← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · martel

VDARE lets Kevin MacDonald name the jew

Thread ID: 9888 | Posts: 62 | Started: 2003-09-19

Wayback Archive

martel [OP]

2003-09-19 01:55 | User Profile

By Kevin MacDonald

Over the last year, there’s been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives?  Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it “anti-Semitic” to say so?

 The dispute between the neocons  and more traditional conservatives — “paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.

Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003).  With commendable frankness, Kristol admitted that

“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy.”

And, equally frankly, Kristol eschewed any attempt to justify U.S. support for Israel in terms of American national interest:

“[L]arge nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns… That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.”

If the US is an “ideological” nation, this can only mean that the motivations of neoconservative ideology are a legitimate subject of intellectual inquiry.

For example, it is certainly true that the neocons’ foreign policy fits well with a plausible version of Jewish interests, but is arguably only tenuously related to the interests of the U.S.  Also, neocons oppose the isolationism of important sections of traditional American conservatism. And neocon attitudes on issues like race and immigration differ profoundly from those of traditional mainstream conservatives — but resemble closely the common attitudes of the wider American Jewish community.

Count me among those who accept that the Jewish commitment of leading neoconservatives has become a critical influence on U.S. policies, and that the effectiveness of the neoconservatives is greatly enhanced by their alliance with the organized Jewish community. In my opinion, this conclusion is based on solid data and reasonable inferences. But like any other theory, of course, it is subject to reasoned discussion and disproof.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the importance of ethnicity in human affairs. Nor should we be intimidated by charges of anti-Semitism. We should be able to discuss these issues openly and honestly. This is a practical matter, not a moral one.

Ethnic politics in the U.S. are certainly not limited to Jewish activism.  They are an absolutely normal phenomenon throughout history and around the world.

But for well over half a century, with rare exceptions, Jewish influence has been off-limits for rational discussion. Now, however, as the U.S. acquires an empire in the Middle East, this ban must inevitably fall away.

My views on these issues are shaped by my research on several other influential Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements, including the Boasian school of anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, Marxism and several other movements of the radical left, as well as the movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional immigration.

My conclusion: Contemporary neoconservatism fits into the general pattern of Jewish intellectual and political activism I have identified in my work.

 I am not, of course, saying that all Jews, or even most Jews, supported these movements. Nor did these movements work in concert: some were intensely hostile to one another. I am saying, however, that the key figures in these movements identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests.

In all of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied, there is a strong Jewish identity among the core figures. All center on charismatic Jewish leaders—people such as Boas, Trotsky and Freud— who are revered as messianic, god-like figures.

Neoconservatism’s key founders trace their intellectual ancestry to the “New York Intellectuals,” a group that originated as followers of Trotskyite theoretician Max Schactman in the 1930s and centered around influential journals like Partisan Review and Commentary (which is in fact published by the American Jewish Committee). In the case of neoconservatives, their early identity as radical leftist disciples shifted as there began to be evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Key figures in leading them out of the political left were philosopher Sydney Hook and Elliot Cohen, editor of Commentary.  Such men as  Hook, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz,  Nathan Glazer and Seymour Martin Lipset, were deeply concerned about anti-Semitism and other Jewish issues. Many of them worked closely with Jewish activist organizations. After the 1950s, they became increasingly disenchanted with leftism. Their overriding concern was the welfare of Israel.

By the 1970s, the neocons were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel. Richard Perle was the prime organizer of Congressional support for the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment which angered the Soviet Union by linking bilateral trade issues to freedom of emigration, primarily of Jews from the Soviet Union to Israel and the United States.

Current key leaders include an astonishing number of individuals well placed to influence the Bush Administration:  (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky), interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan).

As the neoconservatives lost faith in radical leftism, several key neocons became attracted to the writings of Leo Strauss, a classicist and political philosopher at the University of Chicago. Strauss had a very strong Jewish identity and viewed his philosophy as a means of ensuring Jewish survival in the Diaspora. As he put it in a 1962 Hillel House lecture, later republished in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker:

“I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very, very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish ‘Question’.”

Strauss has become a cult figure—the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples. 

While Strauss and his followers have come to be known as neoconservatives — and have even claimed to be simply “conservatives”— there is nothing conservative about their goals. This is most obviously the case in foreign policy, where they are attempting to rearrange the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel. But it is also the case with domestic policy, where acceptance of rule by an aristocratic elite would require a complete political transformation. Strauss believed that this aristocracy would be compatible with Jewish interests.

Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived.

But actually this is a general feature of the movements I have studied. They invariably frame issues in language that appeals to non-Jews, rather than explicitly in terms of Jewish interests. The most common rhetoric used by Jewish intellectual and political movements has been the language of moral universalism and the language of science—languages that appeal to the educated elites of the modern Western world. But beneath the rhetoric it is easy to find statements expressing the Jewish agendas of the principle actors.  

For example, anthropologists under the leadership of Boas viewed their crusade against the concept of “race” as, in turn, combating anti-Semitism. They also saw their theories as promoting the ideology of cultural pluralism, which served perceived Jewish interests because the U.S. would be seen as consisting of many co-equal cultures rather than as a European Christian society.

Similarly, psychoanalysts commonly used their theories to portray anti-Jewish attitudes as symptoms of psychiatric disorder.

Conversely,  the earlier generation of American Jewish Trotskyites ignored the horrors of the Soviet Union until the emergence there of state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Neoconservatives have certainly appealed to American patriotic platitudes in advocating war throughout the Middle East—gushing about spreading American democracy and freedom to the area, while leaving unmentioned their own strong ethnic ties and family links to Israel.

Michael Lind has called attention to the neoconservatives’ “odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for ‘democracy’”— odd because these calls for democracy and freedom throughout the Middle East are also coupled with support for the Likud Party and other like-minded groups in Israel that are driven by a vision of an ethnocentric, expansionist Israel that, to outside observers at least, bears an unmistakable (albeit unmentionable) resemblance to apartheid South Africa.

These inconsistencies of the neoconservatives are not odd or surprising. The Straussian idea is to achieve the aims of the elite ingroup by using language designed for mass appeal. War for “democracy and freedom” sells much better than a war explicitly aimed at achieving the foreign policy goals of Israel.

Neoconservatives have responded to charges that their foreign policy has a Jewish agenda by labeling any such analysis as “anti-Semitic.” Similar charges have been echoed by powerful activist Jewish organizations like the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

But at the very least, Jewish neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, who were deeply involved in pushing for the war in Iraq, should frankly discuss how their close family and personal ties to Israel have affected their attitudes on US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Wolfowitz, however, has refused to discuss this issue beyond terming such suggestions “disgraceful.”

A common argument is that neoconservatism is not Jewish because of the presence of various non-Jews amongst their ranks.

But in fact, the ability to recruit prominent non-Jews, while nevertheless maintaining a Jewish core and a commitment to Jewish interests, has been a hallmark—perhaps the key hallmark—of influential Jewish intellectual and political movements throughout the 20^th century. Freud’s commented famously on the need for a non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis, a role played by Ernest Jones and C. G. Jung.  Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were  the public face of Boasian anthropology. And, although Jews represented over half the membership of both the Socialist Party and the Communist Party USA at various times, neither party ever had Jews as presidential candidates and no Jew held the top position in the Communist Party USA after 1929.

In all the Jewish intellectual and political movements I reviewed, non-Jews have been accepted and given highly-visible roles. Today, those roles are played most prominently by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld whose ties with neoconservatives go back many years.  It makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince.

In fact, neoconservatism is rather unusual in the degree to which policy formulation — as opposed to implementation — is so predominantly Jewish. Perhaps this reflects U.S. conditions in the late 20^th century.

All the Jewish intellectual and political movements I studied were typified by a deep sense of orthodoxy—a sense of “us versus them.” Dissenters are expelled, usually amid character assassination and other recriminations.

This has certainly been a feature of the neocon movement. The classic recent example of this “We vs. They” world is David Frum’s attack on “unpatriotic conservatives” as anti-Semites. Any conservative who opposes the Iraq war as contrary to U.S. interests and who notes the pro-Israeli motivation of many of the important players, is not to be argued with, but eradicated. “We turn our backs on them.” This is not the spirit out of which the Anglo-American parliamentary tradition was developed, and in fact was not endorsed by other non-Jewish pro-war conservatives.

Jewish intellectual and political movements have typically had ready access to prestigious mainstream media channels, and this is certainly true for the neocons.  The anchoring by the Washington Post of the columns of Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan and by the New York Times of William Safire's illustrates this. But probably more important recently has been the invariable summoning of neoconservatives to represent the “conservative” line on the TV Networks. Is it unreasonable to suppose that this may be somewhat influenced by the famously heavy Jewish role in these operations?

Immigration policy provides a valuable acid test for the proposition the neoconservatism is actually a vehicle for perceived Jewish ethnic interests. I believe I have been able to demonstrate that pro-immigration elements in American public life have, for over a century, been largely led, funded, energized and organized by the Jewish community [PDF file]. American Jews have taken this line, with a few isolated exceptions, because they have believed, as Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, has bluntly stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” Having run out of Russian Jews, the HIAS is now deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa.

When, in the middle 1990s an immigration reform movement arose amongst American conservatives, the reaction of the neoconservatives ranged from cold to hostile. No positive voice was permitted on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal, by then a neoconservative domain. (Perhaps significantly, a more recent exception has been a relatively favorable review of the anti-illegal immigration book Mexifornia— whose author, the military historian Victor Davis Hanson, has distinguished himself by the extreme hawkishness of his views on the Middle East.) The main vehicle of immigration reform sentiment, National Review, once a bastion of traditional conservative thought, was quite quickly captured by neoconservatives and its opposition to immigration reduced to nominal.

Prior to the post-9/11 U.S. invasion of the Middle East, this suppression of the immigration reform impulse among conservatives was probably the single most important contribution of the neoconservatives to the course of U.S. history.

It may yet prove to be the most disastrous.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.

iwannabeanarchy

2003-09-19 02:28 | User Profile

A brilliant article. It deserves wide distribution, esp. among Republicans.

Bardamu

2003-09-19 03:11 | User Profile

Brilliant indeed if you can stay awake while you read it.

madrussian

2003-09-19 03:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]*Originally posted by Bardamu * [B]Brilliant indeed if you can stay awake while you read it. [/B][/QUOTE] :D

Ragnar

2003-09-19 06:49 | User Profile

Look for VDARE to get fingered as a "hate site" from now on.

Anyone who has met Peter Brimelow has got to be amazed this piece ran at all. This pulls the cork all the way out. Remember that Norman Podhoretz is alleged to have stopped talking to Scott McConnell two years ago for being associated with VDARE. What about now?

Lots of things are looking up, seems to me.;)

Mr.Wilson

2003-09-19 14:10 | User Profile

This essay by Prof.MacDonald was actually posted at VDare.com.The Paleocons are growing bolder. [url]http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm[/url]

MadScienceType

2003-09-19 15:19 | User Profile

What's next? Alex Linder replaces Michelle Malkin as a regular contributor? :D

Okiereddust

2003-09-19 15:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Brilliant indeed if you can stay awake while you read it.[/QUOTE]

One of the arguments against mass distribution of culture of critique (sugested by Wintermute). It's an academic book, written carefully to answer the arguments of the neo-conservative critics, but because of such, more difficult to read for the average non-expert on politics conservative or ethnically sympathetic american.

Ragnar

2003-09-19 16:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]One of the arguments against mass distribution... It's an academic book... more difficult to read for the average non-expert on politics conservative or ethnically sympathetic american.[/QUOTE]

I'd have agreed 2-3 years ago. Now it's clear that this is the only platform European people in America are going to have.

If people can be dumbed down they can also smarten up. Lots of people who don't have college or even much education can handle highly technical stuff when their job depends on it. Now their survival depends on it.

When California goes brown for good, lots of minds are going to be focused wonderfully on what the situation of whites in North America really is. MacDonald's somewhat dry academic style will be a breeze compared to knuckling under.

I know an ex-con with a 6th grade education who has read and annotated all three of MacDonald's books about Jewish survivial strategy. He has an average mind and above-average motivation. That second part is what does it.

Besides, playing catch up in grim situations is a very European trait. :D

Otho_Isch

2003-09-19 16:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ragnar]If people can be dumbed down they can also smarten up.

Great quote. I'm stealing it. : )

I know an ex-con with a 6th grade education who has read and annotated all three of MacDonald's books about Jewish survivial strategy. He has an average mind and above-average motivation. That second part is what does it.[/QUOTE]

I'm a high school dropout. I've read or skimmed most of KM's works. Motivation is what it's all about. It will only come about as people become more disenfranchised, unfortunately.

Chaucer

2003-09-19 18:17 | User Profile

Words can't even describe how happy I was to see an article by MacDonald addressing Neo Conservatism when I opened vdare.com this morning.

I tried to post this in the Neo Con forum but for some reason I wasn't allowed to???

N.B. Forrest

2003-09-19 19:04 | User Profile

Yes, MacDonald's style is rather dry, and it forces the reader to pay close attention, but I know we're all in agreement about the thunderous effect of his research into the machinations of the eww parasite. Whites with even average intelligence seem to be beginning to stir out of their stupor at last, and this awakening process will continue as the country continues to slide into the sh-tter both economically and racially. Unease and rage are building, and MacDonald's writings can be the trigger that explodes the hydrogen bomb.

Okiereddust

2003-09-19 20:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]Yes, MacDonald's style is rather dry, and it forces the reader to pay close attention, but I know we're all in agreement about the thunderous effect of his research into the machinations of the eww parasite.

I admit - I may reflect my background, but I'm always curious when people say MacDonald's style is dry or unexciting. I don't think really it is his writing style per se at all, rather it is his subject matter.

He doesn't talk about Jewish ritual murder or IDF atrocities or the conspiracy of the Illuminiti as reflected in the [[]Protocols of the Elders of Zion*. He talks rather about things important to an academic description of Jews and principally their role in the academic world, discussing the Jewish originated academic areas of Boasnian anthropology, Academic Leftism, Psychoanalysis (Freudian), Postmodernism and Multiculturalism (The Frankfurt School), and Cultural Diversity (Horace Kallen), among other things.

It is not likely to influence all readers in the same way. It depends upon your prior knowledge and interest in the subject. For instance the chapter on Boasnian anthropology, while probably fascinating to students of social science academic politics and to anthropology majors etc, is something I suspect most of the rest of us skim over, although its important as part of a demonstration of his overall thesis.

It is not a polemic, but rather an apologia, designed not for the person who is politically quiessent but for the person, who though politically aware and sympathetic to traditionalism and western culture, is influenced by political correctness to mute expression of these motifs along the lines of neoconservatism critiques.

From a political point of view, it falls more into the standpoint of what Lenin called propoganda (material for the leaders) rather than agitation (material for the masses). From a literary point of view its a carefully written apologia rather than a piece of sensationalism.

Which is its significance. Jewish groups apologia's has always stressed the scholarliness of their own work and culture vs. the sensationalism/lack of intelligence of their opponents. MacDonald turns thetables on them, in his own conceptuality, borrowing one of their own tactics in a "mirror image" intellectual group strategy.

Whites with even average intelligence seem to be beginning to stir out of their stupor at last, and this awakening process will continue as the country continues to slide into the sh-tter both economically and racially.

It's never been a matter of intelligence per se I think, more of awareness and character (courage to act on what you know)

Unease and rage are building, and MacDonald's writings can be the trigger that explodes the hydrogen bomb.[/QUOTE]

Actually I would say (and this is more politically appropo) that it is Jewish policies that are the bomb set to go off on our culture. I would compare MacDonald's work more to a master manual of bomb deactivation, written to annotate the design of the many intellectual booby-traps incorporated into this bomb.

Ragnar

2003-09-20 04:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I admit - I may reflect my background, but I'm always curious when people say MacDonald's style is dry or unexciting. I don't think really it is his writing style per se at all, rather it is his subject matter. [/QUOTE]

Okie,

You got a bad habit of bringing up the right points.

The real problem us palefaces have is that maybe 3% of the whole adult population reads anything. I mean after the sports section of the local paper, the TV listings and maybe a genre paperback now and then, they do not read. America also has the highest level of functional illiteracy of any First World nation which is why we might be heading toward another category.

Out of only a couple of demographic percentage points of reading caucasians, there's a tinier minority yet that will percieve the current situation and get energetic enough to find out what the answers are. For them we might really have to think in terms of KMAC for Dummies. Even Ayn Rand had comic books about her "philosophy" 10 years after Atlas Shrugged and she was only trying to appeal to collegiates, preferably business school students at that.

It's one of the reason Sam Francis won me over years ago when he said our people are going to have to learn more and learn quicker than any race in the world ever has before. He was right. The gap between what most whites think is happening and what really is gets wider every day.

Then again maybe those of us who have no college see this in more immediate terms. It's less MacDonald's style than the fact that most white Americans are conceptually unprepared for the whole line of thought he represents. I hate to say that but it's the truth.

il ragno

2003-09-21 01:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE]If people can be dumbed down they can also smarten up.[/QUOTE]

Herein lies our best - our only -hope. The Jews saw to it that standards - and thus expectations - were driven so low, a white man was now interchangable with a Negro. (And thus easily replaced by a Hindu....or two Mestizos.)

Thus our best hope lies in raising the bar. Stop grading on a curve, America, and you can rise again. Of course, before we can even [I]begin [/I] to do that, we're going to have to risk looking crass and uncouth Naming the Jew. And there are no shortcuts. No prod-the-coloreds-into-battling-Hymie-for-us strategy is going to work. You can't revive America [I]unbeknownst to her[/I].

K-Mac in VDARE is a very hopeful sign. Maybe Brimelow is finally conceding that, despite all the cogently-argued manifestoes against Third World immigration he's run, it seems only to be getting worse - and that more drastic measures are called for. If so, he's dead right.

Now if only a passing comet would incapacitate all television broadcasting for a month or so....!

iwannabeanarchy

2003-09-21 01:48 | User Profile

From what I can tell from Brimelow's comments and some of his replies to my emails/donations, he now thinks it is pretty much impossible for him to influence anyone with DC-political power directly, but that, at the same time, things are getting better, in that there is more broad-based oposition to immigration.

Basically, I'd say he think it is important for Jews and blacks to oppose immigration, but that many Jews, at least, are going to start doing this irrespective of what Vdare publishes or does not publish. Thus he attempts to energize the usual suspects, particularly in the younger generations, while leaving open the possibility of future co-operation with less-likely foes of immigration (and also continuing to provide cover for those who would like to write for or praise Vdare by running some non-whites, leftists, etc.).

Franco

2003-09-21 03:56 | User Profile

Il Ragno wrote:

Of course, before we can even begin to do that, we're going to have to risk looking crass and uncouth Naming the Jew. And there are no shortcuts.

Do you realize what this means, all you lurking paleos? You gotta become Linderites!

It has to happen sometime.....so you might as well do it now an' get it over with. :D

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Ragnar

2003-09-21 04:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Do you realize what this means, all you lurking paleos? You gotta become Linderites! [/QUOTE]

Good point. Will there be a rush after VDARE's coming out? Is this the fall fashion statement? Will USA Today want to jump in next? The mind reels at the possibilities.

iwannabeanarchy

2003-09-21 05:15 | User Profile

Linder is for the proles who are not right with the Lord.

Linder will provide a good laugh, a kind of half-time entertainment for the troops, but not much more.

Walter Yannis

2003-09-21 06:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Whites with even average intelligence seem to be beginning to stir out of their stupor at last, and this awakening process will continue as the country continues to slide into the sh-tter both economically and racially. [/QUOTE]

I agree, which is why "worse is better."

This wouldn't be happening without the irritants of an unwinnable war suffered by working class whites, the rising tide of coloured crime and competition with working class whites, and the massive export of industrial jobs that sustained working class whites.

At some point things will get bad enough that we'll have to talk about ultimate causes, qui bono, and so forth and so on. In short, we'll have to follow the right honorable Franco's advice and "name the Jew." Our job is to hasten that hour. We're really dealing with two phenomena.

Imagine two lines on a graph. One measuring white irritation indexed to a set of irritant factors, and the other white awareness of the cause of the irritation. The [B]boom [/B] comes when those two lines intersect. We can most directly affect the "awareness" by guerilla tactics. The NeoCons will increase irritants (they really have to at this point), and we can increase awareness, making the lines coverge faster. At least, we are morally bound, it seems to me, to undertake every lawful effort toward that end.

VDARE has always been a part of that effort, which is why I donate to them.
I've never had any doubt that Brimelow & Co. know the score. I mean, hell, everybody knows that this war and the killing tide of coloured immigration is really about Jewish interests. I see it in my work all the time. If it's any comfort to you, in my experience whites (many with powerful corporate positions) understand full well the problem, but they also understand full well the consequences of speaking out. Only pain and suffering can force the dropping of that particular pretense. But when it does happen, watch out.

OD is another powerful tool that we have. AMREN is another (I know, I know). We need to be good Web guerillas and get as many of our people as possible to log on to our WN sites.

Walter

Ragnar

2003-09-21 06:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]If it's any comfort to you, in my experience whites (many with powerful corporate positions) understand full well the problem, but they also understand full well the consequences of speaking out.
[/QUOTE]

It is a comfort to know, Walter, because it's the ones with "powerful corporate positions" that seem dumb as bricks to the rest of us. Maybe it's another line intersecting here -- the one where the consequences of doing nothing are at long last more painful than the consequences of speaking out.

And it's a very good idea to reiterate that VDARE operates on donations. Support them that supports us! I keep hoping that the more they get the bolder they'll get. It seems to be working...

Kurt

2003-09-21 21:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Brilliant indeed if you can stay awake while you read it.[/QUOTE] I prefer the "crass" VNN approach myself. However, I guess both methods are useful: one for the self-styled "intellectuals," and one for the "regular" guys like me.

And it turns out that [url=http://members.odinsrage.com/wwmp/jewexpulsions.html]Our People (and others) understood the Jew[/url] and his treachery long before Prof. MacDonald came along.

[size=1]I guess some people are dazzled by a "Phd."[/size]

"The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows not how numerous the clique is, how they stick together, and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers."--Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman statesman and writer (106BC- 43BC)

[size=1]and given that academia is basically run by jews, a college degree doesn't impress me, especially one in psychology, a field that is owned by jews.[/size]

Okiereddust

2003-09-21 22:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kurt]I prefer the "crass" VNN approach myself. However, I guess both methods are useful: one for the self-styled "intellectuals," and one for the "regular" guys like me.

And it turns out that [url=http://members.odinsrage.com/wwmp/jewexpulsions.html]Our People (and others) understood the Jew[/url] and his treachery long before Prof. MacDonald came along.

[size=1]I guess some people are dazzled by a "Phd."[/size]

Yes. That is one of the key points in MacDonald's work, that a lot of the arguments traditionaly made by anti-semites have empirical and rational justification, rather than being part of a psychotic personality, as the Frankfurt School and its intellectual descendents always asserts.

[size=1]and given that academia is basically run by jews, a college degree doesn't impress me, especially one in psychology, a field that is owned by jews.[/size][/QUOTE]

You need to read the book a little. Some areas of psychology are completely Jewish (i.e psychoanalysis) but not all.

But its definitely tough going. Which is what makes his work so impressive.

It's easy for you to act brave on an anonymous board such as this full of friends.

Sertorius

2003-09-22 06:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Strauss notoriously described the need for an external exoteric language directed at outsiders, and an internal esoteric language directed at ingroup members. In other words, the masses had to be deceived.[/QUOTE]

Yes, one can see that another Jew or maybe I should say a half Jew inspired Strauss here. He referred to "our damn aesopian language." That person was [B]Lenin.[/B]

N.B. Forrest

2003-09-23 08:42 | User Profile

I agree with AY that the thing that makes MacDonald's works worth their weight in gold is his meticulous documentation of deliberately buried history: naming names, dates, and, above all, quoting the guilty jews themselves. In the face of such damning evidence, the enraged vermin are reduced to smears and screaming "anti-Semite!", and it's a delight to witness it.

Walter Yannis

2003-10-02 18:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE]And it's a very good idea to reiterate that VDARE operates on donations. Support them that supports us! I keep hoping that the more they get the bolder they'll get. It seems to be working...[/QUOTE]

I wrote to Peter Brimelow a while back that I'd send VDARE $100 every time he names the Tribe.

I'm out $300 so far.

I'm hoping this gets too expensive, so I'll have to renegotiate the margin!

Anyway, Peter, if you're reading this, I'm still good for another few throws. So go on, I dare you!

Walter

far82sight

2003-10-08 17:02 | User Profile

As Kevin becomes more widely read and influential, don't be surprised to see him suddenly die of an aggressive and previously undiagnosed cancer (Aflatoxin induced a few months before and undetectable in system by the time the cancer is detected).

"Will we strike our enemies at any time anywhere in the world by whatever means we deem fit" - Ariel Sharon

Smedley Butler

2003-10-09 09:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=far82sight]As Kevin becomes more widely read and influential, don't be surprised to see him suddenly die of an aggressive and previously undiagnosed cancer (Aflatoxin induced a few months before and undetectable in system by the time the cancer is detected).

"Will we strike our enemies at any time anywhere in the world by whatever means we deem fit" - Ariel Sharon[/QUOTE] I always say, Sir, Kevin MacDonald..

Acorn

2003-10-12 09:44 | User Profile

The past 6 months have seen the owner of faem.com die suddenly and mysteriously, the owner of vonbluvens.com escape at a dead run just ahead of federal agents ordered to shoot to kill, and vnn.com mysteriously off-line very shortly after some Ohio affirmative action group discovered back in some corner of their site, an ad offering employment for a White worker, to do warehouse work or something.

People are being "disappeared" and no one seems very concerned, this is really scaring me!

You do not have to agree with the views of these sites to be concerned! A reader of Zmag should be as concerned as a reader of Vdare; a reader of Time as concerned as a reader of Faem; if Von Bluvens was "disappeared" today will the New Republic be next?

I like Vdare, it's a good all-around intro site to our ideas, and I am even considering having some vdare.com biz cards made to pass around. When you're talking to a fellow White who's making something like $7 an hour working at some "big box" retail store because Whiteness + engineering degree = unemployment, you have a willing audience. Let's hope "Mr Vdare" is not the next one to disappear. Forget "Itz Coming", Itz here if by It we mean racial war.

DakotaBlue

2003-10-21 21:16 | User Profile

I haven't posted here a lot. Who is Linder? Did Brimelow write an article on MacD on vdare? I'd like to take this opener by MacD over to BTTS and ignite a debate. Any objections?

Franco

2003-10-21 21:33 | User Profile

Linder: see first URL below.

VDARE posted a good KMacD essay. It caused a lot of heat for neokahns...

mwdallas

2003-10-22 01:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]I haven't posted here a lot. Who is Linder? Did Brimelow write an article on MacD on vdare? I'd like to take this opener by MacD over to BTTS and ignite a debate. Any objections?[/QUOTE] What is BTTS? Maybe I'll stop by and check out the impending brouhaha.

"Linder" is Alex Linder, who runs Vanguardnewsnetwork.com.

Brimelow ran MacDonald's essay on neoconservatism as an essentially Jewish movement on Vdare a while back.

DakotaBlue

2003-10-22 16:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Linder: see first URL below.

VDARE posted a good KMacD essay. It caused a lot of heat for neokahns...[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Franco. Will look into it ASAP. My problem is once you get started on this subject time has a way of disappearing, and before you know it, you've been reading for about 3 hours. Still, this has been hidden from the American public for such a long time, that to not read it is just plain irresponsible.

DakotaBlue

2003-10-22 16:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=mwdallas]What is BTTS? Maybe I'll stop by and check out the impending brouhaha.

"Linder" is Alex Linder, who runs Vanguardnewsnetwork.com.

Brimelow ran MacDonald's essay on neoconservatism as an essentially Jewish movement on Vdare a while back.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the background. BTTS is BootToTheSkull.com a fairly fast-paced, conservative site with a segment of that population steadfastly pro-Zionist. The sparks fly, but we get in our licks but good. Come join us. We could use the help on our side of the aisle. All in all a good bunch of debaters with a couple of lobotomy patients thrown in for comic relief.

buggerzion

2003-12-07 09:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Thanks for the background. BTTS is BootToTheSkull.com a fairly fast-paced, conservative site with a segment of that population steadfastly pro-Zionist. The sparks fly, but we get in our licks but good. Come join us. We could use the help on our side of the aisle. All in all a good bunch of debaters with a couple of lobotomy patients thrown in for comic relief.[/QUOTE]

A pro zionist site! So there's one left eh! So you reckon we can have a fun time " giving it to 'em " :lol:

buggerzion

Campion Moore Boru

2003-12-07 10:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Do you realize what this means, all you lurking paleos? You gotta become Linderites!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha![/QUOTE]

I disagree.

I think I can still be a patriot without being a foulmouthed welfare recipient who entrusts former "anti-racists" with my life's work.

I won't even delve into the masochistic need to alienate my erstwhile allies. i can read why Christianity and Yudiasm are the same from NR, Pod, or Bilbo Kristol. Hence VNN is superfluous to me.

Keep naming the Christian, Lindepoop.

DakotaBlue

2003-12-18 01:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=buggerzion]A pro zionist site! So there's one left eh! So you reckon we can have a fun time " giving it to 'em " :lol:

buggerzion[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Black]But definitely, if you have the patience to wade through all the crap they throw at you. Funny thing about these zionazis. If you post a lengthy retort, they blame you for cutting and pasting. If you post your opinion, they slam you for not posting corroborating links. But we beat them at that game too. We've got a determined bunch of truth tellers over there, and they're not easily deterred.[/COLOR]

Texas Dissident

2003-12-18 20:40 | User Profile

Wondering if anyone else here is following the nasty attack on Kevin MacDonald at the Yahoo Evolutionary Psychology Forum, led by 'musicologist' (and jew) "David Lieberman"?

[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/messages[/url]

madrussian

2003-12-18 20:42 | User Profile

QUOTE=Texas Dissident "David Lieberman"? [/QUOTE]

You are getting hardcore :hitler:

Franco

2003-12-18 23:43 | User Profile

[Humor -- not for pets or retards]:

Rabbi Moishe Goldsilverbergwitzfeldnikbaum says:

"We must make the gentile public doubt any writings that might make Joe Respectable Citizen say 'hey, wait a second...maybe the Jews are REALLY a problem.' We must take whatever steps necessary to make realistic observations about Jews look like simple, and hateful, Anti-Sandwich-Spread!"

Rabbi Saul Silverdiamondrubysteinfein agrees:

"Any 'mainstream'-but-negative observations about Jews cannot be allowed to spread among the gentile public without being discredited. Such 'mainstreaming' of Anti-Sandal-ism could doom God's Special Shiny Lapdogs."

:cowboy:

theaustrian

2003-12-19 00:24 | User Profile

Given that that list is run by Ian Pritchford, self-appointed lapdog of semetical correctness and purveyor of arbitrary censorship, I'd would suggest simply un-subscribing for that sad litte little list.

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Wondering if anyone else here is following the nasty attack on Kevin MacDonald at the Yahoo Evolutionary Psychology Forum, led by 'musicologist' (and jew) "David Lieberman"?

[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/messages[/url][/QUOTE]

Okiereddust

2003-12-19 03:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Wondering if anyone else here is following the nasty attack on Kevin MacDonald at the Yahoo Evolutionary Psychology Forum, led by 'musicologist' (and jew) "David Lieberman"?

[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/messages[/url][/QUOTE] Is that the forum referenced by our old friend GodlessCapitalist?

Texas Dissident

2003-12-19 08:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Is that the forum referenced by our old friend GodlessCapitalist?[/QUOTE]

No, I believe that one was [url]http://www.gnxp.com/[/url]

Okiereddust

2004-01-03 19:06 | User Profile

Looks like some people are just discovering this over at [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_politics&Number=1166896&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=&vc=1]Liberty Forum[/url]

Jean West

2004-01-05 12:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Wondering if anyone else here is following the nasty attack on Kevin MacDonald at the Yahoo Evolutionary Psychology Forum, led by 'musicologist' (and jew) "David Lieberman"? [url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/messages[/url][/QUOTE]

Not being a subscriber, I had no knowledge of it and appreciate your mentioning it here. A Search on MacDonald at evol-psych reveals that attacks on MacDonald have taken place both before and since Lieberman's, whose frothing attacks I think I once read at H-Antisemitism, too. I find these attack threads very educational, in that I can read the opposition arguments and also MacDonald's excellent elaborations of his ideas.

Poor Lieberman. MacDonald has really scratched him where he lives (so to speak). He's obsessed with destroying MacDonald's credibility, though what he really wants to do is make MacDonald's despised words disappear, and he can't do either.

JW

grep14w

2004-05-04 16:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=far82sight]As Kevin becomes more widely read and influential, don't be surprised to see him suddenly die of an aggressive and previously undiagnosed cancer (Aflatoxin induced a few months before and undetectable in system by the time the cancer is detected).

"Will we strike our enemies at any time anywhere in the world by whatever means we deem fit" - Ariel Sharon[/QUOTE]Hmmmm. Back in the 80's, the cyber punk author Bruce Sterling wrote a short story called "We See Things Differently"; here's a link:

[url]http://www.revolutionsf.com/fiction/weseethings/01.html[/url]

In the story, based on a near future where America is in decline and there is a powerful Islamic caliphate, there is mention of a means of infecting someone with a cancer.

I used to assume that these cancers were the ravings of conspiracy theory mongers, but now I don't know.

I got really worried a while back when Yggdrasil got cancer; he seems to be okay now though.

They could "off" MacDonald, but they can't disappear his writings, yet.

Of course, the knowledge of how to quietly take people out with these methods is not going to remain out of the hands of the Jew's enemies forever. Then things get interesting.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2004-05-05 03:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=grep14w]Hmmmm. Back in the 80's, the cyber punk author Bruce Sterling wrote a short story called "We See Things Differently"; here's a link:

[url]http://www.revolutionsf.com/fiction/weseethings/01.html[/url]

In the story, based on a near future where America is in decline and there is a powerful Islamic caliphate, there is mention of a means of infecting someone with a cancer.[/QUOTE]

I read this story about five years ago and highly recommend it. The amazing thing about it, is I'm pretty sure Bruce Sterling (not to be confused with that ardent multiracialist sci-fi author, S.M. Stirling) wrote this story nearly 20 years ago, thus making it very prescient (despite getting a few details wrong, such as anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union as a world power but not the collapse of the Communist Party as the dominant political force in Russia).

[QUOTE]I used to assume that these cancers were the ravings of conspiracy theory mongers, but now I don't know.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, and while I can't site a source (this is some info I picked up long before the World Wide Web and I can't quite recall where, although it could probably be found somewhere on-line) since 1954, if I remember correctly, the CIA has had knowledge of the fact that introducing berrylium (sic?) solution into one's food & drink is a very effective way of ensuring they will be dead of extremely virulent cancerous tumours, often centered around the intestinal tract, with a year or two of said introduction. This was supposed to have been revealed via the Freedom of Information Act (or maybe it came out during the Church Committee hearings?). Naturally, the CIA denies ever having employed this tactic....

[QUOTE]"Two attempts had already been made on Boston's life, one at the Chicago Freedom Festival, when Chicago's Mayor was wounded at Boston's side."[/QUOTE]

This quote comes from the story. Its interesting because as some of you may recall, FDR was shot in Miami in early 1933, and the gunman wound up wounding the Mayor of Chicago, who was standing next to him at the time (I don't know why the Mayor of Chicago was in Miami). Anyway, the Sterling story takes place in Miami. That sounds like too many similarities to be accidental. I'm not sure what parallel he's trying to draw, but I suspect there is one....

WesleyWes

2005-01-14 17:01 | User Profile

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Hello,[/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Vdare is a interesting, well done news source on tha net. I was readin some of tha ones you suggested and i realise that many of you are into some fascist thang that has attempted infiltration of tha definition of Americas Right-Wing based on some international definition. [/FONT]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Peace![/FONT] [FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]WesleyWes[/FONT] [FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Founder, [url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti-Catholic[/url][/FONT]

:pimp:

Quantrill

2005-01-14 17:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=WesleyWes][font=Franklin Gothic Medium][/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Vdare is a interesting, well done news source on tha net. I was readin some of tha ones you suggested and i realise that many of you are into some fascist bestation that has attempted infiltration of tha definition of Americas Right-Wing based on some international definition. I guess many of you are Klan members and tha like.[/font] [/QUOTE] What's a 'fascist bestation'?

edward gibbon

2005-01-14 21:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]... This quote comes from the story. Its interesting because as some of you may recall, FDR was shot in Miami in early 1933, and the gunman wound up wounding the Mayor of Chicago, who was standing next to him at the time (I don't know why the Mayor of Chicago was in Miami). Anyway, the Sterling story takes place in Miami. That sounds like too many similarities to be accidental. I'm not sure what parallel he's trying to draw, but I suspect there is one....[/QUOTE]Anton Cermak died of his wounds. [QUOTE]Giuseppe Zangara attempts to assassinate President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in Miami's Bayfront Park. Instead, he mortally wounds Chicago mayor Anton J. Cermak. [COLOR=Red]In perhaps one of the shortest periods of time between crime and execution (32 days), [/COLOR] Zangara is executed on March 20, 1933 in Florida's electric chair. The bizarre story of Zangara is detailed in a book by Blaise Picchi entitled "The Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara: The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR."[/QUOTE]Most Americans of my generation remember this shooting via an episode of the [I]Untouchables[/I].

CornCod

2005-03-04 04:29 | User Profile

Of course, we would love it if everybody "named the jew." However, VDARE has a single issue mission, it is an anti-immigration website. Its political mission is not all-emcompassing so it really dosen't bother me too much if they don't bring up the Jewish issue.

I have met VDARE editor Peter Brimelow about three times and he impresses me as a stand-up fellow. Dr. Francis always had a lot of respect for him ( I know this first hand) and that always carried a lot of water with me.

MarkFarrell

2005-08-09 15:25 | User Profile

I have a great deal of respect for what MacDonald is doing, in so far as he is tackling topics that few scholars would dare to examine due to their politically incorrect nature.

But I also have to wonder if in his pursuit to share his findings with others in a scholarly manner, if he isn't being overly-intellectual in the process, thereby bypassing those who most desperately need to receive his message: the ordinary, every-day average American?

What do others think? Would your every-day, average person be interestested in reading his works, or do you think his writings might scare such people off? Or is there no other way to discuss this politically incorrect topic--other than sounding like a scholar? That is to say, if we don't talk with others in some sort of "scholarly fashion," will we be perceived simply as as "rabid anti-Semites" (as Jews contend in any case when talk gravitates towards them)?

I like Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism" - [url="http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=129"]http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=129[/url] - much more than MacDonald's writings for that very reason--except when Duke goes off into the intellectual bandwagon, which I think he does just to show that he's smart (not that most of us don't realize that in any case). I think he reaches the common person with many of his ideas (though many people won't take what he has into consideration simply for the fact of his past associations and youthful indiscretions).

Thoughts, comments?

[center][url="http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm"]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm[/url][/center]

[center][img]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/UAS2.jpg[/img][/center] [center] [/center] [center][url="http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm"]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm[/url][/center] [center] [/center] [center] [/center]

Quantrill

2005-08-09 15:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MarkFarrell]... Or is there no other way to discuss this politically incorrect topic--other than sounding like a scholar? That is to say, if we don't talk with others in some sort of "scholarly fashion," will we be perceived simply as as "rabid anti-Semites" (as Jews contend in any case when talk gravitates towards them)?[/QUOTE] Bingo. MacDonald is letting others appeal to the masses. His work is to establish an intellectual framework that can be rationally defended against charges of anti-semitism.

Okiereddust

2005-08-09 16:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MarkFarrell]What do others think? Would your every-day, average person be interestested in reading his works, or do you think his writings might scare such people off? Or is there no other way to discuss this politically incorrect topic--other than sounding like a scholar? That is to say, if we don't talk with others in some sort of "scholarly fashion," will we be perceived simply as as "rabid anti-Semites" (as Jews contend in any case when talk gravitates towards them)? MacDonald is what he is, and doesn't try to be something else. Other writers are somewhat more oriented toward the mainstream. That said, by and large the only people in America who really have any awareness or concern about the jewish question, or the sort of political/cultural issues that it becomes an issue with regards to, are people generally well capable of reading and actually needing arguments at MacDonalds level, IMO.

People have been trying to distribute copies of [I]The Protocols[/I] for many years anyway. And of course for the lower level propaganda, the type lunchpack joe might want to pickup and read, I don't think the lunchpack joe's carry much political weight these days anyway.

As Pareto and Francis always noted, poltics has always been the activity of the elites. And you have to have something that has some weight at this level for them to take seriously. That's where MacDonald comes in.

MacDonald gives WN ideas the basis for legitimacy, against really the strongest of attacks, which today is important. That's his main function. You're right though, he's no populizer by himself, but I think literature such as his is really the first step. WN's have flailed for so many years just because, they try to go to populization without establishing their ideas legitimacy (and themselves personally) as MacDonald does. Credibility is essential, and important even with people who are a couple of notches below you.

Texas Dissident

2005-08-09 16:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Credibility is essential...[/QUOTE]

Yes, that bears repeating.

OttoR

2005-08-09 16:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MarkFarrell]I have a great deal of respect for what MacDonald is doing, in so far as he is tackling topics that few scholars would dare to examine due to their politically incorrect nature.

But I also have to wonder if in his pursuit to share his findings with others in a scholarly manner, if he isn't being overly-intellectual in the process, thereby bypassing those who most desperately need to receive his message: the ordinary, every-day average American?

What do others think? Would your every-day, average person be interestested in reading his works, or do you think his writings might scare such people off? Or is there no other way to discuss this politically incorrect topic--other than sounding like a scholar? That is to say, if we don't talk with others in some sort of "scholarly fashion," will we be perceived simply as as "rabid anti-Semites" (as Jews contend in any case when talk gravitates towards them)?

I like Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism" - [url="http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=129"]http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=129[/url] - much more than MacDonald's writings for that very reason--except when Duke goes off into the intellectual bandwagon, which I think he does just to show that he's smart (not that most of us don't realize that in any case). I think he reaches the common person with many of his ideas (though many people won't take what he has into consideration simply for the fact of his past associations and youthful indiscretions).

Thoughts, comments?

[center][url="http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm"]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm[/url][/center]

[center][img]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/UAS2.jpg[/img][/center]

[center][url="http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm"]http://www.honestmediatoday.com/understanding_antisemitism.htm[/url][/center]

[/QUOTE] To a non-intellectual his book is unreadable. The typical American doesn't even understand the most basis aspects of Jewish power such as AIPAC or Hollywood and they would need a simplistic "Explaining Jewish power for Dummies" handbook with lots of pics to get it.

  However, the strength of MacDonald's book is that it gives us the defensive strategy of being able to say, [size=4]"Hey look, talking about Jews isn't something that only stupid people do..HE'S A PROFESSOR."  ....[/size][size=2]because unfortunately all of us know that the mass media has trained people to consider any statements about Jews that aren't positive as the rantings of a "redneck" who isn't "educated"...[/size]

 So Professor MacDonald is our shield against such accusations being made against us.

CWRWinger

2005-08-09 16:46 | User Profile

RE: Post #5 Look for VDARE to get fingered as a "hate site" from now on.

I believe FR has banned all articles from VDARE. Someone there called it a "hate site".

OttoR

2005-08-09 16:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=WesleyWes][font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Hello,[/font]

[font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Vdare is a interesting, well done news source on tha net. I was readin some of tha ones you suggested and i realise that many of you are into some fascist thang that has attempted infiltration of tha definition of Americas Right-Wing based on some international definition. [/font]

[font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Peace![/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]WesleyWes[/font] [font=Franklin Gothic Medium]Founder, [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti-Catholic"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti-Catholic[/url][/font]

:pimp:[/QUOTE]

  Who decided that all criticism of Jews was a "Fascist" thing? I think you are making the mistake of allowing the media to define what Right Wing is.

OttoR

2005-08-09 17:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Campion Moore Boru]I disagree.

I think I can still be a patriot without being a foulmouthed welfare recipient who entrusts former "anti-racists" with my life's work.

I won't even delve into the masochistic need to alienate my erstwhile allies. i can read why Christianity and Yudiasm are the same from NR, Pod, or Bilbo Kristol. Hence VNN is superfluous to me.

Keep naming the Christian, Lindepoop.[/QUOTE] When I stop seeing stories on my local news about White Christians adopting Black children from the heart of Central Africa maybe then I'll see your point. And why does my mother remember growing up in an all White 1950's southern school and yet her class was forced to sing the Christian song:

  Red and Yellow
  Black and White
  They are precious in his sight
  Jesus loves the little children

[url="http://susie1114.com/LittleChildren.html"]http://susie1114.com/LittleChildren.html[/url]

  If you change the word Jesus to Stalin you've got a great Soviet song for 1935!!!!!!

  The wicked "Linderites" just want you to explain how this multiculturalism got into Christianity? I don't think they are asking for too much.....

  You can be Christian, I'm fine with that but why is this multiracial stuff in that religion???

  I've asked this question dozens of times of various forums but I can't get a single Christian to respond.....????  :wallbash:

mwdallas

2005-08-09 17:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE]But I also have to wonder if in his pursuit to share his findings with others in a scholarly manner, if he isn't being overly-intellectual in the process, thereby bypassing those who most desperately need to receive his message: the ordinary, every-day average American?[/QUOTE]When I read your comment, the first thing that came to mind was Duke's books. I have not seen "Jewish Supremacism", but "My Awakening" covers some of the territory in a more-accessible style.

Texas Dissident

2005-08-09 18:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=OttoR]The wicked "Linderites" just want you to explain how this multiculturalism got into Christianity? I don't think they are asking for too much.....You can be Christian, I'm fine with that but why is this multiracial stuff in that religion??? I've asked this question dozens of times of various forums but I can't get a single Christian to respond.....???? :wallbash:[/QUOTE]

You start by explaining why 'multiracial stuff' is in your white race period, much less comprising 99.97% of anti-Christian atheists.

As to Linder, discussing him is not worth the bandwidth of one post here, in my opinion.

van helsing

2005-10-16 03:44 | User Profile

back after a long time.

cant say i think linder is completely off base. he got the eval of "the passion" down pat imho.

FR, like lots of other chat sites since then, increasingly "liberty forum" is...

totally co-opted.