From Trotskyites to Neoconservatives (Short Version)

A commenter asks if there is something about Trotskyism that turned them into neocons:

Do you think there is something fundamentally sinister about Trotskyism that makes such transformation inevitable?

Not really, but they are super-revolutionaries. They believe in worldwide revolution. Spontaneous worldwide revolution. They don’t believe in socialism in one country, remember? They want the whole world in revolt.

The Trots used to just be a bunch of Jews. They liked Trotsky because he was a Jew and supposedly Stalin sacked Trotsky due to anti-Semitism. Trotsky was running around telling everyone that Stalin was an anti-Semite. Also, Stalin was a conservative and a nationalist and he undid a lot of the radical changes that the Trot types had done before 1927. So anyway, if you were a Commie and a Jew in the West, you were supposed to be a Trot.

Then with Khrushchev’s secret speech, the full weight of Stalin’s atrocities, 3.2 people just murdered in peacetime, came out. Actually they were throwing around numbers like 20-110 million. Lot of Commies in the West, including most of the Trots, abandoned Communism and turned into Cold War liberals in the 1950’s associated with a CIA publication called Encounter. They were regularly trotted out to show how liberals hated Communism as much as conservatives. My Dad came out of this mold. Fierce liberal who hated Communism.

With the 6-day war in 1967, the group radicalized. They supported Israel, and they got behind the Vietnam War in a big way as a Cold War thing. Also they became these cultural conservative Jews who were sort of waging war on their fellow Jews. They saw the Counterculture as a bunch of traitorous Jews, and they were pissed. So they were pro-Vietnam War, pro-Israel, pro-Cold War and anti-counterculture.

In the 1970’s this movement grew around a few very obscure journals which have since gone under the names of which elude me. The group coalesced around Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s office in the Senate. He was known as the Senator From Boeing. Jackson represented Washington State. He was this “liberal” who was all tied in with the military industrial complex, a hawk on Vietnam in the 1970’s and a Cold Warrior. My father loved him.

He was a Gentile, but the neocons saw him as Israel’s best friend. All of these guys, Perle, Wolfowitz and the rest of them, come out of this environment. They still wanted to be Democrats though because they were still liberal Jews at heart.

When Reagan came in, they saw their opening and joined on board for the pro-Israel Cold War ride. They formed a BS committee called The Committee on the Present Danger. The whole reason for its existence was to say that the CIA was lying in its estimates on Soviet strength and that the Soviets were stronger than we were and about to conquer us.

This was all lies and apparently they knew this, but they pushed it anyway. They got the CIA to revise its estimates of Soviet strength to dramatically overestimate it. This was the Reagan defense spending ramp up thing. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frank Gaffney, Perle and other scoundrels were all involved in this.

Most of them were turning into Republicans already when Bush Jr came in, and they made a rush to sign up. Most of his administration came out of the CPD and JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. The purpose of JINSA is, through corruption and propaganda, to sort of merge the Israeli military and its MIC with the US military and its MIC. It has sort of worked.

The rest is history.

Trace the trajectory of Norman Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine and Irving Kristol of Public Affairs Magazine (William Kristol’s father). Those were some of the original proto-neocons who are now full-on neocons.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

83 thoughts on “From Trotskyites to Neoconservatives (Short Version)”

  1. Although I consider most left-wing types scum, I really respect and admire Comrade Stalin. Among the leftists, the Stalinists are closest to what I believe in. The Great Francis Yockey also admired Uncle Joe and saw him as transforming the USSR from a jewish internationalist, cosmopolitan wreck to a Great Russian Nationalist Empire,

    1. Hey fyp3p! These guys are totally hardline. Stalin didn’t put a foot wrong in their eyes. Stalinist British weekly newspaper for you, and some useful Stalin resources as well, here:
      Robert’s a leftist, I’m a leftist, so is LaFleur and probably Cyrus. Why do you hang out with scum like us?

        1. He’s right about that. I agree. Last time I looked the Trots were backing the Taliban,
          Hamas etc, and they’re in bed with Islam as well, despite the deep unpleasantness of the religion. The SWPers defend the right of Muslim women to wear the veil in public. I mean how fucked up is that? Secular atheists defending religious oppression?

          Is that what you mean by leftists?

        2. No Robert isn’t a Stalinist. But he defends Stalin. His article Stalin the Great Humanitarian was a provocation, sure, but I appreciated it nonetheless. I’m the same. Stalin was appropriate for his time, the Russian Roosevelt. Whoops! You won’t agree with that…

        3. By leftists, I mean anybody on the left spectrum who is not Stalinist, from social democrats, anarchists, Cultural Marxist scum etc. By the way, I don’t think Trotskyites would be supporting groups like Hamas. Trotskyites as a faction are heavily Jooish.

  2. Good summary. The Partisan Review started out red but turned fiercely anti-communist once Stalin took over.

    The following article attempts to exonerate the Review’s anti-communist liberals for their lack of opposition to McCarthyism:

    Unlike many others, they refused to be fooled into believing that anyone attacked by McCarthy, McCarran, or the House Committee on Un-American Activities was a noble and innocent martyred liberal.


  3. Neocons are absolute scum. They all ought to be imprisoned for life.

    Anyway, I’m back!

    I’m sure that I wasn’t exactly missed by certain people (ie. Tulio, Alpha, and pretty much all other black commenters), but here I am!

    By the way, Robert, notice that you’ve been commenting over at Abagond’s blog lately. Interestingly enough, his tone has softened a bit and he’s less explicitly attacking whites.

    Interesting little discussion you had with Thaddeus, by the way.

  4. I don’t know about US Trotskyists, but here the Socialist Workers’ Party supports Hamas. And yes, there are plenty of non-Jewish Jews in the SWP. The logic is: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Zionism is my enemy. Jonathan Neale is an SWP member who writes books on Afghanistan. He backs the Taliban: Good article by him at that address. If there is such a thing as Islamofascism (and I have my doubts) the Taliban are it; medieval fascists.

    1. How do you view the transformation of the Shachtmanite faction of Trotsykites into imperialist American neocons in the 1970s to the present day?

      1. I know nothing about US Trotskyists. But there was a Trot group here called the Revolutionary Communist Party, who had a lot of money and who published a glossy magazine called Living Marxism. They were bourgeois sons of bitches who all ended up as Blairite neoliberals. Even as marxists they held some weird views, like being favourable toward eugenics, usually a no-no in Left circles, and pro the nuclear industry. Why does it happen? I guess they were never serious socialists in the first place. Their socialism was of the comfortable armchair, debating society, pipe and wood panelled study variety. They wouldn’t soil themselves with actual workers, not outside of the universities, anyway. In fact they attacked striking miners:

  5. Yockey was never an orthodox Stalinist and his ultimate goal was actually preservation of as much as possible of the Germanic cultural strain in a formal or informal Euro-Russ Empire. The USSR was “admired” but motsly as an anti-capitalist/American entity-in-flux which would ultimately be absorbed in a greater imperial construct with a revitalized anti-US Western Europe having a great deal of the power.

  6. The SWP opposes boycotting Israel, which is growing popular movement on the Left. That’s enough to warn you there is a prevailing Jewish strain within it.

  7. interesting to know that your father was a hardcore liberal. they say your parents politics highly influence your own. i know this is true in my case.

    the more i see though…the more i think all politics is just mafia-style gangup bullshit. nothing will change, there’s nothing new. it’s not very interesting.

    your blog being the one exception of course!

    1. Rob, do you determine what is right or left-wing by economic and foreign policy positions? If that’s the case, you can’t really call white nationalists “right-wing”, as they are generally anti-establishment on those issues. Sometimes, WN’s just seem to be pro-white Stalinists.

      1. White nationalism cannot possibly be any kind of a progressive philosophy. All such brutal and extremely racist ethnic nationalism can only be rightwing, and never really on the Left.

        There have been some Left racists, but they are rare. The Khmer Rogue was a good example.

        White nationalists are almost all rightwing on economics. That’s sort of what they are all about. These “socialist WN’s” are some funny birds that I see flying about. In a way, I don’t mind them because they are at least Left on economics. At this point I might even ally with them, since to me, economics is everything. But socialist WN’s are a very minoritarian trend within the movement.

        What these guys are really all about though is “socialism for Whites.” Fuck that. Any Left economic project in the US must be for all ethnic groups, excluding none.

        At base, I am a liberal. As a liberal, of course I am hostile to anything smelling remotely of fascism. You should know by now that liberals don’t like fascism. Like, ever. Sure, some fascists like Stalin, but Stalin was illiberal, remember?

        Great Russian nationalism was nothing to cheer about. Stalin seriously reversed many of the national liberation projects that had been begun by the Jewish faction. Instead, he promoted Russification and the extinction and assimilation of non-Russian cultures and languages. That’s just wrong. Furthermore, it’s anti-Left.

        In the late 30’s, he massacred intellectuals of many of the non-Russian ethnics. Simply sickening.

        Stalin reversed a lot of progressive cultural stuff. He made divorce harder to get. He made abortion illegal again, or at least hard to get. There’s nothing progressive about rightwing sexual politics. The liberation of women is part of the progressive package.

        1. You don’t know much about Stalin do you?

          Stalin did not curtail nationalism he created autonomous republics for each national minority group including the first Jewish homeland.
          He banned destructive things like abortion, mass immigration, destruction of Russian historical monuments, etc although religious leaders and Orthodox churches were still destroyed under his rule which was never absolute.

          The “purge” of the 30’s was a panic reaction to a real mass Trotskite plot within the Soviet Union prior to WW2 most under the KGB head before Beria who introduced a qouta system who himself a year later was tried and executed for his abuse of power.

          Nationalist groups he did go against were those aligned with foreign and domestic advisories that were conspiring against the Soviet state which Trotsky and Lenin since 1917 planned to put in positions of power to replace the ethnic Russian elite they had genocided for which they could control the USSR.

        1. What about WN’s anti-imperialist stance? Based on my visits to Stormfront, they want close down all foreign bases, no more aid and wars for Israel etc. Stormfront at least is certainly not economically neoliberal. They hate the elite financial plutocracy.

        2. Well, that’s nice, but it’s not really good enough.

          Stormfront supports neoliberalism. They seriously got behind Ron Paul’s campaign for President. Libertarians are all neoliberals. Neoliberals on steroids.

          I will say though that I have seen more socialist and pro-working class types on Stormfront than on most other WN sites. That and they are anti-Nordicist. Hat’s off. No matter how dark and ugly the cloud, there’s bound to be a lining or two.

          I will support socialist WN’s and ally with them only on the basis that they lack the #’s to put their project forward. Therefore, they are harmless. At the moment, economics trumps everything else.

          I’ll take a WN socialist over a PC “Left” Critical Race Theory neoliberal any day out of seven. It’s not much of a choice though.

          You’re not very Left on economics yourself, fpy. I saw you defending the 19th Century Industrial Revolution back to the future in 21st Century China. Then again, your hero Hitler always loved to work his workers, I mean slaves, to death. Not much for workers rights, that fellow. Everything for the “state capitalists,” nothing for the workers but early death from overwork for the Reich.

        3. I wasn’t really defending horrible working conditions, it’s just that it seems you can’t really achieve anything in life, whether it be national industrialization or anything else, with a little pain in the beginning. Is it possible for an agrarian backward nation to industrialize rapidly without an immediate socialist utopia? And can you at least admit that Hitler and his comrades were better on economics than the current global neoliberal scum? If you’re gonna have capitalism anyway, it should at least be patriotic.

        4. What about WN’s anti-imperialist stance?


          You see, that’s why the term “white supremacist” is inaccurate.

          We’re not the ones who want to bomb brown people around the world.

          We’re not the ones who support American imperialism and bases throughout the world.

          We’re not the ones who are supporting the apartheid state of Israel.

          White nationalists such as the late Sam Francis have argued AGAINST American imperialism, empire, etc.

          Also, we don’t wish to dominate non-whites. We just want to be left the hell alone, and not be bothered with Cultural Marxism, non-white immigration, etc.

          In conclusion, far from being “white supremacists,” we are actually more than willing to relinquish a good chunk of territory if separation ever became a viable option. Far from wanting to harm non-whites around the world, we want to end American imperialism/empire, get rid of our bases, and leave the world be.

          We’re hardly the bad guys here.

      2. White nationalists are almost all rightwing on economics.

        Not me. In my personal philosophy, I combine racial nationalism with economic populism that will appeal to the average working white person.

        I do believe that it’s important for WN’s to have educated elites such as Jared Taylor, Tomislav Sunic, Kevin MacDonald, etc, if for no other reason than to dispel the whole “white nationalists are ignorant rednecks” stereotype.

        However, that being said, one of my main problems with WN’s is that they’re simply preaching to the choir. It’s easy for them to talk big during their meetings and on sites such as Occidental Dissent, Alternative Right, Amren, etc.

        However, what are they really doing besides preaching to the choir? The types of people who listen to them are already inclined to agree with them.

        In many ways, the intellectual segment of WN’s is elitist, as evidenced by their embrace of Libertarian politicians and economics.

        While there are other issues on which I disagree with my fellow WN’s, I think this is one of the most serious ones.

        While Metzger doesn’t possess the same intellectual capital as other WN’s, and I am opposed to his embrace of violence, I like his embrace of populism and leftist economics.

        He hated Ronald Reagan and his economic policies, he’s had white workers on his show (which ended a while ago), and he even referred to the USSR (while the Cold War was still going on) as a white workers’ Republic, and didn’t believe in escalating conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

        In other words, he actually is an economic leftist, and gives a shit about the average white worker.

        It’s easy to preach to the choir and speak online with fellow WN’s.

        It’s another to reach out to the common white person and recruit him to your cause.

        So while I’m not entirely big on Metzger because of his violence and lack of polish and intellect, he puts his money where his mouth is.

        In general, I think that WN’s need to adopt more progressive economic policies that actually help the average working white person.

        You see, I believe in actually winning. For that to happen, the intellectual segment of WN’s needs to embrace more populist economic beliefs and actually try to help the common white person.

        1. BAG, it’s shocking that Metzger would refer to the USSR in such positive terms at the height of the Cold War. That’s why Rob’s attempt to portray all WN’s as raving reactionaries is so wrong-headed. The real reactionary, white supremacists are the imperialist and corporate elites who do the bidding their jewish masters.

  8. I wasn’t really defending horrible working conditions, it’s just that it seems you can’t really achieve anything in life, whether it be national industrialization or anything else, with a little pain in the beginning

    Except for Cambodia, no socialist country ever abused the workforce in its developing economy like the Chinese are doing, or like any capitalists do. It’s not necessary. It’s just abuse.

    And can you at least admit that Hitler and his comrades were better on economics than the current global neoliberal scum?


    #1. Comrades is a socialist term. Nazis were the fiercest anti-socialists that ever lived. Socialists were the 2nd group sent to concentration camps. Jews were 4th, and mostly because they were socialists. After 1932, there were no socialists in the 3rd Reich.

    If you’re gonna have capitalism anyway, it should at least be patriotic.

    Plenty better ways to do that. Try Sweden 1973.

      1. Then why was the name of the party National Socialist German Workers’ Party?

        Names of political parties are almost without exception meaningless. Ideology and actions, on the other hand, are meaningful.

        Your question is like asking why the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” is neither Democratic nor a Republic.

        1. Perhaps, today. But in those days, names more accurately reflected ideology and platform. Why would a party throw in words like “socialist” and “worker”, two very specific words that give off communist-like vibes, into their party name? For the record, I believe N. Korea is democratic in its own way.

        2. If the North Korean states was as hated by the masses as Western media says, there would have been a revolt and internal regime change a long time ago. The reason why, after 20 years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the Cold War, N. Korea still exists is because the N. Korean citizens view their state as the prime guardian of their nationalism and independence form foreign aggressors. America’s alliance with the South Korean puppet state only strengthens N. Korea’s determination not to fold and go under the New World Order juggernaut as Serbia and Iraq did under the clinton and bush administrations.

      2. It was a fake name, dreamed up in order to pretend to be a Left party to get workers to sign up. Anyway, at the very beginning, their Constitution *was* pretty socialist. But they got rid of all that in 1932 with the Night of the Long Knives. Nazis *was* a very strange and heterogeneous form of fascism though. Mussolini and Franco was more the real deal.

        1. Mussolini was a British intelligence agent during WW1.

          The real reasons behind WW2 was because Britain, France and interests in the US wanted to gain control of Eurasia and eliminate Germany as an independent power block so they engineered WW2 so that USSR which they thought would lose and Germany would eliminate each other in a war of attrition.

          Up until 39 Poland and Germany conspired to attack the USSR. Poland aligned with French and British intelligence conspired to support separatist groups in Ukraine, Belarus, Caucasus and Volga region and annex the regions with Polish special services setting up an organisation called Pometey for this task headquartered in Paris funded by Poland.

    1. Socialists were the 2nd group sent to concentration camps. Jews were 4th, and mostly because they were socialists.

      You can’t possibly be serious. The Nazis sent Jewish babies, toddlers, and children to concentration camps because they were socialists?

      1. You’re Jewish and you don’t even know your Shoah Business history. Read up.

        In the 1930’s, the Nazis set up their first concentration camps. The first group they went after were Communists. The second group was socialists. The third group was trade unionists. The fourth group was Jews, much later on, in general mostly in the 1940’s. The first targets were the Left. And they mostly went after Jews because Jews were Commies = Judeo-Bolshevism.
        I realize it’s absurd to call a Jewish baby a Commie, but Nazism was pretty crazy.

      2. Angela: Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism by Franz Neumann on Germany 1933-1944, Martin Gilbert and Raul Hilberg on the Nazi genocides. Robert – Shoah is a Hebrew word used by Zionists to suggest subliminally that the Jews’ salvation from Gentile genocides was a little stetl all of their own in the Mediteranean sun. Shoah is toxic vocabulary. Progressives use the word at their peril, and buy into a reactionary mindset.

  9. Why would a party throw in words like “socialist” and “worker”, two very specific words that give off communist-like vibes, into their party name?

    In order to get the support of the workers. They were competing with the Left for their support.

    The first people the Nazis went after were Communists. Second was socialists. Third were trade unionists, the organizations of the workers.

    Nazism was a profoundly anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-labor movement, like all fascist movements.

  10. BAG, it’s shocking that Metzger would refer to the USSR in such positive terms at the height of the Cold War. That’s why Rob’s attempt to portray all WN’s as raving reactionaries is so wrong-headed.

    Metzger is a funny guy, a real socialist White nationalist. But he’s kind of marginal in the movement. I don’t mind him, even though he’s a horrible racist.

    He’s commented on here before.

    Metzger is reactionary though. His project is Socialism For Whites. Screw that.

    1. He’s commented on here before.


      His project is Socialism For Whites.

      And what’s so wrong with that?

      1. His project is Socialism For Whites.

        And what’s so wrong with that?

        Not a progressive project. Socialism is for all citizens.

        David Duke has commented on here also. Funny.

        1. How do you explain the shift of many WN’s to a more pro-Soviet, or at least neutral stance after 1945 when they probably supported Operation Barbarossa pre-1945?

  11. So you’re saying that the Nazis really believed that Jewish babies were socialists/Commies?

    Who knows? Nazism was nuts. Nazis were crazy. Who knows why crazy people do whatever they do?

    1. If the Jews were sent to the Nazi concentration camps later “mostly because they were socialists” and if the Communists/socialists/trade unionists were the first to be sent to the Nazi concentration camps, then there would have been no need for the Nazis to still target the Jews after the socialists were eliminated, because the Jews already would have been included in the socialist superset.

        1. Do you still cling to your earlier rationalization that the Nazis targeted Jews “mostly because they were socialists” or do you admit that Jews were targeted for being Jewish?

        2. You’re starting to annoy me, Angela. Read the Comments policy, obey and adjust your tone, or be gone.

          I have to ban you Jews from this site all the time. Between Jews and Blacks, they’re in a race to get banned here.

        3. >Between Jews and Blacks, they’re in a race to get banned here.

          I believe the anti-Semites won that race a long time ago. It’s just that you’re refusing to give them their fairly won prize. 😉

        4. It’s called free speech. If you don’t like it, go post at some retarded neocon blog or better yet, move to Jizzrael.

        5. Goy neocons certainly exist, and they are just as evil. However, they are not the main actors, they are simply running dogs of their jewish masters.

        6. Pray tell, how did ALL the Jews wind up with the master roles, and ALL the gentiles with the running dog roles?

        7. Ever heard of Irving Kristol? What the fuck do you want me to say? Neoconservatism as a movement was founded and inspired by them.

        8. So anyone who joins a political movement founded by a member of their religion/ethnicity is automatically a “master,” and anyone who joins a political movement founded by a member of a different religion/ethnicity is automatically a “running dog”?

        9. So by your own admission this makes you, a Hitler-lover, a running dog of the Aryans/Germanics/Teutons/Nordics?

        10. But how can you ever be sure that you’re not being brainwashed and controlled by the “Ones Who Possess All The Agency And Co-opt All Of Ours To Boot”? You know like those “stupid cattle”? They also believe that they’re supporting their race-substitute – America. Interestingly, a substantial portion of the US population is of German ancestry, and they tend to be especially supportive of the neocon ideology.

      1. Angela Jews were sent because they were Jews. Hitler viewed them as a cancer in the body politic, as vermin infecting the healthy Aryan race. Mein Kampf is full of words like vermin.

        1. Why are you telling me this? I am fully aware of those facts. I simply revel in using the socratic method to deconstruct fallacies, bias, and ignorance.

          No doubt he will be more capable of handling the truth coming from you because you haven’t been shoehorned into the Jew/Other/Enemy category. Yet.

      2. Angela, you come across as a little too militant here. Relax. Give and take. Sit back and enjoy the verbal rape and carnage! That’s what I say!

  12. How do you explain the shift of many WN’s to a more pro-Soviet, or at least neutral stance after 1945 when they probably supported Operation Barbarossa pre-1945?

    Not sure. Maybe anti-US.

    1. Isn’t that a more progressive transformation than the Jewish Trotsykites who turned into American warmongering imperialists?

  13. Interesting gloss on this from Jimmy Reid, the ship workers’ leader in the Upper Clyde shipyards, speaking about Arthur Scargill, who led the miners out on a year long strike in 1984 without a national ballot, split the Miners’ Union, and failed to get the trade union movement on his side:

    “I reject the notion that Scargill is leading some crusade against Thatcherite Toryism. Beneath the rhetoric Scargillism and Thatcherism are political allies. I would put it this way: the political spectrum is not linear but circular. In my experience the extreme left always ends up rubbing shoulders with the extreme right. They are philosophically blood brothers.”

    Scargill was not a Trotskyist, but he shared their sectarian attitude. He went on to found the Socialist Labour Party.

    1. I knew Jimmy Reid. By 1984 he had mellowed significantly from his early 1970s incarnation as a leftist fire-brand strike-leader at UCS, but then even in his youth he was more anarcho-syndicalist than Stalinist in his outlook – there is no doubt which side he would have been on at Kronstadt. Equally no doubt that Scargill would have been on the other side. ‘The ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin explain the real world’ according to Scargill, who had no problem with the use of force to achieve his objectives.
      What Jimmy Reid disliked about both Scargill and Thatcher was their authoritarianism, and the ‘big battalions’ mentality. In terms of the kind of society he wanted he was at least as ‘left-wing’ as Scargill, but lacked the violence or the taste for trampling on the wishes of others. Reid was an intelligent and widely-read man and an autodidact, and his idea of socialism involved a great deal of self-organization, reading and working things out for yourself – by comparison Scargill is an intellectual pigmy, as well as a bully, which helps explain Reid’s distaste for him.

  14. Look, Hitler wanted to deport Jews not imprison or kill them. This is established by multifarious visits of emissaries with proposals throughout the 1930s.

    Then the Allies decided to encircle and pressure Germany.

    You’re denying, Bob, that let’s say in 1937 circa, Hitler was still very popular among the bulk of German workers?

  15. I’m not sure Bob recognizes, even though I’ve implied if not stated it explicitly, the question for Lindsay should not be whether “socialism for whites” is laudable or simply the lesser of the evils, or whether it is in fact objectionable on its own terms.

    The reality is, socialism is unworkable in extant conditions prevailing in multi-cultural, multi-cultural America.

    I’ll let Bob decide which further questions this begs.

  16. >Between Jews and Blacks, they’re in a race to get banned here.

    I believe the anti-Semites won that race a long time ago. It’s just that you’re refusing to give them their fairly won prize.

    The anti-Semites don’t attack me, so they don’t get banned. Though we’ve also had to ban a couple of them, those were more like White nationalist or Nazi types.

    The typical Jews and typical Blacks pretty much get banned right off, after only a post or two. It’s too bad, as I wouldn’t mind having more Jews on here, as this is not an anti-Jewish site. The Jews probably see all the anti-Semites in the comments and say bye.

    You can’t get banned on ideological grounds here. You only get banned for attacking me or Alpha. We had a debate on this a while ago. There were some Jews on here, and the anti-Semites were really pounding them, and I was getting worried, because I want Jews to feel comfortable here.

    We took a vote and the commenters voted no bans on ideological grounds. I encouraged the Jews to stick around and fight the anti-Semites. Stand up for your people. I also encourage the Blacks to fight the anti-Black racists on here.

    You’re taking it a bit far though. You seem to be one of these “fight the anti-Semites” crusaders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)