|
|
|
Taylor, Takimag, WN and the reason for being “We’re going to need something new to combat liberalism and defend against it.” Svi commenting on the thread to Takimag’s Paul Gottfried’s white nationalism article. For me, Svi’s enlightened view of the totality of the struggle in which we are engaged is a joy to encounter. One of only two ideas I can say I’ve really had is this notion that everything ... the forced march to a Global Age, the ethno-aggression of political Jewry, race-replacement immigration, hyper-individualism, everything ... fits within, is justified by, is dependent upon the universe of liberalism in which we live and breath. Liberalism is at once the bulwark of the engine of European destruction and its achilles heel. For in replacing liberalism we necessarily replace everything. But selling this great idea is difficult. And in two statements from his response to Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor illustrates what the problem is. Here’s the first:-
And here’s the second:-
Now, I don’t know why Gottfried chose to employ the word “civilisation”. To my way of thinking, it was a mistake. As Taylor says, “Civilizations arise organically from the collective efforts of an entire people or nation.” Plainly, a civilisation is something different from, and inclusive of, a particular philosophy. Philosophical dominance may be achieved by several ideas in the life of a great civilisation. Post-classical European civilisation was tribal, feudal, clerical and monarchical (at the same time), and finally liberal and sometimes nationalist. But I don’t think we can just assume that what Gottfried meant was not civilisation at all in this sense of a grand sweep through time, but in some lesser sense of ideas - and ideals - having historically productive consequences. I think he was confused, and ended up confusing Taylor, too, who was reduced to saying “our civilization will unfold” when, really, European civilisation is what WNism is trying to revivify, not replace. So we have to rid our heads of this nonsense - and of Gottfried in the process - and return to what these two gentlemen should have been debating: a nationalist philosophy with the historically productive consequence of a Nationalist Age ... a new world order centred on love. This, politically and philosophically, is our reason for being. I believe Taylor would still say no to this. He seems to dislike the term “white nationalist”. He employs the utilitarian terms “racial consciousness” and “race realism”. He is a “race realist”, and race realism is not a philosophy at all but a protest movement:-
It surpasses the obvious to say that such an emphasis on the negative is too light of weight, and cannot effect change at the level of that universe of liberalism I mentioned earlier. It is ideas which battle and overcome other ideas - not men, however “realistic” their discontent. And this, tragically, is the reason why Taylor’s contribution will prove inadequate to the racial-preservationist goal he has set us. Svi’s right - we will need something new and big and powerful to combat and replace liberalism. We have to equip ourselves with a chain of nationalist logic. But that is by no means a simple task, complicated as it is by the baggage of the nationalist past and the weaknesses of the present. We may not succeed in it, and European Man may give away his lands, his world, his life for nothing. But at least let us be aware of the real nature and immensity of the challenge. Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:57 | # If we are to secure the continued existence of our people we must have a sufficient number of our people on our side. We must be able to convince them (and in fact deliver) that with Victory will come Deliverance. If this necessitates palingenesism them so be it. If, at the moment of truth, we are faced with a choice of Life or Death for our people, which will it be? I choose Life. Our people have been abysmally abstracted from the Higher Good of immersion in the unique expression of Life that must necessarily be ours alone and no others. And why? Because its their “right” to “do their own thing”? Because thats a good way to maximize profits? Because George W. Bush and Tony Blair and CNN and Fox News and the BBC and MTV and Nickelodeon tell them thats just a swell way to be? Because we must respect their “opinions”? I wonder if their isn’t some residual liberalism left in our own minds, we supposed “revolutionaries”, which disposes us to such a mindset. We want to dispose of liberalism, but how committed are we? Will it be gotten rid of root and branch? What will it be? Life or Death? I don’t know the answers. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:18 | # Weston, Well, obviously white racial consciousness functions as a conditioning agent for other evolutionarily adaptive behaviours such as in-group altruism and the mechanism for self-defence (in which, btw, individualism has its place). So it is very important to ethnic and societal health. And, yes, in the manner that Taylor and WN generally propose, it would plainly tend to limit the agencies of harm - always depending, of course, on the degree to which the racial consciousness “rheostat” is turned up. And there’s the problem. The rheostat has not been turned down - right down - just by intellectual Jewry or the power elites. These are mere opportunistic hands beavering away at the end of a three century pursuit of the unfettered will. Depressed white racial consciousness is not first cause. Any approach to raising it in which philosophy is absent will not address the underlying pathologies. It would be treating the symptom, not the disease. cc, Liberalism is constructed out of rejection of the control of the lives of men once exercised by feudal and religious authority, and latterly class and cultural hegemony. Some of that rejection inevitably lives on in us. We are not East Asians, and we can never give up on our own inate individualism. The philosophical trick would be to predicate its purpose on adaptive behaviours. But, actually, one can’t cheat like that. Philosophy has to build from first cause up. 4
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 12:32 | # Gottfried, like Auster, may very well have sincere sympathies or “respectful” interest in White nationalism, but at the end of the day, his own genes will kick in and he’ll be forced to attack it. This is why Gottfried needs a “new” definition of White Nationalism, and it’s the very same reason Taylor dislikes using the word. Jews who are sympathetic to White Nationalism may genuinely wish to see Whites remain a Majority in their own countries (as they know majority White areas are safer and more prosperous), they never-the-less also desire to see those same Whites politically and socially neutered. I also suspect something a little more mischievous on the part of Gottfried here. We all know that the “civilization” White Nationalists are purposing is, within our lands, an exclusively White one. If we were left alone and allowed to segregate ourselves racially, 99.9% of our goals would be achieved. And to achieve that we simply need to convince other Whites of the realities of Race and the inherent differences it implies. White Nationalism/Civilization does not need a point by point political manifesto, as anyplace where whites are gathered together, White Civilization simply, is. (as our ancestors were naturally racialist on their own until another non-White group came along and began to persuaded them to ignore their own natural survival instincts). It seems, on the surface at least, that Gottfried is looking for a specific list of action-oriented goals from White Nationalists which he can dissect, attack and distance himself from later, (say, post-Obama election win) should he desire. Trying to equate (in the way Gottfried seem to be doing) White Nationalism to a creed, philosophy or a religion, is to deny its’ one and only non-negotiable foundational position, which is acknowledging the reality of the White Race (as a biological fact, not a social construct) and the need/desire to preserve it.
5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:47 | # I think I’m closest to Narrator here. I think counter-attacking specific aggressors may be one right path among others. The people didn’t change to liberalism — or, not that kind of liberalism, at any rate. Lawrence Auster is a liberal. I’m a liberal. James Kalb is a liberal. Mark Richardson is a liberal. We’re all liberals. But normal liberals. Normal liberals don’t want things like race-replacement or any other stuff that’s evil or el-sicko — don’t want any of this stuff that’s being rammed down our throats, in other words. The people didn’t dream up this evil/el-sicko stuff “by changing to liberal over the past three hundred years.” They didn’t dream it up, period. They don’t want it, this evil el-sicko kind of “liberalism.” They hate it. It’s coming from someone else. It and race-replacement are being forced on them by specific aggressors who 1) control the media and constantly brainwash, 2) punish dissent harshly, 3) hugely influence politics not with rightness or ideas but money, and 4) methodically suppress any and all emergence of a normal alternative to their artificially-maintained abnormalness. So when you say “liberalism is the problem” what I see is a tiny band of controllers forcing a lot of crap down unwilling unconsulted people’s throats and ask myself how that flows from “the people being liberal.” It doesn’t because the people aren’t liberal in that way. They’re liberal, yes, but not in that way. That crap is forced on them, forced on society by a layer of culprits in control. It’s a war, not a philosophy. We are under attack by specific aggressors who’ve gotten the upper hand and are methodically waging war to maintain themselves in control. (To glimpse their weaknesses just see which things we do make them most hysterical. Those are the things we need to keep doing because they’re their achilles heel by which they’ll be overthrown. You don’t get made hysterical by something that doesn’t scare you. Certain stuff scares the hell out of them and they instantly react with their “hate” laws and so on, clamping down but also shining a spotlight on their achilles heel.) It’s not a matter of evolving away from it to something more sane, it’s a matter of bursting chains. We’re already sane. We never evolved away from sanity. We’re under insane lockdown by evil prison guards who want us enslaved and/or exterminated. As for Gottfried’s article, I agree with those who wonder why we suddenly need a philosophy when we’re not resisting philosophy but genocide. Do you need a whole new philosophy to resist genocide? Our philosophy is what our cultural heritage has always included. We can pick and choose from among that array of philosophies, no matter: none of them frowns on resistance to genocide last time I checked. Again, I’m getting away from miasma theories in favor of germ theories. The germ theory finally cured the disease. The miasma theory never did. For me, “liberalism did it” is a miasma theory. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:16 | # 1) What the Jews are doing is they want to live here but they don’t want to let us be ourselves because that makes them feel excluded. As Narrator’s words imply, there’s a fundamental incompatibility there. Imagine an ethnic group wanting to live in Israel but not wanting to let the Jews there be themselves because then they’d feel excluded. The solution would be clear: live somewhere else. 2) The Jews have nowhere else to go? Israel is too small to hold all of them, or they don’t like the climate there, or the culture there, or the danger of war there, or don’t want to have to learn Hebrew, or whatever? OK let’s divide up the North American land mass and give the Jews some land for a second Jewish country, “New Israel,” like “New England.” Just get them the hell out of here if shoving race-replacement, integration, women’s lib, communism, and other Jewish-conceived, Jewish-pushed goodies down our throats is the way they’re going to behave. GO AWAY, JEWS! 3) The Jews, not “liberalism,” are, directly or indirectly, the single most potent force pushing race-replacement on Europeans. 7
Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:31 | # “Really, European civilisation is what WNism is trying to revivify, not replace.” As to this article, I want to say a big ‘Thank you.’ Before I read it, though, I wondered (’...in my artless Japanese fashion,’ as W. S. Gilbert once said) in reading Gottfriend vs. Taylor, why WE would have to re-invent OUR civilization, that has been OUR patrimony for 2000 years? That is, until I read the first author’s name- Gottfried. The ‘scales fell from my eyes.’ And Jared? (and his AmRen website) He is merely an intellectual coward, in that he refuses consistently, not only to ‘name the enemy’ himself, but even to let his commenters do so, in our written comments! This sort of ‘semitic correctness’ is tiring in the extreme, and I have written to him about it. I was then going to go off about ‘Them’ vs. ‘Us’ on this board, but ‘the Narrator’ said it just as clearly, just as damningly: “They both know that the closer we get to the most basic concept of White Nationalism, the more excluded Jews will be from it.” Precisely. This morning, before getting ready for Church, I decided to read a few pages of David Irving’s latest, “Banged Up- Survival as a Political Prisoner in 21st Century Europe!” Luckily I arose early to do my devotions, and then settle down for some ‘light reading’... Some 102 pages later, I am resolute. The Jew is behind all the troubles in the world, as the world is constituted with Whites in control/charge. As was noted by Narrator: “Gottfried, like Auster, may very well have sincere sympathies or “respectful” interest in White nationalism, but at the end of the day, his own genes will kick in and he’ll be forced to attack it.” They can’t help it; it’s genetic. May even go back to their Neanderthal forebears… -“Recently the remains of an “anatomically modern human” (Cro-Magnon) found in Australia, have revealed that it was at least 60,000 years old and had a mitochondria DNA generic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today [e.g.,Who is White] is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side. This find has raised serious debate between the “Out of Africa” and “Regional Continuity” evolutionary camps. Will future testing of other Cro-Magnon remains reveal similar DNA surprises?”- http://www.kjvbible.org/lifeform.html How can i speak ill of the Jew? Oh, please. One reference among millions is enough to [sic(k)] ‘defame the memory of the dead.’ As Rosenthal himself noted in the 1970’s: “It is an established rule [of ours] to destroy all members of pre-existing [White] government, their families, and relatives, as long as they are not Jews. They destroy all members of the police, state police, army officers, and their families but never Jews. You see, when a government begins to search for Communists within their borders, they are really attempting to uncover Jews. We are not fooled! (Maybe this is why, when I [Col. Jack Mohr, the author] lectured on the College circuit during the Vietnam War, every time I spoke against Communism, I was labelled as Anti-Semite, although in those days I never criticized Zionism.) Rosenthal continued: “The invisible rulers in the Communist countries have control over the propaganda and the governments of the Free World. We (Jews) control every media of expression, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Even your music! We censor the songs released for publication long before they reach the publishers. Before long, we will control your thinking.” - http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0026a.htm Yup. Control our thinking. Thank God for you lot, and the fact that there are ‘700 who have not bowed the knee to Baal’ in Israel-that is, White Christendom. Over here in Bush-istan, the Deicides are almost done feeding off their latest victim. One hopefully assumes a world-wide depression and the complete collapse of the Dollar will be enough for them, before they move on… I hear large numbers of them are looking to a certain European state again, in that already Judaized ‘police-state’- the ‘country formerly known as Germany.’ All one can say to that is, “Aussicht!” Or, to paraphrase Des Knaben Wunderhorn- “Die Gedanken sind Frei!” 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:35 | # Does behind-the-scenes money determine the slate of candidates? All these gentile race-replacement advocates like Juan McInsane, Tony Blair, Brown, Clinton — whose money behind the scenes made their rise in politics possible? Whose? Of what ethnicity? Was the source of that money of an ethnicity that traditionally wished the native population targeted by race-replacement well or ill? These politicians once risen dance to whose tune? They dance to the tune called by their funders. Are these funders of ethnicities that wish the population well or ill? No need to answer: a glance at the policies adopted gives the answer. If a Greek politician on Cyprus stubbornly insists on policies that disadvantage that island’s Greeks to the benefit of its Turks we know he’s not being funded by Greek sources without even looking at the lists. If Juan McInsane or Tony Blair stubbornly insists on open borders we know he’s not being funded by anyone with the interests of the American population uppermost among his concerns — quite the contrary, in fact. Without even looking at the lists. Don’t show them to me. I don’t need to see them. I already know the answer. I already know who’s funding the evil. 9
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:29 | # I think there is a pedagogical problem that GW must address: How are we to understand the boundaries of the concept he calls “liberalism”? The typical way to induce concepts in pedagogy is to provide what learning theorists call “training sets” which, in the case of teaching a single concept, consist of stimulus/response pairs where the response is “true” or “false” and the stimulus is a purported example of the concept, with emphasis on the boundary examples or, better yet, “corner cases”. Corner cases are those parts of the conceptual boundary between which interpolation is usually a good generalization. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:30 | # Here‘s a sobering letter to VFR, posted by JWH. 11
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:39 | # Fr. John, The increasing bioinformatics will make short work of such quasi-essentialist theories of Jewish character as those put forth by Gooch hence De Nugent. Indeed, I strongly suspect that we will discover that Europoids possess more of the pre-cromagnon genes than do Jews—not that this is the essential boundary between the identities. At present, my working hypothesis is that Jewish virulence and serious conflicts of interest with Europoids originated with events involving the Assyrians as proposed by Richard Fauscett’s niche theory and then inscribed virulence on its gene pool via horizontal transmission. If so, Jewish virulence is old but only thousands of years old—not tens of thousands of years old. 12
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 16:59 | # A big part of the “ethos” problem is that we don’t so much have a problematic ethos but a problematic META-ethos. Let me explain: If, as I believe to be the case, our problems stem from our indoctrinability—our tendency to be “good children”—then focusing on which ethos is proper for us is getting the cart before the horse, so to speak. The first thing we must recognize is that when we decouple our memes from our genes—when we turn indoctrination over to others than the “family” or, in the larger sense, the “ethny”—we encourage memetic virulence in our people because we are deadly serious about our ideas as we must be if we are the inheritors of the characteristics that survived in the most unnatural of environments for humans. Indeed, because of this indoctrinability we must deal with ideas to which we expose our children as we would with genetic engineering to which we expose our children. 13
Posted by Zsidozas on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:01 | # Many Whites/Europeans need to realize that ethnicity/race must ALWAYS trump politics, religion, economics, and all other cultural constructs, as there is simply too much petty bickering among modern-day Whites/Europeans and this is extraordinarily divisive on both the micro and macro levels. Race/ethnicity is literally in our blood and is incredibly basic and primordial (i.e., biological), while political/religious/economic systems, beliefs, and theories are highly variable and are (by comparison) a fairly recent development in human history. To put it simply, race/ethnicity is very deep while political/religious/economic beliefs are (by comparison) extremely shallow. Many cultural constructs (such as politics and religion) are in general based on abstract and theoretical principles (i.e., they exist only in the intellectual or the emotional realm), while ethnicity/race is clearly based in the physical-biological world, otherwise known as the real world. This is an important distinction to understand and explains why ethnicity/race as a physical-biological reality always has and always will trump abstract socio-cultural constructs. In the past, under which humans evolved from a biological and anthropological standpoint, there was only one ‘political party’ since the ’state’ or ‘nation’ as we have come to know it had not yet come in to being — the only ‘political party’ during the vast bulk of human history was that of blood ties and kin-groups, links formed by a common ancestry, the ethnically/racially based tribe or clan. Religion is perhaps more complicated because religious systems seem to pre-date political systems, though it is highly probable that religious systems were/are often precursors or forerunners of political systems in many cultures. An analogy: if you build a house it needs a good, solid foundation first and foremost if it is to be a strong and sturdy structure. White/European nationalists, racialists, and race realists believe that Whites/Europeans should define this foundation as a strong sense of ethno-racial consciousness and group cohesion amongst Whites/Europeans (a kind-of ‘White/European universalism’ or ‘Pan-Europeanism’). In order for the White nationalist or racialist/race-realist movement to be successful, Whites/Europeans should realize that we all need to live as harmoniously as is possible within the same house (i.e., in our combined nation-states), all of us living upon this strong foundation in order to protect our basic ethnic/racial genetic interests — we should also realize that it’s tolerable if we inhabit separate rooms (i.e., hold differing cultural [political/religious/economic] viewpoints) as long as we all still live in the same house and continue working together at the basic ethnic/racial/genetic level at all costs. This is why ‘ethnic/racial nationalism’ and the concept of the ‘ethnostate’ is so vital but has largely been forgotten, ignored, or shunned by Whites/Europeans in the post-WWII era (much to our detriment). First and foremost, people of White/European descent need to use ethnicity/race as THE major focal/rallying point (the ethnic/racial foundation; i.e., we all live under the same roof), and only after we are united as a cohesive ethno-racial macro-community can we then amicably, peacefully, and cooperatively split in to many political, religious, economic, and/or otherwise culturally-specific micro-communities (i.e., inhabit separate rooms within the same overall structure). Taking the wide view, Whites/Europeans are conservatives and liberals, reds and greens and blues and browns, anarchists and fascists, etc. We are Christians and Neopagans, Deists and Taoists, agnostics and atheists, or whatever else we wish to religiously profess. Some are capitalists whilst others are socialists, and many are a bit of both. As the Western tradition has shown us, having differing opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints (along with engaging in constructive criticism) is perfectly healthy and natural due to the fact that there is always room for social, economic, religious, and/or political improvement in any and all societies and cultures. Let Whites/Europeans splinter by political beliefs, religious affiliation, economic preferences, and/or cultural specifics only AFTER we have first been strongly and permanently united by our basic ethnic/racial ties, united above all of the cultural bickering by our common White/European genetic/biological or ethno-racial background. With all of that in mind, I believe that a non-partisan form of pan-Europeanism based upon a broadly shared ethnic/racial genetic heritage rather than political parties, religious groups, economic systems, or other divisive and variable cultural constructs is the key to a successful White/European nationalist movement. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:04 | # Is his 2002 reply to David Horowitz’ critique of American Rennaissance Jared Taylor says: “Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and other racially-conscious whites.” http://www.amren.com/inthenews/horowitz_reply.htm As far as I know this is the closest he has come to “naming the jew.” 15
Posted by .357 on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:12 | # “Does behind-the-scenes money determine the slate of candidates?” Yes, but only in part. IMO, the main force that determines who the candidates will be is the MSM. The MSM is the most powerful influence that forms and shapes our opinions. And who owns/controls the media? (No need to answer that.) No matter how qualified or popular a candidate may be, the libs in the MSM can make or break a him/her in a mere one week news-cycle Hence, we (here in the U.S.) are stuck with a choice between the two most pro-race-replacement and liberal-agenda-driven candidates from their parties: McCain and B. Hussein. Bottom line: The behind-the scenes money, plus the in-your-face LIBERAL MSM, plus the ‘incurably ignorant masses’ (whom have been easily brainwashed by the government media complex with liberalism), are all working together to predetermine the outcome of our elections. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:40 | # .357 you make good points. My point was the candidates we end up with were NOT the choices of the people, the people unbrainwashed and fully informed. The candidates we end up with were in a sense imposed by the ones in control. So I don’t see how “the three hundred year old liberalism of the people” is to blame. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:43 | # Whether the governmental set-up be democracy or monarchy what’s needed in order for things to work is European racial homogeneity. Number one is race. 18
Posted by GT on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:43 | # The conservative vs. liberal dichotomy is a false dichotomy and non-issue, in my opinion. Minimal risk and work resulting in maximum longevity, status, wealth, and power is the problem. Risk aversion is the conservative’s forte; work aversion is the liberal’s. The relationship is symbiotic in that one is dependent upon the other, but not always of mutual benefit. The dependency aspect is a weakness and jews have mastered the techniques of exploiting it. We may exclude the jews – yes, they should be excluded – but until we’ve overcome the dependent aspects of this relationship you can bet your asses they’ll return again, openly or otherwise. The key to our salvation lies in the exploration and expansion of that part of the relationship that is “not always of mutual benefit.” That is why criticism of the Europid entity “Homo Monetarus” and of his benighted “racialist” cousins, the “easy online racialist,” is necessary. Without this criticism there is no hope of finding a genuinely positive and productive nationalist alternative. 19
Posted by GT on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:28 | #
Agreed. However, it is a mistake to make biological homogeneity the sole criteria by which a man’s worth is judged. Behavior must be included, for it allows us to differentiate between the functional and dysfunctional in the social sphere and may be a reflection of “deeper” genetic/biological health. Ignoring behavior for the sake of sociopolitical “unity” dooms us for it opens the door to witchdoctors, the dysfunctional, and “sunshine patriots” both cowardly and lazy, and is easily exploited by our enemies. 20
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:36 | # Here are some excerpts I have selected from a 2000 exchange between Gottfried and Dr. Kevin MacDonald: Gottfried: “Macdonald’s insistence that Ashkenazic Jews are naturally more intelligent than European-Americans gives me pause. If true, that might justify (certainly from the standpoint of racial nationalists who seem to accept this cognitive disparity) the social subordination of white gentiles to a Jewish master race.” In his reply MacDonald says this and goes on to quote Godwin Smith: “Gottfried errs in supposing that a higher IQ necessarily leads to domination of lower races or rationalizes such domination. In my view, anti-semitism has always involved opposition to an intellectually an economically superior Jewish population, and it has sometimes been quite successful.” An excerpt from Godwin Smith’s writing as quoted by MacDonald: “Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosopers [Russian subordination to jewish superiority - cc], who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled.” If this is what I think it is, it constitutes a stunning “shadow dialogue” between Gottfried and MacDonald. 21
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:51 | # The complete exchange can be found at MacDonald’s website here: 22
Posted by Bo on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:03 | # James Bowery above provided a link to Richard Faussette quoted by Fred Scrooby on December 8, 2007: “The fact the media vilification of the European American Christian majority goes on apace is proof positive that people who identify with us and have a concern for our welfare are no longer in the ascendancy. There may be many more of us, it is true, but we no longer occupy the elite niches in which power is centralized. Even our ability to depict a positive image of ourselves to our own populations and to the peoples of the world has been wrested from us by the hands of powerful and persistent detractors.” This is both true and one key to change. To see our latest contribution to reversing this phenomenon, go here to see an ad we placed in a weekly magazine in June: http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/metro.asp As far as the Taylor/Gottfried “dialog” goes, it began in bad faith by Gottfried and deserves the harshest possible response. Gottfried’s authority on white claims to “victim status” is David Horowitz! In addition, Gottfried claims that the IQQ (the IQ Question) may be the best basis for “white pride.” All in all, Gottfried set up a strawman and then meandered around his flawed premises throwing cold water on the new awareness by the diverse white American peoples. We are a culture and a civilization with the natural right to unfold our own future. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:16 | # That was a good exchange, CC. In it, where the two differed Prof. Gottfried was one hundred percent wrong and Prof. MacDonald one hundred percent right. What has done this to us is not managerialism any more than it is bad air, emanations from caves, evil influences from dark forests, proximity to sulfurous fumes rising from cracks in the earth, dampness spreading from swamps, a misalignment of the planets, black cats crossing our paths, the evil eye from the village witch, neglecting to wear the little bag of garlic around our necks, or other miasma-type theories of which managerialism is one example. Managerialism is a miasma theory. So is liberalism. Neither managerialism nor liberalism nor post-modernism, all misama theories, has done this to us. None of them really has a concrete existence as anything significant. They’re stupid fads given life by journalists working for certain forces that push certain agendas. People have not fundamentally changed in fifty years or in three thousand. They’re the same. We’re the same as when the Old Testament, the Odyssey, and the Iliad were written. What has done this to us is not bad nighttime air or swamp fumes but a specific pathogen. This pathogen is identifiable (already identified by Prof. MacDonald and others) and treatable. When people used to catch a disease they would regret the bad air, the evil influences of a nearby swamp or cave, or some such, and of course continue to suffer because they were at the mercy of these vague things they couldn’t understand, define, or control — just like managerialism and po-mo liberalism. Louis Pasteur came along and told them those weren’t the cause, germs were. From then on, diseases have for the first time been cured. We are in the age of Louis Pasteur for infectious disease and in the age of vague undefinable incurable miasmas for societal disease. It’s time we brought diagnosis and treatment of societal disease up to date with diagnosis and treatment of infectious disease. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:38 | # Simple thought experiment: take a happy, homogeneous Euro country free of any of these pathologies and put a large minority population of Jews into it. Let simmer. Come back and you’ll find it afflicted with every single one of these societal pathologies, demoralized, miscegenating, falling apart: a basket case. Take the same country and subject it to managerialism but put no Jews into it. None. Not one. You’d get none of these pathologies. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:48 | # Or not necessarily a Euro country — take Japan. Imagine the Japs allowed a large minority population of Jews to establish themselves in Japan. Does anyone suppose Japan would be able to keep its borders closed for long? Does anyone imagine the Japs wouldn’t start mysteriously hating themselves, spitting on traditional Jap culture, undergoing total moral collapse, miscegenating with imported Negroes, see a rise in the country’s Gini coefficient, and rapidly come under threat of actually going under as a nation, race, and civilization? Adding Jews to your country is like adding termites to the beams holding your house up. 26
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:07 | # I recall once that Jared Taylor said that the jews were seen as the conscience of society, implying thats why he tactically treads so lightly around them. Amren and Taylor are the WNs that Gottfried says he pays attention to. Amren and Taylor focus in great part on IQ and intrinsic racial differences. I think Taylor recognizes that “the lemmings” (as Pierce would describe the White masses) are at present to anesthetized by their creature comforts so he tries to scare them into awakening. “Once the non-White savages take over, no more creature comforts, lemmings.” Thats not at all flattering, but I think it is unfortunately true. Anyways, Taylor gets a little bit of an opportunity to present “racial realism” while getting a pat on the head from “right-wing” jews like Horowitz and Gottfried. Then Horowitz and Gottfried go and slap kosher “racial realists” in the face under the terms of the debate that they themselves induce. Truly despicable, buy hey, its “the jews”, should we expect less? Anyways, I think Taylor fills an important niche. I owe a lot of my racial awakening to Amren and Vdare too. They are valuable gateways to the real deal. 27
Posted by GT on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:10 | #
Well, looking at the historical record I’d say “happy” is a bit of a stretch. Economic and political deficiencies have always had major roles in Euro societies. This can’t be rationally denied. Yes, jews corrupt. They enter gentile societies and exploit the very same deficiencies time after time – moral failings we are reluctant to address. The sophistication of the jewish strategy has been the only thing to change and much of that was assisted by advancements in technology. We are not lifeless pieces of wood. 28
Posted by GT on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:51 | # “I think Taylor fills an important niche. I owe a lot of my racial awakening to Amren and Vdare too. They are valuable gateways to the real deal.” Taylor’s niche is the transition from reactionary egalitarianism to reactionary racialism. Beyond that is our present zeitgeist of reactionary racial nationalism, which reminds me of little kids following mommy around the house and throwing tantrums when she’s looking. This type of behavior is what people do when circumstances are not going their way in a system that owns their asses. Reactionary behavior serves system interests. What we need is a positive, productive racial nationalism. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:28 | # GT, you seem constantly to dismiss as useless the sort of discussion which takes place at this site and, presumably, sites like it. I disagree: yes we’re in a bad situation but nothing’s going anywhere until our side’s ideas get developed, in part at sites exactly like this, and we attract the likeminded plus make lots of converts. Our ideas certainly aren’t being discussed in the mainstream media or on college lecture halls. Where else are they supposed to get aired? Your putting this site down all the time is puzzling. Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting you. 30
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:32 | # Thanks for the kind word GW, Weston. I’m usually outclassed in such situations in terms of education, so my only way forward is to try my best to be right. I’d hoped I held it together okay in that thread. (One thing I noticed was how conspicuously absent science was from the conversation, excepting my posts, and a few others; Paleocons don’t seem to give two shits about science if that thread is any guide) A big part of my doubt came from the dichotomy between those saying we don’t need no stinking civilization (at Amren and Takimag), and those agreeing with Gottfried and myself that we do, because I can see both sides of the argument and the argument upthread that a racial awakening is all the civilization we need does resonate with me. So I hope to get some good answers here on that question. I wonder if their isn’t some residual liberalism left in our own minds I take that as a given. We can only hope our children, and subsequent posterity, can say otherwise. Gottfried, like Auster, may very well have sincere sympathies or “respectful” interest in White nationalism, but at the end of the day, his own genes will kick in and he’ll be forced to attack it. I’m still waiting to see the exception to this rule. Jews seem to lack the fairness gene so inherent to Europeans. I mean, if I was a Jew, but otherwise still me, I’d support WNism almost as strongly as I do now, simply out of sympathy and a sense of fairness. But I guess that’s an oxymoronic construction. Gottfried does flirt with exceptional behavior, so he gets a Righteous Jew award from me for his efforts. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:35 | #
What’s negative and unproductive about the “racial nationalism” that gets aired here? (I never call myself a racial nationalist or white nationalist but I’ll use the term.)
You seem to be a guy who wants no discussion of ideas. Discussion of ideas bores you or appears useless to you. You want only this or that action or nothing at all. There’s no such thing as action without ideas. When there are no ideas and no discussion of ideas there will be no action. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:41 | #
Well said, and an important observation. 33
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:45 | # JWH That’s an argument Svigor should have used. Agreed. It would’ve been perfectly suited to that crowd, who don’t care about the science anyway. I just thought about the fact that Ashkenazis don’t cluster significantly further from other Europeans than many Meds do, and decided to leave it alone. The fact is they’re not European, because European is ethnic as well as genetic and Jews CLEARLY are not ethnically European. If anyone challenges that in the Takimag thread, I’ll gladly play with the can of worms. 34
Posted by Flanders Fields on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:16 | # There are two primary vehicles used for the control within our societies. The first is financial control. The second is communications control. Those are the keys to the war being waged against us. Financial control cannot be successfully attacked while communications control is intact. Replacing current communications and media should be a primary goal for all of us. Preserving our racial and patriotic heritage will require that they be replaced, also. We need a national presence which we have not had for at least forty years. We have to be able to communicate with all others sharing our views and objectives. We do not presently have that ability and our societies remain subject to the unimpeded propaganda war waged against us. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:26 | #
And also out of a sense of rightness — what’s being done is immoral — and a sense of self-interest as discussed by 2R here. Opposing what’s going on out of a sense of morality and fairness is what I meant some time ago in saying to Silver that a person would side with us on this if he was a gentleman, and a certain GnXp Subcon was no gentleman, didn’t know the meaning of the word. (Silver of course became incensed at that.) Svi’s remark applies not only to Jews but to Orientals, Subcons, and all other races capable of proper behavior which I refer to as gentlemanly. Right now, according to David Duke’s latest speech which I listened to a couple of days ago, many Europeans are driving around Europe with “Save Tibet” bumper stickers on their cars, concerned over the policy of deliberate race-replacement China is carrying out in that nation (China is moving masses of Chinamen into Tibet to settle, and so displace/replace the Tibetans, making them incapable of surviving as a distinct nation: the Tibetan people and nation are being methodically stamped out as we speak). European concern in this matter is a sign of a gentleman. If I were living in Vietnam, say, and there were some demographic threat to the Vietnamese, I’d side with them against whomever was mounting the threat. Same if I lived in, let’s say, the Punjab, or Korea, or Bahrain. That’s because I’m a gentleman. Godless Capitalist is no gentleman but a pig. If I were living in Israel, I’d have the same reaction to a demographic threat to the Jewish Israelis: I’d side with them out of a sense of rightness and wrongness. No Jew who doesn’t do the same in reverse with Euros is a gentleman, but a pig at best, a mortal enemy at worst. There are yellows who display gentlemenly behavior in this regard, and Subcon ones. “Peter,” our Subcon friend in Canada (the one who tells us he’s homosexual) is a gentleman in this regard. 37
Posted by GT on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:01 | #
It is strange that you would think I’m opposed to ideas given the many ideas I’ve proposed on this website. I criticize the endless, 50-year rehashing of failed ideas as well as the no/low risk and dysfunctional mindsets associated with them. Primary among those ideas are the capture of central communications, central finance, and national government through democratic persuasion or “revolutionary” action. We are not going to “persuade” or attract via Internet sufficient numbers to realize those objectives peacefully or through criminal action. The mainstream media will not “discover” Fred Scrooby and bring him on for repeated appearances through “popular demand.” The works of Kevin MacDonald and the life of William Pierce will not be fairly reviewed in college lecture halls. On the flip side Alex Linder’s collection of nihilistic loudmouths, geeks, felons, and informers haven’t a prayer of attracting sufficient numbers of mental defectives to realize his objective of taking central control by force - not now, not following an economic “crash” at some undetermined point in the future. Economic “readjustments” are gradual; too much is at stake for it to be otherwise. Assuming he’s not on the government payroll Linder will likely become Tyrone’s buttboy as soon as one of his acolytes pull a Buford O. Furrow or Benjamin N. Smith. Stand back and take a look at the big picture. The only strategic option we have is the one Maguire, Bowery, and I have outlined. Fulfillment of that option requires the proper moral mindset. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:17 | # Thanks for your reply. 1) Don’t confuse the commentary here with the commentary at certain other sites. I think you may be guilty of lumping them all together. 2) Part of deciding what must be done is deciding how things should be in all their details. Deciding how things should be in all their details involves notions such as that there shouldn’t be monopoly control of the broadcast media and other mass media by one particular ethnic group. Pointing that out, and pointing other things out that are like it, is not futile. Nothing’s going anywhere, including microcommunities and a barter economy, without a thorough thrashing out of all ideas. Please be more patient with those who may not see things exactly as you see them and don’t repeatedly condemn this site for certain characteristics you may dislike in thread commentary you read at Stormfront. We’re not Stormfront. 39
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:01 | # The value of this site is immense. I agree with FS above, MR is nothing like Stormfront. Discussion and the sharing of ideas is very worthwhile. But it only goes so far, doesn’t it? Sooner or later whites need to organise and mobilise. I’m not talking about military action. I’m talking about meeting a few fellow WNs for tea or coffee or a barbecue, whatever. We need to network. I personally am frustrated by the lack of focus on practical politics at WN sites, but I suppose it comes with the territory. 40
Posted by silver on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:23 | #
Fred, Captain Chaos on this very thread stated that by reading Vdare and AmRen the views he today holds began to ferment. Had you held a discussion with Mr. Chaos prior to his “conversion,” what sort of discussion do you think would have ensued? People can change their minds. I have changed mine. Changing one’s perception of you is enormously difficult—pop-psychologists love reminding us we only get one chance to make a first impression—so I suppose I can’t blame you for being sore at me. I’ll simply say again that you’ll search long and hard to find anything counterproductive I’ve posted since late last year. Every time I’ve criticized you since, it’s been in good faith, to correct what I think are your excesses. Now, if it’s a gentleman you want, please find for me somebody who agrees with everything this blog stands for, who accepts that it’s the height of injustice to breed a people out of existence, to slyly work towards such an end, employing falsehoods and half-truths at every turn—one who doesn’t consider himself one of you, yet lives in one of your countries. You won’t find one! While you while your time away here, perfecting dogma (when spittle isn’t flying from your mouth), I’m out there, on the streets and on the net, broaching this topic with the very people you need to reach. It’s not easy going, but my approach is arresting, because I’m clearly not arguing for something intended to benefit me. The going is hard, but inroads are being made. All that said, I’d now invite you to go fuck yourself, you fulminating fuckwit. You’re not the arbiter of all that is proper to speak about when addressing these issues, okay? Get off your high horse, you cocksucker. I could name “race realist” boards where you’d get laughed off within the first five posts. People do discuss race, Scrooby—subcons, negroes, arabs, yellows, the whole bunch. None of them would think for a minute to defer to you, you idiot— nor to that other frothing fruitcake, Rienzi. It won’t be you who leads your folk to salvation; it’s not for you, Fred, nor for GW, nor any number of you here. You may have set a cause in motion but others will take over the reins—reasonable men, moral men; not your twisted, anguished, misanthropic minds. I don’t give a god damn what you think of me, you clown. Save yourself the trouble of “sullying your hands” by responding to me, you overweeing twit. I could not care less what you might have to say. The same goes for the other sullen saps who might deign to respond—save it; enjoy your mutual admiration society. 41
Posted by Darren on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:45 | # Silver: Quick question. Where does your notion of morality derive from? 42
Posted by silver on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:24 | # Fairness, reciprocity, integrity, I would say, interpreted pragmatically. At least that’s what I try for, though I don’t always succeed. I can sleep easy, however, knowing that the great majority who interact with me will have concluded that I’m an upright, caring fellow. With respect to race, I think today’s is simply an unwise, impractical social arrangement, with, in the long-term, calamitous results. It’s not remotely serving the majority’s interests, which to me means it needs to be reworked. My great hope is that such a reworking can be accomplished reasonably, peacefully, seeking always to minimize upheaval and avoid bloodshed. Whether that can be the case, I don’t know. I do know that my mind is (now) at ease about all the issues raised on this blog, and I think that provides me with clarity of vision uncommon among your ranks, who so often seem to be a blink away from bursting a blood-vessel. I don’t think there’s anything I can add to that, Darren. You can make of me whatever you want; I won’t be fussed. I won’t be deterred, either, not by the sophomoric barbs of a Scrooby or a Rienzi. But if GW wishes to ban me from posting here, that’s fine. I have little to add, anyway. If you wish to ask me anything more specific, you can email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:37 | # silver, You do yourself nor your arguments no honour by that kind of display of bile. I really wonder, sometimes, what is going on in Nordicist’s heads. Very disappointing. An apology to Fred wouldn’t go amiss, if you are at all troubled by your own excess. And one to the readership too, for making them plough through such dross. I won’t ban you unless you abuse our hospitality like that again. But you can be sure what will happen if you do. 44
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:25 | # I don’t really know anything about “silver” but I am often “accused” of being a “Nordicist” in much the same manner that I am “accused” of being a “racist”. Both “accusations” are, at least in my case, simultaneously true and, due to connotations, mendacious. If silver is a bore, a “supremacist” or a brute, then I suggest calling him by those terms. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:09 | # James, Silver is only too capable of being hyper-aggressive, and so is Northerner with whom he tends to associate. The latter (together with Friedrich, I seem to recall) originally made a point of attacking our absent friend over some ancient slight that nobody here knew a damn thing about. That was repeated by Northerner last year, with silver in tow. I do not like to play host to private vendettas. It’s an abuse of the site. But then we have the ramp against Fred. It doesn’t just involve silver, of course, but also a handful of commenters (like him, otherwise capable and interesting) who take it upon themselves to drive Fred from the threads. Well, I won’t have it. I want to protect him, and I know I’m not alone because for every attacker there are four or five good men who generally come on to the thread to offer him their support. In my previous comment, of course, I should have written, “I really wonder, sometimes, what is going on in these Nordicist’s heads. The question could also be phrased: why are they so uncouth and aggressive, even brutish if you wish? What argument among thinking people was ever won that way? As for Nordicism itself, it has its place in the debate, and it’s not for me - living in England as I am, and, therefore, provided with a relatively certain ethnic boundary to observe - to pass judgement on its tenets. But I can and will pass judgement on the behaviour of those of its proponents who behave so disrespectfully here. 46
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:26 | # But I can and will pass judgement on the behaviour of those of its proponents who behave so disrespectfully here. Certainly and I was inaccurate when I said I didn’t “know anything about silver” since his behavior here has indeed been disrespectful. 47
Posted by GT on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:10 | #
Fred, I’m criticizing the prevailing American white nationalist zeitgeist, not MR. MR is eclectic, which is why I’m here. 48
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:40 | # I think on the silver issue, I tend to take my cue from JWH: 49
Posted by .357 on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:46 | # “white nationalist zeitgeist” If my memory serves me correctly, Fred Scrooby, avoids the term “White nationalists” and prefers - “Whites acting normal”. I strongly agree with him. The term “White nationalists” has a repellent connotation attached to it. If we’re going to be successful in marketing our message, we need to choose our words carefully. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:50 | # Thanks for clarifying that, GT. I always appreciate your insights, by the way. 51
Posted by GT on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:40 | #
Silver, I know little about you. Are you here to shake things up or pining for Virtual Acceptance? If the former, then realize that this sullen sap is not a member of any Internet mutual admiration society. Pejoratives followed by shunning go along with the territory. However MR – the website – is eclectic. Yes, there are Virtual cliques. So what? Your ideas, if worthwhile, are for the future. Defend them in the Virtual, implement them in the Real. 52
Posted by GT on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:58 | #
Uh, oh. Four incarnations. Looks like I was a day late, dollar short. 53
Posted by .357 on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:08 | # Silver doesn’t deserve the overall negative judgement he is receiving! 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:23 | # Here are JWH’s thoughts on the MacDondald/Gottried “dialogue”: http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/07/nec-watch-gottfried-again.html Great minds think alike (I wish I could include myself but in reality its JWH and MacDonald). The jews are superior? (Belly laughs!) Name a jew who trumps the scholarship of MacDonald. Name a jewish writer who is better than Shakespeare. Name a jewish scientist more brilliant than Newton. Name some jewish warriors more manly/heroic than that of the White man. The jews are little, manipulative, lying, unmanly half-pint cowards! Even the Straussian bigwigs pretty much only talk about and study White Western thinkers. Its just like those judeo-communist pieces of shit who liked a little Russian literature but felt perfectly at ease liquidating tens of millions of Russians. Now they want to liquidate us. Screw you jew! 55
Posted by .357 on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:56 | # I really like, and look up to, JHW, but I don’t understand why, he, whom is such an intelligent man, spends his precious time attacking silver? Silver initially screwed-up by trying to divide northern and southern Europeans, and he admitted he was wrong for doing it. So what’s the problem with him now? Silver owes an apology for his outburst, and that’s all he owes. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:39 | # cc, We have just established that this is not Stormfront, though actually that one was nearer VNN. 57
Posted by .357 on Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:32 | # Upon JWH’s recommendation, I read his insightful review on silver’s history at MR: “Tarnished silver”. http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/06/tarnished-silver.html I must admit, I was too uninformed about silver; therefore, wrong for coming to his defence. I stand corrected. I should have known better than to stick my nose in the fray, but I sometimes have a knack for getting myself into trouble. 58
Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:33 | # “Fr. John, The increasing bioinformatics will make short work of such quasi-essentialist theories of Jewish character as those put forth by Gooch hence De Nugent….” James Bowery, you were taking me seriously? LOL 59
Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:48 | # Szi - “To put it simply, race/ethnicity is very deep, while political/religious/economic beliefs are (by comparison) extremely shallow. “ Hardly shallow. I only came to a white/Caucasoid racial awareness, precisely BECAUSE of the study of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. And because I did, my faith is even MORE precious to me than heretofore! As I have stated elsewhere: “If Christ is the Son of David, and King David (Christ’s figurative and literal ancestor in the Flesh) was described as ‘fair’ and ‘ruddy’ (I Sam. 17:42 - the Hebrew words are ‘yapheh:’ fair, from ‘yaphah’ meaning ‘bright’; And ‘ruddy’- admoniy’ (‘reddish- of the hair or the complexion’) …Then there is Divine Scriptural evidence that David, the lineal ancestor of Christ, possessed two GENETIC characteristics that are native to only Caucasian Man!) If God’s Word says of King David that he was Caucasoid, (and no amount of waffling can avoid the clear possibility that the youth chosen by Samuel, the High Priest, was not ‘fair and ruddy,’’) then it is distinctly likely that his descendant – King David’s most famous offspring! – is fair and ruddy as well! Thus, if David is Caucasoid, so is Christ! For recessive characteristics like fair skin and red hair can only be passed on when the preponderant offspring of successive parents are of the same racial stock! (If, as an aside, one admits that modern Jewry has some connection to the ancient Israelites, then isn’t it a curious coincidence/corroboration of my view, that among certain branches of “Jews,” red hair is as common with some strands of Jewry as it is among the Celts- the latter group are they, who seemingly are the race for whom this genetic trait is considered ‘stereotypical’’ – picture a fair Colleen, or a Séamus, and a blue-eyed fiery redhead Irishman/Celt (with a temper to match!) comes to mind! Genetics will out, and the record of Scripture is clear. If one does not like Arthur Koestler’s vision of Jewry, (as mentioned in “The Thirteenth Tribe”) what, then, of the long held belief that the Celts are racial heirs to the ‘real Jews’? As Ed Koch, former jewish Mayor of New York used to say to the Irish Roman Cardinal O’Connor, who often asked him (Koch) to oversee the St. Patrick’s Day parades, in 1987 he [Koch] said (in print!), “The ten lost tribes of Israel we [ the race to which Koch belongs, i.e., the ‘jews’] believe ended up in Ireland.” Quoted in “Mayor Ed Koch,” U.S. News and World Report, 30 March 1987. Since the impersonating Turkic Khazars however, are not Christ’s racial - or religious heirs - who else, then, remains to fill the gap? What people are ‘fair and ruddy’, Adamic in heritage, can look like Christ’s fellow countrymen, and are yet those who ‘call on the Name? (‘Christ’) Who are they, who seeking to obey the Commandments, enshrined in her national laws, those applications of the Decalogue in their countries’ histories? Who else, but the nations once called Christendom? For Christ is not bereft of a (the) people for whom He came, when the “Jews” refused Him; for Christ said he came to ‘save His people from their sins!’ That ‘people’ is Adamic Man, and none other! - http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-season-of-incarnation-4/ 60
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:42 | # Fred Scrooby cuts through the fog :
Now this is something normal people can understand, put into practice, and adhere to. Its simplicity just catches one in the throat: Whatever makes Simon BarSinister angry and scared, keep doing it. Yes, we should constantly work to understand the poisonous philosophies but more importantly, Fred reminds us, remember who’s been force-feeding it to us :
We have identified the false ideologies; we have a correct diagnoses. What we have not done yet is to remove the offending “pathogen”; we have next to simply administer the medicine. Mehercle, what hope and energy is given to one by such clarity. Some may object that Fred’s approach won’t solve every problem that will crop up post Liberationem, but we cannot even hope to reach those problems until we’ve licked this one. Post a comment:
Next entry: Maggots feeding on the body of art
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Weston on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:52 | #
I want to commend Svigor on his virtuoso performance in the comment thread of the Gottfried article in question. Whether it’s here, or at Sailer’s blog, or Takimag, I’m always impressed by Svigor’s comments. Keep up the good work, Svi.
I don’t quite understand why this is so. You list our problems as “the forced march to a Global Age, the ethno-aggression of political Jewry, race-replacement immigration, [and] hyper-individualism.”
If whites were as ethnocentric as other races, surely race-replacement immigration would be thwarted simply because it is not in our interest. It is true that political Jewry is adept at using the language of liberalism to advance its own interests, but ethnocentric whites would be less likely to fall for this, again simply because the program advanced by political Jewry would be inimical to white interests. Hyper-individualism would remain a problem, but American whites are not completely atomized individuals even now. Mainstream Democratic/Republican politics in this country is nothing if not tribal; these whites have just picked the wrong tribe to align themselves with.