|
|
|
A bit more work for Ian Jobling’s busy moderator - UPDATED 26.10.08 Ian Jobling put up a post two days ago at The Inverted World attacking Kevin MacDonald once again. I thought it was about time someone put a friendly hand on Ian’s shoulder and asked him what the hell he thinks he’s up to, so I visited the thread and posted the comment below. Because of the likelihood that it will never make the page, like one or two others on the JQ I’ve offered, I am posting it here.
UPDATE And Ian gives his response:-
And here’s my reply:-
Ian then attempts to kill two nationalist birds with one stone:-
My response:-
An intervention by a commenter named Half-Jew:-
... to which I replied:-
And that’s the end of my trespass on Ian’s goodwill. Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:34 | # We are not fortunate enough to be victims of a mere conspiracy of men. If it were such a conspiracy, the thread could be far more easily broken by killing a critical mass of them than by millions of verbal actions. Sadly, this is an immuno-suppression plague upon the nations that also, insidiously, triggers auto-immune diseases in those nations. An evolutionary medical approach is necessary. Nature is not merely more ruthless than we imagine—it is more ruthless than we can imagine. 3
Posted by snax on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:22 | # Rev. Harry:
Name ‘em. If it’s a pyramid someone sits atop it - who? I’d say it’s the people controlling the money supply to the big banks and businesses. And one peoples’ interests clearly sit higher in the pyramid than every others - which? It ain’t any European folk, Harry… If you wanna claim that certain “gentiles” occupy the apex of the pyramid and that they appointed five Jews and no fellow “goy” to the Fed board during the greatest heist ever, I may believe you if you offer any evidence. If not, I will bet on their fellow Jews having appointed them. The creators of the Bible, Mario Puzo, Frank Salter and Steve Sailer have all written about a phenomenon we all recognise: criminal gangs organise along ethnic lines. If, also, you want to pretend that that every western government does not follow a line on ethnic nationalism wholly detrimental to its to its own people and fundamentally beneficial to the Jewish group, I’ll start to question your fundamental honesty. Have you listened to this conversation between Daryl Bradford Smith and Texe Marrs, RH? http://www.iamthewitness.com/audio/Texe.Marrs/TFC.2008.07.28.Mon.1of2.Marrs.mp3 4
Posted by snax on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 03:20 | # GW, good list. Abrams’ article appeared in the Jewish Quarterly (the JQ, appropriately enough, not the JC—which I think of as the Jewish Chronicle). I don’t hold out much hope you’ll get a reply from Jobling, but if he even responds or posts your comment he’ll go up in my estimation. Come on, Ian, you can do it… JB, I think you’re right, I always do. Do you have any intention of taking up the VNN or MR radio opportunities? I also think you or another MRer should consider interviewing one of the Political Cesspool guys, and I think they would be positively happy to have you on their show (which reaches huge numbers with a pro-White message). 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 03:45 | #
He must’ve read Snax’s comment — GW’s letter is up (I never would have believed it, had I not seen it with my own eyes!), and he may even reply to it, he says. 6
Posted by Diamed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:02 | # Wonderful letter! I’m sure you could tack even more on to the endless list of outrages jews are responsible for today. How about the liquidating of 30 million white russians after the bolshevik revolution? Solzhenitsyn himself says the jews were largely to blame for that holocaust. Or how about the current banking disaster overseen by a jewish Federal Reserve Ben Shalom Bernanke and a ton of jewish investor banks like GOLDMAN sachs or LEHMAN brothers? The idea that you can somehow advocate for white people while completely ignoring the harm jews do to us every day is pure schizophrenia. It is doomed from the start because there is no way to escape that huge list of jewish inspired problems for whites, without first escaping from under the jews themselves! I think I like this line most of all: “Your “message” requires that the many Jewish socio-political products that are so singularly damaging to the organic life of European peoples have absolutely no ethnic dimension. It’s all just a big accident.” However I’d argue that it’s meaningless whether it’s intentional or accidental. We don’t really care if a natural disaster maliciously intends to hurt us or it is simply an unintentional accident, or even if the natural disaster has purely benign motives! What matters isn’t their intent but the results, the consequences. Jews, for Whatever reason, are destroying the white race and they must be stopped whether they are evil, neutral, or even well intentioned. It simply doesn’t matter. When it comes to preserving the white race we do what is important and that is forestalling bad results, not worrying about the motives of our destroyers! Like usual you have to believe that most people don’t really care about preserving the white race because like always they just can’t seem to get serious about it. If any little thing doesn’t fit their ideal, like say maybe a jew might be hurt if we save the white race, then I guess we just have to let the white race die instead. After all, we can’t promote injustice or suffering. Ian is just such a sunshine soldier who cares more about looking good than his race, or results, or the future of our children. Ideological purity and self-worship of how moral and wonderful you are in the mirror, plus the love of praise/fear of condemnation by one’s peers, is the end goal of anyone who will not oppose the jews. They are intellectual and principled lightweights. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:32 | # Thank you,GW, for posting that superb comment on Ian Jobling’s blog. You articulated many of our concerns so splendidly and courteously, even to the point of eliciting the possibility of a reply. 8
Posted by snax on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:59 | # Yup, great post by GW, and kudos to Jobling for posting it. Of course, if you can dismiss Macdonald and world history by pointing to Chomsky not being a Zionist, well…. I’d like him also to respond more seriously to Tanstaafl’s and Greg Polden’s and (particularly) Ben Tillman’s comments at the LGF exile blog. 9
Posted by Jewish Race Realist on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:58 | # I post at Inverted-World as Jewish Race Realist and I am the founder of the blog Israeli White Nationalism (http://israeliwhitenationalism.blogspot.com/). For the sake of argument, let’s grant that Jewish influence has been decisive in the promotion of multiculturalism, equalitarianism, and cultural degeneracy. What is the purpose of charging the Jews with instigating the Civil Rights movement when it is regarded as one of the great achievements of American history? What is the point of telling Howard Stern fans or Jerry Seinfeld fans that these individuals are Jews; something everyone knows? Why should white people care about the machinations of the Jews unless they already have an awareness of themselves as a race with its own distinct interests? First whites must accept the fact that race is the foundation on which our social, cultural, and intellectual life is built. Any profound shift in the racial foundation of society will lead inevitably to the transformation of the immense sociocultural superstructure that we call Western civilisation. So long as whites accept the notion that culture may be divorced from its organic foundation, they have no reason to oppose anything that the Jews are allegedly plotting. If antisemites truly cared about the white race, they would focus more on promoting race realism than inciting antisemitism. As it stand, they perform a great service to the liberal-minority coalition by lending credence to the false notion that pro-whites are a bunch of cranks and neo-Nazis. 10
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:18 | # I am sure that Jews regard the Civil Rights Movement as one of their greatest achievements of American history. It was, after all, these racial aliens who promoted it for many years by means of overtly inciting the Niggers to “rise up” and plunder, rape and murder their “White oppressors”. 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:44 | # It is an interesting letter, especially, in light of GW’s more subtle attack on KMac recently. Is the criticism because of the attack on MacDonald or because of its crude nature? Jobling is pursuing the same end. His task is much harder, arguably, because 2) Jobling is, unlike GW, a strict evolutionist. There is no room for metaphysics (Darwin’s Doubt) in his concept. Thus Jobling must find a silver bullet to kill the werewolf, MacDonald that stands in the way of erecting his nationalist construct. Unlike GW who shape-shifts a portion of MacDonald’s thesis into irrelevancy by positing a religious cosmology that is impossible to falsify, Jobling must strike down the monster on an evidential basis. It’s much more difficult to accomplish. Both are willing to and in need of distancing themselves from “extremists”; Jobling by pouring petrol on the alleged “stench of anti-Semites” and GW by playing the “Single Jewish Cause” card. Poor Tan, who does yeoman work exposing “Auster’s blame-for-the-“majority” protection-for-the-“minority” double-talk”, is left blowing in the wind. Of course, right on cue, Israeli White Nationalist stops by Age of Treason:
“Israeli” White Nationalist!!! Ya gotta love it. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:13 | #
The question can be turned around, JRR: If it’s one of the great achievements of American history why should you quibble with Jews’ being charged with instigating it? Why do you even bring that up if it’s so great? You should be proud if someone charges Jews with instigating it, taking it as a high compliment.
Agreed: the point JRR makes here can’t be disputed. Euros caring about the machinations of Jews without themselves having self-awareness as a race, a race that has its own distinct interests, is as illogical as two plus two equals five. But how is that relevant to sites such as MR.com where no one is unaware of his group as a race?
One reason some whites (like some of this site’s regular commenters, as well as some well-knowns such as David Duke) are mad at the Jews is precisely the latter’s glaring prominence among those denying race’s importance (even denying race’s existence!). That’s a legitimate reason for anger.
I for one am concerned about forced race-replacement, so I “don’t have a dog in this fight.” But I’m not sure I follow JRR’s point here: why would viewing culture as detached from race invalidate getting mad at the Jews for trying to harm culture? No matter what the source of your particular culture, whether race or nothing to do with race, you’re going to get mad at someone who harms it, no? Imagine Professor Bloom: he certainly didn’t think culture depended on race but he got mad at the liberals for the ways in which they were disregarding culture and trashing it.
The expression “anti-Semites” is today become devoid of meaning, thanks to colossal overuse and outrageous abuse on the part of Jews. So, it means nothing. Whether it ever did mean anything I don’t know, but I have my doubts.
They’re not inciting anti-Semitism. The Jews are inciting that, by the crap they pull. 13
Posted by Darren on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:43 | # Jobling has always been very irrational in his criticism of MacDonald and people who study and discuss the JQ. His criticisms are very shallow and do not represent a concrete refutation to MacDonald’s main thesis. He also creates straw men to attack him with, which I find pretty dispicable. Its hilarious (in a sad way) that someone who boasts about being “The Realist” and enjoys shedding light on racial differences is so fervently opposed to studying the distinct (from Europeans) racial differences of Jews and their non-Western cultural origins. Is he afraid of Jews and their power? Does he stand to lose his job? Is he married to one? Does he have Jewish ancestry? What is his agenda? I’m not opposed to Jews as a distinct people or Israel as an ethnic Jewish state. I advocate for pan-nationalism. If Jews, as a group, were sincere Jewish nationalists, it would be mutually benefical for them and us - but they aren’t - so the problems between then and us will continue to exist. JRR:
So you’re one of those strange people who lump Jewish Caucasians in with European Caucasians as “whites” as if the history of sharp ethnic and genetic divide between us from history doesn’t exist.
If the civil rights movement is so sacred that it is beyond criticism, then there is neither room for criticism of Jewish cultural movements or Jobling-style philosemitic “race realism”.
First, I would not use Jerry Seinfeld or even Howard Stern as examples of Jewish cultural aggression (that is, they appealed to an audience and cultural standard that already existed; they did not engineer that cultural standard into place - at least thats my take). Europid racial nihilism is the chief result of Jewish ethnic activism. We can only be blamed for holding on to traditional classical liberal beliefs and our general lack of ethnocentrism that allowed such activism to flourish. One cannot advocate for our group interests without pointing out that there is a very dedicated group of people who are diametrically opposed to those interests. Again, I want to make it very clear that I do not view all Jews with contempt, there are many respectable Jews out there, as well as Jews who are sincere opponents to the movements that GW and I are talking about.
Race realism that ignores the sociological differences - differences that have a racial and ethnic root - between Jews and Europeans, is not race realism. Jobling-style “race realism” will not solve the fundamental problems in society and refuses to criticize the people who shamelessly corrupt it. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:08 | # Darren isn’t the Iceman, right? He’s someone else. (The Iceman is “Daryl” ... is that right?) 15
Posted by Darren on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:55 | # I’m not the Iceman. This guy is the Iceman and I don’t want any confusion between him and I: http://westbiop.blogspot.com/search/label/Iceman Thank you. 17
Posted by Raciometrics on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:41 | # I am also an occasional commentator at Inverted World, and I agree with Jewish Race Realist. (My blog is http://raciometrics.blogspot.com/ .) Since it is impossible under the circumstances to state my objections to antisemitism on philosophic grounds—for it is a wide topic, as diverse in its ramifications as the crimes and abuses with which the Jews have been charged—I shall content myself with a brief description of its political consequences: * It is divisive - witness the present discourse! Even if we grant the Jewish Question as it is here treated a certain academic interest, yet as an article of faith to be signed, as a doctrine to be professed, its consquences have been utterly disastrous for the pro-white movement. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:19 | #
Abe Foxman’s and Morris Disease’s lack of eagerness to join with you on those isn’t because of “anti-Semites.” It’s because they see poking a sharp stick in the Euros’ eye as good for JN (Jewish nationalism). Jobling may imagine Jews would flock to his side in droves if only they could be shown it harbored no “anti-Semitism.” He imagines wrong. Jews don’t see his stuff as fundamentally in their interest. If they ever saw it as in their interest they’d ignore the anti-Semites and climb aboard. Jews are extremely tough people. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:42 | # And if they ever climbed aboard, 95% of “anti-Semites” would stop being “anti-Semites.” 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:54 | # Jewish Race Realist and Raciometrics, Strange to say, this is not the same discussion as the one Tan is having. It’s about Ian’s philo-semitism. Full stop. That said, MR threads have a tendency to wander, as we know. But one can hardly follow the course of the steam by rowing in another river. Accordingly, I would prefer you gentlemen not to copy and paste your comments from Tan’s thread directly to this one. Let’s stress our synapses at least enough to comment on a dedicated basis. Snax, Thanks for the Abrams correction. I did think of googling to check, but it was quite late and I wanted to get the job done. The big ommission from the list of little Jewish gifts was Hate Speech law. Really should have got that one down. Desmond, Until evolution accounts for absence and presence I will hold to my tiny piece of teleology. But don’t make the mistake of thinking I do it because of faithism. I do it because I haven’t got a rational answer as to why Man is capable of self-consciousness when absence is his inner state for 99.9% of his life, and still he has managed to make adaptive choices. So, one is bound to ask, what is presence for? Darren, I think you are probably right that, as Alistair McClean once wrote at about two hundred miles an hour, “fear is the key”. Or one of the keys. But there is also downright, uncontrollable, sheer, bloody frustration that the more Judaically-focussed nationalists can induce in those of tender sensibilities. Well, OK, it is galling to see fellow-nationalists eagerly confirming every dismissive comment and caricature that has ever been made about them. Sometimes one does wonder why they can’t try a little less hard. And then there’s vanity. It’s very comfortable for the self-regarding to assume moral superiority by cleaving to mainstream presumptions. After all, they’ve been told all their lives that philosemitism is the moral choice. And Nazis are so not moral. Most people don’t have the substance to disobey such clear instructions about how to live. Between them, fear, frustration and vanity account for most philo-semitism. Not the extreme dumb-ass philo-semitism of folks like Charles Johnson, however. Intellectual weakness is the only requirement there ... the incapacity to comprehend that one’s mind is owned ... that one is entirely a creature of the zeitgeist with no significant thoughts of one’s own. Diamed, In purely practical terms, of course, you are right. It doesn’t matter whether the motive is conscious (the conspiracy theory), unconscious (MacDonald) or absent altogether (Jobling). We still have to find a way to throw the obstacles off the course. But the approach to doing so varies a great deal according to the nature of the offence. 21
Posted by Diamed on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:57 | # I believe Guessedworker answered your arguments in his original letter: “Not good enough. Jewish competitive ethnocentrism has to be identified or it cannot be restrained. For, it does not moderate itself in the absence of external restraint. “ And: “It’s plain to me that we cannot free our people from their suicidal torpor if we give in to fear on this Question and tell them lies. We cannot lie one minute to those we claim to love the next. That isn’t how it works. “ The idea that we should hide and somehow be ashamed of our own views so that we can generate more mass appeal relies on two things: 1) That turning a blind eye to Jewish involvement means it will somehow go away on its own. 2) That lying to people about Jewish involvement will generate more support than being honest and fair. I’m with Thomas Jefferson, there is not one truth I am afraid of or wish not to be known. And if the truth cannot win an argument, then the people don’t deserve to be saved. Let them perish in their web of lies and to hell with them. All people have a right to is the opportunity to learn the truth and defend their race, they cannot be made to drink. Incidentally, I noticed Robert Spencer gave Fjordman a ‘bill of ideological good health’ because he supported jews. Does anyone else find how comical it is for one tiny question of fact, simply whether jews have been instrumental in the fall of white civilization or unimportant, to be the dividing line between good and evil thought? This isn’t even an opinion, it is a falsifiable fact, with evidence and data widely available, it is simply a true or false reality. And yet it is the touchstone of moral goodness to believe one side of this factual question and moral depravity to believe the other. Why? Is the evidence on the Jews’ side? Is it wholly preposterous to believe the other side? Like, say, Solzhenitsyn did? Or have jews so warped our culture that the highest sin on earth is criticizing jews and all else can be said freely without consequence? To everyone who readily condemns white liberals, black thugs, muslim terrorists, and hispanic drug dealers, wake up! You are being kept in a box, safely tucked away, where jews know you can do no harm. Because you are fighting the endless ranks of the bottom and never challenging the top from which every crisis comes. You are doomed to lose because whatever symptom of decline you address, so long as the institutions of white destruction are kept in place by jews at the top, the stream of new crisis will never end! You win chess by checkmating the king, there is no other way! 22
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:31 | # That’s odd. I dont remember posting a photograph of the exact physical location of the Nigger cerebrum. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:17 | #
It must be by default. If unaccounted for by evolution, then it is a de facto “argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, However, that wasn’t the issue. Hold onto it if you must, but why attack Jobling for not believing MacDonald, when you don’t believe MacDonald either? 24
Posted by silver on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:31 | #
Climb aboard what? A movement that seeks to destroy them? Yeah, yeah, I know the standard answers, separate, pack them off to Isreal, Birobidjan (destructive enough, depending on how it’s undertaken). But the impression one gets from reading antisemitic material, even calmly reasoned material, like Tan’s stuff, is a solution a lot more foreboding, and that’s to say nothing of Linderians’.
Could.not.possibly.have.anything.to.do.with.it. Um, yeah, okay.
Then they’re wrong. Following your theory, it’s possible they might see no one else being able to stand up to them if they can get whites out of the way, but they’re wrong. No one else likes them and with whites out of the way, there will be few with any qualms about standing up to them. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:10 | # Desmond, I have no disagreement with KMac on the genesis of the culture of critique. It’s not conspiracy and it’s not accident. 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:33 | #
I’m going to go way, way out on a limb here and choose number 3. And I have to say, the following by Diamed is exceedingly well put:
Very, very well said. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:02 | #
What Jews see as fundamentally in their interest is forced race-replacement of Euros. That’s why they’re all on board with that, and not with Ian. Wake up please, Ian. Jews will never, ever, ever, ever, ever flock to your web-site. They see nothing in it for them, only the same old same old. And they don’t want that same old same old. 28
Posted by Darren on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:33 | #
Is this a joke? Judaism is a very authoritarian religion that enforces strict cultural guidelines and obiedience to religious authority. Jewish criticism of Israel, at least in my take of it, comes from intellectuals who have knowledge of the “holocaust”, think that what allegedly happened to the Jews is immoral, and don’t want to see any of the same things happen to other people - i.e. Palestinians. Many Jews think that the world needs to be changed, morally, so that the “holocaust” will never happen again - and that, for many of them, includes accepting modern liberalism and being nicer to their Arab foes. Jewish critics of Israel still retain a very Jewish ethnic identity and outlook on life regardless of their political and social creeds. Kevin MacDonald did a brief analysis of the Jews in the USSR who went out of their way to reject Zionism and explicit identities as Jews but yet retained their status as political and cultural elites who were implicitly advancing Jewish ethnic interests. As far as authoritarianism goes - just look at how preachy modern Jews are with their moral values and how they want to compel the entire world to accept their values. I haven’t read Lieberman’s paper yet, so no comment on that, but I would ask this: if Jews are not an ethnocentric people (!!), then just who in the world IS ethnocentric? 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:55 | #
The solution to the Eurosphere’s “Jewish problem,” which the creation of Israel was supposed (among other things) to be, hasn’t worked: it hasn’t solved the Eurosphere’s “Jewish problem.” What we have now are “Israel and the Eurosphere’s Jewish problem,” not “Israel and no more Eurosphere Jewish problem.” The Eurosphere’s “Jewish problem” still there, same as ever, and still has to be solved. It’s worth solving, because ... Well, let’s put it this way: How much would it be worth in dollars and human lives not to have had to go through the Russian Revolution, both World Wars, the Cold War, the Iraq War, and the Eurosphere race-replacement crisis? That dollar figure and the value of those human lives are the lower limit on the value of solving the Eurosphere Jewish problem, since the Eurosphere Jewish problem caused all of those. What’s the Eurosphere Jewish problem? It’s the Jews’ unceasing efforts to destroy Eurosphere nations from within: it bears the same relation to the Eurosphere as a termite problem bears to a house. See “the Graetz Legacy” here and here. The linked RD.org web-page explicitly says The Graetz Legacy is not a manifestation of religion. As much as I respect Bo and Stanley, I beg to differ: the Graetz Legacy together with all implementation thereof since Graetz is Jewish and none other than the Eurosphere Jewish Problem. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:26 | # JWH:
31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:56 | # An article was posted last month at TheCivicPlatform.com which explained some of the destructive influences French Jews as a group have had on French society since 1945. A Frenchwoman identifying herself as Jewish commented in the comments thread, expressing her boundless disgust and indignation, claiming among other things that the sole motivation possible for such a sickening article was jealousy of Jews, as there was no other conceivable basis for criticizing their influence. I asked her what she thought of the racially-incompatible immigration currently pouring into France. If she supported it, I was going to explain further that Frenchmen of the sort who’d written the article understandably felt an existential threat from it, that French Jews supported it, and so on. She replied, saying there were no such things as races, so there was no conceivable reason for anyone in France to be concerned about immigration. She’d illustrated the article’s point right there! I replied simply with “QED” (the Latin abbreviation we used to put at the end of our math proofs in high school, signifying the proof was complete). Can anyone believe these Jews? “There are no such things as races.” They invented it and they won’t let it go, they back open borders to the hilt in every country they live in, then they wonder why people call their influence destructive, and have the nerve, the pure gall, to wax indignant when politely told why. 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:34 | # Someone signing as Halfjew over at Ian’s must’ve gotten the goy brains and the Jewish looks — his lengthy comment is one of the rare examples of every word of a comment being wrong including the ands, ifs, and buts, plus the punctuation. Not just wrong but dumb — reminds me of a guy in my complex analysis in college who got a negative grade on a test, minus fifteen I think it was — when the poor guy asked how he could get a negative number for a grade the professor said he got every proof wrong and one of them was stupid to boot, so he lost extra points. Halfjew’s comments are wrong and stupid to boot. (Hey maybe he’s that guy who was in my complex analysis class ....) 33
Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:56 | # GW, Your efforts to turn Jobling toward truth are commendable, especially if you do so for the sake of the observers who may be swayed by an exposition of his denial, hypocrisy, and hostility toward others whose interests he claims to share. If Jobling himself is as intelligent as you think then let’s give him credit for knowing his mind and acting as he believes is best for himself and those he loves. He has in my view adequately demonstrated himself not only unmoved by reason but quick to smear and attack those who try. He sees “no evidence . . . that Jews differ from Gentile whites in any important respect” while simultaneously blaming “Gentile whites” for any and all conflicts. This makes perfect sense when taken at face value as the pro-jewishness it represents. There is no call to forgive it as a misunderstanding or a “very English disconcertion at the rude nature of American white nationalism”. Jobling argues from a pro-“white” position. It’s just that his “white” explicitly includes jews and explicitly excludes anyone who criticizes them. He does not have a problem seeing group differences, he just declares insane anyone who sees White-jewish differences. For all Jobling’s psychological and philosophical hand-waving he is not discussing this fundamental contradiction. He cannot. It can be resolved only by changing his position. Instead he lashes out at “MacDonaldites” and “judeo-obsessives”, anybody else but himself and his non-arguments. We must all be up to no good, or stupid, in order not to see his superior motivations.
We don’t really care if a natural disaster maliciously intends to hurt us or it is simply an unintentional accident, or even if the natural disaster has purely benign motives! What matters isn’t their intent but the results, the consequences. and I’m with Thomas Jefferson, there is not one truth I am afraid of or wish not to be known. 34
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:13 | # Tan, I probably know the Ians of this world much better than you do. The English appetite for social class is set a-twitching by many an outrée American racialist, believe me. I don’t know, though, what drives him into such a passionate embrace with Jewry - that’s why I speculated at the beginning that he might have a Jewish wife and Jewish kids. Obviously, from where he is now, he isn’t going to transform himself any time soon into a useful member of our side. But in my book everyone deserves to hear life’s plain true at least once in his life, and I thought Ian should hear it today. 35
Posted by Armor on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:48 | #
a Jewish-approved list of scapegoats! Jewish neocons think that “euroweenies” are another legitimate target. Neocons will say that anti-semitic violence is on the rise in Europe, and they will complain of European anti-americanism. In fact, anti-semitic violence is caused by muslim immigration, which is sponsored by the Jews. And I think the Jews are also behind much of the anti-american propaganda in the French media. So, we have American Jews blaming Europe and European Jews blaming America. And everyone is encouraged to follow their lead. 36
Posted by Iceman on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:29 | # Why do you quote a paranoid schizo, who knows nothing about anthropology, from western biopolitics as if he is a credible source? 37
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:57 | # Re your mention of Jews’ influence being destructive, Fred, this piece on America’s richest Jew, Sheldon Adelson, is most apposite and, judging by the powerful first paragraph, the author demonstrates an impressive literary command of the arresting opening: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=all 38
Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:11 | # Abe Foxman’s and Morris Disease’s lack of eagerness to join with you on those isn’t because of “anti-Semites.” It’s because they see poking a sharp stick in the Euros’ eye as good for JN (Jewish nationalism). Jobling may imagine Jews would flock to his side in droves if only they could be shown it harbored no “anti-Semitism.” He imagines wrong. Jews don’t see his stuff as fundamentally in their interest. If they ever saw it as in their interest they’d ignore the anti-Semites and climb aboard. Jews are extremely tough people. Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 07:19 PM | # I agree with you, the majority of Jews don’t seek what we see as in their interest, just as many White Gentiles don’t either. Many Whites are self-hating, and many “liberal” Jews are paranoid about another “pro-White” Holocaust. Mainstream Jews have been brainwashed just much as we have, if not even more so. The silver lining though, is that I have seen and heard some White Gentiles and even Jews subtly utter pro-White statements. And this is not from this sort of genre of sites, including JTF. This is from mainstream, yet unconscious White people. Abe Foxman of Anti-Dissent Leauge [Anti-Defamation League] and Morris Disease [Dees] of SPLC, Southern Poverty Law Center are not characteristic of the Jewish population. Dishonest Abe of the ADL, seeks the interests of his organization. Just as a corporation’s goal is to make profits for its executives, the ADL must have fans and eager listeners. The ADL already has a self-hating White base, which is completed by a strongly anti-White non-White base. A pro-Jew, or even pro-White base would entail a much smaller audience, and less “credibility” for this time. It’s his job to carry on the line; he doesn’t actually think in terms of actual Jewish survival. Mr. Disease of the SPLC is a money man, a legal parasite. He only seeks to make money. He profits from racial conflict. He would sue a fellow Jew, if it could provide him with what he now has. Mr. Disease [Dees] has even been alleged to have incited racial conflict, to get new cases. I don’t know if this is true (so don’t quote me), but this is a rumor I heard. Trying to convert him to pro-White activism, is like trying to convince an Exxon-Mobil executive to support investment in alternative fuels. On a side note, he doesn’t represent the South, contrary to the name of his law firm (And this is coming from a man with Yankee heritage!) I am sorry for digressing, but my point is that the aforementioned media figures are not true representatives of the Jewish people; they are also brainwashing fellow Jews, as they brainwash White Gentiles. They have conflicts of interests. I also believe the majority of Jews can be ‘won over,’ if we ‘play our cards right.’ 39
Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:13 | # “It’s his job to carry on the line;” Correction: It’s his job to carry on the party line.; 40
Posted by Exposer on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:33 | # “Someone signing as Halfjew over at Ian’s must’ve gotten the goy brains and the Jewish looks…” That ‘HalfJew’ person was/is the same person as ‘Iceman,’ or Daryl B. - he’s a part ethnic Jew on his father’s side as he has spelled out before back on the Occidental Dissent blog. 41
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:55 | # Guessed Worker has described Lieberman’s critique of MacDonald as biased, unscholarly, and a ‘crude hatchet job’. So far, however, he has failed to impeach Lieberman’s methodology with specific examples of biases, inaccuracies, and poor scholarship. He has also failed to demonstrate that (a) Jewish influence, however disproprtionate, has been decisive in the promotion of subversive equalitarian movements (some of which he lists in the initial post); and that (b) Jewish participation within said movements has been motivated by ethnocentric considerations. Unless Guessed can demonstrate both (a) and (b), his conclusions are worthless. And even if (a) and (b) turn out to be true, it does not follow that all Jews, or even the majority of Jews, are ‘hyperethnocentric’. 42
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:31 | # If ‘Iceman’ is a philo-Semite, can he really be ‘fade’, an extremely erudite Southerner (Deep Dixie not Home Counties) who formerly posted often on that most Jew-aware of blogs, thecivicplatform? 43
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:37 | # “Unless Guessed can demonstrate both (a) and (b), his conclusions are worthless.” - Israeli White Nationalist MacDonald has already demonstrated said. At what point, after one is literally consumed by the tsunami of sources that MacDonald adduces, must one admit to one’s self that what he contends is the palpable, undeniable truth - however unpleasant. Perhaps David can topple Goliath with a sling and stone, but not Mount Everest. “And even if (a) and (b) turn out to be true, it does not follow that all Jews, or even the majority of Jews, are ‘hyperethnocentric’.” Are you cognizant of what the term group averages means? If true, randomly selected Jews ARE more likely to be more ethnocentric than randomly selected Euros. If true, the Jewish group dynamic will continue to exert a pernicious influence on Euro societies unless externally restrained. That is, so long as Jews continue to pursue their peoplehood. Even if true, we cannot ask or force Jews to sacrifice nature’s most precious gift and pressing necessity and exist ourselves as moral men according to what is best in our people’s being: we cannot ask or force Jews to forfeit their peoplehood. However, there is decency and there is suicidalism. Jews, under no circumstance, can expect us to liquidate the very being of our people. Our race is our extended family. You cannot expect a man to sit back and watch while his family is annihilated. What would a man not do to save his family? 44
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:46 | # I read Lieberman’s paper through and it is really poor paper. Lieberman clearly lacks the adequate knowledge to evaluate MacDonald’s work, supplemented with the usual smear. If I have time later in the evening, I will give you examples. Maybe MacDonald gives more thorough answer. Still, I want to give cautious support to Israeli White Nationalist (I would have to know more to give full support). Before you write anything about him, compare him in you minds to Jewish or European liberals. Clearly this is a man we can talk with, have things in common and can reach some form of co-operation. That doesn’t mean we have to agree 100%. Also the differences in the views about future goals should be discussed, not just positions, but interests behind them. E.g. do some/ many of the Jews in AR fear European-Americans so much that they feel compelled to support immigration and/or multiracial areas. 45
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:35 | # ” E.g. do some/ many of the Jews in AR fear European-Americans so much that they feel compelled to support immigration and/or multiracial areas.” - a Finn MacDonald has demonstrated that they do feel as such threatened; Auster concurs. Jews are the most celebrated, nay worshiped, people in America. They are the wealthiest, most successful ethnic group. Over fifty percent of the billionaires in America are Jews. Our racial brothers are being chewed up in that fucking meat-grinder Iraq for the Jews: to protect Israel. None of which would be conceivable but for the fruits of the collective efforts of the European-American racial body. Everything that makes life worth living in this world would not be theirs but for us. Yet they fear us, yet they revile us. In their movies, in their newspapers, on television, in academia, in the privacy of their homes, and in the recesses of their thoughts. What can we do that we have not already done to convince them that we are not, at our core, excitable, sinister barbarians unworthy of being our own masters? The “Holocaust” is bullshit; the Holodomor happened (parents of young children driven past the threshold of sanity who then killed and ate their own children). All that is past is prologue. Now, let’s sit down for some tea and talk (I am not being sarcastic). 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:47 | # Would “Israeli White Nationalist” (who also signs as “Jewish Race Realist” over at Jobling’s blog) support a return to the 1924 immigration law? Can “Israeli White Nationalist” reply to the question JWH put to Ian Jobling above? “Can Jobling name any prominent member of [the Jewish community] who overtly supports a strict white ethnostate - even if by ‘white’ we explicitly include Jews?” 47
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:37 | # GW: “But I am going to give you the Freudian benefit of the doubt and conclude, in my English opinion, that your very English disconcertion at the rude nature of American white nationalism is the problem.” “Such charges are not worthy of serious attention by any free-thinking man, and should never, never be repeated by any self-proclaimed white American activist.” Screw tea, I like beer. Ian “The Extended Phenotype” Jobling, I hope you read this. Is that it, Jobling? You look down your nose at the White American unwashed? You prissy little upper-crust cuss. You claim to speak for us? Like hell. So what’s your advice, Great Leader? Be a slave of the Jews and bend over and take it just like a good buggery boy should? Just like you? Fat fucking chance. Didn’t you once say that American Renaissance would go under without your indispensable services? You honestly think you are smarter than Jared Taylor? Fuck you, you arrogant fucking bastard. Hope you have fun working on your aptly titled, go-nowhere-fast website. Get yourself some good knee-pads, boy-o, your going to need them. 48
Posted by Joe on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:40 | # IWN, you are proving why Jews must never be let into White Nationalism. If you were really our friend, you would say something like this: “yeah, a lot of Jews promote destructive leftist movements for their perceived ethnic interests, but I’m not one of them and I oppose them.” Why can’t you admit that your fellow Jews stick together and that most of them are hostile to Americans of European ancestry? Your inability to admit this is what’s makes you unfit to be a part of our movement. Two more important things: 1) Jews are genetically middle eastern. If we can have Jewish White Nationalists, why not Arab white nationalists or Persian white nationalists or Kurdish white nationalists? Actually, the later two groups are more closely related to Europeans than Ashkenazi Jews are. 2) Letting Jews into the conservative movement was what gave us GW Bush style conservatism. As American Renaissance documented, the early conservative movement was not far off from WN. It was Jewish Neoconservatives who changed that. If Jews get influence in WN, they will pervert the movement just as thoroughly as they perverted conservatism. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:39 | # Well put, Joe. If Jewish sympathists really understood and truly sympathised with WN they would address their rhetoric to other Jews. Are they doing this? Well, let’s see some evidence ... some links to threads where our brave sympathist friends get slaughtered by their kinsmen for being “crazy” and “self-hating Jews”. But what we get instead is a determined effort to:- a) Silence and/or excise “the nazis”. Even Jared Taylor is not philo-semitic enough to entirely escape inclusion in the hated group. b) Assure us that Jews are as “white” as any WN, and are not biologically disposed to any of the behavioural patterns WNs so clearly perceive. c) Convince WNs that Islam is the real enemy. We can’t have any truck with that. Jews who are tempted to try should understand now that the WN nut is too tough to crack. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:33 | #
He apparently also signs as “Observer” over there. (Someone named “Observer” has posted a comment over there identical to the one above by “Israeli White Nationalist.”) Jewish Race Realist, if that’s you posting under three different names, why? Why not choose one and stick with it? 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:59 | # Another one who needs to stick with one name is Iceman. He’s “Iceman,” “Daryl,” and now apparently (according to “Exposer,” above) he’s signing as “HalfJew.” Please choose one name and stick with it, Iceman. 52
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:04 | # Fred Scrooby wrote: “Can “Israeli White Nationalist” reply to the question JWH put to Ian Jobling above? “Can Jobling name any prominent member of [the Jewish community] who overtly supports a strict white ethnostate - even if by ‘white’ we explicitly include Jews?” Unhappily, people with racialist sympathies, Jewish or Gentile, rarely ascend to positions of great prominence in our society, except for contributions made prior to enunciating their beliefs about race (e.g. William Shockley); the forces working against them in politics, the press, and the communications media being too powerful. But there are many Jews who have attained some prominence within their own narrow spheres, individuals with whom all advocates of a white ethnostate should have a sympathic regard. Rabbi Mayer Schiller, Michael Hart, Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, and Robert Weissberg may be given as examples. In an enlightened community, liberated from the fetters of white guilt, these men would be nationally syndicated columnists, best selling authors, frequent guests on national news and public affairs programmes, and I know not what else; in a society dominated by liberals and equalitarians, such thinkers will remain relatively obscure. (And then there are those, though not open advocates of a white ethnostate, whose scientific work, if well meditated and followed to its logical implications, provides a scientific justification for the same. I have in mind Arthur Jensen [a Jew on his maternal side; see page 8 of Frank Miele’s Conversions with Arthur Jensen for confirmation], Richard Hernnstein [coauthor of The Bell Curve], Hans Eynseck [author of The Inequality of Man, among other works critical of race equality], and several others. But I say this parenthically because these writers are primarily interested in the scientific aspect of the race question, not its political implications.) The white ethnostate is something which is only politically feasible in the U.S., a nation in which whites of diverse origins have had to define themselves in contrast to the Amerindid and Negrid races. In Amerca I favour the establishment of a white ethnostate (though with an Anglo-Saxon cultural core), whereas in Europe I believe that smaller, less inclusive ethnostates are preferable. And yes, I also go by the name of Observer. Captainchaos wrote: “MacDonald has already demonstrated said [i.e. that Jewish influence has been decisive in the promotion of subversive equalitarian movements; and that Jewish participation within said movements has been motivated by ethnocentric considerations]”. Captainchoas wrote: “Are you cognizant of what the term group averages means? If true, randomly selected Jews ARE more likely to be more ethnocentric than randomly selected Euros.” Considering that the intermarriage rate of Jews is as high as 50 percent, as compared with the intermarriage rate of Japanese Americans, a mere 15 percent, evidence of high average ethnocentricity among Jews would be an extraordinary finding. “If true, the Jewish group dynamic will continue to exert a pernicious influence on Euro societies unless externally restrained.” I acknowledge that individual Jews have contributed to subversive equalitarian movements. But you have yet to show that Jewish participation has been the decicive factor in the equalitarian subversion of Western society. You have also failed to demonstrate that Jewish adherence to equalitarian beliefs is motivated by ethnocentric considerations. a Finn wrote: “I read Lieberman’s paper through and it is really poor paper. Lieberman clearly lacks the adequate knowledge to evaluate MacDonald’s work, supplemented with the usual smear.” Will anyone here impeach Lieberman’s paper with specific examples of smears, inaccuracies, biases, and any other instances of poor scholarship with which you have charged the author? Until you do so, your accusations are without merit. Best regards, 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:08 | # IWN, thank you for replying. “Anti-Semitism”( * ) is said by Jews and others to run rampant a) on the “far left” and b) among those who question forced race-replacement. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of Jews sympathize with the “far left” and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sympathize with those who question forced race-replacement. What explains that asymmetry? (Obviously it can’t be the presence of “anti-Semitism.”) In other words, why doesn’t the left’s “anti-Semitism” keep Jews away and why doesn’t the “anti-Semitism” of questioners of forced race-replacement keep you away? Do powerful Jews like Foxman and his organization who hope to see the browning of America through Negro and other non-white admixture (and work hard and spend fortunes to bring such a result about) hope to see the browning of Jews too? Or do they like Jews the way they are racially and think they should stay that way? ( * I put anti-Semitism in quotes because I consider it a meaningless expression.) 54
Posted by silver on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:50 | # Joe,
Inclusion in your “movement” is presumably based on positions one takes. Since that movement is factional and disorganized and exists in large part on the internet, there isn’t any practical way to exlude anyone, except perhaps by steadily poisoning the well. In any case, political parties and armies are only capable of taking power, not “movements.”
Then he’s excluded not for failing to admit to the existence of jewish miscreants or to oppose them, but for who/what he is. Of course, it’s only ever in the minds of internet warriors and egi mavens that any white ever experiences a closer ethnic relationship to a Kurd or a Persian than to a jew. But, heh, live long enough and you’ll hear it all. IWN,
Lieberman’s done a fine job of refuting MacDonald’s evidence for Jewish “hyper-collectivism,” which, if I recall MacDonald correctly, is an integral part of his “jewish evolutionary strategy” thesis. What Lieberman doesn’t even come close to doing is refuting the prominent Jewish role in intellectual movements and government policies that have hurt white interests, indeed, he doesn’t even attempt it. Of course, “jewish evolutionary strategy” is supposed to be science, and Lieberman restricts himself to refuting the case for it. Almost. The last five to ten pages are essentially one long sneer at the idea of white group interests, MacDonald’s defence of them, and the idea that they are at all threatened. That, we can assume, is Lieberman’s real bugbear. But he didn’t dare venture very far into that territory not merely because that lies beyond the scope of his paper, but because the role of jews in race-denial, immigration enthusiasm, media control etc is so well documented that any attempt to refute it only draws unwanted attention to it. All we get is a feeble attempt to portray MacDonald as some sort of authoritarian loon who thinks he has racial group interests which are under threat. 55
Posted by silver on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:02 | #
56
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:15 | # Al Ross, I’m not Iceman. He’s from Pennsylvania. I’m from Alabama. Note: Fascinating discussion. I’m left wondering why Ian Jobling has yet to mainstream his version of ‘race realism’ after two years now. He seems as marginalized as anyone else in spite of his strident denunciation of ‘anti-Semitism.’ 57
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:34 | #
Not that tired old canard. Try 10% (20% in the US and 0% in Israel). 58
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:38 | #
Liar. Lieberman is discussing eight pages out of 877. No matter how right he might be about those eight pages, your characterization is a preposterous falsehood. 59
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:48 | #
Wrong. The main problem is that Lieberman’s paper simply fails to engage MacDonald’s theories. 60
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:51 | #
Res ipsa loquitur. The burden of proof is on you, pal. 61
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:23 | # Has the word “equalitarian” replaced “egalitarian”? I thought the word was “egalitarian.” (Or does “equalitarian” have some different nuance of meaning or something from “egalitarian”?) 62
Posted by wjg on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:49 | # I like the fact that Israeli White Nationalist is honest enough to wear his colors. Still, to second the thoughts of Joe and GW from a few comments back, we aren’t buying the bull any more. No, we don’t need to prove anything to you – though some will probably try. You need to prove to us. If you find common cause with European Man, and this is something I think Jews “should” do - but then again I am projecting Aryan morality onto Jews, then go to your people and take them to task. If you honestly think they have nothing to be taken to task for then there is an impassable chasm between us and even the very rare, somewhat sympathetic, members of your tribe. Any attempt on our part to “prove” the machinations of Judah were both decisive in bringing about the tsunami of Loxist policies of the past 50-60 years and that it was motivated by self-interest would be ignored since the evidence is now as overwhelming as any cause and effect in the affairs of men can ever be. You have and will continue to simply dismiss it out of hand as anti-“semitic”. The motivation issue is moot anyway as far as most here are concerned since the results are obvious regardless of intentions. In a few more decades once the effects of “hate speech” are fully reaped this evidence will be much harder to come by thereby fulfilling your now empty indictment of lack of proof. Also short of a time machine that would allow one to go back and isolate certain pernicious Jewish agitators - for example removal of the young Emmanuel Cellar to see if it prevented the passing of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act - these things can’t be “proved”. They can only be evaluated and rationally speculated upon based on the evidence at hand. I like most of the work of Auster but then again I consider him a Jew who is largely sympathetic to White Nationalism - not as a White Nationalist who just happens to be a Jew. For those Jews who are sympathetic to White Nationalism please have the decency to butt out and mind your own affairs. You aren’t us. Don’t try to treat us as you have your colored pets who having lost their always tenuous leadership capacity (American examples being Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, and Malcolm X) to Jews are now nothing but a tool of destruction which will one day be cast aside like an old dull knife. Maybe most of our people have surrendered themselves to the cult of respectability but not all. We will one day defy your people as the corporate enemy they have proven to be or we will whither into the mongrelized mud of “liberal” “progress”. This dysfunctional relationship is the 800 lb gorilla in the room and no amount of shrieking from shabbas goyim or Jews will change this. As for Jobling - who wants to play W.E.B. Dubois (NAACP puppet) to his better’s Joel Spingarn (NAACP master) - he can go to hell. Bootlickers fit in well in the modern faggoty West and Jobling does his job with a passion. Then again he might be a less forthright member of your tribe who is reverting to type behind a seemingly Aryan pen name. 63
Posted by Selous Scout on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:07 | # What wjg said, above^ Well said, old chap. I had a few articles published at Jobling’s ite, before I knew better. 64
Posted by Populares on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:58 | # I am English, White Nationalist, about to serve my country and blond to boot. I was also brought up religiously Jewish. I do not practice or believe now. I find little difficulty squaring this. If not for people such as Ian Jobling, who knows? Even the truth is uncomfortable when served with a side salad of `you are to blame for everything´. Let me state to Ian, however, that Jews at least of my 21 year old age group are exceedingly clannish, instinctively left-wing and massively pro-Israel. I fall into argument with most whenever I meet them, so I have one Jewish friend. An underepresentation considering the elite education institutions I have attended throughout my youth. I can bare to meet one more utterly ignorant Trotskyite by default. Especially one who marches in favour of Israel. Still when the accusations of hypocrisy come forth from me they generally have a positive effect hurdling as they do the barriers of paranoia so many Jews are brought up into. Lots of White people are brought up into paranoia of White people not of their sect. The Amish doubtless are much less inclined to trust even the flaxen non-Amish. The Amish need nothing, they bother no-one, but clearly-White Jews need help not criticism to their very core. Indeed I am very effective at helping reawaken an English nationalism. I am always the most nationalist in any discussion, even the most, ahem, anti-semitic. I am not completely open yet but I go way past the politically correct line of supposed indecency. On horrified reactions I do sometimes, apologetically for so weakly announcing my family tree, bring it out and in doing so pull the line much closer to our position for all involved. Is there room for me in what I consider our movement? Accepting all I say is true and that I am not some snide agent-provocateur? Or in committing myself to these political actions am I damning myself to exile in Israel? A land though in many ways admirable to me though as alien Greece or Lebanon. 66
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:37 | #
The problem is that you are not any more English, than an Englishman brought up in South Africa is a Zulu. It falls back upon the English to decide what admixture they will accommodate. In fact, if you truly wished to serve the English a move to Israel best displays that intent. 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:37 | # At 21 you’re a babe, Populares. Don’t worry about whether there’s “room for you” in any movement. Just inform yourself, think, and never stray from your ideals. You’ll change your mind many times between now and age 40, and more times still thereafter. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:41 | # That was harsh, Desmond, the more so considering his fine and moving letter. You’ve got a side to you that’s hard and cold as flint. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:20 | # Well, at least it’s genuine Welsh flint, Fred. Desmond is right, though. We English, Scots and Welsh do have to hold to the meaning of our ethnicity (as against “identity”). If we allow it to be widened to include mixed-races and Jews, we will have lost the means to describe our own being. That is too high a price to pay for the self-regarding pleasure of reaching out. That said, honesty is a fine thing to behold in any man, and Populares’ comment was refreshingly honest. The answer to his quest for inclusion is that the BNP, in its own quest for inclusion, accepts Jews and has a Jewish councillor, I believe. So the standard for judging inclusion certainly need not be a place on the editorial board of VNN. 71
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:11 | # “Is there room for me in what I consider our movement?” - Populares There is room for all ethnically conscious peoples of good will in the movement for Salterian universal nationalism. You are a self-professed Jew. Be proud of what you are. Keep fighting to change the minds of your co-ethnics regarding nationalism generally. All peoples have a right to the existence of their people. “Considering that the intermarriage rate of Jews is as high as 50 percent, as compared with the intermarriage rate of Japanese Americans, a mere 15 percent, evidence of high average ethnocentricity among Jews would be an extraordinary finding.” - IWN “Even if the outmarriage rate is 50% that is still indicative of a resistance to assimilation. I combined Dr. Alba’s intermarriage data [JWH: see update below] for white gentile ethnic groups with census data for ethnic group percentages. Plotting rates of intermarriage (to someone of completely different ethnicity) of white gentile groups vs. percent of US population yields a trendline formula of: Y = -2.4172x + 87.895 If the Irish are 10.8% of the US population, they would be expected to have an outmarriage rate of 61.9%. The measured rate, by Alba = 64.9%. That’s a good match and probably within statistical error of the predicted. Jews? If Jews are 3% of the population, their predicted outmarriage rate would be 80.7% - a figure which can be compared to what is above, and which is obviously representative of a real, and wide, difference between predicted and actual.” 72
Posted by Darren on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:50 | #
Given that Jews are acutely aware of their ethnic identities, I find it difficult to support the idea that their rejection of antisemitism does not have an ethnocentric basis. (Oh, Jews just happen to all be “anti-authoritarian” - but don’t try to read any ethnic basis in that - its a coincidence!) Simply put, if Jews were not ethnocentric, they would not be known as Jews, they would not be aware of their Jewish identity, nor would they so heavily invest in the maintenance and protection of it. Again, I have to point out the fraud of someone being labeled a “Race Realist” who devotes a significant amount of energy to pointing out racial differences and ethnic issues but makes a exception to all of this by declaring that Jews are somehow not behaving in an ethnically motivated fashion. Hilarious. But, to the point: the basis for our criticism of Jewish behavior is their patterned observable behavior, not their replies to the charges we make. The proof is in witnessing group behavior repeat with mechanical precision, not in waiting for them to reply and say “gotcha!”. Another one of Ian’s lazy straw man arguments.
I wasn’t aware that GW or anyone else here placed ourselves beyond criticism. Individuals behave as they wish, but to claim that the stuff posted here and on related websites are reflective of this claim is baseless. Isn’t the point of the virtually unmoderated comments section here (unlike Jobling’s website) to allow any sort of criticism to flow freely? The claim doesn’t stick.
Keep building those straw men, Ian. 73
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:54 | #
LOL 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:08 | #
Correct, and one of the three or four genuinely fundamental laws of the whole business we’re dealing with. That’s why there were Jews who said “The Lord of the Rings” movies were anti-Semitic. One of the fundamental laws, in fact, of Jewish-Euro relations in general is: “Euros are anti-Semites. Period. End of story.” The Jews know you’re an anti-Semite. No use trying to deny it — that only proves it. The only question is whether or not you’re going to show it or do a pretty good job of hiding it. As for your being it, well, that’s embedded in the fabric of the universe: Euros are vicious cradle-to-grave anti-Semites. Fundamental Law. 75
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:41 | # I have challenged the commentators of MR.com to impeach Lieberman’s research with specific examples of biases, inaccuracies, and poor scholarship. No one has given any such examples. I have asked them to show how Jewish influence has been the decisive factor in the equalitarian subversion of Western society; so far we have witnessed numerous reiterations of this assertion, but not a single attempt to subsantiate it. Finally, I have requested evidence of Jewish ethnocentrism as the motivating influence in Jewish adherence to equalitarian ideologies. (Even if we accept Silver’s argument that Jewish motivations are irrelevant, the same premiss still underlies many of the arguments which have been presented, and therefore requires substantiation.) Until each of these assertions are demonstrated as true, there is nothing else to be said here. 76
Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:04 | # Fred, From Carleton Putnam’s Race and Reality: In an article entitled “Race, Racismes, Antiracismes” in the Autumn 1965 issue of Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, [French anthropologist Georges A.] Heuse remarks “. . . we can only hope that precious time will not be lost in recognizing the fallacy of equalitarian anti-racism . . . . In our effort to respect the full complexity of bio-physical and bio-sociological human phenomena, we often meet opposition from Jewish academicians who pose as champions of egalitarianism . . . . These champions, whose power and cleverness we admire, often believe that in denying race and racial psychology, they suppress at one and the same time both racism and antisemitism. We are indeed surprised at their naive and erroneous belief.” Egalitarians believe humans should be equal. Equalitarians believe (or pretend) they actual are. 77
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:38 | # Wilmot Robertson used the term ‘equalitarian’ in The Dispossessed Majority, The Ethnostate, and Ventilations. Carleton Putnam used it frequently. 78
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:43 | # IWN: I believe your arguments have been refuted multiple times but it seems you can’t understand that is exactly what we have been doing. I can always try to show you again why your stance is flawed since you keep asking: 1) Have jews been the decisive factor in the equalitarian subersion of white society? That’s impossible to prove and you know it. Asking for evidence of such is the same as a Christian asking for ‘proof’ God doesn’t exist and then, after no ‘proof’ has been produced, satisfyingly proclaiming the truth of Christianity is now indisputable. How can we know for a fact what would have happened in parallel universes without Jews? Can we run a social experiment where we completely recreate the world starting in say, 1900, except with no jews present, and see where we would be today? If we can’t run this social experiment, how on earth can we ‘prove’ to you that Jews were the DECISIVE cause of everything that has occurred today? You may as well ask for proof that there is no invisible pink teddy bear orbiting around the Orion star system. Isn’t it sufficient to know that whatever influence they had, and whatever influences other things had, Jews have not been helpful, but in fact have been a pernicious poison in every white society they dwell? That’s all I need to know, to know I don’t want to live with them or their thinking any longer. What does it matter if they are 90% of the poison, or 1%? I’d still wish to separate from them because the fact they are poisonous is already settled. 2) Is jewish ethnocentrism the reason behind their pernicious poisonous equalitarian subversion? Who knows? Am I a mind reader? Can we look into the hearts of jews, read the motives written on their hearts, and then inform you, Israeli white Nationalist, the ‘proven truth’ of their motivations? Nonsense. Again you are asking for a ridiculous proof to be given you that is absurd on the face of it. No one can ever know the motivations of another, if you’re so interested in their motivations, why not go and ask them?? If you want to ask ME what MY motivations are I’d be glad to answer you, but why on earth ask whites for ‘proof’ that jews feel a certain way in their hearts? No one here really cares what their motivations are, it’s what all of us have been saying. No one cares what they are thinking, why they do what they do, or what is written in their hearts. It is enough that the presence of jews in our society is poisonous and pernicious and we wish to remove it in self defense. No one asks what the motives of a rapist or a murderer are as they assault us, no one busily tries to ‘understand’ them or perhaps ‘judge them fairly’ based on their psychic powers of empathy. No! We notice we’re under attack, and defend ourselves as best we can, by neutralizing the threat and stopping their ability to harm us. What do we care? An anti-semite is someone recoiling in self defense against a known assailant. That’s all we need to know, and all we need to prove to anyone. We’re under attack by jews-as-a-group. Ask them why. But don’t deny us the right to defend ourselves just because, maybe, jews are just innocent misunderstood pure-minded abused as children CUTE CUDDLY murdering rapists. That’s simply non-negotiable. 79
Posted by silver on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:27 | # Populares,
The truest test of your commitment to the whole you consider yourself part of would be your willingness to accept the possibility of such an outcome. “No greater love hath he” etc. That aside, your presence provides value by helping bring to the surface complimentary, even crucial, issues that too many WNs naively prefer to suppress, thus forcing WN to expand beyond its simplistic and simple-minded formulations in philosophically more holistic ways, which it desperately needs to do if it’s to attract the interest and sympathies of the influential who today oppose it. 80
Posted by silver on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:00 | # Diamed, Based on the various presumptive jewish motives, Poles, Frenchmen, Irish, and others, could also be expected to be overrepresented in the ranks of race deniers, obfuscators, one-worlders and other forms of what amount to “attackers.” In this case, whether such gentile whites are 90% of the poison or 1% of it would matter greatly, both because of the admixture they’re responsible for, and their high numbers in the population. Greater insight needs to be drawn from investigations into jewish behavior than simply “they’re pernicious, get them out” in order to prevent future complications in a post-separation state. 81
Posted by Armor on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:29 | # About the idea of Jews joining white nationalists, I found this quote from the writer Céline : “Lorsque les français monteront une ligue antisémite, le président, le secrétaire et le trésorier seront juifs!” “When the french decide to start up an antisemitic league, the president, the secretary and the treasurer will be jewish!” 82
Posted by silver on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:38 | #
Not unless those 877 pages consist of evidence for “hyper-collectivism.” “Hyper-collectivism” and “jewish evolutionary strategy” are beside the point, anyway. Framing jewish behavior in those terms enables the introduction of jewish effects into the discussion; if it isn’t “hyper-collectivism,” an alternative explanation for jewish media domination, immigration enthusiasm, race denial etc is required. Whatever alternative explanation is proffered, the facts of ruinous jewish behavior are established. 83
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:56 | # Thank you Tanstaafl and IWN for the explanations. 84
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:00 | # Part 1. Let me first say this. My intention is not to deny anybody’s factual grievances about the Jews or that many Jews in history have participated in destructive movements. My intention is not trying to impose mixed Jewish and European-American etc. movements; mostly separate movements are necessary to give security to European-Americans etc., and also as a gesture of goodwill from the Jews. If two people’s views and interests are in perfect harmony, there is no need for politics or diplomacy between them. Because that is not the case, we need politics and diplomacy between us. The bigger the difference, the more we need them. ——————- I cite some of the sources, not all. Time is limited. In no particular order: * Many of the studies that Lieberman uses have strong political biases starting from cultural marxism (especially toxic) to liberalism. This distorts their logic and results. Also, it is often the case that in science only part of the study can be used and agreed with. So if Macdonald cites a study, it doesn’t in no way imply that he agrees with everything in it. The questions and study methods in cited studies are often inadequate or wrong, or it is clear that they are. They often can’t answer the desired questions or answer them only with additional logic or information. * Because Jews are comprised of disparate groups, on average more close to extremes than European groups, it makes no sense to talk about the Jews on average; e.g. Jewish liberals and orthodox Jews. Imagined example; if martians have half extreme communists and half extreme fundamentalist religious groups, on average they are moderate. Another bias comes when there is random or designed selectivity or exclusivity in the samples, e.g. only liberal Jews from a certain area. * Lieberman makes a case of high individualism, divorce rates and maybe by implication exogamy among (liberal) Jews. If there has been selection to genetic collectivist ethnocentric traits, how is this possible? First, there has been genetic selection on those traits, but there have been some mitigating factors. - Traditional Jews had a strong all encompassing culture, that dictated the framework to everything that Jews did and thought. In certain sense they were like players with predetermined ranges of actions. How they should wash their hands. How and when to ejaculate. How to sleep and how to get up. How to conduct themselves in different social situations. How to gather to religious service. Etc. The former have been strengthened by the feeling, that countless rituals and practices attach to symbols, places, groups, authorities etc. (Continuity and commitment -principle; Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion; Robert B. Cialdini) (Richard Sosis, 2007). - When groups are all encompassing and there is only few restrained contacts with outsiders, the overwhelming part of the social proof comes from the group (Social proof -principle; Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion; Robert B. Cialdini). - Social control, rewards and punishments supporting separation. - The strong emphasis in general that traditional Jews have put on separation and particularist morality. - Charismatic Jewish leaders, who have followed the Jewish separatist laws (Authority-principle; Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion; Robert B. Cialdini). - Although the traditional Jewish separatism have been mainly self-imposed, the imcompatibilities and differences with outsiders have not made the leap away from the Jews easier. This have tended to make fairly large part of the separation culturally induced. The strongest genetic selection for separation would be caused by slightly milder cultural /rule-based separation (But culture + rules are necessary for the group evolution to start) and more free possibility for those who have universal outlook and less predispositions to ethnocentrism to leave the groups. * When Jews left the traditional groups, they were made liberal by several converging factors. - The strong cultural traditions of Jews, according to which Jews gain the most advantages and the greatest security, when the non-Jews among who they live are individualist and have universal morality, and accept other groups to their area. This has two problems. First, it’s assumptions hold in places where there is strong ethnic competition, like in the middle-east, not in places of weaker ethnic competition like Europe. In the middle-east other groups generally prevent the realization of the Jewish goals and Jews prevent the comparable realization of the hostile goals of other groups. The end result is often a suitably mutually mitigated policies, creating a balance. Here it creates problematic imbalances. Thus, second, the situation tends to erode fast (In societies time scale), if and when liberal Jews hold substantial power in Western countries, making things more dangerous for Jews and others. Liberal Jews’ outlook is then a mixture of residual ethnic particularism and unrestrained liberalism. - Although originally the proclaiming of liberalism to outsiders is often a strategy, in time continuity and commitment -principles, and lack of intimate ties to a strong group tend to make the unrestrained liberalism real, and thus e.g. the high rates of intermarriage and fairly high rates of decadence among liberal Jews. - In traditional Jewish groups the ties are strong and Jews have more or less propensity to these kinds of ties. If they are cut, and they have no corresponding outlet to their social energies, they tend to become more destructive. Raphael Patai’s book the Jewish Mind summarizes according to studies, apparently liberal Jews psychology (Ashkenazi): “The Jew is less religious, more liberal, more radical, and more inclined to a democratic philosophy. ... He is more gregarious, has a stronger feeling of famiy unity and solidarity, and a stronger social dependence. He has higher drive, motivation, enthusiasm, alertness, and “interest values” .... He tends to overreact, is more emotional, and less stable emotionally. He has feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, and insecurity, is more neurotic. He is more sensitive (quickly offended), anxious, suspicious, and less good natured. He has a critical temperament, and also is characterized by greater extroversion, moderation, and submissveness, but less timidity. He has greater variability in temperament. He is more inclined to deferment of gratification. He is internally more maladjusted, despite an apparently good social adjustment record. * Jews are in many sense problematic to evaluate in European norms. These include: - Jewish submisiveness to authority is selective. They are less submissive to distant or outgroup state or central authorities than Europeans, but more submissive to local Jewish group /tribe authorities and their networks. This can be seen in other middle-eastern groups too. Their ties to group and tribe authorities are strong, but ties to state authorities weak. Because of this, normal central state authoritarianism etc. measures does not give right answers. - So in natural addition to former, Jewish social ties and collectivism is stronger than European in the scale of Jewish groups /tribes and their networks, but weaker (more utilitarian) in the scale of states or to outgroups. - From the book Jewish Mind: “He is internally more maladjusted, despite an apparently good social adjustment record.” This causes difficulties to assess Jewish cultural values, social adjustment etc., because there is greater difference between outward appearance and inside beliefs than in Europeans. - Jews that are not orthodox have a tendency to be outwardly more different or non-conventional than other peoples on average, but this does not tell anyhing about their ingroup conformity. E.g. Israel, excluding orthodox Jews, is one of the most non-conventional countries. People attend funerals with random clothes, customs and ways of doing are improvised, businesses have so few rules (in practice) that it resembles chaos, etc. Lieberman: “This issue goes to the heart of - This goes to the heart of Lieberman’s inability to understand ethnic competition. Those who engage in ethnic competition must be able to at least fairly realistically to evaluate themselves and their opponents, their propensities, culture, customs, social structures etc. What reveals the extent of ethnic competition is the former + how hostile they are to those differences. Lieberman: “The Germans also had a less accurate perception of their own value - Again, those who engage in ethnic competition, must evaluate themselves and outside groups realistically; abilities, culture, customs, etc. The inaccuracy is likely to be because of Germans’ poor ability to evaluate themselves, not self-deception. MacDonald means the self-deception when debating, producing information, political talks, answering to criticism etc. The mouth talks differently than what the mind knows, and the mind barely registers or does not register at all. Lieberman: “Collectivists frequently have realistic self-perceptions about their abilities, and individualists frequently have flattering self-perceptions.” - Exactly. Individualist often engage in social status competition and they exaggerate their social status /abilities etc. by flaunting. This is bad when engaged in ethnic competition. But collectivists’ realistic self-perception might in some cases, like Japanese, reflect more the weaker social status competition and less the ethnic competition ability than among Jews. Lieberman confirms indirectly the ethnic competition view: “Altemeyer (1994) notes that people who are highly attracted to cohesive groups are relatively likely not to want to hear unpleasant information about themselves.” Lieberman confirms his authoritarian personality error; state /society vs. tribe /networks: “1. Authoritarian submission—a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives; Lieberman: “The Authoritarian Personality (Cultural marxist work) and the body of work that followed from it (much of it conducted at the University of California, Berkeley) represent a sustained attempt by Jewish intellectuals to undermine the stability of non-Jewish culture by stigmatizing its core values. Quoting MacDonald: The agenda is to develop an ideology of anti-Semitism that rallies ingroup loyalties to Judaism and attempts to alter gentile culture in a manner that benefits Judaism by portraying gentile group loyalties (including nationalism, Christian religious affiliation, close family relationships, high-investment parenting, and concern with social and material success) as indicators of psychiatric disorder.48 - Thus authoritarian personality is generally good. It is also the traditional protection against outgroup predation and exploitation. Continued .... 85
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:04 | # Part 2. Lieberman: “Altemeyer, by contrast, is considerably less sanguine about the social and cultural impact of authoritarianism, as one might infer from the title of his second monograph on the subject, Enemies of Freedom. .... - Note the lack of scientific objectivity and scaremongering of a (Jewish?) cultural marxist or liberal. Is it any wonder that so many Jews are politically in a state of constant panic? Lieberman: “Altemeyer (1981, 238-239) also reports finding much lower correlations between authoritarianism and ethnic prejudice in his studies than were found by Adorno et al. Moreover, Altemeyer notes that the data are consistent with the proposal that authoritarian individuals are ethnocentric only to the extent that other ethnic groups are conventional targets (Social proof-, authority- principles) of discrimination by groups with which the authoritarian individual identifies.” - So there is at most tenuous connection between authorianism and e.g. anti-semitism. Milgram study and the following studies show that almost all the people obey authorities’ orders of violence. So natural consequence is that cultural marxists are at war with the whole society because of this, and in contradiction to themselves, their goal is authoritarian communist dictatorship. Self-deception? Lieberman: “The data thus indicated that a weak but positive correlation existed between authoritarianism and prejudice among students, a finding which was later confounded by the failure to obtain higher correlations with aggression against a Jewish victim in the mock laboratory learning experiment.” - Dear Jews, you are safe for authoritarians part and you have been lied to by cultural marxists. Lieberman: “The strongest correlations that turned up in his testing emphasized - The authoritarian you probably recently met is the police officer who saved you from criminals, whatever their color. - Where do we get more authoritarians (ethnically conscious) into our society? Lieberman: “Clearly, individuals high on these traits would be ideal members of cohesive human group evolutionary strategies. Indeed, such attributes would define the ideal Jew in traditional societies: submissive to the kehilla authorities, strongly adherent to within-group social conventions such as the observance of Jewish religious law, and characterized by negative attitudes toward gentile society and culture seen as manifestations of an outgroup. Consistent with this formulation, high - Remember what I said in the beginning about studying Jewish authoritarianism. On the other hand, Jews sometimes submit wholly to distant authorities, but it requires a messianic situation. It can be religious (Like Sabbatai Zevi in seventeenth century) or secular, like Jewish communists in Soviet revolution. Lieberman: “There are four kinds of self: independent or interdependent (Markus and Kitayama, 1991b) and same or different. The combinations of these four types can be categorized as horizontal individualism (independent/same) and horizontal collectivism (interdependent/same), vertical individualism (independent/different) and vertical collectivism (interdependent/different). In collectivist cultures, horizontal includes a sense of social cohesion and of oneness with members of the ingroup. Vertical includes a sense of serving the ingroup and sacrificing for the benefit of the ingroup and doing one.s duty. In both individualist and collectivist cultures, the vertical dimension accepts inequality, and rank has its privileges. This is reflective of the “different self.” The expectation is that individualists living in the presence of collectivist subcultures will tend to be less predisposed to outgroup hostility and more likely to view any offensive behavior by outgroup members as resulting from transgression by individuals, rather than being stereotypically true of all outgroup members. On the other hand, collectivists living in an individualist society would be more likely to view ingroup/outgroup distinctions as extremely salient and to develop stereotypically negative views about outgroups.” - Useful information, individualist universalism is our core problem. Fundamental attribution error supports the individualists’ false estimation of collectivist outgroups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error Lieberman: “The relationship between individualism-collectivism and prejudice and discrimination is - What Lieberman does not say here is that vertical individualists’ discriminating groups have a tendency to be whatever gives them personal advantage, e.g. managerial class positions in Eu, who discriminate against their own ethnic group and in favor of abstract universalism and outgroups. The same goes for horizontal individualists. Sweden is a horrible example. Collectivists generally favor sensibly their own ethnic group. Because of this it is not reasonable to concentrate primarily on Jews. As long as we don’t have our own ethnic ingroups’ and strong ties to them, all the outgroups are destructive to us and we will self-destruct. It is not the Jews fault, it is our fault; or, to be more precise, it is our sick individualism, social status hysteria at the expense of our own ethnicity and universal altruistic propensities that cause this. Lieberman: “Interestingly, MacDonald actually agrees with Triandis that extreme individualism tends to produce ethnic conflict. For MacDonald, however, the problem arises from the readiness of individualistic elites to sell out lower-status members of their own ethnic groups in order to form mutually advantageous alliances with strategizing Jews, leading to a collectivist, anti-Jewish backlash among the lower-status non-Jews. This is a key theme of Separation and Its Discontents. The issue here is that these extremely individualistic elites are insufficiently respectful of ingroup/outgroup boundaries; .... - European “elite” class creates problems for everyone. Strategizing wise Jews don’t support the European ruling class’ discrimination of Europeans or their extreme individualism. Lieberman :“MacDonald describes the reactive antisemitism of the lower-status non-Jews as a shift toward collectivism, rather than as a natural emanation of their own individualist attitudes. This formulation allows him to retain his insistence that genetically-derived European individualism is markedly resistant to prejudice and discrimination, ....” - Yes, oppression, exploitation and consequent bad situations create individualists’ reactive anti-semitism; individualists’ anti-semitism does not create reactive anti-semitism. Lieberman: “Participation techniques used by managers are especially effective in horizontal collectivism, such as the kibbutz, and are probably least effective in vertical collectivism. Erez and Earley have done extensive research on participation and have included kibbutz samples. Three conditions were used: (1) goals are assigned, (2) goals are decided by a representative of the group, or (3) goals are decided through participation of all members of the group. Performance was quite different in U.S., Israeli urban, and Israeli kibbutz samples (Erez and Earley, 1987). Performance was more or less the same under these three conditions in the United States, a vertical individualism culture, where the assignment of goals can be accepted even though participation is desirable and has some positive effect on productivity. In Israel, a horizontal collectivist culture, performance was very different in the three conditions. In both Israeli urban and Israeli kibbutz samples it was low in the assigned goals condition and high in the participative goals condition.” - See the beginning, part 1. If orders comes from outside the group /tribe, or their networks, the Jews don’t accept the orders or don’t perform them well. Individualist Europeans accept orders from any authority, even from authorities that are against their group. Again, this is not the Jews fault, it is ours. Continued .... 86
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:05 | # Part 3. Lieberman: “Minimal cultural distance will exist when the language, family structure, religion, GNP/cap, and values can be identified. The largest distance will occur when all five facets are different. In the case of the United States and Israel, the language belongs to different families (but most Israelis learn English); family structure is quite similar; religion is somewhat different, but monotheism results in common traditions; ... All in all, in worldwide perspective, the two cultures are a lot more similar than different.” - Jewish religion (Babylonian Talmud) and Christianity are radically different. Talmud allows almost anything as long as it good for the Jews. Rabbis’ debates, conversations and different opinions create the basis for a wide range of religiously legal actions, and with interpretation it is possible to expand those maybe indefinately. Christian teachings are fairly stable and the range of possible actions according to them is much less than what the Talmud allows. Lieberman also makes a case of that fundamentalist Jews don’t accept as much religion from their childhood than fundamentalist Christians. Yes, because Jews can choose the content of their religion more freely. Lieberman: “The authors, Irwin Silverman a) They are equivalent in quality, service, price and every other relevant aspect? - Lieberman does not understand the factors of influence in this. There is two contradictory tendencies: Favoring the ingroup AND reactance, i.e. resistance to free riding and the requirement of efficiency. So favoring the ingroup is the base. The more there becomes additional cost to Alpha’s, the more one could suspect, that the producer is charging excessively, i.e. exploiting the buyer. Expoiting the own ethnic group is not tolerated (if there is any sense in the buyer), so the price can’t be excessively bigger than Beta’s. Also, those who favor their own ethnic group, can’t tolerate excessive inefficiency among their own. If they would accept excessive additional costs caused by inefficient producing, they would favor the weakening of their group. Additional cost in Alpha’s products can thus be accepted moderately. It is interesting, that because of this, smaller differences in favoring own ethnic group become more important, meaning that Jewish ethnocentrism is much stronger than Europeans’ ethnocentrism. Additionally, it is reasonable to presume, that when the price rises in Alpha products Europeans are more prone to follow self-interest, when they decide to buy Beta; whereas Jews are more prone to follow group interests, when they decide to buy Beta. Lieberman: “To the extent that the ALPHA/BETA survey elicited projects of subjects probable behaviors, the conclusion of this study is that ethnocentrism is a generally weak motive, readily relinquished when confronted with utilitarian considerations. Thus, it seems fallacious to regard ethnic nepotism as the root cause of human intergroup conflict.” - Wrong, see the previous answer. Lieberman: “It then becomes extremely salient indeed to recall that in Triandis 1995, in Schwartz, Bilsky & Struch 1990, and in Altemeyer 1994 appear findings by various measures indicating an association between self-deception and ethnocentrism on the part of “gentile European” or North American individualists, and particularly (in Triandis and Altemeyer) those with authoritarian proclivities. Consider this passage from Triandis: “Gelfland, Triandis, and Chan (in preparation) asked Illinois students to make similarity judgments among sentences that represented individualism (e.g., do my own thing), collectivism (e.g., do what my group wants me to do), and authoritarianism (e.g., obedience to authority). The researchers submitted these judgments to multidimensional scaling and found that these subjects saw individualism and authoritarianism as opposites; collectivism was orthogonal (unrelated) to Triandis is far from certain that individualism and authoritarianism are as profoundly - No, because it is not self deception, it is incapability to properly know own motives of action and reaction to influences (e.g. people underestimate their submissivines to authority and the influence of social proof in their decisions; see Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion). Lieberman: “Altemeyer, whose emphasis is on Right Wing Authoritarianism rather than on individualism-collectivism constructs, states clearly that tendencies toward self-deception are strong among authoritarians: “Most Highs do not realize they are unusually submissive, conventional, and aggressive.”79 Not only are they likely to be unaware of their own authoritarianism, they are also prone to be self-deceived (sic) about how ethnocentric they are, ...” - Here Altemayer explicitly says high’s do not realize, but Lieberman can’t help himself and talks about self-deceiving. Because of bias and the consequent distortions Altemayer exhibits, I don’t wholly trust his claims about authoritarians. Lieberman: “I suspect personal value confrontation (and perhaps personal religious confrontation) would be particularly troubling to Highs, because they conceive of themselves as “good people.” When they could (or, had to) see a way in which they were falling short of their self-image, many may have resolved to change. They seemingly responded beautifully, nondefensively, constructively when an inconsistency (sic) in their thinking was pointed out.” - So here healthy and good persons are pathologized because of cultural marxist lies and hysteria, and because of the “authoritarians” sick individualism and universalism they submit to these social engineer criminals. This is a prime example why WE have to change, what others do is of secondary importance. Lieberman: “That Jews in Hitler’s Germany were subjected by these laws to restrictions against intermarriage, ...” - I don’t like national socialist system, but it is higher justice when any group decides to start endogamy, whatever their ethnicity. Jews have had more or less endogamy over 5000 years and efficient endogamy more than 2500. Because of reciprocity and other reasons, I, and I hope everybody else, whatever their ethnicity, don’t accept any complaints from any Jew about it. Or from anybody else. Dear Jews, it is sometimes the best policy to not to say some things in e.g. diplomacy. But our group dynamics put to together is an unfortunate and dangerous mess for all, and it can not be cleared without honesty. I hope, though it might sometimes require some effort, that you start to think it through. I am aiming to mutually good end results, so that you could participate in it. It requires conversations and stable contacts. 87
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:11 | # Diamed wrote: “What does it matter if they are 90% of the poison, or 1%?” It does matter. Many unassimilated white minorities have been significantly overrepresented in subversive equalitarian movements. Wilmot Robertson in his The Dispossessed Majority documents the special role played by unassimilated white minorities in the subversion and cultural degeneration of America. If one group must be singled out for especial condemnation, it is due to the decisiveness of its influence in the equalitarian subversion of the West. Our policy with respect to unassimilated white minorities, including the Jews, should be one of strict assimilationism: those who wish to assimilate may remain; the rest should go back to their country of origin. Diamed wrote: “Have jews been the decisive factor in the equalitarian subersion of white society? That’s impossible to prove.” It is not impossible to provide evidence that certain factors have been decisive in the production of historical phenemona. Providing evidence of this sort is not even remotely analogous to “proving that God doesn’t exist”. Diamed wrote: “Is jewish ethnocentrism the reason behind their pernicious poisonous equalitarian subversion? (...) No one can ever know the motivations of another, if you’re so interested in their motivations” If you are not interested in motivations, then there would be no point in asserting that Jewish advocates of equalitarianism merely use equalitarianism as a means by which to pursue their ethnic interests at the expense of non-Jews. If you insist on making that assertion, I will challenge it as untenable. If you regard Jewish motivations as irrelevant, then you wouldn’t make that assertion. On the other hand, if Jews are genuinely motivated by equalitarian philosophy, then they are merely in the same boat as millions of other whites. 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:05 | # My proof the Jews are doing it is a pair of functioning eyes. You’ve got that (a pair of functioning eyes), you’ve got the picture. (Oh sure, you need a couple of synapses but who hasn’t got those?) I’m not saying it didn’t take me years to see it. It did. I didn’t see it until the start of 2006. (I don’t have that many synapses.) But I sure as hell see it now. Perfectly, in fact. There’s no blurring of the picture: you’re talking electron-microscope resolution. 89
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:21 | # Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote: “Do your own research if you’re in such a hurry, Jew.” It is because I have done my own research that I find the arguments which have been so far presented to be neither conclusive nor satisfactory. 90
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:46 | #
Not true. I used to view Jews this way but the scales have fallen from mine eyes. Jewish devotion to “democratic philosophy” is only for when they don’t have power to simply crush what they don’t like. The minute they obtain that power they crush, and all pretense of “Jewish respect for democracy” goes out the window. Look at hate-speech law, a Jewish creation. Look how they’ve championed double-jeopardy, advocated the trashing of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, led the aggressive thwarting of the democratic processes and legal requirements surrounding elections and referendums, supported the torture and other denial of rights of Iraq political prisoners. Look at the criminalization of any questioning of the Holocau$t, another Jewish creation. Look at every last thing about that genuinely frightening little totalitarian Abe Foxman, a mini-Josef-Stalin, a mini-Lazar Kaganovich who if he had the power would soak himself in the blood of Eurochristians up to his eyeballs to get what he wants. When Jews are out of power it’s democracy this and democracy that. The minute they are entrenched in power, WATCH OUT! Democracy goes straight out the window. 91
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:16 | # Further thoughts on the matter from JWH’s keyboard: http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/10/incredibly-stupid-nec.html http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/10/repeating-already-refuted-arguments.html http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/10/half-ice-half-tard.html http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/10/advice-for-jobling.html 92
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:11 | # IWN: If it is possible to calibrate the exact proportionate responsibility jews have for the modern world today, I encourage you to do it. It would be wonderful to know that exact number so we can calibrate our anger to exactly match what’s fair and right towards them. I have no idea how you would find out this truth, but since you insist it’s easily discoverable, by all means go find out and then tell us. Silver also says we can come to a very precise % blame jews should bear so he’s welcome to also give the exact percent we should be angry with jews. I don’t have any earthly idea how you could find this out, but since both of you are so assured that an exact number can be reached, go ahead and tell us. 93
Posted by silver on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:39 | #
I didn’t say any such thing. Assume Jews are out. Certain white gentiles are in. But since phenotype taken on its own is a more powerful determinant of racial identity and consequent (“racial”) behaviors than genetic ancestry on its own, the degree to which phenotypic difference influences behaviors which amount to “attacks” is an important consideration, both now, and in a distant post-separation future. After all, early post-separation conditions will reward zealotry, bolstered as it would likely be by genetic data (around which a mythology might develop), but zealous intensity cannot be guaranteed indefinitely, and can be expected to subside with each generation. Group integrity could again be exposed to risks, and those most likely to expose it can be presumed to be those most likely to do so today. This has little do with what you were talking about, but I consider it a sophisticated point well worth making. 94
Posted by Israeli White Nationalist on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:28 | # silver wrote: ”.... [S]ince phenotype taken on its own is a more powerful determinant of racial identity and consequent (“racial”) behaviors than genetic ancestry on its own, the degree to which phenotypic difference influences behaviors which amount to “attacks” is an important consideration, both now, and in a distant post-separation future. After all, early post-separation conditions will reward zealotry, bolstered as it would likely be by genetic data (around which a mythology might develop), but zealous intensity cannot be guaranteed indefinitely, and can be expected to subside with each generation. Group integrity could again be exposed to risks, and those most likely to expose it can be presumed to be those most likely to do so today.” First of all, I don’t subscribe to the idea that all Caucaoids are ‘white’. But it is true that Europeans and Near Easterners cannot be distinguished from one another as belonging to altogether different races, though a different distribution of subtypes are undoubtedly represented in Europe and the Near East. Jews are derived from a subtype in the Near East which of all non-European populations most closely approximates the European type; Syrians and the Lebanese may be given as other examples, also originating in the same general region. Now, the Jews, even before settling in Europe, were subjected to selective influences favouring intelligence, distinguishing them from neighbouring peoples. They subsequently migrated to Europe where they were subjected to further selective pressures. They also practiced a certain amount of outbreeding, low in frequency but significant in its accumulated genetic effects. The result is a group of people virtually indistinguishible from other Europeans when matched by IQ. (The magnitude of the IQ difference is comparable to that between, say, Bulgaria and Germany.) Diamed wrote: “Silver also says we can come to a very precise % blame jews should bear so he’s welcome to also give the exact percent we should be angry with jews.” I never said anything of the sort. 95
Posted by Anti-Meccanian on Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:05 | # Some of us wonder whether you have a Jewish wife and Jewish children. Some of us continue to wonder. Ian?...Ian?... 96
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:30 | # “Now, the Jews, even before settling in Europe, were subjected to selective influences favouring intelligence, distinguishing them from neighbouring peoples. They subsequently migrated to Europe where they were subjected to further selective pressures. They also practiced a certain amount of outbreeding, low in frequency but significant in its accumulated genetic effects.” - IWN Careful, the next step’s a doozy. “Lieberman never takes any position on Europeans’ authoritarianism or anti-Semitism. His purpose is just to criticize MacDonald’s characterization of Jews. I sometimes wonder whether anti-Semites are capable of reading!” - Ian “Don’t call me Jew-tool” Jobling. Lieberman’s paper is chocked full of manufactured, pseudo-gotcha moments of juiciness. “Fleshing out the implication of…,” and all that good shit. “Now MacDonald initially implies that his theory does not view Jews as essentially different from the rest of humanity: “Judaism must be understood as exhibiting universal human tendencies for self-interest, ethnocentrism, and competition for resources and reproductive success.”” - Lieberman Yes, the Jews are not space aliens. “It is not long, however, before he substantially qualifies the claim that Jewish behavior exhibits “universal human tendencies,” and this is where things begin to get interesting.” - Lieberman Yes, they are a genetically distinct group that have undergone unique selective pressures (IWN agrees). The insights continue to dazzle. “For MacDonald, persistent Jewish genetic difference is not simply a measurable result of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy; Jewish genetic difference is itself a cause of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy.” - Lieberman Yes, it’s called a feed-back loop; or a vicious cycle, depending on your perspective. “So—Jews are just like everybody else, with the single notable exception that Jews are not like anybody else. Jewish brains are different.” - Lieberman Yes, they are a genetically distinct group of Homo Sapiens. Somebody get this man a Nobel Prize. “This argument achieves a truly stunning rhetorical effect, simultaneously encouraging two conclusions that ought to be mutually exclusive: 1) that Jewish behavioral difference is strongly influenced by Jewish biological difference and is thus irremediable in practice if not in principle, and 2) that Jewish biological difference results from the Jews? own choices and is thus a shared moral responsibility of the group as a whole. Consider MacDonald?s odd description of the Jewish evolutionary strategy as “self-imposed”.” At least by White standards, it’s pretty shitty, I’ll grant you. “The validity of the determinist point of view and, separately, its bearing on an individual’s moral responsibility for his actions, has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries past, and no doubt will be for centuries to come. I suspect that both Rose and Gould are determinists in that they believe in a physical materialistic basis for all our actions. So am I.” - Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype Logic, philosophy, objectivity, semantics - it’s a White thing. Hey Jobling, you’re grabbing your ankles for this piece of shit? Pathetic. 97
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:41 | # Ian Jobling reminds me of those annoying types who, when the connection between malaria and the mosquito is made, will inform you, pedantically, that only the female carries the virus. When my Tamil part-time gardener turns up to ‘fog’ my garden in his regular anti - mosquito breeding exercise he doesnt worry about differentiation and, with regard to the JQ, neither should we. 98
Posted by EA Steve on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:04 | # Some of us wonder whether you have a Jewish wife and Jewish children. Some of us continue to wonder. Ian?...Ian?… Posted by Anti-Meccanian on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 09:05 PM | #
99
Posted by Joe on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:31 | # Populares, I think that Jews who sympathize with WN should do one of two things: assimilate into White/Western society fully, which ultimately means genetic amalgamation, losing all loyalty to the Jewish group and ceasing all Jewish cultural practices, or moving to Israel and becoming a real Israeli Nationalist. In light of the extremely long history of diaspora Jews not truly assimilating into their host societies and coming into conflict with their hosts, only to have their descendants in another time or place, I can’t see an alternative. I’m not entirely comfortable with my position here. I generally like Jews and think that they have many good qualities as a group and individuals. Unlike many WN’s, I will acknowledge that Jews have made many good contributions to the world and the societies that they have lived in. But they are now pursuing a strategy that if successful, will destroy my people. This cannot be allowed. I don’t think that having Jewish communities living in Western countries is an acceptable risk in light of the events of the last century. Even if the current crisis were to be averted, I think the risk of a continued Jewish presence in white societies is unacceptable. Every single post IWJ makes arguing with us here only further proves that point that ethnically identified Jews will never be able to get along with us, never stop trying to advance their group interests at the expense of ours, never stop trying to apologize for and minimize the bad behavior of their fellow Jews, are highly ethnocentric and psychologically intense and all the other things that are part of the general WN view of the Jewish Question and MacDonald’s thesis. 100
Posted by Joe on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:37 | # “In light of the extremely long history of diaspora Jews not truly assimilating into their host societies and coming into conflict with their hosts, only to have their descendants in another time or place, I can’t see an alternative.” should read: “In light of the extremely long history of diaspora Jews not truly assimilating into their host societies and coming into conflict with their hosts, only to have their descendants repeat the process in another time or place, I can’t see an alternative.” 101
Posted by a Finn on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:27 | # ““The Jew is less religious, more liberal, more radical, and more inclined to a democratic philosophy.” (—Raphael Patai, quoted in Finn’s comment above, “Part 1”) Not true. I used to view Jews this way but the scales have fallen from mine eyes. Jewish devotion to “democratic philosophy” is only for when they don’t have power to simply crush what they don’t like. The minute they obtain that power they crush, and all pretense of “Jewish respect for democracy” goes out the window. Look at hate-speech law, a Jewish creation. Look how they’ve championed double-jeopardy, advocated the trashing of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, led the aggressive thwarting of the democratic processes and legal requirements surrounding elections and referendums, ....” - Fred, you are basically right, but that is included in Patai’s list. If one is at the same time radical and democratic, then democracy is just a tool to achieve something more radical. And true to this influence and others like it, our societies’ policies and their consequences are extremist; immigration, free speech suppression, cultural marxism, globalism, managerialism, feminism, multiculturalism etc. We, as conservatives, must advocate change, but to the less radical, more protective and more conservative direction. P.s. I didn’t have time to polish the text, so it was not close to Oxford English, but I presume that my points were clear. Polishing the language wouldn’t hurt some other commenters. Silver: (continuation to his previous trolling) “Assume Jews are out. Certain white gentiles are in. But since phenotype taken on its own is a more powerful determinant of racial identity and consequent (“racial”) behaviors than genetic ancestry on its own, the degree to which phenotypic difference influences behaviors which amount to “attacks” is an important consideration, both now, and in a distant post-separation future. After all, early post-separation conditions will reward zealotry, ....” This has little do with what you were talking about, but I consider it a sophisticated point well worth making.” - So our leftist troll is now into calculating guilt quantitatively, racial identity assessment from phenotype, phenotypes which amount to attacks, zealotry advocation, etc. At last you have diversity in your idiocy advocation, so it is more entertaining. His language has a tell tale sign of leftist social science structures. 102
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:19 | # Finn: Polishing the language wouldn’t hurt some other commenters. CC, that’s you. Knowing you, I think you will likely want me to snip out the worst elements. Hope so anyway, because that’s what I’m bound to do. Let’s keep our language free from those expressions we take in others to be a sign of an indolent or incompetent thinker. 103
Posted by Darren on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:36 | #
It matters because it is something that would influence his opinion and ethnic loyalty. There has to be a reason why Jobling is so deeply philosemitic when he could easily take a path of indifference or neutrality on the issue like other “Race Realist” types. 104
Posted by silver on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:21 | # Finn
As a matter of fact, no. I struggled to make head or tail out of them.
Going by this revised logic, kurdish and persian “white nationalists” could indeed likewise genetically amalgamate, and so could anyone, thus foregoing any need for a “white nationalism.”
You’re a babe in the woods, Steve. Read the mighty capn’s comments. You think that this is going to slow down and wonder why you look like a jew before it steamrolls you? 106
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:59 | # silver: “Going by this revised logic, kurdish and persian “white nationalists” could indeed likewise genetically amalgamate, and so could anyone, thus foregoing any need for a “white nationalism.”” That “revised logic” has got to go. Here, Here. silver: “You think that this is going to slow down and wonder why you look like a jew before it steamrolls you?” I’ll wait until the tests come back from the lab. 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:24 | #
Crystal-clear, Finn. As a native English-speaker I can say you have an exceedingly good grasp of English. Your comments here have always been perfectly clear without exception, and this last one replying to Jobling was a tour de force. Excellent! Thank you for posting it. 108
Posted by silver on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:47 | #
Sure you will. But even if I took you at your word, they could be a long time in coming. What are you going to do in the interim? Should I shake that man’s hand? Should I, shouldn’t I, should I, shouldn’t I, should… That’s quite some vision of society the EGI mavens are plotting. “I think he really likes me! He showed me his autosomal genetic data!” I confess my interest in the above is quite personal. I know a northerner when I see one and I bet most northerners do too. There’s precious little need for the above. But the above will impact on me and whatever polity I’m—phew, it’s not easy putting it in these terms—relegated to. It’s occurring already on race boards everywhere: merciless grading of physical features. The cure, of course, is culture. Would it really kill you shits to throw a few bones this way in that regard? After all, helping another get what he wants is a tried and tested way of recruiting his assistance in getting what you want. Or is all hate, all day, every day, professing your revulsion at the site of disgusting non-whites, longing for the day you run them out of town, a better use of your time? 109
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:31 | # The thing with Jobling is he just doesn’t see the relative magnitude of Jewish involvement, so he gets really mad at those who claim to see it, because to him they’re the cause of a whole side-issue that he sees slowing down getting this problem taken care of finally. THEY, not anyone else, not the Jews, THEY, are the ones slowing down finally getting this problem resolved. That’s how he sees it and that gets him furious. Furious at them. I didn’t use to see the magnitude of Jewish culpability either and I used to be exactly the way Jobling is now: seeing “anti-Semites” accuse Jews “falsely,” as I saw it, made me furious, is the only word for it. I called them every name, couldn’t STAND them, loathed them. They made my skin crawl. Not just that they were creating an ugly side-issue which itself slowed down resolution of the problem, they were unjust toward Jews, which is something hateful in itself, and furthermore they were disgusting, creepy. I was this way mainly in the years before I first came to this site. I remember attacking someone signing as “TK” at View From the Right for exactly this sort of reason, and attacking him far more strongly than Jobling attacks us now. As I mentioned before, somewhere after the start of 2006 I changed. Snax thinks I changed because Wintermute attacked me. No, I changed because at the end of 2005 I finally saw. What made me see, interestingly enough, was thinking about the War on Christmas at Christmastime of that year and suddenly realizing the Jews were the ones behind that particular war. (Yes of course the Moslems and Hindus, whom the Jews deliberately let into the country precisely in order to have allies for doing things like ... well, like waging War on Christmas ... have now also joined in the attack on Christmas but it was always fundamentally a Jewish operation and until recent years almost exclusively so.) It wasn’t many more months before I applied the same general sort of insight to come to the realization the Jews were by far the primary motive force behind race-replacement in all its facets: changes in immigration law (which we already knew from Prof. MacDonald of course), multifaceted societal lockdown, etc. One thing Jews do is divert all argument into irrelevant time-wasting detours by the simple method of denying the obvious with a bold face. If two plus two somehow goes against your ethnicity’s interests just keep denying it with a bold enough face and you’ll buy years, decades, centuries of time for your side while the other side’s whole timetable is delayed as it keeps arguing against these tacks you’ve sprinkled in the road. If they ever get past those, just sprinkle more. It’s easy. It costs you NOTHING and it THROWS THEM OFF, BIG TIME. While the goys are stupidly picking up the tacks in the road instead of simply ignoring them and driving around them, you’re busy as hell advancing your agenda to their detriment. Boaz, Montagu, Gould, Rose, Kamin, Lewontin, Diamond, Wise, Goldstein all know/knew perfectly well — perfectly well — there are races. But races weren’t in the Jewish interest — or, at least goys knowing about them wasn’t in the Jewish interest — so they simply denied them, as way of sprinkling tacks in the Euro road to keep the Euros busy for decades (maybe centuries, who knows how long the ruse will work, given that there are dumb goys around like Prof. C. Loring Brace?) while the Jews are ultra-busy accomplishing their own ends. 110
Posted by silver on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:07 | #
You keep running into the biggest tack of all, so big you can’t see it: locking horns with anti-antisemites. The jewish role is undeniable. The whys and wherefores of it don’t really matter. (I’ll be the first to claim a great deal of good was actually accomplished by it; it didn’t all stem from malicious intent.) But endlessly harping on about jews invariably attracts the anti-antisemites. It just does. It’s a feature of the landscape. But you keep walking into it every time. You could easily just advocate for what you want, apologizing for nothing. But nope, you can’t help yourself. Jews, jews, jews, jews, jews, jews, jews. Mystery meat mystery meat mystery meat mystery meat. You’re sick. You really are. You’ve removed yourself from far away from life as everyone else experiences it. You’re just too sick to see it. Then when no one bothers to give you time of day you console yourself on the internet with “We’ll win, we’re gonna win, it’s only matter of time” pep-talks, completely oblivious to the fact that countless numbers of those you hope to win over are already perfectly aware of the facts you think they need to be enlightened by but don’t draw the same conclusions about life from them. 111
Posted by Diamed on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:00 | # Who would want anti-anti-semites in our movement anyway? The nazis and the bolsheviks never compromised or ‘moderated’ their positions and they took power just fine. Why must we fundamentally weaken ourselves by introducing lies, hypocrisy, back-biting, disloyalty, and unprincipled vague confusion into our ranks? A dedicated minority that is genuinely united around a single idea and goal, the well being of the white race, is more powerful than an enormous rabble of confused and contradictory people, much like the republican party, who can never keep their eye on the ball long enough to achieve anything of consequence FOR the white race. If a group of people cares more about ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’ or ‘lack of hate,’ then they’re obviously not solid timber for a white racialist movement anyway. People so concerned about making sure no one is ‘blamed unduly’ or ‘discriminated against unfairly’ obviously does not have any serious interest in saving the white race, since apparently being ‘nice’ and ‘fair’ matters more to him than the genocide of 500 million people. Moderation doesn’t achieve anything, a loose consensus will immediately break apart the moment tough decisions must be made anyway, and then you’re right back where you started. Any true lover of the white race would support giving us our own homeland EVEN IF we ‘viciously, unfairly, and discriminatorily’ kept him from entering it. It would be his gift to us for love of our people. The fact that these people are not making such offers, shows their true colors and just how ‘with us’ they are. Now me, I’m with Joe and think jews who wish to amalgamate with the white race and live under the rule of strict pro-white rules and no longer give any dissent against us should still be welcomed. This would not apply to kurds and the like because their low IQ makes them a eugenic drawback to our society, whereas the high IQ of jews would make a eugenic blessing to our society. Jewish genes and productivity (remember they’ve won half the nobel prizes in science in the last 100 years!) are a gold mine if they willingly hand over these riches to us to support us, unlike the obvious negatives of 85 IQ swarthy muslim ‘caucasions’ who are obviously worthless. However, I’m not going to make that the CONDITION of my loyalty to the white race. If whites insist on complete separation, then I will be okay with it and still fight my hardest for their sake. This is because I think it’s a minor issue compared to the certain death of our people, and I’m loyal not to ‘fairness’ or ‘niceness’ but to whites! This is no excuse for attacking other whites, calling them insults, refusing to cooperate with them or associate with them, creating schisms, joining with liberals in the condemnation of white activists, infighting, and all the rest. The virulence of their opposition to anti-semites shows just how shallow their support runs, and how readily they’ll turn on fellow whites for aliens or abstractions. 112
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:12 | # Ian has finally attacked me on his TIW thread. I posted a reply. But since he has already told me to leave his thread I rather doubt if it will be published. Hence I am publishing it here:- ——————————————————————————————————————————————— Get back to MR Don’t take that tone, Ian. You are an isolated man. You further isolate yourself through such ill-temperedness and through your very strong urge to censor. When we censor at MR we do so on grounds of language inappropriate to a public forum - not on ideological differences. When we ban, which is rare, we do so on the grounds of lack of good faith. I am in no way exhibiting a lack of good faith here. I am simply asking you to question why you are isolated - to look for the fault in yourself, and not in others. Oh, sure. Jews are Britain’s only problem minority. The Irish, the blacks, and the Muslims behave like model citizens and never make irresponsible accusations against the English. What I wrote was:-
I am talking about the nature of Jewish ethnocentrism, which phenomenon you deny. Regardless, Jewish ethnocentrism is unique in that it seeks to debase host society in an astonishing variety of ways. I then wrote:-
And it isn’t, is it? The Provisional IRA exploded bombs in England for political ends. But the Provos were not advancing the ethnic interests of all Irishmen. Muslims effect terror attacks for religious ends. But the Muslims are not advancing the ethnic interests of all Muslims. The behaviour of most Irishmen and most Muslims is certainly not typified by terrorism. But Jews - only Jews - debase the host for ethnic ends, and there is scarcely a Jewish voice raised in protest. I asked the question here: Where is the Ashkenazic facility to experience collective guilt?” That’s the clincher as to whether the great programme of debasement is ethnic in character or merely political, as you assert. Where are the voices raised against stuffing the Holocaust meme down European children’s throats? Where are the voices raised against the promotion of European miscegenation? Where are the voices raised against the LA pornographers? All you can show me is a tiny handful of anti-immigration culturists whose (only too typical) critique of goyish White Nationalism:- a) Silence and/or excise “the nazis”, ie those who can see and who will not resile from speaking out. b) Assure us that Jews are as “white” as any WN and not biologically disposed to any of the behavioural patterns WN’s see, thereby forcing on them the only other conclusion available - that the European (not just German) soul suffers from the original sin of anti-semitism and it must be forever controlled through the inculcation of racial guilt. c) Convince WNs that Islam, not Jewry, is the real enemy, and thereby effect the well-known strategy of divide-and-rule. The bid to split opinion and thereby assume leadership ... the crushing of opponents ... deception ... supremacism. It’s all there in the warp and weft of Jewish white nationalism. And it’s what you, Ian, are working to further. I know it’s unpleasant to face these truths, and you will probably never do so. But I’m telling you all the same because you are my countryman too, and it pains me to see you owned like this. [Leiberman’s] purpose is just to criticize MacDonald’s characterization of Jews. I sometimes wonder whether anti-Semites are capable of reading! Visit the MY thread. You will find that our readers have done what you cannot - put Leiberman under WN scrutiny. And, funnily enough, I can read, and I am not a label invented by a Jew. I, for one, am a free Englishman. 113
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:10 | #
This is a person talking in his sleep. Jobling’s sleepwalking. What he says in regard to this “Jewish topic” has to be taken as the muttering of someone walking in his sleep whom you can’t get through to until he wakes up. Something tells me Jobling will never wake up. Either he doesn’t know Jews well enough (needs to get out more, to turn The Derb’s gibe directed at MacDonald around and use it in reverse) or he’s just a bit too dense. That’s all right. He’s an ally of course (and a strong one), as is Jewish Race Realist (Israeli White Nationalist), both of whom want the same thing we want and are willing to fight to get it (Jobling won’t fight “shoulder-to-shoulder with us” because we stink the place up according to him, but as long as he’s fighting that’s fine with me). We can call a truce on the JQ but Jobling needs to end his tendency to go out of his way to attack Kevin MacDonald, because he himself then harms our side (basically because MacDonald is one hundred percent right on this particular issue, and Jobling one hundred percent wrong). If you can’t get yourself to wake up, Ian, at least keep your trap shut where MacDonald is concerned because you don’t know what in the god damned hell you’re talking about. Thanks and have a nice day. 114
Posted by Darren on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:39 | # Hyperbole and straw men rule the day over at Jobling’s website. “Nonsense” is whatever Jobling doesn’t agree with and cannot refute without misrepresenting the other side’s arguments and taking swipes at people. Its not Jobling’s attitude/friendliness to Jews that bothers me (I have said before that Jews who share our views on race and culture are welcome as brothers in the fight), its his deep emotional investment in the issue in the form of smearing MacDonald, smearing GW, and smearing everyone else who disagrees him that bothers me and causes the problem. He has made a clown of himself and shown that his commitment to protecting Jews from criticism is above his commitment to “race realism” and honestly fixing the social issues of today. I’m done with my contribution to this thread unless Jobling decides to make an appearance. 115
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:01 | #
The review of two points in the article finds those words don’t ring true.
It’s clear from a reading of Lynn & Vanhanen or La Griffe (Smart Fraction II) “significant material success” correlates most closely, with mean IQ (and more specifically mean verbal IQ). The “old Jewish culture” and the “Protestant work-ethic” (the Sicilians are no slouches when it comes to hard graft), proposed by Strodtbeck are opposite KMac’s because they don’t cosider differentials in mean IQ.
However, according to Chaim Isaac Waxman in his America’s Jews in Transition p. 164;
Jewish divorce rates show “a noticeable increase over time” (less than the general divorce rate) and are “drawing nearer the the American average (although STILL SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER). Lieberman is bending the Triandis study to desperately try to debunk MacDonald. However, the data, taken in its entirety buttresses KMac’s position.
Jobling, so far, has not published the comment. 116
Posted by Populares on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:20 | # Silver,
You ask me not only to accept my own exile, as I see it, to a very foreign land to which I have been (Israel) but worse; to accept that such is somehow correct, desirable even in my own heart. I can accept it as possible collateral, as in some cases I might accept death…dramatic pause…still under no circumstances will I work for either. Perhaps the fact that both my parents are phenotypically “Aryan” as am I, and one parent is also in assumed genetic ancestry makes all the difference? My visit to Israel, free in lieu of the wealth and ethnocentric generosity of one side of my cousins, should be of particular interest to this site. If one thing confirmed me in my English ethno-nationalism it was that. I note a little, quite fair, jealousy of Israel on sites such as this. Israel it seems is allowed all the fruits of true nationalism - that of blood, but no other developed country outside of East Asia is. Anyone interested in this, an actual example of an ethnocentric and, in my eyes, at least partly White developed nation should visit there. It is a country far inferior to England but excels everywhere England fails. Students volunteer to Edenise the desert, and a true sense of community abounds. Many of those who were with me saw it all and saw home, many stayed or planned to move there. I even met a number who’d volunteered to join the (quite badly paid) army. Supposed Englishmen serving in the Israeli army, yes it is sickening and clearly highlights some of the problems assigned to Jews on this site. Nonetheless others, I assume, and myself saw the benefits of ethno-nationalism and wanted it for home, our home: England. The people on the trip effectively chose their ethnicity in front of my eyes and more than coincidentally did it on their phenotype. The blonds and blondes found Israel somewhat alien, though fascinating as it is, while the more stereotypical Jews talked of their finding their roots. This presents an interesting solution to the Jewish question. End dual citizenship, expel on phenotype and otherwise accept. Perhaps ban the religion, though I as a libertarian ethno-nationalist disagree. In fact in England the solution is already being played out. The more phenotypically Jewish Jews do tend to move to Israel and the other become culturally less Jewish. Unlike all other ethnic minority problems that of Jews seems inevitably to be solved, helped along somewhat by at the floor birth rates. I live in London, a city ruined by multiracialism (multiculturalism), and a city I love running headlong off the abyss. I am volunteering for a quite dangerous job partly for the excitement but also in order to learn some of the skills required to save it. I know I am not the enemy, indeed amongst all the people I know I am the very best friend of this site. This is becoming a tad egotistical. What I mean is that ethno-nationalism must be about blood but many Jews have much English blood. Judaism is as much a religion as a genetic sub-sector and many are only born into one of the two. English ethno-nationalism must also be about success, and quickly. Some Jewish writer said Jews are the conscience of mankind or something equally self-aggrandising. Nonetheless they certainly act like it, superficially. They are also by many accorded the respect of it. What some would call Jews like me have the ability and deep desire to turn this on its head. Supposedly above racism and unjustified ethnic interest I, and do, mkaes other sees the fairness of English ethno-nationalism; however to really convince you must surely really believe; and I can never believe I do not belong in England. 117
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:23 | # If any MR supporters are still wondering why silver’s comically overwrought ‘hate the sin but love the sinner’ paean to Jews is constantly trumpeted, it is because that, unlike Fred Scrooby, silver doesnt favour the survival of our Western cultural organism if it requires, as it surely must, the excision of an ever virulent Jewry. 118
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:42 | # Populares, you and Israeli White Nationalist, and good guys like Chaim ben Pesach and David ben Moshe of the jtf.org, and all Jews like you, would be welcome in any white ethnostate I would set up( * ) were it not for the problem that your Jewish kids and grandkids will 98% revert to Euro-hating and wanting to genocide Euros, in many cases working hard toward that end. It’s in the Jewish blood, you can’t filter it out. Jews like you guys don’t come along every day — you guys are rarities among Jews (as Populares points out). Your kids and grandkids won’t be like you in this regard. That’s why I think we — Euros and Jews — need to live in separate countries. We’re at each others’ throats otherwise, as Jews try to genocide Euros and Euros resent the fact and get really mad at Jews. Hey why the downcast look, it’s not like you can’t come visit! ... (Uhhhh ............ just don’t bring Abe Foxman, OK? ..............) 119
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:19 | # “My visit to Israel, free in lieu of the wealth and ethnocentric generosity of one side of my cousins, should be of particular interest to this site. If one thing confirmed me in my English ethno-nationalism it was that.” - Populares If you truly are committed to “English ethno-nationalism,” if you truly are committed to ‘being White,’ it seems to me that you would want to take an English wife, have as many White children as is feasible, and inculcate in them the values that you here espouse - it is important that they think of themselves as English. Those who object would be powerless to stop you. If that is your choice, then do it, do it with all the energy and conviction you can muster. It could very well turn out to be a net gain for the genetic interests of the English. That is, if you are a ‘special case.’ But if you approach the high duties to your chosen English people in a half-hearted, half-measured fashion it will not be fair to them. Please don’t take this as an endorsement from me for your doing as such. I’m merely saying that if you do, there is a right way to go about it. 120
Posted by EA Steve on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:40 | # Why does it matter? It matters because it is something that would influence his opinion and ethnic loyalty. There has to be a reason why Jobling is so deeply philosemitic when he could easily take a path of indifference or neutrality on the issue like other “Race Realist” types. Posted by Darren on Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 11:36 AM | # Yes, but we are debating, with evidence. The claim that it matters is scientifically a fallacy. It’s akin to the following scenario: Dan has a cut. Mike claims that cuts are contagious, and in the debate says Dan’s argument (that cuts are not contagious) is compromised, because he has a cut. In the scientific debate, this is ad hominen; we are debating the actual facts of the Jewish Question, in relation to Mr. Jobling’s board. We have the same conflict of interest, when debating Blacks who claim Whites (including Gentiles) want to control the World. 121
Posted by EA Steve on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:25 | # EA Steve,
I also don’t understand the steamroller plan. If this pertains to my pro-Jew comments “making” me Jewish, then it lacks value (of reason). By the logic of best interest, it could work the other way. Some believe the Jews want to be hated, so they can prevent assimilation. Thereby, a Jew could pretend to be a Gentile and provoke anti-Semitism. Therefore, the potential claim that I belong to a group because I defend it is a fallacy. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say I turned out to be part Jewish or looked Jewish. I would still not have divided loyalty. Whatever the hypothetical case would be, I would still consider myself a White-American first. 122
Posted by Armor on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:00 | # Diamed: “Jewish genes and productivity (...) are a gold mine if they willingly hand over these riches to us to support us” In one sentence, you say you want to protect the white race. In the next sentence, you would like to replace European genes with Jewish genes so as to improve the European race and raise the IQ of the United States. I wish you would choose your position and stick to it. If you replace European genes with other genes, you no longer have a European race. I don’t understand why you want people in the United States to have a high IQ even if they are no longer Europeans. Populares: “however to really convince you must surely really believe; and I can never believe I do not belong in England.” I don’t understand exactly what you are saying, but it sounds like a joke. You do not need an authorization from MajorityRights in order to be a Jewish antisemite or a non-white white-supremacist. You are entitled to your own position. Captainchaos: “If you truly are committed to “English ethno-nationalism,” if you truly are committed to ‘being White,’ it seems to me that you would want to take an English wife, have as many White children as is feasible” It is a little demoralizing to read that kind of advice from you, Captain. Next, you’ll be giving the same advice to Africans: 123
Posted by Sacharite on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:45 | # whereas the high IQ of jews would make a eugenic blessing to our society. Jewish genes and productivity (remember they’ve won half the nobel prizes in science in the last 100 years!) are a gold mine if they willingly hand over these riches to us to support us As to IQ, Europe does not require the genes of Jews or any other race. Our intellectuals are not less than Jewish intellectuals, and our great men greater because the European race is an inherently noble race, whereas there’s something congenitally slippery with the average Jew. The melange of weird Jewish behavorial traits we’d rather not have in our gene pool either, thanks. If we need an IQ boost we’ll multiply the geniuses among our own. And of course we need not add that looks-wise, no race adds to the natural elegance of the Aryan profile, which no artwork, photography, or statue can fully reproduce. As to the Jewish “gold mine”, we’re not parasites and do not wish to be. Moreover in 2,000 years the Jew have never been domesticated by the European. The Jew is undomesticable. 124
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:09 | # @Armor: I’m not satisfied with the current genetic makeup of the white race and don’t think that loyalty to whites means we must forever be exactly like we are today. So long as we can become smarter, more beautiful, braver, more loving, etc, I will always want to encourage eugenics that change the white race. It doesn’t ‘destroy’ the white race to evolve it, it’s been evolving this whole time and constantly improving, I don’t consider that a tragedy, just the opposite. Like it or not jews average at 115 IQ and whites at a measly 100 IQ. Jews who intermarry and, after a few generations have spread their jewish genes thinly through a vast white nation will not destroy or compromise our white characteristics, they are too few to do that, but they will increase the number of our geniuses and nobel prize winners and business leaders and so on, an important way to raise carrying capacity, standard of living, and competitive ability vs. the outside world. @Sacharite: It’s not parasitic to accept smart, culturally loyal jews into a white ethnostate. They get value for their citizenship, the same return we get, a safe, free, united, happy homeland for them and their children forever. Where does that make us parasites? And yes I agree it’s unacceptable to keep jews so long as they ‘serve’ us they must also intermarry, them and their kids and their grandkids, until their jewishness is completely amalgamated into the larger gene pool and no distinct jewish community can ever reassemble. Forced interbreeding hasn’t been tried before so it’s no wonder no solution was found for the last 2,000 years. When genetic engineering finally becomes available I would endorse a massive change to the white race again. We aren’t a sacred cow that can’t be touched or the pinnacle of perfection, we’re just evolved monkeys and we didn’t evolve all too well—-appendixes, wisdom teeth, and mass unrestricted immigration show that well enough. We must continue improving our genetic stock until our abilities can really match our ideals. Surely no one is content with the world today? Like Fred Scooby said we must be the progressive party, not the conservative party. (though I fear this is getting wildly off topic.) 125
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:11 | # Don’t anyone show this article to Ian. It might upset him. He might judge it to be “stinking up the place.”
At least when rats leave a sinking ship they weren’t instrumental in sinking it in the first place, and they don’t go around sinking every other ship they can get their paws on next. But that’s rats ........ Boy, how many more countries can the (fill in the blank) ________ sink before we run out of countries???? It’s getting scary out there!!! Once again, don’t, DO NOT, show this article to Jobling ... not without the consent of his blood-pressure doctor, at least ..... (Is the J[ewish]T[elegraph]A[gency] “stinking the place up” too, Ian? They’re the ones responsible for the article .....) 126
Posted by Armor on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:23 | #
I would like European people to live in a natural way without trying to improve their IQ and without being obsessed with economic productivity. If you create a new creature in your lab by assembling genes from different races, it won’t feel to us as if your creature is one of our children even if it comes with a Jewish IQ. It won’t feel natural. Also, I wonder if your monster will have a preference for civic nationalism or for ethnic nationalism. Will it be a conservative, or an immigration fanatic? Anyway, this is only a theoretical discussion. What’s happening now is that whites are being massively replaced by non-whites. Even if you welcome Jewish genes, you should oppose the efforts of Jewish organizations to replace Europeans with African, Arab and Mexican immigrants. I think part of the debate they have on this thread is whether there is a link between Jewish genes and Jewish efforts to have us race-replaced. 127
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:51 | # Armor: “I don’t understand exactly what you are saying, but it sounds like a joke. You do not need an authorization from MajorityRights in order to be a Jewish antisemite or a non-white white-supremacist. You are entitled to your own position.” Assuming Populares is being straight with us (who knows on the internet), that is one of the things indicative of Character. A noble man instinctively senses an “order of rank,” and his place in it; he knows that there are those fit to Command and those fit to Obey. It is not unreasonable to assume that Populares one day wishes to Command, but to be worthy, to become worthy, he must first Obey. Even if we do not take this tact as far as National Socialism in constructing our resistance (I don’t recommend it if it is not necessary to achieve victory.), we must have such men in positions of power, in a position to sanction, “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not,” and to punish. How else to combat hyper-individualism? Other things I like about Populares: - Brains, the overall quality of his thought and writing. - Balls: “I am volunteering for a quite dangerous job partly for the excitement but also in order to learn some of the skills required to save it [England].” Armor: “It is a little demoralizing to read that kind of advice from you, Captain. Next, you’ll be giving the same advice to Africans…” I said: “Those who object would be powerless to stop you.” We most certainly don’t have any power, political, military, at the moment. Are you going to keep him away from the English girls? I said: “That is, if you are a ‘special case.’” I don’t advocate wide-scale Jewish-European mixing. But in the case that a ‘needle in a haystack’ pops up and he is bound to act in a certain way that I am powerless to prevent I say why not make it work for me. Jews who are phenotypically White are the only exception I am willing to make; sorry, no Congolese allowed. There are those amognst us who are admixed yet by any sane standard are ‘White.’ For instance, I know a guy who claims to have Jewish and Amerindian ancestry - he is a blond haired, blue-eyed, self-proclaimed ‘redneck.’ Is he not White? There will come a time when we will shut the door, a time from that point forward that we will dilute the slight admixture to our people that has accrued; that time is not now, we have no power. 128
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:58 | # CC to Armor: Are you going to keep him away from the English girls? He might if they are Cornish. 129
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:26 | #
The problem is, as Darwin pointed out, it may not be the virtuous that prevail.
Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1st ed., 1871 / 2nd ed., 1874. 130
Posted by silver on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:58 | #
Wrong. I’m not opposed to the “excision” of anybody, not even of myself. It’s entirely the manner you intend to go about it that is my main concern. So before you get to excising others, my great wish is to see you excise the visceral hatred you have of others from yourselves. The practical case for that is every bit as strong as the moral and more. 131
Posted by silver on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:30 | # Pop, <You ask me not only to accept my own exile, as I see it, to a very foreign land to which I have been (Israel) but worse; to accept that such is somehow correct, desirable even in my own heart.</blockquote> That is the price of entry and, set by nature as it is, is not negotiable; neither, for that matter, is entry itself. If you can see as clearly as I, however, you’ll not be deterred. The knowledge of what shall be should we succeed is recompense enough for whatever might be endured. 132
Posted by Iceman on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:38 | # No, “Half Jew” is not “iceman.” Iceman is 1/4 Russian Jewish, not 1/2. Every intelligent poster who claims some Jewish ancestry is not the same person. And I ask again, why do you quote western biopolotics as if he’s an anthropologist. He is not an anthropologist, he is a loser posing as one. 133
Posted by silver on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:43 | # EA Steve,
</blockquote>There is a possibility that I could actually be part Jewish. I haven’t confirmed it, but it’s still possible. At least four people have told me I look Jewish; two even called me “Jewboy.” I don’t know if I am part Jewish, but that is irrelevant. I know I could be mistaken for a Jew, even if I am pure Gentile. </blockquote> 134
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:39 | #
David Hume 135
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:40 | #
Armor’s a Cornishman? I took him for a Frenchman for some reason. Well, he seems to know French, at any rate. 136
Posted by Armor on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:53 | # FYI, I’m a Breton living under french occupation, 137
Posted by EA Steve on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:57 | # Posted by silver on Friday, October 31, 2008 at 07:43 PM | # I never claimed to look Jewish; I likely have some Irish and Scottish, which are actually mistaken for Jewish more than some would believe. The comment from the hyperlink is not valid evidence to claim I look Jewish. People easily mistaken people for other ethnicities. Again, if there were an outside chance I had a smidge of Jewish ancestry and/or looked Jewish (which you have not yet evidenced to have proof of), my loyalty would lay with fellow White Americans, first and foremost. If people wonder why Jews and possible part-Jews are racially liberal, it’s examples such as this. I am also insulted, by your action. It’s inappropriate to link a comment (by me) from a different forum, without my consent (if it is named), especially regarding such a personal matter relating to such a touchy subject. I know many commenters on this site despise the Jews and my ‘philio-Semitic’ comments, and it doesn’t help that another commenter poisoned the well. It is very unprofessional, especially on such a great scientific studies-related website, such as Majority Rights. It’s a dishonor to Majority Rights, to partake in such fallacies on this scientific website. 138
Posted by Iceman on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:58 | # Some people have mistaken me for Italian and I have NOT A SINGLE DROP of Italian blood. 139
Posted by a Finn on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:38 | # Thanks Fred. The different streams of ethnic /racial groups, goals, ideologies, activisms, politics etc. become a weak useless mess, if everything is tried to put together into a one group. When there is different groups, everybody can find suitable groups they feel at home with; European only groups and their networks, mixed European-Jewish groups, etc., hopefully all committed to creating permanent good environment for all (maybe some form of autonomous areas or nation states). Europeans have been too long the universal open access groups. Some of us (minority of Europeans) must not only not have outsiders in our groups, but not have misguided outsiders asking entry. Dear misguided, your fate, happiness fortunes and prosperity is not in our hands, it is in your and your groups hands. You are not left out of our groups, we leave ourselves out of your groups. If your groups’ support policies that are detrimental to environment, e.g. immigration, you will sooner or later bear the responsibility for the consequences of your own hands’ labors and we will do everything to protect us from them. If we, the outsiders, see that you advocate reliably sustainainable environment for all, we co-operate reliably and safely with you and stay separate. If some Europeans has difficulties understanding how separateness works, apply, preferably in large numbers together, membership to orthodox Jewish groups, try to marry their women and gain open access to all of their networks. Orthodox Jewish groups’ closed entry policies are exemplary. I have nothing against them and I don’t feel left out of them. My and my people’s fate, happiness, fortunes and prosperity is not in any way decided by the closed entry policies of the Jews. My people’s fate, happines, fortunes and prosperity may be threathened by the orthodox Jews, if they support e.g. immigration. In that case we would do everything in our power to ensure that we don’t suffer the consequences of their labor and we don’t co-operate with them. This is a policy I recommend to everybody, including Jews. It is fair and just, a balanced marriage of particular and universal moralities. Ps. We can develop Intelligence, ethnocentricity and other propitious predispositions in our groups, but to start group evolution, separation from others is needed. 140
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:03 | # Armor thanks; now I understand GW’s little quip. 141
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:18 | # I wonder what Jobling’s opinion on Jewish-White Gentile inter-marriage is? If he is for it, that can be used to drive a wedge between him and more ethnocentric Jews who are against it. If he is against it, it can be argued that he is giving sanction to the conditions that provoke Jewish paranoia and subversion - Jewish distinctiveness, a failure of Jews to become completely genetically and culturally assimilated. Jobling denounces anti-Semites. But, if he is for Jewish-White Gentile inter-marriage, isn’t he an anti-Semite in the sense that he would be sanctioning the conditions that would lead to the obliteration of Jewish genetic and cultural distinctiveness. Jobling the anti-Semite, Jobling the genocidalist. 142
Posted by Populares on Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:46 | # Captain Chaos,
When I see a black male with a white female my stomach clenches in anger only to expand in sadness. So I believe I understand how some on this site might feel were they to see me with my girlfriend; although doubtless on appearances none would think anything of it. I do not need the acceptance of these people, though I desire it, rather I need them to provide me with the other side of the argument so I can weigh my own up. I am informed so far that my children will be a cancer on the English nation, that I am not White and thus I am ridiculous. I suppose I should not care, none would know I were somewhat Jewish if they met me and when England is saved none would easily find out; yet I want to understand. I do not know the content of my genes but I do know I am practically every inch of Aryan appearance par excellence. I also know that both my actions and feelings define me as English. I suppose a problem for this site is that race and nation are not cut and dry seperate. I prefer invisible hand solutions to the hidden. The problem of Jews and those of mixed White blood in England could more easily, and with less moral complication, be solved by a cultural shift than the straight deportation needed for the obviously non-White. The unfettering of our nation from under the wieght of political correctness would be a start. If criticism of Jews were socially acceptable many more committed to Judaism than England would leave. In this way and others which I am sure those on this site can imagine a natural filtering process could take place; because remember denigrating and deporting those who are our, I believe, fellow Englishmen is just as pernicious as what the government is currently doing to us all. We are denigrated and deported now. Deported although geographically stationary into a foreign land of Bantu crime and sub-continent tribalism. The possibility of error does not nullify a solution, if not applying it concludes worse. Ridding our country of our, let us be polite, past-their-welcome guests is necessary now and a few fellows suffering as collateral may be unavoidable. Still it is not too hard to think of a better solution for sorting English from non-English than kicking out all those who have relations who have once practised the Jewish religion. Ideally I would like the visitors of this site to let people´s actions define them; of course within the brackets of suitable phenotype. Finally a question: is better to leave my part Jewish ancestry unsaid or to use it in aid of our cause? 143
Posted by Armor on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:37 | #
I still think you are playing a joke! I don’t think the religious part of Judaism is a problem. How many Jews believe in a religion called Judaism that says they have a special arrangement with God? Expelling Jews from the West is not a priority either. But we need quotas in the media, and in government. Before that, we need people to realize that Jewish ethnic awareness explains Jewish support of mass immigration and anti-white ideology. 144
Posted by Armor on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:41 | # correction: a special <s>arrangement</s> agreement with God 145
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:46 | # Populares: “I am informed so far that my children will be a cancer on the English nation, that I am not White and thus I am ridiculous.” - I don’t say anything like that to you or support that towards you or your children. Nobody will establish Aryan nations, but the radical and destructive policies of the elites need to be changed. Participate in some group that advocates that and prove in practice your love for the British nation. That is all that is required and you will be honored by all reasonable pro-British people. 146
Posted by EA Steve on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:05 | # I wonder what Jobling’s opinion on Jewish-White Gentile inter-marriage is? If he is for it, that can be used to drive a wedge between him and more ethnocentric Jews who are against it. If he is against it, it can be argued that he is giving sanction to the conditions that provoke Jewish paranoia and subversion - Jewish distinctiveness, a failure of Jews to become completely genetically and culturally assimilated. Jobling denounces anti-Semites. But, if he is for Jewish-White Gentile inter-marriage, isn’t he an anti-Semite in the sense that he would be sanctioning the conditions that would lead to the obliteration of Jewish genetic and cultural distinctiveness. Jobling the anti-Semite, Jobling the genocidalist. Posted by Captainchaos on Friday, October 31, 2008 at 10:18 PM | # That’s a bit of a stretch. What about the other White ethnic groups. Do we have to desire completely absorbing the other White ethnic groups, in contintental Europe, to accept them as White? But I will assume you mean in the U.S. In the strictest sense, you are correct. However, there is a way to socially assimilate Jews, and allow them to have de facto areas to remain ethnically Jewish. There are many de facto communities of Jews, Greeks, and Italians, and they can remain as they are, and actually still view themselves as Americans first. There are also counties, wherein Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Englishmen are in the majority, and I doubt anybody would question the patriotism of these groups. But I do support a more assimilating ideal, myself. I don’t necessarily want the Jews absorbed, even in America. I would only want them to be proud White Americans. I would have almost only a token number of ‘Jew-first’ Jews, for their intelligence and contribution to society, on the condition that they would not betray White America. In principle, I view Europe and Greater Syria, as places to keep the White Ethnic groups almost pure, in their own respects, and White North America & potentially Siberian Russia as places to have White ethnic groups mix, and form their own new nationalities. In principle, I view White America as a place for White ethnic groups to mix. But, also have no problem with (and probably support) a limestone effect, assuming the ethnic groups are loyal. 147
Posted by silver on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:18 | #
Put a sock in it. I’m not remotely interested in what you look like. Your example was used to illustrate the nebulous nature of WN’s intersection with genetics. 148
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:20 | # Populares, Loving your people means holding nothing back, submitting to every obligation that their continuity calls for. Do it all the way or not at all. For the record, I am not English, but an American. Yet I do have English and Scottish ancestry so their continuity as peoples is of concern to me, they are my blood. I don’t condone large-scale Jewish-White Gentile inter-marriage, it would be/is destructive to the genetic interests of both peoples. I say what I say to you only because it seems that you will not be deterred and look to me like a ‘special case.’ If that is your choice I wish you God’s speed, you are the sort I would want in my foxhole. 149
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:42 | # “...nebulous…” - silver Silver use big word, make mighty capn’s head hurt. What word mean, silver? 150
Posted by EA Steve on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:50 | # Put a sock in it. I’m not remotely interested in what you look like. Your example was used to illustrate the nebulous nature of WN’s intersection with genetics. Posted by silver on Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 12:18 AM | #
I also take you at your word that it was solely to illustrate the nature of EGI fanatics. Sorry if there was a miscommunication; and I am sorry for overreacting on the perceived questioning of my status. 151
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:49 | # EA Steve: “But I will assume you mean in the U.S.” I’m with you. “However, there is a way to socially assimilate Jews, and allow them to have de facto areas to remain ethnically Jewish.” Oops, you lost me. I agree with JWH of Western Biopolitics that our best hope of racial survival on the North American continent lies in bulkanization. Then, we will truly see who is loyal and who is not. If Jobling is hell bent on deflecting criticism from Jews as a group when organized Jewry and individual Jews disproportionately, consciously act to damage the interests of Whites to advance their own, his affect upon our struggle is not just neutral, it is pernicious. Consequently, a wedge must be driven between him and us, and between him and the Jews; the effect of which will hopefully be to push him back towards us, once he has no where else to go. His presence is on the internet, Jews have a presence on the internet, this could be accomplished simply by making them aware of what he is peddling. I doubt they will want him in their corner. He is vulnerable to what the Jews think of him because he cares what they think of him; we are not because we don’t. 152
Posted by joe on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:39 | # Or as Mr Greg puts the case: ‘The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—-and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sizth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal “struggle for existence”, it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—-and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.’ ————————————————————————————————————————————————————— In light of the current economic and social conditions in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, this statement is hilariously ironic. Ireland today is extremely prosperous, while Scotland is poor, has the highest crime rate in Europe(that’s due to the natives being so much more crime prone than other Europeans that it makes up for the enrichment suffered by places like England and France) and basically on welfare as a society. 153
Posted by EA Steve on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:45 | # “However, there is a way to socially assimilate Jews, and allow them to have de facto areas to remain ethnically Jewish.” Oops, you lost me. Captainchaos I meant Jews could have their own communities and have de facto majority status in various counties, as long as they are loyal to White America. The Greeks and Italians are almost as ethnic community-oriented as the Jews are. There are also counties with German and English majorities, which show no sign of treason. In Europe and Greater Israel, I support keeping the White ethnic groups mostly pure, in their own respects. I consider White America, more mixed; almost a limestone, whereby the ingredients may be mixed in some ways, but also distinct in certain parts. I like seeing German-Irish/Scottish mixed people in parts of the South, English/Dutch in parts of the Northeast, etc. And yet, these people have a sense of loyalty to their own country. I also think the goal is not to talk about the Orthodox Jews keeping purity in Israel. I think the true question is loyalty, in White America. To be honest, I think most Jews are unconsciously assimilated; and I even think they should be permitted to remain Jewish, even in America, so long they remain loyal. Just as I believe White Americans have a right to seek mates of similar genetic stock. Choosing pre-American ethnic groups for marriage is akin to marrying one’s distant cousin. We are wasting our time, going after common Jews, or even Jews as a whole people. I think it would help our PR and long-term interests best to go after powerful elite Jews who are harming our people (especially if they admit it). We should go on an individual basis; it is more acurate and entails more credibility. (In that regard, we can decide which White (Gentile and Jew) “liberals” can stay, or whatever, after the elite loses its monopoly on power and media influence or changes its mind). Instead of making a wedge, I think we should try to spread our message (of dwindling White demographics) to a wider audience, and make plans for a potential conflict in North America. A major Depression is likely to be on its way within the next 5-7 years, tops. 154
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:46 | # I wrote: “If some Europeans have difficulties understanding how separateness works, apply, preferably in large numbers together, membership to orthodox Jewish groups, try to marry their women and gain open access to all of their networks.” Addition: Large numbers together means just that the reaction of orthodox Jews will be more alarmed. All separation works, orthodox Jews included, only if it is maintained at the individual level. Individual either gains access to your group or is denied access. It is for you to decide what the exact access criteria is. There should be no precedent decisions, because that is a bulk decision in disguise. E.g. when Scrooby with 1/8 (Am I right?) Jewish ancestry gains access to your group, it doesn’t mean that all mixed Jewish-Europeans can gain access. Also in time the entry criteria should become more stringent and some day the outsiders access should stop altogether. Those European-Americans who then want to be a member of an endogamous European-American group, must establish their own with the same or more stringent criteria and join the group network. Entry should require initiation work, commitment and tests, and staying in the group should require rituals, commitment, tests and work to remove free-riders, weakly committed, untrustworthy and lazy people. 155
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:37 | #
It’s a little more than that, Finn, but the main thing is I’m not Jewish at all. (I have a little more than Sarkozy and Hitchens.) I’m American by birth, German by the grace of God! (I’m paraphrasing U.S. Southerners there.) 156
Posted by silver on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 20:25 | #
That’s not quite it. I’ll explain (Cap: pay attention). Whatever criteria you devise, some who think they are “in,” and proceed as such, will inevitably prove to be, in fact, “out.” “EGI,” as its most fervent devotees frame it [not a dig at any exquistitely sensitive specimen], is silent on this issue. Indeed, the entire WN movement fails to provide any satisfactory solution to the quandry. The need is pressing: taking care of your cents allows your dollars to take care of themselves. My effort has been to propose “racial solutions,” rather than strictly “white” ones, promoting concern for the arrangments of out-groups (“cents”), thereby expecting one’s own to fall into place (“dollars”), for which I’ve been roundly ridiculed and called a “leftist”—after all, my approach foregoes appeals to traditions or to longings stirred by nostalgia; it proscribes disparagement of non-whites or the physically unappealing of one’s own; it prefers to bolster defenses by understanding rather than condemning the other; it attempts to build bridges between competing economic and political views, hoping to extract from each what is racially advantageous, jettisoning burdensome baggage. None on this board will know it, but my efforts haven’t been in vain. 157
Posted by EA Steve on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:02 | # My effort has been to propose “racial solutions,” rather than strictly “white” ones, promoting concern for the arrangments of out-groups (“cents”), thereby expecting one’s own to fall into place (“dollars”), for which I’ve been roundly ridiculed and called a “leftist”—after all, my approach foregoes appeals to traditions or to longings stirred by nostalgia; it proscribes disparagement of non-whites or the physically unappealing of one’s own; it prefers to bolster defenses by understanding rather than condemning the other; it attempts to build bridges between competing economic and political views, hoping to extract from each what is racially advantageous, jettisoning burdensome baggage. None on this board will know it, but my efforts haven’t been in vain. Posted by silver on Saturday, November 1, 2008 at 07:25 PM | #
I will concede to having a little trouble understading your post, but I think I get the main picture. Thank you for yuor insight. 158
Posted by EA Steve on Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:04 | # “It seems like a method to maintain social cohesion and prevent divison. I assume you also intend to say, that we should work with others who share the same interests (but have different political views), and even our enemies. ” [correctin: and also out-groups] “Thank you for yuor insight.” 159
Posted by Englander on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:50 | # Svyatoslav Igorevich -
Could you expand on that? 160
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 03:11 | # Joe obviously doesnt know that, according to an unheralded PhD thesis from Stirling University, ‘Scots’ of immigrant Irish Catholic descent comprise about 15% of Scotland’s population and about 30% of its prison inmate population thus making real Scots look a lot worse than they are. Scotland’s prisons, like those of England, also house a demographically disproportionate number of foreigners, especially Muslims, and this further confounds those who rely on the catch-all sweeping statement. 161
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 03:20 | # Silver: “Whatever criteria you devise, some who think they are “in,” and proceed as such, will inevitably prove to be, in fact, “out.”” - Not at all. When there is not a one big group, but network of groups, and in larger scale different networks of groups, everybody who is honest, committed and ready to work will find a good home. If dishonest leftist provocateurs find themselves to be in liberal groups (thus not out in any sense), it is like it naturally should be. Silver: “My effort has been to propose ...” - Your effort changes in every different thread, 95% of them clearly hostile and the rest vaguely so or obfuscating the clear issues. 162
Posted by Z on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:51 | # “Off topic, but Amren really is a dump. There is LITERALLY more philo-Semitic censorship there than on the typical, apolitical forums I visit…So I don’t want people thinking the moderation at Amren was all Jobling’s fault; the moderation is worse now, and the fault is Taylor’s.” I once posted a link to a neutral/scientific study regarding Jewish genetics on AmRen and, though the comment was approved, the link I included was replaced with a link to interracial porn (apparently by someone over at AmRen: who else could have done it?). Yes, AmRen is a terrible cesspool of censorious philosemitism—truly pathetic. Doesn’t Taylor have a Jewish wife? If so, no wonder - she probably works as a moderator on the website… 163
Posted by Darren on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:06 | # Z: Did the hyperlink change, or did the page you link to merely redirect to porn? Razib over at GNXP sends anyone who links from unfriendly websites (like MR) to porn (since he can’t refute reasoned argument). So if you put a GNXP link onto a page like MR (and likely AmRen), Razib will send you to some sort of porn site. The funny thing about AmRen is that Jobling left AmRen because it was too “antisemitic” for his tastes. AmRen used to discuss MacDonald, but nowadays its just philosemitism and muslim-bashing (a top AmRen funding source is Jewish I have been told). 164
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:08 | # The ‘top AmRen funding source’ might possibly be Bruce Kovner, a seemingly conservative Jewish hedge fund operator, who, through his Manhattan Institute, funds the often interesting http://www.city-journal.org/ website. 165
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:20 | # A Finn’s last sentence would doubtless be true if silver wasnt a victim of Ganser Syndrome. For example, if you asked silver how many legs a centipede possessed, he’d say 99. 166
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:43 | #
A number of observers have already predicted Negroes will riot in reaction to either a win or a loss by Obama, and whites like James Carville certainly without any doubt, and, I personally believe, Jonah Goldberg, have made statements amounting to encouraging Negroes to do it. In a sane country Carville, at least, would have been arrested for that, for “aiding and abetting sedition” or something (or what’s the charge for encouraging riots? there must be one). But this isn’t a sane country — not since the ‘60s advent of Jewish hegemony, it isn’t. 167
Posted by Englander on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:47 | # Svigor-
I took it to mean that you believe an Obama loss is still quite possible. I don’t think it is, personally. I have had a feeling he’ll win ever since I saw how he was being treated at the beginning of the presidential race. 168
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:24 | # <a >See what we mean</a>, Populares? (In case you, a Brit, didn’t know: columnist Frank Rich is a (fill in the blank) _______ and the <strike>Jew York Ti</strike>, excuse me let’s try that again, the New York Times is part of the (fill in the blank) _______ press over here in the States. We get hyper-obnoxious stuff like this constantly from the (fill in the blank) ________ community here in the States, it just never ends. I’m sure you can supply some examples of the same phenomenon at work over there in the mother country (what’s left of it .......). (<a >Hat tip</a>) 169
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:28 | # (It wouldn’t hurt Jobling to take a look at that Frank Rich column either .... Ian if you’re lurking out there .... yes yes with a clothespin on your nose, I realize that, of course .... if you’re lurking with a clothespin on your nose, just click on the link — don’t worry, it won’t bite you, just click on it ... Oh, and .... uhhh .... take off those horse-blinders first, that might help matters, Ian ..........) 170
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:34 | # That’s odd, neither link works. OK, here they are: respectively, the “money” link and the hat tip (if for any reason the first one still doesn’t work, you can get there via the hat tip, which should work): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02rich.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/11/guess-who-is-promoting-miscegenation.html 171
Posted by IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:49 | # The Jewsmedia is still lying to the non-Jewish masses, still trying to convince them that being a Jew is more about Judaism (religion) than it is about being of Jewish ethnicity/descent: Israel considers question: ‘Who is a Jew?’ Issue heads to higher court after rabbis annul some 40,000 conversions Nov. 1, 2008 JERUSALEM - Raised without religion in Maryland, Shannon sought to make a new life for herself as a Jew in Israel… (continued) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27489870/ —- Will they ever give up this laughable propaganda of trying to convince people that being Jewish is less about ethnicity (genetic descent) and more about practicing a religion that the majority of modern day ethnic Jews have abandoned? File this one under the already large folder of Jewish denial of ethnicity/race, even when it is their own! 172
Posted by IIIIIIIIIIIIII on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:12 | # Doesn’t get much better than this… OK, in the above-linked column Jewish journalist Frank Rich praises Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? to no end and as such he encourages and gushes about the positives of White-Black miscegenation. The more the better according to his Jewish mindset (however, he of course would not fully approve of his Jewish daughter or son breeding with a non-Jew). But yeah, why don’t you go ahead take a guess who directed that most famous miscegenation-promoting film? Why, none other than Jewish-American film director Stanley Kramer of course! [Nevermind that the only reason that film was able to be released at that time was because of the 1960s Jew-infested radical leftist-communist-counterculture movement, Jew-run Hollywood and mass media ownership, and most importantly the Jew-led Civil Rights Movement.] 173
Posted by weston on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:18 | #
174
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:23 | # What you’ll never see coming out of Hollywood is white-woman/Negro-man miscegenation where the woman is identified as Jewish. There are certain things you’ll never see in this universe, and that’s one of them. Another is an end to Jewish calls for Euro-woman/Negro-man miscegenation: you’ll never see that either. It’s just not built into the way the universe works. 175
Posted by silver on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:24 | # aSomethingorother,
That doesn’t prevent the phenomenon of a person believing he belongs to a particular group in that “network of groups” (whatever the fuck that is) finding out he actually doesn’t. To anyone with a brain capable of thought, not only does this create practical difficulties, it raises larger questions of identity that existing racialist thinking does a poor job of answering, a point too often drowned out by the moans—“I want my wace, I want it now!”—of despondent nutzis.
If ignorant finnish agigators find themselvs excluded from mature dialogues which seek to chart a justifiable, workable course, it is “like it naturally should be.” EA,
Not quite. There is no particular reason helping your own race requires hating other races; if anything, hating the other only strengthens the resolve of white antiracists. Demonstrating concern for the welfare of other races (regardless of whatever social racial arrangements you have in mind for them) disarms white antiracists. It also helps you understand your own positions better. There is a stage, I surmise, that most white racialists go through in which their feelings for their own race are accompanied by feelings of enormous revulsion of non-whites. This clouds judgement and leads to rash and regrettable statements, and, worse, actions, all of which is tremendously counterproductive—those who do not share your feelings of revulsion of non-whites will not be moved by your exhortations. It’s almost impossible today to find someone (except career online racialists) who doesn’t have warm feelings towards at least one non-white (a fact which itself similarly clouds judgement), and racialism itself, not just its public statements, needs to reorient itself to take account of this. You’ve made statements here and elsewhere reasonably supportive of jews (at least by WN standards). Despite the charges of personal failings and accusations of being a “jew-tool” you’ll undoubtedly encounter, I encourage you to maintain that attitude, and to broaden it to include the concerns of still others. Doing so, it is my firm belief, will make you a more effective proponent for your own race. Al Ross, keep up the razor-sharp zingers. Love ‘em. Do you have any children, btw? Please make sure to test them for Ganser Syndrome should they begin to show signs of intellectual development. 176
Posted by silver on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 20:52 | #
You don’t know that. Everyone’s affected. It’s entirely natural wherever different races exist in the same territory. The rates may differ (and I don’t doubt they do), but if you keep your eye on the long term (which you should), we’ll all eventually succumb.
http://www.abovethelaw.com/images/entries/Noah Feldman Noah R Feldman Jeannie Suk Jeannie C Suk Above the Law.JPG 177
Posted by EA Steve on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:08 | # Not quite. There is no particular reason helping your own race requires hating other races; if anything, hating the other only strengthens the resolve of white antiracists. Demonstrating concern for the welfare of other races (regardless of whatever social racial arrangements you have in mind for them) disarms white antiracists. It also helps you understand your own positions better.
I agree with the assessment that we should avoid hatred of other races. 178
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:12 | #
This touches on the same point I tried to make in my “invasive zebra mussel” comparison here and here.
I was getting into this idea with my “Blue-Blocker sunglasses for Jews” metaphor.
It’s not “repression,” Professor. It’s relegating sex to its normal, rightful place in society. If you refrain from walking down the street naked, are you engaging in “sexual repression”? If you make it practice to walk to the post office and grocer’s every day naked, are you being “liberated from your society’s sexual repression”? If you jump into bed with the mailman every day, are you escaping from society’s imposed sexual repression? No: normal people making up normal societies understand the role of sex and relegate it to its proper place and role (giving full expression to it within that proper place and role). Lots of “liberal” Jews haven’t got the synapses to grasp this unfortunately, and make pathetic clowns of themselves running around trying to get sex mixed into contexts where it’s wholly and appallingly inappropriate.
Does the current federal government policy of forced race-replacement create problems for diaspora Jews? I would say it does: most Jews can’t afford to live in million-dollar homes in private gated communities any more than most Euros can; most Jews don’t want to have to deal with the ill feeling toward Jews which Jewish support for such policies is generating among all classes of Euros; plenty of Jews don’t want to live in a racially Brazilianized society; plenty of Jews will get racially mixed with Negroes if race-replacement of Euros is forced through to the bitter end, and plenty of Jews don’t want that: they’d rather preserve their present racial composition; once the whites in the U.S. have all be changed into Negroes, the goal of the plan currently underway, will Israel find itself in a more precarious position? Likely it will, and naturally Jews don’t want that either. And there are other ways in which current race-replacement policy will in both the near and long terms redound to Jews’ detriment.
Well said, Finn! 179
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:32 | #
Nearly everyone associated with this site, whether as blogger or commenter, has said many times he has nothing against other races’ finding their happiness and thriving as best they can, wishes them all well in that, but opposes being changed into them through excessive incompatible immigration and all the rest of the laws, rules, an directives the other side has got in place. Silver’s been following this site closely for years so should know that. When harsh words about other races’ characteristics or about those of Jews have escaped my own lips it’s been because I’m sick and tired of the Jews ramming these other races down my throat. Let them stop and I’ll have naught but the nicest things to say about them, Jews and Negroes alike.
No. Stop harping on this same theme, Silver, which you know is bogus. We don’t have to show we’re a tool or not a tool of anyone. We didn’t start this. We want forced race-replacement to end and the demographic damage already inflicted by the criminals in charge humanely reversed, with full restoration of the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante (meaning no fraction of race-replacement left in place). Period. Full stop. End of story. We have no apologies to make to anyone in that. WE ... not the Jews, Silver, WE ... are the aggrieved party here. The Jews (and others) are the perpetrators. If any party needs to show extra-special sensitivity or contrition it’s CERTAINLY NOT US. Go take what you’re peddling here to others. No one’s buying it here. 180
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:44 | # Adding to an impressive corpus of exceedingly banal trollery, silver claims that “we’ll all eventually succumb,” which is plainly just another tedious expression of his customary, male fide, Dago-driven, anti-White wish fulfilment fantasy and will be, like all his sorry efforts in this area, laughingly dismissed. 181
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:57 | # silver: “There is no particular reason helping your own race requires hating other races…” “...reasonably supportive of jews…” “...accusations of being a “jew-tool” you’ll undoubtedly encounter…” Why don’t you capitalize “jew,” silver? Are you trying to dehumanize them? Or do you just think that Auntie Semite bakes great cookies? 182
Posted by Armor on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:06 | #
Nothing can disarm the “antiracist” poseurs 183
Posted by silver on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 05:25 | # Svigor,
If it’s human nature to despise, it’s also human nature to seek conciliation—else whence the left? Every country on earth is to some degree “racially mixed.” Some greatly, some only faintly. It’s far from true to say members of the various racial groupings uniformally despise each other, even when they’re aware of those differences.
Is it a good idea to despise the other, Svigor? You might very well see it as so, given your supposition that in any ensuing conflict you’d emerge victorious. I, on the other hand, consider the diminishment of inter-European hatred, suspicion and distrust a crowning achievement of the 20th century, and I deplore its residuals in the part of Europe I hail from. I also consider the efforts to diminish such hatreds worldwide praiseworthy, not mushily millenarian. Also, I’m pretty sure Thais remain quite cognizant of their Thaihood; if they “despise” me, they must do so very subtly indeed. Lastly, the American (or jewish, if you prefer) attempt to drive out human nature with a pitchfork, wrongheaded as it might be, has resulted in millions of whites establishing close, rewarding relationships with non-whites, even of the most, from a racialist perspective, unwelcome kind. Overcoming that inertia by deeming love—love!—wrong strikes me as, among other things, incredibly inefficient; your mocking dismissal of any suggestion to, instead, harness it, all too typically sophomoric. scrooby,
Tell that to the judge (the court of public opinion), bozo.
How’s that working out for you, scrooby? Case closed. Of course, you did start it. The negroes didn’t make their own way to America or free themselves and themselves earn the right to remain put. The Indians didn’t begin offing themselves to make way for you. Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans didn’t incorporate themselves into the American commonwealth. “But it’s about numbers,” you will retort. No. It’s about trends firmly in place before they ever became exacerbated. It’s only because you found yourself caught towards their tail end that you began to froth like a rabid dog. Had you lived and died fifty years earlier not a peep would have been heard out of you: you would have thought segregation sufficient. Cap’n
It’s my sop to nutzis. Ross,
Zing!, you didn’t let me down. Sadly, no disagreement that it’ll be laughingly dismissed. ‘Tis true, though, Roscoe. And by all, I mean all: Vikes, dagoes, beaners, gooks alike. It’s nought but a function of time and multiracial coexistence, I’m afraid. Rather a pity you don’t think anyone but yourselves might be interested in reversing that, and offering up a suggestion or two as to how it go about it to boot. Armor,
Why ever not? 184
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 06:17 | #
Of course you do. It furthered your ethnic self-interest.
Why not Israel then? Why not Postville? 185
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 07:24 | #
The Negroes, Red Indians, and Puerto Ricans in the country in 1965 and their descendants aren’t the problem where forced race-replacement is concerned, and I have no problem with them, and furthermore you know it, Silver, but because you’re a nutcase you feel a compulsion to go round and round in circles. What’s causing the crisis of forced race-replacement in the U.S. isn’t they; nor of course is it they causing this crisis elsewhere in the Eurosphere than the U.S. Now run along like a good little troll and figure out what is causing the race-replacement crisis, both in the U.S. and in the rest of the Eurosphere. Then come back and tell me, and I’ll let you know if you’ve got it right.
Any “court of public opinion” with so much as a shred of legitimacy will view the other side’s genocide as the graver crime, finding whatever language I used in reaction to that genocide fully justified, in fact admirably restrained, and insignificant in comparison. 186
Posted by silver on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:27 | #
You’re either astoundingly stupid and incapable of following the logic of a point clearly laid out (I would have thought) for you or you’re such a damn grouch logical consistency is a side-issue for you. The negroes were there. The solution to their presence whites came up with was to segregate. That solution is insufficient. It lulls people into a false sense of security. Even if the consequences could be understood, the logical denouement is so far in the future that consideration of it is put aside. It’s the slowly-fried-frog scenario.
They exacerbate existing trends. Why do you pretend that I don’t acknowledge this? Why don’t you admit you would have never done anything about the presence of the people in your midst you’re so keen to tell us you “have no problem with” (except perhaps when you’re not busy ridiculing them) had it not been for the fact that the trends accelerated so suddenly they snapped you to attention?
Ah, and yet it doesn’t, it most certainly doesn’t. Not in your wildest fantasies can it be said to. Any normal person would note that and alter his approach. Why don’t you?
The European peace is a remarkable, unprecedented achievement. It furthers the ethnic interests of all save those so intoxicated with their own greatness that they’d prefer to rule over all others than maintain a state of peace (and, gulp, co-operation) with artificial “equals.” Such an insinuation is a bit much even for you, but misconstruing my point allowed you sneak in the immigration link. Fascinating that you’re still beating that dead horse. Somehow, in your universe, a population decrease due to immigration, in which immigrants melt into a larger mass, losing all ethnic attachment furthers ethnic, rather than personal, interest. In any case, all of this is beside the point I’ve attempted to make on this thread. Racial survival is a legitimate objective and the prospects of its achievement is enhanced by co-operation with racial outsiders amiable to it. I certainly don’t require anyone’s imprimatur to advocate what I think are sensible racial policies, and I’d appreciate it if you’d stop behaving as though I do. 187
Posted by a Finn on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:35 | # Fred, your comments were welcomed. There is not much to add. Sexual repression is a word from freudianism and cultural marxism, and it is one their hostile and damaging concepts. EA Steve, you are probably a person that wants to be good, wants to know that others regard you as such. May I help you a bit? European-Americans and Europeans have surrended in a huge extent to outsiders. Affirmative action in jobs and education; repression of their free speech, but not outsiders’; distortion of their history and culture to maladaptive lies and practices, while at the same time aggrandizing the outsiders’; persecuting their free thinkers, and pro-Europeans and pro-European Americans, firing them from jobs and reviling them in the media; suppression of science and elevating social construction and cultural marxism (political tools of liberal and leftist elites) to a judge of it; etc. Silver, intelligent as he is in his leftist provocations, utilizes your desire to be good, like European universal psychology has been utlized by all kinds of hostiles so many times before. And here we are. In this situation further concessions to outsiders are one-sided surrender and has further negative consequences to us. Also, outsiders fate and fortunes is not for us to decide, it is in their own hands. I recommend the following reasonable policies: 1. Make concessions that have no negative short and especially long term consequences to us and are useful in some ways, and don’t cost us anything (money or anything else) or cost only a little (e.g. a little bit of time and energy). And/or 2. Reciprocal, equal and in real life verified concessions from both parties, that are useful to our long term interests. So, let silver e.g. introduce his leftist liberal group, meet them in person, negoatiate and if one or both of the said 2 terms are realized, make an agreement. Ask what real life concessions silver and leftist/liberals are ready to make to us, so that we don’t feel threatened by liberals /leftists, are not discriminated, disposessed and persecuted anymore and receive certified assurances that we as Europeans have a good future in their policies and plans. Sweet lies will not do. Their time is over. 188
Posted by Oppose Jewish Hegemony Or Be Prepared To Perish Eu on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:35 | # Ezra Pound was a very sharp guy; this radio speech by him might be a good reprint for this website considering the similarities with today’s financial crisis: #16 (March 15, 1942) U.K.(B16) The enemy is Das Leihkapital. Your Enemy is Das Leihkapital, international, wandering Loan Capital. Your enemy is not Germany, your enemy is money on loan. And it would be better for you to be infected with typhus, and dysentery, and Bright’s disease, than to be infected with this blindness which prevents you from understanding HOW you are under mined, how you are ruined. The big Jew is so bound up with this Leihkapital that no one is able to unscramble that omelet. It would be better for you to retire to Darbyshire and defy New Jerusalem, better for you to retire to Gloucester and find one spot that is England than to go on fighting for Jewry and ignoring the process. It is an outrage that any clean lad from the country—I suppose there are STILL a few ENGLISH lads from the country—it is an outrage that any nice young man from the suburbs should be expected to die for Victor Sassoon, it is an outrage that any drunken footman’s byblow should be asked to die for Sassoon. As to your Empire, it was not all of it won by clean fighting. But however you got it, you did for a time more or less justify keeping it, on the ground that you exported good government or better government than the natives would have had without England. You let in the Jew and the Jew rotted your empire, and you yourselves out-Jewed the Jew. Your allies in your victimized holdings are the bunyah, you stand for NOTHING but usury. And above metal usury; you have built up bank usury, 60% against 30 and 40%, and by that you WILL NOT be saved. Corrupting the whole earth, you have lost yourselves to yourselves. And the big Jew has rotted EVERY nation he has wormed into. A mill stone. Well, an exceptionally good swimmer MIGHT conceivably be cast into the sea with a stone tied round his neck. He might perhaps untie it. If he were a Scotchman, he would remember his jackknife, before being thrown overboard. You seem to remember NOTHING. It were better you were infected with typhus. As to federal union, or JEW/nion. There is NO question of race in Streit’s proposition. It is as proposed a union of slaves, under Jewry. Offered by liars and abettors of thieves. You have stolen land from your late Allies, and land slips from your control. The ONLY conquests of Britain and Rosenfeld are conquests FROM their alleged allies. All right, say that Franklin Delany swipes ALL South America—to what end ? And ruin the United States of America while he is doing it. What’s that to you ? It is not England’s salvation. Will you ever LOOK at the story of empire ? You are NOT even in the mercantile system, you are in a fake mercantile system, not even mercantile. It was for a time called mercantile or the mercantilist system and defined as considering the happiness of a nation to consist in the amount of MONEY it owned, and its process to consist in STEALING, welching, pouching the greatest possible amount of same (i.e., of money) from other nations. That defines the USURY system, the ONLY system Anglo Saxons have known or used in our time. And it will not save you. NOR will Judaized Russia. Nor will the Kahal, the Jew’s central committee of bleeders. WI-IAT is their system ? Unvarying, cheap goods, sweated out of cheap labor, dung dust hurled on the world, the WORLD conceived as sweat shop, to hell with the 8-hour day, down with abundance. DUMPING sweated goods, dumped against any and every nation that pays a just price for labor. That is your ALLY. And in your past a trail of blood and of infamy. You bought Hessians to kill your own blood in America. You bought ’em from a stinking feudal overlord, who was in the hands of the ROTHSCHILD; that is HISTORY. You stirred up the American savages against your own kin IN America. But now Eden and Cripps have called in the Muscovite, to burn and destroy all Eastern Europe, and kill Finland, for the sake of the stinking Jews nickel mines. Your infamy is bound up with Judaea. You can not touch a sore or a shame in your empire but you find a Mond, a Sassoon, or a Goldsmid. YOU HAVE NO RACE left in your government. God knows if it can be found still scattered in England. IT must be found scattered in England. The white remnants of England, the white remnant of the races of England must be FOUND and find means to cohere; otherwise, you might as well lie down in your grave yards. You have for years had cheap goods DUMPED in from Russia. Your alliance with Moscow will bring no relief to that wound. Your Jews have ruined your home manufactures. Loans from the city of London, loans to the Orient, interest paid in cheap cotton goods, loans to the South American countries, interest paid in beef from the Argentine, and ruin of English grazing. The laws of durable government have been known from the days of King Wen. When empires go to ROT, they go to rot for known reasons. The Times, Telegraph, Manchester Guardian, are there to conceal these reasons. Your press is an infamy, has been throughout our time. The laws of durable government have been known from the days of King Wen, and when the Roman Empire perished it perished from the same follies that your kikes, your Rothschilds, Beits, Sieffs, Schiffs, and Goldsmids have squirted into your veins. Cheap grain dumped from Egypt, ruin of the Italian farming, usury, and more usury, THAT is the answer. For two centuries, ever since the brute Cromwell brought ’em back into England, the kikes have sucked out your vitals. A mild penetration, for a hundred years they have bootlicked your nobility and now where is your nobility ? You had at least the semblance of control; you had, let us say, some influence with the Lords of Judaea as long as they WANTED your titles, as long as Levy Levinstein Lawson WANTED to be addressed as Lord Burnham. You could turn the worst edge of their avarice, or rather you could turn it OFF, the upper or huppar clawses; and turn it ONTO the peer. As you did without mercy. But when the same scroungers have moved over to New York City, how will you manage ’em ? The same bloody minded extortioners, or their descendents. The same FINANCIAL HOUSES. The same Rothschilds who plotted with Sherman, and Vandergould to KILL the American nation, who betrayed the United States in the “sixties”. Head office in London, agents in the U.S. of America. Now the address is altered. Main office in Wall Street and Cohen in London. You send Willie over to spy on us. You send 5000 usurers’ pimps over to Washington and give special passports, diplomatic, to inveigle the United States into your plans to get cannon fodder from Idaho and from Iowa to weld your slaves cellar on Europe. And this time you get dumped into the ash can. You have even forgotten your Kipling. Pig Baldwin has forgotten his cousin; if his obscene and treacherous mind ever grasped the meaning of Rudyard’s stories. Let me recall one passage to the sow face: “The Americans,” wrote Rudyard, “obligingly slaughtered each other in order that the Czechoslovaks might inherit Boston Common.” Cras tibi, tomorrow is your turn. Damn it all, you slaughtered the flower of England in the Boer War. Then in 1914 in the first three months, the best of you went out and got slaughtered. [TEXT MISSING IN ORIGINAL] been seen only too clearly. And your foul papers, the filth of your news print has been subsidized to keep your minds off it. A dirty bit of meat by the name of Gollancz has used your book trade to conceal it. You have almost NO means of communication. When a Brooks Adams writes five volumes that would help you to see it, six copies reach England. You have LOST the health of the mind. God knows how the scattered handful of Englishmen still in England can still speak one with another. I see NO remedy in your parliament. I don’t mean as parliament. I mean in the personnel. It is your problem. You do not NOW even elect your own parliament. Whether WITH an election you could get anything save old dead meat, I do not know. During the last war a few men had a glimmer of instinct. On whatever formula, they called it pacifism. Was it ? All of ’em I ever met were pugnacious. Was it an instinct to save the butt end of the RACE by not fighting ? Is it a mistake to combat Germans by force ? Is there a RACE left in England ? Has it ANY will left to survive ? You can carry slaughter to Ireland. Will that save you ? I doubt it. Nothing can save you, save a purge. Nothing can save you, save an affirmation that you are English. Whore Belisha is NOT. Isaccs is not. No Sassoon is an Englishman, racially. No Rothschild is English, no Strakosch is English, no Roosevelt is English, no Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Khan, Baruch, Schiff, Sieff, or Solomon was ever yet born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you have murdered your empire, and it is this filth that elects your politicians. You have lost your tradition. You have not even learned what Lord Byron told you. You are, as even that foul rag the Times tells you, a little late in making a start. In the year 1942 Anno Domini, there is only one start you can make. And that is a start toward being England. A refusal to be a province of Israel, or an outpost of Yankee-Judaea. Quando tutti saremo forti. —- + SOURCE: http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/pound_ezra/radio06.html 189
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:17 | # For whatever transient political reasons, Michael Chertoff has received orders to engage in some token immigration-law-enforcement, which he’s been duly obeying the past few months. (Don’t get your hopes up, this WON’T last!) I hope Ian “Ostrich” Jobling understands which group is Chertoff’s biggest opponent in this effort, by far (uhhh ... Ian? ... Ian, before you read the following I just wanted to make sure you knew the ACLU is a Jewish group. ... You did know that, right Ian? ... Yes? ... OK, just checking ....):
What do you make of that, Ian? Does two plus two equal four yet? Or are you still mulling things over? 190
Posted by EA Steve on Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:19 | # “the ACLU is a Jewish group. ... You did know that, right “ —Fred Scrooby That’s a misleading statement. Jews probably make a disproportionate share, but plenty of Gentiles (including many “liberal” whites) are associated with the ACLU. Many other White Gentiles are in love with it, as well. It represents the ideals of the Far Left, with much bad, and even a little of good (which is not related to the racial/immigration crisis, but does promote civil liberties). I also heard that the ACLU is opposed to bans on Nazi symbols, which are anything but pro-Jew. On Monday, a committee headed by Councilwoman Shelley Midura took testimony regarding the legislation that could punish displays of nooses, swastikas, burning crosses or other “hate symbols” deliberately meant to intimidate others. If the ordinance were to pass and a Court to determine that a hate crime were committed, the punishment could be a six months in jail and $500 dollars…... A spokesperson for the ACLU has gone on record that the organization opposes the hate crime ordinance claiming that it prosecutors should not be attempting to get into the hate “intent” of the alleged wrongdoer. 191
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:33 | # Excellent to see wintermute, or at least an ersatz version of that Hyperborean back in action, despite the unwieldy acronym employed. Meanwhile that ever hatefuk Semitic ethnic group continues to visit ruination on the Canadian idiots who allowed their settlement. http://news.ronatvan.com/2008/11/01/jews-eager-to-further-flood-canada-with-somalis/#more-977 194
Posted by silver on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:11 | #
For the life of me I can’t figure out why you think I’m somehow representative of “leftists.” I’ve already conceded the whole argument to you, finn, on multiple occasions. The only thing left is to decide who is who and separate. My interest is in promoting a humane way of going about it. A humane separation, as I see it, would take place over several years, allowing time for the separated to conclude their business and make preparations for the future. Preparations for the future should involve an intensive effort made to construct and promote a positive context for proceedings, in order to overcome the inevitable reluctance and regret in those selected for separation and replace them with a more inspiring vision; from my liberal perspective, that would be something like a narrative lauding the achievements and benefits of liberal worldviews, highlighting racial outsiders’ role in unearthing the crucial distinctions leading to and culminating in the planned racial reordering whose intention is to provide individuals with the ideal socio-political framework in which to construct, pursue and attain meaning in their lives. For this reason I have very little patience for reactionary nutzi rants about niggers, subhumans, mystery-meat, yuck, yuck, yuck, nor for EGI mavens’ fine line distinctions between heaven and hell, nor for conservative bed-wetters’ wailing about “deconstructing our national heroes”—your fucking “heroes”—my fucking heroes, too—were liars, cheats, murderers, thieves, exploiters, self-aggrandisers etc, just as “leaders” always are (look at ‘em today), despite whatever praiseworthy achievements they’re noted for. I know English isn’t your first language, so please tell me if this flying over your head. I suspect it often is. Otherwise I’m at a loss to explain why you think I’m some sort of leftist anti. The average leftist is a million miles away from what I’ve proposed here. 195
Posted by Iceman on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:26 | # The funny thing is now “western biopolitics” posts a study by 23andme, and claims it backs him up. If he was the great anthropologist he thinks he is, he’d realize it doesn’t. The study, and it’s a good one, clearly shows gradual drift between the middle east, south asia, and europe, not a magical line dividing them. Which is my position. Europe is a mix of upper paleolithic South Asians and Near Eastern Mediterraneans. That position is entirely supported by the graph that western biopolitics incorrectly thinks refutes me. So he knows how to dig up good resources, but not how to analyze them. Then he links to the Dienekes website. Does he forget that Dienekes agrees with me, not with him? And on the anthroscape forum he tended to agree with me too. http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000048.html Take a hit of that, you quack. Strait up from the man you link to. You link to him, and he openly disagrees with you, loser! 196
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:15 | #
You haven’t proposed anything. You pretend to propose a thing then take it back in the very next breath, then go round and round in circles lashing out bitterly and acting like someone trying his best to derail everything. That’s not “proposing” anything. That’s acting like an incoherent nutcase who’s here for God knows what reason. And yes, you’re a typical member of the extreme radical leftist fringe, absolutely “textbook.” You’ll never change. A leopard can’t change its spots. 197
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:03 | # “For this reason I have very little patience .... for EGI ....” - (In addition to what Fred said) Well, there it is. In your vision we should give up Egi, so that liberals could separate. I have a better idea. We keep Egi and simultaneously advocate whatever liberals need to their humane separation. If you concede to that we might be nearer to agreement in principles in this matter, although your history here prevents trust. But liberals don’t need necessarily to do anything. They can stay in New York, Los Angeles, Brussels, Helsinki or where they happen to be. We are the ones moving away from liberals. “I’ve already conceded the whole argument to you, finn, on multiple occasions.” - Really? This is the first time I see you using this tactic, and concession remains to be seen. If you troll, you will never have an effect. If you play fair permanently, you might have an effect. 198
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:53 | # EA Steve - of course the ACLU opposes bans on Nazi symbols. They can point to that and say “Look we support WNs rights as much as anyone elses” thus helpfully conflating WN and Nazis to the uninformed. Dont expect them to lift a finger to help you over anything you might get in trouble for. 199
Posted by EA Steve on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:46 | # “EA Steve - of course the ACLU opposes bans on Nazi symbols. They can point to that and say “Look we support WNs rights as much as anyone elses” thus helpfully conflating WN and Nazis to the uninformed. Dont expect them to lift a finger to help you over anything you might get in trouble for. “ Posted by Lurker on Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 01:53 AM | # I think the ACLU is very obnoxiosly “liberal.” And I also agree it’s anti-White. But, I think it’s genuine when it claims to support Free Speech. I know many self-hating White “liberals;” and over 90 or 95% of the ones I know personally, support the First Ammendment, out of principle. I don’t think the ACLU only claims to support 1st Ammendment rights just to make neo-nazis feel comfortable. But, in the end, I do agree they are still anti-White, and would at least hesitate to help me. (Although, I do think they mean what they say). 200
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:56 | # “You link to him, and he openly disagrees with you, ...” - If somebody links to a study, it does not mean, that he agrees with all the content; it can be agreement with specific parts. Ethnicities and races can be clustered reliably, so that is enough. On the other hand, it is becoming clearer, that e.g. STR (single tandem repeat) sudies give many fake associations between ethnicities. This is aggravated by the many uncertainties that pertain to old genetic associations, geneticists lack of knowledge in other sciences than their own, lack of proper knowledge /study of alternative explanations to results, etc. Continuities in itself doesn’t mean anything. E.g. in America there is smooth continuity from European ethnicities to in varying degree mixed ancestry blacks to blacks. That doesn’t mean blacks are part of your ethnicity. Also endogamy is always created and requires drawing a border between ethnicities somewhere that is decided by the group in question, thus strengthening the naturally existing differences between ethnicities. P.s. I wonder why the alternative splicing differences between ethnicities is not studied more. It would support the genetic data and add to the differences. 201
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:34 | # I wrote: “On the other hand, it is becoming clearer, that e.g. STR (single tandem repeat) sudies give many fake associations between ethnicities.” To prevent possible multiple interpretations I adjust: On the other hand, it is becoming clearer, that e.g. STR (single tandem repeat) sudies give many false associations between ethnicities. 202
Posted by Angel on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:35 | # Howdy exceptional website! Does running a blog similar Post a comment:
Next entry: Biden’s warning of a nation-shaking event in the future
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) |
Posted by Revolution Harry on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:22 | #
Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
Like this you mean http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7690324.stm
Mind controlled New World Order puppets from an organisation undoubtedly owned and created by the elites. A classic example of one of their most favoured tactics, the hegelian dialectic. At the one extreme the ‘open borders’ lobby and at the other the BNP. The synthesis being the ‘managed migration’ policy they currently operate. In other words business as usual. Of course it might also be a sop to the restless natives either way their dead hand can be seen at work.
As the late Bill Cooper used to say “it’s not the Jews, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the blacks it’s these men who belong to the ancient mystery schools who meet in secret and decide the fate of the world. And they belong to all different races and all different nationalities and all different religions to the public point of view but in secret, it’s a different story”
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK244&q=hegelian&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=bill cooper&hl=en&emb=0&start=10