White Nationalism, Part II

Great Debates
381

Compare the pre-14th Amendment Constitution, eg the “Dred Scott Decision:”

  1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all the proceedings in the case is brought before this court, and is open to its inspection and revision.

  2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favorif the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiffand if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

  3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the court had jurisdictionand if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this courtand the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

  4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

  5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its ‘people or citizens.’ Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being ‘citizens’ within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

  6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

  7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

  8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

  9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.

  10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.

  11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff on the plea in abatement, was erroneous.

[…]

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/

382

I have merely pointed out that Judaism’s central belief in “choseness” works effectively as a de facto racial self-perception. Whether this classification conforms to empirical research is irrelevant from the standpoint of psychological pragmatism.

Anatomy of a Conditionally Unresolved Conflict

  • a Personal and Philosophical Reflection.
    By Gilad Atzmon
    Most commentators on the Israeli-Arab conflict usually apply political, historical and/or sociological analysis in order to arrive at a meaningful argument. Although I appreciate the importance of these analytical fields, I will argue that there is another layer of reasoning that has been systematically or even intentionally ignored. I refer to the analysis of ‘Jewish understanding’. I suggest that uncovering the philosophy behind a number of fundamental Jewish precepts will clearly manifest the terrible truth that the Israeli-Arab conflict is conditionally unresolved.

For many years I have experienced deep feelings of disappointment and disenchantment with my own people. As we all know, identity can be a complicated issue. One does not have a say regarding one’s parents, place of birth, gender, racial origin or even religious inheritance. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be born a Jew or an Israeli. Nobody consulted me when I was just eight days old about whether I wanted to sacrifice a part of my body in order to determine my identity. When I was just over a week old, without proving any superiority or excellence in any given domain, I became ‘chosen’. I have to admit that most of the Jewish people I have ever came across are more than happy with their given identity and are proud to be Jewish. Unfortunately I am not. On the contrary, the older I get the more I find myself ashamed of my own people and this paper is about my shame.

First, I must emphasise the important distinction to be made between Judaism and Jewish Understanding. While Judaism is a religion, a collection of thoughts, laws, ideas and rituals, ‘Jewish understanding’ is what Jewish people make out of those concepts, what Jewish people make out of Judaism . The difference between Judaism and Jewish Understanding is similar to the distinction between ideology and praxis or Marxism and Stalinism or Christianity and the Inquisition.

I would like to address the concept of “choseness”. I believe that “choseness” is one of the most fundamental characteristics of ‘Jewish understanding’. One can remove a substantial amount of religious law and ritual from Jewish life (e.g. the Reform movement) and one can even remove the whole of religious practice without really affecting Jewish identity (as we know there are many secular Jews). But whenever one removes “choseness”, there is very little left with which the Jew can identify. In other words, by removing “choseness”, the Jew, in effect, becomes converted to something else (converted into Christianity or, more generally, into an ordinary human being ) . The concept of “choseness” is bound up with many Jewish concepts of self-alienation or even positive discrimination such as Kosher food, Minian as well as the process of conversion. These concepts share a common denominator that suppress any experience of social interaction with the Other. In other words, Jews are discouraged from assimilating with their non-Jewish environment (the Hebrew word for assimilation is Hit-bo-le-lout which comes from the root word Blil which is commonly understood to mean ‘mass’ or ‘confusion’, hence le-hit-bo-lel , to assimilate, means to get confused, to be one of the mass, to lose your authenticity ). The result of this is that the possibility of “loving thy neighbour” is denied.

In general, as we shall see, ‘Jewish understanding’ (unlike Judaism) leads to ignorance of the Other. When I talk about the Other, I refer to that which is conditionally different from myself. The Other is the one with whom one can empathize because, and only because, he is different. An interaction with the Other tests one’s tolerance. The Bible calls you to love the Other as much as you love yourself (Leviticus 19;18) but who is the Other? Can he be a black man? An Arab? A man in general? Can he be a goy (a gentile)? Should I empathize with the goy? Should I be tolerant of him? This is where we face a major distinction between Judaism and ‘Jewish understanding’. While Judaism can live peacefully with the general and broad concept of ‘loving thy neighbour’, ‘Jewish understanding’, in most practical cases, opposes it completely. As we know, Christ as a Jewish spiritual leader, interpreted the Jewish notion of the Other as friend or brother. We are all sons of God and equally loved by God. Hence, I should love my neighbour as if he is my brother. In other words, unconditionally (Jews, as we all know, never accepted Christ’s interpretation of tolerance and equality ).

Nowadays, this concept of love of the Other is rejected by many Jews and if I am wrong please explain to me why it is so difficult for the goy to convert to Judaism? Why in the Jewish state, after more than 35 years of invasion and oppression, is there hardly any Jewish voice calling for compassion to be shown to the Palestinian population? Why is it that there is hardly any call from Jewish communities throughout the world to stop the racially motivated and inhuman attacks on the Palestinian civilian population? Why is it that the Jewish world hardly ever condemns Israel for its brutality? We must therefore learn to interpret the notion of “choseness” in its common ‘Jewish understanding’ as anti-humanitarian.

[…]

http://www.gilad.co.uk/refelections.html

383

Rather irrelevant to my point. Dred Scott, as well as being recognized as a particularly horrible example of jurisprudence (the Court may have been justified in their decision–that point is arguable–but the arguments used were filled with error) is a decision made amidst the heat of the abolitionist movement some 69 years after the Constitution was written. As such, the very inaccuracies included in the opinion indicate that the notions expressed were being imposed at a later date and not following from the ideas of the founders.

As to Atzmon’s comments: you do recognize, of course, that he actually demolishes your claim? First, he is a Jew who is not following whatever party line “all Jews” follow. Second, he points out instances of people within the Jewish community who are at odds with each other, even going so far as to practice discrimination in various forms against “their own kind.” If the great Jewish cohesion which you and he imagine actually existed, there would not be the fractures and dissensions that he remarks upon.

What we see in his essay is simply people acting as people with all the normal association and fractiousness of any loose collection of people who band together, politically, for a vaguely identified common goal but who are not so single-minded in identifying that goal that they can actually achieve a unity of purpose without some internal disputes.

If “the Jews” were some great monolithic organization, you would not see the disagreements or supposed discrimination occurring within it.

384

BTW, I have no idea what Atzmon’s religious belefs are, but the first line that you bolded is simply stupid. They may bot hsve followed Jesus particularly, (understandable given that his disciples were clearly heretics), but the notions of tolerance and equality were long established in Judaism long before the time of Jesus.

385

BTW, I have no idea what Atzmon’s religious belefs are, but the first line that you bolded is simply stupid. They may bot hsve followed Jesus particularly, (understandable given that his disciples were clearly heretics), but the notions of tolerance and equality were long established in Judaism long before the time of Jesus.

386

Gilad is a jazz saxophonist and clarinetist. He’s Jewish, but he’s disenchanted.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/inno.html

So, that’s where he’s coming from. He doesn’t sound like he’s following the Official Jewish Party Line very well.

And while we’re on the subject of Jewish “cohesion”, how do you explain the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group? More Jews who aren’t following the Official Jewish Party Line…

http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm

387

Hardly. You previously indicated a familiarity with multi-level selection. One point that evolutionary biologists make is that there is conflict and competition within what we consider to be almost perfectly integrated biological units, sich as the human body. Matthew Ridley’s “The Origins of Virtue” and David Sloan Wilson’s “Unto Others: The Evolution and Psycholgy of Unselfish Behavior” both illustrate this point. The fact that there is conflict and competition within the Jewish group hardly disqualifies it from classification as a biological entity, and it is empirically true that the Jewish group is better organized and much more cohesive than the gentile populations in the US.

388

You’re right – Judaism is not a race, but the Jews themselves constitute a race or, if you prefer, an ethnic group or a nation. Even a cursory examination of Jewish history reveals that this has always been the case. If you want a signature quote, how about this from Rabbi Stephen Wise (who would later head the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress and, incidentally, was the speaker who preceded Martin Luther King when King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech): “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew… Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.” Published in The New York Herald Tribune, 6/13/38. Although many liberal Jews after the Emancipation made statements to the effect that being Jewish is just a matter of religion, their actions betrayed a continued racial conceptualization of Judaism. E.L. Goldstein explains that in reform circles in the late 19th century

“It was not uncommon for a rabbi to make bold pronouncements about his desire for a universalistic society and then, in moments of frustration or doubt, revert to a racial understanding of the Jews… While willing to stretch the definition of Judaism to its limits, it was clear that most Reformers were not willing to break the historical continuity of the Jewish ‘race’. Even Solomon Schindler, one of the most radical of Reform rabbis, felt compelled to acknowledge the racial aspect of Jewish identity.” Goldstein, “Different Blood Flows in Our Veins”: Race and Jewish self-definition in late nineteenth-century America. American Jewish History 85:29-55 (1997).

Yes, in the post-Emancipation period there has been a minimal amount of conversion, but intermarriage and conversion are hardly inconsistent with the notion of a Jewish race. It remains to be seen whether such converts and their descendants are able to move toward the core of the Jewish group (as conceptualized by Elazar, who describes American Jewish society as a set of concentric circles representing levels of commitment to Judaism) and actually genetically affect the ongoing Jewish group, or whether they will remain on the fringes of the group and subsequently be reabsorbed by the gentile population without making a mark on the continuing Jewish group. As always the core of the group remains hostile to conversion and intermarriage, while the less committed Jews tend to be more accepting of it. Thus, we have orthodox Jews refusing to accept conversions performed by non-orthodox groups etc. but this is a new phenomenon, dating back just 150 years. Until the Emancipation, all Jews were Orthodox. The Emancipation certainly “complicated” things in some senses, as some of those who call themselves Jews now argue about who is in fact a Jew.

Moreover, those who call themselves Jews may not (even subconsciously) hold traditional Jewish beliefs central to the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, thus complicating the discussion of Jews as a political force. Indeed, the apparent disagreement among Jewish factions lends credence to Jewish apologia that denies that Jews are a cohesive group. Still, despite some messy individualism and nonconformity on the fringes, the Jewish group evolutionary strategy appears to continue as before in the relevant senses. The fact that some self-defined Jews apparently do not possess the supreme group
loyalty formerly required of all Jews does not augur the demise of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy or change the nature of the strategy as pursued by the remainder of self-identifying Jews at the core of the group.

In this regard, it is helpful to consider Elazar’s (“Community and
Polity: Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry”) post-Emancipation conceptualization of American Jewry as organized in concentric circles, with the most committed Jews at the core and lower levels of commitment represented in each successive circle as one moves outward from the center. While the outer circle is permeable, and converts will enter and less committed Jews will leave, the inner core always remains highly committed and endogamous, and the group evolutionary strategy continues despite the fact that on the periphery the group is less clearly defined than previoulsy. The existence of converts, as does intermarriage, creates bridges to, and allies in, the gentile community. By the way, it also serves the valuable function of enabling people to make arguments like yours. Judaism has followed an ideal strategy of allowing converts at a formal theoretical level while minimizing conversion and its effects in practice.

389

Both wrong and irrelevant. Evolutionary biologists make no such claims. The point made is that conflict and competition can result in ordered systems, and such a conflict for resources does not occur within organisms (rendering your example nonsensical).

Even if they did make , such a claim has nothing to do with perceived Jewish cohesion since Jews do not represent a “biological unit”.

390

You’re confusing yourself with your sophistry. The Jewish group is engaged in an assault on the white race as defined by the Jewish group. Obviously, to avoid bringing about its own destruction, the Jwish group has to exclude Jews from the definition. Whether the definition that excludes Jews accords with your or someone else’s definition is immaterial.

391

This amounts to arguing that the colors blue and green don’t exist because we can’t all agree on where one starts and the other stops. When it comes to races, it may be useful to draw the lines in different places for different purposes of classification, but the physical reality and differences thus classified most certainly exist.

392

Race and skin color aren’t the same thing, and your “notion that skin color defined actual divisions in humanity” appears to be a straw man.

393

Correction:

Even if they did make such a claim, it would have nothing to do with perceived Jewish cohesion since Jews do not represent a “biological unit”, much less an “almost perfectly integrated” one.

394

You don’t seem to understand what genocide is. It is not the killing of a whole lot of members of a group. It is the killing of the group itself. Thus, your question about the systematic murder of “whites” misses the mark. The question is whether the white race is being pushed toward extinction.

395

You don’t seem to be able to comprehened what I am saying. I understand what genocide is.

If whites aren’t being systematically murdered by Jews, then you cannot make claims about them being driven towards extinction, and your claims of perceived genocide are ludicrous.

If whites aren’t being forcibly sterilized, then you cannot make claims about them being driven towards extinction, and your claims of perceived genocide are still ludicrous.

Neither you, nor your friends before you, have been able to provide the slightest bit of evidence that such is, in fact, occurring. Add to that the fact that you are unable or unwilling to even define the group in question, and your claims of perceived genocide are made even more ludicrous (if that’s even possible).

Once again, so that maybe it sinks in: no matter how you define genocide, it isn’t happening against “whites”.

396

Not at all. The scientists who initially posited the notion of race did, in fact, draw the lines basically along color lines. It appears, then that you are using some odd notion of race that departs from the (now disproved) biological/scientific notion. That is fine, I guess, except that since you have failed to provide your definition, we are talking at cross purposes. (Note, that you earlier claimed that “white” was a clear concept in English, and refused to define it, yet we have examples throughout history (several alluded to in this thread) where “white” was set equal to Caucasian, or set equal to Europeans, or set equal to Europeans and a few favored Asians, or set equal to only Northern and Western Europeans. So which of these disparate “whites” are the Jews trying to destroy?)

Similarly with your current use of the word “race” in which you appear to have it mean different things to different people in the same discussion.* It would appear, then, that it follows the HumptyDumpty approach to language and means whatever a specific person means at the time he utters it regardless of other contexts.

As to the various quotations provided to show the Jews as exclusionary, I would note that in each case, they were delivered by people who were not permitted to be full participants of the societies among whom they lived and who were, themselves, under attack. We see the same sort of thing, today, among the extreme Religious Right who first opposed Al Smith and John Kennedy for the presidency on the grounds that they would be Catholics first and Americans second, but who now (since they feel that the world is against them) proclaim that they are Christians first and Americans second, offer Pat Robinson for that office, and see no contradiction in their positions. (When we get done fighting off the Jews, do we need to begin preparing for battle against the Southern Baptists and the members of the Assembly of God churches?)

Choosing individual statements from a limited selection of spokesman of the same factions within Judaism hardly makes a case for some worldwide conspiracy–and I have still seen no evidence for an attempt to destroy the “white” race (whatever that may be). (I have also seen no motive for such strange idea nor any reason to believe that if they could not pull it off in the past 2,500 years, we need to worry about it now.)

  • I do not claim that we can talk about race, but since it has four common meanings in normal usage and you seem to have invested it with a couple more meanings, it is fruitless to attempt to discuss it without figuring out what definition we mean.
397

I previously stated

To whioch Darwin’s Finch responded

You need to catch up on your reading. Evolutionary biologists recognize that conflict and competition occur at all levels of selection, including within the human body. Natural selection occurs within organisms. Some of the best-studied examples are genes that break the rule of meiosis by occurring in more than 50% of the gametes, a process known as “meiotic drive”. See D.S. Wilson’s “Unto Others” at p. 87 et seq.

398

I previously stated

To whioch Darwin’s Finch responded

You need to catch up on your reading. Evolutionary biologists recognize that conflict and competition occur at all levels of selection, including within the human body. Natural selection occurs within organisms. Some of the best-studied examples are genes that break the rule of meiosis by occurring in more than 50% of the gametes, a process known as “meiotic drive”. See D.S. Wilson’s “Unto Others” at p. 87 et seq.

399

Exceptions, rather than discredit, work to prove the Rule. “Heretics” like Gilad or a “do-gooders” like Traubman, only serve as miniscule counter-points to a general mindset. A mindset, a psychology, a “understanding” that may or may not be consciously (or “officially”) internalized by its members, but nevertheless has serious “real-life” socio-political consequences on a group scale.

More Gilad:

The Europeans learnt their lesson; they became very suspicious of Zionist political affairs. At the same time we have to admit that the Americans have not yet learned theirs. The American people have not yet seen that a coalition with Israel puts their life at great risk. The American people fail to associate September 11th and the hopeless American support of Zionism. I assume the reason the American people fail to acknowledge such a straightforward connection can only be due to the fact that Zionist lobbies have managed to comprehensively dominate the major sources that control American public opinion: both in culture, in media and in finance. Ted Turner the owner of CNN, the world’s leading TV news network had to go out of his way to persuade the Zionist lobbies that he was in a mental state when he ‘mistakenly’ referred to Israel as a “terrorist state”. It is very
apparent that Israel enjoys full protection in the American media. The question to be asked is who is going to protect the Americans from their motherland Israel?"

[…]

http://www.gilad.co.uk/protocols.html

400

Just for the record, I believe Jews deserve their own homeland, Israel - apart from the Western Nations.

I disagree, however, with their unenlightened means for achieving security.

;j