Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:31 | #

I went to the movie with high expectations.  I was really excited.

Afterwards, I was sick to my stomach.

What started it was the advertisement for The Tudors on Showtime and five-six movie trailers.  European culture is dead!  After watching the disgusting immoral and narcissistic trailers, I was fully disheartened.

The movie was not much better.  I closed/shielded my eyes for over 10% of the movie.  The depiction of the ephors was really really really disgusting and revolting.  First the ephors had nothing to do with religion, they weren’t the religion, and they had nothing to do with the Oracle. 

This love of abnormality may be of the East but not of the Spartans or of the West.  The movie was totally nillistic and amoral.  The Spartans never never went into battle without the permission of the Gods. before every battle, there was a sacrifices to determine it.

The movie was totally unhistorical.  The Spartans never impaled anybody aka Assyrians.  The Spartans never stacked or desecrated bodies, The Spartans never killed wounded men! 

What was wrong with this movie was what it Taught about the Spartans.  The anti-multicultural message was good but having people have an admiration for the Spartans—was faulty to the core.  The Spartans were not Nazis!  They weren’t the Ubermensch of Nietzsche either.  Nietzsche would have been driven from Sparta by whips.

It was a sick movie according to Western Cultural standards!  And it was sick.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:19 | #

W.LindsayWheeler wrote: What was wrong with this movie was what it Taught about the Spartans.

Compared to what?  Here’s what’s being taught about the Spartans in universities:

Spartan pederasty, a custom held in common with other Dorian tribes, is thought to have either been introduced at the time of the Dorian invasion, around 1200 BCE, or to have been instituted in the seventh century BCE in emulation of that in Crete, which had evolved in response to population pressure. Sparta is thought to be the first city to practice athletic nudity, which evolved in parallel with formal pederastic practices.[1]

The practice was an integral part of the agoge, the educational backbone of the Spartan polis. The title given the lover was eispnelos (?????????) “inspirer,” who infuses the favorite with courage or arete, while the beloved was known as the aïtas (?????) “hearer.” [2][3]

Oh, I did forget to mention that some of the movie reviewers saw “The 300” as “homophobic” for its refusal to portray Spartans as queer.

Posted by PF on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:24 | #

WLindsayWheeler wrote:

“The Spartans never stacked or desecrated bodies, The Spartans never killed wounded men!”

I flatly dont believe that. What is your source?

Posted by Dantius Palpatine on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:13 | #

Keep up the good work. Billions will die. We will win.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:14 | #

I havent seen Nick Love’s ‘Outlaw’ yet but it seems to be modelled on the old ‘Death Wish, Bronson, ‘Paul Kelsey-as-vigilante’ movies and if the racial composition of the bad guys resembles that of the film’s London setting then the non-White members of the actors union, Equity, will have been kept rather busy.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:16 | #

Dantius Palpatine its more like you hold billions hostage to your parasitism, we refuse to submit and you kill your hostages before we can kill you.

Hostage situations in real life are like that—unlike hostage situations in movies.

Posted by stari_momak on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:34 | #

I certainly can sympathize with WLidsayWheeler ... but compared to the normal fare this movie was incredible. I saw the trailers when I went to see Apocalypto .. which despite having non-white characters can also be seen as on ‘our’ side .. and I knew 300’s message would be Right. I mean ... the embassador boasting of the thousand nations of the Persian empire , and Sparta standing for Sparta . Man that was good. But in the film, when Xerxes said ‘we want to share our culture’ , you could have knocked my down with a feather (if I had been standing). Frontal assault on the pieties.

I think JB is right on with the generational thing. I am about Snyder’s age and have absolutely no recollection (other than from force feeding in schools) of the ‘Civil Rights Struggle’. What I do have is memories of the fights over bussing, the LA riots, my childhood neighborhood being turned into ‘Little Saigon’, the deterioration of California’s environment. I think their are a lot of guys my age and younger (mostly younger) that are getting ready to call bullshit in the next few years.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:39 | #

It is true that the Doric Cretans did invent the Tale of Ganymede and that they practiced homosexuality.

But the Doric Greeks of Laconia, i.e. the Spartans, did not. 

From Plato’s The Laws:

(Megillus the Spartan is speaking) “Yet, for myself, I hold that our Lacedaemonian lawgiver is right to command avoidance of pleasures. ... In Sparta, to my mind, this matter of pleasure is ordered better than in any place on earth. That which, by its keen delightsomeness, most easily entangles men in outrage and all manner of follies is, by our law, banished entirely from our territory. Neither in our country districts, nor in towns which are controlled by Spartans, can you find drinking parties, with the strong incentives to various pleasures that attend them. “

Next, Xenephon, an Athenian, who lived in Sparta and whose boys went through the agoge, said that no way was there homosexuality in Sparta.

The work of the German Classicist Karl Otfried Muller on this point:
http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=His._Antq._Doric_Race,_Pederasty_of_Sparta and the other http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=His._Antq._Doric_Race,_Origin_of_the_Pederastic_custom

I am with James; the use of ‘B.C.E’ and ‘Common Era’ is of Jewish invention.  As an European, we should use our collective European system of BC and AD.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:46 | #

On your question PF, I have to do some research and find it, but the Spartans, on the field of battle, they never killed anybody, that didn’t have a weapon in their hand.  If they had a weapon and threatened they would attack but otherwise—-no.

Karl Otfried Muller called Spartan government an Aristocracy.  Why?  Because every Spartan was trained as an Aristocrat.  They were trained in Virtue and hence in Self-control.  The Spartans were very conscious of being “kaloskagathos”; the Good and the Beautiful.

Other than the Helots, in which they were at war with, and the 2000 they executed in order to prevent revolution, They didn’t kill unarmed men on the battlefield.  They didn’t sack Athens either whereas all the other Greeks wanted to.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:37 | #

Razib’s typically inarticulate “analysis”:

“You can extract out of this film whatever you want really if you focus on the lull between the battle scenes. A war between the white male West and the multiracial imperium of Asia is pretty straightforward interpretation. Or, one between rational secularity and faith based mysticism is also there. Finally, there is the angle of a progressive and liberal view of history (a “New Age”) vs. a static and traditionalist once. As you can tell, for a film which lacks much subtly the broad brush strokes sweep in all directions. Ultimately, 300 was more a lushly realized video game than a live action movie, so the somewhat attenuated plot and character elements loom larger due to their scarcity on the ground, and I think this explains the over-reading by some. “

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:50 | #

Lindsay Wheeler,

I like some of the ideas on your site and wikipedia.  However, I’m a bit confused with your basic philosophy.  You make a point to distinguish between the souls of different kinds of people.  You also say that Semites, being Eastern of mind, cannot possibly have created Western Civilization, and that the Greeks, especially Dorian Spartans are at the root of Western Civilization.  Yet you repeatedly use Semitic writings (the Bible) to support your arguments.  To be consistent, shouldn’t you use the writings of the Greeks to support your arguments?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:00 | #

In Answer to PF and in answer to the scandalous way that the movie 300 portrayed the Spartans:

XV.  The Spartan Character in Warfare

In the East, “Little boys and girls were, if not buried alive, at any rate put to death with a guilty father.”  But Sparta was different.

“When the young sons of a man who had betrayed his city to the Persians were brought to the general commanding the Spartan forces after Leonidas fell at Thermopylae, he dismissed them. ‘They are boys,’ Herodotus reports him saying.  ‘What part could boys have in the guilt of siding with the Persians?’”

“What underlay the Spartan general’s action was not only the belief that the innocent must not suffer with the guilty; even more basic was the conviction of the value of each individual, no matter how defenseless.”  (61) 

On the battlefield, Spartans did not kill the wounded and the defenseless.  If the enemy offered resistance, he was killed but quarter given to enemy soldiers who did not resist.  Once rout was affected, the Spartans would “pursue for a short time and not far.” (62) 

When Sparta was finally victorious over Athens in the Peloponnesian War, the allies demanded the destruction of Athens.  The Spartan general refused unlike what the Athenians did to the Melians.

Though they did put down slave rebellions with a vengeance, there was never a report of Spartans raping, pillaging or plundering as thieves.  In the preventitive slave uprising measures, only the adult males were killed—never women, never children.

(61) The Greek Way, Edith Hamilton, Pg 105.

(62)  Thucydides, ch 16 sec 74; Pg 325

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:02 | #

I forgot to add that info is from my own work, “The Glories of the Spartans”; you need the MSN Net passport to see it: http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher/Documents/The Glories of the Spartans.mht

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:19 | #

In answer to Robert of the Rohirrim, The Greeks always move to Perfection; Arete.  Most Greeks, like Socrates and Plato, saw that their own mythology was made up by poets.

Plato, in the Laws, writes: “Now among these matters of high import is not the subject of divinity which we treated so earnestly pre-eminent?

“‘Tis of supreme moment for us, is it not, to know with all the certainity permitted to man that there are gods, and with what evident might they are invested?”

“In the great mass of our citizens we may tolerate mere conformity to the tradition embodied in the laws, but we shall do well to deny ALL access to the body of our guardians to any man who has NOT made it his serious business to master every proof there is of the being of gods.  And by denial of access I mean that no man who is not divinely gifted or has not labored at divinity shall ever be chosen for a curator, nor ever be numbered among those who win distinction for Virtue.” The Laws sec. 966 c.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were all Monotheists!  They gathered that from looking at Nature.  I follow them in their footsteps.

Second, the problem of evil is answered only within Christianity and Third I believe in the Resurrection.

Christianity is NOT a semitic religion.  I will be posting on my site in the future that Christianity is an Indo-European Religion—Not Semitic.  In that future thread I will point out why Christ was rejected by the Jews, but accepted by the Greeks.  Many Greek Philosophers became Christian for Christianity did met and answer many questions.  Jesus said, We are to live by the Spirit of the law, that is why forgiveness is central to Christianity and not the Revengeful spirit of the Israelites of the Mosaic Law.

There is a God.  And if God is intelligent—He would have spoken forcefully and coherently.  I believe He has communicated to us.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:26 | #

There is a difference between Religion and Mysticism.  The Spartans and other Greeks were Religious but NOT mystic.

Edith Hamilton, an American Classicist and Christian, brings out beautifully the dichotomy between East and West.  You need to read Her books, “The Greek Way”, “The Echo of Greece”, and “The Roman Way”.  She is my hero.  She is an excellent in her analysis and she does bring out the “West” of the Greeks. 

Edith Hamilton makes it a point that “Mysticism” had NO place amongst the Greeks!

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:34 | #

I found my books:

“The endless struggle between the flesh and the spirit found an End in Greek Art.  The Greek artists were UNAWARE of it. 

“They were spiritual materialists, never denying the importance of the body and ever seeing in the body Spiritual Significance.

“Mysticism on the whole was alien to the Greeks, thinkers as they were.  Thought and Mysticism NEVER go well together, and there is little symbolism in Greek Art.
“The Greek Way”, Edith Hamilton, pg 42.

Posted by D.S. on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:44 | #

Yes, BCE is rather silly—Euros should instead opt for Ab Urbe Condita (A.U.C.) instead .. B.C. nonsense must go too.  It’s, after all, also Jewish ...

As for the Spartans not being “Homos”—this is nonsense.  The Spartan system of fighting in pairs was based upon male love (do not mistake ancient Greek male “maennerbund” type love for the Harvey Milk Club), and that soldiers were less likely to abandoned their lovers in the battlefield.  The ancient Greeks had no problem with male love ... however, submission, sexually, to another male was generally considered strange (for adult males).  Older men generally did guide younger males and chase them (however, if you read Symposium, the younger Alcibiades chases Socrates ... ), but generally it was not “buttfucking” in the modern sense.

Spartans were generally around only males until they were 30 years old (where they were issued a wife if they did not have one lined up) ... if you think they were virgins (or lacked at least sexual encounters with other men—anal, oral, or other) ... you’re sadly mistaken.

They were not rainbow flag waving faggots, but they were not sexually repressed Christian puritans either.  Hail Sparta!

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:21 | #

“There is a God. And if God is intelligent…”

That brilliant librettist WS Gilbert put it best :

You booby dense
You oaf immense,
With no pretense
To common sense!
A stupid muff
Who’s made of stuff
Not worth a puff
Of candle-snuff!

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:26 | #

“Christianity is NOT a semitic religion.  I will be posting on my site in the future that Christianity is an Indo-European Religion—Not Semitic.  In that future thread I will point out why Christ was rejected by the Jews, but accepted by the Greeks.  Many Greek Philosophers became Christian for Christianity did met and answer many questions.  Jesus said, We are to live by the Spirit of the law, that is why forgiveness is central to Christianity and not the Revengeful spirit of the Israelites of the Mosaic Law.”

Perhaps Christianity was modified significantly by Europeans, but its roots are very Jewish.  Jesus was, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jewish. His coming is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, which is why the Old Testament, containing the stories of Jewish conquest and prophecy, is so important.  According to most of the New Testament, He was the Jewish god in the flesh.

Why does Euroman need a Jew as his savior?  Why does he need to back up so much of his moral teaching with quotations from a Semitic people?  There are many more writings and moral lessons from our own literature.

Posted by PF on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:28 | #

WLindsayWheeler,

Hi, whats up? I think the Greeks were great, and I think your admiration for them is well deserved, but I have to let the axe fall as regards some of your generalizations about them. It seems your picture of the Greeks as a people is very idealized, somewhat lacking in nuance, and even somehow custom tailored so support a series of position statements. Here is what I disagree with:

- D.S. comment about male love above is dead-on, its just a fact of Greek life that we had to accept, 18th-19th century classicists were also made to squirm, but its flat fact.

- Asserting that Plato and his circle were monotheists is contrary to your own quotes: if they were monotheists, why do they always say ????, “Gods”, instead of, like the later Christian writers, ????, “God”?

- Whether the Spartans killed civies or not, and whether they mutilated those they killed, is a question that I dont trust any ancient historical source to be able to answer completely.
If an ancient historian made such an assertion, it would be only anecdotal: no writer was present with them on campaign, except for Xenophon, as far as I know.
War-bands tend to do disgusting things, and the Spartans most probably werent afraid to do the same thing all other armies have done. Even the anecdotes of ancient historians may be falsified, as the ancients lacked methods for verifying what was said and done.

- “In the preventitive slave uprising measures, only the adult males were killed—never women, never children.”
Were you there? Did you inspect the scene of the massacres? No. Neither did the authors that wrote about them or maybe did not write about them, if you get my drift. No classical historian would trust himself to make the assertions that you have just made.

- As far as finding Christianity to be not a Semitic religion- well the whole first half of the Christian Bible is purely Semitic, every one of its authors self-identified as Jews. The second half was about 9/10 Semitic, written by Christians of Jewish descent (I think Luke was Greek?). That text, upon which Christianity is based, was ~98% composed by Jews.
Thanks to Robert of the Rohirrim for calling WLindsay on that.

-“There is a difference between Religion and Mysticism.  The Spartans and other Greeks were Religious but NOT mystic.”
Both concepts are fuzzy - what seperates a man who is religious from one who is mystical? Would you call bird-augery mystical, or simply religious? But I think you may have a point.

I suggest a more nuanced advocacy of Greek virtue, based not on a literal belief in the veracity of ancient historical sources, nor on the infallibility of one group of people, about whom we frankly know precious little.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:09 | #

As you can see my detractors quote nothing scholarly.  My 29 page “Glories of the Spartans” has 85 footnotes and I am told, “not nuanced”.  I write the only true definition of the Classical Republic anywhere in existence, with a Philosophy section undergirding its creation, with over 120 footnotes for 14 pages, and what greets me—-“not nuanced enough”—I am not marxist and modern academic enough.

Thanks, I’ll stay the way I am thank you. 

No other than Werner Jaeger, the famous German Classicist wrote in the introduction of opus Magnus that

“...and the impact of jumane civilizaiton upon Rome, the transformation of Hellenistic Greek paideia into Christian paideia is the greatest historical theme of this work.  If it depended wholly on the will of this writer, his studies would end with a description of the vast historical process by which Christianity was Hellenized and Hellenic civilization became Christianized. (Paideia, Vol II, pg xi)

Edith Hamilton wrote: “Christianity in its beginnings was addressed to the Greeks.  The Gospels are in Greek.  St. Paul wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Christians.  Plutarch never came into contact with the new religion; ...although his spirit was naturally Christian, as was said of Socrates”. (The Echo of Greece, pg 208-209)

Obviously, here are JUST two witnesses of the European character of Christianity.  In many places PF, God is said in the Singular—-why don’t you RE-READ Plato’s Dialogues.  And Plato called for the execution of Atheists and Atheists, Cynics and Skeptics WERE NOT allowed in Sparta!!!

(And I think I see some Jews on this board.  I can always tell, the deconstructionist spirit of some posters portray their Jewish identity.)

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 02:13 | #

“...but they were not sexually repressed Christian puritans either.”

The Puritans weren’t sexually repressed.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:10 | #

Lindsay,

Help me sort out your statement that Christianity is not Semitic.  I agree that it has been changed by Europeans.  But that is not what I see as its “fatal flaw” today.  The problem I see is that its roots are still Semitic.  Its Holy Book is 98% or more of Semitic origin.  Its interpretations of the popular stories and mystic religions of the time and area are Semitic.

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:44 | #

What’s being suggested here is the Spartans symbolized “rational secularity” but clearly they didn’t, judging by all that’s been discussed at MR.com the past few topics.  “Rational secularity” would be the view “Daniel J.” just expressed in the other thread, where he said he wouldn’t lay down his life in defense of European EGI -FS

This is a most devious interpretation of what I said. I will not fly to France to fight off the invading hordes of North Africans-that is not my responsibility. (At least right now I wouldn’t)

I would however welcome with open arms refugees of South Africa, or any other occupied territory, into my home.

Isn’t it obvious due to my presence that most certainly will do battle for my extended family?

In fact due to the age of most of ya’ll here, I am the one most likely to fight in the event of an actual war.

My point in the other thread was an ill defined EGI with muddled principles and talk of ‘transcendence’ wasn’t something worth dying for.

I deny your accusation or implication-whichever you prefer to call it-that I am any sort of rationalist, or any kind of yeller.

Posted by PF on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:54 | #

WLindsayWheeler:

Do you feel your position as Greek expert assaulted?

Edith Hamilton is not a historian that I take seriously.
Here is a quote in which she summarizes her view of history:

“A people’s literature is the great textbook for real knowledge of them. The writings of the day show the quality of the people as no historical reconstruction can.”

Do you realize what that means? It means that for her, sufficient knowledge of the Greeks can be gathered by reading Aeschylus and rhapsodizing about the picture of Greek society which she has gained from it. To put it frankly, she makes me sick, as does anyone who thinks they can distort the past into being some kind of ideal picture of their own values.

Edith Hamilton’s vision of Greece reminds me of the Jewish fellow-travelers who lionized the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 30’s, without knowing the reality of what was taking place there. The same mental gymnastic of idealizing distant societies is taking place.

If you can behold something from a distance, it is easy to mould it to become the expression of all your ideals- and if done long enough, this kind of thinking is no longer curable.

All this talk of the Greeks has something masturbatory about it, to be perfectly honest. If you believe in the Christian God, just say it, stop putting words in Plato’s mouth. I just did a word scan of Alcibiades and the word ‘Gods’ came up 8 times, until I stopped scanning out of boredom. Most every reference to ‘God’ is like this one: “Socrates: well, if the god to whom you are going should even now appear to you…”

The Greeks had some good ideas, they were righteous brothas, lets leave it at that. I don’t want to know how many times you’ve distorted their legacy in an attempt to prop up your own opinions. A classical historian of any high calibre would cringe at what you are saying. Your emphatic use of ‘never’ in regard to historical events about which even our original sources could only be third or fourth-hand: in ancient history there is no ‘never’ and no ‘always’, its touch and go.
How much of Plutarch do you actually think is true, written hundreds of years after the fact in some cases? Your respect for Edith Hamilton the Drama-Dyke Philosopher-Historian is on par with your literal understanding of ancient historical anecdotal evidence.

Does an analytic view of history raise the percentage of DNA in me that is Jewish, which last time I checked was 0? Ooh, spooky, I better swallow some of your “The Greeks Did This..” generalizations so I can raise the percentage of my DNA that is ‘Western’. What do you think the modern Greeks were thinking when they made Hamilton an honorary citizen of Athens at the age of 90? “She sure did glorify us.” And she was to stupid to think back, “I sure did glorify them.” ??? ????? ????????????

Posted by PF on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:31 | #

“Christianity in its beginnings was addressed to the Greeks.  The Gospels are in Greek.  St. Paul wrote in Greek to Greek-speaking Christians.  Plutarch never came into contact with the new religion; ...although his spirit was naturally Christian, as was said of Socrates”.

The Gospels were written by hellenized Jews, and often addressed to the same. Here is Edith making the Hellenistic Greeks into the rightful founders and incipitors of Christianity, because guess what, she loves Greeks and she is Christian. The continual repetition of the word Greek in the above quote is meant to solidify this equation in your mind:

GREEK = EVERYTHING GOOD
and then
GREEK = CHRISTIAN

She even declares the past luminaries of Greek literary tradition to be Christians ‘in spirit’, though they were pagan in practice. Truth doesn’t seem to matter to this woman.

Posted by PF on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:13 | #

My work is the continuation of the 300 Spartans who sacrificed their lives at Thermopylae in obedience to the Delphic Oracle.  These 300, the king, 298 Spartiates, and their priest, died in order that the West might have its liberty. (And the Sacrifice of Jesus completed it.) The Graeco-Persian War is not over, neither is the Peloppensian War.

My work is the continuation of the Teutoberger Forest Battle, where Varus’ legions were destroyed by a group of Teutons under the lead of Arminius. The Romans were once again forcing Meditteranean culture on Northern Peoples who wanted no part of it. This is part of the eternal, never-ending battle between North and South, between Mediterranean man and Northern European man.

I am the good guys (Arminius) and you are the bad guys (Varus).

Seriously, though, this kind of thinking is for little girls. Truth is going to be a casualty when you start reifying and even personifying abstract concepts into ‘Greeks’ or ‘Persians’. Maybe you wrote a thousand pages about Ancient Greece, with a million footnotes, and maybe you cited Edith Hamilton a million times, it still means nothing.

Posted by Rnl on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:22 | #

Hamilton: “A people’s literature is the great textbook for real knowledge of them. The writings of the day show the quality of the people as no historical reconstruction can.”

Do you realize what that means? It means that for her, sufficient knowledge of the Greeks can be gathered by reading Aeschylus and rhapsodizing about the picture of Greek society which she has gained from it. To put it frankly, she makes me sick, as does anyone who thinks they can distort the past into being some kind of ideal picture of their own values.

You may be right, but you shouldn’t be so contemptuous of the idea that we understand a culture from the best of what it produces. That was how one studied culture in the era before our own culture was degraded.

Do you realize what that means? It means that for her, sufficient knowledge of the Greeks can be gathered by reading Aeschylus and rhapsodizing about the picture of Greek society which she has gained from it.

She is not planning to rhapsodize about her picture of Greek society; she means to rhapsodize about the best that the Greek mind produced. She believes she can thereby “show the quality of the people.” Graffiti scrawled in a urinal doesn’t, from her perspective, show the quality of the people, whereas its literature does.

Perhaps she is over idealistic, but there are worse sins.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:45 | #

“Does an analytic view of history raise the percentage of DNA in me that is Jewish, which last time I checked was 0?”

Can you please let us know what genetic test assays specifically for Jewish ancestry and can tell a person that they have “0” percentage of that ancestry?

Posted by D.S. on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:23 | #

PF wrote:

“Asserting that Plato and his circle were monotheists is contrary to your own quotes: if they were monotheists, why do they always say ????, “Gods”, instead of, like the later Christian writers, ????, “God”?”

The Greek thinker Epicurus is basically the founder of Deism ... the Greeks had a concept of a creator or creative force (ie… the great watchmaker in Deism), but NOTHING remotely close to the heavenly pie in the sky nonsense that people are talking about here.  The concept of resurrection, etc… would have been comical to the Greeks.  Everybody and anybody who has taken religous studies 101 will know that Christianity maintains a rooted semetic world-view, but a lot of tid-bits of Greek Epicurean thought, mashed with a whole lot of Roman Mithraism, run fully through it.  Of course, Christianity wasn’t all that popular, as it was completely contracty to the ethos of “master morality” (vide Nietzsche) that the Romans so much personifed; however, Constantin’s batty mother Helena, being a litter liberal of the day, most certainly had a part of convincing her son to make it the state religion (and in Semetic tradition, it backed up the claim of a king appointed by god, thereby, giving more ligitimacy to his throne.).

As for the Spartans not “harming civilians”—this is a romantic view.  However, during the Peloponnesian War, the concept of “Total War” really started—each burning whole cities to the ground, ignoring previous stops in war for religious festivals, and completely going full out when capturing cities:  enslaving the women, and killing all toddlers (after all, you were considered a bad son if you did not avenge the death of your family) to ensure they would not be around to fight when they got older.  This last war was so brutal, it completely extisguished the Golden Age of Greece.

A lot of the other posts here are just fantasy, but if people want to believe in dead Jews on a stick, and that his mother was knocked up by a ghost, more power to them.

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:43 | #

I apologize to Daniel J for misinterpreting his comment made in the other thread.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, March 12, 2007 at 11:01 AM | #

Actually, I meant to add this as well:

I think ya’ll should primarily be concerned with correcting what you perceive to be error in my position as I am trying to inherit the mantle, so to speak, from those of you (of respectable intellect) at MR.

Of course I am not saying you have not done that, but that I think the attitude of response to me-as opposed to older and less ignorant posters-should be one of instruction and correction with “loving” reproof. I don’t mind asking for it and I think it is fair.

Also, Guessedworker I was wondering if you had a particular list of book recommendations.

I plan on working my way through When Victims Rule  (because I am transcribing it for my website) then Kevin MacDonald’s stuff, the maybe Salter…

What are your suggestions?

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:48 | #

I wonder what people here, particularly the post’s author, James Bowery, think of Razib both downplaying the potential impact of a Persian victory in their Greece, as well as the outcome of Tours:

“2) but, i don’t think that we should overemphasize the extent to which greek cultural creativity was dependent upon a particular political order, or, the nature of persian despotism. ancient states were not totalitarian, because they couldn’t be, and that surely explains why many greeks (e.g., the thessalians, thebes) sided with the persians (out of self-interest of course). much was at stake, but not everything. after all, the ionian philosophers lived in the shadow of asian despots, and they were the first of the greeks to be fired by reason and rationality.

3) on a pedantic note, the victory of charles martel, from what i have read, is more an illustration of the general trend of the muslims reaching the limits of their expansionary capacity than a turning of the tide. that is, it seems unlikely that a muslim victory at tours would have resulted in the conquest of francia seeing as how it was more a raid than anything else, and muslim raids would continue into the provence and thoroughout italy for decades.”

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:49 | #

correction: “in their war with Greece”

Posted by PF on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:11 | #

Razib (apparently) wrote:

“after all, the ionian philosophers lived in the shadow of asian despots, and they were the first of the greeks to be fired by reason and rationality”

Did Ionia really exist ‘under the shadow of Asian despots’? Ionia in ancient times was bounded by the Hittite kingdoms and their successor states, Lydia and Caria. The Hittites spoke an indo-European language, thus it would be a stretch of the tongue to call them Asian in the sense that Razib means it.
Phoenicians, a semitic people, were also present in the region, if memory serves. If ancient States could not be totalitarian, as Razib observes, they probably could not make their presence felt- in any way other than militarily - in States that were hundreds of kilometers away from them. So what exactly does it mean to live ‘under the shadow of Asian despots’? They didnt have CIA, or campaign contributions, or spies, so how could Persia make its presence felt in Greece other than by direct military conquest? Sending envoys and later, merchants, was the extent of social mixing.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:34 | #

I don’t know, a number of scholars in the pre-PC age felt differently, and in historical rankings of the important battles in world history, both the Persian-Greek wars and Tours rank high.

This is, of course, a game of historical “what if”, but one could speculate that being part of the Persian Empire may have sidetracked the development of Hellenic culture.  If successful in their conquest of Greece, would the Persians have moved further west?  Perhaps, and with consequences that we cannot foresee, in hindsight.  However, it stretches credulity to believe that extending the political dominion of Asia to Europe would not have had its serious consequences.  As to the influence of Persia on its occupied territories, consider that these foreign armies that fought for Persia did not do so out of love for Persia or the empire, there was coercion involved.

Tours is another matter.  “Raid” or attempt at conquest, a successful “raid” could have set the stage for more “raids”, which were often softening up attacks preceding attempts at full conquest.  A loss at Tours for the West may have led to, eventually, conquest of western Europe by the Islamists.

One can understand however where a guy like Razib would want to minimize the possible effects of Asian or AfroAsiatic incursions into Europe (or into the West generally), as his presence in the United States constitutes the present-day manifestation of such an incursion, an example of the not-ended battles between Occident and Orient.

Given that Hollywood is said to be “shocked” by “300’s” 70 million weekend take, one can expect the “reaction” to be swift in coming.  Given that “Lord of the Rings” was labeled as “Eurocentric” by the usual suspects, attacks on “300” as “racist” should be coming.  Indeed, a commentator on “Gene Expression” has already asked why we are identifying with the “authoritarian racist” Spartans against those nice “authoriarian tolerant” Persians.

One hopes that Frank Miller and company don’t “cave” and start denouncing the anti-PC interpretations of their work.  If they do, they may undercut much of the appeal of their work that is fueling the “unprecedented” weekend “take.”

Meanwhile, we should expect Razib and company to obfuscate the probable historical impact of the conquest of the Occident by the Orient.  After all, we can’t have people making connections to the current day situation, can we?

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:49 | #

Some folks who disagree with Razib:

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/tours.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World

http://physics.usc.edu/~crathfel/marathon.htm

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PERSIAN.HTM

Let us not be too hard on Razib.  Imagine how difficult it must be for him to sit in a theatre there in a majority-white area and watch a movie like “300.”  Perhaps in the audience were some young white guys – the sort of “redneck” cowboy types Razib writes about when he wishes to romanticize the schoolyard fights of his youth – who may have looked from the screen to Razib and back again, thinking to themselves, “hey, wait a minute…”

That “hey, wait a minute” is the sort of thing that gnxp wishes to avoid at all costs.

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:27 | #

I went out last night and bought the Lord of the Rings trilogy after going over this post again…

I drank too much and fell asleep before the end of the first movie…

Eurocentric…. That is the funniest criticism anyone could ever come up with. How did they turn such a beautiful idea into a nasty slur?

On a side note, Mozilla spell check will not recognize the word ‘Eurocentric’ and suggests ‘Afrocentric’ as a correct term.

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:28 | #

Judeocentric garnishes the suggestion of ‘Egocentric’ amongst others….

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:20 | #

And So It Begins….

Quotes from the Wikipedia article on “300” (linked to by James Bowery in the post):

“The New York Times film critic A. O. Scott, described 300 as “about as violent as Apocalypto and twice as stupid.” He also criticised the color scheme of the film and racist undertones promoted by the film..

Holman also expressed concerns about the content of the film as “In the wrong hands, 300 could be a lethal weapon.”....

[note: whose hands would that be, eh?]

The film has attracted controversy over the portrayal of the Persians. Greek critic Dimitris Danikas claimed the film showed Persians as “bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies,” and went on to say, “They are stroking (sic) racist instincts in Europe and America.”

The president of Iran’s Art Affairs Advisory also expressed strong condemnation over the movie which he said insulted the Persian civilization. Javad Shamqadri, who is also a filmmaker, said the film specifically had racist intentions but called the film’s effort fruitless however, saying, “values in Iranian culture are too strongly seated to be damaged by such plans.”

[note: we are not interested in the effects of the film on “Iranian culture”, but rather, on westerners]

As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, while the Persian emissary and King Xerxes are depicted as androgynous. This meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army

Furthermore, the “bad guys” are depicted as black people, brown people, handicapped or deformed people, gays and lesbians…”

[note: art imitates life; life imitates art]

Well then, as predicted, the hysteria has begun.  Will Miller and Snyder do the mandatory groveling now?

Regardless, the more I hear about the film, the more I like it.  Anything that inflames the EC/NEC divide is all to the good, and one can imagine the gnxpers gnashing their teeth over all of this…

Posted by Andy Wooster on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:44 | #

Just a small note: I see some of you referring to “Wheeler” as “she”. Wheeler is not female. I am familiar with WLW as he sometimes posts on another blog I read regularly. 

As in the graphic novel, the Persians are depicted as a barbaric and demonic horde, while the Persian emissary and King Xerxes are depicted as androgynous. This meant to stand in stark contrast to the masculinity of the Spartan army

Furthermore, the “bad guys” are depicted as black people, brown people, handicapped or deformed people, gays and lesbians…”

  Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

Posted by gnxp lol on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:10 | #

Razib channels Lewontin:

“If there is no genetically heritable variation, then natural selection has no power. The classic problem with group level vs. individual level selection is that the former generally does not exceed the latter on the level of genes, that is, there is more within group variance than between group variance. Consider for example two groups, the Flemings and Walloons, the Germanic and Romance (French) speaking ethnic groups of Belgium. Though, on average, the Flemings maybe of fairer coloration (a genetically coded phenotype), it seems plausible that the variation within the Flemings and Walloons in hair color will exceed the difference between the two groups. In other words, on physical inspection alone one could not determine who was a Fleming or a Walloon with any great confidence, since the between group variance is dwarfed by the within group variance.”

I mean, do you guys still want to pretend that gnxp has anything to do with science?  As if Cavalli-Sforza hadn’t been able to cluster ethnic groups more than a dozen years ago, and as if the only difference between Flemish and Walloons are genes controlling hair color.  Looking at the “between” vs. “within” variances of single traits (or, analogously, genes controlling traits) is pure Lewontinism, as is “...that is, there is more within group variance than between group variance”. 

What a moron.  The ethnic identities of “Flemish” or “Walloon” are proxies for the differences of distinctive gene frequencies (and structure) between the groups.  Sure, there is going to be considerable kinship overlap between the two groups (although one can be confident that the median genetic structures will differ); reason enough for the two groups to settle their differences in a reasonable manner.

But to suggest that the two groups cannot be distinguished at the group level, given sufficient information, because “...that is, there is more within group variance than between group variance”, is just politically-motivated hokum.  That’s Lewontin, that’s Diamond, that’s Gould.  That’s pure horseshit.

It’s more of the “culture is more important than genes in group level differences, because I’m a genetic Bengali in a western land, but I am so well culturally assimilated, so…” argument.

Why don’t those guys at gnxp who seem to have an interest in science perform a “palace coup” and dump Razib, or, more realistically, just split off and form their own blog. Geez.

Posted by gnxp lol on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:13 | #

So, gee, there is more “within” group IQ variance than between group variance.  Therefore, there is no difference in black and white IQ; you cannot cluster racial groups on IQ.  Got it?

You can’t cluster males or females on any of a number of traits, because there is more “variation within than between.”

Pop, pop, Popper!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:23 | #

Given the quote from Razib, there’s no way to interpret things other than the way “gnxp lol” does here, as laughable “there’s-no-such-thing-as-race” sophistries straight out of the Jewish School of Race-Denial Pseudo-Science, in other words, pure anti-Euro ethno-racial politics, not science.

Posted by gnxp lol on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:28 | #

“... in other words, pure anti-Euro ethno-racial politics, not science.”

Fred is correct, he gets it, do those who control MR get it, too?

Look at it - a blog which previously did debunk Lewontin, and interviewed Edwards, now has one of its founders, on his science (sic) blog sideshow, talking about how “greater variation within” invalidates group differences.

A classic example of politics trumping science, at an alleged science-oriented blog (or blogs).

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:30 | #

I wonder what people here, particularly the post’s author, James Bowery, think of Razib both downplaying the potential impact of a Persian victory in their Greece, as well as the outcome of Tours

I’m not as versed in Greek history as I’d like to be so my answer will be in vague generalities:

I suspect it would have accelerated the decay of Greek civilization and possibly prevented the Classical Era from reaching fruition.

The reason empires wage war is to secure and extend their trade routes on which they collect economic rent.  Indeed, it was the mobility of the 111 way stations of the Persian Empire’s trade routes, heir to the Babylonian Empire’s trade routes (this could go back pretty far—how far I’m not sure), that I believe may have evolved Jewish virulence via horizontal transmission.  Alexander, by conquering the Persians, finally exposed the Greeks to this virulence which resulted in the decay of Greek civilization and the passing of the torch to Rome.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:31 | #

“So, gee, there is more ‘within’ group IQ variance than between group variance.  Therefore, there is no difference in black and white IQ; you cannot cluster racial groups on IQ.  Got it?  You can’t cluster males or females on any of a number of traits, because there is more ‘variation within than between.’ “  (—gnxp lol)

Of course.  The exact same sophistry can be used to deny any categorization whatsoever:  races, species, genera, male-female, child-adult, all of them.  It can be extended to prove any category whatsoever does not exist.  It’s absolutely laughable.  The question is why do some Euro academics fall for it?  C. Loring Brace, for example (correct me if I’m wrong).  As for Jewish academics, we know why they fall for it:  they fricking invented it.  It’s like their religion for some of them, for crying out loud.  They cling to it for dear life.  It’s pure diaspora-Jewish politics.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:22 | #

Deleted distracting misunderstanding between bloggers.

Posted by Euroman on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:42 | #

The racial and political implications of the movie were clear to my kids and their friends.  On the way home the eldest told the others, “They want us pumped to fight Iran, but we look like the Persians.”

Posted by stari_momak on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:52 | #

Hey one David Kahane (!) gets it, almost

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM0NDEyZjM1M2JlNjE0ZGMwNDEwMzk5MzlkZjJmYjA=

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:54 | #

Note the latest tactics from gnxp to attempt to deflate interest in “300” and stress cross-national/multicultural “self-interest” vs. the “grand narratives”, as well as the attempt to dismiss the whole thing as clever Athenian psyops:

“Salman
Herodotus wrote in the time when the Persians effectively kept a lid on Greece by playing the Greeks against themselves. Herodotus is said to have been inspired to write the Histories, and the story of Thermopylae, by the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and allies (Persia included) against Athens and allies. Herodotus himself was an Athenian partisan. The Spartans were backed by Persia. As an Athenian on the losing side of the war, he would have an interest in playing up the Spartan heroism against the Persians to drive a wedge between Sparta and its sponsor Persia. It failed. Sparta and its Persian sponsors won the Peloponnesian War and Greece was a non-threat until Philip of Macedon unified Greece (you may know of his son Alexander).
  Email | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 12:35 pm | #

razib
i believe that the spartans took persian subsidies toward the end though. just to be clear….

(from wiki: Following the destruction of the Sicilian Expedition, Lacedaemon encouraged the revolt of Athens’s tributary allies, and indeed, much of Ionia rose in revolt against Athens. The Syracusans sent their fleet to the Peloponnesians, and the Persians decided to support the Spartans with money and ships.)

[also, i believe sparta later attacked persia again, before going back on subsidies…the importance of self-interested and mixed strategies gets lost in he grand narratives]
  Email | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 12:38 pm | #”

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:47 | #

I quoted Thucydides that the Spartans granted quarter.

PF disputes:

- Whether the Spartans killed civies or not, and whether they mutilated those they killed, is a question that I dont trust any ancient historical source to be able to answer completely.

“”“I don’t trust any ancient historical source”“”“”

If you have no other knowledge—-How can you dispute?  That is non-sensical.  You have no CONCRETE evidence to the contrary and so he throws everything out.

Pick up the book by Gene Veith, Modern Fascism, Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. He has a subchapter on *Deconstruction* It is preceeded by a chapter on *Relativism*. “...deconstruction begins with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is through language. Who is the originator of this. Paul de Man. Henri De Man was is uncle. “Henri was mentioned in the same breath as Heidegger as major thinkers for the new fascist order”

>>>“The act of writing, the simple assertion of meaning, becomes not only a “power play”, but an act of “arbitrary power”. pp 135-139
>>>“Deconstruction encourages this kind of moral detachment. It also tends to minimize the past. In a discussion of Nietzsche, De Man wrote that “the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or revolutions.” Just as literary texts have no determinate meaining in themselves and are ultimately unknowable, the same must be true of texts such as wars and revolutions.” pg 140.

Veith continues:”...the major theorist of deconstruction is not De Man but Jacques Derrida, a Jew.

“This Jewish approach is far different from Hellenic thought, which has dominated Western philosophy with its attempt to go beyond language to posit rational systems and idealized truths. Herbert Schneidau relates Derrida’s deconstruction to the radical iconoclasm of the Biblical tradition. G. Douglas Atkins, supporting both Handleman and Schneidau, employs Thorleif Boman’s Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek to place Derrida in the Hebraic traditon.“pg 141.

Knowing that the Spartans were trained into Arete, into Virtue is corroborating evidence from whence Thucydides writes!

The movie 300 is in an absolute disaster when it shows Spartans killing wounded unscroupously.  Their society is not like ours.  It was much better. 

Socrates said, “We insist on the verbal Truth”.  Until there is EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY one believes what is written.  To judge requires E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.  PF judges on a vacuum.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:55 | #

Yes, PF I understand where you are coming from.  My aunt was in Greece when it was invaded by the Teutons in 1940.  The Barbarity of their occupation speaks volumes of about Teutonic Barbarity.

Far from being “Civilized” the Armies of the Teutons in 1940, were the example of lawlessness and depravity of human nature.  My people experienced first hand brutality and inhumanness of the Teutons.

When is the German ever going to be civilized?

The Movie 300 would have been a perfect training film for Nazi Stormtroopers.

Yes, Life does imitate Art and when you show the Spartans, the epitimy of masculinity and virility and virtue, scandously killing the wounded and the descecration of bodies, TEACHES impressionable euro children who have been barbarized by our socialist/marxist/secular schools to BEHAVE THE SAME WAY.  That is why Socrates asks that the Poets be censored!

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:03 | #

Hey Stari momak THANKS A BILLION for posting that review by Kahane!

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:03 | #

That’s funny but I know a guy whose uncle is on the Greek equivalent of the Supreme Court who claims that to this day Greek men toast the memory of Hitler because the occupation of Greece was so restrained compared to other occupations—specifically the harsh way in which Germans dealt with their soldiers who defiled Greek women (they were routinely executed according to this young Greek man’s recollections of his father).  This of course stands in stark contrast to the use of Norwegian women by Germans for their Lebensborn program which generated hatred of Germans among Norwegians that simmers to this day.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:07 | #

Stari, what a good review that was!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:55 | #

“The question is why do some Euro academics fall for it?  C. Loring Brace, for example (correct me if I’m wrong).”  (—my comment, above, 4:31 PM)

Unfortunately, I’m wrong.  I wish I were.

Can anyone believe what an asshole this schmuck is?  And a full professor, yet!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:02 | #

Here’s that middle C. Loring Brace link (doesn’t work in my post above) — maybe it’ll work in expanded URL form: 

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/14354;jsessionid=baa7dvhhM6gjX6

This guy is a complete fricking joke.  Why have we been losing big time until now?  Uhhh .... let’s see .... could it be because we have credulous assholes like this on our side who fall for any sophistry the other side trots out?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:19 | #

I have been on the island of Crete where people still remember the parachutes and the bombs.  I lived in Athens and met a former German soldier, part of a mortocycle unit.  He only survived because he was sent back to Germany by medical reasons.  His unit was wiped out in the withdrawal through Yugoslavia.  Also have read a fantastic scholarly book, “Inside Hitler’s Greece”.

My aunt and many many other Greeks nearly died of starvation.  My aunt to this day still goes into the backyard to pick dandelion greens.  She remembers kindness too of the Germans.  The soldiers threw her some potatoes now and again.

The German occupation sucked up much needed food.  It literally destroyed the Greeks as a people.  For every German shot by Communists, 10 people were lined up and shot.  There were massacres all over Greece.  The Greek communists acted with barbarity and the Germans responded in kind but also across the board.

What the Author remarks is that the Germans did NOT know how to combat terrorism.  They were very unsophisticated.  They knew how to win battles but not occupy. They had no training in counter-insurgency.  Hitler did not help matters when he just ordered reprisal shootings. Orders from the German High command changed things.

Posted by PF on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:56 | #

To WLindsayWheeler:

The Spartan social structure, where every male citizen was also a warrior, was only made possible by slavery; without slavery, without the Helots, the Spartan system would not have worked.

Since you advocate the Spartans as models of virtue, do you also advocate slavery? Is slavery justified in your opinion?

Posted by Jim West on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:21 | #

D.S. said
“They were not rainbow flag waving faggots, but they were not sexually repressed Christian puritans either.  Hail Sparta!”

So I take you think that an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed.  That’s kind of ridiculous if you ask me. 

If what you say is true about the Spartans it would seem to me to be a mark against them.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:24 | #

I agree.  It is rather intersting that Tacitus reported the capital offenses among the Germanics were cowardice and sodomy while many report that the Dorians, who are supposed to be of similar stock, were the world’s premiere pederasts and sodomites.

Something needs explaining here.

Posted by Euroman on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 00:37 | #

From Imposed German Guilt: The Stuttgart Declaration of 1945
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p-55_Lang.html

“While the senseless and unnecessary terror bombing campaign is well known, certain aspects of the hunger blockade which the Allies imposed on German-occupied Europe are less familiar. It is a little known fact that Allied leaders vetoed efforts of the Famine Relief Committee, formed in 1942, to send food to the hard-pressed civilians of occupied Europe after an initial success in Greece, where, in cooperation with the International Red Cross and with the permission of the Germans, tens of thousands of lives were saved by food supplied from Allied nations. Thereafter Allied leaders, above all America’s Franklin Roosevelt and Britain’s Winston Churchill, were obdurate in their refusal to cooperate with the Famine Relief Committee and the Red Cross. These men used food as a weapon during the war; afterwards they profited from the lurid images and descriptions of the horrors of the concentration camps at the war’s close. Many of these horrors were the direct result of Allied policy makers’ refusal to cooperate with international organizations such as the FRC and IRC.

“That this is not mere speculation is evident from the final report of the Famine Relief Committee. As the victorious Allies advanced into Germany, and the FRC handed over the balance of its funds to the Friends’ [Quakers] Relief Service, the Committee’s last report concluded:

  “It should have been obvious to all intelligent people that   our food blockade of the continent of Europe would bring untold torture and suffering to our friends and allies and would do little or no harm to our enemy ... It has been possible to obtain proof that our food blockade did not shorten the war by a single hour ... History will judge our government harshly for its futile persistence in the policy of total blockade of foodstuffs. [6]”

More, here:

Red Cross Humanitarianism In Greece, 1940-45
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p-71_Lang.html

Posted by PF on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:14 | #

To Lindsay, Re: The Spartan Debate

My other posts suffered from a lack of clarity, let me try and summarize what I find objectionable about your philosophy as you have expounded it here.

1) Your statements are largely based on an argument from authority, i.e. The Ancient Greeks did this, therefore it was good. You assume all you have to do is explain to us what the ancient Greeks did, and we will immediately do likewise.

2) Your idealization of the ancient Greeks makes an objective analysis impossible: at no point have you ever found fault with them, the implicit conclusion is, you find them to be perfect, and you feel that they can do no wrong.

3) You have distorted the reality of ancient Greek history to fit your agenda in certain instances: you have downplayed the role of homoerotic love in Greek culture, you have superimposed Christianity on a pagan people, and you have superimposed a chivalrous civilian-sparing honor code onto the most warlike people of the ancient world, on the basis of an anecdote from Thucydides, who as far as we know never once set foot in an Lacemaedonian camp.

4) Your sob-story about the treatment of your aunt under the Nazi’s seems to run counter to your glorification of a people who maintained an entire nation of slaves: Do you really believe that the Spartans were not obliged to do even more horrendous things to keep the Helots enslaved for hundreds of years, than the Nazis in their short occupation of Greece may have done? Are atrocities against the Helots somehow less serious than the Nazi’s offences against your people, because you are the bearers of all high culture, the Nazis are barbarians, and the Helots are not Greek?

5) You would have us overlook the fact that Sparta produced no philosophers, no great literary men, with the meagre exception of some law-givers. When it comes to taking credit for Athenian accomplishment, the Spartans are Greeks, but when it comes to taking credit for high military culture, they are Dorians. You cant have it both ways. They were great fighters but the cultural accomplishments of Greece are largely Athenian. The Athenians are Ionians and not Dorians.

6) No great cultural advancement has come out of the Pelleponese for, lets say, 1500 years. Greece today lives largely off tourism and support from other EU countries. The lack of modesty which you have about this, claiming still to be somehow the only truly civlized people, goes a long way in explaining why you need to refer back ceaselessly to your long-dead ancestors: you have nothing of your own to talk about.

7) “When is the German ever going to be civilized?”

Your country is a sponge for EU development funds and tourist dollars, your chemistry is German, your cars are German, and studying Anaximander and Thales and Plato will leave you without a word to say in a modern philosophy debate, unless you are familiar with the spiritual products of a people you just slandered as uncivilized. The glory of the Greeks was indeed something amazing- but it is also something long-dead. Indeed, the Mesopotamian Iraqis could also say that you are uncivlized compared to them on precisely the same grounds, indeed “When will the Greek ever become civilized?”. Your whole claim to fame is to be have started ‘European’ civilization, which is a way for you to leech off the success of Western powers, by claiming Greece somehow had something to do with the Industrial Revolution and what followed. In reality, you were subjects of the Ottoman Empire, begging for Western support in your war against an Asian superpower. Had Western Powers not romantized your poverty and taken you under their wing, you would be under the control of Turks, and that would be your ‘glory’ and the final word of it.

8) You are speaking with non-Greeks, and people without any link to Greek society. To ask them to give ancient Greece, or your distorted vision of it, the kind of unconditional respect which you are suggesting it deserves, is to ask them to forget their primary loyalties, which are to other peoples. The Greeks may have once been great, but if we are not Greek, then we don’t really care that much. It’s obvious that we have to find our own way.

<u>Oh yeah, and Spartans probably had homoerotic sex, probably massacred innocents, and definately did practice slavery, and they definately were not Christian. And they never produced any writer or philosopher of any distinction, if their is one exception to this, it only proves the rule. Are these the people who we are supposed to model ourselves after in every respect, LindsayWheeler?</u>

Posted by DM on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:03 | #

I find the arguments here immensely satisfying, for their civility, incisiveness, and for the little facts one picks up while follwing them. Keep up this standard or make it even higher: there aren’t nearly enough forums of discussion out there dealing with this general subject intellectually.
I just wish more intelligent people from the ‘other’ side would come to the site to state their view - intelligent, in this case, meaning able to spell, having a working knowledge of English grammar, etc. Seriously! It seems that the best rebuttals that most commenters seriously disagreeing with Majority Rights come up with here are along the lines of “yo yo u KKK cRaCkers is fuked”, or some puffed up woman proudly proclaiming that regular contributers here must have no girlfriends/wives - QED!
I’m sure there are smarter lefties out there, and it’d be great to see them up against some really good arguments, doing it properly - conceding points here, making actual GOOD points there, and, above all, addressing the arguments put to them.. Perhaps I should follow the bloggers of this site to lefty places where they comment. Any assistance here would be much appreciated. Though maybe it’s hard to find ‘smart lefties’: if they regularly employed my desired combination of real life evidence and reasoned thought they’d probably become trad-cons too. Keep up the good work! DM

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 05:51 | #

gnxp stinks wrote:

I don’t know, a number of scholars in the pre-PC age felt differently, and in historical rankings of the important battles in world history, both the Persian-Greek wars and Tours rank high.

If we’re talking about reaction to the film, it doesn’t really matter whether these pre-PC scholars were correct, though I’m sure they were.

It was once almost universally assumed that preventing an invasion of your civilization by another civilization was good. That assumption now appears dangerously xenophobic to many, so a film that embodies it elicits concerns about possible “racism,” which tells us quite a bit about “racism” and nothing about history.

That the Battle of Tours saved France from Islam seemed obvious when there were few Muslims in France. It has become problematic today, not because there have been paradigm-shifting new discoveries that have revolutionized historical understanding of the event, but simply because there are now millions of Muslims in France and a new ideology of Western capitulation that defines their presence as cultural improvement. The old Eurocentric interpretations of Thermopylae and Tours seem to stand in judgment of the present, as do the events themselves. If you’re a PC media multiculturalist, you feel uneasy in their presence, especially since the director of _300_ apparently hasn’t attempted to subvert the traditional heroic story of the battle.

Would Leonidas and Charles Martel have approved of multiculturalism and Third World immigration? Probably not. But the more important observation is that, not so long ago, almost everyone unreflectively understood that defending the Occident from the Orient is virtuous, not “racist.”

Gimli speaks up for the West
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=1618

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:04 | #

Gimli Battles the Race Card
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11870

LOTR Films Too Eurocentric
http://www.vdare.com/francis/lotr_racist.htm

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:38 | #

DM, the problem with the adversary is their self-deception.  Their descriptions of their own actions are the self-description of a clockwork orange.  Anthony Burgess, author of the book “A Clockwork Orange” was the artist in residence while I was in the undergraduate program at the Iowa City Writer’s Workshop back in 1974. I think he based his book on the work of Jose M.R. Delgado, M.D. published under the book with the damn spooky title: Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.

I managed to get a copy of the book finally, and discovered wonderful passages such as the following on page 115:

ESB [electrical stimulation of the brain—JAB] may evoke more   elaborate responses. For example, in one of our patients, electrical stimulation of the rostral part of the internal capsule produced head turning and slow displacement of the body to either side with a well-oriented and apparently normal sequence, as if the patient were looking for something. This stimulation was repeated six times on two different days with comparable results. The interesting fact was that the patient considered the evoked activity spontaneous and always offered a reasonable explanation for it. When asked, “What are you doing?” the answers were, “I am looking for my slippers,” “I heard a noise,” “I am restless,” and “I was looking under the bed.” In this case it was difficult to ascertain whether the stimulation had evoked a movement which the patient tried to justify, or if an hallucination had been elicited which subsequently induced the patient to move and to explore the surroundings.

This passage is eerily reminiscent of a passage from Richard Dawkins’ “The Extended Phenotype” chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”:

“Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior   of their hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, ‘...a major difficulty in the parasite’s life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and “encourages” it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host… One of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee being left to die’ (Croll 1966).”

This phenomenon of suicide-on-behalf-of-parasite is observed in other hosts of the parasite.

Posted by D.S. on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:55 | #

Jim West wrote:

“So I take you think that an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed.  That’s kind of ridiculous if you ask me. 

If what you say is true about the Spartans it would seem to me to be a mark against them. “

Why do you ‘take it’ that “I think an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed?”  Because I am basically implying the fact that Christians basically mortify flesh and consider nudity SIN, SIN, SIN?  Generally, they’re the same happy bunch that wants to put covers on the genitalia of Classical Greek and Roman statues?  How silly ...

I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.  You may look to the bible for your inspiration, but I prefer the old Roman saying:  Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it!

I most certainly do not consider the Spartans’ penchat for ocassional sodomy to be a mark against them ... quite the contrary, I consider it a fond memory of happier times in the White world (ie… slave morality nowhere to be found).

Posted by Andy Wooster on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:05 | #

I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.  You may look to the bible for your inspiration, but I prefer the old Roman saying:  Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it!

  I’ll be sure to keep you away from my kids and pets.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:50 | #

Rnl’s thoughts re the film’s Occident v Orient dichotomy are surely somewhat unformed. The ancient Persian ‘Orientals’ were predominantly Aryan in origin and were DNA tests available in those days it is more than likely that the results would show a closer affinity between the combatants than could be obtained by a similar random test conducted in Harvard Yard.

Posted by D.S. on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:13 | #

I’ll be sure to keep you away from my kids and pets.

That’s fine, I have no interest in kids, pets (or men) ... you can have them all to yourself, you sicko.

Posted by D.S. on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:57 | #

Rnl’s thoughts re the film’s Occident v Orient dichotomy are surely somewhat unformed. The ancient Persian ‘Orientals’ were predominantly Aryan in origin and were DNA tests available in those days it is more than likely that the results would show a closer affinity between the combatants than could be obtained by a similar random test conducted in Harvard Yard.

While I am skeptical also on the “genetic” part, this most certainly was not the case from a cultural stand-point.  The Greeks considered the Persians “outter Babarians” of sorts, as opposed to the “uncivilized” reference given by Greeks to many other Europeans at the time (The Greeks had emporium in the Balkans, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey, and the Ukraine—they were well familiar with other Euros).  They considered the Persians as a completely different race of people (the word, “Europe,” after all, is from classical Greek/Myth).  They were not indistinguishable from other Europeans (specifically, Greeks) for sure.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:00 | #

>Help me sort out your statement that Christianity is not >Semitic.  I agree that it has been changed by Europeans.  >But that is not what I see as its “fatal flaw” today.  The >problem I see is that its roots are still Semitic.  Its Holy >Book is 98% or more of Semitic origin.  Its interpretations >of the popular stories and mystic religions of the time and >area are Semitic.

Posted by Robert of the Rohirrim

So all things Semitic or Asian need to be bounced?  We are into “purity”?

That is NOT the Western Way.  Plato said, “...whenever Greeks borrow anything from non-Greeks, they finally carry it to a higher perfection.”  That has been the Western Way.

As we are sitting here at our computers we are using basically ALL Asian and Semitic things!  The Zero which is essential for Computers, what all we see is just a bunch of zeros and ones, is an invention of India!  It is not the product of the Indo-European Man!

Writing is an invention of the Hamatic/Semitic peoples!  What German had writing?  NONE.  There is absolutely NO written literary evidence for any Indo-European people except the Greeks who borrowed that writing from the Phonecians.

Crete, home of the Minoans, wrote in Northwest Semitic Script. Linear A is Semitic. The Minoans were Semites!

So, if we are going to be Eurocentric all the time every time—-Then Please Stop writing; Stop using a Computer because their basis is all products of NON Europeans.

Even the food you eat was developed in the Euphrates Valley!  Maybe you should stop eating too.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:20 | #

The Spartan social structure, where every male citizen was also a warrior, was only made possible by slavery; without slavery, without the Helots, the Spartan system would not have worked.

Since you advocate the Spartans as models of virtue, do you also advocate slavery? Is slavery justified in your opinion?

Posted by PF

The Spartans were a very very philosophical people.  They saw that the World was full of Dichotomies.  One can’t have Heat without Cold, Day without Night,  etc.  Well, you can’t have Freedom without Slavery.  Their Republic was based on a combination of different things in their right proportion.  Two Thirds were free while One third was feudalized.  Someone had to do the Work.

You know PF, I have lived the agrarian lifestyle.  I lived at the barest minimum.  Most People of today don’t have any concept of what it takes to live.  Life back then was very strenous and TIME-Consuming!  The most simplist tasks were time consuming.  Slavery is a necessity for any High Civilization. 

See, the Greek Ideal was Order.  Just like the Cosmos is Ordered—So they too imitated the Cosmos.  All things are righteous in Nature.  Everything has ONE Job and they keep their station—The same was true in the Spartan Commonwealth.  Slavery is a Necessity.

Furthermore, the Bible does NOT teach that Slavery is Morally wrong!  The Orthodox Church has NEVER condemned slavery nor will it.

Slavery is an INSTITUTION just like the Family is an institution, the Church is an Institution, any Military organization is an Institution.

If you complain about slavery amongst the Spartans, then one has to give up the victories obtained at Thermopylae and Plateia because Slavery made those victories possible!

Posted by Jim West on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:25 | #

D.S.:
“Why do you ‘take it’ that “I think an aversion to sodomy means you are sexually repressed?” Because I am basically implying the fact that Christians basically mortify flesh and consider nudity SIN, SIN, SIN?  Generally, they’re the same happy bunch that wants to put covers on the genitalia of Classical Greek and Roman statues?  How silly ... “

Jim:
I have dabbled in Christianity and am currently in a church Bible Study group.  I like to get information direct form the source as opposed to media portrayals which are universally negative and reflect the opinion that you hold.  I personally haven’t made up my mind as to the meaning of life, death, etc and am still open to various ideas.  Anyway, I am happy to tell you that Christians are anything but sexually repressed.  They simply believe that sex should be limited to married couples for the purpose of having children and for sexual pleasure.  They see sex as God’s reward to faithful couples.  What is wrong with that?

As for the covering of statues.  That has happened in the past but I can tell you that the majority of conservative Christians appreciate ancient art for what it is.  You’ll ge the Ashcroft types from extreme sects but that is the exception not the rule.

D.S.:
“I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.  You may look to the bible for your inspiration, but I prefer the old Roman saying:  Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it! “

Jim:
I personally find it revolting and it really has nothing to do with the Bible.  The fact is that is an unhealthy practice.  You are much more likely to get STDs not to mention irreparable physical damage to the entry point.  I never really understood why a guy would want to use that entry point when there is another one specifically for ther purpose at hand right next to it.  It’s cleaner and was made for the act.  The man on man thing is also just plain weird to me. 

D.S.
“I most certainly do not consider the Spartans’ penchat for ocassional sodomy to be a mark against them ... quite the contrary, I consider it a fond memory of happier times in the White world (ie… slave morality nowhere to be found). “

Jim:
Well you must really be enjoying the current epoch then!  Sodomy abounds this day and age.  How do you think things are going with that?  How does the typical sodomite behave in this society?  They are, frankly, degenerates for the most part.  They lack any respect for the society and culture in which they live and live, by and large, personally destructive lives devoted to sex and making money.  No wonder they are held in such high esteem this day and age.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:32 | #

That’s fine, I have no interest in kids, pets (or men) ... you can have them all to yourself, you sicko.

  You contradict yourself: Sic mulcet, fondit!  If it moves, fondle it!. 

  You just made a blanket pro-homosexuality statement which could certainly be interpreted as pro-pedophilia (do children not move also?).  How exactly did I misinterpret you?  Given the fact that I didn’t, your insult was unwarranted, not to mention childish. 

  An aversion to male homosexuality is almost ubiquitous among heterosexual males, Christian and non-Christians alike.  (I myself am not Christian).  We could argue about whether this aversion is hard-wired (I think it is) but it is clearly rational, as homosexuality is unquestionably a social negative.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:00 | #

“The Zero which is essential for Computers, what all we see is just a bunch of zeros and ones, is an invention of India!  It is not the product of the Indo-European Man!”  (—Lindsay Wheeler)

The Aryan northwestern Subcons at the time the zero was first coming into focus as a new invention (centuries BC) were closer to Indo-Europeans than that population is now:  they’ve become more mixed now but they weren’t so much then, if at all (there were stringent laws against mixing).  It wouldn’t be wide of the mark to call the Subcons who invented the zero Indo-Europeans, which is exactly what they’re thought to have been originally, of course, all the way back at the time of their first appearance in the northwestern subcontinent.  Sanskrit was as closely related to Indo-European as any other I-E language:  Latin, Greek, Baltic, proto-Germanic, Lithuanian, proto-Celtic, and so on.

One could say the zero was an Indo-European invention (which came to Italy via the Arabs who got it from their contacts with the Indian subcontinent).  It was not, however, a European invention.

Posted by PF on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:12 | #

LindsayWheeler:

I don’t object to Spartan slavery on moral grounds, that not being my ‘thing’. I am against a selective application of moral universalist criteria, thats why I bring this up. You don’t have to be moral in my book, but insofar as you are moral, you have to be consistant.

For example, you talk about Nazi occupation. If slavery is OK for Spartans to use against Helots, whats wrong with the Nazi’s invading and running your country?

You’re an advocat of moral universalism when your own people needs succor from Western powers, but when your ancestors enslaved an entire people, it is OK because its just an ‘institution’, and a completely necessary one: and it’s OK to glorify them, even to hyperbolically idealize them.

Please don’t fool yourself, the Spartans and the Nazis were very similar, in some ways deliberately so because the Prussian’s emulated the Spartans. The only difference was that in one scenario you were doing the ass-kicking, in the other you were getting your ass-kicked. This, and no moral principles of yours, determines your interpretation of events.

That is why you just lamented the harsh treatment of your Aunt and advocated slavery within the space of a few paragraphs. You have no moral principle on this particular issue and you are being steered entirely by ethnic interests.

I just don’t like two-facedness.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:17 | #

I must rhetorically ask, then, Fred, where did the Aryans come from?

Would you say the transistor “was not a European invention”?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:36 | #

Yes, you right on that Fred.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:56 | #

Dear PF

The Nazi’s entered Greece only because the Greek Army kicked the Italian ass.  Greek Armies pushed the Italian army not only off their land but even pushed them back into Italy and took land!!!  In order to save face and to save Mussolini, did Hitler order the invasion of Greece.  So no, the Germans did NOT invade to occupy or to “”“run”“” Greece but to save Mussolini’s ass and then to kick out the British. 

The Germans then launched a paratroop attack upon the island of Crete to deny Crete to the British and control the Mediterranean Sea.

In this regard, PF, you wrote, ”...the Spartans and the Nazis were very similar…” There was SOME similarity between the Spartans and the Nazis but there were major major differences!!!  Nazis were egalitarians who hated aristocracy and royalty!  The Spartans were hierarchical who had and maintained and treasured their aristocracy and Royalty!  Big Difference.  The Spartans were arch Conservatives and Arch Traditionalists.  The Nazis were Neither. The Nazis were progressive and psuedo-conservatives.  They mixed being progressive with “re energizing” some “mythic past” that had NO real factuality.  The Spartans were PIOUS, the Nazis were really atheists and agnostics who played at paganism.

The Spartans were OBEDIENT to the Laws.  Nazis were obedient to Hitler.  Hitler brought back and was the embodiement of Asian Monarchical Despotism.  No Spartan King spoke the Law!  Every Spartan King was obedient to their religion and their laws. 

There was NO demogagoery in Sparta.  Spartans didn’t follow men—They followed the Law.

The Spartans were admired by All.  The Nazis aren’t admired by practically anybody.  The Spartans were religious people.  The Nazis were nihilists.

The Germans when they occupied Greece, shipped all the food north to Germany.  That is called raping the country.  The Germans were close to committing Genocide in Greece because of their confiscatory practices.  The Germans did not come down to Greece to live, but to rape the country and its resources!

What part of justice is it that you line up villagers willy-nilly and machine gun them?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:58 | #

Furthermore PF, the Spartans lasted 1000 years on their land unmolested.  The Nazi reign lasted 12 years and ended in bloodshed and destruction.

The proof is in the pudding.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:13 | #

Lindsay,

Your examples are just silly.  Have you actually read the Bible, for heaven’s sake?  The Old Testament is 100% Jewish; it’s all about the Jews, period, end of story.  The New Testament is based on the Old, referring back to it constantly; the New is the fulfillment of the Old, they are inseparable.  It was written in Greek but the authorship, the thought patterns, the metaphors, and the structure of the writing is almost entirely Jewish. 

You’re right in one thing, Lindsay: the Christian Holy Book is not pure—it’s *only* about 98-99% Jewish.

Posted by PF on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:06 | #

WLindsayWheeler:

Nazis were egalitarians who hated aristocracy and royalty!  The Spartans were hierarchical who had and maintained and treasured their aristocracy and Royalty!  Big Difference

You have things ass-backwards there, I’m afraid. Both peoples had egalitarian tendencies and aristocratic tendencies, but behind the Prussian military movement was the whole Junker aristocracy/Prussian Officer system which was actually the most feudalistic in Europe, and they retained effective power after their nominal deposition in WWI. Have you ever seen the picture of Hitler kneeling before Von Hindenburg- it has more than merely symbolic meaning.

The Spartans, when they are mentioned in Ancient sources, are almost always mentioned in light of their egalitarian, communitarian practices- let me paraphrase Plutarch, ‘all Spartans eat the same black broth out of the same wooden bowls and share the same table, this prevents them from becoming corrupted.’

The Spartans were arch Conservatives and Arch Traditionalists.

These are words that correspond to concepts you regard as ‘good’, but which must have meant totally different things to the people living then. The Spartan Mind is something little known, because so little writing exists about them, virtually none of which comes from Spartan authors themselves- do you think you have summarized the Spartan mentality with these two words?

The Nazis were Neither. The Nazis were progressive and psuedo-conservatives.

The Asian societies you deplore are often very traditional and arch-conservative, are they therefore good? The Turks are pretty conservative, generally speaking, arent they?

The Spartans were PIOUS, the Nazis were really atheists and agnostics who played at paganism.

<blockqoute>The Spartans were admired by All.  The Nazis aren’t admired by practically anybody.</blockquote>

Both of these above statements are more about PR or cultivating a certain image than you may realize. This explains itself in regards to the latter quote, in regards to the former, we only have the pro-Spartan literature of neighboring peoples, but nothing from Sparta itself. So of course they can be viewed as pious, having the benefit of thousands of years of historical distance and historical amnesia due to the lack of textual evidence. They could really be whatever you want them to be, actually. All we concretely know is a few details of their laws and customs, a list of kings and battles, and the fact that they were awesome fighters. Attribute whatever good qualities you want to them, no one will be able to say otherwise.

Furthermore PF, the Spartans lasted 1000 years on their land unmolested.  The Nazi reign lasted 12 years and ended in bloodshed and destruction.

So let me get this straight- if the Nazi’s had been sufficiently religious and conservative like the Spartans were, and if they were admired by all, they would have the right to enslave you like the Spartans enslaved the Helots? It’s just a matter of being enough like the Spartans, and then one gets license to enslave? As far as the proof being in the pudding, does that mean that if the Nazi’s had succeeded in overrunning and conquering Greece, and not been defeated by the Allies, then you would agree to be enslaved by them? The proof very nearly was in the pudding, Lindsay.

I just want it to be clear to the other members of the forum how this person is playing upon Anglo-Saxon moral universalism when it suits him, and justifying murder and slavery when it suits him. Nazi’s cannot murder or enslave, but Spartans can- they had to, it was necessary. And they are glorious. We should all try and be like them.

The same people demand for Greek statues to be returned from museums, claiming it to be the rightful property of Hellas, even though British, French, Italian or Austrian teams often enough dug it out of the ground, even locating the site of the dig and funding it, and paying for reconstructive work.

It’s always this way: when you’re on the ground, you scream “Equal treatment for all”, when your opponent is on the ground, you scream “Woe to the vanquished.”

Posted by Daniel J on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:09 | #

Regarding the Christianity debate: Wheeler is Catholic, I believe, and one of the achievements of the Reformation was a correction of the semitic influence Jews had by infiltrating the Catholic church. Not that there wasn’t a struggle by Catholics themselves against Jewish influence, but Protestantism defined by Luther was anti-Judaic. I am sure everyone here is well aware of his writings on the subject.

Also, I would consider Christ himself a corrective of the Babylonian Jewish thinking that had infused itself throughout Judaism at large.

But, I think Wheeler is right in pointing out that Occidental man can take things from the Orient and bring them to perfection-i.e. gunpowder and some other things (Apparently zero has been determined to have been of Aryan origin)

Yes, the Old Testament is about Jews and the New Testament is not based on the old, but a clearer interpretation of the old. If you must call it such, it is the Mishna of Jesus Christ. You feel free to dismiss the antagonism between Christianity and Judaism (throughout history and currently) as simple internecine fighting between Rabbinic schools of thought and label me as a Jew. Call me your enemy then, and ask not my help in an endeavor I am committed to.

Now to address Wheeler, you have failed to adequately address the 8 points PF brought up. I also do not understand why you feel the need to combine Spartan living with Christianity. They are/were obviously at odds. Consider the inferior children’s skulls being dashed upon the rocks. (Unless that is a myth, in which case I apologize)

Slavery is also an issue I think not at odds with Christianity morality. It is, in fact, a consistent theme of the Bible with no mention of an outlaw of the practice, but rather, the exhortation that: the slave is the Lord’s freedman.  Not to mention many whites in the New World we envision will be of a worker class and de facto “slaves” through wage labor (if not de jure since they probably will not vote or participate in civics in any meaningful way-not to denigrate our need for them)

In fact it is for the mass, the not-as-smart mob that we labor for is it not? The common white man that we love for his piousness and unquestioned loyalty to his aristocratic Lords. A White elite determined to do justice for as many as we can, and I think that is what the Lord of the Rings typified. A tireless, irreproachable and educated intellectual and cultural vanguard determined to save Western Civilization which comprises white “slaves” and “masters.”

As far as the 300 is concerned I don’t know from what I have seen in previews, that it takes the glorious and grand narrative that the Lord of the Rings does… I think it is probably some glorification of violence without context, outside of some important lines people have quoted here.

Ok fellas, feel free to tear me apart

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:33 | #

Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog. —Tacitus Germania

I think it is safe to say that “sodomy” was considered something that needed to be suppressed among the Northern Europeans as vigorously as they suppressed military defection.  This indicates a very serious condition.

It’s interesting that the founder of Stop Prisoner Rape, Stephen Donaldson, noted a fundamental difference between Mediterranean cultures and cultures “north and west of the Alps” regarding homosexuality:  Mediterranean cultures tended not to regard masculine penetration of another male as “homosexual” whereas cultures “north and west of the Alps” (his phrase) drew no distinction between masculine and feminine roles in classifying people as “homosexual”.

I don’t have the cite available at the moment but I also seem to recall there having been reports from Roman legions regarding their enjoyment of male rape of northern Europeans—if memory serves me correctly it was the male Gauls being raped by Roman legions.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:43 | #

Al Ross wrote:

Rnl’s thoughts re the film’s Occident v Orient dichotomy are surely somewhat unformed.

Keep in mind that I was describing standard _interpretations_ of famous historical events. The Occident-Orient dichotomy isn’t my invention, nor is the belief that Persian despotism was non-Western.

There is no doubt that pre-PC scholars - correctly or not, though I believe the former - regularly interpreted the Greek victory over the Persians and the French victory over Islam as notable episodes in the Occident’s long resistance to incursions from the Orient. This Eurocentric bias assumed that the various parts of the Occident, despite their differences, collectively constituted a civilization worthy of preservation.

As our belief in our civilization’s value declined, the traditional interpretations became problematic, not because new evidence had been unearthed refuting them, but only because we no longer felt the old cultural confidence that the traditional interpretations once unreflectively assumed. A contemporary ideology of Western capitulation has been turned on the past, so thoroughly that it is now increasingly difficult to unreservedly celebrate successful Western resistance to _invasion_. 

Since today we are allowing ourselves to be invaded in the name of anti-racialism, the more PC among us feel embarrassed that our most heroic ancestors evidently held a much different view of alien invasions. It’s better therefore not to think of our most heroic ancestors as especially heroic, and it’s better to deny the historical significance that pre-PC historians once ascribed to their heroism.

When a film comes along that asserts the traditional interpretation of the Greek defense of the West, multiracialist film reviewers start worrying about “racism.” From their perspective they’re right to worry.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:50 | #

James Bowery wrote:

I don’t have the cite available at the moment but I also seem to recall there having been reports from Roman legions regarding their enjoyment of male rape of northern Europeans—if memory serves me correctly it was the male Gauls being raped by Roman legions.

Christian monks in Britain were raped by Viking marauders, so I doubt your Nordicist distinction will hold. The Norsemen had a strong aversion to homosexual practices, but that didn’t prevent them from inflicting them on enemies.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:54 | #

I personally have nothing against sodomy—consenting adults can do as they please as far as I am concerned.

Almost everyone agrees, even most Christian conservatives. Yet homosexual activists have taken our tolerance as a licence to demand much more: the right to publicly display their perversion; the right to marry other homosexuals; the right to adopt children; the right to use the educational system to extirpate heteronormativity, etc.

We reasonably allowed homosexuals to practice their sexual inclinations without fear of punishment, but our reasonable concession then formed the basis for a series of unreasonable and unacceptable demands.

That’s the normal pattern of minority activism, and it won’t stop until the majority consciously refuses to concede more.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:56 | #

The reports of rape by Roman Legions were by the Romans themselves.  Were the reports of rapes of Christian monks by Vikings themselves in one of the sagas?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:59 | #

BTW: The “Nordicist distinction” I quoted from Donaldson is something that is here and now.  Calling something Nordicist doesn’t invalidate it.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:11 | #

Calling something Nordicist doesn’t invalidate it.

No, but it does describe it.

Were the reports of rapes of Christian monks by Vikings themselves in one of the sagas?

By the victims.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:27 | #

OK, I saw the movie yesterday and I want to raise a few points. First, I liked it a lot. There’s a lot to enjoy about this movie from the perspective of a White man. The movie underscores manly and Pagan virtues such as honour, loyalty to your comrades-in-arms, total and unquestioned obedience to your leader, discipline, physical beauty, strength of character, a will to power, ruthlessness in battle (at one point in the movie King Leonidas shouts to his troops: “we’re taking no prisoners and we’re showing no pity!” (or words to that effect), indifference to pain and suffering, and, most of all, death itself. Actually, the Spartans aren’t so much indifferent to death as they welcome it. Indeed, we’re told at the beginning of 300 that the Spartans believed that the noblest death a man can encounter is on the battlefield. I also loved how the 300 not only praises Spartan eugenics but its greatest villain is a deformed and physically ugly (repulsive, really) Spartan whose parents refused to discard him at his birth out of a misplaced sense of weakness and sentimentality. (Did I mention that it’s a deeply anti-Christian movie?) The ogre in question turns out to be a reprehensible traitor whose treason is ultimately responsible for the Spartans’ defeat at the hands of effeminate Persians (they appear as having a peculiar predilection for massive body-piercings), portrayed in the movie as a luxury loving and debauched niggers and mongrels (I didn’t see a single White face among the corrupt Persians, while the Spartan Greeks are exclusively lily White). Only through their overwhelming numbers and the hunchback’s treason could they defeat the racially and morally superior Spartans. Finally, I believe that the 300 got some bad reviews (for example, see here) because of its very obvious celebration of the warrior-ethic and, as pointed out above, overall political incorrectness. See trailer here. I give it 4 stars out of 5. Go see it!

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:39 | #

its greatest villain is a deformed and physically ugly (repulsive, really) Spartan whose parents refused to discard him at his birth out of a misplaced sense of weakness and sentimentality.

One of my favorite lines was Leonidas speaking to the hunchback just before Leonidas was to knowingly die due to the hunchback’s treason:

“May you live forever.”

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:51 | #

Marriage is called an Institution by the Roman Catholic Church.  There is a plethora of references to the “Institution of Marriage” in Roman Catholic written articles and papers.

————————
Someone on the IMDb boards said Frank Miller and Zack Synder are Jews.

Furthermore, I found out that Frank Miller is an Atheist.  Isn’t that quite funny,  The movie 300,  disparges religion.  It paints the ephors as syphilitic lepers who are corrupt and sanctimounous.  But in Real LIfe Frank Miller would NOT have been allowed to tread on any part of Spartan soil, this man places HIS prejudices ontop a very pious and religious people.  Frank Miller is spreading his atheism via a movie and comic book, smearing the god-fearing Spartans with impiety and worse irreligion.

It is NO wonder that Socrates, that Philodorian, called for the Poets to be censored!  To Smear the Spartans with Atheism is a lie!  It is a tragic misrepresentation!!!!

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:15 | #

In a free world—a world in which territorial secession with assortative migration lets people vote with their feet—I would prefer a territory within which homosexuality, as defined by the Germanics of Tacitus, was excluded.  I would, of course lend at least moral, if not military, support to those who differ from me here, as long as they did not prevent those who shared my preferences from having our own territory.  If, however, they prevented us from having our own territory, as most homosexuals these days would do, they would find me quite “hateful”.

Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:43 | #

and to keeping their hands off our children (in every sense possible). ... SVIGOR

Not entirely well said… Although I like the bit about the ‘compact’ with normal society child molesters are typically ‘straight’ males.

Of course in other cultures, it is almost ‘normal,’ but at least in America (and I would assume England) it is married men, sometimes with children, that commit acts of same sex molestation.

Posted by PF on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:05 | #

Re: Homosexuality

I have no strong feeling one way or the other, but if homosexuality has a genetic component, allowing Gays to do as they want is a sure way to avoid propagation of these genes. If you put a stigma on it, the numbers of gays who have a family and children will rise, the not entirely unknown phenomenon of typical breadwinner with wife and children who turns out to walk on the funny side of the street, when nobody suspected it. If they are allowed to live it out, they dont form relationships with women; no women, no kids, hence, we all become a little less gay. It’s not really that hard to look the other way, provided all the pride parades stop.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:11 | #

I am not having much luck, on the IMDb boards, someone stated that Frank Miller and Zack Synder are Jewish.  I seen one more website with that info—can someone colloborate or deny it with better info?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:50 | #

I read somewhere now, that recent research is showing that Birth order produces homosexuality.  The third son becomes homo.  Furthermore, dominant Mothers and overly Dominant Fathers also create homosexuality.

There is a huge predominance of homosexuality amongst the Jews because of course you have heard about the “Jewish Mother”.  Jewish boys are mothered to death and that is one big factor.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:55 | #

Moreover, it has been hypothesized as early as 1984 (by me on the Byte Information Exchange or BIX) in a post that homosexuality was triggered by a sexually transmitted disease.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:59 | #

Someone on the IMDb boards said Frank Miller and Zack Synder are Jews.

I find it plausible they’re quite hybridized—possibly the way Hitler was.  Yes, I find that quite plausible.  As I said, they didn’t really go after the really big market:

Euromen who don’t like being slaves to Jews.

They are merely “playing with ordnance”.

Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 07:12 | #

but if homosexuality has a genetic component -PF

How could it be genetic? Wouldn’t evolution have bred out such a ridiculous and ineffective gene?

Posted by le biel on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:30 | #

I liked both the movie and this review a great deal. Forward!

Posted by D.S. on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:49 | #

Frank Miller is not Jewish.  It’s typical “movement” absurdity rearing its retarded and mutated head.

If you’re not lazy and decide to do the actual research, you’ll know that Frank Miller has always been obsessed with the Battle of Thermopylae ... from first seeing the 1962 movie (The 300), and then reading obsessively about it in encyclopedias.

If you were not anti-social keyboard computer warriors, and knew the slightest thing about pop (ie… read, normal every day culture), you’d know that Frank Miller has claimed that 300 is not meant to be historically accurate—it’s a legend he loved and he painted it (put it into graphic form) and stylized it in his own unique way—just as he did in SinCity. 

If you bother to read his comic—every bad guy in the commic is purely a non-white ... the Greeks all looking white with olive skin.  Zack Snyder, the director, attempted to make the movie in the SAME form as the comic book.  Snyder is not Jewish, either.  I have not found one source that remotely makes this claim (aside from “movement” freaks who call everybody Jewish) or shows otherwise.

Posted by PF on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:50 | #

How could it be genetic? Wouldn’t evolution have bred out such a ridiculous and ineffective gene?

Maybe.  Sailer’s mentioned some interesting stuff, about how males with older brothers have a much higher chance of being gay themselves.  So, if it is genetic, it might have an environmental trigger for expression.

There are some articles about this on the internet, giving ‘gay’ ‘gene’ and similar stuff into Google should bring up the recent research. I think some of the research is pretty convincing, although I made no effort to retain the information.

Even if there is an environmental trigger, as long as there is some genetic component, creating a favorable environment for gays to live out their desires (i.e. no over-strong social stigma) increases the likelihood that they wont have children. De-gayifying through celebrating gayness, if you like. Its a gene that, if allowed to ‘show itself’ phenotypically, will weed itself out over time.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:36 | #

How could it be genetic? Wouldn’t evolution have bred out such a ridiculous and ineffective gene?

Gregory Cochran and Paul Ewald proposed the Pathogenic Theory of Homosexuality precisely because of this objection. 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_theory_of_homosexuality

  It’s plausible.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:27 | #

Ewald is doing some good work with his promotion of the germ theory of disease.  However, a pathogenic explanation isn’t inconsistent with a genetic explanation.  Diseases occur as a result of the interaction of the pathogen and the host.  Because the host is constructed by genes, there is always a genetic component.  Even if homosexuality is caused by a pathogen, there may also be genetic variation among humans that makes some humans more susceptible to the pathogen.  The gene could remain in the population if it conferred an offsetting advantage.

Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:15 | #

Whether genetic or not, you are right PF….

Giving them “free reign” so to speak should weed out the problem, unless it is some sort of “virus with a trigger.”

Thanks for the wiki link.

Also, I had a question for a friend of mine at AR…

Why is it that some of the people don’t like Sailer here?

I have yet to read him and am unaware of his central thesis-but I remember reading some negative things about him in other posts-and wanted to confirm my statement to my friend that people here don’t like Sailer so much.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:50 | #

I’m not in the mood to waste my time cataloging each instance, but this thread is full of people making historical claims without citation, making assertions about “aryans” and Persians and Greeks without evidence, making implications about Hitler’s ancestry when there is no definitive evidence that he was part-Jewish, and also suggesting a link between Dorians and Germans which needs to be analyzed through (modern) scholarship.

D.S. talks of ‘typical “movement” absurdity’ with respect to labeling people as Jewish (what about that genetic test, mentioned here, that can confirm that a person has “0%”
Jewish ancestry???...), but that’s just a specific example of a more general trend.

What D.S. calls the “movement” is more like a religion than anything else - full of dogma, “received wisdom”, and a general hostility toward fact-finding and revision of all those time-honored dogmas.

And if Daniel wants confirmation that some here think little of Sailer, well, yes, count me in.  For all of Sailer’s alleged “analysis” and “quantitative data” he shares many traits with the “movement.”

Sailer has to rank as one of the most over-rated bloggers there is, much of his ‘analysis’ being personal opinions of he or his wife, floating free of empirical analysis.  If you think that unfair, try and communicate with Sailer when you catch him in an error, or some sort of logical inconsistency.  If he answers - if he does - then he usually picks some sort of minor, irrelevant point from your communication, “answers” that minor point in an off-handed way, and ignores the real “meat” of your critique.  Dedicated to “truth” is the great Sailer!

And his actual ideology and policy “recommendations” are such to put him on the side of the “wrong.”

He’s more Xerxes than Leonidas.  If that offends the Sailer worshippers, that’s too bad.

Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:31 | #

thanks gnxp stinks…

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:54 | #

The origin of the idea that Snyder or Miller might be “Jewish” (or, as I said is plausible, “highly hybridized”) was a post on IMDB.  I haven’t seen the IMDB post but it is a leap to presume that the original poster was sympathetic to white nationalism.  Such a comment could just as easily come from an Iranian or a Jew with their own agendas.

As for Hitler’s hypothesized Jewish hybridization, I did say “possibly”, and this is not something usually admitted as a possibility by those in “the movement”.

Admitting these possibilities is rational and even somewhat explanatory.

As far as Sailer is concerned:  It is rather suicidal of him to associate with the gnxp crowd.  They’ve not only demonstrated more mendacity than Holocaust heretics I’ve run across, they are more likely to be killed en masse due to their de facto stance against freedom of association.  Here’s how I see that unfolding: 

“Razib”/“Godless Capitalist” have basically stated that they claim legitimate occupancy of territory in the United States despite the fact that neither of them would be here were it not for The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the exercise of which was a blatant and vicious violation of “the blessings of liberty” for what the framers of the Constitution called “our posterity”.  Specifically, it removed freedom of association—the most fundamental liberty of all—from that posterity’s national borders.

There is Hell to pay.

“Razib”/“Godless Capitalist” have made statements that “white nationalists” will be destroyed through military action by the “cognitive elite” if “white nationalists” attempt to repatriate guys like “Razib”/“Godless Capitalist”.

Perhaps Sailer really believes that if a military confrontation comes, he’ll be on the winning side.

Looking at “GC”‘s sloppy thinking when it came to attacking my ecological correlations with autism (calling what I was doing “data dredging” on the one hand while claiming I was/am “prejudiced” on the other—mutually exclusive conditions) I seriously doubt that.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:52 | #

“The origin of the idea that Snyder or Miller might be “Jewish” (or, as I said is plausible, “highly hybridized”) was a post on IMDB.  I haven’t seen the IMDB post but it is a leap to presume that the original poster was sympathetic to white nationalism.  Such a comment could just as easily come from an Iranian or a Jew with their own agendas…As for Hitler’s hypothesized Jewish hybridization, I did say “possibly”, and this is not something usually admitted as a possibility by those in “the movement”.

Fair enough.  I’m not saying that Jewish ancestry is impossible for any of those individuals - including Hitler - and the Jew/Hitler thing was certainly not my major “beef.”  Looking over the thread in its entirety, there seem to be too many comments without factual backing.  This goes back to other posts and of course critiques over some comments made by Mr. von Hoffmeister in his interview.  We need to have as firm a grounding in verifiable evidence as is realistically possible when comments are made that assert something to be true (or very likely).

Now to Sailer.  I certainly agree with James Bowery’s statements with respect to Sailer and his relationship with gnxp.  A major problem with the latter is that they not only oppose “repatriation” of Razib/GC but, and here is the crucial point from the “free association” vantage point, they oppose racial separation within America.

The idea that whites may, for example, wish to split off and form a more homogenous nation, even if Razib/GC can stay exactly where they are, and still live in the remaining portion of a multiracial American state - that is opposed by gnxp and statements were made about “civil war”, “nuclear war”, etc.  Statements were also made approving of government spying and repression of white dissidents.

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:28 | #

I wasn’t aware the gnxp agenda was that vectorist. 

My general statement about what I have variously termed “vectorists” or “erocidal cultures” (typically aggressive versions of what I have also variously termed “deeper cultures” or “genetically omnidominant peoples”) is they are doomed to buy their own material because their genetic hypocrisy depends on self-deception.  The only question is how are the following outcomes weighted:

* They destroy us during “peace”
* We escape them to a frontier during “peace”
* We destroy them during open warfare—including insurgency warfare.

I don’t think them destroying us during any kind of open warfare is a plausible outcome.

Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:12 | #

Well, I suppose it could…

I don’t understand how something environmental and external could cause expression of an internal gene…

I suppose we can rule out nothing at the moment…

But my religious presuppositions incline me to believe it isn’t genetic.

Posted by PF on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:04 | #

Svyetoslav wrote:

*Someone should explain to me why it can’t be both genetic and highly resistant to eugenics.*

Eugenics depends on phenotypic expression for it to work. The environmental trigger that you have postulated, which I find very plausible, doesnt change the reality that one form of the gene (A) gives more likelihood of being gay than another (B)- whether a triggering event occurs or not. Bs are not triggered, or less often triggered, than As, as a result of their genetics.

The only case I can think of in which this doesnt hold true is if we all had the identical copy of the gene- like you said, if there is no genetic variation. I dont imagine that to be very likely, given the tendency to variation that exists in other behavior-linked genes.

Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:50 | #

Lew Rockwell Review

Well, the movie certainly pissed off the supposedly “paleo-libertarians” at Rockwell.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:33 | #

This is for PF:

“The enemy has thrown into bandit warfare fanatic, communist-trained fighters who will not stop at any act of violence.  The stake here is more thatn to be or not to be. This fight has nothing to do with a soldier’s chivalry nor with the decisions of the Geneva Conventions.  If this fight against the bands, in the East as well as in the Balkans is not carried out with the MOST BRUTAL MEANS, the forces at our disposal may in the near future not last out to master this plague.

The Troops are there fore Authorized and Ordered in this struggle to take any measures WITHOUT RESTRICTION even against women and children if these are necessary for success. [Humanitarian] considerations of any kind are a crime against the German nation…”

Orders issued by Field Marshal Keitel
(Following instructions from Hitler) 16 December 1942

Murder is a crime against God.  Who determines morality is God—-not a nation.

No Spartan would ever have said this, commanded this, or even obeyed this.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:51 | #

Friedrich Braun writes that this movie portrays the Pagan Virtue of “a will to power”.  Actually, this “will to power” is a made up sentiment, actually a sentiment of the East and is NOT pagan at all.  Nietzsche who made up this statement and Frank Miller are both Atheists.  See the Parallel.

Let me share what a REAL pagan said,

“However, it was not the design of Lycurgus that his city should govern a great many others; he thought rather that the happiness of the state as a private man, consisted chiefly in the excercise of Virtue, and in the concord of the inhabitants; his aim, therefore, in all his arrangements, was to make and keep them free-minded, self-dependent, and Temperate.”  Bio of Lycurgus, Plutarch.

There is NO “will to Power”.  Spartans were NOT National Socialists.  The Spartans were Traditional Nationalists.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:20 | #

James: “I wasn’t aware the gnxp agenda was that vectorist.”

Yes, it is.  Those here (for example, Guessedworker and Fred Scrooby) who remember gnxp and Dienkes’ blog from, say, 3-4 years ago, may remember the strong anti-separatist sentiment from gnxpers, particularly from GC; in fact, I believe that some of GC’s comments were reproduced on this blog.

If memory serves, GC celebrated miscegenation and also vehemently opposed white nationalism in general, and separatism in particular.  He stated that the idea that separatists could carve out their own state(s) in America was a “fantasy”, and, if such were actually attempted, I also believe he stated his own personal willingness to take up arms against the separatists/nationalists.  As well, he stated that any attempt by separatists would devolve into some sort of “nuclear civil war.”  He also approved of governmental monitoring of white dissident discussion on the internet.

“Arcane” of gnxp stated, and I believe here in this very blog, that he is against any attempt to break up “the greatest country in the world”, that is, the USA.

Also, relatively recently, Razib discussed his own experiences growing up in the rural Pacific Northwest and his alleged fisticuffs with “rednecks” who objected to Razib’s choice of a white girl as a date for a school dance.  The implication of this essay, from my reading, seems to be that Razib’s choice should have been accepted, and the disapproval was “racist.”

We also cannot forget the hysterical reaction by gnxp to the work of Frank Salter, which included personal attacks by more than one gnxper against Salter.

This all seems to fit into a general pattern of hostility against racial freedom of association and separatist desires.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:09 | #

“Away from the mainland, however, several Italian garrisons did resist German efforts to disarm them. (This is when Italy declared an armistice halfway thru the war. Italian units were given the choice to join the German army or be disarmed and sent home in Greece.)...in Cefalonia—where ‘the most complete anarchy reigned…during the days of negotiations between the two commands’—-Italian forces beat off a sea and air assault by the 1st Mountain Division for almost a week before surrendering on 24 September: Corfu fell two days later.”

“German punishment was swift and staggeringly ruthless.  Some 155 officers and 4,750 men captured on Ceflonia were EXECUTED by firing squad after fighting finished.  An unknown number of Italian officers were shot on Corfu too. Many bodies were dumped at sea, and some were later washed back up on nearby beaches. A highly respected German military historian has recently described these events as amounting to ‘one of the most unbelievable war crimes of German soldiers in WWII”. (Inside Hitler’s Greece, Mark Mazower, pg 150.)

5000 Italian soldiers and officers shot execution style. Two weeks ago these were allies.  As men they refused to lay down their weapons.  When they did, they were butchered. 

Tell me what part of manliness does it take to kill an unarmed man?  Is this a part of Virtue?  Virtue means to be a Man.  Virtue is about the excellencies of Manhood.  Virtue is a Greek Aristocratic concept, it is Greek thing.  Nowhere does Virtue ever command the killing of unarmed men.  The Spartans never sought revenge,  never dispatched wounded, gave quarter to all.  That is what a Man does.

(The order of General Keitel also come from Inside Hitler’s Greece, pg 153.)

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 18:58 | #

This all seems to fit into a general pattern of hostility against racial freedom of association and separatist desires.

The general pattern is there but I was looking for the degree of vectorism demonstrated.  I wasn’t aware they would be hostile to even a compromise solution where territories of the US could be carved out for their kind.  If Sailer can’t distance himself from that sort of rhetoric while at the same time he can’t link to sites like MR because they admit occasional viewpoints that question the ethics and intellectual honesty of Holocaustian Orthodoxy, then he isn’t the “realist” he pretends to be.  The ratio of public awareness of “The Holocaust” to the public awareness of the Holodomor, compared to the number of deaths attributable to “The Holocaust” to the deaths attributable to the Holodomor is clear evidence of an utterly un-“realistic” view of the history of the 20th century that needs to be addressed by addressing not just the lack of attention to the Holodomor, but the unethical use of Jewish occupation of positions of public trust and authority to set themselves up as THE icon of victimhood.  You can’t reasonably do that without questioning the very account of “The Holocaust” that is received “wisdom” nowadays.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:10 | #

“... then he isn’t the “realist” he pretends to be.”

Exactly.  And it not only with respect to this.

Posted by PF on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:38 | #

Hi Lindsay,

First off, sorry about the tone of some of my previous posts. I dont know what gets into me when I write in that overly critical tone, its really too much.

I disagree with you, that there is some kind of fundamental difference between the Nazi’s and the Spartans, although there are a multitude of fine differences, as one would expect. The Spartans were soldiers, to a man. The job of a soldier is theoretically to police territory, but in practice, it revolves around killing. Sparta was an expansive state- conquering Messenia and surrounding Laconia. This is from Wikipedia:

Nevertheless, it is not probable that without the training introduced by Lycurgus the Spartans would have been successful in securing their supremacy in Laconia, much less in the Peloponnese, for they formed a small immigrant band face to face with a large and powerful Achaean and autochthonous population.

The Spartans have since been glorified, but to the original inhabitants of Messenia, I think they looked very much like the Nazi’s looked to your forebears/relatives. I still fail to see the difference: the fundamental reality is a militarily aggressive State which kills enemy soldier to take over territory. And your implication that the Spartans maintained a strict honor code with reference to civilians, is something I would have to see demonstrated in an original source, and even then I would be skeptical. This whole idea of sparing civilians, or even recognizing their existence as ‘civilians’, is very new: for that insight I refer to Bill Lind’s writings, a military analyst.

I don’t think you should abandon your respect for the Spartans, (not that I could make you) but I’m not sure if a critical assessment of their actual legacy would leave us as much in awe of them as you think we should be. And I think if the Spartans were transported into our modern day, and were able to live out their ethos with modern weapons, they would appear very similar to the Nazis.

So calling the Nazis barbarians while glorifying the Spartans seems inconsistent to me. Did the Spartans conquer Messenia and Laconia politely? Did they do it with High Culture? I have to tell you, the Spartans had far less culture to offer than the Germans, as far as this can be ascertained. I say this because of all the technological and cultural advances that had occured in Germany from 1850 to 1940, whereas Sparta deliberately (as far as I can tell) did NOT keep pace with the advance of Hellenic culture, sticking to their antiquated ways with pride.

Remember Plutarch’s anecdote about how, if you were to enter Sparta, you would be amazed it was called great, because everyone lived in humble looking houses? The flip side of this is: they didnt care about architecture. While artisans across Greece were striving to make beautiful statuary and temples, the Spartans were… doing the same things they were doing 200 years before. Field exercises, marching…

I’m not very interested in pursuing the argument much further, maybe we can agree to disagree? I like the Greeks very much too.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:52 | #

“Since 1945 the world has become familiar with guerilla warfare.  In Malaya, Algeria and Vietnam regular armies found themselves obliged to develop what have become known as techniques of counter-insurgency.  By bitter experience we have learned tht partisan warfare has political as well as military dimensions, and that soldiers alone can often achieve relatively little in the absence of some sort of a political dialogue.  These lessons were not available to the Wehrmacht.  Its officers had received no training in the problems of guerrilla warfare, while the ideology of the regime they were fighting for encouraged the view that military force alone would suffice to overcome the opposition.  In Greece, the results can only be regarded as a CATASTROPHIC failure: hostage-taking, reprisals and a doctrine of collective civilian responsibility for guerrilla actions caused immense suffering and physical destruction, but did not succeed in wiping out the resistance.” Inside Hitler’s Greece, Mark Mazower, pg 169

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:43 | #

Well, I’d rather be a helot in Sparta than an extinguished race in Palestine.  When the Israelites moved in, they committed several genocides and wiped people off the face of the earth.  Extinguished them wholesale.  The Spartans only subjugated the indigeneous people.  Yes, the Spartans dealt somewhat barbarically with the Helots—but they still managed to breed and have children. 

One can’t have Day without Night, Heat without Cold, Life without Death.  One can’t have great civility without barbarity.  The gods don’t allow it. Though they treated the Helots rather roughly, they were gentlemen elsewhere, especially on the battlefield.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:45 | #

Wheeler writes: “When will the Germans be civilized?” lol I’m tempted here to quote his boogaboo Adolf Hitelr when he was answering English warmongers but in the case of Greeks their cultural achievements since Pato amount to exactly…NOTHING. The English are light years ahead culturally from modern Greeks. Modern Greeks are about as cultured as Albanians (I mean no offence to Albanians).

The English cannot tell us Germans anything about culture: our music, our poetry, our architecture, our paintings, our sculptures, can more than stand a comparison to English art. I believe that a single German, let us say, Beethoven, achieved more in the realm of music than all Englishmen of the past and present together! 

-Adolf Hitler (8 November 1939).

Posted by D.S. on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:19 | #

Friedrich Braun ranted:  “...but in the case of Greeks their cultural achievements since Pato amount to exactly…NOTHING.”

Since ‘Pato’?  You mean, the Greeks haven’t done anything since the invention of a Spanish game on horse back?  I don’t get it ...

If you meant Plato—then, you’re as they say ... a fucking retard.  If my memory serves me correctly .... Aristotle came AFTER Plato ... not to mention Euclid, Epicurus, Alexander the Great, and hell ... for good measure, the Nietzschean writer Nikos Kazantzakis (who died in 1957, in Germany of all places).

I shall repeat—you sir, are a Nationalist fuck-tard.  Now go hang yourself ... you’re in the wrong forum to be bad mouthing other Euros.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:49 | #

DS, glad to see you have re-emerged as an active spokesman in pro-western forums (such as this blog), although I think “...you sir, are a Nationalist fuck-tard.  Now go hang yourself…” is a bit harsh.

I think the byplay between Wheeler, PF, and Braun has been unfortunate.  Although let us also admit that the original comment,  “When will the Germans be civilized?” , was ludicrous.  Is there any other group that has done more for western civilization, since the fall of Rome, than the Germans?  They are the pivot of Europe.  Not that one has to excuse or support all of their actions, or participate in the mindless Hitler worship that one often observes, but still, German-bashing is at least as bad as Greek-bashing, no?

Actually, a question for Mr. Wheeler: are there any Greek nationalist parties/organizations that you support?  If so, are you in communicatiuon with any?  You could do the Greek people a service by convincing the brightest of the Greek nationalist leaders to become familiar with the work of Frank Salter.

Actually, DS, if you do not mind a suggestion, when you have the chance, look into Salter yourself as well.  After all, if the bio-oriented people can read Yockey and Nietzsche and Spengler and Evola, certainly the High Culture-oriented activists can read Salter.

There needs to be a solid biological foundation to pro-western viewpoints.  Certainly, a cultural structure can be built on that foundation, but without that solid foundation, the structure may falter under pressure.

There is actually no excuse for any pro-western activist to be unfamiliar with Salter.  Even if they are economically unable to purchase “On Genetic Interests”, they can certainly read the academic paper linked to at this blog, as well as read reviews of Salter’s work on this blog and elsewhere on the internet.

And by “reviews” I mean honest attempts at analysis, and not hysterical people making self-described “vulgar attacks” on Salter, or whining that their “beautiful” African-American nieces will be discriminated against by Salterism.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:52 | #

Germany was is a place for high culture.  I was over the top a little bit in my comments.  My apologies.  Fred Braun does have a point that after Aristotle ((I know he said Plato)), not much after that by the Greeks, I agree.  400 years of Turkish occupation didn’t help either and neither did the Orthodox Church and monasticism.

————————————————
But I want to get back to this movie “300”.  This is what i posted on the IMDb message boards:

(In a response about Jewish causality)
Dr. Laura, ethnically a Jew, was raised a Catholic and was Baptized and then converted to Orthodox Judiasm. Dr. Laura has done a great service for this country.

On the other hand, atheistic Jews from Karl Marx, Trotsky, Victor Adler, to Howard Stern, to Allen Ginsburg to Jacques Derrida have all been destructive to Western Culture and Western Civilization. Jews have a very deconstructionist nature and attack all institutions consciously or subconsciously.

From an Article about Frank Miller’s work in 2006
————————————————————————————————————————
They should do what they feel is right and true. This is the code Miller aspires, to give a representation of the world as he sees it, as true as he can make. He compared the cartoonists function as akin to an assassin armed with sucker tipped arrows. They can annoy and provoke, but their ability to do more than that is limited. Instead of a limitation, this serves to give the artist a certain amount of freedom, the ability to go beyond the bounds others might be restrained by.
————————————————————————————————————————
MY RESPONSE:Jews hate boundaries. Here, Miller talks of his innate need, like most Jews, to tear down boundaries, to go beyond, to deconstruct. This is NOT Indo-European behavior OR mentality. The Spartans believed strongly in limitations.
————————————————————————————————————————
Comics can affect culture by allowing the world in, reflecting what we see. There is a reason, Miller says, that most of the great comics heroes were created by Jewish people that lived through the early part of the century. To a certain extent, they were creating a golem, a hero they needed to exist. Their comics were a response to they times they lived, something that comics have largely gotten away from and need to return if they’re going to be a significant voice in modern culture.
————————————————————————————————————————
MY RESPONSE: The Jewish connection to comic books. “Creating a golem”—-Indo-Europeans Don’t do this.
————————————————————————————————————————

Miller’s tale of Spartan warriors in “300” is coming to the big screen in a work that Miller says is very faithful to his book and a very complex and gorgeous movie. The Spartans are definitely his Spartans, and while they might not be perfectly historically accurate, they sure look cool.

Miller feels that the story of “300”—where a small band of Spartan warriors fend off a vast Persian army in a battle that probably saved modern civilization-still has relevance today, reflecting the struggle in the middle east and the fight of modern society against certain fundamentalist Islamic groups.
————————————————————————————————————————
MY RESPONSE:  I was always wondering why, why are all these Jews so interested in “saving” Western culture and the ones screaming from the top of their lungs about growing   Islamic influence in Europe and soon in America, From Lawerence Auster at View from the Right, and Spengler, a Moniker for a Jewish columnist at the East Asia Times and a whole host of neo-Conservatives who started this war in Iraq…Why?

Because they want to egg on the Europeans against the Muslims to do the Jewish Dirty work by fighting them. Miller’s work is about resurrecting Nihilism and Ayn Randyism in order to manipulate and form European mindset to a blood thirsty killing machines directed at Muslims. This movie is about social conditioning all sorts of young men into nihilistic monsters—-careless and ruthless and devoid of feeling. It is also the Jewish way of reincarnating their arch enemy and portraying the Indo-European into some sort of killing monster—-some killing rulthles goyem.

This is what made my stomach sick after watching this movie.

The rest of the Interview is here: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6810

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:58 | #

I continued in another post:

You know for all this talk about the “evil” nazis and the “Never again” and all this Holocaust 24/7 in America, I find it very disturbing and very sickening that a Jew would Nazify the Spartans and then promote it in a film.

Jesus said to the Jews, “Hypocrites”. You people can’t stop being hypocrites. His subconscious literally reproduced upon the Spartans the Nazis. Right now, this film is INFLUENCING PEOPLE especially young impressionable young men. The same thing is being done by the TV Series Jack Bauer who is also BEING PRODUCED BY A JEW who is a Catholic. But the Catholicism is not preventing the Jewish mentality from reproducing itself and exhibiting itself in Jack Bauer—-who goes around breaking all the rules!!!!

That is NOT the Western Way. What you are doing, both Frank Miller and Joel Surnow—is that they are Semitizing the West with your lawless thoughts and mentalities. What “24” and “300” is doing is re-barbarizing the West!!! Nobody reads anything anymore—everything is IMAGE driven. Knowledge now comes by IMAGE. And what are the images that “24” and “300” teaching?

To be ruthless——————like a F#$%%$# Nazi.

To have NO compassion———Like an Ayn Randian.

To have total disregard for Law——-Like the Nazi.

To have a scorn for religion——-Like the Nazi, like the Ayn Randian, like the Communists, like Atheist Jews.

These shows are teaching un-Western Values. Karl Marx, a Jew, created, almost singlehandedly, Communism and its adjunct, Social Democracy. Hitler as a Young man was influenced and taken with the strategy and direct action of Social Democracy in Vienna. National Socialism is a reaction against Communism and Social Democracy therefore it is formed by them as well. Hypocrites, you are re-forming the mindset and mentalities of Communism and National Socialism. “300” is about re-barbarizing Western man into making him into the animal beast of Nietzsche and his Ubermensch. You people are idiots to the Nth degree!!!!

This is why Socrates called, asked, pleaded, that the Poets be Censored in the Republic!!! Why, Because the Poets teach bad things!!!!
————————————————————————————————————————
QUOTE;  The office desk of Joel Surnow—the co-creator and executive producer of “24,” the popular counterterrorism drama on Fox—faces a wall dominated by an American flag in a glass case.
————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
QUOTE;  The twisting story line forces Bauer and his colleagues to make a series of grim choices that pit liberty against security. Frequently, the dilemma is stark: a resistant suspect can either be accorded due process—allowing a terrorist plot to proceed—or be tortured in pursuit of a lead. Bauer invariably chooses coercion. With unnerving efficiency, suspects are beaten, suffocated, electrocuted, drugged, assaulted with knives, or more exotically abused; almost without fail, these suspects divulge critical secrets.
————————————————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————————————————
QUOTE;  Not long after September 11th, Vice-President Dick Cheney alluded vaguely to the fact that America must begin working through the “dark side” in countering terrorism. On “24,” the dark side is on full view. Surnow, who has jokingly called himself a “right-wing nut job,”
————————————————————————————————————————
MY RESPONSE;  Cheney is of the Dark Side, he is a Christian Heretic—Christian Zionist. And this is the man responsible for the War against Iraq. This man is a War Criminal!!!!!
————————————————————————————————————————
QUOTE; Since September 11th, depictions of torture have become much more common on American television. Before the attacks, fewer than four acts of torture appeared on prime-time television each year, according to Human Rights First, a nonprofit organization. Now there are more than a hundred, and, as David Danzig, a project director at Human Rights First, noted, “the torturers have changed. It used to be almost exclusively the villains who tortured. Today, torture is often perpetrated by the heroes.” The Parents’ Television Council, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has counted what it says are sixty-seven torture scenes during the first five seasons of “24”—more than one every other show. Melissa Caldwell, the council’s senior director of programs, said, “ ‘24’ is the worst offender on television: the most frequent, most graphic, and the leader in the trend of showing the protagonists using torture.”
————————————————————————————————————————
MY RESPONSE; And now we have the film “300” in order to barbarize young men in order so that they now act like Nietzsche Ubermensch on the battlefield.
————————————————————————————————————————
QUOTE;  This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. .....

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect….

AND HERE COMES THE RUB

Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ” He continued, “The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.” FROM http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_mayer
————————————————————————————————————————

You think we have problems with Abu Ghraib, wait it will get worse, “300” teaches you to dispatch wounded soldiers, teaches you to torture victims i.e. the impaling of “300” aka Assyrian style, teaches you to desecrate the dead, teaches you to scorn religion———Every thing OPPOSITE of what the Spartans—the Archtype of Western Man and Western Civilization stands for!

Hitler would be proud of this film!!!! I on the other hand was sick to my stomach! You are desensitizing and denuding Western Man from any concept of the rule of law. The Rule of Law is a Western Construct most famously put forward by the Spartans themselves. And yet, “300” shows them to have total disrespect and disregard for the written and Unwritten laws.

The “Free-thinking”, the scorn for laws, to be free of restrictions—is the heart of rebellion nestled in the hearts of Jews. Ephors didn’t wear cowls nor did they have any religious duties other than to enforce religious precepts but the cowl is a symbol for something—-who wore cowls—-Roman Catholic Monks. What are the Ephors in “300” a symbol of the scorn, the innate hatred, the Jew has for the Catholic Church. And it shows the Ephors as diseased and lecherous and duplicitous, another goyem for the Jewish mind.

It’s sick.

What you are doing, is just like, Maximos said in the Movie “Gladiator”,

You are UNLEASHING HELL ON EARTH.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:05 | #

“Give them nothing. Take from them, everything!”

A lot of boys are going to be quoting this line. This is nowhere in the historical texts, but I do think this is something Ayn Rand or Nietzsche, or a National Socialist would say. Is this a saying of the Israeli Army? Is this the secret neo-conservative want that America is to do to the Middle East?

Just more barbarianism.

In order to understand the word “Barbarianism”, one must first understand the term—Civilization—it means to be “civilized”. For some reason that is not what is going on in “300”. America is NOT a civilization but a vulgar, crass, immoral, puerile, feminized, semitized, lawless land of mongrels. It is America, through the Dick Cheneys, the Donald Rumsfield, the Paul Wolfiwitzs, the Ken Adelmen’s of the world, that is the Barbarian.

What is Frank Miller doing in “300”, scatologizing both cultures, secretly tearing them both down, the contempt of the Jew for both the European and his fellow Eastern brothers. Two goyem going at each other, egged on by the Jew sitting in his parlor sipping cognac and stroking his mistress while watching porno on the Screen?

Do you know what one of the first rules of the communist party back in the day:

“DESTROY THE RUGGEDNESS OF THE PEOPLE”. That was communist social strategy for taking over countries. They first had to strike at the ruggedness, what made man masculine. They sought to effeminize European man.

The Effeminizing of European man was important for its castration and its imbecility of Western Culture. NOW, some people have realized that they have gone tooo far and that there is a growing Menace called Islam. Well, with Europe and America so liberalized and effeminized—it’s too weak to stand up to the Muslim and now the Jew, in his minority, can’t stand up against the Muslim—it needs friends, and now seeks to turn things around!!!!

And so now we have MORE nihilistic social engeenering from our good Semitic neo-conservatives—we are going to motivate the Goyim Euro man into a fighting killing machine and direct him toward the East.

You are playing both sides of the game. Play one off the other, while you sit back and play in the money.

This is what it’s all about. I was wondering why now all the outlets, blogs, media, think tanks are now all in a tither about Islam with most of the shrillest of voices being Jewish.

Sure enough, not only do we have a literary goyem in the movie “300”, we ARE CREATING literally the goyem. It’s like watching a magic potion being used before my very own eyes.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:22 | #

Out of all the reviews I have read,  Friedrich Braun, hit the nail on the head—I want to thank you.

The Mistake of National Socialist Ideology.

The communists were trying to effeminize the German male.
Hitler and others saw the danger.

But for a bunch of nationalists/racists, you miss the boat.

The Spartan dictum is “Know thyself”.  Did they know German character?  Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn writes;

“The Germans inside and outside of the “Reich” have a tradition of thinking in absolutes, of gravitating towards extremes, of disdaining compromises, and thus of being basically allergic to the demo-parliamentary system. Liberty or Equality, pg 232.

In another place, Von Kuenhelt-Leddihn, writes that environment also shapes German mentality in that it is in the middle of hostility without any natural barriers thus making inevitiable the German psychological need for One Leader.

Hitler feed off this behavior.  But again, the Spartans have a dictum that was also carved on their wall at Delphi, “Nothing too Much”.  That means, “EVEN A GOOD TAKEN TO AN EXTREME BECOMES EVIL”.

The German character is to take things to an extreme.  German mentality, culture knows nothing about the Golden Mean.  The Aristocracy of Greece, a very masculine ethic and culture, developed the concept of Virtue.  Manliness tempered.  To be a Strong Man doesn’t require ruthlessness and lawlessness or atheism or a disregard for God.  The German mind, in of course a reaction to communist effeminizing social re-engineering, went to the other extreme!!!

The Good lies in the Golden Mean.  This is a principle of Nature!  All of Nature exhibits the Golden Mean.  German National Socialism exhibited German racial characteristics unlike Italian National Socialism that exhibited Italian racial characteristics.

This is why the Spartans and Classical Education is soooo important.  The Spartans were Manly without cruelty, lawlessness, or impiety.  The True Spartans show the way, the techniques, the true Wisdom necessary for a winning European culture.

The four Virtues are Manliness, Righteousness, Prudence, and Temperance.  That is the excellence of a Man.  That is how one counteracts Communist/Jewish Mentality.

Posted by D.S. on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:45 | #

Hi gnxp stinks:

Having already proved I was an idiot for posting a response to the more ludicrous among us, I simply threw in the towel as I no longer have any interest in “intellectual debate” since there really wasn’t much of that in “the movement” anyway.  I figured, gutter name calling would satisfy my impulse to reply—please do not think less of me

My apologies if you thought I was defending Greeks and attacking Germans.  I am a pan-European—I’d like to drag the anti-German or anti-Greek forum posters outside and beat them ... I have zero tolerance for Jinogist Nationalists.  They are more filthy and poisonious than any Jew.  My only apologies to J.B. for not calling W.L.W on the anti-German comments.  Your, sir, are also a jerk.

I am familiar Frank Salter’s work—having been introduced to the work by Michael Rienzi.  I do not think “nationalism” really fits in “genetic” interests per se ... sure, most people in specific nations are closely related, however, there are many exceptions that don’t seem to change this (alsace Germans who live in France, and who fought against the Germans in WWI for example, or the Sorbs in Germany who are Slavs but I’m sure identify more with Germans than Czechs).  In-groups aren’t always “national” (in my case, as an expat, I am accepted as a “local” for the most part, whereas “national” Gypsies are not).  However, yes I do understand, the closer related the genes, the *generally* closer the “in-group” associations (however, WWII is hard to explain from this viewpoint).

However, I will try to behave.  However, I would hope the moderators would enforce some rules, and make any anti-Euroepean slander an offense worth banishement.  After all, if I hear it in reality from somebody, I can promise much worse.  If we are to move things in the correct direction, we should alienate these types whenever possible.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:50 | #

DS, Salter discusses the problem of “kinship overlap” in his book.  That’s another reason why wars between highly related peoples is a bad idea - a given “German” or a given “Frenchman” may in fact be more of the opposing ancestry and their national identity more cultural and political than ethnic.

Also, one must distinguish between the way people behave and the way they should behave, if they wish to act adaptively.  National conflicts may not always follow the lines of genetic interest; the point is, they should.

There really isn’t much to fight about any more within Europe.  The threat, both genetic and cultural, is coming from outside.

Note as well that Salter is a political scientist, not a biologist.  He uses the genetic data to make his points, but his ultimate approach to the problem is political and moral-ethical, and hence his work would lend itself even to those who are more “culturalists.”

After all, he believes that anything that motivates for the defense of genetic interests can be adaptive, and that includes “high culture.”

By the way, I agree with your overall attitude.  This infighting is highly destructive and does nothing but aid the common enemy (or enemies…).

Posted by PF on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:59 | #

D.S. wrote:

I am a pan-European—I’d like to drag the anti-German or anti-Greek forum posters outside and beat them ... I have zero tolerance for Jinogist Nationalists.  They are more filthy and poisonious than any Jew.

If you’re anything like me you look back on posts where you intimated violence or grew angry and cringe. I think everyone under 24 on this board could take a page out of the more mature posters’ books and write ‘in cold blood.’ Even looking at these words on a page is disgusting.

D.S., your lack of tolerance for Jingoist Nationalists, and the extreme terms in which you condemn them, seems to me contradictory on some level to the other dictates inherent in WN or Nationalist thinking. If I knew more about your philosophy, I could perhaps say more than this. But if you are prepared to demonize the defense of historic European nationalities, by restraining what you view as excessive nationalism - not, as is implicit today, for the purposes of cooperation - but because you view individual nationalism with contempt, and view every nation somehow subject to your pan-European whims, then I think your thinking would diverge sharply with that of some other people here, myself included. Pan-Europeanism is perhaps most comfortably at home in the European diasopra, I think, where nationalism is generalized and racial.

And just to be real for a second here. As you were physically pummeling the anti-Greek German nationalist, (a rare bird in todays world..), as you were beating him bloody, would you with each punch reiterate ‘Pan-Europeanism’, ‘integrationism’, ‘Pan-Europeanism’. I think I recognize in your attitude some aspects of the very monster we are trying to combat. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Posted by PF on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:14 | #

“where nationalism is generalized and racial.”

should read

“where bloodlines are mixed and the category of race has political viability.”

Posted by Sigurd on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:04 | #

As many mainstream criticisms have observed, the movie suffered mostly from it’s writing. The narration was redundant and hackneyed and its grotesque, macabre violence (not to mention an odd border soft porn scene toward the beginning) revealed an adolescent’s mentality.  And in general there was something very vulgar, dingy and inappropriate about the film.  War porn? But what is to be expected from a film derived from a comic book? 

On the other hand, it was explicitly and consistently, anti-multiculturalist perhaps more so than any film since Birth of a Nation. 

Still the treatment was unserious (the Spartans were “evil-cool” much in the way protagonist vampires might be in another comic book movie) and the theme is hardly one upon which we can afford to be unserious. 

Though I’ll have to admit, in the end-despite being a poorly written movie (though a well written comic book) it may have done us more good than harm: it puts a foot in the door. 

And does anyone really care if these two comic dorks are Jews?  Its possible the quality and nature of the film makes them Jews whether they were born that way, officially converted themselves or not.  Even being Anti-Semites would not preclude them.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:56 | #

DS can speak for himself, but there is a difference between “Jingoist Nationalists” and “Ethnic Nationalists.”

The former gave us WWI and WWII, the latter just want to preserve their particularities and fit in well with “universal nationalism.”

Even Salter criticized “Jingoist Nationalists.”

We need to understand what it is we are talking about here.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:11 | #

“...sorry, but chances are excellent he’ll be warmly endorsing Alon Ziv.”

That’s completely asinine.

Let’s have ds come back here and explain his views on intra-European distinctiveness.

Also, how do you define “race?”
Just because Pontikos showed data that Germans and Poles have different NRY distributions is no reason to say they are of a “different race”, unless you use “race” in the manner of “an English race”, a “Scottish race”, and so forth.  Germans and Poles are different ethnic groups; one wonders how many autosomal markers would be necessary to distinguish them with respect to Jorde’s “w” measure of genetic similarity (new paper review to come), or even the more traditional clustering, which require fewer markers.

This is NOT to deny important differences between Germans and Poles.  But, by talking about “races”, you begin to equate these differences to the level of Germans vs. Nigerians.

How about actually understanding genetic data before quoting it?

And how about DS coming back to defend his views?

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:03 | #

Fred, one wonders as to why you have so much venom toward DS.  One wonders. 

Can you actually quote DS as saying that he disrespects and wants to do away with intra-European distinctiveness?

All I read was somewhat inflamed rhetoric against intra-European hostility, outbursts which can be explained, and perhaps justified, looking back at the wreckage left behind by the conflicts of WWI and WWII.

“Guy doesn’t know his ass from his elbow.”

Do you?

First you write that:
“He has no views on it.”

Then you decide to discuss his “views” that you just said he doesn’t have:

“His views on it are that it’s an annoying anachronistic nuisance that should be done away with or, at the very least not respected in any way, shape, or form.”

Quote? 

“We also don’t want total pan-European racial/ethnocultural homogenization imposed with a mailed fist by pig-ignorant totalitarian E.U. bureaucrats.”

Is that what DS proposes?  Quotes?  Evidence?

Interesting that a person who consistently defended John Jay Ray - who openly promoted mass Asian immigration as well as miscegenation (including in his own family)- is so vehement in denouncing DS, who merely asks that Europeans learn the lessons of the two world wars and approach their problems in a reasonable spirit of accomodation and shared interests.

Let’s see.  A guy who wants the West swamped with East and South Asians, a guy who supports the Mexican influx into the USA, a guy who celebrates his own son’s involvement with an Asian (different species, Fred?) is A-OK and “one of us.”  But, another guy, who has spent his adult life fighting for pro-western causes, and who believes that the infighting on this thread is counter-productive, is somehow a dire threat, and a budding Alon Ziv totalitarian.  Really Fred.  Who do you think is more likely to support Ziv- DS or your buddy JJR?

What does all of this say about you?  Why the “pass” for JJR and the pure venom toward DS??

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:09 | #

Flemings and Walloons:  different Euro races.  Prod and Catholic Ulstermen:  different Euro races.  English and Welsh:  different Euro races.  True Euros and True West-Central African Negroes:  different human species.

  You can’t just make up new definitions for commonly used words, Fred.

  Commonly accepted definitions:
 
  Flemings and Walloons: different ethnicities or nationalities. 
  Europeans and Negroes: different races. 
  Humans and Lemurs: different species. 

Europeans and Negroes are NOT of different species.

Posted by Bohnson Jailey on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:47 | #

The different human races belong to the same species by the modern evolutionary biology definition of the word. (This isn’t an arbitrary, p.c. classification…)

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:54 | #

There are lots of “commonly accepted” categorizations that are wrong.

  That doesn’t mean you can just make things up based on your arbitrary whim. 

  We know all about the “modern evolutionary biology definitions,” Bohnson.  Here’s one:  by the modern American Anthropology Association definition, races don’t exist but are artificial social constructs:  a Chinaman, Negro, and white have no inborn distinguishing characteristics that justify grouping them severally.

Now don’t bore me please, Bohnson.

Bohnson is correct. 

You should quit before you dig this hole any deeper, Fred. You’re not making any sense.  The fact that the American Anthropological Society or whoever else is wrong about race doesn’t mean that you can make up your own definition of species.  The logic doesn’t compute. 

Members of different species do not normally produce fertile offspring. Negroes and Europeans = same species.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:55 | #

Members of different species do not normally produce fertile offspring.

When interbreeding.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:08 | #

Fred, in biology, “species” is defined as the taxon within which interbreeding produces fertile offspring.  Looking at the fertility rates of Euro-African hybrids, there can be little doubt we’re looking at the same species.

You might look at the way subspecific taxons (or taxa) are used in biology.  In particular the trinomen.  The first in the three-part name is the Genus, e.g. “Homo”.  The second is the Species, e.g. “sapiens”.  The third is the Subspecific name—the name of the subspecies, e.g. European, African, Asian, Australian, etc.

Getting these taxa correct is challenging no matter which branch of the tree of life you’re looking at.

There is even controversy over whether humans should be called “Homo sapiens” or “Pan sapiens”.

Posted by Bohnson Jailey on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:10 | #

The cited American Anthropology Association definition isn’t the evolutionary biology definition—it’s tampered with, obviously.

Now here’s “the modern Fred Scrooby biology definition”:  Negroes and Euros are properly classified as different human species, not different races of the same human species.

An attempted jewing of the definition—a wild, vague, unsupported assertion.

Different species do not share a gene pool by definition. Unless African genes are hermetically excluded from the European gene pool—which they’re not at this point—we have one species. 

So, Fred’s wrong. That’s the beauty of science—zippo wiggle room for know-nothings, be they “liberal” or nationalist.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:40 | #

Boy, do we need a little “Classical” knowledge around here!

Andy Wooster wrote:

Flemings and Walloons: different ethnicities or nationalities. 
Europeans and Negroes: different races. 
Humans and Lemurs: different species. 

Europeans and Negroes are NOT of different species.

The first business in discussing anything should be philology and words.

First “Ethnicity” Comes from the Greek and is the same word “Nation” in Latin.  Ethnicity in the Septuagint and in the New Testament written in Greek is translated into the Latin word in English—Nation.  Ethnicity and Nation which have been adopted into the English language come from two different language groups BUT mean the same thing. 

Then English adopted another word meaning the same thing as Ethnicity and nation===Race. 

I know Greek History pretty good.  All Hellenes speak a form of Greek but there are different Tribes.  Ionians are not Dorians.  I have more commonly seen “Ionian Race” and I have a book with “Dorian Race”.  One can say “Dorian Ethnicity” or “Dorian Nation” or “Dorian Race”.  In English, “Race” just fits better.

Ethnicity, Race, Nation, all mean the same thing.  Subgroups of a race or Nation or Ethnicity should be called Tribes.

American Indians describe themselves either as Tribes or Nation such as the Comanche Tribe or the Comanche Nation.

English is a terrible language.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:44 | #

I believe there are examples of species interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.  Wolves and dogs are different species and there is actually now controversy whether dogs are really descended from wolves.

Having said that, and as much as I wish that it was true, I don’t believe that Europeans and Africans are different species.  There just isn’t quite enough genetic divergence.

Let’s get that Neanderthal data and figure out the genetic divergence of Neanderthals vs. modern Europeans contrasted with Africans vs. modern Europeans.  If Neanderthals are considered a different species of the genus Homo, one would expect a greater divergence with them, IF they are a different species and Africans are not.

On another note: I hope DS comes back to this thread and defends his own ideas.  I suspect that he would endorse Lowell’s Imperium/Dominion distinction, but let him state that for himself.  I would tend to doubt he endorses a homogenization within Europe, but again, let him speak for himself.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 19:55 | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid

In some cases (e.g., dog-wolf) the relationship is redefined by some as “subspecies” in order to explain the fertility of ofspring; however, this seems to be a pan-Canid phenomenon and not so easily explained.  The article cites other examples as well.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:05 | #

Fred, I agree that there may be a case for “geographic races” to be called different “species” if we look at all inter-continental transport of humans as “artificial”, since biologists do try to define “species” in such a way as to exclude artificial hybrids—hybrids resulting from human transport with breeding in captivity.

As always, with humans, the definition of what is “natural” and what is “artificial” is problematic.

It is scientifically valid to use the definition of “species” and “subspecies” and “race” that has the most utility in terms of parsimoniously describing the world.  Picking such optimal definitions is half of the problem of science.  Outside of measures like Kolmogorov Complexity, it is virtually impossible to even state the issue let alone resolve it.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:07 | #

“Dare to bemoan that state of affairs and you’ll get a verbal lashing from our friend.”

It’s time for DS himself to respond to ths.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:20 | #

Since I am a Greek and a Christian on this thread and of course the odd man out, but I don’t think that Africans and Europeans are different “species”.  The difference between an African and a European is in the Soul.  I know you all don’t like nor consider the concept of “soul” but I don’t think diversity of soul characteristics is the basis of species.

Thought processes are a matter of the soul—not of biology.

And of course this thread has nothing to do with the movie “300”.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:50 | #

Excellent comment, Svigor, but I have to nit-pick:

Negroids don’t innovate.  Europids do.

I disagree.  It’s part of being on the individualistic end of Rushton’s scale. 

Negroes do innovate, it’s just that (1) they’re stupid, and so are their innovations, generally, and (2) they’re disorganized and lazy, and technologically meaningful innovations are not preserved and built upon.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 01:42 | #

I just had a funny thought:

Since there is controversy over whether humans, regardless of geography, should be calle “Homo sapiens” or “Pan sapiens”, it follows that if we are to use the EEA criteria for “natural” that it is reasonable to describe various human geographic races by different binomial  taxa, and that Euroman could legitimately be labeled “Pan Europus”.

Posted by Bohnson Jailey on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:26 | #

I’m sorry to bore and probably horrify Fred with dry technical definitions—thinking of Bantus and Pygmies as co-specifics must be ego-shattering, eh?

But,

If genes found in population A systematically (though not necessarily commonly) reappear IBD and viably in future generations of population B through natural transmission or vice versa, we cannot but have one species.

Modern human populations do not meet the definition of reproductive isolation, nor even approximate isolation.

The gene flow test supercedes phenotypical considerations
because it’s specific and testable. Works perfectly well categorizing most living species.

Saves enormous time classifying an Obama, or addressing a Friedrich Braun who might any day heartily argue “True Poles” and “True Germans” comprise separate species. (Regarding “True Negroes” and “True Euros”, naturally, Fred means subspecies.)

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:26 | #

No, actually, Fred was being more reasonable than most of the “reasonable” folks give him credit for.  Re-read the messages about “natural” vs “artificial” and how those terms might reasonably be related to what “evolutionary psychologists” (ie: political centrists in the sociobiology vs loony sociology debate)  call “the environment of evolutionary adaptation”.

Given the measures of genetic distance between human “subspecies” and the genetic distance between some “species”, it is difficult to make the case against Fred very strong.

See the story about Harpending’s study in the most recent Majority Report roundup.  Here’s Harpending’s abstract:

Understanding human races: the retreat of neutralism.
Henry Harpending
Discussion and debate about human races has been dominated for decades by neutral theory and statistics. Since this literature never posed a real question, it has never produced an answer. Lewontin’s 1972 paper with its claim that a value of 1/8 of a statistic like Fst is “small” and that this means that human race differences are insignificant is a staple of our textbooks. Recently geneticists have had a closer look and pointed out that Fst of 1/8 describes differences among sets of half sibs and few claim that half sibs are insignificantly related. Anthony Edwards has shown that the significance of differences is in the correlation structure of a large number of traits, again denying the Lewontin assertion that human differences are small. Alan Templeton in 1998 claimed that human races were less differentiated that races of some other large mammals, but he compared human nuclear DNA statistics with statistics from mtDNA in the other species. An appropriate comparison shows that human are more, not less, differentiated than other large mammal species. Since neutral differences are a passive
record of demographic history they are not very significant for issues of functional biology. Newly available data sources allow us to study the natural selection of race differences instead of their drift. It appears that there is a lot of ongoing evolution in our species and the loci under strong selection on different continents only partially overlap. Human race differences may be increasing rapidly.

Posted by D.S. on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:06 | #

gnxp stinks wrote:

“I suspect that he would endorse Lowell’s Imperium/Dominion distinction, but let him state that for himself.”

In short, yes—Norman and I have labelled the “Dominum” side, in short, as a kind of larger “Swiss Cantonism” for the Imperium—where each group regulates and dictates their own local affairs, customs, etc… as long as they do not violate the rules of the Imperium (in reality, not much different than the American State governments vs. the Federal government).  I am generally, when speaking, referring only to Imperium side ways and means (eliminating the mechanisms for Euros to wage war on other Euros, common geo-political agendas, bio-politics, etc…)

As for the rest of the attacks on me—they just bore me to death to reply.

And yes, I never stated that I WANT Frenchmen and Germans to mix—but, I could careless if they do.  Modern European nation states are Euro-mongrelized anyway—why pretend otherwise.

Posted by PF on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:41 | #

Modern European nation states are Euro-mongrelized anyway—why pretend otherwise.

....?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:12 | #

“careless”  I don’t think so.  I don’t believe that any European tribe should miscegenate.  I don’t think the different areas of France even should miscegenate between all the Euro French.  France has distinctive provinces because of the residue of ancient Gallic/Norman tribes and others.

The only way to preserve tribal/national culture is NOT to miscegenate.  Welsh shouldn’t be marrying Scotsmen and Scotsmen, Irish!!!!  No miscegenation!!!  at all amongst any Euronation! 

A Man’s duty is to his Tribe/Nation—-First and foremost and his energies should be marrying his own kin!
——————————————-
To Fred Scrooby, No, I don’t believe in what that Greek said.  Of course Germans and English are civilized and have civilizations and High Culture.  I am NOT anti-German, I have 1/4 German in me, and my mothers maiden name is Schuch.

I hope Fred that you went to the Lyceum page at my website, my articles are there.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:08 | #

I recall visiting Russia recently and being impressed by two things about the phenotypes:

1) The well-known Asian-European admixture of some people.

2) The abundant presence of people who would easily be mistaken for my near relatives if examined by phenotype alone.

This Asian-European admixture in Russia is not a recent, state imposition.  It occurs amongst some of the most rural and tied-to-the-land families in Russia.

I’m not sure what is going to be done about this when a pan Europeanism takes hold, but it is going to be quite problematic if something isn’t built into it to handle such admixture.

I’ve proposed something along these lines before based on the principle of territorial secession with assortative migration supporting freedom of association but it doesn’t seem to have taken hold in any of the “thought leaders”.  I’m not sure what to do about this failure to cop to the fundamental problems of land allocation.

Posted by genotype on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:14 | #

“...recall visiting Russia recently and being impressed by two things about the phenotypes”

what about the genotypes?

We need to find out what the admixture levels really are.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:55 | #

My opinion, Slavs are not Europeans!  They are different and don’t belong in Europe!

Francis Parker Yockey writes of the Russian Soul:

“Russia, the true, spiritual, Russia, is primitive and religious. It detests Western Culture, Civilization, nations, arts, State-forms, Ideas, religions, cities, technology. This hatred is natural, and organic, for this population lies outside the Western organism, and everything Western is therefore hostile and deadly to the Russian soul.” Imperium, pg 578

There is even a Russian saying that goes, “What is good for a Russian is deadly for a German”.!!!!

“In his rebellion, Pugachev and his peasants massacred every officer, official, and nobleman that fell into their hands. Everything having any connection with the West was burned or destroyed. Whole tribes joined in the mass-movement.” ibid, pg 582

Slavs are NOT European and don’t belong in Europe!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:38 | #

Lindsay yes, I did go to the Lyceum page and browsed it, finding the material there highly interesting.  Thanks for drawing it to my attention.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:27 | #

I believe there are examples of species interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.  Wolves and dogs are different species and there is actually now controversy whether dogs are really descended from wolves.

Let’s get that Neanderthal data and figure out the genetic divergence of Neanderthals vs. modern Europeans contrasted with Africans vs. modern Europeans.  If Neanderthals are considered a different species of the genus Homo, one would expect a greater divergence with them, IF they are a different species and Africans are not.

  I was relying on the wikipedia entry for “species”, which uses the “fertile offspring” criteria, though I believe I may have oversimplified things a bit. (They classify wolves and dogs in different subspecies, not species).

That said, I’m going to defer to “gnxp stinks” on this question.

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20 | #

nitpicking bull shit this third page of comments is…. what about mixture between white Americans and white English peoples? The majority of people will not do it, so why worry if a Swede wants to marry a Finn? They are all good genes across the (white) board….

Posted by Rnl on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:27 | #

Fred Scooby wrote:

there’s no excuse now for not getting back to it.

But you have been misleading us for quite some time now. When you wrote “race” in your previous posts, I thought you meant race, not ethnic group. You have probably written “race” hundreds of times, and it now turns out that you didn’t really mean race.

You also didn’t mean “miscegenation” as I understand the term. Once “race” dwindles into ethnic group, miscegenation must change its meaning too. So an Englishman who marries a French woman becomes a miscegenator. That was apparently implied in all your previous references to miscegenation, but no one could have guessed it until now.

It’s better to use words in their normal senses, so that others can understand what you mean. If you do choose to use words in archaic or non-standard senses, you should explain. Whenever you write the word “race,” you could provide a brief definition of how your own use of “race” differs substantially from the meaning that all other racialists understand. Or even better, just use “ethnic group” when you mean ethnic group and “race” when you mean race. Using words to convey your meanings is more effective and far less confusing than conveying your meanings by changing the meanings of words.

No one has any difficulty understanding that Poles and Englishmen belong to different ethnic groups. Our responses to that fact may differ - my response, for example, is much different from yours - but the fact itself isn’t in dispute. But saying that Poles and Englishmen belong to different races is just wrong, if “race” carries the normal scientific meaning that almost everyone on this blog understands.

What does the following mean?

I especially liked your criticism of today’s Church for its dishonesty about race ...

Is today’s Church dishonest about ethnically based nations or is it dishonest about races? I don’t doubt that it is dishonest about both, but I can’t tell from your sentence which brand of dishonesty you and Lindsay are complaining about.

What does this mean?

Race-denial is false Jewish science in pursuit of political ends.

I’m guessing that you have reverted to the commonly understood meaning of “race.” If that’s the case, why not make the reversion permanent? “Race” is a good word, and the fact that most Whites continue to _see_ races in their daily experience, despite all the race denial, is good news.

Posted by Rnl on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:36 | #

W.LindsayWheeler wrote:

Boy, do we need a little “Classical” knowledge around here!

Unfortunately PF has given up on correcting you, which was our major source for classical knowledge in this thread.

The first business in discussing anything should be philology and words.

Philology can illuminate the current meaning of words. It doesn’t tell you what words do mean or even what words should mean. Believing that it does is a fallacy. “Race” and “ethnicity” are different words and they carry different meanings today, regardless of their respective linguistic histories.

Ethnicity and Nation which have been adopted into the English language come from two different language groups BUT mean the same thing. Then English adopted another word meaning the same thing as Ethnicity and nation===Race ... Ethnicity, Race, Nation, all mean the same thing

Even if all that were true, and it isn’t, we would still need a word to convey the meanings signified by modern English “race.” Since thankfully we already have modern English “race,” we would be wise to keep using it.

There is no French race today; there once was a French race in an earlier period of English linguistic history. Words often change their referents over time, and no one should be disturbed by that fact. 

***

Slavs are NOT European and don’t belong in Europe!

They are European. They already live in Europe. I hope you’re not seriously suggesting that they should be kicked out.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:58 | #

Even if Frank Miller was Jewish, what difference would it make? I shall tell you. None! I watched a bootleg DVD of 300 but I will watch it again in the cinema when it comes out this Friday. Damn! The movie gave me goosebumps. It is VERY
powerful, especially for young people. The fact that it mixes fact with myth makes it all the more compelling. The look of the film is awe-inspiring. Arno Breker would find great delight in the sculptured bodies of the Spartan warriors. The movie openly praises eugenics. The Spartans’ stance at the Hot Gates reminded me of the brave Red Army soldiers who held Stalingrad against the anti-European Fascist beasts. All Glory to Leonidas and Stalin!

Constantin

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:19 | #

D.S. wrote: ” ... for good measure, the Nietzschean writer Nikos Kazantzakis (who died in 1957, in Germany of all places).”

You forgot to mention Constantine Cavafy, the great visionary who single-handedly revived Greek poetry. I once visited his house in Alexandria, Egypt (before I paid my respect at the German War Memorial at El Alamein). They have a nice memorial plaque forhim there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Cavafy

Constantin

Posted by D.S. on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:28 | #

Ave Constantin, Constantine P. Cavafy has been noted ... just another link in the chain.  The FTs here never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.  Well, as good’ol Goethe once stated, “Tis to folly the betterment of fools!” 

Spasibo bolshoi!

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:21 | #

I wonder who this Wheeler is to decide that Slavs are “not European” and “don’t belong in Europe.”  Of course, he quotes Yockey, as if Yockey is some sort of god whose every word is the gospel truth.

OK, then, here is another quote Yockey from in “Imperium”, page 387, which refers to (modern Greeks),

The great god Yockey speaks:
‘Anacharsis Cloots organized a deputation of “representatives of the human race” which presented its respects to the Revolutionary Terror in France. There were pig-tailed Chinamen, black Ethiopians, Turks, Jews, Greeks, Tartars, Mongols, Indians, bearded Chaldeans. Actually however, they were Parisians in disguise. This parade had thus at the very beginning of Rationalism a double symbolic significance. First, it symbolized the idea of the West that it now wished to embrace all “humanity,” and secondly, the fact these were disguised Westerners showed the exact amount of success that this intellectualizing enthusiasm would have.’

Thus, Yockey places Greeks along with various non-Western, non-European peoples from Asia and Africa, and considers them part of a general “humanity”, apart from the West, whose participation in the West can only be from “disguised Westerners.”

OK, so if Yockey’s book is the word of God, then we must say that Greeks are not European, and need to get out of Europe?

Or, perhaps we say that Yockey was just a man, in error about both Slavs and Greeks, and that we should let the peoples of Eastern Europe have a chance to join with those of Western Europe in the western “project?”

Tomislav Sunic is an Eastern European, a (south) Slav (Croat).  Are we to understand that we should reject him as a European and as a Westerner, on the word of Yockey and Wheeler?

No, I don’t think so.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:09 | #

First to Daniel, who wrote

“...what about mixture between white Americans and white English peoples?

First off, Daniel, “America” is NOT a race or an ethnicity. What you mean by “White Americans” you actually mean European.  I am NOT an American.  I am an European.  America is a false construct.  IT is a psuedo-nation.  It is a Masonic, Enlightenment creation that is man-made.  What America is about is RACE-MIXING.  It is about confusing all things together.

Then RnL who writes the most BS I have ever seen;

“...Once “race” dwindles into ethnic group…”

Where is this said anywhere?  Race dwindles into ethnic group?  Where this is new info for me!  Ethnic comes from the Greek Word “ethnos” meaning NATION.  Nation is synonomous with Race.  How does Race/Nation dwindle into Ethnic?

The Oxford English Dictionary relates its meaning

late Middle English (denoting a person not of the Christian or Jewish faith): via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek ethnikos ‘heathen’, from ethnos ‘nation’.

I read the Bible.  Ethnos in the Septuagint reads Nation. That usage has been in longer usage than anywhere else! 

The Oxford English Dictionary does say “Sub-group” for a Nation though in modern usage.  Shouldn’t that “sub-group” be “Tribe”?

I don’t know what the HECK you are talking about RnL

Or even better, just use “ethnic group” when you mean ethnic group and “race” when you mean race.

What is the difference?  I can find places in the Bible that translate Ethnos in the Greek to Race in the English!!!!  You provide NO authority or quote any Reference or Dictionary material.

I haven’t been on this board for awhile but RnL you are not upfront and you seem to dissemble, you deconstruct, you are subversive.

Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:49 | #

I’m sorry, ‘American’ isn’t an ethnicity?

What is it….

What am I?

I re-read it all and determined there was some sort of dispute about the etymological origins of words and someone misusing terms…

Check. I don’t care about that fight…

What do you mean by Americans being European?

I want to know why some people are implying that miscegenation (which I understood to be inter-racial breeding) is now being applied to intra-racial inter-ethnic breeding.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:03 | #

If one could give an “IQ rating” to the quality of the posts of a thread, this one is in danger of dipping under the triple digit barrier.  Good work guys.

“I’m sorry, ‘American’ isn’t an ethnicity?

What is it….

What am I?”

OK….George Bush is an “American”, Alan Dershowitz is an “American”, and Al Sharpton is an “American.”

Same ethnic group?

“Nation is synonomous with Race. “

Really?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:37 | #

It helps to stick with technical terms of biology to the extent possible prior to introducing terms like “race” and “ethnicity”.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:53 | #

America is a Masonic Creation!  Look at the back of your One dollar bill—-IT says, “Novus Ordo Secularum”.  What is the Novus ordo?  Europe is the “Palios Ordo”. (I mixed Greek with Latin there, since I don’t know the word for Old in Latin).  Europe is the Old Order!  The Founders based on the Protestant Milieu of Millenarianism sought to “re-create” their colonies in a “New Creation”.  This milieu melded with the Enlightenment/Masonic order of also, deconstructing the Old, and replacing it with the New.

America is supposed to be a Race-mixing place, a new creation.  It is about Ending Diversity by intermixing all into ONE as the motto says, “E Pluribus Unum”; “Out of Many, One”.  This the methodology of the New Order, the Masonic New Order!  It is part and parcel of the de-nationalism and de-racianation of the Jews.

America is a failed state.  It is NOT organic neither is it natural but a man-made ideological creation; doomed to failure and it has!!!!  Yes, I NO longer consider myself an American and it behooves each and every one of us to return to OUR NATURAL ROOTS—-our national European heritage.

America may be a “culture” but not an ethnicity!!!  Ethnos is the same as Nation.  Gnxp, you answer Really to me saying that Nation is synomous with Race?

Race~a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc. ; an ethnic group4

Ethnicity~ the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition4

Nation~a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory4

All from the Oxford English Dictionary!!!  Now, what the Hell are we talking about here?  We say all sorts of things that have no reference to any standard Dictionary!!!  That’s great.

In all the Classical and Religious Texts—-Ethnos is translated Nation.  Now how can I understand this term in the Greek when the Modern usage is different from its origins.  Where’s the harmony?  How can anybody read Classical or Religious texts and understand them, when the Modern meaning is different from the one these texts mean?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:57 | #

It helps to stick with technical terms of biology to the extent possible prior to introducing terms like “race” and “ethnicity”.

How did Aristotle use these Terms?  thru biology? The Bible has been in longer use in Western Civilization other than the writings of Plato, how did the Bible use these terms?  How did people understand those terms throughout 2300 years of Western civilization,  And just now we are supposed to use “biological” terms? in Ancient texts and have any consistent meaning?

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:01 | #

I read books from Classical Antiquity, from the Medieval Ages and in Modern Times.  How can I understand what Ancient peoples wrote if meaning keeps on changing?  Is there not continuity over 2500 years of Western Culture and Western Civilization?  Are you making up a totally new language divorced from the roots and heritage of Western Culture?  How can I understand Classical Antiquity of Cicero and Aeneas when moderns keep adjusting the meanings of words?

Posted by gnxp stinks on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:46 | #

You mistake my intent if you think I give a damn what is written in the Bible or a dictionary, or the shifting uses of the term “race” over the years.  Nation = race?  Germans are a “race?”  What if you find some Germans genetically more similar to Frenchmen or Poles than they are to other Germans?  What if one can say the same about Frenchmen and Poles with respect to Germans?  The genetic gradients here are small enough that any talk of “race” is absurd.  One can talk of “subraces” within Europe along the North/South and West/East divides - but this then descends into semantics.

What is more important - semantics or reality?  If one considers Germans and French to be “different races”, then what then does one say about Germans and Chinese?  Different species?  So, we are going to redefine the words up and down the spectrum. Chinese vs. Chimps? 

What a goddamn waste of time - exactly what one can expect from a blog open to “the public.”

Posted by Daniel J on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:29 | #

If one could give an “IQ rating” to the quality of the posts of a thread, this one is in danger of dipping under the triple digit barrier.  Good work guys. -gnxp stinks…

You are right. I’m frustrated and tired… Sorry. I will just lurk for a bit.

Posted by Daniel J on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:36 | #

Now if the E.U. gave England a choice between getting changed into Bantus or Poles they’d choose Poles, obviously.  But why must they be given that choice?  Why can’t the New World Odor and the E.U. let them remain Englishmen and why couldn’t the NWO let California remain white?  These are questions our élites refuse to answer.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:09 PM | #

I got you Fred. Like I said, I am tired and frustrated. My point is I am married to an Englishwoman who will assimilate easily and genetically I find our “miscengenation” in line with the principles espoused here.

I am completely in agreement that Poland should remain Poland, I just had a weird feeling that I was being condemned for not marrying “American.”

As far as the elites answering our questions, well, they wouldn’t be ‘elite’ if they did things like that

Sorry for the mix-up.

Posted by Daniel J on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:55 | #

—“General Wesley Clark on why the aggressive war against Serbia was undertaken by NATO: ‘There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.’ That is quite simply the most disgusting thing I have ever heard in my life.  I feel rather ill.”—Steve Edwards

Wow! I never read that before…. That should be an eye opening comment for some of my “race-neutral” anarchist friends.

People just don’t seem to understand that people that strive to wield power over others have ideologies. They think they are just looking out for special interests, or enjoy the limelight, but the truth is this people-our ‘elite’-our true believers in this insane Utopian fantasy.

I’m afraid for my future. Luckily, my normal career field is very lucrative and if I can just get a couple a’ more good years in before the great economic collapse, which will quickly degenerate into race war (fingers crossed), I should be able to amass enough resources to whether the coming storm. My family (living in the heart of Aztlan in their ‘gated community’) will not be so lucky.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:36 | #

Fred Scrooby wrote:

... their own fundamentally diaspora-Jewish ideal of the nationless raceless communityless ethnicityless historyless religionless identityless sovietized robotized worldwide working class of denatured worker ants. That’s the diaspora-Jewish ideal because under that set-up diaspora Jews don’t feel so “alienated,” so they like it.

Diaspora Jews are hostile to strong nation-states, but they should also fear, I think, anything resembling European Empire. A Europe in which old ethnic loyalties are weakened and a common sense of Europeaness is strengthened could be dangerous for Jews. I don’t mean that as an argument for reducing ethnic loyalties, but only as an observation about Jewish preferences.

Their preferred European state, as A.J.P. Taylor once pointed out, was Austria-Hungary before its dismemberment - that is, a collection of squabbling ethnic groups and competing ethnic interests held together only by state coercion and lines on a map. In that fragmented environment, which Hitler found so offensive, Jewish difference and self-interested activism were normalized, just as they are in multicultural America, which is why most American Jews like multiculturalism and loathe the “white-bread” America of the 1950s.

Were it not for the fact that Muslims dislike Jews, multicultural Britain today would also be an optimal Jewish environment: growing state coercion to inhibit the shrinking majority from complaining about their dispossession; regular celebrations of balkanization (“diversity”); a vision of the (anti-)nation that defines sensitivity (aka capitulation) to minority demands as a core British value.

On the other hand, a pan-European superstate that deemphasized old ethnic loyalties in favor of a common European identity could make Jewish otherness seem like a willful rejection of Europe. Jews benefit from grievance industries and they need loads of ethnic and racial squabbling in order to make their own destructive activism seem normal. A pan-European superstate might deny them that.

So Hoffmeister’s vision, if I understand it correctly, could be bad for Jews. That doesn’t make Hoffmeister right, and we shouldn’t, of course, argue for something just because we believe Jews would dislike it.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:38 | #

W.LindsayWheeler wrote:

I don’t know what the HECK you are talking about RnL.

I was trying to explain to you how language works. I wasn’t successful.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 06:51 | #

Constantin von Hoffmeister wrote:

The Spartans’ stance at the Hot Gates reminded me of the brave Red Army soldiers who held Stalingrad against the anti-European Fascist beasts. All Glory to Leonidas and Stalin!

Please tell us, in normal English and without slogans (“Fascist beasts”), how Eastern Europe benefited from Soviet domination. Don’t tell us that the Germans were bad; tell us how Stalinist Marxism was good. 

Even if Frank Miller was Jewish, what difference would it make? I shall tell you. None!

The suspicion, which Jim Bowery alluded to initially, is that the film could be a timely advertisement for neocon wars in defense of Israel. That’s possible. Anyone who doesn’t believe that Jews use their media power for distinctively Jewish purposes lives in a fantasy world. The URL Lindsay cited earlier is suspicious:

Miller feels that the story of “300” - where a small band of Spartan warriors fend off a vast Persian army in a battle that probably saved modern civilization - still has relevance today, reflecting the struggle in the middle east and the fight of modern society against certain fundamentalist Islamic groups.

The claim that “the struggle in the Middle East” is part of our defense of the West (reduced here to “modern civilization” and “modern society”) must reflect either intentional deceit or sloppy ignorance.

The sentence, however, is not a direct quote, and the ideas, if they really are Miller’s, may indicate only someone who suffers from freeper-like gullibility. A traditional American patriot, guilty only of reading too much Mark Steyn, might express himself similarly.

But, as Hoffmeister says, it doesn’t matter. The film is about Westerners confronting non-Western invaders. Some viewers may see a defense of the neoconservative invasion of Iraq, but if they do they will be ignoring the clear structure of both the film and the event it represents. Resisting an invasion is different from conducting an invasion, and fighting a war for your own people and their posterity is different from stupidly fighting a war for the benefit of another people.

***

Here is Stennett, back in his ESU days, discussing Thermopylae; the text successfully appeared on FreeRepublic, surprisingly surviving Jim Bob’s policy of ejecting anything that might suggest “racism”:

The Spirit of Thermopylae
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/spartan.htm

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:11 | #

America is supposed to be a Race-mixing place

... the United States Congress in 1790 did make being “a free White person” a requirement for becoming a citizen of the United States, a legal requirement which remained in force for 162 years. They saw what was essential, and acted on it. They had an implicit White racial consciousness that was made explicit in the laws of the land.

White Identity
http://www.natall.com/pub/2003/060703.txt

Posted by Daniel J on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:31 | #

thank you Rnl…

All this crap about America being a creation of the New World Order….

Stop trivializing my History…

Even Jefferson was an ideologue closer to us than the Clintons.

Posted by wintermute on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:30 | #

I’m not sure what is going to be done about this when a pan Europeanism takes hold, but it is going to be quite problematic if something isn’t built into it to handle such admixture

James,

A simple solution to the phenomena you report; respecting that the “West” is two Race-Cultures and not one. The Hapsburg eagle implicity recognizes this, looking both east and west, a primordial split imposed (now irreversably) on our Great Family. Eastern Europe, Russia, Armenia, Greece, and and (hopefully oneday) racially and culturally cleansed Turkey will be restorred to a single canton-style Imperium as described above. They will remain the West’s closest and most important ally in world affairs, in perpetuity, or as long as possible.

Once Jews are de-citizenized in the United States, NATO and Russian encirclement policies should end shortly thereafter.

At that point, what Huntington calls “Orthodox” civilization will be restored to unity, with a single lingua franca, Greek, a spiritual center in Constantinople, and an understanding of its common heritage and destiny.

Though I know and like Russians very much, there is no getting around the fact of Tatar admixture and the lingering political impliations that Russians have drawn from this: we should never forget that Pan-Mongolism was once, and can become again, a serious political motivator in the East.

On the plus side, pan-Mongolism in Russia could pave the way for an entrance of Buddhism, whether Chinese, Tibetan or Japanese. I think that would be a positive development, as I support any movement away from Judaic counter-religions.

Still, a nation for whom pan-Mongolism is a legitamate rallying cray can never be reconciled with those nations whose poltical and intellectual lives are circumscribed by the Italian - French - German - British Race-Culture. Whereas some happy accomodation can be reached between the two civilizations, complete identity between the two should not be thought of, hoped for, or planned. This question was settled for us by Imperator Constantine 1700 years ago. The Kaiser and the Czar have a common root, but rule over two widely differening terrains, racial and cultural.

I support a so-called “special relationship”, as obtains between the UK and the US, between the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire, but I do not recommend confusing them.

A final point of possible commonality: Chrisitanity in the West has become autocratic, tyrannical, arbitrary, anti-mysical, anti-national, anti-White, and anti-human. Sunic’s new book takes a certain glee in goring Protestantism’s ox, but no word of the absolute incompatibility of Catholicism and national existance, not to say national indepenence is made. This is a critical oversight.

I think it should be required of Christians who wish to be White Nationalists (or radical rightists or whatever) to convert to Orthodoxy posthaste. It presents a stable system of religious organization - older than Catholicism and more authoritative than Protestanism, and less Judeo-friendly than either (has never proposed “dual-salvation”, for instance) that has never been involved in mass scale genocides, which respects above all the sanctity of the nation and national churches, and which has a subtle and powerful theology that puts to shame anything coming out of diseased Augustinian, Aquinian, Calvinist, Cromwellian, Edwardian, and Matherite minds.

Just now there is a massive shift in American Protestantism towards Orthodoxy. I can forward materials to you and GW if you are interested.

This would go a long way towards uniting East and West into a coherent but distinct whole. A place must be made for atheists, agnostics, and pagans, but bans on the practice of Judaism and Islam must be absolute.

Thomas Jefferson was never more wrong than when he said that if his neighbor is of a different religion, “it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg”. Judaism, Islam, and the more direct forms of Jew worship - I’m thinking of the more devout Protestant denominations - are pure spiritual poison, many of whom are more insistent on reimposing Mosaic Law than most Jews. RJ Rushdooney, the Little Geneva blog, and various posters at OD and the Phora see to it that this pseudo-Aryan Nations ideology is well represented among the forces of national renewal, lying in wait to sabotage them. Caveat Lector.

At any rate, Russia and Eastern Europe are filled with beautiful people, and there could be no more noble goal for our branch of the Great Family help them achieve, after 70 years of Communism, stable civic structures, strong property rights, and some degree of transparency in government. But that would be better accomplished if we knew who we were first, and it is very plain to me that we are that portion of the Great Family that the eagle looks to on our left.

Consider:

All of our history since 476 AD has revolved around nostalgia for the loss of the Empire. The Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Empire, the Reich that would last a thousand years, Pax Romana became Pax Britanica and then Pax Americana. The US has its Imperial Eagle and its Senate, Latin phrases adorn our Great Seal, we are like children imitating their father.

Why not admit to ourselves that this is truly what we desire and seek in all our seemingly aimless wanderings, and make a straight dash towards the goal. Aiding Russia and Eastern Europe in a reconstruction of a modern Byzantium would be a beautiful way of co-ordination the ideals and internal mechanisms of our respective Race-Cultures. We might become the first twin states in the world history, unable and unwilling to act against the other.

Of course, the Holy See will have to pay out hundreds of billions in reparations for the retaking of Constantinople, but since it’s their fault the Byzantines lost it - in the last mad dash to control the ‘unholy land’ on the part of berserk mackerel snappers - I don’t see what argument they could possibly use to object to this financing plank. Then we can begin the war crimes tribunal for the Albigensian crusade.

Oh, what a dream I spin, and how easily I could be caught up in it! Restore Holy Russia, Byzantium,  and finally Ecrasez l’Infame! A consummation devoutly to be wished!

WM

P.S. An odd thought: does the Hapsburg flag remind anyone else of Ghiderah, the three headed monster? We can always ty to buy the rights to Ghiderah if the Hapsburgs tie us up in court over intellectual property rights. I thinkt the Toho studies execs will be much more co-operative.

Just curious.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:07 | #

If one could give an “IQ rating” to the quality of the posts of a thread, this one is in danger of breaking all records for exemplary quality.  Good work guys!  Excellent thread!  The IQ level here is very high!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:52 PM | #

Right, Fred, I forgot about all the “creative geniuses” here, it’s a veritable Renaissance, every post a speech of Periclean proportions.

Stop the self-congratulatory crap.  This thread, like most on this blog, has degenerated into a joke.

Anyone know the meaning of the words “quality control?”

Can anyone here quantitate the “tatar” admixture in Russians, please?  What are we talking about, exactly. Does anyone know?

Maybe Sailer can do the following: post a picture of Putin, in thd shadows, rubbing his eyes and stretching them out, side-by-side with a bright-light picture of Chairman Mao, with his eyes wide open in surprise.  Presto, dem Russkis are Asian!

True enough Rosenberg did see elevated Asian in Russians in his genetic studies, but this needs to be more precisely quantitated.

Posted by gnxp stinks on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:47 | #

“such as that Germans and Poles are different races (read Joseph Conrad’s novels penned in the late 1800s)...”

By golly, Fred, you are right.  “Joseph Conrad’s novels penned in the late 1800s” are all we need to conclude that Germans and Poles are different races.  What the hell, if a German is genetically more similar to a Pole, that invalidates nothing, because we have Conrad’s 19th century novels to light the way to truth and factual evidence.

Fred, you rank up there as another MR “creative genius.”  Certainly, during the next radio program, that should be a segment to discuss for 10 minutes or so - the “creative geniuses” to be found among the commentariat.

“Lots of other stuff is perfectly legitimate to talk about and not only legitimate, but there’s a crying need for it.”

Sure!  Conrad noveks, red roasting rodents, tantric idea of “male and female nostrils”, and the like.

““Yes, but how do you know the study subjects you’ve chosen to compare DNA samples from are what you call ‘Negroes’ and what you call ‘whites’? 

That’s amusing for a particular reason that can be brought another time.  Yes, indeed, questioning the sampling is a good deconstructionist technique.

“What modern quantitative genetics has done in regard to truths such as the above is mainly confirm what we already knew but in a different way…”

Really?  I wonder how much of the “old bone” stuff really holds up today.

” the Patriarchy has defined some people as ‘Negroes’ and some as ‘whites’ and has then taken DNA to ‘prove’ its arbitrary categories”

too bad Risch showed that the genetic data can be used to cluster into races without any a priori knowledge.  So much for that…..

And by races, he didn’t mean “Germans” and “Poles.”

“Of course we do and I’d love to see way more of such discussion here. “

Note the relative lack of response when such material is posted here. LOL

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:14 | #

When D.S. gets on medication maybe “gnxp stinks” could borrow some?

Posted by medicated gnxp stinks on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:43 | #

“When D.S. gets on medication maybe “gnxp stinks” could borrow some?”

What do you recommend?

Seriously though, note the urge to consider one’s opponents “crazy” and in need of “medication.’

Frankfurt school, anyone?  Or just the USSR?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:59 | #

“By golly, Fred, you are right.  ‘Joseph Conrad’s novels penned in the late 1800s’ are all we need to conclude that Germans and Poles are different races.”  (—gnxp stinks)

Right — that, two eyes, and a couple of synapses between the ears oughta do it.  Science didn’t begin in 1960.  Aristotle figured lotsa stuff out a few years before then.  So did ... well let’s just say quite a few others ...

“Fred, you rank up there as another MR ‘creative genius.’ Certainly, during the next radio program, that should be a segment to discuss for 10 minutes or so - the ‘creative geniuses’ to be found among the commentariat.”

Right, then let’s do the grouchy control freaks.

“Sure!  Conrad novels [...] ‘male and female nostrils,’ and the like.”

Right, stuff like that belongs to the world of anatomy, histology, pathology, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and psychology.  The cataloguing of races, sex differences, ethnocultural differences and so forth didn’t begin and end with molecular genetics.  Gnxp Stinks makes the “clean-slate” mistake of the left:  “nothing of scientific value existed before modern genetics and therefore all assertions of difference, be they sex differences, racial differences, or what-have-you, are laughable superstitions left over from the antediluvian age and total nonsense.  Everyone, every race, and both sexes are considered to be born totally equal until science proves they’re not and until then we plan on forcing the races to miscegenate (not the Jews of course but everyone else).”

“Yes, indeed, questioning the sampling is a good deconstructionist technique.”

It’s the other side’s technique, not mine.

“Really?  I wonder how much of the ‘old bone’ stuff really holds up today.”

All of it.

“too bad Risch showed that the genetic data can be used to cluster into races without any a priori knowledge.  So much for that…..”

Yeah when samples are taken from “geographical areas” we get these patterns but don’t anyone expect to correlate the patterns with any actual individuals “on the ground” who look a certain way, which would be racism:  “Asian”?  Well sure, Tel Aviv and Izmir are in Asia so for all we know the peeps in those cities have slanted eyes, eat with chop sticks, and do the dragon dance on Chinese New Year and people in Shanghai have a menorah at Chanukkah and wrap-around sideburns?  Well yeah, for all we know they do:  Risch’s stuff only took geographical land masses into account, nothing “on the ground,” no actual people or what they looked like.”  “But what about that European neighborhood of Hong Kong where all the Brit ex-pats live?  Can’t we say they’re white?”  “Well no:  Cavalli-Sforza’s and Risch’s stuff only dealt in the Asian continent and so on — strictly geography — you know, the five major races and stuff — remember that colored map? — so, I dunno, these ex-pats must all cluster with the Asians of the Asian land mass if Hong Kong’s where they live.  Anything else would be to give in to The Patriarchy.”

“And by races, he didn’t mean “Germans” and “Poles.””

Right, only because he didn’t use enough markers.  Use enough and you’ll distinguish them all right.

“Note the relative lack of response when such material is posted here. LOL”

Yeah people don’t like having to wear ear plugs every time they come, what with all your mouthing off all the time for nothing.  (Look, aren’t there anti-grouch pills you can take for that or something? ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:01 | #

“When D.S. gets on medication maybe “gnxp stinks” could borrow some?”

What do you recommend?

Seriously though, note the urge to consider one’s opponents “crazy” and in need of “medication.’

Frankfurt school, anyone?  Or just the USSR?

Well no, I just feel bad for you, comrade ... I mean, there’s gotta be help for you out there ....

Posted by gnxp stinkaroo on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:09 | #

“Everyone, every race, and both sexes are considered to be born totally equal until science proves they’re not and until then we plan on forcing the races to miscegenate (not the Jews of course but everyone else).”

You’re crazy.  Maybe that’s your ideal, not mine.

“Right, only because he didn’t use enough markers.  Use enough and you’ll distinguish them all right.”

With enough markers you can distinguish two brothers; are they different “races?”

“All of it.”

No.

” so, I dunno, these ex-pats must all cluster with the Asians of the Asian land mass if Hong Kong’s where they live”

But, they don’t. 

Anyone can willfully disregard data, even real important data like Joseph Conrad novels. 

“I mean, there’s gotta be help for you out there…”

Sure, decreased exposure to this blog.

Posted by godless nationalist on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:38 | #

Note the relative lack of response when such material is posted here. LOL

  I must admit to being somewhat ignorant regarding genetics, quantitative or otherwise. 

  Could you recommend some primers on the subject?

Posted by gnxp stench on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:53 | #

GN: Some of the work of Neil Risch and Noah Rosenberg (particularly the latter) are online free (do google searches, etc., or search Medline).

That’s a start.  The Dienekes Anthropology blog is a source, although I disagree to a significant extent with some of the emphasis and interpretations of that site.  Still, it’s a start, and provides links (some publicly available, some not) to papers.

Also look at the genetic similarity post put up on this blog a couple of days ago - it has a link to a freely downloadable paper that may be of assistance.

Of course, even more basically, wikipedia articles on “population genetics” and “DNA testing” may be helpful.

There are also a number of companies that sell personalized DNA testing, either uniparental (NRY or mtDNA) or autosomal, and their websites may contain some extra information.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:45 | #

“You’re crazy.  Maybe that’s your ideal, not mine.”

I said that was how leftists think, not how I think.  You flirt with that way of thinking when you hold the view, explicitly or implicitly, that, for example, there was no solid evidence for “race” before Risch and Cavalli-Sforza.  It’s the view that the world was created in 1960.  There was solid evidence for race before Risch.  What Risch did was only icing on the cake. 

“With enough markers you can distinguish two brothers; are they different ‘races?’ “

Exactly.  The potential number of human races ranges from one (all humans) to six billion (the number of individuals).  Can’t you see that which criterion to go by in deciding what a race is must come from outside molecular genetics — must come, in fact, from classical principles of taxonomy?  Can’t you see that this is precisely the question the Jewish academics abuse by acting as if there are no common-sense constraints guiding the choice, in effect negating every kind of categorization frivolously?  If you can’t you’re fricking blind.

“ ‘All of it.’ 

No.”

When I have time I’ll post a list.  If I don’t have time for a complete list I’ll post bits and pieces as I have time to look them up.

“But, they don’t.”

Riiiiiiiiiiight .... But Risch’s data by themselves don’t demonstrate they don’t.

“Anyone can willfully disregard data,”

Leftists have a much harder time disregarding the combination of the classical data and the molecular than the molecular alone. So stop acting as if the molecular is the be all and end all.  It’s not.  It’s extremely powerful, yes.  In some ways it’s irreplaceable, obviously.  But it doesn’t replace the classical so stop bad-mouthing the classical.

“Sure, decreased exposure to this blog.”

Cry me a river ....  (Being a gouchy control freak’s a bitch, isn’t it ...)

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:53 | #

Boy, I wanted a discussion on the meaning of terms to which we use and no discussion of terms and their definitions.  What do I get—-Nothing.

We don’t even know what we are talking about.  We use terms with defintions NOT found in a dictionary and gnxp says he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a dictionry!

You mistake my intent if you think I give a damn what is written in the Bible or a dictionary, or the shifting uses of the term “race” over the years.

Notice the scientific spirt here—-or the lack of one. What does “communication” mean if everyone has their own defintions and keep making up stuff!  There is NO communication.

You don’t have to be a “Christian” to understand that the Bible formed Western Culture.  It was the Luther’s translation of the Bible that FORMED German Language!!!  That the meanings and words in the Bible formed Western Mind.  The Bible is an integral part of Europe!  It has formed European Culture and Law and Art!

All I am asking is the “definition” of terms that are consistent with 2500 years of Western Culture.  The term Ethnos in the Greek used by Aristotle is the same use of the term in the Septuagint—-Right?  Then the works of Aristotle formed Western Culture.  What did Aristotle mean by Ethnos?  Clearly, the Vulgate which did form Western Culture—-what did it say about Ethnos—-did it translate that into the Latin, “Nation”?  We use the term Nation from Latin because the Vulgate was EVERYWHERE!!!!!!  You don’t use any ethnic European language to describe one’s European “state”—-we all use the Latin word that comes from the Vulgate!

Now, gnxp, you may be a rabid pagan and a misoChristianos, but let’s be scientifically honest here—-The Latin Vulgate of the Bible INFLUENCED Europe, its language, and our concepts of terms!  Let’s have some Continuity of Western Culture.

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:01 | #

Radical Protestantism is Judiazing.  It is true that radical Protestantism is semitizing not only Culture but Christianity as well. 

Christianity is NOT a Jewish religion!!!  Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion.  Please see here: http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher/thelyceum.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=129&LastModified=4675615015214963575&all_topics=0

Christianity is NOT strictly monotheistic!!!  That is another mispercetion!!!!  Christianity is a Trinity: One God, Three Persons.  The Golden mean, which is an Indo-European, concept, between Monotheism and Polytheism.

Furthermore, Christianity upon all levels from structure to doctrine to belief, to liturgy ALL exhibit the Indo-European form of TRIFUNCTIONALITY.  Please see here: http://www.msnusers.com/TheDoricphilosopher/thelyceum.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=17&LastModified=4675606645534959213&all_topics=0

It is a GRAND mistake to think that Christianity is semitic or that Christianity is “Judeo-Christian”.  That is completely false!!!!  Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion!

Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:10 | #

Another bogeyman—-It has been radical Protestantism that allowed the Jew free rein in their countries.  An exception to that rule was in Hungary where Catholicism let the Jew run wild.  In other parts of Europe, Catholicism and the Aristocracy sat and suppressed the Jew.  It was Cromwell who let the Jew back into England.

And onto wintermute: When America only gave the “White” man citizenship—it also gave it to the Jew as well.

So America is a Race-mixing place. It is race mixing when it mixed the English with the Dutch and the English with the Scottish.  That is Race-mixing.  It never made races live seperately—America is about “re-creating” man from a racial creature to, in Pat’s words, a “Creedal” creature.  America is NOT racially based but Creedally, and Ideologically based.  America is NOT based on race but on formal allegiance to certain Enlightenment ideals!!!!  Freedom from Tribal alliances and the effects of race.  Ohh, the FFoA didn’t want to mix with the African but on all other such things—they had no compuction with mixing English with German.

Posted by MR stinks on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:33 | #

Sorry, Fred, when the “classical” view conflicts with the molecular data, I take the latter in a second.  Objective measurements of genetic relationships, in my opinion, trumps someone comparing skulls and saying, “these two look alike.”

In some cases, yes, the two coincide and that’s great, a mutual support for both.  But to say that they are the same in all cases - no.  If the ultimate interest is genetic interests, then I would think metrics based on genetics should be paramount.  If kinship is the most important component of genetic interests, let’s measure kinship, not convergent evolution producing “ecotypes” of unrelated demes.

As far as the religious nutcase Wheeler goes:
“Notice the scientific spirt here—-or the lack of one. What does “communication” mean if everyone has their own defintions and keep making up stuff!  There is NO communication.”

No, my friend.  You misunderstand.  My point is this: just because a dictionary defines a term a particular way, doesn’t mean it is correct.  Just because Aristotle said something, doesn’t make it correct.  Yes, let us decide on common terms - based on facts, logic, and science, and not based on appeals to 2500 year-old authority.

To talk about English-Dutch mating as “racial mixing” is absurd, because the same phrase is used for English-Bantu mating, and the differences in genetic distance between the two cases (never mind the phenotypic consequences) are enormous.

What kind of “term” is that, that it cannot distinguish between a Dutchman and a Bantu?

What’s “gouchy?”  Apparently, a “mispercetion.”

“But Risch’s data by themselves don’t demonstrate they don’t.”

Do you even understand the data?  If you did, you’d know that the classifications were done with no prior assumptions.  The classifications were by race, Risch is no coward and uses the word “race”, where others use “geographial group.”

Stop the nonsense.

“It is a GRAND mistake to think that Christianity is semitic or that Christianity is “Judeo-Christian”.  That is completely false!!!!  Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European religion!”

Whatever…it’s suicidal nonsense, either way.

“Can’t you see that which criterion to go by in deciding what a race is must come from outside molecular genetics — must come, in fact, from classical principles of taxonomy?”

Do you believe that a father and son, the son’s mother being of the same ethnic group as the father, can be of different “races?”

And what’s your taxonomy?  The “classical” school did not consider “Germans” and “Poles” to be “races”, but, rather, groups classified on physical anthropology, which transcended national boundaries.  A “German” could be a Nordic, or an Alpine, or a Dinaric, or a Borreby, for example. So could a Pole for that matter.

So, which is it?  And do those classifications match the genetic data?  On the one hand you think that, with enough markers, Germans and Poles can be distinguished as separate races.  Thus, according to Fred Scrooby, a German Nordic is more similar to a German Alpinid, than he is to a Polish Nordic.  Thus, Fred Scrooby’s view contradicts the “classical” school, which would postulate a similarity based on anthropometrics, and not genetic markers.

Which do you believe?  Both?  Neither?  What?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:22 | #

I’m not replying to gnxp stinks because every point of mine which he refers to he misrepresents.  Sorry, I don’t have time for that nonsense.  Let him re-read the points I made and get them right.  The guy seems to have a mind for genetics and an IQ in the moron range for everything else.  Look at his first line:  did I say when the two views conflict I reject the molecular view?  The whole freaking comment is the same:  fucking up what I said in ways so idiotic it must be deliberate.  Get new eyeglasses, take your freaking pills, do whatever you have to do to get it right please, then come back and humbly apologize, and if I have time maybe we’ll talk.

Now getting back to something more interesting:  on the subject of interspecies hybrids, a few minutes ago I ran across this by accident:

Blue Whales are rorquals (family Balaenopteridae), a family that includes the Humpback Whale, the Fin Whale, the Bryde’s Whale, the Sei Whale and the Minke Whale. The family Balaenopteridae is believed to have diverged from the other families of the suborder Mysticeti as long ago as the middle Oligocene. However, it is not known when the members of these families diverged from each other. The Blue Whale is usually classified as one of seven species of whale in the genus Balaenoptera; however, DNA sequencing analysis indicates that Blue Whales are phylogenetically closer to the Humpback (Megaptera) and the Gray Whale (Eschrichtius) than to other Balaenoptera species; should further research corroborate these relationships, it will be necessary to recognize the separate genus Sibbaldus for the Blue Whale.

There have been at least 11 documented cases of Blue/Fin Whale hybrid adults in the wild. Aranson and Gullberg (1983)[6] describe the genetic distance between a Blue and a Fin as about the same as that between a human and gorilla. Blue Whale/Humpback Whale hybrids are also known.

Then after looking around a bit, this:

ELEPHANTS
The Asian and African elephants look similar, but are not only different species, they are different genera i.e. each belongs to a different genus, making them even more distantly related). Crossbreeds between different genera is regarded as impossible. On 11th July 1978, an Asian elephant cow called Sheba gave birth to a hybrid calf sired by a 15 year old African elephant bull, Jumbolino. Though the pair had mated several times, pregnancy was believed to be impossible. The hybrid male calf, “Motty”, had an African elephant’s cheek, ears (large with pointed lobes) and legs (longer and slimmer), but the toenail numbers, (5 front, 4 hind) and the single trunk finger were like Asians although the wrinkled trunk was like an African. The forehead was sloping with one dome and two smaller domes behind it. The body was African in type, but had an Asian-type centre hump and an African-type rear hump. Sadly the calf was premature and died of infection 12 days later. There have also been rumours of three other hybrid elephants, all of which were deformed and did not survive.

African elephants are divided into 2 species - the Forest elephant and the Savannah elephant. Though these can hybridise successfully, their preference for different terrains reduces the opportunities to hybridise and they are genetically distinct from each other. The forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), considered a subspecies of African elephant, has been raised to species status (Loxodonta cyclotis). Typical savannah elephants have 4 toenails on each forefoot and 3 on each hind foot. The forest elephant typically has 5 toenails on each forefoot and 4 on each hind foot. Both species have 5 toenails on all 4 feet at birth - the number of toenails at maturity is related to wear and tear on different terrain! There are differences in the shape of the jaw and ears. The forest elephant is considerably smaller and has thinner, straighter tusks.

A Chinese safari park has a sub-specific hybrid of Malay elephant x Indian elephant.

RHINOS

A subspecific hybrid white rhino (Ceratotherium s. simum x C s cottoni) was bred at the Dvurkralv Zoo (Zoological Garden Dvur Kralove nad Labem) in the Czech Republic in 1977.

TAPIRS

Hybrid tapirs from Baird’s Tapir (T bairdii) and the Lowland Tapir (T terrestris) were bred at the San Francisco Zoo around 1968 and produced a 2nd generation around 1970.

this

A Cama is a hybrid between a camel and a llama. Born via artificial insemination by scientists who were studying how closely related the two species were. The Dromedary Camel is six times the weight of a Llama, hence artificial insemination was required to impregnate the Llama female (matings of llama male to Dromedary female have proven unsuccessful). Though born even smaller than a Llama calf, the Cama had the short ears and long tail of a camel, no hump and llama-like cloven hooves rather than the dromedary-like pads.

At four years old, the Cama became sexually mature and interested in Llama and Guanaco females. A second Cama (female) has since been produced using artificial insemination. Because Camels and Llamas both have 74 chromosomes, scientists hope that the Cama will be fertile. If so, there is potential for increasing size, meat/wool yield and pack/draft ability in South American camelids.

then this, this, and other articles too numerous to mention.

Posted by MR stinks on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:46 | #

“I’m not replying to gnxp stinks because every point of mine which he refers to he misrepresents.”

That’s right Fred, tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.  You just don’t know whether your “races” are ethnic groups, anthropometric classifications or what.

Answer this one question: assume you have the following for groups - German Nordics, German Alpinids, Polish Nordics, and Polish Alpinids.  How many races and which group is in which race?

Another question: do you consider Danes to be a single race?

“I’m not replying to gnxp stinks because every point of mine which he refers to he misrepresents.  Sorry, I don’t have time for that nonsense… Look at his first line..”

Exactly the technique Auster uses when he can’t answer a critic’s points.  Interesting.  Must be genetic.

Posted by godless nationalist on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:47 | #

gnxp stench: 

  Thanks for the response. I will check out the sources you mentioned.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:05 | #

Interspecies-hybrid salamanders, for anyone who thinks Euros and Negroes “must belong to the same species because mulattoes aren’t sterile.”  (Hat tip.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 May 2008 05:07 | #

Interspecies hybrids.

(Hat tip.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 04 May 2008 03:54 | #

Interspecies hybrids: 

Look at this, which caught my eye just now as I logged onto Wikipedia:

Der Blutspecht (Dendrocopos syriacus) gehört zur Unterfamilie der Echten Spechte (Picinae).  Er ist sehr nahe mit dem Großen Buntspecht (Dendrocopos major) verwandt, mit dem er gelegentlich auch sympatrisch vorkommt und hybridisiert.

This Syrian woodpecker apparently hybridizes in the wild with a different but closely-related species, the great spotted woodpecker.  (I looked up the English version of the article to link to instead, but it doesn’t include the above detail.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:22 | #

This is happening because the Jews who rule Hollywood want it to, those who interact with them realize that, and stars who depend on them for their careers strive to give them what they want, for obvious reasons (call it “career insurance”).

This photo is a sign Jews control Hollywood, in other words.  If the Taliban controlled it all the men would have beards and the women veils, but the Jews control it, so what we see is all the Euro couples having non-white kids.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:33 | #

If a Jewish movie-star couple did what Angelina Laide and Brad-the-Pits have done their careers would go into a nose-dive:  I don’t think the Jews who rule Hollywood want to see Jewish couples adopting lots of non-white kids, only Euro couples.  If some Jewish couple got the wrong message and accidentally did it, in the mistaken expectation it would be a good career move, they’d be very surprised when the opposite happened, and their careers came grinding to a halt as punishment.  A Jewish movie star adopting lots of Negro kids?  She can kiss her career good-bye:  the Jews don’t want to see that in Jewish women.  A Euro movie star doing it?  Her career just got guaranteed number-one star status for life:  that’s exactly what Jews want to see in Euro women.

Posted by DJ on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:57 | #

Pitt and Jolie=filthy vermin

More accurately: The people that promote the likes of Pitt and Jolie are the real vermin.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:20 | #

The deceivers who run Hollywood are using pretty faces such as Angelina Jolie, Madonna, etc. as prototypes to recast and promote the “new, hip, modern, ideal family”. That being an unnatural multiracial/multicultural amalgamation. It’s part of the overall race-replacement scheme.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:19 | #

“It’s part of the overall race-replacement scheme.”  (—Dave Johns)

Absolutely right, and we’ve got to resist it and tell our loved ones to resist it, never fall for it.  Ever.

They’re not holding guns to our heads forcing us to be multiracial in our own personal lives.  They’re using every bit of propaganda at their disposal to convince us, yes.  But if we don’t listen, they don’t win.  In a way we’ll come out stronger, because the ones who’ll have listened will be the ones less capable of making distinctions.