Some Thoughts on Paul Gottfried’s THE MYTH OF ‘JUDEO-CHRISTIAN’ VALUES

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-myth-of-judeo-christian-values/

Gottfried’s article offers fresh perspectives on Jewish-Christian relations. The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ has become part of the political, cultural, and spiritual lexicon in the Western World. Both Jews and Christians have reasons for embracing the term. Jews, vastly outnumbered by Christians, use the term to remind the majority that their religion is an outgrowth of the Jewish religion. Given the history of the persecution of Jews–blamed for the murder of Jesus–at the hands of Christians, it’s useful to persuade Christians that Judaism and Christianity are cultural-spiritual relatives. ‘Judeo-Christian’ reminds Christians with latent antisemitic feelings that Christianity is the spiritual offshoot of Judaism.
But the term is useful to Christians too. In the 20th century, especially after the Holocaust, it’s been argued that the Nazi genocide of the Jews was the culmination of Christian antisemitism. Christians are eager to demonstrate that Godless neo-paganism was to blame and that Christians, despite their stained history, really appreciate and love Jews and Jewish tradition. By embracing the concept of Judeo-Christian tradition and values, Christians seek to distance themselves from the horrors of extreme antisemitism.
There is another reason why Christians embrace ‘Judeo-Christian’. Jews are immensely wealthy, powerful, and influential(and immune to criticism thanks to a clever playing of the Holocaust card), and therefore Christians want to ingratiate themselves with the Jews. If Christians were filled with sympathy for Jews after WWII, they are now filled with fear and guilt–by the 60s, Jews not only accused Germans but all gentile whites, directly or indirectly, for the Holocaust. Fearing and trembling before Jewish power, Christians are desperate to win Jewish approval and love by Hannukazing Christmas and being even more blindly pro-Zionist than most American Jews are.
　
Paul Gottfried makes a good point about how relatively recent the phenomenon of Jewish-Christian collaboration is, especially when it comes to a shared revulsion for the Muslim world. Many Christians think mutual respect between Jews and Christians has a long pedigree when the two communities had been marked more by enmity than amity.
Of course, Jews know better, not least because your average Jew is likely to be better read, educated, and knowledgeable than your average Guns-and-God white Christian. Though there are opportunists on both sides, a greater number of Christians than Jews have a simple-minded notion that Jews and Christians are natural allies against the Muslims–when in fact, Jews are only using white Christians to fight anti-Zionist Muslim enemies in the Middle East. If it weren’t for Israel and the resultant hostility between Jews and Muslims, most Jews would surely be using Muslims and Arabs as another ‘people of color’ victim group against the ‘racist’ and ‘neo-imperialist’ West–just as Jews have played that card using Latin Americans against Gringos for decades.
Even so, the dynamics of shifting alliances and allegiances between Jews and Christians is nothing new or extraordinary. It’s a common theme throughout history. When France was powerful, Anglos and Germans were ‘natural’ allies. When Germany became the premier European power, Britain and France became ‘natural’ allies. When Japan was the first East Asian nation to modernize, Americans favorably viewed Japanese influence in Asia as a Westernizing and modernizing force. US didn’t protest Japan’s occupation of Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and other parts of China. It’s only when Japan became overly ambitious that US leaned closer to China and grew wary of Japan.
During WWII, Americans and Chinese were supposedly great friends and allies while the Japanese were a nation of degenerate imperialist monkeys. But after the war and especially when the communists conquered China, Japan became the democratic and peace-loving friend of the US while China suddenly became evil and totalitarian Empire of the Blue Ants.
So, perceptions of other peoples evolve along with the political climate. Friends can suddenly become enemies, enemies can suddenly become friends. France had long been regarded as a friend of the US, from the Revolutionary War through World War II. But there has been bad blood too. French have been prone to see America as an Anglo-dominated superpower, an monstrous perversion of British power. The French aided the American colonials against it arch enemy, the British Empire, but United States eventually became another Anglo-dominated superpower whose relation with Britain, in the long run, proved deeper than one with France. Besides, there’s the lingering feeling that both the Anglo-British and Anglo-Americans stole Canada from the French. Though US is now a nation ruled by the Jewish Power Elite, many French are still likely to associate the US with Anglo-power.
　
Throughout the world and history, some peoples and nations are more likely to be friends or enemies. This is due to geography, race, religion, or ideology. The ideology of communism at one time forged an alliance between the Russia-dominated USSR and China, but age-old differences and tensions eventually revived ancient hostilities. The West and the Near East often clashed for cultural, racial, and religious–Christianity vs Islam–reasons. The relations between US and Canada–both settled largely by Anglos–have been smoother and more stable than between the US and Mexico, a mestizo majority nation with a white Hispanic elite.
　
Alliances and allegiances shift back and forth. Extraordinary and exceptional–in the aftermath of WWII–is the fact that most whites have become blindly and mindlessly pro-Jewish and pro-Zionist no matter what the Jews do. This isn’t the case in Eastern Europe where people readily express hostility against the Jews IF Jews are perceived to be harmful to their interests. But, the rise of Holocaustianity–essentially a secular substitute for Christianity whereby Anne Frank is the new Virgin Mary and Jews are the new Jesus(or Jewsus)–, there is an irrational slavishness toward Jews on the part of many white gentiles.
Just as the ancient Hebrews were commanded to bow down before God at all times and never question His authority, there is a kind of deification of the Jew or Judeification in the West.
It’s sinful to even ask if Jews and their agendas may be evil or harmful to the West. Though whites are still allowed to oppose the agendas of the liberal and neocon Jews–about 95% of the Jewish community–, they are not allowed, at least in mainstream circles, to point out ‘JEWS ARE DOING THIS TO US.’
　
So, the shifts of alliances/allegiances per se among Christians and Jew are not out of order. For the sake of Israel, it’s only natural for Jews to forge an alliance with the Christian Right. And there are certain advantages for Christians too, though far less.
What is really odd is that white gentiles–Christians or otherwise–have pledged not only a political but also a spiritual allegiance to the Jews–even to secular Jews. Political allegiances can be broken depending on changing political climate. US and USSR were partners during WWII but then enemies during the Cold War. No white American thought he must love Russians NO MATTER WHAT. Similarly, Germany was an enemy during WWII but a friend during the Cold War.
Spiritual allegiances, on the other hand, are irrational and impervious to reality. The problem is Western whites are now devoted to Jews in the way ancient Hebrews were devoted to Yahweh.
　
Even so, the concept of ‘Judeo-Christian values’ is not without merit, especially in the context of secular modern world. ‘Judeo-Christian’ doesn’t necessarily refer to religion or spirituality. It also has a cultural and moral meaning. For instance, secular liberals, socialists, and communists can argue that they too are part of the Judeo-Christian cultural legacy since universalism and egalitarianism have roots in Christianity which has roots in Judaism. No Judaism, no Christianity. No Christianity, no Western universalism and egalitarianism. So, when ‘Judeo-Christian’ is used morally, philosophically, and culturally than religiously or historically, it’s not without validity.
　
When Christians were devoutly Christian and Jews were dogmatically Jewish, there was indeed much distrust and hostility between two groups. Jews saw themselves as the chosen children of God and regarded Jesus as a heretic. Christians saw Jews as the spiritually stingy killers of Jesus
blind to the everlasting truth of Jesus. It was the Eternal Jew vs the Everlasting Christian. Jews and Christians who were mentally and emotionally confined within their religious dogmas were less likely to see the moral and philosophical connection between the two faiths–similar to the one between Hinduism and Buddhism.
It was only with the decline of religious authority among both Christians and Jews–especially following Emancipation–that the connections between Judaism and Christianity became more apparent. With the rise of Reason and Science, both secularized Jews and Christians began to approach the Old Texts–Jewish and Christian–more as history, literature, and culture than literally as religion.
　
Even so, one could make a religious case for the ‘Judeo-Christian’ concept as well. Though Jews rejected Jesus as Christ or the Messiah, they had long had a prophetic tradition in Judaism awaiting the arrival of such figure. And even though Jews maintained their tribal ways and customs, their concept of the ONE AND ONLY GOD over all mankind was bound to lead to a universalized form of Judaism, which eventually became Christianity.
Indeed, prior to the coming of Jesus, some Jews had tried to convert gentiles to Judaism. Jews, however, demanded that converts not only accept the creed of the Jews but also dress, eat, and live like Jews. And men were expected to be circumcised. It wasn’t easy to be a Jew and not much fun.
Christianity was a real breakthrough because, like Buddhism, it set aside all the mumbo jumbo tribal cultural stuff and emphasized the spirit and creed. Though Christianity revolutionized certain precepts in Judaism and soon set itself against the older religion, there’s no question that Christianity is the intellectual, spiritual, and historical descendant of Judaism. A son may hate his father, but he is still the son. God came to hate His creation of Man, but there was affection and pride too.
Similarly, Lenin and Mao may have deviated from orthodox Marxism, but they too were the children of Marx.
　
There was a great contradiction within Judaism, one that cried out to be resolved. The spiritual crisis became more acute as Jewish consciousness evolved from the mythic to the historical. As the thoughts and dealings of the Jews became more worldly and political–and better documented–, Jews felt a growing distance between themselves and God. Worse, Jews were under pressure from both Greco-Roman militarism and cosmopolitanism. They were threatened with the stick and tempted with the carrot. If pagan peoples accommodated themselves under Pax Romana, the religion of the Jews made this more difficult. Pagan peoples respected the gods of mightier peoples since their concept of godly power was measured in materialistic terms. If the Romans were powerful, their gods must be powerful too–indeed more powerful than one’s own gods. But Jews had a different way of measuring spiritual power. Their God was the one and only true god while all the rest were false idols. Romans had problems with this spiritual intransigence just as American troops have problems with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (In the modern world, secular Jews worship their own brilliance, wit, and genius as godly, and thus cannot accommodate themselves to the world of the gentiles. Rather, the gentiles must embrace the TRUTH ACCORDING TO THE JEWS.)
　
Judaism is nothing without profound contradictions. It has been, at once, fiercely tribal and profoundly universal, doggedly conservative and fervently revolutionary. There was ONE GOD but God favored a particular people. But through his chosen people, all the peoples of the world would be blessed. There was a great emphasis on love, justice, and wisdom. There was also a great deal of advice on opportunism and power-lust–essentially on how to deal with filthy and stupid goyim. Judaism taught Jews to respect and live with gentiles. It also taught Jews to look upon gentiles as dogs unfit for Kosher food.
The contradiction within Judaism–between its universalist concept of God and its tribal laws/ particularist customs–was somewhat similar to the contradiction in American history between the Constitution and white racism. The Constitution guaranteed freedom and equal political rights to all men, but whites still practiced slavery in the South until the end of the Civil War. Even after the end of slavery, American government, society, and culture favored whites–especially Northern European whites–over others though the Constitution banned such things.
Just as the contradiction in American History was bound to produce the Civil Rights movement and the rise of men like Michael King–aka Martin Luther King Jr–, Judaism was bound to produce someone like Jesus, especially a time of major crisis.
To the extent that Jesus, his disciples, early followers, and men like Paul were Jews, Christianity was indeed a direct outgrowth of Judaism. Christianity was not created by gentiles who ‘stole’ from Judaism and distorted matters for their own purposes. Christianity was created by Jews themselves, and as such, even though most Jews rejected Christianity, it has a direct connection to Judaism, not only spiritually and culturally but ethnically. Christianity was later adopted by pagan gentiles who came to define and dominate the movement, but it genuinely and authentically grew out of Jewish traditions and from Jews themselves. It is crucial that Jesus and his followers were mostly Jewish.
　
Though Christianity was sufficiently different from Judaism, it was morally and intellectually a ‘logical’ progression from the earlier religion. Christianity successfully resolved the contradiction between universalist God and particularist tribalism. For God to belong to all men, the emphasis had to be placed on the meaning and love of God, not on what Jews did with their food or dicks. Though Christianity required converts to reject their pagan ways, there were–notwithstanding the elaborate ritualism of some Christian sects or denominations–very limited rules on diet, dress, rituals, and etc if any. Christian advice on food was moral–"don’t be a glutton"–than cultural–"don’t eat lobsters.".
So, given the direct link between Judaism and Christianity, one can speak of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Jews created Christianity, and Christianity successfully and ‘logically’ resolved the Judaic contradictions. That they became bitter enemies still doesn’t disprove this fundamental fact. After all, the notion of Earth revolving around the Sun grew out of the idea of Sun revolving around the Earth. Even if the earlier belief had been wrong, it still paved the way for the Copernican model by conceptualizing Earth and Sun as spherical heavenly bodies whereby one revolved around the other. Galileo and Copernicus couldn’t have arrived at the correct observation without there having been an earlier theory proposing that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
This isn’t to imply that Christianity is superior to Judaism but only to point out that Christianity was morally a more satisfying religion given the nature of God in the Old Testament. If there is only one God and if He offers the way for the redemption of all mankind, then there was a need for a religion with a bigger scope than Judaism.
　
However, the element of Son-of-God business must have been pagan in origin since there’s nothing in the Old Testament that would indicate God would give birth to flesh-and-blood Man as Zeus or Odin did in pagan mythologies. Perhaps, Christianity would have been more appealing to Jews if not for this quasi-pagan element. It’s also possible that it was more appealing to pagans precisely because pagan myths were rife with stories of gods having sex with women who then gave birth to half-god/half-man folks.
On that element, Judaism is indeed closer to Islam than to Christianity. Both Judaism and Islam find the idea of Son of God ridiculous. And one could argue it is the weakest part of Christianity. Perhaps it would have made more sense if Jesus was said to have been an angel sent by God to live and die as man.
Even so, one cannot speak of a Judeo-Islamic tradition in the way we can speak of a Judeo-Christian tradition. Nor can we speak of a Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition.
Christianity really grew out of Judaism. It was the creation of Jews dealing specifically with contradictions within Judaism itself. Christianity began as a Jewish thing and then spread out to non-Jews.
Islam, in contrast, didn’t sprout from Jews or Judaism nor from Christians or Christianity. Muhammad was neither a Jew nor a Christian. If Christianity organically evolved out of Judaism–like the polar bear evolved from a brown bear–, Islam has no organic roots in either Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad clearly came in contact with Jews and Jewish ideas and Christians and Christian ideas, but he remained a man apart. Islam wasn’t so much like the polar bear that evolved out of a brown bear but more like a tiger that donned the hides of both brown and polar bears.
　
Christians worshiped the New Testament, but they didn’t alter nor tamper with the Old Testament. Both Testaments were respected as sacred texts. The New may have been a revolutionary departure from the Old, but it directly sprang from the latter.
Muhammad did something far more radical. He denigrated both the Old and New Testaments as corrupted and flawed texts and rewrote the whole thing based on his visions or delusions. If the New Testament was a sequel to the Old Testament–like Godfather II is to Godfather I–, the Koran is a complete remake. It is based on elements in the Old and New Testaments, but it is not a continuation of those traditions.
　
The fact that for most of their history Jews had an easier time with Muslims than with Christians may suggest that Jews have more in common with Muslims than Christians, but the truth is far more deceptive.
Paradoxically, one could argue Jews had an easier time with Muslims precisely because Jews had less in common with Muslims than with Christians. For Muslims, Jews were simply the People of the Book who were as yet too benighted to accept the ultimate truth of the Koran. Jews could be tolerated as such.
In contrast, Christians had a much deeper emotional investment–both positive and negative–in the Jews. Jews were the killers of the Christ, yes. But, Jews were also the people through which mankind would gain salvation, redemption, and the return of Christ. Muslims hoped that Jews would convert to Islam but didn’t care much beyond that. Christians, on the other hand, had a much deeper emotional commitment in the fate of Jews. Conversion of the Jews was seen as necessary not only for Jews but for Christians since the salvation of the entire world depended on Jewish redemption. This love/hate for the Jews marked all of Christian history. Consider Martin Luther who had placed great hopes in the Jews, only to bitterly turn against them when Jews proved to be stubbornly Jewish. Familiarity breeds contempt. The most powerful passions–good and bad–exist within the family. A husband and wife or a father and son are capable of greater love or hatred of one another than a worker and a co-worker. Christians accepted the direct connection between the Old and the New Testaments, and therefore insisted that the Jews get with the program. Only the New could redeem the Old, and only the conversion of the Old could redeem the New. Muslims, on the other hand, were blithely confident in the superiority of the Koran over both the Old and the New Testaments.
Christians, in accepting the sacredness of the Old Testament, wanted Jews to accept the sacredness of the New Testament. (Something perversely similar exists in today’s politics. If old-time Christians wanted Jews to respect New Testament universalism in exchange for Christian respect for Old Testament particularism, today’s Christian Right wants Jews to support white nationalist particularism in exchange for the Right’s recognition of Jews as universal saints.) Muslims don’t much care what Jews or Christians think. Their Koran is the only truly holy book, and it’s only a matter of time before the world is converted to Islam.
　
Islam and Judaism may superficially seem similar on the outside, but Judaism has deeper connections to Christianity. It’s like English uses a lot of French words but it is really a Germanic language. It’s true that Muslims adopted a lot of superficial customs from the Jewish religion. A hairy rabbi looks more like a hairy iman than like a well-shaven and crisp looking Christian priest. And, it’s true that both Jews and Muslims go for circumcision and dietary laws.
But, we must keep in mind that Islam also incorporated a lot of local Arab customs that were alien to the Jews. And before Muhammad reformulated Allah into the monotheistic God of Ibrahim, Allah had been one of the indigenous Arab gods. Allah, in this sense, isn’t an Arab version of Yahweh/Jehovah but a remaking of an indigenous Arab deity into an imitation of the Judeo-Christian God.
　
Furthermore, Islam failed to resolve the contradictions within Judaism but only compounded their problems. And it certainly was no improvement on Christianity. The only possibly superior thing about Islam over Christianity is the greater honesty about power. ‘Turn the other cheek’ stuff just doesn’t work in this world, and indeed, even the West gained dominance through aggression and violence. For this reason, Muslims are incapable of the kind of suicidal self-loathing that has overtaken the West rooted in Christian conscience. Muslims don’t lose sleep over all the wars they’ve fought, lands they conquered, peoples they’ve forcibly converted, or the slaves that they’ve owned.
The greater emphasis on individual conscience and collective morality has made it possible for the West to make greater social and political progress, but an excess of that stuff is now leading white folks to their ruin.
　
Nevertheless, Islam wasn’t much of an improvement on Judaism or Christianity. If Christianity really did resolve a troubling contradiction within Judaism and formulated a universal faith, what original contribution did Islam make to spirituality? If anything, Islam is a muddled mess. It is both painstakingly particularist and painfully universalist. It insists that Allah is for all peoples and all cultures but then demands that all cultures and all peoples live like Arab tribes of the 7th century.
It’s like a Romanian communist insisting that it’s not enough for all peoples around the world to read Marx and practice socialism but that they must also dress, eat, sing, dance, and speak as Romanians do. Islam similarly tries to have it both ways. It tries to be Jewish, Christian, and tribal-Arab at the same time, and then puts forth this ungodly concoction as the salvation for all mankind.
It’s no wonder that Christianity had greater appeal around the world–and not only because of the rise of Western imperialism. It’s easier to convert a Chinese or African to Christianity than to Islam.
Perhaps, the features of Islam were necessary for Muhammad if he were to succeed and gain power in his lifetime. After all, Jesus got killed and his followers got hurt real bad until their religion finally took hold centuries later. For Muhammad to gain political power over the Arabs, he had to pander to their tribal ways, customs, and prejudices. He could be bold intellectually but not culturally. (Similarly, Stalin brought back Russian nationalism to win the hearts and minds of the masses who little understood Marxist theory. And Christian kingdoms and nations developed their own ethnic version of Christianity. Even so, Christianity and Marxism maintained a strict wall between theory and practice. A German Christian may have practiced a Christianity different from that of a French Christian, but neither a German Christian nor a French Christian would have mistook his national and ethno-cultural traditions for the soul of Christianity. Similarly, though Soviet communism was heavily Russian and nationalist, no Russian communist would have said communism is synonymous with Russianness. But Islam, though striving to be universal, did become synonymous with Arab culture and customs of the 7th century.) Muhammad had to flatter the Arabs that their culture–much of it anyway–was pretty cool stuff and worthy of being emulated by–or forced upon–all the other peoples of the world. A man who seeks worldly power can never be as morally or intellectually purist or consistent as Jesus and his early followers who were willing to die for their ideals. Those who are willing to kill for their ideals tend to have more compromised or muddled ideals.
　
Finally, Jews in the Christian world gained greater prominence than Jews in the Muslim world, and therefore there is a tendency to associate the Jews with the Christian West than with the Muslim Near East. Though Jews did prosper in Muslim lands, their success could only go so far since the Muslim world turned static and stagnant. A rich Jewish merchant in Syria of the 19th century was likely to have fewer possibilities than a rich Jewish banker in 19th century Europe. A Jewish scholar in the Muslim would couldn’t achieve as much as Jewish scientists in modern Europe. Of course, Jewish Emancipation coincided with the decline of Christian power in Europe, but even secular Europe could be seen as a cultural and moral outgrowth of Christian Europe.
Today, Jews own and control much of the Christian world whereas they have no power in Muslim countries. And Israel could not have been established without modern Western Imperialism which functioned as a kind of neo-Crusade in the 20th century.
Both the greatest triumphs and tragedies of the Jews happened in the Christian West. Holocaust happened in the German empire, and the Super Jew phenomenon happened in the US. Jews also committed their greatest crimes in the Christian West, especially as agents of communism–to an extent, a secularized form of Judeo-Christianism–and anti-white-ism. (Obama and the coming decline of white power in the US are largely the doings of liberal Super Jews.)
Whatever tragedies Jews suffered in the Christian and Islamic worlds, I wonder if they could have risen to such power if not for the spread of those two religions. Suppose Europe and the Middle East had remained pagan. Pagan peoples would not have seen Jews as fellow People of the Book. Christians hated the part where Jews killed and rejected Jesus, but they still regarded Jews as the Chosen People through whose salvation Jesus would return to Earth. Muslims thought the Old Testament was corrupted, but Jews were still seen as the People of the Book. Indeed, Christians treated Jews much better than they treated pagans. Jews suffered pogroms and deportations now and then, but pagans were put to death as Satan-worshipers and witches. (Pagans, not Jews, were the main victims of Christianity, and the monotheistic intolerance at the core of Christianity–and Islam–was inherited from ruthless Judaism. In that sense, Jewish culture and ideas indirectly led to oppression and deaths of countless pagans who were wiped out spiritually and even physically as Neanderthals had been wiped out be Cro-Magnons. From this perspective, neo-pagan Nazism could be seen as an indigenous European vengeance against the whole history of Judeo-Christian oppression, which would include communism.)
Jews faced discrimination in the Muslim world, but they were treated hell of lot better than the ‘infidels’–pagans who were NOT ‘of the Book–who immediately had their heads chopped off.
It’s worth wondering if there would have been such peace and stability–relatively speaking–in the West and in the Near East if not for the unifying and stabilizing force of Christianity and Islam. Indeed, Jews essentially went where the Christians went and where the Muslims went. At the very least, they were all the ‘People of the Book’. Some Jews settled in India, China, and other places, but even if tolerated, they had far less in common with the natives since non-Christians and non-Muslims had no cultural linkage to Jews or Judaism. Jews bitch and whine about white imperialism and conquest of the Americas, but could Jews have succeed in North America if it were inhabited by indigenous Native American pagan tribes than by Western Christians?

--P.V.

Why Do Western Feminists De-Emphasize Islamic Oppression of Women?

In politics the enemy of your enemy is your friend. We need to remember this if
we are to understand why Western feminism for the most part turns a blind eye
to the mistreatment of women in the Islamic world.
It isn't so much that Western feminists approve of the culture and values of
the Islamic world. It's that they see Western Patriarchal-racism-imperialism-
capitalism to be their main enemy. Though feminism developed in the West, it
was usurped by radicals whose ethnic origins were largely Jewish. Also, even
non-Jewish feminists came to take their inspiration from the Jewish ones like
Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Katha Pollitt, Martha Nussbaum, and
others. Everyone past infancy should know that most
Jews are on the Left and committed to bringing about the decline of white gentile power.
Jews are thus obsessed because Jews are smart and
talented, thus hungry for near total elite power. Since white gentiles are their only
real rivals, Jews want to weaken their power as much as possible. Jews use all sorts
of methods to undermine white power. Not only socio-economic networking
but employing the media and academia to portray white gentiles as
historically sinful and collectively stained with the evils of 'racism', 'sexism', imperialism,
and whatever-other-ism.

Jews hate Muslims too, especially in regard to Israel. However, the fact is anti-Islamism
in the West is essentially a stance taken up by the Right. Since the Right exploits
anti-Islamism as a political issue, the Left--of which feminists are a part--cannot jump
on the bandwagon. It's not so much that feminists are okay with Muslim mistreatment of women. They just can't stand the fact that the issue has become a political weapon of the Right.

Of course, the Right isn't exactly pure-hearted on this either. Rightists are not anti-Islam because they really care about Muslim women. No, the Right uses this issue to push for rightist causes. One is anti-immigrationism. By highlighting Islamic evils, Western white rightists argue
immigration from the Third World is a bad idea. Or by emphasizing how the Western
treatment of women is far superior to Muslim treatment of women, the Western Right
absolves itself of any guilt in the area of sexual inequality or repression. By pointing to
what's wrong in the Muslim world, the Western Right smugly feels superior, the implication
being that progress is no longer necessary in the West since 'we' are so much more advanced
than the Muslim 'ragheads'.
Anti-Islamism has also been used by the Right--especially neocons--to justify American foreign intervention, especially in the Middle East. Bush and neocons emphasized how much the Muslim world had to gain by having advanced Western values and ideals shoved down their throats and up their arses. Anti-Islamism, in other words, has been used to justify Western 'neo-imperialism'.

So, the Left isn't wholly unjustified in seeing anti-Islamism as a political ploy on the part of
the Western Right to push its agendas. Just consider the issue of gay politics. The Western Right opposes the gay agenda but is eager to point out that Western treatment of gays is far superior to Muslim treatment of gays. In other words, we no longer need any more progress on the gay issue since we are so much better than the Muslims. At least we don't hang gays.

This is why the Left don't want to fall into the trap of anti-Islamism. By pointing out how
backward and brutal the Muslims are, the Western Right can simply rest on its laurels and
argue that the West no longer needs progress since it is better than Muslims or whomever.
Of course, given the 'progressive' agendas proposed by the Left, I can only sympathize with
the Right for resisting 'change' cooked up by perverted gays, sicko feminists, aggressive and hateful blacks, and obnoxious illegal aliens. But, I must admit it is somewhat disingenuous
on the part of the Western Right to argue against progress solely on the basis that we
are so much better than the Muslim world. This would be defending child labor on the basis that 'at least we don't use our children for human sacrifice like other cultures do'.

Feminists agree that Muslim world is unfriendly to women, but as they live in the Western world and deal with Western rightists on a daily basis as their main enemies, they don't want
to be distracted by the issue of Muslim barbarism.
Similarly, the Western Right doesn't want to hear too much about poor needy starving Africans
since the Western Left uses that particular issue to argue for more aid to Africa, more immigration from Africa, more investment in Africa, etc.
The Western Right is very much aware of the hellish conditions in Africa but merely want to acknowledge them in order to argue against closer ties to hopeless Africa. They don't
wanted to reminded night and day about how poor Africans are so desperate and in need of our
love and compassion. The politics of compassion--whether for Muslim women or for African children--is really a weapon used by both sides. By pointing out how terrible things are in the Muslim world, the Western Right stokes Western pride and glory. By pointing out how terrible
things are in Africa, the Western Left fuels Western guilt and redemption.

Consider the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. You'd think feminists would embrace her since she's for women's freedom and liberation from the oppressive clutches of Islamic male oppression. But,
feminists have been cool to her because she's forged an alliance with elements of the Western
Right that is anti-immigrationist, anti-Third World-ist, and anti-feminist. This is all very ironic.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls for feminist rights for Islamic women but she's embraced by the anti-feminist Western Right but rejected by the feminists of the Western Left. The Western Right
embraces not Ayaan's feminism but her critique of the non-Western world. A black Muslim
women saying that the white Western world is so much better and more humane than the black/Muslim world is music to the ears of Western Rightists. But, it's poison to the ears of the Western Left and feminists. They may agree with her views on freedom for women but they cannot forgive how she has allowed herself to be 'duped' and 'exploited' by the Western Right.

Politics is really funny business.

--P. N.

The Right Must Fight with Bad Faith when It Comes to Free Speech.

The Left has several advantages on the issue of Free Speech and Hate Speech. They have a long record of fighting for free speech going back to days of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. When conservatives went after communists and fellow-travelers, leftists and liberals–many of them Jews–took a seemingly principled stand which called for absolute freedom of speech. Back in those days when white people freely expressed their hostility toward communism and called non-white people ‘niggers’, ‘kikes’, ‘chinks’, and ‘spicks’ with impunity, they didn’t fear their speech of freedom being curtailed or controlled. People who feared government control or being blacklisted were communists, fellow travelers, and trouble-making radical leftists of all kinds. Since there was no possibility of the Left taking away freedom of speech from white people(even of the far right), the most that the Left hoped for was total freedom of speech for everyone like the Constitution says in order to, at least, protect their own freedom of speech. If the Left in the 40s and 50s had called for banning ‘hate speech’ of the Right, anti-communists could have argued for banning dangerous and subversive communist or far-left speech. After all, if far-right speech should be controlled lest it lead to social harm, why shouldn’t leftist speech be controlled lest it cause similar harm? Besides, with the fall of Nazi Germany and heating up of the Cold War, America’s main enemies were on the Far Left soon after World War II.
The Left back knew they had to fight an uphill battle. So, instead of calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, they called for total freedom of speech for everyone–for Nazis and communists too, for white bigots and black bigots.

Even people who hated communists and leftists had to admit this was a principled stand, one upheld by the constitution. But, the clever Leftists knew that if you allow equal free speech to the Left and the Right, the Left would eventually come out on top since it had far more original, intelligent, brilliant, and dedicated thinkers than the Right did. Liberals far outshone conservatives in artistic, cultural, and intellectual pursuits in the modern era. And, the far left produced a number of brilliant and influential thinkers even if their ideas were ultimately wrong-headed and harmful.

The Far Right, on the other hand, was not only morally and intellectually bankrupt but associated with the unpardonable crime of the Jewish holocaust. Though communists murdered a lot of people too, they could stand proud as the vanquishers of Nazi Germany. As US had fought Far Right Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan–and had been indelibly altered by the long Liberal reign of FDR–, US was essentially placed on the liberal path even if it was anti-communist.
At any rate, there were numerous leftist and Marxist thinkers and artists of great talent in the post-war period. Though there had been talented rightist thinkers in pre-war Europe, they had vanished by the end of the war. The fall of Germany, the revelations of crimes, and etc made it difficult for anyone to be a respectable rightist intellectual or artist. Worse, those on the Hard Right in the post-war period tended to be criminal types, thugs, lunkheads, and dolts.
So, total freedom of speech for both left and right was bound to favor the left because the left made far better use of that freedom than the right. The left, populated with many intelligent Jews, wrote books, published fancy journals, directed plays and screenplays, made movies, wrote laws, etc.
The right, populated with crusty complacent wasps or ape-like rednecks, put on silly airs(like Bill Buckley) or waved the Conderate Flag and made Nazi salutes.
It was no contest. In time, the smarter and more creative Left won out over the Right in the so-called Culture War. Culture belongs to those who remember it, preserve it, and make it. You’d think the Right would at least preserve and remember their ‘proud’ culture, but your average American rightist was more into country music, silly pulp novels, and TV shows than culture. Even if Leftists waged war on tradition, they were far more likely to read the classics, think them through, discuss and dissect them, and write about them. Why is it that the English Department is run by Marxists and feminists? Partly because leftists who rule the roost favor their own kind for promotion, yes. But, the main reason is most people devoted to arts and humanities are found on the Left than on the Right.
Also, you cannot win a culture war if you don’t produce any ammo. Where are the conservative artists of note? The Right made a big deal out of Mel Gibson, but Gibson is no great artist. He’s good, and it’s nice to have him but he’s outgunned 100 to 1. And, if conservatives cannot stand Hollywood, why can’t they form their own film companies?
Leftists and liberals also tended to be more interested in journalism, a key area through which we learn about the world. For every Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak who went to journalism school, a 100 liberals and leftists majored in the field. Also, many rich liberal Jews bought up most of the media conglomerates or built them up from scratch with their brilliance, energy, and cunning.
Also, because conservatives tended to be anti-government, far more liberals entered government and took over all the bureaucracies. Instead of being for sound and clean government, conservatives were kneejerkedly for NO government. But, the fact is there will ALWAYS be government. Just as the Sunni boycott of elections in 2004 handed all the power to Shias and Kurds in Iraq, conservative animosity and defacto boycott of government handed all the levers of power in government to the liberals so that even when Republicans run the White House and Congress, all the agencies are managed and controlled by liberals who can stall, undermine, subvert, and counter everything Republicans try to do.

Anyway, in due time, Leftists and liberals won the culture war, the legal war, the social war, the media war, and took over the most powerful institutions in this country. In the 60s and early 70s, they completely triumphed over the Right on the issues of free speech. This was possible due to the consistency of their argument and logic, the aid of the liberal media and academia, and the tenacity/passion/talent of their members. Before political correctness appeared on the scene, liberals argued CONSISTENTLY(and correctly) that freedom of speech/expression meant freedom of ALL speech/expression.
When the issue of porn movies tore the country apart, liberals supported legalizing it as freedom of expression. Liberals were for the freedom of filmmakers to use greater violence on screen. Liberals were for use of foul language. Hollywood had been constrained for decades up to the early 60s by various moral groups–led by the Catholic Church–which said you couldn’t show this, you couldn’t say that. It got so ridiculous that one couldn’t even use the word ‘pregnant’ in an old Hollywood movie. A married couple had separate beds in the same room.
Of course, onne could make a compelling argument that these censorious controls kept filth out of the screen and had constructive social value. Even so, they did violate constitutional right of free speech. In the 60s and 70s, ACLU, though mainly a Jewish organization serving leftist causes, loudly supported free speech for all. In some cases, ACLU went out on a limb to defend the KKK and Neo-Nazis. (The fact that right-wing groups had to rely on the legal expertise of liberals and leftist shows you how intellectually–and financially–bankrupt the far right had become). However one may feel about them, people like Alan Dershowitz won grudging respect from all sides for their intellectual consistency. Dershowitz may be a "weasly Jew" but he stuck to what he said on the issue of free speech(though his recent derailing of Norman Finkelstein’s tenure at Depaul was a low blow of the worst sort). As the Far Right was both intellectually and financially bankrupt, it even became dependent on organizations like ACLU to defend its freedoms against local groups who were angry with the KKK’s right to light crosses or Neo-Nazis’ right to hold rallies in certain communities. So, even people who hated Jews–and denied the Holocaust or wanted to gas Jews themselves–came to rely on Jewish legal expertise to enjoy their right of extreme speech in all communities across this nation.

As time passed, with liberals and leftists(Jews prominent among them) controlling most schools and colleges, most media outlets, most popular entertainment industries, most publishing, most law firms, most radio(even conservative Talk Radio is downright slavish when it comes to Jewish/Zionist interests), and so on, it dawned on the ‘progressive’ community that it no longer needed protection of the constitution. Why would people who own and control the apparatuses of the nation need its protection?
When the left had been a pariah in the political wilderness during the early stages of the Cold War, it needed protection of the constitution. By the 80s, the left had become deeply entrenched in all the powerful institutions. Even if the 80s were the Reagan decade, the power and control of liberals(especially Jews) over institutions were near total.
Though Reagan was allowed to be anti-communist against foreign nations, he could not go after domestic communists and leftists INSIDE the US. He could only go after communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Reagan got a blessing to do this from many in the Jewish community(even among liberals) because the Soviet Union had turned anti-Jewish despite its ideological and historical roots in Jewish radicalism. By the 70s and 80s, most Jews were thinking in terms of ‘Save Soviet Jews.’ The very movement that the Jews had supported in 1917 had viciously turned on them since Stalin’s final days.
Reagan was also acceptable to the Jews for he was archly Zionist as opposed to his predecessor Jimmy Carter who angered the Jewish community by sympathizing with Palestinians and pressuring Israel to make concessions. In 1980, Reagan incredibly got nearly 40% of the Jewish vote(and lots of Jewish support in the media). Though most Jews despised Reagan on social and cultural matters, they wanted to use him to bring down the ‘antisemitic’ Soviet Union and to strengthen Israel’s hand in the Middle East. Anyway, Reagan’s anti-communism could only be aimed at enemies outside America. The Iron Rule in the media allowed the far right to be depicted as evil both abroad and in America, BUT the far left could only be shown as evil abroad. In other words, Hollywood movies could show heroic guys blowing away Nazis in Europe or mowing down subhuman ‘white supremacists’ in the US–like Clint Eastwood did in "Pink Cadillac." But, it was generally not permissible to show far leftists or communists as enemies IN America. They had to enemies abroad. Take Rambo where Sly Stallone fights Vietnamese commies and the Soviets but not commies and leftist radicals in the US. Even "First Blood" had Sly Stallone inexplicably at odds with rightwing rednecks than with leftwing reds. "Red Dawn" by John Milius took place on American soil but all the enemies were Soviet invaders. There was no American-born leftist collaborator in sight.

What was true with movies was true with Reagan politics. He could brashly attack communism abroad but he couldn’t go after leftists IN America. For any government official or big businessman to go after or denounce far leftists IN America was said to be ‘red-baiting’ or ‘McCarthyism’.
The liberal media and academia had pulled off a clever trick after the excesses of McCarthy. Though McCarthy had largely been right about the communist subversive threat, he had played his cards sloppily, drunkenly, paranoid-ly, boorishly, and stupidly. Instead of being surgical and cautious, he went the shotgun approach and hurt people whose connections to communists were dubious.
Because McCarthy came to be nationally disgraced in the most humiliating way, ALL of his ‘victims’–even real commies–were rehabilitated as innocent saints and ‘patriotic Americans’ whose constitutional rights had been violated. The liberal media and academia lost no time replaying this political soap opera narrative over and over. Though FDR had used similar means to suppress the anti-war Right and even locked up 130,000 mostly innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, the liberal media and historiography declared that US had never faced such a danger to its democratic freedom as during the McCarthy period(and again during Nixon’s Watergate scandal though it was small potatoes compared to what Woodrow Wilson and FDR had done during wartime. But what do you expect from liberals? They complain that Bush was acting like a dictator but don’t mind that Obama has become a ‘sort of god’).

It is for this reason that there has long been a double standard in American culture and politics. It’s wrong to ‘red-bait’ but it’s okay to white-bait. If you burn the American flag and attack this country from the leftist perspective, liberals defend and even praise such expressions as what America is all about–dissent and freedom of speech. But if you attack the far left or Marxists, you are said to be a paranoid McCarthyite red-baiting lunatic with no respect for free speech nor for American values of radical dissent.
According to liberals and leftists(especially among the Jewish kind), radical dissent is more truly American than conservative values. For liberals and leftist, the True America is that which the country must become in the future. The REAL America and its past are regarded as essentially negative and hypocritical. This is why 60s radicals and the KKK get different treatment in the media. Though some 60s radicals have been shown in a negative light to some degree, they are seen as essentially well-meaning, idealistic, and ‘ahead of their time.’ They are shown to be essentially good people who got overzealous and did bad. Indeed, even Jim Jones–the original Mr. Kool Aid–was partially idealized in a recent grisly PBS documentary. Though the documentary showed the murderous excesses of Jim Jones’s movement, it ended on a kind of hopeful note, as if to say Jim Jones had wonderfully utopian ideas but failed to see them through because he was sick in the head(the implication being that his rage was the product of our refusal to recognize and support the goodness of his movement and his followers).
.
In contrast, KKK people are shown to be evil incarnate. Naturally, liberals and leftists in the media and academia favor the far left over the far right even if both are deemed dangerous in the larger sense. Anyway, we saw the final culmination of this double standard in the 2008 election. Obama got off scot-free though his political origins are of the radical left and though he hung around radical lunatics like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright all his life. If McCain had such connections, he would have been shot down right away.
The rationale employed by liberals to justify this double standard has a degree of validity. Generally, we believe that those with great power should be held to greater account and responsibility than those with less power. Since whites had long discriminated against blacks and are still dominant in the politics/economics of this country, it could be argued that blacks have more of a legitimate gripe against white society than vice versa, notwithstanding the fact that in the past four decades, black crime and violence have been endemic in robbing, raping, and murdering white folks. It could also be argued that the Far Left, no matter how wacky, are closer to the letter and spirit of the US constitution than the Far Right is. Though the Far Left rejects individualism, personal liberty, and private property, it does subscribe to the notion that all people are created equal and should be treated equally in a color-blind manner. Leftists have never lived up to these principles, but as far as ideas go, it is true enough that Leftism and the US constitution agree on the universality and equality of man–though the definition of ‘equality’ isn’t uniform across the Leftist spectrum. The Far Right–whether it be the KKK or the Black Muslims–, on the other hand, reject the notion of equality of man, universality of human rights, and the brotherhood of man. The Far Right tends to be bio-realist or tribalist whether on cultural grounds or national scale. Because the Far Right is based more on animal instincts of clannishness and us-against-them, it is bound to come across as uglier, meaner, and less moral than the ‘noble ideals’ of the Left. In as much as The West has been deeply influenced by Christianity, a egalitarian and universalist doctrine, and Hellenic philosophy, which sought the universal and unifying truths across the, the Left will enjoy a moral advantage over the right at least in the ideological and intellectual sphere... unless the Right makes a powerful and effective argument for biology as the fundamental basis of our social reality and functionality.

Anyway, Leftists have arrived at a time and place where they no longer have to struggle or plead for freedom of their own speech. They control most of the levers of society determining laws, ideas, values, fashions, and trends. Since their speech can no longer be threatened, they are now looking for ways to control the speech of their enemies. But, Leftists and liberals know that they cannot do this overnight. After all, they would come across as sheer hypocrites. People would wonder how activists who’d been at the forefront of Total Free Speech in the 50s, 60s, and 70s suddenly morphed into a political force trying to control speech by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. How is it that liberal free speech activists, who used to throw fits about curtailment of speech for communists–and even aided Neo-Nazis and KKK in free speech cases to show that it supported Free Speech for EVERYBODY–, have been so silent about the erosion of free speech due to the machinations of liberals and leftists? Why aren’t members of the Free Speech Movement getting out there to fight for the free speech of ALL people, even of the radical right? It’s because the radical left is no longer threatened. The Radical Left controls all of the academia, runs Hollywood and makes movies like V for Vendetta which dehumanizes white gentile males, and control the news media. Heck, the radicals even ideologically prepared and groomed Barack Obama who is now president despite his disgusting associations. Most trial lawyers are liberal or leftist, and most legal scholars are liberal or leftist. Even most capitalists–educated by leftist professors–are socially and culturally leftist.

So, the Left is now poised to take away our free speech. But, being clever and patient, the Left will not try to enact their laws overnight. They don’t want to look like hypocrites after decades of having fought for total free speech for everyone. If they suddenly called for curtailing far right speech or ‘hate speech,’ people would realize that the Left(mainly controlled by Jews) had acted in BAD FAITH all along.
So, leftists and liberals must make it appear as though the NEW GENERATION of good decent people are DEMANDING ‘hate speech’ laws in order to create a better society. Though the older generation of liberals and leftist had called for Absolute Freedom of Speech, they instructed their own students and audiences(via popular culture) to view The Right as disgusting, evil, vile, hideous, gross, sick, demented, and etc. Though the new generations since the 70s grew up under a system of total free speech, they were emotionally and mentally conditioned to virulently and rabidly hate the White Right. By the 90s and 2000s arrived, the new generation had grown into politically indoctrinated young adults incapable of critical thinking. They were brainwashed into thinking ‘blacks, Jews, homos, and feminists are GOOD’ and ‘whites, especially white gentile males, are BAD’. They were told that EVERYTHING wrong with the world–poverty, oppression, corruption, crookedness, etc, etc–was the product of white ‘racism’, imperialism, and blah blah blah. Since young ones, indoctrinated by political correctness, are loudest in calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, the previous generation of ‘progressives’ who fought for Total Free Speech can pretend that ‘hate speech’ laws are not their doing but demands made by idealistic younger generations whose feelings we should respect. Though people like Alan Dershowitz and Ira Glasser will pretend to oppose the new censoriousness, they will only go through the motions without really putting up a fight. Indeed, almost all liberal and leftist Jews–even or especially those who had called for total freedom of speech in the past–privately want ‘hate speech’ laws. Indeed, the whole Free Speech Movement wasn’t meant as an END but only as a MEANS to bring about the real goal which is ‘hate speech’ laws so that the Left will have freedom of speech to itself while the far right and even the mainstream right will be hamstrung.

It’s a very clever trick, which goes to show that one should NEVER underestimate the brilliance of the left-wing Jews. Notice that though Alan Dershowitz and Nat Hentoff are still officially committed to Total Free Speech for all, they barely stand up to the Leftist PC Police nor to the liberal efforts seeking to institute ‘hate speech’ laws. They make just enough noises and complaints to show that they are still free speech stalwarts, but deep down inside, I’ll bet both leftist Jews are happy that The Right is poised to lose their freedom of speech–like already happened in Europe and Canada.

This is a very dangerous time for the Right. In Europe freedom has already been lost. Only violent uprising can save Europe as white people no longer have their freedom to save their own countries from social decay and foreign invasion. We still have freedom of speech in the US, but with the liberal and leftist control of institutions and shifting demographics, the white right is bound to lose their rights of free speech in the US as well.
This is why we must FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. USE BAD FAITH AGAINST BAD FAITH. You see, the Liberals are playing it both ways. By supporting extreme leftist and anti-American speech–‘dissent’–, liberals claim that they are defending total freedom of speech. After all, they are even defending the right to desecrate the American flag or to denounce the US government–as long as the hostile speech comes from the Left(radicals) or People of Color(‘underdogs’) of course.
But, Liberals also win moral points for standing up to HATE. They say that as important as free speech is, freedom of dignity is even more important. So, they take pride in opposing ‘hate speech.’ Of course, by HATE, liberals generally mean hostile speech from the White Right. In simple terms, only leftist dissent should be allowed.

Now, anyone with any integrity should plainly see that one cannot be for Total freedom of speech yet also be against ‘hate speech’. Yet, this is the game the liberals(mostly Jewish) play in utter bad faith. Remember that these are the same people who say ‘gay marriage’ is really marriage or that illegal aliens are true Americans. Liberals twist logic into a pretzel to impress people that they are for both total free speech and for ‘social justice’–by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. This isn’t a true duality but merely a form of duplicity.
More and more people are being won over to the anti-‘hate speech’ crusade since they are hooked to stuff like Oprah and have been educated by public schools and get the news from the liberal media. In their stupid minds, Hate is simply a bad evil thing, so what’s the loss if people are not allowed to express ‘hatred’? As far as they’re concerned, it’s no worse than banning smoking in a public restaurant or banning farting in public. Since there’s NOTHING of value in ‘hate speech’, why not ban it outright? It’s only removing toxins from our collective consciousness, right?
And, even those who oppose ‘hate speech’ laws are loathe to stand up openly because they don’t want to come across as condoning ‘hate’. Even if they argue that they are only for the FREEDOM of ‘hate speech’ than for the hatred per se, they still feel like secret supporters of the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

This is why Political Correctness has been so crucial and important to the Left. The Left needed to shape the hearts and minds BEFORE pushing for laws curtailing free speech. The Left had to show that the White Right is truly evil and distasteful. The Left had to make Americans feel this animus against the White Right EMOTIONALLY. So, as ‘hate speech’ laws incrementally arrive, the majority of Americans are embracing it–not intellectually but emotionally. If you can’t win over people through the head, go through the heart.
After generations of kids raised on stuff like ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Fried Green Tomatoes’, ‘Boys Don’t Cry’, and PBS documentaries on Emmit Till, it’s no wonder that so many young people FEEL that ‘hate speech’ laws are necessary. Butter the heart and the mind soon turns to mush.

Indeed, liberals(again, mostly Jews)have done the same thing with the gay agenda. Notice how all these liberal Jewish dominated publications are saying it’s time for ‘gay marriage’ since all these young people–the future majority of this country–demand it. In other words, w we need ‘gay marriage’ because of POPULAR DEMAND from fresh young people. But, who shaped and influenced all those young minds addicted to pop culture, dependent on school textbooks, and attuned to the latest fashions and trends? We know full well that liberals and leftists(good many of them Jews) control the top levers of pop culture, academia, and trend industry. So, the rising popular demand for ‘gay marriage’ is merely the product of the masses being brainwashed by the softly coercive and nudge-nudge-nudging manipulation of the liberal and leftwing Jews. Indeed, Cass Sunstein, now working in the Obama administration, even wrote a book on how to nudge, nudge, and nudge the masses toward goals favored by liberals and leftists. These super-smart leftist and liberal Jews see us as Pavlovian dogs or guinea pigs to manipulate. Dimwit goyim, at the end of day, come to believe that they are for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘hate speech’ laws from their own volition when, in fact, they’ve been gently and not-so-gently nudged, nudged, and nudged in that direction by powerful liberal and leftwing Jews who control so much of our society.

This is why need to act in bad faith and call for the curtailment of leftist speech while calling for total free speech. Not because we really believe in controlling free speech but just to drive the Left crazy like it drives us crazy. In boxing, you cannot win by defense alone. Go solely into defense mode and your opponent will just attack and attack. Sometimes, offense is the best defense. If you attack the opponent, he will be too busy covering up to punch you back(unless he happens to be a great counter-puncher); constant jabbing is the best form of defense.
In the free speech debate, the Right has long been purely on defense while the Left has been on Offense. The Left no longer need to be go on the defensive since its power is deeply entrenched in media, academia, culture, etc. Since leftists need not fear any control of their own speech, they are busy attacking the free speech of the Right. In order to divert leftist energy from their non-stop offense against our freedom, we must attack the freedom of leftist speech. We don’t want to control leftist speech; we simply want to put the left on the ropes. We simply want to beat them at their own game.

What is the leftist game? The leftist game is that ‘hate speech is not free speech’ because it may lead to violence, oppression, and hurt feelings. Leftists say that speech itself is dangerous because a hateful statement by a prominent far right figure might inspire a street-level skinhead to go out and commit acts of violence. The leftist argument is that those who inspire such hatred and violence are just as culpable. Well, we can make the same argument. After all, if Karl Marx hadn’t written the Communist Manifesto, not so many people would have been ‘inspired’ to join the radical leftist movement and commit massive crimes against humanity. Where did Che Guevera get his sick ideas? From leftist intellectuals he read in books and magazines. So, if some far right intellectual or leader must be held account for actions committed by others who may have been inspired by his words or teachings, then leftist intellectuals and leaders must be held accountable for all the violence committed by leftist revolutionaries, saboteurs, guerillas, and murderers inspired by the writings of people like Jean-Paul Sartre, Franz Fanon, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Ayers. All theories may lead to practice. If dangerous right-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous right-wing practice, then dangerous left-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous left-wing practice.

Well, we can play this same game that the Left is using against us. We can say radical leftist speech IS hate speech. Marxism is hatred for certain classes slandered as ‘exploitive’ and ‘evil’. Marxism is also hatred for religions as ‘the opiate of the masses’. It is also hatred for national cultures as ‘irrational tribalism’. Tally up the body count from the history of leftist hatred and it approaches 100 million in the 20th century. It was Marxist-Leftist hatred for the so-called bourgeoisie which led to dispossession, expulsion, and/or mass execution of people of property. It was leftist internationalism that led to mass deaths of various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Or, just consider what Chinese Marxist imperialism did to the culture of Tibet. Just look at what leftist Jewish radicalism has done to our national borders? Legal citizens in this country are routinely being robbed, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens thanks to the leftist Marxist ideological hatred of national borders and identity(especially those of white nations and peoples). The left is filled with hatred, no less than the right. If we on the Right hate certain things, ideas, and peoples, the those on the Left have their specialized hatreds. Sure, leftists claim to be for equality and universality and loving all mankind, but their formula for justice and love requires ALL OF US to conform to their demands... OR ELSE! Otherwise, you get persecuted, attacked, and even killed. Islam is universalist too. It too embraces all of humanity as its brother and sister, but Islam says everyone has to do as the Koran says; otherwise, you’re a no-good infidel. So, both Marxist and Islamic forms of universalism are conditional, coercive, hostile, and aggressive. They embrace you like a python and spare you ONLY IF you kiss their ass. It’s a kind of love that makes all the demands and tolerates no deviance. Indeed, it HATES all those who refuse to comply.
There has been an element of this in Christianity as well. Christianity also tried to spread universality all over the world and create a unified brotherhood of man. So, what’s the problem, you may ask. What’s wrong with spreading love and justice? The problem is religions or ideologies like Christianity, Islam, and Marxism assumes that it holds all the TRUTH and all other beliefs and values are lies or worse. In the name of their supposedly higher and righteous love, the followers of these faiths have felt justified in hating those who don’t comply. To be sure, Christianity, as an ideal at least(and ideals do color and shape practice), is better than Islam and Marxism because it advises persuasion than coercion to convert non-believers. Also, Christianity is anti-utopian and accepts that there can never be Heaven-on-Earth.

Anyway, we can make a powerful argument that Marxist intellectuals, academics, activists, and others are haters and that their speech should be curtailed(or they should be fined or dragged to prison)since they are espousing and spreading an ideology of hatred(of classes, nationalities, and religions).
We can also charge them of Bolshocaust Denial or Apology. If David Irving should be locked up for denying the Holocaust or apologizing for Hitler, why shouldn’t leftist intellectuals in Europe, Canada, and the US not be locked up too for having denied communist mass murders or having praised the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che? Who says only racial hatred is hatred? The Left is filled with all sorts of hatreds. Hatred for the US, hatred for national borders and identities(especially white), hatred for religions, and hatred for the supposedly ‘wrong’ classes–not just the bourgeoisie but also the peasantry. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky despised the Russian/Ukrainian peasantry, targeted farmers, took their grain, and let them starve? Why? Because communism favors the urban working class. The peasants were seen as backward and stupid animals whose only purpose was to be worked like cattle so that their blood and sweat could be stolen by the government so as to build up the proletarian class in the cities.

Leftists also say that ‘hate speech’ should be banned because it hurts people’s feelings. But, doesn’t leftist speech hurt people’s feelings? Aren’t Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Americans not emotionally hurt when they go to Western universities taught by left-wing Jewish professors who extol communism, the ideology and system that starved and killed millions of Ukrainians? How would Jewish students feel if a Nazi-sympathizing professor demeaned the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust? If Holocaust denial or apology is ‘hate speech’, then Bolshocaust denial or apology is also ‘hate speech’.
How would refugees from communism–Polish, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc—feel if they had to attend high school or college classes where some leftist professor(Jewish or brainwashed by leftist Jews) gave a lecture or passed out reading material saying that communism was a good thing or that Lenin, Stalin, or Mao weren’t so bad or even good in many ways? Wouldn’t the feelings of those students be hurt?

Of course, we are for free speech, and we don’t believe that speech should be curtailed or controlled to spare bruised feelings, BUT we’ve come to a point where many forms of speech have already been banned because they are said to be hateful and hurtful to various groups. Since political correctness is already the law, we can only fight fire with fire. We must use the same tactics. Relying purely on pure principles will not work at this time. We must fight fire with fire. We must say that leftist speech is deeply hurtful to people who, or whose relatives, suffered under communism. Just consider how Cuban-Americans must feel when leftist Jews in this country praise Castro to high heaven or when leftist Jewish PBS mis-characterizes Cubans who fled Castro as a bunch of mafia-connected hoodlums when in fact most Cuban refugees were decent people who left because of communist tyranny.

And, consider the number of white people victimized by black crime. Think of the people who’ve been robbed, looted, raped, and murdered. Think of their relatives.
Given this horrible reality, many white people are understandably hurt and offended by black speech in gangster rap and from demagogues like Al Sharpton and Henry Louis Gates. It’s bad enough to be robbed, raped, or murdered, but it’s even worse when black artists, leaders, and thinkers continue to verbally attack whites and even threaten more collective rage and violence against the white community unless we toady up to black demands. If protecting the feelings of people is so important, we should ban Rap music since it hurts the feelings of people brutalized by black behavior and crime.

Just for the satirical fun of it, we should even call for banning speech making fun of ugly people. Indeed, whose feelings would be more hurt? A Polish American who’s called a ‘Polack’ or an ugly girl who’s called ‘a disgusting ugly dog’? The dumb Polack may laugh it off but the fat ugly girl may go home and cry all night. If protecting hurt feelings is so important, then we need to ban all speech that hurts feelings. Recently, Letterman deeply hurt the feelings of the Palin family, so maybe we should call for the banning of nasty, snarky comic speech too. After all, we have to protect people’s feelings. And, how would a hard working small businessman feel if he worked all his life yet is called a ‘parasitic capitalist pig’ by leftist intellectuals? He would feel hurt and angry. So, we must ban all leftist speech that might hurt the feelings of hard working business folks.

This whole thing would be a game, but we need to play the game. The left operates in total bad faith. We know that. We know that leftist Jews are clever, brilliant, and Marx-Brothersy in running circles around us. We cannot act in good faith with those who only operate in bad faith. We must fight fire with fire. If they call for banning hateful rightist speech, we must call for banning hateful leftist speech. If they say rightist speech hurts feelings, we must say our feelings have been hurt by leftist speech.

We need to do the same with ‘affirmative action.’ If liberal and leftist Jews say white gentiles must give up their jobs to blacks and browns, we must call for affirmative action for whites whereby Jews have to give up their jobs to us. Indeed, this is how White Russians took their country back from Jewish control–through Soviet Affirmative Action which limited the Jews in top echelons of society. We need to do the same. Though we are opposed to Affirmative Action in principle, the superduper powerful Jews are saying we white folks must give up our jobs to blacks and browns. Well, well, then it’s only fair for superduper rich powerful Jews to fork over their wealth and privileged positions to us... OR ELSE!!!

Homosexuality Is Weird, Even Offensive... and No Need to 'Rationally' Explain Why.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.