Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 12th, 2008 #1
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default Jews

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/..._hypocritical/

Quote:
Are Jews Really Hypocritical?

By Ian Jobling • 7/11/08

Kevin MacDonald’s theories about the causes and consequences of Jewish intellectual movements are one of the dogmas of racial right and paleoconservative intellectuals. As I explain in my article about his Culture of Critique, MacDonald thinks that Jews promote multiculturalist, anti-Western—in short, leukophobic—doctrines that undermine white Gentile racial pride and identity in order to weaken Gentile resistance to the Jewish pursuit of power. Jews are hypocrites in MacDonald’s view because they support Jewish nationalism while undermining Gentile nationalism. As he says, Jews “[oppose] the idea that the United States ought to be a European nation,” but “have been strong supporters of Israel as a nation of Jewish people” (Culture of Critique, p. xxxiv).

While MacDonald and his followers have a strong case that Jews promote leukophobia, their accusations of hypocrisy are on shaky ground. Rather, today’s Jewish liberals are consistently hostile to both Jewish and Gentile nationalism. Jewish hostility to Gentile nationalism would thus seem to be motivated by disinterested intellectual principle than by a lust for ethnic power.

Consider Steve Sailer’s recent remarks on the VDARE blog about a nasty attack on Italian ethnic identity published by a certain Adam Kimmelman in the New York Times. Kimmelman sneered at how drearily Italian Italy remained with its “all-white, all-native, monoethnic” TV programs and bigoted preference for spaghetti over falafel and curry. Sailer casually commented, “Do you ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its articles to make them prove his theories correct?”

That Sailer felt no need to justify his dig at American Jews demonstrates the dogmatic acceptance of MacDonald’s theories among the paleoconservative, racial right community that VDARE caters to.

It’s lucky for Sailer that he didn’t have to substantiate his accusation, as I don’t think he would have been able to. I don’t dispute that the Times is dominated by Jewish liberals, and I myself have taken Jewish Times columnists like Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, and Roger Cohen to task for their leukophobia. However, when Sailer asserts that the Times proves MacDonald correct, he is also accusing Jewish liberals of hypocritically promoting Jewish nationalism while undermining that of Gentiles. That claim falls flat, however.

If Sailer were right, you would expect pro-Israeli groups like CAMERA and Honest Reporting to love the Times. However, that is far from the case. Both groups are indignant over the paper’s anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias, and they marshal more than enough evidence to convince reasonable people of their case. It would seem, then, that the Jewish liberals who dominate the Times are just as reflexively critical of Jewish as of Gentile nationalism.

The Times publishes discredited Palestinian propaganda that weakens Israel and demonizes it for defending itself against aggression. For example, a recent editorial by the Lebanese writer and former PLO member Elias Khoury falsely implies Israel was the aggressor in its 1948 War of Independence when, in fact, the Israelis were defending themselves against Arab attack.

Khoury also asserts, as though it were an established truth, the discredited lie that Jews conducted a premeditated campaign of “comprehensive ethnic cleansing” against Palestinians during that war. As CAMERA says in its reply to Khoury, historical research has demonstrated that the Israeli government never had any plan to expel Palestinians and made no efforts to do so during the 1948 war.

Quote:
Had the Arabs not chosen to launch a war of aggression against the nascent State of Israel, had they not attempted to erase the Jewish presence through violence, had they accepted the UN Partition Resolution calling for two states existing side-by-side, and had Arab leaders not urged their constituents to leave their homes until such time as they succeeded in obliterating the Jewish state, there would have been no Palestinian displacement and no Palestinian refugees.
Khoury goes on to blame the Israeli wall of separation and checkpoints for making Palestinians’ lives a “hell on earth.” Khoury makes no mention of the history of Palestinian terrorism that made such security measures necessary, nor does he give the Israelis credit for having tried to come to a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians.

The Times has also given credence to the bogus claim that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a legally sanctioned “right of return” to Israel. If granted, this return would swamp Israel with millions of hostile refugees and threaten the state’s Jewish character. The Times, then, condones demographic suicide for Israelis as well as white Americans.

Jewish journalists at the Times show the same anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian bias. Take Steven Erlanger, until recently the Jerusalem bureau chief for the Times. The conservative blog TimesWatch takes Erlanger to task for casting Islamic terrorist organizations in a sympathetic light. The journalist has:

Quote:
talked of PLO terrorist leader Yasir Arafat’s “heroic history” in January 2005 and has issued sympathetic profiles of Palestinian terror bombers. Erlanger once opened a story by referring to Hamas as “the Islamic group that combines philanthropy and militancy.”
CAMERA has collected its many complaints about Erlanger here.

In sum, far from proving MacDonald correct, Times articles undermine his theory of Jewish hypocrisy. The paleoconservative cliche that Jewish liberals are guilty of a double standard in their views of Gentile and Jewish nationalism seems to be without foundation. A much better explanation of Jewish leukophobia is diversity snobbery, which afflicts both Jews and Gentiles alike.

It’s likely that many of the other claims made by MacDonald and his followers would prove just as threadbare if submitted to careful scrutiny. The more I think about MacDonald’s ideas, the more I suspect that they are paranoid fantasy rather than useful social science.
__________________
National Futurism
 
Old July 12th, 2008 #2
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default

I agree with Iceman.

Constantin


Quote:
From my time posting on the JTF forum (I am not a cult follower), I can definitely tell you that Jewish infighting is real and huge. Right wing Jews despise the media (as they should) and the ADL despises right wing Jews. IMO the only problem is liberal Jews but its all liberals, both Jew and Gentile. Therefore I unapologetically oppose Hollywood. The fact that some Jews are enemies of politically incorrect causes is beyond doubt. But I see no reason to downplay the fact that the same behavior is repeated among gentile circles, and to never think a Jew can sincerely oppose the movements which destroy national character. That’s when opposition to Jews becomes an obsession, not a reality.

The majority of Jews cannot be hypocrites, just look at the intermarriage rates. If Jews are not careful, they will disappear from the Earth as an ethnically distinct Caucasoid (therefore white) ethnic group and religious community.

I’m sure there are a minority of hypocritical Jews, but what ethnic group is perfect? Name one, just one!

By Iceman / DB on 7/12/08 at 1:51 pm
__________________
National Futurism
 
Old July 12th, 2008 #3
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edenlink View Post
I agree with Iceman.

Constantin
Sounds like something right out of cointel zog central. Hey jews aren't hypocritical. It's the liberal jews who are the problem not the neo cons right wing jews. Whites do the same thing. If we're not careful jews might disappear. Some jews might even be with us White Nationalists.

Keerist who writes this shit? And is there anybody on VNN who believes it other than the usual trolls and anti's.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #4
Itz_molecular
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: in a gene near you
Posts: 4,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post

Keerist who writes this shit? And is there anybody on VNN who believes it other than the usual trolls and anti's.
Dood, you nailed it ! The article is a diversion, just to confuse the issue .

Jews , are the ultimate in hypocrisy. There isn't a font big enough , to spell it out .

Plus , they are cunning enough to dissemble and play both sides of the issue . So , the poor goy is totally bewildered . Even when the net is closed on him , the poor goy is saying ' what happened , I don't understand , who hit us in the back of the head ?'.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #5
Itz_molecular
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: in a gene near you
Posts: 4,982
Default

Quote:
The majority of Jews cannot be hypocrites, just look at the intermarriage rates.
Racial camouflage !
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #6
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

I posted over there about the fact that Thomas Friedman, a leading NYT columnist, was a big cheerleader for the Iraq invasion.

Thus Joblings theory destroyed. Of course Jews do make complaints about media outlets that they are anti-Israel, but it's along the lines of Shakespeare's famous line, "Methinks the lady doth complain too much!"
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #7
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kievsky View Post
I posted over there about the fact that Thomas Friedman, a leading NYT columnist, was a big cheerleader for the Iraq invasion.

Thus Joblings theory destroyed.
Actually, Jobling already destroyed your non-existing argument. After all, one writer's columns in the NYT hardly change the overall tune of the paper.

Constantin
__________________
National Futurism
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #8
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Jobling is a long-time Jew-apologist associated with Jared Taylor's AmRen. Their lies belong in the section devoted to our enemies, not the executive summary of our own pro-white views.

Now as for the NYT, if they were truly anti-Zionist or even halfway balanced, they would have taken the opportunity to support the powerful scholarship of Mearsheimer and Walt. Instead they show themselves to be Zionist apologists, just like other liberal Jews ranging from Dershowitz to the New Republic to JJ Goldberg's own Forward.

A Prosecutorial Brief Against Israel and Its Supporters

By WILLIAM GRIMES

Quote:
The general tone of hostility to Israel grates on the nerves, however, along with an unignorable impression that hardheaded political realism can be subject to its own peculiar fantasies. Israel is not simply one country among many, for example, just as Britain is not. Americans feel strong ties of history, religion, culture and, yes, sentiment, that the authors recognize, but only in an airy, abstract way.

They also seem to feel that, with Israel and its lobby pushed to the side, the desert will bloom with flowers. A peace deal with Syria would surely follow, with a resultant end to hostile activity by Hezbollah and Hamas. Next would come a Palestinian state, depriving Al Qaeda of its principal recruiting tool. (The authors wave away the idea that Islamic terrorism thrives for other reasons.) Well, yes, Iran does seem to be a problem, but the authors argue that no one should be particularly bothered by an Iran with nuclear weapons. And on and on.

“It is time,” Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt write, “for the United States to treat Israel not as a special case but as a normal state, and to deal with it much as it deals with any other country.” But it’s not. And America won’t. That’s realism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/books/06grim.html
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #9
Akingu
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: OH
Posts: 401
Default from the mouths of the jews....

14!

"The jew cries out in pain as he slaps your face."

Nuff said!!

A88
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Is Ian Jobling a jew?

If so, isn't that relevant?

Isn't he like a financial reporter not mentioning he owns a thousand shares of stock in the company he's writing about?

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 17th, 2008 at 01:44 AM.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

'Leukophobic' fails as a useful neologism. The connotations are cancer - it sounds like the leukophobe opposes cancer because 'leukemia' is the only 'leuk' word the average person has heard.
 
Old July 16th, 2008 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Jobling neglects to mention that the NYT promoted, more than any other publication, Bush's lie about WMD in Iraq. When it came down to it, the NYT is on the same side as Likud. The rest is verbal camouflage, from NYT and jew Jobling both.
 
Old July 17th, 2008 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Philip Weiss II: Jews as a Component of the American Elite

December 23, 2007

Philip Weiss raises a number of important issues in his comment on my last blog. The one that should be on everyone’s mind is the nature of American elites. He quite rightly points out that the American elite is much more than just Jews. The critical point, however, is that Jews have played a critical role in the American elite, particularly in the construction of culture. This is certainly not surprising. Jews have shown repeatedly that they tend to become an elite. I regard this as more or less inevitable given the characteristics of Jews. But, since Jews in the Diaspora are a small minority, this typically involves making alliances with other elites. This is true throughout Jewish history. Indeed, a common theme of historical anti-Semitism has been that non-Jewish elites — often alien non-Jewish elites — have made alliances with Jews in opposition to the interests of other sectors of the population.

However, given that Jews compose a significant part of the elite in the United States, Jewish issues and concerns have become part of the consensus among elites. Minimally, this has required a repudiation of anti-Semitism, and at least since WWII, the non-Jewish components of the American elite have indeed done so, at least overtly.

The problem arises because, as Weiss acknowledges, the Jewish component of the elite still perceives itself and therefore acts as outsiders. Weiss notes that the WASPs had a sense of noblesse oblige, which is another way of saying that the WASPs identified to a considerable extent with their country as a whole and their countrymen, and they were willing to contribute to public goods. As Frank Salter and Robert Putnam note, individuals are less willing to contribute to public goods in ethnically diverse societies. But this also implies that Jews as outsiders have been less concerned about the interests of the American majority. And not only do Jews see themselves as outsiders, they are outsiders with a long sense of history — an often tragic history in which people very much like the American majority participated in anti-Jewish movements. They are thus not simply indifferent to the interests of the American majority, they form a hostile elite, as they did in the Soviet Union.

In his 1997 Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, J. J. Goldberg identified several consensus Jewish issues, including Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, and church-state separation. All of these carry the potential for conflicts of interest with the American majority. Moreover, immigration policy since 1965 and church-state separation can only be understood as anti-majority because they involve the displacement of the traditional culture and ethnic mix of America. There is no question that Jewish influence was decisive in both the area of church-state separation and immigration policy.

To the extent that non-Jewish elites have been major players in these issues (and I have no doubt that they are, especially in the area of immigration policy), it must be seen as an individualist strategy. That is, elite non-Jews may reasonably believe that the cultural and demographic changes resulting from the transformation of the American elite will not hurt them personally because they can retreat to their gated communities, elite schools, and exclusive country clubs.

And it must be said that American individualism had strong strands of universalism that long preceded Jewish influence. This struck me once again in reading a review of a recent book on the history of American transcendentalism. The reviewer points to the universalist, democratic, and egalitarian impulses of this movement originated by descendants of the Puritans. Divine energy “coursed through the natural world, especially the human heart. … The only thing they would not tolerate was intolerance.” No ethnocentrism here. Indeed, the transcendentalists were very involved in the abolitionist movement, including some who funded John Brown’s violent uprising.

These are powerful currents in Western culture, and they seem to predispose non-Jewish European elites to engage in altruistic punishment against their own people for perceived moral transgressions. Not coincidentally, the Jewish intellectual and political movements I discuss in The Culture of Critique all had strong moral overtones.

Nevertheless, these individualist elites are paying a heavy price in terms of ethnic kinship. The eclipse of European America will certainly result in huge costs for the European majority, but they will be borne mainly by less intelligent and less conscientious whites. Nevertheless, if the transcendentalists tell us anything, European-American elites have done that before. If there is a difference in the current situation, it is perhaps that the transcendentalists may well have implicitly envisioned a morally purified white America rather than the present specter of a non-white America where they themselves are displaced. It is certainly the case that European-American elites are individualistic, but, as noted above, until the rise of the Jewish component of the American elite, there was a sense of noblesse oblige and a connection to the people. That seems to be missing now.

Regarding Weiss’s other points, my comments on contemporary Jewish marriage patterns appear in an earlier blog and Chapter 9 of Separation and Its Discontents. Weiss agrees that Jews tend to be psychologically intense, but seems to think that I mean that all Jews are psychologically intense. Not so. It’s like the bell curve for IQ: There is a higher average IQ among Jews, but there is variation around the mean, with some Jews quite a bit below the mean and even below the white average. In general when dealing with Jewish issues, one has to be aware of the complexity of the Jewish community. Responsible treatments of Jewish involvement in promoting the Iraq war, including that of Mearsheimer and Walt, are careful to distinguish different elements of the American Jewish community. Indeed, a recent poll once again shows the gap between most American Jews and the organized Jewish community, especially on issues related to Israel and the policies of the Bush administration. There is far less of a gap, if indeed there is any at all, on issues such as immigration or church-state separation. Indeed, as James Petras points out:

Given the high salience of being pro-Israel for the majority of American Jews and the fact that the source of their identity stems more from their loyalty to Israel than to the Talmud or religious myths and rituals, then it is clear that both the ‘progressive, majority of Jews and the reactionary minority who head up all the major American Jewish organizations have a fundamental point of agreement and convergence: Support and identity with Israel and its anti-Arab prejudices, its expansion and the dispossession of Palestine. This overriding convergence allows the reactionary Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in America to speak for the Jewish community with virtually no opposition from the progressive majority either within or without their organizations.

Weiss dislikes ethnocentrism among Europeans as well as among Jews, but excuses Jewish ethnocentrism because of the Holocaust. But the idea that the Holocaust resulted in Jewish ethnocentrism is demonstrably incorrect. There is ample historical evidence for a deep concern about intermarriage as well as for ethnic networking and ingroup charity among Jews throughout history. One simply can’t read this without coming away with a deep appreciation of the commitment of Jews to their group and their concern about keeping the group’s ethnic integrity. See A People That Shall Dwell Alone. Nevertheless, there is every reason to suppose that Jewish ethnocentrism would be increased as a result of a disaster. This has been noted quite often by Jewish historians and it is consistent with psychological research on people with strong commitment to a group. It is also powerfully woven into the very fabric of the Old Testament where there is a constant drumbeat to the effect that disasters happen because the Jews have strayed from the word of God.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Blog-WeissII.htm
 
Old July 17th, 2008 #14
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

If you got that from me, Alex, I meant only apologist for the Jew, as in his last undifferentiated smokescreen.

But to your point, it was only when the neoliberal NYT chimed in on WMD that I knew the Iraq war had ceased to be a neocon fantasy. Some sophistacted people I predicted it to didn't believe me at the time. I was giving to much credit to the Jews, they said.
 
Old July 17th, 2008 #15
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Is Ian Jobling a jew?
No, he is not.

Constantin
__________________
National Futurism
 
Old July 17th, 2008 #16
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default

Statistically, more Jews than Christians opposed the Iraq war (http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?051223+poll). After all, most Jews in America vote Democrat and not Republican. Yeah, "the Jews" are all behind Bush:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...325529,00.html

Most Jews are not neocons. It is dishonest to say that.

Constantin
__________________
National Futurism
 
Old July 17th, 2008 #17
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edenlink View Post
After all, most Jews in America vote Democrat and not Republican.
and what did the democrats do when they took majority? did they stop the war? did they cut of spending? did they impeach bush for illegally starting the war?

Quote:
Charlie Gibson of ABC news sat down with three new congress members he asked this question of all three “If he wants the surge, he'll get it.” As a citizen, I was stunned as Congresswoman Boyda replied “Yes.… He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision.”
That’s the opposition that republicans get from democrats, because there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between the 2 parties and to claim otherwise simply means you haven’t been paying attention.


Quote:
Yeah, "the Jews" are all behind Bush:
good point...







 
Old July 17th, 2008 #18
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edenlink View Post
Statistically, more Jews than Christians opposed the Iraq war (http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?051223+poll). After all, most Jews in America vote Democrat and not Republican. Yeah, "the Jews" are all behind Bush:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...325529,00.html

Most Jews are not neocons. It is dishonest to say that.

Constantin

Quote:
NEW YORK - Most American Jews disapprove of the war in Iraq and the way the United States is handling the campaign against terrorism, according to a new study.

The American Jewish Committee's annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, released Dec. 21, found that 70 percent of U.S. Jews disapprove of the Iraq war, with 28 percent backing it.
Here's the problem I have with this. The The American Jewish Committee say they did a "survey". And in that survey they found a whooping 70 percent of jews disapprove of the Iraq war. Lets assume the jews at the AJC really did a survey and aren't lying to cover their asses because Americans are starting to ask some disturbing questions about the neo con(see jews) role in getting us into this war.

I would still call bullshit because who cares if your average everyday Joe Manischewitz and Samuela Split tail doesn't support the war. They're not the problem. Well, they are the problem in that they always support other jews. but not the problem in that they are affecting me personally. Big jew is the problem. Those jew newpaper owners, the jew owned networks hiring other jews to tell me lies night after night. The AIPAC jews with real money to buy our politicians, the banker jews at the Federal Reserve. The list goes on and on.

So I'm not real impressed with a poll by another kike "committee" telling me something that I know is horse manure.

This is White Nationalism 101, are you sure you're not at the wrong place?

Last edited by Steve B; July 17th, 2008 at 02:40 PM.
 
Old July 17th, 2008 #19
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edenlink View Post
Most Jews are not neocons. It is dishonest to say that.
Who even made this claim? All jews are jews, doesn’t matter if they are communists capitalists, liberals, conservatives or whatever, they always look out for their interests to the detriment of others. Any difference between any of these groups is smoke and mirrors.

Conservatives want open borders because cheap labour is good for big business.
Liberals want open borders because it would be unfair to discriminate.
Conservatives want an endless war in the middle east.
Liberals want an endless ‘peace keeping mission’ in every country in the world.

Communists want the govt to own everything and have total power.
Capitalists want big business to own everything and use its wealth to control govt, ie have total power too.

The end result is the same, just the foolish goys remain divided, arguing over whether we should run off the cliff, jump off the cliff or walk off the cliff.
 
Old July 18th, 2008 #20
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default

Where is the evidence that Ian Jobling is a Jew?

Constantin
__________________
National Futurism
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 AM.
Page generated in 0.21164 seconds.