An Explanatory Afterword

For readers who were wondering why comments were closed on the previous post, the following text may provide some hints. It was my answer to a commenter named “Scottish Infidel” on a recent news feed thread.

Well, McInfidel, I’ll answer a few of your points.

The problem is you have a responsibility to air all views no matter how bias you are, this is an imperative part of running a website that deals with important issues.

No, I don’t, and no, it isn’t.

My responsibility is to run this site in a manner that seems to me to serve our mission in the best way possible. No more and no less. That means I exclude anything that seems detrimental to our mission, according to my own best judgment. Neither you nor anyone else (besides my wife) gets to tell me how to run this blog.

Those readers who are satisfied with the way we run it contribute their hard-earned money to enable us to keep it alive. Those who don’t save their money for what they consider a more worthwhile cause. Or, better yet, they get disgusted with my high-handed ways and go somewhere else.

I don’t know you personally and have nothing against you personally, though I can say I am not happy with the fact that if you plainly disagree with what someone says you shall fail to publish it.

You obviously haven’t been paying attention, or you’d have noticed that I approve innumerable comments I don’t agree with — including many of your own.

It’s not whether I agree with them, it’s whether I consider them detrimental to the value of this site. If I do, then out they go. It doesn’t disturb me in the slightest if I am “biased”, engaging in “censorship”, or committing any of the other offenses imputed to me by irate commenters whose words have been deleted.

After what I’ve been through over the past six years running this enterprise, such matters are of no consequence to me.

Everyone has something to bring to the table on here, denying them their points of view is basically the same as what the government agencies and MSM etc are doing across the globe .

I most definitely am not doing what the government does, since this is a private enterprise. I’m like the barman at the Rose & Crown — when I see a patron staggering around and getting belligerent, I say, “Looks like you’ve had enough, laddie! Out wi’ ye!” Then I pick him up by his virtual collar and belt and pitch him down the front steps onto the rain-soaked cobbles, with no right of appeal.

As for the MSM — they are biased in one direction, and I’m biased in the opposite direction. Big deal. I don’t care.

As soon as Zionism is mentioned it seems you clam up and don’t want to know, I have nothing against the Jewish peoples, though there is people in that faith who practice supremacy and even hate against non Jewish peoples, white gentiles call them what you may?

You’re damned right I don’t want to know! I can’t tell you how sick I am of the endless antagonistic blah-blah about Zionism and those perfidious Jooooos. I’ve heard it all before, ten thousand times over.

When I post something I consider important that breaks new ground — say, for example, the al-Shabaab connection with the building in Minneapolis that blew up — it gets about six comments. But if a post mentions the word “Jews”, the Zionist-obsessed commenters kick off immediately and continue, comment after comment, drooling down the page for days or even weeks, sometimes a hundred or more of them, fifty or sixty thousand words of the same old schist, repeated over and over again, ad nauseam.

I know it all by heart. I could write it out in advance myself. Everybody knows it; we’ve all heard it before. And except for the Jew-obsessed, everyone is heartily sick of it.

That’s why I start deleting those comments. There’s only so much of it I can take. Not only that, it ruins the comment thread for those who would prefer to discuss something else.

Comments are open here, but I’m in no mood to tolerate another one of those interminable threads about the Jooooos.

People are entitled to be obsessed with the Jews. They’re even free to talk about their obsession, at any length they choose, without hindrance. But not here. This is our living room, not a public space. The topic is no longer acceptable here.

Take it to your own blog, and hold forth there to your heart’s content. Or join in the discussion in one of those Internet forums where people share your preoccupations. There are thousands of them out there. They’d love to have you.

66 thoughts on “An Explanatory Afterword

  1. It never fails to amaze me the extent to which people conflate private and public spaces. GoV is a private space and the proprietors set the rules. Always glad for feedback from readers but the ultimate decision is ours…cuz y’all won’t be around when the Speech Police show up banging on the door.

    You’d think *anyone* from the USSK would understand how that works. Remember the pub owner – Yorkshire maybe? – who was closed for simply posting something in his establishment? The details have disappeared but not the horror of the shutdown.

    The US and the UK are in a race to the bottom. Hope y’all get there first: ’twill make for a softer landing for us. OTOH, you will have the advantage of our bodies covering yours as the bayonets come out…ah me.

    • Heartily endorse your comments & the Baron’s. I suspect I won’t like the answer, but what’s “USSK” ?

      • “USSK” is United Soviet Socialist Kingdom.

        It similar the the unlamented by the sane Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Canada.

  2. Baron D: be ‘biased’ for rationality, show the good, head towards the Light; we the passive, silent, brow-beaten, normal, civilised MAJORITY of the Anglosphere have no
    truck with anti-Semitism – and what’s more, even less with Islamo-fascism.

    Hate the Creed, Not The Person.

    • Oh how I wish that were the case, JJ. Jews have left England because of their experience of Jew-hatred; they wanted their children to live free of it. The virus is particularly widespread around colleges – pardon me, “universities”. And, of course, in Muslim no-go areas.

      I know one secular Jew in Canada who is considering converting to a Christian faith. He plans to be a lapsed Catholic. I’ll have to teach him his way ’round a rosary – which bead for which prayer – and give him a few choice Catholic phrases. “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!” is usually a dead giveaway for an R.C. Maybe I’ll buy him a Liturgical Calendar so he can familiarize himself with the greater and lesser feasts, and why what colors are worn when, not to mention Rogation Days and the number of days between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. Oh, and how to calculate Easter Sunday, too. Western Christianity’s only lunar feast day.

      He’ll make a great lapsed Catholic since he won’t need to know much of the Bible. That’s changed for the younger ones now but he can be a long-ago, very long ago, lapsed altar boy- just a few Latin phrases and he’s in like Flynn. Good thing,too, since so many of his neighbors belong to the Religion of Peace.

      • “He’ll make a great lapsed Catholic since he won’t need to know much of the Bible.”


      • Maybe a small copy of the lives of the saints too? Or a book on the North American martyrs? Rogation days are only necessary if he lapsed before VII. He could have a devotion to Sr. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, frequently referred to by her birth name of Edith Stein.

  3. Bless you, brother Baron: it’s a tough job, and I’m so very glad you’re willing to do it.

  4. Good on you Baron. The Scottish Infidel deserved that. Maybe he will go back to Loonwatch or the SWP.

    • The trajectory of UK politics is towards a form of national socialism – the abyss at the end of the neoliberal rainbow.

    • I don’t care where the jackboot brigade go, so long as they go somewhere else. Maybe the fellow in question could do the whole world a favour and go marching straight into the North Sea. It looks especially cold and grey today.

    • Hey Peter, for every comment attacking me, there is easily 1oo million of the silent majority who support me.

      And how dare you people brand me a Nazi. Pffft Aye Scottish Nazi, theres a good 1.

      • Scottish Infidel, you are uninformed. The SWP – Socialist Workers Party – is an anarcho trotskyite group of raving communists who seek to promote continuous and total revolution. Loonwatch appears to be a leftist website – a long way to the left of anything sensible – that hates this website. In either case, no nazis here.

  5. Your site, your rules. I admire the work you’re doing in fighting the Third-Worldification of the West. I admire MC’s intelligence too and the way he recognizes Islam for what it is. But he has a big blind spot and Islam did not establish itself so strongly in the West because Muslims have high IQs and lots of verbal skill.

  6. Thank You, Baron, for the work you are doing. Just a few years ago I was at sleep, and like so many others I knew nothing about the islamic takeover. But now, thanks to you and other defenders of our freedom, I am finally awake. I’ts like a vail has been lifted from my eyes and I can finally see what is happening around me. Orwell wrote “It takes a lot of hard work to see what’s right before your eyes.”

  7. Dear Baron and Dymphna,

    They are your “Gates” and I respect how you keep them.

    PS I agree with MC’s article on The Protocols of the Princes of Saudia.

  8. My posts have always been approved but I’m not sure if that will be the case much longer. The reason I enjoy GoV is partly due to its censorship policy, something I despise elsewhere, but GoV fills in a small niche where the quality of the comments is the main priority.

    But, this doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that Jews historically have formed the vanguard of all antieuropean movements. Even Jews on the right usually disapprove of those protecting a European Identity while promoting a Jewish ethnostate. I’m fine with them approving of Israel, I’m not fine with them attacking Europeans who want to protect their own people. Somehow, we consider Europeans morally inferior to Jews, as Europeans are capable of building a Nazi army but Jews would never ever build movements which aggressively deny equal rights to Europeans. In my eyes this is bigotry and doesn’t help Jewish-European relations in the long run. This is also the reason we have a very one sided view of ‘antisemitism’ during the inquisition, of Germany in the 19th and 20th century and of European history in general.

    The only reason we often hear about the long tradition of Christian antisemitism is because we only hear one side of the story. I side with Winston Churchill and Chesterton who recognized the Jewish problem but equally fought against the Nazi regime which overreacted against serious problems between internationally minded Jews and Germans.

    Recently Cheradenine Zakalwe from the Islamversuseurope blog changed his position on Jewish matters exactly because of the unwillingness of Jews to deny a fair hearing on the history of Jewish-european relations and to sign single blame to white Europeans for ethnic conflict between both parties. I agree with him.

    Apparently this makes me an antisemite, which is just as absurd as claiming a Jew is a bigot for pointing out neo-nazism.

    The lack of selfcriticism amongst Jews will cause the right to move to a more irrational distaste of Jews in the long run, unfortunately they distrust Europeans to the point they don’t dare to discuss both sides of the feud. I’m all for peaceful relations with the Jewish people and I happily support them but until they recognize Kevin MacDonald has a point and they are not the infallible beings they claim to be(just like Europeans are not)while viewing every European with a suspicious eye, things will continue to go down south.

    I have long defended Israel and European Jews from Muslim antisemitism, but I will cease to spend time and energy for those who don’t consider me equal until something changes in the Jewish community.

    • Oz —

      Your comment is an example of a reasonable approach to this topic.

      What annoys me about all this is that there are real, important issues concerning the overwhelmingly socialist and multicultural-minded Jewish diaspora. These things ought to be discussed. But if one tries, one gets hit from one side by Jews crying “anti-Semitism!”, and from the other by the Jew-obsessed white nationalists who blame everything on the Jews and can’t talk about anything else.

      “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” — Sir Winston Churchill

      Jews in the diaspora are (on a per-capita statistical basis) far, far more likely to push the multiculti ideology than gentiles. There are probably discernible cultural and historical reasons for this tendency that could be investigated. But we can’t have a reasonable conversation about it; it simply isn’t possible.

      Sometimes I despair!

      • Thanks for your reply. I agree that the problem is that you are caught between two fires. The National Socialists, tend to have some points but they turn those points into an obsession and they are hard to argue with, they tend to see a Jew behind every tree and consider everyone part of the agenda.

        But there are multiple agenda’s which has led to our demise, the elite of the babyboomer European/Americans, American Blacks, the Muslims, the (former)Soviets, multinational corporations, Eurocrats are now all working in unison to finish off the remains of European culture. I would definitely say Jewish intellectuals and financiers initially developed the infrastructure for this pluralistic assault on Western society both out of “irrational”* and understandable reasons, but in many places Jews are now the victims of this system themselves, such as in France and Sweden where the Jew is sacrificed to appease the Arab. I see both possibilities and problems for solving a slumbering conflict between Europeans(excluding the left) and Jews. The fact that this occurs is simply human nature and difficult to avoid, in times of despair we are programmed to gravitate towards our own tribe, we forgive our own radicals for fear of the radicals on other side, and sometimes, perhaps even often in the history of ethnic conflict this is at that moment the only choice.

        A note on history:I personally believe the ethnic conflict between Germans and Jews was not as one sided as is claimed today, and it resembled ethnic conflicts which can be found in every nation and culture . Its both something we need to learn from to solve current and future conflicts(mostly by understanding how ethnic identity influences political behaviour ), and to rehabilitate European History, as the way we currently view it encourages the shame which enables political correctness. I’m tired of looking at European history like its nothing more then a long process of racism and anti-semitism until European culture was redeemed by the defeat of Hitler and the subsequent birth of Multiculturalism, as is the popular narrative pushed by the elite amongst the babyboomer generation.

        For all of this, I would never reject a Mark Levin or even Horowitz (who is influenced by his identity)simply because of their background, or consider them no different from a Barbara Spectre. That is unforgiving, immoral even when thinking about someone like Geller working tirelessly for an admirable cause,it takes it too far and in the long run destroys all possibilities for diplomacy.

        * I consider all forms of ethnic conflict to be a natural evolutionary response, and that this stems from a process which can override our intellectually universalistic worldviews under economic or political pressure.

        • “…Jewish intellectuals and financiers initially developed the infrastructure for this pluralistic assault on Western society….”

          This statement makes it sound as though the history is settled whereas it is still progressing….

    • “Even Jews on the right usually disapprove of those protecting a European Identity while promoting a Jewish ethnostate.”

      Where did you get this idea? Part of being on the right is to uphold the idea of the importance of sovereign states. And you are absolutely wrong about this; most Jews on the right absolutely want to protect national identity. For example, prior to the Nazis, most German Jews considered themselves to be good Germans. And that is why so many did not leave Germany in time to escape the Holocaust; they couldn’t believe that Germany would do to them what it did.

      It’s too bad that so many Jews today are in the multicultural camp. I think that they feel that that is the only way to have a safe world for all. They are, of course, mistaken and–like most Westerners–naive in the extreme about this. Who was it who said we are always fighting the last war rather than the current one?

      • As a European, I support European Americans who wish to maintain maintain a democratic profile where whites are the majority. I consider this especially important because only under a white majority I believe this is the only possibility of steering clear from ethnic conflict. As soon as Blacks reach 20% of US citizens, hispanics, blacks and whites are destined for a extremely difficult future. Its difficult to find right wing Jews who support this notion, although, you can say the same thing about right wing whites.

        The point is quite easy to get, although I disagree on many points with Kevin Macdonald, especially his stance on the Israeli-Arab conflict, his work covering how Jewish neo-cons are influenced by their political identity is quite thorough and I believe difficult to dispute. On the analysis I agree, on the conclusions I differ.

      • I think it goes beyond that; most PC MCs are true believers, with starry eyes and rose-colored glasses truly believing in their hearts that they are on the side of the angels, and in various ways stroking their ethical narcissism by embracing the Kumbaya world (which, perforce, means indulging in morbid self-criticism about one’s West). I don’t see why Jews who are PC MCs would be appreciably different in this regard than any other PC MCs.

        And remember that for Hesperado, PC MCs are not synonymous with “Leftists”. A crucial distinction.

        • Because only Whites live under the constant fear of being called a racist,only whites consider themselves the progeny of a uniquely evil history. Jews are not under the same pressures and therefore have different interests. Also, Jews have a homeland waiting in the middle-east, their interest in maintaining the status quo is less then that of American whites.

          And as I stated before, they usually refuse the idea that America should remain majority white as they don’t consider themselves part of the same group, even though this is the only way major ethnic conflicts can be prevented.

          • “And as I stated before, they usually refuse the idea that America should remain majority white as they don’t consider themselves part of the same group,”

            Wrong. Most American Jews have been shocked at one or another point in their lives to find that many people–you included obviously–do not consider them to be “white.” They react to that. I guess it’s hard for you to forgive them for that.

            Just as Europe may never forgive the Jews for the Holocaust.

            And, by the way, most Europeans can’t forgive the United States for saving them in two world wars.

            We’re not talking about moral superiority or inferiority here. These are just some of the more unlovely aspects of human nature.

          • I never met a Jew personally who considers himself no different from European whites. Israel is considering performing DNA tests to find out who is eligible for citizenship, the reason they are able to do this is because Jews have a different genetic profile as Europeans.

            There is an abundance of records of statements from Jewish leaders who state exactly what I say as historically they considered themselves a distinct people.

            The Jews you refer to must have detached themselves from the diaspora or were raised in a household where this is not the case, or, they are simply independent thinkers.

            The Jewish intellectuals I discussed earlier, those who designed “political correctness” as it is practised today, didn’t consider themselves equal to Europeans. Freud did not, Marcuse did not, even Einstein considered himself ethnically Jewish. I’m fine with one day absorbing the Jewish community in the European community as has been tried before unsuccessfully, but to claim most Jews consider themselves no different from Europeans is simply false.

            That would render the word “antisemitism” as it is applied today, void. “Antisemitism” isn’t considered religious hatred, it is considered ethnic hatred because Jews consider themselves a separate ethnic group.

          • After a little adjustment to your argument (reframing your curious distinction between Whites and Jews by defining Jews for this purpose as a subset of Whites), you may have had a point several decades ago; but an interesting phenomenon has been crystallizing throughout the West (and indeed the Westernizing world): a vilification of Israel, which spills over into an amorphous anti-Semitism. This particular phenomenon I am referring to is not directly relevant to anti-Semitism in its historical career, but to the depiction of Israel as an “Apartheid” nation “oppressing” the poor “Palestinians”. When we factor in the fact that “Palestinians” — and by extension Muslims — are seen by PC MC as an aggrieved Ethnic Minority, and that their oppressors are in the minds of the PC MCs sufficiently of the West to be bundled in with the West, we have a recipe for the overwhelming result that has gained sociopolitical dominance throughout the West (and the world) in the last few decades: to wit, that Jews have become “Honorary Whites” in the sense that they are ever the Offenders, and those they oppose ever the Victims of crimes seen by PC MC as uniquely white Western: “Apartheid”, “racism”, etc.

          • Its easy to notice the strong Israel-hatred amongst liberal Jews. In my view they consider themselves part of the multicultural model which they adopted. Many of them also further the myth that Israel suffers from the aftermath of the holocaust which they believe to be the the cause of the ”oppression of the Palestinians”. Dutch television even aired documentaries claiming the trauma of the camps has caused Israel to emulate the behavior of the German camp guards, its an incredibly widespread myth. While editing my post I recall my aunt claiming the holocaust ‘ turned Israelis into their Nazi campguards’ which is why Palestinians suffer. She was fully convinced, obviously I disagreed on all accounts. This myth has clearly been designed to claim Israel’s behaviour is ”unjewish” either in a gentile attempt to sidestep accusations of antisemitism or by anti-Israel Jews as a sign of Jewish identity. I don’t know who promoted this myth and therefore cannot judge.

          • Actually, Oz, I read about it tonight on a Jewish site by Jewish authors. Fascinating stuff!

            It appears that some Jewish people (in Israel and abroad) are sick at heart about how Israel treats and has treated Palestinians.

            No matter how anyone feels about the matter, the following Jewish site is worth a read while remembering the following quotation by Golda Meir.

            “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
            ― Golda Meir


      • Thank you.As I said earlier, I have discussed every issue imaginable on GoV and never got blocked. I find the National Socialist approach to these matters not only clumsy, it always seems their hatred of Jews is valued more amongst such crowds then the future of Europeans.

  9. Is not Dracula a sublimated sketch of an eastern European “Media Type”?

    Michael Howard MP copped that particular association.

    This is both a reply to MCInSiderot and this thread.

  10. For websites that include comments sections (or, better yet, thriving discussion forums), and among those, those that deal responsibly with the problem of Islam (and its corollary problem, the problem of Western myopia to the problem of Islam), there should exist out there at least one prominent one that simply permits all comments no matter what.

    In addition, my tendency and druthers are always to lean toward more freedom in this regard rather than less; and so I see any limitations on that administered by administrators of blogs or sites as a mark of inferiority. Any site owner certainly has the right to limit free speech any way he wants to; but that doesn’t make it right.

    • Hesperado —

      I share your preference for free speech, utterly unimpeded. I’m very much in sympathy.

      However, I have learned the hard way that following such a policy leads to comment threads of two hundred or more comments that are almost entirely about the Jews, the Zionist conspiracy, the secret cabal behind everything, etc., etc. On and on, some of them thousands of words long, the same arguments repeated over and over again, interspersed by valiant but futile attempts by normal people (both Jews and Gentiles) to inject some common sense into the discussion.

      I find such threads absolutely useless. I don’t see that they serve any worthwhile purpose for anyone. And they poison the discussion forum, driving away reasonable people who might otherwise be moved to comment.

      It’s not only the topic of the Jews that causes this eruption of madness. Other topics include Russia, homosexuality, abortion, and atheism vs. Christianity.

      That last one can get as bad as the Jewish threads. Atheists being nasty to Christians, Christians getting nasty and/or self-righteous back at them, on and on until the Last Trump or an EMP takes the grid down.

      Sometimes this argument gets mixed with the Jewish one, so that you get a three-cornered fight, atheists vs. Jews vs. Christians in all possible permutations. That may be the worst case of all.

      I hate this sort of madness, and I won’t enable it.

      • I understand your position. Aside from my predilection for free speech, another factor influencing my view stems from my understanding (which may be faulty) that in an Internet discussion forum or comments section, the number and length of comments has zero physical effect on the website itself, and although the way you have it set up (similarly at Jihad Watch) when a reader clicks on the article to read more, it automatically includes at the end the comments, even this would not physically impinge on a reader who simply wanted to read the article at the top of his page and then, after peering down his spectacles at the 200 comments below, and noting on a breezy scroll they didn’t suit his fancy, ignored them and clicked back to see the other articles on the main page.

        I.e., given that massively burgeoning comments don’t structurally or aesthetically interfere with a reader who wishes to ignore them, nor technically drain the website itself, I don’t see a real reason to censor. The only argument I could think of is that if there are useful and interesting comments in a comments field, they might become harder to find for readers perusing if there were dozens or scores of deranged comments around them. I suppose that’s a matter of whether or not the reader is talented, as I am, in navigating among a sea of comments like the eagle-eyed skipper of a speedboat…

        • We live in a world with deep-pocketed antagonists who like to play games with those they perceive to be the enemy. I got a full frontal faceful of that several times, but especially during Breivik. So for my sake, if not for his own discretion, the Baron will continue to wield his scalpel.

          It ain’t about aesthetics. Nor do I any longer care about “useful interesting comments” beyond their sell-by date, which is usually a week to ten days or so past their posting. That said, sometimes a comment is so good it becomes a post in its own right.

          We have a good group of commenters and we have a few clinkers. But that’s just how it is.

          BTW, I remember a few years ago when a frequent commenter here went over to your site and tried to play “Let’s You and Him Fight” using you and the Baron as the would-be match. You declined to participate. I was impressed. Still am.

          • that’s strange. Your own obsession re the Jews is similar to that of one of my relatives. I find the constant JooJooJoo choochoo to be off the track. So mostly I leave the room. Been there, done that, for twenty years before GoV and the conversation is exactly the same. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz

          • I wonder whatever became of that guy. There are so many bones from the past I keep stumbling over in the Google Graveyard. (Some of them may well have faked their death, now strutting around in various forums in the plaid sports coat and plastic surgery of a new nickname.)

          • Hey, Hesp, I just assumed that Dymphna meant me since I like to comment on your site. Egghead is the only nickname that I remember using – although other people use the nickname Egghead in other forums. 🙂

        • Hi Dymphna, ‘Jew obsession’ as you so aptly term it cuts BOTH ways – many non-Jews are obsessed for Jews and many are obsessed against Jews – and neither side allows a middle ground where everyone in the middle – including Jews with non-scripted opinions! – can discuss (without being reflexively called anti-Semitic or Nazi) the past and present actions of Jews (religious or racial) who have used their exceptional intelligence to leverage their immense wealth with the purpose and result to gain significant influence on the future of Western civilization.

          As for me, I am TRUTH obsessed, and the TRUTH leads to the stinky barn that is far from the warm fuzzy duckling of propaganda FUNDED by those who have much to gain by controlling the future of Western civilization.

          If I can question the role of Muslims, then I can question the role of Jews. I question the role of EVERYONE – even self-loathing Christians who have devolved into a swamp of moral turpitude which must outrage the triune God in heaven.

          The mere act of anyone QUESTIONING is WHY it was CRITICAL that David Horowitz pull out all of the stops to malign Diana West – because the heir apparent leftist son David Horowitz (whose story about WHY he left the left is questionable – namely, he was afraid of the black people that he himself had helped to empower) – anyway, David Horowitz knew that if we can question the Communist infiltration of the USA, then we are likely to keep digging and question WHO was behind the infiltration and WHAT was the goal of the infiltration – and that the presumably uncomfortable answers might literally endanger the lives of some of his allegedly ‘former’ fellow travelers.


          Horowitz’s version:

          • So, Horowitz omitted to warn his friend Betty about the murderous Black Panthers who (allegedly) ultimately murdered Betty. Given his confession, can we rely on Horowitz to warn us about Communists – or the people implementing Communism – and, rest assured, as the allegedly ‘former’ leftist heir apparent, Horowitz personally knows a lot of Communists….

            “There was another reason I did not express my growing fears to Betty. The more fear I had the more I realized that it would not be okay for me to voice such criticism, having been so close to the operation. To badmouth the Party would be tantamount to treason. I had a wife and four children, who lived in neighboring Berkeley, and I would not be able to protect them or myself from Elaine’s wrath.

            “There were other considerations in my silence, too. What I had seen at the funeral, what I knew from hearsay and from the press were only blips on a radar screen that was highly personal, dependent on my own experience to read. I had begun to know the Panther reality, at least enough to have a healthy fear of Elaine. But how could I convey this knowledge to someone who had not been privy to the same things I had? How could I do it in such a way that they would believe me and not endanger me? Before fleeing, my Panther friends had tried to warn me about Huey through similar signs, and I had failed to understand. My ignorance was dangerous to them and to myself. Finally, only the police had ever accused the Panthers of actual crimes. Everyone I knew and respected on the left — and beyond the left — regarded the police allegations against the Panthers as malicious libels by a racist power structure bent on holding down and eliminating militant black leadership. It was one of the most powerful liberal myths of the times.”

            “But I was still unable to write or make public what I had come to know about the Party and its role in Betty’s murder. I had given some of the information a courageous story for the magazine New Times. It was called “The Party’s Over” and helped speed the Panther decline. But I could not be a witness myself. I was no longer worried about being denounced as a racist or government agent by my friends on the Left if I accused the Panthers of murdering Betty. (Such a possibility would seem far more plausible after the recent events). Nor would I have cared so much now about attacks from the Left. During the five years since Betty’s death, my own politics had begun to change. But there remained a residue of physical fear. Huey was alive in Oakland, and armed, and obviously crazy, and dangerous. I now realized how powerless the “law” in fact was. Huey seemed untouchable.”

            “The existence of a Murder Incorporated in the heart of the American Left is something the Left really doesn’t want to know or think about. Such knowledge would refute its most cherished self-understandings and beliefs. It would undermine the sense of righteous indignation that is the crucial starting point of a progressive attitude. It would explode the myths on which the attitude depends.”

            Read the entire piece, and then ask yourself WHO funds and controls the agenda of the Democrat Party and to what end?

            The question hangs in the air….

  11. “I’m fine with one day absorbing the Jewish community in the European community as has been tried before unsuccessfully”

    German Jews, prior to the Nazi takeover, considered themselves to be good Germans. Many fought for their country in WWI. They were patriotic. They were well-assimilated—or so they thought. That’s why so many did not escape in time. They simply could not believe that their country and fellow countrymen would seek to annihilate them.

    We really need to get over this tendency to blame the victim.

    • P.S. When prejudice against them is low or absent, Jews tend to intermarry and assimilate into the larger community. It is the prejudice and persecution which–to a large degree–makes them hold themselves more separate. Then this is held against them!

      In the city in which I was raised I remember that Jews could not join the local country club. So they formed their own. And then they were criticized for being “clannish.”

      You must understand that the Holocaust is seared into Jews’ consciousness. And some of the older ones can remember grandparents talking about Russian pogroms. And so, in my opinion, many will gravitate to any political ideology which promises security, even if it is a false security. And please don’t tell me that this means that their interests are not the same as the interests of the “white” community–unless you think that murderous attacks are in the interests of the larger community.

      • P.P.S. One more thing. It is really such a pity that so many American Jews are currently in the multi-culti camp because, in many respects, they are model citizens. For example, Jews give more to charities in the U.S., by a large margin, than any other religious group (with the possible exception of Mormons who are tithed). And these charities don’t just serve Jews but serve the larger community.

        • To your PPS:
          They have been in the multicultural camp since it was founded. I agree they are model citizens outside of political affairs.

      • The first paragraph is partly true, many Jewish organizations have vigorously fought against assimilation till recently, you are right that they are not as successfull as before. But there were other periods during European history when ‘prejudice’ was low and they still intermarried. This has been one of the causes of ‘antisemitism’ both in Germany and in Spain where they did have possibilities to intermarry but did not.

        The fact that the holocaust is seared into Jewish consciousness does cause them to have different interests. Your definition of political interest is too narrow.

        PS: In what parts of the ‘long history of European antisemitism’ do you assign blame to the Jews?

        • Absolute untrue!
          There are about 20% non jews in Israel and of course they do marry and have families.

        • I think your assertion is inaccurate, Muslims can get married here, but non-Jews cannot have a Jewish wedding.

          But that is a decision taken by the Rabbinate not the Jewish State of Israel.

          If the Christian authorities wanted to go to the effort, they too could well get that same authority, but they have not done so yet, there is no civil marriage here but there is a possibility that it may happen as it is being discussed.

          Israel is 65 years old, much of its law is still Ottoman and British Mandate, and civil marriage has only been before the Knesset for a short time, it has not got too much legislative priority in a state at war.

    • I know many Turks who consider themselves Good Dutch Citizens, but they have a different concept of ‘dutch citizen’ then I do. They refer to the multicultural model of the Netherlands, with a different conceptualization of what it means to be Dutch. Your identity determines to a great extent you conceptualize citizenship. I have no doubt that nearly all Jewish citizens were decent, honourable citizenship, little different from the Germans in this regard*. But I believe the ‘good German’ part was only true to an extent, there existed a great divide amongst Jews, and as many early Zionists testified, it was exactly because Jews held different views and had different interests then ‘native German’s. I also wonder to what extent this idea is part of post ww2 dramatization for mostly legitimate political reasons, as you may agree this did occur.

      You really ought to read Kevin MacDonald’s works, there might even be a PDF floating around the web. As soon as you find me Jews who are willing to recognize that ethnic conflicts prior to the world war, and especially nearing the end of the 19th century had two guilty parties instead of assigning all the blame to the Germans, or Eastern Europeans for that matter, consider those the Jews I want to work with. Jewish identity in my opinion will prevent many of them to do so,proving my point.

      But, I will gladly be proven wrong as isee that is an important step in healing certain issues which prevent us currently from tackling the PC regime effectively.

      *Do you agree, and why/not?

      • People that say jews are on the multicult side becouse of bad memories of the past:
        There are two kind of jews: religious and secular.
        In general the secular are the lefties and multicult because!!! they gave their back to the past. They very much want to be part of the society ,accepted and approved.
        Thats the irony.
        The religious in general don’t mix with others and just want to be left alone. In America most of them are right wings. In Europa I don’t know. Obviously their interest is to live in a place were the “other” is accepted, when the “other” is them, but they don’t participate in the idiological issue of creating a better society and all that. They also have a religious obligation to respect the country they live.

  12. You would really have to give more specifics I think before I could either agree or disagree. I have read too many of these vague allegations of differences between communities when speaking of Jews. For example, Muslim assaults on Jews are not a matter of “conflicts between communities;” they are assaults upon Jews.

    Takuan Seiyo has spoken to McDonald’s work on GoV. I almost always agree with Takuan.

    Like Noam Chomsky, McDonald apparently marshals only those facts which support his point of view and ignores the others. Which means the picture he paints is distorted. Both McDonald and Chomsky have made names for themselves in academe. Frankly I don’t have the time or the inclination to delve into these particular swamps. I’m not retired and I don’t have time on my hands.

    Speaking of Zionism, French anti-semitism is directly reponsible for the creation of modern Zionism. After the Dreyful Affair (when a French officer who was Jewish was accused of a crime, unleashing a wave of French antisemitism and attacks upon Jews) one Jew, Theodore Herzl, concluded that Jews would never be safe and secure until and unless they had a country of their own. This movement led directly to the founding of Israel.

    And this speaks to my point: it is the antisemitism that drives Jews away from assimilation.

    And by the way, that minority of Jews who really want to keep their separateness, the Orthodox, generally trend conservative in their politics.

    So factor that into your assessment.

  13. p.s. Re Orthodox Jews voting conservative in the U.S., I haven’t asked any but I presume that is because they put their trust in God rather than government.

  14. You simply describe story as it is past on by tainted sources, no different from lies about the crusades or inquisition.But I see you are one to assign single blame to Europeans, the old story of one group which consists of Jewish victims, and another group which consists of frothing at the mouth Europeans. I find this just as offensive as If would assign all blame to Jewish Europeans, and it is just as counterfactual.

    French antagonism against the Jews didn’t start over the Dreyfuss affair, it started hundreds of years before as Jews where used to collect taxes in the name of the rulers and had little sympathy for the gentiles.

    As long as such patently false narrative is pushed I will not lend a single hand to the Israel debate as I have done for years, I refuse to assist those who consider Europeans beneath them. Anyone who judged over a 1000 years of conflict and finds one guilty party cannot possibly be labeled unbiased.

    I do consider Muslim attacks on Jews as a conflict between communities as Jews are attacked for being part of that community. If a Jew dresses up like a Muslim and becomes a Muslim radical the likelihood of him being attacked will decrease.

  15. One has to hand it to all the armchair Israel critics, they know so much more than I do about the workings here.

    Like Belgium, Israel is an artificial country, born out of conflict and with disparate communities. The Israeli Arab populations are represented at the highest levels, their religions; Muslim, Christian, Druze and others are all protected.

    The problem comes when one tries to apply European/US standards to a state which is just 65 years old and only emerged from the under the Islamic yolk less than 100 years ago. Belgium dates from the early 19th century and still has major ethnicity issues.

    Many of Israel’s problems today stem from a period of about 20 years in the 30s and 40s when ‘mandate Palestine’ had open borders (to all but Jews). The Jews of the second and third aliyahs had created prosperity in a land that was dead and almost empty. This attracted Arab immigration from surrounding states which the British allowed. Immigration of Jews was strictly limited, but there was an amount of illegal immigration organized by the Jewish underground.

    Those who are interested in TRUTH should read “From Time Immemorial” by Joan Peters.

  16. “But I see you are one to assign single blame to Europeans, the old story of one group which consists of Jewish victims, and another group which consists of frothing at the mouth Europeans.”

    Nonsense. I’m doing no such thing. That is just in your imagination. I made it clear in an earlier post that I’m “blaming” some of the unlovely aspects of human nature. On the other hand, I’m not interested in asserting false equivilencies, e.g., that Islam is just another religion like Christianity or Judaism, or that Jews are just as much to blame for their persecution as the non-Jews.

    “I do consider Muslim attacks on Jews as a conflict between communities as Jews are attacked for being part of that community.”

    I was specifically referring to Muslim attacks upon Jews in Europe which are occuring with increasing frequency. You really think this is a “conflict between communities?” Then you must also think that Muslim attacks upon Christians in Europe are also “conflicts between communities.” I find this to be so irrational that I really can’t respond.

    “French antagonism against the Jews didn’t start over the Dreyfuss affair, it started hundreds of years before as Jews where used to collect taxes in the name of the rulers and had little sympathy for the gentiles.”

    Well, obviously French antisemitism didn’t start then. Who said that it did? I certainly didn’t. Your imagination again. I said that French antisemitism was directly responsible for modern Zionism. That is something quite different. One point is that when one Jew was accused of a crime (it doesn’t matter whether or not he was guilty–he was later exonerated but that’s not relevant to any point), all Jews were blamed and Jews were physically attacked.

    And regarding collecting taxes, Jews were money men, including some of the first bankers (Venetians were also known for this) because it was a niche they could occupy; in much or perhaps most of medieval Europe they were forbidden to own land. So obviously they took those occupations that were open to them. And in early to medieval Christianity, Christians lending money at interest was frowned upon–it was called “usury.” Therefore, it would have to be non-Christians were performed this necessary function in society (although this didn’t seem to bother the Venetians and certain other Christian groups). Incidently, it was dangerous to be a banker in those days. Powerful people did not have to pay you back and–if you were a Jew– could even kill you or else simply expel you from the country or area in order to not have to pay a debt. And this was done repeatedly to Jews.

    I’m afraid that the original antagonism toward Jews stems from both religion and politics (so nice and convenient to have a relatively helpless scapegoat for whom to blame all society’s ills).

    Finally, how do you know that Jews had “little sympathy for gentiles.” You were there at the time and spoke with them? Why would anyone want to make themselves unpopular when it was dangerous to be unpopular? But people do what they need to do in order to survive–even us Christians in case you haven’t noticed. Also, I happen to know that the concept of the Righteous Gentile is a very strong one for Jews.

    “I refuse to assist those who consider Europeans beneath them. Anyone who judged over a 1000 years of conflict and finds one guilty party cannot possibly be labeled unbiased.”

    Who said that Jews or anyone else consider Europeans to be beneath them? I certainly never did. When Bat Yeor was asked why she lives in Europe and not Israel, she said that she loves European culture. Again, you seem to want to set up a false equivilency;, e.g., if people are persecuted, then both they and their persecutors are equally responsible. To me, this is a ridiculous assumption. You must think that the Armenians who were slaughtered by the Turks in the early 20th Century were equally responsible for their own slaughter. I really can’t deal with a view I deem to be so irrational.

    Again, no group is morally inferior to anyone else, with the possible exception of Muslims whose ideology makes them morally inferior.

    “If a Jew dresses up like a Muslim and becomes a Muslim radical the likelihood of him being attacked will decrease.”

    Huh? As my old aunt used to say, what does this have to do with the tea in China?

    I see that it is useless for me to have a conversation with you and I will not continue this. I’m currently enjoying a well-earned vacation.

    So this is Over and Out.

    • If you look at your replies to me, all of them contain some hostility towards me. This validates my point doesn’t it. As I consider the conflict between Europeans and Jews a conflict which has not one, but two guilty parties, I focussed on material which exposed the myth which states that the Polish, the Germans, the Russians, the Spaniards, and many others where initially just as much the victim of bigotry on account of the Jews ,as the Jews were. If I had strictly focussed on the supposedly irrational and uniquely immoral behavior of Europeans, as is the norm, you would not have disagreed one bit.

      This is exactly what I am protesting, European history has fallen victim to those with an agenda, and that’s why you, and most other people consider Europe’s history one long process of European antisemitism. Instead, I blame both parties, and this is what offends you, As you have prove to understand little of what I am saying and you are uninformed about this subject I will leave it at this.

      You somehow managed to state I claim Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are equal and to state I believe the Armenians deserved what they got. A testament to your irrationality and your firm belief that the full blame of Jewish-European conflict falls on the shoulders of the Europeans. In none of your arguments do you assign any ill will towards the Jews, but you do against the Europeans.

      Shame we cannot have an decent discussion on the matter. Until I see some change in the Jewish community I am done with defending them.

  17. This was an important text for Gates of Vienna. I’m hoping you are reading the Gatestone’s latest article on «free falling France».

    Antisemitism is the common denominator for all authoritarianisms.

Comments are closed.