The Stark Truth Radio network recently interviewed me again, this time specifically about the book I translated, “The Ashkenazi Revolution”. Here’s the link:
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111014/the-stark-truth-the-ashkenazi-revolution
Thinking back, there were some things I could have been more clear about. Then again, anybody who has questions is welcome to pose them here.
Bookmarks
- 4racism.org
- Alternative Hypothesis
- American Renaissance
- Amerika.org
- Black Pigeon Speaks
- CanSpeccy
- Countenance
- Counter Currents
- Dan from Squirrel Hill
- Diversity Chronicle
- Europa Unitas
- fleuchtling (refugees)
- Government and Corporate Anti-White Discrimination
- Hail to You
- HBD Chick
- Human stupidity
- It's Okay to be White
- John Derbyshire
- La Griffe du Lion
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Luke Ford
- Madspace
- Muunyayo
- Nimshal
- Nodhimmitude
- Occidental Dissent
- Reluctant Apostate
- Sincerity
- Soviet Men
- Steve Sailer's blog
- Taki's Magazine
- The Atheist Jew
- The Last Ditch
- The Mad Jewess
- The National Conservative
- The Politically Incorrect Australian
- The slitty eye
- The Unz Review (Steve Sailer)
- Those who can see
- Thuletide
- Utter Contempt
- VDare
Buy Your Coffee From These Patriots
The point you bring about how the author of Ashkenazi Revolution believed that jews were a variety of ethnic groups united under one name reminds me of how hindus are a variety of united under one name.
Also the forced secularization of non-ashkenazic children by the ashkenazi’s is something that reminds me of how native american and aboriginal australians were taken from their homes and forced to go to schools in order to teach them how to be “modern”.
I do support though the rights of ethnic groups within jewry to preserve their uniqueness if that is what they wish to do. But if they are to do that they have to give up notions of their superiority over one another. For instance ashkenazi notions of their superiority to other sorts of jews inspired them to engage in forced secularization of non-ashkenazic jews and such behaviors are not only cruel but they also promote ethnic integration. And so ironically notions of racial superiority often inspire people to enact policies that promote ethnic integration.
It could be argued that a people cannot survive long term unless it has at least a minimal sense of superiority over other peoples. I’m not saying this justifies crimes against other peoples, or even that this sense of superiority must be well-founded, just that it might be part of human nature.
Agreed. My argument is that a) it is not possible to make competitive judgements (to THINK) if you do not view yourselves as superior or ‘special’ or ‘chosen’ or some other form of exceptionalism, b) it is not possible to coordinate competitive economic action c) it is not possible to coordinate competitive political action, d) it is not possible to coordinate competitive military action necessary to hold territory such that you can establish institutions and rules (property rights – whether individual or collective) necessary for trade, capitalization and prosperity.
Property, Money and numbers are necessary in order for humans to think and plan. Status signals (habits, as well as consumer goods and services) are necessary because without them we would not know who to imitate. And a sense of exceptionalism is necessary in order for people to make the common contributions and sacrifices by way of millions of small semi-chaotic actions,that create a polity that is able to concentrate some form of capital.
So, yes, on technical grounds, a people cannot survive without an identity. An identity is a catch-all word for a means of coordinating millions upon millions of actions. Common sense is only common among people with a shared identity. Identity matters. In fact, it may matter more than money,writing, numbers literacy and property. Because without identity no group would create a society that created those technologies.
Identity is a means of competing.
The only measure of a philosophy is the economic status of it’s adherents.
I don’t see what advocating for your own ethnicity has to do with superiority. It’s like sports fans – except for fairweather fans, superiority is not an issue. It’s about supporting your own team. (If you take this approach, you don’t add weight to the opponent’s strawman caricature of your own position.)
However, in times of war it is imperative that the rank and file have the belief that their side will win, otherwise they won’t fight. That may include a belief in your own side’s superiority.
I’ve been reading The Ashkenazi Revolution recently. While Katzenelson was, of course, writing for Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, some of his observations are applicable to white people generally. The most important, I thought, was the idea of the Jews seeking to rule over time, by ensuring their continuation as a people, rather than space, by building empires. He points to how the early Hebrew tribes “squandered” territory to maintain the ethnic integrity of the land they did hold, and accepted an existence as a diaspora people (starting during the Roman occupation) rather than remain rooted to their ancestral homeland, where they would have ultimately died out as a distinct people.
The case of South Africa provides an interesting contrast with the state of Israel, which I think is illustrative of the distinction between the Jews as a people of time, and (at least certain) non-Jewish whites as people of space. Some, whether anti-Israeli (like Joe Slovo), or pro-Afrikaner (like Ilana Mercer), have pointed out the similarities between the Afrikaner government of South Africa before 1994, and the Jewish state of Israel. And certainly some similarities do exist. Both were founded by Europeans (certainly in a cultural sense, even allowing for the fact that the Ashkenazim share common origins with middle easterners). Both were set among populations that were either ambivalent or hostile to them. But one, the Jewish state of Israel, has survived thus far, while the Afrikaner state has fallen, and with it the fortunes of the Afrikaners and British South Africans.
The great contrast (in my humble and certainly fallible opinion) between Israel and South Africa is the rule over time versus space. White South Africans chose to rule over a vast (compared to their population) territory, filled with many people who were non-white and often hostile, while the Jews in Israel opted for a smaller, but more heavily Jewish, territory. One could say that the Afrikaners and British South Africans ruled over space, but not time, with consequences that were beneficial in the short term (I’m going to venture that the average white South African under apartheid had a high standard of living compared to the average Jew in Israel), but disastrous for their long-term existence as a people, with emigration or a slow destruction as the only realistic options open to them now.
One could argue, of course, that Israel benefitted from a strong relationship with the United States, and mixed relations with other western countries. By contrast, apartheid South Africa lacked that advantage, and became increasingly isolated from the world at large, especially in its later years. However, the Israelis also faced challenges that South Africa avoided, such as more competent opponents (If I had to choose which opponent would be easier to defeat in a war, I’d definitely choose black Africans over Arabs), fewer natural resources, the resettlement of a vast displaced Mizrahi Jewish population (South Africa faced a similar problem with whites emigrating from other African countries, but certainly not to the same extent), and a violent conflict with the British mandate preceding independence. And, of course, South Africa’s problems with international relations didn’t really begin in earnest until the 70s and 80s, while many of Israel’s problems with foreign relations plagued the country in its infancy, when it was theoretically more vulnerable. And ultimately, a white government ruling over a smaller, but majority-white, territory could almost certainly have weathered the troubles that beset South Africa in its later years.
Sorry for the excessively long post, and the rather rambling thought process (I’m very tired right now), but I think the overall point is salient to the existence of whites as a distinct race in the future.
Yes, this is a correct analysis.
I agree; there is much in that book that applies to whites in general. Your analogy with South Africa is a very good one. White South Africans risk becoming like the Samaritans, described in the book.
Is it just me or does Stark sound like Bobcat Goldthwait?
I dont get the reference but Stark was clearly not born for radio.
I disagree, Stark does a very good job with his show and has a wide range of guests and issues. His voice sounds fine for radio too. He asks many thought provoking questions and his mind is not confined by any particular ideology…. he is able to “think outside the box”. Every other blog I have looked at where people have commented on his show had comments that had nothing but praise for him and his show. The criticisms he has received from a couple posters on this blog is an aberration from the norm.
Better late than never for me to defend Stark. He did, after all, do me the honor of allowing me to voice my opinions on his station. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure his station is affiliated with people who tend to be anti-Jewish. So it takes a certain amount of courage for him to interview a Jew like me. As for his voice, there’s not much he can do about it. My voice isn’t exactly made for radio either.
SOJ-
If you had bothered to read my follow up comment you’d have seen that I praised the content. My criticism concerned his voice only. If he plans to continue in radio or even public speaking then he should work on it.
I disagree destructure, I contend his voice is fine.
Yeah. His voice is fine… for a 13 yr old boy whose voice is changing.
Destructure your just wrong, what you say makes no sense.
Sorry, but I must concur.
Stark does have a rather annoying voice.
This is a great interview. It’s a fascinating discussion addressing issues from a different angle than I’m used to.
JAY,
Could you elaborate more on the difference between a people of time and a people of space? Is the major difference between the two that a people of time have the option of living in a somewhat nomadic way if they have to and are able to preserve their culture while doing so?
That’s pretty much my take on the matter as well – but you’re welcome to read the book and come to your own conclusion.
As per usual I think that the interviewer leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps I’m too harsh, but I would certainly go deeper and in fewer topics. Nontheless, it was a passable interview. The length made up for what it lacked in focus. Your answers were good, and detailed, in the manner that you were able to answer him.
On a related note, I’ve also been reading the Ashkenazi Revolution, albeit slowly, but it’s a good book. As someone noted above, there are many concepts that are valid not just for whites but for peoples in general.
The irony, of course, is that while white Europeans face mass immigration, Jews face mass assimilation(and mass intermarriage) at rates which are far more dangerous than anything Europeans face.
This is strange, because there is so much wisdom in the Jewish intellectual class, at least that which is vintage(many newer Jewish intellectual types are too narrowminded on the current political flavours of the day and don’t look long-term to such an extent anymore, of course, mainlain European intellectuals are not only not better but often worse).
I’ve been reading more and more Jewish literature and I’ve found quite a few gems, some just for the pleasure of reading and some because of their insight. But once you get past the obvious books, things get harder. There’s quite a collection in the states and to some degree in the UK, but outside of those nations things are harder to come by.
That’s why these pdf books are great, so thanks again for putting in the time.