I have to agree with Jeffery P. Kahn in part. When I read the following expert from the original article, I am convinced this thing is getting out of hand.

“But if I’m honest, I did it for financial reasons; I wanted to travel,” says the 31-year-old woman who lives in New York and works for an international nonprofit. She asked to remain anonymous since her family doesn’t know she donated eggs three times.

“It would be a relief to know that my eggs were being used to find medical cures,” she says, “rather than being used to produce additional kids for well-to-do American families.”

This women is disgusting!

“It would be a relief to know that my eggs were being used to find medical cures,” she says, “rather than being used to produce additional kids for well-to-do American families.”

This woman is disgusting! (—Bud White)

1) She’s been brainwashed:  “well-to-do American families” is code for none other than white families, the implicit propaganda she’s regurgitating being part of today’s overall push to reduce whites to minorities in all Eurosphere countries through the twin strategies of race-replacement immigration on the one hand, and on the other, the forcing down of white birth rates by several means including anti-marriage/anti-motherhood/anti-baby propaganda and the imposition of crushing financial burdens on young white couples to keep them from having the disposable incomes needed to start families or add to them.  Without any doubt this woman absorbed this propaganda originally from her college professors and since then has had it constantly reinforced by the reigning spirit of the milieu in which she circulates or strives to circulate, according to which utter disdain for white people as a group, their welfare, and their future as a group is considered hip, chic, intelligent, superior, upper-class:  never would she for one second allow herself to say the opposite of what she said, as doing so would mark her in the eyes of her peers as a neanderthal, trailer trash, lower-class, a bimbo, and she could say good-bye to every one of her friends, to any hope of advancement in her job, and possibly to her job itself.  Every opportunity to spout what she spouted there brings her tremendous satisfaction, for it helps establish in the eyes of her peers her “bona fides” as someone who is so, so, so upper-class, modern, and intelligent.  Such is the brainwashing and the sprit of the times — what GW calls the Zeitgeist — or, the Zeitgeist reigning among a certain segment of the population.  She hasn’t the slightest notion in the world of what she’s actually talking about.

2) The AP wire service has become, since at least the last eight or ten years or longer (probably longer), a radical left-wing outfit.  Whenever they can they slant news stories in such a way as to advance the left-wing agenda.  When there’s an AP by-line on a story, you know you’re about to read some sort of reinforcement of the left-wing point of view, if that can possibly be wedged in.  Had the woman who was interviewed expressed non-left-wing views the AP wouldn’t have published her comments but would’ve sought out a woman who spouted what the AP wants to push.  So that was no accident or random or representative sampling of female opinion, not by a long shot.  It was the AP’s world view.

Bud White writes: I have to agree with Jeffery P. Kahn in part. When I read the following expert from the original article, I am convinced this thing is getting out of hand. [quoting a young woman in NYC who obviously values money over her EGI]

Bud what has gotten out of hand is shoving young women into female saturated ghettos like NYC so they can become corporate concubines to Dr. Con’s coethnics and then kicked out for being middle aged during “corporate downsizing”.

All* Dr. Con cares about obviously is the fact that some of these young women are finding a way to actually make money without subservience as “temps” to their cubicle lords at Citicorp. 

Despite pretending to be a “bioethicist” Dr. Con will never admit his own conflict of ethnic genetic interests.

*Well perhaps Dr. Con also feels a bit resentful that some white men, who aren’t so morally nimble as his coethnics (and might have therefore been elbowed aside during the fertile years of these now middle aged women), snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.  You see many of them, such as yours truly, find themselves below replacement fertility, if not childless altogether, in middle age along with those women—a situation obviously quite acceptable to Dr. Con’s “ethics”—only to turn what is left of their assets and lives into a viable child sired by *gasp* a non-Jewish white guy with the support of a white woman who has just had her eyes opened.

What I don’t get is, what’s the big deal if women do want to sell their eggs? The folks who are doing this research are getting paid, but they think the women who are being poked and prodded are supposed to do it for charity.

Despite pretending to be a “bioethicist” Dr. Con will never admit his own conflict of ethnic genetic interests.

James, yesterday you had convinced me that some Jews were on the verge of understanding and ackowledging their actual role in the politicoracial ecology; specifically Mercer and Auster.

Of Khan, however, you tell us that he will never admit his own conflict of genetic interests. Why is that?

Finally, if Mr. Khan cannot be made to see the general malignance of his existence, perhaps his co-workers can? Sowing suspicion in limited areas, like an office or a bogus subfield like ‘bioethics’ seems like a whispering campaign that just might pay off. So in this case I would amend GWs suggestion to read: can his colleagues be made to understand the conflict-of-interest he represents?

A theoretical question also raises itself at this point: “after the Revolution”, so to speak, what sort of crime would Mr. Khan find himself charges with before the show trials? Is intent to commit genocide in concert with presenting yourself as a ‘bioethicist’ a punishable crime? How about if both are compounded by a)the use of influence networks to atttan legitmation for a bogus sub-field and b)use of co-ethny controlled news outlets to agitate on behalf of genocide?

I presented yesterday - against the suggestion that Jews were blameless sweethearts who had done nothing worse than persuade stupid Whites to make poor choices - the idea that Jews were much like the Charles Boyer character in Gaslight, in that they misrepresent themselves in order that they and their suggestions be accepted among the group they make war on - like an enemy spy.

If this article had a six-pointed star by Khan’s name, and if people generally knew what Jews were and what they wanted, I don’t think any mischief could arise from his schemes. But among a population that falsely believes that Jews are people “just like us” but with a funny religion, instead of the scheming collectivity they are, are likely to take Jewish suggestions in whatever way they are phrased; attacks on the Iraq regime, for instance, are made in the name of ‘democracy’, more centralized governmnet for ‘fairness’, having no children ‘for the sake of the earth’ (go on - look up who were the brains and money behind Zero Population Growth in the Seventies) and so forth.

Between Zero Population, Khan’s stuff, feminism, abortion as a civil right not involving parents, and so forth, every avenue that might influenced the fertility and health of the host population has been influenced for the worse. This is not a criticism of your article, but something that White media needs to begin to take into account; we are writing for the equivalent of first graders, not high schoolers.

When Everyman picks up his morning Daily Oceania (or Daily Airstrip One, in GWs case), the staff of the DO and its writers, as well as the writers of the wire service articles which it makes use of, all depend on a common series of reference points that Everyman has been conditioned to, by school, by co-workers, by his entertainments, and by every other source of information and entertainment available to him.

Thus, when the Daily Oceana runs a story, Obese Black Woman Trips, Injures Self, an automatic, Pavlovian cascade is triggered in his mind: lynchings, slavery, burning crosses, Rosa Parks, “I have a dream” and many others. This distance between the summoning up of all these images and their strong feeling-tone is met almost immediately by a thought response, White People are so terrible. This response can be profitably used in articles on immigration to the United States or the UK, so as to destroy any basis or foundation for resistance whatsoever. Even those compelled to move by some unmolested instinct of self-preservation are in fact, wracked with guilt. So the propasphere is at work all the time even when the TV seems to be off (in our civilization, the TV is never off).

Now, with White media, the problem is that each story rests on nothing: it’s just a big pile of atoms. For people at this site who have read Culture of Critique your article begins to build on something; all too often, though, the prospective ‘convert’ to our cause, who is silently lurking at one of the news sites friendly to our interests, (here, AmRen, nationalvanguard.org) is faced with a perplexing accumulation of detail which does not build on previous feeling-toned images in the readers mind. The reader thus remains in a state of hesitation or confusion, especially moral confusion, as to the force and righteousness with which he might make his case in public.

We need to consider, when we present articles, to provide as much context as possible; taken on its own this article is slotted by most readers into the ‘Jews have some bad apples among them, sure’ category, the most potent weapon by which Jews fight racial awareness on our part - by doubling down on pre-existing Enlightenment logic, they suggest to their victim, oh, we’re just a group of individuals - like you - and some of those individuals are bad - just like with you!

This is a brazen and desperate, and therefore easily disproveable lie, but we will have to provide a lot of context, especially for lurkers who are just waking up to the horror of the situation, that they may see this is a cross-generational game with more than just a handful of players.

Finally, the importance of the networks of influence which all of these creatures use to both promote themselves and propogate their homicidal ideas can, by its omnipresence, fade into the background. We must foreground it and them on every possible occasion.

Of Khan, however, you tell us that he will never admit his own conflict of genetic interests. Why is that?

Unlike Auster, Mercer and Schiller, Khan seems to be unalloyed mendacity.  Moreover, his authoritative presence in a place like a Minnesota university indicates he is virulently committed to not just deception of others—primarily young recessive women—but self-deception.  There is about as much hope for such a man as there is for a hard-core junkie suffering from advanced AIDS neuropathic amygdala degeneration.

As to your critique of “white media” not addressing the needs of readers without certain prerequisites—this is, like any media a problem of target audience demography.  Good pedagogy focuses on “placement” but do we have such a luxury here?  How do we figure out the demographic distribution of the “lurkers” and the corresponding value distribution of reaching them?

Desmond, yes there is risk.  There is also risk in childbirth.  There is also risk in being a police officer or soldier.  Need I go on?

How do we figure out the demographic distribution of the “lurkers” and the corresponding value distribution of reaching them?

I don’t have the answer to that question yet. Part of the reason my posts are so prolix is that I want for “beginners” to be given as much associative context as possible for the item under consideration.

We should also be thinking about position papers.

For instance:

I am very good at processing information about history, philosophy, religion and so forth. But I cannot argue biology. I can understand some of the basics, but were someone to stop me in the street and press me for a cogent account of Salter and EGI, I would be at a loss. My knowledge of biology peters out at about the time of the Paracelsan redeaction of Galen’s humeral theories. Is the EGI is the black bile, the yellow bile, the blood or the choler?

Though I hope to have raised a smile with my very slight hyperbole regarding my biological ignorance, it is very true and not at all funny that most persons view of political and historical life aren’t even the equivalent of Galen’s humeral theories. Their ignorance of what David Irving calls Real History is almost absolute, far greater than even my ignorance of biology.

The best aid to comprehension are books like: Culture of Critique, Shahak’s books, When Victims Rule, Ginsberg’s Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State and about a half dozen others.

Realistically, not everyone is going to read all of those titles. We need to take the most vivid and most easily documentable elements from all these sources and repeat them until they are - like Rosa Parks, “I have a dream”, lynchings, and the rest - background radiation of which everyone is aware.

For the time being when we write, we must keep in mind that many of our readers are fresh from lewrockwell, vdare or related sites, that while they know something is terribly, terribly wrong, they do not know what it is and understandably will not wish to believe when told.

In practice, I suppose that means it is not enough to state the final truth as we have done here: that Jews seek our total dispossession as a Race and as a Civilization.  We must also provide enough supplementary material that the more courageous among our lurkers are able to bring themselves up to speed as quickly as possible - that by an examination of a handful of reliable sources, they can confirm this conclusion for themselves, and begin to take whatever actions seem necessary in light of it, chiefly alerting others to the situation they are in. Then they may all in turn begin the long, excruciating journey of bringing their friends and family back into sanity.

None of this should be taken as criticism; my only business with you personally, other than to praise your writing, is to request definitive essays on Vectorism and your own approach to Culture Jamming multiculturalism. I think both of these strategies will bear much fruit for our cause, and deserve lucid expositions. I’ll happily post them all over the web when you’re finished with them. “Vectorism” espeically, is a powerful word-concept which could become normalized very quickly on the web. I like it especially because it does what it says - by purporting to be a neutral analytic device, it actually primes the brain of the user to see parasitical actions and duplicitousness at every turn . . . it is itself a ‘vector’. Usually only magical words or computer commands do what they say. It’s all very Snow-crashy, if you don’t mind the comparison.

Even more powerful, the term vector will be known by most people who use it as a medical term, so again, while ‘Vectorism’ looks very Latinate, very Aufklarung, very innocent and neutral, it is secretly priming its host to not only look for parasitism, or even to examine phenomenon in terms of parasitism - which it does - but to also prime them unconsciously to regard such instances as a physical disease.

As I am sure you know, the human brain comes with all sorts of bundled software for automatically regarding and dealing with disease, disgust and hatred of disease carriers prime among them. 

The word as meme as vector as weapon. Shortened and Germanized: Wortwaffe.

I like it.

The facts of the matter are that egg donors are fully appraised of the risks already as a matter of course.  No one has ever taken issue with that ethical requirement nor has there been any pattern of violation of informed consent ethics.  He’s just making noise, that’s only one, of MANY, reasons why one can impute an ulterior motive in the case of the infamous Dr. Con.  Now, the question arises:  What is your ulterior motive?

While we await your response my muse has just buzzed me with some lyrics:

Get up in the morning, slaving for bread, sir,
so that every mouth can be fed.
Poor me, the Israelite. Aah.

Get up in the morning, slaving for bread, sir,
So that every mouth can be fed.
Poor me, the Israelite. Aah.

My wife and my kids, they are packed up and leave me.
Darling, she said, I was yours to be seen.
Poor me, the Israelite. Aah.

Shirt them a-tear up, trousers are gone.
I don’t want to end up like Bonnie and Clyde.
Poor me, the Israelite. Aah.

After a storm there must be a calm.
They catch me in the farm. You sound the alarm.
Poor me, the Israelite. Aah.

Poor me, the Israelite.
I wonder who I’m working for.
Poor me, Israelite,
I look a-down and out, sir.

I can impute an ulterior motive because your apparent stupidity is too tendentious to be mere stupidity.  Also, would you care to discuss the connection between your pseudonym and Africans resident in the British Isles, or should I?

Nothing of course.  It merely points out why you refuse to accept damning arguments against your stupid “critiques”.

Well, I don’t trust Kahn.  He is an active Holocaust(TM)-promoting member of the tribe that is and has historically been hostile to Whites and White civilization; of course his motives are suspect.  And given the serious decline in White birth rates and the imminent minority status of Whites in their own countries—a fact of which any thinking person is aware—the voicing of his “concern” in this matter is wildly inappropriate.  How dare this Jew tell White women what to do with their own eggs!

By the argument that one cannot judge someone by his affiliations means that no one could be judged by his membership in anything, be it Judiasm, Islam, Mormonism, Hells Angels, the Frankfurt School, or the Black Panthers. 

It appears that normal White people, out of a desire to be nice and fair, ignore the bigger picture in instances such as these.  I know most people know that just because someone seems nice does not mean that he is your friend; they know that the Evil One smiles very broadly, too.  But I must repeat it because Whites continually forget this or cannot seem to apply it to anything concerning racial politics.  Today’s civilized White man or woman, out of a sincere desire to be race-neutral and fair, never puts up much of a protest when his and his children’s genetic, social, economic, or cultural interests are damaged by outside interests.  He naturally wants to be seen as nice and fair and so he refuses to shout rudely and loudly, “Stop it!  You’re interests are destroying my and my children’s futures!” He does not realize that his is the only race that consistently rolls over like this.

And what is the result of all this hyper-civility and misplaced compassion for those who hate you and your families?  This: White conservatives the world over have been losing on every single battle front for over 100 years.  Every healthy institution Whites had have been disabled or destroyed through Whites’ refusal to appear uncivilized.  Right now, South Africans are being raped, butchered, set alight as we speak.  And astoundingly, because of their radical liberal beliefs of racial egalitarianism and hard-wired belief in fairness, they do little to stop it. 

In America, we will be a minority in our own country in about 20 years.  What makes this particularly disturbing is that most laws and cultural assumptions dealing with race today are already stacked heavily against Whites.  And, thanks to the machinations of the Chose Ones, legislation against Holocaust(TM) “denial” and racial “hate speech” is making its way through DC.  If this is not stopped now, Whites will soon be unable to voice any dissent at all against the anti-White politics now or in the future.  What kind of future does this mean for our children? 

As to Mr, Kahn, what kind of person would willingly be associated with the group that is and always has been the strongest pushers of the communism and multiculturalism that continues to kill so many of our people?

Khan’s affiliation with Judaism and Holocaust(TM) activism cannot be ignored, no matter how much “concern” for our well-being he appears to exhibit.  A person’s group affiliation matters, especially in a world that is hyper-politicized and in a country where racial politics have become the norm.

Bud, in short, it’s this: how guilty are Whites if the economic, cultural, political, and mass informational gate-keepers are Jews?

Retew,

For the benefit of readers of this thread I will restate the issue from “Peckham”, because it has a bearing on Mr Kahn:-

Should socially responsible Jews interested in Western cultural survival not agree [with repatriating the black population resident in England], or is the “value” of a deracinating and demographically shrinking host too great and tempting a prize?

Now, I disagree somewhat with wintermute’s very free use of the term “Jews” in this present thread, for the reason that there is more than one proximate value among Jews.  Certainly, there are socially responsible Jews, often religious, who strive for many of the same goals we do.  Social responsibility (or conservatism) is a common good that crosses ethnic divides.  It is a societal, not purely ethnic norm.  Thus, there are many radical rightists who admire Moslems precisely because they appear to be a moral and honour-driven group.

So, does the presence of social responsibility qualify the discussion of the JQ?  Jews like Larry Auster and Henry Makow who are interested in living in a healthy Western society are, at the very least, restricted in their response to the “problem” of diaspora and to Christianity?  They can’t be assigned the same moral station in life as an Al Goldstein.  In that much, Larry Auster’s frustration at never being allowed by people like me to belong to the majority because of ethnic origin could be just.

But, as the “Peckham” question infers, at some point social responsibility dissolves into ethnic interest, and that’s where the issue of including Jews in our societies is decided.  Dr Kahn might, as Desmond points out, be perfectly responsible, and as ethical as as any bioethicist on the planet.  Likewise, the Zivs and Le Rois, the immigrationists and human rights artistes et alia may be responsible to a man.  But they also pursue an agenda in opposition to our interests.

Since our interests necessitate the exclusion of subversive aliens, whether they are black “Britons” or American Jews or French Islamics, that is really the basis on which all these gentlemen effectively exclude themselves.  (Of course, there are other bases, such as genetic distance, on which we may exclude them.)

I have strong doubts that it is possible for the human animal to set aside or neutralise his EGI.  That is what James’ test demands and, without the violence, theoretic or otherwise, of the sanctions to which he lays claim, I agree with it.

Surly you aren’t asserting that ALL Jews are complicit in subverting our culture and out to ethnically cleanse the white-race are you? From my own limited perspective, experience tells me their are many Jews who are just as disgusted as we are about the dispossession of the white-race.

This is a very serious canard that is going to have to be definitively dealt with sooner or later.

It is a very powerful illusion that the “good Jews” whom we know personally are not involved, simply because we cannot understand - or recreate - the level of duplicitousness involved in living with people and befriending people whose complete ruin and devasatation cannot bother you at all.

Jews are, psychologically, like spies. I mean this in a very specific way. They are like a man who moves to the Soviet Union, marries a woman, has children, goes about his party functions or other duties happily and effectively, holds friendships, occupies office, kisses babies. And thinks nothing of reporting classified information to his contacts or via his secret radio, with the ultimate intent of destroying the life of every single person he loves. And I’m not doubting he loves the people he’s interacting with in the Soviet Union. He’s just working day and night for their complete destruction - maybe ideological, maybe physical. He doesn’t know - those decisions will be made later, by other people, in some other place. Having filed his report, he happily goes back to his family, his job, his “nation”.

Now, he is so inwardly fragmented that no part of his two lives ever comes so closely into contact that he feels the anguish that a normal person would feel in such a situation. He may be useful to a spy agency, but he is mentally so unwell - or perhaps simply so inhuman - that no remotely sane or sound person could do as he has done. We depend on natural variations in character to find the few spies that our agencies use. Jews are - almost to a man - born this way. That other, non-Jewish people have no rights, and really, no existance at all has been a fixture of Jewish inner life since before they wrote the Old Testament. They are a people for whom morality, which begins with the independant existence of the Other, lies thousands of years in future, if that day indeed ever arrives for them at all.

By natural variation Jews will produce some few healthy or normal people, just as we produce some small fraction suitable for deep cover operations as I’ve discussed above. However, it would the the height of arrogance - not to say lunacy - to presume that you could tell the difference. Since any statistically normal Jew is going to outwardly (and to a degree inwardly) act like a “good Jew” how could an Aryan, for whom their whole mental constitution is not only profoundly alien but distressing to contemplate, tell the difference between the two?

Further, what are the odds that a “good jew” is going to have children who are like him? Very little.

Finally, jews are so group-oriented by both culture and race, that to think of them at individuals at all is a wild and insupportable notion. They’re not individuals. It would be better if you thought of their nation as an organism which, when faced with other nations, secretes so many personalities for use. By age 35, even the most “individualistic” Jew is a more or less faceless cog, who thinks of nothing but the advance of the organism of which he is a part, and the destruction and humiliation of all other organisms of which he is not a part.

You should read Victor Ostavsky’s By Way of Deception. How could the Mossad operate the world’s most effective intelligence organization with only 35 case officers? The answer, sayanim, is instructive here. A network of thousands of Jews, doctors, lawyers, lobbyists, cogressmen, what have you, ready at an instant’s notice to provide “off the books” services and safe houses, any time they are needed. Could whites operate like this in all the nonWhite nations they live in?

To ask the question is to answer it.

Your other observation, the there are “plenty” of Jews who see the world as you do, is false. There are plenty of Jews willing to pretend anything to achieve their ends. Recall Wagner: “The Jew is the plastic demon of decomposition” where plastic means infinitely malleable.

Focusing our attention of the half dozen Jews who pretend to oppose gun registration, control, and confiscation while the entire Tribe pours millions in cash and more in political muscle to destroy the Second Amendment amounts to running interference for the other side. And how simple it was to fool you. Thirteen million, nine hundred ninety nine thousand, nine hundred ninety three Jews exert themselves and their considerable politcal power to the utmost to destroy one vital principal of American freedom or Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and you’re right there, directing our attention to the remaining six who are making a loud noise about being on our side. Do you begin to see how vague generalities like “The Jewish Conspiracy” become horrifyingly specific realities when people like yourself are factored in? You, Bud, are the “conspiracy”. The lousy software that’s been placed on your hard drive by hostile factions makes you the willing and eager catspaw. No Jew needs show his face, not as long as you are talking for them.  Then others pile on, saying, see - it isn’t all the jew’s fault: there are always people like Bud willing to go along. And many reasonable and fair minded people watching the exchange say, yes, it isn’t just the Jews.

But the truth is: the bad ideas you are propagating have in fact been placed in your mind by Jews, or by people who serve them in the same way you do.  I presume you are an American, a conservative, and a Christian. The Titanic errors you are making virtually demand that you exist that the intersection of three of the most vibrant contemporary Judaic discourses: America, the proposition nation, conservatism that stands for ”Judeo-Christian values”, and a Christianity utterly corrupted since the time of Cromwell at least, probably Luther, and maybe even Constantine.

A major Jewish theologian of the twentieth century, Franz Rosenzweig, counseled patience among his co-ethnics regarding Christianity.  It’s purpose, he said, was to marshall Judaism safely to the End of Time. How is this? demanded his friends, who listed in radid succession the various pogroms and depredations caused their people by the European.

Look here, Rosenzweig explained, most of what you complain of has been done by peansants, not Christianity. In fact, when you considered that if Christianity was displeased with some sect, it would hunt down every single member and torture and murder them without any compunction or mercy whatsoever, their treatment of the Jews could be seen in a very different light. In the case of the Albigensians, the Church was so eager to destroy the sect that it also murdered every member of the region the sect resided in, just to be sure. When has this happened to the Jews? Never.

Thus, he reminded them, in two thousand years of Christian rule, the Jews were quite healthy, not at all like those sects which Christians had seen fit to exterminate root and branch. No wholesale attempt at genocide had ever taken place against them, for the simple reason they were insulated from the forces of History by Christians and Christian doctrine. Be patient, he said.

In what way are you, Bud, differing from Rosensweig’s diagnosis of the Christian condition? Do you have a goal here besides Jewish safety and happiness, i.e. that they be allowed to feed on us and our progeny for as long as we both shall live?

If you’re not ashamed to get behind that thesis, please speak up. I must confess some confusion as to what you’re positing as a political ideal.

wintermute,

My true belief about “most” Jews is that they are by definition the Antichrist; the devil incarnate. How else can such a tiny group of people have such sway over the rest of the world’s population? They must derive their power from Satan himself?

I hesitated to post on this site because most here are eon’s ahead of me intellectually. But I thought I’d toss my two cents in anyway. I tried to present myself as a moderate on the issue of the Jewish question because I didn’t want to appear too radical. It seems that approach fell a little flat! LOL

Btw-- David Duke doesn’t go so far as to condemn all Jews either. He he wrong too?

GW writes: “But, as the “Peckham” question infers, at some point social responsibility dissolves into ethnic interest, and that’s where the issue of including Jews in our societies is decided.”

Yes indeed, when I was in High School, after class the students tended to gravitate to their own ethnic tribes. The Italians, the Mexicans, the blacks etc all grouped separately. When push comes to shove, ethnic solidarity always trumps the larger community interests, yes?

I’ll continue to read, learn, and toss in a few comments now and then.

Dr Kahn might, as Desmond points out, be perfectly responsible, and as ethical as as any bioethicist on the planet.

I will posit that Dr. Khan might be as responsible as any ‘bioethicist’. I tend to think he is, in fact. However, no-one has explained to me how his Holocaust activism, his Judaism, and his ‘bioethics’ are NOT of a piece. They all seem, as I said above, “cuckoo”, which is to say designed to destroy the offspring of the host so that resource allocation to the biological in-group is maximized.

Or, in plainer language free of the pretend neutrality of science - he is of Judah. He is a murderer who connives to aid other murderers. That is all his fancy ideologies, or the fancy ideology of any Jew - or any Aryan whose education has been carried out under the watchful Jewish gaze - boil down to. Murder.

To Wintermute: Context is necessary, but what if you concentrated on the good which potential followers will gain and bad outsiders will reap in and how they will be left out of a secure and good group. When used with austere and non exaggerating language, it has a shock effect. It draws attention, because it deals with basic necessary needs of people; gaining advantages over others and good things; avoiding insecurity, danger and bad things; and the need to belong to a group. You don’t even have to have yet what you are selling; you are selling a kind of “prerogatives to future memberships”. With this method I have gained sudden desire from my highly educated opponents to run along with my opinions. It works often. But you must have a more comprehensive vision of your group than what I have seen here (Maybe I have missed something). Ethnic genetic interests are excellent and necessary foundation and territory is needed sometime in the future, but what before then. How do you form a group in practice, what are the many practical functions the group will have, how is it so advantageous over other groups and individuals? I have answers to these. Do you have them?

P.s. Sidenote: My English grammar might not be perfect, but don’t evaluate me according to it.

WM: Wow, you’re on a roll!  Well said, multo bene!

Finn:  “I have answers to these.” Can you share them here?  (Your English is good.)

Israel has the ability to not only embarrass Jews all across the world, which is bad enough, it has the power to make non-Jews notice the Jews among them which is impermissable. When Israel is causing too many gentiles to ‘wake up’, the chain is yanked. There is no question who is the more powerful partner in the world-nation Judah, and New York has dealt very efficiently with Israel in the past, when they have become too noticeable.

This is a very interesting explanation for leftist criticism of Israel, one that I admit I had neither considered nor heard put forth before now. It certainly gives me something to think about. 

I’ve been reading your comprehensive comments from the past week or so with great interest.  I believe that it would be a tremendous thing if you were to put your talents to work as a blogger or essayist.  You’re a very lucid writer, and you’ve clearly done a lot of thinking about the JQ.

To, Robert of the Rohorrim, and wintermute,

Okay, okay! IT’S THE JEWS!!!!!

But I’m sure your both quite aware of the fact that a very small number of people (in the Jew controlled West) are aware of the Jewish agenda. And only a very small percentage that small number have the balls to speak out about it!

People like Duke and others are trying to reach as broad of an audience as possible to spead the message...to sound the clarion call. I believe Duke has to feign the pretence that he believes not all Jews are working as one. If he came right out and said: “ All Jews are of the Synagogue of Satan” and are out to destroy the world, he would scare away otherwise potential converts. Once people become a little bit aware of why things are happening the way they are, they will be more receptive to a deeper understanding of the truth.

To come at people in full strength mode who aren’t even quite sure of what a Jew, or the Talmud acually is, will only scare them off.  Wouldn’t a slower more incremental approach be the best course of action? Even if you have to tell them not all Jews have a malevolent agenda against whites, wouldn’t that work better as a ground-breaker?

This is a very interesting explanation for leftist criticism of Israel, one that I admit I had neither considered nor heard put forth before now. It certainly gives me something to think about.

I’m glad you find this model profitable; I do as well. There’s a comedic side, as there always is with Jews, you seem like you might appreciate it, so I’ll share.

When I say that Israelis hate having their chain yanked by a group a fat, comfortable New York Jews who are not putting their lives on the line to make a home for their people, I mean to say that they have recourse to rhetoric that will seem familiar to readers of, say, VNN.

Even so redoubtable a montster as Ariel Sharon struggles with the New York Times in vain. For a little taste of the bad blood that obtains between these two factions of Judah, I offer the following pull quote, from an interview by Amos Oz:

“Let me tell me [sic] what is the most important thing, the sweetest fruit of the war in Lebanon: It is that now they don’t just hate Israel. Thanks to us, they now also hate all those Feinschmecker Jews in Paris, London, New York, Frankfurt and Montreal, in all their holes.

“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying.”

“The sweetest fruit of the War in Lebanon” . . . “ they hate those Feinschmecker Jews” . . . “in all their holes”.

Even for me, this is excessive (but funny!). It’s also critical for understanding the actual faultlines of Judah as it exists. No, I have never been able to think of a way to exploit this fault line, but it does exist, and could conceivably be used against them somehow.  That Jews are univalent in their distal values (or value), tends to mitigate against exploiting an in-group struggle. They are, at the moment, too monolithic.

’ve been reading your comprehensive comments from the past week or so with great interest.

Thank you.

I believe that it would be a tremendous thing if you were to put your talents to work as a blogger or essayist.

I have thought about my online position for sometime. I think that majorityrights is the best place for me, where the most productive ideas will be exchanged. I’ll be responding here as time allows. I am also thinking about essays now, I do find that the rough and tumble of real discussion is very productive in that regard.

Certainly with me demanding essays from James Bowery and the Finn among others, I would be remiss in not providing essays of my own.

You’re a very lucid writer, and you’ve clearly done a lot of thinking about the JQ.

My first reply to that would be to say, go visit the Jewish Tribal Review and read “When Victims Rule”.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm

The degree to which any particular charge againt the Jews might be extended out to any length whatsoever with abundant footnoting from sources that are unquestionably trustworthy, is . . . frightening. You could make a book out of any charge, and never have to stoop to quoting Nora Webster or the Nazis or whomever the conspiracy websites are touting that week.

As I’ve indicated above, there is no need for “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” when the Old Testament is available in any hotel room. The book of Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah are available to all: it’s just that nobody (save perhaps Oliver and Hartung) has ever paid them any serious mind. Certainly not the churches. The “Protocols” are like a comic book version of Genesis and Isaish, for people who are too simple to believe that whole awfulness encompassed by the term Judah is right there, in the blueprints. Being in possesion of the Bible, there was never a time that any European could convincingly argue, “Well, we didn’t know the Jews for what they were.” The Nature of their existence has always been at the core of the only pan-Aryan religion ever to exist, Christianity. It is worrying that this insight was not politically codified until Germany in the mid 1930s. That’s almost two thousand years to understand the plain words of the Hebrew Bible - I’ve heard of poor reading comprehension, but this is ridiculous!

The whole file on the Jews exists, it has just been kept out of your hands and consequently your mind for your whole life. The anonymous author of “When Victims Rule” in some ways has surpassed Kevin MacDonald in terms of sheer volume of historical witnesses. I am certainly indebted to the work at that site.

My other response would be, that the Jews are protected by their sheer volume of crime. It is not enough that the methods by which their crimes were committed are somewhat beyond Aryan ken; recall the real origin of Hitler’s “Big Lie” observation. Ayrans can’t understand a genuine Big Lie because it is outside their the range of their imagination. Not just that they can’t tell it - they can’t understand the motivations that produce it or the mental duplicity that allows it to be told. Any given Jew’s inner life is going to resemble a John Le Carre novel to some extent.

The upshot here is that it is not enough to document any one crime; all of them taken individually can be dismissed as the works of ‘bad apples’. This is the Enlightenment - Liberal mindset, which understands individuals and their freedoms and their equality, but rejects outright that groups have any existance or causal role in an individual’s inner life that Enlightenment theory is bound to respect. Naturally, any given Jewish crime is therefore the work of a few, atypical ‘bad apples’. But it is not, and only by containing - if even for a moment - the totality of Jewish crime simultaneously, will the nature of character of our adversary ever become plain. Communism, Islam, Feminism, Frankfurt School, “Oligarchs”, Slave Morality, Speech Codes, the Morgenthau Plan, the Mossad, Lubavichers, the Federal Reserve, the Rothschild Banks, Globalism, Diversity, Multiculturalism, “The Holocaust”, AIPAC: all spring from one infinitely malignant spiritual impulse which all Jews, to some degree, share in.

For what it’s worth, Arabs share many of the habits of mind of their desert cousins; sharp trading indicates that the Other as moral object is a developmental waystation that the surviving Semitic races have never attained to - the inability to internalize this point - the moral nonexistence of the Semite - is the whole root of the death struggle Europe finds itself in. The best epitaph for the Ayran race would be, “They can’t be as bad as all that” - when in fact they are much, much worse. It is a critical confusion, what I have called elsewhere ‘the fatal mistake’.

A side note, for fairness sake: I am not an ‘anti-Semite’ in the literal meaning of that word. The Phonecians were traders who never became monsters, so far as I can tell (the Carthagenians, a subset of Phoenicians, did toss their children into the burning maw of an idol) and the Arabs might have remained harmless desert bedouins forever had they not encountered Christianity, which they rapidly assimilated back into its component pieces: Islam as Judaism 2.0. A Muslim Arab, a thousand years on, is the image of a Jew who had enough weaponry and numbers that he never had to think.

It is my goal, so far as I am able, to try to induce in any readers here some sense of the simultaneous existance of hundreds of swindles, ideologies, religions, mass movements, petty grievances, false flags, agent provocateurs, and so forth that the Jewish group - Judah - is brainstorming, propagating, covering up, financing, activating, safe housing, or egging on at any given time while people like you and I go about our daily business. This whole ‘good jew’ question is an example of how Aryans are not yet able to defend themselves because they cannot escape from Enlightenment-Liberal categories of thought, which were only ever models for Aryans living among themselves or people imagined to be like themselves. As we have discovered to our ruin, not all people are like ourselves.

The Human Race, like the “Rights of Man”, is a null set. As the saying goes, if France discovered the Rights of Man, how could it be that the Rights of Englishmen were five hundred years older?

As to those who state, and state fairly, that the “conspiracy” has another half: Big Money, I must agree. However, as Pound first observed of International Loan Capital and the Jew: “no one will ever unscramble that omlette”. Hence my feeling that it is useless to target them separately.

And, not to be too blunt about it, but there is only one political movement in history that has ever simultaneously targeted International Loan Capital and irredeemably hostile ethnys at the same time. It should not be a source of wonder that they are, in Jewish controlled areas, the most demonized people in history.

I’ve been reading your thoughts, wintermute, for a while now (where I can find them) and it’s good to see you back. You had become a lurker. I know this because you are noticed and spoken of by people who wish you’d make your presence felt again. The phora could do with you at the moment. Few Jew-aware people speak-up anymore.

Speaking of Jew-aware.  You seem to be hyper aware.  Even I have trouble accepting some of what you say. If you are considering writing essays, I think your first project should be to cover the same ground as you have done in this thread, but offer some proof for how you reached your conclusions. Make your conclusions seem reasonable. Because right now, I think even those of us with our eyes open and our ears clean will find it very hard to take. You must also consider that your idea, minus your writing ability equals a very difficult bite to swallow.

Sorry wintermute,
After thinking about it for awhile, I’m going to revert back to my original attitude and say that not all Jews are conniving people. Some Jews are just as genuinely disgusted by what groups such as the ACLU are doing to undermine white society as I am.

Ok, Wintermute, thank you for your answers. I put that name and address you gave to the computer memory. My English vocabulary is good. If I write large articles, all I need is that somebody with good English skills corrects possible spelling and grammar mistakes.

I explained in the previous answer part of the method of gaining attention. Some more information and a little bit of repetition:

- Read the hierarchies of fears and needs from marketing or psychology textbooks.

- Choose basic fears and needs that can be creatively interwoven to your case.

- Make sure that every vector points to same direction and there is only one wäy out. The way you created in your mind in advance.

- Make psychologically compelling situation. If he chooses your way, there will be relief and good feeling about gaining advantages. If he chooses any other way, there will be uneasines and a feeling of important loss.

- Use austere and non exaggerating language, there is a kind of compelling tone without any orders.

- Tell so much that he understand clearly what is at stake and understands that you know. Don’t tell everything and say that you left out many important pieces of information. This creates insecurity and worry that he is missing crucial information.

- Start your writing by telling about advantages. Towards the end the threats (non personal threats, without threating) and fears increase. End the writing with the most threatening information. Threats and fears are generally more compelling than positive aspects. People remember the start and the end better than the middle of the texts, and they have often more impact on the feelings also.

- Don’t show any interest how the opponent chooses. Tell without pity the choices. If he asks, say; I recommend this and this, but if you choose otherwise, I will not whine after you.

- If the opponent tries to flaunt and tease you about choosing e.g. race mixing, say coldly that you recommend it to him, making sure he knows pros and cons and your opinion in general.

- Don’t ask any information from him, if it is not crucial.

- Direct the conversation in general. Direct the conversation to your strong fields and his weak fields. Change the direction of the conversation when necessary and to shake his position. Very rarely people notice how profoundly the course of the conversation has changed with one to three answers (E.g. the topic might change to entirely different field). Most people think the conversation runs smoothly forward even when there have been profound changes. Use this blindness to your advantage.

- Even if you know much, answer fairly shortly. Shorter, dense, information packed answers have in general more psychological effect than long profusive ones.

- Because multiculturalism and other such ideologies are often based on “feeling good to be tolerant” -feelings, compelling basic fears and needs overrides them pretty easily. The ingredients which media creates to liberal brain is mostly not strong.

- Where the media has created stronger feelings, avoid them in the first times. Search the weaker parts. Later when ground is stronger, talk about the things you previously avoided.

- Be always steadily and always of the same opinion in all situations, if possible. People see that you and your opinions have endurance.

- If possible, make sure in advance that you have intelligent people agreeing with you in a conversation.

There was a couple of advice. I hope there was some useful information for you.

To Al Ross:

My advice to you, Al, is never trap yourself in a position where there is no way to escape.

To Bud White,
The day I take advice on Jewish matters from one of old Jesus’s Hebrew-tale believers, there will be skiing on the hills of Hell, an event which, no doubt, in your Semitically-circumscribed view, I will be eminently qualified to witness.

“The day I take advice on Jewish matters from one of old Jesus’s Hebrew-tale believers, there will be skiing on the hills of Hell, an event which, no doubt, in your Semitically-circumscribed view, I will be eminently qualified to witness.”

Now, now, Al. I don’t believe your going to hell. But now you’ve got me curious. If you reject the Genesis explanation of creation, how did the universe come about? Did it create itself and everything in it out of nothing?

Please enlighten a Semitically circumscribed dullard.

“It is usually impossible, Bud, to convince people who willingly keep their reason in abeyance for religious reasons.”

Al, lets say for purposes of discussion that I am an atheist. My question to you is: how did the universe come into existence?

Abiogenesis. Or it could be the big Jew-God up in the sky.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Moreover the actual risks of ovarian donation are far lower than childbirth—a state into which women routinely enter without informed consent and which, even if successful, saddles them with child rearing responsibilities for which they may not have planned or had support of the sire.

One would expect regulation of childbirth prior to regulation of ovarian donation.

But of course, that would bring up all sorts of “ethical” questions wouldn’t it?

“Then I have some good news, ben. Approximately 50% of Jews in the States marry non-Jews. That’s hardly a plan to strengthen their community. If that trend continues, they’ll be bred out of existence soon. Agreed?”

No.  The 50% figure is bogus; the real number was apparently around 14% in 1989 (see medding et al.) and is perhaps 20-25% today.

Moreover, intermarriage ha