Wednesday, 17 May 2017

NAMELESS PODCAST: SETH RICH, THE JQ, AND THE ALT-RIGHT

Look behind you!

In his latest "Nameless" podcast, Andy Nowicki discusses the newly-released "bombshell" that DNC operative Seth Rich was the insider who gave John Podesta's hacked emails to Wikileaks, and thus helped to engineer Hillary Clinton's defeat by exposing the vast extent of the corruption taking place within her campaign.

 It was an act for which he may well have have forfeited his life.

Rich was gunned down on a DC street in the small hours of the morning on June 10, 2016. Police called it a robbery, but nothing on Rich's person was reported stolen. Numerous suspicious details surround this event, but investigations into the crime appear to be stalled, apparently having put on hold by higher-ups who, in seems, don't wish the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

Seth Rich was a Jew, and he is a hero. A "Jew-ro," if you will. To many on the Alt-Right, such a proposition simply "does not compute." Andy uses the Rich case as a means of discussing the reflexive and patently unreflective counter-Semitism of many Alt-Righters, making a case for a more nuanced perspective regarding the JQ.

Listen here, kikes and goys:
https://soundcloud.com/jnow1101/seth-rich-and-the-jewish-question
https://soundcloud.com/new-alternative-right/nameless-podcast-seth-rich-the-jq-and-the-alt-right

15 comments:

  1. "I know this one person who is an outlier, therefore all of your conclusions drawn from the statistical facts are invalid because this one person exists."

    If you can't see why that's, #notanargument, I don't know what to tell you. "Seth Rich was a good Jew" is an absolute non-sequitur at best, and that you don't realize that is the prime reason why this blog is out of touch with and disconnected from the Alt Right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I know this one person who is an outlier, therefore all of your conclusions drawn from the statistical facts are invalid because this one person exists."

      You put this in quote marks. Did I say this?

      Delete
    2. Wow! You sure showed him.

      Delete
    3. It's okay Andy. Old EZ's comments are always terrible, no matter what site they're on.

      Delete
  2. Hi Andy,

    As an alt-right half-WASP/half-Jew, I appreciate your comments. One quibble, however: in enumerating the kinds of positions that decent Jews might take (pro-gun, pro-life, pro-white, pro-family) you include Jewish critics of Israel as an example. A few things occur to me that you may not have considered:

    (1) that some right-wing Jews, though sincere in their beliefs, do also hope that by presenting as pro-white or socially conservative, we will win some sympathy for Jews and/or Israel from non-Jewish fellow rightist who may be wary of us. This tendency can entail a certain hope that such rightist will then eschew their own white or American group interests a bit in sympathizing with Israel; or it can just be an outgrowth of Jewish little man syndrome and the desire to prove oneself worthy to the Aryans (this would be a more old school Jewish tendency that cropped up after emancipation and lasted approximately until the sixties, though it of course was not pervasive and it coexisted with Freud and Boaz and Adorno etc., etc.)

    (2) Secondly, (although you didn't raise this topic outright but sort of implied it by including your Judith Reissmans with your Norman Finkelsteins) I don't think that support for Israel (Zionism) and sympathy with beleaguered whites and white nationalism need be mutually exclusive, the distinction depends on who's putting their skin in the game for whom: I, for one, as a white person, even if I were full-blood Jewish, am aided by those who spread pro-white awareness, because I'm not even allowed to really defend myself against non-white minorities, and they are vindictive and sometimes deadly. But I also do not believe that whites or Europeans or Americans or the US need to sacrifice anything or provide anything for Israel's benefit. My support of white nationalism is not this kind of quid pro quo, and as long as I'm willing to see my father's people foot their own bill so to speak, I do not think I need to be highly critical of Israel from any given angle to be a decent Jew or an alt-right compatible one. You can read my eccentric and mildly anti-Semitic Zionist position here:

    https://uttercontempt.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/fatherland-uber-alles/

    I also wrote a scathing takedown of Anthony Bourdain. Totally off topic but so, so awesome:

    https://uttercontempt.wordpress.com/2016/05/31/an-embarrassment-of-kitsches/

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't think that support for Israel (Zionism) and sympathy with beleaguered whites and white nationalism need be mutually exclusive..."

      Agreed. I was just highlighting that there were many Jews who were critical of Israel, in order to combat the oft-heard alt-right perception that Jews are invariably hypocrites in being pro-multiculturalism and pro-open borders in historically white nations while insisting that Israel remain predominantly Jewish.

      Delete
    2. I see. By the way, I'm also not meaning to say that one (Jewish or Gentile) ought not be critical of Israel. That's another problem with the Jews is when they get their panties in a twist about what people say and think. Jabotinsky wasn't like that. His ideological descendants are another matter. Anyhow, thanks again.

      Delete
  3. Without rancor, I confess this podcast is saddening. Those of us who appreciate Andy's voice do so because his approach is generally fair and nuanced, and he disciplines himself to avoid gross generalization and stereotyping. To me, Andy has a decency about him. But, to my mind, the sequence of intellectual distinctions, made in this podcast, separate him from the truth, rather than draw him closer.

    To deal fairly with the JQ, will not preclude an appreciation of Laura Schlessinger or Seth Rich. Nor will it preclude having Jewish friendships in day to day life. There is no such thing as a "monolithic" racial/ethnic enemy of Europe. As such this standard for identifying danger/threat has no value; just as it would be ridiculous to use the abominable snowman as a reference point for understanding South American Primates.

    A primary job of the Alt Right is to identify those factors that threaten our survival.

    The intellectual cobweb I just listened to arrives at an ultimate position that would preclude us from understanding powerful trends that are (and have historically been) arguably the MOST corrosive to the West -perhaps only overshadowed by those powerful, secret-society goy who have been co-conspirators. I don't care who represents the eye at the tippy, tippy top of the pyramid. A basic understanding anti-western forces must include Jewish power. There is so much scholarship on this that is absurd to be forced to affirm it again here.

    Andy, you must have read E. Michael Jones, Michael Hoffman, Kevin MacDonald, Louis Marshalko's "World Conquerers", Duke, Atzmon... the list is a mile long.

    I agree with Andy that there have, of course, been Jews with deep integrity who take the side of Europe:

    Benjamin Freidman
    Michael Hoffman (rumored to be Jewish)
    Henry Makow
    Gilad Atzmon
    Brother Nathaniel (yes, he is a bit weird. Whatever.)
    ...to name a few...

    It is interesting that all of these, I believe, would take issue with the final conclusions of this podcast. Maybe I misunderstand what Andy is saying. So, I suppose I am asking for more clarification, than I am directly criticizing.

    We know what the Talmud says. We understand Central global banking and the NWO. We know about the Frankfurt school and the destruction emanating from academia. We understand the dialectical, Kabbalistic, free Masonic, "Jewish Sandwich". We know about the non-profits exposed by Norman Dodd and their intentions toward consolidating global power through destroying the USA. We understand world Jewry's "Declaration of War" against Germany for attempting to free itself from Rothschilds banking control. We understand Central Banking's control over Churchill and Roosevelt. We know that Anthony Sutton prooved a direct link between Jewish Wall Street (Jacob Schiff) and the Bolsheviks' destruction of Russia. We have listened to James Trafficant discussing Israel's control of our gov.
    This list is endless.

    Taking a dubious stance against the notion that Jewish power has employed a Hegalian Dialectical approach to controlling disparate levers of power, is difficult to fathom. How can this be brought back into question, after all we know?

    I don't mean to attack Andy. I have appreciated his work, and will continue to support it. For now. Hopefully this conversation does not die out here. This needs further exploration. We are on the same team, and our solidarity is important. I do NOT suspect Andy's sincerity. And I so appreciate the lack of stupid hatefulness in his general message.

    I just am struggling to reconcile this: It would seem to me that the voice in this podcast would belong to someone who believes Podesta just loves himself some Italian cuisine. And that voice is not Andy's.

    What are we missing, Andy? Help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Look, I also don't want to get rancorous here but, as I stated above, I'm a half-Jew and obviously my perspective is rather different (you can read more of my ideas on these issues at the blog I linked to above).

      I certainly don't object to you expressing your ideas, nor do I consider you an adversary, and I'm not going to try and convert you to a philosemite either---who you like or despise or suspect or hang out with is none of my business. However, I do think that in a way you're contributing to the problem you've identified. While in simple point of fact I wouldn't gainsay much of what you've written, it isn't a measured or balanced overview, it's a prosecutorial brief that ignores a mountain of countervailing data. For the purposes of this particular thread, we might say that Seth Rich is the tip of that mountain.

      You do acknowledge that there are good, honest Jews, and you've named a few that you would put in that category. So you're acknowledging that, in spite of statistical preponderances (as you see them and have tried to make a case for), race need not be the ultimate determining factor in a person's principles and behavior, not even in the case of Jews. So then, exactly what principles and behaviors would I, as a person of Jewish descent with a large degree of Jewish identity, need to possess in order for you to not consider me an enemy? This is not a rhetorical question, though it is hypothetical because I don't apologize for who I am or look to others for chastisement.

      Based on the examples you provided (all of whom I both agree and disagree with to varying degrees), I would need to cut myself off entirely from my father's race regardless of the broad variation of their factions and trends and the great many nuances and idiosyncrasies that pertain among them, and (essentially) vehemently denounce my own blood, regardless of the countervailing data I eluded to already.

      What you're saying, then (if I've understood you correctly) is that there's simply no way for me to not be your enemy---that in fact I have no say in the matter---regardless of who I am, how I comport myself and the considerable extent to which we agree on principles, principles the espousal of which render us both outcasts in very similar fashion.

      My point is, to measure someone against an impossible standard in this way makes the notion that he's your enemy rather self-fulfilling.

      Delete
    3. Utter Contempt,

      Thanks for your comments. I intend, and look forward, to continuing this conversation with both you, and the larger Alt Right community. Your last post asks several questions, makes some assumptions, and I want to respond specifically and candidly.

      I'm particularly slammed at the moment, and don't have the free time to give this all it deserves. Throwing up my initial post, and responding in a detailed way to all of your questions and assumptions, do not demand an equal time commitment from me.

      But rather than allow too much time to lapse, in which the silence might be misconstrued, I just wanted to take a sec to to acknowledge you, and say that I will get back to this in a few days. It is important to me. This coming Thursday is a big deadline for me, and I am cramming. After that, I will have the breathing room to continue this. Thanks for you patience. Also thank you to Alternative-right.blogspot and Andy for providing this space for us to tackle this subject matter like adults.

      In the meantime, I hope others will not shy away from this central Alt Right topic.

      Old Ez, perhaps you will further explain your position.

      Since I suppose others may also post as "anonymous", I will distinguish myself in future posts by using the first two words of my original post as my "handle".

      "Without Rancor"

      ...to be continued...

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (1)
    Sounds good man, I agree.

    In the meantime, please allow me to better clarify where I’m coming from, and perhaps you’ll respond to what I’m about to write, rather than what I’ve written above:

    If you're forced by circumstance to coexist or interact with an individual---a coworker, a classmate, an in-law---and it becomes clear that certain important interests of yours are inimical to certain important interests of theirs, and you begin to find them odious and to regard them as an enemy, then a lot of that person's future odiousness (as you see it subjectively) is going to depend on a prior solidification of that impression, and correspondingly less of their odiousness is going to depend on their actual behavior. The inimicality of your interests will be less likely to soften, and more likely to harden. You're going to be using a static template to characterize something dynamic, and the other party's odiousness will be a self-fulfilling prophecy as much as an objective fact. Traits that may’ve been redemptive before you solidified your impression of the other person will henceforth be noxious to you, and third party bystanders are liable to see you as unreasonable, and sympathize with the other party to the point of overlooking what is objectively noxious about them. Of course, this is a two-way street. I’m not making a case for Jewish innocence.

    Now, what we’re talking about are judgment calls we all make all the time about other individuals, and we make them about groups inasmuch as phenotypic traits or manners of speaking or idiosyncratic behavioral norms are shared by them, and correspond with one another. I’ve certainly learned to keep my distance from certain types of people, including ethnic groups. I don’t say that you or anyone ought to take the time out of your daily grind to identify redeeming traits in strangers if your experience has alerted you to certain signifiers of likelihood that members of a given group had best be avoided.

    On the other hand, if you’re going to characterize an entire race as odious, to the extent that the only examples you can find of decent types among this race are a handful of outliers whose public personae are built around denouncing their own kind vociferously, then you’re not simply talking about a group that is better for you or people like you to avoid because of natural conflicts of interest. You’re talking about the personification of evil.

    Now, I’d imagine you’ll object that the evidence of odiousness is clear. This is perhaps the lynchpin of contention between us.....

    ReplyDelete
  6. (2)

    I have read Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique; I’ve not read the prior two volumes of the same series, but I did read that third one. Reading this was part of a personally painful but also liberating years-long process of realization that historic anti-Semitic sentiments and even persecutions are not exclusively irrational, being rooted in hallucinatory theology or simple envy of intelligence or wealth, but are tangible manifestations of visceral competition between groups. Of course, this isn’t a one-way street, so some extent of Jewish animus toward Gentiles arose historically as a legitimate response to hostile competition the same way anti-Semitism did. This is what I mean when I say that the type and extent of anti-Semitism you’re espousing (if I understand your previous post) contributes gratuitously to the problem of Jewish animus toward Gentiles, because if someone like me agrees with the alt-right, not just cosmetically but on core principles, including the destructiveness of certain Jewish attitudes and behaviors, but am then given the strong impression that in order to be considered a good guy I have to literally denounce my blood and see nothing good in my father’s culture, then I’m being pushed to overlook those Jewish tendencies that I’d otherwise be willing to call out and try to work on and alter. I don’t think you have to be a Brother Nathaniel or a Gilad Atzamon to be a decent Jew, in fact I’d say quite the opposite is true: that people who literally hate their own blood and can see no good in their ancestral traditions are warped individuals, no matter how correct they are in parts of their critique, and no matter what culture and race they hail from.

    Now, it’s true that Kevin MacDonald, Gilad Atzamon, Brother Nathaniel, Michael Hoffman, E. Michael Jones and Henry Makow have each amassed large bodies of evidence of odiousness and mischief from Jews. Although I disagree that this evidence ought to characterize the whole race, in the main I don’t gainsay this evidence on its face. Rather, my objection is that the cases those mounds of evidence go into making are one-dimensional. They’re prosecutorial briefs, they ignore countervailing evidence (I won’t provide that evidence here because it’s tedious, but I’d be glad to provide it in a later post on this thread). I grew up around Jews in California and lived almost exclusively among them for most of my early twenties (in Israel and NYC), and I know vastly more types and tendencies than Kevin MacDonald accounts for, both in my lifetime and within the last several generations; although I agree that the sentiments MacDonald identifies as underpinning the tendencies he emphasizes are, indeed, widespread among the Jews and deeply rooted in evolutionary psychology. Then again, these can be quite vestigial, and their consequentiality can be a matter of vastly differing degrees both among individual Jews and within entire Jewish factions or communities. They’re also amenable to change. It may be that you’re looking at the aggregate effects of Jewish activity on civilization, whereas I’m looking at the aggregate characteristics of the entire Jewish people, and these are two quite different things.


    ReplyDelete
  7. (3)

    This isn’t to say I don’t see great value in MacDonald’s work, even though I believe it is fundamentally flawed. Where MacDonald’s work has incredible value, in my view, is in alerting whites to the fact that they have ethnic interests in spite of how deracinated they are and even in spite of how they’ve been taught to see themselves. However, I disagree that the bulk of deleterious thought-trends among whites since the onset of modernity are attributable to Jews. I don’t say we haven’t done harm in this regard, but that the picture is much broader and MacDonald’s view is myopic---more a prosecutorial brief than a balanced scientific study. I also think MacDonald particularly falters where he tries to correlate militant political Zionism with the more leftist intellectual movements he describes in Culture of Critique. Furthermore, having extensive and intimate knowledge of Jewish history (which I’m able to elaborate on further down, but will spare you the tedium for the moment) I also think that Nietzsche’s portrayal of Jewish inversion of values is wildly oversimplified, and I think that if you read Guenon and Evola you can see that important (and characteristic) Jews in both the Hellenistic world and medieval Europe were responsible for incubating a great deal of Neoplatonism and other wisdom that Evola identified squarely within his “world of Tradition.”

    Anyhow, this is the basic gist of my thinking on this matter. I’ll check back from time to time, I also have a busy life and I understand if it takes you some time to respond.

    Thanks, and best wishes.

    ReplyDelete

SWEDISH BLEEDING

Not sure if victim of "diversity rape" or toxic feminism. by Duns Scotus It's really hard to know what's going o...