The Little Lexicon

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 24, 2006, 10:47 PM | #

Not in the vein you’ve established, but:

Psyops the occupation of media professionals.

Ashkenazic Jews non-semitic tribe of Central Asian origin who comprise 90% of Jewry

Last I heard the Ashkenazim were racially very close to other Levantine groups like Lebanese; do I have that wrongly?

conservatism the political expression of love of self, love of kind, love of country

If that’s conservatism, I qualify.  The interesting thing I’ve discovered about this (whatever you call it) is that it all amounts to self-love.  That’s it.  All else flows from that.  I am human.  I am Europid.  I am a descendant of European Christendom.  Simply being these things makes me “conservative” and a “WN.” It’s all an inevitable consequence of rejecting the rejection of who I am that is foisted upon all of us.  It’s simply choosing sanity (or rather, rejecting insanity).

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 24, 2006, 10:58 PM | #

The First Estate the media
The Second Estate big business
The Third Estate government

Posted by Top on September 25, 2006, 12:18 AM | #

Neoconservatism

A North American movement founded by ex-Trotsky followers that aims to be liberal in its domestic policies (good for the founders and their ethnic group) and that aims to channel and redirect repressed nationalistic feelings of North American whites into aggressive foreign policies (good for the founders and their ethnic group).

Posted by Jim Kalb on September 25, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

“war on terror popular belief among certain European peoples that Apache attack helicopters in Lashkargar will save them from what Moslems do in bed in Brussels and Bradford.”

That’s “Lashkargah” (literally, “place of soldiers"). Way back when they also called it “kuchnai Amrika” ("little America” in Pashto) because much of it was built by the Agency for International Development as a headquarters for the Helmand Valley irrigation project. It had a grid of broad streets and neighborhoods with more-or-less American-style houses where the expats lived (American, British, Filipino, the odd German or whatnot). Also lots of Afghans of course.

I spent a couple of years teaching high school algebra at a school maybe 40 miles south of there, on the river that separated the Dasht-e-Margo ("desert of death") from Registan ("country of sand"). Those were actually their names. You could go up to Lashkargah hitching a ride on a truck or whatever and stop in at the AID staff house, take a hot shower, and (depending on the time of day) get a burger and beer or omelette and coffee. I wonder what happened to Bertie the Uzbek counterman? Most of the teachers at my school are dead. I don’t know why he should be luckier but who knows.

The idea of Apache helicopters in Lashkargah is absolutely horrible. The Afghans have their problems, and they’ve certainly had lots of issues since I’ve been there, but why expect the US military to be a help sorting them out? The Bush administration literally expected the Iraqis to welcome them to Iraq. Everybody in the world wants to be just like the Americans, after all, so they’re sure to welcome the American army. If the Bush people are that clueless, what good are they going to do in Afghanistan of all places?

(Sorry for the irrelevance, but the reference brought back memories.)

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 25, 2006, 03:04 AM | #

Top-A perfect definition-Trosky was even anethma to Communists Elitism will be it’s own ultimate downfall.  I have a couple[which will probably be excised] Pin-head--member of the academic elite,who have never left their ivory towers,other than to rant against those whose blood is being spilt.Great at organizing protests and dissertations of non-relevant and obscure “studies”,and all the while maintaining their sense of superiority over the great unwashed.  Diversity-the situation brought upon us primarily by the “pin-heads"which has attempted to convince we,the great unwashed,that to believe other is a denial of that great,non-specific,right of “equality” Multiculturalism-The wondrous thought process{again instigated by aforementioned pin-heads],that those who shit in the hallway,kill their own kin for supposed affronts to family,and don’t know the workings of a toilet or refridgerator are are welcome additions to our society-ON OUR DIME!  Amnesty-that neat sounding word that appears to indicate forgiveness,but in reality means opening your house,job,neighborhood,and country to any who wish to share in your success,while you pick up any shortfalls on their behalf.  Islam/religion of peace--RATSHIT!

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 25, 2006, 03:16 AM | #

OUt of my obvious respect for the goat-fuckers of Islam,I should have said PIGSHIT!

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2006, 04:20 AM | #

Word sense disambiguation will deal quite well with all of these definitions.

A clue as to how paniced the “linguists” are at the prospect of real definitions and sense disambiguation arising from computer programs is given by this passage from the Wikipedia article on “word sense disambiguation”:

A computer cannot be expected to give better performance on such a task than a human (indeed, since the human serves as the standard, the computer being better than the human is incoherent), so the human performance serves as an upper bound.

The idea that “a human” is _by definition_ better at word sense disambiguation than a machine is just another semantic game humans play.

The threat of an objective disambiguation of the rhetoric of political correctness is driving a lot of crazy reactions to the advance of the science of computational linguistics and genuine artificial intelligence.

To such mentalities, not only is the truth no defense—it is the crime itself.

Posted by PCA on September 25, 2006, 04:48 AM | #

Main Entry: rac•ism
Pronunciation: ‘rA-"si-z&m-
Function: noun

1. Any person, despite skin color, religious beliefs, cultural background, political party affiliation, or sex, that oppose or protest against the mad suggestions of the ongoing dismantling of their own country and culture, in mass national suicide, endorsed by the political correct elite and their few followers, are racist.

People labeled as racist by their cultural elites are to be avoided, shunned and persecuted at all cost; great comfort should also be felt by any common people who take it upon themselves to persecute racists; as their acts will be held in high regard and their actions (eg assault or denial of employment) will be excused in their pursuit of this authorized noble cause.

Those common people that do not automatically show the expected pavlovian dog reaction are to be regarded as extremely suspect, as also racist.

Authorized Historical Analogies:- see witch trials/Stalinist anti-revolutionary trials.

Note also: Theoretically applies to all, but is generally only enforced against white, heterosexual, males who challenge the elite’s selective interpretation of cultural Marxism (who curiously are also overwhelmingly white).

Thesaurus: See Patriot

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 25, 2006, 04:53 AM | #

REPUBLIC-The basis for our country’s government-NOT A FUCKING “DEMOCRACY”,which was deplored by our founding fathers! ---Pin-heads, read Madison. Jefferson,Jay,Franklin,et.al.,-they ALL agreed it was the most insididous,self destructive form of embodiment of power that could be envisioned,where slaves, non- European immigrants,and Indians had the same decision making power as the land-holders,business owners,and Europeans.They even made various references to the demise of the Greek and Roman Empires for following the bread and circuses routine-e.g. welfare state,unfettered immigration,loss of common language,etc.Sound familiar?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 25, 2006, 05:07 AM | #

Bowery-I actually read all the ambiguities crap-and came to the conclusion that it was nothing more than a sophmoric attempt at a Masters thesis-innane and inconsequential.What’s your point??

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2006, 05:41 AM | #

Nick, to what exactly are you referring?  Provide a link.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 25, 2006, 08:54 AM | #

Social scientist: An anti-white, anti-male or heterophobe bigot, whose works is greatly respected (largely by those who aren’t white, male or heterosexual), it is said because he has been awarded a degree by others of his ilk. If, for whatever reason, a social scientist ever happens to come to a conclusion which is not anti-white, anti-male or heterophobe, etiquette suggests that scare quotes should be put around this description (if in writing) or an appropriately mocking and disbelieving tone be adopted if in speech.

Posted by Steve Edwards on September 25, 2006, 01:23 PM | #

Your litany is excellent, although I must protest about my IQ - the average of the two tests I have taken was in the low-130s.

PS - another word:

self-determination (n). Perfectly natural and laudable for all non-Europeans.

Best,

Steve

Posted by Steve Edwards on September 25, 2006, 01:27 PM | #

“popular belief among certain European peoples that Apache attack helicopters in Lashkargah will save them from what Moslems do in bed in Brussels and Bradford.”

Mark Steyn (n) - a dissembling shill for the “war on terror”.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2006, 02:27 PM | #

Steve,

In libbo terms you and the good prof from UNLV are outliers.  That, obviously, applies to IQ as well as political maturity.

All contributions gratefully received.  I’ll update the Lexicon accordingly this evening, GMT.

Posted by WJG on September 25, 2006, 03:10 PM | #

GW,

Excellent Lexicon.  A couple questions/comments.

1) Being a recovering conservative, I now hold the label in contempt so I would take exception to its definition.  Does conservatism have any value in the UK anymore?  In the US it is now completely under the thumb of the Yids.  Here is an alternate definition:

A political movement that plays a false opposition to liberalism; countering leftist excesses with more moderate variations.  It thereby serves to legitimize leftism by successfully implementing its schemes which otherwise the body would be more likely to reject outright.  The feminine role in the dialectical dance.

2) Patriot.  Anti blood and soil?  I still hold the term in high regard.  Maybe the connotations are affected by which side of the Atlantic you’re on.  To me it is a complimentary term to Nationalist rather than its antonym; one who acts decisively in defense of their cause.

Posted by Steve Edwards on September 25, 2006, 04:09 PM | #

Yes - I have long been a student of dialectics, and “conservatism” is simply the founding thesis, intended to be synthesised with the Leftist counter-thesis, at every turn of the dialectical projection. Conservatism is utterly worthless. I’m open to the argument that libertarianism is equally worthless, but I’m also yet to see a compelling rebuttal of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s systematic assault on statism (as opposed to the Randians idiotic attacks on...everything decent), including “national socialism”. So until then, I’ll stick with the absolutist principles of freedom association and private property as being the starting point of any western revival.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2006, 04:48 PM | #

WJG,

It’s an article of faith with me, I guess, that Conservatism has never been known in rebellious, forward-leaning, Enlightenment-ridden America - though Karlmagnus, who knows more about these things than I do, has corrected me on that in the recent past.  Still, I have encountered few Americans (Jim Kalb aside) who instinctively understand that Conservatism is not some sort of dynamic.  It does not proceed out of any fundamental dissatisfaction with the self.  It does not presume the perfectability of Man by external means.

We are so used to the idea that political parties, including the GOP or the British Tories, are there to facilitate progress towards freedom in some way, we lose sight of the fact that this is already liberalism.  To understand Conservatism in the sense that interests me, one must cease to look through the lens of progress and freedom.

Not that progress or freedom are missing from Conservatism but they are consequences, not great, primary goals.

Conservatism is built on the good of what we are - which, of course, includes our collective nature and interests.  This is a beautiful thing and, recognising that, Conservatism seeks first to entrench and then to express it.

There have been several articles and debates on this issue.  One is here and another here.

As for patriots, well ... self-hating, vinegar-weaned liberals aside, everyone is a patriot.  I view that stuff in more or less the same way as Lenin viewed religion.

It’s not the flag that counts for something.  It’s what’s in your veins and under your feet.  Patriotism is an obstruction to understanding that.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:00 PM | #

white privilege the battery of excuses given for turning whites into kulaks via legal, institutional, cultural, economic, and other means.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:05 PM | #

neoconservatism American jewish liberalism in conservative clothing; other than in matters of foreign policy it is indistinguishable from liberalism.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:08 PM | #

white flight Orwellian (victim-blaming) term for the ethnic cleansing of whites (hat tip to Bo Sears)

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:11 PM | #

genetic determinism Orwellian term for those who acknowldege the nature-nurture continuum, coined by environmental determinists (A.K.A. liberals)

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:19 PM | #

two-party system one-party system

egalitarianism social lever for white social climbers

limousine liberal the political class

conspiracy theory smear term for talk about the elephant in the parlor.

anti-semitic conspiracy theory something everyone at the highest levels of American politics must know about, but never mention.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:31 PM | #

majority (western/white) less-human mob that must always get the short end

Whoops.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 25, 2006, 05:36 PM | #

Conservatism is built on the good of what we are - which, of course, includes our collective nature and interests.  This is a beautiful thing and, recognising that, Conservatism seeks first to entrench and then to express it.

It is a beautiful thing.  It’s very natural, and wholesome, and good.  It resonates in the soul once you get it.

Posted by Daedalus on September 25, 2006, 10:16 PM | #

Conservatism is built on the good of what we are - which, of course, includes our collective nature and interests.  This is a beautiful thing and, recognising that, Conservatism seeks first to entrench and then to express it.

That’s communitarianism.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 25, 2006, 10:51 PM | #

Daedalus, I did say that Conservatism is unknown in America.

OK, I’ve fashioned some more definitions out of the suggestions above (Nick’s mostly beat me!).  If you can improve or add to my efforts, please go ahead.

Posted by James Bowery on September 25, 2006, 11:22 PM | #

I don’t know whether I was inadequately clear or whether Nick Tamiroff is particularly dim (calling Muslims “goat fuckers” does lend credence to this hypothesis) or both but just to make sure the point gets across:

What we’re attempting to do here is come up with operational definitions for words commonly used during verbal battles.  The operational definition of a word is the way it is actually used.  Humans have all sorts of cognitive machinery getting in the way of creating coherent lexicons of operationally defined words.  An intelligent computer doesn’t have that cognitive machinery getting in the way.  It will seek out the simplest lexical system adequately describing the speech acts it perceives.  Hence it will zero in on clear operational definitions of words and classify various uses of the words according to how best to make “sense” of the word given the context.

My suggestion is that the most powerful thing people can do to clarify language isn’t necessarily to come up with better operational definitions themselves—since such lexicons are subject to the criticism of bias—but rather to create objective criteria by which coherent lexicons can be created.  The goal is not to argue your opponent into the ground yourself but to create powerful automated agents that use best practices of speech to pursue epistemological coherence and hence clarify the debate without bias. 

Our motto should be:

“Rather than merely being victims of falsehood we can exploit the fact that we represent the truth.”

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 12:29 AM | #

That’s communitarianism.

But what happens when the ingroup chooses the double-standard - individualism within the group, and collectivism vis-a-vis outgroups?  European societies tend to be relatively very individualistic; communitarianism seems to eschew individualism, whereas ingroup morality need not.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 12:39 AM | #

reality-based community surrender-monkey term of self-identification

Posted by A. Windaus on September 26, 2006, 01:09 AM | #

This sounds like the Devils Dictionary (by Ambrose Bierce), here is my favourite (note that the reprint does not have this original section):

Jew:
1. a Semite; member of the Arabian races.
2. a matrilineal race characterized by habitual mutilation of the
male sex organ and an over fondness for banking.
3. the chosen people; chosen last and for the worst in all cases
to date.

Posted by Andy on September 26, 2006, 01:20 AM | #

conservatism the political expression of love of self, love of kind, love of country;

This is a very nice definition; succinct and yet elucidative. 

I believe that it’s important to state the converse as well: that leftism is the political expression of hatred of kind, of country, and ultimately of self.  Leftists are self-hating whites. 

Steve,

In libbo terms you and the good prof from UNLV are outliers.  That, obviously, applies to IQ as well as political maturity.

I would add Vox Day to that select group.  VD is the only worthwhile libertarian read on the internet in my opinion.  His main flaw is that he isn’t a “serious” writer.  He is similar to H.L. Mencken in spirit if not in rhetorical ability.  He sees the decline of the West and mocks the idiots and hypocrites responsible, but isn’t trying to save it. 

Conservatism is utterly worthless. I’m open to the argument that libertarianism is equally worthless, but I’m also yet to see a compelling rebuttal of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s systematic assault on statism

Hoppe argues in Democracy--The God That Failed that all libertarians must be conservatives as well.  He makes the important point that:

Modern Conservatism, in the United States and Europe, is confused and distorted.  This confusion is largely due to democracy.  Under the influence of representative democracy and with the transformation of the U.S. and Europe into mass democracies from World War I, conservatism was transformed from an antiegalitarian, aristocratic, antistatist ideological force into a movement of culturally conservative statists: the right wing of the socialists and social democrats.  pg 190

It’s this pre-democracy conservatism that we need a return to.  Conservatism like this would make libertarianism an anarchronism.  You’re definitely correct about private property rights and freedom of association.  It’s not enough, however. 

Mark Stein

Is your mispelling of “Steyn” deliberate?

genetic determinism Orwellian attempt to smear hereditarians with fanaticism by those who are themselves fanatical in their environmental determinism

I’m not sure if it’s “Orwellian” but it’s definitely a strawman.  I think “genetic determinism” functions more as a strawman than as an accusation of fanaticism, though there are elements of the latter in it as well. 

non-racist or environmental determinist

Wild-eyed fanatic who seeks to deny all racial and gender differences in order to prop up a tabula rasa worldview and justify endless social engineering projects.  Demonstrate a decided unwillingness to deal with objective reality instead of their subjective picture of what reality should be.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 01:31 AM | #

I’m not sure if it’s “Orwellian” but it’s definitely a strawman.  I think “genetic determinism” functions more as a strawman than as an accusation of fanaticism, though there are elements of the latter in it as well.

It’s Orwellian in the sense that it’s an inversion of reality; the determinists are the environmental determinists, who smear the nature-nurture “hereditarians” with the determinist label.

Posted by Count Dooku on September 26, 2006, 01:35 AM | #

I think this lexicon thing is a good idea. You should set aside a linked webpage and allow multiple entries for the same word if you have enough witty or clever responses to match.

Posted by A. Windaus on September 26, 2006, 01:35 AM | #

A possible extention / addition of the previous entries?

European: The peoples of Europe who tried to bring civilisation to the New World savages, but failed miserably. Now viewed as synonymous with the word ‘racist’ due to said peoples claiming victim status in the new liberal weltanschauung.

Immivasion: The immigrant invasion, whether legal or illegal, sponsored or supported by current sellout liberal governments.

BTW, is there a typo in ‘cognitive eltism’, should that not be ‘elitism’?

Posted by A. Windaus on September 26, 2006, 01:50 AM | #

More stochastic thoughts for today:

Traditionalist:
1. A person who realises that society in general is going downhill quickly and wishes a return to a better time.
2. A person who believes that society was great as it was in his or her past and had no need for improvement.

Posted by Andy on September 26, 2006, 02:02 AM | #

It’s Orwellian in the sense that it’s an inversion of reality; the determinists are the environmental determinists, who smear the nature-nurture “hereditarians” with the determinist label.

Could it perhaps be the case that environmental determinists are incapable of comprehending the environment/genetics continuum that you spoke of in an earlier post? Could they actually believe that it has to be all or nothing on one side or the other? Could this be the thought process behind the “genetic determinism” claim? Are they less sinister then they are stupid?

Posted by Andy on September 26, 2006, 02:05 AM | #

I meant to type “less sinister *than* they are stupid”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 26, 2006, 02:06 AM | #

“Change,” as in “Change is part of life, change is growth, change is inevitable, we must all welcome and learn to accept change”: 

Each step whether gradual or abrupt whereby are advanced the twin agendas of replacing normalness with degenerateness and race-replacing the European peoples with non-white Third-Worlders.  Only changes that go in those two directions or generally in the direction of increased meaninglessness (i.e., increasing entropy) are “change.” Ones going in the opposite direction (back toward meaning and normalness) are fascism, racism, hate, and turning the clock back to the dark ages.
______

“Strong women,” as in “You only oppose Hillary for president because you’re afraid of strong women”: 

Women who support a radical left-wing social/political agenda.  Thus Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Flannery O’Connor, Lady Margaret Thatcher, Bryanna Bevens, Brenda Walker, Queen Elizabeth I, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta — all strong women by any standard — are not “strong women.”

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 03:11 AM | #

Could it perhaps be the case that environmental determinists are incapable of comprehending the environment/genetics continuum that you spoke of in an earlier post? Could they actually believe that it has to be all or nothing on one side or the other? Could this be the thought process behind the “genetic determinism” claim? Are they less sinister then they are stupid?

One of the biggest things I’ve had hammered home the more I learn is that there’s rarely any one unifying principle at this level when it comes to humans.  This is especially so with leftists, imo.

Yes, people have a tendency to grasp for unifying principles, and yes the propagation of radical environmentalism exploited this, but no that doesn’t explain it.  There are various explanations but if you must have one, media indoctrination serves.

And yes, they’re far more stupid than sinister.  They have their marching orders and follow them, is all.

Posted by Matra on September 26, 2006, 04:43 AM | #

[patriot person who does not comprehend the relationship between blood and soil]

I don’t like giving up on a word coming from patrios (of one’s fathers) pater and patris. It seems perfect for those of us who put blood first. Of course, I can’t imagine an NFL team called the New England Nationalists.

nation: just a collection of people living under the same government

libertarian: a capitalist trying to be hip

Posted by Count Dooku on September 26, 2006, 04:50 AM | #

“racist” Someone winning an arugment with a liberal. - Peter Brimelow

Posted by Marc on September 26, 2006, 05:01 AM | #

I believe that it’s important to state the converse as well: that leftism is the political expression of hatred of kind, of country, and ultimately of self.  Leftists are self-hating whites.

Some are.  But some are just lazy sorts who use leftism as a quick way of distinguishing themselves from the masses.  They don’t hate themselves, they hate other whites and think very highly of themselves. 

This is arrogance, which poisons the soul, as opposed to pride, which nurtures it.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 26, 2006, 08:15 AM | #

nation: What we are all living in. We aren’t a nation ourselves, most certainly not. We just happen to, quite by accident, live in one. Whilst living in one, we must do everything in our power to make it as multicultural, multiracial, etc as possible. Even though we don’t actually own it, which makes us rather bad tenants.

homosexuality: A private sexual orientation, which requires very public and ostentatious parades and marches. These, even though they might well come under the heading of gross obscenity, are nonetheless completely private.

These might be a bit too wordy for the lexicon. If so, don’t bother adding them.

JB,

Can you actually program a computer so that it understands human debate? I would have thought that reducing even the driest bit of policy wonkery, never mind arguments about the place of race and other such emotive questions, to symbolic logic would be very difficult. If you don’t plan to do that, how precisely are you going to get the computer to understand just what the context in which any word is used is.

Posted by Daedalus on September 26, 2006, 08:20 AM | #

Hoppe argues in Democracy--The God That Failed that all libertarians must be conservatives as well.  He makes the important point that:

Libertarianism, the purest form of liberalism, implies conservatism? LOL, seriously.

Posted by Daedalus on September 26, 2006, 08:53 AM | #

Daedalus, I did say that Conservatism is unknown in America. OK, I’ve fashioned some more definitions out of the suggestions above (Nick’s mostly beat me!).  If you can improve or add to my efforts, please go ahead.

The term “conservatism” in the sense you are using it is “communitarianism” in America. Similarly, “conservatism” in its American sense is actually “neoliberalism.” Some essays by the late Christopher Lasch here:

http://thor.clark.edu/sengland/previous%20features/a_dialogue_with_christopher_lasc.htm

Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2006, 10:09 AM | #

Daedalus,

Thank you for the link to Lasch’s writings.  I did not know of him.  He was an interesting man and very often right in what he wrote.  I see that he died in 1994 at no great age.  One can only wonder what he would have made of the present “conservative” in the Oval Office.

But he doesn’t say what, in my view, has to be said about America, and that’s that it is wholly a nation of cultural amputees feeling in the dark for the authenticity of ethnos and finding, inevitably, only the void of demos.  Thus communitarianism has about it the unmistakable hallmarks of a dynamic search for identity and meaning.  It is predicated not on our natures but on a particular narrative of Man as a social being.

Perhaps that would be a better way forward than liberalism.  But it isn’t out of the deep political tradition - 520 years - that I am trying to portray.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 26, 2006, 11:05 AM | #

“America:  a nation of cultural amputees feeling in the dark for the authenticity of ethnos and finding, inevitably, only the void of demos.”

Posted by Andy on September 26, 2006, 11:41 AM | #

Libertarianism, the purest form of liberalism, implies conservatism? LOL, seriously.

Seriously, bro.  Note that I didn’t say that libertarianism implies conservatism.  He argues that libertarians must be conservative becase left-libertarianism is worthless.  Hoppe is talking about a fusion of social conservatism with antistatism. 

And that is totally serious, LOL.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2006, 11:47 AM | #

No, Fred, that is not one for the Lexicon.  It would be too arrogant of an Englishman to insist upon such a harsh and judgemental definition of his own people across the pond.

The point remains, in any case, that European people anywhere in this world can step back into their own natures and make politics from there.  Except that the liberal way of thinking has got us all by the balls we could do it tomorrow morning.

Posted by Daedalus on September 26, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

But he doesn’t say what, in my view, has to be said about America, and that’s that it is wholly a nation of cultural amputees feeling in the dark for the authenticity of ethnos and finding, inevitably, only the void of demos.

This hasn’t always been the case. Americans had a strong sense of ethnic identity until quite recently, especially in regions of the country less affected by European immigration. There has always been a tradition of civic nationalism, but it coexisted with an equally important tradition of ethnic nationalism until the mid-twentieth century, and American history reflects that. As Buchanan pointed out recently in his new book, this deeper tradition of ethnic nationalism was clearly on display in the American Civil War. In that case, a sworn commitment to a piece of paper wasn’t enough to keep Robert E. Lee or the Upper South loyal to the Union. In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln appealed beyond the Constitution to this same tradition of ethnic nationalism.

The tension between these two forms of nationalism was described by Gunnar Myrdal in his book The American Dilemma. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, was hardly a liberal organization, nor was the racial caste system of Jim Crow a particularly liberal way of treating one’s fellow citizens. “Freedom” in the American sense of the word found its meaning in the absence of freedom of American nonwhites. Many historians have pointed out in recent years that black slavery and Indian removal was the flip side of white liberty. The Immigration Act of 1924 which established the national quota system, geared to the census of 1890, was explicitly designed to preserve the ethnic character of America. The various nativist movements of the 1840s and 1920s appealed to it as well. The South chose white supremacy over liberalism until well into the 1960s. Resistance to integration in the South was awash with explicitly ethnic themes such as the ubiquitous use of the Confederate flag in the massive resistance movement.

The U.S. was also founded as a republic, not as a liberal democracy. Indeed, the Founders themselves said little about liberalism, and the majority of them were harshly critical of democracy. Insofar as they referred to democracy, it was in the abstract sense of discussions of political theory; as one system of government alongside monarchy. The Federalists like Adams and Hamilton were bitter critics of democracy. Even after their demise and the triumph of Jackson, democracy was only one aspect of the American identity. The great democrat Andrew Jackson was famous above all else as a slayer of Indians. Ol’Hickory would later systematically cleanse American Indians from the Southeast during his presidency.

The modern liberal looks back at American history and sees one horror after another. Extermination of the Indians. Slavery. Jim Crow. Naked imperialism. Women in the home. If commitment to liberalism is our yardstick, then our ancestors certainly have much to answer for. American history only really begins to make sense when you realize that we haven’t always been so committed to liberalism.

Indeed, it was Great Britain, not the United States, that was the great apostle of liberalism during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Britain was greatest promoter of free trade. Ricardo and Smith founded liberal economics. John Stuart Mill founded modern liberal political theory. The U.S. clung to neo-mercantalism for much of this period and was denounced as a backward, reactionary state by the liberals of Europe. The U.S. was also denounced for its failure to abolish slavery on European timetables.

It wasn’t until the New Deal that Americans embraced “liberalism” in any sense of the word. Under FDR, America dramatically lowered its trade barriers to foreign commerce. As it became harder to criticize capitalism during the Cold War, liberals turned their attention away from economic reform to social crusades that expanded the boundries of freedom in the 60s and 70s.

This “void of demos” you describe reflects not only America at the beginning of the twenty-first century, but Canada and much of Europe as well. It goes back to the radical movements of the sixties and ultimately to the reaction of Western elites to the Second World War. During the fifties and sixties, the American national identity was stripped down to liberalism. Samuel P. Huntington and Eric Kaufmann have written about this in some detail.

http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/nation/kaufmann.pdf

“The United States has often been viewed by ethnicity and nationalism scholars as the quintessential civic nation historically defined by its commitment to eighteenth century liberal ideology. This paper takes issue with such a perspective. Instead, the United States, for nearly its entire existence, is shown to be an ethnic nation characterized by non-conformist Protestantism and pre-Norman, Anglo-Saxon genealogy. This self-styled “American” ethnie sought to reshape the nation in its own image and saw its destiny in Purtian, millennial terms. Faced with large inflows of non-British immigrants, the “Americans” employed techniques of Anglo-conformity in an attempt to transform the newcomers into “WASPs.” When this process was viewed as inadequate, movements of cultural nationalism and immigration restriction developed which resulted in the institution of a set of boundry-defining practices that began in the 1920s and continued into the 1960s. Developments in the “West” have since ushered in an era of liberal civic nationhood in which the U.S. has participated. In this manner, America’s shift from ethnic to civic nationalism is not exceptional, but instead reflects a broader value shift in Western culture.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 26, 2006, 02:44 PM | #

“The United States has often been viewed by ethnicity and nationalism scholars as the quintessential civic nation historically defined by its commitment to eighteenth century liberal ideology. This paper takes issue with such a perspective. Instead, the United States, for nearly its entire existence, is shown to be an ethnic nation characterized by non-conformist Protestantism and pre-Norman, Anglo-Saxon genealogy. This self-styled “American” ethnie sought to reshape the nation in its own image and saw its destiny in Purtian, millennial terms. Faced with large inflows of non-British immigrants, the “Americans” employed techniques of Anglo-conformity in an attempt to transform the newcomers into “WASPs.” When this process was viewed as inadequate, movements of cultural nationalism and immigration restriction developed which resulted in the institution of a set of boundry-defining practices that began in the 1920s and continued into the 1960s. Developments in the “West” have since ushered in an era of liberal civic nationhood in which the U.S. has participated. In this manner, America’s shift from ethnic to civic nationalism is not exceptional, but instead reflects a broader value shift in Western culture. “

Substitute “Rome” for the United States and America,change the dates,and you have a brief of “The Downfall of the Roman Empire” Pin-heads are amazing!!

Posted by gwood on September 26, 2006, 04:44 PM | #

“Terrorism:” Deliberately blowing up civilians for political ends.  What those cowardly Muslim scum do.

“Strategic Bombing:” Deliberately blowing up civilians for political ends.  What our heroic bomber pilots do.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 04:51 PM | #

disparate impact the (mistaken) assumption of equality in action

politics any of a myriad of substitutes for right-mindedness

racial nationalism therapeutic term for right-mindedness

white supremacy crazy-talk for right-mindedness in Europeans

paternalism feminist crazy-talk for right-mindedness (c.f. sexist, imperialist)

color-blind blind to European interests and problems

Posted by James Bowery on September 26, 2006, 05:26 PM | #

Alex Zeka wrote: Can you actually program a computer so that it understands human debate?  I would have thought that reducing even the driest bit of policy wonkery, never mind arguments about the place of race and other such emotive questions, to symbolic logic would be very difficult. If you don’t plan to do that, how precisely are you going to get the computer to understand just what the context in which any word is used is.

See my comment (also responding to you) on algorithmic information theory.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 26, 2006, 05:43 PM | #

English – nascent multiculturalists, proselytes of the exotic; analogous, equivalent, resemblant

English Canada – anglophiles

French Canada - anglophobes

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 06:16 PM | #

equal rights equal outcomes; a mandate for authoritarianism

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 26, 2006, 06:17 PM | #

gwood-I I stand by my “goat-fuckers"description of Muslims,as I do my previously described niglets fucking monkeys in Africa-I have PERSONALLY witnessed both. Your strategic bombing definition should remind all of the Dresden bombings,which had absolutely NO strategic value,but was by and in it’s self a terroristic act by the Allies,all because Churchills’little cottage in Coventry was hit by a V-1.Only losers are “war criminals”,and we better not lose this perspective;this hopefully ‘Last Crusade”.Turn the entire region of sand into a radio-active sheet of glass{Jews included},and we will have also saved the world from “Global Warming”,by having a large reflector to decrease adsorbation of heat from the increasing radiation from the sun [BTW- even Mars is getting hotter] WTF did carbon dioxide have to do with that? Come on,pin-heads;I’m sure you have “studies”,or reference materiel by other pin-heads which will refute the obvious. BTW,I miss JJR,which has led to more work for GW,and relieved us of the infantile O H immler.Cheers!!  Oh,and Semper Fi !

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 06:47 PM | #

correlation vs. causation short for “correlation is not causation,” common equalitarian ostrich-tactic intended to circumvent Occam’s Razor and Common Sense.

cognitive dissonance what equalitarians experience at the hands of realists.

Posted by James Bowery on September 26, 2006, 06:58 PM | #

Characterizing Muslims as “goat-fuckers” or Africans as “monkey-fuckers” so poorly characterizes those groups that it lends credence to the crap ideology that group chacterizations per se are themselves crap.  The “personally witnessed” criteria is anecdotal and although you are entitled to your opinions based on personal experience, you had best not expect the rest of us to go along with you on that basis.

Moreover, dreaming of a sheet of glass where middle eastern peoples now reside is a rather self-destructive perspective.  In particular Jews in the middle east are at least attempting to build a nation and thereby possibly demonstrate their character as a people rather than merely as a parasite of other nations.  I’m an Oslo Accord Zionist for that reason. 

The solution to the middle eastern problem isn’t some sort of nuclear sterilization program but rather the same solution to the rest of the human drama globally:  Self-determination upon agriculturally sufficient lands leading to demonstration of what human ecologies work and what human ecologies don’t work.

I’m confident enough in my own people, given the moral equivalent of Zionism and Palestinian self-determination for us, to be happy for the creation of both a Jewish and Palestinian state—“OVER THERE”.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 26, 2006, 07:29 PM | #

Characterizing Muslims as “goat-fuckers” or Africans as “monkey-fuckers” so poorly characterizes those groups that it lends credence to the crap ideology that group chacterizations per se are themselves crap.  The “personally witnessed” criteria is anecdotal and although you are entitled to your opinions based on personal experience, you had best not expect the rest of us to go along with you on that basis.

Aren’t Scots referred to as “sheep fuckers” in some quarters?  If a Scot ever fucked a sheep (little doubt there), does that mean we refer to Scots as “sheep fuckers”?

Posted by Nick T on September 26, 2006, 08:07 PM | #

Bowery-you are one prime example of an ëgaletarian-you havn’t been there,nor has your “professor,who fed shit to you ala KOMBAYA .Africa in now in a stage of total disrepair,because of “Independance”.Zimbabwe{Rhodesia} and S.Africa,which were once the source of all agricultural activity[and net exporters],are now starving under BLACK rule,and in the case of Zimbawe,blame a single monkey for the shut down of a fertilizer plant.BTW-I actually have a photo of a niglet fucking a tied-up monkey-I’ll be glad to send it to you.along with photos of niggers washing off in camel and cow urine,smearing cow-shit on their head to kill lice,hanging rocks to their dicks to elonglate them,and trying to fuck a cow.  You need to get out into the real world,son. Until then-Semper Fi! BTW-Just who the hell are “your own people"-You’re definitely not American.

Posted by Voice on September 26, 2006, 09:03 PM | #

Nick T.

Your last post was fricking hilarious...I am saving that one

BTW, did you say you served in the forces in Sub-Saharan Africa?  I think you should either start a blog detailing your experiences or potentially write a book.

In your words, I am being completely honest “not some snot nosed pussy who wouldn’t know his ass from his elbow attempting to be a cutesy sarcastic a-hole!” How did I do?

Posted by James Bowery on September 26, 2006, 09:30 PM | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich Aren’t Scots referred to as “sheep fuckers” in some quarters?

Of course.  In fact, any group that identifies with cities over the production of food for the cities is referred to similarly by those dependent on the sources of food.  It is mainly a way of messing with the accounting.  “You fuck your animals so we get to fuck your girls.”

If a Scot ever fucked a sheep (little doubt there), does that mean we refer to Scots as “sheep fuckers”?

That depends on who the “we” you refer to are.

Posted by James Bowery on September 26, 2006, 09:36 PM | #

Erratum:  The roles of referrer and refered should be reversed in the above.

Posted by Nick T on September 26, 2006, 10:01 PM | #

Voice-not bad,and believe it or not,I don’t take offence.Yes-I merced in Angola,got the tail end of the Biafran conflict,worked as a civilian in Sudan,Nigeria,Uganda,S.Africa,Rhodesia,with short stays in several other African countries.During that time,the White man was god,and unless in a combat situation,never worried about my welfare[60’s-early 70’s].Yeah,I’m an old fuck,but still remember when Whites controlled the game.The pin-head pussies have renlinquished THAT ADVANTAGE-let their kids pay the price. Semper Fi!

Posted by Voice on September 26, 2006, 10:48 PM | #

thanks Nick

I would have loved to see the days of the normal natural order in Africa.  People don’t realize how cowardly these fk;ers are without the media making them out to be macho men.  Pack animals thats all they are..

My brother was a Marine in the infantry, btw, but he didn’t serve in wartime.  I don’t want to see the draft but with all the snot nosed pussies running around I think national service(with boot camp!) would be a good idea.

Part of the problem, if the kid is lazy at school or doesn’t push himself in the athletic arena then they have never challenged themselves their whole worthless lives.

No wonder they end up sucking their momma’s titty(wife).  Hey, I just may start to enjoy this talk.

Yes. You bet your ass I have an authoritarian personality.  lol

Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2006, 10:51 PM | #

OK, that’s it for the night.  No more additions, corrections til tomorrow - though it may be that Bluehost will finally do the work on the blog that has been ordered, in which case it’s bye-bye for some hours, I’m afraid.

Anyhow, the Lexicon is making strong progress.  There are still some corrections to be thrashed out in due course, and some suggested additions I can’t quite get my poor head around just now.

But keep them coming.

Posted by Daedalus on September 27, 2006, 02:32 AM | #

Characterizing Muslims as “goat-fuckers” or Africans as “monkey-fuckers” so poorly characterizes those groups that it lends credence to the crap ideology that group chacterizations per se are themselves crap.

True story. During the sixteenth century, when the English first encountered blacks in West Africa, they also simultaneously discovered the chimpanzee and orangutan as well. The presence of dark skinned humans living amongst so many monkeys led the English to speculate that Negroes were the offspring of humans who had been raped by orangutans in the tropics. They believed this for many, many years right down until the mid-seventeenth century when dissections revealed that Negroes and the great apes were related, but where different species.

Posted by James Bowery on September 27, 2006, 03:00 AM | #

The bottom line about this supremacist crap is that Europeans, particularly northern Europeans, don’t have the stomach for it the way other cultures do.  This is not a weakness but a strength.  Slave societies are lousey at technical innovation and therefore eventually lose out to societies whose members are more self-sufficient.  Bottom line:  machines make much better slaves than people.

Thinking that Europeans can sustainably play the dominance games played by Africans or middle Easterners is so stupid “hubris” doesn’t begin to describe the resulting abyss.

Just look at what is happening to the USA due to the importation of Africans and quasi-slaves from Latin America, not to mention the European homelands from their colonies in southern Asia and Africa.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 03:01 AM | #

Orangutans have never been indigeonous to the African continent-only Borneo and Sumatra/Indonesia. Just as Lemurs are incidental to Madagascar while only 120 miles away from the African continent.Back in the ancient days we learned this stuff in the 6th grade-but then we had teachers,not unionized pin-heads.LOL

Posted by Al Ross on September 27, 2006, 03:30 AM | #

Liberal supporters of affirmative action are de facto White supremacists as the misguided and hate-based social engineering nonsense is premised upon perceived White superiority. Of course, when liberals claim that because Blacks comprise about 12% of the US population they should be numerically represented pro rata in universities, the bleeding-hearts conveniently ignore this rule-of-thumb when it is applied to Jews (2.5%).

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 03:58 AM | #

Bowery-At times your thought processes elude me-or I am totally dense.At times you make good sense,but two days later are self-contridiçting.Is this a ploy to elicit controversy,or just the ramblings of a sophmoric wannabe pin-head?  I,personally,would like to see self-proclaimed bios,including ages,experiences,and education of all posting--JJR never kept his bio in secret--He,as I,"Iyam who I yam” Would that all be so forthcoming,or am I intruding on your rights? Well ,let me tell you something partner,the fourth admendment stipulates the right of the accused to face their accuser--in other words-just who the fuck are you,and just what are your credentials,if any??  BTW,since I can’t piss off OH ,I might as well pick up on you. LOL

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 27, 2006, 04:37 AM | #

The kicker is James, for the evil empire, the supremacy was/is broader than race.

In October 1865, a local rebellion by peasantry in Jamaica was put down with the utmost ferocity by the island’s governor Edward John Eyre. Eyre’s actions generated considerable debate in Britain. Most of those who defended his viciousness did so on the grounds, not that Jamaicans were black, but that they were no different from English workers. ‘The negro’, observed Edwin Hood, ‘is in Jamaica as the costermonger [seller of fruits and sundry items from a barrow] is in Whitechapel; he is very likely often nearly a savage with the mind of a child.’

The point that Nick does not get [why would any self-respecting whiteman have a picture of anybody fucking a monkey?] is that “they” consider him to be no different than the monkey fuckers.

In other words Nick, “they” consider you to be nothing more than a nigger in a white coat. Who gives a shit whether the white was or was not supreme in Africa? The issue is survival in your homeland. Jim Crow or apartheid was not about about the white man being God, it was about social control. Immigration restriction was not about Nordic supremacy it was about the survival of the values of the people who founded the nation.

Ready Aye Ready

Posted by Al Ross on September 27, 2006, 05:55 AM | #

Perhaps, Desmond, the costermongers deserved symapthy rather than aristocratic scorn. As this link shows, the London market in which they operated was “entirely in the hands of the Jews”.

http://www.jeffreymaynard.com/Mayhew.htm

Nick, you really would be better off losing the chips on both shoulders regarding those who demonstrate an intellect-based approach to our race’s difficulties. However,I admit would like to have heard you in full flight at one of your Mensa meetings if you were faced with the inevitable liberal genius.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 27, 2006, 06:17 AM | #

Interesting article Al, however, it contradicts the position that the market was dominated by Jews.

Concerning the street trades pursued by the Jews, I believe that there is not at present a single one of which they can be said to have a monopoly; nor in any one branch of the street-traffic are there so many of the Jew traders as there were a few years back.

This remarkable change is thus to be accounted for. Strange as the fact may appear, the Jew has been undersold in the streets, and he has been beaten on what might be called his own ground - the buying of old clothes. The Jew boys, and the feebler and elder Jews, had, until some twelve or fifteen years back, almost the monopoly of orange and lemon street-selling, or street-hawking.

[...]

In the whole of these trades, unless in some degree in sponges and blacklead-pencils, the Jew is now out-numbered or displaced.

Posted by Al Ross on September 27, 2006, 06:30 AM | #

Desmond, my understanding was that the costermongers, as retailers, had no choice but to buy their stock from a wholesale trade controlled “entirely by Jews”.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 27, 2006, 07:57 AM | #

When I was fourteen I had a summer job working on Bernard Gilmour’s fruit stall in Bolton market.  The local big man was a guy named Lol Hurt.  Everybody knew to keep on the right side of Lol.  He was a flashy bloke, jet-black hair, smart suit - drove around in a vast, lilac-coloured Mk.10 Jag which I came perilously close to denting one day with my hand-cart.  But nobody told me he was Jew.

I met one old guy who, like me, was a Londoner.  He’d been in the fruit trade all his life, most of which he had worked at Covent Garden, of course.  For some unaccountable reason the only one of his tales I remember him telling me was about the Soho strippers who would call in at the Market tea stalls on their way home in the small hours.  They’d take their clothes off out of warm-heartedness for the lads, and the whole place would come to a stop.

But I don’t think they were Jewish either.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 27, 2006, 08:16 AM | #

Interestingly enough, if we juxtapose the two characterisations made by Nick so as to get ‘Africans are goat-fuckers’, and moreover qualify that to just South Africans, we will get a statement that is correct and factually verified. It is, apparently, considered by the peasant population to be a cure for AIDS in that part of the world. Just to prove once again that anyone is smarter than a bureaucrat, the Pres. is even more backward, not even yet acknowledging that AIDS exists.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 27, 2006, 08:17 AM | #

Oh, and thanks for the explanation, James. Can’t say I understand yet, but I’m working on it.

Posted by wjg on September 27, 2006, 04:01 PM | #

JJR revealing his personal information was clearly possible because he had made it clear that he serves the master that most of the rest of us choose to defy.

Being an anonymous patriot (ignoring GW’s definition for now) is much more important than a public sycophant.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 27, 2006, 04:25 PM | #

OK, wjg, I’ve amended it to accomodate all points of view.  Maybe.

Posted by James Bowery on September 27, 2006, 06:25 PM | #

Nick Tamiroff wrote:  I,personally,would like to see self-proclaimed bios,including ages,experiences,and education of all posting--JJR never kept his bio in secret--He,as I,"Iyam who I yam” Would that all be so forthcoming,or am I intruding on your rights? Well ,let me tell you something partner,the fourth admendment stipulates the right of the accused to face their accuser--in other words-just who the fuck are you,and just what are your credentials,if any??  BTW,since I can’t piss off OH ,I might as well pick up on you. LOL

Good grief are you dense!

Just google for “Jim Bowery” or “James Bowery”.  If you want to go back over 15 years you can go to google groups and do the same to get my usenet posts.

I’m one of the least anonymous personages you’ll ever find who dares “name the Jew” and who isn’t a professional white nationalist.

And, no, I don’t agree with you that others should be forthcoming with their identities.  Those of us who aren’t protected by tenure, pension or enough wealth that we can afford to retain our own legal staff are vulnerable to the same kind of professional damage I’ve suffered.  My choice to be open about my identity may not have been wise although I did have my reasons for pursuing openness.

One thing I will definitely go along with: 

Those who want to snipe at others who are not anonymous should not feel ethically righteous.

So, just who the hell are you Nick Tamiroff?  All of your google hits turn up within this blog and you provide no links to personal information with your moniker.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 07:07 PM | #

JWB-In your instance,I’m guilty as charged,and I apologise.You have earned the right to wear pants,and state your position.I should have Googled your name before I treated you like a sophmoric wannabe.If you want my personal CV ,Iwill gladly present it to you-DY has my permission to give you my E-mail address.Most of my life has been out of the public,for various reasons[none nefarious],but at 67,what the hell can they do to me?Again,I’m sorry for any personal affront,and hope we can patch our rhetoric. Again,I apologise-N Tamiroff

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 27, 2006, 07:15 PM | #

James, my questions about Scots were rhetorical and meant to bolster your point about anecdotes.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 27, 2006, 07:19 PM | #

gay rights euphemism for homosexualism (homosexuality-as-politics)

Posted by Guessedworker on September 27, 2006, 07:19 PM | #

James,

Nick has described his history at length and gone so far as to leave details here about himself that I have felt compelled to delete once because I and another feared for his safety ... only to find they re-appeared in his next comment.  There is no doubt that he is brave, foolish or sincere enough to expose himself to enemy fire - perhaps all three.

Anyhow, I’m calling a truce here because, personally, I would rather read something productive than this.

You are right about anonymity, though.  There is no virtue in attacking it.  There are people associated with this blog who have paid a price in the past that the attackers have not paid - nor, probably, ever will.  One day it will all be over and these guys can walk in the sunlight again.  But until that day the open ones would do well not to congratulate themselves too much.

Posted by Boris on September 27, 2006, 07:47 PM | #

LA RECONQUISTA: No explanation needed.
AGE OF AQUARIUS: When men stoped being men. All forms of masculinity and galantry are to be shun and replaced with understanding and sensitivity. In other words be less a man and more a women.
BTW Nick I missed you in Angola, but Ethiopia was a blast.
I’m glad to see you patch up with James, I like you both, but a little fight now and then is fine if it leads to results.

Posted by wjg on September 27, 2006, 08:00 PM | #

Nick,

Who you take on makes quite a difference as to your danger in being public or private with your identity.  Those who take on 3rd Worlders are to be commended but they are fodder and superfluous to the real fight; the fight for soul of the White Race and the control of our future.

When one takes on the enemy who has the power to ruin, imprison, if not kill a man is when him being public is most laudatory.  That enemy finds it useful for us to rage against the blacks and Muslims it has loosed on us.  These are more potential killing fields for white cattle just like Korea, Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Whites die for nothing useful, 3rd Worlders hate us, and God’s Chosen are there to “fix” the resulting chaos.

Posted by James Bowery on September 27, 2006, 08:12 PM | #

Very well.  However, the issue of separatism vs supremacism is central and cannot be swept under the rug.  If someone with my history of “anti-Semitism” can side with the Oslo Accord Zionists within that debate it should be clear how central it really is.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 08:15 PM | #

Boris-I was in Ethopia when Wheelis was being dismanteled as an intel site,and again in Cyprus,when we thermited equipment bays on the way out-many co-workers lost cars,personal possessions,etc.,all in an area the State Department declared “family safe”.Most of us “rats’used to use Bankok as home base,at a little rest- house on Soi 13,just off Sumpervit,and only two miles from pat pong[halve a mile from cowboy street].Ah,Those were the days-----

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 08:30 PM | #

wjg-my basic problem with a lot of posters on this site is the base anti-semitism-which I find no rational for.I may not want my daughter to marry one,but would gladly give him YOUR gun,as he is probably more adept at self-preservation.Like it or not-the Jews are our pit-bulls in the mid-east.Our money is better spent for Israli arms than condoms for African Niggers.

Posted by wjg on September 27, 2006, 08:36 PM | #

James,

I read that article on wikipedia and it seems fairly balanced.  I’m amazed it has not been censored to say that white anything (Separatism, Supremacism, Nationalism,etc.) is evil, EEEEEVILLLL.  We all know what anti-semitism is: being against (anti) anything - even our own genocide - that Jewry (Semites, or so they say) wants.

BTW, I’m definitely a separatist.  Daedalus and I had a discussion at his blog on this subject.  I oppose Supremacy because, ironically, it is good for the 3rd World and bad for us.  Like you, I support a Jewish homeland.  I just despise their hypocrisy in trying to deny us the same right to exist in land of our own.

Supremacism and Separatism need to be added to the Lexicon.

Posted by Boris on September 27, 2006, 08:37 PM | #

“In particular Jews in the middle east are at least attempting to build a nation and thereby possibly demonstrate their character as a people rather than merely as a parasite of other nations”
Wow, I can’t believe this. Because of the guilt imposed by Jews on Germans they get latest submarimes at a discount. See if any other nation can do that. They also thought of imparting the same feeling on France but it didn’t last long before the French said enough. Then they cleverly latched on the USA even though some religious pamphlets to this day describe the US as just another power who’s turning their backs on the poor Jews. Everybody wants the Jews dead, according to this pamphlet. See, it’s not enough that privately Jews hold inmense fortunes, they also need the US to provide aditional funding to a first world nation(are they?) The kicker is that this ‘loans’ are never collected, so if I’m a US taxpayer I see something wrong with the above statement.
The pamphlet I mention above only provides an address and telephone number.
Shema Israel
Messianic Jewish Congregation
Published by:
Chick Publications
P.O. Box 3500
Ontario, CA 91761-1019

Posted by wjg on September 27, 2006, 08:55 PM | #

Nick,

If Mordecai sold the gun you gave him to Jamaal and Jamaal used it to harm you who would you blame?  The savage who did what should be expected of a savage or the cultured, respectable, above-reproach member of God’s Chosen Race?

Your analogy of giving him the gun is apt.  We have given him the keys to our city and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

Thinking Israel is “our” friend begs the question of who are “we”.  Israel IS an ally of the regime running the US government - and I’m not referring to the current puppet who sits in the Oval Office.  Without the Occupation Government of the US transferring vast amounts of White wealth to Israel it would have long ceased to exist.  So when they help “us” (e.g. Desert Storm), the “us” sure as heck ain’t White folks but our masters.

3rd Worlders afflicting us are merely a symptom of a much more serious spiritual disease.

Posted by Boris on September 27, 2006, 09:02 PM | #

Nick- I was a kid when in Ethiopia and remember little. My memories from those times are actually fond ones. BTW I believe our money is better spent HERE. Yes you can add isolationist(oops big brother’s watching, or reading) to one of my beliefs.

Posted by James Bowery on September 27, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

wjg wrote: I read that article on wikipedia and it seems fairly balanced.  I’m amazed it has not been censored to say that white anything (Separatism, Supremacism, Nationalism,etc.) is evil, EEEEEVILLLL.  We all know what anti-semitism is: being against (anti) anything - even our own genocide - that Jewry (Semites, or so they say) wants.

If you look at the history of the white separatism article you’ll see my name and my edits.  It was quite a battle and probably will remain so for the foreseeable future.

In particular the opponents have been deleting the statements by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln attempting to claim that their explicit calls for separate states for the races does not qualify as “white separatism”.  The best they’ve been able to make stick to the article is to claim that contemporary white separatism has nothing to do with the historic normative white separatism that included the icon of the civil rights movment, Lincoln himself.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 10:25 PM | #

Boris-I agree-all OUR money should be here,but not on cock-a - minniny schemes as Medicare Part D . The productivity of a bureaucracy is at best 5-10%,and all these agencies are just so helpfull in passing out freebies to illegals,criminals,and derilicts so they can show “progress"And it’s only going to get worse-a sad fate we await,unless we rediscover our testicals,and say--I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS SHIT-WÉ,THE PEOPLE RUN THIS COUNTRY-SHAPE UP,OR SHIP OUT. Want to exchange bullet molds,or powder formulas?He-He--No reply expected.Semper Fi !

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 27, 2006, 11:15 PM | #

JWB-I said to DY that I would tone down my speech proclivites,but reading your above missive citing Madison and Lincoln,I can only say THEY WOULDN’T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU’RE TRYING TO IMPART.These men spoke in terms the general populace understood,spoke in terms recognizable to ordinary citizenry,and did not ever try to lord it over the great unwashed.I have read just about everything Madison has written,and admire the obvious intellect,sans BULLSHIT!  GW-damn,it’s difficult. NT