>and that an individual like Ignatiev self-consciously speaks for the jewish community
If you are an intellectual figure, then you have an associated status function that carries many unspoken obligations with it. This is just an aspect of social ontology, imo. I'm not bashing Jews in general. I'm bashing this intellectual Jew (and his Jewishness is relevant in this context) that is acting reprehensibly and, most importantly, untactically in his role as an intellectual figure (that he donned when he received his PhD from Harvard, for example). It wouldn't bother me if he was being silly all by himself. But if he is associated with leftism, then he is bad for leftists (and I would say that same about him being associated with Jews).
>Even if such quotes didn't exist /pol/ would just make them up
this is relevant to think about. But my critique of Ignatiev should still be relevant because if you are a leftist, then you should be aware of what constitutes conscionable words and actions. Part of raising this consciousness is well intentioned critique. However, I suppose that I am mainly attacking liberals or at least, liberal leaning leftist types.
>This is a slippery slope
I am aware of this. That is why I returned to qualify my statement by adding
>kicking the beehive with shitty rhetoric.
If we are going to make people uncomfortable, as we inevitably will, then i believe that we should still be tactical about it. I think any leftist would agree with me about this. So, I agree with you that we are going to have to make people feel uncomfortable no matter what. But what I would add is that if we're going to make people uncomfortable, then we should at least not make them more uncomfortable than they have to be. And most importantly, we should not make ourselves too comfortable by speaking with too much arrogance and pomp as if we weren't already aware of our subversive goals (subversive of course, from the perspective of our adversaries). This gives the enemy too much to work with.
>to obliterate it for the irrationality it is.
You and I are fundamentally aligned on this. I would only add that it is difficult to make your opponent seem irrational when you have an intellectual (that is associated with your 'side') walking around calling for the 'end of the white race.' As a rhetorical message, it is dangerous FOR YOUR OWN SIDE, imo. But we cannot change the past. You are correct. But I would, personally, disengage from this Ignatiev person and his work (more relevantly since Ignatiev is now dead).
>but a few years of propaganda can easily create new stereotypes, new minorities
I don't know about this tbh. Sure, I agree with it hypothetically. But unless you have the money and resources, I don't see how this happens without the existence of shitty rhetoric from which to build from coming from your opponent's side.