Saturday, February 27, 2010

The problem of "genteel" philo-Semitic Judeofascist collaborators

The Genteel Mr. Bradlaugh
(The Occidental Observer) -- By Kevin MacDonald

... It used to be that Jews complained about genteel anti-Semites. Now we have people like Bradlaugh who spout genteel philo-Semitism: He complains about “the antisemitism of the AR followers, which rubs me the wrong way. I fall in line with the long tradition of British philosemitism (Cromwell, Victoria, Lloyd George, Maggie Thatcher), and just have no patience with the other thing.” He could have included Winston Churchill who was philo-Semitic to the point of corruption.

It seems to me that anyone writing on politics has a responsibility to write honestly about the various forces that influence public policy. For Bradlaugh, it’s simply not genteel to discuss embarrassing things like Jewish power. I suppose Mearshimer and Walt rub him the wrong way as well. He reminds me of another conservative philo-Semite, John Derbyshire, about whom I had this to say:
Derbyshire is, apart from some minor irritations, quite uncritical about Jewish motives and influence, even when they conflict with the interests of people like himself. He implies that non-Jews should understand Jewish motivation to break down the ethnic homogeneity of their own societies while advancing the interests of Israel as an ethnostate. … Derbyshire lives in a sort of childlike world in which Jewish interests are legitimate and where Jewish attempts to pursue their interests, though they may occasionally be irritating, are not really a cause for concern much less malice. It doesn’t require an evolutionary theory to realize that good, reasonable people can have conflicts of interest, and that the results of conflicts of interest can be devastating to the side that loses.
I think that Bradlaugh’s problem is that he sees himself as genteel and that being genteel is a very good thing. (Definition: 1. Refined in manner; well-bred and polite. 2. Free from vulgarity or rudeness. 3. Elegantly stylish: genteel manners and appearance. 4. a. Striving to convey a manner or appearance of refinement and respectability. See Synonyms at polite. b. Marked by affected and somewhat prudish refinement.)

He seems very impressed with good manners, a well-rounded education, and being polite. Genteel people simply don’t discuss Jewish power and influence for fear of offending the Jews. In the same way, genteel people would not want to offend others by calling attention to their garish clothes. To do so would make one impolite and vulgar and therefore consign one to a lower order of society.

His gentility is probably also why he doesn’t resonate with AmRen’s “ethos of the South, which I don’t really … get. I wonder if a foreigner ever can get it. It’s as odd and particular, in its own way, as Tibetan Buddhism.”

The reality is that White Southerners are by far the largest identifiable group of White Americans who have held onto their culture and identity in the face of the onslaughts of the last 50 years. The White vote for Obama was nearly in the single digits in three southern states, and lopsidedly Republican in the others. White Southerners understand, at least implicitly, that it’s about racial and ethnic conflict. As the racialization of American politics continues, all Whites will tend even more in this direction. (The recent election in Massachusetts certainly supports this). Conservatives who think they can take back the country without Southern Whites are seriously deluded...

The reality, of course, is that whether or not we talk about it, racial and ethnic conflict will continue. There is no other possible outcome given that 100 million more non-Whites are to be added to the population of the US in the next few decades.

The bottom line is that no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. And in the process of losing the ethnic battle, the society will be less and less committed to Bradlaugh’s cherished principles because, in the end, the principles of free speech, individual liberty, and the rest of the corpus of Western individualism are ethnic creations...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

On the “solving the problem” point, because the insatiable Judeofascists inevitably rise to the top of the Jewish hierarchy, and because the modern Jewish hierarchy is so paranoid, cohesive, shamelessly manipulative and coercive, and effective in quelling internal dissent, Judeofascism inevitably becomes modern organized Jewry’s de facto ethic. The pattern is obvious. We saw this in cohesive Jewish Bolshevism, which later morphed into ongoing cohesive Jewish Zionism and cohesive Jewish Neoconservatism/Neoliberalism. All of them have been violently racist and mass murderous.

Where I disagree with moderate white nationalists is in their belief that they could quell a similar phenomenon within their own hierarchy. True enough, a white nationalist regime would [for a time] be far more equitable than the current Judeofascist regime that has in many important ways taken over power in America for the simple reason that there are far more whites than the total number of Jews + the secular liberal and Christian Zionist [and genteel philo-Semite] Faustian bargainers willing to collaborate with them, but recall that Hitler and the Nazis became as insatiable and destructive as are the American Judeofascists and their collaborators today.

This is why I believe the most reasonable and moral long term solution to the Judeofascist problem is the same solution that “made” Western civilization in the first place, and kept the Judeofascists “down” for centuries without having to resort to wholesale slaughter: Christianity. This can be accomplished through a displacement of Big Government with libertarianism, serious Christianity, and a return to decentralized Christian moral authority.

No comments: