A new liberal left aims to destroy Western civilization by massive immigration and by labeling “racists” those who oppose them. Liberalism, the belief that non-discrimination is the highest and ruling value of society, is a suicidal ideology. If Islam were to disappear tomorrow, the West would still be at grave risk. If modern liberalism were to disappear tomorrow, it would be Islam facing the grave risk from a newly-revived West based upon non anti-Semitic White Nationalism.
Since I have been reading and watching videos from anti-Semitic intellectuals, it is only fair to do a little reading on the other side.
This blog, I iterate, is not original. I am a sort of fisherman and here I almost limit myself to collect my best catches. Today I caught a couple of superb pieces authored by Larry Auster. In this entry I’ll re-publish part of Auster’s “Is my criticism of Jewish attitudes the same as Kevin MacDonald’s?” Auster wrote:
In response to my criticism of Kevin MacDonald’s anti-Semitic critique of the Jews, three readers told me that they saw a similarity between my analysis of Jewish attitudes in my article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems”, and MacDonald’s argument. What follows is a selection from those exchanges.
Reader to Larry Auster:
In your FrontPage Magazine article, “Why Jews Welcome Muslims,” you state the following:
Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.
The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances-in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world-it both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.
I am confused. This sounds like the basic thesis of MacDonald’s work.
Larry Auster to reader:
I guess what I’m saying has points of similarity with him, but the differences are basic. For starters:
1. I’m speaking of an understandable fear, based on history, that leads some Jews to act in an irrational way today. MacDonald is speaking of a socio-biologically determined group strategy of the Jewish people qua the Jewish people to take advantage of gentiles and undermine their culture wherever they find them.
2. I’m speaking of something that would be reformable through reasoned confrontation. MacDonald is speaking of a primal group animus, driving the Jews to destroy Christians.
3. It is evident to anyone reading me that I am not feeling or invoking hostility to Jews as Jews. It is evident to anyone reading him that MacDonald feels and seeks to invoke profound hostility against Jews as Jews.
4. I see the Jewish issue as one issue among many others, and far from the most important. MacDonald literally sees the Jews the source of everything that has gone wrong with the West, to a transcendent degree. For him, the fact that gentiles are destroying their own cultures is purely the result of Jews having gotten control of the gentiles’ minds. This makes Jews not only the sole source of everything that is wrong with gentiles, it makes them demonic beings. The whole insanity of Western suicide that is now happening, it’s all because of the Jews. MacDonald’s “objective,” “scientific” argument leads to a picture of the Jews which equals Nazism in its total demonization of the Jews.
5. The differences between Jews and Muslims must be remembered. Interspersed with periods of persecution and conflict, Jews have functioned harmoniously and productively as a minority in Western societies for over 2,000 years and can do so again. All that’s needed for this to happen is a self-confident and morally sound majority that firmly stands for its own culture without retreating into resentment and hatred in order to do so. Muslims are inherently alien and hostile to the West and cannot function harmoniously as a minority in Western society.
Read it all! It brings a healthy balance to a couple of recent posts below where I wrote, in the commenters sections, “I stand corrected” to people who feel that MacDonald is right.
My last entries have been about the Jewish question. But yesterday I watched for the first time in my life the 1974 film The Great Gatsby, starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow; directed by Jack Clayton from a screenplay of Coppola based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
None of these people are Jewish. But I found a subliminal message very akin to the more recent race-treasonous films that paint the whites and the West as the bad guys, quite a few of them directed or screen-written by the Jewish people at Hollywood.
I am not saying I’m having second thoughts about what I wrote recently about this sort anti-western Jews. But the whole point is that we must blame with equal ferocity all of the gentile liberals who also have contributed to demonize the white nationalists and the western culture. After all, it was author Scott Fitzgerald, an Irish Catholic, who featured a reference to a conservative racialist author in The Great Gatsby, as we will see.
The film where the good guy Jay Gatsby (Robert Redford) is murdered starts with the following dialogue between Tom Buchanan (Bruce Dern) and his guest. At the end of the film Tom looks like a bad guy who incited the murder of Jay.
Tom: “Nick, have you read that book, The Rise of the Coloured Empires by Goddard?”
Nick: “Why? no.”
Tom: “Well, it is a fine book. Everyone ought to read it. See the point is that if we don’t watch out, the white race will be utterly submerged...”
Nick’s face denotes incredulity.
Tom: “No, that’s so! It’s up to us. We, the dominant race, must watch out, or the other races will have control of things.”
Daisy Buchanan (Mia Farrow) sarcastically says: “We’ve got to beat them down.”
Tom: “Daisy, it has all been scientifically proved. You see we’re Nordics. You are, and I am and... Anyway, we are responsible for all the things that made civilization: art science, and all that.”
The Rise of the Coloured Empires is a real book that today very few take seriously despite of the fact that, if the West had really watched out, neither China nor Islam would have awakened. If we look for an explanation of why Tom’s message fell upon the deaf ears of Hollywood watchers, the answer lays precisely in The Great Gatsby, where frivolous parties ran amok in America’s 1920s. This seems to have been the zeitgeist when Fitzgerald wrote his novel. Today, frivolity has degenerated infinitely farther...
Yes: William Pierce, the subject of my previous entry, may have been a little paranoid on the Jewish question. The unavoidable truth is that we gentiles are to blame too. But he has a point to understand our present dilemma, as shown in the following excerpts from The Turner Diaries:
But how could our people—how could White Americans—be so spineless, so crawling, so eager to please their oppressors? How can we recruit a revolutionary army from such a rabble? Is this really the same race that walked on the moon and was reaching for the stars 20 years ago? How low we have been brought! It is frighteningly clear now that there is no way to win the struggle in which we are engaged without shedding torrents—veritable rivers—of blood.
* * *
I cannot imagine myself or Henry or Katherine or anyone else in the Organization just sitting around watching TV and letting the world go by when so much needs to be done. It is a difference of human quality.
* * *
How fragile a thing is man’s civilization! How superficial it is to his basic nature! And upon how few of the teeming multitudes to whose lives it gives a pattern does it depend for its sustenance! Without the presence of perhaps one or two per cent of the most capable individuals—the most aggressive, intelligent, and hardworking of our fellow citizens—I am convinced that neither this civilization nor any civilization could long sustain itself. It would gradually disintegrate, over centuries, perhaps, and the people would not have the will or the energy or the genius to patch up the cracks. Eventually, all would return to their natural, pre-civilized state—a state not too different from that of Georgetown’s dropouts [a place for teenage misfits in the novel].
But even energy and will and genius are not enough, clearly. America still has enough over-achievers to keep the wheels turning. But these over-achievers seem not to have noticed that the machine their exertions keep running long ago ran off the road and is now hurtling headlong into an abyss. They are insensitive to the ugliness and unnaturalness, as well as to the ultimate danger, of the direction they have taken.
It is really only a minority of a minority, which led our race out of the jungle and along the first few steps toward true civilization. We owe everything to those few of our ancestors who had both the sensitivity to feel what needed doing and the ability to do it. Without the sensitivity no amount of ability can lead to truly great achievement, and without the ability, sensitivity leads only to daydreams and frustration. The Organization has selected from the great mass of humanity those of our present generation who posses this rare combination. Now we must do whatever is necessary to prevail.
“Without the ability, sensitivity leads only to daydreams and frustration”. This reminds me those concerned with the survival of our civilization who do no activism in the real world.
But is there really a chance to create something like the Organization as depicted in The Turner Diaries now? Probably no... However, times are changing. In my last post in the Gates of Vienna forum I added a comment to the following words:
@ “Last year it seemed obvious that the first major currency to collapse would be the U.S. dollar. Then it was sterling that seemed to teeter on the brink. Now it’s the euro, and Greece is simply the first eurozone country to keel over, with more ailing euro-economies to come.”
Since I discovered the subject of the Islamization of Europe on September 2008, today was my happiest day after reading two articles in The Brussels Journal: “The EU’s Horrible Honeymoon” [an article about the falling Euro] and “Will the Euro Survive the Greek Crisis?”, both by Paul Belien.
If the pendulum has indeed reached its extreme left as a reaction to World War II, I wish that today’s news mark the beginning of its moving back, finally, to the right...
I’ve spent some days listening to the whole audio version of The Turner Diaries by Andrew Macdonald. Fascinating lecture, fascinating reading!
Although it’s a must-read book I disagree with the late William Pierce (penname: Andrew Macdonald) on his eliminationist anti-Semitism agenda. This aside, I agree with the essential truth of what Pierce tried to convey throughout his book. Anyone who wants to prepare developing the proper spirit for the forthcoming Crash that will tear society apart should read The Turner Diaries.
In previous entries (see here and here) I said that I broke away from my friends who advocate children rights because they’re too coward to see that Muslim immigration comes with a far more ferocious sort of child abuse. Although Pierce wrote the book in 1975-1978, before the Islamist revival after 9/11, the following passage from The Turner Diaries hits the nail on the subject of why I find it nauseating to relate to coward liberals.
In chapter 6 of The Turner Diaries, Pierce wrote:
But there is no way we can destroy the System without hurting many thousands of innocent people—no way. It is a cancer too deeply rooted in our flesh. And if we don’t destroy the System before it destroys us—if we don’t cut this cancer out of our living flesh—our whole race will die.
We have gone over this before, and we are all completely convinced that what we did is justified, but it is still very hard to see our own people suffering so intensely because of our acts. It is because Americans have for so many years been unwilling to make unpleasant decisions that we are forced to make decisions now which are stern indeed.
And is that not a key to the whole problem? The corruption of our people by the Jewish-liberal-democratic-equalitarian plague which afflicts us is more clearly manifested in our soft-mindedness, our unwillingness to recognize the harder realities of life, than in anything else.
Liberalism is an essentially feminine, submissive worldview. Perhaps a better adjective than feminine is infantile. It is the worldview of men who do not have the moral toughness, the spiritual strength to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily ever after.
Nor should spiritually healthy men of our race even want the world to be that way, if it could be so. That is an alien, essentially Oriental approach to life, the worldview of slaves rather than of free men of the West. But it has permeated our whole society. Even those who do not consciously accept the liberal doctrines have been corrupted by them.
Decade after decade the race problem in America has become worse. But the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face. All the liberals and the Jews had to do was begin screeching about “inhumanity” or “injustice” or “genocide,” and most of our people who had been beating around the edges of a solution took to their heels like frightened rabbits. Because there was never a way to solve the race problem which would be “fair for everybody” or which everyone concerned could be politely persuaded into accepting without any fuss or unpleasantness, they kept trying to evade it, hoping that it would go away by itself. And the same has been true of the Jewish problem and the immigration problem and the overpopulation problem and the eugenics problem and a thousand related problems.
Yes, the inability to face reality and make difficult decisions: that is the salient symptom of the liberal disease. Always trying to avoid a minor unpleasantness now, so that a major unpleasantness becomes unavoidable later, always evading any responsibility to the future—that is the way the liberal mind works.
To my mind, “the Jewish problem” refers to the liberal, secularized Jews who through the decades pushed strongly to open the gates to mass immigration into the United States. Orthodox Jews don’t bother with this sort of treasonous social engineering.
If you want to listen to Pierce himself reading this chapter, go to track 17 of the above-linked audio. I repeat: this is must listening or reading to prepare ourselves for the grim future that awaits us, especially in Eurabia.
Last year some white nationalists took issue with me in this blog about the Jewish question. At that time I didn’t know that it was precisely the persistent activism from the secularized faction of the Jewish community what opened the gates to mass immigration into the United States last century. Hunter Wallace has put it succinctly three days ago in “Jews & White Nationalists”, which I re-publish below except for the commenters’ posts:
Guy White has a new post about White Nationalism and anti-Semitism that mentions me and brings up several topics of relevance to this website [The Occidental Quarterly Online]. As usual, what Guy says contains a grain of truth, but he likes to paint in broad strokes. He also tends to come at White Nationalism from a Jewish perspective.
Here’s my own two cents:
1. There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths. They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews. Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view. In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing. If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.
2. It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy. They are unreachable. These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm. Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments. The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.
3. Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet. I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website. There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.
4. There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe right-wing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse. You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.
5. I’m a reasonable man. If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans. We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.
6. Jews are resented because of their actions. Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website. We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.
7. I totally reject the victimization theory. Jews have never been victimized in the United States. I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem. Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here. They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people. Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.
8. White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South. Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.
9. White Americans are the victims, not Jews. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies. White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.
How did they repay us? By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on. We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.
In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness. American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived. They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!
10. Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews? No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice. This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.
The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet. That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.
For those who are still unconvinced about the role played by liberal Jews on suicidal mass immigration I would recommend the reading of conservative intellectuals Lawrence Auster and Takuan Seiyo. Both are half Jewish and in their writing both have exposed the mischief perpetrated by the liberal Jews. What is important for me is that, for the first time in my adult life, I can tolerate criticism on the Jews coming from non-Jewish sources such as Kevin MacDonald, even though I still believe that the truth about the Jewish question lies somewhere in-between of what Seiyo says and what MacDonald says.
Excerpts of From Meccania to Atlantis, Chapter 14: “Freiheit 451” (no ellipsis added between unquoted paragraphs):
Geert Wilders’ opening statement in court was itself predicated on the question, “If something is true, how can it be punishable?” But truth, empirical evidence, justice or the public good have nothing to do with it. This is lawfare—an asymmetrical war by the racially and culturally Europhobic neosocialist oligarchy on the people it governs. A war to squash ideas and the political parties that embody them and therefore jeopardize the oligarchy’s hold on power and the perks of power.
“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, stated the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie). “What’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”. The four paragraphs of the Dutch Penal code under which Geert Wilders is being tried may be found here, but a writer interested in the marrow of things would condense them as follows:
He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in a way insulting of, or incites hatred or discrimination or violent behavior against, person or a group of people or their property because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero-or- homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of up to one year or a big fine, except if he does so in his professional (i.e. Geert Wilders) or avocational (i.e. bloggers, freedom activists) or group (i.e. organized nonviolent resistance) capablity, he will get up to two years in prison and a bigger fine. [This means that this blog, The West’s Darkest Hour, might be considered illegal in Holland.]
What’s most telling to me is that the law expresses the fatwa of the West’s ruling elite against discrimination. That is a death sentence—for Western civilization. Without discrimination, neither physical existence nor a moral or intellectual system can obtain, except as miasmatic pap. Without wise discrimination between the inside and the outside, any society is destined for the flush hole of history. [As I have stated many times here and in other blogs’ forums, understanding liberalism’s non-discriminatory principle is absolutely fundamental to see what’s happening in the West.]
Now comes the Russian blogger Stanislav Mishin with an opinion piece that the other Pravda—the one on the Moscow River—published under the title, “Western Race Hatred Laws: Keep the Caucasians Down”. After quoting just a small sample from a long, everyday list of horrors that America’s blacks inflict on its whites and various imported Muslims do on Europe’s descendants everywhere, Mishin concludes:
When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant, not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, that is a hate crime supported by the Western femiNazis. Luckily, in Eastern Europe this idiocy does not exist. Murder is murder, and defense of the local culture is paramount. Westerners, you deserve this, since the vast majority of you take it and swallow it, like the good little castrated serfs you are. Enjoy your extinction, as you loaf around on your Chinese couches.
Eurabia and the entire neosocialist project will crash and decompose under reality’s gravity even if no one does anything to precipitate it. It will crash for it must—like a bridge designed by junkyard architects, built with imagined struts, recycled Third World cables bought on ruptured credit, incompatible materials and exploding bolts hailed as the last word in social engineering.
What in America could still be seen in the 1940s, exemplified in Maxfield Parrish’s paintings—Caucasian beauty, especially Aryan beauty, the blonde girls and those women with the most delicate facial features—... that is the crown of evolution! Presently, however, the magic of that beauty cannot be seen in our decadent culture.
Americans had these paintings at their homes, especially Daybreak: one of the most famous paintings by Maxfield Parrish. The girls were surrounded by paradisiacal worlds with mountains at the horizon, like those in Finland; near a beach and at dawn light, always with the Leitmotif of the nymphs on the foreground. Any truly emergent person who has watched the films Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice, both based on novels by Jane Austen, will see what I mean.
In one of my non-subtitled videos, where I only spoke in Spanish I talked about another film, The Lord of the Rings and about a woman, Éowyn, with the background of the city of Edoras, the capital of Rohan. In that video I said that contemplating such a woman against Edoras’ background was a numinous experience; that it transcended eroticism and took us onto the divine plane.
So this is what pains me the most: that it’s fashionable among whites—even among the Germanic people—not to breed anymore. Mixed marriages with Neanderthalesque primitives are now tolerated, as it is to import millions of Muslims, Asians and Negroes into Europe and the United States. And if we consider that blondness is the result of a recessive gene, that if the two parents are not blonde they cannot transmit it to the next generation, we are talking about the greatest crime.
I’d dare to say that this is a sin against life’s Holy Ghost...
In a purposely inflammatory entry I mentioned Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs. Johnson’s mania seems to be declaring enemies, and wishing to destroy, innocent people who are barely a centimeter to his right, politically speaking. However, I omitted the context. Below you can read “An Open Letter to Charles Johnson” by Dennis Prager, published today in FrontPage Magazine. If I re-publish it in its entirety is because it’s a good paradigm to understand some of the issues that concern me. Mr. Prager wrote:
On Sunday, The New York Times Magazine featured an article on Charles Johnson, whose website—littlegreenfootballs—had for years been very popular among conservatives and among all those who believed that Islamic terror and Islamic religious totalitarianism were the greatest expressions of contemporary evil. The reason for the article was that Mr. Johnson has made a 180-degree turn and is now profoundly, even stridently, anti-right. This is my letter to him.
Dear Charles:
As you know, over the years, I was so impressed with your near-daily documentation of developments in the Islamist world that I twice had you on my national radio show—both times face to face in my studio. And you, in turn, periodically cited my radio show and would tell your many readers when they could hear you on my show.
So it came as somewhat of a shock to see your 180-degree turn from waging war on Islamist evil to waging war on your erstwhile allies and supporters on the right. You attempted to explain this reversal on Nov. 30, 2009, when you published “Why I Parted Ways With The Right.”
You offered 10 reasons, and I would like to respond to them.
First, as disappointed as I am with your metamorphosis, I still have gratitude for all the good you did and I respect your change as a sincere act of conscience. But neither this gratitude nor this respect elevates my regard for your 10 points. They are well beneath the intellectual and moral level of your prior work. They sound like something Keith Olbermann would write if he were given 10 minutes to come up with an attack on conservatives.
1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, etc.).
Associating the American right with fascism is done only by leftist ideologues and propagandists, not by serious critics. It is akin to calling everyone on the left a Communist. As for the specific examples, forgive me, but in 28 years as a talk show host and columnist, I had never heard of Robert Stacy McCain or of Vlaams Belang. Nor did the BNP or SIOE register on my intellectual radar screen.
I looked them up and found that McCain is a former editor at the Washington Times charged with racist views. So what?
The BNP is the British National Party, a racist group that in the last U.K. general election received 0.7 percent of the popular vote. So what?
SIOE stands for Stop Islamisation of Europe. I perused its website, and while there are ideas I disagree with (e.g., the group does not believe that there are any Muslim moderates), the desire to stop the “Islamization” of Europe is hardly fascist; it is more likely animated by anti-fascism.
Vlaams Belang is a Flemish nationalist political party that won 17 out of 150 seats in Belgium ’s Chamber of Representatives. From what I could gather from a cursory glance at the party’s platform, it is an ultra-nationalist Flemish party, many of whose language protection and secessionist ideals are virtually identical to those of the Party Quebecois, a party passionately supported by the left.
In any event, what do any of these groups have to do with mainstream American right institutions such the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute; or with mainstream conservative publications and websites such as the National Review, the Weekly Standard, Townhall.com or Commentary; or with mainstream American conservatives such as Bill Kristol, Thomas Sowell, Hugh Hewitt, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, as well as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?
2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.).
I agree with the late William Buckley that some of Pat Buchanan’s views could be construed as anti-Jewish; I don’t know who McCain or Lew Rockwell represent among mainstream conservatives; and to label Ann Coulter a white supremacist (or bigot) is slander.
3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.).
“The entire religious right” wants to throw “women back into the dark ages?” As a religious (Jewish) conservative, perhaps I am a member of that group, and I find the charge absurd. The one example you give—anti-abortion—is invalid. To those who regard the unborn as worthy of life (except in the almost never occurring case of it being a threat to its mother’s life), opposition to abortion is no more anti-woman than opposition to rape is anti-man. The only people who wish to throw women into the dark ages are the people you, Charles, used to fight. That is why your change of heart has actually hurt the battle for women’s dignity and equality.
4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.).
So, Charles, all those scientists who question or deny that human activity is causing a global warming that will render much of life on earth extinct are “anti-science?”
Has the possibility occurred to you that those who are skeptical of what they consider hysteria cherish science at least as much as you do? In fact, they suspect that—for political, social, financial, psychological and/or herd-following reasons—it is the “global warming” hysterics who are more likely to be anti-science.
Activist scientists, liberal media and leftist interest groups brought us the false alarm of an imminent heterosexual AIDS pandemic in America, the false alarm about silicon breast implants leading to disease and the nonsense about how dangerous nuclear power is. They were anti-science, not us skeptics who have been right every time I can think of.
5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.).
This charge is particularly ugly. It appears that you have decided to fight all the “hate” you allege to be on the right with your own hate. Why exactly is it “homophobic bigotry” to want to maintain the millennia-old definition of marriage as the union of men and women? The hubris of those who not only want to change the definition of the most important institution in society but believe everyone who ever advocated male-female marriage was a bigot—meaning everyone who ever lived before you, Charles—is as breathtaking as it is speech-suppressing.
6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.).
What you call “anti-government lunacy” most Americans regard as preserving the greatest protector of individual liberty—limited government.
7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.).
I am no fan of Alex Jones, who, coincidentally, has attacked me on his website as a “Jewish propagandist.” But please. The amount of hate speech in one Keith Olbermann commentary dwarfs any 12 months of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. In any event, the real irony here is that before your inexplicable change, it was you who devoted years to documenting the greatest amount of hate speech on earth today—that coming from within the Islamic world. If you still hated hate speech, you would still be doing that important work.
As for believing in conspiracy theories, your new team wins hands down—from multiple assassins of JFK to the American government being behind 9-11 (it was even believed by a high-ranking member of the Obama administration) to the war in Iraq waged on behalf of Halliburton.
8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.).
From what I have seen, your examples do not justify your charge. Moreover, for every right-wing “raging hate” speech website, there are probably three on the left. The major conservative sites are overwhelmingly rational and devoid of “raging hate.” Given my longtime respect for you, Charles, it pains me that it is your list of 10 reasons for abandoning the right that is a prime example of “raging hate.”
9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.).
I saw Pamela Geller’s site (The New York Times Magazine article about you cited it—Atlas Shrugs—and mentioned nothing remotely approaching your charges against her or her site) and I’ve interviewed Robert Spencer. Your charges against them only cheapen the words “fascism,” violence” and “genocide.”
10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source).
The charge is a lie. Period. Those who cannot argue with the right always accuse it of racism. It used to work, Charles. But it is increasingly obvious to all but fellow leftists that the charge is specious. Opposition to President Obama has nothing to do with his race. Indeed, he continues to be more popular than his policies.
When you were on the politically and morally right side, Charles, you provided massive evidence for your positions. Now you throw verbal bombs. What happened? If you would like to tell me on my radio show, you are invited to do so. I miss you.
Of course: Prager still moves within a liberal framework. His labeling of “racist”, “ultra-nationalism” and the like to the British National Party and Vlaams Belang only reflects that he simply does not get it. However, his open letter is worth reading as a fair appraisal of how insanely leftists behave. (Johnson is only one among thousands like him.)
As far as the issue of race is concerned, for the moment I can only say that in a few hours I’ll upload a video on the subject with the accompanying entry in this blog. Meanwhile you may watch another video by Jared Taylor, about whom I’ll say a few spoken words tonight:
