|
|
|
The power of film A few days ago my attention was drawn to Aaron Russo’s free upload to Google Video of his blockbuster documentary, America: Freedom to Fascism. Whatever you think of the film itself, and the ten or twelve major issues it covers, it is one hell of a piece of propaganda. It is immensely thought-provoking and entertaining throughout. It is courageous, too - even when, as in Russo’s case, you have the IRS after you with $2 million dollars of leins in their bony hands. Russo is a blunt, engaging fellow, if a little flaky. He likes to tell the world that his past producing successors, Herp Alpert style, “included” Trading Places (a good earner but 1983!) and The Rose (Midler and it was all the way back in 1979!!). He claims that AF2F premiered in Cannes, meaning we should think it was screened at Cannes. Actually, he rented a portable system and showed the film to small audiences on the beach. But never mind. Because Russo is also extremely determined. AF2F lays into the arcanery of the Federal Reserve’s founding with a will. It questions the real whereabouts of the Fort Knox gold, the legality of Federal Income Tax, the massive abuse of power by the IRS (of course), the independence of judges (except those on the Supreme Court) and of Congress (except Ron Paul), and even open borders. He socks it to the banking giants and politicians of yesterday, the New World Order of tomorrow, the planned National ID Card, and the frighteningly versatile Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. Along the way he gets threatened by a very reluctant and sinister spokeman for the Federal Reserve. “You understand Yiddish don’t you,” this character says, and spits out a few funny words. Aaron duly explains to us that he said, “No one will help you.” Wrap it all up in a professionally scripted, shot and edited package and you have the best advertisement for libertarianism I have ever seen. Whether it’s right on Federal Tax Law (or the absence thereof) I cannot say. Certainly, it veers heavily towards agitprop, if not actually hysteria, on the dark machinations of government, secretive and manipulative bankers, and George Herbert Walker Bush’s upcoming NWO. But I don’t mind. When have any of these issues received such an airing in the past? And from a Hollywood Jew? Russo bases his more spectacular claims on things said to him in 2000 by one-time friend and apparent NWOer Nicholas Rockefeller. These included remarks to the effect that second-wave feminism “was us”, and the elite’s long-term aim is a World Government with its boot on the throat of a compliant, micro-chipped proletariat. But the best was this:-
On hearing these things, and without a thought for those IRS leins, our Aaron transmogrified into a crusader for freedom, a man with a respect for the Founding Fathers that he nurtures only second to his desire to tell us about it. But nobody can question his committment. He states plainly, and as a solemn promise to the American people, that he, Aaron Russo, will personally not allow the Great Conspiracy to succeed. So he travels America screening his film where he can and shaking hands with whomever is curious enough to show up to see it. He runs a very good website with supporting documentary videos and a blog complete with e-cards (nice idea), a blast at Wikipedia censorship, more video and a publicly-donated fighting fund heading for $500,000. It is all impressive. No, it’s more than that. It’s a rather amazing effort by one extraordinarily energetic individual. We may not learn too much from him factually. But for anybody looking at ways to influence public opinion, the out-reach effort is wholly instructive. I shall watch to see what happens to him and to the level of interest he is stirring up, over and above that already created by the Fair Tax movement. Probably, he will exhaust himself or be brought down by the IRS. But that, too, would hold a useful if sobering lesson for us. Comments:2
Posted by Amalek on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:41 | # Russo has endorsed America’s greatest living legislator for the presidency: 4
Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:10 | # What a breath of fresh air. This was what LRC was like in its socially conservative anarchist days, before it got hijacked by the silly alliance with libertine lovers of gov’t power. I still read it occasionally, but only for Hoppe and prof. Anderson. What a waste of a good opportunity for non-neocon fusionism. If Russo manages to develop a following that opportunity might yet come again. 5
Posted by ES on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:22 | # The work is tainted; he is a Jew. Case closed. LOL. One day within the next few years Russo will realize he was recruited as an “energetic” Jew to join the ruling Jewish elite—and passed it up… dumbass. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:40 | # who, My post is not actually about your beloveds. It is about the power of film, like the title says. Russo is in the process of proving to us strugglers that some extremely “right-field” notions can be mass-communicated if the energy and professionalism exists. That point holds true irrespective of the virtue of those notions and, indeed, of Russo’s ethnicity. 7
Posted by daveg on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:07 | # from http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/8427CB4FB27B2931852571CB005C6904?OpenDocument Although Russo declined to discuss specifics of the film’s costs, some of his comments at the screening suggested that he is on the hook for a significant portion of a seven-figure price tag for the project. Professional Producer + seven figures and you get something reasonable, but not spectacular, although there was definately some chuckles. I found the stuff about the fed more interesting that the tax stuff. I swear it would not be to hard to make something like this for the build up to the Iraq war. 8
Posted by JB on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:58 | # don’t forget the movie The Line in the Sand about the mexican invasion http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1451035544403625746 it was made on a small budget and the interviews with Chris Simcox and Glen Spencer are very good. The movie ends with Spencer saying there’s going to be a race war in the southwest the best line of the movie : “You don’t make anything better by adding 30 millions mexicans to it, do you ?” 9
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:18 | # Hitchens’ offers some interesting thoughts on the removal of weapons, over the past 80 years, from the British citizenry. He does not address the issue of a changing demographic however concludes that;
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/02/gun_law_and_com.html The UK: From Liberalism to the Leviathan 10
Posted by onetwothree on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:52 | # _Herp Alpert style_ I’m just curious about this reference? Spanish Flea? “You know, I was the one who performed the theme music for _the dating game_.” 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:58 | # one two three Herb Alpert built a long career on playing a selection of his famous “hit” singular. Sorry if that was too abstruse. 12
Posted by Andy Wooster on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:23 | # Off-topic, but an interesting article from the AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070225/ap_en_ot/anti_semitic_cartoon
13
Posted by Sam on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:52 | # Also off topic, but gun control, at least here in the states is designed to remove the self-defense and military potential of the white middle and working class. Washington DC is a good example. No handguns can be legally owned there, but the blacks shoot each other all the time. That is OK with the left. Any sacrifice, even of their beloved minorities, is acceptable as long as they can keep firearms out of the hands of whites. It goes hand in hand with never blaming minorities for crime, it is always racism, The Man, bad childhoods, etc…Left/liberals have also reserved a special hatred for the South because that is where the tradition and use of gun ownership in the US is strongest among whites. Things in the US are not at the level of which Hitchens writes, but the Left would love to make it that way. It was and is never about crime. If there was actual, effective gun control, the way the Left and liberals want in the US, blacks would kill whites at even higher levels than today. Just look at what they do to each other. 14
Posted by Amalek on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:59 | # That Peter Hitchens column cited by Desmond a couple of comments back is well worth reading in its entirety Cue “wintermute” to warn us that because Hitchens is part-Jewish, we cannot trust a word he says. 15
Posted by Daniel J on Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:21 | # GW I was actually gonna try to get back to the point of your post… I think although film is a great mass media, we need to use it to convince people to utilize the printed word. I think film, on some level, encourages apathy because people watch a film and feel like something has been accomplished. Also, the sensory tickling one receives by the CRT causes a decrease in thought. I think it makes effective propaganda but it is highly ineffective at communicating abstract ideas, philosophical subtleties and information of any depth and breadth. We can show videos of the genocide of whites in South Africa over haunting piano melodies, or the filthy streets of Mexifornia to receiving audiences, but I think what it stirs in them isn’t able to overcome the Jew “mindblock” inculcated over decades of Jew media consumption. I think the Holocaust sirens start flashing when anything even remotely “offensive” comes on the tube. 16
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:45 | # Wintermute is surely correct in his estimates of the brothers Hitchens and Anthony Daniels (Dalrymple). With regard to Daniels, even if he wished to raise the issue of Jewish culpability (and I’m sure he will do that when Iran’s Ahmadinejad sits shiva) it woudnt be possible in his column in The City Journal , which is owned by the Jew Hedge Fund operator, Bruce Kovner. Daniels’ other outlet, The National Review, certainly wouldnt tolerate any truths about Jews, as the late, great Prof. Revilo Oliver learned when he was fired for pointing out the obvious depredations of the Chosen. 17
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:55 | # Fred, If the Hitchens boys had a Jewish maternal grandmother then their mother would be Jewish. 18
Posted by Steve Edwards on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:11 | # “Peter Hitchens was a Trotskyist until 1975, and now a “conservative” who supports the War in Iraq.” This is simply false. CHRISTOPHER Hitchens is a leftist who supports the War in Iraq. PETER Hitchens, the conservative, opposed the War in Iraq from the start. 19
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 05:54 | # Fred, Here is another Balliol man who reached the heights of the English Establishment, namely, a knighthood and Grand Chaplaincy of the Grand Lodge of English Freemasonry : http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-19/p-07.php?PHPSESSID=c59cd231db419873a6a6 20
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:06 | # Steve, Christopher Hitchens belongs on the pro-war, Right and for you to brand him a Leftist is rather surprising. Hitchens has found a natural constituency among his fellow Semitically-descended neocon cognates and their monomaniacal control of US foreign policy has now accorded the US the same pariah status enjoyed by their Israeli homeland. Apropos neocon idiocy,there are consequences for non-American White people which accrue from Jewish control of the US’s relations with the world. As a longtime expat in South East Asia, I notice a visible relaxation in the demeanor of the local elites I encounter at clubs and formal social gatherings when I quickly inform them that I’m not American and that, with regard to Iraq, ‘the Jews are to blame’; this last has prompted gushing agreement from Malays and Indons and put everyone at ease. 21
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:14 | # With regard to Daniels, even if he wished to raise the issue of Jewish culpability (and I’m sure he will do that when Iran’s Ahmadinejad sits shiva) it woudnt be possible in his column in The City Journal , which is owned by the Jew Hedge Fund operator, Bruce Kovner. It’s not the operator of the City Journal that prevents Ted Dalrymple from telling the truth; it’s his own genetics: http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/godsgift.html This brings me to the phenomenon of the “Jewish conservative”. There are a lot of them on both sides of the Atlantic: Mark Steyn in North America and Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example. But let’s look at a less famous one: Theodore Dalrymple, a dedicated chronicler of the life and crimes of the British “underclass”. I’ve read a lot of his articles, but even before I saw the blight and became an anti-Semite, I was growing more and more suspicious of him. Why did he have a blind spot about race? Why did his writing make it so easy for middle-class Whites to dismiss working-class Whites as worthless? Why did he support non-white immigration, despite calling himself a conservative? When I became an anti-Semite, an answer was ready to hand: perhaps it’s because he’s a Jew. When I learned that his mother had been a refugee from Nazi Germany and his father a communist, I was almost certain of it. Turns out I was right: he is indeed a Jew and his real name is Anthony Daniels. Although lots of people write under pen-names, what’s characteristic of Jews is that they choose goyisch names to address the goyim. It’s a form of parasitic camouflage – what could be more White British than “Dalrymple”? – but there’s more to Anthony Daniels’ full pen-name than might immediately meet the eye. “Theodore” literally means “God’s gift”. And Anthony Daniels certainly knew this when he adopted the pen-name, so I suspect that ole Jewish egomania was at work again. That ole Jewish smoke-and-mirrors certainly seems to be at work in Daniels’ writing. The vital importance of race is something Jews do their best to conceal, because they don’t want to stand out as different in the societies they parasitize. Sure enough, Theodore Dalrymple doesn’t think race should matter: Primo Levi [another Jew] most movingly wrote that each person should be judged as an individual and that no person should be judged according to his membership of a race or nation. (Social Affairs Unit, 23rd September 2005) This is wrong in several very important ways. First of all, character is not fixed or always easy to read: a non-white individual may behave well when surrounded by Whites, but reveal his true nature when his own race gains more power. He is also very likely to excuse and conceal bad behavior by his genetic kin, even if he himself does not join in. Not all Jews are actively harming Whites, for example, but almost all Jews are silent on the topic or helping in the cover-up. Furthermore, something called “reversion to the mean” spells doom for Theodore Dalrymple’s utopian advice that his White readers should judge by “content of character, not color of skin” (or size of nose). The children of an intelligent, well-behaved black will tend to revert to the disastrous black average for these traits, while the children of an unintelligent, criminal White will tend to revert to the society-sustaining White average. Individualism cannot work in racially mixed societies and Theodore Dalrymple’s attempts to pretend otherwise are typical Jewish flim-flam. Two of Britain’s bombers, Richard Reid [the “shoe-bomber”] and Muktar Said-Ibrahim [a wannabe London bomber], converted or reconverted to Islam in prison. This is a very small number, of course, but it does not take large numbers of such people to effect a huge change in a country’s atmosphere. And the omens for the emergence of more of them are not good. The number of Muslim prisoners has risen sixfold over the past 15 years. With more than 4,000 such inmates they make up 70 per cent of prisoners from minority groups. They are mostly of Pakistani descent, and the relative absence of people of subcontinental origin who follow other religions is equally striking. (“Our prisons are fertile ground for cultivating suicide bombers”, The Times, London, 30th July 2005) Anthony Daniels is laying lots of skillfully camouflaged eggs in conservative nests but what hatches from them isn’t conservatism at all. It’s the same race-denying individualism peddled to Whites by the liberals whom Daniels pretends to despise. Jews hate the idea of Whites taking a tour of reality without a friendly Jew to guide them. They might see things they aren’t supposed to see and reach conclusions they aren’t supposed to reach. Anthony Daniels has appointed himself God’s gift to the conservative goyim and in his way he’s even more of a threat than left-wing lunatics like Linda Bellos. She’s a wolf in wolf’s clothing; he’s a wolf in shepherd’s clothing. Which is easier to be on your guard against? 22
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:57 | # My bracketed comment on Daniels’ propensity for enunciating truths about Jews, should be considered as implying agreement with Wintermute’s thorough and precise ‘tour de horizon’. 23
Posted by wintermute on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:20 | # My father’s mother was Jewish, yet my father was Catholic and very German. He was not Jewish in the slightest. Is it “kosher” for Fred to admit to one Jewish grandparent when he leaves out the fact of two Jewish brothers-in-law (and therefore an undisclosed number of Jewish neices and nephews), as well as the fact that he had none but Jewish friends from the time he was a child to when he was a college student? Does this seem like a person who is presenting himself honestly when he goes into conniptions regarding evidence of Jewish perfidy? Or just another schemer? That’s not all, of course. Here’s Fred’s reply when he attempted to divert my own investigation into the Jewish Question: I grew up in New York City and know Jews almost better than gentiles. Growing up, my best friends were always Jews (except for one, a Catholic) from day one of first grade through the final year of college. I have Jewish ancestry at the grandparent level and two Jewish brothers-in-law. (I’m Catholic, by the way.) I think it’s a mistake to suppose Jews are in control to the extent you seem to imply in some of your comments (unless I’m misinterpreting you—I apologize if I am). Again, I haven’t read any books on this matter, whether MacDonald’s or anyone else’s, and of course I could be wrong. If I am wrong, then what that means, obviously, is the game’s already up, because gentiles must be such unbelievably pathetic losers they have no hope whatsoever of freeing themselves from Jewish control. The answer, Mr. Scrooby, is that gentiles are too trusting, not too stupid, as you imply in your attempt (the quoted letter above is two years old) to get me to drop the whole question. By way of becoming less ‘stupid’ I would suggest that readers here both place Scrooby’s objections into the Vectorism camp (his utterances are designed to cause cognitive changes in you that are at variance with their purported meaning), and that they recall that two years of horse-faced bellowing on his part regarding the total innocence of Jews is nothing new. In his letter to me- two years ago - Scrooby makes a long list of gentiles who have not ‘uttered a peep’ regarding immigration and are therefore, to his mind, “equally guilty”. The Queen and Donald Trump are listed in bad gentiles division. My response: The Queen, Donald Trump, et. al. do not appear to have had a hand in the 1965 Immigration Act. The Queen, Donald Trump, et. al did not create the ideology of multiculturalism - like Horace Kallan, or race denial - as did Franz Boas, or the doctrines comprising “political correctness” - as did the all-Jewish Frankfurt School. They did not finance or propogate these ideologies. They did not punish the foes of these ideologies. They did not ban any back-talk in public. Rather, they just went along for the ride. From time to time, one will dissent - Dolly Parton, or Marlon Brando. Like Galileo, they are shown the instruments of torture, from which they shrink in terror. The other relevant bit of information is that Scrooby hasn’t, and won’t, present his own aggressively incorrect ideas to the challenge of those arguing the other side: he has read no Shahak, no Ginsburg, no Kevin MacDonald, no nothing: It’s hard for me to discuss this topic of the extent of Jewish “control” when it comes up sometimes, because I haven’t read any of Kevin MacDonald’s books or the one by that professor Ginsburg you quoted from (the guy at Hopkins, I think you said), or in fact any book on this issue—haven’t read a single one Am I the only person here who sees a discrepancy between Scrooby’s private admission that “it’s hard for him to discuss Jewish power” because he hasn’t read any of the books (in his own words: “haven’t read a single one”), and the fact that he has relentlessly, for at least two years, attempted to divert or deny or put on someone else the weight that belongs on Jewish shoulders? I think that Scrooby is Exhibit A of how Jews manuever, and that he owes the entire board EGI info on his nephews and nieces, not to mention whether or not he himself has married into the Tribe. My father’s mother was Jewish, yet my father was Catholic and very German. He was not Jewish in the slightest. Except that both of his daughters married Jews. Hardly “very German”, certainly not “very Catholic”. In your letter to me, you further explained that if I would stop talking such nonsense, many Jews would cluster to my cause. While you are explaining, Fred, be so good as to explain why so many Jews are needed in this cause anyway? If you haven’t, as you say, read the literature, how could you know but that every Jew or part Jew here might be working overtime to mislead every other poster who is working hard for the deliverance of his people? Can you say, honestly, that you aren’t? I commend this whole issue to the attention of people here who are fixated on the idea of “good jews”. I replied, there may be such yet there is no way for a gentile to tell the difference between them. I offer the above as Exhibit A. 24
Posted by hiro protagonist on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:27 | # Since wintermute is a wily and literate advocate for ideas whose adoption led to the decimation of the best of North European manhood only two generations ago, I conclude he must certainly be jewish. Could the proprietors please arrange for a small yellow star to appear next to each of his posts? 25
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:40 | # The ideas which ‘hiro protagonist’ claims led to the suicidally insane internecine strife of World War Two must, I feel sure, be those of Herr Hitler, whose brazen effrontery in claiming that Germans had a right to their own ‘judenfrei’ country upset many racially-alien interlopers at the time and led to the Jew-organised stampede of Aryan cattle against a Germany struggling to be free. 26
Posted by hiro protagonist on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:17 | # Mr IsrAel Ross is correct. Credit is indeed due to the monorchic genius Mr Israel Schickelgruber for that fratricidal war; his masterstroke was allying himself with his bolshevik coreligionists in the USSR to invade Catholic Poland, having promised his shabbes goy Neville Chamberlain he would do no such thing. 27
Posted by Englander on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:00 | # I think wintermute should be a little easier on Fred. Fred’s behavior is no different to that of many of the more responsible WN, who can’t quite grasp that this minority, Jews, can do it alone, without enormous gentile complicity. 28
Posted by ES on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37 | # Jews do not need gentile complicity if they induce gentile unilateral disarmament. The simplest example, well documented by KMac, is “race does not exist”—buy into that, and one no longer opposes immigration or miscegenation or Jewish rule versus by that of your own. 29
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:09 | # Wintermute - Fred’s come a long way in the last two years. Unlike ol’ Polichinello, Fred seems to have managed to take that final leap of faith. He’s one of us. 30
Posted by Andy Wooster on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:52 | # Since wintermute is a wily and literate advocate for ideas whose adoption led to the decimation of the best of North European manhood only two generations ago, I conclude he must certainly be jewish. Could the proprietors please arrange for a small yellow star to appear next to each of his posts? Couldn’t the same be said regarding racialism in the American south and the Civil War? Racialism led to a terrible fratricidal war, so we should oppose racialism. Anyone who doesn’t must support the slaughter of white Americans. Please explain the necessary logical connection between Antisemitism and Europeans killing each other. Why does the former necessitate the latter in your opinion? I suppose I could spend a week on this topic but am beginning to regard the bulk of this board as ineducable. I’m certainly not ineducable. As recently as 6 months ago I made the embarrassing “But what about the good Jews” argument on this very site. I have learned much since then, but I realize that there is still a great deal that I have yet to learn. That’s why I’m here. I, for one, hope that you continue to post regularly here. 31
Posted by Hiro Protagonist on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:06 | # “Please explain the necessary logical connection between Antisemitism and Europeans killing each other. Why does the former necessitate the latter in your opinion? “ There is no logical connection, and the former does not necessitate the other. It is wintermute’s unequivocal admiration for Second World War Germany and its allies that makes me suspicious of his motives. They lost, after all, just as the CSA did. But everyone loves a Beautiful Loser… 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:09 | # It is not only only a question of whether we are ineducable, WM. There is also the question of your educability, or otherwise. Your presence here is of interest to me insofar as we may uncover the politics you espouse, beyond the JQ, and test the quality of the metal. Critiquing a political model that is an extention of our adaptive social practice is a larger endeavour than just a one-line brush-off - particularly since you do not explain the attractions of your alternative. So by all means explain. 33
Posted by Kulturkampf on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:11 | # Publishing Fred’s private email without his permission, then accusing him of being a schemer out on a two year mission to deceive the people on this site - that’s pretty low stuff, even coming from a character who thinks Nazi Germany was all sweetness and light. Fred, you’re a gem - keep it up! 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:57 | # “For two centuries, ever since the brute Cromwell brought ‘em back into England, the kikes have sucked out your vitals. Who moved Cromwell’s hand? 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:14 | # It was a helluva plan getting that broken done ol’ nag, bound for the glue factory to declare over Poland. After all, the gallant Tommy and his loyal colonials were so easily victorious 20 years earlier. And once engaged, Guderian’s Panzers had kicked Tommy to the coast faster than you can say Wintermute, stopping only long enough for a wash and wax before they rolled into gay Paris. Genious, absolute genious. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:16 | # Menassah ben Israel et al. Right. Power of the Jew controlled press no doubt. 38
Posted by Englander on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:32 | # From everything I’ve read here, I think most contributors have a good grasp on the JQ. We need to differentiate between “there are good Jews” as a statement of fact and the idea that Jews should be considered as individuals in practical matters, as in how should they be treated. 39
Posted by jlh on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 20:58 | # Every “conservative” in America decries the destruction of our cities, the ruin of our educational system and the coarsening of our culture, and yet they all praise Martin Luther King and Brown v. Board, etc. The damage to our systems flows ineluctibly from MLK and Brown et al, but because the “conservatives” deny the reality of race, they can’t make the connection. Decryng the results of Jewish supremacy without naming the Jew strikes me as the same thing. The psychology is identical: why, I’m not a racist, I’m not anti-Semitic. I think wintermute is onto something, and I love the reaction he is getting. This whole episode reminds of of when Geoff Beck got flamed out of here. 40
Posted by Kulturkampf on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:14 | # I must admit that the JQ strikes me as a very slippery and complex problem. At their best, some Jews choose to identify as white - as do individuals such as Lawrence Auster, Alexander Hart, Michael Levin. However, this is only a recent phenomenon, linked to the harm they have faced through such things as affirmative action, minority crime, and, more abstractly, the anti-Western attitude of multiculturalists, with all that this implies for the general health of our civilization and those whom it sustains. Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the individuals in this camp. At their worst, though, Jews are as anti-white as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson on a bad day, but this animus is made an order of magnitude more dangerous by their intellectual capability and their ability to pass themselves off as members of the majority, while simultaneously working to undermine the interests of that majority. Unfortunately, the members of this group far outnumber those in the opposite camp. On balance, I’d say that the best grip I’ve managed to get on the JQ so far is that Jews should be regarded like any other ethnic minority - as being indifferent to the ethnic interests of the majority host population. I say ‘indifferent’ rather than ‘hostile’ because most Jews are not engaged in the type of anti-majority capers that we see an Abe Foxman pulling off. But at the same time, this comparison with other ethnic groups has to be made with reference to the net influence of politically active Jews on the ethnic interests of European man, which, when all things are taken into account, is more malign than the efforts of other minorities. 41
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:14 | # Fred is ok by me. The pro-Hitler stuff is just insane. This what we should be concerned about: 1)shutting down all non-european immigration 2)Letting Jews understand in very strong terms that Euro-Americans are under no obligation to to give their allegiance to Israel and that we will no longer subsidize Isarel. 3)Kicking out a majority of asians,nigerians,jamaicans,gahnians,hindus, sihks ,chinese and muslims..before they kick us out. I suprised to see how many White Nationalist shy away from this. 4) if a majority of Euro-American Christians in their attempt to reclaim America are opposed by a majority of American Jews ,then it is very likely the ordinary American Jews will find life in America very difficult. We have a right to defend ourselves. Hitler hated European Christians. The Nazis created Bosian muslim SS units to kill Serbian Christians So what if Fred has a Jewish granny? Fred, what do you think about my post? 42
Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:29 | # Why is gentile complicity a mere auxiliary when we discuss fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment? Why is gentile complicity a mere auxiliary when Laurence Auster talks about his cordon sanitaire? I’ve never seen anyone here so DESPERATELY try to transfer the rhetorical force raised against Muslims to ‘gentile elties’ or some other utterly dishonest heat sink. No one writing about Muslim depredations has to put up with a site owner demanding, “Why not throw Joe Muslim on the bonfire” or an account of Muslim wrongdoing with the near universal mocking of “Surely not EVERY Muslim participates in beheadings, honor killings, jihad, chain immigration, advocacy for speech codes, subway bombings”, etc. You never hear, in that context, “Oh, they’re just advancing their ethnic interests” which is drawn up on this site, ALL THE TIME, to account for Jewish depredations. You never hear of Muslims, “it’s our fault” or “who brought them here?” or some other, utterly dishonest rhetorical move that has as its sole design transferring the proper hatred we feel towards Muslims towards ourselves, thus defusing any momentum we may have created towards doing something about Muslims. Bravo! I say bravo, and addressing the issue of your whine. I meant you sounded like you were implying “we” (as in us at this forum) were powerless…. The issue would have been resolved if you had read my replies. I believe I even offered an apology. I am resolute on the issue. Jews are to blame for the state we are in-let be clear-ENTIRELY. They are in every position of power and manipulate Gentiles. I was merely wondering how many people their are in power that know this and still collude. I am most definitely in your camp and the aggression is unwarranted. I’ll admit that I’m a newcomer, but an observant and aware one. WM you are a purist and I have been that way my whole life, and due to the enormous perfidy of Jews I believe we must be that way! I agree we can not compromise an inch. Gentile controlled media, with Gentile controlled content that advances Gentile determined interests. 43
Posted by jlh on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:31 | # Frank, Jewish activity has done more than anything else to make sure we can’t do 1, 2 and 3 and that it isn’t even possible in polite company to suggest it. 44
Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:33 | # Posts to the effect of “Muslims are awful” are met with replies that read, more or less, “Muslims are awful”. And so they are. -WM Just to clarify… I never say that! I constantly say the ‘terrible Muslim’ is an invention of Jews. I don’t want to live with them, but I certainly don’t believe that they are complete animals. 45
Posted by Englander on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:00 | # JLH, your article, Thomas E. Watson and Negro Legal Supremacy on your blog is masterful. 47
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:18 | # jhl I agree with that. There maybe a growing number of Jews who want to see legal and illegal immigration shut down, but it wasn’t too long ago that these same ordinary Jews actively participated-for 60 years-in creating an atmosphere in which Eruo-Christian American dissidents are terrorized and punished for publicly speaking out and saying that they are not in favor of post -1965 LEGAL IMMIGRATION POLICY that is bringing about that annihilation of th Euro-American Christian population. Euro-Christian Americans may very well find themselves without a nation because of post WW11 Jewish ethno -politics. Fred what do you have to say about this? Another question Fred, are you in favor off terminating the policy of sending billions of Euro-Christian Americans tax $$$$$$$ to Israel every year. I have to be honest, if my children, nieces and nephews and I find ourselves reduced to a racial minority in America ,facing daily persecution by asians,africans,muslims and hispanics, I would very likely go after Jews. I am deadly serious about this.There is a limit to what I will put up with. 48
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:55 | # I’ve never seen anyone here so DESPERATELY try to transfer the rhetorical force raised against Muslims to ‘gentile elties’ or some other utterly dishonest heat sink. Obviously he hasn’t read much of the stuff on this site. Friedrich Braun, for one, has argued, quite eloquently, for an Islamic/Western alliance. Islam’s appeal to Himmler. The Nazis in North Africa, all here at MR. Too bad you missed it. 49
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:52 | # After his torrential effusions on the “JQ”, I think the learned wintermute should tell us what fraction of Jewish ancestry is the minimum to guarantee that everything you do, write and say will be dictated by the deadly determinative strain. One quarter? One sixteenth? One thirty twoth, like Peter Hitchens? Didn’t the Germans have to prove freedom from the taint back to the 18C before they could get into the Waffen SS? Wintermute ought to codify all this in a new set of Nuremberg Laws. Perhaps out of the goodness of his heart he will grant Fred Scrooby the status of “honorary white”, but you gotta earn it! 50
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:58 | # Wintermute ought to codify all this in a new set of Nuremberg Laws. Even if one disdains the JQ as you do, Amalek, the question of EGI still obtains. Fred has a father, two brothers-in-law, and a lifetime of friends, who are Jewish. The fact of his brothers-in-law ancestry makes his nieces and nephews Jewish. I don’t think he can be honest any more than Scott McConnell can be honest, or John Derbyshire. People interested in the perpetuation of their Race Culture are, at a minimum, going to have to marry within that Race Culture or tell the truth when they are not. Fred has provided no information about a wife, if there is one. He will not read any substantive work cataloguing the methods, goals, or accomplishments of Jews among strangers, an oddly monotonous tale. He regurgitates arguments that have been shown to be wrong, hoping that no-one is going to question him on his indefatigability, or even bettter, that they will take it for merit. Shown his error, he will not learn, and his sole purpose here seems to be - in the two years of my attendance - diverting or defering the emotional impact in gentile readers of what Jews have accomplished when they are trusted. Now here he is, running the same interference pattern for them that I called him on two years ago. He has neither availed himself of information that might change his outlook, nor has he apologized for ignoring the main point of those critiques: he just charges on ahead. It’s the gentiles! It’s the gentiles! It’s the gentiles! To be fair, his singing voice forms a nicely congruent choir with many personalities here at majorityrights. Still, to my antiquated notions of honesty, he is somewhat less than honest in his protests. Let him come clean with information about his wife (if there is one), children (if there are any), and neices and nephews. An EGI profile of such a determined contributor should be of interest to anyone who takes what we are talking about seriously. Of course, maybe I’m wrong about all of this. Maybe Scott McConnell’s East Asian wife makes him eager for the day Whites wake up to their EGI. Maybe Derbyshire’s Chinese wife and children add that extra oomph when he is pissing on MacDonald’s book in public. Am I amiss in assuming that their affiliative attachments and their own children are going to have no effect on their thought, writing, and political activity? Obviously not. If you wish to make the case that the ethnic make-up of one’s own children isn’t going to have an effect, a deep emotional and intellectual effect, on ones approach to cosmopolitanism or nationalism, please do so. It wouldn’t be any more moronic than anything else you’ve written. You have already produced one risible thesis in response to this post: the Peter Hitchens’ ancestry has no bearing on his opinions, and in this you have been proved disastrously wrong - at length. It’s not just you - no one on this site seems to want to discuss how Peter Hitchens came to his opinions of the BNP, of Britain’s “moral responsibility for the Holocaust”, etc. Frank will want to dismiss it as Hitchens has a Jewish gradma, so what? But then he ignores the wife . . . and children if there are any. Having shied away from the implications of your first question here, re: Hitchens, I fully expect you to shy away from the second. Wintermute provide blood laws? Let’s examine the Amalek take on it first before I provide learned commentary: Blood laws will not be needed; enculturation is everything; it is not an ingrained human habit to identify with ancestry first and foremost; the race of one’s spouse cannot affect one’s cognition about these issues, much less so the race and safety of one’s children, or one’s nephews and nieces, or even oneself! Since, Amalek, it is your ‘blood rules’ and not mine, that hold sway in the modern world, perhaps you will be so good as to tell me: what on earth are you doing at this website complaining about world conditions? Your ‘see-no-ancestry’ approach to government, media, law and the rest has delievered to you the world that you live in. Do you have some complaint about it? A complaint that, say, does not require recourse to people of one blood occupying the same polity with no outsiders making policy or opinion for them? Then you have two problems: show how this system will work, and what it will lead to given time (you may look outside the window for your answer if you find the topic mentally taxing) and also, if there is any blank space left on your examination page, perhaps you can tell us, given your ‘see-no-race’ approach to in-group formation, what exactly it is you object to in the architecture of political power in the modern world? Finally, you are welcome for the information about Peter Hitchens. From you comment, you seemed in desperate need of some clues about how his biography and his ideology so neatly complement each other. 51
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:09 | # The damage to our systems flows ineluctibly from MLK and Brown et al, but because the “conservatives” deny the reality of race, they can’t make the connection. Except the race here isn’t Black: the “Brown” from Brown v. Board of Education was a Jewess. http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12245
52
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:13 | # On balance, I’d say that the best grip I’ve managed to get on the JQ so far is that Jews should be regarded like any other ethnic minority - as being indifferent to the ethnic interests of the majority host population. Another graduate of the ‘light English’ model. I say ‘indifferent’ rather than ‘hostile’ because most Jews are not engaged in the type of anti-majority capers that we see an Abe Foxman pulling off. I suppose Abe Foxman’s sixty million dollar annual budget falls from the sky, like manna. 53
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:29 | # Possibly the question should be asked why support of the BNP should even entertained when Mark Collet is preaching integration during a meet the Muslims moment and the BNP’ s Lee Barnes is preaching solidarity with Israel.
54
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:29 | # I suppose Abe Foxman’s sixty million dollar annual budget falls from the sky, like manna.
Now that was a knee-slapper… 55
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:36 | # Fred’s come a long way in the last two years. Unlike ol’ Polichinello, Fred seems to have managed to take that final leap of faith. He’s one of us. How has he come a long way in the last two years? Two years ago, he was vehemently denouncing the treasonous elites, who were merely a matrix within Jewry operated. He wrote me, admitting that my posts puzzled him and that he had not read Shahak, Goldberg, Ginsberg, MacDonald, et. al. Now, two years later, he is selling the same bill of goods exactly. What has changed? He still admits that he hasn’t read anything that would make him competent to judge the situation, and he still pushes the ‘gentile elite’ angle in high dudgeon. If he hasn’t read anything in two years, if he ignores correction from those who are better informed, and presses for the emphasis on rogue elites - just as he did two years ago - how has he changed? Copping to a ‘few bad Jewish apples’ doesn’t cut it. Indeed, that position is probably more damaging than an outright lie, which at least everyone would recognize right away. I’ll put the same question to you as I did to Amalek: is your ancestry, the family your sisters have married into, your wife, your children, your nieces or your nephews going to have a foundational effect on your thought? You’ve read Salter, MacDonald, and much more. Am I wrong to classify Fred with Scott McConnell and John Derbyshire? And if so, why? What do you make of Scrooby’s attempts to clear the record of the Hitchens brothers, the more “conservative” of whom thinks criticism of Israel is tantamount to anti-Semitism? Is my analysis of Hitchens correct, or is Scrooby’s? And why would Scrooby (and Amalek!) be so agitated at the public ID’ing of quarter Jews? ( Peter H’s wife must also be kept in mind) Amalek, I don’t know - Scrooby I do. I’m certainly curious about your take on the matter. 56
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 08:06 | # It is not only only a question of whether we are ineducable, WM. I didn’t mean you, GW. I have great hopes for you. There is also the question of your educability, or otherwise. I have always regarded myself as educable, one is even tempted to say ostentatiously so. Your presence here is of interest to me insofar as we may uncover the politics you espouse, beyond the JQ, and test the quality of the metal. You have already been presented with an opportunity to critique my supreme political objective to place Italian parliamentarian Cicciolina on the throne of a revivified Heiliges Römisches Reich. Since there was no objection given, I assumed you shared this dream with me. Critiquing a political model that is an extention of our adaptive social practice is a larger endeavour than just a one-line brush-off - particularly since you do not explain the attractions of your alternative. So by all means explain. Perhaps I am not as educable as I think. In my understanding of your question, you have already recieved a very lengthy answer the other day. Is this not so? If you want something more specific, you are going to have to be more specific in your questions. 57
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:39 | # Scott McConnell has written that anyone in the immigration reform movement concerned about the the demographic consequences of immigration should be denounced and driven out of immigration reform movement European men should not be marrying asian women. It is not Fred’s fault that his sisters married Jewish. Didn’t Scott McConnel viciously attack Jared Taylor in the pages of the American Conservative? If I had to guess, I would say that Derbyshire beleives he married into the asian master race and that he wouldn’t mind seeing America asianized. Derbyshire,his Chinese child bride and his half -breed offspring do not belong in OUR AMERICA. I will never recognize Derbyshire,his Chinese child bride and his half- breed offspring as Americans. 58
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:51 | # I agree Fred. Some people want to give excuses to Euro-Americans to do nothing. No one has put gun to the heads of millions of Euro-Christian males and forced them to sit around for hours every Sunday in the fall worshipping young mutimillionaire niggers in tight spandex chasing a ball…they do this in front of their wives and daughters!!!!!! Just look at the commercials during football season. The theme of every commercial is that the sports addicted,jock sniffing White male whose wife lies either in bed with or sits in the arms of a big strong jock-I’m not makig this up this-is now the normal stae of affairs. I will no longer give Euro-Christain males any more excuses.
59
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:13 | # Fred, I see five historical contributors to the current crisis, all entwined with one another and with the sixth, which is Jewish ethnic self-advancement. First and greatest, the victory of liberalism over Conservatism and Monarchism; second, the subsequent development of a societally-dissonant elite; third, the implosion of Christian faith; fourth, industrial urbanisation; fifth, the wars of the 20th Century. This is not to say that WM has a hold on just one-sixth of our troubles. It’s more than that, but it is still partial. We all know it, really - though some of us might be seduced for a time by righteous anger or by other, baser impulses. On that latter score, I might add that I spend a good deal of time pointing out the clear tendency of leftists - being self-haters - to transfer that hatred to the nearest available object, that being their own people. Hence the vile and semi-articulate explosions of anger, the cries of “racist” and “Nazi” when they are confronted with reasoned rebuttals. But this subtle tendency to transfer negativity out of oneself and onto another, this vain attempt at self-healing, is something I observe also among our own kind. Beware the deceptions of anger. As for WM himself, I find his treatment of you, Fred, and of my sometime critic Amalek unnecessary and in poor taste. For me, it spectacularly demostrates the self-destructiveness that a total concentration on Jewry produces, and which he and I argued to, naturally, no conclusion when he, along with you Fred, first discovered MR over two years ago. As much as I respect his scholarship and know him to be a fine man - and enjoy the occasional private correspondence we have (which I wish to remain private, btw) - I find I have to guide him a little along the path of fellowship if he seriously wants to participate on these threads. If we, given our reasonable intelligence and our stated committments, can only treat one another with ill-will, what chance do our people have of coming together for their own salvation? 60
Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:13 | # “I see five historical contributors to the current crisis, all entwined with one another and with the sixth, which is Jewish ethnic self-advancement. First and greatest, the victory of liberalism over Conservatism and Monarchism;”—Guessedworker How true!
The term “liberal,” in its original Greek meaning, refers to the free man as distinguished from the slave. Building upon this fundamental distinction, medieval universities established the “liberal arts” curriculum consisting of the types of studies required to uphold, sustain, perpetuate, and defend freedom and civilization from the onslaught of an ever-present barbarism, which threatened to engulf Western Europe throughout its history. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the term “liberal” became associated with a particular kind of social and political philosophy espoused by British and Continental thinkers such as John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, David Hume, and Adam Smith, and American thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In essence, these classical liberal thinkers were committed to three types of freedom: economic freedom, political freedom, and freedom of speech and religion. For classical liberalism, freedom meant severely limiting the power and scope of invasive government, thus increasing the scope for individual and private action. The kind of classical liberal philosophy just described went through two revolutionary changes in the twentieth century. The first change took place in the 1930s, was precipitated by the economic collapse known as the Great Depression, and is embodied in the New Deal policies of FDR. The FDR revolution was based on the dubious assumption that social liberties are meaningless without life’s basic necessities and amenities. Therefore, in an attempt to secure freedom for its citizens, the federal government under FDR assumed an active role in protecting people against various forms of deprivation such as loss of job, impoverished old age, and debilitating disease. Thus, ironically and almost overnight, Liberalism moved from a “hands off” political philosophy to a “hands on,” cradle-to-grave political philosophy. The second major revolutionary change in liberal thought took place in the 1960s, was precipitated by the collapse of belief in objective truth and morality, and was embodied in the attempt by radical special interest groups—feminists, pacifists, homosexuals, militant black supremacists, earth worshipping environmentalists, anti-capitalist socialists etc.—to seek “liberation” from what they considered narrow and oppressive traditional moral strictures. Though a far cry from the classical liberalism of the founding fathers, the radical liberalism of the sixties does find its roots in a close relative of the classical liberal tradition. However, rather than following Locke, Jefferson, and Madison, modern liberal thought finds its primary fountainhead in the writings of the Romantic enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Modern liberalism has followed Rousseau in three major social directions. First, Rousseau espoused a philosophy of inner moral freedom that denied the existence of any kind of external moral order that makes demands upon the moral agent. He argued for the sovereignty of the inner self over and against the sovereignty of any outside external moral authority—God, church, state, society, parents, etc. For Rousseau, morality consists not in the following of external authorities but in being true to oneself; digging deep within oneself and listening to the voice of nature. This kind of thinking is a recipe for moral relativism and thus played directly into the hands of politically radical fringe minority groups who sought a radical moral and social revolution that would empower them and give social legitimacy to their “alternative” lifestyles and beliefs. Secondly, Rousseau’s theory of the social contract included a mystical notion of a “general will” which required an unaccountable power elite to interpret and impose this will, by force if necessary (i.e. “Men are everywhere in chains, and must be compelled to be free.”). This strand of Rousseau’s thought has found expression in the strategic liberal hijacking of the media, college campuses, pop culture, and especially, the oligarchical court systems. It is through control of these opinion shaping and policy making institutions that the radical liberals have dogmatically imposed their revolutionary ideas on millions of unsuspecting Americans. For example, the liberal media has systematically silenced opposition to their agenda by unfairly labeling people “bigots,” “racists,” “misogynists,” and “homophobes” for disagreeing with established liberal orthodoxy. Even more egregious is the Supreme Court’s undemocratic and dogmatic imposition of a liberal moral and social agenda on American society by inventing constitutional rights to kill unborn children, engage in homosexual sex, and discriminate on the basis of race through affirmative action programs. Thirdly, modern liberalism has followed Rousseau in his view of human nature as innately good. Because human beings are inherently good, society is at fault when humans behave badly. People who fail or do bad things are not acting out of laziness or wickedness; rather, it is society that has put them in this unfortunate position. Thus, rehabilitation, not justice, is needed in the criminal system, and affirmative action not color blindness is needed in the marketplace and college campuses. Also, because people are innately good, liberals hold, the great conflicts of the world are not conflicts between good and evil; rather, they arise out of misunderstandings. Thus force is almost never justified, and conflicts should only be corrected by diplomatic negotiations, compromise, and mediation through impotent groups like the United Nations. In summary, liberalism has undergone many changes to become what it is today. By far, however, the greatest changes took place within the last century. The modern liberal philosophy is a combination of Rousseau’s radical views of morality, society, and human nature, FDR’s beliefs in the necessity of big proactive government, and the radical counter cultural movements of the 60s. Richard Nixon once described the liberal Democrats as the party of “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Unfortunately, his remark hits very close to the mark. Despite its grand claims to stand for social justice and the common working American, today’s liberalism seems to be characterized by an almost pathological hostility to America, capitalism, and traditional moral values. The last two weeks I took a brief look at the evolutionary history of liberal thought in America. This week I would like to explore the emergence of modern liberalism within the much larger philosophical and spiritual context within which modern liberalism has flourished. It is no secret that for the past 200 years, the intellectual fabric of western civilization has been slowly unraveling due to the influence of three philosophical movements known as romanticism, existentialism, and postmodernism. It is my belief that modern liberalism is the heir of these bankrupt and irrational worldviews. Previously, I highlighted how Rousseauean romanticism played a significant role in establishing the philosophical foundations of modern liberalism. In their rejection of Enlightenment rationalism, the romantics cultivated subjectivity, personal experience, irrationalism, and intense emotion. Internalizing morality, the romantics maintained that self-fulfillment was the only universal moral duty. This kind of fuzzy-headed, feel-good moral reasoning is the essence of the modern liberal ethos and is the manifestation of the 1960s moral revolution in the name of self-fulfillment, authenticity, and being “true” to oneself. Liberal advocates of no fault divorce laws and divorce on demand justify their views on the grounds that it is unreasonable to expect people to stay married if that marriage is difficult or if one party feels unfulfilled. As for children, they are rarely considered a sufficient reason to keep the marriage together. After all, how could children possibly be happy if mommy or daddy isn’t personally fulfilled in life? In the same way, abortion advocates continue to justify the murdering of unborn children on the grounds that having a baby might interfere with a woman’s self-fulfillment. Liberal apologists of euthanasia believe that those unable to pursue a self-directed life of “quality” are better off dead. This kind of moral reasoning is a bona fide slippery slope to complete moral anarchy. It is used to justify gay marriage, polygamy, sodomy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, murder, torture, cannibalism (its all a matter of taste anyway!) and every other detestable and anti social human vice that can be imagined. In following romanticism, modern liberalism (and libertarianism for that matter) jettison reasonable public moral standards in favor of “self-fulfillment” and hence demonstrate that they do not have the philosophical gonads for dealing with society’s toughest moral issues. The only moral criteria liberal logic allows is, as Janis Joplin so aptly put it, “Ya know you got it if it makes you feel good.” Another major philosophical influence on modern liberalism is existentialism. Simply put, existentialists maintain that there is no inherent meaning or purpose in life. There is no God and thus life is ultimately absurd, and the only way to have meaning is to create it for oneself. A person creates his own personal meaning and purpose when he lives “authentically;” that is, when he makes free and deliberate choices. However, meaning and purpose remain private, personal, and disconnected from any kind of objective truth or meaning. Existentialism provides the philosophical rationale for relativism. Since everyone creates their own meaning, every meaning is equally valid. Truth is private and personal, not public and perspicuous. There is no truth “out there,” rather truth can only be found inside yourself as you live each day making free and deliberate choices. It does not matter what you choose, just as long as you authenticate yourself by making free choices. The familiar existentialist mantra is “What’s true for you may not be true for me.” The best example of this ethic can be found in the attempt by modern liberals to label advocates of abortion, “pro-choice.” For modern liberals, it makes little difference what a woman decides, only that she make a free and authentic choice to give birth or abort her child. Whatever she chooses is right—for her…...full article— 61
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:17 | # I like Wintermute’s posts. The message that I like best is: the overwhelming majority of Whites do not know about the JQ, and those that do are quickly and fiercely silenced. What everyone here must understand is that Whites cannot act properly until they have the information that continues to be restricted by the MSM; they cannot stop hurting other Whites until they know the truth. Until White leaders have full information on JQ, they are simply, “useful idiots.” It is not fair to judge a White without considering this. 62
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:33 | # First and greatest, the victory of liberalism over Conservatism and Monarchism; second, the subsequent development of a societally-dissonant elite; third, the implosion of Christian faith; fourth, industrial urbanisation; fifth, the wars of the 20th Century. Ah, the old bugbear: liberalism. Let’s not forget the development of the enormous wealth and therefore leisure of the G-8 nations, the metastisization of “captialism"to a totalizing ideology, the rise of aggressive ideologies of free trade, the rise of the NGOs, feminism as Women’s Studies on campus and Title IX as Federal legislation, the Civil Rights media coverage and reporting, the decline of the family, which, combined with economic mobility, has resulted in the total atomization of the individual, ideologies of racial nihilism, the deleterious effects of television and public schooling, the inability or unwillingness of the United States to become anti-Communist at the level of public sentiment, the persistence of the Beatitutes as guides to behavior, even in the non-Christian (blessed are the poor, first shall be last, sell all you own, turn the other cheek), and finally the massive increase in non White populations attendant upon busybody American relief agencies and technology transfer. I can assure you that, lacking Jews, many of these would not be problems and that the others would be discussed as problems, publicly, well on their way to being addresssed. Jews operate like an immune supressant; as with any other virus, once the immune system is in check, ambient pathogens will replicate wildly and killer cells will recieve instruction to remain dormant. Which is pretty much what I’m getting from the crowd here. Remain dormant: HIV is not the problem, feline leukemia is the problem. HIV is a harmless pathogen that only seeks to replicate itself. It is not our target. That’s an example of the sort of meta-instruction I get from MR every day. My sensible counter instruction, stop HIV from replicating and your system will return to normal, is regarded by denizens here as either magic, witchdoctory, or dementia. Still, one has a moral duty to speak to the mad, especially when they are in mortal danger. It may not do much good, but there you go. An instructive example: Consider the attempt to demonize Communism in public life in America. It was thwarted by Jews so powerfully McCarthy had to hire one (Kohn) just to make himself look kosher. It didn’t help, any more than the list of names he waved around being correct helped him. When the truth is no defense, look around for a jew. Nixon on red baiting:
Can you imagine Nixon being afraid of the Christian unorthodox, of “liberals”, of “urban industrialization”? No, you can’t. These groups don’t have 300 million dollar annual operating budgets earmarked for altering the culture of their host countries.
“Socially-dissonant elites” have existed since the the beginning of our history. That they are now intermarried with Jews and are about their father’s history with an alarming naturalness seems neither here nor there. Lastly, the implosion of Christian belief is good for our side. The fewer people who worship a Jew as God, the less superstitious prattle we will have to put up when they are given first class tickets to Zion. I would say rather the adoption of Christianity was a world class disaster which we are only now recovering from. The world has changed to accomodate some alterations in the means of production; also to adapt itself to such huge populations made possible by the reduction in infant mortatlity rates. However, Jews have not changed - they treat us the same way they treated Spain, Russia, Germany, etc. Could any of those nations been a restoration of monarchy, by a careful re-assembly of the humpty-dumpty of Christian belief, by urban depopulation, or by anything else in your grab bag? No, not least because they had Monarchs, had a Christianity well in shape, etc. No amount of modern wars, industrial urbanization, anticlericism, antimonarchialism, or “liberalism” can explain what happened to Spain when the Jews opened the doors to the Muslim. I wonder what might have spared Spain its long national agony? Serious minded consternation over a whole host of irrelevancies? Would that have stayed the Jew from opening the city gates? Is this what you really think? And after personally seeing to Muslim occupation, the Jews ignored the expulsion draft on the part of the Queen (no societally-dissonanant elite, she) becoming thousands of connected families of marannos who had seized monopolistic control of Spain’s trade. From this follows the Spanish Inquisition, the sequestraition of Spain from the Renaissance, the oppressive and priest-infesteed and liberty-hating colonies which have served as the best example we have, save Africa, of hell on earth. Thanks to God’s litle pets, many Spaniards carry the taint of blood from their conquerers. How did Churchill put it? “Far too many Spaniards have the Koran in their veins”. Why is it, even in the isolated case of Spain, that a strict “no Jews” policy would have saved them, while your list of complaints - collapse of Christianity and all the rest - provided no helpful counterweight save possibly the Spanish Inquisition? Is it because your analysis is too clever by half? Or that it is merely a grab bag of correlates which have little to do with the cause. Is is comporable to those Thais who think bad behavior or “sins” caused the recent Tsunami? Would I be excoriated on a Thai board for suggesting so? Hey guys, relax, it’s just the water . . . you’re going to need some sort of early warning system. Spain and Russia had monarchs, strong churches, little industrial urbanization, and still fell like stones when the Jews so decided. How do you explain that? I like reactionaries, GW, but when reaction gets in the way of plain thought and Joseph de Maistre is bandied about as our “solution to everything”, it’s time for you to think about detoxing. “Throne and Altar” do nothing to help us and much to hurt us; please see the example of Catholics and Lutherans (side by side!) helping aliens across the border. And don’t tell me this is the ‘breakdown’ of Christianity. It’s the fulfillment. Consult Nietzche’s “The Antichrist” for details. Finally, you make no mention of my “political plan” for saving Europe - reinstating the Holy Roman Empire with La Cicciolina as Empress (elected, of course). Do you not approve? 63
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:53 | # Interesting idea, this “La Cicciolina as Empress.” Where can one find more info? 64
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:59 | # You don’t mean Anna Ilona Staller, do you? 65
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:22 | # You don’t mean Anna Ilona Staller, do you? I suppose this leaves the insurgent Neue Heiliges Romanische Reich leaderless . . . more evidence you can never be too careful. A yellow star would have made all the difference in this case. I’ll get to work on political alternatives right away. 66
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:43 | # Hansen’ essay is an example of where big theorizing gets in trouble. When ypo start thinking about some of this stuff in concrete terms-something I like to do-problems arise. And if we don’t acknowledge these problems we end up with a world view that tricks a lot of ordinary Americans into beleiving that Bill O’Rielly and Sean O’Rielly are patriotic and pro-family. I do support the legalization of abortion,I think homosexual marriage should remain criminalized. I also support embryonic stem cell research. I also oppose enslaving Guatemalan teen age girls and forcing them to make golf shirts for the US market. My set of preferences doesn’t fit into Hansens world view. And some of the stuff in Hansens essy is stupid. It is very common for the BIG THINKERS to throw words around like socialist in a way that makes ones eyes glaze over. There has to be barriers in place to protect people- from falling into slavery. I suspect that peoplle who blather on about anticapitalist socialist bad bad bad….would like to remove what ever minimal protections exist to prevent people from falling into slavery. If slavery did come back they would probably blame the salves for their own enslavement. So just what is wrong being anticapitalist? I don’t like the tradeoff that if you are socially conservative-to some degree-than you must worship the free market. On the one hand,I believe must completely destroy the malignant intellectual framework that will bring about the racial annihilation of European people. On the other hand, vague BIG INTELLECTUAL frameworks with terms that are not clearly defined can result in our wheels spining in the sand. This is one of the reasons why I find Thomas Flemming and his paleo comrades so boring. These big thinkers have as far as I can tell retreated to reading ancient texts at the very time when detailed plans have to ber put forth for removing asikans,muslims,hispancs and african legal immigrants and their “american” born gene-line from America. I believe Steve Sailer understands this point very cleary and this is why he has put forth his citizenship proposal. I beleive Sailer is very frieghtened about the very real possibility of a race war in America. If accept the obvious that 1)asians,hispanics ,africans and muslims are here to conquer us, then we have to get rid of them. Seccession is not a solution. I think Tom Sunic would agree with this point. What the hell good is a Scottish separatist movement if the leaders of this movement are in favor of replacing the Scotts with fucking hindus and muslims? The American neoconfederates are engaging what Sunic calls provincial nationalism which he argues plays right into the hands of the asian,muslim,african and hispanic invaders. How we actually get from point A to B is very serious question and needs to be discussed very soon. We don’t have the time to wait around for the big thinkers complete their tomes. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:16 | # Frank: We don’t have the time to wait around for the big thinkers complete their tomes. Understand, Frank, that foundational thinking is a condition for peace and permanency. But yes, it is entirely lacking, and in any case the period for activism is approaching fast, with or without it. There are some mid-points, however, that are feasible and maybe the best we can do in terms of conditioning the zeitgeist. The venture will be riskier that way, of course. But the alternatives are worse. 68
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:21 | # Our friend Varg has just spammed us with artwork that doesn’t quite meet the standards required for our patronage. Varg, you may argue your point of view here, whatever it is, providing it is relevant and civilly expressed. If you cannot manage that, then please apply for an art space elsewhere. 69
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:53 | # Wm, You are a strange one. Here I am, placing before you a bowl of heartening palingenetic soup, and you, presumably not unaware of the nature of the politics you espouse, promptly tip it on the floor. Germans! Look, my “reactionary” instinct lies beyond modernity - not behind it - because it is founded on the eternal, evolved inner being of European Man (even including those intolerable tribes my seagoing ancestors left behind fifteen hundred years ago). If you really understood the metapolitical and natural worlds you would know that the differences between us are not great. Even Friedrich asserts that the “heavy model” is of relevance in the Fourth Reich and nowhere else. But you insist on paddling your Hebreic microbe across the surface of your own eyes and, as a result, see a “heavy” necessity everywhere. What to do with you? Well, commend you to reflect before you reply to me with the Jewish answer to everything. Train the weapon you have fashioned so carefully in the right direction - the first law of gun ownership, actually. When you then look over your shoulder at the rest of us, bear in mind the small possibility that we are not actually blind and we are not stupid. On the contrary, we are striving after some transcendent meaning in life, as all men must. Your universal Jewish explanation does not serve that end. As the sine qua non of nationalist reality, it so coarsens the mind, the transcendent is rendered as heavy as pig iron. All the while you value other men’s truths so little and your own so much you divorce yourself from their companionship and guidance. I like your spirit, damn it, and it pains me to see you champing around in the cold, away from the lighted halls, because you have taken upon yourself this stern, self-sacrificial duty to think in one-dimension. I do not think you can support the burden indefinitely, and I do not think you can put it down. At least do not fight me. There is no need and I do not want to fall out with you. 70
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:55 | # “At least do not fight me”? GW,surely this isnt a plea for WM to desist in countering the many and varied misconceptions and underestimations regarding the JQ which he has so adroitly exposed. The oft-applied ‘GW light touch’ is always to be admired. 71
Posted by Al on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:33 | # One thing that seems to be missing from the above analyses is how Euroman is kept gullible and leaderless, and how the Semites screen our elites and shape them. This has been discussed before but I haven’t seen it incorporated into anyone’s analysis. It’s important because it provides a bridge between day-to-day life and the Big Ideas & Major Memes we discuss. In every community of the Eurosphere, some activist Semites organize themselves into a plethora of watchdog groups. Their so-called community relations groups are everywhere, but AIPAC, ADL, PAW, SPLC, and ACLU maintain vast clipping and electronic files. The 1993 ADL scandal in San Francisco showed this spying and recording effort clearly enough. Use the Google or Yahoo search machines with this request: (ADL + spying + San Francisco + 1993) Then when an up-and-coming political leader surfaces on the municipal or township level, his file is searched or created, Semitic friendships magically appear, words of wisdom are whispered, and wanna-be Europoliticians are measured for compliance, support, manageability, and malleability. This is not a conspiracy per se, it is more an instinctive and immediate response to potential threats as individuals arise and as seen by Semites. It’s quite an impressive operation—the shunning and smearing of Euro-newbies is no accident. If the wanna-be politician is not compliant, he is discarded, watched, and smeared. If the wanna-be Europolitician is an office-seeker, not a policy-maker, he is groomed, espeically if his warts (unpleasant or illegal events in his past) can be held over his head. It is just that simple. It’s a screening process that removes advancement from a potential “elite” before he can move far. To blam “our” elites is just beside the point. I believe that part of the problem that wintermute has in getting his point across is that he fails to spell out just how our elites are corrupted. It’s not just marriage, bribery, and weak-mindedness. Most Euromen find it hard to credit such an all-embracing political eye on the local level as described here, but it exists and it works to pick “our” elites for us long before they come to our attention. It is not typical minority behavior at all, it is unique to one group. 72
Posted by Al on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:46 | # To follow up on a related incident, when San Francisco City & County became aware of ADL spying in 1993, the District Attorney for Santa Clara County (just south of San Francisco City & County) created a project to investigate whether any similar ADL spying had been conducted in Santa Clara County and, in particular, whether any spying had occurred in the DA’s office. The District Attorney placed Assistant DA Anastasia Steinberg in charge of the investigation notwithstanding her position on the ADL board of trustees for Santa Clara County! Surprisingly, Steinberg found no ADL wrong-doing in Santa Clara County. 73
Posted by Daniel J on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:02 | # Well, commend you to reflect before you reply to me with the Jewish answer to everything. Train the weapon you have fashioned so carefully in the right direction - the first law of gun ownership, actually. When you then look over your shoulder at the rest of us, bear in mind the small possibility that we are not actually blind and we are not stupid. On the contrary, we are striving after some transcendent meaning in life, as all men must. Your universal Jewish explanation does not serve that end. As the sine qua non of nationalist reality, it so coarsens the mind, the transcendent is rendered as heavy as pig iron. -GW Let me reiterate that I’m very happy to be here (in electron from) as this is the greatest freelance group of thinkers I have ever come across in my short life…. No joke… This leads me to believe that perhaps GW you are an actual threat-and that makes me wonder why we spend so much damned time dealing with WM’s crusade to enlighten us? Just a thought… 74
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:04 | # It is? How so? Aren’t we entitled to hold people accountable for their behavior who are capable of exercising judgment? Yes, of course, but the further point is that we will always have an “elite” class in any sizable white community, and the susceptibility of the elite to seduction by Jewry is simply part of our nature. Jews are 40% of the billionaires? All right then, where are the other 60%, the non-Jewish majority of all U.S. billionaires? Right where you’d expect them—in thrall to the forces of disintegration that catalyzed the accumulation of such staggering sums of money. Money itself is a profoundly anti-conservative force. Reflect on Tawney’s “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism” for a while and Nisbet’s “The Quest for Community”, p. 72 in particular. 75
Posted by Al on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:14 | # Fred, when I discussed how the elite is screened on its way to the top of political power, I was referring to political leaders as is completely clear in the text. You are referring to celebrities with titles, religions, and commercial successes, and the techniques that operate in those arenas are undoubtedly distinct from the ones that operate to manipulate entry into a political career that leads to membership in Congress or Parliament. Thank you for not contradicting my narrative as to how political elites are screened and shaped for success. I don’t know how Robertson, Buffet, Carl Pope, Gates, Turner, and Taki were shaped or not shaped. They are not our elites. They possess no responsibility for political or legislative action. They are celebrities, not our elite leaders. You might as well ask about Britney Spears or Madonna when you ask about those you named. 76
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:17 | # What’s Robertson worth? A hundred million? Two hundred million? If you or I were worth that, and had the influence he has, whom would we be afraid of? If you were worth that, you wouldn’t be you. 77
Posted by wintermute on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:12 | # You might as well ask about Britney Spears or Madonna when you ask about those you named. I can’t speak to Britney Spears, whose recent decision to become a skinhead strikes me as unwise, not to say insincere. As to Madonna, she was talked into buying African babies by the same Jew who talked Angelina Jolie into investing in off-White brands: Jeffrey Sachs. Don’t get me started on his rapsheet. Jolie has recently been taken aboard by the Council on Foreign Relations, in a move that I think was anticipated by the Book of Revelations. Finally, is that a note of desperation I hear in Scroob’s rant on gentile elites? The note of balance he requests could easily be provided by information on his nephews and nieces. Or is EGI no longer a welcome topic on this board? If Scroob differs from Scott McDonnell or John Derbyshire, can someone tell me how? Or is it just a matter of degree? 78
Posted by wintermute on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:18 | # Train the weapon you have fashioned so carefully in the right direction - the first law of gun ownership, actually. When you then look over your shoulder at the rest of us, bear in mind the small possibility that we are not actually blind and we are not stupid. Oh, GW, please don’t presume to lecture a Texan about gun ownership. Especially if you’ve already lost one of your flock to VNN on account of his marksmanship. On the contrary, we are striving after some transcendent meaning in life, as all men must. Your universal Jewish explanation does not serve that end. If this site is primarily oriented towards the transcendent meaning of life, perhaps you should consider changing its name. I was under the mistaken impression it had something to do with Majority Rights. Your existential strivings would probably be best served by a good translation of Plotinus’ Enneads. May I recommend the A.H. Armstrong?
I think my position displeases you so much because you can see yourself occupying it so easily. I’m not going to begrudge you that opinion. It bespeaks a certain self-awareness. You speak of self-sacrifice. If our situation - one of absolute emergency - does not call for self-sacrifice, then what does? And if it our situation cannot call forth self-sacrifice from us, then of what worth are our people? Unlike Zundel, Irving, Rudolf, I have never seen the inside of a dungeon for the sake of my beliefs, so perhaps you pity me prematurely.
You discount the possibility that someone might assist me with my burden. Why is that? Is it related to the resistance you’ve put up to straightforward consideration of the Jewish Question? Is it the same reason it pains you to see me wandering dark hallways alone?
79
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:45 | # Certainly the loss of Geoff Beck is a major one, at least to me, as is the reluctance of Friedrich Braun to comment here. Both of these gentlemen understand the JQ extremely well and, had WM not been instrumental in sparking the intellectual curiosity required to read K Mac’s work, thus causing the conservative scales to fall from my eyes, I’m sure Messrs Beck and Braun might well have done. 80
Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:32 | # Fred, GW etc- don’t let “wintermute” get you worked up. The guy’s outed himself here. He’s as nutty as a fruitcake. 81
Posted by Andy Wooster on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 20:08 | # Fred, GW etc- don’t let “wintermute” get you worked up. The guy’s outed himself here. He’s as nutty as a fruitcake. Didn’t you “out” yourself long ago? Or do I have the wrong Lurker? But if Lurker MK II is correct, consider me a loon as well. I fail to see the flaw in wintermute’s arguments. What’s more, I’ve been waiting patiently for one of WM’s many opponents to actually address the points he’s made, or at least provide a substantive counter-argument. I’m still waiting, waiting while wintermute’s interlocutors call him a Nazi-lover, a fruitcake, and invoke the Nuremberg laws in lieu of providing actual arguments. I’m noticing something positively Austerian in the way wintermute is being treated. Many people seem to think that it’s acceptable to simply label WM a nut and then dismiss his arguments accordingly. Let us not be like Larry Auster! Please, for the sake of those like me—young, impressionable, and more susceptible to logically sound arguments than to snippy ad hominems—give a rebuttal if you can. I’m in danger of becoming a wintermutian. 82
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:01 | # Consider the attempt to demonize Communism in public life in America. It was thwarted by Jews so powerfully McCarthy had to hire one (Kohn) just to make himself look kosher. It’s relatively easy to make sweeping statements, however, where’s the evidence? Example one, how do you account for the “The Tiger in the Senate”, the Oregonian Wayne Morse’s stand against McCarthyism. His Wisconsonian upbringing, “Wisconsin is a portly, Teutonic old lady, full of beer and cheese . . . [with] a weakness for wild men and underdogs”, rural, progressive, liberal or did some Jew have a heal upon his neck. Let’s at least bring some semblance of evidence to the table before reaching rash conclusions. Possibly WM is correct, however, where’s the beef? 83
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:16 | # Example two: The Germans gave you your 300,000 men back. This position is contentious at best. Liddell Hart spoke to Guderian post-WWII. “In his post-war memoirs and discussions with Sir Basil Liddell Hart, Guderian tried to blame Hitler for the suspension of the advance. From his discussions with Guderian and other German generals, Liddell Hart concluded that Hitler permitted the British Army to escape on purpose, hoping that this generous act would facilitate the conclusion of peace with Britain.[3]” Other sources suggest, “At the time, however, Guderian concluded that General Von Rundstedt had been right to order a halt and that further tank attacks across the wet land (which had been reclaimed from the sea) would have involved a useless sacrifice of some of his best troops.” To say that Hitler allowed the “Miracle at Dunkirk” cannot be substantiated. Maybe he did, however, it is equally possible that he simply concurred with Von Rundstedt and there was no intention of allowing the BEF to escape. 84
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:33 | # Perhaps we can glean a clue about Wayne Morse’s sympathies from a speech he delivered on Dec20, 1951, in which he stated that “One of the major causes for our going to war against Hitler was the persecution of the Jews in Germany”. 85
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:04 | #
I was sorry to see a notice posted at The Civic Platform the other day that Occidental Dissent has been shut down. Daedalus (aka “Fade the Butcher”), who started it, must have decided finally it wasn’t his cup of tea (he’d made comments to that effect some months earlier but had left it up and running). (Speaking of The Civic Platform, incidentally, for a couple of days now I haven’t been able to pull it in on my machine.) 86
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:29 | # “One of the major causes for our going to war against Hitler was the persecution of the Jews in Germany”. It does not answer the question of why he said it? Why disregard the progressive influence or altruism? Christianity, purportedly, is the enemy of our people. However. if you examine the conversion of the Visigoths in Iberia from Arianism to Catholicism we find a body of law, the Visigothic Code, that appears to originate as a survival strategy vis-a-vis Jewish behavoiur during that period. Disregard the author’s bias;
Clearly, at least the Visigothic elite was in direct competition with Jews and utilised Catholicism as a force to control the accumulation of wealth and power by the Jews then in Spain. 87
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:58 | # Why, indeed, did Morse say it, Desmond? Maybe it was a combination of genuine Jew-promoted Leftist fervour (of which, it seems, he possessed an excess) and wishful,counterfactual history, or it could have been the more mundane and widespread fear of Jews and of the political consequences wrought by lack of obeisance to the Chosen, a dread which pervades the US even more perniciously today. 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 01:59 | # That’s an interesting document, Desmond. I’d never heard of it before. Thanks for citing it. Here it is: The Visigothic Code (promulgated in the year 654). 89
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 06:54 | # FS, I decided to pull the plug on OD. I never wanted a forum myself. He wanted it to attach it to the blog. It was Fade’s idea; and since I haven’t heard from him in months, I’ve had enough. The constant link spammers were just one of the many irritants. As to my blog, I’m moving it right now to a different hosting package. However, the address will remain the same. The blog will also have several technical improvents (and my favourite links). 90
Posted by Wandermutt on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:09 | # I’ve investigated wintermute’s heredity. He had a great-great-great-great-great grandfather called Robinson, which is obviously a pseudonym for Rubinstein. I have therefore concluded that wintermute is playing a fiendishly complicated Talmudic quintuple-bluff strategy to confuse and demoralise us Aryans. Do not trust him! PS: Fred Scrooby is a rabbi. 91
Posted by Kulturkampf on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:32 | # Who’s to say that you’re not playing the same game, Mr Wanderberg?. 92
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:43 | # The blog is up again. http://www.thecivicplatform.com/ 93
Posted by Wandermutt on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:10 | # Curses! Kulturkampf my incredibly cunning plan has rumbled! 94
Posted by Hiro Protagonist on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 13:16 | # Everyone here works for teh Mossad except me. 95
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:22 | # wintermute wrote: Why cue me when Rnl, Jewry’s OTHER apolgist ... Juvenile. A minor point: the loss of her colonies as a direct result of the second of those wars ... Hitchens, says Wintermute, should acknowledge this but neatly sidesteps the issue instead. But what if he doesn’t believe that Britain’s decline as a nation had anything to do with the loss of her colonies after World War II? I doubt it is true, but it is an empirical question that I’m not competent to answer. Colonies either benefited Britain or they didn’t. Some in Britain opposed colonialism on moral grounds. Others opposed it on economic grounds. Adam Smith argued that unproductive colonies, including the American colonies, should be jettisoned. For well over a century anti-colonialists had argued that colonies didn’t pay. They would have been happy to learn that Britain would eventually lose her colonies. European officials responsible for the public treasury were often opposed to the development of a colonial empire in Africa, which they correctly saw as having little capacity to repay the cost of conquest, except in unusual situations, such as the Congo or South Africa, with their valuable mineral resources. (Thomas Sowell, _Race and Culture_ [New York: Basic Books, 1994), 74.) It is far from clear that Britain’s post-war loss of her colonies is in any way responsible for her present racial malaise. But Wintermute believes it is, and he also believes that there is a Jewish plan (involving much neat sidestepping) to suppress the fact. That’s an example of dumb anti-Semitism. 96
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:30 | # wintermute wrote: To utilize Steve Edwards’ language, PETER Hitchens, the Jew, has been strategizing for the interests of Israel and the Diaspora from the start. Fine. You may be right. I’ve suggested something similar. But don’t get angry when someone tells you that Peter Hitchens opposed the Iraq war. He either supported the war or he didn’t. You say he supported the war; Steve Edwards says he didn’t. Is he right or wrong? I suspect you decided to change the subject because you mixed up Christopher and Peter, which is an honest mistake but a mistake nevertheless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens To be clear, the following is correct: “CHRISTOPHER Hitchens is a leftist who supports the War in Iraq. PETER Hitchens, the conservative, opposed the War in Iraq from the start.” Your claim that Peter Hitchens supported the Iraq war is false. Edwards merely corrected your error. For that offense, his only contribution to this thread, you have now included him in your growing list of bad guys too weak-kneed or semitically compromised to appreciate the force of your arguments: “Nor are Edwards and Scrooby prepared to take on the rest of the indictments against PETER Hitchens ....” no one on this site seems to want to discuss how Peter Hitchens came to his opinions of the BNP, of Britain’s “moral responsibility for the Holocaust”, etc. There’s no reason why you should have an encyclopedic knowledge of my posts, but since you have quoted my opinions on the subject, and since you have evidently read the thread in which they appeared, you certainly know that the subject has been discussed. Why then your _no one_? Read my comments. Read Matra’s comments. Read Holliday’s comments. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/an_honest_defence_of_israel/ Was _no one_ until you appeared willing to discuss this subject? No, that’s not true, is it? It takes loads of chutzpah to claim your own bold discovery of a suppressed truth after quoting from a thread substantially devoted to it. To him, GW, Rnl, Amalak, and the rest of the beachball players at this site: I respond: why is “the good Muslim”, as a political concept, never deployed against those call[ing] for Muslim deportation? Why is gentile complicity a mere auxiliary when we discuss fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment? Why is gentile complicity a mere auxiliary when Laurence Auster talks about his cordon sanitaire? I’ve never seen anyone here so DESPERATELY try to transfer the rhetorical force raised against Muslims to ‘gentile elties’ or some other utterly dishonest heat sink. If you’re saying that racialists rarely talk about Gentile complicity and passivity as causes of Third World immigration, you’re wrong, so clearly wrong that I wonder if you mean something else. The reluctance of Whites to defend their own interests, even when faced with an assault so visibly destructive as Muslim immigration, is addressed by every White nationalist I’m familiar with. But if you believe the subject isn’t addressed often enough, you should do it yourself. No one is preventing you. The answer ... is that gentiles are too trusting, not too stupid Which is what I told you. Your preferred explanation is that we were involuntarily drugged. You therefore get angry at any suggestion that we are responsible for our racial situation. You think it’s a trick to avoid discussing Jews. You should quit posturing as the sole owner of this subject. If simplisms help you think, that’s great. But don’t expect everyone to endorse them. 97
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:38 | # However, extremely detailed replies which read, “Jews are awful” are met with a hysterical crowd of deniers, tripping over each other to defend the Chosen Race: “Jews are individuals, like us. Can’t hold a few bad apple against them”; “Jews are only advancing their ethnic interests, which is what we want for ourselves”; “Jews are trustworthy”; “Jews are White”; “What about all the Good Jews”; “There are plenty of Jews who want what we want”; and all the variants on “It’s our fault”, “What about traitorous elites”, etc. I’m just quoting this for Wintermute’s admirers to re-read. Is the preceding a fair assessment of what appears on this blog? I can recognize one of Svy’s threads, but not much else. “Jews are trustworthy” is not a common idea here. JJR was the last regular poster to say “Jews are White.” In fact, there is no “hysterical crowd” shouting down criticism of Jews. That’s only Wintermute’s fantasy. When philo-Semitic WNs stray into MR, they are vastly outnumbered and often depart quickly, which is unfortunate, because most Whites are philo-Semites. If this blog ever gets to the point where it is so filled with angry wintermutes that Svyatoslav Igorevich looks like a wily Jewish strategizer, then we’re in trouble. MR will have become, like the VNNForum, too distant from the beliefs of mainstream Whites to be useful. a hysterical crowd of deniers ... tripping over each other to defend the Chosen Race. So imaginatively ridiculous that it deserves repetition. 98
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:42 | # Fred Scrooby wrote: If what [MacDonald] had in mind by “not sufficient” was the behavior of Euro élites, who had the knowledge, intelligence, and power to behave otherwise than how they were behaving, what’s so wrong with making comments such as this for example? MacDonald argues that in the Clinton era Jewish power grew through a de facto alliance of activist Jews and de-ethnicized White elites. There are more of the latter than the former. In other words, Prof. MacDonald is another of those sly defenders of Jewish power that Wintermute is so skilled at spotting. In fact, anyone capable of distinguishing a majority from a minority will have difficulty accepting what I take to be Wintermute’s primary argument - that Whites are like putty in the hands of all-powerful Jews. MacDonald can count. I can too. Wintermute hasn’t yet mastered the art. 99
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:46 | # Al Ross wrote: ... the many and varied misconceptions and underestimations regarding the JQ which [WM] has so adroitly exposed. Please list two of these misconceptions and underestimations. And assuming you can list two from the _many_ errors that the adroit Wintermute has exposed, what prevented you from exposing them yourself? You were already posting here when I arrived. You’ve had quite a while to spot these errors. WM is an energetic constructor of strawmen. He builds them and then he yells at them, ignoring the broad agreement on most of what he says when he is not yelling. 100
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:59 | # Andy Wooster wrote: Please, for the sake of those like me—young, impressionable, and more susceptible to logically sound arguments than to snippy ad hominems—give a rebuttal if you can. You should tell us what you’d like to see rebutted. Jews colloborated with the Muslim invaders of Spain. Do you want someone to dispute that? Jews orchestrated the Russian Revolution. That fact has often been discussed on this board. Wintermute presents these facts as though they were suppressed truths. He is wrong. There’s not much else to say. Wintermute believes that discussing Jewish interests is a clever device to avoid discussing Jews. I think that’s too stupid to address. Wintermute believes that any comment on the failure of Whites to defend their own nations is another clever device to avoid discussing Jews. That’s also, in my opinion, too stupid to address. It would, incidentally, make Dr. Pierce a defender of Jews. Much of what Wintermute writes is just a series of snippy ad hominems. The opponents he has constructed are, he says, too timid or too disingenous to accept his conclusions, which amount to various claims of virtual Jewish ominopotence. I refer to Jewish interests because I believe that it is the most sensible way to discuss Jewish group behavior. So if you want to see WM rebutted, I’ve just done one rebuttal in a single sentence. I’m the world’s leading authority on my own intentions. Another rebuttal: I’ve never seen anyone here so DESPERATELY try to transfer the rhetorical force raised against Muslims to ‘gentile elties’ or some other utterly dishonest heat sink. That’s nonsense. It reveals a failure to read what others write. So if Andy wants rebuttals, I’ve now provided him with two. You can often rebut WM by quoting him. Why cue me when Rnl, Jewry’s OTHER apolgist No, I’m not. So there’s a third rebuttal. 101
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:09 | # “What about all the Good Jews”? No one is more obsessed with the good Jew than WM, and it’s easy to see why: As a colony organism, Jews must always remain very strange to us, as we are herd animals. The greater interest Jews show in the preservation of their Race-Culture compared with the rather lacksadaiscial attitude among Aryans regarding loss of life can be simply explained: we have billions of individual lives to lose, whereas they have only one. For WM the theory determines the evidence. Or more accurately WM’s metaphor of the hive-like Jewish organism, with only one life, determines the evidence. There can only be one Jew, because WM has announced that Jews form a colony organism with one life. The good Jew - e.g. a Jew intentionally saying something that assists White nationalism - challenges the metaphor, so he doesn’t exist, and reference to his existence constitutes philo-Semitic apologetics. Is it true that Lawrence Auster says “it’s everybody but the Jews”? No, it isn’t true. I point that fact out, and I become a apologist for Jewish power. I don’t believe in the single-Jew theory, which WM has pronounced ex cathedra. Of course I only disbelieve WM’s reductive metaphor. A political metaphor that can be debunked by a single incompatible example is worthless, which explains why WM gets so irritated at anyone who believes in the existence of good Jews. Jews have higher levels of ethnocentrism than Whites. They have a long tradition of hostility toward their host populations and rarely feel strong loyalty toward the non-Jewish cultures they inhabit. Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion, so unlike Islam it can never hope to dominate a host population demographically. Hence the sympathy of most Jews and all major Jewish organizations for non-White immigration. Since it weakens us, they conclude, it strengthens them. Jews accordingly have an interest in promoting ideas (especially anti-racism) that reduce our willingness to resist challenges to our racial and cultural interests. We are their enemy, and they prefer to fight an enemy who has disarmed himself. A raceless White has disarmed himself. He has no objection to seeing his culture rearranged to suit Jewish preferences. The preceding is sufficient to explain anti-White Jewish behavior. You don’t need to believe in WM’s metaphor of the hive-like organism animated by a single life. If WNs choose to believe it, that’s fine. But Wintermute’s bad example of picking fights with disbelievers should be avoided. 102
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 00:12 | #
Good summary. 103
Posted by yllica on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:07 | # Regarding Fade/Daedalus/Occidental Dissent. I would advise people not to invest too much time and effort in any future internet exploits of Fade/Daedalus. I wasn’t satisfied by his explanations for Occ.D’s temporary shutdown in response to my questions at thephora.net and at Occ.D, and I’m pleased I didn’t waste any more time posting at his site. 104
Posted by yllica on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:45 | # Rnl said: I don’t believe in the single-Jew theory, which WM has pronounced ex cathedra. You need to ask yourself, ‘‘what is a Jew’‘; if someone identifies as a Jew, what does he identify with? It’s the particular characteristics of Judaism which define Jewry most clearly. What are they Rnl? The Old Testament and the the Talmud are instructive. And including a more contemporary overview, When Victims Rule details Jewish self-perception, and the effects of Jewish interests upon host communities. I’m aware you haven’t responded to Wintermute’s specific claims or even attempted to deal with his broad argument, except to say you ‘don’t believe it’ (so what do you believe? and which specifics in Wintermute’s thesis do you have grounds to disbelieve?), but more importantly, how do you view the validity of group interest claims for <u>us</u>. If not for Jews, why for us? 105
Posted by Rnl on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:29 | # It’s the particular characteristics of Judaism which define Jewry most clearly. What are they Rnl? Hostility to the surrounding culture and a self-interested habit of using non-Jews as resources. I’m aware you haven’t responded to Wintermute’s specific claims or even attempted to deal with his broad argument I agree with most of the specific claims. There was no broad argument. 106
Posted by Daniel J on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 08:42 | # God damn…. Here is a good idea…. Lets get the smartest Gentiles around [ and the most promising youth Like are the Jews this or that… Keep cutting each other up. 107
Posted by JB on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:54 | # Frank McGuckin:
perhaps but our enemies will equate european ethnocentrism with nazism anyway and it will keep on working not because we don’t dissociate ourselves enough from Hitler but because we’re afraid of contradicting them on WW2. Agreeing with them is shrugging your shoulders over the death of millions of us in that war. If our fathers and grandfathers knew that they were directly and indirectly helping communist regimes and fighting for governments that would soon after the war establish race replacement - the destruction of the people it is supposed to represent and defend - as their top policy, do you think they would have fought for the anglo-american axis ? To repeat the mantra that the 2nd World War was a Good War because we defeated Evil Incarnated is to give in and accept that millions of us had to die so that a bunch of ungrateful kikes could live freely among us, accumulate power and wealth and use it against us by corrupting politicians, poisoning our minds with their television and entertainment pollution, legally tie our hands and our tongues and do whatever they could to allow our lands to be invaded by foreign races. we should all turn the familiar jewish saying around and openly ask : Was WW2 good for us ? it may not be the easiest way to break the intellectual ice and slip some doubts in the minds of whites but I somewhat did it once and it provoked interesting reactions. 108
Posted by JB on Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:56 | # back to the topic : these are not really films but video interviews that are worth watching and deserve a wider cyberdistribution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnNK5YoxnXc
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3915 the DVD ‘Decyphering Jewish Intellectual Movements’ [the MacDonald interview] can be bought from Marwen Media’s website http://www.marwenmedia.com/Documentaries.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3252642434022358005 109
Posted by JB on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:40 | # in case anyone still had doubts about who runs Hollywood, here’s an 10 minutes excerpt of an interview with Simcha Jacobovici the jew who directed the documentary Hollywoodism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7—FG8o57WI “Can you imagine any director being able to make a film in Hollywood to this day that celebrates the KKK ?” 110
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Aug 2007 09:23 | # Aaron Russo lost his battle with cancer a couple of days ago. RIP. 111
Posted by ES on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:04 | # Aaron Russo speaks on Nicholas Rockefeller and 9/11, parts 1 and 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIcowkQ7T9Y Post a comment:
Next entry: Scotland inches towards freeing the English
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
] in one place and have them fight about nonsense…
Posted by daveg on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:58 | #
Is Russo generally a Jewish-Italian name?