Please Take Us Seriously

We have received some very important, albeit stern, advice:

If right-wing philosophers want to be taken seriously, this blog is not the way to do it!  But if they simply want to have their own cyber-circle of self-congratulation plus unabashed sexism and racism, then they’re doing a great job!

This is extremely helpful. Apparently, if we just stop with the “insane bigotry”, “unabashed sexism and racism”, and “right-wing Christian prejudices”, we’ll have at least a chance of being “taken seriously” by the left. I had no idea. I hadn’t realized that all we have to do is stop saying things we think are morally true or empirically plausible – i.e., the things that conflict with the left’s views – and, in return, we might be “taken seriously” by them.

We must do this immediately. Let’s drop all the claims that bother the left and accept their premises. Let’s argue within their framework and rules. We can politely ask to futilely express a slight objection from time to time. Perhaps someone on the left will agree to screen our posts in advance for any offensive content. Whatever it requires, the most important thing is that we are “taken seriously” by the left. Our intellectual legitimacy depends upon it. Without their stamp of approval, we are nothing. The profound sensibility and good judgment of the left is clearly the standard by which we should measure ourselves. Right-wing philosophers will never get anywhere or do anything productive or interesting unless we are firmly ensconced within, and constrained by, the orthodox leftist views of the field.

Plus, as a matter of strategy, it’s clearly best to prioritize appeasement to one’s ideological enemies. How do you think the left took control of things in the first place? As everyone knows, they dialectically shackled themselves within right-wing theoretical frameworks and then convinced everyone by rational argument that they were correct! (For example, that’s obviously how radical feminism developed.)

Anyway, it sure is heartwarming to see that people out there in the leftist “cyber-circle of self-congratulation” are concerned about us and willing to generously offer good advice. I was worried that they might only try to discredit and shame us, and then offer us fake advice about being “taken seriously” even though they would never in a million years take us seriously. And I’m embarrassed to admit that, cynically, the thought even crossed my mind that we shouldn’t care in the slightest whether the deranged academic left takes us seriously or not.

Criticus Ferox

Criticus Ferox was relegated to the basket of deplorables because he refused to embrace the vilification and destruction of his nation, culture, race, sex, and way of life. You can contact him at:

View All Posts


  1. Good post Criticus, thanks.

    Apparently Leiter can’t read; otherwise, he could have scrolled down and noticed our singulary lucid comment policy on the right. (Is it really that difficult to realize that we don’t have time to respond to every comment, especially ones that talk about “venomously effective leftist Jews”?)

    But, of course, Lyin’ Leiter would rather smear us than interact with any of the beautiful content from our recent *posts* (written by actual *contributors*).

    (By the way, I thought his trying to make our blog sound more like StormFront by writing it as “RightlyConsidered” was actually pretty funny.)

    • Hi IO. You’re right of course that your not criticizing me doesn’t entail agreeing. Leiter’s just stupid. But I’m curious. When Susan Sontag said “the white race is the cancer of human history” was that not venomous in your view? Or when Tim Wise publicly gloats that white Americans are going to die and be replaced by non-white non-Americans–“tick tock”–was that not venomous? I can give you many hundreds of examples of prominent leftist Jews saying this kind of thing. I can give you strong evidence that leftist Jews have been highly over-represented in movements aimed at demonizing and dispossessing the white Euro Christian majority. (If evidence matters here.)

      Is your view that none of this is evidence that such people are venomous? That the evidence is so laughably weak that you can just dismiss me as a crazed hater, like the left wants? Or is it that you doubt that all this leftist Jewish activism and messaging has been effective in motivating anti-majority trends in our society? And you think that this is just obviously true and so needs no discussion? Or maybe you’re just unaware of the kinds of evidence I’m citing?

      I ask sincerely–I’m curious as to why an anti-leftist would accept the left’s standards of acceptable discussion on this issue, i.e., the view that any claims such as mine are so obviously wrong that they aren’t even worthy of consideration or criticism.

      • But the palpably absurd assertions that American whites are victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the use of the kind of language you used about ‘leftist Jews’ are at least *evidence* of an internal anti-Semitism, since anti-Semites are the kinds of people who are most likely to emphasise those kinds of assertions. The crimes of people who happen to be left-wing Jews generally pale in comparison to the crimes of left- and right-wing whites in just the last century (I’m thinking, of course, of the ideologies of Nordic racial purity (National Socialism) and totalitarian communism (Russian Bolshevism)). Soviet Bolshevism has done more than anything else to destroy Christianity in Eastern Europe.

  2. Quick comment: are you not aware of the massive over-representation of Jews in Bolshevism and the Red Terror? It’s very well documented. (More in a bit about palpable absurdity 🙂

    • So what? How does that in any way response to my comment? If we’re throwing around blame, white Europeans are responsible for the lion’s share of the enormous amount of suffering that took place in the last century, motivated in part by the same sentiments you’re expressing about Jewish responsibility for Bolshevism. The Soviet Union was, as you know, extremely anti-Semitic, even if there were Jewish bolsheviks.

      • Oh boy. I’ll explain how it counts as a “response” to your comment then. You claimed:

        “The crimes of people who happen to be left-wing Jews generally pale in comparison to the crimes of left- and right-wing whites in just the last century.”

        This is pretty dubious, in fact. Here’s why: as you yourself appear to recognize, the crimes of the Bolsheviks were super-duper-enormous (and actually dwarf anything the Nazis did) and yet Jews were _massively_ over-represented within Bolshevism at its most criminal and evil. But in that case, your own example of super-duper “crimes” can’t really be attributed to “left- and right-wing (non-Jewish) whites”. It’s also an example of crimes committed by “people who happen to be left-wing Jews”. And then we consider just how _tiny_ a portion of Europe’s population was Jewish, despite their astounding over-representation Red Terror, etc. All of this is relevant, I think you’ll agree, to the question of whether the quoted claim above is true–whether crimes of “people who happen to be left-wing Jews” really do “pale in comparison”. So that’s how it’s a response.

        Your claim about the Soviet Union at the end is very crude and misleading. There were indeed _periods_ of anti-semitism in the USSR, and anti-semitic themes and powers. On the other hand, the USSR also made anti-semitism a capital offense. There was massive pro-semitic (or anti-anti-semitic) propaganda. Just think about that. Anti-semitism was a capital offense. Then tell me again how it’s just so silly to think the Bolsheviks were partly motivated by Jewish racial animus.

        The phrase “people who happen to be left-wing Jews” is precious. Do you really think that people like Jason Stanley just “happen to be left-wing Jews”? You’ve never noticed that in Jewish culture and discourse there is a very strong tendency towards (a) strong racial-cultural identification with other Jews and Jewish interests and Jewish history, plus (b) some fear or hostility or hatred towards out-groups? You think Hart and Celler pushed their immigration stuff just because they “happened” to believe it would be good for America to be less Euro and less Christian, for reasons having nothing at all to do with their own racial-cultural identity and interests and loyalties, etc? You must be very naive. Jews are like other people.

    • It’s not ‘palpably absurd’ to claim that whites in the west are targets for genocide if we accept anything like the UN definition of genocide, such that a sufficient condition for genocide is “(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Flooding France or England or the USA with dozens of millions of racial-cultural aliens, with no intention of _ever_ reducing these flows, and with the explicit intention of making these lands permanently radically “diverse” while simultaneously promoting at all levels of education and in the media an ever more aggressive anti-white, anti-Euro message is at least _arguably_ a policy meeting condition (c). I guess we could argue about how deliberate it is, for example. Or we could argue about whether this attempt to make whites into hated powerless minorities in their own lands–the only racial group it’s legal to discriminate against, and so on–is “calculated” to actually bring about “physical destruction” of the white race at least “in part”. But this is not “palpably absurd” unless you are a doctrinaire leftist with no ability to observe what’s happening and make some simple deductions. I’d add that western governments are also (arguably) imposing measures that meet a different condition regarded by the UN as sufficient which can be interpreted so as to be distinct from (c): “(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. Promotion of feminism, abortion, sterility, homosexuality, sexual mutilation of children (i.e., “trans”) and other measures being aggressively promoted to whites PLUS mass importation of high-fertility patriarchal immigrant cultures might well be INTENDED by our elites to prevent white Euro births. (Yes, I know you’ll argue all that toxic shit is being promoted to _everyone_ equally but that’s not quite right; I’ll leave the details to later.)

      Whites have obviously been subjected to something that looks a lot like “ethnic cleansing” when their governments impose busing and Section 8 and other kinds of forced integration in the US, or import Asian rape gangs to England and then arrest victims and their parents for ‘racism’. These are policies that clearly do ‘cleanse’ whole neighborhoods or even cities of whites–but we can argue about whether it’s intentional, of course.

      Anyway you’re just mistaken if you claim all this stuff about genocide and ethnic cleansing is “palpably absurd”. You sound like a typical leftist, frankly. Though it’s worth noting that many lefties in the past were sensible about race and culture, and I have sympathy for those people; old-fashioned working-people’s leftism is just fine by me. But let’s not kid ourselves about “palpable absurdity”. Read McDonald’s work and tell me how “absurd” it all is.

    • Jacques,

      “as you yourself appear to recognize, the crimes of the Bolsheviks were super-duper-enormous (and actually dwarf anything the Nazis did) and yet Jews were _massively_ over-represented within Bolshevism at its most criminal and evil.”

      Even if this were true, it wouldn’t do anything to undermine the obvious fact that white Russians bear the lion’s share of the blame for the crimes of the Soviet Union (are slavs white, according to your ideology?). Your claim is less interesting than the utterly unremarkable observation that whites were ‘massively over-represented’ within (colonial) governments in Africa (e.g. South Africa or Rhodesia), which caused a tremendous amount of suffering against the native majority black populations they were subjugating. Go talk about ‘venomously effective white colonialists.’

      “Do you really think that people like Jason Stanley just “happen to be left-wing Jews”?”

      Yes, as a matter of fact, people like Jason Stanley just happen to be left-wing Jews. This is true because they just happen to be left-wing, and needn’t have been. Obviously.

      “You’ve never noticed that in Jewish culture and discourse there is a very strong tendency towards (a) strong racial-cultural identification with other Jews and Jewish interests and Jewish history, plus (b) some fear or hostility or hatred towards out-groups?”

      Yes, I’ve noticed that some *religiously orthodox* Jews (in my family, for example) have a strong connection to their culture and community and can be sceptical of people in other groups. I’ve met *many* secular Jews, the vast majority of whom are leftists, and I’ve never met one for whom (b) is true. No leftist Jew I’ve ever met is fearful of or hostile to or hates white people, for example. Maybe there are some Jewish ‘intellectuals’ who do, but the vast majority of ordinary leftist Jews I’ve encountered couldn’t care less about race (in the sense in which (b) requires; as leftists, they are of course concerned with race other ways). For many of them, Judaism consists pretty much only in Hanukkah and Passover. They are pretty much just ordinary white leftists who exchange gifts on a different day from the rest of us. If these Jews had such a fervent connection to their religion and culture, they probably wouldn’t be leftists. The ones who are most likely to care about Judaism and traditional Jewish culture tend not to be leftists at all (most vote Republican). See here (Trigger warning: Ben Shapiro is in this video):

      “It’s not ‘palpably absurd’ to claim that whites in the west are targets for genocide if we accept anything like the UN definition of genocide, such that a sufficient condition for genocide is “(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.”

      Yeah, it’s palpably absurd even given that characteristic sloppiness from the UN. Mass immigration doesn’t even remotely involve the ‘deliberate inflicting on [white people] conditions of life *calculated* to bring about [their] *physical destruction* in whole or in part.’ It is no more genocidal than whites changing the demographic composition of the New World *by flooding it with white people* (although there were, of course, terrible crimes committed by white people against the Natives) or Jews emigrating to Palestine, increasing their share of the overall population. White people aren’t being physically destroyed; their share of the population is just decreasing. If white people cease to exist altogether, it will not be because of Mexican mass immigration; it will be because they’ve freely decided not to breed. A more accurate term would be cultural *suicide* since, by your own admission, this is mostly self-inflicted. So, yes, it is palpably absurd to suppose that there is a genocide against white people in this country, as any competent English speaker who isn’t a race-obsessed propagandist would see. Genocide involves systematic killing; that’s why the word is, y’know, geno*cide.* And lexicographers apparently agree with me about what people ordinarily mean by the word:

      genocide |ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd|
      noun [ mass noun ]
      the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group. a campaign of genocide. [ count noun ] : news of genocides went unreported.

      “Anyway you’re just mistaken if you claim all this stuff about genocide and ethnic cleansing is “palpably absurd”. You sound like a typical leftist, frankly.”

      Anyway, you’re just mistaken if you think whites are victims of genocide. You sound like a typical racist, frankly.

      • Okay so you’re not going to dispute that Jews were massively over-represented within this massively genocidal evil movement, Bolshevism, or that this tiny tiny minority was responsible for quite a _lot_ of the very worst stuff the Bolsheviks did? (Including, of course, inventing and propagating their insane ideology.) But you just want to point out that _other_ people are responsible for ‘the lion’s share’ of Bolshevik crimes. Well, I doubt that even, but suppose we grant it. That makes no difference to my original claim that leftist Jews are the most “venomously effective” group in this respect. Suppose they were only responsible for 37% of Bolshevik murders and persecutions and so on. If they were 4% of the population in the USSR, or an even smaller proportion of the world’s population, that would suggest they are VERY effective at killing and oppressing Christians. Effectiveness is measured not only by sheer numbers of victims and scale of anti-Christian (and anti-Euro, anti-white) destruction, obviously–you also have to factor in the numbers of the perpetrators. If one tiny drop of toxin A kills you, but it takes gallons of toxin B, then A is a more effective poison.

        But it’s not especially plausible that “white Russians” or “Slavs” bear the “lion’s share” of responsibility for crimes of the Bolsheviks. Here it seems you really do need to just learn more about the empirical facts. Jews were often a _majority_ or near-majority of the leadership and elites of the Bolsheviks in precisely those areas where the worst crimes were being committed–leadership of the gulags, the Cheka, etc. Plausibly, leaders are more responsible than followers or powerless subjects. But, again, this is also just irrelevant to the claim of mine you’re trying to criticize.

      • “No leftist Jew I’ve ever met is fearful of or hostile to or hates white people, for example.”

        You need to get out more then. Or maybe you’re Jewish, and you simply don’t recognize their fear and hostility because you share it? The Sontag quote and the Wise quote aren’t isolated things. These are by far the most typical attitudes of leftist Jews down the ages; can it really be that you don’t know that? Or just read the NYT, for God’s sake. You haven’t noticed that it’s very often (leftist) Jews who writing these reverential-sounding things about Jews and Jewish traditions and interests while expressing disdain for whites, Christians, etc.? Try to find even one article in the NYT where a Jewish writer is harshly critical of traditional Judaism for its racial supremacist attitudes, the command to exterminate Amalek, the Talmudic permission to treat gentiles like garbage. Or one critical of Jews for their wealth and power and indifference to the plight of poor white trash. And yet you’re going to find endless articles written by Jews about how whites are evil racists because not enough of them voted for Obama, because they’re “privileged” and still don’t care enough about blacks, etc. This is hostility and hate.

        Think of all the articles in the Jewish-dominated leftist media about how Trump is Hitler–all of that insanity and bullshit. Where does that come from, do you think? It’s evidence of some very extreme neurotic fear of the non-Jewish majority.

        Or look at the bullshit field of “whiteness studies”, which I mentioned: very heavily Jewish, and these Jewish people never ever criticize Jews or Jewish culture as such, but they can’t shut up about how “whites” and “white” culture is racist, exclusionary, etc. Think of how so many leftist Jews push hard for open borders and multiculturalism in Europe or the US but never say anything about Israel’s nationalist-racialist policies. You haven’t noticed that phenomenon either, or you don’t think that’s evidence of any hostile attitudes? Pretty much everyone notices this, you know. It’s really not just “racists” like me.

      • “If white people cease to exist altogether, it will not be because of Mexican mass immigration; it will be because they’ve freely decided not to breed”

        It won’t be a free decision. People conditioned from early childhood through grad school to hate their race, their ancestors, their culture and therefore _themselves_ aren’t able to access normal human drives and emotions. They can’t properly love themselves or their children. In addition, natural instincts and behavior are distorted and suppressed under unnatural conditions–such as, for example, invasion of a sub-species’ habitat by huge numbers of other, far more aggressive and powerful sub-species. This is something we observe in lots of other animals, not just humans. When the state makes it clear that white men will be punished severely for protecting themselves or their families against criminals and terrorists and racial animosity, white men don’t want to do what they’d otherwise want to do–and white women don’t want to do what they’d otherwise want to do.

        Of course there are other things going on too. Low IQ high-fertility immigrants are a massive net drain, and whites pay. Being higher IQ and having greater foresight (and just different standards and cultural norms) many whites simply can’t afford to start families when they would have, if there’d been no massive infusion of alien dependents using up their resources and money; or they can’t have families as large as they’d have preferred. So in fact Mexican and other immigration does arguably prevent whites in America from having families above replacement level (and I suspect this is to some degree a deliberate thing on the part of the hostile elites).

        One of the major problems in leftism and mainstream conservatism is this very simplistic notion of freedom or autonomy.

      • “Yes, as a matter of fact, people like Jason Stanley just happen to be left-wing Jews. This is true because they just happen to be left-wing, and needn’t have been. Obviously.”

        Obviously? It’s _obviously_ just a coincidence that the tiny tiny minority generating such a huge proportion of everyone who wants to destroy white western civilization is also (i) defined by an ancient history of extreme ethnocentrism, (ii) a minority that has always regarded itself as a _tribe_ and a _diaspora_ and therefore, (iii) has never fully identified with the majority racial-cultural group in any western nation, (iv) has been at least culturally shaped by an ancient religion based on notions of racial purity, racial supremacism and racial conflict with every other racial-cultural group, and (v) has often openly admitted to all of the preceding points? That’s _obviously_ a bunch of stuff that “just happens” to be true of this very unusual group of people?

        Sorry, you’re just a fool if you think that’s obvious. (Do you think it’s obviously just a meaningless coincidence that so many terrorists are Muslims–nothing really to do with their peaceful religion at all?)

        Consider a different issue. I find it hard to believe that so many super-smart philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, chess masters and so on are Jews. I suspect that their Jewishness may have something to do with it–there are (surely) some cultural and also genetic traits that play a role here. Would you say that all those people too “just happen to be” Jewish? That it could just as easily have turned out that so many Nobel Prizes would be going to Congolese pygmies instead? If you think that’s _obvious_ then you’re a fool, you’re trapped in some weird blank-slate leftism that you need to re-examine.

        Maybe you mean merely to point out that it’s logically or metaphysically possible for Stanley to have been a social conservative or a “self-hating Jew” like Norman Finkelstein. Okay, I grant it’s obvious that he “needn’t have been” a leftist anti-white creep in some such sense. But then you’re just being disingenous. I was (obviously) not talking about that kind of thing.

    • Jacques,

      I am doing this off the top of my head, but I have enough of the literature that we can go back and forth about it if need be (specifically, these are off the top of my head so I may be slightly miscategorizing things – the percentages might apply to slightly different categories). In the early 1930s, 34% of the judges in the Soviet Union responsible for decisions that led to mass starvation and death due to forced collectivization and other horrifying measures were Jewish; I believe Jewish people were only 2% of the then Soviet population. By the end of the 1930s, only 4% of the judges were Jewish. What happened in the intervening years? The initial judges were all purged, exiled or executed. So one reading of the matter is the Red Terror functioned in part to delegitimize (as well as execute) some classes of Jewish intellectuals. The role of Jewish judges in the Great Terror was subsequently used by Stalin after World War 2 in a large and well-documented anti-Semitic campaign in the Soviet Union; see Timothy Snyder’s chapter “Stalin’s Anti-Semitism” in either Blood Lands or the Black Earth. In other words, while Jewish intellectuals made up a disproportionate part of the instigators of the Great Terror in the 1930s, they also made up a disproportionate part of its victims. And it is historically well-documented that Stalin used the initial over-representation of Jews in the 1930s as part of a large anti-Semitic campaign after World War II to mask the fact that Jews were a vastly more disproportionate part of the Soviet citizens, and persons in the Soviet zone of control, were lost their lives in that war (including as soldiers for the Red Army).

      I am glad you have dropped your recitation of the Inquisition’s charge against the Talmud.

      • Hi Jason.
        I agree with the above. I never claimed there were no anti-Jewish periods or forces in the USSR. There were. (And somewhere here I believe I already said that, but I don’t expect you to have waded through all the back and forth in multiple threads.)

        But I don’t see how this counts against the initial claims of mine that you earlier seemed to dispute and regard as “anti-semitic”. If we agree that Jews were massively over-represented as perpetrators of a massive murderous anti-majority anti-Christian campaign, what does it matter that later they were victims? Germans were victims of mass murder, rape and ethnic cleansing in the hellstorm. Still it’s true that they were earlier perpetrators of these same things–and far more so than Poles or Norwegians or Estonians.

        The facts you cite support my claim that “leftist Jews” have been the most effective persecutors and killers of Christian Europeans (at least in modern times).

        The charge against the Talmud is just true as far as I know. It’s full of all kinds of very nasty (and often racial supremacist) claims about Christians and goyim. There is plainly a strong double morality: goyim are generally seen as an inferior repellent outgroup to whom Jewish moral norms need not apply. I admit I’m not a scholar and I’ve only read translations. But I think this is pretty well established. Same for the Jewish betrayal of Spain and role in white slavery. Apparently the Jewish slavers in the “golden age” of Islamic Spain often specialized in casrated Slavic wares.

        I don’t see why it’s anti-semitic to assert these things. Doesn’t that imply moral wrongness? But well justified empitical assertions on a blog aren’t morally wrong.

        Every group has positive and negative traits. I think Jews in the west are safe enough to admit some of their group’s negative traitd in the same way that we less powerful white goyim have been doing for a while now–often with a lot of Jewish encouragement. Honesty and mutual respect would be better.

        I am still curious to hear your definition of anti-semitism, and an account of how my comments exemplify this bad thing.

      • Jacques,

        Thank you for your engagement. I am having difficulty however understanding your response. You appear to be drawing an analogy between the Soviet Union’s war crimes in Germany in WWII and afterwards and Stalin’s purges. I do not grasp the analogy. Stalin appointed a bunch of judges and ordered them to do bad things and then later Stalin had most of them executed, particularly the Jewish ones, blaming the bad things on them. In both cases the perpetrator was Stalin. In the former case, Nazis in Germany ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union, and then when Germany was invaded in return, the invading soldiers committed war crimes. These seem like quite disanalogoys situations, unless you think that the judges in the beginning of the 1930s in the Soviet Union who were Jewish were acting *independently* of Stalin and Stalin’s later execution of them was in defense of the Soviet Union. This is really not my reading of the situation; I think it was Stalin’s orders all along. If you have some suggested reading for me that runs counter to my understanding of the 1930s I would be happy to read it. Stalin represented himself as rescuing the Russian people from Jewish barbarity when he executed most of the Jewish judges in the 1930s. That’s the foundation of his anti-Semitism. Your analogy seems a bit too close to an endorsement of Stalin’s exact view. It’s weird to say that Stalin’s own judges were like the invading German army.

      • Hi Jason,
        Yes, I think Stalin’s position was probably about right. There really was Jewish barbarity and the Russian people did need rescuing–not that Stalin rescued them, of course. The earlier phase of Bolshevism was largely controlled or at least very strongly influenced by Jews with very strong anti-Russian, anti-Christian feelings. (Perhaps understandably.) There were also lots of other ethnic factions struggling within the system. Lenin spoke about this early on, by the way. The blow-out between Stalin and Trotsky was part of this, maybe the final stage. Seeking to consolidate his power, Stalin turned against the original Jewish-dominated establishment and brought in all kinds of other minorities–Caucasians, for example, as he was not a big fan of Russians (and wasn’t one himself). I doubt that Stalin was really an anti-semite. I think he was just very cunning and ruthless, and he knew how to play different factions against each other. Anyway, why should the fact that my view is like Stalin’s count against my view? Your view of this period seems to be similar to the views of certain other Communists, especially the Jewish ones. Is that relevant to deciding its truth?

        In any case I don’t see why it matters much. I have to admit I’m also puzzled by this part of the discussion. When you cited these figures about Jewish Bolsheviks and so on, I assumed you were trying to address some of my earlier claims about Jewish over-representation–trying to show that these claims are untrue, or something. And so, on that assumption, I pointed out that we seem to be agreed on massive Jewish over-representation during a high point of Bolshevik evil; the mere fact that later there was some persecution of Jews–often just retribution for their earlier crimes against others–doesn’t seem to be relevant to the truth of my ‘anti-semitic’ claims. So the German analogy was just meant to illustrate the irrelevance (as I see it). Germans have been victims of bad things at the hands of others, just as USSR Jews were victims at the hands of others; but this doesn’t undermine my claim that Germans rather than many other groups were very effective perpetrators of those same things, or that leftist Jews were also. (More precisely I claim leftist Jews are the most effective persecutors and killers of non-Jewish Euros in modern times.) You point out that there are some disanalogies between the German case and the Russian Jewish case. Sure, there are some. But I only intended it to illustrate this fairly simple point. Maybe you weren’t trying to address my claims from way back with your figures about Jewish representation in Bolshevism, then? If so please explain more fully what you had in mind.

        And I would still like to hear from you what “anti-semitism” means and how my claims are examples of this bad thing. That seems like a very reasonable request in this context.

  3. “Your claim is less interesting than the utterly unremarkable observation that whites were ‘massively over-represented’ within (colonial) governments in Africa (e.g. South Africa or Rhodesia), which caused a tremendous amount of suffering against the native majority black populations they were subjugating. Go talk about ‘venomously effective white colonialists.’”

    Well, if I thought that white colonialists in Africa were “venomously effective” in doing bad stuff to blacks, would that be some kind of “palpable absurdity” or whatever? It seems you’re implying that my original claim about leftist Jews is more obvious or less “interesting” than something “utterly unremarkable”. Is that a way of admitting that it’s true?

    I assume you don’t think it’s wrong or absurd to attribute some kind of blame to white Europeans, or colonialist Europeans (assuming that colonialism was bad in some ways). So what’s the problem with assigning blame to Jews or leftist Jews in cases where they did really bad things? Why is that “racist” or “anti-semitic”?

  4. So the UN’s definition of genocide is absurd. Fine. I’ll just clarify then: I myself have no problem with the UN definition. (I don’t think it’s crazy to say that the Chinese are doing something like “genocide” against the Tibetans, for example.) So when I say whites are being subjected to genocidal policies, I mean that our traitor elites want to take everything we have; they want to dispossess and persecute us and our descendants; they want to stop us from reproducing; they want our race and culture to no longer exist. They’re going to try to kill an awful lot of us in order to all of this (and they’ve already managed to get a lot of us killed) but perhaps not enough all at once, or with clear deliberateness, to count as “genocide” under your definition.

  5. I just saw the silly claim that whites are committing suicide, i.e., anti-white policies are “self-inflicted”. No. Whites don’t have self-determining nations. In Europe you face prison for criticizing Jewish stories or Islam or “migrants”. We have been lied to at every step of the way and never had a real chance to make a choice. Jews have also been very influential in all this deception and manipulation, e.g. (((Hart-Celler))) which Kennedy promised wouldn’t change the ethnic mix.

    Whites most certainly are being killed and physically harmed. Forced integration of violent racial-cultural aliens plus a system designed to whip up hate against whites and punish whites who defend themselves = state sponsored murder, rape, assault and ethnic cleansing. That’s what we have in the west now. Whites are the only group targeted in this way by our states. Go hang out in Detroit or Rotherham or Paris.

    It would be more correct to say white and Jewish elites are murdering the west, and not that the white majority are committing suicide.

  6. This is what I find so disturbing about the left. And it is disturbing, not merely frustrating. It is the active repression of any view not in line with liberal orthodoxy. It is a complete and utter political, philosophical, and ideological suppression to any view that even comes close to traditional conservative values. This is not free speech, or democracy, or intelligent debate, or good conversation (they seem to want to have lots of ‘conversations’ and ‘discussions’). It is the same up here in Canada, I’m afraid. In Ontario specifically, our provincial government is currently destroying any remains of the family by granting legal status to all family types and absolving the terms ‘mother’ and ‘father’. I can’t even get a 400 word op ed published in my dinky small town newspaper expressing a dissenting view about it. Every friggin issue has some stupid comic about Donald Trump and how racist he is. Our national broad cast just did an radio documentary last night about Trump and how fascist he is- comparing him to Hitler and his ideal to make Germany great again (Making American great again is the same kind of nationalist dogma we saw in Hitler’s time, right?). Its utter bs. We will not play by their rules, the west needs more people like those who run this blog.

  7. Having the respect of leftist cultural saboteurs isn’t something any conservative really cares about.

    It’s a bit like a serial rapist who chastises his victims in the act, telling them if they don’t cooperate he won’t respect them in the morning.

  8. I wrote this piece several days ago, but I don’t think 3 blogposts on the issue are needed, so I’ll just post it here:

    Hi, Brian.

    You stated that Rightly Considered is a “boring litany” of right-wing Christian “prejudices”. You also said that one of its blogposts is “sexist” and then chided the blog for letting “anti-Semitic” posts “stand” in the comments section, claiming that these posts seemed unchallenged by the blog’s contributors. From this, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that you’re not a fan of Rightly Considered. And that’s okay. I’m sure that most of us can live with that. In fact, many of us probably feel similarly about your site, but never mind that. Let’s talk about something else. I have a concern, so hear me out. I’ll even try to keep my “Christian prejudice” under wraps.

    You seem to think that Rightly Considered should censor or be intolerant toward that “sexist” blogpost and those “anti-Semitic” comments, but why? If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s because you think that those arguments are “sexist” or “anti-Semitic”. But even if they were, why would that be good reason for censorship or intolerance?

    Consider this. As far as I can see, nothing within the usual concept of sexism and anti-Semitism entails the falsity or implausibility of a sexist or anti-Semitic claim. Hence, you could call an argument in a blogpost “sexist”, but the truth, falsity, or plausibility of its premises seems to be a separate issue. Thus, from the proposition that an argument is sexist or anti-Semitic, we can neither licitly infer that this argument has a false premise nor that it has an implausible premise. So any censorship or intolerance toward an argument merely because it is “sexist” or “anti-Semitic” could lead us to censoring a sound or plausible argument. That’s problematic, no? I don’t know about you, but I really want to be open to hearing truth or sound arguments, no matter what. For that reason, I hesitate to censor or not tolerate any argument on grounds of its “sexism” or “anti-Semitism”. You should do the same.

    Of course, you could say that falsity and implausibility is part of the concept of sexism or anti-Semitism, but then your posts would just beg the question against the authors of that blogpost and those comments, for you’d have presumed the falsity or implaubility of their arguments. I mean, you didn’t argue that their arguments were sexist or anti-Semitic, you just inferred it. Hence, I don’t think you want to make that claim.

    Perhaps you might answer that those posts “harm” women and Jews, and so they should be censored or intolerable on that basis. But even if those arguments harmed them in some sense, shouldn’t our concern, as philosophers, be primarily and stubbornly with the pursuit of truth? It might be my Catholic bias (2469), but the pursuit of truth seems to be the greater good. I mean, we’re supposed to follow the argument wherever it might lead, right? That’s what the Greeks taught us. Thus, it seems that we should be open to hearing arguments purported to establish a truth, even those arguments we might ordinarily call “sexist” or “anti-Semitic”.

    But maybe I’m misdirected. Perhaps your concern has more to do with platforms. For example, you might think that Rightly Considered should not allow itself to be a platform for arguments deemed “sexist” or “anti-Semitic”. How do I answer that? Let me offer some preliminary points and then I’ll answer.

    Firstly, it is important to understand that the charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and so forth, are instruments of power and control. Many leftists, particularly the PC sort, use these charges to control the topics and parameters of public discussion. Their goal is to brand the argument and arguer with negative associations so that the argument and arguer can be excluded from public awareness or public discussion without proper rebuttal. If successful in this goal, then the argument is rejected without proper rebuttal and the arguer is shamed, which means that those PC beliefs of preference are insulated from critical analysis, doubt and cognitive dissonance. Consequently, the domain of public discourse is thus more hospitable to PC interests. Thus, as I said, these charges are about power and control. But even more so, these charges are about conformity. If we don’t conform, then we will be punished with charges of racism, sexism, or whatever else. Heck, Brian, your own posts exemplify this, for you merely stated that Rightfully Considered is “prejudiced” and “sexist”, you didn’t argue for anything. Your goal is thus not to rebut the ideas expressed here, but to exclude them from the domain of public discourse (control); and should we want to reenter the domain of public discourse, then there are certain dogmas we can’t question, or else you will call us names or denigrate Rightly Considered (conformity).

    Secondly, the tactic of using these charges to secure control and ideological conformity has been tremendously effective. Some of the main cultural institutions are heavily influenced by the cultural left and the PC sort, who then work to marginalize and stigmatize persons or views on the right-wing spectrum. We have seen a lot of this in the universities, but it has spread elsewhere. This political tactic has created a need for the opportunity to have freer discourse–we need to have discussion away from left’s strictures for control and conformance. This is not about having a “safe space” for the right-wingers–we don’t need that. Really, we don’t. What we need is an opportunity to “go to the mats”, express our ideas and sincerely argue without the gags and blasphemy laws of the PC crowd and those in the left.

    So, returning to the question a few paragraphs ago, Rightly Considered should allow a platform for sincere arguments, even if they’re deemed “sexist” or “anti-Semitic”, for two reasons. First, the charge of sexism or anti-Semitism does not undermine an argument, nor do such charges falsify a premise. Hence, these charges are irrelevant to the merits of the arguments. Second, these platforms provide a secure opportunity away from the leftist controls of public discourse, those that have been used to suppress some opinions on the right of the political spectrum. Why is this important? Well, because, Brian, the pursuit of truth is important; and so if a sincere argument is rejected or excluded, then it should be rejected or excluded on basis of its merits, not because of hurt feelings or liberal tears. I mean, seriously, Brian, who gives a poop if an argument is deemed sexist, racist, anti-Catholic, or whatever else? I care about its justification, because truth matters. Arguments matter. Free enquiry, thought and expression matter. Your sensitivities? Not so much. Sorry, but it’s true.

    Of course nothing I said here suggests, much less entails, that Rightly Considered champions racist, sexist or “homophobic” ideas and arguments. In fact, Rightly Considered explicitly declares that the comments or arguments mentioned herein do not necessarily reflect its thoughts. Rightfully Considered only offers a space to propose and discuss arguments from the right-wing spectrum, even those declared sexist and racist by the left–it is an opportunity to evaluate arguments on their own merits. There’s no fault in that.

    So, Brian, I want to take the time to invite you to show people that your perspective is truer or more epistemically justified. Don’t just heckle from your blog. That’s beneath you. You’re a philosopher—argue.

    • “This is not about having a “safe space” for the right-wingers–we don’t need that. Really, we don’t. What we need is an opportunity to “go to the mats”, express our ideas and sincerely argue without the gags and blasphemy laws of the PC crowd and those in the left.”

      I agree.

Comments are closed.