← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel
Thread ID: 4293 | Posts: 85 | Started: 2003-01-02
2003-01-02 21:59 | User Profile
Got the January 13 issue of The American Conservative in the mail today...and what do I see but a full-page ad on the back cover for Whistleblower! I subscribed to TAC to get away from Joseph Farah and his neocon, Zionist rag, only to have ads for his tripe disgracing its pages.
Guess who won't be be renewing their subscription....
2003-01-02 22:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 2 2003, 21:59 ** Got the January 13 issue of The American Conservative in the mail today...and what do I see but a full-page ad on the back cover for Whistleblower! I subscribed to TAC to get away from Joseph Farah and his neocon, Zionist rag, only to have ads for his tripe disgracing its pages.
Guess who won't be be renewing their subscription.... **
Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Just because TAC runs an ad doesn't mean they subscribe to the product or endorse the seller's philosophy. In the publishing world, as long as it ain't selling cut-rate baked infants, when you get an ad, you take it.
Look at it this way: You're talking about one page in a thirty-page magazine which you don't have to read, advertising a product you damned sure don't have to buy. Your basically taking money from Joe Farah because his ad effectively helps subsidizes your subscription fee. Is your sense of precious purity so important you'd walk away from the best political magazine to come out in decades over one page practically no one pays attention to?
Best, P
2003-01-02 22:33 | User Profile
Is your sense of precious purity so important you'd walk away from the best political magazine to come out in decades over one page practically no one pays attention to?
Yes, it is. I've seen too many publications over the years get compromised by taking on advertisers of dubious motives, become dependent on them, and then have to cowtow to them and adjust their editorial slant when said advertisers remind them "which side their bread is buttered on."
If Buchanan and Taki want to present their mag as a pseudo-paleocon publication that's their business, but they're not fooling anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
At least I can still read Joe Sobran and Sam Francis in Chronicles and be confident that no neocons and their ad money are corrupting the publication.
2003-01-02 23:12 | User Profile
TAC has precious few advertisers. I don't know how choosy they can afford to be.
2003-01-02 23:47 | User Profile
Centinel,
I would not worry much about the advertising in TAC, it is the Nixon Article he wrote that bothers me!
Buster is Right, this column makes me dislike Buchanan!
"Can't stand Pat"-Buster
url: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=5205]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=3&t=5205[/url]
2003-01-03 02:56 | User Profile
as long as it ain't selling cut-rate baked infants, when you get an ad, you take it.
Drat! Good ones are so hard to find these days, too, and now I find out there's an advertising boycott.
2003-01-03 04:54 | User Profile
I have doubts about Pat, too, but he justified his existence this afternoon on his MSNBC show, when he ripped apart some jerk who reprsented some kind of American Zionist club. Pat turned him every which way but loose, then smiled and invited him back.
-Z-
2003-01-03 18:07 | User Profile
Both Buchanan and Raimondo have seemed a lot more neo recently, which makes the Whistleblower ad of more concern than it would be otherwise. Perhaps it's the price of wide distribution, having to neuter your message.
2003-01-03 18:35 | User Profile
I seriously don't see what the problem is. If the purity thing is so bad, why don't you complain about townhall.com (a project of the Heritage Foundation, which is much more neocon than WND) which has had ads in nearly every issue.
Anyway, If you are worried about the ads corrupting TAC, why don't you at least wait til the magazine is corrupted.
2003-01-03 18:56 | User Profile
Hey Centinel,
Does TAC have any kind of 'Letters to the Editor' type section?
Maybe an articulate letter with an innocent reference to OD or Neo-Con Watch would be an appropriate response? :)
Whether they published it or not would say something, I would think. Kind of like guerrilla tactics for us on the po' side of the movement.
2003-01-04 00:14 | User Profile
Drakmal,
Both Buchanan and Raimondo have seemed a lot more neo recently...
I dislike Raimondo because of the Frankfurt school nonsense rants, in this article and the FR thread. And that was some time back.
Justin Raimondo attack on "Racists"
"NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS" [url=http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html]http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html[/url]
FR thread: See Raimondo praise JR and Censorship on "Free Republic" [url=http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm]http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm[/url]
And what Buchanan said in his Nixon article was most sickening too!
2003-01-04 14:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Jan 3 2003, 18:14 **Justin Raimondo attack on "Racists"
"NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS" [url=http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html]http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html[/url]
FR thread: See Raimondo praise JR and Censorship on "Free Republic" [url=http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm]http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm[/url]**
Infuriating. I may have been incorrect in associating Raimondo with paleos--or "conservatives" of any stripe. This quarter-jewish homosexual refers to himself as a libertarian, and acts like one too--showing most of the leftist tendencies of that movement: opposition to war, suspicion of Israel, denunciation of 'racists', attacking safe targets (like neocons and government), etc.
I have more confidence in Buchanan, but he should know better. Empowering negroes politically was a bad idea to begin with, but bragging about it when you've already alienated your white voting base? He'll never win New Hampshire again.
(Thanks for the links, BTW.)
Drakmal
2003-01-04 15:14 | User Profile
"suspicion of Israel"
So then, Drakmal, you're NOT suspicious of Israel? <_<
2003-01-04 15:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@Jan 4 2003, 14:21 ** > Originally posted by Faust@Jan 3 2003, 18:14 **Justin Raimondo attack on "Racists"
"NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS" [url=http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html]http://128.121.216.19/justin/j120400.html[/url]
FR thread: See Raimondo praise JR and Censorship on "Free Republic" [url=http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm]http://www.amren.com/raimondo.htm[/url]**
Infuriating. I may have been incorrect in associating Raimondo with paleos--or "conservatives" of any stripe. This quarter-jewish homosexual refers to himself as a libertarian, and acts like one too--showing most of the leftist tendencies of that movement: opposition to war, suspicion of Israel, denunciation of 'racists', attacking safe targets (like neocons and government), etc.
I have more confidence in Buchanan, but he should know better. Empowering negroes politically was a bad idea to begin with, but bragging about it when you've already alienated your white voting base? He'll never win New Hampshire again.
(Thanks for the links, BTW.)
Drakmal **
That's a bit harsh on the guy isn't it Drakmal/Faust ? Maybe a few PC platitudes get thrown in now and again, but I think he hits the nail on the head more than most. Who else is writing a 'what-did-Israel-know-about-911' book ?
2003-01-04 18:52 | User Profile
Wintermute posted:
I'll wait a month or so, and then pick up another copy. I like Taki and enjoy Buchanan's books, but neither of those gentlemen's characteristic fire-breathing has made it to the innards of the 'zine. I presume white-bread Scott McConnel, longtime neocon asslicker, is responsible for 'toning it down'.
Scott McConnell was fired at the New York Post for blasting the behavior of 'Ricans at their stinking parade in New York City. His successor was John Podhoretz, who repudiated many of McConnell's stands. I believe McConnell to be more of a "paleo" persuasion, but I am not sure.
2003-01-04 20:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Jan 4 2003, 18:52 ** Wintermute posted: I'll wait a month or so, and then pick up another copy. I like Taki and enjoy Buchanan's books, but neither of those gentlemen's characteristic fire-breathing has made it to the innards of the 'zine. I presume white-bread Scott McConnel, longtime neocon asslicker, is responsible for 'toning it down'.
Scott McConnell was fired at the New York Post for blasting the behavior of 'Ricans at their stinking parade in New York City. His successor was John Podhoretz, who repudiated many of McConnell's stands. I believe McConnell to be more of a "paleo" persuasion, but I am not sure. **
My Podhoretz Problem ââ¬â and Ours
Scott McConnell - April 2, 2002
[url=http://www.antiwar.com/mcconnell/mc040202.html]http://www.antiwar.com/mcconnell/mc040202.html[/url]
"In thinking about the Jews I have often wondered whether their survival as a distinct group was worth one hair on the head of a single infant."
Last Tuesday, I went to the memorial service for Ernest van den Haag, the Fordham professor and brilliantly courageous author and essayist. I knew him only slightly, but long admired his readiness to pursue truth, regardless of what sacred cows needed sacrifice in the process. He was quite conservative ââ¬â in the late 1950's, for instance, he made frequent appearances as an expert witness in the various legal efforts trying to shut down the incipient school integration bandwagon. That involved association with individuals and groups who were, well, simply racist, and is the kind of past that few men easily live down. But Ernest seemed to get past it without any problem whatsoever. If you are sufficiently gifted intellectually, you can generally manage to shift gears gracefully and go on to other subjects.
In the anteroom of the sanctuary, I saw Ernest's great friend Taki and his wife Alexandra, who invited me to sit with them. We moved up the aisle, taking seats near the front behind Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter. The Podhoretz's, without saying anything, got up and moved to sit somewhere else.
I've written elsewhere about Norman's hostility to me and how it saddens me. His magazine Commentary gave me my start in journalism twenty years ago, and he has been a formidable force in American literary and political culture and cultural politics for nearly half a century. For much of my adult life I agreed with a good deal of what Podhoretz wrote, and long admired his fearlessness and ability to circle around an argument, chipping away at it from every angle until he had shaped it into a conclusion he wanted. Podhoretz's Commentary was respected ââ¬â even (or perhaps especially) by its opponents ââ¬â as that rare magazine in which the editor's passion had never flagged. I would see Midge and Norman socially a bit, and took great pleasure in it.
Norman now prefers not to speak to me at all ââ¬â last summer he told me my "hostility" to Israel was the reason. What "hostility" means in this case is my vocal support for a diplomatic solution that gives the Palestinians a state of their own on the West Bank and Gaza ââ¬â a solution delineated by countless American signed United Nations resolutions, endorsed by Colin Powell and President Bush. And its corollary: opposition to the Israeli colonization of the West Bank and Gaza ââ¬â settlements designed to thwart the two-state solution described above.
Norman and the magazine he edited for thirty-five years are now among the leading American voices for the idea that the Palestinians should have no serious political or national rights in historic Palestine, none whatsoever. Norman opposed the Oslo peace process from the beginning, (as he opposed the Israeli-Egyptian agreement over Sinai in the 1970's). At least in his published writing he does not refer to the West Bank as "Judaea" and "Samaria", but such usage is commonplace among his fellow American supporters of the Israeli right wing. Its political meaning is the precise counterpart of those Palestinian maps we hear so much about which don't display the state of Israel: an effort to symbolically annihilate the other party.
In order to keep and expand the Israeli settlements and to deny the Palestinians a flag and state of their own on the land allocated for that purpose by by the United Nations, Podhoretz and other neo-conservatives wage a constant campaign against American supporters of a fair diplomatic solution. They readily tolerate substantial damage to America's diplomatic position in the Arab world, and indeed, in the world at large. When Ariel Sharon's sends American-made tanks and helicopters to carve up the West Bank into more easily dominated cantons, and to arrest, deport, or kill off the Palestinian national leadership, no Arab fails to understand that it could not be done without American arms and money. The rancor stirred up by Sharon's actions is, of course, fertile soil for anti-American terror. This doesn't really disturb Podhoretz, who has actually written that the main reason Arabs are anti-Israel is that they see Israel as a pro-American entity in their midst.
While terror ââ¬â at least at the level Israel has been experiencing it, is a recent phenomenon, the Israeli Right's dream of colonizing the entire West Bank and denying the Palestinians a national home is more than half a century old, far older than the actual occupation, older indeed than Israel itself. Podhoretz and his fellow neoconservatives have regularly served as the American cheerleaders for this powerful Israeli faction, heaping praise on Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu and Sharon, and attacking their American detractors.
As the quotation which opened this column might indicate, Norman Podhoretz's worldview was not always so parochial. The quoted sentence comes from "My Negro Problem ââ¬â and Ours" which Podhoretz published in Commentary in 1963. He was thinking through the idea that the race problem in America was so grave and has produced so much twisted thought within the minds of members of every group, that it might be resolvable only through widespread miscegenation.
Lest there be any doubt, Norman Podhoretz was not, in these passages, endorsing that idea that Jews should ready themselves to disappear as a distinct group.
But he was not rejecting it either.
Of course, given the extraordinary and unique role played by Jews in the arts, in science and medicine, and more broadly as a kind of leavening agent for social change in the West, the world would probably be much poorer if Jews had not struggled to maintain a distinct group identity.
But consider then the distance Podhoretz has traveled since 1963. Then he was willing to initiate a startlingly frank interrogation of the worth of ethnic identity; now, a senior citizen, he has become its prisoner. His sensibility stifled and warped by pro-Israeli chauvinism, viewing ex-friends who don't share his enthusiasms for Israel's colonization of Palestinian land as frightful enemies, he now stands as a painful instance of the closing of an exceptional mind.
2003-01-04 22:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by NativeExile@Jan 4 2003, 09:14 ** "suspicion of Israel"
So then, Drakmal, you're NOT suspicious of Israel? <_< **
I don't know that 'suspicious' is the right word for me; it's like being suspicious of OJ. :ph34r:
Anti-Israel sentiment is quite strong among the far left as well as the far right. It's one of the issues we agree on. I was noting that one of Raimondo's attitudes that I had previously assumed was rightist, is also shared by the far left.
2003-01-04 22:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 4 2003, 09:21 ** That's a bit harsh on the guy isn't it Drakmal/Faust ? Maybe a few PC platitudes get thrown in now and again, but I think he hits the nail on the head more than most. Who else is writing a 'what-did-Israel-know-about-911' book ? **
A few PC platitudes? The man has devoted more than one entire column to attacking 'nazis' and 'racists', in a manner that would make the mass media proud. I don't think I'm being that hard on him--certainly no harder than he's being on white nationalists/separatists.
Justin is certainly good at analyzing foreign policy, and for that I shall continue to read his column, but that doesn't make him any more correct on domestic issues, and that's what my criticism was about.
2003-01-05 03:28 | User Profile
Drakmal,
Great Post!
2003-01-05 05:46 | User Profile
FWIW, I will admit TAC is gaining prominence....at least among paleo mags.
Here are Alexa's con mag ratings as of today:
The American Conservative: 26,348
The New American: 81,555
Chronicles: 74, 370
The Weekly Standard: 13,116
National Review: 2,964
2003-01-05 05:46 | User Profile
I am not worried about the advertising in TAC, it is the Nixon Article he wrote that bothers me and in the case of Justin Raimondo "NEO-NAZIS AND NEOCONS" is very Bad.
oldrightlibertarian is Right.
*I seriously don't see what the problem is. If the purity thing is so bad, why don't you complain about townhall.com (a project of the Heritage Foundation, which is much more neocon than WND) which has had ads in nearly every issue.
Anyway, If you are worried about the ads corrupting TAC, why don't you at least wait til the magazine is corrupted.*-oldrightlibertarian
AntiYuppie is also Right!
Pat Buchanan needs to decide whether he wants to be part of the mainline beltway establishment or if he wants to be an authentic voice of dissent. As always, he and his collaborators are sending mixed messages to his readers with these sorts of antics.*-AntiYuppie
If Pat wants to be an authentic voice of dissent he needs to bring back Larry Pratt, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis. And support the CofCC!
2003-01-05 05:50 | User Profile
If Pat wants to be an authentic voice of dissent he needs to bring back Larry Pratt, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis. And support the CofCC!
You do realize, of course, that would probably require his departure from MSNBC, voluntary or otherwise, in today's PC climate. Decisions, decisions....
2003-01-05 06:07 | User Profile
Centinel,
No point being on MSNBC if you can not say anything un-PC.
Also Pat should not sell out Black Listed Paleocons, how much longer before Pat gets the Sobran/Francis treatment?
This would be a good start. If Pat wants to be an authentic voice of dissent he needs to bring back Larry Pratt, Joe Sobran and Sam Francis. And support the CofCC!
2003-01-05 08:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@Jan 4 2003, 22:30 > Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 4 2003, 09:21 ** That's a bit harsh on the guy isn't it Drakmal/Faust ? Maybe a few PC platitudes get thrown in now and again, but I think he hits the nail on the head more than most. Who else is writing a 'what-did-Israel-know-about-911' book ? **
A few PC platitudes? The man has devoted more than one entire column to attacking 'nazis' and 'racists', in a manner that would make the mass media proud. I don't think I'm being that hard on him--certainly no harder than he's being on white nationalists/separatists.
Justin is certainly good at analyzing foreign policy, and for that I shall continue to read his column, but that doesn't make him any more correct on domestic issues, and that's what my criticism was about.**
Good points. I'm glad he's there doing what he's (mostly) doing, beggers can't be choosers!
2003-01-06 19:53 | User Profile
An open question to the peanut gallery:
Why is it that when in discussions of paleocon matters, OD forum folk speak of Chronicles, Vdare, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran; of paleolibertarian sites like LewRockwell.com; of white nationalist sites like VNN and Jared Taylor's outfit...but never of The New American and the John Birch Society?
I'm no longer a dues-paying Bircher, but even today (some say they've mellowed), you'll find no more potent and exhaustively-researched/footnoted screeds and exposes against the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission than at TNA and within the JBS. Vdare never mentions the CFR/TC; Sam Francis might, once a year; Buchanan hasn't for years; dunno if it's a focus at VNN.
Just wondering. I see Chronicles brought up all the time, but never The New American or JBS.
2003-01-06 19:58 | User Profile
Add to that question, amongst paleocon thinkers/writers, why aren't there mentioned JBS Prez John F. McManus mentioned more often (author of a dozen books, exposes, including the recent William F. Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment), or ex-Bircher Alan Stang, or ex-Bircher and genius researcher G. Edward Griffin (The Creature from Jekyll Island: Inside the Federal Reserve System and The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations)?
Strikes me as odd. & I see this everywhere: Justin Raimondo, like him or hate him, writes voluminously on paleocon philosophy, but he NEVER mentions TNA, the JBS or JBS (or ex-JBS) writers/philosophers/researchers.
2003-01-06 20:57 | User Profile
**Why is it that when in discussions of paleocon matters, OD forum folk speak of Chronicles, Vdare, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran; of paleolibertarian sites like LewRockwell.com; of white nationalist sites like VNN and Jared Taylor's outfit...but never of The New American and the John Birch Society? **
TBF,
I subscribe to Chronicles,The American Conservative, and The New American. TNA is by far my favorite. I find it the most relevant to the man in street, and it would be the first paleocon mag I'd recommend to a friend because it deals with real issues facing Middle America, not academic abstractions that some of the other two tend to get into. The full-color glossy photos don't hurt, either.
Having said that, I think the JBS tiptoes around the issue of the US-Israel relationship and barely deals with it at all. I know in today's climate those can be dangerous waters for any American publication to enter, and the JBS has been extra careful to avoid the appearance of anti-Semitism. Perhaps this is because some hardcore white nationalists like Tom Metzger and Willis Carto have past associations with the JBS.
Nevertheless, the relationship with Israel is having very real and tangible repurcussions at home and abroad for Americans, whether they care to admit it or not. For the paleoconservative press to bury its head in the sand for fear of the Israel lobby is simply no longer an option. Most of the critical journalism on Israel is coming from the European press and from the left (Nation, CounterPunch, The Guardian, The Independent, Indymedia, Pacifica Radio, etc.), not from the right, with the notable exceptions of people like Sobran and Raimondo. TAC is likewise tiptoeing, seemingly focusing more on the Chickenhawks in US government than going after the insidious infiltration the Israel lobby has made into US politics.
2003-01-06 21:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Jan 6 2003, 14:57 Nevertheless, the relationship with Israel is having very real and tangible repurcussions at home and abroad for Americans, whether they care to admit it or not. For the paleoconservative press to bury its head in the sand for fear of the Israel lobby is simply no longer an option.
A hearty amen. Well said, Centinel.
2003-01-08 03:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jan 6 2003, 21:42 > Originally posted by toddbrendanfahey@Jan 6 2003, 19:58 ** Strikes me as odd. ÃÂ & I see this everywhere: Justin Raimondo, like him or hate him, writes voluminously on paleocon philosophy, but he NEVER mentions TNA, the JBS or JBS (or ex-JBS) writers/philosophers/researchers. **
I believe that the JBS doesn't rank very high in the minds of many paleoconservatives because it 1) Focuses on conspiracy theories that stretch almost anybody's credibility and 2) because it doesn't deal with a number of issues important to the paleoconservative worldview.
As far as #1 is concerned, there is little reason to invoke the machinations of Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, and CFR to account for what's going on in our foreign policy. There is no need for conspiracies or secret societies to explain our warped foreign policy because much of what goes on is conducted rather openly by the people in power with full public approval. Why conduct these affairs in secret when you have a mass population thoroughly and eagerly saturated with your agitprop? **
I tend to agree with AY about the JBS reputation for conspiracy theories making it and the New American harder to understand and forward on classical "conservative" thinking. The New American's fixation on the CFR and Trilateral Commission in this regards is similar to that of The Spotlight's fixation on the Bilderbergers. There to some extent is a basic difference between those who deal in ideologies, who's ideologues "disdain to conceal their designs" and conspiracies, who's participants by definition [u]do[/u] conceal their designs. Reporting on conspiracies is intrinsically more speculative, and more difficult. Rather than idealistic speculating about how the world supposedly works, it involves dealing with the hard and fast reality of how it really works, which is always more difficult and complicated.
Albeit, also more rewarding. I remember I used to be a little reserved about AY's conspiracy theories about the neo cons, until I read Kevin MacDonald, Sam Francis, sat back a little, a put two and two together. Similarly I think the JBS and New American probably, from what I've read (I confess to a little residual laziness and reserve here) have more practical insight into today's political world than ten Chronicles magazines filled with articles about the proper design of Italian opera theaters.
Maybe, as MacDonald would say, it's part of my/our residual western individualism and suspicion of rigid ingroup/outgroup theories, which for all our bluster, seems to be hard to permanently shake off. ;)
2003-01-09 03:44 | User Profile
Joe Sobran weighs in here:
** What is it about the word conspiracy that provokes the instant smirk and snicker? The world is thick with dishonest people, and they donââ¬â¢t always act alone. They have a way of finding each other and acting corporately. Even ââ¬Åthe D.C. sniperââ¬Â turned out to be a team.
Thatââ¬â¢s why we speak of organized crime, smuggling rings, accomplices, accessories, getaway cars, spies, covert activities, secret and undercover agents, insider trading, collusion, fences, and so forth. We have a fairly large vocabulary of words that recognize the conspiratorial aspects of social life. Secret cooperation isnââ¬â¢t unusual at all.
People in government conspire all the time. In fact, governments budget billions for espionage and other covert activities. These huge bureaucracies keep countless secrets from us, allegedly for our own good; and the inevitable result is that we can never really know what the government is doing.**
2003-01-09 04:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jan 9 2003, 03:21 **In spite of what some of my comments may at some level suggest, I don't find conspiracy theories of any kind, be they Bilderberg, Freemason, CFR, or even Jewish to be particularly credible. In a strict sense "Conspiracy" involves an organized plot taking place behind closed doors. In order for such a plot to work (particularly one in which matters of international economic and political significance are decided), there simply can be no defectors who leak the truth.........
The fact of the matter is, much of the "anti-Semitic" literature is basically garbage that hurts the cause of its writers more than its targets precisely because it involves elaborate and unbelievable conspiracies to explain a pattern of concerted behavior. MacDonald's work shows that no such "just so" stories are necessary.
Indeed, I can extend MacDonald's arguments about Jewish ingroup vs. outgroup strategy to describe the instinctive behavior of any elite which sees its relation to the rest of the nation in terms of ingroup-outgroup relationships. Like Jews and other organized ethnic minorities, our elites (regardless of ethnicity) act in a coordinated fashion in the policies they advocate and peddle - not because they were told to do so at a Bilderberg or CFR meeting, but because they are persuing their rational interest as rulers at the expense of their gullible subjects.**
What I don't know about how to characterize your arguments is how exactly, in language that is credible in our individualistic culture, describe the real nature of the collectivistic and group oriented interactions that are simply assumed in most collectivistic societies, and are quitely acknowledged even in a society as ours as being controlling.
I think you have to be precise in how you define conspiracy. At a certain level all of life I would suspect is conspiritorial, according to the evolutionary psychologists. The importance of deception in their account of human behavior seems to imply this, since deception is such a key element of conspiracy.
The question in other words isn't [u]whether[/u] conspiracies are important in the world, but rather [u]what kind[/u] of conspiracies are dominant. MacDonald's theories about Judaism are credible precisely because they avoid the kind of wild speculation anti-Semites have tended to involve about things like The Secret Protocals of the Elder's of Zion etc.
As to whether the New American and Spotlight's theories are credible, I'll have to defer to your judgement AY, as I really have never studied these sorts of things closely. I suspect that there is a lot of underlying truth in a lot of these conspracy theories, in that, let's face it, most things in this world happen because one person or group of persons sat down and talked it over with another person or group of persons. That's the way things work in the world. But in most cases, the details of what transpires at such meetings is only speculation. One must acknowledge this in one's accounting, or one loses credibility in this society, at least among its western-individualistic oriented members.
To collectivistic groups of course, there is no such constraint. To the FR kommissars for instance, the fact that we are sitting around talking about neo cons criticaly is prima facie proof that we have studied Mein Kampf and are plotting to take over the world.
So while I may take what I read in New American and Spotlight with a grain of salt, as usual I find them much better than what the "mainstream" press puts out. Sometimes I think we put the bar too high.
2003-01-09 19:49 | User Profile
**The reason that Kevin MacDonald's contribution is so valuable is that it demonstrates that there need not be any true conspiracy stretching our credulity to explain organized Jewish behavior. **
Absolutely. The transformation of the US in conformity with Jewish interests was not brought about by a "conspiracy", a "cabal", or a conscious central plan. Rather, it has been a natural, often unconscious, process in which members of a cohesive group, informed by that group's history and culture, advance a political agenda that their experience suggests will work to the benefit of the group.
**Indeed, I can extend MacDonald's arguments about Jewish ingroup vs. outgroup strategy to describe the instinctive behavior of any elite which sees its relation to the rest of the nation in terms of ingroup-outgroup relationships. **
This "elite" is much more nebulous and far less coordinated than the Jewish group [and, indeed, there are overlapping gentile elites -- the business elite, the social elite (i.e., high society), etc.], but it is correct to conceptualize them as a "group" and analyze them as we would analyze the Jewish group, using the principles of social identity theory etc.
2004-04-10 02:44 | User Profile
Any TAC subscribers left on OD? Has the content gone more "fringe" with people like Sobran, Reese or Francis contributing, or has it gone even more neo?
2004-04-10 03:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Polichinello]Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Just because TAC runs an ad doesn't mean they subscribe to the product or endorse the seller's philosophy. In the publishing world, as long as it ain't selling cut-rate baked infants, when you get an ad, you take it.
Look at it this way: You're talking about one page in a thirty-page magazine which you don't have to read, advertising a product you damned sure don't have to buy. Your basically taking money from Joe Farah because his ad effectively helps subsidizes your subscription fee. Is your sense of precious purity so important you'd walk away from the best political magazine to come out in decades over one page practically no one pays attention to? [/QUOTE]
I agree and would also point out that WND routinely pushes Buchanan's books and writings. I think it would be impossible for Pat to then turn around and refuse Farah a lousy ad in TAC.
2004-04-10 12:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Yes, it is. I've seen too many publications over the years get compromised by taking on advertisers of dubious motives, become dependent on them, and then have to cowtow to them and adjust their editorial slant when said advertisers remind them "which side their bread is buttered on."
If Buchanan and Taki want to present their mag as a pseudo-paleocon publication that's their business, but they're not fooling anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
At least I can still read Joe Sobran and Sam Francis in Chronicles and be confident that no neocons and their ad money are corrupting the publication.[/QUOTE]
It's okay to have the Neocons finance the Paleocons, IMHO. Frankly, I'm a tad surprised they did it - wouldn't they prefer to see TAC go the way of all flesh?
Walter
2004-04-10 12:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Any TAC subscribers left on OD? Has the content gone more "fringe" with people like Sobran, Reese or Francis contributing, or has it gone even more neo?[/QUOTE]
I still subscribe. They definitely pull their punches when it comes to the Hebrews, but if one can read between the lines even a little it's obvious where they're coming from. Zmirak's thing on Gibson's "Passion" is a case in point, check it out if you haven't already.
Regards,
Walter
2004-04-10 12:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It's okay to have the Neocons finance the Paleocons, IMHO. Frankly, I'm a tad surprised they did it - wouldn't they prefer to see TAC go the way of all flesh?
Walter[/QUOTE] No. It is much more effective to misrepresent the opposition and contaminate the young...making them think the sugar-coated turd is conservatism.
2004-04-10 14:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie] In spite of what some of my comments may at some level suggest, I don't find conspiracy theories of any kind, be they Bilderberg, Freemason, CFR, or even Jewish to be particularly credible. In a strict sense "Conspiracy" involves an organized plot taking place behind closed doors. In order for such a plot to work (particularly one in which matters of international economic and political significance are decided), there simply can be no defectors who leak the truth. One would think there would be some CFR types, Bilderberg group, and Masons leaking the truth about the grand conspiracy, would you not? [/QUOTE]
Perhaps they do. About the Bilderbergs, if they didnôt leak at least a little, we would probably not even know that they exist.
Mind you, your scepticism is healthy, and I guess we all realize that the people who find Vladimir Iljitsch, the Thule Society and the Illuminati under every carpet are kooks. Still, I have very recently come to think there are a few not-so-kookish considerations in favour of (a modest variant of) conspiracism:
1) To start with the obvious: the Masons, in fact, did manage to keep mostly everything important to them secret. I donôt know what their core ideology is. Nobody else outside their ranks knows for sure, possibly a large number of Masons has no clue, either. As a secret society, they seem do be doing well so far.
2) Going a few centuries back in history, someone opened the Ghetto from without; granted, some things happen by accident. But I believe a case could be made for malice aforethought.
3) There is some evidence (and I am talking of evidence that would stand in an unbiased court) for an underground that goes wayyy back, and that is opposed to most everything Western Civilization stands for. I am not talking about the Marrano phenomenon, and I am also not talking about anything that would fit into the left/right divide as usually understood.
I am doing some serious (un-kookish :smartass: ) research on this; stay tuned.
2004-04-10 18:19 | User Profile
[B]AntiYuppie[/B][QUOTE] believe that the JBS doesn't rank very high in the minds of many paleoconservatives because it 1) Focuses on conspiracy theories that stretch almost anybody's credibility and 2) because it doesn't deal with a number of issues important to the paleoconservative worldview.[/QUOTE] [B]mwdallas[/B] [QUOTE]Absolutely. The transformation of the US in conformity with Jewish interests was not brought about by a "conspiracy", a "cabal", or a conscious central plan. Rather, it has been a natural, often unconscious, process in which members of a cohesive group, informed by that group's history and culture, advance a political agenda that their experience suggests will work to the benefit of the group.[/QUOTE] I find explanations using conspiracy theories much more than a stretch most times. Although I do believe conspiracies exist, these plots most often are confined to money and places such as Wall Street where their appearance of validity must last only a finite time.
Far more effective in managing the public is the use of taboos. While these taboos may have originated as conspiracy in the beginning, their great effectiveness lies in their not being questioned in public forum. The effectiveness of Jews in controlling public opinion rests not on conspiracies, but much more on taboos. When has anyone heard the cowardice of Jews in American wars publicly discussed? Or for that matter challenging the relationship of Israel to the United States? Why do Americans not know or care that Japan and the Soviet Union killed far more people than the Hitler of Germany? Why did the United States refuse to try the great criminal of World War II, Hirohito Emperor of the Japanese?
These above questions are discussed openly overseas, but not in this country. Perhaps Warren Buffet will have an epiphany and give me a billion dollars to establish an alternative news service, though I doubt it.
2004-04-10 20:03 | User Profile
Centinel,
Still subscribe to TAC. W. James Antle III was a member of our BATR Yahoo Group. Left during a period of time when we were getting attacks over our content. He joined TAP. Sent a congratulations, no reply received.
SARTRE
2004-04-10 21:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Got the January 13 issue of The American Conservative in the mail today...and what do I see but a full-page ad on the back cover for Whistleblower! I subscribed to TAC to get away from Joseph Farah and his neocon, Zionist rag, only to have ads for his tripe disgracing its pages.
Guess who won't be be renewing their subscription....[/QUOTE]
Its an advertisement for God's sake; the neo-con's money is going to help TAC, which doesn't have access to unlimited funds, the way neo-con rags do. If you owned a store, would you sell to a Jew? I'm guessing you would. No different.
2004-07-03 21:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]However, I believe that issue #2 is the more relevant one for most people here. Centinel has noted that the JBS avoids discussion of the US-Israel relationship in order to avoid charges of "anti-Semitism." Now, it is true that most paleoconservative publications avoid MacDonald-style discussion of the Jewish Question as a broader issue, but even the most mild and mainstream sources (Buchanan, McConnell, etc) aren't afraid to point out the cost of America's destructive alliance with Israel and the sinister machinations of the Israeli lobby.
I have noticed that the JBS take on the Iraq war is that it was basically fomented to allow "globalists" (UN, etc) to prosper from the American failure there.....ie the JBS is saying that it was a set-up for the internationalist left all along....what a crock. (It is interesting that in the Christian Zionist press (WorldNetDaily and that "Unraveling the New World Order" radio show prior to hostilities there were charges that the "peace movement" was just an attempt to get internationalists controlling the Iraq issue---as if Ariel Sharon, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are any better of an alternative!)
I just did a Google search on thenewamerican.com and you know there's not one mention of Christian Zionism and only one obscure mention of dispensationalism as it relates to escapism in American politics?
Either the JBS is so out of touch with the reality of the Israel lobby and their dispensationalist golems who agitated for this war....which I doubt--I mean who could ignore all the press coverage that's gotten--between Moran on the left and Buchanan on the right and the reactionary defense put up against it by the neocon press its pretty damn obvious......or the JBS knows but is too timid to talk about the elephant in the living room.
As far as what's driving American foreign policy currently I give them a big fat grade of "F." They're either too stupid or too timid and there's no excuse for either.
2004-07-03 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]I have noticed that the JBS take on the Iraq war is that it was basically fomented to allow "globalists" (UN, etc) to prosper from the American failure there.....ie the JBS is saying that it was a set-up for the internationalist left all along....what a crock. (It is interesting that in the Christian Zionist press (WorldNetDaily and that "Unraveling the New World Order" radio show prior to hostilities there were charges that the "peace movement" was just an attempt to get internationalists controlling the Iraq issue---as if Ariel Sharon, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are any better of an alternative!)
I don't know. I think there's a certain truth to this. After the US and burns itself out on Iraq, (but not before getting Saddam and Co, the most direct threats to Israel) out of the way, the region can be poised to make a reasonable transition to UN, Nato, and EEU particpated mediation. To a point its a good analysis.
The Moderate Zionists (generaly of internationalist bent except on Israel) of course get what they want, seeing the too hostile camps they don't like (white conservative leaning America, and militant, organized antiIsreal Baathists) burn themselves out fighting each other, so what they really wish for, a moderate neutered left - can rule in the region as it does in the world. Its a good divide and conquer strategy
I just did a Google search on thenewamerican.com and you know there's not one mention of Christian Zionism and only one obscure mention of dispensationalism as it relates to escapism in American politics?
Either the JBS is so out of touch with the reality of the Israel lobby and their dispensationalist golems who agitated for this war....which I doubt--I mean who could ignore all the press coverage that's gotten--between Moran on the left and Buchanan on the right and the reactionary defense put up against it by the neocon press its pretty damn obvious......or the JBS knows but is too timid to talk about the elephant in the living room.
Again, I don't know. Is the JBS focus on the "UN" and "internationalists" really much different than the Spotlight's focus on the Bilderbergers. It may be in a lot of pens of the Birchers. You might not be able to find a whole lot more explicit talk about the quote "Jewish Conspiracy" in the Spotlight. But we know it will never be more kosher on Free Republic than VNN.
As far as what's driving American foreign policy currently I give them a big fat grade of "F." They're either too stupid or too timid and there's no excuse for either.[/QUOTE] Without studying it like you, I'd be more inclined, by our standards, to give them a "C".
2004-07-04 01:48 | User Profile
Centinel,
The JBS has been out of touch with the reality for 30 years or more. :blink:
2004-07-06 21:10 | User Profile
I always confuse JBS with Lyndon Larouche.
I subscribe to TAC. It's decent. The only other paper things I get in the mail these days are American Renaissance and The Occidental Quarterly.
I think it will be interesting to see what direction TAC heads. I know that top TAC people are hep to the stuff we talk about on OD, so it's not like ignorance will prevent them from taking any of it on. Unlike VDare and AmRen, TAC hasn't touched racial difference --- just the tribe and the AIPAC gang. They're trying to straddle, no doubt about it --- hence the occasional piece by that whippersnapper "Marcus Epstein" or some character who supports a moderate policy vis a vis Israel. I hadn't observed the Francis/Sobran ban, but yeah, now that you mention it... This is probably all driven by PJB.
But in the end, TAC simply does not openly and explicitly defend or advocate for white interests, and if you ain't gonna do that, you may as well be the Weekly Freakin' Standard. Because you aren't risking anything but a porky Greek's inheritance.
2004-07-06 23:44 | User Profile
Exactly.
If you're not standing up for Whites boldly and without apology, you're either one of two things: a useless meat sack or an enemy.
Cancel your subscription to TAC; people who are pro-White shouldn't support "conservative" publications that publish Marcus Epstein but not Joe Sobran.
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]But in the end, TAC simply does not openly and explicitly defend or advocate for white interests, and if you ain't gonna do that, you may as well be the Weekly Freakin' Standard. Because you aren't risking anything but a porky Greek's inheritance.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-07 17:18 | User Profile
Hah! Who's that 18-year-old Zionist that townhall.com runs... Forget the kid's name. He's like the Mini-Me for Jonah, if that's even possible.
2004-07-07 17:53 | User Profile
As told to me in confidence, he told me that a tactic that the Zionist are using in order to find the militaries of Hammas is to get to them "free" stuff, like cameras, cell phones, compasses and other goodies,,,,,,,,,only thing is, they all contain a micro GPS locators that allows the Zionist pinpoint the exact location of "their" enemies.
I would suggest that every one in Palestine and Iraq check out all their equipment and toys in order to be sure that it doesn't contain a micro GPS.
"Beware of Jews bearing gifts",,,,,,,
2004-07-08 18:50 | User Profile
If you ever do a jew a kindness, a favor, give a small gift---the jew will wonder for hours, maybe days why you did it, and what you want in return---the jews really are queer. :rolleyes:
2004-07-09 02:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Exactly.
If you're not standing up for Whites boldly and without apology, you're either one of two things: a useless meat sack or an enemy.
Cancel your subscription to TAC; people who are pro-White shouldn't support "conservative" publications that publish Marcus Epstein but not Joe Sobran.[/QUOTE] I will never understand the militant white turning on other whites, and being proud of doing so. Militants of other cultures have increased hostility towards an opponent such as Israel or the people actually causing grief in their lives, but I don't see them attacking their own kind for not also being militant and for not being an identical twin of the miltants...collusion with enemy, but not for merely not being militant. But, here, I see more negative energy towards other whites than towards people actually causing the difficulties the militants say they are against. So, you tell me who the traitors are...when somebody discards an entire group of possibly millions of potential allies for not having an identical mindset. The Muslims at least have sense enough to prioritize their enemies and not fight against themselves ALL of the time.
2004-07-09 03:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I will never understand the militant white turning on other whites, and being proud of doing so. Militants of other cultures have increased hostility towards an opponent such as Israel or the people actually causing grief in their lives, but I don't see them attacking their own kind for not also being militant and for not being an identical twin of the miltants...collusion with enemy, but not for merely not being militant. But, here, I see more negative energy towards other whites than towards people actually causing the difficulties the militants say they are against. So, you tell me who the traitors are...when somebody discards an entire group of possibly millions of potential allies for not having an identical mindset. The Muslims at least have sense enough to prioritize their enemies and not fight against themselves ALL of the time.[/QUOTE]
The Palestinians are fighting the Jews who oppress them--a distinctly different group (albeit both are Semites). The Irish are fighting the British--a distinctly different group (albeit both are Whites) [wait a minute, as I type I'm realizing I'm on the edge of making a different point than the one I set out to....]
Anyway, with Whites themselves, the situation is unique. The reason why you'll find WNs being "hard on their own kind" is because of the fact that at base, only Whites can defeat Whites. Blacks, Mestizos, Asians, and even Jews by themselves cannot defeat Whites--White treason, apathy, or mismanagement is the sole catalyzing element that leaves us open to outside attack.
This is one reason why the mainstream media is foolish to characterize White racialists as people "out to get other races." In truth, we could care less about how other races go about their business. The real problem isn't with the Blacks or the Jews, the real problem is within our own racial house, with Whites who have dropped the ball and let the Blacks and Jews assume positions of hegemony over us in our own society that they otherwise would never have been anywhere near had not these aforementioned Whites sold out. Hence, Whites need to police their own.
This touches on the theme that really blows my mind, what basically clinched the deal for me in adopting WN views. People think too small-scale about the situation we're in. They worry about war crimes or constitutions or laws or elections and polls, etc. Think about the broad sweep of history:
We're going to go extinct like the dinosaurs, the do-do bird, etc.
It's going to happen to us because of the way Whites think, feel, and conduct themselves, not because of anything non-whites could have done left to their own devices.
Consider this: we are the most advanced, powerful, and creative race that this planet has ever known, in terms of warriors, engineers, scientists, inventors, explorers, and philosophers, etc. During the period of European colonialism, through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we ruled this planet.
Because our thinking changed, we gave it all away by the mid-20th century. And we are letting the lesser peoples we gave it to slowly bury us.
The irony, the tragedy, and the absurdity of this is that starting today, if we changed the way we think and behave, if we altered our methods of political organization and acted as an "in-group" towards the non-white "out-group," we could turn all of this around.
We're the only race that has engaged in suicide, dying at the hands of the very abstracts that we created, such as "equality," "democracy," and so on. Of course, the Jews and their media control play a major role in this, but still, I have to admit that Jared Taylor is correct about one thing: the Jews had to have something to work with to get where they are today--they exploited our existing vulnerabilities. Whites are prisoners of their own beliefs, slaves of their own exaggerated consciences.
WNs may be radical, because we recognize that we went wrong a long time ago, namely in embracing the concepts of individualism and egalitarianism. Some say, "look how immoral or primitive the [whatever "non-modern" culture] is since they don't respect the worth of the individual or the equality of men." But what good are those principles if your entire race is dead as a result of following them? Principles are only useful to the extent that they serve life (especially the perpetuation of a particular form of biological life, and particularly when it's your own kind).
A hundred or two years from now, the "immoral collectivist" cultures out there will still be intact, and living upon the earth pretty much the way they always have, and we will not. We will be dust, and we will have been long forgotten. And our "precious principles" that we died in thrall to will have perished with us, as no one on earth will be following them, nor will they even be commonly known except possibly to specialized historians and archaeologists.
In some ways, White Nationalists are the furthest you can get from "racial supremacists," because in analyzing our situation while trying to figure out how to fix this situation, we realize that Whites have a lot of innate handicaps. Weird paradoxes seem to afflict our race at every turn. Whites tend to think they are individualists, but that's merely an idea that our collective instincts have set their course by. It's an illusion. Everybody "believes in the individual." Everybody condemns racialism, etc. Other groups (pretty much all non-whites on this planet today as well as certain past White cultures) that are actually collectivists, don't even entertain the imaginary ideas of individualism, and therefore they don't suffer its ill effects.
All of our strengths as Whites seem to work against us. Our transportation and communications systems bring us into contact with non-whites, and foster one-worldism and miscegenation. Our imagination and philosophical questing gave us egalitarianism. Our compassionate medicine and food processing technology creates non-white population booms. And of course non-whites have our weapons technology.
All this is the reason why you'll find WNs being "hard" on certain other Whites--because those Whites don't do much to help themselves. This is what's so maddening about the situation. Whites are basically locked in a political/moral prison cell of their own making, but the thing is that we also hold the keys in our hands right now. All we need to do to free ourselves is to stick the key in the lock, turn it, and walk out of the cell. But we can't seem to do this because we think that somehow it's "immoral" to free ourselves.
2004-07-09 03:30 | User Profile
PA: That was a very thoughtful, honest post. Thanks. The major issue I have with WN here is that they seem locked into an organizing/bitch mode. There is never any realistic plan bought to fruition. They first insist on a blood oath and a public declartion that will mark a member forever, as a show of "allegiance"...whether the person believes it or not. It reminds me of gangs requiring tattoos that clearly ID them to any enemy. That's a stupid practice. Many people talk of naming the jew. Well, that very practice, if exercised by everyone(as some WN insist)is the fastest way of locking everybody out of the mainstream and away from potential alllies. It's the tattoo that tells the opposition who to pressure.
I don't see the reasoning in that. I've got a post on cyber activism about what we agree on. I hope TD helps keep the obvious troublemakers off it, for once. So, we can at least get some positive dialogue going. But, I'm not going to get a tattoo on my forehead just because it makes some control freak happy that he was able to get me to do it.
I believe individuality can be compatible with group organization. In a true business structure, differences are strengths, when applied porperly. The last thing we want is a group of everyone always nodding in agreement, and no growth in structure, or advancement. My beef with some the seemingly miltant WN members around here is that they insist on the head-nodding before they even consider having a postive interaction with someone.
2004-07-09 04:28 | User Profile
PA,
Thanks for your well reasoned statements. They should be required reading by all white people.
:thumbsup:
2004-07-09 13:01 | User Profile
PA,
Read the 25 points and found the major flaw (Statism) as the basic reason why NS was doomed to fail. Totalitarianism as the State will guarantee opposition, if only one ââ¬Åindividualââ¬Â is left to survive. Submit that the tradition of individualism is a hallmark of the white race. The emphasis and often the balance varies within different cultures, but what separates us from them is that the freedom to seek Liberty is in our genes.
As you are aware, separation is the only political alternative that offers self determination. Since that basic natural right is banned from our kind, only those few who value it must seek out those who understand the root cause of our self induced genocide.
The trend in the demographics guarantee we will be fewer in numbers very soon. WWII resulted in a victory for the ââ¬Åcollectivistsââ¬Â. The net result was that not only America (the remains of the 1776 Revolution) was shredded, but the rest of the world adopted the sick model of international interdependence.
What would the planet be like if our race purity was defended by exporting the contraception pill - ONLY - to the rest of the non European world? Since we are the ones limiting our own kind, it is impossible to maintain that the earth is better off after another unnecessary world war!
Do you really believe that itââ¬â¢s still possible to reverse the ultimate consequences from a Marxist triumph with the defeat of Germany? The irony that the cousins - Brits and Germans - feuded, while the Bolshevik Commies subverted is lost upon most whites. So how is it prudent to conclude that it is possible to re-educate an entire dumb down white race when their entire current culture is based upon various degrees of socialism?
The individual is the essence of the Christian gospel. Our duty is not to mankind, but to God. The political solution is to accept the realities of separation. Ever since the Tower of Babel, diversity was defined by maintaining high walls. The curse of multiculturalism has become institutionalized, as the only State religion.
No doubt we whites have demonstrated a nihilistic desire for self induced suicide, mainly because we donââ¬â¢t have enough positive narcissism for our own race. Surely we canââ¬â¢t wait for the folks to wake up! Frankly, an uncontaminated race version of point four was abandoned early in our history. Sadly, the South bears the shame for the obvious. Under the current conditions, it seems only revisiting the reasons that motivated Patrick Henry and Sam Adams can offer any promise. However, who is left among our ranks to man the barricades?
Wish I had your optimism. Paul, when will start writing essays again? Make you a deal. Iââ¬â¢ll come off hiatus if you will too . . . BATR wants you back.
SARTRE :thumbsup:
2005-02-28 03:50 | User Profile
I was just googling my name, and came across this thread. If anyone cares, I used to post here a few years ago and stopped, and reading this garbage makes me remember why I stopped. I have no say over The American Conservative's editorial policy and if I did I would have published Sam Francis more than they did, and would definitely have published Joe Sobran as well, both of who's writings I greatly admire (and both of them have praised my writing as well.) If you have problems with their editorial policy, fine, but please don't use me as a beating bag.
However, reading all these comments acting like I'm a hack like Ben Shapiro because simply because I am young and jewish shows how utterly irrational many of you are. Feel free to see my writings at [url]www.geocities.com/marcusyepstein[/url] and please explain to me how i'm just acting as a shill for Jewish interests.
Marcus Epstein
2005-02-28 04:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Whites are basically locked in a political/moral prison cell of their own making, but the thing is that we also hold the keys in our hands right now. All we need to do to free ourselves is to stick the key in the lock, turn it, and walk out of the cell. But we can't seem to do this because we think that somehow it's "immoral" to free ourselves.[/QUOTE] Very well said. The first hurdle we face is a mental/intellectual one. That's the first battle white nationalists need to win.
As far as individualism is concerned, I think a lot of people are forced to turn inward simply because there aren't any WN organizations out there that could command our respect & loyalty.
2005-02-28 04:56 | User Profile
To Epstein: Glad to see that a Jew finally came out in the open on this board, I hope that you stick around for a while and answer some questions for this dumb Cuban refugee.
First question, if the president of the US orders "American" Jews like you to go and fight the Zionist state of Israel would you? You say that you are "young" therefore you could be drafted......and please don't say that the state of Israel is a friend of the US and that he, the US president, would "never" do that.
Are you a real Jew or a Zionist who calls himself a "Jew"?, and please don't ask "what do you mean by that".
I am asking this and will ask many more questions because "maybe" I have been getting the wrong information from the web and if i am wrong I would like to be corrected, Saalam Aleikum.
2005-02-28 04:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=oldrightlibertarian]...However, reading all these comments acting like I'm a hack like Ben Shapiro because simply because I am young and jewish shows how utterly irrational many of you are. Feel free to see my writings at [url]www.geocities.com/marcusyepstein[/url] and please explain to me how i'm just acting as a shill for Jewish interests.
Marcus Epstein[/QUOTE]
Marcus,
I personally don't think that you are a shill for "Jewish interests" based on your writings that I have read or a hack like Shapiro or Josh Chafetz. Unfortunately, for every Jew such as yourself, there are fifteen others out there who are either pushing Jewish supremacism or multiculturalism. Whether this is solely a tribal thing or it is genetic hardwiring I don't know. What I do know is that the people I point out above have far too much influence in America for my taste and are working hand in glove with plutocratic interests to plunder and ultimately destroy this nation. It is not possible to fail to see this reality. All one has to do is turn on Fox. If it wasn't for this I wouldn't care about someone being Jewish one way or another.
2005-02-28 04:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=oldrightlibertarian]I was just googling my name, and came across this thread. If anyone cares, I used to post here a few years ago and stopped, and reading this garbage makes me remember why I stopped. I have no say over The American Conservative's editorial policy and if I did I would have published Sam Francis more than they did, and would definitely have published Joe Sobran as well, both of who's writings I greatly admire (and both of them have praised my writing as well.) If you have problems with their editorial policy, fine, but please don't use me as a beating bag.
However, reading all these comments acting like I'm a hack like Ben Shapiro because simply because I am young and jewish shows how utterly irrational many of you are. Feel free to see my writings at [url]www.geocities.com/marcusyepstein[/url] and please explain to me how i'm just acting as a shill for Jewish interests.
Marcus Epstein[/QUOTE]Good to see you back Marcus, and sorry to see you were used as a scapegoat out of resentment for the perigrinations of TAC. You. If there were more regular conservatives and paleolibertarians like you that were willing to stick up for Francis and Sobran openly and forthrightly, this board might not have taken the turn that it did. Sadly though that is not the case, and those that stick up for people like them to to be (not entirely without reason) a resentful lot.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
[I]Shalom[/I]
Okie
2005-02-28 05:36 | User Profile
To ponce: I did not "come out into the open" I began posting here nearly three years ago, I always included a link to my website which made it clear I had a Jewish name. I stopped posting here about two years ago, when the board became infested with people from VNN and similar outlets, and it seemed like half the posts were simply about who "Named the Jew."
As for your first question. I wouldn't support any president who orders troops to fight a foreign power, as that is congress' duty. I can assure you that my primary loyalty is to America, and I don't think that America and Israel's interests are the same, and I believe in many cases they are in conflict. I cannot see how any of these problems would require war to be resolved, they simply could stop the problem by cutting off Aid to Israel and not going to war against their enemies.
As for your second question. My father is ethnically Jewish, I am not very religious and am not a Zionist. I am not particularly anti-Zionist in the sense that I could care less what Israel does, but I am anti-Zionist in the sense that I do not like the influence that Israel and their American apologists have on US foreign policy.
To seritorius: I don't have any problem with people criticizing the tendencies of Jews to support the Left, or even examining why they do, or the influence that Jews as a group have over American culture and politics. That's fine. What I don't like is people attacking the American Conservative, and myself, for publishing me, without even bothering to read what I wrote solely because I am Jewish. This is exactly what Hugh Lincoln and Valley Forge did on this board.
To Okie: Thanks for the kind comments. Perhaps you are right about Sobran and Francis, however at the same time some of the defenders of Sobran, Francis (and for that matter Kevin MacDonald) making such irrational accusations, makes others more hesitant to support them. With friends like these...
A side note, Don't take my point about me running the American Conservative differently as criticism of them. They have their own agenda, which I l largely agree with, and they promote as they see fit. When Joe Sobran spoke at IHR, he knew exactly what would happen to him, and that was his perogative. While I don't believe that you should censor yourself to please the ADL and SPLC, at the same time you have to pick your own battles accordingly. Sobran made his choice, and the American Conservative made their's. It is quite possible that publishing Sobran after that would have done more harm than good. Saying that I would make some different editorial decisions does not mean that I don't support them, which I do.
Finally, just to show how absurd comparing me to Ben Shapiro (or to his zionism)is, please refer to this post I made at the LRC blog
[url]http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/001345.html[/url]
Posted by Marcus Epstein at August 27, 2003 11:56 AM
Ben Shapiro, The 19 year old neocon, has an idea to solve the Israeli-Palestenian conflict.
Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper.
Interestingly enough, he recently chided Pat Buchanan for recognizing the obvious fact that race and ethnicity are factors in assimilation.
Buchanan holds immigrants in contempt. Not just illegal immigrants -- even some who immigrate legally are not fit to be Americans in Buchanan's eyes. In his book, "The Death of the West," Buchanan writes that Mexican immigrants are problematic because they are "not only from another culture, but of another race," and that "different races are far more difficult to assimilate than different cultures." This is plain un-American. The color of your skin or the racial background of your parents should never disqualify you from becoming a true American. This is the most diverse nation on Earth, even if Buchanan would prefer that it not be.
The majority of Mexicans (rightly or wrongly) believe that the American Southwest was stolen from them and belongs to Mexico. This situation seems farily analagous to the situation facing Israel, although the conflict has not gotten as bad (yet). Now to the best of my knowledge, Pat Buchanan or any prominent immigration reform advocate has suggested kicking out American citizens of Mexican descent. Oh well, I guess some democracies are more equal than others.
2005-02-28 05:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]To Okie: Thanks for the kind comments. Perhaps you are right about Sobran and Francis, however at the same time some of the defenders of Sobran, Francis (and for that matter Kevin MacDonald) making such irrational accusations, makes others more hesitant to support them. With friends like these...[/QUOTE]
What irrational accusations?
2005-02-28 06:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]What irrational accusations?
------[/QUOTE]Don't worry - you yourself were hardly a friend of Francis or Sobran anyway, if I recall correctly.
2005-02-28 06:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=oldrightlibertarian]However, reading all these comments acting like I'm a hack like Ben Shapiro because simply because I am young and jewish shows how utterly irrational many of you are. Feel free to see my writings at [url]www.geocities.com/marcusyepstein[/url] and please explain to me how i'm just acting as a shill for Jewish interests.
Marcus Epstein[/QUOTE]
Marcus: Thanks for dropping by. I hope you'll stick around and discuss this and many other interesting issues with us.
2005-02-28 07:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Don't worry - you yourself were hardly a friend of Francis or Sobran anyway, if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE]
[off-topic] You recall correctly. Sam Francis' wink-wink/nudge-nudge style of Jew-naming won't save Western culture. Cathy CareerGal doesn't know what a "Likkudnik" is, or why she might want to be concerned about one.
Like the old saying goes: there is no such thing as kind-of-pregnant. Either name-the-Jew, or don't.
2005-02-28 09:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=oldrightlibertarian]Anyway, If you are worried about the ads corrupting TAC, why don't you at least wait til the magazine is corrupted.[/QUOTE]
You mean like a few months after I posted this when TAC ran the Derbyshire hit piece on MacDonald (and Sobran)?
[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5254]"The Marx of the Anti-Semites" in TAC[/url]
What's ironic is I still find myself subscribing to TAC these days (and even purchasing subscriptions for friends) after an angry lapse because it's the only semi-respectable print periodical on the right that's critical of the Israel-Firsters in Washington, despite McConnell's "editorial discretion" (barely running Francis while he lived, refusing to run Sobran, allowing dubious--IMO--writers like Ilana Mercer to contribute, etc.)
Chronicles, Middle American News, and The New American are all too timid to speak candidly about Zionist influence on foreign policy. And American Free Press, while being great entertainment while sitting on the can, has too much kooky stuff in it to recommend to friends who haven't yet developed a seasoned paleo's BS filter.
PJB's "Whose War?" was a home run, but lately it's been Taki writing with the most candor.
2005-02-28 15:38 | User Profile
So Sobran no longer writes for Chronicles because he spoke at an IHR event?
2005-02-28 17:05 | User Profile
To Epstein: Good show Charlie Brown but I'll give you only an 80% for what you wrote, the reason for this is that you did not answered directly to my number one question, in other words you found a back door and this is a problem that I have when ever I ask of them about question number one.
By answering the way you did I know that your answer is NO but is ok because that's the answer that I always get from all Jews.
I have more questions of you, specially now that I see that you are a bright fellow, but for the time being I'll only be an observer of your postins.
2005-03-01 02:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco][off-topic]Like the old saying goes: there is no such thing as kind-of-pregnant. Either name-the-Jew, or don't.
------------[/QUOTE]True, but you have to know what a jew is really. And to know what a jew is you have to know what a human being is, and be or at least do a passable imitation of one yourself, rather than a hyena, jackass, or robot.
2005-03-01 02:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Marcus: Thanks for dropping by. I hope you'll stick around and discuss this and many other interesting issues with us.[/QUOTE]Faust had just posted an essay by him
[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17012]His Legacy Will Live On " Sam Francis RIP [/URL]
2005-03-01 05:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Polichinello]Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Just because TAC runs an ad doesn't mean they subscribe to the product or endorse the seller's philosophy. In the publishing world, as long as it ain't selling cut-rate baked infants, when you get an ad, you take it.[/QUOTE]
TAC (probably) ain't going to be able to feed off Taki's personal fortune forever. Unlike neo-con rags such as National Review or the Weaklings Substandard, TAC has a rather difficult time finding advertisers. And frankly, I can think of worse things to do than take money from our enemies, so long as it doesn't influence one, and I don't think Buchanan and Taki are vulnerable to that sort of thing. Anyone who is reading TAC and can be persuaded to go the neo-con route by an ad on the back of the magazine probably never mattered to our cause in the first place. The sort of people who read TAC and actually matter would never take crap like that seriously. I'd say the neo-cons wasted their money, frankly, and that's a good thing, especially when said wasted funds go straight into our coffers. Its time for a little of Walter's cynicism here, I should think.
2005-03-01 05:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco][off-topic] Cathy CareerGal doesn't know what a "Likkudnik" is, or why she might want to be concerned about one.[/QUOTE]
By reading TAC, she can learn. Besides, its more her husband we're after anyway....
2005-03-01 05:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]If you're not standing up for Whites boldly and without apology, you're either one of two things: a useless meat sack or an enemy.
Cancel your subscription to TAC; people who are pro-White shouldn't support "conservative" publications that publish Marcus Epstein but not Joe Sobran.[/QUOTE]
Ideally, yes, but the conditions which prevail don't permit us to limit our behavior to that which is ideal. TAC is a force for good by the standards of the contemporary media. That statement is about as true as one can be.
2005-03-01 05:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Hah! Who's that 18-year-old Zionist that townhall.com runs... Forget the kid's name. He's like the Mini-Me for Jonah, if that's even possible.[/QUOTE]
He's (literally) a college sophomore, so yeah, that'd make him 18 or 19. I heard him on the radio (560 KSFO in San Francisco, the station which gave Michael Wiener/"Savage" his first 5-day, 3-4 hour time slot during commute hours) , pitching his imbecilic book about how the Talmud has many lessons to teach all Americans today, as opposed to just Jews, as I seem to recall. What a pathetic excuse for a domesticated primate! I hope a Muslim at his university beats the living shit out of him. I'm indifferent as to whether he survives said beating (well, maybe I lean a bit towards "not"), although my heart would go out to his grieving parents, in such an eventuality. I have no sympathy for a miscreant of his ilk, however; what would have been his sympaty has been re-allocated towards my own European-American people who have had their nation stolen right out from under their feet by people like this lying, covetous, smart-alecky twerp.
2005-03-01 05:44 | User Profile
I have subscribed from the beginning and other than that article by Derbyshire and perhaps two others, I haven't seen anything to make me wish to cancel. (I note this is an old thread) The ads I pay no attention to, the content I do. When I see nothing but Derbyshire and other neocon types then I'll cancel.
2005-03-01 09:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=oldrightlibertarian]When Joe Sobran spoke at IHR, he knew exactly what would happen to him, and that was his perogative. While I don't believe that you should censor yourself to please the ADL and SPLC, at the same time you have to pick your own battles accordingly. Sobran made his choice, and the American Conservative made their's. It is quite possible that publishing Sobran after that would have done more harm than good.
....and I don't doubt for a minute that some folks with a certain agenda whispered this "advice" in the ears of TAC's editors. I can just hear it now..... "Hey, he might just be the kind of liability that could get your magazine boycotted by major bookstores and newsstands. You'll never get on the Sunday morning talk shows with that loose cannon contributing."
Search the archives on this site for the spat between "libertarian" Ilana Mercer and Justin Raimondo over a certain country. Now all of a sudden Mercer's contributing to Antiwar.com and has managed to get published in TAC. She ain't as bad as Ben Shapiro, but something stinks to folks who've followed stuff for the past few years. You might then realize the axe some of us have to grind with the mag over Sobran, even though we continue to pay our subscriptions. Hell, I noticed in one of Sobran's recent columns that even he subscribes. Talk about taking one for the team.
2005-03-01 10:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE] While I don't believe that you should censor yourself to please the ADL and SPLC, at the same time you have to pick your own battles accordingly. Sobran made his choice, and the American Conservative made their's. It is quite possible that publishing Sobran after that would have done more harm than good. [/QUOTE]
Question for all: why is simply telling the truth about the Jews such a career-ending matter? In other words, why would any gentile writer be fired, censored, shunned, etc., simply for attending a political conference at which the truth is told about the Jews, or, for writing a certain essay that is truthful about the Jews? In other words, why does a person's career end, or nearly end, simply because he told the whole truth about the Jews?
Answer: the Jews themselves. The Jews have made telling the whole truth about them into a bad thing. In light of that, any time a gentile writer is fired or shunned for truthtelling about the Jews, the burden is[I] not [/I] on him, or on the people who publish him. [I]The burden is instead on the Jewish community for creating an atmosphere of no-truth-telling-about-the-Jews-is-allowed.[/I]
2005-03-01 15:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=oldrightlibertarian]Perhaps you are right about Sobran and Francis, however at the same time some of the defenders of Sobran, Francis (and for that matter Kevin MacDonald) making such irrational accusations, makes others more hesitant to support them. With friends like these...[/QUOTE]
What irrational accusations, Marcus?
2005-03-01 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Scott McConnell was fired at the New York Post for blasting the behavior of 'Ricans at their stinking parade in New York City. His successor was John Podhoretz, who repudiated many of McConnell's stands. I believe McConnell to be more of a "paleo" persuasion, but I am not sure.[/QUOTE]
For some reason, people love to express negative thoughts towards Mr. McConnell, but I remember the column he used to write over at [url=http://www.antiwar.com]Antiwar.com[/url], and it was solid, paleo-con stuff. I'm a little vague as to how it is people are so certain McConnell is some sort of sell-out; I haven't seen the evidence.
2005-03-01 16:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=toddbrendanfahey]Why is it that when in discussions of paleocon matters, OD forum folk speak of Chronicles, Vdare, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran; of paleolibertarian sites like LewRockwell.com; of white nationalist sites like VNN and Jared Taylor's outfit...but never of The New American and the John Birch Society?
Speaking for myself, I subscribed to The New American for two years, and I wasn't enormously impressed. For example, they had an entire issue during the period I subscribed (1995-1997) devoted to opposition to mass Third World immigration, with particular reference to our southern border. What bothered me about that issue was that all they could come up with was stuff like all the monkeys from Michoacan supposedly being closet Sandinistas or some such. Calling them commies ain't the way to win this fight, even if its more than a little bit true. The New American would never dream of just flat-out stating that the authentic American people do not wish, or deserve to be, displaced and otherwise abused by a pack of worthless, foreign invaders. Talking about how Mexis like to break beer bottles over the heads of innocent people and then run off with their wallets is all well and good, but again, it ain't going to get us to victory in the fight over mass Third World immigration. Forthright statements acknowledging race, as per Jared Taylor and [url=http://www.amren.com]American Renaissance[/url], or soft-pedaling the race issue per se, but never-the-less making a case very similar to the one a racial nationalist would tend to make, as per Pat Buchanan, Peter Brimelow, [url=http://www.vdare.com]V-Dare[/url] and [url=http://www.amconmag.com]TAC[/url], is the way to go. The New American is a decent publication that just doesn't seem to be able to hack it in the post-Cold War environment. Switching over from Moscow to "the New World Order" was a good trick, and one which contains much truth, but their approach simply lacks the real potential for ultimate victory. Its more like they are just sniping on the edges.
[quote=toddbrendanfahey]you'll find no more potent and exhaustively-researched/footnoted screeds and exposes against the Council on Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission than at TNA and within the JBS.[/QUOTE]
I just don't think the Trilateral Commission and the CFR are really all that important. Yes, many imporant people belong to them, but all that proves is that the Jews and their accomplices have their own little clubs which have (not surprisingly) been granted a very high status by our Jew-dominated societal institutions. The problem is that people like Elliot Abrams and Charles Schumer wield power in our society, not that they belong to some clubs whose membership is limited to those who wield power in our society. The CFR isa symbol of what's wrong with America. It ain't a problem in and of itself.
2005-03-01 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Any TAC subscribers left on OD? Has the content gone more "fringe" with people like Sobran, Reese or Francis contributing, or has it gone even more neo?[/QUOTE]
I still hold my charter subscription. Its stayed about the same; not quite as paleo as Chronicles, but far more likely to say something to someone who isn't already a paleo, and which might get them thinking in ways that will cause them to become one some day. Chronicles is a great magazine that unfortunately preaches to the choir. Anyone who considers himself a Republican and/or conservative, particularly if they're not crazy about "President" Bush and/or his suicidally insane, imperialist misadventure in Iraq, can easily be envisioned grabbing a copy of TAC while they're at Barnes & Noble, and quite possibly beginning a subsequent, new and much more healthy phase of their political & national awareness. Hostility to TAC is insanity, IMHO.
2005-03-01 21:35 | User Profile
Thomas Fleming would never dream of saying anything critical (i.e., truthful) about the Zionists. He'd be out on his ear in a second. Francis did say some things toward the end that pushed the envelope, but ever so carefully. Chronicles has had its day in the sun. The only print publications I follow are right-wing Catholic. Otherwise I stay on the net.
2005-03-01 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]What bothered me about that issue was that all they could come up with was stuff like all the monkeys from Michoacan supposedly being closet Sandinistas or some such.
The JBS is stuck in the Cold War still. And it loves to bitch about the UN and the CFR.
But it never says anything about Israel, Likudniks, Zionism, Dispensationalism or the like. Even in the run-up to Iraq, when the Israeli elephant was bigger than Dallas in the living room, TNA made the ludicrous claim that the UN was orchestrating the whole thing. Then after the shooting started it ran a couple of issues that could have come out of the Weekly Standard with crap titled "Why We Fight."
And I don't think the editors there are that damn stupid--they just didn't want to risk the wrath of the ADL and their Christian Zionist readers by saying what Put Buchanan and others already had said (and survived the fallout).
2005-03-02 01:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]For some reason, people love to express negative thoughts towards Mr. McConnell, but I remember the column he used to write over at [url="http://www.antiwar.com/"]Antiwar.com[/url], and it was solid, paleo-con stuff. I'm a little vague as to how it is people are so certain McConnell is some sort of sell-out; I haven't seen the evidence.[/QUOTE] Isn't McConnell married to a Korean or some other Asian? :yucky: I seem to recall him discussing this in a NY Post piece in the mid-90s. If so, that would put him in the same league as Derbyshire, who is married to a Chinese and has two mixed-race children. Some defenders of the West, eh? With friends like these...
2005-03-02 10:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Isn't McConnell married to a Korean or some other Asian? :yucky: I seem to recall him discussing this in a NY Post piece in the mid-90s. If so, that would put him in the same league as Derbyshire, who is married to a Chinese and has two mixed-race children. Some defenders of the West, eh? With friends like these...[/QUOTE]
I can neither confirm nor deny such an allegation; I hadn't heard that until now.
2005-03-04 02:55 | User Profile
While Marcus Epstein is interesting writer who often takes positions that many of us can agree with, he his still a Jew at heart -- a member of an alien tribe who won't hesitate to side with his tribe against the interests of Whites when the chips are down, just like Paul Gottfried and David Horotwitz. Gottfried and Horotwitz both write things that many of us can agree with, but that doesn't make them allies, and it certainly doesn't mean we should welcome them into our ranks. In this very thread, for example, Epstein has asserted without evidence that people have made "irrational" claims about Jews and suggested that there is something wrong with speaking at an IHR conference when all the IHR has done is tirelessly work to expose Jew lies. If anything, the fact that Sobran spoke at their conference is just one more testament to his courage.