In a recent article at the Western Rifle Shooters Association, half-Jew “Takuan Seiyo” said:
I found this discussion late and so can contribute late. There is much to be said against the Jews—as a group—and there is much to say in favor (think contributions since late 18th century, not to speak of the Bible and Christianity itself). It’s good, even important, to write about that, not the least for the benefit of American Jews who don’t seem to have a clue how much their socialist-multiculti-bleeding heart drift alienates them from the American white majority and puts them in a camp of people who are no friends of theirs.
With this said, CA’s [Concerned American] policy is right simply because there seem to be no people around who have the knowledge and the psychological balance to do this analysis correctly and truthfully, so commenters usually prattle nonsense that’s either malignantly false or stupid; antisemitism is after all 2300 years old. If they have the intellectual equipment, such as the premier antisemite of our age, Kevin MacDonald does, they cherry pick among the zillion facts they adduce to flesh out the negative, but suppress the positive in order to build a twisted theory. Or they lack the intellectual equipment altogether and just prattle what they soaked from some snake-swalling preacher about the Jews not being the Jews but WASPs being the Jews; with all of their Bible reading they haven’t even stopped to think that Jesus. Mary, Peter, Paul, the apostles and all Christians for the first 50 years of the creed were Jews, not Yorkshiremen.
I have studied theses issues for a long time and touch on them in my writings. Two of my articles archived at Gates of Vienna are specifically about the JQ; “Critique of the Culture of Kevin McDonald” and “F Street.” [Chechar’s note: Seiyo omits the fact that he “criticized” MacDonald without actually reading his triolgy on Jewry. See my comment at the bottom of this post.] GoV had so much trouble with nazizoid commenters to those two and in other posts where Jews were mentioned that it had to close down discussion of such matters.
If someone can summarize in a sentence or three what exactly the point and message is of any one of Takuan Seiyo’s articles, I’d be grateful. It was when I realized I couldn’t do that, and that whatever the message might be was lost in the flood of words, that I stopped reading him. It was when he deliberately asserted in a comment thread discussion that I’d said the exact opposite of what I had actually said, in order to brand me with his nazizoidist label, that I stopped considering him to be on the side of the angels. It was when he deliberately and repeatedly refused to engage in the sort of deliberate discussion of facts CA has advocated in the past, preferring instead to assert blanket guilt and self-destructiveness on the part of a people he evidently considers not his own, that I stopped much caring what he has to say about anything. He is a deeply dishonest man.
There certainly are those who assert things about the Jews without providing sufficient evidence. There are also those who draw conclusions from facts in evidence that I don’t find sufficiently justified. This does not make reasonable and sane discussions of the matter impossible. In the GoV discussions he references, it would have been entirely possible to say “I don’t want to discuss that here, and I’m not going to” or “I don’t consider those facts to be a major factor, for such and such reasons.” This is not what was done. Instead he went from zero to nuclear and full insult. “Oh, but he’s so tired of the constant unreasonable attacks!” Stop making excuses for him. I’m part French, I’ve been hearing my nation—a nation with far more qualities than America and Americans have ever displayed, and which has earned my loyalty in ways the USA hasn’t even tried—insulted and demeaned pretty much my entire life, and currently I get to watch the French population being systematically replaced by Muslim Arabs while “genocide” is something only Jews are allowed to own, and I generally manage to keep my mouth shut about it, or to discuss the matter peaceably when the occasion arises. There is no right to be free from insult, even for Jews.
“The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.” It takes a conscious act of will to not notice the applicability of this phrase to repeated actions by Jewish people, including Seiyo himself as I mentioned earlier. Just a couple weeks ago, a Quebec radio host, talking with a Muslim caller, mentioned that he wouldn’t be able to say the same things the caller was because speaking too loudly on certain topics gets one in trouble with the Jews. The local Jewish organization promptly called for him to be sacked. What exactly are they trying to prove? Rick Sanchez claimed Jews have a lot of power at CNN; they promptly demonstrated their… lack of power?—by getting him fired. A Jewish journalist went looking for non-Jews in positions of power in Hollywood; he found six, one of which turned out to be Jewish after all. I could go on all day, but that’s not the point—the point is that there is measurable evidence and facts concerning hypocrisy and power and Jewish reactions to taking note of these facts, and that the only response ever made to this by the pro-Jewish side of any argument is precisely the dishonest and hypocritical one that CA made: ridicule, and a refusal to actually address any facts, either by refusing to bring them up or refusing to engage in discussion on the topic by ruling it out of bounds.
Concerned American [CA] said…
Also, did you actually read the linked Seiyo articles?
Thank you for voicing your predispositions as well.
The world we are living in today is the direct and linear result of the victory in 1945. It is a world created by the victors of 1945. It is designed and run according to their principles, and implements many of the goals they explicitly advocated. Everything that is happening today, from the Muslim rape gangs in European suburbs to English nationalists getting locked up in an Orwellian manner to the TSA accustoming “born free” citizens to having their daughters’ breasts groped to Congress fuming impotently at its bureaucracy and not firing it to the massive taxation increases on the most productive to the dissolving of sovereignty in international bureaucracies to the American presidency becoming a thing to be bought and used in a manner directly contrary to the expressed wishes of the people and in fact the general trend of governments everywhere in the white nations deliberately persisting in courses of actions their people repeatedly object to but don’t seem to have the ability to stop—every bit of this is the legacy of the victors of 1945. It is their doing, their responsibility, their worldview brought to life.
In 1945, the bad guys won
Every single man who has fought and bled in the service of the victors of 1945 and their inheritors has fought and bled in the service of evil.
Maybe the other side were bad guys also. Maybe they weren’t. I’m not saying they didn’t kill a lot of people—I do say genocide is justified at times, depending on perspective, in the same way that killing a man is justified at times—depending on perspective. Nobody wants to die, but irreconcilable differences exist. I also know this much: the victor writes the history books, the victor always makes the other side out to be worse than they actually were while hiding its own misdeeds, and in this case, the victors have been proven by their own actions to be civilization- and nation-destroying oathbreaking scumbags. I also know that the people running things right now lie like they breathe; from carbohydrates to cholesterol to equality to finance to genetics to who voted when and where to what actually happened in any given foreign policy crisis to what gets reported and what gets suppressed in the newspapers and talking-head shows each day.
Nothing I am told by this system and this society is to be trusted. If they say the sky is blue, I will walk outside to check for myself.
Everything is on the table.
That includes Hitler.
He may have been wrong about some things. He may have been wrong about a lot of things. Based on the reading I’ve done so far, there certainly were things he didn’t get right. There were certainly also things that he did.
Have YOU read Mein Kampf, or Table Talks? (I haven’t, yet.) Do you really trust what you’re told about it, when the same people give you Tina Fey saying “I can see Russia from my house!”, and Obama insisting he did so call it a terrorist attack?
Do you really have to have it explained to you, again, that you’re being lied to?
“Oh, but they wouldn’t lie about that!”
There’s a funny thing about the “Big Lie”. People talk about it in the context of the Nazis, as a Nazi propaganda tactic. In fact, it was a Nazi accusation. The Nazis were saying that their enemies were telling gigantic monstrous lies that nobody would even think to disbelieve. They never advocated it as something for their own propaganda to engage in. But that’s not how it is remembered. The “Big Lie” has itself become a Big Lie.
Rollory said: “I do say genocide is justified at times, depending on perspective, in the same way that killing a man is justified at times—depending on perspective.”
Are you fucking kidding me?
Finally, a quote.
“The fundamental realization of the Dark Enlightenment is that all men are not created equal, not individual men, nor the various groups and categories of men, nor are women equal to men, that these beliefs and others like them are religious beliefs, that society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism, but this is a new religion, an evil religion, and, if you are a Christian, a demonic religion.
The Dark Enlightenment does not propose that leftism went wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, but that it was fundamentally and terribly wrong a couple of centuries ago, and we have been heading to hell in a handbasket ever since at a rapidly increasing rate—that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state, that it is another good news religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.”
We are not Jedi, we are Sith. The Jedi have lost their way, and we understand the truth both of their now-perverted ideals and the reality underlying them better than they ever did.
That is why we will win.
My comment for this blog:
At Gates of Vienna (GOV) Takuan Seiyo told the lie that I am a Holocaust denier; I didn’t even bother to reply but now…
Seiyo writes that that Kevin MacDonald cherry picks “among the zillion facts they adduce to flesh out the negative, but suppress the positive in order to build a twisted theory.”
I see that, almost three years after my article “A lightning in the middle of the night!” Seiyo has not addressed the thrust of my direct challenge to him: that Jews “are never over-represented in organizations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority.”
The “positive” that Seiyo writes about is in fact neutral in the sense that Jewish contributions to technology, science or commerce are not meant to improve whites qua whites as a race: for example a medical discovery applies to all Gentiles, and Jewry too. The real point of my 2010 piece was that Jews never represent the ethnic interests of whites; only the interests that weaken whites as an ethnic group.
But in that thread in the older incarnation of my blog Seiyo never really addressed my challenge and it’s improbable he will address it now. He is a man who wants to have it both ways: he purports to defend the West but if Western interests collide with Jewish interests he automatically sides the latter.
I see that at the thread of the Western Rifle Shooters Association Seiyo mentions the decision of the admin of Gates of Vienna, Ned May (“Baron Bodissey”), to censor all discussion on the Jewish Question as if Ned “had so much trouble with nazizoid commenters.”
That’s another lie.
Ned closed comments after a challenge by some of GOV-ers—to accept criticism of Jews only provided that the critics were Jews or half-Jews. I accepted the challenge in the form of the excerpts I typed with the purpose of showing GOV-ers how even an academic of Jewish origin touches the question, Albert Lindemann in Esau’s Tears. But apparently it was not possible to discuss the JQ at GOV even after I took the trouble to type all those excerpts from Esau’s Tears for GOV-ers to see.
But aside Seiyo’s lies (that Ned “had so much trouble with nazizoid commenters”), I believe that Rollory summarized above the broadest issues better than what I did at the bottom of this post.
For my collection exposing Seiyo, see these entries at WDH (with the exception of “Liberals–about to be mugged by reality” that are quotations of Seiyo’s online book).