The power of film

Russo has endorsed America’s greatest living legislator for the presidency:

http://www.rense.com/general75/arrp.htm

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.

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.

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 ?”

_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_.”

Bingo, that’s it;
The Leviathan can not exist if it is not fed, in this instance it steals your efforts and wealth to feed it self, and creates a need to perpetuate new myths of security;( We will take care of it ) . Pigs ass.
Rip their bloody arms out of their sockets and hit them over the head with the wet end.( Old Army instructor threat)
The gun laws Fred, it is only designed to disarm us by statutory dictatorship, but all the other dirt bags and scum, it never applies to them.
Hell the scumbag Moslem shit here not only robs armored cars of their money, they rob them of their weapons, and they Rob our defense force of their weapons; (External contracting).
They have really well and truly fucked us over.

Off-topic, but an interesting article from the AP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070225/ap_en_ot/anti_semitic_cartoon

Anti-Jewish cartoon angers L.A. Koreans

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.

Cue “wintermute” to warn us that because Hitchens is part-Jewish, we cannot trust a word he says.

Why cue me when Rnl, Jewry’s OTHER apolgist, has already written so intelligently on the subject?

“(i) his mother was Jewish; (ii) he married a Jewish woman; (iii) he claims that the British people owe a “moral debt” to Jews for failing to prevent the Jewish Holocaust; (iv) he claims that left-wing critics of Israel are anti-Semites. My argument is that (i) and (ii) have much to do with (iii) and (iv).

But let’s say I’m wrong. Both (iii) and (iv) remain false in any case, and (iii) is an especially contemptible Jewish libel. If Peter Hitchens is indeed a good British conservative, that doesn’t say much good about good British conservatives.

Not that there is anything good to be said about British conservatives, but if I were to write about that I’d be here all day.

Peter Hitchens is a good read for the ‘beautiful loser crowd’, who will remind everyone that everything they see around them is the work of invisible and inevitable social forces, having nothing to do with Britian’s atrocious conduct in both World Wars, the loss of her colonies as a direct result of the second of those wars, fifty years of their most powerful ideological and military neighbor, and therefore their exemplar leviathan, being the Soviet Union (a former ally), and the inability for any - any! - genuine rightist to enter public life because of the kind of propaganda being deployed after the war.

Hitchens will also neatly sidestep the prime question of the rottenness of the British life - their upper classes (i.e. their Hebraic descent), all of whom support maximal racial chaos with the same automaticity with which they drink, breathe, eat and digest. This interesting topic, discussed at length in the early twentieth century by Hillarie Belloc and in the middle of the twentieth century by Ezra Pound, goes undiscussed in Hitchens’ “Abolition of Britian”. Why is that?

Could it be because . . . *gasp* . . . Peter Hitchens is a Jew?

Like Ted Dalrymple, another member in good standing of “British Conservatism”, Hitchens is a Levantine who relentlessly de-Semitizes everything, rendering useful ideation or action impossible. He feeds the conservative hunger for bellyaching as well as the conservative desire not to think about anything too unpleasant. A conservative is a man who can look upon the end of his people and culture with equanimity, and the mass murder of Germans with equanimity, who can look upon his nations alliance with Stalin with equanimity, but who cannot - and will not - be faced with the facts about the Jews. Hence, the popularity of Peter Hitchens and Ted Dalrymple as figures whose job it is to read us to sleep. Or should I say eternal rest?

Nighty night!

In this, they conform to the pattern Anne Morrow Lindburgh records in her diary. It’s not that she doesn’t support her husband, you understand, it’s just that she would prefer it if this country were torn apart by war rather than become . . . “anti-Semitic”.  Here is Anne Lindbergh herself, setting a standard that all conservatives in the future will follow scrupulously:

September 14, 1941:

I say that I would prefer to see this country at war than shaken by violent anti-Semitism. (Because it seems to me that the kind of person the human being is turned into when the instinct of Jew-baiting is let loose is worse than the kind of person he becomes on the battlefield.)

Sound familiar?

All Jews know that they need only keep everyone quiet a little longer, and we will never bother them again. 

Amalek, you’re an apologist for Judah, have you read Peter Hitchens on Our Friend Israel? You might find it instructive:

Here is it, in the pages of The American Conservative:

This leads us to the uncomfortable truth—unwelcome to modern Zionists who shudder visibly at any mention of the word—that Israel is the last major European imperial colony on the face of the earth. In its struggle for survival in a world that already has enough reasons for disapproving of it, modern Israel has sought to stifle such thoughts.

This makes Israel the permanent ally, in the Middle East, of the world’s lawful and free countries. This alliance is based on cultural and political kinship, factors that cannot be altered by a tyrant’s death or a coup d’état. Washington may be able to buy the friendship of one Arab or Muslim regime or another with arms and cash. But as soon as that regime falls, the investment of years is wasted if the new rulers are hostile.

Peter Hitchens was a Trotskyist until 1975, and now a “conservative” who supports the War in Iraq. I fail to see how he differs one iota from his loathsome dipsomaniac brother, except that it is the dipsomaniac’s job is to manage the opininions of readers of the MSM while Peter’s job is narcoticize the remnants of the “right” with soporific lullabies of inevitable and causeless decline.

One should not wait for Peter Hitchens to start a ruckus about Gollanz or the powers behind the Boer War or Sasson interests in China or Israeli terrorism against the British or the actual circumstances of the Balfour declaration or how the Board of British Jews created ‘speech codes’ out of Group Libel Law, or even who created Group Libel Law, or why you are the only nation besides Israel that is harboring Russian oligarchs. Peter can rail on various American influence without ever mentioning how they came about.

In passing, I feel I should raise the question, what does Peter Hitchens think of the BNP?

I suppose I could spend a week on this topic but am beginning to regard the bulk of this board as ineducable. That obviously has something to do with management. The “light English” model has resulted in a plethora of “light Englishmen”, who will undoubtedly fight in the next war, as they did in the last, for the interests of Jewry and against the interests of their nation, their Race, their Civilization, and the world at large.

A conservative must have his priorities, which can be fairly translated as, a conservative must observe his proprieties. No one was ever a better example of the modern conservative than Anne Morrow Lindbergh. “I would rather see this country at war than shaken by anti-Semitism”.

Anne had her wish granted, she got to see three hundred thousand of her own countrymen slaughtered for no reason at all save to destroy their common Race and Civilization, and I feel sure that good, upstanding British conservatives - but most especially Peter Hitchens and Ted Dalrymple - will live to see their dearest wishes come to pass, as well.

“Could it be because . . . *gasp* . . . Peter Hitchens is a Jew? [...]

Like Ted Dalrymple, [...] Hitchens is a Levantine.

“(i) his mother was Jewish” (—WM)

The Hitchens brothers are not Jewish although for a while some years back Christopher — after making hatred of organized religion and of particularist ethnic identity one of his intellectual cornerstones his whole professional life — bizarrely pranced around proclaiming he was a Jew for some odd reason, made sentimental trips to Israel where he had mawkishly mystical experiences as he went about “discovering his Jewish roots” or some such, and generally acted like a moron over his discovery that his grandmother was Jewish (it was the brothers’ grandmother, not mother, who was Jewish).  When you’ve been raised in every way as an Englishman, have always believed yourself to be eactly that, an Englishman, then discover at age 30 or thereabouts that you had a Jewish grandmother, you do not suddenly become Jewish.  You are still a non-Jewish Englishman, one whose grandmother happens to have been Jewish. 

Wintermute, comrade, you’ve gone beyond rational fault-finding with certain Jewish behaviors into mystical antipathy toward the Hebrews and, in effect, attributing supernatural powers to them.  What I always fail to see in your analyses is account taken of the role played by Euros such as the Bushes and a billion others just as bad, who are smart enough, rich enough, privileged enough, educated enough, connected enough, aloof enough, and unafraid enough to know better and act better but who seem to find the mischief of the Euro-hating diaspora Jews exactly their cup of tea.  It’s as if what the Jews are up to is exactly what these Euros have been hoping for, praying for, dreaming of all their lives, so enthsiastically do they endorse it, flock to it, adopt it.  In absolute numbers in the U.S. there are six times as many Euros with IQs over 140 as Jews, and four times as many Euros with IQs over 145 as Jews.  Where are they in all this?  Why aren’t they all posting at MR.com?  They’re not controlled by Jews.  At the above IQ levels they are many times more numerous, in absolute numbers, than Jews, are not scared of Jews in the slightest, and are extremely happy with the appalling direction society is taking.  Euro-hating diaspora Jews do the mischief they can get away with and only the mischief they can get away with.  That these upper strata of Euros let them get away with their mischief isn’t because Jews are infinitely cunning or wave magic wands to lobotomize these otherswise smart Euros.  It’s because these smart Euros see not a thing wrong with what the Jews are up to.

OK, that means if they opt to move to Israel and become citizens there, the Israeli rabbis will let them in.  What else it means I don’t know, Al.  My father’s mother was Jewish, yet my father was Catholic and very German.  He was not Jewish in the slightest.

Fred,
Christopher Hitchens is, I believe, a Balliol man and this civilizing influence might be what leads you to believe in his unassailable Englishness.

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

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.

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’.

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?

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.

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.

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.

“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…

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!

Menassah ben Israel et al.

Menassah ben Israel et al.

Right. Power of the Jew controlled press no doubt.

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.

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?

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.

JLH, your article, Thomas E. Watson and Negro Legal Supremacy on your blog is masterful.

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.

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!

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

Esther Swirk Brown wasn’t the Brown for whom the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case desegregating schools is named — but she is the Jewish woman who helped find Oliver Brown, no relation, to be the lead plaintiff in the historic case.

As a young woman in Kansas, Esther Brown was horrified by the conditions of the school that black children, including the children of her housekeeper, were forced to attend. The one-room schoolhouse in South Park had dilapidated walls and missing light bulbs.

“She went to a school board meeting to press for equal education and was told to go home and mind her own business,” said Miriam Katz, who impersonates Brown as part of a one-woman show honoring historic American women that is touring the Midwest.

Instead, Esther Brown stopped black children from attending the school, choosing to home school them in her own house and getting friends to serve as other teachers.

When she took her fight statewide to the capital in Topeka, she met Linda Brown, a young girl, and raised money so that Linda Brown’s father, Oliver, could sue the city’s board of education.

“She just wanted rights for everybody,” Katz said. “Maybe she felt like she had to make things right.”

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.

The fact that ‘Nationalists’ are busy using the same facile, emotive and asinine language as the allegedly ‘Zionist controlled media’ in their increasingly shrill reportage on the dispute in the nationalist movement, shows how far they have become lost in their own political psychosis. The fact that the British media has become the European propaganda wing of Hezbollah and churns out endless montages of wounded children, old men and women whilst never showing any footage of dead Hezbollah terrorists, blown up Hezbollah weapons dumps and footage of bombed Hezbollah camps should get some people thinking.

Media control

For decades the lunatic fringe of the Nationalist movement has said that the media is controlled by the ‘Jews’ and Israel. The reports from the BBC, and the rest of the British media, are so anti-Israel and pro-Hezbollah that such a contention has been revealed to be total rubbish.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=80

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.

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.

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.

At least muslim men have the balls to fight back aginst their enemy

“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 Rise of Radical Liberalism and the Decline of Rational Thought
By Peter Hansen

This article is the first of several that will take a close look at what I believe are two related phenomena in this nation’s history: the rise of radical liberalism and the simultaneous decline of rational thought.  For some time now I have been contemplating the evolution and various incarnations of liberal thought in the history of this country.  Having a background and interest in education, I have also been keenly interested in the rampant decline of rational thought evidenced by falling test scores, failed educational policies, and an overall impoverishment in scholarship and intellectual rigor in the last century.  Political philosopher, Allan Bloom, has described and documented this decline as “The closing of the American mind.” It is my belief that these two phenomena are intricately related, and I offer my thoughts and analysis, not as a definitive statement or as partisan propaganda, but as an attempt to “connect the dots” for those who are willing to listen.

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--
http://www.nationalcoalition.org/culture/articles/ga040301.html

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:

Oh yeah, I know, I know, I know, but it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s a bad thing for us. It’s a bad thing for us. It’s a bad thing. Maybe we’ll be lucky for once. Many Jews in the Communist conspiracy. . . . Chambers and Hiss were the only non-Jews. . . . Many thought that Hiss was. He could have been a half. . . . Every other one was a Jew - and it raised hell for us. But in this case, I hope to God he’s not a Jew.

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.

You talk about wars, GW, but not their psychological fallout. How has living in the shadow of the triumphant Soviet Union for fifty years, sans sane nationalists in public life (made impossible by your decision to fight your benefactor in the last big war) worked out for you? It’s one thing to say, oh, it’s not just the Jews, there were also these wars, too. Why were you in the war? The Germans gave you your 300,000 men back. It’s unreasonable of you to proffer reasons as if they occured in a vacuum.

“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?

You don’t mean Anna Ilona Staller, do you?

I suppose Abe Foxman’s sixty million dollar annual budget falls from the sky, like manna.

Indeed:

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

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

It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.

To deal with only that small slice of the JQ, the question of “good jews,” I say the term is an oxymoron.  To be a “good jew” is to cease being a jew.

As for the bigger question, “how much of our problems are due to jewry, and how much are due to our own elites,” it’s a difficult question to answer with concision.  I tend to think jewry is a necessary and probably sufficient cause.  On the other hand, the simple fact is that capitalism as governing system leads directly to what we’re undergoing today.

I think a lot of this is counting angels on pinheads; we must separate ourselves from jewry, first mentally, then physically.  There is no honest racial nationalist position for arguing otherwise.  Once this is achieved, we can get our own house in order, and we’ll know the true extent of in-house cleaning required.