“It is a simple historical fact that the West grew up and thrived so closely knit to Christianity that it cannot be imagined without it. The West without cathedrals? without its religious art and music? without its distinctive codes of law?

It may be that the whites of Western Europe could have developed a distinctive civilization without Christianity, but there is no guarantee that it would be anything we could recognize. {…} And the only empirical evidence that philosophical atheism can build a civilization is not such as to inspire confidence. {…}

Empirically speaking, then, there is no evidence whatever that there could be a West or anything like it without Christianity.

That does not count as an argument for the truth of the doctrines of Christianity, but it should give pause to those Westerners who have departed from those doctrines. Since the empirical evidence is to the contrary, what evidence can there be that the whites of America or Europe can ever thrive without reclaiming them, or rather without being reclaimed by them?”

- Ronald N. Neff, “Repatriating the West”

(Available at http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/order_new.htm)

Oops - that’s: http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/order_new.htm

“The faith is Europe, and Europe is the faith.”
- Hilaire Belloc

http://www.amren.com/craige.htm

Nietzsche remarked that the truth is not necessarily, and is usually not, identical with the good or the beautiful.He also said that we must recognize that besides positive accomplishments, wars, slavery and cruelty have helped to make civilization what it is.One can certainly recognize that Christianity in large measure made the West what it is while at the same time failing to see the “truth” of Christianity, just as one can see the Egyptian pyramids as great without subscribing to the ideology of the pharaohs. For an atheist, there is a dilemma, but I don’t see how to get around it, at least to this writer.
A further problem is that one usually believes on the basis of something, whether evidence, faith, or something else. But one cannot just believe because one wants to. That is usually known as wishful thinking. Pascal prescribed the hearing of masses and the taking of holy water (“stupefy yourself”) as a means to belief, but I fear that will not work on very many people.
Someone like myself simply has to realize the function Christianity plays and continues to play in the sustaining of the West, and perhaps hope that not too many people beome atheists.

“Pascal prescribed the hearing of masses and the taking of holy water (“stupefy yourself”) as a means to belief, but I fear that will not work on very many people.”

Pascal is simply re-stating an always-everywhere truth of Christendom — that the only incorruptable way to deliberately receive God’s grace in an act of one’s own free will is to partake of the sacraments. Those who observe the danger of abandoning the practice on the basis of some feeling or intellectual confusion cannot emphasize that danger enough. In any case I would recommend that Gracian give it a try rather than assuming a lack of efficacy a priori.

Christianity has itself evolved into a form that is today poisonous for the west. It has metamorphosed to encompass the most vile aspects of secular humanism and has turned into an enemy of western civilization (Listen to Billy Graham talk about solving the race problem by promoting mass intermixing - another example of this).

To rebuild the west on the Christian faith, one would first have to rebuild the faith (from bottom up). This is no mean task. To try and rebuild the west on Christianity in its current form is an exercise in futility.

Buddhism is a superior religion I think. It is universal in the sense that any sentient being that knows and practices its precepts will benefit but it is not universal in the sense that everyone can just proclaim themselves Buddhist. On the other hand, there is, and always has been, a certain sluttishness associated with Christianity, especially in its most universalistic protestant forms. Historically protestant Christianity made a big fuss about moral rectitude and anti-paganism, but whereever protestantism has gone, decadence and ruin have followed. Now the Catholic church is adopting the memes of the protestants, perhaps with even more zeal, so conservative Christians looking for a home may be out of luck.

There is also the business of the Truth. Did/does Christianity posess the Truth? I feel that often I am far too scornful and nasty about Christianity. In many ways Christianity is a fine religion and the moral message is sound, in spite of my naggings and nitpickings. But still the sublime Truth revealed by the Buddha is missing from Christianity. The truth that our true Self, conciousness and emptiness, can never be thought of, never changes and doesn’t even exist and the apprehension of this will bring release from all suffering for all time. This message of salvation is absent from Christianity. Far from theological speculation, this is a testable truth. Jesus said “before all things were , I AM” so perhaps he knew but his message was diluted and distorted by the gospel writers who portrayed him as doomsday prophet.

“Christianity has itself evolved into a form that is today poisonous for the west.”

I agree with Mr. Phillips and have often made the same point myself. While Mr. Phillips does not use Christianity’s decadence as a reason for abandoning Christianity, some do, particularly some white racialists. My reply to them is very simple. Under the influence of advanced modernity and liberalism, the white race has become very decadent and culturally self-destructive; yet the racialists don’t say that we should therefore give up on the white race. Exactly the same consideration applies to Christianity.

One other thing, Mr. Auster. You claim that Christianity is the backbone of western civilisation. I would think that the backbone of any civilisation would have to possess elements that were specific to that civilisation. If Christianity is what makes western civilisation what it is, then any civilisation could take up Christianity and become western civilisation. I’ve heard modern day Christian clergy expressing this very idea. (I refuse to believe it.)

Posted by: Sporon on June 17, 2003 04:54 PM
“You claim that Christianity is the backbone of western civilisation. I would think that the backbone of any civilisation would have to possess elements that were specific to that civilisation. If Christianity is what makes western civilisation what it is, then any civilisation could take up Christianity and become western civilisation.”

christianity is the form, the backbone, of civilization, but it isn’t the whole or complete body of western civilization.

christianity will form others accordingly as they differ. you and auster are different persons, but you are formed by souls identical in nature and are thus the same species. you are not identical in all respects because your souls are identical in nature because part of what causes your individuation from each other is the flesh. the same is true for civilizations formed by christianity.

they will not be necessarily western, but they will be christian.

The notion of individual souls is possible but probably untrue. There is no way to directly experience such things, if they exist, so parsimony rules them out. The only “soul” that is real is the universal Self, oversoul, or void, which is universal. What is individualised are sensory experiences. Each sensory experience contains the sense-impressions of one individual physical body only. There are causal relationships between such experiences, so we can construct sequences that may be said to pertain to one individual over his life or over many lifetimes if the wheel of life/rebirth is real. However the experiences themselves don’t even have any reality. Talking about “an experience” is to talk about an hypothetical construct that can’t even be experienced itself, as with the idea of individual souls. The Buddha did not believe in individual souls.

Anyone who attempts at describing civilizational growth in pure biological terms risks being immediately falsified by Human history. Where were the nations of Northern Europe two thousand years ago? Where were the majority of white peoples during the golden age of civilizations in China, India and the Nile delta? Race can only ever form one of several indispensable ingredients in the creation of a higher civilization. To take the opposite view and argue that Africans, for instance, could recreate such societies if only christianized, is as illogical as the pure racialist position.

Further, I object to the word “racialist” (if used to describe my own opinions). Winston Chruchill believed in the beneficence of Eugenics and in the biological realities of race, but clearly was no “racialist”. The same Chruchill believed deeply in the benevolence of Christianity - which is not necessarily a contradictory position to take.

I do not believe that the West could never become great except for the rejuvenation of Christianity. The ancient Greeks and the Romans left us with some of the greatest products of civilization, though they were Pagans. What the West does need is a moral rejuvenation, of that there can be no doubt. If Christianity can serve as the vehicle for it, all the better. But I would not be very optimistic about this.

Mr. Phillips stated this quite well. The Oriental races have not (recently) had a civilization nearly on par with the West — this in spite of the fact that they tend to have an I.Q. higher than whites.

It’s worth noting that there is internal evidence in the Chinese pictographs that at one time that people did know a belief in ancient Biblical teachings. The symbol for “righteous” for instance is nothing more than the symbols of ‘man’ under ‘lamb’ with the symbol for ‘sacrifice’ in between them. To denote a large ship, one would use the symbol for ‘boat’ with 8 mouths inside.

Obviously at some point in the distant past, the Chinese turned away from the truths they had earlier known. Witness their fate today, possibly ours tomorrow.

The term ‘Christianity’ has a broad meaning today. I would suggest referring to the Bible itself as the basis for Western Civilization. So long as the Bible was respected and held as the Word of God, and believed as such, we had a basis for faith and morality.

I think the person who articulated this best was the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer, well-known Christian philopher of the last century. See especially his works on, “How Should We Then Live?”, “The God Who Is There”, and “The Great Evangelical Disaster.”

It needs to be noted that certain ‘Christian’ groups do not hold the Bible as the supreme authority, but instead regard their own institution as having the ultimate ‘say’. The largest and oldest of these groups in fact was an obstacle to the development of our civilization, standing in the way of scientific advancement — even arresting and persecuting a great scientist for advocating Copernicanism — and for centuries opposing religious liberty, even to the extent of murdering those who would not submit to their claims of authority.

My Huguenot ancestors experienced this firsthand. my first American ancestor narrowly escaped death after his entire family was murdered following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This barbarism is glossed over today, but it deserves to be remembered. Those who were martyred for remaining true to their Christian faith deserve should be remembered.

The liberty and society we still (though barely) known today largely came out of the so-called Protestant Reformation, which was essentially than a reaffirmation of the historic Biblical teaching that one is saved through faith alone, belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not through their own works or merit.

Lawrence Auster said: “Even if they were widely accepted, they could never become the basis of any viable political and cultural order?for the simple reason that any society that did accept them would rapidly go out of existence through the absence of any shared morality.”

But this is simply false. Have you ever wondered why primates, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, form troops, tribes, and communities all on their own? It’s because that organization works for those kinds of animals. They have a moral structure, they feel hurt when attacked, and they organize whole groups to punish offenders who attempt to disturb the harmony of the troop. Humans are no different in this regard: we just do it at a higher scale of complexity because we are more subtle than they. We are programmed by evolution to find satisfaction and pleasure in being a part of a community, rewarded again and again by joining a larger group in which risk is distributed and reduced and our chances of reproducing are greatly enhanced compared to those of an individual “roughing it alone.” Our feelings are organized around these principles. Some of this is instinctual and some of it is programmed into us by our parents, passed down through the generation because it’s what works, it’s the pattern of behavior selected-for by natural selection working at the cultural level. There is an “average morality,” distributed throughout the community, that describes how the community acts and reacts, and we, being the creatures that we are, are rewarded by mechanisms evolved over the aeons, when we respond in ways that contribute to our long-term success.

Posted by: Sporon on June 17, 2003 06:39 PM
“The notion of individual souls is possible but probably untrue. There is no way to directly experience such things, if they exist, so parsimony rules them out. The only “soul” that is real is the universal Self, oversoul, or void, which is universal….”

i was attempting to explain a point by analogy using soul in the aristotelian understanding of it. even though you’re a pantheist, you should have some concept of individuation in western thought.

i was simply playing off auster’s backbone, seeking a better analogy, not attempting to make the problem more muddled than it already was becoming. and now even more so is.

the analogy works if you don’t get sidetracked in your desire to defend pantheism.

For each gem the sponsors cast before us, they always manage to find a prettier one. This gem of an article is perhaps the most dramatic article yet.

It is “simply false” that a consciously atheist, materialist society could not survive? Really? Can Mr. Brennan point to such a society that has ever existed, let alone survived? He cannot. The society that most closely approximates it is today’s Europe with its European Union, a society founded on the belief that man is nothing but matter and that providing for the physical and economic needs of this material being is the whole purpose of existence. And this Europe is committing suicide so rapidly it makes one’s head spin. Just watch any of the EU conferences on television. Look at the people in these councils and parliaments. Look at their faces. They are dead human beings. It is like a vision out of a science fiction hell, except that it’s really happening.

And then remember that half the U.S. sees this bureaucratized Europe as the ideal for us to follow, and that another quarter of the U.S., while not enthusiastic about the European model, would be willing to follow along, two steps behind.

Only one thing can save Europe. The whole continent needs to repent and turn back to God.

Thanks very much, Mr. Murgos. I actually wrote this thing a couple of years ago and just got around to posting it now.

“Only one thing can save Europe. The whole continent needs to repent and turn back to God.”

Not gonna happen though is it really? Unless the next Pope treatens to excommunicate millions of people, which is a chance so tiny I’ll just forget that. And that might not even work anyway. At the moment as a darwinistic(not racialist) “athiest”, I pay lip service to christian traditions like the good little hypocrit I am(along with the many millions millions who are more unseeingly hypocritical). I do sponge on the tradition and cultural advantages of christianity, while adding little. As I see it christianity is getting consumed faster and faster in western europe as each generations value of it becomes less and less so this process is ongoing and since I cant just start believing in a God that I cant rationalise in my head. Well the only other possibility then is to selfishly hope for an acceleration in christianities decline and hope it will reach a crisis level where the Pope will do something radical that can ‘awaken’ people like me, or the elites will realise that the materialistic way needs something else and follow the nietzschean idea of finding a new system of values that can reverse the decay of europe (not feasible really either).

how come no one mentions Asatru or Alain de Benoist’s ideas on a revived neo-paganism? seems they are pretty congenial with ethno-tribalism.

Pagan practices, worship of the gods of Norse mythology, was common among the leadership of the Third Reich, who were also known for their strong views on ethnicity. Ethno-tribalism is not itself the central point of reference, which I think is what Mr. Auster is trying to get at.

Historic Biblical Christianity took racial nationalism for granted. It has to be kept in mind that the multicultural nonsense that rules our civic discourse and legal system is a VERY recent development, which in fact gained prominence only after several decades of liberalism sweeping through much of the professing church.

In America, the issue of slavery in the mid-nineteenth century was also a source of severe division within the Evangelical church, so that it was difficult to take a strong stand in favor of (the white) race once the consensus of nationalism started to crack.

But in the Bible race and nation is taken for granted. As an offhand example, the Lord asks, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?” (Jer 13:23) This suggests that a certain group of people, IN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC REGION, have a distinctive color of skin — with the inference that it should remain this way. It has, in Ethiopia.

As a heterodoxical Christian I often get annoyed at the constant lumping together of all Christians. There are certain beliefs that all Christians share, certainly, but the idea that all Christians are either Catholic or Protestant is completely wrong. The Roman church was never the only Christian church in Europe, not for five minutes past Council of Nicea. It is (in my opinion) largely a result of the constant conflict and stress between the Roman church and other sects that is largely the cause of European advancement. Whether Cathars or Bogomils or Wycliffites, the rebellious search for truth in the face of authority is the essence of what brought about Western Civilization. The Roman church wasn’t all bad by any means—Galileo’s rude treatment by the church was as much to protect him from Aristotelian scientists as to condemn his work, which wasn’t much hindered by house arrest. The church apologized a few centuries late but the scientific community never did. After all, there are no Aristotelians left to apologize.
The current dogmatism of so many scientists is very exasperating but is on balance a good thing. Without the tension of the status quo versus the hunt we will certainly get mired in dogma, whether religious or scientific. Though of course I see darwinism as nothing but a religion—fits Paul’s definition of faith pretty well—“the hope for things not seen.” No evidence but plenty of true believers. The reflexive bigotry of darwinism is just nasty as some periods of religious history, though fortunately the dogmatics of today don’t have as much secular power as some churches have possessed. That’s part of the reason why we’re still moving along, though more slowly these days. Let’s just hope that bigotry loses in the end. I think it would be wonderful if we had another great awakening, but I’m not holding my breath.

razib,
I don’t think that any sort of pure folk religion can mesh with what people know. Long, long ago, every nation had its own religion, which might vary a bit from that of neighbouring nations and a lot from far away nations. People in many places on earth began to notice these contradictions and ask questions, at which point the search for real Truth started.

Although religion is an important part of culture, anyone advocating that a specific religion be adopted (or even kept) for cultural reasons is essentially putting cultural values above truth. I’m not very sympathetic to that line of thinking, because I feel that truth should occupy a very high place among one’s values. I do notice that most of the VFR commenters do believe that Christianity is the Truth so they aren’t guilty of worhipping the false god of cultural expedience. By the same token, I don’t think that Christianity does embody the Truth, so I’ll never reccommend Christianity, although I don’t want to go around cynically bashing things.

“It is ‘simply false’ that a consciously atheist, materialist society could not survive? Really? Can Mr. Brennan point to such a society that has ever existed, let alone survived? He cannot. The society that most closely approximates it is today’s Europe with its European Union, a society founded on the belief that man is nothing but matter and that providing for the physical and economic needs of this material being is the whole purpose of existence. And this Europe is committing suicide so rapidly it makes one’s head spin.”

How is Europe committing suicide faster than America? At least many European countries have anti-immigration parties, even if these parties don’t fare very well. By contrast, one virtually *never* hears anti-immigration ideas being espoused anywhere in the mainstream in the United States.

I’m a secular racialist, though I’m not anti-Christian. Christianity served us relatively well in the past, and it may do so in the future. I don’t blame our present situation on Christianity, but at present Christianity is nothing more than a Zionist and multicultural machine, working directly against the interests of our people. How then is “turn[ing] back to God” going to solve anything?

“How then is ‘turn[ing] back to God’ going to solve anything?”

Because without God there is only the individual and his desires and comforts, and thus, ultimately, no ability to defend family, morality, law, culture, nationhood, race. With God (as understood by traditional Western religion), we recognize that we inhabit a reality that is higher and larger than ourselves, a reality that consists not only of a divine order, but of a natural order and a social order. This is the constitution of being. If a society recognizes and honors the constitution of being, it will have the ability to preserve itself in existence. If not, not.

The point is that a very large percentage of American whites are true believing Christians of the sort you describe, and yet they are not racialist to any perceptible degree, and are perhaps *less* likely to be racialist than secular whites.

>>Because without God there is only the individual and his desires and comforts, and thus, ultimately, no ability to defend family, morality, law, culture, nationhood, race.

This is obviously not true as far as individuals go - I don’t believe in God, and I care about all of the above things. At the level of society as a whole, you may or may not be right. It’s difficult to say. I do share your doubts about the long-term viability of a civilization without a religious core, as the universal presence of religions in human societies is indicative of their evolutionary importance. But, again, it’s clear that religion alone will not suffice if the majority of its adherents accept the doctrines of multiracialism, as do nearly all white American Christians.

“Although religion is an important part of culture, anyone advocating that a specific religion be adopted (or even kept) for cultural reasons is essentially putting cultural values above truth.”

Agreed. But let’s be clear that there is not an absolute dividing line between turning to God because you believe in him and turning to God because your earthly life is in serious trouble and you need him. The Prodigal Son (Luke 15) found himself eating the husks of corn that pigs did eat, and realized his life had gone terribly astray. His rejection of his father (God), and the total disorder into which his life had fallen as a result, were not separate things. And so he turned back to his father, and as a result his earthly goods were restored as well.

Western man is also the Prodigal Son. When he comes to, and realizes the depths to which he and his whole culture have fallen in his rejection of God, then perhaps he will turn back to God and save himself, and save his culture as well, since that culture originated out of belief in God.

In response to Oleg, I am an Evangelical Christian who only recently became a racialist. Previously I was just like the average American in my take on race and nationalism. My change of views began simply by observing disturbing trends in race relations, and then reading Jared Taylor’s book “Paved With Good Intentions.” Even then, it wasn’t until I became aware of Mr. Auster’s works that I was able to really ‘take the plunge’ so to speak, since he deals with racial topics straightforwardly but within a philophical framework to which I could relate — and also in his support for the state of Israel.

At no time has my belief in the Bible been an ‘obstacle,’ because, as I noted above, the racialist view is consistent with the Scriptures. In fact, to desire one’s own group to survive and prosper is sort of a default — one would have to show me in the Scriptures where it says otherwise.

But Christians are also subject to the same propaganda as everyone else, which in this digital age has unprecedented influence on heart and mind. The church in America was seriously divided over the issue of slavery in the mid-1900’s and racial issues have been a very sensitive topic among Evangelicals since.

Given the right circumstances and information I have little doubt that Christians can come to a better understanding of this issue — particularly as the disastrous policies we’ve hitherto embraced lead to increasingly dangerous consequences.

I believe that Mr. Auster’s work is especially important in this regard, since as you note many (or most) American whites identify themselves as Christians.

the confucian system that mr. kalb seems fond of tended to neglect theism at the elite level and it survived well for 2,000 years. btw, nearly half of AMERICAN RENAISSANCE’s readers are secular (non-religious) according to a one internal poll. this is far greater than the general population, especially among christians, how is it that a disproportionate number of the elite intellectuals of white racialism are secular while the christian masses are not?

Joel:

I’m glad to hear that you don’t see any contradiction between racialism and Christianity. Indeed, I think we *need* to start recruiting Christians more effectively since so many whites are Christians - a situation which is unlikely to change in the near future.

Since you mentioned Israel, I probably should mention that the one major sticky issue I see between Christianity and racialism is the Jewish question. I think it is naive to assume that whites just spontaneously created multiculturalism and all these other anti-Western ideologies. Rather, these ideologies were developed by Jews because they advance Jewish interests, as Kevin MacDonald has so meticulously detailed in The Culture of Critique (highly recommended reading, if you haven’t already read it). I don’t see any way out of our present mess if we don’t accept this fact. And although I don’t see anything about recognizing this fact that contradicts Christianity (indeed, the New Testament itself contains plenty of criticism of Jews), it seems that modern Christians won’t say an unkind word about those whom they consider to be “God’s chosen”.

Stephen’s honesty will pay off for him. He will find what he his looking for if he keeps it up. What Jesus did was more radical than what any Pope can do. (I am Catholic and not minimizing any Pope.) I doubt any Pope wants us to wait for him to act. We need only to participate in the radical sacramental acts that Jesus began and that have survived every Pope. The acts don’t seem radical because they are so familiar. Our brains are radical compared to the brains of the billions of species that have existed on earth; yet we take them for granted and even use them to make ourselves miserable. So consider walking over to Church and getting radical.

Joel is right about the power of propaganda. The most hypnotic media (television, film, music, and theatre) are mind-bending and liberal. Recall the many times you don’t hear someone talking to you while you are watching television. You are in a hypnotic state and susceptible to suggestion. Currently, these media convey the impression that you are whatever you will yourself to be and then offer you only liberal choices. The media is so intrusive that an alternative nonliberal culture cannot exist when the media is liberal. So it is vital that there be genuine traditional media, which can hold people together instead of tearing them apart as the liberal media does.

While I don’t consider myself to be a White Nationalist (I am half Korean), I do hold a Darwinian-Galtonian view of racial differences, believe strongly in restoring Western Civilization, and am agnostic in religious matters, so this letter seems to apply to me. I agree with Gracián that one can recognize that Christianity was important in the developing the West without believing in Christiantiy.

Most people are not philosophers and rely on the mythical to develope their moral codes. Christianity has served the West well, not necessarily because it is true or that God gave his blessing to the West, but because of the values that it promotes. I think one does not have to embrace the scriptures to love the west, but they need to recognize the generally positive influence it has. Certainly one can not be vehemently anti-Chriatian and pro-West.

Christiantiy is not perfect in the values it promotes. In Multiculturalism and the politics of Guilt, Paul Gottfried comes up with some aspects of Christianity that have led to the current mess we are in. Nonetheless, it is true that Christianity has existed for over a thousand years without being intertwined with the multiculturalist dogma. The “We Shall Overcome” Christianity is more a symptom of the Decline of the West rather than the disease.

Oleg wrote:

“I think it is naive to assume that whites just spontaneously created multiculturalism and all these other anti-Western ideologies. Rather, these ideologies were developed by Jews because they advance Jewish interests, as Kevin MacDonald has so meticulously detailed in The Culture of Critique…. I don’t see any way out of our present mess if we don’t accept this fact.”

Echoing Kevin MacDonald’s view of Jewish-Gentile relations in history, Oleg would have us believe that anti-Western liberalism, multiculturalism, etc. were simply IMPOSED by Jews on naïve Gentiles, in order to weaken and destroy the Gentile West. The Jewish participation in leftism is of course major, but the MacDonald way of putting it, making the whole phenomenon the evil work of Jews and not of Gentiles themselves, is a caricature of history that can only lead to painting Jews as the mortal enemies of Gentiles and as the source of all the current racial and cultural disorders in the West. The result is a convinced and often visceral hatred of Jews. Indeed MacDonald once told me that the Jews of Europe deserved what Hitler did to them. (Yes, Ann Frank’s family, hiding out for 14 months in the Annex behind Mr. Frank’s office in Amsterdam, deserved what Hitler did to them.) He has also said he agrees with the statements of Osama bin Laden. So MacDonald is both a supporter of Hitler and a sympathizer with bin Laden. That’s where his theories of Jewish evil have led him.

Another consequence of MacDonaldism is that one ends up worrying more about the Jews (a tiny and shrinking group in America) than about the vast Third-World invasion of America. It is always like that when people make the Jews into the source of all the ills of society. Thus Hitler kept diverting enormous resources into transporting and killing Jews even as he was fighting off ultimate defeat at the hands of the allies. And thus some members of today’s antiwar right put vastly more energy into expressing hatred for neoconservatives and Israel than they do into reforming immigration.

Anti-Semitism is the rat-hole of conservatism. Once someone goes down that hole, he not becomes irrational and wicked in himself, he becomes useless for politics.

We have had immensely long dialogs with anti-Semites at this site which Oleg can look up, starting at the link below, but we have much more important and useful things to talk about now and if Oleg wants to discuss the theories of MacDonald, this website is not the best place for that.

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001097.html

Lawrence Auster wrote:

“The Jewish participation in leftism is of course major, but the MacDonald way of putting it, making the whole phenomenon the evil work of Jews and not of Gentiles themselves, is a caricature of history that can only lead to painting Jews as the mortal enemies of Gentiles and as the source of all the current racial and cultural disorders in the West.”

There can be absolutely no doubt that without the organizational backing of Jewish groups, the civil
rights era would never have unfolded with anything like the strength and rapidity that it did; blacks simply could not have done it. For example, organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU, which were founded and heavily staffed by Jews, lobbied Washington to give blacks complete legal equality with whites. Additionally, Martin Luther King surrounded himself with Jews, including Stanley Levinson, a member of the US Communist Party who wrote most of King’s “Stride Toward Freedom.” Thus, the civil rights “movement” that led up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was engineered largely by Jewish individuals and organizations like the NAACP and ACLU.

In turn, whites reaped its ‘rewards’: forced school integration, flight to the suburbs, abandonment of our cities, the core of any civilization degradation of our culture through a suburban life of pavement, fast food and obesity, stupefaction of our schools through integration and political correctness and of our universities and businessnes through affirmative action and political correctness. Blacks may be most visible in the front-lines of all these battles; Jews have been the command and control structure.

I will stipulate that Jewish liberals and leftists played a leading, even decisive role in the early civil rights movement. Therefore … WHAT?

My point is that people who make the Jews the central political problem have no useful rational arguments or politics they can construct out of that idea. Instead, with wearying predictability, they simply turn the Jews, as Jews, into the source of the ills of the West. This triggers a primitive instinct within them, very familiar to observers of this phenomenon, which (1) makes them incapable of making useful rational arguments, and (2) makes normal people not want to have anything to do with them.

So, assuming for the sake of argument that there is an objectionable Jewish role in politics that ought to be criticized and opposed (just as we could say that there is an objectionable black or Hispanic role in politics that ought to be criticized and opposed), the fact remains that the obsession with the Jews as source of all evil precludes any such rational criticism. The Judeo-critics, however, don’t care that they are killing any possible debate on their favorite topic, since all they care about is finding outlets for their resentment. They are hopeless.

And that’s the last I will have to say about this subject in this discussion thread, which is about racialists and materialism, not about the Jews.

>>Echoing Kevin MacDonald’s view of Jewish-Gentile relations in history, Oleg would have us believe that anti-Western liberalism, multiculturalism, etc. were simply IMPOSED by Jews on naïve Gentiles, in order to weaken and destroy the Gentile West.

I’m not sure what you mean by “imposed”. I don’t believe that Jews used physical force to make whites accept their ideologies and neither does MacDonald. I do, however, argue that ideologies like multiculturalism were crafted by Jews and that whites would never have produced such ideologies or nearly universally accepted them by themselves. The evidence MacDonald presents in support of this argument is overwhelming (and drawn almost entirely from mainstream sources). Do you have a refutation of his arguments, or do you know of one (written from a racialist standpoint)? I haven’t ever seen anyone attempt this, which I think speaks to the strength of MacDonald’s theories.

>>Indeed MacDonald once told me that the Jews of Europe deserved what Hitler did to them.

I highly doubt it, given that no such talk appears anywhere in MacDonald’s writings. In any case, his beliefs on whether the Jews deserved what happened to them in WWII are irrelevant as far as his arguments regarding the Jewish role in promoting anti-Western ideologies and the facts supporting these arguments are concerned.

>>Another consequence of MacDonaldism is that one ends up worrying more about the Jews (a tiny and shrinking group in America) than about the vast Third-World invasion of America.

Well, taking a quick glance at your articles on this blog and your writings on FrontPageMag, you’re obviously *far* more concerned with *supporting* Jewish interests than you are with the vast third-world invasion of America, so I find this to be a strange criticism. Anyway, the problem is not that whites lack the capacity to end the third-world invasion. We could end it tomorrow if we wanted. The problem is purely ideological, and as explained above this ideology was created by Jews and although it is widely accepted by nearly all whites, it still requires Jewish upkeep via media/educational propaganda or it would gradually (or perhaps rapidly) decay. So again, addressing the Jewish question is central to ending third-world immigration and saving the West.

>>And thus some members of today’s antiwar right put vastly more energy into expressing hatred for neoconservatives and Israel than they do into reforming immigration.

HAH! How many members of the antiwar right are in Congress, the Bush administration, or any other significant positions of power? Not many, if any at all. So how then are they supposed to reform immigration when the neocons hold all the cards? Paleocons attack neocons/Zionists BECAUSE of their enthusiastic support for continued third-world immigration. Can’t you see that connection?

>>Anti-Semitism is the rat-hole of conservatism. Once someone goes down that hole, he not becomes irrational and wicked in himself, he becomes useless for politics.

Let’s try to remain civil here, shall we?

>>We have had immensely long dialogs with anti-Semites at this site which Oleg can look up, starting at the link below, but we have much more important and useful things to talk about now and if Oleg wants to discuss the theories of MacDonald, this website is not the best place for that.

Well, I looked at your link, and nowhere did you address anything that MacDonald has to say. Whether you agree or disagree with MacDonald, I think you have to agree that the pro-Jew/anti-Jew split within racialism is much more significant than the Christian/secular split. This needs to be addressed. Again, I think it would be simple if you could indicate, point by point, the alleged flaws in MacDonald’s arguments. Aside from that, I have little else to add so I’ll discontinue posting here as per your request.

” … I don’t consider myself to be a White Nationalist (I am half Korean) …” — Marcus Epstein

Being half-Korean in no way disqualifies someone from being a white nationalist.  Neither does being a full Korean, or a half or full Chinaman, or a half or full Arab, or a half or full Mexican, or a half or full Negro, or a half or full anything else. 

To be any sort of nationalist (a white nationalist, a yellow one, a black one, a brown one, or a red one), anyone, of no matter what race or ethnicity, must only respect that group’s right to ethno-cultural/national survival (assuming ethno-cultural/national survival is something that group desires, of course).

I’m white (and a Christian) and consider myself a white nationalist, a Negro nationalist, a yellow-race nationalist, a brown-race nationalist, and a red-race nationalist. This also applies to ethnic sub-groups within races and “nationalities.” Thus, though I’m not German, French, Korean, Tibetan, Israeli, or Arab I favor the survival of those nationalities and nation-states if their people wish them to survive. So, I’m a German nationalist, a Korean nationalist, an Arab nationalist, an Israeli nationalist, and so on.

Where two nationalisms potentially or actually conflict I support the one which is logically right, morally right, and closest to me. (Logically right and morally right often greatly overlap. Also, being closest to me doesn’t make up for being morally or logically wrong.)

Thus, I support the Israelis against the Palestinians on logical and moral grounds and grounds of my own “nationalism” (this last refers to the fact that I belong to the Judæo-Christian West, as does Israel), I very much regret the fall of Constantinople to the Moslems and wish there were some humane way the Christian West could get it back (on logical and moral grounds and grounds of my own “nationalism” — though not Greek, I belong the the Judæo-Christian West and take its side in struggles against the Moslems), I support in principle those who favor Arab independence and nationalism in the Lawrence of Arabia sense (on moral and logical grounds; I’m talking here, of course, about decent nationalism in the sense in which T.E. Lawrence envisioned it for the Arabs, not the vicious, insane behavior some of them keep showing, together with other Muslims like the Iranians), I oppose major incursions of Christianity into places it has no ethno-cultural-historical business expanding into, such as Korea, China, and Japan (this on logical and moral grounds), I oppose the Communist Chinese take-over of Tibet and fervently wish to see Tibet’s restoration as an independent nation (on logical and moral grounds), etc., etc.

If I lived in Korea I’d feel vividly like a Korean nationalist (in all ways that didn’t conflict with logic, with morality, or with my own identification with the white Euro Judæo-Christian world). If I lived in Israel I’d feel vividly like an Israeli nationalist (I’d certainly support the Likud). I see no reason Mr. Epstein’s non-white heritage keeps him from being a white nationalist.

Unadorned wrote:

“Thus, I support the Israelis against the Palestinians on logical and moral grounds and grounds of my own ?nationalism? (this last refers to the fact that I belong to the Judæo-Christian West,”

For a thorough debunking of the term “Judeo-Christian,” I refer you to John Murray Cuddihy’s fantastic book, “Ordeal of Civility.”  Cuddihy, then a professor at CUNY in New York, demonstrated how the term was entirely fraudulent, meant to conjure an alliance that never existed but proves useful to those adhering to the “Judeo” part.

I also refer you to Michael Hoffman’s book, “Judaism’s Strange Gods,” wherein Hoffman claims the early Christian Fathers knew nothing of a Judaeo Christian tradition because lots of modern Judaic law came AFTER Christianity. Large parts of the Judaic Law, like the Talmud, were written during the 6th century in the Babylonian captivity.

rajib comments that “the confucian system that mr. kalb seems fond of tended to neglect theism at the elite level and it survived well for 2,000 years.”

Some comments:

1. Imperial Confucianism was not the same as the Confucianism of the Analects, the system mr. kalb is actually fond of. The latter had a strong theistic element — in the understanding of Confucius, Heaven guided events and did particular things.

2. An admirable feature of the Confucianism of the Analects is its modesty. Confucius doesn’t claim to know more than he actually knows. And his system is commendable more for its aspirations than its practical efficacy. It depends on humility and moral striving, but as he observes several times those really aren’t very common as human qualities.

3. Confucianism therefore could not in fact be the basis of social order, which during Imperial times existed because there was an Emperor who had cosmological significance (and also an army), and because of the village and familial life of the Chinese people. Instead it was a system of self-cultivation for the ruling elite that helped them maintain their self-respect and some degree of independent moral judgment while serving as functionaries in a universal empire that existed on other grounds. I suppose Roman stoicism might be comparable.

4. The universal empire administered by philosophical high functionaries and ruling over a superstitious apolitical populace, the form of society corresponding to Imperial Confucianism, is totally at odds with the social and political forms that made European civilization great. We may get there, of course. Quite possibly someday neocons who aspire to be high functionaries in a universal empire will take up something of the kind.

5. Mr. Auster’s comments though were directed to those who care for the civilization of the West. So it’s not surprising he didn’t touch on the Confucian alternative.

“Just watch any of the EU conferences on television. Look at the people in these councils and parliaments. Look at their faces. They are dead human beings.”

THAT hits it on the nail. Ever since I took psych
in college and learned about Europe’s famous
‘existential’ approach to mental health (accept
that life is meaningless, that your actions are
meaningless), I’ve thought the same thing.

Just think of Hans Blix.

I just want to clarify one final thing to Oleg. He wrote:

“Whether you agree or disagree with MacDonald, I think you have to agree that the pro-Jew/anti-Jew split within racialism is much more significant than the Christian/secular split. This needs to be addressed.”

At this website I have addressed at great length the question of anti-Semitism on the right. My views on it are well known. For Oleg to come along and say that the “pro-Jew/anti-Jew split within racialism … needs to be addressed,” as though the issue had been ignored or suppressed before his arrival on the scene, is off base. Of course, I haven’t conducted the conversation in the terms in which he would like me to conduct it. Once a person steps off the intellectual cliff and starts making the Jews the sole or primary source of the ills of our world, that person almost inevitably takes on a certain “syndrome” with a whole set of very familiar intellectual and moral symptoms. Such people are to be analyzed and understood, not to be engaged in a discussion, because, as I said, through their own irrationality and bigotry they have made unfit for rational discussion the very subject they want most to discuss.

“For Oleg to come along and say that the “pro-Jew/anti-Jew split within racialism … needs to be addressed,” as though the issue had been ignored or suppressed before his arrival on the scene, is off base. Of course, I haven’t conducted the conversation in the terms in which he would like me to conduct it.”

That is an unfair statement. Regardless of your views on him, no one will deny that McDonald is probably the most influential writer in the anti-Semitic/Judeo Critical whatever you want to call it right. If you refuse to address his arguments and simply make ad hominem attacks (e.g. “he supports hitler and bin laden”), you are not addressing the issue.

I have tried to read Culture of Critique, and will admit I find it very difficult to understand and generally will pass judgement. From the summaries of his arguments, I am unconvinced, but I am willing to acknowledge that McDonald’s arguments should be debated rationally and civilly.

Mr. Epstein himself refers to MacDonald as anti-Semitic, and then requires that I engage in a discussion of MacDonald’s ideas. But this is obviously the whole problem. The Judeo-critics do not stop at rational criticism of Jews, but show themselves to be anti-Semites, and so people like myself turn away from them. As I said before, through their own extremism they render non-discussable the very issue they want most to discuss.

In various discussion, such as the thread I linked above, “How is anti-Semitism to be discussed”, http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001097.html, I’ve raised the issue, is it possible to have rational criticism of Jews that is not anti-Semitic? And, to my discouragement, over and over it has turned out that it is not possible. And the reason is as I said: there is something about the Jewish question that makes people go crazy; once they start looking at Jews in a critical light, they “flip” over into an irrational obsession with Jews and turn Jews into an all-purpose demon. This syndrome is real, it exists, and as a practical matter it makes rational criticism of Jews in a public forum virtually impossible. Since I myself think that such rational criticism is very much needed, I’m not happy that that’s the case. But it is the case.

On another point: Mr. Epstein accuses me of making “ad hominem attacks” when I said that MacDonald “supports hitler and bin laden.” That’s not an ad hominem attack. That’s characterizing MacDonald’s views. A lot of people today seem to believe that any criticism of them is an ad hominem attack.

According to Richard J. Evans, in his book Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (Basic, 2001), p. 231, Kevin MacDonald “was the only witness who appeared in court for Irving without being forced to.” (For anyone who doesn’t know about this trial: the High Court in London found in 2000 that Irving had falsified history by manipulating documentary evidence.) Mr. Auster is right in saying that such people should be analyzed, not engaged in dialogue.

Re MacDonald’s testimony at the Irving trial, my understanding is that MacDonald did not address the historical questions about the Holocaust that were the subject of the trial, but rather his own particular area of interest, the efforts of Jewish organizations to discourage Holocaust denial or other views seen as anti-Jewish.

I do not intend to get into the “Jewish Question” and prolong that argument. But I thought, nonetheless, the following points may be helpful in this discussion:

It appears that there is a school of thought on the right that Jews can do anything they wish to Gentile society if they connive and conspire enough. This leads us to the idea that every single undesirable trend in white societies in the past half century or so has been the handiwork of Jews. The fundamental problem with this line of thinking is that it starts to stretch rationality beyond a point logically permissible. What these gentlemen are therefore saying is that a group which forms 2 percent of the population of the United States managed to create a world that 98 percent of the country didn’t want (98 percent of the whites anyway). This is an extremely difficult argument to sustain unless one starts to see Jews as a super race of intelligent beings far superior in every respect to white gentiles (overlooking the fact that when one accounts for the High IQ whites, in sheer numbers they would still outnumber Jews easily).

I do not wish to go into every single question raised here. I am sure there have been and are Jews who form the bulwark of movements we despise, just as there are Jews who form a solid block within movements we would identify with (on the issue of race for instance). A good example of the irrationality of the anti-semitic argument on the issue of third world immigration is Europe. With the holocaust went the bulwark of European Jewry. Who then created immigration policies that created Arab ghettos with 6 million Arab Muslims in France, Turkish populations numbering close to 8 million in Germany and race problems in Scandinavia (not to mention the race problem created from scratch in England)? The Jews did? A little further examination reveals that the enemy isnt “them”, its “us” (The Immigration Act of 1965 was largely the work of Ted Kennedy, whose father was a notorious anti-semite himself). For whatever reason, numerous white societies (including those that had no Jews) engaged in self-destruction on a scale that one can fathom only today. This, gentlemen is where the whole “the Jews did it” theory loses credibility.

The question of Jewish “control” over the media is another good example of this. A good section of the American (and European) press went to town against the Iraq war. If the Jews control the media and their interest lay in slaying Saddam, why did the press and a good section of the media (not all of it, but undeniably some of it) go to town against the war.

As for MacDonald, there is a good review by John Derbyshire:

http://olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Reviews/CultureOfCritique.htm

I knew the ‘Jewish Question’ would stir things up. Mr. Phillips made some excellent points worth following up on. The issue of Jewish advocacy of ‘multicultural’ immigration has some basis, but there are serious problems here when looked at from a practical standpoint.

The blacks in this country already are much more Anti-Semetic than whites, (in spite of all the Jews have done for them,) doubtless due to the influence of Farrakhanism. Of course, the white nationalist elements tend to be virulently Anti-Semitic.

The increased immigration of Mohammedans into this country brings with it a ready-made hatred of Jews that is built into the religion. Anyone familiar with the ‘Reconquista’ movement cannot have failed to notice the strong anti-Jewish undercurrent there as well.

Now could somebody please explain to me how it is in the Jewish interest to import even MORE Anti-Semitism? Consider too that these groups are increasingly at each others throats. The blacks are upset that the Mexicans are displacing them. The Mexicans think they’re still in Mexico, only with perks, and that others are on their land. The Mohammedans tend to hate everyone but themselves. Yet all of these groups have a common (and in some ways overriding) hatred of a single group — a volatile dynamic waiting to be exploited.

If and when the uneasy racial mix becomes a real threat to the social order, yet a single ‘enemy’ can be found among the disparate groups — folks, this just does not bode well for the Jews, or for our future relations with Israel, which would be a lonely country without the U.S.

The Jews are safest here with the country majority white and predominantly Christian. IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST. But it is hard to see how they would turn their support in this direction with so many WN’s currently spewing all their anti-Jewish venom and whacko conspiracy nonsense.

And more to the point — this nonsense is keeping many _whites_ from supporting their own people. IS THIS CLEAR? Watching these Anti-Semites, whose hatred of the Jews is so intense it seems to transcend their love for their own people, the only thing I can compare it too is the way so many blacks constantly blame white racism for their own troubles.

It obscures the most expedient threats to our existence — Mohammedan and Mexican immigration — which could overwhelm us long before the anti-Jewish consensus these psychos desire would ever materialize.

It diverts attention away from our own self-inflicted wounds. Scapegoating — is this what our people are reduced to? What about our own missteps?

It makes it almost impossible to proffer legitimate criticism of Jews, or of Israel, because as Mr. Auster notes, any such criticism is immediately seized upon (as Ah ha!) and blown to atomic proportions. Yes some criticism is valid. The ADL is a contemptible organization. And although I’m not a Holocaust denier, I deplore any attempts to curtail freedom of speech. But these do not mean that Jews as a group are out to get us. Have we not made our own mistakes?

To answer one question above as to why most AmRen supporters are secular — I doubt most Christians have even heard of it. Most of us are aware of the Anti-Semitic whackos, but I only recently knew who Jared Taylor even was. AmRen at this point hardly represents a cross-section of _anything_. But even after I found out about AmRen I was still wary, and did not fully identify myself as a racialist until I became aware of Mr. Auster’s work — it wasn’t an easy transition by any means, largely thanks to these Anti-Semites.

They are keeping the movement down, period. They are keeping concerned whites away, and they are keeping potential Jewish allies away. A net loss, with nothing gained in return. Their disproportionate presence in the movement is just another part of that suicidal tendency that afflicts our race.

In the June 2003 issue of American Renaissance, Prof. Steven Farron offers a rebuttal to Prof. MacDonald’s letter of the month before, a portion of which follows:

“Countries in which the number of Jews is negligible, like the Netherlands and Belgium, and countries in which Jews hardly exist, like the Scandinavian countries, have also let themselves be inundated with Third World immigrants, and they began doing that well before 1965. MacDonald trivializes a suicidal mental attitude that pervades the West and afflicts Jews as well as Gentiles.”

“I will stipulate that Jewish liberals and leftists played a leading, even decisive role in the early civil rights movement. Therefore ? WHAT?”

Therefore, it’s worth looking at the Jews to examine the role they have played, and continue to play, in the destruction of the fundamental European character of America, a country that from
1776 to 1965 was essentially an idealized anglophone heir to Europe with the unfortunate presence of about 10% unassimilable black slaves or their descendents. And the hard fact is, whether Mr. Auster likes to admit it or not, Jews have played by far the largest role in the destruction of our culture.

We are currently in the third phase of destructive Jewish influence of our culture. Through guilt over the immigration moratorium, through naive American support for perceived ‘underdogs,’ and through appeal to fundamentalist Christians, Jews have long enjoyed tremendous American support for Israel, a country stolen from a closely related people less than sixty years ago (unlike America, which involved the conquest of an alien people with an obviously inferior material culture, starting 400 years ago). Now, as the logical outcome of our increasing support for Israel, and the increasing power of Jews in America, the Moslem world has finally equated us with Israel completely, and I’m sure Jews are relieved, in a way, that we can share Israeli suffering in our new familiarity with terrorism. The erosion of our freedoms, for instance in increased computer surveillance, the Patriot Act and automatic databases generated for air travelers, linking their credit card history, travel history and documentary history, we are just beginning to feel. The permanent state of imperial wars, and imperial outposts under siege, that Jews have had a lead role in fostering, still seems like a positive response to terrorism. It will not remain so. And some VFR readers sit here and hope that Jews have learned their lesson because a few million Muslim immigrants to America pose a minor threat to them. Please note that a few thousand highly intelligent people with stronge political and financial power have much more influence than a few million ordinary citizens; Muslim immigrants are decades away from being a threat to Jews, if indeed they ever will be (which is not to say we should welcome them; we shouldn’t accept any immigrants who aren’t European gentiles).

“The increased immigration of Mohammedans into this country brings with it a ready-made hatred of Jews that is built into the religion. Anyone familiar with the ‘Reconquista’ movement cannot have failed to notice the strong anti-Jewish undercurrent there as well. Now could somebody please explain to me how it is in the Jewish interest to import even MORE Anti-Semitism?” — Joel

Joel, this is a question which many bewildered Jews and gentiles who are concerned about the immigration outrage on the one hand, and familiar with the stance taken by certain Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League on the other (a stance strongly in favor of the immigration outrage), must have asked themselves. (I did not know, incidentally, that there was a strong anti-Jewish undercurrent in the Reconquista/Aztlan movement — thanks for pointing that out.) I’m someone who asked this question in the pages of VFR several months ago. Lawrence Auster very kindly addressed it by means of the following extremely insightful blog entry:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001041.html

is there a reason why freemasonry has never come up in discussion, let alone as a discussion topic on this blog?

if pope leo 13th’s humanum genus is to be believed, and i do believe it, doesn’t it answer affectively the problems brought up here?

Unadorned: Here is an article on the Anti-Semitism of Hispanics — http://www.vdare.com/sailer/import_anti_semitism.htm

It’a actually Part 2, but links to Part 1. This way you could see both. (Actually, I first became aware of the anti-Jewish sentiment of Reconquistas just by visiting a few of their own web sites.)

And THANK YOU for that link! That was outstanding. I had not yet read Mr. Auster’s treatment on that topic, and it was quite helpful.

Peter, have you read Peter Phillips’ comment in this thread, posted today at 3:55 PM? I suggest you go back and read it (or read it again but pay more attention this time). Go ahead and have a good look at it, or a second look.

As far as the “unfortunate presence of ten percent unassimilable descendants of black slaves” goes, I believe if you think about that you’ll agree it was a mis-statement on your part. What has been “unfortunate” about the American Negroes’ situation in the latter half of the century has been mainly their overwhelming political capture by the left, who have steered them in completely the one-hundred-and-eighty-degree wrong direction.

Negro-Americans have made the best contribution they’ve been able to make to this great country — they’ve tried as hard as any other group to contribute — and their contribution has been as valuable, and as permanent.

I feel this country has worked incredibly well, structured as a white, Christian, predominantly Anglo-Saxon (or ethnically “Anglo-morphic” at any rate) MATRIX IN WHICH ARE EMBEDDED other groups who willingly cede pre-eminence to that “matrix group” (I have no British ancestors, BTW) in return for the safe haven, stability, fair-play, rule-of-law-not-rule-of-men, and other Anglo-Saxon traits we appreciate and are thankful to live immersed in and protected by. I do not look for a purely white, purely Anglo-Saxon, purely Christian, or purely anything else, country. I look for a continuation of this country’s 1965 demographic characteristics which were tampered with solely for the most wicked, wicked, evil, evil ends.

This country is part Negro and its history, personality, and culture are intertwined with Negroes. If Negroes had never lived here, never made their indelible contribution to the great American soul, this country would not be this country.

Finally, most of what you say about Israel is wrong — ridiculously, outrageously wrong.

While Peter has failed to answer my “Therefore, what?” question, he has certainly made clear where he himself is coming from, and has confirmed in spades my observations about the anti-Jewish mindset. The clinker is his line about the Jews “stealing” Palestine from the Arabs (while, oh so conveniently, he exculpates white Americans from the charge of “stealing” this continent from the Indians!). It is clear that Peter is the type of person who will automatically and predictably, and without the slightest self-consciousness of how he’s coming across, see anything to do with the Jews in the most negative and condemnatory light.

Which brings me back to the beginning of this discussion. When Oleg first brought up the Jewish question, http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001526.html#6408, I felt it was a detour from the original subject, and resisted pursuing it very far. But in fact it fits right in with our topic. Just as (I argued in my article) white racialists will be unable to save their culture and their race so long as they are materialist atheists and/or anti-Christians, because the culture and peoplehood they want to save is based in God and Christianity, by the same token they will be unable to save their culture and race so long as they are anti-Semites, because the anti-Semitism so deforms them morally that they become unable to assume a position of cultural and political leadership or even to be taken seriously as participants in public discourse.

It seems to me that there is a further connection between the two antagonisms. As Oleg’s comment suggested, the anti-Christianity of the white nationalists is at least partly motivated by the fact that American Christians will not abide anti-Semitism.

Which in turn leads to one further point: Is it any wonder that some white nationalists have been sympathetic with America’s Muslim enemies, since the Muslims also hate both Jews and Christians?

Unadorned writes:

“Peter, have you read Peter Phillips comment in this thread, posted today at 3:55 PM? I suggest you go back and read it (or read it again but pay more attention this time). Go ahead and have a good look at it, or a second look.”

Upon re-reading Mr Phillips’ post of 3:55 PM as you suggested, I concluded that you either did not read it yourself, or that you enjoy knocking down straw men. Mr Phillips’ post contains nothing that contradicts any of my previous comments in this thread. I argued that the civil rights movement that led up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action was engineered largely by Jewish individuals, such as Martin Luther King’s advisors and the “freedom riders,” and organizations founded and heavily staffed by Jews, such as the NAACP, the SNCC and the ACLU. It seems quite a stretch to assume that the civil rights movement would have mustered such momentum had Jews not been involved in it. Mr Phillips’ post does not refute this, let alone mention it.

Unadorned: “What has been “unfortunate” about the American Negroes’ situation in the latter half of the century has been mainly their overwhelming political capture by the left, who have steered them in completely the one-hundred-and-eighty-degree wrong direction.”

“Capture” seems to imply that the left coerced blacks into adopting their views against their will. In reality, blacks willingly and enthusiatically embraced statism when it suited their racial interests. Also, I find your above comment interesting, because you lament that blacks have been overwhelmingly captured by the left, which has steered them in the wrong direction, yet it was during the civil rights period that the left effectively “captured” blacks.

Moreover Mr Phillips concludes his comment by linking to John Derbyshire’s disingenuous review of MacDonald’s work. Here is a “good” refutation of Derbyshire’s screed by the author himself:

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/derbyshire.htm

“Finally, most of what you say about Israel is wrong — ridiculously, outrageously wrong.”

The only thing I said about Israel is that the land where it is situated was formerly occupied by a people who share a common genetic heritage with the Jews, who were evicted by the Jews from that land in the late forties. If this account is false, please tell me why.

Also, I replied to one of your posts wherein you used the term “Judeo-Christian,” which according to two scholars, is fraudulent. You did not rebut this.

Auster writes, “Which in turn leads to one further point: Is it any wonder that some white nationalists have been sympathetic with America’s Muslim enemies, since the Muslims also hate both Jews and Christians?”

I would be willing to wager that Le Pen’s National Front party would adopt a different policy toward Muslim immigrants than Chirac’s RPR party.

Lawrence Auster wrote: “Such people are to be analyzed and understood, not to be engaged in a discussion, because, as I said, through their own irrationality and bigotry they have made unfit for rational discussion the very subject they want most to discuss.“

The crux of this argument, is essentially the Communist/Frankfurt School technique to label your opponents as crazy people who must be analyzed (or perhaps treated?) because of their “authoritarian personalities” or “paranoid style” of politics, rather than engaged. Of course, I guess criticism of the Frankfurt School is probably just a codeword for anti-Semitism. Similarly when I said that bringing up McDonald’s alleged views on Hitler and Bin Laden were ad hominem in the sense that they have nothing to do with whether or not his views on group evolutionary strategy of Jews is correct. One of the basic rules of debating is to address your opponent’s arguments, rather than question their motives for their arguments.

While from what I have read of McDonald, I am critical of, it is hard to deny his has a large following on the right-particularly among those who share similar views as you and I on immigration and multiculturalism. Dismissing them as kooks who do not deserve to be engaged may work for some Rush Limbaugh drone, but it does not work for people who think for themselves. If he is wrong, which he very well may be, why not explain why rather than simply use Frankfurt School tactics on him. Even National Reviewians like John Derbyshire admit this.

there are strong indications that the european jewish populations are hybrids of levantine men and local women.

see:
http://www.racearchives.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=642193019390

Mr. Epstein is emerging as a tiresome apologist for anti-Semitism. Earlier he had written:

“That is an unfair statement. Regardless of your views on him, no one will deny that McDonald is probably the most influential writer in the anti-Semitic/Judeo Critical whatever you want to call it right. If you refuse to address his arguments and simply make ad hominem attacks (e.g. “he supports hitler and bin laden”), you are not addressing the issue.”

At that time I pointed out that Mr. Epstein himself had just admitted that MacDonald was anti-Semitic; yet he somehow believed I was obligated to study and consider the works of an anti-Semite. Mr. Epstein now re-groups, repeating his complaint that I am refusing to consider MacDonald’s serious theoretical work. Leaving aside the fact that Mr. Epstein has already acknowledged that MacDonald’s serious theoretical work is anti-Semitic, I must point out that I was not even discussing MacDonald’s theory of group evolutionary strategies; therefore I could not have been saying that one should label or dismiss the theory without studying it. I was discussing the phenomenon of anti-Jewish bigotry and saying that one should not get into discussions with anti-Semites.

Also, I did not decide that MacDonald was an anti-Semite because of his theories of group evolutionary strategies; I decided he was an anti-Semite because of his remark that the Jews deserved what Hitler did to them, and because of other comments by him indicating that he had a profound and convinced animus toward the Jews. Once one realizes that a writer has such an attitude, it is natural to wonder and inquire about the extent to which his theories are shaped and motivated by that attitude. Furthermore, if it is MacDonald’s theory that the JEWS ALONE, IN A RACIALLY MOTIVATED POWER MOVE AGAINST WHITE GENTILES, caused multiculturalism and open borders, as well as (who knows?) the white surrender to blacks, the dissolution of our national identity, the reign of political correctness, the destruction of traditional morality, and all the rest of it (which is the way MacDonald’s supporters in this thread seem to have characterized his view), that view is so manifestly false, and so manifestly leading to the utter demonization of the Jewish people, that, yes, it would be anti-Semitic and not deserving of consideration.

(Note: I gave some feedback to MacDonald in the mid-1990s on the chapter in volume II of his book dealing with the Jewish role in immigration reform. However, I have never read his three volumes, not because I wasn’t curious, but because I have an uncorrectable visual condition that makes it difficult for me to read the very light typeface that Prager Publishing used for his books. My eyesight is fine otherwise, I simply can’t read books with very light type.)

Eric Wilds wrote: “I would be willing to wager that Le Pen’s National Front party would adopt a different policy toward Muslim immigrants than Chirac’s RPR party.”

In fact, the NF has been reaching out to Muslims. See this article, which is also on VFR’s main page:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001389.html

I wonder what the article linked by razib has to do with the subject of this discussion. In any case, the thesis seems unlikely. If Eastern European Jewry began with Mideastern Jewish men marrying non-Jewish, local women, that would have been the end of Jewishness as far as those families were concerned, rather than the beginning of a vast Jewish people and culture.

However, the theory has a certain appeal in that it would begin to explain the phenotypical differences among Eastern European Jews, adding up to, not one racial/ethnic type, but a set of several distinct types.

Christianity Friend or Foe ?
Much has been said about christianity, wether it has a negitive or positive impact on the white racial struggle.Atheist say its a tool of our enemy the jew.But a quick glance at the bible puts that arguement
to rest (You are of your father the devil and the lust of your father you wish to do.Jesus to the jews John8:44 AST),(This witness is true,for which cause convict them severely,that they may be sound in the persuasion not listening to judaizing myths and commandments of men, having pervented the truth.Titus1:14AST) (His blood be on us and our children.jews shouting for Christ to be crucified Matthew27:25AST)As you can see Jesus speaks out aginst the jews and warns against their lies.We can see in Matthew that jews hated christianity in Jesus’s day just as much as they hate it now.Today Its easy to see the jews hatred of the white mans religion in movies,on TV,printed in magizines,and outlawed in courtrooms.At one time this religion united the white race against the jew,christians are the historical enemy of jews.This is why the jew continues to spread lies in the mass media about christianity, they are afraid of white men finding out the truth and uniting against them.
So you see the jewish influence is once again to blame for the coruption of white culture and people not christianity itself.Atheism has been just as destructive to whites as jewish influenced christianity if not moreso.The soviets were atheist and they murdered countless white people across Europe.Most of the people incharge of this were jews,but the white men who did their dirty work are just as much to blame. Communists ideas spread to asia,africa causing conflicts which resulted in many white deaths.Atheist are
typicaly left-wingers and suportort anti-white agendas such as abortion, racemixing,and other typical leftist notions.Both atheist and christians in the movement should work to unite whites,not accuse each other of jewish lies.In the end what matters is that the white race must unite,religion is a personal issue and whites should not let it come between them and their racial brothers.We have very little time left dont waste it arguing amongst ourselves.

A. RYAN

I’m going to leave A. Ryan’s post up for a while so that everyone can see the combination of moronism and Jew-hatred which is at loose in the world today, and which is encouraged and licensed by the likes of MacDonald and his acolytes.

Peter:

“Upon re-reading Mr Phillips’ post of 3:55 PM as you suggested, I concluded that you either did not read it yourself, or that you enjoy knocking down straw men. Mr Phillips’ post contains nothing that contradicts any of my previous comments in this thread. I argued that the civil rights movement that led up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action was engineered largely by Jewish individuals, such as Martin Luther King’s advisors and the “freedom riders,” and organizations founded and heavily staffed by Jews, such as the NAACP, the SNCC and the ACLU. It seems quite a stretch to assume that the civil rights movement would have mustered such momentum had Jews not been involved in it. Mr Phillips’ post does not refute this, let alone mention it.”

Yes, that was a notable omission. The Civil Rights Movement was a major event in American History. But how important an event was this? I am not an American, but by my reading of History, I recollect that some 600,000 white men died fighting about a century earlier on a matter of principle: the question of whether Slavery was constitutional.

Now, the anti-semitic response to this would be that because Jews didn’t cause the civil war, doesn’t mean that the Jews didn’t cause the Civil Rights Movement? But in making this jump, we commit a serious error of judgement. The point goes beyond Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement. The real point is one of the White man’s willingness to fight on questions of abstract principles. Nowhere else on earth do human beings go to war on matters of principle (they go to war for loot – not abstract principles of the enlightenment as we do here in the West).

The idea that the Civil Rights Movement would NEVER have occurred without Jewish support is fundamentally irrational, because it didn’t take Jewish involvement to cause the North to go to war with the South on the question of slavery. The anti-semites who argue that Segregation ended in the South ended because of Jews seem to forget that segregation never existed in the North (never by law). The Civil Rights movement would never have occurred if the North also had legal segregation like the South (just as the Civil War would never have occurred if the North had slavery as the South did).

I don’t think even MacDonald has attempted to argue something as ambitious as this. MacDonald merely says that Jews were by far the greatest force in the Civil Rights movement and in the Immigration movement. This may indeed be true. The problem arises when one equates one of several causes with actual effect and argues that it happened ONLY BECAUSE of such and such.

Which brings us back to Europe. After the Holocaust and the virtual extermination of European Jewry (unless you wish to deny this too), what made the Scandinavians, the French, the English and the Germans get on the backs of the South Africans to end apartheid? The Jews did? There were indeed legions of Jewish intellectuals who argued in favour of an end to apartheid (in the United States). But those legions were more than matched by legions of unconnected leftist intellectuals in Europe (all Gentiles and most of whom probably never met any Jews – and whats more hate Israel probably as well) who argued the same and probably even more vocally.

So, if White Gentiles would have ended White Rhodesia and White South Africa with minimal Jewish help, I fail to see how the South could have survived in an age of television, when what happens in Alabama or Mississippi is visible not just across the 50 states but across the whole world.

The civil rights movement was the culmination of several factors together, which brought about this event. Jewish involvement and commitment may have been one factor but by not any means the ONLY factor or the indispensable factor (without which it wouldn’t have happened). As I have argued in this blog earlier, I see little to dissuade me that the United States would not have committed suicide without Jewish help (on the question of immigration) – we are all witness to the mess that Europe has become (and also to European antagonism to Jewish interests in the Middle East, which as far as Im concerned rules out Jewish domination of public policy on the Continent). So that is what remains of the argument.

I wish the intelligent anti-semites (and there are some who are undeniably intelligent) spend more time in asking themselves tougher questions rather than lazily cling to an all purpose answer: The Jews did it!

Finally, I have one question for Prof. MacDonald:

He seems quite convinced that Jews have won the evolutionary war against Gentiles. I am not so sure. This is why:

The state of Israel has been feeding Palestinians so much food that their population has exploded several fold in the last five decades. In a few more decades, this would be an impossible problem for Israel to manage (and some realists would argue that this would be the end of Israel for all practical purposes as a haven for the Jewish people).

Back in America, Jews are intermarrying white gentiles at a rate of about 50 percent or higher. What sort of evolutionary strategy is this? How will Jews as a people survive if their Jewish homeland disappears under a sea of Palestinians and they intermarry at such a phenomenal rate that there are hardly any American Jews left in a century from now?

And lastly, what kind of good evolutionary strategy invites millions of hard-core unrepentant anti-semites onto American soil and makes them citizens? People here have assumed that large numbers of Muslims in America wouldn’t mean anything for Jews because Jews would always be much more influential. My answer is: ask the Jews in France what they think. Most of them feel the kind of fear they haven’t experienced since the Second World War because 6 million Arabs lust for revenge and have reduced their safety in many cities to zero. I am not sure this would qualify as good evolutionary strategy.

While I agree with the overall drift of Mr. Phillips’s post, I’d like to correct him on one historical point. The North did not go to war with the South for the purpose of ending slavery. I’ll put it very simply: The controversy over slavery was the reason the South seceded. The North then fought to bring the South back into the Union. Over the course of time, it became apparent to the North that it could only win the war by utterly defeating the South as a society, and thus its whole social system including slavery. In January 1863 Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation which meant that every part of the South that was defeated would become free of slavery. Thus the end of slavery became a major consequence of the war, and for many people in the North, a major purpose of the war as well. But the key point is that, at least initially, the purpose of the North in fighting was to save the Union, not end slavery. Many many people in the North rejected the idea of fighting to end slavery.

“Back in America, Jews are intermarrying white gentiles at a rate of about 50 percent or higher.”

For those that doubt that validity of the statistic quoted above, this link might be useful:

http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0316181331?

Larry,

I dont disagree with your point. My only point is that the Civil War would not have happened had it not been for the many vocal and almost fanatical Northerners (all Gentiles) that wanted to end Slavery in the South. Things came to a head eventually and the Civil War was the consequence.

“I wonder what the article linked by razib has to do with the subject of this discussion. In any case, the thesis seems unlikely. If Eastern European Jewry began with Mideastern Jewish men marrying non-Jewish, local women, that would have been the end of Jewishness as far as those families were concerned, rather than the beginning of a vast Jewish people and culture.”

one of the posters keeps saying that the jews expelled a people of the “same race” (arabs). that’s not true if you mean ashkenazi jews (is more so true in the case of mizrahi jews). the genetic evidence in question is pretty persuasive larry, it is repeated in most of the world’s jewry (local mtDNA lineages, “levantine” y chromosomal lineages, + the preservation of the kohaniem lineage in places are peculiar as india or zimbabwe). the marriage of local women seems to have happened for only the first generation, so that memory seems to have been lost/covered up rather quickly (you look at the pattern of mtDNA lineages-sampled and indicated of an expansion circa 800).

MacDonald et al. is predicated on the idea that jews are an “in-group” and what not, well, perhaps we should start looking at the genetic evidence before wading into these sort of biologically rooted debates in the first place….

the cultural stuff will be debated ‘till the cows come home ;)

Razib,

Does this genetic evidence falsify concerns of people like Dershowitz and books like, “The Disappearing American Jew”? Im not contradicting your point but posing a hypothetical question.

peter, no, the jews had VERY little intermarriage after the initial taking of local women. this is clear from the genetic evidence, for though the female DNA is european, they all seem to be of the same age and a small sampling of the normal genetic diversity of the area (in other words, a few founding mothers of gentile origin, not repeated intermarriage with gentiles). the amount of non-jewish male DNA though is shockingly low, indicating that the barriers of entry for men of non-jewish origin into jewish community were very high.

dr. macdonald is only now beginning to think about the implications of these findings, he was writing the books when more primitive methods were used to ascertain jewish origins (i know because i know people that have emailed and asked him about this and he was surprised about this new line of data which came to the fore about a year ago).

VFR readers might find this article apropos of the topic: “Serving Christ in the borderlands” (by Steve Sailer)

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030620-121413-7448r

I normally like to actually deal with the substance of an argument, but in this case their is none. I have never seen so much ignorant and uneducated horse manure in my entire life. I’m just waiting for the Nuremberg Rally to begin on this thread. Interesting how so much of this bull is exactly the kind of arguments used by Muslims against the Jews. This is why were are seeing increasing cooperation between the neo-Nazi right in America and Europe with militant Islam.

I’m an apologist for anti-Semites for simply wanting a rational argument. I find many of the arguments made on this forum against McDonald quite compelling, but I don’t find Mr. Auster’s claim that Kevin McDonald is an anti-Semite (a word like racist, fascist, xenophobe etc. seems to have little meaning other than to smear one’s enemies) and is not worth engaging. The issue is not whether McDonald is an anti-Semite (and I never said he was, I simply used the terms “anti-Semite/Judeo Critical whatever you want to call it” to say that I didn’t really care what the label was, not to label him an anti-Semite), but to what extent his theories are true, and if so, what does that mean.

Mr. Epstein reveals the moral and intellectual dead end into which so much of the paleo (and increasingly anti-Jewish) right has fallen. He writes: “anti-Semite [is] a word like racist, fascist, xenophobe etc. [and] seems to have little meaning other than to smear one’s enemies.”

Note that he doesn’t say that the word anti-Semitic was wrongly or unfairly used in this case; he says that there is no objective phenomenon that the word “anti-Semitic” points to. According to him, there is no anti-Semitism, there is only the attempt to smear one’s innocent enemies as anti-Semites.

It would be as though someone on the left had said that the word “leftist” is just a smear word conjured by right-wingers.

Clearly, if a person believes there is no such thing as anti-Semitism or leftism, then he will automatically defend actual anti-Semites or leftists whenever they are attacked, and accuse their attackers of engaging in vicious tactics. He has, notwithstanding his claims to rationality, removed himself from the possibility of a rational discussion of the issue at hand.

I’m just curious as to how a thread on the importance of refuting the philosophy of Drawinian materialism for the preservation of the white race and culture has managed to morph into yet another discussion on anti-semitism.

For my two cents worth, I would urge folks like Oleg and Peter to reconsider their argument. They’ve fallen into the same error that Father Fahey (referenced on an earlier thread on anti-Semitism) did. Fahey was quite correct that there is a force at work in the west whose objective is the destruction of both the traditional white chritisan culture and the white race itself. Yes, there have been large numbers of leftist Jews busy at work to acheive this goal. The fallacy is assigning the blame to this on all Jews or blaming the destruction we all see primarily on Jews. This ignores the actions of both the numerous gentiles who have participated in the attack and the conservative Jews who’ve resisted this evil force.

While I’m not about to allow a dedicated leftist like Abe Foxman define the term anti-semitism, real anti-semitism does exist and those who fall into its trap seem to lose much of their capability for rational discussion.

Marcus,

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with examining a man’s work. I have no doubt that more people will engage in rational discourse on the work that MacDonald has done so far.

I have three small points to make in this regard:

1. To take MacDonald’s theory of Jewish intellectual movements and turn it into an “explanation” of all that has gone wrong in the west in general and America in particular is irrational (as I have tried to explain). It a lot easier to fall into the trap of thinking that way if one looks at America in isolation. Its a bit different if one looks at all Western societies together and whats happening everywhere. Actually with the exception of Japan, theres no first world nation that doesnt have the problems America has today - especially on the question of race. In fact, most of them even imported these problems - in America’s case one could atleast argue that the problem would always have existed because of Slavery (going back centuries). But in almost all other nations, especially in Europe, democratically elected Governments (with considerable public support) engaged in the most bizzare acts of self destruction and are now reaping the consequences. To try and crystallize these phenomena in a single all purpose explanation (the Jews did it!) is fundamentally irrational.

2. My main objection to some white nationalists’ obsession with Jews (as opposed to rational criticism) today is that it totally diverts attention from pressing issues at hand into an internal needless squabble among whites and then has the effect of nicknaming all of white nationalism (even the respectable kind) as some kind of gutter Nazism. No White Nationalist is ever going to get any kind of support from large sections of middle class whites in any country if one of the planks on which his argument rests is raw anti-semitism. One cannot forget that just half a century ago this kind of thing got so out of hand that it resulted in the deaths of millions (Jews as well as Gentiles).

3. Lastly, as Ive said before, if the West dies out, Jews will die out with it. I havent done any surveys but Israel doesnt have a lot of friends outside the West and with the Muslim world having a disproportionate say in third world opnion, you can sort of predict what happens if the West starts dying out or has internal ethnic squabbles that weaken its power. Also, large numbers of Muslims in the west will mean only one thing. I happen to live in Britain where there is already a very large Muslim population and some of them are already engaging in suicide bombings in Israel. So you can see what will happen to Jews in the West (and even Liberals who seem to love Muslims so much) if we have a nice sizeable Muslim population in every western nation. Whether we or like it or not, Jews and White Gentiles are in the same boat now. Sink the boat and both will sink with it - for good.

What you have failed to address is why, even assuming his work is anti-Semitic, it is not worth looking at and critiquing. First, lets give an objective definition of anti-Semitism. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll say that McDonald’s thesis is that Jews are responsible for the downfall of Western Civilization. I’m sure you’d say that it is anti-Semitism, maybe it is. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that he was right (Which I don’t think he is.) If he’s right, then wouldn’t his argument have merit, regardless of whether or not it was anti-Semitic. If he is wrong, which you clearly believe, why not prove that he is wrong rather than anti-Semitic, which seems to be much more important. So I’m not saying that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist, but what I am saying is that something being anti-Semitic does not inherently make it not worth debating.

Let’s take the accusation of racism. The works of J. Phillipe Rushton and Richard Lynn, which you seem to agree with, say that Blacks are, as a whole, less intelligent and more prone to crime. While they say this is simply an objective measure, many would say this belief constitutes racism (what racism means is pretty much a side issue.) Let’s say that it is racist, does that change the fact that they are right. Does that mean their work has no merit and is unworthy of discussion? You obviously don’t believe so. But you apply that exact standard to McDonald.

I enthusiastically second Carl’s post, every word of it. He nails it, one hundred percent — and very well-put, too.

Period. Case closed, in my opinion.

Peter Phillips’ comment as well, of course (I’ve just seen it) — excellent, right on the mark! Well said, every word, Mr. Phillips!

Unadorned,

Thank you! Hopefully we can lay the “Jewish Question” to rest and concentrate on more important things.

Marcus Epstein: “Certainly one can not be vehemently anti-Chriatian and pro-West.”

Not so. For example, F.W. Nietzsche loathed Christianity (he referred to it as “the lie of the millenia”)and was pro-West.

The achievements of the so-called Greco-Roman pagan civilization dwarf in comparison anything produced by Christianity.

In any case, this debate is quickly becoming moot, since the Western peoples (with the possible exception of Americans and Afrikaners) are leaving the Christianity in a hurry.

My thanks also to Mr. Phillips, and to Carl, for your excellent responses. And thanks Messieurs Auster and Kalb for maintaining a great web site where one is safe to both support Israel and his own people and culture as well. Imagine that! :-)

Unfortunately the issue is not likely to die the death it deserves anytime soon, at least among those who have gone down that sinkhole and hold to it so rabidly. We can certainly hope that more whites (including Jews!) will join the movement to preserve what remains of our civilization, which, if it were to grow in significant numbers, would relegate the Anti-Semitites to irrelevance. This would not only bring more people into the movement, but just might bring the Lord’s blessing as well, something we sorely need about now. (And it’s not just about racial matters, but the whole gamut of issues that are regularly discussed here.)

God bless our people and civilization, and all who have contributed to these discussions, and our respected hosts.

Marcus Epstein wrote:
“Let’s take the accusation of racism. The works of J. Phillipe Rushton and Richard Lynn, which you seem to agree with, say that Blacks are, as a whole, less intelligent and more prone to crime. While they say this is simply an objective measure, many would say this belief constitutes racism (what racism means is pretty much a side issue.) Let’s say that it is racist, does that change the fact that they are right. Does that mean their work has no merit and is unworthy of discussion? You obviously don’t believe so. But you apply that exact standard to McDonald.”

Wow, that’s a near-perfect echo of my own thinking. I’ve pointed out elsewhere that the word “racism” is actually pretty meaningless. It is usually used (by leftists) to communicate feelings disdain or contempt, but nothing factual. When it comes to someone like Rushton, either he’s right or he’s wrong. A wrong assertion should be countered with facts, not moral posturing. Of course, it’s because he is right that the the moral posturing ensues.

Abby,
Jesus said “the Father and I are one.” Think about that. There is nothing apart from you now.

Carl asked:

“I’m just curious as to how a thread on the importance of refuting the philosophy of Drawinian materialism for the preservation of the white race and culture has managed to morph into yet another discussion on anti-semitism.”

The short answer is that Oleg introduced the Jewish question and said that all the anti-Western ideologies had been injected into the West by Jews. I debated with myself whether I wanted to reply to him, which would encourage a further reply by him, or ignore it. Under the circumstances, I felt such a statement could not be allowed to stand, so I did reply, which led to further discussion, which, while it is an unpleasant topic, has not been without value in illuminating the mindset of those who believe—with Hitler and David Duke and, apparently, Kevin MacDonald—that the Jews are the master key to everything that has gone wrong with the West.

As is suggested in these two seemingly contradictory verses from Proverbs 26, the question of whether or not to reply to the anti-Judaites has two possible correct answers, and only prudence can be our guide as to which is best in any given situation.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Mr. braun writes: “In any case, this debate is quickly becoming moot, since the Western peoples (with the possible exception of Americans and Afrikaners) are leaving the Christianity in a hurry.”

That Westerners are turning their backs on God does not render the point moot; it the reason why the point is brought up to begin with. And it is happening concurrent with the Suicide of the West.

The issue is not merely a ‘pragmatic’ one as some make it out — though it can certainly be discussed in those terms — it is about truth, whether there is a personal God who created all things and to whom we are individually accountable and also collectively as peoples and nations.

As we near the end of this age, possessing already the technology to blow up the world, I expect we will see even clearer signs, often delivered through our own technological prowess, of the truth that God has previously revealed.

For instance, I expect that at some point the location of Noah’s Ark will be definitively pinpointed. The current article on worldnetdaily.com investigating possible remnants of Egyptian chariots in the Red Sea is another intriquing possibility. Others will come about. And it will probably make little difference to those whose hearts are hardened against the Lord and want to continue in their own way.

Historically those who have found ‘reasons’ for rejecting the Scriptures have not been deterred when human progress reduces those reasons to dust. Voltaire is said to have lampooned Sir Isaac Newton for predicting, on the basis of his Bible studies, that mankind would one day travel at speeds reaching 50 miles per hour.

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 are another instance. It seemed to conclusively disprove the Bible to suggest that these 2 could be killed, and the whole world hear about it and rejoice within the 3 days timeframe before they were resurrected and taken to heaven — which the whole world would see, another impossibility in centuries past.

Strange how skeptics no longer cite this passage. Ever since the advent of things like T.V. and the Internet, it’s no longer of much use. And there seems to exist no mechanism of reflection to ask how the Bible could have been right after all, and what accounted for the previous lack of vision among those who disputed these verses. They just move on to something else, since the only goal is evidently to disprove the Bible and shake off God’s authority.

The same is true when yet another archeological find causes the same embarrassment. The story of the Israelite slaves in Egypt making bricks without straw used to be a source of much scoffing, until the Biblical city of Ramses was discovered and excavated. Subsequent analyses of the bricks revealed all of them to have the requisite amount of straw as would have normally been expected EXCEPT FOR THOSE NEAR AND AT THE VERY TOP WHICH CONTAINED ALMOST NO STRAW AT ALL.

This too is no longer discussed.

To those familiar with the numerous prophesies that the Jews would see a national regathering in the Holy Land followed by a dispersion of many generations that would ensue when the Temple and City were destroyed, the recent and marvelous rebirth of the state of Israel constitute a most powerful testimony to the Scriptures. And Israel’s subsequent victories against the most overwhelming odds bolsters this evidence.

Even in the context of those wars we see Scripture being validated, such as the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which should have been the annihilation of the Jewish state. Many people had wondered how something like Armaggedon could logistically take place, but if this war showed anything at all, it was that within a few days contingents of all the armies of the world could be in Israel.

The fact that the nations of Europe are joining together in a union, damaging and unprofitable thought it is to the people themselves, also furthers the Biblical prophetic worldview, as does that ongoing monstrosity called the United Nations.

The Biblical prophecies can hardly be fulfilled in the literal sense without the presence of a restored Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount. Yet I am amazed at how far along the preparations for this really are, (see www.templemountfaithful.com and www.templeinstitute.com.) Most of the vessels of worship have been completed according to the Mosaic specifications, red heiffers have been born that qualify for the purification ritual, DNA testing has determined who are Levites — a whole generation of whom are being raised outside Jerusalem on a community over a raised wooden platform, (as was done in the time of Ezra,) so that one day a Levite will qualify to perform the Heiffer ceremony, thus bringing the rest of the nation into ritual purity.

The fact that the Third Temple would necessitate the removal of the Mohammaden shrines there now is one thing, but when the Temple is rebuilt and the Jewish religion resumes with the Mosaic blood sacrifices — I can think of nothing that would infuriate the Mohammedan countries more.

All of this scratches the surface. But if the Bible is real, and its word true, then the signs demonstrating this will become even clearer as we move to the end. They will also be ignored by most of mankind leaving us in a position where God will have to execute judgment.

Joel might also appreciate _Pharaohs and Kings_ by Rohl. I am not qualified to comment on its veracity but I thoroughly enjoyed it myself. One of the interesting observations in the book is that the currently accepted Egyptological timeline was originally constructed as a force-fit of excavation data to the bible stories. That same timeline is now invoked as a supposed revocation of the bible’s historicity!

Anyway, interesting book.

Greetings All!

Interesting thread. I have read almost all the comments thus far. I was not going to post a comment. But I thought what the hell. I have to agree it is idiotic not to think that Christianity had a major impact on Europe. Of course it did. But I have to say that little of it was positive. The only reason Christianity served as a European advancement is simply because of the people behind it, not the religion. Europeans are Caucasion people. The Caucasion peoples are the creators of civilizations. That is why we have what we have today. As you are seeing more and more non-Caucasion peoples in our original homelands the more you will see your society and civilization being destroyed. Caucasions were there in the Indus Valley, we were there in ancient China, we were there is the Middle East, we were Greece and we made Rome. But all of these civilizations died because why? Not because they did not have Christianity but because they had no religion that promoted their genetic and biological makeup of who they were. All they had were religions about some spook in the sky and some supposed morals and guidelines. The only way Western Civilization can and will survive is to revive the Western Man! And the only way to revive the Western Man is through a new religion that is Racial to its core foundation. I look forward to intelligent discussions on this matter. Thanks!

So Jamescreate thinks he’s going to win over new believers to his religion of race by speaking dismissively to a largely Christian discussion group “about some spook in the sky.” His choice of words exemplifies how the materialists, the anti-Christians and the anti-Judaites are so far off in their own world that they don’t realize or care how off-putting they are to others, and lack any common language or loyalties to connect them with a larger community. And that is why, so long as they remain convinced materialists, anti-Christians, and anti-Judaites, they are useless from the point of view of saving Western civilization.

By the way, James, given the fact that the Caucasian race is your religion, don’t you think you ought to learn how to spell it?

There are alot of people yet to be made aware of the truth that proclaim themselves as Christians. To get their support, you must not tell them that they follow a false religion and a big spook in the sky and that they are all delusional. thats only putting them off forever and making them our permanent enemies. It is far better to make them realize that the current corruption that they see on TV and in church is NOT what Christianity originally meant. This is where I make the distinction “Christian” and “Judeo-christian”.

We want Christians, People with a healthy respect for the original teachings and acknowledge their importance as a decendent of Gods work, not a descendent of the beasts (negroids).

Judeo-christianity is the Jewish peoples way to get rid of their arch-nemesis’ (the Christians) permanently. What better way to destroy the white man than by corrupting his religion and making the “stupid goyim” worship them as “Chosen” gods on earth.

Last night, Jamescreates’s post just made me cringe with a sick feeling inside. I went to bed hoping it would get deleted, though I didn’t know if that was the right response to a nauseating screed like that, rather than responding to it and forcefully putting it down.

This morning (just now) I was gratified to see Mr. Auster’s post replying to it, and very skilfully done, too — on the mark, measured (instead of going perhaps overboard, as I would have done — I would’ve said a lot worse), and actually “generous” when one thinks of it, in the sense of showing way more forebearance than Jamescreate deserves.

So much for creeps like Jamescreate.

THEN … I continue to read down the thread, and … ANOTHER PSYCHO POPS UP.

Mr. Smith, go peddle your crap elsewhere. This site has important, even sacred business to conduct. I am certain I speak for every gentile who comes to slake his thirst at the truth-oasis known as “View From the Right” when I say that I feel intense shame that there are uneducated, moronic, hateful gentiles like you running around loose out there.

As time goes on, I have less and less animosity toward Abe Foxman and more sympathy for the work he has cut out for him. This site has shown, very unfortunately, what anti-Semitic wackos are actually out there, which that poor man has to attempt to monitor, lest our brethren of the Jewish Community live in fear that no one is even keeping an eye on these dangerous, frightening creeps. (I used to think Foxman and his group were too ready to claim anti-Semitism where there was none, and I held that against them. Oh, how wrong I was, I’ve come to see!)

Trash like Mr. Smith are THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE to the advancement of our side — yes, more than anything else on the planet .

is it just me, or does anyone else think that mr. smith and perhaps some others are fictitious set-ups, strawmen to smear with?

“We want Christians, People with a healthy respect for the original teachings and acknowledge their importance as a decendent of Gods work, not a descendent of the beasts (negroids).” this tid-bit, among some others, is just too absurd for me to think anyone actually believes it.

To Unadorned,

One has to wonder, what was James’s intention in writing? On one hand, he was saying he looks forward to “intelligent discussions” with us at VFR on how to save Western man; on the other hand he comes out with that offensive “spook” remark which would kill any discussion from the get-go.

I think at bottom it’s an incredible immaturity, combined with the fact that in today’s society, people live more and more in separate, multicultural-style little “cultures” where the members just speak to each other and don’t have a common language for speaking to people outside the group; or rather, they are not even aware that there is anyone outside their own group making a common language necessary. And this blindness is as true of the more aggressive racialist materialists (or just plain materialists) as it is of the editorial writers of the New York Times!

On another point, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, in my emphasis here on religion, I have no intention of downplaying the importance of race. Sam Francis put it very well (I think at the 1994 AR conference): that the qualities of the white race were indispensable for creating Western civilization, but not sufficient.

The problem with the theory that someone is pretending to have the beliefs of Mr. Smith, in order to make racialist materialists look bad, is that I don’t think anyone could make something like that up!

No, Abby, it’s just you.

How naive of me. I didn’t remember where Abby was coming from from. She probably thinks Mr. Smith is really Dick Cheney, who, when he’s not busy concocting fictional weapons of mass destruction, is concocting fictional sub-normal white racialists.

” … in today’s society, people live more and more in separate, multicultural-style little ‘cultures’ where the members just speak to each other and don’t have a common language for speaking to people outside the group; or rather, they are not even aware that there is anyone outside their own group making a common language necessary. And this blindness is as true of the more aggressive racialist materialists (or just plain materialists) as it is of the editorial writers of the New York Times!”

I agree. Everyone has heard of how some liberal cliques take seriously only the liberal areas on the two U.S. coasts, amounting largely to the Boston-NYC-DC corridor on the east coast and LA, SF, and perhaps Seattle on the west coast, referring to all in between as “fly-over country” and more or less just dismissing it from their minds altogether. Irving Kristol once said, talking about New York City liberals, that they thought they were so worldly, but once one got outside of New York City and saw what was out there, one realized how truly provincial they were were. Mr. Auster has remarked somewhere how, when he’s broached certain subjects with some neocons, they’ve acted as if they just didn’t understand what he was talking about, rather than debating him as one would expect from someone who understood both sides. He’s also more than once said to wacko “right-wingers” (these folks aren’t really right-wingers, of course, but I’ll use the standard term) posting on VFR, that they had written their posts as if they had no consciousness of how their comments would be perceived by others who might not take for granted the views of the clique they belonged to. It has often been said quite rightly that the other side in the immigration debate doesn’t debate. It acts instead like a juggernaut, simply ignoring opposing viewpoints — ignoring or demonizing them — rather than responding to their arguments.

All of this which Mr. Auster alludes to in his insightful blog entry is a problem for today’s society. The sides too often aren’t talking to each other.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 22, 2003 11:14 AM
“The problem with the theory that someone is pretending to have the beliefs of Mr. Smith, in order to make racialist materialists look bad, is that I don’t think anyone could make something like that up!”

oh come on, how many people can there possibly be who think that blacks are not human and also hates jews; and one of them just happened to come along and post on the vfr in such a timely manner? i’m not saying it’s impossible, but what are the odds?

i’m sure if you looked hard enough you’d find someone who thinks jews are all werewolves, which by the way i just made up, but if someone came on the vfr and said it, wouldn’t it strike you as just little bit non-real?

but then again, maybe you’re on to something, that dick cheney is just the kind to do it.

“oh come on, how many people can there possibly be who think that blacks are not human and also hates jews; and one of them just happened to come along and post on the vfr in such a timely manner? i’m not saying it’s impossible, but what are the odds?” — Abby

In fact, Abby has hit on something significant: unfortunately, the fact that slim odds “were beaten” could mean one of two things: either it was a very unusual occurrence … OR … the odds weren’t as low as one thought.

If in fact the odds weren’t as low as one thought, which is, I’m afraid, the correct answer, that only reinforces the need for a particular task which web-sites like VFR have willingly undertaken for themselves: education. In fact, the intrepid souls who in today’s world dare to call themselves racialists, or race-realists, have the biggest obligation of anyone to educate, for two reasons: their views are hard to understand accurately, and they can easily be mistaken for the exact opposite of what they are. What they are is the BEST AND ONLY pathway for solving today’s racial strife to everyone’s satisfaction.

Yes, to everyone’s satisfaction.

Posted by: Unadorned on June 22, 2003 07:01 PM
“If in fact the odds weren’t as low as one thou
ght, which is, I’m afraid, the correct answer”

how about a poll, has anyone posting or reading this blog ever even met a person who thinks blacks are not human, let alone the rest on mr. smith’s sillyness? i never have, i’ve never met anyone even close to it.

I had had this thought about Abby before, but held it back. But on the basis of her last post, in which she suggested that Mr. Smith is really an agent provocateur planted by VFR, I’m now convinced: there is no such person as Abby. Abby is, in fact, Maureen Dowd. At the very least, her personality seems identical to Dowd’s: equally unserious and irresponsible, equally unhinged, equally driven by some shapeless, self-important fury.

Whether or not Internet discussions accomplish anything useful, they certainly provide an opportunity for the study of psychopathic personality types.

ahhhhh you brat, i’m melting melting, mellllltinggggg.

you are sly one. you caught me. not only that, but you have deduced my psychopathic personality.

just one small mystery left to solve, why would i suggest the vfr would plant a provocateur to smear its self?

I forgot to mention: Maureen Dowd can also be clever and funny.

Okay, I said I’d stop posting here, but I’d just like to add a few things and then I’ll shut up.

I raised the Jewish issue because in my view it is the most important difference between Christian and secular racialists. Not that all Christian racialists are pro-Jewish or that all secular racialists are anti-Jewish, but it does tend to break that way most of the time. The issue needs to be discussed (not necessarily here, but somewhere) without resorting to ridiculous ad hominems and referring to the other side as irrational, bigoted, etc. without having read its books or looking at the evidence they provide. There are other differences between Christian and secular racialists but I think these are mainly trivial. There are many anti-Christian secular racialists, sure, but I suspect that most of them would have little problem with Christianity if Christians tended to be racialists.

>>However, I have never read his three volumes, not because I wasn’t curious, but because I have an uncorrectable visual condition that makes it difficult for me to read the very light typeface that Prager Publishing used for his books.

Well, then you’ll be thrilled to hear that Culture of Critique is not published by Praeger, but by 1st Books Library, so you should have no problem reading it.

Anyway, most of the objections raised here to MacDonald’s books are addressed in the books themselves. You all should consider perhaps peeking inside them before simply brushing them off and dismissing those who have read them as counter-productive idiots who are harming racialism.

Oleg is blowing hot air. Let us first recall that my original article had nothing to do with anti-Jewishness or MacDonald but with Darwinian materialism. In that article I did not call anyone bigoted or irrational but argued that racial materialists could not articulate, defend or save a civilization based on Christianity.

We only got into the anti-Jewish issue after Oleg and others gratuitously introduced the topic. The anti-Jews were not criticized for having read certain books but for having made the actual comments they made in this thread. The bad and false nature of their beliefs and intentions was manifest in those comments. It was not necessary to read all the books they had read in order to reach that conclusion.

But this is always the technique of these people, never to accept other people’s conclusions about them, but always to claim that they’re being unfairly misunderstood and to try to draw people into an endless discussion on THEIR OWN terms, to say in effect, “You see, if you would just read all the books I’ve read, then you understood how truly evil the Jews are, and then you would understood why it’s right for us to regard the Jews as the sole cause of everything wrong with our civilization.”

In any case, I’m glad to find out that one of MacDonald’s volumes is published with a presumably readable font, because I have wanted to read more of him than I have.

White Nationalism has nothing to do with personal theological beliefs, but rather it is a matter of practicality. Multi-racialism and multi-culturalism do not work, period. But, each White person is free to hold any type of superstition he desires. But, since you really like the Christian version of Superstition, here is the Pro-Christian White Nationalism forum: http://forum.originaldissent.com/

Regards,

Robert

A good long look through the web site Robert links to above shows it to be the usual neo-Nazi Jew hating lunatic fringe.

Greetings you all and readers in the name of the Right One!

While I commend the author this site for his work and in reaching out attempting dialogue I wish to ask him, so he would know, and all others to consider this.

The title of this web page is a “View From the Right”.

But what is “RIGHT”?

I want you to look at a wall in your room that is on right side. Now I want you to attempt to walk through that wall. Try your very best. You cannot do this, unless you take a hammer or a drill and begin to drill through that wall and where it meets your hand is as far as we as humans know of what is “RIGHT”. But that is not so with God or the Holy One, who is Pure RIGHT!

Yes, hear me, HE is Pure Righteousness. HE not a label or a concept of what is Right, but HIS Law is true and He is TRUE RIGHT.

Therefore, if God is True Right then we (myself included) therefore and you all, must be Left. Furthermore if God is RIGHT and by that meaning HOLY, If you are Left, how left are you from RIGHT? If you don’t believe in GOD, you are left. If you do not believe in religion you are just as left. If you are a “RIGHT WING” person you are really left. If you are tryig be true, you better be trying daily to walk through the Right wall drilling, breaking down brick by brick to get to GOD is PURE and HOLY and RIGHT.

We must seek Pure RIGHTNESS what is being RIGHT in GOD’s eyes is to Obey HIM and try to become like his Rightness or RIGHTEOUSNESS and that which he commands us—in order that we might one day achieve that state of being RIGHT.

There is Pure and this is RIGHT, and then there is impurity there is LEFT.

Consider a blade of grass, or a cell, or a rock. All were created or shaped PERFECT from the beginning. There is no one alike in all exact details. IT is perfect created to perfection and all created to work and serve a perfect purpose, known from the beginning of time of eternity by the RIGHT ONE —who is the Holy ONE, your ONE TRUE LIVING GOD, for whether we live or die we live and die to ONE HOLY SPIRIT. Not our selves.

So do you know why the things I mentioned are all perfect?
Ask yourselves this, if there is not a GOD, can man recreate man’s theory of Evolution ONE TIME in a laboratory experiment? Can man recreate a big bang? Can man make dirt we live upon or rocks as Perfect as dirt and rock we know? Can man make gold, or metal we all take for granted? Can man Create Water that is Perfect? Where did the WATER come from? Does not all Life require some amount of Water? Of course! Man can not reproduce even one of these things for it is PERFECT. You can not perfect perfection, you can only impurity it.

So GOD IS PERFECTION! So too is His infinite wisdom! HIS RIGHT LAW is Perfect and If you want perfection then you should seek the things of HE who is Perfect. So all of you self proclaimed “RIGHT WINGERS” are all Left!
I challenge you read this article http://www.theonomy.org/true%20right%20wing%20politics.htm and then those of you who live in the things you see and like around you, and your idols, I challenge you to read this read this page. http://www.theonomy.org/the%20mark.htm

I send you my prayers and my wisdom, which come not from me, but HE who is in all PERFECTION He who is TRUE RIGHT, to quote of his RIGHT and HOLY WORD
Yea let God be true and all men Liars.

In the name of HOLY ONE of RIGHTEOUSNESS

Michael

The views that Michael refers to above pertain to the Union Christian Church, headed by one James Brown, Jr. Mr. Brown’s articles are often featured on the Council of Conservative Citizens’ web site, (one reason I won’t join the CofCC.) The church teaches views on the Mosaic Law which seem not unlike Seventh Day Adventism.

This church also rejects the Biblical prophetic significance of modern Israel, offering instead the following in their doctrinal statement:

“We believe that Adam (ruddy; to flush in the face; blush) was the father of the white kind of man.”

“We believe, by many Biblical and historical proofs, that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred peoples are the physical descendants of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.”

Standard Identity ideology. Comic book level “Christianity” for neo-Nazis.

The group may be as Shawn suggests, but not necessarily. Christian Identity is an extremist anti-Jewish offshoot of the “British Israelite” movement of the 19th century, which was not anti-Jewish. Believing that Europeans are the descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel does not necessarily make one a believer in Christian Identity.

Regarding the anti-Semitism of the Aztlan Reconquistas, I finally located the URL I had forgotten where this was first called to my attention:

http://www.aztlan.net/

No wonder I couldn’t remember it. ;-)

This ‘news’ site is peppered with anti-Semitic articles. And if you go down far enough you’ll find the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.’ A dead giveaway.

“And if you go down far enough you’ll find the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.’ A dead giveaway.”

And these are the people Abe Foxman and Morris Dees want to import so many of that they’ll be running the whole country in a couple or three decades from now, in the name of “diversity” — these and the Muslims, with, don’t forget, plenty of Somalis and Chinese thrown in, to be sure — gotta have that all-important “diversity,” guys! Can’t have those mean old Anglos in the majority, can we!

Am I the only one who thinks Mr. Foxman is a relic of a bygone era and should be replaced in his post?

I wouldn’t call him a relic of a bygone era — he’s a fixture of the modern era of liberalism. The ADL is nothing more than a liberal front group dedicated to bashing conservatives, overthrowing traditional morality, and harassing anyone who would have it otherwise.

Carl Pearston, a former member of the Executive Committee who was sacked for not towing the liberal line explains it well:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0601/pearlston.asp

It’s remarkable that Pearson would finally be forced out of the ADL not for disagreeing with it on what most people think of as the ADL’s actual mission of defending Jews from bias, but for disagreeing with a liberal _political_ issue—the “peace process.”

Also, this passage sums up exactly the transformation of liberalism which occurred as a result of redefining evil as intolerance:

“In this manner, fighting ‘hate’ became a euphemism for an attack on sexual morality, the traditional family, and the Jewish view that children deserve a loving father and mother, not two fathers or two mothers. It is only through a perverse notion of ‘tolerance’ that support for traditional teaching about the family is intimidated, and condemned.”