Tag Archives: Jared Taylor

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I was listening to the Alex Jones Show yesterday (Friday, March 4) on shortwave and someone called in and started talking about “international jewish bankers” being behind the New World Order. Jones gave the caller a lot of time to speak without interrupting him or cutting him off.

At first, the caller sounded sensible. He mentioned that the American mass media is dominated by jews, which is true. He brought up Paul Warburg‘s name in connection with the Federal Reserve. And considering Jones had had some not-so-nice things to say about George Soros, another jew, only minutes before this call, it would have been disingenuous of him to claim jews aren’t overrepresented in the ranks of international financiers. So far, so good.

Then the caller urged listeners to read the long-discredited Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Jones asked the caller if he believed that all jews are involved in the conspiracy, to which the caller replied in the affirmative. Jones then asked if all jews should be exterminated, and the caller said yes. I slapped my hand to my forehead and started shaking my head. Predictably, Jones cut the caller off at that point and went on a tirade against nazis.

Why do so many anti-Semites* insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this guy did?

While Jones has a long and shameful history of covering for the jews, you can’t accuse him of any wrongdoing in this case; he gave the guy plenty of time to make his case without censoring him. You can’t ask for more than a fair hearing. If the caller came off looking foolish, he did it to himself.

I’m starting to believe that a large number of anti-Semites really are mentally ill. Either that, or they’re stupid. It’s like their brains are incapable of distinguishing between the jew who mops the floors at the local Burger King and the George Soroses and Sumner Redstones of the world, who truly are malignant pests.

There are several valid criticisms that can be leveled against jews as a group. For instance, an elite group of jews really does have a disproportionately large amount of control over the mass media in countries like the U.S. and Canada, and it uses this control towards ends that are usually not in the best interest of the majority population.

The Israel lobby is real and very powerful.

The holocaust is a Big Lie that was invented by jews, communists, and the leaders of the Allied nations to justify or help conceal their own atrocities, and the myth was rekindled in the latter half of the 1960s by zionist jews to drum up support for and deflect criticism of Israel. In the last 12 years, the myth of the holocaust has been invoked to justify everything from the NATO bombing of civilian passenger trains in Yugoslavia, to the hanging of Saddam Hussein as a “war criminal,” to the U.S.’s belligerent attitude toward Iran.

But reasoned criticisms such as these tend to be overlooked when you have paranoid nutcases shouting from rooftops that they think every jew on the planet is involved in a monolithic conspiracy that’s behind all the evils in the world and that every last one needs to be exterminated, pronto.

If I didn’t know such people personally, I would think they were plants from the Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the $PLC to make anti-Semites look retarded or unhinged.

The debate on the Jewish Question is polarized between apologists for the jews like Alex Jones and Jar-Jar Taylor, who would sooner blame their own mothers for the ills they diagnose than utter the word “jew,” and conspiracy wackos who have gone off the deep end and become obsessed with jews to the exclusion of everything else.


* I’m not entirely comfortable with the term anti-Semite to describe someone who’s critical of or antipathetic towards jews, for two reasons:

  1. In a time in which blond, ashkenazi jews who don’t have a drop of Semitic blood in them are gunning down rock-throwing Palestinian children, some of whom are full-blooded Semites, referring to anti-jewish sentiment as “anti-Semitism” doesn’t make a lot of sense, and

  2. “Anti-Semitism” has a biological ring to it, which implies that the solution to the problem is extermination, and not everyone who opposes the agendas of organized jewry feels that way.

“Anti-jewish” would be an improvement, but is still not quite satisfactory. The best term, I think, would be anti-loxist, but since loxism has yet to catch on, no one would know what I was talking about were I to use it.

New Linking Policy

It’s time to draw some lines. I can tolerate disagreement on many issues, but not on fundamentals. If we’re not in agreement on the fundamentals, then we’re not on the same side, no matter how many secondary issues we may agree on or how similar our views may superficially appear.

If we’re not on the same side, then I will not endorse your site by linking to it. Since my position on the fundamentals is the correct one, and since I wish to draw people to my side, it makes no sense to blur the line and confuse people about what I stand for by appearing to endorse sites which are fundamentally at odds with my position.

I’ve just pruned my blogroll of a few sites with whose positions I have irreconcilable differences. This was not an easy decision for me, since I happen to personally like the individuals running those sites. But as it often happens in times of war, two men who would be friends in peacetime have to stand opposite each other on the battlefield, ready to blow each other’s heads off. C’est la vie.

As a matter of principle, I will no longer link to sites which:

  • use codewords, such as “Zionists,” “elites,” or “liberals,” to refer to jews. Unless a site has a damned good excuse for using them, such as being hosted in a country in which direct criticism of jews is a prosecutable offense, I expect a spade to be called a spade.
  • claim to oppose jewish power while engaging in ADL/$PLC-style attacks against others who oppose jewish power more straightforwardly or aggressively than they do.
  • attack certain groups, such as blacks or Muslims, while turning a blind eye to jews.
  • discuss racial problems without mentioning the cardinal jewish role in creating or exacerbating those problems.
  • claim to fight jewish tyranny while condoning the very weapons jews have used to tear Western societies apart, such as humanism, hyper-individualism, feminism, communism, racial integration, the queer movement, and political correctness.
  • attempt to limit discussion of the Jewish Question to certain issues, such as Zionism or banking, making it appear as though those are the only problems and are only being caused by a small cadre of jews.
  • attempt to define jews in solely religious (Judaism) or ideological (e.g. Zionism) terms, ignoring or downplaying the tribal/racial aspect.
  • claim to be White Nationalist while promoting known homosexuals to prominent positions within the movement.

I hope others will consider following in my example. This “movement” tolerates far too much ambiguity, too many blurred boundaries, as a result of misguided notions of solidarity and the “marketplace of ideas.” Again, if someone doesn’t agree with us on the fundamentals, they’re not on our side and we shouldn’t be giving them the time of day. It’s better to stand with someone you despise but whose principles are correct than with someone you like who spreads harmful ideas.