How do they explain the millions of people who willingly come to the west to subject themselves to further exploitation? Masochists? Brainwashed? Wanting to boff hot self-hating white college girls? ; )

I think there is a patronizing and paternalistic element to academic white self-hatred which, by minimizing and rationalizing the brutalities of non-western peoples, implies that what sets Europeans apart is that they should know better, in fact do know better, and commit these brutal and bloodthirsty acts anyway. In contrast to Japanese, Arabs, Aztecs, Zulus who presumably don't know any better and therefore can be excused. It smacks of Easterbrook implying that Hollywood Jewish executives of all people should know better than to produce shlock like Kill Bill and are greedy bastards for doing it anyway.

Now now RossF, only an anti-semite would suggest that because a Jew or two are at the top of the Tory party that somehow they would consider criticism of their policies to be acts of anti-semitism. I think we should call them Neo-Tory just for transatlantic parallel consistency. That Mahathir, where does he get his crazy ideas?

I think the concern is that these very smart Ashkenazic Jews are sometimes acting in their interests to the detriment of the people they might pretend to serve. If an even relatively minor American politician, oh say like Jim Moran, acted in any way against their interests that unfortunate politician would be crucified for whatever anti-semitism means anymore. But if these brilliant Ashkenazic Jews act openly and outrageously against gentile interests, like the liar Perle defending scum like Khodorkovsky or starting unjustified if not evil wars, no one is supposed to draw any conclusions?

I'm not a white nationalist and I'm not a leftist either. I tend towards libertarianism if anything. To me it seems clear that the interests of a small group of people (who happen to be dominated by Ashkenazic Jews) are taking precedence over other interests that in the long run are much more important. I find it disturbing that discussing it in these terms brings out such a hysterical reaction. I came to your site by way of Steve Sailer and find it to be very interesting. I happend to agree with you generally about human biodiversity issues and immigration issues as well. I think those issues are ultimately more important to the future of the United States than the concerns that the neoncons are pushing to the top of the pile. I worry that in fact the agenda of the neocons generally will be very damaging to America in the long run. And I notice which group seems to most obsessively intent on this agenda (followed closely by dispensationalist Christians for pervese reasons). For that I am a sinner?

For the past few decades our nation has suffered enormously from the influx of coca and opiate derived drugs. We could do an Iraq scale invasion of those nations which produce those drugs but we have not done so probably because we regard the task as so difficult as to be practically impossible. I think the designs of the neocons in the mideast are at least as farfetched. Despite the far greater devastation caused by drugs we have headed down the neocon road. Why? Who benefits from this? Is it really so terrible to ask and to wonder out loud if it is worth it?

Goodless,

My initial comment was meant to be sarcastic but more or less good naturedly. I've been browsing gnxp for probably a bit over a month trying to get a feel for the place; I may have a bit of a tin ear but I am trying.

I didn't mean to imply that J. Malloy's comments were hysterical. I meant that discussing the role of Jews generally has taken on an especially heightened sensitivity to say the least. The Easterbrook affair is a recent example and accusations of anti-semitism against those who criticize neocon policies are another. That Dean could be taken to task for making ill-advised statements of neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, married to a Jew and with one of his top fundraisers formerly an important figure at AIPAC is extremely telling. I apologize to Jason for the misunderstanding. Not withstanding that I am amazed at Jason's ability to read my mind, discern my beliefs and motives.

Putin isn't exactly an angel as Sailer pointed out recently . He was KGB. Then again Khodorkovsky was involved with Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) while he was a college student. Was he a communist or an opportunist? Was Putin? Khodorkovsky is also reputed to be involved with the Russian Mafiya. In Russia, I would say that gentile interests could be defined as the interests of those who aren't oligarchs, aren't related to oligarchs and who aren't very likely to benefit from the largesse of oligarchs. I'll leave it to you to figure out who the oligarchs are. I can only speculate on the motives that Perle has for helping Khodorkovsky being unable to read minds. Anyone know what Perle's record is for helping other persecuted capitalists?

I do realize that Jews or gentiles or their interests for that matter are not monolithic. Their interests diverge and entwine at times, even amongst themselves. Having said that I think that the Iraq case is one in which the Jewish right went to extreme lengths to advance an agenda that existed long before 9/11. An agenda which was not widely supported by the broader population. An agenda which had the populace been a bit better informed and throughful would still likely have not been widely supported. I don't doubt that they genuinely believe that it is the necessary and best course for America and that the best course for America happens to be the best thing for Israel as well. Rob's comment about the relative silence of the Jewish left is especially interesting. There are those left wing Jews like Chomsky who will oppose the war in Iraq no matter what (or seemingly any war anywhere at any time). But the broader Jewish left has been conspicuously quiet. I suspect they are holding their noses as what they regard as at best a necessary evil and at worst a fait accompli.

I don't subscribe to the white nationalist position at all. To describe their positions as badly considered would be a misuse of the word considered. I value the contributions that
More....

David,

We didn't invade them because of drugs. And despite our war on drugs we turn a blind eye to their activities.

Godless,

No, they aren't exactly analagous. Still when one considers the costs the drug problem dwarfs that of terrorism.

Perle was more implicated in the Global Crossing mess with Garry Winnick (who is Jewish) and with the controversial banker cum politico Chalabi (who is not). Two for three. Perhaps he just likes sleazy businessmen.

This may confirm a theory I've had about Camilla Parker Bowles which is (in Austin Powers voice):

"She's a man, man!"