Some VNN Posts
The Baraka story below, from a recent Zgram, is both illustrative and funny.
The Jewish poet Gerald Stern nominated Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones) as New Jersey's poet laureate. He knew, when he made his selection, that Baraka, a former Black Panther, disliked Whites. That, after all, has been evident throughout Baraka's long career. Stern also knew, as he now admits, that Baraka is ignorant and untalented -- "a D-plus poet." Stern is generous: Allen Ginsberg is Shakespearean in comparison to Baraka. But Stern believed, nevertheless, that an untalented Negro should become the next poet laureate, despite his obvious mental and artistic limitations: "We thought it was important to select a prominent New Jersey figure who represents the black community."
In the poem that prompted Stern's change of mind, poet laureate Baraka, while offensively criticizing Jews, includes the following inoffensive criticisms of White Americans: "Who put the Jews in ovens, and who helped them do it / Who said 'America First' and OK'd the yellow stars?" The answer, of course, is us. We Whites did it: Germans put Jews in the ovens, and Americans helped them do it.
Baraka didn't think up this idea himself. It is standard Jewish Holocaust lore, and he is merely repeating it. Elie Wiesel is especially eloquent on the subject of our genocidal "indifference" to the Holocaust, arguing (as most Jewish Holocaust propagandists do) that killing Jews and failing to rescue Jews are morally equivalent. Wiesel & Company have successfully reconceptualized World War II as Judeocentric moral test, essentially a race to rescue Jews, and since the United States excluded some Jewish refugees and didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor, we failed to win the race and flunked the moral test. We therefore helped "put the Jews in ovens" and "OK'd the yellow stars."
Baraka can cite these lines in his defense, in order to show what a good guy he is, because the Judeocentric view of World War II, along with the White guilt it aims to promote, has become the official version, institutionalized in countless Holocaust museums and Holocaust curricula and Holocaust films. There's therefore nothing controversial about claiming that White Americans, despite fighting a war in Europe against Germans, were complicit in the Jewish Holocaust. It's exactly the kind of material that Stern was hoping Baraka would write.
But Stern now discovers that Baraka dislikes Jews as much as he dislikes Euro-Americans, so he belatedly acknowledges the racial reason for his selection and admits he knew all along that Baraka is an ignorant, D-plus poet. A simple anti-White poem would have been fine; "Somebody Blew Up America," an anti-White poem that includes Jews as Whites and attacks them accordingly, is entirely different. It is anti-Semitic, very wicked.
Some Jews, in a similar way, are beginning to rethink their views on immigration. They were perfectly content knowing that Third Worlders hated Whites. That was their primary reason for opening American borders to the Third World in 1965. But they're now beginning to notice that Third World Muslims in particular hate them even more than they hate us. Hence the "second thoughts" on open borders by perceptive Jews like Pipes and Steinlight. [Image: Pakistani Muslim attending a Jerusalem Day protest (October 2005) -- not the best sort of "diversity" from a Jewish perspective.]
Subject: A Jew Over Your Shoulder (5/1/2003)
From Raimundo's most recent column:
It wasn't their Jewishness that impelled the neocons to develop an ideology -- and implement a national security strategy -- based on military domination of the globe. Their Trotskyist mindset, shorn of its Soviet roots, morphed easily into a "permanent revolution" on behalf of an American rather than a socialist world order.I suspect the preceding nonsense reflects the effect of recent Jewish opinion pieces claiming that merely speaking about neo-conservatives, largely a PC euphemism in the first place, is itself a sign of anti-Semitism -- i.e. very wicked, worse even than "racism." Jews don't yet have the power to compel everyone to shut up about subjects they'd prefer we all ignore; they do have the power, by strategically deploying accusations of anti-Semitism, to limit what anyone with mainstream pretensions is willing to say.
Jewish neo-conservatives don't want "permanent revolution" out of some abstract commitment to old Trotskyite ideals from fifty years ago. They don't, in fact, want permanent revolution at all. They sought war in a specific place against a specific enemy, and they're hoping to morph their successful war on Iraq into wars on Iran and Syria, or at least into a campaign of destabilization against the most important rejectionist states. Their targets are the strongest supporters of the Palestinians, hence Israel's adversaries in the region.
Jewish neo-conservatives like David Frum, Raimundo wants us to believe, supported war in Iraq and advocate American imperium in the Middle East because fifty years ago, before Frum was born, Irving Kristol was a Trotskyite Marxist who hoped for a global socialist revolution. That's too bizarre a proposition for anyone to take seriously.
As usual with issues involving race, the simplest explanation is the most plausible: Jewish neo-conservatives, like most Jews, advocate an American foreign policy that benefits Israel because they're Jews and because Israel is a Jewish state, to which they feel a strong racial loyalty. Raimundo has more or less said all that before, but he is hoping to cover his tracks, now that he sees growing charges of anti-Semitism heading in his direction.
There was a famous old handbook on English usage called The Reader Over Your Shoulder. Its premise was that, by studying the book, you'd have an expert watching your writing for any grammatical or stylistic errors, which you would then avoid. We could say similarly that worrying about charges of anti-Semitism puts a Jew over your shoulder, a Jew who scrutinizes everything you write and forces you to surround your opinions with so many qualifications and even outright distortions that your meaning becomes meaningless.
Raimundo, I think, feels the presence of a Jew looking over his shoulder, and he is writing accordingly.
Subject: Neo-Conservative Chesler (7/26/2003)
From the revealing puff piece someone posted on Phyllis Chesler:
"We have Republicans who may disagree with me on domestic or feminist agendas, but if they're with me on Israel, I'm with them," she said. "If you want to call me a Republican, a conservative, fine! Maybe that's what I am right now."Anyone who has ever wondered what MacDonald's Culture of Critique is all about can pick up its core simply by reading Chesler's political biography.
Phyllis Chesler was dedicated to a long list of leftist causes, but only insofar as they weakened her enemy -- namely, us. She jumped ship after she discovered that her leftist ideals, in the hands of others, had begun to injure her fellow Jews in Israel.
Her entire life's work, as an academic and a political activist, is thus revealed as a racially self-interested fraud. Her leftist advocacy and her new affection for the mainstream Right both flow from the same source, her strong sense of Jewishness.
I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up writing for Frontpage, since that's a common destination for Jews who have concluded that old-fashioned liberalism no longer serves Jewish interests.
David Horowitz perceptively made the same discovery about twenty years ago. Chesler apparently isn't as intelligent, so it took her much longer.
Needless to say, such conversions reflect (as Chesler herself makes abundantly clear) no real change in political orientation, but only a belated recognition that a conservative vehicle can more effectively promote Zionist objectives abroad.
Subject: Horowitz & Frontpage (8/6/2003)
Jewish neo-conservative David Horowitz, quoted in M.X. Rienzi's Between the Lines:
Within the multicultural framework set by the dominant liberalism in our civic culture, [Jared] Taylor's claim to a white place at the diversity table certainly makes sense. But there is another option and that is getting rid of the table altogether and going back to the good old American ideal of E Pluribus Unum - "out of many one." Not just blacks and whites and Chicanos, but Americans.The quote above is a good example of Horowitz' message and its intended audience.
Horowitz speaks to sensible Whites who don't like multiculturalism, and he tells them that the source of multiculturalism is a set of defective ideas emanating from the Left, ideas that encourage racial identity politics. You can therefore overcome multiculturalism simply by replacing these defective ideas with racelessness and old-fashioned assimilation.
The truth, which Horowitz evades, is that multiculturalism is produced by multiracial demographics, the physical presence of large heterogeneous groups within the same country. If you import hordes of non-White minorities into a majority-White nation, you'll end up with a fragmented culture ("multiculturalism"), and you'll soon find yourself heading toward national disintegration. Different countries may label their particular form of fragmentation with different names, but the basic fact of fragmentation will be the same in every case.
Horowitz tells his conservative readers: Don't worry about Third World immigration, because the source of the multiculturalism you dislike is actually a bunch of bad ideas from the Left. Multiculturalism has little or nothing to do with Third World immigration itself, and if you start opposing Third World immigration on racial grounds, you'll only be contributing to what you oppose, becoming partisans of your own identity politics. The real problem is an amorphous group of liberals out there ("the dominant liberalism in our civic culture"), and we conservatives can bring multiculturalism to an end merely by demonstrating the error of their liberal ideas. I, David Horowitz, am hard at work in this important cause, so don't worry about immigration.
Since the real issues have been excluded from examination, the debate over multiculturalism becomes just another non-debate controlled by Jewish premises. We have multiculturalist liberals on one side and anti-multiculturalist conservatives on the other, both committed to the multiracial demographics that cause multiculturalism: (a) all groups except Whites should be racially conscious (liberal multiculturalism); (b) no group should be racially conscious (conservative anti-multiculturalism).
(b) is a practical impossibility, since Blacks and Chicanos have no intention of divesting themselves of their racial consciousness, and Horowitz' own group regards its racial consciousness as a sacred imperative. So in practice (b) means the status quo, with minorities pursuing their group interests, and Whites refusing even to acknowledge the existence of their own. In short, (a) and (b), when translated into the real world, are identical.
From Horowitz' perspective, both sides of this "debate" share two crucial elements in common: Each tells Whites that they should not act in their own racial interests, and each accepts Third World immigration.
Maintaining the steady flow of non-White immigrants into Western nations is, second only to support for Israel, Jewry's most cherished political objective.
That's why Pat Buchanan is a "Euro-racialist" in Horowitz' lexicon:
Prominent among the articulators of Euro-racialism are Peter Brimelow who writes for the website Vdare, and Pat Buchanan whose best-selling book The Death of the West articulates its most familiar version.Buchanan, like Horowitz, advocates old-fashioned assimilation and "the good old American ideal of E Pluribus Unum." But since Buchanan wants a moratorium on immigration, Horowitz casts him as a White multiculturalist staking out a place at the diversity table.
If ending multiculturalism and restoring the old assimilationist ethic were really the essential issues, Horowitz would see Buchanan as a co-worker engaged in the same conservative enterprise. But since the important issue for Jews is preserving White passivity in the face of Third World immigration, Buchanan becomes a "Euro-racialist," an enemy. The label "Euro-racialist" is perfectly appropriate from Horowitz' perspective, even though objectively it gives Buchanan more credit than he deserves.
Subject: Speech Crimes in France (6/3/2003)
Brigette Bardot writes a book arguing that France has too many Muslims, so the leader of the Ligue des droits de l'homme, Michel Tubiana, plans to take her to court as a hate criminal.
Tubania -- as anyone good at guessing
will have already guessed -- is a Jew.
As an aside: Multiracialism is bizarre social system at best, but when defending the rights of sheep becomes a punishable "incitement to racial violence," it practically moves beyond parody.
A few years ago Guillaume Faye also wrote a book opposing the Muslim invasion of his nation, and he and his publisher were taken to court by LICRA (League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism), a different human rights organization, headed by another Jew, Patrick Gaubert. Faye lost, just as Bardot lost in 1997.
In 1985 Jean Raspail (Camp of the Saints) co-authored an essay in Le Figaro arguing that Muslim immigration, most of which comes from North Africa, would destroy traditional French culture and identity. Then PM Laurent Fabius, also the co-sponsor of the Fabius-Gaysott law criminalizing Holocaust revisionism, attacked Raspail's essay as "racist propaganda ... reminiscent of the wildest Nazi theories." In any country with hate-speech laws, calling an essay "racist propaganda" is tantamount to declaring that its author should be fined or imprisoned. Fabius is a Jew.
David Horowitz has an article on his website warning of the coming Islamization of France. The article says nothing about the Jewish role in criminalizing critics of Muslim immigration, what Faye calls the "colonization of Europe," nor does it anywhere mention massive Muslim crime, which has turned large sections of many French cities into Gallic versions of Detroit, with North African criminals routinely burning cars and buildings for entertainment, and gang raping any White woman foolish enough to walk by.
Instead of speaking about Muslim crime, Guy Milliere's article pays careful attention to the effect of a large Muslim population on the attitude of the French government toward Israel, as if this were a matter of great urgency (as in fact it is, at least to Horowitz and his fellow American Jews).
Much of what Milliere says is true. No mainstream French politician who hopes for Muslim votes can be a strong supporter of Israel. French Zionists for the foreeeable future will be marginalized in French politics. There will be no French equivalent of AIPAC.
Clearly, Jews are hurt politically by exploding Muslim demographics, and they're often also hurt physically, since in France (as in the rest of Western Europe) most of the recent anti-Semitic attacks on synagogues and on individual Jews come from non-White Muslims, despite what media reports dishonestly suggest. [Image: A dangerous French hate-criminal.]
Jewish political behavior is normally deliberate and carefully planned. The racial fragmentation of America, by Third World immigration and multiculturalism, was a conscious Jewish plan, as MacDonald shows. But in France we're looking at something quite different. By any rational calculation, Jews should be Brigitte Bardot's biggest supporters. But they aren't.
If French Jews are given a choice between wrecking France or protecting themselves, most of them will pick wrecking France. Their political behavior isn't self-interested. It's simply destructive. They hate France more than they value their own interests.
Quote of the Day:
"The Web is not a debating society. It's there for marketing and advertising." (Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance)
Subject: Hitler and the Slavs (7/4/2003)
A Polish-American wrote:
what will our future white society be like? what judgments and meanings will it be rooted in? who will belong, and who will be rejected? how will we define whether a person is white or not, and who will be empowered to exercise such supreme judgments? will we allow social classes to develop along our own ethnic lines with one group of "whiter" whites lording it over others, or will we value egalitarianism?Good post. You raise an important issue.
No one of Polish ancestry, at least if he is familiar with his ethnic history, can have any emotional sympathy for NS Germany. The same is true for some other Slavic ethnic groups, including Serbs.
Personally I would have little or no interest in Hitler and the Holocaust if they had not been transformed into ideological weapons against Whites in general. I think most of what you call the "fascination" of racial nationalists with Hitler is defensive in origin. We recognize that the public mythology in which Hitler figures as evil incarnate, with the Jewish Holocaust as history's most horrible crime, has been devised and promoted by Jews in order to delegitimize White racialism. Holocaust museums are not erected to memorialize Hitlerite crimes in Europe over a half century ago; their purpose is to inhibit Whites in the present from asserting their race-cultural interests. They are temples of anti-racism and Hitler is their Satan.
It's worth pointing out that Poles, despite being genuine victims of German atrocities, are regularly denounced by Jews as perpetrators. It was "no coincidence," Elie Wiesel once claimed, that Hitler chose Poland as the location for so many concentration camps. He meant, of course, that Polish anti-Semites were co-conspirators in the Jewish Holocaust, which is also the thesis of Kosinski's anti-Polish (and entirely fictional) Painted Bird, one of the first important Holocaust novels. This topic is extensively documented at the Jewish Tribal Review, where you'll learn how (in the words of Claude Lanzmann) the Poles "mastered the routine of extermination":
Do you, as a Polish American, have any ethnic interest in preserving a mythology that turns Poles into "nazis"? Poles were the war's first anti-nazis; they've now been nazified, like all other Whites.
Contemporary Hitler mythology draws
no distinctions among World War II's various combatants. It doesn't say
that Poles and Serbs are good and Germans and Italians bad. It says that
all Whites, every single one of us, is a "nazi" at heart. All of us, therefore,
have a defensive interest in repudiating the Judeocentric version of World
War II, which is a central element in the ideological race-war conducted
by Jews against Western civilization.
Hitler's national socialism, despite its imperfections, conferred real benefits on the German people and embodied some important nationalist principles. It has, however, been dead for almost sixty years, and no one with any political intelligence is planning to resurrect it.
White nationalism is just what its name says: Racial loyalty to all persons of European descent. For a serious White nationalist there can be no hierarchy among the various White ethnic groups.
World War II was Europe's Civil War. Looking back at a civil war we can, from a distance of decades or centuries, uselessly cheer for one side over the other. But the real tragedy of a civil war is that it occurred at all.
The first is something I posted years ago on the old Stormfront mail-list; the second is an excellent review essay by Mark Weber, which succinctly presents the crucial issues.
A related subject.
Apparently a recent poll of young people in Britain has revealed than 1 in 6 believes that Hitler was a British prime minister. That surprising result, though consistent with the same educational dumbing-down that leaves thirty percent of Americans unable to locate Mexico on a map, suggests the effects of anti-racialist education, in which the Jewish Holocaust and Hitler demonology play significant parts. Few if any of the people surveyed could have been unaware that once, long ago, there lived an especially evil European named Adolf Hitler who gratuitously murdered millions of Jews. Everyone knows that, even people who couldn't locate their own country on a map.
Holocaust education teaches Whites our broad racial guilt for nazi crimes, and no Holocaust museum would be complete without some reference to Allied complicity, so (naturally enough) in Britain Hitler retroactively becomes British. The 1 in 6 were technically incorrect, but they had, nevertheless, learned their lessons well. They knew nothing about Hitler, except that they're supposed to feel guilty about him.
Quote of the Day:
"I have never met a devout Catholic who wasn't at heart a Jew-killer." (George Corgi, Jewish "white nationalist" on the AmRen mail-list)