The Intercollegiate Studies Institute has a new book out, The Soul and Barbed Wire: An Introduction to Solzhenitsyn by Edward E. Ericson Jr. and Alexis Klimoff, that serves as both biography and critical appraisal of the late literary giant's work. It's readable and reasonably short at 270 pages. It's only $13.50 in paperback at Amazon.
And here are excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's 2001 two volume work on Russians and Jews, Two Hundred Years Together, 1795-1995. Only a 20 page excerpt in an earlier ISI book has ever been published in the U.S.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
40 comments:
That book was not published because it was crap. In it, Solzhenitsyn claims laughably there was no anti-Semitism or pogroms during the Czars. And if there was, Jews were responsible for it.
A great man, with many great works, but that crap was not one of them.
Gulag Archipelago was a masterpiece, however.
I've been looking for a reference to "Russia and the Jews" in the MSM obituaries, have yet to see a single one.
"it was crap" from someone who hasn't read it means nothing.
"testing99 said...
That book was not published because it was crap. In it, Solzhenitsyn claims laughably there was no anti-Semitism or pogroms during the Czars. And if there was, Jews were responsible for it."
As it was not published, how is it that you have read it to know what's in it? But of course, a man of your obvious erudition can read it in the original Russian.
Testing99 - an opinion on everything - knowledge of nothing.
Weird - almost no mention of the death of Solzhenitsyn anywhere.
Hardly a peep at The Corner, it didn't pass muster as "Breaking News" at Free Republic, and, as of Monday morning [2008-08-04] Matt Drudge still isn't fronting it. [Although Lucianne Goldberg, bless her heart, runs with it as her lead story this morning.]
And here I thought that Charlton Heston didn't get any pub when he passed, back in April.
Boy, I tell you what - you cross the powers that be, and they'll bury you.
PS: Hey Testing, guess who introduced Marxism to the Chinese, and who founded the Chinese Communist Party?
A couple of fellows named Grigori Naumovich Voitinsky and Mikhail Markovich Borodin [born Mikhail Gruzenberg].
Now tell me what the poor Chinese ever did to the Chosen Ones to deserve to have more than 100,000,000 slaughtered in return?
testing99:
"That book was not published because it was crap. In it, Solzhenitsyn claims laughably there was no anti-Semitism or pogroms during the Czars. And if there was, Jews were responsible for it."
I haven't read those books, but this doesn't seem to be the case according to Richard Pipes's review. Plus, it would be out of character for Solezhenitsyn to flat-out deny facts -this is just not his modus operandi.
Solzhenitsyn recently wrote an op ed for a major Russian newspaper forcefully arguing that the Ukrainian famine of the early 30's does not amount to a "genocide", and the Ukrainian government's push to get it internationally recognized as such is a propagandistic appeal directed at "ignorant Western fools who know nothing of Russia's history".
How does anyone know whats in the book, if it hasn't been published in English? If the A.S. made "anti-semitic" comments, lets read them in English!
testing99,
did you read it or repeat much like a letter to "Pravda" "I have not read 'Doctor Zhivago' but still think it is a terrible piece of literature"?
I agree with Testing99 about Gulag. Didn't read the Russia/Jews excerpts.
About his fiction, how much of it have you read, Steve? I read Denisovitch, and tried a few of the others. And thought it was turgid.
In short: a great moral figure, but not a great novelist.
The Beeb did mention his last work.
It's the last paragraph
Here (scroll way down).
With regard to the Terror-Famine, I think that Solzhenitsyn wanted to emphasize that all nationalities suffered in the Terror-Famine, and under Stalin, not just Ukrainians. Probably about four million Ukranians died in the famine, but so did at least two million Russians, Khazaks, and others, so he had a point. Solzhenitsyn certainly did not deny that the Famine happened, or that a lot of Ukrainians died. As for his "Jewish" book, I'll reserve judgement until I can actually read the thing, but I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be actually anti-Semitic.
Tschafer
Concerned,
The word "great", as you probably know, is subjective. August 1914 bored me to death, but the First Circle I rank as one of the most insightful of modern novels. Let's not forget the hand translation plays (not just vis-a-vis Russian) in transmitting an author's work. Michael Guybon has certain insights into socio-political processess and machinations that Thomas Whitney does not, and conveys them more fully.
Here's an example. In the First Circle, Solzenhitsyn has Stalin brooding about ways to keep the serfs on the collective farms and not rush off to be "educated". Whitney presents his (Stalin's) thoughts in an intelligent way (he actually is a very good translator). Serfs' children, at birth, should by law automatically become part of the collective for life, and to bolster this new law a series of newspaper articles should follow, with headings such as "The Young Heirs of the Collective Farm Granary", etc...The paragraph ends with the line, "Certainly the writers would find ways to express it."
Guybon, on the other hand, makes clear that this birthing into servitude should be made to seem A PRIVILEGE, and that the newspaper articles would be headlined with things like, "The Collective Farms must belong to the Younger Generation!" The paragraph ends with the line, "-but of course, Soviet journalists didn't need telling how to phrase it."
Understanding the different psychology between these two headlines is essential not just for good translation, but for grasping what's going on in your own country today (or yesterday).
You know, testing99, for once you could have held your bloody horses and not make yourself so obvious -- as a hate-spewing ethnocentric Jew -- by making remarks on a book which you obviously haven't even read.
Amazing, this tenacity in refusing to admit that Jews as an ethny is less than a coterie of angels (as all ethnies are).
Nick-less
Now tell me what the poor Chinese ever did to the Chosen Ones to deserve to have more than 100,000,000 slaughtered in return?
The Jews slaughtered 100 million Chinese?
I thought you were better than that, LV.
"The DaVinci Code" was crap for sure, but that didn't prevent its publication.
I think Kevin MacDonald's stuff is crap. I think Mearsheimer and Walt let their conclusions outrun their evidence. I think David Duke is a clown.
But I think you could hardly ask for a more obvious case of the undirected, uncoordinated, yet pervasive effect of Jewish sensibilities on American publishing than the non-publication of Solzhenitsyn's last book. In every publishing house in America, pseudo-intellectual editors (many of them Jewish) must have had conversations along these lines:
"The book is crap. It's just a rehash of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
"Oh, come on. Solhenitsyn is too proud to lie. He doesn't like Jews but the book has to be valuable."
"So what? No one will read the book! No one read Gulag Archipelago all the way through! The fundamentalists and the news media will just quote the juicy parts and everyone in America will get the idea that Communism was a Jewish plot and the secret police were all Jews and the whole Cold War was the Jews' fault. Don't be surprised when you read that Stalin was a Jew! Anyway, do you want the ADL running a picket line across our doorstep?"
"Yeah, I guess you're right. We don't need the grief. Tell that translator fellow that we have too many other books scheduled right now; he should take the project somewhere else."
(What about Britain, you ask? There are only two kinds of British publishers: the ones with American partners they daren't buck since most of the sales are made in North America, and those run by no-so-crypto-Communists, who hate Solzhenitsyn.)
Clifford J. Levy has a piece in the Times saying that there has been no outpouring of grief in Russia over his death.
As for Solzhenitsyn's death not producing much reaction in Russia, I think that for many Russians, Solzhenitsyn is a reminder of a time that they would just as soon forget - after all, Communism was Hell, and the collapse of Communism, while a good thing, wasn't exactly a picnic for the average Russian. Also, I'm told that Solzhenitsyn took some stands in post-Communist Russia that did not increase his popularity.
Tschafer
You know, testing99, for once you could have held your bloody horses and not make yourself so obvious -- as a hate-spewing ethnocentric Jew...
Funny how everyone gets so worked up about testing99 around here. He's not "hate-spewing", but he certainly is an object of hate.
_August 1914_ is the only work by S. that I have read, and I recall having been engrossed in it. Never had time for _Gulag_, but I understand it's one of the greatest works of the twentieth century. BTW there are a lot of obits on S. out there--Arts & Letters Daily has links to half a dozen. I read AP's and the London Telegraph's.
1/ Never published in the US does not equal never published in English.
2/ Now that he's passed on maybe some of the complainers here will try to publish a 'memorial' version of his book about Russians and Jews.
Simply get the rights-translate if need be-go to a book printer and get it printed-get an ISBN number-contact Amazon (and other online stores).
Or you can continue complaining. Much better than actually doing something, isn't it (unless you agree with me that its a money-losing proposition)?
Heeb magazine had an interesting take on Solzhenitsyn http://heebmagazine.com/blog/view/912
Regarding the grief quotient, how much is there usually when an 89-yr-old dies? When an old person dies, it's always sad because all their memories die with them, but it's hardly a tragedy. When a young person dies, it's a tragedy. Think about it: when Reagan died, as widely beloved as he was, there wasn't a huge outpouring of grief. (It struck me more as a national nostalgia fest.) He was in his nineties, and had basically already been dying for years. When JFK Jr. died, there was much more sadness, simply because of the sense of unfulfilled possibilities (and also partly because we all "knew" him as a child). Solzhenitsyn left no such sense; he was old and frail and had already accomplished everything he had been destined to. On top of which, as great as he was, there was nothing particularly endearing about him personally.
BTW, I stand partially corrected on my earlier comment, the NYTimes (!!) actually mentioned Russia and the Jews (briefly).
"Anonymous said...
Funny how everyone gets so worked up about testing99 around here. He's not "hate-spewing", but he certainly is an object of hate."
I don't think that Testing99 spews hate - just nonsense. If people gang up on him here, it's because we believe him to be a bloviator, a blow-hard, and a fool.
"anony-mouse said...
Or you can continue complaining. Much better than actually doing something, isn't it (unless you agree with me that its a money-losing proposition)?"
So we are all supposed to drop everything, and learn how to be a book publisher? I think it's a shame that this nation doesn't increase its capacity for nuclear power generation. But I guess I'm just a whiner. I should drop everything, roll up my sleeves, and go out and build a nuclear power plant, all by myself.
I don't know if Solzhenitsyn was a great writer - I have only read a few of his books, Gulag Archipeligo, Ivan Denisovich, and the First Circle - and only in translation. A lot depends on the translator. Given that, I found his books to be quite readable, and they were certainly of great importance. Other than him and Pasternak, how many other independent descriptions of life in Russia during the Soviet era were there?
As to the argument that he isn't published here, because his books won't sell - I find this specious. How many people read Chomsky, or Cornell West? They manage to find a publisher. How many people read Thomas Pynchon, or Don DeLillo? They get published despite the fact that they write crap. How many people read Paul Auster? Not many - but he still gets published (mind you, I don't think Auster is a bad writer - quite the contrary - but I don't imagine any of his books has had the impact of Gulag).
Halfbreed,
I'm glad the NYT finally mentioned the Jews and anti-semitism. These two topics often get ignored. After all, almost 3 percent of the USA is Jewish and there are only 1,000 Chinese and Indians for every Israeli. Boring topic like A.S. and his weird obsession with Christianity, Russia, Communism, and the West, need to be made more interesting for the USA - and that means talking about that silent minority - the Jews.
Thank god we have Steve Sailor so *somebody* talks about the concerns of the Jewish Community.
Hat tip to DK. Below is the text of that Heeb magazine obituary.
- Fred
Jewdar would like to extend condolences to the family of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, a man whom we always considered both a great writer and a man of tremendous courage. Solzhenitsyn’s personal odyssey (and we use that in the sense not merely of a journey, but a journey laden with peril and suffering) is too long and complex to address here (and that’s why God made Wikipedia), but for all his faults, his revered place in the history of opposition to one of the most brutal regimes in history is well deserved. Though he was primarily a writer of personal and historical fiction, it is his great work of history, Gulag Archipelago, that is perhaps his most important literary legacy. It is a must read, and the best antidote for those young, naive, or just plain blind who maintain for themselves the fiction that Stalin corrupted the "pure and noble" experiment established by Lenin. Moreover, in a world full of fraudulent memoirs and tell-all biographies, we should appreciate the fact that Solzhenitsyn never claimed any special place in the world of suffering, and always noted that, in the world of the gulag, he had it relatively easy.
For many of his admirers, the most painful element of his life and writing has to do with the question of the Jews. We’ve read a lot of his work, and we certainly know a little something about antisemitism, and we don’t think the charge works with him. That may be because of our own blindness to his faults, but we believe much of the problem comes from his own blindness to the faults of the Russian people. We’d say he was a Russian first, and an Orthodox Christian second, except that to him those were inseparable. To us, he is primarily guilty of narrative tunnel vision—he has a story to tell, one that exonerates the Russian people of their own vices, and destroys the illusion of communist virtue. If at times that led him to ignore certain truths, and exaggerate others, at no point in his writings does one detect any actual animus, or desire to see harm befall the Jews, and it is telling that whatever Jewish critics he has, the ones in the dissident movement who knew him best are not among their numbers.
Perhaps the best that one can say is that Solzhenitsyn’s work inspired generations of Russians to question the regime, and in doing so, helped bring the day when that regime could no longer sustain itself. He had the good fortune of knowing that his writing helped make the world a better place, and what more could a writer—or anyone—hope for?
There's a lot of positive stuff on Solzhenitsyn in Canada's Jewish-owned National Post. Heigh-ho.
lucius vorenus must have been high when he claimed there was barely a peep at The Corner. The Corner and NRO's main site has posted several hagiographies of the man who wrote "Gulag Archipelago".
Zimri: lucius vorenus must have been high when he claimed there was barely a peep at The Corner.
Or else I was following the story and posting on it a good 48 hours before it caught your interest.
BTW, on a separate note, it appears that Steve Sailer has censored my reply to one of the Anonymouses above.
I guess there's not much I can do about that, other than to make a note of it, and hope that he doesn't censor this reply, as well.
I'm surprised their is so much support for Solzhenitsym here since:
1/ As an immigrant he lived in the US and yet never seemed to have spoken much English.
2/ He never seemed to have had much of a job and yet he survived here (see past articles here about Russians in the same situation)
3/ Repeatedly criticised America while here.
Writing the Gulag Archipelago-another job Americans won't do.
3/ Repeatedly criticised America while here.
Not sure why you included this one. Steve is obviously more of a materialist than Solzhenitsyn, but no less bold in his criticism of America. Really, more bold. How long would Solzhenitsyn have lasted here if he wrote about the average IQ of mestizos?
2/ He never seemed to have had much of a job and yet he survived here (see past articles here about Russians in the same situation)
In 1976, when A.S. left Switzerland, he reported income of $155,000 and assets of $1.4 million.
"anony-mouse said...
I'm surprised their is so much support for Solzhenitsym here since:
1/ As an immigrant he lived in the US and yet never seemed to have spoken much English."
He was not an immigrant. He was an emigre. He never intended to live here permanently, and he went back to Russia as soon as conditions permitted.
But why would you let facts stand in the way of your obvious talent for snarkiness.
Perhaps you're another member of the "Daily Show" generation - trafficers in cheap, unreflective irony, for whom archness is an attitude, and attitude is a philosophy.
It'd be great if it were published so all the neocon praise for this man could be silenced.
Neocon praise is tantamount to slander.
I mistakenly put this post on the other thread for Solzhenitsyn (the one linked from Steve's entry at the VDARE blog). So...
Dedalus said...
Goyish Kop said,
"whether the Jews get it right or wrong, into whatever area they trod - politics, science, the humanities - they tend to leave a very large footprint, because of the remarkable intelligence and energy that are their native gifts."
The two principle features of Jews that I see are
1- Group Cohesion
2- Single-mindedness of purpose
The two kind of merge together into a unique blend of self-absorption. Inflexible, unapologetic, and agressive, self-absorption.
I'm not impressed with those qualities at all; and have never felt myself bad for feeling that way about the matter. I resent their intimidation and kind of look at them the way I look at any bully, with complete contempt.
Anyway, I think they leave a "footprint" as Goyish Kop mentioned, less because of any unique intellectual ability and more as an inevitable result of the aforementioned Group Cohesion.
In fact, name one important Jewish Intellectual and I could name a non-Jewish Intellectual whose work is far more impressive.
You say Karl Marx?
I say Hegel (and Marx' work is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Hegel, who turned out to be far more advanced and WAY too subtle) and even Emerson (they both started out at the same time. Marx wrote for the Collective, as it were, and Emerson wrote for the Individual).
You say Freud, and I say Nietzsche (who Freud called the greatest Psychologist who ever lived). Actually I would add William James.
A man far more gifted, and intellectually honest, than Freud, who very well may go down in History as Sigmund Fraud.
You say Elie Weisel and I say Alexander Solzhenitsyn (is there even a comparison?)
Actually, you could say Marx, Freud, Chomsky, S.J. Gould and Zinn, and I would say that there you have five of the most over-rated Intellectuals of the past 2,000 years.
For me, the number one character defect, above all others, is the inability to admit when you're wrong. It naturally coincides with an obnoxious need to always be right. And, in terms of the collective, Jews have been historically consistent. But the problem today is that since Jews in power have formed a coalition among Non-Whites to gang up on Non-Jewish Whites, virtually all of them have been instantly placed above criticism as soon as they are brought into the fold.
It is an historically unprecedented situation with potentially terrible consequences laying in wait for everyone concerned.
And all because a people are possessed by an incredible inability to admit they are wrong - ever.
No idea is worth killing someone over. But some are worth fighting against. If that ends up being the case can you really afford to allow yourself to be intimidated by name-calling?
"The two kind of merge together into a unique blend of self-absorption. Inflexible, unapologetic, and agressive, self-absorption."
One could say the same thing about the Kevin MacDonald groupies.
"But the problem today is that since Jews in power have formed a coalition among Non-Whites to gang up on Non-Jewish Whites,"
Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ all formed a coalition with non-whites to gang up on non-Jewish whites, and non-Jewish whites are the majority of elite liberals.
Does this mean elite whites have cooked up an "evolutionary strategy" to outcompete, uh, whites? That sure is some nifty evolutionary strategery!
Anonymous said...
You know, testing99, for once you could have held your bloody horses and not make yourself so obvious -- as a hate-spewing ethnocentric Jew...
Funny how everyone gets so worked up about testing99 around here. He's not "hate-spewing", but he certainly is an object of hate.
-----------------------------------
There ya go folks.
There's your pathological Myth of Innocence.
Things are going to turn out very badly in the USA. And very soon.
Oh, and don't let the point be lost. That Solzhentisyn's passing was ignored is proof positive that that the people pushing the buttons and levers of Power today are evil scoundrels.
When Solzhenitsyn left the Gulag he turned back to face it and said, "Thank you." An amazing spiritual triumph over resentment. If there's a man who has a right to his resentments it was him.
I think his Thank you was along the lines of - "Thank you, you have convinced me forever that these people are wrong. That they are sick. And that it is always better to live in Reality and not live by lies."
Of course they ignored him.
He was spiritual, they were not.
He was dedicated to Reality. They live by lies.
He was capable of overcoming resentments.
These people are both spoiled AND resentful (this combo is a clear indication of mental, emotional, psychological illness).
He was grateful for his life inspite of the suffering. They are poisoned by radical ingratitude as a result of being spoiled.
He was capable of genuine tolerance, understanding and openness.
They are pathetically self-absorbed and hyper-controlling.
Of course they ignored him. If they were to make a just tribute to him they mere juxtaposition would expose THEM for the sick and twisted, control freak, frauds that they are.
And since the one thing such people fear above all else is exposure, to survive they have NO choice but to completely ignore him.
Anonymous said...
"The two kind of merge together into a unique blend of self-absorption. Inflexible, unapologetic, and agressive, self-absorption."
One could say the same thing about the Kevin MacDonald groupies.
-----------------------------------
?
Is that supposed to be a retort? An argument?
Jewish School of Debate 101.
Knee-jerk Projection, Deflection, and Lies. If they are desperate and know they are going to lose the arugment they engage in this kind of back and forth; no matter how silly, stupid, and immature they look.
Are you actually comparing the Power and Influence and Control Jews have over world events today, with Kevin MacDonald's readers?
Are you retarded?
-----------------------------------
""But the problem today is that since Jews in power have formed a coalition among Non-Whites to gang up on Non-Jewish Whites,"
Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ all formed a coalition with non-whites to gang up on non-Jewish whites, and non-Jewish whites are the majority of elite liberals."
The above merely points to the fact that non-Jewish Whites do not have the above-mentioned Group Cohesion that Jews do. Which just happens to be something Mr. MacDonald outlines carefully in his work.
and this explains the FACT that every single one of those names you mentioned has had to answer to Jews, "the REAL owners of this Country."
"Does this mean elite whites have cooked up an "evolutionary strategy" to outcompete, uh, whites? That sure is some nifty evolutionary strategery!"
Again, WHAT?
Here we have yet ANOTHER example of Jewish "Debate" Techniques.
Immature Sarcasm and Ignorant Ridicule. Since these features are so obvious they try to cove it up using the tone of voice of obnoxious and pretentious, self-satisfaction.
Whites compete with Whites. Does that surprise you? And Jews compete with, you guessed it, Whites. Does that surprise you?
Our emphasis has always been on the Individual. Whereas with Jews, it's on the Group.
That's why we created Democracy and you created Communism, and Zionism.
But it depends entirely on conformity. It feeds on Blind Obedience to your Authority.
That’s why you took your Group mentality, entered our Democracy with its emphasis on Individual Conscience, and subverted it. And, Voila; in less than a century you are in complete control and we have a Politically Correct, Police State.
I have yet to see any Jewish organization that does not operate in that way. And the number one rule is NEVER QUESTION THE RULES!
We're not as united, but we're more honest. That's why we can admit we're wrong, and you can't, ever.
It's Cultural, not Genetic. But, since you have been practicing this for thousands of years, it might as well be.
THIS is the REAL reason Jews are so vehement in denouncing honest talk about Genetics. Fear of exposure. Which it laughably hides in a concern for the safety of non-Whites! As if Whites have power to do anything today in your Police State.
What if it is possible to trace a genetic predisposition for a propensity to lie and a desperate need to control?
Even linking the two.
So, just as we have found a genetic attribute for alcoholism, and it exists all over the world, there are high concentrations in certain areas, such as among the Irish culture, both in Ireland and among Irish-Americans. So too do we find dishonest, control freaks all over the world, but with a high concentration among Jewish people.
And it is very possible, so powerful are the tools of modern genetics. Then what would you do?
How would you lie your way out of that one? How many would you be willing to get rid of, this time, to keep it concealed?
Israeli big shot, and former dissident Sharansky praises Solzhenitsyn -- credits him with furthering Russian-Jewish dissident movement.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008080608062008sharanskysolzhenitsyn.html
"Is that supposed to be a retort? An argument?"
It was meant to be a cute remark/joke designed to get the MacDonald groupies dander up a little bit since they seem to take themselves just a wee bit too seriously. Nothing profound in terms of debating tactics was intended. However, I'm glad you exceeded my expectations with your typical overreaction.
""But the problem today is that since Jews in power have formed a coalition among Non-Whites to gang up on Non-Jewish Whites,"
Nancy Pelosi, Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, LBJ all formed a coalition with non-whites to gang up on non-Jewish whites, and non-Jewish whites are the majority of elite liberals."
The above merely points to the fact that non-Jewish Whites do not have the above-mentioned Group Cohesion that Jews do. Which just happens to be something Mr. MacDonald outlines carefully in his work.
and this explains the FACT that every single one of those names you mentioned has had to answer to Jews, "the REAL owners of this Country."
Non-Jewish white liberals are certainly very cohesive and well organized in advancing liberalism, as the above mentioned names demonstrate. They are not loyal to their race but they are loyal to and form a cohesive group to advance their ideology.
"Whites compete with Whites. Does that surprise you?"
No, what surprises me is that the MacDonald followers blame the Jews for liberalism, a political movement that has always been majority non-Jewish right from the very start of the French Revolution up to today.
But it is so much more romantic to excuse powerful whites like Pelosi, Reid and the Clintons for having no free will of their own and being "in the pocket of the Jews". Because if they are not "in the Jews' pocket" then the majority of the blame for liberalism has to go to elite whites.
But go ahead, keep telling yourself Pelosi and Reid et al are just puppets for Jews and not powerful actors in their own right.
""Is that supposed to be a retort? An argument?"
It was meant to be a cute remark/joke designed to get the MacDonald groupies dander up a little bit since they seem to take themselves just a wee bit too seriously. Nothing profound in terms of debating tactics was intended. However, I'm glad you exceeded my expectations with your typical overreaction."
Backed into a corner and the only way out is to offer more verbal weasling.
Now I'm more convinced then ever that Genetics will find the attribute that makes it impossible for Jewish people to admit they are wrong. But, because nature abhors a vacuum, the wrong has to go somewhere. And this explains your compulsive blaming of others and always in the condescening tone of a shaming parent. With the assumption that I need your approval! Now THAT'S Chutzpah. You might be impressed with yourself, but I see it as a serious character defect with obvious world wide consequences.
And no one is laughing anymore. Obviously.
"No, what surprises me is that the MacDonald followers blame the Jews for liberalism"
First things first. I'm not a follwer of MacDonalds. Though I have read his work.
You are projecting. Jews are followers; that's why they go for Charismatic figures and are opposed to the notion of Individuality.
And it is true that some of those you named are commited Ideologues. But then, we can SAY that about them, and identify them. But we can NOT do that if the person is Jewish. Jews fear exposure so much that they have to make disagreeing with them illegal. They have to demonize dissent of any kind and enforce conformity where ever they go.
Whoever said they didn't have "free will". But are you BLIND? (rhetorical question).
If any of them wanted to exercise their free will and it ran contrary to Jewish interests, they would not be able to exercise their free will.
And you have the gall (Chuztpah) to talk about us blaming you!
No, we are NAMING you. And thanks to the internet we can do it. So I am sure you will try to take it from us, and then all hell will break loose.
But you talk about Blame? I don't doubt for a moment that those you named are enemies of those they are supposed to represent. I don't think half of them are even Ideologues. Bush being an excellent example.
That non-Jewish Whites have defects is not the fault of Jews and I wasn't saying that. So your bringing it up is a cheap attempt to confuse the issue.
But blame?
Jews blame everyone everywhere for everything. And they can't stop doing it. Your single-mindedness is so inflexible that it's very easy to refute what you say. And you know this. That's why you're always at the ready with accusations of anti-semetism. I don't think it's possible to be more ignoble.
Post a Comment