Solid Comments

13John Smith

The “them” aren’t “the folks in the small towns and rural areas of that other America”, they’re any white who isn’t self-loathing and desirous of their own destruction, regardless of their income. Obama’s remarks were racist, that is the primary thing wrong with them, and “conservatism’s” co-operation in helping the media deflect the controversy away from the racist hatred of whites that defines the modern left to “bitterness” is a classic case of quisling behavior, and a good example of why conservatism is in disarray. Because they are afraid to deal with the real nature of these remarks they have allowed themselves to be channeled into the ineffective tactic of accusing Obama of being an elitist. He’s a racist, from a genocidally racist political movement, his elitism is irrelevant.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=568#comments

Well argued by Smith. He leaves out the jew behind the left, but he sets it up so the next guy can supply the deeper answer. Instead of prejudicing the full answer, he preps the ground for it. Smith shows the way to argue when you're afraid your remarks will be deleted. You don't necessarily have to say everything, but you must avoid obstructing the way to full understanding by staying on the road, even if you stop short of the destination.

Jew Saul Gottfried's Mission: Steering Young White Conservative Intellectuals Away From Jew-Knowledge

Responding to My Respondents
Posted by Paul Gottfried on April 15, 2008

My last full-length essay on Taki evoked so many thoughtful comments, including essays by Daniel Larison and Richard Spencer (and a long opinion piece by Gerald Russello on the American Conservative website) that I am producing this detailed clarification. The critical thrust of the comments received was more or less the following: First of all, I have overstated the difference between the paleoconservatives and the younger generation of those who are attacking the neoconservatives from the right. Both groups have said pretty much the same things about the evils of the welfare state, the folly of basing a foreign policy on Wilsonian rhetoric, and the leftist origins and cosmology of the neoconservative rulers of the “conservative movement.” There is no significant distinction to be drawn among right-wingers based on generational differences. Where they differ, according to Russello, is that paleos show a deeper knowledge of philosophy and history than those who are coming after them. That difference indicates a greater intellectual reach on the part of the paleos, who have managed to be more than “journalists and activists.”

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/responding_to_my_respondents/

On and on, boringer and boringer with each paragraph. A man who writes the way jew Gottfried does has one or two purposes: to make money; to deceive. There is no substantial difference between professional conservatives today and yesterday. They are career girls. It is the most distinctive characteristic of the class. Even Canny Sammy, the race-daringest of them all, was a career girl rather than a radical, let alone a revolutionary. A career girl is defined as someone who never puts a cause ahead of his personal interests. As Oliver North said, the truth never put any food on anyone's table. Paleoconservatives don't buck the System, they are the System. Not, of course, all of it, or the part that defines the whole, but a prop. Paleoconservatives lend support to ZOG's anti-White System by misleading their readers as to the root cause of the Right's, taken in its loosest sense, litany of woes. Cultural degeneration, open borders, immoral foreign wars, racial crime, affirmative action - all these policies or results of policies can be traced to jews. If these same jews are in positions of power, and they are, and their fellows like Gottfried never discuss them, and they avoid it as far as they possibly can, given they're on the right where in spite of all best intentions these dirty little secrets still pop up, then jews like Gottfried must be taken as an integral part of the System they affect to seek to change.

Professional conservatism is inseparable from dickering over details since discussing the tenets of the system they whine about is taboo. The System known as America is built on the suppression of White identity. To defend itself the System nibbles and bites at free speech and self-defense rights secured in the White-devised Constitution. That is obvious. Less obvious is that the System sustains itself by creating, and thereby controlling, its own opposition. This is where shielding jews such as Paul Gottfried come in. Always jew Gottfried concern is to lead his charges away from the jewish connection to our troubles. Always the jew conceals or, if he can't do that, downplays the demonstrably true conception that our real rulers are jews driven by an ethnic agenda that includes genocide for Whites. Always jew Gottfried blames Protestants and the managerial state, while ignoring his fellow jews' stated words about their motives and aims.

Young conservatives assimilate into a System that tacitly accepts jews as the touchstone for all values. No view of history is acceptable unless some jew approves. The neocons have their Jaffa, dictating the official party line on Lincoln. But the paleocons have their Lukacs, dictating the party line on race and nationalism. All that remains to be done is to use the smears and epithets honed by their brother jews on the left to denounce any budding paleo-brain who dares to color outside the established lines.

Taki says he began Takimag to take on the neocons, but all he has done is establish a variant of their orthodoxy that is every bit as totalitarian in shutting out dissenting views. If racial strife between jews and Whites is at the heart of the struggle over the future of the Whites' West, you will never hear of it at Takimag, where discussion is limited to what jews deem safe, respectable, responsible, appropriate - whichever word they want to use as an excuse to get out of debating first principles.

McCarthy Says Screw You to Founders, I'll Side With The Powerful Jews

Further Notes on Nationalism

Posted by Daniel McCarthy on April 14, 2008

In the comments thread of my nationalism and patriotism piece, Aaron Wolf raises an important question: what is the American nation? Does a conservative nationalism have to be “white nationalism”?

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/further_notes_on_nationalism/

I’ll answer the latter quickly by saying that conservative nationalism cannot be white nationalism, since white nationalism is contrary to the traits of the American character that conservatives want to preserve.

Boom! That's the sound of Daniel McCarthy flinging Thomas Jefferson out the window in the name of his false and jew-afeared conservatism.

Jefferson, like the rest of the founders, knew the truth about race, and he expressed it memorably and for all time when he said:

[The] two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.

Posted by Takimag 2.0 on Apr 14, 2008.

Why are these comments allowed to stand. Where is Spencer? Get these down now.

Posted by Paul Gottfried on Apr 14, 2008.

Any American nationalist, but especially a conservative one, is going to want to preserve as much as possible of this institutional and cultural patrimony.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with race, because it might hurt your income if you acknowledged it did.

Imagine an ant colony trying to integrate sloths and wolverines, and pretending there was no essential racial difference, it was just a matter of assimilating the sloths and wolverines in line with the cultural and institutional patrimony.

You can only carry off your pseudo-conservative jewish liberalism by denying there’s a genocidal race war being carried out against Whites.

McCarthy, you and your ilk have to look up to see the good men doing nothing. You’re not merely doing nothing, you’re actively aiding the bolshevik jews murdering America.

Posted by Takimag 2.0 on Apr 14, 2008.

Lines

Paleoconservatism is the helper without the hamburger.

Ravings, Obsessions and Fetishes: The Marks of the Jew-Critic

Ravis, often-times I want to post a link to an exceptional essay or blog post on here, only to be too embarrassed to do so due to the litany of hysterical anti-Jewish ravings of various commenters here. I think it’s worth it to censor.

Posted by Dominic on Apr 12, 2008.

_________________

Takimag is sprinkled with posts like the above. They are intended to reinforce the stereotype. You know - that anyone who criticizes jews is obsessed with them. Has a fetish, you might say. Which he or she expresses in raves, rants and diatribes.

Did you just point out that the concepts of 'hate' and 'racism' were both created by jews?

Stop raving.

Did you point out that jews were behind the 1965 immigration 'reform' that was intended to 'elect a new people'?

What are you, obsessed?

Did you mention that America sends Israel over ten million dollars a day? Every day?

It is clear that you have a jew fetish.

Please seek professional help immediately.

It's like the paleocons, and other liberals, reverse Mencken's dictum when it comes to the adherents of the Mosaic cosmogeny. There is only one way to look at a jew - up.

The coward knows that there is safety not only in numbers, but in cliches and stereotypes, which are numbers applied to terms, or usages. If 50,000 people say that jew-critics are obsessed, but only ten point out that jews literally wrote the hate laws used to persecute Whites, then it is clear to the average coward, pardon me, conservative, that it is better to side with the juggernaut. Being intelligent, the conservative, particularly the writers, disguises his cowardice in a joke.

Conservatives like to talk about prudence as a higher value, but in reality their prudence is little more than self-interested cowardice.

What do they exist to conserve? What do they exist to preserve? Musn't race have something to do with these?

Of course, but you will not be allowed to bring up the point at Takimag. Every foolish liberal spouting the nonsense that race is reducible to skin color will be allowed to post to his heart's content, but no serious adducing of racial facts, not opinion, facts, will be allowed. Factual postings on race, gibing or gibe-free, will be censored as soon as the Takimag editor sees them.

That it the state of conservatism today. Sticking to the facts makes you a head case worthy only of laughter and ostracism.

If you subtracted the snobs, climbers and cowards from conservatism you would end up with a negative number. If paleoonservatives were real men of the kind they celebrate in their words, it would have taken the jews more than two days to take over their foundations and magazines.