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.

The political change required to address the crisis in the West lies on the scale of the revolutionary.

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,

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:-

We are in a period of considerable social change. There will be unrest, but we can cope with the Toxteths … but if we have a highly educated and idle population we may possibly anticipate more serious conflict. People must be educated once more to know their place.

Department of Education official in a leaked secret report, 1983

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:-

By conservative, of course, I mean: acting from and for what is good in us. Its political partner is Conservatism with a capital “C”. In my odd little meaning, that’s not only the name of a British political party ... but of an alternative zeitgeist that should allow us to live as we must - as stable, self-loving, free and loyal European peoples sovereign in our lands. As I understand it here, Conservatism ... is the singular political expression of our particular nature.

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 08:26 PM in Political Philosophy
Comments (158) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Posted by Scimitar on June 23, 2007, 10:45 PM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 24, 2007, 02:54 AM | #

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 24, 2007, 11:12 AM | #

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.

Posted by Red Baron on June 24, 2007, 03:18 PM | #

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..

Posted by Alex Linder on June 24, 2007, 04:28 PM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 24, 2007, 04:31 PM | #

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.

Posted by Burrhus on June 24, 2007, 10:00 PM | #

“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
“I believe that Hitler’s historical reputation needs to be rehabilitated before we can move forward because the iconic evil image of Hitler has been linked to both German 3rd Reich racialism and to National Socialism as a political philosophy. This demonization of racialism and National Socialism by extension from Hitler has led by further extension to the demonization of Nationalism per se. This is the crux of the matter.

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...”

Post #198
“While I agree that obsessing on Hitler and the 3rd Reich is not beneficial that is not what I am advocating for here which is a rational rehabilitation of the historical narrative with respect to Hitler, the 3rd Reich and National Socialism. What I want is for them to be portrayed honestly to the view of the general public.

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
“White people who hope to prevent the extinction of the white race and the disappearance of the sovereign nations of Western Civiliazation are doomed to failure as long as they continue to believe that by disavowing Hitler they can avoid having the false historical representation of him as an evil man used as weapon against them.

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
“If I understand you correctly here, you are saying that people without sufficient background knowledge about Hitler and the holocaust would find themselves bested in debates with the true believers. That is probably true and would be ill advised. But that is not what I have been advocating for here. I am not even trying to convince people that Hitler was “good” (a very complicated word) or that the holocaust story is false (which I believe it to be).

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.”

Posted by Guessedworker on June 24, 2007, 10:12 PM | #

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 24, 2007, 10:35 PM | #

And he came down in favor of the jews. I can only chuckle.

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 24, 2007, 11:00 PM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 24, 2007, 11:20 PM | #

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
- utter demonization of conservatives as cowards, cooptees, losers and all-around fake opposition

- 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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 24, 2007, 11:23 PM | #

Apologies for omitted words.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 12:22 AM | #

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.

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:

“The Red Shirts of South Carolina were the supporters of Wade Hampton in the South Carolina gubernatorial election of 1876 and the gubernatorial election of 1878. They came to symbolize a revived Southern Nationalism and the redemption of the state from Radical Republican rule during Reconstruction. . . . Donning a red shirt was a source of pride for the white community of South Carolina. The women worked zealously to weave red flannel shirts and other garments of red; it even became fashionable for women to wear red ribbons in their hair or about their waists. For young men, to wear a red shirt was to come of age and compensate for their inability to contribute to the Southern cause of the Civil War.

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 25, 2007, 12:23 AM | #

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?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 25, 2007, 12:27 AM | #

Off-Topic:

Sorry for the interruption. This being the current top post, it seems the place to put my note.

I recently swapped out my ancient monitor for an LCD monitor. It likes to display at its native resolution (1440 x 900 or thereabouts) and at this size my straining eyes just can’t make out MR at its favored font sizes. The trouble is, MR instantly goes all pear-shaped the moment one messes with Firefox’s font sizes. Just open MR in FF and click CTRL and + or - to see what I mean.

Site authors are no doubt busy folks but I suggest a bit of testing on this matter.

Posted by PF on June 25, 2007, 12:33 AM | #

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.

Posted by PF on June 25, 2007, 12:48 AM | #

Scimitar- what a strong post about the American south! I never knew that stuff, or rather knew it only faintly. Thanks!

Posted by danielj on June 25, 2007, 12:53 AM | #

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

During the early twentieth century, the international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans.

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?

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 01:11 AM | #

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.

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.”

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.

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.

The enemy has power. This power is exercised through the government, the academy, and the 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.”

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.

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 01:13 AM | #

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?

Sure. There were Jews who supported eugenics before WW2, especially in Germany. The international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans though until the 1930s.

Posted by danielj on June 25, 2007, 01:39 AM | #

Sure. There were Jews who supported eugenics before WW2, especially in Germany. The international eugenics movement was dominated by Americans though until the 1930s.

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 02:03 AM | #

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.

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 02:08 AM | #

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?

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 02:12 AM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 02:15 AM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 02:19 AM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 02:40 AM | #

Yes, many of them do believe these things. They use the phrases put in their mouths.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 02:45 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.

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 03:05 AM | #

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.

Posted by Alex Linder on June 25, 2007, 03:08 AM | #

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 04:03 AM | #

Yes, many of them do believe these things. They use the phrases put in their mouths.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That liberalism is a mile wide and 1/4” deep.

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 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.

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.

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?

Yes, I do. Didn’t you see what happened in Knoxville?

Shooting commie jews and throwing them in canals helped too.

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.

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.

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 04:05 AM | #

Liberalism is to HIV what the Jews are to AIDS.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 04:23 AM | #

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.

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

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 04:37 AM | #

Liberalism affects a minority of Whites, unfortunately many of these are elites.

What is your definition of liberalism?

Liberalism in the hands of whites is not genocidal, but in the hands of the jews who direct it now, it is.

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]
Outlawed racial discrimination. Penalty: Criminal prosecution and damages

Illinois 1896: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited school officers from excluding children from public schools on the basis of color. Penalty: $5 to $100.

Pennsylvania 1881: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Unlawful for any teacher or school administrator to discriminate against students based on race or color.

Massachusetts 1865: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
Discrimination in any inn, public place of amusement, public carrier, or public meeting prohibited. Penalty: Fine up to $50

Ohio 1887: Barred miscegenation and school segregation [Statute]
Repealed separate school law of 1878 and 1877 law that banned intermarriage.

Washington 1887: Barred anti-miscegenation [Statute]
Repealed anti-miscegenation law.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 25, 2007, 05:05 AM | #

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.

Most basically, National Socialism aimed at developing a cohesive group. There was an emphasis on the inculcation of selfless behavior and within-group altruism combined with outgroup hostility ( MacDonald 1988a, 298-300). These anti-individualist tendencies can be seen in the Hitler Youth movement ( Koch 1976; Rempel 1989). After 1936, membership was compulsory for children after their tenth birthday. A primary emphasis was to mold children to accept a group strategy of within-group altruism combined with hostility and aggression toward outgroups, particularly Jews. Children were taught an ideology of nationalism, the organic unity of the state, blind faith in Hitler, and antiSemitism. Physical courage, fighting skills, and a warlike mentality were encouraged, but the most important aspect of education was group loyalty: “Faithfulness and loyalty irrespective of the consequences were an article of faith shared among wide sections of Germany’s youth” ( Koch 1976, 119).

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.

The mutual hostilities between Jews and gentiles in the ancient world involved the “normal” mutual animosity between groups with differing interests ( Parkes 1976, 5; Ruether 1974). As expected in individualist societies, anti-Semitic violence in the ancient world was sporadic and decentralized, resulting from particular situations in particular areas. With the advent of the Christian church, however, antiSemitism became based on a powerful, emotionally compelling ideology and was institutionalized in an organization that aspired to and often possessed a great deal of political power. I propose that the Christian church in late antiquity was in its very essence the embodiment of a powerful anti-Semitic movement that arose because of gentile concern with resource and reproductive competition with Jews.

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 25, 2007, 05:59 AM | #

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 06:29 AM | #

The Northern racial status quo was segregation. The forced bussing in Boston in 1974 met with violent white protest.

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).

Posted by danielj on June 25, 2007, 10:06 AM | #

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....)

Posted by J Richards on June 25, 2007, 11:08 AM | #

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 11:13 AM | #

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....)

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.

Posted by PF on June 25, 2007, 11:25 AM | #

The elite’s pronouncements from on high, and the response from the laity are two different things?!

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 25, 2007, 11:43 AM | #

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:

“Man is the most composite of all creatures.... Well, as in the old burning of the Temple at Corinth, by the melting and intermixture of silver and gold and other metals a new compound more precious than any, called Corinthian brass, was formed; so in this continent,--asylum of all nations,--the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, and Cossacks, and all the European tribes,--of the Africans, and of the Polynesians,--will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting-pot of the Dark Ages, or that which earlier emerged from the Pelasgic and Etruscan barbarism.”

Emerson the racialist:

“It cannot be maintained by any candid person that the African race have ever occupied or do promise ever to occupy any very high place in the human family . . . The Irish cannot; the American Indian cannot; the Chinese cannot. Before the energy of the Caucasian race all other races have quailed and done obeisance.”

“I believe that nobody now regards the maxim “that all men are created equal,” as any thing more than a convenient hypothesis or an extravagant declamation . . . for the reverse is true, - that all men are born unequal . . . The least knowledge of the natural history of man adds another important particular to these: namely, of what class of men he belongs to - European, Moor, Tartar, African? Because Nature has plainly assigned different degrees of intellect to these different races, and the barriers between are insurmountable.”

Posted by PF on June 25, 2007, 12:03 PM | #

Linder wrote:

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.

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.
I’m pretty sure Hitler didn’t have these luxuries. I suppose he tried to make up for them with Kadavergehorsam and red-hot passion. How could he give such speeches if he wasnt himself in the grip of a convulsion of nationalist feeling? And how can one think clearly if one is so emotionally driven? “We have to win, if we give everything, we have to win. Win or die.”

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?!”

Posted by Guessedworker on June 25, 2007, 12:21 PM | #

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.

Posted by PF on June 25, 2007, 12:58 PM | #

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.

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?”

Posted by danielj on June 25, 2007, 04:40 PM | #

I don’t hate Northerners at all

I know. This medium is horrible for me.

Don’t get the wrong impression. I wasn’t trying to stir up hatred of Northerners above.

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.

My point was simply that whites enamored with liberalism are entirely capable of inflicting no small amount of damage upon their own civilization.

Noted.

Posted by Maguire on June 25, 2007, 04:54 PM | #

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
white ‘nation-states’ of the 18th - 20th Centuries have outlived their usefulness to the white race. Do we now owe these mutated entities more loyalty than the alien white-hating Jew ever accorded them when they were truly ours?

“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
it has to be able to surmount the challenges that lie directly ahead. Here in North America these challenges will include defeating the coming Mestizo drug lord attempt to establish open sovereignty using the foot soldiers of Mestizo gangs like MS-13. These number in the hundreds of thousands already. The Americans here can forget their precious NRA gunrack ornaments. The drug lords have/are/will arm these people with military grade weaponry.

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

Posted by ben tillman on June 25, 2007, 04:59 PM | #

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.

Posted by jlh on June 25, 2007, 05:39 PM | #

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.

Posted by jlh on June 25, 2007, 06:41 PM | #

an addendum to the post above: In a draft that was eaten, I addressed my comments to Scim/Daed.

Posted by GT on June 25, 2007, 07:02 PM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 25, 2007, 07:08 PM | #

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.

Posted by a Finn on June 25, 2007, 08:00 PM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 25, 2007, 08:01 PM | #

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.

Of the successors of the Tibbons, Jacob Anatoli (1238) was the first to translate any portion of Averroes into any language. Averroes was an Arab thinker of supreme importance in the Middle Ages, for through his writings Europe was acquainted with Aristotle. Renan asserts that all the early students of Averroes were Jews. Anatoli, a son-in-law of Samuel Ibn Tibbon, was invited by Emperor Frederick II to leave Provence and settle in Naples. To allow Anatoli full leisure for making translations, Frederick granted him an annual income. Anatoli was a friend of the Christian Michael Scot, and the latter made Latin renderings from the former’s Hebrew translations. In this way Christian Europe was made familiar with Aristotle as interpreted by Averroes (Ibn Roshd). Much later, the Jew Abraham de Balmes (1523) translated Averroes directly from Arabic into Latin. In the early part of the fourteenth century, Kalonymos, the son of Kalonymos, of Aries (born 1287), translated various works into Latin.

From the thirteenth century onwards, Jews were industrious translators of all the important masterpieces of scientific and philosophical literature. Their zeal included the works of the Greek astronomers and mathematicians, Ptolemy, Euclid, Archimedes, and many others. Alfonso X commissioned several Jews to co-operate with the royal secretaries in making new renderings of older Arabic works on astronomy. Long before this, in 959, the monk Nicholas joined the Jew Chasdai in translating Dioscorides. Most of the Jewish translators were, however, not Spaniards, but Provençals and Italians. It is to them that we owe the Hebrew translations of Galen and Hippocrates, on which Latin versions were based.

The preceding details, mere drops from an ocean of similar facts, show that the Jews were the mediators between Mohammedan and Christian learning in the Middle Ages. According to Lecky, “the Jews were the chief interpreters to Western Europe of Arabian learning.” When it is remembered that Arabian learning for a long time included the Greek, it will be seen that Lecky ascribes to Jewish translators a role of the first importance in the history of science. Roger Bacon (1214-1294) had long before said a similar thing: “Michael Scot claimed the merit of numerous translations. But it is certain that a Jew labored at them more than he did. And so with the rest.”

http://www.authorama.com/chapters-on-jewish-literature-14.html

Posted by danielj on June 25, 2007, 09:00 PM | #

- To Maguire and GT

This:

That is one reason why the construction of micro communities 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.

This is exactly where I am ideologically. Thanks again for those links Maguire. I’ll return the favor:

.50 Cal Rifle Construction

Posted by reader on June 25, 2007, 09:52 PM | #

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.
In reality, Bill White shows no physical signs of Jewish ancestry, and the evidence for his jewishness judicial-inc adduces is weak, to say the least. Calling non-Jews Jews benefits no one, except perhaps Jews (by discrediting “anti-Semites” and confusing the public about what Jews typically look like).

Winston Churchill’s mother, Jennie Jerome is really a Jewess named Jacobson.
Truth: Jennie Jerome is known to descend from a Huguenot Jerome ancestor. She has no known Jewish (or Amerindian, for that matter) ancestry. These facts are not changed by the claims of an Israeli newspaper columnist (whose “source” is in all likelihood an earlier era’s judicial-inc-style spreader of misinformation).

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.
Truth: media attention came before any specific players were indicted. Media attention was overwhelmingly against the players. Reade attended a Catholic school. I wouldn’t be shocked to find out he has distant Jewish ancestry, but, on the other hand, I’ve seen no evidence of this. He could just as easily be entirely German or German/Irish.
Colin Finnerty is obviously not Jewish.
Based on the appearance of his parents, I’d also say Evans has zero Jewish ancestry, though he apparently got the shit genes, appearance-wise.

judicial-inc also attributes the Nifong disbarment to “the wrath of Zionism”. Enough said.

That’s just from the few pages I looked at today. 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.

Posted by Andy Wooster on June 25, 2007, 11:21 PM | #

“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.

Posted by danielj on June 26, 2007, 12:03 AM | #

Does anyone actually know the webmaster?

It must be a foreigner of some stripe or an Arab?

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 12:54 AM | #

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.

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
Southern Nays - 97

Northern Yeas - 283
Northern Nays - 33

Senate

Southern Yeas - 1
Southern Nays - 21

Northern Yeas - 72
Northern Nays - 6

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 01:00 AM | #

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.

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.”

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 01:02 AM | #

If liberalism causes Jews, what caused liberalism?

Reaction to the Scientific Revolution, discovery of the New World, the Thirty Years War, and English Civil War.

Posted by reader on June 26, 2007, 01:11 AM | #

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:

In addition to the recent revelations by Christopher Bollyn that Eric Huffschmidt is Jewish and related to ultra-Zionist neo-con Rupert Murdoch by marriage, that Bollyn himself lived in a communist enclave in Israel and was married to a woman whom he claimed was working for Israeli intelligence, we now have an additional piece of the puzzle indicating that the entire ‘I Am the Witness’ operation is an intel-op designed to sow dissention within the anti-Zionist movement and to lead people’s energies and resources off into a direction where they pose no threat to the overall agenda.

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 01:17 AM | #

“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”.

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.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on June 26, 2007, 02:10 AM | #

First, get your German quotations straight: “Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?”

Second, you’re [mis]quoting Goebbels and not Hitler:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm

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:
Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.101
But the “great decision,” the “splendid decision” of May 11, 1940, which was ultimately to cost the lives of millions, including thousands of Mr. Spaight’s own countrymen, was to have an even more grisly sequel, for, according to Sir Charles Snow who had charge of selecting scientific personnel for war research in Great Britain in World War II, F. A. Lindemann, a Cabinet member and confidant of Churchill, produced in early 1942 a remarkable Cabinet paper on the subject of the strategic bombing of Germany:
It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs ...102
One wonders if it was the cultivated humanitarianism inherent in this decision to assure the death of more working class Germans per bomb which entitled the Allies, and in particular the British, to sit in moral judgment on German leaders at Nuremberg in 1946!
99. J. M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated (London: Geoffrey Bles, Ltd., 1944) and Sir Arthur Harris, bomber Offensive (London: Collins, 1947).
100. F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (Apppleton: C. C. Nelson Publishing Company, 1953), p. 122.
101. Spaight, op. cit., p. 7.
102. C. P. Snow, Science and Government (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 48.

Letter to PBS on fraudulent ‘documentary’ about the ‘Blitz’

Dr. A.R. WESSERLE
16 March 1981
PBS Television “The Blitz”

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.

In addition:

“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

Posted by danielj on June 26, 2007, 02:21 AM | #

After today, I’m fairly sure judicial-inc is run by someone connected to Daryl Bradford Smith, if not Smith himself.

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

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 26, 2007, 02:58 AM | #

Scimitar, I don’t want my font size at 16. If I did, MR would be just fine.

Another thing that would be nice is images that use placeholders, so they show up as little boxes when I’m browsing with images turned off (as is usually the case). Then I could view them via the context menu (and “enter the word I see below” without having to turn images on and reload the page).

Posted by reader on June 26, 2007, 03:06 AM | #

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/

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 03:21 AM | #

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?

Posted by a Finn on June 26, 2007, 03:32 AM | #

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.

* * * 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.

Posted by Al Ross on June 26, 2007, 03:37 AM | #

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

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 03:38 AM | #

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.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (February 24, 1463 -November 17, 1494) was an Italian Renaissance philosopher.[1] He was celebrated for the events of 1486, when at the age of twenty-three, he proposed to defend 900 theses on religion, philosophy, natural philosophy and magic against all comers, for which he wrote the famous Oration on the Dignity of Man which has been called the “Manifesto of the Renaissance”,[2] and a key text of Renaissance humanism.

Pico was influenced by Elia del Medigo, a Jewish Averroist.

He is remembered for a number of translations, commentaries on Averroes (Ibn Rushd in Arabic) (notably a commentary on Averroes’ Substantia Orbis in 1485), for his influence on many Italian philosophers of the early Renaissance (especially Pico della Mirandola but also other Platonists of the Florentine Academy), and for his for his treatise on Jewish philosophy, Sefer Bechinat Ha-dath (Investigation of Religion), published many years after his death.

Del Medigo had a traditional religious upbringing in Candia, demonstrating considerable breadth. In addition to rabbinic learning, he studied philosophy, and had a good knowledge of Arabic and of Greek, as well as Latin and Hebrew. It is likely that he also studied medicine, and it may have been with that intention that he originally went to Padua, whose University was the most important center for traditional Aristotelian philosophy in Italy. By 1480, he was in Venice, where he wrote Quaestio utrum mundus sit effectus, and supported himself by giving classes in Aristotelian philosophy for the sons of wealthy and important families.

Posted by a Finn on June 26, 2007, 03:45 AM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 03:48 AM | #

Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s

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

Posted by Colin Laney on June 26, 2007, 04:09 AM | #

The Three Faces of the Modern Moloch: Liberalism, Judaism, Nihilism

by Michael O’Meara

Historically, liberalism was the ideology of the
rising bourgeoisie. The liberal revolutions of the
late 18th century and the concomitant industrial
revolution, both reflective of the bourgeois ethos,
made the market, with its “reign of quantity,”
dominant in much of the “Atlantic World.” In time,
the entire white West was drawn into its snare.
By the 1880s, in a period when Nietzsche had
diagnosed the spiritual crisis that came with
liberalism as a condition of “nihilism,” it was,
however, no longer simply homegrown capitalists who
were responsible for perpetuating its subversions.
Another agent — an alien one qualitatively more
deracinated, materialist, and predatory than native
white capitalists, especially in its orientation to
the financial rather than the productive side of
capitalism — had entered the scene.

The great 19th-century rebellion against the
nihilistic social forms associated with the
bourgeoisie and the Jews — against what Germans at
the time called “Judeoliberalismus” — took the form
of nationalism and socialism. The merger of these
two movements — beginning first in France in the
1890s and then soon thereafter in the German-speaking
lands, when elements from the revolutionary
anti-liberal wing of the labor movement joined forces
with elements from the revolutionary anti-liberal wing
of the nationalist right — would pose the most
consequential opposition to the modern Moloch. (See
Karlheinz Weissmann, Der Nationale Sozialismus:
Ideologie und Bewegung 1890-1933 [Munich, 1998]) It
was, accordingly, only in 1945 (some might say 1989) ,
when this counter-nihilistic movement was crushed,
that the Judeo-liberal forces were able to established
their unchallenged hegemony.

The following short excerpt from “La Fin du
Nihilisme,” written in a period when Hitler’s New
Order held out the prospect of a resurgence of
European life, ought to be of interest to VNN readers,
for it offers a view of our history that has been
largely purged from contemporary thought. — M.O.

La Fin du Nihilism: The French Revolution of 1789 was
the product of two converging, but fundamentally
different currents. The first, arising from the
people, was already present in the struggle of the
medieval communes, in the Albigensian resistance to
the Roman Church, in the peasant uprisings of the late
Middle Ages, and in certain facets of the Religious
Wars. The second current emerged from the materialist
and mercantile demands of the 18th century bourgeoisie
and the demagoguery of its Parliaments.

This second current, that of the merchant class, had
been cut off from the people for at least 150 years.
Its ideology was brought to France from England by
Montesquieu, Voltaire, and the Masonic Lodges and gave
voice to the dynamic, transformative character of
rising capitalism. Initially, liberalism demanded
only the abolition of antiquated economic statutes and
the reform of state institutions, demands made for the
sake of free trade and property rights. In time, it
called for freeing the bourgeoisie, the creators of
wealth, from all forms of aristocratic and monarchical
political domination. These demands were framed in
universalist terms that reflected not only the
egalitarian but the globalist pretensions of England’s
wealthy classes, particularly those of its Jews.
Previously, all the countries of the world had denied
the Jews citizenship. It was the French Revolution
that emancipated them and permitted them to play a
political role. For behind liberalism there lurked
Judaism.

Spurred by its ideologues, the Revolution of 1789
didn’t stop at imposing organizational forms native to
French popular tradition. The second current
prevailed. The revolutionary liberals endeavored thus
to create a universal democracy, a League of Nations
avant la lettre, based on . . . the “natural equality”
of all men and races. The result would be one of
confusion and disorder, for a liberty and an equality
indifferent to human and racial differences could not
but affront the laws of nature.

In its service to the new bourgeois plutocracy,
liberalism ushered in the age of money. Its principle
of free trade thus subordinated men to blind, amoral,
uncontrollable economic forces. Its monetary powers
subjugated small nations to powerful, wealthy ones.
Its liberty detached men from society, desocializing
man and dissolving society. And on the ruins of the
ancient sovereign states it destroyed, it gave pride
of place to the International Banker. . .

Amidst the anarchy this fostered, power became the
occult force of a small, coherent minority. The Jews
alone were able to benefit from this world delivered
over to the rule of money. Political power became
thus their supreme instrument, world domination their
avowed goal, wealth and venality their means of
success. Race, Disraeli said in 1880, is the key to
history. Eternally persecuted, but animated and
united by blood ties like no other race, even though
it is not a race, Israel derives from this persecution
its pride and will. “Antisemitism continues to grow,”
Theodore Herzl writes, “because its sources continue
to exist and will never be suppressed. . .” All the
problems posed by liberalism’s evolution since 1789 –
the reign of gold, the decomposition of democracy, the
preeminence of the financial powers, the emasculation
of the Western spirit — all, in the deepest sense,
are attributable to the prevalence of the Jews.

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 05:10 AM | #

All of which post date the Jewish influenced Italian Renaissance.

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 by Elia del Medigo, a Jewish Averroist.

Pico was influenced more by Plato and Hermes Trismegistus than anyone else.

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 05:46 AM | #

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.

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

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?

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 05:54 AM | #

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

“Mirandola belonged to the brilliant circle around the Medici court on Florence which included another famous philosopher, Marsilio Ficino. Ficino and Pico were founders and propagators of the movement loosely known as Renaissance Neoplatonism. This movement was stimulated by the works of Plato and the Neoplatonists newly revealed to the West through the Greek manuscripts brought to Florence from Byzantium after the fall of Constantinople. …Prominent among the texts of this type which attracted Pico and Ficino was the Corpus Hermeticum, … Ficino does not use Cabala or Cabalistic methods in his Neoplatonic theology, philosophy, or magic. It was Pico who introduced Cabala into the Renaissance synthesis. And, like Ramon Lull, it was as a Christian that Pico valued Cabala. He believed that the Hebrew texts and teachings could enlarge understanding of Christianity through their revelation of a current of Hebrew mysticism of such great antiquity and sanctity. More that, Pico believed that Cabala could confirm the truth of Christianity. In this belief he was followed by the many schools of Christian Cabalists who were to succeed him, who all looked back to Pico della Mirandola as the founder or first great exponent of Christian Cabala”. (The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, Yates, pp. 17-18)

[...]

...he (Pico) was a profound philosopher and historian-interpreter of philosophy who, equally at home in Italian, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, was able to incorporate many sources and forms of thought into his own work in a highly original way. He took the best western and eastern traditions of European philosophy that focused on the transcendent idea of being (esse) and combined them with biblical hermeneutics (of the Latin and Greek Church Fathers) and with the Jewish cabala. He examined the three Platonic ways to the transcendent, divine ideas: the way of mystical love, the way of music and the way of philosophy, and, enriched by post-Platonic philosophers, such as Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustin, Origen, Moses Maimonides, and Thomas Aquinas, produced a correlative system of realist metaphysics centred on the main idea of being. Moreover, he managed to prove how the three Platonic ways to the divine idea of being (the ways most clearly described in Platos Phaedrus and Plotinus Ennead I) meet the fourth way—the way of the cabala, by which he understands the Jewish mystical and intellectual traditions of reading and interpreting the Bible, a way unbelievably bountiful and creative, limited, however, to the Hebrew language. Pico collaborated with eminent Jewish philosophers such as Elia del Medigo, Flavius Mithridates, Leo Hebraeus and Johanon Alemanno, so as to produce in the end, and in his own way, a Christian cabala.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 05:57 AM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 06:25 AM | #

Boston against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s;

During the fall of 1974 shocking images of racial bigotry and violence emerged from Boston, that graceful, cosmopolitan city known for the excellence of its educational, cultural, and scientific institutions, a city once called “the Athens of America.” As court-ordered desegregation of the public schools began, entailing entensive crosstown busing of both black and white pupils, racial conflict that had been escalating for over a decade overflowed into streets and schools.

In 1974 the tough, mostly Irish, working-class neighborhood of South Boston became as much a symbol of white racism as Selma, Alabama had been in 1964. Wild, raging mobs of white men and women confronted armies of police, while youths in their teens and younger hurled rocks, bottles, and racial epithets at buses carrying terrified black youngsters to school. Clashes with police erupted frequently and schools in other white neighborhoods became armed camps. The violence continued, arising alternately from whites and blacks, engulfing the innocent as well as the engaged: a black man stalked and beaten with hockey sticks; a white student carried out of Hyde Park High with a knife wound, then another stabbed by a black at South Boston High; a white man dragged from his car and beaten to death; a black lawyer beaten on the steps of City Hall by young white protesters and struck with the staff of an American flag used as a spear. Some observers, recalling a dramatic outburst of Southern opposition to desegregation in 1957, now called Boston “the Little Rock of the North.”

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 08:37 AM | #

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.

Posted by danielj on June 26, 2007, 10:52 AM | #

Moral: GW is right about the menace of liberalism and Jews not being responsible for everything that is wrong with America.

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!

Posted by Calvin on June 26, 2007, 11:15 AM | #

“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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 11:17 AM | #

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.

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 11:23 AM | #

Addendum: see George Soros.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 26, 2007, 11:23 AM | #

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 26, 2007, 11:33 AM | #

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.

Posted by Calvin on June 26, 2007, 11:50 AM | #

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!

http://voxceltica.blogspot.com/

Posted by Guessedworker on June 26, 2007, 12:33 PM | #

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.

Posted by Calvin on June 26, 2007, 01:35 PM | #

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.

Posted by wjg on June 26, 2007, 02:01 PM | #

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.

Posted by Stanley on June 26, 2007, 03:22 PM | #

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.)

Posted by ben tillman on June 26, 2007, 04:02 PM | #

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.

Posted by ben tillman on June 26, 2007, 04:38 PM | #

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.

http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzD.rtf

Posted by danielj on June 26, 2007, 05:00 PM | #

but they have converged into a single destructive nation wrecking force.
- Scimitar
Agreed. I thought I kind of implied that…

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”.
- wjg
Well stated.

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. - GW

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:

Kosher Nazi

Commander Rockwell - Son of Vaudeville comedians

Frank Collin/Cohen

and a hundred other “leaders” who turn out to be pedophiles, jews and/or freaks.

Posted by GT on June 26, 2007, 05:06 PM | #

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.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 05:31 PM | #

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.”

Posted by Scimitar on June 26, 2007, 05:51 PM | #

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/
http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/06/26/amnesty-cloture-vote-list-64-35/

We still have another good shot at killing this abomination Thursday. Alright, back to Jews, National Socialism, and the origins of liberalism.

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 26, 2007, 05:56 PM | #

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?

Following the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts took legislative action, recognizing that segregation in housing had restricted certain racial and ethnic groups, including African-Americans and Latinos, to neighborhoods whose schools were inferior to schools in predominately white communities. In 1965, Massachusetts Gov. John A. Volpe proposed and the state Legislature approved the Racial Imbalance Act, which prohibited racial imbalance and discouraged schools from having enrollments that are more than 50 percent minority. The state Board of Education required written desegregation plans from school committees in segregated cities, including Boston, Springfield and New Bedford.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3895/is_200510/ai_n15744788

Interestingly, the Boston Irish were highly suspicious of al outsiders;

In toting up what ROAR did not do, it is important to note also that it eschewed right-wing extremists of the lunatic fringe who rushed to Boston in the fall of 1974 to capitalize on turmoil. These included a selfstyled “Imperial Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan who had no discernible following and similar ragtag elements of the American Nazi Party who entered South Boston peddling antiblack and anti-Semitic poison. The Wizard, David Duke (now a Louisiana state representative), who during the 1970s seemed always assured of media coverage despite police reports that he represented hardly anyone, walked the streets of Southie one September day, visiting bars and accosting whoever would listen. Most adults were wary and he failed to get a hall for a meeting, but younger persons got excited and by nightfall an impromptu rally of five to six hundred gathered at Dorchester Heights. There were lots of beer bottles and the garbage man gave the mostly young crowd what it wanted: unrestrained racist rhetoric. After the mob was fired up, many went off to the high school to skirmish with police. But when the Klansmen tried gathering in recruits at $3 a head the crowd’s enthusiasm dampened, and it quickly dwindled.

Stripped of all the “nigger” baiting, the Klansman’s message to Southie was that it needed to organize, not pursue violence. One Southie kid commented: “I think the guy is obviously a nut, but we don’t have nothin’ else. I guess we’ll try it his way. We need organization.” Southie was in fact already organized, so the Klan left Boston having contributed but a momentary titillation to Boston’s agony. In contrast to the Klan, the Nazis were run out of town. South Bostonians actually demonstrated against the Nazis, and when the latter tried to open a storefront in Southie, it was picketed and soon closed. 5

The ultra-right, paranoid John Birch Society, however, did better at attracting antibusers, some of whom turned to it for its simplistic explanation of how communist conspirators in high places were at the root of racial trouble. The Birchers made scattered converts throughout the city, but they too ran into resistance. In Charlestown a faction of Powder Keg leaders acquired a Birch film from a Boston policeman and showed it to an antibusing meeting in January 1975, but most of those present reacted with horror. Some, ironically, thought it must be a “communist film.” Most Charlestown antibusers simply recoiled from such rabid hate mongering. 6

The Boston Irish tradition had always harbored xenophobic, ethnocentric, and antiliberal strains. Even when the Boston Irish were giving big electoral majorities to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and toasting the rogue progressivism of James Michael Curley, part of whose appeal was a Robin Hood image of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, some still inclined to intolerance and reaction. In 1936 the isolationist, right-wing Liberty party, which equated the New Deal with communism, had run stronger in Boston than any other city, perhaps because its vice presidential candidate was a local Irish Democrat who had been district attorney for Suffolk County.

Posted by Kanard Killa on June 26, 2007, 06:21 PM | #

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.

Posted by PF on June 26, 2007, 06:53 PM | #

Addressing Friedrich Braun:

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.

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?”
A fight is a fight. One isn’t obliged to respond in kind once attacked.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: (not needed for preview)

Next entry: The Lady of Knoxville

Previous entry: Computer Generated Graphics to Replace 20 Million Hispanics!

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa