|
|
|
Cosmic ants and a few fragmentary thoughts in answer to maguire In the thread to the recent JW post on immigration and the GOP, I rashly asserted that, “My belief is that for the next couple of decades a genuine Conservatism is absolutely capable of providing a serviceable vehicle for a survivalist ethos, informed by European sociobiological needs and leavened by a light touch in the areas of personal and economic freedom.” Even more rashly, I then invited all-comers to attack this assertion. The invitation was accepted by the sturdy maguire who demanded, “a serviceable definition of this at this point in history.” As luck would have it, I am too intellectually challenged to do serviceable. But here’s an unserviceable one for all sufferers of insomnia.
There is nothing new in this statement, extraordinary and disconcerting though it might at first seem to the conventional mind. The long journey out of thinking that our persecutor is “the left” or “the state” - or, indeed, “Islam” or “immigration” - undoes all faith in electoral solutions and inevitably lead to this conclusion. It is the putting away of causal simplicities and the beginning of political adulthood, of thinking in terms of scale. At the same time, the purposive side of the equation - the “Great Question” of what we are to do - simplifies and tends in one of two broad directions, either:- a) A collective spiritual renewal centred on a sacralisation of the folk, or b) a materialist approach serving the birthright of our sons and daughters. It would be fair to say that the Revolutionary Conservatives or Traditionalists and the philosophers of the European New Right are grouped in the first category, and with them the Fascists and National Socialists of 20th Century Europe – notwithstanding the Nazis’ somewhat self-justifying ventures into racial science. It would be entirely fair to say that present-day European political nationalism and American White Nationalism are grouped in the second category, albeit sometimes with longing sideways glances at the Speeresque glories of Nuremberg. Of course, a cynical observer might conclude that the first group deals in ideas without too many facts, and the second in facts without any ideas. I am a such a cynic, but also a member of the second group. As such, for me the Great Materialist Question is: how can the gold standard of our children’s birthright be restored to its place at the centre of our collective life? Back comes the revolutionary answer, totally unambiguous: only by dissolving and washing away the corrupted liberalism, the universalism, internationalism, Jewish ethnocentric aggression and naked elitist power-mongering that are the authors of our fate. At this point, of course, the scale of the challenge rises out of the mists like the most precipitous and brooding Alpine peak, upon whose glassy cliff-faces our purchase is perilous. Or worse. It spites the obvious, then, to say that as a political contest this is a mismatch. So what are we to do, powerless, maligned and marginalised as we are? The only thing we can do, of course, since retreat back into twilight, to abandoning our children’s birthright, is not an option:- We develop an appropriate strategy. We materialists are not without strengths that the placemen and priesthood of liberalism don’t possess. It is difficult to say which is the greatest of these. For one is Truth, another Nature and the third Justice. A man who is in possession of the truth and who speaks justly to his brother’s nature, to common loves and loyalties, is not without strength. Somewhere in the privacy of his own heart he might even fancy that nothing, no worldly authority, can withstand such primal power indefinitely. And he might be right. At least, this is the basis of my faith, if that’s what it is, that for now it is enough to speak. And here, of course, I mean “discourse” of a type calculated to attract the attention of intellectuals - not the sort of knockabout stuff required to motivate an army of activists. Not that I decry populism and activism, and not that it isn’t time for them. Far from it. Popularising practical means by which our people can live in their own skins and recover some racial autonomy - even wriggle out a little from under the machinery of state - is essential and an unalloyed good. Were such methods to wind up hitting tax receipts and electoral legitimation, that would be even better. But the Men of the West are not going to take down their rifles from the hook behind the farmstead door and march, hearts filled with righteousness, up the steps of the Capital Building. Their struggle is local and immediate to each individual. Even in the aggregate it does not amount to anything like a philosophically literate reply to liberalism. In this respect, the highest to which activism can ever aspire is to be part of some wider, distinct political philosophy – actually an expression of that philosophy. And that is the way forward. That is the way to replace traitorous government and the bestial system of political, cultural, business and financial elites which it serves. The Beast itself is a symbiosis of power and ideas. The lower parts of its body, the musculature and bone of its legs and feet, are composed of earnest little believers in the nostrums of economic and egalitarian liberalism. In their tens and hundreds of thousands they struggle and squirm in their chosen directions, sometimes cancelling out one another’s efforts. The upper portions of the body are quite free of such boorish concern. No arguments for Gay Rights, no encouragements to snout-in-the-trough capitalism circulate among its golden paternalists and superannuated geopoliticians without, somewhere, a superior smile, a dismissive wave affirming the order of things. For these are the addicts and dealers in the purest grades of power, and no drug is more prized there. The higher one raises up oneself to observe the Beast, the more raw and uncut with ideology is the power one encounters. One need not raise oneself to especially dizzy heights for that, by the way:-
And he’s only a civil servant high on Actonite. But he’s talking in the Beast’s native tongue. Further up – near, say, the cerebellum – the view seems to be not of “people”at all, even little ones, but of distant, scurrying worker ants. But ... these are ants with a cosmic purpose. Every four or five years they are needed to vote. And in any structure where power is, nominally at least, legitimised by democratic consent rather than naked force, they are not possible to entirely ignore. They have to be humoured, cultivated, kept sedated with shiny gewgaws and deep in debt. Among them are ants of good, even high intellect whom, for one reason or another, the system did not see fit to co-opt. Some, it’s true, just couldn’t be co-opted at all. A matter of constitution The beautiful, ironic thing is that the rigid system of political interpretation and information control out of which consent is manufactured drives more and more of these six-legged creatures into dissidence everyday. The best and most independent-minded, most original thinkers do not desire to have their opinions prescribed for them by a self-interested Establishment. Much less do they desire their sensibilities to be prescribed by a vile, anti-racist commissariat. They are perfectly capable of finding in the moral boo-words the need to construct a simplified rhetoric to evade complex discussion. They are perfectly capable of finding in the political trials and imprisonments a need to repress and terrorise those who, nonetheless, insist on complexity. They are perfectly entitled to follow Kant’s definition of Enlightenment as freedom “from self-incurred tutelage” and the goal of any modern society as the educated mind. And in that we can be of some assistance. These dissidents, be they present or future, are our highest-value audience. Here we stand, equipped with our three argumentational virtues: Truth, Nature and Justice. We have to communicate them in the hope that we will be heard by as many good men as possible. As I noted earlier, there are really only two philosophical models that we can speak about, each of them revolutionary in action. One begins in the quest for the spiritual race. But it ends in binding the people firmly to the mast of ethnic interest, for which purpose the supremacy of party or state over the individual serves. During his early involvement with the party he would lead, Adolf Hitler sought to rename it the Social Revolutionary Party. It was an apt if unexciting name. All revolutions require crisis, and Germany had crisis in abundance - ethnic, political, social and economic. Crisis legitimates, necessitates, precipitates. All the emergency provisions, radical transformations and, usually, stern legal sanctions against members of the former regime which typify sudden and absolute political change are justified by crisis. Thus, after the Reichstag fire in 1933 the Nazis succeeded to government and embarked with formidable decisiveness upon the legislative process of Gleichschaltung. By summer 1934 one as good as lived or died by the will of the Party. Now, the debate as to whether the “German Heavy Model”, as Alex Linder has called it, can be applied in some form in the 21st Century liberal West is legitimate. The crisis is here and now, and deepening every day. Even a National Socialism in its militarised, bouncing-into-Vienna, Final-Solution form is preferable to me than the loss of Europeans from Western Europe. If those were the only two options I would leap into the fray with a will, with all the consequences that might entail. But they are not, and the recoil from 1945 is such that the crisis will need to be very extreme and civil war probably inevitable before the German Heavy Model could be brought back to the centre of political life. I prefer to try to look for a kinder and more bearable future for our children. So we come to the only alternative: one or other variation on the “Light English Model”, materialist in its view of Man and race, practical and anti-ideological in its political application, but still revolutionary. The “light” in the English Model consists in a rare tolerance of the individual. But this is not the unfettered will deifed in the religion of liberalism, and not the atomised, purely self-interested actor of the “Conservative right” (which is also liberalism). No, the implicit understanding is that Man, if left free to pursue his own interests, will devotedly pursue his ethnic genetic interests. He does not need to be “educated” as to what they are or how to do it. He is the best judge of that already, as a fish is the best judge of how to swim and a bird to fly. To reconnect with his ethnic genetic interests he only needs the blinding light of liberalism to be switched OFF. In that event also, he would quickly prove able to protect all the secondary interests he holds in common with his people: their territory, traditions, culture. The normal, healthy bonds of life that satisfied his forefathers would delight and satisfy him also. Human beings are cast from that mold, and the mold does not decay. For all its power and longevity and all the damage to organic society it has wrought, liberalism has not changed European Man so much that the only thing he can do is to destroy his own life and loves. He is like a compass needle beside which a magnet was once placed (by whom is not the subject of this essay). Take it away and he will re-centre himself on his ethnic genetic interests with the same certainty that the needle, freed of local distortion, returns faithfully to magnetic north. It may take some time. But it will be. It should be obvious from the above that the individualism of the Light English Model is oriented towards the collective. Ethnic genetic interests are collective. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand the Model as every bit as much a social movement as any other. The collective ties are Nature’s binding. No National Socialist hands bind Man to the mast here. There is no need for the militarisation of society, no need for the mythification of a golden age, no need for torchlight, no need for a confected aryan “honour” nor lives of “glory”. The spiritual race is only an idea, an invention - exciting perhaps, inspiring even. But it does not exist in the material sense. Ethnic genetic interests do. They will express themselves, given the clearing away of any obstructions. And that’s what the Light English Model does. As you may have guessed, it has another name that seems to offend nationalist sensibilities in America:-
Names don’t really matter. Nature matters, and Truth and Justice ... and any cosmic ants that happen across this, even for me, odd little article. I wonder what maguire will think. Comments:2
Posted by Alex Linder on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 03:54 | # Nazism was good for kids. All kinds of children were born under Hitler, more than before or after his time. Same thing at VNN, many of our people are having babies. It comes down to confidence. I’d like to call myself conservative, usually have, but the problem is that the top cons are either sellouts or cowards. The lower-level ones are either patriotards or debaters. The left did not take power by persuading people but by threatening them with violence. Look at Brown vs. Board of Education. The jews responsible knew full well they were breaking the law. They had the power to do so, they used it. They will never treat us fairly. They treated me as unfairly when I was a race-free individualist conservative in college as they do now when they call me a nazi. We don’t need a philosophy to counter liberalism. Liberalism isn’t a philosophy. It’s a maniacal cult that will brook no evidence. Our job is to take power from it any way we can, and since it never allows itself to be voted out or argued out, that seems to mean violence. I really don’t see how anybody who has dealt with liberals can believe otherwise. Like I say 500x, we “nazis” represent the people. The people are against affirmative action, against open borders, against crazy foreign wars. But it never matters. No matter what the people vote for, the jewed courts and papers thwart their will. You know, I was going to propose a joint MR-VNN action at Harvard during the spring semester 2008, before someone told me you wouldn’t go for it. My idea, which would raise a real and effective stink, is to protest the fact that at Harvard, and the ivies generally, jews occupy 50% of the law-school teaching positions. I may do it or I may not, alone. But I can’t think of a better way to put the focus on the jewing of our sick society. We’d be dealing with the cause, not the results. Point is, liberals, which is a fancy word for jews, as jews are the driving power (Churchill’s term for the jew-Bolsheviks who gang-raped Russia) are a minority of whites. They, like jews and homos, can only win where they control the high points. There simply aren’t enough of them otherwise, and their views are so freaky that they can’t get honest support. They are anti-democratic because they have to be. The unchanging fact of the matter is that if they played by the rules they claim to support, they’d lose. So anyone who opposes them continues to be defined out of existence: ie, I’m an extremist-hater-nazi-supremist (sic), whereas Al Sharpton’s a respected black civil rights leader. If any of you haven’t, and I’m sure 90% of you have, go to the calvin.edu German Propaganda Archive, put together and translated by a leftist professor, and read through the material. The hair will stand up on your [removed] as you see that the nazis were fighting precisely the same battle we are. They didn’t mince words like cowardly respectable WASPs. Where a Paul Craig Roberts calls jews nazis, the nazis called jews jews. That’s why I respect the nazis and that’s why I goad to PCR and his ilk to do better - and that goading actually works. There is no clever way to beat the jews, and there is no way to turn the debate in our favor since the jews will continue to control tv and the newspapers. We must simply make the best use we can of the Internet media, as MR is doing, and continue to draw in the marginal man. In terms of public discourse, the way we have whatever affect we can have is to call things by their proper names. That is, no syncopated arguments or nomenclature. A jew is a jew. We don’t pretend we’re being respectable or clever or cunning or nice or wise by calling it something else. WN and cons tend to argue this approach vs the other when in fact most can be carried out at the same time. We must fight the system while withdrawing from it. Reject their media and build our own while drawing from their sicko content the examples we need to reach new ‘investigators’ where they are, and lead them back onto the path of righteous Whiteness, so to speak. I’ve said for a long time that the proper charismatic could indeed make a religion of race. Using Creativity or devising his own. It would work. It would not be granted tax status, but a genuine charismatic, a powerful, young, determined Brigham Young could very definitely build a large following. Look at Warren Jeffs, a rather unattractive man, skinny and intense. He created flocks of beautiful Nordic White teens, when all is said and done. Well, enough said. My main point is the judeo-left controls the high points. They have every chance, and have had for decades, to treat us fairly, whether in the courts or the realm of discussed ideas. They never have and it is clear to me they never will. They will have to be forced to relinquish power. They will not be won over or argued out of their spoils, which after all they worked for long decades to obtain. If we are unhappy with the status quo, we must develop a combination powerful enough to upset it. They will never allow fair debate because they know as well as we do they’d lose. 3
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:12 | # The problem with that approach is that any attack from our side upon the status quo invariably slams into the liberalism of the general population. Jewish influence in the mass media is a good example of this. The vast majority of whites have managed to convince themselves that Jews have individual rights which must be respected. From their vantagepoint, Jews should be “free” to buy up all the newspapers and magazines they want. The government should treat Jews as the “equals” of any other citizen. We must always “tolerate” other religions, races, ethnic groups. To act otherwise is “racism, bigotry, prejudice, hate.” More to the point, the rights of the individual take precedence over the common good of the group. It is not enough to point out that Jews are drastically overrepresented in the news media, entertainment industry, financial sector, academia, government — and that this has a distorting effect upon our culture and public policies. All of this is true. Most intelligent and educated people already know this. The problem lies in persuading them that whites are justified in identifying with their race, organizing themselves politically as a racial group, and taking corrective action against their enemies to restore their racial dominance. While this may strike the two of us as self-evident, it is only because we are taking for granted certain guiding assumptions that our contemporaries sorely lack. Which brings us to GW’s point: the war we are waging is ultimately philosophical. It is about challenging the hegemonic discourse of liberalism and replacing it with a philosophy more conducive to our genetic interests. This shouldn’t be taken as a point of disagreement. All three of us have clearly rejected liberalism and replaced it something else: GW’s conservatism, my communitarianism, your White Nationalism/National Socialism. Different words for a more collectivist ethos than currently prevails in the mainstream. We all recognize the Jewish threat and necessity of taking action against it. It is here that we seem to part ways. You reference the Third Reich and hold that the struggle of the Nazis is analagous to our own. While there are many interesting parallels here, namely the Jewish problem, there are also many important differences. First, Germany was an ethnically homogeneous nation; a good fit for volk nationalism. White Americans are too ethnically mixed for National Socialism to succeed here. Second, Germany had only briefly experimented with liberalism before Hitler came to power. American culture has been marinating in liberalism for almost two hundred years. Third, Germany did not have other large racial minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are about a quarter of the American population. Fourth, Germany and America came to blows in the Second World War, so the “traitor” factor must be taken into consideration. A grassroots movement by the American majority against Jewish power cannot afford the risk of being perceived and dismissed as “foreign.” I think Jared Taylor has the right approach here: arcane discussions of European history (i.e., Hitler, the Third Reich, the Holocaust, etc.) are a distraction from the racial struggle in North America. The best approach to them is no approach at all. They should be ignored or delegated to others. Besides, the responsiblility for vindicating the good name of the Third Reich and the German people ultimately rests with German nationalists. As for the inclusion of Jews in American racialist movement, I have come around to your view on this matter over the past year. Jews simply cannot be trusted. The debacle at Amren last year poignantly illustrated that. It was quite revealing that so many of Taylor’s Jewish supporters have broken with him over “anti-semitism.” Even the ostensibly pro-white Jews like Lawrence Auster and Michael Hart care more about their own Jewishness than the preservation of Western civilization — see the recent tirades of the former against Steven Sailer. The risks involved in allowing Jews into racialist organizations outweigh the benefits. Given the sheer extent of the racial mischief caused by their tribe, I don’t see how racialist Jews can deny that whites have valid reasons to be wary of a Jewish presence amongst them. Instead of taking offense at “exclusion,” they should busy themselves with rectifying this situation amongst their own people. You argue, “There is no clever way to beat the jews, and there is no way to turn the debate in our favor since the jews will continue to control tv and the newspapers. We must simply make the best use we can of the Internet media, as MR is doing, and continue to draw in the marginal man.” I tend to agree. For the moment, I see little for us to do besides expanding our web presence. We lack the numbers and the capital to sustain larger media ventures. The web is enables us to exploit audio and video anyway. Thousands of interlinked websites, forums, blogs that also make use of radio and YouTube — that’s our alternative media. 4
Posted by Red Baron on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:18 | # Rethinking WWII is a bridge too far for most Englishmen.They like most Americans have little else to be proud of, since our respective societies have been in freefall since 1945. The respectability factor in defeating Germany gives to “victors” of WWII the same feeling opium gives to the addict.. 5
Posted by Alex Linder on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:28 | # We can point awakening Whites to specialists in real history, as Irving calls it, but my point was simply that we should study how the nazis fought the jews since, unlike conservatives, they actually beat them. Americans mouth the cliches of liberalism, out of fear as much as anything, but their behavior shows they prefer to live around fellow Whites. It’s not really a philosophical matter, in my opinion, it’s a technical matter. The enemy has power. This power is exercised through the government, the academy, and the mass media. If that power is overcome, if we appear even anywhere near being a credible takeover threat, plenty of ostensible liberals will join us. The people are an animal, and they are driven by fear tropisms, not philosophy. We can’t reward our friends or punish our enemies, at the moment. The judeo-System can. 6
Posted by Alex Linder on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:31 | # The Duke incident at AmRen was telling. It suggests that even in the unlikeliest places the natural jewish paranoia-hate-aggression outs, whereas Whites remain more or less inert. Whites just aren’t as aggressive as jews, so they make up for that with an intellectual understanding of the nature of the jew and the problem it poses, and a determination to solve that problem. Jared Taylor needed to have his feet held to the fire by Whites, but in fact it was jews who forced him to make a decision. That would be unbelievable as satire but it actually happened! And he came down in favor of the jews. I can only chuckle. 7
Posted by Burrhus on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:00 | # “I think Jared Taylor has the right approach here: arcane discussions of European history (i.e., Hitler, the Third Reich, the Holocaust, etc.) are a distraction from the racial struggle in North America. The best approach to them is no approach at all. They should be ignored or delegated to others.”—Scimitar I disagree. Nationalism and white racialism will not succeed until Hitler, The 3rd Reich and National Socialism are historically rehabilitated by an honest representation in popular awareness. Hitler was a nationalist and a racist and as long as he is continued to be demonized by the MSM and our educational system, the enemies of nationalism and white racism will be able to continue playing the Hitler Card anytime we try to put forth rational arguments for nationalism and white racism. I am not talking about idolization of Hitler or reviving 3rd Reich uniforms and imagery. I am only saying that until Hitler is seen in an honest historical perspective, the demonic image that most whites have of him will preclude them from ever seeing nationalism and white racism in a rational manner. The rehabilitation of Hitler, the 3rd Reich and National Socialism is a NECESSARY prelude to any hope of success for white nationalism and racial survival. Below I present four posts from a thread that I started titled “Rehabilitating Hitler” which explain how the demonization of Hitler has been effected and why I believe that nationalism and white survival depend on that rehabilitation. It is a long thread so I suggest that you scroll through and read my (Burrhus) posts. Too many of the other posters (not all of course) are irritating trolls. There are many wonderful pictures of Hitler showing him in a manner not often seen. The two main points of the thread are 1) That people’s beliefs about Hitler are based largely on negative, emotionally-charged imagery and 2) That nationalism and white racial survival depend on Rehabilitating Hitler. http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19705&highlight=rehabilitating+Hitler Post #25 http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=291763&postcount=25 Post #181 The real purpose of those who maintained the WWII propaganda lies after the war and reinforced them so powerfully with the negative emotional conditioning to images of Hitler was not simply to damage Hitler’s historical reputation but to use that iconic evil reputation as a continuing weapon in their onslaught against efforts within white nations to maintain both their territorial national and racial integrity. Hitler-hate and the demonization of National Socialism are powerful weapons in the arsenal of those who are attempting to impose their One World political and race-mixed agenda on the white nations. Anytime any white person attempts to advocate for Nationalism or racial separatism the globalists wave the bloody flag of Hitlerism and the holocaust and say, “See, this is the kind of evil that comes from Nationalism and racialism. We must abolish nations, have one world state and mix the races by integrating them and forcing all territories to exhibit diversity”. That is their goal and the demonization of Hitler and National Socialism based on wartime propaganda lies and falsefied history are their weapons. The effect of their emotional conditioning of Hitler as evil and, by extension, National Socialism as a destructive political philosophy has been to make rational analysis of both virtually impossible for white people. They can then put forth irrational pseudo-arguments in support of their agenda without fear of any effective rational counter-arguments being listened to or understood. And it has worked quite well. Till now. But finally there is a backlash against this demonization of Hitler and National Socialism and against the One World, race-mixing agenda that they are employed in support of. More and more people are coming to understand that Hitler was not the icon of evil that the One Worlders have portrayed him to be and that National Socialism is the political philosophy best suited to saving Western Civilization and the white race…”
The link between Hitler the evil icon and racialism and National Socialism is not perpetuated by attempting to set the historical record straight. It is perpetuated by those who use that link as a weapon in their One World, race-mixing agenda. It will do us no good to ignore the reality of that link as a weapon. As long as Hitler is perceived to be evil, Nationalism and racialism in being associated with him will also be seen as evil. The anti-nationalists and anti-racialists will always be able to drag out those conditioned emotional responses to the evil Hitler of their creation whenever nationalists and racialists try to put forth rational arguments for those positions. Anytime we try to advocate for national sovereignty and racial homogeneity, the antis will point out the link between them and the alleged evil Hitler. They will be able to do this precisely because Hitler was a nationalist and a racialist. That cannot be denied and there is no reason why it should be. They will use the example of Hitler and the holocaust to say, “See, that’s what nationalism and racialism lead to.” And as long as people continue to believe that Hitler was evil and that the holocaust story is true, they will be able to use those false historical ‘facts’ to demonize nationalism and racialism. There is no escaping this dilemma without rehabilitating Hitler and breaking the link between the evilness of Hitler and the holocaust on the one hand and nationalism and racialism on the other. As long as people believe that the holocaust story is true, they will believe that Hitler was evil. And as long as they believe that Hitler was evil, given that Hitler was a nationalist and a racialist, they will believe that nationalism and racialism are evil since they ‘inevitably’ lead to events such as the holocaust. This false chain of assumptions and bad logic must be broken if we are ever to have any chance to save the white nations of Western Civilization. If I have not done so to this point, let me make myself clear. I am not in favor of people wearing 3rd Reich military uniforms or waving swastikas in public. I am not calling for full scale adoption of 3rd Reich political policies. Germany of 1933-1945 is in the past and always will be. Excessive nostalgia stifles creative thinking about the present and future. But that does not mean that we must reject everything from the past as useless. We learn from the past’s mistakes and abandon what didn’t work and retain what is still useful to us now. I am also not, as the anti-revisonists call those who are seeking to rehabilitate Hitler, a Hitler ‘idolator’ or ‘worshiper’. I certainly do think that he was a far better man than he has been portrayed to be in official history books and even better than most of his contemporaries but I do not see him as a saint without flaws. He was a man like other men with vices and virtues. But he was not the evil, satanic demon that popular imagery puts on public display ad nauseum in movies, tv, books and other visual and written media. Rehabilitating Hitler does not mean putting forth a false positive image of him. It means correcting the false negative image and presenting an honest, balanced image. The need to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely an academic tempest in a teapot to be done simply to set the historical record straight on a par with debating whether Joan of Arc was a saint or a schizophrenic. It is a problem that addresses our present and future in a serious manner. Those with a global agenda of eliminating nations, creating a One World government and reducing humanity to a single, racially mixed amalgam (except for themselves) will continue to use the evil image of Hitler that they created out of false WWII propaganda to demonize those of us who oppose that agenda. Nationalists and racialists will remain marginalized and ineffective as long as they are linked to that false negative image of Hitler.They cannot break that link because it is real but they can change the nature of that link from negative to non-negative. That requires the rehabilitation of Hitler which is what I am trying to do here.” Post #205 Thay can not. Sixty years of experience should be enough to demonstrate that fact. They have been losing ground steadily during that time and it has been consistently the case that when positive, rational racists have tried to present their position for public approval, their opponents play the evil-Hitler-card. Hitler was evil therefore racism is evil. This shibboleth has been employed over and over to demonize those who would resist the extinction of the white race. The same is the case with nationalism. Even non-white nationalists are subjected to having the evil-Hitler-card played on them. Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad are the most recent victims. Kaddahafi, Slobodan Milosevic and numerous others have been demonized by simply being branded with this powerful negative epithet. The leaders of the various nationalist parties in Europe such as Le Pen, Griffin and the Austrian Joerg Haider have been maligned and marginalized to their publics by being compared to Hitler. My effort to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely from a desire to set the historical record straight (though that is important in itself) but rather from a recognition that preventing the extinction of the white race and the dissolution of Western Civilization require it. If the white race and Western Civilization could be saved without rehabilitating Hitler, the importance of doing so would only be a matter of intellectual integrity in the telling of history. But that is not the case. That effort is important precisely because it is necessary to achieve our goals. Hiding under the blankets and pretending that we have no connection to Hitler is naive. Our opponents will always, as they have for the last sixty years, pull the blankets off and hurl the accusation of evil Hitlerism at us any time we openly advocate for our positions. It is the positions on race and nationalism that they want to discredit. It just so happens that they have found the evil-Hitler-card to be the most effective means to that end. The only chance that we have is to take that weapon out of their hands. The only way to do that is to understand that the holocaust story is a lie and that Hitler was not the evil demon that he is portrayed as being. When Hitler’s historical reputation is rehabilitated, and not until then, we can begin to resist our opponents in the struggle for our race and culture without having to face the currently dominating rhetorical weapons in their arsenal…the holocaust lie and its attendant evil Hitlerism. The emotional conditioning that has been instilled in the vast majority of people which produces feelings of repulsion at the sight of images of Hitler and of written falsehoods about the evil deeds of Hitler and the German people must be overcome if a rational analysis of the historical record is to be made. An honest telling of the events of 1933-1945 is unavoidably necessary if we are to win the struggle for our race and our nations.” Post #222 My purpose here has been quite simple and I had hoped clear. What I would like for people to take away from this thread is an awareness of the fact that what they believe to be true about Hitler, the 3rd Reich, the German people and the holocaust story is the result of emotional conditioning generated by pairing negative images of Hitler and other German scenes with WWII propaganda which, rightly or wrongly, was put forth to create the kind of fanaticism and hysteria that wartime leaders feel that they need to instill in their people in order to prosecute a war. That war is over but the political agenda that it was the extension of is not over. What is needed now is for people to understand what was done to them that has caused them to continue to hold beliefs that are not based on a rational analysis of the historical record. What I am hoping for is that people can see that Hitler was not the evil demon that he has been portrayed as and suppress their emotional responses sufficiently to finally engage in that rational analysis and see that Hitler was a better man than they believe him to be. Then they can look at the war and the propaganda lies that grew into the false holocaust story without the emotional interference that is currently the case for most people. Then they can begin to acquire the background knowledge that they need to debate the true believers successfully. When people can do that, I am confident that they will see Hitler and the holocaust story in a different way. An honest way. Hitler was not an evil man and the holocaust story is not true.” 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:12 | # Alex, In the West, revolutions are metapolitical and concern the sudden and absolute sweeping away of one political system by another - with, obviously, the same change in their respective philosophies and power elites. Revolution without philosophical change is the methodology of the Third World kleptocrat. In our civilisation, an over-arching philosophy is the foundation of revolutionary activism, and works in exactly the same way that a battle plan, being a design for victory, allows an army to commit its forces. Your analysis is Judeo-centric. So, naturally enough, you have no use for battlefield-wide plans. That shows in your dedication to NS as the plan which enabled its soldiery to fight the Jews and “actually beat them”, while at the same time cleaving to the idea that today “it’s a technical matter.” This is inconsistent. When I try to make sense of it, all I can get is that you already accept:- 1) NS was a functioning revolutionary philosophy in 1933, ergo the sweeping away of Weimar and Jewish influence was not simply “a technical matter.” 2) NS is not required to sweep away advanced liberalism and Jewish influence today, but a “technical” change in white empowerment will suffice. Well, contrast that with my position:- 1) NS addressed the condition of Germany and the German people after 1918. A similar reification of “the spiritual race”, in my view, cannot grow in our postmodern soil. We are too cynical, too knowing, too prosperous, too secure, too materialistic, too unserious, too rootless to march under the banner of race, and that will not quickly change. 2) We require a comparable philosophical model, but one that addresses the condition of the West and our people today. I think you may be attacking the issue the wrong way around. Instead of saying, “I don’t need a philosophy to do what I’ve got to do” you should be saying, “I’m not convinced that a “light” philosophy will prove effective against Jewish power and influence.” That’s a fair statement, and one that Scimitar and I should be made to address. You, meanwhile, should accept that philosophy is indispensible, and join us in the search for a model that could function at all levels. 9
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:35 | #
Yes, he did. The most amusing part about it though is that inclusion of the Jews at Amren (which had always been Taylor’s policy) wasn’t good enough for Auster, Hart, Jobling, et al. They sent Taylor an angry letter demanding that he 1.) endorse the Holocaust theory and 2.) denounce and exclude the anti-semites like Duke, or else. When he failed to do so, The Realist/Ian Jobling broke with him and created The Inverted World website. Most of the Amren Jews seem to have followed him over there. The entire purpose of Inverted World is to refute the so-called “theology of Jewish evil” theory and create a completely kosher version of race realism serviceable to Jewish interests. Unwittingly, The Realist, Auster, Hart and so forth ended up making your point: even the “pro-white” Jews cannot be trusted with positions of responsibility in racialist organizations. After the confrontation with Duke, the Amren Jews — flushed with anger — revealed their disguised intentions. When Jewish and Gentile interests conflict, Jews and philo-semites will always put the former above the latter. For years, Amren had been the paradigm example of Jewish/Gentile cooperation in the rehabilitaiton of racialism. I myself had been an advocate of the inclusion of individual pro-white Jews. That experience forced me to re-evaluate my previous beliefs. What would have happened if Jared Taylor had died in a car accident in late 2005? If Ian Jobling and the Jews around him had captured control of Amren, they would have quickly moved to transform it into what Inverted World is today; little more than an apologetics resource for the Jewish role in the demonization of racialism. American Renaissance would have become little more than a more racist version of National Review. They demanded that Taylor break with his traditional policy of ignoring the Jewish Question, Holocaust, WW2 and other issues that distract from his focus. Unfortunately, Taylor doesn’t seem to have learned much from the experience, but at least Amren is now more judenrein than it has been in as long as I can remember. 10
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:00 | # Another example: I did an interview with Nicholas Stix, a jew, who was writing this month’s American Renaissance cover story on the ‘Knoxville Horror.’ He deliberately failed to see my connection between jews and integration, without which policy Channon and Chris would still be alive. I don’t know precisely what AmRen is, but I do know that it won’t get us where we need to go. 11
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:20 | # GW, you’re trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to make some simple complex. Germany for Germans? America for Americans. That’s all it is. The main point is that Whites control White space and White terrority. White men already show they want this in their behavior. They move, almost always, to areas Whiter than those they leave. The challenge is not to develop a philosophy, we already have that, the challenge is to win power. Winning power is a technical question, and it behooves us to search history to find the closest parallels we can to our circumstances. While there are many differences between America/Europe 2007 and Germany 1933, there are remarkable similarities too. Principal among which is that jews in both instances were controlling the press and pushing the same anti-White agenda. The nazis beat the jews, not on the world scale, they lost, but on the national scale. They did it by a combination of violence and organizing and agitprop. We can learn from them. Anyone honest, normal man whose mind is truly open, will study our material for a few hours and draw the same conclusions we do. The problem is not coming up with some remarkable philosophy, it’s neutralizing the jews and tools who oppress us, and prevent us from doing what we do naturally. We don’t need philosophy to tell us we prefer to live among our own kind, by our own ways. We need the power to bring that about. The System, in your country as mine, is built on the denial of White racial identification. That, along with the demonization of the nazis as the worst-Whites-ever are strong indications that at all costs our enemy must bar us from the one grouping that can threaten him - racial. That’s why however much the judeo-left hates gun rights, Southrons, Constitutionalists, it lets them vent. But it draws the line at Nazis and Whites because they have hit on the key to defeating them. Lenin said politics is who does what to whom. You can say the jews had a “philosophy” that swept away the Czar but I say it was just a gang of jewish crooks. Of course they spouted some ideology, and it did sway a few non-jews, but ultimately it was just subspecies doing battle. You may think Whites are different from Africans but they’re not. Politics draws the vilest scum in the land and always will, but at least if the ruling scum is White, ordinary Whites can live and flourish. Most men are not philosophers and do not live by ideas or abstractions. They simply say, Tell me what to believe and I’ll believe it. We at MR and VNN are trying to reach intelligent folks. We explain why things have gone wrong and how to put them right. I have always advocated the correct approach: - utter demonization of jews at the #1 and System setter-upper - NOTHING GOES RIGHT UNTIL WE GO WHITE If you want philosophy deeper than a slogan, then you’re not in politics you’re in philosophy. To get any deeper is to get into pointless and ultimately meaningless debates about eugenics and the day-to-day working of the System after the revolution. Personally, I favor libertarianism inside the steel cage of immediate death for anyone who damages the racial body to make private profits. Our debates are rather like trying to farm in Holland when we haven’t finished, have barely begun, building the dyke. We are White. Our enemy is the jew. We must vanquish him. How do we do that? That’s where we are now. 13
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:22 | #
Racialism and Americanism were synonymous for over three hundred years. No other country in the world has such a long, distinguished, and rich tradition of racialism as the United States. Americans have little else to be proud of? Surely you jest. Nazi Germany’s brief experiment with racialism (1933-1945) was never as systematic and elaborate as that of the Jim Crow South. The Nuremberg Laws of the Third Reich were modeled on the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Hitler plagiarized Madison Grant and Henry Ford in Mein Kampf. His own understanding of race owed much to Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race and Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Even his Eastern policy was clearly inspired by Grant’s The Conquest of a Continent and the American race wars against the Indians. Racialism and Nordicism were American movements long before they crossed the Atlantic and took root in Europe. From 1790 to 1952, “whiteness” was a criterion of American naturalization law. Eugenics, also. The State of Indiana was the first polity in the world to pass eugenic sterilization legislation. Thirty-three American states had already passed sterilization laws before Hitler came to power in 1933. The U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned eugenics in Buck v. Bell in 1927. During the early twentieth century, the international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans. Even before Galton coined the term “eugenics” in the nineteenth century, Americans had been practicing it under a different name (“stirpiculture”) in the utopian communes that sprung up during the Jacksonian reform movement. In fact, one of the giants of international eugenics movement, Harry Laughlin, who was instrumental in spreading the movement to Germany, is from Alex’s hometown of Kirksville, MO and is buried in Highland Park Cemetery there. The ideal of a White America racially cleansed of Negroes and Indians owes nothing to National Socialism. It has at least a three hundred year old lineage in North America, and was especially popular in the Upper and Border South: anti-miscegenation laws from the 1660s forward, Indian Removal in the Southeast, the racialization of American naturalization law, the Virginia colonization movement of the 1790s, Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, the American Colonization Society and Liberia, the racial exclusion of black immigrants under Jefferson in 1807, Lincoln’s emancipation scheme, Midwestern free-soilism, the Wilmot Proviso which was known as the “White Man’s Resolution” (keeping blacks out of the territories), relocation of the Indians to reservations in the late ninteenth century, the development of the “one drop rule” in Jim Crow Virginia. To my knowledge, the Confederacy was the first nation in the history of the world to be explicitly founded on racial principles. In the aftermath of the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan waged a terrorist war against racial integration, which the U.S. federal government responded to with the Force Act of 1871. Reconstruction was ultimately defeated, Negroes were stripped of their newly acquired rights, and the Jim Crow system was consolidated in later decades. In South Carolina, the enemies of Reconstruction even called themselves the “Red Shirts” and held torchlight parades at night. The parallels to Italian fascism are striking:
Southern racialism persisted for over a generation after the Third Reich and was only crushed in the end by force. The Civil Rights Movement was vigorously opposed here. Virtually the entire Southern delegation to the U.S. Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. There was nothing like Little Rock, Oxford, Birmingham, or Selma in countries like Norway, Sweden, or Ireland. MLK was even assassinated for his efforts on behalf of civil rights reform. Even today, white Southerners have the strongest sense of white racial consciousness of any European population in the world; my home state of Alabama even voted against repealing segregationist language in our state constitution in 2004. Thus, I don’t see what I have to be ashamed of, nor do I have any reason to dip from the Nazi well. I was fortunate enough to be brought up as a racialist in the American Deep South. I’m actually quite proud of the American racialist tradition. It’s not our fault Hitler declared war on the United States or lost the Second World War. He is to blame for making so many enemies and acting on impulse against even his own better judgement. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:23 | # Oh Alex, maybe you are right and folks like Scimmy and me just complicate every damned thing we contact. But we have this idea, you see, that the king of all ideas, the one that rules over you and me and the boys in Knoxville, Tenesee, this idea conditions everything that happens in the world. Now, if we are wrong that means that, say, the vivyfying elements of white American life in 1964 can be brought right back today just by removing Jewish interference, and will not need to be set in a supporting ideology to be stable. Well, did the NS theorists think that? Was NS simply a plan for removing Jews? Because if it wasn’t simply a plan for removing Jews that means that its intellectuals didn’t agree with what you are saying today but, on the contrary, agreed with Scimmy and me. You have to make your mind up whether you are narrowly interested in NS because that’s how to deal with Jewish ethnic aggression or whether you are interested in the wider ideas and ambitions that NS harboured. If it’s the former - and you are telling me now that it is - then why study NS at all? Why not study Stalinism, because Joe dealt with his Jews in a highly effective manner? And then there have been something like 250 other “events” in the relationship of Jew and Gentile over the past two thousand years. What’s wrong with them? What’s so special about NS? What’s special about NS, of course, is that it was a revolutionary system that aimed to lift Germans out of the corruptions of Weimar, out of the humiliation of Versailles, out of horrors of hyper-inflation, mass unemployment and starvation, and it succeeded. Incredibly well. Are you telling me that doesn’t matter to us today? 15
Posted by PF on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:33 | # Brilliant post, GW. I agree with the need for philosophy and the fact that at the present junction, one can really only discuss. The vehicle which brought liberalism/marxism/PC to the masses was television. I think our vehicle, not in the sense of ‘medium’ but in the sense of ‘catalyst’- will be crisis, which causes an increased casting-about for new truths in the minds of people now contented. As a young person, one implicitly understands that something horrible underlies our concept of ‘race’. It is like a forbidding corner, something is not quite right. People avoid the topic, like people walking hurredly past a graveyard. No one knows what to say about it. There is the feeling of covering something up, something lurking beneath the surface. threatening to tear everything up if it is let out of the box. This compounds with genuine terror at realizing that this dark-spot on our conceptual landscape is somehow driving our destruction. And the fear of that, growing larger, finally pushes one to explore the dark-spot, consequences be damned. Its frightening for a child to realize that adults are lying about something ‘in good faith’, one sees one’s honest parents saying what they seem to know is wrong. And so I think more people will be trying to untie this Gordian conceptual knot, and here is a website with step-by-step instructions on how to do it. Maybe these truths will spread like wildfire one day- who knows. I know people will have need of them, if they want to survive the future. As regards the English light model, it’s the only way to go that can gently recruit people of tame sensibility—i.e. about 50% of white citizenry. Like I said in another post, the German Heavy Model was too heavy for Germany. It stirred up so much plebeian self-pride and self-sacrifice that it blurred decision making, most of all in Adolf Hitlers own brain. The idea was to put all of one’s ferocity behind an unnuanced approach - well, nuance matters more than fury in alot of situations. By the way- winning everyone to the English Light Model is only the beginning of the long struggle. Once sides are drawn, the aliens, who are endlessly emboldened by years of preying on weakness, are sure to press their advantage and commit atrocities against us. These atrocities, coming in time of crisis, could make the philosophy of the English Light Model slowly morph, into something that might remind one of the good old, bad old days of the Horribly Cruel And Black-Hearted Norman Model (HCBHNM). All things have to proceed in due course, though. A commitment to the ELM doesn’t preclude future changes in outlook, is all I’m trying to say. 16
Posted by PF on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:48 | # Scimitar- what a strong post about the American south! I never knew that stuff, or rather knew it only faintly. Thanks! 17
Posted by danielj on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:53 | # Off-Topic: SVIGOR - Try changing your font size from the drop down menu buddy. I have mine set to a sans serif at 16 and it looks fine! SCIMITAR
Not to knock your post because I agree with the general thrust, but correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t Emma Goldman and a bunch of other leftists committed to the idea of eugenics as well Scimitar? 18
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:11 | #
Granted, I can see your point about attacking the Jews as Jews, not as “neocons,” “liberals,” “communists,” “neocons” or whatever other ideological mask they happen to be wearing at any givne moment. If “Jew” carried the same negative connotation that “neocon” does today, we would be well on our way to victory. Personally, I despise American style conservatism as much as you do. I’m not arguing in favor of attacking broad abstractions like “the left.”
This is the key issue where we disagree. It is absolutely true that ordinary Americans lack anything resembling a theoretical understanding of liberalism. But that isn’t what GW and myself are arguing here. Liberalism really is embedded in their sense of identity and behavior. They truly believe all that cant about “freedom,” “tolerance,” “equality,” “non-discrimination” and so forth. Ordinary Americans will argue the point with you, passionately. You note that housing patterns don’t reflect this reality, which is entirely true, but double consciousness enables Americans to overcome this apparent inconsistency in their beliefs. Indeed, explicit racialism and ideological liberalism were able to co-exist for almost 150 years in the United States. Look at Jefferson, Emerson, or Lincoln; powerful minds, all. They were self-conscious racists while simultaneously being political liberals. The subtle, unconscious racism that exists amongst white Americans today is even easier to reconcile their commitment to liberal political principles.
Absolutely true. But why is that? Who let the Jews into the United States in the first place? Why were they given American citizenship? Why were they allowed to so easily accumulate influence in the mass media? Why were they allowed to infiltrate our universities? The Jewish Question reduces ultimately back to liberalism. Liberalism paralyzes the ability of whites to think in terms of groups as opposed to purely autonomous individuals. It licenses the Jewish takeover of our social institutions in the name of “freedom, equality, and tolerance.”
There is a lot of truth in this. Much of the lip service given to anti-racism really is due to status concerns. Still, I think you are too quick to discount the power that liberalism holds over the American imagination. Iran, Syria, China, North Korea and so forth don’t have this problem. Neither did pre-modern Europe which confined Jews to the ghetto. The Germans of the 1930s were able to shrug off the Jews because their culture had yet to be eviscerated and atomized by liberalism. 19
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:13 | #
Sure. There were Jews who supported eugenics before WW2, especially in Germany. The international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans though until the 1930s. 20
Posted by danielj on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 02:39 | #
I was trying to ask you if the Americans that dominated the movement were leftist… Even the eugenics movement can be reconciled with liberalism and in fact plays a role in a couple of negative utopias I can think of. 21
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:03 | # Well, did the NS theorists think that? Was NS simply a plan for removing Jews? Because if it wasn’t simply a plan for removing Jews that means that its intellectuals didn’t agree with what you are saying today but, on the contrary, agreed with Scimmy and me. True, but, I never called myself an NS, you did. In fact, I would guess that you are very likely more NS than I am. I belong to the old-style American school. I want people fk off and leave me alone. I don’t want to be dragooned into state service in any form. At the same time, I recognize the need for absolute dictatorship on matters of race. Below that, we can argue. Without that, arguments don’t matter. It’s not easy to determine what precisely NS was and what the nazis actually did. I read Lothrop Stoddard’s “Into the Darkness” recently and learned a great deal. In fact, one of the most interesting things about that book is just that - how little jews are talked about, almost not at all. The nazis had programs for every group and sector. These were successful to reasonable degree, as far as I can see. I don’t think one size fits all, though. I’ve studied in Germany, and Germany really is more like an extended racial family than America. I don’t think what worked in Germany can be simply copied in America. What I do think is pertinent is the ways the nazis dealt with the press and the jews. Of course, that’s my own area here in the states. I am positive that calling jews jews is the only way to go. You want to get into discussions of what’s clever or some other adjective but there is really is no other way. There is no clever way to beat the jews, it will take exactly what it appears: a great number of determined, angry men willing to kill and die. That’s where we’re headed. You have to make your mind up whether you are narrowly interested in NS because that’s how to deal with Jewish ethnic aggression or whether you are interested in the wider ideas and ambitions that NS harboured. No, I don’t. I can borrow what works, and ignore what doesn’t. I want a racial dictatorship combined with comparative freedom. I don’t want national health care, bans on smoking, endless health advice and morals crusading. What I do want is a nation controlled by normal White men. It’s possible that someone can pick up the dropped NS thread and build an even better, more successful and long-lasting racial state, but I’ll leave that to others. I just want to get rid of the people who are killing us and covering it up. If it’s the former - and you are telling me now that it is - then why study NS at all? Why not study Stalinism, because Joe dealt with his Jews in a highly effective manner? The jews were a privileged class in the USSR before, during, and after Stalin. And then there have been something like 250 other “events” in the relationship of Jew and Gentile over the past two thousand years. What’s wrong with them? What’s so special about NS? Nothing’s necessarily wrong with them, and we draw from them what we can. But the nazis are much closer to us in time. The mass media existed and were controlled by jews. Somehow they took these away from the jews. That’s the first factor. Second factor is, as you’ve said, that NS was about Germany even more than it was about her enemy, the jew, even though that enemy is really what crystallized NS. Really, I don’t even know how philosophical NS even is. It’s a number of different programs, perhaps linked by their putting the racial state first. Maybe NS or some variant was necessary under the conditions. It’s hard to say. In peacetime, I would not want as tight state control as the nazis had over the Germans. Are you telling me that doesn’t matter to us today? Of course it does. Nothing’s either/or, we find what fits our needs or can be adapted to our circumstances, whether it comes from NS Germany or anywhere else. 22
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:08 | # What would have happened if Jared Taylor had died in a car accident in late 2005? If Ian Jobling and the Jews around him had captured control of Amren, they would have quickly moved to transform it into what Inverted World is today That’s the thing: if AmRen were set up by jews as a front group, how would it differ from what we see at AmRen today? 23
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:12 | # Burrhus, I can’t say that I agree with your assessment. My response to accusations of Nazism is simply to tell the truth: I’m not a National Socialist and personally have little interest in the Third Reich, or twentieth century European history generally. Ordinary Americans aren’t exactly the smartest people in the world, but even they are capable of recognizing that “racism” and “Nazism” are not coterminous. Clearly, Americans had been “racists” for centuries before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler: the international slave trade, Indian Wars, the Confederacy, the Klan, Jim Crow, etc. The U.S. fought the Second World War with a segregated army. The issue in that war was Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States. Otherwise, most Americans were content to let the Nazis run wild in Europe, and were generally unconcerned about the Jewish plight under Hitler; even to the point of turning their backs on Jewish refugees. Fortunately, Americans are perhaps the most self-absorbed people in the world. They pay little attention to what goes on outside the United States and have only a marginally greater interest in their own history. How many Americans do you think are capable of locating Poland or Iraq on a map of the world? I don’t share your view that Americans are so fascinated with Hitler and the Holocaust that our circumstances will never change until the revisionist cause triumphs, especially the younger generation. While that is largely true of the Jewish community, I don’t think the white majority shares their concerns. In my experience, simply stating that I am not a Nazi usually suffices to deflect such attacks. The problem isn’t the poor reputation of Nazism so much at is “racism.” Rehabilitating the image of the Third Reich won’t necessarily defang this concept either. OTOH, if “racism” is defused as a rhetorical hand grenade, everything demonized under its banner will benefit. In my view, dredging up Hitler and the Third Reich is a gross mistake. It is a constant distraction from more practical concerns like expanding our media presence, fundraising, getting ourselves organized, and putting our own spin on more pressing matters before the public eye, say, the Knoxville Massacre or the current debate in the Senate over amnesty for illegal aliens. By returning constantly to the theme of Hitler, you unnecessarily remind Americans of what they dislike most about racism. It is better to let sleeping dogs lie. Finally, I simply don’t know enough about the subject to say much about it. My energies are more productive spent elsewhere. 24
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:15 | # The idea was to put all of one’s ferocity behind an unnuanced approach - well, nuance matters more than fury in alot of situations. Your assumption is that nazis/Germans are less nuanced and sophistcated than English but that is the opposite of the case. One reason the nazis lost is they were unable to conceive just how vicious and barbaric the British leadership actually were. I will guarantee you that the average German is of higher moral character than the average Briton. Maybe thems fightin’ words around here, but I believe that anybody who has met Germans and British will draw the same conclusion. My point is not to attack Britain but to point out that Anglo countries like the U.S. assume that Britain is first and the other European countries trail it in civilization, etc., but that is not the case. 25
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:19 | # If “Jew” carried the same negative connotation that “neocon” does today, we would be well on our way to victory. It does, it’s just that people won’t use it. That is one thing VNN has done harder and faster than anybody since we began in 2000. We call jews jews. That alone has greater effect than any essay by Sam Francis or any of the other between-two-stoolers. The only real education the mass public needs is drawing the connection between the Recognized Problem (crime, mexinvasion, war-in-iraq) and the Jewish Cause. 26
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:40 | # This is the key issue where we disagree. It is absolutely true that ordinary Americans lack anything resembling a theoretical understanding of liberalism. But that isn’t what GW and myself are arguing here. Liberalism really is embedded in their sense of identity and behavior. They truly believe all that cant about “freedom,” “tolerance,” “equality,” “non-discrimination” and so forth. Ordinary Americans will argue the point with you, passionately. Yes, many of them do believe these things. They use the phrases put in their mouths. You note that housing patterns don’t reflect this reality, which is entirely true, but double consciousness enables Americans to overcome this apparent inconsistency in their beliefs. Indeed, explicit racialism and ideological liberalism were able to co-exist for almost 150 years in the United States. Look at Jefferson, Emerson, or Lincoln; powerful minds, all. They were self-conscious racists while simultaneously being political liberals. The subtle, unconscious racism that exists amongst white Americans today is even easier to reconcile their commitment to liberal political principles. Liberalism is like christianity, it can exist with or without racism. If the system is liberal enough, as America was up until 1910 or so, then it’s hard to see interlopers as the problem, since all you have to do is use your liberal freedoms to exclude them. You’ll notice that very, very shortly after individuals-of-jew arrived on these shores, Americans began to note their nasty characterististics and politick against them, resulting in the 1924 act. Before them, there were not that many jews, and America needed people, and the federal government was so small that any real problem, political or otherwise, could be dealt with locally. That all changed in the 20th century with the rise of technology and mass media. Absolutely true. But why is that? Who let the Jews into the United States in the first place? Why were they given American citizenship? Why were they allowed to so easily accumulate influence in the mass media? Why were they allowed to infiltrate our universities? The Jewish Question reduces ultimately back to liberalism. Liberalism paralyzes the ability of whites to think in terms of groups as opposed to purely autonomous individuals. It licenses the Jewish takeover of our social institutions in the name of “freedom, equality, and tolerance.” Wrong. You just said Jefferson was a political liberal and a racist. So liberalism can go either way. The evidence of 1924 shows that liberals could recognize all kinds of groups, and favor some over others, and not just in immigration but for eugenics purposes. What happened was that there were some jews in the new world from the start. We needed people to populate the continent; those born here didn’t know that much about jews, and in any case, they were weird and stuck to themselves and there was plenty of room to escape had they become oppressive, which they couldn’t really be under the circumstances. Things changed over the next 200 years, and all of a sudden mass control technology came into being and the jews seized on it immediately. They were resisted successfully via the ‘24 immigration act, but that was pretty much a lone triumph. Their teamwork allowed them to takeover before the rest of the nation had fully caught on. There’s also the fact that the U.S. was begun by English settlers, and presumably they inherited the biases of the old country, where jews had long been readmitted after being expelled. So they were not anti-jew in principle. It would have been nice if the founders had foreseen what would happen by admitting jews, but they didn’t. We need have no illusions. Jews will use our White individualism to take us out as a team.
That liberalism is a mile wide and 1/4” deep. You get control of tv, everyone you know will be a racist in one day. All you have to do is have outraged announcers voicing over nigger riots, and then talking-head panels explaining the gunpoint-integration backstory. Then hostile interviews with alien-weird rabbis. Bake at 350 for 1.5 hours and presto, we’re back in the saddle. Yeah, they believe in equality and tolerance in the same way that Canny Sammy believed in anti-anti-semitism. Do you really think any White American would put his glutecakes on the line to get between us and the negroes any more than Canny would get between us and the jews? Iran, Syria, China, North Korea and so forth don’t have this problem. Neither did pre-modern Europe which confined Jews to the ghetto. The Germans of the 1930s were able to shrug off the Jews because their culture had yet to be eviscerated and atomized by liberalism. Shooting commie jews and throwing them in canals helped too. I’m not disputing there’s more than one way to skin the Katz, I’m saying that for us, America 2007, the nazi resistance to and eventual overpowering of the jews has some applicability. 27
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:45 | #
In other words, you are something of a libertarian, which is one of the many faces of liberalism. What GW is trying to explain to you is how this worldview becomes corrosive of racial consciousness over time. A good example of this would be the anti-miscegenation laws. In 1843, Massachusetts became the first American state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law. To my knowledge, Jewish influence had nothing to do with this; the Massachusetts state legislature simply decided that marriage restriction in the name of racial preservation was incompatible with their commitment to natural rights and individual liberty. By 1900, virtually every state in the American North had passed post-1964 style civil rights legislation which banned racial discrimination in education, housing, employment, and public accomodations. The Reconstruction amendments and civil rights acts — which granted blacks citizenship and full equality with whites — are an even more poignant reminder of the sort of destruction whites deranged by liberalism can inflict on their civilization. Only the Western and Southern states held out against this trend, at least until the 1960s. Indians were granted U.S. citizenship by special acts of Congress in 1887, 1901, and 1924. 28
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:05 | # In other words, you are something of a libertarian, which is one of the many faces of liberalism. Call it what you want, doesn’t matter. I want the state out of most of my life; I also want the state to destroy anybody who messes with the racial basis of the nation. 29
Posted by Alex Linder on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:08 | # Liberalism affects a minority of Whites, unfortunately many of these are elites. Liberalism in the hands of whites is not genocidal, but in the hands of the jews who direct it now, it is. If all the anti-discrimination you say were actually in place, there would have been no need for the ‘civil rights’ movement. It wasn’t until jews took over that it became against the law for Whites to protect their communities from blacks. 30
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:03 | #
That’s something of an understatement. Virtually all white Americans are liberals of some form or another. The entire American political spectrum is subsumed by liberalism. The “conservatives” and “liberals” which are represented by the GOP and Democratic Party respectively are merely liberals who disagree as to whether liberty or equality is the more political value. Libertarians are equally at home within the liberal fold.
True. As I noted above, liberalism and racialism can indeed co-exist. The point we are making is that, on a fundamental level, the two are deeply antagonistic worldviews. Such an alliance has inherent tensions and can quickly unravel under stress like any bad marriage. That is exactly what happened during the American Civil War and the Second World War. The unraveling began as early as the American Revolution when the New England states began to pass the first anti-slavery laws. During the 1790s, racial equalitarianism was a standard theme of the abolitionist literature of the time, and again under William Lloyd Garrison after the 1830s.
Indeed, the Jewish presence in the United States was insignificant until the great wave of immigration of 1885-1924. And yes, Jews became involved in radical politics in America almost as soon as they stepped off the boat. There was a definite reaction against them by the American majority. The Jewish quotas in the Ivy League would be another example of this. But let’s return for a moment to the late nineteenth century. In the aftermath of the Civil War, all the Northern states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. They passed state laws against racial discrimination in employment, education, housing, and public accomodations. At the federal level, the Republican Party rammed through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which gave blacks full citizenship and equal protection under the law. The former Confederate states were dissolved into military districts and racial integration was forced upon them during Reconstruction. How do you explain this?
Both Jefferson and Emerson also spent years wrestling with their conscience over the issue. Jefferson, for example, was unable to bring himself to condemn the Haitian Revolution because of his commitment to natural rights. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also passed into law by a coalition of Southerners and Westerners in Congress. That was no coincidence. Unlike New England and the Midwest, Southerners during the mid-nineteenth century like John C. Calhoun began to rethink the ideology of the American Revolution. They developed a new tradition of illiberal republicanism which carried over into the Confederacy and Jim Crow. Westerners had a much strong sense of racial consciousness as well because of the Indian Wars of the late nineteenth century, which were famously celebrated by TR in his book The Winning of the West.
It would be more accurate to say that Jews were accepted as white. The Jews were treated as if they were another denomination of Christianity. They were not recognized as a distinct group. Instead, they were admitted as Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, and Russians into the United States. Afterwards, the commitment of Americans to liberalism demanded that the Jews be extended all the rights of other citizens, which they proceeded to take advantage of.
Jews were not as readily accepted in England as you seem to believe. It wasn’t until the Jew Bill of 1753 that Jews became eligible to sit in Parliament, and it generated so much opposition amongst the English public that it was repealed the following year. The real culprits here were the Dutch. The Jews first established themselves in the Dutch colony of New Netherlands which was conquered by the English in the Second Anglo-Dutch War. New Amsterdam became New York.
And they couldn’t forsee it because they were blinded and paralyzed by their commitment to liberalism — just as Americans, Englishmen, Canadians, Australians, Frenchmen, and Germans are today.
Liberalism is now the sum of the American national identity. Everything else has been jettisoned — race, ethnicity, religion, culture. As we are constantly reminded, the United States is the first “proposition nation.” We are bound together by nothing other than our commitment to “common principles.” Which highlights the difficulty of our situation: we are asking Americans to abandon what little remains of their national identity.
You will get no argument from me on this point. More specifically, American racial attitudes began to change dramatically after racial stereotypes of blacks started disappearing in the national press after 1937, about a decade and a half before the spread of television.
Yes, I do. Didn’t you see what happened in Knoxville?
Of course. That’s easy enough to do when you are not convinced that Jews and Communists have inalienable individual rights which must always be respected.
If you are saying we should attack the Jews as Jews, then I am in full agreement with you. I’m simply saying that liberalism has to go as well. Otherwise, we will one day find ourselves right back where we are today. 32
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:23 | #
So, you want to eviscerate the state, but on the other hand you want to mobilize it against the Jews and your other racial enemies? Do you see the tension there between a commitment to individual freedom and placing racial limits on that freedom? Ron Paul is good example of liberalism in its more advanced stages: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
33
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:37 | #
What is your definition of liberalism?
Reconstruction shows otherwise. If all the anti-discrimination you say were actually in place, there would have been no need for the ‘civil rights’ movement. It wasn’t until jews took over that it became against the law for Whites to protect their communities from blacks. The Civil Rights Movement was about extending the Northern racial status quo to the Jim Crow South. In order to do so, federal civil rights legislation was needed; which was being blocked by the segregationists in Congress. http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm ^^ Feel free to glance over the Northern anti-discrimination laws yourself. Here are a few examples: Iowa 1931: Civil rights protection [Statute] Illinois 1896: Barred school segregation [Statute] Pennsylvania 1881: Barred school segregation [Statute] Massachusetts 1865: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute] Ohio 1887: Barred miscegenation and school segregation [Statute] Washington 1887: Barred anti-miscegenation [Statute] 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:05 | # GW’s position runs against MacDonald’s analysis in his Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. MacDonald frames National Socialism, not unlike the Spanish Inquisition, as a strategy that emphasised in-group altruism against outgroups, in particular Jews.
According to KMac it essently was a mirror image of Jewish racialism. If GW looked at the instances when Jews were expelled from the host countries, whether in ancient, medieval or modern eras, there will be little evidence of a shift in political philosophy with the possible exception of the Catholic Church in the late Roman empire.
However, even in that example there appears to be no compelling philosophical shift in Christian doctrine, just the embodiment of a powerful group altruism, vis-a-vis Judaism’s group altruism. 35
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:59 | # The Civil Rights Movement was about extending the Northern racial status quo to the Jim Crow South. The Northern racial status quo was segregation. The forced bussing in Boston in 1974 met with violent white protest.
36
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:29 | #
The Midwest and New England had already fully embraced post-1964 style integration by the twentieth century: Repeals of Anti-Miscegenation Laws: Massachusetts (1843), Rhode Island (1881), Maine (1883), New Mexico (1886), Ohio and Washington (1887). Bans of Segregation in Education: New York (1894, 1900, 1938, 1948, 1953), Pennsylvania (1881, 1911, 1950), New Jersey (1881, 1903), Connecticut (1933), Rhode Island (1882), Massachusetts (1894), Ohio (1887), Michigan (1871), Indiana (1877, 1949), Illinois (1874, 1896), Minnesota (1877, 1905). Bans of Segregation in Public Accomodations: New York (1873, 1881, 1895, 1913, 1930), Pennsylvania (1887, 1945), New Jersey (1884, 1898, 1911, 1953), Connecticut (1905, 1949, 1951), Rhode Island (1956), Massachusetts (1865, 1866, 1885, 1893, 1895), Vermont (1957), New Hampshire (1955), Maine (1954), Ohio (1884, 1953), Michigan (1885, 1948), Indiana (1885), Illinois (1885, 1897, 1903, 1911), Wisconsin (1895), Iowa (1884, 1892), Minnesota (1885, 1897, 1899). 37
Posted by danielj on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:06 | # Come on brother Scimitar! The elite’s pronouncements from on high, and the response from the laity are two different things?! I spent almost a year incarcerated in the brig in Charleston S.C. with a big black man from D.C who remembered the beginning of *forced* school integration… Let us just say it was not the fondest memory…. Was it really as you are attempting to tell it? Or is your judgment perhaps clouded by your hatred for us carpet-baggin’ northerners? (although… i’m a californian….) 38
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:08 | # Alex Linder, I agree with you about the Zionist problem, but look at what you are doing to combat it. You run a blog and forum where trolls and Zionist shills can post deceptive and misleading comments or act as agents provocateur. For instance, I read a comment at your blog where the author, pretending to be anti-Jewish, was expressing relief that at least Jews don’t control the issuance of money in the U.S. or else we would be in deep doo doo. Was this person really this ignorant or was he doing his part to combat serious individuals documenting evidence elsewhere that the Federal Reserve Banks are private Jewish-owned banks and that the Jewish bankers have instituted fractional reserve banking, allowing themselves to generate money out of nothing and lend it to people? In another example, you have people at your forum shifting the blame for 9/11 away from Zionists. Take a cue from Judicial Index and Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn and present serious arguments to help awaken people to Zionist criminality. Not only do Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn avoid any white supremacist/nationalist stuff, but also they have exposed many prominent white supremacists/nationalists as idiots, liars, blackmailed Zionist puppets or Zionists in disguise. Your language and presentation at your sites can certainly be improved for greater palatability to the general readership. Concentrate on informing the public in a reasonable manner, and you will do your part to awaken more people. 39
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:13 | #
I don’t hate Northerners at all. In fact, I cited Madison Grant (of New York City) above as an American racialist I admire. Carleton Putnam (of New England) is another one of my personal heroes. Charles Davenport (of Connecticut) as well. I was simply pointing out that the U.S. has always been several nations with respect to race (which is extremely important to keep in mind). The Jim Crow racial regime that prevailed in the South into the 1960s did not exist in the North at the time. The Midwest once had Jim Crow style laws, but dismantled them after the Civil War. The Western states dismantled their race laws between 1945 and 1965. Don’t get the wrong impression. I wasn’t trying to stir up hatred of Northerners above. My point was simply that whites enamored with liberalism are entirely capable of inflicting no small amount of damage upon their own civilization. See the American experiment with racial equality during Reconstruction. Another good example of this would be Revolutionary France. In 1792, the French National Assembly extended equal rights to all free blacks and mulattos in the French colonies. In 1794, slavery was outlawed and blacks were given equal citizenship with whites. Although this insane policy was later reversed under Napoleon, Jacobinism put down roots in the French Caribbean. The result was the bloody Haitian Revolution and similar uprisings in Martinique and Guadeloupe. 40
Posted by PF on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:25 | #
In the few books I’ve read about this era, or from people in this era, it seems that Abolitionism springs pretty naturally (i.e. without Jewish, without outside influence) from the liberal idealism these people cherished. Not in the South, like Scimitar is saying, though. Two examples: Ralph Waldo Emerson and Robert Louis Stevenson, two intellectuals of the day. Emerson seems to be pro-slave and pro-indian: http://www.amazon.com/Emersons-Antislavery-Writings-Ralph-Emerson/dp/0300059701 I just read a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson, a beautiful peice called Et tu in Arcadia Vixisti, and he mars it with a reference to an Indian bemoaning his loss of territory! Narrated with sympathy. http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/stevenson/stevenson_ind.html These are two intellectuals, home-sprung, from both sides of the Atlantic, supporting the Other even though they didnt have a clue what he was or anything about him. The one lived in Boston, the other in Scotland. 41
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:43 | # Emerson is a good example of an American intellectual who struggled with his double-consciousness. Like Jefferson, he was torn between his racialism and his liberal idealism: Emerson the liberal idealist:
Emerson the racialist:
42
Posted by PF on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:03 | # Linder wrote:
Like GW said elsewhere, I prefer a leader who is an aristocrat before he is a populist, or who is an elitist before he is a populist. Some layer of insulation is necessary, some level of cynicism and clear-thinking, and acquaintence with power. As regards the British leadership being vicious and barbaric- in the context of WWII I’m not sure the accusation of being vicious and barbaric makes any sense. “Wolltet ihr den totalen Krieg?!” Hitler once asked a captive audience, to thunderous assent. “Do you want the total war?!” 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:21 | # PF, In wartime it is the duty as well as the weakness of leaders to live out the spirit of the national struggle. Some would say it is the privilege, too. Adolf Hitler’s strangely contorted gesturing and magnetic dominance is the same thing as Churchill’s magnificently cold determination and Mussolini’s paper-thin, defiant arrogance. They are attempts, probably unconscious, to incorporate into the person the spirit of the people in wartime. I have no quarrel with any of them for that. It may be that the job description of a good wartime leader requires such, and a Chamberlain, for instance, would utterly fail. National leadership in peacetime is another issue, of course. 44
Posted by PF on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:58 | #
Fair enough, but there are a number of ways to conceptualize a conflict and to deal with it emotionally, each of these have different advantages and disadvantages. The way the person deals with it will depend on his upbringing/roots. Its preferable to have someone with a family history of statecraft (Aristocrat, for example Churchill), with some experience of it (Churchill gained this in the Empire), and with some degree of separation from the people, so he can observe all things with a cold eye and think rationally. Hitler was new to power, had no family history, and had himself studied history, it seems, only polemically with regard to racial/Jewish matters. Correct me if I’m wrong. Bringing unnecessary emotion into the game seems amateurish, but I’m not one competent to make that judgement. I just see him making these speeches and think: “Thats a guy about ready to explode with passion. Practically quaking while he speaks. Is that man now going to preside over the destiny of 60 Million people?” 45
Posted by danielj on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:40 | #
I know. This medium is horrible for me.
I didn’t. I know you don’t hate northerners. I was just musing about how different the “man on the street” (versus the ruling liberal elite) in the north really was from the common people in the south.
Noted. 46
Posted by Maguire on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:54 | # GW, “I wonder what maguire will think.” I suggest we keep the white working class family I illustrated as the end goal. Since they’re real white people in process of being dispossessed, they’re a practical touchstone for our deliberations now. It seems to me the outcome of a definitional process should result in something that is; a) understandable by them, b) marketable by them afterwards to neighboring peer families (they’re extremely sociable and friendly folks) and c) ‘works’ for them in the sense of addressing real needs in their lives as they are today, and can be accomplished by means within their grasp. It doesn’t mean they know instantly how to do it all, but it should start with skills and resources within their reach. These needs start with daily bread and extend up to physical security from outside aggression. “Names don’t really matter.” This is 100% true. The only exception I see is if the name in question has been so brand polluted it elicits instinctively negative emotional reactions that pre-empt an open minded hearing by those we seek to persuade to our cause. Who here will soon start a pension fund advisory firm called “Enron Pension Fund Advisors LLC”? Or a telecom company called “WorldCom”? “Nazi” and “national socialist” have acquired that kind of radioactivity. This is so profound they’re even roundly condemned by people still tilting with an identical windmill called “Jim Crow South”. Here on the west side of the pond ‘Conservative’ has already bifurcated into ‘paleo-conservative’ and ‘neo-conservative’, both strains anti-racial in various degrees. The ‘Paleocons’ are rapidly making ‘Neocon’ synonymous with ‘Nazi War Criminal’ both internationally and across much of the USA’s domestic political spectrum. At the end of this process lies a mutual delegitimation of all ‘Cons’. On the Jew side ‘Neocon’ is just another public facade they change almost as easily (and almost as frequently) as they change underwear. Less nimbler ‘Paleos’ will be left in possession of a bankrupt entity. Meanwhile the Neos will have long since moved on to seizing the ‘Democratic’ center and also fielding Bloombergs to manipulate top level political processes to their advantage. FYI, for two decades of my political adulthood I described myself as ‘Conservative’. Disaffection began in the late 1980s and was total by 1998 when I re-registered as ‘Independent’. I’ve seen ‘Radical Traditionalist’ used with good effect. We certainly want to anchor ourselves to our true origins, while rejecting the false developments of the 20th Century. ‘Pro-white’ is fairly simple and also doesn’t necessarily imply aggression against non-whites. “Back comes the revolutionary answer, totally unambiguous: only by dissolving and washing away the corrupted liberalism, the universalism, internationalism, Jewish ethnocentric aggression and naked elitist power-mongering that are the authors of our fate.” I personally think of this process as defining and then constructing the means for an alternative existence and society, rather than a mere nihilism directed against the existing order. Some parts of this undoubtedly require State power. Other parts may not, even though they might form the foundation for future legitimate white civil governments. If these other parts exist, then they can be started on immediately. “the universalism, internationalism” Here is one thought not exclude: Perhaps ALL the existing political ‘states’ descended from the former “Now, the debate as to whether the “German Heavy Model”, as Alex Linder has called it, can be applied in some form in the 21st Century liberal West is legitimate. The crisis is here and now, and deepening every day. Even a National Socialism in its militarised, bouncing-into-Vienna, Final-Solution form is preferable to me than the loss of Europeans from Western Europe.” Whether this model is ‘heavy’, ‘medium’, or ‘light’, I think When legitimate white civil governments reemerge in the face of such threats, they are not going to have the leisure of six years of preliminary rearmament. They’ll be lucky to get six months. Lying beyond that horizon and following it hotfoot is an entity that can only be described as Oriental National Socialist China. This is all a mere beginning on the quest for the Holy Grail of defining the Movement. “Maguire 47
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:59 | # Absolutely true. But why is that? Who let the Jews into the United States in the first place? Why were they given American citizenship? Why were they allowed to so easily accumulate influence in the mass media? Why were they allowed to infiltrate our universities? The Jewish Question reduces ultimately back to liberalism. Liberalism paralyzes the ability of whites to think in terms of groups as opposed to purely autonomous individuals. It licenses the Jewish takeover of our social institutions in the name of “freedom, equality, and tolerance.” And: Liberalism is to HIV what the Jews are to AIDS. If liberalism causes Jews, what caused liberalism? http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i25/25a01601.htm Standard accounts of the Enlightenment have tended to locate the main action either in Paris (around the philosophes), or in Germany (around Kant and the Kantians), or in the English-Scottish matrix. This understanding received major corrective surgery in Jonathan I. Israel’s Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650-1750 (Oxford University Press, 2001), which focused a zoom lens on 17th-century Sephardic Amsterdam and the transnational influence of Spinoza’s circle. (Mr. Israel was Mr. Sutcliffe’s professor at University College London and supervised his dissertation, on which Judaism and Enlightenment is based.) *** [S]cholars are calling Mr. Sutcliffe’s work groundbreaking. It is “not only new but startling” says Sander L. Gilman, director of the humanities laboratory and of Jewish studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the author, most recently, of Jewish Frontiers: Essays on Bodies, Histories, and Identities (Palgrave Macmillan). Mr. Sutcliffe is not merely pointing out another way in which the architects of liberal modernity fell short. Rather, he is arguing that the Enlightenment is unintelligible outside the context of its preoccupation with Judaism. *** In short, the Enlightenment came to define itself, Mr. Sutcliffe argues, as the antithesis of all things Jewish. 48
Posted by jlh on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:39 | # As a northerner born in the ‘50s, I challenge the implication that Northern cities were fully liberal and populated by liberals before the ‘60s. Northern cities may have been legally integrated, but they were de facto segregated until the mid-‘60s. That’s what the race riots were all about: Blacks were effectively barred from moving into white areas by collusion among home sellers and real estate people; they were stuck living in the older areas of town, hemmed in and subject to effective policing. Older line WASPs may have been subject to white guilt and acquiesed to the post-war liberal demands, but more recent immigrants like the Irish, Greeks, Italians and Poles felt no responsibility for slavery or the plight of blacks, and in many cases scorned them and avoided them like the plague. Much of liberalism simply masks the elites selling out the more common among their racial cousins, and this is just another example. While significant support for liberalized race relations existed, it is also true that jewish control of media and education made the cost of any dissent intolerable. As I await the scathing corrrection that must surely follow, allow me to say that you, sir, are one of my favorite writers posting or commenting anywhere, that I find something compelling in everything you say, and that you have influenced my thinking a great deal. Thanks. 49
Posted by jlh on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:41 | # an addendum to the post above: In a draft that was eaten, I addressed my comments to Scim/Daed. 50
Posted by GT on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:02 | # Maguire writes: “When legitimate white civil governments reemerge in the face of such threats, they are not going to have the leisure of six years of preliminary rearmament. They’ll be lucky to get six months.” Why, this sounds like we need to establish clone-able CNC machinery in White nationalist garages powered by three-phase rotary converters, with one or more of these garages in every Ebartering microcommunity! This will require electricians, electronic technicians, and E & M engineers cross-trained in welding and machine shop, of course. Now, imagine these guys constructing a low- to medium-level manufacturing base, dominating local technical services, and providing low- to no-cost technical training in the northern tier of North America’s rural environs! Let us dominate the region’ water supply, electrical production, ore production, agriculture, and manufacturing! The battle to come, assuming there is a battle, will be locally led, supported and fought in the countryside by the likes of my sons and MR’s young electrical apprentice Daniel J. That is one reason why the construction of microcommunities in the countryside must be from the bottom up in small, attainable steps requiring relatively little cash outlay and a willingness to physically labor. Rather than spin wheels salvaging a failed, ZOG-dependent, risk and physical work-adverse, untrustworthy, traitorous elite we must create a new one. There are plenty of hands-on, working- to lower-middle class young men of above-average and higher intelligence out there, unspoiled by thin-skinned corporatism, ready for a new beginning, and looking for direction. We should provide the direction and training necessary to establish these young men as local leaders. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:08 | # In 1792, the French National Assembly extended equal rights to all free blacks and mulattos in the French colonies. Largely because they could not suppress the slave revolts especially in Haiti from 1751 to 1804. They tried to keep them down on the plantation but they were outnumbered about 10-1. It’s like the Taliban or Iraq, at some point you will have to make accomodation with the local tribes. It doesn’t mean it derives anymore from liberalism than necessity. 52
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:00 | # PF: “Correct me if I’m wrong. Bringing unnecessary emotion into the game seems amateurish, but I’m not one competent to make that judgement. I just see him making these speeches and think: “Thats a guy (meaning: Hitler) about ready to explode with passion.”“ - Hitler had strong emotions. This in itself is not bad, if there is accompanying restraint, caution and consequent rational contemplation. Hitler had too little of the latter. His emotion driven stubborness in the war mostly won rational arguments, and partly because of this the results were what they were. E.g. it would been rational to incorporate into alliances, promise freedom/security/independence (and then keep those promises), arm and train (both before and during the war) Eastern Europeans, both independent nations threatened by Soviet Union and those suffering under Soviet rule, but no. Second example is the unnecessary and wasteful way of doing battle in Stalingrad to strenghten his personal image in comparison to Stalin. It is said by historians that these kinds of features of his mind became uncontrollable, because his physician administered amphetamines to Hitler to “strenghten him”, without understanding the consequences. Ashkenazi jews have a right combination and selection of strong feelings, and proper caution, restraint and consequent rational contemplation (Whatever other faults they have in their mind). These makes their rationality and actions highly energetic and increases their ethnocentrism to the level necessary to protect, advance and preserve their group permanently. Hitler’s policies, of course, are not necessary to us in any way. 53
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:01 | # which focused a zoom lens on 17th-century Sephardic Amsterdam and the transnational influence of Spinoza’s circle. An argument can be made that it’s origin is even earlier. The translation of the ancient Greek texts, that influenced so many Western philosophers, whether in Moorish Spain or Renaissance Italy was done overwhelmingly by Jews. Michael Scot, for instance, who Bacon asserts used Jews to do most of his translations, was deemed an intellect of great value and resided in the court of Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. Stupor mundi employed Jews in his court as translators and also the run his Sicilian and Neapolitan state monopolies.
http://www.authorama.com/chapters-on-jewish-literature-14.html 54
Posted by danielj on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:00 | # - To Maguire and GT This:
This is exactly where I am ideologically. Thanks again for those links Maguire. I’ll return the favor: 55
Posted by reader on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:52 | # J. Richards: You should examine Judicial Inc. very closely before you start citing it as a source. From what I’ve seen, the site freely mixes truth, conjecture, and outright invention. Whether the author is really on our side and thinks he’s helping by making things up, or whether he is an anti troll, or mentally ill, I don’t know. I do know he is not a reliable source. (Note: after examining judicial-inc a bit more today, I suspect its real purpose is to use sensational claims to build traffic, which can then be directed to iamthewitenss.) I’ve never paid attention to Daryl Bradford Smith or iamthewitness, but looking at the page you cited just now, I note the page links to judicial-inc and has a similar page layout. The apparent connection with judicial-inc immediately calls their credibility into question, as well. Some judicial-inc claims: William Jefferson indicted because he spoke out about Katrina (i.e., claimed blacks were driven out by racist whites) Bill White “may be” a self-hating Jew because he grew up in a predominantly Jewish area; sees New Orleans blacks as “stupid niggers” (as opposed to brain surgeon and rocket scientist niggers?) instead of claiming their problems were caused by “zionist gangsters” blowing up levees; and became a slum landlord. Winston Churchill’s mother, Jennie Jerome is really a Jewess named Jacobson. Paris Hilton is Jewish. Reade Seligmann is Jewish and this explains media focus on Duke rape case. Notice the apparent photoshopping on Reade’s pic. judicial-inc also attributes the Nifong disbarment to “the wrath of Zionism”. Enough said.
56
Posted by Andy Wooster on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:21 | # “reader” makes a good point. Judicial-inc is an interesting read, but many of its more sensational claims are unsourced or are poorly sourced. The site is also replete with grammatical errors and general sloppiness. I believe I’ve seen even more blatant misinformation coming from judicial-inc, and will try to dig some up if you need more convincing. You can include the claim that Eric Harris was Jewish if you’re looking for more examples. The author cites several sources in support of this claim, none of which actually say what he says they do. For example, he claims that Harris wrote about fleeing to Israel after the massacre (because of Israel’s “right of return”). He then links to an article that says Harris wrote about fleeing to Mexico, but there is no mention of Israel in the article. There are certainly more examples but this one is fresh in my mind as I read the Columbine article last week. 57
Posted by danielj on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:03 | # Does anyone actually know the webmaster? It must be a foreigner of some stripe or an Arab? 58
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:54 | #
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words. Sure. There is always some variance between elite and popular opinion. Northern racial attitudes are no exception to this rule. Fortunately, we have an abundance of polling data about race-related political issues from the 1940s to the present. They unambiguosly show an enormous regional gulf in white racial attitudes. In 1942, for example, 2% of Southern whites supported school integration as opposed to 42% of Northern whites. Graphs are available in Schuman’s Racial Attitudes in American: Trends and Interpretations. I plan on uploading them at OCD at some point in the future. The vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 really says it all: House of Representatives Southern Yeas - 7 Northern Yeas - 283 Senate Southern Yeas - 1 Northern Yeas - 72 59
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:00 | #
That’s an extremely dubious argument. Even within France itself, the National Assembly granted blacks equal citizenship and rights. The act also applied to the colonies generally; even to those that were not in rebellion. Slavery was abolished everywhere. The French were simply making good on their beliefs about the “rights of man.” 60
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:02 | #
Reaction to the Scientific Revolution, discovery of the New World, the Thirty Years War, and English Civil War. 61
Posted by reader on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:11 | # Does anyone actually know the webmaster? All I know is that the webmaster of judicial-inc has posted on at least one forum as “The Skunk”. After today, I’m fairly sure judicial-inc is run by someone connected to Daryl Bradford Smith, if not Smith himself. Both judicial-inc.biz and iamthewitness.com are both registered through godaddy’s domainsbyproxy service. I’ve heard that in the past, godaddy has taken a fairly casual attitude to releasing the personal information of users of this service. They also have a TOS that allows them to terminate service for “hate” sites (thereby revealing the name/address/phone number submitted by the domain registrant). I’m not suggesting anyone call godaddy, but, then again, if I were one of the people attacked by these sites, I might not hold back. This article about Smith claims:
This wiki claims to catalogue Smith’s “lies, misstatements, disinformation, and idiocy”. I haven’t examined it in detail. Seems to be written from a pro-Jewish perspective, but some of Smith’s statements, if reported accurately are pretty absurd on their face. 62
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:17 | #
I haven’t condemned National Socialism in this thread. Rather, I simply expressed my lack of interest in the matter. Rehabilitating the Third Reich and dismantling the Holocaust narrative should be left up to German nationalists and scholars. The relevant archives are on the other side of the Atlantic in German, Polish, Russian and other continental languages anyway. 63
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:10 | # As regards the British leadership being vicious and barbaric- in the context of WWII I’m not sure the accusation of being vicious and barbaric makes any sense. “Wolltet ihr den totalen Krieg?!” Hitler once asked a captive audience, to thunderous assent. “Do you want the total war?!” First, get your German quotations straight: “Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?” Second, you’re [mis]quoting Goebbels and not Hitler: As to the British being “vicious” and “barbaric”...well, I think few people who know how Germans and Brits conducted themselves in Western Europe would quarrel what that assessment: The first civilian bombings were done by the British. This was long before the Germans were forced to retaliate. http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Hitchens_replies.html ..........the British, by their own admission, initiated unrestricted bombing of civilian areas ought to merit for them membership in the select society of “war criminals.” The unbelieving reader need only consult the testimony of the British officials J. M. Spaight and Sir Arthur Harris, for incontrovertible proof of this charge.99 A decision of the British Air Ministry made on May 11, 1940, to attack targets in Western Germany instituted the practice of bombing purely civilian objectives. This “epoch-making event,” as F. J. P. Veale correctly describes it, marked an ominous departure from the rule that hostilities are to be limited to operations against enemy military forces alone.100 Spaight, former Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, makes the following amazing comment on the decision of May 11, 1940: Letter to PBS on fraudulent ‘documentary’ about the ‘Blitz’ Dr. A.R. WESSERLE Sirs: Rarely have I come across a television broadcast more vicious in intent and more warped in execution than your recent “Blitz on Britain.” As a survivor of the mass air raid executed against my native city of Prague, Bohemia, on the Christian Holy Day of Palm Sunday, 1945, by the Anglo-American strategic bomber force - a raid that maimed or murdered thousands a few seconds before the conclusion of the Second World War - I say this: 1. There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other. As the commander of the British strategic air offensive, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris shows in his Bomber Offensive (Macmillan, New York, 1947) 23 German cities had more than 60 percent of their built-up area destroyed; 46 had half of it destroyed. 31 communities had more than 500 acres obliterated: Berlin, 6427 acres: Hamburg, 6200 acres; Duesseldorf, 2003; Cologne (through air attack), 1994. By contrast, the three favorite targets of the Luftwaffe: London, Plymouth and Coventry, had 600 acres, 400, and just over 100 acres destroyed. 2. Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and “buzz bombs” on Britain - five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany. The Federal German Government has established the minimum count - not an estimate - of 635,000 German civilians were killed in France, Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Czecheslovakia, and elsewhere. 3. Both Germany and Britain initiated air raids on naval and military targets as of 3 September 1939. However, when the British attacks on port installations in Northern Germany ended in disaster, with a devastating majority of bombers downed - the Battle of the German Bight - Britain switched over to less costly night air raids on civilian targets such as Berlin and the Ruhr industrial region. By contrast, Germany replied in kind only in the winter months of 1940/41, a year later. Observers indubitably British, such as the late Labour Minister Crossman, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow, and the Earl of Birkenhead, have demonstrated that it was not Germany but Britain that, after May, 1940, unleashed an official policy of unrestricted and unlimited raids on civilian populations under its new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and his science advisor, Dr. Lindemann. Professor Lindemann, the later Viscount Cherwell, coolly calculated that, by using a force of 10,000 heavy bombers to attack and destroy the 58 largest German cities, one-third of the population of Germany would be “de-housed.” The assumption, of course, also was that out of those 25-27 million homeless at least ten percent - 2.5 to 3 million people - would be killed. On this score alone, Winston Churchill and his advisors deserve to rank among the maddest mass murderers in history. In fact, as West German records show, 131 German towns were hit by heavy strategic raids. Only the courage of the Luftwaffe pilots, the effectiveness of the air defense network and the strength of the fire fighting organization worked together to prevent a bloodbath to the extent envisioned by the Prime Minister. 4. Blood baths did occur when conditions were right. When the Anglo-American bombing policy reached its first grand climax in a raid on Hamburg that stretched over several days and nights in July, 1943, a minimum of 40,000 to 50,000 civilians burned to death. With the defensive power of the Reich worn down in the second half of 1944 and in 1945, the Anglo-Saxons indulged in ever more massive extermination raids against Europe. Communities of little or no military value, even if attacked previously, were now pulverized, preferably under conditions of the utmost horror. Christian holy days, and dates and sites of famous art festivals were select occasions for raids. Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig. Little Pforzheim in south-west Germany had 17,000 people killed. Dresden, one of the great art centers and in 1945 a refuge for perhaps a million civilians, was decimated with the loss of at least 100,000 souls. Europe from Monte Cassino to Luebeck and Rostock on the Baltic, from Caen and Lisieux in France to Pilsen, Prague, Bruenn, Budapest and Bucharest reeled under the barbaric blows of the bombers. 5. Nor did the extermination raids stop with Europe. Cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay demonstrated in. the Far East that record kills could be achieved without resort to atomic weapons. By applying the lessons learned in Europe to the wooden architecture of the Asian mainland and Japan he raised “fire storms” which surpassed even those of Hamburg, n Japanese civilians were killed through bombing. Millions of others fell victim to it, from Mukden, Manchuria, to Rangoon, Burma. It goes without saying that LeMay and his colleagues could not have carried out their campaigns of mass annihilation without the backing of the highest political leaders in the land. In fact, the United States Government had placed orders for the immediate development of four-engined, superheavy, very-long-range bombers (the XB 15, the B-17, the XB 19, the B-24 and the B-29) starting in 1934. Thus, the Roosevelt Administration had begun to lay plans for offensive, strategic, global war back in 1933, the year of its inception. With the later exception of Britain, none of the other “large” powers followed suit: neither France, Italy and Germany, nor Soviet Russia and Japan the latter with extensive holdings in the Pacific. These are sobering facts. PBS, with its record of fine programming, has much to lose if it insists on presenting biassed reports such as “Blitz on Britain” or “UXB.” If you care to tap the unplumbed depths of sentimentality, envy and hatred, start a comic strip. In the meantime, we’ll change channels. Give poor Alistair Cooke, who has been mightily discomfited of late, a much-needed respite. Sincerely, Dr. A.R. Wesserle Source: Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 381-384. “As early as 1953 H.M. Stationary Office published the first volume of a work ‘The Royal Air Force’, 1939-1945 entitled ‘The Fight at Odds’, a book described as “officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch.” The author , Mr. Dennis Richards, states plainly the destruction of oil plants and factories was only a secondary purpose of the British air attacks on Germany which began in May 1940. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it is impossible to carry on a modern war. Mr Dennis Richards writes: “If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with it’s most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retalliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London “. p. 122 This passage merely confirmed what Mr. Spaight had so incautiously disclosed in 1944 in his by then forgotten book ‘Bombing Vindicated’. The popular belief that Hitler started unrestricted bombing still persisted and is, in fact, widely held at present day. The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March 1942 with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued until the end of the war in May, 1945. The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary, it was concentrated on working-class houses because, as professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.” source: ‘Advance to Barbarism - the Development of Total Warfare’, by F.J.P. Veale, p.184-185 64
Posted by danielj on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:21 | #
Smith is a Frenchman correct? That would certainly explain the English problems he has… Hufschmid certainly isn’t Jewish according to himself. He dismisses the charges about his familial as true but worthless. Although, what are the odds of some nerdy computer program never heard of on the conspiracy scene becoming one of the very first 9-11 investigators and somehow being related to Murdoch. and…. although Murdoch isn’t Jewish it is true that one of his daughters (I think he has more than one) is married to the great nephew (or something) of Sigmund Freud . I’m at the point now that I consider everyone with any weight to be an agent. It is just safer that way, sorry GW 65
Posted by reader on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:06 | # I’m at the point now that I consider everyone with any weight to be an agent. It is just safer that way, sorry GW I find the intro text to this video hilarious. This is why I’d rather just ignore the DBSmith types. Any facts they may convey are lost behind the conspiracy theories and general weirdness. Doing a little more checking, early judicial-inc pages seem to have been originally hosted at http://home.att.net/~professorboris/ 66
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:21 | # Even within France itself, the National Assembly granted blacks equal citizenship and rights. Not true. White planters in Saint-Domingue, did not wish to grant the “free men of colour” (mulattos) claims for full civil and political rights. They revolted. How, if “The French were simply making good on their beliefs about the “rights of man”, do you expain Napoleon’s attempt to reassert slavery in Haiti after the slave leader, Toussaint L’Ouverture, had declared it abolished? 67
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:32 | # GT wrote: “Why, this sounds like we need to establish clone-able CNC machinery in White nationalist garages powered by three-phase rotary converters, with one or more of these garages in every Ebartering microcommunity! This will require electricians, electronic technicians, and E & M engineers cross-trained in welding and machine shop, of course. Now, imagine these guys constructing a low- to medium-level manufacturing base, dominating local technical services, and providing low- to no-cost technical training in the northern tier of North America’s rural environs! Let us dominate the region’ water supply, electrical production, ore production, agriculture, and manufacturing! ..... That is one reason why the construction of microcommunities in the countryside must be from the bottom up in small, attainable steps requiring relatively little cash outlay and a willingness to physically labor. Rather than spin wheels salvaging a failed, ZOG-dependent, risk and physical work-adverse, untrustworthy, traitorous elite we must create a new one. There are plenty of hands-on, working- to lower-middle class young men of above-average and higher intelligence out there, unspoiled by thin-skinned corporatism, ready for a new beginning, and looking for direction. We should provide the direction and training necessary to establish these young men as local leaders.” * * * I give my full support. Just be close enough to some almost wholly European-American medium size city, so as to provide additional work opportunities. In smaller communities it is easier to create a large impact, so they are better places to start. I had to copy that text here, it deserved repeating. P.s. One of my relatives in the countryside will build biogas -reactor (methane). Cheap to build, something over 10 000 euros. Turns cow manure or almost any biological substance to fuel by rottening them in oxygen free environment. He gets all his warming, electricity and fuel for car from it and sells the excess gas. Cheap changes to cars enables them to use methane. The resultant composted biomass has advantages in farming compared to normal manure. It gives more nutrients to soil. Weed seeds are killed. Cows get fewer stomach sicknesses. His neighbors will bring him biowaste. They get rid of it. My relative turns it to gas and sells it to the neighbours. Speed loader of gas is twenty to thirty times more expensive than slow loader (Car tank loading: speed loader/2-3 minutes ; slow loader/5 hours). The exact price I didn’t ask, but the speed loader is profitable and necessary buy to all who want to sell methane. It is also worth comtemplating to become manufacturer and seller of these bioreactors. 68
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:37 | # Desmond, the works of Aristotle resurfaced, according to this author, mainly through the Syriac (Nestorian Christian translators, I would have thought) rather than through Arabic. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/the_notsogolden_age_of_islamic.html 69
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:38 | # Reaction to the Scientific Revolution, discovery of the New World, the Thirty Years War, and English Civil War. All of which post date the Jewish influenced Italian Renaissance.
Pico was influenced by Elia del Medigo, a Jewish Averroist.
70
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:45 | # Addition: I also contemplate with what kind of power plant, transforming stations, electric wire arrangements/deals etc. it would be possible to turn methane into electricity and sell it to large number of people. 71
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:48 | # Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s <b>No difference between Boston & Birmingham,<?b> March 21, 2003 By Mary Beth Martin (Yemassee, SC United States) Funny how busing caused such a flap in Boston and no southerners hopped on buses to go demonstrate in the streets of Boston. http://www.amazon.com/Boston-Against-Busing-Class-Ethnicity/dp/0807842923 72
Posted by Colin Laney on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:09 | # The Three Faces of the Modern Moloch: Liberalism, Judaism, Nihilism by Michael O’Meara Historically, liberalism was the ideology of the
Spurred by its ideologues, the Revolution of 1789
In its service to the new bourgeois plutocracy,
73
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:10 | #
Jews are responsible for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment now? That’s a fascinating thesis, but not one that is generally accepted by historians; certainly none that I am aware of. The origins of liberalism in seventeenth century England are in no way mysterious. The cherished liberal value of religious tolerance, for example, was clearly inspired by the bloody religious wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In England, Puritanism was discredited by Cromwell’s forced reformation of the Church of England. John Locke had the “Lord Protector” in mind when he wrote about the dangers of religious bigotry and unfounded assumptions about the afterlife. All the other major elements of early liberalism were likewise socially and historically specific to seventeenth century England: radical individualism from Protestantism; the “state of nature” from misinformation about Indian savages in the New World; rights talk from the customary “rights of Englishmen,” which was Newtonized by Locke into a universal system; a deeply skeptical epistemology from the fashionable new empirical science of the time; “equality” from the ambition of the rising bourgeoisie; “freedom” from the traditional English/Germanic distaste for organization; and “progress” from the overthrow of Scholasticism and advances in the natural sciences.
Pico was influenced more by Plato and Hermes Trismegistus than anyone else. 74
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:46 | #
The French National Assembly did emancipate all blacks in all the colonies, regardless of whether they were in rebellion. They were also given citizenship and equal rights: “Then, on February 4, 1794, the French National Convention outlawed slavery in all the French colonies and guaranteed the rights of citizenship to all men regardless of color.” David Brion Davis, The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 165 Of course, as you point out, the planters in Saint-Domingue were furious about this, and had previously threatened to secede and align themselves with Britain. The whole issue though, including the slave rebellion, was inspired by the ideology of the French Revolution and the turmoil in France itself: “Yet as matters developed, it was precisely this issue of rights and representation for free coloreds that opened the way for slaves in Saint-Domingue to free themselves” Ibid., 163
Napoleon obviously differed from Robespierre and the Jacobins on all sorts of matters, not just race and slavery, but religion and politics as well. He worked tirelessly to subvert the ideals of the Revolution and establish himself and his family as the “fourth dynasty” of France. 75
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:54 | #
76
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:57 | # Napoleon obviously differed from Robespierre and the Jacobins on all sorts of matters, not just race and slavery, but religion and politics as well. And yet he was quite happy to emancipate the Jews, not only in France but throughout a conquered Europe. 77
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:25 | # Boston against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s;
78
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:37 | # I’m not following your tangents re: Pico or Napoleon. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? As for white resistance in Boston to forced busing, that hardly implies that white racial attitudes in Massachusetts were comparable to those of Alabama (by a long shot), or that “segregation” prevailed in New England during the 1970s. In the Jim Crow South (and the Jim Crow West, too), segregation was mandated by law in education and public accomodations; that hadn’t been the case in Massachusetts in 80 years. Massachusetts voluntarily repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843 — 124 years before all the Southern anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by force in Loving v. Virginia. While it is true Jews were heavily involved in the twentieth century Civil Rights Movement, Yankee anti-racism clearly had a life of its own long before that; stretching back ultimately to the Quakers and the first abolitionist movement. During the 1790s, racial equality and environmentalist explanations for racial differences was a standard theme of abolitionist propaganda. By 1800, blacks already had voting rights in several New England states. William Lloyd Garrison and his more radical followers around the Liberator revived anti-racism in New England during the 1830s in the second abolitionist movement. A long campaign was waged by the abolitionists against Massachusett’s anti-miscegenation law until it was finally repealed in 1843 (on the grounds that it was incompatible with individual liberty). Tracts like Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Impending Crisis were wildly popular in the North during the 1850s. Frederick Douglas (who later married a white woman) was a celebrity. The Dred Scott decision, which declared Negroes were not American citizens, was bitterly denounced in the North. In 1859, John Brown and his followers invaded Virginia and attempted to incite a race war across the South. After he was executed, he was celebrated throughout the North as a martyr — one of the major factors that pushed Southern moderates into supporting secession from the Union in 1861. During the Civil War, “John Brown’s Body” became a famous Union marching song. In the aftermath of that conflict, the former Confederate states were dissolved into military districts and placed under the control of the U.S. Army. An exclusively Northern Congress passed the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution which extended full U.S. citizenship and equal protection under the law to former black slaves. For several years thereafter, ignorant blacks controlled the state legislatures of Mississippi and South Carolina, and cooperated with corrupt Northern railroad interests to pillage those states of millions of dollars. The Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, and 1875 gave blacks all the rights they would later acquire under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968. It took almost a decade of terrorism by the Klan to end Reconstruction and another thirty years of struggle by three generations of Southern whites to finally reestablish white supremacy. In my own hometown, whites had to literally shoot and lynch their way to power. Meanwhile, in the North, whites in New England and the Midwest spent the late nineteenth century repealing their anti-miscegenation laws and outlawing segregation in education, housing, and employment. By 1900, this task had largely been completed; around the same time Jews from Eastern and Southern Europe began arriving in the North in significant numbers. Moral: GW is right about the menace of liberalism and Jews not being responsible for everything that is wrong with America. 79
Posted by danielj on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:52 | #
True. But they are certainly the problem right now. Until we rid ourselves of them we will be unable to overturn the real problem - id est: liberalism. What Jew is stupid enough to let us place “real” conservatism back in it’s rightful place as superior philosophy? As easily as I understand that liberalism is the ideological root of our destruction, Jews control the entire spectrum of discourse now. Liberalism is Judaism by definition! Even when Jews are not in direct control their version of history, philosophy, economics, anthropology, et cetera certainly reigns supreme over any and all alternatives. Do we really believe that if we just overthrow liberalism everything will be all right? Of course we do! The problem is arises, I believe, when we realize that the real is question is whether or not our (Jewish - either directly or by ideological proxy) controllers let us do such a thing? All we can hope for is a Bloomberg/Obama ticket, at which point we will never have to listen to Africans and Jews cry “foul” ever again! 80
Posted by Calvin on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:15 | # “GW is right about the menace of liberalism and Jews not being responsible for everything that is wrong with America” We have to evolve from a blame based paradigm to a solution based paradigm. If Jews have made a disproportionate contribution to liberal multiculturalism we have to acknowledge that they have done so for reasons that are just as legitimate as the reasons European nationalists use to justify their beliefs in separate ethno-cultural development. The fact is that liberals have simply been more successful than nationalists. A sensible strategy would involve an emulation of successful methods and a cessation of methods that have been manifestly unsuccessful. I know that people are influenced by events, but anyone who thinks that events will change dramatically enough to cause public opinion to swing behind people who openly admire Hitler and denigrate Jews is kidding themselves on. The adoption of historical symbols of white power is simply a comfort blanket for people who feel powerless in face of violent criminal gangs. It’s really of no consequence to Black and Latino gangsters that white people once had the biggest baddest gang of all time, ethnic minority criminals are not going to desist from targeting whites out of fear that a squadron of Brownshirts are going to march out of a time-machine around the corner. The reflexive naming of the Jew by some elements of the ethnic-nationalist community reminds me of the nauseating modern American habit of parents and children constantly declaring their love for each other (“I love you son, I love you too pop!”, sick bag please!). It seems to me that people often substitute declaration when they are incapable of providing demonstration. People whine on about “the Jews” because they are too lazy to demonstrate by argument why the liberal attitudes that attract Jewish and non-Jewish intellectuals are detrimental to most non-elite native Europeans and too dishonest to admit that liberalism has delivered some things that are of value. Attacking the messenger because you believe the message to be false does not discredit the message; proving the message to be false makes the messenger an irrelevance. When Hitler rose to power he used the methods that were appropriate to his time and situation. Hitler chose a new symbol (the swastika) to represent his nationalistic ideas in order to make a clean break from the previous symbols of nationalism that were associated with an oligarchy and were therefore unattractive to the proletariat. Hitler deliberately included the colour red into his flag to reference pro-proletarian aspects of his ideology and to distance his movement from the government of a hereditary aristocracy. In Hitler’s day the swastika had no negative connotation, in the modern era the swastika has more negative connotations than any other symbol. Hitler used mass demonstrations, banners and oratory to propel his movement, these were the standard methods of his era, Hitler simply looked at the methods of his communist rivals and just did all of these things better. These methods would not work today. Just as the “I love you” dad is more concerned with presenting himself as a good parent than he is with being a good parent, the name calling nationalist is more concerned with shouting his defiance than he is with taking up an effective position on the battlefield. People have to throw away the comfort blanket of Nazism. 81
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:17 | # It is not an either/or issue that some are making it out to be. Both are a problem. Throw in capitalism too for good measure. You can’t attack the Jews without hitting the tar baby that is liberalism. Similarly, you can’t overthrow liberalism without going through the Jews. The two may have different origins, but they have converged into a single destructive nation wrecking force. 83
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:23 | # Daniel, This is how it will go:- 1) We develop media through which the theory and practice of white survivalism can be espoused. 2) We develop strategies to proselytise through student bodies, social movements, political parties (new ones, obviously). 3) We name ourselves as revolutionaries in our cause. We radicalise the people by naming the enemy and naming our friends, creating a national schism and removing from the Traitor Class its moral power and right to suzereignty over us. This is the true path. Other, purely localist approaches will add something to this, but cannot succeed on their own. The power of the enemy is too great. It must be subverted before it can be overcome, and that takes the working of ideas, not metal. 84
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:33 | # Calvin, We can afford to admit that National Socialism delivered some good in the same way that liberalism does. But we can do without both of them, since neither is the sole means of securing such benefit. My definition of Conservatism, quoted from an earlier essay, is: acting from and for what is good in us. The good and Natural, by the way, corollate very highly. Calvin, did you see my earlier suggestion that your voice should be heard from the top of the page here, since Vox Celtica appears to have passed into history. We have room for your point of view, if you are interested. If not, no matter. You are still a welcome commenter. 85
Posted by Calvin on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:50 | # GW, I did see your invitation to blog at MR, that was very kind of you and I sent an e-mail to your site explaining that I don’t consider myself to be smart enough to make a decent contribution to your website, I have to say that I am also deterred by the proliferation of “stupid” anti-Semitism among the commentariat at MR. I have, in fact, resurrected my blog and am attempting to highlight the covert economic impetus behind multiculturalism (follow the money). Any chance of a link? BTW, there is an interesting video expose of the shenanigans of pro-migrant IT corporations that seems to have slipped under your radar. Take as you please! 86
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:33 | # Doubtless, your mail was perceived by the ISP’s filter to be one of the hundreds of solicitations that I receive daily to send my bank details to a respectable gentleman in Nigeria or plaster my male member with medical dressings soaked in plant food. Yes, of course I will put up a link. I would be interested to know what proliferation of “stupid” anti-Semitism you mean. My experience of such matters suggests that the reader’s acquired discomfiture often outweighs the writer’s stupidity, and the best solution is for the former to gain a little more inner freedom. 87
Posted by Calvin on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:35 | # LOL, GW! I have a Nigerian colleague who tells me that it is impossible to book a flight to Nigeria using a credit card because of the extent of fraud in that country. It’s my belief that the liberal establishment try to channel opposition to negative consequences of liberal policies that are essentially social and economic, in ways that encourage people to express their objections in strictly racial terminology. This is a very effective way to discredit opposition to the global corporate oligarchy, indeed there seems to be a cottage industry dedicated to the creation of terms that are in dedicated to creating the implication that opponents of elite policy are acting from personal prejudice and character flaw, hence the rise of the “phobias”, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc. Have you ever noticed that politically minded Jewish people often choose to self –identify by saying, “I’m a Jew”, rather than “I am Jewish”? This encourages non-Jewish people to use terms like, “he’s a Jew” and “the Jews” (stripping Jews of their “peoplehood”/humanity), this instantly sounds more hostile than, “he is Jewish” or “Jewish people”, thus instantly creating a paradigm in which non-Jewish people are suspected of racial animosity. Apologies for this interruption to people who were following the debate BTW. 88
Posted by wjg on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:01 | # GW Says: “1) We develop media through which the theory and practice of white survivalism can be espoused. 2) We develop strategies to proselytise through student bodies, social movements, political parties (new ones, obviously). 3) We name ourselves as revolutionaries in our cause. We radicalise the people by naming the enemy and naming our friends, creating a national schism and removing from the Traitor Class its moral power and right to suzereignty over us. This is the true path. Other, purely localist approaches will add something to this, but cannot succeed on their own. The power of the enemy is too great. It must be subverted before it can be overcome, and that takes the working of ideas, not metal.” This is very well stated GW and it’s a reminder that we need many different flavors of WN to collaborate and to protect each other. The days of the prophet in a trailer in the sticks are over. There is no “only way”. What works in Britain, will not work in America, and will not work in Germany at the tactical level but we need to confederate sufficiently to help each other as makes sense. Even in a single country multiple, parallel approaches are not a bad thing as long as the factions don’t treat each other as enemies and allow the real enemy to triangulate. Forming breakaway countries (like the Northwest Republic concept in America) and fostering a nation within the crumbling American empire are not mutually exclusive. I think diverse approaches are preferred since the enemy is kept off balance. As much as I agree with the VNN focus of the Jew being our primary enemy, the ideological toxin of liberalism will take effort to leech out of our systems. For that we must start with the physical Euro-man but his physical form is not enough. He must “become” an Aryan just as Jews are both born and made. As others have said in this thread we must look forward to new approaches and not force things into an antiquated template. Still, Judah and his schemes against healthy host societies are MUCH older than our struggles with liberalism. Judah constantly adapts new tactics but rarely loses sight of his core objectives. We must as well. I do believe there needs to be a foundational statement of belief that every member in the “umbrella” adheres to but beyond that they are given great leeway in achieving their ends. Maybe the core statement of principle is as basic as David Lane’s 14 Words. Maybe it is more elaborate. Whatever happens we must stay decentralized but not lose sight of our interdependence. 89
Posted by Stanley on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:22 | # GW says, “We develop media through which the theory and practice of white survivalism can be espoused.” This is absolutely true. Just don’t forget that members of the white American peoples speaking as white American peoples about white American issues IS already a revolutionary act at this time, but by no means impossible. The speech could be about diamond lanes, diamond mining, or people named Diamond….the content doesn’t matter so much at this time except as it includes or drives away larger numbers of white American peoples. (Substitute Australian, Canadian, English, French, German, Scottish, Irish, etc., in place of “American” above at will.) 90
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:02 | # Jews are responsible for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment now? That’s a fascinating thesis, but not one that is generally accepted by historians; certainly none that I am aware of. The Iron Law of History is that Jewish influence is always underestimated, because it is always, at least in some degree, hidden. And hidden not only by Jewish intent and instinct but also by the European tendency to focus on ideas rather than agents and “individual” humans rather than human groups. You have found this to be true in your own experience already. As for the particular issue, Israel and Sutcliffe give an account that accords with the biopolitical analysis of MacDonald and D.S. Wilson. The broader issue is, how did we go from medieval corporate catholicism to atomism? I believe Desmond’s comments have some bearing on that question. 91
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:38 | # All the other major elements of early liberalism were likewise socially and historically specific to seventeenth century England…. And you believe it is a coincidence that, right next door, there was a Jewish community trying to gain access to Britain: At the very time when the Jews of Poland were trodden down, slaughtered, or driven through Europe like terrified wild beasts, a land of freedom was opened, from which the Jews had been banished for more than three centuries and a half. England, which the wise queen Elizabeth and the brave Cromwell had raised to be the first power in Europe, a position very different from that of crumbling Poland, again admitted Jews, not indeed through the great portal, yet through the back door. But this admission was so bruited abroad, that it was like a triumph for Judaism. The Jews of Amsterdam and Hamburg looked with longing to this island, to which they were so near, with whose merchants, shipowners, and scholars they were in connection, and which promised wide scope for the exercise of their varied abilities. But settlement there seemed beset with insuperable obstacles. The English episcopal church, which exercised sway over the English conscience, was even more intolerant than the popery which it persecuted, Not grantlng freedom to Catholics and Dissenters, would it tolerate the descendants of those aspersed in the New Testament? The English people, who for centuries had seen no Jew, shared to the full the antipathy of the clergy. 92
Posted by danielj on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:00 | #
- Scimitar Agreed. I thought I kind of implied that…
- wjg Well stated.
I understand ideas are dangerous and that the only way to win requires coherent and powerful ones. (From my website: “However, extracting one’s self from the prison of uncritical thinking and mindless liberalism and replacing that nihilistic ethos with the superior philosophy of racial and conservative spiritualism (or conservative and spiritualized racialism for you non-theists) is the single most important thing one can do.” What I’m kind of wondering is: Don’t you think they will just Ruby Ridge us if we become any sort of threat? There is no such thing as anonymous anything anymore - certainly not a way to safely build an entire movement. Although these aren’t true parallels they are instructive in my (apparently “stupid anti-semitic”) opinion: Commander Rockwell - Son of Vaudeville comedians and a hundred other “leaders” who turn out to be pedophiles, jews and/or freaks. 93
Posted by GT on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:06 | # GW writes: “Other, purely localist approaches will add something to this, but cannot succeed on their own. The power of the enemy is too great. It must be subverted before it can be overcome, and that takes the working of ideas, not metal.” Working metal in microcommunities frees us to disseminate subversive ideas locally, without fear of economic and social retribution. 94
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:31 | # The Iron Law of History is that Jewish influence is always underestimated, because it is always, at least in some degree, hidden. And hidden not only by Jewish intent and instinct but also by the European tendency to focus on ideas rather than agents and “individual” humans rather than human groups. Many were also converts; Cryptos or Conversos. Derbyshire’s Law; “ANYTHING WHATSOEVER said by a Gentile about Jews will be perceived as antisemitic by someone, somewhere.” 95
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:51 | # I hate to interrupt this lovely conversation we are having, but a bit of breaking news warrants doing so. The U.S. Senate just voted 64-35 to invoke cloture on “comprehensive immigration reform.” We lost a key vote. The breakdown of yeas and nays can be found below: http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/06/26/big-cloture-vote-tommorrow/ We still have another good shot at killing this abomination Thursday. Alright, back to Jews, National Socialism, and the origins of liberalism. 96
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:56 | # As for white resistance in Boston to forced busing, that hardly implies that white racial attitudes in Massachusetts were comparable to those of Alabama (by a long shot), or that “segregation” prevailed in New England during the 1970s. If Boston wasn’t segregated, why pass a law, the Racial Imbalance Act, to enforce segregation?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3895/is_200510/ai_n15744788 Interestingly, the Boston Irish were highly suspicious of al outsiders;
97
Posted by Kanard Killa on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:21 | # At the very time when the Jews of Poland were trodden down, slaughtered, or driven through Europe like terrified wild beasts, a land of freedom was opened, from which the Jews had been banished for more than three centuries and a half. It is not true that the Jews have been a persecuted people any time after the Roman sacking of Judea. Historically, Jews moved into the lands of others as predatory colonizers. Any retaliatory maltreatment , always less than that suffered by the host population, has been richly deserved. 98
Posted by PF on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:53 | # Addressing Friedrich Braun:
War is war- there are no rules in such a circumstance. Reduced to an individual level, your implied argument would look like this: Jorg punches John in the face. John responds by smashing Jorg’s head in with a wrench. Jorg says “Why did you smash my head in - I only punched you in the face?” 99
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:08 | # Reader, When I told Linder to take a cue, in part, from Judicial Index, I didn’t imply that Judicial Index is 100% right, but that if Linder wanted to get more people wake up to Zionist malfeasance, then he would be best advised to come up with something like Judicial Index (JI) or “I am the witness” site. I know that JI has problems with spelling, not extensively sourcing evidence and sometimes not distinguishing factual information from what is best described as either highly likely or a reasonable possibility. However, the site offers a lot of good information. I am going to consider some of the points you brought up in reference to the JI pages linked to in your comment.
I am also going to address some of your other claims. Should “I am the witness” site’s (IAW) credibility be questioned because it links to JI? Does linking to a site imply endorsing all of the linked site’s contents? If so, then I believe MR has no credibility either, and why did you even bother leaving a comment? Your link to the “Wolves in Sheep’s clothing” article on Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn at the PC-Apostate site suggests that you are either a Zionist agent or an ignoramus/fool. Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn have been exposing Zionist crimes without espousing anything approaching white supremacism, white nationalism or Nazism. You will learn more about the Holocaust hoax from Eric Hufschmid and more about the people responsible for 9-11 at the IAW site within a short amount of time than you would by extensively perusing the archives/books of David Duke, the mass of genuine/fake Neo-Nazi websites out there and most 9-11 truth websites. Zionists are not going to let Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn easily get away with it. The ridiculous and blatantly absurd PC-Apostate article is one example of Zionist smear; the wiki you pointed out is another such example. Bollyn has already been persecuted for his efforts at exposing the Zionist involvement behind 9-11. The Zionists sent plainclothes police officers after him, who beat and tasered him, and then charged him with aggravated assault and resisting arrest, and he was subsequently convicted of both. Interestingly, almost all “9-11 truthers” ignored Bollyn’s trial and conviction. If you are not a Zionist agent, then I hope you realize that since Zionists do not control the internet, they will attempt the next best thing: set up an extensive number of disinformation websites that extensively link to each other to end up high in Google searches. These websites will, among other things, smear the likes of Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn, who are not merely coming up with “weird conspiracy theories,” but backing up what they are saying with extensive evidence. Daniel J’s attitude, considering everyone with any weight to be a potential Zionist agent, is a healthy skeptical attitude. It should be obvious that Linder is going to much more effectively wake up the public to Zionist malfeasance if he sets up a site like JI or IAW rather than what he has come up with. 100
Posted by TG on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:08 | # [“That’s the thing: if AmRen were set up by jews as a front group, how would it differ from what we see at AmRen today?” From the way I see it, AR is just another PC philosemitic money making operation that has had ZERO impact on reversing the direction our society has headed. Other than JT’s book “Paved With Good Intentions” can anyone name another accomplishment AR has provided? The moderators at the AR web-site must have went through the Simon Wiesenthal center’s tolerance training? They certainly censure anything that even hints of any allegation that Jews are the proximate cause for the ongoing White genocide. AR is becoming as PC as the MSM. 101
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:28 | # “The interesting thing about the Duke case that JI points out is that the alleged victim was offered $2 million early on to drop the charges. “ And this is the point. There is no evidence of such an offer. 102
Posted by danielj on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:41 | # Regarding the Duke Case and Judicial Inc.: I guess the question is whether or not one should believe the source… A bunch of angro Afros with axes to grind… The way the paint the stripper/hooker in this story is as a downright “angel” whilst including the “fact” that black leaders and the stripper all turned down considerable sums of money because they were more concerned with “justice” So, the issue isn’t whether or not he (Mr. Judicial) has sources because he certainly does, but which sources to believe. Just be skeptical of everyone. 103
Posted by jlh on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:46 | # Scimitar writes: “Meanwhile, in the North, whites in New England and the Midwest spent the late nineteenth century repealing their anti-miscegenation laws and outlawing segregation in education, housing, and employment. By 1900, this task had largely been completed; around the same time Jews from Eastern and Southern Europe began arriving in the North in significant numbers.” How does your claim that the work of desegregating and de-Jim Crowifying Northern cities was accomplished by 1900 square with this account of the riots in Rochester in 1964, which I lived through? While readers here may disagree with the point of view of the following link, we can discern that something very remote from desegregation was going on. The facts are that regardless of laws passed, the situation on the ground was that blacks were confined to ghettoes, and most whites liked it that way, even if they gave lip service to liberal ideals. 104
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:51 | # Ben Tillman, So you are telling me that the allegation of the 2 million offer is a complete fabrication? How do you know? Once again, I have faulted JI for not portraying the issue as a possibility but presenting it as fact, but if Jews are involved, an otherwise-wild possibility could very well be true. If I had to bet my money, I’d go with the mainstream conclusion, but cannot discount JI’s stance without better knowledge of the case. 105
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:58 | # “War is war- there are no rules in such a circumstance.” Typical Anglo hypocrisy on display. I would have more sympathy for this position if we didn’t have to endure the spectacle of the Nuremberg kangaroo trials at the end of W.W. II. “Reduced to an individual level, your implied argument would look like this: Jorg punches John in the face. John responds by smashing Jorg’s head in with a wrench. Jorg says “Why did you smash my head in - I only punched you in the face?” Wrong again. The proportionality principle in warfare dates back to at least Saint Thomas Aquinas. http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm I’ll let others judge your utterly vicious stance. 106
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:16 | # J. Richards, I didn’t imply that Judicial Index is 100% right, but that if Linder wanted to get more people wake up to Zionist malfeasance, then he would be best advised to come up with something like Judicial Index (JI) or “I am the witness” site. Obviously, they’ve convinced you. But I don’t think these sites are convincing to people whose critical thinking skills are intact.
I have no problem with people who speculate about possible “Zionist” conspiracies, if that’s where the evidence points. In this case, the real explanation is likely the simpler one: Jefferson did what he is accused of. Likewise, New Orleans blacks are not especially intelligent, and people should not be accused of being Jews for noticing this. In general, people should not be called Jews or “Zionist agents” for failing to get on board with goofy conspiracy theories backed by flimsy, non-existent, or made-up evidence.
Yea, it’s just so easy to mistake Barbra Streisand and Gene Wilder for Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews as a group can be distinguished from whites as a group, but there is overlap between the groups. Yes, and most of the overlap is between jewier-looking whites and whiter-looking Jews. I have never met an Ashkenazi, or even a half-Ashkenazi, who looks like Colin Finnerty or Bill White.
Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn’t make it true. No reputable historical or genealogical source links the family of Jennie Jerome to Jews or to the name Jacobson. It’s up to you and judicial-inc to prove a Jewish link if you think one exists. Copying-and-pasting internet commentary does not suffice.
Hahaha. What evidence? Her parents are involved in real estate, and we all know only Jews can do real estate? That sounds like something that would come from the mind of a Jew. (On another page, judicial-inc claims 95% of Chicago futures traders are Jews.) She was friends with the daughter of “Jew” Robert Kardashian? (Kardashian is Armenian, obviously. Yes, we should be getting all our information on “Zionists” from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a Jew and an Armenian.) Please learn to think. Reade Seligmann/Nifong/Duke rape case: Photoshopping of Seligmann’s nose is not obvious. I didn’t mention the nose, specifically. But, since you noticed it, apparently it is obvious. I’m not sure what to say to the rest or your response on this issue. The fact that you’ve brought up judicial-inc’s repeating an unbelievable claim by the false accuser’s cousin to support your case leaves me speechless. I encourage anyone who wants to know the facts about the Duke lacrosse case to read Durham-in-Wonderland. You can read all about Jakki and Cash Michaels. Also, read the Attorney General’s report. Then decide if you’d rather side with demonstrably innocent white kids who were smeared in the press, or with goofy negro and “anti-zionist” conspiracy theories.
Oh shit, I’ve been made. I did not endorse either of the sites I linked to. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’d rather stay away from the Christian/“Patriot”/“anti-Zionist”/conspiracy theory types all together.
107
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:07 | # Should “I am the witness” site’s (IAW) credibility be questioned because it links to JI? Does linking to a site imply endorsing all of the linked site’s contents? If one credulously links to a page that contains incredible claims, one’s credibility is called into question. And, yes, this extends to you. I will read anything you write more skeptically from now on, and carefully check any sources before accepting anything you write. 108
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:34 | # So you are telling me that the allegation of the 2 million offer is a complete fabrication? How do you know? Like most things, this is hearsay to both of us. I might point to the lack of credibility of the sources. Cash Michaels is a race hustler with no credibility whatsoever. His source, Cousin Jakki, is discredited by the inclusion in her account of details that we know to be false, such as her claims of bruising to the stripper. But more importantly, we know this to be false in the same way that we knew the falsity of the neocons’ insinuations that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11: the allegations make no sense in the context of other things we know about the world. I could write much more here, but I’ll just make a couple wuick points. If the lacrosse players were Jewish, money would hardly be necessary to make the story go away. A couple phone calls from Ol’ Abe at the ADL would have calmed the press down. And, perhaps most obviously, if such an offer had been made, it would have been accepted. 109
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:37 | # “War is war- there are no rules in such a circumstance….” Not necessarily. “I would have more sympathy for this position if we didn’t have to endure the spectacle of the Nuremberg kangaroo trials at the end of W.W. II.” Touché. 110
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:44 | # Reader,
The only thing that I am convinced about is that something along the lines of JI is needed but with more scholarly merit. William Jefferson - Totally irrelevant/meaningless statement:
Straw man:
Even JI wouldn’t call you the above, let alone me for not buying JI’s hypothesis about the Katrina-levee destruction (which I don’t endorse by the way, but would not rule out). Jewish looks - I have known at least six Jews/part-Jewish individuals who are physically passable as Nordic white. Churchill -
Apparently, it suffices that we take your unreferenced comment at face value. I am not a historian and will not be looking up Churchill’s genealogy. JI has made its case; all you have done is mocked it. Paris Hilton - Straw man:
Apart from your absurd portrayal of the points above, JI mentioned other issues such as the Jewish Zsa Zsa Gabor gandma, her attending an exclusive school catering to ultra rich individuals of Jewish heritage, etc. Duke case -
What is obvious is that the person does not have a straight nose; it is not obvious that the hooked nose is due to photoshopping.
I am not buying this claim, but will not rule it out. ————————————-
I never implied that you endorse the sites, but you obviously endorse the core argument of the PC-Apostate article since you linked to it, pasted an excerpt and did not provide any qualifying statements expressing your reservations about its content. Anyone who has sufficiently read/listened to Smith-Hufschmid-Bollyn will know right away that the PC-Apostate article is patent nonsense, obviously intended as smear and there is little doubt which quarters it is coming from. The only site that I do some webmastering at is this site, not any “feminine beauty” site.
MR then has zero credibility from your perspective. Just take a look at the links section (left column).
Why even bother reading it? ——————————— Ben Tillman, The Duke case was all over the news before the ADL could have stopped it if it had wanted to. Besides, in the very remote scenario that the accuser’s story is true, she could have rejected the 2 million offer for justice. 111
Posted by Re: "a reader and J Richards" on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:51 | # What is needed is for an organization (like National Policy Institute) of trained academics to fact-check, reference-check, or properly source the good material out there on Jews and Zionism, and perhaps websites and ancestry of webmasters as well (e.g. JI). (The material thus is vouched for, unlike now where I must run to the libraries and databases to check the sources myself for otherwise I would not believe my eyes at the massive ongoing deception.) This is costly but not difficult. 112
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:14 | # The Duke case was all over the news before the ADL could have stopped it if it had wanted to. Besides, in the very remote scenario that the accuser’s story is true, she could have rejected the 2 million offer for justice. There is no “accuser’s story”. There is a series of stories that necessarily refute one another. And look at your first sentence: “The Duke case was all over the news before the ADL could have stopped it if it had wanted to.”—But if the ADL’s efforts would have been too late, how could $2 million unring the same bell? The argument makes no sense. 113
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:39 | # J. Richards, Totally irrelevant/meaningless statement The “evidence” that Bill White is a “fake nazi” and self-hating Jew that you apparently found convincing includes:
Mocking is more than it deserves. I shouldn’t need to respond to it at all. You are welcome to remain ignorant. Everyone else is welcome to do their own research.
The claims are absurd. Zsa Zsa is not a blood relative of Hilton’s, and not even judicial-inc claims she is. Pay attention. Associating with Jews does not prove one is a Jew. Attending a school founded by a Jew does not prove one is a Jew. Having Norwegian, German, and Irish ancestry does not prove one is a Jew. I never implied that you endorse the sites, but you obviously endorse the core argument of the PC-Apostate article since you linked to it No, that’s not obvious. I posted the links mainly to demonstrate I’m not the first person to have found Smith lacking in credibility. I find it doubtful any of these “patriot”/“anti-zionist” radio hosts are actually backed by “Zionists”. More likely, they’re just fighting over advertising dollars and donations from the gullible.
That’s strange, because your writing style and subject matter are eerily similar. I’m particularly surprised you seem to be implying you’ve never even heard of the site. But, whatever. The webmaster of feminine beauty claims to be nonwhite.
Does not follow. You’re not the only poster here.
Good question. When you stuck to discussing scientific papers, you seemed to have a pretty good grasp of your subject matter. But in your future posts, I may just skip to the references. 114
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:25 | # About small ethnic nationalist communities: Here is sometimes an odd tendency to presume total separation of strategies, like the separation of small communities from the large scale democratic etc. political influence. This is not the case. Small communities participate seamlessly and more efficiently in the large scale politics than individual ethnic nationalists or members of an WN group. If there is a, say, 300 member small community, that lives and works in close proximity, know and trust each other, consider each other to be like kin, then think how efficient it is to coordinate and motivate these people to participating in large scale politics, e.g. resisting immigration. And think how easy it is to coordinate the efforts of all these small communities in large scale politics. 115
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:35 | # What is obvious is that the person does not have a straight nose; it is not obvious that the hooked nose is due to photoshopping. Non-doctored photos of Reade Seligmann: Does that look like a hooked nose to you? Better yet, I found the original that judicial-inc photoshopped: How do you justify this, Richards? 116
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 03:43 | # Judicial-inc also includes a doctored version of another photo of Reade Seligmann toward the bottom of the page. 117
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:02 | # J. Richards, How does doctoring photos of Reade Selgimann assist in fighting Zionism? Do actions like that suggest to you that perhaps the proprietor of judicial-inc is less than sincere in his motives? How does putting out implausible stories that even you claim you “don’t buy” aid the “anti-Zionist” cause? If these stories were actually damaging to Jewish interests, that might be one thing. They’re not. All they do is divert attention from real issues. 118
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:58 | # Alex Linder should go through Hitler’s speeches. It’s a mistake to think that during “the years of struggle” Hitler placed the Jews at the centre of his universe. Had he done so, he would’ve remained a marginal candidate and nothing more. You don’t win broad political support by being a “one-issue” pol. He was far from being monomanical and he always tailored his speeches to his audiences needs and concerns. The Jewish Problem doesn’t even come up that often; he’s more concerned with the consequences Versailles Diktat and the economic and social situation than with anything else. Had he been ranting and raving about Jews at every opportunity his appeal would’ve been limited to the neurotics. 119
Posted by Re: "a reader" and J Richards on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:26 | # Hitler had a complete social program for Germany. The Nuremberg Laws and ridding the nation of traitorous Jews through Palestine emigration were just two simple policies. The real genius of his program lay in less understood areas. (Linder is correct in stating that 1930s German-style National Socialism surpassed “Conservatism” in sophistication, and not vice versa. One gets the impression that GW equates national socialism with spiffily-uniformed Nazis and not more.) 120
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:31 | # More on these fine gentlemen: I HAVE read today your article on the bashing of FM Erhard Milch of the Luftwaffe by a British brigadier that you identify as Brig. Derek Mills-Roberts, DSO, of the Commandos, and I found it abominable that a British general officer would stoop to such outrageously base and cowardly malicious conduct against a captured officer. However, for all my disgust, I am not really surprised that a high-ranking British army officer (or a British soldier, sailor, or airman of any rank, for that matter) should vent his spleen on an invalided German officer. The British are simply that kind of people. I have always maintained that the British in war (or peace if you include instances of football hooliganism) are a particularly vindictive, hateful, and nastily chauvinistic lot motivated less by a sense of professional duty or conviction (unlike the Germans) than by a spiteful hatred and deep malice. The Germans were generally better soldiers, man for man, than their enemies and in the case of the British, the Germans were to be punished and made to pay for having committed the worst of all crimes against the British nation: being the moral, physical, and tactical superior to the British soldier in battle and for having the temerity to inflict physical defeat at both a tactical level and strategic level on the British army. The absolute malicious and murderous intent against German civilians (noncombatants) behind the area-bombing campaign prosecuted by the aptly nicknamed “Butcher” Harris, the persistent unlawful killing of German prisoners of war in the field (especially by members of such units as the Parachute Regiment and the Commandos, be they from the Army, Navy, or Royal Marines), the atrocities committed against German civilians (noncombatants once again) in the invasion of western Germany by members of Montgomery’s 21st Army Group, including the strafing by aircraft of the 2nd Tactical Air Force of German refugee columns composed almost entirely of civilians, mostly women and children (those damned noncombatants yet again), and the list goes on. It is clear to this reader of military history that during the Second World War, the British were not an honourable enemy in fighting against the Germans. Indeed, Britannia’s sons were far too often far less honourable than their more detached and professionally-motivated European enemy, the Germans. It is clear to me at least that German soldiers in the field frequently behaved far more decently and honourably towards defeated enemies than the British ever would. And yet the Germans are slandered and libelled to this day as the villains of the piece, as “war criminals”, and a host of other morally-offensive terms cast in their face when in fact they were frequently the moral superiors to so many of their enemies, east or west, including, it seems, a British brigadier. Victis vae is sadly a fact of life for Germany and the German nation. I am pleased, Mr Irving, for the contributions you have made in your books in trying to set the record straight and to redress this appalling and massive imbalance of opinion against the German people which is based on nothing more than the propaganda of yesteryear, the distortion of historical events by vested interests, and both the overt and covert falsification of history by those same interests. It is certainly my hope that one day the full truth concerning the Second World War will be known and that it gains the widest possible currency. The truth deserves nothing less. 121
Posted by danielj on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:47 | # We are soooo off topic it doesn’t matter. So, here we go just for fun:
Tell that to the Askenazi 122
Posted by Joe on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:55 | # Scimatar, remember that most white people alive in what was the “North” during the Civil War period are descended from Irish people who hated blacks or Germans, Poles, Italians etc. who came later. The Abolitionist movement was almost entirely WASP. Heavy non-WASP immigration, differential birth rates and westward migration of WASPs means that there are not many of these people left in the Northeastern part of the country. So don’t blame white people in the north today for what someone who lived in the same state as them did 150 years, especially when that person’s few descendents probably live in California or have intermarried with Jews. 123
Posted by reader on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:12 | # “[WASPs] . . . have intermarried with Jews.” I’d love to see your source showing WASPs intermarry with Jews at a higher rate than the Irish in the northeast. 124
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:21 | # I’m not blaming or attacking anyone on the basis of their geographic location. I was merely offering a historical analysis. The problem is liberalism. That ideological disease is not exclusive to the American North, or unknown in the American South. It has enveloped the entire Western world. We now have to deal with liberal Yankees, liberal Southerners, liberal Canadians, liberal Australians, liberal Germans, liberal Anglos, and so on. I’m willing to work with likeminded whites, irrespective of their geographical location, who support the extirpation of liberalism and Jewish exclusion. There is already enough ethnic bickering on this thread for my tastes. It was not my intention to contribute to it. 125
Posted by Scimitar on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:41 | #
If you are suggesting that “de facto segregation” existed in the North, as it still does today, then I agree. That’s not the same thing as the “de jure segregation” that existed in the Jim Crow South. Were all white Northerners anti-racists in the 1960s and 1970s? Of course not. It was not my intention to insinuate that. Was racial consciousness weaker in the North than the South during the 1960s and 1970s? Very much so. White Northerners were far more likely in opinion polls to believe that: blacks and whites are equally intelligent, black and white children should attend the same schools, miscegenation is acceptable, public accomodations should be non-discriminatory, etc. I will show you the specific graphs of the polling data once I get them uploaded. Re: the controversy over forced busing in Boston and other Northern cities. Much of the opposition to that was based not so much on racism (i.e., blacks are an inferior race) as it was on the perception that whites were being deprived of their individual liberty. I’m surprised no one has mentioned Wallace’s presidential campaigns. He did very well in the North by opposing forced integration on freedom of association grounds. Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian grounds as well. The American North, legally speaking, was racially integrated by the early twentieth century. Most Northern states had laws that banned segregation in education and public accomodations. Some states even had laws that outlawed the “vilification” of nonwhites in film and the press. In pointing this out, I was attempting to show that whites infected by ideological liberalism are entirely capable of passing stupid anti-racist laws on their own accord, without Jews there to hold the hangman’s noose for them. Hence, my point about liberalism having to go as well. 126
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:11 | # I’m surprised no one has mentioned Wallace’s presidential campaigns. You’re the expert on Wallace; however, it’s wrong to suggest that “freedom of association” is a cop-out. “Freedom of association” and “property” are damn near synonyms of “life”. 127
Posted by PF on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:11 | # Addressing Friedrich Braun:
A nation has to rely on its own strength, or the ties of friendship it has to other nations- not a mewling concept of universal justice—precisely because he who enforces universal justice also interprets it, and interprets it according to his biases—thus it exists really only in theory, like the physicists’ frictionless billiard table. The UN was a test case for this theory, and look how miserably that has always failed. I know you would have more sympathy for this position - your sympathy for this position would be boundless, if only it could have been applied for example to German aggressions elsewhere. Might is Right, where Poland is concerned, or perhaps Russia, but when John Bull drops bombs on Dresden it’s “We never did anything on that scale to you.” So with Britain’s allies it’s “Total War” but with the superpower itself you want a Gentleman’s war- conveniently delusional point of view that is. If truth ever slandered the Germans, Friedrich, you would slap truth and tell her to shut the hell up- I think I understand the spirit of your apologetics very well. I don’t know if you can grasp my position correctly, since I’m not offering an out-and-out defense of either side or supporting for example the firebombing of Dresden. I’m trying to understand history and I find your viewpoint and fervour more distorting than helpful. It is like LindsayWheelers idealization of the Greeks, and likewise distorting. My strategic side would think first of the Germans, honestly.
‘Vicious’? Vicious is life, it’s a jungle out there, my concepts are just meant to mirror reality. 128
Posted by Viridovix on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 19:10 | #
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/06/humans_have_spr.php Liberalism is the $10,000 half of the equation. Libertarianism is the $1,000,000 half of the equation. Jews are only an incidental component inside the overall formula described above. Throughout the Middle Ages, Jews were mostly marginalized with little overall power relative to their European hosts. The common European might however have still found himself preyed upon, worse than what is experienced today, at the hands of his own extended genetic kin. It was only with our childish liberalism and its teenager clone, our libertarian “leave me alone” individuality, that Jews experienced a substantial rise in power among European host populations. 129
Posted by Viridovix on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:43 | # Is a “whites only” egalitarian society possible without social totalitarianism?
130
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:58 | # PF, like his compatriot on VNN “natsocnet”, displays the charms & beauties of the English character: 131
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:49 | # Is a “whites only” egalitarian society possible without social totalitarianism? I don’t really understand your use of “totalitarianism”. Perhaps you could elaborate. Studying small goby fish at Lizard Island on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, Marian Wong and colleagues showed the threat of expulsion from the group acts as a powerful deterrent to keep subordinate fish from challenging those more dominant than they. Or, if they had studied human groups, they might observe that the threat of expulsion from the group acts as a powerful deterrent to keep high-status humans from exploiting low-status humans. Read D.S. Wilson, Christopher Boehm, and Matt Ridley on morality. 132
Posted by Viridovix on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 04:22 | #
State control of public thought and movement is of course completely unacceptable. People want individual freedom of mind and body, but nobody wants anyone else to be free to commit bad behaviour against them unchecked. Liberalism seems very permissive towards bad behaviour. Libertarianism does not guarantee that all members of a society are persons who can be trusted. Neither gives us individual freedom from being overwhelmed by the bad behaviour of organized others. Here we come to a decision branch. What are we living for? From this answer, we have a design proposal for a civilization. What was the answer and the design proposal that followed that gave us the civilization we now live within?
An ideally egalitarian society endeavors to eliminate status or class division. It would however value individual rights to such an extent that the possibility of expulsion from society, for those who behave negatively, is very difficult. We may also find innocent idealists, truly commited to libertarian values, defending a high-status perpetrator. Discussing the rise of outlaw gangs and mafia oligarchs in the very midst of the libertarian ideal may drive us out of the discussion’s scope. Suffice to say that the high probability of collectives forming against public individuals spells the end of independence. Why? The state would repeatedly need to step in with a law enforcement body to protect our free individuals from outlaw bullying. That means conscription, taxation or some other collection from the public “for the common good”, eventually ending our libertarian society. 133
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:54 | # Ben Tillman, You are right, I should have used “accuser’s stories” instead of “accuser’s story.” Aside from this, I don’t see what the confusion is about the rest. You hypothesized the ADL preventing the news media from publicizing the case. The alleged 2 million offer did not have to have come from the ADL. A hypothetical scenario would have been Jewish individuals trying to buy the woman’s silence without ADL involvement, but by the time the ADL could have been brought in, after the woman’s refusal to take the money, it was all over the news. —————————— Reader, Bill White - Once again you are coming up with a straw man of JI’s arguments. Real Nazis are going to believe that blacks have a low IQ, but so will many non-Nazis. Nazis and many non-Nazis alike use the N-word. So how can one infer that Bill White is a fake Nazi or self-hating Jew from your caricature of JI’s argument? JI has a lot to say about Bill White. Churchill: I am pleased to see you finally link to something that the readers can browse to learn about Churchill’s genealogy. Let the reader go over JI’s arguments and your stuff and make his own decision. Paris Hilton - JI does not argue that Norwegian, German or Irish ancestry makes one Jewish. It points out individuals claiming to have these [non-Jewish] ancestries who curiously end up marrying Jews (e.g., Conrad Hilton marrying Zsa Zsa Gabor) and moving in higher Jewish circles, making one suspect that these individuals had at least part-Jewish ancestry. This is the crux of JI’s argument, and it is reasonable. JI does not claim that it has a slam-dunk case about Paris Hilton’s Jewishness, but who wouldn’t suspect it? Is it mere coincidence or merely a function of riches that the Hiltons’ lives are strongly intertwined with Jewish individuals? Duke case - Thank you for pointing out Seligmann’s untouched photos. I have seen so many Jews with horrible noses, that unless someone points out an original photo or the photoshopping is bad, it would not be obvious to me that a nose has been edited to make it look worse. If I were the webmaster of JI, I wouldn’t do this, but whoever is responsible certainly has a sense of humor. The important issue is whether such editing hurt JI’s case. If JI were coming with up faked photos like the Zionists have regarding Nazis, then it would quickly lose credibility, but JI is not manipulating the pictures like the Zionists have. Fakes used by Zionists did an effective job driving up anti-German hatred, and sent many individuals to the gallows. In other words, fakes can be effective. If JI is showing criminal Jews with artificially more pronounced hooked noses—and most whites dislike hooked noses – then it is helping make the argument that their criminality is associated with their Jewishness, which may be what JI is attempting to convey with the site. People will generally not know whether most Jews featured at JI have had their noses edited. JI is obviously not catering to the educated elite. It is going after the general public, which isn’t interested in 15,000 word articles with 200 footnotes. It is not doing a bad job exposing Zionism, though I wish it did it in a better manner. I will try to get in touch with its webmaster with suggestions for improvement. I will personally avoid associating the criminality of Zionists with their Jewishness and encourage others to avoid this association, too, but if someone portrays this association and it has the potential to undermine Zionism, then I will not interfere.
I don’t believe this. You had to know something about Daryl Bradford Smith in order to make sense out of the PC-Apostate article, and should have immediately realized the ludicrousness of it. Given the arguments of Smith, it should be obvious that many would disagree with him. There is no need for anyone to point out one such example.
Hufschmid does not solicit donations. Neither do Smith, Bollyn or JI. I have never encountered advertisements on Simth’s radio show.
Of course it follows. Your comment pertained to linking to other sites/web pages, not posting at MR. The fact that MR links to JI, IAW and other equivalent sites means that its credibility has gone down the drain from your perspective. I wish to address a more important issue. You are discrediting JI over minor points. On major issues such as the Holocaust hoax, the Lavon affair, the USS liberty attack, 9/11, Madrid bombing, etc., JI is spot-on regarding the big picture, namely Zionist involvement. Try discrediting the big picture regarding these topics. For the shortcomings in JI’s arguments with respect to these big issues, it wouldn’t be difficult to point out alternative and more scholarly resources. 134
Posted by danielj on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:15 | #
That should scare you a little bit…. How are they making money? I think anybody with any sort of real internet presence should somehow either account for their funding and/or provide proof of some sort of a career. For instance, Bollyn seems to be rather wealthy for someone that was pounding out articles for AFP. What else has he been involved in that would afford him a house in the affluent sub division he occupies? (sorry we are so off topic GW) 135
Posted by reader on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:35 | # Bill White: So how can one infer that Bill White is a fake Nazi or self-hating Jew from your caricature of JI’s argument? That was not a “caricature of JI’s argument”. That was a direct quote from judicial-inc, which in its original context is counterposed to the “truth” that Zionist gangsters destroyed New Orleans levees. I’m not the one you need to be asking about judicial-inc’s “logic”. A recurrent theme of judicial-inc is Jewish dislike for “schvartzes”. Oddly, this Jewish hatred is often illustrated using the alleged statements of non-Jews (Paris Hilton, Bill White, Duke lacrosse players). Who does this serve? Is the purpose of the site to attack “Zionism” or generate pity for blacks? Illustrating Jewish hypocrisy with regard to blacks (private anti-black sentiment versus public “anti-racist” agitation) might be useful; but this is not what judicial-inc is doing, or even attempting to do.
In reality, Jews will readily claim as Jews anyone for whom there is the slightest evidence of Jewish ancestry. This includes trashy celebrities. Real evidence for Jewish over-representation among the wealthy and influential is easy to come by. Why would you promote a site that spreads absurd disinformation like this? More importantly, why would you try to defend claims like this and waste my time? Are you trying to save face, or are you really this out of touch with reality? No evidence exists that Paris Hilton has Jewish ancestry. Period. Being related to people who marry Jews does not constitute evidence for (nor, in 20th-century America, is it even suggestive of) Jewish ancestry. I’m done talking about Paris Hilton.
What judicial-inc actually did: doctor photos of a non-criminal non-Jew. Justify that. Do you believe there is not enough of evidence of real misdeeds by actual Jews? Do you believe the “anti-Zionist” cause is advanced by smearing a white kid who is a sympathetic figure to anyone who has bothered to obtain the facts on the case (minus radical leftists and blacks)? I would guess that if any of the many thousands of people who have followed the case happen across judicial-inc’s discussion of it, they will be left, at best, with a strong dislike of that particular website, and, at worst, a strong distrust of “anti-Zionists” in general. As I previously implied, I have no moral qualms about lying to or about Jews—if it advances my interests. The lies of judicial-inc are not damaging to Jews. They are only damaging to judicial-inc and the people who embrace it. JI is obviously not catering to the educated elite. It is going after the general public, which isn’t interested in 15,000 word articles with 200 footnotes. It is not doing a bad job exposing Zionism, though I wish it did it in a better manner. I guess you have a very low opinion of the general public. That’s probably warranted. But let’s think this through. Joe Public stumbles upon judicial-inc and is taken in by its sub-supermarket-tabloid-style journalism. JP picks up new “facts” and learns to distrust Jews. JP researches “facts” further, or is disabused of his new “facts” by a more knowledgeable acquaintance, and realizes he’s been lied to. JP now associates “anti-Zionism” with feelings of distrust, or being made to look dumb. What’s to stop JP overshooting in the other direction as he tries to sort out what’s real? Some fraction of the public may be taken in to such a degree they’ll continue to trust judicial-inc even after they’re shown multiple examples of judicial-inc’s deception. These will disproportionately be the people who were already convinced of Jewish perfidy in the first place. What good does judicial-inc do these people? It shifts their attention from actual issues to fantasies about Jews bribing negro strippers and supressing Paris Hilton’s genealogy. It fills their heads with misinformation, which can only degrade their internal models of the world, lowering their ability to think and act effectively. You are exhibit #1.
I don’t care. For the record, what I know about Smith is what I’ve absorbed from seeing his name mentioned on discussion boards a handful of times, coupled with 20 mintues of research a few days ago.
No. It suggests one of the MR webmasters is not very discerning. By itself, a link in the sidebar doesn’t mean much. Your attempting to defend indefensible claims is what puts your credibility in the shitter. Since you don’t speak for other MR authors, your statements don’t reflect on their credibility.
First, let’s address an even more important issue: what is it you are really trying to accomplish? Is “exposing Zionism” your overriding goal? Because it damn sure isn’t mine. What I want is to preserve (genetic) northwestern Europeans, and Europeans in general. Everything else is secondary to these goals. Support for Israel among diaspora Jews is usually a symptom of an ethnocentrism which also manifests in attempts to undermine European interests. So my interests are in conflict with those of “Zionists”. I will expend energy on “exposing Zionists” where it serves my interests. I will not lose sight of the bigger picture.
Why should one trust anything on a site that invents facts and doctors photos? I have little doubt I could point out errors in judicial-inc’s treatment of all these topics; but since you laugh off the Reade Seligmann photoshops, I doubt anything will shake your faith. Anyway, since you acknowledge judicial-inc has “shortcomings”, why not go straight to the “alternative and more scholarly resources”? By the way, what is your ethnic background? 136
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:26 | # To “Finn” and others, “About small ethnic nationalist communities: Here is sometimes an odd tendency to presume total separation of strategies, like the separation of small communities from the large scale democratic etc. political influence. This is not the case.” I agree fully. Small real communities will focus the real tasks like a laser beam. The anti-thesis to living communities is here: http://vnnforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19 “Working” is in the bottom five topics for activity. And much of that desert is populated by the latest twist on speculating in rare metals like silver and gold, apparently to exchange for Jewish paper money at some point. “Tech Solutions”, “Aryan Community”, “Raising White Children” and “Kirksville; Think Global Act Local” are equally unpopulated. Other individual threads at VNNF have more word content than all of those categories put together. These include threads devoted to accused pederast Kevin Alfred Strom and known federal informer Frazier Glen Miller. There is no ‘community’ there. It’s just an anarchic collection of random electrons illuminating phosphor dots. There’s no ‘community’ here either, by the way. Alex Linder’s subsequent need to post a front page appeal for legal assistance AFTER deciding to get himself arrested at Knoxville should surprise no one. Who with enough focus to get a law degree and license would be tempted to join that carnivale? And what are the prospects for recruiting enough attorneys to ensure coverage of every jurisdiction? Gresham’s Law applies to human organizations as well as financial exchange. Instead of doing that spade work Alex tried the ju-jitsu method once again. That is, after trying to force Enemy Media to do his work at Knoxville, Alex tried to attract Enemy Legal Infrastructure (the ACLU) by appealing to a moral sense of ‘fairness’ they don’t have. That is a weak point of ours They exploited. It’s not a weakness of theirs we can exploit. This is the inner meaning of the Jewish wisecrack that ‘consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds.” Maguire 137
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:14 | # Have you seen Linder’s latest stunt? http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=51227 138
Posted by danielj on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:07 | # Jesus! That is the most offensive, insensitive and idiotic letter I have ever read. I had to stop after two paragraphs. What the hell is wrong with him? That is no way to convert anyone to anything. I have posted at MR while slightly intoxicated but I have never posted anything so hateful. While we are on the subject, marching around with other people holding signs and screaming doesn’t make a “community” either - nor is it meaningful action. 139
Posted by Matra on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:57 | # I hope that letter from Linder doesn’t make it beyond WN circles. If it does it will reinforce in the minds of the general (white) public the media image of anyone concerned about the plight of whites. Calvin’s first post on page one of this thread comes to mind. 140
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:52 | # There seems to be a certain mindset that think it must respond to the perceived contemptible with contemptibleness, as if there was some corrective to be achieved thereby. I am completely baffled by it. Perhaps, if Alex returns to this thread, he would explain. 141
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:41 | # GW, “think it must respond to the perceived contemptible with contemptibleness” To quote Fred On Everything Nietzsche… “When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.” Friedrich Nietzsche And that is what the non-Movement does best. It stares into the Judeo abyss until the Abyss stares back through them at all of us. Maguire. 142
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:06 | # A very good letter. I agree with every word of it. I remember AntiYuppie writing something similar (in similar circumstances) on the now defunct O.D. forum. I prefer to see a White woman killed than seeing her race-mixing with subsubhuman man-ape hybrids and producing mongrels. 144
Posted by +++ on Fri, 29 Jun 2007 02:28 | # At the moment, it’s Scimitar’s blog, not Linder’s forum which is circulating the letter to the widest audience for good or ill. 146
Posted by TG on Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:19 | # This so called “good Christian girl” from a “good Christian family” had not one, but two children out of wedlock…with a married negro! What a pathetic loser. I have no pity for the stupid. The permissiveness for unnatural acts of miscegenation shown by the mother speaks volumes about why her slutty daughter was murdered at the hands of a sub-human negro.
1:25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the 1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 147
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:08 | # Daniel J,
JI, IAW, erichufschmid.net and bollyn.com at most attract a few thousand unique users a day and all except bollyn.com publish static pages. It would take less than $15 per month to run sites like these, which even poor people can afford. Bollyn is married to a former professional model, and her earnings could easily account for his house if Bollyn hasn’t been making much money on his own. ———————- Reader, You indeed came up with a caricature of JI’s argument regarding Bill White. To summarize JI’s arguments about Bill White, it mentions 1) the attention he has received from the ADL, SPLC, NY Post, Zionist-controlled newspapers, etc. (Zionists will not be bringing attention upon someone unless they had something to gain from it), 2) his connection to Zionist set-ups such as the Toledo riots, 3) his growing up in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, 4) his attending predominantly Jewish schools, 4) his becoming a slum landlord, 5) his involvement with a woman who turned in the mailing lists of numerous “white supremacist” organizations to the SPLC, 6) his misleading statements on 9/11 and 7) his low opinion of blacks, which was his only take on Katrina rather than a consideration of the mysterious breaking of the levees. JI also puts this in the broader context of fake Nazis such as Fritz Kuhn, Frank Collin, George Rockwell, etc. It is obvious that JI has made a case that Bill White appears to be a fake Nazi, but you ignored the mass of JI’s comments and picked the statement about blacks to come up with a ridiculous caricature.
Who is saying they are trying to hide it? Do you expect Jews to publicize the Jewishness of all Jews in the limelight, especially that of an inadvertent porn star like Paris Hilton? If indeed “Jews will readily claim as Jews anyone for whom there is the slightest evidence of Jewish ancestry,” then there should be plenty of examples of Jews making sure that people understand that Sumner Redstone is Jew Murray Rothstein, right? And I suppose that the Jews are publicizing very well that the Rothschilds are Jewish, too.
Am I trying to make a case for Jewish overrepresentation among the rich and powerful by citing JI or is even JI trying to make this case? Most people already know this. What people are mostly ignorant of is the nature and extent of Zionist criminality. JI is a useful source documenting the latter, and my point is that Linder should take a cue from JI and come up with something along its lines, only better, if he wants to deal with Zionism. JI seems to be making the argument “Jews = bad” by making sure that all misbehaving/criminal well-known Jews or people suspected to be Jewish/part-Jewish are exposed.
LOL! Who is wasting whose time? You have completely ignored the fact that Linder is doing a poor job exposing Zionism and should heed my suggestion in the form of coming up with sites along the lines of JI and IAW, but instead have nitpicked minor issues at the JI site, ignoring the broad picture presented there and repeatedly come up with straw men regarding JI’s arguments.
JI offers a lot of content. It is far from true that JI is often using statements by non-Jews alleged to be Jews/part-Jewish. You can choose to believe that Paris Hilton and Bill White are completely non-Jewish, but JI isn’t just making an empty allegation that these individuals are part Jewish.
Most of JI does not address blacks.
The doctoring is limited to the nose, is along the lines of a joke, and does not amount to doctoring evidence related to the case like the Zionists did to WW2 photos. I do not know whether Seligmann is non-Jewish, but if he is then there is no guarantee that he is a non-criminal.
There is evidence aplenty of Jewish misdeeds, but not in a single place. Something like JI minus its shortcomings is a step in the right direction.
The fools that would end up strongly disliking an extensive website because of errors in an insignificant part of it and distrusting anti-Zionist sites in general because of this deserve to be screwed by Zionists.
Spoken just like a Zionist. I have moral qualms about lies other than white lies.
And these “lies” involve joking about hooked noses or trivial and relatively inconsequential maters such as questionable genealogies of some public figures that are of little concern to the Jewish question.
Go through everything I have posted at MR and see where exactly I have been talking about Jews bribing black strippers and Paris Hilton’s genealogy. Nowhere except recently in response to you picking on trivial stuff at JI. Your statement is nothing but nonsense.
I don’t believe this either.
Really? To quote you, “The apparent connection with judicial-inc immediately calls their credibility into question, as well.” This statement did not follow from any analysis of the contents of IAW by you.
And all these “indefensible” claims happen to be trivial issues presented as straw men by you, not one of which I ever bothered addressing, let alone “defending,” before you decided to mess up this thread. I have already noted that I not betting my money on JI’s portrayal of the Duke case or the Katrina levee destruction.
In reference to your quote, the credibility of MR authors based on what they have posted is not the issue. The issue is, once again, linking to questionable websites.
My goals are the same as that of other MR authors. I don’t obsess over Zionism. Not one of my entries at MR blog have addressed Zionism. It is obvious that “exposing Zionism” isn’t any particular concern of yours.
If you are not a Zionist agent, then you should realize that the road to prosperity for NW and other Europeans passes through Tel Aviv, and in true Israeli fashion, the Zionists are not preventing the Europeans from marching through by setting up barricades; the Zionists are using underground road bombs, which they detonate by remote control and blame on car bombs set up by Arabs.
The “invented” facts are trivial issues, and it is debatable to what extent a number of these trivial issues are outright “inventions.” The doctoring of photos appears limited to manipulating the nose, which is a joke, not Zionist-style WW2 photo doctoring. All reasonable individuals are expected to cross check the claims of JI with other sources, which goes for any sensationalistic claim regardless of where it is encountered.
Then do so. The challenge for you is to destroy the big picture with respect to the big issues, not pick on minutiae. See if you can do it.
Mixed Euro…major element English 148
Posted by reader on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:18 | # If indeed “Jews will readily claim as Jews anyone for whom there is the slightest evidence of Jewish ancestry,” then there should be plenty of examples of Jews making sure that people understand that Sumner Redstone is Jew Murray Rothstein, right? And I suppose that the Jews are publicizing very well that the Rothschilds are Jewish, too. Searching the Forward, we find a story about Sumner Redstone being honored by the UJA; 26 hits for Rothschild, including “Jewish community leader, Lord Rothschild”; and 7 hits for Paris Hilton, none of which, strangely, mentions her bat mitzvah. JI is a useful source documenting the latter, and my point is that Linder should take a cue from JI and come up with something along its lines, only better, if he wants to deal with Zionism. I’d say that, for sane people, VNN is a hell of a lot more convincing than judicial-inc. VNN has it’s share of problems; but its organizing principle, white nationalism, is much sounder than the “anti-Zionist” conspiracist organizing principle of IAW/JIB. Anyway, it’s one thing to promote the JIB format or style. It’s another to defend its content. This discussion has been enlightening, in that you have revealed yourself to be batshit insane and/or completely lacking in judgment. JI seems to be making the argument “Jews = bad” by making sure that all misbehaving/criminal well-known Jews or people suspected to be Jewish/part-Jewish are exposed. You’re taking JIB more seriously than its author does:
Does that sound like a sincere person? Is this someone whose site you should be promoting as “not a bad source”? LOL! Who is wasting whose time? You have completely ignored the fact that Linder is doing a poor job exposing Zionism and should heed my suggestion in the form of coming up with sites along the lines of JI and IAW, but instead have nitpicked minor issues at the JI site, ignoring the broad picture presented there and repeatedly come up with straw men regarding JI’s arguments. Have you asked your cult leader how he feels about Linder? Anyway, “Zionists” are not the problem. Jews are the problem. The issues with JIB are not minor. The errors I’ve pointed out are representative of the type of errors that appear throughout the site. The “anti-racist” ideology I have identified is carried through the entire site. I believe any clear-thinking will have already been convinced of the worthlessness of judicial-inc with the examples in this thread, if not merely by glancing at the site itself. Carlos Porter provides many additional examples of problems with JIB in the following links: Dutroux
Sam Walton is clearly not Jewish. And, incidentally, I’ve seen no evidence Kroenke is Jewish. I could go on, but what’s the point? I’ve already given you several blatant examples of JIB lies, which you dismiss as “straw men”. JI isn’t just making an empty allegation that [Paris Hilton and Bill White] are part Jewish. “Empty allegations” describes these pages perfectly. The doctoring is limited to the nose, is along the lines of a joke, and does not amount to doctoring evidence related to the case like the Zionists did to WW2 photos. When the “case” is that Seligmann is a Jew, doctoring his nose is pretty damned related to the case. I do not know whether Seligmann is non-Jewish, but if he is then there is no guarantee that he is a non-criminal. There is no “guarantee” anyone is “non-criminal”. Normal people don’t go around making up stories and alleging crimes without evidence, and thinking people don’t go around believing or “keeping an open mind” about such stories. Same with Jewish ancestry. Anyone could be part-Jew. But honorable people don’t accuse others of being Jews without good reason. There is no more reason to think Seligmann has Jewish ancestry than there is to think any other given person with a name that can be either German or Jewish and no other signs of Jewish ancestry is a part-Jew. There is less reason to think Seligmann is criminal than there is to think any given college student is criminal, since Seligmann has come under close scrutiny and no criminal activity has been uncovered. The fools that would end up strongly disliking an extensive website because of errors in an insignificant part of it and distrusting anti-Zionist sites in general because of this deserve to be screwed by Zionists. JIB is riddled with errors throughout. You are blind if you don’t see this. I doubt you are stupid, since I don’t recall noticing major deficiencies in your reasoning ability prior to the past couple weeks. So, you must be some combination of mentally ill and totally ignorant of large swathes of relevant knowledge. Spoken just like a Zionist. I have moral qualms about lies other than white lies. Good for you. You want a medal? Are you going for your Universalist Morality merit badge? Do you have moral qualms when you say you’re European, or when you say you’re part Asian? Or is lying about your race a “white lie”? Go through everything I have posted at MR and see where exactly I have been talking about Jews bribing black strippers and Paris Hilton’s genealogy. Nowhere except recently in response to you picking on trivial stuff at JI. Your statement is nothing but nonsense. You have proven in this thread that you can’t seperate fact from fantasy. That’s not a trivial matter. 149
Posted by reader on Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:21 | # I don’t believe this either. And I still don’t give a fuck. But since I consider it rather impolite of you to question my integrity a second time and again imply I am a “Zionist agent” sent here to discredit your cult leader, I’ll take this opportunity to point everyone to http://www.femininebeauty.info. The reader is free decide if the overlap in debating style, subject matter, and illustrations by way of (the same) porn sites between “J Richards” and “Erik Holland” is mere coincidence. “Erik Holland” claims:
Another interesting comment from “Holland”:
Really? To quote you, “The apparent connection with judicial-inc immediately calls their credibility into question, as well.” This statement did not follow from any analysis of the contents of IAW by you. When I visited IAW for the first time, I very quickly sensed that it was connected to judicial-inc. I guess I’m just perceptive like that. It was probably a combination of the reciprocal links, similarities in design, and similar agendas that tipped me off. Anyway, I’m not the first to have noticed the connection: others have pointed out that judicial-inc.biz and iamthewitness.com are both up for renewal February 8, 2008. What a shocking, unexpected coincidence, eh? Anyway, knowing what I know now, I’d say IAW does a perfectly good job of discrediting itself even if we ignore the connection to judicial-inc. Do you believe the Apollo Moon landings were faked? Do you believe we are “Zionists” if we don’t? And all these “indefensible” claims happen to be trivial issues presented as straw men by you, not one of which I ever bothered addressing, let alone “defending,” before you decided to mess up this thread. I have already noted that I not betting my money on JI’s portrayal of the Duke case or the Katrina levee destruction. Sorry, not good enough. You’ve shown you lack judgment. Reality and Skunk’s absurd fabrications are not on equal footing. I would allow you the eccentricity of believing in goofy conspiracy theories yourself if you weren’t also trying to promote these sites in a venue like MR and insisting those who disagree with them are “Zionist agents”. IAW and JIB do nothing to promote European interests, and if anything actively work against them. Daryl Bradford Smiths rants against “white supremacist nitwits”; claims “racists” and “Nazis” are Zionists; says he’s against “Zionists”, not against Jews; and says we should judge people by the “content of their character”. This worldview, which combines anti-racism and paranoid “anti-Zionism”, is clearly not concerned with advancing European interests. This is as good a place as any to note that DBS’s wife is allegedly non-white. DBS “answers” this charge in the mp3 linked above by denying that his wife is “black” and claiming his wife’s skin is “white as driven snow”; interestingly, he doesn’t actually claim she is (racially) white. At the same time, he says he would have no problem marrying a non-white, and claims first to be 1/16 indian, then to have a grandmother who is 1/2 indian (which would make him 1/8 nonwhite). Peter Schaenk discusses Daryl Bradford Smith. Alleged results of a background investigation on Smith:
My goals are the same as that of other MR authors. Name them (your goals). I think GW has made quite clear majorityrights is not monolithic in viewpoint. I don’t obsess over Zionism. Not one of my entries at MR blog have addressed Zionism. The last sentence is true. Which makes your recent behavior all the more striking. If you are not a Zionist agent, then you should realize that the road to prosperity for NW and other Europeans passes through Tel Aviv, and in true Israeli fashion, the Zionists are not preventing the Europeans from marching through by setting up barricades; the Zionists are using underground road bombs, which they detonate by remote control and blame on car bombs set up by Arabs. Pernicious Jewish influence is unquestionably part of the problem. “Zionist” conspiracies, real or imagined, are mostly irrelevant. WTC deaths add up to around 3000. Regardless of who is responsible for the attack, it did not put Europeans on the road to extinction. And, regardless of who is responsible, neither Jews nor Muslims belong in Western nations. You are not going to convince most people the Moon landings were a hoax. You are not going to convince most people Jews did WTC. It wouldn’t matter if these claims were true. Investigating claims like these is orthogonal to European racial preservation. All reasonable individuals are expected to cross check the claims of JI with other sources, Contrast this statement with “I am not a historian and will not be looking up Churchill’s genealogy. JI has made its case”. Clearly, you have no interest in cross checking anything, or you never would have been so impressed with judicial-inc. IAW is a more scholarly resource for many issues covered by JI Ha ha. But for the time being, JI is not a bad source. Are you serious? For instance, IAW has made the obvious argument that Rense.com is part of the Zionist network Why don’t you list for us some of the other people IAW has accused of being “Zionists” or Zionist tools? It’s basically everyone, isn’t it? Smith, Hufschmid, and Bollyn—and true believer “Richards”/“Holland”—against an entire world of Zionists and Zionist lapdogs. 150
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:41 | # Reader, You cited a page mentioning Sumner Redstone being honored by the UJA, but it does not mention that Sumner Redstone is a Jew or that his original name is Murray Rothstein. Is the UJA only going to honor Jews? Most of the 26 pages at forward.com where the Rothschilds are mentioned do not say that they are Jewish. Very few do so directly. This is an example of Jews doing a good job of publicizing the Jewishness of some important figures in the public? Not all part-Jewish individuals go through a bar mitzvah, and if Paris Hilton, assuming she is part Jewish, hasn’t gone through this process, then it will obviously not be mentioned.
Only a Zionist would write the above. VNN promotes extreme racism and foulness. Just look at Linder’s latest letter to the mother of the miscegenating murdered woman, linked above. It is sick. Whom will it convince? If VNN’s content represents white nationalism, then what do you think Joe Public’s view of WNism would be?
The big picture at JI is sound, and I am defending the big picture, namely the vast scope of Zionist malfeasance. I am not defending every detail there, which I have already explained in detail. I have also mentioned numerous shortcomings of JI, which I hope the webmaster improves on. If you believe that I am batshit insane or completely lacking in judgment, then it is time for you to stop debating me. I would never debate a batshit insane person.
You have cited an email message, supposedly by JI’s webmaster, at a website by Carlos Porter. There is no evidence that JI’s webmaster wrote it. No email of JI’s webmaster is provided for me to cross-check whether he wrote it. Even if JI’s webmaster wrote it, it confirms what I have said, that the website does not appear to be oriented toward scholars; it is targeting the general public that is not interested in lengthy, well-footnoted articles. And here is the key that you have not mentioned in your comment.
This confirms, if it is indeed the writing of JI’s webmaster, that he is trying to make the case “Jews = bad” rather than “Zionists = bad.” The last statement is also about the big picture, which is where JI is sound.
I believe that the only problematic Jews are the Zionists, not others. I don’t have anything against Jews in general.
Consider it a challenge to disprove JI regarding the big picture concerning the Holocaust, 9/11, the attack on USS Liberty and other IMPORTANT issues. Unless you can do so, your statement is just empty. The links to Carlos Porter’s site are pages that address trivial issues, too. Unless you or Porter can show that JI is wrong about IMPORTANT issues in reference to Zionist criminality, I will consider JI to be good enough for the general public not interested in scholarly arguments, which describes most people.
If JI is promoting an anti-racist ideology, then I am glad. Nothing like Linder-style racist commentary to scare the white sheeple away. In the event you haven’t realized it, MR does not promote racism. The preservation of European ethnic genetic interests and Western culture does not require us to prove that non-whites are “inferior” or argue that they should be discriminated against. There are some areas where whites enjoy an advantage, and documenting this advantage to make the case that there is some value to Euro preservation apart from doing so because it is our own is not racism, though it will be seen as “racist” by some, and this is the only type of “racism” you will encounter from MR bloggers.
The straw men are not JI’s arguments. The straw men are your portrayals of JI’s arguments. For instance, compare your portrayal of JI’s argument about Bill White to my summary of JI’s argument.
The case against Seligmann had nothing whatsoever to do with his nose, and doctoring Seligmann’s nose therefore does not amount to doctoring facts related to the case (once again, think of Zionist-style WW2 photo doctoring).
The statement did not pertain to just about any kind of criminality that Seligmann may have been guilty of, but specifically to the outlandish allegation that was the Duke case.
Another reason for you to stop debating me. I would not debate an insane or very ignorant person.
Where have I said that I am part Asian?
I see nothing other than very superficial similarity regarding some of the contents. This Holland guy’s arguments are not racial and he cannot even get himself to use the word race or acknowledge it. I am amused you believe that I am him. I am not the only person with access to scientific sources and porn sites or the capability of writing in scientific style. Anyway, thank you for the link; I found a new source of pictures of beautiful white women…will come in handy.
Once again, you pick on a minor issue, not related to Zionist criminality, to discredit IAW. The Apollo moon landings never occurred. NASA has recently exposed its own lie. The USA couldn’t send man to the moon today; forget about decades ago. Your second question is a straw man. Smith and Hufschmid note that fake [Zionist] “9/11 truthers” avoid exposing the Apollo moon landing hoax, not that those who disagree about this hoax are Zionists. IAW even has a screen capture of Rense.com very briefly exposing the Apollo moon landing hoax, but the link at Rense.com didn’t last long; somebody was upset and ordered it taken down.
A load of crap! Undermining Zionism is the single most important thing one could do to advance European interests.
When many “white supremacists” are in reality Ashkenazis out to give those of us wanting to preserve Euro people and culture a bad name and associate Euro preservationism with criminality and racism, ranting against them is justified. I certainly don’t have a problem with Smith being against Zionists, not Jews…this is my attitude, too, and to my knowledge no MR blogger despises Jews in general. I also believe that people should be judged on the content of their character rather than race, and I am positive that other MR authors agree with me on this.
MR is not monolithic, no doubt, but the discussion is within the broad context of the genetic and cultural preservation of whites, which is what my goal is.
It shouldn’t be striking at all. All I did was to suggest that Linder should improve his presentation and provided him examples of sites that he should take a cue from. Then a Zionist agent came along with all sorts of straw men and absurdities to dicredit these more effective sites, and debating him is what makes my recent behavior “striking.”
What a load of crap! The Zionists are the problem, including for non-Zionist Jews. When people well-versed with Zionist criminality reach a critical mass and go after the Zionists, many non-Zionist Jews will unfortunately suffer, too.
The Zionists are not out to make Euro man extinct. They want to lord it over Euros with no possibility of Euro resistance…this requires weakening Euro man. Engineering 9/11 was geared toward this purpose. Firstly, the Zionists would be able to kill a lot of Muslims after blaming 9/11 on them , making Israel safer. Secondly, Zionists would acquire control of many Middle Eastern oil reserves. America is a major financial lender to Israel and Israel gets America to do its dirty jobs, but if America collapses economically, then Israel would be in dire straits. The Zionists have caused the U.S. government to rack up so much debt that it has no possibility of paying it off and its creditors will not lend it money unless it can secure the loans. The Zionists need control over Middle Eastern oil, in part, for the American government—actually ZOG—to secure its loans. Zionist attempts to control Eastern European oil have been failures so far, and they desperately need control of Middle Eastern oil. They simply had to engineer 9/11.
I agree that Jews and Muslims should be living outside the West.
Wait and see. Exposing these issues is directly relevant to Euro racial preservation. The utility of exposing Zionist orchestration of 9/11 is obvious. Exposing the Apollo moon landing hoax will help make people question what the government has been telling them. Casting the seed of doubt will make people more receptive to evaluating evidence documenting a variety of ZOG crimes and cover-ups.
If JI says that the Holocaust never happened and I never came across this argument before, you bet I am going to cross check this claim and any other sensationlistic claim I encounter there. However, I am not wasting my time cross-checking issues of little importance such as Churchill’s genealogy.
Read IAW. You have left little doubt that you are a Zionist agent. You pick on trivial issues mentioned at JI while ignoring all the important ones, shift blame away from Zionists, attempt to discredit Daryl Bradford Smith and me by claiming that he and I are non-white, that Smith has an extensive criminal record and is married to a non-white (how are his arguments undermined even if he is?), that he and I have an “anti-racist” agenda and are thereby not in favor of Euro preservationism…all the stuff that one would expect from a Zionist agent…trying to foment discord. It is just not going to work. Get lost, but before you go let me tell you something. Zionism is on a sinking ship. The Zionists lost Russia decades before the internet. What chance do you people stand now? 151
Posted by reader on Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:10 | # I picked the Forward as one example of a Jewish publication. If you want to know what information circulates to the broader public, type “Sumner Redstone” or “Rothschild” into Google. You will find that—big surprise—their Jewishness is not a secret. Not all part-Jewish individuals go through a bar mitzvah, and if Paris Hilton, assuming she is part Jewish, hasn’t gone through this process, then it will obviously not be mentioned. To spell it out for you: none of the hits for “Paris Hilton” in the Forward so much as hint she is a Jew. Are you by any chance autistic? Only a Zionist would write the above. VNN promotes extreme racism and foulness. Of course. Zionists promote VNN. Zionists live in fear the Apollo Moon landings will be exposed as a hoax. Just look at Linder’s latest letter . . . Except Linder didn’t write it. If VNN’s content represents white nationalism, then what do you think Joe Public’s view of WNism would be? Portrayals of white nationalists on television and in newspapers skew negative anyway; at worst, elements of VNN may live up to the TV/newspaper image. “Racists” will continue to be demonized in the mainstream media with or without VNN. The big picture at JI is sound, and I am defending the big picture, namely the vast scope of Zionist malfeasance. I am not defending every detail there, which I have already explained in detail. The “big picture” is made up of details. If the details are wrong, or fabricated, the picture changes. Consider it a challenge to disprove JI regarding the big picture concerning the Holocaust, 9/11, the attack on USS Liberty and other IMPORTANT issues. Unless you can do so, your statement is just empty. No. My statement is meaningful. Every page at judicial-inc I have examined in detail contains multiple errors; many pages contain outright inventions of fact. On the off chance Skunk gets a topic right, his page on the subject will still be useless, since I will still need to thoroughly check each fact against reputable sources. I would rather go to reputable sources to start with than waste my time. The preservation of European ethnic genetic interests and Western culture does not require us to prove that non-whites are “inferior” or argue that they should be discriminated against. Agreed that “superior/inferior” is irrelevant, but the second part of your claim is curious. Europeans don’t need to “discriminate” against non-whites as mates or neighbors or immigrants (or, in your case apparently, parents) in order to preserve European EGI? . . . and this is the only type of “racism” you will encounter from MR bloggers. Since when did “MR bloggers” authorize you to speak for them? Another reason for you to stop debating me. I would not debate an insane or very ignorant person. This mostly stopped being for your benefit after your initial “Zionist agent” episode. Anyway, rather than calling you insane, perhaps you would be better likened to an adult religious convert (i.e., cult member). You’re clearly operating on faith, not reason. When did you have this epiphany about Zionists? This Holland guy’s . . . Haha. Nice distancing language there. Once again, you pick on a minor issue, not related to Zionist criminality, to discredit IAW. The Apollo moon landings never occurred. NASA has recently exposed its own lie. The USA couldn’t send man to the moon today; forget about decades ago. OMG. It’s worse than you think. I found these pics of the Moon that are supposed to be taken from space. But there are no stars! Obviously NASA can’t even reach Earth orbit. Plus the idiots at NASA who faked these pics forgot to photoshop the stars in. NASA has no explanation for this. Undermining Zionism is the single most important thing one could do to advance European interests. Nope. It’s not. Remove Jews from Western nations and they can subscribe to whatever ideology they want. When many “white supremacists” are in reality Ashkenazis out to give those of us wanting to preserve Euro people and culture a bad name and associate Euro preservationism with criminality and racism, ranting against them is justified. “Many” “white supremacists” are Ashkenazis? No. I certainly don’t have a problem with Smith being against Zionists, not Jews…this is my attitude, too, and to my knowledge no MR blogger despises Jews in general. Yeah, it’s all Theodor Herzl’s fault. Prior to the late-19th century, Jews lived in perfect harmony with Europeans. And Noam Chomsky—there’s a friend of the white man if I’ve ever seen one. Zionism is a poltical ideology. The real issues are biological in nature. It shouldn’t be striking at all. What’s striking is that you’ve become a full-fledged initiate in the IAW cult, right down to believing America never went to the Moon. For someone who previously gave at least the superficial appearance of rational thought, this is surprising. I agree that Jews and Muslims should be living outside the West. Does that include the “non-Zionist Jews”? Also, am I sensing some “discrimination” here? attempt to discredit Daryl Bradford Smith and me by claiming that he and I are non-white Incorrect. I reported your own respective claims of non-white ancestry. that Smith has an extensive criminal record and is married to a non-white (how are his arguments undermined even if he is?), that he and I have an “anti-racist” agenda and are thereby not in favor of Euro preservationism.. His arguments undermine themselves. As for the rest: hmmm . . . yeah I can totally see how someone could have a non-white wife while being in favor of Euro preservationism and showing it by ranting againt “racists”. Also, this sounds pretty “anti-racist” to me:
all the stuff that one would expect from a Zionist agent Absolutely. Claiming differences between Jews and Europeans go beyond politics—exactly what a Zionist agent would do. Claiming Americans actually landed on the Moon—ditto. Who would believe stupid Goyim could achieve something like that? Get lost, but before you go let me tell you something. Zionism is on a sinking ship. The Zionists lost Russia decades before the internet. What chance do you people stand now? Your bold declaration has shaken me to my Zionist agent core. But, seriously, assuming you’re white, I hope your IAW-convert fervor eventually wears off and you are able to channel your energies into productive pursuits. 152
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 01:48 | # Reader,
I never asserted that the Jewishness of these individuals is secret. My assertion was that the Jews are not eagerly publicizing the Jewishness of these big names. Your own link to Sumner Redstone does not mention his original name or his Jewishness.
No need to repeat it. The forward is not the arbiter of who is and who isn’t Jewish or part Jewish.
Stupid straw man.
When it was first posted, Linder didn’t add the disclaimer that he received the letter in the mail. He is nevertheless promoting it. Makes little difference to most people who stumble across it; they would be sickened. And VNN is what you call a more effective site than JI!
And these media are under Zionist control. Zionists set up these fake Nazis/racists and then promote their fake sickness in their media.
The big picture is the vast scope of Zionist criminality. The shortcomings of JI do not undermine it. There are alternative sources making the same broad arguments, but they are not in one place. You have yet to show wrong or fabricated details in regard to any of the big issues such as 9/11 or the USS Liberty attack such that the crux of the argument is undermined.
JI is obviously not meant for fact checkers and people looking for scholarly references. It does an effective job for the people that it is targeting.
Discrimination applies to issues such as jobs, legal representation and other matters pertaining to equality before the law, not matters such as choosing a spouse or matters pertaining to freedom of association. If race is irrelevant, then employers are not supposed to take it into account. However, nothing says that people should not discriminate against who they marry. You again bring in a stupid straw man.
How am I speaking on their behalf? I am describing the contents of the blog entries. Go through them and see for yourself.
The pictures that matter are those taken from the surface of a planet/satellite with no atmosphere, not your two examples from space with a bright light source in a half or third of the picture. NASA and you have not addressed the vast majority of issues pointed here and here to make NASA’s claims credible.
Jews cannot be removed from Western nations unless Zionism is undermined. Besides, even if all Jews lived in Israel and had the same power as they today presently, the goyim would still suffer.
The foul ones publicized by the Zionists often are.
More stupidity.
Genetic engineering to take care of this “biological nature” is not a feasability now or anytime in the near future. Exposing Zionist crimes is the obvious way to go.
No one capable of rational thought and after having examined the evidence would buy into NASA claims about the moon landing or fail to see Zionism as a problem.
A claim that I have made nowhere.
Yours, not Smith’s undermine themselves.
Your claim about his non-white wife is hearsay. Even if it is true, people don’t control whom they fall in love with, and there is no reason why a white person couldn’t desire Euro preservation even if he has ended up with a non-white. Smith is not claiming to be a Euro preservationist or that he is opposed to the notion. Smith’s focus is on Zionist criminality, which he does an excellent job exposing.
I have already told you this site is not promoting racism.
There is no discrimination here. The Zionists are a problem, the Zionists are Jews and many Jews are Zionists, but one cannot readily tell who is and who isn’t a Zionist. Therefore, Zionism needs to be undermined and the entire Jewish community should preferably live outside the West.
The typical Zionist agent would not be foolish enough to give himself away easily, but you are not a particularly bright one. A zionist agent is going to espouse plenty of truth to establish rapport and then mislead.
This has nothing to do with being a Zionist agent. Just get lost. You and other criminal Zionists will not succeed, just lose. 153
Posted by reader on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:04 | # When it was first posted, Linder didn’t add the disclaimer that he received the letter in the mail. Incorrect. It originally appeared in a thread the title of which stated he had received the letter in the mail.
Damn right. Even if VNN is totally unsuccessful at what its trying to do (which hasn’t been demonstrated), at least its working toward the correct goals (unlike JIB/IAW).
No. These media are under heavy Jewish influence.
And you know this because DBS and Eric Hufschmid tell you this.
And, again, it’s pointless to start examining these issues, when (1) the site has already been discredited, and (2) you refuse to acknowledge the salience of blatant errors I’ve already pointed out to you.
Spoken like a true liberal. Real freedom of association must extend to housing, schooling, and employment.
And there’s an atmosphere in space? The sun is not a “bright light source” in the Moon landing photos? I find it hilarious that Hufschmid manages to use both the lack of visible stars and the fact that the Sun doesn’t wash out the photos as evidence the landings were faked. If you’re not following here, Erik, why don’t you go look up “exposure” as it relates to photography.
Who the fuck said anything about “genetic engineering”? The point is that tribal conflict goes deeper than just politics or culture. You would seem to prefer to ignore biology and obsess over a 19th-century political movement. Again, this is extremely odd considering your posting history prior to the last few weeks.
If by “capable of rational thought” you mean “easily duped by Hufschmid”, then sure.
You’re fooling no one, Erik. You claimed to be part Asian.
Forget about the alleged non-white wife for a moment. Find me some quotes from DBS stating “Euro preservation” is his central goal. Or even stating he views “Euro preservation” as legitimate.
Then why are you promoting him as a prophet on a site concerned with “genetic and cultural preservation of whites”?
Because racism is bad, mm’kay.
So the problem with Jews has nothing to do with EGI or the long history of anti-European Jewish tribalism. Jews are undesirable only to the degree they are potential “Zionists”. Great thinking, Erik.
Haha. If I’m “not bright”, what does that make you? You’ve shown yourself my inferior in reasoning ability and in every area of knowledge we’ve discussed (except maybe knowledge of received IAW dogma, which I quickly “remedied” with a few trips to the site). You claimed you were not “Erik Holland”, and lied so badly you confirmed the opposite. Keep telling yourself I’m a “not a particularly bright Zionist agent”. The truth should be obvious to any objective observer. 154
Posted by reader on Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:17 | # A final point on the Moon photos (which is obvious to me, but might not be to a confused soul like Erik): even when the Sun doesn’t directly appear in the photos, bright sunlight is reflecting off the spacesuits and the lunar surface. If you tried to capture both the stars and brightly-lit objects in the foreground, you’d get washed-out photos. 155
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:44 | # Reader,
Scimitar did not notice it at first and neither did Daniel J, Matra and Guessedworker. The addition may have been a while after the intial posting, and this is again a useless issue to be debating. Nothing will be gained by promoting the foulness in the letter. My own article on miscegenation will any day be much more effective.
This can only be written by a Zionist agent. Is exposing Zionism not working toward the right goal? VNN was set up about 5 years before IAW and has a lot more pages than IAW, yet IAW appears to be attracting greater traffic. IAW and VNN share the major goal of exposing Zionist criminality, but VNN could hardly hope to achieve what IAW has and will in the future.
And the Jews happen to be Zionists. This should be obvious. Notwithstanding their IQ advantage, there are so relatively few Ashkenazi in the U.S. that the number of whites with an IQ high enough to manage big media is absolutely much higher. Zionism explains why the MSM are almost totally under Zionist control.
No. I know this after going over the evidence for fake Nazis. DBS and Hufschmid are not the only people who have exposed Zionists setting up fake Nazis. Frank Weltner of Jewwatch has exposed fake Nazis set up by Zionists for a long time.
It is not pointless to examine the serious issues but the reality is that you cannot refute the gist of JI’s arguments about these big issues and hence have resorted to “discrediting” the site by picking on largely useless stuff, which is not going to work to dissuade the target audience of JI: the general public with a short attention span, aversion to scholarly arguments and a penchant for tabloid-style journalism. I have also extensively addressed the “salience” of the “blatant errors” you pointed out.
Spoken like a true Zionist. Even in an all-white society there will be potential issues such as discrimination on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, political ideology, religious denomination, etc. It is unfair for the majority to be tyrannized by a minority and a minority should be protected from the tyranny of the majority, too. Working out the nuances of how best to simultaneously balance freedom of association and prevent discrimination requires thinking beyond “I have the right to exclude others but others cannot exclude me,” but you Zionists are not expected to get this.
There is no atmosphere in space, but both your pictures were taken by satellites close to Earth’s surface and you can see light reflected from the Earth as a major bright light source occupying a substantial portion of the pictures. From the surface of a planet with no atmosphere, the sun is not a bright light source, as this rendering from NASA shows, and the Moon does a poor job at reflecting sunlight.
Hufschmid has offered a huge number of reasons to support his argument, just a few of which are: the technical impossibility of the project given 1960s engineering technology, the incapability of the Lunar module supposedly carrying the astronauts to have carried out its job, an astronaut easily deforming a pressurized space suit, astronauts largely avoiding the media and being nervous/stressed when facing the media after their “return” instead of being jubilant, a “bright sun” lighting up part of the surface but not a neighboring region, NASA recently using the Hubble telescope to look at ultraviolet light reflected from the moon in order to determine what types of minerals are on the surface of the moon (should have been assessed by the 400 kg of Moon rocks the Apollo astronauts “brought” with them), NASA planning on crashing (not landing) a probe on the moon in 2008 to determine if there is water there, NASA claiming to find Moon rocks in Antarctica, the moon having an albedo of 0.07 (a very poor reflector of sunlight), etc.
You claimed the real issues are of a biological nature. How does one take care of the biology aside from genetic engineering? My point was that exposing Zionist criminality is the way to go since the biological nature of Zionists cannot be changed. If removing Jews from the West is the solution, then this cannot be done unless Zionism is undermined, which requires exposing it to start with. Zionism may have recent formal origins, but the Zionist mindset is not new. It is found in the Old Testament and the Talmud.
Someone does not have to be an avowed Euro preservationist in order to be promoted by this site.
Because he is doing an excellent job at undermining Zionism, the single most important thing one could do to promote the genetic and cultural preservation of whites.
Anti-European tribalism is part of the Zionist ideology and one manifestation of this is the flooding of the U.S. with non-whites (K. MacDonald has documented this extensively), which has greatly undermined white American EGI.
I have shown myself to be an incompetent admin by letting an obvious Zionist agent attempt to mislead the reader and waste my time, of which I have so little to spare that it has taken me this long to respond. You have employed an arsenal of filthy techniques: straw men, character assassination rather than addressing someone’s arguments, attempted to foment discord, shifted the discussion to trivial issues such as the genealogy of Paris Hilton and off-topic issues such as the Apollo moon landings, etc. I am going to cut it short. Bring in more straw men, repeat that I am non-white, fail to address me by my proper name (JR), digress to off-topic issues or focus on trivialities, and you are outta here along with your comment. The Zionist ship is sinking and there is nothing you can do about it. The one thing you can do is to give up your criminality and repent. Otherwise, an eternity in Hell awaits you. Repent and perhaps you will go to Hell for a period commensurate with your sins. 156
Posted by a saddened observer on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:25 | # GW: what price expediency now? Something to consider when you wish to be honest about the blog. Oh, yes, a disclosure: I’m a zionist agent, a nasty Mossad infiltrator. And, no, I’m not “reader”, who is - obviously - not a “zionist agent”, for godssakes. 157
Posted by Carlos W. Porter on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:17 | # “You have cited an email message, supposedly by JI’s webmaster, at a website by Carlos Porter. There is no evidence that JI’s webmaster wrote it.” Skunkie’s writing style is usually very easy to spot because he is dyslexic, even if the crazy chronology, and the wild, weird and illogical nature of his writing, devoid of references or proof, do not tip you off. Post a comment:
Next entry: Postcivil Society: Drug Resistant Staph 10 Times More Prevalent Than “Thought”
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 23 Jun 2007 23:45 | #
In America, conservatism =
. . . but as you say, substance, not words, is what ultimately matters. I’m afraid the term “conservatism” is lost on this side of the Atlantic, at least for several generations. The “conservative movement” over here is currently imploding before our eyes. Millions of people who feel cheated are dropping out of it.