Friday, March 21, 2014

Antijaphetism

I think it is time to popularize a new term, "antijaphetism." It refers to prejudice directed against people of European descent. It is designed to parallel "antisemitism," as Japheth biblically is the father of the Europeans as Shem is of the Hebrews. In particular, the term would be useful to use for Jewish people who harbor ill will toward non-Jewish whites, in order to acknowledge the existence of such prejudice while not imputing that position to Jews as a whole.

I decided that popularizing this term would be a good thing, as I have noticed that a lot of white nationalists tend to harbor antisemitic and anti-Zionist feelings that I think are not only wrong, but ultimately counterproductive. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing anti-white about Zionism, which is merely the belief that Jews have the right to a homeland. Jewish sympathy and unity toward other Jews should not be seen as threatening indeed, non-white ethnic nationalism as a whole should not be, unless it is accompanied by an antipathy toward whites.

While there are a lot of people of Jewish heritage who do seem to have an antipathy toward Gentile whites (Chuck Schumer), there is no reason to use this to attack the Jewish people as a whole, nor to conflate pro-Jewish movements with anti-Gentile ones. This would be the mirror image of the tendency to conflate any form of pro-whiteness with Nazism.

By the way, people who like whites, in particular Jews who see their interests as aligned with those of Gentile whites, I would refer to as philojaphetic.

That is all.

4 comments:

Art Deco said...

The term you suggest is rather cumbersome. Not catchy for aesthetic reasons.

---


I put nothing past Schumer, but he seems more a practitioner of purposeless self-aggrandizement than anything else. He is gratuitously unscrupulous as well.

--

Hyam Maccoby, Robert Wistrich, and Leon Wieseltier would seem better examples of what you refer to, as well as their editorial enablers, Neil Kozodoy and Martin Peretz. You might also include Matthew Yglesias' grandmother ("I was always taught [by her] that WASPs don't care about their children").

SFG said...

Thanks for the consideration, dude. I really appreciate it, and I mean it. We get a lot of crap from all sides.

Thing is, I don't think there are enough philojaphetic Jews around to make it worth it. You lose more than you gain, and you can't turn enough Jews to make up for the loss of the Nazis in terms of movement size.

To be honest, I'm not sure how WN *can* win. Most of the best whites are drained off into the elite structure. I'm really depressed by this whole business. I don't hate the white race at all (I thought I was *part* of it until recently), and I hate to see it destroyed, but I don't think any of us can stop it.

The problem is that the fix is in, for a lot of reasons. Most important, IMHO, is that BOTH WINGS HAVE BEEN BOUGHT OFF. Elite Republicans want cheap labor, elite democrats want free votes, and the system is so corrupt only the elites matter.

Interestingly, many *non*elite liberals actually agree with you at least on the broad outlines that some form of immigration restriction is worthwhile. Read any NYT article on immigration--they are deluged with comments like 'I am a liberal, and I think this is bad for the poor'.

I think if you really want to stop this and restore America to its people, you have to contemplate doing things that are 'left'wing, like campaign finance reform and attacking the free market that allows rich people to accumulate lots of money they can use to buy politicians. But conservatives are so enamored of the free market...

Anyway, let me know what you think.

Glaivester said...

Thing is, I don't think there are enough philojaphetic Jews around to make it worth it. You lose more than you gain, and you can't turn enough Jews to make up for the loss of the Nazis in terms of movement size.

(1) For one thing, targeting antijaphetism specifically is more moral, in my opinion. There is something to be said for doing the right thing just because it is the right thing.

(2) To the extent that this has strategic value, the goal is not just to recruit philojaphetic Jews, but to recruit white Gentiles who would be put off by antisemitism.

(3) To the extent that antisemites and Nazis are part of the white nationalist movement, I don't see why I have to adopt their ideas in order not to drum them out of the movement. The times are desperate enough so that it isn't worth my time to try to attack other people in the WN movement over areas where we disagree, but that doesn't mean I can't stake out my differences and fight the anti-white power structure using my own ideology. As long as we are not sniping at each other, we can each fight in our own way.

Luke Lea said...

"I don't think there are enough philojaphetic Jews around to make it worth it."

No, but you could call them out when it occurs, especially in the mainstream media.

Gadget

This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.