|
|
|
Preserving the gentile’s civilisation. No, make that the gringo’s. By Bo Sears A conference with the title “Preserving Western Civilisation” takes place in Baltimore on February 6 to February 8. It’s purpose is advertised on its website as follows:-
Are all the speakers sincere? The lead speaker is Lawrence Auster. At other times and in other contexts, he has quite a different interpretation of Western civilization. Consider his remarks in FrontPageMagazine on June 22, 2004F. His subject was Jewish organizational opposition to immigration reduction. He liberally sprinkled this piece with the word “gentile” to make clear what he thinks of Euro-Americans (plus one “goyim” if we were in any doubt). As weird as these remarks sound, they are perfectly typical Austerisms.
To label our heritage “Judeo-Christian” ...
... is already begging a very Jewish question. But to assert that the entire cultural edifice of Western Civilisation is based on “the tribal history and beliefs” of Jews, and by implication Greece and Rome and the Nordic traditions, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment amount to nothing, is a remarkably narrow and exclusive view. But at least now we know what Auster thinks about our civilization, and about us and why we are nothing more than “gentiles”. Such a view, of course, is at considerable odds with the matters to be discussed at the Baltimore conference in February. It doesn’t sound as though he believes in anything remotely like a “European identity.” Perhaps Auster will find time to discuss it with the second speaker listed for the conference, Peter Brimelow. He has revealed over the past year that his immigration reduction efforts spring from a neocon philosophy, demonstrated by his frequent publishing at VDare of racist labels like the Spanish-language epithets “gringo” and “anglo”, as well as the artificial “WASP”. The latter, by the way, is defined by Wikipedia as “a sociological and cultural pejorative ethnonym that originated in the United States”. Maybe the comedian Julia Gorin or the junior BNP politician Pat Richardson, both also speakers at the conference, will be able to offer a pejorative-free way out of the impasse. Or maybe not. European identity is a subject best left to those of European descent. At least Prof Phillipe Rushton is on hand to illuminate his audience about the “persistent disappointing performance of blacks”. Personally, I’m not too disappointed, but maybe that’s just me. To judge from the “Statement of Purpose” reproduced above, the meat of the discussion won’t be about black performance at all. It will be about the “guilt feelings” that grip “many whites” and which apparently “undermine Western morale”. Naming us, then, isn’t enough. Our foolish gentile minds and our self-destructive gentile ways must stand exposed to the gimlet gaze of the conference organisers. And why, precisely? So that the “folly of the gentile ... no, make that the gringo” can explain the failure of our “Judeo-Christian heritage” ... and the “the massive influx of immigrants” ... and the “threat of Islam”. No other explanation in sight. And just who are these gimlet-eyed conference organisers? Well, the chairman of the organizing committee is ... Michael Hart. It will be interesting to see how the dominant media culture reports this conference, and whose voice they say was spoken during it. Not a voice with a “European identity”, that’s for sure ... not the voice of the diverse white American peoples. I can’t help but wonder what the “gentiles” slated to speak there actually understand about the conference’s real purpose ... Brimelow, Phil Rushton, Brenda Walker are intelligent people. Sadly, they are also too trusting. Bo Sears is a senior activist at ResistingDefamation.org. Comments:2
Posted by colin laney on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:07 | # And just who are these gimlet-eyed conference organisers? Well, the chairman of the organizing committee is ... Michael Hart. That sentence would really be more effective with an illustration. Behold the face of our salvation! <img src = “http://www.preservingwesternciv.com/images/mikehart-photo3.jpg”> He really looks like something from a midcentury German textbook - a textbook that we obviously should have been paying more attention to. 3
Posted by colin laney on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:18 | # Putting this conference in a larger perspective:
4
Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:45 | # In Suicide vs. Competition I contrasted Auster’s and Sailer’s view of what ills the West. Both views contain some truth, but neither seems entirely honest. Both are euphemistic. Both imply the blame is entirely on Whites. Sailer sees “whiter people” trying to out-liberal each other. Auster’s view is the more deeply dishonest, and is at heart a not-so-subtle libel on “the majority”: In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an “oppressive” majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority’s demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction. My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn’t mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority. He places the blame, and the burden to fix it, entirely on “the majority”. It did this to itself. It must re-discover itself. Yet at the root, even according to Auster, lie the demands of “the minority”. Demands which began with the jewish emancipation - i.e. when exclusion, persecution, and loss of rights for jews became a thing of the past and all the occupants of Europe started, tentatively at first, down non-discrimination boulevard. The road eventually led to black emancipation, women’s lib, civil rights, homosexual “marriage”, globalization, and last but not least, genocidal mass immigration. Now the wheels are coming off the West. Blacks are getting frisky in Crown Heights and jew-hating muslims are everywhere. Auster wants it all to stop. Well not all of it. He wants to roll back the non-discrimination favoring blacks and muslims. The demands of the template, archetypical “minority” however absolutely must remain intact. Why? I’ve read and written alot about Auster. Perhaps too much. He’s a charlatan, a dissimulator. He opposes liberalism because he sees it is driving Whites to extinction, and he judges the continued existence of a generally pro-jew White majority to be in the interest of jews. This explains his race-realist, tribe-denying obtuseness as well as his hypocrisy, smearing, and thought-criminalizing whenever he’s challenged on it. In pursuing his interests he feels free to reason about anything, including calling on others to ignore or stifle their own interests. He discriminates anyone he pleases, as demonstrated by his blog full of musings about “the majority” as “the majority”, black savages as black savages, and muslims as muslims. He opposes the “Third-Worldization and Islamization of the West”. He wants “the majority” to do this and do that, but especially to save ourselves so we can continue to protect jews from blacks and muslims. He calls for pro-Whites like myself who discriminate our interests from those of jews, criticize jews, and oppose the judaization of the West to be shunned and silenced. He does not call for such treatment for even the most anti-White, anti-Christian, anti-Western “liberals”. The stated purpose of the PWC conference is in perfect agreement with this understanding. Auster sees myself, my children, and my people as so much cannon fodder in the service of his people’s demands. I read through that whole thing and didn’t see what exactly you have against the conference besides the fact that Jews are taking part. Can you see why now Richard? 5
Posted by Richard H on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:29 | #
Well, I’ve been reading Auster for a while and he does seem to be motivated to some extent by “is it good for the Jews?” (he never critcizes Jews as a group, but will blacks, whites, Muslims, etc.) At the same time, even if that’s his and Hart’s motivation to work to end multiculturalism, immigration, affirmative action and take a stand against black crime and the homosexual movement why can’t he be an ally as far as that goes? If Obama decides to end immigration and deport all the illegals because it would be good for blacks would you oppose this because he does it out of his interest in the well being of blacks instead of whites? The perfect is the enemy of the good. Auster and Hart want the white race to survive. They recognize immigration as the genocide that it is. That puts them ahead of 99% of gentile politicians today. Do you take the position that a Jew can never be on your side because he is a Jew, and nothing else can override that? 6
Posted by Duncan on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:31 | # What about white emigration to non-Euro countries? Based on the reasoning I see here, presumably you advocate that all whites who have emigrated to non-Euro countries - Australia and New Zealand particularly come to mind - should also be forcibly removed? 7
Posted by rest52 on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:28 | # Bo Sears said: At least Prof Phillipe Rushton is on hand to illuminate his audience about the “persistent disappointing performance of blacks”. Personally, I’m not too disappointed, but maybe that’s just me. To judge from the “Statement of Purpose” reproduced above, the meat of the discussion won’t be about black performance at all. It will be about the “guilt feelings” that grip “many whites” and which apparently “undermine Western morale”. Rushton will be addressing a more general audience, one not made up of racialists or WNs. “Many whites” do experience “guilt feelings,” artificially induced or not, which do in fact “undermine” pride in themselves and their culture. [Peter Brimelow] has revealed over the past year that his immigration reduction efforts spring from a neocon philosophy You represent something called Resisting Defamation? Colin Laney said: Behold the face of our salvation! He really looks like something from a midcentury German textbook - a textbook that we obviously should have been paying more attention to. Like it or not, a Jewish face propounding racialism is, for the time being, going to attract a good deal more innocent attention than a Nordic face. Taken from the very interesting pamphlet, “Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin”. Interested readers are directed to: http://www.library.flawlesslogic.com/eckart_2.htm Neither Schopenhauer nor Goethe could prevent Jews reading their books any more than you can prevent Hart proceeding with his conference. By the way, was the above meant to promote or discredit anti-semitism? 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:47 | # Richard H, Auster and Hart are pursuing their natural ethnic interests. As the above piece explains, that involves sidestepping the issue of European racial salvation, and moving it into a civilisational context - the civilisation becoming a common heritage of Jews and gentiles. The blame for this civilisational decline is then placed squarely on European-descended shoulders. There are no Jews to be found when the blame starts to be apportioned! Further, the “threat” to civilisation comes from immigration and Islamism. Again, no Jews anywhere. So the role of Jewish political products, for example:- Classical Marxism ... can be quietly shifted out of the picture. My position on the utility of Jews in the movement is straightforward. They can be useful only if they address the trespasses of their own people. We do not need yet more Jews critiquing us and telling us what our problem is. We need them off our back and, frankly, as far away from us as possible so that we may live free and sovereign according to our own ethnic interests. Duncan, We are not obliged to live by some abstract rule of racial fairness that nobody else obeys. We can take land the same as others, and we can defend land the same as others. 9
Posted by Duncan on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:02 | # Richard H I’m not talking about moral abstracts, i’m talking about numbers and logistics. Where will you send all the non-Euros? Realistically, as pure whites are in the minority, where on earth are you going to send all the people you plan on deporting? And what claim to legitimacy or realism can you have it you just want all the land for whites? How are you going to convince the governments of numerically superior non-whote countries to support you? How are you going to stop them from using their military capabilities? Where are you going to get your oil, energy, raw materials, natural resources and consumer goods from? How can this vision of yours be economically sustainable? Where has this system ever worked before? How many middle class and working class whites are going to do the menial jobs currently done by immigrants, legal and illegal, when the immigrants have been shipped out? Rehtoric cannot take the place of logic. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:12 | # rest52 (is that you, Mr Hart?), Rule number one at a free website like this: Don’t appeal to a concept (anti-Semitism) which, like all Jewish political inventions, has no traction here ... is irrelevant ... does not exist. We do not do emotional responses to Jewish paranoia. Understand? “Many whites” do experience “guilt feelings,” artificially induced or not, which do in fact “undermine” pride in themselves and their culture. Artifically induced by whom? Go on. Say it. Let’s hear who the great masters of the guilt-meme are. Like it or not, a Jewish face propounding racialism is, for the time being, going to attract a good deal more innocent attention than a Nordic face. That’s two lies in one. The “Jewish face” isn’t propounding European racialism. It’s propounding European weakness and culpability for a crisis in a non-existent paradigm - “our Judeo-Christian heritage”. Meanwhile, the real crisis, for which Jews share a heavy burden of racial guilt, is genetic and is European, and is the race-replacement of our people throughout the West. As to the popularity of Jews, could that also be “artificial” and, therefore, essentially a lie - exactly like the “unpopularity” of Euro-American racialists. How about turning off the meme-machine for a couple of years and seeing which ideas and which activists are really popular? You see, that’s what you people should be doing - talking to your co-ethnics about their paranoia and their racial supremacism, and opposing their destructiveness towards us. That is, if you were honest. But you are not. You talk to us about our “weakness” and “culpability, and you tell our activists they will have to accept Jewish leadership. We don’t accept Jewish leadership. We don’t accept any part of you, or your ideas. We want you off our backs, as we want all Jews off our backs, so we can live as we please in our own homelands. Understand? 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:09 | # Duncan, I guess you are addressing me and not Richard H. I am not an American. I do not live in America. MR is not solely an American website. We perceive the existential crisis to be throughout the West, not merely in North America, and we seek a solution to that existential crisis that is as widespread as it is. Now, that solution must lead to the relocation of maybe 100 million people out of our homelands, and the refounding of our nations upon a stable, non-liberal polity. That’s probably more of a task than you thought. So, despite your appeal to a practical approach, I don’t think you wholly comprehend where practicality begins. Let me tell you. Because something is difficult it does not mean it is impossible. Human populations only exist in the northern hemisphere because they found the will to do the difficult. The entire technological history of European Man, unmatched by any other, is part of this great effort to create carrying capacity for ourselves in a hostile environment. The difficult is normal for Europeans. We have a history of overcoming it. Just so with us today. If our people are to survive we must overcome all our difficulties. We must reclaim our lands or we will die. The beginnings of a practical approach to this are straightforward enough - but, of course, difficult. They are threefold: critiquing the liberal polity, intellectualising a replacement to said polity, and developing political activism. The latter can be party political or, particularly as time passes and the demography goes against us, it can be revolutionary in some form. But we are talking about a revolution anyway ... about replacing the liberal polity in its entirety all across the West. Which means upturning the power structures, tipping out the political and cultural elites - the neoliberals and neo-Marxists in our institutions - and ending the freedom of Jewish ethnocentrists to intellectualise, fund and activate anti-European movements of all kinds, and to practise cultural subversion against us. Now, my friend, do you understand what power can do? Do you understand that it was an exercise of power, not some act of Nature, that brought these 100 million foreigners into our midst? It was the exercise of power that marxised our politics after 1945, and bound us hand and foot politically while this 60-year process has been pursued. It is the exercise of power - whatever force is necessary directed at whomsoever resists - that will deliver renewal for us. As much force and treasure - the ultimate measures of “practicality” - will be required for that as was required to bring us into crisis in the first place. You want my blueprint? It is too early for blueprints. This is a time for clarity, determination, analysis and creative thinking. It’s no good saying to a philosopher that he must cost third-year repatriation programmes. The programmes will be costed if the philospher does the work for which he is equipped. So, Duncan, ask a question for “now”, which is a question about the crisis, its causes, its solutions. Power will answer all the other questions - all of them - when the time comes. 12
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:38 | #
Our claim to legitimacy would be the superiority of countries whites live in as opposed to the sinkholes that non-whites make of their countries. Anyone with any standards at all, will realize africa is wasted in the hands of the africans, but America bloomed and was made wonderful by its European settlers. How’s history and the geography of the world today for realism? Africans were still living in mud huts when we arrived, and America was sparsely populated, often by hunter-gatherers, a continent which we turned into the most powerful nation of the world, with 10, 20 times as many people all living at a much higher standard of living. Those who raise the carrying capacity of the land deserve to reap the fruits of their labor and possess that extra carrying capacity in the form of their own descendants and co-ethnics.
When have the militaries of non-whites ever been a problem for whites? Especially in the last 300 years? Surely you jest. We won’t need any non-white country’s support, and if they tried to invade Europe or the USA to protect their co-ethnics, the result would be a smashing loss. The only obstacle to all-white nations is our own lack of will. Thus the only remaining task is to convince whites to regain that will.
Since whites would control a great deal of the world’s natural resources that will hardly be a problem, besides, non-whites would still be forced to trade with us for their own benefit and thus they could not punish us economically for our deeds. Whites form most of world trade and thus passing sanctions on us is sort of like the tail of a horse passing sanctions on the body.
Japan and Korea seem okay. 1950’s America wasn’t so bad, and it was 90% white. I also didn’t notice Europe with 99% white countries like Sweden and Norway lagging economically. They had one of the highest standards of living on earth. Whites can do just fine all on their own, I’d be more interested in learning what economy can survive third-worldization? South Africa and Zimbabwe don’t look too hot. Nor does Brazil tell us that a mixed race country is the ultimate wealth generator for its people.
Restore the work conditions and high wages for these jobs whites are used to, and we will do these jobs just fine. Even now the majority of construction jobs are done by whites in the USA. Of course, in the past all menial jobs were done by whites in the USA and Europe because those were the only people there. Japan does its own working class jobs just fine. However, I will give a hopeful note, that with modern technology menial labor will become a thing of the past. Robots and self-cleaning meta-materials, for instance, are both being researched today. 13
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:55 | #
Probably just a coincidence, but there is a Richard H who posts at Auster’s site who made the following statement in this thread http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012325.html threatening Whites,
And of course Auster posted it.
Numbers have never been a problem. When Columbus sailed the ocean blue Whites were probably at around the same percentage we are now, about 13%. As far as logistics, Europeans ran the Arabs and Berbers out of Spain, the Mongols out of Russia and the Turks out of the Balkans.
Who said that?
The same place we’ve gotten them historically…...local resources, continued developed technologies and through trade. What, did you get your information on White Nationalism from a comic book or something?
Nowhere. Which is why no one is advocating it, except, apparently you!?!?
“Illegal immigrants” produce, roughly, 1% of America’s GDP….....an that’s on a good day. Only around 30% of the illegal population in America are employed. And of those, only around 5% are doing “menial jobs”. The contribute little, but take mucho lotto. Their presence has put an unsustainable burden on our national infrastructure and is most likely the number one cause for the housing bubble collapse which is ravaging our economy right now.
No, but as demonstrated by your post, rhetoric can certainly take the place of facts.
14
Posted by Richard H on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:11 | # I’m not the Richard H who posted at Auster’s site. I’m not a religous believer and have no time for arguments over who is “cursed” and who isn’t. 15
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:30 | # Talk about jewish supremacism! God almighty has a special favoritism for jews. Instead of judging people based on right or wrong, He will ‘bless those who bless [jews] and curse those who curse [jews].’ What a convenient God to have on your side. An amoral God for an amoral people. 16
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:14 | # Look. my biggest gripe againast Peter Brimnelow is that he hasn’t gone after the asians in America with the same ferocity that he unleashes on hispanics. Same criticism for Sailer. I don not beleive for one moment that he is a neocon. I sincerly beleive that Peter Brimelow does want Native Born White Americans reduced to a racial minority within the borders of America. Peter Brimelow is a true beleiver in the “magical” powers of the free market. But he also realizes-to his suprise-that there are a lot of immigration reformers and White Nationalist types-White Nationalism in a very broad sense- who are not enamoured of the pure free market model. Racial survival is ultimately more important to Brimelow-less so for Sailer-than economic theology debates. Brimelow will ultimately cast his fate with the White racialist resistance and protection -against -the free market types(this includes a majority of White Americans.) I don’t beleive for a moment that he is a sell out or traitor to the cause. But he does need a good kick in the ass to go after the model minority asian “Americans”. The Asian “American” is actively participating in the destruction of thousands of years of Native Born White MALE -screw you Brenda Walker if this offends you-Enginering expereince. It is no exageration to say what the Asian “American” is doing to Native Born White American is in the realm of genocide. It should be stated just like this on the pages of vdare.com. Bo I think your citicism of Peter Brimelow is without merit and substance. There is a very serious problem in White Male America. They call up sports talk radio shows screaming with the intensity of a religious fanatic about “their team” and how “their team” would be so much better if it could just get a supertalented young multimillionire black male or hispanic male in tigh spandex on “their team.”.becuase if this doesn’t happen….millions of White males who follow these darkie teams won’t be emotionally satisfied. White Male America is very sick and diseased. Don’t pretend otherwise. If these sports addicted White Males ever came to their senses, it would be easier for Peter Brimelow to push the envelope of White Nationalism. Hopefully, the economy is in very serious structural trouble. Hoepfully, these sports addicted White Males face economic destitution and wives leaving them for other males. They need to have their teeth kicked in by reality. However, this is no excuse for Brimleow to go soft on pushing the envelope. Even with the constraints that Peter Brimelow works under, he really needs to become much more aggressive with post-1965 non-whites, black Americans and especially the predatory asians in OUR AMERICA. I wish Peter Brimelow would stop it with the nonsense about black Americans being the victims of immigration. Blacks have just imposed an anti-white Kenyan bigot on White Americans. Blacks can go fuck themselves from this point in time. Black and White interests are irreconciliable. So I think what you re doing Bo is in the screw ball realm. I hope I’m wrong about this. Today is the bestowing of Dear Leader status on Barack Obama. In doing this, black america has given Barck Obama a blank check to committ mass murder somewhere in the world. 17
Posted by zuwr on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:15 | # Bo, Do you adhere to the New Orleans Protocol? Can you turn the other cheek with regards to your differences with Brimelow? 18
Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:43 | # Richard H, I agree with Guessedworker’s response to you on January 20, 2009, 12:47 PM:
Regarding your specific questions:
Keep reading. Problems are not solved by addressing their symptoms. The causes must be forthrightly uncovered and treated directly. Auster does not wish to delve into causes. In fact he very actively pathologizes and demonizes anyone who implicates the jewish role in creating and sustaining multiculturalism, immigration, affirmative action, black crime, and homosexualists (not to mention the much more complete list provided by GW). He could have been an ally. I considered him one at first. Then his fundamental duplicity became clear. Auster does not overtly present himself as a jew whose first and foremost interests are “what is good for the Jews?”, but that is how he acts. He overtly presents himself as pro-“white”, pro-Christian, and pro-West, but he regularly subordinates every one of these priorities to his pro-jew priority. Besides misdirecting and constraining attention to symptoms rather than causes, effectively harming our efforts to “save ourselves”, Auster is a liar and dissembler. He is an intellectual poseur with no sense of logical consistency nor tolerance for criticism. He is a rationalization engine, happy to churn out reams of contradictory nonsense to protect his very touchy ego and his sacrosanct people. This rationalization engine is too often directed toward vicious, unfair attacks on the most prominent spokesmen we have. People who are better allies than he is. We don’t need Mr. Auster to do anything but stand down. Stop blaming “the majority”. Stop telling “the majority” what to do. If he really wants to help us he should move to israel and urge as many of his like-minded israel-first kin to do the same.
This is less likely than Auster moving to israel, but I would whole-heartedly support it if it did happen. Unfortunately Obama would be removed from power by those who put him there, and much faster than he was put there, if he were to act independently in the way you describe. Just like every White president for the past hundred years or so. So much for Change.
The logical fallacy is the enemy of the good. I will not support anyone who wants me and mine to survive only because it serves their purposes. I will support them if they come without guile, openly state their alliegences, and offer something that serves my purposes. I’m open to mutually beneficial arrangements as well. Your question is moot. I’ve not yet encountered a jew who is on my side. I believe I could accept a jew as an ally is he could behave as one. I will not accept dissimulators. Can you suggest someone besides Auster? 19
Posted by Jupiter on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:58 | # James B Do you agree with my charge of attepmted genocide of Euro-Americans on the pert of asians? I think it is kind of obvious. Deskilling of the Native Born White force is the first step. Really this is the kind of stuff that should discussed with high intetnsity at majority rights,vdare.com,numberssa.com and resistdefamation.org. The recent Brimelow/Sears conflict is silly stuff-if both are really serious about preventing the racial dispossession of Native Born White Americans at the hands of asian “Americans”. OF course, one should always put American in quotes when it comes to the asian gene-line in America. And this includes Native “Americans”(pro-white white Ameridain hybrids excluded) 20
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:00 | # Posted by zuwr on January 20, 2009, 04:15 PM | # Bo, Do you adhere to the New Orleans Protocol? Can you turn the other cheek with regards to your differences with Brimelow? ++++++++++ Zuwr, we’ve never heard of a New Orleans protocol. But don’t forget, our primary mission is to lift the burden of name-calling (goyim, gentile, gringo, anglo, and so on) from the backs of Euro-Americans. We have a narrow focus and take derogatory name-calling very seriously. Ask Auster and Brimelow if they will stop the name-calling. We’ll never “turn the other cheek” and accept the slightest derogatory name-calling by anyone at any time. We’ve communicated this point of view to both Auster and Brimelow, and they just scoff. 21
Posted by zuwr on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:24 | # Bo, This is the New Orleans Protocol “These three principles are now called The New Orleans Protocol. The first principle was that of zero tolerance within our cause for violence or suggested violence. The distinction between violence and self-defense was made clear. It was agreed that a zero tolerance policy towards violence is essential to protecting White racialist groups from the sort of agent provocateur or unhinged violence that our people’s enemies routinely use to destroy White nationalist groups. The second principle was support for the goal of always maintaining a high moral tone to White Nationalist discourse. The assembled leaders thought as one on the imperative of capturing the high ground of inspiration and greater purpose to our Cause. The third principle was an accord that leaders and supporters of effective White Nationalist groups should refrain from attacking leaders or supporters of other effective White Nationalist groups that maintain the high standards of The New Orleans Protocol.” Now that you’ve read it, do you adhere to it? Also, will you answer my other question: can you turn the other cheek with regards to your differences with Brimelow? 22
Posted by Richard H on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:27 | #
Saying you’ve never seen a Jew on your side is like someone saying that they’ve never seen an intelligent black. That’s just blind dislike of a people rather than an intelligent appraisal of tendencies and averages. Michael Levin, a Jew, wrote a book defending voluntary segregation and race realism. I’ve never heard him mention Israel. How about academics who don’t do politics but are working/worked to bring race realism to academia like Arthur Jensen and Richard Hernstein? You don’t know if they’re not motivated by Jewish interests but they do good work and should be supported. 23
Posted by wan62ted on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:27 | # Guessedworker said: Rule number one at a free website like this: Don’t appeal to a concept (anti-Semitism) which, like all Jewish political inventions, has no traction here ... is irrelevant ... does not exist. We do not do emotional responses to Jewish paranoia. Understand? Some label is necessary for perfervid anti-jewish sentiment of the sort found in that link. Or does that sentiment not exist? Artifically induced by whom? Go on. Say it. Let’s hear who the great masters of the guilt-meme are. It is induced as often by yourselves as by Jews, certainly. What began as an attempt to redress historical injustice has metamorphosed into an explicit ideology embraced by Whites as keenly as by Jews. That’s two lies in one. The “Jewish face” isn’t propounding European racialism. It’s propounding European weakness and culpability for a crisis in a non-existent paradigm - “our Judeo-Christian heritage”. Hart is explicitly racial but he isn’t solely racial. Preserving a way of life is synonymous with defending a ‘heritage’ or a ‘civilization’ and Hart has every right to do that regardless of your opinion of him or of Jews generally. Meanwhile, the real crisis, for which Jews share a heavy burden of racial guilt, is genetic and is European, and is the race-replacement of our people throughout the West. For whom do you imagine Hart wrote Understanding Human History? As to the popularity of Jews, could that also be “artificial” and, therefore, essentially a lie - exactly like the “unpopularity” of Euro-American racialists. How about turning off the meme-machine for a couple of years and seeing which ideas and which activists are really popular? Hart is powerless to prevent superior ideas out-competing his. You see, that’s what you people should be doing - talking to your co-ethnics about their paranoia and their racial supremacism, and opposing their destructiveness towards us. That could be one outcome of the conference. That is, if you were honest. But you are not. You talk to us about our “weakness” and “culpability, and you tell our activists they will have to accept Jewish leadership. I have said no such thing. We don’t accept Jewish leadership. We don’t accept any part of you, or your ideas. We want you off our backs, as we want all Jews off our backs, so we can live as we please in our own homelands. That is what you want, Guessedworker. Your people may have other ideas. None of us know how events will play out. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:15 | # Jupiter writes: James B Do you agree with my charge of attepmted genocide of Euro-Americans on the pert of asians? I think it is kind of obvious. Deskilling of the Native Born White force is the first step. Although I’m less concerned with genocide—meaning the intentional destruction of a nation—than I am simple forces of nature, I think the evidence of genocidal intent on the part of Jews is far stronger than on the part of “Asians”. To Jews, “nationalism” of Euro peoples is equivalent to a high risk of genocide of Jews, so they engage in preemptive genocide—its that simple and that paranoid. Asians aren’t doing that. Jews are HIV to the Euro national bodies, and the rest of the immigrants are the opportunistic infections of those national bodies. As with HIV, the proximate cause of death may be infection by an opportunistic disease, and certainly AIDS neuropathy is common—analogous to the displacement of our people from the niches in the human ecology associated with “cognitive elites”. But this niche displacement was instigated by Jews largely due to their need for a more reliable demography in the technocracy than the demography they had been displacing from the bureaucracy. 25
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:23 | #
Neither one is White. ... 26
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:51 | # Great post by Guessedworker above. That is a very good, concise summation of the WN/racialist/nationalist’s dilemma and what must be done to reclaim the West from the forces that have subverted it. 27
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:55 | # BTW, I’m finally beginning to understand your position, GW. The tipping point was when you talked about teleological vs. ontological nationalism. Your position vis-a-vis Salter was not clear to me when I first arrived at this site. I think our differences mainly stemmed from the fact that I did not fully know your ideas re: the “new right.” The only question is, without palingenesis, how does one evoke a sense of racial pride in the hearts of men? Can it be done? 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:57 | # Some label is necessary for perfervid anti-jewish sentiment It is reactionary. It would not exist if Jews did not provoke it. Indeed, Jewish paranoia, in so much as it arises from European reactionism and is not merely an inflation of same for the purposes of binding the diaspore, is an ineluctable consequence of Jewish supremacism. The charge of anti-Semitism is a classic case of motes and beams. Remove the beam from your own eye. It (guilt) is induced as often by yourselves as by Jews, certainly. I am not a Single Jewish Cause advocate. Guilt, however, is the Jewish speciality. Why do you think the Holocaust narrative is pushed so damned hard at us from primary school to the grave? Never allow Jews to escape the charge of rampant guilt-manufacture, which is what you are doing here. Preserving a way of life is synonymous with defending a ‘heritage’ or a ‘civilization’ and Hart has every right to do that The defence of our people is genetic. Very, very few Jews can speak to that. The Jews at the conference are not doing so. In fact, they are giving us not just the usual culturism, but a culturism of a “Judeo-Christian heritage”. No, this is not our way. Intentional or not, it is a muddying of the waters, and it’s effect is not to deliver Europeans into their own hands, which is what is needed, but to construct an alternative and unwanted Jewish Euro-nationalism. For whom do you imagine Hart wrote Understanding Human History? For people whom he could impress. Like you, it seems. Hart is powerless to prevent superior ideas out-competing his. Whoa, stop right there. Cast your mind back a few weeks to the difficulties David Duke experienced in trying to mount his Euro-American conference. You remember that, don’t you? You remember the hotels that mysteriously cancelled on him? Now, has Mr Hart experienced the same frustrations? Has he had to thumb through Yellow Pages desperately seeking one half-decent doss house that the “guilt manufacturers” haven’t got at? Note that the Judeophile Jared Taylor doesn’t seem to struggle like that with the hosting of his conference. Care to explain the difference? You see, you are right that Mr Hart isn’t preventing superior ideas out-competing his. David Duke has a superior idea: the genetic survival of our people. But somehow he gets out-competed when it comes to conference management. Doesn’t that make you wonder what’s going on? Even a teensie-weensie bit? I mean, how is it that in your earlier, restful manifestation you can tell me “Like it or not, a Jewish face propounding racialism is, for the time being, going to attract a good deal more innocent attention than a Nordic face” and not wonder what the hell is going on? And if you know ... if you know that Jewish meme-manufacturers are, for their own ethnic reasons, poisoning the well for White Nationalism, why the heck are you passing around the strangely unpoisoned Mr Hart’s cup? That could be one outcome of the conference. If that is the only outcome, and the only future path for Jewish activism in the interests of our people, I am content. I have said no such thing. Project the lines like I did. What do you think conferences are for other than to raise the profile and further the interests of the organisers? That is what you want, Guessedworker. Your people may have other ideas. None of us know how events will play out. I am in my late-fifties. I have spoken face-to-face to hundreds of people, certainly, in my political lifetime. I have debated hundreds of them over the internet, including an awful lot of “captured” (liberals). I know that of which I speak. The instincts of the people are still good. With a two-year switch off of the meme machine, and full freedom of speech and association throughout that time, we could blow the lid off the system electorally. It has only been massive management and our marginalisation that has prevented us from doing that decades ago. Our political enemies know it. They know how hard they have to strive to herd us towards their new order. Freedom from them means freedom from Jewish thought control, even the culturist kind on offer from Hart and Auster. All Jewish thought control. You are on the wrong side. There is time to change. 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:12 | # Gudmund: The only question is, without palingenesis, how does one evoke a sense of racial pride in the hearts of men? Can it be done? I suspect not. But, actually, the philosophical dilemma cuts both ways. The tradition that asks “is it true” cannot inspire men to great ends. But the tradition that asks “is it beautiful” cannot sustain positions founded in untruth. The latter is why I am so hard on NS (and have made enemies in the process). For there to be any synthesis of truth and beauty one must exclude the high peaks of palingenesis. But, certainly for me, the magic formula remains very slippery! 30
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:56 | # The following was spoken at the inauguration by the Rev. Joseph Lowery,
It’s like they’re advertising for us! 31
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:04 | # GW:For there to be any synthesis of truth and beauty one must exclude the high peaks of palingenesis. But, certainly for me, the magic formula remains very slippery! As for all of us, I imagine. I suspect not. But, actually, the philosophical dilemma cuts both ways. The tradition that asks “is it true” cannot inspire men to great ends. But the tradition that asks “is it beautiful” cannot sustain positions founded in untruth. Yes, although that is difficult to gauge historically. The problem is that NS/Fascism were not fully implemented thanks to your continent’s implosion from 1939 on. So it is hard to judge just where said ideologies might have wandered given different circumstances… 32
Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:55 | # Richard H writes:
Please refrain from making unwarranted assumptions and impugnations on my character. I have met and know of more than a handful of intelligent blacks. I hold no blind dislike of blacks or jews. My appraisal of jews as potential allies is based on intelligent analysis of their tendencies and averages. I am open to the potential that jewish allies exist but I do not actively seek them. This is a consequence of the analysis, which strongly indicates their infrequency. To put it in the terms you seem to prefer, it is akin to searching for Bigfoot. As for tendencies and averages, it is exactly because ally-worthy jews are so infinitesimal that they are of limited value. Being so rare they are easily marginalized by their own kind as “self-hating”. Searching through a million pounds of fool’s gold to find an ounce of true gold might be a valuable pursuit. Searching a million pounds of straw to find one measly needle is not.
Perhaps Levin is also a dissimulator. Please give me some cause to invest time to determine if Levin, unlike Auster, supports segregation and race realism as it pertains to Whites and jews. A quote or two to that effect would suffice. I will then investigate from there. This snippet from Levin’s bio on wikipedia doesn’t bode well:
Not wanting to associate with AR is one thing. Explicitly basing it on anti-semitism (at AR!?!) is not the behavior of an ally.
Evidence as per Levin please. From what I know of Jensen’s and Hernstein’s work I support it. I support race-realism in all forms. Even the stunted tribe-denying form is useful for demonstrating the hypocrisy of jews (tendencies and averages again) concerning race. Not to beat a dead horse, but if you’re interested in academics you should be concerned about Auster’s vicious, absolutely over-the-top smears against Kevin MacDonald, one of the few academics who is truly and openly on our side. This is very solid evidence that Auster is NOT our ally. Auster is free to criticize MacDonald and judge him wrong. To accuse MacDonald of genocidal intent and call for him to be silenced, as Auster so often and ruthlessly does, is something no ally would do.
You mentioned above that Auster and Hart “recognize immigration as the genocide that it is”. I believe they suspect it. I believe it is not what they wish. I also believe they are hesitant to call too much attention to it because they think that would not be good for jews. To the extent Auster does call attention to immigration it is very often qualified and expressed in terms of what is good for jews. Plenty about muslims, very little about latinos or asians. If possible please provide quotes from either man similar to the attack on MacDonald above above but concerning any jew whose activities “can have no other logical outcome than the extermination” of non-jews/“the majority”/Europeans/Whites. I am skeptical (for reasons already stated) that any such quotes exist.
I also want what Guessedworker wants, as do many of our people gathered here. Let’s try something new. Let’s put it to a vote. Whites only of course. Better yet, Whites who have read MacDonald. 33
Posted by Homelander on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:12 | # Duke caused his own problems, basically. In the course of becoming famous, images of him wearing KKK robes, and Storm Trooper outfits have been reproduced in the millions. Any WN with such a background is DOA in the Public Relations war. Better for the movement that you should step aside - as any kind of public figure - in deference to spokesmen who have not been so foolish. But Duke won’t do that. He is an entrepreneur. Being a celebrity is his livelihood. The only person protected by the NO Protocol is Duke. 34
Posted by weston on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:41 | #
It’s as simple as this. One you realize that they are not us—and no one is more aware of this than they are—it makes as much sense to talk of recruiting Jews as it does Hindoos or Chinamen. 35
Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:56 | # The benediction at O-Banana’s inauguration, together with Obama’s loud calls for sweeping change, has made it crystal clear: these barbarians and their banker backers don’t intend to stop here; they intend a repeat of what they did to the Ruskies in the USSR. GW and Tan, put me down as a “Yea.” 36
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:03 | #
LOL! 37
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:12 | #
I do. If you say you’re a Jew, that means, ipso facto, that you’re on Team Jew and not on Team Euro. It means you can’t belong to Team Euro. Why is this so hard to understand? Doesn’t mean two different teams can’t ally, but the rosters are exclusive. 38
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:19 | # My position on the utility of Jews in the movement is straightforward. They can be useful only if they address the trespasses of their own people. We do not need yet more Jews critiquing us and telling us what our problem is. We need them off our back and, frankly, as far away from us as possible so that we may live free and sovereign according to our own ethnic interests. 39
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:29 | #
You got a good answer above, but I would take a step back and reject the premise of the question. It’s what I call the “master-slave” fallacy (not really a fallacy, but it’s pretty much an automatic loser of an argument); slave: “I want to be free” master: “boy, that’s crazy talk! Don’t you know what we’ll do to you if you try to escape?” 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:37 | # Tan, Arthur Jensen is one-quarter Jewish. It is well-known that Richard Hernnstein was concerned for the unity of Jewry, which is why he co-wrote TBC with its warning of the divisiveness of cognitive elitism. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:48 | # Svi, I don’t know eactly when I first used the “And Jew spake unto Jew” idea. At least a year ago, I would think. It is rather an obvious solution. I mean, these guys like Hart and Auster seem terrible keen to, you know, talk, talk, talk. And we don’t want to listen to them. So it’s only right and proper to direct them to an audience that is very appreciative of words, especially when they are spoken by Jews. Well, only when they are spoken by Jews, actually. Seems to me, a good ... no ... absolutely imperative place for our friends to start would be deconstructing the myth of the self-hating Jew. 42
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:51 | #
(Euro ethno-nationalists don’t really care enough about anti-Semitism to attach adjectives like “perfervid” to it)
MH, do appreciate that you can come here and attempt to have a conversation with us like a civilized human being. I also like that you say “yourselves,” - a hopeful pronoun. So, we’re left to argue back and forth about how much, when, who, whom, bla bla bla, situation that favors your tribe, not mine. Why not cut the knot? We set up a multi-state solution and see what works. If partition of the USA hurts your feelings, we could do it State’s rights style. In fifty years we can see who’s most guilt-ridden. How about it? Or do you have some objection to testing hypotheses? 43
Posted by Armor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:05 | # In reply to Duncan (nothing to do with the conference) :
North-America and Australia were populated by Europeans a long time ago and should be considered as European territory. I’m in favor of white people reclaiming those territories as well as Europe, because white people need to have their own territory, just as the Africans need to have Africa, and as the Chinese need to keep China. But more than an invasion of white territory, what has taken place recently, and what must be reversed, is an invasion of white society. Mexican and Arab immigrants did not invade us like Napoleon conquering Europe. They did not care about our territory. Instead, they were drawn to our comfortable white society. They cling to us because we are white people, not because they want our lands for themselves. In fact, they are using us as disposable consumer goods. So, we need to expel them from the West, but even more importantly, we need to expel them from what’s left of our society. They are parasites who are killing us. We need to be able to live with no contact with them at all. They are like the fleas on a European dog. The fleas do not want to be expelled from the dog’s warm body. Does that mean they love the dog? Not really. Does it mean they want to stay in Europe, or in whatever country the dog lives? No. They don’t care about Europe or any other country.
In your interest for practical details, you should not lose sight of principles. Anyway, I’m going to talk to you about numbers and logistics, from a practical European point of view: Question for Duncan: What do you think the Euros will become if the non-Euros are allowed to stay where they shouldn’t be? My Answer: The Euros will keep being replaced by non-Euros. They will practically disappear, while the non-Euro population will explode both in the West and in the 3rd World. On the other hand, if you send the Mexican immigrants back to Mexico, where there is plenty of room for them, the Mexican birth rate will go down, due to the demographic pressure, while the white birth rate will go up in the USA. That is obviously what must be done. The race replacement policy must stop and be reversed. The Mexicans will not lack room in Mexico. What they will miss is our warm welfare-distributing euro-bodies. And they will have to raise smaller families. 44
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:29 | # Given the ongoing collapse of white numbers - due simply to under-breeding - the extent of territory that can reasonably be held by whites is probably VERY limited: In the Southern Hemisphere - Australia/New Zealand, Chile/Uruguay/Argentina and MAYBE the Cape of South Africa. In the Northern Hemisphere - Scandinavia, the British Isles, Germany/Austria/Switzerland/the Low Countries and Northern France, Finland/Russia (some)/Belarus/Ukraine/Poland-Czech-Slovak-Hungary-Rumania (forget the Caucusus, Balkans, Geece and Bulgaria). In the Western Hemisphere - All of Canada and Alaska, and much of CON-USA north of Mason-Dixie and especially west of the Great Lakes. Surrendered? the Southwest, probably the Southeast, and much if not all of the northeast and central states (here they can try their happy multi-culti experiments). 45
Posted by Armor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:53 | #
- The opening of the borders to non-whites has nothing to do with the white population being too low. 46
Posted by speedbump on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:43 | #
When it comes to survival, the most important difference between the mud races and Europids is this: Muds believe in supernatural access to the natural world. Europids, on the other hand, believe in the natural world’s access to the supernatural. How is this relevant? There is much psychological crap to be overcome. We haven’t long to expel that first 100 mil - peacefully, that is. Today on ABC news retired Gen. Colin Powell said the Republican Party had better get with it, for the present majority has only 20 years before it becomes a minority. 47
Posted by OBAMA'S JEWS on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:53 | # Learn a bit about some of Obama’s Jewish string pullers = http://zsidozas.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/obamas-jewschange-we-cant-believe-in/ 48
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 04:05 | # The idea that a Jew or a philo-Semite can call for pity for Jews at the presentation of a “perfervid” portrayal of Jews is, now, only wearisome. It is our race, the White race, that is slated to vanish from the earth; not Jews. It is not “hate” or “antisemitism” that I now feel towards Jews, it is supreme indifference; I no longer care what happens to them. Jews have no right, whatever, to the lands and the bodies of those of European blood. Neither belong to them. Our lands belong to us, and we belong to each other - we will once again, and forever, be our own masters. You Jews are not wanted here - get out! As to the difficulties in reclaiming our lands, ALL of our land (North America, New Zealand, Australia, European, southern Africa and Russian Siberia), we will do what it takes. We are White, of course we can do it. In the specific instance of North America: there are 200 millions Whites, with a near replacement level birth race, present. That is a rock which will not easily be split. 49
Posted by JTaverner on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 06:06 | # Jews seek power without culpability as a parasite seeks blood without labor. For the West to live, Jews need to be removed. Jewish expulsion is the absolute first step to repairing our race and lands. All other problems will magnify and multiply with their continued presence. It’s our collective fault Jews are here. Our ancestors warned us about these people. At our peril, we handed over the reigns of the West to a tribe of moral-less gypsies. It’s no surprise our birthright was stolen; we tolerated the scoundrels who robbed us. It’s our duty to right the course. We’re the last generation that can fight back. Our forefathers failed us, but they didn’t have access to the modern methods of communications we do. It’s not fair to leave this growing problem to the smaller and weaker generations that will follow. It’s up to us. 50
Posted by Homelander on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:31 | # Hey CC! (computer crapped out about a week ago…bought a new one) We keep what we can, of course. And someday I imagine a replenished white race occupying the entire temperate and pleasant habitats suitable for us. I really do believe, however, that white men don’t do too well in the Tropics - and not much better in the arid zones. Not as homelands - those suited for travel and trade can do anything, I suppose…except propagate our race. The slag must live, and live somewhere. Spare them the habitats which suit them better, anyway. Meanwhile, whites only flourish among their own. The growing presence of non-whites is certainly an important factor in our poor fecundity. The soonest possible seperation is imperative. Where you draw these boundaries is less important. Although it can’t be done on the moon - or away from the cradle which bore us - it doesn’t require half a planet, either. We just need some time. And a place to replenish the stock. BTW: that “replacement level 2.1” for the US includes Blacks at 2.5, and Hispanics at 3.5 in the average. Whites taken seperately don’t average so high. 51
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:45 | # Auster sees myself, my children, and my people as so much cannon fodder in the service of his people’s demands. What Israel Shamir calls “the Messiah’s Donkey”.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Gaza.html 52
Posted by Arthur Pendleton on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:10 | # The ONLY solution left for conservatives (ie, those who wish to preserve Western civilization, and the historic American Republic, or at least the American ethnoculture itself, if we assume the Constitution is irreversibly lost) is WHITE RACIAL NATIONALISM (starting out rhetorically moderate, but with a much harder ulterior agenda, to be gradually revealed as our support grows), whose ultimate goal is white separatism leading to an apartheid white racial homeland of our own, to be carved out of some portions of the degenerate American Empire. The publically legitimated presence of non-whites in our midst, on a planet where, thanks to decades of insane if not outright treasonous white liberal as well as Christian interracial altruism and general do-gooderism (feeding the Third World, vaccinating them, giving endless aid, etc), whites will soon be outnumbered 20- or 30-1, will ineluctably lead to Buchanan’s Death of the West. The ONLY way any of the Western constituent cultures, or just the white race itself as a biological sub-species of homo sapiens, will survive is through what Leon Haller (following the late Raymond Cattell’s and Wilmot Robertson’s separately formulated suggestions of ethnostates) has called in an earlier discussion thread, RACIAL SOVEREIGNTY; to wit, the creation of free/sovereign polities set aside for whites only to reside in and govern. Unless whites (re)conquer territory, expel all those not of undiluted European genetic heritage, institute rigorously pro-natalist (as well as, I believe necessary, eugenic) policies, and place RACIAL SECURITY as the central principle informing all other public policies, and superceding all other political concerns or goals, then we and the West are finished. Every exogenous trend is leading to the extinction of the white race. Only an act of conscious racial/political will can save us. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:38 | # This has turned out to be an extremely good and important thread with lots of “food for thought” and excellent recommendations and outlines as to broad goals and policies whites should follow. We’re on our way, comrades: the train has left the station with us on board; the ship, our ship, has left the dock and is now moving slowly but surely forward, under way at last after what seemed like agonizing ages spent firing up its immense boilers, gathering a head of steam, ever since the Count de Gobineau, Lothrop Stoddard, and Madison Grant began stoking its vast furnaces. The coal these fathers first shoveled, and those who came after, is now, finally, propelling us smoothly along. Or, it’s as if the fleet which Roosevelt and his Jews deliberately made sure would be entrapped inside Pearl Harbor to get destroyed like sitting ducks had instead managed to fight its way out into the open ocean where it could maneuvre, defend itself, shoot back, survive, and prevail. We’re that fleet. We’re leaving port, bound for the open ocean. Nothing can stop us now except ourselves: if we lose heart or break our concentration, our allow the Jews to distract us, or trick us into believing all is lost, or in some way break our will, weaken our resolve, we’ll succumb. But that’s the only way we’ll succumb: it all depends on us now. Only us. 54
Posted by rest52 on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:46 | # Guessedworker said: It is reactionary. It would not exist if Jews did not provoke it. Indeed, Jewish paranoia, in so much as it arises from European reactionism and is not merely an inflation of same for the purposes of binding the diaspore, is an ineluctable consequence of Jewish supremacism. The charge of anti-Semitism is a classic case of motes and beams. Remove the beam from your own eye. Whatever reaction Jews provoke doesn’t justify the madness of almost mystical anti-semitism. I am not a Single Jewish Cause advocate. Guilt, however, is the Jewish speciality. Why do you think the Holocaust narrative is pushed so damned hard at us from primary school to the grave? Jews provided the spark but Jews are not necessary to keep the engine running (though they do do that too). To accuse Jews of providing the spark, however, is to claim no man is permitted to fault the White man for anything he has done. Never allow Jews to escape the charge of rampant guilt-manufacture, which is what you are doing here. Manufactured guilt is confirmatory: the White man knows or senses he is better and feels guilty for it, thence anti-racists’ moral glow. Remove Jews and you are still tasked with overcoming this bias.
The conference includes genes. But a man can’t live on genes alone. For whom do you imagine Hart wrote Understanding Human History? For people whom he could impress. Like you, it seems. This is shallow. Whoa, stop right there. Cast your mind back a few weeks to the difficulties David Duke experienced in trying to mount his Euro-American conference. You remember that, don’t you? You remember the hotels that mysteriously cancelled on him? Now, has Mr Hart experienced the same frustrations? Has he had to thumb through Yellow Pages desperately seeking one half-decent doss house that the “guilt manufacturers” haven’t got at? Note that the Judeophile Jared Taylor doesn’t seem to struggle like that with the hosting of his conference. Care to explain the difference? That Jews wield their influence is not news to anybody here. You see, you are right that Mr Hart isn’t preventing superior ideas out-competing his. David Duke has a superior idea: the genetic survival of our people. But somehow he gets out-competed when it comes to conference management. Doesn’t that make you wonder what’s going on? Even a teensie-weensie bit? I mean, how is it that in your earlier, restful manifestation you can tell me “Like it or not, a Jewish face propounding racialism is, for the time being, going to attract a good deal more innocent attention than a Nordic face” and not wonder what the hell is going on? The key phrase was “for the time being.” You can expect that to change. And when it does, Mr. Hart will be one of the men you can thank for it. And if you know ... if you know that Jewish meme-manufacturers are, for their own ethnic reasons, poisoning the well for White Nationalism, why the heck are you passing around the strangely unpoisoned Mr Hart’s cup? A badly needed dialectic palliative. Project the lines like I did. What do you think conferences are for other than to raise the profile and further the interests of the organisers? What does it matter? They could either speak or they could remain silent. If they speak they only risk becoming victims of their own momentum.
It shouldn’t mean freedom from good sense, no matter its well-spring. There is still time for you, too. 55
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:52 | # @Arthur: I can’t argue with anything you said there, so I’d like to ask some followup questions instead. How do we get people to care that the white race is dying? Most people will tell you it doesn’t matter because we’re all humans anyway. What does it matter that ‘unless we do x the white race will die’ when most people think the white race dying is no big deal? Supposing people do care about the white race dying, how do we get them to care more about preserving their race than their fussy ethics? I’m certain a great deal of people think the white race dying is ‘a shame,’ but ‘there’s nothing we can do about it now.’ Since preserving the white race requires hurting others, what argument can you give that would shock therapy people out of their normal moral code? White nationalism is a dormant force that only generates a pitiable influence on the world today. This means that even with continuous growth as a movement, we have no chance of taking power for the next 30 years or so. Given the demographic trends of the next 30 years, everything we are talking about today, like say the 100 million people need to be deported number, will be vastly worse later. Even if you could justify a humane political program of repatriation through simple democratic voting process today, in thirty years the only option left will be violent revolution followed by ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the people in our historic homeland. It will go from preserving to irredentism and conquest. What moral rationale will you use for actions 30 years from now? The same ones that work now, will not work then. 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:59 | #
What justifies the madness of almost mystical Jewish anti-Eurochristianism? What justifies the madness of almost mystical Jewish anti-Teutonism, the almost mystical Jewish anti-Germanism? This is the “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” argument, and the two sides will go back and forth forever pointing the finger of blame at the other as “the one who started it.” The problem we are left with is right now the Jews and their allies are genociding the Euro race worldwide and they have to be stopped. This thing they call “anti-Semitism,” whether real or imaginary, whether legitimate or unjustified, has zero significance, zero significance, compared to the crisis of race-replacement genocide now confronting us. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:03 | # Like a mongoose that sees a snake, a Jew who sees a Eurochristian is on him instantly, trying to kill him. What Jewish mysticism explains that? 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09 | # The Euros in this country welcomed the Jews and treated them kindly, and what did they get in return? Knives in the back from the Jews. Jewish-dealt death blows to the nation. The Jewish 1965 Immigration Law and the Jews standing guard keeping anyone from undoing that law ever since, right down to the present moment when its cataclysmic portent is obvious to all. Negro Supremacy. All social fabric systematically torn to shreds. What justifies that Jewish behavior, that nation destruction? They have two countries, Israel and Birobidzhan. If they hate us so much why son’t they leave and go to their countries where they’ll be happier? 59
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:12 | # Diamed: @Arthur: I can’t argue with anything you said there, so I’d like to ask some followup questions instead. That is the great question, Diamed - the same question that Gudmund was discussing with me above. Another way of putting the dilemma is that there is no such animal as Analytical nationalism. It is my unshakable conviction that, living as we are in the Age of Analytical Philosophy - the Age of Science - we are unable to go back to the answer provided in the past by Idealist nationalism. Why? Well, not only because the Jewish meme-machine has daubed its natural beauty with Holocaust guilt, but because its tennets are easily falsified. The Analytical is us ... is our way of thinking, and we are bound to live by it. So the problem becomes one of synthesis, of how to bring beauty - an unfalsifiable beauty, a beauty unimpeachable even by Jews - to truth. Solve this riddle and you will give back not only his life but the entire world to the white man. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:17 | # I’m not WASP. I will never be a WASP. I don’t want to be a WASP. I want to stay ethnically what I am. I like what I am. But I want to live under WASP hegemony, NOT Jewish hegemony. The Jews don’t know how to run a Euro country. They ruin it utterly. They’re whacked out in the brain, they’re sick, there’s something wrong with them. They’re a nation of sicko sadistic whacked-out weirdos, a nation of Abe Foxmans, a nightmare when in control of things. Jewish hegemony over any Euro country is a CATASTROPHE. I want the WASP hegemony back, and I want the present Jewish hegemony to go straight to hell where it belongs and GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE. 61
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:25 | # My Yiddish-speaking Jewish grandmother, named Miriam, came to New York City from a Jewish schtetl in what was then the Austrian Empire and today Poland, her father a kosher butcher. Her sister Anna, my “Tante” Anna, came later. I am confident those two sisters did not think that in coming here they were coming to the place, coming to the HELLHOLE, which the Jews have turned this country into since the 1960s. I am confident that had they known what was in store for this country they would have taken the next ship back. 62
Posted by Arthur Pendleton on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:46 | # I just posted this over at the ‘faleocon’ CHRONICLES site (under Clyde Wilson’s latest; will probably get removed soon): There is NO HOPE for the USA. As a unitary, semi-civilized republic, it is finished. The only thing we Americans can rally round is RACE. Skin color is finally going to enter Stupid Movement (ie, conservative) venues and discussions. You are not going to keep real (that is, racial) conservatives out of the conversation any longer. Everything we have been saying for 50 years, while the Stupid Movement worried about “values”, families, taxes, “the unborn”, the Church (like they’ve ever done anything to save the bodies and polities of Western men!), communism, “making government work”, localism, the Lost Cause, literary traditionalism, and all the other distractions from what was apparent by 1960 (at least to wise men, like Revilo Oliver) was the only real issue - whether the white man would retain his majority as well as power in America - has been borne out by events, indeed, even more rapidly than we had supposed. Does anyone think it completely unlikely that whites will be physically persecuted (with blind-eye state approval) en masse by 2015? How about that whites will be rounded up and gassed by 2030? Enough with all other conservative/traditionalist/Christian nonsense. Henceforth, we’re talkin’ RACE, loud and proud. No more paleocon hiding (with no disrespect intended to the memory of the great Dr. Samuel Francis, the one real man and thinker amongst that tepid crew of semi-PC whiners, eggheads, and masters of avoiding important issues whilst hosting unbelievably detailed discussions of irrelevant third century ecclesiastical debates, unknown (but of course never OMG! “rayyyycist”, that is, interesting) Southern apologists, and justly forgotten “regionalist” novelists. Enough. Enough. Enough. Can we start discussing real issues now, like how to prevent the extinction of the white race in the New World, and really, the whole world? The neocons stole the Right, and ruined it. Now it’s time for racialists to get noisy, stir things up, get our people angry as hell at the arrogant Alien ensconced in the White House, and take over the Right and redefine it to suit OUR purposes, which are the ones that matter most anyway, as well as have any chance of ultimate victory. Return of capitalism and the Framers’ Constitution? NOT A CHANCE! Restoration of the Christian outlook and social values that were taken for granted as the moral and metaphysical bedrock of the nation for nearly the entirety of its past? NOT A CHANCE! Banning abortion? A) who cares? and B) hahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha! Restoration of classical education in our socialist skools? NOT A CHANCE OF A CHANCE! The growth and development of a white nationalist politics militantly committed to defending the economic interests and physical safety of white Americans? THERE YOU GO, PAL! A real politics, speaking to real issues, in language that can be widely understood. The politics of tomorrow. I can’t wait (especially, to see the consternation on the PC faces of the whole conservative clown show, neo to paleo, as they watch, fascinated and horrified, as a new breed of truly angry white ‘males’, utterly disdainful of savages and their pretensions to equality with their historical betters, takes over the movement, muscles the pansies aside, and remolds it to suit OUR much narrower, but far more effective, consequential and lasting purposes). The Racial Right is coming back. Just watch. 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:05 | # rest52, Whatever reaction Jews provoke doesn’t justify the madness of almost mystical anti-semitism. Look at the list of Jewish political products I posted on this thread. Go on ... look at it. What reaction do you think it merits? What reaction does racial degredation and cultural subversion merit? When are you going to acknowledge - always assuming that you are European and not Jewish - that some reaction is both merited and necessary to control this alien engine of destruction, and to restore our own control over our collective lives? Do you really think that the problem is “lack of confidence”? Or “Islamism”? Can’t you see what lies these are? Are you blind? To accuse Jews of providing the spark, however, is to claim no man is permitted to fault the White man for anything he has done. If they do it from their own homelands, what is that to me? I do not love alien people. I do not have to heed their noise. Is there some special value to me in doing so? I don’t understand your point. Remove Jews and you are still tasked with overcoming this bias. At last, a point of agreement (or maybe not). Jews must be removed, and liberalism replaced. N’est ce pas? This is shallow. Fair enough. But I do not read Jewish literature. I am not impressed by the unrelenting attempts to finagle me out of our heritage, our rights, our land, our life. This Jew-European thing is an existential war which you are not taking seriously. It is most assuredly a war so serious there can be no prisoners taken, which is why Tanstaafl, who has good instincts, has charged Auster with hypocrisy. You understand. There is no middle ground for Auster and Hart to occupy. And you, too. If you are not fighting with us, you are fighting against us. Think on that. That Jews wield their influence is not news to anybody here. That wasn’t my point. My point was that Hart has no trouble with siting his conference. Why, if it will “preserve Western civilisation”? Look, here it is in plain language. Aside from, possibly, from Mordechai Vanunu and David Cole (until he was beaten up), there are no Jews acting against Jewish interests. Not Auster. Not Hart. And if, in a Jew-European existential war, you act for Jewish interests, you are acting against European interests. No middle ground. Think about that, for heavens sake. The key phrase was “for the time being.” You can expect that to change. And when it does, Mr. Hart will be one of the men you can thank for it. Well, that one qualifies you for the splendid Dawkinsian soubriquet, “extended phenotype”. Bottom line: the Jewish diaspore in the West has not shown itself capable of living beside its host without indulging in an unprovoked war of supremacy. Actually, it has been doing it for 2,000 years. I agree with MacDonald that the cause is genetic. If so, that has profound implications for the future presence of Jews in European lands where European peoples choose to live and not die. At the micro level, that has profound implications also for Messers Auster and Hart. I do not want to “thank” these gentlemen. I want to see my people free of their people’s unrelenting, visceral intent. And Auster and Hart don’t want that, or they would be addressing a Jewish audience and not us. So it’s aliyah not thanks, I think. A badly needed dialectic palliative. Do you think we are incapable of managing without Jewish “assistance”, while ADL and the SLPC are busy demonising WN? Well, forgive me while I take issue with you on that - notwithstanding the sad condition of White American Nationalism, which I readily acknowledge. It shouldn’t mean freedom from good sense, no matter its well-spring. And included with the palliative of apparent good sense comes ... what? Jewish inclusion, Jewish critique, Jewish leadership, all of which are wholly antipathetic to us. You are pushing a Trojan Horse. 64
Posted by Arthur Pendleton on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:31 | # Posted by Diamed on January 21, 2009, 12:52 PM | # @Arthur: I can’t argue with anything you said there, so I’d like to ask some followup questions instead. How do we get people to care that the white race is dying? Most people will tell you it doesn’t matter because we’re all humans anyway. What does it matter that ‘unless we do x the white race will die’ when most people think the white race dying is no big deal? Supposing people do care about the white race dying, how do we get them to care more about preserving their race than their fussy ethics? I’m certain a great deal of people think the white race dying is ‘a shame,’ but ‘there’s nothing we can do about it now.’ Since preserving the white race requires hurting others, what argument can you give that would shock therapy people out of their normal moral code? White nationalism is a dormant force that only generates a pitiable influence on the world today. This means that even with continuous growth as a movement, we have no chance of taking power for the next 30 years or so. Given the demographic trends of the next 30 years, everything we are talking about today, like say the 100 million people need to be deported number, will be vastly worse later. Even if you could justify a humane political program of repatriation through simple democratic voting process today, in thirty years the only option left will be violent revolution followed by ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the people in our historic homeland. It will go from preserving to irredentism and conquest. What moral rationale will you use for actions 30 years from now? The same ones that work now, will not work then. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Diamed: Very good, very fair points. I wrote the posts above originally at the CHRONICLES site, just to encourage racial realism as well as nationalism amongst the paleocons, or at least, rile up the pansies (incidentally, it is growing there; compare the amount of racialist reader-commentary recently, with that of 2-3 years ago. Big difference.) Obviously, you have thought about these issues at length, and demonstrate a recognition of the “racial hard problem”: the presence of non-whites coercively integrated into historic white societies is intolerable, and a long-term threat (though one becoming ever-more imminent) to white survival. I would like to reply to you, but that would entail a huge commitment of time on my part, if the answer were to be satisfactory to me. Does MR allow posts from outside its editorial collective? A few thoughts. 1. Not sure about that ‘most people don’t care about white race extinction’ line. Caring about the white race is a bit abstract, more so for Europeans, I’d imagine, with their real, historically grounded cultural/national identities, as well as historical inexperience with racial diversity, but it is becoming ever less so in the US as a byproduct of the liberal obsession with “racial bean counting”. Liberals constantly harp on race, while disallowing whites the opportunity to show any racial pride. This “double-think” is not psychologically tenable forever. Liberals are inadvertently creating the conditions for white racialization. We just need to provide the moral legitimacy. 2. Two ways to get white people to care. First, associate whites with creating the societies they cherish, and minority integration with destroying them. Stress the differential cultural outlooks and behavioral patterns between whites/non-whites. Second, stress the hard negative PENultimate consequences of white extinction. Whites will not just one day disappear peacefully (actually, the last cohorts are more likely to be exterminated than amalgamated; Leon Haller had something posted on MR on that point; I’ll try to find it and re-post). They are setting themselves up for a long diminution of power, and hence of wealth and opportunities, as well as social alienation, and even, for white men, reduction of quality sexual prospects (white girls are on average better looking than other races; women sexually prefer powerful men; as non-white power increases, white women will proportionately find them more attractive, especially now that all taboos on white female interracial dating have been destroyed (only really since the 80s, BTW), while the more powerful minorities themselves will be emboldened to seek out white females at increasing rates; all of this is happening right now in LA, San Francisco, Seattle and Las Vegas). Moreover, that diminution has been occuring for quite a while, and is continually intensifying. 3. Western Man is Ethical Man, a fact we might decry, but must also negotiate. Our movement must be based on justice, not will-to-power (outside of prisons, obviously). But I want you to think about the concept of “antecedent justice”. You seem to imply that minorities have a moral right to exist in the white homelands in which they happen currently to reside. I question that, at least wrt Europe (I have always believed that, contra Mark Steyn, a rare decent neocon, Europe is where the fate of the white man will be decided, if only because the ethical claim of Europeans to all-white polities is so much stronger than in the various ‘colonies’; given the epicene quality of so many West/Central Europeans, not to mention most ‘Anglos’, however, it may well be that whites will survive, if at all, only in either less racially decadent Russia/Eastern Europe - perhaps communism will be seen historically as having inoculated its subject peoples from Western race-decadence, and hence an unanticipated ‘blessing’ - or perhaps in the Old South, which for reasons of history, as well as continuing white/black physical proximities, is the least racially-decadent portion of the US, and for reasons of culture and religion is both more conservative generally, and better armed). To my knowledge, the European peoples were never consulted wrt whether they wanted their fatherlands flooded with Third Worlders. Indeed, when the native-born have tried to protest this state-sanctioned treason-cum-internal imperialism as well as indigenous extirpation, the Euro-patriots have been hounded and persecuted by their own treason-governments. Why must the Eurofolk be expected, even under a universalist ethical dispensation, to tolerate this population displacement? It is unfortunate, maybe, that the immigrants themselves, who had no right of admission, must now inconvenience themselves to return to their Old Countries, but morally, their presence was always provisional, and hence presents no moral quandaries when the native folk finally decide that their GUESTworkers are now no longer wanted, and must return home. If you invite me into your home, and then allow me to stay far longer than originally planned, you do not thereby relinquish your right to evict me at any future point in time. 4. So, wrt to the aliens, we must stress supercessionary MAJORITY RIGHTS (sound familiar?). We do NOT have the right to hurt them, but we do have the right to evict them. If they resist their eviction, then we have the right to FORCIBLY remove them, which may require harming them. But they will have brought the harm upon themselves, like the criminal who violently resists arrest. 5. I’m working on all these ethical conundrums pertaining to the survival of the white race. There are many others, and they must all be situated and resolved within a larger ethical/theological tradition, which itself must be established. This takes time (esp when you’re not an academic or think-tanker). But you are right: the ethical footing must be secured, or the political requirements will not receive majority assent. I will solve all of this. But I am mindful and worried about Wilmot Robertson’s assertion at the beginning of THE DISPOSSESSED MAJORITY (pub. 1972): we are in a race between the ripening harvest, and the encroaching jungle. I’m doing my best. Arthur Pendleton 65
Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:46 | # What Auster and Hart are doing is setting up a parallel organization for “Preserving Western Culture” to American Renaissance and other like-minded groups. Why? What is the sin of American Renaissance? It allows for anti-judenism. (I don’t use the term “anti-semitism” except to portray hatred to all semitic groups, Jewish and Arab.) This is the big sin. If you read the Wikipedia entry on Michael Hart, at the bottom, is an interesting highlight—-that Hart criticized David Duke for his anti-judenism! This is what is at the basis for Auster and company—-that of creating an organization that seems to be pro-European but wedded to philosemitism and Zionism! That is the meaning and reason for this coming conference. It is about wedding Jews and Europeans together as if they had a common cause. This must be attacked, deconstructed, and vilified. Nothing can be further from the truth and right action than a wedding between Jews and Europeans. Europeans will only end up being lapdogs for their Jewish Overlords. No right Christian, no right European should attend this conference set up by Auster. Kevin MacDonald has an interesting article about Can Jews be Allies: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/CollectiveEditorial-JewishAllies.html The Jews are not our allies. The Jew, like Auster, seeks only to use the European as an attack dog upon his Muslim enemy. We are to be used and abused. That is the essence of all this Jewish mingling. 66
Posted by Arthur Pendleton on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:51 | # Here’s the relevant comment from Leon Haller: I have thought about these issues a great deal; indeed, awareness of them (ie, Richard McCullough’s - apologies if misspelled - hypothesis of the inevitable Death of the (genetically recessive) West unless total white racial segregation is instituted) has spurred my realization of the desperate need for a complete examination, ‘interrogation’, and possible deconstruction of not only the whole history of Western ethics, but of Christian theology as well. Obviously, this takes (life)time ... But it must be done. In my perpetually enlarging book, tentatively titled RACIAL ETHICS, I try to situate not merely scientific race-realism, which is empirical and not idelogical or moral per se, but white preservationism WITHIN the broad traditions of Western moral philosophy and theology (I have never believed, for both intellectual and practical reasons, that white preservationists should cede our Western heritage of moral inquiry to the multiculti/race neutral perspective, either by becoming atheist tribal amoralists, or adherents to psychologically resonant, but empirically ridiculous, pre-Christian Euro-folk religions). I do not believe that Christianity mandates white racial death, or even indifference to extinction, which, given our collapsing demographic profile, amounts to the same thing. The tough questions, however, concern the moral legitimacy of, first, coercion to secure racial preservation (eg, keeping out Third World immigrants, who have no RIGHT to immigrate to our lands, is not coercive, however much liberal/neocon/libertarian traitors may whine; I’m referring to things like anti-miscegenation laws), and second, initiatory violence to save our race (eg, terrorism, assassination, guerrilla warfare, violent revolution). My (ongoing) reading is leading me to the conclusion that authoritarianism in defense of white racial purity, as well as white numerical/territorial supremacy, is morally justifiable in both secular and Christian terms (though the intellectual work demonstrating this conclusion mostly does not exist - yet). The REALLY tough question concerns the aforementioned initiatory violence, whether such can ever be justified, and to what extent. My intuition is that such violence cannot be justified within the philosophically sophisticated Christian mainstream (ie, one can always find, or form, violent white supremacist sects calling themselves “Christian”, but that does not mean they merit the designation, as there does exist a generally agreed upon body of core doctrine; it is that to which I refer). But I am discovering some intriguing evidence which may provide an eventual wedge ... I direct these remarks or hints to ‘silver’s’ observation that if we have societies that are half-white only, racial amalgamation is inevitable, leading to Western civilization’s eventual extinction. Believe me, my friend, I have thought about this problem often, even if I could not express it as artfully or at least precisely as you have. Racial repatriation/cleansing seems to be the only option, doesn’t it? Two comments. First, your conclusion re inevitable amalgamation in mixed-race societies is historically grounded and sociologically probable, but not logically valid, and not the chief racial threat. The presence of enormous non-white communities resident in the West represents a long-term amalgamationist threat, though also a physical / military one. While greater amalgamation certainly seems probable, given contemporary moral and cultural attitudes among whites, it is neither logically, nor probably empirically, inevitable, as you imply. Whites in many areas of the world over the past several hundred years have lived in intimate proximity to non-whites, yet have maintained their blood-purity (you’ve surely heard of the ‘one drop rule’?). Geographic racial integration is no argument against white nationalism, its possibility or necessity; quite the contrary. Moreover, the historical rate of amalgamation in white societies afflicted by multiculturalism along with immigration/ racial integration is likely to look like our old friend, the bell curve. Consider the US. At first, there was very little miscegenation, and the one-drop rule ensured that what mixing did occur did not pollute the racial constitution of the hegemonic ethnoculture (that is, the Obama-like hybrids produced in earlier times were not granted access to white women, or white society; the white race was thus kept pure, while, in the American case, the Negroids were the ones ‘amalgamated’ or ‘polluted’ with white blood). Later, with the rise of both racial integration and mass non-white immigration as well as racial egalitarianism and anti-anti-miscegenationist sentiment, ever greater numbers of whites have started falling by the wayside racially, so to speak. Amalgamation or blood pollution has increased. We are living in this period, where miscegenation increases as multiculti doctrines become more widespread across lines of class and geography. But what is the basis for assuming that the trajectory of this trend is linear-until-white pure blood-extinction? Such an asumption is empirically possible, but not logically necessary, and perhaps not even empirically likely. Eventually, white propensities towards miscegenation will be sated. That is, at some point, the bell curve will begin to shrink again, as the gene-pools most predisposed to miscegenation will have done so. Of the pure-blood whites remaining, an increasing percentage will be indisposed to miscegenation. What can be said, then, about whites in mixed race societies is that any transformation from reproductively restrictive to permissive attitudes will initially increase amalgamation, but that its rate will eventually slow down, and finally almost peter out. In each new generation, there will be some miscegenators, but there will also be pure-bloods still being born. Eventually, most existing whites will not only, by definition, be pure-bloods, they will be self-consciously so. Which brings me to my second comment. The real threat to the survival of white civilization is not amalgamation but alien conquest or physical extermination. The nation-state ultimately arose for military reasons as much as any others. For the West to survive, (pure-blood) whites must survive. Civilization, however, needs not only blood, but soil. In the contemporary world, it also requires sovereignty, not to exist briefly, but to survive indefinitely. If whites do not maintain their numerical majorities in their historic nation-states (assuming those polities remain democratic, which I believe they will; that is, I do not believe that whites will come to reject democracy at least until after they have become powerless minorities), then they will have allowed their race to be placed in a very militarily precarious position. If we have territory that WE control, our race can survive, and thus too our civilization. But if we should lose our RACIAL SOVEREIGNTY (a “Leon Haller original”, I think), if whites should end up a functionally diasporic people, like the Jews, then we could be, and, for reasons outside the scope of these comments, I believe will be, exterminated. The real threat we face is extermination, not passive extinction. Posted by Leon Haller on Nov 08, 2008. 67
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:55 | # If there are two things I can’t stand it’s the LA Times and U2. But here is a great example of how anti-White hatred is reving up post-Obama,
-Ann Powers, Latimes.com Historically black music consisted of clanking a couple of rocks together…. 68
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:06 | #
That’s the funniest thing I’ve all day! 70
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:15 | # The LA Times and U2 have both taken this biblical instruction to heart - Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his economic life for his friends. Hispanics don’t buy the LA Times (or read newspapers at all I hear) and blacks don’t care about U2 and certainly don’t buy their records. Blacks don’t even buy their own records, they leave white people to do that for them. 71
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:40 | # Posted by rest52 on January 21, 2009, 12:46 PM | #
(Actual Euro ethno-nationalists don’t care enough about anti-Semitism to characterize it so. They use “mystical anti-Semitism” as a punch line (because that’s what it is, a Jewish joke; nothing mystical about cause and effect))
I don’t believe you. You don’t believe me. The only way to determine who’s right is to test our respective theories. I’m guessing you’re opposed to that. Which shows that you’re interested in what’s right for Jews, and not what’s good for Euros. Are you going to continue whistling past the graveyard, right in this thread, for everyone to see? You insist that separating from Jews isn’t necessary, but your actions show that your real goal is avoiding this eventuality. Otherwise you’d be explaining why a Jewish presence in our midst is necessary, rather than explaining why separation from Jews isn’t (and avoiding any possibility of “put up or shut up”).
Rot. You have no logical support for this argument. It’s a feminine, emotive, cheap shot.
Ever heard of a controlled experiment? How else will we find out how much is Jews, and how much is extended phenotype (results of Jewish meddling)?
Truuust us. Hart should make his efforts wholly kosher. Why he’s surrounding himself with non-Jews is beyond my ken; he can do far more good by evangelizing his own. I mean, isn’t that what you’re implying with this “Jewish face” stuff? That Jews will accept his? Then why is he here with us? Why is he preaching to the choir? Does anyone REALLY think that a Jewish face means ANYTHING to Euros? Newsflash, Euros in general can’t really distinguish between the two, which is the main source of our problem. Only Jews will be seduced by Jewish faces. The rest of us find them ugly. For the naive, let me break down the process of Jewry accepting Euro ethno-nationalism; they’ll do so when they have to. PERIOD! There will be no thoughtful consideration, no real debate, no movement, no evangelism. It will be when “is it good for the Jews?” is satisfied, period. When they’ll suffer more by continuing as they are, than they will by changing their ways, is when they’ll change their ways. As if Jews are so perfervidly consumed with mystical anti-Euro ethno-nationalist madness (i.e., “is it good for the Euros?”) simply by chance! As if we only need to persuade them to see their best interests accurately! Oh, btw, how are we to distinguish Jewish meddling (i.e., crypsis and inflitration) from honest goodwill? I suggest we’re to know the difference as shown by the current example; if Hart wants to show goodwill, he should stick to straightening out Jews, not us. Otherwise, he rightly runs the risk of being lumped in with the eons-old tradition of Jewish crypsis and subversion. 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:08 | #
[Lurker’s point being the Jews who both 1) own the LA Times and 2) push for the replacement of whites, whites being a race that buys their newspaper, with Hispanics, a race that doesn’t buy their paper, seems bizarre.] No, it makes no difference to the Jews. The Jews look at race-replacement as a sacred Jewish goal. They’re more than willing to lose fortunes, hundreds of millions of dollars, in their drive to see race-replacement to completion. A race-replaced world to the Jews, a world in which there were no more Eurochristians, would be paradise. What billionaire wouldn’t pay a lot to usher in paradise? Look at this Jewish billionaire who plunked down a hundred million dollars in front of Carl Pope as a donation to the Sierra Club, on condition Pope saw to it the Sierra Club breathe never a word in opposition to the tidal wave of immigration from Mexico, whether legal or illegal. He told Pope, “If you ever — if you EVER — say one word questioning Mexican immigration into this country you’ll get NOT ONE CENT FROM ME!” Pope heard, and understood: from that day forward the Sierra Club has breathed not one word questioning race-replacement immigration from Mexico and has angrily shouted down and viciously libeled any member who has tried to raise the issue for discussion. In other words, that Jew who could have donated that hundred million to any number of Jewish or Israeli causes considered the goal of driving the U.S.‘s Euros to extinction to be more important. That’s how important the Jews see race-replacement being. Jews see genociding of Euros almost as a religious goal, a religious duty. For Jews who aren’t religious, it’s seen as a sacred tribal goal, a sacred tribal duty. Makes no difference whether or not they’re “religious,” they support race-replacement with religious fervor, zeal, passion, dedication, love. Everyone knows how important communism has always been to the Jews. It turns out race-replacement is more important in their eyes. The promise communism held out of making race-replacement easier to pull off was a big part of what drew Jews most strongly to communism in the first place. The Jew York Times is losing money hand over fist. Will the Jews who run it change any of its guaranteed-money-losing editorial postions such as race-replacement-as-part-of-the-Jewish-religion? No. It can go completely bust for all they care, belly-up, you name it, costing the Jews a fortune, and the Jews don’t care: if they can promote race-replacement they’ll sacrifice almost anything. They’ll drive the Jew York Times right into the ground, leaving it with zero readership, but they won’t change their pro-race-replacement stance or the other JN nation-destroying stances that drive readership away. In pushing race-replacement Jews see themselves as fighting for JN (Jewish nationalism) and they’ll sacrifice a lot in that fight, as witness the hundreds of millions they could’ve made off Mel Gibson’s film, but spat on: his film went against JN, as they saw things. And to top it off, it didn’t go against it, but Jews are so paranoid and stubborn, once they decided it did you couldn’t force them to take the hundreds of millions Gibson raked in from it: they’d rather die. So no, the Jews running the <strike>LA Times</strike> the JN Times are not going to reconsider their religio-fanatical support for race-replacement just because it will lose them millions. If it’s in the cause of race-replacement, therefore as they see it of JN, they’ll gladly take the hit. 73
Posted by zuwr on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:09 | # What is a major source of defamation? Immigration. So has Resisting Defamation EVER taken a stance for lower immigration numbers? No. 74
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:41 | # I want to give a big thanks to Wheeler for posting that MacDonald link. I haven’t checked his site in months and he’s been prolific since then. I’m glad to see he’s writing more editorial-style pieces now. He kicks ass, frankly. He’s already got me wondering anew, “how do we reach our own elite”? We’ve got to do everything we can to get through to these men. All the white men who should populate the American President’s cabinet. All the white men who should be running the Fed (or whatever institution should “replace” it). All the white men who should be running Wall Street, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, the publishing industry, Washington D.C., NYC, LA, the Ivy League, the think tanks, etc. HOW? These guys aren’t going to buy in for martyrdom. They’re going to buy in because they want the Jew off their backs. How do we reach them? 75
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:02 | # Svi, That last comment should be a main log-entry in itself, not an addendum to a long existing thread. To answer it, outside of the politicos I don’t think that many of them are even identifiable. So there is no direct way to reach them. That leaves long and uncertain methods such as arguing our case in comment threads in the MSM, and dropping links to our media. But, disappointed or not, the Establishment is surely a lost cause, and we have to be looking for the next generation of leaders ... college kids, young professionals, military officers. 76
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:05 | # Arthur Pendleton: Does MR allow posts from outside its editorial collective? We will carry any well-written, interesting and germaine material. You can contact me through the button under the header. 77
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:23 | # Case in point, Svi. I’ve just posted this little starter on a brand new Guardian thread to an article written by the Greek minister of the interior, no less. 78
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:16 | # Svi: He’s already got me wondering anew, “how do we reach our own elite”?...HOW?...How do we reach them? Talk about the economy, and when you do, gradually steer the conversation towards the effects of immigration, race-based lending, racial quotas. Discuss the Madoff scandal. Talk about the decline and third world-ization of the US. I know MR doesn’t allow personal anecdotes, but I’d like to provide one in any case (I hope you chaps don’t mind). I’m a registered investment advisor and in recent weeks I have talked to and met with aat least 150-200 people. In fact I gave an investment seminar last night at a local beach resort. Most of the attendees are prosperous Whites, many retirees, a lot of executives and small business owners. They always ask me, where is the economy going? I tell them the market will probably come back, though not at previous levels, but that the US is in long-term decline unless something drastic ensues to turn course. I tell them, the US is being transformed into a Third World country ON PURPOSE. This always causes people to light up, as if my words caused a light bulb to go on in their mind. They get it. It makes sense to them to hear someone else say it. That’s when I talk about non-White immigration, race-based mortgage lending, racial quotas, Race Replacement (though I don’t use these terms). White people, I think, are receptive to these notions. At least in my experience. But we reach them not by talking about abstract notions, but about how the Revolution touches their wallets, their lives, their kids’ lives. It has to be personal and emotional, but also clear-eyed. No conspiracies or talk about Jews and Masonic plots. The Madoff scandal and ongoing US support for Israeli terrorism are enough evidence to cause Whites to begin questioning our Jew masters. The Madoff scandal is a gift to us. Let’s take advantage of it! Be clear and be confident. 79
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:30 | # Selous, anecdotes are fine. They just shouldn’t be the primary justification for any given argument when the big numbers are available. As for how to reach our own elite, I don’t mean how to convince them once we get them talking. I mean, how do we get them talking? I can handle the convincing part (point out the heretofore invisible and unmentionable Jewish hand in his pocket, his daughter’s dress, around his son’s balls), it’s getting the EYEBALLS that presents a problem. 80
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:36 | # I mean it’s pretty obvious that we won the argument. There are HUGE collation and presentation issues to work out (to lower barriers to entry), but it’s all there in spades. The trick isn’t how to convince them, it’s how to talk to them at all. How do we bridge the gap between the concentration camp and our ghetto? 81
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:05 | # @Selous: My thread on etiquette are not ground rules (I hardly have that authority!) but helpful suggestions to steer people in the right direction about how to discuss things civilly. 82
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:02 | # So I tried CiF. Went through their registration horseshit, waited for their stupid page to load, and:
So this:
winds up right back here in the ghetto, where the cunts want it. How do we break this? Do I literally have to learn fucking computer science so I can make a program to crack through this? 83
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:05 | # Svi, Did you click on the link on their email to confirm you are who you say you are? 84
Posted by Race realist on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:24 | # Over at this Roissy guys blog the topic turns to race and I defend the race realist movement -
85
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:31 | #
GW is posting as “humph jennings” and they’ve already deleted two of his comments. Here’s the link to thread over there (the link GW gave may not work): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/21/greece-immigration?commentpage=1&commentposted=1 86
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:11 | # Yeah GW, confirmed via link in email, I was logged in and everything, but about three times in a row it gave me the error message. 87
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:15 | # I actually got to see at least one of Humph’s posts and see it gone after a page refresh, lol. Uhm, this is GW we’re talking about, not like there was any civility/politeness/legality issue with it. 88
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:26 | # Hmm, I just had a heartening thought. Yeah, okay, sure, the respectable sources are going to lock us away from our own elite. But reading that thing from Roissy got me thinking, isn’t our own elite already migrating away from the respectable sources? Isn’t it already beginning to express itself through blogs? Obviously none of this is new to EEs (European Ethnonationalists), but emotions are like that, every so often things become new again. Blogs are a great way for us to reach the real thinkers out there, because blogs (or their equivalent) are not institutions, and they collectively reach a lot of eyeballs. I can deal with a man. It’s institutions that suck the big one. 89
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:26 | # Svi, I always run into trouble at the start of a thread debate because I have to get hold of the agenda, and sort out a few people to keep patting the ball back to me. So a bit of rough-housing is quite usual. The important stuff often only starts to happen after a half-dozen attempts to kick the beast into wakefulness. This particular thread is not very promising because none of the CiFers with intellectual weight are currently posting - and, obviously, there’s no chance of the Minister exposing himself to a challenge. You must try again to post that comment. It’s too good to go to waste. 90
Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:33 | # Actually, I consider anecdotes to be the most important source of evidence against race replacement. Beats the econometric number crunchers all the time. I am opposed to the mind numbing blitzkrieg of stats that sviggy is so founds of. Blood and guts makes a bigger impact on passive Whites. At least thats been my expereince. And one should be very over the top about it…since it’s all true. Up close you can see the trees in the forest. 91
Posted by Race realist on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:35 | # Race realists should get over on Roissy’s blog to reach a lot of eyes since he gets alot of hits and comments; even though he’s a “playa” it looks like this guy gets it about race. He wrote:
92
Posted by Gringa on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:14 | # Some words from our founding fathers;
They definetly had more than just judeo-christian values in mind. Are we coming full circle? Perhaps it all needs to be re-examined? 93
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:31 | #
We have that problem with the immigration question, but also with the education policy, the economy, the genetic difference between men and women, etc. The truth is known already. Most politicians probably know what is needed to fix the schools: undo the reforms made by the crazy left. About the financial and economic crisis: every economist had to know that Peter Schiff was right, but most of them kept silent. They didn’t have to feel isolated: they knew that their fellow economists knew. All of them knew the government’s financial policy was inadequate. Members of government knew too (maybe not Bush). But they did nothing, except wait for the Wall Street crash. About immigration, most politicians realize that they are destroying their people. It must be the pressure of conformism that make them go along with it. So, we need to be really shrill and loud when we shout that the emperor has no clothes! • I think many politicians at the top are unethical. They got to the top by being unethical, and they don’t care about anything. Although, maybe some of them are really clueless. Among the nonpoliticians, maybe some economists would be open to dialogue? We could try to collaborate with local politicians, students of economics and their teachers, in order to discuss immigration with students outside their normal curriculum. I don’t expect that quantifying the disastrous effects of third-world immigration is a usual part of the syllabus for a student of economics. 94
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:53 | # Me: “About the financial and economic crisis: every economist had to know that Peter Schiff was right, but most of them kept silent.” a New York Times journalist : “You hear people asking: why didn’t anyone warn us of the coming calamity? The answer is that there were plenty of smart analysts, and journalists, who did warn, loudly and often. But when you are living in a bubble, there is a deep desire to tune out dissenting voices, or to scorn them, as Mr. Laffer does to Mr. Schiff. The herd mentality is a powerful thing.” 95
Posted by rest52 on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:36 | # There has been a great deal of silly talk on this thread. Rather than reply separately, I’ll summarize my thoughts in this one reply to Tanstaafl, who said: I also want what Guessedworker wants, as do many of our people gathered here. Let’s try something new. Let’s put it to a vote. Whites only of course. Better yet, Whites who have read MacDonald. You were being facetious, but you make a good point: let’s put it to the people. Let’s let Whites hear the whole debate, which of course should include MacDonald and Co. There are many other issues that besides Jeeeeeewwwwsssss that people need to know about. I have no objection to people hearing or adopting the, what should I call it, “anti-semitic” viewpoint (just not the mystical one, the one “no one” adheres to except they do). People given to the sort of blind outrage so evident on this thread (site?), however, are not worthy of debate, nor can they hope to ever move the masses. 96
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:59 | #
Like what ?
Or we could imitate the “euro-sceptic” English and say: the semito-sceptic viewpoint! 97
Posted by Arthur Pendleton on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:41 | # To Diamed: I answered your questions. This is why getting sucked into blog commenting is such a waste of time, 98
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:43 | # Using the word “anti-semitism” wrongly suggests that Jewish anti-european genocidal activism is only a fantasy. In fact, the main reason for anti-jewish positions is Jewish aggression. Jews who complain about anti-semitism sound like rest52 if he complained about anti-rest52ism. Why is anti-semitism a legitimate word, and not anti-europeanism? 99
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:02 | # rest52 plays his dog-eared anti-Semite card. Yawn. The vast majority of Whites have heard most everything except MacDonald’s position. 100
Posted by rest52 on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:03 | # Dasein said: rest52 plays his dog-eared anti-Semite card. Yawn. The vast majority of Whites have heard most everything except MacDonald’s position. Please pay attention. I just said a few short posts ago that whites (and why not all people) should be given the whole story, all of it, including MacDonald and anyone else with something insightful to say. I said I have “no objection”—I even put it in italics—to people taking a dim view of Jewish influence, and I’ll include in that now the desire to separate from Jews. I only asked what I should call this sort of dislike of Jews since “anti-semitism” is a label none of you wish to accept (and I earlier argued that such a label is appropriate for the kind of “mystical” hatred of Jews which sees them responsible for everything under the sun).
Stop wasting my time. 101
Posted by realist on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:31 | #
Normality? Healthy behaviour? Keen survival instincts? Take your pick. 102
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:14 | #
- rest52 Translation - I’ve got nothing to say, and now I’m going to run away. 103
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:49 | #
The Jews aren’t genociding whites??? And genocide shouldn’t provoke outrage??? Even “blind” outrage??? Get real please. What, will you be saying “race doesn’t exist” next? By the way, I like Armor’s coinage of “Semito-skeptic” modeled on the British word for the anti-EU crowd “Euro-sceptic,” people who dislike what the EU is up to, don’t trust it, might agree to limited concessions to it but generally prefer keeping it strictly at arm’s length. Good idea, Armor! 104
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:01 | # Regarding rest52’s dismissal of those Euros holding “mystical anti-Semitic” views: do we also dismiss those Jews holding mystical anti-Eurochristian views, the most glaring prototypes being speciments like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel? Be careful, if we agree to do that we’ll dismiss something close to a hundred percent of Jews. OK, OK, OK, ... 90%. (A hundred percent of Israeli Jews though.) 105
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:03 | # Any diaspora Jew who strongly supports race-replacement immigration can be assumed to harbor the mystical anti-Eurochristian orientation of the world. 106
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:05 | # That includes one hundred percent of Jewish neocons by the way, not to mention the rest of the Jewish élites. Any U.S. Jew who likes and regularly uses the term “fly-over country” can be assumed to harbor mystical anti-Eurochristianism. Two can play the “mystical anti-” game. 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:09 | #
orientation toward the world (sorry for this and all the other mistakes, am going fast this morning and not proofreading) 108
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:15 | # rest52: I’ll include in that now the desire to separate from Jews. So you accept that an evidential basis for Jewish aggression is sufficient to commend us to defend ourselves by means of physical separation if necessary, and that does not imply any character defect (ie, the hate-charge of anti-Semitism) or unreasonableness on our part. Good. So now we come “Back to the conference ...”
This is a reductio ad absurdum, and you know it. The challenges you have faced here, and which you have not been able to counter, constitute the considered and settled will of thoughtful White Nationalism. So why are you flipping straight into a world of shaved heads and screaming fanatics? Haven’t you noticed that this is MR, not VNN - or, as a VNNer once said here, “the head of White Nationalism”. As far as I am aware, that’s an unshaven head (though I confess to my own follicle challenge - sadly a product of genes and time). Wheeler’s charge is that this conference is a stepping stone to an enduring and wholly corrupting, leading Jewish role in white American advocacy. You are a cheerleader for that. We protest it. There is no other path to tread, no Austerian middle way. I am assuming that you are one of my people, so I am asking you as a brother to distance yourself from Jewish machination in our racial advocacy. Do not help these people to insinuate themselves in our business. Be discriminative, be mindful of the long history of Jew and European. Do not stand with the Jew, for he does not stand with you. 109
Posted by JTaverner on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:46 | # rest52 said:
When Jewish interests usurped power in the West they assumed a position that makes them directly responsible for “everything under the sun”. One cannot have power without culpability. A ruler or ruling body that refuses to accept criticism from the ruled is inherently tyrannical. The West is in full decay economically, culturally, and racially. Jews have been in power throughout our fall from grace. It’s time for a regime change, the first step of which is holding our Jewish “leaders” to account. 110
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:50 | #
After 9/11, the network of neocon bloggers became very active on the internet. And after that, as Bush started putting pressure on Saddam Hussein and prepared for an invasion of Iraq, the anti-Bush leftists became crazier and crazier, and it gave something to do to the neocon bloggers: they would denounce the crazy leftists. As a test, I have just googled the 3 words ‘association’, ‘France’, ‘Amérique’, and I found there is indeed something called “Association France-Amériques”. It was founded in 1909, and the list of the founders and benefactors includes a few Jewish names at the top. I suspect a good part of that association’s activity must have taken place between Jews living in New York and Paris (or maybe not, I don’t know). Now, if I want to hear some anti-American propaganda (which is a variety of anti-White propaganda), I only need to turn on radio-france-culture, which is a mostly Jewish station. My conclusion is that the Jews take care of every aspect of everything. Now, they are organizing conferences to save the West from third-world immigration. I think they should go the whole hog and found a Jewish anti-Semitism organization for us. If it is headed by Jews, it will be more efficient. I suppose we shouldn’t stand in their way. Céline, the famous semitoskeptic writer already said so in 1937: When the French decide to set up an anti-Semitic league, the president, the secretary and the treasurer will be Jewish! He could have said the same about the USA. 111
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:08 | # Semitoskeptic. Long may it sound across the digital vastness of the mainstream media. I must try it at the Guardian. Unfortunately, Humphjennings - named after Humphrey, my favourite and most English film-maker - has been banned at the Guardian. But others shall arise in his place, pick up his weapons, gaze into the eyes of the enemy (who are mostly non-white moderators, I think) and prosecute the word-war with the same inexhaustable vigour. Only now they can pick up one extra weapon. 112
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:24 | # rest52 writes:
The list GW provided is quite damning. Unwilling or unable to dispute it you strawman it as “everything under the sun”. You seem to think that a “mystical” hatred of jews causes people to imagine negative things jews are responsible for, rather than the other way around. You think, whatever the cause, this deserves a special name. Many jews find it perfectly acceptable to place collective blame on Whites for slavery, stealing non-White lands, and persecuting jews - even though much of it happened generations ago. What’s the special word for the “mystical” bottomless never-ending hatred that makes this acceptable? Why shouldn’t Whites reciprocate, at least partially, and blame jews collectively for the laundry list of acts of anti-White anti-civilizational vandalism they’ve engaged in - many coming to a head in our own generation, and most still going strong?
I prefer pro-White. Defining my acts of self-defense in judeo-centric terms, even when countering jewish aggression, is an inaccurate and unnecessary concession to their interests. I do what I do because I’m concerned with my interests, not theirs. 113
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:02 | # Race Realist: I’m very impressed with that comment you posted at Roissy’s. Good content, and a good, balanced tone. Well done. 114
Posted by rest52 on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:01 | # Guessedworker said: This is a reductio ad absurdum, and you know it. The challenges you have faced here, and which you have not been able to counter, constitute the considered and settled will of thoughtful White Nationalism. So why are you flipping straight into a world of shaved heads and screaming fanatics? Haven’t you noticed that this is MR, not VNN - or, as a VNNer once said here, “the head of White Nationalism”. As far as I am aware, that’s an unshaven head (though I confess to my own follicle challenge - sadly a product of genes and time). This “settled will” doesn’t seem much different, frankly (nor even settled, really). I think we’ve seen examples of that on this very thread. Wheeler’s charge is that this conference is a stepping stone to an enduring and wholly corrupting, leading Jewish role in white American advocacy. You are a cheerleader for that. We protest it. There is no other path to tread, no Austerian middle way. I called it a “badly need dialectic palliative.” I stand by that. I don’t know why Larry Auster can’t come clean. I don’t know enough about Michael Hart to accuse him of dissembling. But their views provide a welcome addition to the corpus of racial conservatism. Even though they are not saying all that should be said, they are saying what every unalloyed White should be saying, and I’ve asked you to welcome their saying it because they are not unalloyed Whites (or even White at all, according to the views of some). I am assuming that you are one of my people, so I am asking you as a brother to distance yourself from Jewish machination in our racial advocacy. Do not help these people to insinuate themselves in our business. Be discriminative, be mindful of the long history of Jew and European. Do not stand with the Jew, for he does not stand with you. I am afraid I will disappoint you, Guessedworker. I am of partial Jewish descent. I have no familiarity with the Jewish faith nor do I care for it, and the more I have come to learn of it (and its associated power structure) the more I have come to despise it—its interests I do not defend. Tanstaafl said: The list GW provided is quite damning. Unwilling or unable to dispute it you strawman it as “everything under the sun”. You seem to think that a “mystical” hatred of jews causes people to imagine negative things jews are responsible for, rather than the other way around. No. It is, as you say, the other way around. But it knows no limit: in it, Jews become uniquely immutably demonic. 115
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:09 | # rest52: “This ‘settled will’ doesn’t seem much different, frankly (nor even settled, really).” So the ultimate legitimacy of our resistance to our genetic annihilation depends upon whether or not we conduct ourselves in a gentlemanly fashion? The way in which we resist is not of no concern - our honor is of importance to us - but it is a proximate concern; our ultimate concern is for the genetic continuity of our people. “I think we’ve seen examples of that on this very thread.” Do you honestly believe an army of “skinheads” could manage route a wet paper back? Of course not, you use stigmatizing imagery as a metaphor for the visceral rage that poor and working-class Whites feel as a result of the dispossession of their people in order to shame us into submission; to castrate the virility the looming backlash you see coming down the pike - which is why you are here. It is the visceral rage that “skinheads” represent, channeled by White leaders of strong will and intellect, that you fear. “I called it a “badly need dialectic palliative.” I stand by that.” Should those of “settled will” be excluded from the debate? “I don’t know why Larry Auster can’t come clean.” It’s a great mystery. “I don’t know enough about Michael Hart to accuse him of dissembling.” There is a thin line between explicit dishonestly and an ulterior motivation. “But their views provide a welcome addition to the corpus of racial conservatism.” Michael Hart would certainly not debate David Duke. Michael Hart believes Duke is part of a “mystical Nazism”. An opinion which he has expressed to Duke personally, at the top of his lungs. “Even though they are not saying all that should be said, they are saying what every unalloyed White should be saying, and I’ve asked you to welcome their saying it because they are not unalloyed Whites (or even White at all, according to the views of some).” I would like to see Hart and Duke on the dais together, and then both shake hands. “I am afraid I will disappoint you, Guessedworker. I am of partial Jewish descent.” Well, some Whites are of partial Amerindian ancestry; but it ain’t the Ingins that are such a thorn in our side, you see. If you had to do it, if you just had to, which side would you choose to place your loyalty with, Jews or Whites? Side-stepping my direct question will not do, if those of “settled will” have their way, which they just might. “I have no familiarity with the Jewish faith nor do I care for it, and the more I have come to learn of it (and its associated power structure) the more I have come to despise it—its interests I do not defend.” Jewish culture and not Jewish genes make Jews do what they do - har har! So does that mean you have no concern for the genetic continuity of the Jewish people? “But it knows no limit: in it, Jews become uniquely immutably demonic.” Would the resettlement of Jews out of the Eurosphere be a reactively disproportionate response in your opinion? 116
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:40 | # Pardon the errors in spelling and missing words. 117
Posted by flemmard on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:00 | # I am afraid I will disappoint you, Guessedworker. I am of partial Jewish descent. Case closed on that, I think. Scroobage: Careful, your new masters won’t all be as moderate as GW and the MR gang; they may send you up the Oder for that Yiddish-speaking grandmother (think how that would look to them, hundreds of miles away, in your file!). It is obvious that very many ordinary “whites” of insufficiently Nordic extraction will, even under the kindly tutelage of a GW, fare no better in the quite impossible scenario of white re-enfranchisement than Jewish postmodernity. I would say unavoidable even with the utmost consideration from those of “settled will” to ensure that ordinary Joes of brown hair and short stature—for example—will stand a better chance at nabbing a sane, pretty, second- or third-hand wife and furthering their genetic material with minimal fuss. But I suspect that deep down even the sages like GW, who are rare enough, think it’s best they don’t, and if not GW a dozen others who would have to be, in this impossible scenario, the “leaders”, i.e. the pricks deciding who gets shot and who gets the spoils. You wouldn’t be one of the latter, I’m afraid, and may well find yourself among the former. There’s much more to this than clearing out non-whites and prying Jews off our backs. White majorities still exist; the trouble is they’re dreadfully boring to live among and probably would be even in the best circumstances (according to White Nationalists of any description). I hate saying that, I wish I could get excited about white neighborhoods, but I find I just cannot. Being white means being provident, and not everyone has the capacity or desire to be provident, to keep up the teeth-gritting against the cold, evolutionary pressure and all that fearsome rot. Whatever impossible scenario you envision for me, please rather shoot me than expect me to hang around to be a second-class non-Nordic who has to pretend to be inspired by Brekker statues, buy a car to get myself to work for a Northern European master, recite the Salterian ethno-anthem to my new gods of foreign race, and of course still be deprived of a decent white female of reproductive age. At some point in their late-night cogitations, the WN intellectual elite may want to consider that even if their impossible scenario came to pass, they would be faced with a question far more imperious than “Is it good for Jews?”, to wit: “What can you do for me, White Nationalist demagogue?” Unfortunately, “all-white neighborhoods” and securing the future of better-looking men’s white children will probably not be enough to guarantee the allegiance, much less the passion, of average disenfranchised white males. (Scrooby being an exception among exceptions.) If the white race is in danger of dying out, or under-breeds to a dangerous degree, the WN demagogues of the Impossible Scenario will sooner or later have to grapple with the matter of supplying their boys with the stuff of all their idealism: willing females. They won’t come magically flocking on or anytime soon after the revolution, friends. The revolution wouldn’t find us all huddling behind barricades, man and woman, as comrades; it would not be romantic. And if there be no romance .... Unsettled still like haggards wild they range, 118
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:03 | #
rest52 No, this a psychiatric view of human motivation, sure some people might think along those lines but it doesn’t account for the majority. What lands Jews in trouble is behaviour, too many fingers in too many ethnocentric anti-European pies. Too many to be just coincidence. In the UK many people in rural areas are very anti-gypsy/traveller. Urban people don’t ‘get’ it, thinking its just bigotry. Yet many travellers are of Irish descent, they are European unlike gypsies, they look European but they’ve adopted a clannish behaviour much like the gypsies which blatently exploits the majority, double standards are enforced by the left/liberal standard to a comical degree. Its the behaviour that gets them stick, not some mystical anti-traveller bias. 120
Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:26 | # rest52,
The words you have chosen are apropos, but it seems your concern in this case should also be the other way around. uniquely - Even according to themselves jews are unique, and they use unique terms (“anti-semite”, “gentile”, “goyim”, “amalek”) to describe their enemies and distinguish themselves from others. immutably - Jews trace their history back four millenia, two amongst Europeans. They are both immutable in their ends (survival) and flexible in their means (torah, talmud, kabbalah, communism, capitalism, liberalism). demonic - This word best summarizes how jews view their enemies (and to them every critic is an enemy). Auster typifies the rationale of anti-anti-semites. He invokes images of hell and Dante, using words like evil and sinister to literally demonize anyone he labels anti-semite. no limit - Jews know no limit in seeking to limit the rights and freedom of their critics. See for example anti-hate laws and the ADL. Jews know no limit (not fairness, decency, or apparently even self-preservation) in their efforts to pathologize and deconstruct Whites and our culture. See for example Critical Theory. 121
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:06 | #
Right it’s he, Silver, come slinking back, up to his old tricks as he was also, recently, over at Proze’s.
Correct: no limits. 122
Posted by anonymous on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:31 | # Posted by Guessedworker on January 20, 2009, 11:48 PM | # Post a comment:
Next entry: Johann Gottlieb Fichte - the other father of German nationalism
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) |
Posted by Richard H on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:59 | #
I read through that whole thing and didn’t see what exactly you have against the conference besides the fact that Jews are taking part.
Since whites feel guilty, the reasons behind black faliure are relevant. I don’t see why you’re picking a fight.