29 November, 2008

Redefining Hate

Posted by Socrates in jew mentality, Jewish arrogance, Jewish chosenness, Jewish genetics, race, racism accusations, Socrates, SPLC, Vdare at 3:46 pm | Permanent Link

A question for the SPLC: If mild-mannered VDARE is a White nationalist, “hate” website, why does it publish columns written by Asians and Jews? The truth about racial supremacism is that the Jews were the first people in history to state, as official doctrine, that they were superior to other humans, that they were “God’s chosen people,” and most Jews still believe that. In fact, Jewish supremacism is a serious problem in the West. It takes away the rights and the freedoms of White people, e.g., the Toben case. Why doesn’t the SPLC mention Jewish bigotry instead, which is much more of a threat to our society than anything found at VDARE? [1]:

[Article].

[1] Note that the Jews are not just an ethnic group but a race, according to U.S. government standards. See footnote #2 [Here]


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 05/21/07 Redefining “White” in America 55% similar
  3. 11/19/09 Studying Hate – But Which Hate? 50% similar
  4. 07/15/07 “Hate Crime” Bill Moves to Senate 50% similar
  5. 06/11/19 Re-Re-Re-Redefining “Anti-Semitism” 49% similar
  6. 07/31/07 Redefining Anti-Semitism May Backfire 48% similar
  7. 16 Responses to “Redefining Hate”

    1. Mark Says:

      “The truth about racial supremacism is that the Jews were the first people in history to state, as official doctrine, that they were superior to other humans, that they were “God’s chosen people,” and most Jews still believe that.”

      A powerful statement and one that I believe is historically accurate.

      According to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, being chosen isn’t a form of superiority or supremacism, it’s actually a burden on them to spread God’s word to the gentiles. Typical doublespeak and victimhood from organized Jewry.

      Shmuley has also stated that Jews originated the idea of human equality (as well as being adamantly against all things pro-white). Well then, we know who is responsible for modern tyrannical egalitarianism don’t we?

    2. Zarathustra Says:

      I wonder if Mr. Mencken would have appreciated having a Jew as the keynote speaker at a meeting named in Mr. Mencken’s honor? Is there any irony in it?

      I don’t know if Jews can be properly called a “race”. They seem to be more like hybrids or mongrels to me. But they certainly consider themselves to be a race, a “master race” at that. YHWH was simply their mythical tribal-god, a god made in the image of the Jews. But they have long since retired Mr. YHWH and simply think of themselves collectively as God.

    3. Zarathustra Says:

      Jared Taylor, IMO, is a pompous reactionary windbag and of no use to the White struggle. I am not sure who or what kind of person it will take to champion our “Cause”, but it definately is not Taylor, Black or Duke.

    4. gw Says:

      “Taylor refuses to name the jew and blames everyone but them. That’s like the physician diagnosing the symptoms but not the cause.”

      Well said! I was going to make a comment of my own. But that just about summed it all up for me in two sentences! At Amren, they allow you to obsess endlessly over the illness that afflicts us (in Amren’s case, it’s Blacks and Mexicans, Moslems, Diversity, Political Correctness), but you cannot discuss either the cause of the illness or the cure.

      And you can attack or criticize any nationality, religion, political or ethnic group — all except one. That makes Amren quite useless. It diverts our attention away from the real problem, that’s all. It’s a diversionary ploy, a safety valve that let’s disgruntled whites vent and let off steam in a “safe” manner while leaving the real problem unnamed. Without constant abetment from the Jews (the REAL problem), those other problems wouldn’t exist.

      I’m not sure what to think about Taylor. I have long wondered if:
      a) “they” have some kind of personal dirt on him
      b) they have him in a financial stranglehold somehow
      c) he’s part Jewish; or has Jewish relatives or in-laws
      d) it’s the price he must pay to get on radio and TV
      e) he craves to be seen as “respectable”
      f) he fears they might close down his operation
      g) he’s being blackmailed or threatened in some way

      Oh, … and it’s quite an irony that some other sites constantly accuse him of being not pro-Jewish ENOUGH!!! What a joke.

    5. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Here’s what Taylor said in May of ’06:

      “I started American Renaissance 17 years ago in order to awaken whites to the crisis they face and to encourage them to unite in defending their legitimate interests as a race. To these ends, AR has deliberately avoided taking positions on questions about which racially-conscious whites are likely to disagree. Some of these have been foreign policy, abortion, the role of homosexuals in a white consciousness movement, and whether Christianity helps or hinders our efforts. By taking no position, AR has served readers who may be sharply opposed on these questions but who agree on the central importance of race, and are committed to our survival.

      AR has likewise taken no explicit position on Jewish matters. Readers have always included both Jews and people who believe Jews play no useful role in a movement that promotes white interests. It has been my intent to emphasize questions crucial to our interests and on which we agree.

      To put it more accurately, AR has taken an implicit position on Jews by publishing Jewish authors and inviting Jewish speakers to AR conferences. It should be clear to anyone that Jews have, from the outset, been welcome and equal participants in our efforts. There has always been a minority in the AR constituency that has criticized me and AR for welcoming Jews, and there has been another minority that has criticized me and AR for not denouncing the first minority. These groups have generally treated each other with polite reserve, and expressed their bitterness only among themselves or to me—as was proper.

      There are other divisions within AR. There are Christians and atheists, Democrats and Republicans, evolutionists and creationists, and advocates of different foreign policies. There has been tension within AR on these questions, but always good manners.

      That changed at the most recent American Renaissance conference. At least one participant told a Jewish conferee that Jews were not welcome. One participant well known for strong views rose to denounce Jews as the historic enemy of the European people. Another called him “a f***ing Nazi,” and stormed out of the conference hall.

      There will be no more disgraceful behavior of this kind if people who attend AR conferences bear in mind that Jews have a valuable role in the work of American Renaissance, and are welcome participants and speakers. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the choice of staying home or keeping his views to himself.

      AR does not, on the other hand, have litmus tests for subscribers or conference participants. There will always be disagreement and debate in our ranks on many issues, including the role Jews may or may not have played in creating the crisis we face. Some people in the AR community believe Jewish influence was decisive in destroying the traditional American consensus on race. Others disagree.

      Gentile whites—without help from anyone else—have repeatedly shown themselves capable of egalitarian excess. The French Revolution, the Clapham abolitionists, John Brown and his backers, the miscegenist enthusiasms of the Grimke sisters and other radical integrationists are all products of purely gentile delusion. Even if it were possible to prove that Jewish influence derailed what used to be a healthy American racial consciousness, that is a historical question not directly relevant to what we must accomplish now.

      Today, even groups that openly resist Jewish influence are deeply liberal-egalitarian. In 2005, the Presbyterian Church angered many Jewish groups by voting to divest itself of stock in companies it considered to be supporting injustice against Palestinians. In 2006, the Church of England voted to do the same. These churches are prepared to ignore the wishes of many Jewish organizations, yet their members are as relentlessly suicidal on race as any group in either country. Whatever its origins may have been—and they are hardly exclusively Jewish—white ethnomasochism has a life and momentum of its own.

      The role of Jews in a society, the morality of abortion, the influence of Christianity, the appropriate foreign policy, and the place of homosexuals should all be discussed openly in a free society, all in their appropriate places. AR is not that place. We cannot afford dissension that distracts us from our goal.

      We have vital work to do. Our civilization, our way of life, even our continuity as a distinct people depend on whether we succeed or fail. It is a distraction from our proper work to hunt for culprits, to blame others for our own loss of will.

      We may still be a small minority, but we have history, human nature, and morality on our side. Success for us lies in demonstrating that our views are right, healthy and moral—and that liberal-egalitarianism is wrong and immoral; not in trying to “unmask” it as a Jewish conspiracy.

      Postscript

      In light of the events described above, it was clear to me that a statement of some kind was necessary. Apparently, others thought so, too. In March I received a letter from several people associated with American Renaissance, insisting not only on a statement but on changes in editorial policy and in the organization of AR conferences.

      AR has always welcomed advice, but condescending, shape-up-or-else letters are more likely to have the opposite effect of whatever may have been intended. The tone of the letter was one that would suggest that what appears above was drafted under pressure—so much so that some, in my place, would have written nothing at all.

      One should not, however, let the mistakes of others deflect one from decisions already taken, and I believe AR’s position is now clear.”

    6. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      One of the signers of the letter to Taylor (L. Auster):

      http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005449.html

    7. Zarathustra Says:

      As Shabbos has shown, Taylor is a prissy, reactionary right-winger and is therefore useless. Period.

      Willis Carto and the old Spotlight gang are like that, too, only not quite as bad. For example, they use euphemisms like “Zionist” or “Israeli” when they should be using the word “Jew”.

      And forget about the Birchers……………………

    8. gw Says:

      “AR has deliberately avoided taking positions on questions about which racially-conscious whites are likely to disagree. Some of these have been foreign policy, abortion, the role of homosexuals, and whether Christianity helps or hinders our efforts. By taking no position, AR has served readers who may be sharply opposed on these questions but who agree on the central importance of race.
      — Taylor

      That’s understandable and reasonable. I can agree with that.

      Nonetheless, it is one thing to avoid getting side-tracked by peripheral issues that are a distraction, but to concentrate instead on the central issue of concern. It is quite another thing when the central issue itself is proscribed from being discussed. To do so is like trying to discuss yellow fever without being able to mention mosquitoes. It is like holding a conference on ogranized crime — and inviting the Mafia to attend as guests of honor!

      There comes a point when his reasonable precautions become ridiculous.

    9. Z.O.G. Says:

      LOL @ Jared Taylor.

      You guys do know that Taylor has a Jewish wife, don’t you? Her name is Evelyn Rich.

      ;-)

    10. Arch Stanton Says:

      I disagree with Mark’s quote: “The truth about racial supremacism is that the Jews were the first people in history to state, as official doctrine, that they were superior to other humans, that they were “God’s chosen people,” and most Jews still believe that.” The fact is this idea that ones own people are human while others are animals or beasts is probably as old as humanity itself. The same holds true for the belief that one’s own people has been chosen by God because of their true humanity. The Aztecs believed this as did various American Indian tribes. Even the Japanese held this belief and this in part led to their bestial treatment of prisoners during WWII. To this day the Japanese still believe themselves superior to other cultures. The belief of one’s own superiority is an ancient and natural technique to ensure the preservation of one’s gene pool. If others outside the gene pool are held to be inferior, this will form a natural buffer that prevents interbreeding with the “animals” of other races. Of course as there are always those whose insatiable sexual appetites will provoke them to copulate outside their species. For this reason there will always be percentage of the pure racial stock willing to breed with what is held to be inferior racial stock. Of course the result of the intentional promotion of miscegenation is now quite obvious in modern America. One of man’s most profound shortfalls is his overwhelming arrogance that supports such beliefs. We all believe in some sort of manifest destiny; that we and our kind are somehow critical to the fate of the world. We all feel that we are truly important while others are simply an insignificant part of the important role we play. In fact the opposite that is true. Humans are an irrelevant part of the overall universe. Were humans to disappear from the universe, as they eventually will, they will be no more missed than any other extinct species. True, humans do serve a specific function at this point in time, but no individual or group is indispensable to that function. Thus any race can easily disappear without any overall effect on the human function. In fact there is evidence that this has happened quite frequently in the past. Whoever the original Egyptians were, they have now disappeared from the planet, at least in the form shown by their ancient works. Likewise the pure Aryan stock has now become extinct. The Jews are unusual in that they realize this vulnerability at a subconscious level. Apparently this has led to their discovery of the most effective methods to ensure the survival of their own distinct gene pool. The tragedy in this is that, by their nature, these methods are quite destructive to other cultures. The jews believe that they can only survive and advance by destroying those more advanced civilizations others have built. The story of the tower of Babel clearly demonstrates this overriding fear and the method used to overcome that particular fear. The fact is the entire Old Testament is filled with teaching stories of how to protect and advance one’s own bloodline by threatening and destroying others. In the same manner that a cancer does not stop its destruction until the body it depends on ceases to exist, the jews will not stop their destruction until they have destroyed everything, including themselves. For this reason it is crucial for all other peoples to recognize and understand the Jews fundamentally destructive nature. Like a serial killer that destroys himself, the jews know that the only real possibility to stop them is to destroy them. This is the reason for their genocidal myths like the holocaust where others unify for no other reason than to destroy them. The fact is the reason jews exist as the do in this modern world is because no one has ever set out to destroy them. This fear is simply their own subconscious desire to be stopped before they destroy the world. There really is no need to destroy the jews, only to isolate them totally and completely. Hitler simply wanted them expatriated from Germany, but history has provided ample proof that simply removing them from one’s own culture will not stop their relentless and destructive march across the world’s civilization. The fact is the jew must be totally and completely isolated much as one might take a cancerous cell culture and isolate them in a Petri dish – anything less means fatal infection to the planetary body of humanity.

    11. Socrates Says:

      Arch Stanton:

      I hear what you say, but, did the other people claim superiority “as official doctrine”? In written words? In teachings?

    12. gw Says:

      “Arch Stanton: I hear what you say, but, did the other people claim superiority “as official doctrine”? In written words? In teachings?”

      Yes, he has a very valid point there. I tought of it too. The Greeks considered all other peoples as barbarians. The Chinese thought (and still do) exactly the same. And many primitive tribes that I have read of refer to themselves as “the people” and everyone else as something less.

      But none of them has made a religion of it and codified it as the Jews have done. None of them has gone out and preached the message to the world they THEY are God’s “Chosen People,” and perpetrated this self-serving hoax upon humanity.

    13. Zarathustra Says:

      I think the differences between Jewish supremicism and everyone else’s lies in the fact that the Jews have a MINDSET, a MENTALITY that creates a god who is “superior” to everyone else’s god, a god who tells the Jews how great they are and how they have the “divine right” to conquer and enslave the world; A god made in the self-exalted image of the Jews themselves. Do any other people posess this kind of astonishing arrogance? Do any other people try to worm their way into other countries to surreptitiously control those countries and feed off of the hosts’ wealth like parasites? Or set the people in those host countries against each other and foment endless wars and revolutions? Do any other people believe that they are collectively “God”? Therein lay the differences.

    14. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      We need to expand study to include pathological narcissism and psychopathy, and evil. Pathological narcissism has been associated with ambulatory schizophrenia (walking crazies):

      >>Soul Slayer — Psychological ‘Evil,’ Spiritual ‘Evil’ or Both?
      The one adjective I hear repeatedly connected to pathology is the word ‘evil.’ Spiritual, unspiritual, heathens, pagans, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. — it doesn’t matter. The word ‘evil’ is the chosen adjective-of-choice to describe pathology. But what IS evil? Is it more psychological than it is spiritual? Or is it a spiritual issue that has been picked up and defined psychologically? Are they the same thing?

      I am not going to translate the lists for you below. They are self explanatory. I have taken the italicized items from both Old Testament (Torah — of the Jewish faith) and New Testament (of the Christian faith) as examples of the definition of ‘evil.’ You could most likely find similar definitions of evil in other religious texts.

      Draw your own conclusions.

      – Description from the DSM IV About Socio/Psychopathy & Narcissism (normal text)
      – Descriptions of Evil (Lucifer, Satan, The Devil, Yetzer Hara, Baal, Beelzebub, etc.) (italics)

      Grandiose, self important and pre-occupied with self
      Wants people to worship him

      Fantasizes about power, brilliance, success, and money
      Says to God “I WILL ascend, I Will Rise…” Showing power fantasies

      Requires excessive admiration
      Says “You WILL bow down to me”

      Feels entitled
      Wants the same power as God, feels he’s as powerful as God

      Exploits all relationships
      Tries to lure others to do his dirty work in the world

      MORE:

      Lacks empathy
      Envious of others
      Arrogant
      Fails to follow laws or rules/uses unethical, unlawful and immoral behavior
      Deceitful, lies, cons for fun or profit
      Impulsive, wants it/takes it, sees it/does it
      Aggression
      Disregard for the safety of others, puts others at risk
      Irresponsible — bad with supporting others
      Lack of remorse
      Rationalizes stealing, lying, etc.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+pathological+narcissism+evil+psychopathy+jews&btnG=Search

    15. Zarathustra Says:

      The Jews created a god in their own image, one who told the Jews how great they are, how they are entitled to exploit and enslave the world. But then they dispensed with that god altogether and just worshipped themselves as god instead.

      Good point, shabbos. The relationship between parasitic, criminal behavior and and pathological narcissism needs to be investigated. I daresay it would not be flattering to the Jews.

    16. shabbos s. shabazz Says:

      Another interesting read- a Dane compares three models of the jew problem. You may tip-toe over the scientology references:

      http://www.holocaust.nu/printnow.aspx?aid=302