Critics of Jews tend to have no middle ground (unlike critics of Catholics, Muslims, Blacks etc.) but the reason I think this is the case is that would-be moderate critics of Jews watch what they say out of compassion, thus the extremists dominate the discourse.
I don’t think it’s fear like most think. I really think it’s compassion.
Hitler loyally spied for Weimar/Reichswehr. He is adored by the WN corral.
Putin loyally spied for the friggin USSR. He is adored by the WN corral.
Snowman chimped. He is adored by the WN corral.
No-man/Tamer of Savages enlisted in the US/”BRA” army. He thinks he’s above the WN corral.
“I’m not anti-Communist and Stalin wasn’t Jewish.”
It doesn’t matter. It’s an example of a technique. Even if the Bolshevik regime wasn’t primarily Jewish and the people in charge during the Holdomor weren’t primarily Jewish it still works because the official version is Hitler was elected out of the blue by those nasty Germans when it was at least partly a reaction to what was happening in the Soviet Union.
And even without that it still works because of the way the culture has been saturated with holocaustianity since WWII while what happened just a few years earlier and on almost the exact same ground has been as covered up as possible. Almost as if the only dead that matter are Jewish dead.
So the original point stands imo. A large part of the solution to the Jewish problem might simply be telling the true version of their history.
The Russian revolution had nothing to do with Germany.
Germany can’t assume that because they were kind to Jews (before Hitler) that Russians were also kind to Jews.
The Russians created class antagonisms and paid the price.
I wasn’t questioning merely your use of a dumb slogan (all hostile nationalistic slogans are dumb, not just WNs’). Its meaning was unknown to me, although it wasn’t difficult to guess it would mean something like “down with the Jews!” (I confirmed that it does by googling “verrecke” – “kick the bucket,” I was told). I quoted only it, rather than any lengthier passage, before responding to you because it sums up the entire attitude that I take issue with. It’s that entire attitude that is the “anti-semitism of fools,” not just the slogan.
A Jew-free White ethnostate would be just that: Jew-free.
Okay, great. But why the “fuck off and die” then? Why not just “fuck off and let’s be done with it”? Or even better, why not just “let’s all agree to part ways along racial lines and work together to find ways to effect separation, considering friend all those who accede, foe all those who do not”?
We would take Ezra Pound’s advice this time and “Kill the Big Jew” first, of course; however, this doesn’t mean we’ll allow those filthy little rag merchants from beyond the pale, who visited so much misery upon our German and Slavic kinsmen, to continue to profane the earth with their existence.
Extraordinarily foolish, and ever so tragically characteristic of the hardcore mindset.
I wonder why Silver finds the slogan so offensive?
It’s the notion of “race, therefore war” that I find offensive. Nothing does more to reinforce willful racial blindness and stupidity among the willfully blind and stupid than the thought they are all that stands against an even greater evil. So bravo, Campbell. If your race goes down for the count – and, as unpleasant as the thought is, that outcome is highly likely at this point – on your head be it. Let it also be known that a hand of friendship has been extended to you, but you opt to rudely rebuff it in favor of some dubious Aryan bravado.
The blacks in Brazil are free. They are considered the “equals” of everyone else. They participate in a free labor economy. They vote in national elections.
If the implication here is that their ‘natural position’ is that of slaves – and, let’s face it, you’re enough of a nut that it may well be – then I must say it’s an astonishing instance of mixed up priorities. Do you really think it’s a better use of your time to make the case for slavery than to make the case for race? And if the two, in today’s climate, are in opposition, shouldn’t you choose the latter?
Btw, Brazil today is vastly, vastly wealthier than it was in 19th century. Vastly.
Basically what happened was that Jews were targeted not as the only group, but as one of the group that feudal leaders targeted to keep the population in order. All of a sudden all the people with grievances, Jews included, rose up in Russia.
I have problem with Trotsky but I believe the Tzar didn’t play his card rights. He basically asked them to fight on the other side.
All of a sudden the Tzarist regime was overthrown and as part of the project, Jews were involved of course as they should have been, because it was wrong to oppress them originally. Hitler took advantage of this, used it for his propaganda, yelled about his Aryan race and then fought an imperial war he couldn’t win.
I actually used to think Hitler was rebellious, but then I just realized he was a pawn tard long ago. I realized about the time I learned more about Stalin.
“The Russian revolution had nothing to do with Germany.”
I never said it did. I said the Bolsheviks murdered millions of people a few hundred miles east of Germany in the year before Hitler was elected.
“If the Church recognizes Israel I do too.”
This is a reasonable answer, though I vehemently disagree with the Church on this issue.
I can accept many errors in the Church. A bad battle plan has to be seriously, seriously messed up to justify breaking ranks. Offering legitimacy to those who crucified Christ is a bridge too far for me. It’s like spitting in the face of the Passion.
As an aside, one of your first arguments regarding your support for Israel was your admiration for the Jews you met at Aviation Academy. I guarantee you that Israel is going to be incinerated. This is not the way God through Christ told us to deal with His enemies, and it is going to end very, very badly.
“I don’t think it’s fear like most think. I really think it’s compassion.”
It’s misplaced modernist compassion. It’s Frankfurt School compassion. It’s not the kind of compassion that built Western Civilization. It’s the compassion that destroys worlds.
Reducing logos to the purely spiritual sphere diminishes Christianity. The arts (aesthetics), theology(spirituality), and philosophy(rationality) are all different ways to interpret logos that buttress eachother and are all built “on this rock.”. The “fire of heaven”, “opposite to it, dark night” fill the world at once and their interaction propels history. People that deny the validity of Israel and the present Church or any other reality of the age are denying not a mere ‘country’ or ‘church’ or ‘world leaders’ but the [rational, aesthetic and spiritual] impulse of history that has brought us to this point.
“Spitting in the face”
Is better to describe someone that believes the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.
“People that deny the validity of Israel and the present Church or any other reality of the age are denying not a mere ‘country’ or ‘church’ or ‘world leaders’ but the [rational, aesthetic and spiritual] impulse of history that has brought us to this point.”
No, the logos of the true Christian spirit is apart from the world, not of it. The acceptance of the present state of affairs has nothing whatsoever to do with logos. Christ didn’t accept the affairs of His time, nor should anyone who follows Christ do so, if said affairs are contrary to His discerned will.
You accept Israel because the Church accepts Israel. Leave it at that.
I do not reduce logos to the spiritual plane, but Christian logos starts and ends on the spiritual plane, and we should make every effort to interpret all things on all planes in accordance with it.
Abortion is not in accord with logos, divorce is not in accord with logos, Pelosi or Kerry receiving communion is not in accord with logos, buggery is not in accord with logos, and Israel is not in accord with logos. That things exist does not mean they are in accord with Christian logos. That things not in accord with logos exist is part and parcel of living in a fallen world. Accepting them in one’s spirit is a denial of Christ’s gift of Redemption, not only for oneself, but more tragically, for those who follow.
“Spitting in the face is better to describe someone that believes the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.”
This is a reasonable point. But this is also where we use reason to match the spiritual logos against the reality. Certainly God didn’t send His Lamb to be crucified so we could wander the world in confusion, incapable of redemption.
But what greater sign of Hell prevailing against His Church could Christ have expected His people to recognize than its granting of legitimacy to those who crucified Him? I don’t remember Christ coming back and saying “oh, forget it, Jews are cool.” Short of that, I don’t see how it can be considered in accord with logos for the Church to reverse the meaning of Christ’s foundational act — that the Jewish people are no longer blessed, but cursed.
The way a reasonable person in spiritual alignment with Christ’s logos confronts this is not to say that it must be part of logos because the Church accepted it (and Christ screwed up), but that Christ must have been referring to a different meaning of “Church” against which hell would not prevail.
This would be the “Church” of people who remained aligned with logos.
The Church has gone off the rails before. It was they who refused to go with it that remained to correct it.
“The true Christian spirit”
This is the disguise of feelings and opinions.
“Not of it”
Christianity is based upon the embodiment of logos in this world and the resulting ethical principles that flow from The Body and are represented in its eternal law. Your feelings and opinions begin and end as text on a screen, you have no use for the Church or its law if it runs counter to your beliefs. Please explain how you are really any different than the Mosin Nagant character.
“That things exist does not mean they are in accord with Christian logos.”
That a thing exists means it is rational which means it can interract with and will ultimately submit to the higher rationality of Christianity.
The way a reasonable person in spiritual alignment with Christ’s logos confronts this
“This” meaning one must first accept Jews are given a ‘legitimacy’ in discord with Christ’s teachings by having their own sandbox. That’s the unsteady foundation of your thought that you take to its reasonable protestant conclusion.
Yes, giving Jews their own sandbox grants them a legitimacy. Ask Huckabee, Hagee or Netanyahu.
You really shouldn’t deny this. Your justification should end with the Church’s acceptance of Israel. When you venture away from this you fail.
My difference with Mosin is that my interest lies in repair of the Occident. Through repair of the Occident we repair ourselves. We repair the Occident by repairing that which created it. The Church. We start this repair at the beginning. Meaning a separation of those who wish to align themselves with logos from the enemies of logos. The enemies of logos are those who allow the failings of the world to infect their spiritual edifice, instead of carrying the logos to the Cross. The world will be subject to Christian rationality only insofar as we do this. It does not happen of its own accord, as the blood of the martyrs can attest. And it definitely does not happen when the Christian world is forced to support the legitimacy of its antithesis.
Do you want to know how this will end? Israel will be incinerated, and the Occident will be blamed. What little remaining Blood of Christ seeps through Holocaust guilt programming will be completely removed by Israel incineration guilt programming.
Because we stopped having the balls of Christ to say “no” to Jews. Israel represents the gelding of Western Civilization. And the world as it stands is a bullhorned testament to this fact. Only protestants rejoice in this as you do.
I view Israel as something that would have never happened if not for the interests of superpowers and Hitler’s prior politics. Without Hitler the number of non-Zionist Jews would have overwhelmingly outnumbered the number of Zionist Jews (Hitler reduced the population of anti-Zionist Jews by both unintentional conversion and murder). And without America, Britain and even USSR fighting to gain global influence, Jews wouldn’t have had anyone to help them take over the land.
Thus the position is anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish. This is the right position, although wnists like to say that it’s the soft position. it’s still the right position.
There is nothing more anti-Jewish than accepting Jews as Jews, Zionist or otherwise.
Not holding Jews responsible for being Jewish leads to things like not holding blacks responsible for being blacks, or criminals not responsible for being criminal.
Those who don’t respect their spiritual antithesis enough to hold them to account have no respect for themselves. Then things further down the line decay. You can’t fight blacks, you can’t fight diversity, you can’t fight perversion, you can’t fight criminality. Hell, you can’t even have a border!
Lastly, Hitler failed because he tried to use modern thinking and weapons against ancient evil powers and principalities. Instead of defeating them, it made them stronger. That is the lesson we should take from him.
Creating and supporting Israel is making the same mistake.
Hitler should have gassed the Jews.
It wouldn’t have made any difference. The West was already lost. He just sealed the deal by thinking he could win back with guns what was initially gained through spirit. A forgivable mistake.
The point was that modern Brazil is no longer a “Golden Circle”-style country.