How and when did you become anti-Semitic? what influenced you the most?

I became anti-Semitic somewhere in between the fall of 2001 and the spring of 2002, just several years ago actually. You can ask LaundryBob. He remembers when I was not yet an anti-Semite! Anyway, I gradually became anti-Semitic as my interest in race and the cultural degeneracy surrounding me grew deeper and deeper. I was quite aware that it had not always been this way so I set about trying to find why there had been a change. Somewhere during this I stumbled upon the Jewish question. At first, I was not convinced that the Jews were behind such changes and resisted insinuations to that effect. It has been my experience that most anti-Semites start out this way. So I started doing a lot of historical research, reading books, browsing links on the net and looking up their info in the library. Eventually, I ended up where I am today. If anything, my anti-Semitism has grown ever more virulent as time has elapsed, as subsequent current events have only affirmed my earlier suspicions.

At first I was only anti-zionist, which started around 1999-2000. Around 2002, like Fade I began to realise that large numbers of Jews were in control of the current cultural decadence and thats what started me on the path towards anti-semitism. Also around this time I began to take a greater interest in traditional religion and I read many of their texts on the Jews. And also studying their role in the Bolshevik revolution was also key to the forging of my opinions.

A couple years ago, give or take a few months, I was disgusted by outright Jewish hypocrisy and power on "the Zionist question." Continuing to research Jewish politics and social activism just unearthed more self-serving hypocrisy.

Right now, I would probably reject the term "anti-semitic". It's a silly propaganda term with too much assumptions and baggage behind it. I do not hate Jews "just because they are Jews." I am disgusted with most Jews because of how they choose to act and what they choose to support. I don't care about their DNA. Jews who claim that they are hated "just because they are Jews" are only trying to shuffle off responsibility for their own behavior, which adds to my dislike.

I'll be blunt. I tend to dislike Jews because they are f***ing ugly and tend to spread more ugliness wherever they go.

I mean, there's a place for smut and schlock. But Jews don't just smother everyone in the stuff; they go further and actively oppose the creation of great art.

Likewise, not only are they super-xenophobic but they oppose even the slightest expression of xenophobia by more aesthetically advanced groups.

I've hated the jews for a while now, with the intensity of my anti-semetism increasing over time, culminating in my amusement and willingness to sacrifice those with missing ribs. The jews are disgusting, even more so in my eyes as a result of the incongruence between their physical being, and their predeliction for naming themselves with names generally divisible by three. These jews are so confident in their lying that they seem to be under the impression that a walking holocaust such as myself is not going to get peeved when all physical jews, including the ones in camp photos, are either adamic (missing ribs), or just like the rest of the population skeletally. Indeed, in the minds of many, the jews must have played a significant part in the formation of Germanic languages-I've even seen a couple of halfwits over at Stormfront who leave an '11' at the bottom of each post-which is the direct consequence of the adamic parasiticals, with names like 'bill gates'. Maybe the twin towers were full of '9 jews', with sieg heil, and Ich in their chests via the alphabet. Fancy that :p

One thing I cannot tolerate is the insinuation of jewishness due to the crafted names jews give their kids. And so, I say, if there was a 'holocaust', then the obvious conlclusion is going to be 'the apocalypse'.

I mean, there's a place for smut and schlock. But Jews don't just smother everyone in the stuff; they go further and actively oppose the creation of great art.

Good Lord, Raina, I never thought the day would come that you and I would see eye to eye, but the statement quoted above summarizes my feelings in this matter exactly.

My conversion (about 4-5 years ago) was very emotionally difficult, and came about under unusual circumstances, which I will post on another time. For now, it will suffice to say that I was once a Benetton libertarian, looking forward to the happy world depicted universally on the telescreens and in print.

Now, due to some slip ups at Slate magazine, and the resourceful work of KMD, I have 'converted', with the results you see.

Wintermute

EYTYXEITE!
Exactly! (minus "f***ing", not because I'm a 'puritan' but I think there is no term to express the lack of Aesthetic in jewish nation)
Kindest Regards!
I'll be blunt. I tend to dislike Jews because they are f***ing ugly and tend to spread more ugliness wherever they go.

I mean, there's a place for smut and schlock. But Jews don't just smother everyone in the stuff; they go further and actively oppose the creation of great art.

Likewise, not only are they super-xenophobic but they oppose even the slightest expression of xenophobia by more aesthetically advanced groups.

Ah! Sorry to forget to say that I'm anti-zionist since my birthday! All my family is same and, in Greece, we are traditionally against the Humanity's enemies in general!
Kindest Regards!

I first began to think about the Jewish question thanks to Pat Buchanan's "Amen Corner" remarks during Gulf War I. At that point I was probably more ant-Zionist than anti-Semitic. I was especially opposed to US support for Israel and to manipulation of US foreign policy by the Israeli lobby.

While I continue to believe that "Zionism" (by which I mean the fact that diaspora Jews place loyalty to Israel ahead of loyalty to their host nation) is by far the most pernicious and destructive face of Judaism in America - it leads to the death and suffering of innocents, after all, it is hardly the only facet of the wider Jewish program of deconstruction. It didn't take long for me to connect the dots and note the disproportionate Jewish role in various subversive political and cultural movements, from the "New Left" to Hollywood's assault on traditional Western values and institutions. And of course one could hardly come away from a study of Bolshevism in Russia and elsewhere in Europe with a favorable opinion of the Jews and their political agenda.

What really pushed me over the edge from mild Jew-criticism and anti-Zionism to where I am today, however, is the behavior of Free Republic's resident neocons. During my years posting there (1999 and 2000), I would make polite, well-reasoned posts, only to have some of the most vile and hateful invective poured on me by Zionists fanatics hiding behind the safety of internet anonymity. At first I thought that some of these depraved creatures were simply "anti-Semitic" agent provocateurs posing as caricatures of Jews on the internet. Then I came to realize that this simply couldn't account for all or most of them, the internet simply allows Jews to state anonymously what they would never say to another man's face. FR really educated me as to the chauvinistic nature of Jewish culture, and exposed me to the real hatred they feel towards all non-Jews who disagree with them.

Madrussian was correct to call FR an "anti-Semite" factory. Let's hope that factory stays in operation for many years to come.

That's a good point. I have read something about this somewhere, although I don't recall off the top of my head. Jews have a tendency, I have noticed, to enter debates with what some have called a 'Beserker' style of argumentation. They jump into debates like crazed hyenas and instantly go for their opponent's juglar. This is a rhetorical approach which emphasizes invective, insults, and ridicule above and over dispassionate analytical reasoning. They never really address their opponent's argument. Instead, they simply libel and ridicule those with whom they disagree. They even do this when they invoke 'logic' and 'reason' (out of emotion and solely for rhetorical purposes).

LOL yes I've noticed that as well Fade!

Ignoring you is something they do too, if the ridiculing and ad hominem attacks prove unsucessful.

>>>LOL yes I've noticed that as well Fade!


Here is a textbook example. Hold your nose! You see, Jews don't debate, they accuse.

Originally Posted by luh_windan
Why does this matter?

- Because you implied that I was unfairly criticizing these scumbags for "just trying to make their message more presentable." However, making their despicable, evil message of white supremacy more "presentable"; i.e., more crypto-fascist, instead of forthrightly genocidal, doesn't qualify as something worthy of additional respect.

You're right, guilt by association is not valid, especially without any charge to begin with.
- The charge is that they're a steaming heap of vile, neofascist filth, which, of course, they are. In this particular case, the fact of David Duke's malevolent presence is unfair to hold against them - although the article does mention that this particular hatefest was the first Duke wasn't specifically requested to stay away from.

Translation: his ideas do not mesh with your fragile worldview. You have not addressed his credibility.
- Translation: "Please, please, please ignore my blatant racism, sick-making antisemitism, Holocaust denial, discredited eugenics, and endless bogus rationalizations for outright gutter bigotry - I speak in polysyllables and spell American words like "color" and "flavor" with a U, just like people from Europe, so I can't be a third-rate Archie Bunker with a paper-thin facade of florid pseudo-intellectuality! - please just pretend my vindictive arguments for racial segregation and obvious enthusiasm for infamous hate groups are the refined, worldly sentiments of a cultured sophisticate, and not the simple, ignorant disgust for people with differently colored skin, and rigid, irrational contempt for social outgroups of a guy in a hood lynching a sharecropper outside a trailer park."

Boohoo, some people don't like having blacks reproducing in their country. For those people, it is a race problem. This is not a credibility issue.
- The fact that you believe that is a good indication of your credibility

Nor is it like something "you would have seen in Berlin 1942". The situation is so entirely different I don't know where to begin addressing such an absurd comparison.
- You might want to start with an explanation of how a notorious academic racist pontificating about how the Jews are responsible for the genetic degredation of the white race is "so entirely different" than a Nazi rally "you don't know where to begin."

On the contrary, bigots are some of the most reliable people as they are steadfast and firm in their beliefs.
- No, they're generally so rigid and conterfactual about their beliefs they'll swallow any implausibilty or logical contradiction no matter how obvious just to maintain them despite even the most overwhelming of evidence, as you're living proof.

As well, their target audiences are clear and they know how to effectively address them.
- i.e., know just what psychological buttons to press to evoke malicious resentment.

Not all "racists" are prejudiced. The use of the word in this way is very much a prejudice in itself.
- By definition, all racists are prejudiced, since they believe in the need to separate themselves from literally every individual belonging to another race to prevent some unknown great harm on the basis of no evidence other than the color of their skin.

Yeah, the Jews love to repetitively bleat that "racists" are nothing but trailer-park half-wits. Here's the biography of David Duke, for starters:

David Duke Biography

# Received his BA in History in 1974 from LSU.

# Won the ROTC Outstanding Basic Cadet Award at LSU out of a field of 3,000. Achieved highest rank possible for any basic cadet.

# Worked for the U.S. State Department in Laos during the Vietnam War where he instructed anticommunist Laotian military officers. He won the "Most Respected Instructor Award." Also volunteered on missions with Air America to supply the anticommunist forces.

# Awarded a scholarship for studies at the Goethe Institute in Salzburg, Austria.

# Appointed by Gov. George Wallace as an Honorary Colonel in his state militia. He has been the recipient of over 35 patriotic awards, including the Patrick Henry Award from the World anticommunist Federation.

# Has lectured at Universities in the U.S. and abroad, including Oxford and Cambridge in England, Harvard, USC, Vanderbilt and many others.

# Became the National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in 1974. Although his organization was completely legal and nonviolent (no members were ever charged with any crimes against minorities) the press and public could not differentiate between his group and completely separate "Klan" organizations. Other so-called "Klans" conformed to a Hollywood-generated image of ignorance, hate and violence. So in 1978 he resigned and formed the NAAWP, a White civil rights organization.

# After his election to the House of Representatives in Louisiana, due to time constraints, he passed on his leadership of the NAAWP. Since that time the NAAWP has undergone a series of leadership changes and internal struggles. He is not associated or involved in any way with any current NAAWP groups.

# He publishes the Duke Report, an international newsletter of uncensored conservative commentary that defends the rights and heritage of people of European descent. Subscribers can now be found in every American state and every nation of the world where Europeans reside in significant numbers.

# He has been interviewed (or debated) by such personalities as Jesse Jackson, Carl Rowan, Larry King, Ben Bradlee, Pat Buchanan, Barbara Walters, Candace Bergen, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, Ted Koppel, Jerry Springer and been a guest on such programs as the Today Show, Nightline, Good Morning America, CBS Morning News, Prime Time Live, BBC Tonight Program, Crossfire, Donahue, and many more.

# David Duke was elected in 1989 and served as a member of the House of Representatives and was a full participating member of the Republican Legislative Delegation. He served on Committees: Health and Welfare, and Judiciary.

# Authored landmark conservative legislation, including House Bill 1013 (1990), the first anti-affirmative action challenge passed by a legislative body in America.

# He was recently elected to Chairmanship of the Republican Parish Executive Committee of the largest Republican parish (county) in Louisiana. (St. Tammany RPEC, At-Large Representative, term 1996-2000)

# 2000 - Current President of European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), an organization dedicated to protecting the rights and heritage of people of European descent in America and around the world.

# August 2002, David Duke receives honorary doctorate in political science from the University of Kiev, Ukraine(!).

http://www.duke.org/biography.html

One can still probably find my early philosemitic posts on Kosher Republik -- for some some reason my account wasn't nuked like many others' probably due to some sympathizers within the Freak inner circle. What can I say? Jews cause anti-semitism. Sufficient exposure to them and possession of critical and analytical abilities will invariably cause dislike of their collective behavior.

I started out as a regular conservative, and then just drifted more and more into nationalism. It was a gradual process, starting in about 1988 and going forward. I was not a full WN until about 1998 or so. It took about 10 years for me to become a complete WN.



------------

A quick rad over this thread does bring up that a lot of you folks have been influenced by on line debates and what you see posted on the internet.
You blame the jews , as they have been blamed before , this does imply gulit but does it prove it ?
Human nature is a strange thing , give a dog a bad name and it sticks.
I am not "anti" nor am I "pro" Jewish I don't see them as the destroyers of culture and the white race that they have been set up to be.
Nothing new in this but if the jewish evil was so evident why did it take so long for you all to see it for what it was ?

A quick rad over this thread does bring up that a lot of you folks have been influenced by on line debates and what you see posted on the internet.
You blame the jews , as they have been blamed before , this does imply gulit but does it prove it ?
Human nature is a strange thing , give a dog a bad name and it sticks.
I am not "anti" nor am I "pro" Jewish I don't see them as the destroyers of culture and the white race that they have been set up to be.
Nothing new in this but if the jewish evil was so evident why did it take so long for you all to see it for what it was ?
constant mediabombardments portraying them as poor little victimized saints, the political correctness dictatorship in which they play a huge role, the holocaustindustry and what not

A quick rad over this thread does bring up that a lot of you folks have been influenced by on line debates and what you see posted on the internet.
You blame the jews , as they have been blamed before , this does imply gulit but does it prove it ?

Jews who claim that they are hated "just because they are Jews" are only trying to shuffle off responsibility for their own behavior, which adds to my dislike.

Pray tell, Cerberus... who are these other people I should blame for Jewish political and social behavior? When Jews think that it's a moral imperative to financially support their own ethnic nationalism in the Middle East, but claim that all other forms of ethnic nationalism are pure evil, who else do I blame for this disgusting display of hypocrisy, selfishness, and greed? Who else do I blame when Jews themselves brag about the decisive role they played in centralizing government power in the name of "civil rights", popularizing ideas which we now know as "political correctness", and demand that it should be not only a national crime to offend them, but an international crime! Perhaps I should just blame "their environment" and "socioeconomics", since no Jew could possibly be responsible for his own behavior!

My Anti-Judaism and anti-Yankeeism grew gradualy since I was 12/14 years.

They were always hostile against ANY Germans. I just didn't feel like apologizing for being what I am and having to flagelate myself. Some of the most despicable and bigest assholes during my school days turned out to be Jews.
I realy didn't care for them. But they somehow have the pesky attribute, that they ellbow themselves into the center of attention and always shout off their mouths about THEIR suffering, THEIR plight.
As Kid I believed all that Holocaust shi.t, I found it hard to believe that my Grandma and Grandpa could have done such "horrible" things.
As usual, Jews always overdo it. The constant beating of their holohoax drum finaly made me say "Enough!" and I wanted to know everything about it. Then I finaly learned, what a lying, deceiving, filthy race they are.

It's no joke, but Yankees and Jews made out of me a fanatic "Nazi". "anti-Judaism" is nothing but self preservation of Aryans (or any other ethnic group) against the parasitic and genocidal race know throughout history as "Jews".
Over 2000 years of "Antisemitism" can't be wrong. There are even "antisemites" in countries without Jews (Japan). "antisemitism" will die with the last Jew. Personaly, I could do without it. :D

My Anti-Judaism and anti-Yankeeism grew gradualy since I was 12/14 years.

Thats around the same age my anti-American feelings started to develop. Although it was only until 15 I first became anti-Zionist before becoming anti-semitic at 17-18.

::A quick rad over this thread does bring up that a lot of you folks have been influenced by on line debates and what you see posted on the internet

I would say that it isn't so much 'online debates' as it has been through some sort of medium of communication. What initially aroused my ire was the filth I constantly saw around me: on television, in magazines, on the radio et al. So like many others, I began searching for answers. Who is responsible for all this crap? Why do they promote such filth? That initially led me to the Jewish question. Also, there are very few Jews in my immediate area. But I have been able to get a good taste of their character from observing them online.

::You blame the jews , as they have been blamed before , this does imply gulit but does it prove it ?

The Jews take credit (in their own books and magazines) for many of the things that we blame them for: such as changing the immigration laws (because they argue immigration restrictions caused the Holocaust), demonizing racism (discrimination is bad for the Jews and leads to anti-Semitism), manipulating our foreign policy to suit Jewish tastes (Israel must be supported at all costs, never again), changing our culture to make it 'good for the Jews' (to prevent another Auschwitz), creating and supporting the so-called 'civil rights organisations' and the 'Civil Rights Movement' (because discrimination against blacks could lead to another Holocaust). They have publically accepted responsibility for such things on numerous occasions. They brag about such things, cerberus. They take PRIDE in what they have done. Such information is readily available to anyone who takes the time to study the matter, as I have shown time and time again.

::Human nature is a strange thing , give a dog a bad name and it sticks.

I don't believe in human nature.

::I am not "anti" nor am I "pro" Jewish I don't see them as the destroyers of culture and the white race that they have been set up to be.

You are pro-Jewish because you assume a priori that the Jews are not responsible for the things that we blame them for (even when they accept such responsibility and brag about it!). You assume a priori that 'anti-Semitism' is simply based on 'irrational hatred of the Jews'. This, of course, is precisely what the Jews always say about anti-Semites because it is in their interests to negatively portray those who they perceive to be their enemies. It never seems to occur to them that anti-Semites might be in a better position to describe what causes anti-Semitism. As I have pointed out, anti-Semitism arises from a cold, remorseless, detached, analytical, amoral investigation into contemporary social degeneracy.

::Nothing new in this but if the jewish evil was so evident why did it take so long for you all to see it for what it was ?

Its not so evident, cerberus. They go at length to hide their activity, because they fear that gentiles will become anti-Semites (a quite logical conclusion) if they perceive Jews as being responsible for such things. Furthermore, they go out of their way to ruin and destroy those who catch on to their activity, as they have done to NUMEROUS members of the U.S. Congress. Recently, however, as their fear of anti-Semitism has diminished, they have begun to brag about all the things they have done in their own books and magazines.

Welcome back, Franco.

I would say that it isn't so much 'online debates' as it has been through some sort of medium of communication. What initially aroused my ire was the filth I constantly saw around me: on television, in magazines, on the radio et al.

I changed the channel or didn't read anything I considered "filthy". Howard Stern is not nearly as offensive as Ted Kennedy.

If you do not care at all about the quality of your society, then I guess you could consider pop culture to be fine and dandy because "the channel can be changed". What some people fail to understand is that a higher quality society can't be brought about with the click of a remote. The dumbing down of the populace can't be changed with the click of a remote.

::I changed the channel or didn't read anything I considered "filthy". Howard Stern is not nearly as offensive as Ted Kennedy.

I don't believe in 'freedom of speech'. That only leads to the sort of filth I described above, as the bad chases out the good.

If you do not care at all about the quality of your society, then I guess you could consider pop culture to be fine and dandy because "the channel can be changed". What some people fail to understand is that a higher quality society can't be brought about with the click of a remote. The dumbing down of the populace can't be changed with the click of a remote.I

1) Don't believe in Democracy( in my political system the average joe being stupid wouldn't really cause too many problems... if your elite doesn't have an average IQ capable of sustaining a technological civilization thats a problem)

2) Believe the populace is innately stupid, thats what makes them the populace.

"Filth" per se doesn't really bother me.

However I wish something could be done to stop "reality tv"... im loathe to employ censorship. Freelance vigilantism would be better... BRING ME THE HEAD OF RICHARD HATCH AND WHOEVER CREATED SURVIVOR.

1) Don't believe in Democracy( in my political system the average joe being stupid wouldn't really cause too many problems... if your elite doesn't have an average IQ capable of sustaining a technological civilization thats a problem)

What does democracy have to do with anything? The average joe being a complete moron causes problems because these are the people you have to interact with on a daily basis and they form your living environment. We aren't all hermits.

2) Believe the populace is innately stupid, thats what makes them the populace.

This is not true. People used to have manners, civility, and basic knowledge. People used to be a lot more connected and neighborly. Now, we have a society full of wiggers and heinous people addicted to television.

"Filth" per se doesn't really bother me.

Many things which are a result of pop culture bother you. You hate the way modern women act. What do you think promotes this? Pop culture. Look, it effects you.

However I wish something could be done to stop "reality tv"... im loathe to employ censorship. Freelance vigilantism would be better... BRING ME THE HEAD OF RICHARD HATCH AND WHOEVER CREATED SURVIVOR.

I would not regulate print content, but I would not be disturbed in the slightest if the entire television medium itself went the way of the dinosaur, along with the mainstream movie industry.

What does democracy have to do with anything? The average joe being a complete moron causes problems because these are the people you have to interact with on a daily basis and they form your living environment. We aren't all hermits.


They should be competent at their jobs, but when the masses try to think too deeply about things beyond their immediate sphere of life all it does is cause problems( including what you mentioned social atomism and chaos).

You are not talking about what I am talking about. There is a world of difference between "masses" who are polite, neighborly, and have good cultural knowledge than "masses" which are composed of wiggers, television junkies, men who think that to be a man means to act 13 years old forever (who are predictably more immature than 13 year olds of the past), women who think that to be a woman means to be as selfish as possible, and neighborhoods full of strangers.

This discussion is not about the need for masses to have university level educations or have an interset in philosophy. It's about pop culture inverting standards. Trash is glorified and quality is villified or ignored and blanked out. If one has no problems at all with pop culture, then don't say to me that a society full of MTV-emulating dopes grabbing their crotch and mumbling "whatchoo lookin' at" at everybody and young women wearing almost nothing while giving the evil eye and sneering about how "men are pigs" at anyone who looks at her is bad in any way.

young women wearing almost nothing while giving the evil eye and sneering about how "men are pigs" at anyone who looks at her is bad in any way.
A description succinct and to the point! Not to mention the way anorexic little tarts will put down other women all the time based on appearance. And then on another day they will complain that men judge them by their looks (as sex objects, blah blah). And people wonder why abusive/degrading porn is so popular these days...

Jews cause anti-semitism. Sufficient exposure to them and possession of critical and analytical abilities will invariably cause dislike of their collective behavior.

That sums it up quite well.

Antisemitism is a disease. You catch it from jews. -- Edgar J. Steele

Welcome back, Franco.


Thanks. Good to be back.



----------

As a teenager in the Pacific Northwest I was badly shaken by Ruby Ridge and the fact that the ZOG was behind it. Research into that incident shows to me that the jews who control the Amerikwan government don't want to let the Whites leave mass consumerism and practice true religious freedom (in this case the Weavers believed in Christian Identity). At this stage I was still just a teenager, but had developed some negative notions about 'the tribe'.

A few years later when Lieberman ran for Vice-President I remembered what had happened to the Weavers, how many had said it was ZOG behind the killings, and decided that since a jew could very well become VP I should research into this strange tribe... the culmination of that research and into other areas such as the Oklahoma City bombing (a jewish reichstag fire!) and more recently 9/11 lead me to become an anti-semite.

I became anti-Jewish when I was about 20, around 2002, as I was reading and talking and listening and learning. Everyone stop using the term 'anti-Semitic', it is a Jewish trick.

Okay lets talk about about "antisemitism" and the rest of the words like that. First of all the notion of "antisemitism" presupposes that Jews a priori have the moral highground and power to control relationships between us. Why must one be Pro-semitic a priori to the jews? why must we even care about what jews are non-whites think in this manner? why is it "irrational" to be against the interests of jews? who gave them this power of postion? . This is all remaninscant of Jared Taylor's quote that whites live objectively but not subjectively, I found that to be profound. Basically what words like "racism" and "antisemitism" try to do is destroy our subjectivity and contsruct a illusory world of moral universalism and objectivism, where we and only we are subjected to the interests of all other groups( and of course other groups don't fall for this, do they care what other groups think? no, they work in a moral particularism).

So basically they try to take away our power to subjectively determine our group interests and make decisions independently of other groups. "Anti-semitism" is arbitrary as "anti-european" or anything else, to say a priori that some group must submit there interests to others groups when conflicts of interests arise is absurd. So "anti-semitism" functions as a power-relationship, it says that we must submit to jewish interets and must not have conflicts of interests with them because they hold a highground over us. But this "objective" world is just a illusory world that our enemies created by warping our sense of moral universalism to the extreme. By using our high moral sense our enemies were able to destroy our sense of particularism and make us destroy attempts to the contrary.

What they tried to do essentially is create take away our sense to to make decisons that would come into conflict with other groups. So words like "anti-semitism" , "racism" and the rest, function as their will power, bascially that we must submit to the barbarians interests and destroy our own were we come into conflict with them. Of course non-whites know this and exploit to the extreme, thus anytime the negroes interests aren't met he whines "racism" and we let him have the say over what we will do.

So anti-semitism should be seen as what it is, trying to make any conflcits of interests with jews irrational so they could finish their program of destruction and distortion. Anyway I guess I became "anti-semitic" when I read Macdonald and analyzed some recent world events and followed the cold hard facts. The notion of objectivity and universalism are profoundly dangerous and created the situation today, we must never again allow any group to fool us and work for the interests of others while destroying ourselves via "anti-racism". Therefore by admitting that we must be "objectively" anti-semitic is falling into the trap of the distorter, remember that we still posses the notion of us and the non-whites and jews can't take that away from us.

The discovery that the holocaust is a filthy lie.

When you dig deep and discover the meaning of this lie you cannot but come away with a very low opinion of its progenitors.

It functions on two levels. On the one hand it is an identity myth, it belongs to the mythic cycle of imminent catastrophe and redemption which shapes Jewish identity, particularly victimhood (and begins with the flight from Egypt), on the other, it is a weapon to paralyse their enemies, i.e. all non-Jews. It is highly effective for moral blackmail and extortion, a fig leaf to conceal their crimes. Remove the fig leaf and what you see is both alarming and disgusting.

David Duke's book My Awakening played an important part in my conversion, as did essays like Weber's The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia's Early Soviet Regime. I now believe Jewry is one of the greatest enemies of European mankind.

If you know the jews well, you will be anti-jew. It is that simple.

Know the jew and you will dislike them.

Kevin MacDonald helped the scales fall from my eyes. Many of us found that things we were seeing all along anyway were illuminated by his dry but comprehensive style. I'll entirely forgive the fellow who pointed me to him (he's here, BTW) because ignorance really was bliss.

I have a down-home member of the family, a grandpa now, who needed nothing from anywhere, he always knew. He's from the hills, had no book learning beyond maybe 6th grade, hated the very idea of religion, never really interacted with the tribe on any level at all. But he mistrusted them from the beginning and when the Internet made this sort of thing common, he already knew lots of the things people were saying. How this happens mystifies me. Some gentiles just know and it's inexplicable.

I have a down-home member of the family, a grandpa now, who needed nothing from anywhere, he always knew. He's from the hills, had no book learning beyond maybe 6th grade, hated the very idea of religion, never really interacted with the tribe on any level at all. But he mistrusted them from the beginning and when the Internet made this sort of thing common, he already knew lots of the things people were saying. How this happens mystifies me. Some gentiles just know and it's inexplicable.

We could use more of that type of genetic stock. Perhaps if we are lucky we might actually identify sets of genes that influence sense of community, folk and racial/ethnic identity. Genes do affect all aspects of our psychology, after all.

Some gentiles just know and it's inexplicable.

I've seen the same thing time and again. People will ridicule you for saying so, but race memory is very real. When you've struck the chord of memory in a person, you can see and feel the results through and through, from the look on their face to the quality of energy which shows in the limbs. It's remarkable.

Of course, as you say, ignorance is bliss - although I would compare ignorance to comfort more than bliss. Let me sleep! the lower nature cries when reminded of its responsibilities. Linder, in a recent essay, has caught some of the metaphysical significance of what's going on when he refers to The Burden. It's not at all unlike what Frodo undergoes in the Tolkien books - to take a burden to heart that tempts you - every minute - with violence, hatred, and despair. I don't think one tenth of our number understand what they've signed on for, which may be for the best.

May God bless us, every one.


Wintermute

:: Basically what words like "racism" and "antisemitism" try to do is destroy our subjectivity and contsruct a illusory world of moral universalism and objectivism, where we and only we are subjected to the interests of all other groups( and of course other groups don't fall for this, do they care what other groups think? no, they work in a moral particularism).

I agree. When Jews throw around labels like 'racist' and 'anti-semite' and 'hater' they are simply trying to define us and box us into neat little categories. The purpose of such labels is to isolate us from our contemporaries so that we can be more easily divided from the general population. We are no longer simply Americans, Canadians, Brits or Germans. We are 'racists' and everyone knows that 'racism' is bad. The 'racist' label obliterates in one word whatever else might be of significance to our own identity. Internalising these labels (subjectification) that have been imposed upon us only makes our situation worse: which is why I reject the 'racist' adjective as a rule.

We should get into the habit of refusing to accept any label other than the ones we choose for ourselves. This is necessary if we wish to preserve our own identities, recover our own subjectivity, and reconnect ourselves with the majority of the white population. The best explication of the relationships that exist between discourses, political power, and subjectification that I have found anywhere has been from reading the French postmodernist philosopher Michel Foucault. Although I don't necessarily agree with him in every respect, his insights have been of enormous use to me in understanding how Jewish hegemony over the discursive means of production has subverted our culture and corrupted our political system. I will post some interesting excerpts later in an upcoming post.

I agree. When Jews throw around labels like 'racist' and 'anti-semite' and 'hater' they are simply trying to define us and box us into neat little categories.

They're also creating the category or reinforcing its emotional valence, which is just as important.

The purpose of such labels is to isolate us from our contemporaries so that we can be more easily divided from the general population.

The purpose of such labels is, as you say later, to cause guilt in those who have confused them with reality. It is also to demonize those so labelled in the larger population, which is both racist and terrified of being found so. Yes, I use the term myself since I understand what is meant by it even though I do not agree with the implied judgement. It's similar to how a liberal might proudly call himelf a n*gger lover. Once the valence is disabled or reversed, the term becomes a weapon in the hands of the victim.

Our job is to reverse or disable valences. If this is possible, then we must recontextualize the terms of debate. It is not enough to reject the process, which seems to me to be so perpetual as to be an inescapable part of the human condition. There is a point in all beings where their own beliefs, whether inherited or generalized, are taken for reality rather than a cognitive tool. Mindfulness should be the goal here.

I do agree that replacing the concept 'racist' with the meme 'racialist' is our most immediate job, which allows for identification without judgement. This job is, surprisingly, pretty far along.


We are no longer simply Americans, Canadians, Brits or Germans. We are 'racists' and everyone knows that 'racism' is bad.

How did people learn that racism is bad? Loyalty to racial group would have been understood, prior to 1945, as a very good thing indeed.


The 'racist' label obliterates in one word whatever else might be of significance to our own identity.

Agreed. It is a well constructed categorical weapon, and is quite effective. Wouldn't it be nice if the term 'Jew' were powerful enough to destroy all other considerations for the target? That should be one of our goals.


Internalising these labels (subjectification) that have been imposed upon us only makes our situation worse: which is why I reject the 'racist' adjective as a rule.

Surely you're not denying that you're a racist.

We should get into the habit of refusing to accept any label other than the ones we choose for ourselves.

More easily said than done.

The best explication of the relationships that exist between discourses, political power, and subjectification that I have found anywhere has been from reading the French postmodernist philosopher Michel Foucault.

Foucault is overrated, as is Derrida. The whole 'linguistic turn' in Continental philosophy is terribly unimpressive to me, and is on the whole less interesting than the work of Korzybski, whose sucessor, Robert Anton Wilson, is more useful and entertaining.

An example: the relentless anti-essentializing of Foucault would tend to problematize your stated intent to "preserve our own identities, recover our own subjectivity, and reconnect ourselves with the majority of the white population". You probably already know Foucault's attitude toward what he regarded as entirely arbitrary divisions: it is contained in his famous allegory of the Chinese emperor, taken from Borges.

What is 'ours' in reclaiming 'White' subjectivity? Why is it useful or good? In what sense, indeed, can it be said to exist?

An author who denies the existence of authors, and indeed, any concept whatsoever of human nature would not be pleased to see these phantoms replaced with 'White nature'. And if there is no 'White nature', then what subjectivity is there to reclaim? Or identity? How is re-connection possible with a population that does not exist, except as a fancy of accounting, a wispy dream of Reason's desire to impose its own Will zur Macht on the hypothesized Real?

I appreciate and agree with your goals, Fade, but disagree that Foucault is helpful or germane to the task at hand. His 'deconstruction' of 'epistemes' was based on faulty historical data about the 'construction of madness', and even Derrida tore him a new asshole about his reliance on logic to attack 'Reason'. You should probably look up J.G. Merquior's book Foucault which is short but devastating to that man's branch of the Post-Saussurian hypermodernists. I say hypermodernists rather than postmodernists because I never accepted the claim that they had exceeded or surpassed modernism, but rather had reduced that movements cardinal insights to absurdity.

On the whole, the hypermodernists tend to have corrosive effects. A universal solvent, if real, cannot ever hope to be contained, as Derrida discovered when he tried to denounce Apartheid.

Wintermute

:: How did people learn that racism is bad?

The concept 'racist' had floated around in isolated leftist circles since about the '30s but it was only during the so-called Civil Rights Movement and the period that immediantly followed that the term was objectified by the media. It is once again unfortunate that we lost the old board. I checked out several of Kevin MacDonald's sources and used them in a debate with OrganizedJewry in which documented I how Jewish editors used their influence within the media for political purposes.

:: Loyalty to racial group would have been understood, prior to 1945, as a very good thing indeed.

Yes. A few generations ago, few respectable white Southern men would have publically endorsed the theory of racial equality. It is taboo to question this dogma today, however. There has been such a change in what is considered to be 'legitimate' and 'socially acceptable' because the composition of the elites who set such boundries has changed significantly since the end of World War 2. See the Tearing the Mask Away thread for more on that.

:: The purpose of such labels is, as you say later, to cause guilt in those who have confused them with reality.

Yes. Its much more than just that though. They are also isolating tactics. In order to render us powerless it is first necessary to isolate us from our white contemporaries, lest they come to our aid. The whole discourse of 'racism' and 'white privilege' operates as well at the level you describe above. By attempting to instill a feeling of guilt in whites, we become more likely to police ourselves and alter our own behaviour without the use of force.

:: Wouldn't it be nice if the term 'Jew' were powerful enough to destroy all considerations of humanneness for the target. That's our goal.

Yes. Its important to give 'Jew' a similiar negative connotation. Anti-Racist is another one.

:: Surely you're not denying that you're a racist.

That's exactly what I am doing.

:: More easily said than done.

Its rather simple: don't consent to being labeled by others.

:: Foucault is overrated, as is Derrida.

I like Foucault's philosophy, although I do not entirely agree with it. :/

:: The whole 'linguistic turn' in Continental philosophy is terribly unimpressive, and is on the whole less interesting than the work of Korzybski, whose sucessor, Robert Anton Wilson, is more useful and entertaining.

I can't say that I agree with this. We are just beginning to realise and understand how powerfully our language structures how we understand the world in which we live. This thread is a good example of this. Just look at the power wielded by those who invoke two simple words: 'racist' and 'anti-semite'. The most fundamental cause of our current predicament is the ability of Jews to corrupt and distort our language to advance their own interests, a power which they wield on account of their hegemony over the discursive means of production.

:: An example: the relentless anti-essentializing of Foucault would tend to problematize your stated intent to "preserve our own identities, recover our own subjectivity, and reconnect ourselves with the majority of the white population".

I don't see how that would be the case. I have not assumed that there is anything essential in defining ones own identity as 'white'. I probably don't see social identities as being as static as you believe them to be.

:: You probably already know Foucault's attitude toward what he regarded as entirely arbitrary divisions: it is contained in his famous allegory of the Chinese emperor, taken from Borges.

I believe I posted something about that here once before. I will have to search for it later.

:: What is 'ours' in reclaiming 'White' subjectivity?

I was referring to possession over our own identity. That is in opposition in simply adopting the identities and labels others impose upon us.

:: Why is it useful or good?

This presupposes some sort of vantagepoint, so I will choose the vantagepoint of 'white racialists': it increases our power and frustrates our enemies.

:: In what sense, indeed, can it be said to exist?

Socially and personally.

:: An author who denies the existence of authors, and all human nature would not be pleased to see these phantoms replaced with 'White nature'.

I could really care or less about what Foucault would have like to seen, as that does not really concern or interest me. His argument against 'human nature' was that it does not *objectively* exist in-itself, not that a discourse about 'human nature' was somehow absent.

:: And if there is no 'White nature', then what subjectivity is there to reclaim?

Oh, but there is a 'white nature'. You would call this 'racial consciousness'. It simply does not exist in the essentialist sense, but in the sense that is either socially accepted or rejected. In other words, we need to recover our 'whiteness'.

:: Or identity?

Identities are not static.

:: How is re-connection possible with a population that does not exist, except as a fancy of accounting, a wispy dream of Reason's desire to impose its own Will zur Macht on the hypothesized Real?

Most white Americans would identify themselves as being 'white people'. See Huntington's new book.

:: I appreciate and agree with your goals, Fade, but disagree that Foucault is helpful or germane to the task at hand.

I can't say that I agree with this, wintermute. Foucault is uniquely useful in that his work dealt primarily with the marginalised and their relationship to political power. And who is more marginalised today that white separatists?

:: His 'deconstruction' of 'epistemes' was based on faulty historical data about the 'construction of madness', and even Derrida tore him a new asshole about his reliance on logic to attack 'Reason'.

Foucault did not concern himself with deconstruction, which he labelled a 'minor pedagogy' in his long quarrel with Jacques Derrida. They were not the best of friends, simply put.

:: You should probably look up J.G. Merquior's book Foucault which is short but devastating to that man's branch of the Post-Saussurian hypermodernists (I never accepted the claim that they had exceeded or surpassed modernism, but rather had reduced its cardinal insights to absurdity).

Thanx. I will look it up. :-)

Besides, PoMo is essentially a gentile creation. Why should we allow the Jews to steal what is ours?

I'm not sure about that - "Postmodernism", which I abominate, has Jew written all over it.

:: How did people learn that racism is bad?

I checked out several of Kevin MacDonald's sources and used them in a debate with OrganizedJewry in which documented I how Jewish editors used their influence within the media for political purposes.


If you still remember which sources of MacDonald you used I'm perfectly willing (and, finally, able) to look them up myself if they have them at my University Library. Also, if I recall correctly you said that Jewish media manipulation is documented in American Fuehrer , right?

On a related note, I just got back from the library and I've got some interesting books concerning Jews. I promise I will post excerpts from them. They are:

The "Jewish Threat": Anti-Semetic Politics of the U.S. Army by Joseph Bendersky. (MacDonald used this one, as I'm sure you know, but did you know he reviewed it in The Occidental Quarterly?) http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol1no2/km-bendersky.html

A People That Shall Dwell Alone by Kevin B. MacDonald. First book of MacDonalds triology. Probably the least interesting from a WN standpoint, but nevertheless I look forward to reading this one.

Jewish Power: Inside the American-Jewish Establishment by J. Goldberg. This one will proof to be enlightning. Promise I will post different parts than those of yours.

Sigmund Freud's Ordeal of Civility by J. Cuddihy. Another one of MacDonald's sources. This one details, if memory serves well, how Jews changed how they were being viewed; from being perceived as an ethnic group towards being 'just a religion'.

Hiter, Germans and the Jewish Question by Sarah Gordon. Confirms Jewish overrepresentation in all important aspects of society in Weimar Germany.

Well, that's it for now. They do, however, have many books containing damaging facts about Jews at my library so I guess I have my work cut out for me. Now, I got to go. I'm debating some silly Dutch anti-racists and they're losing :D.

PS I see that Edana has revived the old 'Tearing the Mask Away' thread. Darn, I too had that one saved and wanted to post it, but she beat me to it :). I have other interesting threads from the old Phora, I'll post some if people are interested.