Right-wing anti-Christianity

[TheLibertarian]

Writing in the January 20th, 1980 edition of The Sunday Telegraph, "former radical" Mary Kenny made a remark that I think is extremely perceptive:

... so many of the political ideas [of modern liberalism] are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally... (t)he feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.

This echoes sentiments made by the libertarian journalist H.L. Mencken nearly a half-century earlier, when he wrote

(u)nder Prohibition, Fundamentalism, and other complex ideals of the Klan there runs a common stream of bilge: it issues from the ghostly glands of the evangelical pastors of the land. The influence of these consecrated men upon the so-called thinking of the American people has been greatly underestimated by fanciers; in fact, most of the principal professors of such forms of metabolism overlook it altogether. Yet it must be obvious that their power is immense, and that they exert it with great gusto... The pastor got into public affairs by the route of Prohibition. The shrewd shysters who developed the Anti-Saloon League made a politician of him, and once he had got a taste of power he was eager for more. It came very quickly. As industry penetrated the rural regions the new-blown Babbits began to sense his capacity for safeguarding the established order, and so he was given the job; he became a local Billy Sunday.

One of the strongest statements of this path of attack comes from Friedrich Nietzsche, in the opening sections of his Antichrist:

Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious.

This is a line of thought that has been extended both by anarchist thinkers like Mencken and neo-Traditional philosophers such as Julius Evola: that there is basically no distinction between what is today called liberalism and the very moral essence of Christianity, with its emphasis on such beatific notions as "the meek shall inherit the Earth". Individuals from both ideological backgrounds tend to regard Christianity as proto-Marxism, and Christ as a radical who sought to rouse the rabble oppressed by Rome in first century Judea.

Any thoughts on this line of thinking? It appeals far more strongly to me than does 'secular humanism', which strikes me very much as Christianity without Christ. How do you feel about this angle of critique?

[TheLibertarian]

Racialism, at least territorialism, is certainly biological. Greed is biological. Probably religiosity, too. I don't think any secular humanist values those things.

I think I disagree with everything you just said. Racialism doesnt even make sense to me. Same with "territorialism". Religion can also be explained as a desire for answers. Before we had the scientific method, we used religion.

Also, my statement was secular humanist values are biological traits, not that all biological traits are secular humanist values. Big difference there.

But it's nonsense. Secular humanists paint this romantic image of man in a state of nature as being wholly benevolent. Of course, he isn't "depraved", as the Christians have it, either - he's contradictory. Territorialism, which is the basic motivator for racism, is certainly biological: it benefits the organism to stake his claim on an area and keep outsiders out. Religion is probably biological, or at least so far interwoven into man's past as to be indistinguishable.

Secular humanism, and in particular its moral code, seem to me to be a watered-down, de-symbolized, desacrilized Christianity. As such it's subject to all of Christianity's flaws and failings with none of its 'edifying' (though I may personally find Christian worship repellent) religious content.

[cnorman18]

Okay, well, you said "Go for it," so let me ask, straight up: Can you defend the following?

For starters, we have a three-part article entitled “Undermen.� Page 1 begins with a charming quotation from one Alex Linder, the neo-Nazi who runs the notorious Vanguard News Network, and who is said to be “a very smart fellow�:

"DEATH TO THE JEWS" - Alex Linder

What follows is a resurrection of the Nazi myth of the Noble Aryans. I invite everyone to read it and judge for themselves. This, apparently, is what you mean by “racialism.� Thanks very much.

On page 2, we have this:

….Lest the outrage be lost, as nothing provokes greater horror these days than "anti-Semitism," it is important first to note that there is nothing agreeable about Judaism or Jewish culture. Some individual Jews are fine people, albeit ones who carry within themselves, no matter how sublimated, the odious Jewish culture, like a gene for retardation or cancer hidden behind a pretty face. Yet recognition of forensic data is a far cry from passing judgment in the form of blame... it's important to ask simple questions: if anti-Semitism is so obviously false, why must laws be made against it? If it is such a brazen lie, why does it recur, again and again, while other lies perish young? And finally, we must ask, if Jews are so wonderful, why have the fortunes of Europe and America waned after their acceptance into society?

On page 3, we have this:

In the meantime, it's important that we again address Mr. Linder's idea ("DEATH TO THE JEWS," remember?) and question whether or not the Jews are responsible for our plight. It seems unlikely, since their appearance is relatively late in the cycle, and they don't yet control everything, although certainly their prominence in the news-entertainment media, finance and government is troubling. This article isn't an apologetic for the Jews; clearly they do not belong in Western culture, as their values are entirely foreign to ours - their materialistic dualism does not match with the healthiest of European beliefs, cosmic idealism, and is in fact diametrically opposed to it, to the point that whenever a Jew opens his mouth to speak "ideology" you should be assured it is harmful to you - and should be ejected by any means necessary. It's definitely not an attempt to praise them, since while they've done many good things, this is in part a result of their having relentlessly self-promoted and passed over capable goyim, such to the point where it's natural they have accomplished some good things, because they hold disproportionate amounts of the positions required. But on the whole, have Europe's fortunes raised or lowered because of the Jews? Greater divisiveness, neurosis, infighting, and ugly hook noses - Europeans are becoming Jews, from the looks of things!

It ends with a straight-up call for genocide:

It is simple, really. Alex Linder's quote started this article, and that quote ("DEATH TO THE JEWS") is admirable because it doesn't beat around the bush. It goes right for the assertive, warlike, masculine and powerful action that he sees as what must be done. Consequently, the author here will coin his own:
DEATH TO THE UNDERMEN - Vijay Prozak

We have too many people. Most of them are mediocre. If we don't cut back now, we'll overpopulate and consume all the resources on earth, committing ecocide and destroying the best people among us. Thus it is time to act. Death to the Undermen. If one hypothetical non-Underman handed a sword to each non-Underman he met, and they each did the same while slitting the throats of all Undermen - man, woman and child - that they encountered, the process would quickly reverse itself. Political objections can easily be neutralized by buying off the foppish and ineffective leaders, and murdering any businesspeople or news-entertainment media figures who intervene. Undermen act brave in crowds, but when the crowd's power is broken, they cower and run in disorganization. it will be easy to hunt them down and slaughter them. Their bodies will help nourish future forests.

Do you really find this sort of thing reasonable and rational?

From this article, oddly titled “The Danger of Racism and Anti-Semitism,� we have this:

Looking through history again, we see no society that has successfully hosted a politically-active Jewish population without collapsing or, because one cannot in civility remove a parasite, resorting to increasingly violent pogroms, of which the Holocaust is only the most recent and most publicized. Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that. It makes a clear distinction between "the chosen people" and those goyim who are provided by the Jewish god to be a means of sustenance for the Jewish tribe. Admirably, Judaism is also racist, limiting itself for the most part to those of the Jewish ethnicity and excluding outsiders from its learning. It has a scholarly tradition that, were it compatible with their values, would be the envy of the scribes of Europea and Asia. However, it is incompatible with European beliefs: where Europeans tend toward idealism, including the concept of self-sacrifice for a higher good, Judaism sees only the individual and individual comfort, and doesn't concern itself with long-term consequences. It is the religion of traders and money-changers, thus this is natural, but it's equally natural for Europeans to recognize Jewish values and thus Jewish people as incompatible with their own. Thus there is no solution to the Jewish question except to resolve that they and their partial descendants be ejected from European lands, as they are incompatible. Interestingly, this can be done without bigotry, because we don't need to shoot them or hate them or gas them, only to recognize that according to our values system, their beliefs are degenerate and parasitic. To them, it may not be so, but that's not our job to decide. Our job is to decide whether or not Jews fit in our society, and the answer is a resounding NO.

I have no way to describe this other than by calling what it is; vicious anti-Semitism of the worst kind. Yes, there’s a lot of blather surrounding these incredible remarks, but there they are, in context and inarguable.

I ask again; Can you defend the vicious libels against Jewish culture and the Jewish people here? Can you actually stand up and claim that this is anything other than neo-Nazi excrement of the ugliest kind?

If so, how?

[TheLibertarian]

You need only read the following to understand what is meant. You yourself posted it:

In the meantime, it's important that we again address Mr. Linder's idea ("DEATH TO THE JEWS," remember?) and question whether or not the Jews are responsible for our plight. It seems unlikely, since their appearance is relatively late in the cycle, and they don't yet control everything, although certainly their prominence in the news-entertainment media, finance and government is troubling.

The contributing authors of ANUS - who, might I add, are not necessarily endorsed by the main website - aren't particularly enamored of Jews. Neither am I. You may call it "anti-Semitic", if you wish; I call it level-headed observation of reality. The cottage-industry that has sprung up around the Holocaust is particularly to blame for inculcating feelings of self-hatred in European man. And it has given us one of the greatest absurdities of all time in whiter-than-thou evangelists like John Hagee transforming miraculously overnight into militant Zionists, more Jewish than Jews themselves.

No, ANUS isn't calling for a second Holocaust, or even the structural segregation of Jews from European life. What it does suggest is that individuals of a like-mind consciously avoid Jews. Such is their right. In my opinion, Jews need either assimilate fully and divest themselves of their heritage (it's rather well-known how culturally conscious Jews are, so this may prove difficult) or become completely ghettoized and voluntarily removed from European life.

[cnorman18]

You need only read the following to understand what is meant. You yourself posted it:

In the meantime, it's important that we again address Mr. Linder's idea ("DEATH TO THE JEWS," remember?) and question whether or not the Jews are responsible for our plight. It seems unlikely, since their appearance is relatively late in the cycle, and they don't yet control everything, although certainly their prominence in the news-entertainment media, finance and government is troubling.

The contributing authors of ANUS - who, might I add, are not necessarily endorsed by the main website - aren't particularly enamored of Jews. Neither am I. You may call it "anti-Semitic", if you wish; I call it level-headed observation of reality. The cottage-industry that has sprung up around the Holocaust is particularly to blame for inculcating feelings of self-hatred in European man. And it has given us one of the greatest absurdities of all time in whiter-than-thou evangelists like John Hagee transforming miraculously overnight into militant Zionists, more Jewish than Jews themselves.

No, ANUS isn't calling for a second Holocaust, or even the structural segregation of Jews from European life. What it does suggest is that individuals of a like-mind consciously avoid Jews. Such is their right. In my opinion, Jews need either assimilate fully and divest themselves of their heritage (it's rather well-known how culturally conscious Jews are, so this may prove difficult) or become completely ghettoized and voluntarily removed from European life.

"What is meant" was made perfectly clear in the quotes I posted. Here are few excerpts I'd like to see you deal with directly:

...there is nothing agreeable about Judaism or Jewish culture.

...if anti-Semitism is so obviously false, why must laws be made against it? If it is such a brazen lie, why does it recur, again and again, while other lies perish young? And finally, we must ask, if Jews are so wonderful, why have the fortunes of Europe and America waned after their acceptance into society?

Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that. It makes a clear distinction between "the chosen people" and those goyim who are provided by the Jewish god to be a means of sustenance for the Jewish tribe.

Judaism is also racist, limiting itself for the most part to those of the Jewish ethnicity and excluding outsiders from its learning.

...[Judaism] is incompatible with European beliefs: where Europeans tend toward idealism, including the concept of self-sacrifice for a higher good, Judaism sees only the individual and individual comfort, and doesn't concern itself with long-term consequences. It is the religion of traders and money-changers...

...there is no solution to the Jewish question except to resolve that they and their partial descendants be ejected from European lands, as they are incompatible.

...according to our values system, their beliefs are degenerate and parasitic.

Our job is to decide whether or not Jews fit in our society, and the answer is a resounding NO.

Any of these, er, dicta that you'd care to distance yourself from at all? Or do you claim that all these calumnies are actually true? That these are the teachings of Judaism, the values of Jewish culture, and the nature of Jewish people?

Death to the Undermen. If one hypothetical non-Underman handed a sword to each non-Underman he met, and they each did the same while slitting the throats of all Undermen - man, woman and child - that they encountered, the process would quickly reverse itself. Political objections can easily be neutralized by buying off the foppish and ineffective leaders, and murdering any businesspeople or news-entertainment media figures who intervene. Undermen act brave in crowds, but when the crowd's power is broken, they cower and run in disorganization. it will be easy to hunt them down and slaughter them. Their bodies will help nourish future forests.

I don't see anything about "voluntary" separation there, either. I also don't see any indication at all that the references to "slitting throats" and bodies nourishing future forests were in any way metaphorical or symbolic.

Have you no shame?

[TheLibertarian]

Any of these, er, dicta that you'd care to distance yourself from at all? Or do you claim that all these calumnies are actually true? That these are the teachings of Judaism, the values of Jewish culture, and the nature of Jewish people?

Not only do I not feel the need to distance myself from any of it, I could just as easily initial my name next to it as an endorsement of my own feelings. I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay, but enough of them have been, in enough of the right places to be effective, for me to question whether or not something deeper is going on. Certainly they have subverted the United States entirely; there is no possible denial of it. Whether on the Right or the Left, our entire thinking on foreign policy can be boiled down to two words: "Praise Israel". That's not the spontaneous result of a few leaders of European-descent deciding to be nice to Jews.

I don't see anything about "voluntary" separation there, either. I also don't see any indication at all that the references to "slitting throats" and bodies nourishing future forests were in any way metaphorical or symbolic.

It is, if not metaphorical, then certainly hyperbolic.

Have you no shame?

"Shame", as a presentiment, has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethical teaching. I am wholly independent of it.

What I do find telling is that you haven't picked up on the even more blatant anti-Arabic (which you ought to find agreeable) and anti-black ideas expressed on ANUS, which I do not agree with.

[cnorman18]

Any of these, er, dicta that you'd care to distance yourself from at all? Or do you claim that all these calumnies are actually true? That these are the teachings of Judaism, the values of Jewish culture, and the nature of Jewish people?

Not only do I not feel the need to distance myself from any of it, I could just as easily initial my name next to it as an endorsement of my own feelings. I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay, but enough of them have been, in enough of the right places to be effective, for me to question whether or not something deeper is going on. Certainly they have subverted the United States entirely; there is no possible denial of it. Whether on the Right or the Left, our entire thinking on foreign policy can be boiled down to two words: "Praise Israel". That's not the spontaneous result of a few leaders of European-descent deciding to be nice to Jews.

I don't see anything about "voluntary" separation there, either. I also don't see any indication at all that the references to "slitting throats" and bodies nourishing future forests were in any way metaphorical or symbolic.

It is, if not metaphorical, then certainly hyperbolic.

Have you no shame?

"Shame", as a presentiment, has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethical teaching. I am wholly independent of it.

What I do find telling is that you haven't picked up on the even more blatant anti-Arabic (which you ought to find agreeable) and anti-black ideas expressed on ANUS, which I do not agree with.

Thanks for clarifying. Nice to know what we're dealing with here.

[TheLibertarian]

Thanks for clarifying. Nice to know what we're dealing with here.

And it's different from someone who chooses to disaffiliate from, say, Christian Scientists, and to have nothing to do with them - how, exactly?

[nygreenguy]

But it's nonsense. Secular humanists paint this romantic image of man in a state of nature as being wholly benevolent. Of course, he isn't "depraved", as the Christians have it, either - he's contradictory. Territorialism, which is the basic motivator for racism, is certainly biological:

This is still not true. People are not inherently territorial. And what is your evidence that it is the basis for racism?

it benefits the organism to stake his claim on an area and keep outsiders out.

100% incorrect. We see in the natural world selection on many levels and we see many examples of mutualism. We live in cities for a reason.

Yes, I believe that people do what is best for them, I just think that what is best for the individual is to be kind to others. This is why we decided to live in groups. We are better off. And to get along in groups, others have to like you.

AND as I stated in my last post, humansim is based upon SOME inherent human traits, I never said all human traits make up humanism.

Religion is probably biological, or at least so far interwoven into man's past as to be indistinguishable.

For me, probably doesnt cut it. It is, or it isnt. I think it is the desire for knowledge in disguise.

Secular humanism, and in particular its moral code, seem to me to be a watered-down, de-symbolized, desacrilized Christianity. As such it's subject to all of Christianity's flaws and failings with none of its 'edifying' (though I may personally find Christian worship repellent) religious content.

Like what? Whats a specific example?

[micatala]

Moderator Action


Locking the thread.


In the first place, the OP does not really offer a question for debate, but rather asks for thoughts or reactions on a viewpoint. It is pretty vague and probably should be in the discussion forum


In the second place, the discussion now seems to be getting off topic.

In the third place, a couple of the posts (#13 and #15) by Libertarian on this page are arguably inflammatory. While the mods typically avoid stepping in to comment on particular viewpoints, it is hard to see how some of the assertions above, offered without any supporting evidence, have any other purpose or effect than to be inflammatory.

[cnorman18]

Edited to clarify: After consultation with the moderating team and with the permission of the Administrator, I'm unlocking the thread. Let no one claim that his views have been censored or silenced. Let's see what you've got.

Thanks for clarifying. Nice to know what we're dealing with here.

And it's different from someone who chooses to disaffiliate from, say, Christian Scientists, and to have nothing to do with them - how, exactly?

Well, for starters, I don’t see anyone claiming that Christian Scientists are “conscious agents of social decay,� or that Christian Scientism is “parasitic� or “odious… like a gene for retardation or cancer,� or that they “do not belong in Western culture�; and, of course, I don’t see a lot of calls for outright murder, which are then, as was characteristic of apologists for the Nazis in the 1930s, dismissed as �hyperbolic.� That looks pretty different to me.

Now, if you have the stones to stand up and speak honestly about what you have here openly admitted that you believe, as opposed to backing away from it again, let’s nail some of these scurrilous and demonstrably, provably false claims down -- and perhaps get a peek at your sources and references while we’re at it.

Let’s start here. You said,

Not only do I not feel the need to distance myself from any of it, I could just as easily initial my name next to it as an endorsement of my own feelings.

This was said in reference to certain specific quotations, which we will examine individually and in detail -- just to make sure that you actually mean what you say. First, immediately following the above, you said:

I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay, but enough of them have been, in enough of the right places to be effective, for me to question whether or not something deeper is going on. Certainly they have subverted the United States entirely; there is no possible denial of it.

Crystal-clear implication: That many, if not most, Jews are “conscious agents of social decay,� etc. This is, of course, the ancient calumny of the existence of the nefarious International Jewish Conspiracy. Do you actually believe that even a minority of Jews are engaged in a conscious, deliberate conspiracy to -- take your pick -- bring down Western culture, rule the world, reduce all Gentiles to a state of dependent slavery, and so on? Do you accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as actual, authentic evidence of such a conspiracy? What is your evidence that such a conspiracy exists? You’ve said it; now let’s see you back it up. Be sure to give your citations.

Then, we have this:

Whether on the Right or the Left, our entire thinking on foreign policy can be boiled down to two words: "Praise Israel". That's not the spontaneous result of a few leaders of European-descent deciding to be nice to Jews.

First, it would be nice to see you actually prove the first assertion -- in particular how it relates to American pressure, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, on Israel to accept a “two-state solution� in the Mideast, to stop the expansion of the “settlements,� and so on. Many pundits think that the U.S. controls Israeli policy more than the other way around. See this article in Frontline, The Myth of the “Jewish Lobby.� America does not support Israel because of an evil conspiracy of venal Jews, but because America’s interests and Israel’s coincide more often than they diverge. Conspiracy theory again.

What I do find telling is that you haven't picked up on the even more blatant anti-Arabic (which you ought to find agreeable) and anti-black ideas expressed on ANUS, which I do not agree with.

How very liberal of you -- and how “telling� it is that you assume anti-Arab bigotry on my part. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that I have rather often spoken out, on this very forum, against anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry; indeed, I am the guy that requested and put up my tokens for the establishment of a discussion subforum devoted to Islam. Tell me, can you explain why every liberation and anti-bigotry organization in history has featured Jews among its participants and leaders, including those which oppose the oppression of Palestinians? How does that FACT fit into your “Jewish racism� assumptions and claims?

Now let’s examine some of the statements which you said you could “easily initial [your] name next to… as an endorsement of [your] own feelings.�

…if anti-Semitism is so obviously false, why must laws be made against it? If it is such a brazen lie, why does it recur, again and again, while other lies perish young? And finally, we must ask, if Jews are so wonderful, why have the fortunes of Europe and America waned after their acceptance into society?

Let’s find this out; exactly what “brazen lies� of anti-Semitism are actually true, and why are they true? Which recurring allegations is your beloved author talking about here? You endorsed these views -- do you dare to make them explicit?

Can you prove that “the fortunes of Europe and America� have “waned,� and can you prove that they “waned� because of the acceptance of Jews into society? I’d love to see your sources for THAT claim.

[The Jews’] values are entirely foreign to ours - their materialistic dualism does not match with the healthiest of European beliefs, cosmic idealism, and is in fact diametrically opposed to it, to the point that whenever a Jew opens his mouth to speak "ideology" you should be assured it is harmful to you - and should be ejected by any means necessary.

It occurs to be that this rather gives the lie to the claim that this “nihilism� recognizes no meaning and no values, but that’s predictable enough. I’d like to see the sources that prove that this vituperative nonsense has anything whatever to do with the values of Jews, the Jewish community, or the Jewish religion.

Judaism is parasitic, there's no doubt about that. It makes a clear distinction between "the chosen people" and those goyim who are provided by the Jewish god to be a means of sustenance for the Jewish tribe.

Here again; please prove these allegations about Jewish belief and culture -- or at least give your sources for these incredibly bigoted and blatantly false claims.

Judaism is also racist, limiting itself for the most part to those of the Jewish ethnicity and excluding outsiders from its learning.

First please explain what this actually means, and then let’s see if you have anything within shouting distance of credible proof or evidence for it.

What is “Jewish ethnicity� supposed to be, and how is Judaism “limited� to that ethnicity? Certainly there are Jews who have been Jewish for many generations -- those with the surname “Cohen,“ or related names, come to mind -- but there have been converts from the time of Abraham and Moses, and there still are. I am one, if you didn’t know. There is an entire book of the Hebrew Bible about the welcoming of converts, and King David himself was descended from one.

And on the claim about Jewish “learning� -- tell me, are there secret teachings that Jews only discuss with each other? How are “outsiders� supposedly “excluded�? The complete Talmud, in English, is available in any large-city library; the entire corpus of Jewish literature and learning is available to all, all over the world. What does this abject silliness mean, and how do you propose to TRY to prove it? What are your sources and references for this horse manure?

Don’t try to beg off by saying that the author on A.N.U.S. wrote this, and not you; you signed off on it, and it’s yours now. Can you prove it, or will you retract it and apologize?

Very appropriate name for this website, by the way.

...[Judaism] is incompatible with European beliefs: where Europeans tend toward idealism, including the concept of self-sacrifice for a higher good, Judaism sees only the individual and individual comfort, and doesn't concern itself with long-term consequences. It is the religion of traders and money-changers...

Here again; what are your sources for these claims about the nature and teachings of Judaism? I can’t WAIT to see them.

Oh, yes; and where, in all the enormous library of scholarship and historical analysis and investigation you have no doubt studied, is there any acknowledgment of the fact that Jews in medieval Europe were forbidden to own land and thus to farm or raise animals, join the Guilds and so practice a skilled trade, or otherwise make a living by any means OTHER than trade? Where is there an acknowledgment that Jews, as the only segment of the population who were PERMITTED to lend money at interest, were enthusiastically encouraged and sometimes compelled to do that by the Church, the nobility, and the monarchy of every country in Europe? How just is it to compel a people to make their living in a particular way, and then sneer at and demean them for doing so?

Oh, never mind. I don’t really care to hear more old-school Nazi-style bigotry disguised as philosophy and radical politics.

...there is no solution to the Jewish question except to resolve that they and their partial descendants be ejected from European lands, as they are incompatible.

What “Jewish question�? Please explain what is meant by that phrase, and why there is a “question� concerned with Jews in particular.

That phrase has a very familiar ring. It’s often associated with a well-known meeting called the Wannsee conference, which was convened by Reinhard Heydrich to determine its “Final Solution.� That meeting reached the same conclusion as above, with the additional proviso of the Jews’ being “ejected from European lands� in the form of smoke. Alex Linder, for one -- a person apparently much admired by this author -- has no problem with that addendum.

...according to our values system, their beliefs are degenerate and parasitic.

And there it is again. “Our values system“? What “value system“? I thought nihilism preached the negation of values.

And by what standard are the beliefs of Judaism “degenerate and parasitic�? What are your sources? What authorities do you recognize on the subject of Jewish beliefs and values? Again, I can’t wait to see.

Well, here is your chance. Let’s see what you’ve got. You’ve made a lot of claims; can you back them up -- or will you back away, deny responsibility, claim it’s all “hyperbole� or “rhetoric� (again, as apologists for Hitler did in the 1930s), or otherwise try to run away?

Or will you stand up as the noble, principled Aryan that you apparently claim to be and back all this -- stuff -- up with the facts and scholarship which you no doubt have at your fingertips?