The descent of Geoff Beck

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 25, 2005, 02:14 AM | #

It’s quite simple, two kin groups -> conflict as predicted by evolutionary theory. Jews are beating the crap out of European whites; part of it involves weakening the goy by flooding their homelands with coloreds just as Geoff Beck’s ancestors weakened the Injun by passing them smallpoxed blankets. What’s so difficult to understand?  It’s blazingly obvious

IQ-wise the Jew is to the white gentile as the white gentile is to the American black; in terms of mean Darwinian fitness it isnt even close. The comparisons of Jewry with other ethnys is even more embarassing for the goy.

Posted by Ventris on November 25, 2005, 02:14 AM | #

Dimestore anti-Semitism, refuge of the unthinking scoundrel.

Posted by JRM on November 25, 2005, 02:17 AM | #

Bloodshed is uncalled for.  What is required is greater group unity to combat powerful interests such as the big business lobby.  Individuals behave as if they are atoms, not members of a larger group whose members substantially share their interests and concerns.

How would a group strategy look?  Block voting.  Individuals would form neighborhood watch and patrol groups to ensure their local safety rather than move away to another neighborhood.  Individuals would come together to create their own schools if the public schools are crap (and perhaps lobby together that the government fund the new school).  Town secession—not so long ago, a part of LA wanted to secede. 

If other groups in society are organized to advance their interests and are successful in doing so, it would be logical to assume that whites, if so organized, would be also be successful in lobbying for their interests.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 25, 2005, 02:34 AM | #

V - “Dimestore anti-Semitism”

Anti-semitic just means any group or person that doesnt allow Jewry to do what they want to it, even if illegitimate. Resist a mugger? You’re anti-mugger. And what of the ethnys that Jews are in conflict with? Are the Palestinians “anti-semitic” for resisting dispossession?

Sorry, Ventris is clearly anti-Tournament of Champions, which is the sole refuge of the atheoretical.

Posted by J Richards on November 25, 2005, 02:47 AM | #

Here we go again!  John, please withhold posting—for a couple of days—anything likely to prompt a deluge of comments concerning “the Jewish Question.” Once the forums are up and running, you can post all you want on this issue there and hopefully our blog will not be hogged by this issue.

TOC, please note that the out-marriage rate among Jews is in the neighborhood of 50%, i.e., a substantial proportion of Jews cannot be designated as anti-gentile or supremacists.  Whereas it is true that some Jews hold onto an inordinate amount of power, extrapolating the behavior of the Zionists/supremacists among them to all/most Jews is unwarranted.  Besides, your IQ stats are mistaken.  The latest IQ figures available in the U.S. (described in a recent paper by Rushton and Jensen in a journal article published by the American Psychological Association) listed average IQs as follows: black (85), Latino (89), white (103), Asian (106) and Ashkenazim (110).  Therefore, the American white-Ashkenazim IQ gap is about 0.5 standard deviations but the white-black IQ gap is 1.2 standard deviations.

Posted by Al Ross on November 25, 2005, 03:46 AM | #

During the Jewish-sponored Bolshevik revolution the majority of Jews were not Communists although a sizeable minority harboured such sympathies. The point is that the composition of the various politburos was majority-Jewish and it is not unreasonable to blame Jews for the ruin of Russia. With regard to American Jews ‘marrying-out’, the correct figure may be around 40% but if that figure were all female then the offspring would be Jewish. When Ivy League colleges and law schools were Gentile-run ,at least the professors were not engaged in a kulturkampf against the country whose citizenship they held. The septuagenarian US Jew has been an American for 7 decades, but he has been a Jew for 6000 years.

Posted by Svigor on November 25, 2005, 03:59 AM | #

JR - “TOC, please note that the out-marriage rate among Jews is in the neighborhood of 50%, i.e., a substantial proportion of Jews cannot be designated as anti-gentile or supremacists.  Whereas it is true that some Jews hold onto an inordinate amount of power, extrapolating the behavior of the Zionists/supremacists among them to all/most Jews is unwarranted.”

http://members.aol.com/toexist/Shiksa11.html

In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely symapthetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them.

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 04:06 AM | #

JR - “TOC, please note that the out-marriage rate among Jews is in the neighborhood of 50%”

Absolutely not.  A third of the world’s Jews live in Israel, where the exogamy rate is essentially zero.  In the US, home of another 40% of the world’s Jews, Medding’s figures in 1989 put the rate at 14%.  It is probably somewhat higher now, but the 50% figure is pure propaganda.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 04:22 AM | #

TOC - “What’s so difficult to understand?  It’s blazingly obvious.”

You, of course, are an intelligent outsider, and this drama appears to you as the struggle between the green crab and the sacculina barnacle appears to a human scientist. 

There is room in this world for you and your kind and me and my kind, and I infer, hopefully, that you feel the same way.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 25, 2005, 04:32 AM | #

JR - “the out-marriage rate among Jews is in the neighborhood of 50%”

Yes, that may be the U.S. rate but let me note a few points:

1. Orthodox and Hasidic Jews increasingly make up for the failings of the others, and certainly in offspring numbers. Their respective TFRs of 4 and 6 children more than compensate for defections (from their denominations), and their culture is such that it’s immune to MTV-style degeneration. In that sense they possess an inviolable supra-replacement TFR core. I expect this group to undergo brisk expansion over the foreseeable future.

2. The fertility of Jewish males given their relative status and wealth is probably higher than the 2.1 female figure, possibly significantly so. 

3. Part-Jews also tend to side with the stronger parental ethny, for instance Jonah Goldberg has no Irish group to join even if he wanted to, whereas his paternal kin group is highly attractive. These and other dynamics point to an increasingly Jewish elite.

Now if the relative fitness trajectories of U.S. ethnies were plotted, I think it’s upward for Jews, downward for white gentiles, and probably long-term downwards for most if not all nonwhite groups (whose well-being is temporarily and artificially sustained beyond their native capabilities). Removing subsidies like welfare and open borders would see colored ethnies undergo relative if not absolute shrinkage.

a substantial proportion of Jews cannot be designated as anti-gentile or supremacists

I agree. Most kin group members are passive or unaware in any group action, but when the leadership acts cohesively in one direction, and members stand to benefit or lose from those actions by the virtue of their kin group membership, then it’s meaningful to say, for instance, the Germans are attacking Poland, not just specifically list the Germans holding a rifle at a given time. I do think it is meaningful to speak of cohesive kin groups… and that’s just a reference to kin selection, not necessarily group selection.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 04:37 AM | #

Yes, Svigor, John Hartung is brilliant.  His writings are strictly of an objective scientific bent, as he married a woman of African descent and is thus no stereotypical “White Nationalist”. 

His “Love Thy Neighbor” is a true classic:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 25, 2005, 04:41 AM | #

BT - “You, of course, are an intelligent outsider, and this drama appears to you as the struggle between the green crab and the sacculina barnacle appears to a human scientist.”

Following ethnic competition is more interesting than say, following the Rockets or Mets or Knicks…

There is room in this world for you and your kind and me and my kind, and I infer, hopefully, that you feel the same way.

Heh. I’m a bit detached in my analyses, since if one looks at the very long term our genes are all ultimately doomed by, what do they call it in physics, heat death? But I think while everyone’s alive they should play the game the way it’s supposed to, and that means not wussying out into political correctness

Posted by J Richards on November 25, 2005, 05:25 AM | #

Al Ross,

I do not dispute the Jewish influence behind Bolshevism, but there is a problem with the way you have written your statement.  If the first sentence of your statement were not present, it would be unclear whether you are specifically referring to the Jews responsible for Bolshevism or whether you are blaming the entire Jewish community for it.  I would recommend that you add “some” before Jews when you point out the behaviors of some Jews that have harmed others.

A substantial proportion of American Jewish males out-marry, too.  Anyway, even though Jews have a matrilineal descent classification system, a Jewish woman that breeds with a non-Jew is still incorporating non-Jewish elements into her child, which she would be inclined against if she were a supremacist.  Therefore, the very high rates of out-marriage among Jews strongly suggest that a substantial proportion of Jews are not supremacists. 

Speaking of Ivy League schools, a 7-point average white-Ashkenazim IQ gap will translate to a notable Jewish overrepresentation at the higher end of the IQ scale, where most Ivy League faculty members are found, i.e., given that some Jewish faculty members are bound to be Zionists/supremacists and that Ashkenazi Jews are expected to be notably overrepresented among those with high IQs, it should not be surprising if one ends up with several Jewish supremacists in positions of authority and influence.  However, this should not be interpreted as some kind of community-wide Jewish conspiracy or collusion to promote their own interests at the expense of others—the collusion is among the Zionists/supremacists.

Svigor,

The vague sympathy that you allude to is undoubtedly true of a number of Jews that cannot be characterized as Zionists/supremacists, but the source of this vague sympathy is not a supremacist and anti-gentile belief system harbored by such Jews.  Many Jews, aware of their history and also of anti-Jewish hatred in some circles, are bound to be somewhat sympathetic toward those among them who promote group cohesiveness and group interests, especially if they are not as well informed about the designs of the supremacists among them.  For instance, I have come across some passages from the Jewish scriptures that are brimming with contempt for gentiles, yet it is a safe bet that a good number of Jews are either unaware of these passages or ignore them.  Therefore, I would highly recommend to All Ross and others to add “some” before Jews when they talk about some Jews who are hostile to the interests of non-Jews.

Ben Tillman,

The out-marriage rate that I mentioned applies to the U.S. population of Jews; Israeli Jews are not in question here given that I responded to TOC’s comment in an American context.  Anyway, I don’t believe that I am mistaken about present-day out-marriage rates among American Jews approaching 50%; see the note by John Hartung himself here and this Jewish source.

TOC,

Regarding your comment on the higher fertility of non-Ashkenazi Jews, they are not the ones with higher IQs than whites, i.e., they are not a problem for whites in terms of a lot of non-Ashkenazi Zionist/supremacist Jews ending up in positions of authority and influence that require high IQs.  You have also stated something along the lines of Svigor when you talk about group cohesiveness, but words need to be chosen carefully and it is important to distinguish between support for group cohesiveness resulting from supremacist and anti-others beliefs vs. support for group cohesiveness because there is a sense of increased likelihood of personal harm if one has to fend for oneself.  Without a careful choice of words, one could easily convey the impression that one is implying some kind of anti-gentile conspiracy/collusion among Jews-at-large.

Posted by John J Ray on November 25, 2005, 08:09 AM | #

What Jewish conspiracy theorists all overlook is how amazingly divided Jews are among themselves—just the opposite of a conspiracy

Witness Israeli politics if you doubt me—where a ruling Israeli Prime Minister has just abandoned his own party!

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 25, 2005, 08:34 AM | #

This term “conspiracy” as a sinister dysphemism for “organizing and planning rationally” I cannot accept. There is nothing irrational about organizing as a kin group in order to maximize inclusive fitness— nothing. And there are many well-established paradigms of ppl rationally organizing against the interests of others… price-fixing for one… it is hardly novel in the behavioral repertoire of man.

Posted by James Bowery on November 25, 2005, 09:06 AM | #

Evolutionary systems can appear conspiratorial and there is a sense in which you can say they are.  However, if one adopts this definition of “conspiracy” one loses one’s ability to properly distinguish between a “paranoid” and a taxonomist.

Having said that, I think it may be about time for me to post my theory on the evolution of anti-semitism.  It is far more sinister than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and it doesn’t involve any conscious intent.

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 25, 2005, 09:40 AM | #

When Australia decided on a policy of diverse immigration in 1943 there was only one Jewish MP in parliament and the restrictions on Jewish immigration actually tightened at this time.

It was not until the mid 1980s that Jews became prominent in the Australian top 200 wealthy list (20 - 25% of the total despite being only .5% of the population) and it was about this time that Jewish political influence also strengthened.

But by then all the key moves had already been made - by an overwhelmingly Anglo elite.

So, making Jewish influence the primary explanatory factor in “what went wrong” just isn’t convincing in the Australian context.

I think, rather, you need to look at periods of liberal radicalism leading to shifts in the intellectual and political climate, until eventually the political class no longer spoke the language of traditional nationalism.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 25, 2005, 12:02 PM | #

I dont know what happened in Oz, but when it comes to many issues many dont need much of a push in any direction. Can you imagine how far a Lewis Libby or Douglas Feith could ride a softie Christian Anglo-Saxon gentleman like John Ray? (There are tons of the sort they could latch onto...)

Feith: “Diversity grows the economy.”
Dr. Ray: Doug, that’s profound, I never thought of that. Where do I sign up?
Feith (maximizing racially incompatible immigration): We can start with a white gentile panmixia visa lottery… oops, I mean diversity lottery, foreign students to miscegenate your budding elite… err bring the universities an “international” flavour, HB1 visas to import needed talent… and allowance for family reunification—humanitarian reasons of course.
Dr. Ray: Doggonit Doug, you’ve done it again. You’re a singular asset to our administration and a fine representative of the distinguished Hebrew lineage. Can’t imagine why the evil Germans would object to the presence of your race!

7 years later… (newcomers are underachieving occupationally and educationally; elsewhere the keener of the locals sense something has gone terribly wrong and form nativist groups in response to the large-scale immigration, with some pointing out the Jewish influence on the administration)

Feith: The xenophobic far-right and neo-Nazis dont want to give our new and hardworking citizens a fair shake, and they’re being discriminated against in all fields of life. This form of intolerance threatens to sunder the nation.

Dr. Ray: Well Doug, you know I’ve always relied on your wisdom and guidance in such matters…

Feith: ...blah… blah… hate crimes law… blah blah affirmative action… blah ... holocaust denial law…

Posted by Al Ross on November 25, 2005, 12:15 PM | #

J Richards

I would decline your recommendation regarding the addition of the word ‘some’, preferring the more realistic ‘too many’.

Posted by jonjayray on November 25, 2005, 01:39 PM | #

A comment on David’s editorial comment:

I have been studying Nazism and neo-Nazism for over 40 years.  It is part of my academic specialization in political psychology.

So I am extremely familiar with Nazi and neo-Nazi thinking.  And Geoff’s thinking is very familiar in that context.

So there is no way I can speak politely about it.  Nazism and Communism are both the epitome of all that my libertarian and humane soul abhors.

Posted by unknown on November 25, 2005, 03:27 PM | #

The latest IQ figures available in the U.S. (described in a recent paper by Rushton and Jensen in a journal article published by the American Psychological Association) listed average IQs as follows: black (85), Latino (89), white (103), Asian (106) and Ashkenazim (110).

Link?

Posted by James Bowery on November 25, 2005, 03:43 PM | #

Mark Richardson writes: When Australia decided on a policy of diverse immigration in 1943 there was only one Jewish MP in parliament and the restrictions on Jewish immigration actually tightened at this time.

Mark, that’s an interesting observation.  A couple of questions:

1) What does “diverse” mean here if there was tightened restriction Jewish immigration?

2) It was in the middle of WW II.  Clearly anything having to do with foreign policy during that era must have been heavily influenced by the current war—specifically the Pacific war.  How do you explain it?  Not knowing anything else about it, I would expect “overseas Chinese” are the most likely lobby group.

Posted by friedrich braun on November 25, 2005, 05:18 PM | #

I dunno...Isn’t attacking someone who has left a forum/blog a little low and just bad form?

As a general guide to what I think, I will say that the manner in which Western societies treat their Jews is a measure of their civilisation

Hmmm...yes, is this not a variation on the (Jewish?) saying that the manner in which societies treat their minorities is a measure of their democracy?

This type of genteel thinking has brought the West to the brink of total decadence and collapse.

I believe Nietzsche had something to say about effete, hypocritical cowards.

Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws” - Nietzsche

...and what about making a decision that you’d prefer to live without the Jewish presence or influence in you society? In essence, coming to the conclusion that seperation is the best solution.

Posted by Søren Renner on November 25, 2005, 05:21 PM | #

“. . . the epitome of all that my libertarian and humane soul abhors.”

When someone boasts this way about his soul, we know what to think. Is it your soul, JJR, that tells you that peak oil is nonsense? Does your soul assure you that race mixing is nothing to worry about? Or does your soul only tell you how clever and humane you are?

Posted by Søren Renner on November 25, 2005, 05:24 PM | #

Mr. Braun asks “Isn’t attacking someone who has left a forum/blog a little low and just bad form?”

Yes, it is a little low and just bad form. What do you expect from someone low enough to boast about his politically correnct soul?

Posted by friedrich braun on November 25, 2005, 05:54 PM | #

One more comment on GW’s vapid bromide.

It’s fun to watch how such peecee ideas are successfully fed to clueless Whites who then go around sanctimoniously spouting them in ecstatic self-congratulation at their moral superiority, without realizing that behind such seemingly humanistic sentiments lay vicious ethnic power politics. It’s further instructive to watch how Jews who habitually author such statements regarding how Whites should run their societies will lie and misrepresent and distort Israel’s human rights record in the Middle East. Standard Jewish double-talk? Just the usual mantra of “what’s good for the Jews?” at work. Supporting the racist, apartheid sate of Israel while in the same breath condemning Whites who want to take some (feeble) measures at promoting their ethnic survival as “racist,” “wicked,” and “immoral.” The Jews have been very successful at using the language of “morality” to sap the Western man’s will to survive.

Posted by J Richards on November 25, 2005, 06:41 PM | #

Unknown,
The IQ stats are taken from the paper, “Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability,” which you can download here, along with the accompanying commentary.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 08:12 PM | #

Whereas it is true that some Jews hold onto an inordinate amount of power, extrapolating the behavior of the Zionists/supremacists among them to all/most Jews is unwarranted.

It is not a matter of extrapolation.  The problem here is the uncritical adoption of the Western ideology of individualism.  In discussing Jews, we are discussing not individuals but a group—an organization and, indeed, an organism.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 09:12 PM | #

Anyway, I don’t believe that I am mistaken about present-day out-marriage rates among American Jews approaching 50%.

The Jewish community has an incentive to mazimize the purported rate of exogamy (1) to convince the goyim that the Jewish community is ceasing to be a formidable competitor and (2) to convince the members of the Jewish community that the community is in danger of extinction if remedial steps are not taken.  The organ that publicized the intermarriage rate that you cite has the following mission:

http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/aboutus/members/ujc.htm

UJC represents 189 Jewish Federations and 400 independent communities across North America.  We provide life-saving and life-enhancing humanitarian assistance to those in need, and translate Jewish values into social action on behalf of millions of Jews in hundreds of communities in North America, throughout Israel, and around the world.

Its mission is not to convey the truth to members of the Jewish community but involves the manipulation of those members to take action on behalf of the community.  It amazes me that a scientist of your caliber would credit such data without consideration of the source’s bias and without close scrutiny of the methods by which they were compiled.

You also overlook the perennial propensity of Jews to conceal their Jewishness from gentiles especially but also from one another and even themselves.  From J.J. Goldberg’s discussion of your data:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/12872/edition_id/248/format/html/displaystory.html

The 1990 survey initially called 125,000 households and asked their religion. About 5,000 said “Jewish.” After eliminating false positives—pranksters, schizophrenics, Bible-thumpers calling themselves the children of Israel—they were left with 2,441 inteviewees.

The cops were hearing from frantic Jews who thought the PLO was out to get the Jews by pretending to be the UJA. They were wrong. It was the demographers.

Goldberg’s discussion, citing Ira Sheskin’s analysis (which does not seem to be available gratis online), points out a number of other flaws in the survey, e.g.:

...the 1990 survey interviewed hundreds of others who had some Jewish ancestry but never considered themselves Jewish. Inexplicably, the survey included their marriages in the intermarriage rate....

Then there’s the distinction made by Medding but ignored by the UJC survey (and Goldberg and, I presume, Sheskin):  the distinction between first (and more likely fecund) marriages and subsequent marriages.  Medding et al. found that between 1980 and 1989 86% of U.S. Jews married within the Jewish community for their first marriage, compared to 70% in second and 54% in third marriages. 

MacDonald discusses the 1990 survey at pages 265-66 of his second book.

Posted by Svigor on November 25, 2005, 09:25 PM | #

What Jewish conspiracy theorists all overlook is how amazingly divided Jews are among themselves—just the opposite of a conspiracy

Witness Israeli politics if you doubt me—where a ruling Israeli Prime Minister has just abandoned his own party!

“Is it good for the jews?” is hardly a bone of contention among jews, of any stripe.

What you overlook is any kind of nuance or context that contradicts your own preconceptions and emotionally held beliefs.  You also consistently overlook any opportunity to move past your neocon talking points vis-a-vis jews ("conspiracy theorists,” etc.,) and into real, considered discussion.  You revert to the status of lightweight every time the subject is brought up (frequently at your own hand).

Who cares if jews argue over details?  What does it really have to do with the issue at hand?  Not a thing.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 25, 2005, 09:31 PM | #

Friedrich,

One of the differences between what Alex Linder calls the heavy German model and the light English model is that Germans have a long record of pursuing their objectives with no thought to Newton’s Third Law of Motion.  You and I have crossed swords before on this issue, to wit I have remarked upon the intoxication with self which is a characteristic of the German psyche, and which manifests itself in unbearable arrogance towards those at a temporary disadvantage.

Read what I wrote again.  Understand that I speak of those conditions by which permanent results are achievable.

John,

There are no Nazis, and you have not studied them.  The wartime SOE studied them.  David Irving has studied them.  You have studied pathetic, lost wanabees who call themselves National Socialists.

In so much as their motivation for doing that is love of kind they are, to a degree, absolved - perhaps one day they will learn a real way to express that.  In so much as it is intellectual and emotional inadequacy they are condemned to a painful, self-inflicted irrelevancy.  I can see no general lessons for humanity to draw from such people, and no purpose to studying them.  They offer nothing more than a means by which those who hate Western Man can vilify and defame him.  That is their sole significance.

As for Geoff, he has flashed like a meteor across the skies of the political right and disappeared over the horizon.  By my estimation he will keep travelling and may even, by dint of his essential decency, come around again.  I certainly hope so.

In any case, as I say he does not deserve the obliquoy you heap on him.  It’s effect will only tend to confirm him in the Jew-obsessed environs, rather than give him cause to ponder further.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 09:33 PM | #

Nazism and Communism are both the epitome of all that my libertarian and humane soul abhors.

In principle, your ideology would impel you to chop your extremities into tiny bits to liberate those bits to act in disregard of the well-being of the collective that is your human body.  Actually, your ideology demands that you chop your entire body into tiny bits, but the severing of portions of your body would eventually terminate your body’s ability to do further cutting.  The collective—and its incorporated “individual” units—would die.  So it is with the atomisation of Western man.

Posted by Svigor on November 25, 2005, 09:41 PM | #

So, making Jewish influence the primary explanatory factor in “what went wrong” just isn’t convincing in the Australian context.

See, I have no problem at all acknowledging this - I don’t know dick about Australia so why would I do otherwise?  I don’t even proffer the JQ as a “what went wrong” for America, where jewish influence is obviously rampant.

There’s a wide gulf between reasonable people like you and me discussing where to draw the line between necessary and unnecessary factors, primary or secondary factors, etc., and nabobs like JJR who just want to stir the pot, wrestle with strawmen, and avoid discussing the issue on its merits.

As KMac has pointed out, and I am so fond of repeating, when dealing with threats false negatives are far more dangerous than false positives.  Jewry is a threat to western man.  How much of one is definitely a valid point of debate, but the basic point is no more up for discussion among reasonable white men than “is it good for the jews?” is up for discussion among jews.

My point here is that though Geoff’s linked post is of the counterproductive kind vis-a-vis unawakened whites, I’ll take it six times a week and twice on Sunday over “lol!  The jews are warm and fuzzy!  People who criticize them as a group are nutcases!  Let’s play a game of Russian Roulette and stop acting like loonies!”

Posted by James Bowery on November 25, 2005, 09:48 PM | #

I have done some web searches and am unable to find any evidence that Mark Richardson was accurate in his statement: When Australia decided on a policy of diverse immigration in 1943 there was only one Jewish MP in parliament and the restrictions on Jewish immigration actually tightened at this time.

The closest I’ve found is a 1943 act by the United States that rescinded an earlier against Chinese immigration and acquisition of citizenship.  This was done as part of a diplomatic move against Japan.

Posted by Svigor on November 25, 2005, 09:49 PM | #

You also overlook the perennial propensity of Jews to conceal their Jewishness from gentiles especially but also from one another and even themselves.

...and by perennial, he means perennial.  Jews have fought wars over headcounts.  They don’t like them and never have.  Of course they’ve always got a menagerie of excuses for this that the likes of JJR are always happy to regurgitate.

Posted by Svigor on November 25, 2005, 09:59 PM | #

GW, I think your hopes about Geoff are well-founded.  He’ll come around.

Posted by J Richards on November 25, 2005, 10:04 PM | #

Ben Tillman,

I have never bothered to check the validity of the approximately 50% alleged out-marriage rate for American Jews, but from what you have posted, this figure is incorrect.  I stand corrected, and thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.  However, the link that you have mentioned estimated out-marriage rates in the neighborhood of one-third, and even if Medding et al.’s caveat from 1989 were taken into consideration, present out-marriage rates among American Jews would be likely 25% or higher, which is still quite high.  Speaking of fertility, whereas I do not know how fertile Zionist/supremacist American Jewish women are, on average, it appears that a good number of Jewish women that endorse politically liberal social policies produce few children, some even being childless.  Therefore, if some Jewish supremacist women are promoting political liberalism to undermine the interests of gentiles, at least these supremacists do not appear to be having plenty of children.

The reason that I mentioned the out-marriage issue was to underscore the point that a substantial number of Jews are not Zionists/supremacists.  Even if the actual out-marriage rate is lower, I still wish to emphasize that a substantial number of Jews are not anti-gentile and that any mention of a Jewish group working against the interests of others should be carefully worded so as to not be unclear about whether one is accusing a specific group of Jews or all/most Jews of being anti-gentile.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 10:04 PM | #

As for Geoff, he has flashed like a meteor across the skies of the political right and disappeared over the horizon.  By my estimation he will keep travelling and may even, by dint of his essential decency, come around again.  I certainly hope so.

Your prose is incomparable, GW.  The apprehension of the essentials of the JQ may produce the reaction of Archimedes, though few will understand the cries of “Eureka!”.  One tends to forget that one did not leap across the chasm that divides reality from perception in a single bound.  One has traveled most of the way on a bridge constructed by oneself with building blocks appropriated from others and from one’s own reason and empirical observations before taking the final leap of faith.  One cannot reasonably expect others to take a leap across that chasm without having first constructed their own bridge.  Yet one unreasonably does so.

Posted by Al Ross on November 25, 2005, 10:17 PM | #

Mark Richardson

With regard to your assertion that Jewish influence in Australia is of recent vintage, you may be interested to read the following quote by W.Hughes, Premier of Australia, writng in the Saturday Evening Post of 19th June, 1919 : “The Montefiores have taken Australia for their own, and there is not a gold field or a sheep run from Tasmania to New South Wales that does not pay them a heavy tribute. They are the real owners of the antipodean continent. What is the good of our being a wealthy nation if the wealth is all in the hands of German Jews”.

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 10:21 PM | #

...even if Medding et al.’s caveat from 1989 were taken into consideration, present out-marriage rates among American Jews would be likely 25% or higher, which is still quite high.

I appreciate your willingness to reconsider your assumptions.  I would not presume to specify a figure; I would instead second Svigor’s point regarding type I and type II errors.  The remainder of your reply may be addressed by referring you to the writings of David Sloan Wilson.  Have you read his works?

Posted by ben tillman on November 25, 2005, 10:25 PM | #

One cannot reasonably expect others to take a leap across that chasm without having first constructed their own bridge.  Yet one unreasonably does so.

Allow me to amend that: 

One cannot reasonably invite and exhort others to take that leap....

Posted by somebody on November 26, 2005, 01:45 AM | #

As for Geoff, he has flashed like a meteor across the skies of the political right and disappeared over the horizon.  By my estimation he will keep travelling and may even, by dint of his essential decency, come around again.  I certainly hope so.

Amen, lets hear more about Pitt and the 1832 Reform Bill. That’ll wind’em up real good.

Posted by John J Ray on November 26, 2005, 02:29 AM | #

“When someone boasts this way about his soul, we know what to think. Is it your soul, JJR, that tells you that peak oil is nonsense? Does your soul assure you that race mixing is nothing to worry about? Or does your soul only tell you how clever and humane you are?”

Dear me, I am afraid that I was a bit too literary there.  As an atheist I do not of course believe that I literally have a soul.  It was just a figure of speech to stand for something deeply felt.

Posted by John J Ray on November 26, 2005, 02:38 AM | #

In less literary terms, what I believe in—and feel—is simply the traditional conservative respect for the individual—something clearly quite alien to both Nazis and Communists.

David:

You are quite correct that the Nazis of history and modern neo-Nazis are different in important ways.  But I HAVE studied both.  I have had learned papers published on neo-Nazis and I think my paper on the Nazism of history speaks for itself:  http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

And the unrealistic and paranoid thoughts about Jews are common to both groups AND Geoff Beck.  The screed from Geoff that I reproduced above is VERY reminiscent of Mein Kampf.  Read just the first few chapters of Mein Kampf if you doubt me.  I have.

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 26, 2005, 03:02 AM | #

Al Ross, I’m glad you alerted me to the Billy Hughes quote, because when I googled it, it turns out to be extremely popular on a range of sites.

But I can only assume it’s been taken out of context. I don’t believe that there was a super-wealthy Montefiore Jewish family in Australia.

I’m making an educated guess, but there was a lot of resentment in Billy Hughes’ time about farmers being forced to sell their land to British banks. And I do believe that there was a Montefiore family who were involved in British banking.

So Hughes was drawing on popular feeling against the banks, Jews and Germans.

As far as I know, the wealthiest German Jewish Australian in Hughes’ time was Sydney Myer, who ran the most popular department store in Melbourne. But like most Jews of the time, he intermarried (an Irish woman) and was very Anglicized.

Most historians believe that the Jewish community in Australia would have died out if not for the influx of Jewish refugees from the late 1930s and the establishment of Jewish schools (before 1945 wealthy Jewish children usually attended the leading private Christian schools).

Even so, Jews have not increased their proportion of the population, which has never exceeded 1%.

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 26, 2005, 03:44 AM | #

James, it doesn’t surprise me you weren’t able to find the 1943 decision on the net. It’s not widely publicised, but only available in specialised academic histories (e.g. Wilton and Bosworth, Old Worlds and New Australia, p.7).

Basically, late in 1943 an inter-departmental committee was set up, a sub-committee of which recommended that the immigration policy should not just encourage British immigration to Australia, but immigrants from all European sources. This recommendation was adopted and formed the basis of the immigration policy from 1945 to (roughly) 1975.

I have also read cabinet discussions from, if I remember correctly, either 1942 or 1943, in which the policy shift was favourably debated.

There followed after WWII a large influx of southern and eastern Europeans into Australia (by the 1970s Melbourne was the third largest Greek city anywhere). The southern Europeans, in particular, did not readily assimilate, and so began the whole emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism.

Those who argued for the change in 1943, such as Arthur Calwell, were still strongly against non-European immigration, but once the ideology of multicultural diversity was up and running, there was a relatively smooth transition to the acceptance of mass Asian immigration from the late 1970s.

Posted by JB on November 26, 2005, 06:34 AM | #

J.Richards:
Speaking of Ivy League schools, a 7-point average white-Ashkenazim IQ gap will translate to a notable Jewish overrepresentation at the higher end of the IQ scale, where most Ivy League faculty members are found, i.e., given that some Jewish faculty members are bound to be Zionists/supremacists and that Ashkenazi Jews are expected to be notably overrepresented among those with high IQs, it should not be surprising if one ends up with several Jewish supremacists in positions of authority and influence.  However, this should not be interpreted as some kind of community-wide Jewish conspiracy or collusion to promote their own interests at the expense of others—the collusion is among the Zionists/supremacists.

come on that’s like saying jews run the media but it’s only because they’re good businessmen (though they didn’t fund or distribute a Mel Gibson movie that went on to make almost 400 $mil in US theatres and we all know why). Jews - a lot of them - are clannish, whether they’re leftists, rightists, zionists, whatever. It’s an old story:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2571

quote:

[F.Hayek]
“Actually I suspect it is not as simple as this, because half the law faculty consisted of Jews, and the problem why Mises didn’t get a professorship is a very peculiar one; and my answer to this, which I don’t think has ever been stated, but . . . for a Jew to get a professorship he had to get the support of his Jewish fellows. Any other Jews who were sufficiently eminent must be supported, because only appointed Jews could get a professorship. But the Jews who were teaching were all socialists, and Mises was an anti-socialist, so he could not get the support of his own fellows. So the reason why he did not get a professorship was not really anti-Semitism, but [that] he wasn’t liked by his Jewish colleagues. This is a very comic story, which I tell you with hesitation, because it’s the sort of thing you cannot prove. I’m quite certain it’s correct.” (p. 59)

Hayek also said, “And there were several things which I must confess I resented among our Jewish friends. The worst was that I was not allowed [note Hayek’s tacit acceptance of the subservient role in the relationship—an unvarying characteristic of all Jewish-White interactions] to speak about Jewish things; they did that all the time. Even the theme of ‘Has he a Jewish accent?’ was constantly discussed among them; if I would have said a word about it, it would have been bitterly resented.” (p. 61)

The hypothetical non-political jew will turn into an anti-white activist the minute he feels or is convinced that whites are turning against the anti-white “good for the jews” policies the political jews have pushed for decades. We can’t allow any of them to be in any position of power over us.

Posted by JB on November 26, 2005, 06:41 AM | #

JJRAY:
I have been studying Nazism and neo-Nazism for over 40 years.  It is part of my academic specialization in political psychology. So I am extremely familiar with Nazi and neo-Nazi thinking.  And Geoff’s thinking is very familiar in that context.

someone who keeps coming up with Left VS Right paradigms to ascribe to all ideological currents and ideas isn’t a good student of history and politics.

Posted by James Bowery on November 26, 2005, 08:56 AM | #

Mark Richardson, I think your portrayal of the “White Australia” policy as “diverse immigration” comparable to the 1965 immigration liberalization, which blew open the doors of the US to the world, is quite tendentious.

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 26, 2005, 09:56 AM | #

James, I don’t recall having directly compared the 1943 immigration liberalization in Australia to that of 1965 in America.

However, let me do so now. The 1943 decision was the single biggest step Australia took to “blowing open the doors of Australia to the world”.

It replaced a very strong, traditional monoethnic society, with a multiethnic one. Yes, it was still a European multiethnic society. But the voice of the majority, and the connection of the majority to their traditional identity, was broken.

Once you establish multiethnic diversity as a positive principle, and successfully repress the mainstream ethnic identity, how can you expect there to be much of a defence against a further extension of diversity - one that embraces the world?

Posted by Al Ross on November 26, 2005, 12:14 PM | #

James Richardson

The 1943 Act replaced a mono-ethnic Australian society only if you believe that the English, Irish and Scots comprise one single ethnic group. The connection of the majority to their traditonal identity didnt seem to be totally severed when, in 1999, the ‘monarchy’ referendum voters inflicted a heavy defeat on the republicans.

Posted by Amon on November 26, 2005, 12:32 PM | #

Speaking of Ivy League schools

... ‘nuff said

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 26, 2005, 01:00 PM | #

Al Ross, it is true that the Irish Catholics in Australia did maintain to some degree a separate identity.

Nonetheless, you misunderstand things if you believe that Australia up to 1948 was made up of English, Scotish and Irish ethnicities. In fact, from the first native born generation in the early 1800s, there was a group which saw themselves as Australian, even if they talked about being of British stock.

As for the majority rejecting the republic, this was only made possible because an influential section of the Liberal Party were anti-republican. In other words, the usual bipartisanship which excludes the majority from asserting itself as such, was not present in this political campaign.

Anyway, I am curious as to why you make the points you do. What are you getting at?

Posted by Pitt the Younger on November 26, 2005, 04:38 PM | #

Looks like Beck has really gone off the deep end… typical Nazi mentality:

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2005/BeckPropaganda1105.htm

Majority Rights is lucky to be rid of him.

John Ray, thanks for exposing this creep!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 26, 2005, 05:07 PM | #

I’m at least as much of a wimpy liberal by the standards of this site as JJR, but I also liked Geoff Beck, and don’t believe he was anything like the nuttiest fruitcake that posts here.  Furthermore, JJR broke GW’s rule by adding another boring and alienating post about anti-Semitism well under a month since the last one.  Get a LIFE, man! As I trust GW would agree Pitt the Younger, Lord Liverpool and the 1832 Reform Bill are MUCH more important than the mythical depredations of the Jewish people.

The Montefiores are a collateral connection of the Rothschilds.  Montefiore was probably Rothschilds’ man in Australia and Hughes, being pig-ignorant like most Australian working class Socialists, assumed they owned everything, when in fact the Rothschilds as a group have never been all that rich and certainly weren’t by 1920.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 26, 2005, 05:41 PM | #

Most of what Beck describes wrt propaganda is supported by psychological studies and appears in basic PSYOPS textbooks nowadays. The limitations and biases of the average human mind and the manner in which they can be exploited are pretty well-mapped out.

The neocons certainly have a strong grip on it, both domestically and in operations like the colored revolutions. They basically do it like clockwise, straight up application of theory. That’s why they did Ukraine, Georgia, Kygyzstan like 1-2-3, it’s almost algorithmic, and those in rinky dink 3rd world nations don’t have a chance of stopping professional CIA operatives.

Posted by Svigor on November 26, 2005, 06:50 PM | #

Looks like Beck has really gone off the deep end… typical Nazi mentality:

The American who doesn’t see propaganda all around him every minute he’s exposed to the public space is the one with problems.

Posted by Counter Semite on November 26, 2005, 07:04 PM | #

LOL @ “Pitt The Younger”.

Thank you for a link to a great essay! 

@Guessedworker, you are clueless. Do you know any German or Dutch or Flemish Nationalsocialists?  I know quite a few personally.  You are not very well aware.  German and Dutch Nationalism IS Nationalsocialism.  It is hardly irrelevant.

Ben Tillman, Svigor, JB, you are all excellent.

Posted by Kubilai on November 26, 2005, 07:51 PM | #

I agree that Geoff’s post about propaganda is nowhere near the “deep end” nor “Nazi propaganda”.  It is quite common knowledge, as ToC alludes to. 

Martin,

when in fact the Rothschilds as a group have never been all that rich

Yeah, maybe compared to the global economy, though they are richer than any person can fathom.  They own more things (without any reference to it being a Rothschild entity) and have more money than 100 to 1000 Bill Gates.  That pretty rich and powerful in my book.

Posted by Andrew on November 26, 2005, 09:54 PM | #

Geoff is indeed not a Socialist, a newer definition of socialist is needed to describe the exact the phenomena: are, and Lazy fat ass Looters with out a clue is a simple explanation. Geoff like the rest of us is just pissed off with the clueless Bureaucrats and manipulators agitprop unable achievers. The ones that do not have any intellectual ability, the ones that espouse to Social Justise,ones that espouse to the degradation of economics’ and business professionals, “The Real Ones” not the pseudo type thieves. Anything that destroys private or intellectual rights and property, yes they are Socialists and they are the modern day thieves or the olden day Looters.
Individuals hold the answer and intellectual philosophy has been hijacked by the underachievers to obtain their ill begotten part of the loot and it is your loot they are taking. Our lives they are destroying. Hope that definition helped.
GW is correct and does have a clue. We all may not be right, but we are all certainly are not wrong. A big pile of Bull shit has to be removed, make a start now or we will all be wading in it.

Posted by James Bowery on November 26, 2005, 10:17 PM | #

Martin Hutchinson: The fundamental distinction is between multiculturalism and anti-racism.  Jews have been unambiguously at the forefront of anti-racism.  Indeed it was Boas followed by Braunstein (Trotsky) who conflated racial supermacism with the belief in the significance of racial diversity in the politicization of the otherwise useful term “racism”.  Yes, once this destruction of the scientific foundation of anthropology has been accomplished the rest is a piece of cake.

If you examine the Figure 2.9.1 on page 122 of “The History and Geography of Human Genes” by Cavalli-Sforza et al, you’ll notice first of all that the genetic distance per geographic distance for Europe is the lowest of any continent.  Next, if you look at Table 2.3.1B and compare the genetic distances for various nationalities you’ll see that going from a Great British population to a European population is a small fraction of the impact of going from a European population to an Asian population.

In short, your appeal to “multiculturalism” as the culprit is not convincing from a racialist context.  Now if you had some good way to quantify cultural distance the same way we can now quantify racial distance, we might be able to have a conversation.  As things stand we not only differ in the most fundamental values but also in degree of rationality.

Posted by James Bowery on November 26, 2005, 10:18 PM | #

Erratum:  That comment should have been directed to Mark Richardson not Martin Hutchinson.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 26, 2005, 10:50 PM | #

Counter-Semite,

I presume you are responding to my remarks disparaging the Neo-Nazi Australians whom Dr Ray studied.  I made no reference to continental Europeans who try to walk in the shadow of 1930’s Nazism.

My presumption is that the Oz bad boys in question are utter dolts, blissfully ignorant of Anglo-Saxon political history and of the nature of Anglo-Saxon society - which is the foundation of their own society.  On this I will debate you if you still feel you have a point to make.

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 26, 2005, 11:20 PM | #

James,

1) Even though it’s true that an Englishman is much more closely related genetically to a Sicilian than to a Sudanese, there is still a readily observable difference.

2) People don’t just identify on the basis of the broadest racial categories. In traditional societies they identify with their ethny: an identity formed from particularities of race, culture, manner, history, speech, religion, place, and a host of less tangible features shaping their common life.

3) That is one reason why the 1943 immigration policy in Australia collapsed so quickly into an open borders policy. If you suddenly put 300,000 Greeks into a city with 2,000,000 Anglos, it is naive to expect an immediate assimilation between the two groups.

The historical reality is that many Greeks saw themselves as different to the “skips”, could not identify with the mainstream ethnicity, formed their own distinct subculture, and became the leading proponents (after the Anglo liberals) of a policy of multiculturalism and diversity.

4) One further question. If you believe that Boas is to blame, how then do you explain the willingness of the US to accept so many non-gentile immigrants prior to the influence of Boas on the science of anthropology?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 26, 2005, 11:33 PM | #

Kubilai, 100 times richer than Bill Gates is $4 trillion, or twice Britain’s GDP. Not only are the Rothschilds not that rich, they’re not even collectively, even including London, Paris, Vienna and Frankfurt, anywhere near as rich as Bill Gates—maybe $5 billion total, certainly no more than $10 billion.  There’s a reason the world’s banking system is not now dominated by the London merchant banks such as Rothschilds—the merchant banks were horribly undercapitalised, having had their market taken away from them in 1914 and never really returned.

This was mostly the fault of politicians; as Guy de Rothschild said in 1982 “to be a Jew under Petain was bad enough; to be a banker under Mitterrand, c’est insupportable.”

Posted by John J Ray on November 27, 2005, 12:43 AM | #

“someone who keeps coming up with Left VS Right paradigms to ascribe to all ideological currents and ideas isn’t a good student of history and politics”

See:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/twodim.html

You really should not assume that a speciatist in the psychology of politics is unaware of such simple points

David:

The Neo-Ns that I studied were not at all dolts.  Much like Geoff Beck, in fact—thinking people who just didn’t really understand how the world works and got their knickers in a knot about imagined conspiracies

Posted by Tournament of Champions on November 27, 2005, 12:49 AM | #

Just a note: how much is the control of a government worth? Let us say a minority of 3% install themselvese into all the key positions in a government, seal up control of the mass media, outlaw criticism as a hate crime, and moreover manipulate the information flow to the society by altering education curriculum, news, etc such that resistance disappears and their control becomes meta-stable. Let us say this nation is the U.S., and it sets up a permanent global hegemony as is posited by the neocon-written 2002 National Security Strategy of the U.S. 

How much is perpetual control of 1/3 of the output of every American (via taxes) worth? I can’t seem to put a present value figure on it; the value appears to diverge to infinity.

I’d say Bill Gates is nothing in comparison; in fact they can disappear Bill Gates overnight had they a law containing the current text of the Patriot Act.

Of course this purely hypothetical scenario is presented solely for the entertainment of fellow paranoids, fruitcakes, or dimestore antisemites with overactive imaginations. Dr. Ray with his obvious specialization in abnormal psych will quickly recognize as such…

Posted by Kubilai on November 27, 2005, 01:07 AM | #

Martin my good man, let us use some logic here.  We are talking about a family that rocketed to the top nearly 3 centuries ago in wealth, power, and “nobility”.  The family empire has its hands in wineries, real estate, gold, investment houses, mergers & acquisitions and national banks of some of the most wealthy nations on the planet, including the Federal Reserve of the US and the Bank of England.  For nearly 3 centuries this ungodly wealth has been increasing from investments, services, and usury.  Even today, the people “in the know” cannot calculate the exact fortune of this family.  We have Forbes stating the family’s net worth is ~$1.5 billion.  We have The Guardian mentioning a series of Swiss trusts to be worth $40 billion.  We have people who have conservatively attempted to calculate this vast fortune, since it IS secret, to be in excess of $1 trillion dollars.  I’ve heard numbers bandied about from 1 to 50 trillion.  Fifty is probably too high, though their worth being in the trillions does not raise my eyebrows in the least.  The family fortune is not transparent and without transparency, any value could potentially be legitimate.  Especially when one takes into account having ownership of Reserve banks of entire nations. 

I would have said for you to pass me whatever your drinking when you said 5 billion of worth, however I’ll take whatever Forbes is drinking.  It’s much more potent.

Posted by James Bowery on November 27, 2005, 01:46 AM | #

Mark Richardson: You miss the point about ethnic genetic interests.  The point is not whether there are “readily observable differences” nor even whether people “identify” with some granularity or other.  The point of Price’s equations presented in Hamilton’s paper from which Salter/Harpending derived their ethnic genetic interest equations is that people are prone to observe things in relative and rational terms.  “Relative” means when an Englishman is evaluating the damage done by admitting, say, Sicilians to some territory, it has to be relative to the degree of relatedness of the current inhabitants of that territory.  If this change is very small compared to the change admitting non-Europeans to a European territory then EGI predicts the resistance to the former will be small compared to the latter.  The whole reason freedom of religion (multiculturalism in another name) works is precisely because of the high degree of genetic relatedness of the participants in the multicultural society.  To be rational you have to look at the numbers and the numbers tell us that the changes that took place in 1943 were vastly smaller than the changes that took place after 1966 when the “White Australia” policy was abandoned.

Moreover, the post WW II era, particularly the post 1950s era, was marked by a pronouned increase in US influence over other Western societies, Australia included.  It is no accident that the White Australila policy was abandoned one year after the Jews succeeded in getting racial discrimination removed from US immigration laws.

As to the importation of African slaves and Chinese laborers to the US:

The best sources on the sources of the African slave trade are that Jews played a decisive role in the promotion of the exploitation of Africa for slave labor.

Moreover the later, albiet not as destructive, trade in Chinese laborers occurred under the opium trade by Jewish families, primarily the Sassoons, operating out of Hong Kong.

It is reasonable to see both of these international human trafficking trades as driven from a common cultural character present in Jews—one that exploited not only the laborers but the employing countries that were then saddled with a multi-racial problem to deal with.  Fortunately, wisdom prevailed in the US and importation of chinese laborers was shut down around the time slavery was shut down.  Howver, just as many Chinese were enslaved and damaged for life by the opium trade, so the American character was permanently damaged by the trade in African and Chinese laborers.

Posted by Andrew on November 27, 2005, 02:14 AM | #

Did someone mention Sicilian, I read some time ago in relation to that small Island that back in the days of Islamic occupation, before then Sicilian population were basic and a primitive pagan existence, then the Islamo’s invaded, and so the story begins, It is conceivable the Mafia behavior is actually an inculcation of the occupying Islamic regime of the time, a trait learnt from their once rulers before expulsion, The thread is: Criminality of a community that binds them, as similar traits to Arab gangland behavior is obvious, but the genetic similarity is obviously lacking. Not having a Civilized existence before, and relative to its Isolation from other Civilizations: the Moslem introduction had created an unseeingly: a subversion of Socialist traits in the form of a certain criminality “Mafia” and as time passed: without Allah. A few Arab dick-potato heads qualify for that status.  Another useless bit of information to throw a crowbar in the spokes of a push bike, and over we goes.

Posted by Mark Richardson on November 27, 2005, 02:24 AM | #

James, thanks for the clarity of your reply.

I don’t disagree with the calculations of EGI. I am just letting you know that there was such a rapid and large-scale influx of southern Europeans into Melbourne that many of the immigrants did not wish to assimilate, and therefore cooperated with the programme of multiethnic diversity which was then in favour with Anglo liberals.

The fact that “multiculturalism” (really multiethnicism) became the standard ideology helped to pave the way for much more radically diverse immigration, such as from Asia.

As to your points on African and Chinese immigration into the US, this was not really what I was getting at when I queried you on Boas.

As I understand it, Boas began to influence the anthropological discussion of race from the early 1900s. Yet the last great wave of Jewish immigration had already commenced in the early 1880s.

So I would have thought the question a WN would ask is why the US was so open to such great waves of Jewish immigration, prior to any influence exerted by Boas. The root causes must extend to the kind of politics espoused by leading members of the American elite prior to the 1880s.

Posted by ben tillman on November 27, 2005, 02:59 AM | #

So I would have thought the question a WN would ask is why the US was so open to such great waves of Jewish immigration, prior to any influence exerted by Boas.

One reason is that they got here first!

Posted by ben tillman on November 27, 2005, 03:27 AM | #

Not really first, of course, but they were among those who “discovered” America in the 15th c.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 27, 2005, 03:37 AM | #

Forbes looks a bit low at $1.5 billion; unless they’ve sold them the wine interests must be worth close to that. On the other hand the Guardian looks WAY high at $40 billion. If you read the Niall Ferguson family bio and the David Kynaston history of the City, they had a relatively short period of real dominance, being the most important UK house only from about 1820-1836 (Barings both before and after) and the most important Paris house from about 1825 to 1870. Since that time, they’ve had multiple decades of operations not much above break-even. You have to remember that a 6% real return on capital over 200 years is absolutely at the top limit of the possible; these people who claim much higher are looking at period of only 1-2 business cycles.  The French Rothschilds were nationalised in 1981 for no more than $150 million; the British bank had Net Worth of 593 million pounds (about $1.1 billion) at March 31, 2005, the Austrian and Frankfurt banks were closed by the Nazis and the Geneva bank had Net Worth of 1.04 billion Swiss Francs at 12/31/04 (about $700 million). There’s a premium of market value over book value of maybe 2.5 times, but on the other hand the Rothschilds don’t these days control 100%, but only about 50 or 60.  So their banking interests’ total value is at most $4.5 billion, of which the Rothscilds own $2.5 billion.

In summary, the total Net Worth is probably more than 5 billion (banking plus wine being about 4) but it’s certainly less than 10 billion.  Thinking they’re worth $1 trillion is a conspiracy theory up there with the Protocols, at least in terms of distance from reality although I quite grant you less obnoxious.

Posted by Kubilai on November 27, 2005, 04:32 AM | #

Martin please.  Oprah and Tiger Woods will or already have (not sure nor do I really care) accumulated a billion dollars in their careers.  This is a span of 20-40 years.  Having ONLY $5 billion dollars after over 200 years of power and prominence on the world banking court would make them morons and financial nincompoops.  They are neither.  As far as conspiracy theories go, it is still fashionable to think Oswald killed Kennedy in most circles.  I think you enjoy remaining in a state of naive bliss about certain things.  Which is your right of course, however you must think about this logically and not just crunch up some numbers that can easily be manipulated to suite one’s purpose.

Posted by James Bowery on November 27, 2005, 07:50 AM | #

Mark Richardson writes: So I would have thought the question a WN would ask is why the US was so open to such great waves of Jewish immigration, prior to any influence exerted by Boas. The root causes must extend to the kind of politics espoused by leading members of the American elite prior to the 1880s.

First of all “white nationalists” are divided on the Jewish Question.  Indeed, it was my prediction over 10 years ago that a new form of “white nationalism” would emerge sometime around the year 2000 which might better be thought of as a pan-western fascism based on a JudeoChristian identity.  This is in fact what has happened, although through the advanced warnings of people like myself that Jews would attempt to make this switch on us, there has been some success in preventing all aspects of conservatism from being captured by these “neoconservative” JudeoChristians.  Nevertheless the US is being degrated into a role of international shame and disgrace and domestic chaos.

Second, Jews were present in numbers in the United States at the time of the Czarist pogroms and there were few immigration restrictions against Europe in 1881.  So the influx of Jews was not due to a liberalization of existing immigration policy, but a holding action against restrictions that were increasingly popular as the citizens realized the impact of so few restrictions in an era of increasing transportation.

Quoting from Kevin MacDonald’s discussion of this era:

Although often concerned that Jewish immigration would fan the flames of anti-Semitism in America, Jewish leaders fought a long and largely successful delaying action against restrictions on immigration during the period from 1891-1924, particularly as they affected the ability of Jews to immigrate. These efforts continued despite the fact that by 1905, there was ‘a polarity between Jewish and general American opinion on immigration’ (Neuringer 1971, p. 83). In particular, while other religious groups such as Catholics and ethnic groups such as the Irish remained divided and ambivalent on their attitudes toward immigration and were poorly organized and ineffective in influencing immigration policy, and while labor unions opposed immigration in their attempt to diminish the supply of cheap labor, Jewish groups engaged in an intensive and sustained effort against attempts to restrict immigration.

The real problem wasn’t with the domestic elites of the US failing to restrict Jewish thence more general immigration but rather the failure of Cromwell’s Parlaiment to arrest him for treason when he refused to enforce the ban on Jews residing in the United Kingdom.  Jews were admitted to New Amsterdam the same year Cromwell should have been executed.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 27, 2005, 03:59 PM | #

Kubilai, if keeping a fortune was so easy, why aren’t the Medicis the world’s richest people? 

The economic reality is that there’s a clear entropic force on large fortunes; it’s most unlikely that Gates’ granddaughter will be worth anything like $40 billion (in purchasing power terms) by 2100.  You need the original genius to make the fortune, and a highly able quite entrepreneurial heir even to maintain it.  The English Rothschilds only had one original genius, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who died in 1836, and one highly able heir, Nathanial (roughly 1840-1915). The remainder of the family were average or worse.  In France James (1792-1868), Nathan Mayer’s youngest brother, was of equivalent quality, but none of the descendents have been up to much.

The mechanism of economic decline is that the fortune gets hit by cataclysms, such as in France 1870, 1940 and the nationalisation of 1981, and the only moderately able heirs are unable to survive them or rebuild quickly in the way that Nathan Mayer could have. Over a couple of centuries, it’s a wonder there’s anything left; in the case of the Vanderbilts for example, richer than the Rothschilds at their peak, there isn’t.

Posted by Lurker on November 28, 2005, 04:29 AM | #

Martin - I’m sure thats most of the story.

To make a fortune requires great ability, to keep it and maintain it over generations needs much the same ability. Descendants who dont have that ability but the sense to employ someone who does still inevitably dilutes the fortune and strength of the dynasty.

Paris Hilton will one day have a controling interest in the hotel business. Thats got to be a step on the way to the decline of the Hilton finances. Might take another couple of generations but the writing is sort of on the wall.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 28, 2005, 05:54 AM | #

“Paris Hilton will one day have a controlling interest in the hotel business. That’s got to be a step on the way to the decline of the Hilton finances.” (—Lurker)

Yeah, just as her porn video can only have been a step on the way to the decline of the porn industry.  (Are there conceivably any buyers for that thing??? ... One look at her, and I can’t imagine it!  Does the CD come with a generous supply of anti-emetics at least?)
______
-- “All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell
-- Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!
-- Balkanization is better then Brazilianization!
-- The 1965 Immigration-Holocaust Act:  the gift that keeps on giving!
-- What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the usual suspects!

Posted by Counter Semite on November 28, 2005, 06:17 AM | #

@ Guessedwrong,

If you know anything about modern NS you should know this,

NS as a total system is only for Germanic-Europe.

AND

It is an intra White Nationalist pressure group everywhere else (whether it is France or America or Britain or Australia). For instance, take the AWB of South Africa, they were the NS pressure group of the pro-White government.

I am well aware that amorphous Anglo racial policies cannot be forged into the explicit doctrine of Nationalsocialism.  However many Anglo-Nationalists do heartily embrace Spengler.

“try to walk in the shadow of 1930’s Nazism”

Ha!

Tell me your political beliefs and I can just look back to the time they last flourished and tell you that you’re “trying to walk in the shadow of (insert whatever epoch and ideology you wish)”.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 28, 2005, 07:45 AM | #

Counter Semite,

NS as a total system is only for Germanic Europe

And NB is only for Russia.  So what?  I am not protesting NB in Russia or NS in modern Germany.  You are answering to something which I did not talk about.  My point is that those who fetishize Nazism in Australia or Britain or America disqualify themselves from serious consideration and open the door to a far more general political delegitimisation of right-wing thinkers and activists, and we could do without them.  VNN falls into that category.  Alex Linder should have been a brilliant spokesman for majority rights in the West.  But something went wrong somewhere, and the result is deeply negative for him and for the rest of us.

Posted by Lurker on November 28, 2005, 10:23 AM | #

Fred - Ive not seen her video. I dont get why she is rated at all (really, do any straight men actually find her attractive?), she’s not only an airhead, but looks like a bald, albino, chihuahua. Yuk. As we say in Britain, I wouldn’t touch with yours mate.

Posted by counter semite on November 28, 2005, 03:48 PM | #

[I]And NB is only for Russia.[/I]

LOL, don’t bring up that crap.

[I]So what?  I am not protesting NB in Russia or NS in modern Germany.[/I]

You denigrated them as somehow lurking in shadows. They are modern, they don’t dress in clown costume ripoffs of The Reich.  They are young Nationalsocialists.

[I] You are answering to something which I did not talk about.[/I]
No.

I am avoiding your ‘strawman’ of trying to argue for NS outside Germania the way you want me to.

[I]My point is that those who fetishize Nazism in Australia or Britain or America disqualify themselves from serious consideration and open the door to a far more general political delegitimisation of right-wing thinkers and activists, and we could do without them.[/I]

Your point is significantly flawed.

By being so extreme the “Costume Nazis” are not a total disservice.  They get Negroes to riot on cue as we saw in Toledo.  They also make other WN look more professional.

All belief systems are defined by the extremes, the “Costume Nazis” fill the extreme and anything else pro-White people do looks tame (and sane) by comparison. Also since they are such a small number they are not a major threat to realistic organizations recruitment.

There are videos stored online of Negroes rioting, it’s great stuff.  The NSM just showup, look bizarre for a few seconds and the Negroes act like… Negroes.

[I]VNN falls into that category.[/I]

No it doesn’t.  Linder has stated time and again he is against “Hitler worship” and seeks an American solution “through the Jew”. 

[I]Alex Linder should have been a brilliant spokesman for majority rights in the West.  But something went wrong somewhere, and the result is deeply negative for him and for the rest of us.[/I]

Have you listened to Goyfire?  Goyfire will appeal to the working class and dovetails nicely with American Dissident Voices to cover the White socio-economic spectrum.

Posted by counter semite on November 28, 2005, 03:50 PM | #

^^^ How do I manipulate text effects here?

Posted by Guessedworker on November 28, 2005, 04:12 PM | #

Counter Semite

I don’t want you to argue for NS outside “Germania”, though you may if you wish.  I note that you excuse non-Germanic NS, however, on the basis that extremism makes less extremist views acceptable.  You should argue this point with the BNP which has been the object of unyielding and often vile anti-fascist attention ever since the former costume Nazi, John Tyndall, set it up.

The (relatively) successful nationalist parties in Europe - FN and VB - owe nothing whatever to an outlier extremist group.  It’s simply a false proposition.  The way forward is not “through the Jew” but through political realism and pragmatism and high moral standards.  Power in a democracy has to be won at the ballot box.  The rest is the battle of ideas.  Again, check the BNP’s position with regard to Jews ... and Sikhs.

If you insist on extremism you tie a ball and chain not only to your own ankle but to that of every man standing near to you .. and some standing not all that near to you at all.

Posted by pellarius on November 28, 2005, 08:54 PM | #

Mark Richardson wrote:

James, I don’t recall having directly compared the 1943 immigration liberalization in Australia to that of 1965 in America.

However, let me do so now. The 1943 decision was the single biggest step Australia took to “blowing open the doors of Australia to the world”.

It replaced a very strong, traditional monoethnic society, with a multiethnic one. Yes, it was still a European multiethnic society. But the voice of the majority, and the connection of the majority to their traditional identity, was broken.

me: This is not really analogous to America’s 1965 act. Rather, it is analogous to the situation that existed in America prior to 1924.  The huge waves of non-Anglo-Saxon immigration before that point also fatally weakened America’s identity as an Anglo-Saxon “racial” nation and allowed the Jews to successful promote the new concept of the “melting pot.”

Why did Oz do this in 1943? I will venture a guess, which is strongly suspect is correct.  The Japanese conquests at that time probably made Aussies fearful
that their much smaller population made them vulnerable.  To get more immigrants and raise their population levels, they opened their doors to Europeans in general as a national security measure. 

But what happened in the 1960’s was of an entirely different nature and motivation.  A self-rejecting cultural revolution swept across the western world generally in the 1960’s.

I forgot who wrote:

What Jewish conspiracy theorists all overlook is how amazingly divided Jews are among themselves—just the opposite of a conspiracy

Witness Israeli politics if you doubt me—where a ruling Israeli Prime Minister has just abandoned his own party!

me: On *some* subjects, Jews have a very impressive consensus; eg, support for Israel’s survival (exept the Haredim), massive, multi-racial immigration, “anti-racism,” extreme separation of church and state, even abortion and gay rights for all but the very religious Jews--and, oh yes, support for the Democratic Party to the tune of 80% in Presidential elections.  “Amazingly divided” is something the Jews like to claim about themselves, but it does not withstand scrutiny on key issues.

Sharon abandoned his party? Yes, but not the Jewish consensus for a Jewish national socialist state.  The division right now is between those who want more lebensraum coupled either with ethnic cleansing ("transfer" is their euphemism) or with an apartheid or racial caste type of social system with the Jewish herrenvolk at the top; or, on the other hand, people like Sharon who think this won’t work and prefer a geographically smaller but racially purer state.  But almost all Jews of every party have a firm “Jews first” policy.  There’s not a politically significant market among Israeli Jews for equal rights.

On Jewish supremacism: this is a red herring, as is babbling about “conspiracy” theorists.  No one claims a single, unified Jewish conspiracy, so please stop the diversionary tactics.  On supremacism: Jews overwhelmingly support Jewish political and legal supremacy in Israel.  That doesn’t mean that the average Jew thinks his race is biologically superior; more often, he is driven by non-clinical paranoia.  It also doesn’t mean that Jews aspire to world domination, because most (although probably not all) Jews must view this option as to unrealistic to even weigh the pros and cons.  The key characteristic of the (non-Haredi) international Jewish community is not “supremacy” (this is just another red herring), but hyper-nationalism--and I’m referring to ethno-nationalism, not “constitutional patriotism,” or “civic nationalism,” or other such multiculti/multi-racial non-sense by various names which Jews have strongly promoted among host nations.

Posted by Counter Semite on November 29, 2005, 03:38 PM | #

@ Guessed Worker

The BNP and VB are both compromised entities.  They serve a purpose to unite Whites but they are not the solution.

I am well aware of the BNP’s Sikh’s and Jews, I don’t wish to discuss the BNP any further.

---

VlaamsBlok was a great organization that used to have a lot of outliers. Here is VB “security branch” from 2002 http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=i1abv4

Belang is one of good people which TRAGICALLY is led by the old diamond traders of Antwerp.  DeWinter is an ideological joke. 

They are Euro-Zionist, not Euro-Nationalist.

http://ejpress.org/article/news/western_europe/2776

FN would benefit from an outlier, they have no hope in the ‘mainstream’. They are conspired against by the media mavens,

http://csmonitor.com/2005/1116/p06s01-woeu.html

“The authorities are clearly worried that recent events might boost Le Pen’s support. Jean-Claude Dassier, head of the all-news LCI cable channel, defended his station against charges at an international TV conference last week that it had played down the violence by saying that “I could not forgive myself for installing the French extreme right in the first or second place of French political life.”

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2005, 04:05 PM | #

Counter Semite,

I think that for both of us it is a case of “a bird in the hand”.  Make the possible happen first.  This is what the kulturkampf activists did.  They didn’t begin by criminalising speech and even, now, thought.  They evolved their strategy over a period of decades.  Who their leaders were, where they got the ideas from, how they succeeded in implanting those ideas at the forefront of liberalism, that seems to me to be quite a proper field of study for Jewry watchers.  But let the DeWinters and Griffins do the possible politically.

Posted by counter semite on November 29, 2005, 07:05 PM | #

@Guessedworker,

“ I think that for both of us it is a case of “a bird in the hand”.  “

It makes no difference what we have in our hand when we are in the hand of Jewry and her draconian anti-Western laws.

“This is what the kulturkampf activists did.  They didn’t begin by criminalising speech and even, now, thought.  They evolved their strategy over a period of decades.”

You’re asking a deer to behave like a tick.

That is not how we operate, their GES is foreign to us.  The response to race replacement will be a European one or it will fail.  We cannot win on their terms, we can’t adopt their strategies; we are too different.

The Revisionist account of history is exploding after decades of showtrials and media blackout w/ whispers of slander.  The ‘solution’ they have now is to jail them. See Verbeke, Irving, Zündel, Rudolf, Graf (exile in Iran).

“But let the DeWinters and Griffins do the possible politically. “

If Griffin is perceived as a dire threat he will be convicted in his show trial set to begin January 16.

What good are these ‘mainstream’ leaders if they are imprisoned, dilute-abandon their views, or both?

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2005, 08:24 PM | #

CS,

I am not at all disheartened by oppression. It is a sign of the other side’s weakness.  It is also, in a sense, necessary - a crucible from which something will emerge.  The worst possible outcome for us would be a softly perfumed, soothing, smothering multiracialism that, from a social engineers perspective, worked.  We, as a human type, have a powerful inclination towards complacency, sleep.  We need a more bracing psychological and cultural environment if we are to wake up - and we are certainly going to get one. In this regard the social engineers have failed, and that is a good (for all the pain it will doubtless occasion over the next one to two decades).

Posted by friedrich braun on November 29, 2005, 10:38 PM | #

“I hope that Israel will not invite him. An extremist, fascist and racist party has no place in Israel,” Viviane Teitelbaum, a Jewish liberal member of the Brussels regional Parliament, said to EJP.

http://ejpress.org/article/news/western_europe/2776

Indeed, so what’s the Likud doing in Israel?

Posted by friedrich braun on November 29, 2005, 11:08 PM | #

Dr. Duke provides a good summary of Israeli politics.

The MAUP University System in Ukraine — Ukraine’s Largest University

Israel Demands End of Free Speech in Ukraine
Demands Ukraine Close Down its Largest University Unless it Teaches What the Jewish Extremists Want

The Union of Councils of Jews in the Former Soviet Union has revealed an effort to shut down Ukraine’s largest university for criticizing Jewish extremism and the state of Israel.

In one more example of unbridled chutzpah, the Israeli government and International Zionists have demanded that the largest and most respected university in Ukraine be prohibited from publishing or teaching points of view that are critical of Israel and Jewish extremism. In fact, Israel has demanded that the whole university be shut down if it dares to continue to expose Jewish extremism and the Israeli state.

Israel is, of course, a racial supremacist, apartheid state, led by extremists such as Ariel Sharon, a criminal who even the Israeli Kahane Commission found responsible for the massacre of over 1000 men, women and children at Sabre and Shatila in Lebanon. Israel limits immigration almost entirely to those of Jewish descent (religious or not), and forbids intermarriage of Jews and non-Jews. It does not even permit the marriage of its priest class, the Kohanim, to a person of the Jewish religion who has but a single drop of non-Jewish blood. It segregates non-Jews in housing, settlements, schools and whole villages and towns. It oppresses three million Palestinians on the West Bank and has many major religious and educational institutions that teach abject hatred and inferiority of all non-Jewish people, including Christians, Muslims, and especially the Palestinian and Arab people.

Stephen Steinlight, the recent head of the National Affairs department of the largest Jewish organization in America, the American Jewish Committee, wrote in a Jewish publication that he ”like typical Jewish kids of his generation… saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a foreign uniform,…taught that Israel was the true homeland.” He furthermore stated he was taught “the superiority of my people to the Gentiles…people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves.”

Jewish extremists have a vested interest in covering up these elements of Jewish supremacism from non-Jews, hence their efforts to suppress freedom of thought and speech of anyone who tells the truth about this dangerous phenomena.

Not too long ago, Israel demanded that Ukraine prevent the popular president of the MAUP university system, Georgy Schokin, from running as a candidate for Parliament. Ironically, at the same time Jewish Supremacists say that they are not trying to control other nations, they try to suppress the basic human right of free speech and free elections in countries other than their own!

Included below are excerpts from the article from the Jewish organization in Russia.

–david duke
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=462#more-462

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2005, 11:49 PM | #

Friedrich,

In saying to CS, “Who their leaders were, where they got the ideas from, how they succeeded in implanting those ideas at the forefront of liberalism, that seems to me to be quite a proper field of study for Jewry watchers” I was attempting to circumscribe fields of action, whereby those of more extreme political persuasions might clear the way politically for practical nationalists.  I guess you know that really.  So don’t take me wrong when I say that this is not the site for comments such as your last.  VNN on the other had ...

Posted by Paul on July 26, 2006, 08:09 AM | #

To call Geoff Beck paranoic is childish and proves the man’s stature.

Posted by Susan Purtee on November 23, 2008, 11:46 PM | #

Does anyone know what happened to Geoff Beck?  I have a radio show on Voice of Reason and would like to talk to him.  If anyone knows, please give him this note.  Thanks.
Susan Purtee
The Patriot Dames
http://www.VORnetwork.com