereof, have to do with ethics?

Many Holocaust Deniers, especially HD organizations like IHR, Adelaide Institute, CODOH, The Scriptorium, etc., also make attempts simultaneously to rehabilitate National Socialism. That is the intention of many deniers, and the first step to doing so is to somehow expunge history of the atrocities conducted in its name. I believe that rehabilitating National Socialism is as unethical as rehabilitating Communism.

Arcane.

You misquote.  I did not write “Jewish supremacy”.  I wrote “classic Jewish supremacist aggression”.  The rules of grammar should inform you that “classic” and “supremacist” describe Auster’s aggression towards me. The supremacism involved is that which always accompanies the claim to name another as “racist” or “Nazi” as much as it does, for example, the increasingly common “non-Hispanic white”.

My authority for this use of the word is ResistingDefamation.com, not David Duke.  You may perhaps not know that a warm relationship exists between MR and the RD boys.

In any case, don’t do what Mr Auster and the hopelessly deracinated John PM does, and start hurling neurotic Nazi tags at us.  It is always either extremely childish (usually in the sense that leftists tend towards childishness) or it is done in bad faith (in the sense that minority hucksters abuse the term for their own calculated ends).  Neither of these unhappy conditions I normally attach to you, as you should by now realise (and that despite the Nazi tag you tried to pin on me at another blog a few months ago).

In the same vein, do not ascribe to me the emotion of despising Ashkenazics.  Waving hate terms around sans a shred of evidence is unacceptable in you as it was in LA.  As I just explained, the claim to stand over a man ethically and declare him a lower form of life is a supemacist claim.  Have you really got that?  Good.  Dont do it again.

“Define European”.  Is this meant to be a trick lesson from Genetics 101?  Sorry, my friend, but Europe is filling with Third World populations.  We are not blind.  We know who they are, and they are not us.  How is your question germaine?

Are geneticists the sole arbitrators of kinship?  I think not - and so, really, do you.

There are many reasons for supporting the Boers in these days of their travail.  I wish them well but I also wish the 50% or so that stubbornly remains in SA would seek a viable future in other lands.  So my position is not that SA belongs to them.  It is that they, like us, must look more seriously to their own survival.

No contributor at MR is anti-Israel.  They may well be anti-IDF.  They may be anti-Likud, anti-Sharon in his time, etc.  But, as Svi explained just recently - and I share these sentiments - he supports the right of Israel to exist because it proves the viability of the nation state, demonstrates reciprocity from our side and gives Jews somewhere to live other than among us.

The question … the most difficult question … then arises as to the rights of Jews to live among Europeans.  My answer at this time is that this right can be acknowledged in so far as Jewish ethnic interests are NOT pursued.  Thre can be no right of political or cultural subversion.

However, this would put McDonald to the test somewhat.  Certainly, two millenia of conflict thusfar suggests that Jewish populations in the West simply cannot disgard their EGI, of which Judaism and the two Marxisms (secular Judaism) are the clearest expressions.

If we really want to recover our lands and to live sovereign in them once again this great problem of conflicted Jewish ethnic interests, which Mr Auster has described as eloquently as anyone, must be confronted.  We can’t go on in this respect being hag-ridden by shades of Germany in the 1930s. This way there will be no European renewal.

Wise heads and loyal hearts will be required.

The Realist asserts—”Suppose someone tells me that water doesn’t boil at 212 degrees. Do I need to get out my thermometer and boil some water to prove him wrong? No, it’s appropriate to just tell him, “Well, all the people who should know about this say it boils at 212 degrees, and why should they be lying?” Probably an even better answer is, “Go away and stop wasting my time, you crazy freak!”

Actually water boils at the temperature (heat intensity) that corresponds to the pressure that is is placed upon it. For example: the more pressure H20 is under the higher temperature it takes for water to boil (change from a liquid to gas). Conversely, if you place H20 into a deep vacuum it will acually boil a temperatures less than 32 degrees fahrenheit. Water boils at 212 degrees at 15 psi= atmospheric pressure (sea level).

My point is, things are never as simple as they appear. David Duke’s assertion that Israel had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks my or my not have validity. On the surface they appear absurd, but stranger things have proven to be real.

Me:

“How flexible, opinionated, and scientific is the non-Arab Semite definition of its own, in your opinion? I assert it’s quite flexible, opinionated, and non-scientific.”

Arcane:

“No, it’s quite simple… if you paraded around in a Nazi uniform when you were younger, wrote numerous books claiming that Jews are the root of all evil in the world, deny that the Holocaust happened, and supported any person or people who opposed the state of Israel, as David Duke has done for the past 40 years, then you might, just might, be a tad bit anti-Semitic.”

Slow down and read it again. I was talking about non-Arab Semite self-definitions. Also, did you miss my links on non-Arab Semite “Europeanness”? That’s okay - I’m here to remind you about it.

“Ah, so Israel has to remain intact in its present form for about another hundred years or so, and wallah, it will be their homeland and you will defend it, right? LOL”

I defend Israel now, genius. You have a habit of changing the subject.

“Yet, the western world united against Apartheid, while it hems and haws over Israeli Apartheid (at best); here it’s illegal to boycott Israel. At least whites improved the natives’ lot in South Africa.”

“First of all, non-Jews living in Israel have very high standards of living and are way better off then their brethren in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.”

Blacks were better off under Jim Crow. Yes, having one’s house bulldozed is certainly “better off.”

“Secondly, Israel is not an apartheid system, South Africa was.”

Yes, Israel is an Apartheid state by any rational metric.

“Palestinians living outside of Israel are not Israeli citizens in any way and are not under the control of the Israeli government; they are ruled by their own people.”

Ah, so Palestinians in the West Bank are sovereign? Is that what you mean?

“Israel has no system even remotely comparable to this.”

No, nothing resembling Apartheid in the wall, or the non-Arab Semite-only roads criss-crossing the OTs (and effectively partioning them), or the checkpoints, or the marriage laws, or the right of return…

“No, they are not part of Israel. Is Zimbabwe part of South Africa? No. So it’s absurd to say that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are part of Israel.”

Ah, I see. They’re just part of the Israeli empire.

Come on Arcane, we all know that Israel is an ethnostate, and that there’s widespread discrimination against Arab Semites and everyone else who isn’t a non-Arab Semite. Do I really need to drag in the polls and the links to show how real Israelis feel about second-class Israelis?

“My opposition to apartheid was that it was completely unnecessary… simply put, all the white minority needed to do was create a meritocratic market-based system and they would have naturally risen to the top and taken a majority of the good jobs, simply due to the fact that they have a much higher average IQ than the black majority.”

So, you oppose things just for being unnecessary? That makes for a lot to oppose.

More to the point, what about Israeli marriage laws? What about the right of return? How about we make them all cognitively elitist?

These are rhetorical questions, so don’t think you gain any points for your replies, which will amount to hot air and not Israeli policy.

“Now, what they have is a system working against them via negative affirmative action, and against the interests of the entire country itself, due to black resentment that came about as a result of the white affirmative action system that was in place during apartheid.”

Sort of like in Kenya, and Zimbabwe, and probably most everywhere else in sub-Saharan Africa? C’mon man, SSAs aren’t racially spineless Euros. All that’s needed for black resentment is having whites around.

“And if you really don’t oppose the state of Israel and simply oppose people who support a monoethnic state of Israel and oppose a monoethnic Western state, then why don’t you ever say so in your posts on MR?”

Generally I make my entire position plain. I don’t talk about Israel much, at least not in my posts (comments are another matter).

“It’s simple! Say, ‘I support the state of Israel and wish others who support the state of Israel would not be hypocrites by opposing a monoethnic European state.’”

That’s not my position. I support the state of Israel, contingent on non-Arab Semite reciprocity by acknowledging my people’s right to ethnostates.

“OK, why are you saying that I’m a Jew? I’m not.”

Nonsense. Do you think we’ve forgotten your slip of the tongue at MR? I haven’t. It was as plain as day.

“I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with who is and who isn’t a Jew, but regardless, I am not one.”

It was an aside. How asides constitute “obsessions” is for you to ponder. I think your knee-jerk reaction of psychoanalyzing me might be telling.

“I am curious as to where you got the idea that I am.”

From your very telling Freudian slip in an MR thread where you all but explicitly stated it (you used “we” when you should’ve used “they,” and further in the context make it plain that you’ve been shilling all along).

Either way, no biggie. I was just curious.

My authority for this use of the word is ResistingDefamation.com, not David Duke. You may perhaps not know that a warm relationship exists between MR and the RD boys.

Regardless, the term was first developed and put into use by David Duke. Simple far-right history…

“Define European”. Is this meant to be a trick lesson from Genetics 101? Sorry, my friend, but Europe is filling with Third World populations. We are not blind. We know who they are, and they are not us. How is your question germaine?

300 years ago, and even less than that, much of what we call “Europe” today was not considered to be part of Europe proper. Only recently has Russia been considered a European country… with that example in mind, that’s why my question is perfectly legitimate.

Are geneticists the sole arbitrators of kinship? I think not - and so, really, do you.

So who is? You? All you have to do is describe what makes a person a European and that would be it. But you won’t do that… no no!

The question … the most difficult question … then arises as to the rights of Jews to live among Europeans. My answer at this time is that this right can be acknowledged in so far as Jewish ethnic interests are NOT pursued.

So tell me, what are you going to do when Germanic, Slavic, Nordic, Celtic, or Mediterranean ethnic interests are promoted by their ethnic groups in direct opposition to what you determine to be European racial interests? You going to expel them one ethnic group at a time, too?

However, this would put McDonald to the test somewhat. Certainly, two millenia of conflict thusfar suggests that Jewish populations in the West simply cannot disgard their EGI, of which Judaism and the two Marxisms (secular Judaism) are the clearest expressions.

The same could be said of the various European ethnic groups over the past two+ millenia… tens and tens of millions of Europeans have died fighting for their own interests against the interests of other rival European ethnicities. MacDonald even references National Socialism in an entire chapter as a form of politics that represents shallow ethnic interests (although he sees it as a response to Jewish EGI… according to MacDonald, Jews are responsible for NS [and every other movement he doesn’t like]).

We can’t go on in this respect being hag-ridden by shades of Germany in the 1930s. This way there will be no European renewal.

Duh. Can we include the 40s, as well? Most WNists are absolutely obsessed with Nazi Germany. I wonder why… rolls eyes

I mean, if WNists, like you, were really serious when you say that we should quit looking through the prism of the 30s, then why are you folks constantly spending so much time defending people obsessed with it, like David Irving and Ernst Zundel? Why spend so much time debating German war crimes in WWII? Why do people like David Duke always have to have a few chapters in their books attempting to debunk something that happened in the 30s and 40s?

You’re not being serious…

To Guessedworker, regarding:

“In any case, don’t do what Mr Auster and the hopelessly deracinated John PM does, and start hurling neurotic Nazi tags at us. It is always either extremely childish (usually in the sense that leftists tend towards childishness) or it is done in bad faith (in the sense that minority hucksters abuse the term for their own calculated ends).”

Wow, that’s telling me!!!

I have been called many things by the ignorant and uncouth before, but a “hopelessly deracinated” leftist normally isn’t one of them. After all Guessedworker, you should know from my regular postings at AR, that I am far from being soft on most racial questions. For example, I am normally as hard on the issue of white interracial cavorting whether it be a hysterical white female troll extolling the virtues of her black playmate, or a “WN” male rationalizing his “racial loyalty” in tandem with admissions of his Asian fever, that is in question. Another example, would be my passionate defenses of Apartheid being applied throughout the West, along with a variety of military and social policies within such a framework, to protect white majority status in our lands. 

But I guess, that since I view Jewish people to be fellow whites and select to not blame them for all of the Gentile world’s problems, that makes me “hopelessly deracinated” and a leftist too?

To the best of my recollection Guessedworker, I have never called you a Nazi personally?

However, there is such a thing as guilt by association (and here, slur as well) that should always be kept in mind when categorizing!

Whatever Svigor… I guess I’m all wound up in the big Jewish ethnic interest conspiracy to destroy all non-Jewish people, just because you think I’m a Jew.

Even the Nazis had better standards by which to determine who was Jewish than you.

And speaking of “Freudian slips,” I thought Freud was part of the whole Jewish conspiracy outlined in Culture of Critique… I guess he’s alright when he suits your ideological agenda (like trying to prove nonsensically that somebody is a Jew based on a supposed slip of tongue that nobody but yourself knows about).

To demonstrate just how anti-Jewish MR is, go no further than the first blog entry listed on the page for today… James Bowery manages to blame Oliver Cromwell for the number of Muslims in that country. How? Because Cromwell allowed Jews to come back into the country. It’s automatically assumed there that anything bad that happens can automatically be blamed on the Jews…

Socialists like “Red Ken” Livingstone apparently are guiltless in this regard (who I’m sure they defend on a regular basis in casual conversation due to his anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish bias). It’s all the fault of the Jews, you see, regardless of the fact that Jews resided in Britain for hundreds of years before any politician decided to loosen immigration controls in the mid-70s and mid-90s.

MR’s motto: “Jews are at the root of all evil.”

John, there ARE no Nazis. National Socialism was a left-wing movement predicated on the spiritual reunion of the German people and the pursuit of specifically German interests internallyand abroad. It died under the Allied Occupation.

Today the term’s used, as is “Fascist”, “Racist” etc, to abort argument for the necessary spiritual renewal of our own people, and to prevent our protest against the shackles of liberalism. None of us who understand the necessity of this should use these terms lightly. Those that do, like my occasional sparring partner Arcane, need to be made to reflect on the inherent nature of their own motives, as I have attempted to make him reflect here.

I have no animus against you, John. I think you should question your political Judeophilia. Our politics must be based on our ultimate interests - our EGI - and those interests are, as I told LA, not compatible with Jewish EGI.

“But I guess, that since I view Jewish people to be fellow whites and select to not blame them for all of the Gentile world’s problems, that makes me “hopelessly deracinated” and a leftist too?”— John PM

John PC, any rational person should recognise that many of the people that are actively and enthusiastically working against white interests are in fact Jewish. As “The Realist” points out, the late Susan Sontag certainly was no friend of whites! I say lets NOT blame ALL Jews for the problems we face. But on the other hand, we must recognise and understand why SOME Jews are so fervent in their campaign on attacking whiteness. In my opinion, it is NOT Jews we are battling, it is an anti-white ideology that is practiced by both Jew and Gentile.

Arcane,

I don’t know why you waste your breath trying to reason with these barbarians, which is what they are. You cannot reason with them because they do not possess reason; they are mono maniac and neurotically obsessive. They’re so-called arguments are based on simple minded rejectionism, convoluted and invented euphemisms, and selective historical notation. And that’s it. Those three factors comprise the sum total of their arguments— all of their arguments.

Furthermore, arguing with them is a complete waste of time and an exercise in futility. You will not convince them, nor they you. What’s more, it only encourages them. And if they get a rise out of you, it makes their perverted day.

The absolute worst thing you can do from their point of view is to ignore them; that is the one thing they cannot abide. And the absolute best thing you can do for us here at this site and at Amren is exactly the same, ignore them.

For example, only a horse’s ass could say such an astoundingly stupid thing as “National Socialism was a left-wing movement;” and a horse’s ass isn’t worth the time of day from a broken clock, much less the effort of an argument.

On a personal level let me say that I don’t need the “permission” of anyone to be white. All I have to do is look in the mirror. And I don’t give a rat’s ass who won the NFC East last year, much less who came down from the misty fjords of Norway wearing the smelly skins of animals a thousand years ago.

My concern is the future of white civilization.

So let me suggest that you and John PM and others not waste your time and energy on these fools. They’re simply not worth it.

“I have no animus against you, John. I think you should question your political Judeophilia. Our politics must be based on our ultimate interests - our EGI - and those interests are, as I told LA, not compatible with Jewish EGI.”

Guessedworker,

Please do not cry foul in the face of familiarity here; we are not strangers to each other, we are both old “warhorses” of regular AR posting. No, to be sure, we have never locked horns there to the best of my recollection and I was a more regular poster there than you as well, but you are regular enough at AR to know that I won’t let a challenge go without a response. Insinuating that I am “hopelessly deracinated” is a bit more than a challenge in the current debate, it was an insult!

Moreover, it was an insult hurled with a clear intention to provoke alignment with the frustrated “jackboot boy” types, right?

Indeed, you should know that my positions on Nazism, like Marxism, are from a political fulcrum that despises collectivization within the white community for either of the two philosophies’ goals. These being that the former, is a retrograde tool of ethnic divisiveness and the latter, one of the “class struggle.” Neither helps us in the long run (even if you factor out the “dreaded Jews”) since both have white ethnics or classes infighting. Infighting for different reasons and outcomes, but infighting nonetheless!

My political “Judeophilia,” being a case in point here?

As I have stated many times in the past at AR, they are my fellow whites in my book! They are no more or less so than the Eastern establishment WASPs, for all their flaws and duplicity in the “white guilt” redistribution morality plays?

Thus, we come to a point here, where we agree to disagree?

John PC, any rational person should recognise that many of the people that are actively and enthusiastically working against white interests are in fact Jewish. As “The Realist” points out, the late Susan Sontag certainly was no friend of whites! I say lets NOT blame ALL Jews for the problems we face. But on the other hand, we must recognise and understand why SOME Jews are so fervent in their campaign on attacking whiteness. In my opinion, it is NOT Jews we are battling, it is an anti-white ideology that is practiced by both Jew and Gentile.

“John PC,” a typo or an intended “cuteness?”

Just asking???

As for the rest, I have mentioned in the past at AR, that I grasp that many multicultural enemies are Jewish. However, so too are many WASPs or other white ethnics; think about that, with a hard reality based focus on this struggle for a civilization and people!

Two examples now:

Would the country have been better off in 1964, had the Episcopalian-Jew Goldwater defeated the “good-old-boy” Wasp “Texan” Johnson?

Give an honest answer there, if you can?

How is “Jungle Fever” different, from Save the Last Dance?”

In neither, is the white woman in question that is whoring herself to a black “male” Jewish, but there are examples of that too? A case in point, that pig Terri Hatcher’s performance on the last episode of Seinfeld???

What is the difference here and there?

My point, I do not care who is white and on my side, even if “gasp” Jewish, only that they stand for my people and civilization, period!

Ugh, God help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“My concern is the future of white civilization.

So let me suggest that you and John PM and others not waste your time and energy on these fools. They’re simply not worth it.”

Agreed, the future of our civilization is paramount WJP!

No questions, apologies, or regrets on this score from me!!!

However, debunking their lies and half-truths are worth the effort, I believe?

Otherwise, you “concede” a defeat of a form, that they will say is their victory.

In the end, that day here at IW will come to pass hopefully, where this is not a question of concern; however, for now it is worth fighting with them, and cutting them out of the loop. If not, they will haunt us like the Ghosts of Christmas Past!

All the best WJP,

John PM!

For example, only a horse’s ass could say such an astoundingly stupid thing as “National Socialism was a left-wing movement;” and a horse’s ass isn’t worth the time of day from a broken clock, much less the effort of an argument.

Well, there are many who actually do believe that National Socialism was a left-wing movement. Originally, the Strasserite models of NSism were very left-wing in nature, and many modern researchers believe that it could be classified as “left-wing.”

But that debate is irrelevant.

For example, only a horse’s ass could say such an astoundingly stupid thing as “National Socialism was a left-wing movement;” and a horse’s ass isn’t worth the time of day from a broken clock, much less the effort of an argument.

Erik v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn can run circles around you, even though he is dead.

Erik v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn was a genius.

“John PC,” a typo or an intended “cuteness?”

Just asking???

An intended dig.

“Would the country have been better off in 1964, had the Episcopalian-Jew Goldwater defeated the “good-old-boy” Wasp “Texan” Johnson?

Give an honest answer there, if you can?”

That is a rather unintelligent question. How could anybody know if we would have been better off if Goldwater had won! Or perhaps you can explain to a dullard like me what the world would be like if Goldwater had won? If you can?

“My point, I do not care who is white and on my side, even if “gasp” Jewish, only that they stand for my people and civilization, period!

Ugh, God help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

If you reread the last sentence in my post, (“In my opinion, it is NOT Jews we are battling, it is an anti-white ideology that is practiced by both Jew and Gentile.”) I think we agree on that issue.

“Erik v. Kuehnelt-Leddihn can run circles around you, even though he is dead.”

By Portable Curmudgeon on 12/23/06 at 1:02 pm

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I too wonder what the hell that’s supposed to mean.

For those of you who don’t know who Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was, as I didn’t:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Here’s a link to a video of a Daily Show segment about the recent Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. Funny! Our insane friend puts in a brief appearance.

http://www.pkblogs.com/dovbear/2006/12/holocaust-denial-conference-in-tehran.html

I too wonder what the hell that’s supposed to mean.

Leddihn studied political ideologies, and he was brought up as a subject due to the fact that somebody mentioned that Nazism was “left-wing” and another disputed it.

What came first the Jewish radical or the gulible gentile? is a white nationalist version of the chicken or the egg debate. But does it really matter?

David Duke thinks the only way for white nationalists to advance our cause is for us all to talk about the influence of jews on western society, which may or may not be correct.

He does not seem to have stopped to think that the white majority which needs to be won over care more about the impact of things like Black crime and muslim terrorism, than theories as to who is pulling their strings behind the scenes.

Equally I think the Inverted-World by seeking the purge the ‘anti-semities’ from this movement only serves to divide the movement when what we need is unity.

The correct strategy I beleive is to do like American Renaisance and have no official position on the jewish question either for or against. Allow individuals affiliated with the organisation the freedom to have their own private opinions on the matter but make it clear that they may make no public statement on the matter.

Realist,

Thank you so much for your website. I have just recently discovered the “Race Realism movement on the web.”

I am white. I am non-jewish. I am college educated for what it’s worth. I and my wife are are law-abiding business owner’s with no employees. We want a better world for whites without injustly treating the non-whites. Enough of me.

IMHO

Let me sum things up very susintly.

I could go on for paragraph after paragraph but I would rather not waste my time. Let me sum things up very succinctly. Because of evolution: South People good. North people better.

Exception: Jews Good.

Basic human motives for conflict: Envy, Greed. Muslims, and Blacks hate whites and Jews because of envy. Arabs and blacks are biologically programed to be less intelligent and impulsive, which in itself causes them to have less.

When blacks and Arabs see others with more, it twists their minds. Then they resort to force to either steal from whitey, or destroy what whitey has.

For the life of me I can not see what is wrong with the world’s greatest violinists, great doctors, great bankers and great scientists. Jews are all of the above.

Anti-Jew rhetoric is DESTROYING the credibility of the white consciousness movement.

I would like to join National Vanguard, Northwest Migration etc. but their anti-Jew speech turns me off.

A. Claiming to want a white nation, homeland, society etc. based on people being intelligent, productive, hardworking etc. and then saying Jews not allowed, is like saying you want fine restaurants but no French, great automobiles but no Germans etc. It is illogical.

B. Blaming Jews for the world’s problems is so nutty. It DOES go against conventional wisdom. David Duke’s conspiracy theories are assisting in destroying OUR white movement. Duke makes race realist sound like we should be on late night AM radio between UFO and Teleportation call-in shows.

“Our Next guest with Art Bell will be David Duke… telling us how the Jews are getting their orders from the ancient Pyramids they built under Pharaoh’s hand. You see the pyramids receive radio waves from deep space…”

Duke has hi-jacked the movement and makes us look like a bunch of Nazis or hillbillies. (Now I know it is hard to imagine Nazis and hillbillies in the same sentence… but waving a swastika or Rebel flag has just about the same reaction with MIDDLE OF THE ROAD WHITES. Which IS our target right? To misquote John Lenon, “ But when you go carrying pictures of Adolph Hitler, (it used to read “Chairman Mao”) you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow.

If we want to get serious about a white homeland we need to DUMP DUKE NOW.

REALIST, YOU ARE 1000% right!

You shot yourselves in the feet, One of the majopr criticisms that the racial right has of the Jewish community is a tendency on their part to refuse to debate issues based on the notion that the subject matter raised is “outside the limits of debate” Those who make such a proclomnation cannot complain when they are than accused of fostering a “conspiracy of silence” or worse The very notion of “limits of debate” is insidious to a free society and subversive to the very principal of free inquiry Ot cannot be seen as anything other than a method by which elites stifle dissent while maintaining the facade of a free society This is especially insidious since the penalties for transcending these limits in America can be isolation, b=the destruction of ones career, the loss as a result thereof of ones family and home Im totalitarian liberal socueties in Western Europe and Cannada it can mean imprisionment Secondly. WNs have long complained that the Jewish Establishment constantly portrays its opponentsd as “Mentally Ill” Your declaration that insanity consists of questioning conventional wisdom is frankly bizarre and gruesome, especially for an organization which cl;aims to uphold racil preservation Conventional wisdom is usually wrong simply because of Lard Actons observation concerning the corruption from power. CW is established by the powerful and power corrupts. It is also not based on reason, deliberation, free thought or higher knowledge because none of these things flourish in the presence of power and crowds Your water boiling point analology was false because the elites have no motive to falsify that data. They do however have a motive to falsify the facts about race, immigration, crime, homosexuality and a host of other issues, and I think you would agree that they do I have nothing against the Jewish people freeing themselves from the the paranioa and tyranny of the Jewish establishment and Zionism. Indeed there wewre Jews in the past such as Samuel Gompers who were dedicated WNs (In Gompers case a WN of the moderate left who defenbded White workers against Africanization) However, Gentlemen,I must tell you, if this is any indication, you are not off to a good start!

Racialism is the abysmal failure that it is solely and entirely because of people like David Duke. Even though they comprise only a tiny minority of white racialists, if all anti-semites and Nazi apologists renounced their support for racialism, an incalculable boon would be given to our cause.

David Duke’s antisemitism is one thing, but are you familiar with the theories of Kevin MacDonald? In my opinion, even if we suppose that Cultural Marxism enjoyed widespread support within the Jewish community as part of a group evolutionary strategy, it is only because Jews were not sufficiently assimilated into white culture. By adopting an ethic of cultural inclusion with respect to the Jewish community, this problem ceases to be. MacDonald’s theories, supposing them true, are compatible with any number of recommendations.

Duke’s books are crap!!! I wouldn’t waste even discussing him. The people for whom he claims to speak (disenfranchised, blue collar whites) are rightfully angry, and Duke capitalizes off that. He is no different than the Rev.’s Al and Jesse, a shyster.

I have read his books and the scholarship is a joke. He will never persuade any followers other than marinalized, lower class white people.

“Racialism is the abysmal failure that it is solely and entirely because of people like David Duke. Even though they comprise only a tiny minority of white racialists, if all anti-semites and Nazi apologists renounced their support for racialism, an incalculable boon would be given to our cause.”

By Neo-Galtonian on 3/13/07 at 7:05 pm

I’ve said the same thing time and time again both here and at Amrens’ forum. It is the neo-Nazi/Stormfront/National Alliance knuckle draggers who have kept and will continue to keep White nationalism marginanilized.

They must be purged like the collective tumor they are or decent White Christians and Jews will never join the ranks.

I see the old statement by “neo-galtonian,” a great poster who is still making similar statements, has been responded to.

Most extremists lack the ability to put their minds in that of the average person. The average person is turned off by Nazism, and doesn’t want to ride some roller coaster of excitement and shock value. Marketing is everything. Extremists have lost contact with the average American and live in their own little world.

That, in addition to my partial Ashkenazi bloodline, is a good reason to be against it.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose this insanity. It is degenerate, outcast, and these people tend to, as Neo-Galtonian says in other places, lack cognitive abilities and are extremely self-destructive, ideology aside.

Hello. I just discovered this site while researching Rushton. I have never been a part of any of the groups you guys mention, but I am interested in human evolution and I find some of the subjects discussed here fascinating.

But speaking of Jews…I thought that genetic research shows Jews to be a subset of the Caucasoid race. Also, I see lots of evidence that Jews, at least Ashkenazi Jews, have some of the highest average IQ’s on the planet. The fact that Jews are associated with liberalism and Marxism does not negate the fact that they are also associated with some of the most important advancements in Western culture and technology.
I see intelligence as amoral. It produces crap like Judaism and Marxism, but also good stuff like inventions and scientific discovery. I see Jewish DNA as extremely important to Western society. And by the way, I’m Anglo/Scots-Irish, so I’m not defending my own “people”. Some of the stuff I read on here sounds a bit irrational, but I’m glad to find a place to share ideas considered “racist” by the mainstream. Oh, yah, David Duke is indeed the white Al Sharpton as norowski stated.

“Oh, yah, David Duke is indeed the white Al Sharpton as norowski stated.”—rational_libertarian

norowski said: “I have read his [David Duke’s] books and the scholarship is a joke. He will never persuade any followers other than marinalized, lower class white people.”

Welcome, rational_libertarian,

But don’t kid yourself! Both Duke and Sharpton’s propaganda have significant influence over all races no matter their income or intellectual accomplishments. That’s what makes them both so dangerous; especially Al “the liar” Sharpton because he is legitimized by the MSM as the official spokesman for the black-race.

Jews should not be blamed for all the problems facing white gentiles. The problem is with the white gentile leadership. I have no use for Nazis but I think the following question is worth pondering:

Would the National Socialist leadership have sold out the German people?

No, all the “Jewish Lobbies” in the world could have made the Germans sell out there people. When Jews were lobbying hard for more non-white immigration, the white gentile leadership didn’t have to fold. Would the Nazis fight wars for the interests of Israel? Of course not, in order for a lobby to be successful, it requires the LOBBIED TO GIVE IN!

So our problems have nothing to do with Jews. There’s an inherent weakness within the West that must be realized and dealt with.

As for the issue of Jewish White Nationalists. I see no reason to totally shut out Jews from this movement. But what I’d like to see, is these Jews start their own organization denouncing groups like the ADL.

This group could be called something like “Jew’s for the West” or something and should act as a bridge between White Nationalists and Jews. They should lobby their fellow Jews and explain to them, that in the long run, its better to support the issues that White Nationalists champion. As this country becomes more non-white, its not going to be safer for Jews. Blacks, Muslims, and even hispanics are much more “anti-semitic” than white gentiles. Plus, the liberal ideology that they have traditionally supported is becoming very anti-Israel.

The biggest supporters of Jews happen to be white gentiles. White Nationalist Jews need to point out to their fellow Jews that White Americans overwhelmingly support Israel and its right to exist and that they should do the same for us. Maybe some of the Jews at this site can start this organization?

Is it true that he stole $500,000 from his contributers and spent it at cusinos. Can you answear that. There seems to be a war of words about that over the internet and I am confused what is going on.

In an article critical of David Duke, why aren’t his very serious character flaws discussed? It is well known that Duke intentionally defrauded his supporters to support his own gambling addiction.