« the juice of hemlock or exile ... well, actually, the juice of hemlock and exile ... more, on geert wilders ... | Main | credo »

January 28, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jorge Banner

You might be interested in knowing that gates of vienna has allowed the worst kind of nazis to post anti-Semitic comments to their articles without any opposition and have prevented me and probably others from challenging them. I was a supporter and then I abandoned them due to this attitude. We don’t need this kind of “friends”.

john jay

jorge banner:

would you please identify by name those persons who you describe as "the worst kind of nazi's?"

and, could you please provide links to the articles which contain the anti-semitic comments which you describe?

i would be more than interested to see confirmation of such allegations, if confirmation exists.

john jay

Jorge Banner

On the article "Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald" this comment by one "Theo" [QUOTE] "In evolutionary terms, Jews can be seen as a kind of 'invasive species' in Europe and other White nations like the USA, Canada, Australia, and so forth (which they are not native to). As you know, 'invasive species' are those which enter or are unnaturally introduced in to an environment they are not native to and thus are able to 'run rampant' (super-thrive) over virtually everything because there are no naturally evolved checks in the new environment to stop or prevent them from doing so. A good example of this is the kudzu plant in the Southern USA - it is a plant which is native to Asia and was unfortunately introduced in the Southern USA a while back and has now super-thrived (colonized/overgrown) large portions of the Southern landscape; it grows uncontrollably there and as such chokes out and kills many of the native plant species which have not yet had time to evolve any adequate natural defenses against it." [/QUOTE] went unchallenged.

The Kudzu plant is a species that people confronted with it are very much in the business of exterminating in any way possible. Calling Jews an "invasive species" and comparing us to the Kudzu plant is an unequivocal way of saying "the Jews are a kind of evil vegetable plague that needs extermination". There are no two ways about it. It is not an original thought but when one sees it published in Gates of Vienna and then go unchallenged a very clear and marked tolerance for this kind of thing is put into clear evidence.

My attempt to answer the above monstrosity was not considered worth publishing by gates of vienna.

I didn't need to know nothing else about them.

Jorge Banner

Here's the link: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/06/critique-of-culture-of-kevin-macdonald.html#readfurther


jorge banner:

thank you for taking the time to get this information to me, both the comment and the link.

i will write a comment to gates of vienna myself, and i/we shall see how it istreated.

thecomment letter as you have posted it to me, and it appearsunabridged and unexpurgated, is indeed objectionable.

i will inquire of gates of vienna how it came to pass to be published, and why it was not commented upon as to its content. i will not ask why some things are published and why some things are not, ... , that is the prerogative of the blog.

i will check to see if in fact it went unremarked upon,and if it were not, i will inquire. we shall see how it all transpires.

john jay

p.s. and, if it appears to me that the context is such that the authors of gates of vienna thought it so obvious in its content thatit did not require comment, but stood, naked and on its own as an obvious example of what it is, i will simply announce that opinion also. regarding something for what it is does not necessarily amount to endorsement, now, does it?

one does not kill every rattlesnake one comes across, does one? that does not necessarily indicate one is fond of rattlesnakes, or does not apprehend it for what it is.

these are value judgments. i will look into, and i will make mine.

but, again, i thank you very much for bringing this to my attention.

To: jjatty@msn.com

john jay

jorge banner:

and, no, there is no doubt about what this letter is.

john jay

Baron Bodissey

“...the authors of gates of vienna thought it so obvious in its content thatit did not require comment, but stood, naked and on its own as an obvious example of what it is...”

john jay is right. Are we really so fragile that we cannot bear the presence of views that we find repugnant, and with which we emphatically disagree?

We really have become a bunch of candy-ass lily-livered pansies if we can’t take a little nastiness coming from the other side!

If you’ll notice, that post (which was a critique of the refined sorts of anti-Semitism that appear in certain places on the palaecon right) was written by Takuan Seiyo, not one of the regular bloggers at GoV. As such, I let Takuan answer the nasty anti-Semites who always pop up after such posts like mushrooms after rain. I only deleted the comments that violate our rules, which are: Comments must be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. In more detail:

1. Civil: No name calling, gratuitous insults, personal slurs, denigration of someone’s intelligence, etc.

2. Temperate: No exhortations to commit violence or foment insurrection, etc.

3. On-topic: We generally don’t delete off-topic comments, but reserve the right to if they are excessively long. A brief OT mention of something a reader thinks we should know is perfectly fine.

4. Decorum: We are a PG-13 blog, because the parents of homeschoolers allow their older children to come to GoV to further their education. Please make your point without resorting to foul language or explicit descriptions.

This leaves a lot of latitude for people who hold obnoxious opinions, but who decide to be civil in expressing them. And the topic of the post was ant-Semitism, so a representative from the Jew-hating community was only to be expected.

The best response to vile, ill-conceived, or foolish speech is to refute it, not to squelch it. I strive to the best of my ability to implement this policy at our blog. Anyone who confuses our own opinions with those of some of our pea-brained commenters is making a fool of himself.

We had a visit this morning from a Muslim troll who said, “Go to hell with your fanaticism, Islam would rule Europe again, and this time conquest would be not only of region but hearts. Europe would be Eurabia one day. We are the religion, mankind is embracing most fast. When fanatics like you open blogs like this, Jesus (pbuh) laughs on them.”

I let his comment stand, and that proves that our blog is Islam-supremacist, doesn’t it? It proves that we gladly provide a safe haven for radical Islamists!

Give me a break.


John Jay--

If you go to the link below, you can see a guest post that Jorge Banner wrote and that I posted at Gates of Vienna.


He's a fine writer, especially given that his native tongue is not English.

This angry striking out at us on another blog is sad. I like Jorge and we had many email conversations over several months. Here is another of his posts on our blog:


When he says "My attempt to answer the above monstrosity was not considered worth publishing by gates of vienna" I thought he was referring to a deleted comment. However, he didn't usually comment and so I wasn't surprised that there were no deletions (of his words) on that post he mentions. You should see some of the ones the Baron did delete, though!(He has an email list that all comments default to so that he can ride herd on them. Thus he has records of all deleted comments, too, and Jorge isn't in that post thread at all)

I think what Jorge means (I'm not sure) is that he may have sent me an email with an essay attached and I failed to put it up as a guest post. That essay may have been a response to Theo (who is not a frequent commenter) or it may have been to the original post itself.

I could even have told him I planned to post it and then didn't follow through. It's unfortunate, but things like that happen because of my disability. It is the nature of my illness that many worthwhile endeavors vanish in the fog of illness.

When Jorge stopped corresponding, I emailed him to ask if there was anything wrong, but I never got a response.

Frankly, with my fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, a lot of things fall through the cracks. I have a post, 75% finished, that I promised to write for a young Hungarian man. He wants to know what he should read to counter leftists who yell at him. G-d only knows when I'll be able to finish it and publish. Will the young man walk away mad? I hope not. usually people are willing to tell me why they're angry.

When we started our blog in 2004, our mission was two fold: to expose the encroaching Ummification of America, and to stand with Israel. That is still our mission.

Poor Jorge. I wish I'd had the opportunity to apologize, but that's how it goes...

john jay


thank you very much for this comment.

i appreciate very much that you have taken the time to so thoroughly and so ably express your editorial position on such comments as you receive at gates of vienna, and to also have expressed and defended your personal opinions and position in such matters.

people often loose sight of the editorial function performed by persons running their own blog, as do you and dymphna.

"i disagree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it," generally attributed to voltaire, is a sentiment harder to exercise, a good deal harder i might mention, than it is to express.

thanks again, baron. this will be posted to the comments section at wintersoldier2008.

john jay

p.s. the free exchange of ideas and concepts can sometimes yield a bumpy road. (to mangle metaphors.)

people sometimes do not understand one another on the first exchange, and have to iron out misunderstandings.

i am perfectly satisfied that neither the baron nor dymphna meant any sort of endorsement or acquiesence to the view expressed by the "kudza naturalist" as he vented his spleen.

indeed, he stood naked and revealed for who and what he is/was. it was a sound editorial decision to simply leave him exposed, by his own words: there was no need to elaborate upon the obvious.

especially within the context and content of the article to which the comment was appended.

that is my value judgment in the matter.



i am quite touchedby this letter.

i hope that jorge banner will read it, and that you and he may re-establish contact and communication.anything else i might say in that regard strikes me as gratuitious.

and, as i expressed in my respone to the barons letter, i find no fault in your editorial decisions in this matter, and understand quite clearly your personal beliefs. i expect that i would have followed your exact path.

john jay

To: jjatty@msn.com


Since the originial topic had to do with islamic Jihad, be sure to read this book(s) review:


The first two paragraphs:

As American citizens and officials engage in a muddled public debate about how to deal with indicted Fort Hood murderer Malik Hasan and his ilk, they would do well to consult these two books, which examine the Islamic system in practice. "A God Who Hates" explores the nature of Islam, viewed through Wafa Sultan’s personal experiences growing up in Syria, working there as a doctor, and then immigrating to the United States, where she became a psychiatrist. "Cruel and Usual Punishment", published early last year, is the second book by Nonie Darwish, the daughter of an Egyptian officer killed by the Israelis in the 1950s. Her first, "Now They Call Me Infidel", offered extensive autobiographical detail; the more recent book is an in-depth probe of what she sees as key problematic aspects of Islam.

Both Sultan and Darwish document how traditional Islamic law, or sharia, underpins Islamic life. Darwish argues that under Islam’s golden period of conquest and imperial rule, sharia’s most important aspect was “total control of the large and diverse Muslim empire—everyone’s behavior, loyalty, mind and even soul.” The system was all-encompassing and punishments were strict, but the caliphs, or rulers, were exempt from penalty for theft, adultery, killing, or drinking; in addition, they alone could have an unlimited number of wives. Their subjects were not allowed to revolt against them unless the caliphs acted in an “un-Islamic” way. Indeed, the fate of the learned imams who had written the sharia law demonstrated the extent of the caliphs’ immunity: they all wound up imprisoned, punished, exiled, or poisoned...

...more at the link.

What came to mind as i read that review is how interesting would be a comparison of Rome's Golden Age and the rule of her vast dominion with that of the Caliphate.

The two ought to be contrasted and compared by someone who is expert in both.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)