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

Old March 1st, 2009 #21
Tom English
Not A Race Traitor
 
Tom English's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 305
Tom English
Default

(I hope I don't earn any scorn for bumping an old thread – I felt compelled to respond to the lies here)

Jobling's arguments tend to be rather sophomoric (I am familiar with him and his websites, BTW) - he wants to point out how Jews are not all on the same page (which is true, but Kevin MacDonald acknowledges this profusely just for people like Jobling) and then create these straw men regarding MacDonald's works. He attributes claims to MacDonald that MacDonald doesn't make, which is extremely irritating and reflects badly on someone like Jobling who has such a scholarly pretense.

I don't know if Jobling actually believes the things he is saying (because they fall so short of the facts) or if he believes that getting Jews on "our side" is more important than bashing them. Both positions are fallacious, if not dangerous, as far as I am concerned.

Lets take a look:

Quote:
Rather, today’s Jewish liberals are consistently hostile to both Jewish and Gentile nationalism.
Jobling's basic thesis is wrong and falls flat on its face.

While there are definitely vocal and outspoken Jews who are opposed to Zionism, it is a basic fact that most Jews, even the liberal-leaning ones, support Israel: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/200...tion-cast.html

This strongly supports MacDonald's basic thesis.

Quote:
Jewish hostility to Gentile nationalism would thus seem to be motivated by disinterested intellectual principle than by a lust for ethnic power.
This is an example of Jobling's straw men. It is not MacDonald's argument that Jews are opposed to Gentile nationalism based on some sort of "lust" for power (I would like to see Jobling cite where MacDonald says this – he can not and will not).

MacDonald does in fact talk about this topic at great length and Jobling should actually read his books rather than create these hideous straw men that do not reflect MacDonald’s actual writings.

Quote:
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….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.
Sailer is definitely an interesting fellow. He is of part-Jewish ancestry, so it is highly amusing that a gentile like Jobling is critiquing him for his opinions of his own people.

Quote:
It’s lucky for Sailer that he didn’t have to substantiate his accusation
The pot calls the kettle black.

Quote:
If Sailer were right, you would expect pro-Israeli groups like CAMERA and Honest Reporting to love the Times.
But Sailer doesn’t make that sort of claim. Jobling’s straw men in action.

Quote:
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.
While I think an analysis of the media’s approach to the Israel topic is worth engaging in for the sake of solidifying our arguments, the publication of that op-ed column hardly makes the NYT an “anti-Israel” newspaper. (I don’t read the NYT except for the occasional article, so I can’t make that judgment here).

But either case does not destroy Sailer’s or MacDonald’s argument.

For the other comments here:

Yes, there are real differences of opinions between Jews, but it is incredibly fallacious to use the examples cited here as some sort of argument that Jews are not an ethnocentric people. While I will grant that Jews may be losing their ethnic cohesion over time and as compared to historical memory, it is still very strong among them.

The morality of Jews is either directed towards explicit Jewish interests or is directed towards implicit Jewish interests and I do not think you can make the case against either very well.

While a majority of Jews may have been opposed to the Iraq war, it still was a Jewish elite who created, planned, and intensely lobbied for it, so the claim of Jewish involvement is still valid and the method of analysis of Jewish intellectual movements used by MacDonald fits in perfectly here.

The Jews who supported the Iraq war had Israel's interest in mind, while the Jews who opposed the Iraq war had memory of the holocaust and WWII in mind. Both groups are motivated by Jewish interests, even if their actual opinions are divergent.
 
Old March 2nd, 2009 #22
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Excellent analysis, Tom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom English View Post
While a majority of Jews may have been opposed to the Iraq war, it still was a Jewish elite who created, planned, and intensely lobbied for it, so the claim of Jewish involvement is still valid and the method of analysis of Jewish intellectual movements used by MacDonald fits in perfectly here.
Here Jobling on Iraq:

Quote:
My article does not discuss the question of whether the Iraq War was justified and whether it was in US interests, so I’m going to use this long comment to explain my opinion on this subject. I believe the answer to both questions is yes. The war was justified because Iraq refused to comply with UN resolution 1441 of 2002. The US was thus upholding the rule of law. The war was also in US interests because Saddam promoted terrorism against the US and its allies. It is clearly illegitimate then to say as a commenter above did that in the war US lives and treasure were lost “for no reason at all.” You still might argue that the war, while not completely unjustified, was not worth what it cost in lives and treasure. That is a separate question that I’m not going to take a position on now.

On the question of whether the Iraq War was justified, I recommend this recent article in Commentary, Why Iraq Was Inevitable, by Arthur Herman.
The guy is a neocon.
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #23
edenlink
Junior Member
 
edenlink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 169
edenlink
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Parker View Post
The guy is a neocon.
Neocons are not interested in preserving White America. Jobling is.
__________________
National Futurism
 
Old March 23rd, 2009 #24
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Mike Parker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edenlink View Post
Neocons are not interested in preserving White America. Jobling is.
Neocons support US wars for Israel. Jobling supports the Iraq war and even admits it is for Israel. If Jobling were interested in a white America he'd favor expelling the Jews. Instead, he's just another version of Taylorian false opposition, trying to dupe racialist whites into following the Zionist agenda.

BTW a quintessential neocon tactic that Jobling uses is to impugn the patriotism of those, like Pat Buchanan, who oppose a rabidly pro-Zionist US foreign policy. That is how the neocons have marginalized the paleocons, and spreads the neocon dogma that there is simply no difference between US interests and Israeli interests.

Last edited by Mike Parker; March 23rd, 2009 at 05:18 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.
Page generated in 0.09172 seconds.