Wednesday, June 22, 2011

I'm a vicious antisemite!

I'd like to nuance a generalization made by Ferdinand Bardamu, quoted in my previous post. Because not all antisemites are nutty conspiracy mongers. Bardamu mentions Dennis Mangan as a sensible guy, who's not at all a moron such as e.g. Richard Hoste. And I agree with this. He also brings up how balanced people, such as Mangan, gets unfairly accused of being anitsemites, and provides a link to how Mangan complains about that.. Mangan has complained fairly often about this at his blog. He thinks it is a wretched thing to falsely accuse someone of being an antisemite (at least when it concerns himself).

To nuance it even more: not all antisemites are vicious. Let's say for example that Dennis Mangan (who's got good credentials from e.g. Bardamu) says that Kevin MacDonald is not of the vicious kind, but that e.g. Conservative Swede is a vicious antisemite -- well, then that's probably true. Just as an example! I'm just trying to show here how we can actually use this more nuanced language in practice. So it's possible to be either a nutty antisemite or a vicious one; or just an ordinary gray mouse antisemite. And even one that is both nutty and vicious (oof!).

Anyway, two beautiful Romanian girls are currently criticizing the proposition-nation concept of citizenship in another thread of this blog. I have often myself argued for that the traditional pre-French-Revolution concept of citizenship is the only viable one. I.e. no special rights at group level for any ethnic minority group, i.e. no mass citizenship granting at group level, giving them access to influencing the political affairs. Anyone who wants to struggle his way into the political rights of a new country will have to do it as an individual, the old-fashioned long and winding way. The point here is that all ethnic minority groups should be treated equally, fairly and squarely. Still, for some reason, I always have to point out that the Jews should NOT be an exception to the rule here (and this for a whole number of reasons: among them mercy for the future plight of the Jews; it's a way of taking them out of the heat. Ferdinand Bardamu has described well the background reasons for this).

Well it's funny how life is full of coincidences, because exactly in that thread at Mangan's (linked by Bardamu) the same two girls and me were discussing the traditional concept of citizenship. The discussion spilled over into the next thread, and there I also took the opportunity to criticize Kevin MacDonald. Dennis Mangan answered me as follows:

Con Swede, after criticizing MacDonald for supposedly saying that "the Jews did it", wants to strip Jews of their citizenship. That's arguably far more anti-Semitic than anything MacDonald has *ever* written.
Oops, I must really be a very bad person then. If Dennis Mangan says it, it's probably so. Bardamu lifts up Dennis Mangan (together with for example Pat Hannagan!!) as one of the sane and balanced ones in the Alt-Right/WN crowd.

And I like the logic of Mangan's reasoning: If no ethnic minority group is going to have special political rights attributed to them at group level, then the Jews won't have it either, therefore it is antisemitic!

What makes Mangan's rating of my degree of antisemitism especially credible, is how strongly he dislikes false accusations of antisemitism (at least there is evidence that he does so, when it's directed at himself). So I must be a vicious antisemite then (I'm still desperately clinging to the word "arguably" here...)

Anyway, I found this funny fellow who is video-blogging, and who also seems balanced and reasoned. He's called Ramzpaul, and one of his vlogs relates to what I'm discussing here. It's called Is Ron Paul a Vicious Anti-Semite?:

This case is parallel to my own. Ron Paul suggested that the USA should withdraw foreign aid from all countries. But that would imply that the aid is withdrawn from Israel, therefore the suggestion is antisemitic! (this time this razor sharp kind of argument was used by David Horowitz).

Furthermore, Ron Paul is a vicious antisemite (once again credit to Horowitz). As Ramzpaul points out: "coz some antisemites can be not vicious". So that's just like me again. Given that Kevin MacDonald is of the "not vicious" kind, and I'm "far more anti-Semitic" than KMac (as Mangan suggests), then I must be at least as vicious an antisemite as Ron Paul.

Pay attention to the phone call made by Ramzpaul by the end of the clip, where he -- by using Horowitz/Mangan style reasoning -- uncovers covert antisemitism in his own life. Such as at this store, that does not allow Jews entering after 10 p.m.

[End of post]


Armance said...

What's interesting (and funny, IMO) here is that in the eyes of the modern man, there's no worse fate than being stripped of citizenship. You can be the richest man in the world or the king of Eurasia, and still, if you don't have citizenship, it's like you are damned or cursed (that's why Dennis is a little bit frightened even to imagine such a possibility). It reminds me of the French woman who said that Communism brought some good things in Eastern Europe, like, for example, the right to vote for women. When I replied that Communist elections were phony and the results were known before the vote started, she answered "yes, but still, it's about the right in itself, not the result". So, the fact that all grown-ups, men and women alike, were infantilized to the point of participating with a straight face in bogus elections which were basically some hilarious theatrical performances (let's pretend that we vote, let's pretend that it counts) is less worse in the eyes of a progressivist than not having the right to vote.

Yet for important parts in our history, women, minorities and even a majority of men were not direct participants in the matters of the city. In spite of that, some of them were queens or rich merchants, bankers, composers or advisors to royalties. And some of them were protected in spite of not having full citizenship (i.e. the Jews under the special protection of different European kings). Yet, it doesn't matter: they didn't have the right to vote or full citizenship, and that's the fate of the damned. Again, it reminds me of the strawman that appears everytime a discussion about systems of governance in ancient Greek city states arises: "but the Greek cities were not real democracies, because slaves and women didn't have the right to vote/citizenship". So, forget about any insights such a discussion might bring regarding governance. Slaves and women were not allowed to vote? Then the Greek cities are damned, and they are no better than any random example of tyranny or barbarity one can find.

Again, it reminds me of Condoleezza Rice when she was asked a question about the fate of women in Islam (stoning to death, genital mutilation, polygamy, etc.): "Yes, but let's not forget that even here, in America, women didn't have the right to vote in the XIXth century". So, in her eyes, being stoned to death or mutilated is not much worse than not being allowed to cast a ballot.

I have the feeling that in the eyes of the modern man, "the right to vote" (which implies full citizenship) is more like a religious empowering ritual than a pragmatic way to organize the governance.

Konkvistador said...

"I have the feeling that in the eyes of the modern man, "the right to vote" (which implies full citizenship) is more like a religious empowering ritual than a pragmatic way to organize the governance."

To call something "Democratic" has the same warm fuzzy feeling accompany it as did to call something "Christian" in a previous era.

Armance said...

Konkvistador, do you happen to be the Reactionary_Konkvistador on Alternative Right? If you are the same person, I admire your posts :)